delete013

Also a great choice. But tiger was better I prefer tiger.

You don't say..

See thread title. What should we switch to? Tiger, best tank of ww2?

Is this up in one of those 89 pages? I've yet to get through them all. We can discuss tank's role in combined arms tactics. Are any German tankers or panzergrenadiers here? I think contemporary tactics are pretty much ww2 with new vehicles.

Why are you people so bitter? Give him a break. Who cares about politics. History hobbies should be fun.

Sure, today's standards. I am pretty sure no ww2 tank passes. Got any link to that? You know, it is not as if there was no vehicle, even heavier that had functional final drives. The fact that neither Germans nor the French attempted to fix them in over 10 years of use and that this was the principal combat vehicle, strongly indicates that this issue is overblown. Anw, I am not stubborn out of principle, I am simply not convinced. Also it would be much easier if there wasn't so many deliberately deceiving literature, pushing national biases around.

-- he already answered.

By 1944 the tank was a finished product. If you incalculate the issues of final drives on all German tanks in 1944 and the fact that there were plenty cases where final drives lasted beyond the alleged 150/250 km one can conclude that the critical causes were not in the design. Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess. There is the alternative of course, a lighter tank, which brings us back to the other end of bad choices, which is fighting with a weaker vehicle. If that means dispensing with driving stunts I am still convinced that every alternative was much worse.

It was meant figuratively, of course. As a medium, Pershing was not a finished vehicle. I usually exercise skepticism over prototypes good on paper but never reaching service (or being half useful in the opinion of the army) It is, imo, still better to have armoured weapon platform assaulting strong points than nothing. Jumbo likely saved many already by being a hard rock, attracting fire.

It is quite impressive how advanced and heavy layout Soviets fielded already in 1941. German methods against them remind more of a mammoth hunt than any credible anti-tank defence. Fortunately for them, Soviets got almost everything else wrong. Let's face it, shermans were in the same sack from 1943 onwards. It think that both tanks could have avoided their fates if they were at least paired with some long range overwatch. Both countries lacked quality ordnance institutions that allowed Germans to make a tank killer out of any carriage. I can imagine IS-2 as being big relief for t-34 crews.

You.. hm heretic!

What about Arracourt? There is so little info one can find and all is written from American perspective. Hardly a good example. You mean Char B1? It was indeed of ageing design but the armament and armour were still sufficient in 1940. It was nothing like German tanks especially not like the heavies. What do you mean by that?

I honestly don't know. I can't tell with what the other tanks were hit by, you might as well be right.

Yeah, excellent cannon, optics, working environment, mobility, armour + excellent doctrine and training. Tiger was an unavoidable success. Charkow? Chir river? Prokhorovka? I said it has almost equal performance. Really? Which one? The slow IS-2? The immobile M26? The suspension wrecking jumbo? Good luck maneuvering in those things. They were for a reason heavy and panthers medium tanks. Maybe you should consider why there is a difference in tank classes? Yep, a good tank we agree. But I've smth for you from Munro's "Centurion tank": With a two years delay the British, untouched by lack of resources or industrial interrupts, managed to match a panther. Missing the war and appearing when there were no panzers to fight anymore. How convenient. So who was the better tank designer? You operate in this bubble of panther criticism as if the rest of the world didn't exist. If panther was bad, the rest was worse. Ergo, panther was the best of the worst? American opinion, not mine. It is a problem if tank can't climb or navigate rough terrain. Most geography in Europe is tank unfreindly. Well, what was better? What are you talking about? Panthers were perfectly fine. Or you allude to the British motion studies where they complained over misaligned gunner's seat and his pedals? Which 35t tank has panther's features? Cent had the same stats for more weight. IS-2 perhaps? But its a heavy tank with heavy tank's mobility. Pershing is pointless to mention. Wait what? Where is the link between overloaded suspension and clogging? The only German complaint was frozen mud and extended disassembly time. A cost for fielding highly mobile heavy tanks with good armour? Diesel engines also freeze in winter, are they "stupid" designs? Bloody hell..

Thin plates crack under larger calibers? Logical. It's not as if Soviet fared any better, or?

Well, it was more cramped, had shorter range, poor suspension and the new turret didn't fit on it. Spielberger explains pretty well the circumstances and no, the party politics played little role beyond Hitler's hard limits of that 80mm front plate. It actually had interleaved road wheels. Leaf springs were considered cheap but bad in German opinion. They prefered MAN's suspension. When they were deciding over the prototypes Germany was not yet going downhill and plenty of feats remained in final model in an effort not to interrupt the production. There were attempts to simplify the panther. Panther 2 with Schmalturm and paired interleaved wheels. But Germans were either too desperate by then or not bothered enough by the first panther.

I don't know about the Czech steel but early pz3 and 4 had good quality face hardened steel that offered more protection than their thickness would suggest. Germans knew that such surface can crack monobloc shots, which kept Allies and Soviets fairly confused until 1942. But the face hardened plates were thin and could logically crack. This is fairly different from late war thicker German plates that cracked due to lack of ductility enhancing metals, such as molybden. That is true, Germans had to reduce rare metal content fairly soon. This however does not hold for tiger 1's frontal plate which remained top quality, not sure if until the end of production. Someone on axishistory had more detailed info with exact plate name and specifications. Panther's plates were prone to inconsistencies due to mass production and electricity outages, resulting in improper tempering and quenching procedures. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=118212 Later on Germans appear to have decided for high carbon, high hardness and brittleness plates that were better at deflecting shots but also prone to cracking.

Excellent reply!

I assume you mean his role in being an unofficial editor of the Historical Division?

It's a taboo? Or people don't believe in them? Sorry to break it to you, but these numbers are proven wrong. Besides that, I meant losses in equipment. The about 10k (or for the sake of politeness, over 7k) written off shermans and the god-awful five digit for t-34s. EDIT: don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to shit on those two tanks. The numbers were a consequence of good German and bad Allied decisions. T-34 was the best medium in 1941, Sherman at its introduction in 1942.

100mm front hull under 60deg angle. That is no effective 200mm, especially not against German caped shells. The rest of the vehicle is 90 at negligent angles, compared to 80mm on tiger 1. Hence a tad more. The best about it are rounded angles and few flat surfaces, smth Soviets were good at. But anw, for Soviets was that enough to give trouble to panther's and tiger 1's and they finally solved their acute problem of being constantly outgunned at long ranges. Finally they could counter fire brigades that so easily dismantled Soviet breakthroughs before. But for that IS-2 had no spectacular performance, no double digit tank aces. Germans would be exhilarated if they could live with such a tank, they couldn't. 20-30 seconds reload. But what if facing 10 tanks? Not ideal. Engine powered turret rotation was unavoidable, not a wanted feature. I think anyone can see that. J version of Pz4 had none, just tells what Germans had to cope with. Because you read somewhere that in the second half of the war Germans lacked rare metals? Check the penetration tables? KwK42 is almost identical to 17pdr, with a lighter shell, less gunpower and higher speed. So far as I know this is exactly what one wants for higher reload, flatter shooting trajectory, less fumes and more ammo in a tank. That is all thanks to better gun powder, manufacturing and shell design. All belligerent countries featured similar caliber categories but German guns were almost by the rule always at least slightly better. Maybe they just didn't succeed? Maybe they lacked German skill? Leopard 1 came much late in time when solid steel armour had no effect anymore. The engine and transmission evolution also allowed for longer hulls. Since armour was irrelevant there was no need for overlapping wheels and by the 70ies, alloys in torsion bars allowed for 60tonne tanks without the complex arrangement. But heavy tanks were needed in 40s, not later and Germans could field them whereas Allies were stuck with obsolete infantry tanks and moving bunkers. That suspension was an interwar design. Ask yourself why all but the British bothered with torsion bars during or after war. As I understand it, British tanks just aren't maneuver vehicles. They are to occupy a good spot (hence good climb) and shoot at a distance (armour and firepower over mobility), then relocate. But good luck running away from Soviet "hordes". A mere moving bunker with overstressed drive train. That thing barely moved. Correct, I admit. It isn't mediocre lol, the numbers are still in its favour. There are a number of other technical advantages which I don't understand, so I will focus on it being shorter (less long), which allowed precisely what you mentioned later, centered turret and also more space for the crew. That is I believe, quite important for crew performance. Engine in a panther is pushed in one third while it is almost half of a t-34. This isn't my observation but that of German designers, all nicely explained in Spielberger's "Panther and its variants". Btw, Russians are until today obsessed with short drive train which reduces power loss when turning. This is perhaps the most ignored popular fact of tank design. Western tanks have quite some issues cooling the heat in transmission due to this fact. More stable, better weapon platform (in any direction), less suspension failures. Should I mention how horrendous losses t-34 and sherman incurred after 1942? I better not.

no. Where did I screw it up?

You just can't say that and expect to be taken seriously. Not with knowing the history and the numbers of equipment that Allies lost to kill two and a half countries.

Isn't the fact that so many consider German weapons better and indication of truth? Many countries try to shovel some bias into their histories but Nazi-Germany has no advocates. Even in Germany is the interest for ww2 technology a semi-obscure hobby.