These higher quality tanks decimated the Soviet armored brigades in battle. The Soviets' only advantage was their vast numbers (in 1944 they made over 2000 new tanks every month!).

The key to surviving battle was to close rapidly with the Nazi armor to neutralize their advantage in gun size and accuracy.

And the T-34 model which receives so many votes is the T-34/85, which was not produced until after Kursk.

But do you really care about ease of repair and manufacturing volume when you have a Tiger tank shooting at you???

The Panther was SUPPOSED to be the best tank, having taken a lot of design feature from the T-34; it was indeed a tribute to the T-34. Unfortunately for the Germans, they had problems with their treads - they were supposed to be replaced but with war shortages, they never got the parts of the original design. The treads they used were for a lighter tank, a bad combination, forced by shortages. They also had very bad problems with their transmission - again, not the fault of the disigners, the fault of war shortages that kept them from being 'made to spec'.

Therefore, the Panther never became the tank in use that it could have - over long distance, it broke down. Canny German generals commanders would often use them more like quasi-mobile anti-tank guns. When they worked, they were real good. So, yes, ease of repair (or more importantly, tendency to break down) DID matter when your 'mobile' tank was stuck and you are a sitting duck for an anti-tank gun!

The T-34 is THE tank for military historians. We tend to look at issues other than direct battlefield capabilites, including cost to repair, maintenance, ease of production and use, how hard training is, etc. All around, speed, ease of use, power, etc., the T-34 is very hard to match. Also, please recognize that the T-34 came out earlier than the Panther; yes, the 85 model was later, but the earlier models were indeed the basis for the Panther, and captured T-34 were studied. The T-34 was involved in the battles up through Stalingrad. The Panther was rushed into service for Kursk, which is why it didn't get the full time to use its best design.

It is hard to compare a Tiger, a heavy tank, with a medium tank like the Panther or the T-34. I think the Panther was better. They had effectively the same engine, and the Panther had better and frontal armor and a similar turret weapon. It was a lot faster and had a better range. The Tiger had much stronger side and back armor (making it hard to kill) but operationally was a difficult tank, using ups globs of fuel.

So, how is the Panther viewed? I think the world views that the had the Panther design been made as it was supposed to, and not been forced into use too early with the appropriate parts, it may have been the best tank ever made. Thegoodanarchist, you may be referring to these analyses, as engineers marvel at the Panther's capabilities if it had come to full potential.

But the T-34 was THE weapon of Soviet victory, an amazing weapon - in my opinion, the single greatest weapon of the war.

So your argument seems to be that over 50,000 T-34s are better than <7000 Panthers.

But my point was one-on-one, the Panther was better on the steppes of Russia than the T-34.

This is a bit too hagiographic. Red Army infantry mobility was limited to how fast they could walk (when not entrained) until the allied Lend Lease program really got going.

The US put them on wheels for the first time in history with the White half track and other trucks supplied in great quantities.

I am not sure if you are trying to dispute my original post, wax on about weapons of WWII, or what.

But I see nothing in the posts of you or <Breunor> that refutes my original contention, that being a Soviet tanker was like being a fish in a barrel.

But I'm not saying 50,000 T-34's are better than 7,000 Panthers. I'm saying 7,000 T-34 are better than 7,000 Panthers.

We can look tank vs. tank or on a cost equivalent basis.

Tank for tank, for the Panthers actually produced (especially early ones) 7,000 produced tanks, ignoring combat damage, probably had about 3,500 operational at a time; while 7,000 T-34's probably would have about 5,000 operational. So that is the T-34's advantage. I do agree 'tank for tank' is a legitimate way to compare them, but so is dollar for dollar. On that basis, the T-34 has a greater superiority.

A good example of cost issues is the B-2 Spirit bomber - it is the technically most advanced bomber in the world, but it is so ridiculously expensive it is hard to say it is a 'great' plane and indeed is usually considered a horrible failure since they ended up costing $750 MM/operational bomber.

Here is a list of 'greatest' tanks from the History channel: http://military.discovery.com/techn...

For the Germans, the PV IV and the Tiger made the list, the Panther didn't, and the T-34 was first. Of course,t hese lsits are subjective, as I said, I think the Panther may have been better than the Tiger.

I do agree, however, in my opinion, if I have a working, operational machine, I thought the Panther was the best tank of the war. (They are great in the old Avalon Hill game, PanzerBlitz!)

<<"Forward, Kazimirych!">

When talking about the sources of Spassky's brilliant style of play, one immediately recalls his previous trainer of many years (1952-1960), the Leningrad frandmaster Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush, who was a famous master of attack and an uncommonly cheerful, witty man. After a win he would inform his friends: <'Dracula has been caught.'> When his opponent dragged out a hopeless resistance, he would complain: <'The cannon-fodder is resisting.'> When the latter resigned, Tolush would proclaim: <'Amen to the pies'.> And during a blitz game and when analysing he would encourage himself with the war-cry: <'Forward, Kazimirych!'>

This became the motto of more than one generation of players; it was also liked by Paul Keres, with whom Tolush worked in the late 40s and 50s. With Spassky himself, a liking for dashing attacks, for an unfettered, lively and liberal 'Tolush-like' style of play was retained practically to the end of his chess career. <...>

However, Tolush's manners did not provoke a positice reaction from everyone. For example, Botvinnik did not like him. And this was why: in the 13th USSR Championship (1944) Tolush mated Botvinnik on f7 with the disrespectful words: 'It's ma-ate, Mikhal Moiseich'. From that time 'Tolush' sounded almost like a swear word to the ears of #Mikhal Mouseich'>

Correct pronunciation of his name-