Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ?

From: lrt10398@rpool7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Jens Niemann)

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

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!

> 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.)
>
> 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.

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.

Uh.. got longer than I thought.

See ya on the battlefield,

jens

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

Referenced By

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