Nominations please?

My personal ones (in no particular order)

1. Panther tank. Perhaps the best tank of the war. Good armor, speed and armanent.

2. Tiger 2 "King Tiger" Possably THE heavy tank of the war. It was a gas guzzler though and slow. Still I have read that there were cases of this tank knocking out other tanks at 4km- I believe the T34 needed to get withen 800 metres to have a good chance to knock out another tank. Also I have read(may be wrong) that no Tiger 2 was knocked out by a frontal shot. Most seemed to run out of fuel or be destroyed by planes.

3. The mighty Panzer IV. The only tank I believe to see service throughout the war. They invaded Poland and defended Berlin. A great and versatle design.l

4. T34. Alot of Historians believe this was the best tank of the war. Certainly in 41 perhaps. Although argueably the best tank of the war I believe it was also knocked out in huge numbers (probably because it was built in huge numbers to). The T34/85 I believe still had a low velocity gun which let Panthers,Tigers and later models of Panzer IV's to outrange it.

Most British Tanks were junk and the Sherman was OK but all of the above tanks were better IMHO. The Pershing arrived to late to have much impact but done well in Korea I believe.

i vote for the Konigstiger.

overall, firepower vs speed vs protection vs mobility--i say the german panther. the u.s. pershing and british centurian were excellant but arrived the last month of the war and saw little or no action

Well for me the Panther rules the battlefield as it could take on pretty much everything and expect to do reasonably well. There's a series of pictures about a Panther vs Pershing engagement in Cologne near the end of the war, the panther fires at a sherman approaching it and makes an easy kill, the Pershing then inflicted three hits on the Panther's SIDE armour to destroy it :eek: Considering the Panther by that stage was 2 years old and the Pershing was new it says much for German (albeit russian inspired) tank design.

I'd rate it higher than the T34 as it was essentially one design throughout the war, the T34 had to be adapted to keep it relevant, as did the Panzer IV, whereas the Panther design saw good service for 3 years once the engine trouble was dealt with. The king tiger and pershing were much too slow and their armour (for the K tiger) mostly irrelevant as most allies couldn't knock out a Panther, why continue to upgrade to a heavier and slower tank? Immune to tank shots or not, good range or not, the point was as a value in the war they were a waste of space and resources. They were also mostly wasted in battles unsuited to their nature such as the bulge and Arnhem. It's no good having an excellent tank gun if your enemy is infantry whom you don't have to fire beyond 100 yards at, nor is that same gun any use if the heavy nature of the tank ensure you run out of fuel long before getting even close to the enemy.

The Pershing arrived way to late to be used effectively, and though good was certainly no better or worse than the German and Russian equivalent. The British tank you missed perhaps was the Comet, issued over the late 1944 to early 45 period. This had decent armour, a short 17pndr gun that was excellent and a good turn of speed. It was the closest the British ever came to the Panther in large numbers.

The British also very nearly got into production the 1st mark of the Centurion in time, but the few they sent to the front didn't arrive before the war ended. They would have been something like a Pershing only slightly faster. The Panzer IV I have much respect for, but essentially by the war's end it was badly outclassed by many an enemy vehicle, and only really the equivalent of the Sherman at best by the end. It's usefulness mainly came from it's relative ease of production rather than it's quality.

Too bad the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus didn't make it of the drawing board. Should have been an intresting vehicle... ;) With a weight of 188 000 kg and a speed somewhere in between 13-20 km/h...

However, my vote also goes to the Panther.

One of the Maus or the E100 did make it off the drawing board I think, don't recall which, but one of them had 3 built, one of which is now in a russian museum, but was made up of the canibalised parts of two of the tanks. To my reccollection the Maus failed most of it's trials as it's weight made it impossible to move on roads or cross country.

Yeah it wasn't exactly small and swift, the Mouse ;)
Hitler's main idea for the Maus was to plug holes in the Atlantic coastal defenses on the Western Front, where it's limited range and mobility wouldn't have been too much of a problem.

1. Panther Ausf C or later. Early versions were horrible.

2. T34-85. Used en masse with infantry hanging on, it was unbeatable (just not as well finished as the Panther).

3. Sherman Firefly. Only US tank to have a decent chance of killing a Tiger.

4. Churchill Crocodile. A lousy tank, but a great place from which to incinerate the enemy.

Originally posted by Zardnaar
The T34/85 I believe still had a low velocity gun which let Panthers,Tigers and later models of Panzer IV's to outrange it.


Not quite - Russians where still using standard "steel" AP ammunition, this breaks up at high velocities.

Had they switched over to tungsten APFSDS, and upped the muzzle velocity, the difference would not have been so great.

Mind you, it encouraged the Russian tankers to close the distance quickly, making their shots more accurate (assuming they survived, of course).

1. Panther Ausf C or later. Early versions were horrible.

Uhmm not to be pedantic, but I think in order of production the Panther marks went D, A, G. The A and G marks were the ones with better engines and more reliability

3. Sherman Firefly. Only US tank to have a decent chance of killing a Tiger.

The firefly was a British tank, albeit on an american design of the sherman. No US forces to my knowledge used the 17pndr gun or any vehicle that mounted it (well perhaps one or two somehow found their way to an american unit but I severely doubt it was more than that). The Comet, Pershing and Challenger tanks could also compare favourably to the Firefly, especially in armour given the sherman's limited survivability.

I would say Tiger II, Konigstiger, Royal Tiger, whatever name you wish.

It was heavy and slow, but I won't fault the design because Hitler refused to use it correcty. Its record is the best. with only a few hundred produced it destroyed thousands of other enemy vehicles. And again, it running out of fuel was not a design fault, so most of the "knock outs" don't really count as far as comparing designs. I don't consider a car model a failure because the opperator can't afford the gas ;)

So more simply put, if you put any other WWII tank up against a Tiger II in nondescript European terrain, each fully fueled and armed, with comparable crews, I would say the Tiger II would come out on top in more than the majority or trials.

-Pat

The argument for the T-34 is based on manufacturability and reliability, not individual impact. From a production point of view the Panzers and Tigers were nightmares compared to the T-34. So the question is, do you want 20 T-34's or three Panthers and a King Tiger. With manpower as it was, the answer is obvious for the Russians, but less obvious for the Germans.

If the Germans had geared up to produce more, slightly lower quality tanks, could they havbe manned them?

J

Originally posted by Patroklos
I would say Tiger II, Konigstiger, Royal Tiger, whatever name you wish.

It was heavy and slow, but I won't fault the design because Hitler refused to use it correcty. Its record is the best. with only a few hundred produced it destroyed thousands of other enemy vehicles. And again, it running out of fuel was not a design fault, so most of the "knock outs" don't really count as far as comparing designs. I don't consider a car model a failure because the opperator can't afford the gas ;)

So more simply put, if you put any other WWII tank up against a Tiger II in nondescript European terrain, each fully fueled and armed, with comparable crews, I would say the Tiger II would come out on top in more than the majority or trials.

-Pat

That might be true, but knowing the german supply situation, the lack of quality amongst the vast majority of allied armour in comparison, the german production levels and so on, clearly as a tank, the K Tiger simply was not the one the Germans should have chosen to build. Pretty much anything a KT could do a panther could do equally well, with the exception of standing up to heavy A/T rounds, and most allied armour stood precious little chance of taking out a Panther anyway, so that's a moot point.

When all is said and done I'd rather have 2-3 panthers than a KT, hell I'd pick a single Panther over the KT simply because you can actually manouvere in a Panther ;) In comparison the KT was almost useless as a fast moving hard hitting vehicle. It was a defensive tank when traditional German strategy suited an offensive vehicle such as a Panther. The design might not have been faulty in essence, but to build a tank that was directly against the tactics of your army knowing it would likely run out of fuel was a faulty idea, therefore an almost useless vehicle that should never have come about.

What they SHOULD have done was either to produce more Jagpanthers (ok not a tank I grant you) which mounted the same gun as a KT, but with the speed and armour of the Panther. Now that was one hell of an AFV to take out :eek: The alternative was the Panther designs considered for later in the war but never put in place that would have seen the introduction of the 88mm A/T to a panther vehicle, retaining the turret and speed :eek: Either of those would have had the hitting power the KT had, but would lack the problems associated with it's weight.

And the tank to take on a KT in? A stormovik ;) Or a JSII or the Pershing.

Onejayhawk:

Interesting question, arguably no, they had enough trouble training crews as it was, therefore their style of less but superior armour suited the german army. The problems came from making vehicles bigger and heavier beyond logical reasoning simply because they could. To answer your numbers game though, I'd take the 3 panthers and the KT.

Panther have my vote
pitty that they never really go into full scale mass production in the WW 2

Actually to be fair in late 1944 to early 45 the Panther was the most numerous German tank in service, more even than the Panzer IV. For the Germans it was in mass production :D

It's interesting that no-one has nominated the Joseph Stalin 2. The JS-2 was designed specifically to counter the Tiger, and seems to have been very sucessful both in this role, and in the role of a heavy tank in general.

However, the T-34 gets my vote. It's performance was good throughout the war, and it's reliability and ease of production more then made up for it's, overrated, shortcomings in the later years of the war.

Given that one-on-one tank duels were relatively rare, it's nonsence to simply compare the performance of one tank to another. You need to compare their effectiveness in a tactical body - sure, all other things being equal, a full strenght battalion of Panthers would outperform a full strenght battalion of T-34/85s. However, all things weren't equal, and the average T-34/85 battalion would typically have a lot more tanks then the average Panther battalion, owing to the tanks superior reliability and ease of production. As such, the average T-34 battalion could probably outpeform the average Panther battalion. Furthermore, the Soviets had a hell of a lot more T-34 battalions then the Germans had Panther battalions, and in the words of British Field Marshal Slim "the more [tanks] you use the less you lose".

Originally posted by Arvln
Panther have my vote
pitty that they never really go into full scale mass production in the WW 2

Why? If the Germans had lots more of them they would have prolonged both the war and the existance of the Nazi regime.

It's interesting that no-one has nominated the Joseph Stalin 2. The JS-2 was designed specifically to counter the Tiger, and seems to have been very sucessful both in this role, and in the role of a heavy tank in general.

To my mind it was a little too slow, and the Panther was superior to the Tiger IMO, so I don't have a great deal of faith in something purely designed to defeat a tank I never particularly rated comparitvely in the first place.

As for the Battalion Vs Battalion issue, I'd tend to think that the Panther Battalion would have to be VERY understrength to be turned over by a single T34 battalion.

Originally posted by privatehudson
As for the Battalion Vs Battalion issue, I'd tend to think that the Panther Battalion would have to be VERY understrength to be turned over by a single T34 battalion.

...and they often were. In 1944-45 it wasn't uncommon for an entire Panzer divsion to have less then 20 tanks! Given that a division generally had two panzer battalions, one with Panthers and the other with Pz-IVs, that sugests that the Panther battalion would have only 10 tanks!

Incidently, I've read that the Soviets enjoyed a 1:1 tank kills to losses ratio in 1944-45. I'm not sure if this includes their losses and kills from German assault guns and tank destroyers (I suspect that it doesn't). The Soviet tank forces were highly proficient by that stage of the war, and often outperformed their German counterparts.

...and they often were. In 1944-45 it wasn't uncommon for an entire Panzer divsion to have less then 20 tanks! Given that a division generally had two panzer battalions, one with Panthers and the other with Pz-IVs, that sugests that the Panther battalion would have only 10 tanks!

Not uncommon, but I doubt it was the constant. This would be normal after long periods in action without rest perhaps, but rested formations would field much more. Besides, 10 Panthers could and often would outperform many times their number of T34's in any one engagement, even assuming the Russians had 50+ T34's I'd still back the Panthers to give them a bloody nose.

Incidently, I've read that the Soviets enjoyed a 1:1 tank kills to losses ratio in 1944-45. I'm not sure if this includes their losses and kills from German assault guns and tank destroyers (I suspect that it doesn't). The Soviet tank forces were highly proficient by that stage of the war, and often outperformed their German counterparts.

Well I know the germans stepped up Assault gun and TD production late in the war. Also major german cock-ups on the eastern front allowed for much of these losses such as their mistake in thinking over the Russian offensives at this time, leaving more often than not more than 20% of their armour on the front facing the Russian's main assaults. This left them outnumbered all too frequently by 8 or 10 to 1. Add to that the decline in German tank troops quality due to losses, a lack of fuel and ammunition and an almost total lack of mechanised/motorised vehciles and other matters and it's a miracle they still came away on a 1-1 if that was the case. :)

Originally posted by privatehudson
Not uncommon, but I doubt it was the constant. This would be normal after long periods in action without rest perhaps, but rested formations would field much more.

Sure, but there weren't many such formations. By late 1944 the German Army's order of battle largely consisted of shattered units listed at their nominal strength so that Hitler could continue deluding himself. In reality, almost all units were greatly under strength most of the time, with only the elite units (and SS) ever being given the time and resouces needed to bring themselves up to strength.

It should be obvious that the German armoured formations spent most of their time severly understrength - the German Army was defeated after all ;) Read any detailed history of the conflict in the East and you'll note that 'Panzer' divisions with 20 or less tanks start to appear from 1942 onwards. German tank production never caught up with both losses and the expansion of the armoured arm.

Also major german cock-ups on the eastern front allowed for much of these losses such as their mistake in thinking over the Russian offensives at this time, leaving more often than not more than 20% of their armour on the front facing the Russian's main assaults.

That's a common problem faced by forces on the defencive, especially those with poor intelligence organisations. I'm curious as to why you blame german 'cock-ups' for severe losses - are you sugesting that the only way that the Soviet Union won the fighting from 1944 to 45 was by taking advantage of German mistakes?

My vote goes for the Panther. The Germans copied the t-34 and bettered it. The t-34/85, and KV series were no slouches either.
An interesting train of though a Freind bought up once was maybe the Germans should have concentrated of the Pz IV instead of spending time, money and production capabilities on the later model panzers. I mean the Pz IV gs and hs were pretty lethal machines.

That's a common problem faced by forces on the defencive, especially those with poor intelligence organisations. I'm curious as to why you blame german 'cock-ups' for severe losses - are you sugesting that the only way that the Soviet Union won the fighting from 1944 to 45 was by taking advantage of German mistakes?

Actually had you continued reading you'd have noticed I forwarded a number of other reasons for the defeats such as a lack of fuel, ammunition, vehicles, declining panzer crew quality and so on. I do think though it's hard to escape the fact that excellent tank or not, when you're outnumbered 8 to 1 in tanks that have little fuel and only 1/2 the ammunition they need, your job becomes a little difficult does it not? :rolleyes:

It should be obvious that the German armoured formations spent most of their time severly understrength - the German Army was defeated after all Read any detailed history of the conflict in the East and you'll note that 'Panzer' divisions with 20 or less tanks start to appear from 1942 onwards.

And yet they all too frequently turned over Russian divisions and more in battles in the late war period. Whether we like it or not, the fact that even a 1:1 ratio came about only goes to prove the superiority of the German formations in either tactics and/or vehicles given the problems they faced during that same period. I'd also be interested to know if that 1:1 was purely in tank:tank engagements as German losses quite often came from air attacks or infantry also.

Doesn't mean the allies were utterly useless or even bad soldiers, but given the favourable conditions they faced in numbers, manouverability options, air power, supplies, replacement speed and so on it certainly shows a lot.

rilnator:

Actually I'd rate the Panzer IV as no better than the Sherman 76mm to be honest, so not that lethal in comparison.

Originally posted by privatehudson
Whether we like it or not, the fact that even a 1:1 ratio came about only goes to prove the superiority of the German formations in either tactics and/or vehicles given the problems they faced during that same period.

I sugests quite the opposite actually. The Germans were on the defencive in this period and in the modern era, forces on the defencive generally inflict more casualties then they take.

Such as the BEF and French armies in 1940? (whom had better tanks than the germans too) :p

Seriously, you're being way to general here and totally ignoring the problems the Wermacht often had to overcome. It's very easy to say "hey, they only inflicted 1:1" when you ignore that many german losses may not have even been due to tank/tank combat in the first place. Add that to your ingoring of the additional problems and yes, it is easy to claim they didn't do very well. When you look at the entire picture facing them though, perhaps you'll see that in reality they did do well.

I would say the T-34...it had a good speed and range(fuel-wise) compared to the big german tanks. An out flanked tank is alot less dangerous . Thats what happened to the german heavily armed tanks.

Medium: the T34-85, a match for the panther and nearly 10 tons lighter
Heavy: The JSIII, supirior to the Konig Tiger, and over 10 tons lighter.
Light is hard to say; maybe the Stuart, maybe the BT7.

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Heavy: The JSIII, supirior to the Konig Tiger, and over 10 tons lighter.

I take it that you think that the tank actually fought at Berlin then? Some historians think that, like the Centurian, the JSIII missed all of WW2 except the victory parade at the end ;) (Though the balance of evidence does sugest to me that small numbers were present at Berlin).

My list is:

Heavy Tank: American M-26 Perishing (the only reliable heavy tank of the war)
Medium Tank: T-34/85, with an honourable mention to the late models of the Sherman
Light tank: if you want to clasify the Pz-III as a light tank then it gets my vote. If not, then I'd go with the M-5 Stuart.

I read somewhere 80% og Germany's tank loses were due to non tank vs tank engagements. I also have trouble believing that the ratio was 1:1 in the tank loses as most casualty reports I have read for 44/45 show the allies losing alot more tanks than Germany (who had few tanks to lose or fuel and crew for the ones they did.) Even at Berlin the Red Army was basically a big battering ram tactics wise. They lost a few tanks in the final push. Brinkmanns (SS guy in Normandy) blew away 30 odd British tanks using 5 tigers losing none. In April 45 a similar feat took place on the eastern front when a King Tiger engaged some stupid amount of T34(30-50 odd). The Tiger had to retreat after running out of ammo. In both cases surprise was an issue but still.... Another King Tiger killed a soviet tank at 4km range.

There was also some German Stuka pilot who personally destroyed 500+ tanks and survived the war.

I think you're mixing up commanders there, the guy who you describe was Wittman, a tank ace from the Eastern front. He attacked like you descibe only there was 4 tigers and 1 panzer IV, he drove down alone leaving the others on a hill then ambushed the British forces. I believe though it was 30 vehicles, some of which were infantry carriers, not all tanks.

There was another gentleman called Barkman who fought a similar action in Normandy using a Panther, but I don't know much about the engagement.

There was also some German Stuka pilot who personally destroyed 500+ tanks and survived the war.


He also single handedly sunk a battleship, none of his wing men even made it to the ship. Think the battleship was russian though.


I would have to say King Tiger, ya they weren't built great(there was that fuel pump problem amoung others) but it sure could take a beating and keep on killing.

Originally posted by Zardnaar
I read somewhere 80% og Germany's tank loses were due to non tank vs tank engagements. I also have trouble believing that the ratio was 1:1 in the tank loses as most casualty reports I have read for 44/45 show the allies losing alot more tanks than Germany (who had few tanks to lose or fuel and crew for the ones they did.)

Bear in mind that:
1) The Germans had a lot more assault guns and tank destroyers then tanks, and I suspect that the 1:1 ratio is for tank on tank combats only, which, as has been pointed out, weren't all that common.
2) As the Allies were generally advancing and the Germans were generally retreating, the Allies could quite often recover and repair their 'knocked out' tanks, while the Germans often had to abandon theirs when the army pulled back. As a result, there's plenty of scope for the 'kill' statistics to be wrong.
3) The Allies were no dunces at armoured warfare. They had plenty of their own brilliant tank generals and tank units, and often gave more then what they took, especially as the German units they encounted often lacked training and, in the case of the notorious Panzer Brigades, were based on ill-concieved organisational doctrines. For instance, the American 4th Armoured Division claimed something like a 4:1 kill ratio in their favour during their campaigning in 1944-45

Even at Berlin the Red Army was basically a big battering ram tactics wise. They lost a few tanks in the final push.

Berlin was actually one of the Red Army's worst faught battles of the war. The Vistula-Oder operation of late 1944-early 45 and the offencive into Manchuria in August 1945 illustrate that Soviet tactics were much more sophisticated then 'battering rams'. There is a good reason why the NATO armies treated their potential Soviet oponents with a great deal of respect.

Brinkmanns (SS guy in Normandy) blew away 30 odd British tanks using 5 tigers losing none. In April 45 a similar feat took place on the eastern front when a King Tiger engaged some stupid amount of T34(30-50 odd). The Tiger had to retreat after running out of ammo. In both cases surprise was an issue but still.... Another King Tiger killed a soviet tank at 4km range.

Yeah, but they're all exceptional examples. Given that M1 Abrams crews struggle to hit anything more then a couple of kilometres away, the average German crew wouldn't have had a hope.

Hey

I know what we are talking about the best tank overall, but there seem to be two standards people are grading with:

Production and Economy - It is very important that the super tank you make is capable of bieng supplied to the battle field, or what is the point? It really depends or stategy as well, whether you want to out perform you opponent or just swarm them with numbers to overwelm. I think it is obvious what stategy each sided primarily used in terms of tanks.

Comat Effectiveness - This is how it actually performed in combat, reletive to other tanks. Production qualities have no bearing in this. The record is all that can really be used to quantify this.

So, given the above statements, I still give the Konigstiger my vote. As far as production goes, you are right that it was complicated and expensive. However bear in mind that the few hundred Tiger IIs are credited with a over 1000 tank kills (I lowered the number because I don't have a referance at the moment, I am sure it was higher). Assuming every Tiger II was killed in combat, and most weren't, that is a least a 2:1, more likely a 3:1 kill ratio. The T-34, and again this is just of the top of my head, could not have had more than a 6:1 ration itself. The Russian ability to throw resources and men at the Germans in unending numbers, to include the T-34, is an attribute of Russian logisitcs (if you consider that an antribute) not the T-34. Losing tanks until the Germans literally ran out of ammunition killing them may have worked, but it is a little unimaginative and I won't give the T-34 a better grade for that.

Also, taking the ratios, I would also say that as far as resources go the Tiger 2 was a better bang for the buck as well. The resources required to build all the tanks the Russians lost far exceeded the resources needed to build the tanks they destroyed. The only differance is that Russia could afford it, and Germany couldn't. Again though, that doesn't have anything to do with the tank design, but rather national logistics.

And again, the Konigstiger was not built for fast mobile warfare, and it is impossible that the engineers who designed her thought that was its use. The fact that the Generals used it impoperly is a fault in their tactical doctrine (Like Hitler insisting the ME-262 be used as a bomber), not the tanks design. But even with improper application, the tank still outperformed all designs. The JSII and JSIII were good counterparts, but suffered from the same fault that some of you use to attack the Tiger II, it was too slow to participate in fast mobile advances and thus its actual combat record is very "poor" basically due to its inability to participate rather than any design flaw. German generals tried to use the Tiger II incrorrectly for offensive warfare, but in most instances were forced by the situation to use it defensively anyways, so despite their best efforts most were used in the correct manor.

Well thats enough for now, I will try and get some concrete referances on those ratios, so please don't flame me just yet. Give me a chance to find a biased referance ;)

-Pat

I'm still of the opinion that Panthers and similar (Comets and so on) were superior, but that's because I tend towards fighting battles of manouver and counter attack rather than the more static defense the KT and heavy tanks promoted. Used properly such a tank was perfect for such a role, and to me that role is the best form of defense. Of course you won't always find that form, and may be forced into a static defense by nature of terrain or supplies, but even so I'd still back a Panther to hold it's own against most enemies in static defense also.

Also it's important to factor in other issues when dealing with tanks, such as crew priority, examples being the KT and JSII would not normally be issued to green crews but elite formations and by extension are far more likely to be well crewed than either the Panther or T34 due to those tanks being crewed by mostly average crews, be that a good or bad issue. They therefore will obviously be more likely to inflict higher casualties.

On the heavy tanks another issue is their late introduction, the T34/85 and Panther really got into major production and more importantly use, for most of the 44-45 period, the KT to my knowledge did not even see action until the latter part of 1944, the JSII I don't know about but I imagine similar, the Pershing in reality not until the last few months etc. Their effect on the war was minimised by this and their natural lack of numbers IMO. It doesn't detract from their quality, but it does rule out much of their effect.

As for the ratios, frankly I am starting to get a little tired of this almost "gospel" 1:1 ratio. Everyone's aware that by 1944-45 the gap between German and Russian armour was lessened, but to throw around a statistic without the additional information to show that the gap was all but non-existent is a little strange to me. I do agree that soviet tactics were generally advanced from "battering ram", but their atrocious levels of losses during this period from all arms does call into question at the bare minimum their care for their troops if not their overall tactics comparitively to their opponents.

As for the examples, well maybe they were, 30:1 is outlandish yes, but British armour vetrans in Normandy commonly held it as fact that for every panther you meet you should send 5 sherman (75mm) tanks, you'll probably loose 3-4 of them taking it out. These ratios bore themselves out quite often in pure armoured actions during the period, they play themselves out in wargames.

Talking of which, that's mostly why I always prefer a Panther or similar. I like a tank in a wargame that I can move and manouvere quickly around the board, not some behemouth the enemy runs rings around every turn. I like a tank as capable of attacking as it is of defending, I like a tank capable of switching onto a quick offensive and yet able to stop heavy A/T rounds fired at it. I don't like an pillbox that hardly moves just because it has a bigger gun and heavier armour. It's been my experience that the Panther has been the best of these types in most wargames with few that match it. Panthers, Comets and T34's suit my style of play, King Tigers, JSII's and similar force me mostly into a style of play. Just my personal thoughts :D

OK let me clarify the battering ram comment a bit. Often Soviet offense was well planned and carried out but the final offensive against the Oder/Berlin was a battering ram basically. The Mongolian Blitzkrieg was probably the best attack in the whole war in regards to bliztkrieg type tactics used.

The Russians loved the battering ram tactics, thats why their casualties were so high.

T34 without a doubt. Without it russia would have lost the war gerany would concentrate or the attack on normandy, problemly repel it and we would of lost

T-34. German Tanks were over over-engineered. T-34s were reliable, capable and easy to repair. Advantages often overlooked by more glamourous Stats like armour. Germans wasted time trying to build a supertank, rather than settling on an efficent reliable type that they could actually produce in enough nimbers to make a difference in the dying days of the war. Instead they fannied about with design after design. What was the name of that tank where you could, in a couple of hours, mechanically take the turret off and use it as an emplaced gun, THEREBY DEFEATING THE BASIC PURPOSE OF A TANK!?!
Fight or muck about. Don't do both.

EDIT: spelling. The alphabet is not my friend:(

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kermie/photos/panther.jpg

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kermie/photos/panther.jpg

http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bilder/panther-tank.jpg

http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bilder/panther-tank.jpg

The Panther Ruled in WWII

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

Gotta love them Panthers: on paper probably the best tank of the war. On paper. But, as mentioned above, somewhat high on maintanence at a time in the war when the Germans could not keep them running.

Best bang for the buck: the US Sherman. Comparatively cheap to produce by the thousands, and easy to repair breakdowns in the field.

The Russian T-34/85 represented a middle ground between the sophistication of the Panther and the reliability/repairability of the Sherman ... plus with superior speed for the Russian steppes. Like the Sherman and unlike the Panther, a good fit for the economic capacity of the Soviet Union.

Best bang for the buck: the US Sherman. Comparatively cheap to produce by the thousands, and easy to repair breakdowns in the field.

OMG :eek:

The sherman was a good tank in 1942 and maybe parts of 1943, after that it was a coffin for anyone operating it :( It had to be easy to build in the thousands, because they were knocked out up in the thousands! Whilst it's great that they could be repaired so quickly, many an allied crewman died in these ronsons before a tank with half decent armour appeared on the scene.

And if the Panther was so damned useless it would hardly have served as half the German tank capacity within their armoured forces would it? :rolleyes:

The Panther without a doubt, an exceptional piece of hardware.

Incidentally that Stuka pilot mentioned earlier was called Rudel. The guy was the best ground attack pilot of the war by a quite staggering degree.

Originally posted by privatehudson
The sherman was a good tank in 1942 and maybe parts of 1943, after that it was a coffin for anyone operating it :(

Actually, the models that began to appear in late 1944 were fairly survivable. With improved armour and armament and 'wet' amunition storage the Sherman's survivability was probably at least as good as the Panther's. Of course, these upgrades came too late as they were needed most during the fighting in Normandy. The Shermans that served in the Korean War and with the Israeli Army as late as 1973 seemed to take acceptable losses.

And if the Panther was so damned useless it would hardly have served as half the German tank capacity within their armoured forces would it? :rolleyes:

I don't notice anybody saying that the Panther was "useless", just that it's actual combat performance didn't live up to it's promise on paper. Anyway, not all equipment issued in quantity to armies is automatically good - as you appear to acknowledge, the mid-war Sherman tank is an example of this. The British Army's current standard rifle, the SA-80, is another example of flawed equipment being issued in mass ammounts as was the American M-60 machine gun of the Vietnam era. The German Army's standard rifle in WW2 is another example - it was significantly inferior to the British Lee-Enfield and the American Garand.

Actually, the models that began to appear in late 1944 were fairly survivable. With improved armour and armament and 'wet' amunition storage the Sherman's survivability was probably at least as good as the Panther's. Of course, these upgrades came too late as they were needed most during the fighting in Normandy. The Shermans that served in the Korean War and with the Israeli Army as late as 1973 seemed to take acceptable losses.

Hmmm only the 76mm sherman and firefly would come close, but their numbers didn't arrive properly until well too late, the firefly never equipping more than 1 per 4-5 standard shermans, not enough to survive the onslaught of their opponents as the firefly certainly equalled and probably surpassed the Panther's arnament, it never came close to the right level of armour. I know less about the 76mm shermans, but most I have seen through the likes of wargames rate it as something like 1/2 way between a sherman/panzer IV and the panther, not the same. I'm assuming these rules are based on studies of armour thickness and survivability. Of course the Israeli/Korean shermans fared well, but the Israeli shermans were'nt called super for nothing, they were no longer the same tank ;) Whatever the 76mm's armour, it certainly couldn't usually stand up to that many panther rounds, the 76mm was also an inferior gun to both the panther and 17pndr guns, though very much superior to the 75mm.

just that it's actual combat performance didn't live up to it's promise on paper.

That really depends, firstly it was superior to the tank it aimed to fight against, the T34. It then was superior or equal to most tanks it came up against until the end of the war in some way or another. Whilst it may have had some problems with mechanical details and what not, the design in terms of what the germans then needed was one of the better ones.

One tank you might want to take a look at was the Soviet Mark BT.

The Mark BTs had a speed of one mile per minute and a radius of action without refueling of 440 miles. These tanks were also the first ever to have a diesel engine and they carried a weapons system that was very powerful at the time. Having said so many good things about these tanks, let us note one disadvantage: it was impossible to use them on Soviet territory.
The tanks substituted heavy armor for speed and the ability to produce enormous quantities of them. This is similar to a medieval knight being substituted by a light mobile cavalry warrior. Genghis Khan used hordes of fast-moving troops, capable of covering vast distances and delivering lightning strikes deep in enemy territory. This is just what the Mark BT tanks were like. They were only useful as an invasive tank. By the end of 1939, more of them had been produced than any other tank by any other country in the world. They had a pair of detachable caterpillar tracks that let them travel anywhere, but slowly. To go fast, they must be on a good road and discard the tracks to continue traveling on wheels. The caterpillar tracks were only there so that the tank could reach a highway. Fighting a war with the tracks was extremely hard and wasteful. Therefore, since there were no good roads in the Soviet Union, the tanks were made to fight in a country that did not lack highways.

Originally posted by privatehudson
the firefly never equipping more than 1 per 4-5 standard shermans

According to British and American Tanks of World War Two by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, while only one firefly was issued to every British Sherman equiped troop, this was increased after more 17 Pounder guns became available.

AFAIK, almost every American tank in Europe was upgraded to carry the 76mm gun - the problems with the 75mm were realised shortly after D-Day.

According to British and American Tanks of World War Two by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, while only one firefly was issued to every British Sherman equiped troop, this was increased after more 17 Pounder guns became available.

I doubt this ever rose to a level on par with the 75mm or close, comparitively (to sherman numbers) the number of 17pndr guns produced was low, and the gun also fitted other vehicles, served in a/t units and so on. All largely a moot point anyway as the firefly's armour was pretty much as thin as a standard sherman of it's day, unless well protected it was as much of a death trap as it's poorly armed other vehicles, the only difference being IF it survived long enough, it's gun could mix with any of the German ones.

The first serious British tank to be able to go toe-toe with the german armour such as the panther was the comet, it had both the gun and the armour, the firefly did not.

As for the Sherman 76mm, Millitary history online says the following:

All tank battalions that landed in Normandy were equipped with the M4 Sherman 75. However, by late June and early July of 1944, a number of M4 Sherman 76mm tanks were available and began to replace the 75mm armed tanks. Replaced M4 Sherman 75 tanks were then refitted by Ordnance workshops (when possible) with the 76mm. By late 1944 there was usually one M4 Sherman 76mm per platoon. However, the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Armored divisions which arrived in late 1944 were entirely equipped with the M4 Sherman 76mm. This was also true of the divisions which arrived in 1945 (the 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, and 20th). Of course, combat losses in these divisions were replaced by whatever was available -- which often meant M4 Sherman 75 mm tanks.


Therefore it depends on the formation, again though I'd suggest no more than 2 in each platoon in older established formations with the newer ones showing less 76mm tanks sometimes when faced with high losses.

Once again,

The loss ratios are extremely important when comparing these tanks. The number produce, verses the number lost (ground combat), versus amount of kills. Nobody can seriously state that the Panther to Sherman kill ratio was anything less than 3 Shermans to one Panther. And this is just the Panther against the Sherman. I doubt there is any Allied tank design that had a positive ratio against a Panther. This may be because the better allied tanks arrived too late, but that is the fault of tha allies.

The Sherman was easy to build beacuse it was easy to kill. The numbers produced is not a credit to the tank design (perhaps marginally), but to national logistics. The Sherman was made easy to build because the allies knew they could build them by the 10s of thousands. In all reality, Allied war planers in the end cared less for there men and equipment because they had an infinite supply. Especially the Russians, not so much the British.

And once again, anyone know the figures on Shermans verses Tigers at Normandy or afterwards? It is pathetic. The Serman doesn't even have a positive ratio against the Mark IV. Sheraman crews had one advantage though. They could be reasonably assured that there was enough of them for the Germans to run out of ammo rampantly killing the Shermans and would have to withdraw.

-Pat

Originally posted by MattE
One tank you might want to take a look at was the Soviet Mark BT.

The Mark BTs had a speed of one mile per minute and a radius of action without refueling of 440 miles. These tanks were also the first ever to have a diesel engine and they carried a weapons system that was very powerful at the time. Having said so many good things about these tanks, let us note one disadvantage: it was impossible to use them on Soviet territory.
The tanks substituted heavy armor for speed and the ability to produce enormous quantities of them. This is similar to a medieval knight being substituted by a light mobile cavalry warrior. Genghis Khan used hordes of fast-moving troops, capable of covering vast distances and delivering lightning strikes deep in enemy territory. This is just what the Mark BT tanks were like. They were only useful as an invasive tank. By the end of 1939, more of them had been produced than any other tank by any other country in the world. They had a pair of detachable caterpillar tracks that let them travel anywhere, but slowly. To go fast, they must be on a good road and discard the tracks to continue traveling on wheels. The caterpillar tracks were only there so that the tank could reach a highway. Fighting a war with the tracks was extremely hard and wasteful. Therefore, since there were no good roads in the Soviet Union, the tanks were made to fight in a country that did not lack highways.

It was a good light tank. Unfortionatly light tanks were of marginal use in WW2. It also had poor quality crews. Compared to the other tanks of 39-41 it looks good.

It had great potential and possibility to be the best tank of its time, but was flawed due to it's mobility and speed when it used its tracks. Apart from that it was superb.

It was superb if the only thing you were going to be facing was infanty and light vehicles. Compared to the medium or heavy tanks of the time it was a worthless peice of scrap metal. Even against infantry later in the war, the AT weapons had developed to a stage whereby light tanks were very easily toast.

The T-34, almost all other tanks would have bogged down in Russia. Plus the T-34 production machinery was mobile. The first T-34 attacked a German armoured column and knocked out more than a dozen vehicles before escaping. The battle of the bulge was a high point for the T-34, when the Germans finally got through, nine T-34 divisions were waiting for them.

I have a question here.. The Stug (sturmgeschütz) assault gun/tank destroyer, what do you think of that piece of work?

Stug III was one of a series of assault guns/tank destroyers produced by the Germans during the war. Assault guns were easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce than turreted tanks and that is why German factories built them in large numbers. Cost of single Ausf G was 82500RM making it cheaper than both PzKpfw III Ausf M at 103163RM and PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 at 115962RM. It is interesting to see that almost four Ausf Gs could be purchased for the cost of single King Tiger

Very versatile machine this.

Very useful, but I prefer the larger variants like the jagpanther or a variant that can mount the superior 75mm L70 (Panther gun) such as the Jagpanzer IV in it's latter version.

Originally posted by privatehudson
Very useful, but I prefer the larger variants like the jagpanther or a variant that can mount the superior 75mm L70 (Panther gun) such as the Jagpanzer IV in it's latter version.

The Jagdpanther was equipped with the 88 mm gun IIRC.
The Allies were lucky the Krupp-factories were not able to crank a bit more than around 400 units.

The important word in that sentence was or ie, I prefer the japanther, OR variants of Tank Destroyer mounting the L70 such as the latter Jagpanzers. The "or" seperates the comment into two parts, the first on the Jagpanthers, the second on the Jagpanzers.

I've already stated before that the Jagpanther mounted the 88 (specifically the better variant who's length escapes me atm)

Overall though I prefer tanks to tank-destroyers. TD's were easier in some respects to build, but on the battlefield were sometimes limited in comparison to a tank mounting a similar weapon. I like the Jagpanther and Jackson though :)

So only the Russians attacked "like a battering ram" ? What about the breakout from Normandy (British wing especially)? The Germans at Kursk? Stalingrad? the British at El Alamein? at the Scheldt estuary, Monte Cassino? etc etc.

Some of you guys obviously hate Russia so much that it really blinds your objectivity.

Oh and the reason the T34 is held in such regard is that the first version was in the field in early 1941!! When Guderian saw one he was absolutely shocked. He drug a bunch of engineers to show them one and basically told them to copy it. I don't think anyone is really suggesting that a T34 is better than a Panther straight up. Like others have said you need to look at the big picture like when it was built, was it easy to build, maintain, supply?

Originally posted by pstanhag
So only the Russians attacked "like a battering ram" ? What about the breakout from Normandy (British wing especially)? The Germans at Kursk? Stalingrad? the British at El Alamein? at the Scheldt estuary, Monte Cassino? etc etc.

Some of you guys obviously hate Russia so much that it really blinds your objectivity.

Oh and the reason the T34 is held in such regard is that the first version was in the field in early 1941!! When Guderian saw one he was absolutely shocked. He drug a bunch of engineers to show them one and basically told them to copy it. I don't think anyone is really suggesting that a T34 is better than a Panther straight up. Like others have said you need to look at the big picture like when it was built, was it easy to build, maintain, supply?

I don't think people believe that solely Russia used battering ram tactics, but some of the cases you mention happened that way by necessity through terrain or situation rather than by choice, an important difference. Of course Russia did not solely adopt this tactic, no-one would seriously suggest otherwise. So your conclusions on people's nature is mostly irrelevant.

As for the T34, I mostly discount the 1941 version, not because of the fact that it wasn't an excellent tank, it was, but because I generally consider the topic in hand to be about what was the best by the end of WWII and perhaps a consideration to if it was good throughout as an afterthought. By that latter stages all sorts of tanks had bettered the T34 even in it's latter marks with the 85mm gun. The T34 is certainly a good tank, but simply because it appeared in a lesser variant in 1941 is no huge bonus, you might as well equally put forward the Panzer IV for similar reasons, and that appeared and served throughout the period of 1939-45.

My nomination goe to the Panther G
This is the all around best tank. It's early version experienced some drive mechanism problems, but the G ausf. had all the kinks worked out. The high velocity 75mm /L70 main gun was superior even to the 88mm gun of the Tiger. With excellent armor in the front and improved armor on the sides from previous versions, the Panther G was hard to kill. It was fast and had good off-road abilities, coupled with the fact that they were far cheaper to produce than the King Tiger gave the Panther G the edge to win best all around tank in my opinion.


Cheers Thorgrimm

Originally posted by Kentonio

Incidentally that Stuka pilot mentioned earlier was called Rudel. The guy was the best ground attack pilot of the war by a quite staggering degree.

The only man to get the Oak leaves, Diamonds and Swords to his Knight's cross- The highest German honour.

Not quite, 27 people earned that award.

You are thinking of the Knight's Cross wth GOLDEN Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds.

http://www.feldgrau.com/rkgosd.html


I still maintaing the King Tiger, it simply had the best rations of kills to losses to numbers produced. You can even go to cost of materials exerted to build to the cost of materials needed to produce everything it killed (Panther has a good ratio here as well).

The simple answer is the Panther Ausf G. Second place goes to the T34/85.

The Tiger, King Tiger and Panthers all used the same engine. Designed for a 45 tonne tank it really could not cope with the 70 tonnes of the KT, hence the KT's slowness and unreliability. Modern MBT's are of similar weight to the KT but have 1200 to 1500HP engines compared to the 700HP of the German tanks.

The Panther 75mm gun was far superior in performance to the 17pdr - heavier shot and higher velocity.

From January 1945 the Germans are estimated to have had less than 50 heavy (Panthers and Tigers) tanks available on the Eastern Front. The training schools had been disbanded and their personnel and tanks sent to the front.

Shermans, even those with water jackets for the ammunition bins, simply blew up too easily.

British tanks that didn't have the 17pdr were outgunned and those with this gun were poorly armoured by comparison with the Panther. The Centurion came too late and the first models still used the 17pdr. Those used in Korea (where it was the best tank for the conditions) had the far superior 20pdr gun.

Apart from the Pershing most US tanks were undergunned and underarmoured.

The JS tanks were powerful and intended specifically for the initial attack and breakthrough which the T34's were then to exploit. They had problems of cramped crew accommodation and ammunition storage. A JS would only carry around 40 rounds for the main gun compared to over 70 for a KT.

German (and Soviet) tank destroyers carried powerful guns but lacked the turret traverse of a tank. This makes them vulnerable in mobile situations where they can be outflanked. There were very effective on defence.

German tanks fared best on the Eastern Front where they could engage from long range. In Western Europe and once the Red Army pushed into Poland and Germany the terrain shifts towards less opportunities for long range fire.

German R&D was incredibly wasteful and they simply didn't get enough good equipment, including tanks, into the hands of the troops.

But tank for tank, performance to performance, a KT will take a T-34 of any model any day of the week.

Like I said, production and supply are national logisitcs problems. Once the tanks were in the field the true grading began, and a King Tiger, once the vehicles were squared off, blew everything away. Half the KT were mobility kills ie ran out a fuel. How can the designers or crews be faulted for that?

I have to agree with almost everthing you say Cerberus. If you ignore simplicity of design etc... then the Panther is the best, much better that the king tiger. A king tiger can't kill what it can't get to, armored warfare is about firepower, protection, and MOBILITY.

It is a design flaw when a tiger can't get across a bridge or can't fit on a road (like during the Battle of the Bulge) that other tanks can, like a Panther or a T34.

Now if im holding a positional defensive position then give me a tiger sure, but thats not what tanks are for really. Better to put an AT gun there and counter-attack with Panthers on the flank.

JS2 is an excellent tank which had teething problems similiar to the Panther, but you are right it was used in the special breakthrough regiments when its 122mm gun could pulverize pillboxes, infantry/artillery emplacements.

OK would everyone more or less agree.

Best Heavy Tank. King Tiger
Best Medium Panther
Best Light M24 Chaffe???

I read somewhere there wasn't a recorded case of a King Tiger being knocked out from a frontal shot. Run out of fuel or death by aeroplane or rear and side shots. How accurate would that statement be?

Very, no evidence of the glacis plate of the KT ever bieng penetrated by anything. So yes, I will go for that.

Yeah, so singularly a KT is the best tank out, but it's big, expensive, and difficult to manufacture. a T-34 would pound a Sherman, but a Panther would pound either of them, so, the Panther was a later development, from (possibly) captured T-34's, that's like comparing a P-47 Thunderbolt with a Focke Wulf 190.