Medium Tanks

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.

**Grey Templar**

The major thing Russian tanks had going for them were their suspension systems which allowed for a faster vehicle over rougher terrain. The inventor was turned down by the US and so he went over to Russia.

**Che-Vito**

< Taken by the void dragon. >

**Sparks_Havelock**

Britain used the Christie suspension system in the A13 MkII & MkIII. The Christie suspension system wasn't a 'one nation only' thing, it was purchased by whoever wished to use it & was allowed to buy it.

**KingDeath**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
KingDeath wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Arcsquad12 wrote:
Is the Panther a modern tank?

Ok then.

The Leman Russ is only one meter taller than the Leopard 2.

It is actualy 1,4m higher than the Leopard. This means that the Leman Russ is almost 50% higher than the Leopard 2, which is one of the larger tanks currently around.
The Leman Russ is twice as high as the russian T-80 and T-90 tanks.

My IAv1:2e says the LRBT is 3.98m tall, and wikipedia says the leopard 2 is 3m tall.

Also, the Sabra, an Israeli tank, is taller than the leopard 2. But yes, those are both large tanks.

My point being that being slab-sided isn't really some sort of strange obsolete concept deserving relegation to the 1920's dustbin of tank designs.

Are you certain about the 3,98m? IA1 says, at least according to my version, that the tank is 4,42m high.

**Melissia**

It varies between books yes.

**Engine of War**

Please don't say "Russians invented sloped armor"

There is plenty of incidents of "sloped armor" long before tanks were invented. no less the T-34. Germans only realized the sloped armor helps and is more effective then "flat" armor when their guns bounced off of the armor when it was thinner then the flat armor they had.

**chyron**

Engine of War wrote:
Please don't say "Russians invented sloped armor"

There is plenty of incidents of "sloped armor" long before tanks were invented. no less the T-34. Germans only realized the sloped armor helps and is more effective then "flat" armor when their guns bounced off of the armor when it was thinner then the flat armor they had.

a) Russians DID invented usage of sloped armor for increased protection in vehicles...though 25 years earlier ( Mgebrov's armored car, 1915.)

b) Actually, even in 1941 germans did have AP shells which were almost as effective 'gainst sloped armor as against vertical one due to "normalizing cap" . It's just that nobody else bothered to produce them en masse - lack of targets, you know.

**Sparks_Havelock**

Actually the first actual example of sloped armour on a ground based vehicle? Leonardo da Vinci's design for a 'tank'. I think you'll find it has 400 or so years on that Russian armoured car, but if you want 20th century examples prior to 1915; Simm's Motor War Car of 1902, Austro-Daimler armoured car of 1904 has a marvelous domed turret - they both have examples of sloped armour as does the Rolls-Royce Armoured Car (RNAS) of 1915.

**Miguelsan**

Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Ross74H wrote:
Sloped armour is part of the reason the T34 was so revolutionary when it was introduced - it increases the relative armour thckness by something like 50% without the armour needing to actually be thicker.
Sorry but French tanks got there far before the Russian T-34. Look up the Renault R35, Hotchkiss H35/38, Hotchkiss H39, S35 SOMUA as well as a load of other tanks in French service prior to 1940.

People give Russian tanks far more credit than they deserve. For example people like to say how the German Panzers meeting the KV1 & T-34 in Russia made the Germans accelerate their Heavy Tank project (PzKpfw VI 'Tiger') when in fact the German introduction to the A12 Matilda IIC, A11 Matilda 1 at Arras in May 1940 as well as combat against units of French Char B1 BIS during the Battle of France that made the German High Command give the project higher priority. The only way they stopped the British Infantry Tank advance
The T-34 was a horrible tank for its crews - few had half-decent optics with many gunners forced to aim the gun by peering down the bore of the gun before it was loaded. Then the amount of training the crews had was abysmal, with many Russian tank crews suffering injuries just from being in their own tanks - when you don't know where to place yourself & your limbs when a 76mm gun is crashing back inside a cramped turret...

I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time

. Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.

Melissia@ Most modern tanks have some degree of slope in their fron armor. Side armor is not something you are supposed to allow your opponent to target. I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it, from GIs with a grenade to BB bombardement. No weapon system, no matter what the marketing guys say, is able to engage or defend against all threats of the battlefield and the Panther was no exception without taking into account the numerous teething problems it had due to the usual infighting about what the generals wanted, what Hitler wanted and what the engineers could provide.

M.

**Melissia**

Miguelsan wrote:
I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it

So a single off-hand comment means I'm focusing on it?

You guys are getting hilariously defensive about your mediocre historical tanks

**Daedricbob**

Back to the original question....

I think the Imperium isn't really predisposed to delicate tactical engagements of armour - rather they prefer as much concentrated firepower as possible.

Why dance around with a finely honed rapier, thrusting and feinting then slipping it between the armour of your opponent when you can just smash his head back into his torso with a massive hammer?

No, heavy tanks are the way to go.
If that isn't working send a thousand more.
If that isn't working then use super heavy tanks.

Scale up to planetary bombardment/exterminatus as required.

**Frazzled**

Miguelsan wrote:

Melissia@ Most modern tanks have some degree of slope in their fron armor. Side armor is not something you are supposed to allow your opponent to target. I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it, from GIs with a grenade to BB bombardement. No weapon system, no matter what the marketing guys say, is able to engage or defend against all threats of the battlefield and the Panther was no exception without taking into account the numerous teething problems it had due to the usual infighting about what the generals wanted, what Hitler wanted and what the engineers could provide.

M.

In Melissia's defense thats accurate though. Panthers faced all of that. Indeed, I'll take a Thunderbolt weighed down by rockets and bombs than a Panther.

US simple math:
Panther > Sherman
Thunderbolt > Panther.

**Melissia**

But two shermans > one panther, and you could probably get two shermans for the cost of a panther hehe.

**TheCustomLime**

Melissia wrote:
But two shermans > one panther, and you could probably get two shermans for the cost of a panther hehe.

Probably 3. And by the time your fancy panther is done destroying that sherman? We just replaced it, the tank crew and the ammunition twice over. That's the beauty of the old American industry. Germany couldn't afford to lose panthers but the USA could lose all the shermans it wanted and still get more. Even then the Sherman was a good match for a Panther with the right armament. In it's defense, the Panther never failed to have a snazzy paintjob.

On topic, look at it like this. What's the point of a medium tank to the Imperium of Man? They got a tank that you can blow up with an autocannon on a 5 and they got a tank you could blow up with a lascannon on a 5. What else is needed? A tank you can blow up with a battle cannon on a 5? The Leman Russ variants can fullfill most battlefield roles reliably and the Chimera can pick up the slack from there. Need a fast, recon tank? Salamander is your baby.

Medium tanks aren't realy needed for the Imperial Guard. They need things that are heavy, heavily armed and move slow. Medium tanks aren't that.

**Flinty**

Renaissance Europe wins the sloped armour debate for me

(although I'm sure there are earlier examples in China... there always are

)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacis

**Melissia**

Arguably, it's Marines that need mediums more than guard... but the Predator is basically a light tank-- fast (in the lore at least) and relatively lightly armed.

**Grey Templar**

Melissia wrote:
But two shermans > one panther, and you could probably get two shermans for the cost of a panther hehe.

That depends entirely on the tactical situation, and what kind of Sherman. 2 with 75mm? 2 with 76mm? 2 Jumbos? Easy 8?

Are we in a dense wooded area or is there decent line of sight in multiple directions.

**Sparks_Havelock**

Miguelsan wrote:
I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time . Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.

I think, and don't trust me on this as it's been a long old week and my mind is mush at the moment from lack of sleep, that it was a follow on comment to the gunners have to look through the guns bore in order to aim it because the optics were useless except for a few lucky crews who had half-decent optics on their T-34s (think it was normally the 'command' tanks that got 'em).

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

The classifications you offer are a modern construct. They might not have that sort of military doctrine in the Imperium. They might only have light and heavy tanks, and light tanks would be fairly heavy.

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
Are we in a dense wooded area or is there decent line of sight in multiple directions.

I'm not certain it matters that much.

The Panther is a very, very limited tank design, which is slow to turn and with a abominably slow turret, whose only advantage is really not all that useful.

**BloodAngels Brother**

It matters alot realy seeing the terain would acount for the style of fighting the crews would try fro.
consider this open field, long LOS would favor the panther and its Long 7.5 CM and would be able to knock out 2-3 mobility kills add 1-2 more from an ambush
but a forest would favor a short 75mm Sherman becouse it could still turn its turret and not hanve to worry about the trees as much. the long 7.5 cm would be a down side becouse the trees would limit your turning radius.
the panther also had loads of things it could do but again it was very circumstantal to where you were.

**KingDeath**

Melissia wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Are we in a dense wooded area or is there decent line of sight in multiple directions.
I'm not certain it matters that much.

The Panther is a very, very limited tank design, which is slow to turn and with a abominably slow turret, whose only advantage is really not all that useful.

At long range the relatively slow traversing turret is much less of a disadvantage than in a cityfight. The high power of the KWK 42 as well as the tank's thick frontal armour meant that it could destroy most contemporary tank designs before they managed to threaten the tank itself. As such the Panther was a rather sucessful design.

**Miguelsan**

Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Miguelsan wrote:
I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time . Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.
I think, and don't trust me on this as it's been a long old week and my mind is mush at the moment from lack of sleep, that it was a follow on comment to the gunners have to look through the guns bore in order to aim it because the optics were useless except for a few lucky crews who had half-decent optics on their T-34s (think it was normally the 'command' tanks that got 'em).

I think you might be thinking about radios, most mid war T-34 lacked radios with some from the lend and lease programs spread around for commanders. Optics were crude compared to german ones but then german ones where second to none, I've never heard about having to aim through the gun.

M.

**Frazzled**

BloodAngels Brother wrote:
It matters alot realy seeing the terain would acount for the style of fighting the crews would try fro.
consider this open field, long LOS would favor the panther and its Long 7.5 CM and would be able to knock out 2-3 mobility kills add 1-2 more from an ambush
but a forest would favor a short 75mm Sherman becouse it could still turn its turret and not hanve to worry about the trees as much. the long 7.5 cm would be a down side becouse the trees would limit your turning radius.
the panther also had loads of things it could do but again it was very circumstantal to where you were.

Of course, if the Panther is in an open field, it might blast some Shermans, but the FOB going to bring the tankbuster rain on you.