PDA

View Full Version : Best Tank of WWII



Pages : 1 [2] 3

zraver
11 Oct 07,, 15:16
Actualy zraver point is quite good but i doubt that the american M2, M3, M5 are the best light tanks.

Have you looked at the armored protection of the Honey/Stuart family, they had thicker hides than many mediums. They were also reliable, fast, hard to hit because of thier small size, lethal vs infantry with thier heavy MG loadout, and the 37mm was the best light tank gun of the war till the Chaffee with its M6 75mm.

Feanor
11 Oct 07,, 21:57
The pz-IV d could also be considered a artillery tank , so does the char b1 bis or the m 3 grant.By conventional tank role do you mean tank batles?

Infantry support, assaulting enemy positions, tank to tank battles etc. The Kv-2 was very different from the char and grant in that it carried a very large gun, but was under armored for the role of a heavy tank. Once more by design it resembles modern SP howitzers a lot more then it resembles other tanks of the period.

zraver
11 Oct 07,, 22:53
Infantry support, assaulting enemy positions, tank to tank battles etc. The Kv-2 was very different from the char and grant in that it carried a very large gun, but was under armored for the role of a heavy tank. Once more by design it resembles modern SP howitzers a lot more then it resembles other tanks of the period.

The KV-2 heavy assault tank had massive armor for its day upto 90mm thick making it impervious to anything the Germans had but the Flak 15/18 88mm guns.

It was a direct doctrinal ancestor of the Schneider CA/CA1 assault tank of WW1

Feanor
11 Oct 07,, 23:42
Doubt it. It carried a 152mm short-barreled howitzer with only 36 shells in the tank. It had no anti-armor nor anti-bunker shells developed for it.

Armor was 75mm on the front and turret, 60mm on the rear parts, 40mm bottom, 30mm roof.

Though perhaps I was mistaken, as in memoirs it often comes up that KV-2 was used often in an anti tank role.

Энциклопедия бронетехники РККА (http://bronetehnika.narod.ru/)

zraver
12 Oct 07,, 01:00
Doubt it. It carried a 152mm short-barreled howitzer with only 36 shells in the tank. It had no anti-armor nor anti-bunker shells developed for it.

Armor was 75mm on the front and turret, 60mm on the rear parts, 40mm bottom, 30mm roof.

Though perhaps I was mistaken, as in memoirs it often comes up that KV-2 was used often in an anti tank role.

Энциклопедия бронетехники РККА (http://bronetehnika.narod.ru/)

IIRC the KV-2 had a special anti-concrete shell called the dustbin.

Feanor
12 Oct 07,, 01:39
I'm not sure on that. Suvorov mentions that the KV-2 were meant for bunker busting. But bronetehnika.narod.ru specifically says that attempts to design armor piercing and bunker piercing shells never worked for the KV-2 because it would jam the gun when they were fired.

entropy
12 Oct 07,, 10:48
The KV-2 featured naval shells that had a armor piercing hood but contained explosives.

Feanor
12 Oct 07,, 11:26
So can they or can they not be considered proper tanks? I.e. were they multi-purpose armored vehicle that the T-34 was, or were they specialized equipment that was useless when taken out of context (given their mechanical unreliability that seems to be the case).

zraver
12 Oct 07,, 13:50
So can they or can they not be considered proper tanks? I.e. were they multi-purpose armored vehicle that the T-34 was, or were they specialized equipment that was useless when taken out of context (given their mechanical unreliability that seems to be the case).

light tanks and heavy tanks are still see as tanks, so a specialized assault tank also fits.

Feanor
13 Oct 07,, 06:24
Not in semantic terms, but in purpose of employment is where the real question lies. If the KV-2 was meant to be used as a sp arty piece that happened to have a turret mount for it's gun, then it shouldn't really be considered a tank.

Monkey Business
13 Oct 07,, 19:36
So far, I am seeing that the KV-2 is considered an Assault Gun variant of the KV Heavy Tank series. But it would be safe to assume that a good number of them could have been used as front-line tanks alongside T-34's in the early parts of the war. If that means anything, it's up to you, I guess.

My personal candidate (along with the majority it seems) is the T-34. It was relatively cheap, easy to produce and for a time, it was superior to anything the Germans could produce and dominated the Eastern Front.

bugs
15 Oct 07,, 06:52
Doubt it. It carried a 152mm short-barreled howitzer with only 36 shells in the tank. It had no anti-armor nor anti-bunker shells developed for it.

Armor was 75mm on the front and turret, 60mm on the rear parts, 40mm bottom, 30mm roof.

Though perhaps I was mistaken, as in memoirs it often comes up that KV-2 was used often in an anti tank role.

Ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ áðîíåòåõíèêè ÐÊÊÀ (http://bronetehnika.narod.ru/)

Can you show me a German tank that had that much armor in 1941 ?
this is GERMAN SPA.( notice the armor)
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/pzjag1_1.jpg

smilingassassin
15 Oct 07,, 11:21
Can you show me a German tank that had that much armor in 1941 ?
this is GERMAN SPA.( notice the armor)
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/pzjag1_1.jpg

What armour? The sIG 33/PzKpfw 1 only had a maximum 13mm of armour, same as the PzKpfw 1 tank which wasn't reguarded highly even by the Germans.

Personally I wouldn't class an assualt gun as the best tank, they make poor AFV in pure tank on tank battles and suffer while on their own vs infantry because of the limitations to the firing arcs of their hull mounted main guns and light MG armament. Tanks such as the T-34, Sherman, Panther and Cromwell made much better general purpose tanks.

zraver
15 Oct 07,, 17:27
What armour? The sIG 33/PzKpfw 1 only had a maximum 13mm of armour, same as the PzKpfw 1 tank which wasn't reguarded highly even by the Germans.

Personally I wouldn't class an assualt gun as the best tank, they make poor AFV in pure tank on tank battles and suffer while on their own vs infantry because of the limitations to the firing arcs of their hull mounted main guns and light MG armament. Tanks such as the T-34, Sherman, Panther and Cromwell made much better general purpose tanks.

yes but in the days before highpowered and guided munitions and in an era of extensive fortifications with emplaced artillery the assault gun let the advancing infantry have mobile fire support capable of knocking out concrete structures.

bugs
15 Oct 07,, 18:01
What armour?:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
generaly SPA until the Brumbar or the ISU had low armor protection.
No need for it.

bugs
15 Oct 07,, 18:17
What armour?:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
generaly SPA until the Brumbar or the ISU had low armor protection.
No need for it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/IWM-E-17430-Bishop-SP-gun-19420925.jpg
to argue against my own case this is the british bishop (only ~100 build)

Feanor
15 Oct 07,, 21:25
Can you show me a German tank that had that much armor in 1941 ?

My point was that the KV-2 was not meant to be used as an assault gun, or MBT. It was mobile artillery, much like the modern M109 paladins. The MBT version of this vehicle was the KV-1, which had a 76mm gun, and more armor.

S2
15 Oct 07,, 23:19
I didn't notice the panoramic telescope. How was this weapon able to orient it's cannon for indirect fire? Where are the spades which pick up the weapon's displacement? How was it organized- General support artillery for a mechanized or tank corps?

S2
15 Oct 07,, 23:30
KV-2 Development (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=50&lang=en)

From an English/Russian website called The Russian Battlefield.

This is a heavy infantry-support tank designed for direct-fire. This is definitely not a S.P. Howitzer ala the M-109 or Soviet/Russian 2S3 M-1973 Howitzer.

Feanor
16 Oct 07,, 02:25
KV-2 Development (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=50&lang=en)

From an English/Russian website called The Russian Battlefield.

This is a heavy infantry-support tank designed for direct-fire. This is definitely not a S.P. Howitzer ala the M-109 or Soviet/Russian 2S3 M-1973 Howitzer.

Really? With only 36 shells in the tank, and no armor piercing/bunker busting shells, as well as an incredibly high profile and very heavy weight, it seems of limited use in such a role. I guess it's understandable, if they were being prepared for a situation where the front is more or less stabilized.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 05:00
As for AP- at what point? A 152mm HE blast to the front armor of ANY tank then would ruin it's day. The barrel and optics would be particularly vulnerable. So too the tracks. A firepower kill and mobility kill equal a total tank kill, even without penetration. Anti-armor certainly wouldn't have been this vehicle's primary mission.

Reinforced concrete aside, this weapon would have been a god-send to any infantry battalion commander heavily engaged attacking a complex of defensive earthen, log-reinforced entrenchments. BTW, that's what you'd commonly find back in the day for a hasty or semi-prepared defensive network. Likewise, in urban battle, brick and mortar wouldn't tolerate 152mm HE fire very long.

36 152mm HE shells is an awful lot of attention to discretely apply to most point targets.

Feanor
16 Oct 07,, 06:42
Hmm. Perhaps. It never really ended up used like that so it's hard to tell.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 14:26
"It never really ended up used like that so it's hard to tell."

Where's the panoramic telescope? How do you adjust indirect fire laterally along the gun-target line with this weapon? That's the SECOND time that this question has been asked of you by me.

This is no more a self-propelled artillery weapon than a German StuG III manned by German artillerymen. Step up with your proof or step away.

entropy
16 Oct 07,, 14:37
"It never really ended up used like that so it's hard to tell."

Where's the panoramic telescope? How do you adjust indirect fire laterally along the gun-target line with this weapon? That's the SECOND time that this question has been asked of you by me.

This is no more a self-propelled artillery weapon than a German StuG III manned by German artillerymen. Step up with your proof or step away.

I would be able to do it with all ballistic data of gun and shell, but I'm sure that there is no time for ballistic equations being as long as WAB threads on the battlefield.

omon
16 Oct 07,, 15:02
isu152 was nicknamed zveroboy(animal killer) it would rip turrets off tigers and panthers without penatration, thus the nickname.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 15:54
"I would be able to do it with all ballistic data of gun and shell..."

Entrophy, please explain? This is an issue of geometry, not physics. I'm not sure that I understand your technique. Are we discussing the shifting of adjusted indirect fire laterally (left/right) along the gun-target line?

If so, how does applying just the ballistic data of gun and shell constitute a method to compute and apply deflection corrections to a KV-2 for indirect fire? What ballistic data? Only muzzle velocity, drift, shell weight, and propellant temperature seem available and none would affect lateral corrections that I can see.

(EDIT Oops! Drift would, but only a couple of mils as a RANGE-related correction applied to deflection. Not enough to account for deflection computation by itself).

Thanks.:)

Omon, different cannon which was able to fire armor-piercing shot. However, even HE was devastating because of the increased m/v generated by this barrel over the KV-2. Interestingly, the SU-152 possessed a panoramic telescope.

entropy
16 Oct 07,, 15:56
"I would be able to do it with all ballistic data of gun and shell..."

Entrophy, please explain? This is an issue of geometry, not physics. I'm not sure that I understand your technique. Are we discussing the shifting of adjusted indirect fire laterally (left/right) along the gun-target line?

If so, how does applying just the ballistic data of gun and shell constitute a method to compute and apply deflection corrections to a KV-2 for indirect fire? What ballistic data? Only muzzle velocity, drift, shell weight, and propellant temperature seem available and none would affect lateral corrections that I can see.

Thanks.:)

Omon, different cannon which was able to fire armor-piercing shot. However, even HE was devastating because of the increased m/v generated by this barrel over the KV-2. Interestingly, the SU-152 possessed a panoramic telescope.

What do you mean with lateral corrections sir?

I would use muzzle velocity, air resistance of shell, mass of shell, and propellant burning data.

What did I miss?

S2
16 Oct 07,, 16:06
"What do you mean with lateral corrections sir?"

Firing indirectly, how does the gunner of a KV-2 align his tube for direction, not range?

entropy
16 Oct 07,, 16:08
I was thinking that knowing one's position on the map, and the position one would have to fire upon, it would be feasible?

"Aim between those trees"

S2
16 Oct 07,, 16:23
Initial direction only, yes. Corrections from a forward observer would require a panoramic telescope on the gun to set off new deflections, thus altering the sight-picture from the panoramic telescope. One would then traverse the tube using a collimator, aiming posts, or a distant aiming point to re-establish the sight-picture (two-step deflection method). Also, without spades, gun displacement on firing would contribute to inaccuracy.

My central point remains that the KV-2 was NOT an indirect fire self-propelled artillery system as it lacked both spades and a panoramic telescope.

I apologize for mis-spelling your board-name. I'll get it correct henceforth, I promise.

entropy
16 Oct 07,, 16:27
Initial direction only, yes. Corrections from a forward observer would require a panoramic telescope on the gun to set off new deflections, thus altering the sight-picture from the panoramic telescope. One would then traverse the tube using a collimator, aiming posts, or a distant aiming point to re-establish the sight-picture (two-step deflection method). Also, without spades, gun displacement on firing would contribute to inaccuracy.

My central point remains that the KV-2 was NOT an indirect fire self-propelled artillery system as it lacked both spades and a panoramic telescope.

I apologize for mis-spelling your board-name. I'll get it correct henceforth, I promise.

:D no problem, everyone seems to think it has something to do with trophies.

Yes, the inaccuracy would be huge, as the transmitted data would be inexactly converted using the direct fire sights.
The KV was, just as the StuH, a direct fire vehicle. No doubt.

Sir, how does a panoramic sight work?

omon
16 Oct 07,, 16:34
edited

Tarek Morgen
16 Oct 07,, 16:38
looks like 152:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/KW-2_1940.jpg

S2
16 Oct 07,, 16:38
This is an M-137 panoramic telescope. It typically sits just to the left of the breech. Setting off the announced deflection will alter the sight picture to a designated aiming point (collimator, aiming posts, distant aiming point) by rotating the sight. The gunner corrects the sight-picture by traversing the cannon's barrel until the sight-picture is properly re-aligned on the aiming point.

As you can imagine, the tube moves left or right as a consequence.

omon
16 Oct 07,, 16:39
yea it is 152, i mistook it with is2, my bad

S2
16 Oct 07,, 16:44
Guys, THIS is a SU-152. Note the dramatic difference in barrel-types from the KV-2. Both 152mm weapons. No comparison.

Feanor
16 Oct 07,, 19:39
Guys, THIS is a SU-152. Note the dramatic difference in barrel-types from the KV-2. Both 152mm weapons. No comparison.

What exactly do you mean? I'm somewhat confused.

omon
16 Oct 07,, 20:16
it is most likely the same gun, su has a muzzle break, kv doesn,t.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 20:53
"it is most likely the same gun, su has a muzzle break, kv doesn,t."

KV-2, adapted using M-10 152mm Howitzer. SU-152, adapted using ML-20S 152mm gun-howitzer.

Most likely you're wrong.

Shamus
16 Oct 07,, 21:14
"it is most likely the same gun, su has a muzzle break, kv doesn,t."

KV-2, adapted using M-10 152mm Howitzer. SU-152, adapted using ML-20S 152mm gun-howitzer.

Most likely you're wrong.Dude,what's the difference between the two....ammo used,barrel length,actual purpose?

Tarek Morgen
16 Oct 07,, 21:30
Dude,what's the difference between the two....ammo used,barrel length,actual purpose?

amtaur speaking here:

the KV-2 was designed as a "fortress-buster" and was supposed to be retired at the moment the war began. the Su-152 was supposed to be its successor in the same role, but was for a time the only tank that could destroy the Tiger from any range, to it was pushed into mass-production.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 21:49
Walter,

As near as I can tell, the SU-152 was the ultimate practical extension of the KV-2 project. While reliability was improved, this was largely a function of removing the turret and creating a limited-traverse assault-gun. No weight-savings and same engine meant the same slow power/weight ratio as the KV-2 (13hp/t).

Tactical improvements from upgraded Russian radio over the earlier generation but, most importantly, from the shoe-horning of the ML-20S gun-howitzer into the vehicle. Losing sixteen rounds in storage was offset by the tremendous killing power of the gun firing either HE or AP (unavailable for the M-10 howitzer mounted on the KV-2).

Operational intent of the SU-152 was initially the same as the earlier KV-2- heavy close support of infantry forces empathizing the engagement of fortified positions. It remained so but anti-tank missions quickly morphed into a significant secondary role as it's ability to kill Tigers, Elephants, and Panthers became evident. However, it's very low rate of fire meant that it had to engage as a PAK-front of battery size (four vehicles) to assure kills.

First used at Kursk in the summer of 1943, production ceased for this weapon by November of the same year as the Soviets shifted over to the ISU-152.

Shamus
16 Oct 07,, 22:09
Thanks,Dude;) Sorry about your badgers man,that was tough.

S2
16 Oct 07,, 22:18
Naw. They just flat look bad. Lotta games left and we've a history of winning at the Shoe so we'll see. Starting two true freshmen because of injuries at WR doesn't help but it's the D that's the prob. Everybody is hurt this time of the year.

Hart o.k.? Hate to see y'all without your best when you come to the Camp.;)

Shamus
16 Oct 07,, 22:22
Hart o.k.? Hate to see y'all without your best when you come to the Camp.;)Dunno,even Lloyd's not talking about him....his backup has the same problem:( .Just want to see somebody dump the Nuts before the end of the year,either you guys or us,at this point it just doesn't matter;) .

mkenny
19 Oct 07,, 05:41
And a hell of a lot of them weren't.

The russians lost 2000 tanks at the battle of Berlin alone.

900 tanks lost across the ENTIRE front that included Berlin. Some 800 were also damaged.

Actually it did literally take about 5 shermans to kill one panther.
A platoon of shermans even had a popular tactic where the plt tries to race around the enemy tank and get behind it to shoot into it's engine compartment.
The execution of this tactic usually resulted in the destruction of 4 out of the 5 shermans in a WWII armored platoon. I saw a full color reenactment on the military channel once(With real shermans and a real tiger!), it was really neat.
History Channel .......can't beat that for a source!
Any possibility you could back this 5:1 claim with something remotely ressembling a fact?

Or a German Tiger or Panther unit could go straight into the heart of the enemy defense, killing absolutely everything in their path.
Examples?

You're more than free to, but i think a serious effort to verify my claims based on the historical record would show that i'm correct(there is no shortage of specific examples of single Nazi Tiger and Panther tanks taking on entire Russian Armored units by themselves and winning the day.)
You confuse propoganda with reality here. This lone Tiger /Panther rubbish is a common myth but when investigated they tend to vanish into the smoke.........

During the first days of the Allied invasion of Normandy the US lost so many M-4 crews that Infantrymen were literally being pulled randomly out of line units as they headed to the front and stuffed right into patched(and oft times re-patched) up Shermans, allowed to fire 3 or 4 rounds, and then sent right into the fight.


Mmmm..........why not just post the actual loss figures so we can see this for ourselves.

US tank losses:
From 6 June to 1 July 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5
British losses:
June – 146
German losses were:
June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224

I make that 377 v 244. Where is the fabled 5:1 ratio now?


One of the places that stat comes from is where one Panther or Tiger(or a pair of them) in a holding action would delay an advance by a much larger allied unit taking out several allied tanks before it was eventually flanked and encircled by allied armor, or until it was pounded into oblivion by Allied air or arty.

Simplistic rubbish. Tanks did not duel like knights.


It did happen many times vs T-34 units. Entire units wiped out by much smaller German forces(In the case of the King Tiger there are a few documented instances of a single KT destroying an entire T-34 Bn singlehandedly!)
And where do we apply the routine 50% German reduction in its inflated kill claims?

And as far as that allied vs Panther meeting engagement i mention, i don't think one ever happened.

Try looking up Lorraine in September 1944. Arrocourt is an interesting example.
Panzer Brigade 105 anyone?

Feanor
19 Oct 07,, 09:02
New member. And a history buff. There's a new members forum that you want to post an introduction thread in. And you should probably fill out your user profile.

Here's an interesting site on Tigers.
Tiger Tank Battalions during WWII - Page 1 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers.htm)

zraver
21 Oct 07,, 05:20
Walter,

As near as I can tell, the SU-152 was the ultimate practical extension of the KV-2 project. While reliability was improved, this was largely a function of removing the turret and creating a limited-traverse assault-gun. No weight-savings and same engine meant the same slow power/weight ratio as the KV-2 (13hp/t).

Tactical improvements from upgraded Russian radio over the earlier generation but, most importantly, from the shoe-horning of the ML-20S gun-howitzer into the vehicle. Losing sixteen rounds in storage was offset by the tremendous killing power of the gun firing either HE or AP (unavailable for the M-10 howitzer mounted on the KV-2).

Operational intent of the SU-152 was initially the same as the earlier KV-2- heavy close support of infantry forces empathizing the engagement of fortified positions. It remained so but anti-tank missions quickly morphed into a significant secondary role as it's ability to kill Tigers, Elephants, and Panthers became evident. However, it's very low rate of fire meant that it had to engage as a PAK-front of battery size (four vehicles) to assure kills.

First used at Kursk in the summer of 1943, production ceased for this weapon by November of the same year as the Soviets shifted over to the ISU-152.

If I may, I do not believe the 152mm ML20S had a true AP round, rather it used a 48kg APHE traveling at 600m/s shell that used explosive and concussive force rather than true penetration. Penetration was IIRC not over 100mm despite almost 8 million joules of impact energy, but blast effects could pop a tigers top from almost any range and even knock out a Ferdinand/Elephant or King Tier from the front even if the shell did not penetrate.

S2
21 Oct 07,, 08:53
"...it used a 48kg APHE..."

You are correct.:)

Ironduke
29 Oct 07,, 16:28
If I had a choice of tanks to use... I'd go for the Panther.

Maggot
30 Oct 07,, 03:11
It's really tough to have one best tank, when they all were trying to be the best at one particular condition they found themselves in. There are still Sherman tanks kicking around in Yugoslavia, but the idea of a gasoline filled tank on a battlefield isn't all that appealing. I've also never been a fan of the very high profiles they give to the enemy. The Germans probably built the best tanks throughout the war, but they had their fair share of problems, especially when dealing with the conditions of Russia. The Soviet answer to the German tanks, the T-34, was the best for the conditions it fought in, even if it was a nasty thing to be in.

What made the German tanks so effective was the fact that every tank had a radio in it. So while the allied tanks were fighting set battle plans, no matter how badly they went; the Germans had the ability to redirect individual tanks after the battle began. It was a huge advantage.

Feanor
30 Oct 07,, 04:34
Consider the IS-2 and 3. Those things were probably the nastiest tanks of the war, in terms of the damage they could do, and armor protection. In '73 Syria was still using them against Israel, and the Israelis reported their armor to be inpenetrable.

S2
01 Jan 08,, 23:50
Why do you think that American Shermans didn't have radios if that's what made German tanks better?

Mk IV was functional. Nothing more. Less than functional without the 75mm L43/L48 gun in the later series. Armor worse than an uparmored Sherman and lacking slope.

Once the kinks were worked out, I'd take a late series Panther Mk V over the T-34/85 every damn day as the best medium tank of the war.

omon
02 Jan 08,, 15:19
what it took to build 1 panther, would make 2 or 3 t 34, i,d rather have 3 t34, than 1 panther

Tarek Morgen
02 Jan 08,, 15:21
what it took to build 1 panther, would make 2 or 3 t 34, i,d rather have 3 t34, than 1 panther

even when you run in danger of not having enough manpower, spare parts and fuel for 3 tanks?

omon
02 Jan 08,, 15:28
even when you run in danger of not having enough manpower, spare parts and fuel for 3 tanks?

????
i still have 1 even if i loose 2, but what would i have if i had 1 to begin with?

Albany Rifles
02 Jan 08,, 15:47
What made the German tanks so effective was the fact that every tank had a radio in it. So while the allied tanks were fighting set battle plans, no matter how badly they went; the Germans had the ability to redirect individual tanks after the battle began. It was a huge advantage.

Every Sherman had a radio...if you notice the bulge at the back of the turret? That is where the radio was located. As the war progressed some tanks even had HF sets installed for FACs to use while calling in airstrikes.

Don't know where you get you info from but this one is off base...Western Allies tanks all had radios.

Bigfella
02 Jan 08,, 20:25
Why do you think that American Shermans didn't have radios if that's what made German tanks better?

Mk IV was functional. Nothing more. Less than functional without the 75mm L43/L48 gun in the later series. Armor worse than an uparmored Sherman and lacking slope.

Once the kinks were worked out, I'd take a late series Panther Mk V over the T-34/85 every damn day as the best medium tank of the war.


Unfortunately, by the time you finally got the kinks out of your Panther I would have hundreds of T-34s or dozens of JS-2s waiting for it.:))

omon
02 Jan 08,, 20:39
^^^ not to mention isu 152

S2
02 Jan 08,, 20:57
The Panther was largely functional by mid-fall 1943.

"...what it took to build 1 panther, would make 2 or 3 t 34, i,d rather have 3 t34, than 1 panther"

Tell that to the crews. This question isn't about the largest production line but the best tank. Just that simple.

The Mk V Panther remains my choice.

leib10
02 Jan 08,, 21:14
Mine as well. No other tank that saw widescale combat in WWII was as well-rounded as the Panther. Good mobility for a large tank, very good armor protection, and one of the best tank guns of the war.

ArmchairGeneral
02 Jan 08,, 21:15
The Panther was largely functional by mid-fall 1943.

"...what it took to build 1 panther, would make 2 or 3 t 34, i,d rather have 3 t34, than 1 panther"

Tell that to the crews. This question isn't about the largest production line but the best tank. Just that simple.

Not true. Here's the first post from this thread:

Not sure if this has been before so hear it goes. What do you think is the overall best tank od the Second World War? I'm referring to designs in general, but if you feel a specific variant is the best by all means mention it.

I'm not just referring to capabilities but also to the tank's overall effect on the outcome of the war.

Production lines matter.


The Mk V Panther remains my choice.

For the Germans, certainly. They were limited by manpower and fuel, so smaller numbers of more powerful tanks were ideal. Not so for the Allies; they had plenty of manpower and fuel, so to get maximum firepower they could make greater numbers of less powerful tanks.

glyn
02 Jan 08,, 21:26
For the Germans, certainly. They were limited by manpower and fuel, so smaller numbers of more powerful tanks were ideal. Not so for the Allies; they had plenty of manpower and fuel, so to get maximum firepower they could make greater numbers of less powerful tanks.

I still think the Comet eclipsed the Panther in every important respect.

S2
02 Jan 08,, 21:31
"I'm not just referring to capabilities but also to the tank's overall effect on the outcome of the war."

What war? W.W.II?

Well, great. Let's choose the Sherman then. It fought in N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, W. Europe, Russia, AND the Pacific. That is, if outcome of the war is the determinant, I'll choose the tank that was in more places influencing more battles against more enemies. Maybe toss in some Valentines and Churchills. Didn't the Russians use those too. Certainly, the Brits might have shipped a few to India.

More to the point, let's not discuss German tanks at all as we know the outcome of the war. As such, no German tank reversed the outcome of the war and thereby needs to be at the bottom of the list.

Sticking with the Panther.

Albany Rifles
03 Jan 08,, 15:58
Mine as well. No other tank that saw widescale combat in WWII was as well-rounded as the Panther. Good mobility for a large tank, very good armor protection, and one of the best tank guns of the war.

With fuel sloshing around the floor boards.

While a great design and an excellent tank it had a horrible fuel system which never really was fixed before the end of the war. Often times resulted in fuel in the bilges...not a good thing.

S2
03 Jan 08,, 17:55
Sort of reminds me of a "Ronson-lighter". Hmmm...

mkenny
03 Jan 08,, 19:15
Sort of reminds me of a "Ronson-lighter". Hmmm...


ORO reports note that whilst 80% of penetrated Shermans burned the figure for Panthers was 60%

S2
03 Jan 08,, 19:55
And that is, exactly, my point.

mkenny
03 Jan 08,, 20:22
And that is, exactly, my point.


Surely to get any 'point' you would need to know the burn rate for all types of tank?
My point is that though the Sherman did burn more easily than other types the Panther came second. They both burned far more easily than any of the others.

S2
03 Jan 08,, 20:36
Could you post the data, please? Or a link? Aside from the T-34 (diesel), I stand enlightening on the fuel used in these vehicles.

I don't think that it would matter greatly to me, though. A 20% difference is significant. I don't know what is better than these two vehicles nor by how much. The next question might entail the probability of penetration in order to achieve such spontaneous combustion. Finally, penetration of one's tank is (I suspect) decisively tramatic in any case. On board ammo tends to explode more than burn. Spall kills without need of flame even if ammo nor fuel ignite. Lots of ways to die on penetration.

If my job is killing enemy tanks and surviving, I still like the Panther's chances against all comers.

ace16807
04 Jan 08,, 08:37
Effect on the war-wise, I'd have to go with the Sherman or T-34. Obviously, a German tank can't compete in that category.

Quality wise, I'd go with Panther. It is rather agile compared to the Tiger, and it can easily penetrate most if not all allied armor with the 7.5 cm gun. The armor is thick enough to deflect most allied rounds as well, and, I'm going out of my knowledge for this, but was the armor more effective than the tiger's due to the slope of it? Sure, it had mechanical failures, but that'd be the tank that I'd want to be in if I were going out to an engagement and wanted to come back in one piece.

Albany Rifles
04 Jan 08,, 19:22
The Shermans "burn rate" was greatly reduced when they went to the MaA1 (W) with the wet ammo stowage. Gasoline still remianed an issue but at least it tended to keep the fire more localized to the engine compartment and out of the troop compartment.

Medium Tank M4 Sherman (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4A1(76)W)

Triple C
23 Jan 08,, 17:42
I dunno if the burn rates are adjusted for different models of a given tank. The Panther A was notoriously quick to burn; some spontaneously combusted during Kursk. Wet storage Shermans on the other hand was highly resistant to secondary effects, less than half of those hit burnt. I am in the process of moving; when my books are mailed to my new location I can fish out the numbers.

RadioPatrol
28 Jan 08,, 06:39
I voted for the Sherman. Even though it wasn't the most capable tank one on one, at least early on, it's later versions were very capable tanks. Plus it's small size and ease of construction allowed the US to overwhelm the Germans.

The T-34 is close second and had it not struggled heavily against upgraded Sherman's in Korea it could have edged out a victory.

You do know the Tankers called them Ronson's because they light up so fast when hit .... I have read stories of crews getting more than one Sherman Shot up from under them in a single day ......
IMHO
The problem is the German tanks were open country / plains tanks aka long range where is France etc ... Shermans could maneuver behind the Panthers, Tigers etc and shoot them from behind .... "knocking them out" not always getting a Kill ..

PzKpfw VI TIGER I (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm)

nice penetration charts ...

S2
28 Jan 08,, 06:52
You might try reading back eight posts on "Ronsons". In twenty-two pages of tank posts, you can bet WHATEVER you've got to say has already been.:))

RadioPatrol
28 Jan 08,, 06:52
Yeah I see that ........... I am sifting through them now ...........

Nice to I know I am in good company

Albany Rifles
28 Jan 08,, 20:41
Another thought on the Sherman.

American armor doctrine did not call for the tank to fight other tanks. Its missions was to exploit breakthrough. In fact its main weapons in many cases were supposed to be its machine guns.

American Army doctrine saw the tank killing role as part of the mission of the tank destroyer units and the AT section in every battalion and RCT. TD battalions were corps assets which were parcelled out to divisions (as were a LOT of independent tank battalions) See below



Links to additional WWII Tank Destroyer Units (http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/links_to_additional_wwii_tank_de.htm)


History of TD Forces (http://www.818tdbn.org/html/history_of_td_forces.html)

So knocking an M4 for its lack of tank v tank ability is a bit like saying a submarine was ineffective in the naval gunfire support role...not its primary mission.

RadioPatrol
28 Jan 08,, 21:01
:rolleyes: this is true ..........

but that is how the Germans Developed their tanks, the enemy the US was fighting, so while your statement is true, tank tactics in the US was as an Infantry Support Role, it still does not change the fact that German Panzer units had superior weapons platforms

:tongue:

Albany Rifles
29 Jan 08,, 13:52
:rolleyes: this is true ..........

but that is how the Germans Developed their tanks, the enemy the US was fighting, so while your statement is true, tank tactics in the US was as an Infantry Support Role, it still does not change the fact that German Panzer units had superior weapons platforms

:tongue:

Us tank doctrine WAS NOT purely in an infantry support role. If you beleive that you missed the point. The independent tank battalions had the infantry support role....much as the Wehrmacht used the assault guns for infantry support.

The 14 armored divisions of the US Army certainly did not have armor in a support role (tell THAT to Ernie HArmon or John Wood...you'd get your eyes dotted!). They used armor as it was intended according to US doctrine. US doctrine evolved, just like every other army in WW II. That explains why the MTOE for tank units went through 4 different itterations during the war.


Not at all levels and not at all times. As has been said, look further back in the thread and learn.

The Shermans fixed their problem with the wet stowage. The Panther, while a good tank, never solved its propensity for catching fire.

S2
29 Jan 08,, 14:17
"The Shermans fixed their problem with the wet stowage."

Now if it could just wet-stow the crew.:biggrin:

"The Panther...never solved its propensity for catching fire."

It did have an advantage or two WRT penetrations.

Strengths and weaknesses-Does the T.C. know how to fight his tank to best advantage? Give me a Panther hull-down at 1000m and I like my chances against any tank on the battlefield back then.

Albany Rifles
29 Jan 08,, 14:33
Not saying the Sherman was a better tank...it wasn't. But it has to be considered within the confines of the doctrine is was built to execute.

And in your scenario I agree the Apnther had an advantage. And the German tanks by 44 were excellent for the defense. But then that is what they had to do. The Sherman, on the other hand, was built for the offense, with better speed, mechanical reliability, ease of maintenance and carried a bunch of ammo. It was intended as an offensive weapon within a combined arms team.

Of course, I wouldn't want to be that Panther commander after the third shot, when the US artillery started to go medieval on it! Or a P-47 rolls in with a couple of 500 pounders strapped on....all the while the rest of the Sherman are maneuvering to get a flank shot and you can't crank that turret around quick enough. You could change that also to Soviet artillery, IL-2s and T-34s or 25pounders, Tiffies and Comets.

Bottomline is the Panther was able to hold the line...but it was not a war winner.

As someone else said (believe it was Officer of Egineers) you didn't see many Panthers in New York, Birmingham, Canberra etc, exept as war trophies. But Shermans?......

S2
29 Jan 08,, 15:05
Nothing argues like success and victors write history.

That said, the thread remains "the best tank", not system of war-fighting systems.

The war was almost certainly lost by July 5, 1943. I love to study Kursk but the war wouldn't have been measurably altered by a German victory there. The Panther could never have been, therefore, a "war-winner".

Just the one I"d chosen as my ride de jour.

"with better speed..."

Too lazy to check but it's close. Panther was nimble.

RadioPatrol
29 Jan 08,, 17:02
if the German Military had been able to replace them as fast we did our loses ............ it was a war of attrition and Germany never had / no longer had the industrial capacity to match the US once we got started ....

Albany Rifles
29 Jan 08,, 17:43
if the German Military had been able to replace them as fast we did our loses ............

Yeah, and if a pig had wings it could fly.

Germany mobilized too late and squandered limited resources on bizarre experiments.

RadioPatrol
29 Jan 08,, 18:05
yep

Andrey Egorov
07 Mar 08,, 08:38
For one-on-one duel I'd go for IS-2. Mainly for it's 122mm D25-T gun. Heard, that on test shootings its round penetrated Panther's front armor from 1500 meters. Moreover, shell smashed through engine compartment and ripped off the hull entire back armor plate, throwing it away on several meters. Pretty devastating picture. Second, IS-2 had front armor which could not be penetrated by any german gun on that distance. I'd call IS-2 first MBT ever

As for overall effect on war - T-34 is the best. It served almost throughout the WWII, was hardly improved and then met the end of war as a victor. Lacking tank-vs-tank capability against german heavy guys, this tank was ideal in advance after breakthrough, though russian generals rarely used T-34 for that.

Sorry for misspelling.

zraver
07 Mar 08,, 21:32
For one-on-one duel I'd go for IS-2. Mainly for it's 122mm D25-T gun. Heard, that on test shootings its round penetrated Panther's front armor from 1500 meters. Moreover, shell smashed through engine compartment and ripped off the hull entire back armor plate, throwing it away on several meters. Pretty devastating picture. Second, IS-2 had front armor which could not be penetrated by any German gun on that distance. I'd call IS-2 first MBT ever

As for overall effect on war - T-34 is the best. It served almost throughout the WWII, was hardly improved and then met the end of war as a victor. Lacking tank-vs-tank capability against german heavy guys, this tank was ideal in advance after breakthrough, though russian generals rarely used T-34 for that.

Sorry for misspelling.

Andrey a couple of points

1- The D-25T did not blow through German armor. it was a low velocity gun with a big HE charge- it blew it up. The round was effective at any range it could hit at vs the panther or Tiger I becuase it relied on CE vs KE.

2- The Kwk 42 75mmL70, Kwk 36 88mmL56, kwk 43 88mmL71, and Kwk44 128mmL55 the IS-2 from the front. As could any of the 88mm dual purpose guns, the Pak44 128mm antitank gun, panzerfaust and panzershreck. It was not until the IS-3 Pike that the lighter or older German weapons proved ineffective and by then the war was over.

Andrey Egorov
12 Mar 08,, 09:31
Agreed. I was mislead by my sources. Made some research and found, that PzKpfw IV Ausf H was blown through by BR-471B round. And the armor of IS could be penetrated by german guns and even 76 mm ZiS-3.

Nevertheless, for 1-to-1 duel against any german tank, I'd choose IS-2. Especially, the one with straight front plate.

zraver
12 Mar 08,, 23:56
Agreed. I was mislead by my sources. Made some research and found, that PzKpfw IV Ausf H was blown through by BR-471B round. And the armor of IS could be penetrated by german guns and even 76 mm ZiS-3.

Nevertheless, for 1-to-1 duel against any german tank, I'd choose IS-2. Especially, the one with straight front plate.

vs a German tank I'd take the Su-100 with its D-10 gun hull down. It was the only Soviet weapon that could fight at range vs the Germans and win.

S2
13 Mar 08,, 01:27
Impressive vehicle and gun. I'm guessing 75mm of armor across the front hull at damn near 45degrees of slope. Hull down at 1500-2000m, the SU-100 would be dangerous if the optics were equal to the weapon.

Were they such to allow accurate AT fire beyond 1500m? The gun seems capable of penetrating 125mm armor @ 0 degrees slope at 2000m.

zraver
13 Mar 08,, 03:08
Impressive vehicle and gun. I'm guessing 75mm of armor across the front hull at damn near 45degrees of slope. Hull down at 1500-2000m, the SU-100 would be dangerous if the optics were equal to the weapon.

Were they such to allow accurate AT fire beyond 1500m? The gun seems capable of penetrating 125mm armor @ 0 degrees slope at 2000m.

Not sure, but they should be, Soviet optics were at least glass unlike some early Sherman models and this is lifted from another site

Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun - Page 12 - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:V9fWFX7Tjm4J:www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-tank-destroyer-self-propelled-gun-2048-12.html+SU-100+optics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

No,Soren, I didn't say it was superior or even equal, but it wasn't THAT inferior like really shitty optics of its predecessor, SU-85 (I saw photos made trough the optics of 85 - you can't even recognize any objects on distances more than 600-800 m - the glass is too muddy! I think though it has to do more with the quality of production rathen than with the construction itself)
SU-100 had a telescopic gunsight Tsh-19 - this is pretty the same gunsight wich was used in IS-2 ,which was based (or,better to say, copied) on the excellent german TZF-5 gunsight but had bigger sight scales up to 2000 m. Moreover , Soren, I have 2 combat reports of SU-100 tankers who destroyed german tanks on distances more than 1200 m , then I have reports of D-10S test in Kubinka with the 20-40% hit percentage on the targets at the distances between 1000 and 2000 m. When I find some time, I'll certainly translate it into English.

GraniteForge
13 Mar 08,, 09:06
I voted Tiger II ("Bengal Tiger," not "King" Tiger), but only for the few late examples with larger engine. All of the other Tigers were grossly underpowered.

Sinister
13 Mar 08,, 19:06
T-34 was OVERALL the best tank of WW2 because it was very mobile , fast , had strong armor and gun specialy the later versions.

Panther was very good too but had many tehnical problems , same goes for Tiger.

S2
13 Mar 08,, 19:31
Please check into the "Member Introductions" thread at the top of the main board that we might know a bit more about you.

Failure to comply will result in teleportation to an unidentified planet from a different time in a galaxy far, far away...

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Big K
14 Mar 08,, 09:44
....in a galaxy far, far away....

may the power be with you :)

gunnut
14 Mar 08,, 19:10
may the power be with you :)

That's force...;)

cuba
15 Mar 08,, 06:49
Tiger tank is the best because it feature in "Kelly's Heroes"! I mean, seriously, nothing is cooler than a tank that can shoot paint.

Big K
15 Mar 08,, 10:57
That's force...;)

oh come on.......force, power no big difference isnt it? .hehhehe :P

reve893
22 Mar 08,, 01:06
The best tank was the Panther, its the one that came the nearest to the idea of the main battle tank, which all armies use today. It was overly complex, but today the best tank, "the abrams", is the most complex of all competing. It was produced in decent quantities, and its long anti-tank gun was better than the infamous 88. Many of the Veterans i have interviewed, said that they feared the Panther more than the Tiger, because it could escape and come back again. That the Tiger was to slow, most of the time to escape and when they saw one they would make sure it was down.

But overall the JadgTiger, "the Hunting Tiger" was the best armored division. That behemoths 122mm tank could blow up tanks 4 miles away.

Andrey Egorov
24 Mar 08,, 08:25
But JadgTiger couldn't move off the roads and it couldn't cross rivers without heavy bridges either. It ruins all tactical advances of such a heavy killing machine.
And it lacked turret. IMO a battery of three its guns towed by tractors could do this antitank job better.

By the way, wasn't IS-3 closer to idea of main battle tank? Or maybe Centurion?

reve893
22 Apr 08,, 04:50
about the jadgtiger that was a joke. I have to admit the whole idea of tank destroyers were crap. But nonetheless the Panther was the best tank. Its gun had more penetration than the infamous 88, and it had a great mobility. THis combined with the level of German Training resulted in a machine that only numbers could take down. As one veteran that i have interviewed said, "If they had had real strategist instead of hitler, and fuel to run their amazing machines we would still be fighting them." Another said, that the only thing he still has nightmares off is seeing his buddies blown apart by a Tiger. That just that word makes him shiver.

Sinister
22 Apr 08,, 23:36
Panther was very impressive but quite unreliable thats the only reason why I don't consider such a tank to be the overall best tank of the war.

S2
23 Apr 08,, 00:37
The T-34 was the most revolutionary design of it's time. Set all the new standards of firepower, protection, and mobility.

The Mk. V Panther was the ultimate tribute to the T-34. Regardless of initial flaws, it was the maximum expression of the T-34 during the war- even more so than the T-34/76's follow-on, the T-34/85. Too big, too complex, too expensive, too few yet nobody stopped making tanks bigger or more complex just because fielded numbers fell off.

Don't know which is better and can only presume that somebody would have eventually figured out the advantages inherent to sloped armor, wide tracks, and a dominating gun in any case but the T-34 was an absolute mind-blowing phenomena to German commanders. Nobody would have complained had German manufacturers made a like copy- but they couldn't. The real war winner in tanks was the Soviet high-output aluminum diesel engine. Killer.

Neat Mk. V Panther training footage against Soviet infantry-

W8c_Tbr_fXQ

ace16807
23 Apr 08,, 01:11
Very neat video. This is slightly off topic, but I'm curious. What was the casualty rate of German tank commanders, and to a lesser extent, crews, compared to that of allied tank commanders/crews?

Triple C
26 Apr 08,, 09:38
I don't have any hard numbers but I trust WAB can produce someone who does.

German tanker casaulties should be quite high, in spite of the fact that it was probably only a fraction of Soviet tanker losses. Compared to the American or the British lossess in ETO, I suspect German casualty rates would be higher.

ace16807
12 May 08,, 03:45
I recently stumbled across this video on youtube, produced by the same people who made the top 10 rifles video. Rating for tanks are:

Firepower
Mobility
Armour
Production rating (how easy was it to mass produce)
fear factor

Now, as some might have guessed, number one was T-34.
YouTube - (01) Top Tanks of the World T-34 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoEOPJCHJOI&feature=related)

However. What I disagree with, is the manner in which it was rated. I'm guessing these were rated based off time period standards. I agree that the T-34 was easy to produce, was very maneuverable, probably was scary to see coming at you (especially several of them), had decent fire power, and decent armour. But come on, maxed in armor, firepower, and almost fear factor? You're kidding me. Relative to time standards, the Tiger II should be maxed on firepower, armour, and fear factor. Not the T-34. What are your thoughts?

Big K
12 May 08,, 08:33
but never seen a scene in which several Tiger2's coming at you due to low numbers, lack of oil and malfunctions...

i am not the expert but if i am wrong please somebody correct me?...

S2
12 May 08,, 09:26
Tank evolution in W.W. II was rapid. What the T-34 brought to the table in 1941 was absolutely revolutionary. Diesel engine with high output. Sloped armor that optimized the vehicle's weight for maximum protection. Wide tracks that better distributed the vehicle's ground pressure. The 76.2mm gun was king of that battlefield at the time.

Within a year the KwK L43 and then L48 outclassed the 76.2mm gun and kept the Mk IV servicable. All vehicles went through an evolution of up-armoring and up-gunning and it really hasn't stopped since. Between 1942 and 1945 we saw the intro of the Panther (sloped 100mm armor and Kwk L71 75mm high-velocity gun), Tiger, Tiger II, Comet, Centurion, Pershing, JS-1/2, and T-34/85. Within three years of the war the Soviet Union began production of the T-54/55 series.

That's a massive shift when one considers what vehicles were dominant in 1939 (Matilda, Char-B, etc.). In nine years we go from a Matilda, Char-B, Mk III (37mm gun) to a T-54/55.

Explosive and revolutionary development up to that point. Fairly, no significant armor changes again until the M-1, Challenger, and Leopard II some thirty years later. Totally new platforms.

astralis
12 May 08,, 16:52
S-2,

i reckon that had something to do with that sam johnson quote: "Nothing sharpens the mind so much as the knowledge that one is to be hanged in two weeks."

bugs
12 May 08,, 19:18
http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv1/kv1_5.jpg
Tank evolution in W.W. II was rapid. What the T-34 brought to the table in 1941 was absolutely revolutionary. Diesel engine with high output. Sloped armor that optimized the vehicle's weight for maximum protection. Wide tracks that better distributed the vehicle's ground pressure. The 76.2mm gun was king of that battlefield at the time.
.

One could argue that the kv-1 brought the Diesel engine, Sloped armor, Wide tracks, the 76.2mm gun first to the table in 1939 to 1940.

zraver
12 May 08,, 23:08
http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv1/kv1_5.jpg

One could argue that the kv-1 brought the Diesel engine, Sloped armor, Wide tracks, the 76.2mm gun first to the table in 1939 to 1940.

But the T-34 did it with a usable weight for the time 25ish tons.

Triple C
23 Jun 08,, 04:46
Was the Panther better armored than the Tiger E? I have found in the tactical sim that I play that the Panther's 100mm mantlet plate and 80mm glacis were even harder to crack than the Tiger's. And the sloped hull sides of the Mark V was a pain in the a** to punch through even with a high velocity gun.

Stitch
23 Jun 08,, 05:34
Was the Panther better armored than the Tiger E? I have found in the tactical sim that I play that the Panther's 100mm mantlet plate and 80mm glacis were even harder to crack than the Tiger's. And the sloped hull sides of the Mark V was a pain in the a** to punch through even with a high velocity gun.

Better armored? Probably; the armor on the Panther (even the G) wasn't as thick as the Tiger's, but it was sloped, which made penetration much more difficult. The Panther had a somewhat higher sillouette than the Tiger (not much), so it was easier to see it, but I think the sloped armor more than made up for what it lacked in thickness vis-a-vis the Tiger. Both tanks were fairly hard to kill over 1000m by any tank (even the JS III and the M26), unless you hit them in the rear plate.

zraver
23 Jun 08,, 05:46
Was the Panther better armored than the Tiger E? I have found in the tactical sim that I play that the Panther's 100mm mantlet plate and 80mm glacis were even harder to crack than the Tiger's. And the sloped hull sides of the Mark V was a pain in the a** to punch through even with a high velocity gun.

Panther 80mm upper hull at 55 degrees, 60mm lower hull at 55 degrees turret 100mm at 10 degrees front turret 100mm at 8 degrees, 100mm gun mantlet-round

Tiger I 100mm upper hull at 10 degrees, 100mm lower hull at 24 degrees, turret 100mm at 8 degrees, 110mm gun mantlet-flat

I don't know the math formula to find relative thickness but those are the stats per Achtung Panzer ! (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/)

Triple C
23 Jun 08,, 06:05
I think it's cosine of the angle multiplied by plate thickness; but I have no idea how to do trigonometry! It's not just the thickness, it's the friggin' deflection effect of the armor. Side shots that could have whacked a Tiger just couldn't cut it with Panther; and the Mark V is really soaking up those HVAP hits. I dunno how much the overmatch factor works with tungsten core rounds, but if Steel Panther guys have their formulas right (which they seem to be apt at)... funny why the Germans never gave up on the Tiger.

S2
23 Jun 08,, 06:27
I play CMBB that makes the Panther's side armor (both hull and turret) very vulnerable to the most mundane weapons. I believe 45mm @ 40 degrees and 40mm at 25 degrees. It shows in battle. Standoff engagements from hull-down at 1000+ meters is a flat-out war-winner for the Panther. Likewise, dead from nearly those ranges when hit in the flank.

Triple C
23 Jun 08,, 08:24
Ahh combat missions? Have heard a lot about that game. It must be a kink in SPWAW engine then, I don't ever recall Panthers being that tough to kill in real world engagements. Frontal fires at 1,000 meters are deadly though, not much the 88mm can but the L/70 couldn't. I would put a big question mark next to the claimed effective range of 400-500m against the Panther from 76mm and 85mm weapons--have luck hitting that turret and it better not ricochette.

Didn't US trials show M79 and M93 rounds to be totally ineffective at all ranges to some Panther glacis plates?

zraver
23 Jun 08,, 15:55
I think it's cosine of the angle multiplied by plate thickness; but I have no idea how to do trigonometry! It's not just the thickness, it's the friggin' deflection effect of the armor. Side shots that could have whacked a Tiger just couldn't cut it with Panther; and the Mark V is really soaking up those HVAP hits. I dunno how much the overmatch factor works with tungsten core rounds, but if Steel Panther guys have their formulas right (which they seem to be apt at)... funny why the Germans never gave up on the Tiger.

Steel panther sis my fav WW2 sim, but they way over strength the Tiger I especially in turret protection. I don't se ehow a panther could shrug tiger killing hits from the side the armor just ins't there/

Skywatcher
23 Jun 08,, 16:53
I voted for the T 34 for the combination of mobility, reliability, numbers, armor and armament, as well as both for the way it was used and how it retained such qualities throughout the war. I didn't vote for the Panther since the bloody thing was so complicated it kept on breaking down.

leib10
23 Jun 08,, 22:15
I voted for the T 34 for the combination of mobility, reliability, numbers, armor and armament, as well as both for the way it was used and how it retained such qualities throughout the war. I didn't vote for the Panther since the bloody thing was so complicated it kept on breaking down.

Only the Ausf. D model.

Triple C
24 Jun 08,, 08:35
I have always felt ambivalent towards the T-34. It was a brilliant design, fast, powerful, and tough. But first batches manufactured suffered from numerous flaws to poor quality control and production shortfalls in crticial items that its combat power was seriously jeoperdized. It was still the most advanced tank in the world at 41-42.

Just my two cents.

Jeff_F_F
25 Jun 08,, 06:25
Where the T34 shines IMO is in the overall strength of its basic design and the capacity of that design to be continually upgraded and improved. All of the German tanks were technological dead ends, as was the Sherman. If the Germans hadn't been collapsing the Russians would have put more priority on the development of the T44. As it was prototypes of the T-44-100 were designed by 1945, which would give the Soviets a tank with the armor, firepower, and mobility of a Panther at only 75% of the Panther's weight and far less complexity able to be produced in massive numbers.

What I mean by the German designs being dead ends is that the next generation of T34 development--the T54--had the armor of a King Tiger, the AT firepower of a Panther, better HE firepower than either, and nearly as great of mobility as a Panther while weighing 5T less than the Panther. Nothing the German's had on the drawing boards could come close.

Jeff_F_F
25 Jun 08,, 06:37
Since we are comparing tanks, it does seems interesting to compare the armor layout between the M10 an T34, especially interesting since the M10 prototype was designated T35...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M10-Achilles-latrun-1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T-34_Model_1940.jpg

Triple C
25 Jun 08,, 06:44
Steel panther sis my fav WW2 sim, but they way over strength the Tiger I especially in turret protection. I don't se ehow a panther could shrug tiger killing hits from the side the armor just ins't there/

You mean how it withstood Rusky 76mm and American 75mm hits at point-blank range? 85mm and 76mm HVAP seems to have ridiculously easy time killing Pzkpfw VIe in the game... I have read it both ways in 2ndary sources, that either Ami HVAP had no effect at all, or was knocking them out at medium range w/o undue trouble.

American Empire
27 Jun 08,, 23:50
The most influential or important tank of WWII was the T-34, the best being the Tiger.

When you watch discovery or the military channel you hear them name off the "top ten best warships/tanks/IFVs/assault rifles etc of all time". It would be much more accurate to name the most "influential or important (insert whatever) of all time." saying that something is best is basically saying it is superior to everything below it and doesn't leave much room for further questioning.

For example which is better the T-34 or the M1A2 Abrams. The answer is simple, the Abrams however the T-34 was listed under the T-34 when they named off the top ten tanks of all time. But the T-34 is without doubt much more important in a historical context then the Abrams could ever hope to be. It also makes listing weapons from different time periods more acceptable. The ME 262 was the best aircraft in the world when it came out but would it stand a chance against a modern aircraft - NO.

zraver
28 Jun 08,, 16:38
You mean how it withstood Rusky 76mm and American 75mm hits at point-blank range? 85mm and 76mm HVAP seems to have ridiculously easy time killing Pzkpfw VIe in the game... I have read it both ways in 2ndary sources, that either Ami HVAP had no effect at all, or was knocking them out at medium range w/o undue trouble.

That might in par be due to what ammo was being used. The 76mm m62 APC was not well regarded while the 76mm T4 HVAP was considered almost as good as the 17 pounder APBC. I now the test results vs the panther in 1944 show neither the 17pounder or t4 could be counted on past 600 meters. The 17 pounder sabot could drill a panther if you were lucky enough to get a hit. However the T4 and 17pounder APBC could and did crack the Panther to varying degrees.

The Russian 85mm rounds even reliant as they were on HE (BR-365R) seem to suffer the same issues past 500m.

The US Army lists the panthers effective frontal protection at 187mm upper hull and 139mm lower hull. Max BR-365R penetration under 500 meters is 140mm.

American Empire, quoting the history channel is not wise. That network is about as inaccurate as a North Korean school book on the Korean war. For example in the top ten tanks, they lump all the British male and female tanks in one catagory. Personally the most important tank to come out of WW2 was not the T-34. It was the Panther G Uhu, Sherman and the Centurion. When what each of those tanks individually represented finally merged with the Chieftan/Abrams/Leo II the modern MBT was born. Big gun and heavy armor (Centurion/panther), stabilized guns (Sherman), night fighting ability (panther G Uhu) The T-34 never passed on its genes. Postwar no one copied the T-34, even the Soviets stopped development and switched tracks to the T-44.

glyn
28 Jun 08,, 17:47
Some good points zraver. I think this subject has been flogged to death and people are now wibbling about what happens in computer games! :confused: True simulation there, sure enough - or I expect that's what it states on the box. :eek: Perhaps we might start a new thread on the worst tank(s) of WW2 !:)

Tarek Morgen
28 Jun 08,, 17:50
that would be too easy. one could simply list the Italian ones.

Albany Rifles
30 Jun 08,, 14:01
that would be too easy. one could simply list the Italian ones.

...or Japanese.

Tarek Morgen
30 Jun 08,, 16:32
though they have at least the excuse that in their theater tanks were not that important as the fields Italy choose like north africa.

Triple C
01 Jul 08,, 09:25
Some good points zraver. I think this subject has been flogged to death and people are now wibbling about what happens in computer games! :confused: True simulation there, sure enough - or I expect that's what it states on the box. :eek: Perhaps we might start a new thread on the worst tank(s) of WW2 !:)

Shame on me :redface:

Anyone know how prevalent 76mm M79 APCBCs were for Sherman crews? Were those like HVAP ammo only given to TD crews, or did the tankers recieve them in small batches?

zraver
02 Jul 08,, 00:57
Shame on me :redface:

Anyone know how prevalent 76mm M79 APCBCs were for Sherman crews? Were those like HVAP ammo only given to TD crews, or did the tankers recieve them in small batches?

I've heard the tanks got some high velocity ammo but I don't have any hard evidence. You figure the crews could scrounge some, specially after Agust 44 when the M93 began ariving for the TD units. I have also heard the M79 tended to shatter. but 109mm penetration at 30 degrees is still weak vs a Panther.

Triple C
02 Jul 08,, 06:03
According to Zaloga and others a crew of tankers batered or stole on the average two M93 rounds a month. M79 might not be the Schwere Panzer killer, but I imagine it would help.

Didn't know the Russians relied on HE for tank killing when out of APCR. I do recall this engagement between a platoon of Sherman 75s and Tiger that started from 1.000 yards down to point-blank. The surviving Sherman battered the Mark VI to submission with round after round of HE hits on turret. The German crew was killed by concussion or spall; Tiger was still in tact. 22 hits were identified on the panzer.

Brutal.

zraver
02 Jul 08,, 15:36
According to Zaloga and others a crew of tankers batered or stole on the average two M93 rounds a month. M79 might not be the Schwere Panzer killer, but I imagine it would help.

Didn't know the Russians relied on HE for tank killing when out of APCR. I do recall this engagement between a platoon of Sherman 75s and Tiger that started from 1.000 yards down to point-blank. The surviving Sherman battered the Mark VI to submission with round after round of HE hits on turret. The German crew was killed by concussion or spall; Tiger was still in tact. 22 hits were identified on the panzer.

Brutal.

The most efective Russian anti-tank guns were the 122mm and 152mm guns in the animal killers. Thir big HE charges could wreck a Panther or Tiger I

Sinister
23 Jul 08,, 13:21
That might in par be due to what ammo was being used. The 76mm m62 APC was not well regarded while the 76mm T4 HVAP was considered almost as good as the 17 pounder APBC. I now the test results vs the panther in 1944 show neither the 17pounder or t4 could be counted on past 600 meters. The 17 pounder sabot could drill a panther if you were lucky enough to get a hit. However the T4 and 17pounder APBC could and did crack the Panther to varying degrees.

The Russian 85mm rounds even reliant as they were on HE (BR-365R) seem to suffer the same issues past 500m.

The US Army lists the panthers effective frontal protection at 187mm upper hull and 139mm lower hull. Max BR-365R penetration under 500 meters is 140mm.

American Empire, quoting the history channel is not wise. That network is about as inaccurate as a North Korean school book on the Korean war. For example in the top ten tanks, they lump all the British male and female tanks in one catagory. Personally the most important tank to come out of WW2 was not the T-34. It was the Panther G Uhu, Sherman and the Centurion. When what each of those tanks individually represented finally merged with the Chieftan/Abrams/Leo II the modern MBT was born. Big gun and heavy armor (Centurion/panther), stabilized guns (Sherman), night fighting ability (panther G Uhu) The T-34 never passed on its genes. Postwar no one copied the T-34, even the Soviets stopped development and switched tracks to the T-44.

zraver I agree the most important tank during WW2 was not T-34 , tho It was the best overall good tank during WW2 even tho there were heavy tanks such as Panther , Tiger , JS-2 ..

Triple C
12 Aug 08,, 12:31
Does anyone know what type of radio was used in a T-34-85 that was not by a commanding officer? Was it an universal radio like the Americans', or just the reciever unit for the tankers?

omon
12 Aug 08,, 13:35
it was a big green box, operated by machine gunner, that sat right next to the driver.

Triple C
12 Aug 08,, 13:41
Both transmitter and reciever or just reciever?

omon
12 Aug 08,, 13:44
Both transmitter and reciever or just reciever?

both. iirc. i have not heard from ww2 vets, that they had just a reciver, they either had radios(transiver) or not.

Andy-GER
12 Aug 08,, 19:20
that would be too easy. one could simply list the Italian ones.

uhh...*cough*....dad said, italian tanks had about 5 reverse gears, absolute unique survivability invention *cough* :))

zraver
13 Aug 08,, 08:10
Both transmitter and reciever or just reciever?

2 way IIRC but not all tanks had them, most Russian radios were American supplied. The system was lousy and every one dropped the RTO/bow gunner within a few years of WW2 and simply gave the commander the radio direct.

Sinister,


zraver I agree the most important tank during WW2 was not T-34 , tho It was the best overall good tank during WW2 even tho there were heavy tanks such as Panther , Tiger , JS-2 ..

There is no real way to decide between the Sherman and T-34. While the T-34 (85) was faster, lower ground pressure and a smaller target with a diesel engine universally, it had less armor, no stabilization, was unreliable. The Sherman likewise had its advantages. heavier armor, wet storage for ammo (which corrected the Bronson flaw), a stabilized high velocity gun (76), better and more radios, an AAHMG, better overall reliability etc. Post WW2 when the 76mm Sherman's met the 85mm T-34's the T-34s ended up dying.

Triple C
13 Aug 08,, 08:24
Garry made an old post somewhere back in this thread that the Russians thought their T-34s were superior to the Sherman in a straight-up slugfest but the Sherman was better as an exploitation and pursuit tank because of its superior dependability as guaged by average milelage traversed before needing major repairs, three times better than the T-34. The 76 and 85 were comparable weapons and combined with differences in armored protection they cancel each out.

dalem
13 Aug 08,, 10:27
Actually the vanilla 75mm and armor protection of the M4 were about equal, real-world-wise, with the T-34/76. The M4s with the 76mm compared favorably with the T-34-85, too.

-dale

Triple C
13 Aug 08,, 14:26
When captured specimen of the T-34s from Korea were examined by the US Army, it concluded that its own Sherman was superior, especially in the overall quality of workmanship. In all honesty the T-34-85 and M4A3E8 line-up is probably a much closer match than T-34-76 and vanilla Sherman, if only for the latter's advantage of having a three-men turret.

Big K
14 Aug 08,, 01:59
why you call it "vanilla?"

Big K
14 Aug 08,, 02:30
i am playing a game named "Forgotten Hope 2", it is a WW2 reality mode of famous video game "Battlefield 2". This game awarded due to his reality level. My advice is at least try it once. :)

The game takes mainly Northern Africa campaigns such as,
Battle of El Alamein,
Battle of Gazala,
Operation Supercharge and etc.

Brits have usually this:
http://www.jeuxdeguerre.com/images/63/galerie/crusader-MKVI_A15.jpg
with its 2Pounder main gun(later versions have a 6Pounder which is pretty effective but still made of paperlike) which dont have any effect against this:
http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/126%20-%20P3Jearly.jpg
http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/199%20-%20british_sight.jpg
unfortunately this Pz3J have a 57mm main gun which knock out Crusader Tanks(every version) almost at every range.
http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/199%20-%20german_sight.jpg

i dont even say nothing about Pz4's

evet M3 Grant with its 75mm low velocity gun have little chance due to its enormous profile.
http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/156%20-%20M3Grant-3.jpg

http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/199%20-%20american_sight.jpg

hopefully this is the closest range that war can approach me. :)

but my questions are:

how Allied tankers drove these paperlike tanks against Pz's what are the tactics?

why Brits and US were that bad at Tank design?

what was the main Allied armored warfare doctrine ?

zraver
14 Aug 08,, 02:51
but my questions are:

how Allied tankers drove these paperlike tanks against Pz's what are the tactics?

The British Cruiser tanks were fast designed for deep operations, The infantry support tanks had great armor but were slow and both had the anemic 2pdr. Not all that bad at the beginning of the war when the Germans had 37mm armed pzIII, pz35 and Pz 38 as thier primary tanks. The biggest British failing was not going to the 6pdr early. It could drill the pz III and IV. The other British failing was a failure to grasp the nature of the desert war. They tried to fight set piece battles, and vs Rommel this was an iffy bet unless you had massive quantitative superiority. The American's fought much more like the Germans. Only better, after the initial route at Kasserine Pass the US armored divisions would spend the rest of the war on the attack and smashed some of the best German formations via movement as much as fire. The M4 Sherman may not seme like much unless your in a truck or half track or commonly even a horse drawn cart. Then it is as terrifying as a Tiger tank. Once the US got into the German rear they were finished.

The American's had to start from scratch. Thanks to a law passed decades earlier the US had no real tanks in 1939. The Lee/Grant was a stopgap until the proper industry could be set up. Once the M4 was in production it outclassed the pz IV in most regards. But again like the British the US did not up gun soon enough. The M-26 Pershing could have been ready for D-Day but it ran counter to what Patton wanted US tanks to do which was kill trucks, not tanks.

Triple C
14 Aug 08,, 09:56
Big K,

"Vanilla" is an English expression meaning "plain", as in "I would like to have vanilla ice cream please." A "vanilla" object refers to mean the the first variant or earliest version of the said thing.



how Allied tankers drove these paperlike tanks against Pz's what are the tactics?


The Germans had some great tanks but the Wehrmacht suffered from the lack of numbers to match the Americans and the US Army was infinitely more mobile. Their superior panzers meant nothing if they could not move to parry US attacks in time. Good tank or bad tank, it was better than no tank! It is also hard to argue that the workhorse German AFVs like the StuG III/IV series and Panzer IV ausf. H was better than the ubiqitous Sherman or T-34.

The allies also had better artillery which inflicted more casaulties than any other weapon. The allies also swarmed the skies with fighter and strategic bombers and they blew the living day light out of the Germans. With the trinity of airpower, artillery and mobility the Americans denied the Germans the chance to mass their panzers for proper blitzkrieg in NW Europe with the only exception of the Ardennes Offensive and even that end badly when the weather cleared.

glyn
14 Aug 08,, 10:17
[QUOTE=Triple C;531439]Big K,

"Vanilla" is an English expression meaning "plain", as in "I would like to have vanilla ice cream please." A "vanilla" object refers to mean the the first variant or earliest version of the said thing.


That is what it is generally taken to mean these days, which is curious as vanilla is a flavouring! Ice cream would be iced water and milk without it. :) It must be difficult for a foreigner just using reason, logic or common-sense to understand what passes for English these days.

Albany Rifles
14 Aug 08,, 13:52
US Tankers were trained to believe that their main weapons should be their coax machine gun and hull machine gun. Why? Because they were suppsoed to be tearing up the enemy's rear areas not slugging it out with other tanks. By US doctrine, tank destroyers were supposed to handle enemy tanks. As the war progressed it was recognized that more firepower was needed for the Sherman.

As for the Lee/Grant the British were happy to get anything with a bigger gun than the 2 pdr or 37mm Stuart/Honeys. As has been mentioned, they were a stop gap. And they also had a bunch of machine guns (4), reflecting the doctrine as stated above.

For more, here is the Wiki

M3 Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Grant)

In short, it was a good, not great, tank and filled a need.

Big K
14 Aug 08,, 17:41
thanks everybody for this kindly approachs :)

thats why i love this board and its members :)

Triple C
14 Aug 08,, 17:57
M3 Grant/Lee actually gave the Germans a handful. It had a terrible layout and was dangerously prone to spalling due to its rivetted hull, but Panzer Mark III with the short 5 cm L/42 gun still could not crack its frontal armor plate except for an aimed shot to the weak 75 mm gun mount.

As for ETO US tankers did very well considering how badly outgunned they were, especially in the armored divisions.

Big K
14 Aug 08,, 18:12
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/M13_40_CFB_Borden_1.jpg

today i faced 2 of these and they could survive from my direct frontal hits from over 500mt with 75mm Grant's main gun.

what are the main differences and difficulties of production between high and low velocity guns?

considering 75mms of Panther tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Armament)and 75mm of Shermans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Armament)

dalem
14 Aug 08,, 18:28
why you call it "vanilla?"

It's English slang for "generic" or "plain". i.e. No Frills.

-dale

Albany Rifles
14 Aug 08,, 18:41
What kind of shot from the M3?

If it was HE I'd see a problem. Here is the specs for you.


75 mm gun (US) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_US_tank_gun)

Big K
14 Aug 08,, 18:49
What kind of shot from the M3?

If it was HE I'd see a problem. Here is the specs for you.


75 mm gun (US) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_US_tank_gun)

no i use AP rounds against tanks and HE for infantry or stationary gun emplacements.

zraver
14 Aug 08,, 22:23
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/M13_40_CFB_Borden_1.jpg

today i faced 2 of these and they could survive from my direct frontal hits from over 500mt with 75mm Grant's main gun.

what are the main differences and difficulties of production between high and low velocity guns?

considering 75mms of Panther tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Armament)and 75mm of Shermans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Armament)

75mm is simply the shell diameter, not the length or bursting charge. IIRC the US M2 and M3 75mm guns were adapted from the French quicking 75mm feild guns and had a decent HE charge, but not much propellant. The Panthers 75mm by comapison is much bigger using a necked down cartridge providing more propellant and thus increased round velocity for AP use. The barrel was also longer at 70 caliber and this also helped boost velocity and impact energy.

ArmchairGeneral
15 Aug 08,, 02:30
Kind of like the major difference between .50 AE and .50 BMG, or between .22 rimfire and .223 Remington.

S2
15 Aug 08,, 03:49
Match it to optics and, voila!:biggrin:

zraver
15 Aug 08,, 05:08
Match it to optics and, voila!:biggrin:

The 7.5cm KwK 42/L70 continued in service after the war both in Panther tanks used by the French, but even longer in a cut down version called the CN75-50 used on the French AMX-13 and of all things the Sherman tank via the M-50 Super Sherman of the Israeli Defence Force.

Big K
15 Aug 08,, 23:23
obviously high velocity guns are much more effective.

so why Allies didnt equip their tanks firstly with this type of weapons?

ArmchairGeneral
16 Aug 08,, 00:02
obviously high velocity guns are much more effective.

so why Allies didnt equip their tanks firstly with this type of weapons?

For the Americans, it was a matter of tank doctrine. Tanks were not supposed to kill tanks, that was the job of tank destroyers. Tanks bypass the heavy forces and focus on destroying rear echelons.

There are several reasons I can think of for the Brits. One, they used a lot of American equipment, although you will notice that they were the first to mount a high velocity gun in the Sherman, the 17 pdr. Two, most of their indigenous tanks were designed with the 2 pdr in mind, and there was simply not enough room to pack a really big gun inside. The Churchill turret had to have significant redesigns to allow a 75 mm gun. The Brit's later tanks were built designed to take more powerful guns.

Big K
16 Aug 08,, 02:09
from all the answers i understand that building a H.V. gun must be much more expensive and difficult than a L.V. gun.

is that right?

Triple C
16 Aug 08,, 09:32
I don't know if costs have anything to do with this, but most sources agree that the US Army's rejection of replacing the obsolete 75mm M3 with the high velocity 76mm M1 gun was due to the opposition from the more infantry-minded generals as well as the opinion from US tank crews that they did not want to lose the 75mm's infantry killing power.

The 76mm high-explosive round only had half the explosive charge of the old 75mm and new German heavies had not been encountered in large numbers. In Tunisia Tigers were rare and put in seperate heavy armor battalions, and the Allies mistakenly believed that the Panther tank would be similarily deployed.

It is also noteworthy that 37th tank bn, 4th Armd. Div. of Patton's 3d Army resisted the adaption of the 76mm guns, to the point that Col. Abrams had to make the example by selecting an Easy-Eight as his command tank, after they had fought the biggest tank-battle on the western front against two Panzer Brigades' worth of Panther tanks in Lorraine!

Opinion changed swiftedly after the Ardennes Offensive of course, when the terrible weather and inhospitable terrain forced the Americans to fight head-on against German Panther and Royal Tiger tanks. Then the 12th Army Group declined any new 75mm Shermans for its forces, and all Sherman variants except Easy-Eights and 105mm howitzer assault tanks were dropped from production.

zraver
16 Aug 08,, 09:59
from all the answers i understand that building a H.V. gun must be much more expensive and difficult than a L.V. gun.

is that right?

yes, even if both breeches and barrels are built to the same quality the icnreased recoil systems and longer barrle (more metal) make it more expensive.

Triple C
21 Aug 08,, 19:14
Question:

Why did the 'obscolete' US 75mm M72 AP pentrate more armor than the 'advanced' M61 APBC? Did one replace the other, or were they both issued at the same time?

just4nikhilesh
27 Aug 08,, 09:09
Elefant wasn't a tank, and was about as mobile as British WWI Mk1 tank.

The Panther G is my pick as best overall tank of the war. Speed, mobility, firepower, protection. The Panther G had it all.

The British Firefly should also be a selection on the list, technically it was a sherman, but one with the very powerful 17lb AT gun, a gun that could penetrate the frontal glacis of any tank(note this would not include the Elefant and Tiger Tank Destroyers) that saw service in the war.

The best US version of the Sherman was the M4A3E8/76, and that was actually a very good tank, with very good armor and a powerful 76.2mm high velocity gun.

The M-26 should also be on the list. Came at the end of the war, but it is generally felt that it was a good match for the best German heavy tanks.
t 34 is the best one its lighter armor is more effective then other tank so think about it

Triple C
27 Aug 08,, 18:14
Cough, cough.

Anon, a former moderator whose forum handel was M21 Sniper, who we love dearly, had left the forum to take care of his own a couple of years ago.

In other words, please allow the tattered remains of the horse, as well as that of the panther, elephant and tiger, to rest in peace. Amen.

ace16807
03 Sep 08,, 00:24
t 34 is the best one its lighter armor is more effective then other tank so think about it

To elaborate on your stance further, your title, "best is russian T 34 then panzer" essentially sums it up. If you say the 2nd best tank in ww2 was the panzer, you have very limited knowledge in this field... You do realize, that panzer is a generic term, not a specific tank design, right?

Triple C
10 Sep 08,, 07:35
BigK,

Come to think about it, there is something seriously screwed up about the game you're playing. M3 Grant's 75mm was the most powerful gun in North Africa until the German 75mm L/43 was given to the Afrika Korps. Pz III was toast against Grant's 75mm gun of any model, and it is absurd that the Italian M13/40 would have been able to survive 75mm hits. It wasn't protected enough to survive 37mm IIRC!

Big K
24 Sep 08,, 19:14
BigK,

Come to think about it, there is something seriously screwed up about the game you're playing. M3 Grant's 75mm was the most powerful gun in North Africa until the German 75mm L/43 was given to the Afrika Korps. Pz III was toast against Grant's 75mm gun of any model, and it is absurd that the Italian M13/40 would have been able to survive 75mm hits. It wasn't protected enough to survive 37mm IIRC!

oh we are playing the same game?

mate you must give your nick and we may play it together :)

and about Italian tank, are we sure of it?

zraver
24 Sep 08,, 19:46
and about Italian tank, are we sure of it?

M13/40 14 tons max armor 42mm rivted steel not ballistically shaped, it had a dual purpose 47mm gun which was its only strong point and even then its AP ammo could not defeat the matlida II's armor even at point blank range. I am unsure if the effecto pronto HEAT rounds could. meanwhile its own armor could not stand up to the British OQF 2 pounder (40mm)

Triple C
25 Sep 08,, 10:56
M13/40 is a notorious deathtrap. Woefully inadeqate against even the British Cruisers.

S2
25 Sep 08,, 12:44
Italy had accurately identified the primary threat as african spears through the 20s and 30s...

Threat changed. The tank didn't.:biggrin:

zraver
25 Sep 08,, 15:43
Italy had accurately identified the primary threat as african spears through the 20s and 30s...

Threat changed. The tank didn't.:biggrin:

Yup Italy modernized a decade to soon for WW2. When the dance finally started they didn't have the cash to do it again.

T_igger_cs_30
25 Sep 08,, 15:49
Italy had accurately identified the primary threat as african spears through the 20s and 30s...

Threat changed. The tank didn't.:biggrin:

"were they fin stabilised spears ? ...........cheeky :))

Shamus
25 Sep 08,, 16:01
"were they fin stabilised spears ? ...........cheeky :))Yes and very difficult to throw with the sabot on;).

S2
25 Sep 08,, 16:02
"were they fin stabilised spears ? ...........cheeky":biggrin:

Sabots they were, Sergeant Major.:biggrin: Propelled by the strength of mighty Nubian warriors!

You can imagine the fright imposed by a two-pounder...;)

Shamus
25 Sep 08,, 16:06
"were they fin stabilised spears ? ...........cheeky":biggrin:

Sabots they were, Sergeant Major.:biggrin: Propelled by the strength of mighty Nubian warriors!

You can imagine the fright imposed by a two-pounder...;)Even double-thickness hide shields were scant protection:eek:.

T_igger_cs_30
25 Sep 08,, 16:07
Yes and very difficult to throw with the sabot on;).

Ok that makes sense now, and explains the reason for so many foot injuries amongst the warriors........the sabot's landing on their toes when discarding upon release...........makes perfect sense cant understand why I didnt realise it before :))

zraver
25 Sep 08,, 19:32
Ok that makes sense now, and explains the reason for so many foot injuries amongst the warriors........the sabot's landing on their toes when discarding upon release...........makes perfect sense cant understand why I didnt realise it before :))

Hoever by the use of the atlattil they were able to increase the effective caliber of the throwing arm.

Triple C
29 Sep 08,, 12:28
Even double-thickness hide shields were scant protection:eek:.

You and your dead-pan :)

Anywho, the Italian tank that Big K was shooting at to no effect should have been a death trap with 3.7cm weapons, a 75mm would have been an overkill.

zraver
29 Sep 08,, 19:46
You and your dead-pan :)

Anywho, the Italian tank that Big K was shooting at to no effect should have been a death trap with 3.7cm weapons, a 75mm would have been an overkill.

some one was a haxx0r

Big K
30 Sep 08,, 01:32
You and your dead-pan :)

Anywho, the Italian tank that Big K was shooting at to no effect should have been a death trap with 3.7cm weapons, a 75mm would have been an overkill.

yes definitely.

i just can not understand how did they designed craps like m13/40.

i mean what was wrong with those mediterranean so-called tank designers?

uk-expat93
11 Oct 08,, 20:06
I think the t-34 Would be the best.
It was Fast, Agile, had an 85mm cannon, and it put up a great match against, The Panzers, and Tigers.
The reason being, It was to fast for the big tanks. and the armor was relativley thick.
And you could beat the price :D

zraver
11 Oct 08,, 22:14
I think the t-34 Would be the best.
It was Fast,

as compared to what? A Tiger I, certainly, a Chaffe not even close.


Agile,

yes


had an 85mm cannon,

And this is important why? It might have been the best infantry support gun on a medium tank in WW2 but vs other tanks it was simply average.



and it put up a great match against, The Panzers, and Tigers.

Not really, it did a better than than say the T-34m43 witha 76mm gun but it was still out fought most times by German armor and had to use weight of numbers or supporting arms to win.


The reason being, It was to fast for the big tanks.

Not quite sure what your saying here. Tigers killed alot of T-34/85's but then so did Stug III's, Marders, and Hetzers which could not traverse. The Tank was not too fast.


and the armor was relativley thick.

But often poorly cast and very brittle.


And you could beat the price :D

Yep, you sure could, like FREE Shermans can't beat that price.

uk-expat93
11 Oct 08,, 22:22
Sorry I meant you couldn't beat the price.
But you have to admit in the ruins of Russia during WWII
they made a good tank compared to the nations who had the time, money, and resources, to make a good tank.

I am listing good points about the Tank, I was saying it could out maneuver a Most large Tanks.

T-34's had thier fair share of Kills too.


The tank was realatively fast comparing to how fast it was built with the resources they had, and for a Tank that size.

T_igger_cs_30
11 Oct 08,, 22:24
Posed this question to an "old comrade" just recently, he went through the desert campaign and the whole WW2 as a Tank soldier / Commander.....his response...........after the battle if I was sat in my tank having a "brew and a sarny", that was the best goddam tank on the battle field............. he did survive a few brew ups........and I do not mean cups of tea!

T_igger_cs_30
11 Oct 08,, 22:29
Sorry I meant you couldn't beat the price.
But you have to admit in the ruins of Russia during WWII
they made a good tank compared to the nations who had the time, money, and resources, to make a good tank.

I am listing good points about the Tank, I was saying it could out maneuver a Most large Tanks.

T-34's had thier fair share of Kills too.


The tank was realatively fast comparing to how fast it was built with the resources they had, and for a Tank that size.


During the Battle of Stalingrad the factory workers would also run them right of the production line to the front line and fight them ..........no one else was in that position before or since..........

ace16807
11 Oct 08,, 22:47
Sorry I meant you couldn't beat the price.
But you have to admit in the ruins of Russia during WWII
they made a good tank compared to the nations who had the time, money, and resources, to make a good tank.

Russia relocated their production. You can't produce anything in "ruins" besides 2nd rate weapons. If the factory is in ruins, it won't be in a position to produce anything. The quality wasn't always the best either. They were capable of building them because they weren't building as many support and logistics vehicles that they would have otherwise needed had it not been for Lend-Lease.


I am listing good points about the Tank, I was saying it could out maneuver a Most large Tanks.

Well. Because it's smaller. And thus it sacrificed armor and armament.


T-34's had thier fair share of Kills too.

Sure. Top Soviet tank ace scored 50-ish kills iirc. Top German ace scored more than 150. I'm under the impression that the ratio of kill:loss ratio of Soviet tanks wasn't very high.

uk-expat93
11 Oct 08,, 22:59
Yet again, they they didn't have the Resources, to build such great tanks, and the workers had to hurry, and send them off to the front line.

The tanks got good kills, for the way they were built.

But, I think for the mass scale it was produced, I think it was a good russian tank.

Especially, for the state USSR was in, continuous bombing, unreliable machinery, starvation, etc, etc.

But you and zraver know thier stuff.
I have to say that much.

uk-expat93
11 Oct 08,, 23:00
Oh, and I think the German Commanders had more training.
I think...
Not to sure about that..
But, I would Imagine that Hitler, would have all his troops, trained very welll considering he wanted to take over Europe.

T_igger_cs_30
11 Oct 08,, 23:05
The Blitzkrieg came to a grinding halt in the Russian campaign due to many factors, it was a brilliant philosaphy, ......... at its height fast and vastly outnumbering its opposition............ the Russians pulled it off and did the same........... result t-34 came out the winner. On paper many "better" Tanks around than the t-34..........but in the end the results speak for themselves.

uk-expat93
12 Oct 08,, 00:06
For it's time, and the Challenges, it was a reliable tank.
Right?

T_igger_cs_30
12 Oct 08,, 00:12
For it's time, and the Challenges, it was a reliable tank.
Right?

I would say more than reliable, many tanks are produced and never tested, the T-34 was......... as I said the results speak for themselves.

uk-expat93
12 Oct 08,, 00:55
Lol, I guess so.
I thought you were talking about the guys who was talking about the win and kill ratio.

Big K
12 Oct 08,, 03:25
i understand from many posts for T-34 that this tank was a right solution in right time in the right place, but nothing more...

definitely was not an "ultimate" or "best ever" or so tank...?

from this i would say that the conditions who give us the "best" depends on the "when" and "where" factors?

Triple C
12 Oct 08,, 06:52
i understand from many posts for T-34 that this tank was a right solution in right time in the right place, but nothing more...

definitely was not an "ultimate" or "best ever" or so tank...?

No, it was not. Every manjor tank design of the war enjoyed a small window of stardom before it is superceded by better, more powerful stuff. T-34 and M4 Sherman reigned the battlefield until the Germans came up with KwK L/48 armed Pz IV and Pz V Panther, the Tiger kicked rear ends until T-34-85 and IS-2 become operational, etc.



from this i would say that the conditions who give us the "best" depends on the "when" and "where" factors?

The US Army conducted a series of investigations to measure the influence of tank type on the outcome of tank-to-tank fighting. The result was inconclusive. It proved however tactics and positional advantge is by far the most important factor in a tank fight. Most of the time, he who fired the first aimed shot in an engagement will be the victor.

The detailed statiscal analysis is interesting. On average, a tank unit that spotted its adversary and fired first would win. The defenders successfully did so at 84% of all engagements studied. When an attacker spotted and shot first, it would inflict 3.6 times more losses on the defenders. When a defender spotted and shot first, it inflicted 4.3 times the casaulties on the attacker. Overall, it was concluded, a medicre tank waiting playing defense had an advantage over an excellent tank on offense.

An example: in one of the larger tank engagements during the Battle of the Bulge, a couple of 3d AD's Sherman 76s confronted two platoons of 2d SS Panzer's Panthers from ambush position, and knocked out five German tanks at the cost of two Stuarts and one Sherman 75. One of the damaged Panthers retired to a hull down position out of 3d AD's LOS, then
jumped 9th AD's armored column and single handedly killed four Shermans. Almost in every instance, the defender won.

ace16807
12 Oct 08,, 06:58
No, it was not. Every manjor tank design of the war enjoyed a small window of stardom before it is superceded by better, more powerful stuff. T-34 and M4 Sherman reigned the battlefield until the Germans came up with KwK L/48 armed Pz IV and Pz V Panther, the Tiger kicked rear ends until T-34-85 and IS-2 become operational, etc.



The US Army conducted a series of investigations to measure the influence of tank type on the outcome of tank-to-tank fighting. The result was inconclusive. It proved however tactics and positional advantge is by far the most important factor in a tank fight. Most of the time, he who fired the first aimed shot in an engagement will be the victor.

The detailed statiscal analysis is interesting. On average, a tank unit that spotted its adversary and fired first would win. The defenders successfully did so at 84% of all engagements studied. When an attacker spotted and shot first, it would inflict 3.6 times more losses on the defenders. When a defender spotted and shot first, it inflicted 4.3 times the casaulties on the attacker. Overall, it was concluded, a medicre tank waiting playing defense had an advantage over an excellent tank on offense.

An example: in one of the larger tank engagements during the Battle of the Bulge, a couple of 3d AD's Sherman 76s confronted two platoons of 2d SS Panzer's Panthers from ambush position, and knocked out five German tanks at the cost of two Stuarts and one Sherman 75. One of the damaged Panthers retired to a hull down position out of 3d AD's LOS, then
jumped 9th AD's armored column and single handedly killed four Shermans. Almost in every instance, the defender won.

Interesting. I was under the impression that they would have employed Stuarts entirely as an infantry support, instead of using it against enemy AFVs. By 1944/45 I doubt the M3 would be able to do much against other armored vehicles.

Triple C
12 Oct 08,, 08:06
Stuarts were not used for infantry support to the best of my knowledge. They are however an organic part of the tank company and constituted the bulk of mechanized cavalry groups, serving as the recon vehicle. No one in a Stuart with a right mind will want to slug it out with panzers but things happen.

zraver
12 Oct 08,, 14:41
Stuarts were not used for infantry support to the best of my knowledge. They are however an organic part of the tank company and constituted the bulk of mechanized cavalry groups, serving as the recon vehicle. No one in a Stuart with a right mind will want to slug it out with panzers but things happen.

No but they couldtakje on the short barreled 75mm Pz III's,220 series armored cars and half track etc.

Triple C
12 Oct 08,, 15:36
No doubt they could. Which is why I found the mindless bashing of US equipment by ameuter researchers irritating; the darn thing was the best vehicle of its class! In extreme exigencies they were at times forced to be used as tanks, sometimes successfully; during the assault on the Sigfried Line a task force of the the 2d Armor, after losing all of its mediums in the mud at the face of withering fire, sent its light M3s to charge the anti-tank guns at full speed; the lights overwhelmed the defenses by storm and even knocked out several StuG IIIs by closing to their flanks at extreme close range. There were also more than a couple of battle in which the day was saved by the Mechanized Cavalry Scouts, by timely discovery of German dispositions or fighting as infantry.

zraver
14 Oct 08,, 15:43
No doubt they could. Which is why I found the mindless bashing of US equipment by ameuter researchers irritating; the darn thing was the best vehicle of its class! In extreme exigencies they were at times forced to be used as tanks, sometimes successfully; during the assault on the Sigfried Line a task force of the the 2d Armor, after losing all of its mediums in the mud at the face of withering fire, sent its light M3s to charge the anti-tank guns at full speed; the lights overwhelmed the defenses by storm and even knocked out several StuG IIIs by closing to their flanks at extreme close range. There were also more than a couple of battle in which the day was saved by the Mechanized Cavalry Scouts, by timely discovery of German dispositions or fighting as infantry.

The British used the Honey as a medium in the Desert. Its armor was heavier than many german mediums and its 37mm at least as good as some of the guns the Germans were using and as good as the 2 pounder.

Albany Rifles
14 Oct 08,, 16:17
And the version would have been an M5 Stuart, not an M3.

steelface581
23 Oct 08,, 10:43
in terms of absolute quality- the Panther, very complex and hard to fix on the battlefield- but definitely the best in operation.


T-34 had an awesome suspension system and a pretty good amount of armor, fairly easy to fix as well... second in my book


the tiger had the best gun of any ww2 tank, unfortunately it was heavy, relatively slow and was an extremely thirsty beast--- they should have stuck to the Panther:)) - third in me book

Big K
23 Oct 08,, 11:55
:) ehheh no offense to anybody because this includes me also

but it is very funny

i bet theres a rule which say "new members go to the -best tank of ww2- thread right after the introduction :))

steelface581
23 Oct 08,, 21:52
:) ehheh no offense to anybody because this includes me also

but it is very funny

i bet theres a rule which say "new members go to the -best tank of ww2- thread right after the introduction :))


None taken:)


i DID feel a strange pull to this thread as soon as i registered--have resisted for a week or so but in the end it was just too much!!!

take care all:))

RadioPatrol
24 Oct 08,, 10:12
This thread is how I found this board ... researching WW II Tanks ..... **POOF** this thread poped up ....

Big K
24 Oct 08,, 10:31
This thread is how I found this board ... researching WW II Tanks ..... **POOF** this thread poped up ....

as i said,

this is magic :biggrin:

Stitch
28 Oct 08,, 21:51
in terms of absolute quality- the Panther, very complex and hard to fix on the battlefield- but definitely the best in operation.

Yes; and the few Panthers that were captured on the battlefield, especially by the Russians, were very prized. IIRC, the Russians in particular kept theirs running as long as possible because the quality was so much better than the T-34's they were used to.

chicolini
30 Oct 08,, 15:28
One tank I was surprised to see was not on the list was the josef stalin. The stalin was a massive tank, and the most powerful tank to come out of World War II. It's only drawback was it's slow firing ability with shells, and so that would have to make the T-34 the most decisive tank of World War II, which consequently makes it the best tank of World War II. The T-34 had good speed, good mobility, and although light compared to the Stalin or King Tiger or Panther, had thick armour and was crucial in casting the Germans out of Russia. Since the real war was fought in Russia, and all the other places, (i.e. Italy, Normandy, North Africa, and even Japan) were all minor issues compared to the Russian Front, it seems fitting that the best tank would be the one that changed the outcome of the real war, in Russia.

entropy
30 Oct 08,, 15:30
One tank I was surprised to see was not on the list was the josef stalin. The stalin was a massive tank, and the most powerful tank to come out of World War II. It's only drawback was it's slow firing ability with shells, and so that would have to make the T-34 the most decisive tank of World War II, which consequently makes it the best tank of World War II. The T-34 had good speed, good mobility, and although light compared to the Stalin or King Tiger or Panther, had thick armour and was crucial in casting the Germans out of Russia. Since the real war was fought in Russia, and all the other places, (i.e. Italy, Normandy, North Africa, and even Japan) were all minor issues compared to the Russian Front, it seems fitting that the best tank would be the one that changed the outcome of the real war, in Russia.

It was quite a poor performer for its weight and cost.

Compare its huge gun with the Tiger guns.

chicolini
30 Oct 08,, 15:47
It was quite a poor performer for its weight and cost.

Compare its huge gun with the Tiger guns.

Granted the King Tiger (I assume it is the King Tiger you are talking about) was extremely powerful and huge, but it was a fuel guzzler and also unreliable. Talk about a poor performer. It was also slow and difficult to manuevre. The T-34 was mobile and fast, as well as powerful and armoured. The King Tigers were made to combat the T-34's, but eventually were no match. So, yes, the King Tiger had a much bigger gun and thicker armour, but that is about it. As for weight, it weighed almost three times less than the King Tiger.

entropy
30 Oct 08,, 15:48
Granted the King Tiger was extremely powerful and huge, but it was a fuel guzzler and also unreliable. Talk about a poor performer. It was also slow and difficult to manuevre. The T-34 was mobile and fast, as well as powerful and armoured. The King Tigers were made to combat the T-34's, but eventually were no match. So, yes, the King Tiger had a much bigger gun and thicker armour, but that is about it.

Heavy tanks are not medium tanks.

Shamus
30 Oct 08,, 15:49
Granted the King Tiger was extremely powerful and huge, but it was a fuel guzzler and also unreliable. Talk about a poor performer. It was also slow and difficult to manuevre. The T-34 was mobile and fast, as well as powerful and armoured. The King Tigers were made to combat the T-34's, but eventually were no match. So, yes, the King Tiger had a much bigger gun and thicker armour, but that is about it.I'm not sure but I believe Entropy was speaking about the IS-2:confused:.

chicolini
30 Oct 08,, 15:53
Oh, i see. Well, i am not trying to say that the Stalin was a better tank than the Tiger. I was merely expressing surprise that it was not listed on the voting poll. I thought he was talking about the T-34. Entropy, make yourself more clear.

entropy
30 Oct 08,, 15:54
I'm not sure but I believe Entropy was speaking about the IS-2:confused:.

Yes, that was the case.

The IS-2 had a lot of problems, unreliability being just one of them. Also, the A-19 gun lacked kinetic energy penetrators.

chicolini
30 Oct 08,, 15:57
Anyway, the Stalin was the most heavily armoured tank of World War II, making it very difficult for the Tigers and Panthers to handle

ace16807
30 Oct 08,, 21:34
Anyway, the Stalin was the most heavily armoured tank of World War II, making it very difficult for the Tigers and Panthers to handle

So by your logic whatever has the thickest armor and the biggest gun wins? Let's just make a massive metal sphere with armor 2 meters thick, some treads, and a 406mm gun on it. Greatest tank ever by what you seem to persist.

Edit: Oops. Didn't see he was gone.

Kernow
26 Nov 08,, 00:02
You can't really clump all these together and come out with the best. At the start of the war the Soviet T-34 was the most capable tank. The German Panthers again were very good. The British Cromwell was a very capable vehicle also, it was the first tank with a dual purpose gun, good speed and reasonable armour, used successfully in North Africa and by the Soviets, it also replaced Sherman in some units. This was later followed by the Comet, an excellent tank design, but came in at the closing stages of the war.

McFire
27 Nov 08,, 17:43
I was watching the one of the History Channels the other day ("Great Clashes", I think) and it was covering the D-Day battles, with how the Shermans fought against the Tigers. Essentially it took four Shermans to take out a Tiger (with three of the Shermans being taken out themselves!). The old Brit tankers all chose the Tiger as the tank they would prefer if given the choice. Even in "Kelly's Heroes", Oddball picked the Tiger :biggrin:
In a tank-versus-tank (head-to-head) competition; based on gun, armor, manouverability, speed, and ability to take punishment and still fight; of all the tanks produced from 1939 to 1945 (do not consider production numbers as sheer superior numbers usually win out), which do you think is the best tank?

tankie
27 Nov 08,, 17:48
I was watching the one of the History Channels the other day ("Great Clashes", I think) and it was covering the D-Day battles, with how the Shermans fought against the Tigers. Essentially it took four Shermans to take out a Tiger (with three of the Shermans being taken out themselves!). The old Brit tankers all chose the Tiger as the tank they would prefer if given the choice. Even in "Kelly's Heroes", Oddball picked the Tiger :biggrin:
In a tank-versus-tank (head-to-head) competition; based on gun, armor, manouverability, speed, and ability to take punishment and still fight; of all the tanks produced from 1939 to 1945 (do not consider production numbers as sheer superior numbers usually win out), which do you think is the best tank?

Tank on tank , Tiger

mkenny
28 Nov 08,, 13:10
Essentially it took four Shermans to take out a Tiger (with three of the Shermans being taken out themselves!)

That is simply not true. It is a myth.

Woodsy the Lar
28 Nov 08,, 14:50
I voted for the Panther Because the French used them after the War until 1956.

dave lukins
28 Nov 08,, 16:53
I voted for the Panther Because the French used them after the War until 1956.

The Panther for me too...A formidable, fast deadly weapon. Most experts in the repair and maintenance of them today agree, it was possibly the best at the time.

Shamus
28 Nov 08,, 16:59
Even in "Kelly's Heroes", Oddball picked the Tiger :biggrin:
But if you recall,Moriarity was not happy about this..."The fuel system's terrible,it's leaking all over the place....":))

Shamus
28 Nov 08,, 17:07
The Panther for me too...A formidable, fast deadly weapon. Most experts in the repair and maintenance of them today agree, it was possibly the best at the time.I voted for the T-34 but my overall favorite is the Panther.If I had to be stuck in a tank of that time period,put me in a G model Panther;).

ace16807
28 Nov 08,, 17:57
That is simply not true. It is a myth.

It still portrays how poorly the Shermans performed against Tigers though.

dalem
28 Nov 08,, 21:25
It still portrays how poorly the Shermans performed against Tigers though.

Only in tank v tank fights. In every other category - range, speed, reliability, production, antipersonnel, etc., the Sherman "beats" the Tiger.

That's why it's a basically silly question, as has been pointed out in earlier pages. Best tank? Best at what? Like I've said, each nation ended up with designs that were really great for their needs, and each had strengths and weaknesses that compared favorably.

You think that, for every Allied Sherman gunner who wished he was in a Panther, there wasn't a German supply officer who wished he had Shermans to requisition and repair?

-dale

Sinister
28 Nov 08,, 23:20
dalem has a interesting point , one should not compare a tank just because its stronger , afterall the tiger was a heavy tank , when comparing a tank I usually look at its overall all round performance for its weight class and what it was designed to do , so the best all round would be the T-34.

Shiny Capstar
28 Nov 08,, 23:27
Going with the tankies on this one, Panther for me.

dalem
05 Dec 08,, 00:07
A couple of years old now, but I think my post from page 2 still speaks for me:


I'd like to offer the wishy-washy notion that ANY tank design that we are still talking about 60 years later has to be considered VERY highly.

I mean sure, we can discuss finer points and differences between the M4, T-34, and PzKwIV and V and VIE, but they are all "Great" designs in their own right.

Now, which one would I rather have a bunch of from a strategic point of view? The M4, hands down.

Which one would I rather have if I have an army with no logistical tail and no education? The T-34, hands down.

Which one would I rather BE in once the strategic and other problems have been solved and someone is shooting hurty bits at me? The Panther, hands down.

-dale

Kernow
05 Dec 08,, 00:09
A couple of years old now, but I think my post from page 2 still speaks for me:

Well put.

Hurty Bits, I like. :))

Shamus
05 Dec 08,, 00:12
That sums it up very nicely Dale;):biggrin:.

dalem
05 Dec 08,, 01:51
WWII armor is one of my niche areas. :) Only 8 gajillion books left to add to my shelves. :)

-dale

Kernow
05 Dec 08,, 02:41
WWII armor is one of my niche areas. :) Only 8 gajillion books left to add to my shelves. :)

-dale

Have you ever served on one?

dalem
05 Dec 08,, 03:43
Have you ever served on one?

Nope. Never served at all. Just a bit of an armchair historian.

-dale

Triple C
05 Dec 08,, 04:06
How dependable was the IS-2 compared to Tiger I or Panther?

Kernow
05 Dec 08,, 04:21
Nope. Never served at all. Just a bit of an armchair historian.

-dale

You would love them, great fun.

Officer of Engineers
05 Dec 08,, 05:22
I don't know about you but my back can't take those old suspensions anymore.

sappersgt
05 Dec 08,, 06:16
Nope. Never served at all. Just a bit of an armchair historian.

-dale


They also serve...;):biggrin:

dalem
05 Dec 08,, 18:24
:)

-dale

zraver
06 Dec 08,, 00:31
How dependable was the IS-2 compared to Tiger I or Panther?

It depends, IS-2 1943 or IS-2 1944 and vs what? A 1944 model verses a Panther A, probably better, a 1943 model vs a Panther G or late production Tiger I, probably less so. The IS-2 had the advantage of actually being able to be used for breakthrough attacks to open an offensive, something the Tiger only really did at Kursk.

Triple C
06 Dec 08,, 07:10
I suppose when you way 1944 you mean IS-2M? According to 2d hand excerpts of German field manual the IS-2M could not be harmed by 88 L/56 cannon fire. Pretty amazing for an item designed for mass-manufacturing.

zraver
06 Dec 08,, 19:02
I suppose when you way 1944 you mean IS-2M? According to 2d hand excerpts of German field manual the IS-2M could not be harmed by 88 L/56 cannon fire. Pretty amazing for an item designed for mass-manufacturing.

No, the real IS-2M is a 1950's version. Although some recoutns refer to an IS-2m it is reality a IS-2 model 1944. The 88mmL56 could deal with the IS-2, but not from the position of strength it could vs other tanks equipped with the 76 or 85mm guns. The D-19 could break a Tiger 1 from any range. However it was a very slow firing gun, the IS-2 43 could only fire about twice a minute and only had 28 rounds. The IS 2 44 had a slightly higher rate of fire but was still slow. Part of the IS 2's myth was a battle in Poland on the Vistula when a group of IS-2 (unknown year model) turned back an attack by 15 King Tigers (4 KT's destroyed for the loss of 3 IS-2 and 7 more damaged). Part of the reason was excellent handling by the Soviets, poor handling by the Germans and soft sandy soil that bogged the Tigers down. But the Tiger I remained an effective platform to the end of the war. IIRC, a Tiger I assigned to SS Nordland fought in the center of Berlin, out of fuel, but full of ammo, it dominated the streets it could cover until after Hitlers death.

IS-2 43

http://i34.tinypic.com/30a5pc3.jpg


IS-2 44

http://i36.tinypic.com/8vyj4w.jpg

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 01:16
I suppose when you way 1944 you mean IS-2M? According to 2d hand excerpts of German field manual the IS-2M could not be harmed by 88 L/56 cannon fire. Pretty amazing for an item designed for mass-manufacturing.

Over 600 m It COULD NOT even penetrate the is-2 side armor.

To my knowlege the number of is-2 tanks produced in 1943 is no biger than 35...

zraver
07 Dec 08,, 04:00
Over 600 m It COULD NOT even penetrate the is-2 side armor.


That is absurd

The IS-2 had 60mm of side turret armor and only 150mm on the front (before sloping) and relied a lot on ballistic shaping to bounce rather than resist shots since the Germans used kinetic energy. Likewise the King Tiger and Tiger were designed to withstand chemical energy.

Even the early pzgr.39 apbc rounds could penetrate 84mm of armor at 2000m. Where the kwk 36 had issues was frontally as the pzgr.40 could only penetrate 155mm at 500m.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-03.htm

the King Tiger firing the same ammo could penetrate the IS-2 frontally from over 1000m (pzgr.39) and 1500m (pzgr.40/43)

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

To my knowlege the number of is-2 tanks produced in 1943 is no biger than 35...[/QUOTE]


102 in 1943, over 2000 in 1944 but model years and production years are not in sync. Model 1944 did begin production on January 1.

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 11:29
102 in 1943, over 2000 in 1944 but model years and production years are not in sync. Model 1944 did begin production on January 1.

That figure must include the number of is-1 tanks rearmed with the 122 mm tank cannon and issued as is-2.
you are right about side armor...my mistake.

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 12:16
is-2 armed with the a-19 (122 mm) tank cannon

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 12:19
is-2 with the d-25 tank cannon

note also the drivers visor and the front armor layout