Best tank

Yeah, the ones with the massive white star are 'trophy units' and that pic of the panthers actually shows vehicles in Bulgarian service, there were a few dozen such vehicles given to the Bulgarians by the USSR.

No one is quite sure of what a 'trophy unit' was however there are loads of ID books marked out as such, they used enemy vehicles complete with maintainance crews (generally recieved better trained replacements etc) and the vehicles used were re-painted with the white star of course. Whilst they were used in combat it appears they were also used as a propaganda and training tool, to show troops 'trophies' and increase familiarity with enemy kit.

On the other hand, vehicles used 'because it was there' so to speak tended not to be re-painted, at best German insignia was removed and the vehicles were used until either they fell apart or ran out of ammunition.

 

I also agree, not to forget about optics and radio gear, which are often overlooked when people focus on gun and armor.

 

There is also a myth that T-34 crew's had no radion gear until very late in the war this is simply not the case.

 

The problem is that for quite a while, only the T34 group leader had radios. It was not uncommon for opposing forces to target the tank with the antennae. The noise level inside the tank made communications difficult and commanders often had to use signals to communicate.

 

Ooops, missed something about trophy units (without wanting to go too far off topic), it looks like their role was mainly assessment of enemy equipment. They would often take several broken vehicles and build one working one. Most of the guys attached were older soldiers, specialist engineers and scientists, when they had finished evaluating a vehicle it was either used for target practice, as a decoy or sent to an allied nation such as Bulgaria or Poland.

Re radios, if you look at some quite early photographs of soviet tank crewmen wearing their helmets you often see one of them has what looks like plastic ear-pieces built into his helmet. These seem to have worked with the radio sets fitted to Soviet tank models early on in the war. I saw a few of these sets in St Petersburg, but the fact that they were fitted to most tanks from 1941 on doesn't help the myth Sloniksp mentioned.

 

The problem I have with military books, is that many of the good ones are expensive. I checked on the first two books in T.A.'s list. $250 and $50 respectively. Most of the references I am willing to buy, come from the discount book area for under $20. They are often brief and not really well written, and often by some obscure British historian. Their facts are ok, but not very elaborate.

 

No more help needed Von Poop, after some excruciating investigative work all was found.

 

Tell me about it.
Trouble is it's the same as any other interest isn't it, you reach a point where the 'standard' equipment just isn't any good anymore and have to move onto the specialist side of things where prices get scary, I do ok from remaindered and secondhand shops but every now and then you've just got to buy the big shiny book for £50 that'll tell you just what you need to know about pre 1942 sprockets.
If you've found the Hunnicutt m4 book for $250 that's a bargain! Prices in this country currently run from £211-£473, thats Pounds Sterling!
Thanks for the thoughts on the 'trophy units' Stefan, seems a legitimate line on a 'best tank' thread as it's often kind of a compliment if the enemy thinks your gear is worth using for other reasons than their own shortages.
Cheers,
Adam

 

I'm speaking just off thje cuff as I'm not home and don't have the book with me, but troops were allowed to use captured material (tanks, SPGs) in static positions as a supplement to defence, to be used while ammunition lasted. They would not be used in mobile combat, only on defensive positions. I suppose this would be to avoid blue-on-blue fire (in this case red-on-red ), and also to take in consideration that captured vehicles would have very uncertain reliability.

This was for field captures and short term use. We also have to remember the hundreds of PzIII that were reworked and converted to SU-76i. This was a much more sophisticated product, a Pz III with turret removed and a casemate on top for a 7.62 gun, with a lot more room than a StuG.

on <a href="http://www.battlefield.ru" target="_blank">www.battlefield.ru[/URL]</a>

 

Yes, I have a copy of Sherman by Hunnicutt. I also have his Patton and Firepower books (M48 - M60 and US heavy tanks respectively). The US Military Vehicles of World War II (Hoffschmidt) book cost me $5.95 way back when. Actually, I have at least a dozen WE Publishers books (they are now defunct as a printer).
Some others that seem perinnial favorites are Brian Perrett's Matilda, Valentine in North Africa, and Churchill. I got them for like $5.00 each and they now apparently sell for $40 or more.
I also have bunches of military manuals like those listed either originals or photocopied over the years.

 

By late 43 most, if not all T34 got a radio. But, only the platoon and company command vehicles had a transmitter. The rest got a receiver. None of the 76 models had an intercom installed. Typically, the commander instructed the driver by tapping his foot on the driver's shoulder; right shoulder: turn right, left shoulder, left, etc. Shouting or hand signals were necessary to tell the loader what type of round to load in the gun. Hardly the most efficent system.
The bow gunner / asssistant driver could assist the loader to some degree in getting rounds out. His machinegun was essentially worthless as a useful weapon as all he had to aim it was a hole drilled in the mantle above the gun to see out of. It was just a bullet hose at best. Of course, this is true on US tanks too even if the guy got a bit more visiblity having a periscope or vision slit. The Germans provided proper sights (typically a telescopic one) and a means to accurately aim the machinegun (on early panzers this included a spring tensioning system and a cap arrangement for the gunner to lock his head and shoulder into the gun.
Well, enough rambling for now.....

 

One thing that should be mentioned. Several times the U.S. Army considered diesel engines. They had several that would have been better than the gas engines they had. The problem was the Navy claimed first rights to all diesel and that was the policy handed down. I have felt that the Navy has always been given preference over the Army by the political leadership, which has cost many soldiers lives.

 

The US Army chose gasoline engines on the basis of compatability across the spectrum of equipment they were going to be using. If tanks had diesels and trucks had gasoline engines then the fuel supply situation was complicated. Two types of fuel would be required instead of all vehicles using one variety.
Note how US industry did build diesel versions of many vehicles. The M4 had 2 diesel engined models (M4A2 and M4A5). These went to the British and Russians as lend-lease and to the US Marines. Trucks were done likewise. The reason the Marines got diesels was that the most ready sources of fuel for their vehicles in combat were Navy ships many of which had diesel engines on board. The US Army on the other hand expected to some extent at least in Europe to be able to use the civilian economy to supply their needs when necessary and gasoline was more readily available for this purpose.

 

I'd pick the T 34 over the Sherman. Panther over the Tiger. One German tanker with experience in both said panther better based on maneuverability issue.

http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/history/Defeating_German_Tanks.htm

The Allies deploy the American-built Sherman which turns out to be a disaster and great disappointment. Despite its great size and sloping armour its 75mm gun is short and inaccurate and armour poorly distributed. It is no match for the PzIV one on one and often not even for the PzIIIs high-velocity 50mm at guns with newer shells. It took superior numbers of tanks and air superiority to do the job.

vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."


http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm

 

Tiger 1 wins it hands down for me, Tiger 2 was far too heavy for the engine and broke down even more than the first Tiger!

I think all German armour was superior to Allied armour personally

 

Man you should ckeck out the IS-2, IS-3 tanks

 

Same here.

 

It's a bit of a 'supercar vs. good car' debate. Supercars may be flashy and have great stats on paper but they are expencive, uneconomical and will never be as useful as something that is cheap, economic to run, simple and does the job.

 

I think what we should do here is provide more of what defines "best." Is this a simple comparison of firepower, protection, and mobility? Or, are we including other measures including some that are less tangible?

I have consistantly argued that the latter is far, far more important than the basic three are in armored warfare. As but one example, the T-34 was in service from the start of the war in the East right through the end. For the first year it was in use it had a substancial advantage in armor, firepower, and mobility to its opponets. Yet, it proved less successful in terms of win-lose ratio than its German opponets. During the second and third year (42 - 43) it performed, if anything, even worse against now improved and close to parity German tanks.
At the same time, the British with little more than light tanks supplemented later by some US mediums like the M 3 and M 4 were able to perform much better (if still not at equality) against the same German tanks.
Personally, I think the difference has more to it than simply a difference in crew quality. As I have pointed out, the crew efficency of a T-34 is abysimmal. The KV-1 was hardly better.
Even the British admit the M3 Stuart had problems resulting from the two man turret layout. While not as bad as the T-34 in efficency, this was still a problem.
I would point out that it seems the Soviets didn't fully learn this lesson. There is more to a tank than simple hard, measurable statistics.

 

It would be interesting to see if we can find any comparison between the levels of training amongst soviet tank troops compared to their other allied counterparts. I'll see what I can dig out.