Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ?

From: roturner@interaccess.com (Robert R. Turner)

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <453ds0$26ro@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> lrt10398@rpool7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Jens Niemann) writes:
>From: lrt10398@rpool7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Jens Niemann)
>Subject: Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ?
>Date: 6 Oct 1995 14:18:40 GMT

>In article <451481$m20@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu> writes:
>> "D.Hamp-Adams" <rgolden@engmlab.uct.ac.za> wrote:
>> >The T-34 or the Panther ?
>>
>>
>> You need to define your parameters.  In a mythical one on one battle, the
>> King Tiger would take out anything thrown against it, although the JS III
>> would have a fighting chance.  In the real world, though, both of these
>> had their problems.
>>
>I agree. the Russians tanks were great ... for Russian technology!

It did fit the bill though. Soviets had a LOT of free manpower, undereducated
workforce, and semi-lacking skills. They were cheap, simple to build, run,
operate, and maintain. You can get up a literal swarm of cheap machinery
running quickly, and this the Soviets needed.

>> As the best all around fighting vehicle, the Panther is tough to beat.
>> The T-34, IMHO, is overrated--there were an awful lot of them,a nd they
>> were mostly up against PzIII's and IV's.  They looked nice, and had nice
>> slope to the armor, but the turret was too cramped to really be fought
>> well.  (Current Russian tanks still have the same problem.)
>>
On top of that many could not move and fire at the same time...

>> Now, for money, the best tank of WWII was...

>This needs to define the expression "best tank". Of course, if you can produce 5
>tanks for the cost of one enemy tank, and 3 of your tanks can stand up in combat
>against one of the enemy's, then economically yours is better. I assume that you
>judge from this point of view.

>>
>> The Sherman.  Yes, the Sherman.  For reliability, ease of battlefield
>> maintenance and repair, survivability of both machine and crew, and
>> flexibility in combat, it had no match.  Sure, it couldn't stand up one
>> on one against a panther, but it was a hell of a lot less likely to break
>> down while running away than the Panther was chasing it.
>>
>Concerning the Panther. Indeed it was a formidable tank. But in large part the
>success of German tanks was due to the tactics employed by their leaders and the
>training of the crews. The latter deteriorated in the end of WW2, the crews were
>send to the front without proper traing. Reliability was the main drawback of the
>Panther.

>Still it's interesting to see that later US designs resembled more features of
>the Panther than of any prior US models, including the Sherman (to name a few:
>wide tracks, single-engine, weight, gun size and overall dimensions including
>height to width ratio, hp to weight ratio, ground pressure, wheel construction)

>From this view, the Sherman looks more like a "lucky shot", an inadequate basic
>design but very well engineered and thus successful in battle. On the other hand,
>the Panther was a foresighted design, too hastily constructed. It gave a glance
>at how tanks would look like in a future war. For WW2, however, it was already
>too late.

Agreed. While innovative, the Panther was still a bit much for what the
Germans needed. Something a little simpler but more versitile would have been
more apt.

>So.. the question is still unanswered. I'm introducing a new idea to judge what
>is the best tank: every person should wish himself to be member of a tank crew in
>a certain tank. Well, your life is now AT STAKE! Which tank would you choose?
>Collecting the choices of enough people should give an overall preference to a
>certain type. It also ebens out the opinions of different people.

Ok, I have to be on the crew of any one tank type in particular from the WWII
period? I would go with King Tiger. Best survivability for me. However, if I
were a general of an armored division what kind would I want? Panther. Good
speed, potent armorment, and able to shrug off a near-direct hit, assuming it
doesn't track it. If I was the Dictator's Aide in charge of selecting the main
battle tank for the country, it would be the T-34. Cheap, easy to build and
maintain. Runs on almost anything. Armament is capable of defeating the enemy
at close ranges, while the armor can take a hit at range.

>Uh.. got longer than I thought.

>See ya on the battlefield,

>jens

Robert Turner

"Imagination is the spice of life,
                 for without, life would be horribly bland."

References

The "Best tank" of WW2 ?
"D.Hamp-Adams" <rgolden@engmlab.uct.ac.za>
Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ?
Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu>
Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ?
lrt10398@rpool7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Jens Niemann)
Fri, 06 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000