Best Tank of WW2 -1 reply

Please wait...

C. Ankerstjerne

GF makes me horny

50 XP

20th December 2003

0 Uploads

76 Posts

0 Threads

#511 14 years ago

I will let these numbers of available Panthers speak for themselve Western front Eastern front 1944-04-20 262 1944-05-31 304 1944-07-01 245 1944-07-30 432 1944-09-15 150 728 1944-09-30 194 721 1944-10-31 222 672 1944-11-15 329 1944-11-30 285 625 1944-12-15 471 1944-12-30 451 726 1944-01-15 448 707 1944-03-15 152 817 So, at no point were there more Panthers on the Western front than on the Eastern front, from the beginning of the invasion until the end of the war, save possibly from late July (since I don't have the numbers from the Eastern front on this date). The replacements sent doesn't change this much, either. Western front Eastern front 1944-06 326 238 1944-07 245 375 1944-08 255 283 1944-09 359 205 1944-10 25 40 1944-11 285 60 1944-12 211 238 1945-01 129 108 1945-02 31 495 1945-03 15 60 1945-04 48 62 Total 1,929 2,164 Furthermore, the German evaluations of the Panther compared to the T-34/85 was clearly favourable to the Panther, considering it 'far superior' for frontal engagements, and equal for side and rear engagements. The T-34/85 was inferior to the Panther both in terms of armour penetration capabilities and in armour protection, and its automotive capabilities were equal to those of the T-34/85 as well. JENTZ, Thomas L. & DOYLE, Hilary Louis. GERMANY'S PANTHER TANK - THE QUEST FOR COMBAT SUPREMACY. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military History, 1995. SPIELBERGER, Walter J. Panzer IV & its variants. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military/Aviation History, 1993.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#512 14 years ago

I consider the T-34/85 better then the Panther because the T-34/85 is easier to produce and maintain. And thats one of the most important things a vehicle should have for war. The road wheels on the Panther were terrible. They were prone to clog with mud and when it froze it would immobilize the vehicle. In 1v1 comabt through the Tiger II reigned supreme.




Neighbor Kid

Pro Sherman Tanker

50 XP

31st July 2004

0 Uploads

1,334 Posts

0 Threads

#513 14 years ago

Sherman wasn ot meant for Tank V. Tank combat. it was an infantry support tank, it played good in that role, but when it came down to it it did not really stand a chance against panthers and tigers. But most tank combat was situated at about 800-500Meters so its really who can get a shot of and hit a good area first. T34/85, it was notoriuosly inaccurate when it came to be its ammo was horrible over 200meter (i mean accuracy) the round could not penetrate tigers to the front and panther to the front in its first couple days etc. but as time got on it there was better ammo to use. just like the Sherman the ammo was not good. but once ammo became relativly better it became better at penetrating tanks. basicly it all depends on ammo for penetration. "More does not mean better anyway". by far i think your incorrect. with out the numbers we couldnt have thought of getting those nasty german tanks.Normally Shermans run in groups. you pop 4, theres always the last one to get you. oh and shermans were 10 times better to maintain, repair easily. German tanks were very complex. and there tanks engine preformed horrible. they would break down always within 100 miles of the last fix, within that.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#514 14 years ago

This reminds me, one of the reasons we won WW2 : about 25% of our troops could drive. We just grabbed whatever hasd a motor and plopped some guys on it, so great for mobility




StalingradK

World War II Buff

50 XP

25th July 2005

0 Uploads

39 Posts

0 Threads

#515 14 years ago

it's not the tank, it's the drivers and commanders, and panthers had different controls than the panzer models which got taking used to for germans, this taking used to usually got them killed. And Shermans were accually created to engage tanks but not like they did in France, I don't think they were expecting there to be so many.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#516 14 years ago

No the Shermans were NOT desgined to engage other tanks. US doctrine of the time placed the tank as support for the infantry. It was the Tank Destroyers such as the M18's job to combat tanks. Either that or a Sherman commander could call in a Jabo to bomb a German tank.




StalingradK

World War II Buff

50 XP

25th July 2005

0 Uploads

39 Posts

0 Threads

#517 14 years ago

The US Tank Doctrine was far by the worst ever, tank destroyers were not in best quantity among the fields of Normandy. The best "tank" the Allies had is better know as a bazooka team.




Jay7219

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

6th January 2004

0 Uploads

298 Posts

0 Threads

#518 14 years ago

Thats true but, the King tiger didnt see that much action as it entered production towards the end of WW2. Bad timing I guess. Germany at that time, didnt have many factorys left and were running low on material and personal resources. The Russians have/had many many good tanks. Even today they have great tanks. In Europe neighbouring countrys are stones through away. Land warfare is much more practical and important or invasion or defence. Russians need good tanks.

WiseBoboThe T-34 is nice, but to me it's the King Tiger, considering there was not a single instance of it going down from a direct, front hit.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#519 14 years ago

I'll bet a P-47 has gotten a direct frontal hit on a King Tiger. And a direct hit from a Jabo on any vehicle will cause it to go down:smokin: No matter how good a tank is my buds in the sky still own them.




The Masta

I´m to good for you

50 XP

9th August 2005

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#520 14 years ago

The Best Tank of the War was the panther