Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on April 11, 2005, 06:22:18 PM
-
Show on the military channel... Kinda interesting as they chose the tanks in the context of the era in which they were used.
I remember
1. T-34
2. M1 Abrams
10. Sherman (called it the flawed sherman)
-
Found em.. here ya go....
http://wings.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/sildeshow/slideshow.html
-
you know the sherman get's such a bad rep but the truth of the matter is it was perfect for it's role. Problem is the tactics were sound but not used correctly.
The sherman was never designed to stand off against tigers and panzers it was a fast attack weapon used to make contact and call in the tank killers.
I've allways said there are very few bad weapons just bad tactics.
-
The Tiger listed at #3:
Its fear factor, however, is off the scale — even its name was an act of psychological warfare.
I never really understood why the T-34 is generally listed as the all time best tank. I understand that it was reliable and had sloped armor for excellent crew protection. However it's main armament couldnt compete with Tigers and Panthers until it was upgraded later in the war.
-
How could the Sherman be on the list? It's main strength was not in tank itself, but in the industrial might that produced so many of them.
The T-72 is a great tank. It's like the R-7 booster of tanks. The basic design is so solid, it's been re-used for decades in progressively newer and better tanks. The R-7 booster started life as an ICBM (one of the first was used to place Sputnik in orbit) and was refined over the decades. An R-7 variant launched Yuri Gagarin (first human in space), then later R-7 variants have launched every cosmonaut through today as the 'Soyuz' rocket. A completely evolutionary design, same as the T-72.
-
How many Tigers were produced? How many Shermans were made?
-
The test of the Sherman page of your link MT:
First produced in 1942. Top speed: 24 mph. Range: 100 miles. The tank's radial nine-cylinder engine gives a power-to-weight ratio of 15.8 horsepower per ton. Armor thickness: 62 millimeters. Primary armament: 75-mm high-velocity gun.
The Sherman scored low on firepower and armor. Its Ford eight-cylinder engine was efficient and reliable, so the tank scored slightly better for mobility. But it is ease of manufacture that won the M-4 its place among the top 10 tanks: a staggering 48,000 of them were produced over just three years. Thus, the Sherman received a top production rating.
With 17 cylinders you would think it could do better than 24 mph...
edit>perhaps different versions had different engines?
-
edit :o
-
How could the Sherman be on the list? It's main strength was not in tank itself, but in the industrial might that produced so many of them.
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.
-
I think there were 50,000 Shermans built. I believe there were about 2,000 Tigers and King Tigers built (together).
-
am I reading this correctly? The sherman had 2 engines?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
This statement on the Panther makes the whole rank listing questionable:
"Its fear factor score is very high: in the early days of World War II this tank was unstoppable."
The Panther was not around in the 'early days of WW2. :rolleyes: The Panther first saw mass action around Kursk on July 5, 1943.
Uhhh....the Panther isnt even on the list. I think you quoted what they said about the Panzer IV.
-
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.
Quit talking like an Amerihater!!! The Sherman was best tank EVAH!!!!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The test of the Sherman page of your link MT:
With 17 cylinders you would think it could do better than 24 mph...
edit>perhaps different versions had different engines?
You are having us on Holden? 17 cylinders??
The M4A2 nad M4A6 could do 30mph on a road.
Elfie, your correct.:o
-
Check out this tank!
(http://www.1lingeriestore.com/39913l.jpg)
-
hmm are those 105s or 88s :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I wouldn't know..I like shooting people from the relative safety of 100+ miles offshore..GO NAVY!!!!
-
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.
-
Appropriate for the T54...
the only reason to be afraid of this tank was because of the vast numbers produced.
That number was marked at 95,000!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
:D
-
Where's the Shagohod no one played MGS3 :D
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
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.
I would take it over any T34.
And any tanker in WW2 would take a Panther over any sherman.
the best tank in history in comparison to its contemporarys is the Panther. Not on the list. lol
-
the best tank in history in comparison to its contemporarys is the Panther. Not on the list. lol
I agree with that. No idea why it didnt make the top 10 list at all.
-
Elfie, that wouldnt suprise me at all. From how quick they said it knockd out 3 shermans, seems like any expierenced Tiger crew would have made it a rough day for plenty of Sherman crews.
Really amazing Tank.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I never really understood why the T-34 is generally listed as the all time best tank.
Because all the things you wanted in a tank, it had. It was a simple design and easy to manufacture. It was fast. It was low to the ground and had a wide base. It had a diesel engine that reduced the chance of fire. It had firepower. It was durable, less prone to break down. It had sloped armor. It was the perfect tank design.
I think sometimes the T-34 is overlooked as a deciding factor in ww2
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
am I reading this correctly? The sherman had 2 engines?
No, but some Shermans had 6 engines....
-
(http://www.toonopedia.com/mcnamara.jpg)
-
I read a book a while back that explained to a T what a worthless POS the Sherman was. Book was written by a tank recovery officer with the 3rdAD(I think). Books called "Death Traps: Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II".
He also talks about the IIRC M26 Pershing and how things changed when they finally got it. One that had an experimental IIRC 90mm gun. Maybe 120mm. I loaned the book out 8 months or so ago and havn't gotten it back yet...
-
I would say the T54/55 series were the best tank design in history. Of course better more modern designs came later but taken in one single time, this tank was IMO the best design.
To get all that armor, firepower and capability in a tank scarecly heavier than a T34 was a design miracle.
For it's time period of the late 1940s it was the best tank and the fasct thsat so many are still around speaks very well of it. To give you some perspective how long living the T54/55 series was, its basic chassis design used on the T44 which saw limited combat late in WW2 so dont mind the drubbings it recieved from 35 year newer designs like M1 Abrams in the gulf.
Its 100mm gun was more powerful than Panther's 75mm more powerful than Tiger I 88mm more than the US 90mm or the british 17lbr, its Armor was nearly that of Kingtiger all at T34 weight and with even simpler construction and a much better suspension. T54/55 is simply amazing.
Compare it to the US tanks of the late 40s period like M26 Pershing and its one hell of a weapon. Compare its numbers in production and its total fighting capability circa 1955/60 and you will quickly see why the usa europe defense strategy was to use nukes.
After T54/55 I think the most underrated tank is the British centurion. Also like t44/54/55, a late ww2 design the centurion had enormous growth potential in armor and firepower. Initially armed with the 17lbr, later upgraded to the 20lbr (a gun with much better penetration than Kingtigers 88/L71) and finally to the famed L7 105mm that went on to arm 2 generations of Nato/US tanks including the initial M1 Abrams. Not bad for a 1945 tank that gets so little press. Its armor was also upgraded through its very long service life.
The T34 is somewhat of a mixed bag, a truth belayed by the fact that soviet tank designers tried on several occasions to design a T34 replacement, even in the dark days of 41/42 when every tank was needed. Its suspension was primitive, it was nutoriously hard/finnicky to drive and shift gears, it had a terrible turret layout, terrible ammo layout, poor visibilty, poor command setup etc etc etc. Whjat made it's reputation was simply the glaring weakness of 1941 era german tank mounted guns. If the 1941 panzers mounted longer 75mm or even the high velocity 50mm/L60 as hitler had wanted then we would have heard little of the T34. But with Panzer 3 doing only with a 37mm or short 50mm and panzer 4 only with a 75mm close support howitzer the T34 made its name in history and saved the ussr.
Sherman gets a very bad rap. In summer 1942 it was one of the worlds best tanks. Its armor and firepower were clearly superior to Panzer IVF1 and its overall combat capability was better than contemporary T34. Where Sherman failed was in the us armys tank fighting doctorine where the best guns and ammo went to dedicated tank destyroyer units. So while the Pz IV was upgunned to high velocity 75m guns in 1942 the sherman larely went on with its old low velocity 75mm gun - dervied from a ww1 french field artierly piece of all things. Even when shermans got 76mm guns in 1944 the best AP ammo went to the Tank destroyer units and even worse the 76mm shermans were rather rare. IMO it was a crime that US Shermans never got upgraded to the 17lbr british gun, this would have given the US soldier Panther level firepower and would have saved many many US lives in 1944. Shermans other wekness was its very tall shiloutte because the early models were powered by an aircraft radial engine. Finally one Sherman weakness that gets overblown (sic) is its tendancy to catch fire because it was gasoline powered. Well this was true and it was a big problem, however what irks me is the fact that all significant german tanks were also gasoline powered and burned very quickly too. For example Panther side armor is scarely beter than shermans when being shot at by 1944 guns so panthers burned very easily too, but you almost never hear that as a weakness.
-
I would think the T55 would be higher on the list and that the T72 would be on it.
-
One disadvantage Soviet tanks (T-55 > 72) had was that of gun depression. This left too much hull exposed in the 'hull down' position, whereas Western tanks would only have the turret showing. Another disadvantage was the cramped turret interior.
The best thing about Discovery and THC is the video footage.
-
OTOH, Soviet tanks are waay-waay less tall than Western tanks, making them more harder to be hit. The ballistic shape of their turrets is also very good (an advantage up to when Cobham was introduced on Western tanks). And one has to keep in mind the Western tanks never met Soviet armor in Soviet hands... luckily for the world. Just the ones used by poorly trained 3rd world crews.
Back on topic, these 'Top10 lists' are something extremely silly. Hardly any through rational behind them at all.
And putting the T-34 on the 1st place is hardly deserved. It was fairly advanced in it`s basics when appeared, but also had a huge number of flaws in it`s design, and generally greatly overrated.
-
"Tommy Cooker"
"Ronson" (Lights first time!)
Wonder how this fantastic:rolleyes: weapon got those names?
(http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/images/juno-4-8.1-Sherman%20tank.jpg)
-
Best tanks of all time?
(http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/general_dynamics/gd1.jpg)
Abrams
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leo2A4_scan01.jpg)
Leopard2
(http://attrasoft.com/imagelib/tank/challenger2.jpg)
Challenger2
Just a Hunch!
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
And one has to keep in mind the Western tanks never met Soviet armor in Soviet hands... luckily for the world. Just the ones used by poorly trained 3rd world crews.
What happened in the Arab/Isreali wars?
-
Good write up Grun.
But really, if you take 1943 and look at all the tanks in the world and try to find a tank remotely in the leage of the panther you will not succeed.
2 war years (20 peace time years) later the T44 and Centurion came out which were indeed worthy challangers.
But your own well written story points out that the Centurion and T54 are contemporarys. The Panther stands alone. Its enemies knew it and its crews knew it. It was as unreliable as the T44 was and the Centurion would have been if rushed in in 45 but as a battle tank it showed the world what was missing from the T34 and what the cost was to correct that lack.
Both the T55 and the Centrurion would have had thier hands full with thier contemporarly the Panther II. L71 gun and tiny turrent with one axis stabilization, optical range finder and IR night fighting capability.
So late 1945 would have the allies establishing rough parity with the Germans with excellent modern MBT type tanks on all sides. But in 1943 that parity was a pipe dream. The panther ruled all.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://home.att.net/~meiii5/pix/mkiv-hvy.jpg)
Abrams #2?! pffft.
-
WW1 tank was mentioned.
#4 I think.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Like I say "tommy cooker"
-
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.
-
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Venezuela/Ven-ArmoredCars.JPG)
#1 on my list, for funniest
-
"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 (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/museum/images/StuG_engine_compartment.jpg) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I thought they did badly at Kursk because so many broke down?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..