.......What is a tank???

[plan_D]

In answer to the question 'What is a tank?';

A tank is a container that stores liquids of any kind or; a fully tracked armoured fighting veichle, this means it has to have some kind of armament, without it, it would be a tractor.

 

[cheddar cheese]

 

[plan_D]

And since as I read more from this thread I see more mistakes, I must correct them.

The Germans didn't only have the '88'; 8.8 cm FlaK L/56 to combat the T-34 (which T-34 are you refering to?). The T-34/76 Model 1942 had 80mm armour which could be pierced by the '88' at 1500 m; by the 88mm KwK 36 (the gun on the Tiger) at 2km +; by the 50mm PaK 38 (anti-tank gun) at 100m; 76.2mm PaK36 (AT gun) at 1500m; K18 100mm heavy gun at 2km + and this is to name but a few German guns in 1942.

A Ferdinand (A self-propelled tank destroyer) was reported to destroy a T-34 in the Battle of Kursk at 4.5km, I do not know which kind of T-34 this was but since it was the Battle of Kursk it could be anything from the T-34/76 Model 1940 to the T-34/85...either way on armour values and penertration of the Ferdinands gun it is possible it was any of the T-34 variants.

The T-34 could not only be destroyed by the '88' not even in 1941.

The British Matilda Mk. II however is a different story no German anti-tank or tank gun could destroy the Matildas armour over 100m except the '88'. The average range of tank battles was 500m but the '88' could knock out the Matilda at 1.5km, it was a very good gun.

 

[bronzewhaler82]

Although this is an aircraft forum, I may as well bring my knowledge of WW2 tanks to it as well, if not for a short time.

The best world war 2 tank a T-34? How do you come to the conclusion because on paper it certainly wasn't. It was easy to produce, fast, strong and had good firepower. It's losses were high, even higher than the Shermans. Although on this, there were more T-34s in battle than Shermans. No doubt, the T-34 saved Russia but it certainly wasn't the best tank.
The Panther destroyed T-34s from over 2km, in one battle 7 Panthers met 70 T-34s and in the 20 minute conflict they destroyed 28 T-34s without a single loss.
The Tiger also walked all over the T-34, it had a more powerful cannon and stronger armour. The only disadvantages the Tiger had to anything, and I mean any tank of World War 2 were the small numbers and the speed of its turret. On this, the Tiger was 1:1 (Width:Length) so it could turn on the spot very quickly, if the turret wasn't fast enough the whole body would turn to bear the gun.
The Ferdinand, although not a tank was reported to destroy a T-34 at 4.5 km, that is much further than the average kill distance in tank battles which was 500m.

The Pershing, an American tank was superior to the T-34 which by 1943 was being out-classed by everything. Why do you think it was up-gunned to 85mm cannon? Even with the 85mm cannon it was weak in armour protection.

The King Tiger, now the King Tiger was at a disadvantage on the Eastern Front, that's why when it was being designed it was destined for the Western Front. The roads were poor in Russia and Eastern Europe, not only that the ground is less stable due to worse weather. At 68 tonnes, the King Tiger did not fare well. However, it was a great tank and surpassed anything on the battlefield in firepower and armour.

The A34 Comet, a British tank which could almost match the Tiger was also better than the T-34.

The JS-2 or IS-2 was the best Soviet tank to see service, with it's 122mm cannon it out classed any other Soviet tank however, even with a 122mm cannon it didn't have the pierce capability of the King Tiger, and with the Tiger they fought on equal footings. The King Tiger and Tiger both had 88mm cannons but due to German engineering were more refined and therefore more powerful.

The T-34 was said to be good, which it was for many reasons but the main one was due to its ease of build. The T-34 was easy to build and its vast numbers were a major reason it fared so well. In 1941 it was the best tank on the field but when the Panthers and Tigers came along the T-34 was out-classed and its ease of build were what kept it on the field.
The Sherman wasn't that bad, even some Soviets said that they were good if you knew how to use them. In the Korean war in every encounter between the Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top.

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 8)

see my post in the 'what is your favourite aircraft of WW2' thread

it completely disproves what you said

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

this could get personal............................

 

[plan_D]

It proves nothing, it merely says that the T-34 was a shock to the Germans, this does not mean it was the best tank of the war. As I've already said on many an occasion, the Panther was better, if the T-34 was so good why in a 20 minute battle did 7 Panthers destroy 28 T-34s without a single loss, when they were fighting 70.

I never said the T-34 wasn't a good tank but it certainly wasn't the best. The Panther did not owe it's apperance to the T-34, if you look at the T-34 compared to the Panther they look nothing alike.
The original design models look like a T-34 and were mostly based of the T-34 because as I said, they were designed to combat the T-34. However for a start the major difference is the turret position, in the early stages on the drawing board the Panthers turret was at the front like the T-34s but this was changed and if you care to look at the production Panthers their turrets are in the middle.

Modern tanks are not based off the T-34, they are based off the Tigers and JS-3s, the JS-3 was the best tank to come out of the war, although it never saw service. If not including the JS-3 we can safely say the IS-2 which outclassed the T-34 and was based on the KV-1 chassis.

 

[bronzewhaler82]

I must say, i do hope that i dont upset this JJ1982 fellow. He seems like a rather nasty piece of work.. I have just seen a few of his posts. I thought that this was a forum for WW2 aircraft. Sorry JJ1982 if your reading this

Oh cut the BS - you ARE JJ1982

 

[bronzewhaler82]

It proves nothing, it merely says that the T-34 was a shock to the Germans, this does not mean it was the best tank of the war. As I've already said on many an occasion, the Panther was better, if the T-34 was so good why in a 20 minute battle did 7 Panthers destroy 28 T-34s without a single loss, when they were fighting 70.

I never said the T-34 wasn't a good tank but it certainly wasn't the best. The Panther did not owe it's apperance to the T-34, if you look at the T-34 compared to the Panther they look nothing alike.
The original design models look like a T-34 and were mostly based of the T-34 because as I said, they were designed to combat the T-34. However for a start the major difference is the turret position, in the early stages on the drawing board the Panthers turret was at the front like the T-34s but this was changed and if you care to look at the production Panthers their turrets are in the middle.

Modern tanks are not based off the T-34, they are based off the Tigers and JS-3s, the JS-3 was the best tank to come out of the war, although it never saw service. If not including the JS-3 we can safely say the IS-2 which outclassed the T-34 and was based on the KV-1 chassis.

I never said the Panther looked anything like the T-34 but it WAS based on the same design because the T-34 was superior to anything the Krauts had...i won't post a huge argument here because i just left one on the 'what is your fav plane from WW2' thread and i can't be bothered to type much more here

One other thing.... if modern tanks are not based off the T-34 why do some many PROFESSIONAL sources say otherwise? you know better than the Imperial War Museaum for instance?

 

[cheddar cheese]

8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

looks like there's allot of impersonation going around...............

 

[Crazy]

Quite.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

was that realy you??????

 

[cheddar cheese]

i see no impersonation just jj1982 posting under a false name

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well you would now you're a mod...................

 

[Crazy]

I have found the true definition of 'tank':

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY F'IN SHITE!!!! IF THAT THING HAD GOTTEN OPERATIONAL THOSE GERMANS WOULD BE F'ED IN THE A!!!!! isnt that a T-100 or something of the sort? ive seen and used it BF1942 SWOWW2 but dont dont got much info on it, you got any more?

 

[plan_D]

Well since I'm the tank expert here, it is a Heavy Tank T28.
Crew: 8
Battle weight: 190,000 lbs
Armament: Main 1 x 105 mm T5E1 gun
Secondary: 1 x .50 cal MG (AA)

Armour: Maximum 300mm
Minimum 25mm

Maximum speed: 8mph
Road radius: 100 miles.


Germans, the Germans had much larger tank project on the drawing board. This T-28 is of limited tactical value, it was too heavy and too slow. It was suggested in 1943 but was dropped when they realised the expense, time taking to build and tactial value were pointless to carry on.
It was nothing special. But it is a very interesting, and big tank.

 

[plan_D]

Germans, out of interest have you ever heard of the German 'Super Heavy Tank' 'Maus'?


By the way, the T28 is an American design.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the pic didn't work for me, what was it?

 

[plan_D]

T28 Heavy tank, or alternatively the T95 Gun Carriage. They are both the same thing...