Top 10 tanks of the war

Yes Von Poop, I believe there is

 

T-34 = 610 L fuel tank, operational range: 250 miles

IS2 = 820 L fuel tank, operational range: 149.16 miles

Tiger II = 860 L fuel tank, operational range: 75 miles.


These differences are quite significant especially considering that Germany had a major fuel issue.

 

I believe that "Proeliator's" bias is showing, don't you?

 

I find these extremely detailed arguments fascinating. I've learned a lot from the last few pages of this thread.

 

Glad to hear it Sentinel, do feel free to 'jump on in' and add your own opinion, we won't bite....unless you praise the King Tiger...jk..sort of

 

I still remain adamant that the Konigstiger would be your best bet for a defensive tank. Even if it was immobilised in a defensive line; still the thick armour and heavy gun would be more then adequate to tank on anything on the ground.

But I guess thats where air support comes in....

 

Overall doesn't mean much as the situation worsened considerably for the Germans as the months went on, decreasing their ability to maintain, fuel & man their material day by day, week by week, month by month. You can see clearly that the percentage falls sharply between 1944 & 1945.

Your failure to note this only seems to further support the notion that you're being far from objective on this matter.

What points have I ignored ? And how have I failed to prove any of my original points in any way ? The answer is that I haven't. As you can see for yourself the Tiger was mostly kept in a higher percentage of readiness than either the Panther or Pz.IV, and that is despite the contradicting claims of one your so called well respected rouges who claimed that by comparison to the Tiger the Pz.IV ran like a champ, clearly the facts prove otherwise.

Now have you supported all your claims JagdTiger? So far I've not seen a single reference to any of your claims.

And so what? Is this a "most popular" election or is it about the facts ? I prefer the facts.

Now I don't know where T.A. is getting all this from but most of it is simply just not true.

Again you can read here about the German railway efforts: Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

Despite what T.A. seems to suggest the Germans were pretty darn quick considering the enormous task put before them.

And as for not knowing about bulldozers and the like:

In 1933, following the Caterpillar 60, Menck designed the first German bulldozer. With co-operation from Hanomag Universal Diesel, they designed the express excavator series of Mo, mA, MT, Mc and MD. Menck drove the design and development of earth-scraping devices which served a new market. Invented in 1939, the unique Schürfkübelraupe, which was produced by Menck into the 70's, is now built by a Japanese manufacturer under licence.

The company was founded in 1868 by Johannes Menck and Diedrich Hambrock to build boilers and steam engines. Their first excavator was constructed in 1888. Even before the First World War, Menck was a world-class producer of excavators. The company produced the first shovel bucket excavator in the world in 1901 and, starting in 1923, produced the series of M II, M III and M IV machines: the first crawler excavators in Europe. One of the latter models survived and has been restored.

When it came to tracked prime movers the Germans were right up there amongst the best, and naturally they had bulldozers, most of which were multipurpose towing, transport & contruction vehicles.

Furthermore I would very much refrain from calling the He-177 a failure, atleast RAF test pilot Eric Brown called it a first class bomber when he flew it for evaluations. Initially the a/c had issues with engine fires but these were later solved. Other than that the He-177 was a sterling performer.

I will also add that remotely controlled defensive gun systems and all electric systems were far from too advanced and worked very well on German a/c being praised by LW operators for their value. By wars end the Germans were leading the way when in came to electric & hydraulic systems, being the only nation with perfectly working auto pilots and engine & prop management computers in regular service.

 

That's Diesel vs Gasoline for you, plus an extra 20 to 30 tons is gonna heighten fuel consumption, in that department size & weight matters. For you information the Soviets were the only ones relying on Diesel powered tanks.

The operational range of the Tiger Ausf.B was btw 170 km, thats 110 miles.

 

No bias from me, I appreciate the great inventions by all nations during the war, and credit must be given where credit is due.

 

I find it hard to make a top ten, easier is a top 3.

1. PzKpfw.V Panther
2. M4A3E8 Sherman
3. T-34/85

 

Proeliator,

May 44 represents a high point on the list, but after that the numbers fluctuate showing no clear pattern.

The Mar 45 numbers to certainly show a low point but the Jan 45 numbers are not uniform.

Haha, well to give one major point which I indeed gave a source, but you clearly ignored:

The Panther's AK 7-200 transmission was an elegant design offering multigeared steering that permitted the Panther to pivot turn by running the tracks on one side in one direction and the other in the opposite direction, making it possible to tspin the tank in place. While superficially attractive, the transmission was badly overstressed and suffered from premature stripping of the third gear. A more serious problem was the final drive, which had a nominal life expectancy of 1,500km, but which in practive was sometimes as low as 150km. The design was not adequate for a tank of this weight, and its single-teeth pur gears tended to strip more readily than the more robust double herringbone design used in the Sherman. To make matters worse, the pivot turn feature accelerated the final drive failure in the hands of an inexperienced driver. These problems grew worse by the time of the Battle of the Bulge due to the growing alloy shortage that led to more brittle gears, declining quality control at factories, and the decline in spare parts production. While this situation was bad enough, the Panther's transmission was fully enclosed by the front armor, meaning that to replace the final drive, the entire driver's compartment and transmission had to be disassembled to gain access to the faulty assembly.

The combination of premature transmission failure, time-consuming repair, and shortage of spare parts meant that Panther units in December 1944 were often understrength due to the significant number of sidelined tanks. On average, Panther units in 1944 had 35 to 40 percent of their tanks unavailable. At the outset of the Ardennes campaign, 29 percent of the Panthers were not operational, even though nearly all were new vehicles manufactured in September-November 1944. The Panther had a mechanical life expectancy of 1,500km (935 miles), although in practice this was rarely achieved either due to combat loss or mechanical problems. Panthers that suffered mechanical breakdowns in the field often were too difficult to repair in field conditions and so had to be abandoned. Of 47 Panther tanks in the Ardennes inspected by Allied intelligence after the fighting, 20 (42 percent) had been abandoned or destroyed by their crew. Although detailed statistics are lacking, a number of German prisoners of war indicated that Panther tank losses had been lighter do to mechanical breakdown rather than enemy action. The durability of the Panther was so poor that long road marches were discouraged, and Panther units were generally moved by train if any significant distances were involved. Panther vs Sherman Steven J. Zaloga

That's strange, as he received 4 salutes for the post.

This is not a thread about planes, but you put 4 engines in 2 propellers, your gunna have problems. If you want to discuss this further bring it to the Most overrated aircraft thread.

 

I find it quite ridiculous that the readiness report of one month in 1945 is actually being used as evidence for Tiger B's good dependability throughout the war. Say, how many mobile operations were the Germans doing at the time? What was the state of German military administrative services that conduct the investigations for such reports? How many Panzer IVs used at that month were veterans from 1944 and how many Tiger Bs were recently produced? Tanks in hard use have significantly lower readiness rates than those that were not. Without operational context, anyone of the above conditions can make readiness reports go bonkers. This is like the problem with the other claim Jentz made in his books, that because German armor acceptance standards had not changed, German armor quality did not change at late war.

The true measure of a tank's dependability is how well it performs in real combat conditions. Heavy Panzer Battalionns equipped with Tiger Bs rarely have more than a company of machines available for combat during intense operations because of mechanical losses, and this is well attested in German battle reports and memoirs. I chanlenge anyone to find a Panzer IV battalion with such poor records in maintenance and readiness... certainly I haven't seen a Panzer IV Battalion that lost two of its companies doing short distance road marches or disintergrate after two day movements mostly without contact.

 

Another little known fact at least among Tiger enthusiasts who want to deny the validity of the Kubrinka report is that that firing multiple shells at the test vehicle is standard practice in almost every army of the war. Heck, that's what the Russians did in a comparative study of the T-80 and T-90's resistence to various weapons in the 90s!

 

Hi there:
an excellent site on the German heavy tanks:
PzKpfw VI TIGER II
and an earlier tread:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Tiger II: Waste of Resources yes or no

Sincerely, D Evil

 

So you are admitting that the Tiger II had a high fuel consumption rate? The reason for such a rate is not the issue.

For your information, Japan also relied heavily on diesel engines.

Sources I have vary on the range of the Tiger II. However, 170km is 105.6331 miles, not 110

 

Proeliator,

The Tiger B was an impressive site on the battlefield. This machine had good armor, a good gun and in comparison probably performed better then some. However, this tank also had many flaws. Whats worse is that these flaws had to be constantly looked at and maintained by a nation with very limited resources which at the same time was loosing a war.

Yes my comparison was Diesel vs Gas, but this isnt Russia's fault, Germany chose to use gas.

IMO, for a nation which has been plagued by fuel shortages throughout the war, to come up with a tank which consumes 2 gallons of fuel per mile is simply crazy (The Tiger carried 860 liters (227 gallons) of fuel in 7 tanks, giving it a maximum range of 110-120km (68-75 miles) on the road and 80km (50 miles) cross-country). The tank was also very slow (no matter what the reason was) thus suffering from lack of mobility which is crucial when facing as many as 15 enemy tanks all by yourself. The tank was also an enormous target. The Tiger B was drawn up, put into production, and built at a time when Germany was loosing the war. This tank was designed as a super weapon in hopes of turning the tide. It did not. What this machine did was all but use up the very last of Germany's resources which very well could have been spent elsewhere. This tank IMO was built out of desperation with limited resources and in a relatively short time. Such a combination of setbacks is not a recipe for success.

 

Bah, thats rubbish! The Russians dont know anything about the almighty Tiger!

 

Hehe, I believe Christian Ankerstjerne, a leading expert on tanks on the Axis History forum put it best:

you have to make arguments based on facts - not just conjunctions...


Why is it some of you refuse to do just this?


Sloniksp, ofcourse I expect you to believe every grain of what is written on the battlefield.ru site, considering you're Russian and all, and your avatar and signature also kinda indicates that you like picking sides. Or am I wrong about this ?

Also you continue to claim that the operational range of the Tiger Ausf.B was 120 km when it was infact 170 km. My source on this is Thomas L. Jentz the leading German tank expert who bases all his stats on original German papers.

Admitting ? No, I am not admitting anything, I am just telling you the facts just as I've been doing all along in this thread.

As Christian Ankerstjerne rightly let be known the fuel consumption of the Tiger Ausf.B cross country was 7.17 Liters pr. km, compared to the 6.7 L/km of the Tiger Ausf.E and 8.75 L/km for the JagdPanther. You can get all these facts for yourself just by reading Jentz's excruciatingly detailed works on these machines. You will undoubtedly also learn a thing or two about the various bogus myths surrounding these tanks, such as that they were immobile pillboxes which broke down all the time.

As proven by the March 45 status report, there were often a higher percentage of Tiger Ausf.B's operational than either Panther's or Pz.IV's, and the reliability of the tank was mostly on par with the Pz.IV by mid 44 to 45. Also as described in Jentz's books the Tiger & Panther both operated with remarkable reliability when one considers the circumstances under which they had to operate. That last part is something many people seem to be overlooking when they talk about the reliability of these tanks.

Consider that by mid 44 German tanks were often having to wait 4 times as long or longer between each maintenance than any Allied tank, now that will tear on any tanks reliability record.

Anyhow the Pz.IV was considered a very reliable tank by its' crews in the period 41 to 43, but just like the Tiger & Panther, by mid 44 onwards this tank was to lack the regular maintenance and skilled personnel any tank needs to run reliably. And thus it's reliability record was to plummit and become no better than that of the Tigers or later Panthers, as can also be seen on the March 45 status report.

Had their been the same regular maintenance and skilled personnel as there was in 41 to 43, then the Pz.IVs, Tigers & Panthers would've all run very reliably, but without these two things no tank does.

Again is this a "who's the most popular" election or is it about the facts ?

Shall define the truth as that which is written by the person who has the most followers and gets the most "salutes" ? Or shall we base it on real evidence and facts ?

Now you claim to be unbiased, so this is your chance to prove it.

I didn't ignore it at all, I addressed it, go back and look.

Also now that we're at it, what about a source for your claim that the Panther and Tiger suffered from catastrophic engine failures? According to Jentz and other experts the reliability of the Maybach engine was good, it was built to last, and there is certainly no talk of catastrophic engine failures. So I'd like to see just a single source on this claim of yours, do you have one, or was it just something you said to exaggerate things?

We might as-well let the truth be known cause it's gonna come and bite us in the ass sometime anyway. That means there's no reason for lies or exaggerations of the actual truth.

 

Proeliator,

Yes you are wrong. I assure you there is no nationalistic bias being exhibited from any of the rouges.

Do you understand, no matter the reason, that the Tiger II had a higher rate of fuel consumption than most US or Russian tanks?

I don't understand what that sentence proves.....

Seeing as the Tiger B wasn't actually on the report, I don't understand how you see that...

Also, it has already been stated that you must take these reports with a grain of salt, as you have no idea how long each of the different tanks had been in commission.

I posted it twice. Once you thought it was talking about the Panther D after I clearly said it was the Panther G. The other time it was ignored.

On the Maybach HL 230 engine:

It initially was so unreliable that in the space of 9 days, one battalion reported 25 engine failures.

-Inspector General of Panzer Troops, Discussion Points For the Fuhrer Conference of 3 December 1943

Now while some of these problems were ironed out by mid 1944, the fact remains that the Maybach engine was not reliable when it was needed. As for the Tiger II

"...was powered by the same engine as later production Panthers, resulting in a much lower power-to-weight ratio, and the tank was therefore much slower and less mobile than the Panther"

-Chris Bishop

You put the same engine used to drive the 45-ton Panther in the 70-ton Tiger II that increases the stress on the engine and provides for lower rates of maneuverability and high rates of engine malfunctions. If Jentz says otherwise I would like to see a quote.

I find you speak for Jentz and "other experts" too much. For example just in this las post:

If you are going to say that, provide a quote.

 

That's not on the Maybach HL230 engine, that's on the initial batch of Panther Ausf.Ds, which you are so fond of making examples from. The Panther Ausf.D was btw initially powered by the Maybach HL210, and suffered from a design flaw in the engine compartment that would not allow enough air circulation to occur, which in turn resulted in engines overheating, which is what is being refered to in that report. This issue was later fully solved. You would've known all this had you read Jentz's book

So where's your source for your claim that the Maybach HL230 suffered catastrophic failures ? I have failed to find even a single mention of this in any of my books.

That is incorrect, the Tiger Ausf.B fits right under the Tiger collumn as the report mainly was about that tank and its' performance in the field. And as can be seen it did very well.