Author Topic: Top Ten Tanks  (Read 1292 times)

Offline Edbert1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
      • http://www.edbert.net
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2005, 11:13:21 AM »
I'm going to chime in on the Panther. It is debateable that it should be #1 or not, but there's no way it should be off this list entirely. It had nearly all of the things that made the T34 so revolutionary (sloped armor/wide tracks for mobility in soft ground) but it overcame the firepower problem with the greatest 75mm ever used.

Looking at battle results can skew the choices too. How many T34s were wasted by Stavka due to poor strategy. The Germans clearly won battles with inferior equipment all along the eastern front for years due to superior strategy and field leadership. I think the same can be said about the decades worth of Arab-Israeli wars.

Quote

The best thing about Discovery and THC is the video footage.

I'm going to assume that 95+% of you guys see the errors on DW/TMC/THC when they show incorrect footage for what they are talking about, it really is almost half of the entertainment for me is watching for their errors.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2005, 11:27:50 AM »
Yup Edbert. Discovery is full of errors, but they prolly make programmes for the general public that does not care about the errors.

Skydancer.. 3 excellent tanks, but witch one is "best"?.. I have no idea, but used correctly they could prolly kill eachother without any problem. Tactics and training plus outside factors would determine the outcome.

-edit- If one should compare tho, you should put the A6 up against the Challenger2 and Abrams, and not the earlyer models.

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2005, 01:35:30 PM »
i find it astounding that the tanks of the first world war have not been mentioned.  "in the era they were used" the first world war tanks were light years ahead of trench warfare.




Abrams #2?! pffft.
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2005, 01:43:56 PM »
WW1 tank was mentioned.

#4 I think.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2005, 01:48:42 PM »
Panther was definitely the top tank in 1943.

However I feel the design has numerous serious faults in hull, turret and suspension.

The hull encloses far too much volume in armor, yes this gives it a nice 90rounds of ammo but it also ensures very thin armor protection on the sides. Panther II attempted tocure this by having 60mm side plates but this bumped up the weight to a Tiger I like 54 tons and would have cut manuverbility greatly.

The turret design was too big and too tall, the schmallturm fixed this quite a bit but it was still lacking in side armor vs its contemporaries not to mention it nnever saw use.

The double torsion bar suspension seesm like  a huge waste of space andv weight. Additnally the interleaved roadwheels just make everythiung haevier and more complex and prone to jamming.

Now I do like the panther but i see these as design errors thatr made panther seriously overweight for its armor and firepower.


oh and as for schmallturm and the 88/L71 this would have given huge internal space problemns in handling ammo so rof would have dropped greatly.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2005, 01:51:57 PM »
One thing that I think is missing from the criteria used to determine which tanks are in the top 10 list is: How did the tank do vs its contemporaries. The Sherman did not do very well at all vs it's contemporaries the Tiger and Panther. That alone should knock it out of the top 10.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2005, 05:42:10 PM »
Like I say "tommy cooker"

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2005, 06:17:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
One thing that I think is missing from the criteria used to determine which tanks are in the top 10 list is: How did the tank do vs its contemporaries. The Sherman did not do very well at all vs it's contemporaries the Tiger and Panther. That alone should knock it out of the top 10.
With all respect, I welcome you to 24 hours ago when the thread started.  That specific discussion dominated the first 40 messages.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2005, 07:23:14 PM »

#1 on my list, for funniest

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2005, 08:16:01 PM »
"The turret design was too big and too tall, the schmallturm fixed this quite a bit but it was still lacking in side armor vs its contemporaries not to mention it nnever saw use."
- Panther's turret wasn't tall at all and best of all most of its front side is covered by thick gun mantlet. Designers had to make compromises and having thick frontal armour and less in sides is IMHO better option than having a mediocre armour all around which just about every gun can penetrate. Panther's turret and hull/superstructure were giving frontally more than enough protection from Allied guns except 17pdr and some rare special ammunitions like APDS.

"The double torsion bar suspension seesm like  a huge waste of space andv weight. Additnally the interleaved roadwheels just make everythiung haevier and more complex and prone to jamming."
- Torsion bar suspension is durable solution; it doesn't take that much space and it's also well covered from battle damage. Here is StuG III's suspension visible, as you can see the torsion bars didn't take that much space..
Also interleaved roadwheels were sound invention; weight distribution of Panther and Tiger was much better than in any contemporaries. Weight per  track area contacting ground isn't everything; You have to also remember that track is flexible and bigger wheels are spreading the weight to wider track area. Also those roadwheels gave pretty good protection to lower hull so even if the wheels were heavy the hull could be made lighter. For example Panther G had 50mm upper hull sides sloped at 30dgr but lower hull was only 40mm and wasn't sloped at all.

"Now I do like the panther but i see these as design errors thatr made panther seriously overweight for its armor and firepower."
- Panther's were bit heavy but like I said the frontal armour was one of the best of the any tanks used in the ww2 and the gun was just as good as Tiger-E's 88L56; bit better under 1500m and bit worse at the ranges exceeding 1500m. Oh and trajectory of 75L70 was in its own class compared to 88L56.

"oh and as for schmallturm and the 88/L71 this would have given huge internal space problemns in handling ammo so rof would have dropped greatly."
-Remember Panther really was a heavy medium tank; 88L71 was a bit too big and powerful gun for relatively small turret and in most cases a overkill. Frankly speaking Russians didn't had any gun as powerfull as 88L71 was, British 17pdr was having 25% less penetration power and American 90mm was about the same with 17pdr.
75L70 had about as much penetration power as Russian 122mm, British 17pdr and US 90mm had.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2005, 08:20:22 PM by Staga »

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2005, 08:36:09 PM »
Double torsion bars were unique to the panther, it was different than other german torsion bar suspensions. Each road wheel arm has 2 torsion bars. And yes, torsion bars are the best suspension in ww2 and in most cases are still today.

Panther side armor was too weak. Even the germans recognized this and thats why panther II was initally drawn up in 1943. Thats also why schurzen were fitted because the standard 40mm armor was vulnerable to anti tank rifles....

The Panther simply enclosed far too much volume in armor for it to have much side protection.  Just compare to T34/85, Js2, M26, centurion etc all of the same weight or less than panther but much better side armor on turret and hull (except the 35ton t34).

So thats why the uparmored Panther 2 weighed 54 tons, lots of volume to protect in armor.

The Panther turret was too tall, the front was too wide, the curved mantlet design was an immediate weakpoint at the kursk battles when it deflected shells into the roof - and no thsi was not a post war invinetion - I ahve seen german front line reports sating thsi and teh side armor weakness to be great faults.  

An odd feature of Panthers turret is that the turret sides have maybe a 10cm overhang from the ring where the turret meets the hull. This seems an incredible waste of space and heigth.

Panther is too heavy for its total firepower and armor.  The Sherman could mount the same firepower and the Stalin 2 could mount the same firepower and much more armor.
M26 pershing also bested the Panther in armor and was the same or better in firepower.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #56 on: April 12, 2005, 10:11:51 PM »
The M-26 V Panther would be about the crew in a fight.


I agree grun you have the Panthers flaws down.


Hell they come through load and clear in Steel panthers, you need to keep the enemy at long range, if they get on your flanks even at long distance a sherman or any other allied tank can ruin a Panthers days.


The Tiger had to worry about this way less.


They really should have made it smaller, if you compare it in size( the 1/18 scale 21st century toys of the panther and Tiger are great for this) the Panther is JUST as big.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #57 on: April 12, 2005, 11:10:13 PM »
Panther is much longer and taller than Tiger 1, it actually looks much bigger. Tiger 1 is a surpsingly compact tank considering its 56 tons.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2005, 11:16:39 PM »
Yeah, I didnt want to say that without the tanks in front of meand sound stupid.


Even the tiger is pretty roomy inside, I wonder what made them make it so big?


I have some excelent books on it both the tiger and panther.

Germany's Panther Tank    Thomas L. Jentz
Panther & Its Varients   Walter J. Spielberger


Germany's Tiger Tanks, Tiger I&II Combat Tactics   Thomas L. Jentz

Germany's Tiger Tanks D.W to Tiger I   Thomas L. Jentz

Great books packed with very detailed pictures of the insides and components etc.  Dont recall them talking about why they made it so big though.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Top Ten Tanks
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2005, 12:03:16 AM »
I have all those too and they are exellent.

The Tiger is actually pretty small, it's only large dimension is width.  The only sensible reason I see for it being so wide is to store ammo above the tracks. Those hull exensions above the trcaks are what made the german tanks so big and heavy because you had to armor them.

IMO it would have been better if they had designed a larger Panzer III with a simple box hull with sloped frontal armor and the ability to mount a long 75mm either the L48 of the Pz4 or the L70 of panther in a different turret.

This type of tank would have been easier to produce than Panzer 4, much cheaper than panther, much much cheaper than tiger. If yiu figure only about 7,000 total panthers, Tigers and Tiger 2 were produced I think at lesat 20,000 such uber Panzer III could have been built and had a much bigger impact on ythe war.

The M26 Pershing was baically that tank, but with heavy armor. In fcat the M26 program was in part inspired by captured Panzer III from north africa.  The suspension and hull layout in particuloar.