Why didn’t the British manufacturer “maultier” halftracks (both armored and unarmored) like the Germans did?
It uses the same Horstmann type suspension system that was _already in use_ on the British light tanks (Mk II thru VIC) and their Bren / Universal carrier and a halftrack design allowed for a much larger load to be carried, (either cargo or troops) compared to their Bren / Universal carrier which could only transport 4 men.
Seems pretty obvious to me that this would have been the way to go, yet the Brits continued for the entire war with the gay Bren / Universal carriers.
Mechanized equipment would have been a waste on bong ground forces as they simply had no vision for modern mobile warfare.
Kayden Williams
This, bongs are the only country so stupid they deliberately made they made their tanks slower on purpose so they wouldn’t outrun the infantry, and gimped their reverse capabilities to prevent them from fleeing the battlefield.
Austin Jones
please tell me you're joking were they really that stupid?
The Brits HAD mechanized infantry right from the start in WWII, the issue was they used the lame and gay Universal Carrier instead of a halftrack, which the Brits could have easily built using the same tracks, suspension and drive-line as the barely useful Universal Carrier.
Do you actually have to ask if a guy glorifying German equipment while also referring to Allied equipment as gay, is making something up?
Dominic King
The British and French had page after page of military doctrine dedicated to a war that ended in 1918. The Germans were the only ones at the time actually fighting a modern war.
Luis Gray
German equipment was overengineered garbage. The US was the only country with good full mechanization, and the USSR produced the most excellent tanks. The idiotic British infantry support tanks doctrine produced some of the most wretched vehicles ever to exist, you don’t have to be a shill for Nazi gear to recognize that.
Kayden Jackson
the infantry advances with the infantry tanks, after getting off the unarmored trucks, british soldiers fight on foot, not from armored personel carriers
the bren was to get to the frontline, not to get into battle with
the germans on the other hand wanted a vehicle that is protected while its keeping up with the panzers, which are fast moving (relatively atleast)
Ethan Johnson
uneducated butthurt chavs, kek
Justin Harris
Again, it wasn't an equipment issue. The bongs just can't into modern mechanized warfare. They had the same equipment as the Americans, so clearly equipment wasn't the issue. It was something else.
Josiah Turner
>the germans on the other hand wanted a vehicle that is protected while its keeping up with the panzers, which are fast moving
Again; the British HAD mechanized infantry carried by Universal Carriers and neither the Germans nor the Americans raced into combat firing from moving halftracks, just like with the the Universal Carriers, the halftracks went as far forward carrying the squad as possible, then the riflemen dismounted and attacked on foot with the halftracks following behind.
The British could have easily also done so, had they developed a halftrack based on the existing suspension and drive line they were already using.
>German equipment was overengineered garbage. The US was the only country with good full mechanization, and the USSR produced the most excellent tanks.
The USSR tanks were only excellent in being simple to produce and easy to replace. They weren't actually good tanks that you would want to sit in as a tank crewman. Same applies to the tanks of the US, especially the Sherman.
What is better for Germany though? A Tiger or Panther. Definitely. For Germany it perfectly fit the heavy tank doctrine of keeping tank crewman alive and not wasting ressources. I often hear people saying Germany would be better off with mass producing the Panzer 4 or a tank like the Sherman/T34. But that's non-sense. Especially with the heavy stress on German infrastructure and resupply routes it wouldn't be possible to maintain this many vehicles. Let alone replace killed tank crewman. Have you ever compared the population count of the allied forces to the Axis ones? Of which only and mostly the German and Austrian population were relevant to begin with.
A war of attrition never ever was the way to go for the Third Reich. They had to conserve ressources, keep their soldiers alive and use special tactics like the Blitzkrieg to have a chance of winning the war. Germany started as a Third World country in 1933. (Due to the treaty of Versailles and the worldwide economic crisis coimbined) They had no economy, no industry and no military. Why do you think they've used so much WW1 equipment up until mid-war? They had to develope new weapons, planes and tanks first. And they did well so.
Cooper Richardson
Why do specialist weapons platoons have separate formations when in combat they get broken up arbitrarily anyway to follow infantry platoons n shiet.?
Jordan Garcia
Bullshit Germany managed to get superb early successes by using tanks mostly inferior to their counteparts except with better comm device and doctrine Most of those tigers and panthers were taken out due to mechanical problems or running out of fumes And if you want to say survivability the Sherman has a much better survivability rate when they patched out the ammo stowage problem
Angel Moore
"The Germans should have made more low quality tanks instead of a few high quality ones":
1) In contrast to the Allies, Germany was lacking soldiers and ressources. Their industry was also constantly bombed, which made it impossible for them to effectively mass produce something like tanks. People would understand this if they would check the Third Reich's land mass, avaible ressources and population and would compare it to Allied (USA and Soviet Union only should be convincing enough) for once. Also up until mid- to late-war their tanks have been produced centralized by single companies instead of decentralized industry production. This was one of the attributes that can be credited to Germany being a Third World country before 1933 and they had to catch up and realize how producing in masses can be achieved best.
2) Germany learned early in the war that the most valueable component of a tank is its crew, so they wanted to keep them alive to effectively operate superior tanks which granted a higher chance of victory. And tanks like the Tiger (especially in the mid-war era when it was introduced), Panther and King Tiger were very good at keeping their tank crewman alive. Please note that in actual history there always were too many tanks but too less crewman to operate them in the Third Reich.
3) They use of heavy tanks was part of Germany's tank doctrine on one hand - and the heavy tank program didn't significantly affected other tank production in any meaningful way. The Tiger/KT have been used as breakthrough tanks, like Steve Martins said. And they did very well so. Their efficiency problems regarding the repairability didn't affect their combat effectiveness. Take a look at modern jets i.e. They're extremely maintenance heavy and it costs a lot manufacture spare parts and to keep them running. Still their efficiency doesn't change their effectiveness and noone would want to pass on them.
Luis Rivera
Not to forget that Panzer units were often accompanied by at least one wehrmacht, often more due to the tank's low visibility and need to repair for long distance travel.
Jose Johnson
Also stories of Tigers and Panthers breaking down are exaggerated to a certain degree. It most certainly had issues, but some of them can be credited to late-war consequences. I.e. Germany was using forced labourer to manufacture certain parts of these tanks. Sabotage wasn't infrequent. Also they had to use low quality materials and rush new tank designs into combat without any teething process due to loosing the war. Also it was getting increasingly hard to resupply the army with oil without holding any major oir fields in late-war.
By the way, if you take into consideration fatal combat damage of the Sherman and T34, they "broke down" just as often as the german counter-parts. Only was it easier to retrieve and repair them due to constantly conquering ground. If Germans lost a vehicle due to whatever reason, they had to leave it behind when retreating.
Dylan Young
>were often accompanied by at least one wehrmacht
Excuse me, what?
Adrian Parker
Full track > half-track Universal carrier is GOAT
Samuel Perry
>In contrast to the Allies, Germany was lacking soldiers and ressources No, Germany lacked weapons and equipment. That's why 80% of their divisions were barely functional and used horse and carriage for transport. They drafted 18 million soldiers into the army meanwhile they had panzer divisions with tank numbers in the single digits. The idea that they had so many weapons but not enough soldiers is asinine.
Jace Rogers
>Germany being a Third World country before 1933 You are retarded, aren't you?
Thomas Scott
>>In contrast to the Allies, Germany was lacking soldiers and ressources >No, Germany lacked weapons and equipment. In what universe does lacking ressources not equal to lacking equipment. Also context my friend. Germany lacked soldiers in contrast to the US and USSR. Going for a war of attrition and mass-producing low quality equipment would've lead to the Third Reich loosing the war much, much faster.
Gabriel Johnson
except that if you look at war production their production surpasses the soviets in term of steel, coal and other stuff The doctrine of providing highly armored tanks reaches an impasse when you realize that the protection itself means little if you cant take your tank to roll out due to their impractical and overdesigned nature Tiger tanks and most of their armored vehicles are at their peak during counter attacks actually, case in point is during the Battle of Kharkov and Battle of Brody, during Kursk even the most endowed panzer division was only able to penetrate 2 lines of the Kursk defense area with local superiority
John Thompson
Germany pre-1933 had to pay reparation payments as high as the whole gross national product each single year. Inflation was hitting them so hard that they had to pay for a single loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow full of money. They were struggling and starving, had no military or any research going on.
Study history some more, mate.
Mason Scott
>In what universe does lacking ressources not equal to lacking equipment Why are you spelling resources with two s's? Also do you think Germany having only 18 million soldiers vs 34 million that USSR had supports your theory that Germany focused on making a few high quality tanks vs many lower quality tanks? Because you are implying that Germany had more tanks than it had soldiers, which is clearly retarded?
Jonathan Flores
>Because you are implying that Germany had more tanks than it had soldiers, which is clearly retarded? Soldiers =/= trained tank crewman
Zachary Ortiz
>Germany pre-1933 had to pay reparation payments as high as the whole gross national product each single year. Congratulations this is the dumbest post ever on Veeky Forums so far and I doubt that it'll be topped in many years.
Tyler Morris
You can always train more tank crewmen, provided you have enough tanks for tank schools of course. Germany lacked tank crews because they lacked tanks, not the other way around.
Eli Bailey
>case in point is during the Battle of Kharkov and Battle of Brody, during Kursk even the most endowed panzer division was only able to penetrate 2 lines of the Kursk defense area with local superiority Wat.
Battle of Kursk:
3000 german tanks against 5000 soviet tanks.
800.000 german soldiers vs. 1.9 Million soviet soldiers.
Soviets are prepared and in defensive position.
At the end of the day, the Russians loose 2000 tanks, the Germans lose about 300 tanks.
The Russians lose about 180.000 soldiers, the Germans about 60.000.
Surely this could've been achieved with inferior tanks, too. Right?
Andrew Perez
Germany lost Kursk.
Isaac Myers
>providing no actual counter-arguments or sources >you're retarded >i win
Nice shitposting.
Carter Gonzalez
You do realize if any nation actually handed over its entire GDP everyone would starve and die, right?
Cameron Sanchez
Of course they did.
>3000 german tanks against 5000 soviet tanks. >800.000 german soldiers vs. 1.9 Million soviet soldiers. >Soviets are prepared and in defensive position.
Levi Jones
>Germany pre-1933 had to pay reparation payments as high as the whole gross national product each single year Germany in the 1920s had the largest GDP in Europe. That seems extremely hard to believe.
Jayden Garcia
The GDP comparison was meant as a roughly value equivalence. They didn't only pay for reparations in fiat money, a lot of it was forced labor or receiving goods the german industry was producing.
Aiden Martin
GDP is not fiat money. It's a measure of a nation's productivity. Anything of value produced in a nation is counted as GDP, both goods and services. If a barber gives someone a hair cut, that's a part of GDP. If a farmer grows a turnip which is later eaten, that's a part of GDP. For a nation to hand over its entire GDP as war reparations, everything it made from grain to veggies to toilet paper would have had to be given over to foreign nations without being used. Every service it provided, such as haircuts, medical services, cleaning, driving buses, would have been used for foreign countries.
Elijah Hall
And in any case Germany paid practically nothing in reparations. Go ahead and google it you fucking imbecile.
Parker Brown
Shouldn't have used the term GDP then. Am not a native english speaker.
James Allen
So reparations as high as 90 billion in todays US dollars are practically nothing apparently.
Adrian Walker
Nominal reparations under Versailles would've been $33 billion in today's dollars. Of that amount, the portion that Germany agreed to actually pay would've been $12 billion in today's dollars. Germany paid less than half of that amount. Meanwhile Germany received more money in aid and loans than it paid.
Jonathan Baker
they barely paid any of it and it was constantly renegotiationed lower and lower
Brayden Carter
Where did you get these numbers from? I don't think this is accounting for the goods that the french got from taking what the Ruhr industrial region produced when the hyperinflation hit Germany.
Dylan Powell
Of course the original reparation count got renegotiated. Germanys economy pretty much collapsed after the government printing more and more money to pay the its debts and reparations. Didn't hinder the allies from taking goods that were produced in Germany though.
Adam Thompson
Yes it is accounting for everything including the goods the French got.
Germany didn't print money to pay its debts. Germany printed money to intentionally inflate its currency.
Mason Rogers
Wehrmacht (wh) is mathematical unit used to describe this.
Is this some tin foil theory which tries to explain how Germany wanted to prevent reparation payments? Why in the name of god should a country intentionally destroy its currency and economy.
Germany has been printing money during the war so it could fiance the on-going first world war. And later on they printed even more money so they could exchange it into foreign currencies/gold and pay for reparations.
By 1923 there have been 50,000,000,000,000 Mark notes. You could buy yourself 10 bucks worth of US dollars with it.
Dylan Howard
>Battle of Kursk: >3000 german tanks against 5000 soviet tanks. >At the end of the day, the Russians loose 2000 tanks, the Germans lose about 300 tanks. >Surely this could've been achieved with inferior tanks, too. Right?
If by "inferior" you mean lower cost then yes, the Germans could have done better at Kursk (and WWII in general) by building Stug IIIs and improved Panzer IVs instead of Tigers.
For the 1354 Tigers Germany built during the war, they could have had 4508 Stug IIIs instead.
heres the thing, the british did use a fuck ton of universal carriers, they also used a fuck ton of trucks, pretty much every unit had its vehicles.
the germans had a few very mechanised units and a whole fuck ton of horses, frankly the british had a greater degree of motorisation by far
Evan Campbell
The point of the thread isn’t British vs. Germans, it’s why didn’t the British develop a halftrack when they already had a viable drive-line and suspension on-hand, when the advantages of a halftrack should have been obvious them and especially when your enemies and allies are using far more effective halftracks.
And also in the broader sense; why did British tanks and armored vehicles suck so badly in WWII.
I'm not sure what your point is. You asked in the op why the Brits continued to use universal carriers the entire war instead of using half-tracks. Well, they did and you are retarded. Please lurk more, don't post again.
Andrew Stewart
The Brits _continued_ wasting time, money and effort (and blood) on shitty Universal Carriers when they could have simply made far better halftrack versions using the same drive-line and suspension.
Because the UC was designed for carrying a smaller amount for a smaller group of men. By spreading out their supplies they limited the total negative fallout of losing one. The loss of a halftrack that carries supplies for 30 men is greater than the loss of a single UC that supplies 10 men.
What kind of autistic manchild puts a reconnaissance units supplies all in a single larger vehicle instead of several smaller ones? Oh that's right, the Germans.
Matthew Allen
Disagreed. The heavy tank program (including the King Tiger and Panther) were very important to the Third Reich. See: Germany neither had the same manpower, nor did they have as many resources as the US/USSR. Also their mass-production capabilities have been constantly hindered with by non-stop allied bombing raids on factories, re-supply lines, etc.
Refueling tanks has been always a problem for the Wehrmacht. They didn't have major oil fields on their own territory, and the ones they got hold of always were in fought-over regions. And while this might contradict itself with using tanks that have higher fuel consumption, you can't ignore the effectiveness that tanks like the Tiger brought to the battlefield.
After its introduction, there habe been several months of combat in which the allies didn't have any anti-tank weaponry being able to deal with the Tiger. The Tiger had way better kill ratios than lower cost tanks, and was way better at keeping its crewman alive and resources not going to be wasted by fatal combat damage.
It's true though that the Tiger tank became obsolete later in the war, when the Panther and King Tiger had been introduced. But at this point the Germans have been using anything they still had access to.
I can only repeat: A war of attrition has never been the way to go for the Third Reich. They would've been stomped way, way sooner than they managed to do in actual history.
Probably a production issue. Universal carriers are cheap and can be mass produced, British industry may have struggled to churn out more complicated halftracks or there may have just been a perception that it is too intensive to refit every division that uses them.
Blake Perez
> Disagreed. The heavy tank program (including the King Tiger and Panther) were very important to the Third Reich.
The Tiger (and Panther) was ultimately a net loss for the Germans, as the resources and effort put into that program could have and should have been used to build improved versions of existing armored vehicles and more of them, getting them into action sooner where they'd have more of an effect on the war.
Simple math shows that an additional 4500 Stugs would have been of more value then 1350 Tigers.
I'm dying to see this simple math (it's simple after all, so you should be able to post it)
Joshua Johnson
>I'm dying to see this simple math >(it's simple after all, so you should be able to post it)
Already posted it; An additional 4500 Stugs would have been of more value then 1350 Tigers.
The minor advantage in firepower and armor protection the Tiger provided did not compensate for the loss in the production of other vehicles like the Stug and Panzer IV, which were more than enough to deal with Allied armor.
> British industry may have struggled to churn out more complicated halftracks
There a point to be made that a piece of equipment already in production is of more value then the delay in introducing a new piece of equipment, except a British halftrack wouldn’t have delayed production much at all, as the tracks, drive-line, trans and engine were already in production and the armored cab and body is simple to make.
Quality IS of value and shouldn’t have been discarded for the expediency of slightly faster production.
>Quality IS of value and shouldn’t have been discarded for the expediency of slightly faster production.
But the universal carrier was capable of being outfitted to fit many roles e.g MG carrier, Anti tank, AA or just regular truck. It really was universal and there was no urgent need for a more complicated halftrack
Samuel Richardson
this is some retarded arguement, fresh crews often broken down their euqipment since their training was hasty and not enough experience, theres a recorded instance where a Tiger B shoot into back of the Tiger B infront of it in the column while moving to combat area
Thomas Taylor
Have you completely ignored the manpower/fuel issues brought up by another user in A highly significant number of vehicles were lost by lack of fuel, now you're proposing to produce MORE vehicles that require an even greater amount? Not to mention manpower.
Jace Watson
>except a British halftrack wouldn’t have delayed production much at all This is just conjecture. You're also wildly overestimating the resources available to the War Office. Half of the Tizard transfer was motivated by technology they had no capacity to expand on themselves.
Angel Perry
Most Tigers were lost due to lack of spare parts or fuel in late-war when German logistics were strongly crippled. This hasn't been a problem when the Tiger got introduced on the central European war theater. Also yet again don't forget that fuel wasn't the only issue, but also limited resources and manpower in contrast to the allied forces. The Tiger tank had great combat effectiveness and was a major factor towards keeping valuable tank crewman alive (which the Third Reich later on had problems to allocate and train), as well as putting the resources to good use. The US and USSR could afford loosing 10 fully manned Shermans or T34 without any struggle to replace them both from a mass production standpoint as well as when it comes to manpower. The Third Reich couldn't.
Later on the heavy-tank program has been further developed by the Panther, which in fact has been transported everywhere on rails. As well as the King Tiger, whose fuel consumption was way lower than the of the Tiger and in line with heavy vehicles of the US/USSR.
"One day a Tiger Royal tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like Tiger, we would all be home today." - Tank commander Sergeant Clyde D. Brunson, 1945
At the end of the war, there were great struggle in the Third Reich to continue mass-production of any kind with shrinking available resources, heavily bombed factories, massive problems in finding potential tank crewman and training them sufficiently.
The US or USSR where nowhere near forces of equivalent power when compared to the Third Reich. In 1944 one German soldier caused an average loss of 7,78 Soviet soldiers for one German casualty. The Third Reich has beat the USSR many times from a military viewpoint, but yet ultimately lost strategically.
Elijah Rivera
>like the Stug and Panzer IV, which were more than enough to deal with Allied armor. Well, that's the thing. "More than enough" simply wasn't enough when facing way larger Great Powers like the Third Reich did with the US and USSR. With a population count not less than 200% of your own, much greater industrial mass-production capabilities, way more land mass to retreat within, much more cannon fodder and spare resources to "waste".
An additional 4500 Stugs seems nice in contrast to having 1350 Tigers from an allied standpoint, but if Germany lost these 4500 Stugs in a war of attrition at a smiliar rate than the US and USSR lost their Shermans and T34. Then they would've end up with all their soldiers and resources destroyed earlier than the US or USSR, no matter what.
Caleb Anderson
>In 1944 one German soldier caused an average loss of 7,78 Soviet soldiers for one German casualty
Bulllll fucking shit
Nicholas Peterson
> But the universal carrier was capable of being outfitted to fit many roles e.g MG carrier, Anti tank, AA or just regular truck.
No, it was not clearly as capable of doing those roles or only barely capable of doing them and nowhere near as effectively as a halftrack or even a regular truck.
> It really was universal and there was no urgent need for a more complicated halftrack
It was more complicated and had greater maintenance requirements then a halftrack, as it used track warping/drive wheel break steering system instead of a conventional steering wheel like a halftrack (i.e. like driving a regular car).
> Have you completely ignored the manpower/fuel issues brought up by another user in
Fuel consumption is a valid issue but a single Tiger used almost as much fuel as 2-3 Stugs and that’s out weighed by the advantage of having more armored vehicles on the battlefield and manpower is overblown and irrelevant; more men trained for operating stugs and fewer for infantry divs.
> > except a British halftrack wouldn’t have delayed production much at all > This is just conjecture.
But it’s not, production of halftracks instead of a universal carriers could have been done in the same factories by the same workers as there isn’t much difference in constructing a halftrack, except for adding a front axel and a different armored body design.
> You're also wildly overestimating the resources available to the War Office.
Halftracks would have in fact saved resources, as fewer would have been needed as they were more capable and useful vehicles then universal carriers.
> Half of the Tizard transfer was motivated by technology they had no capacity to expand on themselves.
See above; it would have been a case of switching manufacturing capacity from universal carriers to halftracks, which are no more complicated to make then universal carriers.
> if Germany lost these 4500 Stugs in a war of attrition at a smiliar rate than the US and USSR lost their Shermans and T34. Then they would've end up with all their soldiers and resources destroyed earlier than the US or USSR, no matter what.
Germany was fucked on Sept.1st 1939 anyway (surely on Dec.11th 1941) but 4500 Stugs can control a much wide front then 1350 Tigers, decreasing losses and delaying the defeat.
Would more Stugs and Panzer IVs win the war for the Germans? No, but the question is getting the most bang for the buck and in that regards, Stugs/Panzer IVs trump Tigers.
They liked their Universal Carriers and when they felt the needed a half track they got lend lease M3's from America.
Colton Edwards
>No, it was not clearly as capable of doing those roles or only barely capable of doing them and nowhere near as effectively as a halftrack or even a regular truck.
The Universal carrier was adequate in the roles that it was used in. Yes a halftrack similar to the maultier may have been better but there was no real need for it. The Universal carrier did its job fine, it's the jack of all trades and is the most produced armored vehicle for a reason. You've provided no proof of why the Universal carrier was supposedly shit at the jobs it was used in beyond it not being well armored and gay. You really don't understand how versatile the Universal carrier was considering how cheap it was to produce.
>But it’s not, production of halftracks instead of a universal carriers could have been done in the same factories by the same workers as there isn’t much difference in constructing a halftrack, except for adding a front axel and a different armored body design.
As above, the Universal carrier was adequate for it's job and didn't really need a replacement. But, the Kangaroo fits the role that you claim Britain didn't have
Justin Peterson
German military dead on the Eastern Front (per R. Overmans)
Total dead from beginning to 1944 = 1,5 million
Soviet Military Casualties According to Field Reports
Total dead from beginning to 1944 = 8 million
Joshua Flores
didnt he see that German casualties were underreported
Christopher James
>manpower is overblown and irrelevant >>manpower is overblown and irrelevant >>>manpower is overblown and irrelevant >>>>manpower is overblown and irrelevant
Wyatt Lewis
And if you include German dead, wounded, captured etc (aka casualties)?
Aaron Gutierrez
Why would the British manufacture half-tracks when the US gave them all the half-tracks they needed? Stop being retarded. Your thread is shit and you are a faggot.
Isaiah Young
>but 4500 Stugs can control a much wide front then 1350 Tigers, decreasing losses and delaying the defeat. No, you're not decreasing losses. StuGs were of similar combat effectiveness as its allied counterparts, except for the fact that the US/USSR generally had way more available on each front and operation. The StuGs would've come of second best. And both the resources and tank crewman operating these vehicles would be lost.
Tiger tanks in the beginning of the war, as well as Panthers and King Tigers later on on the other hand provided excellent combat effectiveness, inflicted way more losses than casualties, did a great job at keeping their tank crewman alive and with sufficient combat experience. Also:
