Author Topic: Top Ten Tanks (Read 1293 times)

Gwjr2 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2005, 07:40:11 PM »

hmm are those 105s or 88s

Gunslinger · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2005, 08:02:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Exactly. The Sherman may have been the worst weapon we ever sent our soldiers to war with. The Sherman only had 2 things going for it imo, reliability and vast numbers. It didnt have enough armor and was (imo) severely undergunned.

How it made the top 10 list is beyond me.

well if you mass 20,000 tanks against 2000 the numbers are in your favor. Like I said before, not a bad weapon just bad tactics.

Pongo · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2005, 08:29:52 PM »

Lol the T34 number 1 and the Sherman number 10. There is nothing to tell between them except the value that the nation that fielded them put in the lives of their soldiers.

Myself I would rather go to war in an M4A3E8-76 then any T34.

Elfie · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2005, 08:37:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
well if you mass 20,000 tanks against 2000 the numbers are in your favor. Like I said before, not a bad weapon just bad tactics.

The Sherman itself was crap. It didnt have nearly enough armor, the gun was to small (couldnt penetrate Tiger/Panther armor except at extremely close ranges and even then had to go for side/rear shots), and WORST of all, it acted like a bic lighter when it was hit.

Just because a tank was produced in mass numbers shouldnt qualify it for the top ten list imo.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2005, 08:55:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
The Sherman itself was crap. It didnt have nearly enough armor, the gun was to small (couldnt penetrate Tiger/Panther armor except at extremely close ranges and even then had to go for side/rear shots), and WORST of all, it acted like a bic lighter when it was hit.

Just because a tank was produced in mass numbers shouldnt qualify it for the top ten list imo.

You are correct....It could not penetrate the Tiger/Panzer/panther armor........because it was not designed to. It wasn't supposed to stand off against those tanks

It was built to be a light weight manuvarable fast attack weapon. Make contact with the enemy and call in the tank killers.

Again not a bad weapon if it was fielded correctly...it's all about the tactics.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2005, 09:09:12 PM »

Guns,
It failed there as well.

With its very narrow treads, tanks much heavier like the Panther were much more manuverable and fast over anything but road.

Shermans got stuck in places Panthers and even Tigers could get through because of their wide treads.

Also when Faced with German AT guns it was dead.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2005, 09:11:48 PM »

The list is lame, the sherman description list two engines lol.

The very early ones used a radial and it sucked. The late war ones used a pretty good for V8.

I think some had 4 cadilac car motors in them.

The sherman was not the worst US tank though, the M3 lee gets that title.

ASTAC · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2005, 09:11:48 PM »

I wouldn't know..I like shooting people from the relative safety of 100+ miles offshore..GO NAVY!!!!

Slurpee · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2005, 09:17:30 PM »

i saw that show, the list is alright but, T34 the #1 tank i think is BS. I dont think it was #1.

Saw another show on there, Sherman Vs Tiger. Pretty easy to guess who one that match. lol Sherman had to get within 60yds to even have a chance at killing a Tiger, and even then it wasnt very likely. Tiger domolished sherman easily from great distance. They said itd take 4 shermans to kill one Tiger.

They did crew interviews as well, everyone agree given they choice theyd want a Tiger.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:28:46 PM »

Appropriate for the T54...

Quote

the only reason to be afraid of this tank was because of the vast numbers produced.

That number was marked at 95,000!

Edbert1 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:31:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Myself I would rather go to war in an M4A3E8-76 then any T34.

The easy-8 was the best Sherman made, easilly chosen over a 1942 T34, but what about a 1945 version (uparmored and with the 85mm)? At least it would require more info like terrain conditions to make a clear choice.

Shuckins · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:31:48 PM »

Sherman could have been designed as a more effective gun platform from the outset, but powerful interests in the military, procurement, and industrial sectors lobbied for the mass-produced, low-velocity 75mm...because it could lay down a large volume of fire against its targets.

It was never meant to be a main battle tank.

The British Army nearly missed out on getting the 17 pd., high-velocity gun for the very same reasons. The only reason they did was because those in favor of the low-velocity 75 were outmaneouvered in committee by a few desperate men who knew the truth about the type of enemy their tanks would be facing.

In addition, I believe that the overall dimensions of the Sherman were dictated by the problems inherent in transporting a tank across the Atlantic on the types of ships available at that time. A smaller, narrower tank would take up less space, and more of them could be shipped at one time.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:33:16 PM »

I think the T-34 get credit for being "good" because it had some inovative features for 1940/41 Good suspension, sloped armor, a gun that for the time was big.

Over all though once the long barrel Panzer 4F came out, it was not longer a great tank.

From what I have read it was a ****y tank to fight, unconfortable, bad sites, hard word to drive, bad ammo setup, bad crew layout no turret basket.

It was prolly no better then a sherman tell 44 when it got the 85MM gun.

Hell a sherman in 1940 would have been one hell of a shock to the germans!

Glasses · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:36:53 PM »

Where's the Shagohod no one played MGS3

Elfie · « **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:58:48 PM »

Quote

Saw another show on there, Sherman Vs Tiger. Pretty easy to guess who one that match. lol Sherman had to get within 60yds to even have a chance at killing a Tiger, and even then it wasnt very likely. Tiger domolished sherman easily from great distance. They said itd take 4 shermans to kill one Tiger.

Years ago I worked with a guy who's dad was a tanker in WWII. Sherman tanks to be specific. Apparently his dad said it took 13- 15 Shermans to knock out one Tiger and even then sometimes the Shermans lost.