best medium WW2 tank thread

[Darkrenown]

Man you keep doing that and you will soon find everyone will ignore you, and you will be talking alone.

Where did you infer that I do not want to talk about tanks is beyond me. You are attacking such na obvious straw man that I´m itching to ignore you but I´ll give you one last chance.

I got it from:
"So in the end IMO it´s actually pretty stupid to criticize the Panther so much, considering ALL of Germany´s strategic position was awful"
You say it's stupid to criticise the Panther since Germany´s strategic position was awful. Therefor it surely must be stupid to criticise any German tank. Yes/no?
Logically, if it is stupid to criticise any German tank since no tank would make them win the war it must also be stupid to criticise any Allied tank since no tank will make them lose the war. Yes/no?

You also said "Panther had issues, that is fact, but the thing is - would anyone else who tried to do a 45 ton tank in 1943 do better?", which tries to excuse all the Panther's shortcomings by saying it was a hard/impossible task to make a tank of that size in the timeframe. To which I replied that that does NOT excuse the Panther's problems since they don't get any points for trying. When it question is "Was the Panther a good tank?" all that matters is was the Panther a good tank, not how hard it was to make 45 ton tanks, not how the war was going, not anything else except how it performed as a tank.

I'm replying to your posts as I understand them, not trying to attack you. If you feel I misunderstand your posts, trying explaining what you mean instead of talking about something else or threatening to ignore me.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Tanks weren't the problem for the Germans, it literally was a logisitics problem, which is pretty accurately represented in HOI3... except for the time it takes to build infrastructure. (part of the reason I want rails and roads seperate).

But, to be fair, even when leaving logistics aside (which I consider one of the main reason why the Panzer V and VI performed sub-par), the Panzer III and IV series was by no means competetive to their T-34 counterpart.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

They used canon in the quoted case because it was special JU-87 design. The G version had a twin 37 mm anti-tank armament (and was thus nicknamed "Kanonenvogel" - "Canon Bird"). There were probably only a few dozens of those built during the war. Still, I think you significantly overestimate the impact of the JU-87 on the war, especially the later stages.

 

[Darkrenown]

The cost in money isn't that relevant a factor when the Nazis had a bizarre relation with their own supply of money and their economy was supplemented by slave labour. How does it look if you compare man hours required?

 

[Darkrenown]

Also, it also depends on what you think the most important role is. If it is tank destruction, it´s likely the Panther is better than either Sherman or T34 as it could kill both at ranges where itself couldn´t be killed.

And yet the Panther never won a single battle against Shermans - which goes to show just how valuable that apparent range advantage was. Again, the key factors in tank vs tank combat are to spot the enemy first, to fire first, and to hit first, theoretical gun range turned out to be rather unimportant.

 

[Darkrenown]

DR you fail to see (again) that which I based my preference on. That the US Army (not an induvidual Author, the Tech Manual was done
by a group of researchers) studies show the US opinion of the German PzV Panther tank in WW2. Based upon THEIR information and the
reports of their forces AT THAT TIME, as in the US Army histories, that they considered the Panther without a possiblilty of doubt a very
successful and dangerous opponent.

How is it you don't understand that the US army in 1945 was not in possession of all the facts and so their opinion of the Panther was less valuable than, say, the German Panzer commission, Heinz Guderian, or the French army after they'd been operating them for 3 years? Hell, the US army thought in 1944 that the Panther was going to be a rather rare tank, like the Tiger.

Dismissing the French and Soviet reports is just pure ignorance on your part, but screw it, I'm not going to say more, it is not worth trying to talk to you.

 

[Darkrenown]

What would 'winning' a battle entail?
I am a bit sceptical as to the value of that assessment given that there were very few if any 'battles' were only Panthers and Shermans were on the field.

So perhaps the supposed main plus point to the Panther, "If it is tank destruction, it´s likely the Panther is better than either Sherman or T34 as it could kill both at ranges where itself couldn´t be killed." isn't that useful a feature, since battles aren't a lineup of tanks are their maximum range, exchanging shots. That was my point.

 

[Darkrenown]

I think this is rather a bad argument by you to make Dark, although I have agreed with most of what you have said.

The US used overwhelming force all the time, that was their strategy. Germans were always going to be outnumbered 2,3,4 to 1 and not be able to move because of air superiority.

They actually didn't often outnumber German tanks by that much in a given battle, and most encounters were pretty small scale:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3VJRI...292X&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful

The real lessons of this book are delivered in the concluding sections on statistics and analysis. Contrary to what readers conditioned to war movies or computer games might expect, the author notes that actual statistical data indicates that most tank vs. tank battles were small, involving only 4-9 tanks on each side.

You could also look at the battle of Arracourt where outnumbered Shermans mopped the floor with Panthers in foggy conditions where airpower could not be used.

 

[Darkrenown]

From Spelbergers 'Panzer IV and its variants' (yeah, I have this book too)
Page 152

Official German Army Comparison report:

Wa Pruf (B) 1/W-2b Hillersleben, March 23, 1944
Comparison of German tanks with the new Russian T34-85 and JS122 tanks

Panzer IV
Inferior to the T-34/85 and the JS-122

Panzer V
Is far superior to the T-34/85 for frontal fire, approximately equal for side
and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear
fire.

Tiger I with KwK 36
Is superior to the T-34/85 and inferior to JS-122

Tiger I with KwK 43
Is superior to both the T-34/85 and the JS-122

Tiger II
Is far superior to the T34/85 and the JS-122

You do understand that this comparison is just about armour/firepower, right? It's not an overall comparison of the tanks? Since no one at any point in the thread has said the Panther didn't have good front armour and a nice AT gun I don't know what you think you are proving.

I am going to get a copy of a book on German tanks as i believe some of the French report is based almost verbatim on Guderian's issue
with the Panther at Kursk which is a review of a unready tank rushed into battle untested and not a review of the tank in later service.

What possible reason would the French have to base their report of their use of Panthers on "Guderian's issue with the Panther at Kursk" rather than on their own 3 years of use? This has to be the craziest thing you have claimed yet, and that is saying something.

And the Panther's issues did NOT stop at Kursk, how about you go back and actually read my post #151, then explain why Guderian is still saying in mid-44 that an urgent solution to the final drive problem is needed, or why the Panzer Commision said in January 1945 that "Whereas during this entire time attempts have been made to improve the final drive, with only minimal improvement being noted.". Did you miss that post or do you just think US intel report during the war saying "The Panther seems pretty good!" superseded them?

 

[Darkrenown]

@Dark Renown:
So what DOES make a better tank?

Armor and firepower?
Maneuverability (at least cross-country the Sherman is beat by the german tanks as is the T-34)?
Fuel efficiency?
Life time?

Edith sagt:
Arracourt is a bad example.
Inexperienced Panther crews against experienced Sherman crews only shows that the Panther was not so good as to completly counterbalance any ineptitude on part of its operators...
But then no tank does that.

For a medium tank especially, ease of manufacture and mobility are the most important factors, because it's always better to have tanks than not have tanks. On the tactical side, a low profile and being able to target and fire quickly are key.

Arracourt is not a bad example though, because even if the US crews were veterans it would still refute the "The US always fought with overwhelming numbers and airpower" claim, which is what I was replying to. As it happens though, Arracourt was the first armoured engagement the 4th Armored Division had fought in, and while the Germans were mainly pretty green they did have a cadre of East front vets, so while the US probably had a slight advantage in crew training it was hardly a veteran unit.

 

[Darkrenown]

One bird doesn't make it spring.
I can also cite examples where the Germans attacked with overwhelming force on the Eastern Front, but still does not mean that the stereotype of the material supremacy of the Soviets wasn't true.
Especially since in that situation the Americans did not just forgo airpower, they simply had no access to it, which either makes your reply to "The US always fought with overwhelming numbers and airpower" a straw-men response (i remember the Americans fighting in bad weather regularly) or not that well thought through.

The Panther unit was completly green (those were the two panzer brigades) while the cadre of Eastern front vets still rode Panzer IVs and was apparently short on those.
Which makes one green outfit (the Panthers) getting steamrolled by a seasoned one (i forget their is this climbing skill of green - seasoned -whatever) with the 4th Armored Division also having taken part in Operation Cobra in July.

You not liking the example doesn't make it invalid. I said Panthers never won a battle against Shermans, Bluestreak said that the US only fought with overwhelming numbers and airpower, I countered with Arracourt where the US was both outnumbered and didn't have airpower.

 

[podcat]

It raises a point about the new production system in general and that is the possibility of bringing a new line of war machine into production only to discover it was a flop like what happened in reality. Could this be something that may happen in game?

No, you will know the stats when you create it. It would be pretty horrible gameplay if it wasnt so. imagine saving up XP and researching an awesome tank when suddenly *final-drive-is-shit* event fires. People would just ragequit or load old saves.

We havent really talked about reliability stat shown in an early diary yet. We'll discuss a bit how issues like this are modeled in hoi4 in a later diary.

Lol this discussion is so pointless, it´s like arguing which was the best car of the 60s.

ehm, thats not even a contest. It was clearly the Ford Mustang

 

[Darkrenown]

That is not true, at all.

...

Well yes, I kind of thought the classification of medium tank implied a certain level of gun and armour

 

[Darkrenown]

I disagree with this. Ideally, you want a mix of everything. Theres a reason why MBTs became a fad, they were the embodiment of a balance of armor, speed, firepower, and reliability.

Right, but "everything" can't be the most important. I was answering what I thought were the most important factors, because that was what I was asked.

But that certain level depends on the foe. Before 1939 40 mm of (effective) armor was quite a lot.
After 50mm AT guns hit the field in large numbers(1941+), T-34s level of armor ~70-80 effective armor AFAIK think was necessary,
and later in war, as 75mm AT guns became the commonplace, 100+ was necessary for a medium tank.

Again, sure, but I can't design an omni-tank with specs valid for any period in time. Tanks need all sorts of things; a turret, treads, an engine, seats - it'd be a pretty poor tank lacking any of those parts, but I didn't feel the need to list them because I thought it could be taken for granted a "medium tank" included those things, as well as a gun and some armour.

 

[Darkrenown]

Alexy's right on that. Too tall (US M3 Lee) and your can see well but it screams 'shoot me!' or too low and you can't see or
fire your gun. Battles were a mix of so many mydrid things basing it on one factor skews the entire view of the battle and
leads you to strange observations.

Actually DR (and I thought you were not talking to me anymore. Damn!) The report says no such thing. It says only a
comparison of the vehicles. You, not the report, are making that suposition with no basis in fact. Since Germany knew
of issues with the Panther, Tiger, T34, and JS122 I am sure the report is basing it on tactical combat results not static
firing test as it does NOT say that.

It most certainly a combat comparison not a gun/penetration report.

Really? So when the report says:

Panzer V
Is far superior to the T-34/85 for frontal fire, approximately equal for side
and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear
fire.

You don't think it's talking about the side and rear armour, you think it's a comparison of how the Panther and the T-34 would do if they both drove into combat against each other in reverse? Wow.

 

[Darkrenown]

And for goodness sake on Arracourt go to the US Army history series site and read this (you can download and read the 'green series' free.
The "green series' are the offical US history of WW2 not some series of fan book.

Page 222-233

US Army in WW2
European Theatre of Operations
The Lorraine Campaign

Why? Again, what point of yours do you suppose this will prove?

 

[Darkrenown]

The battle has NOTHING to do with the Panther being 'the losing tank' or being 'the cause of the German loss'. It has to do with a huge
number of factors. 2-4 tanks fighting 2-4 tanks is an engagement, not a battle. Ask the question again how many engagements did the
Panther win vs a Sherman or T34 remembering the Panther and ALL German armor was often outnumbered. Ask the Brits about their
thoughts on German tanks from Normandy to Caen.....

What are you trying to say here?

2-4 tanks fighting 2-4 tanks is an engagement, not a battle.

??? There were a hell of a lot more than 2-4 tanks fighting 2-4 at Arracourt

Ask the question again how many engagements did the
Panther win vs a Sherman or T34 remembering the Panther and ALL German armor was often outnumbered.

To what end?

Ask the Brits about their
thoughts on German tanks from Normandy to Caen.....

Good point. Ask the Brits how they utterly destroyed the Tigers they faced, suffering no worse than a 1:1 loss ratio, it's a good story.

 

[Darkrenown]

Hopefully you would read the offical history not the Wiki history or the WoT history of WW2...

I have quoted multiple books at you, implying I only read wikis or WoT makes you look stupid since it is blatantly false. Not to mention that a wiki article can be perfectly valid, you just need to check the cited sources. The WoT forum also has plenty of people interested in tank history, dismissing them just because they are posting on a videogame forum is nuts when you are doing the exact same thing here.

Someone (hmmm) keeps mentioning battles "lost" by Panthers. Strange I remember other tanks being there too. No single tank type
'won' or 'lost' a battle. That is just a made up arguement that I have seen stated here. No more than a single rifle, truck, or cannon
won or lost a battle. you win or loose engagements over a period of time and that is a battle.

Actually I'm not saying Panthers lost battles, I'm saying Panthers failed to win battles. Because it was brought up that the Panther's strength was its ability to kill enemy tanks with impunity, I'm pointing out that this never actually happened so this supposed strength is moot.

A battle is alot of engagements. Arracourt is alot of engagements. Therefore alot of small tank engagements equals a battle. Look at the
details please.

So your saying that battles don't exist...? Cool, new craziest thing.

British tank losses (i am not sure if Canada is included here, I have to check) and not including US losses
from June to August

799 Shermans lost (inc all types)
213 Cromwells lost (I think including some Challengers)
175 Churchills (all marks)

1187 tanks lost in 3 months. Does not include light tanks or armored cars of any type.

That would be the entire compliment of medium tanks lost as 7 US Armored Divisions in 3 months with full Allied airpower and naval fire support.

Ok, and? I'm not going to check your numbers for the moment, I just wonder why you're posting them? To what end? You keep doing this, just posting bits of data with no reason given - it's baffling. Just posting data does nothing, you have to give it context for it to become information.

Edit: And I see you've posted another two posts, with just more data without context

 

[Darkrenown]

On contrary, more logical way of interpreting what you say is:
"Best medium tank is a Jeep with an MG, easy to make, fast, cheap, thus you can have so many more of those, as having a jeep with an MG is better than not having one, and the more you have of them, the better".

You're being rather obtuse here, a jeep with a MG doesn't fit any reasonable definition of a medium tank.

 

[Darkrenown]

Probably about your mention of the Brits destroying all the Tigers they met...data without context or what info you base that on.
Since you and some others keep talking about lost tanks pr lost battles about tanks I felt shoving some more information into the
post might help someone make a more informed response, not a 'pop' one.

Just posting loss numbers does nothing to disprove, or even shed any light at all on, what I said though. Did I said the Brits lost 0 tanks? Did I say the Brits lost X tanks? I didn't say either, so what do you imagine posting that they lost Y tanks shows? Again, just spewing out data with no context is worthless.

If you can't understand that a Battle is made up of a number (a whole lot at times)of engagements between small groups and not
like the big battle at the end of the 60s movie "Battle of the Bulge" you might understand what a battle is composed of. If you
can't understand that what are you doing working on a WW2 game?

I understand that a battle is made up of engagements, but I have no clue what point you are trying to make by pointing this out. We were talking about Arracourt then you said "2-4 tanks fighting 2-4 tanks is an engagement, not a battle." I pointed out that there were more than 4-9 tanks on each side at Arracourt and you said "A battle is alot of engagements. Arracourt is alot of engagements. Therefore alot of small tank engagements equals a battle.", so we've established that battles are made up of engagements, a point that was never in dispute.

If the idea of actually reading the offical history of the US Army that fought at Arracourt mystifies you then you have serious issues
in research abilities. This is 1st source infomation based from participants. Its not an "Authors" opinion. This is the OFFICAL work
discussing the battles and engagments in the Lorraine campaign.

Look, the point of recommending another source would be that you feel it would prove something about the battle is not as I describe. The fact that you have failed to say what you think this would be is your error, not from any fault with my research ability. Tell me what point you want to make and cite the relevant part of the book.

And yes I have issues with Wiki at times as its not original source material. Some is quite good and some is weak. Always go to
the original source material if you can. I am sure that folks that write books and articles or post on hobby boards 40-69 years after
the war have access to more info but that does NOT detract from the original sources unless you can dismiss them with factual material
that desputes them. You simply ignore it all and cherry pick info.

I don't think I've linked to a single wiki article in this thread, why do you keep going on about it?

I do not consider WoT a credible source for information on WW2 history. I am sure there are plenty of folks there that know alot but its
a game site, not a history site. Were argueing history here on this forum and not discussing HOI4 (which means perhaps this will now get
moved to the history section...hmmm shot ourselves in the foot with that one....).

There's no "WoT" that spouts out information, there's just people on a forum just like we are who discuss history by posting their opinions, research, and historical citations. That you dismiss them just because of where they post is yet more ignorance on your part. If they are wrong, dispute their arguments with sources of your own. WoT does have a "tank expert" on staff, who writes historical articles on their website too; he was a US officer who commanded tanks in the Gulf war, spends his free time researching the history of tanks, and worked in a tank museum between his army career and working for Wargaming - that seems to me like a decent enough pedigree that you should argue with his writing, if you can, rather than dismissing him because of where he works.

I am sad to say it but you are doing 'poplular' research based upon preference and personal opinion and not basing your opionion of facts that
are clear. You have to include ALL credible data to get a proper answer to a question. You cannot cherry pick information and say thats the
truth. It does not work that way.

I have posted lots of facts, if you think they are incorrect try disproving them instead of posting random bits of data with no context.

Just to show that I am aware of issues with the Panther for the Panther haters out there I include this. Tho I always remember
to remember that you have to look at a subject in its entirety to see it properly, not at just parts of the subject.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf

So the only problem with the Panther, in your view, was its brittle armour?