Author Topic: Tanks we dnt have (Read 3602 times)

raider73 · « **on:** November 08, 2007, 04:55:37 PM »

http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

Heavy tank M.26 Persching
Armament: 90 mm Gun, MG
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 102 mm
Speed (max.): 32 km/hr
Dimensions: 8.79 x 3.50 x 2.77 m
Weight: 41.7 ton

http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

Tank Destroyer M10 Wolferine
Armament: 76 mm Antitank Gun, MG
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 13 - 37 mm
Speed (max.): 48 km/hr
Dimensions: 6.0 x 2.5 x 3.0 m
Weight: 30 ton

http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

Italian Tank

40M Turan I Tank

Armament: 40 mm Gun, 2 x MG 8 mm
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 50 mm
Speed (max.): 47 km/hr
Dimensions: 5.5 x 2.44 x 2.3 m
Weight: 18.2 t
Produced No: 230 pieces

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2007, 05:25:25 PM »

I'd like to see the T-34/85 and Panther V G before any of those.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2007, 06:17:28 PM »

I'd like to see the existing Tiger tank be able to pivot, like it could, before any of those.

Wes14 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2007, 08:08:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by schlowy2
I'd like to see the existing Tiger tank be able to pivot, like it could, before any of those.

I Heard that Tiger tanks tend to break suspension parts easily pivoting.. So it was only used for emergencies, but i am not sure.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2007, 09:13:50 PM »

The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly. The M10 would be like the T34.

E25280 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2007, 09:29:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly. The M10 would be like the T34.

I would think the Pershing would be more akin to the Tiger.

I really do not see the comparison of the M10 to the T-34. The 76mm gun on the M10 outperformed the Russian 76, visibility was much better, optics were better, open top . . .

Masherbrum · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2007, 09:39:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
I would think the Pershing would be more akin to the Tiger.

I really do not see the comparison of the M10 to the T-34. The 76mm gun on the M10 outperformed the Russian 76, visibility was much better, optics were better, open top . . .

M10 would be outclassed by the rest with the exception of the T34. I just think the PIV is superior to the M10.

I realize the Pershing is of Tiger proportions, just my way of saying "we don't need redundant tanks". I realize the M26's 90mm would be nice.

I rather see the T34 changed to the 85mm if that's the case.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2007, 05:53:10 AM »

See Rule #5

mussie · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2007, 06:30:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5

Hmmmm

Can you back this up ?

A web site perhaps...?

Shuckins · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2007, 06:39:51 AM »

M-26 was generally considered to be superior to the Tiger I because of its sloping armor, which offered better protection, and cross-country performance that the Tiger could not match.

When the Pershing was introduced to the ETO, a team of technicians was sent along with the first lot to train the crews that were to man it. There was a lack of enthusiasm for the new 90mm weapon, which none of the men had seen in action, and whose accuracy was suspect. To allay those fears, one of the technicians set up a number of captured German infantry helmets at distances of 500 yards....and nailed them....first shot, every shot.

Shuckins · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2007, 06:48:09 AM »

As to the statements that the T-34 was hopelessly outclassed by the Tiger, let me just say that wars are not won by small numbers of armored behemoths with slow rates of fire, poor cross-country performance, and horrendous reliability. Wars are won by well-designed machines that don't break down every other day, are easy to maintain, can be used in all types of weather and over all types of terrain, which crews can be easily trained for, have a reasonably effective weapon for use against a multitude of types of targets, and...most importantly....can be easily and rapidly manufactured, improved, and updated.

Twenty T-34s were manufactured for every Tiger produced by the Germans. That's why, when the war ended, T-34s could be seen in Berlin, and no Tigers were in Moscow.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2007, 07:12:36 AM »

Tigers lasted more than one battle, t34's didn't, so go figure that into your maintenance equation.

Urchin · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2007, 07:17:44 AM »

One of the designers of the T-34 died of pnuemonia, I'm not aware of any that actually were killed by the government for treason.

As far as the rest of the diatribe, Schlowy, I implore you to find and read some technical documents, or at least something other than pulp fiction novels.

Shuckins · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2007, 07:59:07 AM »

Most competent historians of the armored conflict in WW II consider the two most outstanding tank designs to emerge during that struggle to be the T-34 and the Pazerkampfwagen V (Panther)....and in that order.

Kweassa · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2007, 08:48:02 AM »

Quote

See RUle #5

Thanks.

That was about the funniest crock of bullshi* I've heard in a long time, and really helped me get through a tough day by constantly making me laugh. While there is a long history of belittling Soviet achievements and excellence during WW2 years (...which, in reality, often outclassed its Western allies by an impressive margin), the comment above easily takes the cake as being 'the most malinformed view on T-34 evah'.

Quote

Tigers lasted more than one battle, t34's didn't, so go figure that into your maintenance equation.

By that definition, the M4 Sherman probably should rate as the worst piece of trash that ever held the name of a 'tank' in history, no?