top tank in WW2

[baboon6]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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

 

[T.I.M.]

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]

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.

You have issues man.

 

[043]

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]

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]

You have issues man.

More issues man!

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]

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]

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