Best/Favourate Tank in the west
- Thread starter Yeomanz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's interesting about the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2. If it was temporary it doesn't make it fictious though and surely if it was in manuals it makes it official. There were changes in the vehicles though, different muzzle brake (as Soren said), a system to transfer coolant to another Pz.Kpfw and elimination of vision ports.
So, would it be better to call it an early Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G. That does generate problems though because the late Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G is almost impossible to distinguish from the early Ausf H. Once the 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 came along the Pz.Kpfw IVs really molded from one mark to the next.
As I understand it the reason for the name Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 is simply because the new long-barrelled 7.5cm KwK40 was ordered onto Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F chassis already in production.
Basically, the others are probably fictious but the fact that the designation was mentioned in German war manuals as F/2 makes it real. And they weren't built initially as the Ausf G; making them upgraded Ausf Fs in my mind. Calling it the F/2 has been drilled into my head for too long; and there's not enough reason to change it.
So, would it be better to call it an early Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G. That does generate problems though because the late Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G is almost impossible to distinguish from the early Ausf H. Once the 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 came along the Pz.Kpfw IVs really molded from one mark to the next.
As I understand it the reason for the name Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 is simply because the new long-barrelled 7.5cm KwK40 was ordered onto Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F chassis already in production.
Basically, the others are probably fictious but the fact that the designation was mentioned in German war manuals as F/2 makes it real. And they weren't built initially as the Ausf G; making them upgraded Ausf Fs in my mind. Calling it the F/2 has been drilled into my head for too long; and there's not enough reason to change it.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Of course there's no need to stop using the term. Everybody else uses it, so that would just be creating difficulties.
But I have to point out that -although it appeared in two manuals - it was never an official designation. I assume that manuals are drafted from the same company that builds the weapon. But in order to make it official, it has to be mentioned by the German authority. That never seems to have been the case.
If you would have gone back to 1942/1943 and demanded to see a Pz IVF2, they would have told you there was none.
Next time I see Christian, I have to ask him if there ever was a Pz IVF1, or just a Pz IVF...
Kris
But I have to point out that -although it appeared in two manuals - it was never an official designation. I assume that manuals are drafted from the same company that builds the weapon. But in order to make it official, it has to be mentioned by the German authority. That never seems to have been the case.
If you would have gone back to 1942/1943 and demanded to see a Pz IVF2, they would have told you there was none.
Next time I see Christian, I have to ask him if there ever was a Pz IVF1, or just a Pz IVF...
Kris
Tough choice
I voted Pzkpfw IV
I'm not a fan of the Tigers as "good Tanks", due to the mobility issue. On the Tiger I, mobility was not so bad to make it a "bad" tank, but enough to take away top slot for "good".
Tiger II was a "very poor" tank except when its enemies came to it (which happened a lot as Germany was losing). The Tiger II was GREAT for hurting an enemy military that was attacking you, but near worthless for making offensive moves of your own. Even the Sherman was FAR better for offensive action. (painful for the Sherman when they met, I know, but the Sherman COULD do offensive mobility, and the Tiger II could not).
If the Sherman had a better gun in Africa, I'd be tempted put it on par with the Panzer IV, but it didn't.
For the record, my votes "best Tank" in the war are split between the T34 and the Panther, depending on if you count production ease. (M26 gets Honorable mention, but was to late to really count)
I voted Pzkpfw IV
I'm not a fan of the Tigers as "good Tanks", due to the mobility issue. On the Tiger I, mobility was not so bad to make it a "bad" tank, but enough to take away top slot for "good".
Tiger II was a "very poor" tank except when its enemies came to it (which happened a lot as Germany was losing). The Tiger II was GREAT for hurting an enemy military that was attacking you, but near worthless for making offensive moves of your own. Even the Sherman was FAR better for offensive action. (painful for the Sherman when they met, I know, but the Sherman COULD do offensive mobility, and the Tiger II could not).
If the Sherman had a better gun in Africa, I'd be tempted put it on par with the Panzer IV, but it didn't.
For the record, my votes "best Tank" in the war are split between the T34 and the Panther, depending on if you count production ease. (M26 gets Honorable mention, but was to late to really count)
'Lil'tyger
Airman
i think that the tiger2 was the best tank in ww28)
The Tiger II was WORTHLESS for the one thing that wins war: "Offensive action" Even the much flawed Sherman was better.
During offensive action, heavily armored and heavily gunned Tiger IIs could waste fuel trying to get in range of the enemy, but thats all they could do.
Of course, once the enemy BEAT the other German forces that the Tigers FAILED to support, then the Tigers could kill a bunch before they died in DEFENSIVE fights, but they sure as heck would not kill anything where and when it counted for "offensive" action, as they were to slow and poorly mobile to keep up.
Tiger II would be great for trench warfare.
Panther was a great Tank. But not the Tiger II.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
I have allways gone with the Panther and the Tiger.
Ofcourse the Shermans were built in numbers that could win the war however.
Ofcourse the Shermans were built in numbers that could win the war however.
Derfman,
The Tiger II was far from worthless on the offensive, it could negotiate worse terrain than both the Sherman T-34 and boasted a similar top speed. The only real problem plagueing the Tiger II was the lack of spare parts fuel, the lack of which meant that the bulk were abandoned and blown up by their own crew. The weight was ofcourse also a problem, not many small bridges would support 68 - 70 tons of pure killing machine !
The Tiger II was far from worthless on the offensive, it could negotiate worse terrain than both the Sherman T-34 and boasted a similar top speed. The only real problem plagueing the Tiger II was the lack of spare parts fuel, the lack of which meant that the bulk were abandoned and blown up by their own crew. The weight was ofcourse also a problem, not many small bridges would support 68 - 70 tons of pure killing machine !
SoD Stitch
Banned
That and the overstressed engine; the PzkPfw VI Ausf. B used the same Maybach petrol engine as the Tiger I, which was not overpowered to begin with. Add another 15 tons, but no more power, and you've got an engine that's operating at it's limit.
The Tiger II was, however, superlative in the defensive role; the only weapon the Allies had that could hope to take out a King Tiger was air power. Allied tanks didn't stand a chance against it in a 1-v-1 (or even 2-v-1) engagement.
The engine wasn't overstressed, the transmission often was however when an inexperienced driver was behind the wheel - a big problem in late 44 to 45.
A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.
A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.
SoD Stitch
Banned
However, I understand the transmission was excellent, in terms of maneuverability, with it's regenerative steering; the King Tiger was as maneouverable as a much smaller tank thanks to it's advanced (though, apparently, weak) transmission.
Soren: I know they installed a very successful diesel engine in the second PzkPfw. VIII Maus prototype, a Daimler-Benz MB 517, with 1200 HP (895 kW). Do you think that engine would've worked in the King Tiger, or was it too big?
I know they were also, just before the end of the War, working on a "boosted" version of the Maybach HL230, with direct fuel injection, that would've put out close to 1,000 HP (736 kW); that would've been a big help (but that would have also meant designing a new transmission, probably).
The transmission was an engineering marvel, no doubt, but it was designed for a 45 ton tank, not a 70 ton one. Thus while a truly great design, it wasn't rugged enough to survive the punishment delivered by an inexperienced driver for any long period of time.
It was sadly abit too big. Would've done good in the E-100 though!
Yes, this engine would've done the Tiger II good but what was really needed was a more rugged transmission, and a new and more powerful engine wouldn't have lessened this need.
On the King Tiger
I know for a fact that a number were abandoned on both east and west fronts, in situations where more mobile armor was able to keep up with mobile forces in retreat.
I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and "on top of that", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).
To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.
I know for a fact that a number were abandoned on both east and west fronts, in situations where more mobile armor was able to keep up with mobile forces in retreat.
I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and "on top of that", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).
To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.
Again the battle of the bulge ran to a stand still because of a lack of fuel, not because the Tigers were too slow. The Tigers that were abandoned were so because no fuel was available or because they had broken down, and thats a fact.
In terms of mobility the Tiger Ausf.B was excellent, only being trumpfhed by the Panther. So the myth that the Tiger Ausf.B was immobile is just that, a myth.
In terms of mobility the Tiger Ausf.B was excellent, only being trumpfhed by the Panther. So the myth that the Tiger Ausf.B was immobile is just that, a myth.
I have to agree with the King Tiger nay sayers here.
The Tiger and the Panther were superior to anything the allies had out there or atleast were good eneogh to get the job done.
The Germans should have upped production of the Tigers and Panthers instead of wasting there time on the King Tiger when it was clearly not needed.
The Tiger and the Panther were superior to anything the allies had out there or atleast were good eneogh to get the job done.
The Germans should have upped production of the Tigers and Panthers instead of wasting there time on the King Tiger when it was clearly not needed.
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
Superior numbers and superior tactics were the only way American tankers could achieve success on the battlefield against the Panthers and Tigers. It's an indisputable fact that the Germans had the best tanks in WW II; fortunately the allies had the most tanks.
TO
TO