Best Tank of WW2 - Page 13




 
--
 
May 11th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I assume you are referring to the Panther-G which was by all accounts the best of them, I think it was Guderian that wanted to focus on the Pz-IV but I do not quite understand the benefits of producing thousands of out dated vehicles when they already had one of the best (if not the best) tanks (the Panther) of the war in production.

I think the production numbers vs survivability and development potential would have come out in favour of the Panther by a long shot, on top of this they already had the Jagdpanzer-IV in production so it isnt like they would be wasting the existing Pz-IV chassis.
Panzer IV was better than any tank save the firefly in the west and in the east the Russians were horribly bad tankers at tactical and strategic level so Germans needed numbers rather than quality, a single panther cant be in two places at once, two Pz IVs can, the Tiger was justified as the defensive tank, the Panther was a luxury.


Also i've read some of the previous posts on american tanks, all western tanks were rubbish, the best ones can be classified as mediocre, they had inadequate firepower, inadequate armor, the only thing remotely decent was the Pershing.
May 11th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
The Firefly was hardly rubbish. It had a good gun, was reliable, had good mobilety. It had bad armor, but other than htat it was a good design.
May 11th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
The Firefly was hardly rubbish. It had a good gun, was reliable, had good mobilety. It had bad armor, but other than htat it was a good design.
A good tank needs good armor, good gun and good mobility, weak armor makes any tank a downright horrible design regardless of any other positive features since its the most important feature next to a gun.

You're an Israeli tanker riding around in probably a Merkava? How would you feel entering an RPG infested town in a T-55?
--
May 12th, 2009  
Bror Jace
 
 

Perseus, Germany should have been doing R&D throughout the war … but at the end, they had many dozens of teams working on the same type of system: surface to air missiles, air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles, etc … That’s overkill on so many levels and they were in no position to afford it.

I don’t know how many of you have seen the show Tank Overhaul on the Military Channel shown in North America. But it’s amazing to watch … and in the age of American Idol, I can’t believe they put something this good on TV.

They had a show on Panthers (two tanks being worked on: One in California, the other in England) and they showed the main drive ring in the transmission … a wheel with straight cut gears. While in motion, the entire tank’s weight is on just a couple teeth … and so they would often shear off immobilizing the tank. Even the much maligned Sherman had double rows of heliacal gears for greater strength and reliability.

So, while the Panther was amazing in many respects, I don’t know if they ever got that basic flaw sorted out.

Also, I’m not sure if the Panther was as expensive to build as the Tiger I (probably close) so again, what would you rather have on your side: 5 Panthers or 10 late-model Panzer IVs? Even if the Panther was more reliable I’d be tempted to go with the perfectly capable Pzr. IVs … assuming you had crews for all 10 tanks, of course. The only thing a PZr IV would have a serious problem with was a M-26 Pershing.

I’m no fan of the Sherman tank, believing 90% of what was in Belton Cooper’s book. But with the 17pdr, at least you had a chance … if you could get off the first shot.

SHERMAN, the IDF got good service from its Shermans? If so, I’d chalk that up to basic mechanical reliability of the beast coupled with the quality and 'esprit de corps' of the crews.
May 12th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bror Jace
assuming you had crews for all 10 tanks, of course. The only thing a PZr IV would have a serious problem with was a M-26 Pershing.
And T-34 in all line variant, and KV-1/2/85, IS-1/2 thats another reason to build pz IVs while the Western allies were driving coffins with guns Russians had some decent hardware which chewed through expensive panthers and tigers like candy, economy of replacements.
May 12th, 2009  
Bror Jace
 
 

Thanks for pointing that out, 'Cracker, I was talking about the Western Front with my post above, of course,

A Panzer IV may have been slightly outperformed by a T-34/85 ... but with a radio and a better crew, I'd give the edge to the older German tank.

KV85s, JS-1 and JS-2s are another matter.
May 12th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
And T-34 in all line variant, and KV-1/2/85, IS-1/2 thats another reason to build pz IVs while the Western allies were driving coffins with guns Russians had some decent hardware which chewed through expensive panthers and tigers like candy, economy of replacements.
I disagree with this line of thinking on many fronts:
1) If the enemy armour is better than a Panther/Tiger then it is not going to have any difficulty with a Pz-IV so they may as well have made 4 times the number of old Pz IIIs which were a match for most Western tanks.

2) I think you are looking at it from a war ending in 1945 stance, Germany needed to build armour that was not only going to match current enemy tanks but it also had to plan for the war continuing into 1946 and beyond and there is no way in hell a Pz-IV was going to be competitive or even upgradable beyond its 1944 varient.

3) You point out tanks like the IS-2 which were becoming more and more frequent encounters for German armour surely that has to be the selling point for the Panther as it was the most cost effective tank they had that was still in its early development cycle so it could be up gunned and armoured to combat the new generation Russian tanks.

Yes the Pz-IV was a good tank and yes it was cost effective but by late 1944 it was obsolete, sure the Panther was more expensive and had flaws but it was an excellent design and was early in its development cycle and because of this I stick by my argument that Germany would have been better off converting the PZ-IV to Jagdpanzer-IVs and focusing on the Panther for its offensive armour.
May 12th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I disagree with this line of thinking on many fronts:
1) If the enemy armour is better than a Panther/Tiger then it is not going to have any difficulty with a Pz-IV so they may as well have made 4 times the number of old Pz IIIs which were a match for most Western tanks.
Russian armor was better, Russian tankers and tactical employment of tanks was not, if Germans proved anything between 1939 and 41 its that the way you employ your tanks is more important than their technical quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
2) I think you are looking at it from a war ending in 1945 stance, Germany needed to build armour that was not only going to match current enemy tanks but it also had to plan for the war continuing into 1946 and beyond and there is no way in hell a Pz-IV was going to be competitive or even upgradable beyond its 1944 varient..
See my previous responce, Pz IV and jagdpanzer IV would be enough well into 46/47, of course heavier tanks and tank destroyers would be needed but on a much smaller scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
3) You point out tanks like the IS-2 which were becoming more and more frequent encounters for German armour surely that has to be the selling point for the Panther as it was the most cost effective tank they had that was still in its early development cycle so it could be up gunned and armoured to combat the new generation Russian tanks.
Panzerjager IV would fill that particular niche, it was capable of destroying any contemporary tank with ease, then Germans could drop the Panther and deploy Jagdpanther instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Yes the Pz-IV was a good tank and yes it was cost effective but by late 1944 it was obsolete, sure the Panther was more expensive and had flaws but it was an excellent design and was early in its development cycle and because of this I stick by my argument that Germany would have been better off converting the PZ-IV to Jagdpanzer-IVs and focusing on the Panther for its offensive armour.
Oh i agree that by 1944 converting the Pz-IVs would be a required but Germany should completely drop offensive tanks and stick to the small number of tigers as defensive and back them up with tank destroyers and spgs.
May 12th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
You're an Israeli tanker riding around in probably a Merkava? How would you feel entering an RPG infested town in a T-55?
Well, that actually not a good example, because the T-55 had decent if not very good armor for the time it left hte factory. I agree with your statment that armor is very important, but firepower, mobilety, and reliabilty are no less important. I will also surprise, perhaps, that I view firepower as the first and formost element. Not an official IDF point of view, its my own.

Quote:
the IDF got good service from its Shermans? If so, Id chalk that up to basic mechanical reliability of the beast coupled with the quality and 'esprit de corps' of the crews.
Well, the IDF got exellent service from its Shermans. But thats hardly relvent. The Shermans that did so well in the IDF were so far improved they were Shermans only by name. A M51 Sherman in 1973 had a diesel engine, diffrent wider tracks, a diffrent turret with a 105mm gun, and better ire control. Also the IDF tank gunners and tank commanders were so superior to the Arab ones even the T-62 took casualties to Shermans.
May 12th, 2009  
tommy_gunn
 
 
I would agree if i could have my way take the panther tank slap on a tiger gun 88mm cannon yes then you would have the best tank ever, now the tiger was my fav. but there is a true story of ww2 when a tiger fired apon 4 honey tanks and the round went
straight through leaven good vent's and shell shock tankers