Tanks of WW2

Colin · #1 (**permalink**) January 27th, 2003, 12:14 AM

I was wondering, what was the best tank from Germany and the U.S. and did one have a better chance of surviving that the other? Thanks.

charlie don't surf · #2 (**permalink**) January 27th, 2003, 12:59 AM

The best German tank would probably be the Panther. United States practically only had the Sherman but the Pershing saw some action and might be a good candidate.

Here's a good link about german armour:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm

Best regards/ Daniel

CrazyD · #3 (**permalink**) January 27th, 2003, 01:51 PM

The Pershing was a great AMerican tank for it's time, but as CDS suggests, it hardly saw any service in WW2. From what I understand only a few Pershings were rushed over to the European theater during the last month or so of the war.

Colin brings up an interesting idea though- the most surviveable tank of the war? Not necessarily the best tank of the war, but in you'alls opinions, which was the most surviveable tank of the war?

The german Tiger I and II would be obvious candidates due to their armor and size. But if we include battlefield reliability, does the T-34 win out?

TheRedBaron · #4 (**permalink**) January 27th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Best german tank the tiger I, otto carius remarked that he would not go into battle in anything else. The Panther suffered from transmission problems and poor quality steel which caused splinters to fly around the tank from non penetrating hits and had an awful shot trap under the mantlet. But it still was a highly classy tank.
Allied tanks, well big pile of poo really... till the pershing and comet arrive.
But if you want to pick a war winner then its the T-34...

Erich · #5 (**permalink**) January 27th, 2003, 11:36 PM

T-34 ? sorry wouldn't want to even be in one. Cramped, bad optics and easily blown up by almost all the German armor arsenal. You seen plenty of T-34's with their turrets blown off and not all due to internal explosions either. Due to the high velocity weapons the Germans had at their disposal ? Maybe the JS 2 or Tiger II Königstiger would have the fairest chance to survive given it would not be caught in the mud/marshes and had plenty of fuel reserves. All tanks had their soft spots.

E

CrazyD · #6 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 02:19 PM

RedBaron, I was thinking more along the lines of just looking at battlefield survival- not necessarily being a "war winner" or not. If we are looking at a tank that was a "war winner", I think the T-34 is clearly in first place...

But on the survivability...

Erich, if fuel was even the slightest concern, the King Tiger would definetely not be a good bet! About 3 gallons of gas used for each mile...

And not sinking in marshes??? The King Tiger (and the Tiger for that matter) were both famous for things like that! One of the reasons Operation Spring Awakening was such a failure was due to all the heavy armor sinking in the mud!!!

T-34's could definetely be taken out by a hit from a good gun, but that same was true for all tanks

T-34 was...
A. FAR more reliable than ANYTHING the germans had in their arsenal. I've never read a single source that claims otherwise.
B. FAR better mobility... again, not sure where you are getting the sinking in the mud thing- T-34s had wider treads than most tanks. And the engine could produce decent speeds...

The optics were bad... and there was no radio. but it's not like there were NO optics, and the gun from a T-34 could knock out a Tiger, just not as easily as the vice-versa.

But if we are talking about surviving on the battlefield, I'd rather have the sloped armour and mechanical reliability of the T-34.

Keep in mind that the greatest causes of Tiger and King Tiger tanks being put out of action was often related to breakdowns or lack of fuel.

The IS-2 would be a good choice also, but the slow-loading gun was a major drawback...

[ 28. January 2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

Kai-Petri · #7 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 02:57 PM

T-34 was the king of the hill 1941-1942. So I think when Germany started having Tigers and Panthers I do think we can and should bring the T-34/85 into the picture as well from late 1943 on.

"It was designated as T-34/85 and by the end of the war some 29430 tanks were produced"

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm

More on Tigers and other tanks and fire power etc...

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

Erich · #8 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 03:40 PM

I think you guys are misreading my posts again......

I gave a couple of reasons why the JS 2 and Königstiger was a bad choice and that being it's wieght with the lack of fuel and possiblity of getting stuck in bad terrain. The King tiger was not a good offensive weapon due to it's speed disadvantage. As for a defensive weapon the tank sepaks for itslef and one favorite unit of mine with over 450 kills speaks for itself in 1945.

As for spring awakening it was more than mud that stopped the W-SS units, it was lack of proper recon, hilly gound and the evasive and intense anti-tank protection that the Soviets had mustered en masse. If you study closely the maps you'll find that I. and the II SS Panzer Korps did remarkably well with all things including weather against them. But again a plan ill conceived.

You may take your T-34's speed and the masses that roamed the fields but I will take a hard hitting high velocity weapon like the 8.8cm any day.....

E

CrazyD · #9 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 05:22 PM

[ 12. May 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

~~Kampfgruppe - von Root~~ · #10 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 05:54 PM

I think the T-34 was a great tank, excellent mobility, good firepower, good armor. Bad Russian command & control tactics doomed many T-34's. Russian commanders were more concerned with taking their objectives, if you lose 50% of your tanks taking Hill 123 away from the Germans so be it, we can replace our losses and in the meantime were one step closer to Berlin.

Martin Bull · #11 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Hello KG Root - and welcome to the Forums ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Peppy · #12 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 07:05 PM

I agree with Kampfgruppe, the T-34 was a good solid tank and it was available in great numbers. I remember reading somewhere that there were more T-34 built than the Germans built AFV's! That's a lot or armor.

Welcome aboard Kampfgruppe.

[ 29. January 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Peppy ]

Erich · #13 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 07:55 PM

Crazy why are you questioning my questioning ? ! and yes I am on hard drugs !

I know the muck gave the Germans problems but I am trying to say that it was more than that that stalled out the offensive......ok ?

I've got copies of several German maps of the offensive from the II.SS Panzer Korps.....very interesting.

And yes I'll take all of you on you Soviet bums !!, even if I am out of the panzer taking a leak !

I'll hit you before you come off the hill even if you are rushing me at 35 mph.....har !

ok time for more drugs.....yeah !

E

CrazyD · #14 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 08:25 PM

[ 12. May 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

CrazyD · #15 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Ah, back to the subject of the most surviveable tank...

Quote:

Bad Russian command & control tactics doomed many T-34's.

This is a good point in regards to the T-34 (and welcome, KG!). When looking at the battlefield surviveability (got that, Erich?) of a tank, I would say we should stay away from looking at the actual use during the war. This is a perfect example- early in the war, the russians were not especially skilled at armored tactics. This led to many instances where tanks were essentially sent to the slaughter in hopes of overwhelming the germans. Even later in the war, russian generals were notorious for having little regards for casualites- including tanks.

BUT- at least in my opinion, these aspects are related to HOW a certain tank was used- not the tank itself. If we are assessing only the tank itself, we should simply look at the tank on a one-for-one basis.
And even in this case, I would tend to stay away from manufacturing and numbers- IF, that is, we are still looking at battlefield surviveability.

Let's look back at the thread topic-

Quote:

did one have a better chance of surviving that the other?

My take was to look at each tank on an individual basis, and asses the question- would one have a better chance of surviving than another?

IMO, the T-34 wins out in nearly all the categories, ESPECIALLY if we consider the T-34/85. Mechanical reliability- T-34's only competition would be the Sherman. Mobility- again, only competition with T-34 would be the Sherman maybe... Armor- some tanks certainly had more, but the T-34 had enough sloped armor to compete. And in many of the cases of a tank with more armor, mobility was sacrificed (unless we use Erich's first King Tiger). Combat Effectiveness- Early war, the T-34 had no real competition. By the later years of the war, the T-34/85, other tanks had slightly better guns and optics, but the T-34/85 certainly could hold it's own. The 85mm gun could almost compete with the 88, and could relaitvely easily take out MOST enemy tanks.

If we look at something like the Tiger I- it hads thick armor, a good gun, radio, and good optics. but Mobility- almost none in rough country. Reliability- even less than mobility.

charlie don't surf · #16 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Hi crazy, I think you misunderstood erich's first post. He said that the Königstiger and the JS2 would be good if they wouldn't get stuck in a swamp or run out of fuel.

Best regards/ Daniel [img]smile.gif[/img]

Erich · #17 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Ta Da ! hurrah for Daniel ! that's exactly what my post was about. Man Crazy you need to chill and come over here to Oregon so we can go climb some big peaks. You've got crampons and an Ice axe right ?

I'll still take a Panther Ausf G over your T-34 variants any day. Would be interesting if there are notes on tactics concerning the Survivabilty of German versus Russian crews with said tanks. Who would most likely survive a hit ?

don't get bent man, it's not worth it. You're still young ......who needs an ulcer.

E

Erich · #18 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2003, 10:29 PM

by the way C, do you have an 8th AF text book for a critique yet ?

E

CrazyD · #19 (**permalink**) January 29th, 2003, 05:26 AM

[ 12. May 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

CrazyD · #20 (**permalink**) January 29th, 2003, 05:33 AM

I don't get bent...

I just get amused...

[ 29. January 2003, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

Peppy · #21 (**permalink**) January 29th, 2003, 06:10 AM

Crazy you must be one happy guy, becuase you get amused a lot. heehee

I agree with Erich, I'd much rather be in a Panther or a Tiger than a T-34. Those german tanks could reach out and touch the T-34 when the 34 was still not in effective range.

I'm not even going to delve into things like the lack of a commander's cupola, inferior optics, no radio, and bad command and control associated with the T-34, (and all Soviet tanks for that matter). Issues that were somehwat solved later in the war.

To my mind srvivability is determined based on an individual tank by tank basis. Overall I'd take the Tiger/Panther combo over anything else. Seems to me like they survived a hell of a lot of abuse, and dished out their fair share.

This is my whole argument here: if you match a single T-34 vs a single Tiger, the Tiger's gonna drive away the victor in the overwhelming majority or engangements.

Erich · #22 (**permalink**) January 29th, 2003, 01:24 PM

Amused ?

interesting......sorry for the complete lack of grammar on my part, you will not see me here again.

CrazyD · #23 (**permalink**) January 29th, 2003, 02:04 PM

That is a valid comparison on the Tiger and T-34. In a combat engagement, odds are the Tiger would win. Especially considering the optics advantage mentioned- the Tiger would have a far better chance of hitting it's target!
BUT- I would add to this... If the Tiger was unable to make it to the combat engagement, the isue is moot. If the mechanical problems notorious to Tiger Is and IIs reared their head, the Tiger would not be engaging the T-34- it would be getting towed back to the shop, or, almost as common, abandoned. If the Tiger ran out of fuel- fuel which the T-34 consumed at about 1/4 the rate- again, the Tiger would not arrive to the location of cambat, again giving the advantage to the T-34.

I'd say looking at battlefield surviveability must take into account the entire combat action. Not just the actual direct fighting- but approaching the combat zone, engageing the enemy, and resolving the combat (retreat, dig in, advance, etc.). In the "engaging the enemy" category, in many cases the german tanks win out. But in the "approaching the combat zone" category, many of the heavier german tanks (including the Panther) had major trouble (the best example immediately coming to mind would be the 200 Panthers at Kursk "approaching" the combat zone- and only about half making it there). And in the final category- "resolving the combat"- this would be the real area where german heavy tanks would have major trouble surviving. Breakdowns in these vehicles were especially common as a result of combat action. Vehicles get stuck in the heat of combat, vehicles take damage, constant varied engine use leads to more engine damage... And I'd just have the feeling that if one considers all these aspects, the T-34 still comes off with a bit of an edge.

And keep in mind here I'm not really looking at crew surviveability. Essentially, from my point of view, in looking at the tanks like this, once the crew exits the tanks the "equation" is done. If the crew is not operating the vehicle after the battle, obviously it has not "survived" in serviceable condition.

[ 12. May 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]