Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Soren,

The interlocking wheels "double torsion bars suspension" (my term, but it's pictoresque nevertheless ) were not a necessity for Germans to employ for Panther. The Pz-III suspension pattern was one of the best in the world, so they've just could scale that up. Or copy the same system from captured KV tanks.
Of course, their choice was the pattern from half-tracks, more complicated, more expensive, dictating the higher hull etc. The mud was clogging for sure.

As for turret ring, I'm not sure that the bigger gun could be mounted in it. It was never fielded anyway.
And, the most prominent new turret for Panther was named Schmallturm, "Narrow turret" in English. For that one it's even less likely to have anything bigger than 7,5cm installed.
I have no "quarrels" about penetrating abilities of the Panther's gun*;the 6kg HE shell is to shabby for a 45 ton tank.


*at least until confronted against IS-2's frontal armour that is.

 

[Soren]

tomo,

I can assure you that the turret ring was large enough, it was the same size as that of the Tiger Ausf.B IIRC, which was big enough to accommodate the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 gun. The part needing to be enlarged was the turret, and the designs were already there.

As for the Panther's suspension, it was a work of art, it provided the smoothest ride of any tank, which is exactly the reason that it was chosen for both the Tiger Panther. The downside was the complex setup, which meant repairs were very time consuming.

Finally the 7.5cm KwK42 was more than adequate even in a headon engagement with an IS-2. The only safe spot on the IS-2 in a long range engagement was it's upper front glacis plate, the lower front hull front turret was vulnerable to the 7.5cm KwK42 even at very long range. Hence why a small number of Tiger Ausf.E's were able to slaughter 15 IS-2's in a headon engagement taking place at a distance of 1500 meters in early 1944.

 

[Hunter368]

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'.

Dance around as much as you like Kenny you can't avoid it.

It's not my reasining I am asking you to follow, I am telling to look at the facts on each tank. Which you know as well or better then me. Anyone who would suggest a Sherman is better then a Tiger in one on one fight is beyond reason or common sense.

Sourced and referenced posts????? I don't need any look at the facts in any books showing both tanks. Pick one book any book with their stats and that is good enough. You are amusing Kenny for someone who knows the facts already and yet refusing to admit them. Thats sad it really is, it shows your true character. If you can't look at two machines made by two different countries and just admit one is better then the other even if it was not a Allied machine. Very sad.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi Soren,

Any info about Tiger II being equipped with 12,8cm in a rotating turret?
Again, even if there was a possibility of arming a Panther a bigger gun, it was never fielded.

As for the Panther's suspension: it was indeed a work of art. But the Panther was a war machine, not a sculpture. The implementation of KISS (=keep it simple, stupid ) strategy there would be better for that part.

 

[m kenny]

Anyone who would suggest a Sherman is better then a Tiger in one on one fight is beyond reason or common sense.

One should reflect that no person has espoused such a case.
What you failed to realise is YOU invented this scenario and now you rant and rail against your own invention!
Oh the irony...............

Sourced and referenced posts????? I don't need any look at the facts

More so when you are in possesion of 'the truth

Basicaly what we have here is one poster throwing a tantrum because someone else fails to agree with his ''truth'
Demanding that everyone should be forced to answer contrived scenarios and then suggesting they have 'issues' if they decline to become ensnared in your trap are typical playground bullying tactics.

Go to it tiger (ironic play on words), make me say 'uncle'!

 

[Hunter368]

One should reflect that no person has espoused such a case.
What you failed to realise is YOU invented this scenario and now you rant and rail against your own invention!
Oh the irony...............


More so when you are in possesion of 'the truth

Basicaly what we have here is one poster throwing a tantrum because someone else fails to agree with his ''truth'
Demanding that everyone should be forced to answer contrived scenarios and then suggesting they have 'issues' if they decline to become ensnared in your trap are typical playground bullying tactics.

Go to it tiger (ironic play on words), make me say 'uncle'!

Is it my scenario I am asking you to answer? Yes, but you refuse to b/c the answer goes against your beloved Sherman. You keep trying to change the subject or the question and I will not let you. So you can weasel your way around it as much as you like. Answer my question and if you do not you are as good as admitting I am correct. So being we have this round and round for pages and you will not answer my question I will take it then you refuse to b/c you know I am correct. I am not ranting or mad I am just ammused you will not answer a simple question. Thanks

I am not asking you to agree with me just answer the question I have asked over and over. By not answering it again I will take that as your admission you know I am correct. Thanks

"contrived scenarios" is what you call it? I call it simple question again that is you trying the worn your way out of answering it. Again thanks your lack of an answer is clear to me "you know".

"ensnared in your trap are typical playground bullying tactics" - LOL thanks again I am glad for are so easily of a push over. Trap? Nope just a simple question which is no trick, just a question. Again you refuse to answer showing me you know the answer and are just too little to post it. Sad really.

Your last post really has shown me the type of poster you are. Afraid to answer anything that does not agree with his agenda or ideas. Thus a waste of time. Truely sad, just another type of troll poster. Trolls are not worth responding to.

 

[Hunter368]

Perhaps this is the wrong thread for this but what the heck.

Which would you all sooner have as a Med Main Battle Tank? Sherman or T-34?

 

[Amsel]

T-34

 

[m kenny]

I will not let you...........
Answer my question...........
I am correct. ...........
you will not answer my question ..........
you know I am correct................
you will not answer a simple question............
just answer the question.............
I have asked over and over..............
you know I am correct.. ...............
your lack of an answer............
just a simple question............
just a question.............
you refuse to answer............

You vill answer my questions, ve haff vays of making you talk..............

 

[m kenny]

I can assure you that the turret ring was large enough, it was the same size as that of the Tiger Ausf.B IIRC, which was big enough to accommodate the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 gun.

Spielberger, Panther Its Variants:

"The three-man turret rotated through a full 360 degrees
and supported itself on a carrier ring resting on the turret
bearing race of 1650 mm diameter."

Spielberger, Panther Its Variants, page 171.

"Turret ring diameter 1650mm"
ibid, page 233.

in Spielberger's book 'Tiger I and II And Their Variants' page 195
"Turret:
diameter of turning circle 1850 mm"

Thus a difference of 200 mm (8 inches)

a small number of Tiger Ausf.E's were able to slaughter 15 IS-2's in a headon engagement taking place at a distance of 1500 meters in early 1944

Details please, I want to check that out.

 

[Hunter368]

T-34

Agreed, while the Sherman had its plus to it T-34 was a beast.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You vill answer my questions, ve haff vays of making you talk..............

That is pretty rude. Your British, are your teeth throwing gang symbols?

Now that I have stepped as low as some of the members here and become insulting, I will state it one more time. If this thread becomes personal, infractions will be handed to all parties!

Does everyone understand?

 

[Hunter368]

That is pretty rude. Your British, are your teeth throwing gang symbols?

Now that I have stepped as low as some of the members here and become insulting, I will state it one more time. If this thread becomes personal, infractions will be handed to all parties!

Does everyone understand?

Understood, I was stated in my last post I am done responding to any trolls regardless of who they are. Thanks Chris nice to see you again, I have been gone too long.

 

[Soren]

Hi Soren,

Any info about Tiger II being equipped with 12,8cm in a rotating turret?

None were built, but the turret ring was big enough to support it (Although not as big as the Tiger's as I recalled). The only reason the Tiger Ausf.B wasn't equipped with the 12.8cm L/55 gun to begin with was 1.) That the 8.8cm KwK43 was already overkill against anything the Allies possessed, and 2.) That the reloading time of the PaK44 was absolutely awful compared to the KwK43, and 3.) That there wasn't space for more than 20 or so 12.8cm projectiles their cartridges.

Just to give an impression of the difference in size between the 8.8cm 12.8cm rounds:

Again, even if there was a possibility of arming a Panther a bigger gun, it was never fielded.

That's true, and that because it simply wasn't needed.

As for the Panther's suspension: it was indeed a work of art. But the Panther was a war machine, not a sculpture. The implementation of KISS (=keep it simple, stupid ) strategy there would be better for that part.

Well I disagree as it allowed the Panther to smoothly navigate over obstacles with unrivalled speed, being the tank in the world with by far the best offroad performance.

 

[MacArther]

That's true, and that because it simply wasn't needed.

Then why was the late model of the Panther tank turret redesigned to take the 88mm? Could be wrong and be talking about the Panther II, but I think even the normal Panther was eventually considered for the 88mm.

 

[Soren]

Well in part because the Germans knew that the Soviets were soon gonna come up with a heavier tank, so they wanted to be prepared, but for the most part because they wanted the better HE capability of the 8.8cm round.

But war is always a race of arms, so.

 

[bigZ]

I am no tank expert but wasn't the panthers final drive unit weak due to lack of suitable gear cutting machinery towards the end of the war? Also was difficult to service due to the design of suspension?

The sherman on the other hand had the superior double helical gear and a few bolts to undo the front to gain access.

 

[Soren]

Yeah the final drive could prove troublesome, but with a good driver it was fine.

 

[MacArther]

with a good driver it was fine.

How many of those were there in late 1944 through 1945?

 

[Soren]

It wasn't that hard MacArther, it was just a matter of not overstressing the drive by being to abrupt with the clutch. It was much worse with the Tiger Ausf.B, that tank really needed a good driver to keep the drive alive for any long period of time.