Za Roninu: Thanks! .. no problem. Just wanted to make my statement more clear.

CrazyD: Well all things considered here, your probably right. The Panther and the Tiger I were positively better gun platforms with superior optics. The M4A3E2 armed with a 76mm gun offset it's firepower inferiority to those tanks with it's better protection. What I will say is that the M4A3E2's frontal protection and it's turret (the most exposed on most any tank and most likely to be hit) protection, Is that it was much better. Better to the point that firing standard AP or rationed APCR shot, It may just have had a slightly better chance against the Panther and Tiger I. That with those two German tank types firing the same type of ammo. (standard AP and APCR).

PantherII- Oh, no doubt AT ALL about that- the Jumbo Sherman was a major upgrade over the normal one. And, it would be able to "compete" with the Tiger/Panther.

I would put it a notch below those two german tanks, but nowhere near as big a notch below as most other Allied tanks.

And- by the time the British/Americans were facing German armor in Normandy, the allied tanks didn't NEED to be massively better. Between the total air supremacy the allies enjoyed and the ever-increasing logistical problems the germans were facing, Allied forces- tanks included- had some pretty significant advantages.

Throw in a few Jumbo shermans, and that's just one more advantage.

Discussions like this about "the best [armored fighting vehicle]" are tricky- are we talking about the best afv strictly on the merits of the vehicle itself, or are we talking about the best afv in terms of the overall situation at the time and in the location?

Always fun though!

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

I dont know about that. I mean, Patton was a great General and all, probably the best the U.S. has ever had, but he did under estimate the value of a good heavy tank. In reference to the production of the M26 Pershing:

"Patton interpreted the armed forces doctrine to a T and cited it as his reason for not favoring the M26. He said that the tanks of an armored division were not supposed to fight other tanks, but bypass them if possible and attack enemt objectives to the rear."

"Patton felt that because the M4 tank was lighter and required less fuel than the M26, it would be faster and more agile and was better equipped to perform the mission of the armored divisions"

Pages 28 & 29, "Death Traps: The survival of an American Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Y. Cooper

Mr. Cooper recalled these events from a meeting he and other Officers had with Patton before the Normandy Invasion. He talks quite extensively on these few pages about Patton, and while I'd be more than happy to transcribe them all, Im not sure my Boss would be all that happy about it.

Mr. Coopers book btw, is really a great read. If you havent read it yet, you should pick it up!

__________________

Those who kept silent yesterday will remain silent tomorrow"
~Elie Wiesel~

Za-I tried that card (The one about numbers) earlier in the thread but apparently we are talking about a 1v1 at long rage with the JT in a brilliant spot and the ISU-152 in the middle of an open valley or something.

That's a very fair contest!

__________________

I should have checked that one! Goes to show how "rusty" I am!

Visually, you'd *think* the Panther was lower... the silhouette is much sleeker looking than the Sherman. But numbers are numbers, and they tend not to lie.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Hey Rodinu!
Those 2 things are meat and drink to me, leave 'em alone!



Mmmmmmmm.
'Extemporised Armoured Bulldozers. 1950-75', now that's what I call a bedtime read!

Cheers,
Adam

Trade you for vols. 3 and 7 of Lenin's Complete Cross Stitching.

__________________

m_kenny had posted this earlier in yet another thread about WWII tanks LOL.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

The narrowness of the tank makes it look taller, especially if you don't see them side by side.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

This is what one of the greatest tank aces of all time, Otto Carius (150+ kills) had to say about the Jagdtiger (which he saw action in):

"Only its armor was satisfactory, its maneuverability left a lot to be desired...transmissions and steering differentials were soon out of order....That such a monstrosity had to be constructed in the final phase of the war...of all times!"

In comparison, in his biography which he wrote a few years after the war he highly praised the Tiger as "the most ideal tank that I was acquainted with. It probably hasent been surpassed, even by the current weaponary."

You have to remember that the JadgTiger has its orgins in design going back to 1943. The two Vk 3001 H 12.8 cm K Sfl chassis that tested the gun. It wasn't as if the JadgTiger was created in a vacuum. But, it was definitely a day late and a dollar short.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, cheers.

Was reading a bit in Tigers in the Mud last night myself, and came across another problem Carius noted. According to him- even with the travel lock on, the length of the Jagdtiger's gun and the jarring movement of the Jadgtiger would often knock the gun sites out of proper aim simply through normal driving.
"We discovered that the cannon, because of it's enormous length, was battered about so much as a result of even a short move that it's alignment no longer agreed with that of the optics."

Not the vehicle I'd choose!

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

CrazyD: I had choose the Sherman as the number 1 tank of WWII. Not becouse it was actually the best. But appeared to me the most versitile in terms of how many different types were modeled for different roles and the simplicity of it's design, that allowed it to be produced cheaply and in massive numbers. In addition almost any version had parts that were easy to interchange with another Sherman. Very easy and quickly repaired. The Jumbo was mentioned by me to show just how versitile the Sherman design was along with what it's chassis was capable of. The Sherman does have a poor reputation as a tank that just couldn't hold up to enemy fire. It's chassis design did allow for it to be made a whole lot tougher. The prime example of that was the M4A3E2 Jumbo.

The Panther and Tiger I were tank for tank better in terms of battlefield performance, If tanks were going head to head. I don't believe any US or U.K. tanker would prefer to be in something they had as apposed to being in a Panther or Tiger if they were going to be in a strait shooting match. Let's forget about reliability and running out of gas and stuff like that. The Americans took on a different approach to tank fighting. Sometimes it appeared to work and sometimes it didn't. If one were to look at tanks like the M18 Hellcat and M36 TD's. These two models had very favorable kill ratios against heavier German tank models becouse how they were employed against them. It wasn't that they were so much better or anything like that. Shermans just didn't provide enough protection for themselves for the roles they were thrown into. It was becouse of the well known deadlyness of the German 88mm gun that the Jumbo's were designed to counter them. The planners in the U.S. war department felt 250 or so of them would be enough to counter those heavy German AT gun defenses. allthough the Jumbo's were considered highly successful in their assault role. They were considered in very high demand and units complained about not having enough of them. The war planners were dead wrong. And tank crews motoring around in regular Shermans were getting plastered over and over again.

Nice stuff, PantherII. Your points really go to the "qualifiers" for this discussion- we talking 1-on-1 with fully operational tanks? Or we talking big picture, taking all aspects into account?

If it's big picture... The Sherman (variants included) and the T34 are easily the top competitors. I'd maybe tend towards the T34 there, mainly due to the slightly better armor.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

CrazyD: Big picture I pick the Sherman with the T-34 a very close second. Now if it's tank versus tank in a shoot out with any given variable taken into account. I pick the German King Tiger hands down. The King Tiger had the best armor and was equiped with the outstanding 88mm L/71 calibers gun. In terms of armor and firepower, no tank of WWII was in it's class. If we were to say include a second place that may have stood some sort of fighting chance against the King Tiger. That tank would have to be the one of a kind, American T26E4-1 Super Pershing. The Super Pershing was a true oddity and was just an experimental piece the US rushed to Europe to see what a Pershing tank armed with the experimental T15E1 90mm L/73 calibers gun could do under combat conditions. This gun did have the ability to destroy all German heavies at long range frontally. That is with the exception of the King Tiger and Jagdtiger. If one were to simply go one gun tables and armor alone. It appears the T15E1 gun would have a fair chance against the King Tiger turret face and the Jagdtiger upper fighting compartment front face at medium and close range. But IMO no real chance against the upper front glacius at any range. The Super Pershing was some 11 tons heavier than your garden varity Pershing. This was mainly due to all the extra armor that was added to it. The Super Pershing would have been difficult for any heavy German piece to deal with frontally. How effective all that applique armor would have held up to a heaver caliber German gun is really up in the air though.

There was a fight between a Super Pershing and a Tiger/KT, I believe. In Another River, Another Town, the tank gunner of the said Super Pershing describes a confrontation with a Tiger/KT (I forget which) at close range.

The Tiger in all probability hit the Super Pershing (see article for why "in all probability") but the round glanced/didn't penetrate. The Super Pershing then proceeded to put a round into the underbelly of the Tiger as it tried to traverse a steep rubble pile. Needless to say, the Super Pershing won.

Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau

When putting in a vote for top 10 tanks of the war, the T26E4-1 Super Pershing experimental prototype really shouldn't be considered here. It was an interesting piece of machinery though.

The Pershing was known to have taken on the Panther and the Tiger I and win.

U.S. 3rd Armored Division in Cologne, World War II

COLOGNE PANTHER STILL-FRAME SEQUENCE
Sgt. Jim Bates's Classic Movie Camera Work

Sgt. Jim Bates - Cologne Panther Sequence

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

What even makes the Super Pershing that saw action in WWII more unique, was the fact that it was the original prototype model for all subsequent Pershing tanks. Meaning it was the very first Pershing tank ever built. It's original designation was T26E1-1 Prototype ... And was original armed with a 90mm M3 gun without a muzzle brake and different commanders turret hatch than found on standard T26E3 models. It was later armed with the T15E1 90mm gun as a test bed for a more powerfully armed Pershing model. That Model being the T26E4, Of which only 25 were produced before wars end. All T26E4 Pershings were to be armed with the T15E2 90mm gun that utilized 2 piece ammunition. This was becouse of the difficulties that were found handling the very large one piece ammunition in the Super Pershing. 1000 T26E4's were authorized for production prior to the wars end. Another interesting Pershing type was the T26E5 Assault tank. This type could be compared to standard Pershings as the M4A3E2 Jumbo would be to run of the mill Shermans, Except it armor was much thicker. Frontal armor was 195mm thick on the Turret and 285mm thick on the gun mantle. Upper hull was 152mm thick at 46 degrees slope and 100mm thick at 53 degrees slope on the lower hull. This tank had a much lower profile/siluette than found on the German King Tiger and thicker armor. The war ended before any could be rushed into combat like the Super Pershing. 27 were built though.

I don't really understand this great rating of the Jumbo/M4a3E2. Useful indeed as a column header when pushing into European towns, but a stop-gap measure pushing the running gear to the absolute limits.
Those track extensions weren't there for decoration, the thing was so heavily over it's designed limits that they were entirely necessary as it bogged even on quite firm ground. It seems to me far from the panacea being suggested.

Cheers,
Adam.

Your points are well taken and true to a very good degree. The M4A3E2 did have it's limitations. It was a stop gap measure taken by the Americans who at the time had no tank available that could approach heavily defended European towns head on with any prospect of surviving. However even as a stop gap measure it did still prove quite successful in the missions it had to carry out. The Jumbo's were thrust into sure fire situations and generally had to lead the pack if they were present. I have seen in some script and post that the Sherman tank casulty rate was as high as 600% ... Now I don't know how true that is. But I'm pretty certain it was very high. Rates are high like this i'd imagine becouse the Americans had the recources and a very effecient tank field repair system in place. I have seen in some pdf text where the M4A3E2's suffered 61 losses during the war of the 252 or so that were actually fielded. 13 of those losses were due to friendly fire. A good number to AT mines and about less than half to German AT guns or tanks. I don't recall what amount of these 61 losses were actual total losses. But one look at what a typical Shermans casulty rate was in compared to Jumbo's. And taking into account their mission. I would have to say it was a design that had to have had a very positive impact.

The Jumbo's with the VSS suspension did stretch the Sherman chassis design to it's limit's. And everyone is allready aware that even those standard and lighter weight Sherman models with VSS set-up provided poor cross country performance and ride when compared to much heavier German models ( Panther/Tiger I/Tiger II). The Sherman HVSS set-up did help that quite a bit. But still the cross county ride wasn't as good as found on those heavier German models. HVSS was planned for an improved Jumbo design. But with the superior T26E3 Pershing design allmost ready to be fielded, The main focus was placed on the Pershing and that idea was dropped.
So Those heavier German tanks did have a superior suspension set-up that provided for much better cross country performance and ride quality. However having the set-up they had was also one of the big problems the German repair crews had to deal with when one of those heavies recieved track and even worse suspension damage. It was the incredibly dispriportionate amount of man hours and recources it took to repair those superior set-ups versus a Sherman set-up. And in combat, Track and suspension damage was an extremely common way to put a tank out of action.

Had we seen M4A3E2 Jumbo designs or varients of it in the post war, One might be able to say "That was the way to go with the Sherman design". But I'd agree that it really wasn't. The Jumbo simply filled a needed role at the time. And performed that role quite admirably.

Changing my list a little, my no. 1 is the M11/39.






































Just Kidding!

__________________

Why kidding? It was the terror of the Senoussi!

__________________