Rank the Tank!

In 90% of the cases movies arn't correct, theres always something thats untrue in them even if they are based on a real event.

The movie, "Zulu" went out of it's way for authenticity and was declared a true account of the events and if anything would've been dramatised I seriously doubt they would have re-written the end of the battle.

Thats not the battle I was on about...the film is Zulu Dawn

"Zulu Dawn" depicts the bloody Battle of Isandhlwana, in which 30,000 Zulu warriors wiped out nearly 1,500 British troops stationed in Natal. The British didn't win anything there. At least at Rourke's Drift they won respect if not the battle.

We're waayyy off topic here and should probably either end this discussion now or have a mod move it to a new topic.

:eek:fftopic:
 
Yep, backs up my arguement nicely. Thank you. 30,000 spears wiped out 1500 rifles. Production results at work.

Nobody said the said the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger in any other aspect than production - just as the spear was not a better weapon than the rifle in any other aspect.

The point is that if you make alot of an inferior weapon and your opponent makes very little of a superior weapon you can win by production alone. The ability to mass produce and the design that allowed this to happen are what made the Sherman a great tank - not its armor, not its firepower. It did however have the advantage over the Tiger in mobility. It was faster and lighter and it's turret turned much faster. These elements allowed it to kill the Tiger though even then only by shooting it from the rear. As I stated, this took about four Sherman's to accomplish. Production assured that there were four Shermans so it did happen.
 
Charge, I realise this argument is going nowhere but by God I just can't help myself. :)

Charge 7 said:
The point is that if you make alot of an inferior weapon and your opponent makes very little of a superior weapon you can win by production alone. The ability to mass produce and the design that allowed this to happen are what made the Sherman a great tank - not its armor, not its firepower.

How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one? Whether the product is manufactured once or a million times its basic nature remains unchanged. The US logistical and production capability is what *should* be praised here, not the Sherman tank itself. The ability to produce thousands of these tanks did not suddenly make it less liable for its ammunition to blow up when hit, or more able to take a German tank out at long range.

The East Germans made thousands of Trabant cars, a cheap, smelly, unreliable 2-stroke engine car made from amongst other things cardboard - did the fact that thousands upon thousands were made change its nature? Of course not. So why do you insist with this pointless argument regarding the Sherman?

You seem to be lauding the Sherman tank as one of the winners of WW2 - it was nothing like as such. To begin with the outcome of the European War was largely decided by Summer 1943, nevermind by the time D-Day came along. Secondly, Allied air power, German strategic mistakes, lack of fuel for German tanks, Germany fighting on 3 fronts, German troops assigned to the Western Front being very uneven in quality, woeful German intelligence, great Allied intelligence, very careful Allied planning were all far more decisive than the Sherman tank.

Charge 7 said:
It did however have the advantage over the Tiger in mobility. It was faster and lighter and it's turret turned much faster. These elements allowed it to kill the Tiger though even then only by shooting it from the rear. As I stated, this took about four Sherman's to accomplish. Production assured that there were four Shermans so it did happen.

First of all the Sherman did not have a big mobility advantage over the Panther and its mobility advantage over the Tiger was nowhere near as large as to play any significant factor. The reason why 4-5 Shermans were able to kill a lone Panther or Tiger was nothing to do with mobility and everything to do with outflanking said lone Panther or Tiger whilst 1 or 2 of the Shermans get knocked out trying to keep it 'busy' and killing it from the rear. Rather like an infantry squad will 'fix' a machine gun nest and then attempt to outflank it.
 
Charge, I realise this argument is going nowhere but by God I just can't help myself.

Well, I can. I've said all I care to about the importance of production and the design that allows mass production. If you just don't find that true well, that's your opinion.
 
Doppleganger said:
How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?

_they never ran out_ ....that's how, nobody's saying that the Sherman was a marvel of technology _however_ it did it's job...either that be 4:1 or 1:1...doesn't really matter does it?
 
rOk said:
Doppleganger said:
How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?

_they never ran out_ ....that's how, nobody's saying that the Sherman was a marvel of technology _however_ it did it's job...either that be 4:1 or 1:1...doesn't really matter does it?

Right, did its job - does that make it the 10th best tank of all time and a better tank than say the Panther? According to that list it does.

Charge, I agree with you on the importance of production and that designs that are able to mass produced easily are important in war. The T-34 had that virtue and it was a great tank, but because it satisfied the 3 classic tank ratings of armour, firepower and mobility. The difference is that the Sherman didn't.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting debate Charge. :)
 
Guess it's my fault for not reading this entire thread just this last page...
the point I was trying to make is that the Sherman was better for the war effort than the Panther...if only because of mass production...so be it...
 
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
 
Damien435 said:
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

Except that Germany also has an extremely well trained air force and air defense artillery corps. I don't see how you are going to initiate contact with an enemy and bring down air support that quickly. It can take upwards of an hour for USAF support to arrive. During that time any competent tank force is going to be rolling over you.
 
Damien435 said:
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

The only modifier in that for me would be that both the Abrams and Challenger have stood up to the combat test where the Leopard hasnt so while I hear good things about the Leopard and on paper it should be superior until it sees some form of combat (ie doing its job) I personally cant put it in the number one spot.
 
MontyB said:
Damien435 said:
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

The only modifier in that for me would be that both the Abrams and Challenger have stood up to the combat test where the Leopard hasnt so while I hear good things about the Leopard and on paper it should be superior until it sees some form of combat (ie doing its job) I personally cant put it in the number one spot.

Older leopards (Leopard 1) has gone against older russian tanks in the balkans (Danish Leo1). Aswell as RPG so it does have basic "experience".

Newer German tanks are part of peacekeeping missions (Leo 2 A5), not that much resitence in form of tanks left but RPG is still often used, atleast has been until some years ago, dont know how the situation is now.
 
Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?
 
Armyjaeger said:
Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?

No not really.

Part of battle proven is operating in wartime conditions, with a limited supply of spare part and the stress of that enviromen. Despite the NTC being a great training ground, it still isnt combat.
 
Its not how good the tank is but the people using it. no one tank has a hugly supior advantage over another tank so we fall on the much tryed and true method. The law of murphy, thy who shoots first wins.
 
sleepyscout said:
Its not how good the tank is but the people using it. no one tank has a hugly supior advantage over another tank so we fall on the much tryed and true method. The law of murphy, thy who shoots first wins.

Unless one object can withstand the impact but the other object can't ;)
 
Armyjaeger said:
Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?

Yes i have heard about it too.
 
Back
Top