Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

That's a very interesting position. Certainly it does depend on how you define "influential" but you make a very strong case for putting the T-34 in that position as it really did seem to kick off the development of what became known as the MBT.

 

It seems chain of cause and effect started by the T34 to me. The Soviets designed the T34 according to what they wanted at that time and since the design was such a shock to the Germans it became a catalyst for rapid change in order to cope with it. The corresponding German AT weapons, Tigers and Panthers created the catalyst for new Allied designs. All the while the T34 evolved into better versions of itself until the new German equipment created a need for a new tank (the T44) which eventually became the T54, NATO armor's nemesis for 2 decades at least. So yes, I give the nod for most influential to the T34 but certainly not "finest".

 

Any minor web searching for a bio of Zaloga shows that he is considered an expert analyst in more than one area. For you to question his credentials in this manner is silly. I question what you think you are achieving by saying Zaloga is an "expert on identifying armor" and all that that entails but stating his expertise ends there. He has authored over 100 books but he is not a professional author? He analyzes pictures of armor but couldn't handle the analysis of the Panther? Oh, btw, we are not discussing armored warfare here.

Your attempt to belittle Zaloga and his expertise falls well short. I see similarity in his writings to that of Jentz and would not see any reason to include one man while excluding the other. This argument by you makes little sense and the adjective I used before seems to fit even better than before.

 

I like it. Well thought out and well reasoned. A much broader defintion of influence that we usually take but I think a better one.

 

In US usage anyway a "professional" is only requred to have a batchelors degree. Looking at Zaloga's page in Wiki at: Steven Zaloga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia he has a masters so he seems to meet the qualifications in that regard. His other credentials presented there would seem to support considering him a professional in regards to both this thread and most any other related to armored warfare.
Certainly the list of books at Amazon.co.uk: Steven J. Zaloga: Books also support this assesment. As does the list at: Steven Zaloga | LibraryThing
It mentions 173 all appear to be relevant to military history in the period from the SCW to the fall of the Soviet Union and most focus to some extent on armor (I may have missed a more recent title or three).

 

I look at this particular reference to Zaloga as a professional from the standpoint of armored warfare, where he most definitely is not a professional. He may be a professional author and considered a historian, there is specific criteria to meet in order to be considered a professional expert on armored warfare:
"Person formally certified by a professional body of belonging to a specific profession by virtue of having completed a required course of studies and/or practice. And whose competence can usually be measured against an established set of standards"
Zaloga was never a soldier, an officer, or a tanker, a tank mechanic, etc. Therefore I do not agree with considering him having any kind of expert opinion on target acquisition, crew training, etc. where does not use a citable reference. I too have a MA in history and mine happens to be specifically in WWII military history, therefore I probably read with greater scrutiny than some folks and get stuck on failures of detail that I consider important to the larger picture. I also have a sensitive nose for bias, so to speak. I hope that is a better explanation of my criticism, enough digression…

 

I appreciate the reply. Not to beat the digression to death but:

Steve assumed responsibilities for the World Missiles & UAVs Briefing during the summer of 1993. He also developed and maintains the International Defense Briefing as well as the UAV portion of our annual World UAV Systems Market Profile and Forecast. He is an author and analyst known worldwide for his articles and publications on military technology. He has written several dozen books on military technology and military history, including the recent The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Missile Force for the Smithsonian Press. In the missile field, he also has written Soviet Air Defense Missiles, published by Jane's in 1989 and two recent books in the Osprey New Vanguard series on the Scud ballistic missile and SA-2 Guideline SAM. Several of his books have been translated into Japanese, German, Polish, Czech, Romanian and Russian for foreign publication. He has been a contributor to Jane's Intelligence Review, and Jane’s Defense Weekly, wrote a monthly column for Armed Forces Journal International and writes regularly for Unmanned Systems magazine. He is on the executive board of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies.

Steve was a defense analyst from 1978 to 1986 with DMS, Inc., preparing studies in a variety of areas including electro-optics, armored vehicles, and missiles. He served as managing editor for special studies at DMS for two years, overseeing studies covering long-term trends in the defense and aerospace market. From 1987 through 1992, he was the main producer and writer for Video Ordnance, Inc., preparing their TV documentary series Firepower, which airs on the Discovery Channel and appears in more than 30 countries. Also, he has presented courses on Armor/Anti-Armor Technology for government and industry groups in the US and Europe for Technology Training Corp., and has widely lectured on military subjects at universities in the US.

Add to this the credentials that you mentioned.

I see no reason not to consider Zaloga informed and expert. His writings, observations and conclusions work well for me and I see no author that I would believe over him, nor any poster here. I do respect your education, Black 6, and the experiences of Pro-whatever, but I will easily accept Zaloga over you, as I would Hunnicutt, Jentz, et al. No offense. I do disagree with Zaloga on one major point, I do consider the Sherman to be the best tank of WWII.

 

JB, I'm not asking you or anyone else to take my opinion or word on a relatively anonymous internet forum over that of the written word of a published author that you trust. I'll go out on a limb here... The only thing that "should" happen if you find someone's argument "might" have some merit to it, is to ask questions of your favorite author's work and dig a little deeper. Why else chase history?

 

Sorry, but the padding is clearly visible on the picture, again you need glasses.

Also m kenny just involuntarily proved again that the TzF.12a was padded, having seen pictures of it himself. Pretty much ends the discussion, as it only serves to prove that Zaloga was wrong in yet another area when he wrote that the sight featured no padding.

 

Black6 - Good point and exactly my intentions. My current on deck reading list are Hunnicutt's Sherman, T-34: Mythical Weapon, Panzertruppen and Jane's Tank Technology (not sure of the order.) After that, Santa willing, will be Jentz' Panther and Hunnicutt's Pershing and Firepower. In the midst of all that I hope to retain this thread in my memory and find out what I can. If I get the sense that there is reason to question Zaloga's observations I will possibly contact him. I don't normally resort to contacting authors for any reason in deference to their privacy but in the age of internet this reluctance seems a little antiquated.

The reason I said "but I will easily accept Zaloga over you, as I would Hunnicutt, Jentz, et al." was that it seemed that your objections to Zaloga went beyond the norm. It is one thing to say you don't agree with a man's conclusions, it is another to question his qualifications as strongly as I felt you did.

 

You denied every piece of information about the system shared, so I'd say you made your opinion clear.

Really? And what was it that I denied exactly lwd? As I recall there were a few certain people denying everything written in both the Tiger & Panther's technical and crew manuals, relying instead purely on a single quote by Zaloga.

Again, really? Did they even try to interpret anything? As I recall, no, not once. They just used their std. tactic, deny deny deny.

But just out of interest, which part of the description in the manuals is it you think I interpreted incorrectly? We'll get a German to have a look at it. Won't change anything, but hey, if that's what you need to be convinced..

Erm, the debate was never over wether the system was hydraulic, a ten year old could figure that one out. The dispute was over them trusting blindly in Zaloga and ignoring the facts written in the original crew & technical manuals.

 

No, it isn't. Point it out.

 

Quick question here then. Why do you believe Zaloga over Jentz? Jentz is possibly the biggest authority on German armor today, and he doesn't share Zaloga's views.

 

It is very clear:



Before installation of brow padding (eye padding on):

 

Pro.... your illustrations are a work of art, I am in awe...
I can produce a decent powerpoint, but on an internet site? very nice.

Fair enough JB, its just my opinion and I don't think much of Zaloga's book (that one specifically, not a blanket indictment). It is rife with errors and inaccuracies (identified), bias (or at least slanted/incomplete data if not a book written on preconcieved notions with fragment facts to support them) and unsupported supposition in place of cited facts. Again just my opinion.

 

Thank you. What I see in the drawing of the turret interior looks like your photograph with NO padding. I see a difference in the two. In the drawing the eyepieces are the proudest surface, in you photo of the sight removed the padded surface is clearly the first thing you would contact. If I had to guess the drawing has the padding removed?

The early version does not look like a sight that would be easy/safe to maintain a visual of the battlefield while the tank is in motion. I'm guessing the padding is akin to what I've seen on padded binoculars or gunsights; not what I would want to press my eyes to in a moving tank. I'm not saying it can't be done or wasn't done, I'm just saying it could be better done. Probably why they added the padding later.

Thanks.

 

That's not what that sentence says. I do not know these authors well enough to know how they feel about each other's work. From my quick look at Jentz' resume I can't see how he would be viewed above anyone, but I have yet to read his books yet. The sentence states that I would believe Jentz over anyone here.

 

Fair enough JB, its just my opinion and I don't think much of Zaloga's book (that one specifically, not a blanket indictment). It is rife with errors and inaccuracies (identified), bias (or at least slanted/incomplete data if not a book written on preconcieved notions with fragment facts to support them) and unsupported supposition in place of cited facts. Again just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your vagueness here. If you want to discuss this, which I have to believe is why you posted this, than why not say what is on your mind.

 

JBark,

The brow & eye padding on the drawing is the same type as that on the picture beside it, here's another picture showing the same type brow pad:


Furthermore the eye padding should be the first thing you come into contact with to provide a nice seal, it being soft folded rubber extending a long way away from the first lense. The folded rubber design cushions the contact with the eye sockets and is very comfortable (it's used on some sniper rifle scopes as-well). It's not comparable to the rubber flaps found on most binoculars as it's soft folded rubber and therefore more comfortable. The adjustable brow pad is there to help you quickly obtaining the correct eye relief and keep your head steady whilst the tank is moving so you can maintain a good view through the sight.

And again the TzF.9 & 12 sights are articulated, meaning they don't move up or down with the gun, making sighting much easier for the gunner, esp. on the move.

Here's an illustration of the pivoting point:

 

They cite each others work actually and I'm sure they correspond. And no, I'm not looking to discuss Zaloga's Sherman vs. Panther. I would contribute in a dedicated thread, but it seems off topic in this one.