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.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/05 05:01:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Slopped armour not just "thicker" equivalent (otherwise, you can just increase plates thickness), it's also add very high chance that shell will glance
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/05 09:08:42
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/05 14:31:51
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?
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.
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]
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.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/05 15:55:16
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..
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Well if we use the Dictionary definition of tank, any tracked armored vehicle counts as a Tank. So Tank Destroyers and such count.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/05 19:33:06
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/05 19:34:21
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 19:53:02
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!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:51:55
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..
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
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.
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
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:
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!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/07 03:10:02
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/07 11:13:31
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/07 15:43:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Dark Angels, 30K
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.
