A simple question. What principals made for a good tank during WW2? Why were some tanks outstanding and others mediocre or just plain usless? Leave aside tactics and crew proficiency - let's concentrate on the machine. Was it armour, speed, calibre of weapon, engine etc, or a combination. Each element affected another. So having a lot of defensive armour affected speed, a heavy gun affected loading speeds and the amount of ammo that could be carried, etc If you had to design your own tank what would you consider the most important features? Designs must within acceptable limits of what was available during the war.
If I had to go to war in a tank, I'd want very good armour, whatever this did to the speed. The British experience with cruiser tanks such as the Crusader demonstrated that speed was no protection. A decent gun would be the next priority, and reliability probably more important than speed. On the whole I'd rather have gone into battle in a Tiger than, say a Sherman, the only problem being that Shermans would have outnumbered me. Probably the T34 was the best all-rounder. There - thats all of Kyt's questions answered; I was hoping for an early night but I'm a sucker for these kind of questions!
Errr, Adrian, are you sure about the speed thing? The Russians used the speed advantage of the T-34, during the Battle of Kursk, to overwhelm the German advantage of armament, by rushing in and mixing it up close.
Ok, but there was more to the T34 than speed alone - that sloping front armour, a decent gun. They wouldn't have got far trying the Kursk tactics in a Crusader or Valentine.
