Yes, the German tanks were the best.
Late war ones were the best - at breaking down (also became value added models with removal of such things as powered turret traverse, view ports etc to simplify and cheapen production).
Early war ones were well mainly Czech designs and the British Matilda Senior outclassed all Axis tanks in 1939-1940
Churchill could outclimb any German tank and could cross ground that other tanks bogged down in (as demonstrated many times in Italy, Tunisia and operations like the Reichwald fighting). The Churchill also had the lowest crew death/injury per knocked out tank of WW2 so being the safest.
Odd sweeping statement that does not back up any fact.
It is true that a certain level of mechanical knowledge/sympathy was required by drivers to get the best from their machines…akin to commanders having tactical nous, for best outcomes…
My paternal grandfather was an engineer who was co-opted into the original tank arm in WW 1, since those machines
required plenty of fettling/fitting skills on hand.
Tiger/Panther tanks did need sensible fettling/driving like-wise…
While no tank is invulnerable [ viz ‘brewed up’ Abrams in Iraq], it is quite evident that the Tiger virtues of markedly superior gun/optics/armour/effective 5 man fighting compartment are what modern MBTs utilize…
I note that the Israeli ‘Merkava’ is front drive, & has crew comfort/survivability as major design factors too…
When the Tiger was introduced,all this was a novel combination, ‘a quantum jump’ according to the Brits…
<rant mode> You do realise that a “Quantum” is the smallest possible change in energy state, right? That means a Quantum Jump is the smallest possible improvement. I absolutely HATE it when people misuse the saying in that way </rant mode>
So far as the Merkava goes, it has front engine and front drive. Mechanically, that’s akin to a vehicle with rear engine and rear drive, going backwards. Rear engine and front drive is hardly innovative in any case - the British Universal Carrier (Bren Carrier) already had it, as no doubt did a number of other vehicles.
But it never introduced any of those points, three man turret first introduced on British Vickers Med Mk 1 which was also the first tank to be designed with a dedicated AT gun the 3 pdr to replace the 6pdr of previous tanks, sprung suspension (could say front mounted engine and rear crew door to make reloading easier ooooh does that mean the Vickers is the direct ancestor of the Merkava?)
Sensible fettling driving wise lol, the Panther had its engine revs restricted to try and save wear on the delicate engine (not good when your turret traverse is dependant on engine revs), being told not to use reverse as it breaks the drive train (really sensible in combat).
Modern MBT’s by the way use three or four man crews not five and have done for many decades.
Still leaning towards the KV1 with your arguments and not the Tiger I as a precursor to modern MBT design.
Superior gun able to defeat all known tanks
5 man crew
Rear drive
torsion bar suspension
Diesel engine
Impervious armour (even the 88mm Flak had to get close in 1941)
Heavily sloped glacis plate and sloping armour all round turret
1939 in service date
Not stymied politically, it was stymied logistical issues and a German Army that wasn’t throwing in the towel. And the Allies never could ever get enough ashore and still had shortages of everything from manpower to fuel…
& if the Allies had superior numbers of tanks… of equivalent technical proficiency…
Analogous to what P-51s were doing over Germany… then, Berlin by Xmas, baby…
The Allied tanks were equivalent to the Mark IV’s and German tank destroyers. There were only 90 Tigers in all of Normandy and the Panther’s could be difficult, unless hit from the side. But again, with the points you keep ignoring, the Americans didn’t have so much problems with armor as they had fighting entrenched Heer and SS in the hedgerows. Your sweeping, almost schoolboy comments reflect quite a lack of reading on the big picture and an over focus with weapon’s systems…
The 88mm could penetrate the frontal armour of Matildas/KVs & etc… & that’s why Adolf was insistent…
Adolph had little to do with it. You keep giving him some great credit of the panzerfanboi. The Tiger project was brought out of mothballs because Hitler and his gang of henchmen were shocked by the T-34’s and KV-1’s coming at them…
The Russian 76mm & Western Allies 57mm & 75mm could not do like-wise to the Tiger…
They didn’t have too, they had air supremacy and other guns including an increasingly overwhelming superiority of artillery. And again, the Tiger wasn’t even in numbers in Normandy. What difference was it if that 88mm gun was mounted on a tank or a mobile gun mount, towed?..
The major difference in the British 3.7 AA & the 88? Weight/mobility of the mounting…
& the refusal to accept the need for combined arms tactical flexibility…
I think Leccy sums this up nicely, that’s why the British Army developed the excellent 17-pounder
U.S. armoured units in Korea stuck with obsolescent Shermans wished they had a Centurion…
& likely would not have turned down the Tiger/MG 42/StG 44/Nebelwerfer if they were somehow practicably available…
If the Sherman has a superior kill ratio, better optics than its opponent, better crew comfort, better gun when firing the right ammo, and very good anti-infantry capabilities, how could it be “obsolete?” Tank vs. tank was increasingly rare in Korea and the Shermans were very good infantry support vehicles and they augmented the M-26/46’s well. Tanks were used primarily for infantry support after the opening months of the war. And why would the US Army enjoying air supremacy, already massive artillery advantages, and organic infantry firepower superiority over troops often using ex-Japanese weapons and a hodgepodge scraped together personal weapons need any of that?
I think the poor bastards of Task Force Smith would have much preferred new panzerfausts and shreks than their left over bazookas. Or the new 3.5" ones firing recently manufactured rounds…
Actually, I think there is a better argument for the T-34 for the same reasons:
Crew wasn’t initially right, but the T-34/85 had effectively the modern 3-man turret.
Rear drive from the start
Initially Christie suspension, but Torsion Bar from the T-34/85
Diesel engine (same engine as the KV-1 IIRC)
Armour impervious against all likely anti-tank weapons of the time (no longer true of the T-34/85)
Sloped armour all over
In service 1940
Most importantly of all, it’s arguably the first “Universal” tank - the KV-1 was explicitly a heavy tank (“Infantry” tank in the British parlance). The T-34 was one of the first to really unify the roles, and do so well.
I’d also suggest reading a bit about the Battle of Arracourt before getting too excited at the inferiority of the Sherman against the Panther, at least. An outnumbered American armoured unit gets attacked, and the attack fails.
I was thinking of the T34 but the poor vision, two man turret and initially being in two versions (L11 76mm gun and 57mm Zis 3 tank destroyer) put me off, since J.A.W is insisting a German Heavy (Tiger I) had all the pre-requistes to be the forerunner of the modern MBT, I used the tank most similar I could think of in its original base model.
Never struck me how similar the Vickers Med Mk I is to the Merkava before (ok so have to squint a lot and I may be being a bit sarky).
But then he has hardly replied directly to any counters I have made so can’t follow the reasoning.
Since it was brought up, the Israeli’s said that the MerKava was pretty much a Centurion turned backwards. The power pack was forward for protection of the crew,while allowing room for a rifle squad to be sheltered in the back, and a rear hatch to allow escape out of line of fire. A good solution to regional needs,and specific conditions much like the “S” Tank was for the Swedes. But is not at all the same as the rear engine front drive of tanks used by Germany, or the Sherman.
Merkava also bears quite a resemblance to one of the Porsche Tiger B prototypes… ‘Hintern’
& to sum up, the Matilda impressed Hitler by being impervious to all but the 88mm…
However, it was hamstrung by being slow,inadequately armed, & poorly employed…
Later, they did good work against the Japanese in New Guinea, operated by the Australians.
The contemporary KV/T-34 does not make the cut, simply because they lacked the fundamentals of being a fully functional fighting machine for coordinated use, uncomfortable/poor communications system/no dedicated commander…& shocking propensity to burn, with all that volatile Diesel aboard…
Diesel may be volatile, but Petrol is a LOT worse…
Vickers Med was designed and built in the 1920’s I was being sarky a bit but also true about its resemblance to the Merkava.
The Matilda Senior (dont forget there were two different machines) was well armed and armoured in 1940 (better than any tank in the Axis arsenal) and adequate in early 1941 (only the latest Panzers were proof at range and they were in very short supply).
It was obsolete by mid 1941 although had to soldier on past its use by date.
KV1 had a dedicated commander
Comfortable by Soviet standards not Axis or the remaining Allied maybe
Panther had a shocking propensity to burn with is useless complicated fuel system before it even got into combat, on penetration it has as much a chance of burning as the early dry ammo rack Shermans. Fuel fires when hit were rare, most fires were because the propellant ignited in the stored rounds.
Contemporary KV/T34 to what the Germans had a few Panzer IV with 30mm armour and a few Panzer III with 15mm the majority of their tanks were Panzer I and II with large numbers of Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)
The KV1 which was in service around 3 years before the Tiger 1 had more in common with a modern MBT that the Tiger did, your assertion was that the Tiger 1 led the way, it followed (resurected because of the Matilda’s and Char B1, S35 which were impervious to the vast majority of German AT weapons, these led to the upgunning of the Panzer III and IV, wider introduction of the 50mm AT gun and improved rounds, restarting German heavy tank programme).
Tiger I
Flat armour - only Leo 2 and that has sloped add on’s
Interleaved road wheels - failed
Petrol engine - failed
Wide tracks - KV again
big gun - KV again (most tank guns on introduction of KV were 37-47mm on Tiger introduction it was 74/76mm (so 30-40mm increase on gun size with KV versus 12mm with tiger)
thick armour - KV, Matilda, Matilda Senior, Char B1, Souma S35
Petrol engine… failed? Don’t think so… KV Diesel has disadvantages of noise/smoke/bulk, & explosive fuel…
Big gun? Soviet tanks didn’t get a big long gun, 'til after the Tiger showed the new order…
& ‘12mm’ [76-88]? a ‘schoolboy’ [mis]understanding of artillery/cube rules?
Command & control? The poor communication capability of Soviet tanks was a major failing…
& the British ‘Light Brigade’ ethos was like-wise out-dated…
Of the Panthers that didn’t score own goals on debut at Kursk, they did good work…
From ‘Tank Men’ P. 265, a Russian tanker is quoted…re Tiger/Panther efficacy…
“The German tanks could fight it out at very long range…open fire at 1,200m & easily hit our T-34s…
just try to approach them & they’d burn your tank…we could only hit at a distance of 800m”…
Exactly what NATO wanted/planned to do to the Soviet tank armies with their MBTs…
& how did the Churchill tank fare at Dieppe?
Not well…
& the summary of the Arracourt battle hardly gives an endorsement of Sherman vs Panther adequacy…
From ‘Tank Men’ P.300, Official British view of Sherman issue…
“We are badly behind the Germans in this respect…the enemy can engage our tanks at ranges at which it is hopeless to reply with any hope of success.”
Again, a Tigerish issue that NATO wanted to impose on the Warsaw Pact armour, post war…
Please use the quote function in future so we can see who and what you’re replying to - I’m afraid that reads like a stream of conciousness rather than making sense.
Still makes sense in context, & I clearly did use paragraphs…
Actually list the points that the Tiger has going for it in the context of a modern MBT, so far the KV 1 still beats the Tiger I
Of the Panthers that didn’t score own goals on debut at Kursk, they did good work…
You do realize that some historians blame the delay caused by trying to field the teething cats may have contributed to the defeat of the Germans and enabled the Soviets to build defenses deeper and thicker?
Arracourt showed that thin skinned M-18 Hellcat TD’s destroyed large numbers of Panthers at combat ranges with HVAP ammo as Shermans closed in on the flanks. Lessor tanks manned by experienced battle veterans will out duel under-trained “battle groups” that lack cohesion…
Ndf, you are correct, & since NATO could not afford the profligate waste shown by poor machinery/tactics in WW2,
they had to ensure the most efficacious anti-Soviet tank army concept [as shown by the Tiger units at Kursk], was
a model…
Leccy is wrong…
Diesel is more energetic both in BTU & explosive potential than petrol.[ see that rocket fuel table in the ‘Operation Paperclip’ thread].
Diesel has been largely standardised for heavy mechanised transport power-plants for logistical standardisation/cost reasons, not because Diesel engines are superior, per-se [F1 G.P. racing hasn’t gone Diesel… yet ].
KV’s were a failure, it wasn’t until [as J.S.2] they copied the long gun from the Tiger that they had any chance, & even then, they were not as well balanced as a fighting unit [ accuracy/rate of fire/rounds carried/crew function & endurance]…
NATO recognised that the balance of Tiger features [inc’ late-war innovations such as I.R. night scopes/dynamic gun stabilisation/range finding]
were the key tank based defence against mass armoured attacks of the ‘cavalry charge’ type.
Israel also used these NATO-mandated qualities against Syrian operated Soviet tanks in the Golan Heights battles…
From ‘Tank Men’ P. 302,
"Significantly the 43 out of 200 Panthers that did function at Kursk between 9 & 15th July accounted for 269 Soviet tanks…German performance at Kursk demonstrated that the Soviets had fallen into a technological ‘hole’.
Russian tanks could be knocked out frontally at 2,000m, Panthers could knock one out from the flank at 4,000m.
Not only was the German tank fleet modernised with superior tanks, training had inextricably harnessed the fighting component ‘man’ with the ‘machine’ ".
This is, again, what NATO aimed to do…
Leccy wrote that petrol engines [compared to Diesel] have ‘less torque per hp’…
That does not compute… since hp is a function of torque x rpm…
Many Allied tanks used ex-aero petrol mills,[Liberty, Meteor V12s, plus Ford V8s & air-cooled radials in U.S. tanks.] since they were purposefully designed for running at max torque while being light & compact…
Diesels generally require the additional complexity of turbo-charging to get anywhere near the specific out-put of petrol mills…
The Tiger/Panther Maybach, while having teething issues from being rushed into service, was a pretty light/compact package for its out-put, esp’ compared to the Russian mills.