Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

42

Good? No. Lots of them? Yes. The Americans were leaders in mass-producing large durable goods at low cost - cars, especially. This translated to mass-producing medium cruiser tanks (the M4 Sherman) almost as quick as they could roll a Buick off the assembly line. What's more, these were brand new machines, they had not spent months and months slogging ...


26

There are at least three criteria for "good" tanks: combat effectiveness, ease of production, and mechanical reliability. The Americans produced "good" tanks that excelled in the latter two categories. That's because they were the world's best producers of automobiles. To take off on U.S. civil war cavalry doctrine, American generals regarded tanks as a ...


9

Several reasons. First and foremost, they perform the same role on the battlefield, providing a fast moving spearhead. Second, and related, many of the units were cavalry units before getting tanks, they just exchanged their horses for tanks. Artillery exchanged guns pulled by horses (and trucks) with self propelled guns (at least part of them, most armies ...


9

The Panzer I, the tank sent to Spain, was initially designed as an "industrial tractor" in order to get around arms controls agreements. It had a number of limitations ranging from slow speed to engine problems to inadequate armor to less effective armament. It's primary/original purpose was for the German command to teach soldiers armored warfare while not ...


8

You cannot consider quality without considering quantity. The both sides had very powerful designs, but such designs were produced in smaller numbers compared to the most produced models. For example, a heavy tank will always beat a medium tank. The T-34 is a medium tank, so qualitatively it is inferior to the heavy tanks. On the other hand, it was produced ...


7

Why do the British use rifled barrels? From wikipedia: "Uniquely among NATO main battle tank armament, the L30A1 is rifled, because the British Army continues to place a premium on the use of high explosive squash head (HESH) rounds in addition to APFSDS armour-piercing rounds. HESH rounds have a longer range (up to 8 kilometres / 5 miles) than APFSDS, and ...


7

The build up of the US army from a small, backwards, underfunded, isolationist peace-time army in 1939 to a six million person world conquering colossus in 1945 is one of the under-appreciated triumphs of WWII. Much can be attributed to the cadre of professional, forward thinking officers like George Marshall the US maintained. When it comes to tanks, it ...


6

Your question has two parts. Firstly, to address the issue from a purely equipment point of view. The short answer is purely on "qualitative parity" the Russians had this in 1941 but once the Panther and then Tiger entered service, they lost it and never regained it. I will elaborate. I will mainly concentrate on medium tanks as that is largely what ...


5

The T-34 tank was far superior to any tank the Germans had on line in 1941. Bigger gun, better armor by far, and so on. The T-26 was inferior, or on a par. But your question asks about units. German armored units were able to often beat equivalently sized Soviet units even in 1945. Therefore the Soviets created more units, moved them to areas where ...


5

This is quite contentious due to the design aims of each tank and, more importantly, doctrine of each country. The T-34 was designed as a cheap, easy-to-make tank which can be mass produced quickly and cheaply. German tanks on the other hand have complex engineering which makes them qualitatively superior but also much harder to produce. However, if there ...


5

Slugger is an American colloquialism that means "a hard-hitting batter" (as in baseball) or someone who throws hard punches. Slug can mean "A piece of lead or other metal for firing from a gun; a roughly-formed bullet." On the historical side of the question, the M36 carried one of the most powerful American anti-tank weapons (the 90mm M3). So, that is ...


5

I think the writers mean excellent tanks compared to the crappy British tanks rather the German tanks in 1942. British failed to produce a world beating tank throughout WW2 and had lots of unsuccessful tank programmes. Probably the best "British" tank used in wide numbers in WW2 was the Sherman Firefly although the Comet which was about as good as a Panther ...


5

From some checking on the Arm Chair General, there seems to be some discussion as to its historical accuracy. A summary of the quotes on the comments from the page basically revolves around inaccuracies in tank structure, maintenance and tactics. This quote was quite telling: It's worth reading if one takes it simply as a personal memoir. The daily ...


4

In addition to the excellent answers, German inter-war tank designs had two technical advantages: turret layout and radios. The Panzer I and Panzer II both had the commander also operating the gun. The Germans learned that being a tank commander was a full time job: commanding the tank, scanning for targets, listening to the command radio network. With ...


3

Actually the M3 Sherman was considerably undergunned and in the battle of Villers Bocage Michael Wittmann with just one tiger tank destroyed 14 Shermans in succession. The British up-gunned the Shermann to a 90mm gun and called it the Firefly at which point it was more evenly matched gun wise, but not in terms of protection. The Sherman had a radial ...


3

A likely candidate seems to be the Battle of Messines, which took place in June 1917. According to John F. C. Fuller in Tanks in the Great War, 1914-1918, 88 tanks were employed (p. 110). He says 40 tanks advanced with the start of the attack at dawn, and an additional 22 set out with infantry in the afternoon.


2

German wikipedia mentions nothing of an Argentine project predating Leopard 1 development. The Indienpanzer project and its failure is mentioned briefly, together with a statement that at the time German industry was incapable of developing a modern MBT, that the failed India project gave German industry and especially Porsche the knowledge needed to make ...


2

German tanks were generally inferior to Allied and Soviet designs in the pre-war years. The Germans were limited in what they could build due to the restrictions imposed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, limiting their military. Indeed this treaty stated that they were not allowed any tanks at all but in the 1930s as they began to re-arm the treaty ...


1

I want to compare unit for unit parity, let's say at the platoon or company level. Let's say the equivalent of a German and Soviet armored company approach each other in 1941, 1943 and 1945. Evaluating the equipment in a vacuum is not interesting. To appreciate why the Germans dominated in 1941, why they lost that dominance, and why the T-34 is ...


1

"figures vary but it is generally accepted that the Panther cost about 3 times as much as the T-34. For this reason only 6,000 Panthers entered service during the 1943-1945 period compared to 16,000 T-34s in 1943 alone!" Not only did it cost around 3x as much, but it took about 8x as many worker-hours! A very similar design to the Panther, with most of the ...


1

British soldiers never gave it a name of anything. Why would they? They never used it. "General Jackson" was the name assigned to the vehicle by Ordnance Branch in late 1944. US soldiers at the pointy end either never got the memo or, more likely, just didn't care.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible