Who made the Best tanks of ww2

[CowboyDandy]

Mine is Germany

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di steve:

Messaggio originale di CRDr.President!:

2. not a production # of what nation's tanks?

simply that having made lots of any 1 tank does not mean it was good just that they made lots.
making 83000 t34 tanks doesnt mean that the T34 was a good design it just means they made lots of them.

No. That means it was a good design due to ease of production, if my tanks are 1/2 as effective as yours, but cost 1/4 of the time and resources to make, mine are superior based on cost effectiveness.

[Werecat101]

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh utility:

Messaggio originale di steve:

simply that having made lots of any 1 tank does not mean it was good just that they made lots.
making 83000 t34 tanks doesnt mean that the T34 was a good design it just means they made lots of them.

No. That means it was a good design due to ease of production, if my tanks are 1/2 as effective as yours, but cost 1/4 of the time and resources to make, mine are superior based on cost effectiveness.

So the fact that All t34-76's stalled every 80km due to air in the fuel system up until they fitted the cyclone systems into them 1942 does not make them a bad design becasue they made 35000 of that model, so if Mercedes made a car that the wheels fell of every 100km but they made 4 million of them it would be a good car in your opinion?.

[slayerfar]

WW2 spanned 6 years, so no one nation held superiority throughout the war. Also, due to the Lancastrian principle, numbers matters very much. Over all, the Russians and Americans were most consistant.

[Ģ◊иℤ◊⚡ℤ∀муpΛй]

Messaggio originale di Curst:

- Soviets definitely get the first place for consistency and practicality throughout the war.
- Germany had a couple of excellent late war designs, but they were largely impractical and too few in number (and their early war tanks were mediocre at best).
- American tanks had great versatility and endurance compared to their counterparts.
- The British had amazing guns, but consistently wierd armor, speed and ammunition across the board.
- French tanks were overall great for their time (their only weakness being relatively low speed), but they were just as greatly misused.

The others weren't remarkable enough to be mentioned IMO.

- " French tanks were overall great for their time (their only weakness being relatively low speed), but they were just as greatly misused. "

what was their reverse speed again ?

[Werecat101]

Messaggio originale di slayerfar:

WW2 spanned 6 years, so no one nation held superiority throughout the war. Also, due to the Lancastrian principle, numbers matters very much. Over all, the Russians and Americans were most consistant.

when comparing which is best, numbers produced isnt part of how good a tank is.

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di steve:

So the fact that All t34-76's stalled every 80km due to air in the fuel system up until they fitted the cyclone systems into them 1942 does not make them a bad design becasue they made 35000 of that model, so if Mercedes made a car that the wheels fell of every 100km but they made 4 million of them it would be a good car in your opinion?.

Different metrics for "Good", a car is supposed to be good for one person using one, a tank is good for commanders using hundreds of them, where individual failures don't matter that much.

80km is a very long way for a battlefield, so essentially, it's not going to stall in a normal combat engagement.

Again, how much did it *COST* in comparrison to other tanks? Sweet FA, and if it costs sweet FA and it is adequately effective, it's a better tank than one that costs huge amounts but is slightly more effective.

[slayerfar]

Messaggio originale di Curst:

- Soviets definitely get the first place for consistency and practicality throughout the war.
- Germany had a couple of excellent late war designs, but they were largely impractical and too few in number (and their early war tanks were mediocre at best).
- American tanks had great versatility and endurance compared to their counterparts.
- The British had amazing guns, but consistently wierd armor, speed and ammunition across the board.
- French tanks were overall great for their time (their only weakness being relatively low speed), but they were just as greatly misused.

The others weren't remarkable enough to be mentioned IMO.

If I may add.

The Russians also had great logistics and adaptabillity buildt in.
Germany had better tanks one on one, but they were poorly supplied. They also had literally hundreds of different calibers for different vehicles.
Americans, like the Russians had great supply and adaptabillity. They lacked the Sloped armor though.
British tanks were hit and miss. Their oddball engineering was the envy of the americans in some cases and the laughing stock at others.
French had good armor, but had one huge drawback, suffered by many early tanks, namely the 1 man turret, which put the Commander under too high a workload.

[Fwostylicious]

Germany & US

[Werecat101]

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh utility:

Messaggio originale di steve:

So the fact that All t34-76's stalled every 80km due to air in the fuel system up until they fitted the cyclone systems into them 1942 does not make them a bad design becasue they made 35000 of that model, so if Mercedes made a car that the wheels fell of every 100km but they made 4 million of them it would be a good car in your opinion?.

Different metrics for "Good", a car is supposed to be good for one person using one, a tank is good for commanders using hundreds of them, where individual failures don't matter that much.

80km is a very long way for a battlefield, so essentially, it's not going to stall in a normal combat engagement.

Again, how much did it *COST* in comparrison to other tanks? Sweet FA, and if it costs sweet FA and it is adequately effective, it's a better tank than one that costs huge amounts but is slightly more effective.

Tanks travel to battle and if every 80km they break down do you stop the entire unit or do you leave a few behind as they fail?. that isn't a stop and restart its a stop and require the fuel system to have a bleed to remove all air from the fuel system on a diesel which takes a fair amount of time. so your army just turned into a long chain of a few tanks here and thier or a unit that takes 4 times as long to get anywhere.

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di steve:

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh utility:

Different metrics for "Good", a car is supposed to be good for one person using one, a tank is good for commanders using hundreds of them, where individual failures don't matter that much.

80km is a very long way for a battlefield, so essentially, it's not going to stall in a normal combat engagement.

Again, how much did it *COST* in comparrison to other tanks? Sweet FA, and if it costs sweet FA and it is adequately effective, it's a better tank than one that costs huge amounts but is slightly more effective.

Tanks travel to battle and if every 80km they break down do you stop the entire unit or do you leave a few behind as they fail?. that isn't a stop and restart its a stop and require the fuel system to have a bleed to remove all air from the fuel system on a diesel which takes a fair amount of time. so your army just turned into a long chain of a few tanks here and thier or a unit that takes 4 times as long to get anywhere.

If they're as cheap as those are, if a few fail, you leave them behind. You still have the numerical advantage.you then end up with one or two waves of tanks, all of which have more in them than the enemy, and bearing in mind pretty much every tank, when first built, had huge reliability issues which were eventually fixed (Panther's suspension catching fire, Tiger transmissions destroying themselves because of the loads etc.) including the T-34, but the T-34 was significantly cheaper, the T-34 is the better tank. They all failed, but with a T-34 you have 3-4 replacements each time, instead of waiting for parts etc. that take a long time to manufacture and replace (far longer than the fix for the T-34)

[Walta Gaming]

Russians had the overall best IMO. Most of the workers were badly trained and the crews were not well trained either so a lot of the shortcomings came from that. The T-34 was easy to make and could get the job done against mid war German tanks but fell short later on. Making super tanks like the Germans did late in the war could only work for Germany since they had short supply lines and good factories to make the parts. Russia or the USA could never use something like the Tiger II since the infastructure would not support it well and it would be too hard to maintain.

PZIV was one of the best tanks of the war for maintainability and production but the Germans never got enough out to catch up with the allies. The flat armour as well was a big problem late in the war which limited it's effectiveness. Germans could have put up a harder fight if they had more Stugs and PZIV's but thankfully they produced overcomplex and exspencive heavies which got slamed by allied airpower or overwlemed by allied tanks with upgraded main guns which could deal with the thicker armour.

Sherman was a good tank as well but it was undergunned since the start and the allies really could have done better considering it was compairible to tanks like the PZIV and the T-34 which were on the battlefield by 1941 while the Sherman came on by 1943. The 76mm version really should have been standard by D-day but it took until late 1944 for the 76mm to be standard.

British tanks were poor throughout the war and the only real good tanks they had were the Churchill and the Comet. Firefly was also an excellent tank but it was more American then British desighned. The Churchill was undergunned for a heavy tank and the Comet came in very late in the war so I really don't consider the Brits to have good tanks for WWII.

Overall though, every nation had tanks that worked for them so it is near impossible to compair them. If Germany used T-34's then that would be a waist since they would all break down too quickly (engine was toast after 300km for the mid war T-34's) and the well trained crews would be waisted with a high loss rate. Panthers made in Russia would be a mess since they would be too complex to be made fast enough and would not be used efficiently by the badly trained crews.

I would say Russia > Germany > USA > Britain as far as tanks go overall.

[slayerfar]

Many of the Soviet and American tanks were made to be easily repaired. If one of the crew had had any experience in an Agricultural Tractor, then he would be able to fix many of the smaller issues that arose.
On the other hand, the German tanks were notoriously hard to field repair, and often had to be towed by other tanks or dedicated recovery vehicles.

[Werecat101]

And when gaijin make a game that allows 40 t34 tanks vs 1 tank your arguement may be relevant.

production capability such as the USA with no one bombing its factories on a daily basis dont really reflect that they made good tanks just they made lots of tanks.

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di steve:

And when gaijin make a game that allows 40 t34 tanks vs 1 tank your arguement may be relevant.

production capability such as the USA with no one bombing its factories on a daily basis dont really reflect that they made good tanks just they made lots of tanks.

No. It's relevant because we are not talking about "What is the best tank in game" you complete idiot. If we were, your argument of "It's mechanically unrelliable" is completely moot too.

Again, it's not specifically just "how many were made" It's "How many were made, in X amount of time, in one factory, for how many resources" Y'know, how efficient a tank was to produce, in the T-34's case, extremely efficient. again, if it takes 1/4 of the time and resources to build a tank 1/2 as effective, the cheap one is the more cost effective, and ergo better, tank.

[Werecat101]

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh utility:

Messaggio originale di steve:

And when gaijin make a game that allows 40 t34 tanks vs 1 tank your arguement may be relevant.

production capability such as the USA with no one bombing its factories on a daily basis dont really reflect that they made good tanks just they made lots of tanks.

No. It's relevant because we are not talking about "What is the best tank in game" you complete idiot. If we were, your argument of "It's mechanically unrelliable" is completely moot too.

Again, it's not specifically just "how many were made" It's "How many were made, in X amount of time, in one factory, for how many resources" Y'know, how efficient a tank was to produce, in the T-34's case, extremely efficient. again, if it takes 1/4 of the time and resources to build a tank 1/2 as effective, the cheap one is the more cost effective, and ergo better, tank.

well personally if 1 tanks can kill 20 then the one tank is better. if you consider numbers due to circumstances then flies are better than people because they outnumber us millions to one.