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 #41 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:55

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:52, said:

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)

 

 

i already posted about the X:1 kill claims, are you even reading what i'm posting?



EnsignExpendable #42 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:56

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:52, said:

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)

 

 

And there's your problem. Germans did not count mobility losses as combat losses.

 

Also stop parroting that old "history is written by the winners" crap. You are posting numbers from Schneider, which come directly from German war diaries. Most of the famous first-hand accounts published in English are by German authors. 



DSWBeef #43 Posted Jan 30 2014 - 23:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12567 battles
  • 461
  • [W0RLD] W0RLD
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

Im all for talking history. But the last threads like these devolved into holocaust denying and personal attacks...

 

1: Stugg

2: PZ3

3: Panther

4:PZ4

5:Marder

 

:popcorn:


Edited by DSWBeef, Jan 30 2014 - 23:58.


Noggmoritz #44 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:02

    Captain

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

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:53, said:

 

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.

 


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?

I direct you to the OP, where the thread is asking top 5 German tanks, not top produced tanks or the tanks that "Germany thought was good". I'll clarify for you again though as it seems you have some reading issues: I did not list the Panther in my top 5. I don't care about the Panther. Stop posting about the Panther.

 

 

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:54, said:

 

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.

Nitpicking my semantics errors does not help your case. German battalions reported kills per type on individual merit. I'm sure the German army would knowingly want to cripple itself by misrepresenting information on equipment effectiveness. 



Daigensui #45 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 30646 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:02, said:

Nitpicking my semantics errors does not help your case. German battalions reported kills per type on individual merit. I'm sure the German army would knowingly want to cripple itself by misrepresenting information on equipment effectiveness. 

 

In the case of the SS, they didn't. They literally used the kills of all the tanks in the battalion and then divided it by total "losses" which was only recorded when a vehicle was completely destroyed and unrecoverable, and then said that Tigers had 10:1 kill ratios by ignoring the rest of the panzer.



EnsignExpendable #46 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:05

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:02, said:

Nitpicking my semantics errors does not help your case. German battalions reported kills per type on individual merit. I'm sure the German army would knowingly want to cripple itself by misrepresenting information on equipment effectiveness. 

 

The German army didn't, which is why they slashed SS kill claims in half. Post-war analysis shows that they should have slashed them more.



cashdash #47 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:05

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:02, said:

Nitpicking my semantics errors does not help your case. German battalions reported kills per type on individual merit. I'm sure the German army would knowingly want to cripple itself by misrepresenting information on equipment effectiveness. 

 

The German army didn't, the SS did, the Wehrmacht's kill reports were sent to an SS field office to be turned into propaganda, usually attributing the accomplishments of entire divisions to certain units, the SS ones.



__SNIPER__74 #48 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25383 battles
  • 6,275
  • [F--H] F--H
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

I have literally never understood how or why people come up with "kill ratios" for real war situations.

I mean, they weren't playing a 15 v 15 1km squared map  and keeping tally FFS

 

do "deaths"  include mechanical breakdowns? total losses? repairable losses?  

same for kills - does this include a T-34 or a StuG that was towed back to a depot and put back into service?

does this include tanks knocked out by infantry and finished by some shells into the hull?

 

to me the idea of a "kill ratio" in land warfare is immeasurably stupid - it is strictly impossible to isolate tanks from the overwhelming amount of other factors on the ground. 



Noggmoritz #49 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:08

    Captain

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

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:55, said:

 

i already posted about the X:1 kill claims, are you even reading what i'm posting?

The first thing you posted said 75mm allied guns were capable of knocking out Tigers which is a red herring. Yes, they could penetrate a Tiger's side armor or jam turret rings, commanders hatches, etc, but in actuality these caliber guns were not responsible for any significant percentage of german heavy tank losses. Most were mobility, aircraft and artillery, with the very occasional instance of a larger tank gun (85mm+). I don't need to read your links to know that 75mm guns were not the bane of Tigers during WWII. 

 

 

 



balmung60 #50 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 5668 battles
  • 3,016
  • [401ST] 401ST
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011
Let's see,  I could "cheat" and put together a list entirely of captured vehicles, but I won't do that.  Instead, it's gonna all be German (and Czech) stahl (and ocel, I guess).

 

  1. Panzerkampfwagen Mark III - This was the tank that helped bring about most of the German successes and was generally their main tank while they were winning.
  2. Sturmgeschütz III - Even after the Mark III became obsolete due to its small turret ring preventing further upgunning, the StuG could accept the 7,5cm PaK40 and would act as the backbone of the Wehrmacht.  When production was interrupted by bombing, they rushed to find a substitute and stuck the casemate on the Panzer IV hull.  That's how important StuGs were.
  3. Panzerkampfwagen38 (t) - The 38(t) (and35(t)) provided much needed additional armor for the Germans during the fall of France and Poland (no Czech tanks, no fall of France and Poland and no Barbarosa), was reasonably reliable, and like the Mark III, even after it was obsolete as a tank, formed the basis for many support vehicles, such as:
  4. Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer" and Panzerjäger 38(t) "Marder III" - The Hetzer may have been cramped, but it was well armored and easy to hide and carried a good gun.  Not quite as good as a StuG, but still useful and puts the 38(t) chassis to work.  The Marder III was a useful way to mount a 7,5cm PaK40 relatively early on, and did it on a lightweight, reliable chassis.
  5. Panzerkampfwagen Mark IV - Okay, so the Mark IV was actually pretty mediocre, but it was about the heaviest thing that wasn't actively detrimental to the German war effort and could accept a big enough gun to remain useful as a turreted vehicle in the mid to late war.


cashdash #51 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:09

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:08, said:

The first thing you posted said 75mm allied guns were capable of knocking out Tigers which is a red herring. Yes, they could penetrate a Tiger's side armor or jam turret rings, commanders hatches, etc, but in actuality these caliber guns were not responsible for any significant percentage of german heavy tank losses. Most were mobility, aircraft and artillery, with the very occasional instance of a larger tank gun (85mm+). I don't need to read your links to know that 75mm guns were not the bane of Tigers during WWII. 

 

 

 

 

so you read one link and assumed that all my links were the same thing. there goes any credibility you might have had.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 00:09.


Daigensui #52 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 30646 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:08, said:

but in actuality these caliber guns were not responsible for any significant percentage of german heavy tank losses. Most were mobility, aircraft and artillery, with the very occasional instance of a larger tank gun (85mm+). 

 

You know, you realize that's how the the Tiger kills were counted? Almost any "kill" was attributed to a Tiger, even if the cause was anti-tank guns, allied panzer, artillery, infantry, etc etc.



EnsignExpendable #53 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:14

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:08, said:

The first thing you posted said 75mm allied guns were capable of knocking out Tigers which is a red herring. Yes, they could penetrate a Tiger's side armor or jam turret rings, commanders hatches, etc, but in actuality these caliber guns were not responsible for any significant percentage of german heavy tank losses. Most were mobility, aircraft and artillery, with the very occasional instance of a larger tank gun (85mm+). I don't need to read your links to know that 75mm guns were not the bane of Tigers during WWII. 

 

What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any numbers for what was the bane of Tigers during WWII, or are you talking out of your ass?



cashdash #54 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:15

    Major

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

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:14, said:

 

What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any numbers for what was the bane of Tigers during WWII, or are you talking out of your ass?

 

do you really need him to answer that? i thought it would be obvious.



Noggmoritz #55 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:17

    Captain

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

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:09, said:

 

You know, you realize that's how the the Tiger kills were counted? Almost any "kill" was attributed to a Tiger, even if the cause was anti-tank guns, allied panzer, artillery, infantry, etc etc.

Artillery, infantry, etc, perhaps, but not Luftwaffe Ju-87s, and during spearhead operations where Tigers were front and center flanked by Panzer IIIs and IVs, it is not unreasonable to conclude they were responsible for most enemy tank kills, especially during times when the Panzerfaust was not in service or applicable. The same people preaching of SS stacked kills on Tigers are the same who claim the Pz IV 75mm was inadequate vs. T-34s. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

 

 



Daigensui #56 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 30646 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:17, said:

who claim the Pz IV 75mm was inadequate vs. T-34s.

 

And who is claiming that? For that matter, which 7,5 cm?



Noggmoritz #57 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:20

    Captain

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

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:18, said:

 

And who is claiming that? For that matter, which 7,5 cm?

When the Tiger was in service, so most likely KwK40 L/43 or L/48



Feminist #58 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:21

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11622 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Panzer IV was the probably one of the worst tanks the Germans fielded during the war. It was as slow and unreliable as the Tiger but without the gun or armor.

 

Source:

 

http://www.fprado.co...site/tiger1.htm

 

Scroll down to the table "Percentage Operational At The Front". Even tigers had higher availability rates than the Panzer IV.



Daigensui #59 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 30646 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:20, said:

When the Tiger was in service, so most likely KwK40 L/43 or L/48

 

You haven't answered the first one. No one claims that L/43 or L/48 could not adequately penetrate T-34s.



Noggmoritz #60 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:24

    Captain

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

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:14, said:

 

What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any numbers for what was the bane of Tigers during WWII, or are you talking out of your ass?

So after someone posts 75mm guns are adequate and fully responsible for knocking out Tigers (as if it's a common occurance) the burden of proof is on me to tell you a gun with 80mm of armor penetration is ineffective against Tiger Is and IIs? Makes sense. 







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users