Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 413

Thread: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

  1. #241
    Guderian's Duck's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    If you go by the numbers, the Leopard 2a6 actually is faster, more efficient, has a more powerful gun, and is better protected than the M1a2. The US Army is currently looking into adopting Rheinmetall's L/55 120mm gun to increase the lethality of the Abrams.

    Max operational range:
    Leopard 2a6: 350 miles
    M1a2: 250 miles

    Max top speed:
    Leopard 2a6: 42mph, 34mph cross country
    M1a2: 42 mph, 30mph cross country

    The L/55 gun gives the Leo2a6 the ability to kill other tanks at a range of 4km rather than the 3km of the Abrams M1a2.

    The German army has been upgrading their tanks with improved protection against IEDs and shaped charge weaponry.
    Last edited by Guderian's Duck; July 31, 2008 at 09:00 PM.
    The Jagdpanzer IV was a tank destroyer developed against the wishes of Heinz Guderian. Its large gun and heavy frontal armor led to poor mobility and made them difficult to operate in rough terrain, leading their crews to nickname them Guderian Ente; Guderian's Duck.

  2. #242
    Spartacus the Irish's Avatar Tally Ho!
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Currently; Lancashire, England.
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapax View Post
    No I'm always like that, thank you. So, any more expert inside on what things are better than other things?
    - another recruit to the national sarcasm society. Hooray!

    Just one question - have the Leopard II and the M1Awhatever come up against each othe rin conflict, with equally well-trained crews and a battlefield completely devoid of advantageous and disadvantageous terrain?

    Don't bother answering anyone - it's rhetorical. The fact is, that in the right circumstances, almost any tank can beat another. Though I err on the side of the Leopard as the better tank - through admittedly without any particular proof of this fact - that is a question that cannot be answered without combat between the two; and then still the question of numbers, crew quality, terrain, and a myriad other things come into account which could swing such an encounter one way or the other.

    This is a question that has no answer until either a computer simulation of the two tanks is run and a victor is found (which would still not provide proof of a tank's superiority, only of a tank's projected superiority), or a Leopard and an Abrams engage each other in a fanboy deathmatch wet dream. Until then, this is all moot.
    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    how do you suggest a battleship fire directly at tanks...?
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus the Irish View Post
    I don't suggest it. Battleships were, believe it or not, not anti-tank weapons.

  3. #243

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guderian's Duck View Post
    If you go by the numbers, the Leopard 2a6 actually is faster, more efficient, has a more powerful gun, and is better protected than the M1a2. The US Army is currently looking into adopting Rheinmetall's L/55 120mm gun to increase the lethality of the Abrams.

    Max operational range:
    Leopard 2a6: 350 miles
    M1a2: 250 miles

    Max top speed:
    Leopard 2a6: 42mph, 34mph cross country
    M1a2: 42 mph, 30mph cross country

    The L/55 gun gives the Leo2a6 the ability to kill other tanks at a range of 4km rather than the 3km of the Abrams M1a2.

    The German army has been upgrading their tanks with improved protection against IEDs and shaped charge weaponry.
    Not to mention the fuel consumption and the heat seaking missile exhaust of the M1a2
    "The future's uncertain And the end is always near."

  4. #244
    Ex Tenebris Lux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,433

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    maybe we can get back to the actual thread topic lol

    I'm going to say, the Stalin 3. I know earlier I said Pershing, however they only saw limited action towads the end. The IS-2s and 3s were monsters.

    I also want to say the Tiger, and the only reason why I won't say the King Tiger is tha it was too late and plagued with issues. So while the Tiger may not have been as powerful as the King Tiger, it was much more reliable, and hell, it was powerful enough lol.
    Last edited by Ex Tenebris Lux; August 02, 2008 at 09:47 AM.
    I've been here the whole time.

  5. #245
    christof139's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,890

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwaz View Post
    I never said all americans think like that. I said some do.

    And for benefit of them, I gave you clear explanation on why Leo2A6 can easily be seen as have advantage over M1.

    Because else they would have kept thinking like your post suggested. Now, they at least have opportunity to read response to such and hopefully one of them starts to think critically beyond that "Made in USA"-stamp.
    Ha ha ha!!! Don't you realize that we Made in the USA people know that we have been using foreign designed weapons for a long time, sometimes improving upon them and sometimes using them en masse 'as is'.

    The NATO 105mm in the M-60 MBT was a British gun, the main gun gyro-stabilizing device in the WWII Sherman was British designed, both sides in the ACW used British made and also manufactured their own derivatives of British Enfields, the magnificent engine of the later P-51 Mustang fighters were British Merlin-Rolls Royce engines, and so on etc.

    Tiwaz, you are quite biased, prejudiced, and also quite ignorant of what other people know and have experienced etc.

    Also, today, Britiain is for some strange reason working on Chinese MBT guns of up to 140mm.

    However, the USA has made many weapons designed and invented by Americans that were adapted 'as is' by many other nations such as the Gatling Gun, Maxim MG, Remington rolling block rifles, Sharps breechloading rifles (the Tsar adapted these for the Russian army shortly after the American Civil War (ACW)), Sherman tanks and its many derivatives including the Priest, many warplanes, artillery, the semi-auto M1 Garand rifle and a magnificent rifle it was, etc. USA also designed the first automatic loading 8-inch naval gun. Blah, blah, blah.

    I'd take a Super Pershing with its Super 90mm and ammo, or one of the USA heavy tanks or assault guns that were not put into production during WWII due to weight and consequent shipping restrictions. These later USA heavies that were not mass produced but were built and tested would have ate KT's and JS' alive, and one USA Heavy AG had thick enough and superb armor that a KT would not have been able to penetrate at about 100 meters. Too bad we had difficulty in shipping only about 320 regular Pershings to the ETO, and that we couldn't ship and get into combat the 2,000 plus that were produced. The seas and oceans are large and hazardous to cross so we wnet with the Sherman medium tank and TD's, and they did well enough. We don't have a problem with shipping large objects overseas today though.

    For mass produced tanks of WWII that were used in combat in substantial
    numbers the German KT had the most powerful gun in WWII, but it was not the best tank for many other reasons, and the Jagd Tiger was hated by its crews because it was too big and clumsy and slow. Some people claim 84 or so JT's were produced, but 48 were completed in 1944 and it seems that no more were ever completely completed although additional chassis were completed.

    Chris

  6. #246
    christof139's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,890

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Orretje View Post
    That's really not what was happening. The Germans still had guns that were superior to any weapon the Allies could field, for example the 88mm of the Tiger II and Jagdpanther were never equalled by Allied or Soviet guns, let alone the 128mm PaK44 which was also in the Jagdtiger. That gun could destroy even the heaviest Allied or Soviet tank (such as the ISII) from ranges up to 3,500 meters (!).

    The problem for Germany was the absence of enough tungsten to produce higher quality ammunition. However even without the special anti-tank rounds with a tungsten core the German guns were devastating against Allied armor. It's not for no reason that most German tanks were destroyed by enemy aircraft instead of by anti-tank guns or Allied tanks.

    And the US AFV's you are referring to were designed as break-through self propelled guns, even more cumbersome than the mouse. If the Maus was a joke, so were many of the US designs for super heavy tanks etc.

    Even today Germany is still ahead of the US in the quality of their tanks and guns, so go figure. The Leopard I was a great innovation at the time, and really got the Soviets scared. The Leopard II is arguably the best tank ever produced, and even the Abrams uses a German gun.
    The Super 90mm of the Super Pershing was superior to the 88mm due to the fact it had HVAP ammo and this gun with this ammo penetrated the fron turret of a KT and made a hole and the round stuck half-way through the hole in the rear side of the KT's turret.

    I know, I trained with German units that had the Leopard I, and it was a good tank. It doesn't matter if the Leopard II is a bit better in some regards as it most likely will never be used in combat and the Abrams has and will be used successfully in combat and the Abrams can be upgraded and new derivatives produced.

    Yes, and so what, the 105mm gun was British and the 120mm is German. They are our allies and we are theirs and we share technology with each other and have done so for many decades. The USA 90mm and British 105mm were fine guns during the years of their use and M-48's with 90mm's and crewed by ARVN easily destroyed PAVN/NVA T-54/55's etc. in Vietnam, as did the M42 Walker Bulldog light tank crewed by ARVN with its 76mm main gun firing HEAT ammo etc.

    The 105mm gun of the M-60 and early M1 Abrams was the British NATO tank gun - it wasn't German.

    Britain first employed the HEAT ammo with their PIAT's in WWII in North Africa whee it proved capable of knocking out a Tiger I. (Have to watch out for Infantry with AT weapons you know. )

    USA has better warplanes the F-22 is presently the best available, and a lot of nations use our great F-16.

    We also build better warships.

    Fact is that the Germans were starting to lose the gun-armor-manueverabilty race with AFV's at the end of WWII, and KT's and Tiger I's and the very few JT's made were mechanically unreliable and slow and not especially liked by their crews.

    Many German tanks were destoyed at closer ranges by Allied armor and infantry. They were not unbeatable and had flanks and rears and treads and bogie wheels etc. were shot off them.

    Combat is combat and war is war and it is not a wargame on a table rolling dice and simply comparing statistics etc. Many variables, including the quality of the troops and their combat experience make a huge impact on the outcome of battles and wars.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    Good link to MI Abrams models and upgrades already done and in the process of being done, including a newer and more efficient engine.

    "While the M1A2 SEP and M1A1D provide improved combat capabilities overmatch; the Army is working to improve reliability, reduce logistical footprint, and lower Operations and Support [O&S] costs for the tank. This effort is focused on two initiatives that provide the force with the biggest "bang for the buck" in terms of O&S cost reduction, readiness improvement, and sustainment of combat overmatch. These initiatives include the following Abrams Engine Campaign and the Abrams Integrated Management Overhaul Program (AIM):

    . The AGT 1500 engine has served the Abrams tank well. It afforded a significant combat edge due to its lightweight, power, and stealth. However, the AGT 1500 is getting old and the fleet faces problems in maintaining this workhorse. The AGT 1500 represents 1960s technology and has been out of production since 1992. Declining reliability causes the engine to account for around 64% of the Abrams tank reparable O&S costs. The Army is focusing on the engine as a major element in easing the maintenance burden for the force while substantially reducing O&S costs.

    PM Abrams has developed a two-phased program to improve engine readiness and lower costs. The first phase makes innovative use of a partnership with PM/AMC/industry to overhaul the existing AGT 1500 engine/components. This program is termed PROSE (Partnership for Reduced O&S Costs, Engine). Under PROSE, the government will "team" with the original equipment manufacturer to reengineer the production process and improve field support. The contractor provides quality parts and expert technical support, and the government (our depots) provides the skilled labor and facilities.

    The second phase of the engine initiative involves replacing the AGT 1500 engine with a new engine. There is great potential for improved tank readiness and long term O&S cost reduction in the implementation of this phase. This approach will not be cheap and will require a major decision by the Army. A 2 billion-dollar investment is required to replace the current engine with a new engine in the active component along, with a potential savings of 13 billion over the remaining life of the tank.

    The PROSE process is expected to improve reliability by 30%. The benefits of the new engine are much more dramatic - the Army could achieve a 4-5 fold improvement in reliability, hopefully a 35% reduction in fuel consumption, a 42% reduction in the number of parts, and a 15-20% improvement in vehicle mobility. Life cycle engine O&S costs are projected to drop from 16 billion dollars over 30 years with the current engine to 3 billion dollars with the new engine.

    The second piece of our O&S cost reduction strategy is the Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program. The AIM process overhauls an old M1A1 tank to original factory standards, applying all applicable MWO’s. The AIM Proof of Principle was completed in 1997, proving the cost-effectiveness of the concept and helping to define the scope. The AIM tank demonstrated an 18% O&S cost savings when compared to non-AIM tanks. The AIM overhaul concept is a cost-effective solution to address the problems of rising tank sustainment costs and increasing readiness concerns."

    Chris
    Last edited by christof139; August 06, 2008 at 06:17 PM.

  7. #247
    Ex Tenebris Lux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,433

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Chris just owned you all.
    I've been here the whole time.

  8. #248
    Guderian's Duck's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    The Super 90mm of the Super Pershing was superior to the 88mm due to the fact it had HVAP ammo and this gun with this ammo penetrated the fron turret of a KT and made a hole and the round stuck half-way through the hole in the rear side of the KT's turret.
    Are you talking about the instance in an urban setting? The King Tiger's crew was inexperienced and they were less than a block away from eachother. I'm not saying the 90mm firing HVAP was bad however. It was an excellent gun.

    The 105mm gun of the M-60 and early M1 Abrams was the British NATO tank gun - it wasn't German.


    Very true. The M1A2 was a great improvement on the M1. The Rheinmetall gun was chosen for the upgrade to increase its firepower.

    You are correct however. We do make excellent aircraft and ships. That's always been our strength. We've not been as great as other countries with ground combat.

    Many German tanks were destoyed at closer ranges by Allied armor and infantry. They were not unbeatable and had flanks and rears and treads and bogie wheels etc. were shot off them.
    Of course. But that goes for any and all tanks. Keep in mind that the German Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck were vastly superior to the Bazooka and the PIAT.

    The German army has been upgrading their tanks as well. Improved protection against IEDs and shaped-charge weaponry, a larger gun, among other things. The Leo2 has also been in combat in Afghanistan with the Canadian Army.
    The Jagdpanzer IV was a tank destroyer developed against the wishes of Heinz Guderian. Its large gun and heavy frontal armor led to poor mobility and made them difficult to operate in rough terrain, leading their crews to nickname them Guderian Ente; Guderian's Duck.

  9. #249

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex Tenebris Lux View Post
    Chris just owned you all.
    And made you look really, really stupid.

  10. #250

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    I say the JS-II.


    The best Russian tank ever made during the time. Has a good look too.

  11. #251
    Ex Tenebris Lux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,433

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapax View Post
    And made you look really, really stupid.

    um. not really?

    chill maybe? i didn't know we had a problem with each other...?

    and it begs the question, why would you care? would you somehow enjoy if i did? you're not that petty... are you? surely you have more maturity than that.
    Last edited by Ex Tenebris Lux; August 05, 2008 at 01:59 AM.
    I've been here the whole time.

  12. #252

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Just curious, have the newer leopards actually seen combat vs enemy tanks yet?

  13. #253

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexille View Post
    Just curious, have the newer leopards actually seen combat vs enemy tanks yet?
    Danish Leopard 2A5 DK have been in a firefight before, that's been reported on in good detail:
    http://www.casr.ca/ft-leopard-2a5-denmark-2.htm

    On 25th July 2008 though one of the danish Leopards was hit by an IED, killing the driver.
    The canadians also have them in use, Leopard 2A6M CAN in their case, one of which was hit by an IED as well but didn't produce any casualties, most likely due to the added on mine protection of the M-package.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex Tenebris Lux View Post
    um. not really?

    chill maybe? i didn't know we had a problem with each other...?

    and it begs the question, why would you care? would you somehow enjoy if i did? you're not that petty... are you? surely you have more maturity than that.
    What I find petty are people who are trying to attach themselves to the arguments of others after they have refused and failed to construct that argument themselves.

    So I would keep quiet about who owned who if you didn't bring anything to the table yourself.
    Last edited by Senno; May 11, 2010 at 10:01 PM. Reason: Removed off-topic comment.

  14. #254
    christof139's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,890

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    An IED is not a modern enemy tank.

    I didn't know that a Danish Leopard got nailed by an IED. Bad news.

    Chris

  15. #255
    christof139's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,890

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapax View Post
    Danish Leopard 2A5 DK have been in a firefight before, that's been reported on in good detail:
    http://www.casr.ca/ft-leopard-2a5-denmark-2.htm

    On 25th July 2008 though one of the danish Leopards was hit by an IED, killing the driver.
    The canadians also have them in use, Leopard 2A6M CAN in their case, one of which was hit by an IED as well but didn't produce any casualties, most likely due to the added on mine protection of the M-package.


    What I find petty are people who are trying to attach themselves to the arguments of others after they have refused and failed to construct that argument themselves.
    Nevermind that Cristofs usual style of just quoting a whole lot of stuff from a website without any particular comment didn't own anyone.
    So I would keep quiet about who owned who if you didn't bring anything to the table yourself.
    My 'usual style' is to debunk the nonsense that many not ot bright people post here.

    Chris

  16. #256
    christof139's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,890

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guderian's Duck View Post
    Are you talking about the instance in an urban setting? The King Tiger's crew was inexperienced and they were less than a block away from eachother. I'm not saying the 90mm firing HVAP was bad however. It was an excellent gun.



    [/b]Very true. The M1A2 was a great improvement on the M1. The Rheinmetall gun was chosen for the upgrade to increase its firepower.

    You are correct however. We do make excellent aircraft and ships. That's always been our strength. We've not been as great as other countries with ground combat.



    Of course. But that goes for any and all tanks. Keep in mind that the German Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck were vastly superior to the Bazooka and the PIAT.

    The German army has been upgrading their tanks as well. Improved protection against IEDs and shaped-charge weaponry, a larger gun, among other things. The Leo2 has also been in combat in Afghanistan with the Canadian Army.
    You crack me up!!! I am not talking about the one on one battle of a Pershing vs. a KT in which the Pershing won, but am referring to the field test conducted shortly after or at the end of he war where the Super 90mm of a Super Pershing penetrated the front and then the rear of a KT tank at close range.

    Ohhhhh, too bad the German crew was ineperienced; so were USA crews in their intial combats in North Africa and Europe!!! That is war.

    "Urban setting" = "Street fighting" in more realistic terms.

    Yes, the Leo2 has seen combat, BUT NOT AGAINST MODERN ENEMY TANKS, a big difference.

    Have a good day, Chris

  17. #257

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by christof139 View Post
    Yes, the Leo2 has seen combat, BUT NOT AGAINST MODERN ENEMY TANKS, a big difference.
    Yay and neither has the Abrams or Challenger! Great statement!

  18. #258

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    I'd say the Jagdtiger. Practically invulnerable to everything besides heavy aircraft bombs.

  19. #259

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by justinius View Post
    I'd say the Jagdtiger. Practically invulnerable to everything besides heavy aircraft bombs.
    Obviously Jagdtiger - anyone who claims differently doesn't know what they're talking about.

    What was the overall best? T-34 due to ease of production. M4 Sherman could be produced easily but was obviously inferior to the T-34

  20. #260

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by christof139 View Post
    You crack me up!!! I am not talking about the one on one battle of a Pershing vs. a KT in which the Pershing won, but am referring to the field test conducted shortly after or at the end of he war where the Super 90mm of a Super Pershing penetrated the front and then the rear of a KT tank at close range.
    M26 Pershing and King Tiger could both penetrate the front and rear of each other at close range, and both penetrate each other the same amount from the same range.

    The King tiger had more armour, while the M26 had a better gun.

    They are essentially equal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •