Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Matt308]

Don't make me pray again. He will begin to suspect my requests are trivial.

 

[Hunter368]

Don't make me pray again. He will begin to suspect my requests are trivial.

If you are the little boy who cried.......who is the wolf?

 

[Matt308]

Lanc

 

[Hunter368]

Lanc

He is always looking for sheep?

 

[Matt308]

See my humor does come through on occasions.

 

[Hunter368]

See my humor does come through on occasions.

Matt you are one of the funniest sarcastic bastards on this site.



Thats why I like to read your posts.

 

[Matt308]

Thanks. I do like this place. Of course eventually I am likely to piss someone off. And then I'll have to pack my dittybag and saunter off into the proverbial sunset.

Until then, backhanded comments for everyone!

 

[m kenny]

kenny kenny,

At least you admit when you are trapped and you can't worm your way out by side stepping / avoiding questions. Thank you

Indeed you are myopic.
'Trapped'? 'worm'?'avoiding'?
What could I be doing thinking I could outwit such a genius!

Thank you se the Sherman:

TigerII - 69.8 tonnes
180mm frontal armor
80mm side armor
88 mm KwK 43 L/71 main gun

vs

Sherman - 35 tons
2.8 inches front armor
1.6 inches side armor
75mm main gun

Those are just two models of each kind. There is (sic) others we can compare (different models of all Shermans, Tigers, Tiger2 or Panther) if you want.

Would these revealing statistics have been gleamed from your 'collection of hundreds of books on WW2'. All very basic and, if I may say it , schoolboy'ish'.

But you still have not answered my first question other than saying "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter."

Sounds more like you are afraid to answer it. Seems you want to dodge my question by trying to argue with me. Answer my question its really very simple.

Error piled upon error. 'I have no opinion on the matter' is in fact an answer.
What you are struggling to articulate here is that you dont like the answer. A subtle difference that appears to be lost upon you.

In a 1 vs 1 battle Sherman vs Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 which would you choose? All other things being equal ie terrain etc. Which would you choose? This is not brain surgery, just a simple question. You are so eager to have your opinion heard why do you refuse to give it here? Which would you choose? Show us your expert opinion here. I have stated my choice, I would take the Panther/Tiger/Tiger2 any day over the Sherman. Which would you choose?

You can almost smell the adrenaline here.
I 'must' answer!
You 'insist' upon a reply!
Very immature and I would think an indication of your age.

Mmmmm does posting your biased opinions on more than one forum make you an expert? I guess you have that one on me. Well done. Azzholes are just like opinions, everyone has one and they are free. See its easy to answer a person's question.

Asked and answered. You have no track record.

I am not about to list my collection of hundreds of books on WW2.

Hundreds? Have you coloured them all in yet?
Please share the references that allow you to form such firm an immutable opinions as to tank effectiveness in Normandy.

A few more 'isolated' examples of Tigers destroyed by inferior tanks.

 

[Soren]

M_kenny you are infact the one being very immature here !

You keep posting pictures of Tigers having been taken out in order to try and convince us that the Tiger was a piece of S**t, yet you ignore the true and simple points pointed out to you by other members on this board.

So you might as-well answer the question M_kenny, childish or not - which tank would you most prefer to be sitting in, a Tiger or a Sherman ??

And before you start posting anymore pictures you may want to know that the Tiger Ausf.E has a 10 to 1 kill ratio - And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory. (I bet he's going to refer to an incident with Wittman now )

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay first of all I will break this down into several posts. Not for spam but because each has its own point.

Everyone in this forum, as a moderator I am telling you to calm the hell down.

Hunter dont provoke m kenny please. We need to keep the peace here.

m kenny you need to calm down as well. With your 26 posts you have no right to come in here and insult members of the forum.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Second post.

m kenny you have not proven a single thing in this thread what so ever at all. You keep telling us to prove to you that the Tiger was better than allied tanks and I am telling you that you are the one that needs to prove to us.

What have you given us so far. Nothing!

You keep posting pics of destroyed Tigers which prove nothing. Not a single person here is dillusional eneogh to say that the Tiger and above were invincible. Ofcourse it can be destroyed. There are plenty of pics out there of destroyed Allied tanks. So what is your point! Nothing.

You want me to believe that the Sherman, Cromwell, Cruisader what ever tank you wish I dont is better than a Tiger, Panther, King Tiger then you have to prove it to me.

I know more about Aircraft than I do about Tanks but I can tell you one thing it is common knowledge that the allied tanks with the exception of the Firefly, T-34 and a few others could not match the Tiger, Panther, King Tiger 1 on 1. Do you see that 1 on 1 the Tiger was a superior to the US and British Tanks. Even the US and the British knew this and they developed tactics and superior numbers.

Those tanks that you show pics of up there were not destroyed on 1 on 1 battles but by superior numbers of allied tanks.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

3rd and Last post. Here is some more facts:

All of this info is from: Achtung Panzer! - Panzer Profiles !

Panther

According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s.

"To destroy a Panther, a tank destroyer with a three inch (Gun Motor Carriage M10) or 76mm gun (Gun Motor Carriage M18 Hellcat) would have to aim for the side or rear of the turret, the opening through which the hull-mounted machine gun projected, or for the underside of the gun shield (mantlet)." - U.S. Army report prior to September of 1944.

Panther Cannon Penetration

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39/42 138mm 124mm 111mm 99mm 89mm
Panzergranate 40/42 194mm 174mm 149mm 127mm 106mm


Pzgr.39/42 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40/42 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

Tiger

"I have inspected the battlefield at Fais Pass in Tunisia, being with the force which retook it. Inspection of our tanks destroyed there indicated that the 88mm gun penetrated into the turret from the front and out again in the rear. Few gouges were found indicating that all strikes had made penetrations." - Report by American Colonel from Tunisia, 1943.

"...the Pz Kpfw VI with its heavy armour, dual purpose armament and fighting ability was basically an excellent tank, and, constituted a considerable advance on any allied tank..." - British Report from 1943 based on a study of Tiger I captured in Tunisia. (with full tropical air filter 'Feifel' system - November 1942 to August 1943)

Tiger Cannon Penetration chart

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39 120mm 110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm
Panzergranate 40 171mm 156mm 138mm 123mm 110mm


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

King Tiger

The Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B "Königstiger" (Sd.Kfz.182) / VK4503(H) was the most powerful combat tank of World War II. Up to the end of the war, the Allies did not introduce anything that could effectively counter it. The Tiger II combined a powerful and effective gun with armor that was virtually impervious to any Allied tank or anti-tank gun.

"One day a Tiger Royal tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like Tiger, we would all be home today." - Report by tank commander Sergeant Clyde D. Brunson from 2nd Armored Division, 1945.

King Tiger Penetration Chart

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39 203mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm
Panzergranate 40/43 237mm 217mm 193mm 171mm 153mm


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40/43 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

Again more facts. I guess facts are not worth anything today though.

 

[m kenny]

And before you start posting anymore pictures you may want to know that the Tiger Ausf.E has a 10 to 1 kill ratio - And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory

The Tiger had a 10:1 kill ratio? I would like to see the data you are using to support this claim.
Perhaps it would be easier if you give the examples from Normandy where this happened.

 

[m kenny]

m kenny you need to calm down as well. With your 26 posts you have no right to come in here and insult members of the forum.

Having been called a fool and worse I believe the 'insulting' started somewhere else.

I really can not believe the problem. This is a simple thread where the usual stuff about German tanks being better than everything else is being posted. I join in, simply show a couple of examples where the super tanks came off second best and the roof falls in!
Why are some posters determined to make me 'admit' I am wrong?
Is it against the rules here to disagree?
I said nothing about tank A being better than tank B.
I never said the Tiger sucked.
I never said the Sherman was superior.
I never said the Cromwell was better.
I never gave any opinion on the value of any tank.
I deal in cold hard facts.
Opinions are not my forte.
If anyone says I am posting lies or falshood then expose me.

 

[Hunter368]

Ok Chris I will stop giving him a hard time and good post.

Kenny,

As per Chris request I will not respond to your last post at the risk of flaming this thread anymore.

But I will start over, from the start. Ok you will not answer my question, Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or Sherman. Ok then. I will move on to next question for you. You claim to know more than I (and others) on tanks and perhaps you do. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. But perhaps you could enlighten us folk on the specs of the following tanks: Sherman, Tiger, Panther, Tiger2

I would like to see the following information if its not too much to ask:

- Model of tank
- Armor thickness (all sides)
- Weight
- Gun specs (incluing ammo types used)
- Year that it was introduced
- Produced numbers before the end of the war
- Radio or no radio
- Width of tracks
- Kill ratio if you can provide it

That should be a good start and then we can continue our chat on tanks. Also you can refrain from posting destroyed German tanks b/c it proves nothing. We could just as easly post destroyed Allied tanks. That would prove nothing either. Lets just keep this to facts, not fiction. You post those stats and then we can keep chatting.

Chris that is about as nice as I can be. I am trying to be nice to him. Lets see if he brings back anything I asked for.....meaning facts.

 

[m kenny]

And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory. (I bet he's going to refer to an incident with Wittman now )

Not just Tiger crews. All German tankers overclaimed.
All tankers of every nationality overclaimed.
In Russia the practise was to apply a 33% to 50% reduction across the board to all German tank kill claims.
This was done by the Germans themselves.
Yet we still have those putting forward raw Unit CLAIMS as if they were CONFIRMED kills.

Wiitmann at Villers Bocage is the perfect example of overclaim as it can be conclusively shown that he did not destroy even half of the kills he was awarded.

If you can show otherwise then be my guest................

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

m kenny what I getting at here is this:

You keep posting comments about the uebertanks and pictures of them destroyed.

What does that prove? Nothing.

Answer these questions for me. Was the Sherman superior one on one against a Tiger?

Was the Churchill, Cromwell, or Cruisader superior to the Tiger one on one.

Which tank the Tiger or the Allied tanks had overall superior penetrating power with there cannons?

Which tank had the better armour overall?

I think you will find that the superior tanks were the German tanks from the Tiger and beyond.

What made the allies more superior was superior numbers. You throw 30 Shermans or whatever kind of allied tank you wish against 3 Tigers and who do you think is going to win? The allies ofcourse.

m kenny facts are facts and the facts are written in stone everywhere. The Tigers had superior stopping power and superior armour. The allies however used superior numbers and tactics to defeat the Tiger.

 

[Hunter368]

Having been called a fool and worse I believe the 'insulting' started somewhere else.

I really can not believe the problem. This is a simple thread where the usual stuff about German tanks being better than everything else is being posted. I join in, simply show a couple of examples where the super tanks came off second best and the roof falls in!
Why are some posters determined to make me 'admit' I am wrong?
Is it against the rules here to disagree?
I said nothing about tank A being better than tank B.
I never said the Tiger sucked.
I never said the Sherman was superior.
I never said the Cromwell was better.
I never gave any opinion on the value of any tank.
I deal in cold hard facts.
Opinions are not my forte.
If anyone says I am posting lies or falshood then expose me.

If all you wanted to say was that here are a few examples of a inferior tank taking out a superoir tank than you did in a very strange way.

Seems most of us on this thread misunderstood your intentions. It is fine to disagree with anyone here. But if you do prepare to back up your stance. If you don't want to back up your stance...... just say so. But you tried to do both... at times you refuse to answer me (and others) and then you try and convince us again of your stance.

You say you deal in facts, then my last post before this one I ask you for facts.

 

[Hunter368]

m kenny what I getting at here is this:

You keep posting comments about the uebertanks and pictures of them destroyed.

What does that prove? Nothing.

Answer these questions for me. Was the Sherman superior one on one against a Tiger?

Was the Churchill, Cromwell, or Cruisader superior to the Tiger one on one.

Which tank the Tiger or the Allied tanks had overall superior penetrating power with there cannons?

Which tank had the better armour overall?

I think you will find that the superior tanks were the German tanks from the Tiger and beyond.

What made the allies more superior was superior numbers. You throw 30 Shermans or whatever kind of allied tank you wish against 3 Tigers and who do you think is going to win? The allies ofcourse.

m kenny facts are facts and the facts are written in stone everywhere. The Tigers had superior stopping power and superior armour. The allies however used superior numbers and tactics to defeat the Tiger.

Agreed 100% Seems like common sense to the most of us.

 

[Hunter368]

Not just Tiger crews. All German tankers overclaimed.
All tankers of every nationality overclaimed.
In Russia the practise was to apply a 33% to 50% reduction across the board to all German tank kill claims.
This was done by the Germans themselves.
Yet we still have those putting forward raw Unit CLAIMS as if they were CONFIRMED kills.

Wiitmann at Villers Bocage is the perfect example of overclaim as it can be conclusively shown that he did not destroy even half of the kills he was awarded.

If you can show otherwise then be my guest................

Wow I agree with you on something....thats a start. All nations over claimed tank kills. All nations over claimed air kills. Whats your point?