Who was most successful in tank design?

[dragos]

QUOTE

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?

They may be biased in some presentation and interpretation of events, but I don't think they have gone so far, to falsify official reports. And the Russians are not the only one that claim their tanks were the best. T-34 alone has a world-wide reputation.

QUOTE

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

Caliber is no less important than the length of the gun. You often found that many specifications give the length of the barrel in calibres (clb.). Higher caliber means heavier shell = more kinetic energy. It also means better capability of high-explosive shells.

[Von Maybach]

If we think only at tanks with turret, Germany did not have bad designs. Even the modest Panzer 1 and 2 were good design. When I say "good design" I don't mean invincible or big gun, and heavy armour, but a well constructed tank, balanced and a tank wich can do well what it was intended to do. Panzer 1 and 2 were not ment to attack other tank, but to kill soft targets such as trucks and enemy infantery. They were ideal for invadeing Poland, for example, where the enemy charged the Pz. 1 with horse cavalery. So, the Pz. 1,2,3 and 4 were not so high-tech and invincible, ... but they were good designs, -Pz. 4 did well in France where it's only oponents were Renault, Hotchkiss and Somua. On the other hand we have "high-tech" tanks such as Tiger 1 and 2 and Panther with excellent optics, improved armour, superiour electronics and gunnery and even Zimmerit anti-magnetic protection and in very small numbers, night vision. They vere very complicated and precise maschines, hard to manufacture, needing carefull maintainance, but this happens allways with cutting-edge technology, so they are not bad designs. That's why I say that the germans had NO bad designs in tanks. (i repeat, regular turret tanks, not the turretless Elephant, for example, wich was a not so inspired design...)

[ragewolf]

Ya, I DO agree the T-34 is a great design in WWII, but I just disagree
IS 1,2,3 are the best, at least they are not so good as russian mentioned
by themself. So what I mean is that we can't judge some tanks only by russian's opinion.

BTW, if a tank gun have a bad accuracy, lower rate of fire, no good AP
ability, then how HE ability is useful and important? I don't think so.

And, Communication Device is always the weak point of russian tank.
This is very important to a close combat unit at that time, WWII.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

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

well look who's talking. but the source wasn't the net this time. anyhow you haven't backed your ridiculous illiteracy claim

[Indrid]

geeeeeez, you,re agressive!
let me tell you a story. in Romania, during the Ceausescu regime we used to surpass work plans all the time, everybody was happy and rich, .....

right....

[dragos]

Stop posting off-topic. You are warned.

QUOTE

BTW, if a tank gun have a bad accuracy, lower rate of fire, no good AP ability, then how HE ability is useful and important? I don't think so.

Tanks were not designed only to engage other tanks. Most the time they fought against infantry. For example IS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, it was designed to storm enemy defense lines. But it also performed well against German armor.

[petru]

After Tiger and Panther got into service the Russians needed a better tank. I don’t really think the tank was designed only for breakthrough purposes, in spite of the Russian claim. The Russian didn’t have any way of destroying a Tiger tank at long range. That’s why they developed those really suicidal tactics employed during Citadela.

[petru]

maybe the poll should have sounded like "which was the best tank in its class", with several options, including light tanks.

[dragos]

What suicidal tactics are you talking about ?

[cuski]

QUOTE

(i repeat, regular turret tanks, not the turretless Elephant, for example, wich was a not so inspired design...)

What exactly makes you say this, if you don't mind me asking? Elephant was a great design, and it proved it - when used for the purpose it was built. At the battles in the Kursk region (July-August 1943) and the Dnjepr Bridgehead (September-November 1943) the 656. sPJRgt destroyed 654 soviet tanks. During the Kursk operation, they lost 39 Elephants/Ferdinand, during the Dnjepr operation they only lost 8. It performed quite admirably in Italy as well.

[Dr_V]

petru

I guess you're refearing at the pioneers attacks. Attacking a tank with a Molotov or a mine is not suicidal, just on the edge of insanity. The chances of survival are slim, but not even a Tiger was imune to such infantry weapons.

I have indeed hared of some more radical "solutions" employed by the Russians, as charging a tank with mass infantry attacks in the hope that one or 2 soldiers will survive to throw the Molotov, but I thaught that to be communist propaganda. I mean, how nuts could they be? I also read about individual Russian soldiers trying to run towards the tank, throw themselves under it and activate the explosive charge to disable the machine, a kind of Soviet kamikaze. I don't believe that eigther, it may have happened once, with a mad soldier, but I doubt it was a common tactick.

The only suicidal acts I do believe to be true are the times when the frustrated Russians tankers tried to ramn with their tanks into the seamningly indestructable German armor. But still I think it was not a common practice...[/b]

[Dr_V]

cuski

The main flawds of the Elephant were the poor close deffence (against infantry), the very slow speed, the poor maneuvrability and their vulnerability from air attacks.

The Elephants were almost invincible in a tight formation frontal attack and in a well organised defence (without a retreat). But the real situation on the front rarely allowed such tacticks to be correctly employed, so the use of such a monster was relatively limited. That's why I consider it an uninspired design, it was good, but not for the real requirements of the time.

[Von Maybach]

[quote]petru

I guess you're refearing at the pioneers attacks. Attacking a tank with a Molotov or a mine is not suicidal, just on the edge of insanity. The chances of survival are slim, but not even a Tiger was imune to such infantry weapons.

I have indeed hared of some more radical "solutions" employed by the Russians, as charging a tank with mass infantry attacks in the hope that one or 2 soldiers will survive to throw the Molotov, but I thaught that to be communist propaganda. I mean, how nuts could they be? I also read about individual Russian soldiers trying to run towards the tank, throw themselves under it and activate the explosive charge to disable the machine, a kind of Soviet kamikaze. I don't believe that eigther, it may have happened once, with a mad soldier, but I doubt it was a common tactick.

The only suicidal acts I do believe to be true are the times when the frustrated Russians tankers tried to ramn with their tanks into the seamningly indestructable German armor. But still I think it was not a common practice...[/b][/quote]


A bit off-topic: Talking about mad tactics remembered me something i've heard a while ago: in Russia there were cases when german tank comanders with Czech 38t tanks incapacited monsters like the T-34 aiming at their turret ring or even in the gun barrel itself. I think this would be considered a panzer snipershot. Of course, this practice wasn't common...

[cuski]

[quote]cuski

The main flawds of the Elephant were the poor close deffence (against infantry), the very slow speed, the poor maneuvrability and their vulnerability from air attacks. [/quote]

You must be thinking of the Ferdinand, which was practically an Elephant without the bow MG. As it has been identified that it's vulnerable against infantry, it has been fitted w/ an MG34 bow MG, commander's cupola and renamed Elephant.

Very slow speed: again, it was not designed as an assault weapon. Slow speed is not that relevant when employed as defensive weapon (for which it was designed).

Vulnerability from air attacks? How was that a design flaw, every AFV was vulnerable to that.

Here's a good read: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

Interesting fact that one Elephant was credited with the destruction of a T-34 at 4.5km!!! :shock:

[dragos]

[quote]A bit off-topic: Talking about mad tactics remembered me something i've heard a while ago: in Russia there were cases when german tank comanders with Czech 38t tanks incapacited monsters like the T-34 aiming at their turret ring or even in the gun barrel itself.[/quote]

:loool: :loool: :loool: