What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber


Great minds think alike [:'(]

Indeed

=)

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber



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

I´ll up the ante and do it in a T55 [:'(]

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

[:o]

[mdiehl]

edit

[Big B]

A Tamed Tiger[;)]

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber



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

I´ll up the ante and do it in a T55 [:'(]

I'll give you a chance and pick...














an AT - AT walker

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: hawker

I think i explain everything in last few posts.

TIGER IS BETTER TANK THAN SHERMAN.
....

By the way, a Tiger I is not a better tank than this variety of Sherman...[;)]

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Shure is! 1- It CAN kill it. 2- Its faster. Most Sherman Jumbos carried a 75mm gun, but your photo shows a field modified version mounting a 76mm gun. The extra armor made the vehicle a bit sluggish on the move. I will admit that the battle between these two tanks would largely depend on the experience of the crews manning them.

[Ursa MAior]

This morning I had a little accident I bumped into the side of a new Volvo S40 with my Suzuki Wagoner (aka Opel Agila made in Hungary). My damage is a bent right front module (not even the paint has come off), hers a shattered left front lamp, an unopenable left front door (driver's), and the broken window (same door).
 
Does it make the Suzuki a better and safer car than the Volvo? Pun intended. [:D]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This morning I had a little accident I bumped into the side of a new Volvo S40 with my Suzuki Wagoner (aka Opel Agila made in Hungary). My damage is a bent right front module (not even the paint has come off), hers a shattered left front lamp, an unopenable left front door (driver's), and the broken window (same door).

Does it make the Suzuki a better and safer car than the Volvo? Pun intended. [:D]

Goes to show that the real world doesn't always go the way you would think. [;)][:D]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

Shure is! 1- It CAN kill it. 2- Its faster. Most Sherman Jumbos carried a 75mm gun, but your photo shows a field modified version mounting a 76mm gun. The extra armor made the vehicle a bit sluggish on the move. I will admit that the battle between these two tanks would largely depend on the experience of the crews manning them.

Without going into a new debate (the up gunned Sherman Jumbo photo was tongue-in-cheek to the main debate) - the above tanks were used to great effect during Patton’s' drive to Bastogne and afterwards - precisely because they were very hard for Panthers and Tigers to knock out. A great many were modified in the field to mount the 76, but as far as I know - no one knows how many were modified this way.
This vehicle had considerably thicker armor than a Tiger I (on the turret and front) or Panther (all around). The Kwk L56 in a Tiger would have had a very tough time punching a hole in this Sherman’s front or turret without PzGr 40 ammo (which I believe would have been in very short supply by the end of 1944).[;)]

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

I told myself I would not get dragged into this kind of topic like the other F4F vs Zero topic etc.

But I felt I had no choice but to dig out some books to see for myself on this.

Firstly looking at track width's and hence off road performance. Cooper points out that initial Sherman's in Normandy used 14" tracks compared to Mk IV's 15.7". Later Sherman models had 16.5" tracks. All in all not a lot between them here.

One of the key things Cooper is saying is not the track width but the "suspension design and superior ground pressure of the German tanks (Mark IV for example, much lighter at 22 tons vs 37 for Sherman) gave them superior mobility in soft terrain."

Some interesting Horsepower comparison's:

Sherman M4A4:
Horsepower (max.) 425hp@2600rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/t

Tiger I:
Horsepower (max.) 690hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

The Tiger isn't too bad here.

Even more interesting though here's the ground pressure comparison:

Sherman M4A4: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G: GP 12.8 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/tonne

Tiger I: GP 13.9 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

Looking at some penetration figures:

76.2mm APCBC pen figures at time of debut (around Normandy time)

500m 94mm
1000m 89mm
1500m 81mm

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally[;)]

This was later improved in the war to:

500m 116mm
1000m 106mm
1500m 101mm

The above of course is test data (50% pen if = to armor thickness) and assumes 0 degree slope. If the "garden variety" Tiger is oblique even the later ammo 76 Sherman could have probs and of course the front turret mantlet will be resistant no matter what the facing. The Panther's sloped glasis will also continue to be a tough nut unless the tank is lucky to have a late late war HVAP round.

I don't want to get into slanging matches so this post will be my last in this topic hopefully.............digest at your leisure all[:)]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

I told myself I would not get dragged into this kind of topic like the other F4F vs Zero topic etc.

But I felt I had no choice but to dig out some books to see for myself on this.

Firstly looking at track width's and hence off road performance. Cooper points out that initial Sherman's in Normandy used 14" tracks compared to Mk IV's 15.7". Later Sherman models had 16.5" tracks. All in all not a lot between them here.

One of the key things Cooper is saying is not the track width but the "suspension design and superior ground pressure of the German tanks (Mark IV for example, much lighter at 22 tons vs 37 for Sherman) gave them superior mobility in soft terrain."

Some interesting Horsepower comparison's:

Sherman M4A4:
Horsepower (max.) 425hp@2600rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/t

Tiger I:
Horsepower (max.) 690hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

The Tiger isn't too bad here.

Even more interesting though here's the ground pressure comparison:

Sherman M4A4: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G: GP 12.8 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/tonne

Tiger I: GP 13.9 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

Looking at some penetration figures:

76.2mm APCBC pen figures at time of debut (around Normandy time)

500m 94mm
1000m 89mm
1500m 81mm

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally[;)]

This was later improved in the war to:

500m 116mm
1000m 106mm
1500m 101mm

The above of course is test data (50% pen if = to armor thickness) and assumes 0 degree slope. If the "garden variety" Tiger is oblique even the later ammo 76 Sherman could have probs and of course the front turret mantlet will be resistant no matter what the facing. The Panther's sloped glasis will also continue to be a tough nut unless the tank is lucky to have a late late war HVAP round.

I don't want to get into slanging matches so this post will be my last in this topic hopefully.............digest at your leisure all[:)]

Hi Speedy,

I believe Hunnicutt states that the track width of the M-3 Lee/Grant and earliest Shermans was 16 & 9/16", later raised to 23 or 24" with the HVSS suspension.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3lee.html (for the Lee/Grant series)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html (for the M4 Sherman series)

Secondly the Ammo Penitration figures of:
500m 94mm
1000m 89mm
1500m 81mm

I believe are quoted for 30 degrees obliquity (which means you add about 15% more pen from 10 degrees or less, this also does not take into account the greater penatration these weapons had versus Face Hardened Armor - then the penetration values go up another 10-15%).
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

B

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This morning I had a little accident I bumped into the side of a new Volvo S40 with my Suzuki Wagoner (aka Opel Agila made in Hungary). My damage is a bent right front module (not even the paint has come off), hers a shattered left front lamp, an unopenable left front door (driver's), and the broken window (same door).

Does it make the Suzuki a better and safer car than the Volvo? Pun intended. [:D]

Real life intrudes sometimes!

There is something very important a college student needs to attend to in these circumstances!

Is she good looking, is she single, if so what is her phone number![8D]

After all, you already broke the ice! And for god's sake don't talk to her about tanks![:-]

[mdiehl]

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

And regularly did same.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: 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[;)]

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6
With the exception of British guns, the data on the penetration tables above were extracted from "a Wa Prüf 1 report dated 5th October 1944 which relate the relative ability of the major opponents to penetrate the Tiger and vice versa. Data on British gun capabilities were extracted from British penetration test reports. The penetration ranges in the tables were determined for conditions in which the tanks stood at a side angle of 30 degrees of the incoming round. These tables should be used only for comparison of the relative vulnerability of the opponent's tanks. The data are not to be misconstructed as the absolute ranges at which the armor could be penetrated. There was a fairly large variance in both the protection offered by the same thickness of different armor plates and thickness penetrated by the same type of armor-piercing projectiles." Also, the ranges shown in tables above "are all approximations based on calculations using estimates of the capabilities of American and Russian guns and penetration numbers derived from German guns firing against German armor plate." (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).


EDIT: Curiously enough, the T-34/85 does not compare as well with the Tiger as the M4(76) does - yet I never hear a debate about what a "piece of junk" the T-34 was...odd.[8|]

Oh, you can look up the info here:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

And regularly did same.

But nowhere near as "regularly" as might have been liked.

As late as June 44, it was consiered that the 76mm gun tank would make up only one third of the armored strength with the balance retaining the 75. Within a month the hedgrow fighting had shown the 75 to be completely ineffective against the front armor of the german Panther and Tigers. The combat units now wanted every 76mm gun tank available. Earlier objections to excessive muzle blast and the long wkward rounds of ammunition were forgotten overnight, only hole punching ability was important. Even the 76 proved inadequate in this regard and the ush was on to obtain a weapon which could penetrate the front armor of the tough skinned enemy tanks.

In August a few rounds of the new 76mm HVAP (APCR) ammuntion were rushed to France and tests conducted near Isigny against six captured Panthers. The tests showed the new ammunition was extremely accurate and a great improvement over the old APC M62, but it could not penetrate the Panther's front plte at ranges over 300 yard. Production of the new ammunition was also limited to only 10,000 rounds per month, which meant that it could only be used on an emergency basis.
On 9 August 44, gen Omar Bradley directed his XII Army Group, Armor Section to request an allotment of tanks armed with the british 17lber. This attempt proved fuitless since the limied tnak reserves were insufficient o permit the release of vehicles for the installation of the British gun. The effort to obtain 17 lber tanks was revived laterin the middle of Feb 45 when reserve tank situation had impoved. At that time, the XII AG requested an initial conversion of 160 Shermans wih further conversiondependant on battel experience. Later this was cut to 80 becasue of limitations in British ammo supplies. Unfortunatley, the crowded condition of the shops delayed delivery and only the first few began to arrive in mid-March. These were allotted to the Ninth Army, but there is no recod of their use prior to the end of the war. In fact, the Ninth Army After Action Report indicates that the delievery of 40 17lber tanks was expected, but it does not record their arrival.

The 76mm would still be in service today if folks round here ran the ordnance board. If it had been up to folks on the ground in WWII France, it would have stopped being in service in June 44. [;)]

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

Paul,
Whenever "is A better than B" gives a "complex" answer, the reality is that it was a bit narrower than everyone thought IMHO.

Complex enough to have a nearly 600 page book written about the "rest of the story" Usualy when "A is better than " is assumed cut and dried, its by someone examining the case in hindsight IMHO.

edit

I don't have time tonight to get back into this one fully, hope to get chance tomorrow, but I wanted to say thanks for the extensive Hunnicut excerpt.

Firstly, it was an informative chunk of a work I can't get anywhere for less than 350 dollars.

Secondly, you were not so rhetorically devious as to leave out at least three sections which actually support what I've been saying as supposed to yourself and the other AlliedFans hereabouts. I've already quoted him once [;)]

(Unless you missed the bits about the 76mm during copying in which case [:'(] [;)])

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

And regularly did same.

But nowhere near as "regularly" as might have been liked.

As late as June 44, it was consiered that the 76mm gun tank would make up only one third of the armored strength with the balance retaining the 75. Within a month the hedgrow fighting had shown the 75 to be completely ineffective against the front armor of the german Panther and Tigers. The combat units now wanted every 76mm gun tank available. Earlier objections to excessive muzle blast and the long wkward rounds of ammunition were forgotten overnight, only hole punching ability was important. Even the 76 proved inadequate in this regard and the ush was on to obtain a weapon which could penetrate the front armor of the tough skinned enemy tanks.

In August a few rounds of the new 76mm HVAP (APCR) ammuntion were rushed to France and tests conducted near Isigny against six captured Panthers. The tests showed the new ammunition was extremely accurate and a great improvement over the old APC M62, but it could not penetrate the Panther's front plte at ranges over 300 yard. Production of the new ammunition was also limited to only 10,000 rounds per month, which meant that it could only be used on an emergency basis.
On 9 August 44, gen Omar Bradley directed his XII Army Group, Armor Section to request an allotment of tanks armed with the british 17lber. This attempt proved fuitless since the limied tnak reserves were insufficient o permit the release of vehicles for the installation of the British gun. The effort to obtain 17 lber tanks was revived laterin the middle of Feb 45 when reserve tank situation had impoved. At that time, the XII AG requested an initial conversion of 160 Shermans wih further conversiondependant on battel experience. Later this was cut to 80 becasue of limitations in British ammo supplies. Unfortunatley, the crowded condition of the shops delayed delivery and only the first few began to arrive in mid-March. These were allotted to the Ninth Army, but there is no recod of their use prior to the end of the war. In fact, the Ninth Army After Action Report indicates that the delievery of 40 17lber tanks was expected, but it does not record their arrival.

The 76mm would still be in service today if folks round here ran the ordnance board. If it had been up to folks on the ground in WWII France, it would have stopped being in service in June 44. [;)]

No one ever made the claim that a 76M1A1 gun could easily penetrate the frontal plate of a Panther - it was the Tiger that was under discussion... as the Mdeihl quote above states clearly.

As for the Tiger I

Conclusion: The Successes and Failures of the PzKpfw VI Tiger I


PzKpfw VI Tiger I, of the s.SS.PzAbt.101 - Late Model - Normandy, 1944, destroyed.
By February 1944, sPzAbt.502 had 71 Tiger I tanks. At the same time, sPzAbt.503, 507, and 509 had respectively 69, 56 and 58 Tigers. This was due to transfers from other units training with the Tiger II, or due to the delivery of the last production Tiger I models. Tiger I production reached its peak between January and May 1944. Anyway, the maximum degree of success attained by the Tiger units was limited and/or localized tactical superiority. The truth was that the German industry simply couldn't produce Tigers in sufficient numbers to make any difference in the big picture - it was a task well beyond wartime German industry capabilities. Just as a comparison on productive capabilities, the Russians produced 23,937 T-34/76 from 1942 to 1945. The American Pershing tank was built at a rate of 1,350 tanks over a six month period. When production ceased in June 1945, 49,234 Sherman tanks had been built - more than all the German tank production during the entire war. In the end, it was this difference in production philosophy and faster Allied production that made the difference between defeat and victory. The real failure of the German very heavy tanks was that they exceeded the capabilities of the German industry to produce them in sufficient numbers.

The Sherman however DID win it's war...
By the way – the Matilda II was single handedly responsible for winning the Western destert Campaign in 1940 and destroying the will of an entire Italian Army.
The M1A1 Abrahms did much the same to to Iraq in 1991.

What great achievement did German heavy armor achieve to rank with those above?...

[IronDuke_slith]

Everyone makes this point about the Sherman, but then the thread isn't entitled "Which was your favourite military industrial complex?" and it hasn't been about who had the biggest economy, is it?

The upshot of what you are saying is not "the Sherman won its war", but that the American economy won its war, which all but the fringe would agree with.

[Big B]

As for favorite tank I agree totally that is what the thread was about - but it became a Sherman roast, so I am just posting back in kind...