Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Yes they did. Their tanks were a fair bit slower, better armored and better armed than their German counterparts (the Panzers I,II,III,IV) during the 40 day German pummelling of France. Germany had this novel idea: Mass the tanks and use them to cut the enemy line in half, aka Blitzkrieg. France went with a more traditional role for their tanks: disperse them evenly as a support weapon for the infantry, effectively negating their most useful function of being able to move quickly in battle. The BEF and France had more total tanks than Germany, but because they were not correctly used, they lost. You'll never hear much praise thrown at them. Germany invaded France and the Lower Countries outnumbered in every category but one: they had slightly more combat aircraft.

It's absolutely true to say that had Germany used 'traditional' tank tactics they would have lost the Battle of France. Beforehand, the French army was considered by many to be the best army in the world and the German army fighting them in the traditional way would have lost and lost badly. But they didn't and like Alexander, Attila and Subotai before them novel, daring leaders like Guderian used new tactics and new technologies to hand the French Army its most crushing defeat in centuries.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Yes they did. Their tanks were a fair bit slower, better armored and better armed than their German counterparts (the Panzers I,II,III,IV) during the 40 day German pummelling of France. Germany had this novel idea: Mass the tanks and use them to cut the enemy line in half, aka Blitzkrieg. France went with a more traditional role for their tanks: disperse them evenly as a support weapon for the infantry, effectively negating their most useful function of being able to move quickly in battle. The BEF and France had more total tanks than Germany, but because they were not correctly used, they lost. You'll never hear much praise thrown at them. Germany invaded France and the Lower Countries outnumbered in every category but one: they had slightly more combat aircraft.

Good point and very correct sir, during the battle of France whenever French tanks ran into German counterparts the French were almost always outnumbered because they put there armour units as support for the infantry. Insane they would not pay any attention to the works of Liddell-Hart or Guderian but oh well.

well i think the best tank of world war 2 was the panzer iv as it was in produce before and till the end of the war. it was upgun and had more armour as time what on and could take on all of the allied tank in the war.
the fact is most sherman were lost to fire from pazer iv then any other tanks. and not many tanker of the day saw a phanter or tiger. same goes with the t34 most were knock out buy panzer iv and anti tank guns and it a testment to the design of the tankthat it was able to be upgun and kept fight all the war
no other westen tank can say that. and the t34 for russia was design after the panzer iv and was only used after as it was produce in such numbers.
that why the panzer iv the bested[/img]

Well.. I would say Panzer IV... and I would also say the Sherman was a disgrace.

I would have to agree with EuropeanAmerican. The Panzer IV was a tough nut to crack, and even the crews of Shermans called their tanks coffins.

Now I am not saying the Churchill was a great tank, but it did have some fine points and did help to win a number of battles and I think its part in WW2 often gets overlooked. The Churchill had fantastic ability to climb the steepest of hills that would stop other tanks, in Tunisia it shocked the Germans by attacking them up a side of the mountain that they thought would be impossible for a tank to operate on. It would take for more punishment than Sherman and still not catch on fire, and it fought right into Germany and was loved by it's crews, an upgraded version of this tank that went under the name of The Black Prince also fought in Korea.
The Churchill got some bad press when it got stranded on the shingle beaches at Dieppe, but I doubt that any other tank would have fared any better. This was one of the reason the Britain brought out a special tankl for D Day that would lay a artificial road over the beaches to allow the tanks to get of the beaches with getting bogged down.

Originally Posted by panzer

Good point and very correct sir, during the battle of France whenever French tanks ran into German counterparts the French were almost always outnumbered because they put there armour units as support for the infantry. Insane they would not pay any attention to the works of Liddell-Hart or Guderian but oh well.

Not to mention their own Charles de Gaulle. Many may not now remember, but de Gaulle was a colonel in the French tank corps and was a leading advocate before the war of "blitzkreig" type tactics.

Oh and LeEnfield, yes the French tanks fought quite well in WWII - as the Free French anyway. General LeClerc had a very fine armored force and it was his tanks that moved into Paris first (at Eisenhower's command). Of course, they were British and American sponsored at that point.

As for Dieppe, well, victory at Normandy would not have been achieved without the lessons learned at Dieppe. Those men gave us far more than most and should be remembered for it. It was an intentional learning thrust. Trouble was we learned more than we bargined for. Dieppe was as important to ultimate victory as any battle the allies fought in WWII.

Panther!,nothing more needs to be said.

Uhhhh,

If I remember correctly, the guys with the Tigers and Panthers really got their arse kicked real bad by the guys with the Shermans and T-34s.

Originally Posted by localgrizzly

Uhhhh,

If I remember correctly, the guys with the Tigers and Panthers really got their arse kicked real bad by the guys with the Shermans and T-34s.

Many thanks for that enlightening addition to this discussion.