The Influence of Tanks in World War II
Created | Updated Jul 28, 2003
Without tanks in World War II, the entire war would have been much less eventful. The primary reason tanks were built was because their primary rotary gun that could destroy enemies and also fortifications. The treads and armor gave the tank mobility and also a means of defense. Tanks were used in many differing combat strategies, both offensively and defensively. Although tanks were very useful, they came at the price of incredible amount of gasoline and also had some problems. The Axis tanks were usually outnumbered and outfought by the Allies tanks, giving them a significant disadvantage. Also, the Allied tanks were better engineered and more efficient than those of the Axis. The Axis designed many tanks but their specialty was medium jack-of-all-trades tanks. They also created an excessively powerful tank, the Royal Tiger, which was a monster to all it approached. Tanks had a large role in the result of World War II and had large effects on both Allied and Axis strategies.
Tanks consisted of many parts including its primary weapon, a high caliber gun. The gun had to me not only be powerful but also quick and accurate. A factor of most large guns was their rotating ability. The French were the first to develop a tank with a 360 rotary gun turret (Armored). The 360 range allowed the tank to move in one direction and fire in another. Another very important part of the gun was it’s incredible power. Tank rounds were capable of not only destroying other tanks and infantry but also buildings. Tanks carried barrel sizes (of guns) of up to four and five inches (Armored). Tanks were able of destroying most structures without trouble. The large rotary gun gave the tanks not only a defense, but also a purpose.
Back then, tanks were complex machines that, when all parts were functional, were capable of great tasks and accomplishments. Treads were a great alternative to wheels when designing tanks for one main reason. Treads allowed the tank to cross trenches and other obstacles without trouble. “By world war II armored vehicles (tanks) were capable of speeds of over thirty miles per hour” (Armored). The treads made tanks more terrain-capable and enabled them to travel at high speeds. Another important part of tanks was the heavy armor they carried. Not only would it deflect bullets from hand-held guns, but it could also withstand natural elements. Tanks were tough and rugged, for they are still found over fifty years later intact (John Slee). Without the armor tanks would be incredibly vulnerable to enemies. With good maneuverability and strong armor, tanks were nearly unstoppable.
Truly, tanks were used in many different combat situations. After a group of forces took over a position, they then assumed the responsibility to defend it. Tanks were ideal for this role because they were easily movable artillery of sorts. “In the battle of Stalingrad, decisive action by the 26th tank corps forward element in taking control of the bridge, closing the noose of encirclement around a multi-thousand strong enemy force” (V.G. Reznichenko). As a rule, defense is almost always easier than offense, and tanks were perfect machines to fill a defensive role. Tanks were also fast enough to catch up with mobile enemies. Once an enemy was defeated, it would naturally retreat. The British Cruiser could track and surround retreating enemies to finish them off, because of the Cruisers’ high speeds (C.L. Sulzberger 241). This would eliminate the most of the enemy as otherwise possible without tanks. Tanks played multiple very useful roles in World War II combat.
Yet, tanks were by no means perfect battle tools, and had some impractical flaws. First, tanks required vast amounts of gasoline and oil to run. This dependency was a large weakness for tanks. Gasoline was very valuable and became rare during World War II, for it was needed to run all machinery. Therefore capturing a fuel or supply depot was a major victory (C.L. Sulzberger 233). Without the proper resources, tanks were merely uncomfortable shelters. Secondly, tanks’ mobility was not unflawed. Although they could withstand the rain, snow, and other harsh climates, maneuvering in them was very difficult, for they got caught in the changed terrain. As Montgomery was chasing Rommel, during the Axis withdrawal, Rommel escaped because the pursuing tanks forces of Montgomery got caught up in the mud (C.L. Sulzberger 241). These weaknesses of tanks made their dispatching questionable at times. Although tanks were great machines, they had their downsides.
Essentially, the Allied Tanks were more numerous than the Axis tanks. The Soviet Union mass-produced their tanks, forming large forces. Although casualties were high, there was never a shortage of tanks. The Russians produced huge numbers of tanks, lost many of them (eighteen thousand) by September 1941, but enough remained (twenty-one thousand) to protect the homeland (C.L. Sulzberger 250). Many Soviet Union tanks were great additions to the Allied forces. There were many examples of the Axis being outnumbered by the Allies. Although in some scenarios, the Germans are better equipped, they numbered less. “The combined Anglo-French forces disposed four thousand armored vehicles against two thousand-eight hundred for Germany” (C.L. Sulzberger 60). Fewer numbers opened weaknesses and openings for enemy attack. Part of Germany’s defeat was a result of fewer forces.
To emphasize, the Allied tanks were better quality and engineering than those of the Axis. The Germans had good quality tanks, which the Allies had to match. New versions of tanks were constantly under development to counter the Axis. The medium M3 “Grant” American tanks were built specifically to match the German firepower (Mario Paesani). Countries worked together to outdo the Axis tanks. The Soviet Union worked secretly to develop superior tanks. Through many versions and revisions, finally success was achieved. “…the Russian T-34 tanks, which no one had had a hint of, proved to be better than anything the Germans possessed” (C.L. Sulzberger 265). After designing a powerful tank, it was produced as quickly as possible. The better-quality tanks contributed to the gradual Allied victory.
For this reason, a group of compiled Axis forces was always a contender to deal with. The Germans had many differing models of tanks for different situations. Some tanks were fortification outfitted, trading off maneuverability for greater protection. However some were outfitted for assaults, basing their equipment on offense. The German “Panther” was a great medium tank, with good armor, a punishing gun, and large tracks (Mario Paesani). Medium tanks were most common because they could fill most roles. German tanks were never solitary. Support from other forces prevented weaknesses tanks generally had. “Panzer forces were made up of supporting forces (motorcycles and infantry) as well as tanks” (C.L. Sulzberger 258). Without gaps in their ranks, Panzer forces were very strong. With diverse designs and coordinated attacks, the Germans could crush many opposing forces.
Widely, the German tanks were known and mimicked for their firepower. The Axis would go to extreme lengths to have more powerful machines than the Allies. Because of this obsession, they developed a new tank. “The Tiger II “Royal Tiger” was the most powerful combat tank of World War II” (Mario Paesani). The Royal Tiger was huge in comparison to other tanks. Everything about it was perfect except for one problem. Firepower came at a price of an important factor, mobility. “Although it’s mobility was limited by it’s great weight and terrific fuel consumption, it’s big 88/71 gun as well as it’s oversized armor made it a real nightmare” (Mario Paesani). With its long-range cannon, maneuverability was not as much of a factor. The Royal Tiger was a living legend that destroyed everything in its path.
In summary, tanks played a very large role in the strategies of the Allied and Axis forces and also affected the outcome in World War II. The tanks primary rotary gun was very important to the tanks existence and purpose. Treads and armor helped the tanks prolong their destruction and protect the lives inside. Tanks were used in many situations and scenarios that could otherwise not be filled. They were not, however, perfect machines, for they consumed great amounts of gasoline and also got caught up in awkward terrain. The Allies usually outnumbered the Axis regarding tanks in battle, and in a result, the Allies usually conquered. The Allied tanks were also most commonly superior to those of the Axis, for they were better engineered. The Axis produced many tanks for different roles, and also created medium tanks that could be useful anywhere. The Axis designed and manufactured a huge mammoth of a tank, the Tiger II Royal Tiger, which had more significant firepower and armor than any other existing tank at the time. Tanks were great and influential vehicles in World War II, and were unequaled war machines during ground combat.
Works Cited
“Armored Vehicle.” UXL Science. Gale Research, 1998. Student Resource Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton, MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <http://www.galenet.com/servlet/SRC/>.
Paesani, Mario. Home Page. A World of Tanks. 16 Mar. 2002 <http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/1975/g_wot_hp.htm>.
Reznichenko, V.G. “Evolution of Tactics in the Great Patriotic War.” Military Thought Sept-Oct 2001:74. Infotrac. General Resource Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton, MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/846/76/46690778W3/purl=rcl_grcm_o_980321764&dyn=14!xrn_115_o_980321764?sw_aep=mlin_c_remote>.
Slee, John “MTMC moves forgotten tank from World War II.” Journal of Military Transportation Management Sept.-Oct. 2001:49. Infotrac. General Reference Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/846/76/44690778W3/purl=rc1.grcm_o_A824777548dyn=4!xrn_2_o_a_82477754?SW.AEP=mlin_c_remote>.
Sulzberger, C.L. The American Heritage Picture History of World War II. American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc., 1966.
Tanks consisted of many parts including its primary weapon, a high caliber gun. The gun had to me not only be powerful but also quick and accurate. A factor of most large guns was their rotating ability. The French were the first to develop a tank with a 360 rotary gun turret (Armored). The 360 range allowed the tank to move in one direction and fire in another. Another very important part of the gun was it’s incredible power. Tank rounds were capable of not only destroying other tanks and infantry but also buildings. Tanks carried barrel sizes (of guns) of up to four and five inches (Armored). Tanks were able of destroying most structures without trouble. The large rotary gun gave the tanks not only a defense, but also a purpose.
Back then, tanks were complex machines that, when all parts were functional, were capable of great tasks and accomplishments. Treads were a great alternative to wheels when designing tanks for one main reason. Treads allowed the tank to cross trenches and other obstacles without trouble. “By world war II armored vehicles (tanks) were capable of speeds of over thirty miles per hour” (Armored). The treads made tanks more terrain-capable and enabled them to travel at high speeds. Another important part of tanks was the heavy armor they carried. Not only would it deflect bullets from hand-held guns, but it could also withstand natural elements. Tanks were tough and rugged, for they are still found over fifty years later intact (John Slee). Without the armor tanks would be incredibly vulnerable to enemies. With good maneuverability and strong armor, tanks were nearly unstoppable.
Truly, tanks were used in many different combat situations. After a group of forces took over a position, they then assumed the responsibility to defend it. Tanks were ideal for this role because they were easily movable artillery of sorts. “In the battle of Stalingrad, decisive action by the 26th tank corps forward element in taking control of the bridge, closing the noose of encirclement around a multi-thousand strong enemy force” (V.G. Reznichenko). As a rule, defense is almost always easier than offense, and tanks were perfect machines to fill a defensive role. Tanks were also fast enough to catch up with mobile enemies. Once an enemy was defeated, it would naturally retreat. The British Cruiser could track and surround retreating enemies to finish them off, because of the Cruisers’ high speeds (C.L. Sulzberger 241). This would eliminate the most of the enemy as otherwise possible without tanks. Tanks played multiple very useful roles in World War II combat.
Yet, tanks were by no means perfect battle tools, and had some impractical flaws. First, tanks required vast amounts of gasoline and oil to run. This dependency was a large weakness for tanks. Gasoline was very valuable and became rare during World War II, for it was needed to run all machinery. Therefore capturing a fuel or supply depot was a major victory (C.L. Sulzberger 233). Without the proper resources, tanks were merely uncomfortable shelters. Secondly, tanks’ mobility was not unflawed. Although they could withstand the rain, snow, and other harsh climates, maneuvering in them was very difficult, for they got caught in the changed terrain. As Montgomery was chasing Rommel, during the Axis withdrawal, Rommel escaped because the pursuing tanks forces of Montgomery got caught up in the mud (C.L. Sulzberger 241). These weaknesses of tanks made their dispatching questionable at times. Although tanks were great machines, they had their downsides.
Essentially, the Allied Tanks were more numerous than the Axis tanks. The Soviet Union mass-produced their tanks, forming large forces. Although casualties were high, there was never a shortage of tanks. The Russians produced huge numbers of tanks, lost many of them (eighteen thousand) by September 1941, but enough remained (twenty-one thousand) to protect the homeland (C.L. Sulzberger 250). Many Soviet Union tanks were great additions to the Allied forces. There were many examples of the Axis being outnumbered by the Allies. Although in some scenarios, the Germans are better equipped, they numbered less. “The combined Anglo-French forces disposed four thousand armored vehicles against two thousand-eight hundred for Germany” (C.L. Sulzberger 60). Fewer numbers opened weaknesses and openings for enemy attack. Part of Germany’s defeat was a result of fewer forces.
To emphasize, the Allied tanks were better quality and engineering than those of the Axis. The Germans had good quality tanks, which the Allies had to match. New versions of tanks were constantly under development to counter the Axis. The medium M3 “Grant” American tanks were built specifically to match the German firepower (Mario Paesani). Countries worked together to outdo the Axis tanks. The Soviet Union worked secretly to develop superior tanks. Through many versions and revisions, finally success was achieved. “…the Russian T-34 tanks, which no one had had a hint of, proved to be better than anything the Germans possessed” (C.L. Sulzberger 265). After designing a powerful tank, it was produced as quickly as possible. The better-quality tanks contributed to the gradual Allied victory.
For this reason, a group of compiled Axis forces was always a contender to deal with. The Germans had many differing models of tanks for different situations. Some tanks were fortification outfitted, trading off maneuverability for greater protection. However some were outfitted for assaults, basing their equipment on offense. The German “Panther” was a great medium tank, with good armor, a punishing gun, and large tracks (Mario Paesani). Medium tanks were most common because they could fill most roles. German tanks were never solitary. Support from other forces prevented weaknesses tanks generally had. “Panzer forces were made up of supporting forces (motorcycles and infantry) as well as tanks” (C.L. Sulzberger 258). Without gaps in their ranks, Panzer forces were very strong. With diverse designs and coordinated attacks, the Germans could crush many opposing forces.
Widely, the German tanks were known and mimicked for their firepower. The Axis would go to extreme lengths to have more powerful machines than the Allies. Because of this obsession, they developed a new tank. “The Tiger II “Royal Tiger” was the most powerful combat tank of World War II” (Mario Paesani). The Royal Tiger was huge in comparison to other tanks. Everything about it was perfect except for one problem. Firepower came at a price of an important factor, mobility. “Although it’s mobility was limited by it’s great weight and terrific fuel consumption, it’s big 88/71 gun as well as it’s oversized armor made it a real nightmare” (Mario Paesani). With its long-range cannon, maneuverability was not as much of a factor. The Royal Tiger was a living legend that destroyed everything in its path.
In summary, tanks played a very large role in the strategies of the Allied and Axis forces and also affected the outcome in World War II. The tanks primary rotary gun was very important to the tanks existence and purpose. Treads and armor helped the tanks prolong their destruction and protect the lives inside. Tanks were used in many situations and scenarios that could otherwise not be filled. They were not, however, perfect machines, for they consumed great amounts of gasoline and also got caught up in awkward terrain. The Allies usually outnumbered the Axis regarding tanks in battle, and in a result, the Allies usually conquered. The Allied tanks were also most commonly superior to those of the Axis, for they were better engineered. The Axis produced many tanks for different roles, and also created medium tanks that could be useful anywhere. The Axis designed and manufactured a huge mammoth of a tank, the Tiger II Royal Tiger, which had more significant firepower and armor than any other existing tank at the time. Tanks were great and influential vehicles in World War II, and were unequaled war machines during ground combat.
Works Cited
“Armored Vehicle.” UXL Science. Gale Research, 1998. Student Resource Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton, MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <http://www.galenet.com/servlet/SRC/>.
Paesani, Mario. Home Page. A World of Tanks. 16 Mar. 2002 <http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/1975/g_wot_hp.htm>.
Reznichenko, V.G. “Evolution of Tactics in the Great Patriotic War.” Military Thought Sept-Oct 2001:74. Infotrac. General Resource Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton, MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/846/76/46690778W3/purl=rcl_grcm_o_980321764&dyn=14!xrn_115_o_980321764?sw_aep=mlin_c_remote>.
Slee, John “MTMC moves forgotten tank from World War II.” Journal of Military Transportation Management Sept.-Oct. 2001:49. Infotrac. General Reference Center. Hopkinton High School Lib., Hopkinton MA. 18 Mar. 2002. <web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/846/76/44690778W3/purl=rc1.grcm_o_A824777548dyn=4!xrn_2_o_a_82477754?SW.AEP=mlin_c_remote>.
Sulzberger, C.L. The American Heritage Picture History of World War II. American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc., 1966.
