Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 11th, 2010, 06:16 AM   #21

Richard Potato's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspartam View Post
Yes, I agree, Panther is the best German tank.
Panther as the best tank of WWII… M-m-m… As of me, I think the easy maintenance and the manufacturability are the very significant specifications for the tank of the mass army war, because I vote T-34.
I agree with this, and would add in ease of operation.
Richard Potato is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 11th, 2010, 12:36 PM   #22

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,188
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspartam View Post
The most powerful tank does not mean the best tank. Before the demonstration of a mighty canon and strong armor on a battlefield the heavy tank must arrive at the battlefield. Often this was the great problem of heavy tanks; the tank, that, for example, was too heavy for small bridges, had low mobility in front-line area. This was typical for Königstiger (70 t!) and especially for the tank destroyer Panzerjager Tiger (75 t!) When you are driving, pay your attention to traffic signs near the bridges…
The heavy tanks were specific machines they solved rather bounded circle of problems. IS-2 was the heavy tank of front-line breakthrough, it can be said, IS-2 was the ram for subsequent mobile operations of T-34. Königstiger was, first of all, the tank destroyer (IS-2 had few chances in a duel with Königstiger) and it was the mobile basis of the active defensive.
Some time after WWII the heavy tanks was considered (first of all in USSR) as the best machines for operations under conditions of use of the nuclear weapon. But then this idea have lost its popularity and now we have only the universal main battle tank (the medium tank, in fact), such as American M1 Abrams or the Soviet / Russian T-family.

I think, the medium tanks were the real kings of battlefields of WWII, the best from them were:
Germany: PzIV (various modifications), PzV Panther (the medium tank according German classification, in USSR it was considered as the heavy tank)
USSR: T-34 and especially T-34-85.
USA: M4 Sherman (various modifications).
Excellent post, A. While the Tigers, King Tigers, and KVs were undoubtedly the most powerful tanks in the world in 1944, they had limited mobility; they broke down, they were slow, they required more maintenance. The entire concept of modern armored warfare is centered around mobility-if you give that up, you are back in WWI.

The T-34 and the Panther were the best tanks to come out of WWII IMHO.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old January 11th, 2010, 12:39 PM   #23

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,188
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspartam View Post
Do you mean a stabilizer? If you meant it, then Leopard II (begining 1980s) is not the first tank having the stabilizer.
As I know, Soviet T-10M (ending 1950s) already had the 2-plane gun stabilizer, and it seems, T-10M was not the first tank with the gun stabilizer.
At the risk of picking nits, the gun is not stabilized, the sighting optics are.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old January 14th, 2010, 07:49 PM   #24

Richard Stanbery's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Tennessee
Posts: 8,298
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Of course the gun is stabilized on modern tanks, as well as the sights.

The trouble is that while both the gun and sights may be stabilized, the gunner is not stabilized. He is getting banged around and his teeth jarred out of his skull as he tries to keep the gun on target.

Add to that, he has a sensitive part of his body (his eye) up against the vibrating, bouncing and hitting eyepiece to aim and fire the main gun. Black eyes can be attained in this manner!

Hit a big hole, drive across a plowed field, or suffer the tank giving a lurch with a sudden jarring, banging, crash to the bottom of a ditch or some other obstacle that the gunner didnt see comming because he had the gun over the rear deck looking for a following target, and severe injuries can be had.

And this is common when one rides in an armored vehicle. They dont always opperate on flat, paved, smooth surfaces.

They will hurt you. They will beat you to death, stuff will fly out of storage compartments and cubby holes and fall on you, hatches will suddenly bang down on your fingers if the locking pins are left out and you hit a hole, etc etc. So, stabilized guns and sights do not always mean that a tank can shoot as accurately on the move as sitting still.

They can indeed get very good hits while moving on a tank range, which is usually a well maintained gravel road. But, it is still better shooting to be sitting still than driving pell mell through trees or over boulders, or crossing ditches while trying to shoot something hundreds of yards downrange while the tank is pitched up, down, or sideways at a severe angle and the gunner is trying to keep from sliding out of his seat. Stabilizers have thier limits, as does the human endurance of the gunners...

At least that is how it was done in the old days. Maybe modern gunnery sights are better for the gunner to use?

As to the best tank of WWII, I would have to say the T-34. It had room to grow and be upgraded, like the T-34/85 for example. It was easy to service or repair, it was rugged and reliable, had good armor and gun, and everything worked on it.

The Sherman had only some of these traits. It was reliable and easy to service, but the gun and armor were lacking greatly.
The German tanks (all of them) were harder to repair and service (change a roadwheel on a Tiger or Panther) and thus they came up lacking here.

The T-34 was the best overall tank of WWII, and it was the overall part of it that determined how the fighting went.

Last edited by Richard Stanbery; January 14th, 2010 at 08:06 PM.
Richard Stanbery is offline  
Old January 16th, 2010, 09:17 AM   #25

Sandydragon's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Bedfordshire
Posts: 194
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspartam View Post
The most powerful tank does not mean the best tank. Before the demonstration of a mighty canon and strong armor on a battlefield the heavy tank must arrive at the battlefield. Often this was the great problem of heavy tanks; the tank, that, for example, was too heavy for small bridges, had low mobility in front-line area. This was typical for Königstiger (70 t!) and especially for the tank destroyer Panzerjager Tiger (75 t!) When you are driving, pay your attention to traffic signs near the bridges…
The heavy tanks were specific machines they solved rather bounded circle of problems. IS-2 was the heavy tank of front-line breakthrough, it can be said, IS-2 was the ram for subsequent mobile operations of T-34. Königstiger was, first of all, the tank destroyer (IS-2 had few chances in a duel with Königstiger) and it was the mobile basis of the active defensive.
Some time after WWII the heavy tanks was considered (first of all in USSR) as the best machines for operations under conditions of use of the nuclear weapon. But then this idea have lost its popularity and now we have only the universal main battle tank (the medium tank, in fact), such as American M1 Abrams or the Soviet / Russian T-family.

I think, the medium tanks were the real kings of battlefields of WWII, the best from them were:
Germany: PzIV (various modifications), PzV Panther (the medium tank according German classification, in USSR it was considered as the heavy tank)
USSR: T-34 and especially T-34-85.
USA: M4 Sherman (various modifications).

Agreed. Looking at muzzle size is just one aspect, particularly in a total war where the ease of production is sop very imporant.

If your looking at the best tank gun, the nthe German 88mm takes a lot of beating.

The Tiger was a big, well armoured beat, but it wasnt fast and wasnt that reliable. Also difficult to build in large numbers.

The ultimate production tank is a toss up between the T34 and the Sherman.

Overall I have to plumb for the T34/85.

It was capable of mass production.
It was well armoured. Not as well armoured as some but more than adequately and the sloping armour was a great concept.
It was fast and had decent range.
The 76mm gun was alright, but the 85mm was far better.
With the addition of an additional crew member so the tank commander could see the battle rather than fire the main gun, it became a superb weapon.

A bit speculative, but the British Centurian didnt miss the end of the war by much. If it had seen service, i think it would have done very well, given its subsequent performance elsewhere.
Sandydragon is offline  
Old January 18th, 2010, 10:03 PM   #26

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Depends on how you want to define "best". Best as in Veyron or best as in VW Beetles (both made by the same people by the way) one is the best car in the world that almost nobody can afford and the other one made the best advantage for the company. So yes, King Tiger was the best Veyron but the T-34 the best advantage for Russia and won them the battles. No matter how good the Veyron is ...if thousands of VW beetles are crashing into it...
rehabnonono is offline  
Old January 18th, 2010, 10:41 PM   #27
Superss
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,499
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Strongest tank!
The Tiger tank,it was strong.
T-34 it was fast but not strong like a Tiger.
If it was a speed thread,the T-34 would be the winner but its about which was the stronger tank in aroumor,the Tiger tank!
Heidi XX is offline  
Old January 19th, 2010, 07:44 PM   #28
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 36
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


the sherman
end of story
hitlers tiger tanks were fail
but packed heavy fire
~+Invisible-College+~ is offline  
Old January 19th, 2010, 07:57 PM   #29
Superss
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,499
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


the panther can also punche and strike heavily just like a tiger can.
fail mean nothing when it comes to the emeny tank knocking out youre tank stright away.

what makes the shermann tank so speicael?
Heidi XX is offline  
Old January 20th, 2010, 11:28 AM   #30

Chookie's Avatar
Creature of the Night
 
Joined: Nov 2007
From: Alba
Posts: 7,628
Blog Entries: 15
Re: Best tank of WW2 + A question


Quote:
Originally Posted by ~+Invisible-College+~ View Post
the sherman
end of story
The best tank was the Sherman? Not a chance. There was a reason for the nicknames it got - The Germans called it a "Tommy-cooker", the British called it a "Ronson" and the Poles called it "The Burning Grave". Why? Hit one and would tend either explode or catch fire.

It (at least in later models) was armoured and had a cross-country performance similar to Panzer IV (Panther). Where it could not compete was in the gun department.
Chookie is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
tank, ww2


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tank gashead War and Military History 20 December 17th, 2009 02:28 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 02:32 AM
Scholars in the Tank coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 0 April 14th, 2009 10:34 AM
WWI Mark V tank picture Bill Geizer General History 2 February 6th, 2007 02:17 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.