Favorite/ Most effective German Panzer of WW2 (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

Alright fellas:

switching gears here to look at German panzers of WW2- had considered a discussion of German Generalship but felt that might get into a heated argument.

Alright- here are the choices- when looking at the model, consider all variants of a particular Panzer...too numerous to mention to break down by myself into further detail. Panthers and Tigers seem to dominate manufacturer's offerings these days. Will be interesting to see if collectors have a different outlook when looking at the collective aresenal of panzers.

The options:

Panzer I
Panzer II
Panzer III
Panzer IV
Panzer V- Panther
Panzer VI- Tiger
Panzer VII- King Tiger

Feel free to add any additonal info- what battles you are particularly keen on, etc.

For me, while I do enjoy the Panzer V-VII, I still feel the Panzer IV, all variants, were the real workhorse of the German army and really instrumental in many of their successes.

 

[Go for Broke]

May not be the most effective, but my favorite German tank is the Panzer III. I love the look and design.

 

[Mitch]

Think the Stugs were the real backbone of the german attacks and troops always felt better when a unit of stugs were in their area.

Its also where the over represented Wittmann scored most kills!!! Wonder if an SL wittmann stug would sell as well as a Tiger 1 with his name attached??? Quite bored with the tiger at the moment would like to see full skirted Panzer III or IV's and it would be nice to see some Flakpanzers mobel, wirbel, kubel not really bothered but, it would be good to see
Mitch

 

[Terp152]

If answering the question, "most effective", then the choice can't be the Panther or Tiger. Which panzers rolled thru Poland, France andthe Low Countries, the Balkans, etc. Panzer II? Panthers and Tigers were in losing actions. Looking at this from the operational level of course, not the tactical. Chris

 

[lancer]

I voted for the Tiger I (big surprise, eh?). However, I do really like the Mk. II. Great lines and the backbone of the Polish campaign (love that gray w/ white crosses) and it stayed in service as a tank into 1943 and it's chassis stayed in service even longer. Neat little tank. -- Al

 

[Martin Tabony]

What about the Czech built 38t and variants!

Martin

 

[Mitch]

Most effective would probably have to be the Panzer IV. This was a really good AFV and, could be up-gunned with a very potent 75mm gun and, up-armoured sufficiently to be a threat to any allied tank. Tactics were paramount to the early victories as the allies at that stage had better AFV's than the germans and, where AFV went head to head with AFV the germans lost. Many accounts show where Chars and Matilda's came up against the german armour only the 88mm Flak gun saved the day.

Another what if comes to mind. What would the battlefields have been like had the germans focused on such a good tank like this PanzerIV than split their resources so much with so many different AFV's??. The panzer IV could easily, with germany's resources, reached sherman and T-34 numbers. This would have meant a harder win to the war and, many more allied dead and wounded.
Mitch

If answering the question, "most effective", then the choice can't be the Panther or Tiger. Which panzers rolled thru Poland, France andthe Low Countries, the Balkans, etc. Panzer II? Panthers and Tigers were in losing actions. Looking at this from the operational level of course, not the tactical. Chris

 

[Currahee Chris]

Most effective would probably have to be the Panzer IV. This was a really good AFV and, could be up-gunned with a very potent 75mm gun and, up-armoured sufficiently to be a threat to any allied tank. Mitch

I concur- I put the Panzer IV as the second best tank of the entire war, behind the T-34.

Tough poll to ocreate or design as I know I love LOVE looking at Tigers and Panthers but at the end of the day, I give my props to the Panzer IV.

Martin- don't muddy the waters mate!! {sm4}{sm4}

 

[Martin Tabony]

Most effective would probably have to be the Panzer IV. This was a really good AFV and, could be up-gunned with a very potent 75mm gun and, up-armoured sufficiently to be a threat to any allied tank. Tactics were paramount to the early victories as the allies at that stage had better AFV's than the germans and, where AFV went head to head with AFV the germans lost. Many accounts show where Chars and Matilda's came up against the german armour only the 88mm Flak gun saved the day.

Another what if comes to mind. What would the battlefields have been like had the germans focused on such a good tank like this PanzerIV than split their resources so much with so many different AFV's??. The panzer IV could easily, with germany's resources, reached sherman and T-34 numbers. This would have meant a harder win to the war and, many more allied dead and wounded.
Mitch

Would they have had the crews for that many panzer VIs

 

[Mitch]

I think they could have remembering that not all were in the field at once just as not every T-34 or sherman were in the field. we are talking of a period of six years maximum. Off the top of my head I cannot remember how many Panzers IV were made about 12,500 somewhere about that number but, they were effective and, had they been able to field say ten more per panther or Tiger etc then it would most certainly have been a torrid battlefield for all of the allies.
Mitch

Would they have had the crews for that many panzer VIs

 

[Martin Tabony]

I couldn't agree more that if they'd stuck with a trusted workhorse rather than wasting all the resorces on things like the "Maus" they would have been in a much stronger position come 1945 I just wasn't sure about the population numbers. There again you can crew a stug with sixteen year olds.

 

[fmethorst]

I voted for the Tiger I. The schwere Panzer Kompanie/Abteilung must be considered among the most effective armorered units in WWII. They were often decisive even employed in small numbers. I can't think of another tank that could take the beating a Tiger could and survive. The low number of total losses due to direct enemy fire would probably surprise many people. It also had a potent main gun effective against both hard and soft targets.

The Panther is probably the best all round tank of the war with a good combination of armor, gun and mobility.

The Stug was the most numerous and probably the most important German AFV. It was increasingly task with roles it wasn't suited for (i.e. tank replacement) but it's low profile, potent gun, low cost, ease of manufacture have to place it near the top of the list.

As noted the Panzer IV must be considered the backbone of the Panzer Divisions and was a good design that facilitated upgrading. In effectiveness I would put it in the class of the Sherman and T-34.

I've always had a soft spot for the Panzer III as I find it an aesthetically pleasing design.

The Panzer I and II were really little more than practice tanks pressed into service.

One thing to consider when discussing the number of vehicles fielded by the Germans is fuel. Even if they had been able to produce more of all types of vehicles fueling them would have been a challenge.

 

[wayne556517]

I voted for the Tiger I. The schwere Panzer Kompanie/Abteilung must be considered among the most effective armorered units in WWII. They were often decisive even employed in small numbers. I can't think of another tank that could take the beating a Tiger could and survive. The low number of total losses due to direct enemy fire would probably surprise many people. It also had a potent main gun effective against both hard and soft targets.

The Panther is probably the best all round tank of the war with a good combination of armor, gun and mobility.

The Stug was the most numerous and probably the most important German AFV. It was increasingly task with roles it wasn't suited for (i.e. tank replacement) but it's low profile, potent gun, low cost, ease of manufacture have to place it near the top of the list.

As noted the Panzer IV must be considered the backbone of the Panzer Divisions and was a good design that facilitated upgrading. In effectiveness I would put it in the class of the Sherman and T-34.

I've always had a soft spot for the Panzer III as I find it an aesthetically pleasing design.

The Panzer I and II were really little more than practice tanks pressed into service.

One thing to consider when discussing the number of vehicles fielded by the Germans is fuel. Even if they had been able to produce more of all types of vehicles fueling them would have been a challenge.

Well said mate i agree 100%............

 

[lancer]

I voted for the Tiger I. The schwere Panzer Kompanie/Abteilung must be considered among the most effective armorered units in WWII. They were often decisive even employed in small numbers. I can't think of another tank that could take the beating a Tiger could and survive. The low number of total losses due to direct enemy fire would probably surprise many people. It also had a potent main gun effective against both hard and soft targets.

The Panther is probably the best all round tank of the war with a good combination of armor, gun and mobility.

The Stug was the most numerous and probably the most important German AFV. It was increasingly task with roles it wasn't suited for (i.e. tank replacement) but it's low profile, potent gun, low cost, ease of manufacture have to place it near the top of the list.

As noted the Panzer IV must be considered the backbone of the Panzer Divisions and was a good design that facilitated upgrading. In effectiveness I would put it in the class of the Sherman and T-34.

I've always had a soft spot for the Panzer III as I find it an aesthetically pleasing design.

The Panzer I and II were really little more than practice tanks pressed into service.

One thing to consider when discussing the number of vehicles fielded by the Germans is fuel. Even if they had been able to produce more of all types of vehicles fueling them would have been a challenge.

What he said! -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

I intentionally put this thread together with you in mind Frank- I was interested to hear what you had to say on the subject- as were others obviously. :smile2:Some interesting takes on the Tiger 1 and Panther. Our views on the Pz1-3 are similar.

Interesting to see the KT does not have any votes at this time. {sm2}

Now if I could get a particular moderator <<cough, Dave cough cough>> off his keyster and sound off this thread will be complete. {sm4}

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I did vote early in this thread but this past week has been one of those ones that is best described as crazy so I didnt have time to really formulate a good reply. However things slowed down finally and now that everyone is in bed I can tell you that I voted for the Panzer IV. I will say that it was a pretty easy pick for a few reasons. As a tanker on active duty I took a big interest in the technology of tanks and what made them good, bad or great. My main focus in those days was of course the equipment of our enemies at that time or the USSR so when they went away and I moved on to greener pastures I really took a deeper look at the tanks that stood out in history from WWI to the current models. I have a few vehicles that I really like from WWII because they set up future tank designers for success by being ahead of their time for one reason or another. This leads me to a number of reasons why I think that Panzer IV was the real work horse for the German Armored Formations. Now dont get me wrong I really like the Tiger I and Panther but for this discussion I have stay with the Panzer IV.
The Panzer IV was a vehicle with a lot of firsts it had a compartmeted construction that allowed for very quick mass production (something they probably took from Ford). This also allowed for easy removal of the Engine for repair or services, (something that we really liked in our M1 Series tanks), it also had an electric traverse for the turret that was super smooth. Its main gun was able to crack the armor of all the vehicles it came up against and as the war progressed and the Soviets brought out the T34 the Germans were able to change the gun and not change the profile of the turret because there was ample room built into it from the outset. This of course was mainly the reason the Panzer III became absolete and that chassie became the basis for many of the Stug models. The eventual advent of bigger enemy guns was combated by fitting more armor and also by the introduction of thin steel armor added to set off shape charge projectiles which reminds me that this baby was the first one to field a shape charge projectile for its 75mm gun. Another thing that makes this beastie stand out for me is the transmission. Yeah I know sounds really silly but the Thoma Hydrostatic Transmission was about 30 years ahead of its time and was used during the 1960s by the US Tank designers as a basis for what would be developed and eventually used in our era.
This vehicle was an amazing work horse and was inaction from day one till the end of the war and for these reasons it is my pick. Lastly, I need to mention that this tank was used into the 1960's unfortunately by the Syrians but it was there and on an interesting note the last one destroyed in action was actually killed by an Israeli Sherman so hows that for closure.

So there you go Chris.

Dave

 

[Currahee Chris]

This also allowed for easy removal of the Engine for repair or services, (something that we really liked in our M1 Series tanks),

love pullin the pack!! {sm4}

I had no idea an Israeli Sherman took out the last PzIV. That's some interesting trivia!!

 

[Phantom Warrior]

My favourite is the Panzer IV - partly because of of it's effectiveness against all allied tanks once it had a long gun. Also because of all the upgrades and variations.

While the Tiger was effective and could take a pounding, it was overkill. The Panzer IV was almost as effective, cost half as much to make and used 25% less fuel. Tigers had more frequent breakdowns, were more difficult to recover and repair, and had mobility problems (i.e. small bridges) Less than 2000 Tiger I & II were made. The Germans could have made 4000 Panzer IVs instead - about a 30% increase over the 8800 produced.

So I guess the question is would you rather have 2000 Tigers or 12800 (4000 more) Panzer IV?

Terry

 

[lancer]

love pullin the pack!! {sm4}

I had no idea an Israeli Sherman took out the last PzIV. That's some interesting trivia!!

Yes, the irony works on many levels. :wink2: -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

My favourite is the Panzer IV - partly because of of it's effectiveness against all allied tanks once it had a long gun. Also because of all the upgrades and variations.

While the Tiger was effective and could take a pounding, it was overkill. The Panzer IV was almost as effective, cost half as much to make and used 25% less fuel. Tigers had more frequent breakdowns, were more difficult to recover and repair, and had mobility problems (i.e. small bridges) Less than 2000 Tiger I & II were made. The Germans could have made 4000 Panzer IVs instead - about a 30% increase over the 8800 produced.

So I guess the question is would you rather have 2000 Tigers or 12800 (4000 more) Panzer IV?

Terry

Excellent post Terry!! You setup the question quite well. Me, I'd take the extra Panzer IVs- or, if possible, a dozen Abrams M1A2's {sm4}