Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly.

Kilkrazy wrote:Being serious for a moment, I would pick the Centurion on the grounds that it was still in service killing enemies in the 1970s.

Neither the Pershing nor the JS2 can make that claim, though their descendants (M60, T62 etc) certainly can.

This is a tribute to the very sound core design of the Centurion.

So was the M4 Sherman. Does it mean it is the best? In fact, the JS was also used up until the 70s.

And it was a bad mo fo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Super_Sherman

I'm personally leaning towards the JS3. Nice operational range, good armament, good speed, and has good armor. Especially with the Russian advent and use of slope armor, not to mention it has a low profile.

Ahtman wrote:There is only one true Ultimate Warrior!

The high-pitched voice only makes it better!

Ironhide wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Being serious for a moment, I would pick the Centurion on the grounds that it was still in service killing enemies in the 1970s.

Neither the Pershing nor the JS2 can make that claim, though their descendants (M60, T62 etc) certainly can.

This is a tribute to the very sound core design of the Centurion.

So was the M4 Sherman. Does it mean it is the best? In fact, the JS was also used up until the 70s.

Neither the Sherman nor the JS were British.

And that has what to do with this? I thought we were talking about which tank was best? Not which nationality is best.

Not on the list, probably because I think they Germans only fielded the prototype, the Maus.

But could it play Rugby?

Khornholio wrote:Not on the list, probably because I think they Germans only fielded the prototype, the Maus.

Maus would have been pretty poor. It's only any good as a mobile fortification for a defensive war. If you had to attack one head on then it would be like attacking an impregnable blockhouse. But if you could outflank it then it surely would be doomed. It was slow and impossible to deploy many places because no road vehicle or many railways could have carried it and most bridges wouldn't have the structural integrity to withstand it driving over them.

Even the Germans realised the Maus was a bad idea, as the project was mothballed. The prototype was pulled out of mothballs very late in the war but broke down en route to the front.

I have a 15mm Peter Pig one that use in FoW as a proxy King Tiger.

If we were to run this as a face on slug-fest, can any of the other tanks penetrate the King Tiger's frontal armour at greater ranges than the King Tiger can penetrate their's?

Following the three key tank design elements it probably goes something like this:

Firepower (Anti tank only.)
1. Centurion
2. Tiger II / Super Pershing (Not sure, assuming gun is equal to Tiger II's 88)
4. IS3

Armour (Front)
1. Tiger II
2. IS3
3. Super Perishing (Possibly no 2, couldn't confirm stats.)
4. Centurion

Speed (Road speed mph)
1. All four. (All four are 20-25 mph there's really nothing in it.)

By the numbers that makes the Tiger II the superior design. That still doesn't make it my first choice.

George Spiggott wrote:By the numbers that makes the Tiger II the superior design. That still doesn't make it my first choice.

There are others things though which should be taken into account I think. Like the Tiger 1 the Tiger 2 needed to be changed onto different tracks just to be transported by rail which is a backward step when the Panther was made narrower to avoid this. Given that the Panther was built in much greater numbers perhaps it should be considered alongside the King Tiger. Also theres mechanical reliability, the Tiger 2 was poor to begin with. The other problem with german tanks was that they didn't use interchangeable parts between the many variants, the T-34s were more straightforward to source parts and repair because they were so numerous. The Entwicklung series would have addressed this but the war was over before any of them went into production. It would be more interesting to see what would have become of the E-100, that had a viable future unlike the Maus which was a dead end IMO.

Ironhide wrote:I'm personally leaning towards the JS3. Nice operational range, good armament, good speed, and has good armor. Especially with the Russian advent and use of slope armor, not to mention it has a low profile.

Just throwing this out there, but the Russians weren't the only ones who used sloped armor. Just off the top of my head, the German Panther, Tiger II, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, and Jagdpanzer IV, all utilized sloped armor. Even the Sherman has armor that is somewhat sloped, although not to the degree of the T-34 or the German vehicles I mentioned.


And Sebster, why do you consider the Panzer IV a crappy tank? Because if it's ability to be upgraded, up-armored, and up-gunned, it fought throughout the whole war and was almost always able to hang with other tanks in it's class (i.e., medium tanks like the Sherman and T-34).

Also, don't forget about the StuG III and IV. Neither of them are actually tanks, but I think an argument could be made that StuGs might have been the most useful armored vehicles the Germans had. Well-armored, powerful gun, and lower cost compared to turreted vehicles. It sacrifices a turret, but also gains a lower profile, plus there were over 12,000 made altogether (counting StuG IIIs, IVs, and StuH 42s.), which was quite a bit more than either Panzer IIIs or IVs.

The e-100 share's many of the Maus' faults which was probably why that too was dropped. It's worth noting that not all of the Tiger II's reputation for unreliability are the fault of the tank's design.

The E 50/Panther F/Panther II (in pretty much any of the proposed configurations) is probably a better tank than the Tiger II in almost every respect baring resilience to frontal attack. With an 88mm gun fitted it would place in the same position for firepower, above the Centurion for armour and way ahead of the other three for speed.

Hordini wrote:And Sebster, why do you consider the Panzer IV a crappy tank? Because if it's ability to be upgraded, up-armored, and up-gunned, it fought throughout the whole war and was almost always able to hang with other tanks in it's class (i.e., medium tanks like the Sherman and T-34).

That's the thing, it needed to be modified to match the other tanks in it's class. Throughout the war it was playing catch up with it's opposition, needing to be upgunned to match the French tanks, then upgunned again to match the Russians. It had neither the speed nor the range of the T-34, in large part because it was never designed for the role of a main battle tank. It was meant to be a heavier infantry support tank, that fell into the role of main battle tank as the war progressed and tanks became heavier across the board.

Also, don't forget about the StuG III and IV. Neither of them are actually tanks, but I think an argument could be made that StuGs might have been the most useful armored vehicles the Germans had. Well-armored, powerful gun, and lower cost compared to turreted vehicles. It sacrifices a turret, but also gains a lower profile, plus there were over 12,000 made altogether (counting StuG IIIs, IVs, and StuH 42s.), which was quite a bit more than either Panzer IIIs or IVs.

Good point. It's really weird how much stock people put in a turret.

What's even weirder is that I can agree with you, but I still can't really consider any of the IGs in the same way as a tank. A tank is just cooler, dammit.

Hordini wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I'm personally leaning towards the JS3. Nice operational range, good armament, good speed, and has good armor. Especially with the Russian advent and use of slope armor, not to mention it has a low profile.

Just throwing this out there, but the Russians weren't the only ones who used sloped armor. Just off the top of my head, the German Panther, Tiger II, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, and Jagdpanzer IV, all utilized sloped armor. Even the Sherman has armor that is somewhat sloped, although not to the degree of the T-34 or the German vehicles I mentioned.


And Sebster, why do you consider the Panzer IV a crappy tank? Because if it's ability to be upgraded, up-armored, and up-gunned, it fought throughout the whole war and was almost always able to hang with other tanks in it's class (i.e., medium tanks like the Sherman and T-34).

Also, don't forget about the StuG III and IV. Neither of them are actually tanks, but I think an argument could be made that StuGs might have been the most useful armored vehicles the Germans had. Well-armored, powerful gun, and lower cost compared to turreted vehicles. It sacrifices a turret, but also gains a lower profile, plus there were over 12,000 made altogether (counting StuG IIIs, IVs, and StuH 42s.), which was quite a bit more than either Panzer IIIs or IVs.

True, the Russians were not the only ones to use it, but they were the first to make extensive use of it.

sebster wrote:
Good point. It's really weird how much stock people put in a turret.

What's even weirder is that I can agree with you, but I still can't really consider any of the IGs in the same way as a tank. A tank is just cooler, dammit.

Part of the reason that the Germans churned out so many fixed gun vehicles had to do with the defensive nature of their side of the war, at the end.

Note that the Brits didn't build nearly as many, the Americans didn't build any at all (en masse), and the Russians primarily built assault guns, or used their tank destroyers in defensive actions.

SPGs were easier and cheaper to produce than full blown tanks. Plus as mentioned, on the defense, their drawbacks didn't have as much an impact.

ZF-

sebster wrote:What's even weirder is that I can agree with you, but I still can't really consider any of the IGs in the same way as a tank. A tank is just cooler, dammit.

Bah, Jagdpanther, most gorgeous armored land vehicle of the war.

yea.

The truth about the Tiger Tank!

Kilkrazy wrote:Being serious for a moment, I would pick the Centurion on the grounds that it was still in service killing enemies in the 1970s.

StuG III served just about as long.

StuGs and Panzerjagers were used from the beginning of the war I don't see how fighting defensive battles had any effect upon their design.

Assault guns in particular are designed to be used on the attack.

The Stugs and Panzerjägers were very effective in defensive war tactics due to the low profile that allowed the widespread of ambush tactics that took a big toll on Allied and Soviet advancing tanks.

But still, the inability to traverse the gun became an acute weakness at the end of the war when air-ground coordination became very important for the Allies.

M.

@George: IIRC, StuGs ang JagdPz were more mid/late war units, when volume ramped up.

Tyyr wrote:Bah, Jagdpanther, most gorgeous armored land vehicle of the war.

Jagdpanther was fugly! Boxier than a Volvo.

Compare it to the Panther, now there was a gorgeous looking piece of killing machine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@George: IIRC, StuGs ang JagdPz were more mid/late war units, when volume ramped up.

Not really the case with StuGs. They were used from at least 1940 on. Jagdpanzer were used later in the war, but StuGs were used basically all the way through.

Like George Spiggott said, StuGs were assault guns that were designed to support infantry on the offensive, although they were also used in a tank hunting role and even replaced Panzer IVs in some Panzer units later in the war. Jagdpanzer on the other hand were designed as dedicated tank destroyers.

sebster wrote:Jagdpanther was fugly! Boxier than a Volvo.

Compare it to the Panther, now there was a gorgeous looking piece of killing machine.

HERETIC!

The Jagdpanther is a triumph of form and function. Low, sleek, and with a main gun rivaled by few in the war. It was gorgeous!

Tyyr wrote:
The Jagdpanther is a triumph of form and function. Low, sleek, and with a main gun rivaled by few in the war. It was gorgeous!

Low?! Have you stood next to one of these things, it's colossal.

The Tiger 1 is bigger than most would imagine. Films like Saving Private Ryan give the impression they are much smaller. The brutal square design exaggerates the size compared to other similarly sized vehicles, it's worth seeing one in the flesh so to speak. It's just enormous. I've also seen the one used in Saving Private Ryan and it's tiny by comparison.