| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > What was the best tank of World War 2? |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 11:08 pm |
| Please Vote for the Best Tank in World War 2! |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 11:12 pm |
| I voted for the awesome T-34! over 100,000 built, used by over 40 nations, still in service in some third world armies! fought in dozens of wars! |
| Posted by: C-2 September 23, 2009 05:52 am |
| I voted for the PZ 5. An upgraded version of the T 34. |
| Posted by: Alexei2102 September 23, 2009 07:48 am |
| Panther... Teh best. |
| Posted by: ovichelu September 23, 2009 07:54 am |
| I think that you can`t say that x tipe was the best. But you can say that at an certain moment x tipe was better than y because ..... So in few words there`s no such thing as THE BEST . |
| Posted by: dead-cat September 23, 2009 08:16 am | ||
actually 84.000. nevertheless it was a great design for its time. i'll go with the panther, which however, was directly influenced by the T-34. in early '44 the T-34/85 was amuch needed improvement, as the "regular" T-34 was becoming obsolete. |
| Posted by: dragos September 23, 2009 04:54 pm |
I vote for the Romanian FT-17, a tank that fought in two world wars !  |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 03:33 pm | ||||
Wikipedia says 84,000, other sources say 100,000+ or 110,000+ so lets just say sources differ! The point is that the T-34 is second most produced tank of all time! only the T-54/55 family was built greater numbers. The T-34 provided the Russians with a effective medium tank, that helped turn the tide of the WW2! The Panther was also an excellent tank design, designed to counter the T-34/76. According ospey's duel panther vs t-34/76 at kursk, the Panther won most of the tank battles against the T-34/76 at kursk. However the Panthers broke down qiute often, that and far superior numbers gave the ultimate victory at kursk to the Russians! |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 03:35 pm | ||
Interesting chioce, a little Romanian humor perhaps? |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 03:38 pm | ||
Not true, some tanks are more successful then others; and the cruel selection process of Tank vs Tank combat; clearly proves some tank designs to be superior to others! |
| Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 03:50 pm | ||||
Wikipedia says 84.070. i think i remember the aproximate figure of 84.000 from osprey's "T-34" book(s).
the panther has been rushed to be at Kursk. there were quite a few technical problems, which were solved during the late 1943/early 1944. most of the 200 panthers delivered were temporarily out of service, awaiting repair. however, it was the 2nd SS Panzerkorps that saw the bigger part of the fighting during "Citadel". |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 05:34 pm | ||||||
T-34 production by Model and Year T-34/76 Model 40 1940-115 1941-835 Total-950 T-34/76 Model 41 1941-3,014 1942-6,277 Total-9,291 T-34/76 Model 42 1942-6,276 1943-7,765 Total-14,041 T-34/76 Model 43 1943-7,765 1944-2,995 Total-10,760 T-34/76 all Models Total-35,042 T-34/85 Models M1943, M1944, M1947, T-34/85M, Type 58 1943-1969? Sources differ wildly-54,000-75,000 T-34 Totals all models 89,000-110,000 |
| Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 05:45 pm |
| found it. it's Steven Zaloga who writes 84.070 of all types including post-war and foreign production: 35.120 T-34/76 48.950 T-34/85 however, 13.170 assault guns were also build on the T-34 chasis, raising the grand total to 97.240 vehicles. i guess this is where the variation comes from, as some counted only the "tanks" and others added the assault guns too. |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 06:23 pm | ||
I also have both osprey books on the T-34, and don't doubt you on that! However there are a great many sources on the T-34 and tend differ as already said. For Example Janes pocket guide to ww2 armor states 110,000 of all T-34 tank models! I also wonder if Steve Zaloga counted Polish, Czech, Yugoslavian and Chinese production! Also some people count rebuilds and upgrades as new tanks, and local upgrades where done for example in Cuba, Eygpt, Syria, Vietnam and Yugoslavia! to name a few! But none this changes the facts I already stated the T-34 is second most numerous tank in history, has been in service 69+ years, turned the tide in the east, where WW2 was decided, and has been countless other wars such as Korea, Vietnam,Sino-Vietnam, Middle East Wars, etc................. |
| Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 07:40 pm | ||
he said he did. he explicitely mentioned "foreign production". haven't seen anything on rebuilds though. |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 08:08 pm | ||||
Ok, perhaps that expains some of the disparity!  |
| Posted by: PanzerKing September 25, 2009 02:29 am |
| I voted for the Panther. A favorite of mine however is the Pz IV. I love that tank. A match for T-34s and available in much larger numbers than the Panther. |
| Posted by: Iamandi September 28, 2009 07:29 am |
| M-26 Pershing. In my opinion was the best tank in ww2. Yes, i know he saw little action compared with other tanks, but it was the best. P.S. - I like CKD LT-38, and i was impressed about what Sweden has done starting from czechoslvakian tanks. Too bad we did not started early before ww2 to have our tank under license. ... LT-38 at Malaxa produced from 1938... later with a bigger turret and the 47 mm czechoslovakian gun, or 50 mm german one... What if, and nothing much. |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 29, 2009 10:20 pm | ||
The panzer IV was great tank, and it is a real shame! that Romania could not have built them under license! During WW2. |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 29, 2009 10:22 pm | ||
Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger? |
| Posted by: ocoleanui September 30, 2009 06:34 am |
| King Tiger |
| Posted by: Iamandi September 30, 2009 08:04 am | ||||
King Tiger is too heavy (ex. a bridge...) and IS-2 have a slow rate of fire. I will search about IS-1. |
| Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu October 03, 2009 07:45 am | ||||||
Yes, but both the JS-2 and King Tiger more powerful main guns, and better armor the M-26 Pershing has a max 110mm, the JS-2 has a max 160mm, and King Tiger had a max of 180mm of armor. |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 December 14, 2009 07:05 pm | ||||||||
I found a great book about Tigers! http://www.historynetshop.com/mzs1.html Written by a Brit ex tanker who is curator of their tank museum, where it seems they have a refurbished Tiger, in running condition! (There are five known Tiger I's in the world and "seven or eight "Tiger II's) He considers in the "assesment" section of his book exactly the point we are considering here. For him "best" means the "right" balance between protection and mobility, and while the Tigers were very well protected, they were a little underpowered for their heavy weight! (he says). Another issue with Tigers is maintainence. Yeah a Porsche is a great car but don' ever buy one unless you have deep pockets and lots of time to keep it humming; same with Tigers, apparently. I'm a litle surprised that the Shermans, Fireflys and IS-2's all got ZERO votes! In some of their iterations all these were Tiger killers. Do we take into consideration crews here? By all accounts the Tiger crews were mostly top notch and may well have accounted for some of the lopsided kill figures? cheers, fb |
| Posted by: LeCCa December 17, 2009 09:41 am |
| this is probably the toughest questions one can ask about ww2! there are many many variables that must taken in account, armour, firepower,engine, mobility, ammo load, crew, production, serviceability, fearfactor... and that's not all! if u take firepower as most important, you can deffinetely say is2, if u consider armour, u can say king tiger, but than again, does the dfference matter so much when confronted with 122mm canon of is2? probably, when all taken in account, t34/85 is the best combination... altough, if i was to be a tankmen in ww2 , i'd rather fight in king tiger or is2! the thing that troubles me the most is why panther is voted so much... that thing was so complicated, i't didn't had the best armour nor the best gun! just because it looks so good, doesn't mean it was the best... i think the best german machine was king tiger, so why choose panter?! ... later edit: now is see radub started his reply on topic "spit vs messerschmitt" in exactly the same manner  |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 December 17, 2009 04:41 pm | ||
Yes, true. In addition, regards the Tiger, I read that those machines were regarded as "life insurance" by their (all volunteer) crew, even to the point of overconfidence. "For example, one Tiger battalion CO wrote: The extensive propaganda in the newspapers touts the Tiger as being invulnerable and pure life insurance, so the higher command as well as the simple soldier believe they can accomplish anything with this fortress." (source: op cit.) One amazing statistic I came across speaks to how things changed over the course of the war in tank vs tank; "In 1941, six or seven Soviet tanks were lost for every German one; by autumn of 1944 the ratio was down to one to one" It seems unlikely to me that such a huge change would be the result of purely mechanical/design features. (source: Russia's War; A history of the Soviet War Effort: 1941-1945. Richard Overy. Penguin Books, NY, NY 1998 p.191) |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 17, 2009 07:36 pm |
| the "Tigerfibel" however is quite clear about the vulnerability zone of the Tiger vs. the respective enemy tanks. the crews were supposed to be well aquainted with that book. |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 December 18, 2009 05:13 pm | ||||
Considering that, for example, a Tiger (dunno bout Panzers) required some 300,000 man hours PER TANK to build (slave labor?), would there have been adequate resources in Romania at the time to build German tanks? I'd think most able bodies were at the front or already employed in the war effort, including agriculture? |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 December 18, 2009 05:16 pm | ||
What's the Tigerfibel? (pardon mon ignorance) |
| Posted by: Alexei2102 December 18, 2009 05:50 pm |
 The Tiger Manual. |
| Posted by: Taz1 December 21, 2009 03:24 pm |
| To campare tiger, king tiger, IS 2 with panther, t-34/85 it is wrong - are diferent tipes of tanks. The writh questions is what was the best light tank, medium tank, heavy tank of the war. The best heavy tank of war was probably tiger 1 and 2, they were more deadly on batlefield then the IS 2. The best medium tank of war. Some my say it was the T-34/85-easy to mentain, not to dificult to manufacter, good design, god firepower, mobil etc- other that the panther was the best. The panther was more effective on the battlefield with some important anvantages over the T-34-state of the art radio equippement, state of the art optic sistems, it all so have better gun and armor protection, Yes the german made more complex machines, but they all so have better more trained mechanics, so fixing a panther or a tiger was not a big problem for them. So I thing that panther was nr.1 or T-34/85 with german redio, optic and crew  .Pershing was all so a good tank all so Panzer 4 how has a much for T-34/85. Probably that panther was to complex but T-34/85 was all so to primitive. |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 21, 2009 11:17 pm | ||
it's 300.000 given a certain industrial base. without that base, it'd be more. |
| Posted by: Alexander March 01, 2010 07:17 am |
| I think the panther was the best tank of WW2. It got an excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection and most modern tanks were probably made after the panther. Also, compared to the tiger it got better frontal armor, better gun penetration, was lighter overall and thus faster, and could handle rough terrain better than the Tigers. |
| Posted by: MMM March 01, 2010 09:44 am | ||
:looooool: And the Panther was made after the T-34! Of course, an improved version, but still... PS: I voted for Panther, as well  |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 01, 2010 09:20 pm |
| Why not the Sherman? That tank was constantly improved and used from mid-wwii until the 70's (ok, the T-34/85 too, but it appeared in 1944). When the Sherman appeared in 1942 the 75mm gun was able to knock out all German tanks at reasonable ranges (it was out-ranged by the long 75mm on the PzIVF2/G though). The 75mm gun was later upgraded to 76mm and to 90mm on the M36 (on a Sherman chassis) with better ammunition being introduced too (HVAP). The Sherman also benefited from a new suspension (HVSS) which gave it a better 'ride' and lower ground pressure. The chassis was also the basis for everything from flamethrower tanks to mine clearance and swimming tank. And also their high production level. The Sherman tanks saw combat even in the 1967 Six-Day War fighting Soviet World War II-era armor like the T-34/85, and also in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, proving effective even against newer, heavier Soviet tanks like the T-54/55. |
| Posted by: MMM March 02, 2010 11:58 am |
| Hey! It was about WW2, not afterwards! What's more, T34/85 is not as different from T34/76 as the versions of Sherman are from each other! To answer your question "Why not Sherman?": because in frontal 1-to-1 combat Shermans almost always lost; they made up by huge numerical superiority and/or overwhelming air superiority. How many tank aces had US Army on Shermans? (I really don't know that; theres's no sarcasm in this question...) |
| Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu March 02, 2010 12:14 pm |
| Panther FTW It was better than T34 so it is the better tank  The question was not about how easily produced it was or how many men hours it took to built one, but which one was the better tank and that means on the battlefield.Imagine the germans were able to produce equal number of panthers and crews that the soviet had and that will answer your question |
| Posted by: MMM March 02, 2010 12:18 pm |
| Then this topic should have been in german, jawohl? |
| Posted by: contras March 02, 2010 03:51 pm | ||
True, but in battlefield it is important, on equal degree or maybe more important, the men skills and comanders tactics, where Germans were the best. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 02, 2010 10:40 pm | ||
First have to clarify -I did not vote for Sherman!- but I think a discussion need to be carried! Answer MMM - see yourself a US tank ace : http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_ordnance1.htm and also at www.panzerlexikon.de. Even if I am convinced that "there is no spring with a single flower" so to say! Surely the germans were better and they also had the tools to be so! But it's also true that Sherman won the war even without excellent trained crews! They made their jobs, and do it good enough! |
| Posted by: dead-cat March 02, 2010 10:48 pm |
| this thread is about, the best design. not the best crew, not the most numerous build. and as such, the sherman was not the best design of ww2. |
| Posted by: MMM March 03, 2010 03:13 pm |
I HAVE TO agree with you! Sherman was as ugly as impractical...  |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 03, 2010 10:29 pm |
| Need to agree in regards the Sherman design, also that in no case the Sherman was the best tank of WWII! But it was sufficient to perform the tasks given to him and even be one of the best in the Pacific Theater of Operations facing Japan Forces (even if they never met the rival Type 3 Chi-Nu tank). And (later) led by trained crews (Israelian) they have managed to obtain important victories on the battlefields of the Middle East (1956, 1967 and 1973 wars) as the Germans obtained in 1939-1942 with their modest Panzer III and IV! But, as I said, I agree that the Sherman was not the best tank, at least on the battlefields of Europe! Maybe one of the best in Pacific?! |
| Posted by: Alexander March 04, 2010 07:46 am | ||
| The Sherman was a good tank but it won battle's mostly because of the number not armor capacity or anything else. Also compared to the german Tiger it was alot faster. Imagine alot of sherman tanks coming fast towards one tiger In one to one combat one single sherman would have no chance against a Tiger I or a Panther. Regarding the design , I think the sherman stood quite good at that chapter 
Yes, the Sherman was able to perform most tasks given to him but again , mostly because of the number and speed and in the pacific it was a good tank compared to the japanese one.  |
| Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 10:03 am |
| the sherman didn't have much of a contender in the pacific. between blinds, the one-eyed is king. |
| Posted by: MMM March 04, 2010 07:21 pm |
| Slightly OoT: what would have said the designers of Tigers about the "pathetic" Japanese tanks? I'm talking about the "Type 97" stuff, but not only those; acording to wikipedia, the Japanese tried to design some tanks inspired by the German Panthers and Tigers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_tanks_and_armoured_vehicles_of_the_WWII_period |
| Posted by: Alexander March 04, 2010 07:37 pm | ||
I'm sure they would have said "I can make better, here comes the snake tank, great speed, cannon and medium armor"  |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 04, 2010 08:42 pm |
| To MMM Because the main objectives pursued by the military leadership from Tokyo were in the Pacific, the need of modernization of land troop weapons was not a priority, and this is easy to see! The japanese planes and warships were in many ways very advanced, and only the U.S. industrial capacity beat the will and discipline of Japanese Forces. About the japanese tanks, the new 'Type 4 Chi-To' was a tank to be taken into account as a modern one, and one that probably would have success in face of the most advanced U.S. and Soviet tanks from 1945! But Japan could not sustain in 1944-45 the production of such a tank in the context of lack of resources and continuous bombings of U.S. aviation! Even the Type 3 medium tank "CHI-NU", which design I compare with the Panzer IV Ausf G was produced in low numbers, and never see combat, so that we can only speculate about his performance on the battlefield. |
| Posted by: MMM March 05, 2010 05:51 pm |
| Oh, I am/was aware of the strategic/objective limitations of Japan's army; also, for their role, those tanks very pretty qualified; I was just comparing apples with bananas |
| Posted by: Petre March 01, 2011 08:57 pm |
| From a russian forum : For the first time the Germans got the new technology only in May 1944 when one IS tank, damaged in battle near Tirgu Frumos, was captured and then towed to the rear for examination and testing. Based on these data, The General Inspector of the Armored Forces of the Wehrmacht, H. Guderian concluded as follows: "Do not get into a fight with" Stalin "without overwhelming numerical superiority in combat power. I believe that for every" Stalin, "shall be on a platoon of Tigers." Attempts "Tiger" fight "Stalin," one-on-one can only result in the senseless loss of combat vehicle ... The most successful is the following tactics to combat "Stalin": should surround them from the flanks or rear, and a powerful shot aimed fire ". In other words, proposed to the German tank crews to fight the new Soviet tanks from ambushes and fortified positions. From a text from internet : During the battle, Hasso von Manteuffel, CO of the Grossdeutschland division, first encountered the new Soviet Stalin tank. "It was at Târgu Frumos that I first met the Stalin tanks. It was a shock to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at a range of 3,000 metres, our shells bounced off, and did not penetrate them until we had closed to half that distance. But I was able to counter the Russians' superiority by manoeuvre and mobility, in making the best use of ground cover." Manteuffel also noted that the Stalin tanks had several "disadvantages: slow, not manoeuvrable enough; as well, in my opinion their crews were not sufficiently familiar with the tank." |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 04, 2011 10:35 pm |
| IS-2 was no bad... But the germans produced the Tiger II, who had no rivals on the battlefield : http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen10.htm ... of course outside their own weight and improper engine. The IS-2 was not a rival for this monster, and it's normal to be so since the IS-2 tank weighs 46 tons and the Tiger II 68 tons! So the Tiger II remains the ...King (Tiger)! |
| Posted by: MMM March 05, 2011 10:58 am |
| All right, but the bridges? It was too heavy to cross on most of the bridges... also to be transported on the railroads... What about that? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 05, 2011 11:53 pm |
| Look at this monster tank - after some repairs it's functional even after 65 years : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5p3KCli6YM and do you believe they have found spare parts for it? I bet there are the original ones from WWII. Our tanks were so unreliable that after 1995 (so 15 to 20 years after they were produced) were the first scrapped (the old russians T-55 were kept in service). Don't you think that is a quality of the KingTiger? Answering your question : rivers can be sometimes crossed by a ford, not always on a bridge! In practice the crews have found solutions as you can see if you read the book Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45 (New Vanguard) by Tom Jentz, Peter Sarson. I say seriously that after reading it I changed my mind. I must admit that before I read this book, I didn't like at all this tank who was too big, too cumbersome and to slow for my opinion. Now I must say that I respect him, as the russians and the americans did after WWII (the russians who build the IS-7 as a replica to Tiger II and the americans inspired from him in building the Patton series of MBT). |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2011 01:22 pm |
| ...by the way, I just found this : http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm Interesting informations, even if there is nothing new (maybe even inspired from...) to what I read in the book "Panzer VI Tiger und seine Abarten" -Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart 2010. Convince yourself... |
| Posted by: Fulcrum89 August 14, 2011 04:21 am |
| I voted for Sherman Firefly, the best british tank to wide spread servive during the war, and a very good killing of Tigers and Panther tanks! |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 11, 2014 07:30 pm |
| Because apparently the Panther tank won the 1st position by your votes, I want to revive this topic through a discussion on this tank: http://survincity.com/2012/05/panther-tank-the-gravedigger-of-the-third-reich/ Admit that I like this tank very much, I had the chance to see him rolling and it's impressing... but was it really the best? |
| Posted by: dragos March 12, 2014 01:49 pm | ||
| Quite a poor translation job (probably using an online translator). The article seem to be far from impartial (why am I not surprised). Reasoning like this:
doesn't make the author very credible. It's like saying Me-262 wasn't such an outstanding machine because it could not utterly defeat the Allied Air Force. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 13, 2014 08:41 pm |
| Agree, I was playing the devil's Advocate to hear the arguments of the Panther objectors! I noticed the Red Army fans (from the USSR countries) and slightly less people from the West provide as argument against the Panther being one of the best ww2 tanks the fact that in reality this tank was a heavy tank in the same class with KV-85 or IS-1/-2 heavy soviet tanks considering their weight, so that their success against T-34 tanks (or Sherman) was normal, because any heavy tank would have had as much success in front of a medium tank. But even if we play their game still the Panther was better against KV-85 or even IS-1 tanks of contemporary time (date of their occurrence in battle) with the Panther (autumn 1943), and not significantly worse than the IS-2, that appeared on the battlefield in spring 1944. I say, however, that the Panther tank was a medium tank not a heavy one, significantly being the way he was used in battle, his distribution in the german armored formations, the large number in which it was produced a.o. What do you think about this issue - Panther tank being a medium or a heavy tank? Is this a legitimate question or a "invented" one? |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 03, 2014 02:47 pm | ||||
agree. Nice to see this thread active again. IMO you need to include issue of reliability/durability/maintainence expense. T34 may have an edge there? What good is a tank that requires big crew of expensive mechanics to keep it running? (same reason I'll never buy a german car) |
| Posted by: Taz1 April 03, 2014 03:08 pm |
| Everybody consider Panther a medium tank except for the russians. For various reasons the russians prefer lighter tanks as main battle tank even today compared to the Westen countries. As for the panther being the best tank of the ww2 , or not the best it was for sure it was the most effective tank. Many concentrates on the german tanks during the ww2 and way thei made that or chose that insted of that etc and not so many on the erors or missjugment on the allied side. Andreas where did you spw the panther tank live in France, Germany ? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS April 05, 2014 10:22 am |
| Taz1, I had the chance to climb on and go inside a Panther model G tank in Germany, for over 4 years from now, the same Panther who can be seen in this short film : http://youtu.be/QsodIneQGzI I was impressed, I admit, although I had the opportunity to go also with a T-34-85 tank who, for unkown reasons, didn't impressed me that much! I felt very honored to have that opportunity, as it was an original vehicle from WW2 (even if the T-34-85 was also an original vehicle from WW2) and I have reenactment as a hobby! For me the Panther tank is the tank I like most but I am open to listen other opinions! cnflyboy2000 true what you say but... your statement is especially true for Sherman and not for T-34... I mean in 1941, T-34 tanks (76mm gun versions) were not especially reliable, many tanks were abandoned by their crews due to technical reasons, but gradually but significantly their reliability increased and by 1943 they had become very reliable but also inferior to the german Pz.IV and the big cats (Panther and Tiger tanks)! So I think that would have happened with Panther tanks if Germany would have had the time (and also their plants were not be bombarded!) to fix their problems! The postwar experience of the French Army with the Panther tanks (used between 1945 and 1950) was interesting in this issue! |
| Posted by: Florin April 08, 2014 01:21 am |
| When you compare the Panther against the T-34-85, the Panther was better, if they faced at 1 : 1 in numbers. But try to consider that one of the qualities of a design if the easiness of manufacturing, and if the model can be created with cheaper technologies. The fact that Soviet Union was able to issue tens of thousands of T-34's is not only because they had many factories, but also because the design itself allowed fast production. The great engineer is the one that designs a good product and makes it easy, cheap and fast to obtain. I know that cheap + quality usually do not mix, so you have to target a trade off. The T-34 had a better equilibrium of qualities versus cost and time of production, than the Panther. |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 08, 2014 02:59 pm | ||
Yes, I agree with that assesment of engineering objectives and the inherent conflict of goals: cheap vs good! Wasn't the goal of "overdesign" for durability the basic design philosophy for the Russians? And remains so to this day? Make things simple and heavy and as indestructible and numerous as possible? (e.g, consider the Kalashnikov AR). Of course there's a downside to that; in the T34 tanks case I think they "forgot" to install radios. Fatal flaw for many. |
| Posted by: Florin April 08, 2014 08:21 pm | ||
The first T-34's were manufactured in 1940. In that year, tanks with no radio were not uncommon. Some British and French tanks had the same problem in 1939-1940. What was brilliant on behalf of the Germans was not the installation of radios as technical feature, but also training tactics to coordinate by radio the direction of a whole group based on the orders of the command tank, and that was very useful during low visibility (fog, dawn etc.) By 1943, as far as I know, the T-34's had their own radio. I think an even bigger problem for the first T-34's was the fact that the tank commander was also a gunner, and I am not sure if he had his own chair to sit down. From the following anecdote it is obvious that as of August 1944, the T-34's had radio. Encountering in Poland one of the first King Tigers, a T-34 commander is transmitting by radio: "I do not know what is in front of me. It looks like a Panther, but it is as big as a Tiger." Answer: "Don’t think of what it is. Just open fire!" |
| Posted by: Radub April 09, 2014 05:28 pm |
| Radio communication was still in its infancy in the forties. The first mobile radio telephones (I mean devices using voice) started to make their appearance in the thirties but were extremely expensive. For most of the war, radio communication was still carried out by Morse code. The onset of the war itself was the impetus that advanced and accelerated development of voice radio communication (along with everything else used in combat). So, having equipment (on land, sea or air) without radios in the early stages of the war was not that rare. Radu |
| Posted by: darius1941 May 03, 2014 03:12 pm |
| My vote was for the Pather but I would vote for all of them if I could and I would also give a vote for the crews that served in them. |
| Posted by: Taz1 May 17, 2014 08:48 pm |
| In the late 1930,s many tanks had radios.Even the skoda r 2 had radios an most of the tanks.The russians on the other hand had not , only on theit comand tanks. On of the problemes was the fact that soviet economy was not enough developed.Even that the T-34 was a revolutionar design.Some flaws in the desing, bad quality, and primitive instruments make it not so effective as weapon. Another problems that russians had was the fact that their ammo was of inferior quality, it detonates very easy.Compare to that the sherman tank use buy the soviets even inferior as fire power and protection had his advantages- better optic sistem,better more realible ammo, radio an oversall better quality construction. On a raport made by a german army comission ( I sow it here on forum but I can,t find it any more ). the report was made at the evaluation of the maresal tank destroier.They adimre much for the soviet doctrine to standardise their ammo. Their much admire at the T-34 the engime made from light alloy, alluminium but the Germans didn,t had acces at such resurses.As effectiveness ther germans consider that all their tanks were better than the russian, only the su-85 was consider more lethal. Most probably the report was made before the large introduction of T-34/85. Many problems were remediat at the T-34/85 others remain that made the tank only a little bit better than the panzer 4 but not a big problem for the hevier german tanks. |
| Posted by: Florin May 18, 2014 08:03 pm | ||
German industry was producing much more aluminum than the Soviet industry - about double of the Soviet output. The problem was not the fact that most German aluminum was absorbed into the aircraft manufacturing. The problem was that Soviet Union received a lot of raw aluminum from the United States. In 1941 the industry of Soviet Union had its harshest moment. They even designed fighter airplanes to be built from pine wood or other coniferous wood, in order to save aluminum. In August 1941, when The United States was still neutral, an American political / economical group traveled to Soviet Union to ask about their economic needs, and what America can do to keep Soviet Union in fight. By far one demand was paramount, and obvious as priority: raw aluminum. The Soviet leadership insisted on it before anything else. |
| Posted by: Radub May 19, 2014 08:02 am | ||
Let us not confuse matters here. Radios have existed since the early years of the 20th century. For example, the Titanic sent a famous distress signal via radio in 1912. No one denies the existance of radio in the early days of the war. The"problem" was that early radios were using Morse code which was useless for quick communication and command/manoeuvres. What was needed were voice-based "radio telephones". These were just coming into use in the late thirties/early forties and took a whole to become widespread. The war itself speeded up their implementation. Radu |