MAUS! Was Hitler right to build the super-heavy tanks of WW2?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2021
- It is usually stated that ‘Madman Hitler’ wasted a load of resources and production capacity building the German heavy and super-heavy tanks in WW2. When we consider the oil crisis, and the fuel and logistical situation, this seems self-evident: Hitler must have been insane to build massive tanks at a time when he knew there was a lack of fuel (either that or the oil crisis narrative is wrong)! But is this really the case? Well, here in this video I’m going to defend my stance on the Axis oil crisis narrative, and explain why the initial reasons for building the German heavy and super-heavy tanks were justified (even if they later proved to be stupid in hindsight).
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail was created by Terri Young. Need graphics? Check out her website here www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Doyle, D. “The Complete Guide to German Armored Vehicles.” Skyhorse Publishing Books, Kindle 2019.
Dunstan, S. “Centurion Universal Tank 1943-2003." Ospery Publishing 2003.
Estes, K. “Super-Heavy Tanks of World War II.” New Vanguard, Kindle 2014.
Green, M. & Brown, J. "Tiger Tanks at War." Zenith Press, Kindle 2008.
Guderian, H. “Panzer Leader.” Penguin Books, 2000.
Jentz, T. & Doyle, H. “Panzer Tracts No.6-3 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E 100 development and production from 1942 to 1945.” Panzer Tracts 2008.
Rottman, G. "Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck." Weapon, Kindle.
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Why the Germans had the Tactical Advantage early in WW2 | Tank and Anti-Tank Warfare • Why the Germans had th...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
How has someone disliked the video already?? I've given you tanks, what more do you want!?!?!
😂😂😂😂
more tanks
Haters gna hate!
Your videos are awesome.
Haters wiil hate! Tik dont stick tô tanks
Tank you very much...
The reason Hitler built the Maus was because he watched an episode of "Tom & Jerry" and he realized that in a game of Cat and Mouse, the mouse always wins.
He already had the "cats" which constantly breaking down, so he tried the mouse instead
@@bobsemple262 Exactly!
But the maus was incapable of outrunning the cats
@@panzerofthelake506 not a problem if the mouse crushes the cat
@@emilfriisruud9199
G'day,
Surely...,
Any Mouse which crushes a Cat ;
Would not that,
Be nought but
A misidentifed Wombat...? (!).
Either that,
Or a fabled
Hippy
Potty
Maus...,
Perhaps (!) ?
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Stick to tanks!
But fun fact, this is my third-ever tank video. There's the one on Soviet tanks, and the Q&A video asking what makes a good tank. Other videos mention tanks, but this is the first one to talk about a specific tank. I'm also not counting the two "stick to tanks" videos. So I guess my haters are wrong. They should stick to banks!
"tank" in this video is obviously a code word for "the labor theory of value"
@@QuizmasterLaw Yeah, the labour theory of value is about as effective as the Maus was
@@Edax_Royeaux Stick to aquariums!
@@TheImperatorKnight and thus it starts... our own personal WORLD WAR THREE
@@TheImperatorKnight what the hell do they believe in if they don't believe in the L.T.V.? Animal spirits? A wizard?
TIK is throwing the "stick to tanks" crowd a bone.
😂
They can rest easy this week... but only this week!
@@TheImperatorKnight For balance look at the British TOG II. There is plenty of meat on that bone!
True, but it is a brontosaurus thigh bone...
@@TheImperatorKnight - And of course the most important point. There was no point in planning for not getting the Soviet oil because if that happened the war was unwinnable anyways. So it was not crazy to plan everything on getting the oil. Even if you turn out to be wrong. Being right about not having oil could not win you the war.
"If artillery isn't working...you're not using enough artillery." -Some Imperial Guard Commissar, probably
I think that was Perturabo.
The Sherman crews were more worried about artillery than tanks, seems they can be hidden better, and that first shot surprise was usually the game maker.
“Do you see that heretic?
I don’t want to, ready the basilisks.”
“As you wish sir!”
"Armaments industry has it's own inertia." Beautiful quote to summarize our past 40 years.
I agree. But, under the free-market model, each business varies and while it makes money selling more of what it currently has, it also carves a greater piece of the pie by coming up with a better M4, a better 155, a better P51, and so on. This includes radio, radar, nukes, etc.
I figured bureaucratic inertia would come up at some point after seeing the title of the video. Just because a project gets cancelled doesn't mean it gets CANCELLED-cancelled. There's still an entire entrenched network of people whose careers and livelihoods depend on keeping stuff going and they'll keep pushing it as long as they can. It's different in wartime I'm sure, but peacetime procurement in the US military is notorious for this. Look at the history of the Bradley IFV, the Land Warrior system, the FCS platform, the Abrams just to name a few that got dragged out for decades before finally getting into production or outright cancelled.
The USA has 20 aircraft carriers. That may well be not enough, as China is about to launch one big fleet carrier, and is entering a huge debt crisis. Luckily, they are building some Geraldo R Ford of Rivia class carriers that will offset this Chinese onslaught.
Its not inertia its a strong will from some ...I m gona call them "groups" of people....
The irony is that the allies also designed and built breakthrough vehicles in the late war period. The Americans built the T95 prototype breakthrough vehicle and the British built the Tortoise. These thing were actually built and not just paper designs yet somehow the Germans were crazy for working on vehicles to fill a similar role.
Really makes you think why the Maus is so over conflated in being made and such, Americans made ton of wacky stuff to test out and see if it worked, if it didn't they just didnt develop it further. Likewise the Germans i am guessing would test their designs the same way (though not as thoroughly).
The Tortoise wasn’t built for breakthrough.
Really it was crazy to design a tank that heavy unless you have air superiority if a 1,000 LB bomb wont kill one, break the Mosquito out with it's 4,000 LB bomb. HAHAHA use a Mosquito to kill a Mouse!!
@@lambastepirate Maus*
@@nikolairostov3326 I was using the American spelling of the little critter.
Dear TIK,
Thank you for covering the Maus and I think you did a good job on most of your points, certainly better than almost all other UA-cam videos out there.
You have, however, missed some points that would greatly support your thesis and make more sense of the situation.
1) The doctrine of the heavy tanks. Unlike what you mentioned in the video, the Germans did not switch doctrine mid-war. The breakthrough role for the heavy tanks dates back to 1937, when the Infanteriwagen (formerly Begleitwagen verstaerkt) was renamed into Durchbruchswagen (literally breakthrough vehicle). This role would remain with German heavy tanks all throughout the war, up to the E100.
You are correct that, until Barbarossa, this development of heavy tanks kind of languished, and picked up only after that, with the heavy tanks first appearing on the battlefield in 1942.
Now, it is interesting to have a look at this doctrine. It involved battalion sized independent units (schwere Panzer Abteilung) which would be used when a strong enemy defensive line was encountered. The unit would be transported to behind friendly lines (by train, truck) and then used to punch through the enemy defensives and do limited local exploitation. They were supposed to be able to handle any terrain (hence the insistence on waterproofing, wadding and low ground pressure). After the breakthrough and limited exploitation was done, the Panzer Divisions would move through the gap created by the heavy tanks and carry out the proper exploitation. The sch.Pz.Abt would then be withdrawn behind enemy lines for maintenance and repair.
This explains why they were allowed to be gas guzzlers: They were supposed to be used infrequently for a limited time and distance.
This explains why they were maintenance heavy: They were supposed to receive regular maintenance before and after the action, with large breaks between combat.
That they mostly never got to be used like they were intended to is a wholly different matter.
I know you mention this, but I don't think you stressed it enough or gone into it enough.
2) You overestimate the involvement of Hitler in the project. Yes, he was important, but there were other important players in the project, notably Heydekampf, Wa Pruef 6 and Krupp.
3) The most important thing to note is that the Maus was cancelled in October 1943! While there was some limited design work still being done (and the E100 being constructed by Adler, which is a very interesting can of worms by itself, but was only considered a test chassis), it was never at the intensity or even with the chances of seeing combat from before.
The P1000 was only worked on from June 1942 to 17th December 1942. Then it got murdered and bye bye birdie.
A couple of other smaller things to note:
Yes, a large number of Tigers have been lost to self-destruction rather than enemy action (probably not half), but the main issue were neither the spare parts nor the fuel (both of which were important problems, though), but the absolute lack of a recovery vehicle that could extract the vehicles from where they broke down and bring them in for repairs/etc.
For the breakthrough doctrine idea, both the French and the Soviets are probably far closer to the Germans than the British.
The Tiger's development line goes back to the Durchbruchswagen, not to the Grosstraktor. Yes, you can draw some more fanciful lines to the Grosstraktor, but the clear line of development starts at DW.
Otherwise, excellent job, nice to see people actually looking into the history and the sense behind these vehicle and not just going for the memes! Congratulations!
Beautiful reply. Thank you for this!
A commenter who disagrees RESPECTFULLY and engages with TIK in a reasonable manner! They do exist!
I'm impressed! Good on you, Tank Encyclopedia!
reminded of an old memory of the African campaign that Rommel was better than the British at recovering their equipment? maybe I have a false memory?
What I don't understand is why nobody bothered to take the infrastructure into account when designing those beasts. I would think that would be the main obstacle to being effective in battle. If they can't cross bridges because of their weight how do they even get to the battles?
@@robertschumann7737 They're submergible. They're meant to go on the river bed and have another Maus, on the shore, provide electrical power through long cables.
I get the feeling that some people will still want you to 'stick to tanks'.
Yeah, it's not going to happen. Tanks really aren't that interesting to me. They're a bit like cars - they get you from A to B. The noise of the engine or the hypothetical speed it could go if there weren't any road pirates just doesn't interest me.
@@TheImperatorKnight Everyone to their own but Tanks are important in combined warfare even if they were less effective than anti-tank guns they had their uses
@@TheImperatorKnight hey TIK, I hope you still read this. One thing I noticed is that you said British early war tank doctrine (infantry and cruiser tanks) was wrong. I would disagree with that. It was a failure because implementation of that doctrine was poor (just like the British army in general until late war), but Britain had a large industry to produce two seperate tank concepts. An indication for this would be British aircraft production: three medium bomber types (Wellington, Hampden, Whitley) by the start of WW2 and three heavy bomber types (Stirling, Lancaster, Halifax) within two years after WW2 started. And having different types for differemt tasks is never a disadvantage from the tactical/operational point of view. The Lancaster and the Mosquito were both excellent aircraft for their respective roles, but they could not have done the work of the other.
My point is that an army like the Wehrmacht (aka competent on the tactical/operational level) could have been very successful with the British doctrine and proper equipment. I don't think the doctrine in itself is flawed.
Also hope you are doing well, please don't burnout yourself.
And I hate to correct you, but your pronounciation of Porsche is giving me anxiety 😅
I’ve always been interested in heavy armor and it’s ability to decrease overall causalities, of course war is almost always about politics, economics. logistics, propaganda as much as it is about having boots on the ground.
@@zzirSnipzz1 Did AT guns have higher casualties caused per unit produced than tanks?
Not sure about you, but I'd defs be more intimidated by a tank towards me where I need specialised equipment to kill it than an AT gun that is susceptible to small arms at least if you get all the way there.
American tanker: Their tanks ain't exploding. Guess they're using thick armour and diesel .
German tanker: Danke Gott we ran out of fuel, Hans!
American tanker, "Call in air support! Let the P47s take out those. "
The same people yelling “stick to tanks” are probably now yelling “where’s the next Stalingrad video???”
A lot are, despite me making it extremely clear that they're every four weeks. Why are they not listening!?
@@TheImperatorKnight couldn’t tell ya man. Just gotta tell ya, If you need a break from Stalingrad take a break. Screw them, you could cure cancer and they’d still bitch and moan. Huge fan of the channel, your videos on the Marx’s ideals and hitlers socialism are some of the best educational material I’ve ever watched and I spent 5+ years at university studying aerospace engineering so that’s saying something. The crusader video I’ve watched twice and it’s awesome, can’t wait for you to do El Alamein. Keep up the outstanding work, been a sub since you had about 15,000 subscribers
@@TheImperatorKnight no tik. Feed them when they are hungry.
@@TheImperatorKnight They must be madmen UA-camrs.
The only problem that Maus had was the lack of flight capabilities
And the Maus was combo food for the bombers
Infamous Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring had a shortage of flying tanks.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 tbh Most of us have a lack of flying tanks. I know I could use one
SMH horses are clearly the superior form of logistics. What other possible method can also function as a troop transport and lunch when the winter arrives?
You win the internet today.
Man cannot live in a tank permanently. As a former APILAS man, I don't even think about oil.
Right through his career, one characteristic of Hitler was a willingness to gamble. Sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. Projects like the V1 and V2, along with the Maus were, along with TIK's other valid points, gambles, to get the necessary oil etc.
Great video. Thank you.
Totally . Hitler was a gambler from his inception. It seems like in mid/later war if Germany played it safe and conservatives they just would have delayed loosing. They had to rely on big gambles in order to win . Even if this big gambles had bad odds
Operation cerberus is another crazy gamble that was a generals idea that hitler greenlighted.
The real reason that AH wanted super-heavy tanks was to use them as mobile gun platforms that could be used to plug holes, such as in Normandy, as a cost effective alternative to fixed gun emplacements. The Panzer VII was never intended to be a traditional battle field tank, but moved as needed to key positions. Therefore, fuel usage was never that important. Cancellation of the project was largely due to the realization that the Panzer VII would be a sitting duck to airpower in the West. Planned development was to incorporate a mortar onto the tank, again confirming the Panzer VII was viewed as a mobile gun platform and not a traditional tank.
Love this highlight chasing the text you're reading. You really go out of your way to make it easier for us to follow. Thank you TIK
Takes a while to do too, so I'm glad to hear someone likes it! I am considering doing it for the quotes too, but again it takes a while to edit so it may not be worth it
@@TheImperatorKnight Consider an intermediate approach. Yeah, smooth motion is nice and all, but even updating phrase by phrase helps stay on target and it changes only every half a second to a second, so every 15-30 frames (depending on your framerate).
I don't find it necessary personally, but I know not everyone has my young eyes.
Another thing:
Heavy tanks can be rushed around via railways to threatened areas, where they can be used by Germany's best tank crews to counterattack enemy armor on a tactical level. They're a force multiplier for the assets Germany does have: coal and good tank crews.
They had better crews at the start of the war, but at 1943 both USSR and Germany had a lot of veterans, but even more - inexperienced freshly trained young men. It may be rational decision to give heavy tanks to best/veteran crews, but it's arguable because heave tanks are actually slow. What even the best driver can do in a "fortress"? Better medium tanks - faster tanks with bigger guns make more sense.
See TIK on coal shortage.
@@rcmrcm3370 still less scarce than oil.
Weren't these things too wide for the railroads?
Another Nazi fanboy with dumb comment, and from Serbia too (a lower race country, according to Germans) .
What’s your estimate on the length of the entire Stalingrad series. Gonna get ready for the 40 hour combined video 😀 I will be genuinely concerned to those that watch it in one sitting compared to something like crusader
No idea! But UA-cam now limits videos to 12 hours in length, so Stalingrad is already beyond that, meaning it can't be condensed into one video
@@TheImperatorKnight naw ruining all the fun of staring at a completely finished number just gonna have to go with three 12 hour videos 🤣
Plot-twist: The current Stalingrad Series is merely the precis for a much much more detailed Platoon and Company command level blow by blow breakdown of the entire engagement :)
@@zxbzxbzxb1 At that point, even the viewers would go insane. It already has so much of detail I find it hard to digest all of it and understand the bigger picture.
@@zxbzxbzxb1 You laugh, but my original intention was to go right down to company or platoon level, but the sources simple don't allow it
TIK: "i've given you tanks why the dislikes?"
OR
" *ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!* "
When the alternative to sitting in a comfy design office with a backlog of priority projects needing attention, was sitting in a foxhole on the Russian front, a "we can quickly turn out anything called for" attitude might be commonplace.
I would never wanna fight in the tank. Terribly hot in the summer and high chance of burning alive
Main problem in late war german army were not the tanks, but the crews. There are multiple accounts of heavy tanks being lost due to the lack of training even in elite divisions. Imagine what would have happened if they stuck to shitty cheap tanks, even americans had big problems with training enough crews for shermans and had constand deficits
On the flip side, those deficits did teach the west to conserve expertise, leading to the development of safer equipment and better medical services. It is quite remarkable how we went from field hospitals being cesspools of gangrene and dreaded places full of sawbones surgeons to having a 90% chance of saving a life and having TV series made about them.
I wouldn't say that their other tanks were shitty. The Panzer 4 is a good tank, so the Panzer 3 and the vehicles that developed from it.
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 yeah, for 1939. They were completely obsolete by 1943-44 and not very fit for mass-production. For example, Panther was only about 30% more expensive than pz4j
But heavier tanks generally require more training as everything is pushed more to its limits requiring more maintenance and smoother and smarter operating. So building/designing a training intensive tank while you have problems with your training infrastructure gives problems. Of course as the TIK pointed out everything planned for a much more optimistic future scenario then what actually happened. But if you look at the Leopard program the Germans originally discarded the heavy armor concept and choose for mobility. And more important designed it to be used and maintained by conscripts with limited training. As a professional army could not compete with the Soviet Block numbers. An the idea was a gun is easilier upgunned then armor and once your opponent's tank can penetrate your armor beyond a certain point the extra thickness becomes deadweight as it's over engineered stopping the smaller caliber weapons. Of course crews always want more protection once their tanks get penetrated.
@@barthoving2053 Not really. For example, Tiger tank was much easier to operate than t-34, as it had synchronised gearbox, carlike steering wheel and didn't requre two men to switch gears like on t-34. Tigers were also more forgiving to mistakes as they were able to take a beating and survive, leading to more crews surviving and gaining experience
The way I see it, superheavy tanks do have a very specific niche: they're self-propelled pillboxes, and if the enemy doesn't have air superiority or sufficient anti-tank capability to take them head-on, a superheavy tank can make sense. On the Western Front, the Germans lost air superiority by the end of 1943, but in the East, they were able to contest control of the skies against the Soviets until the very end, so theoretically something like the Maus would be useful, but the problem is they just couldn't make enough of them in time for it to matter. Also, funnily enough, the big H (changed this because the Googlestapo deleted my original comment) was kind-of right to anticipate the direction of Soviet armor development in 1941-1942. The KV-4 and KV-5 superheavy tanks, weighing between 85-110 tons on paper and intended to be armed with a 107 mm anti-tank gun, were in development in 1941-1942, but Kliment Voroshilov lost political favor with Stalin and a doctrinal shift occurred which instead led to a trend towards lighter, more compact vehicles that still had heavier firepower than their predecessors, but sacrificed protection for mobility. This is where designs like the IS heavy tank and the T-43 medium tank (cancelled, then its turret would be mated to the T-34 hull to create the T-34-85) came from, and then these in turn led to the T-44 and T-54.
That said, I still think going with the E-series tanks would've been the better choice, due to sharing a number of common parts and various features like combined engine-transmission power packs that would simplify maintenance.
Also, I'd heard somewhere that because the Soviets couldn't find any rolling stock that could carry the Maus back to Russia, they *drove* the damned thing all the way to its destination.
1 - they thought they would win quickly and have the resources to fuel these weapons for anyone trying to undo their gains.
2 - by the time it became evident that they were not going to win (or secure the resources they need), desperation kicked in. They needed anything that could turn the tide, or at very least convince some of their enemies to drop out of the war. If you're not going to surrender in the late war era, rationality is not really a concern anymore. They just needed something, anything that might work.
Best comment I read yet Huckster! Totally agree! Hulkster! Sorry! :)
“Madman Porsche”?
Probably not. Everything I’ve heard about him says that he was a conscientious engineer - I know a number of engineers in my life, and any number of them would be....”annoyed” at not being able to see a project to completion. From the view of Porsche, it may simply have been a “hangup” that he didn’t get to see it to completion, resources and overall situation be damned.
The American M7, intent initially as a successor to the Stuart light tank, became revised many times so much up in gun and armour it was effectively the same as a Sherman, so no point building them
lol its called experimintation and there is always gonna be failure, no matter the area. and development of heavy tanks was also used in development of modern tank, who is basically hybrid between light, medium and heavy tank with a pinch of superheavy in between. nothing was really wastfull, even when it wasnot really usefull on the battlefield, it was still usefull for further development of tanks. countries basically tested how far you can go with weight and armor with tanks, and yes superheavy was to much.lol
@@Edax_Royeaux no he was not. Gasoline electric drives were already used in ww1 to move heavy siege guns...or in some French tanks of ww1. Tiger P did not fail because if the electric gearbox but because of the engines wich had contious headgasket leaks....and because a Tiger P can guzzle 1700l per 100km while Tiger H stayed at 700....if memory serves correctly...and because copper is a raw material which has other uses too....
If the Maus project was fully stopped then Porsche would have no reason to develop it further. He and his design buro did contract designs nothing more nothing less. But the Maus wasn't stopped completely, the number of Mäuse was just shrunked down to a Maus chassis with a turret weight and a fully assembled one.
@@Edax_Royeaux most of these orders where cancelled. At 4. Nov 1943 it was decided to complete only one Maus fully. On 12. Nov 1943 it was decided that because more than one Maus hull and turret were nearing completion that only three hulls and 3 turrets will be built further.
One problem with super heavy tanks is that their tracks are still very vulnerable to mines and well placed anti tank rounds. Their crew is better protected to be sure but their ability to keep moving in an engagement is not much better than any other tank.
There is little doubt that most of our knowledge of the story inside the Third Reich comes from sources that can be considered not completely reliable. This is a problem in history generally, but in the case of WWII we have more written from the losing side than is typical, so there is considerably more preserved from those who have an incentive to make excuses.
I wonder - what did Paulus say? He seems considerably more responsible and reliable than Haider and Guderian. Did he leave anything behind, even if in fragments?
I'm not that happy with Paulus. His "ten days! that's all we need!" basically never changed until he was taken prisoner and also later, then "it was all History fault! " and, that's how P would like to be remembered. I see an issue in that.
I liked that you said the Maus was designed to breakthrough to allow lighter tanks to ride off into the 'sunrise' (rather than 'sunset') That made sense as they were heading east that was intentional I take it? Very clever.
The Soviets really didn't produce super heavy tanks...
The Stalin Tank enters the chat with a 120mm gun and 160mm of armor and two 12.7mm DShK machine guns
Maybe they were super heavy...compared to bt7s and t26 lol
IS-2? Heh, it weighs just as the Panther.
lol SU-152 if u want heavy..
Ah I see TIK is finally heeding the advice to "stick to tanks"
I don't know about "heeding" it, but it's defintely a rare event
What if, among the tank world, all of the tanks say: “Stick to TIK”?
I love that your amazing vids come out on Mondays, really makes them better lol.
Keep em coming, they're really awesome
Can I just say I find your videos absolutely fascinating and very well researched and thought out you are by far my favourite WW2 channel dude and I am always keen to spark up discussion about this stuff with my mates using your vids as a jumping off point
I’ve read somewhere, sadly can’t remember where, that the Germans sent forces to army group Centre in order to remove the Soviet salients around the Rzhev salient around it. This was to set a staging ground for a future attack on Moscow. They didn’t have time to attack since the soviets moved first. Thus the Germans planned on attacking on 4 axis in 1942 (Caucasus, Volga, Leningrad and centre) and explains why the reinforcements went to army group centre after Blau had begun. They were planning to attack in that area. What do you think of this idea that might explain the mystery of German reinforcements in the 1942 period that you have brought up many times?
Btw, love you videos! Keep up the good work! Have watched every one of them!
I agree, the Rhzev situation seems to be a good reason to send reinforcements to the area the way the Germans did. Be it to just prevent their own salient from collapsing or mount own offenses as you suggest. To me it appears the scale and intensity of fighting there warrants the priority the reinforcements received. AFAIK the OKH didn't expect the red army to be able to mount a second major offensive like they actually did with Uranus, so prioritizing the Rhzev area over Stalingrad makes sense to me.
Yeah the problem with the OKH was that they though the soviets we’re more or less defeated so they spread their offensive capability way too thin. With just a bit more priority of the south they could have taken Stalingrad in the 10 days Halder promised, thrown the soviets back across the Don and fortified the southern frontline. In reality they didn’t which led them to loosing the war in 1942. This is why Uranus and Stalingrad were truly the TurningPoint in the war.
STAVKA knew what was happening and planned accordingly.
Well, Churchill gave the go-ahead for the construction of TOG 2 and Tortoise tanks and nobody calls him "madman", only historians say it was a mistake because the war turned out differently and such constructions turned out to be unnecessary. Oh, and I forgot about the Americans with their T28 Super Heavy Tank, of course. Well, the rich can make mistakes.
These (as well as the Maus) would qualify as mistakes if they were actually built in numbers. They weren't. They were just prototypes that didn't disrupt mass production, and the cost of R&D wasn't that great (again, compared to mass production).
Stalin had his fun with his small run of 59 T-35s - and no one calls him madman for this. Just another failed small-scale experiment, who cares.
@@jmi5969 One more aspect. Where did the Germans plan to fight 1942-43? On the great steppes of the USSR. There, they wanted to gain an advantage thanks to large tanks that can fire at great distances. Actually, the Soviets also made such attempts, but as far as I know, they were not effective due to the inferior quality of the sights. The thick armor of the German tanks was not only meant to protect the crew. It was supposed to ensure stability when shooting at long distances quickly. The Soviets believed that the Germans would make a tank with a 100mm cannon in 1942. But such a strong cannon would shake the tank too much and the accuracy would be worse. The entire tank will move after it is fired and you will have to restart the aiming process. It was a nightmare for the crew, e.g. in the T-55.
The difference is that TOG2 and Tortoise were created on the back of Armament Department Or Vehicle Deisgn committee recommendations, not the "Leader's personal directive".
Neither TOG 2 and Tortoise took away resources (both Research and Production) from normal vehicle production since UK and US had capacity of spare, Germany didn't.
You can't blame Churchill like you can between Hitler and Speer.
@@MrFredscrap That's why I wrote that the rich can make mistakes.
Churchill definetly was a mad man tough.
Awesome job! You do a great job with these
TIK! I enjoy your battle series so very much! I've watched your Stalingrad and North Africa videos multiple times. You have certainly been instrumental in giving me a new outlook on the events these 80 odd years ago. I have a question you might want to look into in the near future while you finish your main series. Organisation Todt helped revolutionize the trucking line before the war. What happened between then and Stalingrad in this particular logistics focus did things turn upside down with inability to get spar parts ect. Thought I'd share some of the logistics questions I still have in principle. Thanks and Keep up the good work!
Despite individually taking more fuel, they collectively took less fuel. for the material and time it takes to make a single heavy tank, you could make *very* roughly 1.5 medium tanks. Despite individually taking less fuel, the increased number of mediums would mean that overall, more would be used.
Owww! You hurt my head.
Didn't matter they were out manned and out produced. They were going to lose no matter what.
In 1944 a Tiger 2 cost 800,000 reichmarks to make, a Panzer IV cost 116,000 rm. So you could have nearly seven medium tanks for one heavy
@@JesterEric not if you factor in the cost of training 7 crews & 7 lots of fuel? also 7 maintenance crews etc etc
But driving the fuel to the tanks also would take fuel, so there smaller units would also have had their merits.
9:03 Guderian's complaint was more due to the constant tinkering with designs. At a certain point, every 5th or 6th German tank had a re-designed component or feature, meaning large swathes of their production lines had to be reconfigured almost constantly, wasting resources and delaying production. Thus, if German factories would just make 1000 of the same tank instead of 200 small batches of one-off designs plus some radically new designs, they'd have enough tanks to fight the war. It's actually a really fair point.
The allied M4 Sherman is a great example of this. Engineers constantly tinkered with the design variants of the vehicle, but added or revised minor features in production runs until a large batch of upgrades was ready, which would then be pushed through as a new production run. Each novel design requires retooling and reconfiguring production lines, which takes up time and disrupts economy-of-scale benefits. So, novel re-designs should be avoided unless absolutely necessary or until the existing production line has run its course, and that's what they did to the Sherman.
My apologies for the previous framing of the M4's development, in which I said the Sherman was almost entirely unchanged between production runs while engineers tinkered on prototypes. As stated below, upgrades were in fact integrated mid-run on many M4 production lines.
That's not at all true. "Tinkering" and production upgrades to M4s were introduced constantly to the extent that the it was entirely possible for every single M4 tank in a US tank platoon to be slightly different to one another. Putting aside the big changes like the engines, welded or cast hull structures, suspension type and gun turret, there were variations in the hull shape, the final drive cover design, the number and design of crew hatches, the number and position of periscopes, the cupola design, the drive wheel sprocket, road wheel and and rear idler wheel design, the suspension bogie design, the track pattern, the type of gun mantlet and gun sight, the type and position of AA machine gun mount... The list goes on.
Further, all these variations were introduced at different factories at different times and there was usually no attempt to use up old component stock before introducing the improved designs to the production line. Accordingly, occasionally later production tanks might incorporate "anachronistic" components that had just happened to finally make it to the production line after sitting at the back of a warehouse for a year.
Of course, damaged tanks would also be repaired with components that did not necessarily match those the tank had originally been fitted with, adding to the diversity.
Pretty much the only way a US armoured unit would ever have perfectly uniform tanks would be if it had just been freshly raised and equipped with brand new tanks that had been delivered as a neat, serialized block (which, of course, did happen - especially in 1942-43).
@@mattbowden4996 right, the approach to M4 development was based on a high degree of modularity. The difference is, most minor revisions were smoothly integrated into existing production runs, with major revisions being packed into new variant production runs. The US even developed an entirely new engineering design standard called MilSpec 8 (GD&T) to maximize compatibility and reduce part rejection on production lines, which in turn made it possible to have slight variations gradually added to each production run without major disruption. German armor development, however, was not so smooth. A lot of their revisions disrupted entire production runs to various degrees, to the extent that the production lines required seemingly constant retooling and reconfiguration. That’s still a trope of German engineering today- make something slightly different and treat it like novelty.
So yes, both sides tinkered with their vehicles mid-production, but the difference comes down to how much that tinkering interfered with production. Thanks for the correction. I’ll go ahead and fix it.
@@mattbrody3565 If you're talking about something like the shift from the Panther A to G hull shapes then sure - but if we're talking about production of the Panzer III, IV and to a lesser extent the Tiger, then really there is no difference between what was happening in US factories and German ones.
Consider the Panzer IV:
The first major production type was the Ausf D (the previous three variants amounting to a short run of about 120 pre-production prototypes). The Ausf E is basically unchanged with only detail improvements - a new vision port for the driver and new cupola for the commander plus 30mm of applique armour applied to the glacis plate. No major disruptions of production here.
The Ausf F is quite a significant change and the form of the hull superstructure front changes to the one piece visor we know and love today, but the fabrication method used for the Pz IV (the superstructure being assemble separately and then mated to the lower hull) again means this isn't as hugely disruptive as it could be. That said, there are many changes to the detailed finishing the tank so there is a reasonable degree of disruption to the production lines getting tooled up for the F hull. This occurs in the spring of 1941.
The Ausf F2 and G hulls are basically unchanged from the Ausf F. The major changes needed are to the turret and stowage in order to accommodate the new gun and ammo. However, these are gross and very necessary modification to the design and outside the scope of accusing the Germans of constantly disrupting production with minor and unnecessary changes.
The Ausf H simplifies and speeds up production by removing pistol and vision ports. The frontal armour is improved again. A slightly improved gun is installed, but is so similar to the previous pattern that basically no modifications to the turret need to be made to accommodate it. A new pattern of final drive and drive sprocket is introduced. Brackets for Schurtzen are fitted to the tank. These changes mostly amount to not doing something that had previously been done or installing new sub assemblies that come from different parts of the production process. They are very much "on the line" changes as can easily be seen when sees how late production G models and early production H models blur together.
The Ausf J repeats the process of leaving stuff out in order simplify production. Again, no changes to the line needed here.
The story of Panzer III production is basically the same. The story Tiger I production is even simpler. The basic fabric of the tank never changed and they just kept adding improved components into the production process. The difference between an early and later Tiger I (aside from the removal of the deep wading equipment) is just an accumulation of incrementally improved bits mounted on the exact same basic hull.
As we can see, what is happening here is exactly the same as you might see in an American tank factory. Occasionally big changes which require some degree retooling plus a load of small changes introduced, sometimes in a somewhat ad-hoc manner with the minimum disruption to the line. The Panzer IV proved to be no less "modular" than the M4 (as Bovingdon tank Museum's example demonstrates, being a Ausf D that was upgraded by the Germans all the way up to Ausf H standard) and was in actual fact considerably more uniform in construction that the M4 ever managed to be - and yet we criticize the Germans whilst praising the Americans for doing exactly the same thing...
@@mattbowden4996 Ok, that's interesting, but it doesn't explain why Guderian complained about engineering disruptions to production. Aside from raw material and manpower disparities, I don't know what else explains the difference in productivity between the US and Germany other than design team interference. German engineers have a reputation of being a bit OCD about their work. From what I've heard, they interfered with production lines during change-overs and revisions far more often and more significantly than their counterparts abroad.
As you said, the M4 saw massive changes over the years, more so than their German contenders in some ways, but the M4's production experienced less hiccups than German armor production lines. If it's not due to line reconfiguration, then it could be due to material shortages or interference.
On another note, you really know your stuff about German armor. Are there any good sources you'd recommend?
@@mattbrody3565 Guderian's memoirs are entirely self-serving post-hoc justifications of events where he always paints himself as in the right and blames pretty much everything and everyone else for everything that went wrong. They just aren't all that reliable a source.
Now, I do need to be careful not to over egg the pudding - I am not claiming that all was well in the world of German tank production. The major problems were lack of capacity, lack of raw materials and the factories they did have not generally being the kind of modern, high output production line facilities the M4 was built in.
Awesome! Wish u growth and luck) can't stop watching
TIK,
Nice video, and thanks for clearing up some questions I had with the MAUS tank.
One suggestion: You keep mentioning the Caucus oil, but the Germans had to have building additional gassification plants as things progressed, so they would have had a 'planned' increase in fuel availability. So that may have been another background point in their thinking.
Keep up the good work.
btw the Germans almost started producing T-34 tanks. They had an entire factory in Kharkiv for bringing captured T-34s up to German technical standards.
@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle more like 3 months
@@QuizmasterLaw That was still way too long.
Painting them grey with a black cross!
@@solomon2439 You can't just take a can of paint and paint it over. There is a lot of paperwork to fill first!
Nonsense, the huge majority of equipment from those factories (because that was a cluster together with one in Mariopol) was evacuated. So the most essential equipment was not there, even some enormous press from Mariopol, that needed hundreds of wagons to be transported.
I'll play devil's advocate.
If germany had the resources and air support in WW2, we would be talking about the success of super heavy tanks like tiger II and jagdtiger. Tiger II weighs about the same as M1A2 sepv3 and challenger 2 with 73 short tons and 83 short tons respectively. Even if germans had a magical heavy tank that was fast, heavily armoured, great gun, hell even low maintenance design, without the resources and air support it wouldn't do shit.
T-34 and T-34-85 are regarded as the best tanks of WW2 yet these tanks had severe mechanical problems, they were produced with low quality parts that kept breaking down and equipped with untrained crews. Non of that mattered when soviets had air superiority and resources to run them despite their flaws.
If Germany had the production capability of America, it would be a different story.
@@FortniteBlaster2 I always wonder what would have happened if germany defeated soviets and acquired their factories. I know this was impossible IRL, let me just state that.
But it makes me curious how the war would have went if soviets collapsed in 1941. I think it would have led to one of the german cities getting nuked.
@@Userext47 If they did that, the Germans would bomb the living hell out of the nation that did it. It would be a war of extinction.
@@Userext47 And some dude wonders what would have happened if Hitler or Rommel got explosive diarheea for 3months during the French Campaign.
I swear you deserve much more subs and recognition. Great analysis and video again!
Thinking men (woman and maybe children) watch TIK. Shallow thinkers stick to Mark Felton.
Love your channel TIK. Top class content
Leaves me still wondering why the Soviets did understand that 50+ tons are too much, but the Germans didn't.
Big tank ideas were out there at the time. But someone clearly miscalculated when planning maus. Or maybe it was just the corrupt deal.
But was 50 tons really too much? The Centurion weighed a little over 50 tons and that's arguably the most successful tank in all history.
@@mattbowden4996 nowdays we have engines was high power to weight ratio. Then they hadn't. Each generation of vehicles has their own capabilities limited by the technology of the time. Therefore comparing post war tanks with ww2 tanks is not correct.
Also there is no way of determining the "seccessfullness" of a tank.
@@YuryTimofeyev The Centurion missed combat use in WW2 by days and used exactly the same Meteor engine as the Cromwell series. It it entirely disingenuous to treat it like some kind of "next generation, post WW2" technology. The only reason to arbitrarily disallow it is because it's existence blows a gigantic hole in your argument.
@@mattbowden4996 50 tons is too much for ww2 tank. Centurion was not a ww2 tank. My argument stands.
How did you decide that it was the most successful tank ever?
@@YuryTimofeyev The Centurion was developed during WW2 using WW2 technology and missed actual combat by the briefest if periods. Stating otherwise is making a distinction without difference.
Oh, and just baldly stating that you argument stands without any further corroborating evidence won't cut it. Your initial statement was that 50 tons was too much - without any further qualification for era. Insisting that I conform to post-hoc qualifications that only serve to exclude the most obvious an inarguable example of how you are wrong is just a classic definitional retreat - so basically an acknowledgement that l'm right but you're to stubborn to admit it.
As to requiring me to "prove" that the Centurion was a very successful design, I'm not even going to dignify that transparently bad faith argument with a response. Try reading a book.
Respect for that great video.
Even if MAUS was deployed on the front, this tank bunker will become a easy target for air dominanted Allied air forces. Most of the tanks "experts" claimed that not the Tiger, but the Panther was the ultimate german ww2 tank. Another and very interesting subject for me will be a analyse of the SS after Normandy even after the Kursk to the end of ww2, because SS troops was everywhere at the spearhead of offensive or defensive operations. Analyse of things like numbers of soldiers and equipment, tanks and etc. and is it really a elite force or well armed brainwashed army.
People keep saying this. But if you actually read how much tanks allied CAS killed it’s insane how little they did. For example a lot of the time the reported kills are more over 10 times the amount of actual kills
@@Phantom-bh5ru Well you're on point about the kills, but you can see the exact same thing about Lufftwafe aces which are like air terminators with 300+ 200+ 150+ 100+ kills but even with those numbers they can't control the air. I'm not a nazi fan or supporter, but most of the information about SS is about their war crimes, boosting the morale of others german troops and how nobody takes them prisoners. I don't read any good info from modern authors analysing their role in the different battlefields. I always pick the veteran accounts for me they're more trustworthy. As I said Waffen was everywhere for example they have big impact at battle of Kharkov, Kursk, Italy, Normandy, Ardennes, Hungary to the end.
@@abanizergenov8104 well the thing about air v air vs air v ground is that a CAS would come over hit a tank a few times and count that as a kill. they wont actually know if thats a kill or not but they counted it anyways. however when a fighter shoots down another plane and it crashes into the ground in a fiery explosion you can bet they got that kill.
@@Phantom-bh5ru I thought you mean false reports and exaggerated claims about tank kills and give you example with Lufftwafe does the same, but yeah air vs air, air vs ground and ground vs air is a different type of warfare. The big aces were a fighter pilots and fought air vs air and I'm sure you know that they don't hunt tanks, Hans Ulrich Rudel and other ju-87 pilots chased tanks.
Tanks are always threatened by attacks from above and allied forces simply terrorised all german tank units from Normandy until the end with "spray and pray" rocket overflights . You can see that clearly in Normandy how tigers, panthers and pz.4 was heavily covered with foliage just to gave them some extra comouflage and protection so not to be observed from the air.
@@abanizergenov8104 well, the veteran accounts can be 100% biased. Look no further than Haupt, for point of reference, who loves to point out Soviet war crimes, makes flat out false claims, and then completely ignores German war crimes.
At 24:10 "Superheavy tanks intended for the breakthrough role."
While envisioned and planned back in the 30ies (the Tiger tank) there hadn't been a need/use for them until '43.
The "slow pillboxes" didn't reach production until Germany was on the defensive, but they make good use as defensive strong points so they do make some sense even then. With fuel and crews (including supporting logistics) being the limiting factors it's better to have a few powerful tanks than many weaker.
I Love your videos. So well researched and delivered.
Excellent video as always.
One thing that should be noted is that the perceived need for small numbers of dedicated specialist superheavy breakthrough vehicles remained with the Western allies until 1945. The A39 Tortoise you can see traipsing around Bovington shows that.
He did it, madman TIK did it, he talked about tanks.
I like almost every video that you present so I encourage you to continue to cover whatever you want. I am really enjoying the Stalingrad series wish it came out every week but I understand that is probably not possible if you want to eat, sleep, etc.
Thank you again for all the informative and entertaining videos I eagerly await each new one that you upload!
Great video! What about the same issues with aircraft like Me262, and other wonder weapons?
Here is a crazy idea:
the heavy German tanks might even be a rational reaction to the fuel crisis and the overall strategic situation.
Bear with me:
(1) When Germany was put on the defensive in the East, what kind of weapons did they need?
They needed weapons that could withstand the Russian onlaught. So heavy armor and heavy guns were crucial.
Fuel consumption became LESS of an issue in this situation: they were on the defensive, so they wouldn't have those sweeping, fuel consuming offensives anymore.
For the same reason, anti tank guns (and heavy anti tank vecicles such as the Maus) might become more important than regular tanks.
(2) Having one good and resiliant tank in place for some time might actually require LESS fuel and other resources than having a light tank which might more often have to retreat and which might more easily be put out of action and then need to be replaced by another light tank (which needed to be driven all the way to the front).
(3) on a similar note: Germany often gets critizised for "over engineering" their tanks which resulted in rather low total production figures as compared to the Soviet Union. Well, it might be rational after all when you consider the fuel situation:
a smaller number of good (though expensive) tanks might be more economical than a larger number of lesser tanks when you don't have the fuel to feed this larger tank army.
The only problem is the Soviet front is something like 2000 km long and it's impossible to put a Maus spaced evenly across that front. It wouldn't be too hard to bypass it and overwhelm it with smoke thus rendering it ineffective.
9:09 Certified Penguin Classic Heinz Guderian's Autobiography
and people didn't like when Morrissey's became one
Great video! Thank you. It made things much clearer
I have always been curious about these tanks,and why they were made. You always cover all aspects of the topics you choose to analyze. This helps guys like myself who don't always have a lot of time to dive in. You pack tons of info in a short span. And its always amazing to see generals calling Hitler crazy, and Hitler's thoughts and concerns being very rational. Im truly glad you are only interested in getting as close to history as we can and not adding your own personal beliefs to go to one side or the other. Keep up the amazing work. Just a suggestion! Can you do a video on the combat effectiveness of the dirlewanger division? I hear very conflicting opinions. I appreciate your work.
Could the "slave labor" have also taken it's toll?
I eecall watching some tanker restores saying that German tanks often had kinks in various fuel lines or sometimes even cigarette butts stuffed into oil lines.
I wish I could find the source so that you can site it.
If I find out I'll add it to this comment.
Nahh.
The in-ability to produce better gears for production determined the crappy transmissions...a weakness of the heavier german tanks.
The tiger I's is probably the best of the bumch.
I wrote my capstone paper for my BA in History at Hunter College. The "Wonder Weapons," built in 1944 and 1945 where built as a form of propaganda to give hope the the German military (the common soldier and fanatical Waffen SS) to continue fighting because they believed genius Hitler and genius Aryan scientist would come up with some weapons to win the war. They knew they would stretch the war, and believed that they (Nazi high command) might use the added time to set up escape from allied capture since ending up in Soviet hands or even in the captivity of western allies (war crimes tribunal and execution). He is also correct about the tanks. Analysis of this issue included primary source internal documents between Hitler and his ministers and between each other as well as the specifications handed done by RAD and other competing ministries.
Nice, I heard some info I never knew and a point of view I'd not considered. Keep it up.
Good watch as always thanks...
I just like to imagine the Maus cinematically. A giant Maus superweapon defending Berlin in 1945 outside the Brandenburg gate. Even though it didn't happen - it's still extremely badass to think about. The final, ultimate victory.
World of Tanks had an event like that last year for V-Day
you are just a nazi fanboy
It is my perspective that Hitler and his generals were fully aware that they could not match the quantitative production of the allies. Numbers have a quality of their own. I believe that it learns generals went to the heavier tanks in the hopes that they would be able to hold their own against the vast numbers of enemies if used properly. Those that advocate Germany building a fleet of panzer IV's, don't account for the fuel requirements for that massive fleet that would have been built. Nor do they explain where the trained crews would have come from. The panther, tiger and King tiger when used properly could dominate a battlefield against the Soviets American and English. If they had bill this massive numbers of panzer IV's and let's say they managed to find fuel for them a lot of that fuel would have gone up in flames when the tanks were knocked out. So fueling say 10 tigers versus 50 panzer IV'S would be easier than trying to find the fuel for 50 tanks. The real solution for Germany would have been just surrender. No matter what they tried to field tactical Air would have made hash of by stripping them up their infantry support. You put enough Twin engine bombers over an armored division they will be rendered ineffective if for no other reason their crews would be shell shocked. This is part of the massive carpet bombing at St lo and why the breakout was accomplished so quickly. My dad was there and the descriptions of the horror of that battle are pretty awful. To be honest some of the things my dad did and saw, I don't know how my father was such a level-headed man for the rest of his life.
Let's assume the German Maus makes it into the field. They are restricted to open ground because their power to weight ratio isn't high enough. So let's say 12 of these monsters are sitting in a field shooting at allied troops. First thing they're going to experience is filled artillery up to and including 210 mm or bigger. Next thing they're going to see is the fighter bombers coming in with rockets and bombs. Then they're going to see the twin engine bombers come in dropping 500 pound bombs and bigger. Keep in mind the Maus is a big ass Target out in the field. In that scenario they would have been either forced to retreat being harried by tactical Air and artillery all the way or they would have been reduced to scrap metal.
I think in a way the Germans forgot what their tactical Air did to allied armored formations early in the war. Tactical Air power had evolved beyond what the Germans brought to the table in 1939 to something much more powerful much more lethal to all men and vehicles. Given a big enough Target even airedale's can hit things! :-) just kidding about the airedale's, they were as heroic as anybody in that war.
Correct. A big tank makes a bigger target. And the slow speed of the Maus means that there's a high chance of the Allies simply bypassing the tanks, and then simply waiting for the Maus(s) to run out of fuel, ammunition, or supplies. At least with the faster tanks they have a chance to flee.
Ok then. Build Maus-planes as well, to dominate to skies, and keep the Maus tanks safe
Are you USN? Airedale is a term I’ve only heard sailors use.
@@Edax_Royeaux Concrete bunkers are absurdly cheap and easy to produce though. There's almost no reason NOT to build one if you've got some cement, water and rocks kicking around and a static portion of the front line that you don't plan on abandoning soon.
@@Edax_Royeaux difference in material usage. How much oil or armor steel did that tower consume? How many skilled craftsmen were needed for each tank or tower? If they tried to build 195 PzIV instead of each tower the costs of said tanks would sky rocket as the greater demand of armor steel alone far outstrips the supply. Nothing has intrinsic value. Everything is based on supply and demand.
outstanding presentation...e learning should learn.
Great, as usual! Thank you!
I would say if you have air superiority the Maus with its thick hulls would be very strong on tank to tank warfare if the ground can withstand the pressure but for enemy pilots the Maus would be easy to hit
Another video that makes me realize how much I just gobbled a narrative without ever questioning it.
I love your reflective approach and self critique which shows you continue to think about what you posit. Reflection is paramount to really making strides forwards.. I congratulate you on your own analysis of the question which has made you think about your own hypothesis.
Excelent and very deep analyze of the subject. Good job.
I would like an answer to this question: Germany had large stocks of Sarin and Tabun nerve gases by 1943. The allies had no response or protection to these highly lethal gases - they could have killed untold thousands of allied soldiers if used on the battlefield. So why were these gases not used? No historian has satisfactorily answered this question.
My guess is the horrors of what World War 1 was with gas. Hitler had this idea if he did things differently then Germany won't break apart or kill itself like it did in the Weimar years so he didn't use gas or surrender.
I've said it before, I will say it again: Nerve gasses are the one and only wild card of WWII. If they had been used in Barbarossa or Fall Blau, things would have turned out interesting. They had Tabun in 1939 already, the other ones came later.
@@joshuasitzema9920 So apparently Hitler didn't understand that modern nerve gases worked in a completely different way from chlorine gas or mustard gas? Seems odd to me. Surely he would have been briefed on the gases?
@@bezahltersystemtroll5055 Sarin was more powerful than Tabun. The British did have a bacteriological weapon, which was anthrax, and I suspect that the threat of retaliation deterred Hitler from using nerve gas, however anthrax can be fought with drugs, while there is no effective response to nerve gas once exposed to a sufficient amount. I'm pretty sure that if nerve gas had been used it would have forced the allies to the negotiating table.
@@bezahltersystemtroll5055 @Tancred De Hauteville
Nerve Gas was used in WW2. I believe there's at least one recorded instance of it being used in sweeping operations in Odessa.
The reason why it wasn't used that much in WW2, on such a scale combined with WW1, is simply a different nature of the warfare.
'Large stockpiles' is a relative interpretation. I doubt a 'large stockpile' has any importance when your frontline stretches 200km just for one area of operations, let alone the whole Eastern front which has a few thousands of them.. Gas was used to some effect in WW1 due to the static nature of the warfare, where cannisters would land on enemy troops stuck in trenches, in the very crowded areas of Western Europe (more dense areas, more damage). And, of course, against fortifications, like Osterlitz, where, again, you have concentrations of troops. Throwing gas bombs left and right would only deplete your stockpile without achieving anything.
Also, think about the technological differences. It's easy to launch a smoke cannister at a poor sould in a trench, stuck in 10in of mud and with 10 blokes around him, and catch him unaware, and there's a whole other thing launching gas at an advancing tank force who's not even happy to advance before your position gets battered by artillery or air-raids.
Finally, gas is not a consumable you unlock in a game. It's a highly specialised weapon, with very specific requirements. You need trained personel and special built storage facilities to operate it. If you don't have that, you risk either it being leaked/contaminated, thus making it useless, or, worse, you risk poisoning your own troops. And, of course, you risk it being hit by enemy bombs and artillery strikes.
Tbh, Guderian was probably thinking "if I can't get the type of tank I want, then I at least want the *number* of tanks I want" in that contradiction you pointed out.
The tiger really was stupid, but not having enough of them was even more stupid compared to not having tanks at all.
I think not stupid, as it was rushed into production without sufficient testing and training. Again, designed for a scenario that never really actualized.
Guderian and the German army wanted a tank like t34 (which is why panther was created)
Instead Hitler gave them tigers before Panthers.
Of course the generals gonna call Hitler a madman for not giving the army what they asked for.
Lt. Gruber; “ do you like my little new tank?”
16:00
Quote about fuel and parts reminds me another quote “amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics”
Whether true of the stat or not, is a mark of shame that you had to destroy so many of your own because you can’t operate them.
The way they were used (small concentrated attacks) is actually a good way to circumvent the problems of large scale consumption by their forces. Altough the idea failed, it's the same tought behind the Yamato battleship "our resources are less, so we have to produce great, but few units to make the most of what we have".
You can argue that a handful of tigers have the same impact has a multitude of panzer 3s and 4s, and still consume less fuel
And not just less fuel. You need to account for manpower and morale as well. Perhaps less relevant for Yamato (since that was also obsolescence of technology -battleship vs carrier-), but for tanks? Who do people think would be more encouraged to take on a charge against a heavily fortified enemy line? 30 guys with Pz IIIs that have been blowing up for 1.8 years left right and center, being taken out even by AT-rifle fire (not even needing a gun or a tank) or 10 guys in 2 bloody steel monsters that can just literally tank the damage?
@@nottoday3817 its basically what happened in 1941, multitudes of t26s and bt7s destroyed by a handful of panzer IVs
TIK, I think statement by Doyle in 13:24 about Panther classified as Medium Tank is not really the case. Military History Visualized made a discussion video with Dr. Roman based on German's army document about how the German's army classified Panther as Heavy Tank due to their own weight.
ua-cam.com/video/_EUp1_FZWUQ/v-deo.html
The panther is in weird spot cause its weight is absolutely in 'heavy' territory but the role it was used as a medium tank to exploit the breakthrough. tbh it just depends on what metrics you're using to qualify them
It was used as a "standard medium" tank, thus it was a "standard medium" tank. The Panther was the first in a new generation of Western tanks, and it was arguably the mother of the MBT; large, heavy with heavy front armor and a potent dual purpose gun capable of dealing with any threat, even enemy heavy tanks. The M26 Pershing and Centurion Mk. 1 had very similar combat capabilities as the Panther - both were ventually classified as medium tanks (even if the M26 was first classified as a heavy tank). All post war Western medium tanks (later MBT) was of roughly the size and weight of the Panther.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Slight error there, the Centurian was never clasifed as a medium tank. It was a 'Universal tank' in development and before 'MBT' was codified.
Secondly the Panther was not a MBT as it was not designed to forfull both the exploitation, breakthrough and hardpoint roles. The fact it could be pushed into them roles rather successfully does not make it a MBT.
Panther is just as well armored (thanks to slope) and well gunned as the Tiger (some areas even better than the Tiger 1), Panther also cost close to HALF as much to make as Tiger 1...
Thanks for that thumbnail, TIK, I had a pretty bad day and the laugh did me good.
This is a fascinating topic, well covered
Hey TIK. Hit the 7:38 section of you video on why Hitler went ahead into the idea of design and production of Heavy Tanks. My immediate thought as to why Hitler would want Heavy Tanks, is because they could act as force multipliers. As in, for ever 4 Panzer IV's, one Tiger could do the same job or same role in combat. Meaning you could save resources and fuel for four tanks, on one. I can see quite a few hull leaks in this already. But this is my first immediate thought. Quality over Quantity. And the French B1's and Soviet KV's could take a lot of punishment and abuse before they were overcomed. L
Anyway. On with the video. And no Tank anime girls please.
That's not a bad theory, but the problem is that the Maus had seven times the fuel requirements of the Panther (as I explain at the very end of the video). So unless the Maus was seven times more effective than the Panther, then it's not going to be worth it.
@@TheImperatorKnight Oi! Spoilers. I don't want to know.
Also kinda knew it was going to go that way but hey, details.
🙂👍
Your argument supports what I was thinking.
Even if it was known that oil supplies would become a problem by the time the Panther and Tiger became operational, the fact remains that the Mark IV was inferior to the Russian tanks they were facing. So what options did the Germans have?
1) Continue to fight with an increasingly vulnerable tank; necessitating an increase in tank numbers at a time when diesel/petrol supplies were dwindling.
2) Move to a fighting doctrine that relied more heavily on infantry and artillery and less on armour; restricting tactical options.
3) Produce fewer, but more capable tanks that would outclass the T34 and JS1.
Without the benefit of hindsight it is not difficult to see the attraction of the third option. The fact that both tanks suffered technical issues is not really relevant; UK and US leaders must have been absolute barmpots based on some of the tank designs we produced!
@@TheImperatorKnight Effectiveness is deceided upon situation. I mean, two Tigers could possibly hold an area against 10T-34s or 8 Shermans (I believe the Allied informal battle plan was sending 5 Shermans to neutralise a Tiger -seen on a documentary a decade ago). I doubt 7 Panzers could hold an area against 7 Shermans. Similarly, I doubt 20 Shermans could hope for much against a Maus in a half decent position, but 10 Shermans (especially late war variants) could take out 7 Panthers.
The panther was 45 tons, it's not a "medium tank".
Panther had same effective frontal armor as the Tiger.
Panthers 75mm gun was just as good if not better than the tiger 1's 88mm.
Both Panther and Tiger are really heavy tanks by WW2 standards.
Tiger was "Hitler's call" that the army didnt want or need, in the end they wasted resourced fielding 2 tanks they didnt need to.
I'm afraid you're missing the main point of the problem of the superheavy tanks. It's - as far as I understand it - not mainly the fuel situation - it's getting to (and from) the battlefied in the first place and once they are there, beeing not just a sitting duck waiting to be overhelmed by sheer numbers of enemy tanks, artillery and especially airforce.
The panther was arguably a good design but even it suffered from limited operational mobility due to the flawed engines and final drives - and it was only around 45 tons. The Tiger E was also a fearsome tank once it faced the enemy but as you said, many of them would have to be given up due to mechanical failures unrelated to combat and the Tiger B was plagued by the same problems but even more severely. A 100 ton plus tank was strategically and operationally just not to be realized with the technology of the time and even today no one bothers about building such a monstrosity even if it was feasible. Fuel may be a part of the problem but it's a small one compared to operational an tactical mobility, recovery of damaged tanks and the logistical efford to sustain such a monster in the field.
A rolling bunker like the Mause just doesn't fit into the german concept of operational warfare of highly coordinated combined arms even if the Soviets would have come up with tanks bigger than the IS2.
Look at it this way the battlefields were coming to the tank manufacturing arsenals so the distance needed to travel wasn't as far! LOL!
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Fair point XD
I mean, he adresses this in the video. It would make sense if you shift your focus. Instead of wasting fast, mobile tanks in breakthrough battles (which you kinda need to do for strategic locations), you build a small number of breakthrough tanks and send them in, with much smaller loses in terms of manpower and material. Similarly, they can take a much bigger beating than 10 tanks of weaker protection, and inspire more fear into incoming enemies, helping you stall small scale offensives for some time. I mean, they kinda saw this thing with how their troops reacted to T-34s and KV-1s in Barbarossa.
@@nottoday3817 You're right, Tik mentioned it but he presented it as if the fuel situation was the main problem, not the concept of tanks like the Maus itself. I get the idea of superheavy tanks but it still won't work since you wont get them to the field and sustain them there - you don't have the bridges, don't have the ARVs, don't have the capabilities nor facilities to maintain those vehicles in the field and even railroad transport is difficult at best. Cross country mobility is just awfull since the motors available don't have the power and neither the running gear nor the final drives could handle the weight in rough terain. And it takes a simple landmine to the tracks to mission kill such a beast since there is no way to repair it under enemy fire and since you don't have the ARVs a mission kill easily becomes a total loss. Thats not to mention that those monstrosities would have been a very juicy and immobile target for every single airplane around and there is simply no way to armor the tank up to the point were it can't be penetrated by artillery and heavier bombs wich it would have attracted like a magnet. Even if you could, there is no way infantry could follow them through a barrage as the Ferdinands at Kursk demonstrated.
The Tigers and Ferdinands were already a big problem in this regard and barely feasible to realise with the existing technology, as becomes clear when you look at their mechanical problems (not so much the Tiger E but the B one and the Ferdinan) a tank like the Maus twice as heavy is just madness.
The KV-1s you mention were fearsome of course, but combined arms warfare killed them nontheless - the same would have happened to the maus for sure. Again, I'm not so much thinking about the Tiger E or the Panther but bigger tanks were just a stupid idea as is underlined by the fact that there seems to be a limit around 70-80 tons for a tank, even with todays much more advanced technology.
You're right that you sometimes have to take some strategic targets no matter the cost, but in the end I don't think the Maus or something alike would have solved the problem, but for sure they would have created many new ones.
It's similar to the 80cm artillery pieces - fearsome at first glance but practically useless and a heavy burden for the logistics that were itself a disaster even without those paper tigers.
Absolutely cannot fault any part of this gentleman’s productions . First rate history lesson .
Great video! You bring out the context! CONTEXT is probaby the most important factor when studying history. And applying hindsight can royaly screw up our view (and understanding) of historical events.
I'm sure the trolls are glad to see you doing a tank video 😂 keep up the good work
You do an amazing job of giving new ideas and considerations (and dispelling the lying German generals).
What role did German ideology play in those heavy tank designs? The idea that supersoldiers should be fitted out with super-tanks?
Also, did the SS do a worse job employing these tanks than the Wehrmacht could have (similar to how they were worse soldiers in the beginning of the war)?
Very good video. And I say that as someone who disagrees with you on some points of economics. Which Is why I continue watching. You make good videos that also sometimes challenge me. :)
This is yet another excellent video, and really presents a very balanced discussion of why these tanks came to be. Interestingly, in addition to the US and British WWII versions of heavy tanks mentioned in other comments, a similar discussion is happening to tanks today. As a former cavalry and armor officer, the M1A2 and it various version has generated a lot of similar comments, particularly with regards to its weight and corresponding effects on roads and especially bridges.
In fact, even before the M1 series of tanks, there were similar issues, During the U.S. invasion of Panama, I recall we couldn't send in our M60s since they were around 60 tons fully loaded, and the bridges were only rated around 50 tons. A number of times when doing a route reconnaissance, I came across bridges that I determined (after doing a bridge inspection. My time as an enlisted combat engineer came in very handy!) that the bridges were not able to support the tanks.
The latest versions of the M1A2 is over 70 tons fully loaded, and this indeed has affected its mobility. The difference in mobility between the latest M1A2 and the early M1s is noticeable. Wear and tear on a heavier tank is also more pronounced. Another difference is the ammo load. The A2 versions only hold 40 round of 120mm ammo whereas the 105mm versions of the M1 held 54 rounds. While the bigger gun is a benefit in tank versus tank combat, people often forget that a main battle tank (MBT) has targets besides tanks and these are often a majority of targets. Armor personnel carriers, bunkers, anti-tank guns and missiles, troops, etc. are just some of the targets a tank needs to destroy.
A trend I am seeing now is the consideration of alternative styled MBTs in order to reduce weight. A great example of this is the Russian T-14 which comes in at around 48 tons. One way they do this is through a much smaller turret, made possible by having just a three man crew, all based in the hull. Whether or not this is the future remains to be seen, but it does suggest that there is an upper limit to the size and especially the weight of a tank. It also suggests that we have reached that limit.
It's weird the T 34 would only put 26t on the scale. The Pz IV in that regard was more effective than the Pz V, more reliable, later Pz IV had 7.5cm gun, less weight means more bridges you can use and less combat engineering being needed. Nashorn and Tiger II were as heavy as that M1 A2 Abrams.
The Matilda tank was clearly the most important tank of the war.
They should have given it oval wheels though. So it would have been a waltzing Mathilda.
I don't nescessarily see a self-contradiction in Guderians argument. His point appears to be basically: "let's build the designs we have (including the tiger I) in sufficient numbers before diverting too much resources to next-gen designs. With "upgrading" he might have also referred to the extensive tinkering on existing models, which led to a plethora of tank variants and an additional logistical challenge regarding spare parts, maybe.
As for the tiger I - MilitaryHistoryVisualized had a great video on the tiger I and what I remember is, that logistics and fuel weren't the biggest problem with the design, but the fact that the german army was loosing the war. In an offensive scenario, loosing a track to a mine or a direct hit, doesn't result in the loss of the tank or its crew. In many cases the disabled tank just falls behind, can be repaired by the crew or picked up later by other troops. The tank survives and its crew. In a retreat scenario, you don't get the chance to repair the tracks. While panzer IVs could tow each other in a retreat, even somehwat uphill, towing tigers remained a big problem. Therefore many were destroyed by their own crew. The above channel has numbers on that topic, too IIRC.
A point in favor of the tigers (vs. eg. the Panther) was the heavy side armor. In the chaotic situations the tank crews faced in combat that was a distinguishing feature. PzIV crews still had to fear anti tank rifles. I am not sure about the panther which had only 10mm more side armor, but I guess most small caliber anti tank guns were able to penetrate hull and turret from the side. In coke-zero situations the panzer would only show its frontal armor to the enemy. In actual scenarios things were rarely as ideal.
Regarding the Tiger II: I always wondered why they even bothered building these. But TIK reporting that Hitler expected a next generation of russion super-heavy in 1944 makes sense. Another explanation, I picked up, was, that German production couldn't maintain the quality of steel at the end of the war due to lack of materials and thus needed a design that alleviated this problem through even thicker plates and improved design (sloped armor). That would make sense.
In general, I wouldn't underestimate he effect of having a tank that maximizes the survival of the crew as a strategic property, especially given the fact that the Wehrmacht lacked experienced crews in the late war. But the most important point IMO is this: don't build heavy breakthrough tanks for a war that you are in the process of loosing. On ther other had, it also makes very limited sense to have a long term plan for "we are going to loose the war, so let's have the ideal weapons for that scenario". So, this only adds to TIKs position, that the common criticisms of the German heavies derive mostly from a hind-sight perspective.
Hi tic love you history channel especially you're fantastic Stalingrad battle front series when do you think we may see your next episode ?? I love the detail hour by hour day by day very impressive especially the gorgeous maps keep up the good work
Great video, it’s easy to dismiss people’s reasoning in hindsight, but great job making the case there was a logic to the choices.
Honestly it makes sense militarily going from having universal tanks to specialized tanks, vice versa. For example, the British didn't have a lot of success because of combined arms warfare didn't allow the break through tank to work properly, it would just get destroyed. The Germans had great success with their Panzer III and IV tanks, but as the war went on that success faded, combined arms concept collapsed because of material shortages, no more stukas raining from the sky and artillery and armor always being available. Of course this would logically come out in the eyes of someone who isn't always on the front as "Well our old way didn't work, we gotta do something different." Being the Tiger tank was very successful at the break through role, it's kinda obvious why they kept going down that path, after blitzkrieg had already crumbled, and became ineffective on the German end. Without combined arms to back up the tank, the tank itself needs to be strong enough to do the job almost on it's own. So the Germans started getting ridiculous, to make up for the fact they couldn't have the Stuka rescue them anymore. Honestly, if you view it that way the heavy tank obsession starts to make some sense.
Ah yes. The Maus Tank. One of those weapons some Wehreboos hilariously LOVE to say would have won the war for Germany. If, you know, they'd somehow just mass produced it.
Meanwhile, back in reality, it would've made a great target for Allied fighter-bombers, and quite a conversation piece for Allied soldiers when it inevitably ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned.
Stolen from ph, also the cas destruction of tanks is not nearly as high as might be implied, further its fuel consumption might have been lower than a conventional tank used in a convetnional way. Still wouldn't have made a difference but it wasn't as trash as his video implies.
@@janehrahan5116 retards think allied CAS were end all be all god machines while their actual tank kill count is so pathetically low compared to their reported kills
Great video and thanks again.
As for "More tigers were lost due to breakdown/fuel shortages" - in the book "Ivan's War", the Soviet veterans interviewed said "They passed just as many broken down and abandoned Tigers than they ever saw in battle. And when they did encounter Tigers, they were almost always emplaced as earth fortified pillboxes. On those occasions, the Sturmoviks would make short work of them."
Think I might put that quote on the next Mark Felton video about a German tank engagement, just to measure the amount of hate that comes my way from the Wehaboo Brigade...
That is highly quastionable. The werent That many Tigers around and secound allies tend to misinterpretate every german Panzer as tiger because p3 and p4 looked very similar
Good video. Well balanced and unbiased. Thank you.
TIK, it sounds like Dr. Porsche acted kinda like Howard Hughes re: Spruce Goose and other platforms he liked. Yes, the Spruce Goose was late and one could say 'stupid' but had German Submarines won the battle of the Atlantic, they would have been Genius. This boat plane also could have brought over nuclear bombs instead of using something like the USS Indianapolis in submarine infested waters had the war continued.
That's nonsense... Just stick to tanks TIK.
Oh, wait...
Stick to thanks!
Answering the video caption from an Allied perspective, yes, if he is using up valuable finances and premium underground factory facilities. Tanks for this article and adhering to your research principles and keeping us on track with a gripping insight to the mind of 'that man'! The Chieftain will be mightily pleased that you steered clear of "Oh no, my tank's on fire"! However I am sure you may have more elegantly egressed out of the mighty Maus than he! Plus you've certainly cranked up the tension in us all as we eagerly wait for the next Stalingrad video!
Great video TIK!!!
actually TIK Hitler ordered the design of the Maus so it would be put into his favourite anime Girls Und Panzer which he watches from his comfortable Argentinian villa
You fool! Argentina... Hitler lived in a tropical bunker in Antartica, planning to later invade Tasmania. Haven't you been listening? Hitler was a Birtish Agent!! Hehehehehe
I’m first, not you Jamie
wrong both of you. JESUS is always first
Yeah, you tell him!
@@raigarmullerson4838 I respectfully acknowledge your response as the correct one!
my generic answer had been that hitler couldnt trade tanks with Russia anywhere near 1-1 , so needed super tanks that couldnt be killed - would save fuel, materials and men
In order to have a chance to win, especially late in the war, Germans needed both quantity and quality . That is why you have relatively cheap and mass produced weapons like Panzerfaust, Marder, StuG III, Hetzer ... And on the other side small number of Wunderwaffen like Tiger, Tiger II, Ferdinand, Jagdtiger and finally Maus (had that project being finished) .