Best/Favourate Tank in the west

Whats is the Best/your favourate tank from in North Africa

  • Total voters
    130

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I agree and that is why I say there was no need for the King Tiger or for any of these other crazy designs such as the Maus, etc...
 
The Tiger II Königstiger (Bengal Tiger is correct english translation, King Tiger would be König Tiger) was OK, they should have dropped the Jagdtiger and the monster Maus and the even heavier types.

And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.

Edit: And the germans should have phased out the Panzer IV as tank in late 1943 but continue using the chassis for self-propelled guns like StuG IV or Jagdpanzer IV. The Panther had much more value in many aspects (gun, mobility even in rough terrain and especially armor protection.
 
Apologies for derailing the thread

But its not a very bad derailing, just mildly off "exact" topic.

Having said that....

The Tiger II did have SOME mobility issues. It was not a complete mobility failure like the Maus, nor was it an almost complete mobility failure like the Hunting Tiger, but it DID have mobility issues, especially when trying to keep pace with mobile offensive operation.

When I say "Mobile offensive operations" I am NOT talking about driving around an active battlefield.

When I say "mobile offensive operations" I am talking about making a 300 mile blitz.

For the record, the Tiger II was outstanding for the situation Germany was in during 1944/1945. If the enemy comes to you, you don't need Blitz mobility.

The Panther, on the other hand, was the best tank of WWII, unless you count the ease of production for the 85mm armed T34. (I'd give the M26 and the Centurion and even the Panther II honorable mention, but they were to late to really count).
 
And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was, however not frontally at 3km like the 128mm KwK L/55 60

But your right the 88mm KwK43 L/71 would still be more than enough to deal with the IS-3, being capable of penetrating its frontal armour way past the 122mm D-25T's effective accurate range. And therefore the KwK43 wouldn't be phased out any time soon, it was afterall a far superior tank mounted AT gun than any the Allies had produced.
 
KwK43 and KwK44 should be equal at about 2.5 km, the KwK 43 is better on shorter ranges and the KwK 44 at longer ranges as it's mass hold the energy better.

KwK44 has L/55 caliber length, the L/61 gun was the 128mm FlaK that was not used on tanks unless on two prototype self-propelled guns (Sturer Emil).
 
No Denniss, the PaK44 is slightly ahead all the way with the std. APCBC round, approx. by a 25mm better penetration capability at 3km. The greater mass of the 128mm projectile doesn't give it any advantage in energy retention compared to the 88mm projectile up until about 3.5km though.

The 128mm KwK44 L/60 was the planned armament for the E-100, exactly the same gun as the 128mm PaK44 L/55 Flak40 L/61 except being in between in lenght.

And to avoid any confusion; Many sources list the 128mm Pzgr.40/43 for PaK44 as a APCR projectile, it isn't, its a APCBC projectile and it weighes 28 kg. No APCR projectiles were ever made for the 128mm PaK44 or FlaK40. The other projectile often listed is the Pzgr.39, but it is not a APCBC projectile like the heavier Pzgr.39-1, Pzgr.39/43 Pzgr.40/43, its a solid shot APBC projectile originally developed for Flak pieces, like the 88mm Flak18 128mm Flak40.
 

I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.

BTW I think you also misunderstand the role of the Tiger II. It was a heavy tank, like the IS, KV, Churchill etc. series. Its role was a specialised one, to break through enemy lines, and the let the more lightly armored but numerous mediums pour in the gap. The Tiger`s job was to open the gap for them without heavy losses.

Panther was a great Tank. But not the Tiger II.
Click to expand...

No, just different tanks for the different roles.
 
Kurfürst said:
I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.
Click to expand...
How deep? That wasn't even an operational breakthrough - it was enough to encircle some of soviet forces which were advanced simply to far, but that's rather a defensive kind of operation - defensive in counter-attacking.
For a real breakthrough the Tiger II wasn't good enough from the operational point of view - it was very unbalanced weapon - good in a "static" defence and particulary good in "active" defence but not that good in other roles.
I even doubt if it's correct to call a Tiger II a "breaktrough" tank -usually the tanks assigned to that role carry a lot of HE and only a small amount of AP shells.
 
On the subject of the original post, I'll stand by choosing the Panzer IV, although the Sherman would be my choice as a close 2nd (with a better gun, I'd rate it first).

But as for later, I'll also continue to stand by my choice of either the later Panther, or the T34/85 as the "overall" best tank.

I'd vote Late Panther as clearly best for tank vs tank in the field.
I'd vote T34/85 as best if all aspects of the Tank are included, including production cost, maintainence, etc.

As before, I'll give honorable mention to the M26 Pershing and Centurian, but they were to late to count.
 
The M26 Pershing featured worse reliability than the Tiger Ausf.B so I can't see why you'd ever consider that.
 
Soren said:
Had the war lasted another half a year then this beast would've been facing the Allies:





Notice that 128mm KwK44 L/60 with muzzle brake, not even a IS-3 could've felt safe at 3km from that gun.
Click to expand...

Nice E-100, Soren. Where's that one from? I notice it's missing the "side skirts".

I'm currently working the 1/35th DML E-100, but it doesn't come with a muzzle brake; I might steal the one from my Maus and put it on the E-100.
 
in north africa i would go with the PZKPFW IV the tiger at that time had some problems were all aware of , the sherman 2nd then the matilda, ,dont get me wrong i love the tiger but at that time i just would,nt have wanted too be a crew member, but as the war goes give me the panther or the jagpanther, sexy tanks with the a$$$ too back up the looks !!!!!!!!!!
 
Out of curiosity, how effective was the Pnzer III's L/60 gun (aka, the longer version of the 50mm Hitler had installed) against Allied armor in Africa? I keep hearing that it was a bit light, and really only useful against light armor, but the penetration tables I kinda remember would seem to bely that. Also, what sort of armor penetration could be enacted from the L/24 75mm gun used by the early Panzer IV's and the Panzer III Ns (I think they got the 75mm short gun from the N on, but I could be wrong).

I know nothing about tanks, but i do know that the TIger had an 88mm gun and good armor so I will go with that
Click to expand...
Eh, good choice, but not enough were produced to change the war, but then thats about one of the few arguments against it.
 
If its about the best in North Africa then it's the Tiger ofcourse, as for the whole war in the west well then it's the Panther.
 
To argue that one weapon system alone can win battles is a silly argument. If there is one thing that blitzkrieg theory teaches us, its that its an all arms affair. The correct answer to this whole question of which tank is better, is to look at the roles they fulfilled. and this argument that the tiger is, or is not an offensive tank is a nonsense as well

Tiger I and II were neither offensive or defensive tanks, they were support tanks. In an ideal battle they fulfilled this type of role....the enemy attacks your defensive position, you decimate him with your heavy tanks, then countersttack with your lighter vehicles, (Mks IV and V), with the Mk Vs leading the arrowhead formations. The Tigers are still in support, sitting, preferably from some hilltop vantage point, just blasting anything that tries to move.

What is true is that the Tiger was a terrible close in fighting tank. It was simply too slow, turret traverse rate was horrible, and no tank is completely invulnerable from all angles. What it excels at is the support role, sitting back at a distance and picking off targets at range.

Germans were never able to concentrate enough armour , AND provide the air support in anything like proper quantities, to pull this type of arrangement properly. Thank god for air superiority
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
20K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
435
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
663
programa
P
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
2
Views
259
Old MacDonald
O
T
The Tank Museum Wins!
Replies
4
Views
1K
WATU
W
Menu
Log in
Register