What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Tiger can destroy any tank in 1000 m distance,especially sherman.[:D]
Sherman must approach Tiger within 400 m to even try to put hole in Tiger.


This "any tank" exclude IS tanks[8D]

Here is nice thought:

Wow. Just becuase they made more of them, doesnt mean it was a better tank. It just means they made more of them. They make a helluva lot more toyotas than they do ferraris, but could you call the toyota the better car just based on that?


A sherman has a small chance if it attacks a tiger from behind without the tiger knowing about the sherman's possition. The rear is pretty soft like with all tanks, but still.. the M10 comes way closer tot the tiger and even that is no match against it. The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched. Specially since nothing good has seen the tiger in battle and really had the change to fight it 1 on 1. Dumb to make a show about this without knowing the facts. sorry to say so.

[:D][:D]

Outright false.

[mdiehl]

@Ursa

My bad then 1938 for the Ausf A MkIV production.

The M4 hist you cited froim Wikipedia is inaccurate. 1941 is the acceptance date for the final design. Initial design was 1940, but..... you'd probably be as accurate to say 1939 as that is when the M3 Grant type was designed, and the early M4 series was a redesign of the M3 type placing a 75mm gun in the turret rather than in the sponson. This redesign allowed the reduction of the Sherman's silhouette along the way.

Both the PzIV and M4 were substantially modified throughout the war and rate as competitors vis design intentions. The late M4s however (with the gyrostabilized gun and 76mm main armament) were IMO substantially better than the late PzIVs. That is, I wouldn't rate them as "even" as Speedy did (although I *would* rate them as even if Speedy were to limit the comparison to 75 armed Shermans and PzIVH/Js).

Speedy raised another interesting point. "if the Tiger and Panther are rated better than the PzIVH/J..." Well, I'd rate the PzVG "better" in a general sense than the Pz IVH/J and better than the M4-76 Shermans, but I'm not sure I'd rate the PzVIE as better than the PzIVH/J or M4-76 Shermans. IMO, the Germans got alot more tank for the money strategically and tactically from the PzIVJ than they got from the PzVIE.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
thaat you are making a point is that they where USED in a poor way...

Basically yes.

[hawker]

Tiger can put a hole in turret of Sherman A2 at 1800 m distance[:D]
Sherman A2 cannot penetrate Tiger turret at 0 distance[;)]
Tiger penetrate Sherman A4 turret at 1800 m distance[:D]
Sherman A4 penetrate Tiger turret at 700 m distance[;)]

[Ursa MAior]

[font="times new roman"]Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit. [/font]

[mdiehl]

Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit.

Define destroyed. Around 60% of M4s that were "knocked out" in AEF service in France were restored to service in theater. That is not generally true for most PzIVs, PzVs, or PzVIs in the western ETO sector. Fair to say that restoration to service is primarily a function of who can hold the battlefield long enough after a fight to put their logistical services to work recovering vehicles.

IMO, a shot that holes the tank and either kills the crew or forces them to abandon it counts as a killshot.

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: freeboy


a kill shot at 20-450 yards is very differrent than one at 1500 yards.. I think if you where in a open plains duel aqt 1500 to2500 yds, you would never everr want a allied gun less than the fireflies 25 lb or the german panther high vel 75 or those 88s.. remmeber tactics, vs guns.. I can kill u with my knife if you cannot see me in the fog and u have a 12 guage.

The funny thing is, that you don´t really find many examples of long range duels in the tactical narratives very much (apart from AT guns whose doctrinal role it was to duel at long range anyway), apart from a few instances (Brits in Normandy for exemple). Each time the germans did bring out sizeable number of Kats, they did so in either inclement weather (snow, morning fog, rain) or in constrcited terrain (Ardennes. Mortain to a degree). Which suggests that accuracy and killing power above 1000 meters, while certainly nice to have, was not necessarily decisive in a majority of cases.

I`d suggest that the reason why the Germans only brought out a sizeable number of any type of tank in bad weather or constricted terrain had more to do with Allied air supremacy than purposely choosing to engage at shorter distances. By 1944 air power (and limited resources) was having a serious affect on their abilty to conduct mobile operations of any type. That is one of the reasons Rommel wanted the armoured reserves close to the beach heads - so that they wouldn`t be interedicted by air power while being committed from deep operational reserve positions. I suspect the Germans began to have the same reservations about employing armour at the tactical level and felt it was better to operate from as much cover as possible - hence the close fight.

[Paul Vebber]

I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit.

Doesn't matter if you lose the battle - and the ability to recover the wreck...

[Ursa MAior]

Someone said that 1 year development in war time equals 6 in peace. Sherman (and the Pershing) is like the Iowas. They were built after years of collecting data from war experience. No wonder they become what they become.

That f***ng looser with the moustache have lost the war the very moment he declared war on the US. This only step of his shows how really he sucked at war issues. But give credit where credit is due.
Tiger was a big thing in 43 but by mid 44 it was not what it used to be in terms of firepower and protection. Tiger II could have been an awesome tank if there were an engine strong enough for it.

But the panther is another story. It was not indestructible, no tank is, but the D later G version, was superior to MOST tank it faced in terms of mobility, firepower, protection. (In its own class) After WWII the french did not liked the germans too much yet they chose the panther instead of the sherman or pershing.

Wittmanns life and death shows how the fortunes of war change, as Hogg states the clearly outdated Pak 38 was still succesful in the bocage.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

[font="times new roman"]Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit. [/font]

Depends upon the possession of the battlefield afterwards. If you can´t recover your derelicts, what good is it?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: hueglin




I`d suggest that the reason why the Germans only brought out a sizeable number of any type of tank in bad weather or constricted terrain had more to do with Allied air supremacy than purposely choosing to engage at shorter distances. By 1944 air power (and limited resources) was having a serious affect on their abilty to conduct mobile operations of any type. That is one of the reasons Rommel wanted the armoured reserves close to the beach heads - so that they wouldn`t be interedicted by air power while being committed from deep operational reserve positions. I suspect the Germans began to have the same reservations about employing armour at the tactical level and felt it was better to operate from as much cover as possible - hence the close fight.

Well, I think I stated as much a page or so back (minus the Rommel thing of course) [8D]

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Tiger I. Highest quality armor, deadly gun, great optics and very good mobility for a heavy tank.
 
Interesting side note, when asked how to improve the mobility of German tanks in Italy (that had a problem with soft ground) the German tankers gave the reply "Build a tank like the Sherman."

[Speedysteve]

But wasn't the Sherman poorer off road compared to the wider tracks of something like a MkIV?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

But wasn't the Sherman poorer off road compared to the wider tracks of something like a MkIV?

Nope, and I don't believe the Mk IV had wider tracks than a Sherman.

EDIT - a quick check showd that the PzKw IV G has a track width of 380mm (14.96")
the Original M4 Sherman (and M3 Lee/Grant) has a width of 16 9/16 "

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

But wasn't the Sherman poorer off road compared to the wider tracks of something like a MkIV?

Depends on the make. The "Easy 8" was superior to most german tracks in this regard. The bog standard M4a3 less so (but could be improved with better tracks, grousers, etc.). I also suspect the quip about mobility has something to do with power to weight ratio (not a strong suit of most late war german heavy designs)

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: hawker

Tiger can destroy any tank in 1000 m distance,especially sherman.[:D]
Sherman must approach Tiger within 400 m to even try to put hole in Tiger.


This "any tank" exclude IS tanks[8D]

Here is nice thought:

Wow. Just becuase they made more of them, doesnt mean it was a better tank. It just means they made more of them. They make a helluva lot more toyotas than they do ferraris, but could you call the toyota the better car just based on that?


A sherman has a small chance if it attacks a tiger from behind without the tiger knowing about the sherman's possition. The rear is pretty soft like with all tanks, but still.. the M10 comes way closer tot the tiger and even that is no match against it. The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched. Specially since nothing good has seen the tiger in battle and really had the change to fight it 1 on 1. Dumb to make a show about this without knowing the facts. sorry to say so.

[:D][:D]

Outright false.

Prove that is wrong my young padawan[;)]

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Prove that is wrong my young padawan[;)]

[:-]

You (not I) have to qualify your initial statements first. Otherwise I can merely point out the that you are wrong. I don´t have to prove anything. You do.

[Paul Vebber]

Doesn't matter if you lose the battle - and the ability to recover the wreck...

Depends upon the possession of the battlefield afterwards. If you can´t recover your derelicts, what good is it?

Great minds think alike [:'(]

[Paul Vebber]

Prove that is wrong my young padawan

The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched.

I'll take an Abrams (or hell, even a T-72) and be glad to meet you in a Tiger...

[hawker]

I think i explain everything in last few posts.

TIGER IS BETTER TANK THAN SHERMAN.

I think everyone with some knowledge will say that.
Anyway,this is my last post on this topic,must go back to AAR[;)]

Ursa,Hitler lost war when he attacks Soviet union. But,that is for another debate[8D]

Fair winds