# Help



## Insilin (Dec 12, 2006)

I need some help for an essay Im trying to find out which tank was the overall best for these countries: Canada

And which plane was overall best in Russia,Canada,Germany

and which submarine is overall best of Britain,Russia,Canada

Iv tried google and everything but it only gives me the most popular machine.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 12, 2006)

Insilin said:


> I need some help for an essay Im trying to find out which tank was the overall best for these countries: Canada
> 
> And which plane was overall best in Russia,Canada,Germany
> 
> ...



be handy if you had some perimeters such as date


----------



## Insilin (Dec 12, 2006)

o sorry for world war 2 =x


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

No offense, but books are written over those few parameters. Take a look at other threads under the WWII and Aviation sub-forums. You are asking quite a lot and man years of energy has been spent on those topics in this forum alone.

Good luck.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 12, 2006)

the info is here you just have to do your own homework......is your project due tomorrow


----------



## Insilin (Dec 12, 2006)

naw its due after christmas break i just want a headstart cause i have to write alot and its worth 10% of my mark


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2006)

Damn why didn't I think of forums when I was a lazy kid in school. I went to the library and read! I was so dumb.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 13, 2006)

I will gladly help you Insilin, as I've been in your shoes before - I know what it's like!

First of all, your questions are a matter of opinion, for example, what are your classmate's favourite cars? - I bet almost everyone's is different? 

With this in mind, I can't answer the 'best plane' question.

Submarines aren't my forte, so I won't go there.

Also, what have they taught you in school/college on WW2 vehicles? (I bet a lot of it is wrong BTW).

Anyway, best Canadian WW2 tank:

Has to be the Valentine for me; It was designed in Britain (the design was submitted on Valentines day - hence the name). It was designed as a cheaper version of the MatildaII tank, which had proved superior to the German Panzers in the battle of France. The Canadian version was made at a place that usually made trains (forget the name, will get back to you later). The Canadian version was actually superior to the original, being cheaper, better armoured and likely was more reliable and of a better quality. Most of the Canadian Valentines were sent to the USSR, but a few were left behind in Canada for training purposes. 
When they got to Russia, they were used by the Russians and were the most highly praised of the British/Commonwealth tanks - being the only ones that could really cut it in the harsh conditions on the Eastern Front (others were either underarmoured and/or unreliable). One complaint was that the gun was near useless. The Valentine had a 57mm gun (called the QF six pounder) - which was better than the 40mm (QF 2 pounder) of the MathildaII mentioned above, but not good enough as it's armour penetration was poor and it couldn't fire HE shells (High Explosive - look it up!). The Soviets had a better 57mm gun, but they also had an excellent 76mm that was famously used in the T34 and KV1 (You were told about the T34 and KV1 and their significance in WW2, weren't you?). This could fire HE and had good anti-tank performance, so was shoehorned (I expect with great difficulty) into the already very cramped turret of the Valentine. This made a very 'Soviet' tank; well armoured, reliable, simple, cheap and with a big gun - but very cramped and uncomfortable - all features of Soviet tanks. At this time the T34 was unreliable - it's gearbox kept breaking, spare gearboxes were actually carried into battle strapped to their backs! On the 1st link I have given you, there is a report on the reliability of the T34 and Valentines in the Eartern Front and the Valentine actually comes out better! (You were told about the T34's reliability, weren't you?). The KV1 was more reliable than the T34 at this point, having being tried and tested in the 'Winter War' (Which I hope you were told about?) and, depending on your opinion, better than the Valentine/76 but it was heavy and had sloow acceleration. The Valentine/76 could take on a PanzerIII and earlier marks of PanzerIV. The reason I chose the Valentine is because it made a large contribution to the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany, including the famous Kursk tank battles (Which, again I hope you were told about?) - and this is where WW2 was really won/lost.

- I guess that people on here might disagree with me, that neither makes them right or wrong.

The RAM tank was interesting too, for it's conversions - but it didn't really make a contribution to WW2, other than training and as an APC (Kangaroo). A few prototypes carried excellent British guns - the 17pdr and 3.7in, which were the only guns to really rival the famous German '88'.

There you have it. I'm not doing a bibliography for you though, try looking up 'valentine tank russia canada' 'canadian valentines' or something on Google for sources. Though I will give you a few links:

The Russian Battlefield - Valentine Medium Tank in the USSR

The Russian Battlefield - Mk.II "Matilda" Heavy Infantry Tank

Valentine tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kliment Voroshilov tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matilda tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-34 tank gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ordnance QF 6 pounder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ZiS-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I hope you keep researching WW2 vehicles and that it's something you stay interested in long after college/school is over.

If you want to have fun whilst doing tank research, then I suggest you play a Playstation game called Panzer Front. You do have a Playstation/Playstation 2 don't you?

Let us know how it goes?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2006)

Did you get to choose this topic or did the teacher give you this topic for the essay. If you chose the topic I am sure we can thin it out with better countries to use. 

For instance I would not use Russia or Canada in the Sub catagory but rather would use Germany, Japan, and the US. Canadian subs were most likely old British Subs sold to them.

As for planes I too would pic different countries such as Germany, US and England. It would make it a lot easier. Canada mostly used British planes in WW2.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 13, 2006)

The best aircraft in Canada is hard to quantify but the effect of the war led Canada to become a major player in the aircraft manufacture shortly after the second war to reach the position that Canada s holds now as in the top 5 of aviation nations


----------



## Insilin (Dec 13, 2006)

Thanks alot schwarzpanzer and yes i chose this topic

Right now I have:
Tanks
Canada:Valentine
Britain:M3 Lee
Germany:Tiger II
Russia:T-34

Planes
Canada: (blank)
Britain: Spitfire
Russia: (blank)
Germany: (blank)

Submarines
Canada: (blank)
Britain: (blank)
Russia: (blank)
Germany: Type XXI

Tell me if you think any of these are wrong


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 13, 2006)

Insilin said:


> Thanks alot schwarzpanzer and yes i chose this topic
> 
> Right now I have:
> Tanks
> ...



Here is my opinion, for what it is worth.

Tanks
Canada:Valentine/Firefly
Britain:M4 Sherman Firefly
Germany:King Tiger/Panther
Russia:T-34-85

Planes
Canada: Spitfire
Britain: Spitfire
Russia: Yak-9/LaGG-7
Germany: Ta-152/FW190D/Me262

Submarines
Canada: same as UK
Britain: S or T class  British Submarines of World War Two - A History
Russia: can't say
Germany: Type XXI


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 13, 2006)

for Canadian aircraft I would go with something made in Canada like lancaster , Mosquito, Helldiver, Hurricane or Catalina don't think we had any subs in WW2 but have used mostly american types since


----------



## Insilin (Dec 13, 2006)

Tanks
Canada:Valentine/Firefly
Britain:M4 Sherman Firefly
Germany:King Tiger/Panther
Russia:T-34-85

Planes
Canada: Spitfire
Britain: Spitfire
Russia: Yak-9/LaGG-7
Germany: Ta-152/FW190D/Me262

Submarines
Canada: same as UK
Britain: S or T class British Submarines of World War Two - A History
Russia: can't say
Germany: Type XXI

Can you cut this down to 1 each cause im not to much informed on these machinery


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 13, 2006)

Tanks
Canada:Firefly
Britain:M4 Sherman Firefly
Germany:King Tiger
Russia:T-34-85

Planes
Canada: Spitfire
Britain: Spitfire
Russia: Yak-9
Germany: Me262

Submarines
Canada: same as UK
Britain: S class 
Russia: can't say
Germany: Type XXI


----------



## Insilin (Dec 13, 2006)

Whats the difference from these Canada:Firefly
Britain:M4 Sherman Firefly


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

Instead of jumping to the answer, I would do research into what qualities, parameters and technologies are necessary to define the "Best of" a particular category. You will never get anyone on this forum to agree with you as which 5, 10, or 50 parameters those are, so work on defining your own. Explain in your paper why you believe these parameters are important to contrast between different military weapon systems and why you chose to narrow them down to your choices. Remember people spend their whole lives or careers discussing this history.

Example to get the ball rolling for airplanes.

WHICH PLANE WAS OVERALL BEST -
Roles that it served (fighter, bomber, reconnaisance, maritime patrol, etc)
Speed
Ceiling
Range
Armament
Systems and equipment (eg radar, specialized weapons, engines, etc)
Subjective flying qualities
Development highlights (eg problems, successes, setbacks)
Number produced
Countries utilized
Contrast of above parameters with contemporaries in theater of operation

Others may have different parameters, but this should get you started. You can then do the same thing with others (ie submarines, etc), but obviously changing your criteria.

Hope this helps.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 14, 2006)

You're very welcome Insillin.

The Japanese I-400 Sub is interesting, as it was a cross between a submarine and aircraft carrier and could even launch Baka bombs (kinda like piloted V1 'doodlebugs').

I-400 class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The later U-Boots were also good, but I don't know their designations, or much about them for that matter.



> Whats the difference from these Canada:Firefly
> Britain:M4 Sherman Firefly



I don't know. I think he means Fireflies made in Canada?

The M4 tank was also called the Sherman. The Firefly was a modification of a Sherman where the excellent British 17pdr was stuffed into the turret - with this gun it could smash the formidable Tiger tank frontally at a mile and even, theoretically, the King Tiger head-on - supposedly the only tank of WW2 that could do this (nelecting trick shots, pounding etc).

Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M4 Sherman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My opinions:

Tanks
Canada:Valentine
Britain:Hard to say. M4 Sherman Firefly, MathildaII, Challenger, Comet or Centurion.
Germany:Hard to say. StugIII?? (not technically a tank).

SturmgeschÃ¼tz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- At the bottom of the page, that link... Live near Ontario?

Russia:T34 or IS-3

Iosif Stalin tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Planes
Canada: Don't know.
Britain: Hurricane or Spitfire.
Russia: Il-2 Shturmovik or Yak3 (fighter)

Ilyushin Il-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yakovlev Yak-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany: Me109 (Elite) or FW190 Anton/Dora Ta152 (Average pilot). I suppose the V1 and V2, if they count?


It is almost impossible to say what the best is, I'd advise choosing your favourite, or seeing what made the biggest impact in WW2. A good example of this is the American P51 Mustang - not the fastest or most agile plane of WW2, but one of the most important nevertheless.


----------



## Insilin (Dec 14, 2006)

Thanks i got all my tanks and planes but i cant find subs theres so many different models i search a class and a bunch of models show up and on wiki theres barely any information


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 14, 2006)

Insilin said:


> Thanks i got all my tanks and planes but i cant find subs theres so many different models i search a class and a bunch of models show up and on wiki theres barely any information


canada didn't operate any subs in ww2 so if going for sub do the I 400 as suggested by Swharzpanzer its the most interesting sub


----------



## Insilin (Dec 14, 2006)

Britain:British T class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German:Unterseeboot 505 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are these good

and i need a russia sub

and i dont have japan in my list


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 14, 2006)

try this linkuboat.net - The U-boat War 1939-1945 and look under allies it should cover all your needs


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 15, 2006)

> canada didn't operate any subs in ww2 so if going for sub do the I 400 as suggested by Swharzpanzer its the most interesting sub



Whoohoo! I got it right?? Thanks pbfoot! 

Canada didn't operate subs huh? I didn't know that, thanks again! 


Glad you've got most stuff Insillin. Please post your essay on here after it's marked won't you?

The later U-Boots had schnorkels and excellent Hydrodynamics, very ahead of their time. I will do some more research possibly, you've re-sparked my interest. 

BTW, my favourite Sub is the Soviet Typhoon (surprise, surprise ).


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Whoohoo! I got it right?? Thanks pbfoot!
> 
> Canada didn't operate subs huh? I didn't know that, thanks again!
> 
> ...


I believe some officers RCN may have commanded RN boats


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm not entirely sure, but it's very possible. Men of the RCN served in almost every capacity, including command, in every manner of RN vessel. I honestly don't know as much as I probably should about the British sub force of WWII though.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

How's it going Insilin?

Have you handed your work in yet?


----------

