Neilster
Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003 From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: panzers quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm quote:
ORIGINAL: terje439 Right on everything. Well except for calling the Jagdtiger a tank. No revolving turret=no tank. When became revolving turret the definition of a tank? Was revolving turret the definition of a tank during WWII? With that definition the worlds first tank was not a tank. Picture of a British Mark I tank near Thiepval, 25 September 1916. Photograph by Lt. Ernest Brooks. Imperial War Museum catalogue number Q 2486. And at last. Not all has that definition today. From: Compact Oxford English Dictionary tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. -Orm Actually, because of the many tanks in WWII, there ended up being many different classes of tanks. Where the Brits made the first one back in WWI(actually, I thought it was the French), it was the first armored moving machine, so they called it a tank. As WWII progressed, Germany was always looking to make bigger and better tanks. In the process they stated to make vehicles that were better served to just sit in a bush or something and use it more for sniper like tactics. Thus a new class of tanks were born. So although you can say the jagdtiger or jagdpanther were tanks, yes they were, but they were not meant to be used in the way a regular tiger or panther because of having the ability to shoot on the run with the mobile turrets. The two tanks I just mentioned were used very late in the war and were so heavy that the Germans simply could not waste whatever precious fuel they had left. So they just placed them in a dense forest and just used it as a platform with a nasty gun. It's main purpose was the armor was virtually inpenetrable while having the ability to fire shells that did nothing but disintegrate anything that got in it's way. It was the ultimate defense weapon. So by definition, yes I guess it would be a tank, but in the way they were is in WWII, was it really a tank? When on defence ( like, for instance, the battle of Berlin) it was clearly the most feared weapon in the entire war except for maybe the ME262 jet,also nothing but a defensive fighter, but because of it's immobility, the allies were very quick to surround it and disable it, but not before it was able to destroy anything around for miles away Added note. I typed this before reading the rest of the posts on this thread. So sorry if I was sounding redundant. 1. "Tank" was a codename. It stuck. 2. The turretless German vehicles you describe were officially tank-destroyers, not tanks. Turret-rings were difficult and expensive to produce and a larger weapon could be mounted in a vehicle if it didn't have a turret. In defensive warfare, the lack of a turret was less of a disadvantage and as the Germans desperately needed tank killing armour after 1942 they produced more and more tank-destroyers. 3. Tank-destroyers most definitely moved around. Apart from getting to and from battlefields, they tended to shoot and scoot (often in reverse) from one good firing position to the next. Your suggestion that they just stayed in a single position due to a lack of fuel is basically nonsense. 4. There were many types of German tank-destroyers. You can't generalise about their resistance to attack, especially away from the frontal arc. 5. The Me 262 wasn't a "defensive fighter". It was a fighter, that due to Germany's war situation was often used in a defensive role to attack bombers. As a fighter-bomber it certainly wasn't used defensively. 6. Reading the other posts in this thread that clearly point out the difference between a tank and a tank-destroyer (grey areas notwithstanding) might have a been a good idea. Cheers, Neilster
|