Were the Russian Tank Armies skillfully used in pincer attacks on the Eastern Front?

[errol]

The Russian T-34 tank was the best tank of the ww 2. But were their tank armies used with great skill, particularly in pincer movements? I believe that the Germans had the best tank commanders of the war and were far more skilled in their use of their tank divisions compared to any other adversary. Even after Stalingrad, German tank commanders still were more than a match for their Russian opponents.

What do people think about the Russian Tank commanders. Were they that good or was it a great tank with overwhelming numbers that was the deciding element?

 

[MontyB]

I imagine much like all armies the Russians had both good and bad tank commanders.

I certainly think it is hard to argue with the quality of German formations especially given that they finished the war with something close to a 6 to 1 kill ratio in their favour (Tiger I was ~5.8:1, Pz III around 6.1:1 and Pz IV ~ 5.0:1) although they had a huge number of supposedly inferior targets to pick from.

I guess in the end I will go with option B: They may not have been on the exact same level as their German counterparts in both training and vehicle but by 1945 they were close enough for the difference to not matter.

 

[Doppleganger]

I'm not sure about your blanket statement that the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was certainly one of the best but 2 German tanks and another Russian one could also possibly lay claim to the title.

The Russian tank crews got better and better as the war went on, though they were still under trained compared to their German counterparts, except for some noted exceptions. As German training and manpower quality began to fall away as the war went on, so the gap became narrower and narrower. There were some excellent Soviet tank commanders at the tactical and operational level; Rokossovsky, Katukov and Lelyushenko to name three.

The Russians did not employ the tanks exactly as the Germans deep. The Red Army used massed artillery on a much bigger scale than the Germans did and also favoured the principle of Deep Operations rather than Blitzkrieg. In line with this, the Red Army conducted operations that relied on overwhelming force as the key driver for success rather than tactical skill.

 

[MontyB]

I'm not sure about your blanket statement that the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was certainly one of the best but 2 German tanks and another Russian one could also possibly lay claim to the title.

You know I am leaning toward agreeing with him about the T-34 being the best overall tank of WW2, it was:
- Easily manufactured (unlike its German counter parts).
- It was easier to maintain in the field than German vehicles.
- It could take and deliver a punch similar to that of its enemy.

There is no doubt that German tanks were quality manufacturing but there too few and too many variants.

I am interested as to which two German tanks you rate up there as I can think of three, PzIV, Panther and Tiger I, I have read several theories that had Germany just made and upgraded the Pz IV and dropped the other two they would have been far better off.

 

[LeEnfield]

The T34, it was crude, easily made, well gunned, and well armoured. The tracks were extra wide for the poor conditions that you find in Russia. The German machines like the Tiger and one or two other German tanks should have been better but they had been pushed into service to quickly to try and counter the T34 and they were not so reliable as they should have been. Now the Russian produced them so quickly they would swamp the German Tigers and take high losses to do it. I would say that the T34 was possible one of the best tanks of the war and neither Britain or America produced a tank in numbers that was it's equal

 

[The Other Guy]

The T34, it was crude, easily made, well gunned, and well armoured. The tracks were extra wide for the poor conditions that you find in Russia. The German machines like the Tiger and one or two other German tanks should have been better but they had been pushed into service to quickly to try and counter the T34 and they were not so reliable as they should have been. Now the Russian produced them so quickly they would swamp the German Tigers and take high losses to do it. I would say that the T34 was possible one of the best tanks of the war and neither Britain or America produced a tank in numbers that was it's equal

Well said. The Sherman was totally inferior, not as bad as the Churchill, but miles and miles behind anything Russia or Germany produced. The Germans had nothing to compete with the T34 initially so they rushed the Tigers. The T34 was another prime example of how the russians worked; cheap, reliable, well built, and competent.

 

[errol]

I'm not sure about your blanket statement that the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was certainly one of the best but 2 German tanks and another Russian one could also possibly lay claim to the title.

The Russian tank crews got better and better as the war went on, though they were still under trained compared to their German counterparts, except for some noted exceptions. As German training and manpower quality began to fall away as the war went on, so the gap became narrower and narrower. There were some excellent Soviet tank commanders at the tactical and operational level; Rokossovsky, Katukov and Lelyushenko to name three.

The Russians did not employ the tanks exactly as the Germans deep. The Red Army used massed artillery on a much bigger scale than the Germans did and also favoured the principle of Deep Operations rather than Blitzkrieg. In line with this, the Red Army conducted operations that relied on overwhelming force as the key driver for success rather than tactical skill.

I think you've answered my question Doppleganger. The Russians didn't have to depend on matching the Germans skill in pincer attacks. They had numbers in tanks, massed artillery, German losses couldn't be made up so they had great holes in their lines, so easy to punch through. Massive casualities didn't seem to worry the Russians.

I have also read that the attack and encirclement of Berlin by the Russians was not well coordinated, became a bit of a free for all, with many more Russian casualties than there should have been.

 

[Bacara]

now I'm directly quoting this "The Russians have learnt a lot since 1941. They are no longer peasants with simple minds. They have learnt the art of war from us." Hoth to von Manstein. This tells you that even the great military leaders of Germany thought very highly of their Russian adversary.

 

[Doppleganger]

I am interested as to which two German tanks you rate up there as I can think of three, PzIV, Panther and Tiger I, I have read several theories that had Germany just made and upgraded the Pz IV and dropped the other two they would have been far better off.

I was thinking of the Panther and Tiger I, for different reasons.

One of the supporters of just focusing on the Panzer IV was Guderian - it really made a lot of sense from a production standpoint and the later models were good enough to engage allied enemy tanks on even terms. The German's early victories were not built on the quality of their tanks, which were in many ways 2nd rate, but because of the quality of their tactics and training.

 

[MontyB]

I was thinking of the Panther and Tiger I, for different reasons.

One of the supporters of just focusing on the Panzer IV was Guderian - it really made a lot of sense from a production standpoint and the later models were good enough to engage allied enemy tanks on even terms. The German's early victories were not built on the quality of their tanks, which were in many ways 2nd rate, but because of the quality of their tactics and training.

I don't necessarily agree that the Panzer IV would have been a good choice as it was nearing the end of its development cycle, if I was to choose any of the German tanks to concentrate on it would probably have been the Panther as it was far better design.

 

[Doppleganger]

I don't necessarily agree that the Panzer IV would have been a good choice as it was nearing the end of its development cycle, if I was to choose any of the German tanks to concentrate on it would probably have been the Panther as it was far better design.

Sure the Panther was a better design but it was also far more expensive to build - over 100000 Reichsmarks compared to about 45000 for a Panzer IV off the top of my head. It was also more complex to build and took longer to produce. Consider too that it took longer to recycle disabled Panthers and get them back into the field, which would have been a critical factor for the German army after 1942.

Secondly, the Panzer crews knew the Panzer IV inside out and the upgraded Panzer IV was good enough for the role the German Army used tanks in. As I said before, the Germans achieved their early victories due to a high quality of tactics and training, not a high quality of vehicles.

 

[MontyB]

My point is that the Panther was at the beginning of its design program and was of the new design (sloping armour etc) the PvIV was the old design (flat plates etc.) so for exactly the same outlay in materials you got much better crew safety and a faster vehicle than the Pz IV ever would have been.

In terms of price I am not sure you can really compare the two as the Pz IV was made in greater numbers over a longer period of time therefore it would have been more economical given the same production stats I am sure the Panther would have dropped in price as well.

In terms of overall quality the Pz IV was certainly more than adequate for the Western Front but was out classes from 1943 onwards on the Easter Front where as the Panther had chassis had room for further upgrading the Pz IV didn't.

In terms of tactics and training well I tend to back Rommel on this one:

[FONT=helvetica,arial]"The commander must be at constant pains to keep his troops abreast of all the latest tactical experience and developments, and must insist on their practical application. He must see to it that his subordinates are trained in accordance with the latest requirements. The best form of welfare for the troops is first-class training, for this saves unnecessary casualties."

[/FONT]to me the Panther provided the best in latest developments and nothing provides better training than the experience of survival which again I believe the Panther offered to a greater degree.[FONT=helvetica,arial]

[/FONT]

 

[Doppleganger]

My point is that the Panther was at the beginning of its design program and was of the new design (sloping armour etc) the PvIV was the old design (flat plates etc.) so for exactly the same outlay in materials you got much better crew safety and a faster vehicle than the Pz IV ever would have been.

Well no debate that it was a better design Monty but that isn't really the point. And it wasn't for the same outlay in materials - the Panther took noticeably more materials to build.

In terms of price I am not sure you can really compare the two as the Pz IV was made in greater numbers over a longer period of time therefore it would have been more economical given the same production stats I am sure the Panther would have dropped in price as well.

Well the Panther's price would have come down during a longer production run but it never would have been as cheap as the Panzer IV to produce. It had too many parts and was built with the precision of a swiss watch. You don't need such exacting build quality, especially when your army needs all the tanks it can get, yesterday.

In terms of overall quality the Pz IV was certainly more than adequate for the Western Front but was out classes from 1943 onwards on the Easter Front where as the Panther had chassis had room for further upgrading the Pz IV didn't.

It was good enough (just) for the Eastern Front too.

In terms of tactics and training well I tend to back Rommel on this one:

What Rommel said is perfectly sensible, in peacetime. In 1943 onwards German army replacements were not getting the same length of training as recruits in 1940 and 1941 and it only got steadily worse. By mid 1944 they were in some cases only getting 4 weeks training prior to front line service and sometimes none at all.

to me the Panther provided the best in latest developments and nothing provides better training than the experience of survival which again I believe the Panther offered to a greater degree.

Well it did but if you can't make enough of them quickly enough then it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

 

[MontyB]

Still cant agree, from late 1943 onwards the JS-122 and JS-152 series tanks were appearing on Eastern Front and according to the statistics the JS-2 had better penetration ability, it could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor from 1100-1200 metres, while the Panther could penetrate the JS-2's armor from only 600-700 metres. So by 1944 even the Panther was at a major disadvantage against the new generation Russian heavys and given the the survivability of a Panther was greater than the Pz IV I would suggest that the Eastern Front would have a massacre for German Pz IV crews.

Personally had it have been my choice I would have followed this line of tank development:
- 1940 Pz-III
1940 - 1943 Pz-IV
1943 - 1945 Panther, Jagdpanther.
1945 - Panther I & II

 

[Doppleganger]

Monty, I still feel you are overlooking the economic and practical reality of the situation in Germany from 1943 onwards. No-one can dispute that the Panther was a superior tank but there are many arguments in favour of retaining the Panzer IV. It was something that Guderian, the father of the Panzerwaffe, himself recommended, in conjunction with Albert Speer. Guderian was no fool as I'm sure you'd agree, After all, he had a major hand in most of the major German tank designs of WWII.

The Germans needed more 'ok' tanks rather than lesser 'good tanks'. They needed a tank that was utterly reliable and which was easy to service and repair in the field. They needed a tank that the crews and the engineers knew inside out. Most of all, they needed a tank that was quick and cheap to produce.

The Panther was an excellent design but it was none of the things mentioned above.

 

[MontyB]

Monty, I still feel you are overlooking the economic and practical reality of the situation in Germany from 1943 onwards. No-one can dispute that the Panther was a superior tank but there are many arguments in favour of retaining the Panzer IV. It was something that Guderian, the father of the Panzerwaffe, himself recommended, in conjunction with Albert Speer. Guderian was no fool as I'm sure you'd agree, After all, he had a major hand in most of the major German tank designs of WWII.

The Germans needed more 'ok' tanks rather than lesser 'good tanks'. They needed a tank that was utterly reliable and which was easy to service and repair in the field. They needed a tank that the crews and the engineers knew inside out. Most of all, they needed a tank that was quick and cheap to produce.

The Panther was an excellent design but it was none of the things mentioned above.

Well to be honest I think this is going to be the second thing I disagree with Guderian on, while I understand the economics of their ideas I think they would have sacrificed the lives, materials and fighting ability of the Reich to build the 3rd best medium tank on the battlefield in 1944 (behind the T34/85 and Sherman Firefly).

I have no doubt that they could have built more Pz-IVs for their Reichmark but they would have needed more to absorb the losses and it wouldn't have mattered because they simply would not have had the crews to man what they built.

 

[Doppleganger]

Well to be honest I think this is going to be the second thing I disagree with Guderian on, while I understand the economics of their ideas I think they would have sacrificed the lives, materials and fighting ability of the Reich to build the 3rd best medium tank on the battlefield in 1944 (behind the T34/85 and Sherman Firefly).

Your argument appears to be based on an assumption that in 1943 onwards, an up-gunned, up-armoured Panzer IV was a death-trap. There is no hard evidence to substantiate such a claim. Certainly they would not have succesfully taken on IS-2 or IS-3 battallions but they probably wouldn't have had to. The Panzer IV was never really designed to fight other tanks in the first place and moreover, the Germans were on the defensive where AT guns come into greater tactical play. And the Germans had a great AT gun as you know.

I have no doubt that they could have built more Pz-IVs for their Reichmark but they would have needed more to absorb the losses and it wouldn't have mattered because they simply would not have had the crews to man what they built.

Because of their greater losses I assume you mean? Once again Monty there is no evidence to suggest that building more Panzer IVs would have been a false economy.

 

[Bacara]

Well to be honest I think this is going to be the second thing I disagree with Guderian on, while I understand the economics of their ideas I think they would have sacrificed the lives, materials and fighting ability of the Reich to build the 3rd best medium tank on the battlefield in 1944 (behind the T34/85 and Sherman Firefly).

I have no doubt that they could have built more Pz-IVs for their Reichmark but they would have needed more to absorb the losses and it wouldn't have mattered because they simply would not have had the crews to man what they built.

Another Quote "Quantity has a Quality all of its own" Vladimir Lenin, and the Russians sticked to this, and thats what won them the war. They cheaply and quickly produce lots of good tanks, T-34/76 and T-34/85, that were very reliable and well suited for the Russian battlefield, instead of as the Germans did, produce a few very good tanks that were very unreliable and complex.

 

[MontyB]

Another Quote "Quantity has a Quality all of its own" Vladimir Lenin, and the Russians sticked to this, and thats what won them the war. They cheaply and quickly produce lots of good tanks, T-34/76 and T-34/85, that were very reliable and well suited for the Russian battlefield, instead of as the Germans did, produce a few very good tanks that were very unreliable and complex.

I don't disagree with any of that, I don't really disagree with Doppleganger's opinions either but I believe that given the realities of Germany's position from 1944 onwards the Pz-IV was the wrong tank to focus on had they been planning for a protracted war.

1. Germany was never going to match the Allies (Western and Eastern) in production.

2. They did not have the depth in manpower to rebuild its tank armies to match the Allies, it couldn't even replace its its 1942-43 losses with adequately trained replacements.

3. It did not have huge quantities of resources to build vast quantities of armour even if it wanted to.

4. New Allied tanks both (Eastern and Western) were better than the Pz-IV.

So with this in mind I cannot see the logic in building large quantities of an obsolete tank to fight a defensive war against superior vehicles that were always going to be numerically superior in any case.
They would have been better off building Jadgpanzers (which were cheaper and more robust than the Pz-IV while using the same chassis) or building a smaller number better vehicles (Panther I/II) and concentrating on giving the infantry a greater anti-armour capacity.

 

[Papashah41]

I don't disagree with any of that, I don't really disagree with Doppleganger's opinions either but I believe that given the realities of Germany's position from 1944 onwards the Pz-IV was the wrong tank to focus on had they been planning for a protracted war.

1. Germany was never going to match the Allies (Western and Eastern) in production.

2. They did not have the depth in manpower to rebuild its tank armies to match the Allies, it couldn't even replace its its 1942-43 losses with adequately trained replacements.

3. It did not have huge quantities of resources to build vast quantities of armour even if it wanted to.

4. New Allied tanks both (Eastern and Western) were better than the Pz-IV.

So with this in mind I cannot see the logic in building large quantities of an obsolete tank to fight a defensive war against superior vehicles that were always going to be numerically superior in any case.
They would have been better off building Jadgpanzers (which were cheaper and more robust than the Pz-IV while using the same chassis) or building a smaller number better vehicles (Panther I/II) and concentrating on giving the infantry a greater anti-armour capacity.

I agree with most of what you say MontyB. But I'll start my quip with what Heinz Guderian said, "The T 34 was the best tank of the war." It appears the German's just didn't seem to get it when designing a tank for Total War. Everyone of their designs was over expensive, complex and for some unexplained reason rife with bugs and mechical problems.

Manufacturing Jagdpanzer's such as Guderian's duck which was the Jagdpanzer 4 with the 48 and the longer 70 cal barrels. The Hetzer which could be manufactured very cheaply turned out to be an all round winner. Even the Jagdpanther with it's 88 mm Pak 43 gun was a fraction of the cost compared with the Tiger1 and Tiger 2. When you consider most tank aces manoeuvred their tanks so they faced their prey, the 360 degree Turret may just be over-rated.

But the Pzkpf 4 aufs F2 or J were fine tanks in their own right. I also think I'd rather be sitting in one of them than any Western Allied tank, except the Firefly and much later the Comet. There were not too many 75mm rounds from the Sherman which penetrated the front of the Pzkpf 4. which had armour there around 2 and 1/2 inches thick.

The Panther was a much superior tank. But again we have complexities and maintenance problems. And of course the cost.

I think Germany should have gone in a different direction after meeting and examining the T34. The answer wasn't creating something bigger and better. The answer was following the example of simplicity in design. This would have allowed them to cut costs. Now the only problem is radically changing the tradition of their industry into mass production.

Germany's problems were many and varied.