Added: 2 years ago
From: TheUnbridged
Views: 9,117
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (16)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • One major problem was that existing german vehicles and designs werent update with sloped armor and more effective guns.

    If the Stug 3/4, Panzer 4, Ferdinand, and other similar vehicles using blocking designs had been upgraded, there would be much less a gap between them and the more legendary Panther, Tiger 2, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger.

  • @ChaosTicket

    You can't simply redo an existing design with a new feature like sloping armour, it would require a considerable redesign of components or production techniques, in the case of the panzer IV sloping armour was not possible as it would have overburdened the chassis, doing would have required an entirely new suspnsion and in efefct a new tank.

  • The German tanks were technically the best but were far from being the best for purpose - the purpose being winning the war - the allied tanks were better for that purpose as history has proved - dozens of allied tanks were produced for every German tank - that makes them better for purpose.

  • @Twirlyhead True... Allied tanks was practical at dat time & suitable for mass productions... Also it's easier to deploy its tank cuz of its simple materials of making it... Like German's tank, it requires much more materials, thus making it deployment not very effective... & dun forget its size...

  • @TheUnbridged The Russians however (you might not care) did have the 'expendible' policy - a mass of T-34/85 and IS-2's were annihlated in a battle during May '44 by a squad of Panthers using tactics and optics superior to the Russian tanks. Nonetheless the Allies did upgun thier lethality programs - the QF-17 Pounder in a Mayfly Sherman (later Comet tanks), M26 Pershing with the 90mm M3 and the Josef Stalin Tank 1944m models with slightly improved 122mm guns...

  • @Twirlyhead If you don't count the 'numbers and expendible' what not policy - the Russians were amongst the ones who perfected this investment and tactics which helped win WWII. Take the T-34/85 - against a Panther and Tiger it has a chance to knock them out at 1000 yards but must get within 500 yards to have a chance to destroy them - where both German tanks could destroy it easily before it could even respond. But as you said for every 1 T-34/85 or Sherman out another 2 to 12 could replace it.

  • @Twirlyhead BTW - of the Panther variants - the Jagdpanther takes a good spotlight as it inherited the benefits of the Panther chassis plus the PaK 43, solving the Elefant speed and the Nashorn armour. How does a Panther fare to a T-34/85? The 85 has a bigger caliber in delivering a one-one HE shell and the Russian tank was faster...but the Russian tanks didn't exactly have perfect ergonomics nor excellent optics yet the Panther's PaK 42 has good accuracy and potent trajectory despite being 75mm

  • best is Russian

    T-28 (No army had a series-production medium tank comparable to the T-28 for several years.)

    The T-28 had a number of advanced features for the time, including radio (in all tanks) and anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts

    and in WW2

    T-34

    IS-2 and IS-3

  • @vaninec

    T-28 also came with uhge disadvantages, they couldn't be up-armoured and remained stuck with weak armour for a vehicle of that size.

    They were also prone to mechanical breakdowns, difficult to produce and lacked an efefctieve gun.

    T-34 is also not the best, this tank has serious design flaws, poor quality armour, no radio, no cupola, 2 man cramped turret in the 76mm armed version.

    main armerment remained weak throughout the war even when upgraded, poor optics.

  • @Dreachon T-28?? I thought Russia more 2 naval like US... They r feared for their Submarines... Or so I thought...

  • @Dreachon With regards to T-28 (US version) it wasn't really a tank like the Brit's Tortoise Assault gun due to a lack of a turret right? I also read the Americans suffered drawbacks when they tested the M26 Pershing prototypes with 155mm guns - these prototypes were T30. Other tests were the T29, T32 and T34 with the Pershing Chassis. But wasn't the Russian T-28 used in WWII early stages to make for the losses suffered in '41? And it was shown at Ghalkin Ghol the T-28 suffered armor problems.

  • @HeirofGojira91

    The russian T-28 was used right from the start but they suffered heaily thanks to their low armour and high profiles, by the end of 19431 almost noone were left on the frontlines.

  • It wasn't the best tank in ww2, maybe it was the best medium tank of ww2 or the best balanced tank in ww2, never mind it was a great piece of maschine

  • @eethomasf32 and whats the best tanj in ww2 =?

  • @Neckomack Its actually pretty difficult to state such but many say the Panther was in terms of engineering, performance and firepower/protection was the best Medium Tank. The T-34/85 takes the limelight in terms of general performance and ease of production + prolific numbers (even more so than a Sherman). Now in terms of heavier tanks there was the M26 Pershing, Comet tank and Tiger I tank. The IS-2 really only had the 122mm gun - but the IS-3 influenced future tank designs to an extent :)

  • @eethomasf32 Of course there was also the excellent Jagdpanther! :D I actually like the Jagdpanther more than the Panther but thats personal preference that is :) Inheriting the benefit of the Panther's armor with an 88mm PaK 43 version gun makes it quite formidable for a TD.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more