PDA

View Full Version : Which would have been more effective the PanzerVIIVK 7201 or the E-100?



Kommendant
02-14-2011, 09:57 PM
The info is something that I think is important

armor
speed
range
firepower
shockvalue

those and any other characteristics you can think of.

Danka,

Kommendant

Churchill
02-14-2011, 11:35 PM
That depends for what. Both were concepts for the 'future' of tank warfare, so we have nothing much to base any claims on speed or shock value. It seems that both were massive mobile pillboxes. Because of their great weight, I doubt their combat effectiveness would have been great due to the fact that they probably would have sunk into the earth. I suppose the idea was sound, the practice left a bit to be desired though... XD

tankgeezer
02-14-2011, 11:43 PM
I was going to ask, as to speed, is that the speed at which they move along, or at which they sink? (sorry, couldn't help myself,, :) )

flamethrowerguy
02-15-2011, 12:31 AM
Danka,

Kommendant

It's "Danke" and "Kommandant".
And since when is Munich so close to Lake Michigan?

tankgeezer
02-15-2011, 01:07 AM
I always knew there were many Germans in Milwaukee, but didnt know that it had been annexed by Munich. although there was once an East, and West Milwaukee, until the East was absorbed by regular Milwaukee in a war over brewing resources. Then again, Norway is also next to Milwaukee, just past Germantown. (look it up) But I digress,, so whats the story in Pardeeville?

Nickdfresh
02-15-2011, 03:33 AM
The question in this thread is sort of like asking which white elephant would have tripped over itself less...

Rising Sun*
02-15-2011, 06:46 AM
It's "Danke" and "Kommandant".
And since when is Munich so close to Lake Michigan?

You're assuming that anyone 'educated' in the age of txtng n stf cn spl in eny lngyge.

Or knows anything about jogrfee and is surprised by Munich's unexpected proximity to Lake Michigan. This geographical surprise mignt be explained by txtg where Munchen (txt = mnshn) could, with clumsy fingers, be rendered as Michigan (txt = mshgn).

;) :D

Rising Sun*
02-15-2011, 07:10 AM
The info is something that I think is important

armor
speed
range
firepower
shockvalue

those and any other characteristics you can think of.



You left out looks.

As an old armoured corps bloke I believe, and it may be that TG agrees with me as possibly an even older ;) :D armoured corps bloke who actually commanded a tank where (due to me being cavalry rather than true armour) my exposure to one was limited to the armoured corps tank museuem, that looks are the most important part of a tank.

A really fierce open shark mouth on the glacis not only contributes to looks but also to shock value. Everybody is a lot more scared of sharks than tanks.

Also the the ability to make tea. A good tank should have a small kitchen, of the motel type, and a plug for an electric kettle which still works during battle, regardless of other demands on the electrical system. A tank which cuts out the kettle when battle requires all electrical power has not been properly designed.

A small bath, with a weight-saving opaque vinyl curtain for privacy, would be ideal. A tank with such a bath would be a great tank. It would be even better if the turret was replaced with a water tank to supply the bath. And kettle.

As to firepower, a combustion heater with a glass door to show the flickering flames would be nice. It could be placed between the bath and the kitchen so that crew members could dry off after a bath while waiting for the kettle to boil to have a nice cuppa.

Kommendant
02-15-2011, 08:27 AM
1 To answer your questions it says when you create a profile if you are uncomfortable with saying your real home town put in a false one. 2 LOOKS? Thats a new one for me

Rising Sun*
02-15-2011, 08:54 AM
LOOKS? Thats a new one for me

You're probably correct.

We should disregard how a tank looks.

When one frees oneself from such trivia, the Japanese Type 94 is the equivalent of any German Tiger.

tankgeezer
02-15-2011, 10:46 PM
We had an espresso machine located next to the radio, and below the wine rack. (would have been nice to have a jacuzzi, but all of that gunnery stuff got in the way.) In truth i do not believe that either of those vehicles could make a viable weapon system. I'm not certain that the materials technology would support the engineering folks who would have to produce a workable design. Its one thing to produce armor, another to produce it in the desired shape while maintaining the strength required. There would need to be evolution in production practices be it cast, or built up from weldments. Transitional areas between shapes is always the weak point, as are the areas surrounding welds.
But even if all of this was overcome, it isnt the hull, or turret armor that is any tanks weakest link, its the automotive parts. No track is unbreakable, and suspension, road wheels (particularly the too sophisticated German variety) can not be protected against everything. Then there is the question of reliability. Which has been demonstrated well enough by the Panther, and the different tiger variants to show a big problem.this then raises the question of field maintenance. 100 ton vehicles need a very large crew to do mechanical repairs. We havent even gotten to effects of weather on mobility, logistics of supply and support, much less where to find a bridge strong enough to hold it. And all of this before it even meets an enemy. Between the two, the 7201 has the best chance(and only a chance) to survive longer than the E-100.

Churchill
02-15-2011, 11:50 PM
1 To answer your questions it says when you create a profile if you are uncomfortable with saying your real home town put in a false one.

Its not your hometown, its your location...

But on the topic of the above tanks, today's main battle tanks are pretty heavy, is the infrastructure of the countries where they are used now reliable enough to support their weight? The Abrams is about 10 tonnes heavier than the Tiger, so wouldn't it sink into the ground as well? I suppose the differences in track length and width need to be taken into account in terms of weight distribution, but still...

tankgeezer
02-17-2011, 11:57 PM
The M-60 series of U.S. tanks had a ground pressure of 11.5 psi. the Tiger I is reported to have one of 14.8 psi. I looked for the G.P. info for the Tiger II, and could only find the value for the transport tracks (used in order to make the T-2 fit on the rail system)which are much narrower than the field tracks. (which are 1 meter wide.) At any rate the G.P. is nearer to 20psi for the T-2 with the narrow tracks. The Abrams comes in at 15. somethin' psi. Its possible to mire nearly any tank given enough mud, and testosterone. In developed areas the E-100, and 7201 vehicles would probably do better as the roads, and bridges would hopefully be of more modern construction, needing less reinforcement . Hard to say if the streets would be wide enough for them though.
In Rural areas, the bridges will most likely be far too weak to hold 100 tons, and the roads (as evidenced by conditions encountered during Barbarossa) would only serve them if in good weather. 100 ton tanks are a world apart from a 60-70 ton tank.

colmhain
07-03-2011, 06:06 PM
ROFLMAO! You guys are a freekin' riot!

leccy
07-04-2011, 02:06 AM
To help address the bridge weight limit problem the Tiger I was designed with a deep fording capability to allow it to cross rivers. Whether it was used in practice though I do not know.

pdf27
07-04-2011, 02:12 AM
That throws up two more issues:
1) Availability of engineering assets - not necessarily bridging vehicles, but also over-bridges and the like, plus tank transporters and recovery vehicles. Neither of these vehicles could use existing ones.
2) Manufacturability - if these are a pain to make, you could have 10 smaller tanks or one of these - at which point why make it?

leccy
07-04-2011, 03:36 AM
Its almost analogous with the Battleship.

Huge, imposing, massive firepower, technological achievement but ultimately extremely expensive to build and maintain. Requires escorts in the face of advancements such as air power and submarines to be able to survive, a huge logistical tail to follow it and keep it operational. Limited flexibility and employment, large target (the term shot magnet comes to mind).

burp
07-06-2011, 06:26 AM
Both of them are waste of resources. Tiger I is already a problem for Germans: his huge dimensions are problematic for engine producers and suspension producers.
Panzer VII and E-100 are so slow that they cannot able to keep in touch with medium tanks, are easy target for every weapon (and even with their super armor the are vulnerable to attacks from top) and use too much resources only for keeping them ready to combat. And even logistic is nightmare: is not a fact well-know, but from WWII the tanks are brought on combat by trains and trucks (tanks are slow and consume to much money if they move to war by their own): there is no way that a super-heavy tank can be moved by Germans with normal way. And forget to use them in city with sewage system: no sewage system can support their weight, and also bridges cannot sustain their weight.

steben
08-04-2011, 09:05 AM
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3899/e90e9075e75e50n1eq.jpg

scrapbook - collage :)

steben
08-05-2011, 04:19 AM
The best heavy tank was the KV1 at the start of the eastern front war.
Unbreakable and quite mobile.

flamethrowerguy
08-05-2011, 04:35 AM
Unbreakable?;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Bundesarchiv_Bild_169-0441%2C_Russland%2C_bei_Stalingrad%2C_Panzer_KW-1.jpg
Bundesarchiv Bild 169-0441

(I guess this was rather some kind of aiming practice.)

steben
08-05-2011, 05:01 AM
Seems to have lots of non-penetrating shots though ;)

From 1942 on, the Germans had much more powerful weapons.
From then on, every nation's heavy tanks suffered the same problems.
The best heavy tanks were often those with a more medium profile.
I would add the Panther to that, which is more heavy medium than light medium