Tanks & armored vehicles discussion thread

[Arlenton]

Tanks! You know, they are the huge unstoppable armored vehicles with a turret housing a massive and powerful main gun that roam around the battlefield destroying everything in their path.

Or at least that's what many people picture when they think of them anyway...

Here's a discussion thread for everyone's favorite war machines, tanks and other armored vehicles. From the primitive "landships" of the First World War to the highly advanced armored fighting vehicles of today.

Which nation had/has the best tanks?
Which nation had/has the worst tanks?
Which tank is the largest?
Which tank is the smallest?
What were the earliest tanks?
What will future tanks look like?
What are some weird facts about tanks?
What is your favorite tank?
What about armored cars/tank destroyers/self-propelled guns/etc?

To start things off, my favorite tank is the Renault FT. The first French tank of the First World War, the Schneider CA1, was one of the worst tanks of the war, the second French tank of the war, the Saint Chamond, was the worst tank of the war, but the third French tank of the war, the Renault FT, was the best tank of the war. This French tank was introduced in 1917, making it the first tank with a rotating turret to enter service, which then became the standard on almost all future tanks. It was sort of the AK-47 of tanks late in WW1 and through the early inter-war period, with France selling them to many nations all over the world, and having many foreign copies made. These countries include the US, Italy, Russia, Spain, Finland, Japan, Poland, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Brazil, Lithuania, Romania, Turkey, Greece, and more, some even found their way into the hands of Chinese warlords in the 1920s. The FT was still in service with the French when the Germans invaded in 1940, and afterwards captured models were used by the Germans for occupation and airfield guard duty. Some sources say they were used as late as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

[Ogrien]

I'll tout the T-34. A great general design which was adaptable enough to fit the needs of the Red Army throughout their fight, and a tank which generally held up against anything it was thrown against. It could be churned out in ridiculous numbers (more than 80,000 by war's end) rather quickly, unlike those ridiculously overengineered German tanks it was up against.

[Thermodolia]

King Tiger is best tank. Second best is the Sherman's

[Ogrien]

King Tiger is best tank. Second best is the Sherman's

The King Tiger is the prime example of my "ridiculously overengineered German tanks". Logitical nightmare with limited unique utility.

[Thermodolia]

King Tiger is best tank. Second best is the Sherman's

The King Tiger is the prime example of my "ridiculously overengineered German tanks". Logitical nightmare with limited unique utility.

Bah!! They still couldn't be matched in battle!

[Shizune]

I love them all. It's really difficult for me to choose a favorite. From little nonsense like the M22 Locust to ridiculousness like the Maus concepts.

However, I'll admit that I have a really strange thing for the KV-2. No idea why.

[Ogrien]

The King Tiger is the prime example of my "ridiculously overengineered German tanks". Logitical nightmare with limited unique utility.

Bah!! They still couldn't be matched in battle!

They were formidable in direct tank fights, but such things are incredibly rare in WWII. Most of the time it was large scale formations and battles of maneuver around and amongst infantry assaults, under artillery barrages, and with air power overhead. They were slow, unwieldy beasts, suffering from decreasing quality of manufacture, huge fuel budgets, and an increasingly sophisticated foe used to dealing with heavy tanks. The Tiger 2 was meant to win matches on Warthunder, not win on the Eastern Front

[Arlenton]

I'll tout the T-34. A great general design which was adaptable enough to fit the needs of the Red Army throughout their fight, and a tank which generally held up against anything it was thrown against. It could be churned out in ridiculous numbers (more than 80,000 by war's end) rather quickly, unlike those ridiculously overengineered German tanks it was up against.

It was perfect for the Red Army, it was a pretty reliable tank that could be produced in massive numbers. But I'd say that its success one on one against German tanks is over hyped, sure the T-34/76 version is well known to have been superior to German tanks it encountered early in Operation Barbarossa in 1941-42, minus the Tiger I. But once the Panzer IV Ausf. H appeared in 1943, the German tanks from then on were superior to the T-34/76. The later T-34/85 was a step up, but still the Panther and the heavy tanks were tough to beat, when they hadn't broken down or run out of supplies that is. I feel that superior numbers and simple reliability had much more to so with the T-34's success than the tank actually being superior to German tanks.

[Ogrien]

I'll tout the T-34. A great general design which was adaptable enough to fit the needs of the Red Army throughout their fight, and a tank which generally held up against anything it was thrown against. It could be churned out in ridiculous numbers (more than 80,000 by war's end) rather quickly, unlike those ridiculously overengineered German tanks it was up against.

It was perfect for the Red Army, it was a pretty reliable tank that could be produced in massive numbers. But I'd say that its success one on one against German tanks is over hyped, sure the T-34/76 version is well known to have been superior to German tanks it encountered early in Operation Barbarossa in 1941-42, minus the Tiger I. But once the Panzer IV Ausf. H appeared in 1943, the German tanks from then on were superior to the T-34/76. The later T-34/85 was a step up, but still the Panther and the heavy tanks were tough to beat, when they hadn't broken down or run out of supplies that is. I feel that superior numbers and simple reliability had much more to so with the T-34's success than the tank actually being superior to German tanks.

One-on-one it wasn't necessarily superior to heavy tanks, but it wasn't supposed to be. Medium tanks were supposed to be a support unit for attacking forces which could also hold up against enemy armor, not designed to be "jousting" in fields against enemy tanks. Ideally you'd use air power or artillery to take out armor, or else lure them into an ambush with anti-tank guns, not countered with heavy armor.

[Arlenton]

The King Tiger is the prime example of my "ridiculously overengineered German tanks". Logitical nightmare with limited unique utility.

Bah!! They still couldn't be matched in battle!

From the front, sure, no other tank of the war stood a chance. But IMO opinion the King Tiger was no where near the best tank. On paper it was amazing, assuming you had enough industrial power and resources and it didn't break down. The King Tiger just drained Germany of much needed resources, and the slow moving monster of a tank was helpless against enemy tanks or AT weapons that got behind or to the side of it. Though seeing it was probably a moral booster for German troops, and any Allied tanks unlucky enough to end up in front of a King Tiger had no chance, but unlike the King Tiger, there were plenty of Allied tanks to go around.

[Arlenton]

It was perfect for the Red Army, it was a pretty reliable tank that could be produced in massive numbers. But I'd say that its success one on one against German tanks is over hyped, sure the T-34/76 version is well known to have been superior to German tanks it encountered early in Operation Barbarossa in 1941-42, minus the Tiger I. But once the Panzer IV Ausf. H appeared in 1943, the German tanks from then on were superior to the T-34/76. The later T-34/85 was a step up, but still the Panther and the heavy tanks were tough to beat, when they hadn't broken down or run out of supplies that is. I feel that superior numbers and simple reliability had much more to so with the T-34's success than the tank actually being superior to German tanks.

One-on-one it wasn't necessarily superior to heavy tanks, but it wasn't supposed to be. Medium tanks were supposed to be a support unit for attacking forces which could also hold up against enemy armor, not designed to be "jousting" in fields against enemy tanks. Ideally you'd use air power or artillery to take out armor, or else lure them into an ambush with anti-tank guns, not countered with heavy armor.

Exactly, but I still see the idea that the "state of the art sloped armor" T-34 was unbeatable from plenty of people.

The real Soviet threat to German tanks when tank vs tanks battles occurred were the IS-2 and SU-152.

[Arlenton]

I love them all. It's really difficult for me to choose a favorite. From little nonsense like the M22 Locust to ridiculousness like the Maus concepts.

However, I'll admit that I have a really strange thing for the KV-2. No idea why.

Lol, some guy during the reenactments around here brings an M22 Locust. When I see people standing by it most are taller than the tank.

[Ogrien]

One-on-one it wasn't necessarily superior to heavy tanks, but it wasn't supposed to be. Medium tanks were supposed to be a support unit for attacking forces which could also hold up against enemy armor, not designed to be "jousting" in fields against enemy tanks. Ideally you'd use air power or artillery to take out armor, or else lure them into an ambush with anti-tank guns, not countered with heavy armor.

Exactly, but I still see the idea that the "state of the art sloped armor" T-34 was unbeatable from plenty of people.

The real Soviet threat to German tanks when tank vs tanks battles occurred were the IS-2 and SU-152.

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

[Thermodolia]

Exactly, but I still see the idea that the "state of the art sloped armor" T-34 was unbeatable from plenty of people.

The real Soviet threat to German tanks when tank vs tanks battles occurred were the IS-2 and SU-152.

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

A Wehraboos? Anyway I just like the power of the Tiger's but the T-34's where a very good tank. The Tigers where also built during a time when bigger and more powerful was better. The Cold War and modern times pretty much did the opposite.

[Ogrien]

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

A Wehraboos? Anyway I just like the power of the Tiger's but the T-34's where a very good tank. The Tigers where also built during a time when bigger and more powerful was better. The Cold War and modern times pretty much did the opposite.

German military fanboys. Not saying you're one or anything, but they do tend to get starry-eyed at anything German. But no, I don't think bigger was better in WW2. Judging by the main tanks of the victorious side, I'd argue the opposite in fact

[Arlenton]

Exactly, but I still see the idea that the "state of the art sloped armor" T-34 was unbeatable from plenty of people.

The real Soviet threat to German tanks when tank vs tanks battles occurred were the IS-2 and SU-152.

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

I'd say that the "best" tank of the war was either the T-34 or M4 Sherman.

But the Panzer V Panther was pretty successful, it's armor and gun balance was better than any other medium tank, but it of course had the mechanical problems from begin too complicated and there was the whole crumbling German industry thing going on so it was not produced nearly as much as the competition's medium tanks were.

[Thermodolia]

A Wehraboos? Anyway I just like the power of the Tiger's but the T-34's where a very good tank. The Tigers where also built during a time when bigger and more powerful was better. The Cold War and modern times pretty much did the opposite.

German military fanboys. Not saying you're one or anything, but they do tend to get starry-eyed at anything German. But no, I don't think bigger was better in WW2. Judging by the main tanks of the victorious side, I'd argue the opposite in fact

I'm not saying that "bigger is better" won out. I'm just saying that was the attitude of the Germans of that time.

[Ogrien]

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

I'd say that the "best" tank of the war was either the T-34 or M4 Sherman.

But the Panzer V Panther was pretty successful, it's armor and gun balance was better than any other medium tank, but it of course had the mechanical problems from begin too complicated and there was the whole crumbling German industry thing going on so it was not produced nearly as much as the competition's medium tanks were.

If the Germans had gone all in on standardized mass production on the Panzer V rather than demanding specialization on practically every tank, it might have been worth the time of day, but because they had an allergy to efficiency, we'll never really know

[Arlenton]

Yeah, German and Soviet heavy tanks were pretty much meant to duke it out, but there's a reason why pretty much all modern armor is evolved from the M4 and the T-34, not the Tiger. I just love poking holes in Wehraboos who drool over the glorious Kruppstahl Tigers

A Wehraboos? Anyway I just like the power of the Tiger's but the T-34's where a very good tank. The Tigers where also built during a time when bigger and more powerful was better. The Cold War and modern times pretty much did the opposite.

The bigger and more powerful tanks were not always better, and even having more tanks did not always make things better either. When Germany invaded France in 1940, it had about half the number of tanks that the Western Allies had, and the Allied tanks, particularly the French Char B1 and SOUMA S35 had much better armor and guns than the early German Panzer IIIs and IVs, and certainly better than the light Panzer Is and IIs. But the German's organization, tactics, crew layout, and use of radio in tanks allowed their much smaller force of much more lightly armed and armored tanks to be more successful than their opponent's larger force of better armed and armored tanks.

[Blakullar]

I love them all. It's really difficult for me to choose a favorite. From little nonsense like the M22 Locust to ridiculousness like the Maus concepts.

However, I'll admit that I have a really strange thing for the KV-2. No idea why.

Well, anything that can hold up an entire Panzer division by itself for a day simply demands respect. And, of course, there's the comically-oversized M-10 main gun.

But as far as Soviet tanks of the Second World War go, I'm going to have to stick with the IS-2. Not a lot could veritably stomp Panthers and Tigers into scrap quite like 122-millimetres of pain to the face back in the day.

[Thermodolia]

I'd say that the "best" tank of the war was either the T-34 or M4 Sherman.

But the Panzer V Panther was pretty successful, it's armor and gun balance was better than any other medium tank, but it of course had the mechanical problems from begin too complicated and there was the whole crumbling German industry thing going on so it was not produced nearly as much as the competition's medium tanks were.

If the Germans had gone all in on standardized mass production on the Panzer V rather than demanding specialization on practically every tank, it might have been worth the time of day, but because they had an allergy to efficiency, we'll never really know

I'm pretty sure that Hitler's doing. If he had left the military to do what it did best then they might have actually survived.

[Thermodolia]

A Wehraboos? Anyway I just like the power of the Tiger's but the T-34's where a very good tank. The Tigers where also built during a time when bigger and more powerful was better. The Cold War and modern times pretty much did the opposite.

The bigger and more powerful tanks were not always better, and even having more tanks did not always make things better either. When Germany invaded France in 1940, it had about half the number of tanks that the Western Allies had, and the Allied tanks, particularly the French Char B1 and SOUMA S35 had much better armor and guns than the early German Panzer IIIs and IVs, and certainly better than the light Panzer Is and IIs. But the German's organization, tactics, crew layout, and use of radio in tanks allowed their much smaller force of much more lightly armed and armored tanks to be more successful than their opponent's larger force of better armed and armored tanks.

All very true. I'm not saying that "bigger is always better" I'm just saying that was the mind set of the German high command.

[Ogrien]

If the Germans had gone all in on standardized mass production on the Panzer V rather than demanding specialization on practically every tank, it might have been worth the time of day, but because they had an allergy to efficiency, we'll never really know

I'm pretty sure that Hitler's doing. If he had left the military to do what it did best then they might have actually survived.

Nah, the OKW was as hopelessly in love with their own military superiority as Hitler. I can't necessarily fault them after how much ground they gained early on, but they pretty much all loved their own German craft and wanted only the finest for themselves. The Heer would change the specifications on production lines (well, workstations, anyway), so often that you sometimes could have 20 tanks rolled out back to back with minor but impactful technical specifications. They would put more manhours into a Panzer V than the US did into a fucking B-17

[Arlenton]

German military fanboys. Not saying you're one or anything, but they do tend to get starry-eyed at anything German. But no, I don't think bigger was better in WW2. Judging by the main tanks of the victorious side, I'd argue the opposite in fact

I'm not saying that "bigger is better" won out. I'm just saying that was the attitude of the Germans of that time.

I actually think that "bigger is better" idea the Germans had came from their encounters with the heavily armored allied tanks early in the war war, like the French Char B1, British Matilda II, and Soviet KV-1, when Germany had no tanks of their own armored that heavily, besides those weird Neubaufahrzeug heavy tanks you rarely hear about that they only used in Norway.

[Len Hyet]

I'm just here for the inevitable storm of Wehraboos, don't mind me.