Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 14:28:40


Post by: KTG17


This should be fun. What is your favorite tank, and why? Can be from any era.

Mine is the Panzer II. The first model tank I ever built was this guy;



1/72 Matchbox series. Old old kits. I think they were re-released by Revell now. But anyways these kits were great as they came with a little diorama stand, and sometimes a couple of figures. In this case, it came with a guy with a submachine gun and another throwing a grenade, and what was left of a house or something.



It just blew me away. I would go on to build dozens of these kinds of kits, but the Panzer II always stuck with me. I built it many times. I wish there had been more variants of it. I do prefer to favor tanks that have a lot of variants, so a tank like the Panzer IV is cool too.

While I do think they are cool, I tend to not prefer the typical bad-ass massive tanks of the day. I also like the Panzer I for its variants, like the box commander version. Love that guy.

I also like the WWII Italian tanks too, even though most weren't very good. There is just something about them. Especially the Semovente da 75.



Also love the US Chaffee. Not too big, not too small. Which I have seen in person and climbed all over. For a light tank, it sure is huge.

I like modern tanks too. The Germans make some cool looking stuff. And of course I like the Abrams and Merkava. But little old Panzer II is my fav.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 14:38:00


Post by: djones520


I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 14:55:31


Post by: Kilkrazy


For me there is one tank above all others that most perfectly embodies the mental gestalt of TANK.

It’s a slab-sided moving mountain of steel, with a huge gun, brutal wide tracks and massive engine exhausts. Arguably an old-fashioned kind of design even when it was launched, its sheer over-engineered strength and power still made it the bete noire of Allied tankers in WW2.

It is the Tiger Tank.




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 14:56:33


Post by: KTG17


 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.


I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 15:10:52


Post by: Blacksails


Gotta be the Leopards for me. Leo I was beautiful, and looked even better with the MEXAS kit. Leo 2 in any variant, though the A7+ with the added armour looks stunning.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 16:28:13


Post by: Ouze


I know very little about functionality, so I'm going by looks. I would have to say the Merkava, especially the Mk IV. The flattened turret is very futuristic and cool looking. It looks like it comes from a near-future RTS.

I hope at some point this expands into armored vehicles because I have some thoughts on the Piranha.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 16:34:25


Post by: KTG17


 Ouze wrote:
I know very little about functionality, so I'm going by looks. I would have to say the Merkava, especially the Mk IV. The flattened turret is very futuristic and cool looking. It looks like it comes from a near-future RTS.

I hope at some point this expands into armored vehicles because I have some thoughts on the Piranha.


Yeah go for it. I should have been a little more general and said Armored Vehicles... I love WWII german armored cars too. Just about all of them. But I like the British ones too, like the Humber II.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this thing looks amazing too. One mean looking machine.



I know not officially a tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, troop carriers. Lets bring in those too.

I love the 250s and 251s. I am more partial to the 250s since they were smaller, but either way these are really cool looking vehicles.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 16:43:54


Post by: ChargerIIC


I was a huge fan of the M1 Abrams when growing up thanks to the first gulf war. No in days it's the Leopard 2. That thing is a beautiful beast.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 17:01:02


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I love both the Merkava and the Swedish S Tank because they both look like sci fi tanks from the not-too-distant future. I've got cheap models of them to convert, but can never decide on what features actually need to be changed to make them "spacey".


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 17:04:49


Post by: feeder


T-72 series for me. Being a child of the 80's, they were the cavalry of the enemy, and they looked so bad ass.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 17:08:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


I have always been a huge fan of the KV (Kliment Voroshilov) series of tanks. Particularly the KV-1 and KV-2.


Why I love it so much is that at the time it entered service with the Soviet army it was a total monster unlike any tank in service in the rest of world. In the beginning of the war, almost no weapons existed that could penetrate its armour (they could only be taken out by artillery fired from almost point-blank range). However, it was an unreliable beast and the rapid German advance meant that many KV-tanks broke down and had to be abandoned without being able to take part in the fighting. But on the occasions were units of KV-tanks did make it to the fight, they wreaked a lot of havoc. There is plenty of epic stories from the early war about German units having to pull of all kinds of crazy, desperate stunts in an attempt to take one of these beasts down or single KV-tanks preventing entire German units from advancing for hours or even days (usually until the tank ran out of ammo).
The KV tank also directly inspired the German Tiger tank and the later Soviet IS series of tanks.

One hundred of our tanks, about a third of them Panzer IV, occupied their positions against a counter-strike. Part of our forces met the enemy frontally, but most of them were on their flanks. They hit the steel monsters from the three sides, but the attempts to destroy them were unsuccessful. By the contrary, it was our tanks which were knocked out. After a long struggle with the Soviet giants, the German armoured units began to withdraw trying to avoid the annihilation.


One of the KVs got close to a panzer who was stuck in a muddy brook. Without hesitation, the black monster just rolled over it, crushing it completely.

Then a German 105 mm howitzer arrived. Its commander, seeing the mass of enemy tanks, ordered continuous firing, but without causing any damage. One of the KVs got close, to within 100m of the howitzer, which fired again, and its shell hit the tank full on. The tank stopped as if hit by lightning. “We made it!” thought the gunners. “Yes, we made it!!!”, shouted the commander of the position.

But the expresson in their faces suddenly changed when one of them shouted: “It’s moving again!!”. There was no doubt – the shiny caterpillar moved up to the howitzer and crushed it like a toy, then kept on moving as if nothing had happened.

I also really like the Israeli Merkava tank. It just looks really cool. I also like the Armata because of how advanced it is with all the crazy technological gadgets it has. It is a rather ugly tank though.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 17:35:09


Post by: Freakazoitt


Tanks I like:


I like Panther, but too large size and innecessary complexity


Cromwell I consider to be one of the best British designs, but its development was a bit late


Waffentrager a smart way to mechanize 88mm guns, is easier than expensive self-propelled guns like Ferdinand/JadgTiger


Best of everything developed by WW2 Soviet tank designers.


I'll like it, when it will be equipped with 152mm gun. Finally, abandoned projects like object 195 will be resurrected.


Tank designed by tankist. Understanding the needs of the crew and the features of the field service



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 20:40:52


Post by: Kilkrazy


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I love both the Merkava and the Swedish S Tank because they both look like sci fi tanks from the not-too-distant future. I've got cheap models of them to convert, but can never decide on what features actually need to be changed to make them "spacey".


Swap the running gear for anti-grav suspensors.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 20:46:04


Post by: amazingturtles


I liked the tank that was in the park outside my cousin's middle school. the best playground toy. Seriously!

I do not know what it was but it was amazing.

Failing that the i liked the t-34 based solely on panzer general.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:16:01


Post by: jmurph


Hmm, for it's time and way it was used, I would have to go with T-34. Every time someone waxes on about the German tanks at the time, I have to just point to these guys. So simple a farmer could drive it, but capable of punching holes in, and deflecting shots from, much bigger (and more costly) German tanks.

In terms of modern tanks, the aging Abrams is still impressive. The Merkava is a different beast and doesn't do what an Abrams does, but does what it needs to very well.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:27:59


Post by: jhe90


KTG17 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.


I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.


Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Heaviest APC built to date probbly.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:28:18


Post by: KTG17


I am also a fan of the Megella Attack Tank.



The cool thing about this guy is that the turret can detach and fly around on its own, for sneak attacks.

They typically get cut in half by Gundam beam sabers, but oh well.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:28:35


Post by: ScarletRose


The Panzer IIIN

It's just cute for some reason


I liked the tank that was in the park outside my cousin's middle school. the best playground toy. Seriously!


I'm jealous, all we had was an old locomotive. Which was still cool (and surprisingly dangerous considering we could climb all the way on the top of it).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:34:33


Post by: KTG17


Char B1 bis! Classic!



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:35:03


Post by: General Annoyance


The IPM1 Abrams for me. Whenever I think of the word "tank", it's more or less what's in my head every time:




I love a lot of tanks though, so it's hard to call it my definitive favourite when I could list about half a dozen other tanks that would rival it in the making me feel hot department


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:37:02


Post by: amazingturtles


Wait are we allowing for fictional tanks? Because then my answer is also "steam tanks, any kind"


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:42:51


Post by: jhe90


 Iron_Captain wrote:
I have always been a huge fan of the KV (Kliment Voroshilov) series of tanks. Particularly the KV-1 and KV-2.


Why I love it so much is that at the time it entered service with the Soviet army it was a total monster unlike any tank in service in the rest of world. In the beginning of the war, almost no weapons existed that could penetrate its armour (they could only be taken out by artillery fired from almost point-blank range). However, it was an unreliable beast and the rapid German advance meant that many KV-tanks broke down and had to be abandoned without being able to take part in the fighting. But on the occasions were units of KV-tanks did make it to the fight, they wreaked a lot of havoc. There is plenty of epic stories from the early war about German units having to pull of all kinds of crazy, desperate stunts in an attempt to take one of these beasts down or single KV-tanks preventing entire German units from advancing for hours or even days (usually until the tank ran out of ammo).
The KV tank also directly inspired the German Tiger tank and the later Soviet IS series of tanks.

One hundred of our tanks, about a third of them Panzer IV, occupied their positions against a counter-strike. Part of our forces met the enemy frontally, but most of them were on their flanks. They hit the steel monsters from the three sides, but the attempts to destroy them were unsuccessful. By the contrary, it was our tanks which were knocked out. After a long struggle with the Soviet giants, the German armoured units began to withdraw trying to avoid the annihilation.


One of the KVs got close to a panzer who was stuck in a muddy brook. Without hesitation, the black monster just rolled over it, crushing it completely.

Then a German 105 mm howitzer arrived. Its commander, seeing the mass of enemy tanks, ordered continuous firing, but without causing any damage. One of the KVs got close, to within 100m of the howitzer, which fired again, and its shell hit the tank full on. The tank stopped as if hit by lightning. “We made it!” thought the gunners. “Yes, we made it!!!”, shouted the commander of the position.

But the expresson in their faces suddenly changed when one of them shouted: “It’s moving again!!”. There was no doubt – the shiny caterpillar moved up to the howitzer and crushed it like a toy, then kept on moving as if nothing had happened.

I also really like the Israeli Merkava tank. It just looks really cool. I also like the Armata because of how advanced it is with all the crazy technological gadgets it has. It is a rather ugly tank though.


Aye, one KV tank dug in held up multiple Germans for hours on end, the massively slab like armour took dozens of shells before it was finaly knocked out. Was peppered with many many smaller AP rounds that just dented thr turret.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:48:20


Post by: KTG17


 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.


Sorry I missed this. Yeah I heard about this, but when they configure the tank like this, I think they have to remove some of the stuff inside, like the ammo for the main gun. Which is fine if you are driving around the West Bank. But I also heard they were able to blow one up that was carrying troops (as rare as that has been), so I am not sure they are quick to do that anymore. There was a time when it was really tough to blow a Merkava up.

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

Some years ago, I met a guy who was a tank commander for the Army and was stationed in Europe, and found out I liked tanks. He lent me a book I wish I could remember more details on, because I would love to buy it, but it was about an US engineer who's job it was to repair US tanks during WWII. It is astonishing to which the speed they could take a blown up Sherman, bring it back to the repair areas, patch it up and make it look good as new (new crews DID NOT WANT tanks that other crews had died in), and pass it on to a new crew. Most of the time you could even find the piece from the hull that the incoming round would knock out, and weld it back into place! And that is all this guy did, and wrote an amazing book about it. But the process of going out and retrieving tanks, the clean up, bodies and all that, pretty terrible stuff. My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander in WWII, and his stories were really insightful too. He told me several stories that blew me away, but one in particular was how if intelligence knew of at least one Tiger out on the front, it really effected morale. They had to bring in a Firefly to blow up one in front of everyone to try to bring their spirits up, but it didn't help a great deal.

He also described receiving rounds that we not strong enough to penetrate the tank, but about to kick up mud and block the view ports, so in those times they would prefer the rounds hit the tank regardless of the sound and stress it caused.

He also described how dirty they were, and when a serious round hit and didn't penetrate, it would kick up a lot of dust. I never imagined that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 amazingturtles wrote:
Wait are we allowing for fictional tanks? Because then my answer is also "steam tanks, any kind"


I didn't specify nonfictional tanks only!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 21:56:51


Post by: General Annoyance


KTG17 wrote:
I didn't specify nonfictional tanks only!


If fiction is permitted, I put forward the Fire Prism as the sexiest tank:



Only the "modern" version, however, with that extended barrel to mount the focusing crystals. Lovely...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/02 22:31:05


Post by: Xenomancers


Hate to be an American fan boy but the Abrams tank is my favorite. It's hard not to love it. Was king for so long and performed for an incredibly long time and still does. You just don't need to ever make a "better" tank than this.

Next favorite is probably the tiger 1. Probably one of the most impressive weapons of war ever produced for it's time.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:06:38


Post by: jhe90


KTG17 wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.


Sorry I missed this. Yeah I heard about this, but when they configure the tank like this, I think they have to remove some of the stuff inside, like the ammo for the main gun. Which is fine if you are driving around the West Bank. But I also heard they were able to blow one up that was carrying troops (as rare as that has been), so I am not sure they are quick to do that anymore. There was a time when it was really tough to blow a Merkava up.

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

Some years ago, I met a guy who was a tank commander for the Army and was stationed in Europe, and found out I liked tanks. He lent me a book I wish I could remember more details on, because I would love to buy it, but it was about an US engineer who's job it was to repair US tanks during WWII. It is astonishing to which the speed they could take a blown up Sherman, bring it back to the repair areas, patch it up and make it look good as new (new crews DID NOT WANT tanks that other crews had died in), and pass it on to a new crew. Most of the time you could even find the piece from the hull that the incoming round would knock out, and weld it back into place! And that is all this guy did, and wrote an amazing book about it. But the process of going out and retrieving tanks, the clean up, bodies and all that, pretty terrible stuff. My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander in WWII, and his stories were really insightful too. He told me several stories that blew me away, but one in particular was how if intelligence knew of at least one Tiger out on the front, it really effected morale. They had to bring in a Firefly to blow up one in front of everyone to try to bring their spirits up, but it didn't help a great deal.

He also described receiving rounds that we not strong enough to penetrate the tank, but about to kick up mud and block the view ports, so in those times they would prefer the rounds hit the tank regardless of the sound and stress it caused.

He also described how dirty they were, and when a serious round hit and didn't penetrate, it would kick up a lot of dust. I never imagined that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 amazingturtles wrote:
Wait are we allowing for fictional tanks? Because then my answer is also "steam tanks, any kind"


I didn't specify nonfictional tanks only!


I think they have odd loss but majority of time impacts ha e basically bounced off or the tanks been quickly recovered and repaired. The bunkers on tracks have kept there crews alive which is there main job at end of day. They still have a solid reputation for taking hits and carrying on.

They designed things like the engine to be easy to replace with a crane and a decent tool kit.

There ideal for where they are. They too slow for US etc. But they need no air mobility etx so they can be so armoured.

That sounds a grim job in the extreme... Hose the tank out of whatever left after a 88mm hit... Repaint em and make it look like no one died.

I knew they salvaged old tanks for spares and such, but not destroyed back into action.

A firefly was only gun they had for abit that could challenge a big cat at longer ranges. There crews and tanks where also a primerry target for German guns. They tried to kill thr firefly first. Allied soldiers did at times have events of classing some others as tigers in chaos of war though. The Panther was possibly more deadly as more reliable and still had the lethal 88mm.

My grandfather was on a diffrent tank but once that measured calibre in inches not mm, BB in the RN, kGV Class.







Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:17:45


Post by: Nostromodamus


It’s a tough choice between the Cromwell and Churchill, but I have to go Cromwell.

Why? I like rivets.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:19:12


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


Either the Merkava Tankbulance or the Stridsvagn 103 Turretless Tank (due to some weird wording, it is technically a tank despite other vehicles of it's type would normally be classified as self propelled guns). I just like the strv 103 because I play War Thunder a lot and love fielding fast self propelled guns rather than turreted tanks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:19:34


Post by: jhe90


 Nostromodamus wrote:
It’s a tough choice between the Cromwell and Churchill, but I have to go Cromwell.

Why? I like rivets.


Both good tanks.
There was like a canceled one that would of been a Churchill with a firefly main gun...

War ended before it came about.
Black Prince.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:22:58


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I love both the Merkava and the Swedish S Tank because they both look like sci fi tanks from the not-too-distant future. I've got cheap models of them to convert, but can never decide on what features actually need to be changed to make them "spacey".


Swap the running gear for anti-grav suspensors.


That could work. But so could walker legs. So many options! I need to buy more models...

I actually bought the kits in the first place to complement my Defiance UAMC and keep that grounded Colonial Marines Technical Manual look with treads.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:26:54


Post by: chromedog


 jhe90 wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.


I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.


Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Heaviest APC built to date probbly.


Have a friend who used to putter around in the predecessor, the Achzarit. Known to all who rode in her as "the bitch".



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:48:37


Post by: jhe90


 chromedog wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm going with the good old Abrams.

I know she's getting a bit dated, but is still unarguably one of the top dogs out there. My time with the Army has been with Light Infantry the whole time, but one field-ex I got up close and personal with some Abrams, and they were just a sight to behold.


I think she is awesome too. I heard they were upgrading them with a bunch of new sensors and so on.

I am not sure there is anything to worry about though. No one has a better all-around tank. As good as the Merkava is, its basically a slow moving bunker located in a really small country. You couldn't see it do many of the things that the Abrams can.

Although it does have a mortar, which is cool. But the co-axial mg sits on the barrel of the main gun last I checked. Would hate to be the guy who has to go out and reload it.


Yeah but has cool ability thanks to upfront engines. They can carry troops.

They even have a model APC built from thr tank minus turret, even heavier armour and rear access.

Closest thing you will find to a land raider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Heaviest APC built to date probbly.


Have a friend who used to putter around in the predecessor, the Achzarit. Known to all who rode in her as "the bitch".



Well it's fitting for a female warmachine.
"cruel".. Israelis never fail to find good tank names.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 00:50:58


Post by: MeanGreenStompa


Very fond of Wespe self propelled guns.




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 01:42:09


Post by: ingtaer


I like the old crusader;


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 02:12:50


Post by: Iron_Captain


KTG17 wrote:
Sorry I missed this. Yeah I heard about this, but when they configure the tank like this, I think they have to remove some of the stuff inside, like the ammo for the main gun. Which is fine if you are driving around the West Bank. But I also heard they were able to blow one up that was carrying troops (as rare as that has been), so I am not sure they are quick to do that anymore. There was a time when it was really tough to blow a Merkava up.

Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.

Modern anti-tank weapons are really sophisticated. Even the most heavily armoured tanks pop like corn in the microwave if you hit them right. That is why the newest tanks like the Russian Armata have a lot of systems designed to prevent a tank getting hit in the first place (like active defenses that destroy incoming projectiles). Defeating anti-tank weapons by armour alone simply isn't feasible, because it is far cheaper to design a new anti-tank weapon to defeat new armour than it is to design new tanks with armour to defeat new anti-tank weapons.
Turkey's Leopard tanks likely aren't the most high-tech vehicles around (the Leopard designs aren't exactly new anymore, and Turkey probably does not have the newest models either). ISIS meanwhile has probably captured advanced Soviet anti-tank weapons from the Syrian army, so it is only logical they are capable of destroying some Turkish tanks. Destroying Leopard tanks is exactly what those Soviet weapons were designed for, after all.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 02:40:20


Post by: Girthquake


great....this tread is making me want go watch Fury later


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 02:59:08


Post by: thekingofkings


hard call between the A-34 comet and the centurion, the centurion made the t-34 effectively extinct in korea and has been in active service from 1945 all the way to 1990 in some places, fought in 12 wars with distinction./


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 04:36:01


Post by: Ruberu


I always loved the Sherman as a kid. I liked the OD green color for some odd reason, I liked the shape of them, and I liked how many different variants of the same tank there were. My favorite Sherman was the Easy 8 (M4A3E8) because it was the most improved Sherman of the war and it may have been the last Thunderbolt Abrams commanded. I've read mixed articles saying that Thunderbolt VII was actually an M4A3 76 and not an E8. My close second is the Panther because of how advanced that tank was for its time period. The tank was designed that you could remove and work on the engine and transmission in the field without requiring an actual shop. That tank did a number on my poor little Shermans...

I like modern tanks as well, but the armour of WW2 is my sweat spot because I spend so much time reading about the great wars.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 05:06:48


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Mine is definitely the Abrams tank. . . Fun story. . .When I was a young private in the army, I showed up "late" to the unit's deployment (not by fault. . . my AIT being what it was, my orders were cut such that I joined a unit already deployed)

Anyhow, because I was the FNG in the unit, I was put on Port Detail. For those who don't know what that means. . . basically, we put vehicles that came from up north, through the wash rack, into the "sterile" yard, through the rinse rack, and onto the boat.

On day one, we were told "if you dont have a license, dont drive it" by lunch of day 3, we were told "don't wreck it" So, I had gone from driving a vehicle for all of 5 minutes (and an LMTV at that), to driving all kinds of crazy stuff. . .

By far my favorite though, had to be the Abrams. One of the most unique driving systems I've ever encountered. Surprisingly smooth ride all things considered, and a very "relaxed" driving position (seriously, it's like sitting in a recliner)


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 08:35:08


Post by: Howard A Treesong


My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 09:04:40


Post by: Jadenim


I was initially going to say the Challenger 2, but then I remembered the Chieftain and finally the M60 Patton:



If you ask a 5-year old to draw a tank, this is pretty much what you get; the tankiest tank. Plus it was used as the art for the GDI and Allied MBT in Command and Conquer / Red Alert, which brings me to my favourite fictional tank, the Soviet heavy tank:



Yes, it’s a silly double barrelled monstrosity, but damn, if it didn’t get the job done in game.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 09:35:15


Post by: XuQishi


Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.


The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 09:46:41


Post by: xKillGorex


Oh this is a hard one to answer. For ww2 British I’ve got a thing for the firefly and cromwell, Germans I have to say the panther and tiger.
Once the problems were sorted out on the panther it was a beast of a machine, it’s main fault was there were never enough of them, I’m sure if there were things might have been a lot harder for the allies.

The Tiger next while not the best tank of the war, it’s easily the most notable. Having seen the Tiger 131 run a fair few times the novelty never wears off. Armed with the famous 8.8 gun and only about two miles and hours slower than a Sherman.
With about 1200 built I think it’s reputation far exceeded it true impact. One common thing that seems to come up in a lot of tankies books is that the allies were quick to call out what they thought was a tiger when in fact it was more often a panzer 4. Goes to show the fear impact of that thing.

Hmm modern I’ve got to say the Abrams, to me it just screams killing machine. On a side note while not a tank more of a multi role ifv the new British Ajax looks good too.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 10:36:34


Post by: Zingraff


I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 11:02:29


Post by: jhe90


 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.


It was also cheap, easy to mass produce and could be fielded in the thousand, repaired by crews, easy to keep running and reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
XuQishi wrote:
Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.


The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?


Yeah. They seem to be used more like artillery units, without the advantage of being able to park 10 miles away and bombard in safety. Though given of they lack cominocations infrastructure long range. Needing the tank in range direct fire to support you may happen.

They have to get inside the range of thr anti tank weapons to fire, and the AT crew is alot smaller and less obvious than a tank.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 12:42:41


Post by: LordofHats


Gotta say. I've always been partial to the M-10, which isn't technically a tank I guess but it has a gun and treads so w/e XD


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 12:58:05


Post by: jouso


XuQishi wrote:
Speaking of blowing up. I was reading up on the Leopard tank today, and was surprised to read a bunch of Turkish ones have been lost to ISIS. Like blown up. I know the turks prob arent as well trained as the Germans, but they are getting destroyed with anti-tank weapons. For some reason I thought that tank would be harder to kill.


The Turks are using Leopard II A4, that's basically 80's tech level, 3 generations of enhancements behind. The Kurds are currently killing them with Milan AT missiles from Germany that they got as a gift to fight off ISIS. That said, the further you go south the crappier the tank tactics become, these guys usually use tanks as mobile cannons and don't support them properly with infantry. Check out the last Iraq war, they basically dug in their tanks and let them get killed. Mobility, support, what's that. It's got armour, right?


Exactly. Just look at the combat record of Iraqi army Abrams.

http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

Several have been destroyed by ATGMs and infantry-placed charges apparently.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 18:18:53


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 18:27:51


Post by: Formosa


Challenger II.... cos it looks sexy


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 19:05:03


Post by: Grey Templar


 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.


Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 19:44:58


Post by: jhe90


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.


Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.


Yeah that was a big US advantage, any truck tank, jeep could be serviced, bodged or tyre swapped, by a farm boy or hot rodder with a few tools, a hammer and abit of old fashioned muscle power.

One other US story, a US solider unjammed a tompson, reloaded a magazine and used it on Germans faster than seemed possible.

Turned out In the 30's they where a booze runner and had to unjam them in a car doing 50+ mph on bad roads evading cops n other runners.






Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 19:47:58


Post by: Azhday


LOOTED ONE, COSE IT WUZ NOT MINE AND NOW ITZ MINE!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 19:55:59


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.
Yep.

The vast majority of tanks fielded by the Germans during the Normandy campaign were inferior or at best equal to the Sherman. The deciding factor or a tank-on-tank engagement is who gets the first shot off, not who has the "best" tank. Of course, "better" is a subjective word, because like I said earlier — a big gun and thick armor not the best tank make. Considering the propensity for the Panther to set it's own engine of fire, the final drive to fail after only 150km, and the turret motor not being able to hold position if the tank is on more than a 20 degree incline, it's kinda hard to be the best tank on the battlefield when you can't even reach the battlefield in the first place. The Germans knew this, hence why they would transport the tank on rail for a little as 25km (Shermans and Cromwells were expected to, and did, get from their disembarkation point off a transport ship to where the fighting was under their own power).

German engineering and design was an odd duck during the war. Their designs were in a vacuum very good. But the shortcuts they had to take due to supply shortages and rushed production led to sloppy shortcuts and running problems which made otherwise superior designs worse in practice. Like running hydraulic and oil lines over exhaust manifolds for example... Also over engineering their stuff was an issue. Complex and powerful stuff, but it couldn't easily be serviced in the field. As opposed to Sherman's which were simple and every farm boy that got put into the tank corps knew how to service an engine.
So much fuss is made over "German engineering" and it shouldn't be. It is no question that they fielded some good stuff: Pz.IIIs and Pz.IVs were good (although severely outdated by the war's end), the MG 42 was a phenomenal general purpose machine gun, and the Bf 109 was the best fighter in the world when it debuted. Most of their vaunted armored vehicles were developmental dead-ends, especially the Panther. The Allies were so far ahead of the Axis in most areas, especially the ones that count. What do you think was responsible for more battlefield causalities: the 1300 Tiger tanks the Nazis managed to build or several thousands of American M2A1 105mm howitzers firing shells with VT fuses and utilizing time-on-target tactics? The Nazis also never developed a long range heavy bomber while the US ended the war with the B-29 Superfortress with its pressurized cabin and computer-controlled fire-control system to aim all of its machine guns, and it was used to deploy the single most technological advanced weapon of the war: the nuclear bomb. As great as some of them were, the Germans didn't have all the best small arms as the American infantryman went into battle armed with the M1 Garand, arguably the best fighting rifle of the war.

Of course the British had the best radar and then anti-radar technology, their 6-pounder and 17-pounder AT guns were firing APDS rounds in 1944, and their signals intelligence was second to none. They also debuted the Meteor jet fighter a month after the Me-262, and while not as fast or heavily armed, its engines lasted ten times as long as the 25-hour service life engines on the 262. It also wasn't built by slaves.

The Soviets debuted the T-34 which revolutionized tank development and forced the Nazis to start building heavier tanks while the Soviets were building their own superior heavy tanks and assault guns. The Soviet strategic doctrine of deep battle and the tenacity of her troops is what beat the Germans on the Eastern Front, not the "winter." Plus, they were equipped with the PPSh-41, the best submachine gun of the war.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 20:36:33


Post by: thekingofkings


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.


have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.

Duxford, Cambridge CB22 4QR, UK

Hours:
Saturday 10AM–4PM
Sunday 10AM–4PM
Monday 10AM–4PM
Tuesday 10AM–4PM
Wednesday 10AM–4PM
Thursday 10AM–4PM
Friday 10AM–4PM

Phone: +44 1223 835000

shameless plug for a great museaum...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 20:43:31


Post by: jhe90


 thekingofkings wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.


have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.

Duxford, Cambridge CB22 4QR, UK

Hours:
Saturday 10AM–4PM
Sunday 10AM–4PM
Monday 10AM–4PM
Tuesday 10AM–4PM
Wednesday 10AM–4PM
Thursday 10AM–4PM
Friday 10AM–4PM

Phone: +44 1223 835000

shameless plug for a great museaum...


Seconded. Ground war section is far end from the entrence.

Make a day of it.. There's alot of walking and alot to cover, UK section, the Restoration hangers and the old war birds that still fly, the US section and hanger and a large ground mesuem.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 21:15:15


Post by: Iron_Captain


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.

Soviet tank crews too, loved the Sherman (we called it Emcha). It was a good tank and incredibly comfy compared to the T-34.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 22:25:06


Post by: thekingofkings


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It's hard to pick just one, but if I were, it'd have to be the M4 Sherman.

Arguably the best medium tank in the world when it debuted, it had a great combination of firepower, armor, speed, mobility, and ease of maintenance. Sure, it was out-gunned by the big cats later in the war, but big guns and thick armor make not the best tank make. The fact that we could build so many of them relatively easily and enough for our allies and ship them across both oceans to engage the enemy wherever they were and keep them running when they got there is nothing short of amazing. Oh yeah, and they were used well after the Second World War as well.

The tank suffered a big hit to its reputation in the years after its use, mainly due to pop-history nonsense on TV and books filled with falsehoods and errors being passed off as "how it really was." Luckily, there are quite a few people out there (Nicholas Moran and Steven Zaloga to name a few) working hard to rehabilitate the image of the tank that won the war for the Western Allies.

Soviet tank crews too, loved the Sherman (we called it Emcha). It was a good tank and incredibly comfy compared to the T-34.


having had the "privilege" of riding in a T-34/85 restored before, I can attest it is less comfortable at half speed than sitting in a dumpster filled thumbtacks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/03 22:38:25


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


The Cobra H.I.S.S. !!!



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/04 07:29:20


Post by: xKillGorex


Think il add the Chaffee to the list. A pretty nippy little light tank, it just looks so cool. Argh there really are to many too choose from.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/04 09:00:44


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 thekingofkings wrote:


have you gotten up to Duxford yet? the ground war museaum I believe still had one in 2003ish. They used to (dont know if still do) let you ride (not drive) in some of them early in the morning for a fee.


I’ve been to Duxford a few times as MAFVA used to hold their annual model show there. I’ve never seen rides offered though. They have a couple centurions. One in the hall is in Suez markings. Bovington has lots of Centurions and variants/prototypes including the massive FV4005 that’s on the gate outside, but they’ve several main tanks and recovery vehicles, a BARV. I’ve also been to the museum on the Isle of Wight that sometimes offers tanks rides, I went with the hope but they weren’t doing them. They have several Centurions and Conquerors, they have the shell of the FV3805 prototype that supposedly is being restored but it’s mostly a shell from what I could see and has no gun.

Couple pics from Isle of Wight...

https://i.imgur.com/o9H4Rma.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yV7vBY1.jpg



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/04 13:39:42


Post by: Chute82


Abrams...nothing like being in the infantry soaking wet and cold then the tankers fire up that bad boy to dry you off and warm you up.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 04:13:14


Post by: sebster


For me it's either the T-34 85mm or the Sherman 76mm. Medium tanks with huge guns just look awesome, but more than that the military thinking behind this is clever, and so clear. With the Russians in particular, they were designing an upgrade to the T-34. After the Germans started deploying heavier AT guns in greater numbers and upgrading their MkIV tanks so they could penetrate T-34s at range, the Russians wanted to regain some effective protection for the main tank, so they looked to replace the T-34 with a heavier, better armour platform. But experiments found they were still vulnerable to German guns.

So instead the Russians did a very clever thing. They kept the T-34 as is, accepted that German tanks could penetrate it but decided that was okay as long as the T-34 had a gun big enough that it could kill German tanks at the same ranges. So they stuck an 85mm gun on their existing tank, upgraded the armour a little and kept cranking them out of the factories.

It was one bit of clear thinking that basically broke the tank upgrade race.






 jhe90 wrote:
A firefly was only gun they had for abit that could challenge a big cat at longer ranges.


Not quite. The US 76mm Sherman had equal or superior performance against armour at range. The Firefly was good in lots of ways but had major drawbacks (the SABOT round had woeful accuracy).

The Firefly is lauded while the 76mm is ignored is because US armour didn't think the 76mm was needed at Normandy, while the British thought a stronger gun was needed just in case. The Allies were surprised by the number of Panthers and the armour upgrades on the Mk IV.

That situation only lasted for the early days of Normandy. But Normandy is all anyone talks about.

The Panther was possibly more deadly as more reliable and still had the lethal 88mm.


The Panther didn't have the 88mm. Its gun was excellent, but it was a long barreled 75mm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Zingraff wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of the Sherman, and before I go any further I know it wasn't very good compared to German tanks, but at the same time, it's easily the most elegant design of the period.

You can tell it was designed by the sort of people who'd normally design sports cars, with a streamlined body that was probably designed to deflect shots, but ends up looking more like it was meant to reduce air resistance, unlike the superior and functional, but ugly and blocky German tanks.


The Sherman was an excellent tank with a bizarrely negative reputation today. It more than matched equivalent German tanks like the MkIV, and while heavier German tanks could beat it 1 on 1, they were much more expensive to build and war isn't fought isn't decided by 1v1 tank duels.

That streamlined body wasn't to deflect shots, but to increase armour thickness. By taking the metal plate and placing it on an angle, you increase the effective thickness. Here's a picture that should explain it better than I can.


What this meant was the Sherman's front armour was 3", but with the slope the effective armour was 3.46". In comparison the MkIV's front armour was 3.1". So for less plate the Sherman got better effective armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if you consider that most German tanks were Panzer IVs and not Tigers and Panthers, there wasn't much discrepancy. And once the 76mm gun was put out it was even less of an issue.

The Sherman wasn't just a quantity over quality thing, it was a solid tank that stacked up well vs Panzer IVs. And its numbers could make up the difference between it and better tanks like Panthers and tigers.


Agree with everything you posted, just wanted to add that it wasn't just numbers that helped the Sherman, but circumstance. Pretty extensive reviews of tank conflicts in WWII concluded the single biggest factor in deciding who won any engagement was simply who shot first. More than quality, more than numbers, if you spotted the enemy before he spotted you, you picked your effective range, loaded the right round, and fired. Even if that shot wasn't a kill, you had a sighter and could calmly prep a second round. Meanwhile your target is going to have to locate you, determine if you're a tank or a field gun, load the right round, all while dealing the very strong emotions that come from just having a shell ping off the hull at thousands of feet per second

The major reason Sherman losses across W Europe were higher than German panzer losses is simply because once blitz was effectively countered, it was much harder to be the attacker and have to advance against prepped enemy units.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 08:08:48


Post by: Freakazoitt


Slopped armour not just "thicker" equivalent (otherwise, you can just increase plates thickness), it's also add very high chance that shell will glance


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 08:43:02


Post by: War Drone


Huh ... That is so obvious ... now.

And I always thought sloped armour was just to increase deflection. (but I've always sucked at math & physics etc.).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 09:07:53


Post by: Herzlos


I've always been a fan of the a7v for being such a ridiculous rolling fortress.


Or the T-34 for being such a basic, versatile machine (and the fact they are so similar to modern variants that you could plob a 20 year retired vet into one and they'd be able to drive it with no re-training)


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 11:29:32


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I'm a fan of the Dallas Aquarium's shark tank myself. It's got that thing going where you walk in a tunnel on the 'floor' of the tank itself.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 14:28:02


Post by: cuda1179


 sebster wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
A firefly was only gun they had for abit that could challenge a big cat at longer ranges.


Not quite. The US 76mm Sherman had equal or superior performance against armour at range. The Firefly was good in lots of ways but had major drawbacks (the SABOT round had woeful accuracy).

The Firefly is lauded while the 76mm is ignored is because US armour didn't think the 76mm was needed at Normandy, while the British thought a stronger gun was needed just in case. The Allies were surprised by the number of Panthers and the armour upgrades on the Mk IV.

That situation only lasted for the early days of Normandy. But Normandy is all anyone talks about.

.


I'll have to re-find the article, but it was by a history professor that used actual military R&D records and battlefield analysis records. If you compared the 76mm to the 17 pounder, yes the 17 pounder technically had somewhat better armor penetration at shorter ranges. However, that didn't matter as both were overkill at that range. The 76 mm was slightly more accurate on the first shot, significantly more accurate on follow up shots, and could be reloaded substantially faster. Also the Firefly used the older, smaller turret and the turret was crammed with a larger breach. This lead to noticeable crew fatigue. Also funny to note, since the 17-pounder had to be mounted sideways to fit in a Sherman turret, the gunner had to crank his neck at a REALLY weird angle to use the sights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for my favorite tank, I have to go old school. WWI MkIV . I like it so much I've used 1/35 models of it to make 5 landraiders for 4 different armies. I got the idea from the old "Turn Signals on a Land Raider" comic strip.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 14:47:48


Post by: LordofHats


 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll have to re-find the article, but it was by a history professor that used actual military R&D records and battlefield analysis records. If you compared the 76mm to the 17 pounder, yes the 17 pounder technically had somewhat better armor penetration at shorter ranges. However, that didn't matter as both were overkill at that range. The 76 mm was slightly more accurate on the first shot, significantly more accurate on follow up shots, and could be reloaded substantially faster. Also the Firefly used the older, smaller turret and the turret was crammed with a larger breach. This lead to noticeable crew fatigue. Also funny to note, since the 17-pounder had to be mounted sideways to fit in a Sherman turret, the gunner had to crank his neck at a REALLY weird angle to use the sights.


The book I think you're thinking of is Faint Praise by Charles Baily?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 14:54:41


Post by: KTG17


 jhe90 wrote:
I knew they salvaged old tanks for spares and such, but not destroyed back into action.


Yeah it was quite eye-opening. I wish I could remember more facts and examples, but the writer was saying you could look a the numbers of Shermans being PRODUCED as a key figure for how successful they were, but over looked was how many of those Shermans were brought back into action after being destroyed. Its essentially using the same tank twice, or maybe more times, and the production figures didn't represent that.

It also helps that the allies were continuously moving forward, so they were able to recover those tanks as the front moved forward. The germans, even if they had been able to recycle tanks like the allies could, and I don't believe they really had the means, often found themselves being pushed back, so those tanks were no longer recoverable even if they could be repaired. So in a sense the allies could replace their loses on the front by re-producing tanks, while the germans couldn't.

I am going to track down that book!!! If you like tanks in WWII its a must read.

Oh my god I think I found it. https://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148 Will be ordering this soon and will report back to here. The description very much sounds like it. Looks like the guy was an ordnance officer not an engineer.

The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Shermans completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired, and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent.[7]


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The Cobra H.I.S.S. !!!



YES!!! And I am a huge fan of the MOBAT too. I love the 82-83 Joes. Best toyline of all time.

I am surprised just about everyone likes the big bad tanks. What about the early experimental years? No one is a fan of tankets? Man, I love everything from the Polish Campaign to the Fall of France.

Model company Attack has released some amazing models that no one else has touched.

http://henk.fox3000.com/Attack.htm

And some of my favorites are Panzer I A variants, although I am not sure how legit some of the designs are. I am familiar with the 2mm gun version from the Spanish Civil War, but the early PzJag looking one I have never see before. I am not sure if these were pre-war prototypes or just dreamed up by the model company. Either way, I love them. Just built the PzJag one last week.










Awesome sauce.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 15:36:29


Post by: Farseer Anath'lan


Not technically a tank, but I'm a big fan of the Sturmgeschutz III. It's big, low and mean.

Also, the M551 Sheridan is a thing of beauty. You have to love an air-deployable tank, especially when it looks as eager as it does to go blow stuff up..


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 17:08:42


Post by: Grey Templar


Well if we use the Dictionary definition of tank, any tracked armored vehicle counts as a Tank. So Tank Destroyers and such count.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 17:42:05


Post by: Pacific


If we're mentioning fixed turrets, have always liked the design of the Stug IV



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 19:12:21


Post by: Freakazoitt


Pardonne for critics, but the cost and gun similar to standart Pz-IV tank.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 19:29:25


Post by: KTG17


 Freakazoitt wrote:
Pardonne for critics, but the cost and gun similar to standart Pz-IV tank.


Actually it was cheaper and easier to build. I think by the end of the war, Germany produced more assault gun style tanks than turreted tanks because it was faster to get them out the door.

I was more of a Stug III fan, but thats like tomatos and tomatoes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This glorious bastard is awesome too:



Oh the days of multi-turreted tanks. Everyone just has one these days. BORING.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 19:33:45


Post by: infinite_array


 Pacific wrote:
If we're mentioning fixed turrets, have always liked the design of the Stug IV



I've always been a Hetzer man, myself. There's something mesmerizing about the simple sloping armor on that little 38t chassis.

It also helps that it was my favorite tank when I used to play WoT, where I used the 10.5 cm "derp gun" with HE ammo. It was always fun to hide behind some cover, wait for someone in their big, slow tank to roll past, and then shove a round up their backside before running away.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/05 19:47:27


Post by: KTG17


I'll admit I am a growing fan of JME's Double Wall 550 Gallon Skid Tank w/ 15 GPM Solar Powered Pump Package.



Only $3,236.89.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 02:09:16


Post by: sebster


KTG17 wrote:
Actually it was cheaper and easier to build. I think by the end of the war, Germany produced more assault gun style tanks than turreted tanks because it was faster to get them out the door.


Yeah, the Stug IV was cheaper and actually a little lighter, while carrying the same gun and basically the same armour. The lack of a turret would be a big drawback in offensive operations, but like all assault guns the Stug IV was a originally specialist design not expected to lead a blitz. Then by the end of the war Germany was basically on the defence everywhere, which made the Stug IV's drawback not matter any more, so why not crank them out continuously.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 16:07:29


Post by: KTG17


It must have been a pain in the ass to command too. I mean, with a turret, the commander can pick out a target, and the gunner can turn the turret. With assault guns and tank hunters, you have to get the driver involved. So this slows down things considerably.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 17:58:14


Post by: Ashiraya




The Glaive is a work of art and I definitely plan on getting one one day. I just wish its armor better covered the tracks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 19:44:40


Post by: KTG17


Yeah I think the Land Raider MK III is a beauty. Prob the best sci-fi tank ever in my opinion.

I like the Rhino too, but it seems ridiculous for Space Marines. Seems more appropriate for the Imperial Guard. I do love all the variants tho. Especially the Forge World stuff.

Eldar Falcon Mk II is awesome too.

Oh! FASA did some cool stuff for Renegade Legion. . .



Never played the game but I was a fan of the hovertanks.






If I was going to store a lot of acid, I prob would be partial to this baby right here.



21,000 gallon Capacity!

* All 1/4” Steel Plate Construction
* Smooth Interior Walls
* Contoured Full Drain Bottoms
* Static Liquid Level Gauges
* Integrated Stairways with Larger Walkways and Platforms
* Safety Harness Clips for Worker Safety
* Lifting Eyes for Difficult Tank Placement
* ABS Braking Systems
* Multiple Options Available

Not sure on price though.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 21:44:09


Post by: Alpharius


For Fake Tanks, the newer HH super-heavies are great, but I love me a classic Stormhammer - and not the new fakey one that FW released, but a Proper One!



or



In Epic Scale:



For Real Tanks, the WWII Tiger II.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 21:51:35


Post by: KTG17


 Alpharius wrote:
For Fake Tanks, the newer HH super-heavies are great, but I love me a classic Stormhammer - and not the new fakey one that FW released, but a Proper One!

In Epic Scale:



omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.

One of my fav epic minis of all time is the Capital Imperialis, and I have never owned it. I have everything else for Epic. Like 20 Warlord titans, etc etc. but never bought one single CI. Love those things. Just imagining them unloading masses of marines makes me want to go out and kick some ass.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 22:29:48


Post by: jhe90


KTG17 wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
Pardonne for critics, but the cost and gun similar to standart Pz-IV tank.


Actually it was cheaper and easier to build. I think by the end of the war, Germany produced more assault gun style tanks than turreted tanks because it was faster to get them out the door.

I was more of a Stug III fan, but thats like tomatos and tomatoes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This glorious bastard is awesome too:



Oh the days of multi-turreted tanks. Everyone just has one these days. BORING.


Back when they treated it at times as land based ship warfare. "cruiser" tanks with many guns.

We could of had a era of clashing land ships with cities atop driving about..


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/06 23:18:49


Post by: oldravenman3025




As a former 19k in the late 80's and early 90's, I'm partial to the Abrams (obviously). But I have a soft spot for the M60, which was still in USMC, ANG, and NATO service at the time.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 00:24:39


Post by: Pacific


While while typing 'Samsung' into Google once I mis-typed and it suggested "Do Samsung make a tank?"

It turns out they do Although not actually a tank, but a self propelled gun (155mm howitzer). Think that should put the Apple vs. Samsung argument to bed once and for all.



When searching for that pic also found out that Hyundai make a tank called the K1 88, which is based on the Abrams. Shouldn't be surprised as after all one of the turrets on the Tiger was made by Porsche, and various other military vehicles made by BMW and VW (although that's going back a bit!)



KTG17 wrote:
Yeah I think the Land Raider MK III is a beauty. Prob the best sci-fi tank ever in my opinion.

I like the Rhino too, but it seems ridiculous for Space Marines. Seems more appropriate for the Imperial Guard. I do love all the variants tho. Especially the Forge World stuff.


If we're talking a lot about real tanks here, think it's a good time to mention the inspiration behind the Rhino, the M113



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 00:46:59


Post by: Pink Horror


No one's mentioned my favorite "tank" yet. Well, it's a tank destroyer, though it was rarely used for that. As a 40K player, I'm not looking for an effective tank design. I want something exotic, flawed, and over-gunned, with no room for ammunition. I'm also generally more interested in the Vietnam War than in WWII. Thus, the Ontos:



I think it's perfect for the Catachans.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 03:09:11


Post by: KTG17


Yeah I heard the Ontos kicked ass in Vietnam and the troops loved it, but the brass hated it. I could see their apprehension since someone would have to be exposed to reload the recoilless rifles.

I read/heard (don't remember) that one of them opened up in a field one night when they knew the VC were crossing it, and the next morning there were like a hundred bodies in it. I think they developed some kind of grapeshot for it.

 Pacific wrote:
If we're talking a lot about real tanks here, think it's a good time to mention the inspiration behind the Rhino, the M113



Yeah I figured that out awhile ago, its just that in the 40k universe, the regular Rhino is pretty... underpowered. I think the Razorback makes more sense.

The Rhino is awesome don't get me wrong. Its just that if you are going to give the best warriors humanity has to offer the best of the best, I am not sure how they got those tin cans.

And I like the M113. Especially the Hammerhead and the one with the Vulcan!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 03:50:19


Post by: djones520


If you've never checked it out before, South Korea's K2 is a pretty impressive beast as well. I've seen some video of it in action, and it's got the chops to be a very solid MBT.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 11:11:06


Post by: TheMeanDM


I always liked the Jagdpanther version tank/tank hunter.

The slope of the armor has always appealed to me. The Jagdpanzer types offered a lower silhouette, certainly, but something about them just strikes me as....ugly...of course that takes nothing away from their functionality and capabilities.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 15:32:51


Post by: Frazzled


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My favourite is the Centurion, probably the most successful tank ever built. It’s been in a lot of the major post war conflicts of the 20th century, in active service around the world longer than any other tank I can think of. Sure there are vehicles in armies that are older but not really being used in conflicts, while Israel used Centurions in 2006 in Lebanon, not bad for something that entered production in 1945.


This. The Centurion outgermanned the Germans, was used for 20 years in multiple conflicts across the globe (successfully. inevitably blowing up Soviet tanks), and was a sexy beast.


also:
The SU 155. Everyone has a hard on about Tigers, but this tank of my people would literally blow the turret right off a Tiger. Nothing says loving like a 6in shell fired at your face!


And finally, the humble M48. Like the Centurion used across the globe, and featured prominantely defending Tokyo from Godzilla!





Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: In discussing the M4 one should take the time and watch this. Its eye opening. Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing. He actually gets int the tanks and discusses important things like the loader being physically able to load a shell.




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 15:52:44


Post by: Wyrmalla


The Centurion's one of the better tanks of the post-war world, and if we consider it was issued at the end of WWII, then maybe the best tank "issued" in the war (though on the same note the T-44/100 was a WWII tank, but didn't see any service). The Merkava largely started out as a Centurion just to show how well it performed in Israeli service.

Discounting the Centurion and Merkava, specifically for WWII I'd go in with the Panther II.



Of course it never made it out of the prototype stage as swapping over manufacture to Tiger II parts was seen to be too costly. Instead they were for simpler upgrades for the Panther series. One was built, without its turret and captured by the Americans - who still have it. The one I made was a speculative version, with the simplified turret the Germans were going to move over near the end of the war (the British captured it then used it as a ranged target, post-war you can see the design on German vehicles though), the improved front armour found on the E-50/75 and infra-red sights which were being issued across the Eastern Front (though didn't see much use in all armoured units besides Tiger I/IIs).

If we're considering Tank Destroyers as well then honourable mention goes to the Jagdpanzer 38 (d).



Another prototype, as well what ifs are cool. The Jagdpanzer 38 (t) "Hetzer" was a pretty good tank destroyer throughout the war, but showing its age. Plans were drawn to upgrade its gun to the one from the Panther, but the chassis was found to be too light to carry it (even when mounted at the rear). Tangentially the Germans had also instigated a project to unify and simply their tank production called the E-series. The 38(d) (D for German, rather than T for Czech) was their solution. A 38(t) built to have commonality with German instead of Czech tanks, and with a larger gun. The idea was then to use the chassis for multiple variants, much like how the Japanese built most of their tanks on just 2 chassis (they just kept lengthening them), though plans were cancelled in favour of simplifying the E-series even further (by that point the Germans had fully invested in the MBT concept and were about to start putting out simplified Tiger IIs called E-75s. Post-war all the E-series work went on to become the AMX series in France).

That 38(d) just looks so cool to me. Close enough to the Hetzer that it could be mistaken, but different enough to make you think someone had made a Hetzer model just from memory or something. Oddly the 38 (t)s made post-war were based on the 38(t) rather than the improved (and cheaper) 38(d).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Actually it was cheaper and easier to build. I think by the end of the war, Germany produced more assault gun style tanks than turreted tanks because it was faster to get them out the door.


Yeah, the Stug IV was cheaper and actually a little lighter, while carrying the same gun and basically the same armour. The lack of a turret would be a big drawback in offensive operations, but like all assault guns the Stug IV was a originally specialist design not expected to lead a blitz. Then by the end of the war Germany was basically on the defence everywhere, which made the Stug IV's drawback not matter any more, so why not crank them out continuously.


If you look at Late-War prototypes there was a fair few with casements rather than turrets. The last models of Panzer IV to come off the production line had no assisted turrets to save on costs, something which wouldn't be an issue with a casement. Out of the E-series off the top of my head at lest half of the vehicles had casements - the E-15, 25, 38 (d) and Rutscher, not to mention that there would likely have been Hunting variants of the E-75 and (possibly - in the world of sticking naval guns on everything) E-100. Post-war the idea was still around, though fell out of favour. Still Germany was still making StuG style vehicles post-war, and the Soviets made one on the T-54 chassis. I believe the Swedes had something similar as their MBT for a while too (though the gun can't move at all like it can in a traditional casement mount).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 16:30:59


Post by: Alpharius


KTG17 wrote:

omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.


Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!

At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too:

M26 Pershing


and it's evolutions.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 16:36:10


Post by: Ouze


 Alpharius wrote:
At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too: M26 Pershing.


This is I think the prototypical tank I think of when I imagine a tank in my head. I wonder if younger people imagine the Abrams.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 17:17:41


Post by: XuQishi


And finally, the humble M48.


The Bundeswehr was pretty glad when the Leo1 was ready so we could ditch those, mostly because of the stupid fuel consumption. The Leo 1 consumed about 1/10th of the fuel per 100km. 80 Liters of diesel fuel vs over 800 of gasoline.

Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing


Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 17:26:16


Post by: feeder


Since we are allowing fictional tanks, I'll add one from the best series on television: the amazing Planet Express Ship, from the Saturday Morning Fun Pit episode



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 17:49:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Ouze wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too: M26 Pershing.


This is I think the prototypical tank I think of when I imagine a tank in my head. I wonder if younger people imagine the Abrams.


I imagine a T-34. Probably because I grew up very close to one.

Also, if we are talking fictional tanks:

This one please.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 18:17:45


Post by: Alpharius


You're not wrong there - anything with a Vulcan Mega-bolter is A-OK in my book!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 18:53:44


Post by: KTG17


 Alpharius wrote:
Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!


Don't get your panties all up in a bunch, man. . . you didn't pick a good tank. Just the way that it is.

The M26 is a solid choice tho.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 19:00:02


Post by: General Annoyance


KTG17 wrote:
Don't get your panties all up in a bunch, man. . . you didn't pick a good tank. Just the way that it is.

The M26 is a solid choice tho.


I think the point Alph is making is that bashing his opinion on that tank in a thread where you're asking for people's favourite tanks, in their opinion, isn't very smart.


I kinda like it too actually - I wasn't around at the time of Epic, but double turret tanks seem pretty suitable for the exaggerated nature of 40k. Cool stuff!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 19:24:15


Post by: KTG17


 General Annoyance wrote:
I think the point Alph is making is that bashing his opinion on that tank in a thread where you're asking for people's favourite tanks, in their opinion, isn't very smart.

I kinda like it too actually - I wasn't around at the time of Epic, but double turret tanks seem pretty suitable for the exaggerated nature of 40k. Cool stuff!


Who are you? His Dad?!?! Gotta call it like I see it man. There are good tanks out there, and there are bad ones.

Like these two here:



Very nice.

This one not so much:






Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 19:58:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


When you are patrolling the mean streets of Port City, Napoleon will be your favourite.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 20:05:37


Post by: Iron_Captain


Oh, I almost forgot a tank that really needs to be mentioned:
Meet the Antonov A-40, history's only tank capable of flight:

Unfortunately it never made it past the prototype stage, and only one photograph of it still exists.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 20:11:17


Post by: Avatar 720


This one is Semple-y the best:



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 20:16:21


Post by: kronk


Grot tanks have checks, so they are my favorite.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 20:27:44


Post by: ProtoClone


Really like tanks. World of Tanks has to be one of my favorite MMOs because of all the different types of tanks you can play as.

But if I were to narrow down to one tank...that's hard.
I would have to say I liked the tanks out of America during WWII.

They went modular with their tanks and it made it easy for the military to produce role specific tanks to handle the tanks coming out of Germany.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 20:34:02


Post by: KTG17


Yes! Man, I have to admit I and a huge fan of the Grot Mega Tank.



I've never built a model like this from Forgeworld, but if I was still in my hardcore gaming days, I would try to build a force of this and a bunch of those grot tanks.

I've never seen these played. Has anyone? I am sure everything is easy to blow up, but at least brings some comedy to the game. I would hope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Avatar 720 wrote:
This one is Semple-y the best:



I had to google that guy. I am sure the Japanese would have been frozen, mouths opened wide, in disbelief of that thing. Then again, many of the early war Japanese tanks looked just as capable.

Let us also consider this:



Who doesn't want to ride that into combat? Bowler hat and all?!?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:22:45


Post by: Alpharius


KTG17 wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!


Don't get your panties all up in a bunch, man. . . you didn't pick a good tank. Just the way that it is.



No worries there bro - I mean it is VERY easy to ignore someone who thinks opinions in this type of thread can be 'wrong'.

Anyway, here's another good one:



Forge World's HH stuff is usually pretty good - if not always the most fun to put together.




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:27:24


Post by: Ouze


IMO, putting them together has always been the most fun. It's painting them I can't stand. I think I'm an outlier though. I've honestly never really enjoyed painting models, but I do anyway because I like how they look when they're done.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:34:45


Post by: KTG17


 Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, here's another good one:



Forge World's HH stuff is usually pretty good - if not always the most fun to put together.


Umm. . . ehh. . . no. Sorry. That's a really messy looking tank.

You are 1 for 3 now.





Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:35:04


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot a tank that really needs to be mentioned:
Meet the Antonov A-40, history's only tank capable of flight:

Unfortunately it never made it past the prototype stage, and only one photograph of it still exists.


Well, being capable of flight on paper isn't the same as a *working* prototype. That "photograph" of it in flight was just a drawing (and Wikipedia's article on the subject is suspect). I believe that they did manage to get lighter tanks in an air droppable format, though they had the unfortunate habit of smashing into bits when they hit the ground.

Meanwhile the British at the same time developed the Tetrarch, a much more practical idea which fulfilled a similar purpose. The Germans as well had similar ideas to provide to their paratroopers (though the A40 wasn't intended for that role, instead being dropped to support existing positions), though those never made it out of the planning stages.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:36:00


Post by: KTG17


I'm a fan of this for morning and evening traffic:



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:36:29


Post by: Wyrmalla


KTG17 wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, here's another good one:



Forge World's HH stuff is usually pretty good - if not always the most fun to put together.


Umm. . . ehh. . . no. Sorry. That's a really messy looking tank.

You are 1 for 3 now.





Elevation and Depression of the main gun seems next to non-existent on that tank. Great job Forgeworld! "How do we hit enemies that're above us? Drive up a hill of course!".


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:38:16


Post by: Alpharius


KTG17 wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, here's another good one:



Forge World's HH stuff is usually pretty good - if not always the most fun to put together.


Umm. . . ehh. . . no. Sorry. That's a really messy looking tank.

You are 1 for 3 now.



Good lord - give it a rest!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:40:07


Post by: KTG17


Oh, the Tsar Tank. Don't know what I was thinking when I was suggesting the Sherman. Why drive through when I can drive OVER?



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:41:33


Post by: Wyrmalla


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Avatar 720 wrote:
This one is Semple-y the best:



I had to google that guy. I am sure the Japanese would have been frozen, mouths opened wide, in disbelief of that thing. Then again, many of the early war Japanese tanks looked just as capable.


At the time the public had the same reaction. To which the designer responded "we have no tanks in this country at all. If you don't have a better idea then keep your bloody mouth shut, at least this'll give us *something*". Which well, the Bob Semple Tank was bullet proof, and the Japanese army didn't have the same AT capacity as was the case in Europe. Had they had them I'm sure they would have replaced the turret MG with a Boys Anti-Tank rifle, which would have been capable of taking out the what Tanks the Japanese had available at the time. Against the massed infantry charges of the Japanese, and without armoured support, one of those things could have beefed up the New Zealander's defences.

And well, its not like many of the improvised fighting vehicles which came out in Europe at the same time were much better. Those did see combat however (admittedly against better tanks than the Japanese had as well).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:42:09


Post by: Alpharius


KTG17 wrote:
Oh, the Tsar Tank. Don't know what I was thinking when I was suggesting the Sherman. Why drive through when I can drive OVER?



Wow!

Now there's an awful choice - number one with a bullet in fact!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:45:04


Post by: KTG17


 Alpharius wrote:

Good lord - give it a rest!


Don't make me get a moderator!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alpharius wrote:

Wow!

Now there's an awful choice - number one with a bullet in fact!


You don't criticize my choices. Only I get to do that. That's going to cost you a point. Now you're 1 of 4.

Not even sure you can find enough tanks to get you out of this hole now.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:48:31


Post by: Alpharius


I'm not worried about it - and don't sell yourself short here - you managed to pick the worst one yet - nothing's even close!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 21:50:43


Post by: KTG17


 Wyrmalla wrote:
And well, its not like many of the improvised fighting vehicles which came out in Europe at the same time were much better. Those did see combat however (admittedly against better tanks than the Japanese had as well).


Yeah, don't get me wrong, I appreciate it's character. That's what I do love about the early tanks - they certainly have a lot of character. Now everyone's tanks look and perform pretty much the same. Back then peeps were still trying to figure it out with whatever tech was available, and some of the results are pretty fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alpharius wrote:
I'm not worried about it - and don't sell yourself short here - you managed to pick the worst one yet - nothing's even close!


You picked a blue tank, that's all rusted out. And can't elevate its main gun. I am sorry I am just not impressed.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 23:18:59


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Wyrmalla wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot a tank that really needs to be mentioned:
Meet the Antonov A-40, history's only tank capable of flight:

Unfortunately it never made it past the prototype stage, and only one photograph of it still exists.


Well, being capable of flight on paper isn't the same as a *working* prototype. That "photograph" of it in flight was just a drawing (and Wikipedia's article on the subject is suspect). I believe that they did manage to get lighter tanks in an air droppable format, though they had the unfortunate habit of smashing into bits when they hit the ground.

Meanwhile the British at the same time developed the Tetrarch, a much more practical idea which fulfilled a similar purpose. The Germans as well had similar ideas to provide to their paratroopers (though the A40 wasn't intended for that role, instead being dropped to support existing positions), though those never made it out of the planning stages.

Yeah. It was not really a feasible thing, which is why it never advanced past a single prototype that made only one flight. While that flight was a succes, it was only barely so. The tank was too heavy for the aircraft towing it to get it up to speed, and the test pilot had real trouble landing it successfully. If the tank had been fully loaded with fuel, ammo and crew as in a combat situation, it would have surely crashed. And so the design was scrapped. But fly it did.
The Soviets did a lot of experiments with airdropping tanks, some of them really successful leading eventually to the development of vehicles like the ASU-57 and the BMD which can be dropped complete with ammo and crew and everything onboard.
Also, I believe the image is not actually a drawing, but rather a photograph of the designer's model. There are versions where you can see it sitting on a flight stand.
Unfortenately, it is the only image of the complete vehicle there is. There is a few more images of just the wing frame, but not with the modified T-60 tank.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 23:26:13


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Speaking of Tankfest, I'd super recommend anyone in the UK goes to Bovington for the Tank museum, doubly so for tankfest.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/07 23:55:03


Post by: Avatar 720


I'd love to go to Bovington at some point, but it being at the other end of the country and me not liking to travel alone, especially long distances, makes things difficult.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:05:09


Post by: Alpharius


Combo it all up and drive a Stormhammer there!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:23:57


Post by: Co'tor Shas


The Type 10 Hitomaru



A sexy little machine, and incredibly well protected for it's size and weight (especially with it's additional armour addons). It's wholse design philosphy is quite intresting as well, anywhere else in the world it would be too expensive and not tough enough, but in most of Japan's islands and thick forests it's the only tank that can operate, unlike the larger American, Chinese, and Russian tanks whoa are simply too big and too heavy to operate in Japan's infrastructure. There's a reason it's job is to replace the Type74 and and not the much larger type 90. Also any tank that can do 70 km/h in reverse has a special place in my heart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrZZwDf3iE


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:27:46


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Looks like I need to buy a model of the Type 10.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:30:36


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Nothing like some good old Hydropneumatic suspention



I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:41:31


Post by: KTG17


You know, this shares a similar design with the Leopard in that the front of the turret slopes up and down at the front. Having armor sloping up helps drive shot up and away from the tank, but in the case of these two tanks, it seems to me that an incoming round could hit the lower slope and the round would just drive into the turret ring. Isn't this kind of a design flaw? I mean I think both tanks look cool, but I would think something designed like the Abrams would be better since its harder to get to where the turret meets the main body of the tank, which I imagine is like the Achilles heel.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:49:14


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Overall, with modern ammunition, shot traps aren't really that much of an issue anymore. Many tanks have what would be considered shot traps (t14, t90, M1, Leo2) but they aren't really a design flaw because of the ddvent of APFSDS and HEATFS. We aren't firing full caliber AP rounds anymore, which is what shot traps were vaunrable to.


For referance, just take a look at this 1980 article about the XM1 (i.e. the M1 abrams). It's not a tank that has ever been known to be easy to kill. https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1121/112144.html


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:57:32


Post by: KTG17


Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.

You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.

But having skeptics is a good thing.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 00:58:55


Post by: Co'tor Shas


That's 'cause we keep all the additional armour kits and anti-ATGM systems to ourselves.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 01:08:42


Post by: Iron_Captain


KTG17 wrote:
Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.

You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.

But having skeptics is a good thing.

Yeah. Every tank and every aircraft ultimately is very vulnerable. Anti-tank (and anti-air) weapons are very sophisticated. So the best guarantee for keeping a tank alive is not its armour or any other fancy design things, it is the training of its crew and the degree of support it gets from other elements of the military forces.
You could have US tank crews drive old Sherman tanks and they would likely still outperform Iraqi tank crews driving the Abrams. Good education and training are hugely important for the performance of military equipment. And in most countries outside of the West and Russia (and maybe China) that training is often lacking.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 06:51:17


Post by: xKillGorex


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Speaking of Tankfest, I'd super recommend anyone in the UK goes to Bovington for the Tank museum, doubly so for tankfest.


Second that, I think this year might be my 10th tankfest could be 11th. It is a great day.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 07:20:49


Post by: ScarletRose


Not my favorite, but one of the few tanks I actually touched:


The Patton Museum out in California, where troops trained for desert conditions. Now it's just a few old tanks and a couple indoor displays. I kinda wish they had more but it's still to put your hands on something.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 14:17:44


Post by: KTG17


Can't believe they just let that sit out there and rust.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 15:05:32


Post by: Wyrmalla


KTG17 wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
And well, its not like many of the improvised fighting vehicles which came out in Europe at the same time were much better. Those did see combat however (admittedly against better tanks than the Japanese had as well).


Yeah, don't get me wrong, I appreciate it's character. That's what I do love about the early tanks - they certainly have a lot of character. Now everyone's tanks look and perform pretty much the same. Back then peeps were still trying to figure it out with whatever tech was available, and some of the results are pretty fun.


Well, that's not quite what the Bob Semple Tank was. It was designed in 1942, where the concept of the "Tank" had long drifted away from the pre-war ideas. Bob Semple knew what a modern tank was, but had to work with what he had. It was supposed to be a last ditch attempt at throwing together a fighting vehicle of "some" sort with what was available. New Zealand didn't have enough infrastructure to make anything better. Those machine guns were the heaviest gun they could find (the original designs wanted something larger). The country had plenty of farms, and that was the toughest and most common tractor they could start serial production on. The high profile's a result of note being able to move the engine (the front machine gunners are literally lying on top of it.

For a similar vehicle compare the Kubus armoured car produced by the Polish Resistance.

*Ah, though as a counterpoint to this whole thing. In a what if scenario where the Japanese had committed to their theoretical land war in Australia and New Zealand (see "The Brisbane Line"), they likely wouldn't have been fighting with the tankettes they were stereotyped for. The Japanese fought WWII largely with light tanks as 1) in Asia their enemies barely had tanks which were any better till the Americans showed up and 2) most of the terrain they were fighting on was too difficult to traverse with anything large. They did have tanks equivalent to Panthers and Tigers, they just never saw a reason to put them into large scale production as they would have been useless on the terrain. By the time that the Home Islands being invaded had become a real prospect the Japanese had begun to start up production of these vehicles, but their supplies had already been cut by that point, so not many were built. In a situation where the Bob Semple tank had seen combat, i.e. the early war, its likely the Japanese would have churned out "proper" tanks to contend with Commonwealth armoured forces stationed in or brought to Australia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot a tank that really needs to be mentioned:
Meet the Antonov A-40, history's only tank capable of flight:

Unfortunately it never made it past the prototype stage, and only one photograph of it still exists.


Well, being capable of flight on paper isn't the same as a *working* prototype. That "photograph" of it in flight was just a drawing (and Wikipedia's article on the subject is suspect). I believe that they did manage to get lighter tanks in an air droppable format, though they had the unfortunate habit of smashing into bits when they hit the ground.

Meanwhile the British at the same time developed the Tetrarch, a much more practical idea which fulfilled a similar purpose. The Germans as well had similar ideas to provide to their paratroopers (though the A40 wasn't intended for that role, instead being dropped to support existing positions), though those never made it out of the planning stages.

Yeah. It was not really a feasible thing, which is why it never advanced past a single prototype that made only one flight. While that flight was a succes, it was only barely so. The tank was too heavy for the aircraft towing it to get it up to speed, and the test pilot had real trouble landing it successfully. If the tank had been fully loaded with fuel, ammo and crew as in a combat situation, it would have surely crashed. And so the design was scrapped. But fly it did.
The Soviets did a lot of experiments with airdropping tanks, some of them really successful leading eventually to the development of vehicles like the ASU-57 and the BMD which can be dropped complete with ammo and crew and everything onboard.
Also, I believe the image is not actually a drawing, but rather a photograph of the designer's model. There are versions where you can see it sitting on a flight stand.
Unfortenately, it is the only image of the complete vehicle there is. There is a few more images of just the wing frame, but not with the modified T-60 tank.


I'm using Tank Encyclopedia's article as a source, which tends to be the most reliable Internet one available. Quote:

Fourthly, it is unclear as to whether or not the vehicle was even successful. The official story, as recorded above, might be a gross exaggeration, or a total fantasy. The purported photo of the A-40 in flight is actually a drawing produced by the Antonov factory.


KTG17 wrote:
Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.

You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.

But having skeptics is a good thing.


If you look at modernizations of older tanks, like the ones coming out of Italy and Ukraine, they're focused more on ERA and slat armour than shot traps. Modern ammunition is designed not to bounce, unlike what was being used in WWII (most - ignoring late war British and German stuff). As such a tank laden with that winds up finding itself more concerned with protecting itself from its own ERA than enemy shots.

The Germans had seen this coming at the end of the war and started developing tanks with *no armour*. See they had just developed the ATGM, the British had begun using HEAT warheads, and the Soviets were about to standardise on the 100mm gun (T-44/100 i.e. the T-54). The idea being that at the time if the enemy hit you you'd be dead anyway (this is before ERA of course - ah ...well the Germans also had prototypes that as well), so positioning and speed were more important (that and the plan was to fight at night with infrared so the enemy couldn't see you in the first place).

Additionally, modern tanks are using modular compartmental designs. I.e. in the Israeli Merkava the crew are in their own bubble inside the tank. So even if the vehicle is hit, vital systems have their own protection systems to keep the tank operational to an extent. Combine this with the concept of decreasing the number of vital systems, increasing redundancy, or the novel idea of allowing remote systems to take over and tanks are more survivable. The Russian T-14 Armata can be controlled wireless like a drone with no crew at all (though it isn't the first tank to do this).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah. Every tank and every aircraft ultimately is very vulnerable. Anti-tank (and anti-air) weapons are very sophisticated. So the best guarantee for keeping a tank alive is not its armour or any other fancy design things, it is the training of its crew and the degree of support it gets from other elements of the military forces.
You could have US tank crews drive old Sherman tanks and they would likely still outperform Iraqi tank crews driving the Abrams. Good education and training are hugely important for the performance of military equipment. And in most countries outside of the West and Russia (and maybe China) that training is often lacking.


The Israelis were using Shermans to fight modern Soviet tanks, albeit Monkey Models of them (...which damn, I recall one Dakka Dakka user saying those didn't exist. Either you or the other guy Iron Captain ). To this day we still see 50 year old tanks serving and beating their modern counterparts. Israel's the big example for how training and tactics beat technology, i.e the 5-1 loss ratio of Jordanian tanks to Israeli ones at the Valley of Tears (though that particular battle ended where after 3 days of no supply the Israelis were about to be overrun, before they (apparently) threatened to nuke Jordan - that at least being the Jordanian reason for why they had to retreat).

The world's moved away from massed tank battles, to them being used as tactical tools for supporting other elements. Tank on Tank conflicts are rare, and as such when facing up against infantry any sort of armoured vehicle has an edge. With infantry AT weapons and air support available however, armoured vehicles aren't as effective. That's probably why we're seeing more dedicated "anti-infantry/ air / light armoured vehicle" tanks being developed. I.e. like the Russian BMPT-72 and its Ukrainian T-64 counterpart, or one of the many Israeli IFVs with a dozen MGs and foot thick armour (America was interested in buying some Israeli armoured vehicles a few years ago. The deal fell through when they realised most of the Israeli vehicles were too heavy to transport).

Ah, and seeing as I'm just dumping caveats. Speaking of those Russian T-14 Armatas. Besides being able to be remote controlled like any other drone and using automated systems, the gateway to entry for training the crews is way lower than other tanks for another reason. ...It uses Playstation controllers for controlling it, mapped to something similar as you'd see in any popular video game. No levers. Playstation controllers.

The world we live in...

KTG17 wrote:
Can't believe they just let that sit out there and rust.


Most Tank Museums don't have the floor space to keep most of their vehicles. The Tank Museum at Bovington has tons sitting behind the museum in its backlot. Of course the ones in storage could do with tarps...

That's in tandem with the limited budgets any museum has to face. However, military museums also tend to have ties to some government body or similar group. If you can't pay to give the things a new coat of paint every few years you invent an excuse to have some body come in and donate the funds for you to do it (i.e, rust potentially destroying the historic artifact). I think it was the Bovington museum which secured the funds for repainting all of its tanks a decade ago by saying that most of the paint used was before legislation against the lead content of paint came in, so having them on display was a safety hazard till they were repainted (even on the tanks which didn't have lead based paint, or had already been stripped and repainted...).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 15:42:22


Post by: ChargerIIC


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nothing like some good old Hydropneumatic suspention



I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well


Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):




My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 16:59:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


 ChargerIIC wrote:

Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):




My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.

That... is the most German thing I have seen in my life. A panzer, beer, mustache and immaculate precision all combined in 16 seconds of video. Only way it could have been more German is if the guy had worn a pickelhaube instead of a beret.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 18:31:57


Post by: d-usa


Speaking of Leopart Tanks and “hold my beer”...




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 18:58:50


Post by: Alpharius


Still loving this one:



Anyone have a link to the last edition (more or less) datasheet for it in 40K?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 19:37:58


Post by: kronk


What the hell is that?

Bad ass!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 19:41:59


Post by: Alpharius


You got that right - STORMHAMMER baby!!!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 19:45:53


Post by: kronk


Sweet!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 22:14:46


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Alpharius wrote:
Still loving this one:



Anyone have a link to the last edition (more or less) datasheet for it in 40K?


The breeches of those guns can't fit inside those turrets. Its like GW/FW just stick a barrel on something and have anything inside the turret telelported into a bag of holding...

Not to mention that given the size of the shells required for those guns, and the comparatively massive amount of space allocated for the crew based on the placement of the hatches, the ammunition storage space is going to be minute.

...God I hate GW tank designs.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 23:05:53


Post by: Avatar 720


The Imperium liberated Time Lord technology at some point during the Great Crusade, and have spent millennia studying it in top secret facilities. This has resulted in designs for all sorts of things that somehow seem... roomier than they should be.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/08 23:16:44


Post by: Wyrmalla


I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).

Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 01:00:00


Post by: Alpharius


Quit trying to harsh our mellow!

Speaking of old datasheets, the one for the Imperator Titan was a thing of beauty too...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 03:08:45


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 ChargerIIC wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nothing like some good old Hydropneumatic suspention



I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well


Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):




My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.

I mean stabilization is one thing (of which the Leo2 is certainly one of the best), but the ability to completely tilt your tank in any direction is something else. It can "lean" "kneel" and "stand" depending on your need and automatically adjust for terrain.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 09:48:21


Post by: jouso


Italians have always been my army of choice in just about every historical game, starting with Romans all the way to WW2.

So of course I have to nominate the Ariete.



And going a bit back there's something about the M13-15 and its semovente derivatives that makes it my fav WW2 tank




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 13:27:57


Post by: Alpharius


Here's another cool one - can't believe I forgot about it - but it's now back in stock too - the Stormblade!



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 15:13:41


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nothing like some good old Hydropneumatic suspention



I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well


Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):




My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.

I mean stabilization is one thing (of which the Leo2 is certainly one of the best), but the ability to completely tilt your tank in any direction is something else. It can "lean" "kneel" and "stand" depending on your need and automatically adjust for terrain.


They were doing that as far back as WWII.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 17:50:46


Post by: Grey Templar


Yeah, the E-10 was a funny little tank. It could play Peak-a-boo from behind cover.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 20:50:53


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Well it was never built so it’s all speculation.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 21:39:26


Post by: TheCustomLime


I know this is probably a very cliche answer but the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war let down by a shoddy war industry and substandard crew training. It also doesn't help that it is a sexy beast of a machine.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/09 22:00:07


Post by: oldravenman3025


Wyrmalla wrote:
The Israelis were using Shermans to fight modern Soviet tanks, albeit Monkey Models of them (...which damn, I recall one Dakka Dakka user saying those didn't exist. Either you or the other guy Iron Captain ). To this day we still see 50 year old tanks serving and beating their modern counterparts. Israel's the big example for how training and tactics beat technology, i.e the 5-1 loss ratio of Jordanian tanks to Israeli ones at the Valley of Tears (though that particular battle ended where after 3 days of no supply the Israelis were about to be overrun, before they (apparently) threatened to nuke Jordan - that at least being the Jordanian reason for why they had to retreat).




Well, to be fair, those "Ishermans" were upgunned and upgraded. And against the T-62, they took some losses. It was when the T-72s (and in the case of Jordan, later marks of the M48 and the new M60) started entering Arab armouries that the so called "Super Shermans" had to be put to pasture. Even the "monkey" versions of the T-72 were considered superior to the upgraded Shermans and Centurions by the IDF's planners, despite the poor training on the part of Egypt and Syria.

.

.





 Pacific wrote:
If we're talking a lot about real tanks here, think it's a good time to mention the inspiration behind the Rhino, the M113



Yeah I figured that out awhile ago, its just that in the 40k universe, the regular Rhino is pretty... underpowered. I think the Razorback makes more sense.

The Rhino is awesome don't get me wrong. Its just that if you are going to give the best warriors humanity has to offer the best of the best, I am not sure how they got those tin cans.

And I like the M113. Especially the Hammerhead and the one with the Vulcan!





Yeah, the M163 20mm PIVADS. It served past it's prime due to the Sgt. York not panning out. But when I was in the service, it, the towed M167 version, and the Chaparral were what we had for low to mid level air defense in the field. They were fine for Hips and Hinds (and maybe SU-25s). But the PIVADS was lacking against fast movers like the MiG-27 and SU-17. That's why they started carrying Stingers onboard the 163s, to supplement the MIM-72s, which were getting a bit long in the tooth. Fortunately, we got the more modern Avenger in inventory and operational by 1990.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 00:01:08


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Was the Rhino based on the M113 or the Fv432? I man, the latter's British, so you might think so, but then it's not as famous, so maybe not. The Rhino in Nottingham is an FV432 in a dress, though. Mind you, the diesign of the Rhino is influenced by the fact that it was designed to be symmetrical so it can be made from two copies of two sprues, instead of four unique sprues.

For added fun, originally the Whirlwind retained its transport capacity, since the multi-launcher was a self-contained unit on the roof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).

Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.


That one pictured is a conversion, I think. On the other hand, the "periscopes" are probably cameras., so nothing need interfere with the gun barrels. The heavy bolter sponsons look remote-operated, and the bolters will fit in them (although perhaps not the ammo ...). The lascannons? Yeah, probably right, but looking at the model Forge World actually make, that looks a little less impractical - there's just, if you squint a bit, room for the track to possibly run over the sponson compartments.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 10:49:44


Post by: jhe90


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Was the Rhino based on the M113 or the Fv432? I man, the latter's British, so you might think so, but then it's not as famous, so maybe not. The Rhino in Nottingham is an FV432 in a dress, though. Mind you, the diesign of the Rhino is influenced by the fact that it was designed to be symmetrical so it can be made from two copies of two sprues, instead of four unique sprues.

For added fun, originally the Whirlwind retained its transport capacity, since the multi-launcher was a self-contained unit on the roof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).

Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.


That one pictured is a conversion, I think. On the other hand, the "periscopes" are probably cameras., so nothing need interfere with the gun barrels. The heavy bolter sponsons look remote-operated, and the bolters will fit in them (although perhaps not the ammo ...). The lascannons? Yeah, probably right, but looking at the model Forge World actually make, that looks a little less impractical - there's just, if you squint a bit, room for the track to possibly run over the sponson compartments.



Servitors to crew the sponson during n, t need full bodies.

And you can always have a ammo feed built through the Hull say down a axle to hide a power cable away or a gap where the bolter feeds run down. A crew man inside loading belts etx can still maintain in battle. Outside the tank a hatch can be opened especially for deeper repairs.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 16:35:23


Post by: Grey Templar


GW tanks are also in Heroic scale just like the regular figures. So the guns are larger relative to the chassis then they actually would be. So imagine all non-weapon parts getting stretched an extra 20-30% and thats what the actual tank would look like.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 19:08:25


Post by: Lone Cat


The Interbellem era Vickers 6-ton Mark E



It's not just an armored vehicle. for most part of the world. this is THE FIRST combat tank.

And ... a developmental platform. not only itself the first to combine speeds with strenght and firepower. but also many innovations still present in modern tracked AFVs. like roadwheels with solid robber tyre. (permits faster speeds and elongates steel track lifetime. (and yet many to be tossed with the mechanized warfare evolutions... like bogie suspensions which later supplanted by things like T-bar mounted on each individual wheels and attached directly to the hull rather than bogie unit..). Many WW2-era tanks (British early cruiser tanks and some infantry tanks, American tanks in ww2 (anything before 1944. including the famous Grants and Shermans)) are all based on Vickers 6-ton Mark E.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 19:50:32


Post by: godardc


No love for the Frenchie ?


Overall, some great choices in this thread, but I'm surprised to see some very early German pattern.
Very impressed by the Scandinavian turretlless tank !


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 19:54:08


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Lone Cat wrote:
The Interbellem era Vickers 6-ton Mark E



It's not just an armored vehicle. for most part of the world. this is THE FIRST combat tank.

And ... a developmental platform. not only itself the first to combine speeds with strenght and firepower. but also many innovations still present in modern tracked AFVs. like roadwheels with solid robber tyre. (permits faster speeds and elongates steel track lifetime. (and yet many to be tossed with the mechanized warfare evolutions... like bogie suspensions which later supplanted by things like T-bar mounted on each individual wheels and attached directly to the hull rather than bogie unit..). Many WW2-era tanks (British early cruiser tanks and some infantry tanks, American tanks in ww2 (anything before 1944. including the famous Grants and Shermans)) are all based on Vickers 6-ton Mark E.

T-26 (Vikkers 6 tonn). Was twice lighter and 4 times cheaper than previously developed Soviet own designs. So they decided to cancel and use Vikkers pattern. But at beginning of war it was too obsolete.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 22:23:42


Post by: Frazzled


 Alpharius wrote:
KTG17 wrote:

omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.


Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!

At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too:

M26 Pershing


and it's evolutions.


Pershings are cool. I climbed all around one at Camp Mabry. Up close, it really looks like an American Panther, especially when you look at a Sherman and an M 60 next to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
XuQishi wrote:
And finally, the humble M48.


The Bundeswehr was pretty glad when the Leo1 was ready so we could ditch those, mostly because of the stupid fuel consumption. The Leo 1 consumed about 1/10th of the fuel per 100km. 80 Liters of diesel fuel vs over 800 of gasoline.

Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing


Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.



Two reasons. The gunner had no real view except the targeting scope making him late to the game in a who shoots first scenario vs. allied tankers (especially M4/Firefly gunners), and that the turret was so low and tight that the loader couldn't do his job. Multiple things but pragmatic things like that,and the placement of the transmissions drive train making it assured that a high percentage would be in the shop, in comparison to US/British tanks due to the length of time just to get clear things to get to it, vs. the US method of just pulling the whole thing off in a couple of hours.

His review of the T34 is not great either...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 22:44:29


Post by: Kilkrazy


I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/11 23:01:53


Post by: Frazzled


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!

It works just fine if you expect the vehicle to have a service life of about 150-200 miles without being destroyed or major division level overhaul. Note the Soviets kept the idea at least through the T55 series.

The Germans of course were the opposite, overengineering everything and trying a craftsmanship standard like these tanks were going to last ten years. They last only until Frazzled's relatives and 6mm of their best friends hit your tank 1,427 times with concentrated fire. Dosvadonia Comrade!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 06:28:07


Post by: sebster


XuQishi wrote:
Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.


That's a misunderstanding. The Panther was conceived as a counter to the T-34. There was at one stage a plan to just copy the T-34, but I believe that didn't get very far. Instead the Germans made significant changes to the tank they'd been developing to replace the Mk IV (a project they began before the war). To that design they added some elements of the T-34, like the wide tracks and sloping armour (some other elements like the T-34's diesel engine were included but later dropped), but it was its own design, built not as a copy of the T-34 but as a T-34 killer. That's why it ended up about 70% heavier than the T-34 with a really good AT gun.

Thing is, what made the T-34 so good was its ability to exploit a breakthrough in the enemy lines - it could drive about 400km while using good all around armour and good HE round to screw with enemy lines of supply. The Panther had none of those abilities, it had half the range at best (less when you consider mechanical problem), its armour was much more focused at the front (something that's a problem when you're rolling around the enemy's backlines), and it's gun lacked a decent HE round. But the Panther was great at blowing up T-34s (and Shermans, and Churchills etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
It works just fine if you expect the vehicle to have a service life of about 150-200 miles without being destroyed or major division level overhaul. Note the Soviets kept the idea at least through the T55 series.

The Germans of course were the opposite, overengineering everything and trying a craftsmanship standard like these tanks were going to last ten years. They last only until Frazzled's relatives and 6mm of their best friends hit your tank 1,427 times with concentrated fire. Dosvadonia Comrade!


That's exactly what the Soviet philosophy was. Tanks had a life expectancy measured in months, so there's no point building components that'll last years.

The German concept wasn't really like what you said, though. There was a strong level of craftsmanship, but they were also a pushing a lot of this stuff way past its limits. The Panther, for instance, began design as a tank somewhere between 30 to 35 tons, but the need to dominate T-34s meant a gun and armour resulting in a final design of 45 tons. Lots of early reliability issues were due to rushed production, but even by the end of the war the suspension was over-engineered and the main drive was under so much strain you couldn't trust a Panther to go more than about 100km with significant chance of breakdown.

Outside of tanks the Germans actually started becoming more Russian than the Russians. The famous Stg-44, for instance, was built with basically no margin for wear at all. Same logic as the Soviets - no point building a rifle that'll last 12 months when the soldier carrying it and likely the country that built the gun won't last that long.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 07:22:04


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 TheCustomLime wrote:
[...] the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war
Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.

Now, as far as aesthetics go, I'm not much of a fan but there's no accounting for taste.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 07:59:40


Post by: sebster


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.


I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.

Thing is, no military in peace time ever starts with those design goals 'what if I'm facing two years of slow retreat on two fronts against two opponents with superior troops and material that will slowly, inexorably roll towards my capital'... so I understand why no-one after the war was too interested in building something like the Panther


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 09:17:18


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.
You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 15:03:06


Post by: oldravenman3025


Frazzled wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
KTG17 wrote:

omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.


Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!

At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too:

M26 Pershing


and it's evolutions.


Pershings are cool. I climbed all around one at Camp Mabry. Up close, it really looks like an American Panther, especially when you look at a Sherman and an M 60 next to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
XuQishi wrote:
And finally, the humble M48.


The Bundeswehr was pretty glad when the Leo1 was ready so we could ditch those, mostly because of the stupid fuel consumption. The Leo 1 consumed about 1/10th of the fuel per 100km. 80 Liters of diesel fuel vs over 800 of gasoline.

Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing


Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.



Two reasons. The gunner had no real view except the targeting scope making him late to the game in a who shoots first scenario vs. allied tankers (especially M4/Firefly gunners), and that the turret was so low and tight that the loader couldn't do his job. Multiple things but pragmatic things like that,and the placement of the transmissions drive train making it assured that a high percentage would be in the shop, in comparison to US/British tanks due to the length of time just to get clear things to get to it, vs. the US method of just pulling the whole thing off in a couple of hours.

His review of the T34 is not great either...




Which wasn't a major issue, considering that most Sherman variants couldn't breach the frontal glacis of a Panther at normal engagement ranges. Even the much vaunted 76mm armed variants, "Jumbo" Shermans, and Easy Eights. The Firefly was deadly to the German big cats, especially the Panthers. But it was a glass cannon with it's own set of issues, and was used because it was the only thing available at the time that could kill Panthers and Tigers at engagement ranges, and didn't require numbers to win a fight.

The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.

And most of your early war British tanks that were still in service (Chruchill, Matilda) were not as easy to perform basic maintenance on as some claim, even when compared to over-engineered German tanks. Not every British tank in the second half of the war was a Cromwell or Cromwell variant (which were a joy to work on compared to their older bretheren).






Kilkrazy wrote:I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!




And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.




ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.
You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 16:26:39


Post by: Lone Cat


 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.


some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 16:29:56


Post by: jouso


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.


As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 17:43:49


Post by: Freakazoitt


The German sights had an enlightened optics, which in books and articles often was described as superior to the Soviet ones. However, the Soviet commander's periscope allowed to continuously observe the battlefield, and the German commander's cupola consisted of a number of observation holes and while changing view on them caused the target can lost.
Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews

This was a known problem and plans for the creation of a 3-man turret were prevented by the hard beginning of the war, which made a lot of difficulties for the industry (it had to be evacuated). It is interesting that all countries came to the same principle of dividing the tasks of a crew of 5 man, which made it possible to effectively detect and destroy targets. In the USSR, the first tank of that concept was KV-1.
I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

The plant was evacuated along with the machinery and tank parts. However, when the Germans were almost there, the remaining workers discovered the unassembled tanks and were able to get them to move and shoot. Instead of sight, the crew targeted the gun through the barrel.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 19:21:48


Post by: TheCustomLime


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
[...] the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war
Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.

Now, as far as aesthetics go, I'm not much of a fan but there's no accounting for taste.


The Panther was revolutionary in the sense that it had the defensive capabilities/ weaponry of a heavy tank with medium tank mobility and, more importantly, cost. The Panther was much cheaper to produce than the tiger so they could make a whole lot more of them. In the defensive role it excelled. It was a tank that Germany needed at the time and it certainly outpaced allied main tanks until the introduction of very late war designs.

If you want really revolutionary designs I would argue the Soviets are likely the top dogs in this regard. The T34 was a revolutionary tank for its time and it had a distinguished lineage that lead into the famous T55. Though, some pedants would point out that the T55 is more of a successor to the T44 but I would argue that the T44 is a descendant of the T34. And that is not even getting into the KV series.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 19:50:22


Post by: oldravenman3025


Lone Cat wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.


some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?





The Allies continued to differentiate tanks by role until the early post-war period, as did the Germans (despite the increased reliance on general purpose mediums after 1943). But the Panther, being a general purpose medium tank, played a role similar to modern MBTs. The M4 and T-34 were cut from the same cloth, but lacked the balance between armor, mobility, and effective main gun that the Panther enjoyed. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't get close until the M26 and T-44.

It was wasn't until 1944-45 that the Western allies had decent, all-round Big Cat killers with the Jackson and Archer TDs, and Pershing and Comet tanks. The Soviets upped their game with the IS heavy tanks, new SU assault guns, and late KVs




jouso wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.


As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.





Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.


The T-34's crude TFMD-7 and PT4-7 were garbage when compared to German (and the Western Allies) gunsights. The two man turrets, poor training, and lack of modern communications in every vehicle was only part of the problem. And had little to do with the inability to engage at longer ranges that German tanks excelled at because of their crude optics, in addition to crap accuracy.

The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 20:13:07


Post by: jhe90


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Lone Cat wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.


some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?





The Allies continued to differentiate tanks by role until the early post-war period, as did the Germans (despite the increased reliance on general purpose mediums after 1943). But the Panther, being a general purpose medium tank, played a role similar to modern MBTs. The M4 and T-34 were cut from the same cloth, but lacked the balance between armor, mobility, and effective main gun that the Panther enjoyed. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't get close until the M26 and T-44.

It was wasn't until 1944-45 that the Western allies had decent, all-round Big Cat killers with the Jackson and Archer TDs, and Pershing and Comet tanks. The Soviets upped their game with the IS heavy tanks, new SU assault guns, and late KVs




jouso wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.


As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.





Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.


The T-34's crude TFMD-7 and PT4-7 were garbage when compared to German (and the Western Allies) gunsights. The two man turrets, poor training, and lack of modern communications in every vehicle was only part of the problem. And had little to do with the inability to engage at longer ranges that German tanks excelled at because of their crude optics, in addition to crap accuracy.

The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.


Politics... Diplomacy. A T34 was somewhat crude but effective at its job. The Russians needed a hammer, and it was there hammer. They had lots of hammers. Alot more than the Germans. They ground the Germans down tank by tank winning by attrition.

The T34 may not have been a good tank in some areas. It was a good tank at what they needed it to do.





Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 20:17:04


Post by: War Drone


 Freakazoitt wrote:
Instead of sight, the crew targeted the gun through the barrel.


I adore you!

On Edit: I mean no offence. Really! Quite the contrary!

It's just that that one simple statement conjured in my mind a picture of some Orkish-strong Russian tank gunner grabbing the barrel of his tank's gun with his left hand, one eye bulging down the barrel until he finds the target, then slamming an AT round into the breech with his right hand (yes, his hands are HUGE in my narrative!) and - instead of some gun switch - PUNCHING the base of the shell to send it on its way ...


I know ... I need to get out more ...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 20:22:38


Post by: jouso


 oldravenman3025 wrote:


The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.


This is from the Aberdeen tests ran in the US in summer '43.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/aberdeen-t-34-and-kv-1-test.html?m=1

"Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America."

Flaws of the T-34 are thoroughly detailed there, just not the sights.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 21:47:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


Soviet tank sights of the WW2 were very decent, if not really good. Even the Germans praised them. However, the factory that made the glass for them was originally located in Izyum (in Eastern Ukraine). When the Germans overran the area the factory had to evacuated and a lot of high-quality materials were lost. It was not until 1943 that Soviet gun sights could be manufactured to pre-war standards again. In the intermediate period, Soviet gun sights were of much poorer quality. Maybe this is what some people are referring to when they say Soviet gun sights were very poor while others say they were really good.
And it was not just gun sights who were poorly made in 1942. A lot of factories were in the process of evacuation, which led to a lot of deficiencies in all kinds of equipment. For example, T-34s built in 1942 also often lacked ventilation fans, which led to crews passing out from sniffing too much fumes in long engagements.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 21:55:11


Post by: jouso


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Soviet tank sights of the WW2 were very decent, if not really good. Even the Germans praised them. However, the factory that made the glass for them was originally located in Izyum (in Eastern Ukraine). When the Germans overran the area the factory had to evacuated and a lot of high-quality materials were lost. It was not until 1943 that Soviet gun sights could be manufactured to pre-war standards again. In the intermediate period, Soviet gun sights were of much poorer quality. Maybe this is what some people are referring to when they say Soviet gun sights were very poor while others say they were really good.


Also a lot of the common wisdom on tanks are down to post war rationalisation. Just like tigers being disproportionately feared early on, massive Soviet losses would be blamed on faulty equipment rather than inadequate tactics or poor crew qualifications.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 22:21:35


Post by: Frazzled



The German concept wasn't really like what you said, though. There was a strong level of craftsmanship, but they were also a pushing a lot of this stuff way past its limits. The Panther, for instance, began design as a tank somewhere between 30 to 35 tons, but the need to dominate T-34s meant a gun and armour resulting in a final design of 45 tons. Lots of early reliability issues were due to rushed production, but even by the end of the war the suspension was over-engineered and the main drive was under so much strain you couldn't trust a Panther to go more than about 100km with significant chance of breakdown.

I mean actual production design. Lets exclude late 1944 on as they were disintegrating at that point. Prior to that manhours associated with construction of German armor, artillery, etc. were typically substantially higher than comparable US, much less Soviet versions. Just the welding on German tanks took substantially longer, because the tolerances and quality level standards they used were much higher than needed. The designs themselves were overly complex vs. their competitors. Compare the transmission layout vs. US armor and its striking-not only the initial manufacturing time, but the intensiveness of the maintenance required was horrendous. Its not that US tanks were better made (ok well they were assemblywise) but that the layout to get to the machinery that needed maintenance was horrific.





Outside of tanks the Germans actually started becoming more Russian than the Russians. The famous Stg-44, for instance, was built with basically no margin for wear at all. Same logic as the Soviets - no point building a rifle that'll last 12 months when the soldier carrying it and likely the country that built the gun won't last that long.

STG were still over engineered vs. Soviet and US designs. Compare an STG vs. an M1 carbine, or AK.
Everything was like that. It took more effort to manufacture a German helmet than a Soviet one, MP vs. a PPSH43 etc.

oops sorry, went off topic. I think we're in agreement the Panther was overengineered and overextended from its original design, and we're in agreement on the Soviet methodology of manufacture for a limited life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.
You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).

I'd argue the Jagdpanthers and STGs were far more suited for the defensive warfare they went to in 1943 onwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.


Except of course, in reality, in every recorded instance of M4s vs. panthers, M4s came out ahead. You didn't have ten burning Shermans for every Panther. You had a burning Panther for every Sherman.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 22:36:46


Post by: Crazy_Carnifex


 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.


Except of course, in reality, in every recorded instance of M4s vs. panthers, M4s came out ahead. You didn't have ten burning Shermans for every Panther. You had a burning Panther for every Sherman.


Yeah, plus the Sherman was as good or better than the Panther at anything that wasn't shooting enemy tanks in the face. I think a lot of it's bad reputation comes from the fact that the allies, unlike the Germans, tended to be assaulting a defensive enemy, which always results in increased casualties.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/12 22:43:39


Post by: Frazzled


I was in a Sherman with a 105mm howitzer. That was a big gun.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 01:43:05


Post by: sebster


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).


There's no contradiction, there's just a recognition that the Panther had both good and bad features. It had reliability issues, even after the early teething problems there were still significant problems throughout the war which produced a lot of maintenance issues and made the tanks ineffective in any real kind of offensive movement. But it also had an excellent gun and frontal armour which made it great at knocking out enemy tanks at range, stopping offensives flat.

Thing is, on a strategic level Germany was one the defensive for the entirety of the Panther's service, so the problems weren't as pronounced as they might have been in other circumstances. This explains why people who went up against the Panther rightly feared it, but after the war no army wanted anything like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Which wasn't a major issue, considering that most Sherman variants couldn't breach the frontal glacis of a Panther at normal engagement ranges. Even the much vaunted 76mm armed variants, "Jumbo" Shermans, and Easy Eights. The Firefly was deadly to the German big cats, especially the Panthers. But it was a glass cannon with it's own set of issues, and was used because it was the only thing available at the time that could kill Panthers and Tigers at engagement ranges, and didn't require numbers to win a fight.


This is pure myth making. The 17pdr wasn't a more potent gun than the 76mm. THere's a millions minor bits and bobs of detail about different ammo types at different ranges, but both guns can go through a Panther at 1,000 yards, and that's really what matters. The only other factor is the 17pdr's major issues with accuracy when placed on a Firefly (to make the gun work in a Sherman turret they needed a barrel brake, and those things can screw with the SABOT rounds you want to fire at enemy tanks).

The reason this myth developed is because the British brought Fireflys to Normandy, but US field commanders weren't interested in adding 76mm Shermans to their own forces. So there was a brief period where Fireflys were the one tank that could knock out a Panther at range. By September though you had all US field commanders taking supply of Shermans with 76mm guns.

But of course, no-one ever talks about anything other than Normandy, so people end up thinking it was all about the Firefly.

The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II.


Not true. While the rate of breakdown early on was comical, people have somehow decided once those issues were resolved and reliability improved, this somehow made the Panther reliable. This is not true. Throughout the war Panthers moving more than 100kms would start to suffer main drive breakdowns at such a rate as to significantly impact unit effectiveness. 100km. Tanks that can't go more than 100kms without breakdowns are not reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.


The T-34 wasn't a zerg rush tank. It was often used in that role because of limited crew training and mediocre Soviet commanders, but assuming that's all the tank could do is false. It had excellent armour, great operational range and a good enough gun. It was everything you needed in a tank that could breakthrough and then exploit the breakthrough.

And that more than anything else is what a tank is meant to do. As Russian capability grew over the course of the war, they kept the T-34 as their primary tank, because it remained excellent in that primary job of breakthrough and exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
I mean actual production design. Lets exclude late 1944 on as they were disintegrating at that point. Prior to that manhours associated with construction of German armor, artillery, etc. were typically substantially higher than comparable US, much less Soviet versions. Just the welding on German tanks took substantially longer, because the tolerances and quality level standards they used were much higher than needed. The designs themselves were overly complex vs. their competitors. Compare the transmission layout vs. US armor and its striking-not only the initial manufacturing time, but the intensiveness of the maintenance required was horrendous. Its not that US tanks were better made (ok well they were assemblywise) but that the layout to get to the machinery that needed maintenance was horrific.


Yeah, definitely. Germany was a nation of high craftsmanship entering a war of industrial production. The idea of a tank sitting in a single spot in the factory, for each technician to bring his gear over to that tank, do his bit, then take his tools to the next tank... that's laughable to us today but its how much of the German war industry operated. In terms of German production I agree with what you're staying.

Its just in terms of individual bits of kit the German stuff was highly engineered, but that didn't mean it had the features you'd normally think of as quality, like reliability and durability. The Germans were really pushing the limits of their designs in lots of ways, the Panther started as a 30 ton design to replace the MkIV, it ended up 44 tons, with all the problems that you'd expect that would produce.

STG were still over engineered vs. Soviet and US designs. Compare an STG vs. an M1 carbine, or AK.


STG was highly engineered, but it was also had really threadbare production standards. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Everything was like that. It took more effort to manufacture a German helmet than a Soviet one, MP vs. a PPSH43 etc.


PPSH43 was a very simple design, but the MP40 was also very simple, it was mostly stamped steel.

oops sorry, went off topic. I think we're in agreement the Panther was overengineered and overextended from its original design, and we're in agreement on the Soviet methodology of manufacture for a limited life.


Yep, definitely agree there.


Except of course, in reality, in every recorded instance of M4s vs. panthers, M4s came out ahead. You didn't have ten burning Shermans for every Panther. You had a burning Panther for every Sherman.


Especially in the tighter confines of Western Europe, the winner was almost always the guy who fired first.

It's the reason we saw a lot more Sherman lost - they were on the offensive, when engaged by German tanks the Germans would almost always get to fire first, from concealed, hull down positions. Where the Germans went on localised offensives and were met by Allied armour, like at Arracourt, the result was a great kill-loss ratio for the Shermans.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 02:54:28


Post by: Freakazoitt


 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The T-34's crude TFMD-7 and PT4-7 were garbage when compared to German (and the Western Allies) gunsights. The two man turrets, poor training, and lack of modern communications in every vehicle was only part of the problem. And had little to do with the inability to engage at longer ranges that German tanks excelled at because of their crude optics, in addition to crap accuracy.

Trying to fight the myth, you come up with another myth. Yes, the T-34 had problems with the engines and gearbox. Also, the commander played the role of a gunner and could not monitor the battlefield situation. The quality of the glasses was worse. However, the design of the sight and commander's periscope was good.

Lack-of-radio problem wasn't typical for T-34s and KVs. It was for T-26 and BT. But I guess that in 1941-1943 some T-34s could not put the radio on, if there were delays with their deliveries to the plants.

In general, phrases such as "T-34 is AK-47" are not true. Problems with the engine have never been completely eliminated, and switching speeds frightened the drivers with the possibility of breakage (same to KV-1). Also, from the beginning of the year 1941 to 1943 there was a regression in quality of products along with simplification and improvisation. However, the T-34 proved itself in combat as an adequate tank for most situations at that time.

 War Drone wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
Instead of sight, the crew targeted the gun through the barrel.


I adore you!

On Edit: I mean no offence. Really! Quite the contrary!

It's just that that one simple statement conjured in my mind a picture of some Orkish-strong Russian tank gunner grabbing the barrel of his tank's gun with his left hand, one eye bulging down the barrel until he finds the target, then slamming an AT round into the breech with his right hand (yes, his hands are HUGE in my narrative!) and - instead of some gun switch - PUNCHING the base of the shell to send it on its way ...


I know ... I need to get out more ...

Unfortunately, it was not so funny. The crews were civilian volunteers who knew they could not stop the avalanche of German tanks and most likely all died in these underequipped tanks at the very beginning of the battle of Stalingrad.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 03:15:55


Post by: Ouze


I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


BMPT-2 "Terminator" - Russia

Spoiler:



Bottom half tank, top half anti-infantry BMP; all urban combat monster.


M50 Ontos - USA

Spoiler:

I know it got mentioned already but I don't care. Turn-ons include direct fire support, blowing holes in walls, and going where tanks cannot. Turn-offs include reloading and RPGS.

Replacement for Type 96 APC - Japan
Spoiler:


Look at that fat feth. No vehicle has ever needed a scary mouth painted on it so badly before.

LAV-25 Piranha - Switzerland or maybe Canada
Spoiler:

What if someone running away from you crosses a river? Better drive across the water.

Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan
Spoiler:

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.

Mil-24 Hind D - Russia
Spoiler:

Some conspiracy theorists claim this isn't actually a tank.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 03:32:28


Post by: TheCustomLime


By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.

(*As well as fuel shortages, allied air superiority, lack of supplies and mechanical breakdowns which resulted in more German tank losses than allied armor)


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 05:09:13


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.
Only by people who aren't aware that the Centurion exists.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The Panther was revolutionary in the sense that it had the defensive capabilities/ weaponry of a heavy tank with medium tank mobility and, more importantly, cost. The Panther was much cheaper to produce than the tiger so they could make a whole lot more of them. In the defensive role it excelled. It was a tank that Germany needed at the time and it certainly outpaced allied main tanks until the introduction of very late war designs.
Again, the concept of the Panther was not unique to Germany.

The M26 was in development at the same time in America and the T-44 shortly thereafter in Russia. The main difference, especially with American designs, is that we weren't stupid enough to field a tank with the problems that the Panther had, mainly because of Army standards and you know... winning the war. The idea that it "outpaced" Allied "main" tanks means what exactly? With only 6000 or so built, the Panther was never the backbone of the German armored forces so you can't call it a "main" tank and you certainly compare along those lines with things like the M4 (almost 50,000 built) or the T-34 (84,000 built). And on the battlefield, it didn't outpace Western Allied tanks. The kill-to-loss ration heavily favored the good guys.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 05:45:50


Post by: TheCustomLime


It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

And I never called it the German main tank. That was the Panzer IV.

I would also like to point out that the M26 Pershing came out later than the Panther and saw limited use.

For the record, I'm not saying the Panther was the best tank in WW2. I think the T34 was with the M4 Sherman as a close second.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 07:49:17


Post by: Jadenim


 Ouze wrote:

Mil-24 Hind D - Russia
Spoiler:

Some conspiracy theorists claim this isn't actually a tank.



I wholeheartedly second this motion, gotta love the Hind.

Also, how could you not nominate the other aerial tank?
Spoiler:


It’s even in your avatar , come on!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 07:59:12


Post by: von Hohenstein




I don't know if it's good but the design of this new polish tank is ace!



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 09:31:27


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.
Just because the Nazis called it a "medium tank," doesn't mean it was one in reality; medium tanks didn't weigh 40+ tons. I mean, it weighed almost as much as an IS-2 (a heavy breakthrough tank) and outweighed the M26 and Churchill (both classed as heavy tanks). It had better armor than tank that weighed 14 tons less than it? Cool, I would hope so. Its gun was better than the 75mm of a Sherman and on par with the 76mm guns found on M18 Hellcats and M4 armed with 76mm M1 gun. But as I've said already in this thread, thick armor and big gun does not a great tank make. The Panther had some good qualities (when they worked), but as I've already pointed out, it contributed almost nothing to post-war tank design and nothing about its design was revolutionary.

And I never called it the German main tank. That was the Panzer IV.
Right, but you said it "outpaced" allied "main tanks" without defining any of those terms. Still, comparing an M4 Sherman to a Panther is comparing apples to oranges.

I would also like to point out that the M26 Pershing came out later than the Panther and saw limited use.
They were designed at the same time (1942) but we were smart enough not to field a tank that wasn't ready.

For the record, I'm not saying the Panther was the best tank in WW2. I think the T34 was with the M4 Sherman as a close second.
Okay, but that doesn't make your stroking of Panthers more accurate.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 09:54:31


Post by: TheCustomLime


Every source I've seen has called the Panther a medium tank. Gross weight doesn't seem to be a determinant in the classification of a vehicle since the US reclassified the Pershing as a medium tank too after the war and they weighed as much as the Panther. I suppose using the term "main tank" was a mistake. I meant the tank vehicle that was available in significant numbers during which they could've reasonably fought the Panther. And by "outpace" i meant the technical capabilities in comparison. So, the Panther v. T34-85 v M4 Sherman v Cromwell. The Panther was superior to these vehicles in armament and armor while maintaining good mobility. I don't see how comparing a Panther to the Sherman is uncalled for since they are both medium tanks of their respective nations that were fielded in significant numbers.






Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 10:31:11


Post by: Freakazoitt


They had a classification according to the caliber of the gun. 88mm Tiger - heavy, 75mm Panther and Panzer - medium. Before that, the 75mm Panzer-IV was called "heavy". 50mm, 37mm Panzers - medium and 20mm/machinegun - light tanks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 11:54:41


Post by: Ouze


 Jadenim wrote:
Also, how could you not nominate the other aerial tank?
Spoiler:


It’s even in your avatar , come on!


It seems like spiking the football since the reasonable assumption that's already everyone's favorite tank.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 12:29:44


Post by: jouso


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.
Just because the Nazis called it a "medium tank," accurate.


Exactly. Italians called their P26 26-ton tank a heavy tank (pesante) but for all intents and purposes it was a medium tank no matter what they wanted it to be.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 13:47:35


Post by: Frazzled


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.
Only by people who aren't aware that the Centurion exists.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The Panther was revolutionary in the sense that it had the defensive capabilities/ weaponry of a heavy tank with medium tank mobility and, more importantly, cost. The Panther was much cheaper to produce than the tiger so they could make a whole lot more of them. In the defensive role it excelled. It was a tank that Germany needed at the time and it certainly outpaced allied main tanks until the introduction of very late war designs.
Again, the concept of the Panther was not unique to Germany.

The M26 was in development at the same time in America and the T-44 shortly thereafter in Russia. The main difference, especially with American designs, is that we weren't stupid enough to field a tank with the problems that the Panther had, mainly because of Army standards and you know... winning the war. The idea that it "outpaced" Allied "main" tanks means what exactly? With only 6000 or so built, the Panther was never the backbone of the German armored forces so you can't call it a "main" tank and you certainly compare along those lines with things like the M4 (almost 50,000 built) or the T-34 (84,000 built). And on the battlefield, it didn't outpace Western Allied tanks. The kill-to-loss ration heavily favored the good guys.


The T34 did everything the Panther did, but two years earlier.
The Panther could not have done what the M4 did, in every theater of war.
The Comet, a main production tank, was superior in every way.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 14:14:54


Post by: Kilkrazy


People maybe interested in this rather good article from the Imperial War Museum on British tank design of WW2.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-struggle-to-build-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 14:53:32


Post by: ThunderCracker


My favourite tank would have to be the Challenger 2.

Enough said

PS: Ignore my picture of a Victorian Water Tank. Just me being silly.






Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 16:01:21


Post by: sebster


 TheCustomLime wrote:
By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.


I agree having that crew training is really important, and want to repeat again that circumstance matters a lot as well (when you are in hull down, watch the enemy come towards you and so you can pick when you fire... that advantage is a much bigger deal than marginally higher AP at x yards or optics or anything like that).

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about the Panther's effectiveness, when it typically had very well trained and battle hardened crews, then turn around and excuse poor performances because the crew at those times wasn't as well trained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.


The Panther had a better gun and armour than the T-34 and Sherman 75mm. You'd hope so, it weighed more than 50% more than either of those designs.

The problem for the Panther comes when you see the Allied response, the 76mm Sherman and 85mm T-34 were both capable of taking out Panthers at normal combat ranges, and with Panthers being far heavier and more complex, ending up on par with those tanks was a terrible deal for the Germans. And while people try and dodge that by saying the upgunned Shermans and T-34s were variants... there were considerably more of each built than Panthers.

Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.

The Panther was still part of the bigger tank with bigger gun philosophy. To kill the 26 ton T-34 the Germans built the 44 ton Panther. It was actually the response to the Panther, sticking an 85mm gun on the T-34, or a 76mm gun on the Sherman, that was a decision in line with that MBT philosophy.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 16:53:54


Post by: Future War Cultist


For me it’s got to be the Centurion.



Probably one of the best tanks ever made. Possibly the first MBT? And it certainly lasted a long time, in different guises at least.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 17:00:37


Post by: Alpharius


I'm enjoying a lot of this, but given that the topic is "Your favorite tank and why", there's really no reason to shred someone's choice.

Having said that, I am enjoying the tank history lessons!

Just keep in mind that there really isn't a wrong answer to the OP's Question.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 17:09:22


Post by: ThunderCracker


 Future War Cultist wrote:
For me it’s got to be the Centurion.



Probably one of the best tanks ever made. Possibly the first MBT? And it certainly lasted a long time, in different guises at least.


I'd second that. A superb tank with a great pedigree. If only it had been introduced during the war. It would have given any tank fielded a run for its money, I believe.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 17:41:49


Post by: Lone Cat


 Ouze wrote:
I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan
Spoiler:

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.



Yet others did consider this similar concepts. while this thing might do the same thing MBT does (or... to many, believed that it will replace MBTs completely), Are you sure that this thing will supplant the real MBTs?
Armored cars with big guns did exists even in the early days of mechanized warfare itself. in Wonder Woman (2017 movie), Imperial German Army did have one AC armed with 37mm / 5cm cannon. and WW2 Germany also designed an 8-wheel AC with 50 or 75 mm main gun. which can still fights tanks, but not THAT good (comparable to light tanks which, even in 1944-45 hadn't been removed entirely).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 17:56:03


Post by: Ouze


 Lone Cat wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan
Spoiler:

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.



Yet others did consider this similar concepts. while this thing might do the same thing MBT does (or... to many, believed that it will replace MBTs completely), Are you sure that this thing will supplant the real MBTs?


Spoiler:


I didn't say no one had considered the idea. I also didn't say that I thought it would replace MBTs. I don't think anyone said either of those things.

I think it's a tank destroyer and won't replace a MBT any more than older tank destroyers did, but as I said from my post I am totally unqualified to opine about anything other than how awesome it looks. I'm sure someone else ITT would know the answer though.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 17:57:40


Post by: ThunderCracker



Another of my favourite tanks is the British Medium Mark A Whippet, of WW1 vintage.

A strange looking beast, armed with machine guns. A top speed of 8.3mph (13.4ph) is very slow by today's standards, but was fast for the time. Especially since the British tank MK IV tank could only manage half that.

A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.


[Thumb - whippet bov.jpg]


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 18:00:59


Post by: Ouze


ThunderCracker wrote:
A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.


So pretty much the last scene of Fury, but times 7.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 18:06:49


Post by: Alpharius


 Ouze wrote:


I think it's a tank destroyer and won't replace a MBT any more than older tank destroyers did, but as I said from my post I am totally unqualified to opine about anything other than how awesome it looks.


As noted previously, ITT, that's all we need!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 18:55:30


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I adore the type 16, it'd a cool one. Nothing like an 105mm APFSDS and HEATFS loading gun on a vehicle going 60 mph.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 18:55:35


Post by: jhe90


Thr plans to make a WW1 APC seemed creative, and forward thinking..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IX_tank

Brutish, simple but seems a solid idea. Carries 30 men into battle with armour vs light arms fire, ports for rifle fire and could carry a limited amount of ammo or supplies.

Add a option to be a potential armoured ambulance and brave into machine gun fore a medic could not.

Though not advanced the first ever APC of modern age.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 18:55:37


Post by: TheCustomLime


 sebster wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.


I agree having that crew training is really important, and want to repeat again that circumstance matters a lot as well (when you are in hull down, watch the enemy come towards you and so you can pick when you fire... that advantage is a much bigger deal than marginally higher AP at x yards or optics or anything like that).

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about the Panther's effectiveness, when it typically had very well trained and battle hardened crews, then turn around and excuse poor performances because the crew at those times wasn't as well trained.



As the Panther existed during the war you have a point. You can build the best tank ever (not the saying the Panther is) but if you crew it with conscripts it is not going to matter much against an enemy with well trained tankers. I wish I had more statistics of Panther performance when operated by quality such as the Panzer Lehr division but alas I can only speculate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.


The Panther had a better gun and armour than the T-34 and Sherman 75mm. You'd hope so, it weighed more than 50% more than either of those designs.

The problem for the Panther comes when you see the Allied response, the 76mm Sherman and 85mm T-34 were both capable of taking out Panthers at normal combat ranges, and with Panthers being far heavier and more complex, ending up on par with those tanks was a terrible deal for the Germans. And while people try and dodge that by saying the upgunned Shermans and T-34s were variants... there were considerably more of each built than Panthers.

Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.

The Panther was still part of the bigger tank with bigger gun philosophy. To kill the 26 ton T-34 the Germans built the 44 ton Panther. It was actually the response to the Panther, sticking an 85mm gun on the T-34, or a 76mm gun on the Sherman, that was a decision in line with that MBT philosophy.



The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 19:11:02


Post by: Frazzled


The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Have you looked at their E series designs? These are also interesting in looking at German armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series
Their medium series to replace the Panther and Tiger II is interesting, if heavy at 50 to 75 tons.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 19:16:09


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Have you looked at their E series designs? These are also interesting in looking at German armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series
Their medium series to replace the Panther and Tiger II is interesting, if heavy at 50 to 75 tons.


Germans default answer was to make tanks heavier, more armoured and fit ever heavier main guns.

They had 128mm jag tigers, with close to a foot of frontal armour. They could kill a Shetland 4000m away, or through a barn.

They only lost due to reliability or inexperienced crews turning or getting flanked and instead OT taking hits on heaviest, they got hit on weaker side armour. It was perfectly capable of taking Sherman shots head on but crews did not have the experience and training of earlier crews.

In the hands of crews who had time to train, and had combat experience. The late war tanks probbly would have been extremely lethal (if they not break down!)


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 19:23:30


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Otto Carius describes how crew inexperience cost them jagdtigers. They had crew try to turn and run from an attack which exposed their rear, and crew that bailed as soon as they saw a column of allied tanks arriving instead of holding ground in a vehicle that was largely invulnerable in the short term - once they bring in air support and artillery it’s time to quit.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 19:30:26


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Otto Carius describes how crew inexperience cost them jagdtigers. They had crew try to turn and run from an attack which exposed their rear, and crew that bailed as soon as they saw a column of allied tanks arriving instead of holding ground in a vehicle that was largely invulnerable in the short term - once they bring in air support and artillery it’s time to quit.


Yeah, hull down somewhat, forward facing. There was no allied tank that could attack them head on at any real range. Only ones even close might be the likes of 17 pounder equiped designs and they would have to close. All while Germans are able to land hits at 2000+ metres if lucky and knock em out.

75/76mm AP was gonna be useless, the did stand a chance bar maybe like 1-1000 odds.

Good job for allies. In right hands they could likely fight 10-1 and do alot of damage with right ground.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 20:12:19


Post by: ThunderCracker


 Ouze wrote:
ThunderCracker wrote:
A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.


So pretty much the last scene of Fury, but times 7.


Yeah, except this actually happened

Infact, I know of no other instance of so many people being killed in one incident by so few tanks. I accept that more than this perished in epic confrontations such as Kursk, but, of course, that involved huge numbers of vehicles.

If anyone can enlighten me here, I would be interested to know.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 20:19:58


Post by: Frazzled


Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 20:46:43


Post by: LordofHats


 sebster wrote:
Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.


I think it's because on paper it had all the qualifications. I don't know if being part of the older design philosophy disqualifies it. Every innovation begins as a piece of what is already established. The T-44 was also designed in that era but clearly qualifies as an MBT. On paper the Panther had excellent armor, excellent speed and mobility, a strong gun. Just going by it's specs it could reasonably have replaced the entire stock of German armored vehicles and done all their jobs itself. On paper.

A better term than "first" though I think would be "forerunner." A glimpse of things to come rather than the thing to come itself. I'd argue that the T-34 and the Centurion also fill this role. The former gets overlooked because it was very clearly part of the light-medium-heavy era and typical of it but when you break down the T-34 by performance it does everything you want an MBT to do. I don't think it's accurate to gauge this is a matter of design philosophy for the weapons platform itself. MBT is a doctrinal development first, and a design philosophy second. The abandoning of the light-medium-heavy dynamic of tank design goes hand in hand with the doctrine advancements and lessons learned in combat. Where light tanks were practically target practice and far more limited in role than expected. Where heavy tanks kept being beaten by slapping a bigger gun on whatever wanted to shoot it, creating a hopeless design loop of up-gun and up--armor that no one could keep up with from a production and development stance. Meanwhile while heavies were caught in an arms race and lights were being scaled back in role, mediums ended up being the workhorses for all armies involved because their performance-cost-kill ratios were just better on the whole. They ended up doing everything from fire-support, assault, exploitation, and mobile defense which in hindsight only begged the quation "why do we have these other tanks?"

The design philosophy was altered to adhered to learned realities and changes in how tanks were employed on the field, but tanks were already being employed in those roles on the field even before doctrine began to codify that reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:


They only lost due to reliability or inexperienced crews turning or getting flanked and instead OT taking hits on heaviest, they got hit on weaker side armour. It was perfectly capable of taking Sherman shots head on but crews did not have the experience and training of earlier crews.


I think this is a common thing people think that makes little sense in the realities of the war.

Germany was outgunned, outmanned, and outproduced on all fronts. They could make tanks as heavy, armored, and gunned as they wanted. In the sort of words of a captured soldier "I ran out of ammo before you ran out of tanks." The Jadgtiger was a fearsome weapon, but one that was so easily circumvented it only qualified as a threat over the horizon. Once it's location was identified, it didn't have the mobility to avoid being flanked, shelled by artillery, or bombed by planes. Germany could never have produced such a thing in large number, making it even more "flash with no thunder."

In a way it was the only choice for Germany. They couldn't out build their foes by any measure. They focused on trying to build better tanks that could outlast their enemy, but the numbers were just to great. They were undone by the limitations of population, industry, and geography with all the design errors, badly trained crews, and lack of gas simply being symptoms of the real problem; After things reached a certain point, Germany had no chance of winning at the game of industrialized warfare. Fighting was just delaying the inevitable, and the enemies closing in had decided that conditional surrender was unacceptable.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 20:59:49


Post by: Frazzled


Good points. On that basis you would really have to argue the first intentional MBT was the T55. The IS series had fallen out of favor at that time.

Centurion had the Conqueror, but later became the defacto MBT
M48 had the M103 but also became the defacto MBT, especially with the incurrence of the M60.

Speaking of cool. The ultimate Sherman tank, with a French 105mm on it.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 21:03:51


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 21:12:57


Post by: TheCustomLime


Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.



Also the Easy Eight. Absolutely beautiful tank with its HVSS suspension and long 76mm cannon.





Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 21:30:09


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


I'm sure Audie Murphy was a wrecked tank destroyer.not tank exactly if your being super detailed.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 21:38:10


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Yes it was an M-10 but in the movie To Hell and Back they used a Sherman!

Short but good interview with Audie Murphy here (don’t want to go too far off topic) in which he describes his most memorable moment of the war. Worth listening too.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 21:40:41


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes it was an M-10 but in the movie To Hell and Back they used a Sherman!

https://youtu.be/wF1F1kRTpWE


They even toned down the film lol.
He thought if they did it exactly to truth It would be unbelievable, his exploits, and his heroism.

Though it takes somthing that extreme to get a medal of honour.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 22:41:13


Post by: notprop


The Churchill Tank and the many derivatives especially the late Mark funnies.

A tank that finally meet most of the troops requests from 1939/40s battles (namely you could survive and manoeuvre well) allied to the leaderships desire for Infantry Tanks. Never quite up todate but never completely outclassed. So ugly it’s sexy.

The Crocodile and the Avre variants are just mind bogglingly clever and really show the versatility of the hull.

When the going got tough they sent in the Churchill, either taking punishment but making gains, cracking entrenched positions or scaring the fight out of the enemy without risking Allied troops. Truely a life saving vehicle.

So popular with British and US formations that they couldn’t convert Mk7+ to Crocodiles quick enough.

I’ll stick my neck out and suggest it was a vital but overshadowed tool in wining the Second World War.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 22:41:28


Post by: Frazzled


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


Your grandpa could be right! They did have two formations of them in Italy, and the description of how they would shoot and back into a tunnel sounds exactly like a film review of the Elephant on youtube of what they did in Italy. Also, the Allies were successful in knocking several out like that there. I think there is a pic of one knocked out in that manner knocking about on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.




They have a working Hetzer at Camp Mabry. I got inside it for a sec, that thing is CRAMPED inside. the turret on the M4 I was in felt like the same amount of space as the whole Hetzer.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/13 23:04:44


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


Your grandpa could be right! They did have two formations of them in Italy, and the description of how they would shoot and back into a tunnel sounds exactly like a film review of the Elephant on youtube of what they did in Italy. Also, the Allies were successful in knocking several out like that there. I think there is a pic of one knocked out in that manner knocking about on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.




They have a working Hetzer at Camp Mabry. I got inside it for a sec, that thing is CRAMPED inside. the turret on the M4 I was in felt like the same amount of space as the whole Hetzer.



Shooting, back from a tunnel to reload. Sounds very much like tactic used by the Raul guns that fired at anzio. Etx. They ducked into tunnels to reload for cover and harassed the Allies for days on end with there range beyond any allied counter battery fore.

Very efficient when you have lost air supority and not always got advantage.

Also yeah. The Hertzer was a real hitting above weight tank. Reliable, easy to use. Build, cheap and effective.

They where ideal for the battles the Germans faced regularly later war.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 01:46:34


Post by: sebster


 TheCustomLime wrote:
As the Panther existed during the war you have a point. You can build the best tank ever (not the saying the Panther is) but if you crew it with conscripts it is not going to matter much against an enemy with well trained tankers. I wish I had more statistics of Panther performance when operated by quality such as the Panzer Lehr division but alas I can only speculate.


I don't have any figures for direct performance of Panther within Panzer Lehr or Grossdeutschland, and I doubt such stats exist. But given the incredible combat performance of those elite units it is safe to say the Panther played a significant role. It wasn't just training, the Panther had everything you want for taking on enemy tanks and blowing them up.

But what I'm saying is that isn't all you judge a tank on. Apart from some pretty limited counter-offensices, it's ultimately all the Germans could use their tanks for from roughly Kursk onwards, but if the war was very different and the Panther was looked on to make the kind of freewheeling exploitation operations that is a key part of the role of a medium tank, that was the reason the Germans took France and advanced across most of Russia, then the Panther would have been found more than a little wanting.

The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.


The Germans did a lot of good work getting every bit of performance they could out of the Panzer IV, the 75mm gun they managed to get on it was pretty good, all things considered, and the SPG variants gave great service as well.

But the Germans started the Panther with a notion of a 30 ton tank. Remember at that time they weren't aware that they were about to spend the rest of the war on the defensive. Sticking to 30 tons, with a focus on something able to take the long 75mm gun they put on the Panther, or at least something very close, that would would have given the Germans a true medium tank that maintained real tank killing power, much like where the Allies went with the upgrades to the Sherman and T-34.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Damn straight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
I think it's because on paper it had all the qualifications. I don't know if being part of the older design philosophy disqualifies it. Every innovation begins as a piece of what is already established. The T-44 was also designed in that era but clearly qualifies as an MBT. On paper the Panther had excellent armor, excellent speed and mobility, a strong gun. Just going by it's specs it could reasonably have replaced the entire stock of German armored vehicles and done all their jobs itself. On paper.


But the Panther had limited operational range, even on paper without the mechanical issues, and a crappy HE round. It wasn't an all-around tank as it couldn't perform the exploitation role. It was focused on tank killing.

MBT is a doctrinal development first, and a design philosophy second. The abandoning of the light-medium-heavy dynamic of tank design goes hand in hand with the doctrine advancements and lessons learned in combat. Where light tanks were practically target practice and far more limited in role than expected. Where heavy tanks kept being beaten by slapping a bigger gun on whatever wanted to shoot it, creating a hopeless design loop of up-gun and up--armor that no one could keep up with from a production and development stance. Meanwhile while heavies were caught in an arms race and lights were being scaled back in role, mediums ended up being the workhorses for all armies involved because their performance-cost-kill ratios were just better on the whole. They ended up doing everything from fire-support, assault, exploitation, and mobile defense which in hindsight only begged the quation "why do we have these other tanks?"


Sure, I agree with all that. My point, though, was that instead of being the first MBT or even the forerunner, the Panther was one of the missteps along the way to reaching the end stage MBT design. It was an entry in the overall concept of pushing weight to the limits to try and produce a tank that no enemy gun could penetrate at normal combat ranges. That it did this while maintaining speed was an impressive engineering feat. But the fact the allies just responded by upgunning their existing (much lighter) tanks showed the design philosophy of the Panther was a step in the wrong direction.

The Jadgtiger was a fearsome weapon, but one that was so easily circumvented it only qualified as a threat over the horizon. Once it's location was identified, it didn't have the mobility to avoid being flanked, shelled by artillery, or bombed by planes. Germany could never have produced such a thing in large number, making it even more "flash with no thunder."


Yep, no frontal armour will ever be so thick, no main gun so huge that it can stop an infantry team moving to the tank's flank and popping it with a bazooka. Or simply holding back and calling in artillery.

Really, the Jadgtiger makes us wargamers smile because of its so cool, but as a weapon of war it was a terrible choice. Even given Germany's extreme circumstances it made little sense. Really, its just another example of how Germany's war industry declined in to mad scientist buffoonery by the end of the war. Another example is the German program to build a bomber that could reach New York - it was ended when Russians overran the factory. There were Russians marching on all fronts - a bomber that can reach New York should not be a priority.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 07:45:36


Post by: LordofHats


 sebster wrote:
But the fact the allies just responded by upgunning their existing (much lighter) tanks showed the design philosophy of the Panther was a step in the wrong direction.


I guess I just don't consider that relevant. Missteps happen in developing ideas. The first tank destroyers produced by the US military were just half tracks with 76mm guns stapled to the decks. They were horrendously flawed in all kinds of ways, but they still ended up signaling the coming irrelevancy of hauled anti-tank guns because as flawed as they were they were the predecessors of later more successful weapons like the M10 and M18. Hell even the tank destroyer concept was flawed by its very nature in the long run, but that doesn't change that when you take McNair's TD doctrine and put it in the air you get the A10 Warthog and the Apache Attack Helicopter, which succeed(ed) in their roles and time.

Really, the Jadgtiger makes us wargamers smile because of its so cool, but as a weapon of war it was a terrible choice.


Yep. Rule of cool. Though I'll say they were pretty damn effective in Company of Heroes: Blitzkrieg Mod, cause once you started spamming tanks in that infantry became useless and whoever had the meanest tank won


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 08:59:32


Post by: sebster


 LordofHats wrote:
I guess I just don't consider that relevant. Missteps happen in developing ideas. The first tank destroyers produced by the US military were just half tracks with 76mm guns stapled to the decks. They were horrendously flawed in all kinds of ways, but they still ended up signaling the coming irrelevancy of hauled anti-tank guns because as flawed as they were they were the predecessors of later more successful weapons like the M10 and M18. Hell even the tank destroyer concept was flawed by its very nature in the long run, but that doesn't change that when you take McNair's TD doctrine and put it in the air you get the A10 Warthog and the Apache Attack Helicopter, which succeed(ed) in their roles and time.


I think we're maybe talking at cross purposes here. I think you're saying the technical specs of the Panther, the speed the tank was capable of despite its weight, gun and armour, that showed what was possible and where tank design would go? So in terms of technical specs it was a move towards the MBT? Because I don't disagree with that, its just we're looking at the question from different angles.

Because to me I look at that question as one of intent and design. The Panther was built with a focus on killing enemy tanks, and loaded with armour in the belief that it could be made resistant to enemy AT guns. That's the opposite of MBT design, I think. So in terms of the move down the path that led to the MBT doctrine, the Panther was a step in the wrong direction. Whereas the upgunned Shermans and T-34s built in response, while they weren't MBT, the concepts behind those tanks were steps towards MBT.

Yep. Rule of cool. Though I'll say they were pretty damn effective in Company of Heroes: Blitzkrieg Mod, cause once you started spamming tanks in that infantry became useless and whoever had the meanest tank won


A friend and I were talking about Bolt Action, we both played but had never played each other. He was commenting how it was weird in Bolt Action that the Sherman was a better tank than most German tanks, because the Sherman had a special rule to give it a better HE round, which was mre useful than the high AP of German guns because Bolt Action is mostly an infantry game. When he asked why I was smiling, I said it was because the Sherman actually was a better tank than most German tanks, because WWII was mostly an infantry war


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 09:22:33


Post by: TheCustomLime


Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 14:26:30


Post by: ThunderCracker


I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 15:54:41


Post by: TheMeanDM


You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Did the T-34 win the Russian front?

Did the Iowa class battleships win the Pacific?

Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 16:05:56


Post by: ChargerIIC


 ThunderCracker wrote:
I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.


Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war. Hell the firefly would be pretty low on the list as it was pretty damn late to the war and fared horribly against german heavy tanks - the M10 tank destroyer massively outperformed it despite the almost complete lack of armor.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 16:18:16


Post by: cuda1179


There was a story I read once about a Sherman crew in the Pacific in WWII. They considered their tank lucky because it always used less fuel and never broke down. Then one day they got point blanked by a small anti tank rifle. It should never have penetrated the armor, but it did, barely. No one was hurts but something was up with their tank. On further inspection they found out that somehow the manufacturer shipped a low-armor "trainer" or testbed version. The army wanted to give them a proper tank, but they refused. The armor they had was sufficient as the Japanese had few anti armor weapons and they were still rifle proof.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 16:22:58


Post by: ThunderCracker


@ChargerIIC;

For some reason, I can't quote what you said.

Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better IMHO.

Think about it laterally for a moment.

As for the M10 outperforming the Firefly; you're dreaming. I believe that the M10 MAY have killed more German tanks simply because there were MORE M10s than fireflies. The M10 was in no way a superior vehicle.

...and in what way did the Firefly perform "horribly" against heavy German armour? Certainly no more "horribly" then the stock Sherman did. And the superb British 17pdr gun made the humble Sherman a real heavy killer. A Firefly, as I mentioned, Knocked out the renowned German Tank Ace Michael Wittman's Tiger, killing him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TheMeanDM;

I can't seem to quote you either.

However; don't take what I said literally. Of course no single weapon won the war.

The point was making that, despite their quality, German tanks were far too complicated. The Germans simply could not SIMPLIFY. Had they done so, they might have done better.

For this reason, I don't think the German tanks deserve their reputation. If anything, they helped in handing victory to the ALLIES


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 16:49:15


Post by: jhe90


 ThunderCracker wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Did the T-34 win the Russian front?

Did the Iowa class battleships win the Pacific?

Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.


I think you're taking what I said a little too literally. My statement was hyperbole, to make a point. Of course, no single weapon won the war.

My point, in a nutshell, was that the German tanks were just not as good as people keep saying they were / are, for the reasons I outlined.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
 ThunderCracker wrote:
I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.


Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war. Hell the firefly would be pretty low on the list as it was pretty damn late to the war and fared horribly against german heavy tanks - the M10 tank destroyer massively outperformed it despite the almost complete lack of armor.


Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better IMHO.

Think about it laterally for a moment.

As for the M10 outperforming the Firefly; you're dreaming. I believe that the M10 MAY have killed more German tanks simply because there were MORE M10s than fireflies. The M10 was in no way a superior vehicle.

...and in what way did the Firefly perform "horribly" against heavy German armour? Certainly no more "horribly" then the stock Sherman did. And the superb British 17pdr gun made the humble Sherman a real heavy killer. A Firefly, as I mentioned, Knocked out the renowned German Tank Ace Michael Wittman's Tiger, killing him.


The British 17 ponder was a great AT gun. It gave the sherman the punch it needed to threaten heavy German tanks from real ranges.

The sherman was never designed to take the fire flies main gun though, it was a bodge yes, but a very effective one. It was a great idea. THere was a ton of crews who could repair, mantain and spares for Shermans, its required little of new infrastructure and needed less retooling than a new tank.

at the time, it was not operfect but it was one of the best ideas at the time and was a efichant way to get a mobile 17 pounder gun into a tank.

Had it dragged on the heavier armoured and bigger Black Prince would have come along to, 17 pounder, on a expanded churchilll tank,.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 17:50:02


Post by: Iron_Captain


 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 20:19:34


Post by: ThunderCracker


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 20:29:49


Post by: jhe90


 ThunderCracker wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.

The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 20:32:10


Post by: TheCustomLime


By the end of the war the Panzer IV had reached the limits the chassis could provide. The Germans attempted to further upgun the Panzer IV with the Panther's main gun but even with just mating a Panther turret to a Panzer IV chassis it proved unsuccessful. The Ausf. H was the peak of the Panzer IV's potential and I believe the Germans knew it. Credit where credit is due they did a good job of upgrading a pre-war chassis and keeping it viable until the very end. That is why they tried replacing it with the Panther and later the E-series of tanks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 20:47:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


Here is a thought experiment.

If the Germans had had the design for the T34, but could only manufacture 1,500 tanks a year, while the Russians had had the design for the Pz III, but could manufacture 15,000 a year, would it have have helped the Germans to win the war?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 20:57:26


Post by: gnome_idea_what


The T-34 is an iconic tank that, while far from perfect, ended up defining the eastern front anyway. As far as fictional tanks go the Hammerhead looks like the platonic ideal of a sci-fi hovertank, while the Baneblade is the Baneblade.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 21:59:07


Post by: Gen. Lee Losing


I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.


It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:03:29


Post by: cuda1179


The T-34 was a decent enough tank for the task it had to do. However, I also believe it was the most over-hyped tank in history. Soviet crews that had the option to upgrade from a T-34 to a US-provided Sherman jumped on the chance and much preferred them.

Much is made about how well the T-34 handled terrain compared to the Sherman. It did handle mud and snow better, but the Sherman was better at rubble, rocks, and logs.

The Sherman had much better armor. Add into this that the T-34 had really crappy tracks that broke often, and a cruddy transmission that needed a hammer to shift into high gear.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:20:39


Post by: TheMeanDM


 jhe90 wrote:
 ThunderCracker wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.

The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.


Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.

August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.

August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.

9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:30:59


Post by: feeder


 TheMeanDM wrote:
Spoiler:
 jhe90 wrote:
 ThunderCracker wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.

The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.


Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.

August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.

August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.

9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


Firebombing did more damage and killed more people. Japan was fethed, no matter what. Dropping the A-bomb was flexing a warning at Stalin.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC, you ask?

Since Ouze stole my Hind D flying tank thunder, I'll have to go with the this epic fictional killing machine:



That's right, an Imperial Commissar riding a Leman Russ.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:36:32


Post by: TheCustomLime


Ah, the Leman Russ. It's stupidly designed and impractical in every sense of the word. But it's also fething badass.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:36:56


Post by: jhe90


 feeder wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
Spoiler:
 jhe90 wrote:
 ThunderCracker wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.

The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.


Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.

August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.

August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.

9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


Firebombing did more damage and killed more people. Japan was fethed, no matter what. Dropping the A-bomb was flexing a warning at Stalin.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC, you ask?

Since Ouze stole my Hind D flying tank thunder, I'll have to go with the this epic fictional killing machine:



That's right, an Imperial Commissar riding a Leman Russ.


Slightly off topic.

They caused 95% damage to some cities in Japan with fire raids. In matter of days.

They reduced entire cities to Ash and Japan did not surender.

There where battleships exacting fire missions on there home coastline and they did not give in.

The US had driven them back to the last lines of defense. The military officers had no desire or will to surender. They had been fighting for years ceaselessly without wavoring despite the loss of fleet, driven back to last islands. They never surrendered.

Minus thr nukee. There was no surender.

Oh...

Leman Russ is cool but its not quite as cool as a bane blade, aka a a mobile building/bunker on tracks.

Plus shadowsword... Hell hammers, storm swords... So many variety of awesome.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:40:19


Post by: XuQishi


9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.

I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.

Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better


It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes. There's no way in which 60 million people with a few not-so-great-at-fighting vassal states can fight half the world and win. To win, this was all too late, IMHO it would have needed Operation Sea Lion to succeed to have a chance at all.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 22:52:14


Post by: jhe90


XuQishi wrote:
9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.

I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.

Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better


It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes. There's no way in which 60 million people with a few not-so-great-at-fighting vassal states can fight half the world and win. To win, this was all too late, IMHO it would have needed Operation Sea Lion to succeed to have a chance at all.


Japan surender was against every military code though, they had no apcepetence of the concept. It was to fight or die. Period.

Japan interestingly did develop some OK tanks in the end. The early ones where pretty light and not ideal for tank on tank warfare, more heavy anti infriantry weapons.

Later ones became tank killers though and late war prototypes.
Rarely ever seen...

Ans yeah. Germany was trying to make Nukes... Trying rather slowly and they lost resources and heavy water. However Germans where determined when given a coal and they would of tried to build a working nuke.

Short of that, out of spite, of they had nuclear material. They could make dirty bombs.

.

Yes, take out UK mainland and.. Maybe.. There's now no staging posts so close to Europe... But even that's a big maybe.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 23:17:28


Post by: soundwave591


XuQishi wrote:
9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.

I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.

Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better


It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes


they were no where near making nuclear weapons, Hitler had diverted that research to rockets.
also its also important to remember Japan had started a 2 front war with Russia's invasion of manchuria 6 days before the Japanese surrendered



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 23:25:06


Post by: Alpharius


Important also to note the actual topic of this thread, please!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 23:33:47


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.


It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!


Some FT-17s were recovered from Afghanistan in the early 2000s, they’d made their way there through the hands of several countries. They were in regular use through the 50s and apparently one was still running into the 80s!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/14 23:57:09


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.


It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!


Some FT-17s were recovered from Afghanistan in the early 2000s, they’d made their way there through the hands of several countries. They were in regular use through the 50s and apparently one was still running into the 80s!


Here's an article covering that, from a fantastic site.

Though a FT-17 in modern use would suck. I suppose instead of that specific vehicle it may be more practical to ask if something with a similar layout and armament would be feasible.

Probably also no. All that vehicle for a HMG is a waste, especially considering that much lighter vehicles can mount them, or larger ones use them as secondary weapons systems. I suppose looking at it, it could be an equivalent to the BRDM-2, though even that's being pushed out of service at this point.

You'd be at the point of replacing the gun and sights, thickening the armour, giving it some tertiary armour like ERA, and boosting the engine. At that stage that's a Scimitar recce vehicle. Then you'd look at it and wonder that for less price you could have a Toyota Hilux with a ZU-23-2 on the back and some bolted on armour. APCs these days have comparable armaments to that thing, and that's the crappy ones (the world's moved to IFVs for transporting troops, which looking at the Russian BMP-3 are armed like light tanks at this point).

Meanwhile we're in a world where Drones exist. The role of a small, light, but heavily armed vehicle can be fulfilled by them. Either completely lightly armoured and mounting some form of HMG, or built more like an autonomous tank (ah, besides youknow, real remote controlled tanks like the Russian Armata). I'd give the Russian Uran-9 drone as an example of the latter.



(Which you can also buy in 28mm these days for wargaming ).




Wyrmalla, the fun spoiler!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 00:36:23


Post by: Future War Cultist


Who here remembers a game from the original PlayStation era called Steel Reign?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 01:05:30


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Lone Cat wrote:


some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?


Free French Army.

I'll have to say, I do have a favorite tank, not because it was good, but because of what it meant.



Nuts.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 02:09:48


Post by: sebster


 TheCustomLime wrote:
Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.


Except the casualties among US armour was about 3%, with half being suffered while the crew was voluntarily outside of the tank.

Casualties among German armour divisions don't have figures as reliable, but it was at least more than ten times as high.

Its great having a high velocity AT gun, but when the other side has ten times as many tanks, half of which can pop your armour as easily as you can pop theres, and he's also got infantry with radios capable of calling down artillery and airstrikes directly on your position... then yeah the misfortune was all with the Germans.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 02:24:28


Post by: TheCustomLime


 sebster wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.


Except the casualties among US armour was about 3%, with half being suffered while the crew was voluntarily outside of the tank.

Casualties among German armour divisions don't have figures as reliable, but it was at least more than ten times as high.

Its great having a high velocity AT gun, but when the other side has ten times as many tanks, half of which can pop your armour as easily as you can pop theres, and he's also got infantry with radios capable of calling down artillery and airstrikes directly on your position... then yeah the misfortune was all with the Germans.


Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 02:37:18


Post by: sebster


 ThunderCracker wrote:
I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.


Yep. What is most amazing about this whole debate is that when people talk about how great German tanks were, they talk about Tigers and Panthers. They don't talk about Panzer III & IV. Now, Panzer III and IV weren't great tanks, but they're the tanks that swept across France and reached the outskirts of Moscow. The Tiger and the Panther, they're the tanks of Germany's long, slow defeat. For all their specifications, the best the Tiger and Panther offered in the field was to make some Allied victories quite costly. As tanks built to do the tank thing, that is breakthrough enemy lines and run havoc through the enemy rear and collapse the whole line, the Panther and Tiger never had a single success between. On the rare occasion they tried such operations, Kursk and the Bulge, the operations were disastrous for the Germans.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.


Always with the Firefly. Seriously, it wasn't all that. I mean yes, the Sherman was good, and the 17pdr was good, but fitting the 17pdr on the Sherman came with problems (to reduce recoil they had to add a muzzle break, and then fired SABOT rounds... and then the SABOT discards and clips the muzzle break). It didn't make it a bad tank, but it was an issue the US 76mm didn't have. The big plus for the Firefly was it was there in Normandy, while the 76mm wasn't because US commanders didn't think them necessary. After Normandy the 76mm was the better option, but because so much of the war is focused on Normandy...

And while the 17pdr was a deadly gun, calling it equal to the 88mm is an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that the later Allied guns (be they 17pdr, US 76mm, or Soviet 85mm) were basically as effective as the German 88mm in most normal situations just because the deadly range of all those guns was longer than the normal range of combat, but in some select circumstances the 88mm was still more effective (such as extreme range). For a gun as good as the 88mm you have to go to the US 90mm, which in WWII was only mounted on the M36.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.


The Germans did a great job upgrading the Panzer IV, but those upgrades reached a natural end. There's only so much you can do to increase firepower and armour on a chassis before you have to go back to first design principles. The problem, really, was that when Germany started with their replacement design, a slightly heavier, modernised tank at around 30 tons... they ended up mission creeping all the way up to the 44 ton Panther.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.


Sure, war is fought by whole armies and not individual weapon platforms. The overall strategic situation and the doctrine in which the platform is used is just as important as the actual weapon itself. However, with the Tiger and the Panther it wasn't just that they were on the losing side, the two tanks were involved in almost no significant offensive successes at all. The Tiger was a part of some successful offensives in the African sideshow, but that's about it for both tanks. Everywhere else their success was in fighting retreats. Again, a lot of that was due to events outside of the tanks themselves, but it is a significant mark against both machines.

And the reason why is simple. Heavier designs with reliability problems aren't very good at breakthrough/exploitation operations. And both tanks lacked decent HE rounds, and Germany had very limited mobile artillery. This meant that as seen in battles such as Bastogne, the Germans had real problems dislodging determined, dug in infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war.


The T-34 wasn't a stop gap. What? The T-34 was built as a workhorse tank intended to breakthrough enemy positions and exploit the breakthrough with deep operations. Which was a role it remained in from the start of the war to the end.

Nor did it stem the tide of superior German models - when the Russians and Germans fought the T-34 was by far the best tank on the field. The only thing that beat the T-34 in any area was the better armoured KV series, which were also Russian.

Germany only claimed 'superior' tanks when it deployed heavier tanks specifically designed to counter the T-34. And it only deployed them in time to start constantly losing everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
There was a story I read once about a Sherman crew in the Pacific in WWII. They considered their tank lucky because it always used less fuel and never broke down. Then one day they got point blanked by a small anti tank rifle. It should never have penetrated the armor, but it did, barely. No one was hurts but something was up with their tank. On further inspection they found out that somehow the manufacturer shipped a low-armor "trainer" or testbed version. The army wanted to give them a proper tank, but they refused. The armor they had was sufficient as the Japanese had few anti armor weapons and they were still rifle proof.


I guess its possible that both a British tank crew and a US tank crew were both given training tanks by mistake, both found out when hit by small AT weapons, and both chose to keep their 'lucky' tanks. But I think it's more likely that this event, which a British Crusader tank commander wrote about in his memoir, has been 'borrowed' by the US and turned in to a Pacific story.

I can get the name of the memoir if you're interested. It's a cracking good read outside of that one story, as well.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 03:04:18


Post by: cuda1179


There were only 3 times after D-Day that US tanks (of any kind) fought a Tiger. The first was 5 Shermans vs 2 Tigers, and the Shermans kicked but with no casualties. The second was a Patton swapping hits with a Tiger before the Tiger got a lucky shot in. The Third was a bunch of Shermans shooting unmanned Tigers loaded onto a train, so that one doesn't really count.

Against the Panzer 3 and 4, the Sherman was by far the better tank. Even the smaller 75mm gun was more than enough to take them out.

German tanks were nice when they worked, but it's like Germans put no thought into ease of maintenance. If I remember correctly the time it took to change a transmission on a Panther was 8 days in a field workshop equipped with a crane, towing vehicle, and 8 guys. Changing a transmission in a Sherman was 2 hours with hand tools for 2 men wherever the tank broke down.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 03:26:11


Post by: sebster


 cuda1179 wrote:
The T-34 was a decent enough tank for the task it had to do. However, I also believe it was the most over-hyped tank in history. Soviet crews that had the option to upgrade from a T-34 to a US-provided Sherman jumped on the chance and much preferred them.


Which says something about the qualities of the Sherman, not the failures of the T-34. You're comparing tanks #1 and #2 in the war. It's like saying people would rather have Usain Bolt race for them, therefore Tyson Gay isn't very good.

Add into this that the T-34 had really crappy tracks that broke often, and a cruddy transmission that needed a hammer to shift into high gear.


That was the KV tanks, which had chronic transmission issues. However, there was a lot of rougher finishing on the T-34, that is true. But there's a fair question to be had about exactly how you consider that issue. One the on hand, none of those issues were inherent to the design itself, built with the skill of German workers the T-34s would have been far better refined. So looking at the design in abstract maybe it shouldn't be considered?

Or if you want to look at the tanks that actually reached the field, including the low manufacturing standards, then you also have to credit the T-34 for being such a simple, robust design that Soviet Russia, which was an agricultural backwater ravaged by Civil War just a generation before, managed to outproduce a Nazi empire that had just about the entire manufacturing base of continental Europe behind it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.

August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.

August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.

9 days.

The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.


The atomic bomb played a massive part, definitely. But people dismiss the impact of Russia's declaration of war and their immediate invasion. August 8 Russia declares war. 7 days later Japan surrenders, and by that time Russia has cut through the Japanese so fast... you know North Korea - that's the part of the Japanese Empire that Russia was able to take in just 7 days. It was a hot knife through butter.

Thing is, the atomic bombs were a huge impact as it showed Japan couldn't withstand the bombing indefinitely. But also very important was that up until the Soviet operation, the Japanese were still holding on the dream that a negotiation might let them keep a large chunk of their Chinese holdings. Russia showed that a complete collapse of their position in China wasn't just inevitable, it was now inevitable within weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
XuQishi wrote:
I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.


This is a myth, born largely by people losing the historical context of the war, and seeing it instead through the Cold War understanding that followed.

At the time, the atomic bomb wasn't seen as a uniquely different weapon. It was more powerful, of course, but cities were being demolished regularly with conventional bombing. By 1945 had come to see the loss of whole divisions of men as a daily occurrence. In that environment, any leader given a new, extremely powerful weapon is going to use it. In fact, I doubt many world leaders would even realise 'should I use this new weapon' was even a question that could be asked. Once you get numb to signing off on offensives with expected casualties of 10,000 or more, or an air campaign that might kill 100,000 civilians, you stop thinking about whether a new weapon might be seen in some new, horrible way in a generation or two. You just do what is needed to end the war.

Then a generation or two later, when the daily carnage of WWII is history, and everyone lives under MAD, then you start getting novel theories about the 'real' reason America dropped the bomb.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 03:45:49


Post by: GrandAdmiralPrawn


Baneblade for that excellent
CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
moment


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 03:47:03


Post by: LordofHats


 sebster wrote:
For a gun as good as the 88mm you have to go to the US 90mm, which in WWII was only mounted on the M36.


It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.


Indeed. There's lots of evidence that has led historians to believe that in many instances because of similar profiles from a distance Allies confused the Panzer IV with the Tiger inflating the laters reputation.

However, with the Tiger and the Panther it wasn't just that they were on the losing side, the two tanks were involved in almost no significant offensive successes at all.


As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 03:59:03


Post by: sebster


 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.


Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.

So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.

Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.

But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 04:16:00


Post by: TheCustomLime


 sebster wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.


Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.

So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.

Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.

But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.


And let's be honest, which contrived scenario was more common during the closing months of the war? Being a German tanker was a lot worse than being an American one during those days. Your big tanks constantly broke down, was always short on fuel and was constantly strafed by aircraft you could do little to stop. Not to mention the artillery barrages.




Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 04:31:05


Post by: sebster


 LordofHats wrote:
It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.


Yeah, it's why I left it out. The British also had a version of the 17pdr better suited to operating in a turret, I want to say 77mm HV?, that they mounted on their tanks. Basically it reduced the recoil, which meant it could operate in a standard turret, which meant no barrel break. So the British and US both had excellent designs just in time for there to be hardly any more war to fight.

As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.


Yep. There were a lot of errors at Kursk (when you make your attack so obvious that the enemy can invest in massive fieldworks and mines... maybe attack somewhere else), but its certainly true that the new wonder tank wasn't going to be what pulled Germany out of the mess.

Next time you see Panthers involved in an offensive operation is the Bulge, where they performed even worse because there Germany achieved surprise and managed the initial breakthrough of the front lines, but couldn't exploit that, because despite the surprise the massive advantage the allies had in mobility meant they could respond faster than the Germans could advance. Again, not entirely due to the limits of the German tanks (German logistics were lamentable in general)... but relying on such heavy tanks with limited anti-infantry effects was part of the issue.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 04:33:32


Post by: Frazzled


 sebster wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.


Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.

So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.

Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.

But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.

Debbie's scenario is not contrived, it's actual.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 04:35:32


Post by: sebster


 TheCustomLime wrote:
And let's be honest, which contrived scenario was more common during the closing months of the war? Being a German tanker was a lot worse than being an American one during those days. Your big tanks constantly broke down, was always short on fuel and was constantly strafed by aircraft you could do little to stop. Not to mention the artillery barrages.


Yep. So I guess there's two questions,
1) If a Sherman (any variant) was taking on a Panther over open ground, starting 1,000 yards away, which would you rather be in?
2) If you were to pick either a Sherman or a Panther and be in either army for the remainder of the war, or until you die, starting from D-Day, which would you rather?

First question its the Panther, easy answer. Second question the answer is Sherman, even more easily answered


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Debbie's scenario is not contrived, it's actual.


Debbie? Okay if I call you Brazzled?

Anyhow, they're both contrived in that they're deliberately chosen to show the strengths of each, in their best circumstance. Both happened, or at least things like them happened. The Germans did place tanks in position to ambush and destroy advancing allied armour from range, and did manage to do so fairly often. And the Allies did use artillery and air power to degrade German positions and prevent concentration of force, while isolating forward units and wiping them with overwhelming firepower.

And TheCustomLime recognised the latter was more common, so I think we all agree overall.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 13:33:02


Post by: Frazzled


Sorry typing from phone. Auto correct is brutal
Your scenario is very correct if things go right if they run into a prepared defense.

As the old joke went. Shoot a round at a noise. If you get accurate counterfire it's British. If you get lots of auto it's German. If nothing happens for two minutes and then artillery starts dropping on your position, it's GIs.

Just called me Bedazzled...


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 15:02:11


Post by: jhe90


 sebster wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.


Yeah, it's why I left it out. The British also had a version of the 17pdr better suited to operating in a turret, I want to say 77mm HV?, that they mounted on their tanks. Basically it reduced the recoil, which meant it could operate in a standard turret, which meant no barrel break. So the British and US both had excellent designs just in time for there to be hardly any more war to fight.

As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.


Yep. There were a lot of errors at Kursk (when you make your attack so obvious that the enemy can invest in massive fieldworks and mines... maybe attack somewhere else), but its certainly true that the new wonder tank wasn't going to be what pulled Germany out of the mess.

Next time you see Panthers involved in an offensive operation is the Bulge, where they performed even worse because there Germany achieved surprise and managed the initial breakthrough of the front lines, but couldn't exploit that, because despite the surprise the massive advantage the allies had in mobility meant they could respond faster than the Germans could advance. Again, not entirely due to the limits of the German tanks (German logistics were lamentable in general)... but relying on such heavy tanks with limited anti-infantry effects was part of the issue.


The fire fly -17 pounder was flipped on side, and they cut down parts of the recoiil system to make it work in a turret. It was as original form too large and did not have lengh to fully recoil.with modifications it could work, we had to adapt it to use in tanks.

It sacraficed a little power but it also greatly boosted the fore power of a Sherman to dent big cats the 76mm could not.

There was several later models like black Prince in the coming line had things dragged on. Heavier armour Churchill and other tanks upgraded and enlarged. With larger turrets to better mount the big 17 pound guns, more room for thr recoil and crews and thicker armour to fight the heavier enemy tanks and survive.

A blqck Prince would of had a extra maybe 40% to front and a turret and Hull better suited to carrying thr big guns.

In the works was also thr formidable centurion at the end..

Allied tanks where catching up.

Soviet wise a heavy stalin tank was coming with maybe a 100mm gun in 1945 that scared the allies.

The big cats where going to face a challenge later on.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 18:48:45


Post by: Frazzled


In late 1944 here is the list of vehicles that had realistic chances of dealing with Panthers and Tigers at decent ranges

Soviet:
*IS tank- lets blow that turrent right off Comrade
*KV/IS 155 - The first cat killer. Lets blow that turret off and send flying high so high, and also wipe out the company surrounding it.
*SU-85. a little aging but still can do the job.
*SU100. Oh yea, as they say on Forged in Fire, This...will KEEEL.
*T34/85. Not as good a punch as the 76mm/777/17 lber, but works.

US/British:
M10: 3 inch predecessor of the 76mm
M4/76mm: bang bang. Later studies support this over both the Firefly and T34/85 based on penetration, rate of fire and accuracy (overall, 17lber more penetrative but less accurate).
17lber Firefly. Not accurate at distant, but 500 yards or under, very lethal with that sabot round.
M36 Jackson. 90mm love comparable to the Tiger I's 88mm.
M18/bulldog. 76mm bang bang if you're ready to shoot and scoot fast.

Allied tanks coming into service last Qtr 1944/early 1945:
*Comet with the 77 (tweaked 17 lber).
*Pershing with 90mm.
*Pershing with 90mm long barrel equal to Tiger II's 88
*Centurion.
*Tortoise heavy heavy heavy assault tank. Britain's answer to all things German.
(The Brits got their act together and weren't messing around yowsa)
Did I miss any?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 20:49:54


Post by: jhe90


Bye bye Posty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
In late 1944 here is the list of vehicles that had realistic chances of dealing with Panthers and Tigers at decent ranges

Soviet:
*IS tank- lets blow that turrent right off Comrade
*KV/IS 155 - The first cat killer. Lets blow that turret off and send flying high so high, and also wipe out the company surrounding it.
*SU-85. a little aging but still can do the job.
*SU100. Oh yea, as they say on Forged in Fire, This...will KEEEL.
*T34/85. Not as good a punch as the 76mm/777/17 lber, but works.

US/British:
M10: 3 inch predecessor of the 76mm
M4/76mm: bang bang. Later studies support this over both the Firefly and T34/85 based on penetration, rate of fire and accuracy (overall, 17lber more penetrative but less accurate).
17lber Firefly. Not accurate at distant, but 500 yards or under, very lethal with that sabot round.
M36 Jackson. 90mm love comparable to the Tiger I's 88mm.
M18/bulldog. 76mm bang bang if you're ready to shoot and scoot fast.

Allied tanks coming into service last Qtr 1944/early 1945:
*Comet with the 77 (tweaked 17 lber).
*Pershing with 90mm.
*Pershing with 90mm long barrel equal to Tiger II's 88
*Centurion.
*Tortoise heavy heavy heavy assault tank. Britain's answer to all things German.
(The Brits got their act together and weren't messing around yowsa)
Did I miss any?


The Tortoise certainly was not messing about... 32 pounder gun, 90mm with a 250mm armour plan coming in at 80 tons or nearly.

Tested at reliable vs a panther at 1000 yards. They definitely went all out to build a tough tank killer. It's a British JagTiger.

Forgot maybe thr black Prince. A modified Churchill with 17 pounder guns. The 17 pounder could hurt a heavy German tank.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 21:15:12


Post by: Frazzled


Were the Princes going into production? I thought they had gone with the Comet to be followed with Centurion (which would have been an angry wiener dog among the cats).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 21:31:07


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
Were the Princes going into production? I thought they had gone with the Comet to be followed with Centurion (which would have been an angry wiener dog among the cats).


Oh yeah, got replaced by Centurion and the Comet line of tanks.

I misread the wiki page it seems.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 22:46:49


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Black Prince was just too slow and at the end of the war there were better alternatives. The Tortoise you mentioned earlier also didn’t leave the UK until after the war so never got close to combat.

The tank you missed was the Challenger, fitted with a 17pdr, it was faster than a Firefly and suited to Cromwell units where it could keep up with the same pace. They made a few hundred for D-Day but going onwards in the war it was just easier to refit Shermans as Fireflys than to produce new vehicles.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/15 23:09:29


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Black Prince was just too slow and at the end of the war there were better alternatives. The Tortoise you mentioned earlier also didn’t leave the UK until after the war so never got close to combat.

The tank you missed was the Challenger, fitted with a 17pdr, it was faster than a Firefly and suited to Cromwell units where it could keep up with the same pace. They made a few hundred for D-Day but going onwards in the war it was just easier to refit Shermans as Fireflys than to produce new vehicles.


I saw they never used it. Its role never came up..

A super heavy assult gun built to be singleminded heavily armoured and armed sledgehammer against fixed positions.

The line or was meant to attack, like many German lines had been stripped to use on the Eastern, not western fronts.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 00:58:39


Post by: Frazzled


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Black Prince was just too slow and at the end of the war there were better alternatives. The Tortoise you mentioned earlier also didn’t leave the UK until after the war so never got close to combat.

The tank you missed was the Challenger, fitted with a 17pdr, it was faster than a Firefly and suited to Cromwell units where it could keep up with the same pace. They made a few hundred for D-Day but going onwards in the war it was just easier to refit Shermans as Fireflys than to produce new vehicles.

Thanks. I thought there was a British one I missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can someone help me out. How did the covenant/Challenger tanks relate to the Chu rchill tanks? We're both in service at the same time or how did that work?

Also how does that relate to the later comet/centurion?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 01:12:46


Post by: sebster


 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry typing from phone. Auto correct is brutal


All good

Your scenario is very correct if things go right if they run into a prepared defense.

As the old joke went. Shoot a round at a noise. If you get accurate counterfire it's British. If you get lots of auto it's German. If nothing happens for two minutes and then artillery starts dropping on your position, it's GIs.


That's good, I'll remember that. There needs to be others. 'If they start surrendering to you they're Italian.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:
The fire fly -17 pounder was flipped on side, and they cut down parts of the recoiil system to make it work in a turret. It was as original form too large and did not have lengh to fully recoil.with modifications it could work, we had to adapt it to use in tanks.

It sacraficed a little power but it also greatly boosted the fore power of a Sherman to dent big cats the 76mm could not.


The point is it didn't. The 17pdr wasn't more potent than the US 76mm. Field test give the advantage to the 76mm in almost all circumstances, with the 17pdr sabot round only being notably superior at ranges where the SABOT was really inaccurate... the result of which is that you basically have to call it a wash - both guns were more than enough at reasonable combat ranges, and if meeting the enemy at very long range both tanks were much better off closing the distance instead of duking it out.

Allied tanks where catching up.

Soviet wise a heavy stalin tank was coming with maybe a 100mm gun in 1945 that scared the allies.


What do you mean 'maybe'? SU-100 was in use for the whole of 1945. In fact I think it might have been before then, in late 1944 the Russians had them. In addition to that, if we look at guns lacking AP rounds, then we can start looking at the host of Russian vehicles carrying 120mm and 155mm guns - when they land on enemy tanks you don't need the AP because the explosion is so huge it does the job anyway.

Anyhow, point is war planning didn't work like you're assuming. People didn't pick single enemy designs with impressive sounding specs and panic. Because those scary sounding mega-tanks were rare and typically focused on specialist tasks.

For instance, the US had 76mm Shermans built and ready for deployment before Normandy. The US field commanders didn't want them, they didn't want so many of their tanks reducing their HE capacity, and they didn't want to logistics issues of running tanks with entirely different ammo. They knew about Panthers, they'd faced them in Italy, but they thought they were just another heavy design rarely seen like the Tiger. You don't redesign the design of your whole armour Such rare designs can be beaten by simply not feeding them tanks, instead you have infantry flank it, or spot artillery on to its head.

It was only when they landed in France and found Panthers a lot more common than expected that they decided to incorporate the 76mm Shermans. And Patton only decided to take Shermans with 76mm after Arracourt, where he inflicted a heavy spanking on the German tanks. So even without a tank able to duke it out with German Panthers and Tigers he still whooped them.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 10:54:11


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 Frazzled wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Black Prince was just too slow and at the end of the war there were better alternatives. The Tortoise you mentioned earlier also didn’t leave the UK until after the war so never got close to combat.

The tank you missed was the Challenger, fitted with a 17pdr, it was faster than a Firefly and suited to Cromwell units where it could keep up with the same pace. They made a few hundred for D-Day but going onwards in the war it was just easier to refit Shermans as Fireflys than to produce new vehicles.

Thanks. I thought there was a British one I missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can someone help me out. How did the covenant/Challenger tanks relate to the Chu rchill tanks? We're both in service at the same time or how did that work?

Also how does that relate to the later comet/centurion?


They’re all part of the cruiser tank series of development. You’ll notice similarities in the chassis of the Cromwell through to Centurion. Churchill wasn’t part of this development series being a heavy tank.

The early cruiser tanks are a bit forgotten about now like the A9 and A10 but their chassis was used in things like the Valentine which was greatly used, and a few other vehicles like the Bishop. The A13 tank chassis led to the famous A15 Crusader. Covenantor tank was contemporary with Crusader but had all sorts of problems and likely saw no action at all and was scrapped after s few hundred made. A9-13 were used early war in France 1940, some made it to the early Africa campaign. Around this time my grandfather was training on Vickers MkII medium tanks built in the 20s.

Africa campaign was a mix of Valentines, Crusaders, Grant, Matilda II and Churchill. My grandfather worked on them all I think. Churchill was introduced mid war and mostly used in Africa and Italy. Also Europe too after D-Day but some were used as AVRE variants and the Crocidile flame thrower. Churchils were used through to the end of the war in all theatres but wouldn’t have shared a combat unit with Cromwells as they were much slower.

A30 Challengers were produced early 1944 onwards in time for D-Day but then replaced by the easier to make Firefly. The Challenger rather resembles an A27 Cromwell tank with a stretched hull and extra wheel. They still had 200 and these joined Cromwell units which they fitted in well with because of their similarities. The much up gunned Comet (A34) was superior again and replaced the Cromwell units, meaning 17pdr support in the form of Challenger/Firefly was redundant. But Comet didn’t appear on battlefields until very late ‘44 so Cromwell units had to work until the end. Comet led to the Centurion.

Cromwell, Comets, Centurions and some Churchill’s saw service in the Korean war.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 11:12:30


Post by: simonr1978


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Covenantor tank was contemporary with Crusader but had all sorts of problems and likely saw no action at all and was scrapped after s few hundred made.


Nearly 1,800 although almost none left the British Isles as they were judged unfit for overseas service and were declared obsolete in 1944, according to Wikipedia.

I like the Matilda II and Char B1bis in addition to all the others mentioned, partly because I have a bit of a soft spot for the earlier tanks which often get overlooked in favour of the later war ones.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 11:42:54


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Matilda II gave the Germans a bit of a shock in France as they were mostly immune to German guns. Most people think it was always the other way around but early war the Germans were relying on light tanks.

I thought about 300 Covenanters were made not 1800! Another tank we built and never sent abroad was the Cavalier, a Cromwell variant. Another that comes to mind was the Churchill gun tank, turning the Churchill into an assault gun, but redundant when Firefly and Challenger were faster and had turrets. These didn’t leave the UK either and a few rusted hulks are all that remain today.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 12:05:37


Post by: simonr1978


It seems a lot for a tank that looks like it was pretty flawed from the outset, but as the production started after the collapse of the BEF I'm guessing a good portion of them were ordered in the invasion panic of 1940 when the UK was desperate for anything, although apparently production was continued for some time afterwards which does seem quite a waste of resources to produce so many tanks which were acknowledged to be poor from the start.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 19:08:53


Post by: Frazzled


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Black Prince was just too slow and at the end of the war there were better alternatives. The Tortoise you mentioned earlier also didn’t leave the UK until after the war so never got close to combat.

The tank you missed was the Challenger, fitted with a 17pdr, it was faster than a Firefly and suited to Cromwell units where it could keep up with the same pace. They made a few hundred for D-Day but going onwards in the war it was just easier to refit Shermans as Fireflys than to produce new vehicles.

Thanks. I thought there was a British one I missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can someone help me out. How did the covenant/Challenger tanks relate to the Chu rchill tanks? We're both in service at the same time or how did that work?

Also how does that relate to the later comet/centurion?


They’re all part of the cruiser tank series of development. You’ll notice similarities in the chassis of the Cromwell through to Centurion. Churchill wasn’t part of this development series being a heavy tank.

The early cruiser tanks are a bit forgotten about now like the A9 and A10 but their chassis was used in things like the Valentine which was greatly used, and a few other vehicles like the Bishop. The A13 tank chassis led to the famous A15 Crusader. Covenantor tank was contemporary with Crusader but had all sorts of problems and likely saw no action at all and was scrapped after s few hundred made. A9-13 were used early war in France 1940, some made it to the early Africa campaign. Around this time my grandfather was training on Vickers MkII medium tanks built in the 20s.

Africa campaign was a mix of Valentines, Crusaders, Grant, Matilda II and Churchill. My grandfather worked on them all I think. Churchill was introduced mid war and mostly used in Africa and Italy. Also Europe too after D-Day but some were used as AVRE variants and the Crocidile flame thrower. Churchils were used through to the end of the war in all theatres but wouldn’t have shared a combat unit with Cromwells as they were much slower.

A30 Challengers were produced early 1944 onwards in time for D-Day but then replaced by the easier to make Firefly. The Challenger rather resembles an A27 Cromwell tank with a stretched hull and extra wheel. They still had 200 and these joined Cromwell units which they fitted in well with because of their similarities. The much up gunned Comet (A34) was superior again and replaced the Cromwell units, meaning 17pdr support in the form of Challenger/Firefly was redundant. But Comet didn’t appear on battlefields until very late ‘44 so Cromwell units had to work until the end. Comet led to the Centurion.

Cromwell, Comets, Centurions and some Churchill’s saw service in the Korean war.


So, correct me if I am wrong, but this is how they were used?
*Cromwell / Challenger / Comet was used in an offensive role (ideally) or more tank to tank -with armored divisions to exploit breakthroughs etc.
*Churchill was an infantry support tank (like the PZ IV and later Tiger I were intended to be used) like the 105mm M4s and Jumbo Shermans ideally, to support infantry or punch a whole-also like the concept of the KV/IS 155s and IS tanks?

I like the look of the Challenger/Comets. Are those massive bolts on the Challenger/Cromwells? Very 40K!


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 19:22:27


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Yes, that’s about right, though the speed and size of the Cromwell lent itself to reconnaissance too. They couldn’t fight the big cats which is why they needed a 17pdr in their unit.

Those are big bolts, something which experience told tankers are not a good thing by that point in the war. The speed of the Cromwell made soldiers more forgiving of it later on.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 19:33:26


Post by: Frazzled


I saw film of a platoon of them boogeying down the road in Europe. They were motoring all right.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:11:11


Post by: Howard A Treesong


They could do 40mph on good ground, which for WW2 was fast. The Churchill would be eating their dust. Most German tanks couldn’t do 25mph.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:19:39


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They could do 40mph on good ground, which for WW2 was fast. The Churchill would be eating their dust. Most German tanks couldn’t do 25mph.


Churchill might have been slow, but it had fair armour, and its ability to cross bad and steep terrain was better than alot of its rivals. sure it was slow but it would keep on ploughing up steep routes other tanks not manage.

sure you got there slower, but it would cross barriers other needed help to do so.



Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:28:35


Post by: Frazzled


IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:32:52


Post by: TheCustomLime


 Frazzled wrote:
IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Yep. Tiger had the 88, though.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:37:46


Post by: Frazzled


 TheCustomLime wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Yep. Tiger had the 88, though.


Yes but it also took them 330,000 manhours to make (seriously).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:38:14


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Original Churchill 102mm,m front, upgraded to 152mm up front and turret.

Tiger 25-120mm

King tiger 25-185mm

Heaviest sherman built, thickest area was 76-90mm, more regular was somthing like 60mm.. Thete was alot of variety and models so its hard to differ between them.

Up front. The Churchill was one tough machine to beat.
Slow. Not prettiest but would chug and chug and could take a few hits angled right.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Yep. Tiger had the 88, though.


Yes but it also took them 330,000 manhours to make (seriously).


Yeah and needed a full blown workshop and crane for anything but minor repairs. Overlapping Road wheels where pain in ass to replace, and fancy suspension too...

Great when it ran... A complete ass of a job when it did not.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:47:09


Post by: TheCustomLime


Why the Germans insisted of sticking that system on all of their vehicles baffles me. Sure, overlapping roadwheels does help relieve ground pressure but there are a ton of draw backs.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:53:46


Post by: Riquende


The campily named 'Flamingo'.



That commander looks so calm for someone watching human barbecue happening a few dozen yards away.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 21:57:36


Post by: jhe90


 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why the Germans insisted of sticking that system on all of their vehicles baffles me. Sure, overlapping roadwheels does help relieve ground pressure but there are a ton of draw backs.


One even had a great suspension system and tracks. ... Perfect if your making a engineering project but you had to sometimes dismantle one track, and pull a rod out the other side dismantling taking the other track apart at times to replace parts and reassemble...

This on a 50-60 ton tank... In the field.

It gave a good ride for heavy tank, stable etc..

Though try doing that in a muddy field with tools on the tank.








Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/16 23:02:12


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Frazzled wrote:

M10: 3 inch predecessor of the 76mm
M4/76mm: bang bang. Later studies support this over both the Firefly and T34/85 based on penetration, rate of fire and accuracy (overall, 17lber more penetrative but less accurate).
17lber Firefly. Not accurate at distant, but 500 yards or under, very lethal with that sabot round.
M36 Jackson. 90mm love comparable to the Tiger I's 88mm.
M18/bulldog. 76mm bang bang if you're ready to shoot and scoot fast.


All of the above died horribly if hit. M10 turned to confetti if hit.



This tiger knocked out the Pershing before inadvertently getting stuck and being abandoned,.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/17 05:14:06


Post by: Co'tor Shas


In Normandy, two of the three tigers were killed by Shermans, the third took out the Pershing it faced.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/17 06:11:47


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In Normandy, two of the three tigers were killed by Shermans, the third took out the Pershing it faced.


Killed is a bit of a misnomer here, one had the crew bail out when the Sherman hit the drivers view slit and the sparks blinded the driver and set some paper on fire. The other was hit in the ass 17 times (IIRC) since it lost a track. The Nottingham (not sure if remembering this right?) regiment for years had a claim that they killed one with a Duplex Drive but it turned out that tank was lost and the crew re mounted in a Firefly.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/19 02:12:43


Post by: sebster


 BaronIveagh wrote:
All of the above died horribly if hit. M10 turned to confetti if hit.


Yes, that's true. It's also missing the point that's been made repeatedly in this thread. Heavier tanks are require far more resources, need hundreds of thousands of man hours to build, and have specialist transport needs that place heavy strain on logistics chains. If the result is a heavy tank that can destroy any enemy tank while remaining immune to return fire, then its a weapon that can dominate an area and produce a breakthrough or stop an enemy offensive cold, then that's probably a good investment of resources.

But if the lighter, cheaper, more mobile enemy tanks can penetrate your armour at normal combat ranges, then it's a terrible investment. And that's the reality of the last couple of years of the war. Apart from a brief period in Normandy where US forces were caught not realising they needed the upgunned Sherman they had built and ready waiting to go back in the US, the reality for the late war is that both sides had ample guns that could penetrate all the armour you could put on a conventional tank design (so everything other than the small number of German super heavies).

This meant that through that period the most significant factors weren't armour or gun, but who fired first, and who had better supporting arms. Which is the worst environment for the German strategy of bigger, shootier tanks.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/19 05:40:56


Post by: Freakazoitt


 jhe90 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
IIRC but didn't it have better frontal armor than the Tiger I?


Original Churchill 102mm,m front, upgraded to 152mm up front and turret.


I dealt with contagon called "World of tanks" and there it is clearly shown that these 152mm are only in paper characteristics. Really, most of the armor in the forehead is about 76mm at a 90' angle, which does not give any protection against the guns of the Panther and the Tigers. Also, the tank is very poorly maneuvering and does not have high-explosive shells for storming fortifications (target number 1 at the time WW2).


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/19 06:27:25


Post by: sebster


 Freakazoitt wrote:
I dealt with contagon called "World of tanks" and there it is clearly shown that these 152mm are only in paper characteristics. Really, most of the armor in the forehead is about 76mm at a 90' angle, which does not give any protection against the guns of the Panther and the Tigers. Also, the tank is very poorly maneuvering and does not have high-explosive shells for storming fortifications (target number 1 at the time WW2).


Wouldn't a 90' angle be lying the plate on its side? Once you get to 90' it isn't sloped armour, its the roof armour.

I genuinely have no clue where you get the claim the Churchill lacked a HE shell from. I think you might be confused with earlier versions of the Churchill that carried 2pdr and 6pdr guns that had limited use against infantry and fortified positions. But the uparmoured MkVII being discussed here had a 75mm gun, of either UK or US design, which had an excellent HE round, far better than you'd see on any German tank through the war.


Your favorite tank and why @ 2018/02/19 06:44:24


Post by: Witzkatz


 sebster wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
I dealt with contagon called "World of tanks" and there it is clearly shown that these 152mm are only in paper characteristics. Really, most of the armor in the forehead is about 76mm at a 90' angle, which does not give any protection against the guns of the Panther and the Tigers. Also, the tank is very poorly maneuvering and does not have high-explosive shells for storming fortifications (target number 1 at the time WW2).


Wouldn't a 90' angle be lying the plate on its side? Once you get to 90' it isn't sloped armour, its the roof armour.

I genuinely have no clue where you get the claim the Churchill lacked a HE shell from. I think you might be confused with earlier versions of the Churchill that carried 2pdr and 6pdr guns that had limited use against infantry and fortified positions. But the uparmoured MkVII being discussed here had a 75mm gun, of either UK or US design, which had an excellent HE round, far better than you'd see on any German tank through the war.


Pretty sure he means a 90° angle between incoming shell and the face of the armor plating, so 90° would be vertical in that sense. And I agree, as far as I know the 75mm Churchill version carried HE shells, a job that was done with the hull-mounted howitzer in earlier variants.