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

magosjared #901 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 19:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 47 battles
  • 204
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostKanzler_Bismarck, on Feb 21 2014 - 15:56, said:

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

 

Wow, just when I thought you couldn't top yourself on making god awful ill informed posts.



locoace1 #902 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 20:09

    Major

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

View Postcashdash, on Feb 21 2014 - 10:45, said:

 

to refer to one of my favorite sources for pop history WW2, in one mission of CoD: World at War you play as a Russian soldier fighting at Selow Heights, you have to steal a panzerschreck off a dead German soldier(what he has it for i don't know you don't have any tank support)and use it to kill what appear to be Pz IVs. it takes two shots per tank to kill.....

 

conversely on another mission you play as a US marine using a Bazooka to kill Japanese tanks, it takes one shot per tank.

 

 

EDIT: also Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, they were still fighting in Manchuria when they invaded China in 1933, given that China and Japan didn't stop fighting until the Japanese surrender in 1945, WW2 was fought for 14 years. could be getting details mixed up but that statement should be more or less true.

 

 

or the best part in CoD 2 where, in a Crusader, you have to shoot Pz II's from the side or rear at close range since you can't pen their frontal armor, and they use the auto cannon, but it does major damage and has the RoF of like the 75mm. Apparently it was the only german tank model they could afford. ruined the whole game for me.



Tliish #903 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 20:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 67570 battles
  • 294
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostCavScout19D, on Feb 21 2014 - 03:15, said:

This kinda of crap is pure nonsense. This line of thinking can be used to "explain away" German victories to. The Germans were victorious in France, Poland, the Low Countries and the start of Barbarossa when they enjoyed local superiority in armor assets, logistical support and their supporting air power and artillery. The vaunted "success" of Blitzkrieg all but depended on them (and some horrible leadership by their opponents) to be victorious but when its German victories its all about how awesome the Germans were. When the Americans use artillery and air power is some kind of crutch to cover up for a poor tank design. When Germans used artillery and air power to support their Pz IIIs and IVs they called it Blitzkrieg. 

 

Really, its just excuses for why the Germans failed. 


Actually, the French armor was quite superior to most of what the Germans fielded in the Battle of France. What made the difference was far superior tactics, doctrine, training, logistics, and far better coordination with airpower. The awesomeness you speak of is rooted in those things, not some moral or technical superiority or ubermensch nonsense. As the war progressed, each of those advantages were whittled away and could no longer cover the design flaws in the equipment, leading to their defeat.

 

Similar things made American tanks seem better than they actually were, with the addition of overwhelming numbers.

 

I forget where I read it, but one source pointed out that in the prewar years, students at West Point, Sandhurst, and St. Cyr were typically given military problems on Monday and were told to have a solution by Friday. At the Staff War College, on the other hand, students were taken into the field, given a problem, and were told to create a solution within 15 minutes. More than anything else, I think this sort of training was at the root of the early successes, and the tough defenses put up in the latter years.



Naughtius_Maximus #904 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 20:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 22274 battles
  • 8,846
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

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

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.

 

Uhhhhh, no it didn't.

 

China basically didn't bother with land after the homeland + securing trade routes. Just look at Korea. Right next to China, remained autonomous from China for most of its history. Well, more like vassal state, but that's how China liked to play, as opposed to occupation.



Tliish #905 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 21:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 67570 battles
  • 294
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

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 is Paul 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.

 

 

 

I agree that Paul Carell needs to be read with care and an understanding of his motivations. Still, his book gives a decent backdrop and measure of what was thought of the Soviet armor equipment and usage by those fighting it, and it contains many useful references. When someone like him gives grudging respect to equipment and units, it lends credence to other sources.

 

So long as you are aware of his biases, it is a useful and informative read.



magosjared #906 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 21:10

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 47 battles
  • 204
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Postlocoace1, on Feb 21 2014 - 20:09, said:

 

 

or the best part in CoD 2 where, in a Crusader, you have to shoot Pz II's from the side or rear at close range since you can't pen their frontal armor, and they use the auto cannon, but it does major damage and has the RoF of like the 75mm. Apparently it was the only german tank model they could afford. ruined the whole game for me.

 

You forgot the part where they specifically state you've been giving a special type of AP projectile for this mission but still must get in close!

 

Because clearly 6 Pounder APCR or APDS would have all the trouble in the world penetrating 12-13mm of unsloped steel.



Walter_Sobchak #907 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 21:35

    Major

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

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 11:46, said:

However Russia had some advantages Germany didn't.  Russia wasn't the subject of a round the clock by the end of the war strategic level bombing that basically wrecked many of the German factories and production plants.By the time those tanks you are referring to came about, it was a minor miracle that Germany was producing hell anything!

 

Subject Russia to the same kind of strategic bombing almost around the clock, doubt those tanks would of been come up with or produced at all, or very well, like some other german tanks we can name.

 

Though german engineering didn't do too good of a job of making these tanks easy to maintain.


Well, the Soviets did have to deal with packing up almost all their tank factories and moving them East in 1941.  I would suspect this was as much or more of a disruption than anything the Germans experienced due to bombing.  Regardless, I don't see how this would have impacted the quality of the tank designs.  Bombing would only affect the quality of the construction and the numbers built.



iceofaus #908 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 21:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3654 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    01-18-2012

The T34 stopped the Germans in their tracks...literally...they had no answer for it...It was easy to produce and operate and the 76mm was deadly...and when you pick the best armoured vehicles of WW2 you need to take into account not just the armor and firepower but also the reliability,the ease in which to produce and operate them and the ease or lack thereof to which they can be worked on in the field.

      People get worked up by the Panzer MIII and such because thats what the Germans had mostly during the Blitzkreig but by the time of Operation Barbarossa they were obselete and also they lost close to 60 percent of their armor during Blitzkreig...just one of the reasons Hitler didnt close in on the British at Dunkirk.

         The best armor of the Germans for me is the Jagdpanther...low profile,sloping armor and of course the deadly 88mm and the crews and mechanics loved them...and just one of the reasons that bigger is not necessarily better as the Germans found out was the Ferdinand...massive...so heavy it sank in the mud and couldnt cross any bridge in Europe so had to be floated across rivers and when travelling by train the tracks had to be changed because of their massive width...obviously requiring more manpower.



lostwingman #909 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 22:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22777 battles
  • 24,283
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View Posticeofaus, on Feb 21 2014 - 14:46, said:

Jagdpanther...low profile

 

The StuG III was 2ft shorter than it...



CavScout19D #910 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostTliish, on Feb 21 2014 - 11:52, said:

View PostCavScout19D, on Feb 21 2014 - 03:15, said:

This kinda of crap is pure nonsense. This line of thinking can be used to "explain away" German victories to. The Germans were victorious in France, Poland, the Low Countries and the start of Barbarossa when they enjoyed local superiority in armor assets, logistical support and their supporting air power and artillery. The vaunted "success" of Blitzkrieg all but depended on them (and some horrible leadership by their opponents) to be victorious but when its German victories its all about how awesome the Germans were. When the Americans use artillery and air power is some kind of crutch to cover up for a poor tank design. When Germans used artillery and air power to support their Pz IIIs and IVs they called it Blitzkrieg. 

 

Really, its just excuses for why the Germans failed. 


Actually, the French armor was quite superior to most of what the Germans fielded in the Battle of France. What made the difference was far superior tactics, doctrine, training, logistics, and far better coordination with airpower. The awesomeness you speak of is rooted in those things, not some moral or technical superiority or ubermensch nonsense. As the war progressed, each of those advantages were whittled away and could no longer cover the design flaws in the equipment, leading to their defeat.

 

Similar things made American tanks seem better than they actually were, with the addition of overwhelming numbers.

 

I forget where I read it, but one source pointed out that in the prewar years, students at West Point, Sandhurst, and St. Cyr were typically given military problems on Monday and were told to have a solution by Friday. At the Staff War College, on the other hand, students were taken into the field, given a problem, and were told to create a solution within 15 minutes. More than anything else, I think this sort of training was at the root of the early successes, and the tough defenses put up in the latter years.

As I said, "local superiority in armor assets" i.e. the Germans concentrated their armor, while the Allies did not.

 



CavScout19D #911 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 22:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 21 2014 - 12:35, said:

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 11:46, said:

However Russia had some advantages Germany didn't.  Russia wasn't the subject of a round the clock by the end of the war strategic level bombing that basically wrecked many of the German factories and production plants.By the time those tanks you are referring to came about, it was a minor miracle that Germany was producing hell anything!

 

Subject Russia to the same kind of strategic bombing almost around the clock, doubt those tanks would of been come up with or produced at all, or very well, like some other german tanks we can name.

 

Though german engineering didn't do too good of a job of making these tanks easy to maintain.


Well, the Soviets did have to deal with packing up almost all their tank factories and moving them East in 1941.  I would suspect this was as much or more of a disruption than anything the Germans experienced due to bombing.  Regardless, I don't see how this would have impacted the quality of the tank designs.  Bombing would only affect the quality of the construction and the numbers built.

Oddly enough, others will tell you how ineffective the strategic bombing campaign was.



Dominatus #912 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
The results of the bombing campaign are rather questionable at best. For one, the massive raids against Dresden, Hamburg, etc. can objectively be stated to have done absolutely nothing. The Allies did seem to knock out synthetic oil production though, so that's something.

Edited by Dominatus, Feb 21 2014 - 23:05.


IronWolfV #913 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:05

    Major

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

View PostCavScout19D, on Feb 21 2014 - 16:41, said:

Oddly enough, others will tell you how ineffective the strategic bombing campaign was.

There has been a lively debate on the effect of the strategic bombing.  It was and it was not effective. It was because in the end it did take a toll on German's ability to produce.  Plus as far as the german luftwaffe, it did grind it down and eventually beat it because of the losses that accumulated due to the strategic air war. I'm not saying it was the sole reason for beating the german air arm, but it was a big part of it.  Though IMO the Strategic air campagn wasn't the huge knock out punch many thought it would be, but it did help the war of attrition on Germany.



Abacab81 #914 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15911 battles
  • 1,370
  • [ISI] ISI
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostTliish, on Feb 21 2014 - 13:52, said:


Actually, the French armor was quite superior to most of what the Germans fielded in the Battle of France. What made the difference was far superior tactics, doctrine, training, logistics, and far better coordination with airpower. The awesomeness you speak of is rooted in those things, not some moral or technical superiority or ubermensch nonsense. As the war progressed, each of those advantages were whittled away and could no longer cover the design flaws in the equipment, leading to their defeat.

 

Similar things made American tanks seem better than they actually were, with the addition of overwhelming numbers.

 

I forget where I read it, but one source pointed out that in the prewar years, students at West Point, Sandhurst, and St. Cyr were typically given military problems on Monday and were told to have a solution by Friday. At the Staff War College, on the other hand, students were taken into the field, given a problem, and were told to create a solution within 15 minutes. More than anything else, I think this sort of training was at the root of the early successes, and the tough defenses put up in the latter years.

 

What made the difference in France was bad deployment, poor morale, and an army rife with defeatism.  The French commander, General Gamelin was an ineffective dolt, who squirreled himself away in his headquarters, and did very little to get his army into shape.  When the French fought under able commanders, they fought well, but those commanders were few and far between.  Most of the Generals in command in 1940, were WWI leftovers with connections in government (in Gamelin's case, his patron was Daladier, I believe) and his fitness to command was based on his religion (had to be Catholic,) as well as connections to those in power.  After Gamelin was sacked, Weygand wasn't much better.   In fact, in one of the more egregious incidents of French pusillanimity during the war, was after the invasion of Poland. The French and the British had guaranteed Polish security.  The idea was, if the Germans invaded, the French, along with the BEF were to invade Germany from the west.  At that time, the Germans had ten poorly trained divisions manning the Siegfried line, where as the French and British could have attacked with somewhere around 23 divisions at the outset, followed up by many more shortly thereafter.  When Poles inquired to the French, how things were going on the Western Front, Gamelin cabled back, that his forces had gained German territory, and were "engaged in extensive combat operations against the Germans".  In fact, Gamelin did nothing.  He lied to the Poles, who were hoping and praying for relief of some kind, any kind to at least the Germans to slow down, or stop.  In England, Neville Chamberlain was doing anything to find any loophole of getting out of the pledge he had made, guaranteeing Polish security.  They declared war, the French briefly ran a mile or two  into Germany, and then ran back out again. (The infamous "Saar Offensive") and then said that they did their part.

 

The Second World War, was brought about by weak willed men who lacked any kind of back bone, or guts to stand up to Hitler.  Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Maurice Gamelin, M. Daldier, Horace Wilson, and Lord Halifax as well as others have been convicted by history. Too bad they could not have been tried, and convicted back then.  One must look at history, and be very thankful for men like Winston Churchill, and even FDR.  Winston especially, starting as early as 1933 saw what HItler was about and sounded the warnings, only to have those warnings fall on willfully deaf ears belonging to people who were willing to give Hitler anything, to get him to stop.  These were people who had no idea who they were dealing with, and acted accordingly.  It is a shameful period in the history of this world, especially in the history of Great Britain, that weak willed men were in power for so long, facing a man, who at the start of his rise to power had not a leg to stand on. In 1936, had the French met the Germans in the Rhineland, or even launched a token invasion to push back the 3 battalions of Germans that marched into the Rhineland, the Third Reich would have been stillborn. 



IronWolfV #915 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:17

    Major

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

View PostScaevola, on Feb 21 2014 - 14:59, said:

 

Uhhhhh, no it didn't.

 

China basically didn't bother with land after the homeland + securing trade routes. Just look at Korea. Right next to China, remained autonomous from China for most of its history. Well, more like vassal state, but that's how China liked to play, as opposed to occupation.

Scav, China did try to invade Japan a few times during the Feudal times. Once they got stopped by a typhoon and didn't land troops. Another time I think they did land but the Japanese defeated them IIRC.



Abacab81 #916 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15911 battles
  • 1,370
  • [ISI] ISI
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostTalonV, on Feb 21 2014 - 16:17, said:

Scav, China did try to invade Japan a few times during the Feudal times. Once they got stopped by a typhoon and didn't land troops. Another time I think they did land but the Japanese defeated them IIRC.


This is what inspired the WWII "kamikaze" or "divine wind" tactics, or at least gave it its name. . History tells of an invasion of Japan being stopped by a typhoon, as you mentioned, or, as the Japanese saw it, a "divine wind" that delivered them from their invaders. 



Walter_Sobchak #917 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:27

    Major

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

View Posticeofaus, on Feb 21 2014 - 15:46, said:

The T34 stopped the Germans in their tracks...literally...they had no answer for it...It was easy to produce and operate and the 76mm was deadly...and when you pick the best armoured vehicles of WW2 you need to take into account not just the armor and firepower but also the reliability,the ease in which to produce and operate them and the ease or lack thereof to which they can be worked on in the field.

      People get worked up by the Panzer MIII and such because thats what the Germans had mostly during the Blitzkreig but by the time of Operation Barbarossa they were obselete and also they lost close to 60 percent of their armor during Blitzkreig...just one of the reasons Hitler didnt close in on the British at Dunkirk.

         The best armor of the Germans for me is the Jagdpanther...low profile,sloping armor and of course the deadly 88mm and the crews and mechanics loved them...and just one of the reasons that bigger is not necessarily better as the Germans found out was the Ferdinand...massive...so heavy it sank in the mud and couldnt cross any bridge in Europe so had to be floated across rivers and when travelling by train the tracks had to be changed because of their massive width...obviously requiring more manpower.


I would really like to see some verification that the jagdpanther was "loved" by the mechanics that worked on them.  I keep looking at the damn thing, I can't for the life of me figure out how they could remove the transmission.  Is the top plate of the vehicle removable?



IronWolfV #918 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:31

    Major

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

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 21 2014 - 17:27, said:


I would really like to see some verification that the jagdpanther was "loved" by the mechanics that worked on them.  I keep looking at the damn thing, I can't for the life of me figure out how they could remove the transmission.  Is the top plate of the vehicle removable?

I actually think the transmission was much like the Ferdi. You had to have some really small guy crawl into a tiny crawl space and work on it. I think don't quote me on it. All I know about the JagdTiger, it was a copper plated B**** to work on.



ChiefKim #919 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:31

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11503 battles
  • 995
  • [SALTY] SALTY
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View PostDominatus, on Feb 22 2014 - 00:05, said:

The results of the bombing campaign are rather questionable at best. For one, the massive raids against Dresden, Hamburg, etc. can objectively be stated to have done absolutely nothing. The Allies did seem to knock out synthetic oil production though, so that's something.

 

What about the psychological effects on the German population? It would've appeared to them that the Allies could strike with impunity, when the enemy can apparently torch cities at will it's pretty hard to stomach the propaganda that the government is trying to feed you. 

 

There was a similar effect on Japanese civilians when US Battleships began bombarding the Home Islands. It was like the Americans saying 'That's right, we will not only bomb you from thousands of miles away with B-29s but we will go right up to your doorstep, make sure that you can see us and blow the crap out of you'.


Edited by ChiefKim, Feb 21 2014 - 23:34.


Dominatus #920 Posted Feb 21 2014 - 23:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
From what I've read, the bombing actually made German civilians more motivated, like during the Blitz for the British.





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users