Andreas:
The question "best tank of WWII" will yield totally different answers than the one "best german tank of WWII". Ease of maintenance (represented by the readiness ratio) will play a large role in that. IIRC the US Army considered 80 percent readiness the standard for tanks in the 1970s.
And to quote a seminary pupil: "quantity has a quality all of it's own" The question back in the 1980s always was "Could our high-price Leopards/Mxx/Challengers kill enough of their low price Txx?" (with xx a number between 1 and 80)
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Best German Tank of WW2
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 02:23 PM UTC
spongya
Associate Editor
Member Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:47 PM UTC
Precisely. That's why it's hard to argue what's best. But easier to argue why something isn't 
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 12:41 AM UTC
It isn't hard to find what "best" is, so long as a definition can be agreed on what "best" means. After all, you can not provide and answer if you don't know the question.
I would argue for example that the Jagdpanzer IV, which someone suggested earlier is not a candidate for the simple reason it is a tank hunter, not a tank.
Most of us can probably agree on that as being fair and reasonable.
I would also argue the Tiger I & II are not candidates because they were entirely too specialized. Those vehicles were issued almost exclusively to independent battalions and had a very specialized role. You didn't find them as general issue in Panzer divisions which is where the German armies offensive strength resided. Some people might find fault with that though.
So one has to agree on what "best" means.
I would argue for example that the Jagdpanzer IV, which someone suggested earlier is not a candidate for the simple reason it is a tank hunter, not a tank.
Most of us can probably agree on that as being fair and reasonable.
I would also argue the Tiger I & II are not candidates because they were entirely too specialized. Those vehicles were issued almost exclusively to independent battalions and had a very specialized role. You didn't find them as general issue in Panzer divisions which is where the German armies offensive strength resided. Some people might find fault with that though.
So one has to agree on what "best" means.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 03:48 AM UTC
OTOH the thread is about german tanks and in german tanks are called Panzer. So everything with "Panzer" in the name should count
My suggestion: Change it to "armored vehicle" and give categories. So instead of "one big lump" make it
+ Best armored vehicle in defence (maybe even city and out of city)
+ Best armored recon vehicle
+ Best gun/turretet tank (Asking best MBT is easy since only one german tank qualifies)
etc. Makes it easier to find a candidate for each category.
My suggestion: Change it to "armored vehicle" and give categories. So instead of "one big lump" make it
+ Best armored vehicle in defence (maybe even city and out of city)
+ Best armored recon vehicle
+ Best gun/turretet tank (Asking best MBT is easy since only one german tank qualifies)
etc. Makes it easier to find a candidate for each category.
spongya
Associate EditorMember Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 08:58 AM UTC
OTOH the thread is about german tanks and in german tanks are called Panzer. So everything with "Panzer" in the name should count
Panzer means armored vehicle. That includes tanks AND other armored vehicles. (A German should actually verify if the tracks are even requirement.)
[/quote]
How do you define "best"? After all, put a Tiger on a hilltop, and it does not have to move to be effective in defence. For that an Elephant, or even an AT gun would suffice, too. There should be some mulitdimensional plot where all the factors can be entered: weight, mobility, cost, operational flexibility, ease of use, whatever.
And what would the best MBT be? The Germans (and no one else, for that matter) had MBTs at that time. So who's up for the incredible waste of time of creating the plot?
Panzer means armored vehicle. That includes tanks AND other armored vehicles. (A German should actually verify if the tracks are even requirement.)
[/quote]
Quoted Text
My suggestion: Change it to "armored vehicle" and give categories. So instead of "one big lump" make it
+ Best armored vehicle in defence (maybe even city and out of city)
+ Best armored recon vehicle
+ Best gun/turretet tank (Asking best MBT is easy since only one german tank qualifies)
etc. Makes it easier to find a candidate for each category.
How do you define "best"? After all, put a Tiger on a hilltop, and it does not have to move to be effective in defence. For that an Elephant, or even an AT gun would suffice, too. There should be some mulitdimensional plot where all the factors can be entered: weight, mobility, cost, operational flexibility, ease of use, whatever.
And what would the best MBT be? The Germans (and no one else, for that matter) had MBTs at that time. So who's up for the incredible waste of time of creating the plot?
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 09:37 AM UTC
This isn't really that hard. It seems reasonable that a candidate for the "best" tank would have to be one that was produced and issued on a large scale to the major armored formations - the Panzer Divisions - the offensive power of the German army. That makes for a pretty short list; The Panzer 38(t), Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther are really your only serious candidates and I bet I can guess which ones make the top 2. The light tanks were far too hopeless for consideration and the heavy Tiger tanks too specalized and limited in role and issue to count.
From there the criteia are relatively simple. Which tank best fulfilled the needs of German armored doctrine.
Personally I am of the opinion that the German tank program contained one colossal mistake after another. They NEVER got it right or even close to it. If Germany had really been on the ball they would have given up on the Panzer III and started cranking out P IV's from 1939 with a 50mm armor basis and an adapted 7.5cm Feldkanone FK 38 instead of the low-velocity 75 - that would have been the best tank in the world in 1940. But they didn't.
If forced to pick one based on the above criteria the Panther has to be the winner, even though I don't consider that tank suitable for wartime use or production. All of the other tanks were always at least a step behind.
From there the criteia are relatively simple. Which tank best fulfilled the needs of German armored doctrine.
Personally I am of the opinion that the German tank program contained one colossal mistake after another. They NEVER got it right or even close to it. If Germany had really been on the ball they would have given up on the Panzer III and started cranking out P IV's from 1939 with a 50mm armor basis and an adapted 7.5cm Feldkanone FK 38 instead of the low-velocity 75 - that would have been the best tank in the world in 1940. But they didn't.
If forced to pick one based on the above criteria the Panther has to be the winner, even though I don't consider that tank suitable for wartime use or production. All of the other tanks were always at least a step behind.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 11:47 PM UTC
@Andras:
I am a german The military uses "Panzer" for both wheeled, tracked and half-tracked vehicles. I.e the Luchs 8x8vehicle of the Bundeswehr is a Spähpanzer (Recon tank), the 6x6 Fuchs is a Transport Panzer (Transport Tank) and the SdKfz 251 of WWII was a Schützenpanzer (APC)
The normal german usage of the word is a bit more restricted. If you say Panzer then most people (including most soldiers) assume a fully tracked vehicle these days since the above examples (Fuchs, Luchs) are normally addressed by name rather than by type.
The MBT was ironic.
That's why the question should be "best turreted/gun tank"
And your Tiger example is a good one. Tiger won't be the best there. Using the long range and ease of retreat behind the slope a turreted tank is no big benefit. So a Jagdpanzer IV/70 could do the job better (smaller silouette, cheaper, less fuel consumption, better mobility on the strategic and tactical level) while an AT gun can't since the enemy can charge it (It can't retreat fast enough)
The plot is always multi-dimensional. That's one reason why you need to split up the question. What is a benefit in one job is a liability in another.
I.e the Jaguar tank-hunter is great on the North German Plains using HOT to plink at enemy tanks 3+km away. That same tank in a city fight is a liability due to short ranges and the high danger of snapping the guiding wires. There he old sibling KaJaPa is better sneaking around and putting 90mm rounds through the enemies engine.
Same for WWII. There is no benefit in using a Jagdpanther in a city. It's gun won't perform any better than the 75L48 of a Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV but the tank is much bigger and has problems maneuvering in the confines of a city.
I am a german
The military uses "Panzer" for both wheeled, tracked and half-tracked vehicles. I.e the Luchs 8x8vehicle of the Bundeswehr is a Spähpanzer (Recon tank), the 6x6 Fuchs is a Transport Panzer (Transport Tank) and the SdKfz 251 of WWII was a Schützenpanzer (APC)The normal german usage of the word is a bit more restricted. If you say Panzer then most people (including most soldiers) assume a fully tracked vehicle these days since the above examples (Fuchs, Luchs) are normally addressed by name rather than by type.
The MBT was ironic.
Quoted Text
was the hint here since only one german tank qualifies
That's why the question should be "best turreted/gun tank"And your Tiger example is a good one. Tiger won't be the best there. Using the long range and ease of retreat behind the slope a turreted tank is no big benefit. So a Jagdpanzer IV/70 could do the job better (smaller silouette, cheaper, less fuel consumption, better mobility on the strategic and tactical level) while an AT gun can't since the enemy can charge it (It can't retreat fast enough)
The plot is always multi-dimensional. That's one reason why you need to split up the question. What is a benefit in one job is a liability in another.
I.e the Jaguar tank-hunter is great on the North German Plains using HOT to plink at enemy tanks 3+km away. That same tank in a city fight is a liability due to short ranges and the high danger of snapping the guiding wires. There he old sibling KaJaPa is better sneaking around and putting 90mm rounds through the enemies engine.
Same for WWII. There is no benefit in using a Jagdpanther in a city. It's gun won't perform any better than the 75L48 of a Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV but the tank is much bigger and has problems maneuvering in the confines of a city.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 12:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This isn't really that hard. It seems reasonable that a candidate for the "best" tank would have to be one that was produced and issued on a large scale to the major armored formations - the Panzer Divisions - the offensive power of the German army. That makes for a pretty short list; The Panzer 38(t), Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther are really your only serious candidates and I bet I can guess which ones make the top 2. The light tanks were far too hopeless for consideration and the heavy Tiger tanks too specalized and limited in role and issue to count.
From there the criteia are relatively simple. Which tank best fulfilled the needs of German armored doctrine.
The problem is that post Kursk-Orel the german tank doctrin changed to a "defence with short counter-attack" one. And that changes the "best tank" parameters a lot
Quoted Text
Personally I am of the opinion that the German tank program contained one colossal mistake after another. They NEVER got it right or even close to it. If Germany had really been on the ball they would have given up on the Panzer III and started cranking out P IV's from 1939 with a 50mm armor basis and an adapted 7.5cm Feldkanone FK 38 instead of the low-velocity 75 - that would have been the best tank in the world in 1940. But they didn't.
If forced to pick one based on the above criteria the Panther has to be the winner, even though I don't consider that tank suitable for wartime use or production. All of the other tanks were always at least a step behind.
Contrary to popular believes the Panther was the tank MOST suited for wartime production. The elder tanks needed a lot more hand-fitting, more different armor plate thicknesses etc. The Panther (and Tiger) where designed with "ease of build" and "use of maschinery" in mind from the go and got simplified when switching to the G-series even more. But simplified without dropping capabilities (Unlike the PIV that lost things going from H to J)
As for the tank doctrin it was quite clear and not that different from that of other countries. The PIII was the tank killer using a 37 and later a 50mm gun while the PIV engaged AT guns and infantry targets. Similar to the M10/M4 or the Cruiser/Infantry tank doctrin of other nations. When it became clear that the PIII no longer could fullfil that role the two switched roles and the PIII (using the short 75mm) became the infantry killer.
One must also remember that both tanks where "the first" of their kind for germany and a lot of experimentation went into them. Building two, one of the more conservative in tech than the other, made sense given the limited time-frame of planning (The OKW knew that Hitler wanted/needed war pre 1945, likely pre 1943 due to monetarien reasons). Had the war started as planed by OKW than we would have likely seen a "1 tank solution" with a PIII/PIV hybrid.
And finally don't forget that Germany is small, less than 80 Million in total and of those quite a few (females, below age 21, over age 36) where not considered army material until 1943/44. And all specialists (craftsmen, miners, steel cookers) where also mostly exempt from conscription. Limited manpower and limited production capacities forced decision on the germans. Like the one to build "supertanks". As long as a Panther kills twice as many tanks as a PIV it is a bargain for the germans since they need less crew and less workers to kill the same amount of enemies.
spongya
Associate EditorMember Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 05:58 AM UTC
The Panther again... Did you see the Panther episode of the Tank Overhaul? The guys restoring two tanks weren't impressed with the difficulty of taking the damn thing apart, and then putting it together again. By their account it did not seem like these tanks were designed for ease of assembly. They were constantly referring to the Sherman, which was actually designed for mass-production. Case to the point: no matter where any given part was produced, it was compatible with the tank; this cannot be said about the Panther. (Same goes for the Tiger. 22000+ parts -impressive technological feat, but not very useful when you have to fight with it.)
I'm still thinking about the definition of "best". I think "overall usefulness" would be a better term.
(And mmeier, thanks for the clarification )
Did you see the Panther episode of the Tank Overhaul? The guys restoring two tanks weren't impressed with the difficulty of taking the damn thing apart, and then putting it together again. By their account it did not seem like these tanks were designed for ease of assembly. They were constantly referring to the Sherman, which was actually designed for mass-production. Case to the point: no matter where any given part was produced, it was compatible with the tank; this cannot be said about the Panther. (Same goes for the Tiger. 22000+ parts -impressive technological feat, but not very useful when you have to fight with it.)I'm still thinking about the definition of "best". I think "overall usefulness" would be a better term.
(And mmeier, thanks for the clarification
)mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 07:07 AM UTC
If you can get your hands on some of the Spielberger books about WWII tanks they also have documents from the developer conferences and from the planning. Interesting read and it shows that the germans did a lot to ease production.
Ease of production does not always mean ease of maintenance. I.e the Panther G was redesigned to use as little different plate thicknesses as possible to reduce the number of materials in storage and design changes where done to enable the parts to be cut with a blowpipe instead of using more complex tools. The book on light Jagdpanzers also has some comparisions/comments on the Hetzer (and by that the Panzer 38t) and the Jagdpanzer IV.
Ease of production does not always mean ease of maintenance. I.e the Panther G was redesigned to use as little different plate thicknesses as possible to reduce the number of materials in storage and design changes where done to enable the parts to be cut with a blowpipe instead of using more complex tools. The book on light Jagdpanzers also has some comparisions/comments on the Hetzer (and by that the Panzer 38t) and the Jagdpanzer IV.
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 08:39 AM UTC
If only they would have carried that philosophy over to the drivetrain and suspension...
Fact of the matter is they could have designed a much simpler vehicle than the Panther that would have still achieved similar levels of protection, firepower and mobility. But they didn't. As it was they could never produce anything like enough Panther's to fill even the reduced size panzer divisions of 1944-45, nor could they keep the ones they did build running (another subject in and of itself). Without that, there was no hope of restoring the offensive capability of the German army and without that, no victory was possible.
Wrong tank, wrong time.
Fact of the matter is they could have designed a much simpler vehicle than the Panther that would have still achieved similar levels of protection, firepower and mobility. But they didn't. As it was they could never produce anything like enough Panther's to fill even the reduced size panzer divisions of 1944-45, nor could they keep the ones they did build running (another subject in and of itself). Without that, there was no hope of restoring the offensive capability of the German army and without that, no victory was possible.
Wrong tank, wrong time.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010 - 12:55 AM UTC
The suspension was just fine and basically the only one that could do the job back then. The germans actually tried others but if you want a huge travel (> 500mm) and a low nick rate (< 30) than this is basically the only way to go. And many "claims" on the Internet about the maintenance problems of the torsion bars are blarney. The suspension was within the hull and therefor quite well protected and the suspension bars where good for > 10.000km
The gear reducer (Vorgelege) was the one weak point that could not be fixed without a new gearbox or switching to the one used in the Tiger. The latter was stopped by decree of the lil Painter since it would have required a production stop. The former was under way in late 1944 and prototypes where tested.
The engine had teething problems but the switch to the HL230 fixed those. These problems where due to the rushed introduction. The problem was solved and the HL234 was looking quite good
The gear reducer (Vorgelege) was the one weak point that could not be fixed without a new gearbox or switching to the one used in the Tiger. The latter was stopped by decree of the lil Painter since it would have required a production stop. The former was under way in late 1944 and prototypes where tested.
The engine had teething problems but the switch to the HL230 fixed those. These problems where due to the rushed introduction. The problem was solved and the HL234 was looking quite good
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010 - 01:24 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The suspension was just fine and basically the only one that could do the job back then. The germans actually tried others but if you want a huge travel (> 500mm) and a low nick rate (< 30) than this is basically the only way to go. And many "claims" on the Internet about the maintenance problems of the torsion bars are blarney. The suspension was within the hull and therefor quite well protected and the suspension bars where good for > 10.000km
The gear reducer (Vorgelege) was the one weak point that could not be fixed without a new gearbox or switching to the one used in the Tiger. The latter was stopped by decree of the lil Painter since it would have required a production stop. The former was under way in late 1944 and prototypes where tested.
The engine had teething problems but the switch to the HL230 fixed those. These problems where due to the rushed introduction. The problem was solved and the HL234 was looking quite good
How many road wheels do you have to remove to repair or replace 1?
Thank you, I made my point.
Why was this type of suspension dropped after 1945?
Thank you, I made my point.
There were better, simpler solutions already in hand in 1942.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010 - 02:33 AM UTC
The number of wheels depends on where the damage is. Anywhere between 1 and 3.
And with the exception of the wheels (Schachtellaufwerk) the suspension is basically in use in every modern tank (torsion bars). The Wheels where not re-used since rubber is now availabel in large enough quantities to achive similar results with a more conventional layout.
As for the better solutions claim: No, there where none. The first vehicles with superior solutions are modern systems with de-coupled suspensions like the new Puma IFV. All alternate solutions (and the germans checked quite a few) where seriously inferior in travel (i.e the P4 had around half the travel) and/or nickrate.
There are some films that show Leopard I prototypes competing with Panther and they show the qualities of the Panther drivetrain even in comparison to the very agile Leo I (That btw. also uses torsion bars)
The Panther had it's shortcomins. Some where corrected (engine reliability), some where in the process of being corrected (Gunner optics, speed of target engagement, stabilised optics - those where actually delivered) and some where in the "early testing" stage (tracks, transmission). It wasn't a perfect tank and it would have benefited from "striking from the backhand" in 1943. But it was a solution to the "quantity as quality" approach of the US and UdSSR tank forces.
The best a Panzer IV could hope for was a 2:1 ratio in kills against late model T34 and M4. A "Panzer IV on steroids" aka Tiger didn't work out either (To big, to heavy). A Panzer V could kill 7:1 or even 9:1 if used as designed while being resonably agile and having acceptabel production times.
Sure, given a year more time the germans would have come up with a better tank, using the Tiger gearboxes and a 800+ HP diesel from Argus or DB (both where in testing) as well as stereoscopic rangefinders (As planned for the F-Panther). But that time wasn't availabel. The US and the Brits faced similar problems. The Brits have shown that they can build highly capabel tanks given enough time (Cromwell/Comet/Centurion) and the US had better stuff than the Ronsons availabel but even the M26 took some time/rework before it was a good tank (By that time it changed designations)
Compare wartime programs with peacetime once in length and number of prototypes and you realise that the wartime systems are always compromises.
And with the exception of the wheels (Schachtellaufwerk) the suspension is basically in use in every modern tank (torsion bars). The Wheels where not re-used since rubber is now availabel in large enough quantities to achive similar results with a more conventional layout.
As for the better solutions claim: No, there where none. The first vehicles with superior solutions are modern systems with de-coupled suspensions like the new Puma IFV. All alternate solutions (and the germans checked quite a few) where seriously inferior in travel (i.e the P4 had around half the travel) and/or nickrate.
There are some films that show Leopard I prototypes competing with Panther and they show the qualities of the Panther drivetrain even in comparison to the very agile Leo I (That btw. also uses torsion bars)
The Panther had it's shortcomins. Some where corrected (engine reliability), some where in the process of being corrected (Gunner optics, speed of target engagement, stabilised optics - those where actually delivered) and some where in the "early testing" stage (tracks, transmission). It wasn't a perfect tank and it would have benefited from "striking from the backhand" in 1943. But it was a solution to the "quantity as quality" approach of the US and UdSSR tank forces.
The best a Panzer IV could hope for was a 2:1 ratio in kills against late model T34 and M4. A "Panzer IV on steroids" aka Tiger didn't work out either (To big, to heavy). A Panzer V could kill 7:1 or even 9:1 if used as designed while being resonably agile and having acceptabel production times.
Sure, given a year more time the germans would have come up with a better tank, using the Tiger gearboxes and a 800+ HP diesel from Argus or DB (both where in testing) as well as stereoscopic rangefinders (As planned for the F-Panther). But that time wasn't availabel. The US and the Brits faced similar problems. The Brits have shown that they can build highly capabel tanks given enough time (Cromwell/Comet/Centurion) and the US had better stuff than the Ronsons availabel but even the M26 took some time/rework before it was a good tank (By that time it changed designations)
Compare wartime programs with peacetime once in length and number of prototypes and you realise that the wartime systems are always compromises.
spongya
Associate EditorMember Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010 - 04:43 AM UTC
I would treat the kill ratios with a healthy suspicion.
As it turns out the Germans excluded all German tanks that were recovered; but it's hard to verify the same thing about the Russian/American/whatever tanks. As it is, Carius wrote that the Russians kept recovering their wrecks under cover of the night; I doubt that the official figures excluded these vehicles. The numbers might not be very accurate.
Not to mention that in defense your numbers are always better - because usually you're the one who does the ambushing, from prepared positions. Incidentally that time almost perfectly coincides to the turn of the war from offensive to defensive. (After Kursk there were not many great German offensives.)
As for the number of wheels to be removed, and all that: I already mentioned the Panther episode of the tank overhaul. The guys there weren't very happy about the workload. (And removing 1 wheel would not be enough for changing a damaged inner wheel, or a busted transmission.)
As it turns out the Germans excluded all German tanks that were recovered; but it's hard to verify the same thing about the Russian/American/whatever tanks. As it is, Carius wrote that the Russians kept recovering their wrecks under cover of the night; I doubt that the official figures excluded these vehicles. The numbers might not be very accurate.
Not to mention that in defense your numbers are always better - because usually you're the one who does the ambushing, from prepared positions. Incidentally that time almost perfectly coincides to the turn of the war from offensive to defensive. (After Kursk there were not many great German offensives.)
As for the number of wheels to be removed, and all that: I already mentioned the Panther episode of the tank overhaul. The guys there weren't very happy about the workload. (And removing 1 wheel would not be enough for changing a damaged inner wheel, or a busted transmission.)
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 03:07 AM UTC
Well the numbers are around for quite some time and not only from the eastern front but also from the west. And the counting procedure is actually okay. A "kill" is anything that puts an enemy vehicle out of the fight. So if 12 Shermans come end up "dead" on the field while attacking 3 Panthers it's still a 5:1 ratio. That either side will repair tanks isn't important on that level.
The repair/recovery ratio is another part of the equation. How good are your chances to recover a damaged tank (Low for the Panther unless a Bergepanther was availabel) and how good are chances to repair it.
As for the episode of "tank overhaul": How good was their training and how long would something similar take in a Sherman. And how often did one need to exchange that part?
Oh and I seriously doubt that Sherman parts where "one fits all". Given the differences in engines and suspension systems alone makes that a dubious claim. Within one series of Shermans (say all M4A2) sure that would work. But the same is true within a variant of german tanks. And smaller parts would be interchangeabel too.
The repair/recovery ratio is another part of the equation. How good are your chances to recover a damaged tank (Low for the Panther unless a Bergepanther was availabel) and how good are chances to repair it.
As for the episode of "tank overhaul": How good was their training and how long would something similar take in a Sherman. And how often did one need to exchange that part?
Oh and I seriously doubt that Sherman parts where "one fits all". Given the differences in engines and suspension systems alone makes that a dubious claim. Within one series of Shermans (say all M4A2) sure that would work. But the same is true within a variant of german tanks. And smaller parts would be interchangeabel too.
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 02:09 AM UTC
I would definately treat the "kill ratio" thing with a giant grain of salt. I hear people say all the time it took X number of Sherman's to kill a Tiger or a Panther. But then I look at the actual loss records and find the German's lost more tanks than the western allies did. How does that compute? And it is not too hard to find records of engagements where Panther's and Tiger's were absolutely trounced by Sherman's too so it is all so much nonsense. Way too much fuss is made about tanks fighting other tanks. I know people like to fixate on hot tank-on-tank action because its sexy and fun, but in reality, it just wasn't that common. Just recently a German Panzer veteran from WW2 attended a model convention as a speaker and the transcript was posted on this site. As I recall in 2 years on the Eastern Front in P III's and IV's he only shot at Soviet tanks twice! I would argue that was not atypical.
Fighting other tanks is just a tiny fraction of what a tank does, and not even the most important tiny fraction by far. IT's those other parts of the pie that always seem to get ignored that need to be looked at to judge suitability.
Let's just get down to it. A Panzer Division in early 1944 was supposed to have 200 tanks. The best tank they had was the Panther but the best they could hope to do was to equip half of the Panzer Division with those (99 Panther, 101 Panzer IV). In the event I have not found a single record that showed any PD got their full allotment of Panther's. Indeed, apparently no more than 500 Panther's were ever active on the entire Eastern Front at one time. You can't win a war with numbers like that. I'm sorry, you just can't. The German "fix" for this problem was to just keep making the divisions smaller, first by removing one Panther Zug from each Kompanie (20 tanks per Abteillung), then removing one Kompanie (another 17 tanks), then removing one tank from each remaining Zug. By the end of the war the PD was reduced to a half-sized Abtiellung with a mixed bag of whatever machines they could make run.
Why?
Because for one they could not produce nearly enough of them. Total wartime production of the Panther was around 6,000 units, or about 3 months worth of production of the T-34. Then there was the Panther's appalling availability rate of around 30-40% (just 3% in the summer of 1943) which was less than half what the Sherman's achieved. What the German's needed was a reliable and simple tank they could produce to the tune of 15,000 to 20,000 units. What they got was the needlessly complicated Panther. A Panzer Division with 200 good medium tanks is a formidible proposition. A PD with 8 working Panther's is a reinforced platoon.
And by the way, a simpler and just as effective design was absolutely possible - at least anywhere but Germany. I'm quite familiar with "German Engineering" as their junky cars roll through my shop on a daily basis. Leave it to the German's to grossly over-engineer simple items while at the same time badly under-engineering other critical parts ( the Volkswagon Water Pump comes to mind). A simple torsion bar suspension without interleaving the road wheels could for example have achieved excellent performance at lower weight, manufacturing time and cost while being far easier to service in the field and completely unlikely to gum up in the mud and ice of the Easter Front. But no, they had to be clever.
The basic point is, the German's utterly failed to meet the needs of wartime design and production on a fundamental level and tried to design gee-whiz wonder machines instead of the more pragmatic products that could have won them the war.
Fighting other tanks is just a tiny fraction of what a tank does, and not even the most important tiny fraction by far. IT's those other parts of the pie that always seem to get ignored that need to be looked at to judge suitability.
Let's just get down to it. A Panzer Division in early 1944 was supposed to have 200 tanks. The best tank they had was the Panther but the best they could hope to do was to equip half of the Panzer Division with those (99 Panther, 101 Panzer IV). In the event I have not found a single record that showed any PD got their full allotment of Panther's. Indeed, apparently no more than 500 Panther's were ever active on the entire Eastern Front at one time. You can't win a war with numbers like that. I'm sorry, you just can't. The German "fix" for this problem was to just keep making the divisions smaller, first by removing one Panther Zug from each Kompanie (20 tanks per Abteillung), then removing one Kompanie (another 17 tanks), then removing one tank from each remaining Zug. By the end of the war the PD was reduced to a half-sized Abtiellung with a mixed bag of whatever machines they could make run.
Why?
Because for one they could not produce nearly enough of them. Total wartime production of the Panther was around 6,000 units, or about 3 months worth of production of the T-34. Then there was the Panther's appalling availability rate of around 30-40% (just 3% in the summer of 1943) which was less than half what the Sherman's achieved. What the German's needed was a reliable and simple tank they could produce to the tune of 15,000 to 20,000 units. What they got was the needlessly complicated Panther. A Panzer Division with 200 good medium tanks is a formidible proposition. A PD with 8 working Panther's is a reinforced platoon.
And by the way, a simpler and just as effective design was absolutely possible - at least anywhere but Germany. I'm quite familiar with "German Engineering" as their junky cars roll through my shop on a daily basis. Leave it to the German's to grossly over-engineer simple items while at the same time badly under-engineering other critical parts ( the Volkswagon Water Pump comes to mind). A simple torsion bar suspension without interleaving the road wheels could for example have achieved excellent performance at lower weight, manufacturing time and cost while being far easier to service in the field and completely unlikely to gum up in the mud and ice of the Easter Front. But no, they had to be clever.
The basic point is, the German's utterly failed to meet the needs of wartime design and production on a fundamental level and tried to design gee-whiz wonder machines instead of the more pragmatic products that could have won them the war.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 02:23 AM UTC
A final word Fitz:
Read up WHY the germans did go for this suspension and how it compares to what you suggest.
As for the rest:
Having compared Ford of USA products to Ford of Cologne products it might be the production place more than the maker that's reponsible for the low quality of the VW you sell
Read up WHY the germans did go for this suspension and how it compares to what you suggest.
As for the rest:
Having compared Ford of USA products to Ford of Cologne products it might be the production place more than the maker that's reponsible for the low quality of the VW you sell
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 01:48 AM UTC
I have, and they were wrong. The basic requirmement was fundamentally faulty. But you need to stop obsessing on this one feature and start thinking big picture. The unnecessarily complex suspension is just one symptom of an overall design that was just not suitable for wartime production or field use. The Panther would have made a great peacetime tank but it could never be produced in sufficient quantity or maintained in the field sufficiently to meet Germany's equipment needs.
The Panther's production rate was just a faction of what was required. It's availability rates in the field were appallingly bad which only compounded the problem of the small numbers available. This was a direct result of a number of factors but the poor servicability of the design was most certainly one of them. Overall the German's fundamentally failed to understand what the real requirements were and as usual produced an impractical piece of gee-whiz techno-gadgetry unsuited to field use.
The Panther's production rate was just a faction of what was required. It's availability rates in the field were appallingly bad which only compounded the problem of the small numbers available. This was a direct result of a number of factors but the poor servicability of the design was most certainly one of them. Overall the German's fundamentally failed to understand what the real requirements were and as usual produced an impractical piece of gee-whiz techno-gadgetry unsuited to field use.
russamotto
Member Since: December 14, 2007
entire network: 3,389 Posts
KitMaker Network: 625 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 04:55 AM UTC
How did the kill ratio of the Panther rank with that of the StuG III? The StuG certainly had it's limitations, but it was still highly successful, reliable, and well regarded by it's crews.
spongya
Associate EditorMember Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 02, 2010 - 10:50 AM UTC
"It is suggested to the Red Army to use such German tanks as StuG III and Pz IV due to their relability and availability of spare parts. The new German Panther and Tiger can be used until they broken down without trying to repair them. They have bad engines, transmission and suspension." - Department of Weaponry of the Red Army, late 1944.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm
Dunno how reliable the source is, but makes sense.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm
Dunno how reliable the source is, but makes sense.
Slimedog1
Vendor
Member Since: March 18, 2010
entire network: 637 Posts
KitMaker Network: 566 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 09:29 AM UTC
I do not know which is the best German tank,but i like the Italian M13/40 LOL
casailor
Member Since: June 22, 2007
entire network: 165 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts
entire network: 165 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 11:54 AM UTC
Shermans were one size fits all. You could mix and match the three types of vvss units (they all had identical mounts. The road wheels all fitted the same axles, same for sprokets and idler wheels . the only parts not interchangable between types were type specific (engines, rear decks and hatches) Wheel base didn't matter so suspension,track and drive components could be moved from long wheel base M4A4s to M4s and M4a1s and M4A3s. The whole design was optimised for mass production using components from many subcontracters mixed on the production line. The Germans never understood mass production. I read in a book somewhere that when it came to armored vehicles they were the world's best toy makers.
Fitz
Member Since: July 11, 2006
entire network: 439 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Sunday, April 25, 2010 - 06:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Shermans were one size fits all. You could mix and match the three types of vvss units (they all had identical mounts. The road wheels all fitted the same axles, same for sprokets and idler wheels . the only parts not interchangable between types were type specific (engines, rear decks and hatches) Wheel base didn't matter so suspension,track and drive components could be moved from long wheel base M4A4s to M4s and M4a1s and M4A3s. The whole design was optimised for mass production using components from many subcontracters mixed on the production line. The Germans never understood mass production. I read in a book somewhere that when it came to armored vehicles they were the world's best toy makers.
The point I have been trying to make all along. Thank you for doing a better job of it.
mmeier
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 26, 2010 - 12:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Shermans were one size fits all. You could mix and match the three types of vvss units (they all had identical mounts. The road wheels all fitted the same axles, same for sprokets and idler wheels . the only parts not interchangable between types were type specific (engines, rear decks and hatches) Wheel base didn't matter so suspension,track and drive components could be moved from long wheel base M4A4s to M4s and M4a1s and M4A3s. The whole design was optimised for mass production using components from many subcontracters mixed on the production line. The Germans never understood mass production. I read in a book somewhere that when it came to armored vehicles they were the world's best toy makers.
Can't see why. The various Panzers where build by multiple companies and yet the parts within a series are as interchangeabel as your description of the M4. And optimizing for mass-production was done a lot from jigs to allow srewless completion of hulls to developing special welding technology to reduce number of welds and electrode types.
Same in other areas with segment-building of submarines (Typ XXI) and early NC-style maschines for aircraft manufacturing (Fi103/V1)
The resulting vehicles where sometimes complex but as grandpa said: "WE drove away from the battle, the Amis didn't"
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.