pearl harbor

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

well i dont know about the name but i know thet the ratio was 4 shermans=1 tiger
with king tiger it was 5 shermans=1 king tiger
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_122.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 750
I know you're wrong on the ratio as well. The Tiger had a much better ratio all round than 4:1. The 3:1 is solely for the Normandy campaign. It is not known how well the Tiger did overall.

On the King Tiger, you've assumed that the King Tiger was better so you added a Sherman. The majority of King Tigers were lost to maintainence and lack of fuel. Again, there is no known ratio.

However, one ratio that is known was for 5 Shermans destroyed on the Western Front, 9 T-34s were destroyed on the Eastern Front.
 
well lets say thet in the open field a group of shermans see's a tiger not hiden not nothing. well in thet case 1 of the shermans would try to flank the tiger and come from the rear so in thet case 3 shermans=1 tiger mark 4. and lets say it is hidin so in thet case it can take out 3-4 shermans. michal wittman for example.
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_191.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 717
micheal wittman could travel the distance of an entire column and knock out each vehicle without being desdroyed, 3 shermans are nothing.............
 
well in europ the sherman was for people with a death wish. but against the japanis it was much more succsesful.
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_120.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 706
The tactics of the Sherman columns was for four Shermans to travel in a diamond shape. As the Tiger opened fire from the bocages of Normandy, its position would be revealed. Most likely the first shot would destroy the first Sherman, as the two on the flanks moved forward the last went (as Nighthawk correctly stated) to try and flank the Tiger.
At about 75 yards to the Tigers rear the Sherman could destroy it. This is a very clean cut situation, but this is how it was supposed to work. 3:1 Sherman:Tiger in Normandy is a recognised figure.

However this is PURELY in the bocages of Normandy. In the rest of France, Germany and Holland armour battles were as anywhere else. And Tigers were not defensive positions, they were TANKS! Designed to move quickly on an operational move and take on other tanks. On top of that, the Tiger wasn't the main battle tank of the Wehrmacht. The Pz. kpfw. IV was, this was a match for the Sherman...as the Sherman was a match for it.

The Sherman was not a tank for people with a death wish, it was a tank for ease of produce and ease of handling for conscripts. The tank was produced quickly, and its production run alone can put up with the best tanks of the war.
Everyone loves the T-34 because it was simple and easy to produce, the Sherman was exactly the same but even simpler.
 
I may be wrong, but wasn't the main gun on a T-34 a left hand load weapon? There were a number of Russian tanks that were left hand loaded, meaning that to load the shell, you were better off being left handed due to the what it loads. I remember a big to-do about this prior to the gulf war as most of the tanks in Saddam's army were Soviet tanks with left hand loaded guns which reduced the rate of fire. It was also said that 75% of the army was right handed. Kind of obscure, but interesting nontheless.
 
but still the sherman is fast but its poorly armored and its 75mm canon was no match for the side\fron armor of the tiger.but the tiger was originly made after the british matilda tanks were intredusted. befor the tiger only a flak 88 could take out a matilda. i heard storys about shermans thet in the pacific where blown up in to the sky and landed upside down, becuase the japanis put'ed a 1-3 ton bomb under a mine and clearly no tank is a match for a 3 ton bomb exploding under it.
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_761.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 690
Yes, evan most Soviet tanks had left hand loading they also had a generall awkward loading system. A lot had two piece loading as well.

The Sherman was fast, reliable, durable, easily maintained and easily produced. Brilliant design for the needs of the hour. It was also up-gunned easily without slowing production.
Introductions of simpler production methods, improved armour and armament were all done between 1942-1945. The 76mm cannon used on later models of Sherman was decent enough for what was ultimately a conscript tank.

The Tiger was not introduced because of the Matilda. The actual development of what would become the Tiger started in 1939. The design of the Tiger was ordered 26 May 1941, a time when not many Matilda IIs had been seen by the Germans.

On top of that, the Matilda could be destroyed by a lot of things under 100m. The FlaK 36 '88' was the best thing because it could do it at 1,500m but during 1942 the Wehrmacht captured F-22 76.2mm AT guns from the Russians to use against the Matilda. They also introduced the Pz. kpfw IV 'special' or Pz. kpfw IV Ausf F/2 in the summer of 1942 which was superior to all tanks of opposing forces and could knock out the Matilda with relative ease.
 
i heared a story about a russian heavy tank not is 2 but the............ ha yes KV- 2 whan the germans first saw it. it was broken and the crew inside couldent move the tank. so the germans tried everything to blow up thet tank. and after 2 hours the blow it up. its a monstres tank.
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_184.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 673
Yes, the KV-2 saw limited action at the start of the war. The Germans captured a few. It had a 152mm cannon but it was mechnically unreliable, heavy and slow. Not only that, on anything but level ground the turret failed to turn.

German tanks would swarm around individual KV-2s to destroy them. Or they would just knock its tracks off. Most of the time, they just broke down and were abandoned though.

It's not an impressive tank, but they caused an initial shock. They were designed as bunker busters, to sort out the Finnish Mannerheim Line in the Winter War (1939-1940). After 1942 not much was seen of the KV-2, it never even stayed in production long. Only a few prototypes were built for the Winter War, and 232 were produced in 1941. That's it.




KV-2.



KV-2 next to a trackless T-34 Model 1940 (I believe).



Captured KV-2.



KV-2 that took a 105mm shell to the chassis. It actually stayed active but was abandoned when it ran out of ammo.
 
Nicknamed the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans. That probably was partially solved by increased armour protection on the fuel tank and the introduction of wet ammo.
A large amount of water and anti-freeze reduced the risk of explosion.
 
The Sherman was one of the most reliable tanks of the war. More reliable than the T-34.
 
if theres any tank thet i would feel safe in its a IS-2\king tiger.
 

Attachments

  • b24-8_161.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 627
I don't think I'd feel comfortable in any tank, particuarly those run on petrol, irrespective of extra armour etc...- Found this shot of a Panzer hit by 40mm Vickers rounds from a Hurricane D, right through the barrel, the side photo is an exit hole in the side...like a 'hot knife through butter'....
 

Attachments

  • panzer_hit_by_40mm_from_hurricane.jpg
    112.5 KB · Views: 650
 

Attachments

  • iaf_20a4n_130.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 637
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Menu
Log in
Register