The Pershing, IS-2 and Tiger 2

Duh. The 8.8cm L/71 could penetrate anything. No mistery there. Nobody is surprised either.

As I said before, the Pershing was not meant as a killing machine. It was never intended to have impenetrable armor. It was designed to fit the larger frame of the U.S. Military. This means that it sacrificed some killing power for functionality, ease of production, versatility, etc. You have still not offered any half-way-descent argument against this.

Like I said, there are two types of people in this community, and you are the kind who believes that bigger tanks designed for last stands are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Any nation could have built a tank with armor that thick, but the Western allies didn’t because they saw the inherit flaw in that design: It is not useful for anything save for defense. You cannot go offensive with it.

 

Overall I agree here with Danyel - the two tanks were made for different purposes.
The Tiger II partly as an effective defensive unit, partly to satisfy the ravings of a lunatic...
The Pershing as a counter to the Tiger I, but not too big/complex/etc that they could not be churned out & transported by the dozen.

Try looking at it this way - if the Germans had produced a 'simplified' Tiger I, optimised for ease of production, and designed to be integrated into a 'combined arms' warfare, rather than simply a 'fire brigade' and breakthrough tank, it would probably have resembled the Pershing.

Tiger II vs. Pershing is a slightly unfair contest. Tiger I vs Pershing...

Oh, Danyel, you can go on the offensive with an extremely heavily armoured tank (Tiger II in the Ardennes, or better yet Matilda II in the Western desert). Bad points are that the enemy will then simply develop biger / better AT weaponry, and you do still need faster, lighter tanks to exploit the gap made, or have a slow advance.
But I guess you knew this and that was your reasoning.

Say, how about a combination of the Tiger II as a breakthrough tank, and Shermans to exploit the breakthrough!

 

The Tiger IIs performance in the Battle of the Bulge was less than satisfactory. It guzzled much needed fuel and slowed down the advance of the German forces, wasteing time they did not have. I have heard that they even abandoned a number of their Tiger IIs to speed things up.

 

I never heard that story. Few units were equipped with TigerIIs anyway, but as far as I know they held on to the awesome firepower for as long as they had gas for them, places to go and tanks to shoot at.

 

Danyel
As i also tried to explain the Pershing was allready outmatched by the Panther when it arrived on the western battlefield, and even more by the KingTiger.
And NO Danyel the KingTiger could be used as an offensive tank, but just not by the Germans since they had limited fuel. You must also understand that the Pershing was just as underpowered as the KingTiger to be an effective offensive tank.

And Danyel the Pershing was actually ment to counter the TigerI, and so it actually had to be a killingmachine.

And Danyel stop being so damn agressive, and dont try to make me look like a person that im not...... Thank you....

KBO

 

i would choose for the M26 he is eleganter then the king tiger and he has a real ass kicking gun :bang: .

 

Actually,
The Pershing's 90mm gun wasn't all that impressive for its size, except of course when we are speaking of the Super Persing's 90mm gun which I thik was a post-war development. Speaking of the need for this tank to counter the German heavies, I'd say it must have been a bit of a disappointment.

 

"Any nation could have built a tank with armor that thick, but the Western allies didn’t because they saw the inherit flaw in that design: It is not useful for anything save for defense. You cannot go offensive with it."

Wasn't the Britich remit behind the Valentine and Matilda was a tank with armour so thick it would be indestructable. Speed? who cares as long as it is as fast as an infantry man walking. Gun? whatever is lying around and cheap.

The Germans rarely got to use massed Panthers, Tigers and certainly King Tigers in an offensive role due to limited fuel, their defensive situation and in the west, lack of air cover. However when they did attack with armour they were usually very succesful in the short term.

FNG

 

You must understand that the US certainly had the capability to build a tank like the Tiger, Panther or King Tiger. Even if they had to reverse engineer the German version and copy it, they certainly could have done so. The fact is that American commanders (like Patton) were convinced that high mobility and reliablity coupled with the ability to turn out huge numbers would win in the end against superior designs that were relatively rare and took an inordinate amount of resources and time to build. They were proven correct.
That is of course a different issue as to the "best" tanks of the war. The Germans turned out the superior product in terms of armament and armor and it failed to turn the tide on the battlefield.
Good tanks...bad choices.
All that having been said if the choice was between the three tanks mentioned and i had to be in one I would probably choose the King Tiger however it would probably get down to who got off the first well aimed shot in the end.

 

No the U.S. culture of production wasnt as advanced, and that clearly shows in the M26.

Eventhough the M26 weighed about the same as the Panther, it had a VERY poor power to weight ratio, and it would brake down quite often, it was even worse than the Tiger Ausf.B. Fortunately for the U.S. spare parts werent in shortage. Also the M26's sights werent at all of the same standard as in the Panther for example.

Im going to have to disagree with that aswell. The Germans were very low on fuel, wich was ultimately what cost them their draw.

Give the Germans full fuel supply in 44-45, and the Allies would have settled for a truce instead. As the Allies primarily won because alot of German hardware a good deal of the time stood still because of no fuel.
Had the Germans had full fuel supply they could set in Fighters as often as they wished, and set AFV's on the move as often as they wish.

However full fuel supply wouldnt win the war for Germany, only cause the W-Allies to settle for a truce. At 44 Germany could forget all about invading England and especially the U.S., nomatter ifthey had full fuel supply or not.

Depends very much on the range, and the Tiger Ausf.B is the deadliest long range tank of WW2, so there isnt much arguement there.

Take 3x Tiger Ausf.B's vs 3x IS-2's or M26's at 2000m+, and the Tiger's will have a Turkey-shoot.

Best regards, KBO.

 

Tiger Ausf.B means Tiger II?
From the technical point of view a very interesting vehicle, but how big was the impact on the battlefield? From January 44 to March 45 only 485 were built.
The US on the other hand produced 1200 M-26 from November 44 to June 45 or at least 2700 if the production had started at the same time of the Tiger II. IMO this shows the US had the ability to turn out huge numbers and as long as you have the spare parts to fix breakdowns...

As far as enemy tanks were concerned Panther, Tiger I and Pz.IV were what the allied tankers had to be worried about and the gun of the M-26 was powerful enough to kick each of them in the … glacis plate.

 

I suppose a lot depends on the guns you are facing. The Germans could build tanks that were relativly invulrable to standard Allied AT gun. Becuase the common Allied guns were fairly poor.

The Germans mounted 88's and later 128's which were the most powerfull guns around, as well as highly accurate.

You'd need something spectactular, and very heavy, to stop an 128mm at 1000 yards or an 88 at 500 yards. You do get the feeling of what was the point in trying.

I'd also be interested to see how many German tanks were lost to enemy action compared to those abandoned due fuel/mechanical breakdown caused by supply problems or shot/bombed from the sky.

FNG

 

I'm actually with Grieg here. America could, and did, build super-armoured, super-heavy monstors. Look at the T-28.
However, they had learnt from the German successes that 'better' tanks can be beaten by more mobile forces.
And there was the whole thing about being able to produce & transport far more M4s than M26s.

The Germans (IMO) started looking seriously at bigger tanks when they realised that, although the tanks they had were ok, and their tactics were superb, the USSR (and the Us, but the soviets remained the chief worry) could produce equal or better tanks at a far higher rate.
So you counter those with tanks that can kill at longer distances (bigger gun, which means bigger turret, which means bigger tank) and armour it to withstand attack from the few enemy that get close enough to effectively shoot back. The Panther was a very good product of this thinking. The Tiger II (and, I suppose, the Maus) were the logical extension of this idea, and contain all the inherant flaws.

 

I don't think this is true at all. The Germans suffered from fuel shortage, definitely, but even with the necessary fuel I doubt they could have even lastingly stopped the Allied after 1943, let alone force them to sign a truce. They lacked experienced crews, their leader was completely detached from reality, and in the end battles simply aren't won by the amount of tanks and planes in the field or above it, but by the numbers and the motivation of the men supporting and manning that material. All these things were lacking in Germany, except perhaps morale which was driven by the sheer need to survive.

Certainly, but what was the standard combat range for these tanks? I doubt the Tiger II would still enjoy such a massive advantage once a number of enemy tanks proportionate to their produced number (how many were built for every King Tiger?) would come in close. On the other hand there is the fact that no Tiger II has ever been penetrated in the glacis in battle...

 

You'd need something spectacular even at 3000m against those two guns.

The 88mm Kwk43 is estimated as to being capable of penetrating 153mm of vertical armor at 3000m, and this is with its normal PzGr.39/43(APCBC) round.

The 128mm Kwk44 is estimated as to beingcapable of penetrating 182mm of vertical armor at 3000m, this is also with its normal PzGr.43(APCBC) round.

KBO

 

So clearly a US heavy tank would need to be VERY heavy to be effective and not just slow

FNG

 

KBO wrote:

The only real advantage the Germans held over the US (and all other countries) in terms of culture of production was in forging and shaping large slabs of RHA. The fact that the German optics were superior was not so much due to advanced technology as it was the emphasis they placed on optics. The US mistakenly did not place as high a priority on this aspect just as they did not place as high a priority on very thick armor and high velocity main guns. The fact that they were misquided (IMO) to some extent in these priorities is not evidence that the guns/ optics etc. that they fieled were the best quality they were capable of producing.
A much higher priority was placed on automotive simplicity and reliabilty (engines and suspension)and in these areas US tanks were arguably the best made.
Surely you don't think that a technology that could produce an atomic warhead in 3 years, the largest and most complex engineering problem in history, while at the same time designing and manufacturing the most advanced aircraft and aircraft carriers, fleet submarines etc. was incapable of producing a tank equal to the Tiger( that was designed in ~1937?) had they made it a high priority?

There is little usefulness in having a lethal range of 3000 yards in Western European fighting. There were very few places where engagements would be possible at such extreme ranges. If the German guns is capable of overkill at the ranges at which engagements occurred and the Allied gun is capable of killing (but not overkill) there is little or no advantage to be had.

 

Don't make me mention how many Germans were envolved in that project, plus how many of the scientists who got their education in Germany. The Apollo rocket wich took to the moon was a 90% German design, and 50% of it originated from WW2

The Nuclear bomb was a combined effort. Also it wasnt that hard to make, as the Russian pretty soon after had one themselves

However there's no doubt that the U.S. was a mighty "Industrial" power, and that they could produce excellent weapons. However the U.S. had no experience in building Heavy tanks, and this really showed in the M26, wich was even more underpowered than the German KingTiger. Also German Engines were just as good as U.S. ones, and also more powerful, it was the gearboxes wich troubled the Germans.

Grieg it was a WAR, not a Game. There's no such thing as "overkill" in warefare.

The 88mm Kwk43 was excellent because nomatter what angle the Allied tank was positioned in, within 2500m, the Kwk43 would always penetrate because of its enormous power. The M26 Pershing's front Glacis plate, would be penetrated all the way out to 2200m by the 88mm Kwk43, and this was also within the Kwk43's accurate range.

Best regads, KBO.

 

There is a large difference between making a bomb when you have the instructions & you know it works, and building the thing from scratch when most of the scientific community believe that it will not go boom. Heck, the atom was first split many years before WW2, but the actual making of a bomb took enormous scentific (& financial) effort.

American heavy tanks in reality were not perfect. But then their medium tank could (late models) slug it out with the Panther, which was slightly heavier than the M4...

America focussed on the M4 very heavily. Maybe this did mean that their heavy tanks were not really up to snuff, but then which tank won the war for the Western Allies? Would you prefer a large quantity of an excellent medium tank that is better than its peers and equal to those slightly above it, or a few good heavy tanks, that have trouble getting over bridges?
Look what the Germans chose. Look who lost!

As to the German scientists in America - so, the Americans had the cream of German scientists... which means US science had better resources than German science!!! :lol:

 

How many Germans were involed in that project? Please name them.

While the US space program relied heavily on German scientists especially in the early stages it is exaggeration to claim that the Apollo rocket (do you mean the Saturn V rocket that powered the Apollo command and lunar module in it's early stages?) was a 90% German design. There were 118 Germans in the US space program and ~400,000 Americans. there is no question that the US relied heavily on the research already done by these scientists and that they remained a valuable part of the program.
What does the postwar US space program have to do with the ability of American industry to produce technologically sophisticated weapons during the war?

What combination are you referring to? It's true that all the theory was done. The actual practice of design, manufacture ,testing and refinement not to mention what it took to produce sufficient quatities of U-235 and Plutoniom is the feat I'm referring to. The Russians had one soon after because of the disloyal spies that passed on the needed information to the Russians.

It was indeed underpowered however you are looking at the early model only. The M-26 eventually evolved into the M-47/48 series and eventually M-60. The early version had teething problems, that is to be expected.

Thank you for informing me of the obvious
Despite the fact that we are referring to war the concept of unusable, excess penetrating power or range as "overkill" for shorter range engagements remains valid.

More hyperbole? Any angle? How about 89 degrees (from vertical)or alternatively 1 degree (from horizontal)?
In any case if the engagement range, as I previously pointed out, is close enough that either tank is capable of killing the other of what importance is the longer range(unused) capabilty?
Another factor: how many King Tigers were manufactured?(~400) Even if they were the super tank they were intended to be they could not have had a huge impact on the outcome.


Best regads, KBO.