Best tanks of WWII

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
Here is an interesting article about why the Allies did not developed tank killing planes. It was not flashy as shooting down other planes. @O' Be Joyful , @rittmeister , @Leftyhunter , @Wehrkraftzersetzer if you have an interest in tanks...


The effectiveness of anti-tank aircraft in World War II is taken for granted by most writers on the subject, offering a technophile orthodoxy that can be seamlessly woven together with accounts of later developments up to and including the Iraq wars. Luftwaffe legend Hans-Ulrich Rudel claimed to have destroyed 519 Soviet tanks, most of them while piloting a cannon-armed Junkers Ju-87G Panzerknäcker, or “tankbuster.” Aleksandr Yefimov, said to have destroyed 126 German tanks while flying the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, was twice made a Hero of the Soviet Union. Tales of their exploits helped to firmly establish a positive image of anti-tank aviation in histories of the conflict. But that image has little relation to the realities of close air support during the war.

That judgment is given additional weight by the attention the Germans gave to developing their own anti-tank aircraft. The Henschel Hs-129B-1/R2, a small, heavily armored single-seat twin with a 30mm gun, was introduced on the Eastern Front in late 1942. A handsome, strongly built airplane with unreliable French engines and the flying characteristics of a penguin, the Hs-129 was not popular with pilots. But at least two men, Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer and Hans-Hermann Steinkamp, claimed to have destroyed 70 or more Soviet tanks flying the type during the next two years
.
I already posted the above article. The article argues rather strongly to take pilots claims with a shovel full of salt. The fact that a captured Panther painted white in an open field with no AA fire that got struck by rockets maybe four percent of the time tell us all we need to know about the effectiveness of so called anti tank aircraft.
Leftyhunter
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
The best tank killer was the A-10 but I think drones will replace them in the future...
That was the case in the Armenian Azerbijan War and possibly in some recent skirmishes between Turkey and Syria . Turkey apparently makes some dam good drones all Parise to Allah.
Leftyhunter
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
so how do you fight enemy tanks with your hatch already down? you need to see them first
This 1943 Whermacht Panzer film will answer your question concerning tanks fighting with closed hatches. It's not that hard to do.
Leftyhunter
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Point is they were .
available.
... and avoided whenever possible. you see a lot more with your head out. enemy aircraft force you to close your hatch: bad for you and good for the opposition (aka tank destroyers laying in wait or infantry)
 
Last edited:

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
This 1943 Whermacht Panzer film will answer your question concerning tanks fighting with closed hatches. It's not that hard to do.
Leftyhunter
interestingly that hatch is already open before the hand grenade is thrown out - probaganda


that's exactly what my granddad (commanded a tank regiment on the eastern front) had to say about the panther hatch in his diary - everybody tried to avoid closing it
 
Last edited:

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
interestingly that hatch is already open before the hand grenade is thrown out - probaganda


that's exactly what my granddad (commanded a tank regiment on the eastern front) had to say about the panther hatch in his diary - everybody tried to avoid closing it
That may be but per official German tank doctrine a tank could fight with closed hatches.
Leftyhunter
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
That may be but per official German tank doctrine a tank could fight with closed hatches.
Leftyhunter
i'm talking the commander's hatch the others are usually closed in combat but somebody needs to spot the enemy. that is the commander's job and he can do it a lot easier with his head out. enemy aircraft in the area kinda prohibits that - enemy ground attack aircraft whether hitting any tanks or not make it harder for them to survive as their commanders see less.

come on @Leftyhunter, it ain't rocket science
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Here @Leftyhunter , @rittmeister , I found this to answer question... I do not if it from Otto


Our guidelines were: "Shoot first, but if you can't do that, at least hit first."

The prerequisite for that, of course, is fully functoning communications from tank to tank and also among the crew.

Furthermore, quick and accurate gun-laying systems need to be present. In most instances, the Russians lacked both of these
prerequisites.



Because of that, they often came out on the short end of the stick,

even though they frequently didn't lag behind us in armor, weapons, and maneuverability.
With the Stalin tanks, they were even superior to us.

The most important consideration came after all the material conditions were filled.

The personal aggressiveness of the commander while observing was decisive for success against numerically vastly superior enemy formations.

The lack of good observation by the Russians often resulted in the defeat of large units.



Tank commanders who slam their hatches shut at the beginning of an attack

and don't open them again until the objective has been reached are useless, or at least second rate.

There are, of course, six to eight vision blocks mounted in a circle in every cupola that allow observation.

But they are only good for a certain sector of the terrain, limited by the size of the individual vision block.

If the commander is looking through the left vision block when an antitank gun opens fire from the right,

then he will need a long time before he identifies it from inside the buttoned-up tank.



Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy gun's report,

because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound.

Therefore, a tank commander's eyes are more important than his ears.



As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank.

It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain.



If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy antitank gun opens fire halfway to the right,

his eye will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow muzzle flash.

His attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time.

Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target.

Usually, seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with a periscope.



The destruction of an antitank gun was often accepted as nothing special by lay people and soldiers from other branches.

Only the destruction of other tanks counted as a success. On the other hand, antitank guns counted twice as much to the
experienced tanker.

They were much more dangerous to us. The antitank cannon waited in ambush, well camouflaged, and magnificently set up in
the terrain.

Because of that, it was very difficult to identify. It was also very difficult to hit because of its low height.

Usually, we didn 't make out the antitank guns until they had fired the first shot.



We were often hit right away, if the antitank crew was on top of things, because we had run into a wall of antitank guns.

It was then advisable to keep as cool as possible and take care of the enemy, before the second aimed shot was fired.



No one can deny that the many casualties among the officers and other tank commanders were due to exposing their heads.

But these men didn't die in vain. If they had moved with closed hatches,

then many more men would have found their death or been severely wounded inside the tanks.



The large Russian tank losses is proof of the correctness of this assertion.

Fortunately, for us, they almost always drove cross-country buttoned up.

Of course, every tank commander had to be careful while peering out during positional warfare.

Especially since the turret hatches of tanks in the front lines were continuously watched by enemy sharpshooters.

Even a short exposure could be fatal for the tank commander.

I had commandeered a folding artillery scope for just such cases. Actually, such a scope shouldn't be missing in any fighting
vehicle.

source: "Tigers in the Mud" The combat career of German Panzer commander Otto Carius
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Here @Leftyhunter , @rittmeister , I found this to answer question... I do not if it from Otto


Our guidelines were: "Shoot first, but if you can't do that, at least hit first."

The prerequisite for that, of course, is fully functoning communications from tank to tank and also among the crew.

Furthermore, quick and accurate gun-laying systems need to be present. In most instances, the Russians lacked both of these
prerequisites.



Because of that, they often came out on the short end of the stick,

even though they frequently didn't lag behind us in armor, weapons, and maneuverability.
With the Stalin tanks, they were even superior to us.

The most important consideration came after all the material conditions were filled.

The personal aggressiveness of the commander while observing was decisive for success against numerically vastly superior enemy formations.

The lack of good observation by the Russians often resulted in the defeat of large units.



Tank commanders who slam their hatches shut at the beginning of an attack

and don't open them again until the objective has been reached are useless, or at least second rate.

There are, of course, six to eight vision blocks mounted in a circle in every cupola that allow observation.

But they are only good for a certain sector of the terrain, limited by the size of the individual vision block.

If the commander is looking through the left vision block when an antitank gun opens fire from the right,

then he will need a long time before he identifies it from inside the buttoned-up tank.



Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy gun's report,

because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound.

Therefore, a tank commander's eyes are more important than his ears.



As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank.

It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain.



If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy antitank gun opens fire halfway to the right,

his eye will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow muzzle flash.

His attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time.

Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target.

Usually, seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with a periscope.



The destruction of an antitank gun was often accepted as nothing special by lay people and soldiers from other branches.

Only the destruction of other tanks counted as a success. On the other hand, antitank guns counted twice as much to the
experienced tanker.

They were much more dangerous to us. The antitank cannon waited in ambush, well camouflaged, and magnificently set up in
the terrain.

Because of that, it was very difficult to identify. It was also very difficult to hit because of its low height.

Usually, we didn 't make out the antitank guns until they had fired the first shot.



We were often hit right away, if the antitank crew was on top of things, because we had run into a wall of antitank guns.

It was then advisable to keep as cool as possible and take care of the enemy, before the second aimed shot was fired.



No one can deny that the many casualties among the officers and other tank commanders were due to exposing their heads.

But these men didn't die in vain. If they had moved with closed hatches,

then many more men would have found their death or been severely wounded inside the tanks.



The large Russian tank losses is proof of the correctness of this assertion.

Fortunately, for us, they almost always drove cross-country buttoned up.

Of course, every tank commander had to be careful while peering out during positional warfare.

Especially since the turret hatches of tanks in the front lines were continuously watched by enemy sharpshooters.

Even a short exposure could be fatal for the tank commander.

I had commandeered a folding artillery scope for just such cases. Actually, such a scope shouldn't be missing in any fighting
vehicle.

source: "Tigers in the Mud" The combat career of German Panzer commander Otto Carius
nothing new about that

with an artillery folding scope (scherenfernrohr in german) your hatch is still open - you just keep your head down

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Infantry defeat tanks on the battlefield... @Leftyhunter , @rittmeister



I would rather be the hammer than the anvil.
— Erwin Rommel


Ever since modern tanks’ first appearance on the twentieth-century battlefield, infantry forces and their armored counterparts have been engaged in a sustained arms race with one another. Improvements in antitank weapons led to armor better able to withstand them and vice versa, with pendulum swings marking the temporary advantage of one or the other. In recent years, the balance rested firmly on the side of well-trained infantry with both advanced guided missiles and unguided rockets. The greatest of these capabilities are fire-and-forget, guided, top-attack missiles—the premier model being the American-made Javelin. This weapon allows a single soldier to target and destroy even the most heavily armored main battle tank with an almost guaranteed kill rate, at great range and with minimal risk.

But infantry’s advantage isn’t permanent.
As tanks with new capabilities are fielded, infantry forces will have to respond, and cannot wait for a new generation of capabilities to provide battlefield solutions. Instead, infantry units should begin conceptualizing, refining, and training new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
Infantry defeat tanks on the battlefield... @Leftyhunter , @rittmeister






Ever since modern tanks’ first appearance on the twentieth-century battlefield, infantry forces and their armored counterparts have been engaged in a sustained arms race with one another. Improvements in antitank weapons led to armor better able to withstand them and vice versa, with pendulum swings marking the temporary advantage of one or the other. In recent years, the balance rested firmly on the side of well-trained infantry with both advanced guided missiles and unguided rockets. The greatest of these capabilities are fire-and-forget, guided, top-attack missiles—the premier model being the American-made Javelin. This weapon allows a single soldier to target and destroy even the most heavily armored main battle tank with an almost guaranteed kill rate, at great range and with minimal risk.

But infantry’s advantage isn’t permanent.
As tanks with new capabilities are fielded, infantry forces will have to respond, and cannot wait for a new generation of capabilities to provide battlefield solutions. Instead, infantry units should begin conceptualizing, refining, and training new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
8n the last few years the US, Israel, Russia and South Korea have come up with Active Protection Systems. APS is not cheap and all of the above countries have aggressive export policies although the US is more restrictive in terms of arms sales. How well APS works is an interesting question. Israel claims there APS works and exported some AOS to the US.
Leftyhunter
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
You know @Leftyhunter and @rittmeister tanks are important but it was the truck that won the war for the Russians... We sent the Soviets trucks while they made the T-34...


"The Studebaker deserves a monument like those everywhere to the famous T-34 tank,” wrote artilleryman Ilya Maryasin. The darling of Soviet military drivers, the Studebaker-US6 was a real lifesaver for the Red Army, which experienced a chronic shortage of vehicles throughout WWII. It was the most exported vehicle to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program — up to 200,000 were delivered to the country during the conflict.


Some Studebaker US6 trucks that were shipped to the Soviet Union during WWII and decommissioned from service after 1945 had their cabs and plumage taken off and used in the prototypes of the GAZ-51 truck,[15] which eventually underwent mass production in 1946. The construction of the Studebaker US6 strongly influenced the construction of the postwar ZIS-151 truck, which then evolved into the ZIL-157 truck which remained in production up until 1995.
The Studebaker US6 truck became a legendary vehicle with its Soviet operators at the time and were called the "King of Roads" by soldiers[16] due to their reliability and dependability and are still popular in Russian vehicle-collector circles and clubs. In the United States, these trucks are seen as the symbol for the Lend-Lease program to the USSR.[17] It is estimated that an unrestored US6 truck would cost around $11,000, while a restored one would cost around $24,000.[18] The most sought-after US6 trucks are the ones that were produced by REO Motors (U9 version), since only slightly over 20,000 units were built by them.



Lend-Lease[edit]
Almost 60,000 Dodge WC series models were provided to the U.S.' allies of World War II under the Lend-Lease program:[77]

  • 650 of the total 1,400 1⁄2-ton Panel vans built, possibly with radio, went to the British,
  • 886 3⁄4-ton Carry-alls went mainly to the British and the Soviets, with small numbers to various other countries,
  • over 2,500 of the total 3,500 WC-64, 3⁄4-ton knock-down ambulances went primarily to the Free French, the British, and to China,
  • some 3,800 3⁄4-ton WC-56 / WC-57 Command Cars (with or without winch) went mainly to the British, the Free French, and to China,
  • plus a further 650 3⁄4-ton Radio cars, likely WC-58 model, also for the British,
  • the bulk of lend-lease Dodges – over 44,000 units – were WC-51 and WC-52 3⁄4-ton Troops and Weapons Carriers – see their section above,
  • and lastly, 6,344 of WC-62 and WC-63 11⁄2-ton, 6x6 Cargo, Troops and Weapons Carriers were provided – mainly to the French (over 4,000), and to the British (over 2,000).
To the Soviets, the almost 25,000 new 1942 all-wheel drive 3⁄4-ton multi-purpose WC series were so fundamentally innovative, that they fitted no standard Red Army category. Russia much appreciated these vehicles, that perfectly filled the gap between 4WD automobiles and heavy trucks, and simply called them "Dodge three-quarters".
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
not new either - wars are won on logistics


... ask the russian army about their fuel trucks not their tanks


this truely american invention kinda won the war for you


never understood why the us army hat 20 liter canisters on their jeeps as a kid :p
 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
not new either - wars are won on logistics


... ask the russian army about their fuel trucks not their tanks


this truely american invention kinda won the war for you


never understood why the us army hat 20 liter canisters on their jeeps as a kid :p
It seems the Jerry Can led to Germany's defeat... Who would have thought a gas can invented by Germans defeated the Germans...
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
It seems the Jerry Can led to Germany's defeat... Who would have thought a gas can invented by Germans defeated the Germans...
the brits were all about them, so the afrika korps guys let them have a few here and then - of course the boobytrapped them.

the brits just used them, the yankees cut a few apart and then mass produced them - hence the 20 liter cans on your jeeps
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
The last mile delivery is a big topic the corporate world. Companies spend millions to find the best way... A German engineer mastered it...

The last mile describes the short geographical segment of delivery of communication and media services or the delivery of products to customers located in dense areas. Last mile logistics tend to be complex and costly to providers of goods and services who deliver to these areas.
https://www.investopedia.com › terms
Last Mile Definition - Investopedia
 
Top