best medium WW2 tank thread

[Lightning Jack]

In my opinion, there is no all round best medium tank. It depends on which model of each tank, and what task they are performing. I would not rate the Panther high in attack or exploitation roles. The reliablility was just not there. To me, the Sherman takes the cake their due to it's great mechanical reliability. However, for a defensive role, I would take the Panther. It's armor and first round hit at a distance is too much to pass up. For a mass attack or winter fighting, I would take the T-34 because it's wide tracks provide mobility and it'sease of manufacture allows much more numbers to be deployed. For an assault, I would take the Jumbo Sherman. It has the reliablility needed for an attack, decent gun, and 152mm of frontal armor.

There are just too many variances between different models of the same tank and foreign tanks to claim one is better all round. However, being a current US Army tanker, mechanical reliablility features high in my book. A tank with an awesome gun and superior armor does absolutely no good if it's broke down 3 miles behind the front.

 

[Darkrenown]

Except thats very, very relevant. The Renault FT17 was a revolutionary tank when it was introduced, but by 1939 there were much, much better designs. The bar is raised.

But, again, it's not a comparative report! You are aware it is possible to judge something on its own merits rather than comparing it to something else, right? If I bake a pie and burn it to a crisp people can say it is burnt and inedible, the fact that Gordon Ramsey can bake far better pies than me is irrelevant to the question of how my pie turned out. Similarly, the fact that the French found the Panther tended to break down in under 150km due to weak final drive is a problem regardless of what any other tank could do.

 

[Czert]

short ansver :
if you consider only pure combat power - panter.
if you want to consider all war related things - easy of production/mainanance, cost of production (money, resources, manhours), and effectivity in combat : t-34-85.

 

[Beagá]

I think the problem is actually how things will be simulated IN the game.

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? Also, weapon design is evolution. It´s not like in 1945 anyone would be able to build a F22 is it? You have to try something new, then you find flaws, then you fix them. Which is something arguably VERY difficult to do if you´re 1944 Germany, bombed and with lack of raw materials.

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, and no, building Panzer IV wouldn´t make Germany win the war. And I seriously doubt it would even make the war go on longer and with more casualties on the allied side. When Panzer IV with higher velocity 75mm gun became really operational? 1942. Would it make more difference if more were available in 1943? Doubt it. 1941? Now there things become more interesting. Will the game allow it?

Now assault guns like StuG is another matter, but the price they would pay would be decreased offensive capability.

 

[Darkrenown]

Why does the Panther get a free pass because a 45 ton tank in '43 was a bad idea? You're saying the whole idea was bad and, according to you, they didn't have the resources to build it, but they did so anyway and it went badly but it's unfair to criticise them because least they tried?

 

[GarfunkeL]

And the Japanese and Americans lost a huge fraction of their carriers at the start of the war and nobody says they were awful. You know who didn't lose carriers? The Germans, that's who.

Neither Japanese nor the Americans lost huge fraction of their carriers at the start of the war.

Seriously though, if you're considering using a metric to determine whether or not something was an effective weapon of war, try to think through how effective at war a nation that tried their best to maximize that one metric would be. For things like loss rates, a nation which builds no tanks or doesn't send them to battle would have the most effective tanks which is kind of hilarious when you think about it that way.

If T-34 had been better, the Soviets would not have lost so many of them! There are German reports where a T-34 was shot dozens of times by a PaK 37. Now, you can say that T-34 had good armour because it wasn't destroyed by a small calibre AT-gun but it's also painfully clear that the small crew and the poor visibility meant that the Germans got "freebie" shots at T-34's.

Seriously, you cannot just ignore loss statistics entirely because you don't like them. We just need to place them in proper context. And when it comes to the Navy, we can safely say that Kriegsmarine wasn't that good - because so many engagements between them and the Royal Navy turned out to be defeats for Germans.

There are three different levels of quality to consider for any weapon system: the tactical, the operational and the strategic.

If we only consider strategic, then the Sherman wins because Americans could turn them out in massive numbers and they won the war. Similarly, the T-34 is a strategically a good tank for the same reasons. On the operational level, priorities change - you value reliability and fuel economy/range more than anything else. On the tactical level, the priorities change yet again - now survivability, visibility and the ability to destroy enemy tanks becomes most important. There is not a single tank that clearly excels in all three categories.

For Arracourt, it's worth to recap the basics:
Germans had 262 AFV's, which included 107 Panthers and 75 Panzer IVs. The German Panzer brigades were total rookies, the German 11th Panzer Division was an experienced formation. The Americans had many fewer AFV's but they were all experienced by then, as the 4th Armoured had been in combat for months. So it wasn't a case of veteran Germans against rookie Americans. Another mistake is to say that air power played no part, as Americans did use tactical airpower from 21st September onwards and many German units had come under air attacks while marching towards the front even before the battle. It's also noteworthy that 5th Panzer Army lacked recon assets, meaning that the Panzer brigades with their Panthers advanced practically blind against the Americans.

Finally, for some reason, the Germans repeated the same attacks multiple times, instead of changing their operations plan.

 

[Beagá]

Dude what?

I´m not saying the Panther is awesome or crap, I´m just saying that strategically the other options also were bad. But the thing is, to make weapons evolve you have to try something NEW. Building Panzer IV would not be solution because it´s just one variable in Germany´s awful situation and it DID have disadvantages. IF they could build Panzer IV with 75mm in large numbers in 1941, THEN it could make a difference. But not by 1943.

And the allies too sucked when they tried something new, see Pershing and all its issues. And that is for a country who had ample resources.

Also, you should drop your tone. You have no idea how arrogant you can sound. If talking to fórum "serfs" is too much for you, why you bother?

 

[Darkrenown]

So because Germany was losing the war there's no point talking about their tanks? I guess by that logic since the Allies were winning the war there's no point talking about their tanks either. But if that's what you think, why pop into a thread called "best medium WW2 tank thread", a thread all about talking about tanks? It's fine if you don't want to talk about tanks, just leave the thread.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

T-34 series: The lack of radio in the early models was probably not the best idea, but apart from that I'd say that it was the best all-around tank design. Sloped armor, wide tracks, undemanding engine, decent armament.
Sherman series: I am not an expert, but I'd say it is the best design from an economic perspective. Adapted quite well into the late war. Might have had a bad start with all that Zippo issues, though.
Panther series: While powerful as a combat unit, I'd say the early design flaws like the shot trap prevent this from being on top. The design itself was probably the next tier of medium tank units.
Valentine series: All I can say is that I liked using them in the Combat Mission series, but I have no idea about their actual RL performance. I'd probably rank them below the rest.

If I had to choose in HOI4 terms were strategic aspects are important, I'd probably pick the T-34 from the list.

 

[Gamer_1745]

From a HOI IV players view of late war German tanks there are different conditions for Germany. If Germany is losing similar to history then I feel the criticism of Panthers, Jagdtiger & others which were rushed into production under stressful conditions are valid (even if I think they are over stated). Now if Germany is winning the war and has time for proper testing before starting mass production and access to needed materials I would like to be able to build well built (reliable) Panthers.

Can we have conditions that set the type of Panther being built? Control/have access to certain strategic resources and control provinces like Paris, Rome & Moscow to build high quality tanks?

 

[SergeantPunch]

the stuka dive bomber was the best medium tank of the war

 

[Beagá]

So because Germany was losing the war there's no point talking about their tanks? I guess by that logic since the Allies were winning the war there's no point talking about their tanks either. But if that's what you think, why pop into a thread called "best medium WW2 tank thread", a thread all about talking about tanks? It's fine if you don't want to talk about tanks, just leave the thread.

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.

Everyone knows the statistics for Panther etc, their gun, range armor etc. The bottom line is: was building Panther a BAD choice for Germany? IMO it would only be if

It removed too many resources from Panzer IV production in 1941 and 42, when it WOULD make a difference.

It´s THAT simple. Because weapons have to evolve. Expecting Germany to build the perfect 45 ton tank in 1943 is stupid. Hell, even if were the allies it would be stupid. So if Panzer IV wouldn´t be enough to make a difference they WOULD have to build a new generation tank. Would it have issues? Of course it would. But the fact is, Panzer IV WOULD be obsolete eventually. Do you want to fight tanks with 122mm guns and 100mm of sloped armor in a Panzer IV?

From a HOI IV players view of late war German tanks there are different conditions for Germany. If Germany is losing similar to history then I feel the criticism of Panthers, Jagdtiger & others which were rushed into production under stressful conditions are valid (even if I think they are over stated). Now if Germany is winning the war and has time for proper testing before starting mass production and access to needed materials I would like to be able to build well built (reliable) Panthers.

Can we have conditions that set the type of Panther being built? Control/have access to certain strategic resources and control provinces like Paris, Rome & Moscow to build high quality tanks?

It´s more that new generation weapons are Always tricky to build, and that was a fact with all countries (hell, see how long it took for the allies to have decent jets). IMO you should have the option to rush production of new stuff or use more resources and make a more reliable version.

 

[GarfunkeL]

the stuka dive bomber was the best medium tank of the war

Not really. The effectiveness of air power in directly knocking out tanks is vastly exaggerated. The chances of even hitting a moving tank were very slim. Tactical air power was best used in attacking fixed defences and harassing supply columns. The British Office of Research and Analysis went over Normandy once the front had moved on and found that the claims by fighter-bomber pilots were grossly inflated. Turns out at that mere 7% of German AFV's in Normandy were destroyed by air power. Similarly, Soviets found out that mere 5% of destroyed German tanks had been done by airplanes, and Luftwaffe had similar experiences. AT-guns and other tanks were the biggest tank killers, not planes.

And T-34/76 was the most common Soviet tank in 1942 and this shows up in the statistics - more than half of the lost Soviet tanks for 1942 were T-34's and KV-1's.

 

[SergeantPunch]

T-34 series: The lack of radio in the early models was probably not the best idea, but apart from that I'd say that it was the best all-around tank design. Sloped armor, wide tracks, undemanding engine, decent armament.
Sherman series: I am not an expert, but I'd say it is the best design from an economic perspective. Adapted quite well into the late war. Might have had a bad start with all that Zippo issues, though.
Panther series: While powerful as a combat unit, I'd say the early design flaws like the shot trap prevent this from being on top. The design itself was probably the next tier of medium tank units.
Valentine series: All I can say is that I liked using them in the Combat Mission series, but I have no idea about their actual RL performance. I'd probably rank them below the rest.

If I had to choose in HOI4 terms were strategic aspects are important, I'd probably pick the T-34 from the list.

I agree the t-34 as a tank was the best of the war. Certainly in 1941 it was better than the germans but this was the year the soviets suffered huge losses of men, material and territory to the germans and it shows how much more important tactics, training and other military technology is than simply having a better machine.

The experts at wikipedia have an interesting page on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

So wow, this game is about altering history and as a player if you can get german tank development a head of time by 1 year you can or should be able to defeat the soviets easily.

This is the another difficulty developers have in making a game like this and they mentioned it clearly in their mission statement for the game lol. We have the crystal ball and they have to try and balance things bearing that in mind.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Not really. The effectiveness of air power in directly knocking out tanks is vastly exaggerated. The chances of even hitting a moving tank were very slim. Tactical air power was best used in attacking fixed defences and harassing supply columns. The British Office of Research and Analysis went over Normandy once the front had moved on and found that the claims by fighter-bomber pilots were grossly inflated. Turns out at that mere 7% of German AFV's in Normandy were destroyed by air power. Similarly, Soviets found out that mere 5% of destroyed German tanks had been done by airplanes, and Luftwaffe had similar experiences. AT-guns and other tanks were the biggest tank killers, not planes.

And T-34/76 was the most common Soviet tank in 1942 and this shows up in the statistics - more than half of the lost Soviet tanks for 1942 were T-34's and KV-1's.

Again the experts at wikipedia have something to say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat."

Well considering the soviets outclassed the germans tank vs tank something has to explain why the soviets still lost so badly.

More info

"The Ju 87 took a huge toll on Soviet ground forces, helping to break up counterattacks of Soviet armour, eliminating strongpoints and disrupting the enemy supply lines. A demonstration of the Stuka's effectiveness occurred on 5 July, when StG 77 knocked out 18 trains and 500 vehicles.[134] As the 1st and 2nd Panzer Groups forced bridgeheads across the Dnieper river and closed in on Kiev, the Ju 87s again rendered invaluable support. On 13 September, Stukas from StG 1 destroyed the rail network in the vicinity as well as inflicting heavy casualties on escaping Red Army columns, for the loss of just one Ju 87.[135] On 23 September, Hans-Ulrich Rudel (who was to become the most decorated serviceman in the Wehrmacht) of StG 2, sank the Soviet battleship Marat, during an air attack on Kronstadt harbour near Leningrad, with a hit to the bow with a single 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb.[136]

Also during this action, Leutnant Egbert Jaeckel sank the destroyer Minsk, while the destroyer Steregushchiy and submarine M-74 were also sunk. The Stukas also crippled the battleship Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya and the destroyers Silnyy and Grozyashchiy in exchange for two Ju 87s shot down.[137]

Elsewhere on the Eastern front, the Junkers assisted Army Group Centre in its drive toward Moscow. From 13–22 December, 420 vehicles and 23 tanks were destroyed by StG 77, greatly improving the morale of the German infantry, who were by now on the defensive.[138] StG 77 finished the campaign as the most effective Sturzkampfgeschwader. It had destroyed 2,401 vehicles, 234 tanks, 92 artillery batteries and 21 trains for the loss of 25 Ju 87s to hostile action.[139]"

Clearly the best medium tank of the war is the stuka, also the best artillery as well.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Well, with the armor/penetration mechanics added in HOI3 TFH it would actually be possible to model these significant tech advantages in armored warfare. It would require a lot of balancing effort, though.
Which reminds me, do we even know if penetration will make it back into HOI4? I really hope so, it had som much potential...

Well considering the soviets outclassed the germans tank vs tank something has to explain why the soviets still lost so badly.

The soviet army was in in a pitiful state after Stalin's purge. That is all the explanation you need.

As for the JU-87: It was only a significant factor in the early war while Germany had air superiority, a lesson the Germans quickly learned during the Battle of Britain.
And the performance of an ace does not really proof all that much for the vehicle used. Just because Wittmann scored well with his Tiger tank the Tiger itself didn't become a great vehicle.

 

[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.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I agree the t-34 as a tank was the best of the war. Certainly in 1941 it was better than the germans but this was the year the soviets suffered huge losses of men, material and territory to the germans and it shows how much more important tactics, training and other military technology is than simply having a better machine.

The experts at wikipedia have an interesting page on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

So wow, this game is about altering history and as a player if you can get german tank development a head of time by 1 year you can or should be able to defeat the soviets easily.

This is the another difficulty developers have in making a game like this and they mentioned it clearly in their mission statement for the game lol. We have the crystal ball and they have to try and balance things bearing that in mind.

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).

 

[GarfunkeL]

Again the experts at wikipedia have something to say

Honestly, you are equating Wikipedia with experts? Hey, with Wikipedia you always have to double-check what sources an article uses. Remember that anyone can write anything in there. Unless a proper source is given - including page numbers - you should take it with a grain of salt.

And Rudel can claim whatever he wants. His claims were further inflated by German propaganda. I much prefer to rely on actual analysis done afterwards.

For example, Soviet war-time study of T-34 combat losses between July 1941 and September 1942 shows that only 4.7% of them were destroyed by 20mm cannon. Perhaps some of the 7.1% with kill-reason "unknown" can be attributed to aircraft, but that's a pitiful percentage when you factor in the costs of building tactical air forces. Source: S. J. Zaloga, L.S. Ness, Red Army Handbook 1939-1945, Sutton Publishing, Stroud, UK, 1998, p. 179, table 6.1

Another source that destroys this myth is Tank Forces in Defense of the Kursk Bridgehead, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Volume 7, No 1, March 1994, p. 114, where it shows that between 2-5% of Soviet AFV losses in the battle of Kursk were due to air attacks.

Pilots are notoriously bad when it comes to kill-claims and this happens with all air forces.

 

[keynes2.0]

Here is a nice article on issues with the T34. Now if your going to look for problems your going to find them with all tanks. Sherman tank
is the poster child of how not to build a tank to tank tank (that sounds wierd but does make sense..in a way....)

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

You tell people to read real history and then you post link to a error riddled site like this.

I already mentioned the post-war French use of it is somewhat irrellevant considering that the Panther was hopelessly obsolete by then, and it says a lot when the French picked the Panther over the Sherman and Cromwell which were no doubt available in great quantities. As for the Russian impressions of fighting it, the Russians were impressed enough to field captured models whenever possible.

The French had many more Shermans and used the Shermans in a combat role, unlike the Panthers.

It says a lot that the people who tried both preferred the Shermans.

Do you want to fight tanks with 122mm guns and 100mm of sloped armor in a Panzer IV?

Yes!

If the alternative is fighting with a badly designed Panzer V, the Panzer IV is the better choice. But if the alternative is fighting with a Panzer V weighing a bit more then 30 tons as originally proposed, the Panzer V would have been a good choice.

Britain wasn't making crap tanks at the end of the war and they are perhaps the better point of comparison. Like Germany, Britain did many different designs. Unlike Germany Britain didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater with it's later design. Late war British tanks dont have people scratching their head at unreliability or weirdly weak side armor or massive weights.

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat."

You are quoting wartime propoganda as if it were true.

It may interest you to learn that the field of history has seen some innovations since Herodotus.