tank debate

[FW-190 Pilot]

What tank do you think its the best?
USA M-10 tank destroyer or Sherman tank T-34 with rockets
USSR T-34/85 or Joseph Stalin-3 tank
Germany Panthers tank or King Tiger tank
if you think there is other tank that is more stronger than the one i have mention, feel free to say it, thanks

[South African Military]

I dont know much about tanks but I deffinetely know that the Sherman tank was not very succesful compared to German tanks. There was this program about how all these tanks the allies made where always getting hit, and whenever they tried to hit the German tanks the bullet will bounce off. Basicall all that the Germans did was slant their armor at 60 degrees or something. There is a website below that shows pictures of the Sherman. As you can see, alot of the armor is just flat.

http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

[FW-190 Pilot]

this is a great video of a tank of a modern tank
mms://video.nrg.co.il/lib/2004/news/mark4.wmv

okay, this is world war 2 video, haha
http://www.752ndtank.com/cecina.html
(one of the video is Tiger tank knocked out by a US Sherman tank (with 75mm cannon))

[WildBoar]

The T-34 was an eye opener for the germans with it's sloping armour and they copied the idea.

[FW-190 Pilot]

The T-34 was an eye opener for the germans with it's sloping armour and they copied the idea.
the latest JS series tank ->JS -3 uses 220 mm as armour, which is pretty strong, and it uses 120mm cannon. Its so good that Egypt use it in year 1967 against Isreal (despite losing to Isreal's lightning war strategy)

[Andrew]

I Think the Sherman Firefly was the best Allied Tank, with it's 17 Pounder Anti Tank Gun, it was capable of pentrating 135mm of Armour at 1,800M, although as with all Shermans the Armour protection left a lot to be desired.

The Panther I think was the best German Tank, it had a good gun and very good armour protection.

:) :) :) :)

[lieutlienant Vorontsov]

I think КВ-1, КВ-2, is one of the most powerful tank of WWII!
KV-1, KV-2

[lieutlienant Vorontsov]

I think T-34 its very powerful tank!!

[Gen. Sandworm]

The T-34 and the Sherman probably did the most to win the war. But my favorite tank is the King Tiger.

[FW-190 Pilot]

The T-34 and the Sherman probably did the most to win the war. But my favorite tank is the King Tiger.
how about JS series tank, the final version has 120mm cannon, i believe the american tank M1M2 has 120mm cannon too (do you know whats the difference between those two cannon, or they are just about the same thing)

[Gen. Sandworm]

how about JS series tank, the final version has 120mm cannon, i believe the american tank M1M2 has 120mm cannon too (do you know whats the difference between those two cannon, or they are just about the same thing)

Exactly which american tank are you talking about.? The M1 and M2 were light tanks. Actually most "but not all" the American tanks were pretty crappy. :) The Americans made enough of them to be effective. The Russian JS series tank were good tanksl but was probably not a great match againt the King Tiger. The King Tiger had a bit bigger cannon and thicker armour. The JS-2 was faster and easier to maneuver. The germans most likely would have classified the JS-2 as a heavy tank and the King Tiger as a super-heavy tank.

[FW-190 Pilot]

how about JS series tank, the final version has 120mm cannon, i believe the american tank M1M2 has 120mm cannon too (do you know whats the difference between those two cannon, or they are just about the same thing)

Exactly which american tank are you talking about.? The M1 and M2 were light tanks. Actually most "but not all" the American tanks were pretty crappy. :) The Americans made enough of them to be effective. The Russian JS series tank were good tanksl but was probably not a great match againt the King Tiger. The King Tiger had a bit bigger cannon and thicker armour. The JS-2 was faster and easier to maneuver. The germans most likely would have classified the JS-2 as a heavy tank and the King Tiger as a super-heavy tank.
o, M1M2 is american modern tank, thanks for telling though

[Gen. Sandworm]

Dont think there is a M1M2. There is an M1A2 and and M1A1(The Abrams series tanks). Do you mean the super tanks that are being used in Iraq?

[Sturmtruppen]

The best of the option you put were
Sherman tank T-34 with rockets
USSR T-34
King Tiger tank .


the best tank was panzer IV i think,cos i like it.

the WW2 things I more like are tanks.

[South African Military]

Id have to say that historically the Russian T-34 the was the best medium tank of World war 2. I dont kow about the heavy and light.

[Dani]

Id have to say that historically the Russian T-34 the was the best medium tank of World war 2. I dont kow about the heavy and light.

A response to T 34: Panzerkampfwagen V Panther !!!! (even it is heavier than T34...)

[Komissar Ombrok]

As I told in the planes discussion, for any war products cheapness and easy production maybe even more important than gunpower. T-34 was very cheap and very easy to mass products. With battle characteristic (except speed and maneurability) Panther was better than T-34, but the cost of it was like about 3 T-34. And need rare for German materials. They can't produce it with large number. So I can't accept Panther like best medium tank of WW2

[Dani]

OK, with this argument I agree with you. If you consider also the manufacture costs (and also the simplicity - meaning easy for mass production), T 34 was the best medium tank of WW2.

If you consider only the tank itself (as an equipment) I disagree with you.

Dani

[Komissar Ombrok]

War is a combination of many factors. And production - is one of the important ones. Nuclear weapon is most known deadly wepon. But if we give the technology of them to Hitler in 1944, he can't use it - he havn't enougth technology to produce it. You may have best prototypes in the world, but without mass production - this only example for museum, not weapon for war.

About fight ability. Yes. Fully agreed than Panther have a much better firepower and armor. But this is not only factors to be better tank.
1) Panther was a BAD speed and maneurability for medium tank.
2) Panther have a very thin tracks for rough terrain and very often was fixed in the mud.
3) The tracks of the Panther was placed on the very thin metal saucers, they jamned after 1,5-2 hours of work. That was not easy make a tech support after every 2 hours...
4) Panther (this is a tragedy of all german tanks) was very high, and easy target for anti-tank guns.
5) Panther have a weak engine and that was gasoline engine - very fire dangerous.

With all this facts, even in battlefield Panther wasn't so good like you thinking.

[South African Military]

War is a combination of many factors. And production - is one of the important ones. Nuclear weapon is most known deadly wepon. But if we give the technology of them to Hitler in 1944, he can't use it - he havn't enougth technology to produce it. You may have best prototypes in the world, but without mass production - this only example for museum, not weapon for war.

About fight ability. Yes. Fully agreed than Panther have a much better firepower and armor. But this is not only factors to be better tank.
1) Panther was a BAD speed and maneurability for medium tank.
2) Panther have a very thin tracks for rough terrain and very often was fixed in the mud.
3) The tracks of the Panther was placed on the very thin metal saucers, they jamned after 1,5-2 hours of work. That was not easy make a tech support after every 2 hours...
4) Panther (this is a tragedy of all german tanks) was very high, and easy target for anti-tank guns.
5) Panther have a weak engine and that was gasoline engine - very fire dangerous.

With all this facts, even in battlefield Panther wasn't so good like you thinking.

I agree in the battle field I think the T-34 would win. Well you dont really have to mass produce something to make it usefull. As long as you produce enough of it, and it is of good quality and technology, it can take anything that was produced twice as much.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Number of tanks, or another weapon can't be "enough" in the middle of the war. And the domination in production capacity maybe not twice, but tripple and more...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Another Topic I have moved to keep things clear.

[Sturmtruppen]

hey! and panzer IV???? it was a good tank,better than sherman!.

it can have a place here? :)

[Gen. Sandworm]

Funny story......I was walking thru Wal-mart the other day and passed the toy section. I happened to notice some toy tanks for they were selling. Probably about as big as 2 shoeboxes. I wouldnt have stopped but just happened to notice one of the tanks looked really familiar. The one that caught my eye.........WW2 German Tiger tank. :shock: They of course had the Abrams tank as well. Had a German tank comander hanging out the top in uniform. You couldnt make out the Swaztika on his hat but there was a place for it. But just thought that was kinda weird.

[South African Military]

Funny story......I was walking thru Wal-mart the other day and passed the toy section. I happened to notice some toy tanks for they were selling. Probably about as big as 2 shoeboxes. I wouldnt have stopped but just happened to notice one of the tanks looked really familiar. The one that caught my eye.........WW2 German Tiger tank. :shock: They of course had the Abrams tank as well. Had a German tank comander hanging out the top in uniform. You couldnt make out the Swaztika on his hat but there was a place for it. But just thought that was kinda weird. :?: why is that wierd? i dont seem to get it.. :?:

[Gen. Sandworm]

Funny story......I was walking thru Wal-mart the other day and passed the toy section. I happened to notice some toy tanks for they were selling. Probably about as big as 2 shoeboxes. I wouldnt have stopped but just happened to notice one of the tanks looked really familiar. The one that caught my eye.........WW2 German Tiger tank. :shock: They of course had the Abrams tank as well. Had a German tank comander hanging out the top in uniform. You couldnt make out the Swaztika on his hat but there was a place for it. But just thought that was kinda weird. :?: why is that wierd? i dont seem to get it.. :?:

Just wasnt expecting to see them selling a Tiger tank to kids. Understand if it were some kind of WW2 collection shop but this was Wal-mart. Actually i should have bought the damn thing but didnt fill like dishing out 30 dollars for it.

[2nd of foot]

I am afraid that the best must be the Cent as it would, and has, knocked spots off all of them and is still in service after 60 years.

[Sturmtruppen]

Funny story......I was walking thru Wal-mart the other day and passed the toy section. I happened to notice some toy tanks for they were selling. Probably about as big as 2 shoeboxes. I wouldnt have stopped but just happened to notice one of the tanks looked really familiar. The one that caught my eye.........WW2 German Tiger tank. :shock: They of course had the Abrams tank as well. Had a German tank comander hanging out the top in uniform. You couldnt make out the Swaztika on his hat but there was a place for it. But just thought that was kinda weird.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005UQGL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
i had lots of them when i was a child.

now,i still have them,i collect them,because i want a full collection :D ,but new toys are nicer! :wink: .

here we have them with the swaztica too :lol:

[South African Military]

I am afraid that the best must be the Cent as it would, and has, knocked spots off all of them and is still in service after 60 years.

More details about this "cent" tank??

[2nd of foot]

The Centurion is a natural progression from the Cromwell (which out classed the Sherman but we had an awful lot of shamans and so never replaced it) used in recce regiments, the Comet and excellent tank seeing service in WW” and Korea, and this lead onto the A41 Centurion. The Cent entered service but never engaged enemy armour probably because there was not much left to fight. It would have outclassed any thing the Germans had at that time.

A little taste of the page.

http://www.golf-corner.net/articles/Centurion_tank

In 1943, the Department of Tank Design was asked to produce a new design for a heavy cruiser tank that under the designation A41. After a series of fairly marginal designs in the A series, and after facing the dreaded German 88mm gun, the War Office asked for a major overhaul, demanding increased durability, reliability, a maximum weight of 40 tons, and the ability to withstand a direct hit from the German 88mm gun. Tank Design responded by extending the long-travel 5-wheel suspension used on the Comet with the addition of a 6th wheel and an extended spacing between the 2nd and 3rd wheels. The hull was redesigned with welded sloped armour, and featured a partially cast turret mounting the excellent 17 pounder main gun and a 20mm Polsten cannon. With a Rover built Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, a version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, the new design appeared to have excellent performance.

[South African Military]

The Centurion is a natural progression from the Cromwell (which out classed the Sherman but we had an awful lot of shamans and so never replaced it) used in recce regiments, the Comet and excellent tank seeing service in WW” and Korea, and this lead onto the A41 Centurion. The Cent entered service but never engaged enemy armour probably because there was not much left to fight. It would have outclassed any thing the Germans had at that time.

A little taste of the page.

http://www.golf-corner.net/articles/Centurion_tank

In 1943, the Department of Tank Design was asked to produce a new design for a heavy cruiser tank that under the designation A41. After a series of fairly marginal designs in the A series, and after facing the dreaded German 88mm gun, the War Office asked for a major overhaul, demanding increased durability, reliability, a maximum weight of 40 tons, and the ability to withstand a direct hit from the German 88mm gun. Tank Design responded by extending the long-travel 5-wheel suspension used on the Comet with the addition of a 6th wheel and an extended spacing between the 2nd and 3rd wheels. The hull was redesigned with welded sloped armour, and featured a partially cast turret mounting the excellent 17 pounder main gun and a 20mm Polsten cannon. With a Rover built Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, a version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, the new design appeared to have excellent performance.

Thats a freakin cool tank! Sounds impressive

[IRONMAN]

I'd go with the T34 or Panzer. The Tiger was lethal but less manuverable because of it's bulk and weight. It was also more succeptable in the rear than some tanks if you compare by size or weight. This was a disadvantage in those times when tank fighting took place in urban environments, which ofcourse was not as common as rural fighting for tanks.

The T34 and Panzer represented something lesser than the Tiger but also more agile.

[Cuts]

Yes SA Mil, as you probably know the Cent was the basis for the original Olifant, albeit quite modified.
It did extremely well in Angola against the T54/55 models the Cubans were fielding.

The School of Armour at Bloem in the Vrystaat is worth a visit if you can arrange it.

[Man of Stoat]

I'd go with the T34 or Panzer. The Tiger was lethal but less manuverable because of it's bulk and weight. It was also more succeptable in the rear than some tanks if you compare by size or weight. This was a disadvantage in those times when tank fighting took place in urban environments, which ofcourse was not as common as rural fighting for tanks.

The T34 and Panzer represented something lesser than the Tiger but also more agile.

Which Panzer?

The T34 is only the best if you think that sheer quantity has a quality all of its own.

[IRONMAN]

I'd go with the T34 or Panzer. The Tiger was lethal but less manuverable because of it's bulk and weight. It was also more succeptable in the rear than some tanks if you compare by size or weight. This was a disadvantage in those times when tank fighting took place in urban environments, which ofcourse was not as common as rural fighting for tanks.

The T34 and Panzer represented something lesser than the Tiger but also more agile.

Which Panzer?

The T34 is only the best if you think that sheer quantity has a quality all of its own.

Panzerkampfwagen IV is the one I like most.
http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/germany/panzer_4/image/panzer_4_j.jpg

[Walther]

Panzer just means Tank or Armour in English.

Jan

[Canaris]

The T34 with the 85mm gun which came out in 1944 was probably the best tank. Inferior to the Comet and the Pershing but they weren't really WWII tanks. I saw some that were still serving in the Macedonian Army in '99 but I think they've got rid of them now.

[2nd of foot]

The Comet would definitely be classed as a WW2 tank seeing action in Germany. I could accept the argument that the Cent was not as it never saw (that I am aware of) combat action. But it was designed in WW2 and if D-Day had taken place as Churchill had wanted in 45 it would have made a big difference. The Comet was the baby brother of the Cent.

[Canaris]

Sorry - I typed Comet but I meant Centurion.

[2nd of foot]

Sorry - I typed Comet but I meant Centurion.

Any excuse is a good excuse. :)

I would strongly agree that the Comet could hold its own against any other tank fielded at that time. I also believe that the vast investment that Great Britain put into buying Shermans led to unwillingness to replace them with the Cromwells and Comets as they cam off the line. I also understand that Great Britain was still producing obsolescent tank in 43/44, which did not help matters.

[T-34s_Are_Cool]

The T-34 and the Sherman probably did the most to win the war. But my favorite tank is the King Tiger.

I like your opinion of the t-34 and king tigers are pretty cool; a bit slow but the 88 could hit hard. The sherman is overated to the point of not funnyness. :D

[Caliber]

im sticking with the tiger. best tank of ww2 imo

[StalingradK]

I think the best tank of WWII was the T-34/85 Tigers were too easy for bazooka teams to takes out and Panzers were torns apart by these monsters :twisted:

[Hanz Lutz]

Tiger is the best .

[Sturmtruppen]

I think the best tank of WWII was the T-34/85 Tigers were too easy for bazooka teams to takes out and Panzers were torns apart by these monsters :twisted:
tell that to the machineguner on the tank :twisted:

[Firefly]

Tiger is the best .

If you are going to make a glib statement thats fine. It would be a lot more interesting to know why you think its best though.

[Hanz Lutz]

The German King Tiger Tank was introduced in early 1944 and was the most powerful tank during world war 2. With its powerful 88mm gun and an almost impenetrable front armor, it was one of the most feared weapons of world war 2. Up to the end of the war, the allies had not introduce any effective means to counter the threat.

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/

[Firefly]

The German King Tiger Tank was introduced in early 1944 and was the most powerful tank during world war 2. With its powerful 88mm gun and an almost impenetrable front armor, it was one of the most feared weapons of world war 2. Up to the end of the war, the allies had not introduce any effective means to counter the threat.

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/

Underpowered, too heavy for most bridges, diversification of resources, big fuel user, outnumbered. Complicated engineering.

Sure it was a good tank, but was it the right one for the times when the Panther could take on any allied tank and win?

[Hosenfield]

best tank of the war in terms of offensive action is the panther.

best tank of war in terms of defensive action is the royal tiger.

best tank of the war in terms of production rate/war winnability is the T-34/85

[Sturmtruppen]

best tank of war in terms of defensive action is the royal tiger.

Isn´t it king tiger?

[LargeBrew]

I think the king tiger was aka royal Tiger aka Konigs Tiger, same tank different names although they may have been veriants.
Anyone have info or a link.

[BDL]

I think the king tiger was aka royal Tiger aka Konigs Tiger, same tank different names although they may have been veriants.
Anyone have info or a link.

You're right fella

Konigstiger = German for King Tiger
Royal Tiger/King Tiger - Allied names for it

[StalingradK]

I think the best tank of WWII was the T-34/85 Tigers were too easy for bazooka teams to takes out and Panzers were torns apart by these monsters :twisted:
tell that to the machineguner on the tank :twisted:

Tigers didn't usually have machine gunners on the hatched, Only with panzers I through IV did, the only thing sticking out of a Tiger hatch might be a spotter with binoculars LOL, and you know how dangerous those binoculars can be :P

[Hanz Lutz]

Very dangerous .

[StalingradK]

I know, I got conked on the head once with one of 'em... scariest moment of my life, I almost lost an eye ya know o.x

[Hanz Lutz]

That's was sceary brrrrrr

[Panzerknacker]

A Sherman Firefly in display near I live.

The pictures are a little dark because it was a very cloudy day:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8850/yo7ur.jpg

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6042/y026yb.jpg

Serial number of this vehicle:

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1049/mtricul3ql.jpg

[1000ydstare]

Is that a picture of you Panzerknacker?

How did a Sherman Firefly get to Argentina?

[Panzerknacker]

Yes I am.

The Fireflys were purchased to Great Britain at very low price in 1947, I dont remember well the number.... guess around 200-300.

The enormus surplus in the post-war caused that this tank cost some cents by kilogram, this crippled the further developmet of the local battletank, the Nahuel ( tiger).

[1000ydstare]

What sort of technician are you? Do you work on aircraft?

[Panzerknacker]

No I just an aviation fan, I am Mecanic technician.

[1000ydstare]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

[Firefly]

Nice photos of the Firefly mate, this is my favourite allied tank in ww2, in case you dint know.

The only one available in numbers to be able to take on the German heavies with any chance of sucess.

[1000ydstare]

Is it? I'd didn't know that.... :D

[Firefly]

:wink:

I may be a Crab, but I do have a healthy intertest in the armoured side of things.

[1000ydstare]

To be fair i didn't even know you were a crab!!! Didn't think about it to be honest.

Although you have now gone down in my estimation :wink:

Are you a bomb tech by any chance?

[Sturmtruppen]

you were a crab!!! ?

excuse me,what is a crab?

[Crab_to_be]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_%28disambiguation%29) won't answer your question.

[1000ydstare]

It is a side ways ambling crustation.

Like this

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/log/sep29/media/crab_600.jpg

[Sturmtruppen]

It is a side ways ambling crustation.

Like this

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/log/sep29/media/crab_600.jpg

I didn't know that firefly was one of those :D

[1000ydstare]

Yes, that is why he can type so fast.

[Sturmtruppen]

Yes, that is why he can type so fast.
I must be a crab too then!

[1000ydstare]

No you are a thrush.

http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/LittoralRock-Thrush(WvdS).jpg

[Sturmtruppen]

and you are a nepalese
http://www.twilightplayers.com/port_images/Thailand/NEPALESE%20LADY.jpg

[Firefly]

Yes we Crabs can type ever so fast, and running sideways is my speciality. Especially at 5Pm and on Weekends....

[Panzerknacker]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png

[Hosenfield]

is that a panther II?

[Panzerknacker]

Nop...is the Panzer VII Lowë.

[Firefly]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png

Prety big looking shot-trap under the gun though?

[Panzerknacker]

Yes, pretty much like the Königstiger with Porsche turret.

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/kingtiger12.jpg

[BDL]

Panzerknacker, any details on the planned Lowe? (armour, gun, speed etc)

[Panzerknacker]

The info I have is in german but readable....I think :?

Typ: Kampfpanzer

Gefechtsmasse: 90.000 Kg
Länge:7.74 m
Breite:3.84 m
Höhe:3.08 m
Motor: 1 Zwölfszylinder-Benzinmotor
Leistung: 700 PS ( Maybach HL) 1000 hp ( Daimler-Benz)
Fahrwerk: Kette; 9 Laufrollen - Stützrollen
Höchstgeschwindigkeit: 25-32 km/h Straße / Gelände: 15 km/h
Fahrbereich: 160 km Straße / Gelände 80 km/h
Bewaffnung: eine 12,8 cm Kanone L/60; ein Koaxial MG;
Munitionsvorrat: Kanone: 22 Schuss, MG 2700 Schuss
Panzerung: Front 240 mm, Seite 120 mm
Besatzung: 5 Mann


Seems that the armor was 240mm front and 120 side, speed on road 25-32, off road 15 km/h.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/90/lowe23ea.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6193/109ftrial32ga.jpg

This " 12,8 cm kanone" I guess that was the 128 mm Flak gun.

[Dani]

According to http://www.achtungpanzer.com/lowe.htm, Löwe project never reached the prototype stage but it paved the way for its successor's development - Porsche's Maus. (And a Maus could be found in Kubinka - Russian museum).

[1000ydstare]

All too late in the day!!!

So many vengance and other super weapons were on the drawing boards inthe final days of WW2. But no men on the ground and no petrol!!! Or food. Or ammo. etc.

[Panzerknacker]

Aniway the Lion was much better than this 100 ton crazy crap.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7656/dedd9tp.png

And they made 5 of this Porsche projekt.

[2nd of foot]

I think at this date front and side armour would not make much difference as anything that big would attract air attack very quickly. Also big tanks could not cross bridges or move by rail or road through villages.

The best tank to come out of the war was the cent by a long way.

[Panzerknacker]

Yeah but the vulnerably to the air attacks is aplicable to all the tanks not only the heavies, The Tiger I for example was a very big one for his time but it had very sucess indoubtfully.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/5505/35yq.png

[Firefly]

I think at this date front and side armour would not make much difference as anything that big would attract air attack very quickly. Also big tanks could not cross bridges or move by rail or road through villages.

The best tank to come out of the war was the cent by a long way.

While I agree that the Centurion was an excellent beast, in 1945 it was not the best Tank of the war. There were many contenders for this prize. As we shall find out in the best tank of the war thread eventually.

Not even size and weight, did the Germans even have a power-plant for the things? You need a big engine to move all that steel around.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

the T-28 is WOW :shock:

[bonazaz]

I am afraid that the best must be the Cent as it would, and has, knocked spots off all of them and is still in service after 60 years.
Speaking of the Cent, I wonder if there's any place where a chap would be getting some WWII footage of the thing - not necessarily in action, as I doubt it saw any WWII action, actually
Eh?

[bonazaz]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png
It's strange how much it resembles Porsche Tiger, eh?
And the hull - is it Tiger's or Panther's?
Now, imagine finding a footage clip of this one - a prototype en motion, for example!!!
Btw, I've been searching for a Porsche Tiger combat footage bit - no luck. Any of you guys has some? :(

[bonazaz]

All too late in the day!!!

So many vengance and other super weapons were on the drawing boards inthe final days of WW2. But no men on the ground and no petrol!!! Or food. Or ammo. etc.
It sounds as though you're sorry...
Keep your marbles together, why don't you? Would you rather Dolphie had won the war?

[bonazaz]

Aniway the Lion was much better than this 100 ton crazy crap.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7656/dedd9tp.png

And they made 5 of this Porsche projekt.
Hear, hear!

[SS Tiger]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png
It's strange how much it resembles Porsche Tiger, eh?
And the hull - is it Tiger's or Panther's?
Now, imagine finding a footage clip of this one - a prototype en motion, for example!!!
Btw, I've been searching for a Porsche Tiger combat footage bit - no luck. Any of you guys has some? :(

Looks like a modified King Tiger hull to me. But then that is before the King Tiger so it can't be.

[cpl condor]

the best, the real powerfull machine was the Panzer IV.
8)

[cpl condor]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png
The turret is pure art. denotes the F. Porsche design. :arrow:

[bonazaz]

the best, the real powerfull machine was the Panzer IV.
8)
As far as I am concerned, Panzer IV was the best because it combined good combat qualities and ease of manufacture.
You wouldn't really say that Pz IV was superior to Tiger, Panther, JS1, T-34 or Cromwell otherwise, would you?

[bonazaz]

Does that mean you fix cars or similar?

Not exactly, I work with machine-tools. 8)

Now...this could be the best tank of WW2...if it would be mass produced.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4654/untitled8ur.png
The turret is pure art. denotes the F. Porsche design. :arrow:
Quite right. Puts one in mind of those Porsche Tigers, doesn't it?
On the other hand, Guderian was hollering for increased production of PzIV instead of toying with all those new models. Yet again, nobody listened to him...

[cpl condor]

the best, the real powerfull machine was the Panzer IV.
8)
As far as I am concerned, Panzer IV was the best because it combined good combat qualities and ease of manufacture.
You wouldn't really say that Pz IV was superior to Tiger, Panther, JS1, T-34 or Cromwell otherwise, would you?
I would say it have all the best cualities. the manufacture was rough,
the design is very good, the cannon is still a state-of-the art, the armored
too.
the other you mention, are excellent too, but not a complete weapon
like the PZ IV :arrow:

[Panzerknacker]

Seems that nodody like the Sherman...coincidence.?

:lol:

[Gen. Sandworm]

Seems that nodody like the Sherman...coincidence.?

:lol:

Well the Sherman did help win the war coz we made so many of them however the Germans werent far off by calling them "Tommy Cooker's"

[Panzerknacker]

Or Ronsons a canadian lighter, there was a lot pretty black humour :roll:

[HG]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yes the Sherman was a lighter. They burned fast in battle.

Henk

[Grishnak]

I must say the the T-34/85 as well, it was fast, well armoured, could operate in the cold, manuverable with a powerful gun.
It did have some problems like lack of radio, the turret was tight and cramped, the commander spent most of the time in combat aiming the main gun so he had to many tasks to do ( he was supposed to coordinate the tanks actions with the unit with flag signalling and search for targets.)
Vision was poor, to many dead zones which the germans learned to exploit with good effect.
There was no shock absorbers so it was a rough ride and and the engine was mounted directly into the hull, no muffler and all steel tracks. The shaking and noise was very fatiguing.
One of the most successful T-34/85s was commanded by Lt. Aleksander P.Oskin of the 53rd Guards Fastov Tank Brigade, he attacked and destroyed 3 King Tigers near the Polish village of Ogledow on the 12th of August 1944

[HG]

Wow, now then I never knew the T-34 had so many problems. Then if it is all true how can they say it was the best tank of WW2?

Henk

[Grishnak]

Because as i said first, it was fast, well armoured, well armed, manuverable, capable of operating in cold weather, easy to maintain, easy to build and produced in large numbers.

[HG]

Yes mate, but look at all the bad things against it then I would not say it was a great tank.

Henk

[Panzerknacker]

I must say the the T-34/85 as well, it was fast, well armoured, could operate in the cold, manuverable with a powerful gun.
It did have some problems like lack of radio, the turret was tight and cramped, the commander spent most of the time in combat aiming the main gun so he had to many tasks to do ( he was supposed to coordinate the tanks actions with the unit with flag signalling and search for targets.)
Vision was poor, to many dead zones which the germans learned to exploit with good effect.
There was no shock absorbers so it was a rough ride and and the engine was mounted directly into the hull, no muffler and all steel tracks. The shaking and noise was very fatiguing.
One of the most successful T-34/85s was commanded by Lt. Aleksander P.Oskin of the 53rd Guards Fastov Tank Brigade, he attacked and destroyed 3 King Tigers near the Polish village of Ogledow on the 12th of August 1944

I agree the T-34-85 was well armed to face the Panther , but the impact of the T-34-85 was minimal compared with the T-34-76 wich gave quiet a shock to the german infantry and Tankers.

This is that some general said:

"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.


http://i2.tinypic.com/r9or6a.jpg

[Grishnak]

There is no doubt, to me at least that the T-34/76 was the best tank in the world in 1941. The germans was shocked and envious when they encountered it, but they made their own tanks to counter the threat like the Panther and the Tiger and the T-34/76 was outclassed by 1943, and the T-34/85 was introduced to counter these new threats.

[Panzerknacker]

In some cases the germans had to take desperate measures against the T-34 in 1941...check this, Stug III rammed a T-34 because the short barrelled 75mm german gun did not penetrate at all the russian armor. :shock:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7398/t3413ky.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9109/t3429sk.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/624/t3438qv.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4817/t3442fm.jpg

The pictures were taken at kalinin, october 1941.

[HG]

Great pics mate. Yes, I also have heard of German tanks ramming Russian tanks to be able to take them over or not to get shot into peaces.

That is the same thing I would do the same thing not to be killed or lose.

Henk

[Nickdfresh]

Seems that nodody like the Sherman...coincidence.?

:lol:

I like the Sherman, provided it was the Firefly or "Easy-Eight" variant, for it won the war on the Western Front.:)

You guys obsessing over the gigundus Freudian Nightmare™ super tanks of the Wehrmacht tend to forget that the Germans fielded very few of those "super-tanks," and really never had all that many Tigers or Panthers. And the King Tiger was useless when advancing over more than a few kilometers.

It's like looking at pictures of Ferraris or Porsche 911s. Very sexy in photographs, but very rare and temperamental in real life...

[George Eller]

-

Here is my favorite:


http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9594/m26019nk.jpg
M26-01
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/252/m26022ll.jpg
M26-02
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9841/m26033hr.jpg
M26-03
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5444/m2603aspecs017ul.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-01
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 158 )
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1152/m2603aspecs027ap.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-02
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 159)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8297/m2603aspecs038ek.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-03
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 160)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3727/m2603aspecs045ys.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-04
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4139/m2603aspecs05gunvsarmorspecs01.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-05-gun-vs-armor
From "Tank Versus Tank", by Kenneth Macksey, Salem House, 1988, (p 147)

Notice in the Gun versus Armor comparison that the Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Panther D armor out to 2000 meters, while the Panther D 75mm 70 caliber gun failed to penetrate the Pershing armor beyond 600 meters. The Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Tiger II (King Tiger) armor out to 1300 meters, while the Tiger II (King Tiger) 88mm 71 caliber gun could penetrate the Pershing armor out to 1800 meters - a pretty close match, with the Pershing having the edge in mobility.
-

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2494/m2603ax9wv.jpg
M26-03-X
From: "German Tanks of World War II in Action", by George Forty, Blandford Press, 1988, (p 130)

-

SEE ALSO:

DUEL AT DESSAU
3AD's "Super Pershing" vs. Germany's "King Tiger"
WWII's two most powerful tanks meet in a historic encounter

http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
http://www.3ad.com/

Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 53 tons - an almost "secret" tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians... (story continues).

-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9341/m2603drawing11oc.jpg
M26-03-drawing-1
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/368/m2603drawing21wd.jpg
M26-03-drawing-2
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (pp 214-215)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3726/m2603drawing32sh.jpg
M26-03-drawing-3
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/351/m2603drawing42ak.jpg
M26-03-drawing-4
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5262/m2603drawing50dj.jpg
M26-03-drawing-5
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7788/m26046zi.jpg
M26-04
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6835/m26050ej.jpg
M26-05
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3185/m26063ot.jpg
M26-06
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6905/m26072gq.jpg
M26-07
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1246/m26089zv.jpg
M26-08
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5651/m26097fh.jpg
M26-09
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 154)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2523/m26100os.jpg
M26-10
From: "The U.S. Army in World War II", by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, (p 118 )
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6843/m26114od.jpg
M26-11
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9004/m26126ru.jpg
M26-12
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9190/m26133gg.jpg
M26-13
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4889/m26144bn.jpg
M26-14
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9607/m26151dg.jpg
M26-15
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9871/m26168zw.jpg
M26-16
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7052/m26176ab.jpg
M26-17
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4300/m26183vq.jpg
M26-18
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1343/m26195as.jpg
M26-19
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2255/m26202vb.jpg
M26-20
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/192/m26219bo.jpg
M26-21
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2729/m26226hk.jpg
M26-22
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9664/m26238ry.jpg
M26-23
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8808/m26246xh.jpg
M26-24

---

Earlier Prototypes:


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8485/t25specs014qr.jpg
T25-SPECS-01
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 152)
1942-1943
-

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/486/t25specs029pk.jpg
T25-SPECS-02
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 153)
1942-1943
-

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9986/t26specs017dk.jpg
T25-SPECS-03
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 154)
1944
-


Bigger Heavy Prototypes:


http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/3654/t32t29specs012gb.jpg
T32-T29-SPECS-01
T32: Longer 90mm gun, 200mm armour max.
T29: 105mm gun T5 High-velocity gun
-

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/2949/t30t34specs010hw.jpg
T30-T34-SPECS-01
T30: 155mm gun
T34: 120mm gun
-

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3818/t28specs018jl.jpg
T28-SPECS-01
T28: 105mm T5E1 High-velocity gun, 300mm armour max.

-

[Nickdfresh]

Mine too. It's been in my sig. Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war...

[Panzerknacker]

Very good pictures Nick thanks 8)

Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war...

You stole my words.

[Nickdfresh]

Very good pictures Nick thanks 8)

Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war...

You stole my words.

Well, you ought to thank GEORGE ELLER, he's the one that did all of the scanning of the great books and posted it here...

That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not deploying better tanks sooner, in my opinion... The irony is that Gen George Patton was dead set against any tanks bigger than the M-4 because he valued speed and lowest possible fuel consumption. Yet the tank he rejected, the M26, would eventually be upgraded and named after him when it became the M47/M48 series...
http://www.briartech.com/attractions/vets2/img2.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Very good pictures Nick thanks 8)

Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war...

You stole my words.

Well, you ought to thank GEORGE ELLER, he's the one that did all of the scanning of the great books and posted it here...

That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not depolying better tanks sooner, in my opinion...


Yes you are right, I get confused, Thank you very much George. :D


( I have to put less marijuana in my mate :wink: )

[Nickdfresh]

Ha ha! I might need more. :lol:

[George Eller]

Hey Guys,

Nick and Panzerknacker,
You are most welcome. It took me a few evenings of my spare time to compile the information - a combination from books that I have and the Internet.

Nickdfresh:
That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not deploying better tanks sooner, in my opinion... The irony is that Gen George Patton was dead set against any tanks bigger than the M-4 because he valued speed and lowest possible fuel consumption. Yet the tank he rejected, the M26, would eventually be upgraded and named after him when it became the M47/M48 series...

Ironic too, as you say about Patton. I read somewhere that Creighton Abrams (one of Patton's subordinate commanders in Third Army) once said that Patton knew as little about tanks as any man he had ever known.

Panzerknacker:
Thank you very much George. :D

You are most welcome. :D

I am glad to share information like this to so many people on the Internet.

Enjoy. :D

-

[Panzerknacker]

Aniway, going back to the original issue, honestly I don believe that the Sherman was a good tank, too tall for ambush too narrow tracks for bad terrain, too underpowered gun ( solved in the 76 mm even but not entirely), not particulary good armor.

The point in favor were the good reliabilily of his mechanical components, a releative good internal espace ( ruined in the british 17 pounder) and a very good speed in solid terrain.

Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.

[HG]

You guys obsessing over the gigundus Freudian Nightmare™ super tanks of the Wehrmacht tend to forget that the Germans fielded very few of those "super-tanks," and really never had all that many Tigers or Panthers. And the King Tiger was useless when advancing over more than a few kilometers.

It's like looking at pictures of Ferraris or Porsche 911s. Very sexy in photographs, but very rare and temperamental in real life...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I understand What you are saying mate, but the thing for me is that the Germans did design great tanks, but the engine's of the King Tiger were very weak and the Tiger also had it's problem and so did the Panther, but they were great tanks in there own respecs.

The allies had the mass production backing them up and the Germans not.

I love German tanks and I also love allies tanks and I must say great thanks for George for posting those pics thanks mate.

The German tanks very heany sun of a gun and this were not a good thing and the fact that they could not be mass produced and had so many problems.

Great stuff guys.

Henk

[George Eller]

You guys obsessing over the gigundus Freudian Nightmare™ super tanks of the Wehrmacht tend to forget that the Germans fielded very few of those "super-tanks," and really never had all that many Tigers or Panthers. And the King Tiger was useless when advancing over more than a few kilometers.

It's like looking at pictures of Ferraris or Porsche 911s. Very sexy in photographs, but very rare and temperamental in real life...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I understand What you are saying mate, but the thing for me is that the Germans did design great tanks, but the engine's of the King Tiger were very weak and the Tiger also had it's problem and so did the Panther, but they were great tanks in there own respecs.

The allies had the mass production backing them up and the Germans not.

I love German tanks and I also love allies tanks and I must say great thanks for George for posting those pics thanks mate.

The German tanks very heany sun of a gun and this were not a good thing and the fact that they could not be mass produced and had so many problems.

Great stuff guys.

Henk
-

You're welcome Henk. :D

Yes, the Germans did suffer from low production numbers on their tanks. If I remember correctly the total production on their Tiger and Panther models was something like:
380 Tiger II (King Tiger)
1,500 Tiger I
5,500 Panther (plus or minus).

Great Britain alone produced more total numbers of tanks than Germany. And the United States produced more tanks than Britain and Germany combined.

By 1945 the United States had produced 28,919 light tanks, 57,027 medium tanks, and 2,330 heavy tanks. Among the total of 337,388 armored vehicles of all types produced by the United States from 1940-1945 were some 49,000 M4 Shermans in 20 versions. (Figures from: "Chariots of Iron - 50 Years of American Armor", William Butler and William Strode, Harmony House, 1990, p 25).

In addition German industry was unable to adequately supply spare parts for existing tanks. This further reduced the number of available vehicles as a result of cannibalizing vehicles of the same type in order to keep them running.

The Germans also suffered from fuel shortages later in the war, which reduced the training time for new tank crew replacements. After the summer of 1944, the quality of their tank crews went on the decline while the quality of the American tank crews continued to improve.

The better trained and more experienced American crewmen also used innovative tactics to help overcome the technological advantage of tanks such as the Panther. "A popular tactic in experienced US tank battalions when encountering Panthers was to strike them first with white phosphorous smoke rounds. Inexperienced German crews would sometimes be forced out by the acrid smoke, drawn in through the tank's ventilator. Even if these tricks did not work, the smoke prevented the Panthers from locating their opponents, giving the M4 tanks time to maneuver to the flanks or rear, where their 75mm gun could penetrate the Panther's armor. This tactic was standard operating procedure in some units, including CCA, 4th Armored Division. Some US tank units preferred to fire high-explosive rounds at the Panther, finding that inexperienced German crews would simply abandon their tank." (quoted from: “Lorraine 1944 Patton vs Manteuffel” by Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey, 2000, (p 27)

US tanks had speed, mechanical reliability, radio coordination, fast gun loading and turret speed on their side - as well as sheer numbers in the field. (From: "The U.S. Army in World War II", by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, p 117).

In addition the Americans also had better and more modern communications systems and better artillery and air support. They fought as true combined-arms teams (armor, infantry, artillery and air-support coordinated by a superb communications network). "Luckily, there were never very many Panthers or more than a handful of Tigers on the battlefield. US armour commanders adapted by bringing the coordination of superior numbers, artillery and airpower to an unequalled level as a 'force multiplier'. The provision of good radio communications should not be underestimated as a factor in this success: every US tank had a receiver (SCR 538), and leaders' tanks - and by 1945 most others - had transmitters and receivers (SCR 508/528). The Sherman platoons maneuvered to ambush the Panzers, fired WP (white phosphorous) rounds to blind the enemy, flank- or back-shooting them from short range, playing cat and mouse in cover, and relying on speed and numbers in break-through battles to make the most of their equipment. It is a tribute to the American crews that they were able to fight the US tanks through the 1944/45 ETO campaign and win essentially every major battle. After the German retreat from France in late summer 1944 there was asteady shift, in the US Army's favour, in the level of skills shown by German versus American tank crews." (From: "The U.S. Army in World War II", by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, pp 117-118 ).
-

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2329/pantherevaluation13cf.jpg

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8501/pantherevaluation29el.jpg
From "Weapons of Patton's Armies", Michael and Gladys Green,MBI Publishing, 2000, (pp98-99)
-

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7146/xgyrostabiliser1xi.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 206 )

-

[HG]

Nice research mate. I think that the germans should have first done the same thing as the allies and build smaller tanks and then build them in great numbers and then try to build larger tanks, but the Germans did not do so and thus thought if they have larger tanks it would be better. IN the case of tanks you should rather have 30 medium tanks than 10 heavy tanks.

First have the small numbers then get your heavy stuff. The other thing is if you have medium or small tanks you should have artillary to support them or you are doomed.

I must say the Sherman also had its problem and so did a lot of allied tanks during WW2, but they still had the numbers to make up for their losses and another thing that helped the allies was air support.


Henk
Henk

[Firefly]

At the end of the War the most numerous German Tank was still the PzIV and the Stugs of course. So the Germans did have the small to medium sized armour you are on about Henk?

[HG]

Yes, Fireflly please read my post and you would understand what I am trying to say. If you do not I will explain it for you.

The Germans focused to much on the heavy tanks than on the smaller versions in the last years of the war.

Look at the tanks of the allies and you will see what I am meaning, like the Sherman and the T-34 and look at there success and there numbers, NUMBERS.

Henk

[Firefly]

The Panther was of a similar size to the T-34/85 though I know what you mean.

[Panzerknacker]

Aniway, going back to the original issue, honestly I don believe that the Sherman was a good tank, too tall for ambush too narrow tracks for bad terrain, too underpowered gun ( solved in the 76 mm even but not entirely), not particulary good armor.

The point in favor were the good reliabilily of his mechanical components, a releative good internal espace ( ruined in the british 17 pounder) and a very good speed in solid terrain.

Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.

[HG]

Yes, true, I have in one book where a US shipyaurd build a transport ship in 4 days a few hours. It is thus shocking to think why they did not have greater tanks.

No problem to expalin it to you Firefly :wink: .

Henk

[Firefly]

We seem to have lost the point that Shermans (except maybe the Firefly) were not designed to fight other Tanks, thats what the AT guns were for. Once the Allies broke out of Normandy Sherman losses fell considerable, Pattons drive across france was a good example of what the reliable Sherman could do, much like what the once reliable German Tanks did in 1940.

The Germans started the war with light fast and flexible armour that was ideal for Blitzkreig. By the end of the war they had turned this into a static lumbering defence force with superior tanks in many ways, but oh so unreliable and not enough of them.

In effect we are all right in some way here, but the end result was, unlike a lot of other German inventions, their tank designs do not seem to have influenced any postwar Allied armour at all.

[HG]

Yes, I agree with you, but why did the US then use the Sherman against other tanks and not their stronger tanks?

Patton were a great man and his success were proven in North Africa and thus also in Europe. He learned from the Dessort Fox from his books about tanks war fare and then learned how to defeat his tanks.

Henk

[Nickdfresh]

Aniway, going back to the original issue, honestly I don believe that the Sherman was a good tank, too tall for ambush too narrow tracks for bad terrain, too underpowered gun ( solved in the 76 mm even but not entirely), not particulary good armor.

The point in favor were the good reliabilily of his mechanical components, a releative good internal espace ( ruined in the british 17 pounder) and a very good speed in solid terrain.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The Sherman, while it did have inherent drawbacks such as a high silhouette, was a very flexible and adaptable weapons platform. The main problem was that virtually the same version was being produced from 1942 to 1944. Most M4s were outdated. If the Germans had kept using the 1940 vintage Panzer MkIV with no improvements, obviously they would have been obliterated. But they adapted it and place a high velocity gun and upgraded the armor.

Something similar should have done with the Sherman, earlier than it was... But the proof is in the pudding. This Israeli "Super-Sherman" is testament that the tank could upgraded and serve well into the 70's effectively:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/photos/m1_3.jpg

Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. It was a conscious choice since US tanks had to make it over the Atlantic in Liberty ships. So weight, economy, and size, as well as German U-Boats, were a consideration... The fact is that the M26 was available much earlier, but was decided to just produce more Shermans... A very bad error in retrospect.

[Panzerknacker]

wholeheartedly disagree. The Sherman, while it did have inherent drawbacks such as a high silhouette, was a very flexible and adaptable weapons platform. The main problem was that virtually the same version was being produced from 1942 to 1944. Most M4s were outdated. If the Germans had kept using the 1940 vintage Panzer MkIV with no improvements, obviously they would have been obliterated. But they adapted it and place a high velocity gun and upgraded the armor.


No kidding.....compare the 75 mm gun sherman version with the lightest german tank of the period of Normandy, the Panzer IV H, this little AFV had more frontal armor ( 50mm+30mm aplique), and even the side armor does not protect it against any AP proyectile more larger that 23mm it had the spaced skirts wich were very effective against the allied shaped charges (Bazooka and russian hand trown grenade RPG), the Sherman could be penetrated for the most simple infantry AT weapons like the hand thrown grenade Panzerwurfmine o the Panzerfaust Klein both costing a few reichmarks.

http://www.dday-overlord.com/img/chars/char_panzer_4j.jpg

And always the german industrial predispotition for large mass production is in dispute, but the german industrie reacted fast when encountered the T-34 menace in 1941. In july of 1942 they had the panzer IV F2 with the long 75 mm, wich by the way was more powerful than the 75/32 and a little below the US 76mm.

The Sherman had faced plunging german guns in the desert in 1942......no improvements were made until late 1944.

[George Eller]

-

And always the german industrial predispotition for large mass production is in dispute, but the german industrie reacted fast when encountered the T-34 menace in 1941. In july of 1942 they had the panzer IV F2 with the long 75 mm, wich by the way was more powerful than the 75/32 and a little below the US 76mm.
-

Pzkw IV F2 with 7.5cm L/43
total production March-July 1942 = 175 plus 25 converted from earlier F1

Production figures for Pzkw IV tanks from October 1937 - March 1945:

Pzkw IV Ausf A (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 37 - Mar 38 = 35 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf B (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr - Sep 38 = 42 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf C (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 38 - Aug 39 = 134 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf D (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 39 - May 41 = 229 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf E (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 40 - Apr 41 = 223 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf F1 (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr 41 - Mar 42 = 462 vehicles
note: 25 F1's converted to F2 with longer 7.5cm L/43 gun

Pzkw IV Ausf F2 (with long 7.5cm L/43 gun) Mar - Jul 42 = 175 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf G (with long 7.5cm L/43 & L/48 guns) May 42 - Jun 43 = 1,687 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf H (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Apr 43 - Jul 44 = 3,774 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf J (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Jun 44 - Mar 45 = 1,758 vehicles

Total Production of all types Pzkw IV from October 1937 - March 1945 = 8,519 vehicles
During a period of about seven and a half years. (89 months)

Does not seem like much for a production run that long.

Figures from: "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Revised Edition", Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, Arms and Armour Press, 1993, (pp 95-99).

-

[Mophat]

I would think the king tiger with its superior armor on all sides. But it was kinda between that and the T34 of the Russians.

[Topor]

One thing that constrained the design of tanks in the UK was that they had to be transportable by our railway system - this placed restrictions on their overall weight & width, to the detriment of the fighting abilities.

[Nickdfresh]

I would think the king tiger with its superior armor on all sides. But it was kinda between that and the T34 of the Russians.

Well all sides except for the top. In which case an RAF Typhoon or AAF P-47 would ruin your day...

[Mophat]

I would think the king tiger with its superior armor on all sides. But it was kinda between that and the T34 of the Russians.

Well all sides except for the top. In which case an RAF Typhoon or AAF P-47 would ruin your day...

Well ya that would just make its day lol

[Panzerknacker]

Pzkw IV F2 with 7.5cm L/43
total production March-July 1942 = 175 plus 25 converted from earlier F1

Production figures for Pzkw IV tanks from October 1937 - March 1945:

Pzkw IV Ausf A (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 37 - Mar 38 = 35 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf B (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr - Sep 38 = 42 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf C (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 38 - Aug 39 = 134 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf D (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 39 - May 41 = 229 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf E (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 40 - Apr 41 = 223 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf F1 (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr 41 - Mar 42 = 462 vehicles
note: 25 F1's converted to F2 with longer 7.5cm L/43 gun

Pzkw IV Ausf F2 (with long 7.5cm L/43 gun) Mar - Jul 42 = 175 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf G (with long 7.5cm L/43 & L/48 guns) May 42 - Jun 43 = 1,687 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf H (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Apr 43 - Jul 44 = 3,774 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf J (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Jun 44 - Mar 45 = 1,758 vehicles

Total Production of all types Pzkw IV from October 1937 - March 1945 = 8,519 vehicles
During a period of about seven and a half years. (89 months)

Does not seem like much for a production run that long.

Figures from: "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Revised Edition", Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, Arms and Armour Press, 1993, (pp 95-99).

Your data is correct, but I was refering to the fact that a superior 75 mm tank gun was designed in short time, the F2 model was merely a transitional one between the simple ausf. F and the very enhanced ausf. H.
The Stug III was armed in the same way.

One thing that constrained the design of tanks in the UK was that they had to be transportable by our railway system - this placed restrictions on their overall weight & width, to the detriment of the fighting abilities.

The german vehicles too, with the exception of the Pz VII Maus.

[Panzerknacker]

Sherman Mod 1945.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/7897060384449656/sherman_easy_eight/

[George Eller]

Sherman Mod 1945.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/7897060384449656/sherman_easy_eight/
-

Nice video clip Panzerknacker :D

I have seen clips of restored French tanks (S35 and Char B) giving demonstrations with more modern tanks like the LeClerc. Do you know if the Germans have done anything similar to their WWII era tanks?

-

[Panzerknacker]

I am pretty sure they did. Even in 1981 when a BundesHeer general passed away his coffin was carried in a restored Panther.

There you go, a Panther like new in the panzertruppe schule in Koblenz.

http://media.putfile.com/panther03

http://media.putfile.com/panther02

[George Eller]

I am pretty sure they did. Even in 1981 when a BundesHeer general passed away his coffin was carried in a restored Panther.

There you go, a Panther like new in the panzertruppe schule in Koblenz.

http://media.putfile.com/panther03

http://media.putfile.com/panther02
-

Thanks for taking the time to find these clips Panzerknacker, but I think there is something wrong with the video - there is no picture.

Nice sound though. :?

-

[Panzerknacker]

That s weird, those are simple wmv clips. check downloading in here.


http://www.waffenhq.de/filme.html

[George Eller]

That s weird, those are simple wmv clips. check downloading in here.


http://www.waffenhq.de/filme.html
-

Beautiful video clip Panzerknacker :D

It's is amazing how large the Panther is when you see it up close. I was able to examine one at the Overloon Battlefield in the Netherlands in the Spring of 1979. It was much larger than I imagined. They had several Shermans and numerous other armoured vehicles there as well.

Thanks again for the link.

-

[Nickdfresh]

Sherman Mod 1945.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/7897060384449656/sherman_easy_eight/
-

Nice video clip Panzerknacker :D

I have seen clips of restored French tanks (S35 and Char B) giving demonstrations with more modern tanks like the LeClerc. Do you know if the Germans have done anything similar to their WWII era tanks?

-

I' m pretty sure the same French military museum that runs those demonstrations also has working German Panthers and perhaps a Tiger, and usually does similar demonstrations of armor of all sides from WWII. I believe the French Army used the Panther for a time in their post-war armor inventory...

[George Eller]

Sherman Mod 1945.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/7897060384449656/sherman_easy_eight/
-

Nice video clip Panzerknacker :D

I have seen clips of restored French tanks (S35 and Char B) giving demonstrations with more modern tanks like the LeClerc. Do you know if the Germans have done anything similar to their WWII era tanks?

-

I' m pretty sure the same French military museum that runs those demonstrations also has working German Panthers and perhaps a Tiger, and usually does similar demonstrations of armor of all sides from WWII. I believe the French Army used the Panther for a time in their post-war armor inventory...
-

I think they did have some German tanks as well Nick. If I remember correctly, the demonstration was on an episode of the "Brute Force" series hosted by the actor George C. Scott. I have the videos, but would have to browse through the tapes to confirm.

I am not sure about French service, but will check.

-

[Panzerknacker]

Yes , the Saumur museum had plenty of german vehicle and AFV, is a politic of this museum to have all those in running condition.

I think that the most impressive collection of german AFV is in Kubinka Russia, because it included a lot of nazi experimental Vehicles wich was only used in the Eastern front.

A clip from Saumur King Tiger.


King Tiger video. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7696001690439086249&q=panzer[/url)


(edited...Saumur not Bovington :evil: )

[HG]

How the hell did they get King Tiger running again? Great video mate and I realy want to see that baby in action.

Henk

[George Eller]

Yes , the Saumur museum had plenty of german vehicle and AFV, is a politic of this museum to have all those in running condition.

I think that the most impressive collection of german AFV is in Kubinka Russia, because it included a lot of nazi experimental Vehicles wich was only used in the Eastern front.

A clip from Bovingtons King Tiger.


King Tiger video. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7696001690439086249&q=panzer[/url)
-

Very impressive Panzernacker. Wow.

But isn't the Tiger clip from the French Musee des Blindes Tank Museum - Panzer Museum Saumur.

Musee des Blindes Tank Museum - Panzer Museum Saumur

http://www.musee-des-blindes.asso.fr/

http://www.musee-des-blindes.asso.fr/2blindes/2jpresent.htm

Quote:
The German collection is enviously looked at by all tank museums worldwide and especially by the Germans, as it is practically complete : Panzer II, III an IV, Panther, Jagdt Panther. Tiger I, King Tiger ( the only one known in working order ), and the various Flak Panzer, recovery Panzer, Armoured cars, tracked troop carriers are on display.

Thanks again Panzernacker for the information and link.

-

[Panzerknacker]

Yeah it was from Saumur I had no idea why I wrote Bovington :roll:

[Panzerknacker]

A video of the Tiger 1 turning his 88mm armed turret.

Tiger 1 turret (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8227409640018821523&q=ww2+gov[/url)

To compensate the relative slowness of this, some german tank aces like Michael Wittman and Otto Carius quickly learn to turn the entire vehicle in a similar fashion to the StuGs allowing a faster aiming to left and right. This was particulary useful for engaging several targets at small ranges, like the Villers Bocage fighting and the close encounters in Russia.

[Timbo in Oz]

my vote for the best tank of wwII has to be the T34/ with a 3-man turret, and either a 76mm or 85mm gun. lots and lots of them.

Next best was the PzKwIV, lots of them, spaced armour to cope with HEAT rounds, and given a 75mmKwk48 - quite capable of dealing with most other mediums. Far better sights, too,

Next best was the Sherman especially the 'Easy 8', with the 3 inch AA gun barrel, lots of them made, too.

next the British Comet, with the short 17pder, aka 77mm, firing APDS, not so many made, but enough.

I rate the Panther 4th because not a lot were made, it remained unreliable throughout, despite this it was technically the finest medium of the war. the 75/70 being the finest pure a/t gun of the era.

The 'infantry tank' section is Britain's anyway, ;-)! .

Here's a quiz question -

given that the turret ring of most Brit mediums, and I's, was too small for anything above the short 6 pder - How did they both get a 75mm? and the Cromwell, the gun being equivalent to an early Sherman 75mm, effectively the 'French 75mm' or M97. MV about 2000 fps.

Answer - They rebarrelled the 6pder and enlarged the breech, IIRC. Can anyone confirm this?

Another question, how much bigger was the cartridge for the 2nd gen of 88's.

[Panzerknacker]

Another question, how much bigger was the cartridge for the 2nd gen of 88's.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7674/887kq.jpg