Author Topic: Top Ten Tanks (Read 1295 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #60 on:** April 13, 2005, 12:35:08 AM »

Yet the suspension gave it a great ride and made it an excellent gunnery platform.
I dont think there is anything wrong at all with the balistic shape. If it has a problem it is that its engine never got to the reliablility you would want from such a vehicle.
Its no higher then a Centurion which you praised. and the T55 has poor ammo handling for the same reasons as the Panther II.

All trade offs. Notice how time to service isnt included in the "best in history" stats. The Panther is remarkable in that respect as well. Pretty much an entirely new and fantastically complex and refined tank in a year and a half. Where they totaly dominated at Kursk. lol

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2005, 12:40:26 AM »

I thought they did badly at Kursk because so many broke down?

Pongo · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2005, 12:52:40 AM »

So you think they should have restricted themselves to a 35 ton(?) tank then GH?

Something that would have been near parity to the enemy that would be producing still 5 times as many as you?
I guess its a ballance. They didnt have a chance to win the war with tanks of any kind once the allies decided to realy make a fight of it. The Uboats maybe had a chance but no tripleing of tanks while makeing them half as effective would have made a difference.

Its not perfect obviosly. But comparing it to not only its enemies but any tank in the world at that time it was so supperior in concept and capablilty in late 43 early 44 that it is the best tank in history vs its contemporaries.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #63 on:** April 13, 2005, 01:17:02 AM »

My hypothetical tank would have the same frontal armor as Panther for less weight and side armor would be comporable.

Reaching an arbitrary weight isnt really the point thogh, my main concern with Panther is the ratio of armor to weight. They could have gotten a lot more armor or a lot less total weighth and complexity with a bit smarter packaging. So at 45 tons it would have more armor or have the csame armor at a ligher weight.

This tank armed with an L70 or L48 would completely dominate the T34 just like panther but would be far more numerous. Also it wouyld replace the Pz4, which was very hard to manufacture - taking almost as much time and money as a Panther..

This type of tank wpuld give a lot more german heavy armored glacis and long 75mm armed tanks into the field than really was the case. There is no scenariob whewre this is bad for the german war effort.

Oh and Panther D really wasnt a star at Kursk, im sure GTO can quote you the enormous losses due to malfunctions, enemy weapons etc.. But by the G series they got most all problems worked out but Panther was never really capable of long tactical marches. It's kind of ironic but I think that the USA was better off with Shermans than with Panthers in 1944 considering the type of warfare the US Army was waging - especially patton.

Elfie · « **Reply #64 on:** April 13, 2005, 02:21:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
With all respect, I welcome you to 24 hours ago when the thread started. That specific discussion dominated the first 40 messages.

I re-read the entire thread. I didnt see one post about the criteria concerning how each tank faired vs it's contemporaries being unused by the show.

My point was that if the show had used that as one of the criteria the Sherman never would have made the list since it did so poorly in that regard. Otoh, the Panther would have made the list. Imo that is a very important criteria in determining a top 10 tank.

Jagr · « **Reply #65 on:** April 13, 2005, 08:39:09 AM »

Calling the Sherman good because the "tactics" were flawed is incorrect.. The US doctrine pre war was ludicrous.. Having a separate TD unit whose job was to kill the tanks while the tanks supported the inf. was totally unrealistic. The best TD was another tank.. The Sherman was found to be grossly ineffective against the Panther/Tiger once it entered combat. It was more importantly opened up like a sardine can by the primary German AT guns like the Pak40.. It was too tall, had too high a ground pressure, and was underarmored and undergunned for its environment. This fact was known early on..even North Africa..but a logistical decision was made to not adjust properly and to throw away tankers lives while telling them the Sherman was the best tank on the battlefield right up until the end of the war. The Sherman was a reasonable first try.. but should have been superceded by the T26 as soon as possible..