Best Tank of WW2??????

Za
Not saying it was a wonder weapon, just pointing out that there was bigger than a 50mm on rubber tires.
There's no point to using much other than open top (many eyes), fast (faster than the big boys), and light/small(er)(so they don't get stuck/trapped) vehicles for reconnaissance.
If you run into a big group, (bad guys), start shooting and run. Your job is to get back and report. I believe the Sdkfz had as many gears in reverse as forward, and the same speed? Now why would this be?
The "bigger is better" does not apply here either. As was said, squaring up and slugging it out with any group of others was not their job, unless they were being overrun. A last resort/reserve.
Not all naval vessels are Battleships, or all airplanes Fighters, and for good (perhaps same?) reason.

Oh and the 37 made a comeback in the PTO. It was easily handled/moved by infantry. Used for direct fire against pill boxes/block houses/caves that were protected from mortars/artillery/air attack. The loads of "cannister shot" was used extensively to thwart mass infantry attacks, and to remove (shrubbery) camouflage cover from concealed positions.
The Marines made good use of those little guns.

 

I hear what you are all saying and I understand the reasoning behind it, but even the link with the US Cavalry doctrine looks at what I am talking about

Both quotes are from the link and both use the North African Campaign as an example of the learning curve need and the fact that the shoot and scoot tactics although originally was used as the recon tactic was quickly seen as useless as the quotes themself say, they need to be able to protect themselves from any enemy patrols or counter attacks.

Joe: Glad to help with your problem on the alternate history thread.

Now what good is it calling in the big boys and waiting for the reinfocrments to arrive if your unit is destroyed before they get there? Just like the Trench mortar, Machine guns and mobile artilley, they were already there, no support was needed to be called over the radio, you didn't have to wait for the 'heavies' because you could be capable without them.

 

SW, I wasn't picking a fight with you And of course the 37 did prove useful in the PTO because of lack of armoured opposition, light weight, and being as you say a useful infantry support weapon. The Sovs kept it's obsolete 45mm AT guns in service for the same reasons, even without the cannister round.

TC, bear in mind recce troops are Specialists, they are not line troops. Their function is to observe and transmit info, and stay ALIVE coz good reccies have to be trained. So once more their job is not to get stuck in. Besides in any TOE they are a very rare asset, a platoon per battalion or less, as a commander you don't have too many so you can waste them.

 

Of course I am not disputing that.

 

You have to bear in mind that in the German Army (where else?) the divisional recce battallion was sometimes used as the Fire Brigade of the Heroic Myth, for the simple reason that it might be the only mobile troop in the division, and when I say mobile I may be saying horse or bycicle mounted.

Note:
I don't know who did that, but some idjit applied to this thread a tag "rediculous thread".

First, this thread contains good information. Second, tags are to be used responsibly. Third, at least be so kind as to avoid spelling mistakes, at least you'll avoid looking like a fool, even if remaining one - the word is spelt "ridiculous".

 

Hear, hear mate, I second the last paragraph.

So I quess that we still should agree to disagree on the mechanized recon then?

 

Right now I don't know where we are disagreeing!

 

Well The first few posts where quite ridiculous, but now us experts have moved in it is better.
Though whoever put that tag on sure made a fool out of himself.

 

Hello? Best tank WW2....Ever hear of Russia's T-34...My vote

 

Which posts were they mate?

 

Yes, the T-34/76 certainly was a good tank in 1941-42, but once the Germans got better guns in general use in 1943 (especially the 7.5cm long) then the T-34 was somewhat outclassed.

 

Enter the T-34/85

 

No point in having a beautiful, brand-new tank if it breaks down, runs out of gas, or takes a week to repair a kaput engine.

I'd rather have an "inferior" combat tank than have no tank at all.


Slight derail: Does anyone know how many man-hours it took to create a Panther, Panzer IV, or Tiger in comparison to the Sherman or the T-34?

I've seen the monetary cost but, since money was regulated strictly in wartime, it isn't an accurate value of the time it takes to make the actual tank.

 

Interms of bang for buck the upgraded version with a 20mm wasnt actualy that bad.

 

I think the only way to get an appropriate answer to the question T-34/85 contra a Tiger I would be by asking the respective veterans of those two tank types.
Are there existing opinions in regards to those veterans stated in some book?

Regards
Kruska

 

While the T-34/85 would cause problems for a Tiger, the Tiger could pop a T-34/85 from a far greater distance than a T-34/85 could pop a Tiger. It just didn't have the armour for it. However, it would be far more mechanically reliable.

 

The ones not made by me, obviously.

 

Let's all get down to Bovington, score some live ammo, the only running Tigger & their T34 & get cracking?..

Nothing's invincible though .
Splendid bit of footage posted by 'Mollusc' on ww2t here, appropros of nothing but fascinating stuff nonetheless:
YouTube - Tiger â… :Test & Investigation

Actually... I don't want to go to war in any of these coffins... ever.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

It depends a lot on how you define "best". The answer you get for a one on one is not necessarily the one you get for an army vs army contest. The US and Soviet tanks seamed to be better at fitting into their respective armies where the German tanks seamed to be better at one on ones.

 

I have read that the T 34's engine was no more robust then the current generation of Russian tank engines. That while reliable they had a short life span. Is this true?