The "best" tank another look

Although all fascinating it is not ww2 related rogues, so lets move on and back on topic, huh.

 

Don't know if this is directly pertinent, but the more I read about WWII weaponry, the more I felt that the Germans were not more technologically advanced than their opponents--that is far from the case--but the Germans were sometimes able to manufacture superior performing weapon platforms because they understood the tactical requirements of warfare better than their opponents. It doesn't take significantly more advanced technology to build a 75 L/70 gun than 75 L/40, or a wider track, or thicker sloped armor. They just realized the importance of some perimeters sooner than others.

I have been told elsewhere that the M4 was designed from the ground up to be easy to manufacture and maintain. I understand that latter part because the engine was easily accessible and the modular suspension allow quick changing of damaged parts, etc. But I would appreciate it if someone explains in what ways it is easier to make by the virtue of its design.

 

Uh, "those tanks" referred to the WW2 tanks he mentioned in his whole post.

 

The few posts regarding modern or semi modern tanks has in no way a means to be included in this topic of ww2 tanks regardless of what context it may be put in. If you want to talk about Abrams, Bradley's or any other tank used in the Iraq war then move it too a thread in the free fire zone and keep this completely related to ww2 and ww2 related tanks.

Now lets move on and keep it ww2.

 

I'm not by any means sure of all of it but things like:
1) It was designed to take an in production engine.
2) The M3 and M4 were designed to have as many parts in common as possible.
3) Changes were engineered so as to minimize any effects on production.

 

Very true. Right Behind it is the Leopard, Challenger, Merkava, then probably the most widely produced the T-72...

 

for gods sake stop going modern!

i vote for the panzer III for reliability its ability to be upgraded so much and crew comfort

 

Last chance guys before this gets closed for going off topic.

Keep it ww2 related.

 

oh im sorry my fault. Ok JUST WWII. lol

American: Sherman
British: Cromwell
German: King Tiger II or the Panzer III
Russian: T-34

 

How is it surerior to the Sherman or Centurian in that regard?

 

WW2 tanks and you come by with the Centurion...But the t72 is the better tank.

Back to the Panzer:It had ok speed,ok armor,was light,crew comfort,and a revolutionary torsion bar suspension (or something).The Suspension of the pershing is copied from the panzer 3.

 

Eh. The Pershing wasn't exactly noted for its reliability. I don't really see why you'd think the torsion bar suspension system was particularly good, especially compared to competitors like the T34's Christies, which gives better speed and range. Is there any evidence the suspension system was actually copied?

The panzer III was an aging model that became obsolete as the war progressed. If you are looking for a model that was useful throughout the war, then you really should look at the PzIV. If you're trying to say that it was good because the chasis could be used for the StugIII, then, um, just nominate the Stug III already!

 

The Pershing was unriliable because of the underpowered engine not the suspension...And the Christies engine is fast on road not as fast off-road.
The Panther ((used a twin torsion bar)and yes I know we had it about the panzer 3) could go 30km/h off-road the t-34 'just' 22km/h and the slow panzer 3 19-20km/hour off-road...And the Christie suspension doesn't look that comfortable in my eyes.


Talking about the christie suspension the unriliable crusader used it so blaming the unriliability of the pershing because of the suspension is rubbish.

 

Well, the Panther's suspension was very unreliable and overcomplicated as well. As for Christie suspension, I thought the whole point of the suspension system was that it had excellent cross country performance compared to the alternatives.

Wikipedia lists the PzIII's speed off road at 20 km/h, and I've found a source saying the T34/85's speed was 30 km/h off road. Operational range for the T34 was a lot longer too, and it had better chances in bad terrain.

I don't really understand your strategy of claiming the Panzer III was best by lauding aspects of other tanks.

 

Considering the desperate situation for the Soviets, I must say that the T-34 was the one of the most critical and successful weapons for them. Especially when they were upgraded to the 85 mm gun. Finer details may have been omitted that existed in more "sophisticated" tanks but due to the Soviet's abilities to mass produce them rapidly, they were a fine product to be fielded.

 

I've dug up (and corrected, I think?) this:
http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/30132-cost-ww2-weapons.html

So yeah, in terms of price in T-34/85s, some probably not very accurate values...
StuG III = ~2 T34s
PzIII = ~2.5 T34s
Sherman = ~3 T34s
PzIV = ~3 T34s
Panther = ~4 T34s
Pershing = ~5.5 T34s
Tiger I = ~8 T34s
V2 missile = 3-6 T34s each
Gustav seige gun = ~200 T34s
Manhattan project = ~200,000 T34s (okay, I'm being a little silly with this one... Though Roosevelt unleashing a massive horde of tanks on Japan would have been a sight to behold, it might be a bit difficult dropping them from B29s.)

Don't have figures for stuff like the Tiger II, but they'd probably be even sillier. And think about adjusting these figures for those german tanks made that never really saw battle because of malfunctions en route or lack of fuel.

 

As for the costs evaluated by Wolfy - well I wouldn't agree

He states: 1 USD = 2.5 German mark. actually the offical conversion rate was at 1$ = 20 RM. However in Germany 1RM was simply 1RM. - not including import costs on materials from outside.

As for the Russian costs (AFAIK they were communists) meaning more or less all material resources and development costs for free, besides the labor costs, and certainly no profit included by the manfacturers.

Be as it was, certainly the best tank to produce and see action was the T-34 on the European side and for the Americans it was the Sherman. So any accounts on T-34's battling it out with Shermans? Nope? well then the question will remain unanswered.

From 1943 onwards the numbers of Panthers or Tigers produced is too insignificant as to rank them accordingly to the unavoidable war outcome.

Regards
Kruska

 

Yeah, these currency conversions are certainly difficult, and probably unreliable for the purpose that we're using them (which it, I guess, is trying to ask the question: how many of the other things could they have made using instead, including adopting the other country's production processes).

OTOH, I get the feeling that the costs given above at least pass a sanity test. It feels at least fairly reasonable for those sort of production ratios. Adopting a 20RM/$ conversion, for example, would make the T34 as expensive to produce as a Tiger tank, which is frankly ludicrous.

There were encounters between Shermans and T34/85s in Korea, for what it's worth, and the Sherman came out decidedly superior. However, these were upgraded postwar Shermans with enhanced optics, heavier armour and advanced ammunition, with well trained crews, vs inexperienced tankmen using WWII era USSR hand-me-downs.

 

Not really, that is why communism didn't make it at the end of the day - the economic losses were too high.

e.g. An East German arms manufacturer (Communist) that was surveyed by us in 1990 proofed to employ 320 workers whilst in the West German company producing more or less the same item and annual quantity only 17 people were employed/needed.

Regards
Kruska

 

It would also make the same Tiger tank under a third of the price of the M4 Sherman, BTW.

The thing about production in 1990s was because they lacked automated machinery and so needed staff to make up for it. You can argue that this is an indirect effect of communist misrule, but certainly not enough robots isn't much of an issue in 1944. You can't honestly look at the corners-cut, roughly welded, under-half-the-weight, totally utilitarian T34 cranked out of factories working long hours under heavy quotas, and think, yep, this cost more than a Tiger. Factory workers consuming that much resources to make a T34 would probably be shot for laziness!