Your favourite tanks [Archive]

coalition

04-15-2009, 02:50

As the title goes, what are your favourite tanks in world history?

As great innovators the Germans were in World War II, I am going to choose the Panzer IV, it changed land warfare forever, although it did receive stiff competition from the Soviet Union T-34. The Tiger comes in a close second too.

The Panzer IV was the most powerful Medium tank in terms of firepower and armour. (WWII)

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/armoredforces/german_panzer4_tank_panzer_iv_mark_iv.jpg
Looks sexy. (Short barreled version, eventually receives a long barrel to counter Russian Tanks)
http://www.lonesentry.com/features/pics/panzer-iv-italy.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fKrjMMQkLE&feature=PlayList&p=2CF6EECBDFD96A4E&index=0&playnext=1

The Top Ten tanks (A bit too American eccentric)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfZE_IUjwGM&feature=PlayList&p=2CF6EECBDFD96A4E&index=4 (Panzer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

What are your favourite tanks?

A Very Super Market

04-15-2009, 03:20

Comet, Panther, and T-34.

Tiger would be too cumbersome in an offensive role, Shermans were dependable, but not robust, and many of the early tanks are not worth mentioning.

KarlXII

04-15-2009, 04:31

Swedish S Tank.
Leopard 2.

Husar

04-15-2009, 10:57

Swedish S Tank.
Leopard 2.

That's very swedish-centric, you should have said the swedish uparmored/modified Leopard 2.

The problem of the Leopard 2 though is mostly that it's manned by liberal euroweenie beer fanatics (I know, I know, not the backroom here) but I guess it could take on the T-34 and the Panther.

My favourite Tank would be the A-10 Warthog, it has an armoured driver seat, otherwise decent all around armour, is fast, moves in three dimensions and beats most other tanks with ease. Usually beats most other tanks by outmaneuvering and hitting their weak spots (roof). It's only vulnerable to airplanes but that goes for most tanks I guess. :dizzy2:

Otherwise the Panther seems nice in WW2 terms but with modern tanks it's hard to say, many people who know more about the armour and ammunition than I do say whoever shoots first, wins, sounds a bit like modern ammunition can penetrate modern armour like 90% of the time so it's hard to make out a favourite. The Leo 2 certainly has the looks, the challenger 2 has really kewl suspension, the Leclerc looks exotic, the Abrams is boring since you see it so often and the Russian tanks are ugly as always, yet maybe effective. ~D

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2009, 12:24

The Tiger.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/user5111_pic753_1232896397.jpg

It certainly had its flaws, and the choice to even produce it has - imo, wrongly - been questioned, but under the command of the best tank crews in history, the machine achieved some amazing results on the battlefield.

Also, although it is not technically a tank, the Jagdpanther was a very impressive machine.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/k49wmt.jpg

Tiger would be too cumbersome in an offensive role

How so? The Tiger's top speed was 45kmh (later electronically limited to 38kmh), which made it just as fast as the Sherman and only slightly slower than the T-34. The wide tracks dispersed much of the weight in all but the most unfavorable of conditions that bogged down most armor (thick mud). It peformed well in the offensive role at Kursk and other battles.

Beirut

04-15-2009, 13:48

The Renault FT-17. My grandfather was a tank gunner in France in WWI with the American Army and beat the Hun!

:unitedstates:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FT-17-argonne-1918.gif

Notice the signature on my grandfather's discharge papers? Cool, eh? ~:smoking:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/patton.jpg

The Sherman. My father was a tank commander in WWII with the Canadian Army in Italy and beat the Nazis!

:canada:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/ortona_e6.jpg

Beefy187

04-15-2009, 14:32

Tiger tank is coming first by far.

Followed closely by the Leopards and the Sherman tanks..

Then perhaps T-34

Italian tanks gets the honorable mention :clown:

Fragony

04-15-2009, 14:53

You can have it in whatever color you want as long as it's orange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTn34gttBNY&feature=related

Pannonian

04-15-2009, 15:15

The Renault FT-17. My grandfather was a tank gunner in France in WWI with the American Army and beat the Hun!

:unitedstates:

Notice the signature on my grandfather's discharge papers? Cool, eh? ~:smoking:

The Sherman. My father was a tank commander in WWII with the Canadian Army in Italy and beat the Nazis!

:canada:
I want to see a pic of the tank you were in when you were in WWIII with the Norwegian Army and beat the Boche.

:norway:

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2009, 15:40

The Renault FT-17. My grandfather was a tank gunner in France in WWI with the American Army and beat the Hun!

Its successor was also quite interesting. One of my favorite French tanks.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-174-1154-132.jpg

Notice the signature on my grandfather's discharge papers? Cool, eh? ~:smoking:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/patton.jpg

Very cool! :yes:

Sarmatian

04-15-2009, 15:56

How so? The Tiger's top speed was 45kmh (later electronically limited to 38kmh), which made it just as fast as the Sherman and only slightly slower than the T-34. The wide tracks dispersed much of the weight in all but the most unfavorable of conditions that bogged down most armor (thick mud). It peformed well in the offensive role at Kursk and other battles.

What was the point of that speed reduction?

Oleander Ardens

04-15-2009, 16:10

The StuG III G, even if it wasn't a tank. Under the given circumstances a most excellent mean to get an effective AFV in large numbers. Commanded and hanlded with great skill and with the advantages of the tactical defense it proved to be the bane of the enemy tanks. Never before and never after destroyed such a cheap mobile AFV so many other, mostly better and more expensive AFV.

http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/slh/images/gerStugIIIcamo.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/finland/foreign/stug_iii.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/finland/foreign/stug_iii_02.jpg

A favorite is also the T-34/85

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/Historical/Soviet/T34-85_3.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/finland/foreign/t-34_85.jpg

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2009, 16:47

What was the point of that speed reduction?

Heh, from our previous discussions I'm confident you know the answer. That is why I said the Tiger was as fast as a Sherman, even though early versions were actually faster and only a few kmh slower than the T-34. :nice:

Sarmatian

04-15-2009, 17:11

Heh, from our previous discussions I'm confident you know the answer. That is why I said the Tiger was as fast as a Sherman, even though early versions were actually faster and only a few kmh slower than the T-34. :nice:

No, I really don't. I thought 38kmh was the top speed. This is the first time I heard that's because it was electronically limited. I assume the reasons were mechanical.

T-34's top speed was around 55kmh, btw...

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2009, 17:23

No, I really don't. I thought 38kmh was the top speed. This is the first time I heard that's because it was electronically limited. I assume the reasons were mechanical.

T-34's top speed was around 55kmh, btw...

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were being snarky. :laugh4:

Yes, prolonged use over time of RPMs over 2600, ie. over 38kmh on flat surfaces, overworked the engine. This was particularly straining over long distances. Even after the electronic governing, the Tiger always had a problem with long overland marches.

Initially crews were simply taught not to go over 2600 RPMs for very long. Thus, the early versions, including those encountered in North Africa, were actually faster than the Sherman - albeit in brief combat situations, not overland marching - 45kmh versus 38.5kmh, iirc.

Axalon

04-15-2009, 20:19

Gregoshi

04-15-2009, 21:33

Hi guys, I wanna play too! Here is mine! :thumbsup:

1. Tiger 1
2. Jagdpanther
3. Jagdtiger
4. Panther G
5. KV-1

Honorary mention:

Kingtiger (tiger II)

Please note that I don't care about the finer details about the perticular tank/
tankdestroyer in question - I just go straight for cool....

I like this list. I might put the Panther in the #1 spot, but otherwise :2thumbsup:. I also agree about the cool factor. These guys are pretty darn sexy. When I think of these tanks, I tend to think of their silhouettes thanks to owning a copy of the Avalon Hill board game Panzer Blitz back in the 70s. When I see real pictures of them, they stump me for a second before my brain does the translation. :laugh4:

Uesugi Kenshin

04-15-2009, 22:00

I like this list. I might put the Panther in the #1 spot, but otherwise :2thumbsup:. I also agree about the cool factor. These guys are pretty darn sexy. When I think of these tanks, I tend to think of their silhouettes thanks to owning a copy of the Avalon Hill board game Panzer Blitz back in the 70s. When I see real pictures of them, they stump me for a second before my brain does the translation. :laugh4:

To jump on the just plain cool bandwagon, for some reason the Pz. IV with all the crazy armor that they added in the later stages of the war has always struck me as pretty awesome.

Also the Hetzer was an awesome tank destroyer because it was insanely cheap, fast, and tiny. A bit too tiny for the crews perhaps, but it was the most successful AT weapon fielded by the Wehrmacht iirc.

PanzerJaeger

04-16-2009, 03:03

Some cool pictures of the Pz.IV for the OP and anyone else interested...

Pz.IV in (or close to) combat...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/375963219kXLUud_ph.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/aa_001.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/pz4_win_43.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/CopyofPzKpfw_IV_late_version.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/375973581cCUgcs_fs.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/375965338THXTEl_ph.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/panzeriv102sb8.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/PzKpfw_IV_Ausf_G.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/PzKpfw_IV_Ausf_F2_F2.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/Pz_4_in_battle-Rus43.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/acd.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/PzKpfw_IV_Ausf_E_Afrika.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/pzIV%20in%20combat/PzKpfw_IV_Ausf_F2_in_action.jpg

Camo...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/untitled-1.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/PZ_IV1.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/Pz4H-21.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/iv.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/1375973075066580379S600x600Q85.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/121hJan1944.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-088-3734A-19.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/173.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/interesting%20camo/Copyofuntitled-4.jpg

Interesting ones.. .

Guderian inspecting.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/cool/Guderian_Pz4_18pd.jpg

Note the T-34 tracks for extra protection.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/cool/Pz4H-5_T34KettenFront.jpg

These tanks are not knocked out.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/cool/PanzerIVJambush.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/cool/pz4E.jpg

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-16-2009, 03:13

I must confess to being in love with the Panther tank. Don't worry, it is platonic.

coalition

04-16-2009, 03:16

Nice pictures of the Panzer IV there. Thanks for sharing them. :2thumbsup:

Has anyone mentioned or even remember this tank?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg

May not look like the "Average tank" but 100 years ago, it was a monster of a time.

"The Father of all tanks"?

coalition

04-16-2009, 03:20

Beirut

04-16-2009, 10:58

Has anyone mentioned or even remember this tank?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg

May not look like the "Average tank" but 100 years ago, it was a monster of a time.

"The Father of all tanks"?

Good post and good point.

Looking forward to this book.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/British-Mark-I-Tank-1916_9781841766898/

Pannonian

04-16-2009, 12:26

I must confess to being in love with the Panther tank. Don't worry, it is platonic.
Is it armour-platonic?

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

Gregoshi

04-16-2009, 15:11

Is it armour-platonic?
Most likely they'll never be engaged.

CBR

04-16-2009, 15:33

Most likely they'll never be engaged.
Surely HEAT rounds will do the job?

CBR

drone

04-16-2009, 15:36

Has anyone mentioned or even remember this tank?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg

May not look like the "Average tank" but 100 years ago, it was a monster of a time.

"The Father of all tanks"?

When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me an old book on the weapons and their effects on tactics in WWI. I loved these tanks, and the pictures of a fascine-carrying tank just seems so cool and ingenious.

Sheogorath

04-16-2009, 18:24

You guys are all way too mainstream.

Behold, in all its glory:
The T-35!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35

Yes, gentlemen and ladies, you read that right. Five turrets, one 76.2mm gun, two 45mm guns and two machine guns, each in its own turret.

Further, it was 3.5 meters tall, 10 meters long and 3.2 meters wide.

For comparison, the M1 Abrams is 2.4 meters tall, 7.9 meters long, and 3.6 wide.

The German Maus, the heaviest tank ever built, was roughly the same size.

PanzerJaeger

04-16-2009, 19:17

Early Soviet tanks were always... interesting...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-209-0091-112.jpg

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned any WW2 British tanks. They may not have always been the best.. or even decent.. but they were always cool in their own quarky way.

Sheogorath

04-16-2009, 19:25

The KV2 was a good idea in principal. Basically an assault gun with a turret. Considering it was based on the KV1, which was probably one of the best pre-war tanks in the world...well...

I understand most of its problems were (obviously) with the turret...which was too heavy, so it tended to break down quite a bit.

Still, that 152mm howitzer was not something you messed with.

edyzmedieval

04-16-2009, 20:54

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's. :grin:

Decker

04-17-2009, 09:36

The:
Stuart
M-10 Tank Destroyer
Stug
Merkava
Panzer Mk IV
Panzer Mk III

Uesugi Kenshin

04-17-2009, 15:39

Leopard II
Abrams
Panther

Technically not tanks:
M36
Hetzer
Stug's of all colors
Jagdpanther

In no particular order. The Merkava is pretty cool too, but I don't know a ton about it. Oh and I would like to second that the A-10 Warthog is clearly the best tank ever built!

PanzerJaeger

04-17-2009, 19:27

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's. :grin:

Do you mean the King Tiger or the Tiger I? :beam:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-17-2009, 20:33

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

Most Cost Effective AFV = STG-III series

Sheogorath

04-18-2009, 03:24

The Panther wasn't an MBT...the closest WWII equivalent would be the IS-2.

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

EDIT:
Of course, we're talking favorites here, so I don't guess stuff like that matters :P

PanzerJaeger

04-18-2009, 06:11

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

What are your parameters? The King Tiger was actually the better tank in terms of combat performance, but that doesn't take cost into consideration, of course.

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

KarlXII

04-18-2009, 06:16

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned any WW2 British tanks. They may not have always been the best.. or even decent.. but they were always cool in their own quarky way.

The Churchill was a very nice tank, not anything particularly special, but it did it's job and had many variations.

Hobart's Funnies were a personal favorite as a kid,

KarlXII

04-18-2009, 06:18

Veho Nex

04-18-2009, 07:00

Sturmtiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger)

The best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best SIR!

Rare footage of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-oXaaWqXk)

Also in terms of british tanks that I like

Cromwell takes the cake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank)

Mangudai

04-20-2009, 04:23

My favorite is the Panzer II with a 2 cm cannon capable of firing 280 shots per minute.

PanzerJaeger

04-20-2009, 07:15

Uesugi Kenshin

04-20-2009, 14:10

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

Plus a tank generally (okay not the earliest versions from WWI) has a chassis, tracks, and at least one turret. So the Jagd series, Stugs, and Sturmtiger weren't tanks, but assault guns or tank destroyers because of their lack of a turret. One could however argue that the American tank destroyers (M36 and so on) were tanks because they had a turret, but the fact that this turret was often open and that these vehicles often had extremely light armor they are probably best classified as tank destroyers.

Veho Nex

04-20-2009, 16:05

I think the definition of tank is any heavily armored vehicle on tracks, operated by a 3 or more man crew. While wiki puts it at this
A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Firepower is normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotating turret and secondary machine guns, while heavy armour and all-terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield.

Hooahguy

04-21-2009, 22:49

Merkava and the Abrams takes the cake for me!
nothing beats them!

KarlXII

04-22-2009, 00:38

That's very swedish-centric, you should have said the swedish uparmored/modified Leopard 2.

I think the S Tank was a unique design in a Cold War environment, and it preformed fairly well.

Husar

04-22-2009, 12:08

Merkava and the Abrams takes the cake for me!
nothing beats them!

If I'm not mistaken the Merkava is really great for urban combat but I've never seen it up in the top ten when it's about tank vs. tank, it does look really cool though. :2thumbsup:

rotorgun

04-24-2009, 21:16

I have always respected the M-24 Light Tank. It was arguably the best light tank ever produced by the United States and one much respect from its opponents. I know a veteran of WW2 who absolutely loved this vehicle and said he staked his life on it. He would rather crew it than a Sherman any day, which he complained of as much to slow even though it had slightly better protection. The M-24 was very spry and could often outmaneuver its heavier opponents to deliver an ambush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M24-Chaffee-latrun-1.jpg

A very attractive vehicle as well I'm sure one would agree.

Hooahguy

04-27-2009, 02:45

If I'm not mistaken the Merkava is really great for urban combat but I've never seen it up in the top ten when it's about tank vs. tank, it does look really cool though. :2thumbsup:
well, its never really had the chance for tank-tank combat. im sure itll do fine though.

King Kurt

04-27-2009, 09:57

While I will always think that the T34 is the best tank of all time in its combination of firepower, mobility, ruggedness and versiltility, I have always had a soft spot for some of the more unfashionable or quirky. I think the BT5 and 7 were good tanks - very fast and the forerunners of the T34. I love the strangeness of the T35 with all its turrets - probably useless in combat but it must have been frightening. I have always liked the Lee and Grant - a clever design when first thought of - a capable AT gun in the 37mm and a good HE weapon in the 75mm - shame that it was soon outmoded when the 75 had to be the main AT weapon and they could not go hull down.

I also like the Sheridan - the light tank with a MBT weapon - except that everytime it fired the main gun the electronics were shot - but I believe it came into its own in Vietnam where a 155 cannister style round was very effective.

Finally - what about the Ontos?? - strictly a SP gun, but who in their right mind would think that putting 6 recoiless AT guns on one chassis was a good idea!!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-28-2009, 01:42

Finally - what about the Ontos?? - strictly a SP gun, but who in their right mind would think that putting 6 recoiless AT guns on one chassis was a good idea!!

It worked fairly well though, no?

Uesugi Kenshin

04-28-2009, 01:55

It worked fairly well though, no?

Actually it rocked. Particularly because it was basically facing infantry in an environment where there was often little notice of an encounter with enemy troops and a great need for massive firepower.

King Kurt

04-28-2009, 09:22

Actually it rocked. Particularly because it was basically facing infantry in an environment where there was often little notice of an encounter with enemy troops and a great need for massive firepower.

I suppose the point is that when it was concieved they had not envisaged the use it eventually carried out. It was only picked up by the Marines as they were desparate for any light armour. In Vietnam it became a mobile huge shotgun - with a round consisting of lots of small darts and so it could clear large areas of jungle. But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-28-2009, 22:25

I suppose the point is that when it was concieved they had not envisaged the use it eventually carried out. It was only picked up by the Marines as they were desparate for any light armour. In Vietnam it became a mobile huge shotgun - with a round consisting of lots of small darts and so it could clear large areas of jungle. But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

I don't know, it was pretty fast, so if it had some cover it could have used those recoiless rifles fairly effectively if they were accurate. Especially since with a well-trained crew I bet you could fire six shots rapid-fire into different targets, hopefully taking out multiple enemies. Though of course a one volley, six shots six kills ratio is unimaginable.

Mangudai

04-30-2009, 03:48

But imagine using it in Germany against a Soviet armoured push - at best it was a one shot weapon - the backblast of the 6 recoiless rifles would mark your position for all to see. As it was peresumably designed for this as opposed for some counter insurgency war, it seems strange it was ever thought of in the first place.

In an urban environment or anywhere with keyhole lines of sight, it would be great! I can definitely see a role for it vs. Soviet armor.

Axalon

05-01-2009, 03:05

The Jagdtiger will eat everything for breakfast! I mean, just the sheer amount of tons must count for something, right?!? All those peashooters mentioned here can do whatever they want while the Jagdtiger will just slowly roll over ‘em and get it over with while the ground trembles with fear of its mighty presence. :laugh4:

Hell, it don’t even need to use its massive gun with whatever monster caliber it had - and it will still look good in the process! The jagdtiger is the way to go and still the grand daddy of cool!

- Cheers

Samurai Waki

05-05-2009, 22:16

The T-34 was a thing of beauty. near perfect balance of Armor, Range, and Speed compared to most tanks of that time. Sort of the Holy Grail most modern tank designers seek, but can never get quite as close as the T-34.

Fisherking

05-06-2009, 22:11

This is just favorites. No justification required.

I’ll take the M-1 Abrams

coalition

05-06-2009, 22:44

Does anyone know anything about the Mark I tank?

It sure was like an iron shoe box, but owning a replicate would be my day. :2thumbsup:

King Kurt

05-07-2009, 09:28

Does anyone know anything about the Mark I tank?

It sure was like an iron shoe box, but owning a replicate would be my day. :2thumbsup:

It is difficult to fully comprehend the impact these monsters must have made in 1916. In a time when a sight of a lorry was relatively rare, the vision of these iron monsters looming out of the mist must have been terrible in deed. They were slow and clumsy and for the large crew inside very unpleasant places to be. They were hot, fumey and when ever the outside were hit by a shell or bullets pieces of the inside plate would spall off and fly around the interior. The crew took to taking armour, especially to cover the face - a sort of throwback to medieval helmets with eye slits and chain mail.

It is worth looking around to find a bit of background about them and especially how their use grew through the war until they were a crucial part of the final allied offensives in 1918.

Kralizec

05-11-2009, 14:40

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

German tanks of WW2 are often said to be mechanically overcomplicated and expensive to produce compared to Soviet tanks. I'm not sure if it was a conscious decision but if so, it may partly because the Germans were shorter on manpower and had higher training standards. Expensive tanks can be worthwile if it means saving up on precious manpower.

My favourite tank would be the Sherman. The basic model was adequate against the majority of tanks fielded by the Germans (and superior to anything built by the Japanese or Italians)
Many variants were used, though not always in large numbers. The British Firefly version was able to destroy Panthers and Tigers easily enough, as long as it wasn't shot to pieces first.

Fixiwee

05-12-2009, 14:53

I'll go with the T-34/85 varriant. Fast, easy to produce and use, a serious canon that can ruin your day and furthermore produced in masses.

Ariovistus Maximus

05-14-2009, 04:30

Wow, what a stupid tank the Russians designed...

Well it looks very strange.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Tsar_tank.jpg/300px-Tsar_tank.jpg

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_tank

:laugh4: Some of their tanks were weirder than all getout!!! Like the version of the T-26 that they made into a GLIDER tank??? :dizzy2: Who on earth comes up with this stuff??

http://englishrussia.com/images/weird_tanks/7.jpg

And then this mess here:

http://www.lasalle.edu/~simmsn1/tanks/t35.jpg

Of course, they more than made up for it with the T-34/85 and the IS-3! But still, those early-war designs were disasters!

I also like the KV-1. So cool to have a big howitzer as main armament! :evilgrin:

Ariovistus Maximus

05-14-2009, 04:38

\

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

Hoo yeah; what about Whittmann? What odds did he get, like 1:50??? Of course, that was vs. APCs. But still, the man practically held up a division for a couple days! :dizzy2:

rotorgun

05-14-2009, 05:04

Hoo yeah; what about Whittmann? What odds did he get, like 1:50??? Of course, that was vs. APCs. But still, the man practically held up a division for a couple days! :dizzy2:

I think I read somewhere that the average Tiger I had something like a 12-1 kill ratio. Good thing for the allies that only maybe 6 out of a battalion of 45 would make it to the battle after breakdowns etc.

:tredmil: Also they were rather slow. :turtle: Oh yeah, the cost was estimated at something like 800,000 DMs, and took 300,000 man hours to build. A lot of Panzer IV H Aufs could have been built for that.

King Kurt

05-14-2009, 09:56

:laugh4: Some of their tanks were weirder than all getout!!! Like the version of the T-26 that they made into a GLIDER tank??? :dizzy2: Who on earth comes up with this stuff??

http://englishrussia.com/images/weird_tanks/7.jpg

And then this mess here:

http://www.lasalle.edu/~simmsn1/tanks/t35.jpg

Of course, they more than made up for it with the T-34/85 and the IS-3! But still, those early-war designs were disasters!

I also like the KV-1. So cool to have a big howitzer as main armament! :evilgrin:

I will not hear a word said against the T35 - a multi turret wonder - maybe it was a bit of an operational disaster - but I thought it did fairly well in Finland - but it looks soooo threatening, like some enormous armoured behemouth - the sort of tank you would draw as a kid.

By the way the KV2 had the 150mm howitzer in a large turret. The KV1 had a 76mm like the T34, but was heavier. The KV1 had a Whittman moment early in the Russian campaign where a KV1 held up an armoured divison for a day or 2 - see Krasnogvardeysk in the Wiki article[URL="http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank[/URL]

Lieutenant Kolobanov obviously did not have such a good PR machine as Whittmann - the KV1 seems quite like the Tiger - brilliant in certain positions, but not good all rounders like the T34 and Panther

Ariovistus Maximus

05-14-2009, 14:01

? I thought the KV-ONE had the howitzer and the KV-TWO had the 76mm... lemme see here...

OOP! I see you are right! Silly me. Where did I get the mix-up from?

KV-1:
https://img258.imageshack.us/img258/4784/kv1eqz9.jpg

KV-2:
http://www.jagdtiger.de/SovietVeh/KV-2-01.jpg

Speaking of which, I AM DYING to go to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds someday!!! All those rows of tanks remind me of it...

And as to the T-35, well, performing well against the Finns who had no armor or air support to speak of is not saying a whole lot... and the Finns STILL managed to stomp the Russians for a good long time... truly exemplary job done by the Finns. Or abominable job by the Russians, however you like.

Admittedly it does look cool and like a kid drew it. That I will concede. :laugh4: Maybe Zhukov was doodling one day in the 20's and... :idea2:

And you must admit that the T-28 is rediculous. A GLIDER tank??? They couldn't make it work b/c none of their planes could tow it effectively!!!

And what about:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/TB-3.jpg

Not a tank perhaps but definitely a tub! The Russians clearly demonstrate a propensity for ugly, inept machines in the interwar period. Although I can't say much for certain British tanks and aircraft either...

But in both cases they improved as they gained experience. :yes:

King Kurt

05-15-2009, 14:53

Actually I looked into the T35 and it wasn't really used in Finland - must have been a folk memory.

The interwar years had some marvellous machines - often crazy looking, but always interesting. The sad bit was when they were exposed to the rigours of war and they were often found to be lacking. This was particuarly true of planes - the Fairey Battle - England's main light bomber in 1939, but slaughtered by the German air force - and the Devastator - beautiful US Torpedo bomber, but shot out of the sky by the Japanese.

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2009, 23:10

I think I read somewhere that the average Tiger I had something like a 12-1 kill ratio. Good thing for the allies that only maybe 6 out of a battalion of 45 would make it to the battle after breakdowns etc.

:tredmil: Also they were rather slow. :turtle: Oh yeah, the cost was estimated at something like 800,000 DMs, and took 300,000 man hours to build. A lot of Panzer IV H Aufs could have been built for that.

Are you sure?

IIRC, production of the Tiger took only about twice as long as the PzIII/IV and cost only twice as much to build. (250,000RM)

In terms of combat effectiveness and force projection, I believe those 1355 Tigers were a far greater investment than 2710 PzIVHs would have been. Germany would have been vastly outproduced regardless, but the Tigers allowed the Panzerkorps' best asset (its trained and experienced crews) to engage much larger numbers of enemy armor and have a far greater chance of surviving such encounters.

Also, the Tiger was just as fast as a Sherman (38km/h); and while it was somewhat slower than the T-34 series (50km/h), it was by no means lethargic.

Edit: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) says...

The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and Reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a contemporary Panzer IV and four times as much as a Stug III assault gun.

Generally speaking, it took about twice as long to build a Tiger I as another German tank of the period.

Of course that's by no means the most reliable of sources, but it corresponds to the books I've read.

Fixiwee

05-16-2009, 12:07

Sarmatian

05-16-2009, 13:13

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2009, 22:19

I'm not a military expert on this, but I have read a couple of times (at least Piekalkiewicz I remember) that strategy wise the Tiger was counterproductive. Technicly brilliant in ever sense, but The Panther was much cheaper to produce. One Tiger costs about 2 and a half Panthers, and with the swarming of russian T-34s you would have needed to counter the masses with many Panthers. The Panther being a supreme tank too, since the shape and the anti-explosion layer was superior to even the Tiger.

I'd always pick Panther ahead of Tiger. Tiger didn't have sloped armour, it was expensive to produce and maintain, it's weight must have been a terrible burden on logistics. In the same time it must have used incredible amount of raw materials, something Germany was lacking. Fuel consumption must have been enormous to get that monster to go 38km/h.

Well naturally the newer design would be preferable. While the Panther was flailing in its own teething issues at Kursk, the Tiger was destroying hordes of Russian tanks - having been operational for nearly a year prior. Of course the Tiger only stayed in production one year after the Panther was introduced, being dropped in favor of the far superior Tiger II which incorporated the same design cues as the Panther. With the Panther II, the two tanks were to have most parts be interchangeable.

Also the Tiger and the Panther were two different classes of tanks, with two different roles within the Panzerkorps.

So it was not as simple as choosing between the two. By the time the Panther debuted, the Tiger II was nearly through the design phase and the Tiger was only kept in production to avoid a gap. However, the Tiger was very effective right up until the end of the war and was a good investment; far better than 2700 extra PzIVHs, imo. I think the kill ratios speak for themselves.

Even with all its protection, it still could have been destroyed by anti tank weapons and mines just like any other tank. I'll always put cheap, effective, reliable tanks like T-34 and Sherman ahead of such expensive and complicated designs...

The T-34 worked wonderfully for the Russians. It would not have played to the German strengths, though.

The expensive and complicated German designs were the result of a careful analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Producing larger numbers of weaker tanks and dropping their training standards (to compensate for all the losses they would suffer due to the weaker tanks) would certainly not have changed their situation. On the other hand, Tigers in the hands of skilled commanders and crews were able to project power far beyond their limited numbers.

Husar

05-17-2009, 00:49

The expensive and complicated German designs were the result of a careful analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Producing larger numbers of weaker tanks and dropping their training standards (to compensate for all the losses they would suffer due to the weaker tanks) would certainly not have changed their situation.

They could hardly compensate any losses towards the end of the war, that's why they even recruited kids from school after all. I'd say it would have made us lose the war even soone although one could say that that would have been a good thing. :sweatdrop:

Sarmatian

05-17-2009, 03:13

Well naturally the newer design would be preferable. While the Panther was flailing in its own teething issues at Kursk, the Tiger was destroying hordes of Russian tanks - having been operational for nearly a year prior. Of course the Tiger only stayed in production one year after the Panther was introduced, being dropped in favor of the far superior Tiger II which incorporated the same design cues as the Panther. With the Panther II, the two tanks were to have most parts be interchangeable.

Also the Tiger and the Panther were two different classes of tanks, with two different roles within the Panzerkorps.

So it was not as simple as choosing between the two. By the time the Panther debuted, the Tiger II was nearly through the design phase and the Tiger was only kept in production to avoid a gap. However, the Tiger was very effective right up until the end of the war and was a good investment; far better than 2700 extra PzIVHs, imo. I think the kill ratios speak for themselves.

It's difficult to judge the overall impact of the Tiger. Sure, you can say it cost twice as much as PzIV and 1000 Tigers definitely were worth more than 2000 PzIV's but there are other aspects. Time and money spent on developing, for example. Germany was short on raw materials, how difficult was it to produce such a thick armour as Tiger had? How difficult was to provide fuel for them? Tiger weighed around 60t, how difficult was it to transport them to the front? To transport fuel for it? There are many other aspects to it besides simple production cost and production time...

On the other hand, Germany couldn't compete with SU or US in terms of manpower, it was only natural to give the best possible protection to tank crews...

This isn't the thread about the best, it's about the favourite tank. T-34 and Panther get my vote in that regard, Sherman being slightly behind those two designs (I find Sherman grossly underestimated, btw).

I just imagine myself as German commander and seeing Tiger destroyed by an anti-tank mine. Such an expensive piece of machinery destroyed by a simple mine. I think I would have gone crazy at that point :smash:

All due respect to the Tiger, both I and II, it's just far down on the list of my favourite tanks...

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-17-2009, 05:49

Not only were the StuGs a great buy, but they're the cutest tanks ever! ^_^

rotorgun

05-17-2009, 07:37

Are you sure?

IIRC, production of the Tiger took only about twice as long as the PzIII/IV and cost only twice as much to build. (250,000RM)

In terms of combat effectiveness and force projection, I believe those 1355 Tigers were a far greater investment than 2710 PzIVHs would have been. Germany would have been vastly outproduced regardless, but the Tigers allowed the Panzerkorps' best asset (its trained and experienced crews) to engage much larger numbers of enemy armor and have a far greater chance of surviving such encounters.

Also, the Tiger was just as fast as a Sherman (38km/h); and while it was somewhat slower than the T-34 series (50km/h), it was by no means lethargic.

Edit: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) says...

Of course that's by no means the most reliable of sources, but it corresponds to the books I've read.

Yes Panzer', you are correct. After reading the article, and considering the comments by others here, there is no doubt about the killing efficiency of the Tiger versus the venerable Mark IV. Still, the Mark IV was still a potent fighting machine, making up half of the strength of the Panzer Divisions tank regiments. The Latter models were equipped with a potent long barreled 75mm high velocity gun that could still knock out a T-34 or a Sherman from 1000 to 1500 meters despite its vulnerability compared to a Tiger.

I would have to agree that the Panther was a better all around medium tank once the transmissions and engine problems were worked out. Perhaps the Germans could have spent less resources on heavy tanks and concentrated on the Panther and Panzer IVs. The 88mm could have been mounted in an assault-gun type carriage and used in the defensive role it was designed for at less cost as well, such as was later done. The Ferdinand being a failure due to lack of machine guns and anti-personnel weapons was scrapped for the much more potent Jeager Tigers and Jeager Panthers.

PS: I didn't mean to start a row about it, but it is an interesting topic even though we are talking about our favorites. Sorry guys.

PanzerJaeger

05-19-2009, 02:40

I would have to agree that the Panther was a better all around medium tank once the transmissions and engine problems were worked out. Perhaps the Germans could have spent less resources on heavy tanks and concentrated on the Panther and Panzer IVs. The 88mm could have been mounted in an assault-gun type carriage and used in the defensive role it was designed for at less cost as well, such as was later done. The Ferdinand being a failure due to lack of machine guns and anti-personnel weapons was scrapped for the much more potent Jeager Tigers and Jeager Panthers.

Well it could be argued that the emergence of the Panther negated the need for the heavy tank class at all, as it was for all intents and purposes a MBT - as it did not have to compromise on any of the big three (speed, armor, and firepower). By that time, however, the Tiger had already been in production for a year and the Tiger II was just coming online.

Regardless, both the Tiger and the Tiger II were excellent vehicles and although in hindsight an argument can be made that when the Panther did become operational ('43), the heavy tank program should have been canned, they were still very cost effective weapons platforms, imo - contrary to the popular notion that they were big wastes of resources.

PS: I didn't mean to start a row about it, but it is an interesting topic even though we are talking about our favorites. Sorry guys.

Completely my fault. I love tanks, so its hard to stay out of this thread. :laugh4:

coalition

05-21-2009, 21:31

gbump

Centurion1

05-22-2009, 02:04

Well im not sure if this thread is strictly about WW2 tanks or not but im going to have to take the m1Abrams. Yeah it hasn't had a real foe to fight besides Husseins outdated tanks but that tank is like a Raphael painting. Also does anyone know about the new Leopard type tank coming online in Germany? It has an even more empty service cite but the tech numbers are amazing. i believe it uses a new honeycomb design said to defeat even a javelin missile.

As to the tiger vs panther topic i think that we are talking to different tanks here. The tiger could take a panther sure, but is one tiger worth two panther, methinks not. Then again this if i was Hitler i wouldn't be willing to trade tanks with Stalin one for one, so maybe i would use more tigers. But the answers as always in my opinion is moderation you want a good balance of armor both light, medium, and heavy so that you can fight anything that gets thrown your way.

PanzerJaeger

05-23-2009, 06:40

The Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank).

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/a27mcromwell1.jpg

This tank was faster than the Sherman but could not mount bigger guns, as the Sherman could with the Firefly. Its probably my favorite British model. Incidently, fans of Band of Brothers get to see one destroyed by a Tiger in the episode "Replacements" dealing with Market Garden.

coalition

05-24-2009, 13:29

Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .

Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?

Seamus Fermanagh

05-24-2009, 15:45

Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .

Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?

The Soviet military fielded roughly 100 divisions, with each motor rifle division needing about 100 MBTs and each Tank division needing about 320. Moreover, all of the Warsaw pact divisions were similar and similarly equipped.

Plus, they loved to stockpile great warehouses of the things just in case AND the exported the bejeebers out of it.

Wausser

05-24-2009, 19:18

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world :sweatdrop:

Seamus Fermanagh

05-25-2009, 15:12

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world :sweatdrop:

Send out one of your more accomplished gentlemen to steal the technology. :cheesy:

Pannonian

05-25-2009, 17:14

My favourite would be the Tiger I

A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world :sweatdrop:
Don't know whether this (http://gizmodo.com/375333/guy-builds-nazi-tiger-tank-invades-michigan) belongs here or in the Cute thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116916).

coalition

06-13-2009, 17:02

Where is Michael Wittman when you need him?

KrooK

06-14-2009, 00:37

What can i say
Even wittman will not hold with 10 rockets into his tigers ass.

rabcarl

06-14-2009, 03:53

Has anyone ever played the game A Bridge Too Far? (an oldie for PC)
I'm going to go with the Königstiger just because it would devistate anyone or anything in its path.

Ariovistus Maximus

06-15-2009, 04:02

Yeah, my brother had A Bridge Too Far.

It was in the same series as Close Combat, right?

Helicopter view of the battlefield; you issue march orders with a somewhat complex right-click, select type of movement, click on end point etc?

I've played CCII; I remember watching my brother play the other ones all the time. Ahhh, good times.

Anyways, I'd agree that the Panther (specifically the G and later models) were probably the most cost-effective.

Although, being that they didn't come into their own until later, the PzKpFw IV probably had greater impact overall... :juggle2:

Furunculus

06-15-2009, 15:50

The Centurion.

Came too late for WW2 was undoubtedly the tank that would have given parity to us against the germans had the war continued any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

Noddy The Beefy Egg

06-19-2009, 07:00

not a tank but it looks cool , the ISU-122

Sheogorath

06-24-2009, 18:37

The Soviet military fielded roughly 100 divisions, with each motor rifle division needing about 100 MBTs and each Tank division needing about 320. Moreover, all of the Warsaw pact divisions were similar and similarly equipped.

Plus, they loved to stockpile great warehouses of the things just in case AND the exported the bejeebers out of it.

The Russians age-old policy is 'Never throw anything away, ever.'
I've heard that they're still uncovering WWI/WWII weapons caches that have been forgotten about/lost in paperwork/were going to be sold but the seller got killed. Generally in working condition, although given the typical construction of Russian hardware that's hardly surprising :P

Also, I think the Russians themselves only built something like 55,000 T-54/55s. It is, however, still the most produced tank in history. Amusingly, the T-34 still holds second place at 50,000 or so, as far as I know.

Azathoth

08-10-2009, 04:49

The Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster because holy ****, that ****** will **** you like **** ************* *******. ****.

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/rape1.jpg

Sheogorath

08-10-2009, 06:54

The Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster because holy ****, that ****** will **** you like **** ************* *******. ****.

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/rape1.jpg

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

Samurai Waki

08-10-2009, 09:36

I mean... apart from the crazy amount of resources something like that would gobble up (The Kriegsmarine could've actually built a few more Mega Battleships) There is no way something like that could've been practical, between the Fuel they didn't have, and the Insane Engine that would've pushed the thing at a whopping 15km per hour, the Germans (And rightfully so) could build ten King Tigers, or 30 Panthers. And besides that, Sheogorath is pretty much right, everyone wants to get the big Target.

Azathoth

08-10-2009, 15:05

Practicality is not a factor when it comes to super tanks. :smash:

al Roumi

08-12-2009, 15:57

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.

It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-13-2009, 21:16

Crazed Rabbit

08-14-2009, 01:15

I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'

Bah! You could've probably mounted several anti-air turrets on the thing. :dizzy2:

CR

Sheogorath

08-14-2009, 04:02

Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.

It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.

You wouldn't even need bombers. You could just hit it with artillery. Even WWII era artillery wouldn't have trouble hitting something like that. You could probably hit it with ROCKETS.

Bah! You could've probably mounted several anti-air turrets on the thing. :dizzy2:

CR

But, all things considered, you'd expend a lot less resources in planes taking it out than the resources required to build it in the first place.

I mean, the time and effort that would go into something like that would produce, like, a five hundred T-34's.

Husar

08-14-2009, 11:19

al Roumi

08-14-2009, 12:08

It would also have really thick armour though so the question remains whether normal shells would be able to penetrate it at all. I'd think if it had, say 1m of steel armour, a 500 pound bomb's explosive blast might just spread along the surface instead of really denting the armour. I'm not an explosives expert though.

Yep, the designs certainly talk about thick armour (I don't think the Porsch designers were that silly) -and AA guns too.

This is what would have taken it out though: Tallboy bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb).

As I mentioned above, they were used to finish off the Tirpitz and destroy U-boat pens, as well as other undergroung/bunker targets.

Tanks this big are just a crazy idea - must have been what inspired the Mammoth tanks in C&C Red Alert :2thumbsup:

AggonyDuck

08-14-2009, 12:55

Vladimir

08-14-2009, 16:35

:laugh4:

Where would you use it? What kind of bridge would support it? What kind of ship could transport it? It looks more like a proof-of-concept design than anything anyone would actually build.

Sheogorath

08-14-2009, 18:34

The problem with the P.1500 Monster is the fact that while the hull can be armoured, the gun can't really be that well armoured. So even if you might not be able to destroy the vehicle itself, the main armament is big enough to be a relatively easy and vulnerable target.

I wonder what would happen if an artillery shell were to, say, bounce down the barrel :P

Considering the sheer size of the weapon they've got on the Monster, it's not unthinkable that some ordinance might end up setting off the vehicles own shell inside the gun.

:laugh4:

Where would you use it? What kind of bridge would support it? What kind of ship could transport it? It looks more like a proof-of-concept design than anything anyone would actually build.

I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.

Husar

08-14-2009, 20:42

I guess it would be like one of those railway guns, yes, except with more manouverability, meant to destroy bunkers and perhaps hurt enemy morale.

Otherwise I'd prefer the Ratte though, the enemy tankers might just pee in their pants when it comes along. ~D

Sheogorath

08-14-2009, 20:55

Azathoth

08-14-2009, 23:40

I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.

Yeah, they made one of the 280 mm guns and later shipped it to the Netherlands to be a fixed coastal defence emplacement.

Or laugh when they realized that they could walk faster than it :P

40 kph is a lot faster than a human can walk. At any rate, it wouldn't have ended up like the steamroller scene in Austin Powers if that's what you were thinking.

Remember, the point of one of these IS NOT practicality or effectiveness in combat. The point is to make you **** in awe when you see it. And just imagine a column of IS-2s getting hit by a 800mm shell point blank - epic stuff right there.

Vladimir

08-15-2009, 03:11

Are you sure it's not just a battleship gun? What are the specs on that cannon anyway? I know the Germans love big artillery.

Samurai Waki

08-15-2009, 05:24

Are you sure it's not just a battleship gun? What are the specs on that cannon anyway? I know the Germans love big artillery.

hmmm... Probably not a BB Gun, the Germans had a love of monstrous artillery weapons, didn't they have a huge railroad gun that could hit the outskirts of Paris during WWI, and they had to lob those shells a good distance behind their front lines...

British Mutt + Viking

08-17-2009, 10:54

Hitler loved big, radical things, be it social policy or weapons. Anyone who worked for Hitler knew that the way to get promoted was to do things that Hitler liked. Therefore, what the rest of the world treated as purely hypothetical design exercises for intellectual development, Hitler would order into reality. The result was a whole host of weapons which the very people making them knew were ridiculous and pointless. However, if any of these people objected and told Hitler that it was stupid or impossible, they were effectively ending their careers (and on very rare occasions, their lives) because Hitler despised people who didn't literally believe that nothing was impossible. Also, if you objected to Hitler, there were a dozen people around you who would happily say that they could do that job because they wanted the chance to impress Hitler, so it was not as if objecting would stop a project anyway. Someone somewhere would be willing to work on it if it pleased the big man.

As for my favourite tank, it is the Leopard 2.

The reason I like this tank is because it more efficient than the M1 Abrams. Its armour is proof against all likely opponents, its gun is the same as the American vehicle, and best yet, there is not one vetronic device or mechanism that is fitted to the Abrams that cannot be put into a Leopard at a cheaper price. Last but not least, its advanced diesel engine has twice the endurance of the American tank which means that one is les likely to hear the driver screaming "I'm on empty!" when the enemy sends another battalion. 10 hours on 504 gallons of JP8 Av-Gas versus up to hours on 255 gallons of regular and cheap diesel is a no contest in the court of military opinion.

In short, the Leopard Two is only limited by the budget the Germans have decided to impose on it. In the event of a real war, for only a few hundred thousand dollars, a leopard two can be equipped with the latest vetronics equal to and often superior to those fitted in the much more expensive Abrams. The Leopard is lighter so it does not have to worry about collapsing bridges. Its superior fuel economy means longer battle performance, easier logistics (less fuel consumed means less demand for trucks or risk of depleting local supplies). Hell, you can fill a leopard two up at a gas pump and it will run just about as well as it does on standard diesel. Do the same for the Abrams and you will see a performance drop, even if it not huge. Finally, the Leopard 2 is readily adaptable. The Abrams is so expensive to produce and operate as it is that despite having a vastly larger budget behind it than the PanzerWaffe, the US tank force is constantly cancelling upgrades and improvements while the Germans readily upgrade theirs. The US tank force runs out of money for upgrades because fuel costs rise, the Germans cancel upgrades because they want to spend that few million on making a babycare in Potsdam. Got to love Social Democracy! (Joke)

trailmobile

02-11-2011, 08:42

The Renault FT-17. My grandfather was a tank gunner in France in WWI with the American Army and beat the Hun!
:unitedstates:

Notice the signature on my grandfather's discharge papers? Cool, eh? ~:smoking:

Hello Beirut,
I 'm a french guys who is found of history in génral and ww1 in particular.
With my organisation, since two years, we made and historical studies on the first tank corps in france in 1917 built by Patton in our area.
When i search for patton document's on the web, i see your grand father's discharge paper !
Do you know if your grand-father made a stay at "Bourg" (Close to "Langres - Haute-Marne in France) ?
It was the light tank school in france, a training area built by Patton. The main subject of our research is on this place because we live close to this little village.
Perhaps could you contact me directly if you want in order the exchange our knowledge ?
Thanks in advance for your repply. Nicolas.

Beirut

02-11-2011, 14:59

Hello Beirut,
I 'm a french guys who is found of history in génral and ww1 in particular.
With my organisation, since two years, we made and historical studies on the first tank corps in france in 1917 built by Patton in our area.
When i search for patton document's on the web, i see your grand father's discharge paper !
Do you know if your grand-father made a stay at "Bourg" (Close to "Langres - Haute-Marne in France) ?
It was the light tank school in france, a training area built by Patton. The main subject of our research is on this place because we live close to this little village.
Perhaps could you contact me directly if you want in order the exchange our knowledge ?
Thanks in advance for your repply. Nicolas.

En francais, svp. :smiley:

Brennus

02-11-2011, 22:16

I'm gonna have to go for
1. T-34/85
2. Centurion
3. T-72

Centurion1

02-11-2011, 22:50

m1 abrams.

Brennus

02-12-2011, 07:57

m1 abrams.

I never understand why people like the Abrams, in terms of combat statistics its inferior to the Challenger 1 and 2 (few casualties proportionally speaking) and I doubt it can be classed as decisive when you consider the opponents it has faced have mostly been poorly maintained T-55s and other sub-standard Soviet export models.

PanzerJaeger

02-12-2011, 14:03

I never understand why people like the Abrams, in terms of combat statistics its inferior to the Challenger 1 and 2 (few casualties proportionally speaking)

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Brennus

02-12-2011, 19:15

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

I mean that (although my understanding is by no means authorotative on the subject) in cases where the M1 Abrams and Challenger 1/2 have been employed Challengers have performed better in terms of losses, proportionally speaking. By that I mean although greater numbers of Abrams have been deployed in combat (and for that matter produced) even when you account for the fact that more Abrams were exposed to danger the Challenger still has fewer casualties. I hope I worded that in a way which is easy to understand.

Plus, on a personal note its not the prettiest tank in the world.

CBR

02-13-2011, 01:15

The number of tanks involved and actual engagements are way too small to make any conclusions. In 2003 there were only 120 Challenger 2's in Iraq and they were focused primarily in the Basra area IIRC.

Both tanks are well protected but precise data is top secret, so those who do know won't tell and those who tell can only make educated guesses. The M1 does have its ammo separated from the crew so that will increase crew survivability.

The other factors like firepower and mobility is a bit easier to judge, and AFAIK several trials have been made where the Challenger did not show any advantage over other Western tanks: The Greek Main Battle Tank Competition in 1998 put the Challenger 2E (export model) in a fourth place below the Leopard 2A5, M1A2 and LeClerc.

If the M1 has a problem then it is logistics as it is a terrible fuel guzzler. But it has improved somewhat since they added an Auxiliary Power Unit (at least on some M1 versions)

Overall I doubt they really are that different in capability, and they have all received several upgrades over the years

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2011, 04:59

If the M1 has a problem then it is logistics as it is a terrible fuel guzzler. But it has improved somewhat since they added an Auxiliary Power Unit (at least on some M1 versions)

Even in this regard, IIRC, the Abrams has a greater operational range. I'm not sure whether that is because the Abrams has more fuel capacity than the Challenger 2, or whether it has greater fuel economy. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel, so I doubt it is the latter- but it must carry a lot less fuel. Do you know anything about this?

CBR

02-13-2011, 05:42

Even in this regard, IIRC, the Abrams has a greater operational range. I'm not sure whether that is because the Abrams has more fuel capacity than the Challenger 2, or whether it has greater fuel economy. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel, so I doubt it is the latter- but it must carry a lot less fuel. Do you know anything about this?
I think the Challenger 2 use an older engine. The export model in the Greek trial apparently had a new German 1500 hp diesel, and IIRC both the Challenger and the LeClerc (using same engine) were noted for their good range in the tests. The M1 has 1900 liters of fuel and the Challenger 2 apparently has about 1600.

edit:The primary problem for the M1 is that it needed the turbine to produce the power needed for its electrical system. It consumes nearly 40 liters to start up and about 45 liters/hour when idling. It is also an older engine so it could easily get better if they found the money for the next generation engine.

edit2: I just checked some numbers and the M1A2 SEP has less fuel (1680 liters) and a range of just 350 Km compared to the about 450 Km of the M1A1. Compare that with about 450 Km for the Challenger 2 and maybe 550 for the Leopard 2. But it is easy to find conflicting numbers so cannot be sure.

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2011, 18:08

I think the Challenger 2 use an older engine. The export model in the Greek trial apparently had a new German 1500 hp diesel, and IIRC both the Challenger and the LeClerc (using same engine) were noted for their good range in the tests. The M1 has 1900 liters of fuel and the Challenger 2 apparently has about 1600.

edit:The primary problem for the M1 is that it needed the turbine to produce the power needed for its electrical system. It consumes nearly 40 liters to start up and about 45 liters/hour when idling. It is also an older engine so it could easily get better if they found the money for the next generation engine.

edit2: I just checked some numbers and the M1A2 SEP has less fuel (1680 liters) and a range of just 350 Km compared to the about 450 Km of the M1A1. Compare that with about 450 Km for the Challenger 2 and maybe 550 for the Leopard 2. But it is easy to find conflicting numbers so cannot be sure.

Thanks for the information. We'll see what the M1A3 has in store, if it doesn't get axed. It is supposed to be 15 tons lighter, which should help fuel economy (not to mention an assumed new engine). IIRC, they are planning on keeping the thing in service for another four decades!