German Tank Production in World War 2 - Military History

Patreon: / mhv
German tank production in World War 2 is a topic that often gets little attention. People usually focus mostly on the tank itself and it's armor and weapons, thus they miss the bigger picture. This video explains the basic problems of German tank production in World War 2 and why in the end, the armor plates and guns were mostly irrelevant.
--Social Media--
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
--Sources--
Note that I use both German and English wikipedia, because sometimes one article is more detailed/informative than the other.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerk...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_V
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel

[@ViperGTS737]

Germany didn't choose the Stug Life, the Stug life chose her

[@mikayelalikhanyan1587]

Him fatherland remember

[@DividedByZeero]

Wasn’t Germany the fatherland?

[@tlaloc6885]

@@DividedByZeero yes, but at the same time, the figure for Germany, germania, is a woman.

[@bushboy1163]

fatherland

[@sebasram294]

Willie Cooke pls delete this

[@andro7862]

The peak month of production was September 1944. That always fascinated me because in the same month the most German tanks were destroyed. Germany was strategically dead in 1944, but they were still scoring major tactical victories right up untill New Years Eve 1945.

[@PolishBehemoth]

What tactical victories did they score in 1944? Im just curious?

[@PolishBehemoth]

With the exception of the bridge battle where the americans over extended, i cannot think of a single positive battled the germans had.

[@andro7862]

@@PolishBehemoth Tannenberg (Sinimae hills), Arnhem, Gothic line, Warsaw, Debrecen, 1st Iasi-Kishiniev, Hurtgen forest, Gumbinen, operation Doppelkopf (one of the last successful offensives). Even by late 1944 the Wehrmacht and the SS were no pushovers. Fanaticism goes a long way.

[@PolishBehemoth]

@@andro7862 arnhem was what i meant. The bridge battle

[@gohboonhao9266]

1st century 1👈👈year 1½the 11am in 👈11the 111the world 11am is

[@sammcdonald769]

This was outstanding I have never seen a better presentation for this topic.

[@gohboonhao9266]

Shark 111 11is the 111year of the 👈

[@HSMiyamoto]

It is also important to note that many earlier chassis were placed under mobile artillery and mobile anti-tank guns with open-top superstructures, like the Hummel, Wespe, and Nashorn. The Pz III also survived late into the war as the Luchs reconnaissance vehicle. Unfortunately for Germany, their earlier talks were apparently too weak to tow Panthers and Tigers, which is why many Panthers went to war as unarmed "Bergpanther" towing vehicles.

[@Blitzkrieg1012]

watched video, saw channel name, subbed

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Blitzkrieg1012 thank you! You act as decisive as your name suggests ;)

[@VRichardsn]

+Blitzkrieg1012 Same here! Keep the content coming.

[@ArieeirA]

+Military History same reason i subbed

[@rofl0rblades]

loved that german accent, being german myself ^^

[@dodovomitory3496]

i just did the same exact thing lol

[@jamesricker3997]

also to note in 1944 the Germans started using crap steel in tank production, some tanks had seriously substandard armor,that could crack even if a round didn't penetrate. But when you're being overrun by hordes of T-34s you can't be to picky.

[@THEREALTICKLEMYELMO]

anti german propaganda

[@arthurrebello919]

James Ricker he is actually right. The germans tanks were not famous for being trusty.

[@Bird_Dog00]

James Ricker Correct. The reason for this was a lack in vanadium and molybdenum in germany. Vanadium-molybdenum alloyed steels stay ductile when hardend. Once germany ran out of those metals, the armour got more brittle.

[@jochentram9301]

Also turns out using untrained or badly trained slaves to build war machines results in quality issues. And occasional sabotage. Who'da thunk it?

[@Bird_Dog00]

Jochen If the choice is to have some tanks with quality issues or not having those tanks at all...

[@barazturggrumm3750]

Excellent video! A lot of detail questions, which are left out in most documentaries, are answered here. This way numbers start to become useful.

[@agarestretiak8925]

Excellent work covering the basics of the production numbers and the discrepancies people can come across while researching World War II era AFVs :D

[@Claire-xk5bb]

this is well done. you just got a subscriber.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you, I improved my quality quite a bit since then, welcome to my channel!

[@trebuh]

Cool, well illustrated. Keep it up!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Solaire of Astora thank you, I will!

[@kefkaZZZ]

It is amazing how much your English has improved in the last year and a half! Good work. Going from your new videos to these ones sounds like an entirely different person.

[@ThePenguinMejia]

This channel is awesome! The graphics are nice and cleanly animated. Very well spoken and clear how important it is to play closer attention to statistics. Overall very high quality, you've got my sub.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+C0mmissarCain thank you very much, welcome to my channel!

[@MaverickCulp]

The reason the Pz.III's production was so high when it was so called obsolete was because the StugIII wasn't obsolete. It was a very effective vehicle, and I believe it's a testament to its effectiveness that 2/3 of the Pz.III's listed were the Stug's.

[@MaverickCulp]

Not trying to sound degrading, that's just my opinion which is open to debate.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, you are right. Actually I don't really remember much of that video, especially since I did like 50 since then and the video was also an animated infographic that somehow transfered into a narrated video.

[@MaverickCulp]

Military History Visualized I hear you man, I just found your channel and I'm loving it. I'd really like to see more videos on the Winter and Continuation Wars. Keep it up

[@xcritic9671]

Seems to me they should have focused more on panzer 4 and panther production, as those were well capable of fulfilling their role in any year of the war.

[@ugxxx5501]

Logistics problems said no

[@Beaches_south_of_L.A.]

Love your channel and it's videos. Strictly the facts, straight to the point, not a lot of fluff.

[@AlessandroVisigalli]

Your videos are really interesting, keep up the good job!

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

love the channel and the video.. I like so much those technical aspects of WWII

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+G POGGIA thank you!

[@yathusanthulasi]

This channel needs 1 mil subs

[@angrybird7324]

no, why? Because channels with 1m+ subs have a lower quality because at some point when a channel reach its peak the youtuber doesn't have to put in the same amount of efforts to be successful while a channel that has less subs and is growing will put alot more efforts into the videos to grow even more. Does it make sense? hehe

[@knokkeldoom]

@@angrybird7324 He got half a mil and the vids are only getting better

[@alejandrobetancourt4902]

Well done. I'll be watching all of your videos. I have subscribed and like the format very much.

[@bandwagon22]

But how about the fact that German's most cost effective weapon to destroy enemy tanks was actually using mines. With the prices of 200-250 mines they could knock out one allied tank. The price of tank was about $40 000 while those mines cost just about $1000 - $1500. Of all British tank losses some 22% was caused by mines in NW Europe (1944-45) while in Italy (1943-45) that share was even bigger - 30%. Mines destroyed 80% British tanks more than German Panzers which might surprise many.

[@2Links]

Source?

[@bayurukmanajati1224]

Teller Mines is annoying. It's a fact.

[@colonwuu4847]

But tanks can cover infantry, while advancing

[@raniolvespanssenlafayett6762]

@Future is Now off course for that Deadly Reason all German tanks was coated in Zimmerit and all nonreliable Crommwel was an atraction for magnetic ground mine...

[@jamesfelstead4096]

Are these statistics based upon tanks damaged (e.g. tracked) or actually destroyed? Also worth adding that the side that held the ground after the battle could retrieve damaged tanks.

[@frankdantuono2594]

Panzer T38 and Panzer 3 numbers are so high (as pointed out in the video) because of the Hetzer tank destroyer and Stug 3 assault gun variants made from their respective chassis which were reliable, had good engines, were less expensive and already had production lines running. With all the Tiger Tanks in American WWII movies you would think Germany had a solid wall of them from the North Sea to the Mediterranean. But Sherman tanks only ever encountered Tigers tanks 3 times during the whole war. The workhorses of the German armored forces were two obsolete Czech and German designs.

[@LasertechStudios3142]

Stugs and Hetzers were still good vehicles for the job. Besides, by that point in the war Germany was on the defensive which suited tank destroyer/ assault gun combat anyway.

[@nodinitiative]

As a "logistic expert", even if Germany was able to produce 150,000 tanks or planes, Germany would still lose the war, simply because of that one bloody product, OIL :)....Having a lot of these war machines was pointless if there was not enough oil. I think that was another reason to why Germany did not produce too many of its war machines. I think the reason why so many Panzer 38 (t) and Panzer III was still produced even though they were considered as obsolete was that these two tanks were much easier to be build, consumed less oil and were very useful in garrisoning urban and rural areas and oh yeah, maybe even for "light reconnaissance".

[@Karelwolfpup]

you also forget that it was only in mid/late 1942 when German industry was finally ramped up towards mass production. If Germany had produced 150,000 tanks before this, they would have run out of quality steel before oil. The Ploesti oilfields right up until their "liberation" by the Soviets produced more than enough oil.

[@westkanye4005]

+Karelwolfpup Those oil fields were in Romania right?

[@Karelwolfpup]

paul Men yeppers

[@JRyan-lu5im]

they had switched to making synthetic oil to compensate but the issue was that the allied bombings put an end to german logistics. The records of german production pointed out that raw resource extraction was at a constant supply up to the end of the war, but the fact that the rail yards and highways where decimated made it impossible to do anything.

[@TunguskaEffect]

agreed but if germany had played her cards right i still believe the war in the East could have been won

[@shcurti1]

as always I am most grateful for your excellent channel.

[@boborson5536]

I gotta say you deserve ten times the Amount of suscribers you currently have great content

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Bob Orson Gaming and Mapping thank you!

[@sagesheahan6732]

You sound German, whch is actually kinda cool a German explaining it all. This all very informative and fun to watch. Subscribed. Cant wait to see what else is on here. :)

[@haduong9551]

He's Austrian

[@sagesheahan6732]

Oh! Thats why I thought he was German. Wow, Im an idiot. Whoops.

[@Unown127]

Sage Sheahan Austrians speak German.

[@arminiusschild5260]

And they love kangaroos.

[@jammydodger52]

arminius schild

[@EvanLiu_official]

Excellent presentation! I hope you would publish detailed analysis on this same topics.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you! Yeah, there will be certainly a new video on this topic, after all it has quite many errors. Also I mainly used wikipedia, well, my first video.

[@AIM9Sidewinder1776]

Great Video, looking forward for more!

[@ilovecollege91]

Very informative ! Thank you for this nice work. Subbed.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Glitch thank you!

[@jackofswords7]

An interesting and new take on German tanks. Well done.

[@jochannon]

The Panzer IV was specifically simplified for production in 1944.

[@erikthomsen4768]

Perhaps the preference for quality over quantity may actually have some rather damning consequences. Going by the numbers mentioned above: A. 13522x Panzer IV (Cost = 103.000) = 1.392.766.000 B. 6557x Panther (Cost =117.000) = 767.169.000 C. 1368x Tiger (Cost =250.000) = 342.000.000 D. 569x King Tiger (Cost = 311.000) = 176.959.000 Here we the Panzer IV and number of tanks that honestly don't see as necessary. Innovation is not bad at all. But these later tanks after Panzer IV may actually be a luxury the germans can't afford. 1.392.766.000 + 767.169.000 + 342.000.000 + 176.959.000 = 2.678.894.000 Now lets how many Panzer IV they could have made: 2.678.894.000 / 103.000 = 26008x Panzer IVs *What do you think?* I would imagine that the logistics department have an easier time.

[@GM6linx]

Awesome channel! Subscribed at first sight!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+GM6linx thank you, welcome to my Channel.

[@Dafty2k]

Didn’t expect this to be the first video😭😭 It’s still incredibly good🙌

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks!

[@smacman68]

Fascinating subject. When you look at the amount of individual parts any machine needs, the fact that they made them all under intense attack is amazing. Every knob, screw, nut, panel, window, seat, spring, lever...not only for tanks, but for all the models of aircraft. When a new plane is designed, think of each little windshield that had to be designed and manufactured is quite a feat.

[@1cspr1]

Here is my interpretation of the fact that german production peaked in '44, despite the bombing and loss of resources. There was simply a lot of room for growth. Germany didn't go total war economically untill late 42. Soviets and americans went 0-100 within weeks.

[@boredtodeathwth]

I love your illustrations. Very chic! :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+boredtodeathwth thank you!

[@Octavius0]

Really nice video. Subbed!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Caesar Himself thank you, welcome to the channel.

[@auburndragons]

I like your work, and wish to make some suggestions. The TO&E changes in both the Soviet and American units 1942/43. The TO&E of the SS Panzer Divisions, and the "elite" units. The evolution of "combat commands" in the American units 1942/1943. For example, side by side comparisons of the unit evolutions; like how the change to a "Guards" title added additional personnel and equipment. Just suggestions for your future projects. Thanks for the posts!

[@flydye45]

You are speaking to an audience which is not necessarily familiar with the differences between WWII German tanks. You might have taken a few minutes to describe the difference between them, such as their roles. For example, it would have been nice to hear about how much iron one unit took to make versus another. I would also have liked to hear about a comparison of this production compared to that of Russia and the USA, to get a sense of scale.

[@TaShadan]

I agree. A comparison would be very interesting!

[@erichvonmanstein1952]

What about looking at uncle Google?

[@psychohist]

@@erichvonmanstein1952 Or other videos. This one is just about production, and I'm glad he kept it short. The much higher cost of production of the Tiger tanks was an eye opener.

[@aaronmonke6825]

Well I know this is a bit late, but most of the German armor plate was krupp steal or similar quality to naval grade metal. Very strong steel, dare I say better or similar too Britions metallurgy at the time which was the best. many driveline systems and armaments were naval applications. Iron with high nickel content would have been used for blocks or heads in engines

[@manueltorres5225]

That’s kind of asking to much

[@Spartan640]

nice video, keep up the good work!!

[@koenmaertens1664]

Nice work, finally someone who explains it as it should be. Subbed as well.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+koen maertens thank you!

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

It would have been useful to provide figures for US & UK and Russian production to put things into perspective. Also it would interesting to know what percentage of tanks got to the front line without being destroyed in transit by enemy action, although this was more of problem for US made tanks shipped during the U Boat war it was problem for both sides in the North African front.

[@duanepigden1337]

Andrew W MacFadyen - in some battles Russian tanks were driving out of factories to the front line that was right there.

[@13jhow]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGfbfYCLnsuVrrM starting at about 26:30 talks about manufacturing in the US, USSR, and Germany. End of war stats: UK ~36k, Germany ~47k, USA ~102k (note they intentionally cut back in 1944), USSR ~106k.

[@yeetyeet5079]

@@duanepigden1337 I’d imagine the Germans had their own tanks do that late war at least once

[@blockboygames5956]

I would love to see you do a video dispelling the myth that Russian industry was far greater than German industry during WW2. It is a little known fact that German industry massively outstripped the industry of the USSR during WW2. Yes the Russians produced more tanks and AFV's but you have to look a little deeper. This is literally the only area that Russia outproduced Germany during the war. In every other area, Germany left Russian far behind. At no point during the war did Soviet industry ever equal 1/2 of Germany's output, and for most of the war, ti was around 1/3. To give some examples, in the year of 1942, Germany produced almost exactly 190,000 vehicles of all classes (Tanks and AFV's, armored cars, half-tracks, trucks, cars, locomotives and train cars/carriages. I do not know whether these figures include motorcycles.) In the same year, the USSR produced just under 61000 ground vehicles of all types. Now in the same year, Germany produced 6180 actual tanks and armored fighting vehicles, as compared to the USSR's 24,640. So as you can see, it is not that Russian industry matched the German industry, it is simply that they prioritised fighting vehicles. Even at the expense of other military equipment, particularly aircraft. At no point did the germans ever manage to get air equality in the west after DDay, but in the east, they were able to do so, mainly because the Russian industry was so busy building tanks that, even late in the war, they were never able to overwhelm the germans in the air.. To give other examples. The Germans built 10,600 locomotives in the period 1942 - 1944. In the same period, the USSR built 84. Many many Russian car and train factories, indeed most, were converted to produce tanks and fighting vehicles. No 112 factory, which produced locomotives before the war, produced more than 10,000 T-34's during the war. The Gorky automobile factory converted a large part of its floor space to produce more than 13000 light tanks such as the T-60 and the T-76 during the war. The Germans in the 3 years of 42-44 built 280,000 trucks. The USSR built 130,000 in the same period. The Germans burned between 250 and 270 million tons of coal each year during 1942, 43 and 44. In the same timeframe, the USSR burned 75 million, 93 million and 121 million tons each year. In the same period, Germany produced 85 million tons of steel, as opposed to the USSR's 27.5 million tons. The Germans built 1152 Uboats during the war. The USSR built 52. So clearly it is the production priority of the Germans, and their unwillingness to mobilise for total war, rather than simple industrial capacity. It is also a case of the USSR mobilising by force, whereas in Germany, the vast majority of people were free workers who were not 'conscripted' to work (The many slave workers forced to work for the German war machine notwithstanding.) IT is also a myth that Germany ever ran short of Oil or Steel. The shortages came from the breakdown of their transport and logistics, and not in any way of a shortage of raw materials. The only real shortages in terms of war materials came in the form of 'rare' elements: tungsten, nickel, tungsten etc etc. I do not wish in any way to diminish the massive heroism/sacrifices/suffering of the Russian people to win the Second world war, and my apologies if this post in any way does that. My aim is to dispel the myth that "Russian industry was greater than German industry" Without the Russian people bearing the majority of the fighting in the war, I personally do not believe we could have won without them. It has always staggered me that the German people were able to almost win a war against the entire developed world, and just as staggering that the Russian people were able to stop them. After decades of reading and studying the second world war, the real tragedy to me is that two such extraordinary peoples ever went to war in the first place. May the stupidity of world leaders never take us there again. Much love to both peoples from Australia. And thank you for such a great channel! :)

[@pederman15]

the world wars created , made way, the creation of israel. look at kennedys warnings/shadow gov. privately run federal reserve. nothing in this world is as it seems. research will show you truth,.

[@blockboygames5956]

I am aware of these things also. You are right. Thank you for your reply.

[@PerunAU]

Germany never ran short of oil or steel? wait what? The civilian economy ran on an oily rag by mid-war and there were discussions about partial demotorisation relatively regularly from my understanding. Citation needed on a claim that they weren't short of oil. Also the steel situation played heavily into the U-boat production decisions.

[@psychohist]

The Russians didn't have to produce trucks; the US provided all they could ever need.

[@spqr1945]

Well, soviet industry suffered heavily of the rapid movement of german troops, in 1941 germans occupied territories, where almost 40% of Soviet population was living before war. Second, rapid relocation of the industry to the east were not so smooth and well organized. Third, soviets decided to produce what is really needed at war - tanks and fighter-bombers, they produced 40000 IL-2, and almost 80000 T-34.

[@maximinomorgado2150]

This is now one of my favorite chanels

[@nazgul_53]

world needs more channels like this respect thank you

[@WildBillCox13]

The more we discuss, the more we hone our debating skills, the closer we come to the ideal of the Master Debater.

[@Napoleonheir1805]

Such an awesome vid! Well explained mate! keep it up! although a small criticism is that sometimes I can't understand what you are saying :(, although truth is English is not my first language either, so I know the struggle. Other than that, keep it up! just subscribed!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Napoleonheir1805 thank you! welcome to my channel. I am working on a better pronunciation, it is more of a voice than language issue I think, because even in my native language there are some issues. Will get a mic stand soon that should help with my posture, which affects the voice.

[@Napoleonheir1805]

Sure man, just keep practicing I love your channel already. You also have stuff about the Romans

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Napoleonheir1805 thank you. Yeah, another Roman video is in the making, so if you wanna join the Legion, you probably should watch it ;) Napoleon will definitely get a video or more, I already took some notes a few weeks ago, but I started too many stuff and I need to do some background reading first to get a better understanding of the whole picture.

[@TqFinax]

+Military History Just wanted to say - I understood you well enough. Not saying you are perfect, as if anyone is, but my point is that the listener is accountable for how they hear, as much as how someone speaks.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+TqFinax thanks, I think to a certain degree it is due to the many different "Englishes", I have a very hard time understanding English in Latin American countries. Also the ability to process dialects and/or accents vary widely.

[@Fieldoak]

Love your channel! Could you maybe do (or have you done?) a piece about fuel production. Would be intressting to know when compared to this matter! :) Keep up the good work!

[@ziros22]

Great video man! Liked, Subed and Commented!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+ziros22 thank you! :D

[@geraldineaudouin1844]

Of course if you compare with enemy tank production you can appreciate that German tank production is ridiculously small. The U.S. produced an equivalent number of M4's and its variants.

[@Qmeister044]

+Geraldine Audouin And the Soviets produced almost twice as many T-34 variants.

[@packr72]

Qmeister044 I bet a lot of money that if it simply came down to tanks only the US would've at the time easily out produced the Soviets; in tanks. The only thing that held US tank production back was that the US needed a shit load of steel for the Navy.

[@RD-dt6dm]

m4 (sherman) produced during the war were near 90,000.

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

packr72 and we were busy improving them with plans for heavy tanks.

[@neieduardodepaula4556]

+R Dom M4(Sherman) produced during the war were about 48,000

[@enzothebaker22]

Excellent! The genius of Albert Speer is so often overlooked. Great job.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+enzothebaker22 thank you, but Albert Speer was mostly a genius in public relations at least according to the research of the recent years.

[@HDSME]

Speer was stupendous in is building of so many weapons no one cloud have done better!

[@robaustin4193]

Another interesting video well done

[@RobbyHouseIV]

Do the panzer/self propelled guns numbers you show include those built and manufactured in Czechoslovakia for the Reich? Great channel. I see it's really taken off in just the last month or so! I'm proud of you!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Robby House I think so, since the "Czech Republic" was taken over and Slovakia became a "puppet" state, but that was my first video and I used wikipedia thus everything might be quite off, was quite amazed to find various errors on the A7V wiki page. thank you!

[@4tehlulz9000]

In case you are wondering: based on the information provided on the video and corrected to 2017 inflation, it would cost $750.000 to build a Panther and $1.600.000 for a Tiger to be built.

[@typie34]

so i just have to winn lotto and buy me a sweet tiger

[@panzerwafflez7228]

But you have to build one as the only tigers are either scrap metal or a few at Bovington or France.

[@oscarovegren]

Got to love the subtitles. "panzer freeze", "pants free", "pants freeze"

[@leviticus2001]

"Pants Are Free"

[@manweller1]

Thank you for this much appreciated 👍🏾

[@DanBray1991]

Keep in mind the production numbers in this video include variants, such as jadgpanzers, stug III's and IV's. The number of actual Panzer IV's was just of 8,000. Meaning by 1944 and 1945 Panthers were actually more common in the German arsenal.

[@gOtze1337]

u should also add, that germany only started full military/war production in 1942, because hitler was frightened to lose support by the german population. + the wehrmacht thought that the war will be over in 1942(everyone thought the russain army is unable to do anything, even the allied). and that is the actually main reason for the low production rates in the early years of ww2. u can call it an misscalculation by the germans or overconfidence.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+gOtze1337 I probably will do another on German war production, but someone pointed out that this assumption and some in my videos are actually not up to current research. Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction provided a quite different view, but I need to read him first.

[@blastimir]

Great video. Will you be making a video about the development project, or better known as the E-series tanks (E-10, E-25, E-50, E-75, and E-100)?

[@spudwesth]

Excellent analysis.

[@markbeyea4063]

Excellent analysis and the closed caption translation of the presenter's accent is hillarious. At one point it turned "Panzer III" into "pants are free". Gotta love it!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

You should check the video on Falkland island for close captions 😂

[@leutsssz]

Slavaboos and alliedboos go crazy.

[@erichvonmanstein1952]

Leut Especially British teaboos.

[@filipmironov1410]

Liked&subbed just for not putting maus into this video.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

:D

[@mikebrown614]

But, but......... What about the E-100???????? ;-)

[@carlosgalvan4399]

What is this, World of Tanks?

[@mikebrown614]

Carlos Galvan No, more like mocking the impact of World of Tanks on any otherwise constructive discussion about armored vehicles.

[@GBibian10819]

+Carlos Galvan FYI the maus is indeed a real tank, but only two of which existed and only one survived.

[@isoldagalvatuz6647]

Gracias por la información... ¿Podrías decirme de dónde obtuviste esas cifras?, gracias... (Thanks for the information ... Could you tell me where you got these data and numbers? Thank you ...).

[@Swampfox1966]

@Military History Visualized What was the information of the PanzerJager Corps? stuff like the Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, Ferdinand/Elefant. and even the obscure ones like the Nashorns, Dicker max's, and st. Emil.

[@TheWoodstock2009]

I wouldn't say german tank design was effective.The soviets and americans managed to make machines that were fit to fight a war,and one of them had to lug their industry beyond the urals and restart everything from scratch,the other was fighting a logistically nightmarish war across 2 oceans.The panzers 3 and 4 (the 38t as well even if it isn't exactly german) were already obsolete in armor,speed,gun performance in 1941 and yet they performed better than the later tanks because they were more adaptable,reliable,relatively easy to produce compared to the later models.Excellent video nonetheless!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+TheWoodstock2009 I agree on your points, but my final point was mainly about early advantage, when unreliable "Big cats" came into action it was already too late. After all, the video is mainly about tank production and industry. But yeah, I probably should have phrased it: early tank design and doctrine was highly effective. But someone could still argue that it was only effective, because the enemies had so ineffective tactics and/or tanks. Thanks!

[@TheWoodstock2009]

Military History I agree,it has more to do with that.The western allies were fighting the last war,the soviets were crippled by the purge.It is interesting that these tactics weren't really well received in te german high command either,in the battle of france you have generals with the panzer divisions straight up ignoring orders to stop from the high command to maintain momentum,to great effect.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+TheWoodstock2009 exactly, Frieser quoted a French General who stated that the French fought with an army from 1918 against an Army of 1939. Yet, the German approach in the beginning was also mostly 1918, only after the huge success which were due to the ineptness of their enemies and ignoring orders from their own command, they switched to a "proper" warfare on the tactical and operational level, but on the strategic level Germany basically fought a pre-industrial war by trying to win with the sole destruction of the enemies armed forces, completely disregarding their ability to rearm and conscript.

[@vascolopes9998]

Liked the objectiveness and the german accent!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Vasco Lopes thank you!

[@od1452]

Thanks for the info.

[@vinay4358]

your commentary is amazing and love your accent as well I'm not a native English speaker my self

[@frd2]

My Grandfather was a King Tiger driver! ;D

[@enthalpiaentropia7804]

+F R D Really...? Which abteilung he was... Thanks to answer..

[@enthalpiaentropia7804]

+уголек вычурночерный with T34..?

[@enthalpiaentropia7804]

+уголек вычурночерный from Heer or WSS..?

[@4T3hM4kr0n]

another nationalistic moron, anti tank guns can't pen a tiger II frontally, not when the Tiger II's were mainly used in static defense due to their fuel consumption.

[@DegenerateWeeb69]

That's not really a good thing

[@SuperIcyPhoenix]

The Tiger II was actually supposed to be named Bengal Tiger, which if I'm not mistaken, is what Königgstiger, which is not it's officially documented name, translates to.

[@typie34]

the tiger 2 was named "Königstiger" wich means king tiger in english

[@lucasbaxter2357]

"King Tiger" is the correct translation. I was unable to find any information at all regarding the Tiger II having "Bengal Tiger" as a proposed name.

[@igorbednarski8048]

Lucas Baxter You are all guys both wrong and right at the same time: The tank you are referring to was nicknamed 'Konigstiger', which literally translated means 'king's tiger ' - BUT 'Konigstiger' is the German name for the animal known in English as 'Bengal tiger ' - so 'king tiger' is really just a bad translation, the tank was called 'Bengal Tiger 'in German.

[@head58t]

great video! Thanks

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+head58t thank you!

[@mugwump58]

Fantastic! Subscribed.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+mugwump58 thx, welcome to my channel!

[@sfjadfds]

Brillant

[@masshysteria9657]

where it all started

[@furkanerkal6760]

Great and informative Video! and do you think make a video about Battle Of Bulge ? Subbed , Liked ,Commented!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Furkan Erkal thank you, right now, it is not on the list, but in the future definitely!

[@2001lextalionis]

Once again thank you for posting. Tank production as opposed to self propelled guns without a traversing turret. Perhaps you should consider making a video about that as the Wehrmacht produced some excellent SP guns such as the Stug III you already mentioned

[@Isegrim-yd1tx]

The main problem for Germany was, as you can see the production raising too late in 43-44, that total war was announced in 43. France, the UK and all other large Nations announced it with their entry in the war. And Germany builded way too much diffrent and complicated tanks. The 1st Tigers running gear was an horror to repair in field, for example. And StugIV+JgpzIV, one of them is needless. Russians had their T34- and KV (Replaced by IS) based Tanks, one for each task. They had their massive losses only cause german tactics and tank crews were far superior. That was the reason why the Allies bombed their way to Victory, they had almost nothing to hold on with the germans on ground !

[@SordoBjorn]

"That was the reason why the Allies bombed their way to Victory" Or it was because they had won the battle for air superiority, and it would be foolish not to use every advantage you get when engaged in such a huge conflict. what on earth makes you think a 17 pounder AT gun (which could fire SABOT rounds which was space-age technology in ww2) could not handle german tanks?

[@morisawakenji7877]

Disagree. Stug IV is not Needless. Replacing the lack of Stug III with Stug IV is a good idea. Also, Jagerpanzer IV should also be a good choose. I do think they might have to change the main gun from 75L70 to something else though.

[@MichaelFay63]

I read that a report on bombing by a US Commision in the late 40's concluded that the bombing was a failure and the resources would have been better employed in conventional ground war. The US lost 50,000 air personnel in the war more than any other service! The Soviets beat the Germans, The US Navy beat The Japanese Navy and the Red Army beat the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria. The British beat the Italians!

[@SordoBjorn]

Michael Fay "The British beat the Italians" That's selling them a bit short isn't it? They fought the germans alone for a whole year (from the fall of france until the start of Barbarossa) Then there was the Japanese who capitalised on the Royal Navy being pre-occupied with having to deal with protecting merchant vessels from u-boats, as well as the german fast battleships. despite all this the british navy not only maintained it's size, but grew quite considerably (just not by as much as the US navy did, which superceded the RN somewhere in '42) in fact even after britain having fought everywhere for the entire duration of the war, the 1944-45 RN pacific fleet could have single-handedly crushed the Japanese Imperial navy from dec 41. (if in this scenario we either turned back the clock to before the fall of singapore, or the US had permitted the RN to use the phillipines as a forward naval base for supply purposes only)

[@kenonifty]

The Italians in northern Italy surrendered only after Germany surrendered.

[@boonamai8926]

Unbelievable that they built the most tanks in 1944 when they were frequently bombed by the allies

[@philipjoyce8817]

Ive always wondered how they got anything done while getting bombed to shit. But we were carpet bombing a lot too which are basically civilian targets to lower moral...even though history showed that doesnt work.

[@polarvortex3294]

It took a while for the country to get into gear, organize mass production, and fully exploit its conquests -- going from a small, de-militarized land in '33, to a 'total war' empire by '44. Production went way up, but life must have really changed in those years -- by late in the war reaching an unsustainable peak of insanity, with underground factories, slave labor, sleepless eyes, and death everywhere.

[@herbertgearing1702]

I always appreciate your work and I regard your opinions as expert. I usually assume that if I disagree with you I'm likely to be incorrect. However, my petty quibble is the reason for the high cost per unit of the tiger and king tiger. I don't think it was a lack of design experience. I think they were both well designed for their intended purpose at the time of design. The tiger family concept was intended to serve as the hardened tip of the spear as heavy duty breakthrough tanks. The requirements of that job are to be heavily armored all around (having enemies on your flank is part of the job) and gunned up to deal with whatever the enemy has in your way, and basically everything else is a distant third. They weren't intended to be produced in great numbers, to be cost effective, fuel efficient, or even particularly reliable long-term. They were supposed to show up at the beginning of an offensive operation, punch a nice hole in the enemy defensive lines for the rest of the army to drive through, and then get refitted and back into shape as the next offensive is being planned. If everything goes as planned you will be in newly conquered territory at the end of your job and repair /recovery of your expensive machine and elite crews should be logistically painless. As such they would not be built in high numbers and never benefit from the economy of scale. They were necessarily very heavy and due to the exponential challenges with powerplant, running gear, and long distance transportation of very heavy armored vehicles would not be practical for mass production unlike the panther which was arguably an early mbt. Tigers were successful in their intended role, however they were eventually pressed into a grinding fireman defensive duty in an environment where air superiority was lost and they were not guaranteed to be holding the battlefield afterwards. Despite doing an admirable job, they suffered greatly for it. The other reason for the severe logistical problems for the Germans was that socialists have no idea how economics actually work, if they did they would not be socialists. Germany had many of the most brilliant people the world over in the fields of science, industry, finance, warfare, and arms production and they managed to destroy the motivation many and drive others to leave the country due to their oppressive, counter-productive socialist party policies.

[@1faustus]

Nice analytical videos.

[@ikesteroma]

We all know the Tiger was probably the premier tank in battle, but was it cost effective? It seems I once heard the Tiger has some serious maintenance issues, and it was too expensive for what it could do? Thoughts?

[@TunguskaEffect]

der tiger was a monster of a tank powerful well armoured but yes many many serious maintenance issues cause it was too overly complex especially its suspension system and overall size if germany built panthers the entire way maybe the war in the East could have turned out differently just my 2 cents ? food for thought plus not cost effective youll get ur moneys worth on pz 4 or panthers or even stugs

[@korona3103]

Often the things that took out Tigers were things that would have dealt with other vehicles just as effectively. Ambushing AT guns, mines, AT obstacles etc. I think the Tiger was probably a good investment for Germany. The X factor of fear the Panzer divisions had because they possessed such a powerful tank was very significant. The hugely over-inflated numbers of tiger sightings on the western front is surely a sign of the huge psychological impact these vehicles had even long after their heyday. Also the bottleneck for the Whermacht was fuel rather than tank production. In that context a smaller number of more elite vehicles is probably a good idea.

[@ikesteroma]

***** _"Also the bottleneck for the Whermacht was fuel rather than tank production. In that context a smaller number of more elite vehicles is probably a good idea."_ That is a fantastic point that I had not previously realized. Excellent.

[@mema0005]

I have heard the Panther be described as the best tank or WWII more often. Either way, both the Panthers and Tiger were undoubtedly superb tanks (faults aside) but what could they really do against swarms of T-34's and M4's?

[@korona3103]

I think there is a misconception that the M4 was a cheap tank. It's true that a lot were made but they were actually pretty expensive, roughly similar in cost to a Panther. The reason the US could produce so many wasn't because the M4s were cheap but because the US was so rich and economically powerful!

[@matshagglund3550]

Tanks were not so crucial alone as so foolishly claimed by mainstream historians. Without infantry support tank units are easily encircled and destroyed. What Germans really were lacking was half-tracks and trucks for logistic chain. And the reason for that was simply: GERMANY WAS LACKING OIL.

[@masshysteria9657]

loved these videos

[@masshysteria9657]

ayeee 1000th comment

[@torbenzenth5615]

always interesting videos from this channel, but the english subtitles are a bit weird...

[@pimpompoom93726]

The Panther ended up being a big bust, because serviceability and maintenance problems kept many of them being operational. Germany would have been FAR better off to upgrade the Panzer IV and continue to crank them out-it was a good tank, reliable and far easier to produce.

[@4TheWinQuinn]

The Panther is my favourite tank

[@gast128]

Great video and exactly the type of information I was looking for. Wars are often won by sheer numbers and not by brilliant generals or weapons. Examples are the the second Punic war (despite major victories of Hannibal, Rome had bigger reserves); the American Civil War and Germany vs Russia in second world war.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+gast128 thank you, this video is actually quite bad. A lot of information is quite dated - originally my goal was just a simple visualization of the numbers and made quite some naive conclusions. Also I didn't know about Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction. Yeah, but it is a mix of both, take a look at the Vietnam war for instance.

[@pericanet]

Number not win but more number give you chance to make 2,3x make wrong befor win...

[@donfrandsen7778]

Great video , informative Right on. Live that accent !! More videos!!

[@user-gv4bf4zx2s]

The accent just adds to it, lol. :)

[@triumphant39]

The pz III wasn't quite as obsolete as you made it out to be. It had been updated several times, also it was used to support infantry and upgraded accordingly. The base/original model pz III and IV were very obsolete of course, but that's kind of the point I'm trying to make.

[@GBibian10819]

Its very highly contextual.

[@triumphant39]

Indeed it is, but that's entirely the reason it shouldn't be generalized so broadly. The original armor of the Pz III and IV were absolutely abysmal upon their first introduction, but eventually they had armor competitive with the sherman and t-34 in terms of overall protection, and upgraded guns depending on the purpose of the tank. By late 1943,or early 1944 it was certainly obsolete vs. most other newer tanks, but it's important to make that distinction, because it wasn't produced after 1943. Essentially I am correct, it was no longer produced after it was obsolete, so it isn't surprisingly at all.

[@GBibian10819]

+triumphant39 it was obsolete by its own makers, the pz.lll never made a real difference in battle considering it had a hard time going toe to toe with the russians, thats why they seized its production after the feedback from the field that the stug.lll was doing much better than the original pz.lll design. Which rendered it obsolete, because it already had its current replacement. But nevertheless it did its job, and it did it well, but the sad truth was the enemy was doing better.

[@elitegamer3531]

Very detailed love it❤

[@robertjohnson8938]

Good info

[@HansHendl]

Tschörmany

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

die Mannschaft

[@adamhope3750]

Military History Visualized The team?

[@UltraMegaSquirrel]

I wish you'd taken more time to talk about inefficiency. Germany produced some pretty magnificent tanks during the war, but an awful lot of them were totally unreliable, and not just because of sabotage.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+UltraMegaSquirrel I probably will do a video about that in the future, this video was very improvised and very inefficient itself, I almost didn't publish it, I am very happy I did. I added "Reliability of German Tanks in World War 2" to my potential videos, no promises though.

[@UltraMegaSquirrel]

That's something I'd really love to see. There are so many myths of the superiority of German armor over what the allies had, because of the better armor and guns of some German tanks. But wars are decided by so much more than that. The Sherman and T-34 had many advantages compared to the Tiger and Panther.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+UltraMegaSquirrel I was just thinking about different factors that contain all necessities of "total war". The classical: guns, armor (and mobility) is only suitable on an operational scale. So I would add: reliability, maintainability, "producability" (price, time-to-build), usability (after all the early T-34 sucked in that regard; stuff like three man turrets, crew), "command and control"-ability (coordination, e.g., radio for internal communication, but that is maybe more of a doctrine/army-level issue), consumption (fuel), "transportability", etc.

[@The136th]

Those illustration are they done by you or are they stock image?

[@erichvonmanstein1952]

Cost of a Tiger II was up to 800.000 RM in 1944,it was costliest AFV of WW2(ı don’t know cost of Maus)A small error.

[@arbitrage2141]

Costliest = most expensive. Costliest is not an english word. Im just trying to help. Not trying to be pedantic :) thanks for the information though. Your comment was interesting

[@aristedecomgmailcom]

Even in 1944 the Soviet Union, which had a lower GDP, still produced more thanks than Germany. Producing 18K tanks in 1944 wasn't enough to win the war for Germany, which by then had hopelessly lost.

[@LordOfNoobstown]

+Jonathan Mark germany knew they could not keep up with the production of the us and the soviets so they focused more on heavy tanks ;)

[@VRichardsn]

+Jonathan Mark It wouldn´t have made such a big impact either. How would you crew them? And how would you fuel them?

[@thCentury-rx9di]

+Richardsen The Soviet Union had no lack of men or fuel.

[@VRichardsn]

Call me Will I was talking about Germany.

[@geraldineaudouin1844]

+LordOfNoobstown Focusing on heavy tanks was a losing solution, showing the flaw in their doctrine. The war was won with medium with good dual purpose guns, superior in mobility. Focusing on heavier tanks that couldn't fulfill this role was a blunder. If you check the postwar analysis of tank fighting you will see that the tank that won a tank v tank duel did so no because of armor and gun but because of tactical edge.

[@HoboTango]

" Panzer III was obsolete in 1941 " Very wrong, Panzer III were made to support Heavy Tanks and Infantry. They were very good at their job, aka : Supporting.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

context is a bitch.

[@HoboTango]

Military History Visualized Haha, well its just that some people watching your video could think you mean the Panzer III is totally useless, and I wouldn't want that.

[@EASY7356]

Wrong the Panzer 3 was build to destroy tanks and the Panzer 4 with it's short Gun with bigger Caliber was the support Tank They were already useless against heavy French Char B1 Tanks and Russian KV1 and early T34 luckily for the germans not many of those were fielded, and the later Versions of the Pz 4 were much more effective The only usefull Panzer 3 (it was a modern and usefull Tank at first of course but generally speaking) was the Sturmgeschütz Variant In the utopian german army planning from July 1941 with 36 plannend Panzer divisions and 15,440 tanks, only a little over 2000 Panzer 4 were foreseen but still 8000 Panzer 3s when (in my opinion) it should have been replaced as Main Battle Tank by the Panzer 4 F1 with the longer 75mm Gun (and then armed with the Pz4s first short gun) by that time already The increase in production numbers came when the Panzer 3 was already inferior to newer Soviet and some Allied Models like the T34 and the M3 In hindsight it would have been better to only produce the Panzer 4 because of it's significantly higher development potential and to dispense the Panzer 3 completely

[@HoboTango]

EASY7356 No tanks were built for the only purpose of destroying other tanks other than Tanks destroyers. In 1933, the Panzer III was designed for Infantry support and Tank killing. When it was clear it couldn't kill tank, during Operation Barbarossa, it became used for Heavy tank support and Infantry support ( still ) and it excelled at that. A good use of the bocage proved that the Panzer III was still a match for most Allied tanks, in 1943. So yes, they were largely useless against tanks on the eastern front, but they were still good use on the Western Front and they were still largely used for Infantry support on the soviet front. Apart from this you are right on everything. and I agree that they should have just built Panzer IV.

[@EASY7356]

HoboTango​​ I meant it was intended as Main Battle Tank and den Pz4 as Support Tank (not as Tank Destroyer you are of course right with that) Also the Long barreled 50mm Gun was already available in 1940, he would still have been an effective mbt with that thing But german Army planning in it's stupidity, despite Hitler (and Heinz Guderian even ealier) demanding a bigger Gun, ordered that the short barreled 50mm Gun should replace the 36mm (wich was already unfit in France that's why Guderian wanted a 50mm Gun from the beginning) I never said it was a Bad Support Tank i just think that they switched their intended roles too late in the War The Model M or N (the one with the short 75mm Gun) should've have been build much earlier in 1941 or so instead of 42/43 The Panzer 3 in his Role as Support for the Tiger 1 in the early heavy Tank formations (Organisation D) had in contrast to the Tiger much higher losses because it was (obviously xD) thinner armored That's why later Heavy Tank Formations were composed of Tigers only (and because the Tiger reached higher/high enough production numbers after 1942) As we both agree on, concentrating on Panzer 4 production only early on for all Battlefield Roles and disregarding the Panzer 3 completely would've been much better (Damn that's a lot of should, could and would haves xD) 

[@xslashx1908]

very nice animation

[@shaneardinger2214]

Dude great videos and great voice, also I like your accent. And me to the subscribe tally friend