Top 10 tanks of the war - Page 7

Herr Oberst · #**151** (**permalink**) August 16th, 2007, 02:43 AM

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
~George Washington

What a great and intelligent man, an excellent quote, thanks

I think the key elements to the best tank are traverse rate, reliability, mobility, armor protection and penetration not forgetting the ability to stave off infantry and intimidation.

I will give you an example with the Tiger. From a veteran aquaintence, His AT teams set up in Afrika near Kassarine and awaited in ambush. With a loud roar, along came a furniture van with a telephone pole hanging out of the front(a Tiger) the first team lost their nerve and fired their 57mm too early and caught the Panzer crews attention. They received no fire but were promptly run over by the Tiger without a shot fired. Hoping to get in their licks, the second crew opened up and were sprayed with an angry MG42, killing all. Seeing the situation hopeless the remaing crew withdrew for the hopeful protection of an M-10 stationed back up the road a piece.

This guy was one tough character he was using a backhoe with precision well into his 80s when I met him....both he and the Tiger got away.

Hawkerace · #**152** (**permalink**) August 16th, 2007, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

On the SturmTiger: .... For the most part the vehicles were lost when the broke down and had to be abandoned....
...The original idea for the SturmTiger was for a vehicle that would be useful in urban fighting like occured at Stalingrad. The vehicles never saw action in that sort of enviroment and proved totally worthless in any other role. It was another case of wasting 13 tiger I chassis to produce another miniscule run oddity AFV of little or no use.

Unfourtantely, you are right.. but I'd say its my favourite tank.
Somehow that really defines the word "Tank" for me.

A big old monster with a huge gun. Haha.

I think all tanks are the top tanks of the war. If it was there, it would be there for a reason. Not all of the reasons where justified, but then war is never really meant to be justice.

Joe · #**153** (**permalink**) August 16th, 2007, 12:29 PM

Tikilal-I just went on Google Images!!!!

tikilal · #**154** (**permalink**) August 16th, 2007, 01:40 PM

Sure... just bust out the google card.

skunk works · #**155** (**permalink**) October 18th, 2007, 12:33 AM

Someone asked...Where are the statistics ?
Field Marshal General Guenther von Kluge, in a letter to der Fuhrer....

"In the face of total enemy superiority we can adopt no tactics to compensate for the annihilating power of air except to retire from the battlefield."

"The enemies air superiority has a very grave effect on our movements. There's simply no answer to it."....Rommel

Http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil...rpower1950.htm

~~noobsquadron~~ · #**156** (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 05:43 PM

i do not know the exact order but for sure the T-34 first, followed by King Tiger and Tiger and then Panther. M4 sherman (5th( and Matilda (6) Then i do not know

Tomcat · #**157** (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 07:24 PM

No
1.T34
2.Tiger I
3.Sherman M4
4.Panther
5.Pz IV
6.KV1 (single ones could stop a german advance)
7.Firefly 17pdr
8.Jadgtiger(haha biggest is best)
9.Hetzer (I just love that little one, even with its flaws)
10.STuG(I know the last two are not exactly classed as tanks but SP guns but I disagree and think they are tanks)

machine shop tom · #**158** (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 11:37 PM

Some Sturmtiger footage:

YouTube - STURMTIGER - RARE FILMING IN ACTION!! (with audio)

YouTube - Sturmmörser Tiger

tom

Jim Baker · #**159** (**permalink**) March 9th, 2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

Any M4 that the Soviets would have dealt with would have been early models that the allies would have been most willing to give away. The Sherman also would not be suited for the Russian forces. It required more training to use effectively and to maintain. The tracks were also like those of the earlier German tanks. Too narrow and unsuited for the terrain.

Not necessarily true. Properly crewed, this particular vehicle was perfectly capable of destroying any German vehicle it faced.

Jim Baker · #**160** (**permalink**) March 9th, 2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

I cringe when I see these threads! The Matilda was great in 1940, in 1942 it was out of the race. The Panther was Great in 1944-45, in 1940 nobody even dreamt of them. The Sherman 75 was a terror when it showed up at Alamein II, in 1944 well...!

Can't we divide this in years and at least in classes (Lt, Me, Hy) so that discussion makes any sense?

I agree with you here. In terms of the Sherman, as with all long service armored vehicles, there were many variants and improvements. Comparing a short barrelled 75mm M4 to an M4A3E8 is silly.

Jim Baker · #**161** (**permalink**) March 9th, 2008, 04:14 PM

And don't forget the "Firefly". If only more of these had been converted!!

Jim Baker · #**162** (**permalink**) March 9th, 2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FramerT

The pilot in that video was talking about shooting up a "supposed" gas trailer pulled by a Tiger tank. The gasoline would spread,catching on fire underneath the tank. Trying to ricochet bullets to hit the soft underbelly seems unlikely.

Air-to-ground kills.

Achtung Panzer! - Hans-Ulrich Rudel!

I believe a .50 cal round through the engine grill or air intake would be sufficient to "kill" a Tiger.

skunk works · #**163** (**permalink**) March 9th, 2008, 05:26 PM

Yes indeed I agree.
Huge differences throughout the war in one type of tank(s).
The "Top" was everyones soft spot. A half inch thick (if not open)(mesh or thin plating atop half-tracks/armored cars/some (home-job) TDs, on "most" types ?
Ammo types are significant also, availability, distribution, effect, and type of target. Crew quality/training, Commanders, mission type.
So many little things that mean so much
Molotov Cocktails, WP, even smoke grenades (on intakes) work well too. Aircraft with a 50 cal (or bigger) can ruin your day.
A tough question to ask/answer, unless one defines a "specific" day, for tomorrow....the answer may be different.
As pilots say..."It only takes one (damn near anything)(Seagulls included) in the right spot, (The Golden BB) to take you out."
No matter what you have.

Drucius · #**164** (**permalink**) March 12th, 2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The Matilda II: The Matilda proved very successful for a very short period from during 1940 and into early 1941. Its shortcommings included the 2pdr lacking an HE round, poor reliablity, and low mobility.

Easily the best tank of the early war, the only tank to serve in every theatre and the only tank to serve throughout the war practically unmodified. How it doesn't make everybody's list of best tanks evah is beyond me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The Valentine, its follow-on suffers many of the same problems but is just enough better that it could serve as a replacement when nothing better was available.

Just as slow, less armour, same maingun. The Valentine wasn't strictly a follow-on to the Matilda II, it was a stop-gap offered by Vickers at a time when it looked like we'd need every tank we could lay our hands on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The Crusader and other British cruiser tanks:

Good-looking death traps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

Cramming a 17pdr on the Cromwell resulted in the ungainly Challenger a much worse conversion than the more versitile Sherman allowed.

The Challenger wasn't a converted Crom, it was an entirely new tank using many of the same parts as a Crom.

Joe · #**165** (**permalink**) March 12th, 2008, 07:01 PM

The Challenger was a Cromwell hull with the turret of the TOG 2.
Though, the hull was widened and lengthened a bit.

Quote:

And don't forget the "Firefly". If only more of these had been converted!!

Just asking for a Panzershrek/Panzerfoust. Remember the coaxel MG was removed to make room for the gun and the Hull MG was removed to make room for extra 17 pdr shells. And the 17pdr fired a poor HE shell. And not to mention the exceedingly cramped turret.

Quote:

Good-looking death traps.

This has got me thinking. The Cromwell was comparable to the Sherman, and you said this about the Sherman;

Quote:

Not necessarily true. Properly crewed, this particular vehicle was perfectly capable of destroying any German vehicle it faced.

Youre sort of contradicting yourself here mate, a better statement would have been this;

Quote:

most of them, although good looking, where death traps.

Meh. But what do I know.

Quote:

worked well against Japan to

Almost all Allied tanks worked well against Japan.

mac_bolan00 · #**166** (**permalink**) March 13th, 2008, 10:39 AM

i remember guderian writing that the panzer III was the most important tank in his group. his ideal team would be german-made t-34s supported by p-IIIs.

Drucius · #**167** (**permalink**) March 13th, 2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

The Challenger was a Cromwell hull with the turret of the TOG 2.
Though, the hull was widened and lengthened a bit.

Although it's quite similar, the Challenger's turret is far more sophisticated than the TOG 2's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

Remember the coaxel MG was removed to make room for the gun and the Hull MG was removed to make room for extra 17 pdr shells. And the 17pdr fired a poor HE shell. And not to mention the exceedingly cramped turret.

The Firefly only lost the hull MG, it retained it's co-ax. Challenger crews are on record as saying that they prefer the Challenger: it was faster and more maneouverable. Not sure where you're getting the bit about a poor HE shell for the 17pdr from, it's not something I've ever heard about it.

Jim Baker · #**168** (**permalink**) March 13th, 2008, 11:18 PM

I think you got at least one of your (my) qoutes mixed up. That referring to Sherman's in the hands of the Russians.

I was trying to say they did not get the least desirable of the Sherman models.

And, if you read accounts by US and Brit tankers, Shermans properly crewed and properly led could (and did) destroy Tigers and Panthers.

JagdtigerI · #**169** (**permalink**) April 14th, 2008, 02:46 AM

Top Ten tanks:

1. T-34/85
2. Panther
3. Panzer IV
4. Tiger
5. KV-1
6. Comet
7. IS-2
8. M26
9. Sherman Firefly
10. T-34/76

The Sherman should not be even close to making anyone's top ten list. Although it was reliable and easy to produce it had many other flaws, such as:
1. Weak Armor
2. Wear Gun (compared to German tanks)
3. Extremely flammable

Furthermore, heavy German tanks such as the King Tiger, which had an excellent gun and good armor protection, were difficult and expensive to produce and were prone to breakdown.

T. A. Gardner · #**170** (**permalink**) April 14th, 2008, 04:23 AM

I'd be interested to see your comparison of the T34/85 and M4A3E8(wet); or between the T34/76 and an M4A1 Sherman.

Ceraphix · #**171** (**permalink**) April 14th, 2008, 07:40 PM

Here goes...probably could use some changes here and there...

1. T-34
2. Panther
3. M4 Sherman
4. Tiger
5. Panzer III
6. Panzer IV
7. Matilda II
8. Sherman Firefly
9. KV-1
10. King Tiger

I know the King Tiger had many issues, but I had to throw it in there just because it looks so impressive on paper

.