WWII Tanks


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > History > WWII Tanks

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2014, 09:40 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,040
Liked 250 Times on 178 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default WWII Tanks

The best I can find out, the allies let tank development languish and made no effort to build a replacement for the fire-prone Sherman . There seems also to have been no effort to build an American heavy tank . This seems idiotic to me, having seen programs on The Military Channel about the Tiger and Panther Tanks . Let the discussion begin .



__________________
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 05-10-2014, 09:54 PM   #2
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Easy_CZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 205
Liked 115 Times on 70 Posts

Default WWII Tanks

The Panther and T34 were the best tanks of the war. What the Sherman's lacked in firepower, they made up in superior numbers. The Tigers and King Tigers, with their 88mm main gun, were extremely formidable. But the heavy Tigers were more complicated and took more man hours to keep in service, compared to the under-gunned Shermans.


Sent from my iPad using Firearms Talk



__________________
Easy_CZ is offline  
7point62 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:08 PM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,695
Liked 544 Times on 360 Posts
Likes Given: 169

Default

The Sherman had its faults poor armour gun and its ability to go on fire when hit. But they were reliable and available in large numbers. The poor performance of the main gun was rectified when some was fitted with the British 17-pounder in the Sherman firefly. Some Pershing tanks with heavier armour and a 90 mm guns were used at the end of ww2.

firefly.jpg   m26_pershing-2.jpg  
__________________
manta is offline  
therewolf Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:20 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
sputnik1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Bluegrass state
Posts: 2,877
Liked 712 Times on 463 Posts
Likes Given: 1949

Default

Maneuverability was one positive aspect of the smaller Sherman and Stuart tanks. Let us not forget the maneuverability problems that the Germans had in the Ardennes.

__________________
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. - John Wayne

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
sputnik1988 is offline  
Quentin Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:28 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hairbear1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Molong,NSW Australia
Posts: 624
Liked 409 Times on 223 Posts
Likes Given: 31

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy_CZ View Post
The Panther and T34 were the best tanks of the war. What the Sherman's lacked in firepower, they made up in superior numbers. The Tigers and King Tigers, with their 88mm main gun, were extremely formidable. But the heavy Tigers were more complicated and took more man hours to keep in service, compared to the under-gunned Shermans.


Sent from my iPad using Firearms Talk
The Allies were very lucky that Hitler was defeated as he had plans on the drawing board for a 100 ton Tank with I think from memory a 155mm gun and virtually impenetrable armour.

They also had a Tiger late in the war come into production with a 120mm gun

The Tiger and King Tigers were the kings of the battlefield on all fronts but when the Germans went into Stalingrad and other places like towns they found they were easy victims for a couple of grenades stuck together or bazooka's hitting the tracks and immobilizing them.
They were also very weak in the back and sides armour wise so flanking attacks were the go to knock them out.

They also had a lot of little problems with them like leaking fuel lines,drive train problems and very thirsty Maybach engines that basically were getting gallons to the mile and they were susceptible to breaking down but their 88mm guns could launch a shell around 3200fps and were effective out to ranges of 2000 metres where as anything the Allies had weren't good until inside 500yds or so and only had 75mm guns.

The sighting mechanisms in the Tigers was revolutionary at the time as they used a gyroscope to sight the gun so that they could fire while moving while Allied tanks had to stop and sight.

The front armour on the Tigers was almost impenetrable to anything the Russians and Allies had as well.

Other than these problems the Tiger was the King of the battle field.

The Shermans were nicknamed "Ronsons"(cigarette lighter) by the Yanks and Germans because of their ability to light up after being hit
__________________

The ability to think and speak doesn't necessarily guarantee intelligence


Last edited by hairbear1; 05-10-2014 at 10:33 PM.
hairbear1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:57 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
clr8ter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Central NH
Posts: 3,545
Liked 1104 Times on 734 Posts
Likes Given: 730

Default

Watch the movie "Tank", 1984, with James Gardner.

__________________

I don't see what the problem is. Everybody is being nice, and getting along, and I, for one, am learning stuff. So, if you don't like the discussion, don't look at the thread. Or, simply cut to the chase, and close it.
_________________
Is there an age limit for a thread, after which we kill it?

clr8ter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 11:48 PM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,695
Liked 544 Times on 360 Posts
Likes Given: 169

Default

Quote:
The sighting mechanisms in the Tigers was revolutionary at the time as they used a gyroscope to sight the gun so that they could fire while moving while Allied tanks had to stop and sight.
I could be wrong I haven't checked. But was it not the Sherman that had a gyroscopic stabilisation system for the main gun later in the war, I am not sure the German tiger had a similar system. I am sure someone will enlighten me.

Quote:
The M4 Sherman evolved from the M3 Medium Tank (a.k.a. Grant and Lee), which had an unusual side-sponson mounted 75 mm gun. It retained much of the previous mechanical design, but added the first American main 75 mm gun mounted on a fully traversing turret, with a (gyrostabilizer enabling the crew to fire with reasonable accuracy while the tank was on the move)
__________________

Last edited by manta; 05-11-2014 at 11:33 AM.
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2014, 12:03 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 540
Liked 220 Times on 117 Posts
Likes Given: 31

Default

The "King" Tiger tank was never defeated by a frontal shot. It was actually the Panzer VI, and never officially called the King Tiger. The Tiger tank, was the last of the old style of tank design, with the complicated and multiple piece front glacis. It was defeated with frontal shots by heavy guns. The Panther, Panzer V, was the first step towards a modern design, inspired mostly by the T-34 tanks sloped armor and wide tracks. The T-34 was a BRUTAL surprise to the undefeated Panzers, and the Panzer II and Panzer III tanks found themselves badly outclassed, until Tigers and Panzer IVs with long barreld 75mm guns came on to the scene, and the T-34 held on for the rest of the war as an excellent medium tank, especially when upgunned to the T-34/85 with 85mm main gun.
The Panther was the best medium tank of the war, no doubt about that. There WERE heavier armored vehicle deployed by the Germans, such as the Jagdtiger, the heaviest armored vehicle ever deployed in any numbers, with a 128mm main gun, but it was actually a tank destroyer, not a tank, and was built in too few numbers for real effect, like the SturmTiger, with it's infantry destroying 300MM rocket mortar.
The biggest of the big was the Maus, with a turret sporting a 128mm main gun with 75mm gun riding sidecar. Three were made, one is left in the Russian armor museum, still sporting the dents in the front put there by Russians using it for target practice...and not penetrating it. Bigger tanks were visualized, such as the Ratte, but they never went past conceptual drawings, being too large and too heavy to be used anywhere.
The US Army continued tank development after the wars end, and you could very logically say the last of the WWII inspired designs was the M-60A5 MBT. The M-1 Abrams and the rest of the "modern" supertanks came from post war thinking.

__________________

Last edited by armoredman; 05-11-2014 at 12:06 AM.
armoredman is offline  
SSGN_Doc Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2014, 12:18 AM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,055
Liked 2620 Times on 1827 Posts
Likes Given: 1339

Default

The Sherman was not designed or intended to go one-on-one with a monster like the KT. The main advantage of the Sherman was in the numbers and the relative ease of repair. The real life showdown was more like the Shermans swarming a KT. One on one comparisons are for the video games.

__________________
Mercator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2014, 05:49 AM   #10
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 18,027
Liked 5982 Times on 3130 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

America developed the combined arms and ground support to a high sheen in ww2. Most of the armor destroyed by american forces was via artillery or air attack. Shermans were intended to be used against infantry not enemy armor by the time of the european invasion in 1944.

Typical tactic was to advance until armored opposition was met then retreat and call in artillery or air support. With the limited ammount of armored vehicles available to the germans by 1944 it was a very successful tactic. If there had been no russia invasion by hitler and the t34 destroying most of the german armor it might have been different.

Another problem plaguing the germans was vastly over complicated machinery gun systems and a huge variety of calibers in their tanks. Supply and repair was a nightmare and contributed greatly to their losses in the eastern and western fronts.

The tiger, mkiv, panther, kingtiger were massive with big guns but their weight and mechanical issues kept them from being combat effective in a strategic sense. Tacticly in a one on one the german tanks were nearly unbeatable in perfect conditions. Those perfect conditions never existed during ww2...



__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Wwii 303tom The Club House 1 02-23-2014 07:21 PM
2 more unmarked tanks traveling west down 74 through IL this morning purehavoc Conspiracy 19 03-25-2013 06:29 PM
Tanks against the Taliban? Mack Bolan Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 11-20-2010 05:51 PM
Best WWII smg? jestsumguy Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 28 04-03-2010 03:23 AM
WWII in HD gadrooning The Club House 1 02-27-2010 05:31 PM