I love Panzers. Well tanks in general, but Panzers always stick out to me. While I'll never support the actions of the Nazis in their invasions and genocides of peoples, I'll give them the fact that they could build some very incredible weapons of war, none more so than the Panzer.
I always got Panthers when I played Panzerblitz. Weren't the king Tigers so heavy as to have greatly reduced mobility?
Not against the Panthers- its just that by the time they were put into production the Nazi industrial base had already been substantially crippled/overtaxed that the newer models suffered high rates of mechanical failure and were not produced in substantial enough numbers. T-34s were certainly better than anything in play pre 1944 though.
Yes it was. Tigers were sometimes used as "quasi-mobile" pillboxes especially since Germany at the end of the war were mostly on the defensive anyways. And I agree halfway with Nicephoras. T-34s were great machines and continual improvements made it better, especially the T-34/85. And while Panthers basically copied the T-34 design, they fought well too and with distinction. Which makes you wonder...why the Americans, in particular, didn't change the Sherman so it could have good firepower. I don't understand this. I guess their premise of "Sherman being good enough" was ok, but it had the industrial power to change their production and build far more more powerful machines. Too many American crews IMO died because of this, even though the Sherman did do it's job in mobile warfare.
There weren't that many T-34s either, frankly. And yes, they were superior to the panthers. They were so heavily armored and carried such heavy ordinance that the Panthers just weren't very effective.
A lot of the US war equipment wasn't the best, not just the tanks. It was just produced so fast that its quality was almost immaterial. 50 Shermans will beat 10 Tigers almost every time.
There were actually far more T-34s than Panthers. At anytime in the war, the German war machine could only field no more than 500 Panthers, and they fought on many fronts. Russia only had to concentrate on one front, and thus all their T-34s plowed through. Even the PzKpw IVs were not bad against the T-34, especially the Ausf H and J. And the Germans only made around 3700 of Ausf Hs and 780 Ausf Js, plus they had to supply the Western Front, Italian Front and their battle against various partisan movements.
True but they could have built 50 Shermans that were just as fast and more armored and they could have beat 20 Tigers and save some lives. I just don't understand why the Americans didn't take a page out of the British book and put the 17 pounder or a gun of comparable ability on its own Shermans.
It was almost a one shot kill rifle too. ONly if you hit the legs would it probably not kill you. No other rifle was that lethal I think except for the K98. You also didn't have to reload after every shot, it held an 8 bullet clip and you kept on firing, while the K98 you had to crank at first before you shot. This gave the American soldier a bit of an advantage.
The German industry was never untaxed. They didn't have the ability to switch to making simpler machines because they didn't have the resources to throw away existing design work, machine tools and factory orientations. That is why, for example, they kept making the Sturmgeschutz self-propelled gun all the way through the war when they also had Panzer IV L/70 (V) which was built on the same chasis, but was a simpler, cheaper and more effective design.
The Sherman did have its strengths. German tank crews were very jealous of its cross-country ability. It was 10 times as reliable as a German tank. Plus, all the American tanks had to come across the ocean. You could carry twice as many Shermans as you could a tank that weighed just a little more. Also, two Shermans can be put in a LST - only one heavier tank can. Besides, most of the time the 50 Shermans were not facing 10 Tigers. They were facing ground troops with towed guns or panzerfausts, who would attack against the sides and rears. In most cases, getting M26's or whatever else they were working on at the time wouldn't have helped (and given the weak engine of the Pershing, probably would have hurt). The M4 had very good all-around armor, thicker on the sides than a Pz. IV and more on top than a Panther. EDIT: added more info.
Lack of a turret hindered the vehicle though. But it was still a very effective machine, especially in Normandy.
They didn't trust the idea of the 17pdr on the Sherman Firefly tank. The gun of course didn't make up for the thin armour of the Sherman or that much of the Sherman fleet ran on gasoline.
The history of the US Army and its procurement practices with regards to superior foriegn weaponry can get its own very full thread. This is overblown. Most WWII tanks ran on gasoline. The main problem was the ammo storage.
Panzers is one of the worst foreign pluralization of a German word ever. It's right up there with Kindergartens (Arghhh...) and the name of the (former) Japanese football club Yokohama Flügels.
Oh I do know that it shouldn't be pluralized, but most Americans and Brits refer to it as Panzers. As for Kindergartens...never heard, I actually use kindergarten in the plural form as well.
While it's true that, side-by-side, the Sherman was nowhere near as good as a Panther, where did the Sherman participate in tank battles? Kasserine Pass - but IIRC, the Panther was not available then and it would have benn matched against the Pzkw IV. The Bulge? Glad to have this discussion on a soccer forum because I always consider the US youth soccer program to be producing tons of "Shermans" rather than a few "Panthers". As in WWII, that's not necessarily bad.
Well, Google gets nearly 2 million hits for "Kindergartens". And the plural of Kindergarten is Kindergärten, big difference actually .
Yeah, I think the word Panzer in the English language should either be left alone in favour of 'German tank' or it should be used on tanks alltogether, as you do it with auto and car. btw isn't Kindergarden spelled with a d instead of a t in the English version? Kindergardens is the right English plural, then. btw is it true that some English-speaking people now use the German word handy instead of cell or mobile?
I think that we continue to use "Panzer" as a sign of respect to those awesome machines. I could never refer to a Panzer as a German tank, because something just sounds wrong with it. I even refer the modern-day "Leopard" tanks as Panzers. Kindergarten is the English version. I use kindergarten anyways as the plural and singular form of the word. Not sure about the rest of us Americans but I've never used Kindergardens or Kindergartens ever.[/quote] Never have used the word "handy" in my life. Iono...I almost exclusively (no offense to others here) hang out with Asians and they call it their cell or if they're a girl a "cellie." We don't use mobile here, but I know the Home Isles I use the word mobiles.
It is too late. As is the nature of the English language, it has already overrun the word and conquered it with its overwhelming strength.