CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

Nikita Wrote:I understood I need to repeat myself again. Panther had to be a bit lighter, armed differrently, with different . However, findings at the front proved, that presented concept of universal tank was too light, because Russians already had similar designs towards weight and armament. So it was naturally decided to outperform them, as well as reconsider other technical decisions, related to mobility in poor Russian conditions, so the panther was delayed and came out as it was. But it was superior to Shermans, and all T-34 models, including T-34/85.

Okay. Again, why would a country make a new tank model that wasn't better in armour and armament than their opponents tanks?

The Germans considered the Panther a medium tank. The Soviets considered it a heavy.

Quote:Idea of newer tank came out way ahead of noticing T-34. The project was upgraded due to Russian conditions and presence of both T-34 and KV, as signs, that Russians have well-armored tanks, which were met in increasing numbers.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! I get a big laugh when you go from the Panther wasn't influenced by the T-34 at all to the posts like this one where you claim the project was upgraded because of the T-34 and now the KV too. Nikita you can't have it one way in one post and another two posts later.....

Quote:For your knowledge commissions were visiting the front quite often, to keep up with the latest news of the enemy.

Normally commissions were sent to the front to check up on existing equipment. How it was preforming, how the new changes were doing, what new changes could be made. They were rarely demanded like in the case of the T-34 threat.

Quote:T-34 was not recognised as the best tank neither by Russians of 1941, nor Americans or Germans of the same period.

Yes, I know the T-60's and T-70's were the backbone of Soviet tank forces.... Even today the T-34 is often thought of as the best tank in WWII and even more often than that it is thought of as the most influential.

The T-34 was still in service with twenty-seven countries as late as 1996. That's not a tank I would think was very good.

The Americans? What would the Americans know about a good tank in WWII? Our best effort was the Pershing which had a gun roughly equal to the Tiger I. A 1942 German design. That's a ringing endorsement.

Quote:Basic principle is, that any tank should have capcaity to defend it own against the other tanks, but that does not mean it should be built or act primarily as a tank destroyer. Tanks are not its primary target on operational level. And I can not recall any major battle of WWII where tank duels as such were of scales, capable of influencing the outcome of the entire operation (even in North Africa the main result of tank duels was mutual attrition of tank forces). If they appear from both sides on the tactical field, they do become its primary targets for each other, because they are more dangerous, than ATGs, due to avalability to combine fire and maneuvre.

You are absolutely right. Tanks are not the primary target at the operational level. But to get to the operational level you first have to survive the tactical level and tanks are a primary target at the tactical level.

That's because no single battle determined the winner of the war. If you want a single battle that determined that you won't find it. To say that tank battles had no overall effect on all the theaters is something I don't comprehend. If tanks weren't the decisive weapons why were they made in such large numbers by all countries involved?

Again you are right. The Allies made WWII all about attrition. Now is when the Americans and their tanks show up in a good light. The Sherman was easily mass produced, repaired and was FAST! It was not a good tank to go head to head with the heavier German models. But by 1944/45 for the most part it didn't have to.

Good Hunting.

MR