Best tanks of WWII????

[aferguson]

i saw a show like that but they had the Leopard II as number 1, Abrams was number 2. The T34 ranked down around 5 or 6 i think. Kind of hard to compare modern tanks to WW2 ones but it was pretty cool as they had live running vehicles for all of their choices.

[ltcbj]

If it were strategic (or tactical in the grand sense) success then I would go for the Panzer III. It led the Wehrmacht from 1939 to early 1943 as the German's primary battle tank. Yes, it was small, undergunned and inadequately armored, yet it brought a steady and unbroken stream of victories to the German cause.
On the other hand if you had to pick a tank to go one on one with another across a parade ground or at long range (or short for that matter) then I would choose the King Tiger. Nearly invulnerable and able to kill whatever it saw this would be the tank for me on a clear day with unlimited visibility.
If manouever and agility were called for, along with a lethal weapon and excellent armor the I would have to choose the Panther as my tank. It had reasonable speed for both the offense and in defense, excellent frontal armor and agility as well.
If I thought that the psychological factor was important I'd probably go with the Tiger. It was so good the Germans only used specially chosen and highly experienced men for its crews. Increasing its lethality thereby.
The T-34 was a superb tank and certainly the best in many factors when the war began- armor, speed, manoueverability, ruggedness, relaibility, agility and its wide treads gave it the ability to go where no tank went before- but its weaknesses, cramped and uncomfortable and inadequate communications made it less than a delight to fight out of and tended to isolate it on the battlefield.
The Sherman was as fast, and more comfortable but its permanently inadequate armor was a definite negative. It was not designed to fight other tanks (the procurement bureau deemed that) and its low velocity gun guaranteed it. More than capable against Japanese armor (such as it was) it was outclassed (though a more comfortable ride) by German armor from the PzIV on up.
My choice, all around would be the Panther, but that is a personal choice. Any modern tank from the M-47 on up would be more than a match for WW2 armor so comparison on a "who kills who" basis is not so much impossible as irrelevant. It is hard to choose the "best tank" when it was crew performance that is so important in contributing to tank performance. This choice (Panther) is based on a one-on-one type scenario and of course, in comparison to its contemporaries.
On the other hand-
My 'other' choice is the Panzer III. It not only made it through the entire war but it was instrumental in all of Germany's victories and had little to do with any of the defeats. That makes its importance nearly incalculable. *Without it there would have been no PanzerTruppe, no Blitzkrieg and no war*. I'd have to pick the Pz38(t) as the most important "save." Without it the Germans wouldn't have had enough armor to invade France, much less Russia.

*Yes, I am fullyt aware there would have been some other tank, but the PzIII was THE tank.*

[demonclaw]

[quote="GooglyDoogly"]Ah Allied armor get no respect. Many today seems to propagate the myth of Nazi ubermensch, without even realizing it. After reading numerous books, magazine articles, internet forum posts, several TV specials, here's what I gathered:

Back in 1941 at the start of Operation Barbarossa, German panzers met the T-34 and the KV tanks for the first time, totaly outclassing them in every level. Sometimes, 1 or 2 of these Russian tanks can hold out against entire German panzer divisions. It took the Germans special tactics, often using numerical superiority, and calling in a towed 88s or a Stuka attack to knock out these tanks.

[/quote]

The german was actually outnumbered during the invasion of soviet in 41 with 3 to 1 . The russians had 8000 operational tanks (out of 23 000 :D ) and the germans had around 3000 . And most of the germans tanks were inferior like the pz2 and pz3 (wich the majority of still used the 37mm gun) against tanks like t-26 ,bt-7 , kv1 - kv2 and so on . But the big advantage germany had was that they had radios in their tanks and most important of all superior training . The russians had to use flags to communicate with each other and the avarage traning of the tank crews was just a couple of hours (if even that) . So it was thanks to their superior tactics the germans totally crushed the Soviet forces in 41 just like in france where they also meet an overwhelming force with superior tanks .

[Teamski]

Ah Allied armor get no respect. Many today seems to propagate the myth of Nazi ubermensch, without even realizing it. After reading numerous books, magazine articles, internet forum posts, several TV specials, here's what I gathered:

Back in 1941 at the start of Operation Barbarossa, German panzers met the T-34 and the KV tanks for the first time, totaly outclassing them in every level. Sometimes, 1 or 2 of these Russian tanks can hold out against entire German panzer divisions. It took the Germans special tactics, often using numerical superiority, and calling in a towed 88s or a Stuka attack to knock out these tanks.

The german was actually outnumbered during the invasion of soviet in 41 with 3 to 1 . The russians had 8000 operational tanks (out of 23 000 ) and the germans had around 3000 . And most of the germans tanks were inferior like the pz2 and pz3 (wich the majority of still used the 37mm gun) against tanks like t-26 ,bt-7 , kv1 - kv2 and so on . But the big advantage germany had was that they had radios in their tanks and most important of all superior training . The russians had to use flags to communicate with each other and the avarage traning of the tank crews was just a couple of hours (if even that) . So it was thanks to their superior tactics the germans totally crushed the Soviet forces in 41 just like in france where they also meet an overwhelming force with superior tanks .

The situation was the same in the West as well. The Germans were outnumbered AND their tanks outclassed by the British and French forces in 1940-41. The allies used the very poor tactic of spreading out all of the armor to support the infantry. So tanks like the Char B1, Somua and Matilda were picked off piecemeal by concentrated German armor.

-Ski

[demonclaw]

[quote="Teamski"]
The situation was the same in the West as well. The Germans were outnumbered AND their tanks outclassed by the British and French forces in 1940-41. The allies used the very poor tactic of spreading out all of the armor to support the infantry. So tanks like the Char B1, Somua and Matilda were picked off piecemeal by concentrated German armor.

-Ski[/quote]

Yeah I mentioned that in my last sentence . Even Poland had more modern tanks than the germans in 39 (look up the 7tp ) since the germans mostly used the pz2 in the polish campaign .

[aferguson]

shows the importance of strategy and tactics in any conflict.

the germans were also very good at picking off the individual tanks of their enemies with large artillery guns, 88's or the Luftwaffe while the small, quick panzers rushed off to their next objective (since they couldnt do much against the armour of the enemy's tanks anyway)...

with their experiences, especially in Russia against t-34's and kv's, the germans knew that writing was on the wall, however and rushed to develop the tiger and panther.

[GooglyDoogly]

There goes the German mythos again. 8,000 tanks in the western frontier sound like a great number, but for the fact, that the majority of them are in disrepair, out of gas, unserviced, at the beginning of Barbarossa. In fact, only about 27% of total russian tanks were in battle-ready when the war began.

Plus the BT7 or T-26 (or any of the soviet old tanks) never posed as a serious threat to panzers, because of their thin armor. Especially the T-26 with its thin armor AND slow speed, it's a death trap.

The majority of soviet tanks at the beginning were crappy. The panzer IIIs and other german mediums have no problem dealing with them. This is supported by various memoirs of former panzer crews/commanders, telling their experience during WWII. It is when the big heavies started to appear that they encountered real trouble.

The KV 1, KV 2, and the T-34 were in such a small number in the beginning of the war that they caused havoc whenever they are encountered, but fortunately for the Germans, these encounters are few and far between. So yes, in pure numbers, the Germans were outnumbered. But does that mean that the Germans overwhelmed a vastly superior enemy at the beginning of the war? Hardly.

[demonclaw]

[quote="GooglyDoogly"]There goes the German mythos again. 8,000 tanks in the western frontier sound like a great number, but for the fact, that the majority of them are in disrepair, out of gas, unserviced, at the beginning of Barbarossa. In fact, only about 27% of total russian tanks were in battle-ready when the war began.

Plus the BT7 or T-26 (or any of the soviet old tanks) never posed as a serious threat to panzers, because of their thin armor. Especially the T-26 with its thin armor AND slow speed, it's a death trap.

The majority of soviet tanks at the beginning were crappy. The panzer IIIs and other german mediums have no problem dealing with them. This is supported by various memoirs of former panzer crews/commanders, telling their experience during WWII. It is when the big heavies started to appear that they encountered real trouble.

The KV 1, KV 2, and the T-34 were in such a small number in the beginning of the war that they caused havoc whenever they are encountered, but fortunately for the Germans, these encounters are few and far between. So yes, in pure numbers, the Germans were outnumbered. But does that mean that the Germans overwhelmed a vastly superior enemy at the beginning of the war? Hardly.[/quote]

I guess you mean the astern front and if you look again you can see that I wrote that Russia had 8000 working tanks out of 23 000 . And I also wrote that the most of the german tanks consisted of the pz2 and pz3(with the 37mm gun) which were quite inferior to soviet tank during that time . The t-26 and the bt-7 may not be the best tank around but they were better than the pz2 and the pz3 in 41 . It was the bad traning and lack of communication that made it possible for the germans to totally overwhelm the vastly superior russian tank forces .

And i wouldnt call the number of soviet heavy tanks small since they had 639 kv-1 tanks in the beginning of barbarossa . But they suffered the same problems as the other tank forces (bad traning and communication) . But the heavy tanks were also made for more a stastic war and not the quick mobile war the germans launched in russia which rendered the kv tanks useless .


To add something to the kv-2 dicussion I must say that it isnt considered a tank , its a heavy armored moblie artillery . Its perfect for a stastic defense but worthless in a mobilewar . Thats why only 250 was made in 40-41 and quicky drawn from production .

[STUKA]

The PZ III was used in support for the Tigers - once they arrived
The russian tanks were sitting ducks for luftwaffe.

The problem is the russians just kept comming - an endless supply

Imagine playing space invaders - everytime you shoot an alien three more take its place.

where did that come from?

[GooglyDoogly]

24,000 is the total Soviet tank strength, but that includes both western front (german/russian border), and the eastern front(in mongolia and siberia).

So how many of that was in the western front to combat the Germans? We know that the Soviets were'nt able to transport the eastern units to the western front because of logistics, plus the fear that the Japanese would enter the war against them. So only around winter that they were able to transfer those eastern divisions to the west to combat the Germans in Moscow. (because of spies that convinced them that Japan has no intention of going to war against them)

And less than 25% of that is in working order. Plus the fact that the new 76mm ammo for the KVs and T-34s were virtually nonexistent. Most tanks were sent out to battle with only half the ammo capacity, sometimes with even less. Add that to the maintenance, and fuel problems, and you got easy pickings for the panzers. It's easy to beat up a big strong man if he's tied down and unable to fight.

And like I said, just because the 37mm is smaller, doesn't mean it's impotent. Against the Matildas and Chars? Yes. But against BT series and the T-26? They were more than capable in defeating these tank. The T-26 has what, 15-25mm of armor (depending on the type), the 37mm can easily penetrate that at 500 meters.

At the beginning of the war, Soviet tanks were deployed singly or in groups of 2 or 3 anyway. So a whole german tank company or platoon might encounter one or two soviet tanks, so the number game were in German favor. In fact, the Germans used numerical superiority to outflank these soviet tanks when 88s or airstrikes are not available. Kinda like the Sherman tanks later in the war....

Numbers in paper looks good in favor of the Soviets, but the reality in those times showed a completely different scenario.

The Germans weren't slowed down in Barbarossa by mass numbers of Soviet tanks, they were slowed down by the increasing bitter resistance of Soviet infantry. Until the factories were reassembled in the Urals, the Soviets had a crisis in decreasing stock of weapons and vehicles, so they used the only thing they have left, mass numbers of human lives.

[demonclaw]

[quote="GooglyDoogly"]24,000 is the total Soviet tank strength, but that includes both western front (german/russian border), and the eastern front(in mongolia and siberia).

So how many of that was in the western front to combat the Germans? We know that the Soviets were'nt able to transport the eastern units to the western front because of logistics, plus the fear that the Japanese would enter the war against them. So only around winter that they were able to transfer those eastern divisions to the west to combat the Germans in Moscow. (because of spies that convinced them that Japan has no intention of going to war against them)

And less than 25% of that is in working order. Plus the fact that the new 76mm ammo for the KVs and T-34s were virtually nonexistent. Most tanks were sent out to battle with only half the ammo capacity, sometimes with even less. Add that to the maintenance, and fuel problems, and you got easy pickings for the panzers. It's easy to beat up a big strong man if he's tied down and unable to fight.

And like I said, just because the 37mm is smaller, doesn't mean it's impotent. Against the Matildas and Chars? Yes. But against BT series and the T-26? They were more than capable in defeating these tank. The T-26 has what, 15-25mm of armor (depending on the type), the 37mm can easily penetrate that at 500 meters.

At the beginning of the war, Soviet tanks were deployed singly or in groups of 2 or 3 anyway. So a whole german tank company or platoon might encounter one or two soviet tanks, so the number game were in German favor. In fact, the Germans used numerical superiority to outflank these soviet tanks when 88s or airstrikes are not available. Kinda like the Sherman tanks later in the war....

Numbers in paper looks good in favor of the Soviets, but the reality in those times showed a completely different scenario.

The Germans weren't slowed down in Barbarossa by mass numbers of Soviet tanks, they were slowed down by the increasing bitter resistance of Soviet infantry. Until the factories were reassembled in the Urals, the Soviets had a crisis in decreasing stock of weapons and vehicles, so they used the only thing they have left, mass numbers of human lives.[/quote]


More than half of he soviet tanks were stationed in the west and it was also those tanks that had to work since they may be used in a war with Germany , so I would say that most of the 8000 working tanks were facing the germans . And I must stress out that the the russian had better tanks overall because the german tank forces still consisted mostly of light tanks (numbers below) . The bt-7 or the t-26 could take on the pz3 within the same range with their 45mm gun but i dont consider them to be better tanks than the pz3 . But during the beginning of barbarossa the pz3 werent even a third of the tanks and pz4/stg3 was used as infantry support . So the germans had to use mostly inferior tanks to destroy the soviet forces in 41 which they succeded in thanks to their superior training and tactics


German tanks during the beginning of barbarossa

410 Pz I
746 Pz II
149 Pz 35(t) (t=czech)
623 Pz 38(t)
965 Pz III
439 Pz IV
250 StuG III

Yeah the tactics of the Soviet tank forces were quite ineffective and were used in small groups as you said (just like in france) . But ive already said that the germans had superior training and tactics so they could defeat a much bigger force . And of course it wasnt the tanks that halted the germans since most of the russian tank forces was destroyed during the first months .

[GooglyDoogly]

It's funny, because the tactics the germans used early in the war against superior enemy tanks is the same as the Allies used combating heavy German Tanks. Bring in heavy artillery or airstrikes, or use superior number to engage and pin down the enemy, while a contingent outflank the enemy tank and destroy it from the rear or sides.

But today, the Germans are heralded in destroying "superior" enemy forces using "inferior" tanks during the early years of the war, yet the Allies and their Shermans, and the Soviets and the T-34s are usually the brunt of jokes and ridicules in the armor community. Why is that?

[demonclaw]

[quote="GooglyDoogly"]It's funny, because the tactics the germans used early in the war against superior enemy tanks is the same as the Allies used combating heavy German Tanks. Bring in heavy artillery or airstrikes, or use superior number to engage and pin down the enemy, while a contingent outflank the enemy tank and destroy it from the rear or sides.

But today, the Germans are heralded in destroying "superior" enemy forces using "inferior" tanks during the early years of the war, yet the Allies and their Shermans, and the Soviets and the T-34s are usually the brunt of jokes and ridicules in the armor community. Why is that?[/quote]

The germans never had more tanks a then enemy (except in Poland) so they had to use blitkrieg tactic to win over superior forces . The allies on the other could attack on the whole front because thay much more tanks and men than the germans .But These tactic were quite costly for the allies , in the west there was an 3:1 allies vs axis tanks ratio and in the east 10:1 . The ratio for men was in the west 3:2 and one can only imagine how it was on the eastern front . The germans on the other were able to destory superior forces in France and in Russia in a short time with relativly minimal casualties . Thats why that are held so high by millitary people


And the German tanks werent superior than the Russian at any time . Even if they had some superior models like the tiger and the panther most of the tanks were pz3,pz4 and stug3/4 and none of these were better than the t-34 wich was the most produced tank in the war . And on the western front heavy tanks was rare sight , ive read than the germans had less than 10 operational tigers at any time on the western front in 44 for example

[STUKA]

If Hitler had not been so high on Meth. he may have waited a bit before pushing into Russia.

This would have allowed more reinforcement and manpower for the western front - probably stalling D-Day and other offensive plans.

Japanese may have looked a bit more closely at Russia for resources.

I understand Japan was island hopping for strategic land for air bases and naval harbour for strikes against australia and US.

but that stretched their limits as well - Imagine had they spent more resources in China, Korea, southeast asia - sheesh they could have walked into India, Pakistan and taken on Russia on three fronts - south, east, and north.

It is all interesting stuff - what could have happened...

[GooglyDoogly]

Again, you guys are talking numbers in papers. Did you really think that in every actual combat, a sherman crew can look to their side and see hundreds and hundreds of Shermans right beside them, ready to storm the next hedgrow?

No. More often than, the scenario is a platoon of 4 shermans, cautiously moving through a village, hoping not to get ambushed by a Tiger.

So in reality, in actual combat, the Germans usually had more tanks than their enemy, (during combat, not in paper) at least in the beginning of the war.

Say a whole company of Pz IIIs encountered a single T-34 in a village. Hmmm...that's a whole company of tanks of maybe 12 tanks, VS a single T-34. Would the T-34 crew take comfort in knowing that Russia has 24,000 tanks and Germany only has 3,000? NO. Because those 23,999 other tanks are not there beside them.

Number games isn't really a good way of telling who's the best, or who's the worst. If that's the case, then the Germans should have steam-rolled over Allied defenses on the Bulge, since they outnumbered them (at the beginning), and fought unexperienced American divisions and "inferior" tanks.

And if the Germans have mostly "inferior" tanks like the Pz II and III, then why do modellers prefer them over "superior" tanks like the Matildas, T-34, Char Bs, or the Sherman? I don't want to say that these people are giving in to Nazi propaganda of ubermensch, but....

And as a side note, Japan would never have gone to war against the Soviets. Hitler pleaded with them early in 1942 onwards, giving them gifts, etc. But the Japanese refused. This was the time when Japan seemed almost invincible. Why did the Japanese refused?

Because in April 1939, General Zhukov (what a surprise) handed the Japanese veteran Kwantung Army it's most horrible defeat at the time when the Japanese invaded outer Mongolia. The battle is called the Nomonhan incident, or the Battle of river Halka.

[STUKA]

that is good stuff - I just spent an hour reading up on the Nomonhan incident. Thanks

[MG-42]

I wanted to share what I know about the Pershing. Which is one of my most favorite tanks. Actually,..it's the T-25 E1. ....Updating the Armor : The best and most "modern" American tank of the war, the Pershing had a low silhouette and armor well angled for maximum deflection. One Pershing survived 13 consecutive hits from a German 75-mm tank gun at 1,200 yards without one complete penetration. Moreover, its 90-mm gun enabled it to outshoot its main rival, the German Tiger I MkVI. ....Crew : 5 ,...Length : 20 ft.9'inches,...Weight : 34-7 tons,...Range : 75 miles,...Top speed : 20 mph,...Armament : One 90-mm gun, one -50-inch and one -30-inch machine-gun. Armour : 89-mm. End Note : The Pershing was developed to replace the M6, whose weight posed grave transport problems: We found it easier to ship two medium tanks of 35 tons ea., than one heavy tank of 65 tons.