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 August 31st, 2015, 10:21 AM   #41

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
Thank god they didn't really bring out the Maus.
A shame actually. It would have been an absolute waste of resources on something that couldn't go anywhere and was a sitting duck for every Yak, Typhoon, Thunderbolt in the the theater. Tank Shmank when 500 lbers are coming at you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
The tranny was only one of many faults in the design. Panther always had trouble with their gear boxes, turrets and also fires. The point is made that the Germans possessed other, cheaper, options that would have been as effective or more effective .
Are you arguing a PZ IV is as effective as a Panther? In what fashion? Armor and weapon are inferior. More reliable yes. Frankly what the Germans needed was a Panther designed by American engineers.
But as has already been pointed out, either way it doesn't matter. They picked a fight with almost every major power on the globe at the same time. Plop a Leopard II down at the same cost as a Panther and they still will lose. It will be even bloodier, but mechanical breakdowns, artillery, and figher bombers are going to take them down or their support systems.

Also as noted, although the Germans developed heavies quickly, the Russians and French actually had them first, and there's no guarantee the Russians and British wouldn't have kept continuously upgrading just like they did.

Last edited by zincwarrior; August 31st, 2015 at 10:31 AM.
zincwarrior is online now  
Remove Ads
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:34 AM   #42
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Really? I have NEVER seen anyone overate the Sherman.

Mostly I see grudging acknowledgements that it pretty much stank.

Who has ever thought the Sherman was a great tank?
The Sherman was a great tank, for what it was designed to do. It was fairly fast and maneuverable , mechanically reliable , relatively well armored and well gunned, and easy and cheap to produce in quantity. Was it better than other tanks, in some ways yes, and in some ways , no, depends on what your needs are. It was used in every theater of operations, From the jungles of Burma to the Tundra of Russia, to the Desert of Libya. It was upgraded numerous times, and continued to be, until very recently. It defeated Germans, Italians, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and a host of Arab, South American and African nations, even when these other nations had , SUPPOSEDLY, better tanks.
With the exception of the T-34, name another Tank that has done , what the Sherman has done? Go ahead....
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:47 AM   #43
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
A shame actually. It would have been an absolute waste of resources on something that couldn't go anywhere and was a sitting duck for every Yak, Typhoon, Thunderbolt in the the theater. Tank Shmank when 500 lbers are coming at you.



Are you arguing a PZ IV is as effective as a Panther? In what fashion? Armor and weapon are inferior. More reliable yes. Frankly what the Germans needed was a Panther designed by American engineers.
But as has already been pointed out, either way it doesn't matter. They picked a fight with almost every major power on the globe at the same time. Plop a Leopard II down at the same cost as a Panther and they still will lose. It will be even bloodier, but mechanical breakdowns, artillery, and figher bombers are going to take them down or their support systems.

Also as noted, although the Germans developed heavies quickly, the Russians and French actually had them first, and there's no guarantee the Russians and British wouldn't have kept continuously upgrading just like they did.
A tank is only effective if it can get to the battle and do it's job. The PzIV could, and did, the Panther couldn't and didn't far too much of the time. Most people tend to be impressed by gunpower or horsepower, but reliability is much more important in combat.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:56 AM   #44

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
A tank is only effective if it can get to the battle and do it's job. The PzIV could, and did, the Panther couldn't and didn't far too much of the time. Most people tend to be impressed by gunpower or horsepower, but reliability is much more important in combat.
True, (as noted, they needed a Panther designed by Americans-aka the Pershing...) however that tank was equalled or outclassed by far more numerous and even more reliable American and Soviet vehicles, powers which were continually improving their lines. Would they have made more? Sure. Would those have done better though? its a horrific mathematic equation- more production balanced by the fact your enemies have better tanks than you do and still have the same number of enemy tanks. That I don't know.
zincwarrior is online now  
Old August 31st, 2015, 11:15 AM   #45
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
True, (as noted, they needed a Panther designed by Americans-aka the Pershing...) however that tank was equalled or outclassed by far more numerous and even more reliable American and Soviet vehicles, powers which were continually improving their lines. Would they have made more? Sure. Would those have done better though? its a horrific mathematic equation- more production balanced by the fact your enemies have better tanks than you do and still have the same number of enemy tanks. That I don't know.
I think it comes down to economics. The PzIV was a proven, reliable platform, which could be produced cheaper and in greater numbers, with a gun that was as good (or better) than you opponents. When your resources are dwindling, dramatically, that isn't the time to experiment with new and untried designs. Hitler was gambling that his wonder weapons would have the bugs worked out, in time to effect the course of the war. None of them ever did. Neither his new tanks, nor his V weapons , nor his jets were anything more than of secondary importance. Interesting as history, but that's about all.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 11:20 AM   #46

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 8,074

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
I think it comes down to economics. The PzIV was a proven, reliable platform, which could be produced cheaper and in greater numbers, with a gun that was as good (or better) than you opponents. When your resources are dwindling, dramatically, that isn't the time to experiment with new and untried designs. Hitler was gambling that his wonder weapons would have the bugs worked out, in time to effect the course of the war. None of them ever did. Neither his new tanks, nor his V weapons , nor his jets were anything more than of secondary importance. Interesting as history, but that's about all.
By the end of the war the Pz IV was at the end of its improvement capabilities. In war nothing stands still, and the Germans needed to produce new tanks that not only outclassed what the enemy had but also what the enemy might have. It should be remembered that the Tiger and Panther were first on the drawing boards when things were still going reasonable well for the Germans.
Bish is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 11:35 AM   #47

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
True, (as noted, they needed a Panther designed by Americans-aka the Pershing...)
The early Pershings were unreliable as well, but at least the US had enough spare parts to keep them going.
While the increase in late war German tank production looks impressive, one of the reasons they achieved this was they reduced the production of spare parts, this meant that combat units often had to use parts from other damaged/broken down tanks from their unit, reducing the total number of tanks they could actually field.

Last edited by redcoat; August 31st, 2015 at 11:42 AM.
redcoat is online now  
Old August 31st, 2015, 11:41 AM   #48

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
The early Pershings were unreliable as well, but at least the US had enough spare parts to keep them going.
Hey come on, that was a proto-type. It got better.
Its interesting that tank design weight kind of levelled off for a few decades, at a weight less than the King Tiger.

Last edited by zincwarrior; August 31st, 2015 at 11:45 AM.
zincwarrior is online now  
Old August 31st, 2015, 11:58 AM   #49

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bares View Post
There are statistics out there that show that Shermans had a surprisingly good KDR against Panthers, even scoring favourable KDRs
During the Normandy campaign there were two cases where a single Sherman (Firefly) took out 5 Panthers.
redcoat is online now  
Old August 31st, 2015, 12:05 PM   #50

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 4,752

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
I believe that the Tiger 2 was overrated and un-necessary, as was the Panther. The MKIV and Tiger 1 were fully capable of answering all of Germany's armor needs, and had most of the bugs worked out of them. In combination with the Assault guns, all of which could be built or altered with existing technology, cheaper and more efficiently. The Tiger 2 and Panther were unpardonable wastes of money and dwindling resources.

I fully agree with this. The Tiger I, once overcame its baby problems in 1942, became the most formidable tank in the world, still in 1945 to put German armoured forces ahead of its enemies.

Tiger I had a extremely high rate of victories (like 1-8 and even higher) and was part of a fully capable armoured force, so that it was the spearhead of the army. It was a superb platform of fire, extremly accurate because of its optics and firing system. By 1943, it became mechanically reliable and had a very good movility, almost as faster as medium tank, with a track pressure over the ground only second to T-34.

In short, the Tiger I achieved a balance between movility, firepower and protection. The fact that the Allies started many new developments to face this tank proves how good was.


Now, the Tiger II is another story. Never could get a good movility, which means that was almost useless. The Panther was plaged by mechanical problems and too weak protection.

So a good strategy to follow by Germany could be focusing on Tiger I, improved Panzer IV and masses of Stug-III and other simple designs. But Nazi Germany was dominated by corporative interests, ready to suck resources for themselves against common sense (something feed by Hitler, always obsesed with the newest devices) and tank production fell in chaos.
Frank81 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.