Hear, hear mate, I second the last paragraph.

So I quess that we still should agree to disagree on the mechanized recon then?

__________________
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

Right now I don't know where we are disagreeing!

__________________

Well The first few posts where quite ridiculous, but now us experts have moved in it is better.
Though whoever put that tag on sure made a fool out of himself.

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

Hello? Best tank WW2....Ever hear of Russia's T-34...My vote

Which posts were they mate?

__________________
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, the T-34/76 certainly was a good tank in 1941-42, but once the Germans got better guns in general use in 1943 (especially the 7.5cm long) then the T-34 was somewhat outclassed.

__________________

Enter the T-34/85

__________________
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

No point in having a beautiful, brand-new tank if it breaks down, runs out of gas, or takes a week to repair a kaput engine.

I'd rather have an "inferior" combat tank than have no tank at all.


Slight derail: Does anyone know how many man-hours it took to create a Panther, Panzer IV, or Tiger in comparison to the Sherman or the T-34?

I've seen the monetary cost but, since money was regulated strictly in wartime, it isn't an accurate value of the time it takes to make the actual tank.

Interms of bang for buck the upgraded version with a 20mm wasnt actualy that bad.

I think the only way to get an appropriate answer to the question T-34/85 contra a Tiger I would be by asking the respective veterans of those two tank types.
Are there existing opinions in regards to those veterans stated in some book?

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

While the T-34/85 would cause problems for a Tiger, the Tiger could pop a T-34/85 from a far greater distance than a T-34/85 could pop a Tiger. It just didn't have the armour for it. However, it would be far more mechanically reliable.

The ones not made by me, obviously.

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

Let's all get down to Bovington, score some live ammo, the only running Tigger & their T34 & get cracking?..

Nothing's invincible though .
Splendid bit of footage posted by 'Mollusc' on ww2t here, appropros of nothing but fascinating stuff nonetheless:
YouTube - Tiger â…*:Test & Investigation

Actually... I don't want to go to war in any of these coffins... ever.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

It depends a lot on how you define "best". The answer you get for a one on one is not necessarily the one you get for an army vs army contest. The US and Soviet tanks seamed to be better at fitting into their respective armies where the German tanks seamed to be better at one on ones.

I have read that the T 34's engine was no more robust then the current generation of Russian tank engines. That while reliable they had a short life span. Is this true?

Thats why I liked the AEC based on the Matador it wins the toughest armoured car competition but I suspect the daimler or Dingo would have been more stealthy for recon.

No they were not they were at best adequate they were reliable but inferior to later Crusaders in armour and fire power as well as the crusaders superior (american origin) Christie suspension. The engine problems of the crusdaer were caused by using an outdated power train and the fact that the crusaders was designed for europe not the desert and was vunerable to sand.

Most desert crusaders mounted a six pounder not a 37mm gun. Even the two pounder on the early crusaders were was a slight step up. Compared to the more common Valentine the lee was faster but inferior in every other way.

The grants were a step up as were the new shermans because they brought in the dual purpose 75 mm guns which while no better in tank to tank action than the six pounder did allow a HE shell for use against anti tank units. The Lees were obsolescant on on delivery.

It's not really a tank though it it?

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

Relates to your comments on the Puma mounting a 75mm short gun the AEC mounted either a full length 75mm or a six pounder allowing it to engage tanks.

Maybe we should talk about our most despised tank of World War II. I will start with mine. The King Tiger! The god-awful good-for-nothing was the prominent star of fanboydom, and a useless tank by most battle histories. I cannot recall the King Tiger making a decisive impact in a single major operation. The Schwever Panzer Abteilung was always understrength, most of the time they didn't even go far enough to get into the fight! Inspite of the fact that the bulk of the KTs were used in the West, they seemed to have made little if any impression on the allegedly "inferior" US Armor, because the Americans were usually moving too fast for the superheavy to intercept. Most of those were thrown in against American infantry divisions assaulting fixed fortifications with panzer grenadiers, and guess what? Nothing is well armored enough to survive a good ol' barrage with divisional/corps 105mm and 155mm artillery plus strafing from the Thunderbolts!

Rent mode off, going to sleep...

the cromwell with the decent gun.or the honey.

__________________
fair,balanced and unafraid.thanks,4th wilts..