ORIGINAL: Patrocles

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjäger A panther with an 88mm gun would have been awsome but they bulit the jagdpanther for that,but it had no movable tureet,being like a stug sp tank.

true! someone in an earlier post mentioned the Panther II tank - I believe it was proposed or designed to have the 88mm L71 gun, but I don't think this idea got too far? then again...you would crank out a few thousand Panther II tanks and here come those pesky soviets with 10-20x as many T34s...not to mention the 50,000 or so Sherman tanks on the other side of europe! haha

The German had gasoline/petrol engine

Hahaha. Good Timing. What did the Military Channel have on TV last night? The Top Ten Tanks of All Time. It was based on Firepower, Mobility, Armour, Production Capabilty and Fear Factor. Sherman was ranked 10th. Panzer was 7th. Tiger was 3rd. T-34 was 1st.   

ORIGINAL: Uberhauskaninichen

The German had gasoline/petrol engine

I thought the Germans used diesel engines, which don't brew as easily. 

Engine The Panther was powered by a 700 horsepower (515 kW)/3000 rpm, 23.1 litre Maybach HL 230 P30 V-12 petrol engine that drove two front drive sprockets via the gearbox and steering unit. The engine was generally considered reliable and had a fatigue life of up to 2000 kilometers. In order to minimize engine failures the Panther engines were fitted with a governor in late 1943 that limited the engine revolutions to 2500 rpm and power to 600 hp. The installation of the governor also dropped the tank's top speed from 55 km/h to 46 km/h.

The common myth that the use of gasoline (petrol) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with AP shells.

ORIGINAL: Paul M The T34 was in my opinon the best tank of the war as it was the first to have all the elements which are now found in modern tanks, a low siloute, highly sloped armor, high mobility, a good gun, and high reliability (though the soviet supply distribution system or in reality the lack thereof rendered that point moot more often the not). The Panther was the superiour tank but that was because it was basically the german version of the T34 and incorporated the aspects of the german design (better crew space, better gun, better optics, and better crew training) that made german tanks more effective. Guderian's first suggestion to Hitler was to simply make the T34 (the lack of aluminum for the engine nixed that plus it was politically incorrect). As for the defeat of the germans, face the fact they were snowed under. The Allies expressly intended the Sherman to be an attrition vehicle. They considered 5:1 exchanges acceptable. The Soviets never worried about losses till the middle to late part of the war when their manpower reserves were exhausted.    WW2 was won (and converserly lost) on the steppes of russia, and a significant reason for the soviet victory (though not the only one) was the fact that Soviet tank production (better to say AFV production) outstriped the germans by nearly an order of magnitude. Quantity has a quality of its own, and fundamental there was nothing wrong with the later war soviet tanks (T34/85, KVI, KVI/85). The Soviet Army at the end of the war, mind you, was a well trained (even if most of it was "on the job"), well equipped and well led force even if it lacked certain aspects most other militaries of the time took for granted or had tactics which are not something most western militaries would have been able to employ or even wish to employ for political reasons (demorcracies are far more sensitive to losses). It still suffered from the general low level of education in the soviet union of the time, which is a significant problem when you consider things like map reading, or technical trades.

During the Korean War, US Shermans performed well against their T-34-85 adversaries, which could be due to a combination of better training and better equipment such as gunsights and gun stabilization.

ORIGINAL: Nefarious Isn't Ol' Bruce a commercial pilot now?

ORIGINAL: Paul M The T34 was in my opinon the best tank of the war as it was the first to have all the elements which are now found in modern tanks, a low siloute, highly sloped armor, high mobility, a good gun, and high reliability (though the soviet supply distribution system or in reality the lack thereof rendered that point moot more often the not). The Panther was the superiour tank but that was because it was basically the german version of the T34 and incorporated the aspects of the german design (better crew space, better gun, better optics, and better crew training) that made german tanks more effective. Guderian's first suggestion to Hitler was to simply make the T34 (the lack of aluminum for the engine nixed that plus it was politically incorrect). As for the defeat of the germans, face the fact they were snowed under. The Allies expressly intended the Sherman to be an attrition vehicle. They considered 5:1 exchanges acceptable. The Soviets never worried about losses till the middle to late part of the war when their manpower reserves were exhausted.    WW2 was won (and converserly lost) on the steppes of russia, and a significant reason for the soviet victory (though not the only one) was the fact that Soviet tank production (better to say AFV production) outstriped the germans by nearly an order of magnitude. Quantity has a quality of its own, and fundamental there was nothing wrong with the later war soviet tanks (T34/85, KVI, KVI/85). The Soviet Army at the end of the war, mind you, was a well trained (even if most of it was "on the job"), well equipped and well led force even if it lacked certain aspects most other militaries of the time took for granted or had tactics which are not something most western militaries would have been able to employ or even wish to employ for political reasons (demorcracies are far more sensitive to losses). It still suffered from the general low level of education in the soviet union of the time, which is a significant problem when you consider things like map reading, or technical trades. There were many and varied reasons that the Nazi's were defeated, books can be written on this topic...books have been written on this topic, many of them. Hitler ranks as probably the most critical one, followed by the fact that only from 1943 did the Nazi's adopt a full wartime economy, something all of their opponents did much earlier. Personally I am rather glad that the dunderheads in the Nazi party were infact stupid enough to adopt their nonsensical policies regarding production, and the rabid infighting/empire building that was tolerated or even encourged by Hitler since the alternative is far from pleasent. The Nazi's extended the war as long as they did due to the skill, courage, and determination of their largely non-nazi soldiers. The soviet regime suvived and eventually won due to the sacrifce, and stubborness of the russian people. The achievements of both the Wehrmacht and the Soviet Army on the eastern front are worth studying and are something that both sides can take pride in.

ORIGINAL: Uberhauskaninichen WPE?

Wehrmacht Penis Envy

ORIGINAL: Kirksone And you missed my point the Red army beat the Germans not by mere numbers alone look at Kursk or Stalingrad.

By the summer of 1943, the Russians had five full tank armies ready for action. Each army included two tank corps and one mechanized corps. Over one million soldiers were prepared to fight. In the air, the aircraft wings were flying improved Yaks and Sturmoviks. Each of the four Fronts now had its own air arm of 700 to 800 aircraft. In actuality, the defenders outnumbered the attackers in every area. While no sets of figures found in historical documents match exactly, it is estimated that the German forces at Kursk numbered 900,000 men, 2,500 aircraft, 10,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 tanks. On the Soviet side of the ledger, there were 1,350,000 men, 2,650 aircraft, 20,000 artillery pieces and nearly 4,000 tanks and self-propelled guns. Numerically then, considering the standard table of odds (an attacker should have a 3 to 1 advantage against the enemy and a 5 to1 advantage against well-prepared defenses), the Germans were defeated before they began. ......... The dreaded T-34s were present, in such numbers that German tank crews described their mad charges as suicidal, yet effective. Knowing that range was their enemy against the 88mm guns of the Tigers, the T-34s and other Soviet armor rushed ahead and closed with the enemy. They came so fast and so many that even the most proficient German tank crews could not stop them. They were almost like human-wave assaults dressed in thick steel. Once at close range, even the vaunted Tiger found itself vulnerable to an armor-piercing 76mm shell.

ORIGINAL: Kirksone Thanks I thoroughly enjoyed the superb “Band of Brothers” and “Saving Private Ryan”. But I was talking about the Eastern front refresh my memory but Normandy isn’t in the East is it?. And nowhere in my post to I proclaim myself expert on World war 2 far be it for me to debate with an authority such as yourself, And you missed my point the Red army beat the Germans not by mere numbers alone look at Kursk or Stalingrad. Numbers and statistics alone on paper do not define the outcome of battles look to the American civil war most times the Confederates were outnumbered but still managed victories. And books I recommend anything by professor John Erickson. As it an old yawn fest by the Germans who say they beaten only by numbers. But Frankly they were beaten by a reinvented Red army which came back from the abyss of total collapse. Stronger better equipped and lead by superb generals Chuikov , Zhukov you might have heard of them but they weren’t at Normandy either. So you might want to crack open a book yourself rather than quote your knowledge gleaned from “Hogan’s heroes.” Yes lend lease helped tip the scale in Soviet favor but it’s so hard when everybody’s favorite underdogs the Wehrmacht were so soundly beaten . By and army and a people they thought were subhuman trash. As they were defeated by an army that was as well lead and well equipped as they were and simply they couldn’t admit that they were out generalled and out thought and out fought at every turn from 1943 onwards, What was the name the Soviets had for their tactics that predated the blitzkrieg theory? It was called Deep Battle

Excluding hitler's foolishness, the number one factor in the defeat of Germany was the allied superiority in numbers.

as an example, Pz-3 production should have stopped entierly when the Pz-4 entered service. when the Panther enterered service it should have been produced along with the Pz-4 and nothing else. no Jagdpanzers no King Tigers.....

ORIGINAL: GDS_Starfury

Excluding hitler's foolishness, the number one factor in the defeat of Germany was the allied superiority in numbers.

I would put forward that the number one reason for defeat was Hitlers refusal to put German industry and society on a war footing at the very beginning. IIRC it wasnt until 43 that this started to happen. also the production plans chased down every avenue of technology instead of going with what they knew worked allready. as an example, Pz-3 production should have stopped entierly when the Pz-4 entered service. when the Panther enterered service it should have been produced along with the Pz-4 and nothing else. no Jagdpanzers no King Tigers..... nothing. by limiting themselves to these two tanks they would have streamlined their industry and been able to conserve resources and maximized numbers. this situation was even worse for the Luftwaffe.

ORIGINAL: DOPPELSLAAK Actually the allies triumphed because truth, justice and the American way is superior to the diabolical forces of darkness that come inherently with villains like Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse Tung. [:'(]