Best army of WWII

[Darth_Pugwash]

Heavy and medium tanks cannot be compared directly, by which I mean a direct comparison of numbers etc. They can be compared in other ways though. We can look at how well adapted to its task the tank was and its success in achieving the objectives it was designed for. The quality of a tank should be judged by its success in achieving what it was meant to do, not what it could do. To state that tank a is better than tank b becuase it had a bigger gun is a huge over simplification.

 

[Adler17]

The problem is the US didn´t have any heavy tanks in ww2 in great numbers. I agree the Sherman can´t be considered as heavy tank but as medium tank it lacked also. The Sherman was not better than a Pzkw IV. In fightings with German forces the US had the air force as match winner. But when she wasn´t available the US had serious problems even with smaller German forces. They had to use the Sherman as standard tank. If you say the German type IV tank was the standard I also agree, but the Panther was the standard heavy tank and used in all of the last battles at the very first line. So the US tanks had also to cope with them. And they had a difficult task. The mass of Shermans was one factor the US had as advantage and the air force. But nevertheless in fightings without air support German troops were beating them very hard, although somtimes outnumbered. That´s why they can be compared- in their task. Both tanks had nearly the same task, but the Panther had a big advantage.

Adler

 

[alhimik]

okay,can anyone explain,how do we classify tanks?
what is a heavy tank,what is a light or super heavy tank?

do we classify t-34 as medium or heavy?
and the german t-IV which is half the weight of the t-34,whats that then?

the german panther is sometimes considered a medium tank,while the kv-I which weighs just about as much(difference bout 1-2 tons) is considered a heavy tank.

now,from somewhere I've heard the following system:anything under 20t is light,20-40t is medium,40-60t is heavy and anything over that is superheavy.

so according to this system,the german t-IV is a light tank...

so can anyone tell me,what system are we using?

 

[Adler17]

I do have no classification tables at this moment. The Pzkw IV is considered as WW2 medium tank. Today he would´nt be more than a light tank indeed. So his weight was 25 t (ca.). The Panther was 46 t heavy making him a heavy tank. The T 34 was weighting ca. 30 t. This made him a medium tank too. It was better than every tank the Germans had until 1941. Then they built rapidly the Panther and improved the Pzkw IV. From the Version IV F2 this tank was able to cope with the T 34. However the Soviets had also heavier tanks like the KV variants, but they were used not very well. So we have to see the main tanks in use. In Germany in the late war the Pzkw IV variants G- J and the Panther were dominating. The allies had the Sherman and the T 34. Out are the German Tiger and Königstiger, the US M 26 Pershing and the Russian KV I. They were heavier than the named ones and sometimes better. However they were not used very much or did not have the number the others had.
The Sherman was compared to German tanks just able to cope with a Pzkw IV- but only in the latest version. And compared to the Panther, well... The T 34 was better than the first Pzkw IV, but with the F2 version both were nearly on the same level, a bit advanced the T 34 perhaps. But also he wasn´t a match for the Panther. What was a match for him- without the air force? The M 26? Yes he proved well in the only fightings at Remagen. But the M 26 was at all to really able to cope with the Panther since a new variant was going into production, the Panther II in summer 45. So the KV 1 and 2 are remaining. Both were used not very good and lacked in ammo. They had only half the ammo the Panther had. So they couldn´t dare long attacks. And they were too small for the crew. This make the crew much more inconcentrated. This might be irrelevant in peace but in battle decisive.
No. The Panther was the best tank of ww2.

Adler

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@Adler

But that´s the difference in war philosophy. Germany could have been built with the resources of one Panther more Pzkw IV. And the US with the resources of 5 Sherman one Panther. So the Germans were favouring quality, the allies quantity.

Well that's my point. The vastly different circumstances are what led to differing philosophies. The US had to ship it's tanks thousands of miles through U-boat infested waters. They had to operate at the end of a huge supply line and be repairable in the field. The Germans did not have to meet these requirements so they went a different path. Had the enemy been right next to the US then you would have seen them produce much different equipment.

The bottom line is Germany was unable to knock the UK out of the war when they faced each other one on one. They were unable to secure the Middle East. They were unable to blockade England. They were unable to destroy the RAF even when they had the advantage of quantity. They were unable to even come up with a workable concept for crossing the channel. Barges and fishing boats? Come on.

As far as casualty rates the Germans were on defense. The defender always inflicts more casualties. The defender usually is losing too. That's why he's defending.

 

[Adler17]

The different tanks were used in the same role. But the US hoped for their air support. Without air support their forces were not able to cope with the Germans even if they were superior. We only talked ablot the role the tanks were used. And they were used in the same role. As for the examples Germany lost this battles not because of the barve British soldires but of Göring and Hitler. And the casuality rates of German forces in the offensive were not very high- until Stalingrad- compared with the enemy.

Adler

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@Adler

The different tanks were used in the same role.

That's true to a point. On the battlefield they were mostly used the same. However, the US knew they had air support so they planned around that. If they didn't then they would have changed the plan. Also the logistics of getting the tanks to the battlefiled in working order for Germany and the US was quite different. Logistics is one of the most important aspects of modern war and it is one place where the German Army failed miserably.

As for the examples Germany lost this battles not because of the barve British soldires but of Göring and Hitler.

We're talking about the overall performance of the armies and leadership is a big part of the army. As far as individual soldiers go the bravery of the British soldiers, sailors, and airmen was certainly a large factor in defeating the Nazis.

If you wish to take leadership out of it then while Germany may have had better trained soldiers I would say the Russians were actually much tougher than the Germans on an individual basis. There were many times in which Germans left flanks unprotected because they considered the terrain impassable only to be surprised by the Russians who marched right through it.

And the casuality rates of German forces in the offensive were not very high- until Stalingrad- compared with the enemy.

In the early war that was true. But that's because the Russians resorted to human wave attacks because they were unprepared for the German sneak attack.

 

[storealex]

Overall the Germans was the best army. It took the might of US, UK and USSR to beat them.

I also think the had the best leaders. Von Manstein, Rommel, Guderian and so on.
________
How To Make A Vaporizer