Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[parsifal]

Here is just my question to all parties.

Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...

My opinion is that qualitatively the germans were clearly superior. But the 64 dollar question is by how much.... Allied and Soviet tanks were cheaper to build, so it gets down to the issue of how much bang did the germans get for the additional bucks they spent on their tanks. A Panther cost 2.6 times that of a Sherman, so are you better off having one Panther to 2.6 Shermans.......the equations gets very hard to make any conclusions aboput when you look at it in those terms

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I never like to comment on this type of question. It is an opinion thing with too many variables to be able to reach a definitive conclusion. One mans opinion is worth no more than anyone elses.

How is it an opinion based thing? One tank has better armor? One tank has a better weapon, etc...

My opinion is that qualitatively the germans were clearly superior. But the 64 dollar question is by how much.... Allied and Soviet tanks were cheaper to build, so it gets down to the issue of how much bang did the germans get for the additional bucks they spent on their tanks. A Panther cost 2.6 times that of a Sherman, so are you better off having one Panther to 2.6 Shermans.......the equations gets very hard to make any conclusions aboput when you look at it in those terms

I agree completely, and I already know that. I was just looking for each persons individual answer.

 

[m kenny]

I can only state that of a few items I know, something do not make sense to me.

Share your fears. What exactly is it you are worried about?
Do you think that the Sherman was not as flammable as previously thought or are your concerns limited to studies on German tanks?

Is there a website that has all of the data and studies or is this something I can get fro, you?

Only the Sherman study is online in full. I presume the 'errors' you have found would be present there as well. Use it to show us where the methodology goes wrong.

How is it an opinion based thing? One tank has better armor? One tank has a better weapon, etc....

The 'opinion' thing enters the arena when you try and quantify the qualities assumed to mean 'better', better' armour, 'better' gun ect. If these were the only parameters then 500 ton monsters would automaticaly assume pole position in any race for 'the best'.
I would say a 'better' way would be to look at a tanks overall impact on the war. Thats when the complications arrive. One example? Germany thought she had pretty good tanks. However one she invaded Russia it was found the T34 outclassed everything she possesed. Thus at different times different tanks were 'better'. Many would pick the TII but others would say the circa 450 built and in service for under 11 moths had little impact on the war, that is when the 'opinion thing' comes into play

 

[Amsel]

You have your Sherman and I will vote Tiger I. I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.

 

[m kenny]

You have your Sherman and I will vote Tiger I

Fine so far...........

I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.

As is normal in these type of debates there are those who take any refusal to say a Tiger is not the automatic best (whatever 'best' may be) as a personal slight and a sign of impared cognitive ability.

 

[parsifal]

MK

I could follow your argument if you are going to argue on the basis of cost, or mobility, or even serviceability. But you cannot be seriously arguing that a sherman can match a tiger toe to toe in the straight up gun/armour area, surely....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The 'opinion' thing enters the arena when you try and quantify the qualities assumed to mean 'better', better' armour, 'better' gun ect. If these were the only parameters then 500 ton monsters would automaticaly assume pole position in any race for 'the best'.
I would say a 'better' way would be to look at a tanks overall impact on the war. Thats when the complications arrive. One example? Germany thought she had pretty good tanks. However one she invaded Russia it was found the T34 outclassed everything she possesed. Thus at different times different tanks were 'better'. Many would pick the TII but others would say the circa 450 built and in service for under 11 moths had little impact on the war, that is when the 'opinion thing' comes into play

I don't think you understand that one can compare different tanks. In a war like WW2, I would rather have 10,000 Shermans than 1500 Tigers, so in that sense the Sherman was the better tank for the war. However if you compare tank on tank (and no I am not talking about battle field, I am talking about characteristics, armor, armament, etc), the Tiger is going to come out on top.

It is the same in the aircraft world. We can compare individual aircraft all day long. I think you fail to do so. You only look at one aspect of it.

I think you bring tons of great information, but you spoil it by only looking at things from a very narrow point of view. Not trying to be insulting or anything, so please do not take it that way. That is just something that has been bugging me. Don't worry either, I could say the same thing about your friend Soren. He is the complete other spectrum that you are...

Like I said in the end the Sherman was the right tank for the war. Easy to build, cheap, and there were mass numbers of them. The Sherman itself however was no where near the best tank of the war in itself though.

I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.

Compared to a Sherman, I agree completely. The Tiger was a very superior tank overall. It had better armor, it was more of a modern tank design, it had better armament. Enough said, no one can argue that.

I would however take lots of mass produced Sherman's over a hand full of Tigers any day. During WW2, superior numbers in the end is what will win on the battle field most of the time.

 

[Catch22]

I think we can safely say that tank on tank, any German tank Panzer V or later is quite superior to the Sherman, or most Allied tanks for that matter. The Sherman's strength didn't really lie within the tank itself per se, but rather its ease of manufacture.

 

[Juha]

Hello Adler
On Panther and Tiger, strickly on armament and armour, answer is yes, at least to the emergence of Comet, which while having weaker and oldfashioned hull armour had better armoured turret than Panther and had almost as good gun with better reliability in 33 ton package. Not better tank than Panther but more suited to deep armoured trusts that were the order of the day for Allied in 1945.
On heavy tank, Tiger I and II were better armoured than contempory Soviets heavy tanks and had 88 mm guns which were better armour piercers than guns in Soviet heavy tanks, but tank guns needed also good HE ammo, after all one main function of Soviet heavy tanks was shoot the Soviet infantry through German lines and 122mm HE was in that work better than 88mm HE. So Soviet heavy tanks were better in infantry support, if we forget the limited ammo storage but worse in tank vs tank combat.
Personally I liked Tiger I, expensive but IMHO necessary tool for WM at that time even if not the wunderweapon that Hitler and some others expected.
On the other hand IMHO Panther was too big as MBT for WM and for the industrial resources of Germany of the time. At least Germans should have first try to get the original prototype with 60mm glacis arrmour and 75mm L/60 gun working properly. That would have been entirely adequate in 43 before uparmouring and upgunning it. Every ton spared in growth would have made it easier to solve running gear and powertrain problems which mostly born out from the fact tha Panther's weight rose from 30-35 tons to 43,5 tons during design and development. Now during the very important year 43 Germany was burdened by thirsty and unreliable MBT even if when it worked it was deadly. Just my oppinion.

Juha

 

[m kenny]

As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.

I think the most succesful tank nation was the Soviets. They consistently produced good all round types that did everything the finely honed Western or over-engineered Panzers types ever did did and at a much smaller cost.
There I said it now tell me how stupid I am because I don't accept the obvious.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.

I think the most succesful tank nation was the Soviets. They consistently produced good all round types that did everything the finely honed Western or over-engineered Panzers types ever did did and at a much smaller cost.
There I said it now tell me how stupid I am because I don't accept the obvious.

1. No one said you were stupid, so why bring it up?

2. The problem is that you think the same thing about the people that believe in the "obvious", maybe not directly, but that is how you come across...

3. I think you fail to realize that this is a public forum and the vast majority of people are not tank "experts". I sure as hell know that I am not one of them. I am interested in tanks, and that is why I read this thread, so that I can learn. That is why the "obvious" discussion as you call it comes about. Does that make them stupid, or not worthy of your "great knowing" conversation? Sort of seems that way.

So I will put my summary (which you probably do not care about, because I am ordinary, obvious, and probably not "tank intelligent enough").

1. The Tiger and Panther were not the greatest tanks every built, neither was the T-34 and certainly was not anything that the Western Allies fielded in any large numbers during the war.

2. The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.

3. The Tiger and Panther had better armament than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.

4. The Tiger and Panther were overall a better tank than anything the western allies put out in the field any large number. Pretty obvious answer huh? But it is true...

5. The Sherman and most Western Allied tanks were better suited for infantry support than the Tiger and Panther. Another pretty obvious answer huh?

6. The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time. There goes another one of those pretty obvious ones, but hey it is true! But then again you don't carry on those kind of conversations with us normal people...

7. Though the Tiger and Panther were overall better tanks, the were not war winners, because the allies could produce "good and reliable" tanks in mass numbers and very cheap.

There now tell me I am stupid...

 

[plan_D]

Can I just point out that the job of a tank in World War II was not to destroy another tank, however the tanks greatest enemy was another tank. And I can I also point out that the three features of a tank that are a required element, if it is to be the best of the best are mobility, firepower and protection.

The major issue in tank debate, however, is down to the fact that different 'tanks' are built for different roles. The Tiger I was never built to fulfil the same role as the Sherman, it was a "Heavy/Breakthrough" tank, designed to destroy the initial enemy resistance and open gaps in the enemy lines. The Sherman was a "Medium/Cruiser" tank, it's role was to capitalise on any break in the enemy lines and run riot behind them, thus preventing the enemy from re-grouping, the Wehrmacht equal was the Pz.IV.
The Western approach to warfare saw other methods of breaking the enemy line (artillery/airpower/numbers) thus used the easily built Sherman which was supported by Tank Destroyers; the Destroyers remove the tank threat, the infantry remove the anti-tank threat, the Sherman runs riot.
The German approach was to have tanks capable of that initial breakthrough and have the smaller, faster armour run riot. Imagine the short-barrel Pz.IV as the Tiger I and the late Pz.IV as the early Pz.III.

What I'm saying is...no tank was designed for the sake of it, so to compare them equally and on a fair and level playing field you should ask "Were they the best at what they were designed to do?" Because the Tiger I would blast almost any other tank in the war to pieces without problem, but a T-34 would drive from Moscow to Berlin without missing a beat.

 

[Soren]

Mobility, armament protection. These are the three most important quailities a tank must possess, Plan_D is completely right about this.

However before we start talking about what each tank was designed to do, the Sherman T-34 were actually both designed to be superior as soon as they entered the battlefield, and in the case of the T-34 it certainly succeeded. Both tanks were designed during a time where the deadliest gun on a German tank was the 50mm L/42 of the PzIII, and the 75mm M3 was definitely superior to this gun and more than capable of dealing with the 30mm frontal armour of the PzIII. Furthermore the Sherman's armour was designed specifically to withstand hits from the 50mm L/42, which it did beautifully. And the exact same can be said about the T-34 eventhough it sported an even better gun and armour protection than the Sherman.

So it terms of design both the Sherman T-34 were designed specifically to counter the present German threat, the PzIII, and they both more adequately achieved this.

Now that the Germans would come up with a solution to this problem as quickly as they did no'one could've ever foreseen. The Germans were however blessed with the two best gun manufacturers in the world, Krupp Rheinmetall, and they came up with a solution in record breaking time: The 75mm L/43 gun, and not long after that Henschel Son had ready what was to be the most fearsome tank of the war, the Pzkpfw.VI Tiger, a tank which was atleast 2½ years ahead of its time and to no surprise stunned everyone who first saw it.

 

[m kenny]

1. No one said you were stupid, so why bring it up?

Does that make them stupid, or not worthy of your "great knowing" conversation?
(which you probably do not care about, because I am ordinary, obvious, and probably not "tank intelligent enough").

! But then again you don't carry on those kind of conversations with us normal people...

7. Though the Tiger and Panther were overall better tanks, the were not war winners, because the allies could produce "good and reliable" tanks in mass numbers and very cheap.

There now tell me I am stupid...

As I said when I was first asked to comment there never seems to be any middle ground and it always starts to get personal. It is my own fault for bothering to reply.

However:

The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers

Not true. There were Allied tanks that had as much armour as the Tiger. The Churchill, as designed had frontal armour of 88mm compared to the Tigers 100mm. By the Time of Normandy the Churchill frontal plate was 150mm. The IS2 had slightly thicker armour but much better slope.
The Panther had a good Glacis but very thin sides. As some 80% of hits were on the sides/rear then the glacis only helped in the 20% of shots that hit the front.

The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time

This much talked about scenario is a staple of these threads. One-on -ones were never a consideration in any tactics manual I know off.

I see this is going nowhere. therefore I retreat to my initial position-i.e. I see no point in this type of thread.

 

[Njaco]

Well, since this is a thread for your favorite tank I picked the Pzkfw Mk IV.

Because I like the way it looks.

I don't care that a bazooka could take it out. Or the box shape was obsolete.

I like the way it looks.

Argue all you want about armour thickness and gun barrels and engine strengths....

I like the way it looks.

It did ask what my favorite was without any qualifiers, right?

 

[vikingBerserker]

Share your fears. What exactly is it you are worried about?
Do you think that the Sherman was not as flammable as previously thought or are your concerns limited to studies on German tanks?

Worried? I'm not worried about anything I was just asking questions on the data. The questions I was asking you were about the data you were presenting in regards to the German tanks.

 

[m kenny]

Worried? I'm not worried about anything I was just asking questions on the data. The questions I was asking you were about the data you were presenting in regards to the German tanks.

Could you be more specific about your doubts.
What do you think is 'wrong'?

 

[Soren]

Well, since this is a thread for your favorite tank I picked the Pzkfw Mk IV.

Because I like the way it looks.

I don't care that a bazooka could take it out. Or the box shape was obsolete.

I like the way it looks.

Argue all you want about armour thickness and gun barrels and engine strengths....

I like the way it looks.

It did ask what my favorite was without any qualifiers, right?

Well not much bad to asy about it, it was an excellent tank with great mobility, armament and very comfortable for the crew. Definitely also one of my favorites.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Can I just point out that the job of a tank in World War II was not to destroy another tank, however the tanks greatest enemy was another tank. And I can I also point out that the three features of a tank that are a required element, if it is to be the best of the best are mobility, firepower and protection.

The major issue in tank debate, however, is down to the fact that different 'tanks' are built for different roles. The Tiger I was never built to fulfil the same role as the Sherman, it was a "Heavy/Breakthrough" tank, designed to destroy the initial enemy resistance and open gaps in the enemy lines. The Sherman was a "Medium/Cruiser" tank, it's role was to capitalise on any break in the enemy lines and run riot behind them, thus preventing the enemy from re-grouping, the Wehrmacht equal was the Pz.IV.
The Western approach to warfare saw other methods of breaking the enemy line (artillery/airpower/numbers) thus used the easily built Sherman which was supported by Tank Destroyers; the Destroyers remove the tank threat, the infantry remove the anti-tank threat, the Sherman runs riot.
The German approach was to have tanks capable of that initial breakthrough and have the smaller, faster armour run riot. Imagine the short-barrel Pz.IV as the Tiger I and the late Pz.IV as the early Pz.III.

What I'm saying is...no tank was designed for the sake of it, so to compare them equally and on a fair and level playing field you should ask "Were they the best at what they were designed to do?" Because the Tiger I would blast almost any other tank in the war to pieces without problem, but a T-34 would drive from Moscow to Berlin without missing a beat.

Great post, great to have you back!

As I said when I was first asked to comment there never seems to be any middle ground and it always starts to get personal. It is my own fault for bothering to reply.

Do not get butt hurt. You started it, I only responded to your post. Is it okay for you to talk to us in such a manner, but us not allowed to do the same to you?

The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers

Not true. There were Allied tanks that had as much armour as the Tiger. The Churchill, as designed had frontal armour of 88mm compared to the Tigers 100mm. By the Time of Normandy the Churchill frontal plate was 150mm. The IS2 had slightly thicker armour but much better slope.
The Panther had a good Glacis but very thin sides. As some 80% of hits were on the sides/rear then the glacis only helped in the 20% of shots that hit the front.

Notice my key words. I used the words just about anything, that does not mean everything. So no, my statement was not false. Read what I say, and do not change my words. You can not pick and chose other people words to support your statement.

The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time

This much talked about scenario is a staple of these threads. One-on -ones were never a consideration in any tactics manual I know off.

That is how you compare two tanks from a technical stand point. Sorry most of us are mortals...

I see this is going nowhere. therefore I retreat to my initial position-i.e. I see no point in this type of thread.

Then why do you post in it? If you do not like our thread (or forum for that matter), go someplace that you would much prefer. I think it would be a shame, because you do have great knowledge on this subject.

I however do not want someone here that does not want to be here.

 

[parsifal]

As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.

I think the most succesful tank nation was the Soviets. They consistently produced good all round types that did everything the finely honed Western or over-engineered Panzers types ever did did and at a much smaller cost.
There I said it now tell me how stupid I am because I don't accept the obvious.

There is a degree of truth to what you say, but I think to be honest you are being deliberately obtuse.

Postwar tank design tends to support the notion that best does not equate necessarily to heaviest and most armoured. That is the basis of the modern MBT concept....a mixture of armament, armour, and mobility basically. So, to that extent you are correct.

However, in the context of WWII, the concept of a MBT was not quite there yet. Perhaps the design that came closest to the concept was the T-34. So again I would alrgely agree with you.

However, this still does not get to the heart of WWII era warfare, namely that no tank can lay claim to being a complete "allrounder" in the sense of a modern MBT. The design theory just wasnt developed to that level of sophistication. What tended to happen was that there were tanks that tended to specialise.....in the British concept you had "Infantry" and "cruiser" tanks. This was progressively melded as the war progressed, to produce a mixed breeed, starting with the Cromwell, before progressing to the Centurion. But the cruiser-Infantry tank classification was badly misguided in my opinion, what was needed (in the sense of separating roles for a tank, which in itself is an outdated concept), was a tank carrying the firepower to achieve the breakthrough (one might call this a heavy tank), and a tank to exploit that breakthrough, which one might call a breakthrough or medium tank. What was needed in reality was a tank that blended these often competing prioties to achieve the best blend of compromise between the three elements of mobility, firepower and protection.

Added to that equation is the simple tyranny of numbers, quite simply the cheaper the tank, the more you can fild, the more you can fild, the more effective are your armoured formations.

Now, given that there were not really any tanks that successfully combined all these competing elements (though I admit that there are quite a number that come very close, with the T-34, Panther, Mk IV, Sherman and Cromwell all up there vying for the position of best all round tank), one has to simply accept that tanks were specialised, and choose which one does its particular job the best when getting into these sorts of debates.....and to this point I believe you have disingenously dodged the issue, trying to label this forum as biased, one-eyed and the like. I can assure you that the majority here are none of the above...sure there are the odd zealots, but the majority are simply sitting back and spectating at this point. I believe that within its specialised roles, the tiger was a formidable weapon system. I have read, for example, that it could take out a T-34 at three miles....The tiger could not do everything, in fact its roles were quite limited....it had poor range, and its mobility was extremely limited...it cost a packet to build, and its serviceability was questionable....but as a battlefield weapons platform it was pretty formidable, greatly feared by its opponents....So I see you doing a great disservice to the brave men that had to fight these behemoths when you appear to belittle their battlefiled effects by suggesting they are not that big a threat.

If I have misunderstood you I apologize. I do not think or say you are stupid, quite the contrary, but it is annoying to watch you duck and weave, and avoid explaining yourself, which is to the detriment of the value of this forum.