Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> What was the best tank of World War 2?
 
What was the best tank of World War 2?
1. Sherman Firefly [ 2 ]  [4.44%]
2. Churchhill [ 0 ]  [0.00%]
3. King Tiger [ 6 ]  [13.33%]
4. Tiger I [ 5 ]  [11.11%]
5. Panther [ 16 ]  [35.56%]
6. Panzer IV [ 4 ]  [8.89%]
7. T-34 [ 7 ]  [15.56%]
8. JS-2 [ 1 ]  [2.22%]
9. M-4 Sherman [ 1 ]  [2.22%]
10. Other [ 3 ]  [6.67%]
Total Votes: 45
Guests cannot vote 
ANDREAS
Posted on April 05, 2014 10:22 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



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!

PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted on April 08, 2014 01:21 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



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.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 08, 2014 01:58 am
PM
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted on April 08, 2014 02:59 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (Florin @ April 08, 2014 06:21 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.

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.

PMYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted on April 08, 2014 08:21 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (cnflyboy2000 @ April 08, 2014 09:59 am)
..........
Of course there's a downside to that; in the T34 tanks case I think they "forgot" to install radios.† Fatal flaw for many.

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: "Donít think of what it is. Just open fire!"

This post has been edited by Florin on April 08, 2014 08:43 pm
PM
Top
Radub
Posted on April 09, 2014 05:28 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
darius1941
Posted on May 03, 2014 03:12 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 65
Member No.: 725
Joined: November 20, 2005



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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Taz1
Posted on May 17, 2014 08:48 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 106
Member No.: 2414
Joined: March 05, 2009



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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Florin
Posted on May 18, 2014 08:03 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Taz1 @ May 17, 2014 03:48 pm)
............ Their much admire at the T-34 the engime made from light alloy, alluminium but the Germans didn,t had acces at such resurses..............

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.
PM
Top
Radub
Posted on May 19, 2014 08:02 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (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.

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

This post has been edited by Radub on May 19, 2014 09:25 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0347 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]