Best Tank of WW2

[Vincenzo]

Juha i just checked the 17 pdr gun go in Egypt via air route, w/o carriage, they are not ready, in Egypt the guns were mounted on 25 pdr carriage and so go on front i think on road

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
Quote:"Juha i just checked the 17 pdr gun go in Egypt via air route, w/o carriage, they are not ready, in Egypt the guns were mounted on 25 pdr carriage and so go on front i think on road."

Thanks for that info, I knew that the first combat deployed went through Egypt but didn't know that they were airlifted, but without carriages.

IIRC the first production PaK 40s were delivered in Nov 41 and first production 17pdrs in April 42, so there was 5 months difference.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
Quote:"Juha i just checked the 17 pdr gun go in Egypt via air route, w/o carriage, they are not ready, in Egypt the guns were mounted on 25 pdr carriage and so go on front i think on road."

Thanks for that info, I knew that the first combat deployed went through Egypt but didn't know that they were airlifted, but without carriages.

IIRC the first production PaK 40s were delivered in Nov 41 and first production 17pdrs in April 42, so there was 5 months difference.

Juha

juha the first production 17 pdrs was w/o carriage this is reason for the use of 25 pdr carriage, so the 5 months aren't true you can use a gun w/o carriage, and delivery is not same of start production

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
British produced 25pdr carriage for 17pdr and it worked OK as DAK found out in Jan/Feb 43. And as I wrote the first 17pdrs were delivered in April 42, first proper carriages were produced in May 42.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

i ever read first 17 pdr completed in april (or production started in) never delivered in april.
i no writing that the 25 pdr carriage was not ok. maybe first proper carriage produces in may but there were some trouble it they have not carriage for guns to sent in north africa some months late

 

[dunmunro1]

The 8th army also used the 3.7" AA gun (in very small numbers) in an AT role at Gazala. It had an AP round and could have been used in this role in North Africa from 1940 onward.

 

[parsifal]

A significant reason why there was no real rush by the allies to introduce heavier AT guns in the theatre was that they did not need to. The 2 pounder was seen as being able to very adequately deal with the armour being fitted to German tanks of that period, whereas the 37mm and 50 mm (and 47mm Bohler design used by the italians) laboured with the armouring schemes fitted to British Tanks of the day.

Of course there was some really insane notions in the British army that believed AA guns were for AA use only, and should not be employed in a role for which they were not design. There is a famous quote, that goes along these lines....a German officer has been captured and is being questioned by a British officer....essentially the british officer asks..."why are you germans so unsporting and insist on using AA weapons in the AT role?", to which the German replied "why are you british so unsporting and inist on building tanks that only our 88s can pernatrate?" Perhaps an exagerration but the general idea is converyed...

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
IIRC the problem with the proper carriage for the 17pdr was the slowness of production but you might be right on complete 17pdr guns, the solution of carriage problem might have taken some time because no 17pdrs participated El Alamein battle, even if 6pdr could handle most of the German tanks, the most difficult targets to it with 42 ammo were those with 30mm+30mm FH spaced front armour which were immune to 500y.
BTW have you info the route and the a/c used to transport the 17pdr guns without carriages from GB to Egypt?

Juha

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very good info guys, I am enjoying the conversation. Armour is not a strong point for me, and I am learning quite a bit from this discussion. I do however have a gut feeling that it is about to turn ugly. Try not to let it...

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
IIRC the problem with the proper carriage for the 17pdr was the slowness of production but you might be right on complete 17pdr guns, the solution of carriage problem might have taken some time because no 17pdrs participated El Alamein battle, even if 6pdr could handle most of the German tanks, the most difficult targets to it with 42 ammo were those with 30mm+30mm FH spaced front armour which were immune to 500y.
BTW have you info the route and the a/c used to transport the 17pdr guns without carriages from GB to Egypt?

Juha

My source on this, Armi da guerra (italian edition of War Machine, Aerospace Puplishing, London 1983), report only that 100 guns go way air route in North Africa and there were mounted on 25 pdr carriage, this source report also that first 17 pdr were built in august '42.

 

[vinnye]

May be old news to some - I have just seen the Discovery Channel investigation into who killed Michael Wittmann.
I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! Could not say if the tanks knocked out by Wittmann's Tiger were Cromwell's or Churchills - I think the former. But both would have been fitted with 6 pdrs?
One British tank had a perfect side on shot at point blank range - but could not shoot because the gunner was out of the tank relieving himself! How lucky / unlucky is that!
During the engagement were Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out - a Yeomanry Sherman Firefly engaged 3 Tigers from a position about 800m away (in a wood) knocking them out!
Wittmann's Tiger was engaged by Canadian Shermans from his left flank at under 200m. It looked like the hit that brewed up his Tiger hit at the rear left corner and set the fuel on fire - which ignited the ammo blowing the turret off!
I like to see the technical arguments that some of you guys have - using test data - but the real performance that matters is in the field. The Firefly guys said they could engage a Tiger out to 1200m but preferred to do so at 800m if they could.

 

[pbfoot]

here is the link for part 5 and the summary of Wittmans demise according to the show Wittmans Tiger was was taken out from 143 meter by the Sherbrookes's . It was very good IMO doc ome of the better ones

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2GKAEup5I
the other previous 4 pts of the documentary are also available

 

[tanker1408]

the T-34 is probably the best of the tanks in the poll because it had speed, sloped armor, and a good main Armament. IMHO.

Oh please. All tanks in the poll have the exact same features, the T34 is not the only tank during WW2 with sloped armor, a good main armamament and speed. The most notable disadvantage is that the most built T34 variant (T34-76) dididn't even have a radio until 1944. Thus, T34 crews couldn't communicate and were unable to make any successful tactics on the battlefield. They had to use signal flags for silly tactic purpose called "i drive first you follow me". Furthermore, early T34's had very bad sights and no cupola on the turret for the tank commander. Thus, they had a very bad around view over the battlefield, for that reason they often drove into german PAK ambushes. The early T34s even suffered from major transmission problems. Also another disadvantage, T34 had no mechanized turret, thus the crews had to use handwheels to turn the turret and the gun.

Compare this to german tanks. ALL german tanks did have a radio, cupola for 360° view over the battlefield and mechanized turrets. This is called QUALITY!

Only in 1944, the T34-85 was the first improved variant and first soviet tank ever with a radio and cupola. Plus the Russians stole the German idea of "spaced armor" (better known as side skirts on the panezr IV). In 1945 many soviet tanks which fought in Berlin were additionally protected by spaced armor (additional armor plates) which has been seen before on the german Panzer 4 in 1943 before the Russians used it for their own tanks.

I had to go with the T34. It had a good mix of the qualities needed for a tank. Speed, firepower, armor and most of all numbers.

This is exat the kind of over-patriotic junk I'm getting sick of. Some people actually believe that the T34 was some sort of supertank with the best armor and best gun. But that's not even close true. T34's DID NOT have good armor and a good gun as seen from the whole war. Only during a short time period bewteen 1941-1942 when it was new on the battlefield it dominated over all german tanks. ( It never amazes me because at this time most german tanks didn't even have anti tank guns, only auto cannons which were designed for infantry support purpose and so could not penetrate any armor. Most german tanks during this time were designed for infantry support only). But after 1942, thel T34 did have thin PAPER armor for german guns which could be pierced by 90% of all german tank guns! T34s had only the best armor in 1942, before Germans released their new tanks to counter the T34. ALL German medium-heavy tanks (except for Panzer III) had better armor and a better gun. The T34 was only superior from 1941-1942. This is only a short time period of 1 year, but as we all know that the whole WW2 lasted 5 years at least.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

German tank guns performance vs T34 armor

Early T34 variants (T34-76, which were armed with the 76,2mm gun) had only 20mm thin armor sloped at 60° which results in 40mm vertical (every armor plate angled at 60° is double).

Compare this to the Panzer IV which had 80mm thick vertical armor on the front. Even though it was only vertical and NOT sloped it was thicker anyway!
(as you can see, sloped armor is not always the best if it is not thick enough) hehe

Only the new T34-85 variant (armed with the 85mm gun) had increased front armor on the turret (mantled) of 80mm thickness. The hull armor was increased up to
45mm front armor at 45° angled which equals 80mm in vertical.

Almost all german tank guns after 1942 could destroy the T34 at ranges of 2,000 - 3,000 meters:

Panzer III ausf. L, M, N (all of these versions were upgunned with either 5cm L/60 or 7,5cm L/24 guns, using APC it could penetarte the front armor of T34 at 500m distance)
Panzer IV Ausf. F2, G, H, J (All of these versions were upgunned with the 7,5cm gun that could penetarte the T34's armor at 2,000 meters distance)
Tiger I Ausf. E (the 8,8cm kwk 36 could kill the T34 at ~3,000 meters)
Tiger II Ausf. B (King Tigers 8,8cm kwk 43 could kill the T34 at ~4,500 - 5,000 meters maximum range)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

T34's gun performance vs German armor:

the 76,2mm gun of the early T34 variant was ineffective against the front armor of Tiger I, King Tiger and Panther at any range. Even at point blank (very close distance) the gun would not penetrate the front armor.

However, because the Panther had very thin side and rear armor (only 30mm thick) the early T34 could destroy it at over 1,000 meters distance by shooting the thin side or rear armor.

the Tiger I still had 80mm thick side and rear armor, thus, the T34-76 could only penetrate it's side armor at very close ranges of 100-200 meters.

King Tiger had 80mm on the side/rear as well, but therefore it was sloped and not vertical like from the Tiger I. trials proved that the early T34-76 could NOT penetrate the side or rear armor of the King Tiger at any range. the 76,2mm gun was ineffective against King Tiger's armor.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mechanical reliability

Now to the rumors about unreliability of Tiger and King Tiger tank. It is true that many King Tigers on the Western Theatre (mostly in the Bulge/Ardennes) had alot of mechanical breakdowns and ran out of fuel and were abandoned and/or destroyed by their own crews. But the majority of all King Tigers on the Eastern front worked very well with littlle reports of mechanical problem. According to reports of heavy tank battalions made in 1944, average overall operational status for the Tiger and King Tiger was between 65 and 70%. That's not too bad. NO tank type of ANY nation had an operational average of 100%. Not even the Soviet T34.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Battle reports of the tanks:

Tiger I: In 1943, when the Tiger saw first action, it was the best protected and most powerful licensed tank in the world. It was soo good protected that only a very rare number of anti tank guns could barely penetrate it. On the Eastern front during Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokharovka Tigers were outstanding and always dominated the battlefield. ONLY the ZIS-3 field gun was able to penetrate it's front armor ( and the SU-76 wich had the same gun as the ZIS-3). All other russian tank guns were ineffective beyond 200 meters. the first 100 Tiger tanks that saw action against the Russians performed very successful and scored very high kills (because they could surive many battles and destroy many tanks). In the first few weeks a small group of Tigers destroyed many soviet tank divisions. the 503rd, 502nd and 501st German heavy tank battalions successfully destroyed over 3,600 soviet AFVs in the first few months for very low own losses.

 

[tanker1408]

Final combat statistics and overall result which was the most effective and most successful tank on the battlefield (this has nothing to do with my own opinion, it's all about real facts and historical researches):

Best tanks during WW2 by combat history and in terms of kills per loss are only Tiger I and Tiger II. Both had the best kill-to-loss ratios (highes kills for the lowest losses) because they had the best survival chance on the battlefield because of the good armor protection and they could kill plenty of enemy tanks with the powerful 88mm gun. best tank battalion was the 503 which scored over 1,700 tank kills for only 250 own losses (Tigers and King Tiegrs) This is a 13.08 kill-to-loss ratio. Second best unit was Heavy tank battalion 502 with 1,200 tank kills and only 107 own losses. Kurt Knispel who was tank commander of a King Tiger is the best tanker of all time and the highest soring tank ace of WW2. He is credited with 168 tank kills. 10 further Tiger aces are credited with the destruction of 100+ tank kills (Otto Carius, Johannes Bölte, Michael Wittmann etc etc). In other words, only 10 Tiger tanks have destroyed over 1,000 enemy tanks! (This is NOT propaganda, only true facts). Also notable is Hauptscharführer Karl Körner, he destroyed 13 soviet IS-2 tanks in Berlin and killed further 100+ T34s while defending Berlin against the Red Army. He was awarded the knights cross of the iron cross in the Fuhrerbunker.

The Panther is not credited with such a good kill to loss ratio as we know it from the Tiger, because this tank had very bad side and rear armor protection. Thus, most Panthers were destroyed before they even scored 10 tank kills. Only successful Panther ace was Ernst Barkmann, he is famous for his ambush known as "Barkmann's corner". In this encounter he ambushed a whole american tank division and destroyed 13 Shermans in less than 15 minutes. Overall he is credited with 80+ tank kills in total. Neither Panther, nor Tiger or King Tiger could be mass-produced (like all other german tanks) because Germany didn't have the industrical capacity and lacked of enough man power.

T34s never really had good kill-to-loss ratios in majority because most crews were not trained and lacked of enough skills. Plus T34s had thin armor/bad protection and were vulnerable to almost all german guns from 1942-1945, thus T34 didn't have good survival chance on the battlefield. Only some T34 crews got skills during the early war and killed many german Panzers. Often Many T34s had to be sacrificed to destroy one Tiger tank. There are reports where a single Tiger took out 30 T34s during one encounter! Leading ace is Lieutenant Dmitriy Lavrinenko who is credited with 52 tank kills. He could score this high amount of kills only in the early years when most German tanks lacked of anti tank guns. T34s could be mass produced because the Soviet Union had the largest industrial capacity/capability + alot manpower. And because they were supplied by the USA with tons and tons of recources and materials throughout the war. Notable prestige: It changed the outcome of the war by its brutal numbers and helped the Soviets to defeat the Germans.

Shermans are, as we all know, mostly famous for being sacrificed, nicknamed as lighter or tommycooker (because they catched easy fire after hit) and they are known for high losses compared to german tank losses. Early Sherman variants had very thin armor and a weak gun. And like the T34, almost all further versions didn't increase the armor. Even the latest M4 Sherman Version in 1945 was still weak against most german tank guns. Here again, Many times Shermans very sacrificed to destroy a handful german Tiger tanks. Best Sherman ace/commander was probably Staff Sergeant
Lafayette G. Pool he destroyed 258 enemy vehicles (not sure how many tanks, most of them were soft targets though), but he never was awarded the Knights Cross. Notable prestige: It was built in high numbers comparable to the T34 and helped the Allies at the Western Theatre to defeat the Nazis.

 

[fastmongrel]

Hey tanker get off the fence tell us what you really think

I go for the Matilda Mk1 that bad sonofabitch would have pwned the narzis

 

[Vincenzo]

Afaik the hull front armour of T-34 was ever 45mm at 60° (or 30° with the other standard). the Pz IV has 80mm only in H J variant (G has 50+30 that was not same the one palte of 80) and ever badest side and rear protection and Panther side 40mm. this for the armour.

 

[tanker1408]

Hey tanker get off the fence tell us what you really think

I go for the Matilda Mk1 that bad sonofabitch would have pwned the narzis

What do you mean? I'm not hiding behind any fence, I'm stating some real facts.
The Matilda was even slower than the King Tiger. And the King Tiger was almost 50 tons HEAVIER!

Matilda had a very weak gun, not very effective at long ranges. Yes it could probably deal with Panzer III and IV. It was a good protected tank in 1942. But lately when the Germans got their 75mm and 88mm guns the matidla was ready for the dustbin. And that's exactly what the British did, they throw it like trash in the bin because nobody wanted a tank that reaches 10 lm/h maximum speed on sandy terrain or off/road area ffs soldeirs are faster by foot...

Afaik the hull front armour of T-34 was ever 45mm at 60° (or 30° with the other standard). the Pz IV has 80mm only in H J variant (G has 50+30 that was not same the one palte of 80) and ever badest side and rear protection and Panther side 40mm. this for the armour.

Yes, as i stated only the T34-85 was upgraded with thick armor some up to 45mm on the front chassis.

Well, it seems that your knowledge and informations are out of date anyway. Because on January 5, 1943, Hitler decided to make all Panzer IV to have 80 mm frontal armor. That includes Panzer IV Ausf. G as well

 

[Juha]

Hello Tanker
while admitting that generally Germans weaponry was good and for ex Tiger I was an excellent design I must say that you have got some of your facts wrong. For ex. T-34/76 frontal armour was 45mm not 20mm thick. T-34s had both manual and electronical turret traverse, later giving max 26º/sec traverse.
I agree that early T-34s were "half-blinds" when compared to German tanks and that was a great tactical handicap.
And T-34 had better armour protection than Pz III and IV but the better gun of later Mk IVs (KwK 40) vs T-34/76 balanced that.
T-34/85 turret front armour was 90mm not 80mm and hull front was still the same 45mm, but as you wrote, because it was heavily sloped it gave a protection equal of appr 90mm vertical plate.

Panther's side armour was 40-45mm, in Panther G 40-50mm not 30mm.

Comparing claimed kills to known own total losses isn't very productive. Tiger Is got a good kill ratio but to find out what it exactly was one needs to study real losses of Soviet and Allied tank units in those engagements in which Tigers participated.

Quote:" Best Sherman ace/commander was probably Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool he destroyed 258 enemy vehicles (not sure how many tanks, most of them were soft targets though), but he never was awarded the Knights Cross."

Why would Germans ever award an enemy soldier for destroying their tanks?

Juha

ADDITION: while late in the war Pz IVs got 80mm hull front armour turret front armour was only 50mm to the end.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... but he never was awarded the Knights Cross. Notable prestige.."

Juha, I think Tanker knows that Lafayette G Pool isn't German I believe he meant that Pool wasn't a US national hero, like Whitman and the other Germans.

MM

 

[tanker1408]

T-34/76 frontal armour was 45mm not 20mm thick. T-34s had both manual and electronical turret traverse, later giving max 26º/sec traverse.
I agree that early T-34s were "half-blinds" when compared to German tanks and that was a great tactical handicap.
And T-34 had better armour protection than Pz III and IV but the better gun of later Mk IVs (KwK 40) vs T-34/76 balanced that.
T-34/85 turret front armour was 90mm not 80mm and hull front was still the same 45mm, but as you wrote, because it was heavily sloped it gave a protection equal of appr 90mm vertical plate.

Edited: T34-85's turret was protected by 90mm frontal armor (mantled) and the chassis had 45mm front armor thickness, as well as T34-76.

Second, Panther had 40mm side/rear armor. thanks for correction btw.

Comparing claimed kills to known own total losses isn't very productive. Tiger Is got a good kill ratio but to find out what it exactly was one needs to study real losses of Soviet and Allied tank units in those engagements in which Tigers participated.

Edited: All claimed kills of Tiger battalions were only affected by Tiegr I and Tiger II tanks. No other german tanks, guns, weaponry were affected.
Tiger losses are affected by all enemy weaponry tough (Air force, anti tank self propelled guns, tanks, mines etc. etc.)
The Tiger tank decimated Soviet armour in the winters of 1943/44. Michael Wittmann's 88th kill was registered in January 1944, in the middle of winter.

From December 1943 to April 1944 the Germans destroyed 7,500 Soviets tanks against 2,000 of their own losses. 4 to 1 ratio. (all german tank divisions are afflicted on this statistic)

Why would Germans ever award an enemy soldier for destroying their tanks?

It was kinda supposed to be a joke, I just forgot to post the rest of it. But here it is:

but he never was awarded the Knights Cross. He was never presented to Hitler, he never wore a fancy black uniform with death heads and S.S. runes, and he never commanded a Panther or Tiger. The reason? He was an American GI

ADDITION: while late in the war Pz IVs got 80mm hull front armour turret front armour was only 50mm to the end.

I'm not aware of this information sorry.