25 replies to this topic

[Zuo Zongtang]

Tiger I

One of the most powerful tanks of the war, the Tiger I carried an 88mm gun and was very well protected. However, the engine was not built to handle such weight and power, and often borke down.

Tiger II

A modified version of the Tiger I, it carried a much more powerful gun, and had thicker armour to boot. Nicknamed the King Tiger, it was arguebly the most powerful tank in the field. However, it sported the same engine as the Tiger I, and thus, was even more unstable and more prone to breaking down.

Panther

75mm gun. It was the inbetween tank of the Tiger and the Panzer IV. The engine was the same as the Tiger I, so it could move much faster for it was smaller and had thinner armor.

Sherman

US medium tank. Although outclassed by Germans, this tank was far more manouverable, and appeared in far greater numbers.

T-34

Another tank which arguebly can be the best, the T-34 turned back the German hordes. The armor was slopped, helping to deflect enemy shells. Most of the time, the tanks were rolled off the production lines and into the battlefields.

PzKpfw IV

Easily the most used tank of Germany and the backbone of the German panzer divisions, the PzKpfw IV is overshadowed by the PzKpfw Vs and PzKpfw VIs, but the Blizkrieg could not have happened without the PzKpfw IV.

Churchill

The UK's infantry support tank, this monster moved a few miles an hour due to its heavy armor, but could withstand quite a beating.

Stalin

A powerful tank of the Soviet Union which did not see battle often. The JS-2 tank carried a 122mm gun and thousands were produced against the Germans. A JS-3 was made, but not in time to meet the Germans. It was the heaviest tank in the world of WWII.

[Yun]

The T-34. It turned the tide of the war simply by being a match for the Tigers and being produced in such large numbers at such rates.

[Liang Jieming]

Actually the T34 was no match for the King Tiger. The Russians beat the Germans from having a better tank strategy. German accounts of the Russian front are full of logistic problems. Their Tigers and Panzers did not have interchangeable parts. Stalin's order to only use 1 type of tank despite the T34 being inferior to the German tanks probably made it the superior tank in the gritty war of attrition. The German simply found their tanks going out of service 1 after another with insufficient spare parts. The Russian tanks were also very basic tanks which any decent tanker could do field repairs with from a flood of spare parts from any broken down tank. The German simply couldn't keep their tanks in service while the T34s kept coming back to life. This was the strategy that won the war.

The T34 was a 3 man tank with the commander doubling as gunner as well. The King Tiger was a 4 man tank with dedicated gunner and commander. This division of labour gave the King Tiger it's initial advantage since the commander could concentrate on his job of commanding. The T34 commander had to spot and shoot at the same time, constantly distracted between the two tasks. However, when the war ground on, the extra man required in the Tiger proved a liability when tank crews started to be in short supply. Again, the gritty no frills tank of the Soviet Tank Brigades won from just being easier to manage and use.

T34 wasn't a great tank. It was just part of a great strategy against as superior enemy.

[Zuo Zongtang]

Actually the T34 was no match for the King Tiger.  The Russians beat the Germans from having a better tank strategy.  German accounts of the Russian front are full of logistic problems.  Their Tigers and Panzers did not have interchangeable parts.  Stalin's order to only use 1 type of tank despite the T34 being inferior to the German tanks probably made it the superior tank in the gritty war of attrition.  The German simply found their tanks going out of service 1 after another with insufficient spare parts.  The Russian tanks were also very basic tanks which any decent tanker could do field repairs with from a flood of spare parts from any broken down tank.  The German simply couldn't keep their tanks in service while the T34s kept coming back to life.  This was the strategy that won the war.

The T34 was a 3 man tank with the commander doubling as gunner as well.  The King Tiger was a 4 man tank with dedicated gunner and commander.  This division of labour gave the King Tiger it's initial advantage since the commander could concentrate on his job of commanding.  The T34 commander had to spot and shoot at the same time, constantly distracted between the two tasks.  However, when the war ground on, the extra man required in the Tiger proved a liability when tank crews started to be in short supply.  Again, the gritty no frills tank of the Soviet Tank Brigades won from just being easier to manage and use.

T34 wasn't a great tank.  It was just part of a great strategy against as superior enemy.

Thats almost exactly the same as a Sherman tank.

A German Saying to American tanks was:

"I had an 88 battery. You had tanks. You sent the tanks up the street. I knocked out those tanks. But soon I ran out of amunition. You didn't run out of tanks."

[Grigori]

Thats almost exactly the same as a Sherman tank.

A German Saying to American tanks was:

"I had an 88 battery. You had tanks. You sent the tanks up the street. I knocked out those tanks. But soon I ran out of amunition. You didn't run out of tanks."

Except the T-34 was superior to the Sherman in every way. It is true WWII was won by quantity not quality. The Tiger was a great tank, but Germany would've been better off not building them and make more Panthers.

[Sephodwyrm]

The Tiger was unreliable and untested. I can say that even before the battle started at least 20% of the Tigers were already out of action. Even at the battle of Kursk, the T 34 managed to defeat the Tigers, though I must say it is an unfair match of 5-6 T34 against 1 Tiger.

[Liang Jieming]

The Kursk Saliant was classic massed "human-wave" type tactics but with tanks. They were so mixed at the height of the battle that there wasn't a frontline to talk about.

The Tigers actually held their own because they had really good armour. It was the Russian desperation to knock them out that led to suicidal attacks with 2-3 T34s going for each Tiger and ignoring the other Panzars which contributed to the high attrition rate on the Russian side.

[Alexander39]

The T34 was a 3 man tank with the commander doubling as gunner as well.  The King Tiger was a 4 man tank with dedicated gunner and commander.  This division of labour gave the King Tiger it's initial advantage since the commander could concentrate on his job of commanding.  The T34 commander had to spot and shoot at the same time, constantly distracted between the two tasks.  However, when the war ground on, the extra man required in the Tiger proved a liability when tank crews started to be in short supply.  Again, the gritty no frills tank of the Soviet Tank Brigades won from just being easier to manage and use.

T34 wasn't a great tank.  It was just part of a great strategy against as superior enemy.

Actually they were 4 and 5 man tanks, whit (1) driver. (1) loader (1) bow gunner/radio man. (1) gunner. (1) Commander, and it is true that the commander in T-34's were also doubling as a gunner, in essence in almost ½ the rate and precision of the fire from T34/76.
The largest single fault universal to ALL of the Soviet tanks were their lack of ammunition. the Stalin series had only around 20-25 rounds of ammunition for it's main gun. and the T-34/85 had only 36-40 rounds for its main gun. (When squezzed in that is) vs Tiger I's 62 rounds (Officially) and 80+ rounds in combat. + the Panthers 58 rounds (Public) to 76 (factual) and 85+ in combat.
The result not least in the Stalins cases were that they were close to useless in any protactet offensive and manuver warfare,

By the way the T34/85 first entert servise in the winter of 43/44 so comparing it to Sherman fks is not quite fair, since that tank entert service more than a year before. comparing it to a T34/76 is more equal. otherwise you would have to stack up the T-34 against Shermans whit 17pd cannons and 76mm same. and they were another thing entirely.

I will take them pr. date.

1939-40 Pz IV.

1941. T-34/76.

1942 (early/marts to september) Pz IV ausf F/G (43 & 48 caliber 75mm cannon).

1942(Nov) to 43(Aug/Sep) Tiger I.

1943(Oct) - Panther Ausf A & G when the bugs in the first model (D) were worked out. + eksperimental Ausf F

1945(Feb) til the end US Pershing.

I have chosen them from one criteria only. their battlefield efficiency, strategic produktion those not enter into it. only tactical mobillity, staying power (Armour protection, ammo, precision of gun and lethalbillity of same) counts in that regard.
The Tiger II is let down by its relative low tactical mobillity and range, even throu it wins hands down in the other catagorizes.

[Daniel]

If "great" is defined as making the greatest contribution to winning the war, or delaying defeat in the Germans' case, the T-34 takes it hands down.

But if I were forced to be inside one of those confounded machines, I'd pick the JS-II. Lots and lots of armor is sooo nice. And, unlike the Tigers, I don't have to worry so much about air strikes.

Panther

Probably the most useful German tank developed for pure combination of mobility, protection, and punch. Though, like too many other German tanks, prone to breakdown.

Sherman

Daniel: Please, God, don't put me in a Sherman.

God: OK. You're in a Grant.

Daniel: Noooo!

[Zuo Zongtang]

You know what I want to see a better version or a remake of?

The double turreted T-26



With modern day technology, I'm sure that one can design something which could carry average sized guns, unlike the ones on the original T-26.

[Liang Jieming]

I just realised something. What no consideration for the Japanese WW2 tanks?

[snowybeagle]

Not aware that the WW2 Japanese had MBT of similar armour/gun capabilities.

[Grigori]

Japanese tanks during WWII were c**p. They were essentially light tanks comparable to European light tanks of the mid thirties. Heck I think if China had a few battalions of French S35s they could've won the Battle of Shanghai.

[lobster]

Japanese tanks during WWII were c**p. They were essentially light tanks comparable to European light tanks of the mid thirties. Heck I think if China had a few battalions of French S35s they could've won the Battle of Shanghai.

Then what were the Japanese good at during WWII? Just the Mitsubishi Zeroshiki?

And what were the Chinese good at?

Edited by lobster, 09 June 2005 - 11:25 PM.