I want to greet everyone and I think that we will have a lot of fun together,but now i want to ask something.Which tanks were the strongest in the whole war I think that the strongest tanks were German panzers.I think that a Tiger is stronger than a Sherman or a Matilda but Im not so sure with the Russian tanks.So what do you think who had the best tanks?
Welcome to the boards, Devil, and you'll enjoy it here. Do tell us about yourself. I like the T-34, personally.
Welcome Devil. You have posed an interesting question, one which requires a definition of "stronger." Mechanically stronger or more capable of destroying an enemy tank? If the latter, many factors come into play. Is the terrain such that only one of the tanks is within killing range of the other? When two opposing tanks are within killing range of each other, which has the higher rate of fire? et cetera. If the former, Shermans were much more strong mechanically than were the Tigers. If the latter, Tigers engaging tanks outside the killing range of their opponents earned the reputation of being invincible. However, it was a different story in Tunisia and Italy where they came up against Churchills. With best wishes, Gerry
Originally posted by Gerry Chester@Mar 21 2005, 07:21 PM If the former, Shermans were much more strong mechanically than were the Tigers. Gerry [post=32391]Quoted post[/post] The germans used to nickname Shermans "Zippos" as they caught fire with the first strike. Hi devil welcome to the boards.
I thank you for this great welcome .I thought which tank has the best capabilitis in killing enemy tanks.Do anyone now which tank had the most kills in the war
I personally think that the best tank killerse were the Panzers, especially the Tiger and King Tiger. However, mechanical problems limited the abilities of both. Also, the sheer number of Sherman tanks thrown against them was unbearable. The American tank producing capabilities were at its max during the war. At the end, there were over 50,000 Shermans in service, with 11,000 other European tanks. These numbers were astonding. A popular German saying was, "I had 88mms, you had tanks. You sent tanks up the road. I knocked them out easily. Then I ran out of ammo. You didn't run out of tanks." The Soviet T34 was also something to note. The armor of the T34 made it hell for the German Tanks. A full blast from a Panzer couldn't penetrate the thick sloping armor. Not only that, but it was far more reliable then the Tigers, and could be reproduced with rapid speed. Freash T34s were rolled off the assembly line and into battle. They could move over mud, ice, and any terrain which Russia had to offer.
Tanks like the Tiger were certainly superior to the British Matilda, which was in service early in the war and was obsolete by the time Tigers were in service. However, in 1940/41 the Matilda II was superior in almost all regards to the models of the Panzer III and IV then in service. All relative.
T34 for me....gave the Germans a real shock, and produced in huge numbers. Reliable, well armed and with the new sloping armour. Panther was the german attempt to copy its design features. Tigers were excellent defensive platforms and great in open ares such as Russian steppes where they could put their firepower and long range to good effect, however, there were limitations in its effectiveness in Western Europe...see Battle of Bulge, where it was just too big and totally lacking in manoeuvrability
Having seen all the tanks in action There is no comparison, the German tanks were far surperior to ours. The Shermans burst into flames if you looked at them, All the German arms were superior. machine guns, tanks, the veterans still speak in hushed and admiring tones about the 88mm high velocity artillery. The schmieser light Mc gun was fabulous. men captured and tried to use them, then paid with their lives, the sound was distinctive and often drew a burst from our men that killed the user. The Panthers and Tigers always better than the American Shermans, The German troops called the Shermans. "Tommy Cookers" They cooked the Tommies inside!..our tank men called them "Ronson Lighters" Due to the advert fot the Ronson cigarette lighter in the National press; "Lights first time, every time" Why we won, despite our losses in tanks, was simply mass production. On the Goodwood offensive that I took part in, we lost 400 tanks, OK go and get 400 more! If you were down inside the Sherman, then you had no chance, later, when the tank was opened, the men where still sat in their seats, but just white bone ash, if you touched that ash, it disintegrated. Sapper
Last evening, on the Military Channel, was an hour-long programme ranking the ten all-time top tanks. An interesting show well worth viewing if repeated. The establishment of the ranking for each tank was based on scores in five criteria: firepower - armour - mobility - production - ability to strike fear into the hearts of enemy tank crews. The result, based upon the computing of scores in each category, was: Number 1: T-34 (USSR) Number 2: M-1 Abrams (USA) Number 3: Pz.Kfw.VI - the Tiger (Germany) Number 4: WWI Mark IV (UK) Number 5: Centurion (UK) Number 6: Pz.Kfw.IV (Germany) Number 7: Challenger (UK) Number 8: T-54/55 (USSR) Number 9: Merkava (Israel) Number 10: M-4 Sherman (USA) The scoring was based on opinions of experts, technical comparisons and polls. Where the latter were taken was not stated. A personal comment. Too much emphasis was placed on the so-called fear factor, real or imagined, in the minds of crews facing a particular tank in one theatre - the experience of crews, fighting in other theatres, does not necessarily engender fear for same tank. For example, in North Africa and Italy, meeting Pz.Kfw.IV was the cause for more concern than coming up against a Tiger. Gerry
Originally posted by Gerry Chester@Apr 9 2005, 06:01 PM Number 4: WWI Mark IV (UK) [post=33029]Quoted post[/post] Could you give more details? This could fit quite a few models of British tank.
Originally posted by angie999+Apr 10 2005, 08:57 AM-->(angie999 @ Apr 10 2005, 08:57 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Gerry Chester@Apr 9 2005, 06:01 PM Number 4: WWI Mark IV (UK) [post=33029]Quoted post[/post] Could you give more details? This could fit quite a few models of British tank. [post=33045]Quoted post[/post] [/b] This a mark V basically an updated mark IV View attachment 620
If I may add my uneducated reply. In terms of all the factors above, the one that stands out for me is always mechanical reliability. It's no good having an armoured vehicle that can't make it to the start line. In this respect the Soviet T-34 was a work of art, supurbly engineered for an uneducated conscript army, and reliable to the point of absurdity. Secondly I would mention the Sherman, easy to produce, reliable and shared a wealth of spare parts with other Allied Armies and variants. While German Tanks always get the mention, I feel they were overated, as they were not able to be produced in anywhere enough numbers, their mechanical reliability and complexity left something to be desired and there were too many models to allow standardisation of spare parts throughout the German Army.
Originally posted by angie999 Could you give more details? This could fit quite a few models of British tank. The Mark IV had significant improvements over her predecessors. She came in two versions; Male mounting 6-pdr guns in each on the sponsons, Female mounting machine guns in the sponsons. It was the Mark that took part in the first massed tank attack, the Battle of Cambrai. I have several photographs of her (even the Male version was considered being of the female gender) on this page: http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/Articles/6-6.html Included are some photographs of "Deborah" seeing the light of day after being buried for eighty years. Gerry
Originally posted by Gerry Chester+Apr 10 2005, 02:12 PM-->(Gerry Chester @ Apr 10 2005, 02:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999 Could you give more details? This could fit quite a few models of British tank. The Mark IV had significant improvements over her predecessors. She came in two versions; Male mounting 6-pdr guns in each on the sponsons, Female mounting machine guns in the sponsons. It was the Mark that took part in the first massed tank attack, the Battle of Cambrai. I have several photographs of her (even the Male version was considered being of the female gender) on this page: http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/Articles/6-6.html Included are some photographs of "Deborah" seeing the light of day after being buried for eighty years. Gerry [post=33056]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Of course! Sorry, I was thinking WWII and forgot about that other war.
Originally posted by Dave Leonard@Apr 10 2005, 11:58 AM While German Tanks always get the mention, I feel they were overated, .. [post=33055]Quoted post[/post] Overated is a matter of opinion,.. statistic is a matter of fact,.. panzer kills much much more than allied tanks,..most of germans seated behind those panzers can easily become a tanker ace,.. and they have lots of those aces,.
