Figure 1.--These Soviet children probably in the 1970s are visting a World War II memorial in Volgagrad (de-Stainized Stalingrad). Notice the blocks of Stalinist era apartments built after the War. The city was leveled during the battle. On display are some of the Red Army tanks that broke the back of the Wehrmacht in the titantic battles on the Eastern Front. We think these tanks are two eavy tanks, the IS-2, and IS-3. The middle tracked vehicle is not a tank. We at first thought it was the KV-2. The very early models of the KV-2 had a box like top but with a shorter bunker buster gun. They later changed the KV-2 made with that huge block as a rotating turret and a longer barrel. The middle vehicle is the SU-152 assault gun. The iconic T-34 medium tank is not picture, but without adobtwould have been in display. Stalingrad was not a major tank battle. In fact the Germans gave up their important advantage of mobility by plunging their tanks into the urban environmentt of the huge city where they had only minimal value and could be attacked by the Soviet soldiers with anti-tank weapons.

It was in Europe that the most effective tanks of World War II were developed and used to great effect. At the start of the War the French has the best tanks, but an ineffective battle doctrine (September 1939). French tanks did not even have communication gear. German Barbarossa tactics not only dfeated the Poles with few tanks, but the French with a sizeable tank force. Captured Czech tanks played aole in the German victories in the West. Early German victories were do in larger part because of the Wehrmcht Panzer force. The Germans rapidly improvd the quality and size of their tank force. The Barbarossa invasion of the Soviet Union destroyed Soviet armies with large, but obsolte tank forces. The Germans were starteled when they encountered the Red Army T-34 tank at the outset of Barbarossa (June 1941). The Germans did not know that such a tank evee existed. They did not believe that the Russian untermench were even capable of producing such an advanced tank. Most of the Soviet tanks were obsolete models and the Red Army had not yey developed an effective combat doctrine. The T-34 was surperior to any of the German panzers and over the next 2 years the Germns would teach Blizkrieg tactics to the Siviets. It would be a very costly learning experience. The Germans rushed to make improvements, but they did not have the industrial capacity to match Soviet and American production. The Panther Mk5 which appeared in 1943 was a match for the T-34, but not as reliable or available in the same numbers as the T-34. The formidable German Tigers that followed were gas-guzzeling behemoths, but not very maneuverable and only available in small quantities. The greatest tank battle of the War was fought at Kursk (July 1943). It wold prove to be the largest tank battle of history. And never again will a tank battle be fought of such dimensions. After nearly 2 weeks of intense combat, it was the Red Army with its tanks that emerged as the victor. The British built a variety of tanks, but surpringly never hit on a match for the German tanks. Fortunately by the time of D-Day, the tank was no longer the decisive weapon on the battlefield, especially as the Luftwaffe had been destoyed. The Germans in Mormandy were using their tanks more as mobile pill boxes. And Blitzkrieg without air support was impossible as the Germans found out to their detriment in the Bulge (December 1944). Air power and anti-tank weapons were able to counter armor.

Britain

The British built and effectively used tanks in World War I. In fact along with the Amerivan infantyry, they were a primary reason for the Allied success in cracking the Sigfriend Kine wide open. Budget contraints severly limited production during the inter-War years. The Briish were the only country to enter World War II with a fully mechanized army. Surprisingly they did not have an effective tank at the onset of the War, but the German tanks were not much better. What both the Bristish and French lacked was well conceived tank tactics. And neither fully appreciated the importance of anti-tank guns. Surprisingly, the British failed to develop a superior tank yjat could be deployed in significant numbers during the war. Given the effectiveness of British weapons development durung the War, and the importance of the tank, this is rather surprising. The British developed several different tanks and extensive variants of the basic types. They also relied on American tanks because the United States had a much larger industrial capacity. Not only did the British not come up with an effective tank, but they failed to grasp for about 3 years what the Germans had at the beginning of the War--and understanding of effective tank tactics. This did not occur until nearly 2 years of fighting in the Western Desert. Rommel essentially taught the British modern tank tactics, as he did the Amerians who proved to be faster learners. This was possible because unlike France, the Germans never deployed sufficent forces to defeat the British in the Western Desert. While huge quantities of American material flowed to the British. The British did not have the industrial capacity to build tanks in the numbers needed. Much of the British industrial caopacity was focused oin the air war. Thus the 8th Army in the Western Desert relied heavily on the American M-3 Grants and then the M-4 Sherman. British tank forces were notable for the variety of prototypes and types produced in relatively small numbers. British tank production was far below German production levels abs standards. The British made the decision early in the War to focus on aircraft. The British tanks included the Maltida, Churchill, and Crusader. Most observers believe that the 52-ton Centurion was the best British tank of the War. It was conceived as the answer to the German Panthers and Tigers. The design proved so sucessful that some of its various upgrades were still in service in armies during the 1990s. The Comet Cruiser tank was the most powerful main battle tank developed by the British. It reached British forces relatively late in the War. And by this time not only had tank tactics been worked out, but the the entry of the United States in the War and the attrition experienced by the Germans on the Eastern Front and the development of close air support meant that the British tanks faced a more supportive battlefield situation than they had at the beginning of the War. The Cruiser reached British forces before American tankers got the M-26 Pershing.

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia had a substantial tank force, especially given the size of the country. The Czechs at the time of the Munich crisis had a force of light tanks (September 1938). This included 298 LT vz. 35 designed at the Škoda arms complex. There were also 50 LT vz. 34 built by ČKD. These tanks were not up to the standards of the tanks the Germand built in the final years of the War, but they were up to the standards of many of the tanks that the Germans had in 1938 at the time of the Munich crisis. The Czechs also delivered tanks to the Hungarians. The Czechs prdered 150 LT vz. 38 were ordered but the Germans invaded abd seized the country in violation of the Munich Accords before the tanks could be delivered (March 1939). The Germans found the Czech light tanks (LT-35s and LT-38s) were superior in several ways to their own light tanks (Panzer I and Panzer IIs). The Germans thus decided to keep producing the tanks durung their occupation of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs produced 136 more LT-35s and a total of 1,414 LT-38s for the Whermacht at the Škoda Works. The Germans used them in Poland (1939), France (1940), and the Soviet Union (1941). The Czech tanks were especially important in the French campaign. The evolutiin of armor and anti-tank weapons left the Czech tanks obsolete and production was ended (1942). They also were not suitable for harsh winter conditions. The Germans withdrew them for front-line operations. They continued to be used as a light reconnaissance vehicle. Some were converted to Hetzer tank destroyers. They also saw use as artillery tractors. One of the several benefits of seizing Czechoslovakia was control of the Škoda works. It would be a major support for the German war effort throughout the War. In addition to tanks, artillery was also produced at Škoda.

Finland

The Finns were a small, largely agricultural nation without the technology or industrial capacity to build modern tanks or to afford to purchase many from countries which could. And Finnish military planners believed that the Finnish terraine was not suitable for tank warfare. Neutral Finland when the Soviet Union attacked was unprepared to fight a modern war (November 1940). During what became known as the Winter War (1939-40), the Finnish Army had only one tank battalion of Vickers 6-ton and FT-17 tanks to fight the heavily armored Red army. And these tanks were purchased without armament and were thus not ready for combat. The Finnish tank force thus played only a small role in the war. Their Lahti L-39 20 mm anti-tank rifle was used during the Winter War against older model Soviet armor, but was later ineffective against the heavier T-34s later deployed by the Soviets. The Finns in the Winter war avoided large-scale pitched battle and instead launched small-scale, surprise engagements attempting to hit unprepared rear area units and isolated outposts. In the process of the fighting, the Finns captured quite a number of Soviet vehicles, including tanks. Utimateky they were forced to sign an armidtice with the Siviets whose seized subsrantial ares of the country. The Finns seeking go regain their territory renewed the war with the Soviet Union by becoming a co-beligerant when Germany launched Barbarossa (June 1941). Finland never joined the Axis. The Finns organized their first armored division (June 1942). The Finnish armored division by 1943 had lost most of its tanks and was left with a few obsolete tanks to fight the revived Red Army. The Finns purchased 30 StuG IIIs from the Germans (1943). Additional StuGs and other tanks from the Germans (1944). By this time, however, the War had irevocanly turned against the Germans who hd excellent tanls, but were unable to produce them in the numbers needed. The Soviets launched a series of offensives on the Eastern Front (1944). One included an effort in the north to knock Finland out of the war (June 1944). The Finns agreed to an armistice (September 4, 1944). The terms of the Armistice included the responsibility to expel the Germans from areas of Finland they occupied.

France

The French built some excellent tanks before the War. They were, however, not equipped with radios nor did the French develop effective tank tactics. The irony of the German victory in the West and the legend of the Panzer Corps is that the French possessed a tank that was superior to the German Mk IIIs, the mainstay of the Panzer Corps during the Battle of France. The French were, however, stuck on fighting World War II like a continuation of World War I and disipated their potential armored strength by spreading out their tanks in small groups assigned to support infantry groups defend the Maginot Line. Only General Charles de Gaulle who commanded an actual armored division had a concept of modern tank war. He used his tanks in attacks on the German flanks and supply columns but never got the support from the high command and used up most of the French tanks. Some of the French tanks that were captured were apparently turned over to the NAZI allies, but we do not yet have any details on this. The only non-German made tanks used by the Panzer corps were made by the Skoda works in NAZI-occupied Czechoslovakia. We do not know if the Germans bothered to study the French tanks for technical innovations that might be useful in their tank design. We also do not have details about the French tank factories and how they were used. Some reports suggest they built substantial numbers of tanks for the Germans. Many were modified as motorized artillery, including tank killers for use on the Eastern Front where the Germans encountered huge numbers of Soviet tanks and other atmored vehicles. We would be very interested in hearing from readers who are knowledgeable about French tanks.

Germany

The Germans won the battle in West not because the had substabtial technical or numerical superiority. In fact they only had comparable numbers of tanks with the British and French because they added the Czech tanks tob their Panzer corps. The key to the Gernan victgory was that they had worked out the most effective tactics--Blitzkrieg. Organizing armored divisions and concentrating them at the decisive point and time of the battle along with close air support. They also worked out the importance of anti-tank guns in tank battles and had a highly effective available from a very early point of the War. The German 88-mm gun was developed as an anti-aircraft artillery, but proved to be onr of the finest anti-tank weapons of the War. And after encountrring the T-34, the Germans produced some superb tanks, especially the Panthers, but were unable to mass produce them. The fearsome Tiger tanks were heavily gunned and armored, but not very mobile and could not be produced in needed numbers. Germany began the War without the material nor human resources to win a protracted global war. Their only hope was to defeat their targets quickly before the other countries could arm and adopt Blitkrieg tactics of their own. This worked with France, but the Channel and the RAF saved the British. Time, space, and weather saved the Soviets. Thus the Germans would face enraged adversaries sith superior material resources and militaries that had learned Blitkrieg tactics from the Germans. Once the material and human resources if the United states were added to the equation, Hitler and the NAZIs were doomed. The Germans had won most tank battles in the early years of the War. This continued with Barbarossa (June 1941). The appearance of the Soviet T-34 shocked the Germans. A combination of poor Soviet tactics and excellent German tactics enabled the Panzer spearhead to achieve massive victories. The Germans rushed the development of the Mark IV Panther, probably the finest tank of the War. The Germans also produced the Tigers which were virtually indestructable, but slow, gas guzzlers, and not very manuervable. The fortunes of the German Panzer corps began to change in the Western Desert (July 1942). Then came Kursk, the greates tank battle in history (July 1943). It was the Red Army's first major tank victory. The Germans would never win another important battle in the East. The Germans did launch a tank offensive in the West--the Ardennes (December 1944). But without adequate fuel stocks and needed air cover it was the last German offensive operation of the War. And after the Bulge, American tankers began to get the new M-26 Pershing which could take on the Panthers.

Hungary

Unlike Germany, Hungary had non interest in launching a major European war. There primary security concern was disputes with Romania over territory lost as a result of World war I. Hungary gave little attention to tanks during the inter-War era and would rely heavily on foreign technology. They purchased over 100 tankettes CV3/35 from Italy (1938). They would prove ineffective in combat. Hungary tried to remain neutral after the outbreak of the War (1939). Hitler forced Hungary to join the Axis (1940) and eventually to enter the War (1941). Hungary was able to avoid any major participation in Barbarossa--the invasion of the Soviet Union (1941). The Turán was the tank the Hungarians deployed in World War II. It was based on the Czech Škoda T-21 medium tank. The Turán was made in two variants, the Turán I and II. Production totaled 424 tanks, a very minor contribution to the massive tank battles on the Eastern Front. The Germans did not have the industrial capacity to supply the Hungarians with large numbers of modern tanks. The Soviet winter counter-offensive launched before Moscow badly damaged the Wehrmacht (winter 1941-42). There were huge losses of men and material. The Germans were hard pressed to replace the tanks and other equipment lost by German units. The Hungarians had not been important participants in Barbarossa (1941). After the failure of Barbarossa, however, Hitler demanded that the Hungarians make a substantial contribution in 1942. The Hungarians suffered heavily in the fighting around Stalingrad. The Turán I had a 40 mm gun, hopelessly obsolete against the Soviet T-34. The Hungarians were able to acquire some German armor, but they made the Hungarians purchase it. The Hungarians purchased 108 PzKpfw38(t) panzers (1942). The Hungarian domestic answer was the Turán II which had heavier armor and a 75 mm gun. The Turan was employed by the Hungarian 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions, as well as the 1st Cavalry Division (1943-44). Even the upgraded Turans were not effective as their 75-mm gun was not a high-velocity weapon. The Turan II went into action in Galicia (April 1944). The 2nd Armored lost a quarter of their tanks and was forced to withdraw. The Hungarians could not only match the numbers of Soviet tanks, but the relatively light Turáns were no match for the T-34s. Other equipment purchased from the Germans included: about 100 Pz.Kpfw.IV panzers of different versions (1942 and 1944), over 200 StuG.III self-propelled guns (1942-1945) and 150 Hetzer self-propelled guns (1944-45). The numbers of these weapons were almost miniscule compared to the massive Soviet armored forces steadily moving west toward Hungary. Hitler in the final months of the War committed some of the few remaining German armored divisions to defend Budapest. As a result, the defense of Berlin would be conducted to a large degree with the poorly armed Volkssturm.

Italy

The Italians produced light tanks that were of some use in Libya (1920s), Ethiopia (1935), and Albania (1939). We are not sure yet about their performance in Greece (1940). They proved ineffective when after Italy entered World War II, they attacked the British in the Western Desert (September 1940). The first important Italian tank was the Fiat 3000, based on that of the French Renault FT 17. The War ended, however, before any number were produced and delivered to the Italian Army. The first Fiat 3000s (Mod 21) reached the Army after the War (1921). Some were exported to Albania, Ethiopia, and Lithuania. Tests of the tank armed with twin 6.5 mm guns showed that this was inadequate and the armament was upgraded with 37/40-mm guns and other improvements as the Mod 30 (1930). The Italians in the 1930s began working on improved tanks and developed a new classification system. The Fiat 3000 Model 21 was redesignated the L.5/21, and the Model 30 the L.5/30. (The L meant light tank.) After Hitler seized power in Germany (1933), Mussolini gradually moved to develop the Axis alliance with Germany. There was, however, no serious cooperation between the German and Italian militaries before Italy entered the War (June 1940). Here two factors were at play. The Germans were not all that interested in giving away advanced technology and the Italians were to proud to admit that they needed German technology. In addition the Italians before they entered the War seemed to have been unaware as to how badly they lagged behind in tank and other military technology. Thus the Italians did not benefit from either German tank technology or innovative tactical doctrine. This is in sharp contrast to the close Anglo-American alliance. The Italians amassed a huge army in Libya to attack the British in Egypt. If there had been a degree of military cooperation with the Germans before the War, the Italians with German tanks and and tactics could have easily swept aside the small British force in Egypt during 1940 and seized the Suez Canal. Italy entered the War with some 1,500 tanks. The Italian tank force, however, was totally inadequate for fighting a modern war, even after it received some captured French tanks from the Germans. The Italian tank force showed no trace of the advances their German allies were making in tank technology. The Italian tank force consisted of the World War I-era Fiat 3000s, fewer than a hundred second grade medium tanks, and ineffective tankettes. Despite thge Axis alliance, the British had more influence on Italian tanks than the Germans. The tankette was, for example, a British concept which the Germans wisely rejected. Italy added to the stock of largely obsolete Fiat 3000s by producing some 2,000 tanks during the War (1940-43). Italy was not a heavily industrialized country. Not only was the number of tanks produced a fraction of German production, but they were of inferior design and construction. The principal Italian tank during the War was the M 13/40 with a 4.7 cm gun. About 800 were built. It's thin armor was, however, no match for the American M-3 Grants and M-4 Shermans supplied to the British in the Western Desert. As far as we know, the Italians never fought and won an important tank battle on their own during the War.

Romania

Romania was allied with France after World War I. As a largely agricultural nation, the Romanians had to secure much of their advanced military equipment in more industrialized nations, including France. Thec French Renault company licensed Malaxa (Rogifer) factory in Bucharest to build Malaxa tip UE carriers. This was a version of the Renault Chenillette d'Infanterie Type UE, and it was intended for towing the Schneider anti-tank guns in the anti-tank companies and for carrying the fuel and ammunition of the motorised cavalry regiments. The Romanians built 126 out of a planned number of 300. After the German invasion of France, production was suspended as needed Renault parts were no longer available. After the Munich crisis (September 1938), it became clear that the Allies were no longer willing or able to support Romania. After the Germans and Soviets signed a Non-Aggression Pact and launched Wirld War II (1939), the Soviets seized about a third of Fomania (1940). This forced the Romanians to seek German assidtance and tge country joined the Axis. Romania as an Axis ally that played a major role in the southern front of Barbarossa. The Romanian Army generally did rear area action, mopping up pockets of resistance left by the Germans as they drive east. The Romanians provided the largest contribution to Barbarossa of all the Axis allies, but ghey were less well equipped than the Germans. This would leas go disaster at Stalingrad. The lightly armed Romanians gusrded the Herman flanks and it was here the Soviets struck when they launched Uranus, quickly over running the Romanians. The Romanians did have some armor. Most of their armor was German, mostly obsolete tanks the Germans no longer wanted. They also had some of the Czech tanks the Germans seized in 1939. They also acquired somecaptured Soviet tanks, mostly older versions. After much of the Romanian Army had been destroyed in the Soviet Union, the Romanians began to brace for a Red Army invasion. The Romanians in particulwr needed anti-tank guns and tank destroyers to deal with the advancing Red Army armored columns. The Fomanians began began to prepare to mass produce aank destroyerdomestically. They ordered 1,000 Hotchkiss engines from French factories (November 1943). We are not sure how many were actually deklivered. By this time the Allies were heavily targetting vFrench war plants with air raids. The Romanians also requested tank components from the Germans. Prime Minister Antonescu persinally presented the blueprints of M-04 prototype tank (December 1943). These reportedly inspired the German development of the Hetzer tank-destroyer. This was a 75mm gun mounted on the Czech LT vz.38 tank's chassis.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union had the largest Army in the world and massive resources were devoted to equipping it. One of the many weapon programs was armored vehicles. Ironically before the rise of the NAZIs, the Germans and Soviets through the Rapallo Treaty cooperated in developing armored vehicles and tactics. The Soviert built a wide range of light, medium, and heavy tanks. The light tanks were deployed in large numbers, but proved ineffective when the Germans invaded (June 1941). Some of the heavy tanks proved virtually indestructable, but difficult to deploy. There were also special series like the massive KV-1s and KV-2s. It was, however, the T-34 medium tank that proved to be the perfect balance of mobility (wide tracks, excellent speed), firepower (76mm or 85mm cannon) and armour protection (low profile and inovative sloped armor) needed for mobile warfare. Many assessments of World War II focus on the German Panzers. The NAZIs assumed that the Soviet Union was a backward country incapable of producing the same high quality as Aryan supermen. The appearance of the T-34 tank on the battlefield was a shock to the Wehrmacht as it was in fact superior to the German Panzers. The T-34 tank in fact is considered by many to be the finest tank of the War. The Soviets adopted the T-34/76 medium tank (December 1939). The key innovation was designed to make the T-34 "shell proof" by welded 45mm frontal armor sloped at 60 degrees. The Soviets unlike the Germans designed their tanks aiming at simplicity so they could be mass-produced and easily maintain iand repaired in the field. This as much as the armor was critical on the battlefield. The Soviets had begun to produce the T-34 before the German invasion--about 1,200. And only a few were deployed. It was totally unknown to the Germans. The Wegrmacht were shocked at the effectiveness of the T-34 when they first encountered it. But because only a few wwre deployed and the Soviets had not perfected effective tank tactics, it did not at first have a significant impact. The T-34 tank was also relatively inexensive to build and easily mantained. This was in sharp contrast to the much more complicated German tanks. Unbeknownst to the Germans, even as the Wehrmacht was driving into the Soviet Union during the Summer of 1941, T-34 tanks were rolling out of production lines in far greater numbers than German tanks. Hitler in a recorded meeting with Finnish President Mannerheim admitted that he was shocked with the ability of the Soviet Union to producec tanks (1943).

Sources

Author unknown. "Italian tanks," 2003). The article is associated with "Tanks eMagazine."

Chartrand, René. Canadian Forces In World War II (2001). Illustrations by Ron Volstad.

Created: 12:07 PM 12/10/2017
Last updated: 10:22 PM 12/10/2017