Top Ten Tanks (3 Viewers)

Thanks Brad,

great fun in that forum..

i think a way to judge the tanks is by the nickname it got -

Sherman M4

"Tommycooker" - Afrika Korps (the Tommies being the Brits, just as the Allies called Germans - Hans, Fritz of Jerry)

"Ronsons" - British troops (after the lighter with the advertisement caption - "Lights up the first time, every time!")

"The Burning Grave" - Polish Troops

And British tanks also have their nicks

"Valentine" Mk I,mk III and "Mathilda mk II"

"Coffin on Tracks" - Soviet troops. (about 2400 various British tanks were delivered in USSR by lend-lease deal)
 
Cardigan600 said:
Yo Oz, your forgetting the allies where there cutting off supplies etc. I did say if it were a one on one.
Bernard.
Click to expand...
I think the one on one comparison is very valid. At some number, quantity will overcome quality but only at the very real sacrifice of too many brave crews. Survivability would seem to me to always be the highest priority. In that regard, the best the Sherman had going for it (absent the in field modifications) was its relative speed. That said, which one of you all would really like to fight a Tiger or Panther in a Sherman or T-34? For allied tank crews, it seems a pity the Pershing and Centurion were not available sooner.
 
OzDigger said:
True, but then there is plenty of American propaganda about the Sherman. Soviet tankers used the Sherman and the T 34/85 and the later was the preferred tank especially in heavier off road conditions which is the usual case in Russia.
Click to expand...

Oz, see if you can get a copy of "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks..." by Dmitri Loza. Here is the memoir of a guy who was there and actually rode in them. He didn't seem to feel to slighted on being in the "Emcha".

http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Re...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219604924&sr=8-1

Abrams vs. Challenger vs Leopard II - endless debate continues. The Abrams and Chally have the advantage of extensive experience in real combat. If I recall somebody was going to take some Leo IIs to Afghanistan, but I haven't heard much more about it. All fine tanks and I doubt you want to be on the receiving end of any. In an engagement between them the tactical situation and the crews would be the telling differences. A Challenger 1 or 2 was credited for the longest distance tank kill. I can't quote right off hand but it killed an Iraqi tank a lot further than I could even SEE an Iraqi tank!

Gary
 
Well one positive thing about the Shermans, the armor was so thin an 88 round could pass right through it, bad for the crew, but the tank could be repaired and used again.
 
eborris said:
Well one positive thing about the Shermans, the armor was so thin an 88 round could pass right through it, bad for the crew, but the tank could be repaired and used again.
Click to expand...
Now that's a real glass half full kind of notion; wouldn't think that would be featured in the recruiting efforts.:)
 
nasirkasmani said:
Thanks Brad,

great fun in that forum..

i think a way to judge the tanks is by the nickname it got -

Sherman M4

"Tommycooker" - Afrika Korps (the Tommies being the Brits, just as the Allies called Germans - Hans, Fritz of Jerry)

"Ronsons" - British troops (after the lighter with the advertisement caption - "Lights up the first time, every time!")

"The Burning Grave" - Polish Troops

And British tanks also have their nicks

"Valentine" Mk I,mk III and "Mathilda mk II"

"Coffin on Tracks" - Soviet troops. (about 2400 various British tanks were delivered in USSR by lend-lease deal)
Click to expand...

I agree, I also read that the Russians liked the superior western engines so used valentines for example as training vehicles - as the life expectancy of a T34 - and its crew - was only six weeks, reliability was less important.

And I also heard the same quotes about the allied tanks, the grant being a coffin for seven comrades.

I was fascinated to hear of the losses of the US armoured unit though, I did not realize they were so high.

What was the survivability of a Sherman? Did wet stowage help much? Or sandbags................
 
580% losses of the complete complement of Shermans of a U.S. heavy armored division in a matter of 10 months in combat . . . 1,748 tanks knocked out in combat . . . 5 man crews for each tank . . . oh, the humanity!:(:(:(:(
 
eborris said:
Well one positive thing about the Shermans, the armor was so thin an 88 round could pass right through it, bad for the crew, but the tank could be repaired and used again.
Click to expand...

The most common German anti tank round was the Panzergranate 39 which is a APCBC-HE-T (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap - High Explosive - Tracer). This means after penetration the shell exploded inside the vehicle.

The other German anti tank round was the Panzergranate 40 which had a subcaliber solid tungston penetrator. While it could penetrate a little thicker armor usually only a few of these were carried since the Pz Gr 39 was generally more effective not to mention a shortage of tungston.
 
No, that's more of a the glass is broken and won't hold water statement.

Seriously though, they had a piece on the Sherman on the Military Channel and they were talking to a guy that would have to haul the Shermans back, clean out the mess, patch up the holes, repaint the inside and send them back into action.

They even showed some pictures of some of the tanks where the 88 round would go in the front and pass completely through the Sherman. Sure wouldn't fill me with confidence having to go into action in that repaired tank.
 
Spitfrnd said:
I think the one on one comparison is very valid. At some number, quantity will overcome quality but only at the very real sacrifice of too many brave crews. Survivability would seem to me to always be the highest priority. In that regard, the best the Sherman had going for it (absent the in field modifications) was its relative speed. That said, which one of you all would really like to fight a Tiger or Panther in a Sherman or T-34? For allied tank crews, it seems a pity the Pershing and Centurion were not available sooner.
Click to expand...

I think Bernard's 'one on one' was actually referring to 'Russians V Germans' rather than 'Tank V Tank'. Not that I agree with him, as imho the country numbers don't have to be 'one on one' to make a choice of best tank. However I do agree with you and I have said several times that the only fair comparison is 'Tank V Tank' - discounting numbers involved.

The other rule (IMHO) should be 'Heavy V Heavy' or 'Medium V Medium' etc as of course a Tiger tank being a heavy tank is likely to have an advantage over a T-34 which was a Medium tank at best.
 
eborris said:
No, that's more of a the glass is broken and won't hold water statement.

Seriously though, they had a piece on the Sherman on the Military Channel and they were talking to a guy that would have to haul the Shermans back, clean out the mess, patch up the holes, repaint the inside and send them back into action.

They even showed some pictures of some of the tanks where the 88 round would go in the front and pass completely through the Sherman. Sure wouldn't fill me with confidence having to go into action in that repaired tank.
Click to expand...
I don't follow the broken glass reference but I have read the same thing; wouldn't inspire me much either.;)
 
OzDigger said:
...
The other rule (IMHO) should be 'Heavy V Heavy' or 'Medium V Medium' etc as of course a Tiger tank being a heavy tank is likely to have an advantage over a T-34 which was a Medium tank at best.
Click to expand...
In the abstract I would agree but if a country, such as ours for most of WWII, chooses to consistently put its medium tanks up against anothers heavy tanks or even worse, deploy no heavy tanks, what can you compare for that period?
 
Well, people say the glass is half empty or half full, I always the glass is broken. Gotta be different.
 
Spitfrnd said:
In the abstract I would agree but if a country, such as ours for most of WWII, chooses to consistently put its medium tanks up against anothers heavy tanks or even worse, deploy no heavy tanks, what can you compare for that period?
Click to expand...

In the case of the US where they went down the wrong road on tank doctrine and took way to long to turn back you can still compare tanks on an equivalent basis. For example the Sherman was a better tank overall than the earlier Mark IV tank but the up-gunned Mark IV was better than the Sherman imo.

Some people compare the Sherman to the Panther but I feel that the Panther was more of a 'heavy weight' medium making a direct comparison with a Sherman unfair imo.

As for US heavies, the Pershing did see active service albeit late in the war and one was beaten by a Tiger in the only Pershing V Tiger encounter in WWII. However a Super Pershing is recorded as taking out a King Tiger. Therefore you could say the US did field capable Heavy tanks in WWII, but of course they arrived way to late and in to small a number to make any significant contribution on the battlefield.

Here's a link to the Super Pershing V King Tiger encounter. I'd be interested in some comments from our resident US tank experts as I'm not familiar with this : http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
 
I did see a film of a Pershing taking out a Panther after the Panther took out a Sherman.
 
OzDigger said:
Some people compare the Sherman to the Panther but I feel that the Panther was more of a 'heavy weight' medium making a direct comparison with a Sherman unfair imo.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the Panther is really a heavy tank. Here is a comparison:

  • Tiger II: 69.8 tonnes
  • Tiger I: 56.9 tonnes
  • IS2: 46 tonnes
  • KV1: 45 tonnes
  • Panther: 44.8 tonnes
  • M26 Pershing: 41.9 tonnes
  • M4 Sherman: 30.3 tonnes
  • Cromwell: 28 tonnes
  • T34: 26.5 tonnes
  • Panzer IV: 24.6 tonnes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top