Best tank in WWII?

Epaminondas · Post by **Epaminondas** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:56 pm

Panther, T34 and Sherman are all up there.

What matters at the strategic level is the sheer numbers you have and can support. Sherman and T34 trump any german tank at that level- the USA and Russians fielded their tanks in massive quanities, and germany didn't start war production nearly early enough.

Tactically, I'd want my but in a panther. The lifespan of a T34 was measured in days, and shermans were little better.

Logistics wins wars though. Considering the basic trilogy of tank specifications (armor, gun and mobility) and add in production/mantaince issues; your question has NO answer.

An uber tank is worthless if you can't field it in useful numbers; and a cheap unreliable tank is priceless if you can produce 10 times as many...

then toss in crew quality, training time availible and replacement cost. Is it cheaper to train a new crew from a conscript, or build a more survivable tank that will keep more crew alive?

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:14 pm

Yep, sure isnt that what made Shermans effective? undergunned pretty soon, average armour, too bloody tall by far to really get hull-down, unreliable engine and was a grenade waiting to go off if hit....but it was there in numbers. So what if it took six or seven to get a Tiger from behind...there WERE six or seven!

The attrition factor on T34s was due to the tactics imposed on them - the armoured equivalent of the human wave of Tsarist and Red footsoldiers. the minimum of manouvre - cos with hundreds of tanks in the field there just wasnt room! A smart commander could conserve his units.....but why conserve whenever there were trainloads coming out of the Urals every day?

Which is what made aces like Wittmann - field savvy, used all his mobility, drove and manouvred. A tank or tank killer hull-down holding a static position is just a glorified antitankgun, after all.
phylo

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:07 pm

Yeah well im waiting mate becouse im telling you we dont use Centurions, we stopped them in '76, and got the Leopards in '77, And were getting rid of the Leopards know and getting an M1A1 Abram, Although i would like a Leopard II better, They dont break down as much.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Wed May 17, 2006 3:43 am

Am 35 miles from my magazine stack and scanner, hospital consultatant gets my attention first today

phylo

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:20 pm

I guess you are a busy man than so when you get the chance,

karaklasse · Post by **karaklasse** » Sat May 27, 2006 8:01 am

von_noobie wrote:Well, While the T-34 is a really good all round tank i would just like to say i beleive the Panther G to be the best tank of WWII,

ja ganze meine Meinung

ich bin fest davon ueberzeugt dass PzKpfW5 die Beste ist

VikingTiger · Post by **VikingTiger** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:01 pm

I believe the Tiger was a better tank, if that is the question, but if we add in other factors like maintenance requirements, durability, ease of production and so the question becomes a different one.

I have never seen a Tiger suffering a decisive frontal hit and the previous historical dogma of multiple T-34 smashing tiger units in close-combat at Prokhorovka seems to be just a myth also.

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Mon May 29, 2006 4:11 am

Well lets look at this another way,
1)How easy it was to produce?
2)How many tanks did it take to knock it out? (eg: 6 shermans to take out a single Tiger)
3)How long could it travel for before it needed servicing?
4)What tarrain could it move on effectivily?
5)Other?

Panther G;
1)Semi-hard to produce since it had sloped armour,
2)It also took about 6 Shermans to knock out a Panther G,
3)Im not sure about how long it could travel for before it needed servicing; im guessing maybe the crew would look at the engine atleast at the end of every day; and do a full service maybe once every few months,
4)It had some wide tracks so im guessing it could go effectivily through tank country, (eg: desert, fields, etc)
5)Being under German command it was clearly in the hands of a person that knew how to use it better than any of the Russians or allies could, It was limited in use due to fuel shortage, Fuel shortage made up for with the 75mm KwK 42 L/70, with its impressive range it could knock out tanks from as fare as a mile away, Sloped armour made it much more effective against the shermans, It was pretty much a better Tiger tank, Only differance was one had a bigger gun, Good offensive and deffensive weapon,

Tiger
1)Hard to produce, took to long,
2)Took 6 shermans to knock out Tiger
3)Needed constant service almost, Engines needed replacemnt very soon after use,
4)Had wide tracks so was good in tanks country but was still limited due to its weight of 57 tons unlike the Panther G of 45.5 tons
5)More of a moral breaker or mobile fortress than an offensive weapon, Took to long to produce few tanks with Limited use, Would have been better to produce only a few and put the remainder in resources in Pz IV's, But other than that was fielded very well.

T-34
1)Easy to produce, large numbers made
2)Quite a few were knocked out by a single German tanks due to poor fielding,
3)Required little service,
4)Had wide tracks so even about even with the Panther G give or take
5)Fielded poorly, Very good tanks thoe, If been under better command war would have been won much sooner,

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Mon May 29, 2006 4:16 am

Sherman
1)Easy to produce
2)Single German tank could knock out 2 Shermans give or take
3)Well one traveled for 3 days in NA after captured by Germans and didnt break down once, So little service required
4)It could move effectivly on tanks countr but dont know about other country
5)Lots produced with little service required, Fielded good, Poor armour,

Tiger II
PRETTY MUCH THE TIGER BUT HARDER!!!!!

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Mon May 29, 2006 5:45 am

von_noobie wrote: It also took about 6 Shermans to knock out a Panther G,

Took 6 shermans to knock out Tiger

No it did not. It never did. There is not a single scrap of evidence that it ever did. This is just a myth.

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:10 am

Im only stating statistics, AVERAGE!!!,

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Wed May 31, 2006 6:10 am

von_noobie wrote:Im only stating statistics, AVERAGE!!!,

Oh, well, if it's "statistics" you're quoting then you won't have any problem showing us the hard numbers behind those "statistics" will you? For instance you can show us that six times as many M4 were lost to Panthers citing????

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 am

von_noobie I am not trying to be clever but if you look at actual loss figures you will find that there is no possible way you can average odds of 5:1 for Allied to German losses. The only way you can reach this magic figure is by including EVERY Allied tank lost to ANY cause. Then add every damaged Allied tank. Compare it to German losses which are then calculated by leaving out ANY German tank that was destroyed without at least 10 eye witnesses. Further more any German tank that was recovered from the battlefield-even if it was a total loss- is not included in the loss figures. Abandonned German tanks are not included either.
Juggle the figures by accepting as gospel inflated German raw claims and there is the magic 5 or 10:1 ratio!

Reb · Post by **Reb** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:40 pm

MK

What trips folks up in quoting "statistics" is the anecdotal evidence showing Sherman getting kicked all over the playing field in tactical situations.

Yet Sherman was infinitiely more successful than Panther, at the Strategic level where it counts. Von Noob is probably not so far off the base in some cases - Langanke's account of combat in Normandy comes to mind.

but where did Langanke's Panther end up? I don't know in that specific instance but I do that in most instances they ended up abandoned or blown up by their crews, just like Tiger. That goes a long way towards evening up the 4 to 1 loss ratio many people keep mentioning.

The true stats put the Germans only slightly ahead (or even behind -depend upon whose stats yr buying) in tank kills because in the end - the guy that's winning gets to reclaim his damaged panzers - the loser gets to abandon his. (a search of this forum will return those much discussed stats for the interested)

So its not just a question of who has the better weapon. It takes a big picture grasp of strategy to win a war - Germany (thankfully) didn't have that - yeah, they were awesome at the tac level but that's not where victory is won.

What matters in the end is how your tank (or any weapon system) fits into your over all strategy for winning the war. It was hard on the allied tank crews in the west, hell, in the east too; but winning beats losing when you're fighting a war. Just ask a surviving Berliner.

Sherman was the energizer bunny of tanks and each of our Divs (Brit and US and I mean Inf and armor both) had from a battalion to a Brigade or more of the damn things. Thats beaucoup tanks folks. The Germans had sweet stuff but the Allies had their mediocre stuff EVERYWHERE and that trumps sweet tanks available only in small numbers.

Say for the sake of argument that a panzer div in good shape could fight an allied armor div to a standstill (or a Russian Tank Corps). But so what? All our inf divs are meantime, over-running their infantry and the front collapses and now the panzers are reduced to fighting delaying actions while they have any fuel left. Overall tank losses even out once the retreat begins.

Even the Ruskis liked Sherman cause they required so little maintenance.

Panther was cool looking though - Sherman looks very mundane. But Panther used huge amounts of Petrol that Germany simply did not have so in fact - I have to conclude that the Germans would have been better off in many ways if they had Shermans too!

cheers
Reb

2nd SS Panzer Das Reich · Wed May 31, 2006 9:09 pm

My choice would be the Tiget I.