Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[bf109 Emil]

a firefly might be the sherman you are seeking...
as this video points to an almost fatal or flaw in American tank design...to bad the British had to modify theirs and not the production in the American factories done this to all tanks...just an interesting clip you might want to view...
bf109 Emil
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno

 

[Kruska]

Hello Parsifal,

Very well put in a few sentences.

Regards
Kruska

 

[bf109 Emil]

if a tank has no fuel, what good are optics

 

[dragonandhistail]

The Sherman wins hands down. It was mechanically reliable, well armored in the desert compared to most, had a strong gun for that time period, was available in large numbers, and was easy to maintain. Don't forget it chased the Afrika Corps out of Egypt all the way to Tunisia and if anyone had been planning El Alamein besides Montgomery it would have routed the Germans and Italians and been in Tunis long before the Germans could have reinforced the bridgehead. Fascination with defensive siege machines like the Tiger is misguided. They are great in long range open terrain defensive shoots. While it had thicker armor, better optics, and a better gun it was slow, awkward, mechanically very complex, heavy on fuel consumption, and prone to breakdown. The bottom line like in aerial combat is the crew and the leadership make all the difference. Inferior vehicles win because they outmaneuver the others through training and guile and get the side or rear shot where no one has thick armor. The Sherman, like the T-34 was a war winner. The Germans should have stuck with the long barreled MK IV alone and not wasted time on giant behemoths that took too much effort to produce at such great expense. You could produce 2-4 MKIVs for every Tiger or Panther. I'd rather have a platoon of MK IVs than one Tiger.

 

[tomo pauk]

It is silly to compare Tiger with other tanks in N.Africa: the thing was there for couple a months, while others soldiered from 1940 on.

Sherman was a choice there. From pure combat qualities, to the logistical ones.
It's German counterpart, the Pz IV was also a good machine, but it's armor left something to be desired.

It's a misconception that Germans were better off without Panther*. It costed a little more then Pz III/IV, while it gave Russkies and W. Allies a good run for their money. It was Tiger that was expensive, both in RM and man-hours.

*not implying that Panther was ideal - it was far from it.

 

[Amsel]

I would rather have 1 Tiger then 4 Shermans. Especially if Whittman was the commander.

 

[MacArther]

I would rather have 1 Tiger then 4 Shermans. Especially if Whittman was the commander

Even if the 4 Shermans were all Firefly type? The Tiger was great for defensive action but incredibly taxing on the monetary and material points. The Sherman was the opposite: not so good at defense, great maneuverability, decent speed, cheap and easy to produce. Once a high-velocity 76mm gun or a 17 pounder gun was introduced to the basic Sherman, it was more than adequate for anti-armor duties. This rings especially true because while there may be 1 really good Tiger and crew, there would also be 4+ Shermans (not including the Firefly of the troop) converging on that one Tiger.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One on one, I would take that Tiger over a Sherman.

The Sherman however was a war winner as was pointed out. Why? Because they were cheap and easily built. You could mass produce them easier. In a war like this, you need to be able to put out more than your opponent.

 

[MacArther]

Agreed. If it were one on one Tiger vs Sherman, I'd take the Tiger, and If I was in the Sherman I would pray to God that the first shot from the Tiger missed and that I somehow shot somewhere that disabled the site for the main gun or the rotation of the turret. Considering how unlikely this is given the normal shot range and accuracy of the Tiger VS the Sherman, I'll whole heartedly agree that going mano a mano with a Tiger while in a Sherman was tantamount to signing a last will and testament. Still, by the time the Tiger's were available in large numbers, the Shermans and other Allied tanks were opposing 1 tiger with 4 and usually more of their own against one Tiger.

PS: Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating the same lines over and over, but I'm at college and currently with out all my technical books and personal account books from ANY war.

 

[Valo300]

The Tiger I was not a good tank simply because it was too expensive, complex, and trouble prone. As a 1 on 1 duelist chariot, sure, it was great. But as a tank built to win a war for it's nation, it was a total disaster.

The best Western tank of WWII that actually fought and contributed was clearly the (US) M4A3E8(76) "Easy Eight" Sherman (With HVAP-T ammunition an Easy Eight sherman could defeat the frontal armor of a Tiger at 1000m). The best British version of the M4 was the excellent 17lb gun armed Firefly V.

The best overall Western tank DESIGN of WWII was the Centurion.

 

[Doughboy]

The Pzkpfw IV might be the best.

 

[Doughboy]

The Tiger I was not a good tank simply because it was too expensive, complex, and trouble prone. As a 1 on 1 duelist chariot, sure, it was great. But as a tank built to win a war for it's nation, it was a total disaster.

I aggree...It used alot of oil also.

 

[Lucky13]

Didn't the Centurion get in rather late in the war?

 

[Soren]

Despite what one person here has said the Pzkpfw.V was about as ideal as a tank could be during WW2. The Panther was fast, reliable(Not to begin with), very well armoured and excellently armed (Featured the allround best AT gun of WW2) All in all the Panther was probably the tank which gave the biggest bang for the buck made doing WW2, I mean the beast could knock out a Sherman at 3.5 km, outrun it navigate over far greater obstacles.

The bst tank of WW2 is without any doubt the Pzkpfw.V Panther, and it was lucky for the Western allies that German didn't sieze the production of vehicles like the Tiger Pz.IV's and concentrated on the Panther. The Tiger, nomatter the version, was completely 'overkill' as the modern generation would put it.

 

[tomo pauk]

While being one of the best tanks of WWII, Panther did have some issues.

The drive train suspension problems were rectified with Ausf A and/or Ausf G, so late 1943-early 1944. The suspension was complicated, dictating interlocked wheels that clogged with freezing mud. Also the suspension added height, which ramped up the hull volume needing protection. It also made Panther a better target.
The armour protection was somewhat light for a heavy tank; M 26 was lighter and better protected, while IS series offered much ticker armour at the same weight.
The gun was potent armour killer against any medium tank, but HE shell was to light for such a big expensive piece of hardware. Since the soviets fielded during the war some 100 000 (yep, 100K) pieces of ZiS-3 guns alone, the need for a heavy HE shell was there*.
The turret ring was to narrow to permit installation of a 8,8cm gun, not L56 nor L71 versions.

Saying all that, many of allied tankers woud've wanted to use the Panthers against the former users.


*I know that this is a N. Africa thread, but since we're talking about Panthers..

 

[Soren]

tomo,

The interlocking wheels is about the only area where the later Panthers could have some issues, and that mostly involves the difficulty in replacing them if they were damaged.

As for the turret ring, you seem to be mixing up some info regarding the Pz IV with the Panther, cause the turret ring of the Panther was more than big enough for an 8.8cm gun. However the turret itself was too small to permit fast reloads with a gun like the 8.8cm KwK43. But the Germans were already making a turret fitted with the 8.8cm KwK43 for the Panther, but the rear of the turret needed to be extended to allow better space of reloading and possibly ammunition storage.

As for the 7.5cm KwK42, it was more than adequate for dealing with any Heavy tank the Allies possessed which included the IS-2, so the M26 Pershing wasn't going to be a problem. Furthermore the Pershing wasn't better armoured than the Panther, it was roughly the same. But most importantly the Pershing was mechanically extremely unreliable, the engine transmission being even more prone to failure than those same parts in the 68 ton heavy Tiger Ausf.B.

 

[Hunter368]

One on one, I would take that Tiger over a Sherman.

The Sherman however was a war winner as was pointed out. Why? Because they were cheap and easily built. You could mass produce them easier. In a war like this, you need to be able to put out more than your opponent.

100% agree, that what I tried to get Kenny to agree to. But he seems unable to see the simple facts.

Can't debate with people who fail to admit the truth due to their own personal issues or agendas.

1 vs 1 Tiger kills Sherman 9/10 times.

During a war I would also take the Sherman due to the reasons you listed already. We with open minds can see and agree on these things others refuse to see the simple facts.

 

[m kenny]

100% agree, that what I tried to get Kenny to agree to. But he seems unable to see the simple facts. Can't debate with people who fail to admit the truth due to their own personal issues or agendas.

Failure to agree with your opinion is a 'personal issue'? A clearer example of hubris could not be found.
Maybe you should have a warning at the top of each thread informing potential dissenters of the 'simple facts' so they do not make the mistake of contradicting the 'truth'.
Perhaps I just lack your superior insight?

1 vs 1 Tiger kills Sherman 9/10 times.

Yet actual combat (rather than unrealistic encounters specificaly designed to give your prefered choice the edge) is 95/100 times a large scale encounter between massed tanks.
Perhaps you can give some examples where single Tigers met single Shermans in real life?

We with open minds can see and agree on these things others refuse to see the simple facts.

Again I can only appologise for my inability to see the Emperors new clothes.

 

[Hunter368]

Failure to agree with your opinion is a 'personal issue'? A clearer example of hubris could not be found.
Maybe you should have a warning at the top of each thread informing potential dissenters of the 'simple facts' so they do not make the mistake of contradicting the 'truth'.
Perhaps I just lack your superior insight?




Yet actual combat (rather than unrealistic encounters specificaly designed to give your prefered choice the edge) is 95/100 times a large scale encounter between massed tanks.
Perhaps you can give some examples where single Tigers met single Shermans in real life?



Again I can only appologise for my inability to see the Emperors new clothes.

It is not my opinion, you were asked a simple question over and over. Simply answer the question. You always refused to give a simple answer to a simple question b/c you refused to post the fact it would be safer to be in a Tiger then a Sherman. You were just being silly and stuborn.

Funny how you combined my two seprate paragraghs assuming I was referring to you in both. Hmmmmm Feeling a little guility perhaps?

The question set to you was never said to be to be realistic. It was as simple as black and white or 1+1=2 question. 1 vs 1 which would you sooner be in? Tiger or Sherman. Simple but you refused page after page b/c you knew the Tiger was better. Let go of your pride and just say it, I promise it will not hurt you to admit it. I quit debating with you then as I am soon to again b/c your pride refuses to let you admit the truth. A person cannot argue with a fool or someone so filled with pride to admit the truth.

Trying to get you to post anything postive about anything that is not Allied made seems to be impossible so why waste my time and effort. You will choose to believe whatever you want dispite what anyone tells or shows you.

1 vs 1 or 30 vs 30 it does not matter. Equal numbers of tanks Tiger will beat Sherman nearly everytime. The reason what made the Sherman tank better was it was so simple to make in massive number compared to the Tiger.

If numbers were 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger, then I would choose the Sherman. But this was not the question.

 

[m kenny]

. I quit debating with you then as I am soon to again b/c your pride refuses to let you admit the truth. A person cannot argue with a fool or someone so filled with pride to admit the truth.
You will choose to believe whatever you want dispite what anyone tells or shows you.

I know it's frustrating when other fail to follow your reasoning but you will just have to learn to accept it.
I am sure the barrage of sourced and referenced posts you put out will eventualy wear me down. Until that day comfort yourself with the knowledge you are the keeper of 'the truth'.