# Best/favorite WW2 medium tank



## Danielmellbin (Jun 24, 2008)

Okay - here goes again - I've added a few more choices and will be making a heavy and light thread soon - and most importantly: I remembered the T34  


My choice is still "Guderians probelm child" - the Panther mark V - although it had reliability issues in the earliest model. However by the time it hit Ausf G it was the most well balanced tank of the war. T34 would be my second choice - simply because its too crude for my liking


----------



## timshatz (Jun 24, 2008)

Still the Panther. Could take on all the tanks on the page with a very good chance of winning and only a couple (t34-85) have a chance to beating it.


----------



## starling (Jun 24, 2008)

after the seine crossing,the welsh guards armd recon regt.came into its own,advancing 100miles in a day,it is perhaps a shame these same tanks/tactics;leaving strongpoints behind,after a good look see,were not taken advantage of during o.m.g.
my other choice would be the panzer mk4;a good allrounder,which spawned the jagdpanzer 4,and a good s.p arty.yours,starling.


----------



## seesul (Jun 24, 2008)

Although I know in some aspects there were better tanks, my vote goes for T-34. With its new design, construction, mobility and firepower (T34/85 version) it´s my favorite tank of WW2.
BTW, look at Panther, where do you think Germans got this idea from...


----------



## Marcel (Jun 24, 2008)

seesul said:


> BTW, look at Panther, where do you think Germans got this idea from...


Exactly and remember, it could be build in vast numbers, being easy to construct. While the Panther probably was better in a tank to tank comparison, it was much harder to build and the output was never enough.


----------



## renrich (Jun 24, 2008)

Once the teething problems were solved, the Panther may have been the best all around tank of the whole war. A good case can be made for the T34 also.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 24, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Exactly and remember, it could be build in vast numbers, being easy to construct. While the Panther probably was better in a tank to tank comparison, it was much harder to build and the output was never enough.



Actually, from actual figures I have seen, the assemlby time required for the Panther was not that much different than a Pz III. 20% more or something like that from memory. Of course it is more raw material-hungry, but that is not generally the production bottleneck.

I voted for the Pz IV (I can not help but I simply like this compact little tank), and of course I voted for the Panther - its a technologically very advanced tank, and a well thought out, balanced package for medium tank roles.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 24, 2008)

Hi Kurfust.

I took this from the Osprey - "Panther medium tank" publication



> also be remembered that the Panther was a complex and sophisticated vehicle that proved both expensive and time consuming to produce -each tank took 2000 man-hours to complete - as well as to maintain in the field.


For the rest, I must admit, tanks are not my speciality


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2008)

Armour is not really a strong point for me, but I have to go with the Panther.

In my opinion it had the best mix of armour and armament.


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2008)

One question is 'is the Panther a Medium tank when you look at its weight and size?'


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 25, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Hi Kurfust.
> 
> I took this from the Osprey - "Panther medium tank" publication
> 
> ...



I assume that figure is from the Panther's very early days. I too heard that it could be produced in only slightly longer time than the Pz.IV. Around 6000 were produced in total, not bad considering Allied disruption and raw material shortage.

Overall for me it's the T-34 though, for the reasons mentioned in the other thread. It's only real drawback is the sub-par cannon.


----------



## starling (Jun 25, 2008)

is it not true that the pz mk5 suffered the same as the pz mk6,with wheels hidden away behind eachother.if it was so advanced,why do the modern tanks not use this technological advanced suspention system.perhaps they should have copied the russian,british or american types of suspention.yours,starling. .


----------



## Mitya (Jun 25, 2008)

Panther is a medium tank!!!?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 25, 2008)

starling said:


> One question is 'is the Panther a Medium tank when you look at its weight and size?'



I guess one would rather have to look at the operational use of the vehicle (it was meant to be the standard tank of Panzer divisions, and its precedessor Panzer IV was only kept in order not to disrupt production), though there`s merit in the observation as many consider the Panther the first MBT of the world - a tank design encorporation the good traits of both medium and heavy tanks.

In any case, if one looks at the weight of typical medium tanks, it kept growing through the war - in 1940, it was about 20 tons (ie. Somoua, PzIII), by 1941, it was about 26 tons (ie. T-34, later Pz IVs), by '42-43 it grown to 32 tons (T-34/85, Sherman) and by 44-45 it increased to over 40 tons (Panther, Pershing). It settled down for a while at about this weight in the post war period, then it slowly crept up.

Nowadays, we have equivalents of the King Tiger in weight serving in the capacity of WW2`s mediums...



starling said:


> is it not true that the pz mk5 suffered the same as the pz mk6,with wheels hidden away behind eachother.if it was so advanced,why do the modern tanks not use this technological advanced suspention system.perhaps they should have copied the russian,british or american types of suspention.yours,starling. .



Actually, most post-war tanks use its suspension system and solutions. 
They gave away with the interlapped roadwheels, though, but some post-war German and French tank designs continoued it for it has great cross-country properties. 

I guess they abandoned the interleaved roadwheels because of their complexity, and the availability of much more powerful tank engines than available in World War II.

The Panther was state-of-the-art in this respect, Spielberger`s Panther volume is highly reccommended on this!


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2008)

I voted for
Pz IV lang, workhorse (both kz and lg) of WM, good tank with very good HE 39-42 and had growth potential which allowed the upgunning to KwK 40 which allowed it to fight against Soviet tanks successfully excluding JS heavy tanks. Bit underpowered and a little weakly protected. KwK 40 was also adequated against Western Allies tanks.

T-34, revolutionary tank, was a great shock to Germans. Mother of all modern MBTs. Good protection and excellent mobility, easy to produce and use. Minuses 2 man turret and gun had mediocre penetrating power even if it has a good HE.

A34 Comet, fast and reliable tank with a gun which had excellent penetration power but mediocre HE. Reasonably protected even if armour arrangement was oldfasioned. Arrived late but was excellent for the job medium tanks were intended, deep penetrations behind enemy forces and was well able to fight against enemy mediums.

Juha

Juha


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 25, 2008)

starling said:


> is it not true that the pz mk5 suffered the same as the pz mk6,with wheels hidden away behind eachother.if it was so advanced,why do the modern tanks not use this technological advanced suspention system.perhaps they should have copied the russian,british or american types of suspention.yours,starling. .



Because modern tanks have twice the horsepower at about the same weight.


----------



## renrich (Jun 25, 2008)

We had M41s in my unit. It was regarded as a light tank and of course was not in WW2 but would have been an excellent medium tank in WW2, I believe.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 25, 2008)

Glider said:


> One question is 'is the Panther a Medium tank when you look at its weight and size?'



Compared to the Tiger I and the Tiger II (and the later JS III) then, yes, it was a "medium" tank. A few years earlier, and it probably would've been considered a heavy tank but, as Kurfurst pointed out, the weight of all tanks continued to increase right up till the end of the War. There were even some "superheavy" tanks in development by the Germans toward the end of the War, most notably the famous "Maus" (at 180 tons+), and the uncompleted E-100 (at approximately 100 tons, hence the "100" designation; none were ever completed, but a completed chassis was found at Paderborn after the War _sans_ turret and tracks).


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 25, 2008)

If we're talking about 5 tanks vs 5 tanks gladiator-type battle in an open field with equal crews, the Panther would clean up. 

The reality is that cost, fuel consumption, production, manufacturing, reliability and numbers should be considered in addition to firepower, armor, speed and agility.

IMO the T-34 holds the crown in best overall medium tank.

.


----------



## seesul (Jun 26, 2008)

The reason why I voted for T-34 and not for Panther is because T-34 was really revolutionary conception and Germans only used and improved (not in all aspects) it on their Panther. Should Panther have a simpler gears conception (wheels) and diesel engine, it would be the best tank of WW2. 
But as I said T-34 came first with a really modern tank conception.
Panther saw the light of this world only because of T-34...


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 26, 2008)

People over-emphasize the diesel engines. The T-34 did burn very easy, more so than the Panther.

The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.


----------



## seesul (Jun 26, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.



The interleaving wheels system is pretty complicated for manufacturing and maintenance. 
And not the best for arctic winter conditions. Frozen mud could even stop the tank which was very common in Russia.
Nothing else than improved copy of T-34...


----------



## renrich (Jun 26, 2008)

Read online that the infamous tendency of the M4 Sherman to catch fire when hit by shell fire was not because of gasoline engine but because of ammunition storage.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Correct Renrich, and it was later partially solved with a wet storage arrangement.

As for the T-34, well it tended mostly to explode immediately after being hit, the pressure from the German 75 88mm APCBC projectiles setting off the ammunition storage. Now if that didn't happen the round usually just went right through the tank (Sometimes the fuze could fail), penetrating straight through the engine block causing a fuel explosion. 

The IS-2 also tended to either immediately brew up or explode if hit by a 75 or 88mm APCBC shell. An explosion was almost guaranteed if the turret was penetrated, which was what the German gunners were aiming at; Explaining how a few Tiger Ausf.E's massacred over 20 IS-2's in an engagement at 1,500m in late August(IIRC) 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2008)

An intersting perspective


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA-Sv1Ndso_


----------



## magnocain (Jul 3, 2008)

My favorite tank is the M3 Grant (I know blasphemy). I like it because it has 2 big guns. It would be a lot more useful when attacking soft targets.


----------



## starling (Jul 3, 2008)

is this true...the german mk5 tank...sticking in the ice,my god,i understood it was so advanced.no wonder the t34 was better. .


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 4, 2008)

seesul said:


> The reason why I voted for T-34 and not for Panther is because T-34 was really revolutionary conception and Germans only used and improved (not in all aspects) it on their Panther.



Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.

The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.


----------



## seesul (Jul 4, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.
> 
> The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.



I really don´t know, in fact nothing...only Germans knew that as they copied and improved that conception and armour inclination on Panther...think for a first time with the turret in the middle...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 4, 2008)

Inclined or sloped armor was nothing particularly new, it was well understood at the time.. take a look at AFV designs from the era, including German ones.











Earlier German medium tanks like Pz III and IV had a boxy design for two reasons - they were relatively small and this maximumised usable space inside the tank, and because the Germans opted for face-hardened armor plates on their early designs (a very reasonable choice against the typically small-caliber, pre-war AT guns firing uncapped projectiles, as they would shatter upon impact) and face-hardened armor worked best if used vertically.

The Soviets basically took existing technologies of the time (for example, the large V2 diesel of T34 was a modified French airship engine to my best knowledge), and applied them to their 'fast tank' concept seen on the BT series, only in bigger and heavier version with more armor and larger gun.

Its just natural evolvement of technology.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 4, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.



well not the single features but the combination of them in a single tank made it a revolutonary design that revolutionised the tank warfare and invented the conception of a MBT


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 4, 2008)

I voted in the the Pzkw IV (Late models)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2008)

Cost of manufacture and the use of scarce resources has to figure prominently in mediuum tank design. Also mobility in difficult or ice ridden terrain .

The Sherman cost about 2/3 that of a MkIV in dollar terms to produce, and less than half that of a MkV. Dont know the dollr cost of a T-34, but it was easy to make, much easier than the equivalent german models. However, German tanks held a distinct technological advantage in the gun-armour stakes.

All tank design, and production is a compromise between engine power, gun power, and protection. Slight adjuncts to that are the cost of the technology, and overall production costs. Finally there may sometimes be issues of reliability, and commonality (ie haviong too many differnt marks and models, makes the logistics issue a real nightmare)

Now, firstly to break down by nationality (marked 1-10, 10 being perfect, 1 being abysmal)

Germany: 

Engine/Mobility: 7 
Gun Power: 9
Protection: 8
Technology Cost:6
Production Cost: 3
Reliability: 5
Commonality: 3
Total score for german tanks: 41
Best tank in German lineup: Panther
Germany loses out badly in the technology costs (her face hardened armour, engine and gun decvelopment costs, and her pioneer work oin the AFV sphere all made for added expense). I believe she had some issues with reliability (particulalry with the panther, and the overall lavish fitouts and standards of finish all worked against them when it came to numbers
US

Engine/Mobility: 6
Gun Power: 5 
Protection: 3 
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 8
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 8


Total Score: 41
Best US Medium: M4 Sherman
The US scores badly in the firepower and protection stkes. Their tanks were adequately mobile (although overall i think they were slightly worse than Germany). Because the US was coming from so far behind (take a look at their M2 type if you dont believe me), they had to invest a lost in the technology to bring their tanks up to speed. The US scores top marks in production costs, and commonality, and I consider them to be reasonable in terms of relaibility 


Britain

Engine/Mobility: 5
Gun Power: 4 (have not included 17 pdr in Medium tanks)
Protection: 5
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 5
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 4
Total : 34

The best wartime medium in the british inventory would be either the Churchill or the Comet IMO

British tank development suffered a lot of problems in the war. The separation of cavalry roles and Infantry support roles stunted and deformed British tank development. Armament, in the early stages with the two pounder, which was unable to counter German 88s effectively, cost many tanks, many battles and a lot of tankers lives. British engine development was backward at the beginning of the war. The Commet suffered from a relatively weak armament at the end of the war. However, British technoilogy costs were still better than the germans, and the production costs of their relatively simple AFVs also quite good. 
IMO the best Brit tank, though a close competition, is the Comet. 


USSR

Engine/Mobility: 7
Gun Power: 6
Protection: 6
Technology Cost:7
Production Cost: 6
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 5
Total 43
The Soviets are not clear winners in any single category, however in every category they score quite well. This is because in my opinion, Soviet tanks are a good balance between all of the various factors. Looking at the t-34, it was mobile because of itrs wide tracks, it was well armoured, because of its sloped armour scheme, it had adequte gun performance, its technology was relatively easy to develop, because it was an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary development. It was simple and easy to build, And the Soviets were succesful in the commonality area IMO

Best Overall tank IMO is probably the T-34, although ther heavier armouring scheme of the KV-1/2 make it tempting

France

Engine/Mobility: 3 
Gun Power: 6
Protection: 7
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 4
Reliability: 4
Commonality: 2
Total: 31

Best wartime tank: Somua

Italy

Engine/Mobility: 2
Gun Power: 4
Protection: 3
Technology Cost:4
Production Cost: 4
Reliability: 3
Commonality: 4
Total 24

Best overall. Not a tank, but inmy opinion the best Italian tanks were their varios Semoventes

Japan

Engine/Mobility: 4
Gun Power: 4
Protection: 4
Technology Cost: 2
Production Cost: 3
Reliability: 4
Commonality: 2
Total: 23

Best overall
Shinhoto Chi Ni

The best overall medium tank, on the absis of theabove assessment, therefore gets down to either the T-34, or the M4, taking into account the non-battle related variables. My instinct tells me that the fonal top position should go to the T-34, but this might be a matter of opinion


----------



## seesul (Jul 4, 2008)

thanks for your ranking, I agree almost in all aspects...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 10, 2008)

Yea Parsifal - All very well put.


----------



## slaterat (Jul 11, 2008)

How could you not include the 17 pdr in assessing British tanks ?

I voted for the Firefly because it had the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr was the great equalizer. My second pick would be the Comet. I didn't pick it first as it came a little late in the war, however I believe its superior to the panther or T 34.

Slaterat


----------



## Soren (Jul 11, 2008)

The Firefly wasn't even close to being as good as the Panther. The Panther features far superior optics, mobility, armour protection and an equal gun. 

The Firefly was vulnerable to the Panther out and beyond 3,500+ m, while the Panther could feel relatively safe against the Firefly at most ranges as long as it was head on.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2008)

*How could you not include the 17 pdr in assessing British tanks ?

I voted for the Firefly because it had the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr was the great equalizer. My second pick would be the Comet. I didn't pick it first as it came a little late in the war, however I believe its superior to the panther or T 34.*


I would put the firefly under the generic heading if "Sherman". It was, after all, known as the Sherman Firefly. It was on that basis that I bumped up my firepower rating for the Sherman, and also a reason why I short listed the Sherman against the T-34.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2008)

*The Firefly wasn't even close to being as good as the Panther. The Panther features far superior optics, mobility, armour protection and an equal gun. 

The Firefly was vulnerable to the Panther out and beyond 3,500+ m, while the Panther could feel relatively safe against the Firefly at most ranges as long as it was head on*

Basically I agree, but the limitations on the panther are there nevertheless. It basically cost 2.5 times as much to produce a panther as it does a Sherman (of any description). Early on ther were some reliability issues, that led to the loss of some panthers. Finally because the germans had a number of types being produced simultaneously, there were some issues with logistics and commonality. IMO the germans suffer very poor marks in these non-battlefield related areas.

If you look at the loss statistics for the Tiger losses, a lot were lost because they had to be abandoned, either due to breakdowns, or because of fuel shortages. I expect that the panthers suffered similar fates in a lot of instances


----------



## joy17782 (Jul 11, 2008)

the m 3 tank had alot of flaws,mostly the 75 mm in the hall didnt have much traverse, you had too point the tank at its target , the 35mm on top was a 2 man show with the comander being the gunner , and the commander comands and thats already a tough jop, the french tanks had the same flaw , the m3 was a stop - gap measure and thats it ,,it did work good in the indian-burma area, but then agian what did the japs have too oppose it, the panther was as good as a medium tank as you can get, the sherman too!!!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> It basically cost 2.5 times as much to produce a panther as it does a Sherman (of any description).



Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.



No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war. 

At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank. 

However, it does make the Mk IV look a little more competitive. At RM 142000 (with armament and radio fitted), the dollar value of the Mk IV comes in at about US $ 46557, making it somewhat closer to the value of a Sherman.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware


----------



## drgondog (Jul 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.
> 
> At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank.
> 
> ...



3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,

One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.

Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2008)

drgondog said:


> 3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,
> 
> One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.
> 
> Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.



In fact, in 1943-5, the Germans achieved a kill:loss ratio of 2.37:1 against their enemies. The Tiger equipped units achieved an impressive 5.74:1 kill ratio against the allies. I dont the specific breakdowns past that point


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000.



Spielberger`s definitieve book on the Panther gives the following prices (via Heereswaffenamt WuG 6):

Pz V Panther: 117 100 RM
7.5cm KwK 42 12 000 RM
HL 230 engine: 11 000 RM
AK 7-200 gearbox: 3500 RM
MG 34 : 312 RM

That works out roughly as *145 000 RM, complete with gunetc.* 



parsifal said:


> Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1.



Groehler. It may not be 100% accurate, but then again, we don`t know either what the Sherman prices include, wheter it is for the initial batch or later batches that would be obviously cheaper etc. I don`t buy that it was cheaper than the Pz IV, which was a very simple tank design with no fancy things on it, also much smaller.

I am not sure why Overy would be such an authority on WW2 economy - though I haven`t seen much from him in this subject - but he seems to an expert of all fields at the same time, writing numerous books on wildly different aspects of WW2, which makes me wonder how would that be possible for a mere human. 

In any case, 145 000 RM figure Spielberger gives (you should really see that book.. its simply Teutonic thoroughness in its sickest form) it works out at roughly 47 500 USD a piece (or 36000, practically the same amount as a the figure claimed for the Sherman tank).

Considering the Panther was produced in a lesser production run (=> higher unit costs for the whole project) than the Sherman, and the uncertainity about the Sherman figures, I would say there was no particularly great difference in costs - and slightly higher costs were more than justified by the Panthers superior capabilities IMHO.



parsifal said:


> This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.



I don`t think this matters a lot to our current discussion IMHO - MAN had to pay the electric bill at the end of the month, its workers, and Krupp for the armored plates delivered; just like Chrysler, and also make some profit on it. 



> The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware



The Tiger saw only limited orders and limited production. Unit cost of any product that is produced in small series is going to be higher, regardless of what that product is, a Sherman, a Tiger or a hair-dryer.

In practice however a Tiger costed nowhere near 3 Shermans - what would actually matter in wartime conditions were the raw material needs to produce a single tank, and the time needed on actually producing it from these materials (ie. work hours needed to complete a single unit). In the field, 3 Shermans definietely needed at least twice the support and suplies (ie. 3 times the crews needed to be trained, two to three times the fuel consumed etc.).

It was also not a viable or sensible strategy for the Germans to try to match the sheer output of their enemies - a phyisical impossibilty - but to try to counter higher numbers with higher quality weapons. In an example if the Germans would simply copy the Sherman, they would be still vastly outproduced by the US.

Its an old numbers vs quality thing. NATO played that game against the WP in the cold war. NATO tried for superior quality (altough it did not achieve it IMHO until the Leo2/M1/Challanger came to the scene IMHO).


----------



## DBII (Jul 11, 2008)

Magnocain, I like the M3 also but because it was a throw back to WWI when everyone wanted tanks to be the battleships of ground warefare. The multiple guns did not work for the reasons listed above. 

DBII


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

It's a race between M4 and T-34. 
Panther weights 45+ tons, more then M-26 _heavy tank_.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

Ok i said Panther, but only if its going to be my personal mount. If i am procuring them for an army? T-34.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Dec 3, 2010)

Mitya said:


> Panther is a medium tank!!!?



It had the technical specifications of a heavy tank (heavier than the M26 Pershing and the JS-2 and a high velocity 75-mm. gun more powerful than the Tiger I's 88-mm.), but it was issued to the panzer divisions like a medium tank. (Tiger tanks were placed in independent companies that supplemented panzer division firepower, but Panthers made up an entire battalion of a panzer division, while the Panzerkampfwagen IV made up the other battalion.)


----------

