[Jarlaxle]

For a while, the Germans had the best fighter in the world: the fast, rugged, powerful (four 20mm cannon!) Focke-Wulf 190. The Fw-190d9 (aka "Dora", aka Fw-290, powered by the Jumo V12) might be the best piston-engined fighter of the war. It couldn't turn with a Mustang, but was faster, about equally armored, and had tremendous firepower (2x13mm MG, 4x20mm cannon). It could top 40,000', and could actually run down a Mosquito running flat-out. They wiped the floor with Spitfire V's in Africa...not until the Spitfire IX, the P-47C, and the later Mustangs showed up were they matched.

The Me262 should have been operational by January of 1943...spring 1943 at the latest.

The PzIV was probably the best overall German tank of WW2. It was the ONLY tank used in combat from the first day of the war to the last, and was built in about ten different variations just as a TANK, not even mentioning the various different uses the chassis was put to. One could make a pretty good argument that the PzIIIF2/IIIG was one of the first true Main Battle Tanks.

The PzIII was good, but being limited to the high-velocity 50mm L/60, while producing a pretty good tank (the PzIII-J), meant it couldn't keep up with the need for more firepower. It was the first German tank able to handle a Matilda II on better than even terms and could, more or less, fight an early T-34 on even terms (especially with APCR ammunition).

[Tailz]

The Panzer IV just seemed to hit that right balance of armour weight to engine power for mobility, a good hull for good support of a weapon with good striking power. Although the Panther went on to be a strong tank, it still had a lot of problems with weak side armour, cantankerous engine, etc. While the Tiger was just so heavy. It would have been intresting to see the lessons of the Panther/T-34 (sloped armour) applied to a reworked Panzer IV.

[Jarlaxle]

With one more year of development, the Panther would have been far and away the best tank of WW2. It was head and shoulders above the T-34/76, better than the T-34/85 (better armor, the gun, though a smaller bore, was just as powerful, more accurate, and fired faster), better than the KV-1, and at least as good as the KV-85, but faster & better at long range. It could even go head to head IS-2...despite the massive 122mm gun, the IS wasn't a great tank. The Allies are VERY lucky the Panther didn't go into mass production...

[Thunderhawk]

With one more year of development, the Panther would have been far and away the best tank of WW2. It was head and shoulders above the T-34/76, better than the T-34/85 (better armor, the gun, though a smaller bore, was just as powerful, more accurate, and fired faster), better than the KV-1, and at least as good as the KV-85

You are comparing a hypothetical 1945 Panther with tanks designed from the 1930s ('39 for the KV85) and whose production design pretty much finished in 43?

[Jarlaxle]

No, I am comparing a late-1943 Panther with tanks in front-line service in 1945. For that matter, wasn't the T-34/85 in service to 1950?

[Smilin' Dave]

It could even go head to head IS-2...despite the massive 122mm gun, the IS wasn't a great tank.

The two tanks were built for quite different purposes. The IS-2 wasn't intended to be great against other tanks, instead it was supposed to destroy infantry/strongpoints etc.

In general, didn't the Panther's quality and generally over engineered nature mean it could never be mass produced? I also remember hearing it has a tendency to catch fire, like the much maligned Sherman series.

[Jarlaxle]

Early Panthers tended to have fuel leaks due to a badly-designed pump. Later models had it corrected; swapping to the newer pump fixed it on early models. The Panther was rushed into front-line service too soon...even a 2-month delay for field testing would have been a big help. (Offhand: the interleaved-road-wheel suspension worked very well, especially in rough terrain, but could freeze up if parked after going through deep snow or mud in cold weather.)

The Panther did have the same weakness as all German tanks, most western Allied tanks, and some Russian tanks: it had a gasoline engine. Aside from the British Matilda II (which used two AEC bus engines) and the few Grants & Shermans built with paired 6-71 Detroit Diesels, only the Soviets and the Italians powered their tanks with diesel engines.

German industry couldn't really mass-produce ANYTHING. Had the Panther been designed by, say, Ford, GM, or Chrysler, they could certainly have mass-produced them.

[Tailz]

Interleaved road wheels for the running gear, even though they gave a stable ride, were a major problem to repair. If a road wheel at the back was damaged, the road wheels covering had to come off as well just to access the damaged wheel.

A problem Panthers also faced, was that fire would often belch from their exhaust pipes, giving away their position at night. While the Tiger and Panther both ended up with hot exhaust pipes that would again, glow in the dark.

But to my understanding, these problems occurred because of the rushed research and development of the war period.

German industry couldn't really mass-produce ANYTHING. Had the Panther been designed by, say, Ford, GM, or Chrysler, they could certainly have mass-produced them.

German industry was not really mobilised into a Command Economy until it was too late. It was not really a case of the Germans not being able to do mass production, but rather being prepared to do mass production - which eventually they did get too, but by that time there factory base was being bombed regularly. In difference American factories were free of bombing and sabotage - unlike British and German industrial centres.

[cowofzot]

Panther came out tops in Mean Max Pressure, ability to traverse soft of muddy soil. Weak final drive its weak point. German optics were better which meant it would see the opponent 1st, the all important advantage in tank fighting.

D Rowland Ground Pressure Papers

Little-known outside tank design engineers, very interesting articles on an alternative method of working out the ground pressure of tracked and wheeled vehicles.



http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels/militarygp.html



Panther 150-155
M-24 Chaffee 175
BT-5 175
T-34/76 174-186
Churchill M IV 177 (11 roadwheel)
Tiger II 184
Tiger I 185-192
Churchill VII 182-223
Churchill Mk IV 217 (9 roadwheel)
Panzer IV 184-191
T-34/85 196
Sherman HVSS 205
M3 Stuart 216
Panzer III 220-232
BT-7 240
JS-II 245
Universal Carrier 253
Sherman VVSS 282
E-100 290
Cromwell VII 300
Cromwell IV 352
M3 Halftrack 363
US 2 1/2 ton 367 (6X6)
Elephant 370
SD KFZ 231 (8 rad) 415
M8 Greyhound 460
Maus 470
Opel Blitz 525 (4X4)
Opel Blitz 700 (4X2)

For comparison

M29c Weasel 27
Caterpillar D7 32.5 (widepad)
Caterpillar D7 80 (regular)
Leopard II 201
M-60 221-236
T-62 242
M-47 246
AMX-30 249




This is from "Panzers at War," page 77:

"Accuracy testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1946 showed that, at 1,000 yards (914 meters), the 75mm main gun on the Panther could put all of its shots within a 12-inch (30.5 centimeter) circle. Tests done the year before had demonstrated that the ammunition fired from the Panther had such a flat trajectory that the gunner did not even have to change elevation settings until he began to engage enemy targets at ranges greater than 2,000 yards (1,828 meters)."

[cowofzot]

Mustang? but it was designed by a German, Edward Scmued.

"However, it was Packard’s light measuring device, to check tooling to with-in 1,000,000 of an inch, and Packard’s procedure of freezing parts for an exact fit, that allowed the new supercharger to rase the Merlin’s operational ceiling more that 10,000 feet." http://www.packardsinternational.com/packardspeed.php



Some P-40s got Merlins, but weren't super fast, L model would do about 368 mph. It is the supercharger that makes so much difference. P-51 had better charger than P-40 & Spit. P-40 charger was single stage, P-51 2 stage. Makes all the diff.


Was a Dora better than a P-51? P-51 faster at 40.000 ft & had better range. Dora more stable gun platform & superior climb & roll. Both good divers. Dora had less technical issues that P-51 & had automatic controls so pilot had less to fiddle with while flying. Yeager said it was best. RAF chief test pilot Eric Brown rated Spit MK 14 & Dora best with P-51 just below these 2.
ME109 & Mustang at high speed were 2 hand machines, but the FW190 remained a 1 hand machine. It's controls were levers? instead of cable I did read somewhere & this was one of its secrets. Wing was one piece instead of 2 like most other fighters. Very rugged.


the "Langnasen Dora," was described by no less an authority than Chuck Yeager as "the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew," from his days at Wright Field immediately after the war when he participated in the flight testing of captured enemy http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis ... averd9.htm

[cowofzot]

To answer the main question, one would have to break in down to categories. There are SO many pieces of equipment used in a war from Radar to Jerrycans.

Tanks
small arms
Aircraft
Artilerry
surface ships
subs

A gross oversimplification as it leaves out things like radios, Mortars, Jeeps/lorries etc

Germany certainly beats US in Subs & Tanks

Sherman was called the Ronson, lights up 1st time, every time. Russians said it would tip over if you turned it too fast. M-26 Pershing was junk.

From Dupuy institute...

And it could be expected that the number total number of M-26 deadlined would be about twice the actual number of M-4 deadlined. (In Korea of 252 “re-built” M-26 employed, 105 suffered major mechanical failures or 41.7%, it’s “stablemate” the even “improved” 173 M-46 suffered 76 major mechanical failures or 43.9%. Major mechanical failures in the 516 M4A3 – mostly “re-built” – employed were just 112 or 21.7%. Note that in 347 tanks suffering major mechanical failures 107 became write-offs.





By the end of 1951, all Pershing tanks had been purged from the inventory.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/tanks-an ... htm?page=2

[cowofzot]

German 20 mm canon was better. Twice the explosive power. Browning vs MG 131 can be found at Tony Williams site.

GUN EFFICIENCY

50 Browning 2.1
MG 131 2.82





The outstanding performer is clearly the German 30 mm MK 108, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the .50 M2 for only twice the weight
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

US Bombers were best. Jeep vs Thing? I dunno.

[cowofzot]

US airforce was bigger. British & Russians did a lot of work grinding the Luftwaffe down before US airforce arrived in strength.


The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.
The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.



-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

[Jarlaxle]

Best light bomber is a 2-way race between the Junkers and De Havilland...the Ju-88 and the "wooden wonder", the legendary Mosquito. Though the Ju-88 gave good service in many roles from the beginning of the war to the end, I have to give the nod to the Mossie here...you just have to love a bomber that can simply OUTRUN pursuing fighters!

[cowofzot]

Mossie and the Hornet are cool machines. Tigercat too for that matter.


For many years, Capt. Trapnell was the top test pilot in the Navy; his word was law,
the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons;
As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1

by far the slickest accelerating prop fighter I ever flew (this comparison includes the famed F8F-1 Bearcat).

[Thunderhawk]

With all this discussion about quality, it seems we have all dismissed the dirrect and indirrect cost of the items when determining "best". Most of the countries involved were eventually totally commited to the war so there wasnt too much slack in terms of money and production capacity. Generally speaking (am I wrong?) none of the armies in the war had more then enough equipment when fighting some one on par to them, they could always have used more of everything, so production quanitity then matters. So the best item is not the item of the highest quality, but that which returned the greatest amount of benefit to the military as a whole on the investment to create it. A marginally better quality weapon that cost 5x as much resources/time and creates new logitic lines for its special/unique needs does not strike me as "better" if that weapon class is in short supply or if the logistics train is overwhelmed.

[cowofzot]

True enough, V-2 was a waste of money, but German hand held anti tank weapons were an exellent easy to make & effective weapon-s.