Which tank?

[Twitch]

OK it's 1944. What tank would you like to be in? I'd probably go for the Panther.

 

[KL15]

Yeah, I'd probably say either a Panther or one of those King Tigers. As much as I like the Sherman, what in the world were they thinking putting a gasoline engine in a land craft that's going to be shot at?

 

[cooncatbob]

T-34/85. The Military Channel did a show on the Top 10 tanks of all time and the Panther didn't make the cut. Unreliable and expensive to produce.
Heck, the Sherman was #10 mainly cause it was easy to produce and had good mobility. But with it's aviation gasoline engine and thin armor it was justly nick named the Ronson lighter (always lights the first time). Here a link
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/sildeshow/slideshow.html

 

[KL15]

I saw that on the Military Channel. What was number one? Was it the tank the Soviets made? Cant remember the name off hand. I also remember hearing American soldiers on various shows calling the Sherman a "Purple Heart Box" in addition to a "Ronson Lighter."

 

[plain old dave]

M26 Pershing. Only experimantal in '44, but hey, they DID exist.

 

[cooncatbob]

Top spot went to the T-34. 2nd went to the Abrams. It got marked down because it was expensive complexed to produce and all the tanks that could give it a good fight are on the same side. (Challenger. Tiger 2. Le Clerc) (Soviet tanks no match). The Pershing was a nice tank but it arrived too late to see much action in WW2 and by Korea it had superseded by the Patton tank.
I wouldn't mind being in a Tiger except they were slow and since the allies had air superiority sitting ducks for our Thunder Bolts and Typhoons armed with armor piercing rockets.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I would say it comes to the Panther (Pzkpfw. V) or the T-35/85.

The real question is what sort of crew you are with in the tank? Are you in a tank that is crewed by hardened German vets who have been in tanks since they were fighting in Pzkpfw. IIs? Or is the tank crewed by recent Soviet conscripts who don't even have access to a radio to coordinate with their platoon commander?

Overall I would say the T-34 is the better tank, but with a Panzer V with its superior optics and likely superior crew, I would much rather go with the German tank.

 

[cooncatbob]

I would say it comes to the Panther (Pzkpfw. V) or the T-35/85.

The real question is what sort of crew you are with in the tank? Are you in a tank that is crewed by hardened German vets who have been in tanks since they were fighting in Pzkpfw. IIs? Or is the tank crewed by recent Soviet conscripts who don't even have access to a radio to coordinate with their platoon commander?

Overall I would say the T-34 is the better tank, but with a Panzer V with its superior optics and likely superior crew, I would much rather go with the German tank.

You are of course correct, a tank is just the weapon and is only as good as the soldiers manning it.
But on the other hand I would hate to be that hardened veteran German tank crew in the middle of the Battle of Kursk and have the transmission of my brand new Panther take a dump on me.

 

[carter]

Until late 1942 or mid-1943, depending on geographic location, I'd want to be in a German Panzer III or IV. If possible, I'd want to serve under Irwin Rommel.

From mid-1943 until the end of the war, I'd want to crew a Soviet T-34. They never lost a major tank battle to the Germans after the 1st Battle of Stalingrad.

Of course, by this time Allied Bombing had severely restricted German tank production. They were almost always outnumbered and the Tiger suffered more breakdowns than actual defeats in combat.

Ultimately it was the inability of Germany to manufacture and support tanks for their armored divisions that defeated them on the battlefield.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

From mid-1943 until the end of the war, I'd want to crew a Soviet T-34. They never lost a major tank battle to the Germans after the 1st Battle of Stalingrad.

I thought about what it would be like to crew a T-34 as well. You are right in the strategic sense in that the Russians were winning the war from late 43 onwards. The problem with actually serving in the Soviet military is that even while winning, your odds of survival were probably lower than the German counterparts were in defeat.

As a Soviet tanker in late 43 through 45, not only did you have to worry about newer German tank designs coming online like the Panther and the Tiger, you also had to worry about the increasing number of German tracked tank destroyers which in retreat, were just as dangerous as tanks. You also have the Germans finally figuring out the tactical air tank-busting capabilities of the Stuka, along with producing panzershrecks and panzerfausts by the thousands.

The best part is that a good deal of the time, the Russian command would be willing to use you and your tank as part of a "weight of numbers" advance, even as late as 44 and 45. Yes, these tactics would work, and the Soviets would gain ground and the Germans retreat, but the Soviets were also content to leave a couple companies of dead soldiers on the recently won ground along with some burning T-34/85s.

 

[Diamondback]

If I'm confined to "dirtside", I'd want one of the Brit Centurions that just missed the fight.

If it's "any", I'd want a "flying tank": an Il-2 or Il-10 Shturmovik ripped-off from the Russians.

 

[cooncatbob]

A lot of Americans don't realize is that the Soviet Union lost more men in single campaign then the US lost during the entire war. The war on the Eastern front was brutal beyond compare anything that happened in the West. The only thing that can compare was some of the island battle in the Pacific and there of course the scale of battle was much smaller.

 

[Smithy]

The thing which nobody seems to have mentioned here is what the terrain is and how that affects the effectiveness of the tank chosen.

If you have a landscape which allows the ability to manoeuvre with some depressions for hull down cover then really one can't go past a Tiger or probably even more specifically the King Tiger. That was the reason why the King Tiger didn't have a bigger impact in the Ardennes, the narrow lanes, hedgerows and woods meant that it was awkwardly restricted in movement.

Terrain has an enormous affect upon armour, in some extreme cases nearly completely negating the bonus of armour.

Me, I'd rather be a little higher up in a Tiffie with eight 60 lbs rockets

 

[cookie]

Russian War Dead

A lot of Americans don't realize is that the Soviet Union lost more men in single campaign then the US lost during the entire war. The war on the Eastern front was brutal beyond compare anything that happened in the West. The only thing that can compare was some of the island battle in the Pacific and there of course the scale of battle was much smaller.

Even now they say the back country villages of Russia are filled with old women. When you think that the peasants conscripted to built St Petersburg died like flies and were buried "on the spot" the brutality of Russia is historically amazing when it came to "getting the job done". How many did they lose in WWI and II? 50 million? Then Communism got rid of 50 million all told from 1917 to 1990 thru gulags etc. Of course thanks to MacCarthur's smart thinking the battles in the Pacific was kept to a minimum saving at least 150,000 lives - such as the "rot on the vine" strategy like Rabaul (100K crack troops marooned for the remainder of the War).

 

[Spitfire]

If I absolutely had to, and there was no other way out, than through one of those boiling coffins....I would go for a very fast and extreemely manoeuvrable tank like the ruski T34 or this great brit - the Cromwell:

But - like Smithy - I would rather be flying

 

[BellyTank]

I'd risk it in a BellyTank- no armour, no weapons but a souped flathead Ford instead. But only on salt.
B
T

 

[Teekay44]

A lot to think about

There is more to factor here than just thickness of armor and main gun caliber. Smitty is right in that terrain has a major factor. as do logistics , tactics and reliability. I have had many conversations with a former Panther and King Tiger commander. He liked the Panther (the King Tiger had the same engine as the Panther and was woefully slow and complicated) but he stated that they were VERY prone to breakdowns. Road travel over 100 to 120 miles was iffy at best. 70 was a stretch. Some Shermans travled across France before an overhaul. A Panther and Tiger's fuel consumption was horrendous. The Germans were short fuel,parts and their transportation net to move these was disrupted frequently. Night movements became the norm. Many tanks were left behind due to empty fuel tanks and broken parts. The Germans were on the defensive in 1944 but a static tank losses a main advantage. Mobility.
Support by other arms is vital too. The former tank commander's Panther was taken out by a typhoon. Combined arms is vital to success. If German tanks moved in the open they were vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Allied artillery support played a large role too.
In the Battle of the Bulge the terrain of the ground was a HUGE factor. It was close range. Shermans and anti tank guns were making killing hits on Panthers and even the large King Tigers at close range. The Germans could not break out to maneuver. Even a M8 greyhound scored a close hit on a Panther and knocked it out. (See the book "A Time for Trumpets" for an account) A rare and lucky shot but gives an example of the close range.
Lower production was also a factor. The most numerous German was a Panzer IV A far lesser adversary. The Allieds had more tanks in France in 1944 than the Germans made during the entire war. Some American tank commanders told me that they never even saw a German tank when in combat. They were more concerned with the anti tank guns and hand held weapons
Vladimir made a great posting about the T-34 and the Eastern Front. Mine is more Western front
With everything behind it I would be in a Sherman

 

[dostacos]

I have been looking for two days the name of an American tank commander. He was the lead tank of the lead unit in almost every battle for Patton. He fought his tank from the open commanders hatch [he did not button up]. He joked about his gunner seeing all of Europe through his gun site, any time he called out a target the gunner was already on it.

One time they were stopping the advance for the day and just as they stopped he saw a tiger, as he called out the target the gunner was pulling the trigger, it was one of the few one shot kills of a Tiger by a Sherman [they had them side on so they hit the thinner armor]

On one of the last battles his tank was hit, he was thrown out of the tank and lost a leg, I think 1 was killed and 1 other wounded the other 2 were re-assigned. He demanded to be put in the hatch of another tank so he could lead the last attack...they did not let him...


I would take a M4easy8 with the 76mm gun, for the street fighting

oh, I also read that the gasoline was not the problem it was the method of dry storage of the ammo that would cook off and make them into Ronson lighters......

 

[SamMarlowPI]

Shermy all the way...

 

[jgilbert]

Tiger. Even now after all these years it is still one of the most feared tanks.

How does a T34 kill a Tiger? They ram it!