Agreed.
The Tanks of WWII
-
The Sherman was a piece of crap. It took 17 shots at 500 yards to kills a Panther, while one Panther could kill a Sherman 2000 yards away with one shot. We only one because we could make so many of them.
-
The difference is that you are referring to a standard M4A3 with 75 mm… The firefly were equipped with a 17 lb. gun capable of engaging Panters and even Tigers… And also remember we produced way more Shermans then they produced Panthers, and that rear and side armor is a lot weaker then frontal…
GG
-
yes, we had sherman chassies with 76 high-velocity guns, 105 mm guns, flame throwers. Heck the sherman was a step up from the tanks we used first in North africa, those things worked ok but would have gotten smacked around worse in europe.
Our wolverine tank destroyers could knock out any tank the germans had.
Sadly, in an ambush of one tiger or panther, 4 of our shermans would have to try to get around the other tank. they only expected one to make it around for the hind shot, we had to use numbers. The shermans were dubbed as a type of canadian match. “always lights on the first try”.
Shermans were still better than engish or french tanks in the war. Tons better than those little jap ones. Tankettes.
-
The Shermans had their pros, such as mobility. But the Allies also had more air cover, with more infantry and arty supporting. So things weren’t all bad. I love playing Red Orchestra to get an accurate feel of how the tankers experienced warfare, it’s interesting to try and take a Panther or Tiger down with a KV-1 or T-60.
-
They were ten feet high and were an easy target to hit. However, the Allies really didn’t need to rely on their tanks as much.
The Wolverine couldn’t destroy Tigers or Panthers, just Panzers.
Anyways, a Sherman was a Japanese G4M, like Balungloaf said (the G4M was the Japanse bomber that was used as the piece in Axis and Allie, and it was a weak airplane.) One shot and it is gone.
-
Balungaloaf,
I think the quote you were looking for was, “Ronson, lights first time, every time.” :wink:
-
We only one because we could make so many of them.
Like I say to people in Counter-Strike Source……“What you lack in quality, make it up with quantity!!!” :lol:
-
First off this is a great thread!!
“What you lack in quality, make it up with quantity!!!”
Stalin once said “quantity has a quality of its own”
Id have to say that Germany overall had by far the best tanks followed by the Soviet Union and US. From the period of Aug 1941- till about late 1942 when the Tiger tank made its appearance. However, the numerical advantage was offset by poor mechanical disposition and poor application and tactics on the battlefield. The Germans with an equal force could easily win by a better employment of tanks. Logistics played a part as well and the Soviets were prone to major problems in sustaining a breakthrough after it was achieved. The Germans would nearly allways be able to get out of the noose.
The American Sherman was credible but was no match for even a panther mark IV let alone a tiger I.
Micheal Wittmann demonstrated what exactly a Tiger could so against Allied tanks when Monty tried to break into Caen. Wittmann’s tank alone stopped the entire British division and knocked out something like 22 tanks and 14 support vehicles.
-
Yea those German tanks were amazing. You needed to send like four Shermans against to to hit it from the side or rear and even then, you were probaly going to lose one Sherman. I think the best tanks were Russian. Russian tanks had all the qualitys that you would want in a tank. They were very well armored, very fast, had decent guns, and of course before the Germans made the Panther, the Russians had already started to use sloped armor to deflect shells.
-
the joseph stalin series of heavy tanks for the USSR, epecially Stalin III’s. Could slug it out evenly or i think with an advantage over any heavy tank the germans had.
-
@Imperious:
Micheal Wittmann demonstrated what exactly a Tiger could so against Allied tanks when Monty tried to break into Caen. Wittmann’s tank alone stopped the entire British division and knocked out something like 22 tanks and 14 support vehicles.
At the cost of his own life, nonetheless…
the joseph stalin series of heavy tanks for the USSR, epecially Stalin III’s. Could slug it out evenly or i think with an advantage over any heavy tank the germans had.
The problem with the IS-2 was that it wasn’t as much of a threat to infantry as it was to tanks, so it was more like a Jagdpanther (or whatever it was called) than a Tiger.
-
@Imperious:
Micheal Wittmann demonstrated what exactly a Tiger could so against Allied tanks when Monty tried to break into Caen. Wittmann’s tank alone stopped the entire British division and knocked out something like 22 tanks and 14 support vehicles.
At the cost of his own life, nonetheless…
the joseph stalin series of heavy tanks for the USSR, epecially Stalin III’s. Could slug it out evenly or i think with an advantage over any heavy tank the germans had.
The problem with the IS-2 was that it wasn’t as much of a threat to infantry as it was to tanks, so it was more like a Jagdpanther (or whatever it was called) than a Tiger.
I think that a 36:1 KDR is more than acceptable, myself.
Edit: The Panther could get a T-34 through the front armor from 2000m, whil the T-34 needed 500m.
-
At the cost of his own life, nonetheless…
no he died in another battle latter in the same campaign different battle.
joseph stalin series of heavy tanks for the USSR, epecially Stalin III’s
those things came out allmost near the end of the war. Id still take a King Tiger to that thing. Ill find some references and post the comparison.
-
JS-3:
Crew 4
Length 9.90 m
Width 3.09 m
Height 2.73 m
Weight 46 tonnes
Armour and armament
Armour 30 to 160 mm
Main armament D25-T 122 mm gun
Secondary armament 3×DT, 1×DShK machine guns
Mobility
Power plant 12-cyl. diesel model V-2
600 hp (450 kW)
Suspension torsion bar
Road speed 37 km/h
Power/weight 13 hp/tonne
Range 240 kmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin_tank
King Tiger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_tiger
Weight 69.8 tonnes
Length 7.62 m, 10.286 m gun forward
Width 3.755 m
Height 3.09 m
Crew 5
Armour 180 mm frontal armor
80 mm side armor
Primary
armament 88 mm KwK 43 L/71
Secondary
armament 2×7.92 mm MG
Engine V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30
700 hp (515 kW)
Power/weight 10 hp/tonne
Suspension torsion-bar
Operational
range 170 km
Speed 41.5 km/hfurther reading also confirms what i thought was correct: that they were not used in Europe as they were introduced too late in this campaign.
-
Soviet air power won WWII for them. They destroyed more tanks with Il-2’s and Il-10’s than with tanks.
-
I have no proof to prove or disprove that claim, but I think that in actuality Snow was the main cause of tank deaths on the Eastern Front…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
I have no proof to prove or disprove that claim, but I think that in actuality Snow was the main cause of tank deaths on the Eastern Front…
GG
Snow wasnt the main, but was one of the top causes. Some tank engines wouldnt even start in such cold weather and if they did, they had a hard time moving.
-
I was talking about in the later battles, such as those when Russia was regaining lost territory.
-
How about this concept tank:
http://www.kensingtonbooks.com/finditem.cfm?itemid=9384
I don’t know if I first saw this here, if I did…sorry for reposting.
-
i think it would have gotten taken out by artillery, or planes.
It would be abosutley scary on a battlefield though, soldiers would just run away. how would you take that thing out.
It would take a ton of steel to make one of those.
IF the armor was thick enough to withstand anything, only napalm or flame would do the trick. nasty.
Suggested Topics
