Most Effective Tank of the war.

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

I know Im gonna get alot of heat for this but here it goes:
PzKpfw V Panther Heavy Tank

As World War 2 progressed, the Germans maintained there tank superiority by
bringing the PzKpfw V and VI heavy tanks into service in the 40,640-60,960kg/ ton range, well ahead of the Allies. PzKpfw V, or the Panther more commonly known, owes much of its design to a detailed study undertakenof the Russian T-34 which proved greatly superior to PzKpfw III and IV. The Ausk D model Panther, appearing in 1943, weighed 43,690kg/43 tons, mounted a 7.5cm/2.95in KwK42 L/70 gun and had a crew of five. With a top speed of about 45kph/28mph and a radius action of 200km/124.3 miles, it was a formidable opponent.
A total of 850 of the Ausf D model were built, and it was the first to go into service despite the fact that the next model following it was Aushf A! Some 2,000 Ausf As were built between August 1943 and May 1944. It had various improvements over its predecessor, including better running gear, thicker armour and a new commander’s cupola. Teh Ausf G was produced as a result of combat experience with the Ausf D and A. Over 3,000 Ausf Gs were built between March 1944 and April 1945. The hull was redesighned, now without the driver’s vision visor- which mus have been a vulnerable spot. Variants included command and obsevation tanks and also the ARV(Armoured Recovery Vehicle) Berepanther.

PzKpfw V Ausf G Heavy Tank
Entered service:1944
Crew:5
Weight: 45,465kg/45.5 tons
Dimensions: Length-8.87m/29ft 1in Height (over turret hatch)- 2.97m/9ft 9in Width-3.43/11ft 3in
Armament: Main- 7.5cm/2.95in KwK42 L/70 gun
Secondary- 2x7 .92mm/0.312m machine-guns
Armour: Maximum- 100mm/3.94in
Powerplant: Maybach Hl230P30 V12 petrol, 522kW/700hp
Performance: Speed-46kph/28.75 mph Range-200km/125

250px-IS-2-44.jpg

Panther1.jpg

300px-PantherTankColor.jpg

PanzerkampfwagenV-2-1.JPG

#2

I know Im gonna get alot of heat for this but here it goes:
PzKpfw V Panther Heavy Tank

As World War 2 progressed, the Germans maintained there tank superiority by
bringing the PzKpfw V and VI heavy tanks into service in the 40,640-60,960kg/ ton range, well ahead of the Allies. PzKpfw V, or the Panther more commonly known, owes much of its design to a detailed study undertakenof the Russian T-34 which proved greatly superior to PzKpfw III and IV. The Ausk D model Panther, appearing in 1943, weighed 43,690kg/43 tons, mounted a 7.5cm/2.95in KwK42 L/70 gun and had a crew of five. With a top speed of about 45kph/28mph and a radius action of 200km/124.3 miles, it was a formidable opponent.
A total of 850 of the Ausf D model were built, and it was the first to go into service despite the fact that the next model following it was Aushf A! Some 2,000 Ausf As were built between August 1943 and May 1944. It had various improvements over its predecessor, including better running gear, thicker armour and a new commander’s cupola. Teh Ausf G was produced as a result of combat experience with the Ausf D and A. Over 3,000 Ausf Gs were built between March 1944 and April 1945. The hull was redesighned, now without the driver’s vision visor- which mus have been a vulnerable spot. Variants included command and obsevation tanks and also the ARV(Armoured Recovery Vehicle) Berepanther.

PzKpfw V Ausf G Heavy Tank
Entered service:1944
Crew:5
Weight: 45,465kg/45.5 tons
Dimensions: Length-8.87m/29ft 1in Height (over turret hatch)- 2.97m/9ft 9in Width-3.43/11ft 3in
Armament: Main- 7.5cm/2.95in KwK42 L/70 gun
Secondary- 2x7 .92mm/0.312m machine-guns
Armour: Maximum- 100mm/3.94in
Powerplant: Maybach Hl230P30 V12 petrol, 522kW/700hp
Performance: Speed-46kph/28.75 mph Range-200km/125

250px-IS-2-44.jpg

300px-PantherTankColor.jpg

Panther1.jpg

PanzerkampfwagenV-2-1.JPG

#3

Why did Germany make tigers and panthers? If panthers are better than tigers than they should of focused on the production of the panthers only. thus they would get more panthers and replacements would be more available.

#4

Am I missing something, or wasn’t the Panther a – MEDIUM tank?

#5

Last thing I heard…yes. With 43-45,5 tons certainly at the upper limit but still “medium”.

#6

Panther = medium tank, Tiger = heavy tank. Different tanks for different tasks.

#7

Threads merged. Do NOT spam the forum with multiple identical topics gentlemen!

#8

Hey guys ? Why are we getting hung up on wether the Panther is a medium or a heavy Tank? The thread is about the most effective Tank of the War… No matter whether it was medium or heavy the Panther being called the most effective tank of the war should raise some eyebrows. It obviously was a great Tank but the most effective?

Was the Panther the MOST effective being able to take the fight to the enemy on difficult terrain? Most Effective means reliable, Was the Panther in the field ready to fight or was it being repaired? Individually it was effective but not enough numbers produced. This is a moot subject…

#9

As far as I can see the Panther falls down in one place. It’s lack of side armour means that as an offensive vehicle it is flawed. On defence it is great but in the attack you are much more likely to take flank shots. It has side armour of 45-50mm which is no better than a T34/76 and was vulnerable to almost any allied AT at combat ranges. That said strategically Germany was on the defensive and this was less of an issue.

#10

Remember were talking about the second model PzKpfw V Ausf G Heavy Tank.

#11

the way the us beat the panzers they outnumbered them and then killed them

#12

for every 1 tiger tank the germans could have made 4 panzer mk 4s

#13

dont they already have this thread?

#14

the way the us beat the panzers they outnumbered them and then killed them

Don’t forget air power!

#15

Hi flamethrowerguy has allready answered your specific question, in that the Panther was a medium and the Tiger was a heavy, so that there was a legitimate requirement for both, but in having asked that question you may be under the impression that since the Third Reich was a totalitarian state in a country [ i.e. Germany ] with reputation for order and efficency, things were done in an well planned and somewhat rational manner in the Reich. The reality is that, contrary to what one would expect, Britain organized a much more efficent War economy than the Third Reich and in Germany numerous projects and activities were engaged in at huge resource cost purely for reasons of internal politics, personal empire building, monetary greed etc.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#16

About most effective tank of ww2 the Military CHannel bet me with arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE&feature=related

#17

T-34 rocks!

#18

Most effective in combat?
No. That goes to the Tiger 1. Greater gun-range with more effective optics and main gun.
Against those factors, the Tiger 1 having less speed and greater weight does not count for much, because it can kill at a greater distance, more often, by reason of larger ammunition capacity than either the T34/76 or the T34/85.
A Tiger 1 carries 92 88mm shells in fully loaded condition, where the T34/85 carries 60. (I admit I’m open to correction on that T34/85 figure, but I certainly do not recall seeing any larger figure mentioned in recent years.)

Most effectively employed?
Yes. Very definitely the T34, especially in T34/85 form has to be just about THE most effectively employed tank in WW2.
Mainly because the Russians had VAST numbers of T34/85’s to throw at just about any attack necessary.
Also, the T34/85 was designed for a war of mobility, where its’ opponent was (in effect) designed for a snipe-then move, then-snipe, type of warfare. It has to be said that that design influence does have an effect on both main gun employment and ammunition capacity.

Kind and Respectful Regards Chevan my friend, Uyraell.

#19

the combat effectiveness is a relative value.It’s far not only the Tank vs Tank battle. Say, as infantry support Tank the speedy T-34 was more effective.Sure the Tiger was a superior Tank killer( especialy King Tiger), especially acting from an ambush. However it might be deadly danger , if you drive the slow moving Tiger in City battle.Tiger also was more easy target in close tank’s dog-fight like was in Kursk battle.So i wouldn’t bet on Tiger in 100% of cases.
Although the Michael Wittman’s Tiger1 was able to hit the 10+ of British tanks in single battle, at the same time if was Sherman Firefly( tank that twice more light and had twice thin armor) that eventually finished him. By single short.

Most effectively employed?
Yes. Very definitely the T34, especially in T34/85 form has to be just about THE most effectively employed tank in WW2.
Mainly because the Russians had VAST numbers of T34/85’s to throw at just about any attack necessary.

Also, the T34/85 was designed for a war of mobility, where its’ opponent was (in effect) designed for a snipe-then move, then-snipe, type of warfare. It has to be said that that design influence does have an effect on both main gun employment and ammunition capacity.
.

Same the USA.
The american command has enough numbers of Shermans to employ them wherever the infantry moved.And that’s work just fine.Althought they survived the lack of conterpart for Tiger for the first period of war in Europe, nevertheless they was able to neitralise the german panzers in most of cases.

#20

I am almost tempted to agree with you, my friend.
However, in many cases, the Sherman and T34 were far from alone in targeting the various Panzers of whatever mark.
The Americans had a habit of calling in air support at the drop of a hat, and the Russians basically went no-where without it, wherever possible.

Some-one made the point elsewhere on the forum: if you’re an ordinary infantryman with just your firearm and your battledress, any Tank coming at you is one hell of a threat.
Like wise though: if you’re a German Panzertruppe Soldat and your Panzer is in action, chances are the enemy has air support on call while you do not: and therefore you’re just as unprotected as your Schutze kamerad out on the battlefield.

The T34 and the Sherman might well be very good as infantry support on the battlefield and only marginal in a Tank versus Tank situation, but that is more than compensated by the availability of air-support, which is why My answer posted above in #18 seems focused on Tank vs Tank.

As to slow-moving Tiger in a city environment: I’m not aware over-all of very many cases where any tank of any combatant army was moving at high speed in built-up areas, be that in combat or otherwise.
Standard procedure for almost any Tank in a city area is proceed slowly and carefully, because attack from ambush is only ever meters away at the best of times, and a very good look-out must be maintained with great vigilance if the tank is to survive passing through a frontline city/village.
In such a situation, the Tiger or Koenigstiger is at no more of a disadvantage than a Sherman, T34 or Cromwell or Comet.
Speed simply is not relevant.

On an open plain, then yes, the T34 is the better vehicle in the infantry support role, going into an attack.
I discount the Sherman.
However: an open plain is precisely the type of circumstance the Tiger was built for, to attack from ambush rather than in a Tank “charge” as the RKKA often employed. This is another factor that influenced my reply in post#18.

Kind and Respectful Regards Chevan my friend, Uyraell.