About 2nd ww tanks Page 5
|July 17th, 2010||#41|
| || |
Also random fact due to its rarety (?) the Tiger was only equipted with Tank Veterans wich probably was a big part of theyr effectiveness (see Villers-Bocage)
|July 25th, 2010||#42|
| || |
The German Tiger was a great Tank but being very heavy it would keep breaking down and there were not enough of them to turn the tide of battle, also it had to stop to fire its 88 mm gun.
The T34 was the best medium size tank of the war the Armour was good and so was the gun. It was of of simple design and could easily be maintained on the front. As it was of a simple design it could be produced in very large numbers and very quickly. The tracks on this tank were very wide which allowed it to be used in snow and mud. Also is was easy to upgrade which the Russian did a number of times putting bigger guns into the turret and increasing the numbers of the crew.
The Sherman....When this tank first came out it was a very good tank, but what stopped getting to the top of the list in my opinion that production took priority of crew safety.
Now it was found that if the outer shell of the Sherman took a hit from any shell the odds on it would brew up. This was because that the ammunition lockers lacked any protection and when the tank was hit by any shell it could knock of a fragment of the inside of the tank and that often hit the ammunition setting it off. Although this was known about it was decided not to slow the production lines while this was rectified but accept the casualties. Also they were very reluctant to upgrade the the gun on the Sherman for the same reasons, now the British converted a number of Sherman's to take a 17 pounder which could deal with any German tank but the Americans still decided to stick with the standard gun and accept the casualties. Which was fine if you were not a member of the tank crew.
LeEnfield Rides again
|July 26th, 2010||#44|
| || |
Re:2nd ww tanks info
|February 27th, 2011||#45|
| || |
1. The tiger was frankly a stupid tank. It's design was the obselete, slope sided inefficient armor. It was too large and heavy for it's own suspension, so it continually broke down and guzzled fuel the germans didn't have. It had a fairly powerful gun, and relatively heavy army, but it was slow, unreliable, gas guzzling, and took up resources that ought to have been used elsewhere, remember for every tank you make of one type, you can't use the money elsewhere, and you could make 2 of the much better panther tanks for each tiger, or 3 very efficient assault guns.
2. The tiger II was the height of stupidity and never should have been made. It had virtually 0 off road capability (I think it maxed out at around 8 Mph off road), was WAY too heavy for it's engine (the same one used in the 20 ton lighter Panther), broke down more than the tiger even, and the resources to make it, and develop it, ought to have been used for something that wasn't hideously inefficient.
3. The Panther had an extremely efficient gun and thick, but well designed armor. It was relatively fast as well, it was easily the best german tank of the war, hands down. It did have reliability issues, though not as bad as the tiger or the tiger II, and, from what I gather, they were beginning to be corrected as the war went on.
4. The origianl t-34 had a PHENOMENAL suspension and armor shape, as well as a bigger gun than most tanks of the time, but it was hideously undermined by 3 factors. A. It had no radio, meaning coordination was virtually impossible B. It had a 1 man turret, meaning the commander couldn't command and C. To a much less extent, the turret opened backwards, meaning if the commander wanted to look out of the tank he was much more likely to be killed, and seeing as he was also the the gunner, this was quite back.
the T-34/85 was easily the best tank of the war. It was the original T-34 with a 2 man turret, a radio, a bigger gun, capable of penetrating the tiger at roughly 1000 yards, a respectable distance, more turret armor, while still maintaining the best suspension of the war, an ludicrously low weight per square foot, meaning it had phenomenal off road capability, and a range nearly twice what the american or german tanks had cause the russians were smart enough to put diesel in their tanks.
|February 28th, 2011||#46|
| || |
Well, WWII was all about tactics and technology at the same time...
In France they had a lot of tanks too at the beginning of the war. But unfortunately, poor vision when it came to tactics made their technology evolve in an outdated direction.
If you look a little, you will see reports about German commanders who had trouble against a french "B MBT tank"... They were made for defense, so they had excellent armor. But armor means weight and weight means big engines and low speed... Fuel consumption and slow platforms gave the Germans the advantage...
But what about the Maus? I still remember their project of the big big german heavy tank... Unable to cross a bridge, but in theory, the worst tank you could think of...
And what about the IS Soviet tank? I hear it was excellent.
|February 28th, 2011||#47|
| || |
Well, pros and cons for the IS tanks.
1. Extremely powerful 122mm gun, blew the crap out of fortifications and not back armor penetration either
2. More, and much better shaped armor than even the tiger.
3. Lighter and more reliable than the tiger, only weighing as much as the panther, despite having half again as much armor.
1. Ammo was large, and in 2 parts, therefore it reloaded very slowly and only had room for 22 rounds.
2. Even with so little ammo stored, it was very cramped, slowly reloading more and making crew movements hard
I'm not sure of its exact service record, but I hear the IS-3 (the sucessor to the IS-2, the main one used during WWII) was still a pain in the israeli's ass in '67, so that says something, if only anecdotally.
|March 1st, 2011||#48|
| || |
MC Martel following wikipedia, they say that the IS tank was present when the soviets took Berlin.
And what do you mean by:
|March 1st, 2011||#49|
| || |
No, he's referring to the rear armour of the enemy tanks/fortifications as they're normally weaker, and how the 122mm of the IS-2 took out targets head on.
MCpl K. Steliga
Wing Operations/Air Traffic Control
14 Wing Greenwood
Royal Canadian Air Force
Per ardua ad astra
|March 1st, 2011||#50|
| || |
Oh, thanks for the explanation.
Well, so maybe that the IS was able to take out more enemy tanks before having to rearm. This makes it a better tank killer in that case and largely compensate for its low ammo count. If every round he fires means a knocked out German tank... no need to carry tons of shells...
And I believe that the Soviets had tons of resources to throw at the Germans...
FOR THE MOTHERLAND!!! CHARGE!!!
And the German saying:
FOR THE FATHERLAND, HOLD POSITIONS AND WAIT FOR THE YANKS TO SURRENDER! BE BRAVE!