vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
?? It's what all my posts were about.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Could you be more specific about your doubts.
What do you think is 'wrong'?
Tiger's armor was indeed in a league of its own when compared against Western tanks before Normandy, but all British infantry tanks carried armour tick enough to compete against the Panther's of the era.2. The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.
Now that the Germans would come up with a solution to this problem as quickly as they did no'one could've ever foreseen. The Germans were however blessed with the two best gun manufacturers in the world, Krupp Rheinmetall, and they came up with a solution in record breaking time: The 75mm L/43 gun, and not long after that Henschel Son had ready what was to be the most fearsome tank of the war, the Pzkpfw.VI Tiger, a tank which was atleast 2½ years ahead of its time and to no surprise stunned everyone who first saw it.
I disagree. The Brits, Israelis, US and new European (Leo2 and Leclerc) opted for more armor, and then the gun engine as big as it's possible.Postwar tank design tends to support the notion that best does not equate necessarily to heaviest and most armoured. That is the basis of the modern MBT concept....a mixture of armament, armour, and mobility basically. So, to that extent you are correct.
The most expensive part of armor unit are not the tanks themselves, but the trained/experienced crews. If one puts them into the tinclads, the result would be disastrous in any war against a tough opponent.Added to that equation is the simple tyranny of numbers, quite simply the cheaper the tank, the more you can fild, the more you can fild, the more effective are your armoured formations.
Fire power was crappy for a 45 ton vehicle (HE shell was comparable with Pz-IV, weighting 20-22 tons), Valentine tank (under 20 tons!) had the same armour protection, the suspension was troublesome during the 1st year. And we haven't calculated the price yet.The best tank will always be the one with the best combination of firepower, mobility protection, and the Pzkpfw.V Panther is considered the best tank of the war because of this
?? It's what all my posts were about.
So I see you doing a great disservice to the brave men that had to fight these behemoths when you appear to belittle their battlefiled effects by suggesting they are not that big a threat.
and to this point I believe you have disingenously dodged the issue, trying to label this forum as biased, one-eyed and the like.
but it is annoying to watch you duck and weave, and avoid explaining yourself, which is to the detriment of the value of this forum.
Do not get butt hurt. You started it, I only responded to your post. Is it okay for you to talk to us in such a manner, but us not allowed to do the same to you?
Then why do you post in it? If you do not like our thread (or forum for that matter), go someplace that you would much prefer. I think it would be a shame, because you do have great knowledge on this subject.
I however do not want someone here that does not want to be here.
Soren, you are absolutely right about the Sherman being designed to withstand the (and destroy) the Pz.III but that wasn't it's one and only design point. The designers recognised the enemy of tanks, being tanks, and built the Sherman to remove that threat by being superior to it's opposition. The tank was not designed to be a breakthrough machine nor was it a tank hunter... the American chain of thought shines through with the Pershing, I cannot remember the exact quote but the High Command was disturbed by its high powered armament as they stated it would encourage crews to hunt down enemy tanks, and that was the job of the tank destroyer.
The MBT concept did not exist in World War II. The closest to the modern MBT concept came in the dying throws of World War - the Pershing, the Centurion and the IS-3. And for me the closest was the Centurion - but it certainly wasn't designed as a MBT. All World War II tanks were designed with a role in mind.
Plenty of material for disagreement on this page:
Adler:
Tiger's armor was indeed in a league of its own when compared against Western tanks before Normandy, but all British infantry tanks carried armour tick enough to compete against the Panther's of the era.
Because you asked. It was a mistake that I will not repeat. I make no bones about my problems with the Uber-Panzer myths. I would say I am one of the few here(or anywhere) who bothers to check Allied accounts when the I see stories of multiple kills by a Tiger or Panther in Normandy.
This means I get a lot of grief from those who believe otherwise.
If I decline to admit the Tiger was the best of anything I get lots of 'advice' from those who think it was.
I can cope with it but it just seems a waste of time over nothing. That is why I chose not to contribute in these comparisons. I might post in the thead but I don't say X was better than Y because I don't really care which was best. longer, heavier ect. My interest is in what actualy happened, the outcome of a battle and the actual numbers of destroyed tanks.
If I am welcome or not is not my decision. I am me and no matter what anyone tells me here I can categoricaly tell you that refusing to say the Tiger was 'the best' generates heat on the majority of forums.
I do not think it was the best. I have my reasons but do not wish to keep going over them. My reasons are based on an overview of all aspects of a tanks role and not confined to technical aspects or performance in hyperthetical or contrived situations. I believe I take the wider view.
You see that's the problem with you m_kenny, you NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER acknolwdge anything German. In the now 5 years that I've known you (Axis History forum) I have not seen you post as much as a single positive thing about any form of German equipment. Why is that ??
I don't think the Tiger was the best tank of the war either, I however don't seem to get a lot of heat for that, I wonder why?
Maybe because I admit that it was a very strong tank which was a VERY big danger to any enemy tank it met? Maybe because I actually acknowledge that it had some excellent features?
In the now 5 years that I've known you (Axis History forum) I have not seen you post as much as a single positive thing about any form of German equipment. Why is that ??
Now I am considered to be a pretty darn biased person by some people, but even I acknowledge a lot of Allied equipment. So why is it we NEVER see you do the same as regards to German equipment?
You see where other people are coming from in regards to you?
I can live with criticism because I take into account who is doing the criticising
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:You see where other people are coming from in regards to you?
M_kenny that you haven't ever acknowledged Allied equipment is an outright lie, and if you continue to claim such a thing I will have no problem providing plenty of examples of your love for Allied equipment. You're as biased as they come.
Are you sure?
Feel free to post all the information you found where I say an Allied tank was is 'the best'. While you are at it remind me of all the times I said a Panther or Tiger were rubbish. Don't forget all the times I expressed my 'love' (undying or unrequited?) of anything
Also be so good as to expalin what you mean by 'acknowledge'. My reading is that this means "to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of". If so then I freely confess. I recognise that Allied equipment was real and existed. Finding anything where I say that German equipment did not exist or was not real is going to be a problem for you.
I find it comical that a simple refusal to say a Tiger was 'the best' is considered such a heinous crime.
__________________
Pretty sure, I never mentioned anything about the Sherman data, it made sense to me.
And you're treating VB with contempt for no reason..
What is your position? You keep saying that you don't think the Tiger is the best. Fair enough, I don't think it was either, I'm more partial to the Panther. I don't know enough to really discuss. But you don't really ever say which you DO think is the best. You've basically repeated the same thing over and over and over again without really stating your position, other than you feel like you're being singled out because you don't think the Tiger's the best, which is absolutely false!
.