Best Tank of WW2

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Man reductio ad hitlerum is the lowest form of argument.If you want to move on i have no problem but what if i call you Goebbels or Himmler? This is up to the admin to decide.

He never called you Hitler or anyone of that like. He said your view of the topic is the same that Hitler had, and that even Hitler's commanders did not agree with him. Go back and read carefully what parsifal said...

Oh and i'm sure that if it was me who had started calling you names i would be banned by now, but instead i don't see the admin anywhere...

I am right here and have been here the whole time. I have seen no one insult you, but then again I read what parsifal is saying. I do not believe that you do (note, I am not insulting you by saying this). So again parsifal has not insulted you. I will repeat this again. He said that your view of the Panther is the same view that Hitler had on the matter. He did not call you Hitler or any other Nazi, nor did he say you were a Nazi. I think you do not understand what he has written in plain english or you are too senstive.

 

[ctrian]

You're absolutely right i'm insulting people here while noone is insulting me .
Hey now, the only one being insulting here is you. Chill out!


I guess if i start calling people Hitler ,Goebbels etc i'll get the same treatment.What an old boys club.

 

[parsifal]

If you are finding discussing and debating this issue tiring, then dont get into the debate in the first place. I am having no difficulties with this conversation

No one is calling you names, but I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts. Ive had my share of reprimands from mods, but I doubt I will on this occasion, because I am actually trying to steer the debate back on track and am making effort to keep the dialogue intelligent and civil. There are very simple rules I would suggest for you, just use respect and honesty and you will be fine. Try to avoid inflaming peoples tempers. That doesnt mean I have to treat you with kid gloves, you want to play rough and call me stupid, bring it on. Whilst my tactics are making you squeal, I am not being offensive toward you, am simply using well known facts to put pressure on you, am trying to keep the debate on track, and am actually trying to help you, though it is hard....

Finally you concede there were problems with the Panther, at least in '43. If there were problems with the Ausf Ds deployed to Kursk, with only 40 still operational after 3 days out of 190 deployed and a further 60 broken down on the 100 km journey from the railhead to the form up point, then how could such problems be sorted out without the introduction of a new model. There were 900 or so Ausf Ds built before the changeover to the A series, and even then the types continued to suffer serious reliability issues until after 1943. In fact the Panther throughout its career suffered significant problems in this regard. I have provided more than one source to corroborate that position, all I am getting from you right now is indignant bluster. I am sure you can do better than that. ,

 

[Shortround6]

There is a thread over on tank net that has some bearing on this discussion. At least in regards to Russian tank up-gunning.

M4 vs M26 - Tanknet - Page 4

Posts# 65 and 72 seem especially relevant.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

[/I]

I guess if i start calling people Hitler ,Goebbels etc i'll get the same treatment.What an old boys club.

You really do not read anything that has been posted, that or you do not undestand what is being read in very simple English.

Go back and read the posts very very very very very carefully. Where has anyone called you Hitler or Goebbels? Come on now, go back and read the posts.

NOT A SINGLE PERSON CALLED YOU ANY OF THOSE NAMES!!!!!!!

It is starting to get very tiresome and old...

 

[parsifal]

guys, I am going to do the smart thing and give this a rest for a couple of days. Have a new boat, a couple of days off, and the fish are biting. Maybe things will cool off a bit, and we can have a reasonable discussion then.

 

[tomo pauk]

There is a thread over on tank net that has some bearing on this discussion. At least in regards to Russian tank up-gunning.

M4 vs M26 - Tanknet - Page 4

Posts# 65 and 72 seem especially relevant.

Thanks for the link.

BTW, I've registered there, but I'm not able to log-in there quite for sometime now. IIRC you are the member there, could you help me (perhaps to drop a line to the admin, or something) in this problem?
edit: scratch that, managed to log in

 

[Admiral Beez]

Overall I just think the Panther is better all around. Panther is an excellent balance of firepower, armor, and mobility.

Agreed. As for mobility, no one is going to drift a Tiger.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQxLrJPe9-4

Okay, it's a T-34 made to look like a Panther… but one can dream.

 

[SaparotRob]

And for reliability, the Sherman.
EDIT. I've been hearing good things about the British tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

And for reliability, the Sherman.
EDIT. I've been hearing good things about the British tanks.

Rather variable depending on model and year.

Most of the early stuff had problems.
The Valentine was pretty good right from the start. In part because it used the same engine and suspension of the Cruiser I & II. Maybe the same transmission? Later versions go GMC diesels.

The early cruisers (300 built) were used in France, Greece, and North Africa and training. The Cruiser III & IV changed the engines and suspensions and ran a lot faster, increasing wear/breakage and the Liberty engine had some problems.
Dark days with the Covenantor (they would NEVER be use in combat), Crusader, Cavalier (another never used in combat) and then the Centaur and Cromwell ( same tank, different engines) and the dark days came to an end, mostly.

Matilda's needed a lot of maintenance, They had never been intended for long road marches.
Churchills got a lot better as time went on but the same could be said of most tanks from many countries. Churchill problems of 1942 were pretty much solved, as much as any 40+ tank was solved in WW II.

Comet didn't show up until late 1944/ combat in Jan 1945 and with a Cromwell drive line the kinks had already been worked out.

 

[tomo pauk]

EDIT. I've been hearing good things about the British tanks.

I'd say that British infantry tanks (Matilda II, Valentine, Churchill) were the money well spent.
Cruisers were a ... strange lot.

 

[Shortround6]

Cruisers were a ... strange lot.

These were actually pretty good, in 1940-41.
Fast, well armed (in 1940-41) they had gotten rid of the hull gunner, There was commanders cupola (not a good one but it was 1940-41) 3 man turret crew.
There was room/height (not used) for the hull to overhang tracks and fit a larger turret ring and the engine and engine compartment was a least useable.

Then the British not only veered out of the lane, they crashed through the hedge, down the embankment, through the creek bottom and into the next county and into the dark space/time.

The Covenanter, Lost the cupola and the chance for decent vision when closed down, gained huge, awkward hatch at the rear of the turret.
In the goal of low silhouette they went for the "bespoke" tank engine (flat 12) that forced the radiators to the top of the front plates, (great target location), All ways over heated, coolant pipes roasted the crew in less than winter conditions. Thinner hull (top to bottom) ruled out fitting larger turret for up gunning. 2pdr was good in 1940-41 but locking the entire design into the 2pdr and the ridiculous aiming system (elevation controlled by gunner shoulder) it stifled progress. Not providing improved ammo didn't help.

1711 built, none suitable for combat. Engine was never used in another vehicle.

Crusader was another retrograde or at best, sideways step. At least they got rid of the Flat 12 engine and went back the 1917 Liberty
sort of. modified to fit the flatter hull for lower silhouette it had problems that the earlier installation did not have.

 

[WARSPITER]

The Covenanter is a great example of what happens when companies are encouraged to
participate in a field where they have no experience. The design came from the London, Midway and Scottish
Railway Company and it showed.

The Valentine was a Vickers upgrade of earlier models and was reliable as well as sturdy.

 

[Shortround6]

The Covenanter is a great example of what happens when companies are encouraged to
participate in a field where they have no experience. The design came from the London, Midway and Scottish
Railway Company and it showed.

The Valentine was a Vickers upgrade of earlier models and was reliable as well as sturdy.

One does wonder how much was the London, Midway and Scottish Railway company and how much was what dept in the War Office was overseeing tank design & Production.

The Covenantor was 1ft 2in lower than the Cruiser III & IV but a lot of that was the copula and the shallower hull. The Crusader was within and inch, and used the same turret?

If the war dept tells you they want an tank that is 7ft 4in tall whose fault is it?

Some accounts say that the London, Midway and Scottish Railway built the thing to plans worked out by Chief Superintendent of Tank Design.

I will not inflict the monstrosities the were the A20 and TOG I tanks with photos (use googles) for examples of Chief Superintendent of Tank Design work or related to it.

 

[WARSPITER]

Some accounts say that the London, Midway and Scottish Railway built the thing to plans worked out by Chief Superintendent of Tank Design.

As the saying goes, "When you mix bureaucracy with anything you get bureaucracy ", ie when you mix engineering with bureacratic
requirements, you get bureaucratic requirements, when you mix science with bureaucratic requirements, you get bureaucratic
requirements.

It's the same with politics and anything. Reminds me of the old joke about the Camel being a Horse designed by a committee.

The Valentine was built to a spec requirement rather than a specific Dept design and was a private venture by Vickers. That may
explain why it was so much better. Private ventures have to come up with much better products as they depend on them for their
future - the De Havilland Mosquito is a prime example of that.

The design of the Sherman tank was done through the US ordnance design department. Although this was ostensibly a government
department it was an actual design run system where actual designers who knew what they were doing were tasked with making
vehicles that did specific jobs.

The best thing for the Sherman was these designers leaned towards what already worked (suspensions etc used on earlier vehicles)
as well as being open to influences from other countries designs, especially Britain and surprisingly, Canada. The M3 Grant was
already a sound designs the Sherman had many similarities. The main difference of course was the shifting of the main gun from
the hull to the turret.

The end result was the best all round tank of the war.

 

[z42]

View attachment 752115
These were actually pretty good, in 1940-41.
Fast, well armed (in 1940-41) they had gotten rid of the hull gunner, There was commanders cupola (not a good one but it was 1940-41) 3 man turret crew.
There was room/height (not used) for the hull to overhang tracks and fit a larger turret ring and the engine and engine compartment was a least useable.

A perplexing feature of this design is that Britain evidently got the memo about angled armor plates being good for protection, but then they went and put the angled plates on the side of the turret rather than the front (and front hull too for that matter).

 

[WARSPITER]

A perplexing feature of this design is that Britain evidently got the memo about angled armor plates being good for protection, but then they went and put the angled plates on the side of the turret rather than the front (and front hull too for that matter).

Bureaucratic specifications again. Through the early stages of the war the spec for non cast tank armour was vertical armour must be 30mm
unless angled whereby the angle and thickness gives the same protection as 30mm plate.

 

[Shortround6]

Bureaucratic specifications again. Through the early stages of the war the spec for non cast tank armour was vertical armour must be 30mm
unless angled whereby the angle and thickness gives the same protection as 30mm plate.

The angled plates on the A-13s were actually spaced armor. They bolted a V onto the sides of the existing armor. No increase in internal stowage. Incoming rounds would hit the angle, deflect a bit and hit the normal (14-15mm) armor at a less than optimal angle and reduced velocity. Might have worked well on 37mm guns, on 50mm not so well.
But this was also a production expedient.

two flat plates bolted to the front (and you can see the bolt/rivet line marking the original turret side) and the box over the existing front/mantlet.
Crusader had actual sloped turret sides (increased interior volume).
Note the sloped front hull, cleverly disguised by the headlight and the drive's box

 

[WARSPITER]

Interesting how different designs prevailed for longer. The German change to sloped armour came about due to
contact with opposition vehicles whereas the British didn't encounter it in enemy vehicles for the first half of the war.

 

[fubar57]

Article in Life Magazine comparing Russian, German and U.S. tanks. Remember, this was written in Mar.28 1945. Starts on Pg.41

LIFE

LIFE Magazine is the treasured photographic magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. It now lives on at LIFE.com, the largest, most amazing collection of professional photography on the internet. Users can browse, search and view photos of today’s people and events. They have free access to...

books.google.ca