Best tanks, Allies or Axis? - Page 2




 
--
 
October 9th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Panzer III was definitely not up to to the level of the T34 as of June, 1941. Panzer IV was barely up to task. Both managed because the Germans were untouchable in execution and tactics and they had superb anti-tank capabilities. As I said, the Wehrmact was in a panic. "We have nothing this advance, what do we do?"
October 9th, 2004  
KAMIKAZI
 
The German tanks were unreliable though in combat, they were very advanced for their time as I said but they were way way way too expensive to be made on bulk with the resources the third reich could get. I think their best designs were not the Tiger I because that had verticle armour but the King Tiger and the Panther because both of which had sloping armour which is still highly regarded in tank designing today. The Maus tanks was a complete joke though, they were only built in prototype form but they would have been useless, they weighed far too much and costed a vast amount of money, again though it was a futuristic thought. I think on the whole Germany spent too much time coming up with advanced weapons, if they had stuck with more basic weaponry that was cheaper and easier to build they could have won the war. They spent vast amounts of money on aviation which was hardly ever used such as the ME262 etc and they spent money on countless other projects, they even had a flying saucer idea.
October 9th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
German equipment was fine, there just wasn't enough of it. I'm at odds with the recommendation by Guderian to forget newer models of tanks and just focus on mass production of Panzer IV's, but that prolly fits into what you're saying about mass producing cheaper models. OF COURSE the Tiger II was better, it just was too late coming to have any great relevance to the war. The flat panels of the Tiger I offends my common sense, but the fact was that it was an extremely good tank. Sloped armor wasn't everything after all. The Tiger I was a heavy and could kill a Panther with ease. Even after they upgraded the Panther, its still a heavy vs a medium. It was the Tiger and its tendency to see direct hits just bounce off of it that terrified so many allied tankers.

The highest scoring tank ace of all-time (to the best of my knownledge) was Michael Wittman. His insane kill total started out in a Panzer IV, but his best performances were in his Tiger I. Here's a good link about him: http://www.panzerace.net/main/pz6tiger.asp
--
October 9th, 2004  
KAMIKAZI
 
I do know for a fact though that German tanks were constantly having engine failures in the most annoying situations more than any other countries tanks (except Japan and Italy who were worse lol) it crops up in lots of first hand accounts "german tanks engine failures."
October 9th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
German equipment was fine, there just wasn't enough of it. I'm at odds with the recommendation by Guderian to forget newer models of tanks and just focus on mass production of Panzer IV's, but that prolly fits into what you're saying about mass producing cheaper models. OF COURSE the Tiger II was better, it just was too late coming to have any great relevance to the war. The flat panels of the Tiger I offends my common sense, but the fact was that it was an extremely good tank. Sloped armor wasn't everything after all. The Tiger I was a heavy and could kill a Panther with ease. Even after they upgraded the Panther, its still a heavy vs a medium. It was the Tiger and its tendency to see direct hits just bounce off of it that terrified so many allied tankers.

The highest scoring tank ace of all-time (to the best of my knownledge) was Michael Wittman. His insane kill total started out in a Panzer IV, but his best performances were in his Tiger I. Here's a good link about him: http://www.panzerace.net/main/pz6tiger.asp
Well I think in light of Germany's predicament it was a sensible idea. The Panther and Tiger's were more complicated to build and definately a product of German overengineering. The long barrelled Panzer IV Ausf H was a good tank and able to meet the T34 on a fairly even basis and many more of them could be produced compared to Panthers or Tigers.

The Tiger 2 in theory was a better tank than the Tiger 1 but in reality it was woefully underpowered and underengineered - it still had reliability problems and never should have been released to front line units when it was. If it had been given an uprated engine and more development time it would have been a devastating tank in combat.

As far as I'm aware the Germans had engine failures for 2 reasons. (1) because they had not been designed to cope with the -40 degree Celcius temperatures of the Russian winter and (2) because they were in tank designs like the Panther, Ferdinand, Tiger 2 that had been rushed to the front when they clearly were not ready.
October 9th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
do know for a fact though that German tanks were constantly having engine failures in the most annoying situations more than any other countries tanks (except Japan and Italy who were worse lol) it crops up in lots of first hand accounts "german tanks engine failures."
So were everyone else's of course. I'd be curious to learn which European nation had the largest number of mechanical failures. The biggest problem Germany had to face is that because they had a lot fewer tanks, every mechanical problem was much more felt.
October 10th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
If germany hadnt produced so many models they probably wouldnt of had so many mechanical problems, but i would say that the germans and russians had the best tanks and were the best users of tanks.
October 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The US Sherman tank was arguably the easiest to fix.
October 11th, 2004  
KAMIKAZI
 
As you said about the freezing temperatures, German tank engineers were very fond of inter connecting wheels and complicated suspension so when mud got in and froze they were completely immobile.
October 12th, 2004  
rOk
 
 
This is just a little comment:

The Panther was built as a direct counterforce to the T-34, so much so that when the Wehrmacht generals came to inspect two prototypes they found one which was almost identical to the T-34. They decided on the other design which is Panther as we know it today only on the basis of fear of friendly fire that's how much they looked the same.

And yes Germans did have better armor core.
Be it tactics or equipment.

@shadowalker

the reason for so many models is because the Germans knew they were outnumbered and thus had to rely completely on their technical superiority. ie "this model will be the best" and so on...