YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

German tanks were unreliable. The Nazi romanticism of craftsmen and guild labor crippled them. Their only saving grace being that they spent the 1930s training a huge number of mechanics, had a good doctrine, and lots of wartime for their tankers to get experience.
Everyone's tanks were unreliable, break downs were (and still are) a fact of life for heavy armored vehicles. Where the German unreliability gets overblown is more towards the end of the war when Germany was totally bombed to shit and couldn't properly supply or maintain their stuff anymore because most of their manufacturing base had been reduced to rubble or had been taken from them.
 
German tanks were unreliable. The Nazi romanticism of craftsmen and guild labor crippled them. Their only saving grace being that they spent the 1930s training a huge number of mechanics, had a good doctrine, and lots of wartime for their tankers to get experience.
It was the 1930s and 40s, everything was shit, but german tanks were some of the best designed machines of their time and if a nation with the proper infrastructure had been the ones to produce them, it would be a different story. The whole "german tanks are unreliable" meme is nothing more than a bunch of retards taking a fact (that german tanks towards the end of the war were undersupplied with skilled crew men and parts so they suffered from more failures than their peers) and turned it into a gotcha for the straw men that are wehraboos. I have no issue with talking about the issues that plagued german armor, but no one can deny that saying German tanks were Unreliable has become a meaningless phrase that no one actually thinks about for more than 4 seconds.
 
Last edited:
It was the 1930s and 40s, everything was shit, but german tanks were some of the best designed machines of their time and if a nation with the proper infrastructure had been the ones to produce them, it would be a different story. The whole "german tanks are unreliable" meme is nothing more than a bunch of retards taking a fact (that german tanks towards the end of the war were undersupplied with skilled crew men and parts so they suffered from more failures than their peers) and turned it into a gotcha for the straw men that are wehraboos. I have no issue with talking about the issues that plagued german armor, but no one can deny that saying German tanks were Unreliable has become a meaningless phrase that no one actually thinks about for more than 4 seconds.
My main problem is how the “Unreliable Panzers” line is usually accompanied by declaring the T-34 the greatest tank ever made, and how it was invincible due to “muh sloped armor.” It served its purpose, but it was still a mass-produced piece of crap that relied primarily on being able to overwhelm enemy tanks to win, and I hate people trying to pretend otherwise.
 
Everyone's tanks were unreliable, break downs were (and still are) a fact of life for heavy armored vehicles. Where the German unreliability gets overblown is more towards the end of the war when Germany was totally bombed to shit and couldn't properly supply or maintain their stuff anymore because most of their manufacturing base had been reduced to rubble or had been taken from them.

Good tanks. Custom made marvels made by brilliant engineer craftsmen. Could any random dude fix them? No. Were parts easy to find? Not really - back to the depot it goes. Were there alot of them? Not really, Germany used old tanks for most of wars - Battle of France was mostly Panzer IIs. Their saving grace was that they had a tonne of mechanics.

The USSR had better tanks and far more of them. What they lacked was trained crews and logistics system who could actually fix their vehicles. 20,000 tanks turns into 0 very quickly when you literally throw them away after one breakdown.
 
Good tanks.
Yes they were.
Custom made marvels made by brilliant engineer craftsmen.
No, they were not. They were built to a plan with standardized parts for their model, there was no hand fitting of parts on production tanks, they were built more slowly due to much more stringent manufacturing tolerances and the fact that the Germans overwhelmingly did not use an assembly line process but the parts (and by extension the tanks) were all built to specific specifications and pieces that didn't meet those specifications were rejected and recycled. Just like any other industrialized nation at the time.
Could any random dude fix them? No.
Anybody who was trained to repair tanks could, as well as most people who were mechanically minded and had the parts on hand. This is the same as anyone else's tanks though. You can't replace pieces on a vehicle that size without having the piece on hand and the tools to do it. Were German tanks more difficult to repair? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depends on how it broke and whether the parts were available should a replacement part be needed. Early in the war this was often the case and German armor worked very well, later in the war this was not the case and many German tanks were abandoned due to lack of spare parts.
Were there alot of them? Not really, Germany used old tanks for most of wars - Battle of France was mostly Panzer IIs.
The Panzer III had only been adopted the year prior in 1939 and so there just plain weren't very many of them at that point, had the Germans had more Panzer IIIs then they very likely would have used more. Now German manufacturing practices didn't necessarily help that but it wasn't uncommon for new vehicles from any nation to take a bit to show up in large numbers. The French were also mostly using old tanks, tanks which were contemporary to the Pz. II as a matter of fact.
The USSR had better tanks and far more of them.
Define "better". That's a super nebulous term and I need to know, specifically, what your criteria is before I can agree or disagree with you on it. Far more of them? Sure, that I will agree with you on. However one thing to keep in mind is that even if Germany was some how capable of cranking out tanks on the scale of the USSR or the USA they would never be able to support them, they lacked the manpower reserves and natural resources of either of those nations and they would never have had the logistics corps capable of producing, let alone transporting, all the ammo, fuel, spare parts, etc. that an armored force that size would require. Germany was still using horse drawn carts as a serious part of their logistics train from the beginning of the war right up until the end. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Soviets did have massive production numbers but they also had colossal and consoistent problems with QC throughout the war due to the fact that they focused on total production numbers before anything else and so all throughout the war many factories cut corners on manufacturing.
What they lacked was trained crews and logistics system who could actually fix their vehicles.
Sure, maybe at first but once you get to late '42/early '43 they've (mostly) got they're shit sorted.
 
I like Jazby but I hate his insistence of having his primary source videos be read in a shitty accent whether or not he's capable of actually doing the accent correctly.
 
Everyone's tanks were unreliable, break downs were (and still are) a fact of life for heavy armored vehicles. Where the German unreliability gets overblown is more towards the end of the war when Germany was totally bombed to shit and couldn't properly supply or maintain their stuff anymore because most of their manufacturing base had been reduced to rubble or had been taken from them.

I tried to explain to someone once that the typical British Army armoured regiment maybe has 4 or 5 tanks that are fully fit. The rest are usually awaiting spares or in long term storage. That it takes months of work and moving a single regiment to the front of the line for spares before they can anywhere close to being at full strength (which they never achieve). The UK closed it's production line for the Challenger 2's main gun Ammunition, so they're completely reliant on what's stockpiled.

It's different in the US Army where there are thousands of tanks in service, several thousand more in storage and a constant supply of spares because the tanks themselves are still in production.

Also moving the things is an absolute nightmare, it's different in continental Europe where you can have a rail head going straight into camp, but in the UK they're completely reliant on tank transporters, which are driven by complete retards.

There are reasons why so few countries keep them in service, and in general are moving away from tracked vehicles (try track bashing in the middle of winter, it's fucking horrible) to wheeled ones.
 
At least we got Volkswagen Beetles out of it all
Craftsmen labor is actually a good thing for a consumer culture. There is always a market for high quality products that does not evaporate when a new factory opens in China or Africa.

However, for a a largescale total war its not necessarily the best idea. Kinda like car culture. Eisenhower pushed it hard because it helped the Germans out greatly, but it hurts civilian life and society.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Flexo
Craftsmen labor is actually a good thing for a consumer culture. There is always a market for high quality products that does not evaporate when a new factory opens in China or Africa.

However, for a a largescale total war its not necessarily the best idea. Kinda like car culture. Eisenhower pushed it hard because it helped the Germans out greatly, but it hurts civilian life and society.
Car culture was a thing way before the interstate system, in the united states.
 
1665792754320.png


Homeschool is segregation 2.0

Car culture was a thing way before the interstate system, in the united states.
General Motors was America's best general afterall.

Car culture that eradicates all public infrastructure is abit of a different league though.
 
View attachment 3738607

Homeschool is segregation 2.0


General Motors was America's best general afterall.

Car culture that eradicates all public infrastructure is abit of a different league though.
If Cypher ever spent time in the public school system and thought about it, he'd understand why people hate it so much. But since he's presumably an unmarried man with no kids who's also a leftist, he would defend public schools and be against any idea of school choice because of whatever the "studies" say to him.

In other news, Mr. Beat shares the controversial opinion that the Electoral College should be abolished because "muh outdated"
 
If Cypher ever spent time in the public school system and thought about it, he'd understand why people hate it so much. But since he's presumably an unmarried man with no kids who's also a leftist, he would defend public schools and be against any idea of school choice because of whatever the "studies" say to him.

In other news, Mr. Beat shares the controversial opinion that the Electoral College should be abolished because "muh outdated"
Who even is Mr. Beat what's his past what makes him qualified? Note I dont care about qualifications, because hell I'm a TIK simp, but the question still stands.
 
Last edited:
Who even is Mr. Beat what's his past what makes him qualified? Note I dont care about qualifications, because hell I'm a TIK simp, but the question still stands.
He was once a high school teacher from Kansas city. His channel started out as videos he used for his class now it's whatever floats up in his mind.
 
Back