- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What was the best WWII tank?
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:03 pm to rmnldr
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:03 pm to rmnldr
quote:
And none of that mattered when Germany couldn’t produce enough of them, get them to the battlefield in quality numbers, or maintain them properly when in theater. The best German tank of WWII was the StuG 3 because they could produce them in quality numbers quickly and could maintain them being that it had a chassis they had been using from the start of the war. The Nazis’ focus on creating a superior tank instead of creating quality tanks in superior numbers drained and strained their already fragile industrial capacity.
You’re exactly right about the Panther’s drawbacks. If you’ll look to my first post in this thread I mentioned this very thing.
As for the StuG III, it actually wasn’t a tank, but rather aassault gun/tank destroyer. It was easier to produce than the Panther for sure. But it had a huge disadvantage in that it didn’t have a turret. Plus it had reletevly thin armor. So while it excelled in defensive ambush style warfare, it was of limited offensive value. It basically had the same 7.5 CM gun as the Pz. Mk. IV., jus with far less armor.
The real mistake the Germans made was the myriad of different armor vehicles they tried to produce. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following tank destroyers:
Marder (in numerous variants)
Hetzer
StuG III
Jagdpanzer IV
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Elfant (Ferdinand)
Nashorn
And then tanks:
Pz. III
Pz. IV
Panther
Tiger
Tiger II
And don’t forget they were working on the Maus when the war ended.
Had they focused on mass production of one TD, (I’d have gone with the Jagdpanther) and one tank, (like a simplified Panther) they’d have not wasted so much time and resources on making small batches of a myriad of different vehicles.
2
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:07 pm to tigahbruh
quote:
What's your opinion of the TD units? The standard belief over decades was that they were no good. Recently there's been more debate (at least among some military historians) as to their effectiveness. It's not a topic I have any expertise in. Just curious on the thoughts of someone who clearly knows what they're talking about.
From what I've read, Louisiana's 773rd TD battalion was pretty effective.
They were quite effective when used properly. The key word there is “properly”. The problem is they were oftentimes misused as tanks, which as they lacked any armor protection, they were ill suited to be employed as tanks. They were designed and trained to use speed and ambush tactics to kill enemy tanks then move before they could be engaged. They could not get into slogging matches. They could deliver a quick blow, then get out.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:07 pm to Darth_Vader
Yeah we’ve talked about tanks on here before I just wanted to butt in 
Good to see you Darth 
Good to see you Darth Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:09 pm to Darth_Vader
The Ferdinand (based on the losing Tiger design by Porsche) was just awful and savaged when left alone against Russian infantry anti tank units.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:13 pm to Arthur Cantrelle Jr
quote:
The Ferdinand (based on the losing Tiger design by Porsche) was just awful and savaged when left alone against Russian infantry anti tank units.
When it was first introduced during Operation Citadel (Thr Battle of Kursk) the lack of defensive weapons on the Ferd caused many to be lost to roving Soviet anti-tank teams. This oversight was corrected by the addition of a bow machine gun and application of Zimmeret anti-magnetic coating.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:15 pm to athenslife101
Wehrmacht Panther
Posted on 9/29/18 at 7:19 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I fought in the First Gulf War as a tanker.
Thank you for your service. I've had the privilege of meeting guys who fought in Desert Storm. One is a marine and a good friend. Amazing man. God I hope we never run out of folks like you and him.
This post was edited on 9/29/18 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 9/29/18 at 8:15 pm to GeorgePaton
For tank v. Tank scenarios, my vote would be a wash between the IS-1/2 or Tiger I.
The hetzer and jagdpanther were some of the best TDs. Hetzer with that shallow inclination angle could bounce a lot of rounds and packed a PAK 39.
M18 might have been the best Allied TD. I know when the Jackson started development and production they rathered the M18.
The hetzer and jagdpanther were some of the best TDs. Hetzer with that shallow inclination angle could bounce a lot of rounds and packed a PAK 39.
M18 might have been the best Allied TD. I know when the Jackson started development and production they rathered the M18.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 9:32 pm to athenslife101
Tiger and King Tiger overall.
Not even close. They didn’t have enough produced.
Not even close. They didn’t have enough produced.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 10:10 pm to Moot Point
quote:
It's more amazing to me that the Reds were able to make so many of the bastards.
It helps when your industrial base isn't being bombed 24/7. And the US is supplying you with so much other equipment you don't have to produce.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 10:22 pm to athenslife101
From a capability standpoint, it was the Panther. The Panther combined things the Germans like about their own tanks with those of the T-34. Overengineered like a lot of German equipment, it was probably too complex for the task.
But, it did strongly influence Cold War tank development and is, for all practical purposes the world's first "Main Battle Tank."
The sheer number and variety of designs of armored vehicles for the war is a fascinating area to study. For example, the U.S. had a bifurcated force - the Tank Destroyer Command was charged with killing enemy tanks. They used gun motor carriages that were high on firepower and mobility at the severe sacrifice of survivability.
The Germans had a slightly similar divide, but their designs were much more balanced. They could never produce the numbers needed of Tigers and Panthers, so they relied on their workhorse, the Panzer IV until the bitter end. Originally their "infantry support tank", while the Panzer III models focused on tank on tank capability, the upgraded Panzer IVs ultimately became general purpose tanks and the final Panzer III chassis were built up as assault guns (Stug III).
But, it did strongly influence Cold War tank development and is, for all practical purposes the world's first "Main Battle Tank."
The sheer number and variety of designs of armored vehicles for the war is a fascinating area to study. For example, the U.S. had a bifurcated force - the Tank Destroyer Command was charged with killing enemy tanks. They used gun motor carriages that were high on firepower and mobility at the severe sacrifice of survivability.
The Germans had a slightly similar divide, but their designs were much more balanced. They could never produce the numbers needed of Tigers and Panthers, so they relied on their workhorse, the Panzer IV until the bitter end. Originally their "infantry support tank", while the Panzer III models focused on tank on tank capability, the upgraded Panzer IVs ultimately became general purpose tanks and the final Panzer III chassis were built up as assault guns (Stug III).
Posted on 9/29/18 at 10:56 pm to athenslife101
/thread
Posted on 9/29/18 at 11:06 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Jeb Stuart
You are correct Sir. Loved when he had to fly his rebel flag over a Sherman tank. And the Frankenstein tank is also a favorite.
Posted on 9/29/18 at 11:07 pm to athenslife101
Panther
tiger
t-34
Panzer
Sturmgeschütz III top5
tiger
t-34
Panzer
Sturmgeschütz III top5
Posted on 9/30/18 at 3:16 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
It helps when your industrial base isn't being bombed 24/7. And the US is supplying you with so much other equipment you don't have to produce.
True. This has been mentioned in other threads on here, so I won't beat it to death.
We supplied the Russians with so much stuff (including a whole lot of Shermans) that it made it much easier for them.
Posted on 9/30/18 at 4:51 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
Hint: tanks are not for fighting other tanks. That’s insanely resource-wasteful. They’re not for fighting infantry alone either - they’re actually really vulnerable to infantry. Combined arms wins the day. That’s why the Sherman was so effective despite being supposedly undergunned and underarmored. It wasn’t meant to fight tanks in the first place. It was a combined arms tool. People who miss that point and go on and on about its weakness and think it was a terrible weapon don’t understand WWII tactics or the intended proper role of the tank. Actually the Sherman was very effective.
Oh, look. Someone who actually knows what the frick he is talking about.
Posted on 9/30/18 at 5:47 pm to athenslife101
Depends, in my mind the best tank is the one that had the largest impact and clearly that is the M4 Sherman , 50K of them produced , not the toughest tank, or the biggest gun, but just by sheer numbers it was the tank that won the European war.
Posted on 9/30/18 at 9:09 pm to Moot Point
quote:
Nothing like national survival to stoke industrial efficiency.
no contracts.
Quotas.
And workers. Rosie's Russian cousins.
Posted on 9/30/18 at 9:13 pm to athenslife101
Nazi King Tiger tank. Of course the Germans had the best of everything. Except number of troops, thus the loss.
Hitler's buzzaw was my favorite. MG 42 machine gun.
Hitler's buzzaw was my favorite. MG 42 machine gun.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News