Best Tank of WW2??????

Well, if you are speaking strictly of the technical capabilities of tank to tank combat, yeah. I just don't think the Panther was a very well thought out medium which was the way it was used. The L/70 was probably the best part of the whole tank but as others had noted, 80mm armor at 55 degrees was extravagant and could have been lightened for better protection at the flanks. The suspension and final drive is just poor engineering. I think they could have done much, much better. Tactically I think I would prefer to keep exfiltrating w/o my heavy equipment to a minimum...

 

Actually it's been talked about quite a bit. It's not at all clear that the Panther wins this at all. All WWII tanks would catch fire but as has been mentioned a number of times on these boards the Panther did it spontaneously. Furthermore if you look at the numbers of tankers lost per tank lost the Sherman doesn't come off all that bad compared to the German tanks.

I'd want a vehicle I could depend on unless I was looking for an excuse to surrender. ....

Ok if you are going to look at all around qualities what whould the results be if the every one used Panthers vs T-34s vs Shermans?

The Panther would have been a disaster for the US. It's extra weight would have been a transportability problem and the logistics factors given the length of supply lines would have made matters even worse.

For the Soviets it wouldn't have been much better. There the producabilty problems would have been paramount.

The Germans on the other hand would probably not been much worse off (some might argue they would have been better off) if they were using either Shermans or T-34s. The radios and extra reliability would probably have meant that they would have done better with the Sherman but it's pretty close.

 

Ah, yes, that's all fine and dandy, but per the quote above you'd be out of a Panther soon. What would you rather have, a tank that ran when you turned the key on or a sexy museum piece?

 

Does this thread allow for other AFVs to be considered?

 

The problem with the whole ' Which AFV is best" type of thread is that every AFV is made and developed for a certain purpose. Therefore there is no real best at all. A tiger is not good at recon or flanking, a A13 will have difficulty in a head to head with other tanks, and so on. Each one has its pro's and con's and there certainly is no best. Perhaps an all rounder like a medium tank, but even then they still fall short of Heavy and light tank roles.

This is why I closed your other thread.

 

I always like the M-3 Stuart tank, ever since I was a kid reading comic books back in the 60s. The "GI Combat" series featuring Lt. Jeb Stuart and the Haunted Tank. Yeah it was a small tank, but I thought it was cool.

 

This is not my thread.

I asked HERE if other AFVs could be discussed besides tanks.

I guess Armored Fighting Vehicles are now all considered tanks?

 

AFVs encompassed to many vehicle types. There would be assault guns, tank destroyers, assault gun/tank destroyers and tanks. Too complex to be compared to each other.

 

And please, no necro posts or redundant posting. One question, one thread.

 

You can always start your own thread to discuss the inclusion of all AFVs. Who knows, it might be popular.

 

It really depends on how you define "best tank.' Strategically, the T-34 was the best for the following reasons: a. it was available in large quantities at the critical moment in the war ("right tank at the right time.") That is, when the Wehrmacht was approaching the key cities of the Soviet Union, this tank began to appear in large numbers. b. It was designed to work in the extreme winter conditions found in Russia: excellent suspension, wide tracks for better weight distribution, and a powerful diesel engine. c. Although primitive in some ways to German panzers (no radio receiver, riveted armor plate, inferior quality steel, manually-driven turret traverse), it was technically superior to German AFV's (in 1941-42) in many important ways: sloped armor, thicker armor, 76 mm medium velocity gun, and it was faster. d. The T-34 was simple in design, so it was easy to mass-produce, as well as to upgrade (from T-34/76 to T-34 /85). Moreover, it was easy to adapt to other roles (use chassis for turret-less tank destroyers and tracked artillery). e. Because it was designed before the war, the design glitches had been, for the most part, ironed out before mass production had begun. So, when Operation Barbarossa began, the USSR did not have to rush an untested design to the front, as the German Mk. V Panther was in 1943. Consequently, it was a very reliable AFV from the start.

Tactically, however, the Mk V Panther, once the glitches (from being rushed into production- out of desperation -to counter the T-34) were ironed out, was a superior AFV in almost every way. As with all German AFV's throughout the war, each Panther had a radio receiver, electrically-driven turret, electro-welded armor plates of case-hardened steel. Additionally, it had sloped, thicker armor. It was faster than every other AFV of comparable size/weight. Its high velocity gun was far superior to the T-34/76 and superior to the T-34/85 (and Tiger I, for that matter). It had a far better fire- control system than any Russian (or any allied) AFV with superior optics for faster target acquisition. And, of course, (as with all panzers) its crew was better-trained than any other AFV crew of any nation, (much better trained than Russian crews) giving it a higher survival rate in tank vs. tank battles, allowing the crew to gain relatively greater combat experience.

Consequently, although vastly out-produced by the T-34 (and the American Sherman as well), the finest AFV of the war (of any AFV that saw combat in adequate numbers) was the German Mk V Panther auf. G. In other words, if you had to pick one tank to go against another tank of equal numbers manned by a crew of equal training and experience, without “interference” by artillery, infantry, tank destroyers, or aircraft, the Panther would be the hands-down choice.

As for the legendary Tiger, although it was an extraordinarily formidable AFV, also tactically superior to the T-34, it is second to the Panther for the following reasons: A. Too complicated to build; hence, only 1,368 Tiger I’s and 569 Tiger II’s were produced in all. Compare this to 6,557 Panthers, and –ready for this figure?- 57,339 T-34’s!!. B. Too slow, making it more vulnerable to artillery fire. C. Mechanically unreliable, compared to T-34 and (later versions of) Panther. D. Extreme difficulty in recovering disabled vehicles (due to relatively minor combat damage or, more frequently, mechanical breakdown). This problem, due to its tremendous mass, resulted in the abandonment of or self-destruction by the German crew (to prevent the enemy from recovering the Tiger) of a far greater number of Tigers than were completely destroyed by the enemy. Keep in mind that Tigers were not introduced until 1942 when, for the most part, the Wehrmacht fought only defensive battles. Consequently, the recovery of any vehicle or heavy weapon was extremely difficult, since the panzer divisions were retreating away from their damaged or disabled equipment, while the advancing enemy (from the east and west) was overrunning the Germans’ former positions.

 

I tried.

A Moderator thought it was a repeat attempt to talk about tanks.

So he closed it without warning; or the warning was in the closing post.

So I cannot talk about AFVs; or that is my interpretation of the incident.

 

Tomcat is correct. The comparison of AFVs had been debated to the point of absurdity. It always comes down to quanity winning over quality.

A synopsis of all AFV threads:

 

Thanks Jughead for making a clear point.

Just wish there was a "hint" of what was meant to be allowed as part of a topic. That's all.

Made a recommendation to the staff about clarifying what needs to be accomplished before a thread is started.

 

A thread is to be kept on topic most of the time. There will be times that a moderator will a allow a thread to creep of topic if the said moderator believes it to be just, appropriate, or very interesting. However it is not given much leeway at all, this can be evident in most of the threads.

The topic of a thread is to be kept, for eg. If the opening post is talking about Ships in ww2, you can not start commenting about tanks of ww2. If the Topic is about engines then you can't talk about aerodynamics.

If you look back at that list I gave you of all the different AFV' threads, I am sure you will find one you are looking for, again, I say if not Start a new one not already discussed.

 

Though Panther is a serious contender for the top 3, I strongly disagree with several points in your post, and other contributers and I have already posted our rebuttal months if not a year ago. This is an old thread of more than a dozen pages--please read them before deciding if you have new information to post.

 

I've always liked it as well. If you put enough qualifiers on IE 1941 light tanks it might actually qualify for a best ...

 

Sherman. Mass produced and fairly reliable for a relatively cheap tank.

 

I would vote for the panther, including its variations. Middle size and good armour piercing ability with its 75mm gun. More production could be made and mobility was better than the Tiger

 

That makes two of us now. Thanks for the support!