|
|  |
 |
Members: 4,568
Threads: 15,652
Posts: 195,555
Online: 136
Newest Member:
abi_abi4289 |
|
|
| Weapons in WWII Discussion about the weapons and war machines created during World War Two |

April 16th, 2008, 08:20 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 70
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

In the actual Sherman vs T34 battles (Korea and Syria) the Shermans won most of the time. Easy Eights killed 49 T34/85s against 20 M4A3E8s knocked out in Korea.
|
As for Korea, the Easy Eights used were upgunned and probably uparmored. Also the Russians probably did not give them there best tanks. As for Syria, the Sherman used there was nothing like the WWII Sherman it was the "Super Sherman" which was incredibly upgunned and uparmored to a point where it did not all all resemble the Sherman of WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomcat
They had 'computer bots' that contorled the tanks in ww2, wow never knew that, you learn something new everyday 
|
I am sorry that I seemed to have upset so many people by saying that, I was just making the point I wasn't taking into consideration the crews but that the people in the tanks were just equal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomcat
Ok, the Panther was an almost exact copy of the T-34 yes because it was a new inovative tank that was very good at what it did. However the Panther was not only complex in terms of labour time to build, but also in money needed to build, and the sheer complexity of what was required of the manufacters. Now even if this was not bad enough (as I have already posted this, but I will do it in again, because I amin a good mood) The panther having interlocking wheels just like the tiger, konigstiger, and the jadgpanther, all had the trouble with the wheels clogging up in the winter snow and western mud and making the tank immobile until it could be cleaned off, they all also were slow, extremely high on fuel consumption and were just too darn big, just look at the tiger being unable to cross many of the bridges in the combat areas (this somewhat made an attack by tigers prredictable). The panther although to German standards was considered a medium tank, in all regards it was a heavy tank while the T-34 being a medium its self as with the M4 sherman.
Who said that a tank can only be put out of action by penertration of its armour? What about the tracks, making it immobile? what about an arse shot taking out the engine? or the turrent with generally less armour and less slope then the hull? after all there is more then one way to skin a cat.
Ok now how well did the T-34 compared with the sherman go against a Tiger tank? Both had trouble knocking them out at any range, and both would be blown to pieces by the 88 KwK. Both had varients to attempt to fix this such as the British 17pdr Firfly (Sherman) and the T-34\85 (t-34\76), plus you cant compare a first varient American M4 Sherman against the last varient of the Russian T-34's. Its like putting the Mk I spitfire against a Me 109 Gustav.
oh and yes we know that there are many people out there that think the the Sherman was the worst tank ever and the Germans had the best tanks, but that simply is not the case mate.
|
First of all, I know everything you are talking about with the Panther and other German tanks, I just didn't want to get into the Panther but rather focus on the Sherman and T-34. The thing is that the those tanks did not go slow at all (except for the tiger which still wasn't that slow), the Jagdpanther ad the Panther went faster than a lot of other tanks including the Sherman. Another thing though, I don't feel that the Sherman was the worst tank of the war, nor do I have any special feelings towards German tanks, I just think the Jagdtiger looks cool.
And as for my name being JagdtigerI not II, that is just becase JagdtigerII was taken.
|

April 16th, 2008, 08:26 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Way down under
Posts: 1,386
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagdtigerI
As for Korea, the Easy Eights used were upgunned and probably uparmored. Also the Russians probably did not give them there best tanks. As for Syria, the Sherman used there was nothing like the WWII Sherman it was the "Super Sherman" which was incredibly upgunned and uparmored to a point where it did not all all resemble the Sherman of WWII.
I am sorry that I seemed to have upset so many people by saying that, I was just making the point I wasn't taking into consideration the crews but that the people in the tanks were just equal...
First of all, I know everything you are talking about with the Panther and other German tanks, I just didn't want to get into the Panther but rather focus on the Sherman and T-34. The thing is that the those tanks did not go slow at all (except for the tiger which still wasn't that slow), the Jagdpanther ad the Panther went faster than a lot of other tanks including the Sherman. Another thing though, I don't feel that the Sherman was the worst tank of the war, nor do I have any special feelings towards German tanks, I just think the Jagdtiger looks cool.
And as for my name being JagdtigerI not II, that is just becase JagdtigerII was taken.
|
Weeeee, here we go
The Jagptiger was a useless weapon anyway, and if I remember correctly on'y 25 were built and used in combat, prone to mechanical problems, slow (as usual), high fuel consumption (as usual), the same interlocking tracks as the panther (clogging), and basically against infantry it was eaisly overrun and had mines or charges attached to the tracks or engine, thats just of the top of my head. 
__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget
|

April 16th, 2008, 08:47 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 3,474
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
The M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" used the 76mm gun and was not uparmored. So it was the late WWII version that engaged the T-34/85s. Both WWII issued tanks. And what do you mean about the USSR not giving them the "Best" tanks? They did not break down or become unusable. They were engaged in combat and destroyed by a tank that you consider inferior. "Anyone who thinks that the Sherman with its weak, low velocity 75mm, and light unsloped armor would defeat a T-34/85 is insane." You did not specify which version of Sherman either. Which one? The early war 75mm version. Mid war? Or the late war version? The "Easy Eight" late war version has shown it could have and did.
__________________
 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
|

April 16th, 2008, 08:51 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 70
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomcat
Weeeee, here we go
The Jagptiger was a useless weapon anyway, and if I remember correctly on'y 25 were built and used in combat, prone to mechanical problems, slow (as usual), high fuel consumption (as usual), the same interlocking tracks as the panther (clogging), and basically against infantry it was eaisly overrun and had mines or charges attached to the tracks or engine, thats just of the top of my head. 
|
Did I do something to indicate that the Jadgtiger was extremely good or something??
I realize everything you are saying, but it looks cool does it not...
|

April 16th, 2008, 09:23 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Britannia
Posts: 1,916
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
I respect your opinion, however I disagree.
The JagdPanther, now thats a cool looking vehicle!
__________________
|

April 16th, 2008, 11:24 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 215
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
It sure looks capable of serious ownage...even if it sucked...

__________________
|

April 17th, 2008, 01:27 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,076
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
On the JadgTiger: 150 were ordered, 75 were completed (want the werk numbers?). They served officially in just two panzerjäger abteilung; the 653rd and 512th. Both saw action exclusively on the Western Front, the 653rd facing the US 3rd Army for the most part and the 512th, the US 9th Army.
A few, three or four might have saw action against the Russians in the last few days of the war when the St. Valentine plant in Austria where they were being assembled was about to be overrun. Scratch crews grabbed the few finished vehicles and drove them into action. But, accounts are sketchy as to what they did.
__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!
|

April 17th, 2008, 02:09 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 99
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
I dont suppose it counts, but I'm rather fond of the SU 152. It just looks meaner than hell.

__________________

"One asks oneself; Why not me?
But a bullet does not ask about me or you"
~Leutenant Alfred Regeniter, 3rd Battery, Sturmgeschutz, Brigade 276, holder of the Knights Cross
|

April 17th, 2008, 02:26 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 215
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Now that is actually capable of serious ownage.
__________________
|

April 17th, 2008, 06:02 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Way down under
Posts: 1,386
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
On the JadgTiger: 150 were ordered, 75 were completed (want the werk numbers?). They served officially in just two panzerjäger abteilung; the 653rd and 512th. Both saw action exclusively on the Western Front, the 653rd facing the US 3rd Army for the most part and the 512th, the US 9th Army.
A few, three or four might have saw action against the Russians in the last few days of the war when the St. Valentine plant in Austria where they were being assembled was about to be overrun. Scratch crews grabbed the few finished vehicles and drove them into action. But, accounts are sketchy as to what they did.
|
thankyou mate, I was not completely sure as to the operational numbers. Everyone keeps saying 'Jadgpanther' Ok whihc one?
__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget
|

April 17th, 2008, 06:17 AM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Way down under
Posts: 1,386
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagdtigerI
Did I do something to indicate that the Jadgtiger was extremely good or something??
I realize everything you are saying, but it looks cool does it not...
|
Well your avatar, name and "it looks cool does it not" says a lot about that.
Just because something looks cool dosn't make it the best mate, the Jadgtiger may look devastasting or "cool" but it was a failure, Hitlers obsession with "Biggest is best" is far from cool, purely looking at it in a military view.
Quote:
|
JCFalkenbergIIIThe M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" used the 76mm gun and was not uparmored. So it was the late WWII version that engaged the T-34/85s. Both WWII issued tanks. And what do you mean about the USSR not giving them the "Best" tanks? They did not break down or become unusable. They were engaged in combat and destroyed by a tank that you consider inferior. "Anyone who thinks that the Sherman with its weak, low velocity 75mm, and light unsloped armor would defeat a T-34/85 is insane." You did not specify which version of Sherman either. Which one? The early war 75mm version. Mid war? Or the late war version? The "Easy Eight" late war version has shown it could have and did.
|
Ok to the Sherman vs the T-34, read the above, then we shall discuss, only with some proper facts and timeframes can be even begin to compare.
__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget
|

April 17th, 2008, 11:31 AM
|
 |
Ace
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The world is my backside, hmm, backyard!
Posts: 6,120
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone Two-Eight
I dont suppose it counts, but I'm rather fond of the SU 152. It just looks meaner than hell.
|
I call your JSU 152 and trump with the Semovente 47/32
At least it's open top, so it's cool in winter.
__________________
No Rest for the Wicked!
|

April 17th, 2008, 03:20 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 803
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
I am trying to figure out where the sensible discussion stands... I am lost.
__________________
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
 Barack Obama
|

April 17th, 2008, 09:34 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 70
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomcat
Just because something looks cool dosn't make it the best mate, the Jadgtiger may look devastasting or "cool" but it was a failure, Hitlers obsession with "Biggest is best" is far from cool, purely looking at it in a military view.
|
I know!!!!
But the first time I laid eyes on it, before I knew anything about it, I said "wow, that looks cool" and that is the only reason why it is my name and avatar. I realize it as a failure and had no effect on the war.
As for the stuff JCF said, I would like to see a concrete source.
|

April 17th, 2008, 09:39 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 70
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
But actually back to the Jagdtiger...
what do you guys think would happen if a Jagdtiger (completely functional) was to face off with a SU-152?
|

April 17th, 2008, 10:38 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 3,474
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikilal
I am trying to figure out where the sensible discussion stands... I am lost.
|
Stands or ends?  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
|

April 17th, 2008, 10:54 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Way down under
Posts: 1,386
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagdtigerI
But actually back to the Jagdtiger...
what do you guys think would happen if a Jagdtiger (completely functional) was to face off with a SU-152?
|
A very slow, slobber knocker match 
__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget
|

April 18th, 2008, 01:06 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Britannia
Posts: 1,916
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
I would like to see what a 152mm shell could do to a JagdTiger, I would say the SU-152 would win as it has a lower profile.
__________________
|

April 18th, 2008, 02:58 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 803
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
A lower profile with half the armor, I take the Tiger.
__________________
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
 Barack Obama
|

April 18th, 2008, 03:15 PM
|
 |
Ace
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The world is my backside, hmm, backyard!
Posts: 6,120
|
|
Re: Top 10 tanks of the war
Guys, don't overdo the JSU-152 abilities. The AP round was basically a large chunk of not very high grade of steel and low velocity, so it's armour piercing abilities were rather limited. Remember this was an assault gun, not an AT system, there were other systems more suited, like the JSU-122 (tactically the SU-152 and SU-122 were interchangeable), the SU-85 and the mighty SU-100.
The idea behind the 152mm slug was that it might not penetratre, but the wallop would be strong enough to at least wrench something out of it's socket and buckle anything that it hit. And the crew inside would be completely out of their senses, we are talking of a 50kg steel chunk fired at 600 m/s which at closer range would simply wrench a turret off 
__________________
No Rest for the Wicked!
| |