What is your favorite WWII tank?

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Panther, speed. armour, good optics and a lethal gun with a good rate of fire. The best medium tank of WWII and into the 1950s before something better came along. Those T-34s were good, but unrefined and many even lacked a radio.

Yeah I am telling you I can't imagine what a Panther would have done in say 1954 against an M-48...well actually I can it would have burnt. Same with the Centurion versus the Mittens. The Panther and Tiger were evolutionary dead ends.

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

One of the things I learned about the sherman and the reason for its dimensions was the railroad tunnels it had to negotiate to get to port. (the japanese tanks had the same problem but with smaller tunnels!). Also the Liberty ships were designed and constructed with the Sherman in mind. So, to redesign the tank to something bigger or heavier would have meant rebuilding railroad tunnels and redesigning the Liberty Ships. Not an easy task at a time when all designs were done on drafting boards with pencils and slide rules!

A good point, those facts are what doomed the M6 and helped delay the M-26.(the irony being the M-26 suffered no loss of strategic mobility in reality)

[Reiryc]

My favorite is probably the panther... good deal of punch with nice lines. [:)]

Second is probably the pz4g. Always liked the way these looked.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

Not ww2 but the t72 is the prettiest tank I've seen.  I like the mag wheels it looks like a racecar sort of.
 

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

One of the things I learned about the sherman and the reason for its dimensions was the railroad tunnels it had to negotiate to get to port. (the japanese tanks had the same problem but with smaller tunnels!). Also the Liberty ships were designed and constructed with the Sherman in mind. So, to redesign the tank to something bigger or heavier would have meant rebuilding railroad tunnels and redesigning the Liberty Ships. Not an easy task at a time when all designs were done on drafting boards with pencils and slide rules!

A good point, those facts are what doomed the M6 and helped delay the M-26.(the irony being the M-26 suffered no loss of strategic mobility in reality)

If I remember right, the M-26 was a lighter tank than the sherman and had a lower profile. That would tend to make it easier to transport, not harder as was the case of the M-6

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad

Not ww2 but the t72 is the prettiest tank I've seen.  I like the mag wheels it looks like a racecar sort of.

Gotta agree, pretty tank. But falls short of its contemporaries (M-1 Abrams, Challenger, Leapard II, Mercava)

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

If I remember right, the M-26 was a lighter tank than the sherman and had a lower profile. That would tend to make it easier to transport, not harder as was the case of the M-6

The M26 was a heavy tank. Big and slow like the Tigers it was designed to kill. Recall reading only two of them saw combat in WWII.

[hank]

Morvwilson may be thinking of the M24 Chaffee which was a lighter tank than the sherman.  Like JSS said, the M26 Pershing was a big tank.  ... with a 90mm main gun ... if I remember right.
 
... everyone here must be old 'cause we're all wondering if "we remember right" ... [&o]

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Panther, speed. armour, good optics and a lethal gun with a good rate of fire. The best medium tank of WWII and into the 1950s before something better came along. Those T-34s were good, but unrefined and many even lacked a radio.

Yeah I am telling you I can't imagine what a Panther would have done in say 1954 against an M-48...well actually I can it would have burnt. Same with the Centurion versus the Mittens. The Panther and Tiger were evolutionary dead ends.

I disagree with your assessment of the Panther vs M48. Assuming development was continued on the Panther through 1945 and beyond by 1954 it would have at least an 88mm gun (plans were already in progress to do this with a smaller turret in 1945) and possibly a diesel engine. The first M48s were disasters in terms of reliability and (as with many new tanks) it took a lot of time to work through the teething troubles. It initially had a gas engine as did the Panther.

While I am not a technical guru, a cursory glance at the Panther's overall size and turret ring diameter would indicate to me that it could probably have been developed in a very similar way to the Centurion and remained an effective tank well into the 1980s.

Speaking of the Centurion - I don't understand this comment of yours: Same with the Centurion versus the Mittens. i presume the "Mittens" is a nickname for a tank but I have never heard it before.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: hueglin


While I am not a technical guru, a cursory glance at the Panther's overall size and turret ring diameter would indicate to me that it could probably have been developed in a very similar way to the Centurion and remained an effective tank well into the 1980s.

Ehrmmmm....

Let me cue you in: When the germans themselves set about building an indegenous MBT in the 1960s, how much did it resemble the Panther?

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad

Not ww2 but the t72 is the prettiest tank I've seen. I like the mag wheels it looks like a racecar sort of.

Gotta agree, pretty tank. But falls short of its contemporaries (M-1 Abrams, Challenger, Leapard II, Mercava)

It falls short of M-1 Abrams, Challenger, Leopard II, Merkava because they are not its contemporaries - The 72 in T-72 refers to the year the vehicle either began production or went into service. That makes it contemporary (in design terms) with the Chieftain. It falls in between the 1960s designs (M60, AMX-30, Leopard 1) and the 1980s designs (M1, Merkava - 1979, Leopard II and Challenger). The initial M1s had a 105mm gun and didn't get the 120mm gun until 1985.

Imagine how the T-72 would have looked against its contemporaries in the early and mid 1970s - M60A1, AMX-30, Leopard 1, and Chieftain. I am not saying it was the best tank - but it would compare very favourably.

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: hueglin



I disagree with your assessment of the Panther vs M48. Assuming development was continued on the Panther through 1945 and beyond by 1954 it would have at least an 88mm gun (plans were already in progress to do this with a smaller turret in 1945) and possibly a diesel engine. The first M48s were disasters in terms of reliability and (as with many new tanks) it took a lot of time to work through the teething troubles. It initially had a gas engine as did the Panther.

Yes yes, this goes along the line of giant mutated squirrels. If the Panther was the answer it charms me the Germans went along ENTIRELY different lines when they regained control of their own developmental destiny. I look at the Leo and I see neither of the WW2 Mitten tanks involved.

ORIGINAL: hueglin
While I am not a technical guru, a cursory glance at the Panther's overall size and turret ring diameter would indicate to me that it could probably have been developed in a very similar way to the Centurion and remained an effective tank well into the 1980s.

We can take this argument in one of two directions. A fantasy land where Germany continues developing its pituitary cases without ANY US continuation of its own war time speed of modernization in equipment. Sort of a Teutonic Starship troopers where military modernization goes on and on without interruption for one side alone or we can take this as a real world 19 say 54 fight between real 1950s tanks and the Mittens as reality left them.

Me I personally like "reality". A M48 in 1954 was at least the equal of "real Panthers"...add in the better warhead capability of the M47/M48 main gun the thicker armor the superior fire control and I'll take the Patton every time. The M-26 got some kills how many M-26s did Fwitz manage to ice?

The M-46 itself was far superior to the T-34/85 another of these mythic "1940s designs that transcend the development cycle of the cold war" in some people's minds.

I'll compare the stats of the M47/M48 90mm to the vaunted 88mm ANY day of the week as long as we are stuck in "reality" if we are using real 1954 ammo versus real ww2 German stock of ammo.

Now if we want to go to candy land well we had the M68 105mm by 1959 at the latest, and even our poor benighted Tank designers could have mated the M58 to a lighter design in a jam if we are going to allow Fritz to magically overcome his late war metallurgical issues.

ORIGINAL: hueglin
Speaking of the Centurion - I don't understand this comment of yours: Same with the Centurion versus the Mittens. i presume the "Mittens" is a nickname for a tank but I have never heard it before.

The Centurion was a design that REALLY transcended the cold war. Take a look at footage of the M60's M68 sampling even the superior in armor to the Mittens M48 ability to eat a modern HEAT round.

Mittens=s "Overloved German Kitty Tanks".

The gentleman I responded to was stating the Panther as rendered was a viable tank into the '50s.

"Good Luck" is all I have to say.

The US Tanks mentioned were no where near as good as UK armor of the period pound for pound and I'd still rather be in them.

As Rune and I have pointed out, if the Mittens were "the future" it strikes me as odd that not ONE of the Allied powers "hijacked the designs" as we and the Soviets are accused of doing for everything from the AK-47 to the F-104. Germany itself went in an entirely new direction regarding armor design once they regained control of the ball. Seeing as how they adopted the G-3 which was seriously an evolution of German ww2 weapon's designers intent as seen by its bloodlines in the CETME maybe you can explain why?

Nazi design was gearing towards the Maus as the "next big thing".

I'd have stuck with the M-26 on an accelerated development cycle.

[Rune Iversen]

Hell, even the M41 firing HVAP would have eaten the Panther [:'(]

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: hank

Morvwilson may be thinking of the M24 Chaffee which was a lighter tank than the sherman.  Like JSS said, the M26 Pershing was a big tank.  ... with a 90mm main gun ... if I remember right.

... everyone here must be old 'cause we're all wondering if "we remember right" ... [&o]

Thanks for the correction, too many "M" somethings in the US inventory for an old codger like me to remember![&:]
After all I have been 25 years old now for 18 years![8D]

[hueglin]

The Centurion was a design that REALLY transcended the cold war.

I agree with this comment. The Centurion was a good all around tank that was able to "grow" with improved engines, armour, firepower and fire-control.

The comments I made about the Panther are hypothetical as clearly there was no way for the Germans to win the war or continue developing it. So I would agree that there is no tank that was in service in 1945 that, without any further improvements, could compete well with an M48 in 1954.

My point was that, from a technical point of view, I believe the Panther had the growth potential to continue in service, with improvements, like the Centurion did.

Although it didn't happen with the Panther, German designs were manufactured and improved upon after the war. The Czechs produced an improved version of the Sdkfz 251 designated the OT-810 and the Swiss produced a version of the Hetzer (http://www.pzfahrer.net/improve.html).

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: hueglin


While I am not a technical guru, a cursory glance at the Panther's overall size and turret ring diameter would indicate to me that it could probably have been developed in a very similar way to the Centurion and remained an effective tank well into the 1980s.

Ehrmmmm....

Let me cue you in: When the germans themselves set about building an indegenous MBT in the 1960s, how much did it resemble the Panther?

If you follow the same logic with American tank development, then you would have to question whether the M48/M60 design was any good. The M1 was a major change in design philosophy with a much lower silhouette, different type of engine, and more emphasis on protection.

Just because design philosophy changes does not mean that what came before wasn't any good. The Germans were able to have a completely fresh start and changed their design philosophy. They chose to emphasis mobility (as did the French with the AMX-30). If you look at subsequent Leopard I models however, and following through to Leopard II and its evolution, they have continually up-armoured them at the expense of some mobility.

Below is an interesting quote from a publication called : The Royal Armoured Corps Tank Museum - Tanks of Other Nations - Germany - published by the RAC Tank Museum in 1969.

Referring to the Leopard I - "It is a well constructed tank, fast, easily handled and with a good radius of action. It is a little disappointing that it does not represent anything like the advance on current models that the Panther did when it came into service."

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: hueglin



Referring to the Leopard I - "It is a well constructed tank, fast, easily handled and with a good radius of action. It is a little disappointing that it does not represent anything like the advance on current models that the Panther did when it came into service."

Ever ponder whether a design philosophy that led to a defeat but was replaced by adhereing to the concepts the war winning power used being catergorized as a "disappointment" would be laughed at by the people who embraced the Leo over the pituitary disorder evolution?

The "triad" of sensible tank designs of world war 2 is the Pz IV, Sherman, and T-34 series. The Germans never achieved the gains they did with the 3/4 punch with any of the Kitties. Now one can argue, ja ja different era of the war and possibly have a case but the fact of the matter is that armor design is a triangle between lethality, durability, and mobility.

The tanks above all excelled and had near ranges on having a near "balance" of the three. Time passed by the heavy and light tanks but the "Medium's grandchildren" the MBTs soldier on for now. The German war effort would have been better served improving their mediums...not seeing the Maus in the mists so to speak.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: hueglin



Referring to the Leopard I - "It is a well constructed tank, fast, easily handled and with a good radius of action. It is a little disappointing that it does not represent anything like the advance on current models that the Panther did when it came into service."

Ever ponder whether a design philosophy that led to a defeat but was replaced by adhereing to the concepts the war winning power used being catergorized as a "disappointment" would be laughed at by the people who embraced the Leo over the pituitary disorder evolution?

The "triad" of sensible tank designs of world war 2 is the Pz IV, Sherman, and T-34 series. The Germans never achieved the gains they did with the 3/4 punch with any of the Kitties. Now one can argue, ja ja different era of the war and possibly have a case but the fact of the matter is that armor design is a triangle between lethality, durability, and mobility.

The tanks above all excelled and had near ranges on having a near "balance" of the three. Time passed by the heavy and light tanks but the "Medium's grandchildren" the MBTs soldier on for now. The German war effort would have been better served improving their mediums...not seeing the Maus in the mists so to speak.

I thought the Panther was marginally quicker than the Sherman so would include that in this list since it could also out kill and out last any of them with sloped armour and the uber 75.

If by "design philosophy" you mean too over engineered for an economy like the German one, I would agree. If it means anything else, I probably wouldn't, I think the Panther was pound for pound the outstanding Tank of the war. Once the teething troubles were ironed out, I don't see too much wrong with the design philosophy save the German economy couldn't make enough of them.

Re the Sherman and the absence of American uber AFVs, I think it is more complicated than just blaming McNair and the Infantry Branch. The Cavalry branch showed little appetite either (they were still debating whether to reintroduce the sabre in 1938) and the armor branch as it evolved didn't really require an uber MBT to meet its doctrinal requirements. Patton never wanted the M26 despite being America's foremost Tanker. The fact is (IMHO) America never stood a chance of having better tanks because there was not enough pressure for them until Shermans regularly started getting holes in them in Normandy. It was not just a TD "Mafia" but a general lack of pressure. The Sherman suited because it was simple and straightforward (a good weapon for a Civilian Army) and easily transportable in large numbers (suiting american doctrine and geo-strategic position.) Fairly quick and maneuvrable, it also suited deep operations which is how chaffee and his successors envisaged Armor's (sic) role.

Regards,
IronDuke


EDIT: I think the MAUS thing is also overused. You can argue it was a tactical dead end and a waste of development and resources, but without it, if the war had continued on for longer, how would the Germans have stopped the T95? [;)]

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


I thought the Panther was marginally quicker than the Sherman so would include that in this list since it could also out kill and out last any of them with sloped armour and the uber 75.

Depends on how we are defining "quicker" are we discussing tactical, operational, or strategically "quicker"? Are we discussing comparing (as wikipedia does) the M4A1 with the last generation of Panther?

The M4A2-76 was capable of sustained, and by sustained I mean sustained as long as the tranny held up(much longer than any kitty) and the fuel held up(again much longer than the kitty), and the tracks held(again much longer than any Kitty) speeds of 48KMH. So yeah allegedly accoridng to wiki and some cites the Panther was in possession of a 7KMH speed advantage.....that was drawing power from the turret since the turret drew its power from the drive train.

US Army Intell stated the V had a speed of 50KMH stated
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_ ... index.html

the AFV database has 48 for the Sherm and 55 for the Kitty.

The Panther was a "heavy" and if we are picking based on tech envy I would still rather be in the M-26 since at US rates of productions I would STILL have had a 5 to 1 advantage by 1946.

We are it seems arguing at cross purposes, I mocked someone's understanding of proper APC/IFV durability theory by stating "can it survive sabot? if so it is a sandcrawler!"

The point being as grim and ruthless as it sounds it is better for a society to produce a weapons system that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH but can be produced simply, cheaply, and ably. The funny thing is that when a fan of Allied giants points out in the case of the M6 for example that we HAD the "pre-tiger" and it was standardized and accepted but never used it is "fantasy" but when a user points out this fantasy land a lot of folks live in where the Tiger and Panther were potential war winning designs they are "also living in fantasy".

I have a number for you 5,995

I have another number for you 44,374

anyway we are comparing vehicles with over 30,000 pounds in weight difference...like I said I guess the Panther is a "medium" when compared to the Maus.....

"I guess".

The US and USSR and even the UK had the number of Germany on Armor IMHO.

[Twotribes]

I can agree with Iron Dukes assessment of the Sherman and why the US never made a "bigger" "Better" tank. Sven said pretty much the same thing but included the "mafia" stuff as historical fact.