# Tank of the year



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

Kinda like car of the year, but different!

Mine:

'39 - Matilda2

'40 - KV-1/2

'41 - T34

'42 - TigerI

'43 - Panther

'44 - Konigstiger

'45 - JS3

I might do this for plane/ISA later?


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 14, 2005)

I'd agree with that list schwarzpanzer, I would say that those are the best tanks of the year for each year of the war although I think that perhaps the JS2 should be in there for 1944.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

1939 - A12 Matilda II

1940 - KV-1 (Not KV-2 as it was a pointless over-complication with little use.)

1941 - T-34

1942 - Tiger

1943 - Tiger 

1944 - Panther 

1945 - A41 Centurion

Tiger twice because the Panther wasn't capable in 1943. It was rushed into service and was not really ready until 1944 when the G came about.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

Hmmmm, the A41 over the JS3 huh????


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

The basics of the IS-3 like firepower, armour and mobility were good. But in my opinion it lacked the other vitals such as optical equipment, effective loading system and a more open quarter. 

If you matched an IS-3 against an A41 you've got two tanks that are capable of destroying each other at combat ranges. But the A41 has better optical equipment, it's more likely to hit. 

The loading system was sluggish and dangerous to the loader, also the round was heavy. The A41 had a much higher rate of fire than the IS-3. Also, the IS-3 still only carried 28 rounds. 

The IS-3 was cramped, extremely cramped. It was low down and to be low down it needed small quarter. The Soviet tanker had to be small to operate the tank with any decent effect. 

It'd take a good IS-3 crew to push it to it's limit. It'd take an average A41 crew to push it to it's limit.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

> 1945 - A41 Centurion



Well I never!  I was nearly going to choose that.

Yes I kinda agree PlanD, but wouldn't the Centurion have problems with the IS3? Unless it was a good crew that could shot-trap it (very likely with a Brit crew used to Sherman etc)



> Tiger twice because the Panther wasn't capable in 1943. It was rushed into service and was not really ready until 1944 when the G came about.



The Tiger was merely a pie-munching Panzer.  

The early Panther AusfD's were crap, but all rebuilt AusfD's, AusfA's onwards were excellent.

The PantherG's only advantage over the A was cost, untill the mantlet was changed on the late G's.

BTW: If I couldn't choose the KT for '44 then it'd be the JagdPanther, admittedly not a tank, but near enough. 

I was gonna call the poll 'best AFV' but some1 might put Hanomag etc, so what I'm saying is Stugs etc count, sorry.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

I don't think the Centurion would have a massive problem with the IS-3. That OQF 17pdr was a deadly cannon and it was much faster firing. The IS-3 crew would be shaken every hit and there's a chance, even at 1000m, that the 17pdr would smash straight through. There's also concussion to take into account. 

The Panther Ausf As still had a few problems that weren't sorted until the G. It wasn't ready in 1943. The German High Command realised that in Kursk.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

Yeah I think the same, but at 1000m the IS3 is going to '1-hit wonder' the A41. The A41 would have difficulty doing that to the IS3 (target = narrow gap <about 2 foot wide)

It's the AusfD you're thinking of PlanD, some of those were good too after rebuilding after Kursk, along with the Ferdinands (that changed their names to Elefants BTW  )


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

That's if the optical equipment would allow the IS-3 to even hit in the first place. Plus the IS-3 has a slow rate of fire and it has to make use of every round, since it only has 28. 

Nope, even the Ausf A had problems. And you missed my comment on the Ferdinand/Elefant 'cos NS deleted the thread. Ha-ha-ha!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

At 1000m, the IS3 is going to hit.

3000m and closing! pity that went too!  

28 rounds was acceptable or 1 days combat.

Even the G had problems! 

The A was good enough not to be worried by anything.

Unless your on about the transmission, this was sorted on the JgdPanther IIRC?

Yes, but I remember how you thwarted yourself, bwa-ha-ha-ha-hee-hee-hee!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

It's not a sure chance the IS-3 will hit at 1000m. Especially against a moving target. At 3000m inclosing the IS-3 can shoot and most likely miss all day and waste it's ammo. 

28 rounds is not good enough for any days combat. The tank will not hit everytime. You need at least 35 rounds for the main gun. 

The Panther was not ready to be a capable tank of 1943. The Tiger was never out-classed by anything during World War II. It easily held it's own in 1943. And the Panther had some growing up to do.


----------



## Smokey (Sep 14, 2005)

What about the M26 Pershing in 1945?
What was the best out of the IS3, King Tiger, Centurion and M26 Pershing?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

For a tank to be good it requires a balance between armour, firepower and manuverability. I would personally give the balance to the M26 Pershing, to be honest. 

The Pershing lacked the punch of the King Tiger, IS-3 and Centurion. It also lacked the armour protection. However it was the most agile. 

The Centurion lacks the punch of the King Tiger and IS-3 but it's superior to the Pershing. It's armour protection is superior to the Pershing but inferior to the IS-3 and King Tiger. It was less agile than both the IS-3 and the Pershing. 

The IS-3 lacked the punch of the King Tiger but was superior in armour protection to the rest. It was the second most agile, being only less than the Pershing. 

The King Tiger was the strongest hitter. It lacked the armour protection of the IS-3 and was the least agile. 

That's the basics. 

At 3000m none of these machines could destroy the other. At 2000m the only real contender for destroying anyone else would be the King Tiger vs. the Pershing but that would still be unlikely. At 1,500m the King Tiger is in control of the situation, it would be capable of hitting all of it's opponents and destroying them. Not always in the first hit though. The IS-3 pike-nose was extremely effective at deflecting shot. 

At 1000m, the King Tiger is still able to hold it's own to the front. The others armament wouldn't be capable of penertrating the King Tiger at 1000m but they would be able to cause significant shock to it's crew. However, the King Tiger could return deadly fire. It would be able to destroy a Centurion and Pershing at 1000m. And even, with luck, an IS-3. 

At 400-600m (combat ranges) the IS-3 is the clear winner. It's 122mm cannon provides massive amounts of damage through concussion and other affects of massive cannon! 

However, the IS-3 is cramped, it lacks optical equipment of the standard those in the West and Germany, it's still a slow firer and only contains 28 rounds.

The Centurion will most likely be firing the fastest with a light shell and good loading system. Giving the less hit a bit more damage possibility. There is such thing as armour failure.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

> IS3, King Tiger, Centurion and M26 Pershing



It depends, all properly built:

KT with PzGr44 APFSDS rounds.

You've not done bad there PlanD  , except:

I'd say though that the Centurion had better/joint agility with the M26.

Also it had a better/joint punch compared to the KT (unless PzGr44 is used).

It was far superior to the IS3 gun-wise.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

The IS-3 at close range has the advantage of weight in round. The KwK43 was superior to the OQF 17pdr on standard AP ammo. And I'd still safely say the Pershing was more agile.


----------



## Smokey (Sep 15, 2005)

Here's some info on the chieftan



> The 650hp Rolls-Royce petrol engine was very thirsty, without compensating by providing a good maximum speed — and then there’s the question of the fuel’s dangerous flammability. The result was a woeful maximum speed of 34km/h and an operating range of well under 200km: compare this with its diesel-engined successor, the Chieftain, which managed over 400km per tankful at an almost impressive 48km/h. Some Centurions were provided with an armoured monowheel trailer carrying additional fuel, which boosted range if not manoeuvrability or the crew’s peace of mind.



http://www.tankmuseum.com/single/cent.htm


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

Can't argue wth that planD, except for the Pershing part.

That info is for a late version Smokey, they're stil used now!

The early ones were very different beasts: (yours in quotes)



> Armament: 105mm main gun, 7.62mm MG coaxial, 12.7mm RMG, 7.62mm MG (commander’s cupola)



Mk1: 76mm main gun, 20mm co-ax - thats it!  



> Combat weight: 51.82t



Mk1: aprox 45 tons

The design was influenced by the Panther (which was influenced by the T34) 

The performance of a Mk1 vs a captured Panther were nearly identical (though the A41 had far superior combat ability)

A few differences were the Rover Meteor (detuned RR Merlin) was far superior to the crappy Maybach HL230.

Also the gearbox was far more reliable, but a lot harder to operate.


----------

