_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Why,oh,why do we LOVE that German Armor?
airwarrior
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 2,085 posts
Armorama: 1,227 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:06 AM UTC
I think it may be the fact that german stuff was so much more supperior ,i'm not some nazi (my dad won't even let me put swasticas on my german planes )but it is true one tiger survived 227 hits from a t-34 and crawled another 40 miles!
TempExp
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: March 16, 2003
KitMaker: 148 posts
Armorama: 40 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 01:18 PM UTC
Hi all,

I have a little bit of German armor, but more to have an opposing force in a diorama or such, although I have picked up some German tanks because they looked cool.

I have to agree with some of what Adam Vukich posted about some of the Allied schemes. I think it's fun to look at some of the different schemes they used and the variety that can be done. No, it may not be as obvious as all the German camo patterns, but the variety is there.

To the original question, though. My guess would be the pure size, power, and even style of German armor. Bottom line: It can look really cool.

Just my random thoughts.
Howitzer
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 24, 2003
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 03:12 PM UTC
The one answer is German tanks are ASS Kickers. They were so outnumbered in the Russian front. The Russians lost over double the people the germans did. And you are not a Nazi if you were in the German army. It was only political. But the German stuff was so reliable and of such a high quality.
thewrongguy
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: October 17, 2002
KitMaker: 448 posts
Armorama: 306 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 04:07 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The one answer is German tanks are ASS Kickers. They were so outnumbered in the Russian front. The Russians lost over double the people the germans did.



Part of that just might be that the russian army was a conscript army. You get a bunch of illiterate farmers and miners whose concept of high tech is a horse, and tell them to drive a tank you're not running at the vehicles peak efficency. The T-34 was an engineering marvel in WW2, simple, effective, rugged and reliable (though not as reliable as the M4). Sure the Tiger and Panther was impressive, but snow and mud clogged the suspension leaving it stationary in the winter, the engines were relatively unreliable, and the massive size made them Razorback, Typhoon and Illusyin targets bar none. The T-34 was used well past the Vietnam war as a testament to it's longevity. The Sherman was used by the isreali's forever. The French got ahold of all the old German Ubertanks, and dumped them the first chance they got. The only german tank with any longevity was the Hetzer, (swiss used it till the 70's, but maybe the swiss weren't worried about going to war for some reason ) and that was really a czechozlovakian design.

For the love of god there are models without little crosses on them (although I am in the process of building my first). Want a painting challenge?

British
BEF or N.A Caunter
Royal Scots Grey's in Italy.
Desert Churchills
Micky Mouse Camo

USA
M4A2 Soviet Sherman
OD/ Black Camo
Korean Tiger Camo.

Japanese, French Polish or Chinese
Take your pick their all hard to paint, french soumas look very cool

Soviets
er.... Tank Length Patriotic banners look very cool.

Wow that was quite a tirade. Sorry, I bet I get ripped on for this post

Jeff
KiwiDave
Visit this Community
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: January 14, 2003
KitMaker: 248 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 06:15 PM UTC
At the risk of touching some raw nerves it may just have something to do with the way the Third Reich carefully attended to presentation. The pre war rallies, the architecture, the carefully designed military uniforms/badges were all part of the total marketing package. The whole Nazi movement was based on skilful marketing and subtle brainwashing. Something that has been embraced by most so-called democratic governments and successful businesses post war, though none of them are prepared to admit it. If you are reading this and have not familiarised yourself with the work of propaganda minister Goebels then do so. It will explain the success the Nazis had in sucking in the average German, and will also make you more aware of the extent to which we are still being manipulated by the same policies.

I am probably being unacceptably controversial but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Regards Dave
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 08:46 PM UTC
Sorry Kiwidave but I think you are way off base on that one. We build models for entertainment not because we think some long dead political system was cool. This happens to be mainly a tank modlers club. Almost all of us build a mixture of everything but have a preference. Sure I build german, and I also have a master's degree in Military history and a quite well versed in the Nazi under structure. However, the vehicles were used by the German Army not the Nazi political party. I build German for three reasons. 1. Availability Big T makes more W W 2 german than everything else combined. 2. I like the variety of the vehicles and color schemes the Germans used in the war 3. t hough I have several American tanks, a sherman is a sherman is a sherman. I also love to build Japanese Battleships not because I think the Emperor was the cats meow. So I basically am saying "You really missed the boat on that one chief"
Kencelot
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 02:16 AM UTC

Quoted Text

a sherman is a sherman is a sherman



Ouch! OD boring?...Ouch!
avukich
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 03:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a sherman is a sherman is a sherman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ouch! OD boring?...Ouch!



I agree Ken. That is like saying a Panzer IV is a Panzer IV is a Panzer IV. That is simply not true. Look at the variation that occured though the development of the Panzer IV. From short barreled 75s to long barreled. Side skirts, turret schurzen, track changes, etc. The Sherman is much the same story. If you can look at an M4A1 (75) and tell me that it is the same as an M-51 or even an M4A3E2 I'll think your blind.
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 03:43 AM UTC
OD is not only ugly, it looks like someone had food poisoning. American and British tanks may have been functional, but they were an insult to design aestitics. Why is it that whenever Americans design anything, they go for ugly. A Sherman looks like it came in second in a hatchet fight. Also the uniforms, even the Russians in their haste had good looking uniforms, looks like we were entering a ugly contest. At least the modern Marine uniforms (MARPAT) are doing something to clear the shame of 100 years of ugly.

Sorry to overkill the word ugly, but cussing isn't allowed in the forums.

Chris The Aestetic Pig
avukich
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 04:12 AM UTC
Well, I guess we all have our opinions. What some find ugly others find beautiful.
Kencelot
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 04:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

but they were an insult to design aestitics



Not to bang my head against the wall, but...
can someone please tell when military vehicles or anything military, were designed to be pleasing to the eye?
Maybe if the Germans were a little more concerned with performance over aestitics, outcomes may have been different, but than again...
herberta
Visit this Community
Canada
Joined: March 06, 2002
KitMaker: 939 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 05:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

but they were an insult to design aestitics



Not to bang my head against the wall, but...
can someone please tell when military vehicles or anything military, were designed to be pleasing to the eye?
Maybe if the Germans were a little more concerned with performance over aestitics, outcomes may have been different, but than again...



Hi Kencelot

Well said, but remember, we build models for many reasons. I think that the angles of a Tiger make it 'cool' looking. OK, it was a vehicle used by the bad guys, but it is big relative to other 1/35 scale armor, and there are so many photos of beat up Tigers soldiering on. On the other hand, I think the M4A1 is pretty cool looking with all the rounded edges. But every picture I see of battle damages Shermans includes a nice round hole where the AP shell went through the glacis, or tranny cover or something. All those grinning Panzer crew pointing at the mark from a shell that bounced off their Tiger/Panther/whatever make for 'cool' potential.

Of course saying a Sherman is a Sherman is like saying a Churchill is a Churchill, or Tiger is a Tiger. I mean the only real difference between early and late Tiger 1s is in the cupola, muffler covers, maybe the fenders, and maybe the wheels.

Anyway, the Allied/Axis debate will never end for modellers!

Cheers
Andy
herberta
Visit this Community
Canada
Joined: March 06, 2002
KitMaker: 939 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 05:54 AM UTC
...and of course I have seen some battle damaged Shermans that survived, but there are a lot more pictures of flamed out Ronsons than ones that survived with big shell scars.

And why aren't Churchill tanks more popular? AVRE, regular gun tank, early ones with a Howitzer and AT gun, Flamethrower variant, Kingforce Churchills with wild desert camo...

And armor to rival a Tiger. And hill climbing that couldn't be beat!

Andy
Howitzer
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 24, 2003
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 09:13 AM UTC
Ya like I said before the German armor was the army not the Nazi Party. They are two totally different things. So keep them seperate.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:22 AM UTC
OK I figured to get pummeled on this. I was more concerned that our friend from NZ was ascribing our interest to German armor as being because we were enamored of the Nazi political system. Now to clarify my Sherman is just a Sherman. Basically it boils down to this cast hull vs welded hull,, 75mm vs 76 mm everything else is a MINOR variation (from a WW2stand point). A panther yea there was a "D"
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:34 AM UTC
Sorry I didn't finish the previous post. The panther tank had 3 different Models the "D" "A" "G" there were also several minor variations like steel wheels, exhaust system configuration, Ir sights. We could go on forever about each minor variation within each TOTALLY DIFFERENT tank type. The point is the germans had a PNZR1, PNZR 2, PNZR 3, PNZR 4, and three distinctly different Tiger tanks. I'm not even going into all the Hunting versions, and assault Tanks and ani-aircraft versions. Now about paint schems, yea the Shermans on rare occasions did have a little bit of camoflage, but compared to the Germans P_L_E_A_S_E!!!!! So most of us do model the German but I bet all of us also model allied as well.
Grasshopp12
Visit this Community
New Hampshire, United States
Joined: September 28, 2002
KitMaker: 757 posts
Armorama: 459 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:56 AM UTC
Well, as long as there are a bunch of German armor fanatics here, I figured I'd ask this. Forgive me, I'm a Modern Armor fan, but what does ausf. and Sdkfz stand for? I have a feeling the ausf. is similar to the A system we use in the US (M1A0, M1A1, M1A2, that sort of thing). Can someone satisfy my curiosity?
chip250
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: September 01, 2002
KitMaker: 1,864 posts
Armorama: 727 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:40 PM UTC
Bodeen,

For me I would have to say that I like to build German armor, because I have very German roots on my moms side of the family. Its neat to wonder, if I were there what I would want my tank to look like. Would I want a girls name painted on the side (Which has already been done to my kingtiger) or somehing else that would make the tank "yours" Its also neat to imagne if any of my grandparents (grandpas) relative fought in the great war.

~Chiip
KiwiDave
Visit this Community
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: January 14, 2003
KitMaker: 248 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 06:03 PM UTC
I regret that a couple of people either failed to read my post properly or simply jumped to the simplest conclusion. I at no time accused the builders of German military models of being Nazi. Please read again and comprehend.

The suggestion that the German army at the time of the Third Reich was somehow independant of the Nazi party is ludicrous. The only reason that Germany finally lost the war was because Hitler was on our side. Look at the huge resources wasted on a Luftwaffe bombing strategy because of Hitlers disinterest in fighters. What about the waste of effort on the Maus project, another Hitler fantasy?

Model your German armour, enjoy doing it, but remember why it existed.

Regards Dave

blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 10:23 PM UTC
To grasshopper You hit the nail on the head ausf is indeed a variation similar to our a-1, a-2. Sdkfz meant it was Wermact approved


To Kiwidave... you're right, you didn't "call" anyone a Nazi, but you hinted that the reason we build German models is because we are taken in by German propagana from 50 years ago. I don't think you'll find too many of us that aren't deeply aware of the evilness of the NAZI party nor are we enamored of it. I've seen the DEATH camps up close and personal while liviing over there and trust me it was horribly upsetting just like watching movies that depict the holocaust are most upsetting to me. But, once again I submit to you these ARE GERMAN Vehicles NOT NAZI. They built them for the same reason the Americans built the Sherman and present day Abrams and the British had their Cromwells, Churchills, and now Challengers
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:43 AM UTC
ausf.=ausfuhrung- type or model
SdKfz=Sonder Kraftfahrzeuge- special vehicle, built for a certain purpose

Chris Dictionary Pig
M113
Visit this Community
Istanbul, Turkey / Türkçe
Joined: March 02, 2003
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 02:57 AM UTC
We love'em, because all german vehicles are :

"Ultimate Driving Machines "
:-)

(I go to check now to see if "Bayerische Motoren Werke" sent my money) :-)
avukich
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 03:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Now to clarify my Sherman is just a Sherman. Basically it boils down to this cast hull vs welded hull,, 75mm vs 76 mm everything else is a MINOR variation (from a WW2stand point).



Not to belabor the point, but I still disagree with this. You are forgetting the 105mm and 17lb (Firefly) versions, amphibious versions (exhaust stacks and DD), engineering versions (BARV, dozers, mine-rollers, flails, etc.), CS versions (Jumbo), tank destroyers (M-10 & M-36), etc. I don't think that people give the amount of variation of the Sherman much credit (I know because I was one of those not giving the credit until I did the research to build my first one). I also think the 2 completely different types of suspension (VVSS & HVSS) are more than a "MINOR" variation. I am not going to argue that the Germans didn't have even more, but I think it is silly to say that the US only had "the Sherman" which are all the same. Besides the Sherman and Sherman based vehicles you had the Lee/Grant, Stuart, Pershing, Chaffe, M-18, M-8, M-20, half-tracks, LVTs, etc. In fact, I would say that the armed forces of today (US, British, Russian, German, etc.) are a hell of a lot less varied and diverse in terms of equipment than the US armed forces were in WWII.
Hollowpoint
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 07:52 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Why,oh,why do we LOVE that German Armor?



Because -- like Iraqi armor -- they make such juicy targets!
Donatelo
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 15, 2003
KitMaker: 39 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 08:28 PM UTC
It's a good thing that German armor was so varied. If they had worked from the same philosophy as we Americans by building a good design over and over we may be speaking German(40% of English is Germanic) Instead of over engineering our AFV's.
What I really find interesting is that we(Americans) have adopted the old German designs with our helmuts ,our field caps and our focus on armor. These were lessons are well learned and we're good at that! Just ask the Iraqi's

Don
 _GOTOTOP