History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedBEST TANK IN THE WORLD

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>
Author
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 19:10

But they were mid war tanks and being replaced by the mighty Maus. Now there's maneuverability sacriced for armour. Pillboxes are cheaper to build. (and they don't break down)

If the war had gone on the the newer generation of allied tanks would have outclassed the mid war German tanks and the Germans nothing to compare. Then Germany would be remebered as the c\ountry that had bad tanks and the allies as the countries that had good ones. It was just that the war ended when it did German tanks have such a good reputation.

P.S. nice to see someone so knowledgable about tanks on this forum.

 



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 19:13
The Panther IID was produced in 1945 and the Tiger II in late 1944. They are not exactly mid-war.

P.S. Thank you, you are proving to make a good opponent for this debate. Most people are slow when it comes to this.


Edited by AFV Master
"History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
        -Winston Churchill-
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 20:00
Actually I'd take a Jagdpather over a II anyday. There's a good argument that german tankbreakers and mobile artillery are what they should really be remebered for and the tanks shuffled descreetly under the carpet.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 06:35

Have Panthers II engaged in battle? I actually thought that Panther II was just a design, never contructed. In the same sense I didn't know that Centurions participated in WWII.

The Tiger II was a very good tank in general, not only because of its heavy armament. It was quite fast and maneuvreable. But because it was being constucted in a hurry, and because as all new tanks it had its initial problems, it suffered from reliability. If the war went on the Tiger II would become a very good tank. The 88mm gun of the Tiger II was better than the 90mm of the later allied tanks (M26, M46,M47,M48), and it was also planned to be replaced with a bigger (128mm?) gun.

Also, I doubt that the Germans distinguished Cavalry from infantry tanks. Also, in your logic pretty much all Russian tanks were infantry tanks.

And the tankbreakers (I assume that's the same with a tankdestroyer, sorry but english is not my strentgh) as a logic were obsolete. The German tankdestroyers were heavy in firepower and armour, but they lacked turret, something very very basic.

 

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:25

As far as I know the Panther II never got built. The Centurion was deployed a couple of months before VE day but never saw combat.

Personally I'm not sure the Tiger II was a good design, it took ages to build, was resourse heavy, complex and drank petrol. Germany had little petrol and little capacity to move petrol under allied air blanket, how many Tigers became pillboxes? What Germany needed at that stage was a T-34/85 or 100. Cheap, quick to build, simple and could build 5 or 6 for every Tiger.

Germany had an infantry and cavalry tank concept to begin with, The III was originally planned as a cavalry tank and IV an infantry. It never worked out because the III quickly got outclassed so was abandoned. The Russians kept the concept to the end of the war, the KV and t-35 were both cavalry. The British had it too, Matilda, sherman and Churchill infantry, Comet, firefly and Crusader cavalry. Only country that didn't have cavalry and infantry tanks was US. Shermans were infantry tanks, US had doctrine of infantry tanks only. M-26 was quickly sidelined by Patton and Eisenhower who both disliked cavalry tanks.

Not having a turret has advantages, weakest part gone must now hit front hull to kill, weight gone so heavier better gun and armour, can still move gun a bit, low profile so difficult to see.  disadvatages must turn whole tank instead of turret..... Advantages outway disadvantages and great for defence.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 14:21
Well the only problem I can spot with the Tiger II's at that point was that they entered to late into the war as well as many of those other tanks, Centurians and such.

But I am not talking about calvary tanks, i'm talking about combat tanks. The kind specifically designed to fight armour, not to assist infantry. Of course the Panzer IV was a differant story. It was well-suited for both tasks. The only problem was that Panzer IV's actully DIDN'T have all metal armour protection. It was usually concrete sandwiched between the metal plates.

Fixed turrets seem completely unlogical. Tanks need the ability to fight in a 360 degree radius (or at least 180) so it dosen't have to move the entire tank and then readjust itself for aiming. It requires more gas and makes the proper sighting more difficult.
"History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
        -Winston Churchill-
Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Formerly known as "Dux"

Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote J.M.Finegold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 17:44
Originally posted by AFV Master AFV Master wrote:

Not all of the tanks the Abrams have fought were OBSOLETE. T-72's are far from obsolete. They have 125mm cannons and have extremely thick armour that have extreme resistantce to most kinds of shells. They are also one of the quicker tanks, but not as quick as the Abrams. The only tanks that could be comparable to the Abrams would be the Challenger Two and The Leopard Two A6


Then again, Russian armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabots have not been top notch; in fact, they have always increased mass at a loss of velocity.  There's a certain point where mass is important, but sometimes velocity is more important.  In fact, the wider, larger penetrator used by the Russians has less penetration power than the American Silver Bullet - not just because the latter is made out of denser material, but because it's a better round period.  So although the T-72 within itself might have been a good tank; it was obsolete in tank to tank warfare, especially when you consider that they were in the hands of bad Iraqi tank crews.
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 18:11
There was a Abrams that was immoblilzed by a T-72M in the first gulf war. Thankfully the reactive armour helped the crew survive. There we some more modern tanks involved as well. There we T-80's as well as the tank used by many higher level countries to this day, the T-90. This would have been able to fight on the Abrams on more equal terms but the few battalions equipped with this weapon were on the top of the list for airstrikes.


"History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
        -Winston Churchill-
Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 654
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Richard XIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 03:46
I just saw on Discovery channel a list:
1 Leopard - Germany now
2 Abrams - USA now
3 T 34 - USSR WW2
4 Israel tank now
5 Swedish tank now
6. T 72 - USSR cold war
7. Panther - Germany (WW2)

8,9,10 and the names of Israel and Swedish tanks I don't remember

"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 13:17

The KV was a Cav tank? All KV tanks were heavy with big guns, what is characteristical for Inf tanks.

Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Formerly known as "Dux"

Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote J.M.Finegold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:21
The Israeli tank they were probably referring to is the Merkava IV; it's more of a glorified APC/IFV than anything else.  The engine in the front increases room for troop transport, but if a CE or KE round actually penetrated the frontal armour [depending on what fired it] the tank would have a greater chance of combustion than would a tank with the engine in the rear.
Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Formerly known as "Dux"

Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote J.M.Finegold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:23
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

The KV was a Cav tank? All KV tanks were heavy with big guns, what is characteristical for Inf tanks.



I was under the same impression; in fact, their use in both the Finnish War and the early days of the Second World War [early days of their entrance, more accurately] it was an infantry support tank, or it was a stopgap - in fact, a single KV stopped the entire advance of the 6th Panzer Division for an entire night [source:  Panzers on the Eatern Front by Edhard Raus].
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:55



Well the British are thinking about changing their barrels to smoothbore.  Rifled barrels have horrible accuracy when it comes to launching APFSDS rounds, which are the primary weapons of most tanks these days.  Other than that, a smoothbore isn't that bad when lobbing HE shells, and has a longer life span without replacing the rifling of the barrel.
[/QUOTE]

We are no longer thinking about it, it's going to happen, the decision has been made. By "politicians". Scumbag Blair and his equally scumbag government are allowing the closure of the UK's ammunition factories so we are being forced to adopt "smoothbore" tank guns to ensure we can import ammunition for our tanks.

 

The "sliding band" APFSDS round adopted by the British (which by the way took out an iraqi tank at a range in excess of 4000M) is highly accurate  not horribly accurate, and the smoothbore gun is"totally useless" when it comes to non anti armour ammunition.

It is true that the smoothbore gun is longer lasting than it's rifled barrel cousin.

 

The HESH round is now useless against modern armour, I dont argue that fact but do you remember the TV pictures in the last gulf war of a CR2 destroying an Iraqi TV mast using HESH?  An M1 would have been there till doomsday trying to do that!!.

I am a former British army tank commander and so I have "some" knowledge about tanks. The British tank crews do not want to lose their precious rifled barrels.

 

The British tank "bible" says that tanks have 3 roles

1. To destroy enemy armour (note armour is spelt correctly, not armor ughh!!)

2. to support the infantry

3. To exploit shock action

With smoothbore guns only no1 can be really achieved, ok if you have abundant Artillary, mortar, helicopter and close air support,  but in battle the only guarantee is that your plan will not survive the first shot fired.

 

The USA depends on technology and overpowering might to destroy the enemy, It failed in Vietnam and one day when all this support is missing it's smoothbore gun tanks will fail again

 

Long  live HESH



Edited by aghart
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
cg rommel View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Status: Offline
Points: 244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cg rommel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 17:01
i dont know wich one is the best but i like the abrams ...
Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Formerly known as "Dux"

Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote J.M.Finegold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 17:16
Vietname is a poor example; no main battle tank ordnance from either side saw action in Vietnam [as in, no MBTs from today saw action in Vietnam].  An HE round fired from a smoothbore isn't that horrible, within all rights.  The rifledbore may be better for HESH, but in terms of jack of all trades the smoothbore is pretty good, and it has the added plus of accurately firing APFSDS.  The Challenger II's Dorchester armour is superior to that of the Abrams in all respects [the C. II also recently had an appliqu>> ERA upgrade I believe].

But it will become rather irrelevent by 2011-2017 with the advent of the electro-thermal chemical gun and the exchange of the M1A2 from a 120mm smoothbore to a 120mm ETC.  Understandably, I really don't support the British change to smoothbore because there's no point; they're most likely going to be forced to purchase their guns of Rhinemetal for the ETCs anyhow in the next five to eleven years.
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 18:28

Originally posted by Dux Dux wrote:

Vietname is a poor example; no main battle tank ordnance from either side saw action in Vietnam [as in, no MBTs from today saw action in Vietnam].  An HE round fired from a smoothbore isn't that horrible, within all rights.  The rifledbore may be better for HESH, but in terms of jack of all trades the smoothbore is pretty good, and it has the added plus of accurately firing APFSDS.  The Challenger II's Dorchester armour is superior to that of the Abrams in all respects [the C. II also recently had an appliqu>> ERA upgrade I believe].

But it will become rather irrelevent by 2011-2017 with the advent of the electro-thermal chemical gun and the exchange of the M1A2 from a 120mm smoothbore to a 120mm ETC.  Understandably, I really don't support the British change to smoothbore because there's no point; they're most likely going to be forced to purchase their guns of Rhinemetal for the ETCs anyhow in the next five to eleven years.

 

Vietnam was used as an example by me to show that technology does not guarantee success.

the TV mast example is an example that the smoothbore gun is not a jack of all trades, it is in fact totally useless against non armour targets.

The longest range 1st round hit by APFSDS was credited to a Challenger 1 during the first gulf war using a rifled barrel.

 

 

Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jay. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 18:52
The Tiger II, I would say..

Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 13:00
The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 13:36

Originally posted by aghart aghart wrote:

The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

And air supremacy....

And attack helicopters to cripple(destroy) the enemy armoured forces ....

And no enemy infantry with LAW's around ...

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?

Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 17:29
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by aghart aghart wrote:

The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?

 

because you could pierce the armour of a BMP with a snowball!!

Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.