Strongest World War 2 Tanks?

[Marius Dynamite]

I always love to compare the standard Sherman and the Panzers IV and V. It reminds me of a modern battle, between PS3 and Xbox 360, with the tanks being the Disc Drives.

Sherman - Easy to manufacture, easy to repair, does the job against Infantry, Upgradable, Reliable

Xbox 360, Dvds - Easy to manufacture, Cheap, Upgradable in a sense, Reliable.

Panzers - Difficult to repair and manufacture, not very cheap, extremely effective, blah blah blah

Blue Ray Discs - Difficult to manufacture, Extremely expensive, extremely modern and effective Blah Blah Blah.


Anyway the point is both the Americans and Microsoft went for what works, reliable and adaptable and it payed off for the Americans and it's going good for Microsoft.


I know that had zero to do with the topic but...

[Veho Nex]

I always love to compare the standard Sherman and the Panzers IV and V. It reminds me of a modern battle, between PS3 and Xbox 360, with the tanks being the Disc Drives.

Sherman - Easy to manufacture, easy to repair, does the job against Infantry, Upgradable, Reliable

Xbox 360, Dvds - Easy to manufacture, Cheap, Upgradable in a sense, Reliable.

Panzers - Difficult to repair and manufacture, not very cheap, extremely effective, blah blah blah

Blue Ray Discs - Difficult to manufacture, Extremely expensive, extremely modern and effective Blah Blah Blah.


Anyway the point is both the Americans and Microsoft went for what works, reliable and adaptable and it payed off for the Americans and it's going good for Microsoft.


I know that had zero to do with the topic but...

xbox - controls sucked sh!tty frame rate but high disk speed

ps3 - controls rocked stable frame rate medium disk speed

sherman - very fast on the field over heated after a while

panzer(s) - powerful stable kinda slow but reliable with the right hardware


seems about right but sony still made more games and types while microsoft went in for what made the most money(not including their pc products)

[econ21]

Agreed. And equally, the Sherman would have been an inferior weapon for the type of war that the Soviets faced.

IIRC, there was a Soviet outfit that was equipped with Shermans in the Eastern Front. They were apparently very happy with them, prefering them to the T-34. From the tactical wargames I've played (e.g. Talonsoft's East Front/West Front; Steel Panthers), the gun on the standard Sherman is much more effective at range than the 76mm guns of the T-34.

The T-34s are absolute monsters if you are Germans in 1941 scenarios though. Their guns can pick off Panzers at distance, while their armour is impervious to German tank guns at range.

[Veho Nex]

Whats IIRC mean?

[Flavius Clemens]

Whats IIRC mean?

If I Recall Correctly

[MilesGregarius]

IIRC, there was a Soviet outfit that was equipped with Shermans in the Eastern Front. They were apparently very happy with them, prefering them to the T-34. From the tactical wargames I've played (e.g. Talonsoft's East Front/West Front; Steel Panthers), the gun on the standard Sherman is much more effective at range than the 76mm guns of the T-34.

The Soviets recieved more than 4,000 Shermans and were the only users of the 76mm-armed M4A2 (they also recieved 75mm versions). From what I've read, the Soviet crews liked the Shermans' mechanical reliability, but they disliked its high silhouette; to this day, a low silhouette remains a major survivability feature of Soviet tank designs. The US 76mm gun did have a higher muzzle velocity than the Soviet gun, and so better armor-piercing characteristics.

[Meneldil]

Kinda OT, but thanks to the Wikipedia link, I discovered the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and
Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster.
Typical Nazi megalomania. Even Warhammer 40K super heavy tanks aren't nearly as huge. I seriously doubt those would have been of any use on a battlefield, other than fearing to death the opponent.

[English assassin]

Kinda OT, but thanks to the Wikipedia link, I discovered the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and
Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster.
Typical Nazi megalomania. Even Warhammer 40K super heavy tanks aren't nearly as huge. I seriously doubt those would have been of any use on a battlefield, other than fearing to death the opponent.

I am pretty suspicious that that is wikirubbish, I am afraid.

Even allowing for the sort of mindset that thought the Maus might be a good idea, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that a tank the weight of a warship was going to work.

Possibly doodling, or propaganda like the pzkpfw X, but no more.

[Veho Nex]

The Soviets recieved more than 4,000 Shermans and were the only users of the 76mm-armed M4A2 (they also recieved 75mm versions). From what I've read, the Soviet crews liked the Shermans' mechanical reliability, but they disliked its high silhouette; to this day, a low silhouette remains a major survivability feature of Soviet tank designs. The US 76mm gun did have a higher muzzle velocity than the Soviet gun, and so better armor-piercing characteristics.

ummm didnt the english get 4,000 and russians get 14,000 or do i have my numbers backwards

[MilesGregarius]

I am pretty suspicious that that is wikirubbish, I am afraid.

Even allowing for the sort of mindset that thought the Maus might be a good idea, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that a tank the weight of a warship was going to work.

Possibly doodling, or propaganda like the pzkpfw X, but no more.

Looks like Wiki might be half right. From the diagram at this link - http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1500.html - it looks like it wasn't meant to be a tank at all, but an attempt to free their big Schwerer Gustav and Dora style super heavy guns from their railroad tracks.

[MilesGregarius]

ummm didnt the english get 4,000 and russians get 14,000 or do i have my numbers backwards

The numbers on here - http://wio.ru/tank/ll.htm - pretty much jibe with what I've seen elsewhere, about 4000 M4A2s (Sherman IIIs) evenly split between 75mm and 76mm versions.

The Brits I believe received around 17,000 Shermans of all marks.

[Spino]

IIRC, there was a Soviet outfit that was equipped with Shermans in the Eastern Front. They were apparently very happy with them, prefering them to the T-34. From the tactical wargames I've played (e.g. Talonsoft's East Front/West Front; Steel Panthers), the gun on the standard Sherman is much more effective at range than the 76mm guns of the T-34.

The T-34s are absolute monsters if you are Germans in 1941 scenarios though. Their guns can pick off Panzers at distance, while their armour is impervious to German tank guns at range.

And oddly enough Russia's aces preferred the US Lend-Lease P-39s to their own nation's planes. Based purely on performance figures and playing sims like Oleg Maddox's IL-2 & Pacific Fighter series you'd think the reverse would be true and Russian aces would have been nuts to fly anything other than Yak-3s, La-5fns & La-7s. US and British vehicles definitely held the advantage over their Russian counterparts in terms of quality control and overall design.

Russian guns and optics were pretty mediocre during the war. The later war 100mm and 122mm guns were quite effective against German armor (especially the former) but Russian optics and crew training were still insufficient to make the most out of the technology.

[Fisherking]

I have to say that if I were choosing a fighting vehicle from the era it would be the Pz V G with IR.

My first priority would be crew survivability, fallowed by killing power. The Tigers had better armor and stronger guns but we too slow to maneuver and had slower turret traverse.

The Shermans did the job because there were so many of them but they go a lot of men killed manning them. The reason the M-1 bears the name of Abrams is because as a Bn. Commander of a tank unit in WWII he made a promise to himself that if he had a say in it he would not send crews into battle in such death traps…I guess he kept his promises.