*** war and social upheaval: World War II -- technology land campaigns weapons tanks tracked vehicles








World War II Technology: Land Warfare Weapons--Tanks and Tracked Vehicles

German tank toy
Figure 1.-- Unlike the airplane, the tank did not emerge from World War I as a glamerous weapon. Thus You do not see very many tank toys. This began to change after the starteling German victories at the onset of the War (1939-41). The German toy ndustry, however, did not produce many tank toys. The boys here, probably about 1940, have a rare example. The NAZIs had diverted substantial civilian production to armaments. And after the failure of Barbarossa (December 1941), toy manufacturers no longer had access to metal.

Not fully appreciated in the inter-War era was the importance of a new weapon--the tank. The tank was a British creation and helped crack open the German defensive lines. It was not a very glanerous weapon at the time. It was slow and ungainly. The Germans never suceeded in building an effective tank in World War I. They were, however, on the receiving end of the British tank and were more aware than anyone that this was a weapon of the future. The horrors of trench warfare caused military planners to focus on new weapons to restore mobility and to avoid a future war resulting in mass losses of foot soldiers. While it was the Allies that developed tanks, it was the Germans, however, that after the War gave the greatest attention to developing new weapns. The Germans signed the Rapollo Treaty (1922) with the Soviet Union that allowed them to evade the Versailles Peace Treaty and work with the Soviets on tanks and tank tactics in Russia. Hitler was impressed with General Guederian and gave considerable empphasis on armor in the NAZI rearmament campaign. One of the several benefits of seizing Czechoslovakia (March 1939) was control of the Skoda arms complex. The Germnans when they began the War did not have a huge superority in tanks, rather it was their tactics that made a difference in the battle for France (May-June 1940). There are three basic elements to tank design: 1) armor (protection), 2) firepower, and 3) mobility/speed. Maximizing one element will impair the others. Military experts debate what the best tanks of the War were. Here it is sometimes lost on experts that you can not just compare the characteristics of each tank. Some of the German tanks were very effective indeed. They also tend to be complicated and difficult to build on an assembly line in large numbers. They also tended to be more difficult to maintain in the field. The American Sherman was deficient in firing power and armor, but was hughly maneuverabe, easy to build, and maintain. It had the advantage of Allied air power for support. Many experts believe that the T-34 was the most effective combinantion of gun, speed, and armor. It shocked the Germans when they first encounteed it. The German Panther was the German response. The Panther was also an extremnely effective tank. The Soviet T-34, hoewever, was much easier to build and maintain in the field. And the Soviet built it in numbers the Germans could only dream about. A major development in the later phase of the war was the development of light anti-tank weapons like the bazooka and Panzefaust that gave the infantryman the capability of stopping tanks. Tanks needed protective infantry which tended to slow them down.

World War I

The tank was a British creation and helped crack open the German defensive lines. A British army officer, Colonel Ernest Swinton, and the Secretary of the Committee for Imperial Defence, Maurice Hankey, were the first to see the possibility of what we now call a tank--an armored tracked vehicle. Winston Churchill was an early convert. Churchill sponsored the creation of a Landships Committee to investigate the possibility of such a weapon. The name of the British committee was due to the fact that the initial concept of land battleship. There was no similar iniotistive in Germany. The early tanks were not a very glanerous weapon at the time. It was slow and ungainly. But they prived very helpful in leading assaults across no-mans land. The Germans never suceeded in building an effective tank in World War I. They were, however, on the receiving end of the British tank and were after the War more aware than anyone that this was a weapon of the future. America did not build any tanks during the War. General Pershing, however, put George Patton in charge of the first American tank unit which managed to get a few British tanks.

Inter-War Era

Not fully appreciated in the inter-War era was the importance of a new weapon--the tank. The horrors of trench warfare caused military planners to focus on new weapons to restore mobility and to avoid a future war resulting in mass losses of foot soldiers. While it was the Allies that developed tanks, it was the Germans that after the War gave the greatest attention to developing new weapons and tactical doctrines. There were a range of mechanical improvements. The Germans signed the Rapollo Treaty (1922) with the Soviet Union that allowed them to evade the Versailles Peace Treaty and work with the Soviets on tanks and tank tactics in Russia. There were voices in all the major coutries tht addressed the issues of armored tactics. J.F.C. Fuller enuciated the doctrine of spearhead attacks with massed tank formations. The basic doctrine was then developed by Heinz Guderian (Germany), Percy Hobart (Britain), Adna R. Chaffee, Jr. (United Sttes), Charles de Gaulle (France), and Mikhail Tukhachevsky (Soviet Union). All reached similar conclusions. Hitler was impressed with General Guederian and gave considerable emphasis on armor in the NAZI rearmament campaign. Stalin was also impressed with armor, but unlike Hitler he purged the Red Army. One of the priority targests were the Red army officers who worked with the Germans under the Rapallo Treaty. Most were shot or condemned to the Gulag. Thus while Hitler promoted officers like Guderian and Rommel who had a grasp of modern mechanized warfare, Stalin weeded some of the best minds out of the Red Army. only the German Wehrmacht adopted the theory into practice on a large scale. The result was the victoryin the West iover Bru=itain abf France (May-June 1940). It would be the superior German tactical dictrine along with disaterous French leadership, not superior tanks that the German Blitzkrieg so stunningly successful. he disaterous performance of the Red Army during Barbariossa (June-December 1941) was in part a reflection of Stalin's purges.

Tank Design

There are three basic elements to tank design: 1) armor (protection), 2) firepower, and 3) mobility/speed. Maximizing one element will impair the others. Increasing the armor means greater weight which can impair mobility/speed. Thus tank design requires compromises adjusting these three major elements. These were not, however, the only factors affecting World war II tanks. These ease of manufacture and cost as well as the field maintenance requirements have also affected the effectiveness of tank forces. Vost and complexity affected how many tanks coukd be built and thus the size of a country's tank force. As a result the afordability and industrial requiremrnts may take precdence over performance characteristics. The Germans in World War II fielded some excellent tanks, especially the Panther tanks. The German designs, however, tended to be complex to build and ill-suited for assembly-line mass production. They were also often demanding to mauntain and service in the field. Hitler who intervened in weapons production also had a penchant for gigantism--culminating in the massive Tiger tanks in the later phase of the War. The Soviets and the Americans on the other-hand developed tanks that could be quickly-built in large numbers--the T34 and the M4 Sherman. The M4 in particular had serious design weaknesses, but the numbers of both tanks overwealmed German defenses. Hitler in a secretly taped conservation with Mannerheim admitted that he never imagined the number of tanks the Soviets could produce. And that was before the Wehrmacht faced nassive American armor attacks. Logistics was another factor. The T-34 and M4 were both relatively simple to maintain. The more complex German designs were much more difficult and this was futher agrivated by the relatively poor German logistics system. Firepower is perhaps the key element as the whole purose of a tank is to rapidly move weapons forward. In World War I it was to support infantry. In World war II it was to spearhead offensive attacks. German tanks led in this area throughout the War. Some tanks had the fammed 88mm gun and by the end of the War even larger guns. The American M4 Sherman was notoriously under gunned, unable to penetrate German armor. The armor is the most destinctive feature of a tank. The German tanks also tended to be heavily armored. The quality and thickness of steel was not the only factors determining the effectiveness of armor. The Soviet T-34's use od sloping armor enabled it to gain speed and mobility without massively heavy armor. The compromise between armor and speed lead to the T-34 often being cited as the best tank of the War. Speed is an important factor affecting mobility, but not the only one. Tanks to be effective have to move off roads and thus have to be able to traverse a variety of terraine. Here the T-34 and M4 were highly mobile. The German attack Bulfe Offensive at the end of the War was impaired by the Tiger tank's inability to cross many narrow, weak bridges in the heavily wooded Ardennes. Another factor here is the need to transport tanks to the battlefield. An factor in the design of the Americam M4 was the ability to tansport it to ports by rail. Passing through railroad tunnels was a factor.

Tank Production

Tank production was in part dependent on the size of a country's economy. We have sketched out the size of various national ecomomies and fluctuations during the War. The size of an economy by itself is not a perfect indicator of potential thank profuctiin. A World War II tank expert reports that there are four factors involved in tank production: 1) money (capital), 2) labor, 3) steel production, and 4) energy. Here the United states America had the greatest potential and Germany had the second greatest potential. The Soviets had a significantly lower potential. Britain had a substantial potential, but decided to orient its war ecomomy toward the air war. There there is no surprise that America was one of the major builders of tanks despite getting off to a slow statrt. The United States did not begin to serious gear up until after Pearl Harbor (December 1941) which was well into the War. The United States eventually produced slightly less than the Soviet Union because it curtailed production in 1944 when it became clear that the number of armored divisions originally planned would not be needed. Britain had a major economy, but focused its war production on the air war. And a good portion of Britain's armored needs were met by the United States and supplied through Lend Lease. What is starteling is how the stuningly the Soviet Union ourpeformed in tank production and how poorly the Germans performed. This is especially stunning given th efact the Germans had a larger economy than the Soviets and nuch of the Soviet Union was occupied by the Germans. In addition, the structure of the two economies were such that the Germamns should have been able to significantly out produce the Soviets. This is because the Germans produced far more steel and has much greater energy inputs, two factors vital to tank production. To some extent tank production was due to desisions made by Hitler who though he had won the War (1939-41) and did not greatly need to expand tank production. He also had no idea what the Soviets could actually achieve. In fact the Germans had defeated enemy forces that had substantial tank forces (Britain, France, and the Soviet Union). Only with the Red Army Winter Offensive (December 1941) did it become apparent that they had mot won the War. But even with all the advantages and occupying a huge area of the Soviet Union, the Germans never came close to matching Soviet production. Much of this was due to the Whermacht military procurement process and the characteristics of German industrial management. Another major German disadvantage that has to be considered was that they were fighting a two-front war and the War in the West while nor requiring a huge manpower input, did require a massive industrial input, incliding steel and other critical materials needed for tank production. It should also be noted that the production numbers understate the German disadvanage. After Stalingrad (February 1943), the Germans were almost always on the densive and withdrawing west. This mean that a tank that broke down or receibing only minor battlr danage had to be abandined and thus lost. Factors even in the crisis and Goebbels call after Stalingrad for Total War (February 1943) that the Germans were unable or unwilling to change.

Specific Armored Vehicles


Half-tracks

The half-track was a front-wheel steering vehicle with tracked rear drive. Many, but not all were armored. Half tracks were used both to transport infantry and to transport artillery. They added to the mobility of armored divisions because they enabled the infantry and artillery to keep up with the tanks. The infantry was needed to both protect the tanks and to rapidly exploit breeches in the enemy lines made by the tanks. As the war progressed and infantry anti-tank weapons were developed, infantry to protect the tanks becae increasingly important. They added both firepower and protection to the infantry. The Germans had a few different types of half-track trucks and this should really be compared to the American half track. One of the most important was the the German Sdkfz-7 Eight Ton Half-Track which could could haul more than the American half track. It was used used primarily as the 88-mm transporter. The Americans could, however, manufactue motorized vehiches, half tracks, in much lrger numbers than the Germans. That type of truck was introduced before the war (1937-38 I think) and all through the War. It performed well in the sands of North Africa and the mud of Russia, but it had a short range and small load capacity (do not know the load weight). The American deuce and a half truck performed roles often given to hlf tracks. It was faster, had a longer range, and carried a bigger load, but needed a some what good ground to drive on. The trucks the United States provided to the Red Army under Lend Lease significantly improved the mobility and thus effectiveness of Soviet artillery on the Eastern Front. With the loss of air superiority in the West the Germans found it very difficult to move their artillery, even the highly mobile 88s.

Utility Carriers

The British universal carrier was commonly known as the Bren Gun carrier because of the light machine gun which many were armed with. It is a family of light armoured tracked vehicles built by Vickers-Armstrongs and other British companies. The universal Carrier family originated with the Carden Loyd tankettes, which was developed in the 1920s beginning with the Mk VI tankette. Production began in 1934. As far as we know, these universal vehicles type was only made by the British and used with British and Commonwealth troops. The first carriers, the Bren Gun carrier and the scout carrier, were delivered to British units before the outbreak of the War. A single improved design that could replace these specific designs, the universal carrier was introduced shortly after the outbreak of the War (1940). The universal carrier was a very versatile military vehicle. It was initially concetualied as a combat fire-power transport. The crew members were meant to dismount and engage the enemy. The Army used in many ways by different ways. It could carry mortars infantrymen, equipment, and supplies -- basically everything that needed to be transported. Tt was used as machine gun platforms on thefront lines. The supply function, howeerr, appears to have superceeded its actual combat use. The universal carrier's versatility meant that it played an important role for the British and Commonwealth forces in every World War II theater. The universal carrier had a crew of four, an NCO, driver-mechanic, and two riflemen. Some 113,000 of these vehicles were built, including some after the War. Most were built in Britain. It is the most widely produced armoured fighting vehicle in history. They were done in ennuerable variants.

Tanks

Military experts debate as to best tanks of the War were. Here it is sometimes lost on experts that you can not just compare the characteristics of each tank and simulate a one-on-one tank battle. Some of the German tanks were very effective indeed. Many believe that the Mark V Panther was the best tank of the War and one-on-one they are probanly correct, but the Germans after 1941 were rarely able to fight tank battles one-on-one. The German Tigers were more powerful, but they were also slow, maneuvered poorly, and consumed huge quantities of fuel the Germans did not have. And great targets once the allies gained air superiority. The Panther on the other hand, incorporated many of the T-34 innovations like slopeing armor. The German tanks tended to be complicated, difficult to build on an assembly line in large numbers. They also tended to be more difficult to maintain in the field. The American M-4 Sherman was deficient in firing power and armor, but was easy to build, simple to maintain, fast and highly maneuverable. It was built in staggering numbers and became the backbone of the American armored divisions after being put into servive in North Africa (1942). Many American crews called it a 'death trap' Gen. Patton saw it as a 'war winner'. There is no doubt that the Sherman could not prevail in a one-on-one engagement with a Panther. German Panzer crews called it 'the Ronson' because it buned so readily. Of course the Germans who derided the Sherman usually found themselves retreating as the Shermans move cfiorward. The combinsation of a simple sound design. supporting air power, innovative tactics, crew training, and mass production allowed the American armored dividion to lead the way in the drive toward the Rhine from Normandy. [Zaloga] Many experts believe that the T-34 was the most effective combinantion of gun, speed, and armor. There is little doubt that when it first appeared uin 1941, it was the best tank in wiorld. It shocked the Germans when they first encounteed it. The German Panther was the German response. The Panther was also an extremnely effective tank, more than the equal of the T-34. The primary problem for the Germans was that they could not build enough Panthers. The Soviets built their T-34s in numbers the Germans could only dream about. The T-34 was much easier to build and maintain in the field. And although the T-34 had lost its technological edge by 1943, by gthat gtime the Soviets had begun to develop better tank tactics and bgan to receive support from a revived Red Air Force.

Self-propelled Guns: Tank Destroyers

A self-propelled gun (SPG) is a form of artillery that is motorized and capable of moving on its own. The impetus for building these guns was the same as for tanks, to support advancing forces. The better armored tanks were used to punch holes in emnemy lines. The SPGs wee used to support infantry and to engage enemy strong points, especially fortified positions. The SPGs had sme advantages over tanks in that they were cheper to produce. Also without a turrat it was easier to instll alarger gun. Some had limited traverse caability. SPGs can be mounted on a motorized wheeled or tracked chassis, butthe major World War II SPGs had tracked tank chass. Te SPGs could maneuver under its own power and thus more mobil than a towed gun. The SPG is a combat support weapons. They are normally attached to, the main combat units: infantry and armour, although the Germans during World War II attached them to artillery units. Typically SPGs were more lightly armoured than tanks. As World War II developed, the Germans and Americans made the greatest uses of SPGs and the emhasis shiftd from attacking emplacements to r=tank destroyers. The Germans shifted their use largely because ghey were firced on the defensive and no longer assaulting enemy defensive positions, but having to contend with advancing enemy tanks. The Germans hafd the hughly effective 88-mm gun, but the SPG was more mobile. The Sturmgesch�tz III (StuG III) assault gun was Germany's primary produced SPG during World War II. It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank. And as it had a fixed casematea rather than a turret, it was quicker and less expensive to build. It also had alow profile, a substantial battlefied advantage. The M10 tank destroyer was the most widely used American SPG and used primarily as a tank destroyer. It used the chassis of the M4 Sherman tank. It had a reasonably potent anti-tank gun on a turreted platform unlike the M3 GMC a limited traversethat it replaced. The M4 Sherman performed well in North Africa during 1942 against the Grman Marrk II tank, but was outclassed by the neer German tanks like the Mark V Panthers and Mark VI and VII Tigers. Ugrading the guns n the Sherman was more dificult than on the SPGs. Newer SPGs after the M10 had heavier guns gfor just this purpose.

Tactics

The Germans when they began the War did not have a huge superority in tanks, rather it was their tactics that made a difference in the battle for France (May-June 1940). The German concept whiuch camp to be called Blitzkrieg was to focus power at the decisive point of a battle. This meant organizing armored or panzer divisions and brining them to play at a decisive time and point along with air power. The French concept was just the opposite. The French had some excellent tanks, although unlike the Germans they were not equipped with radios so they could easily be directed as a battle developed. The French spread their tanks out among infantry divisions and use them to seal off enemy thrusts through the Maginot Lind. By the same token the French Air Force was soread out, much of it in the South where it would not be vulnerable to a surprise German attack, but where i also would play no part in the battle for France. The Germans were the first to grasp the importance of anti-tank weapons and had the high-velocity 88-mm gun originslly designed as an anti-aircraft gun. They essentially taught tank war fare to the British in the Western Desert. Fortunately for the British, the Germans, focused on the Soviet Union, and were not able to deploy adequate forces in North Africa to defeat them before they learned how to use anti-tank artillery. The Red Army had a massive armored force. Many of their tanks, however, by the time of Barbarossa were obsolete. The T-34 tank began reaching the Red Army soon after Hitler launched Barbarossa. The Red Army, however, did not have a well developed battlefield doctrine for tank warfare. Stalin's purges had weakened the command structure of the Army which probably delayed needed adjustments. The Army thus paid a terrible price for its lack of an effective tactical doctrine as well as Stalin's interference, especially is insistince that the Red Army stand and fight whatever the circumstances. The Red Army suffered enormous losses in the summer of 1941. The Germans destroyed huge numbers of Soviet tanks in the Bloody Triange of the Ukraine (June 1941). There were also major defeats in the Spring and Summer of 1942, but the Red army was learning. The Germans did not bag huge numbers of prisoners in their 1942 victories as they had in 1941. The climatic tank battle on the Eastern Front was fought at Kursk, again in the Ukraine. It was the greatest tank battle in history with massive casualties on both sides, but the Red Army tankers prevailed largely because of the weight of numbers. The Soviets could take losses, the badly depleted Wehrmacht could not. And by the time of Kursk, American Lend cLease trucks were reaching the Red Army in huge quntities, giving the Soviets a mobility that the Germans never had. The U.S. Army also had a poorly developed concept of tank warfare and an unjustified confidence in the M-4 Sherman. The basic idea at first was something akin to a calvalry charge. This chaged in North Africa , especially after Kaserine. Again it was the Germans that taught the Americans. By the time the Allies rentered the Continent (June 1944) with the D-Day landings, tank tactics had to adjust for increasingly effective infantry anti-tank weapons.

Countries

Only four World War II countries built appreciable numbers of tanks and other armored vehicles: America, Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union. And the really large numbers of tanks were built by America and the Soviet Unioin. Ntitain and the Germans built smaller muners. The Italkians and Hoanaese built much smaller numbers. Most of the major combatant countries built tanks of widely varied desisigns which they used or supplied to their allies. The British built and effectively used tanks in World War I. Budget contraints severly limited production during the inter-war years. The Soviets built tanks in large numbers before the German invasion, but many were ineffective light variants. It was their T-34 medium tanke that shicjed the Germans after they invaded. The French built some excellent tanks, but did not equip them with radios or develop effective tank tactics. The Germans won the battle in West not because the had substantial technical or numerical superiority, but because they worked out the most effective tactics--Blitzkrieg. They also worked out the importance of anti-tank guns in tank battles and had a highly effective gun available. The Germans after encountrring the Soviet T-34 on the Eastern Front, they produced some superb tanks, especially the Panthers, but were unable to mass produce them. The famed Tiger tanks were heavily gunned and armored, but not very mobile. The Italians produced light tanks that were ineffective. The Americans were far behind in tank technology. The M-4 Sherman proved to be very vulnerable, but was highly mobile and was produced in quanity. The Shermans had the advantage of air support. It was, however, not until the final moths of the War that better tanks that could slug it out with the Panthers reached American tankers.

Battles

There were relatively few tank bsttles in the West during the first year of the war. The Poles had few tanks. The British and French did have tanks. The French dispersed their tanks and could not stop the massed German Panzer attack through the Ardennes. Moving through the Ardenees was the most difficult aspect of the Battle for France. A British tank attack was broken up by German 88-mm guns. The great tank battles involving large numbers of tanks took place on the Eastern Front. One of the first great tank battle occurred in thr northwestern Ukraine an the onset of Barbarossa--the fight for the Bloody Trangle (June 1941). It was a weeklong clash of more than 2,000 Soviet and German tanks. The German Army Group South were surprised with the armored strength they encountered in the Ukraine. The Germans methodically and decisively defeated the Soviets who had not yet mastered armored tactics. The German victory opened the way to Moscow, but time table of Barbarossa was disrupted. [Kamenir] Army Group North and Center moved east much more rapidly. The gratest tank battle of all time was fought by the Germans and Soviet again in the Ukraine--Kursk (July 1943). It proved to be last German summer offensive on the the Eastern Front. The German attack was delayed by Hitler so that new German tanks, better able to deal with the T-34, could reach the battlefields. This gave the Soviets time to prepare their defenses in deopth and strength. Tanks played a major role in many other important World War II battles. There were important tank battles in North Africa, but involved much smaller mumbers. Also the nature of tank battles changed. Anti-tank artillery became increasingly important. And infantry weapons were developed capavle of killing tanks, such as the American bazooka and the Germn Panzerfaust. American tanks plyed a major role in the liberation pf France, but the breakout came from an America air strike which obliterated a German armored division. There was also important armored engagements during the Nattle of the Bulge.

Airpower


Infantry Anti-tank Weapons

A major development in the later phase of the war was the development of light anti-tank weapons like the bazooka and Panzefaust that gave the infantryman the capability of stopping tanks. Tanks needed protective infantry which tended to alow them down.

Sources

Kamenir, Victor J. The Bloody Triangle: The Defeat of Soviet Armor in the Ukraine, June 1941, 320p.

Zaloga, Steven. Armored Thunderboldt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, 360p.






CIH -- WW II







Navigate the CIHWorld WarbII Section:
[Return to Main World War II land technology/tactics weapons page]
[Return to Main World War II land technology/tactics page]
[Return to Main World War II technology/tactics page]
[Return to Main World War II page]
[Biographies] [Campaigns] [Children] [Countries] [Deciding factors] [Diplomacy] [Geo-political crisis] [Economics] [Home front] [Intelligence]
[POWs] [Resistance] [Race] [Refugees] [Technology]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Return to Main World War II page]
[Return to Main war essay page]





Created: 3:06 AM 1/20/2010
Last updated: 8:28 AM 6/8/2020