Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
With almost zero knoweldge on tanks, I agree with Grau, my fav is the Royal Tiger. Of course thats for a "Best Tank...." thread. Sorry for the interuption. 
was the tiger really all that good
- Thread starter fly boy
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tiger was overall the best tank built with its combination of firepower and armor, but it was not the best tank to win the war. For a conflict like WW2 you needed mass produced quantities of a "good" tanks. The answer to that was the Sherman.
You give me a one on one situation and I will take the Tiger any day. You give me 500 Tigers vs. 500 Sherman's and I will take the Tiger any day. However that is not realistic. There were more Sherman's than Tigers and in that case the Sherman is the winner.
The Sherman was a war winner, because it was easy, cheap and able to produce in mass quantities.
You give me a one on one situation and I will take the Tiger any day. You give me 500 Tigers vs. 500 Sherman's and I will take the Tiger any day. However that is not realistic. There were more Sherman's than Tigers and in that case the Sherman is the winner.
The Sherman was a war winner, because it was easy, cheap and able to produce in mass quantities.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I think WWII showed that having quality material will not always let you win. You must also have quanity and the Allies had that. As good as any equipment may be - i.e. Tiger, Ta 152, Bismark, etc. - its still how many you have that decides the outcome.
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Well said, Njaco.
I agree with Adler though, in a one on one situation, the Tiger would probably win, unless the Sherman can use it's smaller guns to find a weakness.
I agree with Adler though, in a one on one situation, the Tiger would probably win, unless the Sherman can use it's smaller guns to find a weakness.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
That Bastard and yet Master of Realism, Iosif Dzhugavili (Stalin) said it best -
"Quantitiy has a quality all of its own".
"Quantitiy has a quality all of its own".
Just my opinion:
The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank not as a tank killer.
The Tiger was designed as an answer to the far superior russian KV-1 tank in 1941.
Overall i would choose the Panther as the best tank of WWII, with it´s sloped armour and an even more powerful gun than the Tiger....
The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank not as a tank killer.
The Tiger was designed as an answer to the far superior russian KV-1 tank in 1941.
Overall i would choose the Panther as the best tank of WWII, with it´s sloped armour and an even more powerful gun than the Tiger....
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Another factor favoring the Sherman for the US is a factor overlooked by many regarding everything to do with WW2. The Sherman was produced in the US and it with all the spare parts, ammo, crew, fuel and lubricants and everything else needed to make the tank effective had to be shipped to the battle front where it was needed over thousands of miles of ocean. In some cases the German tanks or other instruments of war had only a few miles to go by railroad or transporter to go into battle.
- Thread starter
- #28
parsifal
Colonel
The Sherman was introduced in 1942, and in North Africa it at last gavce some parity against German tanks then being fielded in any numbers. By 1943 it was again painfully obvious that the germans had regained the lead in the qualitative department. An increasingly shrill chorous of criticism went up about the Sherman by the forces at the front, because of its increasing inferiority against the hevier German tanks. However the General Board resisted these requests, because a break in production to a new type would mean a drop in numbers, and the fielding of more than a single battle tank. In addition if the Sherman had been replaced by a heavier tabk, say in 1943, it would have fatally delayed the cross channel attack, because at a stroke, many of the landing craft that had been spefically designed for a certain tonnage and size of tank, would have become useless, because the new tank (say the M-26) would be unable to be loaded properly into the allied landing ships. So the decision to soldier on with the Sherman was not all to do with the capability of the tank.
Moreover, except against the Tigers and the panthers, the Sherman could hold its own against most German tanks and SPGs. A Mk IV, for example, which still accounted for about 50% of German production, MkII chassis were stil being used to build STUGs. Only a relatively small proportion of German armour was superior to the American tank
Moreover, except against the Tigers and the panthers, the Sherman could hold its own against most German tanks and SPGs. A Mk IV, for example, which still accounted for about 50% of German production, MkII chassis were stil being used to build STUGs. Only a relatively small proportion of German armour was superior to the American tank
" . . . . even more powerful gun than the Tiger"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 88mm L/56 on the Tiger was actually more powerful than the 75mm L/70 on the Panther; I would take an "88" over the 75 any day, even with the shorter barrel. And that's not including the long-barrelled (L/71) 88mm on the King Tiger, which many experts consider the best all-round tank gun of the War.
Tiger
88 mm KwK 36 L/56
500m, 30°, 110mm penetration; 1.000m, 30°, 100mm penetration
Panther
75-mm-KwK 42 L/70
500m, 30°, 124mm penetration; 1.000m, 30°, 111mm penetration
Sources
Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E Sd. Kfz. 181
Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Sd. Kfz. 171
Corrected!
I did not realize the 75mm L/70 was that much better; I'm assuming this is because the muzzle was much higher than the 88mm L/56's (1120 m/s vs. 930 m/s). Even wiki says "In this respect it was in fact even more powerful than the Tiger's famous 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 when using APCBC-HE rounds. . . ."
