Top 10 tanks of the war

I believe there were about 4,300 M4A2 diesel engine Shermans delivered to the USSR, the remainder of the diesel Shermans were sent into USMC service.

I believe there were about 8,000 of this model made in both the early 75mm (dry) and the 76mm (wet) versions before they were discontinued in 1944. They were less likely to "brew up" due to fuel fire, but the bulk of fires in tanks were instigated by exploding ammuniton rather than fuel combustibility.

 

Well I guess you could've said that if you had actually found a single reference which supported your claims, but quite simply you didnt.

That is my repsonse to you as-well.

 

Just to clarify something with your post TA, that wasn't me that posted that quote you have.

 

That is however compelely untrue TA.

Fact of the matter is that Germans tested their own equipment a lot more thuroughly than did the Allies, and vice versa. In short: Each country tested their own equipment a lot more thuroughly than did they the equipment they had captured.

The Germans had the same system, with just as many proving grounds and testing facilities: Rechlin (All aircraft, native & captured), Meppen (AFV's, guns etc etc, army equipment), Münster (Army equipment, captured equipment), Krummersdorf (Guns, captured equipment) Just to name a few, these were the largest ones.

Again you're wrong. The Allies often themselves threw equipment into service which needed improvements to perform reliably in the field just as well as the Germans sometimes did it. Something which is well demonstrated with the M26 Pershing for example, and the Germans made the same mistake with the Panther, for example not taking into account that pine needles could clog the ventilation system and silly stuff such as that.

And many items of standard issue in the US army would've likewise never been deemed fit for service in the German army, one example even being the std. US service helmet which according to German standards was made of subquality steel not suitable for putting on any soldiers head. (There's also a US study out there from the war where the std. German & US service helmet are compared, you should check it out) And next came optics, US optics were horrible by German standards. And then there's steel quality, the Germans were alot more strict in this regard, demanding a certain BHN level of each plate depending on where it was to be situated, while the US would often sink as far as to accept cast armour, the poorest type of armour there was.

There was even a difference in certain testing criterias, with a difference in the definition of something as simple as what was to be defined as a 'penetration' during the armour penetration testing of AT weapons and tank guns. The German criteria demanded that the projectile must pass completely through the armour in order for it to be regarded as a penetration, where'as the US criteria only demanded that part of the projectile penetrated the armour in order for it to be regarded as a penetration. This clearly shows how different the two countries were when it came to how thuroughly they tested their equipment.

Then how come they accepted the completely hoepless gun gyrostabilizer system in the M4 Sherman ? It was so despised by Sherman crews that the first thing they'd do when recieving a new tank was to unplug it straight away. It was not only difficult to operate, it also had the tendency to slam the breech of the gun into any unaware crew member.

Furthermore it only worked on one axis, elevation, where you could set it for a certain elevation in accordance to the ground and it would keep that elevation. The crew still had to operate the turret around themselves when tracking a target. Only problem was that on the move you could never hold the gun on target anyway, as it couldn't take into account a decline or increase in terrain height, only maintain a set elevation. So at best it only had a slight chance of proving beneficial if the enemy tank was straight ahead of you, if you turned the tank in any direction you'd ruin the tracking completely and the gyro would have to be turned off in order for the crew to establish a positive targeting.

Hence why every other country waited until computer controlled gyro targeting systems arrived before finally adopting a gyrostabilizer system for their tanks, cause with a two axis operation and the ability to lock on to the target such a system was completely useless.

Yet a tank like the M26 Pershing, which was even more unreliable than the Tiger Ausf.B, was accepted into service.

Furthermore the reliability of the Panther was proven to be very good when it recieved only half the maintenance the Allies usually provided for their own Sherman. Problem was however that by mid 44 the Germans could most of the time only manage to provide maintenance at an interval 4 times as great as that any Allied tank would have to wait for. And spare parts were lacking as-well thanks to Allied bombing. Hence why the Pz.IV's reliability record plummitted from mid 44 onwards, right along side every other German tank.

The Allies were good at keeping it simple and easily maintained, more so than the Germans in certain areas, that's true. But when it came to the engines the Germans were very much into the idea of commonality, with all the German cats sharing the same engines as-well. Trucks & cars also shared a lot of parts.

Wrong, the Germans did this as-well, and there are plenty of examples of this, so it wont prove hard for you to find them. Prior to entering service everything in the German armed forces was given a pre-determined life expectancy based of how much maintenance it recieved etc etc, and it was emmidiately corrected if found inaccurate in combat operations.

Again you're completely wrong. German gun tubes were in general expected to fire more rounds before replacement than any Allied one of the same size and power, and were therefore made from much higher quality steel than Allied guns. The Panther's high velocity 7.5cm gun did for example have a barrel life expectancy of 1,500 rounds, which is a mightly lot for such a high velocity weapon. I doubt even the Sherman M4's short 7.5cm M3 low velocity gun had that high a barrel life expectancy.



But to move on to the bigger picture:

Every country made blunders during the war, both in terms of battlefield tactics and the procurement & acceptance of certain types of weapons & equipment. No country was holy in this regard.

 

That is not right,the last discussion about Tiger&IS2 was very useful to many
thanks to (Proeliator ,JagdtigerI,Triple C,T. A. Gardner)

 

German armor losses in Normandy was horrific. In the SS Pz Ds casualties suffered ranged from 40-66%; in all Pz and PzGr Ds tank losses approximated 100%. Bagration was probably as bad or worse due to the loss of service personnel in Soviet type encirlcements. I'd say they were hard pressed for tanks and men.

During combat, Panther D/A readiness rates was as low as 35% in Ukraine ('43) and Panther G averaged to 65-70% out of combat in '44. Sherman readiness rates were 85-95% in spite of being in continuous combat and many were worn out. Considering the Panthers had lower track & engine life, fragile final drive and weak boggies, this is not surprising.

The panzers did pass quality control tests in the factories, but it does not follow that the panzers actually were satisfactory. Allied military intelligence reports from Britain, US and Russia on captured German tanks produced after '44 all criticized the poor quality of German armor steel, which was hitherto excellent according to the same intellengence organizations. Instead of proving German tanks were of good quality, this situation actually revealed the inadequacy of German quality control methods.

Gyro is a touchy topic, but US tank aces generally liked it. Creighton Abrams I believe in his memoir of the war stated that the gyro was a tremendously effective asset and he drilled his troops very hard to use them correctly. This paid off in numerous engagements. Gen. Maurice Rose, "the best tank division commander in the US Army" according to Joe Collins, recommended the gyro as an excellent piece of gear.

As for the allies struggling to keep up with German tanks until '44, I wonder how can that statement be substantiated by fact? In North Africa, the Germans had to fight Grants and Shermans with Mk IIIs armed with the 50mm L/60. Hardly superior firepower wouldn't you agree?

 

That however is not my reading of what he was talking about. My impression is he was saying the allies tested their own equipment more thoroughly than the Germans tested their own equipment and that they also tested captured equipment more thoroughly than the Germans did. I'm not completely sure he is correct in this but suspect he may well be. For the first part both the quality issues and the teething problems experienced by a lot of German equipment especially late war stuff would indicate this. The Western allies also seemed to have very extensive exploitation teams that made very good and rapid use of captured German equipment.

 

The great russian Stalin tank beats em all!!! 122 mm gun, fast speed... Russians and their Vodka! They go hand in hand with Great STALIN tank!

Here is a link!

 

I think that the Pnther and KT were 2 of the greatest tank designs of the war. I find it hard to trully judge them though.

Panther- It was rushed to kursk as a new weapon and was not de-bugged as i will call it nor used properly. In fact the panthers might as well have been wasted. The panther had numerous teething problems. I believe by mid 44 they were all fixed in some except for the final drive which continued to be a problem. After Kursk the Germans had lost all tactical mobility and were not capable of conducting any type of major offensive against the soviets or in short they lost their last chance to stay in the war. Also, the Panther was a huge leap forward compared to the panzer IV it would replace. It used different parts, and had a complex assembly that meant major down time for maintanance and repair. However, if the Germans had the panther early in the war then by the end they might have had more readily avail. parts and had developed a process to make repair quicker so i dont hold that too much against the tank. and production wise i disagree. Panthers were produced at a greater rate than panzer IV. heres the math
Panther- 6000 from 43-45 (3 years) thats 2000 a year
Panzer IV about 9000 from 37-43 (yes i know there were more years but this was when they were in full pro. thats about 1286 a year.
Note german industry also was not in the best of shape during the panthers run.
I dont feel the german panther never got a chance to be fully integrated and used to its full potential. the germans were not able to do so as the situation had become too critical. It had great firepower and was well protected in the forward. I think that if it could have been fully utilized then it could have been the best MT of the war.

 

The KT is similar. It came far too late and too few to make a difference. It had teething problems as well but i believe they were corrected. Even the great T-34 had many issues when it was introduced in 40 including a tranny issue. however the T-34 didnt enter battle untill 41 thus it had a whole year to be de-bugged and integrated into the soviet army. I think its hard to judge the production rate of the tank since it was only built in what 2 plants? henschel and porsche right? and the henschel plant was leveled at one point so i dont think we can get a true picture of how fast it could be built. The KT was unmatched in terms of firepower and armor. WWII veterans all feared it. Of course the IS-3 or centurion might have showed up and changed that but idk. I think if panther and KT could have been integrated then they would have been the best support for the soldiers you could get.

I would like to add that the germans had designs for the several tanks, in particular the E-50 standard panther and E-75 standard tiger. Look up entwicklung series on wiki. The E-series tanks were plans for improved designs in the panther and KT. They would use many interchangable parts, including the motor and main gun so that they could be built on the same line and would be easier to mass pro. and servic. Its pretty interesting.

 

Just to stir the pot a bit regarding the reliability of German tanks, does anyone else think it's somewhat telling that the german tank regularly regarded as the most reliable and easy to maintain was the Panzer38? The one tank that was not "german engineering" but actually a Czech design. Just saying....

 

1. Panther
2. Tiger
3. T34
4. Sherman
5. Tiger II
6. Panzer IV
7. Churchill
8. Grant(if tank not SPA)
9. matilda
10. KV1

simple reason why the panther iws at the top: its reliablility was poor, no doubt but with its ove 10cm thick armour it could shake off most allied attacks with ease and with an 88mm main gun it simply became an artillary piece, much like the tigers(although these were not as highly produced)

 

panther armour was varying in thickness, its toughest part was about 100mm thick due to the effect sloped armour has but i admit i did read the armament wrong, but still the 75mm gun it was issued with was specifically designed to penetrate 140mm of armour, which by any standard is bloody impressive i must say but still thanks for the corrections

 

One thing thing puzzles me about the Panther is that most sources claim the Germans were aiming for a tank of 30 to 35 tonns (the same weight bracket as it's main opponents the T34 and M4) but ended up with one 10 tonns heavier, tghere must be something really strange in the procurrement process to allow that to happen.

 

Well, if you want to get nit-picky, you could very likely trace the Panther's lineage back to the VK 2001(20 ton) and the VK 2401(24 ton) design efforts. As it was, Germany took their good old time developing replacements for the Panzer III & IV. Thus, other nation's tanks evolved the were decidedly better than the early German design efforts. Not to mention that the design specifications for the Panther were repeatedly upgraded.

Once the German's met the Soviet T-34 & KV-1 on the battlefield, the design specs took a big jump, with the need for a better gun & more armor. Later, still more armor was requested, this apparently came from Hitler himself, along with more minor design changes.

Finally, such jumps in weight are not surprising: The Panzer IV A weighed in at some 17-18 tons, whereas the Panzer IV J would tip the scales at 25 tons. Then, you could look at the long development that was the M-1 Abrams - the 50 ton MBT-70, to the "original" M-1 at 60-61 tons, to the M1A2 at around 70 tons. Of course, these were all once production of the aforementioned tanks had begun, as opposed to the weight increase of the Panther, which occurred before production was even approved.

 

I was not thinkig of the "missing links" but of the Panther itself that at 35t intended was already a big jump up from the current 22t Pz III and Pz IV (the Panther design was contemporary to the Pz IVG). AFAIK Hitler requested the increase from the original 60mm front plate to 80mm but that doesn't explain the 10t overweight by itself. How they eventually accepted a 45t beast, the first prototype weighted 43t but production vehicles gained an additional 2t, with the inevitable overstressing of some components that were designed with the original weight target in mind is what I find baffling, had they stuck with the original 60mm they probably would have had a more balanced and reliable design that was still superior to the T-34 and M4, I doubt the M3 and F-34 could have routinely perforated even 60mm of sloped armour. On the other hand the 80mm thickess turned out to be a blessing when plate quality started to deteriorate late war as the sloped armour could not be upgraded with appliquè plates (the 100mm plated Panther II was a major redesign).

 

During the course of another discussion (what was the Alaska?) I found a document that stated the Alaska class weren't given a TDS to keep their weight under 25,000 tons. The result was a 30,000 ton cruiser without a TDS.

 

Mission creep? You are right on the sloped 60-mm armor; US Chaffes had a hell of a time trying to penetrate T-34-85s in Korea.