• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WW2 Tanks?

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
They all had their shortcomings. Ultimately, the quality of a tank boils down to reliability, crew protection, speed, firepower, range, fire control and producibility.

I keep coming back to the Sherman Firefly, as the best balance. It could kill a Tiger, it had an electric turrent, a radio system and superior fire control. As far as it's speed went, it wasn't any faster than other tanks on the battlefield, but it was as fast. It scores very low on armor protection, range and lack of a diesel engine, however that's made up with it's mobility, firepower and fire control. It was reliable, easily repaired and easily produced.

So, which one do you like?
 
apdst said:
They all had their shortcomings. Ultimately, the quality of a tank boils down to reliability, crew protection, speed, firepower, range, fire control and producibility.

I keep coming back to the Sherman Firefly, as the best balance. It could kill a Tiger, it had an electric turrent, a radio system and superior fire control. As far as it's speed went, it wasn't any faster than other tanks on the battlefield, but it was as fast. It scores very low on armor protection, range and lack of a diesel engine, however that's made up with it's mobility, firepower and fire control. It was reliable, easily repaired and easily produced.

So, which one do you like?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I like the A-10 "Warthog" tank killer.
 
T-34 :lol:
 
apdst said:
They all had their shortcomings. Ultimately, the quality of a tank boils down to reliability, crew protection, speed, firepower, range, fire control and producibility.

I keep coming back to the Sherman Firefly, as the best balance. It could kill a Tiger, it had an electric turrent, a radio system and superior fire control. As far as it's speed went, it wasn't any faster than other tanks on the battlefield, but it was as fast. It scores very low on armor protection, range and lack of a diesel engine, however that's made up with it's mobility, firepower and fire control. It was reliable, easily repaired and easily produced.

So, which one do you like?
Click to expand...

King Tiger/ Tiger 2.....we were lucky that Hitler didn't get the mass production with these. Mixed in with the Original Tiger and one other tank I am thinking of. Damn near unstoppable back then.

kingtiger.jpg


debutart_alex-pang_11626.jpg
 
StillBallin75 said:
the T-34 is widely cited as one of if not the best tanks in WWII.
Click to expand...

It had it's shortcomings, though: two man turrent, the commander acted as the gunner which is almost impossible on the battlefield; no radios; a seriously inferior fire control system.

It's armor protection and firepower were superior, however.

If not for the mechanical unreliability of German tanks, the T-34 wouldn't have achieved the reputation that it did.
 
My favorite(and yes it is a real ww2 tank):



Prof-Porsche-und-VK4501.jpg
 
The T34 is an awesome tank, and the first to have sloped armor. I've heard that they were rolling out manufacturing plants in Stalingrad as the Germans were attacking the city.
T-34-85_g%C3%B3ra_RB.jpg
 
Then there was the Panther V/G-Version.....only week spot was in the rear. If protected by a King Tiger and a couple of the original Tigers the Russian T34 couldn't stand up. Course not anything we had. The Tigers took out plenty of T34s. There was just way to many of them.

panther-ausfg1.jpg


panzer-v-ausf-g.jpg
 
In seriousness, I have to kind of agree with MMC. The Tiger II was a monster with it's 88. It, along with the Jagdpanther which also mounted the 88, could have made a real difference if they had been introduced earlier.
 
Dark horse candidate(and not to be taken quite seriously though a good point is made):

 
Redress said:
In seriousness, I have to kind of agree with MMC. The Tiger II was a monster with it's 88. It, along with the Jagdpanther which also mounted the 88, could have made a real difference if they had been introduced earlier.
Click to expand...

And if they were more reliable and if in larger numbers.
 
Stewart said:
And if they were more reliable and if in larger numbers.
Click to expand...

The reliability thing was coming around, and even with the issues they where still incredibly effective. It was just released too late to make a difference.
 
Panther D protected the tracks. They were used in the Battle of Kirsk. Once hit from behind they were done. Start up on fire too.

c889deccf28ce8c4bcd2dcbbe0366ce3.jpg
 
Even Panzer 4/H Version was tough to take......I can't recall if the Russians seen many of them.

Mk27479.jpg
 
Redress said:
In seriousness, I have to kind of agree with MMC. The Tiger II was a monster with it's 88. It, along with the Jagdpanther which also mounted the 88, could have made a real difference if they had been introduced earlier.
Click to expand...

German tanks had about a 60% chance of mechanical failure. The Tiger II had an even higher breakdown rate.

Their #1 shortcoming was over-engineering. They broke down too much and took too long to fix when they did.
 
instagramsci said:
And people say communists can't innovate. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Their numbers were the only advantage they had. Against a more innovative opponent, with more reliable tanks, the T-34 would have been Swiss cheese.

Without radios and with the commander having command and shoot, there's no way they could have operated in small groups.
 
instagramsci said:
T-34 :lol:
Click to expand...


I remember a haunting picture from the early days of the Nazi invasion of WWII (Before the T-34 was really available to the Soviets). It was a picture of a russian tanker looking through a slot in his tank. The caption said "Russian tanks were weak, but Mother Russia sacrificed enough of the strong men inside them to stop the Nazi onslaught"
 
apdst said:
Their numbers were the only advantage they had. Against a more innovative opponent, with more reliable tanks, the T-34 would have been Swiss cheese.
Click to expand...
This is a distortion.

When first encountered in the summer of 1941 the T-34 was the best tank in the world. It was so good that all other tanks then in existence were obsolete, and it was so good that the German generals wanted to copy it (Hitler insisted on developing new tanks of all-German design instead.)

apdst said:
Without radios and with the commander having command and shoot, there's no way they could have operated in small groups.
Click to expand...
Tanks were not supposed to operate in small groups, but in massive concentrations.

I have read that in the single biggest action at Kursk ~800 T-34s ran headlong into ~500 German tanks led by ~100 Tigers. There were so many guns being fired at the same time that their reports merged into one continuous roar. And it was the Germans who had to give ground.
 
To answer OP I have read that once it was debugged the Panther was considered by many to have been the best overall tank of the war. The main problem with the various Tiger versions was relatively low speed and range.

Of US tanks the Pershing with its great 90mm gun was the most potent weapon when engaged with the enemy. Unfortunately only a handful, as in maybe a few dozen ever got into combat. One of them was reported to have taken out a Tiger and a late-version Mark 4.
 
USViking said:
This is a distortion.

When first encountered in the summer of 1941 the T-34 was the best tank in the world. It was so good that all other tanks then in existence were obsolete, and it was so good that the German generals wanted to copy it (Hitler insisted on developing new tanks of all-German design instead.)


Tanks were not supposed to operate in small groups, but in massive concentrations.

I have read that in the single biggest action at Kursk ~800 T-34s ran headlong into ~500 German tanks led by ~100 Tigers. There were so many guns being fired at the same time that their reports merged into one continuous roar. And it was the Germans who had to give ground.
Click to expand...

And, if a different doctrine had forced them to operate in small units, they would have been screwed.
 
apdst said:
And, if a different doctrine had forced them to operate in small units, they would have been screwed.
Click to expand...
Real-world doctrine and real-world operations are all that need to be considered.

Also, I expect that the no-radio deficiency was remedied through design upgrade long before the war was over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom