Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Author Topic: German tanks/ vehicles Question  (Read 8774 times)

Offline Miles Dixon

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
German tanks/ vehicles Question
« on: July 13, 2013, 08:47:15 AM »
Just wondering and thought of asking to get some knowledge.

It seems that German, or maybe Hitler know how to design the name of the WW2 tanks quite well. From the weakest tank, perhaps Marder, Panzer, till the strongest, Tiger, are all ended with -er or maybe use the name of animals, for the latter ones.

1. How do they classify the tanks based on the name and the origins and the variations, like the Panzer I till Panzer IV, (and Panzer 35 and 38, and I heard there is Panzer X), and Marder I to Marder III, Tiger I to II (and is King Tiger exists)? Is it based on the production line or the effectiveness against the allied army? So far I have searched the tanks have a lot of variants, even the StuH and StuG. The only tank that has no variant is the Panther (at least I never heard about Panther II).

2. Is FlakPanzer II and III exists? So far the Flakpanzer IV is the popular ones and they have a lot of variants, such as Wirbelwind, Ostwind, and Kugelblitz.

3. Since they are in the Axis faction, do Germans also utilize demolish vehicles like the Japanese did, such as kamikaze tactics?

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2013, 12:17:01 PM »
Quote
1. How do they classify the tanks based on the name and the origins and the variations, like the Panzer I till Panzer IV, (and Panzer 35 and 38, and I heard there is Panzer X), and Marder I to Marder III, Tiger I to II (and is King Tiger exists)? Is it based on the production line or the effectiveness against the allied army? So far I have searched the tanks have a lot of variants, even the StuH and StuG. The only tank that has no variant is the Panther (at least I never heard about Panther II).
Suggestive names like Marder and Tiger and Nashorn came in 1941. Those names help to identity different tank versions and those name were better for propaganda and troop training. Everyone knows those suggestive names. When u are talking about a Tiger everyone know what tank you are talking about.
About the variants: During production tank models were improved, details were changed. Changes on a tank in production caused different subversion names (Ausführungen). The basic element is the chassis. As long as a tank had no new chassis but different modification (like bigger gun, better armor, ect) it is a subversion (Ausführung). When chassis is changed you have a different tank (e.g. Panzer III and Panzer IV). Sometimes the name was modified when u want to point out that this tank had a special combat role like the StuH (Sturmhaubitze - assault artillery).
All in all there is no golden rule to set a new tank or number for a german tank. For the most parts a new chassis got a new tank number and tank name.
And Panther had a number of subversions ;) The first version was Ausf. D followed by Ausf. A (Ausf. A because germans said that this is the perfect running version of the Panther tank in comparison with the rushed and faultily version of the first Panther tanks).

Quote
Is FlakPanzer II and III exists? So far the Flakpanzer IV is the popular ones and they have a lot of variants, such as Wirbelwind, Ostwind, and Kugelblitz.
The name of the Flak-tanks depends on their chassis. Flakpanzer I is a flak tank on the outdated Panzer I chassis. Same with Wirbelwind, Ostwind and Kugelblitz. They are Flakpanzers IV
because they use the chassis of the Panzer IV. There was no Flak tank on Panzer II or III chassis and thats the reason why there is no "Flakpanzer II" oder "Flakpanzer III".

Quote
Since they are in the Axis faction, do Germans also utilize demolish vehicles like the Japanese did, such as kamikaze tactics?
German army was against suicide/kamikaze tactics. Germans think that german soldiers are always better than the enemy. When they fight with heroic and with faith they will win the
battle and the war. There is just one small exception: In 1945 the Luftwaffe trained a small number of kamikaze fighters. There mission was to destroy all bridges of the river Oder to
stop red army ambush against Berlin. When red army crossed the Oder near Seelower Highs mission was obsoleted and outdated and was dropped. All in all kamikaze was no
part of military plans and strategies. German soldiers and german weapons are key element for victory and not kamikaze attacks.
May the force be with you.

Offline Miles Dixon

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2013, 01:49:43 PM »
That sure rings the bell, no wonder they use such unique names for their tanks and have much weaponry compared to Allied units.

Wondering they use the self-explosive unit, Goliath for what reason, as that is also a part of suicidal tactics (though it is only a remote-controlled unit).

And they also categorizes Panther as a medium tank that only combats the T34 (lol). According to what I have read, they stated that Panther don't have any other version is that Panther is not so useful if compared to Tiger and cost-wise to Panzer or StuG.

I do think that German army is quite efficient when it deals with artillery, is there any other mobile artillery other than the Hummel, Wespe or maybe the semi-artillery taker, like Sdfkz Stuka, or Hotchkiss Stuka, and Werbelnerfer?

Is the Scorched Earth tactics a common strategy to use for German, as I know that British used this a lot when the invasion of Japan to the South East Asia countries?

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2013, 02:17:27 PM »
Quote
Wondering they use the self-explosive unit, Goliath for what reason, as that is also a part of suicidal tactics (though it is only a remote-controlled unit).
When u talked out of kamikaze i thought u asked for german suicide commandos because for me kamikaze is a kind of suicide war fare.
Germans used demolition tanks to deal with obstacles and enemies tanks (jeah. Goliath was an anti tank weapon ^^) but demolition tanks arent kamikaze or suicide tanks/weapons.
Goliath was a onetime weapon but demolition tanks like the Borgward was resued.

Quote
And they also categorizes Panther as a medium tank that only combats the T34 (lol). According to what I have read, they stated that Panther don't have any other version is that Panther is not so useful if compared to Tiger and cost-wise to Panzer or StuG.
That is bullshit  ;) Panther was a medium tank (or in german term "mittelschwer" -> medium heavy) and should replace Panzer IV as main battle tank. Panther should deal enemies tanks. It was one of the most balanced and best weapons in german arsenal. Thats the reason why german army planed to build up a lot of different weapon systems on Panther chassis like tank destroyers (Jagdpanther and Jagdpanther II), anti air tanks (Flakpanzer V) and self propelled artillery (Panther artillery gun - at the moment a lof of peole know this system under the name "Geschützwagen Panther" from WoT).

Quote
I do think that German army is quite efficient when it deals with artillery, is there any other mobile artillery other than the Hummel, Wespe or maybe the semi-artillery taker, like Sdfkz Stuka, or Hotchkiss Stuka, and Werbelnerfer?
- Grille (on Pz38t chassis)
- Sturmpanzer I (Pz I chassis)
- Sturmpanzer II (Pz II chassis)
- 10.5 cm leFH18(Sf) auf Geschuetzwagen Lorraine Schlepper (f) (a german howitzer on a french tank chassis - field modification 21st PzDivision - Normandy -> see Major Alfred Becker and his work shop company)
- 10.5 cm leFh 16 auf Bren Carrier (a german howitzer on captured british bren carriers) (PICUTER here - was used on the eastern front).
- ect...
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 02:21:15 PM by Lord Rommel »
May the force be with you.

Offline Jeff 'Robotnik' W.

  • Developer
  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Forum historian
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2013, 01:53:48 AM »
Quote
And they also categorizes Panther as a medium tank that only combats the T34 (lol). According to what I have read, they stated that Panther don't have any other version is that Panther is not so useful if compared to Tiger and cost-wise to Panzer or StuG.?

The panther probably kept its classification as a medium tank because it was supposed to have the same armor thickness as the T34, but hitler or someone ordered more to be added on. This is good or bad depending on the way you look at it: on one hand it was more protected, on the other hand it was less mobile and had some big issues when it was first rushed out into battle. When asked what kind of tanks german troops wanted, they would have preferred a fast and easy to use tank with a gun that could defeat any other tank. apperantly heavy armor was not that important, makes sense seeing how they were on the defensive a lot, and how it was fast tanks which made the blitzkrieg possible. Though tank weight classifications basically became obsolete after the war with the introduction of the main battle tank, though the panther fits the definition of one very well. The only thing that it lacked was an effective HE round; It performed rather poorly against infantry and defensive structures in comparison to shorter guns in the 75mm range

Still, the panther was one of the tanks made during the war which went on to influence future tank designs because of its overall balance (which itself was influenced by the T34). It was cheaper and lighter than the tiger yet outperformed it in many different aspects. Despite meant to replace the panzer IV, the panzer IV still remained the backbone of the german army for the rest of the war

The panther could be seen as cost ineffective in comparison to the stug though, but that was because Germany was mostly on the defensive by then, and the stug showed its cost effectiveness when on the defense and waiting in ambush. In the offensive role, its lack of a turret was a very big disadvantage and one of the reasons assault gun type tanks are rarely ever produced today. A panther on the other had could perform either duty quite well

Quote
3. Since they are in the Axis faction, do Germans also utilize demolish vehicles like the Japanese did, such as kamikaze tactics?

I actually remember reading somewhere that the Germans had produced prototypes of a V1 which were to be used like kamikazi's. They added space for a pilot though. The plans never went through as far as i can remember.

Quote
1. How do they classify the tanks based on the name and the origins and the variations, like the Panzer I till Panzer IV, (and Panzer 35 and 38, and I heard there is Panzer X), and Marder I to Marder III, Tiger I to II (and is King Tiger exists)? Is it based on the production line or the effectiveness against the allied army? So far I have searched the tanks have a lot of variants, even the StuH and StuG. The only tank that has no variant is the Panther (at least I never heard about Panther II).

Rommel explained this one rather well. The panzer 35t and 38t however were called that because it was a reference to the names they had when under Czechoslovakian production (under them it was called the LT vz. 38 or LT vz. 35) The t at the end says that the equipment originated from Czechoslovakia. They added abbreviations to the end of other captured equipment as well (f= french, a=american, r- russian, e= britain, and so on.)

The panzer 38t was

Quote
I do think that German army is quite efficient when it deals with artillery, is there any other mobile artillery other than the Hummel, Wespe or maybe the semi-artillery taker, like Sdfkz Stuka, or Hotchkiss Stuka, and Werbelnerfer?

It depends what you mean by efficient. In making self proppelled artillery, they made some good vehicles and did an excellent job of converting captured vehicles to carry them. When it came to the howitzer themselves and firing barrages, ehhh. They were constantly struggling to try and get their artillery to match that of soviet pieces, and even tried some rocket assisted projectiles to try and increase the range. They also envied the british 25 pounder for its impressive rate of fire and range as well. They certainly had monstrous pieces such as the Dora railway gun and those massive mortars, but it was the smaller ones that won in the end and in some cases even outranged these monsters. The introduction of the proximity fuse by the allies during the battle of the bulge basically gave the allies unparalleled superiority in artillery support.

Planning barrages and accuracy also did not match that of the other allies, i cant remember exactly why but i think it involved communication through the ranks. Apparently American soldiers could request and spot for barrages all the way down to the squad level, because each squad carried a radio (or something like that). I think Finland may have been the best during the war when it came to artillery, with them using a wide variety of different artillery with good precision, and were even capable of coordinated deadly Time-on-Target barrages.



As for other mobile artillery pieces that the germans had access too... Well lets just say that what LordRommel provided is only the tip of the iceberg. oh they really had a wide selection of those hehe

Quote
Is the Scorched Earth tactics a common strategy to use for German, as I know that British used this a lot when the invasion of Japan to the South East Asia countries?

Definitely. Once they were on the defensive and retreating from germany they definitely did this. Many tanks and other large equipment came with instructions and small explosives; the instructions said how to use the explosives to destroy the equipment in case there was no chance of bringing the equipment with them while retreating. that way the enemy could not use it.

They also had special vehicles or equipment to do this too. i remember once seeing a picture of a vehicle with a large plow like thing on the back that was meant to destroy and railroad tracks behind it as it travelled down the tracks

Hitler even once ordered one of his generals to raze all of Paris to the ground and destroy the Eiffel tower. Thankfully the general refused the order, and because of that the Eiffel tower and other structures still stand there to this day. However, many other cities were wiped off the map when receiving such orders by special army engineers, and was even done as a form of reprisal in some cases for partisan attacks.

Quote
That sure rings the bell, no wonder they use such unique names for their tanks and have much weaponry compared to Allied units.

They also had so much weaponry because of the massive amounts of material and military equipment they captured when they invaded france and russia. France and Britain were being overcome so quickly that they simply had no time to bring equipment with and the equipment the brits brought to help france was left behind (the amounts of which were very large and resulted in a very bad situation for them), and the same with Russia when operation Barbarossa began. Other countries such as Czechoslovakia also left a variety of military equipment behind and intact.

Because the amount of equipment was large and ammunition and spares were plenty, Germany decided to put them to good use, and converted many of them to different purposes of all kinds which made for an even larger variety of weapons. In some cases the vehicles or weapons were of good enough quality that they still produced ammunition and parts for them by themselves or modified to use German ammunition (some examples i can think of are the panzer38t, 40mm bofors in some instances, the 75mm ZiS3, the 75 and 85mm Russian AA guns, and a some others i can remember). Manuals were also made and produced as well on how to operate and repair them

This became a bit of a logistical nightmare later in the war however when spare parts became rare to find and many tanks were simply abandoned when they broke down since parts just couldn't be obtained.


I may be a little off on a few of these details, my memory can be a bit fuzzy sometimes.

Offline ubermensche

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2013, 05:13:08 AM »
German army was against suicide/kamikaze tactics. Germans think that german soldiers are always better than the enemy. When they fight with heroic and with faith they will win the
battle and the war. There is just one small exception: In 1945 the Luftwaffe trained a small number of kamikaze fighters. There mission was to destroy all bridges of the river Oder to
stop red army ambush against Berlin. When red army crossed the Oder near Seelower Highs mission was obsoleted and outdated and was dropped. All in all kamikaze was no
part of military plans and strategies. German soldiers and german weapons are key element for victory and not kamikaze attacks.

The Luftwaffe also trained the Sonderkommando ELBE who were pilots that rammed stripped down, lightened fighters into allied bombers. Technicially speaking, the pilots were supposeto bail out right before or after impact but obviously, this didn't always work out as planned.

As for tanks, many people tend to underestimate the value of mobility. People tend to see tanks as mobile artillery pieces whereas their main ability is to be able to pierce through enemy lines. That being said, it is vital for tanks to be able to serve under long periods of stress, in other words for a long period without breaking down. If your tank needs to have spare parts replaced often, then inevitably your offensive will stall. And don't forget that a tank that always needs maintenance is a bad tank, no matter how great the design.

And thus Tigers can be seen as more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon: their big guns and armor and reduced mobility make them nothing more than moving blockhouses. And while they were never really called on to perform such a role, I doubt that they would be able to perform good strategic offensives the way Panzer III, IV and to a certain extent even Panthers would. All-in-all Tigers are a useless waste of ressources that could've been better used to produce more Panzer IVs or Panthers.
"These new recruits are the caca!"
"Our tanks are far better than that cheap Allied scheisse!"
"Screw this weapon, man!"

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2013, 11:18:51 AM »
Quote
And thus Tigers can be seen as more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon: their big guns and armor and reduced mobility make them nothing more than moving blockhouses. And while they were never really called on to perform such a role, I doubt that they would be able to perform good strategic offensives the way Panzer III, IV and to a certain extent even Panthers would. All-in-all Tigers are a useless waste of ressources that could've been better used to produce more Panzer IVs or Panthers.
I think Tiger was a balanced weapon. It wasnt a revolutionary tank but it was a balanced one.
Everyone say that a Tiger cant do maneuver performance. But out of my view they dont need to do long range maneuvers. They are an excellent breakthrough weapons
and german tank commanders know this.
One of the battle doctrines for a Tiger in the offensive was the idea of the hammer to break enemies lines. Tiger smash down the heavy fortified position and silence all of
the heavy anti tanks guns. When Tiger has open a gap into enemies front line, Pz III, IV and V can rush throw this gap and do their "Panzer warfare". And when they find
a new line they call the Tiger to repeat it.
May the force be with you.

Offline Jeff 'Robotnik' W.

  • Developer
  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Forum historian
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2013, 12:12:57 PM »
Quote
And thus Tigers can be seen as more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon: their big guns and armor and reduced mobility make them nothing more than moving blockhouses. And while they were never really called on to perform such a role, I doubt that they would be able to perform good strategic offensives the way Panzer III, IV and to a certain extent even Panthers would. All-in-all Tigers are a useless waste of ressources that could've been better used to produce more Panzer IVs or Panthers.
I think Tiger was a balanced weapon. It wasnt a revolutionary tank but it was a balanced one.
Everyone say that a Tiger cant do maneuver performance. But out of my view they dont need to do long range maneuvers. They are an excellent breakthrough weapons
and german tank commanders know this.
One of the battle doctrines for a Tiger in the offensive was the idea of the hammer to break enemies lines. Tiger smash down the heavy fortified position and silence all of
the heavy anti tanks guns. When Tiger has open a gap into enemies front line, Pz III, IV and V can rush throw this gap and do their "Panzer warfare". And when they find
a new line they call the Tiger to repeat it.


Speaking of which, i think that is also how the soviets used their IS-2's as well.

Quote
As for tanks, many people tend to underestimate the value of mobility. People tend to see tanks as mobile artillery pieces whereas their main ability is to be able to pierce through enemy lines. That being said, it is vital for tanks to be able to serve under long periods of stress, in other words for a long period without breaking down. If your tank needs to have spare parts replaced often, then inevitably your offensive will stall. And don't forget that a tank that always needs maintenance is a bad tank, no matter how great the design.

It seems like that would be the way some crews would have wanted a tank to be designed. It was lighter and faster tanks that made the blitzkreig when germany invaded france. The tiger was more situated for a defenisve role, but as LordRommel posted above they could also be used as a breakthrough to get past defenses. They would have been good against going directly at the maginot line if going around it had not been an option for example. The Tiger would have fit this role well, since there is not much of a rush when your attacking something that isnt moving, so a few breakdowns wouldnt be too much of an issue

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2013, 02:18:50 PM »
Just a small note about german engines:
German tank engines were produced by Maybach. There are just a small number of tanks in german arsenal without Maybach engine.
Maybach himself informed tank crews that they will need a new engine every 500km. In reality most of the Maybach engines
survived more than 1500km (e.g. Tiger tanks). So german army know that they will need a lot of supplies and materials and out of my
view it is impressive that the logistic was able to deal with this requirements. German tanks got more and more problems
when western alliies and russian troops started to hunt german work shops, repair shops and logistic units. When allies bombarded
german main repair group during the battle of the bulge the casualties of german tanks exploded! The key element of the tank
is the logistical support  ;) U are able do perform a "deep penetrating" warfare as long as u are able to support and supply your tanks ^^
May the force be with you.

Offline Miles Dixon

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2013, 02:28:10 PM »
5. From my understandings, it seems that the Tiger is more into defensive tank due to the armor and the rounds that they can use, it seems that they can differ from AT rounds, Armor Piercing Rounds and HE Rounds. Standard AT Guns cannot destroy them easily except using weaponry or mines to destroy the tracks of Tiger. Wonder if it is true and how they use such different ammunition since that in a war an ammunition is quite limited.

6. StuG mobility is much higher than Tiger as well. But how do they design that by using fixed turret, or the self-propelled turrets, like how to differentiate between StuG and StuH (I see they use the same chasis, same turret, only one can lift and one not, with different projectiles)? Cannot really find the difference between tanks and assault guns, as both are used for offensive operations, so far it is quite rare that they used tanks for defense.

7. Can it be said that they produced so much variants, and to differentiate them is because most of the weaponry they used, like tanks are abandoned, so the Allies just capture and use their own paint/ decal with their spare parts, and that is why the Allied have less tank variations compared to Germans, like US they are mostly Shermans, except M26, and for Brits, they have only Churchills and Priest?

8. And they also used Porsche engines for the latter versions of the tanks, right?

I guess that is why there are so many Allies faction to take on against the Axis, especially Germans.

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2013, 02:51:55 PM »
5. From my understandings, it seems that the Tiger is more into defensive tank due to the armor and the rounds that they can use, it seems that they can differ from AT rounds, Armor Piercing Rounds and HE Rounds. Standard AT Guns cannot destroy them easily except using weaponry or mines to destroy the tracks of Tiger. Wonder if it is true and how they use such different ammunition since that in a war an ammunition is quite limited.
Tiger can be used in offensives too. All in all the tank is an offensive weapon in general. But Tiger with their gun and optics were able to deal with enemy's tank much better than the old and weaker tanks like the PzIII with the 5cm KwK. About the munition: tanks had different kind of munition sometimes depending on their combat role. E.g. a british Matilda tank had no explosive rounds, just armor piercing rounds. Thats the reason why a number of Matildas were destroyed by Infantry and not by tanks. Matilda werent able to deal with "soft targets". One of the most important innovation during the war was the hollow charge round because this round was able to penetrate much more armor than normal armor piercing rounds. All in all there is a lot of different munition for different missions.

6. StuG mobility is much higher than Tiger as well. But how do they design that by using fixed turret, or the self-propelled turrets, like how to differentiate between StuG and StuH (I see they use the same chasis, same turret, only one can lift and one not, with different projectiles)? Cannot really find the difference between tanks and assault guns, as both are used for offensive operations, so far it is quite rare that they used tanks for defense.
When StuG was introduced it was an infantry support gun. It shouldnt support tanks. Later in war the StuG proved to be an excellent tank hunter because of the strong 7,5cm StuK and the low silhouette. So StuG was pushed more and more in the role of a tank destroyer. Because of this change infantry lost a lot of its StuGs and "supporting fire power". To fill this gap the StuG III was upgraded with a 10,5cm howitzer. The StuH was born. StuHs were assigned to infantry formation and fulfill their old combat role as an infantry support gun.

7. Can it be said that they produced so much variants, and to differentiate them is because most of the weaponry they used, like tanks are abandoned, so the Allies just capture and use their own paint/ decal with their spare parts, and that is why the Allied have less tank variations compared to Germans, like US they are mostly Shermans, except M26, and for Brits, they have only Churchills and Priest?
Alliied had much more tank variants than german army had. But germany used more of its tank variants in front line service. Alliies tried to use a standardized vehicle pool to limit supply problems and logistical problems. About british armor: british army used a lot of different tanks on the battlefield. In Normandy they used Stuarts, Shermans, Cromwells, Centaurs, Churchills and other weapons systems like land and lease Priest or Sexton artillery or Crusader Anti Air tanks. British vehicle pool had more different tanks than USA. So british army had more problems to supply their tank forces in field - in comparison with US tank forces.

8. And they also used Porsche engines for the latter versions of the tanks, right?

I guess that is why there are so many Allies faction to take on against the Axis, especially Germans.
Well. Only the Elefant used an engine by Porsche. A number of german tanks used czech Skoda engines like e.g. the JgPz38 t (often called "Hetzer" [but that wasnt the name of this tank xD])
or other tanks on Pz38t chassis (like Marders or Grills).
May the force be with you.

Offline Miles Dixon

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2013, 05:32:08 PM »
Guess that explained a lot :>

And found out yesterday, wondering is it true that there are also halftracks, is also modified as tanks, like Sdfkz 265 and Sdfkz 111, 121 and 141? Or tanks are originated from halftracks since they are using the same tracks, and some with the same engines?

And is it correct to say that longer tank turrets fires longer distances, like Panzer IV with 7.5 KwK40 and 7.5 StuK (the name of weaponry are quite confusing), or Tiger that have much longer turret than Panzer IV and StuG?

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2013, 07:12:00 PM »
Guess that explained a lot :>

And found out yesterday, wondering is it true that there are also halftracks, is also modified as tanks, like Sdfkz 265 and Sdfkz 111, 121 and 141? Or tanks are originated from halftracks since they are using the same tracks, and some with the same engines?
I dont understand what u try to ask? SdKfz. 265, 111 are different versions of the Panzer I. Same chassis. No halftracks (because they have no tires. SdKfz. 121 is the indenture number of Pz II and 141 the indenture number for PzIII.
About half tracks; german half tracks were modified to support the infantry they transported on the battlefield. Keep in mind that tanks cant be everywhere on the battlefield. To provide soldiers with mobile firepower most of the world war 2 nations modified different vehicles to support infantry attacks. Germans used tanks and halftracks. The Sd.Kfz 251 was the main armored transport of the german armored infantry. To improve german infantry firepower SdKfz. 251 was the best choice because it was available. There a lot of different versions of the SdKfz. 251 for different combat roles. U can find them on wikipedia or via google.

And is it correct to say that longer tank turrets fires longer distances, like Panzer IV with 7.5 KwK40 and 7.5 StuK (the name of weaponry are quite confusing), or Tiger that have much longer turret than Panzer IV and StuG?
???
A gun need some space for its components. A big turret allows u to use a bigger and stronger gun. E.g. there were ideas to upgrade Panzer III with a long barrel 7,5cm KwK. Thats wasnt possible because the turret and the ring mount were too small. Thats the reason why PzIII and IV changed their role. Panzer IV was bigger and had a bigger turret. German engineers were able to upgrade the PzIV with a longer 7,5cm KwK.
The maximum fire range didnt depend on the length of the barrel. The propelling charge is the factor for the fire range. Bigger propelling charge = bigger fire range.
The length of the barrel is important for the speed and the physical energy of a round. Long barrel -> more speed and more energy -> more penetration.

Think it is your first time u try to learn something about tanks and armored warfare?
I dont know where are u from but i think there are a lot of books in your language about armored warfare.
Think they will help u more because Internet datas and debates of "tank experts" can confuse u more than a good old book ^^
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 07:23:36 PM by Lord Rommel »
May the force be with you.

Offline Miles Dixon

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2013, 02:18:02 PM »
I am located in Malaysia and I don't think I can find a lot of good books about that, especially if involved in weaponry. And yes it is my first time as this kind of topic is really out in my place, even hobby collecting can be quite weird at here too >.< I think start off to learn a bit about German weaponry because they are easier to understand compared to the US or British tanks.

For the previous question, since usually if the vehichle started/ named with Sdfkz, it will automatically refers to halftracks, like Kattenkrad (Sdfkz 2). Then, they Sdfkz version 26X is command tanks and something like that, so it makes quite confused as I thought halftracks are different than tanks.

And based on the rule, higher velocity turret means higher recoil too, right?

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: German tanks/ vehicles Question
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2013, 04:12:48 PM »
The german "Sd.Kfz" number were indenture number. All vehicles of the german army got a special registration number. Sd.Kfz. means "Sonderkraftfahrzeug" -> special vehicle.
So Tanks and cars and trucks and halftracks; all of them got a indenture number in german military system. Today a lot of people dont use the indenture number for tanks because
most of the tanks are well known and dont need a indenture number to be identified.
E.g. [like i said] the indenture number Sd.Kfz. -number of the Panzer II ist 121 and the indenture number of the Panzer III is 141. Both are tanks (obviously) and both had an indenture number.
So german system is well structured and organized ^^ We Prussians love bureaucracy :D

Quote
And based on the rule, higher velocity turret means higher recoil too, right?
U mean longer barrel guns have a higher recoil, right?
In general it is correct but during the war engineers of different country developed system to reduce the recoil effect of the tank guns.
German tanks for example used muzzle break to reduce the recoil effect and "recoil brakes" (Rückholbremsen - dont know the english technical term here)
to use the recoil energy to throw out the old round.
There are different ideas and versions in different tanks of different nations ^^
When your english is good u can try to read the Walter J. Spielberger or Thomas L. Jentz books.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 04:18:24 PM by Lord Rommel »
May the force be with you.