Does the type of tank matter?

[scalp]

It s not easy to compare just tanks. It depends on many other things like: crew skills, technical support. German losses were often so few just because they were able to evacuate their damage tanks and repair them later, but not just they were much better than russians. There was interesting statistics that average life of one T-34 during the war was 3 attacks only, after that statistically every tank was lost. There s also interesting facts, company commander's life during offensive operation was no longer than just one week, after he was getting wounded or killed.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

If you were lucky enough to get assigned to the small number of FireFlies that were actually built - the vast majority of Shermans still used the old 75mm gun - though the upgraded 76mm was decent & gave those PzIVs a hard time, US tanks were outclassed by the Panther probably into the 1950s (and in general, we didn't get a good tank until the M1!)

Strangely enough, a close study of the Sherman 76 versus the Panther suggested that the Sherman was 3 times as effective, for two reasons:
1) the gunner on the Sherman had a wide-angle sight mode and could pick up a target almost as fast as the commander could (it apparently took more like 45 seconds for the Panther sight to get on target)
2) the engine and drive train on the Sherman were significantly more likely to get the tank to the battle area than the relatively fragile engine and drive on the Panther

Since in tank battles, shooting first matters more than anything else, those two factors add up to each sherman's being as effective as 3 panthers.

See:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/P ... 846032929/

[KenchiSulla]

The nemesis of the russian tank in 1944 and 1945 wasnt the tiger, the panther or the PzIV. It was the atg and the footsoldier with (discardable)anti tank weapons... if you talk about losses of tanks you should take that into account...

[WilliePete]

I belive the Panther II was going to address the drive train problems. I don't think the engine on the Panther was all that bad though. I've seen the final drives for both vehciles personally, and it just blows my mind how weak the drives on the Panther were. The Panther used a weak "single tooth" gear while the Sherman had a dual interlocking herringbone set-up which was at least twice a strong. Considering the Panther was mcuh heavier, its just doensn't make sense that Germans would over engineer everything else, but skimp-out on the finals...

With that said, I still rather be in the Panther in a one on one duel... Training can minimize the slight difference in target aquisition, but overall I feel from what I read and know of the two tanks the Panther is still the better vehicle.

[Baron von Beer]

That might make the Panther more popular to the crewmen; less exposure to fire since you'll spend most of your time sipping coffee while waiting for spare parts behind the lines, and in those rare occasions it does get you to the battle, better protection than the Sherman. [:D]

[raizer]

stugs probably killed more russian tanks than any german armored vehicle in the war

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

That might make the Panther more popular to the crewmen; less exposure to fire since you'll spend most of your time sipping coffee while waiting for spare parts behind the lines, and in those rare occasions it does get you to the battle, better protection than the Sherman. [:D]

I'd be for the Panther myself except that I suspect German coffee was not so good.

[Q-Ball]

My comment was toungue in cheek somewhat, of course quality matters on the battlefield. I think Guderian, though a tactical genius, was a disaster as inspector of tank troops. His input allowed stupid production and planning decisions to continue, even in the face of clear evidence that the Germans were devoting resources to inferior tanks.

The T-26 in Spain should have been a wake-up call, but nope, under the direction of folks like Guderian, the Germans went right on producing the Pz I and II, because they wanted quantity over quality. The early TOE's of Panzer Divisions had something like 350 tanks. Guderian claims in his book that the Wehrmacht suffered quality early because of lack of availability of the Pz IV, forgetting that this tank was in production in 1936, just a year after the Pz II! Yet, Pz IIs kept rolling off the line a good 5 years later, while Pz IVs were relegated to a specialist role. I think Guderian after the war re-wrote history a bit and diminished his role in these bad decisions.

The Char B and Matilda should have sparked an upgrade in firepower, but again, the tank brainpower ignored it. Even the Somua 35 was a better MBT than anything the Wehrmacht had in it's inventory. That the French had the same morale, radio, and doctrine problems the Soviets had probably masked over these deficiencies, but the French in many ways were ahead of the game in terms of where they were going with tank doctrine.

It was only the T-34 and KV that finally shook the Germans out of their deep slumber. Thankfully, the Pz II was way over-engineered, so that it did take well to Marder and Wespe conversions, salvaging value out of those programs.

The Tiger and Panther are clearly superior tactical tanks, but complete disasters to the German war effort, especially the Tiger. The engineering was remarkable, with complicated machinery designed to last years, when most tanks were toast in months. Only too late did the Germans devote resources to economical designs, like the Hetzer, which was terrific value at little more than the cost of a Pz 38-t.

WWII, more than anything, was a war on the assembly line, which of course was the genius of the M4 Sherman, which in every other respect except mobility was a pretty bad tank.

[paullus99]

You can have the best tanks in the world, but if your opponent is throwing 10x or 20x the number of vehicles at you (plus airpower, plus infantry, plus mass artillery), you are in a world of hurt.

After Kursk, Rommel was quoted as saying, "If we can give the German infantry divisions first 50, then 100, then 200 75mm anti-tank guns each and install them in carefully prepared positions, covered by large minefields, we shall be able to halt the Russians...There is not the slightest hope of keeping pace with the enemy in the production of tanks, but we certainly can in anti-tank guns, if the enemy is having to produce tanks for his attack...Our last chance in the East lies in equipping the army thoroughly for an unyielding defense."

If the Weremacht had been allowed to fight the kind of defensive war in the East that they excelled (and weren't tied to the ground with Fuhrer orders), I believe they could have bleed the Red Army white before the Western Allies reached Berlin.

[Klydon]

The French tanks are somewhat of an illusion when one considers their limited size of turret and that the commander was often the gunner. In armor, they were better than their German counterparts.

The Sherman also had one other huge advantage and that was it was a very reliable tank. (Ask the Brits about reliability, especially in the desert). You can have great tanks, but if they are unreliable, then it makes a lot tougher to grade them. (KV was a great tank in terms of armor and gun power, but the transmission was a disaster).

Part of the issues with German production was the inability of Speer (and others in charge of German production) to get those who ran the factories to get away from complicated designs and focus on simple, quick to produce. They were never really able to do this on the level of the Russians or the US for that matter, although I think the Luftwaffe had the best effort at it with planes such as the Ju-352, HE 163, etc.

I don't have any issues with the Germans continuing to produce Mk IV's until the end of the war. In terms of sheer material (25 tons vs 45 tons for a Panther) and probably time to produce (Panther had to take longer, but not sure how much longer) it fits. The gun it had was capable of dealing with most Soviet tanks and anything the Allies may have had. It could be argued that they should have stopped producing Mk IV's and gone with just Stug IV's, but there is something to be said about all around fire.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

It came to a point where the Russians asked the Western Allies to stop sending them tanks - since the models they were mass-producing, the T-34 series and KVs were better than anything they were getting from us (though Shermans were prized for their ease of maintenance and rugged design - the armament was sorely lacking).

Of course, even the T34s weren't perfect & the lack of radios hampered them at the tactical level - but the Russians could throw so many of them at the Germans, it really didn't matter at the end of the day if you had 5 - 1, 10 - 1 or even 15 - 1 kill ratios, you'd still be overwhelmed.

That is simply nonsense, Britain wanted to terminate the production of the Valentine in 43 but were forced by Russian demand to keep producing it into 1944, they offered Cromwells instead but the Russians refused and wanted the Valentine. 2,394 of the type were sent. Look at the old german newsreels in 44/45 on you tube you will see Matildas and Valentines in frontline Russian service. The Russians might have criticised allied tanks but they broke our arms for them.

As for the loss ratio after 43 it fluctuated from 4-1 to 1-1 depending on month.

[randallw]

Guderian or Rommel viewed the tank as a weapon of mobility, with the engine being perhaps more important than the armor thickness or gun.  Designing tanks with thicker armor or a larger gun would decrease mobility.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Guderian or Rommel viewed the tank as a weapon of mobility, with the engine being perhaps more important than the armor thickness or gun.  Designing tanks with thicker armor or a larger gun would decrease mobility.

Exactly, it was Guderian's attitude on mobility that made the Pz II the main tank at the beginning of the war. Because it WAS mobile; it just wasn't good at anything else. (Rommel had nothing to do with tank production decisions at any point)

Encounters with Char B and Matilda may have reinforced this notion since they were very slow...though at Arras, the British showed what even a slow tank can do that can't be killed.

I hear what someone else said on French tanks; the turret was a big problem, no doubt. And most French tanks also lacked firepower, with the short 37mm being the main gun on the R-35 and H-35/39. But newer French designs, plus combined arms design of their new armored divisions, were on the money. They just didn't get a chance to put it in place.

[randallw]

Most tanks in 1940 lacked a relatively large killer gun, the 76.2 on the KV and T-34 being one exception.  The Char had a 75 or something around that. 

[Flaviusx]

Smirfy, the Sovs were fond of the Valentine as a scout tank. That is to say, they thought it was better than a T-70.

[raizer]

char had 2 AT guns