2nd ww tanks

19kilo30K4 said:
I will admit that it's hard to stand next to a Tiger and not be in awe of it. I'm a tanker myself and something about the Tiger just stirs my blood. They have a cutaway Tiger on display at the Patton Museum at Ft Knox (which is where all of us 19 series people train) and it's pretty amazing. The thickness of the frontal armor is unbeleivable. As for putting more effort into the Panther, they tried. Unfortunately for the Germans, the war ended before it was done, and the only surviving Panther II is on display at the Patton Museum as well. It looks like a very promising design and if you've never seen it before here it is:
http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/Tanks_Patton_Tanks_PantherII_tank.aspx

Click the link right below it that says King Tiger to see the cutaway of the front armor that I was talking about. If you've never been to the Patton Museum and you love tanks, it's worth the trip. As a side note, the Sherman is sitting facing the Tiger. I remember my first trip to the museum, I was standing in between the two looking back and forth amazed that anyone would get in a Sherman and fight Nazi tanks. There is also a really good condition T-34 there and a lot of other good stuff there. If you look at the M1 Abrams page 2, disregard all those shots that look like they were taken of the commanders station. It's actually a semi scaled mock up and not real. The rest of the tank pics on that page are of a tank that was actually in the spearhead element for the strike on Baghdad in 2003. It was the platoon leader's tank for the lead company of the lead battalion during the drive to seize the city center. As a side note, if you want to just some completely absurd tanks then click the links for the T-28 and look at the gun on the M-29. I remember seeing the T-28 and thinking.... "what the hell happens if you throw track?"
Click to expand...


Hehe thanks to the Patton Tank Museum, Bovington and the Deutsches Panzermuseum I am no longer allowed to pick our vacation destinations. :)

Personally I think it is hard to fault the Tiger I as heavy tank when you consider that it began its design phase in 1937 and between 1942 and 1945 there were few tanks that could match it 1 on 1.

There is no doubt that it had its problems but no more so than any other tank of the period.

As far as developing the Panther goes I think one of the problems with German thinking of the period was that they never stopped long enough to iron out the problems with existing designs, essentially the Panther Ausf G was an excellent vehicle, as I said I would have stopped all tank production in late 1943 and just built the Panther as the offensive force in small numbers, mass produced the Jagdpanzer IV as anti-armour defensive vehicles and focused on the Pz-IV chassis for all other armoured variants (Tank recovery, mobile anti-aircraft etc.).

This would have streamlined German armour production during those years and allowed a far greater number of vehicles to be produced.
 
19Kilo

I am going to disagree with you on two points.

You say the Sherman was bad tank, but I think you overlook its amazing Versatility. The two strikes against the Sherman, Weak Armor and a Low-Velocity Gun for Anti-Vehicle work. I would submit the following, it was easy to build, easy to fix, and easy to maintain. Something German Tanks were not. It also had a good powerplant, transmission, and suspension system, in fact the chassis itself was pretty reliable, technically speaking.

Further the Sherman was easily modifyable, both internally (by adding things like wet Ammo storage, many different types of engines, different types of main guns 75mm, 76mm, 120mm Howitizer, British 17lb) and also externally dozers, various mine clearence equipment, recovery equipment, Swimming equipment, etc.

I view the Sherman as more of a Swiss Army Knife, type of Tank. It could do any job reliably although it didnt excel in anything. It was not a great tank, but it was "good enough".

will continue later...
 
mmarsh said:
19Kilo

I am going to disagree with you on two points.

You say the Sherman was bad tank, but I think you overlook its amazing Versatility. The two strikes against the Sherman, Weak Armor and a Low-Velocity Gun for Anti-Vehicle work. I would submit the following, it was easy to build, easy to fix, and easy to maintain. Something German Tanks were not. It also had a good powerplant, transmission, and suspension system, in fact the chassis itself was pretty reliable, technically speaking.

Further the Sherman was easily modifyable, both internally (by adding things like wet Ammo storage, many different types of engines, different types of main guns 75mm, 76mm, 120mm Howitizer, British 17lb) and also externally dozers, various mine clearence equipment, recovery equipment, Swimming equipment, etc.

I view the Sherman as more of a Swiss Army Knife, type of Tank. It could do any job reliably although it didnt excel in anything. It was not a great tank, but it was "good enough".

will continue later...
Click to expand...


Say what? Here we go again with this guy. I didn't say it was a bad tank, I said that it had a terrible service record compared to the T-34, and that it suffered staggering losses. Reread my post and you will see that that's ALL I said in reference to the Sherman. If you are going to try and argue that the Sherman fared better in battle than the T-34 or that they didn't suffer terrible losses, then go right ahead. You'd be wrong. If you were going to make an argument for the Sherman, you would have to say that it was mainly used as an infantry support vehicle instead of going head to head against other tanks (the bulk of Sherman losses were to mines, anit tank guns, and infantry AT weapons). Or you could say that the use of effective combined arms tactics favored the Sherman. What you could NOT say is that it had a better record than the T-34 or that it didn't get destroyed in great numbers. Reread my post and think about it before you try to shoot me down over some stuff I didn't even say. Just figured I'd head that off at the pass before you launch into a full scale rebuttal of a statement I never made.
 
Last edited:
19kilo30K4 said:
Say what? Here we go again with this guy. I didn't say it was a bad tank, I said that it had a terrible service record compared to the T-34, and that it suffered staggering losses. Reread my post and you will see that that's ALL I said in reference to the Sherman. If you are going to try and argue that the Sherman fared better in battle than the T-34 or that they didn't suffer terrible losses, then go right ahead. You'd be wrong. If you were going to make an argument for the Sherman, you would have to say that it was mainly used as an infantry support vehicle instead of going head to head against other tanks (the bulk of Sherman losses were to mines, anit tank guns, and infantry AT weapons). Or you could say that the use of effective combined arms tactics favored the Sherman. What you could NOT say is that it had a better record than the T-34 or that it didn't get destroyed in great numbers. Reread my post and think about it before you try to shoot me down over some stuff I didn't even say.
Click to expand...

First I didnt "shoot you down", I merely disagreed, if you have a problem with that then you are going to have a very serious problem here, because disagree is what we do here. So either find another forum, or drink a gin-sing and chill out. Secondly if I misunderstood I apologize, simple as that. Ill agree that the T-34 had a better record, and that Shermans suffered huge losses.

I do agree with Monyb about your assetment on the Tiger is unfair. The Tiger was certainly ambitious, but it wasnt something like the MAUS tank which was an appeal to Hitlers vanity. At least you can say that Hitler didnt name the Tiger after himself as Stalin did with the IS-1/2/3 let alone naming an entire city after himself.

Ill speculate here, but I would guess that the Germans retained the "box" shape simply because they were so desperate to get something in the field that could stop the T-34, and therefore didnt have the time to redesign the tank with sloping armor as you find on later German Tanks.

When it comes to the Tiger I think the notion of whether it was a "good" or "bad" tank depends really on the role it was being used. Ill agree that its reliability on the attack was a serious handicap, but in the defensive roll, in a hull-down position the Tiger was a very dangerous beast as we found out.
 
Last edited:
Guy.... you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with a position that I never took.... I don't know what else to tell you. As for the Tiger, Hitler personally ordered the creation of heavy panzers on May 26th 1941... I say again, personally. There was a reason that the Nazis built bigger tanks than everyone else. It was the same reason why they built the Eagle's Nest, the Bismark, the massive rail guns, and the same reason they portrayed the SS as Nazi supermen. Hitler wanted a bigger and more impressive tank than any other in the world as much for fear factor as for combat effectiveness. The Germans, being Germans worked hard to make an effective tank based on what Hitler wanted. Desperate to field anything were they? Then why would they focus on a design that was so complicated and so costly in time and materials to make? If it was desperation, they could have spend their resources on Pathers instead. Care to rethink that standpoint? Hitler ordered heavy panzers BEFORE they went toe to toe against the T-34, so how was it a desperation reaction to a tank they had not even faced yet?

Much like Pale Rider before me, I'm sick of the speculations and I'll take your advice and find another forum. I understand there are disagreements in discussions but you aren't disagreeing with me. You're attacking a position that I am not even taking so I don't really know what you are doing. Every post you make is an attack, and none of it is informative or constructive. If a mod would be so kind as to shut down my CP, then I'll be on my way. I enjoyed contributing while I was here, and I hope somebody learned from something I said.
 
Last edited:
19kilo30K4 said:
Or did you mean the US and UK combined was on par with the Russians? That would be accurate, but that doesn't look like what you just posted.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't make it more clear, but yes that is what I meant. I've read alot about the Germans being heavily outnumbered on tanks.

I just remembered about a quote I had read about the German tanks vs the Allies. it went something like from two miles away a Tiger tank could hit and kill a Sherman. Yet a Sherman could be right next to the Tiger and not do any damager in one shot. it went something like that and it kind of shows how out gunned the Allies were. Yet I think they had the advantage in numbers. I remember a saying for the Russians that every T-34 the Germans destroyed another 10 were on their way to the front. This is probably what destroyed the German's in the end, the numbers. Especially as the Allies closed in on Berlin.
 
Well it depends on how you define 'best'

On single duels i would think the German Tiger 2 tank, or Mouse would take the prize. However strategically both of these are very bad choices as they where far to prone to mechanical breakdown, expensive, and slow. Strategically i would say the Sherman, the T-34, or the Panzer 4. They could be built in large numbers, could take advantage of gaps in the enemy's lines, and could hold their own in most scenarios.
 
Last edited:
I think it relation to the question asked very few people would disagree that the T-34 was the best tank of WW2, we seem to have gone off track a little bit with the Tiger but I would still rate it as the best German tank of the war followed by the PZ-IV and then the Panther.

The thing most people tend to overlook with the Tiger is that its effects extended beyond its presence on the battlefield as "Tiger fever" was endemic amongst allied troops even when they encountered almost any German armour and that to me is worth something.
 
MontyB said:
The thing most people tend to overlook with the Tiger is that its effects extended beyond its presence on the battlefield as "Tiger fever" was endemic amongst allied troops even when they encountered almost any German armour and that to me is worth something.
Click to expand...

That is a very true point. Most of the allied troops were terrified of the German tanks. Didn't most of their anti-tank weapons also have trouble penetrating their armour?
 
Yes, when the Tiger was first introduced..nothing could take it out except mechanical failure ( Thing was to darn heavy!)
 
Britney said:
Yes, when the Tiger was first introduced..nothing could take it out except mechanical failure ( Thing was to darn heavy!)
Click to expand...

Kind of like the Chieftain tank when it was first introduced? Had something like a 90% break down rate.
 
It was a fine tank......after it was improved. But when it first came out it was a near failure. Everything was designed to withstand a 40 ton tank but it ended up being a 55 ton tank I believe.

But yeah, it kinda shows that sometimes the lust for something can end repeating history.
 
Thread's getting old, but anyway...IMO what made the German tanks of WWII so fearsome wasn't their superior design but their tank commanders and crews. Otto Carius, Michael Wittmann, Kurt Knispel - to name some of them. Each of these guys scored more than 150 confirmed tank kills throughout the war. If it wasn't for tank commanders like these, the Tiger wouldn't have achieved its legendary status.
 
Moloch said:
Thread's getting old, but anyway...IMO what made the German tanks of WWII so fearsome wasn't their superior design but their tank commanders and crews. Otto Carius, Michael Wittmann, Kurt Knispel - to name some of them. Each of these guys scored more than 150 confirmed tank kills throughout the war. If it wasn't for tank commanders like these, the Tiger wouldn't have achieved its legendary status.
Click to expand...


Most certainly agreed.
 
Britney said:
Yes, when the Tiger was first introduced..nothing could take it out except mechanical failure ( Thing was to darn heavy!)
Click to expand...

Nothing except 75mm artillery, 150mm artillery, 75mm mortar shells, molotov cocktails to the engine, side and rear shots by 75mm tank guns, 20mm fire by tank destroyer aircraft, mines, anti-tank rifles in the vision slits and fuel canisters, KV-2 SP howitzers, being dosed in fuel, being blasted by a 75mm AA gun, Katyushas, 152mm BR-2s.

But hey i love the way you hype it:)

Also amen to Moloch, German tanks were not superior and quite often they lagged behind Soviet designs, its the human element that made the German armor so effective.
 
This threads having trouble dying & hits most of the bases.
If talking overall its got to go to the Panther, in my view the T-34 was not the best it had a few problems BUT it is the tank that defined everything that followed. The Panther after all was Germanys answer & version of it with better armour & a great gun to boot.

Begining of the war you have to give the French Char bis a shout outclassed everything & think one of the few Frenchies with a radio, tactics let it down though.
Next along came the Matilda II as the hard boy to stop, well I say stop the thing only just moved. Poor gun & no HE capability let this down & the Germans discovered another use for the 88.
Then admitedly in small numbers came the T-34 & KVs who would have ruled the battlefield if it was not for a total lack of tactics.
Then came the Tiger & it ruled, this was the last of the square tanks because it was not concieved to counter the T-34 threat but because before war broke out Germany was the only country that decided tank on tank was the way things would go everybody else was still really thinking infantry support with perhaps the exeption of the T-34. For all its cost & man was it expensive it had an extraordinary battle record & was I think the first tank concieved of truely as a tank killer.

All the other heavies really turned up to little to late to count & as noted the Sherman was capable of doing its job just. It was nowhere near as good as the T-34 for most of its life but luckily spent most of its life firing HE at troops as Russia & bomberforce had done there job.

People have said about Germany rationalising design but it would have made no diffrence the main factorys were gone raw materials were not availabe & there was no fuel to run them with.
More Tigers were destroyed by there crews or became sitting ducks because of it Shermans ran rings round them because they could not move. This was the price paid for Stalingrad instead of the oilfields it really was the begining of the end though even if Hitler hadnt meddled cant see it lasting any longer than it did. I am sure the Americans could have rustled up one more bomb to drop & say game over.
You have to give it to the Panther & really the Tiger for being around long enough & generaly well used to make a diffrence. Air killed them either directly or by denying the supply chain in my opinion.

good grief my spelling is terrible :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top