World War II armored vehicles
MadeInChina
Active member
man, those typhoons are a hell of a plane
anyways, back to topic
anyone seen the maus in museums??? those things are so huge, and if deplyed they will be pretty rough for allies to kill
anyways, back to topic
anyone seen the maus in museums??? those things are so huge, and if deplyed they will be pretty rough for allies to kill
Doppleganger
Active member
Pyro said:In my view the King Tiger was the best but it never entered full production
Yes it did and while it had superb armour and a potent gun it was grossly underpowered and very unreliable. Moreover, it's sheer bulk made it hard to hide on the battlefield. Germany would have been better served making further improvements to the Panther and making that tank more reliable than messing around with yet another new design.
In saying that, had the Tiger II been developed fully and had a suitable powerplant it would have been an awesome battlefield superiority tank.
Doppleganger
Active member
Charge_7 said:
Well it was production nonetheless and not just prototypes being made. Size of production is irrelevant when discussing what is and what isn't full production. Though, I do wonder how many Panzer IV's could have been made instead. Panzer IV's with the long-barelled 75mm gun were all Germany really needed, with 88 AT guns filling in as needed.
MadeInChina
Active member
true, those 75's did alot of damage
however i thought the germans should've added a more powerful engine, larger wheels and a larger turret to the PZ IV H with an 88mm gun, that would be so powerful
however i thought the germans should've added a more powerful engine, larger wheels and a larger turret to the PZ IV H with an 88mm gun, that would be so powerful
FO Seaman
Active member
There was never a Sherman with a 105mm, just 75mm LV and 76mm HV. Just a package that could upgun the Sherman and we sold them to the Israeli's.
The M10 Tank Destroyer with the Sherman chasisis had a 105mm or 3in gun.
Not to sound picky or rude but you only put the Sherman up, what about the Stuart, Grant, Lee, Preist, and Chaffee. And the M18 and M10.
The M10 Tank Destroyer with the Sherman chasisis had a 105mm or 3in gun.
Not to sound picky or rude but you only put the Sherman up, what about the Stuart, Grant, Lee, Preist, and Chaffee. And the M18 and M10.
MadeInChina
Active member
grants... chaffes, doesnt have the performance as the other tanks mentioned, besides, it is a poll of best tanks, generally light and lightly firepowered tanks are not mentioned
yes there is, the 105mm sherman firefly by the british, it is pretty good, could take a tiger down with a couple shots
by standards american armored units sucked, no offense, though in the late time of the war it was imporoved.
yes there is, the 105mm sherman firefly by the british, it is pretty good, could take a tiger down with a couple shots
by standards american armored units sucked, no offense, though in the late time of the war it was imporoved.
Not sure I agree with all we have hit on lately.....
I believe there was a Sherman 105mm. But it was intended as an assault gun, not a tiger killer.
I think the Brit Firelfly had a 76.2mm. Probably the best gun the Tommies fielded during the war. From the stats, I would say it was the most deadly Sherman of the war. It seems to have better punch than the 76mm the US put on the later Shermans.
I think you guys are overrating the MkIV somewhat. It could hold it's own against the Western Allies but it was outclassed by the T-34s. At least the T-34/85. Then there are the Russian heavies.....
The Mk IV was due to be phased out. Germany just ran out of options facing 50,000 Sherman and 70,000 T-34s.
I believe there was a Sherman 105mm. But it was intended as an assault gun, not a tiger killer.
I think the Brit Firelfly had a 76.2mm. Probably the best gun the Tommies fielded during the war. From the stats, I would say it was the most deadly Sherman of the war. It seems to have better punch than the 76mm the US put on the later Shermans.
I think you guys are overrating the MkIV somewhat. It could hold it's own against the Western Allies but it was outclassed by the T-34s. At least the T-34/85. Then there are the Russian heavies.....
The Mk IV was due to be phased out. Germany just ran out of options facing 50,000 Sherman and 70,000 T-34s.
Doppleganger
Active member
Mike Main said:
The Panzer IV wasn't as good as the T-34 but fitted with the long barrelled 75mm KwK 40 L/43 gun it was able to engage the Soviet tanks on fairly equal terms. The advantage of the Panzer IV, as Guderian correctly noted, was that it was much easier to produce than the Panther or Tiger, it was a well proven combat design into its late production variants and the tank crews knew them inside out. Think of the Panzer IV as the 'German Sherman', except better.
Whispering Death
Active member
You know you've got a good tank when the P-51 pilots had to try and bounce their cannon rounds up UNDER the tank because their guns couldn't penetrate even the top armor.
Whispering Death said:
You ought to know that the reason for this little white lie was to ensure that pilots started to shoot early as to lead the fire in on the target instead of overshooting the target. Ricochetting/bouncing bullets had absolutely no effect on the bottom armour of the tanks!
Back on the MkIV
No question the MK IV was easier and cheaper to produce. All the same I think the "main battle tank" evolved for good reason. There is no sub for thick armor and a hard hitting gun. Technology advances so quickly during a major war. WWII big time. The MK IV, the Sherman, and even the great T-34 were about to have a tough time when the war ended. The British Centurion, the Russian JS-III, the American M-26 were all "heavies" by WWII standards. But they were a new breed, all faster and more agile than the mighty King Tiger.
I have to stick to my guns on this one. The T-34/85 was superior to the Sherman and MkIV in many ways. Yet they got eaten alive by M-26s in Korea.
Germany did need a tank they could mass produce. But is wasn't the MK IV. Some kind of simplified Panther would have been better.
No question the MK IV was easier and cheaper to produce. All the same I think the "main battle tank" evolved for good reason. There is no sub for thick armor and a hard hitting gun. Technology advances so quickly during a major war. WWII big time. The MK IV, the Sherman, and even the great T-34 were about to have a tough time when the war ended. The British Centurion, the Russian JS-III, the American M-26 were all "heavies" by WWII standards. But they were a new breed, all faster and more agile than the mighty King Tiger.
I have to stick to my guns on this one. The T-34/85 was superior to the Sherman and MkIV in many ways. Yet they got eaten alive by M-26s in Korea.
Germany did need a tank they could mass produce. But is wasn't the MK IV. Some kind of simplified Panther would have been better.
WarMachine
Active member
we can all appreciate the king tiger for their increased power and armor, but it wasn't that great on even ground with other tanks, especially without it's greater attack range. The panther on the other hand was truly an MBT worthy of being best overall. Germany should've concentrated on mass-producing medium weight and more reliable Panther style tanks IMO.
Doppleganger
Active member
WarMachine said:
Well, the Konigstiger had no prototype or development trials at all. The tanks were built in the factory and then sent immediately to the front. That's why half of them broke down and the other half, those that weren't knocked out, were abandoned or scuttled by their crews when they ran out of fuel. The other big problem for the Konigstiger was its pitiful mobility/range - it needed a much more powerful powerplant than the one it shared with the Panther and Tiger.
WarMachine
Active member
Exactly the thing i don't understand, why would germany need these monstrous tanks? Their strategic and tactical advantages were limited, and the cost of producing 1Tiger would've built 2 regular ones. It was supposedly built in order to take out larger Soviet tanks, but couldn't they have built tank destroyers to do the same thing at less cost?
At least the models look cool.
At least the models look cool.
Nothing cooler looking than the Tiger. It just has "The Look".
I think a lot of times it is overlooked the difference between the eastern and western front. Especially in armored warfare.
When you look at the Sherman or Churchill against Tigers and Panthers you have to think the Germans had gotten carried away.
This is kind of bold but I think westerners have to realize they were in the minor leagues in armor. The German had there hands full with the Russians.
Look at the evolution: Mk IV - T-34 - Tiger and Panther - T-34/85 and JS-II - King Tiger - JS-III.......
Problem - Answer - Problem - Answer.......
I hate to admit it, but the real technology battle was on the eastern front. We were outmatched because the German were trying to keep pace with the Russians.
The same could be said in reverse about fighter vs. fighter. The technology battle was on the western front. As such, the Russians and Japanese fell behind.
My theory anyway......
I think a lot of times it is overlooked the difference between the eastern and western front. Especially in armored warfare.
When you look at the Sherman or Churchill against Tigers and Panthers you have to think the Germans had gotten carried away.
This is kind of bold but I think westerners have to realize they were in the minor leagues in armor. The German had there hands full with the Russians.
Look at the evolution: Mk IV - T-34 - Tiger and Panther - T-34/85 and JS-II - King Tiger - JS-III.......
Problem - Answer - Problem - Answer.......
I hate to admit it, but the real technology battle was on the eastern front. We were outmatched because the German were trying to keep pace with the Russians.
The same could be said in reverse about fighter vs. fighter. The technology battle was on the western front. As such, the Russians and Japanese fell behind.
My theory anyway......
WarMachine
Active member
The americans were making way too many sherman tanks. You'd think with all that industry we'd make something more formidable to at least the average PzIV. With pershing tanks being mass-produced a little earlier, as well as the use of those monstrous T-28's as planned, we could've reached berlin first.
Granted that T-28's are very slow, they probably would've made the soviets think twice before emposing their little blockade.
What is this, the most powerful country in terms of military output, and we couldn't even make a balanced all-purpose tank like the soviets or germans.
Granted that T-28's are very slow, they probably would've made the soviets think twice before emposing their little blockade.
What is this, the most powerful country in terms of military output, and we couldn't even make a balanced all-purpose tank like the soviets or germans.
FO Seaman
Active member
Your totally right,if we had them in mass production and we would have been there first.
Our answers to the German Tiger II:T-28 and T-29
Primary armament: 105 mm Gun T5E1 on both.
The numerous types of Shermans made:
M4 Sherman Medium Tank
M4(75) Sherman I Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A1(75) Sherman II Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A2(75) Sherman III Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3(75) Sherman IV Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3(75)W Sherman IV Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3E2 Jumbo Assault Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A4(75) Sherman V Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A5 RAM
M4A6(75) Sherman VI Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A1(76)W Sherman IIA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A1(76)W HVSS Sherman IIAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A2(76)W Sherman IIIA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A2(76)W HVSS Sherman IIIAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A3(76)W Sherman IVA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A3E8(76)W HVSS Sherman IVAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4(105) Sherman IB Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4(105) HVSS Sherman IBY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4A3(105) Sherman IVB Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4A3(105)HVSS Sherman IVBY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
Sherman Firefly Cruiser Tank (Primary armament: 17-Pdr ROQF Gun Mark VII/VIII)
Info from: http://panzervince.membres.jexiste.org/USArmor/index.htm
Our answers to the German Tiger II:T-28 and T-29
Primary armament: 105 mm Gun T5E1 on both.
The numerous types of Shermans made:
M4 Sherman Medium Tank
M4(75) Sherman I Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A1(75) Sherman II Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A2(75) Sherman III Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3(75) Sherman IV Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3(75)W Sherman IV Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A3E2 Jumbo Assault Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A4(75) Sherman V Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A5 RAM
M4A6(75) Sherman VI Medium Tank (Primary armament: 75 mm Gun M3)
M4A1(76)W Sherman IIA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A1(76)W HVSS Sherman IIAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A2(76)W Sherman IIIA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A2(76)W HVSS Sherman IIIAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A3(76)W Sherman IVA Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4A3E8(76)W HVSS Sherman IVAY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 76 mm Gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2)
M4(105) Sherman IB Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4(105) HVSS Sherman IBY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4A3(105) Sherman IVB Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
M4A3(105)HVSS Sherman IVBY Medium Tank (Primary armament: 105 mm Howitzer M4)
Sherman Firefly Cruiser Tank (Primary armament: 17-Pdr ROQF Gun Mark VII/VIII)
Info from: http://panzervince.membres.jexiste.org/USArmor/index.htm