Moderator: maddog986
AFV's have fixed rear firing MG's?
ORIGINAL: hawker
My list of best tanks:
1.IS-3 (No tank in WW2 cannot stand a chance against them)
2.IS-2 (look above)
3.Tiger
ORIGINAL: EUBanana
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I dont remember if they are in SPWW2 or not, I know they were in SPWAW at one time if not there any more.
Remember by 1939 - 1941 there were few of them and most were not functional. A few did, as I recall, fight the 41 invasion.
Heh, they are in WinSPWW2 it seems. How did I miss those...
I'm gonna try it out now. I bet in the game its actually effective, those multiturreted Lee and Char tanks are pretty good in Steel Panthers...
Edited to add - not multiturreted, multi-gunned. you know what I mean... far as the game is concerned all the same thing I imagine.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I like em in this order:
Best heavy tank: (1) US M26 (2) JS2. The Tigers don't measure up IMO. The PzVIE is too poorly armored for its weight and lack of mobility and has a lousy turret traverse; it could have been a real fine tank if they'd sloped the front. The Koenigstiger is a real tough nut until you try to actually drive it anywhere-- at which point its own poor overland characteristics make it near useless, strategically, except on defense.
Best medium tank: (1) PzVG (2) US M4A3 (76) wet stowage, diesel ( 3) T34-85. I like the Sherman alot because it has the best all around armament, armor comparable to the PZVs, and none of the reliability problems. But the PZV has a very very good gun and the late PzVs were not so unreliable as the earlier models.
Best light tank: (1) US M24 (2)US M5/M3 type. No other light tank contends with these guys for mobility or hitting power.
ORIGINAL: hueglin
The Panther must have been a dead end design and therefore a bad tank because the Leopard was not like it.
My view on that is that design philosophies change and that doesn't make the previous tank a bad one. There was no evolution from the Sherman to the M26/M46/M47/M48/M60. The Sherman was a medium tank and the others were heavy tanks/main battle tanks (the M26 was originally classed as a heavy tank). That doesn't make the Sherman a bad tank.
The Panther could never have been as good as an M48.
When you look at the specifications for both tanks they are very similar - even though the Panther was designed about 10 years earlier. Weight, engine hp, armour and dimensions are all very similar. The major difference was that in 1945 the Panther had a 75mm gun and in 1954 the M48 had a 90mm gun. As I have already said, I think the Panther had the growth potential to take a larger calibre gun (as did the Centurion) so it would in every way have been comparable to the M48 if some country had kept them in service and chosen to upgrade them. (edited a typo and missing words)
The Panther, Tiger I and II and the Maus were all examples of a German fixation on super heavy tanks.
My comments have only related to the Panther and I do not think it can be classed in the same category as the other three heavier tanks. The Panther, as I mention above, had characteristics very similar to the M48 - it was not super heavy or under-powered. In fact you might argue that it was the first true MBT (with the Centurion and M26 as close seconds). The Panther was clearly not "medium" when compared to contemporary medium tanks (M4, T-34) but it was not really heavy either (like the Tigers).
The Panther was a design philosophy that led to defeat.
Germany lost the war for a lot of more important reasons than the Panther design. Again, if the Panther was a design dead end, why does it have so many characteristics that are similar to the M48?
With regards to the M48/M60/Leopard. I was not saying that they were not good designs, just that there was a change in design philosophy in both cases. The US went from the M4 to the M26/M46/M47/M48/M60 as their main tanks, and then to the M1. Each jump represents a change in design - they don't share much in common. Same thing with the Panther and the Leopard. None of them were bad tanks.
My closing thought: If I had to pick any German WWII tank that I had to keep in service into the 1950s it would have been the Panther.
It's still my favourite (see original post) even if it wasn't perfect.
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
They had the mostest. I think the Soviets were producing the largest numbers of quality vehicles towards the end of the war but I think that reflects that the eastern front was where Tank design was really being driven. The T34 drove the Panther and the Panther/Tiger drove the T34/85 and later IS designs. The Tiger II was the German's next step.
......Was it a war winner? In the west, yes, but that was partly because nothing else was being used.....
Regards,
IronDuke
ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Panther II's was designed with a 88mm KWK 43 in april 43 with Schmalturm (narrowturret). Tank experts.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm
Well .50 Kerry and Rune. Go look for mdiehl, spence and Demosthenes in the WitP forums. They have the same view of historical events like you. Code word is imperial arrogance. See ya.
Yes, but you can understand my pique at the myth that the sherman may have been rubbish but we planned it that way. I doubt it was much of a relief to Sherman crews that their rides always started. More would be alive today if they had had breakdown rates like the Kitties did.
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Indeed, hence my inability to grasp why you defend substandard equipment (circa 1944) in such terms. We won the numbers game on the ground. I'm just saying it didn't have to be that way because it wasn't in other fields and one has to ask how the Germans lasted so long when the numbers game was so heavily against them, if not for that quality.
Regards,
IronDuke
ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
What kind of thinking does it take to draw such conlcusions? All I am saying that Sherman was NOT a superior FIGHTING machine (that one is the main objective of tanks you know). It had merits but was inferior to other designs from 43 as T34/85, PzIV F2 onwards or Panther.
ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
What irritates me beyond limits is the way some people (incl you) think. "If you are not with us, then you are aginst us." This was the slogan of the commie leader Janos Kadar in Hungary so I am overly sensitive to this way of thinking.
I am not a US basher. I listen to country right now, IMO Firefly is the best TV-show ever made, etc. but I preserve my right to think out of the box. The world is NOT black and white! I dont support EVERYTHING that the US does, but that does not mean that I hate everything it does!. Comprende?
This 'train of thoughts' did, does, will cause more damage to the reputation of the US than 3.210.540.540.406.450 Invasions of Iraq/Iran/North Korea whatever.
Read this and think what was your part in it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm
Your country is much stronger than anybody, but much weaker than everybody. When traditional allies as Poland turn away from the US, YOU (not only the politicans) too have to think about how was this possible.
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
If that is so, how come that the soviets were praising the Shermans the received via LL as "Top of the Pops"?
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
Now put on your nice Arrow Cross uniform and go out and play with the other fascists.....
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
Now put on your nice Arrow Cross uniform and go out and play with the other fascists.....
Way to take advantage of the lack of moderation. Bravo![:@]
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yes, I'm sure they loved the thin armour, and the way it caught fire when they ran over a speedbump. Idiot...
http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=19ORIGINAL: hawker
Totally agree with you Terminus[&o]
How anyone can put in same line sherman and T-34 or Tiger,its so idiotic.
Soviets praise sherman?When?Who?
Soviets has much better projects then sherman,that is whole truth.
