Destroyer25
Banned
Well your implying I know nothing about tactics and modern mobile warfare. Now do you think you know more than me? Because I think I know a fair amount, I've been reading on the subject for 8 years.
Best Tank of WW2
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well your implying I know nothing about tactics and modern mobile warfare. Now do you think you know more than me? Because I think I know a fair amount, I've been reading on the subject for 8 years.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Reading is one thing, actually doing it is an entirely seperate issue.
No, I am not saying you do not know anything.
I am saying you are:
NOT the forum's technical expert on tactics and modern mobile warfare. That is what got you all of this attention...
8 years is quite a bit, I will admit that. Considering there are people that have more years than you have been alive reading on the subject though says even more.
Once you have as many years as some of the people here and the real world experience, then you might be able to be considered our forums expert.
Until then, get off the high post, and you might be able to learn some stuff from people here, and just maybe might be able to teach others some stuff as well.
Last edited:
Destroyer25
Banned
I don't think any army is currently practicing German Panzer tactics from WW2, reading is about as far as anyone can get, unless you actually fought in WW2.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Well if you had been studying as much as you claim, then you would know that a number of wars since WW2 have a basis in German Panzer tactics.
Destroyer25
Banned
The ones Israel fought yes, and Desert Storm too I suppose. But both weren't solely based on German Panzer Tactics.
Super slow turret traverse? Destroyer once again you blew it. The Tiger Ausf.E featured a slow turret traverse, the Tiger Ausf.B didn't, it featured a rather fast turret traverse infact.
parsifal
Colonel
wonder why he got banned
Edit:
I read back through the posts and can see why. What a toady!!!!, resident expert indeed!!!
For the record Mr Destroyer, I spent nearly five years in officer training school including two years at staff college. And i consider myself to be mostly ignorant on the subject of military tactics.....
What a dweeb
Edit:
I read back through the posts and can see why. What a toady!!!!, resident expert indeed!!!
For the record Mr Destroyer, I spent nearly five years in officer training school including two years at staff college. And i consider myself to be mostly ignorant on the subject of military tactics.....
What a dweeb
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
There are a number of tests you can apply to determine the true exchange rates. The most relaible is to compare the cost of living indices, based on the basic cost of purchase of essential items such as bread, milk fuel and the like. For example, if the cost of living in Germany equates to a certain level that is say 40% higher for essentials than say the US, then the currency, which is basically a measure of the nations wealth, is overinflated by a similar amount.
Im no economist, but a simple and fundamental error is to fall for the basic exchange rates that are listed, without trying to compensate for what are referred to as "externalities"
Im not going to BS you Soren, my estimate is just that.....but I have read a number authors dealing with precisely the issue of the finacial econmies of each of the belliegerents. i would recommend Overy as perhaps the best author on this issue and a good starting text is "Why the Allies Won" by the same author.
He soes not pull punches, is critical of the allies and their consistent botching of campaigns and resources
Another good read on this issue in a general sense, is Ellis and his book "Brute Force"
vinnye
Senior Airman
Well I went for the Panther (because the Comet was not an option).
The T34 was a very competent tank and more than a match for the Pzkw 3 and 4. As such it caused the Wenrmacht significant problems with its combination of spped firepower and armour. So much so that the 88mm AA guns were used against it - as they were against the Matildas!
The King Tiger was too few, too heavy for its engine and transmission and bridges. This is a major reason for it being transported via rail - and this was no easy task for a Tiger let alone a KingTiger!
The Panther had a killer gun and very good protection and fair mobility.
The T34 was a very competent tank and more than a match for the Pzkw 3 and 4. As such it caused the Wenrmacht significant problems with its combination of spped firepower and armour. So much so that the 88mm AA guns were used against it - as they were against the Matildas!
The King Tiger was too few, too heavy for its engine and transmission and bridges. This is a major reason for it being transported via rail - and this was no easy task for a Tiger let alone a KingTiger!
The Panther had a killer gun and very good protection and fair mobility.
can you give some reference for this?
2000 yards?? Try with 200y and from the side.
6pdr info:
6 Pounder Anti-Tank Gun
and here is a penetration chart for the 6 pdr APS versus the Tiger 1 hull:
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/1.jpg?16
0deg = frontal armour, 180deg = rear armour. Red = penetration.
The APDS round gave the 6pdr some real "giant killer" capability. Add the 6pdr and APDS to the Cromwell and you have the best all round tank of the war.
Last edited:
You do realize that the armour of the Tiger was so tough that the APDS projectile would likely simply shatter once it hit it right? Plus the fact that the effectiveness of APDS rounds falls off very sharply as soon as any impact angle is added. Furthermore the accuracy of the APDS round was very bad, making hits at 2000 or even 1000 yards very unlikely.
As for the Cromwell tank, sorry but it was at most a match for the PzIV, and even then I'd prefer the Pz.IV for its better optics and internal ergonomics. And seeing that the heaviest armour on the Cromwell was just 76mm thick, the Pz.IV's 7.5cm L/48 gun would be dangerous to it from ranges of 2,500m and beyond with the std. APCBC round, punching through exactly 76mm of 240BHN RHA armour at 2,500m during armour penetration tests conducted in Aberdeen USA.
As for the Cromwell tank, sorry but it was at most a match for the PzIV, and even then I'd prefer the Pz.IV for its better optics and internal ergonomics. And seeing that the heaviest armour on the Cromwell was just 76mm thick, the Pz.IV's 7.5cm L/48 gun would be dangerous to it from ranges of 2,500m and beyond with the std. APCBC round, punching through exactly 76mm of 240BHN RHA armour at 2,500m during armour penetration tests conducted in Aberdeen USA.
Last edited:
Ok, well I produced some data on the APDS penetration. Maybe you can produce something on the Tiger resisting APDS shot?
vinnye
Senior Airman
I dont think the Cromwell faired any better in head to head shoot out with the Tiger than a Sherman would have done.
I like the Cromwell - but it needed sloped armour and a 17 pounder to make it have any chance against a Tiger.
Soren is right - the Panzer IV with the long barrel 75mm would take out a Cromwell from outside the Cromwells reach. There is not much argument to be had on the accuracy of the 75mm - it was awesome!
If you had gone with a Comet with the 77mm - then that would have had a better chance in my opinion.
I like the Cromwell - but it needed sloped armour and a 17 pounder to make it have any chance against a Tiger.
Soren is right - the Panzer IV with the long barrel 75mm would take out a Cromwell from outside the Cromwells reach. There is not much argument to be had on the accuracy of the 75mm - it was awesome!
If you had gone with a Comet with the 77mm - then that would have had a better chance in my opinion.
Last edited:
Question is where is your data from?
The Tiger Ausf.E's armour was the best put on any tank during WW2, being so tough that it shattered projectiles which in theory should've penetrated it. The armour used was Rolled Homogenous Armour carefully treated to reach a Brinell Hardness Number of 260 to 265, which offers the optimum range of toughness alasticity for RH armour. You can read all about it in Thomas L. Jentz's series of books on the tank.
The thickness of armour isn't everything, the composition of it is just as important.
