The most lethal tank in ww2

Or it was actually like this....

Base it on:

Armor protection

Main gun

Mobillity

These are the most important parts for a lethal tank.......

Regards, KBO

 

Maybe it could be broadened into which year, which front.

For example, PTO, 1945 would be the Sherman.
PTO, 1941 would be more interesting...

Western Desert 1941/2 - Matilda? Sherman? Pz.IV? Tiger I?

And so on...

 

I think that is an excellent idea.

How about:

1. North Africa 1940-1943
2. Eastern Front 1941-1942
3. Eastern Front 1943-1945
4. Western Front 1944 France

:smok:

 

Ok lets try it then..

You guys begin......

regards, KBO

 

Yes, you have the time aspect as well.

If I´m allowed a small digression; German tanks are often considered to be the "best" because they were ( more or less ) at the top when the war ended. The Germans certainly didn´t have the best tanks the first couple of years, and they would have lost the edge had the war lasted longer. The Tigers and the Panther had a lot of armour and firepower, but the desingns were allready outdatet. The future was in designs like the T-44 ( which was a revised T-34 ), the M26 and the Centurion. The Germans could add even more armour and fit even bigger guns to their tanks, and was well on their way at doing it as well, but none of their existing designs at the end of the war had the future ( the functionality and potential ) of the Soviet, American and British designs.

That was my rant for today.

 

I would still rate the Tiger-Mörser the most lethal tank. I find it hard to imagine any tanks which would be destroyed, or at least have it's crew killed, if hit by it. Furthermore, it was exellent at destroying fortifications and against infantry.

Not the best - but the most lethal.

 

Greg - you need to add:

Pacific 1941-42
Pacific 1943-45

This is a much ignored area on the forum - Japanese tanks are largely ignored as being worse than Italian tanks (well, they were, I suppose, but they were good for the terrain & opposition they were expected to face - and did face in China and the early years of WW2), and the interesting tank designs the Allies used in the Pacific are also largely ignored. Like the Australian Matilda 2 with 25pdr, or the various 'anti-personnel' experimental weaponry designed by the Americans to stop Japanese soldiers getting close to the tanks with AT 'spears' etc.

My rant for the day!

 

Well there were some plans of putting a 128mm L/55 gun on the TigerII as well as an bigger engine with 1081hp.. If this was done i believe no tank would be any match for the TigerII.....

And in 1945 the M26 pershing and IS-2 were allready outgunned by the existing 88mm gun on the TigerII....

KBO

 

The Tiger Morser (or Sturmtiger) was not an anti-tank weapon. Yes, it could be used as such in extreme circumstances, but the use of a vehicle optimised to demolish buildings against tanks?
The long reload time and very limited ammo storage (16 rounds, plus one 'up the spout') would surely mean that if it faced anything more than 1 enemy tank then it was dead.

Always assuming your rocket shell hit the enemy tank - long-range accuracy was never a rocket's strong point.

 

KBO
There were no plans to uparm the Tiger II to a 12,8 cm Kw.K. - Krupp suggested uparming it to a 10,5 cm Kw.K., but this was rejected. Arming the Tiger II with the 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55 would only have had negative effect on it's capabilities, though.

Ricky
Even though the Tiger-Mörser (or Panzersturmmörser) was meant to be used against buildings and fortifications, it would still have the best overall chance to kill whatever it hit. This thread is about what was most lethal, and I would arte the 38 cm rocket the most lethal of any munition fired from a tank during the war...

 

KBO
While the turret was large enough to house the 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55, it would have had several negative effects:

• Smaller ammunition storage
• Slower loading time (both due to two-part ammunition and due to less space being available to the loader (and no room for the second loader, who was available in the Jagdtiger, which would mean even slower loading time than the Jagdtiger had))
• More stress on the front roadwheels, and a heavier overall vehicle
• Problems with logistics (since there were more 8,8 cm Pzgr. 39/43 than 12,8 cm Pzgr. 39/43)
• Longer vehicle

The conversion would not have given any advantage in the armour penetration ability, and only have given somewhat better HE capacity. I don't see how it would be beneficiary.

And there were no 10,5 cm Kw.K.

 

I could make some points about that top 10 list on the previous page, but I won't because I really don't think such a list is any kind of argument. However I would like to remark to Greg that the Jagdpanther had a better gun and better armour than the M36, as well as a comparable top speed and high versatility. I'd pick it over the Jackson any day.

Links
Best Tank of WW2 threads:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5 (25 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131 (3 pages)
Sherman vs. T34:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533 (5 pages)
PanzerIV vs. T34:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545 (8 pages)
Sherman vs. PanzerIV:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3 (8 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=550 (1 page)
Best [insert equipment] of WW2 threads:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=832 (3 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=691 (5 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=798 (2 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=352 (3 pages)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=475 (1 page)
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34 (6 pages)

I will have missed some.

 

I see your point........

I know that there were never mounted a 105mm gun on the TigerII, But wich 105mm gun was suggested to be put on the TigerII ??? ive only read very little about this......

But still i dont understand that you say that the 128mm didnt have better penetration than the 88mm using APCBC rounds, because it really had....

The 128mm L/55 gun could penetrate 178mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m using Pzgr39/43.......

Regards, KBO

 

No, it couldn´t. 148mm, which was slightly less than the 153mm of the 88mm L/71

 

It wasn't any specific gun. How could it have been - there were no 10,5 cm Kw.K.s at all to chose from, so it would have had to be fictional.

I didn't say that the 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55 didn't have better penetratino ability - I just said that it didn't have any advantage. At 3,000 meters, the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/71 could penetrate 153 mm. of armour - that was more than sufficient. The 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55 could penetrate 35 mm. armour more than the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/71 at any range, but since the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/71 was sufficient, it wouldn't have been an advantage.

 

Yes it could Skua.... When using APCBC it could...

128mm L/55 against 30* sloped armor using APCBC/Pzgr39: 500m=215mm / 1000m=202mm / 1500m=190mm / 2000m=178mm.....

Regards, KBO

 

Well, I´ll readily admit it if I´m wrong. But since you´ve fed us with so much BS this far, I´ll guess I´ll wait until someone else comes along to correct me.

 

Ok Skua i think you need to relaxe abit you dont exactly sound friendly....

Your an admin so how about acting abit more friendly to the members...

But if you want proof ill give you proove.... here read it yourself: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html

Please take it easy next time you respond would you, were all adults here......arent we....

KBO

 

Hello.
Whit less one error of my share, it seem to me that the main defect of the 128 mm L/55 gun in a tank is its shell in two parts.
The round is 32 cm long and weighs 15 kg .
The propelling charge has a diameter of 190 mm is 87 cm long and weighs 12 kg.
The reloading was already not very fast on a Jagdtiger,that will have been even slower and difficult in a Tank as the Tiger II.