Achtung Panzer! Armor Discussion Thread

[Uxupox]

Certainly tanks saw less use in the Islands of the Pacific, and smaller more mobile vehicles better.

Problem Japan had was their conflict in China. China had limited armor, but the couple times Japan had run ins with the Soviets they were crushed.

Though it was not just lack of armor, but other deficiencies. They Japanese Army was not very good. It had high morale, good determination. But its weapons, tactics and equipment lacking. It never developed modern combined arms abilities or the ability to use the tank as more than infantry support. As much a problem as their tanks being ill suited for combat in open environments was their tactics were also insufficient.

Japan had a a very good navy. Its army was not particularly good though. Often charging with mass infantry bayonets on bolt action rifles like it was before WWI.

This often got them massacred.

Um, I know that happened, but one does not simply march through most of the British Empire in Asia and then hold off several imperial powers by throwing their men around in banzai charges. Yeah, it happened, but Japan's army was pretty technologically advanced when the war started. They had a lot of machine guns and knew how to use them. They had heavy artillery and their tanks were actually supposedly equal to prewar French and British standards. And therein is the issue. Japan had the advantage, but squandered it because they didn't want to divert resources from proven success. It proved to be their downfall.

Actually, Japan developed fighter jets and tanks similar to German designs just before the war ended. They were never used in combat, but one wonders.

The Japanese were not technologically advanced but they were par with the allies when the war started that much is true. It's that they had complete surprise in achieving all of their objectives within the first 3 months of the start of their campaign in the pacific.

[San Marlindo]

I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.

The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.

I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.

Excuse me?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut_anti-tank_gun

It shoots the same ammo of the 2A46 tank gun, homing missiles included.

I had no idea Russia still uses anti-tank guns. Interesting.

[Militant Costco]

Um, I know that happened, but one does not simply march through most of the British Empire in Asia and then hold off several imperial powers by throwing their men around in banzai charges. Yeah, it happened, but Japan's army was pretty technologically advanced when the war started. They had a lot of machine guns and knew how to use them. They had heavy artillery and their tanks were actually supposedly equal to prewar French and British standards. And therein is the issue. Japan had the advantage, but squandered it because they didn't want to divert resources from proven success. It proved to be their downfall.

Actually, Japan developed fighter jets and tanks similar to German designs just before the war ended. They were never used in combat, but one wonders.

The Japanese were not technologically advanced but they were par with the allies when the war started that much is true. It's that they had complete surprise in achieving all of their objectives within the first 3 months of the start of their campaign in the pacific.

America has always told it's fight against Japan much more dramatically then it really was.

As you said, Japan was not technologically superior to the allies, they just got a head-start in building their war materials. Japan's top plane was made by obsolete by America in 2 years and their weapons weren't that spectacular. This is more evident when you realize Japan couldn't make a better plane than the Zero once it became obsolete (even though America could), their tanks were rather sad and they only achieved success in South East Asia because their colonial ruler was fighting a much tougher and more advanced enemy in Europe, losing Singapore is nothing compared to losing London. Even when fighting a less advanced nation like China, Japan struggled and it really became a war of attrition and cat and mouse.

I'd place Germany as the most advanced during WWII, followed by Britain, America, Japan, Soviet Union and Italy.

[Uxupox]

Excuse me?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut_anti-tank_gun

It shoots the same ammo of the 2A46 tank gun, homing missiles included.

I had no idea Russia still uses anti-tank guns. Interesting.

By it's theoretical specifications it does have the capacity to engage the M1A2 Abrams though I do not know if it has the penetration power required to disable or destroy it.

[Uxupox]

The Japanese were not technologically advanced but they were par with the allies when the war started that much is true. It's that they had complete surprise in achieving all of their objectives within the first 3 months of the start of their campaign in the pacific.

America has always told it's fight against Japan much more dramatically then it really was.

As you said, Japan was not technologically superior to the allies, they just got a head-start in building their war materials. Japan's top plane was made by obsolete by America in 2 years and their weapons weren't that spectacular. This is more evident when you realize Japan couldn't make a better plane than the Zero once it became obsolete (even though America could), their tanks were rather sad and they only achieved success in South East Asia because their colonial ruler was fighting a much tougher and more advanced enemy in Europe, losing Singapore is nothing compared to losing London. Even when fighting a less advanced nation like China, Japan struggled and it really became a war of attrition and cat and mouse.

I'd place Germany as the most advanced during WWII, followed by Britain, America, Japan, Soviet Union and Italy.

Wouldn't call Germany the most advanced by 1944 for example the allies completely outclassed the Germans in almost every conceivable way. Their production and design capabilities were mind boggling.

[Militant Costco]

America has always told it's fight against Japan much more dramatically then it really was.

As you said, Japan was not technologically superior to the allies, they just got a head-start in building their war materials. Japan's top plane was made by obsolete by America in 2 years and their weapons weren't that spectacular. This is more evident when you realize Japan couldn't make a better plane than the Zero once it became obsolete (even though America could), their tanks were rather sad and they only achieved success in South East Asia because their colonial ruler was fighting a much tougher and more advanced enemy in Europe, losing Singapore is nothing compared to losing London. Even when fighting a less advanced nation like China, Japan struggled and it really became a war of attrition and cat and mouse.

I'd place Germany as the most advanced during WWII, followed by Britain, America, Japan, Soviet Union and Italy.

Wouldn't call Germany the most advanced by 1944 for example the allies completely outclassed the Germans in almost every conceivable way. Their production and design capabilities were mind boggling.

That's not technologically superior, that's just superior manufacturing.

Germany pretty much lost the war because what they made was too complicated. Germany could have probably beaten Russia if they improved their manufacturing speeds and built cheaper and easier equipment.

Mind you, a Tiger could still destroy anything the allies had, their jets still miles ahead of everyone (except Britain but they just stole Germany's design) and they still had the most effective machine gun at the end of WWII.

[Uxupox]

Wouldn't call Germany the most advanced by 1944 for example the allies completely outclassed the Germans in almost every conceivable way. Their production and design capabilities were mind boggling.

That's not technologically superior, that's just superior manufacturing.

Germany pretty much lost the war because what they made was too complicated. Germany could have probably beaten Russia if they improved their manufacturing speeds and built cheaper and easier equipment.

Mind you, a Tiger could still destroy anything the allies had, their jets still miles ahead of everyone (except Britain but they just stole Germany's design) and they still had the most effective machine gun at the end of WWII.

The ME 262 was remarkably faster than the P-51 but when both engaged in combat the P-51 reigned supreme.

Building "cheaper and easier" would have completely negated all of their superior firepower advantage over the Russians in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Germany pretty much lost the war because what they made was too complicated. Germany could have probably beaten Russia if they improved their manufacturing speeds and built cheaper and easier equipment.

Germany lost the war because its economy was too small. If it had built simpler, cheaper vehicles it would have had more vehicles; they would also have been worse. Probably would still have been a good idea but it wouldn't have made a huge difference ultimately. Try to fight three countries with (roughly) 140, 140, and 70 million people each, when your own country has just 85 or so, and two of those have more efficient economies than yours, and there isn't much you can do.

Mind you, a Tiger could still destroy anything the allies had, their jets still miles ahead of everyone (except Britain but they just stole Germany's design) and they still had the most effective machine gun at the end of WWII.

The German jet was inferior to the British jet - it was both considerably less powerful and considerably less durable. The British design wasn't copied from or based on the German design; they weren't even based on the same operating principle. Since Britain and Germany were the only countries with serious jet programmes that puts the Germans in second place out of two - hardly miles ahead of everyone.

[Wickedly evil people]

Guderian maintained in Panzer Leader that they lost because of ineffective leadership that didn't understand what it took to win.

[Empire of Cats]

Germany pretty much lost the war because what they made was too complicated. Germany could have probably beaten Russia if they improved their manufacturing speeds and built cheaper and easier equipment.

Germany lost the war because its economy was too small. If it had built simpler, cheaper vehicles it would have had more vehicles; they would also have been worse. Probably would still have been a good idea but it wouldn't have made a huge difference ultimately. Try to fight three countries with (roughly) 140, 140, and 70 million people each, when your own country has just 85 or so, and two of those have more efficient economies than yours, and there isn't much you can do.

Mind you, a Tiger could still destroy anything the allies had, their jets still miles ahead of everyone (except Britain but they just stole Germany's design) and they still had the most effective machine gun at the end of WWII.

The German jet was inferior to the British jet - it was both considerably less powerful and considerably less durable. The British design wasn't copied from or based on the German design; they weren't even based on the same operating principle. Since Britain and Germany were the only countries with serious jet programmes that puts the Germans in second place out of two - hardly miles ahead of everyone.

Ah, but the German jet ended up with a better combat record. If I recall correctly, the Meteor was put into service but not on the front lines until the last days of the war due to a fear that it might fall into enemy hands. They achieved a handful of kills, but not many, I think.

The ME-262, on the other hand, despite its lack of maneuverability, was fast and armed to the teeth. It was the perfect bomber-destroyer. It achieved over 500 kills of Allied aircraft in the eight months it operated.

[Novus America]

I had no idea Russia still uses anti-tank guns. Interesting.

By it's theoretical specifications it does have the capacity to engage the M1A2 Abrams though I do not know if it has the penetration power required to disable or destroy it.

Plus is huge, unwieldy and requires a crew of 7. Just get a tank. Or two guys with a Javelin. Considering personnel cost the tank will be cheaper. The Javelin will be much cheaper and more effective.

And you are unlikely to hit much with it with that obsolete POS gun. Unless the tank somehow does not see you and decides to roll into close range on open ground. Still the tank gun can aim and swivel much faster and with greater accuracy. You will be dead before you get off the first shot most likely. And almost certainly you are not getting a second.

Russia does make some good stuff. But the also oddly make some things decades after they became obsolete.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Germany lost the war because its economy was too small. If it had built simpler, cheaper vehicles it would have had more vehicles; they would also have been worse. Probably would still have been a good idea but it wouldn't have made a huge difference ultimately. Try to fight three countries with (roughly) 140, 140, and 70 million people each, when your own country has just 85 or so, and two of those have more efficient economies than yours, and there isn't much you can do.


The German jet was inferior to the British jet - it was both considerably less powerful and considerably less durable. The British design wasn't copied from or based on the German design; they weren't even based on the same operating principle. Since Britain and Germany were the only countries with serious jet programmes that puts the Germans in second place out of two - hardly miles ahead of everyone.

Ah, but the German jet ended up with a better combat record. If I recall correctly, the Meteor was put into service but not on the front lines until the last days of the war due to a fear that it might fall into enemy hands. They achieved a handful of kills, but not many, I think.

The ME-262, on the other hand, despite its lack of maneuverability, was fast and armed to the teeth. It was the perfect bomber-destroyer. It achieved over 500 kills of Allied aircraft in the eight months it operated.

For destroying the most bombers it does help if your enemy actually has some bombers to destroy.

[Empire of Cats]

Ah, but the German jet ended up with a better combat record. If I recall correctly, the Meteor was put into service but not on the front lines until the last days of the war due to a fear that it might fall into enemy hands. They achieved a handful of kills, but not many, I think.

The ME-262, on the other hand, despite its lack of maneuverability, was fast and armed to the teeth. It was the perfect bomber-destroyer. It achieved over 500 kills of Allied aircraft in the eight months it operated.

For destroying the most bombers it does help if your enemy actually has some bombers to destroy.

Very true. But I digress, I mean, this is a thread about tanks, not aircraft.

So...Cromwell vs. Sherman M4? Which one served the British better?

[Novus America]

Germany pretty much lost the war because what they made was too complicated. Germany could have probably beaten Russia if they improved their manufacturing speeds and built cheaper and easier equipment.

Germany lost the war because its economy was too small. If it had built simpler, cheaper vehicles it would have had more vehicles; they would also have been worse. Probably would still have been a good idea but it wouldn't have made a huge difference ultimately. Try to fight three countries with (roughly) 140, 140, and 70 million people each, when your own country has just 85 or so, and two of those have more efficient economies than yours, and there isn't much you can do.

Mind you, a Tiger could still destroy anything the allies had, their jets still miles ahead of everyone (except Britain but they just stole Germany's design) and they still had the most effective machine gun at the end of WWII.

The German jet was inferior to the British jet - it was both considerably less powerful and considerably less durable. The British design wasn't copied from or based on the German design; they weren't even based on the same operating principle. Since Britain and Germany were the only countries with serious jet programmes that puts the Germans in second place out of two - hardly miles ahead of everyone.

The German Me 262 was built first. By the time the Meteor deployed it was too late, it saw little use in the war. The Germans certainly had the best technology early on. Problem was they failed to deploy it in sufficient numbers. Their military was still mostly infantry with WWI bolt action rifles.

The US also had a jet program too though. Both the US and British had turbojets which were better than German pulse jets, but they came too late to see much use. The Germans first flew the Me 262 in 1942, but did not try to mass produce it oddly until much latter. Had they deployed it earlier it could have made a difference.

The huge advantage the US had (outside the naval realm) was the M1. We were the only Army with a semi automatic as the standard issue weapon.
Besides our sheer manufacturing capabilities.

The US had stuff that was good enough yet could be built in absurd numbers. Like the Sherman. Was it the best individual tank? No. But could it kill anything through sheer numbers that it could not one on one? Yes.

It was solid, did the job, could take on most tanks one on one but did not need to as we had so many.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Germany lost the war because its economy was too small. If it had built simpler, cheaper vehicles it would have had more vehicles; they would also have been worse. Probably would still have been a good idea but it wouldn't have made a huge difference ultimately. Try to fight three countries with (roughly) 140, 140, and 70 million people each, when your own country has just 85 or so, and two of those have more efficient economies than yours, and there isn't much you can do.


The German jet was inferior to the British jet - it was both considerably less powerful and considerably less durable. The British design wasn't copied from or based on the German design; they weren't even based on the same operating principle. Since Britain and Germany were the only countries with serious jet programmes that puts the Germans in second place out of two - hardly miles ahead of everyone.

The German Me 262 was built first. By the time the Meteor deployed it was too late, it saw little use in the war.

The two aircraft were introduced at about the same time: April 1944 for the Me 262, July 1944 for the Meteor. The Me 262 was inferior in most respects (and its jet engines considerably inferior), but it saw more use just because the British didn't actually need a daylight interceptor by 1944. Both aircraft were specialised for scrambling and shooting down enemy bombers and Germany wasn't operating bombers over the British isles while the British and Americans were operating a lot of bombers over German territory. That imbalance wasn't a result of superior German performance!

edit: Another thing worth pointing out is that these introduction dates, though I'll grant they're fair as the Germans were using the Me 262 in combat around that time, are not strictly accurate. The British had an operational combat squadron in July 1944 but the Germans didn't until 1945; before that they were being operated by test squadrons. One might ask why? Because the Me 262 didn't work properly. In fact it never did. It had such a short maintainable lifespan that Me 262s mission killed themselves from component degradation within just a flew flights even if the enemy took no countermeasures against them at all.

The Germans certainly had the best technology early on. Problem was they failed to deploy it in sufficient numbers. Their military was still mostly infantry with WWI bolt action rifles.

Early German technology was actually worse than that of the allies - their tanks were worse, they had no four engined bombers, their ships were the weakest built by any power. The famous German tanks everyone knows and loves weren't the ones that won the spectacular victories of 1940-2. What the Germans did was invest a lot of money in advanced projects that came to fruition around 1944. This was a big mistake because the war was decided between 1941 and 1943. It didn't matter what they came up with after that date so money spent on R&D would have been better invested in building more of old designs. I don't think it would have changed the outcome but it would have been a better choice.

The US also had a jet program too though.

Yes but not a very good one. The US ultimately just imported a British engine, which also had the effect of delaying the British jet programme. The Soviets also ended up using British technology after the Labour Party let them steal it. So bizarrely both sides of the Cold War had jet technology descended in some way from British WWII efforts. The German technology briefly went to France but it was pretty much a dead end and the French eventually imported a British technological base too.

Both the US and British had turbojets which were better than German pulse jets, but they came too late to see much use.

No one was using pulse jets on first line planes. The Germans used pulse jets on disposable missiles (which was actually a relatively sensible choice because they were simple and cheap).

The Germans first flew the Me 262 in 1942, but did not try to mass produce it oddly until much latter. Had they deployed it earlier it could have made a difference.

And the Meteor first flew in March 1943; for that matter the British jet prototype was first tested in 1937 before the war had even begun. Time is needed to certify that an example aircraft actually performs to specification and then establish a production line; that's the case for all aircraft before and since. The Germans were already proceeding as fast as they could, and their jet programme actually had a lot more resources than the British.

The huge advantage the US had (outside the naval realm) was the M1. We were the only Army with a semi automatic as the standard issue weapon.
Besides our sheer manufacturing capabilities.

That wasn't a huge advantage; differences in infantry rifles had very little effect on battles and were responsible for only a small minority of casualties. The US-UK-USSR's enormous aggregate population and production advantage was however impossible for the Germans to overcome. They needed to knock at least one of the UK or USSR out of the war before 1943.

[Riysa]

By it's theoretical specifications it does have the capacity to engage the M1A2 Abrams though I do not know if it has the penetration power required to disable or destroy it.

Plus is huge, unwieldy and requires a crew of 7. Just get a tank. Or two guys with a Javelin. Considering personnel cost the tank will be cheaper. The Javelin will be much cheaper and more effective.

And you are unlikely to hit much with it with that obsolete POS gun. Unless the tank somehow does not see you and decides to roll into close range on open ground. Still the tank gun can aim and swivel much faster and with greater accuracy. You will be dead before you get off the first shot most likely. And almost certainly you are not getting a second.

Russia does make some good stuff. But the also oddly make some things decades after they became obsolete.

To play the devil's advocate here, an anti-tank gun presents a much smaller profile than a tank does, and is much easier to camouflage from both eyes and TI sights, since you don't have a giant engine emitting heat. Since the Sprut is otherwise the same as the T-series main guns, firing the same ammo, you pose the same if not greater threat in the defense as a tank does.

As for why not an ATGM, an IR or command operated ATGM can be confused by IR-obscurant smoke, which is pretty ubiquitous. Other passive APS systems also decrease the chance of a missile hitting, as we've seen with the performance of Shtora in the Ukraine and Syria, and has also been seen with the few Asad Babils that were equipped with Chinese-sourced countermeasure equipment. A supersonic metal dart isn't going to be confused by dazzlers, and is fast enough to likely hit an obscured tank before it can reposition itself. Different equipment for different roles, though the Sprut series can fire GLATGMs to increase their effective range.

[Novus America]

Plus is huge, unwieldy and requires a crew of 7. Just get a tank. Or two guys with a Javelin. Considering personnel cost the tank will be cheaper. The Javelin will be much cheaper and more effective.

And you are unlikely to hit much with it with that obsolete POS gun. Unless the tank somehow does not see you and decides to roll into close range on open ground. Still the tank gun can aim and swivel much faster and with greater accuracy. You will be dead before you get off the first shot most likely. And almost certainly you are not getting a second.

Russia does make some good stuff. But the also oddly make some things decades after they became obsolete.

To play the devil's advocate here, an anti-tank gun presents a much smaller profile than a tank does, and is much easier to camouflage from both eyes and TI sights, since you don't have a giant engine emitting heat. Since the Sprut is otherwise the same as the T-series main guns, firing the same ammo, you pose the same if not greater threat in the defense as a tank does.

As for why not an ATGM, an IR or command operated ATGM can be confused by IR-obscurant smoke, which is pretty ubiquitous. Other passive APS systems also decrease the chance of a missile hitting, as we've seen with the performance of Shtora in the Ukraine and Syria, and has also been seen with the few Asad Babils that were equipped with Chinese-sourced countermeasure equipment. A supersonic metal dart isn't going to be confused by dazzlers, and is fast enough to likely hit an obscured tank before it can reposition itself. Different equipment for different roles, though the Sprut series can fire GLATGMs to increase their effective range.

Thing is the tank has much better sensors, and its gun is much more mobile. It can move and aim much faster. And hiding something as big as the Sprut is not going to easy. It is huge.
Its mobility is shit too.

Plus actually trying to quickly and accurately aim it. You have to have it preset to an ambush point and hope the tank ends up exactly where you want it. And in modern tank warfare one shot is usually not enough. Once you shoot you reveal your position assuming you somehow managed to hide it.

If you want a ATGM, just get an ATGM, their advantage is light weight, mobility and a small crew. Things the Sprut lacks. And there is plenty of anti tank missiles that can be fire LOS visually instead of with IR sensors. Modern ones which are designed with smoke in mind.

Or just use a recoiless rifle.

Sure the Sprut might have some use in a very limited circumstance. But not enough to make it worthwhile. Also I note there is no mention of it ever being used successfully.

Hence why most countries have dumped these types of things 50+ years ago. Even most Sprut users have dumped it. Only Ukraine, Russia and Mexico still use it (I have no idea what Mexico could credibly use it for).

Plus the Sprut does actually have an engine. But if you use it you lose the advantage of not emitting heat and noise. And it still is painfully slow. And cannot fire while moving. Basically just have a 7 ton vehicle that can barely move, has an absurdly huge crew, and cannot fire while moving.

Most things can be done much better by something else. And losing 7 men to something so limited in use is not a good use of resources. It is a waste of men and money.

[Risottia]

I had no idea Russia still uses anti-tank guns. Interesting.

By it's theoretical specifications it does have the capacity to engage the M1A2 Abrams though I do not know if it has the penetration power required to disable or destroy it.

Not from all aspects at long range, but I daresay that a Abrams' crew wouldn't rejoice if a Svir knocked on their roof. Maybe you don't get a penetration, but anyway you cause crew suppression and system damage.
I'd say that the most important use of the 2A45 would be killing softer targets, like APCs and IFVs, while MBTs would be engaged by other, better-protected vehicles like helicopters, other MBTs or specialised AT-missile units.

[Novus America]

By it's theoretical specifications it does have the capacity to engage the M1A2 Abrams though I do not know if it has the penetration power required to disable or destroy it.

Not from all aspects at long range, but I daresay that a Abrams' crew wouldn't rejoice if a Svir knocked on their roof. Maybe you don't get a penetration, but anyway you cause crew suppression and system damage.
I'd say that the most important use of the 2A45 would be killing softer targets, like APCs and IFVs, while MBTs would be engaged by other, better-protected vehicles like helicopters, other MBTs or specialised AT-missile units.

But if you just want to kill softer targets at limited range, just use a Carl Gustav, SMAW or the like. If you want to kill tanks at longer range yes, use other things.
The Sprut B is huge, absurdly heavy (weighs far more than a M777 155mm howitzer!), unwieldy, hard to aim, slow to fire, and just not very good in most roles. The only use I can see is in a prepositioned ambush, assuming you can somehow hide it (the thing is nearly 7 feet/2m tall). Still seems would be better to have 7 guys with man potable stuff, thus giving you a lot more firepower, mobility, and easier to hide.

Over having 7 guys only able to fire one shot at a time and near immobile.

Or just get a M777 if you want a gun. Much lighter, same crew requirements. But can do a lot more and at a much longer range. Can kill tanks, but can also be used for other roles.

[Setgavarius]

There was, on the MGVYN (Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation) thread iteration, some claim that the Patton was superior to the Abrams because, among other things, it could fire on things in a wider angle. I believe it was either the OP or one of the first posts.
It has lingered as an afterthought in my head.

[Nekotani]

There was a large book on Fiat which mentions that they succeeded in trying to block production of the Italian Celere Sahariano for some reason. I honestly have no idea why, maybe they just enjoyed Italian tank crews being grisly blown up if it meant more M13/40 and M14/41's being produced.

[Setgavarius]

There was a large book on Fiat which mentions that they succeeded in trying to block production of the Italian Celere Sahariano for some reason. I honestly have no idea why, maybe they just enjoyed Italian tank crews being grisly blown up if it meant more M13/40 and M14/41's being produced.

Sounds like Mike got his money, and the military got to deploy more body bags.

[Oil exporting People]

Wouldn't call Germany the most advanced by 1944 for example the allies completely outclassed the Germans in almost every conceivable way. Their production and design capabilities were mind boggling.

That would come as a shock to the Soviet Armored Corps, which was still losing AFVs at a 1.2 to 1 rate even in 1945 against the Wehrmacht and SS.

[Empire of Cats]

The Japanese were not technologically advanced but they were par with the allies when the war started that much is true. It's that they had complete surprise in achieving all of their objectives within the first 3 months of the start of their campaign in the pacific.

America has always told it's fight against Japan much more dramatically then it really was.

As you said, Japan was not technologically superior to the allies, they just got a head-start in building their war materials. Japan's top plane was made by obsolete by America in 2 years and their weapons weren't that spectacular. This is more evident when you realize Japan couldn't make a better plane than the Zero once it became obsolete (even though America could), their tanks were rather sad and they only achieved success in South East Asia because their colonial ruler was fighting a much tougher and more advanced enemy in Europe, losing Singapore is nothing compared to losing London. Even when fighting a less advanced nation like China, Japan struggled and it really became a war of attrition and cat and mouse.

I'd place Germany as the most advanced during WWII, followed by Britain, America, Japan, Soviet Union and Italy.

1) Japan actually DID develop more advanced aircraft, but like I mentioned earlier they chose to stick with the Zero because they didn't want to waste resources. When they finally changed their minds, the war was lost. Look up the J8M, J8N-1,and J7M for examples.

2) Japanese air power included aircraft beyond the Zero. Look up the Frank, George, Nick, and Jack for other examples of fighter and heavy fighter aircraft.

3) By your logic, if Japan 'bogged down' in China, a 'less advanced' nation, then what would that make Germany, who got bogged down in a 'less advanced' nation ( the Soviet Union)?

[Plichtastan]

There was a large book on Fiat which mentions that they succeeded in trying to block production of the Italian Celere Sahariano for some reason. I honestly have no idea why, maybe they just enjoyed Italian tank crews being grisly blown up if it meant more M13/40 and M14/41's being produced.

Sounds like Mike got his money, and the military got to deploy more body bags.

You managed to make me laugh out loud at a joke about people dying due to preventable causes.

Anyways, so that I don't get banned for posting something irrelevant to the main topic, how about obscure tanks like the Osorio from Brazil? I like the idea of more competing tank designs, since the competition can spur improvements in quality and technology
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm
Although if the favorite has to be a familiar one, or a chimera of familiar ones, I'll go with the 120S.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/120s.htm
An M1 Abrams turret mounted on an M60 chassis. Cost-effective, and still has the coolness factor!