Who was most successful in tank design?

[quote]As this thread is dedicated to tank technology...

Considering how many Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, or Jagdtiger and Ferdinand heavy assault cars were stopped from action just by hitting the tracks, while the armor was not penetrated, I am sincerely surprised that the Germans did not develop design solutions for a better track protection.
[/quote]

Florin, many PzIV were fitted with Schürze (skirts) that would provide limited protection.

Fact of the matter is, even today's modern tanks suffer of the same problem - sometimes even simple things such as mud, big rocks or logs can knock off a track.

QUOTE

....... Fact of the matter is, even today's modern tanks suffer of the same problem - sometimes even simple things such as mud, big rocks or logs can knock off a track.

My ideas about protection were regarding the weaponry (antitank guns, Panzerfaust, Faustpatronen, the American Bazooka or the equivalent Russian "Dynamo........".

The problems about mud, big rocks and logs are as old as the first track invented by a man. I did not refer to them.

[quote]Maybe it is funny, but the German propaganda highlighted at least one case of a German ace in tank combat, in 1941, which claimed that after 3 ineffective 37 mm rounds shot in a turret of KV-1, the 4th hit the gun barrel and incapacitate the tank.
One questionable thing... When did the guy have time to shoot 4 rounds... It should be wiped out before the 3rd... [/quote]

In 1941 brand new tanks (KV1) were thrown into the battle without any kind of gun optics or “inchizatoare” (I don’t know the English term). They just received the order to ram the opposing tanks and to disable. May be the shot in the gun was from very close. But why would they stop when the gun was not firing in any case?

I read quickly and not post by post whay was writen here ...

If we consider only the "design" of the WW2 tanks in my oppinion the soviets are the winners. T-34 and JS family are representative.

If we consider the efficency in combat actions (where the crew s skills are crucial) - definetly the germans was by far the best tankers. I saw at Discovery that for every german tank destroyed was more than
6 allied tanks destryed too. (If Discovery lie, I lie too :oops: ).

I saw here a comparation between a german 88 mm and 75 mm At gun (Tiger and Panther) and soviet 122 mm gun (JS). There were compared only the AT capability. But the tanks have to suport the infantry too - and for this job a tank have to use HE shields ... and the 122 mm gun is better for this job than 75 or 88 mm. So ... we have to use some nuances when we talk about this subject.

Nobody talk here (or not significant) about US/british tanks :| . Should we think that those tanks weren t good enough forus ? :wink:
Definetly I don t like to be in a Sherman when I have to fight with a Panther ...

I have to recognize that - if I talking about "look" my favourite is the german P IV.
And, in my oppinion, the Sherman was the uglyest tank of WW2.


Also, I think that Hetzer was a very good fighting-machine - and a good brother of the death-unborned romanian Maresal. But here we talk about tanks and not about another armored vehicles right ?

[quote]In 1941 brand new tanks (KV1) were thrown into the battle without any kind of gun optics or “inchizatoare” (I don’t know the English term). They just received the order to ram the opposing tanks and to disable. May be the shot in the gun was from very close. But why would they stop when the gun was not firing in any case?[/quote]

This is a very sovietic style ! well, maybe the comander who give this order to the crew s was a politruc. They use to have this kind of stupid/romantic ideas.

[quote]In 1941 brand new tanks (KV1) were thrown into the battle without any kind of gun optics or “inchizatoare” (I don’t know the English term). They just received the order to ram the opposing tanks and to disable. May be the shot in the gun was from very close. But why would they stop when the gun was not firing in any case?[/quote]

"inchizatoare" = breech mechansims

[quote][quote]In 1941 brand new tanks (KV1) were thrown into the battle without any kind of gun optics or “inchizatoare” (I don’t know the English term). They just received the order to ram the opposing tanks and to disable. May be the shot in the gun was from very close. But why would they stop when the gun was not firing in any case?[/quote]

This is a very sovietic style ! well, maybe the comander who give this order to the crew s was a politruc. They use to have this kind of stupid/romantic ideas.[/quote]

I read about this in one of Glantz books, I think. But the cause was not novel romantic ideas but unability to finish work on some batches of tanks for God knows what reason (well I guess either the missing pieces didn't reach the factory or the factory moved away). The crew were instructed to ram (at KV1 speed ?) or aim right down the barrel (now that must have been easy too !). Absolutely Russian, I agree.

QUOTE

In WW2. What are your opinions ?

Well the Germans had the PzKw 6 TIGER (?) and later the King Tiger which was reported to have destroyed an entyre allied Sherman division.
The Russians had the KV-1 and KV-2, but i do not know if they ever saw action.

QUOTE

Well the Germans had the PzKw 6 TIGER (?) and later the King Tiger which was reported to have destroyed an entyre allied Sherman division.

This is a gross exageration. I think you heard something about the actions of Michael Wittmann on 13 June 1944, where his company of Tigers destroyed some 30 allied tanks. However, this was an exceptional example of skill. You can read the story of Wittmann here: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm

QUOTE

The Russians had the KV-1 and KV-2, but i do not know if they ever saw action.

Both of them saw plenty of action. Refer to www.battlefield.ru for information on the Soviet tanks.

"This is a gross exageration. I think you heard something about the actions of Michael Wittmann on 13 June 1944, where his company of Tigers destroyed some 30 allied tanks. However, this was an exceptional example of skill. You can read the story of Wittmann here:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm"

You see this is quite a problem. I saw the thing about the Tiger on Discovery on a show called "TANKS". Yes they where wrong. Anyway I am not too good at tanks so if you have more info please tell me. :roll:

Most "tanks"distroyed by Wittman that day,were in fact armured troop transporters,who couldn't defend themselfs!
Only a few were Firefly tanks.

QUOTE

Most \"tanks\"distroyed by Wittman that day,were in fact armured troop transporters,who couldn't defend themselfs! Only a few were Firefly tanks.

According to the Achtung Panzer website, Wittmann's company destroyed:
4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns. The underlined vehicles are all tanks.

I Think Romania did respectable job, with the limited resources it had available, for example the TACAM T-60A, TACAM R-2, Vanatorul De Care R-35 and famous Maresal tank destroyer, which had it been produced would have been one best tank destroyers of the second world war.

Thank You

I voted today fo Czechoslovachia. LT-38 is my preffered ww2 tank. Too bad czechs had not sufficient LT-38.

Iama

Iamandi,
Why is LT-38 your favorite WW2 tank, why do think the Czechoslovokians were the most successful tank designers?

Thank You