Your favourite tanks

[Kralizec]

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

German tanks of WW2 are often said to be mechanically overcomplicated and expensive to produce compared to Soviet tanks. I'm not sure if it was a conscious decision but if so, it may partly because the Germans were shorter on manpower and had higher training standards. Expensive tanks can be worthwile if it means saving up on precious manpower.

My favourite tank would be the Sherman. The basic model was adequate against the majority of tanks fielded by the Germans (and superior to anything built by the Japanese or Italians)
Many variants were used, though not always in large numbers. The British Firefly version was able to destroy Panthers and Tigers easily enough, as long as it wasn't shot to pieces first.

[Fixiwee]

I'll go with the T-34/85 varriant. Fast, easy to produce and use, a serious canon that can ruin your day and furthermore produced in masses.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Wow, what a stupid tank the Russians designed...

Well it looks very strange.



Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_tank

Some of their tanks were weirder than all getout!!! Like the version of the T-26 that they made into a GLIDER tank??? Who on earth comes up with this stuff??



And then this mess here:



Of course, they more than made up for it with the T-34/85 and the IS-3! But still, those early-war designs were disasters!

I also like the KV-1. So cool to have a big howitzer as main armament!

[Ariovistus Maximus]

\

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

Hoo yeah; what about Whittmann? What odds did he get, like 1:50??? Of course, that was vs. APCs. But still, the man practically held up a division for a couple days!

[rotorgun]

Hoo yeah; what about Whittmann? What odds did he get, like 1:50??? Of course, that was vs. APCs. But still, the man practically held up a division for a couple days!

I think I read somewhere that the average Tiger I had something like a 12-1 kill ratio. Good thing for the allies that only maybe 6 out of a battalion of 45 would make it to the battle after breakdowns etc.

Also they were rather slow. Oh yeah, the cost was estimated at something like 800,000 DMs, and took 300,000 man hours to build. A lot of Panzer IV H Aufs could have been built for that.

[King Kurt]

Some of their tanks were weirder than all getout!!! Like the version of the T-26 that they made into a GLIDER tank??? Who on earth comes up with this stuff??



And then this mess here:



Of course, they more than made up for it with the T-34/85 and the IS-3! But still, those early-war designs were disasters!

I also like the KV-1. So cool to have a big howitzer as main armament!

I will not hear a word said against the T35 - a multi turret wonder - maybe it was a bit of an operational disaster - but I thought it did fairly well in Finland - but it looks soooo threatening, like some enormous armoured behemouth - the sort of tank you would draw as a kid.

By the way the KV2 had the 150mm howitzer in a large turret. The KV1 had a 76mm like the T34, but was heavier. The KV1 had a Whittman moment early in the Russian campaign where a KV1 held up an armoured divison for a day or 2 - see Krasnogvardeysk in the Wiki article[URL="http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank[/URL]

Lieutenant Kolobanov obviously did not have such a good PR machine as Whittmann - the KV1 seems quite like the Tiger - brilliant in certain positions, but not good all rounders like the T34 and Panther

[Ariovistus Maximus]

? I thought the KV-ONE had the howitzer and the KV-TWO had the 76mm... lemme see here...

OOP! I see you are right! Silly me. Where did I get the mix-up from?

KV-1:


KV-2:


Speaking of which, I AM DYING to go to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds someday!!! All those rows of tanks remind me of it...

And as to the T-35, well, performing well against the Finns who had no armor or air support to speak of is not saying a whole lot... and the Finns STILL managed to stomp the Russians for a good long time... truly exemplary job done by the Finns. Or abominable job by the Russians, however you like.

Admittedly it does look cool and like a kid drew it. That I will concede. Maybe Zhukov was doodling one day in the 20's and...

And you must admit that the T-28 is rediculous. A GLIDER tank??? They couldn't make it work b/c none of their planes could tow it effectively!!!

And what about:


Not a tank perhaps but definitely a tub! The Russians clearly demonstrate a propensity for ugly, inept machines in the interwar period. Although I can't say much for certain British tanks and aircraft either...

But in both cases they improved as they gained experience.

[King Kurt]

Actually I looked into the T35 and it wasn't really used in Finland - must have been a folk memory.

The interwar years had some marvellous machines - often crazy looking, but always interesting. The sad bit was when they were exposed to the rigours of war and they were often found to be lacking. This was particuarly true of planes - the Fairey Battle - England's main light bomber in 1939, but slaughtered by the German air force - and the Devastator - beautiful US Torpedo bomber, but shot out of the sky by the Japanese.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think I read somewhere that the average Tiger I had something like a 12-1 kill ratio. Good thing for the allies that only maybe 6 out of a battalion of 45 would make it to the battle after breakdowns etc.

Also they were rather slow. Oh yeah, the cost was estimated at something like 800,000 DMs, and took 300,000 man hours to build. A lot of Panzer IV H Aufs could have been built for that.

Are you sure?

IIRC, production of the Tiger took only about twice as long as the PzIII/IV and cost only twice as much to build. (250,000RM)

In terms of combat effectiveness and force projection, I believe those 1355 Tigers were a far greater investment than 2710 PzIVHs would have been. Germany would have been vastly outproduced regardless, but the Tigers allowed the Panzerkorps' best asset (its trained and experienced crews) to engage much larger numbers of enemy armor and have a far greater chance of surviving such encounters.

Also, the Tiger was just as fast as a Sherman (38km/h); and while it was somewhat slower than the T-34 series (50km/h), it was by no means lethargic.

Edit: Wiki says...

The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and Reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a contemporary Panzer IV and four times as much as a Stug III assault gun.

Generally speaking, it took about twice as long to build a Tiger I as another German tank of the period.

Of course that's by no means the most reliable of sources, but it corresponds to the books I've read.

[Fixiwee]

I'm not a military expert on this, but I have read a couple of times (at least Piekalkiewicz I remember) that strategy wise the Tiger was counterproductive. Technicly brilliant in ever sense, but The Panther was much cheaper to produce. One Tiger costs about 2 and a half Panthers, and with the swarming of russian T-34s you would have needed to counter the masses with many Panthers. The Panther being a supreme tank too, since the shape and the anti-explosion layer was superior to even the Tiger.

[Sarmatian]

Are you sure?

IIRC, production of the Tiger took only about twice as long as the PzIII/IV and cost only twice as much to build. (250,000RM)

In terms of combat effectiveness and force projection, I believe those 1355 Tigers were a far greater investment than 2710 PzIVHs would have been. Germany would have been vastly outproduced regardless, but the Tigers allowed the Panzerkorps' best asset (its trained and experienced crews) to engage much larger numbers of enemy armor and have a far greater chance of surviving such encounters.

Also, the Tiger was just as fast as a Sherman (38km/h); and while it was somewhat slower than the T-34 series (50km/h), it was by no means lethargic.

Edit: Wiki says...





Of course that's by no means the most reliable of sources, but it corresponds to the books I've read.

I'd always pick Panther ahead of Tiger. Tiger didn't have sloped armour, it was expensive to produce and maintain, it's weight must have been a terrible burden on logistics. In the same time it must have used incredible amount of raw materials, something Germany was lacking. Fuel consumption must have been enormous to get that monster to go 38km/h.

Even with all its protection, it still could have been destroyed by anti tank weapons and mines just like any other tank. I'll always put cheap, effective, reliable tanks like T-34 and Sherman ahead of such expensive and complicated designs...

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm not a military expert on this, but I have read a couple of times (at least Piekalkiewicz I remember) that strategy wise the Tiger was counterproductive. Technicly brilliant in ever sense, but The Panther was much cheaper to produce. One Tiger costs about 2 and a half Panthers, and with the swarming of russian T-34s you would have needed to counter the masses with many Panthers. The Panther being a supreme tank too, since the shape and the anti-explosion layer was superior to even the Tiger.

I'd always pick Panther ahead of Tiger. Tiger didn't have sloped armour, it was expensive to produce and maintain, it's weight must have been a terrible burden on logistics. In the same time it must have used incredible amount of raw materials, something Germany was lacking. Fuel consumption must have been enormous to get that monster to go 38km/h.

Well naturally the newer design would be preferable. While the Panther was flailing in its own teething issues at Kursk, the Tiger was destroying hordes of Russian tanks - having been operational for nearly a year prior. Of course the Tiger only stayed in production one year after the Panther was introduced, being dropped in favor of the far superior Tiger II which incorporated the same design cues as the Panther. With the Panther II, the two tanks were to have most parts be interchangeable.

Also the Tiger and the Panther were two different classes of tanks, with two different roles within the Panzerkorps.

So it was not as simple as choosing between the two. By the time the Panther debuted, the Tiger II was nearly through the design phase and the Tiger was only kept in production to avoid a gap. However, the Tiger was very effective right up until the end of the war and was a good investment; far better than 2700 extra PzIVHs, imo. I think the kill ratios speak for themselves.

Even with all its protection, it still could have been destroyed by anti tank weapons and mines just like any other tank. I'll always put cheap, effective, reliable tanks like T-34 and Sherman ahead of such expensive and complicated designs...

The T-34 worked wonderfully for the Russians. It would not have played to the German strengths, though.

The expensive and complicated German designs were the result of a careful analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Producing larger numbers of weaker tanks and dropping their training standards (to compensate for all the losses they would suffer due to the weaker tanks) would certainly not have changed their situation. On the other hand, Tigers in the hands of skilled commanders and crews were able to project power far beyond their limited numbers.

[Husar]

The expensive and complicated German designs were the result of a careful analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Producing larger numbers of weaker tanks and dropping their training standards (to compensate for all the losses they would suffer due to the weaker tanks) would certainly not have changed their situation.

They could hardly compensate any losses towards the end of the war, that's why they even recruited kids from school after all. I'd say it would have made us lose the war even soone although one could say that that would have been a good thing.

[Sarmatian]

Well naturally the newer design would be preferable. While the Panther was flailing in its own teething issues at Kursk, the Tiger was destroying hordes of Russian tanks - having been operational for nearly a year prior. Of course the Tiger only stayed in production one year after the Panther was introduced, being dropped in favor of the far superior Tiger II which incorporated the same design cues as the Panther. With the Panther II, the two tanks were to have most parts be interchangeable.

Also the Tiger and the Panther were two different classes of tanks, with two different roles within the Panzerkorps.

So it was not as simple as choosing between the two. By the time the Panther debuted, the Tiger II was nearly through the design phase and the Tiger was only kept in production to avoid a gap. However, the Tiger was very effective right up until the end of the war and was a good investment; far better than 2700 extra PzIVHs, imo. I think the kill ratios speak for themselves.

It's difficult to judge the overall impact of the Tiger. Sure, you can say it cost twice as much as PzIV and 1000 Tigers definitely were worth more than 2000 PzIV's but there are other aspects. Time and money spent on developing, for example. Germany was short on raw materials, how difficult was it to produce such a thick armour as Tiger had? How difficult was to provide fuel for them? Tiger weighed around 60t, how difficult was it to transport them to the front? To transport fuel for it? There are many other aspects to it besides simple production cost and production time...

On the other hand, Germany couldn't compete with SU or US in terms of manpower, it was only natural to give the best possible protection to tank crews...

This isn't the thread about the best, it's about the favourite tank. T-34 and Panther get my vote in that regard, Sherman being slightly behind those two designs (I find Sherman grossly underestimated, btw).

I just imagine myself as German commander and seeing Tiger destroyed by an anti-tank mine. Such an expensive piece of machinery destroyed by a simple mine. I think I would have gone crazy at that point

All due respect to the Tiger, both I and II, it's just far down on the list of my favourite tanks...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not only were the StuGs a great buy, but they're the cutest tanks ever! ^_^

[rotorgun]

Are you sure?

IIRC, production of the Tiger took only about twice as long as the PzIII/IV and cost only twice as much to build. (250,000RM)

In terms of combat effectiveness and force projection, I believe those 1355 Tigers were a far greater investment than 2710 PzIVHs would have been. Germany would have been vastly outproduced regardless, but the Tigers allowed the Panzerkorps' best asset (its trained and experienced crews) to engage much larger numbers of enemy armor and have a far greater chance of surviving such encounters.

Also, the Tiger was just as fast as a Sherman (38km/h); and while it was somewhat slower than the T-34 series (50km/h), it was by no means lethargic.

Edit: Wiki says...

Of course that's by no means the most reliable of sources, but it corresponds to the books I've read.

Yes Panzer', you are correct. After reading the article, and considering the comments by others here, there is no doubt about the killing efficiency of the Tiger versus the venerable Mark IV. Still, the Mark IV was still a potent fighting machine, making up half of the strength of the Panzer Divisions tank regiments. The Latter models were equipped with a potent long barreled 75mm high velocity gun that could still knock out a T-34 or a Sherman from 1000 to 1500 meters despite its vulnerability compared to a Tiger.

I would have to agree that the Panther was a better all around medium tank once the transmissions and engine problems were worked out. Perhaps the Germans could have spent less resources on heavy tanks and concentrated on the Panther and Panzer IVs. The 88mm could have been mounted in an assault-gun type carriage and used in the defensive role it was designed for at less cost as well, such as was later done. The Ferdinand being a failure due to lack of machine guns and anti-personnel weapons was scrapped for the much more potent Jeager Tigers and Jeager Panthers.

PS: I didn't mean to start a row about it, but it is an interesting topic even though we are talking about our favorites. Sorry guys.

[PanzerJaeger]

I would have to agree that the Panther was a better all around medium tank once the transmissions and engine problems were worked out. Perhaps the Germans could have spent less resources on heavy tanks and concentrated on the Panther and Panzer IVs. The 88mm could have been mounted in an assault-gun type carriage and used in the defensive role it was designed for at less cost as well, such as was later done. The Ferdinand being a failure due to lack of machine guns and anti-personnel weapons was scrapped for the much more potent Jeager Tigers and Jeager Panthers.

Well it could be argued that the emergence of the Panther negated the need for the heavy tank class at all, as it was for all intents and purposes a MBT - as it did not have to compromise on any of the big three (speed, armor, and firepower). By that time, however, the Tiger had already been in production for a year and the Tiger II was just coming online.

Regardless, both the Tiger and the Tiger II were excellent vehicles and although in hindsight an argument can be made that when the Panther did become operational ('43), the heavy tank program should have been canned, they were still very cost effective weapons platforms, imo - contrary to the popular notion that they were big wastes of resources.

PS: I didn't mean to start a row about it, but it is an interesting topic even though we are talking about our favorites. Sorry guys.

Completely my fault. I love tanks, so its hard to stay out of this thread.

[coalition]

gbump

[Centurion1]

Well im not sure if this thread is strictly about WW2 tanks or not but im going to have to take the m1Abrams. Yeah it hasn't had a real foe to fight besides Husseins outdated tanks but that tank is like a Raphael painting. Also does anyone know about the new Leopard type tank coming online in Germany? It has an even more empty service cite but the tech numbers are amazing. i believe it uses a new honeycomb design said to defeat even a javelin missile.

As to the tiger vs panther topic i think that we are talking to different tanks here. The tiger could take a panther sure, but is one tiger worth two panther, methinks not. Then again this if i was Hitler i wouldn't be willing to trade tanks with Stalin one for one, so maybe i would use more tigers. But the answers as always in my opinion is moderation you want a good balance of armor both light, medium, and heavy so that you can fight anything that gets thrown your way.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Cromwell.



This tank was faster than the Sherman but could not mount bigger guns, as the Sherman could with the Firefly. Its probably my favorite British model. Incidently, fans of Band of Brothers get to see one destroyed by a Tiger in the episode "Replacements" dealing with Market Garden.

[coalition]

Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .

Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .

Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?

The Soviet military fielded roughly 100 divisions, with each motor rifle division needing about 100 MBTs and each Tank division needing about 320. Moreover, all of the Warsaw pact divisions were similar and similarly equipped.

Plus, they loved to stockpile great warehouses of the things just in case AND the exported the bejeebers out of it.

[Wausser]

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world

Send out one of your more accomplished gentlemen to steal the technology.

[Pannonian]

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world

Don't know whether this belongs here or in the Cute thread.

[coalition]

Where is Michael Wittman when you need him?

[KrooK]

What can i say
Even wittman will not hold with 10 rockets into his tigers ass.

[rabcarl]

Has anyone ever played the game A Bridge Too Far? (an oldie for PC)
I'm going to go with the Königstiger just because it would devistate anyone or anything in its path.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yeah, my brother had A Bridge Too Far.

It was in the same series as Close Combat, right?

Helicopter view of the battlefield; you issue march orders with a somewhat complex right-click, select type of movement, click on end point etc?

I've played CCII; I remember watching my brother play the other ones all the time. Ahhh, good times.

Anyways, I'd agree that the Panther (specifically the G and later models) were probably the most cost-effective.

Although, being that they didn't come into their own until later, the PzKpFw IV probably had greater impact overall...

[Furunculus]

The Centurion.

Came too late for WW2 was undoubtedly the tank that would have given parity to us against the germans had the war continued any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank