Gliders were a fairly weird piece of WWII on their own, honestly. The Germans came close to a tank-glider too with the Messerschmitt Me 321 and its powered derivative the Me 323, plus the failed Junkers Ju 322 prototype. All of those would've been able to carry up to a Panzer IV, if Germany could make a plane reliably capable of towing them.What I find interesting is that the British actually built gilders big enough to fit small tanks into. The Hamilcar glider was designed around fitting the Tetrarch light tank into it and were used to deploy about 20 of them during Operation Overlord. By 1944 the Tetrarch was a hilariously outdated tank however and they performed pretty poorly, which meant they were withdrawn from service after the fighting in Normandie was over. Still, the British were the only nation to actually air drop tanks onto battlefields during WW2 (both the USA and USSR would go on to do it in different forms in the 60's and 70's).
The basic concept of airborne armour was sound - it was more not having the right equipment. As you say, the tetrarch was not really up to the task by that stage of the war (and had some major compromises in design for its small size anyway). Tetrarchs were considered for Market Garden and arguably might have been some use against the early response panzergrenadier units as few actual tanks were available to the Germans quickly. Although it's doubtful they could have compensated for the many compromises during planning that doomed the endeavour.What I find interesting is that the British actually built gilders big enough to fit small tanks into. The Hamilcar glider was designed around fitting the Tetrarch light tank into it and were used to deploy about 20 of them during Operation Overlord. By 1944 the Tetrarch was a hilariously outdated tank however and they performed pretty poorly, which meant they were withdrawn from service after the fighting in Normandie was over. Still, the British were the only nation to actually air drop tanks onto battlefields during WW2 (both the USA and USSR would go on to do it in different forms in the 60's and 70's).
By todays standards sure. But the pre-widespread radar days, an aircraft that made no noise was perfect for delivering troops, armour, and artillery behind enemy lines undetected.Gliders were a fairly weird piece of WWII on their own, honestly. The Germans came close to a tank-glider too with the Messerschmitt Me 321 and its powered derivative the Me 323, plus the failed Junkers Ju 322 prototype. All of those would've been able to carry up to a Panzer IV, if Germany could make a plane reliably capable of towing them.
Uranium was originally discovered from material from the Ore Mountains which are between Germany and the Czech republic and completely German controlled at the time. Also Eastern Germany was the biggest Uranium exporter of the whole Eastern block during the Cold War.I particularly like how the UK just stands by as the German war machine rampages through Africa(and no doubt numerous colonial holdings) to the Germans can get Uranium so they can give themselves nukes. Italy and Japan don't even exist in this AU, apparently.
Well, really everyone used horses for most of their stuff except for the US. We were the only really mechanized military at the time.What's funny, is that they probably could have done more with trucks than more tanks; most of the German army (with the exception of Panzer units) throughout the war used horses to move their equipment around such as artillery pieces and other logistics.
Wasn't the Tetrarch mainly designed around infantry support, not fighting other armor? Like I know that at least the US had the idea that the tank was for supporting infantry and going against light vehicles and infantry, while tank killers were for dealing with enemy tanks. Granted this idea didn't last long but it lasted long enough that we ended up with vehicles like the hellcat.That was the idea, in practice the Tetrarch was so poor that it didn't serve much purpose. The 2 pounder gun was anemic against everything it faced and jeeps and armored cars were better at recce then the Tetrarch. So you have a tank that can't fight other tanks, only holds up against small arms fire and can't reliably knock out enemy strong points. Its intended role then becomes a hunter of half tracks, armored cars and other lightly armored vehicles that can't hurt it back which was simply too narrow and hard to achieve when supported by the mobility limited paratroopers. In the end, it was deemed better to simply put more boots on the ground, as every Tetrarch landed by Hamilcar was another troop of paratroopers that couldn't be sent in by Horsa.
Yes, US tank doctrine was indeed that tank destroyers and AT guns killed enemy tanks, and tanks were for smashing infantry and stuff. That's why US tanks were often quite poorly gunned in terms of armour penetration, at least until quite late on. The USA was perhaps a little stronger on this idea than other nations, however it was a sound enough concept: in practice, tanks did spend far more time shooting at "soft" targets, or light armoured fighting vehicles where even relatively weak penetration guns were sufficient.Wasn't the Tetrarch mainly designed around infantry support, not fighting other armor? Like I know that at least the US had the idea that the tank was for supporting infantry and going against light vehicles and infantry, while tank killers were for dealing with enemy tanks. Granted this idea didn't last long but it lasted long enough that we ended up with vehicles like the hellcat.
So, at the start of world war 2 the general concept of tank warfare was that they would primarily be used to attack infantry, as had happened in world war 1. Faster tanks had started to appear, but in the minds of military theorists they were still the "cavalry" of the modern age. They would flank and outmanoeuvre the slow infantry.From my understanding, that's not entirely true, the US had tank destroyers to destroy tanks, and normal tanks to support infantry. However, what they were supporting infantry against could include other tanks. Or anything else, but tanks were amongst the things they were supposed to deal with, just not exclusively like for tank destroyers.
Indeed. If I recall, a friend of mine wrote a history paper a few years back, arguing that the Germans might have been far better off producing Panthers instead of Tigers. Their combat performance was quite solid, much more cost effective and took less time to produce than Tigers and Tiger II's, they were at least more fuel efficient than Tiger's, and they also had far better speeds than any other comparable tank the Germans had to offer.Maybe part of the problem was that the Allies were, bluntly, more pragmatic.
Part of the misleading hagiography of German technology is to realise a lot of their inventions were... kind of shit. The Tiger, for instance, was in ways a great tank: great gun, great armour, decent manoeuverablity. However, it was ultimately a failure: catastrophically expensive to make, difficult and expensive to maintain, and highly unreliable. Given industrial warfare is actually about pumping out huge quantities of robust, adequate equipment, you'd be considerably better off with three times as many Panzer IVs.
I suspect in part, tank destroyers were also something of a workaround solution for a wide range of occasional manufacturing and logistical issues. Or at least that's been my guess for a while, just based on a number of the designs, especially earlier on in the war, from Germany and the Soviet Union. US and UK designs though seemed to be less like a hodgepodge of spare parts, and more like a planned out end-product.After the war, all nations adopted the eastern front mentality, which is why tank destroyer as a concept really stops meaning anything. All tanks are tank destroyers.
I think the Germans enthusiastically adopted tank destroyers for two reasons. Firstly, they were solidly on the defensive after 1942, and tank destroyers fundamentally tend to be defensive in nature, as they are poorly suited to attacking. Secondly, limitations of materials and production: without the turret, they were significantly cheaper and mechanically simpler, and the weight savings could be used for additional armour. By the end of the war, German armoured regiments were not only often permanently understrength, but were equipped with a lot of tank destroyers in place of what should have been tanks. (There are all sorts of other changes across the whole German army in structure and equipment that effectively turned it into a "defensive" military.)I suspect in part, tank destroyers were also something of a workaround solution for a wide range of occasional manufacturing and logistical issues. Or at least that's been my guess for a while, just based on a number of the designs, especially earlier on in the war, from Germany and the Soviet Union. US and UK designs though seemed to be less like a hodgepodge of spare parts, and more like a planned out end-product.
The Panther was, like the Tiger, a little finicky and hard to maintain, but it was definitely the right tank for the Germans to be building alongside the PzIV, and not that much more expensive. There's a reason they gave up on the Tiger. The Tiger II was in ways a move in the right direction being simplified, except for its weight being a liability.Indeed. If I recall, a friend of mine wrote a history paper a few years back, arguing that the Germans might have been far better off producing Panthers instead of Tigers. Their combat performance was quite solid, much more cost effective and took less time to produce than Tigers and Tiger II's, they were at least more fuel efficient than Tiger's, and they also had far better speeds than any other comparable tank the Germans had to offer.
Well, maybe. But I'm not sure the differences in doctrine for tank destroyers are in a way different from the concept that tanks had different roles, too. Light tanks were not employed as heavy tanks were; some tanks were specialised against other tanks, others against infantry, etc.It is worth noting that the US and Germany/USSR had very different ideas on how to employ tank destroyers and assault guns. The US envisioned tank destroyers as a rapid reaction force that would sweep in, outmaneuver the Axis armor formations and strike quickly before fading away and striking again from a new direction. Germany and the USSR envisioned tank destroyers as either distinct ambush vehicles (like the Marders and Zis-30) or as heavily armored vehicles that could go head to head with tanks (like the Jagdpanzer and SU-series) and function as proper assault guns during attacks.
This makes talking about tank destroyers as a singular type a bit awkward, as there are at least three distinct developments that all got called tank destroyers but served very different purposes both in doctrine and on the battlefield.