Best/favorite WW2 medium tank

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by starling

is it not true that the pz mk5 suffered the same as the pz mk6,with wheels hidden away behind eachother.if it was so advanced,why do the modern tanks not use this technological advanced suspention system.perhaps they should have copied the russian,british or american types of suspention.yours,starling. .

Because modern tanks have twice the horsepower at about the same weight.

[renrich]

We had M41s in my unit. It was regarded as a light tank and of course was not in WW2 but would have been an excellent medium tank in WW2, I believe.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Glider

One question is 'is the Panther a Medium tank when you look at its weight and size?'

Compared to the Tiger I and the Tiger II (and the later JS III) then, yes, it was a "medium" tank. A few years earlier, and it probably would've been considered a heavy tank but, as Kurfurst pointed out, the weight of all tanks continued to increase right up till the end of the War. There were even some "superheavy" tanks in development by the Germans toward the end of the War, most notably the famous "Maus" (at 180 tons+), and the uncompleted E-100 (at approximately 100 tons, hence the "100" designation; none were ever completed, but a completed chassis was found at Paderborn after the War sans turret and tracks).

[comiso90]

If we're talking about 5 tanks vs 5 tanks gladiator-type battle in an open field with equal crews, the Panther would clean up.

The reality is that cost, fuel consumption, production, manufacturing, reliability and numbers should be considered in addition to firepower, armor, speed and agility.

IMO the T-34 holds the crown in best overall medium tank.

.

[seesul]

The reason why I voted for T-34 and not for Panther is because T-34 was really revolutionary conception and Germans only used and improved (not in all aspects) it on their Panther. Should Panther have a simpler gears conception (wheels) and diesel engine, it would be the best tank of WW2.
But as I said T-34 came first with a really modern tank conception.
Panther saw the light of this world only because of T-34...

[KrazyKraut]

People over-emphasize the diesel engines. The T-34 did burn very easy, more so than the Panther.

The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.

[seesul]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.

The interleaving wheels system is pretty complicated for manufacturing and maintenance.
And not the best for arctic winter conditions. Frozen mud could even stop the tank which was very common in Russia.
Nothing else than improved copy of T-34...

[renrich]

Read online that the infamous tendency of the M4 Sherman to catch fire when hit by shell fire was not because of gasoline engine but because of ammunition storage.

[Soren]

Correct Renrich, and it was later partially solved with a wet storage arrangement.

As for the T-34, well it tended mostly to explode immediately after being hit, the pressure from the German 75 & 88mm APCBC projectiles setting off the ammunition storage. Now if that didn't happen the round usually just went right through the tank (Sometimes the fuze could fail), penetrating straight through the engine block causing a fuel explosion.

The IS-2 also tended to either immediately brew up or explode if hit by a 75 or 88mm APCBC shell. An explosion was almost guaranteed if the turret was penetrated, which was what the German gunners were aiming at; Explaining how a few Tiger Ausf.E's massacred over 20 IS-2's in an engagement at 1,500m in late August(IIRC) 1944.

[parsifal]

An intersting perspective

YouTube - Worlds Best Tank + Top 10 tanks ?

[magnocain]

My favorite tank is the M3 Grant (I know blasphemy). I like it because it has 2 big guns. It would be a lot more useful when attacking soft targets.

[starling]

is this true...the german mk5 tank...sticking in the ice,my god,i understood it was so advanced.no wonder the t34 was better. .

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by seesul

The reason why I voted for T-34 and not for Panther is because T-34 was really revolutionary conception and Germans only used and improved (not in all aspects) it on their Panther.

Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.

The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.

[seesul]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.

The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.

I really don´t know, in fact nothing...only Germans knew that as they copied and improved that conception and armour inclination on Panther...think for a first time with the turret in the middle...

[Kurfürst]

Inclined or sloped armor was nothing particularly new, it was well understood at the time.. take a look at AFV designs from the era, including German ones.




Earlier German medium tanks like Pz III and IV had a boxy design for two reasons - they were relatively small and this maximumised usable space inside the tank, and because the Germans opted for face-hardened armor plates on their early designs (a very reasonable choice against the typically small-caliber, pre-war AT guns firing uncapped projectiles, as they would shatter upon impact) and face-hardened armor worked best if used vertically.

The Soviets basically took existing technologies of the time (for example, the large V2 diesel of T34 was a modified French airship engine to my best knowledge), and applied them to their 'fast tank' concept seen on the BT series, only in bigger and heavier version with more armor and larger gun.

Its just natural evolvement of technology.