tanks during the second world war

conservativecave.com ^ | June 2, 2009 | franksolich

[TalonDJ]

The Israelis lost a lot of tank officers but killed a lot of T-34’s.
training and superior tactics almost all ways carry the day. That is often what does not show up on a paper comparison of two weapons systems. If one is much easire to train with, maintain, or employ it is likely to dominate even if it's specs are poorer.

[TalonDJ]

“Most effective tank ever built”?? So why aren’t the still making them?

'Most effective' is a statement that is in relationship too and inexorably connected with the environment in which it is used.

The T-34 was superior to any tank in the field in the first 2 years of the Eastern Front

You answer your own question.

[ozzymandus]

You seem to be confusing effectiveness with mass production. The T34 was the most effective tank in 41-42. It was surpassed by the Tiger and Panther, but was built in huge numbers. The reason T34s are still being used in backwater countries is that there were so many of them made, not that they have a chance against any modern tank. T34s were even seen in use in the recent Balkan wars. If they had Shermans, they would have used them, too.

[ozzymandus]

Tee-hee, imaging being an internet expert on space pencils. You wouldn’t get many chances to show off.

[TalonDJ]

difference is that the tank is moving right along at 45MPH, and the construction equipment can’t make it to 15MPH, and they rarely, really, really rarely move that fast in day-to-day use.

The other difference is that tanks drive at that speed over anything that gets in their way. Construction gear avoids that and is abused far less. They are less likely to fire the gear abusing tank driver than the reckless construction worker.

[ozzymandus]

Most effective tank in 41-42 is definitely not the same thing as most effective tank ever built. Those are two different things.

[txradioguy]

“(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank—light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?”

The last medium tank the Army had was the M551 Sheridan. They were capable of being dropped from an aircraft. They were primarily used in the 82nd Divisions 3/73 Armor and there was a Troop (Company) of them in the 11th ACR in Fulda.

They were scheduled to be replaced by the XM8 but Clinton killed the project in the mid-90’s and as such killed the Armor Battalion at Bragg.

The Stryker has kinda take on the role of the medium tank/armored scout vehicle...but the only tank we use now is the M1A2 Abrams.

My Brigade Commander and the Battalion Commander for one of our Armor units when I was in Iraq cut their teeth on the Sheridan.

The young kids of the Airborne Infantry unit that was attatched to us were shocked at the sight of a tanker with a mustard stain on his jump wings.

[Levante]

“Even then it (Sherman Firefly) was still thin skinned and burned. “

Yes. Sadly, the Germans called them “Tommy cookers,” a Tommy being the common nickname for a British soldier.

[ArrogantBustard]

It's a bummer, I tell you.

In fact, for a variety of reasons, I'm a huge fan of the "space pen". I own several ... well used.

[NVDave]

Yes, very, very true.

I think the point is best bade that in WWII, it was industrial manufacturing that overwhelmed the Axis powers, not superior equipment. We’d probably both agree that in terms of technology and quality, the Germans made better tanks. But they spent so much time and effort refining and changing them that they sacrificed parts interchangeability and supply availability as well as total numbers of tanks.

Just about any German tank was more than a match for any Sherman tank in a one-on-one battle.

When it was 12 Shermans vs. one Panzer... the odds shifted a bit.

[Tallguy]

Was not the T-34 an American design?

The chassis was designed by American, Walter Christie.

There was a lot of cross-polination going on in the '20's between Weimar Germany & the Soviet Union. This affected everything from tank design to tactics.

Recall that both Germany & the Soviet Union were 'pariahs' during that era. Kinda like North Korea & Iran are today.

[Ditto]

Our best tank was a P-47.

LOL. And today, it's the A-10. ;~))

[NVDave]

Those too - and those wear out in Backhoes and loaders, not just on tracks.

I’ve replaced most all the pins on our backhoe within 6000 hours of use. The bushings are due too, but somehow, I never seem to get around to it because I need to use liquid nitrogen to freeze the bushings out of the hole and freeze the new ones to slip them in. Seems like too much trouble for a few hundred hours on the machine per year.

[franksolich]

You know, sir, I never thought of comparing military tanks with civilian agricultural equipment, but now it all seems apt.

[Tallguy]

The two best tanks in operation today are the American M-1 Abrams Tank and the German Leopard Tank.

I think I'd rank the Brit Challenger II ahead of the latest Leopard variant.

[jalisco555]

I think the point is best bade that in WWII, it was industrial manufacturing that overwhelmed the Axis powers, not superior equipment.

You know, that's always puzzled me. It's said that American manufacturing buried the Axis but after all the Germans had the manufacturing resources of the entirety of continental Europe at their disposal and that ain't chopped liver. So it was more likely mis-allocation of resources, both human and natural, that made the difference, not raw manufacturing capability.

[nathanbedford]

You seem to be confusing effectiveness with mass production.

Are you incapable of reading and comprehending the English language?

In my very first post I explicitly defined mass production to be an element of effectiveness. I hardly confuse the two. Here it is written in the English language:

"The Soviet T. 34 was arguably the most effective tank ever built. In making that assertion I rely heavily on the fact that it was so simple that it could be swiftly manufactured and thus the Germans were simply swarmed even though their tigers were individually superior."

There is no honest reading of that paragraph which could possibly persuade any fair observer that I confused the two. Stop being contentious for its own sake.

[Tallguy]

I think the point is best bade that in WWII, it was industrial manufacturing that overwhelmed the Axis powers, not superior equipment.

Think of it this way: German tanks were made by large (heavy) industrial concerns. American tanks were made by automotive companies. It's a different manufacturing mindset.

(and yes I know that Ferdinand Porshe had a hand in the Tiger Tank's design & manufacture).

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The coal mine where I was introduced to management had:
2 D-9s, 1 D-8, 2 980 loaders, 1 966 loader, 1 950 loader, 1 Number 12 grader, 1 Number 14 grader, 2 637 scrapers, 1 627 scraper, 1 Chicago Pneumatic overburden drill on a 6 WD chassis and 2 4600 Manitowoc draglines. We also had a 1 yard dragline for dipping ponds.
I remember pins and bushings...

[Hoplite]

If they had Shermans, they would have used them, too.

Nonsense.

Now, an M-18 Hellcat, on the other hand...

= )