Will got to add my two cents worth again
For starters and idea of what each side was faceing.
Tank losses for soviets
41-20,500 lost 72% of total tanks, most light
42-15,000 lost 42% of all tanks, half Medium & Heavy
43-22,400 lost 51% of all tanks, most Medium
44-16,900 lost 40% of all tanks, most Medium
45- 8,700 lost 26% of all tanks, most Medium
German tank losses (This include both fronts)
1941-2,758
1942-2,648
1943-6,362
1944-6,434
1945-7,382
As for reliability. Soviets lost about 10% of their tanks to Tech Failure.
As for the T-34, many were lost do to their gear-box and failure of transmission.
I think from looking at this that you could say is that the Panther was the best tank of the war for the Germans and the T-34 for the soviets. I dont think the German would have did as will with the T-34 and the soviet with the Panther. The Germans were more skilled tankers and new how to make the best use of the Panther and the soviet military system was more geared to useing large number of tanks like the T-34 but with less skilled crews and heavyer losses.
I would say the Germans could have matched the Allies much better in tanks but a number of nazis ideas came into play to stop this. The allies used woman in factories and other roles for much of the war freeing up man for war and other jobs. The Nazis never really made use of woman becouse it was against their creed.
Will thats all I have to say for now.
Question on tanks.....
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire?
Did they speeden the traverse of tiger's turret by turning the whole hull instead of waiting that slow turret to turn?
Was his tank ever knocked out or penetrated? And considering that there has been a lot of talk in this forum about what should happen when tank gets holed, well, what does happen? What are the chances that something or someone goes broken when the tank gets a penetrationg hit?
Thanks in advance
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
Salutations gentlemen,
Didn't German tank production peak in 44-45 at a level very close to the Russians??
I'm sure that I,ve read this somewhere...in fact I believe it was in Allan Clarkes "Barbarossa" that once Guderian got involved (and Speer) production really took off, however as always the empire builders were meddling and those uncouth artillery officers used their influence to ensure almost half of total production was in mobile guns..(Stugs etc) which were not classified as panzers and therefore escaped from Guderians grasp.
The Germans went for the one million different models while the Russians went for the one model one million tanks(Well, a little literary licence here guys, but you get my drift... hey!! cut me some slack!!).
As for best tank I vote for the one thats left once the shootings stopped...and hope to hell I'm in it!!
By the by, did the Germans have IR/Night vision capability (Crude though it may have been) in there later tanks?? I seem to recall somewhere in the dim recesses of my addled brain that this may have been so..
Jagdpanther maybe??
This is in no way a statement of fact just a query!!(before some of you begin lighting your torches for a huge Aussie barbacue!!).
Deepest regards to you all.
Steve.
Didn't German tank production peak in 44-45 at a level very close to the Russians??
I'm sure that I,ve read this somewhere...in fact I believe it was in Allan Clarkes "Barbarossa" that once Guderian got involved (and Speer) production really took off, however as always the empire builders were meddling and those uncouth artillery officers used their influence to ensure almost half of total production was in mobile guns..(Stugs etc) which were not classified as panzers and therefore escaped from Guderians grasp.
The Germans went for the one million different models while the Russians went for the one model one million tanks(Well, a little literary licence here guys, but you get my drift... hey!! cut me some slack!!).
As for best tank I vote for the one thats left once the shootings stopped...and hope to hell I'm in it!!
By the by, did the Germans have IR/Night vision capability (Crude though it may have been) in there later tanks?? I seem to recall somewhere in the dim recesses of my addled brain that this may have been so..
Jagdpanther maybe??
This is in no way a statement of fact just a query!!(before some of you begin lighting your torches for a huge Aussie barbacue!!).
Deepest regards to you all.
Steve.
Originally posted by Steve:
Salutations gentlemen,
Didn't German tank production peak in 44-45 at a level very close to the Russians??
I'm sure that I,ve read this somewhere...in fact I believe it was in Allan Clarkes "Barbarossa" that once Guderian got involved (and Speer) production really took off, however as always the empire builders were meddling and those uncouth artillery officers used their influence to ensure almost half of total production was in mobile guns..(Stugs etc) which were not classified as panzers and therefore escaped from Guderians grasp.
The Germans went for the one million different models while the Russians went for the one model one million tanks(Well, a little literary licence here guys, but you get my drift... hey!! cut me some slack!!).
As for best tank I vote for the one thats left once the shootings stopped...and hope to hell I'm in it!!
By the by, did the Germans have IR/Night vision capability (Crude though it may have been) in there later tanks?? I seem to recall somewhere in the dim recesses of my addled brain that this may have been so..
Jagdpanther maybe??
This is in no way a statement of fact just a query!!(before some of you begin lighting your torches for a huge Aussie barbacue!!).
Deepest regards to you all.
Steve.
To give you an idea of German Production.
1944
Stug III 4850
StuH 904
Stug IV ~1000
PzIV 3161 for 44 & 45
Read about German IR at Robs panther page. http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/panther.html
[This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited 07-13-2000).]
If you go to AchtungPanzer (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm) they have some good numbers on tank ranges, such as at what distance gunners were supposed to engage the enemy at, how many shots it took to hit at this range, etc.Originally posted by Voriax:
Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire?
Voriax
BA Evans
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
Leibstandarte, if its not imposing, I'd still like to hear what your grandfather has to say on these two questions.Originally posted by Voriax:
Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire?
Did they speeden the traverse of tiger's turret by turning the whole hull instead of waiting that slow turret to turn? ...
Thanks to both of you.
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
Hi Guys!
My Grandfather was member of the 1. SS-Pz. Div. my uncle was member of the 2. SS-Pz. Div. So I asked them about the tanks they have used. They said that the best German tank was the "Jagdpanther" and the tank they feared most was the captured "Panther". For defensive missions they said that the Jagdtiger and King Tiger were more usefull. The American "Jumbo" was very difficult to kill. The russian tanks were easy to kill from distant ranges because they were not able to kill at the same ranges. For close distances they feared the JS´s. They never fought against the Pershings. Last point is that british tanks were not equal to the other ones.
Greetings Skuderian
My Grandfather was member of the 1. SS-Pz. Div. my uncle was member of the 2. SS-Pz. Div. So I asked them about the tanks they have used. They said that the best German tank was the "Jagdpanther" and the tank they feared most was the captured "Panther". For defensive missions they said that the Jagdtiger and King Tiger were more usefull. The American "Jumbo" was very difficult to kill. The russian tanks were easy to kill from distant ranges because they were not able to kill at the same ranges. For close distances they feared the JS´s. They never fought against the Pershings. Last point is that british tanks were not equal to the other ones.
Greetings Skuderian
gez.
Skuderian
Skuderian
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
Skuderian,Originally posted by Skuderian:
Hi Guys!
My Grandfather was member of the 1. SS-Pz. Div. my uncle was member of the 2. SS-Pz. Div...
Greetings Skuderian
May I ask what types of tanks they were on, were they ever on Tiger I's or have experience with them? If so, ask them how easy it was to acquire and track targets moving across their front. Did they sometimes rotate the hull to help get the slow turret
onto a target or was this a problem only at close ranges?
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
i have enjoyed reading all your input and some of you really go the whole nine yards when it comes to info thanks alot for your time .but getting back to the first question"what is the best tank in ww2 built on armour gun and design etc,my view is i,m sad to say would be the panther this hurts me to admitt as i,m a russian fan of what i would class as runner up the t34 series 76/85smm .
the only thing that has saved my t34s from total wipe out is there speed which under the new waw ruls makes them very hard to hit at high speeds but in vs3 this could cuase a few breakdowns i,m thinking
.
any way getting back to the panther its gun is a real stopper if you look at its penertration stats its very high velocity 75 shell could perice armour at greater ranges than that of the tiger and being more accurate due to its velocity, or though its punch wasn,t as powerfull as the 88s
the latter modles being up armoured and with far better gear boxs wear a lot more reliable.but even if only one was ever built it would stil as a weapon of war would have been the best.
the only thing that has saved my t34s from total wipe out is there speed which under the new waw ruls makes them very hard to hit at high speeds but in vs3 this could cuase a few breakdowns i,m thinking
.any way getting back to the panther its gun is a real stopper if you look at its penertration stats its very high velocity 75 shell could perice armour at greater ranges than that of the tiger and being more accurate due to its velocity, or though its punch wasn,t as powerfull as the 88s
the latter modles being up armoured and with far better gear boxs wear a lot more reliable.but even if only one was ever built it would stil as a weapon of war would have been the best.
"The best form of defence,is attack"
i have enjoyed reading all your input and some of you really go the whole nine yards when it comes to info thanks alot for your time .but getting back to the first question"what is the best tank in ww2 built on armour gun and design etc,my view is i,m sad to say would be the panther this hurts me to admitt as i,m a russian fan of what i would class as runner up the t34 series 76/85smm .
the only thing that has saved my t34s from total wipe out is there speed which under the new waw ruls makes them very hard to hit at high speeds but in vs3 this could cuase a few breakdowns i,m thinking.
any way getting back to the panther its gun is a real stopper if you look at its penertration stats its very high velocity 75 shell could perice armour at greater ranges than that of the tiger and being more accurate due to its velocity, or though its punch wasn,t as powerfull as the 88s
the latter modles being up armoured and with far better gear boxs wear a lot more reliable.but even if only one was ever built it would stil as a weapon of war would have been the best.
the only thing that has saved my t34s from total wipe out is there speed which under the new waw ruls makes them very hard to hit at high speeds but in vs3 this could cuase a few breakdowns i,m thinking
.any way getting back to the panther its gun is a real stopper if you look at its penertration stats its very high velocity 75 shell could perice armour at greater ranges than that of the tiger and being more accurate due to its velocity, or though its punch wasn,t as powerfull as the 88s
the latter modles being up armoured and with far better gear boxs wear a lot more reliable.but even if only one was ever built it would stil as a weapon of war would have been the best.
"The best form of defence,is attack"
-
Schrubbery
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland
Many of you are forgetting that every tank is a child of its own time. So, Italian M-13/40 was better than American M1A2 in 1940, because in 1940 M1A2 didn't exist. The same goes with all the T-34/85's, Königstigers, Comets etc. You can't name just one "best tank", because the war spanned from 1939 to 1945, and most of the tanks were not in service all that time (was any???).
What you could ask is, "what was the best tank in", say, "July 1941", and the answer would be T-34 M41. Not in 1945, though.
What you could ask is, "what was the best tank in", say, "July 1941", and the answer would be T-34 M41. Not in 1945, though.
-
Hauptmann6
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Portage, MI
- Contact:
Hmm, a bit late here, but what heck, this topic just bobbed back to the surface....
While accurate to a certain extent, talking about how Germany should have better optimized its AFV production is somewhat missing the point; the limiting factor wasn't vehicles, it was crews and fuel. As late as '45 there were more tanks being produced than there were men to crew them, transportation to move them to the front, or fuel to fight them once they got there. Even in '41 and '42 operations were more limited by shortages of fuel than tanks.
Something interesting to speculate on; what if the Libyan oil fields had been discovered in the '20s rather than the '50s? Or the current hydrogen internal combustion technology had been available....
While accurate to a certain extent, talking about how Germany should have better optimized its AFV production is somewhat missing the point; the limiting factor wasn't vehicles, it was crews and fuel. As late as '45 there were more tanks being produced than there were men to crew them, transportation to move them to the front, or fuel to fight them once they got there. Even in '41 and '42 operations were more limited by shortages of fuel than tanks.
Something interesting to speculate on; what if the Libyan oil fields had been discovered in the '20s rather than the '50s? Or the current hydrogen internal combustion technology had been available....
I think one needs to remember that all tanks had strong points and weak points:
USA (SHERMAN)
Strength: Mass production, super reliable engine built specifically for tanks
Weakness: Very high profile, somewhat weak gun, gasoline could be flammable.
Russia (T-34)
S: Mass production, well sloped armor, well shaped turret, great range and good protection.
W: Crude fit and finish, external fuel tanks, mediocre optics, cramped interior.
Germany (Panther)
S: Excellent gun, optics, protection.
W: Difficult to manufacture, not enought trials to work out the kinks before being dumped into combat so were somewhat unreliable.
Britain (the later C-series)
S: Excellent gun and optics (17-pdr), good Rolls-Royce Meteor engine
W: Also rushed to the battlefield, straight off the drawing board, so were very, very unreliable.
There is no **best** tank, as you use any tank according to it's specific strengths, undoubtedly if the Germans could have mass produced their tanks on the scale of the USA and Russia they would have given everyone else in the world a massive ass-whupping. But raw materials shortages and production delays from bombing raids hamstrung them.
They did do amazing things with what little they had to work with though...
USA (SHERMAN)
Strength: Mass production, super reliable engine built specifically for tanks
Weakness: Very high profile, somewhat weak gun, gasoline could be flammable.
Russia (T-34)
S: Mass production, well sloped armor, well shaped turret, great range and good protection.
W: Crude fit and finish, external fuel tanks, mediocre optics, cramped interior.
Germany (Panther)
S: Excellent gun, optics, protection.
W: Difficult to manufacture, not enought trials to work out the kinks before being dumped into combat so were somewhat unreliable.
Britain (the later C-series)
S: Excellent gun and optics (17-pdr), good Rolls-Royce Meteor engine
W: Also rushed to the battlefield, straight off the drawing board, so were very, very unreliable.
There is no **best** tank, as you use any tank according to it's specific strengths, undoubtedly if the Germans could have mass produced their tanks on the scale of the USA and Russia they would have given everyone else in the world a massive ass-whupping. But raw materials shortages and production delays from bombing raids hamstrung them.
They did do amazing things with what little they had to work with though...
Most Shermans did not have tank engines. There were all sorts of combinations. Aero engines, multiple large automobile engines stuck together, etc. Anyway, mass production has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how good anything is, much less a tank. Now, if you meant ease of production, that's something else.