Said engagement occurred at September 1944. US 4th AD was outnumbered 2:1, badly outgunned and fighter bombers temporarily unavailable.

Conceded. More than a dozen battles would have gone badly without artillery and CAS.

Besides if this one dies will probably see three similar ones before the month is out. Better to keep it contained in one spot.

Oh. Err, sorry!

__________________
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/
OR
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/ind
OR
http://jagdpanther.myminicity.com/tra

The KT was badly spent money imho. However, when they could successfully reach the battle line and engage enemy armor, they did proved highly effective! Their gun was a killer and their frontal armor invulnerable Even at the closest ranges. However, their price was absurd and should they build more Panthers instead of the KT it might proved more usefull for the war effort tough it wouldn't change the outcome of the war.
The Panther is for me, the best tank in terms of performance. It was cheaper per ton than the Pz IV and only 20K RM more expensive in total. Also, it could be built at a far higher rate than any tiger or King Tiger.


Cheers...

No, of the Crusaders only the Crusader III had the 6pdr and there were only about 150 them.

I wouldn't say that, they were better (or at least as good as) than the tanks they were currently using.

On the Lee, a stop-gap measure maybe, but certainly not obsolescent on introduction. The troops were very pleased to receive a machine with a decent sized Gun despite it's limited mounting.
I have a copy from the national Archives of an intercepted German report on Sherman's first use, in it what are referred to as 'President' tanks appear to be Lees, and the German source (though notorious for over-egging equipment reports from the Desert in the struggle for better/more supplies) takes them very seriously indeed, even with speculation that the main gun was a 10.5.
One other great contribution the M3 medium Lee/Grant made was a very reliable and plentiful chassis that served on in a wide variety of specialist forms, so mechanically at least it was also far from obsolescent and provided good service right through the war (Up to the last year in Burma as a Gun tank).
Horses for courses again.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

The T34 is the better tank in many ways. Speed, slanted armor, and not that bad on gas,. Unlike the Tiger. The Tiger was, slow, drank gas.

Really? The only one huh? I guess you are discounting the other tanks that could take out a Tiger like the Pershing,Sherman Firefly and some others.But then again this is another opinion based thread. 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.

What about all the other Russian tanks, such as the KV series, JSU, SU, and the JS, certainly they had a chance of destroying the almighty tiger.

__________________
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

Ok then.

The Russian T-34 was no match for the German Tiger tank in a one vs one match, plain and simple. The T-34 used numbers to destroy a single tiger just like the western allies using the same tactics but with their shermans and heavy armed Firefly. The T-34 was barely a match for the Panther tank which was designed to directly counter the stem of the T-34, so how was the nice little medium T-34 with its 76.2mm gun able to take on the larger Heavy Tiger and win, hands down, except maybe of the appearance of the T-34-85.

And if you haven't heard of any of those tanks its because they are the letters before the numbers for example

1.JS (Joseph Stalin)
2.KV-1 (held up an entire German advance for hours against German MK IV tanks, in the end the Germans had to call up an 88mm AA gun to take her out, and still she took a few diret hits.)


You know what, here are some websites, read up a little then come back and give us a real comment based on facts and not opinions.

For lack of better links on the web, I am using wiki as a site here but believe me I am not happy about it.
WW2 Tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemi d=45〈=en
Iosif Stalin tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and that is just to start.

__________________
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

Or maybe you'd never heard about them at all. One does not have to HEAR about things, one has to LOOK FOR them. Can you see the difference?

Here are a few tidbits on "those other Russian tanks never really get any mention that you know off"

THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD - JS tanks: combat employment
THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD - JS-2 vs. German Panzers



In case you won't be able to notice, the location is clearly Berlin, capital of Germany.

__________________

Well, here is the Brandenburg Gate in happier times...

__________________

Google Wiki, it is quite easy.

Wikipedia is a site that anyone and everyone can put what ever they want in whether there are references or not, it is a "Because I say so" website. I only us it as a guide to other more reference information. Some articles due however have citations and those are the ones that you can generally rely on.

Not every single battle during the war, No. However yes, security in numbers. But that was merely an example as to how the T-34 in comparison to the Tiger is an inferior battle tank.

Oh, and nice picture comparisons Za.

__________________
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

Some things survive the war unscathed much like the Brandenburg Gate, while others get virtually destroyed like the Abbey above Monte Cassino.

__________________
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

Yes and no, because it isn't that simple, every battle is different. One tactic used yesterday may not work in exactly the sample situation today, doctrines are basically guide lines and it is up to the soldiers on the field to adjust who they conduct themselves. But in terms of you in a T-34 and me in a Tiger, if you are by yourself I would think more then twice, and then stop and think some more before commiting to a one on one with me. It is possible for a t-34 to destroy a tiger, just not as easy as a tiger destroying a T-34.

Tiger themselves work in groups as well, and if you need for example 4 t-34s to a single tiger, you are going to need more tanks. lol

And thus the reason the Red Army were able to flow across the East and breakthrough the Germans lines, superiority of numbers. The tigers would destroy 10 t-34s and they would be replaced by 12. The tigers how ever were much harder to replace.

If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I am wrong) but the T-34 was numbered at 64,000 being produced during the war while the Tiger only numbered around 1000.

__________________
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

Things on Tomcat's list are quite famous. JS-2M could eat a Tiger for breakfast.

Which episode are you refering to? the 6th panzer holdup involved a KVII and Pz35(t) not a KVI and Pz IV.

The tactical significance of the KV in 1941/42 and of the Tiger later on was that both had armour capable of defeating the most common enemy AT guns, until the other side came up with something better they were basically "500lb gorillas" unless they broke down.
The KV was designed defeat first generation (37 to 45mm) and was a very tough customer for the German 50mm second generation unless using special ammo. The Tiger could generally survive hits by the soviet 76 that was the standard soviet tank armament in 1942/43. So both could, under the right circumstances, literally dominate the tactical battlefield.

On the western allied side the Matilda II enjoied a similar window of invulnerability up to 1942.
I would not include the later uparmoured Sherman, Churchils and Cromwells because while they could withstand a frontal hit by the standard German 75L48 the Germans had a lot of Panzerfausts and 88s around as well by 44/45.

I believe you are right about the KVII and the Pz 35(T), but it also involved Pz III, I apologize nonetheless.

__________________
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