fdgsgds
Mustard Enthusiast
What did they run on? Coal, fuel, V8 juice?
WW1 Tanks
- Thread starter fdgsgds
- Start date
...and prayer.
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
What did the run on? All over the Kaizer's face! Amirite?
fdgsgds
Mustard Enthusiast
madviking
north american scum
The souls of the 10 year-olds working in the factories in Manchester...! 
sophie
Break My Heart
I suppose to expand on the question in the OP and to possibly add to the thread a bit, why exactly did Germany never make many tanks in WWI? They definitely seem as though they should have had the intellectual capacity to do so, as well as the resource base, espeically consider they were occupying some of the best steel and coal producing regions in France and Belgium. Did the idea just catch on too late for them or is it deeper than that?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,250
I was under the impression that slow-moving tanks with unreliable engines were not regarded as much of an asset back then. I don't know how effective tanks really were, given the amounts of artillery concentrated in the western front.
I would guess taht there was just never a key individual in Germany to push it forward, as Churchill did in Britain (note that there was considerable opposition in the British Army and government) and I am sure someone did in France.
And the first one they developed was an impractical monstrosity, hardly encouraging further effort.
And the first one they developed was an impractical monstrosity, hardly encouraging further effort.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
It appears that German tanks only appeared as a delayed reaction (~2 years after) British tanks appeared on the scene in 1916. Looks like the British kept their secret well, and the Germans didn't think of the idea first?
EDIT: More likely, tanks and tank tacticswere weren't useful until Cambrai 1917, so the Germans likely saw them as a waste of time, at least as far as the Allies were capable of using them.
And "Ludendorf" is quoted in one book (Google books) as saying tanks are best countered by nerves and discipline. And they used diches, camoflauged pits, improvised anti-tank mines, plus armor piercing field guns.
And also it took the Allies some time to realize that their heavy tanks (e.g. Mark IV/V) weren't as useful as developing lighter, faster tanks (~1918) that were more maneuverable (Mark IV did 4 mph, while Mark V had cruise speed of 5mph and top speed of 9mph, reportedly).
EDIT: More likely, tanks and tank tactics
And "Ludendorf" is quoted in one book (Google books) as saying tanks are best countered by nerves and discipline. And they used diches, camoflauged pits, improvised anti-tank mines, plus armor piercing field guns.
And also it took the Allies some time to realize that their heavy tanks (e.g. Mark IV/V) weren't as useful as developing lighter, faster tanks (~1918) that were more maneuverable (Mark IV did 4 mph, while Mark V had cruise speed of 5mph and top speed of 9mph, reportedly).
I wouldn't say that, work on the heavies paralelled the whippet and they kept building infantry tanks, the successor to the WWI heavies, through WWII. More that they saw both kinds of tanks as useful.
The biggest problem with the British tanks in 1916 was they were unreliable, untested and in too small of numbers, remember their entire job consisted of getting across the enemy trenches and destroying any obstacles in their path whiile providing the infantry some cover.
Zardnaar
Deity
The Germans were on the defensive in the west for most of the war. They didn't need tanks for the most part. Verdun and Operation Michael being 2 exceptions.
Verbose
Deity
Well, eventually they were hugely useful. The French in particular went for them big-time, since properly used they radically reduced infantry casualties in attack.
First successful French use of tanks in numbers, coordinated with the infantry, was at the battle for the Malmaision salient in late October 1917. Key to the French getting it right was the break-through design of the Renault FT-17. The French spammed these things. They were particularily nasty at the second battle of the Marne in the summer of 1918, in the counetrattack at Villers-Cotterêts which effectively ended the Germans spring offensive.
The key was to integrate aerial reconnaissance, artillery, infantry and tanks. When all the pieces came together, it worked quite well. But it was a recipy for an army that enjoyed a substantial material advantage over its adversary, which was precisely what the French and the British did, beginning sometime in late 1917.
4500 built during WWI, this one armed with a 37mm gun.
They'd have to learn of the concept. Then reverse engineer it, then decide if it was worthwhile to their situation. They saw tanks for the first time, when? 1916? By then the Brits had been working on them for years. It would have taken the Germans time after deciding that they were a worthwhile investment before they could have good ones ready to go and a real production capacity for them. Seems like they just didn't have the time.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The battle where tanks were demonstrated to be an effective offensive weapon was at Cambrai, which was November and December of 1917. By then, Germany hardly had the economic capacity to build them en masse, given the Entente blockade and the dwindling manpower.
Verbose
Deity
Well, it would seem until the losses from the 1918 spring offensive the German manpower situation was a lot less concerning than the shortage of industrial production capacity. The French overtook the Germans in heavy artillery in mid-1917, and from then on Germany was gradually but steadily being increasingly outgunned by the Entente. Under the circumstances putting production capacity into tanks instead of churning out the maximum number of artillery pieces, so as just stay in the race, even if constantly losing, would make little sense.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Some did (well, they viewed them as something dishonourable or otherwise inappropriate for use against Europeans), just like in Britain and France. The same was true for Machine-guns, gas, flamethrowers, and oter weapons that became quite common fairly early in the war.
Similar threads
