Top 10 tanks of the war

Sorry but you're wrong on all accounts, and your aggressive response only reinforces what I already thought of you.

Oh and no I am neither German, of German heritage or any of that. You are on the other hand very much Russian, and proud of it, which there's nothing wrong about being, it's just best to put such things aside in discussions like these.

No please let me get this straight: You're now actually trying to claim that the Americans & Russians had more time & money to test Germany's own tanks ??? Interesting. But forgive me if I not only find that hard to believe but also a downright silly proposition to make in the first place. Care to provide even a single shred of evidence to this rather amusing theory of yours ? (Why do I think I'll be waiting forever for this?)

Meanwhile I can tell you for a fact that the German army's special testing unit evaluated ALL the tanks prior their entrance into service with the German armed forces, and this on the very same obstacle course used today by Krauss Maffei (The company that designed the Leopard 1 & 2 MBTs). And the results of these very tests were what was going to be written in the tank's manual and on both the production company's and army's specification charts. And these tests were true to German tradition extremely thurough in their completetion, A LOT more thurough than any of those carried out by the Allies.

And as for your claim that numbers were overblown to impress Hitler, sorry again that is just silly and it never happened, and I promise you that you can't find even a single source to reinforce that silly claim of yours.

Fact is that the worst thing you could do while being under Hitlers command was to deliver a vehicle or weapon that didn't perform on the battlefield. Hitler didn't give a damn about the specs, all he cared about was how the machine did on the battlefield (Hence why a weapon like the StG44 finally got accepted).

Also if I was to be as silly as you I might as well suggest that the Soviets also made all their equipment look better on paper as to avoid getting shot by Stalin, something he was rather notorious for doing to people he found lacking. So I guess all Soviet equipment must have stunk real bad in reality then eh ?

Sorry but I choose to believe the cold hard facts, and not the superstitions of a highly biased person.

Simple: Germany lost the war and the factories which assembled the tanks had all but been destroyed. Also mass producing a foreign vehicle is an extremely expensive and tough task to undertake, esp. if the said vehicle is made to tolerances tighter than what your own factories are capable of.

Lets see, the Leopard weighes what ? The Challenger weighes what ? Is the gun a slow howitzer or a high velocity gun ? Is the armour thin or thick ?

Hmm.... why does it seem like todays tanks resemble a Tiger tank more than any other WW2 tank ?

Why thank you, it was splendid. You have a good one too.

 

This whole idea that German engineers would deliberately fiddle with the performance figures on the specification charts for their designs to try and impress Hitler in an effort to avoid getting shot is beyond ridiculous and completely without any basis in reality.

In reality it was the other way round, the engineers deliberately being extremely conservative in their performance calculations and promises regarding their designs. And the reasons for this were simple cause the worst thing you could ever do was to promise something and then not deliver it, that would've not only been a foolish way of doing business but also spell the certain end of your company & carreer. And fact is that the evaluation system employed by most armies, incl. the German one, made sure that in the end you had to deliver what you promised anyway, be it a man like Hitler or even worse yet Stalin, you had promised it to or not.

Fact is that once a company was finished testing their product and had established what it was capable of, then they would deliberately write a lower and more conservative figure on the specification charts meant to be given to army's evaluations staff and heads of millitary branch & state. And again the reasons were simple, cause the first thing the army would demand before even considering the purchase of any company's product was to have their own evaluations unit try it out on their own proving grounds. And if the performance of the the vehicle was in any way found to be lacking in comparison to what was promised in the product company's own performance charts, then the whole deal was off and the company would've lost not only the contract but A LOT of money in research & development, plus the further dismay of earning an amount of distrust with the army's chief of staff and evaluations unit.

So naturally the German engineers had to be very conservative in their performance calculations and promises in an effort to make sure that their designs always at the very least lived up to their official performance figures, which at the same time made sure that no blame could ever be placed on their shoulders.

And there are plenty of examples of this.

Take the official Messerschmitt performance figures for the Me-262 fighter jet given to the German army chief of staff for one: What was promised, guaranteed infact, was an average top speed of 870 km/h at around 6 km height for the Me-262A-1a. But in reality, when the engines were performing as promised, the aircraft (Me262) was on average capable of level flight speeds of well over 900 km/h, as confirmed by RAF chief test pilot Eric Brown in 1945 after he attained a confirmed maximum level flight speed of over 568 mph in a flight evaluation of the Me-262A-1a.

Yet another example is the tank comparison charts given to the German army's chief of staff in Nov. 1944, where the listed performance figures for both armour & armament are ridiculously conservative, something which was confirmed not only by actual testing in Germany but also Allied testing at both Aberdeen and in Britain.

And these are but two of many examples which can be quickly drawn upon.

So obviously there was no way that any person wishing the best for his family, himself & his country would ever even consider trying to fiddle with performance figures, cause such a thing was just too obvious and easily discovered, and would inevitably result in the person involved losing his/her job on the spot and likely later be tried for treason and shot, whilst also jeopardizing the lives of his/her entire family.

And now finally regarding Hitler and the idea that he would regularly have persons executed just for not achieving their goals, again it simply did NOT HAPPEN! Infact if this idea was to be true then famous generals such as even Manstein, Güderian & Rommel would've all had a very short carreer and all ended up shot before the end of 1943. Yet they weren't, and that because in reality people were not sent to be executed for not delivering on their promises or not achieving their goals, at most their entire reputation would be ruined, which ofcourse for any proud Prussian was bad enough! But you were not executed.

Now this is more than what can be said about Stalin who for one had people shot for the slightest of reasons, and one of these reasons could oddly enough be that you did too well! Yes, even if you did well you weren't safe from Stalin! The famous Soviet commander Zhukov can vouch for that. The Soviet army also the only one to rely on the famous doctrine of 'no retreat or get shot'. In short Stalin downright demanded that you reached your goals, and if you didn't well then your life was very much at risk. So if anything Soviet engineers had more of a reason to fiddle with performance figures than anyone else, but in reality even they would've been foolish to do such a thing. Not only was it easily discovered, but one would also be working against the efforts of one's own country.

Any serious historian will have already known all of what I just wrote above and that it completely banishes the idea that engineers of any country would ever fiddle with their company performance figures.

 

the sherman was fueled by petrol, that makes it enought to take it from the top 10 list

my list

t-34
t-34 (R)
Tiger 2
Panther
Tiger 1
stuart
matilda
panzer 3
panzer 4
KV 2

 

Jagdtiger,
first, I must admit that I very much enjoy our discussion.

Indeed, but you must remember that we are talking about the period after 1943, in which the German industry went into war production. While there was general lack of raw materials (especially oil) for the German industry as a whole, the situation was less severe for the German tank industry, as it tended to be more prioritized. Again, since the Germans would not have been able to operate two Panthers due to the lack of fuel and experienced crew, there was no point in shutting down their Tiger II production in favour of the Panther even though it required more raw materials.

Are you sure it was Görings plan? Anyway, the lack of rubber was also an important reason why the Germans developed their steel wheel design for their Tiger II and later Panther Ausf. F.

And for the sake of it, my top three in no particular order:
- T-34
- M4 Sherman
- Pz.Kpfw. "Panther"



Sincerely, D Evil

 

D Evil,

In 1943 Germany produced 56.2 millions of metric tons of iron ore (US 103.1)
In 1944 Germany produced 32.6 millions of metric tons of iron ore (US 96.0)

In 1943 Germany produced 7.6 millions of metric tons of crude oil (US 199.6)
In 1944 Germany produced 5.6 millions of metric tons of crude oil (US 222.5)

In 1943 Germany produced 30.6 millions of metric tons of steel (US 82.2)
In 1944 Germany produced 25.8 millions of metric tons of steel (US 85.1)

There was still a general lack of resources which only became worse as the war progressed on. Just look at the US for comparison.

Hitler devised the "Four Year Plan," and placed the agency under Herman Goering.

 

As the war progressed Germany's manufacturing problems intensified. They did not get better. As some examples:

By the end of 1942 production of tractors (like farm tractors) had ended entirely. Those in service were in most cases requsitioned by the military or sidelined for lack of fuel. Farmers came to rely more and more on horses for production. This reduced farm output. But, then the military came and requsitioned the horses due to severe losses on various fronts. This left farmers without a means to efficently plow and harvest crops severely reducing food production.

By the middle of 1943 non-armored half tracks like the Sdkfz 7, 10, 11, or 18 was ended. This left the Wehrmacht with a dwindling number of heavy prime movers for artillery. It also reduced severely the number of recovery vehicles in armored units. This in turn led to much higher losses of artillery pieces and tanks due to their having to be abandoned rather than moved during retreats and battles.

The aircraft industry turned more and more to remanufacturing existing airframes rather than producing completely new aircraft. While this appeared to boost output the aircraft being turned out were less capable simply because the airframe itself was already worn out. Most WW 2 era aircraft had a useful service life measured in hundreds of hours. A crashed airframe or one that was damaged would not be restored to pristine condition by the manufacturer.

As the Germans lacked induction heating equipment in sufficent quantity and didn't have magnaflux testing equipment the quality of much of their armor and armor piercing shells fell off very rapidly. The US by 1943 was testing every AP round and using induction spot heat treating to fix defectively heat treated rounds. It is estimated that by the end of the war 300,000 additional rounds were made available due to this quality control process.

As the war progressed the Luftwaffe turned more and more to flak to defend Germany. By 1944 the amount of production of guns and ammunition for this purpose was severely impacting the Wehrmacht's artillery. There were now severe shortages of both artillery pieces and rounds. The Wehrmacht reacted by increasing their reliance on captured equipment and ammunition. This degraded the Wehrmacht's artillery capacity in the field tremendously.

Radar and other electronics for fighting the RAF's night bombing campaign led to a massive reduction in the availablity of radio and telephone equipment for the army. These shortages resulted in a massive decrease in efficency in the field.

You see, throughout German industrial production there were unrelated decisions being made without any forethought to the consequences of those choices. One seemingly good decision led to many bad outcomes often much worse than what the decision fixed. If anything, the whole of German industrial output was poorly planned and even more poorly executed.

 

Should I point out that, with the exception of the T 34 and the KV 2, all of the tanks in your list were powered by petrol.

 

They were cheap ?
The original owners had no further use for them

 

Fair enough, lol.

pause for effect.........

 

To all:

Get laid.

Getting onerous now.

 

It is hard to do when we are always fixing our inferior tanks

 

Tomcat I don't even know why I am discussing this with you as you don't even know basic facts such as the Tiger's service entry date and so on. If you can't even get that right then where are we??

Normandy was in the summer of 1944, more precisely from June 6th 1944 onwards. The Tiger Ausf.E entered service with the German armed forces already in early 1942.

I wasn't asking for a source on the fact that the Germans were lacking in manpower at the frontlines, cause they were. I was asking for a source for your 'silly' claim that, and I quote: "they needed every tank no matter how stupid of silly it was by the end. " And the reason for my request is that all known facts simply prove your claim to be utterly false and fabricated. Fact is that the Waffenamt decided what tanks were suited to enter service, and no 'silly designs' were ever going to get through the acceptance loophole, even during the last month of the war in 1945.

Again, no the things that the Germans really lacked was the skilled personnel to operate the vehicles they manufactured and the fuel needed to power them.

Again you have no proof what'so'ever to support that it was a waste of resources. Fact of the matter is that it was tanks such as the Panther & Tiger, tanks which enjoyed tactical superiority, which Germany needed the most. Building Pz.IV's, Shermans or T-34's instead would only shortened the war as the Germans still couldn't churn out tanks as quickly as the Allies and they still didn't have enough skilled personnel to man them all, esp. not if their death rate started increasing because they were driving poorer armed & armoured tanks such as the Pz.IV, Sherman or T-34. And having 3 fuel hungering medium tanks instead of one heavy tank wasn't gonna do anything but worsen the fuel situation even further. So in short building more lighter armed & armoured tanks would solved nothing, just added to the problems Germany was facing, and it is truly mindbuggling how some people don't see this.

??? You can't be serious ?? Are you calling the JagdPanther, JagdTiger & Hetzer makeshift designs ?? They were carefully designed TD's tomcat, not makeshift TDs. Now had you instead mentioned the Marder series then you would've be on a slightly truer track, but again you blew it completely. The M10, Achilles, SU-100, SU-122 etc etc are all makeshift TD's in your opinion.

Using a car with a gun strapped on to it is better than nothing! Come on you're making no sense at all at this point! Christ man!

Furthermore what would the difference be in using a superior tank like the Tiger II short of fuel in comparison to using 2 or 3 Pz.IV's with no fuel at all?

When did the US first develop and assault rifle? Why didn't they copy the AK-47 and use it in the 1950's ? Why why why ?

The Tiger Ausf.B was not put into service with the US army because:
A. The army did not need a heavy tank
B. The Tiger Ausf.B was built just abit too well for US industry (In short waay too expensive, complex & time consuming to produce)
C. The Tiger B was too heavy to be used in any of the current conflicts that the US was by then comitted to.
D. Even if a tank like the Tiger B would've been needed at some point then it would've been A LOT easier and less expensive to learn from the Tiger B design and then design a new tank based on it instead. And indeed a lot was learned from the Tiger B design, with a lot of features being introduced in later tanks, like for example the Leopard.

Yes, and What I said still holds true, but it has nothing to do with why a lot of T-34s were bought by other countries. I mean what are you even implying ??

How so ? The T-34 was bought by other countries cause it was cheap, they didn't have to assemble a giant amount of resources to build a giant facility with precise and very expensive machining tools as they would have if they had chosen on a tank like the Tiger Ausf.B.

Do you seriously not see this at all ?

'

Oh lord

I think I have given an ample amount of explanation by now.

 

Ah the old Tiger B discussion....why am I having Deja vu

 

Or try and engage a German on why the Bismarck was a dated design but that's a whole new thread.

 

Another question..We know that the Western Allies and the Soviets conducted extensive offensive operations with their tanks in 1943-1945 as compared to the Germans who used their heavy tanks mainly for defensive purposes . Now how well would the German heavy tanks have held up in offensives like the Allies/Soviets conducted?

Another thing how much harder would it be for say the US or UK to "power project" with tanks like the Panther or Tiger I or Tiger II? We had a debate over on warships1.com once about the Sherman having say the 76mmM1A1 or 17 pdr from the start of it's design HOWEVER there was a strong argument made that the 75mm M3 may have been the best gun since it was far better in the infantry support role . Think about it most Allied tanks were knocked out(by a margin of around 4/5-1) by SP's/AT Guns/PanzerFaust's/mines rather then or compared to German tanks so maybe the best armament is the one that enables you to deal with infantry manning AT guns/PanzerFausts?
I'm bringing up the above point to point out that maybe the best tank isn't necessarilythe one that is better at dealing with it's contemporaries but the one that enables your army to deal with/come to grips with it's contemporary.

 

I can see why you gave you with this, you have to spell out every word.

Proeliator;
I am done discussing with someone who not only needs me to spell out everything for them, but at the same time disregards everything anyone else says even with references, you twist not only words that others say but also there entire points and even there posts, so with that I have had enough already.

Go on believing what you want.

 

And that some of the Shermans were diesel powered. Or that it apparently had little impact on flammability.