Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

T34/85 or Panther

Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by Canadian_Super_Patriot, Aug 28, 2005.

  1. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Being as the Panther was apparently designed specifically to be a 'medium' tank that was better than the T-34 (and its successor), I'm not sure that the comparison really works*.

    Essentially, what it boils down to is:

    In a duel, the Panther was far more likely to win, but the T-34 was a nice, simple design with a diesal engine, and there were more of them.

    * You might as well compare the Fokker Eindekker to the Sopwith Pup
     
  2. Wolverine phpbb3

    Wolverine phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    OK, so no one has gone all sentimental, so I will. Panther is a more beautiful tank, more graceful, and with comely lines...downright sexy if you ask me.

    If Oddball had seen Panther instead of Tiger in Kelly's Heroes he would have also called Panther "...a mother-beautiful tank..."
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as in, completely subjective. Personally I think the Panther is too tall, I prefer the T34's mean lines.
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    You must forgive Roel - he likes the top-heavy look of the T-34/85. :roll:

    For me, beauty-wise, the line-up is:

    T-34/76
    Panther
    T-34/85
     
  5. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    I wonder does he apply that in general or just to tanks? :wink:

    :grin:
     
  6. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Discussing subjective things boils down to statements of preference. Yawn.
     
  7. Wolverine phpbb3

    Wolverine phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, preference is closely related to one's opinion of an object. :wink:

    I just like the Panther, always have, always will. The Panther is my preferred tank of WWII.
     
  8. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes. But it does not say much about the battlefield-worth of the object, which is what is being discussed.


    :wink:
     
  9. Wolverine phpbb3

    Wolverine phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    My apologies for the topic hi-jack...
     
  10. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    No.

    I would make a case for the T34/85 being the best tank of World War II, but in a one-on-one duel it would pretty much always lose to the Panther (though much depends on the crew). Therefore I will not argue an untenable point, and concede that the Panther was the best medium tank of World War II. The best evidence for the fact that the subjective is completely detached from the objective is that I refuse to think the Panther is more aesthetically pleasing than the T34/85.
     
  11. Selesque

    Selesque New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actually, Panther is a good looking tank, and certainly better then T34. It shows force, muscle, power and agility. T34 is just some armour, some wheels and a gun. Has no personality on his own... Still, this is subjective opinion.
     
  12. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, really, because I would rather suggest the opposite. Therefore this is going completely nowhere, I cannot influence your opinion and you can't influence mine.
     
  13. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Surely you must agree that the T28 looks best of all! :p
     
  14. Wolverine phpbb3

    Wolverine phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, the T28, the mother of all land battleship-super-armored-tank-thingies!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:
     
  15. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    And a fat, incompetent one as well.

    :wink:
     
  16. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    The Panther V, hands down. Especiall when fighting at night with the night optics.
     
  17. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    That night vision gear was only used a couple of times near the end of the war, and it was so exclusive that we might as well allow the Russians to use the T43 as well.
     
  18. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    I tend to agree with Roel - the infra-red equipment was only at an experimental stage, and the few times it was used was on small-scale operations with mixed succes.

    Christian
     
  19. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    We are not debating that Roel, bottom line is it was used and it worked.
     
  20. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    You continue to amaze me; bottom line is it was used and it worked.

    Yes we have discussed the Night Optics before, and no we did not agree, and no you are not an expert on the subject; why, becasue in the earlier discussions you provided conjecture, I supplied proofs to my arguments; you provided opinion and hearsay. Here once again you attempt to belittle my opinion and point with what more opinion; furthermore, I am begining to object to both you and Roel in your continued efforts to rebuttle all of my contributions: Yours here, and Roel's in my "Largest Tank Battles of WW II." :angry:
     

Share This Page