Top 10 tanks of the war - Page 5

Za Rodinu · #**101** (**permalink**) August 9th, 2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tikilal

All very true, except for the last line, but to me it looks awsome. When it did make it to combat it did okay.

Sources, please?

Seadog · #**102** (**permalink**) August 9th, 2007, 11:37 PM

I have always favored the low profile models with no turrets. But, it depends on the application. In a defensive mode from a distance, the low profile is great to have, but if they have to mix it up and fight on the run, the turret makes a big difference. But it is often factors other than visible looks, armor, and firepower that can make a difference. The ability to communicate, stable aim gun platforms while firing, a compartment that is endurable for long drives without excessive crew fatique, and reliability.

Slipdigit · #**103** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 02:50 AM

Za, I am not understanding your question. Are you wanting sources for the last line of the inside quote of tik's post or the last line of his post?

In Tigers in the Mud, by Otto Carius, 1992, pg 207, the author speaks of having to lock the barrel of the gun and the difficulties associated with both removing it and not using it. On page 208, he complained that even the least bit of off road travel left the gun out of sync with the sights. He also belabored the maneuverability of the machine, saying "it left a lot to be desired." Finally, he said that because any large traversing of the gun required moving the entire machine, "transmissions and steering differentials were soon out of order." Is this what you were inquiring about or am I shooting blanks?

Za Rodinu · #**104** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 07:12 AM

I mean, when Tikilal states "When it did make it to combat it did okay.", I would like him to substantiante what he says with some data, as the impression I have is that a sizable portion of JTs ended up captured intact or blown up by their crews for breakdown or lack or fuel.

As a matter of comparison, the Soviets mounted a gun of the same nominal calibre (although not so good) on tanks and SPGs half that weight and they had much more distinguished careers.

A good article here: http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdtiger.php

All in all a major failure like the Elefant, and in puny numbers like that it only got it's relevance among modellers because it was another piece of all that German sexy kit.

Joe · #**105** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 12:47 PM

I only agreed with the guy as I have done enough dissagreeing already!

Yes, I admit, the Churchill wasen't the best tank in the world, but it's still my favorate.

T. A. Gardner · #**106** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

All in all a major failure like the Elefant, and in puny numbers like that it only got it's relevance among modellers because it was another piece of all that German sexy kit.

I wouldn't call the Elefant a "failure." While the tank should never have been built, the 90 that were did prove their utility on the Eastern Front where they racked up quite a score. There is speculation that the last two or three surviving vehicles in S. PzJr Kp 614 fought during the final days of the war in Berlin.
Also, the canard that its initial lack of a mounted machinegun was a major flaw has been thoroughly discredited as has its original source; that horrible book by Martin Cadin, The Tigers are Burning.
As a side note, a couple of Porsche Tigers with turret did actually see service on the Eastern Front too.

Slipdigit · #**107** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

I mean, when Tikilal states "When it did make it to combat it did okay.", I would like him to substantiante what he says with some data, as the impression I have is that a sizable portion of JTs ended up captured intact or blown up by their crews for breakdown or lack or fuel.

As a matter of comparison, the Soviets mounted a gun of the same nominal calibre (although not so good) on tanks and SPGs half that weight and they had much more distinguished careers.

A good article here: http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdtiger.php

All in all a major failure like the Elefant, and in puny numbers like that it only got it's relevance among modellers because it was another piece of all that German sexy kit.

In the book I referenced above, a major problem the author saw with the JadgTiger in combat was the grave lack of training facing most of the crews in his battalion. He detailed an episode where one of the tracks was having trouble engaging Shermans because of the main gun alignment slipping, causing misses. Instead of backing up to clear the area, the JadgTiger turned around to retreat, presenting its tail to the Shermans, with deadly results to the novice crew. This anecdote was of actions during the reduction of the Ruhr Pocket.

Za Rodinu · #**108** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM

TAG, I maintain my words. Anything with a 88 L/71 just HAD to rack up a score. For that matter, I suppose it would have been much cheaper to build triple that number of Nashorns, but no, the chassis was already extant, those were the 90 abortive Porsche Tiger chassis that Mr. Porsche wanted to get rid of, as he had a lot of money frozen in those chassis.

Also not to be forgotten was that uneconomical (= expensive like heck!) hybrid electric drive-train, which consumed a disproportionate amount of scarce copper.

So for all this the German Army was saddled with a new system completely incompatible with all the rest in the inventory (engine was unique, suspension was unique, even the track was unique, the only thing that wasn't was the gun). This is not a susprise at all, just look at the amount of SPGs designed on the fly to find some use to obsolete or captured chassis. Anything that was in stock, indeed.

And weighing only 5 tons less than the Jagdtiger it would have had all the defects you exposed.

So, Herr Porsche, in order to flog them on the army anyway, had the idea of mounting the baddest gun he could get hold of, so a dinner or two with the appropriate generals, a good word with his friend Hitler and there you are, another legend for the Reich TM.

Well, it could have been worse. Hitler might have decided it should do dive bombing like the He177

tikilal · #**109** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

Well it all depends on when the Russians are going to be willing to sell it.

There were rumors of this tank first going to the Koreans (south) but that was cleared up by the Government. As of right now this tank is still kept in a great deal of secrecy but when production starts, it will set new standards for tanks to follow.

What new standards?

tikilal · #**110** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Sources, please?

Jagdtiger: The Most Powerful Armoured Fighting Vehicle of World War II

Check it out.
While you are correct that most sucumbed to failure, or demolition, when it found a target, the target generally lost. Even in the limited use of the vehicle it is credited with stopping no fewer then 5 local area offensives. I am not saying that a Tiger or any large calibered weapon system could not have repeated this if the JagdTiger had not been there, I am only saying that "completly worthless" is not quite accurate.

Za Rodinu · #**111** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tikilal

...when it found a target, the target generally lost.

Ok, ok, of course that in the appropriate existential conditions (that is, when in shape mechanically, fuelled, ammoed) and tactical conditions too (good field of view with long horizon, etc) the JT with that gun and that armour would be a hell of a nut to crack, of course I grant you that.

There are however some problems, as discussed above the ratio of vehicles that "did good" to vehicles that didn't make it for whatever reason seems rather low.

Also I don't understand at all when they already had a running tank with the 88 KwK 43, the Tiger II (no matter its defects, not for this discussion), being this gun the superlative piece that it was, why did the Germans have to reinvent the wheel with another super gun when the existing hardware was already way superior than anything their opposition had?

Again, as per the Elefant, why overload the logistical chain with yet another vehicle with only partial compatibility with others? And the others being the Tiger II, why not simply build more of these?

And Germany was by then in absolutely lean cow times, why go ahead with the insanity of producing these monsters? Also per the links already provided ( http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdtiger.php ), the average monthly production was ridiculously low, how can you even expect to fit a tactical unit in a decent amount of time.

All this business reeks of insanity! Or else there would have to be somebody making good money out of this

Joe · #**112** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 08:50 PM

The germans should have just used the panther. It was good eneugh!!!

PzJgr · #**113** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

The germans should have just used the panther. It was good eneugh!!!

I agree along with an abteilung of StuGs.

There was a previous converstation on standardization of weapons somewhere in the forum

uksubs · #**114** (**permalink**) August 10th, 2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

For its weight the Churchill was. As Za points out a 2 pdr on a 40 + ton tank?!! Even in its later versions the best that could be mounted on it was a 6pdr or 75mm both of which were no better than the gun on early Shermans.

The Firefly? An AMERICAN Sherman tank modified to take a larger gun. This is not a "British" tank. It is an American tank with nothing more than a British gun shoehorned into it. Do note, the US Army Material Command did contemplate putting an M 26 turret on the Sherman (the turret rings are the same size) as an interm measure in early 1944 but didn't, instead just waiting for the M 26 to get into service.
Look at the Cromwell. To get a 17 pdr into it the British had to lenghten the hull adding an extra road wheel, and then put on a huge slab sided box of a turret ending up with the ungainly Challenger.

The Comet? An improved Cromwell that still had the same slab sided armor of the Cromwell with similar suspension (Christie vertical spring), mechanics and, the single improvement of a cut down 17pdr (the "77mm") that would fit into a properly designed turret. Some advance there.

The first really good British tank design is the Centurian, and that is virtually, if not entirely, a post war vehicle.

True but the Americans tanks were not mutch better & hardly world beaters

The sherman was a poor tank by 1944
Least the British came good with the Centurian & a mutch better tank than the Pershing

skunk works · #**115** (**permalink**) August 11th, 2007, 03:50 AM

The Russians didn't like the Churchill because to them it was slow and underarmed. They didn't complain about the armor though.
They didn't like the Grant/Lee either, (a grave for seven brothers) I believe they called it. Interum "stop-gap" Sherman.
They did like the Valentine alot, but wish it had a better gun.
They loved the M-3 scout car, Sherman was OK, but they loved those big guns better.
They liked the Univerval Carrier. the Stewart, Trucks, Jeeps, Half-tracks, and the P-39.
A "fickle" bunch.

Za Rodinu · #**116** (**permalink**) August 11th, 2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uksubs

The sherman was a poor tank by 1944

Now you've raised the Can of Worms Mk 1

So in your distinguished view what wasn't a poor tank in 1944, both in tactical and technical terms?

uksubs · #**117** (**permalink**) August 11th, 2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Now you've raised the Can of Worms Mk 1

So in your distinguished view what wasn't a poor tank in 1944, both in tactical and technical terms?

You got to say the T34 was a great tank & the Comet ,Both had good guns , reliable & very mobile

Za Rodinu · #**118** (**permalink**) August 11th, 2007, 11:55 AM

Fair enough, although I was under the impression the Comet had entered service in 1945.

FramerT · #**119** (**permalink**) August 11th, 2007, 12:57 PM

Comet*Main Battle Tank - Tanks, APCs and Armored Vehicles

A little bit on the Comet. More or less a non-factor in WWII.