Most Popular Tank of WW2?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#16

Post by bf109 emil » 14 Nov 2009, 11:06

Attrition wrote:Considering the small numbers of Tigers built, it seems to me that much of the war took place somewhere else. What was the proportion of Tigers to length of front on say, 1 January 1944? One per 200 miles? 400?

Compare that with the ultra-stylish Valentine - class!
just for you attritionImage
The sole surviving Canadian-built Valentine Mk VIIA presently rests at Vimy House, the Canadian War Museum’s storage facility. Recovered from a bog approximately 180 km south of Kiev in 1989, it returned to Canada in 1992.
sourcehttp://www.missing-lynx.com/articles/ru ... jpmval.htm
Image
28 ton Valentine tanks in the final stages of preparation after their assembly at the Angus shops. A workforce of 3,500 produces the tanks from 40,000 parts at a cost of $90,000 per tank. Montreal, January 1942.
http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-ar ... p.htm#null
Image
Valentine tanks on flatbeds for shipment to Russia. Nov. 1941, Montréal, Quebec.
http://wwii.ca/content-17/world-war-ii/ ... -industry/

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#17

Post by Attrition » 14 Nov 2009, 14:38

Just look! Pocket geezers the lot of them! Clearly the ultra-stylish drop tank is to follow. 8-)

Thanks ;o).


User avatar
andreobrecht
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 02:58
Location: USA

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#18

Post by andreobrecht » 25 Sep 2010, 17:16

While like everyone else I love the cool design and technical specs of the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II and Jagdpanther (my personal favorite tank of WW2), I think these tanks did more to insure German defeat than we can imagine.

They were hogs on fuel, over-engineered, incredibly fragile, prone to battlefield breakdown, maintenance nightmares and very expensive to build. Even overlooking the total disaster of the early models, the Panther, hailed as "the hallmark of German tank design", could not drive more than 600 miles before needing major overhaul which could not be done in the field... They spent half their life on transporters and railroad cars going back and forth to the repair facilities while being exposed to enemy Jabo's and heavy bomber raids. For the total cost and effort of having one Panther/Tiger on the front line the Germans could probably have brought 20 Hetzers, StuG III's or Pzkw IV into battle, which would have had much more effect on the outcome. This is why cheap, simple, standardized, general purpose and not so glamorous tanks like the Sherman and T-34 were overall MUCH better designs even if the German monsters could easily defeat them one-on-one. The other factors insured that the battles would never be one-on-one.

Beside true "panzer battles" were not one of the primary types of engagements that decided the outcome of WW2... so investing in building tanks for specifically winning those type of engagements at the expense of everything else was a huge strategic mistake.

As always, the Germans excel in building beautiful machinery but they completely forgot what the actual goal was. As the war progressed they got more and more obsessed with this, leading to even more expensive and useless tank designs - Tiger II, Jagdtiger, Elephant, Maus...

While I admire the Tiger and Panther design they are a monument to Nazi stupidity and probably should never have been built in the first place.

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#19

Post by Meyer » 26 Sep 2010, 06:05

andreobrecht wrote:While like everyone else I love the cool design and technical specs of the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II and Jagdpanther (my personal favorite tank of WW2), I think these tanks did more to insure German defeat than we can imagine.

They were hogs on fuel, over-engineered, incredibly fragile, prone to battlefield breakdown, maintenance nightmares and very expensive to build. Even overlooking the total disaster of the early models, the Panther, hailed as "the hallmark of German tank design", could not drive more than 600 miles before needing major overhaul which could not be done in the field... They spent half their life on transporters and railroad cars going back and forth to the repair facilities while being exposed to enemy Jabo's and heavy bomber raids. For the total cost and effort of having one Panther/Tiger on the front line the Germans could probably have brought 20 Hetzers, StuG III's or Pzkw IV into battle, which would have had much more effect on the outcome. This is why cheap, simple, standardized, general purpose and not so glamorous tanks like the Sherman and T-34 were overall MUCH better designs even if the German monsters could easily defeat them one-on-one. The other factors insured that the battles would never be one-on-one.

Beside true "panzer battles" were not one of the primary types of engagements that decided the outcome of WW2... so investing in building tanks for specifically winning those type of engagements at the expense of everything else was a huge strategic mistake.

As always, the Germans excel in building beautiful machinery but they completely forgot what the actual goal was. As the war progressed they got more and more obsessed with this, leading to even more expensive and useless tank designs - Tiger II, Jagdtiger, Elephant, Maus...

While I admire the Tiger and Panther design they are a monument to Nazi stupidity and probably should never have been built in the first place.
Oh boy, some ridiculous statements here. 20 PzIV for every Panther? yeah right :roll:
How exactly a Sherman or a T-34 are better designs than a Panther?
Any chance to provide some proof for the other nonsense?

@Tim Smith: How is that the Tiger was "surpassed technically" by the IS-2, M-26 or Comet? (the Comet, really?)

User avatar
achtungtshirt Bill
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Jan 2008, 02:49
Location: ny, usa
Contact:

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#20

Post by achtungtshirt Bill » 26 Sep 2010, 06:21

How about the I modify the question from the most popular ww2 tank (today) to the most popular rated by the crew members? Of course none of them would say the Sherman until maybe after it got its gun upgraded with the Fire Fly. I am have been reading many accounts from D Day and the allies suffered huge losses. The Shermans and Stuards may be popular to the builders but not to the crew.
Achtung Bill

User avatar
andreobrecht
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 02:58
Location: USA

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#21

Post by andreobrecht » 26 Sep 2010, 07:26

Sometimes a simple machine is better suited for warfare than the more sophisticated one...

The Panther was a reliability disaster from beginning to end. They were incredibly fragile mechanically and had nearly no tolerance for less than perfect repairs. Major overhaul of transmission and gearbox were required after only 600-800 miles, tracks lasted 500 miles, the suspension system and overlapping wheels was a maintenance nightmare. That is why they spent 2/3 of their life off the battle field being refitted and repaired, not because of battle damage but because of mechanical breakdowns and wear. A majority of Panthers were lost because they broke down and had to be abandoned. This is not the trademark of a good piece of equipment.

T-34 and Shermans were orders of magnitude easier to build and to repair and were just as good as Panthers in infantry support roles and urban warfare... so what if the Panther would win most one-on-one engagements? They were rarely in that situation anyway and if they were it was never what decided the outcome of a battle. It was always more important to have more tanks and more reliable tanks than to have "the best tank" on the battlefield.
In a battle between a Sherman on the battlefield and a Panther currently in the repair shop, the crappy Allied tank wins every time...

Regarding the option of fielding 20 tanks to one by choosing to build a simpler model I did take into account the fact that not only were the Panther/Tiger units much more costly to build but also that their poor reliability/sophisticated design prevented them from being on the front line most of the time contrary to the simpler machines that rarely broke down and could be quickly repaired by mobile workshops. Whether the ratio would be twenty to one is impossible to determine but the fact is that beyond the raw material and fabrication cost of the various tanks the amount of logistical support to keep them running and their % availability enters the equation. The same tank that is only available to fight 1/3 of the time is three times as expensive as one that never breaks down. Additionally the constant repairs use up resources, transportation, mechanics and parts that the other tank doesn't. Now if the tank is also 4-5 times more expensive to build than the simple tank the 20-to-1 ratio is in the right range. The Nazis chose to use their limited resources building expensive hyper-sophisticated machines with excellent tank-to-tank combat abilities when they needed large numbers of cheap tanks to face thousands of T-34s followed by infantry. The T-34s won because they were cheap and dirty.

So why were the T-34/Sherman "better" tanks than the Panther/Tiger? Because they were a much better value for your Reichmark/Ruble/Dollar and the war was won economically before it was won militarily.

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#22

Post by Meyer » 26 Sep 2010, 08:09

andreobrecht wrote: Major overhaul of transmission and gearbox were required after only 600-800 miles, tracks lasted 500 miles,
Source?
That is why they spent 2/3 of their life off the battle field being refitted and repaired
Source? and how that compares to another tanks? (sourced please, I have no use for your speculations),
A majority of Panthers were lost because they broke down and had to be abandoned.
Source? (by the way, what happened with the T-34 losses in 1941?).
T-34 and Shermans were orders of magnitude easier to build and to repair
This needs to be to be proved, and quantified
and were just as good as Panthers in infantry support roles and urban warfare
Not really, for example, I don't see how the advantage of superial frontal armor is lost during that circunstances...
. so what if the Panther would win most one-on-one engagements?
What is it with your obsession with the one on one? that has nothing to do with the way the Panther was designed.
It was always more important to have more tanks and more reliable tanks than to have "the best tank" on the battlefield.
Depends.
In a battle between a Sherman on the battlefield and a Panther currently in the repair shop, the crappy Allied tank wins every time...
That's great... of course, the opposite is also true :roll:
Regarding the option of fielding 20 tanks to one by choosing to build a simpler model I did take into account the fact that not only were the Panther/Tiger units much more costly to build but also that their poor reliability/sophisticated design prevented them from being on the front line most of the time contrary to the simpler machines that rarely broke down and could be quickly repaired by mobile workshops.
What you did not take in account was that:
1) the Panther was not much more expensive than a Pz IV (that's one of the reasons why their production rates were very similar)
2) There wasn't many differences beetwen Pz V/IV/VI operational readiness:
Percentage Operational At The Front:

Code: Select all

                  EASTERN FRONT             WESTERN FRONT
              Pz IV     Panther Tiger   Pz IV   Panther Tiger
31 May44        84      77      79      88      82      87
15 Sep44        65      72      70      80      74      98
30 Sep44        65      60      81      50      57      67
31 Oct44        52      53      54      74      85      88
15 Nov44        72      66      61      78      71      81
30 Nov44        78      67      72      76      71      45
15 Dec44        79      69      79      78      71      64
30 Dec44        72      61      80      63      53      50
15 Jan45        71      60      73      56      45      58
15 Mar45        54      49      53      44      32      36
Overall         68      62      70      71      65      65
From Jentz "Tiger I and II combat tactics"
Whether the ratio would be twenty to one is impossible to determine
Of course is impossible, because it is so wrong...

User avatar
achtungtshirt Bill
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Jan 2008, 02:49
Location: ny, usa
Contact:

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#23

Post by achtungtshirt Bill » 26 Sep 2010, 12:34

Let's not forget the effect the anti tank weapons had on the Shermans and T34's. The "Dreaded 88" was destroying many tanks and these do not count as "one on one" tank battles. Would you want to be in a Sherman tank on D-Day thru the drive to the Rhine?
Achtung Bill

User avatar
andreobrecht
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 02:58
Location: USA

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#24

Post by andreobrecht » 27 Sep 2010, 06:16

My statement regarding one-on-one tank engagements seemed pretty clear to me but I will expand on it: In determining which was the best tank of WW2 every AFV site analysis focuses primarily on which tank gun could pierce which tank armor from which angle and at what distance. This is a narrow minded view - in my opinion - judging the value of a tank on a pure tank-against-tank combat role and disregarding its infantry support role, urban combat role, mobile artillery role etc. Not saying that the Panther was inadequate in those other roles, but it was overkill because it was built primarily to be a superior tank killer.

While the tractor-pulled 88s were also a tank killing factor the Sherman was not particularly more vulnerable to such a gun than the Panther would have been. The same comment could be made in regard to Panthers and Tigers exposed to P-47s, IL-2s and Typhoons... once you are dealing with that kind of tank-killing power you might as well be driving a convertible.

Now to the urban combat comment. Drive a Panther or a Sherman into a narrow street, where a close range side shot from a Bazooka or Panzerfaust is the most likely threat to your survival and most of the open terrain advantages of the Panther gun and armor are negated, while its bulk and long gun barrel makes it less maneuverable. In that role a smaller, more nimble tank firing HE rounds from a short barrel gun is undoubtedly a better choice, especially when you can have three for the price of one.

Regarding the safety of the tanker crews, it was about as dangerous to be in a Sherman as in a PzkwIV/Panther/Tiger facing Patton's 3rd Army on the way to the Rhine. About as many tanks were lost on both sides according to the US military records. The 3rd Army lost about 800 tanks and killed 800 German tanks including 400 Panthers/Tigers. Patton stated that his historic advance on the Rhine could never have achieved had he been using Panther and Tiger tanks, a comment about reliability and ease of use of the US equipment, nothing else.

Nevertheless I believe many German crews loved their Panthers and it was one of the best armored and gunned tanks in the war. I think that in a combat situation with other tanks around your survival chances were higher in the Panther. Of the broadly used tanks I would think the Panthers were the most popular with their crews. The Soviet IS-2 was probably also very popular as it dominated the battlefield when it was introduced and the German tanks that could challenge it were spread very thin.

User avatar
andreobrecht
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 02:58
Location: USA

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#25

Post by andreobrecht » 27 Sep 2010, 06:37

As to the general reliability of the Panther here is one of many posts read on various AFV sites regarding Panther mechanical problems. (Note that the data is for periods when all the problems with the Panther had supposedly been fixed).

"Covering the period of March 6th to April 15th, 1944 Panzer Regiment 2 noted the following frequent failures: (1) Motors--faulty bearings, connecting rods broke, self ignition decreased [notice they did not say "stopped"] and the max distance an engine lasted was about 1000 miles [1700-1800 km, other sources indicate that a motors average life expectancy was about 600 miles--pitiful]; (2) Transmissions--Many had to be replaced when 3rd gears failed completely, and the longest distance they could travel was about 900 to 1000 miles [1500-1800 km--again, pitiful]; (3) Final Drives--In the short period of March 1st to 6th alone, nearly half of the operational tanks had such failures nor could final drives hold up at all in muddy conditions while driving in reverse. [overall, life expectancy of final drives was an incredibly short 90 miles]; and (4) many clutches needed to be replaced. This same report also instructed drivers not to over tax the clutch, over rev the motor while driving uphill or in "heavy soil", and not to steer the tank while it was in reverse (kinda need to do that, heh heh).

On June 28th 1944, Guderian filed the following complaints about the Panther: They catch fire quickly [for the same reasons Shermans did prior to wet stowage but which the Germans never corrected], life span of the motor is poor and there are significant failures of the final drives (he demanded an urgent solution to the issue of the final drives).

Other notable issues with the Panther is that its track life was, at best, 500-1000 miles compared to the Sherman's 2500 miles. Panthers were also in need of a factory overhaul after about 600 miles. The Panther was never mechanically reliable. Germany had to institute several rebuilding programs during the course of the war that never solved key problems.

As for production, 380 units per month is not one bit impressive. They reached that mark once in July 1944 and never again. Most production was well below 300 units. These numbers also do not count those units rejected by inspectors. Fewer than 6000 were built by war's end. They couldn't produce enough to fill out their fleet much less make up for losses.

Going back to the Allied bombing issue: You bet, it played havoc on production, transport and supply. Considering that only makes the German obsession with the Panther all that more puzzling: They build a tank that needs to be shipped back for overhaul after an absurd 600 miles along rail lines and to factories that are being bombed. I call that just plain stupid. And Panther losses cannot be explained away to Allied air power. Planes knocked out only a small number of tanks in combat (blew the H--- out of 'em on highways and rail cars though).

Sherman (& T34) crews could maintain their tanks on their own for the most part and had ready field support when they needed it. They were also quick to repair even when knocked out. Our tankers could do work that Panther crews couldn't even attempt. As a former tanker, I can tell you that I would not want to work on Panther's tracks or road wheels (not to mention other systems). Even the best tank tracks and wheel systems accumulate mud, ice, clay, etc (visit Fort Knox). The overlapping wheel system of the Panther was a fine trap for that stuff. The build up not only stressed its already flawed motor and drives train systems but could actually bring it to a stop. I pity those guys.

I'm not sure where you are getting your %'s but they are not realistic. Panther formations not under the stress of combat could have pretty high availability rates such as the two battalions immediately available for Normandy. Between them there was one non-serviceable Panther. Under the stress of combat, Panther formations were depleted quickly. For the sake of space I will give only a couple of examples (I'll also throw in %'s since you seem to like them). On 12/15/44 there were 471 Panthers massed on the Western Front in preparation for Watch on the Rhine. Of these, 336 were operational (71%). By 12/30/44 there were 240 operational out of 451 (53%). By 1/15/45 there were 97 operational Panthers out of 282 (34%). Another example is Panzer Regiment 4 in Italy (May, 1944). They entered combat on May 23d with 62 Panthers. By the 26th they had 13 operational tanks out of 48 survivors (27%). However, by June 14th the percentage was back up to 65%--but don't be impressed as they had only 17 tanks left of which 11 were operational. These are not unusual for either the Western or the Eastern Fronts.

As far as logistics, yep, Panthers were self destructed or cannibalized or abandoned due to lack of parts and/or fuel. Sometimes this was a cause for substantial losses and sometimes not. One inspection of 16 knocked out Panthers in Italy found no mechanical failures (Sherman/75's got seven of them though). Another inspection in Normandy found over half either self-destructed or abandoned. While Allied bombing did make things scarce, give the Germans their due: They broke their production and supply systems well before the first Allied bomb fell! But that is a whole other debate."

User avatar
verdenpark
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 13:39
Location: Victoria, Australia.

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#26

Post by verdenpark » 27 Sep 2010, 08:31

Apart from the Pz.VI, it would have to be the Pz.III. It looks right (if it looks right, it is right), its ability to be upgraded beyond the design, and the fact it kept going in extremes of terrain and conditions. I think it is the most under rated tank considering what it achieved.
Those who live by the sword...... get shot.

Steve Wilcox
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#27

Post by Steve Wilcox » 27 Sep 2010, 12:27

andreobrecht wrote:My statement regarding one-on-one tank engagements seemed pretty clear to me but I will expand on it: In determining which was the best tank of WW2 every AFV site analysis focuses primarily on which tank gun could pierce which tank armor from which angle and at what distance. This is a narrow minded view - in my opinion - judging the value of a tank on a pure tank-against-tank combat role and disregarding its infantry support role, urban combat role, mobile artillery role etc. Not saying that the Panther was inadequate in those other roles, but it was overkill because it was built primarily to be a superior tank killer.
Aren't all current-day MBTs also built primarily to be superior tank killers?

User avatar
andreobrecht
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 02:58
Location: USA

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#28

Post by andreobrecht » 27 Sep 2010, 13:44

Steve Wilcox wrote:Aren't all current-day MBTs also built primarily to be superior tank killers?
Yes, but tactics have changed since WW2 and a variety of other vehicles have been added to the mix... APC and helicopters in particular. I think my overall point is that, while the Panther was a superior tank on the battlefield, lesser tanks like the Sherman and T-34, had a much greater impact on the outcome of the war. You cannot solely attribute that greater impact on their numbers, you have to consider that Germany's obsession in general (and Hitler's in particular) with building more or less impractical "super-weapons" was detrimental to their war effort. Had they simply built Panthers only (dumping the absurd Tiger I and Tiger II) and focused on making them simpler mechanically, easier to repair and more endurable, instead of just obsessing on better guns and armor, the Panther would have been the best tank of the war also from a strategic standpoint. Instead I see it as an over-complicated, fragile and generally battlefield unworthy machine that never lived up to its potential.

antfreire
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 25 Apr 2010, 23:29

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#29

Post by antfreire » 27 Sep 2010, 14:20

Evidently if you ask this question on this side of the world you will get Sherman, Tiger, Valentine, etc. But I agree with the military channel that the greatest tank of WWII was the T-34. That a t-34 could not defeat a "functioning" Tiger on a one to one fight? That's why they had ten russians tank to one german and perhaps the ten russians costed less than the one german.
If you ask about airplanes perhaps you will get the P-40 as one of the most populars because of the Flying Tigers stories and movies, however that plane could not even fly in the european skies and had to be relegated to secondary fronts. Same thing.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Most Popular Tank of WW2?

#30

Post by bf109 emil » 28 Sep 2010, 02:32

Hey i thought this thread was the most popular Tank, not the best, most versatile, etc...
with that said, IMHO Tiger seems to me to be the most popular among historians as well as other tank experts using one tank and as comparison seemingly quite often is compared to the German Tiger, either in weight, armor, gun, etc...

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”