Tanks of the Second World War

Tank Warfare!

The battlefields of the Second World War were dominated by the tank. Their use gave rise to a strategy unknown until then. Protected by its armour, the highly manoevrable vehicle could roll up to enemy trenches and cross over. Its armament could silence the enemy defences and enable its own infantry to follow with minor losses, taking advantage of the local success gained. What were the tank’s origins? How did the tank develop up to the time of the second catastrophe of the 20th century? And how did this development fare under the spell of the mechanised battles of the Second World War?

British Cruiser Mk V Covenanter tanks on a rail transporter. More than a thousand of the type were produced, but only used for training in England. A rather unusual characteristic was the air cooler for the motor, located left near the driver. (Library of Congress)

The German word Panzer (armour) comes from the Middle High German pancier, (armament for the body), a word borrowed from the French panciere (paunch), which comes from the Old French pance, and that in its turn from the Latin pantex (paunch).

In the areas where the German language is spoken, the word Panzer (tank) has a negative ring. For the postwar generation the tank, more than any other weapon, is representative of the cruelty of war, for violence and death. It is not my purpose to criticise this attitude nor doubt it. War is the greatest catastrophe which one people can inflict upon another.

Technical progress brought humanity definite improvements. It helped to control outbreaks of disease, to cure illness and prevent famine. Warfare, however, changes things fundamentally. The great physicist Albert Einstein was very pessimistic in his opinion:

I am not certain with what weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.

His pessimism was based on his great understanding of people. Progress alone cannot change the way people are. It is up to ourselves to prevent wars or effectively suppress them.

It is the purpose of historical research to throw light on every facet of cultural development. This research must be objective and value-free. It should never allow itself to become an instrument of political influence no matter in what form that may be presented. War research is too dangerous to be left in the hands of nostalgic Nationalists or Utopian dreamers.

This book attempts to trace the development of the tank in the Second World War whilst adhering as closely as possible to the historical facts. The development of the tank by the industries of the various States is treated chronologically. The principal tanks considered are those built to confront their enemy counterparts. This clear division is not always successful.

An understanding of the subject would not be complete without prior reference to the tanks which made their first appearance in the Great War 1914-1918, and the subsequent dynamic development in the inter-war period. This requires a look at individual tanks both in isolation and in comparison. Reducing particular tanks to their theoretical values is only part of the story, for important influences of scale such as the quality of strategic and tactical command, technical reliablity or essential parameters including the types of ammunition, fuel and spare parts have to be left aside.

War is not a computer game and the pure comparison of technical details can be misleading. A good example of this is the effectiveness of tank guns. In 1941 Germany was developing guns capable of delivering very powerful ammunition. The 7.5 KwK 42 L/70 of the German Panther could fire the conventional AP shell PzGr 39/42 to penetrate 111-mm armour steel at 1,000 metres. The improved version PzGr 40/42 shell could penetrate 150 mm armour. These shells had a tungsten core which gave better penetration on account of their temper. Tungsten was a scarce material in the German Reich, and the small quantities available did not allow a reliable supply. Also available was the hollow charge shell Gr 39 Hl which could penetrate armour at 90 mm within range. At impact a metal spike penetrated the armour independent of the speed of impact and range. Hollow charge shells were not highly explosive and their accuracy was variable. Original reports show that for this reason a Panther commander would generally prefer the PzGr 39/42. The penetrative achievements provided in the descriptive tables of tank types are therefore an indication depending on other factors.

British tanks at 5th Avenue. With this kind of effective propaganda, from 1916 the US public was attuned to the idea of entering the war. (Library of Congress)

In the First World War the tank was thrown into the fray and proved an unexpected success, but it could not decide the war alone. The battles in 1918, however, were influenced by the presence of tanks in that where they were available they won battles.

In 1940 the German panzer force though neither heavily armed nor armored was considered invincible in the invasion of France even against an enemy clearly superior in numbers. How can that be explained?

The bewildering German successes in the first three years of the war were made possible by their own momentum. The lower command levels knew the capability and limits of their panzer arm and deployed it with the greatest efficiency using an extensive radio-supported communications system. The ground attack was well coordinated with the Luftwaffe. The advantages of cooperation between the various branches of service had its theoretical development in the German Army of the Kaiser’s epoch, and was further developed to perfection by the later General Guderian.

In 1944 the German forces had perhaps the most powerful of the fighting tanks, the PzKpfw V Panther, and even the lighter types were a match for comparable enemy tanks. On the Western, Southern and Eastern Fronts the German armies had an unmistakable superiority in tank quality which they had not had four years before. Therefore why was the once so successful concept no longer able to win through?

US and Soviet troops posing on a T-34/85 after VE-Day. (NARA)

The answer is simple. The concept of ground-to-air cooperation no longer applied. In the South and West they were confronted by enemies who had learned the lessons of the early war years. The technical and tactical superiority of the German panzer had been more than neutralized by Allied air superiority and massive artillery barrages. The limited means no longer permitted effective operations aimed at winning territory.

In the East the initial technical and tactical superiority of the Germans had been outweighed by the unprecedented strength of the Soviets. In the final analysis the sheer mass of men and materials was decisive. This line of reasoning simplifies the matter. It may be found unpalatable to some, but nevertheless it is a fact.

Phraseology

The technical specifications have been generalised for better understanding. Therefore the calibre of German guns is given in centimetres, of the other nations in millimetres. The British preferred the archaic weight of the powder charge. The well-known 17-pounder is a good example here. In such cases the calibre is given in millimetres.

The efficiency of a tank gun can be determined from calibre-length, i.e. the length of the barrel in relationship to the calibre. An L/70 gun with a calibre of 75 mm is 5,250 mms in length (70 x 75 mm). The rule of thumb is that the longer the barrel the greater the penetrative power of the gun. The Germans abandoned these details in favour of short, long or very long, and these designations are authentic, and are quoted in strength reports at the Front (e.g. Pz IV short).

In 1941, Germany introduced assault guns with a comparatively large calibre weapon fixed into a low profile, well-armoured superstructure. The deficiency of the very limited traverse arc had to be compensated by using a very thoughtful tactical approach. (Anderson)

The individual designations of each tank are of course given as precisely as possible.

Numerical Data and Technical Specifications

The numbers stated have been taken from official documents wherever possible. German bureaucracy was very precise, much of the material survives in archives to the present day. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of all combatant nations. In the latter case recourse was had to the literature and treated as a secondary source.

The technical details of tanks are presented in tables, taken from primary sources wherever possible (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, National Archives). Some types were held back from the selection, and not every belligerent nation in the war has been mentioned. This has been done for the purpose of clarity and a better grasp of the information. The illustrations in this book are as far as possible original photographs from the epochs in question. In this respect I have had the benefit of material in private hands.

Genesis: The Armoured Vehicle over the Millenia

History shows that highly developed techniques appear at every stage of cultural progress. Joiners, stone masons, tanners, hunters – whoever wanted to survive, or live well, had to be a master of his trade. Many common objects were indispensable in everyday life and were top quality products of their times. Thus the warrior as the member of a clan, a fighting group or an Army was judged by his weapons and his dexterity in their use. The armoured vehicle, as we understand the term, belonged at any particular epoch amongst these leaders of technology.

Tanks were also used in the Russian civil war. A number of British Mk.V’s were delivered to the White Russian side and later captured by the revolutionary Bolsheviks. This Mk V female was armed only with machine-guns. (Netrebenko).

Victory of Technology

The tank as we know it is has three characteristics which form its technical and tactical parameters: Firepower – Mobility – Armour

Our short-sighted way of looking at things reduces the term tank all too easily to recent times – that farthest period in history to which the individual can look back either through his own experiences or the recall of his immediate forebears.

The development of the armoured vehicle goes back thousands of years. Since the human being began to think beyond himself he engaged in warfare in order to force through his interests. This appears to be the absolutely necessary reverse side of our civilisation, and perhaps also one of its basic foundations. Weapons were always necessary for success in the hunt, and by their use one could also kill rivals.

At first firepower stood in the foreground. The first primitive man to wield a club had an advantage over an adversary. The weapon could be decisive in a struggle and also deadly. Projectiles launched from a distance, spears and pikes were more effective than stones. A major improvement was the invention of the bow and arrow. Perhaps one can see these early weapons as the forerunners of our guns. The bow and arrow were used to hunt prey and as a weapon of war. A skilled archer could bring down game at a distance, hundreds of archers deployed as tactical artillery could decide battles.

The armoured fighting vehicle arose from the need to neutralise the enemy’s weaponry and at the same time provide one’s own troops with protection. Here was a comparatively simple problem. Leather and wood, later metal and all varieties of combinations of fabrics were used as bodily protection: a large variety of weapons became available.

The reliable and unflagging mobility of the armed and protected warrior required special measures. The taming of wild horses led to the construction and use of chariots. These mostly two-wheeled vehicles were drawn by two or three horses and had room for the driver and one or two warriors. The use of such vehicles enabled relatively quick offensives to succeed by piercing the ranks of the enemy infantry and reducing them to chaos.

Chinese fragments confirm the use of such fighting vehicles over 4,500 years ago. The Bible describes similar weapons systems around 1700 BC. These chariots were state of the art of their time as are the tanks of modern times.

Every new weapon provokes its countermeasure. A rain of arrows in large numbers could halt a charge of chariots by wounding or killing the horses, driver and his companions.

The increase in firepower led to the development of armour. The effect of the enemy’s fire could be neutralised to a certain extent but at the cost of much diminished manouevrability. The