Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 8:47:04 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Can you please explain to me how the best fighter in WW2 was a crap?
Please explain


Just how well did it do vs. Allied fighters? Answers on a postcard please.....


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 451
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 9:30:53 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
I would be interested to hear by what criteria it was "best" fighter?

"Best manned anti-bomber missile" perhaps - but its doctrine specifically ruled out engageing allied fighters because of poor acceleration, and maneuverability. GOing fast in a straight line through bomber formations was its principle strength.

< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 2/5/2007 9:46:56 PM >

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 452
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 9:41:56 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

I would be interested to hear by what criteria it was "best" fighter?

"Best manned anti-bomber missile" perhaps - but its doctrine specifically ruled out engageing allied fighters because of poor acceleration, and maneuverability. GOing fast in a straight line through bomber formations was its principle strength.


Also didnt it have a very short flight time as well?

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 453
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 10:28:35 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Again we are using the word best without saying best at what? Like, My dalmattion is better than my lab chow, at what? The lab loves water and is no sissy, my dall is sweet but a little too timid. So when it comes to tanks planes etc, please say "best at" for instance I think the top ace of the war, had something like over 200 kills was flying 262 at the end of the war agains us bombers.. will need to look that up .. best all around fighter? figher bomber intercepter, escort? the list goes on! Tanks too, Bes armor, best optics, best ability under 550yds.. here the rounds per min and turret rotation are going to be big plusses for a sherman... best used in tactical doctrin by country etc.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 454
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 10:40:19 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Can you please explain to me how the best fighter in WW2 was a crap?
Please explain


Just how well did it do vs. Allied fighters? Answers on a postcard please.....



I thought it was rather like the best Kats, resource hungry, on the edge of technology (therefore unreliable) and difficult to maintain and even fly. However, in the right hands it would take anything in the Allied inventory flown by anyone.

It's problems were the take off was tricky, the engines burned out after a handful of missions, it was a sitting duck during landing (landings that could never be protected given allied numerical superiority) and training in it usually amounted to sitting in the cockpit for 20 minutes looking at the controls before being handed your goggles.

I thought the earliest missions, though, where the Reich's best remaining pilots were converted to fly them weren't too bad. Its straight line speed should have meant it was exceptionally difficult to dogfight and shoot down since the ability to just sprint away from a pursuer in a dogfight served the Allies well in the pacific and would have done here.

The most revealing gun camera film of them is never in a dogfight, but landing in a slow deliberate descent before being peppered with cannon fire from behind. The chief British test pilot flew one after the war and rated it better than anything else he flew, and he flew or evaluated just about everything the allies put in the air.

regards,
IronDuke

To answer Freeboy's question. At those sometimes moments when everything worked, it was the best air superiority fighter of the war since it was so much quicker.

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 2/5/2007 10:55:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 455
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 11:09:48 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Here I am finding myself post in this topic now about Planes

The 262 was a technological step forward. It was well suited at shooting down enemy bombers due to it's heavy cannon load, R4M rockets and exceptional speed making deflection shooting by defensive gunners on the bombers much harder.

The cons of this planes though are:

1.) The sheer speed of the plane meant pilots had to be either veteran flyers OR very used to flyign the 262 to be able to fly at 90% speed towards an enemy target and successfully engage it.

2.) Not overly maneuverable. The problem here is that IF caught at lower speeds (against a Mustang or Tbolt) you could forget out maneuvering these boys. A common tactic for engaging the 262 in a2a combat would be for a US fighter jock to wait for a 262 to make it's pass at bombers and then knowing the 262 would have to slow down to turn back towards the bombers engage the 262 then = slow turning circle and vulnerable at those lower speeds. Linked into this of course was the landing pattern (an even more common attack routine for US fighter pilots) whereby Ta152's and Dora's used to fly cover for the slow Swallows.

3.) Engine complexity. Very complex engines that had to be re-built on a not-infrequent basis. They allowed limited flying time and required a lot of work by engineers.

Overall my thoughts on the 262 are:

I respect the plane. It was a step in plane evolution. It could function in a bomber killing role very well. The R4M's were DEADLY. It was basically 'immune' to bomber defensive fire. It was NOT a dogfighter though so forget it against enemy fighters unless attacking an unaware enemy that you can attack from a quick pass.

All in all. A very good plane IMO but to have any BIG war impact it would need to be mass produced along with 190D's or 152H's flown by decent pilots (to tackle the fighters) to accomplish an air war 'change' IMO.........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 456
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/5/2007 11:10:20 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Near as I can tell the combat results produced by the ME262 were unspectacular. Less than one allied a.c. of any type shot down per ME262 destroyed in the air (to include of course those shot down landing or taking off). It seems to have been of very little value other than as a kind of dragster -- insufficient endurance to be strategically effective.

Definitely a techno marvel and introduced a vision for the future, but the Lufwaffe would have been better off producing more radial engined types of the FW-190/TA-(iirc 152) type rather than wasting production time & resources on the ME-262 (a not-ready-for-prime-time jet).

Clearly the best fighters of the war were radial engine types. A person could not go wrong picking from among the US F4U, P-47, German Fw-190/TA-152 types. I prefer the radial ones on account of their mechanical reliability and good damage-survival characteristics. If one includes hydro-cooled in-lines then one should add U.K. Spitfire types and the Merlin engined P-51 types.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 2/5/2007 11:25:00 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 457
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 12:12:05 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
I created a thread for the plane question...


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 458
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 12:18:17 AM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

I would be interested to hear by what criteria it was "best" fighter?


262 was step ahead of time
Father of jet planes

Is that criteria satisfied you enough Paul

US and Soviet manhunt for german scientists by the end of war,why? Because they are step ahead in many areas than US and Soviets

262 was JET FIGHTER Rune,first JET FIGHTER. So,it was no CRAP,it was newborn era

THAT IS WAY 262 WAS THE BEST PLANE,not because air victories

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 459
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 12:34:39 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Forgive me if this has been covered (this thread has grown to 16 pages, after all...)

I was wondering why the Germans stuck with the Panther, even though it was not being produced in the numbers that the Germans needed. (They probably knew, roughly, the size of the Red Army bearing down on them...)

By 1944, Germany was fighting in France, Italy, and a line extending from the Baltic to the Black Sea, garrisoning the Balkans (Yugoslavia, Greece), fighting off hordes of Allied bombers, and trying to wage a Uboat campaign, as well as trying to keep it's industrial centers running.

Was there a manpower shortage, such that, it influenced the planners to stick with fewer, but (hopefully) better quality equipment? (In other words: "Well, we could make 45,000 of these MkIV, or 10,000 Panthers. But we only have the manpower to man 15,000 tanks...")

Just thinking out loud. Thank you.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 460
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 1:02:17 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I was wondering why the Germans stuck with the Panther, even though it was not being produced in the numbers that the Germans needed. (They probably knew, roughly, the size of the Red Army bearing down on them...)


They actually didn´t. Well, some intelligence operatives indicated as much, but was often as not disregarded as untrustworthy.

quote:

Was there a manpower shortage, such that, it influenced the planners to stick with fewer, but (hopefully) better quality equipment? (In other words: "Well, we could make 45,000 of these MkIV, or 10,000 Panthers. But we only have the manpower to man 15,000 tanks...")


No. They found the men readily enough by pulling out all the stops by fall 1944. Germany didn´t really face the manpower crunch before the last reserves were spent in the Ardennes and in the ineffectual offensives in Hungary.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 461
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 1:45:20 AM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
I have not read much on this interesting topic, but I don't think that anyone in Germany was really doing the sort of operational research and long term analysis that you are talking about. I could be wrong however.

I suspect that they were just trying to design and produce the best quality tank possible to meet the growing threat from Russian tank design. After all, the T-34 was a bit of a shock to them and they couldn't be sure what the next Russian 'surprise' might be.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 462
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 4:00:40 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

...

Was there a manpower shortage, such that, it influenced the planners to stick with fewer, but (hopefully) better quality equipment? (In other words: "Well, we could make 45,000 of these MkIV, or 10,000 Panthers. But we only have the manpower to man 15,000 tanks...")

Just thinking out loud. Thank you.


Well, Germany still 6 to 10 million men under arms at war's end I beleive, so I don't think finding tank crews was that difficult.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 463
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 7:33:28 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
TigerI=Still number 1

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 464
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 10:11:48 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
Just like in other dictatorships (see USSR e.g.) the nazi Germany had wy too much research centers, and contrary to common sense it was neither centralized, nor coordinated (see SAM researches Ian V Hogg Secret weapons of the Third Reich). The Allies had a way more coordinated and effective research system set up. Thank God the Nazis wasted too much effort in runing paralel researches.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 465
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 4:54:12 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Okeedokee. Thanks for entertaining my ramblings.

Wikipedia says that the estimated number of folks who served in the German army was about 18 million. I shoulda searched out this info on my own first.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 466
Moderators! - 2/6/2007 6:10:26 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
I'm bit latte but didn't see that before
. I see that moderators are involved in this nice little thread and i want to ask them do they found Iverson (or whatever) correspodention proper for this thread?

Some people are warned for nothing, IMHO, but not this guy....apart from his unsuccessful tries to be sarcastic or sound intelligent (copy paste expert) he uses really inappropriate language....



quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Totally agree with you Terminus
How anyone can put in same line sherman and T-34 or Tiger,its so idiotic.
Soviets praise sherman?When?Who?

http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=19

Don´t you have some serbs to ethnically cleanse first?




_____________________________


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 467
RE: Moderators! - 2/6/2007 7:48:07 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


Some people are warned for nothing, IMHO, but not this guy....apart from his unsuccessful tries to be sarcastic or sound intelligent (copy paste expert) he uses really inappropriate language....




=)

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 2/6/2007 8:05:41 PM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 468
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 9:51:01 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline


Because the USSR was also developing and deploying better AFV as well as the T-34.

And just which AFVs might that be?

I was thinking IS 1,2+3 and Su series

quote:

Where the M4 comes in for criticism is often because NOTHING was coming in to replace it except upgunning and some up armouring.


Patently false.
So where is this 1943/1944 tank ? I thought it was the M4 . Maybe you meant the M24 or the tank destroyers but i was talking about AFV's


quote:

look to the western front skies in April 1917.. the existing allied planes were not good enough but there were a lot of them... the newest German planes were very superior.


How about.... No... Scott.....

quote:

Fortunately the Sherman didn't suffer those sort of WW1 losses { as it was never totally outclassed}.


Neither were the allies in WW 1

hmmm Be2c or a Roland c2
hmm Neiuport 17 or an Albatross D2
hmmm sopwith pup or Albatros d3

if being beaten in top speed , endurance , ceiling , manouverability and firepower doesent count as OUTCLASSED for aircraft then what does?

quote:

And on the question of escaping censure .. the armour board couldn't be expected to know what would be required , and the time taken to re-tool etc are all valid points EXCEPT for WHY in 1942/3 weren't people preparing for the NEXT AFV instead of 'this is good enough.'



Head of Armor Branch wanted a "heavier" (as opposed to Heavy) tank to be made ready in 1943. The chief of AGF scuppered the deal. Even though it was scuppered, the design that was to be the Pershing was still thought up and advanced far enough, that it could be deployed in small numbers within 6 months. Besides, in 1942-43 the Sherman was a perfectly fine tank that shot the crap out of all axis opposition. Read the AARs of british tankers at Alamain if you don´t believe me.

I do believe you . You are correct . It still doesn't explain why there is a GAP between being great and being ok .. The USA is leading the tank design for the WA. The chief of AGF may have scuppered the deal , but how is this acceptable?



quote:

Pre - war it is excusable in all forces to make errors in forward planning but not once the war is on .


The US had barely entered the war when these discussions were taking place. It was very much a question of a pre-war decision, especially when viewed in extension of the whole TD debate.

1944 is not often regarded as the start of WW2.
By Now answers should have been found. The TD concept says you don't need to fight tanks. Fine. But of course you do.

quote:

The Usaaf didn't just accept that the p38 was more than good enough today so it will be fine tomorrow , nor did the designers at messerschmitt stop at the 109 e/f j/ or k but had the 262 by wars end..


The 262 was crap. C.R.A.P. As for the P38, the next "big" Lockheed design coincidentally was the P80

And i knew ,never , never mention the 262 or a brand you can comes served... rightly gone to its own thread.
The point is not that the 262was crap. It is much as you have posted. The P-80 was along BEFORE the P-38 was outclassed. { or P-47 or P-51 come to that}
tell me again what came along before the M4 was outclassed.

quote:

It does seem an odd lapse and one some people are finding it very easy to excuse...


No excuse necessary. You should know as much if you had been following the discussion here.
??? i must have missed 15 pages or so...

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 469
RE: Moderators! - 2/6/2007 11:41:42 PM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


Some people are warned for nothing, IMHO, but not this guy....apart from his unsuccessful tries to be sarcastic or sound intelligent (copy paste expert) he uses really inappropriate language....



=)



you forgot the bowtie Rune....

EEK or whatever your nick is, Hawker has not supported one assertion with ANYTHING approaching a decent site.

Yelling "IS#3 ARE COOL!" over and over is hardly anything worth more than what Rune retorted with.....



_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 470
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 11:55:27 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

I was thinking IS 1,2+3 and Su series


The IS series was a heavy tank replacement for the KV-1 and the SU were assult guns and TDs.

Medium tank development after the T-34 was teh T-43 (beaten out by the T-34/85, and T-44, an attempt at a "clean sheet" T-34 development that had mechanical difficulties, but was the basis for the eventual T-54/55 design. T-44 units were all replaced by T-34/85s due to logistical issues leving the T-34 the SOviets Medium tank throughout the war.



quote:

Maybe you meant the M24 or the tank destroyers but i was talking about AFV's


um, technically halftracks, are "AFV" - armored fighting vehicles - light tanks and TD's certainly are.

I'm sure what he was talking about was the 1942 effort to create an "infantry tank" that could survive to support infantry in the manner of the British doctrine. It was thought that a design that fell between the British Valentine and Churchill designs in weight with better speed and gun would fit the bill. The unsuitabilty of the US Mk6 heavy tank quickly saw the requirement change to heavier vehicle that could perform the infantry support mission, but also operate as a heavy tank. The result was the T2X series of a handful of designs that was winnowed down to the T26. Significantly lighter at just over 40 tons, than the nearly 60 ton M6, it was, llike the German Panther, really a protypical MBT.

Development issues of various sorts delayed its planned introduction from Mid 44 (In mid 42 the goal was a tank that would participate in the European Invasion anticipated at the time to be in late 43, but as the date slipped, development slipped, until the two became uncoupled and D-Day planning as the M10 and M-36 were seen as the answer to German Panther and Tiger encounters being more common than anticipated prior to the invasion.

Had the Pershing development not suffered the delays it did, Pershings could well have been reaching Europe at least in the time frame of the M-36 in Sept 44.

US and Soviet development were really much the same - The SOviets focused on modififications to the T-34, the 1941 version and the T-34/85 being as different as the early M4s and the Easy 8s. The Soviets pursued a Heavy tank to slug it out with Tigers and Panthers as their doctrine dictated, and really never developed a bonafide "MBT" until after the war with the T-54/55 and even then the IS-3/T-10 series was produced for some time. The US dabbled with a few heavy tank designs and fielded a few hundred M103s but nowhere near the numbers the Soviets did. The Soviets didn't fully embrace the MBT concept until the T-62.

quote:

The chief of AGF may have scuppered the deal , but how is this acceptable?


The Armor branch only suffered 3.5% of US Army casualties (per T Dupuy - "Attrition") and the rate of casualties in the Armor brach never was more than 15% in a given year. COmpared to 80% of casualties in the Infantry and over 25% casualties in the worst year, the Sherman was not deemed as doing all that bad.

Acceptable is realtive, and relatively speaking, the Sherman +TD team was not doing all that bad.

quote:

1944 is not often regarded as the start of WW2.


But it WAS the start of significant Allied interaction with Panther armed battalions. They had their encounters with Tigers in NA, and a few Panthers in ITaly, but based on those encounters they felt that encounter rates after D-Day would be similar, particualrly giventhe way things were going in the East. It was speculated that the vast majority of German heavy tanks would be used in the east to face Soviet tanks.

It was also when the Pershing was origianlly envisioned to be joining the force...

Also note that per Wikipedia the 37mm PaK 36 - MV 762 m/sec, wt = 0.68kg, pen @ 500m 29-31mm @ 30 degrees

M3 37mm MV 884 m/sec, wt 0.87 kg, pen at 914mm 46mm @ 30 degrees

A faster, heavier shell that, even at nearly twice teh range has 50% more penetration. Yet is "equivalent"




< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 2/7/2007 12:10:04 AM >

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 471
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/6/2007 11:56:07 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz




I was thinking IS 1,2+3 and Su series


But those are either Heavy tanks or Aaasault Guns. The T34/85 continued as the main soviet MBT untill the mid 1950s, and in the lesser WAPA countries into the early 1960s. The IS and SU´s were never intended to replace the T34. That was the job of the T54/55 family.


quote:

So where is this 1943/1944 tank ? I thought it was the M4 . Maybe you meant the M24 or the tank destroyers but i was talking about AFV's


The M26 was on the drawing board in 1943-44. And far enough along on the development cycle that they could rush some to the front within 6 months.


quote:

hmmm Be2c or a Roland c2
hmm Neiuport 17 or an Albatross D2
hmmm sopwith pup or Albatros d3

if being beaten in top speed , endurance , ceiling , manouverability and firepower doesent count as OUTCLASSED for aircraft then what does?



Why didn´t the germans win the air war then?

quote:

I do believe you . You are correct . It still doesn't explain why there is a GAP between being great and being ok .. The USA is leading the tank design for the WA. The chief of AGF may have scuppered the deal , but how is this acceptable?


It wasn´t. It was a mistake, but not one that was decisive for the war effort, because the combination of TD´s and upgunned Shermans proved enough in the end.



quote:

1944 is not often regarded as the start of WW2.
By Now answers should have been found. The TD concept says you don't need to fight tanks. Fine. But of course you do.


Yes and no.

The problem was, that the US only had one chance to "adjust" it´s doctrine. That was in 1943, after the lessons of Tunisia and Sicily had been digested. These lessons learned essentially split the US Army into two camps: One (led by Armor Branch) who wanted to abolish the Tank destroyers, wanted to field upgunned Shermans in mass, and wanted the M26 pershing for the invasion of Normandy. The other (led by TD and Infantry branch) stated that the TD had yet to show it´s "true" potential. They wanted more TD´s, split between "heavy" towed guns, and mobile tracked TD´s. They were the ones who wanted the Sherman to stay with it´s 75mm gun (and perhaps a few 76mm to placate the tankhaeds in Armor Branch). The result of the compromise between these two views, meant the accelerated the development of a heavy TD (The M36), plus the deployment of the M10 and M18, and meant that the upgunned 76mm armed Sherman would be available in some numbers from mid 1944 onwards. This solution was not "perfect", but it worked. If you are harsh about it, you might argue that it was barely adequate, but that is about it.


quote:


And i knew ,never , never mention the 262 or a brand you can comes served... rightly gone to its own thread.
The point is not that the 262was crap. It is much as you have posted. The P-80 was along BEFORE the P-38 was outclassed. { or P-47 or P-51 come to that}
tell me again what came along before the M4 was outclassed.


The T54/55

quote:

??? i must have missed 15 pages or so...


The point is, that those of US willing to defend the Sherman as "good enough" is not blind to the shortcomings of US tank development or doctrine. So we aren´t really excusing those aspects. But even partially faulty development tracks abd doctrinal discussions can´t take away from the fact that the Sherman was a fine design.


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 472
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:01:54 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

The T54/55


And IS Ishermans handed them their ass...though in large part becasue their crews were terrible...still if they were so great how could Shermans have stood a chance?



(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 473
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:04:00 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
I ask again since when is the wiki the trump?

I wrote my data scan is coming soon.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 474
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:16:18 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
No comment.

Let us se
Speed is LOWER, weight more true, pentration comparable! Could be I used equivalent but IMHO 1000 yds 51 mm NIL slop vs 500 yds 40 30 slop is not a big difference, none is useful from 42.








Attachment (2)

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 2/7/2007 12:34:34 AM >


_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 475
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:16:26 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

I ask again since when is the wiki the trump?


I never said it was, someone suggested that based on teh data there, the two guns were demonstrated to be equivalent.

When I get home I will run the comparison through my Spreadsheet of the NPL equation, though given the notion that KE = MV^2 is there doubt that a more massive projectile travelling faster will not demonstrate greater penetration (not to mention the better impact ballistics of teh APCBC M51 shot compared to PzGr...

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 476
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:17:21 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


[The problem was, that the US only had one chance to "adjust" it´s doctrine. That was in 1943, after the lessons of Tunisia and Sicily had been digested. These lessons learned essentially split the US Army into two camps: One (led by Armor Branch) who wanted to abolish the Tank destroyers, wanted to field upgunned Shermans in mass, and wanted the M26 pershing for the invasion of Normandy.



What's the source for this (the M26 assertion). I thought Devers didn't want heavies and said as much in the same report on the tunisian campaign in which he rubbished TD doctrine.


_____________________________


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 477
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:20:33 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
LOL... FOr the Math challenged

36mm@30 at 500m << 2in (52mm)@0 at 1000m


(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 478
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:21:43 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

What's the source for this (the M26 assertion).


I believe Hunnicutt's "Firepower" (heavy tank hisory) I will look into it this evening...

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 479
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 2/7/2007 12:23:26 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


What's the source for this (the M26 assertion). I thought Devers didn't want heavies and said as much in the same report on the tunisian campaign in which he rubbished TD doctrine.



Look it up in my posting over at the MCSH

Devers wanted 250 "Heavy Mediums" for Normandy in mid-late 1943. A "Heavy medium" is what later turned into the M26. It is true that devers didn´t want a "Heavy Tank", but by Heavy tank, he meant the M6 or the T95.


< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 2/7/2007 12:36:53 AM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766