WWII AFVs

BillyBong SG

German tanks were clearly a cut above the rest during WWII. Combined with their panzer strategies and blitzkrieg, they proved an unbeatable combo.

Here's the breakdown:

Early 1939-1940:

1. Panzer Mk II
2. Panzer Mk III

1941-1942

1. Panzer Mk IV

1943-1944

1. Tiger Tank
2. Panther Med Tank

1944-1945

1. King Tiger

An interesting fact: during operation citidal, the soviets only won because of sheer numbers and overwhelming air power, and not due to superior battlefield tactics.

|-|05| SG

It wasnt until 1943 with the Pz5 panther coming out and the pz6 tiger that the germans could even build any thing that could take on the Russian tanks.In the early days the Pz4's where out gunned and out armoured.The T-34's could pick out the german tanks at ranges of up to 1000m while the germans were confined to 500m shootings.That they actually kicked so much ass was a testment to how good they were even with lousier armour.Even the up gunned Pz4 ausf G and ausf H were only on par with the T34's.And that was not even the T34/42 upgraded version!!The panthers and the tighers were pretty ok......and the King tiger was good.But overall they pretty much has lousier tanks.Even they Pz1 Pz2 and Pz3's that were used in france where lousy compared to what the frenchies had.Especially the CharB and the british land crusiers.
Ok now about the halftracks...The german Sd.Kfz were the best in the world.They could be easily converted frm APC to AA to AT to fire support to command track to even arty(some mounted the famous 88mm's!)In fact no other country had as many halftracks as Germany.The Allies and Russia barely built any...not until late 1943.
For operation citidel the germans had 900k soldiers,2.5k tanks 10k arty and 2.5k planes.The Russians had 1.3million soldiers.3.3k tanks, and 2.6k planes.The Russians won because of the German plans not merely numbers.Infact the whole idea was hitler's idea and his generals dint really agree....apart from the OKW or german high command east.It should never have happened!!!

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Heh, what's the point of having such ubertanks if they are prone to mechnical failure, around in always limited numbers, lacking supplies, and are used piecemeal? Sure M4 Shermans could not outshoot them but they were always around in large numbers, far more mobile, reliable and most importantly, were so well intergrated with the rest of the armed forces that they could call down CAS on superior German armour.

While their tanks may be the best, in terms of bang-for-buck, German tanks fared quite poorly.

Viper52 SG

Sorry, but by all accounts at Kursk, the Germans were roughly evenly matched in all departments to the Russians. Where they failed was indeed poor tactics and coordination between their air elements, tank infantry coordination, intelligence, preparation while the Russians had all those.

|-|05| SG

Actualyl no.....the German tanks had a great bang for the buck.They usually took on 4-6 shermans alone(the tigers and panthers)knocking out on average 3-4 before they were blown out ot the sky by the CAS which they can do nothing to deal with since the lutfwaffe was in the easy mainly.The German tanks could knock out allied tanks at ranges in excess of 2000m.The allied tanks(the churchill aside) could not do damage to the german tanks at ranges more then 200-400m.Also the Shermans were very very very badly designed and had the tendency to catch fire after even the lightest of hits.
Also contary to popular believe the panthers ausf G seldom broke down and the tigers were later modified with better horse power.The tank that really had trouble was the pz7 or king tiger used same engine as the tiger but had something like 15 tons more weight.Sure when they 1st came out the panthers and tigers broken down often but that was mainly due to the fact that they were rushed into production to replace the Pz4's which were really really out classed.Though i must admit the tigers were hard to produce,thus making damn expensive and not many were made
As for your other points you cant really blame the germans not having supplies,CAS,arty support or even numbers since they were fighting 2 sides and was LOSING the war.You cant expect the loser to have more supplies!They lost the war yes but during the time from 1943-1946 their tanks were the best in the world.Their intergration was also the best since they technically speaking came up with the 1st mechanised divisions in the panzergrenider divisions.Gudarien(sic) the father of armoured warfare had plans the mechanise the whole german army by 1943 unfortunely he wasnt very popular and did not get his wish.I suggest you read books and accounts of the allied soldiers about how the germans fought.Also the german tanks were the only tanks out fitted with Night vision equipement.This was the counter the fact that they could not attack or move in the day time due to allied Air power.

Heh the Russians were more then a match.The German's northern pincer got stuck a mere 30km frm their start line while the south pincer only managed to gain headway due to the toughness of the bloody waffen SS troops down there...something like 5 divisions of them.Hitler should have listened to his generals like Model,Guderian,Manstein and infact more of the OKW who said a series of small localised counter attacks could stablise the front!

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

On paper of couse... however one needs to know that replacing and maintaining 3-4 Shermans (except for the crews!) in far, far easier then replacing a Tiger or a Panther. Esp. a Tiger. Sure piece meal Tigers could deal a lot of damage but in the end they could not win the war, there simply were not enough of them around and their logistics chain was simply too bad.

Shermans while not very good versus other tanks, were around in such numbers and in any kind of situtation that they could support the general allied advance. On the other hand, German armour was used far more sparingly and more as a stragetic weapon to win battles rather then to fight them. In the end it's what wins the war that matters, not who has the best guns.

In the end, what the germans really needed was not ubertanks that could take on multiple opponents but come with a very high maintaince tag, but tanks with good armour, mobility and decent firepower... and most importantly, easy to produce in numbers and maintain the the field. In that respect, the Panther is probably the best all round German tank of WW2. The King Tiger may be the most powerful, but it did little to turn the tide.

In such a case, the M26 Pershing is probably the "best" Allied tank, and probably would prove to be the most desive had it come in sooner. That thing had very good armour, firepower and mobility... could shoot on the move and most importantly, carried all of the traditional American armour realibility and maintanability onto its design while making up for the flaws in the Sherman. The M26 was a good match to the Tiger (in the events they did fight) and could duke it out with a King Tiger with a fair chance of winning... and they were easier to replace.

They did see action versus the Japs... poor Japs, they had virtually no way of stopping the Pershing.

|-|05| SG

See the thing is the US out produced Germany once again.Germany had too many enemies...but i degress.This thread is not about how to win the war....or why it was lost but about the tanks Smile Granted the shermans could be made in big numbers though they were crap.However the German Pz IV was also made in large numbers,easy to maintain,build and most importantly still able to knock out the shermans at ranges of 1200m-800m while the sherman with it's short 75mm/40cal could only punch the Pz4's at ranges of 600m-1000m.It was outclassed by even the lousest German tank!!!The only German tank that it could take on evenly is the PzIII....which went out of production in 1943 i believe.Anyhow....yes the Pershing was a heavy tank that could give the US a tank that could finally take on the Pz5 and Pz6's.However like you said it came in too late and was used alittle in the final push into germany.However for Allied tanks i believe the British Chuchill was far far better....with a 75mm gun then the shermans.The british upgrade of the sheman the firefly too was pretty good...with a new 7pdr gun i believe....it was a match for the Pz4's...maybe even more then a match.However the best tanks clearly belong to the Russians.The T34's outclassed the germans tanks...and were a match for the panthers....the tigers needed to be handled by the IS-1 and IS-2 with their massive 200mm cannons.The T-34 upgraded was easy to produce.....cheap...reliable and best of all was a the Russian MBT that could take on the German MBT(Pz4) and even their heavier stuff.Only the tiger turly outclassed it....though not by much.
As for the Japs....well they dint have shit for tanks.....at most their tanks would be lucky to stop a bloody Pz2!Have you seen the Jap tanks?!?!?! they are small and overall lousy!

edit:What you say is not really right....abt the germans needing a tank like the Sheman....If you noticed the trend as the war went on the Germans started getting heavier and heavier tanks with bigger and bigger guns.The reason was the knew they were being out produced and also did not have tank crews to spare so they made tanks that could take damage and save the crews.As i said.....they did improve the reliablity of the tigers and panthers.....and very little were destroyed when you compare to the other tanks in the war.But granted they could have improved the maintaince problem and fuel comsumstion problems.Oh and did you know in the 1st models of the King tiger the turrent deflected hits down into the driver compartments?forced the germans to move the driver and also change the angle of the sloped armour. Smile

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Uh uh, I think the best allied tank in terms of quality is the Pershing... it had a stabalized turret, latest fire control (at that time), a high velocity 90mm gun, good mobility and very thick armour. The Churchill is pretty weak beside it.

Most important Allied tank however, was the Sherman...

CenturionMBT SG

not exactly, the centurions were developed during WW2.In fact 7 prototypes were supposed to see action in the war.

|-|05| SG

Well the Pershings were used rather late in Europe and could not be compared with the other tanks.As for fire contorl??What kind of lastest fire contorl??Because as far as i know the Germans had the best....even their ships and planes had the best fire contorl/targetting systems.

|-|05| SG

Firstly delevoped by ACD Ltd in 1944, the Centurion just failed to see action in WW2. It saw action first time in Korea.So no i guess not.Oh and the USA had a super tank...it was big....something like the US version of the Maus!

BillyBong SG

Americans were using M10 tank destroyers more often than the pershings. Too bad the germans were hit on 2 fronts. Albert speer actually improved war production after he took over as industrial minister but the sheer masses were overcome by allied combined production.

Actually, i feel that the main letdown for the germans in russia was the lack of professionalism from their rumanian and hungarian allies who protected their flanks while the main thrust consisted of elite german forces.

|-|05| SG

Italians too!But cant really blame them...they had at most T-34's or Pz IV's!!!!Were sure to be over run some how!!!
Yea Albert speer took over just when the industrial changes were showing it's effects.And yes the American's were using the achilies far more then anything else(the sherman not withstanding)