Best Tank of WW2

[EwenS]

Interesting how different designs prevailed for longer. The German change to sloped armour came about due to
contact with opposition vehicles whereas the British didn't encounter it in enemy vehicles for the first half of the war.

The Panther didn't appear on the battlefield until Kursk on the Eastern Front in July 1943 after which Britain and the US learned about them. But it was early 1944 before the British and the US armies encountered them at Anzio.

 

[WARSPITER]

A timeline which makes it difficult to remodel current types.

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting how different designs prevailed for longer. The German change to sloped armour came about due to
contact with opposition vehicles whereas the British didn't encounter it in enemy vehicles for the first half of the war.

The StuG had sloping armor in 1940.

The German philosophy was thicker armor was sufficient, and it was to a certain degree. Sloping armor allowed for thinner (and thus lighter) arrangements and the advent of Germany's shortage of materials needed for alloys forced them into adapting sloped armor midwar onwards.

 

[SaparotRob]

Article in Life Magazine comparing Russian, German and U.S. tanks. Remember, this was written in Mar.28 1945. Starts on Pg.41

LIFE

LIFE Magazine is the treasured photographic magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. It now lives on at LIFE.com, the largest, most amazing collection of professional photography on the internet. Users can browse, search and view photos of today’s people and events. They have free access to...

books.google.ca

I liked the review stating essentially, after the Russian and German tanks, the Sherman is best.

 

[WARSPITER]

Sloped frontal armour refers to the armour being angled from the turret down to the base of the hull. The Stug as per many other
tanks wasn't.

Sloping the entire front is an obvious benefit but the Soviets also realised with later tanks that it wasn't so great on the sides
(as per T34) so it wasn't used. The T34 also had rear drive which made the sloped front easier to fit in compared to front
drive tanks.

When the Germans encountered the T34 they also realised the benefit of a full front slope which would give them good
protection as later guns developed on both sides.

Having sloped sides also interferes with hull space. Better to use a wider hull with flat sides or as per modern tanks, hulls
that are even or only a little higher than the tracks.

US and British tanks were constrained by transport requirements for most of the war while German fixes included the transport
tracks for Tigers on trains which was a messy way to do things.

 

[Snautzer01]

You guys need to see nicholas moran aka chieftain. Start with:


View: https://youtu.be/BRtj_TSOHjw?feature=shared

 

[z42]

Sloped frontal armour refers to the armour being angled from the turret down to the base of the hull. The Stug as per many other
tanks wasn't.

Sloping the entire front is an obvious benefit but the Soviets also realised with later tanks that it wasn't so great on the sides
(as per T34) so it wasn't used. The T34 also had rear drive which made the sloped front easier to fit in compared to front
drive tanks.

When the Germans encountered the T34 they also realised the benefit of a full front slope which would give them good
protection as later guns developed on both sides.

Having sloped sides also interferes with hull space. Better to use a wider hull with flat sides or as per modern tanks, hulls
that are even or only a little higher than the tracks.

US and British tanks were constrained by transport requirements for most of the war while German fixes included the transport
tracks for Tigers on trains which was a messy way to do things.

Sloping is most useful on the front of the hull and turret, as that's where one wants the most protection. On the sides with less protection the tradeoff wrt internal hull volume probably isn't worth it.

As for transport, I do wonder about the mobility of the Tiger and other heavy tanks of the era. Today with trucks pushing 40 tons and in some cases more, the road infrastructure and bridges can most likely take a 60 ton tank. But in WWII a big truck was what, maybe 10 tons, so the 55 ton Tiger was absolutely gargantuan in comparison. How many road bridges in WWII Europe was able to take that kind of weight?

 

[WARSPITER]

Sloping is most useful on the front of the hull and turret, as that's where one wants the most protection. On the sides with less protection the tradeoff wrt internal hull volume probably isn't worth it.

As for transport, I do wonder about the mobility of the Tiger and other heavy tanks of the era. Today with trucks pushing 40 tons and in some cases more, the road infrastructure and bridges can most likely take a 60 ton tank. But in WWII a big truck was what, maybe 10 tons, so the 55 ton Tiger was absolutely gargantuan in comparison. How many road bridges in WWII Europe was able to take that kind of weight?

Fording capability was a requirement for the larger German tanks due precisely to the problems with a large number of bridges due
to the weight as you pointed out.

The British answer which was adopted by the US was the bailey bridge. The modular parts design kept the weight down and allowed
manual handling during construction as well as different configurations according to weight requirements. The Bailey bridge was a very
important development for the Allies and is said to have saved a lot of lives (crossing rivers can be dangerous and supplies must keep
coming once you are across).

The Bailey was used very effectively in Italy where in a 20-month period US and British armies constructed more than 3,000 fixed Bailey bridges.
The combined lengths of these bridges was 55 miles, with an average length of 100 feet.

Bailey panels could also be used as piers for larger bridges. One bridge was over 1100 feet long. The Bailey was adaptable to become part of a
suspension bridge. One built over the Volturno river transported 240,000 vehicles in eight months.

US and British logistics were a major strength compared to Germany.

 

[Snautzer01]

Sloping is most useful on the front of the hull and turret, as that's where one wants the most protection. On the sides with less protection the tradeoff wrt internal hull volume probably isn't worth it.

As for transport, I do wonder about the mobility of the Tiger and other heavy tanks of the era. Today with trucks pushing 40 tons and in some cases more, the road infrastructure and bridges can most likely take a 60 ton tank. But in WWII a big truck was what, maybe 10 tons, so the 55 ton Tiger was absolutely gargantuan in comparison. How many road bridges in WWII Europe was able to take that kind of weight?

Tiger were shifted all around the front like the wehrmacht firetrucks.

503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org