from the end of 1942,the allies were i believe on the offence,so they needed reliable,fast,d/p gun.this they got with sherman,t34,cromwell and comet.the lack of guns as powerful guns like the 88 was negated by the tactical airforces of the allies.this tactical airpower was i believe a decisive factor in the winning of the war.yours,4th wilts.
Have to say that personally I prefer german armor as more technologic (I like technology) vehicles but as they have much built-in constructive faults that mostly have not been removed to the end of war they can't stand for best tank... That's because T-34 comes first in this race for me (however it had also built-in faults but most of them were removed during war).
I am not specialized in tanks - but AFAIK Panther had KwK 42 EDIT: I've googled a lot and found translated reports of german tank commanders at The Kursk Salient battle and report from H. Guderian (also from there). Down below is translation from Ru to En by google (somewhere poor, somewhere better) of this report: "Gun: The problem does not arise with the shooting. Precision-guided and armor good. We have managed to hit 140 (10) 1500-2000 m. And a T-34 tank was hit from a distance of 3000 m. After the third shot, it was impossible to enjoy the sight due to the excessive smoke tower, causing detoxification. There is a need for periscope observation (Sehstab)! Several shells out of service as a result of anti-gun bullets in the trunk. Smoke grenades: Stanovilis absolutely useless because they have been very vulnerable to enemy fire. There is a need to accelerate the development of the hidden systems. Armour: Protivniku have failed probivat frontal armor "panther" even with the direct hit 76 - mm armour-piercing shells. 76-mm shell broneboyny probival gun turret, as well as a tank shell and "Panther" from a distance of 1000 metres or more. In most cases, after the tank immediately zagoralsya because of the large quantity of inflammable materials in their equipment. When ingested shells and mines at the top of the roof of the hull and turret tank "Pantera", there were internal injuries due to the deformation of booking. Weak points: The edges of the holes and firing personal weapons should be strengthened, as well as covering their formations were vulnerable to shelling. The same applies to hatch for the release of bullet casings left at the Tower board. Roof Management Branch has been vulnerable to missiles reflected from the mask shells. Often this resulted in the death or injury of the driver and radio operator. Enhancing your reservation is not possible, as this will lead to an increase in the mass of the tank and, consequently, to raise the number of mechanical breakdowns. Effects of mines: More than 40 "panther" in the first days of fighting killed by mines. In general, while only four tear-six caterpillar tracks and two to four strongholds skating. "At some mines" Panthers leading wheels were damaged. In some cases, undermining the mines "Panthers" fire because of the presence of fuel tanks on the bottom (leaking fuel tanks). Very often detonation in the explosion of mines cause of engine stoppage tank. Tower and the Corps: Difficult to use in the commander's turret hatch when the tank is on the slope or set on fire. New construction of manholes, driver and radio operator created many problems. During a hit shells and mines in the roof hatches wedges and it is impossible to open. Therefore, in most cases, a driver-mechanic and radio could not leave podbituyu or burning car. This forces them not to close the hatches, which, of course, weakens the security of the tank and leads to unnecessary losses. It is essential to develop a system for cleaning optical sensors, driver and radio operator, which on the whole satisfactory. Faults in the fuel supply system: The most frequent were in the fuel pump problem - a violation of tightness and membrane defects, damage the pipeline and oil feed line (20 of 52 battalions bounce as at 8 July). As a result of leakage of fuel tank fire three (gasoline ended on the floor machines). Cases ignition "panther" in dealing with steep slopes. In most cases, the actions of fire crews were eliminated or automatic fire-extinguishing system. Faults engine: During the period, they have been super. By July 8 in the 52 Tank Battalion was observed 12 cases of refusal engines. Possible reasons include breakdowns as yet insufficient experience drivers, and construction flaws. In addition, frequent work at high revolutions of the engine overheated and caused a failure in the transfer shocks. Subsequently, however, the number of breakdowns decreased. Nevertheless, here give one pause. Transmission: On the whole, worked well. In 52 Tank Battalion was observed only five cases. " So such fault-loaded tank can't be the best EDIT #2: please look to this book - very interesting!! I've read interview with author on iRemember.ru - damn good book! here is: Commanding the Red Army's Sherman ... - Ïîèñê êíèã Google If these are the only problems on what where essentailly pre production or first production run vehicles, its not big problems at all. I knew about the fuel system problems. If all it is is leaking membranes in the pump then not a big issue. See some defects with British tanks this is nothing! Some of the issues with the T34 are lot worse. Tranmission problems, burning out clutches and brakes (poor Quality friction material??) a lot worse. Kev
See some defects with British tanks this is nothing! Much as I like the Churchill it still horrifies me that in one of it's incarnations it was issued with a booklet from the manufacturers relating it's mechanical faults and how to cope with them. The fact it was never properly prototyped but initially built straight from the drawing boards also amazes me, but in wartime vehicle design strange things happen. (not that they don't in peacetime too ).
If these are the only problems on what where essentailly pre production or first production run vehicles, its not big problems at all. I knew about the fuel system problems. If all it is is leaking membranes in the pump then not a big issue. See some defects with British tanks this is nothing! Some of the issues with the T34 are lot worse. Tranmission problems, burning out clutches and brakes (poor Quality friction material??) a lot worse. yo, Kev, I'm still trying to find list of T-34 built-in faults but out of luck, it seems that there were no such big reports sent from frontline to factory... Of course instead (according to historics and documents) there were many hours of factory yard tests. Who can provide info how much where tested Panther at factory cause it seems to me that T-34 were tested more than Panther in such way?
yo, Kev, I'm still trying to find list of T-34 built-in faults but out of luck, it seems that there were no such big reports sent from frontline to factory... Of course instead (according to historics and documents) there were many hours of factory yard tests. Who can provide info how much where tested Panther at factory cause it seems to me that T-34 were tested more than Panther in such way? I think TA has some in an earlier post. There may be something on LONE SENTRY about a US test of a en early T34/76. Kev
in what way was the k.v series of tanks used on the eastern front.were they used collectively with the t34,or were they used indepently,like the churchill in the british army.i know there were tank and mechanised corps.what were the differences.yours,4th wilts.
The Heart says the Panther, the Head says the T-34! Have to go with GH here. Personally I've always loved the look of the single cast Sherman (as opposed to the later more easier to produce version). But Patton asked for best tank as opposd to personal favorite. Military historians seen to endorse th T-34 and who am I to argue. it wa the only tank capable of going toe to toe with german armor, according to them. The M4 WAS arguably the mot reliable and certainly the most ubiquitous and adaptable tank. The israeli's were still using them in the 67 war and I guess that says something. But the armor and gun was inadequate (bigger bang on later versions). It had a gasoline engine as opposed to diesel and had the tendency to "brew up" easily. So easily that the Tommies nicknamed them Ronsons as they were "sure to light every time" Of course what tank if any would any one choose to be in during WW2? I'd have to go with a 2008 Abrams myself, other than that this bugger would stick with shanks mare and a foxhole.
Much as I like the Churchill it still horrifies me that in one of it's incarnations it was issued with a booklet from the manufacturers relating it's mechanical faults and how to cope with them. The fact it was never properly prototyped but initially built straight from the drawing boards also amazes me, but in wartime vehicle design strange things happen. (not that they don't in peacetime too ). No one mentioned the Matildas, Valentine's Grant's or Stuarts. Hmmm wonder why. Anyone hav a picture of a Valentine? Did the Pattan tank see service in WW2?
My pick is T-34, this tank had shown its powers in the war. This tank pretty much won the war for the soviets. Dani
i seen a good programme on t.v about factories,one of the biggst was fixing abrahams tanks that had been destroyed in iraq.
The Cromwell is my pick. A pretty machine that showed promise for the British designs. The earlier designs were flawed for one reason or another. The economic issues denied the British Army a top notch tank at the oubreak of the war. The loss of kit at Dunkirk meant that the impotent 2pdr would be fitted for two more years. The Cruiser/Infantry Tank concept delayed development of an allround tank that would do the job. But there were some tanks that is worth mentioning. The reliable Valentine, that was to slow for a Cruiser, and had too little armour for it's Infantry tank role. The Crusader tank that was notoriously unrelible, but quick and had a low profile. But the Cromwell had just about all the bits and pieces needed. A superb engine, a proper gun that could fire HE rounds fast and reliable. Probably the best curiser tank in the war. It would pave the way for the Comet and Centurion. (IMO the best tank ever)
in what way was the k.v series of tanks used on the eastern front.were they used collectively with the t34,or were they used indepently,like the churchill in the british army.i know there were tank and mechanised corps.what were the differences.yours,4th wilts. If my memory doesn't fault me they (KV tanks) were used in separate units Tank corps is armor only unit with needed support units, mechanised coprs is unit which consists of armor units, artillery (AT, field, howitzer), mortar units, infantry etc. The word 'mechanised' used to show that unit have support of transport and have armor in it.
I have a little interest in military engineering because I’m just more on with the events during the war. But these tanks from WWII are the best. Panzer IV Panther Tank Tiger Tank T-34 Sturmgeschütz III
