LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteTiger tank is the best because it feature in "Kelly's Heroes"! I mean, seriously, nothing is cooler than a tank that can shoot paint.
That's force...Originally Posted by Big K
may the power be with you
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
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.
Collins Class rule!
oh come on.......force, power no big difference isnt it? .hehhehe :PThat's force...
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
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.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
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?
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.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
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.
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-
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
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?
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.
All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
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
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?
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?...
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
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.
Last edited by S2; 12 May 08, at 09:30.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
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."
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
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.
Last edited by bugs; 12 May 08, at 19:24.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: