Which AFV is the king?

Saviola · Post by **Saviola** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 12:37 pm

Interesting...but what I am trying to say is that which is the most probable to survive in head to head firing during close encounter.
Maybe the tigers are just too slow, but you can't penetrate it with a T-34 before it blow it, right?

Bernie · Post by **Bernie** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 2:10 pm

I've actually had good results with the SdKfz-234/4

75mm gun with a penetration of 146, fast and easy to hide, cheap to buy, and when used in squads they can rip into rear areas and take out mobile arty very easily. True, they had squat for armor, but that's why they were fast.

black_feather · Post by **black_feather** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 5:37 pm

Panthers have to be the best, they combine speed, fire power and protection all the other tanks in the war shunned one for the other so I think the panther was probably the first true MBT

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:54 pm

The Panther truly stand above the huge crowd that makes up WWII AFV's... but I'm not sure if it'd really come out on top vs. a T-34 '85

The 34s were much more rugged and reliable, although maybe lacking protection vs. larger guns. But so did the Panther, on the rear and sides! Both tanks also suffered from too weak a transmission. (due to weight)

IMO, the Panther should've had:

*Thicker armor protection allround.

*To make the above possible, it'd need a new powerhouse, drivetrain and suspension. But that would be possible. The Maybach HL230 could easily stand a good deal of tweaking.

*and ofcourse with "modern" tactics, each and every one of them should be equipped with infrared sights and two-way radio sets

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:55 pm

From what little I know, I'd say, as individual units, the King Tiger was probably the toughest. However, they were not produced in sufficient numbers to become an overwhelming force over-all.

Eric Maietta

Gen.Hoepner · Post by **Gen.Hoepner** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 4:44 am

For what i know,if Hitler after the French Campaign in 40 didn't waste so much time and concentrated the german industrial production in projecting new tanks,probably the king tiger could have been produced already in 1942....so the Panther...and so on...but it's just an idea^__^

Saviola · Post by **Saviola** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 5:41 am

Gen. Hoepner, if this really happened, besides King tiger and Panthers would be produced much earlier, also probably the PzKpfw VII (Loewe) or Maus or Panthers II would be on the battlefields...That would be a nightmare for Allies, I think.

sven · Post by **sven** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 6:15 am

Originally posted by M4 Jess
M4A3E8 "easy 8" oh yeah baby!!!

M4

The Sherman and T34.... the REAL dynamic duo...

Tomanbeg · Post by **Tomanbeg** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 6:19 am

Originally posted by risto.nikula

about that...

I'm not sure were they uset in other fronts, but there was one used in finnish front,. this particular js3 was destroyed by single shot from lahti at-rifle. The wreckage was investigated, and apparently the bullet went throug the drivers driver's hatch(what is the correct word for the small view hole?) and the riccocet killed everyone inside.

and the tanks:

ot34/85,firefly,hellcat, late stugs and panthers.

The most powerful was the Tiger II with 700 hp. Tied was the Panther with the same Engine(I forget what mark). The JS-3 had a 690 hp engine, so it would be #2 I guess. Combat effectveness is another matter. And are we talking tactical, operational or Strategic? Stratigic my $ is on the sherman. Cheap, Light it was easy to ship around the world. It was a good tank for killing natives, didn't need as much in the way of logistics as most armor of that day. The M4 series(SPA, Tanks, TD, Engineering vehicles, etc.), might have been the most relaible vehicle of it's kind and day. Remember the T-34 was shipped from the factory with an extra gear box straped to the deck. The Panther and TigerII were just as bad. If a real war Soviet Commander, I wouldn't worry about Tigers. Let them drive around for a while then shoot the crew after it breaks down. They can be a bitch in WaW, if used properly.
BTW the JS-3(T-10 series) had Periscopes for the driver( an Idea they picked up from the American Lend Lease vehicles). So it would have been impossible for a ATR round to penatrate a slot that doesn't exist. Some body is either blowing smoke, or has mis-identafied the Tank that was killed. Not unusual. In normandy, Almost every tank kill was credited to the 88, but whan the brits and ami went thru the records post war, There were very few 88's in normandy. The Efficent germans sent most to the East where they were needed to deal with the heavier Soviet Armor. In von Lucks book he describes how he took control at gunpoint of a 88 battery and used it against tanks. He goes into 88 fear later in the book. His recon Battl had the Lorrine chassies with 76.2 ATG's grafted on them. Only according to the guys on theother side of the hill, 88's were slaughtering them. von Luck says it was 75's and 76.2's that were doing the killing. All this proves how easy it is for someone to make mistakes in the confusion of battle.
T.

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 8:05 pm

Originally posted by Saviola
Gen. Hoepner, if this really happened, besides King tiger and Panthers would be produced much earlier, also probably the PzKpfw VII (Loewe) or Maus or Panthers II would be on the battlefields...That would be a nightmare for Allies, I think.

and a logistic nightmare for the germans

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:01 pm

No doubt, the Panther G Uhu with the infra-red devices . They could easily beat any allied tank and can fight night battles ( BTW, did the Allies have any IR for their tanks?)

Sgt Popov · Post by **Sgt Popov** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:20 pm

Ok, I guess to have a completly defensable answer, the question would have to be very concise, ie for offense, defense, one on one, mobility factor, availability and so on. I picked the JS-3, because it was really a jump ahead in armor design, IMHO. Yes it had a cramped turret, and the "piece of sheet metal" above the gun, but it introduced many great ideas, for instance, look at the front glacis, with its sloping! I probably own 25-30 books on WWII tanks and tank design/evolution, and in great detail have studied the extremely fast improvements in tanks during WWII. No other time in history has such dramatic improvements occured so fast (ok, maybe the musclecars of the 60s:rolleyes: ). If I had to pick the best all around tank that was widely used in combat during WWII, I would have to say the Panther G, or a close second would be the T-34/85.

sven · Post by **sven** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 12:30 am

Originally posted by screamer

and a logistic nightmare for the germans

of course if we are playing "Let's pretend"....

The US could have had 5000 M6s by May 1942....

What did germany have that could compete with a 22mph capable 60 ton beast at that time?

Hussar · Post by **Hussar** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 1:46 am

I don't know which AFV was the King but the Matilda 2 was certainly the "Queen of the Battlefield". However, If we are talking about pure performace then it must be the Centurion. I know that they didn't take part in much (any?) fighting in WW2 but they were there for the last couple of months and are still doing fine service all over the world....AND they had a proper kettle in the turret to make tea!!!! I know 'cause I crewed one in the early '70s!!!

M4Jess · Post by **M4Jess** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:21 am

the true King of battle!!!

Check this out

sven · Post by **sven** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 4:45 am

Originally posted by M4 Jess
the true King of battle!!!

Check this out

You'd love the M6.....

showthread.php?s=&threadid=6102&highlight=sherman

showthread.php?s=&threadid=5757&highlight=sherman

The US could easily have had the Panzers for breakfast if we had been so inclined...

Which AFV is the king?

King or Queen?