Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[schwarzpanzer]

i left out the... M3 Stuart

Grrr!


The Crusader fulfilled a good role as a FlakPanzer and gun tractor etc.


The PzIII G E/50 was competitive when compared with enemy tanks in NA from August '40 'till the end.


The StuGIII could deal with a Mathilda from it's introduction, as could the PzIV when using HEAC/CPHE rounds. When the G and F2 models respectively were released, they stayed formidable.

- I'm gonna plump for the StuGIII. 8)


PlanD:

Discounting the Tiger though, the IV F/2 was certainly the best. Although the M4 Sherman was a very close match-up for it.

It had less chance than a T34/76.

The M4 Sherman, however, had 75mm armour maximum armour. Therefore, the IV F/2 will only be bothering the Shermans with good hits at those ranges.

That's a maximum, the hull front for e.g. was a favourite aiming point for German gunners.

The PzIV's fume port and other ports like the driver's etc were also unable to stand upto even a Boys AT rifle though!

A few hits would destroy but we'll delete them at this moment, since a lot of tanks can have very unlucky moments.

A wise move, thank you D. However this applies when matching RoF's...

Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2.

The ranges here can be more like 6+ miles!!

Also, the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm. The German cannons were so good because of their high velocity and accuracy.

You are correct, a high-velocity, well mounted cannon makes the job much easier.


Soren:

The 'Zeiss' optics used on the PzIV were 'Far' superior to any U.S. or British tanks optics. Thats a fact

It can count for nothing. Sand storms and the weird effects of heat can render any optical equipment useless, it's like aiming underwater at times!

the PzIV F2 would have no problem in making first round hits at 1000-1500m.

Yes, on a good day. The Sherm ain't gonna be able to do that, the M10 might though...

optics with build in range-scales !

Wow! I bet the Allies/Soviets wish they had that!

The only time range-related equipment that amazes me is the laser range finder on the very late Panthers. 8)

Never said you did, but you said the M3 was accurate at 1000m, wich it wasnt

Course it was.

WWII projectiles and ballistics by Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingstone

Thanks again Soren! I take it you've already got the (Nation's) Artillery series of books?

Why no one votes for the underestimated M 13/40? It couldn't be as bad as most people think, as it was widely used by Germans and British (Australian) as well.

Because it was available, that's why. The gun is arguably themost important part of a tank and on the Carro this was good. The armour was worse than useless though and the gun couldn't make up for it.

Im going to stick with the good old American Sherman M4 because she was a fast tank! (Perfect for the dessert)

It had pathetic floatation unlike the fantastic T34. 8)

The rubber pads also had a habit of melting!

Good tank, but not in the desert, though it was probably the best tank around when introduced (but called a Swallow).

they were vunerable to flak 88s and Tigers, but which american or british tank wasn't

The Mathilda and Chuchill had a degree of survivability here, but were just too damn sloow!


The best points of the PzIV and Sherman had was mechanical reliability, something only the Stuart, Valentine Pz/StuG III could match?

Belly armour is also a huge consideration. I know of a Sherman that survived a mine, dunno if it was AT or not.

 

[Gnomey]

Your complaining he missed off the M3, if you look he also missed off the Panther...

 

[schwarzpanzer]

You're right there knomey, how could he??

- I'll get my sharpest knife... - only kidding!

I suppose the Panthers were rare is why they're excluded?

I think the AusfG was used in North Africa IIRC?

IIRC it was the early G only though, I think the Late G came out after Germany left North Africa?

- Then again I thought the Early G came out after Germany had left North Africa! ('44)


Even so, that was probably the best, you're right Gnomey, can't believe I forgot it!

 

[MacArther]

I'd take the M3. Sure, the gun layout was a limitation, but it also helped it, because while the tank was manuevering to use the 75mm gun, the 37mm gun would hit any potential weak points on an enemy tank, or just make any light vehicles nearby into scrap.

 

[Soren]

Fine Schwarz, dig up some old dirt

It can count for nothing. Sand storms and the weird effects of heat can render any optical equipment useless, it's like aiming underwater at times!

Schwarz do you seriously think that I was talking in case of a sandstorm ?!

Yes, on a good day.

Any day the weather is clear...

The Sherm ain't gonna be able to do that, the M10 might though...

Neither the Sherman or the M10 can... And btw, the M10 entered service in late 42, a bit late compared to what the Germans possesed by then.

Wow! I bet the Allies/Soviets wish they had that!

I bet they did. All they had were rough estimates, "worth sh*t" as one US tank commander once said.

The only time range-related equipment that amazes me is the laser range finder on the very late Panthers. 8)

Laser range finder ? Schwarz, laser equipment was first developed in the 1960's

Course it was.

It sure wasn't ! And just by looking at the actual gun, someone just a little knowledgeable about ballistics will tell you the same !

 

[MacArther]

I think he means the Infared spotlight that some panzer units and panzer support units mounted.

 

[elmilitaro]

I think he means the Infared spotlight that some panzer units and panzer support units mounted.

Did the allies have any of these?

 

[MacArther]

Nope. I'll try and find the picture of the SDKFZ (or whatever the initials were for the armored personel carriers) that has an Infared Spotlight on it. These were used to illuminate the target, which the Panthers and other late model tanks could see by means of some device. Whether or not this type of action was used before wars end is debatable.

 

[terriles]

I like the mathilda mk2 and the italian´s tank m13/40



THE PANZER II

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well the title of the thread is Best/Favorite tank in the West and since the Afrika campain was not considered the Western Campain I will have to say the Panther and Tiger were the best in the West.

 

[JeffK]

Best and favourite, but only one table to vote on.

Favourite, the Tillie.

Best, the bloody Tiger!

 

[CCM von Hausser]

No dubt! Tiger!!

 

[Joe2]

The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger. And if we are talking about the western desert (egypt, Libia ect) then only the 88 could kill it, as Rommel was promised a load of tigers but they didnt arrive....probably torpedoed by the Royal Navy whilst still on ships

And the Eastern bit of desert (morrocco, Tunisia ect) there where only 20 Tigers anyway8)


But why are cromwells on the list? I thought they only appeard in '44

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger.

Where did you come from. It is a proven fact the 3 best tanks of WW2 were the Tiger, Panther, T-34. No arguement can be made. The Tiger could kill anything the allies put up without much dificulty.

 

[Joe2]

the churchill had more armour than the Tiger mkII actually

 

[Gnomey]

Not than the MkII (King Tiger) - 180mm front - and only 2mm (had 102mm front) more than the Tiger I (100mm front)...

Churchill tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiger I:

Armor Thickness (mm) 26 - 1005
1009
Front: 1007
Side: 807
Hull Front, Upper 1002,3
102@20°, 100@10°4, 100@66°8
Hull Front, Lower 62@60°
100@24°4, 100@80°8
Hull Sides, Upper 82
60-802,3
80@0°4, 60-80@90°8
Hull Sides, Lower 62
60@0°4
Hull Rear 802,3
82@20°, 80@8°4, 82@82°8
Hull Top 252,3
25@90°4
Hull Bottom 252,3
25@90°4
Turret Front 100-1202,3
100@0°-11°, 100@8°4, 100-110@80°8
Mantlet: 100-110@0°4
Turret Sides 802,3, 82
80@0°4, 80@90°8
Turret Rear 802,3, 82
80@0°4, 80@90°8
Turret Top 252,3, 26
25@81°-90°4, 26@0-9°8

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf E, Tiger, SdKfz 181

Tiger II - King Tiger:

Armor Thickness (mm) 25 - 1504
Front: 1806
Side: 806
Hull Front, Upper 1505, 150@50°3, 150@40°7,8
100-1502
Hull Front, Lower 100@55°8, 100@50°3, 100@40°7
Hull Sides, Upper 80@25°3, 80@65-90°7, 802
Hull Sides, Lower 80@0°3
Hull Rear 80@30°3, 802, 80@60°7
Hull Top 40@90°3
402
Hull Bottom 25-40@90°3
25-402
Turret Front 1005, 180@9°3, 1802, 185@80°7
Porsche: 60-110@round3
Turret Sides 80@21°3, 802, 80@69°7 Porsche: 80@30°3
Turret Rear 80@21°3, 802, 80@70°7
Porsche: 80@30°3
Turret Top 40@78-90°3, 402, 44@0-10°7
Porsche: 40@77-90°3

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B, Königtiger, SdKfz 182

Churchill MKIV:

Look here (can't be bothered to sort and copy it)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap and the gun on the Tiger could cut through any Allied Armour with pretty good ease.

The only tank that one can argue with was better than the Tiger and Panther was the T-34 and that has to be argued and is not easily proven because the Germans countered the T-34 with better versions of the Tiger and Panther which made the T-34 more vulnerable.

 

[lesofprimus]

I could never, even with sodium pentathol, say that the T-34 was better than the Panther...

More numerous, hell yea.... The Russians proved that u can win over technology with sheer brute numbers... It was a great tank and all, but nowhere superior to the Panther or Tiger...

As for the Poll, he may have labeled the Title of the Thread wrong, as his poll says North Africa, so I have to agree with the consensus and say the Tiger Mk VI.....

 

[ndicki]

The Tiger and the Panther were too bl**dy unreliable, being mechanically far too complex. The RAC built a couple of new Panthers out of parts on the production line - part of the evaluation - at the end of the War, and took them back to Bovvie for trials against the Centurion MkI. They did not do as well as expected. There was the vague idea that the British army might even adopt the Panther, but that one did not last long!

T-34/85? Soldier-proof, relatively reliable, 85mm gun - albeit not a very good one, but still. Diesel engine, so less likely to brew up, decent armour protection, quite fast and manoueverable, nice wide tracks with good grip... a lot to be said for it. And, like the Centurion, it soldiered on well into the 1990s, if not actually until the present day. But it's not my favourite by any stretch, just the one I'd hope to have if for some reason they had to force me at gunpoint into one of those horrible things. Give me a nice hole anyday!

 

[ndicki]

Did he say North Africa? Didn't read it. The best was therefore not the Panther, at any rate, as they didn't serve there. All things considered, the Churchill MkIII did solid work there, as did the Sherman MkI and II. Not as hard hitting as the Tiger, but far more likely to reach their destination!