Best armored vehicles history books according to redditors

> they could have worked out the 262s engine issues in time to make a difference.

Even if Nazi Germany made 3,000 262s, it would have not changed anything drastically. You realize the Allies had jets too right? Jets that performed on par, if not better, than the Me-262 right? The fact of the matter is they didn't put extensive amounts of money/research into them because prop planes were shooting down German jets without serious problems.

> Regardless, rocket technology, the discovery of heavy waters role in nuclear reactions, the massive leaps in propulsion and science, those aspects I would say were ahead of the Allies, and most of the allied knowledge of it came from espionage and spy work.


> but it was the things Germany had on the drawing board during the war that would shape warfare for the victor nations, such as the U-boat(copied by both the US and USSR for numerous sub designs post war) jet fighters, radio guidance etc

I'll just leave you to figure this out on your own because this is a bunch of nonsense. Paper aircraft mean absolutely fuck all. Along with anything else they "might have created". The only thing I can give you a hand on is rocket tech. Because the Nazis invested massive amounts of slave labor and money into their rocket projects. They made advancements by trial and error using slaves.

But then again, who created the first nuclear weapon? It wasn't Nazi Germany and the people who did it didn't use slave labor. Along with the fact that the Allies did not "steal Nazi tech" regarding the A-bomb. This is not a debate. This is a matter of fact.

> German Tanks were more potent but suffered from mechanical failures due to complexity and lack of maintenance supplies and trained maintenance crews by 1944. The T-34 was a great tank, but I wouldn’t say it was superior to any of the late war German tanks.

German tanks were not "more potent". I'm sure you're referring to big cats and the fact of the matter is, they were nothing spectacular. Yes they were good at killing other tanks. So what? How did that work out for them? If they were something spectacular, they would have been continued in design after the war.....which they were not. Simple as that.

> You can’t compare technology when they didn’t have the supplies to use it.

So why didn't German tech get used post war? Enlighten me.

> it’s fucking basic history.

It's well beyond that my friend. Well beyond that. I recommend some reading in your future other than the internet.

> I can’t enlighten you, your ass needs to read some books.

The irony is palpable.

Regarding the 262

This guy shot down German jets in a prop plane

Regarding "Uber Nazi Tech"

Regarding the Big Cats

I'd continue with sources but I doubt you'll even look at the ones I've listed anyways.

Good luck on your delusional endeavor.

Edited to fix a bad link.

>Talking about outnumbering the enemy. Don't think the M4 Sherman was any different! The only reason the Allies even made a dint in Axis armour was through sheer attrition. There are historical accounts of single Panthers (a German medium tank) destroying entire platoons of Shermans on their own.

Yeah, and there are accounts of Shermans doing much the same.

I suggest looking into Steve Zaloga's books on the M4 and T-34 because it'll clear up a lot of the misconceptions you're perpetuating here. He uses government and military sources of the period, rather than anecdote, memoir, and "common knowledge" sources, which are often the source of these misconceptions.

Orr Kelley's King of the Killing Zone (while a little HOOAH at times) has a pretty good look at how the Abrams narrowly avoided going down the path that the Brad did. Stuff that they tried to cram in, like the gun/missile system and the hydraulics to give it a "kneeling profile" damn near happened.

For me, this is actually hard to answer in a well-substantiated fashion. Although there is an entire host of related publications, I found amazingly few of them anything like 'authoritative' (and if, then the publications in question are rather of 'niche' style).

Technology-wise, it should obvious that the T-72 is at least a generation behind the M1A2, Challenger 2 and similar types of 1991.

However, when designed - back in late 1960s and early 1970s - it was never built to face such tanks, but to fight M60s, Chieftains and the likes - and this while remaining economically affordable, so to enable replacement of thousands of older, and hopelessly outdated T-55s.

As such, yes, Iraqi T-72s were hopelessly outclassed in 1991, and this is little surprising.

But again, during the Iran-Iraq War they largely proved 'perfectly enough'. There they were facing MBTs of the same generation (M60s and Chieftains), and have proven their mettle in combat - repeatedly, and this weather in 1981, or in 1988. Actually, during that war their most dangerous opponents proved Iranian-operated TOWs and T-72s, and flank attacks of different sorts.

Reference-wise, I tend to recommend Zaloga's 'T-72 Main Battle Tank, 1974-1993'. It is not 'perfect', but a fair discussion of that tank, its strengths and weak spots.

Re. 'poor export quality': from my POV, this topic actually consists of two issues. One is the generally poor manufacturing quality of Soviet-manufactured equipment, the other is that of export models of Soviet arms being not as well-equipped/protected as those manufactured for Soviet service.

Soviet manufacturing standards were far lower than those in the West. Indeed, they were significantly lower than even those in Czechoslovakia or Poland. This didn't matter as much as long as the technology in question was still relatively... 'primitive'. Say, MiG-15 and T-55 were perfectly fine. But, the more sophisticated it got, the less-well manufactured it was (early AT-6s were falling apart on launch, just for example).

Unsurprisingly, there are well-substantiated reports about Iraq, Libya and Syria preferring Czechoslovak- or at least Polish-manufactured arms to those manufactured in the USSR, especially so in the 1980s. See such like 'My Life' - an autobiography of the former Deputy Commander of the Syrian Arab Air Force and then the Director of the Syrian Commission for Arms Acquisition, Mohammad Moukiiad, published in Damascus, in 2004, in Arabic.

Equipment/Protection-wise: partially due to the very nature of their entire system of governance, Soviets were not prone to really 'brag' about their best equipment to potential export customers (this began to change in mid-1970s, when the USSR was for the first time ever on the verge of bankruptcy, and thus became eager to start exporting arms). Plus, even if, many of these (including Syria) simply couldn't afford buying 'the best' the Soviets had to offer. Far more often, this usually resulted in a situation where receivers of their equipment were happy if they've got anything at all, and then as quick and in 'such numbers' as they often got it. So, why should have the Soviets cared about providing them with anything better?

However, certain of Soviet customers - see Iraq and Libya - could afford more and better equipment. In such cases crucial issue was if their representatives in the USSR were able to find out this is existing. This was anything than easy: one could easily get acquitted of 'espionage against the USSR'. So, sometimes they did (see the Iraqi acquisition of SA-2s as early as of 1961 or Kh-66 guided air-to-surface missiles in 1966), but more often they didn't (see their failure to get more advanced variants of T-72s, for most of the 1980s).

Yeah sure.

One of the best books on the Sherman that is actually affordable is Steven Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt which is a history of the development of the Sherman as well as an examination of its combat performance.

If you have a bunch of money to burn I would also recommend R.P. Hunnicutt's Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. This book spends less time on the actual combat performance of the tank and is more about the technical aspects and development of the M4, and spends a lot of time on the various other medium tanks that led up to the development of the M4. You want to know some obscure detail about the Sherman and its development? That book will have your answer. Unfortunately Sherman is like $200-$300 on Amazon. I was lucky enough to find my copy for $150. Hunnicutt also did a number of other books on the development of basically every American AFV, and they are an excellent resource, but once again, very expensive.

For a good book on how the Americans used tanks to support infantry look no further than Harry Yeides' The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II. The book really gives an excellent account of the US Army's separate tank battalions.

Yeide also wrote a very good book on American TDs called The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force

Steven Zaloga has also done book comparing the Sherman to the Panther, and one analyzing US tank performance from the Battle of the Bulge to the end of the war.

The Osprey books are also really good resources for different tanks and a number of very good historians contribute to that series of books.

The book Tank http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Patrick-Wright/dp/0142001910 has a chapter both on the type of tank involved and the mystery of the man in front.

Lovely job! If you like ultra detailed 1/72 armour look up [Alex Clark.] (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=alex+clark+1/72&rlz=1C1GIWA_enGB665GB665&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=815&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNt-H2zLnLAhXHqxoKHT0kCIUQ_AUIBigB) I do a lot of his resin casting for when he does a big build for [books] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Small-Scale-Armour-Modelling-Masterclass/dp/1849084149) etc :).

King of the Killing Zone by Orr Kelly if you really want more information about the development. It's a surprisingly good read.
http://www.amazon.ca/King-Killing-Zone-Story-Americas/dp/0393332934

Could you list your source for the numbers?

Also the FT-17 WAS AGILE for the situation and time it was in, which was trench warfare, nearly non-moving fronts and no man's land areas,just because it's obsolete now doesn't mean it wasn't revolutionary (you can read up on it or watch some documentaries it's not some "fringe saying") the Vickers didn't come out until 1928 which is late in the inter-war period, many tanks before then were based off either the FT-17 or mark IV

Strategic sense includes actually realizing how much industrial power a country has.

Read up on the kursk offensive, within 5 days only 10 Panthers out of 240 non-destroyed ones were deemed operable because of missing spare parts, broken transmission or other problems.
(not including how damn complicated german tanks were to actually operate)




Obviously the T-34 broke down more, have you actually watched or read anything about Russian Tank usage/production?

It was by design choice, if your tank is going to last for a few hours in combat and be obsolete in a year, you use the cheapest and fastest way to get it out, this is what the Russians did and it was brilliant!

I mean hell, you could probably tear a T-34 apart with some basic tools, but that was a great thing for the situation the Soviets were in.


Now an expensive Tiger 1 for example costs the same as TWO IS-2s (which can easily destroy a Tiger 1) while also taking more time to produce, a higher part count (needs more spare parts which Germany had a real big issue with) AND is fighting far away from home.



Now I don't have much to say on the western front, a Sherman costs about 40k~RM while a Panther costs 100K~RM.

Now even if the "5 Shermans 1 panther" myth was true they'd still be even at costs to the nations and the Shermans were faster and easier to make then Panthers.

(I am using a Sherman Firefly for this comparison)

If a single Panther faced a single M4 in a clear field with no cover.I’ll be in the Panther.However, if I was a general in a war I’d want M4s.

Here is a good book about western front tank performances.

https://www.amazon.com/Panther-Sherman-Battle-Bulge-1944/dp/184603292X/ref=cm_rdp_product

That's a popular misconception. It's true that German had less tanks than everyone else, but generally American tanks preformed well 1v1 against German tanks.

Here are some good reading material on the subject:

http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/?m=1

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/how-the-sherman-compare-to-its-contemporaries/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/184603292X?keywords=Panther%20vs%20Sherman%2C%20Battle%20of%20the%20Bulge%201944&pc_redir=T1&qid=1432270193&s=books&sr=1-1

Would that be Hilary Doyle? I collect German tanks in Blitz (own and elited all through tier 7 plus some 8/9/10) and if he's the expert I'd love to read more. Link to a book below, think it's worth picking up?

Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two: A Complete Illustrated Directory of German Battle Tanks, Armoured Cars, Self-Propelled Guns and Semi- https://www.amazon.com/dp/1854092146/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_yUjBzbZSA8XVS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#M829A3

Those tanks are dead if they move within range. If the artillery or attack choppers don't get them first. MRLS can throw down cluster munitions that will quite nicely penetrate the roof armour of most AFV's. Air superiority is the gamble, and NATO is throwing loaded dice.

Read "King of the Killing Zone" by Orr Kelly. http://www.amazon.ca/King-Killing-Zone-Story-Americas/dp/0393332934 If you want to know why Soviet/Russian tank design is garbage. The M1, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, LeClerc, are all designed to eliminate them. Less fantasy, more reality.