Unfortunately for you I can back up my "opinion" with the cheque stubs from the pay I get for writing and analysing this sort of stuff. In other words I'm the guy the professionals come to for an informed opinion. And that was my question. It's no good asking "who produced the best tanks in the world ever" unless you specify a particular time period. For example you claim the Germans did. Okay. How does ANY WWII tank stack up against a Russian T-80? Or a Korean XK-2? Or an Israeli Merkava?
thats cool, and I'm the guy who drove these machines, and was and have been fascinated with war and war machines, and i am referring to not only to the numbers, but the operaters opinions, and historical facts as well. I mean people who get paid to do something, sure is great, and i enjoy your debate probally because of that. But all the Numbers in the world, don't mean as much as opinions, and numbers produced on the battle field. and i liked the russian t-80 small but nice, comparable with the t-72, but there still different, and the t-80 was based more on the t-64, but the t-54/55 i feel was the best over all taking time and date into consideration. And during ww2 I think the tiger smokes them all, it was heavy yet fairly fast, it's 88-mm gun was a real monster for the time. Plus The fear that machine produced in the allies.(my grand dad has few stories in his journal about these) luckly for us and probally it's biggest down fall was there wasn't many produced. And no body can take credit away from the Ameican sherman's. Nore the M-1 Abrams, which is In my oppinion the closest threat to german made L2 and You want a time period. 1901 um lets say to 2010?
You mean the guy who gets a particularly limited view of the overall picture... That, of course, is arrant nonsense. The numbers tell the true story, especially when those numbers include statistics taken from use and users - i.e. not just one guy's opinion. See what I mean when I asked about time period? How does a T-55 stack up against a T-80? No contest... One more time: the Tiger was overweight, slow (how the hell can you call 24 mph fast?) and the 88 was actually inferior to the 17 pounder and the 75 L/70 as an armour-piercing weapon. Not to mention the Russian 122mm. It was too heavy for most bridges, too heavy for its own gearbox, had poor suspension qualities - which showed up in Russia when mud froze the wheels together and it couldn't move at all... And another stupid answer. Refer to my comments on T-55 for why it's stupid. That would simply mean, effectively, that the latest tank to come out moves to the top of the list because it incorporates lessons from all previous designs. If you're looking at 1901-2010 then obviously Leo 2 is top and nothing else (especially Tiger/ Sherman/ T-55) get a look in - because they're simply no competition. Let me try again: What was the best tank in 1939? Was it still the best in, say, 1941? How about 1956? 1976? 1986? Today?
Well my Limit, i wouldn't say is limited, i mean i seen and was in most modern tanks, and my family has a tradition of keeping a daily journal, and sense the wars of 1812, and b4 i have relatives and journals wrote first hand from people who were there, using these machines. and if your using that as a reference, Then Germany has won, i mean what tank beats an l2 it is approved number 1, taking size, weight,speed, and fire power in consideration ? Thats an example of many generation of tanks. Now all I am asking is who you think made the best tanks over all, from in your own mind, take an example from every generation compare them and choose one country. I choose Germany, I feel even if they did not always have the best or the biggest, they have an impressive reputation, and fairly reliable performances, and there consistent.:shrug:
In other words - individual points of view. On the contrary - it was YOUR reference. You gave 1901-2010. Again, you can't state "overall". The balance swung from one nation to another as time progressed. One more time - Germany: A7V - abominable crap even considering it was their first ever. Pzpfw 1 - WTF use was that? A training machine that was pressed into combat because Hitler started the war too early. Pzkpw II - not much better than Pzkpfw 1. Pzkpfw III - an actual design for combat. But under-armoured and under-gunned when it went into service compared to some Brit & French tanks. Pzkpfw IV - underarmoured and undergunned in the initial versions, got better when the L/48 gun was introduced and then went on to become overweight and suffered from unreliability as armour was added in an effort to keep up. Panther - a T-34 copy that was hand-built, prone to mechanical failure (IIRC more were lost due to be being abandoned after breaking down than were were killed by the enemy). Tiger - overweight, unreliable. Yes it got a fearsome reputation but it was largely undeserved. Effective with a really good crew, not so effective with a typical crew. Tiger II - perfect example of Hitler's obsession with bigger is better. Waste of resources. Leopard - not too bad for its time but underarmoured (possibly as a reaction to the failures of the heavyweight monsters that they had when they lost WWII). Leopard 2 - finally they get it right.
OK, No problem, i accept the flaws in there machines, and i guess everyone else got it right from day 1? but now that we agreed that, which country would you pick did better then Germany and why, throughout there history.
As you're well aware, no-one got it right from day one. No-one got it right all the time every time. One more time: if you're considering "throughout history" then there is not and can not be an overall best. That's why In 1939 it would be the French S-35 or Matilda II. In 1940 there wasn't anything that could match T-34 (KV-1 was a contender but for being too slow). At the end of the war Centurion was probably the best, as witnessed by subsequent sales, and is still in use with Israel as the Sh'ot and South Africa as the Olifant - not bad for a design from 1943. What about the Czech TNH/ LT vzor 38? The Germans took over manufacture and used it in one way or another (especially the "chassis") throughout the war. Or the Vickers 6 tonner? An interwar British design that wasn't taken into service by the British army but was sold to, built by and/ or used by Poland, Czechoslovakia, a couple of South American countries and Russia among others.
Yeah The Matilda senior was nice wasn't it.(for its day). OK, I give :thumbsup: Yes My argument was more on a singular or personal opinion, which made it easier for me to choose one. Your argument was more on a technical scale making it much harder, I will not ask again.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh hell, I can pick a favourite tank. But (because of my knowledge of them - and the fact that I like the quirky designs) couldn't ever justify it as best... Char B1 bis. Vickers medium. Vickers 16 tonner. T-80U. Black Eagle. A9 Cruiser.
I always liked the Panzer (any model) and the Sherman. Neither one of them were great, but for the time period they did what they were supposed to. King Tiger's (looking at them now they weren't the greatest) but they effectively intimidated the allies.
yeah dude fear means allot. troops are not going to be as efficient, if there always looking over there shoulders worried. Probally the same feeling the enemy gets at the thought of a b-2 bomber, even though it will never live up to the b-52.
That's why the Japanese Imperial Soldiers were so amazing in combat. Well anytime you see the U.S. Airforce, it'd be time to be scared. Or the German Luftwaffe, especially if you see a blood red Triplane.
However the Tiger and Panther was more efficient then most of the garbage deployed in WWII. It is not that they are great, it is just most of the opponents sucked...
Pfft, the Luftwaffe didn't operate triplanes (of any colour). In 1910 (when the "airforce" was formed) it was Die Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches, and became the Luftstreitkräfte in 1916. Luftwaffe was the name for the WWII version of the German air force, inaugurated in 1935.
It depends how you define "efficient". Broke down more often? Cost more than they should? Hard to manufacture?
Whoops. I was referring to Manfred Von Richtofen and his Blood Red Fokker Dr.I Triplane. I forgot he was Luftstreikrafte. I'm sure you knew what I was talking about. I just had my designations mixed up.
Allot of the Breaking down of the tiger was due to Jewish slaves in concentration camps sabotaging the tanks as well, when they worked good they were lethal, but by the time they were really coming into the war Germany was so short of man power that he had ten year olds in the front line.
Er no. They broke down because they were too heavy for the transmission system. But not as efficient as the StuG III for example. StuGs achieved 3 kills (on average) per vehicle built, Tigers just under 6. But one tiger cost nearly four times as much as StuG. In other words for the six kills (5.74 IIRC was the average) of one Tiger you could build ~ 4 StuGs, get more tactical flexibility, more reliability and twice as many kills.
I nominate this section as best thread detour - all this page (perhaps more) is about tanks or war planes. Not wanting to break this detour and not knowing much about either, I note that in the pre mechanical warfare era, one could tell something about amour used by horseback riding soldiers way back into history. If it was a lot, the name of the leader's horse is known (not any horse would do - had to be big and strong.).
Well to be fair, they didn't have the knowledge we have now. And back then, this stuff we look at as a failure, was top of the line to them.
