Best Tank of WW2?

[rilnator]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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?

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.

 

[Case]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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

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.

 

[HAND]

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.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

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.

 

[Case]

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.

 

[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.) 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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[Esckey]

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.

 

[Case]

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.

 

[Patroklos]

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

 

[privatehudson]

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

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[rilnator]

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

 

[#1 Person]

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

 

[Tathlum]

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

 

[Garry Denke]

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

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

The Panther Ruled in WWII

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Andu Indorin]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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

OMG

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?