Best Tank of WW2??????

I just ran across "Panther vs Sherman" by Steven Zaloga. His introduction covers many of the Panther problem sources including weight creep and armor quality as well as the "vices and virtues" of the Sherman. Short (80 pages) and nicely worded.

This book specifically speaks to the "Bulge" era. He addresses Panther's lack of numbers, insufficiency of spare parts, and lack of crew training. For the M4, he gives numbers for high availability due to reliability as well as the rationale for the (relatively) short 75MM gun on the early versions.

He also talks to "he who shoots first, wins" as perhaps the most important armored combat factor.

 

This is the biggest question about WW2 armour. Which one was the best.

Was it the T-34 with its Christie suspension, sloped armour and wide tracks powered, powered by a diesel
engine.
Or the Sherman that was so reliable that it could stay in the field fighting long after the German tanks had to retire.
Maybe the Panther that was a technologic wonder and could kill 9 T-34's or 5 Shermans to the cost of a single
Panther.

 

!

Ha ha ha ha ha ho heehee ah ha hehe... HA.. and I thought my jokes were bad.

Few. Let me take a breather.

Please refer to the Dead Horse and Sacred Cows section of the forum. I am sure this topic had been covered!

 

Exactly this is just a :skull: thread and a :deadhorse: subject.

 

Do yourself a favour and at least read the rest of the thread.

Thank you.

 

Quote from Kevin Wheatcroft on the History Channels
"Tank Overhaul"

"Once the Panther was sorted technically for battle it was virtually unstopable in its time, it worked a ratio of about 5 Shermans or 9 T-34s as a kill ratio just to knock one out"

I would be quite willing to take his word for it as he is an authority of some renown about tanks and actually owns a Panther.

Not here to raise S**t and if someone could point me in the direction of other reports stating otherwise I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Wheatcroft is wrong. I doubt you could find more than one or two cases of Panther tanks achieving that ratio (5 to 1). The only two that I know might fit that category have far more to do with crew quality than the tank. Both of those involve Ernst Barkmann, a tank ace. Once in Normandy and once in the Bulge at Manahy he achieved those ratios.
In most cases throughout the Lorraine campaign and the US sweep across France the ratio was better than 1 to 1 in favor of the Sherman. 4th US AD around Nancy in the September battles against Panther heavy panzer brigades virtually always got more Panthers than they lost in Shermans.
As Steven Zaloga puts it in Lorraine 1944: Patton vs. Manteuffel "The popular myth of the superiority of German tanks in combat in north-west Europe is belied by the record of their actual performance. In an engagement of the type seen around Arracourt, with both sides in an offensive posture and neither side enjoying particular numerical advantage, panzer units were overcome by superior American training and tactics." (emphsis mine)
I could dredge up the individual after action reports for dozens of tank on tank battles in NW Europe. The US gives as good or better than they get in, easily, 90% of them. The Panther has little advantage in the rolling, vegitated, heavily urbanized landscape of western Europe. All-to-often engagements are fought at 500 yards or less where the Panther has no armor or gun advantage. At those ranges even the US 105mm firing heavy wall HE rounds can stove in the glacis of a Panther with catastrophic damage.

 

There are no recorded or official records that states or show so that ratio. Originally it came from somewhere,I can't remember offhand right now, and it was stated in regards to the Tiger. And owning a Panther does not make you an exept. I seriously doubt that Wheatcroft has even been in combat with it LOL. I happen to own a few WWII issued weapons and I would never claim to be an expert. I own two cars. Still not an expert in the either. The ratio is just an unsubstansiated myth. Even more so in regards to the Panther.

Invincible Panther and Panzer myth smashed
http://www.ww2f.com/battle-europe/25518-us-37th-armored-regiment-arracourt-battle-tanks.html

History Channel as factual
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/23353-do-you-consider-history-channel.html

Like I keep saying this is just a :skull: thread and a :deadhorse: subject

 

Always a fun topic and everyone will stick with their favorites regardless of what the other guy says...but what the hey let's have some fun shall we!

I would go with the Panther if I were a Tanker and given a choice. For gun power, armor and mobility it compares favorably against it's rivals the T-34 and the Sherman. However I am not blind to the fact that it is a logistical headache to keep in the field. Having been rushed into the field before it was ready and overly complicated in it's mechanics it still had superior qualities that made it (Providing it was well maintained) more than a match against the other 2.

Why then did the Panthers ultimately loose. Strategicly it was always easier for the allies to keep their tanks in service and numericly they could afford the losses. In the West allied airpower was the single greatest tank killer and something no amount of armor will ever remedy. In the East the crushing weight of a renewed Soviet military to go along with their hell bent for leather desire to get at the Germans...even if it meant taking what by anyone elses standards would be considered unacceptable losses.

In post war conflicts it's interesting to look at how the Sherman fared against the T-34. In the Middle East, Korea and Africa the much vaunted T-34 didn't do so well against the Sherman. Much of this has to do with operational doctrine but what can't be overlooked is secondary considerations that make a tank into a efficient combat platform. The Panther had a deep suspension which gave a smooth ride and stable gun platform. It's optics were better than either of it's 2 counterparts and when coupled with the power of the Panthers 75 it was quite reasonable to consider a 90% first round hit probability as being realistic.

The Sherman had of course a stabalized gun and decent optics as well as a efficient crew layout. The T-34 for much of the war did not have good optics, an inefficient crew layout and in many cases no radios which made tactical coordination difficult if not impossible. Hence the edge would go to the Sherman even if the primary considerations of gun and armor were against it.

The last consideration and one that no one realy ever talks about is crew survivability. In this regard the Panther wins hands down. The Sherman is the worst in this regard as it cought fire so easily (In comparison to the other 2). The product quality of the T-34 left much to be desired. Poor welding meant seams would break apart leading to a fair amount of spalling. Metalugical standards were inferior to the other 2 reducing the effectivness of the armor and compounding the spalling problem.

Having gone through all this the last question would be this. As a crewman what would you want to be in? In that regard I would take the Panther...this answers the question on a tactical level only.

 

JC does that mean you agree or disagree with that statement? Am hoping you meant that to be 'agree'.
The British Typhoons and the American P-47's made it virtually impossible for the German forces to move
freely and unmolested during the daytime. The Allied forces were very much more likely to send in bombers
and found that they had great succes using this arm of the military. That is why in Post War America
the aircraft became king, while in the Soviet Union they went towards the Tank as being the principle weapon.
Each country made preeminant the arm of the military that they had the most success in WW2.

 

If you find the thread so annoying and beating a dead horse, why bother reading it or for that matter posting in it if it is some how beneath you?Those who choose to do so enjoy the discussion and hey to each their own.

The Panther was a good tank and probably..in my opinion the best all rounder of the war. I've had the change to go over an example of the Panther, the T-34/85 and various Shermans. The arguement (debate) is academic as what truly makes a tank lethal or not is the manner in which it is used.

German Panzers defeated both French and British forces as a result of better tactical handling than qualitive superiority. Early encounters with T-34's saw just as many of them lost through inept crew training as enemy fire. The Germans in Normandy fought well against impossible odds as is evidenced by their eventual defeat.

Patton without question was a good commander. I wouldn't put him on the level of Von Manstein but then there are few that I would. He was certainly better than Montgomory or Zuhkov...again my opinion. Was he equal or superior to Rommel or Guderian. I'm not so sure but wouldn't go so far as to outright say he wasn't.

Consider if you will. Being in a numericly inferior position Germany defeated both France and Britain in Europe in the space of only a few months. The Western allies required from June through to May to defeat Germany and that was all the while with the Soviet Union fighting in the East.

Speaks volumes about the useage of the Panzers under the most sever of circumstances. The Panther achieved a remarkable reputation in the field...could it have altered the final outcome...no! But what it did do was telling in that so many vetrans still fear the thing. Can the same claim be made by either the Sherman or T-34, probably not.

 

Best Tank of WW2 is the Tiger I with it's 11-12:1 combat kill ratio against enemy tanks (mostly Soviet). Half were abandoned during retreats and breakdown so the final tally is around 6:1. It was a short range vehicle with half of the range of a Panzer IV that performed its intended role (defense, breakthrough) pretty well.

I'm not sure about that 5:1 Sherman/ 9:1 T-34 figure, though. It may be a combat tally rather than one that includes abandoned Panthers (which were nearly 2/3rds of the Panther force in 1944/1945 in Normandy/Ardennes)

I do remember reading about some 500+ T-34s being lost in the Ukraine (solely to Panthers? I forgot) post Kursk 1943 and in the actual fighting, only a few dozen Panthers out of the hundred that participated were actually knocked out. Almost 2/3rds were abandoned during the subsequent retreat.

There is also a description of a Panther Action by a SS Panther Company in the Ukraine that faced an overwhelming Soviet tank force and managed to knock out 28 T-34s with no Panther loss loss.

 

Best offensive medium tank of the war was probably the M-4 Sherman.

 

No offence or disrespect intended but based solely on that criteria any German tank that participated in the battles of 1939-40 could be argued to have a combat record greater than the Shermans. Germany achieved much greater success during this period than did the Allies in 1944-45.

Disagree if you want but do the math. Germany had how many tanks in comparison to it's opponents in 39-40 and achieved what successes in how long a period by comparison to how the Allies did in 44-45.

Poland: Gone in 27 days
France: May 10, 1940-June 25, 1940 (44 Days)

Pease note-I am making no commentary on the ethics involved in Germany's war of aggression to which I am opposed I am simply stating facts.

Normandy to Surrender: June 6th 1944-May 8th 1945. (337 Days)

Against the Soviets in 1941

Operation Barbarossa: June 22-Dec 1941. Germany almost makes it to Moscow. It takes the Soviet Union the next 4 years to expell Germany and roll it back to Berlin.

Can this be attributed to any one tank class...no! But it does serve as a counter to the assertion that the Sherman was the best offensive tank of the war. I'm not trying to be rude, just keeping a good conversation going. The Sherman was an effective design to be sure and had strategic features absent in other designs so can not be tossed aside as so many people are want to do...I just don't think as a stand alone vehicle that it was the best.

 

​

 

Since the veterans are too jaded I'd take this one.

JuiceWeasel,

No, not really. It was beyond the Panther tank to do a Bagration, Vistula-Oder or the lightning march across France.

Combat accuracy was half that if not less. 90% accuracy was the factory proof rating achieved against a tank-sized target at a known range. Since there was no ranging, the most important factor in degrading accuracy was neutralized.

If hit by a penetrating AP round any one of the three would light up like a Roman candle, including and probably particularly the Panther. Late sherman tanks were actually the best of the lot because it had the water jacketed ammo storage; burn rate was reduced to 10-20% while the Panther's burn rate was nine to four times higher. At the meanwhile, T-34 was a known fire hazard and death trap with (gasp!) magnisium in its engine.

I would be less than sanguine to be in a German armored unit. Their casaulty rate was horrifying next to the Americans.

You do realize that those operations were acomplished by Pz. III/IV that was totally outclassed by the Sherman and T-34 tank in mobility right? If those operations were to try the Panther, it would be found wanting. Blitzkrieg was not possible with the Panther tank.

Compared to the Red Army that completed the Dnepr-Carthapian, Bagration or August Storm?

I am not trying to disparage anyone's view but those are false myths and legends. All of which had been debunked.

 

A rational constructive arguement...good on ya!

Having read dozens of books, written from both the Allied (Including Soviet) and German side and having inspected all 3 tanks that I used as the basis for comparison I still maintain my stance on the Panther. There is as much written in favor of the Panther (Or any other tank for that matter) as against it. In the end it comes down to whom you choose to believe and by what criteria do you compare authors.

I've already stated that the Panther was a headache from a logistical point of view. However a tank that survives a battle...and more to the point it's crew can be repaired and fight tomorrow.

As for the life expectancy of German Tank crews. With the allies pocessing overwhelming superiority in the air in addition to numerical superiority on the ground the simple mathematics were against German troops surviving no matter what branch they were in. However compared on a one for one basis as is the terms of this debate the Panther comes off better than the other 2.

Yes I realize that the Panzer 1-4 and 38T were the principle weapons in France in 1940...and for their time they accomplished greater feats than the later and more capable Sherman. That was the point I was making in debunking the claim that the Sherman was the best offensive tank! As for the claim that the Panther could not pull off a Blitzkrieg style victory. This will always be a point of contention and one that folks will debate long after you and I have finished with it.

While the late war Soviet offensives were impressive. The Germans accomplished more with less in 41 and it took the Soviets 4 years to remove the Germans form their territory. This speaks to tactical skill and tenacity and has little to do with the abilities of any one tank class. The reference was made in the useage of armor (Operational doctrine) in general in which I believe the Germans had the edge.

While I appreciate your point of view and respect the fact that you have articulated it well I remain unmoved on my assertion regarding the Panther.

 

To put it bluntly, the Panther was a horrible flop of a tank. The design was just inefficient and if it was built in Russia or the US it would have been rejected. Heines Guderian considered Panther D and A "not battle-worthy" and G barely so. The Panther did not have a "maintance problem", it was a maintanence catastrophe! The final drive's mechanical life was as low as 150km and readiness rate had rarely exceeded 70%. Manuoever is the most essential element in modern warfare because it is when armies are routing or surrounded that people really start dying. Firepower and protection is meaningless if your fuel tanks are empty and tank strength down to 1/3. Then it's exfiltration on foot time! The losers don't get to take their heavy equipment with them and the survivors had to somehow survive enemy artillery, air support and infantry. You can't seperate a tank's tactical worth from mechanical performance.

 

Again it comes down to opinionand how you cross reference material in comparison with other authors and data. I've read Guderian's books and a couple on Patton...and many many more.

If you go back to the very first post I made in this topic I stated that my answer was based on Tactical considerations only. The reason is that is how I interpreted the question. To try and elevate the debate to the strategic level brings into effect to many other elements to make any one tank design signifigant in relation to the whole of the campaign. Hence my keeping it simple.

On a strategic level you had industrial output, air power, logistical capacity, supporting ellements, Operational doctrine...the list goes on. In amongst all that one tank type realy doesn't contribute to much to the big picture does it.

And so I based my aguement on a one for one basis...which as we all know and shouldnt have to be pointed out never occured in reality.

From the point of view of strategic considerations then I would give it to the United States approach to total war. This to me has more to do with Americans rationalization scheme, it's approach to combined arms methods and strategic overlay in relation to other assests. Do I believe the Sherman to be the best in this regard...no. It was a good design with a considerable amount of potential and usefullness to be sure. I do think the allies could have pooled their resources and come up with somthing better that would have performed just as well and potentialy much better than the Sherman...but then that is a debate for another day.

I've had many discussions with WW2 vets who were Tankers and being an ex-Tanker myself I would want to fight in the tank that I thought would get me through the day. I firmly believe according to the criteria I have laid out that would be the Panther.

You are welcome to your opinions just as I am. This debate is now becoming circular and I think we have both demonstrated that our opinions in this matter are entrenched. I welcome debating you in other areas of perhaps agreeing with you and supporting your arguement but in this instance I think things have run their course.

Til next time