Best tank of WWII

polishshooter · 01-05-2006, 10:54 PM

Is there such a thing as a DEAD topic? Heck, I was a HISTORY MAJOR for gosh sakes, I can refight the 100yrs War...

...and tell ya how if they listened to ME it woulda been over in no more than 93 years!

Which reminds me...

...anybody want to debate the best tank of WWII?

berto64 · 01-05-2006, 11:57 PM

It wasn't one of ours, right?

Pistolenschutze · 01-06-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Heck, I was a HISTORY MAJOR for gosh sakes, I can refight the 100yrs War...

Which reminds me...

...anybody want to debate the best tank of WWII?

A history major, eh? Polish, I just KNEW there was something I liked about you! My undergraduate major was history for the BA, and I hold an MA in the field as well, along with an MA in philosophy. My favorite area is military history, especially Roman and World War II. In fact, that is what I do for a living . . . teach history and philosophy at the college level.

Yes! Let's debate the best tank! I choose the German Tiger as best overall, though the Germans only built about 1300 of them. The Russian T-34 had it beat for simplicity and numbers, but I still think the Tiger was a better tank. I wonder if anyone will be crazy enough to argue for the Sherman?

inplanotx · 01-06-2006, 08:07 AM

Here we go again, another thread hijack. Where's Xracer? He needs to be on this too!

Pistolenschutze · 01-06-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inplanotx

Here we go again, another thread hijack. Where's Xracer? He needs to be on this too!

But Inplano, aren't threads supposed to be "woven?"

Yes, definitely, get Xracer in on this.

polishshooter · 01-06-2006, 07:03 PM

Can I just go back into the archives and cut and paste from what at one time was (still might BE!) the LONGEST running thread we ever had

Heck, it may not even be in the archives yet, it still might be current! My arguments were flawless,,,

Anyway, no use reinventing the wheel, we pretty much proved beyond any doubt that the German stuff was really all crap (except for the stuff they STARTED the war with) that USUALLY wouldn't start anyway even IF the torsion bars and interleaved wheels weren't all froze up or jammed with mud, and that the two best of the whole war was a tie between the M4A1 and T-34C....

Yeah, P-Shutze if we're going to pee up the wall, you got me...just a BA in history 1980 with 3 graduate courses (WWII, US Military Policy, Civil War) (But my reading since is worth at least an MA, and if I ever get any of these posts published, maybe even a PhD!!!

My area of studies was "Modern Latin America" (They didn't really have a Milhistory concentration, but I made one!)with concentrations in the Middle East, with EVERY course on American Military History, WWII, the Civil War, they had. The charirman of the dept. was a former prof at the US War college and published on the Civil War and the War of 1812, so needless to say I took MOST of his classes...

Ah yes, arguing with another history major.......

Reminds me of the old line....

"You can't bullshiite a Bullshiiter!"

Pistolenschutze · 01-06-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

the two best of the whole war was a tie between the M4A1 and T-34C....

BA in history 1980 with 3 graduate courses (WWII, US Military Policy, Civil War) (But my reading since is worth at least an MA, and if I ever get any of these posts published, maybe even a PhD!!!

My area of studies was "Modern Latin America" (They didn't really have a Milhistory concentration, but I made one!)with concentrations in the Middle East, with EVERY course on American Military History, WWII, the Civil War, they had. The charirman of the dept. was a former prof at the US War college and published on the Civil War and the War of 1812, so needless to say I took MOST of his classes...

The M4 was an abomination, based on Patton's idea that a medium tank was better than a heavy tank because it was faster and more maneuverable. It was armed with a popgun, low velocity 76mm main cannon that wouldn't even penetrate the armor of the Tiger tank except from the rear at point-blank range. We ultimately won against the German Tigers and Panthers only because we built over 50,000 M4 Shermans. Someone once said, I've forgotten whom, that "quantity has its own quality."

I did much the same as you, Polish, on the education thing. The universities I attended didn't have a military history concentration either, but I was able to pick and choose my courses so that I ended up with what amounted to one . . . much to the dismay of my advisor, I might add. He was a commie pinko, left-wing, liberal SOB anyway, so I couldn't have cared less what he thought. Interestingly enough, one of the best military oriented courses I ever took was when I was working on my MA in philosophy. It was called "War and Civilization." The prof who taught it was ex-military and focused the course on two specific conflicts in contrast: The 100 Years War, and the Viet Nam Debacle (as I called it). The texts for the course were mostly first hand accounts, which made it extremely interesting.

inplanotx · 01-06-2006, 07:36 PM

I love reading what you guys throw up here, it is a joy to read such military history. Please understand that my interdictions are only jovial at best. Great read guys!

polishshooter · 01-06-2006, 09:30 PM

Well, since I lost my Mod superpowers when I left on one of my "long-hunts"

and stayed away too long, I guess I'll let somebody ELSE decide to move this to history!

Remember, I HATE "conventional wisdom..."

The M4 just happened to be the BEST tank...because it RAN, first time every time. Patton COULD have "thunder run" them through Berlin in 1944, BECAUSE it was the ONLY tank IN THE WORLD that could have MADE such a long road march and STILL fought at the end.

ANY other tank (Except MAYBE the T-34) would have NOT made it, mechanically. The late German crap could have IF there was RAIL transport available for all except say the last 30 miles, or so.

And DON'T give me that "popgun" drivel. The tank that CAUSED Germany all the heartburn and made them scramble to make the Tiger/Tiger II and Panther was the T-34 A and B models, which was the MAIN tank produced by the Russians, which arguably won them the war! IT had the 76mm Russian gun. Which incidentally was their number 1 AT gun produced that killed ALOT of German tanks. Which incidentally threw a SMALLER weight shell at LOWER velocity than the M4's 75mm! Granted, a "frontal" shot against ANY German tank was suicide, (except for the "off the mantle through the driver' hatch" ricochet shot which was actually TAUGHT against the Panther, that pretty much also proved the ACCURACY of the M4 gun.) I guess we were just LUCKY to have a tank that could RUN CIRCLES around German tanks and be ABLE to hit them from the sides and flanks? (and oh yeah, I almost forgot, the M4s accuracy ON THE MOVE just happened to be the best of any tank of the war too...)

And then of course, the later "heavy shot" available for the 76mm HV gun that most later M4s finally got COULD dependably pierce any German Tank frontally at decent ranges, if only they could have managed to get enough away from the TD battalions that got most of them at first. Most M4s only had no more than 5 rounds of that "wonder load" at any time...I wonder if ANYBODY would use the "popgun" argument if the 76mm M4s had as many as the Hellcat TDs and later M10s had. (Same gun, but the Hellcats killed a LOT of kraut tanks, for their numbers, with it!)

Patton did NOT want the 76mm high velocity round on the Sherman (OK, dumb move, because he didn't think the Germans could produce the King Tiger or the Panther in anything but token numbers, but he had a point) when he first saw it demonstrated in England just before DDay, because (a) and I QUOTE "The 75 proved adequate against the Tigers in Africa and Sicily" and (b) the purpose of a Tank was NOT to fight other tanks, but to MOVE FASTand fight INFANTRY where there was no enemy tanks, and (for some reason I have not yet figured out) in his opinion, the 75mm fired a better HE round than the 76mm HV cannon, and the HE round in his mind was the MAIN Tank weapon, to be used against infantry and dug in AT guns.

Remember what stopped Rommel's Tigers at Kasserine, the COLORED 765th Tank Destroyer Battalion with 1917 75mm howitzers on half-tracks! Which proved that ANY attacking tanks are vulnerable against dug in and well sited AT guns...which is, along with infantry with panzerfausts, is how MOST M4s were lost in WII! NOT in "Tank vs. Tank" battles!

DOCTRINE with complementary equipment is what wins armor battles. At the start of the war, the Germans had the best doctrine, AND had mechanically reliable BUT ON PAPER INFERIOR tanks! When they fell for the HEAVY tank siren song, they LOST, against "on paper, inferior" tanks! Why???? INFERIOR TANKS WITH INFERIOR DOCTRINE! They would have been BETTER if they were going to design tanks that mechanically were suited only to DIG IN and act as pill-boxes, to just produce more Hetzers! The PANTHER was actually the best German late war tank, but the vaunted 'German Engineering" just couldn't make them reliable. Overall, I maintain the Germans would have done BETTER to have NEVER designed a Tiger, a Panther, or especially the stupid Maus, but concentrated ALL their manufacturing on as MANY Mark IVs as they could turn out. Mechanically, the Mark 1V was a proven design, and "good enough" to take on M4s and T-34s. In numbers, and with MANEUVER, they would have been better off, IMHO.

Most of the "bad press" on the M4s did NOT come from Africa, or Sicily, or Italy. IT CAME FROM THE HEDGEROWS OF NORMANDY! When we COULD NOT employ our superior doctrine of movement, when M4s fought SLOWLY through taylor made tank traps, and lost HUGE numbers to dug in AT guns and panzerfausts! After the breakout, they did WELL. GRANTED, we lost a lot, but when ATTACKING, you ALWAYS lose a lot. (See Tigers vs. M3 TDs above) But then again, if you look at the morning reports of the "ups," you see MOST of the "knocked out" M4s were fixed and returned to duty QUICKLY. SO I don't BUY the "numbers" rap EITHER. YES they were produced in high numbers, but that is why it was also the BRITISH, FREE FRENCH, FREE POLISH etc, etc, etc MBT as well for most of the war! It is SURPRISING how many M4s that originally hit the beach in Normandy on 6 June FINISHED THE WAR! Yes, many were knocked out several times, but were cleaned out, rebuilt, reengined not FAR behind the lines and were back up QUICKLY. On the german side? A tank not "up" was abandoned! Field engine replacement? UNHEARD of in the Werhmacht with a TIger or panther!

With what OTHER tank in the WORLD could Patton have pulled out of the attack along the Moselle, and rolled with almost NO maintenance, in WINTER, those miles right into combat in the Bulge, smashing the entire German flank and stopping the offensive? I maintain NO other tankof WWII could have done that feat without a standdown for major refitting, and at the end of it been able to fight at ALL. Heck, most tanks of WWII could not ROADMARCH very far without throwing tracks at all.

Also, granted, the Jabos were killing the German tanks and fuel convoys at will, so they could NOT maneuver, but in a campaign in which there are so many RIVERS to cross, what the HECK good is any tank (like the Tiger) that is TOO HEAVY FOR BRIDGES anyway????? Germany had quite a few Tiger IIs available for the bulge...but had to send Piepper in them WAY to the south where they were effectively OUT OF THE FIGHT...because there were no BRIDGES in the Ardennes to support them! What good WERE they? PILLBOXES. They were NOT offensive machines. Which is what tanks ARE, by definition!

The German heavy tanks?? Think Char-B1 Bis

Oh no, DON'T get me started...

SouthernMoss · 01-07-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Well, since I lost my Mod superpowers when I left on one of my "long-hunts"

and stayed away too long, I guess I'll let somebody ELSE decide to move this to history!

Consider it moved, Polish!

Pistolenschutze · 01-07-2006, 10:55 AM

Sorry 'bout the hijack, SoMo! We "chillins" get carried away sometimes.

Thanks for moving the discussion to a more appropriate forum!

Now, as to that Polish fellow and his totally illogical argument . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

The M4 just happened to be the BEST tank...because it RAN, first time every time.

OK, I must concede that point, or rather part of it, Polish. The M4's single redeeming virture was indeed its simplicity and ease of repair, which was a good thing since they had to repair so many of them after the tank took a single hit from a German 88mm rifled cannon. The troops referred to them as "Ronsons" because they would light every time! An 88 would quite often penetrate both sides of an M4 and keep on going, leaving spawl behind it to kill all crew members (rather gruesomely) and ignite the tank like a moth that ventured too close to a flame. Yet I would argue that your point is single-dimensional thinking. Jeeps were even more reliable than the M4s, but does that feature alone make them an adequate weapon against a Tiger tank?

It is quite relevant to note also that the M4 had very narrow treads, unlike the Tiger. Actualy weight per square inch of tread on the ground was in reality higher with the lighter Sherman than with the much heavier Tiger. This meant the M4 was far more likely to get stuck in the mud and slip on the ice (because it lacked adequate surface friction) in a Western European winter. In the ice, the M4 resembled Bolshoi dancers doing the Nutcracker (perhaps an apropriate analogy)!

Now, you mention the Russian T-34. I won't argue with its proven virtures. Many consider it, with its American-designed Christie suspension, the best single tank to come out of WWII, especially the T-34/85 with its much more powerful main gun and thicker turret. It was a fair match for the German tanks, even the later ones, whereas the M4 most assuredly was not! The T-34, though, it must be remembered, was not only fast and maneuverable, but it also had adequate armor and a main gun that would penetrate German steel! The Russians proved that at Kirsk rather effectively. Patton thought tanks should be used to support infantry, not fight other tanks, that is true. But experience later proved him wrong for the most part. A single Tiger loose among infantry and M4s was like a saber-toothed tiger loose in a flock of sheep. Had the Germans been able to build Tigers in adequate numbers, the outcome might well have been quite different. American battle doctrine has always been, correctly I think, to sacrifice treasure in place of lives, to expend technology and firepower instead of men. Yet with the M4 we failed to do that. Even though we won in the end, the sacrifice in lives was much higher than it needed to be given our manufacturing capabilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

But then again, if you look at the morning reports of the "ups," you see MOST of the "knocked out" M4s were fixed and returned to duty QUICKLY.

Yes, that is true. A very large percentage of them could be repaired . . . repaired, that is, after repair crews managed to clean all the guts and brain matter from the tank crew off the inside of the tank, and patch the neat 88mm holes in the turret! The M4 cost us huge numbers of unnecessary casualties, unnecessary because the U.S. was perfectly capable of building and fielding a much better tank. Indeed, the design for it was already available well before the M4 went into mass production. A few (M5s?) were finally built, armed with a 90mm high velocity cannon that was effective against the German armor. Once again, Patton didn't see the need for it, careless of casualties and married to his tactical doctrine that he was. Let's not forget, while we're at it, Patton's famous "raid" on Hammelberg. Yup, his tanks moved fast all right, just not fast enough to keep from getting cut off and blown the hell away by German armor!

Having said all that, I agree with you that the Tiger and King Tiger did have their difficiencies. They were very heavy, wide in beam, somewhat slow (especially the later Panther tank), and those factors did limit their utility in Western Europe to some degree. Indeed, it hurt them badly at the Battle of the Bulge. Yet, the real reason the Bulge gamble failed was lack of fuel, not lack of an adequate tank!

When it comes down to tank v. tank, lest we forget the Battle of 73 Easting in the First Gulf War. There it was we who had the vast advantage in armor protection and main gun efficiency. The Russian built T-72s never stood a chance against the American M1-A1 main battle tanks, just as the M4s had no real chance against the German Tigers.

By the way, Polish, I'm enjoying this discussion immensely. It is always fun to find a kindred spirit who listens to the Muse of History.

You may fire when ready, Gridley!

polishshooter · 01-07-2006, 12:22 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

But that is also why History is an ART not a science. (Means we get to argue and NEVER Rrally prove anything!)

OK, where do I start? BULLET points....

-The TRACKS....I love it when I ALWAYS get the "ground pressure" argument as IF some engineer can prove me wrong

M4 tracks lasted an AVERAGE of 2500 ROAD miles...NARROW tracks= speed and long life!!! ANY German track was lucky to hit 500 before repair/ replacement.... YES the "grousers" were a stopgap, but what about HVSS???? With WIDE tracks the M4 was still viable until the 1980s with the IDF! HOW come that argument didn't go away even then???

-The "If they only had the FUEL...Boo hoo..."

WHY build tanks with FOUR TIMES the fuel consumption of you ENEMY'S tanks, when you are pinning your hopes on COAL OIL synthetics ALREADY???? Much LESS the fact we had the supplies from Romania already interdicted....

-VERY FEW M4s were actually killed by "the dreaded 88!" MOST were gotten by panzerfausts or the long 75mm AT gun....EVERY GI thought ANY Kraut incoming was an "88." (See another thread onOverrated weapons of WWII" NOT by me!!!

)

- The 75 mm M4 gun was flatter shooting, with a heavier AP round than the T-34s 76mmm (a little known fact that REALLY surprised me when I learned it, considering how SCARED the germans were of IT.) I'm not sure yet, but I'm starting to develop the theory that a lot of the "75mm popgun" stories actually derived from the M24 Chafee LIGHT tank we had at the end of the war. THAT 75 was less powerful than the one on the M4s, and our recon boys were ranging far and wide, in fact that is one big advantages we had, better recon, so they WOULD run into more "Oops, there's a freakin' Tiger!" situations. Just a theory....

- No matter WHAT Cooper says, he's the ONLY one who EVER stated
"Patton turned down the 90mm." I maintain he is WRONG. ( and we know historical works can be WRONG, right P? ESPECIALLY anecdotals... )We ALREADY had the 90mm ready for service in the M36, and Patton had NO say over the TD Force. Second, turret ring casting issues kept the M26 from appearing until we managed to get like 20 of them RUSHED straight from the production line to the lines in time for Remagen. There is NO evidence production was EVER held up for any reason except "bugs."

Patton WAS shown the M4A1 (76) before DDay, and SAID IT WASN'T necessary. YES he was (partially) WRONG, BUT...I believe THAT is what Cooper heard about, and transfigured it into the 90. He was only PARTIALLY wrong because 76mm M4s did better when mixed with regular 75 M4s in the same unit...until enough M4 105s were around for effective HE support!

- The "Ronson" argument- after wet stowage and applique armor, this was mitigated but never really solved - BUT had as much to do with the fact we used high octane GAS for fuel instead of diesel. You do NOT hear the M4s in the pacific called Ronsons. Why??? M4A3s--DIESELS, so they could use fuel from landing craft if necessary.

- The CASUALTY issue-another semi-myth- The average KIA per every knocked out Sherman tank in the European theater was ONE. FACT. This was actually among the lowest or WAS the lowest for ANY tank in WWII! (I forget) This means for EVERY tank knocked out with the whole crew killed, 5 tanks were knocked out with NOBODY killed. (OK, MAYBE our guys were better at bail-outs,

but the fact remains MOST crews were knocked out several times and lived to fight again. In fact, WHY did we give most of the M4s from the Hedgerows to the Brits near Caen??? They were losing too many INFANTRY, so they put INFANTRYMEN in M4s "to reduce losses!!!" (plus it was better "tank country."

- Back to the hedgerows...ANY tank would have been sitting ducks going OVER showing their bellies....losses WERE high- But what about AFTER Cobra? NO BETTER "Breakout" tanks than the M4. Again, PERIOD. (What ARE tanks for????? MANEUVER-SPEED-EXPLOITATION!

- You talk about the M1A1 in Iraq- you think ARMOR was the answer??? MANEUVER-SPEED-First round accuracy ON THE MOVE! Very few M1A1s were HIT by the Iraquis!!! They were killed by tanks they had no idea were THERE until they were hit!!! Back to WWII, you know what the German tankers complained aboput the MOST??? US tanks surprising them and hitting them from the REAR!!! Coincidence??? Keep in mind since the Matilda II, and maybe the first Churchills, there has NEVER been an MBT built that could not be penetrated BY IT'S OWN GUN. ARMOR is overrated! TRIVIA- What US AFV knocked out MORE German tanks than any other in the ETO? The M18 Hellcat TD! 45mph speed BEFORE our boys tinkered with the governors- SAME gun as the M4A1 (76) (OK, with more "hyper-shot") but with 1/2" armor in the THICKEST places!!!!

- AGAIN back to Cooper - In every war there is a tendency to "glamorize" enemy equipment at the same time denigrating your own, if losses are heavy. PLUS, if your JOB was to clean out dead bodies and scrub out the blood, and paint over the burn marks, you would DEFINITELY think "that tank" was a deathtrap. What OTHER tank did he have experience inside??? Losses were heavy because we were ATTACKING. PERIOD. AND because it was worthwhile and easy to fix them and get them back "up."

No P-shootz, I would consider the Panther as a candidate if they could have got them to run, BUT the Tiger I was obsolete shortly after Africa, the 75 did NOT have trouble penetrating it's vertical glacis plate. And the KonigsTiger was a propaganda tool at best, a pill box ONLY. Those pictures of the SS tank riders during the Bulge?? Staged propaganda! (you GOTTA see that film, just about EVERY still from that film made it into MANY books as "actual combat footage" from the bulge, and it was ALL staged!!!)

The Tiger II was underpowered, too slow, too unreliable, too slow for follow-up shots, too difficult to hit moving targets, unable to fire on the move at all- a DINOSAUR.

In fact, the entire HEAVY tank argument is moot...NOBODY had a successful heavy, the Russians pitched the JS2 and JS-3's shortly after the war when they went to the t-55...MEDIUM. HEAVY TANKS WERE A FAILURE. (as well as a waste of resources....)

And MORE trivia, I'll WAIT on this one...When and where was the LAST recorded kill of a German tank by a Sherman recorded?

God, I love this....

And I also loved the book "You may fire when ready, Mr. Gridley."

HISTORY FOREVER!!!!

Xracer · 01-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Well, as Polish said, this topic recorded the highest number of posts in TFF history......and I made my choice there.

However, for newer members, here we go again!

The best tank in WWII was the T-34.....period.

Not only was it the best tank in WWII, but in the Korean war, 15 years after it was first introduced, it still was a major force to contend with against much newer designs such as the U.S. M47s & M48s.

On the trivia.....gonna guess maybe the Israeli War of Independence? I know the Israelis had M4s....maybe the Syrians or somebody had some surplus Kraut stuff?

BTW....and off topic....I knew a guy who flew Spits against 109s in the RAF, and 109s (actually Avia S199s) in the Shirut Avir against Egyptian Spits during the War of Independence. He emigrated to the U.S. in the '50's and was a flight instructor with our CAP Squadron.

polishshooter · 01-07-2006, 06:58 PM

YEah, X you're right on Israel and Syria, but not on the time?

Remember the LAST time the Israelis were well on their way to Damascus Kickin A' and taking names but were stopped by the UN and diplomacy just short? I believe it was 80 or 81 during early Reagan, and the early problems in Lebanon.

An IDF "Super Sherman" with a 105mm tube took out a Syrian Panzer Mk IV that was dug in as a pillbox.

FITTING.

And yeah, X, as much as I argue for the M4 I might have to give you the T34, especially since it's STILL in service with some third world countries, and refurbed ones are available on the market for a decent price

and the only Shermans left are the Israeli ones in "reserve..." if they still are.

I just gag over the "Germanophiles" who argue for any of the TIGERS.

PANTHER maybe, but the TIGER?????

Waste of good metal....

Xracer · 01-07-2006, 07:04 PM

What the heck....not bad for a WAG!

Where'd the Syrians get those Mk.IVs?

polishshooter · 01-07-2006, 07:46 PM

I read it in "Dirty Little Secrets," by Nofi and Dunnigan. I don't remember if it was the original book or the "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII."

They said where it came from but now I don't remember. If I remember right the Syrians either got it from leftover Vichy French stuff from the Palestine campaign or bought it from the Egyptians. I don't know, maybe they got it from the same Czech arms dealer that sold the IAF the bf-109s!

I own the "Dirty Little Secrets" original, I'll look it up tonite if it's there.

Pistolenschutze · 01-07-2006, 08:45 PM

Polish, on the M4 and heavy tanks questions, you're full of the "eliminatory end product of a mature, uncastrated, male bovine!"

Bah, balderdash, and BS, I say! Or as Rommel's Panzertruppen might have said, Sie schaufeln krasser Unsinn!

You argue that the German Tiger was a poor tank, yet it burned Diesel fuel instead of gasoline and didn't go "poof" if someone managed to hit it with a high velocity shell! You seem to be arguing also that armor protection was unimportant. How was it then that on several occasions a single Tiger took on numerous American or British Shermans, killed everyone of them, and ended up with nothing but a few shallow dents in its turret? Yes, the Tigers had their problems, mechanical dependability being the primary one since they were so complex, and yes, over engineered, but when they worked, which was most of the time, they worked REALLY well. In fact, it was the development of the Tiger II that forced the Russkis to develop the T-34/85 in order to combat it. For a time, the Germans were cleaning the plows of the older T-34/76. Ask any old Panzertroop which tank he would rather have been in, an M4 or a Tiger. I suspect you already know the answer you'll get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

In fact, the entire HEAVY tank argument is moot...NOBODY had a successful heavy, the Russians pitched the JS2 and JS-3's shortly after the war when they went to the t-55...MEDIUM. HEAVY TANKS WERE A FAILURE. (as well as a waste of resources....)

I would argue that heavy tanks were the answer, and I think the Germans knew that. Their only problem was that they lacked the resources to work out the kinks and, more importantly, build enough of them to matter. Hell, look at the tanks of today, Polish. Are they medium tanks or heavy tanks, expect for those crazy Frenchmen of course? The Americans designed the M1, the finest MBT in the world. It comes in at around 68 tons fully loaded, if memory serves me. What about the British and their Centurion? The Germans and their Leopards? All heavy tanks, with heavy caliber, high velocity main guns. Armor is not important? Why then did the British develop Choblam armor and the Americans incorporate it into their M1s?

Sheesh, Polish, next thing you know you'll be arguing the best tank of World War II was the Polish 7-TP or 10-TP.

polishshooter · 01-07-2006, 09:33 PM

I'm kinda partial to the TKS, or maybe the TK3M...BEST damm TANKETTE ever made...give me a platoon and a company of Lancers and I'll ...I'll... well let me think about it. But you DO know don't you , that if that ONE Polish counterattack with the TP7s TKSs and cavalry on the second or third day would have been on a NARROW front instead of the BROAD front, many experts say that it WOULD have broken through to the rear and we would have REALLY seen what light tanks and cavalry could do to HORSE DRAWN artillery, Infantry, and supply wagons...the "Blitzkrieg" just MAY have been stopped....

I respectively disagree, P! Ask any panzertruppen whether he would want a TIGER or a PANTHER, and his eyes will gloss, remembering the cool wind of a panzer platoon on the move, and he'll say PANTHER. The PANTHER was the one that scared us, better shape, maneuverable, relatively fast, (again, when it ran, German Engineering my A$$!

) better gun than the 88, faster shooting, faster turret traverse...etc, etc. The PANTHER was the one that forced us to upgrade to the 76, and hypershot. At best the TIGER II was an "Oddity" that GIs got to look at ABANDONED on the side of the road!

And sorry, the T-34/85 was designed to beat the PANTHER...the 76 could not beat the sloped armor. The Russians also knew the Tiger was just too easy to AVOID.

Now the JS2 and especially the 3 with the 100mm, MAYBE they were designed to fight the Tiger, Ferdinand, etc....but the Russians parked them not long after they paraded them in Berlin after the war just to "awe" the west...

I'm NOT just saying that, ANYBODY will tell you, I've seen it in MANY reference books, the Tiger was ONLY successful laying in AMBUSH. And you do NOT "win wars" standing still! The tank is MEANT to MOVE!

Those (FEW) times "one Tiger held up or killed 25 M4s?" I will GUARANTEE you it was STATIONARY, HIDDEN, and covering the only open ground the M4s HAD to cross. Yeah, at 1000 yds, no contest. But, sorry, I'll repeat it, maybe you'll understand someday

but VERY FEW M4s were destroyed by ANY Tank fire! The 75mm long AT gun and panzerfausts were what killed most of them! EXCEPT for the bulge, but even during, there was LITTLE tank vs. tank in Western Europe. Most of ther German tanks in the bulge were killed by TDs and AT guns too. And after the bulge there was virtually NONE.

But the Tiger did NOT maneuver, and it definitely NEVER "exploited" anything. And I dispute the "run most of the time." They just DIDN'T. The only thing they DID do reliably was run...OUT OF FUEL.

And WHY did the Russians ALWAYS attack in the early winter morning?

You could GUARANTEE MOST of the Tigers would be IMMOBILE. Torsion bars and interleaved wheels frozen SOLID.

That's if they managed to get the outer ones and the tracks INSTALLED after having to pull them off to ship them by rail!

Lets see, "Hey, let's design a tank that HAS to be transported by rail any distance at all, but since it's too WIDE, we'll just have them remove the tracks and the outer road wheels!" BRILLIANT!

And how about... EVERYONE knows that a campaign in East AND Western Europe involves MANY river crossings of North/South Rivers. Every 20 miles there's a MINOR river that MAY be unfordable in the Spring and Fall, or after a rain, every 50 Miles a river that PROBABLY will be unfordable in the Spring and Fall and after a rain, and every 100 miles a river that's unfordable period.

"SO let's design a tank too heavy for 90% of all bridges in Europe! OK, so we'll also waste a lot of time and treasure trying to design a SCHNORKLE for it." BRILLIANT! However, this DID help some Germans...when Joachim Pieper was accused of the massacres, at his war crimes trial he used as a DEFENSE that he was with the King Tigers in the south of the Bulge and missed the battle(s) becausee there were no bridges to support their weight, and used the "propaganda" films shot during the advance to prove it that he and his men COULDN'T have done it! O.J., Eat your heart out!

Hey, our country is running out of fuel, we even have to used BOTTLED GAS to test the tanks off the line, so we'll design a tank that GULPS MORE FUEL JUST TO START UP than any of our enemy's on the move. BRILLIANT!

DO panzertruppen drink Guinness?

Sorry, P, the Tiger II was a FAILURE. I know it's traumatic for you to face,

but a FAILURE.

And the M1A1 IS classified as a Medium....sorry!

There has never been and will never be....a truly SUCCESSFUL Heavy Tank!

Xracer · 01-08-2006, 08:07 AM

Gee....this is great!

Finally Polish has somebody else to beat him about the head & shoulders (rhetorically speaking, of course).

"PS battling "PS" (or is that "BS vs. "BS")?

No matter......I'm jus' sittin' here on the sidelines, enjoying the show!

polishshooter · 01-08-2006, 09:23 AM

I dunno X, I musta got 'PS" P.O.'d or something, he ain't answering...

Think I overdud it with the "Guinness" theme?

Pistolenschutze · 01-08-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xracer

"PS battling "PS" (or is that "BS vs. "BS")?

Hey X, I like that, though the latter appellation is rather more accurate, I think--at least in Polish's case.

In fact, We can even make the names closer: Pistolenschutze (Pistolshooter) and Polnischschutze (Polishshooter)

OK, Polnischschutze, der unrichtig Geschicht (well, we are talking about German tanks, aren't we?), I suppose you know, that last post can only mean war.

Let us begin today's lesson with a visual illustration for purposes of clarity. Please see below:

In the first photo we see the famous M4 Sherman tank, also laughingly known as the "Ronson" by the troops for its tendency to burn heartily at the slighest provocation.

In the second photo we see the German Tiger tank, with its 88mm main cannon which could penetrate a Sherman like a hot knife through butter and which laughed at the Sherman's miniscule main gun armament.

Finally, we see the M1 A1 Abrams tank, the finest Main Battle Tank presently on operational status in the entire world.

OK, now that we have that straight, let's consider your comments concerning heavy tanks . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

And the M1A1 IS classified as a Medium....sorry!

You argue that the M1 is a medium rather than a heavy tank. Semantics, Polnisch, only semantics. Tanks have not been classified as light, medium, and heavy since the 1960s. The Abrams is technically a Main Battle Tank, and at 68 tons with a 120mm smoothbore main gun, it is "heavy" in all but designation. Indeed, when it was originally designed that was a major decision that had to be made: Should the tank be made lighter (around 50 tons or so) with less armor and fewer systems, or go with proper crew protection and other goodies, thus making the tank much heavier? The designers wisely opted for the heavier, more capable design.

The Germans most often used the Tiger in ambush mode not because it was incapable of taking on other tanks head to head, but because the Germans had too few of them to fight those kinds of battles, especially late in the war. Hell, they only built about 1300 Tigers throughout the war! They were very slow to produce and had no interchangability in parts with other German designs. Granted, that was a difficiency, but it doesn't mean the ones they did produce were incapable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

I respectively disagree, P! Ask any panzertruppen whether he would want a TIGER or a PANTHER, and his eyes will gloss, remembering the cool wind of a panzer platoon on the move, and he'll say PANTHER.

Well, duh, Polnisch, so would I! Would you rather have an M4 or an M48? That, however, was not the comparison I drew. I said if you ask a German tanker whether he would prefer an M4 or a Tiger, he would answer "Tiger" in a New York minute, despite the Tiger's difficiencies! I've read several interviews where the participants on both sides had the same answer: Tiger!

I will agree with you that the Panther was too little, too late. At roughly 80 tons it was underpowered, much too slow, and a gas guzzler. And yes, it did break down too often because German production toward the end of the war was not nearly as precise as it once had been, plus the fact that the exingencies of war forced the tank into production too soon. Yet had the Germans managed to field it properly, it would have been "Katie bar the door" and even Patton would have been screaming for a heavier tank!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

DO panzertruppen drink Guinness?

I should hope not, vile tar-like substance that it is! No, the Germans were more inclined to Schnapps und Gutes Bier, Polnischschutze.

polishshooter · 01-08-2006, 09:50 AM

HEY, I GET it!

A "Junk Sandwich!"

OK, OK mea culpa...(I'm striking my breast....)

But that WAS my first thought....

You know, seeing my name in GERMAN sends an unpleasant shiver up my spine though...

...you don't think THAT may explain some of my irrational biases towards anything German? I generally argue ANYTHING German is "overrated." (Although I DID put a ton of miles on three back to back new Volkswagens in the 80s...and I like Wiernerschnitzle)

Maybe, but then I still have them for the Sons of Nippon too, but I have yet to see my name in Japanese...hmmmmm.

Which kind of leads me to my inner conflict...My Dad lectured me as a young boy "You ALWAYS gotta keep an eye on those damm GERMANS but it's the RUSSIANS you have to HATE..." So WHY do I collect Mosin Nagants???

Pistolenschutze · 01-08-2006, 10:10 AM

Polish, see the completed reply I just posted as an edit. I wanted to show the pictures higher up in the post, but it didn't work, so I had to edit.

Pistolenschutze · 01-08-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polnischschutze

HEY, I GET it!

A "Junk Sandwich!" OK, OK mea culpa...(I'm striking my breast....)

Not quite, Polnish. The student must strive to get it right. There will be a quiz later.

HERE is a true Junk Sandwich:

polishshooter · 01-08-2006, 12:09 PM

I don't know, P, the one on the left is getting ready to throw a track, and the one on the right looks like it just had a bad day on the recieving end of a 76 hypershot, or more likely a 500# GPHE 0r a 5" rocket from a 47 or a sturmovik!

The only one standing smart and pretty is the one in the middle! And I bet it would START right up when you hit the starter too, don't know about the German scrap metal around it though...

01-05-2006, 10:54 PM	#1
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Proper Posting Question Is there such a thing as a DEAD topic? Heck, I was a HISTORY MAJOR for gosh sakes, I can refight the 100yrs War... ...and tell ya how if they listened to ME it woulda been over in no more than 93 years! Which reminds me... ...anybody want to debate the best tank of WWII? __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. --> Last edited by polishshooter; 01-05-2006 at 10:55 PM..

01-05-2006, 11:57 PM	#2
berto64 VMBB Admin Staff Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owyhee County, Idaho Contributor Posts: 7,385	Re: Proper Posting Question It wasn't one of ours, right? __________________ Be who you are & say what you will, Those that matter won't mind and those that mind don't matter. I'm a bitter clinger, One Nation Under God.

01-06-2006, 08:07 AM	#4
inplanotx Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 8,897	Re: Proper Posting Question Here we go again, another thread hijack. Where's Xracer? He needs to be on this too! __________________

01-06-2006, 07:03 PM	#6
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Proper Posting Question Can I just go back into the archives and cut and paste from what at one time was (still might BE!) the LONGEST running thread we ever had Heck, it may not even be in the archives yet, it still might be current! My arguments were flawless,,, Anyway, no use reinventing the wheel, we pretty much proved beyond any doubt that the German stuff was really all crap (except for the stuff they STARTED the war with) that USUALLY wouldn't start anyway even IF the torsion bars and interleaved wheels weren't all froze up or jammed with mud, and that the two best of the whole war was a tie between the M4A1 and T-34C.... Yeah, P-Shutze if we're going to pee up the wall, you got me...just a BA in history 1980 with 3 graduate courses (WWII, US Military Policy, Civil War) (But my reading since is worth at least an MA, and if I ever get any of these posts published, maybe even a PhD!!! My area of studies was "Modern Latin America" (They didn't really have a Milhistory concentration, but I made one!)with concentrations in the Middle East, with EVERY course on American Military History, WWII, the Civil War, they had. The charirman of the dept. was a former prof at the US War college and published on the Civil War and the War of 1812, so needless to say I took MOST of his classes... Ah yes, arguing with another history major....... Reminds me of the old line.... "You can't bullshiite a Bullshiiter!" __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

01-06-2006, 07:36 PM	#8
inplanotx Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 8,897	Re: Proper Posting Question I love reading what you guys throw up here, it is a joy to read such military history. Please understand that my interdictions are only jovial at best. Great read guys! __________________

01-06-2006, 09:30 PM	#9
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Proper Posting Question Well, since I lost my Mod superpowers when I left on one of my "long-hunts" and stayed away too long, I guess I'll let somebody ELSE decide to move this to history! Remember, I HATE "conventional wisdom..." The M4 just happened to be the BEST tank...because it RAN, first time every time. Patton COULD have "thunder run" them through Berlin in 1944, BECAUSE it was the ONLY tank IN THE WORLD that could have MADE such a long road march and STILL fought at the end. ANY other tank (Except MAYBE the T-34) would have NOT made it, mechanically. The late German crap could have IF there was RAIL transport available for all except say the last 30 miles, or so. And DON'T give me that "popgun" drivel. The tank that CAUSED Germany all the heartburn and made them scramble to make the Tiger/Tiger II and Panther was the T-34 A and B models, which was the MAIN tank produced by the Russians, which arguably won them the war! IT had the 76mm Russian gun. Which incidentally was their number 1 AT gun produced that killed ALOT of German tanks. Which incidentally threw a SMALLER weight shell at LOWER velocity than the M4's 75mm! Granted, a "frontal" shot against ANY German tank was suicide, (except for the "off the mantle through the driver' hatch" ricochet shot which was actually TAUGHT against the Panther, that pretty much also proved the ACCURACY of the M4 gun.) I guess we were just LUCKY to have a tank that could RUN CIRCLES around German tanks and be ABLE to hit them from the sides and flanks? (and oh yeah, I almost forgot, the M4s accuracy ON THE MOVE just happened to be the best of any tank of the war too...) And then of course, the later "heavy shot" available for the 76mm HV gun that most later M4s finally got COULD dependably pierce any German Tank frontally at decent ranges, if only they could have managed to get enough away from the TD battalions that got most of them at first. Most M4s only had no more than 5 rounds of that "wonder load" at any time...I wonder if ANYBODY would use the "popgun" argument if the 76mm M4s had as many as the Hellcat TDs and later M10s had. (Same gun, but the Hellcats killed a LOT of kraut tanks, for their numbers, with it!) Patton did NOT want the 76mm high velocity round on the Sherman (OK, dumb move, because he didn't think the Germans could produce the King Tiger or the Panther in anything but token numbers, but he had a point) when he first saw it demonstrated in England just before DDay, because (a) and I QUOTE "The 75 proved adequate against the Tigers in Africa and Sicily" and (b) the purpose of a Tank was NOT to fight other tanks, but to MOVE FASTand fight INFANTRY where there was no enemy tanks, and (for some reason I have not yet figured out) in his opinion, the 75mm fired a better HE round than the 76mm HV cannon, and the HE round in his mind was the MAIN Tank weapon, to be used against infantry and dug in AT guns. Remember what stopped Rommel's Tigers at Kasserine, the COLORED 765th Tank Destroyer Battalion with 1917 75mm howitzers on half-tracks! Which proved that ANY attacking tanks are vulnerable against dug in and well sited AT guns...which is, along with infantry with panzerfausts, is how MOST M4s were lost in WII! NOT in "Tank vs. Tank" battles! DOCTRINE with complementary equipment is what wins armor battles. At the start of the war, the Germans had the best doctrine, AND had mechanically reliable BUT ON PAPER INFERIOR tanks! When they fell for the HEAVY tank siren song, they LOST, against "on paper, inferior" tanks! Why???? INFERIOR TANKS WITH INFERIOR DOCTRINE! They would have been BETTER if they were going to design tanks that mechanically were suited only to DIG IN and act as pill-boxes, to just produce more Hetzers! The PANTHER was actually the best German late war tank, but the vaunted 'German Engineering" just couldn't make them reliable. Overall, I maintain the Germans would have done BETTER to have NEVER designed a Tiger, a Panther, or especially the stupid Maus, but concentrated ALL their manufacturing on as MANY Mark IVs as they could turn out. Mechanically, the Mark 1V was a proven design, and "good enough" to take on M4s and T-34s. In numbers, and with MANEUVER, they would have been better off, IMHO. Most of the "bad press" on the M4s did NOT come from Africa, or Sicily, or Italy. IT CAME FROM THE HEDGEROWS OF NORMANDY! When we COULD NOT employ our superior doctrine of movement, when M4s fought SLOWLY through taylor made tank traps, and lost HUGE numbers to dug in AT guns and panzerfausts! After the breakout, they did WELL. GRANTED, we lost a lot, but when ATTACKING, you ALWAYS lose a lot. (See Tigers vs. M3 TDs above) But then again, if you look at the morning reports of the "ups," you see MOST of the "knocked out" M4s were fixed and returned to duty QUICKLY. SO I don't BUY the "numbers" rap EITHER. YES they were produced in high numbers, but that is why it was also the BRITISH, FREE FRENCH, FREE POLISH etc, etc, etc MBT as well for most of the war! It is SURPRISING how many M4s that originally hit the beach in Normandy on 6 June FINISHED THE WAR! Yes, many were knocked out several times, but were cleaned out, rebuilt, reengined not FAR behind the lines and were back up QUICKLY. On the german side? A tank not "up" was abandoned! Field engine replacement? UNHEARD of in the Werhmacht with a TIger or panther! With what OTHER tank in the WORLD could Patton have pulled out of the attack along the Moselle, and rolled with almost NO maintenance, in WINTER, those miles right into combat in the Bulge, smashing the entire German flank and stopping the offensive? I maintain NO other tankof WWII could have done that feat without a standdown for major refitting, and at the end of it been able to fight at ALL. Heck, most tanks of WWII could not ROADMARCH very far without throwing tracks at all. Also, granted, the Jabos were killing the German tanks and fuel convoys at will, so they could NOT maneuver, but in a campaign in which there are so many RIVERS to cross, what the HECK good is any tank (like the Tiger) that is TOO HEAVY FOR BRIDGES anyway????? Germany had quite a few Tiger IIs available for the bulge...but had to send Piepper in them WAY to the south where they were effectively OUT OF THE FIGHT...because there were no BRIDGES in the Ardennes to support them! What good WERE they? PILLBOXES. They were NOT offensive machines. Which is what tanks ARE, by definition! The German heavy tanks?? Think Char-B1 Bis Oh no, DON'T get me started... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 01-06-2006 at 09:53 PM..

01-07-2006, 12:22 PM	#12
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII ABSOLUTELY! But that is also why History is an ART not a science. (Means we get to argue and NEVER Rrally prove anything!) OK, where do I start? BULLET points.... -The TRACKS....I love it when I ALWAYS get the "ground pressure" argument as IF some engineer can prove me wrong M4 tracks lasted an AVERAGE of 2500 ROAD miles...NARROW tracks= speed and long life!!! ANY German track was lucky to hit 500 before repair/ replacement.... YES the "grousers" were a stopgap, but what about HVSS???? With WIDE tracks the M4 was still viable until the 1980s with the IDF! HOW come that argument didn't go away even then??? -The "If they only had the FUEL...Boo hoo..." WHY build tanks with FOUR TIMES the fuel consumption of you ENEMY'S tanks, when you are pinning your hopes on COAL OIL synthetics ALREADY???? Much LESS the fact we had the supplies from Romania already interdicted.... -VERY FEW M4s were actually killed by "the dreaded 88!" MOST were gotten by panzerfausts or the long 75mm AT gun....EVERY GI thought ANY Kraut incoming was an "88." (See another thread onOverrated weapons of WWII" NOT by me!!! ) - The 75 mm M4 gun was flatter shooting, with a heavier AP round than the T-34s 76mmm (a little known fact that REALLY surprised me when I learned it, considering how SCARED the germans were of IT.) I'm not sure yet, but I'm starting to develop the theory that a lot of the "75mm popgun" stories actually derived from the M24 Chafee LIGHT tank we had at the end of the war. THAT 75 was less powerful than the one on the M4s, and our recon boys were ranging far and wide, in fact that is one big advantages we had, better recon, so they WOULD run into more "Oops, there's a freakin' Tiger!" situations. Just a theory.... - No matter WHAT Cooper says, he's the ONLY one who EVER stated "Patton turned down the 90mm." I maintain he is WRONG. ( and we know historical works can be WRONG, right P? ESPECIALLY anecdotals... )We ALREADY had the 90mm ready for service in the M36, and Patton had NO say over the TD Force. Second, turret ring casting issues kept the M26 from appearing until we managed to get like 20 of them RUSHED straight from the production line to the lines in time for Remagen. There is NO evidence production was EVER held up for any reason except "bugs." Patton WAS shown the M4A1 (76) before DDay, and SAID IT WASN'T necessary. YES he was (partially) WRONG, BUT...I believe THAT is what Cooper heard about, and transfigured it into the 90. He was only PARTIALLY wrong because 76mm M4s did better when mixed with regular 75 M4s in the same unit...until enough M4 105s were around for effective HE support! - The "Ronson" argument- after wet stowage and applique armor, this was mitigated but never really solved - BUT had as much to do with the fact we used high octane GAS for fuel instead of diesel. You do NOT hear the M4s in the pacific called Ronsons. Why??? M4A3s--DIESELS, so they could use fuel from landing craft if necessary. - The CASUALTY issue-another semi-myth- The average KIA per every knocked out Sherman tank in the European theater was ONE. FACT. This was actually among the lowest or WAS the lowest for ANY tank in WWII! (I forget) This means for EVERY tank knocked out with the whole crew killed, 5 tanks were knocked out with NOBODY killed. (OK, MAYBE our guys were better at bail-outs, but the fact remains MOST crews were knocked out several times and lived to fight again. In fact, WHY did we give most of the M4s from the Hedgerows to the Brits near Caen??? They were losing too many INFANTRY, so they put INFANTRYMEN in M4s "to reduce losses!!!" (plus it was better "tank country." - Back to the hedgerows...ANY tank would have been sitting ducks going OVER showing their bellies....losses WERE high- But what about AFTER Cobra? NO BETTER "Breakout" tanks than the M4. Again, PERIOD. (What ARE tanks for????? MANEUVER-SPEED-EXPLOITATION! - You talk about the M1A1 in Iraq- you think ARMOR was the answer??? MANEUVER-SPEED-First round accuracy ON THE MOVE! Very few M1A1s were HIT by the Iraquis!!! They were killed by tanks they had no idea were THERE until they were hit!!! Back to WWII, you know what the German tankers complained aboput the MOST??? US tanks surprising them and hitting them from the REAR!!! Coincidence??? Keep in mind since the Matilda II, and maybe the first Churchills, there has NEVER been an MBT built that could not be penetrated BY IT'S OWN GUN. ARMOR is overrated! TRIVIA- What US AFV knocked out MORE German tanks than any other in the ETO? The M18 Hellcat TD! 45mph speed BEFORE our boys tinkered with the governors- SAME gun as the M4A1 (76) (OK, with more "hyper-shot") but with 1/2" armor in the THICKEST places!!!! - AGAIN back to Cooper - In every war there is a tendency to "glamorize" enemy equipment at the same time denigrating your own, if losses are heavy. PLUS, if your JOB was to clean out dead bodies and scrub out the blood, and paint over the burn marks, you would DEFINITELY think "that tank" was a deathtrap. What OTHER tank did he have experience inside??? Losses were heavy because we were ATTACKING. PERIOD. AND because it was worthwhile and easy to fix them and get them back "up." No P-shootz, I would consider the Panther as a candidate if they could have got them to run, BUT the Tiger I was obsolete shortly after Africa, the 75 did NOT have trouble penetrating it's vertical glacis plate. And the KonigsTiger was a propaganda tool at best, a pill box ONLY. Those pictures of the SS tank riders during the Bulge?? Staged propaganda! (you GOTTA see that film, just about EVERY still from that film made it into MANY books as "actual combat footage" from the bulge, and it was ALL staged!!!) The Tiger II was underpowered, too slow, too unreliable, too slow for follow-up shots, too difficult to hit moving targets, unable to fire on the move at all- a DINOSAUR. In fact, the entire HEAVY tank argument is moot...NOBODY had a successful heavy, the Russians pitched the JS2 and JS-3's shortly after the war when they went to the t-55...MEDIUM. HEAVY TANKS WERE A FAILURE. (as well as a waste of resources....) And MORE trivia, I'll WAIT on this one...When and where was the LAST recorded kill of a German tank by a Sherman recorded? God, I love this.... And I also loved the book "You may fire when ready, Mr. Gridley." HISTORY FOREVER!!!! __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 01-07-2006 at 05:56 PM..

01-07-2006, 06:46 PM	#13
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Re: Best tank of WWII Well, as Polish said, this topic recorded the highest number of posts in TFF history......and I made my choice there. However, for newer members, here we go again! The best tank in WWII was the T-34.....period. Not only was it the best tank in WWII, but in the Korean war, 15 years after it was first introduced, it still was a major force to contend with against much newer designs such as the U.S. M47s & M48s. On the trivia.....gonna guess maybe the Israeli War of Independence? I know the Israelis had M4s....maybe the Syrians or somebody had some surplus Kraut stuff? BTW....and off topic....I knew a guy who flew Spits against 109s in the RAF, and 109s (actually Avia S199s) in the Shirut Avir against Egyptian Spits during the War of Independence. He emigrated to the U.S. in the '50's and was a flight instructor with our CAP Squadron.

01-07-2006, 06:58 PM	#14
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII YEah, X you're right on Israel and Syria, but not on the time? Remember the LAST time the Israelis were well on their way to Damascus Kickin A' and taking names but were stopped by the UN and diplomacy just short? I believe it was 80 or 81 during early Reagan, and the early problems in Lebanon. An IDF "Super Sherman" with a 105mm tube took out a Syrian Panzer Mk IV that was dug in as a pillbox. FITTING. And yeah, X, as much as I argue for the M4 I might have to give you the T34, especially since it's STILL in service with some third world countries, and refurbed ones are available on the market for a decent price and the only Shermans left are the Israeli ones in "reserve..." if they still are. I just gag over the "Germanophiles" who argue for any of the TIGERS. PANTHER maybe, but the TIGER????? Waste of good metal.... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 01-07-2006 at 07:04 PM..

01-07-2006, 07:04 PM	#15
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Re: Best tank of WWII What the heck....not bad for a WAG! Where'd the Syrians get those Mk.IVs?

01-07-2006, 07:46 PM	#16
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII I read it in "Dirty Little Secrets," by Nofi and Dunnigan. I don't remember if it was the original book or the "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII." They said where it came from but now I don't remember. If I remember right the Syrians either got it from leftover Vichy French stuff from the Palestine campaign or bought it from the Egyptians. I don't know, maybe they got it from the same Czech arms dealer that sold the IAF the bf-109s! I own the "Dirty Little Secrets" original, I'll look it up tonite if it's there. __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

01-07-2006, 09:33 PM	#18
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII I'm kinda partial to the TKS, or maybe the TK3M...BEST damm TANKETTE ever made...give me a platoon and a company of Lancers and I'll ...I'll... well let me think about it. But you DO know don't you , that if that ONE Polish counterattack with the TP7s TKSs and cavalry on the second or third day would have been on a NARROW front instead of the BROAD front, many experts say that it WOULD have broken through to the rear and we would have REALLY seen what light tanks and cavalry could do to HORSE DRAWN artillery, Infantry, and supply wagons...the "Blitzkrieg" just MAY have been stopped.... I respectively disagree, P! Ask any panzertruppen whether he would want a TIGER or a PANTHER, and his eyes will gloss, remembering the cool wind of a panzer platoon on the move, and he'll say PANTHER. The PANTHER was the one that scared us, better shape, maneuverable, relatively fast, (again, when it ran, German Engineering my A$$! ) better gun than the 88, faster shooting, faster turret traverse...etc, etc. The PANTHER was the one that forced us to upgrade to the 76, and hypershot. At best the TIGER II was an "Oddity" that GIs got to look at ABANDONED on the side of the road! And sorry, the T-34/85 was designed to beat the PANTHER...the 76 could not beat the sloped armor. The Russians also knew the Tiger was just too easy to AVOID. Now the JS2 and especially the 3 with the 100mm, MAYBE they were designed to fight the Tiger, Ferdinand, etc....but the Russians parked them not long after they paraded them in Berlin after the war just to "awe" the west... I'm NOT just saying that, ANYBODY will tell you, I've seen it in MANY reference books, the Tiger was ONLY successful laying in AMBUSH. And you do NOT "win wars" standing still! The tank is MEANT to MOVE! Those (FEW) times "one Tiger held up or killed 25 M4s?" I will GUARANTEE you it was STATIONARY, HIDDEN, and covering the only open ground the M4s HAD to cross. Yeah, at 1000 yds, no contest. But, sorry, I'll repeat it, maybe you'll understand someday but VERY FEW M4s were destroyed by ANY Tank fire! The 75mm long AT gun and panzerfausts were what killed most of them! EXCEPT for the bulge, but even during, there was LITTLE tank vs. tank in Western Europe. Most of ther German tanks in the bulge were killed by TDs and AT guns too. And after the bulge there was virtually NONE. But the Tiger did NOT maneuver, and it definitely NEVER "exploited" anything. And I dispute the "run most of the time." They just DIDN'T. The only thing they DID do reliably was run...OUT OF FUEL. And WHY did the Russians ALWAYS attack in the early winter morning? You could GUARANTEE MOST of the Tigers would be IMMOBILE. Torsion bars and interleaved wheels frozen SOLID. That's if they managed to get the outer ones and the tracks INSTALLED after having to pull them off to ship them by rail! Lets see, "Hey, let's design a tank that HAS to be transported by rail any distance at all, but since it's too WIDE, we'll just have them remove the tracks and the outer road wheels!" BRILLIANT! And how about... EVERYONE knows that a campaign in East AND Western Europe involves MANY river crossings of North/South Rivers. Every 20 miles there's a MINOR river that MAY be unfordable in the Spring and Fall, or after a rain, every 50 Miles a river that PROBABLY will be unfordable in the Spring and Fall and after a rain, and every 100 miles a river that's unfordable period. "SO let's design a tank too heavy for 90% of all bridges in Europe! OK, so we'll also waste a lot of time and treasure trying to design a SCHNORKLE for it." BRILLIANT! However, this DID help some Germans...when Joachim Pieper was accused of the massacres, at his war crimes trial he used as a DEFENSE that he was with the King Tigers in the south of the Bulge and missed the battle(s) becausee there were no bridges to support their weight, and used the "propaganda" films shot during the advance to prove it that he and his men COULDN'T have done it! O.J., Eat your heart out! Hey, our country is running out of fuel, we even have to used BOTTLED GAS to test the tanks off the line, so we'll design a tank that GULPS MORE FUEL JUST TO START UP than any of our enemy's on the move. BRILLIANT! DO panzertruppen drink Guinness? Sorry, P, the Tiger II was a FAILURE. I know it's traumatic for you to face, but a FAILURE. And the M1A1 IS classified as a Medium....sorry! There has never been and will never be....a truly SUCCESSFUL Heavy Tank! __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 01-07-2006 at 09:47 PM..

01-08-2006, 08:07 AM	#19
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Re: Best tank of WWII Gee....this is great! Finally Polish has somebody else to beat him about the head & shoulders (rhetorically speaking, of course). "PS battling "PS" (or is that "BS vs. "BS")? No matter......I'm jus' sittin' here on the sidelines, enjoying the show!

01-08-2006, 09:23 AM	#20
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII I dunno X, I musta got 'PS" P.O.'d or something, he ain't answering... Think I overdud it with the "Guinness" theme? __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

01-08-2006, 09:50 AM	#22
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII HEY, I GET it! A "Junk Sandwich!" OK, OK mea culpa...(I'm striking my breast....) But that WAS my first thought.... You know, seeing my name in GERMAN sends an unpleasant shiver up my spine though... ...you don't think THAT may explain some of my irrational biases towards anything German? I generally argue ANYTHING German is "overrated." (Although I DID put a ton of miles on three back to back new Volkswagens in the 80s...and I like Wiernerschnitzle) Maybe, but then I still have them for the Sons of Nippon too, but I have yet to see my name in Japanese...hmmmmm. Which kind of leads me to my inner conflict...My Dad lectured me as a young boy "You ALWAYS gotta keep an eye on those damm GERMANS but it's the RUSSIANS you have to HATE..." So WHY do I collect Mosin Nagants??? __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 01-08-2006 at 09:54 AM..

01-08-2006, 10:10 AM	#23
Pistolenschutze Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 13,094	Re: Best tank of WWII Polish, see the completed reply I just posted as an edit. I wanted to show the pictures higher up in the post, but it didn't work, so I had to edit. __________________ --Pistolenschutze (Pistol Shooter)

01-08-2006, 12:09 PM	#25
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Best tank of WWII I don't know, P, the one on the left is getting ready to throw a track, and the one on the right looks like it just had a bad day on the recieving end of a 76 hypershot, or more likely a 500# GPHE 0r a 5" rocket from a 47 or a sturmovik! The only one standing smart and pretty is the one in the middle! And I bet it would START right up when you hit the starter too, don't know about the German scrap metal around it though... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.