Best Tank of WW2 - Page 7




 
--
 
May 18th, 2006  
Doug97
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
Light tanks have gone with the wind i'm afraid.
Oh yeah?







And I don't want to hear any pedantic guff about these being "reconnaisance vehicles" or "tank destroyers", not "light tanks" ... the fact is they perform the same role whatever the trendy new jargon might call them.
May 20th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
Yeah but they're not tanks if they have wheels. They're called mobile gun systems. They don't have the armor necessary either to be used in a tank role, a real tank would destroy these things. A light tank has the features of a tank but weighs less and has less firepower. The reason they're gone now is because MBTs would have an easy time busting through their armor, perhaps better ceramic composite technology will make tanks lighter, but not for a while.

Plus this a random cool pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ing_Bridge.jpg
May 26th, 2006  
Easy-8
 
 
My vote goes to the Tiger I. It is my favorite tank of WWII truely a outstanding weapon.
--
May 26th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
All Panzers or just certain models???
May 27th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
Doug97...So those tanks were the best in WW2 were they
May 31st, 2006  
MaKa9
 
 
My vote goes to the Russian T-34.
Firepower - Mobility - Production
Kick**s
June 3rd, 2006  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Unfortunately, the kill ratio against the much vaunted T-34 is not exactly impressive. I don't have the stats handy, but lets just say this: Germany took out a TON of T-34's for a lot fewer losses than you might think. Overall, I like the T-34. I think that there were several World War II tanks better than the T-34 though, and some of them are Russian.
June 3rd, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
I'm guessing the desparity in kill ratios for the german and russian tanks was due not to tank design but tactics and officer competence. Germany had the edge in both those areas, plus when the russians were counterattacking the germans were in defensive positions enabling them to do more damage.
June 4th, 2006  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
I'm guessing the desparity in kill ratios for the german and russian tanks was due not to tank design but tactics and officer competence.
Pretty much yes. Also due to the Soviet reliance on 'steamrolling', even in 1943 onwards when their tactics and operational strategy had much improved. G.F. Krivosheev in "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century" stated that in 1944 alone the Red Army lost 13,800 T-34 s. Despite this however, the T-34 remained an excellent tank throughout the war.
June 4th, 2006  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Pretty much yes. Also due to the Soviet reliance on 'steamrolling', even in 1943 onwards when their tactics and operational strategy had much improved. G.F. Krivosheev in "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century" stated that in 1944 alone the Red Army lost 13,800 T-34 s. Despite this however, the T-34 remained an excellent tank throughout the war.
Greetings,

When I looked at some of the old posts written a few years ago, maybe in this thread, one fellow's comments concerning armoured warfare in WWII struck me as quite interesting. I have forgotten his name or precisely what he wrote. He however brought up issues of armour plating quality, shell design, optical systems, etc. His overall opinions were impressive. If we judge German or even American and British designs against Soviet tanks using this type of methodology, I doubt that the "Sovs" will rank near the top. [I know, I am always hard on the "Sovs".]

How do we actually even determine a good tank from a poor one? What factors really count? For example, does armour thickness really count when even 55-mm German anti-tank cannon could penetrate all Soviet tanks at extreme ranges (using APCR)? Other than that, Doppleganger, how can we really judge the impact of German tactics on battlefield results? I don't know. I am interested in hearing your perspectives.