Best tank

On crew training:

For the US this could be a bit hit or miss when the unit had been in combat for a while. Units that had time to train or had crews trained in the US often had had literally months of training. Many of the crews entering combat in Europe in 1944 with the various armored divisions and seperate tank battalions had been operating in training for over a year.
Now, once in combat most crews had some highly experianced men but often included some that were literally untrained filler replacements. These later crewmen were usually assigned as assistant drivers and loaders.
Training also occured once in theater too. I can recall situations like Aberdeen Proving Grounds sending out a gunnery expert to tour units in Europe demonstrating the 76mm M1 gun's accuracy for tank destroyer crews (he did this by sniping German helments at 500 yards using AP rounds) or, Lockheed sending Tony Levier their primier test pilot out to show how pilots could fly and rely on their new P-38s after rumors got started about questionable safety of the aircraft on one engine and its supposed inability to maneuver in aerial combat.
While US training in 1941 might have had questionable methods and dubious results; by 1944 it had evolved into a very realistic program that definitely was preparing troops for combat very effectively.

What I do know of the Soviet system was that it was very abbreviated and prepared crews for a specific task. Drivers learned to drive. Commanders got gunnery and command training (two man turrets). Loaders were minimally trained. Assistant drivers learned to operate the radio. That sort of thing.
Vehicle maintenance was rudimentary at best. Most crews could do little beyond the most basic servicing to the vehicle.
Certainly, most vehicle crews could neither read or carried maps (state secrets you know). Orders and battle drill was very rigidly carried out.

 

Just been reading a history of Bovington camp and the British stand up rather well in training terms.
They may not have received the materiel or political backing required but since the first war a central cadre of expertise was kept up.
Through the 20's and 30's the training program remained thorough and facilities were consistently improved, firing on the move being a central focus for the gunners.
They may not have had much machinery but the system was able to absorb the huge intake of recruits when war began without too much trouble. Standards for the men remained high, and didn't suffer much alteration during the war.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

"What was vulnerable were the overlapping wheels of the heavier German tanks. Because they were overlapping, to give a smoother ride for the gunner and crew, you had to take twice as many off to repair one and made you twice as vulnerable while doing that."


Seems the Panther sometimes loses out to the T-34 based on the maintenance issue.

 

Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II (Mass Market Paperback)
by Belton Y. Cooper

--------

In this book the author claimed that the crew training was stopped in the US at the latest in autumn 1944, perhaps earlier because the war was considered to be over soon. The author was in trouble trying to train men unfamiliar with tanks to be able to fight in Shermans and the losses were horrible.

I don´t know if you can give more details on this T.A. ?

 

I have never seen any war that did not not have some sage soul trying to say that he tried to teach soldiers how to survive and not getting support from above. George McClellan was never satified that his troops were ready for combat. It took Grant to get the job done. Does anyone think that the soviet troops were given a lot of training?

 

Nope but if they would have had the Germans might have been kicked out of Russia in 1941 already.If the Germans were in huge trouble with one KV-1 then how about concentrated attacks with trained troops????

 

Good point Kai..

 

That's a good point Kai-Petri, the KV1 is almost always neglected in these 'best tank' threads. For her time and place she performed truly admirably, again it's illustrating that 'best' is so hard/impossible to arrive at as most vehicles can find a circumstance, no matter how limited in which they're thoroughly fit for purpose.
Though where the Bob Semple could shine I don't know

(On 'best tank threads' I reckon this is the most sensible I've yet seen )
Cheers,
Adam.

Edit: cross-posted with the above, apologies for identical wording. It must have been a good point!

 

At that time, there were not many heavy tanks that could perform satisfactory. But technology tends to creep up and make weapons obsolete pretty quick.

 

Just imagine General Raus in trouble:

"..how a single Russian KV-1 heavy tank blocked his brigade's advance during the first few days of the invasion of Russia; his unit had no weapons capable of dealing with the armored monster."

Erhard Raus. Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945.

 

The Kv-1 suffered from poor amphibious performance, as you can see there : http://www.nortfort.ru/np/foto_t1_e.html

 

If I recall correctly the Nevskij KV1 fell through the ice while trying to cross, as did a few other AFV's recovered in that area. Wonder what state the vehicle's in now... hopefully someone's looking after it.
(That website's been a favourite for a while, well worth a thorough trawl through for surprising stuff still lying on the surface.)

That famous encounter with the KV1 that Kai-Petri cites is an excellent example of how even an 'unglamorous' vehicle in the right place at the right time can do more damage than a host of the usual and more obvious suggestions.
On the face of it 'Best?' seems like such a simple query doesn't it.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Didn't they burn out clutches? or something? the early ones?

 

They say this KV-1 as been restored and is now on display.

It fell into the water while corssing on a pontoon, the whole got caught under fire by Germans, and the tank and the pontoon drown