Top Ten Tanks (1 Viewer)

[debrito]

There are too many posts on his thread and I am sure that the T-34 was mentioned before, but I insist that again, if we talk about only WWII no tank was better than the famous Russian T-34.

 

[eborris]

That's what the Military Channel said too.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Wouldn't you love a manufacturer to make the M26 Pershing? If somebody made one, I would have to find a way to make a diorama of that scene - a knocked out Sherman, the Pershing rolling in to avenge it, and the burning Panther next to the Cologne Cathedral . . .

 

[Spitfrnd]

There are too many posts on his thread and I am sure that the T-34 was mentioned before, but I insist that again, if we talk about only WWII no tank was better than the famous Russian T-34.

So to be clear you would happily take a T-34 up against a Tiger or Panther?

 

[binder001]

There are too many posts on his thread and I am sure that the T-34 was mentioned before, but I insist that again, if we talk about only WWII no tank was better than the famous Russian T-34.

The M4A3E8 was the same tank in Korea as at the end of WW2 but it chewed up and spat out the T34/85s of the NKPA. It isn't the tank - it's the men who are in it!

Gary

 

[eborris]

Not I said he, it's not a very fancy coffin.

 

[Louis Badolato]

The M4A3E8 was the same tank in Korea as at the end of WW2 but it chewed up and spat out the T34/85s of the NKPA. It isn't the tank - it's the men who are in it!

Gary

Gary,

I would certainly agree that a well trained, experienced crew is just as important as the vehicle they are serving, but all other things being equal (i.e. assuming both crews are well trained and experienced, and not having to worry about anything but tank versus tank) would you have wanted to be a member of the well trained crew in an easy-eight Sherman, a T34, a Panther or a Tiger? I think I would go with the Tiger, then the Panther, then the T34, and the Sherman dead last.

 

[Cardigan600]

So to be clear you would happily take a T-34 up against a Tiger or Panther?

Yo Spit if his answer is yes "HE'S A DEAD MAN WALKING" lol.
Bernard.

 

[lancer]

i fail to see what the fuss is about. 100 T-34's or 100 M-4's could easily take out a Panther or a Tiger. history proves it.

 

[Spitfrnd]

i fail to see what the fuss is about. 100 T-34's or 100 M-4's could easily take out a Panther or a Tiger. history proves it.

Indeed, but b*gg*r you if you are in one of the 99.

 

[Louis Badolato]

i fail to see what the fuss is about. 100 T-34's or 100 M-4's could easily take out a Panther or a Tiger. history proves it.

Sure, but would you want to be in the crew of the 15 to 20 Shermans or T-34's that would be brewed up before someone got close enough to knock out the Tiger?

 

[binder001]

Gary,

I would certainly agree that a well trained, experienced crew is just as important as the vehicle they are serving, but all other things being equal (i.e. assuming both crews are well trained and experienced, and not having to worry about anything but tank versus tank) would you have wanted to be a member of the well trained crew in an easy-eight Sherman, a T34, a Panther or a Tiger? I think I would go with the Tiger, then the Panther, then the T34, and the Sherman dead last.

It depends on the mission. If all I have to do is hide in a grove of trees in France and wait for the Shermans to come down the road - then certainly I'd favor a Panther or Tiger II. If I was going to drive the tank for long distance and still expect it to function - then the Sherman or T34. If I was defending the open field near Caen then I'd want the Panther or at least the Firefly Sherman. If I was planning Operation Neptune or Dragoon then I'd be very thankful that the old Sherman only weighs 30-tons. If I was in the M4 when the fall rains turned the field of northern France into buckets of soft mud I'd want that designer who decided on 16-inch track to be force-fed his own product.

The Germans certainly win the statistics. But the statistics don't take account of things like "METT" (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops). By your criteria I should choose the German E100 super heavy tank. The Allies could not have conducted the drive across France without a tank like the Sherman. Panthers just couldn't match that feat. With such a HUGE statistical advantage you still haven't explained how the US 4th Armored and French 2e Division Blinde beat up on Manteuffel's forces in the Lorraine campaign when von Manteuffel had the 11th Panzer and three Panther brigades and our guys had primarily 75mm Shermans. Airpower helped, but it's not the whole answer.

I'm not saying the Sherman was the best tank of the war. My points are 1)it was not as bad as the History Channel makes it out to be and 2) the Panther wasn't the wonder weapon that the German apologists claim. I certainly can't EVER explain why the US Army stayed with an under armed tank even though we came into active combat 2 1/2 years later. The brass could have drawn from British and Russian experience and should have seen the serious flaws in the US tank/tank destroyer doctrince. The Sherman was far from bullet proof, but the real flaw was in not arming it sufficiently to allow it to strike back. The Israelis showed that the same Sherman with a better gun (and a good crew) could take on the Soviet T55 and win.

The other problem isn't as romantic as "tank vs tank". Even the mighty Abrams - which has frontal armor that would stand up to the JagdTiger can be taken out by a single man with a $20.00 rocket launcher. Most US tank losses weren't from Tigers and Panthers - they were from mines, infantry AT weapons and dug in AT guns in ambush. A point of irritation to me is that the US Army led the way into mass produced man-portable infantry rocket launchers and then seemed to accept that the 1942 rocket was "good enough". Reading stories about the Battle of the Bulge there are many times when brave men tried to halt German columns on a narrow road or town and had the bazooka rocket fail to damage the enemy tank. The Germans had the Panzerfaust that would penetrate any Allied tank. That's what the funky sandbags were for - a sandbag wouldn't stop an incoming 88mm AP shot, but might break up the penetrating jet of a grenade or rocket.

We'll have to go into this over a rum and coke at OTSN.

Gary

 

[Saber]

Wouldn't you love a manufacturer to make the M26 Pershing? If somebody made one, I would have to find a way to make a diorama of that scene - a knocked out Sherman, the Pershing rolling in to avenge it, and the burning Panther next to the Cologne Cathedral . . .

Now that sounds like a well thought out diorama! I seem to remember a couple of combat photos of M-26s in action around Heilbronn towards the end of the war, very sharp looking.

 

[Njja]

I'm coming into this late, with nowhere the knowledge of some of you.....but

wasn't the main purpose of our tanks infantry support? I read a nice book a

year or so ago about a tankers version of WWII. They were usually called up

to knock out pillboxes, and machine gun emplacements not go head to head

with tigers.

We preferred to use artillery and aircraft aginst the german tanks when ever

possible. In this book their worst fears were from fire. Generally they felt they

had it better then the infantrymen, with a dry warm place safe from small

arm and light shrapnal. They carried their supplies and extra gear on their

tank and generaly felt they had it better then the foot soldiers living off the

land.

Encounters with enemy tanks where of course undesirable, as was going

through towns recently captured. They always required infantry support, but

once in a town they were easy prey to panzerfausts & molotov cocktails.

 

[Louis Badolato]

It depends on the mission. If all I have to do is hide in a grove of trees in France and wait for the Shermans to come down the road - then certainly I'd favor a Panther or Tiger II. If I was going to drive the tank for long distance and still expect it to function - then the Sherman or T34. If I was defending the open field near Caen then I'd want the Panther or at least the Firefly Sherman. If I was planning Operation Neptune or Dragoon then I'd be very thankful that the old Sherman only weighs 30-tons. If I was in the M4 when the fall rains turned the field of northern France into buckets of soft mud I'd want that designer who decided on 16-inch track to be force-fed his own product.

The Germans certainly win the statistics. But the statistics don't take account of things like "METT" (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops). By your criteria I should choose the German E100 super heavy tank. The Allies could not have conducted the drive across France without a tank like the Sherman. Panthers just couldn't match that feat. With such a HUGE statistical advantage you still haven't explained how the US 4th Armored and French 2e Division Blinde beat up on Manteuffel's forces in the Lorraine campaign when von Manteuffel had the 11th Panzer and three Panther brigades and our guys had primarily 75mm Shermans. Airpower helped, but it's not the whole answer.

I'm not saying the Sherman was the best tank of the war. My points are 1)it was not as bad as the History Channel makes it out to be and 2) the Panther wasn't the wonder weapon that the German apologists claim. I certainly can't EVER explain why the US Army stayed with an under armed tank even though we came into active combat 2 1/2 years later. The brass could have drawn from British and Russian experience and should have seen the serious flaws in the US tank/tank destroyer doctrince. The Sherman was far from bullet proof, but the real flaw was in not arming it sufficiently to allow it to strike back. The Israelis showed that the same Sherman with a better gun (and a good crew) could take on the Soviet T55 and win.

The other problem isn't as romantic as "tank vs tank". Even the mighty Abrams - which has frontal armor that would stand up to the JagdTiger can be taken out by a single man with a $20.00 rocket launcher. Most US tank losses weren't from Tigers and Panthers - they were from mines, infantry AT weapons and dug in AT guns in ambush. A point of irritation to me is that the US Army led the way into mass produced man-portable infantry rocket launchers and then seemed to accept that the 1942 rocket was "good enough". Reading stories about the Battle of the Bulge there are many times when brave men tried to halt German columns on a narrow road or town and had the bazooka rocket fail to damage the enemy tank. The Germans had the Panzerfaust that would penetrate any Allied tank. That's what the funky sandbags were for - a sandbag wouldn't stop an incoming 88mm AP shot, but might break up the penetrating jet of a grenade or rocket.

We'll have to go into this over a rum and coke at OTSN.

Gary

Very valid points, Gary. I guess you remain my nemisis (that's what he called himself when Gary and I met at the OTSN last year). I look forward to having that drink with you . . .

 

[OzDigger]

Wouldn't you love a manufacturer to make the M26 Pershing? If somebody made one, I would have to find a way to make a diorama of that scene - a knocked out Sherman, the Pershing rolling in to avenge it, and the burning Panther next to the Cologne Cathedral . . .

I had a nice FOV Pershing but sold/swapped it for a song when I went to 1/30 scale, now they are going for around $200. Oh well, easy come easy go. Anyway, I reckon the Pershing would be very popular in 1/30 scale and it's also one of the nicest looking tanks of WWII.

 

[debrito]

So to be clear you would happily take a T-34 up against a Tiger or Panther?

it depends... if Michael Wittman was in command of the Tiger... I will not, beside that, any time my friend...

Rod.

 

[OzDigger]

It depends on the mission. If all I have to do is hide in a grove of trees in France and wait for the Shermans to come down the road - then certainly I'd favor a Panther or Tiger II. If I was going to drive the tank for long distance and still expect it to function - then the Sherman or T34. If I was defending the open field near Caen then I'd want the Panther or at least the Firefly Sherman. If I was planning Operation Neptune or Dragoon then I'd be very thankful that the old Sherman only weighs 30-tons. If I was in the M4 when the fall rains turned the field of northern France into buckets of soft mud I'd want that designer who decided on 16-inch track to be force-fed his own product.

The Germans certainly win the statistics. But the statistics don't take account of things like "METT" (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops). By your criteria I should choose the German E100 super heavy tank. The Allies could not have conducted the drive across France without a tank like the Sherman. Panthers just couldn't match that feat. With such a HUGE statistical advantage you still haven't explained how the US 4th Armored and French 2e Division Blinde beat up on Manteuffel's forces in the Lorraine campaign when von Manteuffel had the 11th Panzer and three Panther brigades and our guys had primarily 75mm Shermans. Airpower helped, but it's not the whole answer.

I'm not saying the Sherman was the best tank of the war. My points are 1)it was not as bad as the History Channel makes it out to be and 2) the Panther wasn't the wonder weapon that the German apologists claim. I certainly can't EVER explain why the US Army stayed with an under armed tank even though we came into active combat 2 1/2 years later. The brass could have drawn from British and Russian experience and should have seen the serious flaws in the US tank/tank destroyer doctrince. The Sherman was far from bullet proof, but the real flaw was in not arming it sufficiently to allow it to strike back. The Israelis showed that the same Sherman with a better gun (and a good crew) could take on the Soviet T55 and win.

The other problem isn't as romantic as "tank vs tank". Even the mighty Abrams - which has frontal armor that would stand up to the JagdTiger can be taken out by a single man with a $20.00 rocket launcher. Most US tank losses weren't from Tigers and Panthers - they were from mines, infantry AT weapons and dug in AT guns in ambush. A point of irritation to me is that the US Army led the way into mass produced man-portable infantry rocket launchers and then seemed to accept that the 1942 rocket was "good enough". Reading stories about the Battle of the Bulge there are many times when brave men tried to halt German columns on a narrow road or town and had the bazooka rocket fail to damage the enemy tank. The Germans had the Panzerfaust that would penetrate any Allied tank. That's what the funky sandbags were for - a sandbag wouldn't stop an incoming 88mm AP shot, but might break up the penetrating jet of a grenade or rocket.

We'll have to go into this over a rum and coke at OTSN.

Gary

Gary m8, where do I start, forget about not being on the same page I reckon we must be reading different books

The Sherman turret was just to small for the large caliber and high velocities required in mid to late WWII. For example the Brits had to put the 17 lb gun in sort of sideways to produce the Firefly which was at best a stop gap measure.

What the Americans REALLY needed was a heavier tank with a reasonable speed, like the Panther which only lacked reliability. The Sherman just wasn't up to the job, nor from most accounts did the Sherman perform well in soft or slopping ground because of its narrow tracks and high profile and centre of gravity.

True, the 4th Armored Division did perform well against the German counter attacks around Lorraine. However Hitler insisted on those counter offensives despite the German 'Brigades' being closer to Divisional level because of dwindling German resources and preparations for Hitler's pending Ardennes offensive.

In effect the Lorraine Campaign is a good example of how the Sherman and related break through actions are almost useless against in-depth defences: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gabel3/gabel3.asp

Air cover and artillery, together with effective Infantry actions were the deciding factors in that campaign not the Sherman tank.

 

[Spitfrnd]

it depends... if Michael Wittman was in command of the Tiger... I will not, beside that, any time my friend...

Rod.

Well mate, that makes you brave at least and ........ what Bernard said.

 

[lancer]

i see my "humor" was misunderstood. i was taking a backhand crack at the Allied penchant for overcoming technical inferiority with numbers. an Allied tanker in a T-34 or M-4 must have been an extremley brave man knowing what he did of German armor capabilities. Hurrah for the guts of tankers everywhere.- lancer