# top tank in WW2



## Jonny Boy (1 May 2005)

hey i was just wondering what the top tank in the 2nd world war was. some one is trying to tell me it was the Russian T-34. i think it was either the king tiger or the panther tank. 

also what would you say about this statement   "considering the Russians produced the weapon that the germans feared more then anything, "Stalin's rockets""


the whole dissuction is about the Russians beating the germans in WW2 because of man power. any help would be really appreciated. thank you


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 May 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> hey i was just wondering what the top tank in the 2nd world war was. some one is trying to tell me it was the Russian T-34. i think it was either the king tiger or the panther tank.
> 
> also what would you say about this statement  "considering the Russians produced the weapon that the germans feared more then anything, "Stalin's rockets""
> 
> ...



The question itself is meaningless; whoever is insisting it was the T-34 sounds ill-prepared to discuss the subject intelligently.   First of all, you need to frame the discussion.  What do you mean by "best"?  Any tank is a combination of several factors, all compromised to ensure maximum potential in each area - speed, armour protection, ground pressure/mobility, crew survivability, fuel consumption, main armament capability vs soft targets, main armament armour penetration ability, special ammunition, amount of ammo safely stowed on board, ease of maintenance, weight (important when crossing bridges, for example), size (important in narrow European villages), etc.

The T-34 and Sherman were aided by the fact they were produced in such staggering numbers.  German AFV production was mainly armoured half tracks (a sizeable proportion of their inventory), and the number of "good" tanks after 1943 - ie tanks capable of going toe to two with enemy armour - was low.  

The Russians beat the Germans with manpower, firepower, and an operational art that exceeded that of the Germans by 1944, who were never very good at broad or long term thinking (and when they were, they were hamstrung by having a leader who was political figurehead, head of state, and chief of the Army combined).

There was no single "best" tank of World War Two, nor could there be, unless your friend is prepared to give out his definition or frame the discussion better.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 May 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> also what would you say about this statement  "considering the Russians produced the weapon that the germans feared more then anything, "Stalin's rockets""



I'd say whomever wrote it didn't know what they were talking about.

The Katyusha was inaccurate, but relatively frightening.  Allied soldiers feared rocket artillery highly according to postwar studies, but their actual effects were exaggerated - I am sure it was the same for the Germans.

The Russians had a sizeable, but crudely handled, artillery force and rockets were able to thicken up pretty devastating shows of firepower.  But if memory serves, they had no abilities equal to an American or British observer, such as a TOT or a Victor Target.


----------



## Jonny Boy (1 May 2005)

ok thank you for the info. so what would be a good way to reply to his comments. i didn't want to say anything until i knew what i was talking about. I used to have a bad habit of that as you know :-\ . i don't want to have a petty argument with the person but i want to be able to correct him and not start an argument about it. thanks


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 May 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> ok thank you for the info. so what would be a good way to reply to his comments. i didn't want to say anything until i knew what i was talking about. I used to have a bad habit of that as you know :-\ . i don't want to have a petty argument with the person but i want to be able to correct him and not start an argument about it. thanks



Honestly?  If he is that misinformed and deluded, I would say it is best just to ignore him.  Either that, or quote several hundred pages of documentary evidence - either way, I doubt he will be predisposed to believe you anyway, right.  So don't feed the troll.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 May 2005)

ok thats cool. thank you for the help. i am going to use alot of the info you gave me. if that is OK with you.


----------



## Ironside (2 May 2005)

"What was the best tank of the Second World War" is a pretty commonly thrown around question.  I agree with Mr. Dorosh in stating that there is no real answer to this question, as  these vehicles were designed to carry out different roles (i.e. recce, support, tank-hunter/killer).  However, if the question were rephrased, I believe it would be a little easier to answer.  For example, if this person were to ask "what was the best general purpose tank of the Second World War", then that would be a different story.

It is widely argued that the T34 was the best general purpose tank of the war, and this is most likely the reason why your friend made such a comment.  Reasons that support this argument are that this specific tank sported a main cannon capable of combatting the German panzers, the resources and soldiers were available to produce and man copious amounts, they were cheap to manufacture, very simply built (and thus easy to keep in action), had very good armour/speed capability, and so forth.
Overall this tank was able to penetrate German panzers with its gun size/muzzle velocity while affording its crews a good amount of protection.  This tied in to the above given are some of the reasons why people have arrived to such a conclusion.  I also am one who believes that the T34 was the best general purpose tank of the war.  It was not necessarily the best, but proved its worth in all the fields a tank should (referencing the above written plus what Mr. Dorosh included as well).

As for the Stalin Rockets that you are referring to, those would be the Katyusha rockets developed during the course of the war.  I must disagree with Mr. Dorosh in this respect - the Katyusha rockets were actually relatively accurate weapons, although this was not their predominant feature.  Nicknamed the "Screaming Stalin's", these rockets were both hated and feared by the German army because of the sound they made when closing in on their targets.  They were given the above nickname because they basically made a screaming sound closing in as they cut through the air - this was a major morale crusher for the Germans because of the psychological effect it had on them.  This was especially hard on them as they were designed for anti-personnel use.  All this tied in to the fact that the Russians had the resources to make a continuous supply of them to launch in areas like Stalingrad (i.e. near the end of the battle during the encirclement), they were capable of delivering continuous barrages to break the German will to fight.  Finally, these rockets were extremely versatile as they were launched from simple truck platforms that were able to deliver their payloads minutes after arriving into a designated firing position.

I hope this info is what you were looking for.  Although I've given you some facts in these two areas, I have put in my own opinions as well as you can tell.  All I can recommend is  that you at least take the facts and form your own, as I'm sure there are people who would disagree with what I have to say.  This topic can basically be compared to something as basic as two people arguing over what their favourite book or movie is - it all depends on what type you like and what you are looking for.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (2 May 2005)

Ironside said:
			
		

> It is widely argued that the T34 was the best general purpose tank of the war, and this is most likely the reason why your friend made such a comment.   Reasons that support this argument are that this specific tank sported a main cannon capable of combatting the German panzers, the resources and soldiers were available to produce and man copious amounts, they were cheap to manufacture, very simply built (and thus easy to keep in action), had very good armour/speed capability, and so forth.
> Overall this tank was able to penetrate German panzers with its gun size/muzzle velocity while affording its crews a good amount of protection.   This tied in to the above given are some of the reasons why people have arrived to such a conclusion.   I also am one who believes that the T34 was the best general purpose tank of the war.   It was not necessarily the best, but proved its worth in all the fields a tank should (referencing the above written plus what Mr. Dorosh included as well).



Ahh, are we talking about the T-34 in general.  There were a few different marks; which included armament change and major ergonomic change to get a third crewman and radios in.


----------



## Ironside (2 May 2005)

Indeed, my goal, however, was to keep my points as clear and simple as possible, as one could literally write novels about the subject.  That and I must admit my offhand T34 history for its gradual evolution is a little rusty...My overall intent is simply to convey that it was capable of keeping up with the Germans as an adversary by standing out in most fields, hence the general purpose comment.

I apologize for that, I should have been more clear from the get-go.


----------



## Blue Max (2 May 2005)

"also what would you say about this statement   "considering the Russians produced the weapon that the germans feared more then anything, "Stalin's rockets""

Interesting note, I read in Guderians memoires on his initial drive with OP-Barbarossa, assigned to Army Group Center, that he came across a German maintenance/supply unit that had got lost and was shot up badly by the Russian's. Out of this event it came out that the convoy had been carrying a top secret manual for the Nebelwerfer rocket system, of which the Russian's obtained and re-engineered into Stalin's Organ.


----------



## Enzo (2 May 2005)

Various television shows have tackled this subject over the years, with various degrees of acceptability.

There was one such program recently on the History Channel (or TLC, I'm not certain which). The title escapes me, but it was a comparison show highlighting the most famous of weapons systems from the 20th century: M-16 v. AK-47, F-86 v. Mig-17, T-34 v. Panzer, Sherman v.Tiger, Spitfire v. ME-109, etc...

This program can be entertaining, but I wouldn't quote it as the gospel. Many books have been written from all points of view. As with anything, absorb as much information as you can, and then decide for yourself.

PS

I personally liked the British Centurion.


----------



## Blue Max (2 May 2005)

Upon further research into the origins of the Katayusha rockets aka, Stalin's Orgin, the Russians were made aware of the Nebelwerfer and German rocket technology as early as 1936.

These accounts then go to pains to state that the Katayusha rocket system was brought online two months before OP - Barbarossa. I am not sure what to make of this but I will have to try and find the passage that I read and cross referrence


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (2 May 2005)

Without getting into defining terms or laying out perameters, or even setting up any of the necessary background for comparisson; which is to say simply throwing around meaningless conjecture. I am going to simply state that the JS/IS-2 or 122 was probably the best.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 May 2005)

I'd say that the top tank of WW II was the one driving with a couple of fellow tanks in an area where the enemy had neglected to place anti-tank weapons. 

In all seriousness I agree that the question must be framed correctly.   

If the question supposes some gladitorial arena combat between single tanks on an open field then I guess that the King Tiger and JSIII would be the likely finalists.   The Panther and Firefly might sneak in as well.   A lone dude with a flamethrower and some guts could also prevail if he got lucky...While fun to think about it is also not very meaningful.

If the question is more general and includes effectiveness in the war then the Sherman, T34, Panzer IV (with many marks) and Panther would all be contenders.   The Panther is considered by some to be the "best" medium tank of the war, although it was inspired by the T34.   It had an excellent gun, excellent armour and good mobility (once they sorted out the teething problems).   The Sherman has many detractors but it was mechanically reliable and was able to be built in huge numbers.   The Commonwealth Sherman Firefly version could knock out Tigers and Panthers at long range, although it was in turn vulnerable.   The Panzer Mk IV went through many variants and served throughout the war.   The T34 was a big shock to the Germans in 1941 and was a threat until the end of the war.   The T34/85 version was even more potent although it was outmatched by the Panther.   If someone said that the T34 was the "best tank of WW II" then I do not necessarily disagree if the criteria was overall effect on the war.

Tactics also figure in as well.   German tanks had no real advantages over their British and French opponents in 1940 with the possible exception of turret crew size (three vs one or two).   Despite this they won with superior training, tactics and techniques.   At Kursk in 1943 the Russians overcame the gunnery and armour superiority of the Panthers and Tigers by charging to close range.   They took grievous losses but so did the Germans.   The Russians could afford the exchage, the Germans could not.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. With regards to my comments about 1940 I was a bit unfair regarding the British armour.   For one day the British Matilda was the top tank during the counterattack by the RTR at Arras.   It can be argued that the British tank counter-attack at Arras delivered enough of a shock to the Germans to allow the BEF some breathing space for Dunkirk.   The Matilda was impervious to German guns and created quite a crisis until the 88s were employed in the depth of the German division.   Its gun was too small, however, and the design could not be upgunned due to the small turret ring (unlike the Panzer IV).   British doctrine was somewhat hampered by inter-branch and regimental rivalries between the wars that polarized the process and led to some weird ideas, but at least they concentrated their armour.


----------



## Zartan (3 May 2005)

Apparently, the T-34 was considered the best tank used in the war. It was cheap, quick to produce, had a shape which made it a difficult target, and some fair firepower. And it could run circles around the tiger. I think.
Interesting fact on the Katyusha: if a crew member of a Katyusha was captured, at any time by the Germans, he (or she) would be immediately executed. The super thing about the Katyusha is that it could fire anything - so much of their ammo was artillery shells which failed the test. Very cost effective. In addition, the Germans thought they emited death rays - this is true. :skull:


----------



## T.I.M. (3 May 2005)

While the T-34 was arguably the best tank of WWII. . .  the Russians also had the ignomity of building what was quite possibly also the _worst_ tank of WWII. . . The *KV-VI BEHEMOTH!*

"It doesn't need to turn, it will drive straight to Berlin"
-Stalin

(I found this a hoot - reading the fate of the tanks is like reading a Monty Python sketch ;D )


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2005)

Hilarious  :



> Operational History
> The first prototype was completed in December 1941 and was rushed into the defense of Moscow. In its first action during a dense winter fog, the rear turret accidentally fired into the center turret. The resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The second prototype was completed in January 1942, and was sent to the Leningrad front. This one had indicators installed to show whe another turret was in the line of fire. In its initial attack on the Germans, the tank broke in half when crossing a ravine. A spark ignited the leaking flamethrower fuel and the resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The third prototype, shown here, had a reinforced hull and was also sent to the Leningrad front in early 1942. It did manage to shoot down three German aircraft. In its first ground engagement, the KV-VI was firing on German positions when coincidentally all of the guns fired from the 3 O'Clock position a the same time. The tremendous recoil tipped the tank into a ditch and the severe jostling set off the 152mm ammunition, which completely destroyed the vehicle. After these failures, Stalin cancelled the project, and many of the design team members spent the rest of their lives in the Gulags of Sibera. The KV-VI was nicknamed "Stalin's Orchestra" by the few Germans that encountered it because of the variety of weapons it deployed.



Wouldn't want to throw a track on that badboy....


----------



## baboon6 (4 May 2005)

Is that thing for real? It's got to be the silliest vehicle ever designed!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 May 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> Is that thing for real?



It's on the Internet, isn't it?


----------



## Britney Spears (4 May 2005)

Katyushas are copied from Nebelwerfers? That's a little suprising, since they look mothing like each other.


----------



## baboon6 (4 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It's on the Internet, isn't it?


I know but it's just plain bizarre, like the man said a Pythonesque story. I suppose when Uncle Joe gave an order...

Re the Nebelwerfer and Katyusha- I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with each other, someone with more technical knowledge than me will have to explain why.


----------



## T.I.M. (4 May 2005)

While there have been some really wierd tank designs in history, yes, I'm pretty sure that this one is a joke (have a look at the book references at the bottom).

But it's still a damn good joke.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2005)

All that thing needed was a pair of scissors, and a place to put the reuseable toothpick.  It would have been great if the Swiss built it... ;D

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (4 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Katyushas are copied from Nebelwerfers? That's a little suprising, since they look mothing like each other.



The picture you posted is a Nebelwerfer 41. They came in 150 and 280mm. 

IIRC there are also: 

Gr. 40s (essentialy two glorified nebelwerfer 35 morters on a rig with wheels)
GR. 42s (5 barrel 210 mm)

and Raketenwerfer 56s which look strikingly simmilar to Katyushas which also came in several varients

The Germans and Russians both started developing these systems in the early-mid 30s (Germans starting in 33, Russians in 35-6)

The technology is simmilar shooting spin and fin-stabalized rockets. One especialy striking simmilarity from doc footage is the sound.


----------



## BIGMAN (5 May 2005)

I can't say I know to much about the eastern frount in terms of armoured, but when it came to the west the tiger was in a league of its own. No American or British tank could match its firepower and armour. A shot from a Bradly would bounce of it. It could fire at more than 4 times the range of any allied tank on the west and was described as the mobile pill box. 

Ha, thats what I call a tank  8)


----------



## baboon6 (6 May 2005)

BIGMAN said:
			
		

> . No American or British tank could match its firepower and armour. A shot from a Bradly would bounce of it.



I'm sure it would but what's that got to do with World War 2?


----------



## Infanteer (6 May 2005)

BIGMAN said:
			
		

> but when it came to the west the tiger was in a league of its own. No American or British tank could match its firepower and armour. A shot from a Bradly would bounce of it. It could fire at more than 4 times the range of any allied tank on the west and was described as the mobile pill box.



That's when you could get it to work - I remember finding a stat somewhere that over 50% of German armoured casulties were mechanical failure - Tigers were the worst of the bunch.


----------



## baboon6 (6 May 2005)

They also had big problems with engine fires in the Panther, especially the early models.


----------



## T.I.M. (6 May 2005)

In raw combat power the Panther was possibly the best tank of WWII, armed with the excellent high velocity 75mm KwK (with better armour penetration than the Tiger's 88mm), heavy sloped armour and impressive cross country mobility.  Despite the legends surrounding the super-heavy King Tiger (which indulged in extreme overkill in armour and weaponry, while suffering severely in mobility and thus giving limited practical benefits over the Panther), the Panthers were more balanced machines, and thus far more useful on the battlefield.

However _off_ the battlefield the Panther had a serious problem - it was grossly over-engineered and thus both too complex too produce quickly, too expensive to produce in sufficient quantity, and too difficult to keep running properly in the field.  Even the Ausf A, which fixed many of the problems (such as a nasty tendency to burn) that plagued the initial Panthers, still had a poor reliability record when compared with the Sherman and T-34.

Given that only about 5,000 Panthers were produced, compared to its main opponents which numbered over 50,000 Shermans and 35,000 T-34s, and given that only about 50% of a unit's Panthers (so the "Across the Rhine" historical supplement tells me) would be mechanically ready for action at any one time (with the rest usually rotating through the shop for repairs or routine maintenance), and throw in the steady attrition due to allied airpower, then even the Panther's 5:1 kill ratio against allied tanks still was not sufficient for victory.

For that reason the main tank of the German Army, right up to the end, was the Panzer IV, which while not as powerful as the Panther was still a match for its opponents (with some to-and-fro during its long war history), mechanically reliable (the Russians actually considered it as or more reliable than the T-34, and captured late-war Panzer IVs were prized), and with about 9,000 produced, more numerous.


----------



## 043 (6 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The question itself is meaningless; whoever is insisting it was the T-34 sounds ill-prepared to discuss the subject intelligently.     First of all, you need to frame the discussion.   What do you mean by "best"?   Any tank is a combination of several factors, all compromised to ensure maximum potential in each area - speed, armour protection, ground pressure/mobility, crew survivability, fuel consumption, main armament capability vs soft targets, main armament armour penetration ability, special ammunition, amount of ammo safely stowed on board, ease of maintenance, weight (important when crossing bridges, for example), size (important in narrow European villages), etc.
> 
> The T-34 and Sherman were aided by the fact they were produced in such staggering numbers.   German AFV production was mainly armoured half tracks (a sizeable proportion of their inventory), and the number of "good" tanks after 1943 - ie tanks capable of going toe to two with enemy armour - was low.
> 
> ...



You have issues man.


----------



## 043 (6 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'd say whomever wrote it didn't know what they were talking about.
> 
> The Katyusha was inaccurate, but relatively frightening.   Allied soldiers feared rocket artillery highly according to postwar studies, but their actual effects were exaggerated - I am sure it was the same for the Germans.
> 
> The Russians had a sizeable, but crudely handled, artillery force and rockets were able to thicken up pretty devastating shows of firepower.   But if memory serves, they had no abilities equal to an American or British observer, such as a TOT or a Victor Target.



More issues man!


----------



## 043 (6 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Honestly?   If he is that misinformed and deluded, I would say it is best just to ignore him.   Either that, or quote several hundred pages of documentary evidence - either way, I doubt he will be predisposed to believe you anyway, right.   So don't feed the troll.



And finally more issues. "I am a moderator, I can call anyone down who I wish"!


----------



## Jonny Boy (6 May 2005)

2023 said:
			
		

> You have issues man.





			
				2023 said:
			
		

> More issues man!





			
				2023 said:
			
		

> And finally more issues. "I am a moderator, I can call anyone down who I wish"!



why does he have issues? they were simple educated answers to my questions, he is telling the truth about the guy, he is uneducated and mis informed.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (6 May 2005)

Hutch, my guess would be that he has 'issues' because he is making  larger issue out of an apparently simple and straight forward question. 

Now the purpose of this thread, I would guess, was to answer the question in a fassion after - "this is what I think the best tank was, and here is why" - which is fine in the context of having a caual discussion. The purpose of this particular section of the board, if I am not very much mistake, however, is to provide an area where information regarding military history can be discussed. For this reason I think that the qualifiers, and 'larger issues' brought up are very important. For good, or for bad, a lot of individuals do a lot of their military history-learning on forums like these. Therefore it is a good thing for people who might have a broader knowledge of the subject to add to the discussion in ways that might not provide a straight-forward answer, but will add to the amount of, and relevence of information that can be gleaned from these forums.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (6 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'd say whomever wrote it didn't know what they were talking about.
> 
> The Katyusha was inaccurate, but relatively frightening.   Allied soldiers feared rocket artillery highly according to postwar studies, but their actual effects were exaggerated - I am sure it was the same for the Germans.
> 
> The Russians had a sizeable, but crudely handled, artillery force and rockets were able to thicken up pretty devastating shows of firepower.   But if memory serves, they had no abilities equal to an American or British observer, such as a TOT or a Victor Target.



Hey, look at that, we're agreeing on something...

Since the Napoleonic wars rockets (in an artillery function) have been a weapon that was much more effective in inspiring terror than in providing effective bombardment. This lead Wellington to say something to the order of 'The effectiveness of rockets is limited to employment against the uncivilized  or Americans'. It is only more recently that rockets have become good at destroying targets as well as being scary


----------

