da priest
Member
X. 40M Turan I(t): The Czechoslovakian designed medium tank Skoda T-22 was the basis for the Hungarian Turan I.RoutePack6 said:
Thanks, I think...RoutePack6 said:
?
What's your favorite WWII tank?
- Thread starter Nat Mallet
- Start date
?Klaus Fischer
Member
The German Sherman
So the (IMHO) only option for the German tank force was to rely on fewer, better tanks.
Nevertheless, going back to the poll, I vote for Panther - eventhough if you'd expand the poll to favourite AFV of the War, I'd probably vote for one of the US TD's Hellcat, Jackson, or M10
Klaus
Darkman, a German Sherman never would've worked, as Germany was by then allready lacking the manpower. Even if Nazi Germany would've been able to build a fleet of Mk IV's they wouldn't have had the crews to man them.
So the (IMHO) only option for the German tank force was to rely on fewer, better tanks.
Nevertheless, going back to the poll, I vote for Panther - eventhough if you'd expand the poll to favourite AFV of the War, I'd probably vote for one of the US TD's Hellcat, Jackson, or M10
Klaus
Commissar Piotr
War Pig
Hi Girls
Is there really any other real tank than a Pz IVF2 or later model ?
Is there really any other real tank than a Pz IVF2 or later model ?
Darkman
Member
German Manpower shortage?
I'm not sure your exactly correct Klaus. Germany did have huge manpower needs during the last year of war. But my understanding was that they lacked equipment, especially armor, more than they lacked crews.
I freely admit I don't have any deep knowledge on this subject. But I don't recall there being any situations where large numbers of vehicles wern't used because they lacked crews. With more, many more AFV's I believe Germany had good quality personal who could be trained in their use to a functional level. As an example the Luftwaffe had to field large numbers as infantry becuase they lacked sufficient planes. I would speculate that would be a good source of manpower to man more tanks. What I'm saying is that if the PzIV's were there, a way would have been found to man them.
Or so I think.
SUBJECT CHANGE: Any input on how long till this forum goes to a subscrition fee? :twisted: (ok that was just mean, sorry).
I'm not sure your exactly correct Klaus. Germany did have huge manpower needs during the last year of war. But my understanding was that they lacked equipment, especially armor, more than they lacked crews.
I freely admit I don't have any deep knowledge on this subject. But I don't recall there being any situations where large numbers of vehicles wern't used because they lacked crews. With more, many more AFV's I believe Germany had good quality personal who could be trained in their use to a functional level. As an example the Luftwaffe had to field large numbers as infantry becuase they lacked sufficient planes. I would speculate that would be a good source of manpower to man more tanks. What I'm saying is that if the PzIV's were there, a way would have been found to man them.
Or so I think.
SUBJECT CHANGE: Any input on how long till this forum goes to a subscrition fee? :twisted: (ok that was just mean, sorry).
Best Tank
Darkman wrote:
"As an example the Luftwaffe had to field large numbers as infantry becuase they lacked sufficient planes. I would speculate that would be a good source of manpower to man more tanks. What I'm saying is that if the PzIV's were there, a way would have been found to man them."
I think there were Luftwaffe field units because the German Army was in desperate need of Panzer divisions and combat troops, not because there were no planes. Most of the German pilots were expected to fly for the entire war, until they were either dead or wounded in battle.
I think the biggest mistake Germany made was in not keeping with only a few tank designs, say the Panther and the Stug III's and JagdPZ IV's, V's etc. They developed too many variants, especially on the PZ IV chassis.
That's why the Russians and the US could out produce them, with only a few reliable designs that were adaptable to innovation and improvement.
One interesting thing though...the Sturmgeschutz series was responsible for more allied tank losses than the regular tanks. Once the Germans used them as tank destroyers, they became a very feared adversary indeed. In any battle with even odds the Germans usually won, so the allies had to produce more tanks to stop them.
Its too bad the Pershing or the Centurian wasn't available sooner, maybe the Germans would have met their match...although I think the Germans' real skills were in training and better optic systems, giving them a greater advantage and allowing their leaders to have the inititive at the critical moment in those battles.
PT109[/b]
Darkman wrote:
"As an example the Luftwaffe had to field large numbers as infantry becuase they lacked sufficient planes. I would speculate that would be a good source of manpower to man more tanks. What I'm saying is that if the PzIV's were there, a way would have been found to man them."
I think there were Luftwaffe field units because the German Army was in desperate need of Panzer divisions and combat troops, not because there were no planes. Most of the German pilots were expected to fly for the entire war, until they were either dead or wounded in battle.
I think the biggest mistake Germany made was in not keeping with only a few tank designs, say the Panther and the Stug III's and JagdPZ IV's, V's etc. They developed too many variants, especially on the PZ IV chassis.
That's why the Russians and the US could out produce them, with only a few reliable designs that were adaptable to innovation and improvement.
One interesting thing though...the Sturmgeschutz series was responsible for more allied tank losses than the regular tanks. Once the Germans used them as tank destroyers, they became a very feared adversary indeed. In any battle with even odds the Germans usually won, so the allies had to produce more tanks to stop them.
Its too bad the Pershing or the Centurian wasn't available sooner, maybe the Germans would have met their match...although I think the Germans' real skills were in training and better optic systems, giving them a greater advantage and allowing their leaders to have the inititive at the critical moment in those battles.
PT109[/b]
Pete AU
Member
My fav.
The Jagdpanther - probably the best tank destroyer of WW2. Fast, well armed with the 8.8cm L/71 and well armoured (80mm max). Really if you look at it from the side it just looks 'nice'.
I think they were still in use by France/switzerland until the late 50s.
Yes - not strictly a 'tank'. But...
The Jagdpanther - probably the best tank destroyer of WW2. Fast, well armed with the 8.8cm L/71 and well armoured (80mm max). Really if you look at it from the side it just looks 'nice'.
I think they were still in use by France/switzerland until the late 50s.
Yes - not strictly a 'tank'. But...
JoeCleere
Member
best tank
In spite of its faults, the best tank of WWII was the Panther. This is because of its combination of speed (46kmh), firepower (75mmL70 capable of penetrating 138mm of armor sloped at 30 degrees from 100 meters), and protection (80mm of sloped glacis armor and 100-110mm turret armor). The Germans probably should have concentrated upon producing the Panther and Jagdpanther, as well as tank destroyers and assault guns based on the Pz III, Pz IV, and Pz 38t chassis. The Koenigstiger and Jagdtiger should not have been produced at all.
Coming in second would be the T-34/85, which had a very good combination of speed, firepower, and protection. The Soviets probably should have produced lots of SU 100s to provide overwatch protection to the tanks. ISIIm was very good too, except for the limited ammo supply and slow rate of fire.
The Sherman comes in third, and thats only because of its reliability, numbers, and fast turret traverse and gyrostabilizer. Why the Army stuck with the 75mm for so long and cost many tank crewmen their lives is a real shame. It should have been equipped with the 76.2mm gun from 1944 on, with all 75mm Shermans retrofitted with the 76.2mm gun and turret. Shermans with the 76.2mm gun and M36 tank destroyers equipped with the 90mm would have been a good combination. Too bad the Pershing came along so late.
In spite of its faults, the best tank of WWII was the Panther. This is because of its combination of speed (46kmh), firepower (75mmL70 capable of penetrating 138mm of armor sloped at 30 degrees from 100 meters), and protection (80mm of sloped glacis armor and 100-110mm turret armor). The Germans probably should have concentrated upon producing the Panther and Jagdpanther, as well as tank destroyers and assault guns based on the Pz III, Pz IV, and Pz 38t chassis. The Koenigstiger and Jagdtiger should not have been produced at all.
Coming in second would be the T-34/85, which had a very good combination of speed, firepower, and protection. The Soviets probably should have produced lots of SU 100s to provide overwatch protection to the tanks. ISIIm was very good too, except for the limited ammo supply and slow rate of fire.
The Sherman comes in third, and thats only because of its reliability, numbers, and fast turret traverse and gyrostabilizer. Why the Army stuck with the 75mm for so long and cost many tank crewmen their lives is a real shame. It should have been equipped with the 76.2mm gun from 1944 on, with all 75mm Shermans retrofitted with the 76.2mm gun and turret. Shermans with the 76.2mm gun and M36 tank destroyers equipped with the 90mm would have been a good combination. Too bad the Pershing came along so late.
JoeCleere
Member
Sherman
Heck, what am I saying? The British offered the 76.2mm 17lbs gun to the Americans, but they were turned down. Imagine all Shermans equipped with the licensed-produced 17lbs gun by D-Day.
Heck, what am I saying? The British offered the 76.2mm 17lbs gun to the Americans, but they were turned down. Imagine all Shermans equipped with the licensed-produced 17lbs gun by D-Day.
Nat Mallet
Member
Performance-wise, maybe. Unfortunately, producing the Panther was expensive. Even if Germany had put all of it's armor factories towards producing the Panther, I don't know if they could have cranked out enough.
The Pz Iv, however, could have been produced in far greater numbers, and it had more than enough firepower and protection to take on the Shermans and the T-34.
Of course, I'm talking mostly out of my ass on this one. I'm going to to more research to prove/disprove my theory.
Never. While I'm normally a cheap, greedy bastard, I think Forums should be free.
Nat
mkirschenbaum
Member
Sturmtiger.
Though I bet the other tanks made fun of its . . . size.
Though I bet the other tanks made fun of its . . . size.
sdkfz
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2003
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Twin Cities MN South of the River
- First name
- Rowland
- Country
-
Fav German Tank
Hmmmm, of all the German tanks I'd take the Pz Kpfw V Ausf F, never made it to production, but the schmal turret sure would have made for a hard to hit hull down target.
As to best tank of the war, I'd take the Panther G model with the chin on the turret starting 9/44.
Sure they were expensive, typical German choice between the Daimler Benz and the MAN version, the DB model was effectively a copy of the T-34 and was lighter/smaller to boot (pretty much the same size as the T-34). No large target TH mod.
Interesting side note is that Hitler preferred the DB version and some researchers believe that it would have had longer development
'legs' than the MAN version.
I agree that Germany suffered from too many models of vehicles, supply must have been a real pain.
Hmmmm, of all the German tanks I'd take the Pz Kpfw V Ausf F, never made it to production, but the schmal turret sure would have made for a hard to hit hull down target.
As to best tank of the war, I'd take the Panther G model with the chin on the turret starting 9/44.
Sure they were expensive, typical German choice between the Daimler Benz and the MAN version, the DB model was effectively a copy of the T-34 and was lighter/smaller to boot (pretty much the same size as the T-34). No large target TH mod.
Interesting side note is that Hitler preferred the DB version and some researchers believe that it would have had longer development
'legs' than the MAN version.
I agree that Germany suffered from too many models of vehicles, supply must have been a real pain.
Klaus Fischer
Member
Returning to the manpower issue; my impression (I have to admit I can't support my theory by any hard facts) came from all the late war (6/44+) photos with 16 year olds acting as tank commander in brand new Panthers and even in King Tigers.
Additionally Nazi Germany had to field "sick" divisions to fill the losses in all of the ground forces.
And if you see the pictures of the underground factories captured by the Allies, with halls longer than two football fields being filled with almost completed jet aircraft or tanks.....
Of course, they were suffering from all the bombing, resource shortnesses, and so forth.
But still, if they had decided to stick to the MkIV as MBT - the German Sherman - and maybe a StuG or Jagdpanther and produced these in larger quantities, Nazi Germany would've lost even sooner, because lower quality tanks (to be lost with Shermans on a 1:1 ratio) would've meant even more crew casualities, and thus even sooner exhaustation(sp?) of manpower.
But as said, this is just my private little theory and by now rather off topic.
Klaus
Additionally Nazi Germany had to field "sick" divisions to fill the losses in all of the ground forces.
And if you see the pictures of the underground factories captured by the Allies, with halls longer than two football fields being filled with almost completed jet aircraft or tanks.....
Of course, they were suffering from all the bombing, resource shortnesses, and so forth.
But still, if they had decided to stick to the MkIV as MBT - the German Sherman - and maybe a StuG or Jagdpanther and produced these in larger quantities, Nazi Germany would've lost even sooner, because lower quality tanks (to be lost with Shermans on a 1:1 ratio) would've meant even more crew casualities, and thus even sooner exhaustation(sp?) of manpower.
But as said, this is just my private little theory and by now rather off topic.
Klaus
Houlie
CEO of HoulieDice (TM)
For me personally, I vote for the Panther Ausf G. The trifecta of mobility, armor and firepower. Though not perfect, especially its lack of mechanical reliability in early models, it is a great overall design. It's peers, the Sherman (great reliability) and T-34 (excellent mobility and sloped armor -- firepower later with the 85mm) were formidable designs themselves. However, from an all-purpose infantry supporting, tank-hunting perspective, I'd rather be armor assualting behind a Panther.
Plus, I have never heard of Panthers having to "swarm" a Sherman or T-34.
Cheers!
Plus, I have never heard of Panthers having to "swarm" a Sherman or T-34.
Cheers!
Stevedeth
Member
Your all wrong. The S-35 SOMOA is the best tank!
:wink:
:wink:
laurent closier
Member
Sherman with its white ROF reducing its DRM in bounding Fire (take a look at Chas Smith's article in JOURNAL 2 or 3).
Laurent.
Laurent.
ibncalb
Elder Member
you guys got to be joking; nothing like running a stuart around in PTO hosing the SNLF with massive MG's and Cannister.
4 armour? more than enough...
b e n
4 armour? more than enough...
b e n