Losing side always had better tanks in WW2

In 1940 the B1 Bis was by far the best tank. Nothing in the German Arsenal other then very heavy artillary, or airpower could destroy it. It's armor and armament was better then the Panzer IV the best German tank at the time, and it had reasonable mobility, its 47 MM and 75 MM gun was easily capable of knocking out any enemy tank it encountered.

In 1944 The best tank in the world was the Tiger. Its gun could knock out the T33, and the Sherman, and it's armor could easily repell the 75 MM guns on the two opposing tank types. It was the only tank in WW2 to have a steering wheel instead of levers making it easier for the driver to move it around, and it was at least as fast as its opposition.

I know that France lost the war in 1940 because of the Manstien Plan, and ultra conservatives limiting the amount of french armoured divisions to 4, and the Germans lost the war because of its defeats in the air, the inability to crush Russia, allied industrial might, ressistance movements, key battles lost and partly because of Hitler himself.

However I think it is an interesting observation to make that the sides that had the better types of tanks was the losing side, not the winning side in World War Two.

 

It was all about wich country that could make the most tanks, and not about wich could make the best tanks.

KBO

 

If that was true, then Germany would have lost during Fall Gelb, where they were both out-numbered and out-gunned. It's about tactics as well.

In addition, a lot of other factors are important as well - tanks dno't win the war alone, far from - aircrafts is an important factor, but so are more conventional branches, such as artillery and especially infantry. These are often neglected completely.

 

Depends on your definition of "better."

 

Japan's tanks were comparetively lousy throughtout the war and they lost.

 

Maybe the answer is that guns and armor are not the only criteria that should be considered when determining what is the best tank. The Char B-1 bis had a small turret, complicating the task of directing, spotting, loading and firing. Communications were bad within the tank, between the tanks and with higher command. The B-1 had "short legs", it needed to be re-fueled (and re-armed) more often than it's opponents IIRC. How good was the training of the crews? I don't think the French military had accepted the concept of combined arms and consequently did little to train their troops in these tactics.
Swarms of adequate tanks, well controlled and coordinated, are better than a handful of vehicles with superb guns and armor.

 

Someone else already mentioned there are other factors to be considered then the tank quality.

However on the battlefield I would much rather be in a B1 Bis then a Panzer I/II/III/IV.

I know that the infantry and artillary played a very large part in the war, but I just found it to be an interesting fact that the better tanks did not decide who would win.

 

I think that the deciding factor of WWII was material and the talent that made use of it from the production talent to the battlefield talent that used it.

What you state is true but because there are so many variables is it relevant?

I do not think the Tiger was the best tank of the war. Most effective? Questionable.

Lets not go there.

 

I was talking about wich country that could produce the most tanks, not wich country had the most in a specific battle.

Regards, KBO

 

France had a better tank production capacity than Germany for a very long time, but sold a large portion of their tanks to other countries.

I would also argue, that Fall Gelb can hardly be considered a battle, but more a campaign.

 

Yeah but for example Russia mainly won over Germany because of a much higher production in war instruments, a production the Germans couldnt hope to produce with their limited resources. But yes i must give in and say that a larger production didnt allways spell victory.

Regards, KBO

 

The Russian production definately played a great part in it, but incompetence amongst certain high-level German commanders also played in.

 

Yeah and the incompetence by Hitler to, i know he played a big part in destroying Germany's hopes in Russia.

Regards, KBO

 

This is a sound observation, made more than once on this forum... I would say it is the best possible evidence that quality of equipment does not mean victory (one might even go so far as to say overconfidence in material superiority will lead to defeat). Other factors, as has been said, are obviously more important in determining the outcome of a war.

Some details on your post, 2ndLegion:
The Tiger was not necessarily the best tank in the world in 1944. Which tank is worthy of this title, it took us 500 posts to determine, and it hasn't even been settled yet. Please read all those topics before making such bold statements...

The Russian MBT was the T34, which carried a 76.2mm gun (not a 75mm!) in the first three years of war with Germany and an 85mm gun in the last one and a half.

 

I'm sorry, I just thought it was commonly agreed on that Tiger was the best because of its steering wheel, armor and gun.

 

The reason the TigerI could be considderet the best tank from 42 to early 44, is that it carried some of the best and most advanced equipment of any tank at that time, offcourse the Panther had arrived in late 43, and thereby outdated the TigerI quite abit.
Anyway one of the features as you mentioned that made the Tiger so effective was its steering mechanism, I dont remember the exact designation for it but, it gave the Tiger the abillity to turn on the spot. And it was also easier for the driver to steer the tank because of the steering wheel instead of two control sticks.

The Tiger also had the finest optics for its main gun, wich gave the gun a 71% chance of hitting a stationary target at 2500m with the first round. Not to mension that some Tiger crews carried Rangefinders wich made the probabillity of hitting at such distances even higher.

The development of new kinds of rounds for the Kwk36 also helped the Tiger remain one of the most lethal machines on the battlefield. The Pzgr.39-1 and the inproved Pzgr.39/43 made the Kwk36 able to pierce 97mm of 30* sloped armor at 1500m with their standard round.

Some might say that by mid to late 1944 the TigerI was officially outdated, but battle accounts of the TigerI's in Russia and Normandy suggests otherwise. At Tarnopol in April 1944 in Russia this IS-2M was knocked out at 500m by a TigerI with a direct hit on the Turret with an APCBC round. Remember that the front turret of the IS-2M is 160mm thick.

 

KBO, the crew didn't carry a range finder. The Triangles in the center of the Tiger's optic were the range finders. And you can't put a % chance on someones ability with a given gun, or the math that is required to use the Zeiss optic.

 

No Danyel some Tiger crews did actually use rangefinders, but this was for targets at distances longer than 3000m, because at that range the Zeiss optics werent that extreemly accurate anymore.

And the accuracy that i presented fro the Kwk36 is actually from a official german test report.

Source: Tom jentz's TigerI Heavy tank 1942-45

Regards, KBO

 

That may be, but your bold claim doesn't take human error into account. People are not calculators. The gun will not guarentee a hit 71% of the time.

 

I dont think your aware of how german tests were carried out.

The 71% is just an average against a stationary target at 2500m, the gun did get higher results and worse results to.

Anyway have you heard of the British test with the TigerI that was captured in Afrika ??? 9 out of 10 rounds hit their target at 2000m. And the target was moving

KBO