Who was most successful in tank design?

[dragos]

At the begining of WW2, Panzer III and IV were good machines for their time. They were adequately powered and easy to handle compared with other contemporary tanks. But on the Eastern Front, the situations changed. From German instructions issued in 1942: "The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off." (http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html)

Assault guns and tank destroyers were not specific only to Germany, although they made extensive use of them. They were a cheap alternative to tanks.

The first version of T-34 had indeed a 2-man turret, but the later versions had 3 men.

[dragos]

At the begining of Barbarossa, the bulk of the German armor were the Czech Panzer 38(t) tanks. I rember a documentary where a German veteran related the first meeting with the Soviet heavy tanks. The German crews abandoned the tanks and run for their lives, while a Soviet KV-1 collided a Panzer 38 and simply flattened it !

[Dr_V]

Von Maybach

I agree with you about the Panzer 4, I already said in my previous post that it was a good and versatile machine. Concearning the Panzer 3, althaugh its conversions were successfull, the tank itself was not so effective, being already too weak against the Russian heavy tanks (as Dragos said).

I haven't said much about the tank-destroyers because the topic is about tanks in particular, not about the armor in general. From the German tank-destroyers I believe the Hetzer was probably the most interesting design. The Jagdpanzers were also usefull machines, unlike the hidious Elephant that proved completely phantezist and the Marder with its elevated profile and thin plating. The assault guns proved very usefull in combat, but their main purpose was not engaging enemy armor.

Anyway, the German engineers proved came with much more versatile and inspiered designs than many of their Allied counterparts. More, they did it with low resources and had few complete flauds. Regardless of the previous dispute about Panther vs. T34 & IS2, when we talk about the country that was most successfull in tank design we must consider that Germany had many good designs, when the USSR produced only 2 really good tanks (T34 and IS2), the GB had 1 (the good old Matilda), the Americans 1 or 2 (the M24 light/recon tank +/- the M26) and France none.

Talking about best tank design, my second choice (after Germany) is Czechoslovakia, the Panzer 38t was an outstanding acheivement for a small nation without offensive goals or a very florishing echonomy.

[Florin]

QUOTE

At the begining of Barbarossa, the bulk of the German armor were the Czech Panzer 38(t) tanks. ...........

Indeed one German armored division was using mainly the Czech Pz38, but this does not mean "the bulk of the German armor".
There were 18 German armored divisions in Russia in June 1941.

It is interesting to remember that in the beginning of Barbarossa the Germans used also the best French tanks captured in 1940. However, the French tanks were a tiny minority in the total.

[johnny_bi]

I know that it is a thread about tank design but I think that we have to say something more about the quality of the crews. And I think that the German crews were by far the best.
The design I liked the most was the tank destroyer Jagdpanther... If you combine such kind of weapon with a good crew... hmmm...

[Indrid]

speaking about the quality of tank crews, have you guys seen that LIFE magazine issue that starred on the cover an israeli tank crew. what was particular about them was the fact that one of them had two doctorates, other 3 had only one and the "worst " of them had only a master degree. and you wonder how they could fight and win against the illiterate hordes of the mid-east :loool:

[dragos]

QUOTE

QUOTE At the begining of Barbarossa, the bulk of the German armor were the Czech Panzer 38(t) tanks. ........... Indeed one German armored division was using mainly the Czech Pz38, but this does not mean "the bulk of the German armor". There were 18 German armored divisions in Russia in June 1941.

German tanks deployed for Barbarossa

[dragos]

This thread is not only about tanks, but AFVs general.

We discuss only about technological achievements, not about the tank crews.

[Victor]

QUOTE

speaking about the quality of tank crews, have you guys seen that LIFE magazine issue that starred on the cover an israeli tank crew. what was particular about them was the fact that one of them had two doctorates, other 3 had only one and the \"worst \" of them had only a master degree. and you wonder how they could fight and win against the illiterate hordes of the mid-east :loool:

Not all Middle-Easterners are illiterate. Remember that when in Western Europe roamed the semi-barbaric Christian knights, in Baghdad flourished a very sophisticated culture. The classical works were passed on to the West mostly through the Byzantine and Arab writers.

[Indrid]

that was then, now is now. you cannot say that today the mongolians are the best fighters in the world simply because 700 years ago they were....

[dead-cat]

before the last "war" Iraq had some of the highest percentages of university graduates in the world. in fact you'll find a high degree of illiteracy usually only in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and India where tribal structures still persist.

i don't think you know personally enough middle-easterns that your statement about their degree of illiteracy would be statistically relevant.

[Indrid]

:nope:
i think YOU should start reading WHY iraq had such a big percentage. and stop believing every statistic you find on the net :nope:

[Victor]

QUOTE

that was then, now is now.  you cannot say that today the mongolians are the best fighters in the world simply because 700 years ago they were....

No. It was just to show you that you made an ignorant generalization, which could most likely offend someone from that part of the world.
Having a doctorate does not make someone a good tank commander. Intensive training, good equipment and experience do. Not to mention aerial superiority.

[dragos]

Let's get back to the topic.

[ragewolf]

http://www.battlefield.ru
A russian site huh? Well, I don't think their opinions are honest.
These article can't prove anything. :nope:
Can you image the russian would say that their tanks aren't the best?

"The King Tiger’s 88mm main gun has a muzzle velocity of 1000m per second when firing armor piercing rounds. It was highly accurate and able to penetrate 150mm of armor at distances exceeding 2200m. Since the flight time of an armor piercing round at a range of 2200m is about 2.2 seconds or less, accuracy and correction of fire against moving targets is more important than with older anti tank guns. This made this heavy predator ideally suited to open terrain where it could engage enemy tanks at long range before the opponent’s weapons were even in range."

AP, accuracy is just the key of tank gun, not caliber.