On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz

Not exactly.

The T-34 was produced en masse, had a weak main gun, and had very
little room inside for the crew. German tanks were better made and
better gunned.

But -- all Wermacht maintenance was depot level -- throw a rod? Send
the whole tank back to the fatherland by rail.

The US forward deployed maintenance philosophy helped defeat the far
superior German armor. They would blast four of our tanks -- the next
day three would reappear.

The Soviet maintenance and refit was not as efficient, but the sheer
numbers of T-34s helped swing the tide.

The main innovation that German armored units employed that helped
facilitate blitzkrieg was small unit communications (radios). The
French had better (on paper) tanks then the PKZW Mk IV, but the French
employed their tanks as infantry support while the Germans used
penetrate and exploit tactics.

The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor
until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams.

Now *that's* a tank.

Dan
(retired US Army Armor Officer)