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

locoace1 #861 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 14:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 21 2014 - 05:31, said:


"Trail of the Fox" was written long before Irving jumped the shark and became a full blown holocaust revisionist.  It's a decent read and easily available at most used book shops as it was published in mass market paperback form.  Irvings main strength as a writer is that he is rather engaging.  Sometimes though, he comes off a bit too engaging, like in his book " the War Between the Generals" which is a bit too gossipy to be called true scholarship.  I sometimes refer to him as the "Kitty Kelly" of military history writers.  This book is probably about as good as Irving gets.  Always read his stuff with the fact that he is a right wing loon and a Nazi apologist in mind.  Irving is primarily responsible for the myth that 250,000 people were killed in the fire bombing of Dresden, when the true figure is about one tenth of that.  Basically, he is the worlds most famous Wehraboo. 

 

The other author in Tlissh's list that I take issue with is Paul Carell.  Carell is literally a Nazi propaganda agent.  And I do mean literally.  His real name isPaul Karl Schmidt and he was was an Obersturmbannführer in the civilian Allgemeine SS. He worked as the chief press spokesman for Nazi Germany's Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.  So, I avoid his books as propaganda.

 

 

 

But books can never lie amirite?



IronWolfV #862 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 14:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 21 2014 - 08:43, said:

One more note about books.  If someone was going to own only one book on German Panzers of WW2, it should be Germany's Panzer Arm in World War II.  It's the best concise (and affordable) overview of Germany's Panzer forces that I have come across.  If I could, I would buy a copy for every Wehraboo and Panzer fanboy in the forums and force them to read it.  The book does not deal with technical descriptions of individual tank models.  Rather, it focuses on more important topics such as economics of panzer production, training and personnel policies, doctrine and divisional structure. 

 

 

I'd like to read that one, I seriously need to read up some on tank warfare of WWII. WWII I have slightly more than laymens terms of knowledge, but it's more logistically and I know much more about the war in the pacific than I do Europe.  Also I know a LOT more about the American Civil war and the Napoleonic wars than i do WWI and WWII :sad:



Chepicoro #863 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 14:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20518 battles
  • 717
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

No one on this thread said germans tanks were the best with any design faults. They had their share of failures... but make statements like "All german tanks were crap" is simply not correct and is heavily biased.

 

Otherwise is not possible to explain why the allied forces needed 6 years and huge human and material resources to defeat crap tanks. Of course there are a lot of factors, but the fact is allied forces need to outproduce germans in order to defeat them.



LVT4 #864 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 14:57

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7697 battles
  • 194
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013

Tiger chassis, Panther chassis, Pz.4 chassis, and almost every other German chassis.

The Germans were masters at finding new uses for there out of date tank designs.



locoace1 #865 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 14:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostChepicoro, on Feb 21 2014 - 05:54, said:

No one on this thread said germans tanks were the best with any design faults. They had their share of failures... but make statements like "All german tanks were crap" is simply not correct and is heavily biased.

 

Otherwise is not possible to explain why the allied forces needed 6 years and huge human and material resources to defeat crap tanks. Of course there are a lot of factors, but the fact is allied forces need to outproduce germans in order to defeat them.

 

 

Stop right there dammit, QUOTE where one of us said all German tanks are bad. Stop making crapup



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #866 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 15:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostChepicoro, on Feb 21 2014 - 04:15, said:

 

 

Finally not a Fanboy...thanks god.

 

So you side with someone who posts his sources and one is a holocaust denier? Nice. 

 



locoace1 #867 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 15:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Feb 21 2014 - 06:28, said:

 

So you side with someone who posts his sources and one is a holocaust denier? Nice. 

 

 

 

And the other is a Nazi propagandist



Walter_Sobchak #868 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 15:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostChepicoro, on Feb 21 2014 - 08:54, said:

No one on this thread said germans tanks were the best with any design faults. They had their share of failures... but make statements like "All german tanks were crap" is simply not correct and is heavily biased.

 

Otherwise is not possible to explain why the allied forces needed 6 years and huge human and material resources to defeat crap tanks. Of course there are a lot of factors, but the fact is allied forces need to outproduce germans in order to defeat them.

6 years?  The only allied country in the war in Europe for six years was the UK.  USSR was in the war four years, USA for three and a half.  Wars take time, especially when some of the combatants are separated by oceans.



Kanzler_Bismarck #869 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 23463 battles
  • 2,666
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012
All of them, Germans made the best tanks in WWII. Pound for pound all other tanks were toys.

Walter_Sobchak #870 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 15:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostKanzler_Bismarck, on Feb 21 2014 - 09:56, said:

All of them, Germans made the best tanks in WWII. Pound for pound all other tanks were toys.


That's sarcasm, right?



N00berwaffles #871 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:07

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23051 battles
  • 362
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 21 2014 - 09:43, said:

6 years?  The only allied country in the war in Europe for six years was the UK.  USSR was in the war four years, USA for three and a half.  Wars take time, especially when some of the combatants are separated by oceans.

 The Chinese fought the longest of the allies, 37-45. The Japanese also surrendered after the Germans. Obviously the Japanese lasted longer because of their outstanding  tank designs. :sceptic:



IronWolfV #872 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostN00berwaffles, on Feb 21 2014 - 10:07, said:

 The Chinese fought the longest of the allies, 37-45. The Japanese also surrendered after the Germans. Obviously the Japanese lasted longer because of their outstanding  tank designs. :sceptic:

Japan lasted so long because of natural protection. Called an Ocean. Amazing how it works. Saved Japan from Chinese invasions for centuries.



locoace1 #873 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 07:10, said:

Japan lasted so long because of natural protection. Called an Ocean. Amazing how it works. Saved Japan from Chinese invasions for centuries.

 

 

didn't save any of their held islands. well eventually didn't save them

 

or manchuria 



IronWolfV #874 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View Postlocoace1, on Feb 21 2014 - 10:31, said:

 

 

didn't save any of their held islands. well eventually didn't save them

 

or manchuria 

I thought Manchuria was part of china that japan invaded?  And yes in the very end it didn't save them, but it took a while.



locoace1 #875 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 7424 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    02-24-2011

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 07:33, said:

I thought Manchuria was part of china that japan invaded?  And yes in the very end it didn't save them, but it took a while.

 

It was an annexed part of china that japan owned during the war, headed by the former emperor of china if i'm not mistaken.



IronWolfV #876 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View Postlocoace1, on Feb 21 2014 - 10:40, said:

 

It was an annexed part of china that japan owned during the war, headed by the former emperor of china if i'm not mistaken.

Ok, thought so.  You had me all confused for a minute.  And the reason took so long to take out Japan, had to uproot them from their bases and the like and it was over a much bigger arena than Europe. Coupled with the fact that the US focused over 80% of their efforts of defeating Nazi Europe first before dealing with Japan and the US and other allies still managed what they did with the left overs.



Walter_Sobchak #877 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostLVT4, on Feb 21 2014 - 08:57, said:

Tiger chassis, Panther chassis, Pz.4 chassis, and almost every other German chassis.

The Germans were masters at finding new uses for there out of date tank designs.


Slapping an anti-tank gun on top of an outdated chassis is not exactly proof of engineering prowess.  All it shows is that the Germans were way behind in the tank designing game when they came up against the Soviet T-34 and KV and had to figure out some way to get some anti-tank fire power to the front lines. 



PlaidPony #878 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 16:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 9430 battles
  • 10,630
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011
I wonder how Panthers would do in the East. Although we already kind of know, since the French had them but either sent zero or one (which quickly got bogged down) to Indochina.

IronWolfV #879 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 17:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostPlaidPony, on Feb 21 2014 - 10:49, said:

I wonder how Panthers would do in the East. Although we already kind of know, since the French had them but either sent zero or one (which quickly got bogged down) to Indochina.

IIRC Panthers were used on the Eastern front. Atleast I thought they were.  How they did?  Beats me, but considering the Easter Stepps are prime tank country, I think they probably did better than the Hedgerows.  But again this is just a WAG.



PlaidPony #880 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 9430 battles
  • 10,630
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 16:13, said:

IIRC Panthers were used on the Eastern front. Atleast I thought they were.  How they did?  Beats me, but considering the Easter Stepps are prime tank country, I think they probably did better than the Hedgerows.  But again this is just a WAG.

 

I meant East like island-hopping East, not the Eastern front. Sorry it was unclear, it was just a thought since we were comparing the Panther and Sherman.







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users