What is Your favourite plane from world war 2?

plan_D - have you been to the bovington tank museum?

Can't say I have...

you should go - its really good and someone with a knowledge of tanks such as yourselfs woud enjoy it 8)

Got in abit late here, but I can see that my choice of Mosquito is on Top, [sigh], with Mustang a close second - Marvellous those Merlins, eh?! - Amazing design, plywood balsa, firepower like a cruiser ! - There's still a good number of Mustangs about , and I'd say over the next decade or so, there will be Mosquitos again !!!!....[SIGH]

plan_D said:

The King Tiger was out-classed? Are you on drugs? The King Tiger had the greatest armour and armament of the war for any tank. It's 88mm cannon had the same penertration as the 122mm on the IS-2 because of German refining causing higher velocity.
The T-34 was seriously out-classed late in the war, you should learn a little more, study the penertration and armour values yourself, you'll soon see. The number of Soviet tanks was the winning factor, look at the ratio of tank losses on the Eastern Front. The King Tiger didn't serve well on the Eastern Front because it was easily swamped by numbers and being 68 tonnes it was too heavy for the poor roads and soft ground.
It was designed for the West, and it served very well in the West. The roads in the West could support the King Tiger, and it served unbelievebly well. Lack of supplies and inferior numbers were it's only downfall. You seem to have a severe disliking of German tanks, when in all reality they were the best of the war and nothing could match them one on one. :grab:

Click to expand...

Nope, not on drugs - if you read my post on the previous page (doesn't seem as though you actually bothered) you would see that I DID do my research and authorities (who I daresay know more than you or I) claim the T-34 was the best...because it was \/

The sites state (and not just the site - the Imperial War Museaum in London and Duxford both say exactly the same thing) German tanks were not only outnumbered but OUTCLASSED during the war by the T-34 - they didn't know what to do - except inspect a captured T-34 and design a tank around the ideas used in the T-34...presumably the result was this 'King Tiger' thing you keep going on about - how can you claim this Nazi tank was better?? and even if it WAS better in armament and gun usuage - it wasn't as manouvorable as the T-34 because of its sheer size and (by your own admittance) it was useless on soft boggy ground and damaged roads...the frozen russian winter was too much for this German design...but these were obstacles which the T-34 didn't find a problem at all therefore limiting your tank to hard ground and roads in the west - which the T-34 could also be used on!! The Tiger was complex to produce and repair but the T-34 was both simple to build and repair (part of the reason the Russians had so many)
The Tiger was also slow (whereas the T-34 was fast) and it was technically unreliable - a piece of advice for the future - try not to only look up the plus-sides and ignore the down-sides...because as i've proved here - it only had one of two things going for it.
And you still think the Tiger was better? please don't make me laugh!
\/

The only way the King Tiger could win one on one was if the T-34 had broken down, was out of ammo and its crew were dead at the controls

A King Tiger one on one with anything in the war would win. You ask any historian that and he'll say it to be true. The King Tiger was unbeaten in range, firepower, armour and accuracy. I don't ignore the downsides, the fact is from a T-34 going head to head with a King Tiger, the King Tiger would knock it out before the T-34 crew could even see the King Tiger.
The optics on the T-34 were poor they struggled to see their enemy let alone hit them. You always say T-34, which kind of T-34? There was more than one variant. The Tiger was easily superior to the T-34, they just out-numbered. If the Tiger was out-classed how come more Soviet Tanks were lost than German ones?

The Panther was my favourite tank and in some respects was superior to the Tiger, and two Panthers could be produced in the same time as a Tiger. The T-34 was good, there is no denying it but it certainly wasn't the best tank one on one.
The reason historians mark it above the rest is because it is so simple and they could add improvments without breaks in the production line.

The Panther, Tiger and King Tiger were all superior. Look at the numbers at Kursk, Germany lost that battle, the Soviet Union won but look at the kill ratio on tanks. If German tanks were out-classed why is the kill ratio far in their favour?

One example I've mentioned which as obviously not gone in, 7 Panthers met 70 T-34/76s in the 20 minute conflict 28 T-34s were destroyed without a single loss to the Panther. The Soviets were amazed by the Panther, that is why the new T-34/85s were rushed to be designed.

The Panther was not designed off the T-34, it was designed to combat it. At first it was similar to the T-34 in design, the Germans realised the rugged design of the T-34 was somewhat ingenius but the Panther was soon improved and performed far better than the T-34. If you are going to go on about how the Panther was designed to beat the T-34 I could go into a big list of tanks designed to combat other tanks.

The Panther was designed to combat the T-34/76, the T-34/85 was designed to combat the Panther, the IS-2 was designed to combat the Tiger, the Pershing was designed to combat the Tiger, the Comet was designed to combat the Tiger, the Ferdinand was designed to combat the KV-1. So on and so on.

And on the King Tiger, it wasn't designed off the T-34 in any way shape or form. You don't research enough if that's what you come up with.

I've read plenty of books that praise the T-34, and I do to. It was a great tank, and it certainly saved the Soviet Union. The ease of build, rugged design, powerful weaponary and armour not to mention its manuverabilty and reliability might it a tank to be reckoned with but it was out gunned and out classed by the Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers. The Pz. IV Ausf G was a comparable match to the T-34/76.

The T-34/76 and T-34/85 saw action in Korea against the American Shermans M4A3 and M4A3 (76W) and in every encounter the Shermans came out on top.

If the T-34 was the best there would have been no reason for the IS-2, KV-85 or IS-3. The IS-3 was easily the best tank built in the war, but it never saw service. Modern tanks are not based off the T-34, the designs in Soviet Russia in the 50s were based off the T-34, it went from T-34 to T-44 then to T-54/55. These were running along side the IS-3. Modern Russian tanks like the T-90 are no longer based off such a design. And the M1 Abrams and Challenger series are certainly not based off the T-34.

ok bronze you may know about planes but NOT tanks!!! plan_D knows what hes talking about!! and in fact the 88mm KwK 43 L/71 on PzKpfw VI Königstiger had MORE penetration than the 122mm M1943 (D-25) L/43 gun on the IS-2 (JS-2 is same tank, just depends if you say Iosef Stalin or Josef Stalin)!!!! ok, the figures are as follows: from 547yd (500m) the German gun had a 7in (182mm) penetration value, but the IS-2 had a 5.5in (140mm) penetration value!!! oh, and plan_D there is one problem in one of your posts... the Königstiger was beaten in range and numbers and thats all!!! and how does a Panther owe its looks to a T-34??? a Panther has the normal mid-set turret unlike (crappy) russian tanks which have the turret at the front also, the Panther had more armor than T-34, the Panther's minimum thickness was 0.6in (20mm), with the maximum being 4.7in (120mm) while the (crappy) T-34 had 0.7in (18mm) minimum and 2.4in (60mm) maximum! and while we're at it, the Königstiger ALSO had armor supremacy over its rival! minimum for Königstiger is 1.6in (40mm) and 7.3in (185mm) maximum, while the IS-2 had 0.8in (19mm) minimum and 5.2in (132mm) maximum, which i may add, is barely more than the Panther!!! so bronze, get you facts straight and admit the truth... the russians only real advantage was numbers in everything, VVS (although the Yak-3's were VERY good as were La-7's) , tank force, infantry, supplies, etc. ,etc. so not only were German tanks better than (crappy) russian tanks (notice how i only capitalize German) in almost every way excepting speed and range (German tanks were bigger and ran on petrol which gets less mpg than diesel which explains the rnage deficiency, and were bigger than russian tanks, which explains the speed deficiency)

from what little i have read i would say that the T-34 would win in a head to head with a tiger, as long as it wasn't spotted and shot at from long range, as it was very fast and could get around to the tigers weaker behind, and as the tigers turret was slow to turn, it could be possible for it to do it without getting shot......................

8)

I won't continue this argument that has appeared from wherever - in my opinion (and clearly that of the rest of the informed world - except plan_d and Germans.. ) the T-34 (whichever model performed the best) was the best - you keep going on about the range of this brilliant gun on the King Tiger etc but aside from the fact that it had a big gun, it was slow, unmanouvorable and you had to have the exact right type of terrain for it to be any good - in that it would have been great on a nice straight road but take it anywhere else and it was shite

you also ignore my comments about how difficult it was to build in numbers and repair etc...quite frankly i'll believe what the EXPERTS tell me and not from some unknown source...(where are your links that prove all this you're saying? - we've only got your word so far )

I've been to countless military museums and they all say the same thing and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise

I've read all this stuff about this battle when the T-34s suffered heavy losses? so bloody what? plenty of battles in history have been lost when they should have been won - unless you were there you can't possibly make a comment about how that battle was won or lost - besides even with a tank as amazing as the T-34 doesn't mean you'll win the battle - alot of russian commanders where stupid - as with this battle you keep mentioning how do you have a clue (without being there) how the russians suffered such heavy defeats...ever considered that it might have been a cokup by whichever general was in charge and not the fault of the russians - perhaps (having such a big gun the german tanks could've had the advantage on the open battlefield but in secluded forests etc...the big hulk of metal would've been blown away by the smaller more nimble T-34

it seems to me that you think the Krauts had the best tanks simply because they had bigger guns on them...you have alot to learn mate

Bronze,

Actually I disagree with you . Tank warfare (any warfare really) is first and foremost about getting the enemy before he gets you and if you can do that before the bugger can see you, more power to you.

The latter German PkW were excellent and far superior to the Russian / British / US ones. Their biggest problem was that they could not produce enough of them or of the diesel to fuel them.

There needs to be a distinction made, ISTM, between a tank that was easy to mass-produce (T-34 + variants) and tanks that were technically superior (German PkWs.)

Kiwimac

you ALWAYS disagree with me!

I really have run out of enthusiasm for this topic - i'm here to talk about warplanes - Plan_d is correct - I'm correct - who cares? we've both got our opinions and lets stick to them - i don't know enough about tanks to make a huge effort debating this(unlike Plan-D apparently )...but that doesn't mean i don't know enough to say i'm right 8)

i'm here to talk about warplanes

Click to expand...

ys, me too, ive been a bit lost with all this tank talk

I'm certainly no authority on tanks, - or aircraft, but I read to learn and find your gentlemen's forum very interesting and varied...The thing about the tanks and WWII that strikes me, the Germans did have exceptional mechanical technical ability, and since they started the War and overun such vast territory, by the time they got into Russia they had acquired significant tactical skill - Like Air Aces, they had Tank Aces too, and what little I've read indicates they Knew their stuff - Both in North Africa and Russia, the re-supply lines eventually stuffed the Germans, and they were also out-numbered eventually - Outa these conflicts it was recognised that the German tanks, the Tiger and Panther, were exceptional weapons with heavy armour and firepower, the tank losses per se reflect that - the tactics they used were born out of years of front-line 'tooth nail' fighting. The Russian ' Josef Stalin' rounded-turret did help but it was also an enormous 'morale-booster' for their troops, and by then they had plenty- I don't think the Germans ever recovered from Napoleon's mistake of fighting the Russian winter, that they repeated- They fought on but the loss of morale and crimes of the Einsatzgruppen haunted them, and all the firepower armour couldn't change the fact that their High Command let them down as well...[ that's my two cents worth...]

and find your gentlemen's forum very interesting and varied

Click to expand...

ha, were not toffs if thats what youre impyling

No such thing! You'd get a bit pissed if I referred to you in less polite terms - I simply believe treat those as you like to be treated...

You can stop going on about the King Tiger anyway because I never liked it, the Panther was still superior to the T-34 of any variant. You have enough given knowledge that has probably been forced down your throat to think the T-34 was better. I've read books praising the T-34 all the way through with great foundation but it won't convince me that they are superior to the late German tanks.

The Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger could see, shoot and kill the T-34 before the T-34 in open field. In dense forest the Tigers and Panthers would still be at the advantage because the T-34s would have to get close, you can't hide a 30 tonne tank charging through the forest.

The only disadvantage in battle for the Tiger was its slow moving gun, this could easily be solved by turning the whole tank since it was 1:1 (width:length) meaning it was very manuverable on the spot and could turn the whole tank faster than the gun. And face its frontal armour to its enemy.

I could easily defend the T-34, and I could defend it much better than you. But if you want to praise Soviet tanks to their fullest praise the IS-2 and IS-3 because they were good, and they could finally match the Germans one on one.

On your "you don't know unless you were there", look at Kursk, the Germans were attacking across soft, unstable ground at dug in Soviet positions with inferior numbers this is two disadvantages straight away. Still, they managed to get across and push through the lines all the way to the back until the Soviet reserves plugged the holes and pushed them back. With the loss ratio in their favour.

Actually late war, Soviet commanders were very good they had the right tactics to beat the Germans, and mostly it was at their own game in the name of 'Deep Battle' which resembled the German blitzkreig.

Another battle took place with 8 Tigers, and 15 IS-2s that were in a recently captured village. The Tiger commander (A very good one, an ace) told his unit to stay and only him and one other Tiger would go over because of the road, it was too thin. The leader fired at the first IS-2 at 900m and ripped its turret off, the second Tiger then fired at another and punched a hole through its rear before charging in, and ordering his others to follow. This is another example of Soviet inferiority, the Germans captured the village, this was due to radio contact between tanks that the Soviets did not have. If they had contact they would have known where the Germans would have come from and might have stood a chance.

And another thing, although I can praise the T-34 which I have done previously, the T-34/76 had a cramped two man turret which meant the Commander was the gunner, this was ridiculous as the gunning was a full time job in itself. Trying to aim and fire the gun while giving flag signals to other tanks in the unit (if the lead tank) would have been impossible. Yes, I did say flag signals they didn't have radios, not all of them anyway.
Even some tanks in Stalingrad didn't have optics, the gunner had to simply guess by looking down the barrel.

When I find a decent link I'll give it to you, until then you'll just have to trust me passing on what I've read in countless books.

The book in particular that I read about all this was called ' Panzer Aces' if I recall, which like most folk, 'coloured' my view of the conflict a little - It's hard not to respect the professionalism of those men when in reading about it all, it's wasn't a case of 'tradesmen blaming tools' that they lost - They were exceptional tacticians, taking each conflict as it came, in the circumstances they came upon it....It's worth a read - One can allow the glory of winning the war to pump-up the prestige of their tank...

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm

That is done by a German, and he is the nephew of a Panzer Ace in World War 2. Very good site, and all you would need to know about German tanks. It even has a section on captured T-34s, and quotes from Heinz Guderian and other leads on Panzer warfare.

http://www.battlefield.ru/map.html

This is Russian, very good, obviously a lot of praise for the T-34, not very well written but they are Russian after all.

www.wwiivehicles.com

This is a collection of all the tanks, not all have pictures but a very good site for people like you who think they know and might be interested in learning more.

Many thanks for those , I'll check them out - I'm always keen to learn more...