StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What do you say? TigerI, Panther, T-34? Others? Duke it out for your favorite(s)!

Depends.
My personal take is the King Tiger,but only because I prefer amor and firepower over speed.A Panther is more balanced and probably more useful overall.T-34 and Sherman were enough good and could be produced in larger numbers than the Panther.So really depends on what you want.

IIRC the King Tiger was slow and unreliable.

T-34 best tank....cheap, desiel fuel(not prone to fires), sloped armour(which was something new back then)....all around great tank!!!

I like the Tiger but the T-34 was an extremely good tank for its time and exactly what the Russians needed to hold off Hitler with

I voted T-34, IIRC it was part of the biggest tank battle since... Well ever, and Zhukov used it to change the tide of the war, IIRC. Anyone want to correct me on that?

I saw the Panther, as its 75mm/71 cal main gun had excellent penetrative abilities, and much longer range than the T-34's gun, either the 75 or 84mm versions.

No one can argue the greatness of the T-34. However, the Panther was developed as a counter to it. Of the design studies submitted by the Germans, one was a shameless copy, and Hitler was having none of that. As it was, the Panther introduced T-34 style angled armour. Panther was probably the better machine, but the T-34 is the most influential tank of all time.

Frank Hipper wrote:No one can argue the greatness of the T-34. However, the Tanther was developed as a counter to it. Of the design studies submitted by the Germans, one was a shameless copy, and Hitler was having none of that. As it was, the Panther introduced T-34 style angled armour. Panther was probably the better machine, but the T-34 is the most influential tank of all time.

The Germans rejected a T-34 clone because they did not have suitable engine and they didn't like the idea of a two-man turret. That would mean giving away there gunnery and command and control advantage. By the time they where done taking all the good features of the T-34 and adding in the good features of German armor, they had the Panther.


The Sherman gets my vote. How many WW2 tanks can claim multiple T-62 kills?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:No one can argue the greatness of the T-34. However, the Tanther was developed as a counter to it. Of the design studies submitted by the Germans, one was a shameless copy, and Hitler was having none of that. As it was, the Panther introduced T-34 style angled armour. Panther was probably the better machine, but the T-34 is the most influential tank of all time.

The Germans rejected a T-34 clone because they did not have suitable engine and they didn't like the idea of a two-man turret. That would mean giving away there gunnery and command and control advantage. By the time they where done taking all the good features of the T-34 and adding in the good features of German armor, they had the Panther.


The Sherman gets my vote. How many WW2 tanks can claim multiple T-62 kills?

Are you referring to the Israeli Shermans?

Commander LeoRo wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:No one can argue the greatness of the T-34. However, the Tanther was developed as a counter to it. Of the design studies submitted by the Germans, one was a shameless copy, and Hitler was having none of that. As it was, the Panther introduced T-34 style angled armour. Panther was probably the better machine, but the T-34 is the most influential tank of all time.

The Germans rejected a T-34 clone because they did not have suitable engine and they didn't like the idea of a two-man turret. That would mean giving away there gunnery and command and control advantage. By the time they where done taking all the good features of the T-34 and adding in the good features of German armor, they had the Panther.


The Sherman gets my vote. How many WW2 tanks can claim multiple T-62 kills?

Are you referring to the Israeli Shermans?

Yeah. One that got rushed up to the Golan in 73 knocked out something like thirty Syrian tanks including several T-62 platoons in an ambush.

I'd give it to the T-34/85, personally.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: The Germans rejected a T-34 clone because they did not have suitable engine and they didn't like the idea of a two-man turret. That would mean giving away there gunnery and command and control advantage. By the time they where done taking all the good features of the T-34 and adding in the good features of German armor, they had the Panther.


The Sherman gets my vote. How many WW2 tanks can claim multiple T-62 kills?

Are you referring to the Israeli Shermans?

Yeah. One that got rushed up to the Golan in 73 knocked out something like thirty Syrian tanks including several T-62 platoons in an ambush.

That was during the 6 Day War, right? At Tel-el Ful or something like that. I thought the Isaeli air support destroyed the enemy tanks by targeting the fuel barrels that were full of gasoline. If those were Syrian tanks you may be referring to the Yom Kippur War.

Commander LeoRo wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:

Are you referring to the Israeli Shermans?

Yeah. One that got rushed up to the Golan in 73 knocked out something like thirty Syrian tanks including several T-62 platoons in an ambush.

That was during the 6 Day War, right? At Tel-el Ful or something like that. I thought the Isaeli air support destroyed the enemy tanks by targeting the fuel barrels that were full of gasoline. If those were Syrian tanks you may be referring to the Yom Kippur War.

I said Syrian Tanks, I said 73, IE the Yom Kippur War. I mean both.

The T34 was probably the best design, but individually it was probably not as good as the later German models. It was better only because it was more easily manufactured with less resources. The American Sherman was not a very good design. It fell into the trap of being TOO cheap, with rivets instead of welds and a host of other mechanical problems.

Master of Ossus wrote:The T34 was probably the best design, but individually it was probably not as good as the later German models. It was better only because it was more easily manufactured with less resources. The American Sherman was not a very good design. It fell into the trap of being TOO cheap, with rivets instead of welds and a host of other mechanical problems.

And its nickname of Ronson was given to it because it lit on first strike. (Ronson was a lighter manufacturer)

The Sherman was little more prone to fire that any other tank, when properly loaded. The Sherman got its bad rep for burning in Normandy, where the problem was the crews massively overloading them with ammunition, as much as 50% in some cases. Any tank so overloaded would go up if hit.

T-34's where also well known for exploding when hit frontally due to poor ammunition storage even in the normal loading.

Matilda ownz the battlefield!!11!


*ducks into bombproof shelter*

Raxmei wrote:Matilda ownz the battlefield!!11!


*ducks into bombproof shelter*

Through early 1941, kind of. After that however.. *Readies 240mm earth penetrating laser guided mortar round.*


Sad thing is the Russian used them for infantry support through 1944..

Raxmei wrote:Matilda ownz the battlefield!!11!


*ducks into bombproof shelter*

Tillie's were undergunned. Nice tanks, but undergunned.

The Dark wrote:

Raxmei wrote:Matilda ownz the battlefield!!11!


*ducks into bombproof shelter*

Tillie's were undergunned. Nice tanks, but undergunned.

The 40mm 2-pounder could rape any other tank in the world when the Matilda entered service. And at the time most tanks had 37 or 20mm guns, with the Russian 45mm BT's being fairly rare and the Panzer IV with its stubby little gun not yet in production.

The all round near immunity to most of the worlds anti tank ordinance was nice as well.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

The Dark wrote:

Raxmei wrote:Matilda ownz the battlefield!!11!


*ducks into bombproof shelter*

Tillie's were undergunned. Nice tanks, but undergunned.

The 40mm 2-pounder could rape any other tank in the world when the Matilda entered service. And at the time most tanks had 37 or 20mm guns, with the Russian 45mm BT's being fairly rare and the Panzer IV with its stubby little gun not yet in production.

The all round near immunity to most of the worlds anti tank ordinance was nice as well.

True, but (IIRC) it wasn't capable of being up-gunned like the Panzers were. I do still feel it was a good tank, but it was built on outdated military philosophies, and as such was not as influential as later tanks.

Of course, any tank looks good compared to the Japanese Type 95 Kyugo. 1 37mm cannon and 2 6.5mm machine-guns. Top speed 46kph, and 12mm of armor. One was disabled by a rifle bullet hitting its idler wheel, and others had their turrets jammed by infantry soldiers' knife blades. A Sherman could blow a hole through both sides of a Kyugo with a single round. My nominee for worst tank of World War II.

The Dark wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

The Dark wrote: Tillie's were undergunned. Nice tanks, but undergunned.

The 40mm 2-pounder could rape any other tank in the world when the Matilda entered service. And at the time most tanks had 37 or 20mm guns, with the Russian 45mm BT's being fairly rare and the Panzer IV with its stubby little gun not yet in production.

The all round near immunity to most of the worlds anti tank ordinance was nice as well.

True, but (IIRC) it wasn't capable of being up-gunned like the Panzers were. I do still feel it was a good tank, but it was built on outdated military philosophies, and as such was not as influential as later tanks.

Of course, any tank looks good compared to the Japanese Type 95 Kyugo. 1 37mm cannon and 2 6.5mm machine-guns. Top speed 46kph, and 12mm of armor. One was disabled by a rifle bullet hitting its idler wheel, and others had their turrets jammed by infantry soldiers' knife blades. A Sherman could blow a hole through both sides of a Kyugo with a single round. My nominee for worst tank of World War II.

In one action several Type 95's where actually destroyed by 75mm shrapnel. Forget the M4's main gun, the M2 browning could put a round through one side and out the other. Damn pice of crap makes the British Mark VI light tank look good. At least it could runaway.


Italy's L.3/35 tanklet didn't see much service in WW2. However in Ethiopia in 1935 scores where destroyed by Ethiopian troops, in some cases unarmed men overwhelmed them, jammed the tracks with wood branches then yank them off before pulled open the hatches and beating the crews to death.

Japanese and Italian armor in the war was tragically comic. Or is that comedically tragic. Either way, PEEE-YOO! And Germany built some stinkers early on.

Frank Hipper wrote:Japanese and Italian armor in the war was tragically comic. Or is that comedically tragic. Either way, PEEE-YOO! And Germany built some stinkers early on.

Yeah, but at least Germany had the excuse of having to disguise them as civilian vehicles. That absolves them of at least some blame in my book.