Top 10 tanks of the war

Proeliator,

You seem to be looking at this backwards. Yes the Germans were short of fuel and spare parts near the end of the war, but it is not their lack which is the problem, it is their choice to build these complex heavy tanks which ate up their fuel and needed constant repair. Please do not deny this, the Tiger I, Panther, and Tiger II all consumed fuel at much higher rates than the T-34 or Sherman.

As for reliability, you have failed to address any of the issues we have presented. You simply deny them and cite Jentz but supply no quotes or facts.

The Tiger II was underpowered, it had massive engine failures, it had poor acceleration, it had a slow hydraulic powered turret, it had short track life, it was time consuming to repair due to its complexity, it had poor suspension, it had high fuel consumption.

It was not a war winning tank, especially for a country like Germany. Throughout the war, Germany was terrible at managing logistics and were horribly inefficient at maintaining roads, bridges, railroads etc. These heavy tanks needed a country which was excellent in such areas. Germany chose to produces tanks which would not have the numbers but would have the heavier armor and armament. This turned out to be a poor choice for them and their logistical and engineering shortcomings rendered those tanks quite ineffective.

Also, what do you have to say about the Sherman?

 

Hi all,
I am frankly overwhelmed by the volume and technichality of the various arguments put up in this forum. The usual tank compromises of armour/firepower/mobility have (to my mind) been enveloped in highly technical disputes and differing opinions, sometimes including 'historic' availability of spares , fuel, training etc.
Bearing in mind the WW2 scope of this site can I put one simple question?
At the end of WW2 what is the tank you would rather have crewed?

Taking cover!!!!

Mike

 

During August 1944, a number of Tiger II tanks were captured by the Soviets near Sandomierz and were soon moved to their testing grounds at Kubinka. The Soviet team gave the opinion that the tests revealed the tanks to be severely defective - the transmission and suspension broke down very frequently and the engine was prone to overheating and consequential failure. Additionally, the Soviets opinion was of deficiencies in the armor after firing many anti tank rounds at the same target. Not only did they report that the metal of shoddy quality (a problem not particular to the Tiger II - as the war progressed, the Germans found it harder and harder to obtain the alloys needed for high quality steel), but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate the armor, there was a large amount of spalling, and the armor plating cracked at the welds when struck by multiple heavy shells, rendering the tank inoperable.


Far from a failure you claim? An astounding success??


Tiger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This is your opinion. I have not found a single case of Tiger B attack during the Roer Campaign that succeeded. Attacks of 6-12 Tiger B, support by Panzergrenadiers against elements of US RCTs, sometimes as small as a battalion was typical. Those attacks were stopped cold.

The failure of Peiper's Tiger B company had nothing to do with fuel. What happened was that he lost half of them to break down before even making contact with the enemy. Some Tiger Bs managed to drive to La Gleize and the rest lagged at the rear of his column. When the 30 ID cut Peiper's line of communications at Stavelot at the midsection of Peiper's column, the Tiger Bs in the rear rear failed to retake the town. This in term immobalized Peiper. Then the six Tiger Bs that Peiper used to defend La Gleize were knocked out one by one by a tank task force from the 3d AD. Read a little bit on Allied and Soviet after action reports and you will understand how transient and futile the German "successes" truly were.

Really? German Pz IV H/J were running like champs. Why wasn't the Tiger B? The road march loss rate compared to even Panthers was pathetic.

Yeah, and you don't know how to read it.

A 30 degree angle increased armor thickness by a mere 15%. If your gun isn't penetrating at 100-300 meters from 30 dgrees angle, suffice to say, your weapon is ineffective at regular combat ranges.

Friend, 90-110mm of armor sloped at 60 degress equals 180-220mm at line of sight. German veterans who fought IS-2s in Tigers did not find their 88 as effective as your 75mm L/48. Are you seriously questioning von Monteuffel's experience with armored combat?

The Germans had no tungsten ore imports since 1941. APCR was hen's teeth.

Against 100mm of well sloped turret armor? Good luck with getting that angle.

I don't know why are you harping on this. The report already stated that from 30 degrees, the 88mm gun was unable to penetrate IS-2 frontal armor until at 100-300 meters range. Changing that little bit of angle won't change the result.

There is a photo of a Panther that suffered catastrophic wield failure at mantlet by a 75mm L/40 hit as well. How is this incident representative of typical failure range of IS-2s?

Are you in denial? Look at the engagement range of that firefight! Funny that you have neglected to inlcude the "lessons learned" bullet points. Let me do this for you.

See point 2: The Russians evidently considered 2000 meters a highly advantageous range at which to engage a Tiger E with a IS-2. Either the Russians were retarded Mongoloids who didn't know they can't hit squat at 800 meters, or they knew what they were doing and in fact culd hit targets at this range and was confident that they could kill them.


See point 5: Using spalling and tearing of the armor with repeated hits to repel a heavily armored tank is both a common place tactic. The fact that they were counting on effects of spall to knock out an enemy tank is an damning evidence their weapons were in fact inadeuate. Panthers and Tiger Bs had been repelled this way by Allied Sherman tanks. Are you claiming that the Sherman was a superior tactical performer?

I think Point 3 speaks for itself; the Tiger was no longer king of the battlefield. Point 4 was again indicative of flagging morale in German panzer crews due to the appearance of IS-2s.

A tank's armor does not need to be always very effective to be good.

This was true of Panther G and Tiger B as well. At 1945 even low powered AP rounds sometimes shattered main armor and knocked out the panzer or killed crewmen. All of the problems you mentioned, shoddy worksmanship, poor armor quality etc, were cotingencies that exist in every arsenal regardless of to what nation it belong. I would be quite fascinated to know what context did Monteuffel's statement that "The IS-2 was the best tank in the war" needed.

 

The monsters are slow moving forts. (remember those? Monuments to human stupidity according to GS Patton)

They are at best defensive weapons. An SP ATG with a 75mm L70 gun will do the same trick and be mobile. Let alone it will not crippe industry and logistics.

These monsters doesn't fit with doctrine and the rest of the forces, and are therefore useless.

Good luck on navigating the Pripetmarshes with a Tiger II.

 

What is the other option for the Germans? (I am thinking in upgrading Pz!V or maybe E-series)

 

Again the Tiger Ausf.B didn't need constant repair or more parts than any other tank. With regular maintenance the Tiger Ausf.B was a reliable tank, you've got the March 45 status report to confirm that.

It's a heavier vehicle so naturally it's going to use more fuel, but not by as much as you seem to be suggesting.

That is simply not true JagdTiger, I have provided both status reports and lots of quotes from Jentz. Again why is it you find the need to exaggerate things ? It does nothing to help your case.

Massive engine failures ? I'd certainly like to see a source on that cause that's new to me.

Did the transmission & final drive suffer from some reliability issues, esp. in the start, yes. But did engine suffer massive failures ? No.

This constant exaggeration on your part is becoming rather annoying by now.

Source? I might as-well tell you that German field tests & German tank experts such as Jentz wont be agreeing with you btw.

Furthermore I've actually seen it move, over 60 years old, yet it aint slow.

Incorrect, the Tiger Ausf.B featured a fast hydraulic turret traverse. You are confusing the Tiger Ausf.B with the Ausf.E.

Source?

Nomore time consuming than a Panther.

What ?! That's just complete rubbish. The Tiger Ausf.B featured an excellent suspension system which provided it better flotation & stability over rough and bumpy terrain than that of any Allied design.

Fuel consumption was normal. The heavier the vehicle the higher the fuel consumption.

It was not a war winning tank, especially for a country like Germany. Throughout the war, Germany was terrible at managing logistics

.

Whoa ?! You're kidding me right?

The Germans built concrete roads which mind you still stand to this day and are used by traffic every day of the week, hardly needing any maintenance at all.

And how were they bad at maintaining bridges & railway tracks ? I'd like some details on this please.

These heavy tanks needed a country which was excellent in such areas. Germany chose to produces tanks which would not have the numbers but would have the heavier armor and armament.

Rubbish, it was taking on 3 superpowers which was a bad choice, not building heavy tanks.

Also incase you didn't know it, Germany is known for its engineering prowess. So what'ever shortcomings you might be refering to here are pretty sure to be nonexistant.

The Sherman ? Great tank, reliable, rugged, easy to produce, cheap, mostly easy to operate and in the end possessing very decent firepower. All in all a true classic and one of WW2's great tanks.

That's what I have to say about the Sherman. I only wish some people would be as honest & fair about German tanks as-well, but it seems some of you have a lot of national pride.

 

And that is your opinion.

Interesting might be the opinion of a man who actually fought these beasts:

Report by tank commander Sergeant Clyde D. Brunson from 2nd Armored Division, 1945.
"One day a Tiger Royal tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like Tiger, we would all be home today."

Fact of the matter is that in the case of the Ardenne offensive, and the advance of KG Peiper, the same number of Shermans, Panthers or JS-2's would have faired no better in the same situation as the Tigers of KG Peiper, only worse. Cause as the serious researcher will know, in battle good leadership & tactics can easily offset any technical advantage that an adversary might have.

At any rate the Ardenne Offensive ground to a halt because of a lack of fuel, simple fact. Same with KG Peiper's Tigers, which btw seems to be what you base your entire argument on Triple C.

Here's a abit of info on KG Peiper and their advance:
On the Trail of Kampfgruppe Peip

The fact that some Tigers broke down can be attributed directly to the fact that they didn't recieve regular maintenance plus lacked spare parts and trained drivers. (The German panzer units were by then exhausted beyond any measure) It had nothing to do with the tank being inherently unreliable.(Something the objective researcher will quickly find out) Furthermore as can be read on the site, most of the Tigers in the KG were remarkably operational at the time of the battle.

Incorrect. The March 45 status report completely contradicts that claim of yours, showing a higher reliability amongst the Tiger Ausf.B than the Panther and one comparable to that of the Pz.IV, which you claim ran like a champ.

So what exactly are you basing your outbursts on Triple C cause it aint German reports ?

That's a rather odd comment considering you don't even own the book whilst I infact do. Oh well..

15% is alone a lot, but even then you're not taking into account the ricochet effect.

Friend, the IS-2's front turret was not sloped and it was only 100mm thick, meaning the 7.5cm Kwk40 L/48 would have no issues what'so'ever slamming straight through it from 1250 meters away as proven in the US post war gun trials at Aberdeen.

Not at all! Only your interpretation of it.

Wrong. Imports ceased in 43, after which nearly all available stores were directed towards the production of small caliber armour piercing projectiles, as these needed it the most to be effective. Larger caliber tungsten reliant ammunition types were however still produced in limited quantity right up until the end of the war. One weapon which in particular relied on tungsten carbide ammunition was the 7.5cm Pak41, and it was supplied with this throughout the war. Various TD's, Pz.IV's, Tigers & Panthers also recieved small numbers of tungsten AP rounds right up until the end of the war.

Well sloped armor? I guess according to you the Panther must then also have possessed some very well sloped front turret armor ?

Sorry but the IS-2's frontal turret wasn't sloped, it was rounded and for the most part(80%), as a frontal area target, the angle never left between 0 to 10 degrees.

Sorry but that would be against the glacis plate. The 8.8cm Kwk36 was perfectly capable of punching a hole through the IS-2's front armour from over 1500 meters away as clearly demonstrated by several Tiger I units in the east as-well as several tests conducted both during and after the war.

The report you are refering to was calculated based on performance against top quality german armour test plates. Interestingly the Panther was calculated to be able to penetrate the front from over 800 meters away in the same table. (calculation error?)

That a tank opens fire from a range of 2000 meters doesn't at all mean that it is because fire is expected to be anywhere near accurate at that range, you should know that. That the Soviet opened fire from 2000 meters away was merely an act of desperation to allow themselves a chance of success against the Tigers.

From reading the observations of the Tiger Kompanies it is quite clear that the only reason for the Soviets opening fire at such long range was that they wished to be able to escape utter destruction at the hands of the Tigers. As confirmed here:

1. When a Tiger appears, most Josef Stalin tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a firefight.

3. The enemy crews lean toward evacuating their tank immediately after the first shot is fired at them.

Now that doesn't strike me as the natural behavior of a tank crew which is in anyway confident in their tank or its abilities to fight back. On the contrary it clearly confirms that the Soviets only opened fire at long range because they knew it was the only way they were going to have a chance against the Tiger. Cause while fire may have been inaccurate for the IS-2 they just needed to get a hit, then the power of the gun was sufficient to take out a Tiger at up to 2000 meters away, a range at which the Tiger Ausf.E's gun, while very accurate, would have to hit the front of the IS-2's turret to be really deadly against it.

Well go figure, the Tiger Ausf.E first entered service in early 42, the IS-2 first came on the scene in 44. Even then the Tiger Ausf.E & IS-2 were very well matched overall.

Just so you know, the IS-2's armour was even more brittle than that of the late war Panther Ausf.G. So just think about that next time you start criticizing the later Panthers for their brittle armour.

Problem is that finding evidence of this is very hard Triple C, as when reading the account from the west and seeing the pictures, you rarely see a Panther or Tiger with cracked armour. On the contrary you often see the armour acting just like high quality armour should, beautifully absorbing the shot and deflecting it away from the tank.

Simple answer is he never said that. Read about the man. I suggest Panzer Baron by Donald Brownlow which. Hasso Von Manteuffel's opinion was that the PzKpfw.V Panther was undeniably the best tank of the entire war, also describing a battle on the eastern front(Guess which one) in which a handful of his Panthers singlehandedly knocked out some 350 JS-II's and a large number of T-34/85s.

 

The problem for Germany with tungsten and tungsten carbide was that Krupp through its subsidiary, Harzmetallzentrall, controlled the entire supply of tungsten and tungsten carbide under closely held patients that the government supported. Germany only had three grades of tungsten carbide in production (the US using the Buick grading system that is still used today had 15 and hundreds of companies making tungsten carbide products). Only Krupp themselves was allowed to have more than one grade in use. Krupp also remained the sole producer in Germany during the war.
Of course, this meant a dire shortage of product for any purpose even if the supply itself was not severely limited like it was. Any wonder AP 40 rounds were rare?

 

Very rare indeed TA, it was only supplied in very small numbers to tanks and larger AT guns. Small caliber AT weapons and larger squeeze bore cannons were given top priority.

 

Proeliator,

If you are going to believe that a 15% increase in effective armor thickness and the richochette effect of just 30 degrees of slope is going to allow 75mm L/48 to defeat a target that 88mm L/56 cannot at four times the range, you be my guest. No creditable authors would expect defeating IS-2 beyond 1,000 meters even with the Tiger E was a regular occurance--and the "lessons learned" from the German after action reports that I have cited confirmed that the IS-2 armor was hard to crack. The IS-2 was superior, but it didn't need to. Even if it attained only tactcial parity, it would have been a superior weapon as the Tiger E cost 300,000 manhours apiece.

As for rounded mantlet, it is a highly effecitve form of sloped armor. The Panther's rounded mantlet was "only" 100mm thick but US 76mm gun could not defeat it at even 300 meters. Five out of six shots would fail. The US 76mm gun was very similiar in performance to the German 75mm L/48.

The Tiger B was a lemon. It never had adequate maintenance and spare parts because to provide adequate support for such a poor machine was impossible. Peiper's Tiger B Bn disintegrated on 17 December without seeing any combat due to breakdowns and slow march speed. The fact that only one Tiger B was available to contest Stavelot did not help Peiper's fuel situation: it was the loss of Stavelot that severed Peiper from his gasoline supply. It's not an exaggeration to say that the failure of the Tiger B played a major part in the defeat of the KG.

It's more common than you think. Check out the attatchments. The 500 yards penetration by 90mm was not supposed to happen theoretically, but the round went through and cracked the glacis. Also note the cracking of the turret side armor; though this Panther was knocked out by friendly fire from another Panther, the cracks on the plate is not supposed to occur in good armor even when it was badly overmatched.

 

Proeliator,

The Tiger I, Panther, and Tiger II all needed maintenance repairs to be carried out more frequently due to their various problems. This is undeniably shown by 35-40% of Panthers on the Western front during the Ardennes offensive being sidelined due to mechanical problems. In general, I believe the number for Tiger I's was around 20% throughout the war, and I have no numbers for the Tiger II. Typically only 5-10% of Shermans would be sidelined at most throughout the war.

Unfortunately I don't have the March 45 status report. Could you post it, or if you already have, direct me to it.

The Tiger II had a maximum road range of 68 miles and consumed fuel at the rate of 601 liters/100km.

The IS-2 had a maximum road range of 149 miles and consumed fuel at the rate of 340 liters/100km.

Both were heavy tanks.

The Tiger II along with the Tiger I and Panther all had petrol engines while most Soviet tanks had diesel engines. This use of diesel increased the operational range and decreased the risk of a fire.

I don't see how it could be new to you, it has been presented to you multiple times by different rouges.

This is the spot for a quote. It doesn't get you far to claim that experts wouldn't agree with me but supply no evidence.

The same Maybach P30 engine used to drive the 45-ton Panther was used to drive the 70-ton Tiger II. Period.

If you don't understand how this affected the tank's mobility I don't think I can explain it to you.

Slow, fast, big, small....the point I am making is hydraulic powered turret. Opposed to the faster electric powered turret featured on US tanks.

Dry steel, single pin gears wear down tracks in general. They also help to tear up the roadways.

Which was time consuming itself. To give an example, on the Panther, to repair the final drive the entire transmission and driver's compartment had to be removed.

In no way am I kidding. This was a very serious flaw for the Germans and greatly contributed to their ultimate defeat.

Your argument that they built roads still used today is not my point at all.

I am talking about their inability to quickly and efficiently built roads and bridges when needed and to maintain such infrastructures. This is something the Allies were masterful at. As T.A. mentioned, a US engineer battalion put 3 bridges across the Rhine in a 24 hour period. The Germans would be delayed for days at a time, sometimes even a week if they came to a river their heavy tanks could not cross. In the opening stages of Barbarossa they were forced to have one rail line supporting each Army Group as they simply could not convert their trains to the Russian system fast enough. This inefficiency was augmented by their lack of any sort of heavy machinery in their engineering or tank battalions.

I am not saying building heavy tanks was the reason they lost the war, I am simply saying due to their situation industrially and their inability to handle logistics and simple civil engineering, the heavy tanks they built were rendered rather ineffective.

True, throughout the war Germany produced some masterful pieces of engineering. However, many simply turned out to be over-engineered and mechanically challenged.

I promise you, national pride is not affecting my opinions at all.

 

I believe in the cold hard facts, not in calculations. But if you believe that the Panther's 7.5cm gun was 8 times more powerful than the 8.8cm Kwk36, well then you can be my guest as-well, cause in the very same report the 7.5cm Kwk42 is listed as capable of defeating the IS-2's front armour at 800 meters, and again this is calculated. Actual tests ofcourse later proved that both the Tiger's 8.8cm Kwk36 and the Panther's 7.5cm Kwk42 gun were perfectly capable of defeating the IS-2's front armour at ranges well in excess of 1,500 meters.

Wrong, read some books on the tank, several accounts & reports of IS-2's taken out beyond 1,000 meters frontally by Tiger Ausf.E's are presented. Read Jentz's several books on the tank for one, in it you will find several well documented cases, including one I already posted pictures of where over 10 IS-2's were engaged by Tiger E's of GD in late August 44 at a range of 1500 meters and knocked out by hits directly to their front armour. (Closest tank taken out by a shot straight through upper glacis plate)

Nope, all the report confirms is how inferior the IS-2 really was. So much so that its crews would opt to panic and flee at the mere sight of a Tiger, or bail as soon as the first round struck them. And the fact that they prefered to open fire at long range clearly shows that they rightly feared the Tiger Ausf.E enough to try their best to either avoid fighting it at all or make themselves as difficult a target as they could and being able to flee as quick as possible.

Sorry but all the facts points toward it being an inferior tank compared to the Tiger Ausf.E, as confirmed by the "lessons learned" report you're so fond of. Mind you this report is an early one and there are several later ones in which it is made clear that the IS-2 tank isn't the threat it was made out to be in early intelligence reports, German tanks in the field having little trouble dispatching the IS-2's confronted on the battlefield.

The 76mm guns AP rounds would fail even at 100meters against the Tiger Ausf.E front glacis plate, which mind you was 100mm thick and completely straight. Why ? Because the US AP projectiles suffered from soft noses, making them unable to penetrate armour they theoretically should've defeated. Same problems plagued the projectiles fired by the 90mm M3 gun, resulting in the development of the T33 projectile which featured a highly hardened nose meant to solve this issue. Sadly it arrived too late.

So thats why the 76mm AP projectiles would fail 9 times out of 10 against the Panther gun mantlet at 300 meters, it had nothing to do with it being rounded. And like I said, a rounded gun mantlet presents a target area 80% of its entire size which never leaves 0 to 10 degrees in slope.

So again, the 7.5cm Kwk40 L/48 is perfectly capable of punching a hole straight through the IS-2's front turret at a range of over 1250 meters, and the 8.8cm Kwk36 at much longer distances.

Sorry but so far all real life information there completely disagrees with that claim of yours.

Not it wasn't, it was exceedingly rare infact. Your two attached photos are rather good indicators of that. (One is of a Tiger btw, early type, on which the side was face hardened, explaining the cracks you see)

Wrong, the T33 projectile was capable both theoritically and in practice of defeating the Panther's armour, it was designed specifically to do so because of bad experience with existing 90mm AP projectiles. Sadly for the Allies the T33 never made it into service in the ETO, the war was over when the projectile was finally ready for delivery.

Another earlier picture of the same Panther as in your picture used by the US for test firings of the 90mm M3 gun with various ammunition types, amongst others the new T33 projectile, note zero cracks on the armour, all hits (13 in all at that point) absorbed in a manner only high quality RH armour is capable of:


Another picture of the same tank taken after even further shots were taken at it. Again the armour clearly shows the characteristics of high quality RH armour, absorbing as much of the enery as possible. No cracks present:

Sorry but that's a Tiger, early type, not a Panther

That you couldn't even see that places great doubt on your knowledge of these tanks.

 

JagdTiger,

If indeed you are not letting national pride get in the way then please reread what I have written, then you'll see that I have only written down facts.

Here's the March 45 status report figures for you:


Fact is that the Tiger Ausf.B was far from as unreliable as many people like to make it seem. It wasn't the most reliable tank in the German armoured force either, but it was very reliable for a tank its size & weight operating under the conditions in which German panzers had to from mid 44 onwards.

As for the Germans not being good at building bridges and roads and lacking civil engineering skills; Again you're quite simply just completely wrong about that JagTiger and you will find nothing to support your claim. The Germans built the most robust roads & bridges ever built during the war, stone cold fact right there, the problem was they were lacking the manpower needed to built enough of them, esp. in a place like the Soviet Union. As for the railroads, again the Germans were experts at it, but the Soviets used a wider type of track for their trains than the European standard track width, so the Germans had to litterally rewheel all the trains & carts they'd be using in the East: Can you say Major Project!

Some more info on this: Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

 

Is there some sort of bye-law that all internet threads generally relating to tanks will inevitably plunge down the same old same old repeat discussion of Tigers, as hammered out ad infinitum on a hundred other threads on a hundred other websites?

Hohum.

~A

 

Proeliator,

If you look at the status report, the overall percentages for the Panzer IV, Tiger, and Panther on both fronts is between 60-70%. That means that between 40-30% were sidelined. That is not good, especially compared to US and Soviet tanks.

You have failed to prove that the Tiger B was a reliable tank. You have failed to address the major points, clearly shown by your choice to ignore most of the points I made in my previous post. At least 6 well respected rouges have been arguing against you on this.

You again seem to be misunderstanding my point about German civil engineering deficiencies. I clearly stated that I was not talking about how well constructed the bridges or roads they built were. I could attempt to explain this but I surely could not do any better than this excellent quote from T.A.

 

Also, let me ask you Proeliator, what are your top ten tanks?

(not best of each year)

 

Perhaps there should be made a new "law" on internet discussions.

Von Poop's law (on armour discussions on the net)

 

1.King Tiger!
2.Sherman.
3. T-34
4.Elephant(although it was vulnerable to infantry attack with its lack of machine guns)
Ugh, i can't think of any mroe that deserve to be in a top ten.

 

Oh! I forgot:
5.Churchill
6.Matilda 2