Jump to content


Top 5 German Tanks of World War II

German tank top5 russianbiaspls PanzerIIIstronk StuGlyfe box

  • Please log in to reply
954 replies to this topic

cashdash #21 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostLancer_VMFA212, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:13, said:

Nice lists, but any list that omits the Tiger I is flawed. No tank on any side in WWII elicited more fear than this beast (when it worked). So much so that any tough tank and crew encountered by allied tanks was labelled a Tiger whether it actually was one or not. 

 

or it could have just been the allied crews were not properly informed as to what the difference between a Tiger, Panther, and a Panzer IV was appearance wise.



BeingBadNotBeingGood #22 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9808 battles
  • 5,662
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010

View PostLancer_VMFA212, on Jan 30 2014 - 16:13, said:

Nice lists, but any list that omits the Tiger I is flawed. No tank on any side in WWII elicited more fear than this beast (when it worked). So much so that any tough tank and crew encountered by allied tanks was labelled a Tiger whether it actually was one or not. 

Germans were much more afraid of the KV-1 compared to the Soviets being afraid of the Tiger.



LumpyWattz21 #23 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 619 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    01-28-2014

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 23:15, said:

 

or it could have just been the allied crews were not properly informed as to what the difference between a Tiger, Panther, and a Panzer IV was appearance wise.


nope, just glorious german engineering here.



Noggmoritz #24 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:10, said:

 

This after most of the able-bodied young men died in a cotton uniform. Right. What is the cotton RHA equivalency anyway?

 

Also, why'd they build a tank as blind as the Panther with such unsafe ammunition storage (a major cause of crew fatality) if they were averse to losing crews?

 

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 



Mami_Momoe #25 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 6876 battles
  • 5,826
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 16:25, said:

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 

 

E-75 best tank WWI :^)



LumpyWattz21 #26 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 619 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    01-28-2014

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 23:25, said:

 

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 


I'd feel much safer in a Panther too, i mean, i get to sit in a depot all the time because my tank is broken, so i don't get killed!

 

 


Edited by LumpyWattz21, Jan 30 2014 - 23:29.


cashdash #27 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:25, said:

 

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 

 

except as per what i have already posted the German tanks were easily penetrated by nearly everything the allies fielded against them, combined with the also previously stated armor quality issues, the over-armored late war tanks gave the Germans no advantage over the allies.



EnsignExpendable #28 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

1. StuG III

2: StuH 42

3: StuG IV

4: PzIII

5: PzKpfw 747 (r )



EnsignExpendable #29 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:25, said:

 

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 

 

Allied armour wasn't think enough to withstand (some) German shells. The Panthers's armour wasn't thick enough to withstand Soviet bullets. How is that a good design?



Noggmoritz #30 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:35, said:

 

Allied armour wasn't think enough to withstand (some) German shells. The Panthers's armour wasn't thick enough to withstand Soviet bullets. How is that a good design?

Yes, and if you sneezed at a Tiger II it would burst into flames. 

 

Centering your argument around late war armor spalling (while ignoring soviet cast armor quality) would have been a better approach to discrediting the German heavies. 

 

 



Daigensui #31 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 30683 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 14:35, said:

Allied armour wasn't think enough to withstand (some) German shells. The Panthers's armour wasn't thick enough to withstand Soviet bullets. How is that a good design?

 

I doubt most allied armor would have withstood the same bullets you mention. Talk about misuse of standards.



cashdash #32 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:35, said:

 

Allied armour wasn't think enough to withstand (some) German shells. The Panthers's armour wasn't thick enough to withstand Soviet bullets. How is that a good design?

 

well to be fair, an Anti-Tank rifle should be able to penetrate a tank.



Noggmoritz #33 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:05, said:

 

Actually, StuGs got most of the kills.

StuGs had more total kills but a much lower kill ratio. You missed the point. 



Daigensui #34 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 30683 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 14:44, said:

StuGs had more total kills but a much lower kill ratio. You missed the point. 

 

Define kill ratio. And no, don't try to weasel your way out of this one, give me the specific definition of a kill and a "death", and then get me the damn records.

 

Of course, you can't even tell the difference, and rely only on SS propaganda.



cashdash #35 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:44, said:

StuGs had more total kills but a much lower kill ratio. You missed the point. 

 

kill ratio doesn't count for shit when you can only produce 1,300 of something spread across two fronts with less than half actually making it to the fight.

 

as opposed to making 10,000 of something else spread across the same two fronts, that is equally effective at killing tanks, and having 90% of them make it to the fight.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 30 2014 - 23:47.


EnsignExpendable #36 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:40, said:

Yes, and if you sneezed at a Tiger II it would burst into flames. 

 

Centering your argument around late war armor spalling (while ignoring soviet cast armor quality) would have been a better approach to discrediting the German heavies. 

 

 

Are you not aware that the Panther could be penetrated by anti-tank rifles (firing, you guessed it, bullets) from the side?

 

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:44, said:

 

well to be fair, an Anti-Tank rifle should be able to penetrate a tank.

 

A light tank, there's only so much you can practically do with a man-portable gun.

 

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:42, said:

 

I doubt most allied armor would have withstood the same bullets you mention. Talk about misuse of standards.

 

There are some claims about the PTRD being able to penetrate Shermans, but I haven't seen any actually substantiated. I haven't seen anything on a T-34, but judging by the armour thicknesses, it can't be done.

 

 

 

 



BeingBadNotBeingGood #37 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9808 battles
  • 5,662
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 16:44, said:

StuGs had more total kills but a much lower kill ratio. You missed the point. 

German heavy tank battalions didn't have only Tigers. However, when you guys look at k:d rates, it's from Heavy tank battalion claims, which include kills from other tanks like the PzIII and PzIV in these heavy tank battalions.



Noggmoritz #38 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:45, said:

 

Define kill ratio. And no, don't try to weasel your way out of this one, give me the specific definition of a kill and a "death", and then get me the damn records.

 

Of course, you can't even tell the difference, and rely only on SS propaganda.

I am not weaseling my way out of anything??..

 

Kill  -confirmed/verifiable knocked out tanks (forced bail out from penetration, burnt out, etc)

Loss -losing tanks in combat to anything - as it is hard to actuate loss specific records. This includes mobility losses (tracked / fuel depleted)

 

The stug achieved a total of 3:1 kill loss ratio, most tiger divisions achieved 10:1 or higher. In our postwar allied victory world it's probably much easier for history to be susceptible to allied propaganda over SS propaganda, but that's just my opinion. (History is written by the winners)

 



xthetenth #39 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:25, said:

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:10, said:

 

This after most of the able-bodied young men died in a cotton uniform. Right. What is the cotton RHA equivalency anyway?

 

Also, why'd they build a tank as blind as the Panther with such unsafe ammunition storage (a major cause of crew fatality) if they were averse to losing crews?

 

On an individual basis I would feel a lot safer (1 versus 1 tank duel scenario) in a Panther then virtually any other allied tank of WW2. To insinuate that allied tanks were not prone to ammo rack detonation is ludicrous. Some may have had safer stowage layout, but doesn't that seem to be an afterthought if your armor is not thick enough to withstand enemy shells?

 

Regardless, I didn't mention the Panther in my top 5. 

 

The tank they wanted as the mainstay of their armored force could be reasonably expected to be representative of their design philosophies. It was a self-immolating pile of ammunition in unsafe locations with only a thick glacis and long gun that took thirty seconds or more to aim to recommend it.

 

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:44, said:

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:05, said:

 

Actually, StuGs got most of the kills.

StuGs had more total kills but a much lower kill ratio. You missed the point. 


War is all about padding that sick kdr. Who cares how many more infantry die because you don't have a tank that can help much against enemy infantry and dies because it's blind?



Daigensui #40 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 30683 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 14:52, said:

most tiger divisions achieved 10:1 or higher. 

 

Yes, because there were no such thing as "Tiger" divisions. They piled all the kills from the Pz IIIs, Pz IVs, and StuG IIIs onto the few Tigers in a group.







Also tagged with German, tank, top5, russianbiaspls, PanzerIIIstronk, StuGlyfe, box

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users