Best Tank in Normandy

Yes but the Pz-IV wasn't "the biggest, toughest, most powerful tank during the Normandy campaign, after D-Day. which was the question at the start of the post.

If I was driving around Normandy in a Sherman in 1944 I'd be more worried about coming across a Tiger then a Pz IV. Not that running into a Pz IV would be pleasant, but at least I'd stand a fighting chance.

 

Same here!

 

Actualy i woud more concern about Tiger I,then a slow mowing KT.

About my previos post ,when i sayed how KT was lost in total,destroyed by crew/ usualy whem tank breake down,r left out of fuel

 

I would think the Stug III (more of a SPG) but its low profile helped it hide behind bocage and shoot the higer profile Shermans.

 

The Tiger II's cruising speed was equal to that of the Tiger. Its problem lay in the transmission used, not in the engine's ability to propel the vehicle.

 

Hmm. I read in a book about tanks that the Tiger 1s cruising speed is 23mph, whereas the Tiger 2s cruising speed was 21.75 mph. The Tiger 2s range on a road was 121 miles, the Tiger 2s was only 105 miles.

 

U guys talking road ability,but it was offroad ability what count. Heavy KT cant maneuver so good as his lighter older bro,and when we considere weight Tiger had excelent offroad abilitys. (not mention reliability). Only thing when KT was without match was as defensive mobile fortress.

 

Forgot about the off road ability . After all how often would you see a whole row of Tigers driving along a road firing at a row T 34s coming along another one. Most of the fighting in Russia and other theaters of war would have been done off road. Thanks sinissa.

 

This difference hardly puts the Tiger II in a different category as the Tiger, though. It's not like you can define one as mobile and the other as 'slow-moving'. That was my point.

Off-road speed was the same for both tanks as well.

 

I see.

 

I dont think that ur right,they used same engine if i remember good,and weight was not the same? KT gearbox was in constant troubles (weight problem again). Then ,problems with softland,etc,etc,etc.For me personaly T-34 is the best WW II tank,coz u can make 20 of them for 1 Tiger,and mass eventualy win.

 

Going by www.onwar.com they had different engines. However, the difference was only 10hp, and their power to weight ratios were 12.1 hp/ton (Tiger I) and 10.0 hp/ton (Tiger II)

Speeds on/off road are given as 38/16 km/h (Tiger I) and 35-42/14-30 km/h (Tiger II) Which is a bit of a cop-out, but even if you take the lower reaings for the Tiger II it is only 2 km/h slower than the Tiger I off road.

The Gearbox issue we have already covered, and basically providing the driver has been adequately trained it is not too great a problem.


As for the T-34... it has a strong case. However, I don't think any were ever in Normandy (thankfully. Or unfortunately. Depends on whose side they are on )

 

Don't forget the difference in gun power of the two Tigers-

The T1's Kwk 36 could penatrate 110mm armour at 2000m (@30 degrees).
The T2's Kwk 43 could penatrate 153mm armour at 2000m (@30 degrees).

The T1's gun could penatrate 156mm armour at 500m range but as you can see above the T2 could almost penatrate that (153mm) at four times the range (2000m).

 

Tiger tracks had to be replaced ever 500 miles while sherman tracks could last 1200

 

Yeah. I read that one way to disable the Tiger was to hit the tracks.

 

I talked about combat scores and usage of tanks in WW II not the numbers. If u look like that who can penetrate more ,and has thicker armor,then the Mouse is best tank. T1 was just ingenius ,real fear for ally troops in WWII. And dont try to compare sherman and T1 in any form,one is heawy tank,second is medium tank,so that track changing is probably coz of weight diference. (wild guess )

 

Yes, therefore comparing the T-34 to the Tiger is equally illogical. They are built to do completely different jobs.

 

I did not compare T34 with T1 technical ishues,only the price of productions.

 

The Sherman did have unusually long-lasting tracks, due to their rather unique contruction (and large use of rubber). But this was an advantage it had over pretty much every tank, not just the Tiger I.

And sinissa speaks the truth - comparing medium to heavy is highly unfair.

 

And my point still stands :smok: