RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/18/2007 4:57:09 AM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I can agree with Iron Dukes assessment of the Sherman and why the US never made a "bigger" "Better" tank. Sven said pretty much the same thing but included the "mafia" stuff as historical fact.

He and I agree on impact and will likely never agree on causation totally. The "mafia" thing is a matter of public record, I have read several summaries of the minutes and spoken to people I trust who have read the minutes during their careers. Infantry Branch and an improperly thought out "tank destroyer" branch conspired with a few voices in the Cavalry to deny US forces a tank killing capability in their tank formations that was integral.

We EASILY had the capability to have 90mm armed tanks by mid '43. That we chose not to do so is properly getting heat for the likes of Holly and McNair thanks to the efforts of books like "faint praise".

< Message edited by .50Kerry -- 1/18/2007 5:13:02 AM >

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 61

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/18/2007 5:00:56 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Yup, I agree, both of you are right.

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 62

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/18/2007 7:36:53 PM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin

If you follow the same logic with American tank development, then you would have to question whether the M48/M60 design was any good. The M1 was a major change in design philosophy with a much lower silhouette, different type of engine, and more emphasis on protection.

The M48 and M60 were logical extension sof the M26 and as a class composed the main battle tank of the US and many of it�s allies for some 40 years, seeing combat in the Middle East and SE Asia. So yeah, they were indeed "good".

quote:

Just because design philosophy changes does not mean that what came before wasn't any good. The Germans were able to have a completely fresh start and changed their design philosophy. They chose to emphasis mobility (as did the French with the AMX-30). If you look at subsequent Leopard I models however, and following through to Leopard II and its evolution, they have continually up-armoured them at the expense of some mobility.

Mostly the turret front, and only in order to be able to defeat the continually upgraded main gun round from WAPAs most numerous AFV; the T55. The canucks are the only ones willing (or stupid) enough to go for a complete makeover of the armour package. What does that tell you?

As for the design philosphy: if the germans had followed through on an evolution on the Panther, you would have neded up with something close to a Chieftain imho. Yet they didn�t. Perhaps the Panthers potential was just about spent once the other tanks of it�s generation went out of service during the 40s and 50s?

quote:

Below is an interesting quote from a publication called : The Royal Armoured Corps Tank Museum - Tanks of Other Nations - Germany - published by the RAC Tank Museum in 1969.

Referring to the Leopard I - "It is a well constructed tank, fast, easily handled and with a good radius of action. It is a little disappointing that it does not represent anything like the advance on current models that the Panther did when it came into service."

If wishes were horses......

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/18/2007 8:35:10 PM >

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to hueglin)

Post #: 63

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 12:05:28 AM

hueglin

Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline

To Rune Iversen and .50Kerry.

It's been a great discussion we have had over the relative merits of the M48 and the Panther; and whether the Panther was a design dead-end.

I can see that we will have to agree to disagree. My last thoughts on the issue will follow but feel free to add your own last thoughts if you wish. I am not trying to get the last word.

Below are some of the points raised in our discussion (underlined).

The Panther must have been a dead end design and therefore a bad tank because the Leopard was not like it.
My view on that is that design philosophies change and that doesn't make the previous tank a bad one. There was no evolution from the Sherman to the M26/M46/M47/M48/M60. The Sherman was a medium tank and the others were heavy tanks/main battle tanks (the M26 was originally classed as a heavy tank). That doesn't make the Sherman a bad tank.

The Panther could never have been as good as an M48.
When you look at the specifications for both tanks they are very similar - even though the Panther was designed about 10 years earlier. Weight, engine hp, armour and dimensions are all very similar. The major difference was that in 1945 the Panther had a 75mm gun and in 1954 the M48 had a 90mm gun. As I have already said, I think the Panther had the growth potential to take a larger calibre gun (as did the Centurion) so it would in every way have been comparable to the M48 if some country had kept them in service and chosen to upgrade them. (edited a typo and missing words)

The Panther, Tiger I and II and the Maus were all examples of a German fixation on super heavy tanks.

My comments have only related to the Panther and I do not think it can be classed in the same category as the other three heavier tanks. The Panther, as I mention above, had characteristics very similar to the M48 - it was not super heavy or under-powered. In fact you might argue that it was the first true MBT (with the Centurion and M26 as close seconds). The Panther was clearly not "medium" when compared to contemporary medium tanks (M4, T-34) but it was not really heavy either (like the Tigers).

The Panther was a design philosophy that led to defeat.
Germany lost the war for a lot of more important reasons than the Panther design. Again, if the Panther was a design dead end, why does it have so many characteristics that are similar to the M48?

With regards to the M48/M60/Leopard. I was not saying that they were not good designs, just that there was a change in design philosophy in both cases. The US went from the M4 to the M26/M46/M47/M48/M60 as their main tanks, and then to the M1. Each jump represents a change in design - they don't share much in common. Same thing with the Panther and the Leopard. None of them were bad tanks.

My closing thought: If I had to pick any German WWII tank that I had to keep in service into the 1950s it would have been the Panther.

It's still my favourite (see original post) even if it wasn't perfect.

< Message edited by hueglin -- 1/19/2007 5:57:03 AM >

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 64

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 3:54:30 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I thought the Panther was marginally quicker than the Sherman so would include that in this list since it could also out kill and out last any of them with sloped armour and the uber 75.

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry
Depends on how we are defining "quicker" are we discussing tactical, operational, or strategically "quicker"? Are we discussing comparing (as wikipedia does) the M4A1 with the last generation of Panther?

Well, to be fair, you had already defined quicker...

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry
The "triad" of sensible tank designs of world war 2 is the Pz IV, Sherman, and T-34 series. The Germans never achieved the gains they did with the 3/4 punch with any of the Kitties. Now one can argue, ja ja different era of the war and possibly have a case but the fact of the matter is that armor design is a triangle between lethality, durability, and mobility.

Your clear implication here is you're discussing straight line speed. You can't be discussing strategic, since The American Navy and merchant fleet could deploy far more far quicker than the shattered german rail network, and operational speed is to do with far more than just how quickly your tanks move across fields. The implication is you are talking tactical so you had already defined quicker to be fair.

quote:

The M4A2-76 was capable of sustained, and by sustained I mean sustained as long as the tranny held up(much longer than any kitty) and the fuel held up(again much longer than the kitty), and the tracks held(again much longer than any Kitty) speeds of 48KMH. So yeah allegedly accoridng to wiki and some cites the Panther was in possession of a 7KMH speed advanatage.....that was drawing power from the turret since the turret drew its power from the drive train.

US Army Intell stated the V had a speed of 50KMH stated
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_panther/index.html

the AFV database has 48 for the Sherm and 55 for the Kitty.

Happy to accept all this, but none of it disproves my point does it

. Two Kmh quicker or 7 Kmh is still "marginally" quicker which is all the point I made.

quote:

The Panther was a "heavy"

Well, this all depends on how you define heavy. Clearly the Germans didn't class it as heavy because they had "Heavy" Panzer Battalions and they were all equipped with Tigers not Panthers. So, in terms of your triumvirate of lethality, durability, and mobility, the Panther wins on all counts doesn't it if we can't take it out of the equation by classifying it as something else...

quote:

and if we are picking based on tech envy I would still rather be in the M-26 since at US rates of productions I would STILL have had a 5 to 1 advantage by 1946.

Indeed, but the war was well and truly over by 1946, so you didn't really require 5-1. Also, as I've pointed out before, 5-1 is war winning but not much of a comfort for the Guy in the Sherman who just flanked the Tiger, but is now scraping a number of his buddies out of the other vehicles in his platoon.

quote:

We are it seems arguing at cross purposes, I mocked someone's understanding of proper APC/IFV durability theory by stating "can it survive sabot? if so it is a sandcrawler!"

The point being as grim and ruthless as it sounds it is better for a society to produce a weapons system that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH but can be produced simply, cheaply, and ably.

I disagree, it is better to produce a design that is the best and produce it in large numbers. I wonder if you are actually making a virtue out of a necessity here with the the whole Sherman thing. The American way of war has generally involved grabbing the enemy by the belt and pummelling him into submission with superior combat power. This might involve superior numbers, but could as well involve superior firepower. It frequently involved, however, having the best equipment. The P-51 didn't trade 5-1 against the 109 and 190 in early 1944.

The 262 aside, America didn't produce inferior aircraft, and her Navy did not go to war with superior numbers of poorer aircraft carriers. By 1944 she was fielding superior numbers of superior aircraft carriers with superior numbers of superior planes aboard them. The P-51 fighter that escorted the Fortresses into Germany matched the best German propellor designs and was a match for the later Spitfire Marks as well. It was also produced in large numbers, as was the Corsair and the Hellcat in the Pacific.

America could do best and most. With the Sherman, she merely did most. With the M-26, I am sure she didn't manage most in time to make a difference, and I'm not sure she did best either.

quote:

I have a number for you 5,995

I have another number for you 44,374

Otherwise known as attrition. I also think your Panther production number is a little high unless you are throwing in the command and recovery versions and/or the Tank destroyer version.

quote:

anyway we are comparing vehicles with over 30,000 pounds in weight difference...like I said I guess the Panther is a "medium" when compared to the Maus.....

"I guess".

No, it was a medium compared to the Tiger which was around a third heavier. It was marginally heavier than the M26, several tonnes heavier than the Comet and several tonnes lighter than the Centurion but all that may mean that by 1944/45 classes like Medium and Heavy were becoming obselete and you are actually moving into the realm of the MBT. Few Tanks reached the Tiger's weight, even the IS-3 (very arguably better than anything the west - including America

- had in 1945) didn't reach 50 tonnes.

The question you should also ask is why the Germans managed a "heavy" tank (if you want to designate the Panther thus) that had armour frequently impervious to the Sherman, with a weapon that could open the Sherman up at most ranges, but which was actually slightly faster. The Panther was also quicker than the M26 if memory serves and I thought the M26 did around 20mph which is (I think) 1-2 KMH slower than the lumbering Tiger.

quote:

The US and USSR and even the UK had the number of Germany on Armor IMHO.

They had the mostest. I think the Soviets were producing the largest numbers of quality vehicles towards the end of the war but I think that reflects that the eastern front was where Tank design was really being driven. The T34 drove the Panther and the Panther/Tiger drove the T34/85 and later IS designs. The Tiger II was the German's next step.

We shouldn't make a virtue out of necessity. the Sherman suited America because it was relatively quick and manoeuvrable which suited American doctrine. It was easy to make which suited American industry. It was relatively light and easy to transport which suited American logistics and strategic planners and it was relatively straightforward to maintain and fight which suited the American Citizen Army. At the sharp end, though, it had some issues.

Was it a war winner? In the west, yes, but that was partly because nothing else was being used, and partly because it was available in overwhelming numbers, not because it had the drop on everything it faced. 2 000 000 Wily Jeeps with a Bazooka welded to a roll bar would have chased the German Army back into Germany but that doesn't make it the equal of the Panther.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 65

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 4:30:36 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I can agree with Iron Dukes assessment of the Sherman and why the US never made a "bigger" "Better" tank. Sven said pretty much the same thing but included the "mafia" stuff as historical fact.

He and I agree on impact and will likely never agree on causation totally. The "mafia" thing is a matter of public record, I have read several summaries of the minutes and spoken to people I trust who have read the minutes during their careers. Infantry Branch and an improperly thought out "tank destroyer" branch conspired with a few voices in the Cavalry to deny US forces a tank killing capability in their tank formations that was integral.

We EASILY had the capability to have 90mm armed tanks by mid '43. That we chose not to do so is properly getting heat for the likes of Holly and McNair thanks to the efforts of books like "faint praise".

Well, the phrase Mafia is generally used to denote a handful conspiring together for devious ends. The Mafia in this case was just about everyone. McNair came up with TD doctrine, but he was Marshall's man so the Joint Chiefs would have backed him as well. Infantry branch didn't want uber tanks, and neither did the cavalry. The "elements" of the Cavalry you refer to included the Chief (Heer?) so it was just about everyone.

Given Patton didn't want M26s when offered sight of them and American doctrine emphasised the Tank as arm of exploitation not main battle, it is not surprising no uber Tank ever saw real service. To demonstrate anything else, you need to show Armoured Officers crying out for Uber Tanks before German weapons started giving them issues. If calls for better Tanks postdate that, then you are into a different ball game, since the Panther was basically a reaction and a response in the same way.

Most nations went into the war with doctrinal issues. America was no exception. American armoured doctrine was much like Soviet, except that the eastern front was a more continuous and lesson heavy environment. The Russians learned early in 1942 that exploiting Tanks had to be able to joust because the first enemy reaction to the breakthrough was Armoured counterattack to either the spearheads or the rear flanks of the penetration. In its operational breakthroughs, American armour never suffered like this because of circumstance.

American armour suffered (IM very HO) two essential issues. Firstly, overall American style simply never suited American armoured doctrine. Broad front offensives which lacked operational concentration were simply not conducive to the breakthrough. When breakthrough finally came in NW Europe, it was tellingly at that point the last German in front of 3rd Army had been shot and bombed into submission. Therefore, Allied armour in general tended to fight in situations its doctrine didn't ask it to. It is no surprise it was found wanting.

Secondly, it didn't have the sustained lesson learning its foes had in the east. When it did try and learn lessons, it generally did it poorly or slowly or both. Evaluation of the Tiger in Tunisia was lamentable and flawed, experience of the Panther limited. What experience it could learn from (primarily British experience in 41-42 in Africa) tended to reinforce doctrinal belief rather than knock it. The M4 and Grant squitted themselves well against the best German designs in theatre indicating there were no real issues facing german Tanks technically, and Rommel made extensive use of AT gun lines to defeat British armoured thrusts reinforcing the opinions gained from Spain that AT guns had the edge where they met armour.

To be sure, some sound minds were looking hard at the tunisian campaign and questioning the whole basis of the TD approach but the limited campaigning was a hindrance to effecting change which with McNair believing the way he did, had to get its impetus from below and the experience being gained by the Tankers themselves.

In other words, I don't necessarily see that abandoning the TD doctrine would have automatically led to Uber Generals, because bigger and better was frequently driven by "Look what they've got" and that view for the Americans up until normandy had not been particularly scary.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 66

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 4:52:56 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Your ignoring your own arguement. The US had no need for bigger better tanks , even in Normandy. And in the end it was to late to design make and field them before the war was over. No doctinal problem, one of "no need" until to late to do anything about it.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 67

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 5:03:01 AM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

I have to disagree, the American designs with their own and Jolly Ole' modifications turned out a product that could kill the Kittens and exploit more terrain. There has to be a cutoff point on "gee-wiz" and if the Sherman can be produced and manned for 5 widgets and the Panther cost 40 but is only "5 times as good"(rather arguable) it is NOT a bargain. Sure maybe if you are the sort who is more worried about personal skin the Mittens look enticing but if you are more interested in a winning war effort you meld the cost and time needed to produce your designs to your likely economic situation and material one.

The Panther was a good heavy, I'd still prefer the M-26. The M-26 took German armor and the German armor did NOT take any M-26s. The M-26 took the best of the M4 to a tank approaching the mittens in size, speed, and lethality but smoking the Mittens in ease of manufacture and deployment.

I believe in going to war to win not die gloriously "taking as many of them with me in my hot rod". If the best way to ace fritz or Ivan was a live reenactment of the Desert Rats then Desert Rats it should be. Fact is in reality it is a multi-interger balancing game.

The Germans simply could not be everywhere the T-34 and Shermans were. Wouldn't have mattered had they had 5 Leopard 2s that Allied Armor simply could not have easily killed if they were facing 100,000 other thanks. The United States had several opportunities to have the "greatest and most gee-wiz" tank on the block and oddly we decided instead to go with the reliable, economical, and in 1942 Tough M4.

If you are asking Enlisted Sven I can *maybe* see the "but it looked cool and had all these neat features and cup holders too" arguments making more of an impact but as you climb the food chain they make less and less difference. We damn near produced more 105 Howitzer Carriage M-4s than the Germans made Panthers. You'll have to remind me who "got combined arms" again sometime.

The thing is Kitty fan tends to try to argue a very narrow and very weighted glidepath on "best tank". I'll go with the Iowa over the Yamoto and the M4/M-26 over the pituitary tanks for 1,000 Alex. Answer is: what sleds carried their flags to victory?

I respect the bravery of the crews who drive the Sherman and the 34s to victory just as I respect the ruthlessness of Allied command that was willing to send them in those "death traps". In all likelihood the pervasiveness and penetrating power of the "VW tanks"(ie non Ferrari super tanks) helped shorten the end game of the conflict. That 2 or 7 KMH "advantage was at the expense of turret speed and also managed to drive up weight to the point the vehicle had severe tranny issues its whole life.

It is more important to me that my equipment is ready even if I have been a tad abusive in our co-dependent relationship than my having the "longest drill" so to speak.

Different strokes for different folks.

My main source of picque is at this myth that somehow these Kitty tanks were invulnerable and the Allies(US especially) ran in abject horror at their mere sight, but that Ivan lost 113 tanks per Kitty killed every time and EVERY Tiger or Panther lost was "abandoned unharmed without petrol left in the tank".

No that is not your thrust so far as I have deduced, BUT in the end the Panther Tiger and Maus ARE war failing designs because the Tuetonic powers that be refused to mate their designs to their needs. Germany was idiotic for deciding "hey I can take all three of the world's other superpowers at once" but she likely would have done far better either keeping the war super short or possibly delaying.

We'll never know and frankly I am glad for that.....

as to "no WW2 1946"......

well that is true thanks to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Soviet_tanks_entering_Changun.jpg

We can argue over the ingredients' order but a similar though differently administered concoction aided Berlin in taking its medicene neh?

The Allied Method put the Axis one to slumber.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 68

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 5:25:25 AM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

EDIT: I think the MAUS thing is also overused. You can argue it was a tactical dead end and a waste of development and resources, but without it, if the war had continued on for longer, how would the Germans have stopped the T95?

Hedgehogs, MkIV driven flanking and enveloping, logistic bombing raids, and traffic deserts if able.....

wow that recipe sounds a lot like....nah couldn't be.

The Mutant Giant tank was gone(thankfully)by the mid 60s and totally gone from our TO&E by '68-'72 IIRC...I'll have to look into our mutant M-103s.....

If the Future were SandCrawlers the Germans would have been king....

MAUS(theory) 188 tonnes

T95(reality) 95 tonnes

Ideal German crew for the Maus:

(mostly tongue in cheek)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by .50Kerry -- 1/19/2007 5:36:58 AM >

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 69

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 1:02:32 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

Panther II's was designed with a 88mm KWK 43 in april 43 with Schmalturm (narrowturret). Tank experts.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm

Well .50 Kerry and Rune. Go look for mdiehl, spence and Demosthenes in the WitP forums. They have the same view of historical events like you. Code word is imperial arrogance. See ya.

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 70

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 1:13:38 PM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Panther II's was designed with a�88mm KWK 43 in april 43 with Schmalturm (narrowturret). Tank experts.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm

Well .50 Kerry and Rune. Go look for mdiehl, spence and Demosthenes in the WitP forums. They have the same view of historical events like you. Code word is imperial arrogance. See ya.

Outstanding, how many Panther IIs were put afoot there Bear Super?

"Imperial Arrogance" is, of course, not thinking "if only ze Gehmans had had 12 more drops of fuel for ze mittens zey would haf beaten zose Yanqui scum back to ze sea."

We can afford to be arrogant we have scoreboard.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 71

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 2:52:13 PM

Marek Tucan

Posts: 758
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Kladno, Czech Republic
Status: offline

My favorite WWII tanks being T-34 and Sherman as representants of good, durable medium tanks, easy to produce and transport, reliable and adequate for their task.
Btw recently read an account by one of soldiers from the Czechoslovakian units on the Eastern front, who spent most of frontline duty with T-34's as company and later Bn commander, received Hero of the USSR medal (and after Commie takeover got imprisoned and managed to escape from Prison and to Britain). He criticises alot of things in Russia, but nowhere does he claim the T-34 was inadequate when faced with German tanks. And since I view Sherman as being slightly better than T-34... ;)

_____________________________

Tuccy

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 72

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/19/2007 11:06:05 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Your ignoring your own arguement. The US had no need for bigger better tanks , even in Normandy. And in the end it was to late to design make and field them before the war was over. No doctinal problem, one of "no need" until to late to do anything about it.

I'm not sure how I'm ignorning my argument. I don't think the US believed it required them because deep manoeuver doctrine didn't need them and the Infantry got the TD.

When they arrived in Normandy, though, a war making method that didn't place a premium on deep manoeuver and the failure of TD doctrine essentially meant they suddenly did need them, and by then it was too late to hurry anything along. They got it when it was ready.

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 73

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/20/2007 12:44:08 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

I have to disagree, the American designs with their own and Jolly Ole' modifications turned out a product that could kill the Kittens and exploit more terrain.�

In limited numbers. The 76s were not quick to fill out the Armoured Divisions and certainly through Normandy only one Sherman in four was a Firefly in the British units. You also can't have it both ways. Either masses of Shermans was good enough or "modifications" were the way to go (a point which makes the argument that the Sherman wasn't good enough).

quote:

There has to be a cutoff point on "gee-wiz" and if the Sherman can be produced and manned for 5 widgets and the Panther cost 40 but is only "5 times as good"(rather arguable) it is NOT a bargain. Sure maybe if you are the sort who is more worried about personal skin the Mittens look enticing but if you are more interested in a winning war effort you meld the cost and time needed to produce your designs to your likely economic situation and material one.

but then why build heavier designs in the first place? I still think you're making a virtue out of reality/necessity. The Sherman was found wanting but was available in large numbers so they carried on. This is essentially the "quantity has a quality all its very own" argument or (as uncle Joe put it) the battle was won in the factories before the first shots were fired. I don't argue with that, but that entire premise is underpinned with the fact the Sherman was not good enough by 1944 and had America been fighting someone her own size, she was in some trouble.

quote:

The Panther was a good heavy, I'd still prefer the M-26. The M-26 took German armor and the German armor did NOT take any M-26s. The M-26 took the best of the M4 to a tank approaching the mittens in size, speed, and lethality but smoking the Mittens in ease of manufacture and deployment.

Yes, but given the best German weapons were clearly capable on paper of taking the M26, there would have been reasons for this. Not least only 20 being deployed, and not seeing any action at all before February 1945 when (to say the least) it was all over bar the shouting.

quote:

I believe in going to war to win not die gloriously "taking as many of them with me in my hot rod".

But could we agree it is somewhat inglorious to die in inferior equipment, with the only solace being that one of your colleagues most likely got the man who killed you eventually.

Put another way, would the current American Army swap 1000 M1s for 5000 M60s?

quote:

If the best way to ace fritz or Ivan was a live reenactment of the Desert Rats then Desert Rats it should be. Fact is in reality it is a multi-interger balancing game.

The Germans simply could not be everywhere the T-34 and Shermans were. Wouldn't have mattered had they had 5 Leopard 2s that Allied Armor simply could not have easily killed if they were facing 100,000 other thanks. The United States had several opportunities to have the "greatest and most gee-wiz" tank on the block and oddly we decided instead to go with the reliable, economical, and in 1942 Tough M4.

Yes, but I think you're mistaking cause and effect. They didn't turn down the heavier weapons because they were content to have 5 times as many of the 4th toughtest Kid on the block. You went with what doctrine told you made sense. That things changed suggests that doctrine was found wanting as was the Sherman.

quote:

If you are asking Enlisted Sven I can *maybe* see the "but it looked cool and had all these neat features and cup holders too" arguments making more of an impact but as you climb the food chain they make less and less difference.

But it wasn't about Kitties having cute cup holders, it was about watching AP shot bounce of Kitty hulls and being taken out from 2000 yards. Enlisted Sven didn't want bigger machines as a fashion accessory, but to give himself a chance of making it out alive.

quote:

We damn near produced more 105 Howitzer Carriage M-4s than the Germans made Panthers. You'll have to remind me who "got combined arms" again sometime.

Not sure what your point is.

quote:

The thing is Kitty fan tends to try to argue a very narrow and very weighted glidepath on "best tank". I'll go with the Iowa over the Yamoto and the M4/M-26 over the pituitary tanks for 1,000 Alex. Answer is: what sleds carried their flags to victory?

The sleds that came in the greatest numbers. However, the finest we could produce during the cold war spent decades trying to think of something different than sled theory in central europe in case the balloon went up because the other side had the sled surplus. One thing in our favour was that our M60s, M1s and Chieftains/Challengers and Leopards were adjudged better weapons. Kind of ironic how things turned out, is it not?

quote:

I respect the bravery of the crews who drive the Sherman and the 34s to victory just as I respect the ruthlessness of Allied command that was willing to send them in those "death traps".

But again you make it sound so planned. Nobody woke up one day and said lets build an inferior tank but in huge numbers. We might lose them hand over fist, but we'll get to Berlin in the end. the Allied command was ruthless because they had to be, not because they wanted to be.

quote:

In all likelihood the pervasiveness and penetrating power of the "VW tanks"(ie non Ferrari super tanks) helped shorten the end game of the conflict. That 2 or 7 KMH "advantage was at the expense of turret speed and also managed to drive up weight to the point the vehicle had severe tranny issues its whole life.

It is more important to me that my equipment is ready even if I have been a tad abusive in our co-dependent relationship than my having the "longest drill" so to speak.

Different strokes for different folks.

But you make it sound like a choice once again. War does not have to be fought by hordes of rubbish on one hand and thin lines of quality on the other. It wasn't at sea or in the air. Was Bradley or Eisenhower happy that the Sherman was having a hard time?

quote:

My main source of picque is at this myth that somehow these Kitty tanks were invulnerable and the Allies(US especially) ran in abject horror at their mere sight, but that Ivan lost 113 tanks per Kitty killed every time and EVERY Tiger or Panther lost was "abandoned unharmed without petrol left in the tank".

Yes, but you can understand my pique at the myth that the sherman may have been rubbish but we planned it that way. I doubt it was much of a relief to Sherman crews that their rides always started. More would be alive today if they had had breakdown rates like the Kitties did.

quote:

No that is not your thrust so far as I have deduced, BUT in the end the Panther Tiger and Maus ARE war failing designs because the Tuetonic powers that be refused to mate their designs to their needs.

I'm not sure. This relies somewhat on whether the Germans could have produced five times more PZ IVs if they had ditched the Panther. For my part, the Germans built their army to face east after 1941 and since they were never going to win the numbers game against the commies, they had no choice when facing the heaviest Soviet assault guns and the IS range but to go for killing power and quality. America got away with the Sherman because it could produce tens of thousands and outproduce the Reich (with or without the russian and British figures thrown in). The Germans could never have outproduced anyone on any single front, never mind a combination of them all, so producing more (but inferior) PZ IVs was not quite as attractive an option as it was for Uncle Sam. They would always have ended up with lots of poorer designs that were still too few in number.

quote:

Germany was idiotic for deciding "hey I can take all three of the world's other superpowers at once" but she likely would have done far better either keeping the war super short or possibly delaying.

She always had tried to keep wars short, it's what Germany did. Her problem was that operational ability was allied to dreadful strategic ability and arrogance and the whole thing fell apart as it had sometimes in the past.

quote:

The Allied Method put the Axis one to slumber.

Indeed, hence my inability to grasp why you defend substandard equipment (circa 1944) in such terms. We won the numbers game on the ground. I'm just saying it didn't have to be that way because it wasn't in other fields and one has to ask how the Germans lasted so long when the numbers game was so heavily against them, if not for that quality.

What strikes me about the other side of the fence is that it starts out detailing why Uber Generals could have been around circa 1943 but then finishes up with the Quantity is quality and who actually won the war approach. It seems to me to be that the only reason to speculate how Uber Generals could have arrived early is to patriotically wave the flag for American engineering in the face of the Cats, but the argument shifts somewhat when the quality of the Cats is under discussion.

For my part, I think the Germans made mistakes but were never likely to outproduce anyone whatever model they chose to standardise on. In those circumstances, building more survivable vehicles had the effect of keeping morale higher, perhaps keeping a higher percentage of crewman alive through combat and allowing a few to stem a tide in places.

No, they couldn't be everywhere, but Allied Armies in the west rarely asked them to be in the sorts of numbers that counted.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 74

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/20/2007 12:57:23 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry
Outstanding, how many Panther IIs were put afoot there Bear Super?

"Imperial Arrogance" is, of course, not thinking "if only ze Gehmans had had 12 more drops of fuel for ze mittens zey would haf beaten zose Yanqui scum back to ze sea."

What kind of thinking does it take to draw such conlcusions? All I am saying that Sherman was NOT a superior FIGHTING machine (that one is the main objective of tanks you know). It had merits but was inferior to other designs from 43 as T34/85, PzIV F2 onwards or Panther.

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry
We can afford to be arrogant we have scoreboard.

This is a candidate for the shortest (and best) answer why people from ROW dont really like americans.

Thanks for sharing.

BTW what do you mena by scoreboard?

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 75

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 1:16:21 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

Wazzup .50Kerry?

Was confronting yourself a bit hard to swallow?

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 76

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 1:29:49 PM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Wazzup .50Kerry?

Was confronting yourself a bit hard to swallow?

Are you calling me out personally again Ursa?

"Scoreboard" means that the Sherman and T-34 along with other allied methodology "won the war". Frankly as to the rest of your imputed indictment about how were I sitting in FDR, Stalin, Chruchill, or Shicklegruber's shoes my thinking the T-34 and Sherm and MKIV are better war winning medium designs rather than Troglivar the Panther like Giant Mutated War Industry Draining Squirrel or the Maus *heh* makes me a foaming at the mouth evil imperialist who represents all wrong with the American psyche well guilty as charged. For an insult to have any impact on my view it helps if there is something more to it than line drawings and arguably a sole prototype.

best regards and wishes,
sven

p.s. as I have stated I get my political kicks offsite where they belong and considering that you have even less than my famed "why is the M-6 not in the game?" or "the M-26 could easily have been ready in mid '43-early'44" posts on the matter of the Panther2 we'll leave it at that.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 77

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 5:04:23 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Iron Duke your ignoring your own arguements.

The Sherman was more than capable in 1942 and 1943 against the enemy forces it faced. It worked well and easily accomplished its mission. Added to that NO ONE in higher command that actually commanded tank Bns WANTED the M-26, if it was at the cost of getting the Sherman and in greater numbers.

Your whole arguement resolves to in June and July 1944 the allies might have learned the Sherman was potentially inferior to the German tanks, I say might have, because the doctrine at the time was STILL for the Tank Destroyers and towed Anti tank guns to fight tanks, the allied Tanks were for another purpose.

lets assume for arguement sake your right, by July 1944 the American High Command had discovered the Sherman was incapable of doing what it was tasked to do.

The war was over in April 1945 in Europe. Given that NO ONE in command or control positions believed the Sherman was inferior or unable to accomplish the mission until at the earliest June 1944, what exactly was supposed to happen in the next 10 months? There were no large production runs of M-26 or heavy barrels geared and running, there were none in the supply pipe line, there were none stockpiled in Europe or Africa. Your arguement would seem to be as soon as Normandy taught us we had the "inferior" tank we should have stopped and waited a year or more for production to ramp up, another 6 months for training and delivery and replacement. If this is NOT your point, other than carping about what America might have done IF, whats your point?

I HAVE to add, if the Sherman was so "inferior" to German armor and antitank weapons, why did we win? Why did we manage to break out of Normandy and literal chase the Germans to their border? Why did it only take a few months after reaching the entrenched and fortified German Border to break through in several places and beat the germans?

Could the US have had abigger, better tank? Sure they could have. But it simply wasnt going to happen by early 1945 when up until mid 1944 none of the leaders of the military that had a say in the procurement of said weapons WANTED a bigger better tank.

You keep implying that some kind of gross negligence occurred to prevent that "bigger and Better" tank. By your own postings it simply is not the case.

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 78

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 5:51:59 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

It's because they didn't /need/ a bigger and better tank, that they didn't make one. As Sven says, if you need 40 widgets to make a Panther and 5 widgets to make a Sherman, you're better off making Shermans.

The function of a tank or any other weapon is to Win The War, not win a Best Tank of the War competition. In this, the Sherman was better than a Panther. Albert Speer and Heinz Guderian, not known to be morons, were very tepid on the Panther, because of much the same reasons the Allies were tepid on the M-26. Hitler however, in his amateurish way, always wanted the cool toys, and hence, Germany got the Panther.

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 79

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 7:03:58 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

I like the panther, dont get me wrong. but the arguement being presented is not about the panther, it is about the Sherman. The claim, it appears to me, being made is that A) it was inferior B) it was unable to preform the tasks required of it C) the lack of a heavy tank , or a "better" tank was from incompetence or disdain for the troops or both.

Prior to June 1944 the Americans had seen little to convince them the Sherman was incapable of carrying out its duties. I would argue even after June 1944 no one actually thought the Sherman was incapable nor that it was a "death" trap. It may have been lacking in what was preferable but by then it was way to late to do more than what they did, continue to field it, build it and use it.

The war was over before the M-26 was fielded in any number and the only option the US had in June/July 1944 was to continue on or ask for a time out for a year or more. The tank proved quite capable if doing what was required of it.

Look at the germans, in 1940 in France they realized ( one would assume) that the 37 MM main gun was lacking, yet a year later a very large portion of their tank units went into battle with JUST that weapon.

The US did NOT feel a heavy tank was needed for the war. They did not believe a Bigger, heavier barrel was needed in large quantities. This turned out to be bad decisions, but when they were made the 75 mm gun on the Sherman was more than adequate against the tanks it had faced.

When one believes a policy is sound one normally doesnt change it. There was no mountain of evidence to sway the decision makers into changing what they felt was already going to accomplish the goal. Unless presented with this mountain of evidence actually IN the hands of the American policy makers one does not have a point making any slurs or disparging comments on those decision makers. Especially since the Tank in question DID in fact accomplish the goal.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 80

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 10:56:00 PM

sprior

Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

It's because they didn't /need/ a bigger and better tank, that they didn't make one.� As Sven says, if you need 40 widgets to make a Panther and 5 widgets to make a Sherman, you're better off making Shermans.

Or, as Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 81

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/22/2007 11:24:41 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Since the thread title is "what is your favorite ww2 tank" I have to go with the m24 Chafee. Personally, I've always identified more closely with the quick movers than the heavy hitters...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to sprior)

Post #: 82

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/23/2007 4:50:26 AM

tc237

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

This thread is more like "what do you consider the best tank" not "favorite". Unless you have actually served on one of these tanks how can it be a favorite? Maybe it should be "which tank looks cooler?"
Not trying to be a smartass, I guess I'm just being to literal.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 83

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/23/2007 5:53:15 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

Hey tc237, if I asked what your favorite tank is regardless of time period, I think I know what you would pict by the picture on your post. So, which tank from WWII do you like?
French B1 bis
German PZKWIVf2
British Matilda II
or something no one else has mentioned?
Just have fun with it and don't take it too seriously

(in reply to tc237)

Post #: 84

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/23/2007 10:24:34 AM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

.50Kerry
The thread's title is "fav tank", yours is the Sherman. Period. Mine is the Panther. Period.

What irritates me beyond limits is the way some people (incl you) think. "If you are not with us, then you are aginst us." This was the slogan of the commie leader Janos Kadar in Hungary so I am overly sensitive to this way of thinking.

I am not a US basher. I listen to country right now, IMO Firefly is the best TV-show ever made, etc. but I preserve my right to think out of the box. The world is NOT black and white! I dont support EVERYTHING that the US does, but that does not mean that I hate everything it does!. Comprende?

This 'train of thoughts' did, does, will cause more damage to the reputation of the US than 3.210.540.540.406.450 Invasions of Iraq/Iran/North Korea whatever.

Read this and think what was your part in it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Your country is much stronger than anybody, but much weaker than everybody. When traditional allies as Poland turn away from the US, YOU (not only the politicans) too have to think about how was this possible.

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 85

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/23/2007 10:39:09 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

Prince of Eckm�hl

quote:

Marauders

The overall best? The T34-85

I never understood why the Germans didn't simply copy the T-34 chassis, engine, and drive train, throw on their own turret, weapons system AND A RADIO, and gone with that. It couldn't have taken any longer to arrange than the development of the "uber" vehicles, and the Russian turreted designs were cheaper and easier to construct than those of the Germans. National pride, AFV as symbol of Aryan superiority, perhaps?

I wonder how well the Daimler-Benz VK 3002 (Panther contender) would have done. It had advantages of the Panther and T34. The Daimler Benz proposal was radical for a German tank, as it closely copied aspects of the T-34 layout with a rear mounted diesel engine, forward turret, all steel roadwheels, and leaf spring suspension.

The Daimler-Benz design was actually chosen by Hitler as the preferred design, and it was ordered into production. Hitler changed his mind after a technical and production review was presented to him in May of 1942, and a preliminary order for 200 Daimler Benz VK 3002 tanks was cancelled. A major concern was the ease of transitioning production to the new tank, and the Daimler Benz design required a completely new turret.

The two prototype VK 3001 (DB) with diesel engines were completed. The artist drawing is a DB VK 3001 Panther - not a T34-85.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 1/23/2007 10:59:52 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckm�hl)

Post #: 86

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/23/2007 4:57:16 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tc237

This thread is more like "what do you consider the best tank" not "favorite". Unless you have actually served on one of these tanks how can it be a favorite? Maybe it should be "which tank looks cooler?"
Not trying to be a smartass, I guess I'm just being to literal.

I've never been with a supermodel, but I definately have my favorites...

I don't believe you have to try something to have a favorite. My favorite planet is Jupiter, but I haven't been there. Favorite, by definition, is something that appeals to a person the most. It can be visual, intellectual, etc.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to tc237)

Post #: 87

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/24/2007 3:44:59 AM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This is a candidate for the shortest (and best) answer why people from ROW dont really like americans.

Read this and think what was your part in it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Your country is much stronger than anybody, but much weaker than everybody. When traditional allies as Poland turn away from the US, YOU (not only the politicans) too have to think about how was this possible.

Stuff like this is the reason Americans don't care what you think. What has your left wing opinions got to do with tanks?

You're clearly out of your league here so all you got is "Americans are doo doo heads"

"Hungary, EU"

Good luck with the fourth reich.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 88

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/24/2007 4:41:03 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

.50Kerry
The thread's title is "fav tank", yours is the Sherman. Period. Mine is the Panther. Period.

What irritates me beyond limits is the way some people (incl you) think. "If you are not with us, then you are aginst us." This was the slogan of the commie leader Janos Kadar in Hungary so I am overly sensitive to this way of thinking.

I am not a US basher. I listen to country right now, IMO Firefly is the best TV-show ever made, etc. but I preserve my right to think out of the box. The world is NOT black and white! I dont support EVERYTHING that the US does, but that does not mean that I hate everything it does!. Comprende?

This 'train of thoughts' did, does, will cause more damage to the reputation of the US than 3.210.540.540.406.450 Invasions of Iraq/Iran/North Korea whatever.

Read this and think what was your part in it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Your country is much stronger than anybody, but much weaker than everybody. When traditional allies as Poland turn away from the US, YOU (not only the politicans) too have to think about how was this possible.

Hey Ursa, something you may want to consider. In a previous conversation we had we established that the press is not on the side of western civilization in the current war. Therefor, I would recommend that you adopt the policy of simply discarding anything in the mainstream press these days as I have done. (I my case they could tell me that the sky was blue and would not believe them, they have been caught in too many lies for my taste!) Life is much less stressful for me that way

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 89

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/24/2007 6:23:28 AM

tc237

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

Thanks Goblin,
I got it now... have fun, have fun...

that being said, I don't have a favorite tank, been in one too long,
same with supermodels.

_____________________________

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 90