IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002 From: Manchester, UK Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke I thought the Panther was marginally quicker than the Sherman so would include that in this list since it could also out kill and out last any of them with sloped armour and the uber 75. quote:
ORIGINAL: .50Kerry Depends on how we are defining "quicker" are we discussing tactical, operational, or strategically "quicker"? Are we discussing comparing (as wikipedia does) the M4A1 with the last generation of Panther? Well, to be fair, you had already defined quicker... quote:
ORIGINAL: .50Kerry The "triad" of sensible tank designs of world war 2 is the Pz IV, Sherman, and T-34 series. The Germans never achieved the gains they did with the 3/4 punch with any of the Kitties. Now one can argue, ja ja different era of the war and possibly have a case but the fact of the matter is that armor design is a triangle between lethality, durability, and mobility. Your clear implication here is you're discussing straight line speed. You can't be discussing strategic, since The American Navy and merchant fleet could deploy far more far quicker than the shattered german rail network, and operational speed is to do with far more than just how quickly your tanks move across fields. The implication is you are talking tactical so you had already defined quicker to be fair. quote:
The M4A2-76 was capable of sustained, and by sustained I mean sustained as long as the tranny held up(much longer than any kitty) and the fuel held up(again much longer than the kitty), and the tracks held(again much longer than any Kitty) speeds of 48KMH. So yeah allegedly accoridng to wiki and some cites the Panther was in possession of a 7KMH speed advanatage.....that was drawing power from the turret since the turret drew its power from the drive train. US Army Intell stated the V had a speed of 50KMH stated http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_panther/index.html the AFV database has 48 for the Sherm and 55 for the Kitty. Happy to accept all this, but none of it disproves my point does it . Two Kmh quicker or 7 Kmh is still "marginally" quicker which is all the point I made. quote:
The Panther was a "heavy" Well, this all depends on how you define heavy. Clearly the Germans didn't class it as heavy because they had "Heavy" Panzer Battalions and they were all equipped with Tigers not Panthers. So, in terms of your triumvirate of lethality, durability, and mobility, the Panther wins on all counts doesn't it if we can't take it out of the equation by classifying it as something else... quote:
and if we are picking based on tech envy I would still rather be in the M-26 since at US rates of productions I would STILL have had a 5 to 1 advantage by 1946. Indeed, but the war was well and truly over by 1946, so you didn't really require 5-1. Also, as I've pointed out before, 5-1 is war winning but not much of a comfort for the Guy in the Sherman who just flanked the Tiger, but is now scraping a number of his buddies out of the other vehicles in his platoon. quote:
We are it seems arguing at cross purposes, I mocked someone's understanding of proper APC/IFV durability theory by stating "can it survive sabot? if so it is a sandcrawler!" The point being as grim and ruthless as it sounds it is better for a society to produce a weapons system that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH but can be produced simply, cheaply, and ably. I disagree, it is better to produce a design that is the best and produce it in large numbers. I wonder if you are actually making a virtue out of a necessity here with the the whole Sherman thing. The American way of war has generally involved grabbing the enemy by the belt and pummelling him into submission with superior combat power. This might involve superior numbers, but could as well involve superior firepower. It frequently involved, however, having the best equipment. The P-51 didn't trade 5-1 against the 109 and 190 in early 1944. The 262 aside, America didn't produce inferior aircraft, and her Navy did not go to war with superior numbers of poorer aircraft carriers. By 1944 she was fielding superior numbers of superior aircraft carriers with superior numbers of superior planes aboard them. The P-51 fighter that escorted the Fortresses into Germany matched the best German propellor designs and was a match for the later Spitfire Marks as well. It was also produced in large numbers, as was the Corsair and the Hellcat in the Pacific. America could do best and most. With the Sherman, she merely did most. With the M-26, I am sure she didn't manage most in time to make a difference, and I'm not sure she did best either. quote:
I have a number for you 5,995 I have another number for you 44,374 Otherwise known as attrition. I also think your Panther production number is a little high unless you are throwing in the command and recovery versions and/or the Tank destroyer version. quote:
anyway we are comparing vehicles with over 30,000 pounds in weight difference...like I said I guess the Panther is a "medium" when compared to the Maus..... "I guess". No, it was a medium compared to the Tiger which was around a third heavier. It was marginally heavier than the M26, several tonnes heavier than the Comet and several tonnes lighter than the Centurion but all that may mean that by 1944/45 classes like Medium and Heavy were becoming obselete and you are actually moving into the realm of the MBT. Few Tanks reached the Tiger's weight, even the IS-3 (very arguably better than anything the west - including America - had in 1945) didn't reach 50 tonnes. The question you should also ask is why the Germans managed a "heavy" tank (if you want to designate the Panther thus) that had armour frequently impervious to the Sherman, with a weapon that could open the Sherman up at most ranges, but which was actually slightly faster. The Panther was also quicker than the M26 if memory serves and I thought the M26 did around 20mph which is (I think) 1-2 KMH slower than the lumbering Tiger. quote:
The US and USSR and even the UK had the number of Germany on Armor IMHO. They had the mostest. I think the Soviets were producing the largest numbers of quality vehicles towards the end of the war but I think that reflects that the eastern front was where Tank design was really being driven. The T34 drove the Panther and the Panther/Tiger drove the T34/85 and later IS designs. The Tiger II was the German's next step. We shouldn't make a virtue out of necessity. the Sherman suited America because it was relatively quick and manoeuvrable which suited American doctrine. It was easy to make which suited American industry. It was relatively light and easy to transport which suited American logistics and strategic planners and it was relatively straightforward to maintain and fight which suited the American Citizen Army. At the sharp end, though, it had some issues. Was it a war winner? In the west, yes, but that was partly because nothing else was being used, and partly because it was available in overwhelming numbers, not because it had the drop on everything it faced. 2 000 000 Wily Jeeps with a Bazooka welded to a roll bar would have chased the German Army back into Germany but that doesn't make it the equal of the Panther. Regards, IronDuke
_____________________________
|