Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 413

Thread: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

  1. #41
    Tiwaz's Avatar Bunnywabbita
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,225

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by christof139 View Post
    Mobility is of utmost importance, and USA tanks had a higher rate of acceleration meaning they could move from cover to cover more quickly than German tanks. The USA Hellcat Tank destroyer was hated by the Germans because of its high speed, the fastest tank-like AFV produced in WWII. It was very hard to hit, but when hit it was done for because of its lighter armor, but it had the decent long 76mm gun that fired HVAP, and HVAP became much more available as the war progressed.

    Chris
    If mobility was all that important... Why did everyone who actually fought tank war (admittably mainly germans and russians) create HEAVIER tanks?

    Only USA stuck to idea of "mobile" tanks, which is rather well explained with cheapness to produce and transport than actual superiority in combat.

    If mobility was what mattered, why british abandoned cruiser tank concept? Why battlefields were not dominated by light, mobile tanks with huge guns?

    Because mobility is not that important.

    As you said yourself, when mobile (and thus light and thus poorly armoured) tank was hit, it was dead. And it took less to kill it, lighter gun over longer range was still danger.

    And tank shots moved at speeds WELL over that tanks were capable of. Yes, you make it bit more difficult to hit if you bounce fast, but you also hurt your own accuracy.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  2. #42
    cegorach's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by ShockBlast View Post
    The Jagdtiger had 250 mm armor and a 128 mm gun.(Chris the 128 gun HAD more power then the 88 one)
    The Pershing had 110 armor and a 90 mm gun.
    And next time read the other posts and don`t post creap.....Tiger 2 junk...

    Really ?

    I guess it hurts someone advertising Maus...


    Jagdtiger was:

    - slow,
    - of very poor quality (engine, armour etc),
    - very heavy,

    A waste of resources and fuel.



    Tiger II - very much the same.


    The cannon and the armour wasn't everything - there are other factors.

    If you look at the combat record of Tiger II it is very, very poor - its units were almost always at 1/4 of the initial strenght because of numerous mechanical failures.
    Sure even a platoon mattered when it fought properly, but if a company size force is all what is available from a battalion because they broke down driving uphill I am asking what is the point ?

    Not to mention an offensive combat which resulted in self destruction due to meachanical failures after a day or two (yes it is exaggerated).


    I know it was designed for steppes of Ukraine, but the results are clearly and without a single doubt showing how bad it was.


    After all we are still talking about tanks ? You know the armoured vehicles with guns useful in attack and defence, NOT (barely) mobile bunkers which break down and are captured by the enemy, are we ?
    Last edited by cegorach; June 18, 2008 at 03:28 AM.


    Supporter of Iran's green movement member of the B.A.L.T.S.
    VISIT Pike and Musket forums VISIT the amazing site about PLC
    under the patronage of the mighty ASTERIX

  3. #43
    Tiwaz's Avatar Bunnywabbita
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,225

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Though one has to ask how much of unreliability issues were result of poor state of Germany as whole.

    Does anyone have any information on how much various spare parts units with "reliable" tanks went through in any given time and how much "unreliable" ones did?

    This for different sides of course.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  4. #44
    cegorach's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Poor reliability of later German tanks is a known fact.


    But here are some examples - avarage, hardly anything special about those records.

    s.Pz.Abt 'Feldherrnhalle

    operated in Hungary


    11th January 1945 - 25 Tiger II, combat ready - 13,

    after a day - 3 ready to fight (only two lost in combat),

    15th January - 5 ready to fight,

    22nd - 9 ready, but in the evening only 5.

    15th February - 15 ready (no combat for a while).

    Overall in this time only three tanks were lost in combat the rest was either damaged or (mostly) broke down.

    s.Pz.Abt 509 - Hungary

    18th January - 45 Tigers entering combat,

    22nd January - 38 left, 12 ready to fight - about 50 % of losses were mechanical failures,

    29th - 5 ready to fight,

    a slight rise to 11 combat ready but...

    8th February - again 5.

    4th March - 32 from 35 overall (a long break in combat), but it soon endered combat once more and to 15th March only 8 combat ready Tiger II were available with the combat losses of only three tanks.




    The perfect example how those 'wonderful' tanks acted in action is the combat at Szydłów close to Sandomierz in Poland.

    501 Heavy Tank Battalion received 45 tanks, but almost a half was received with various defects already, those were left behind and the unit (at half strenght already) was transported to a place 50 kilometers from the are of combat.
    During this march ALL tanks suffered failures and the following few days were spent on repairs.
    11th August the unit enters combat. 12th August only 8 operational tanks are left (no combat losses).


    Now it really doesn't matter how many tanks were destroyed in combat (thought at Szydłów 14 Tigers were lost eventually) as long as the after all offensive weapon was virtually falling apart on its own without any need of enemy 'assistance'.

    Now imagine an offensive you are leading with your greatest asset spending most of the time in repairs - a breakthrough with those tanks ? Exploting a hole in enemy lines with this equipment ?
    Actually it would be even more risky because after a while they will all break down and you might quickly end having to abandon them all because you really cannot spend so much times caring for this 'wonder weapon'.

    Again - in the summer, in relatively good terrain of Poland only 50 km distance without any contact with an enemy and all tanks had to stop.
    Surely it was their first time and some defects were not eliminated yet, but all other schwere battalions were in similar situation and if they were lucky they fought in the east front where enemy airstrikes were far less likely to hit them - far less confort in the west...


    Supporter of Iran's green movement member of the B.A.L.T.S.
    VISIT Pike and Musket forums VISIT the amazing site about PLC
    under the patronage of the mighty ASTERIX

  5. #45
    Tankfriend's Avatar Equites Alares
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,259

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlerich View Post
    lack of fuel is a mechanical problem? you sound like my girlfriend

    not insult ment
    No insult taken, but I hope you have noticed that I have placed commas there rather than brackets, hyphens or any letters or symbols that would imply that I think lack of fuel to be included in mechanical problems.
    So, to avoid any misunderstandings, I'm removing the comma after "et cetera", that should do the trick.


  6. #46
    Tiwaz's Avatar Bunnywabbita
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,225

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by cegorach View Post
    Poor reliability of later German tanks is a known fact.


    But here are some examples - avarage, hardly anything special about those records.

    s.Pz.Abt 'Feldherrnhalle

    operated in Hungary


    11th January 1945 - 25 Tiger II, combat ready - 13,

    after a day - 3 ready to fight (only two lost in combat),

    15th January - 5 ready to fight,

    22nd - 9 ready, but in the evening only 5.

    15th February - 15 ready (no combat for a while).

    Overall in this time only three tanks were lost in combat the rest was either damaged or (mostly) broke down.

    s.Pz.Abt 509 - Hungary

    18th January - 45 Tigers entering combat,

    22nd January - 38 left, 12 ready to fight - about 50 % of losses were mechanical failures,

    29th - 5 ready to fight,

    a slight rise to 11 combat ready but...

    8th February - again 5.

    4th March - 32 from 35 overall (a long break in combat), but it soon endered combat once more and to 15th March only 8 combat ready Tiger II were available with the combat losses of only three tanks.




    The perfect example how those 'wonderful' tanks acted in action is the combat at Szydłów close to Sandomierz in Poland.

    501 Heavy Tank Battalion received 45 tanks, but almost a half was received with various defects already, those were left behind and the unit (at half strenght already) was transported to a place 50 kilometers from the are of combat.
    During this march ALL tanks suffered failures and the following few days were spent on repairs.
    11th August the unit enters combat. 12th August only 8 operational tanks are left (no combat losses).


    Now it really doesn't matter how many tanks were destroyed in combat (thought at Szydłów 14 Tigers were lost eventually) as long as the after all offensive weapon was virtually falling apart on its own without any need of enemy 'assistance'.

    Now imagine an offensive you are leading with your greatest asset spending most of the time in repairs - a breakthrough with those tanks ? Exploting a hole in enemy lines with this equipment ?
    Actually it would be even more risky because after a while they will all break down and you might quickly end having to abandon them all because you really cannot spend so much times caring for this 'wonder weapon'.

    Again - in the summer, in relatively good terrain of Poland only 50 km distance without any contact with an enemy and all tanks had to stop.
    Surely it was their first time and some defects were not eliminated yet, but all other schwere battalions were in similar situation and if they were lucky they fought in the east front where enemy airstrikes were far less likely to hit them - far less confort in the west...
    And it is well known fact that at the same time, roughly, as these infamously "unreliable" tanks appeared, german supply and logistics system had fallen apart.

    Lack of spare parts means no repairs, means no working tanks.
    And because there may not have been enough common parts between different tank types, it also means that tanks which have had smallest production amounts have least spareparts. And it doesn't have to be major component to stop the tank.

    I am not saying late heavies did not have some reliability problems, but they are aggravated greatly by poor logistical condition. With functioning logistics and spare parts production those numbers would be different.

    Which is why I pointed out if anyone has statistics on spareparts used by "reliable" units.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  7. #47
    cegorach's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwaz View Post
    And it is well known fact that at the same time, roughly, as these infamously "unreliable" tanks appeared, german supply and logistics system had fallen apart.
    Not yet. Of course whole units were lost during retreat, but mechanical failures was the scourge of this equipment even in most perfect condition.


    Lack of spare parts means no repairs, means no working tanks.
    And because there may not have been enough common parts between different tank types, it also means that tanks which have had smallest production amounts have least spareparts. And it doesn't have to be major component to stop the tank.
    The tanks were the priority, their units were the elite often the elite within the elite which was SS divisions.
    The vehicles suffered defects in situation no tank should suffer any - especially with their relatively weak engines which had to work in state of overheating to have some basic things done.

    I am not saying late heavies did not have some reliability problems, but they are aggravated greatly by poor logistical condition. With functioning logistics and spare parts production those numbers would be different.

    Which is why I pointed out if anyone has statistics on spareparts used by "reliable" units.

    Aggrevated true, but not greatly.

    Tiger II encountered numerous problems future MBTs did. That + the fact it inherited all problems of Panther which were massively increased by its weight meant the tank wasn't really ready to fight.
    It was breaking down very quickly compared to other, better vehicles and that was the failure of its designers and partly of the whole idea which seems to plague German leadership of that period.
    The enormous, super heavy, increasinly more and more grotesque armoured monsters with more and more silly sounding names - Maus, Ratte... what later ? Guinea Pig or Hamster ?


    Supporter of Iran's green movement member of the B.A.L.T.S.
    VISIT Pike and Musket forums VISIT the amazing site about PLC
    under the patronage of the mighty ASTERIX

  8. #48
    Kirā
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    216

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by cegorach View Post
    I would choose Sherman in an Allied army any day.

    Not because it was so great, but because T34s were wasted along with their crews while Tiger II was a real nightmare to fight - breakind down constantly, too large for most of bridges, short on fuel.


    Overall as a T34 crewman I would be dead because of some stupid decision while as a Tiger II soldier I would have to fight on foot rather quickly unless an air attack kills me first.

    For the most powerful tank I would choose Pershing

    - we know too little about IS3 and its real capabilities, Soviet Army tended to have less 'cautious' attitude towards using its tanks (and their crews),

    - Tiger II was a nightmarish piece of junk considering all the factors,

    - all those Mauses, Jagdtigers etc were or would be totally useless.

    That leaves this tank without competition.


    However for the best tank I would choose T34/85 - better than obsolate (from late 1942 - when Pz IV F2 appears) T34/76 and easier to produce so field in large quantities than Panther while better (even if much less reliable) than Sherman (Fireflies were not the norm).

    I'm well aware of the problems of the Tiger 2s(or any of the questionable design decisions of the germans) as my previous comment was made as a tongue-in-cheek

    But I do doubt that you'd be happy to be in a Sherman in those days though. Everyone had a cruel nickname for it, from the allies to the germans to the russians. Its a nice tank but I would definitely not one to be in it. It was too often used for roles it wasn't meant or designed for in the first place. It was undergunned, under-armored and basically, not well-suited for late WW2 battles. Sure, it has production numbers but hey, human wave infantry charges worked for the Chinese in the Korean Wars too but I doubt any of us would like to be one of those blokes running head-on onto fortified enemy positions.

    I also have to say that again, you are speaking with hindsight as your guidelines. Those tankers that were fighting WW2 did not have that luxury as we do. I seriously doubt that the average Sherman tanker guy will be thinking "I'm in a much inferior tank, prolly be in one of those 5-1 casualty rating against a tiger but its ok, my country can produce more tanks!". At least personally, if i'm in WW2, I'd be more concern of surviving an encounter with an enemy tank rather than worrying about production numbers. They did not have these knowledge.
    Last edited by spooksman; June 18, 2008 at 02:13 PM.

    Raise High the Black Banners of the True Caliphate!
    -The Abbasid Caliphate of Broken Crescent Mod for MTW II. RELEASED!

  9. #49
    christof139's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwaz View Post
    If mobility was all that important... Why did everyone who actually fought tank war (admittably mainly germans and russians) create HEAVIER tanks?

    Only USA stuck to idea of "mobile" tanks, which is rather well explained with cheapness to produce and transport than actual superiority in combat.

    If mobility was what mattered, why british abandoned cruiser tank concept? Why battlefields were not dominated by light, mobile tanks with huge guns?

    Because mobility is not that important.

    As you said yourself, when mobile (and thus light and thus poorly armoured) tank was hit, it was dead. And it took less to kill it, lighter gun over longer range was still danger.

    And tank shots moved at speeds WELL over that tanks were capable of. Yes, you make it bit more difficult to hit if you bounce fast, but you also hurt your own accuracy.
    Because heavier and slower tanks are used in the breakthrough and frontal assault, then the more mobile and faster medium and light tanks move through the rupture point to sieze enemy rear area installations and to take the enemy front line in the rear.

    Peiper of the 1st SS Pz. Div. wanted Mk IV's as his main battle tank, not Panthers and Tigers, because of the Mk IV's smaller size and better mobility and better mechanical reliaility. Panther had great cross country mobility, but it was too large for many bridges and narrow roads. Many German tank commanders thought this and so did Guderian.

    Mobility is a great part of the essence of Blitzkrieg.

    And that is why heavy tanks were not produced in huge numbers, and more reliance and importance was placed on more mobile medium tanks.

    The only reason the USA did not go hog wild in producing heavy tanks was because it was too hard and time consuming to build and load and transport them on ships across the Atlantic Ocean. That is why the decision was made to go with the smaller and more easily producable and transportable Sherman as the main battle tank.

    Today, MBT's are a blend of heavier armor, more powerful engines giving better speed and improving mobility, and a large and powerful gun. The Panther, JS-II's/III's and Pershings, and uparmored and long-barrelled Shermans and T-34/85's would probably be the best comparisons to a modern MBT of all the tanks used in WWII.

    @Cegorach: The USA long 76mm gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Soviet 85mm and when firing HVAP ammo the USA gun was a real killer. The Soviets deemed it better than their own 85mm, and that's why Guards units were equipped with the 76mm long barreled Sherman. Plus, the mechanical reliability, its mobility, the decent armor, the fast and relibale turret traverse, and the British gyro gun stabilizer allowing the Sherman to fire a bit more accurately than other tanks while on the move made the Sherman a Soviet favorite.

    PS: Tiwaz, I am talking about darting, jumping, moving quickly from cover to cover and not firing when doing so or just getting off a quick shot. The Germans hated the US Hellcat TD because of its speed making it hard to hit, and its decent gun.
    Also, the heavy monster breakthrough tanks and SP's were good in a defensive role with their long range guns as you know.

    "Originally Posted by ShockBlast
    The Jagdtiger had 250 mm armor and a 128 mm gun.(Chris the 128 gun HAD more power then the 88 one)
    The Pershing had 110 armor and a 90 mm gun.
    And next time read the other posts and don`t post creap.....Tiger 2 junk..."

    I never said the Tiger II was junk, so, why did you say I did??

    I'll say it now though, that is that the Tiger II was not very mechanically reliable and that caused a lot of problems. Also, at the end of the war, a Pershing with newer 90mm and a better AT round fired a round that went through the front of the supestructure and halfway through thr rear wall, the round was sticking out the back of the rear wall and thus actaully completely penetrated it. I can't remember if the target was a Tiger II or Jagd Tiger, probably a Tiger II, and it was a close range shot, I forget the distance.

    Pershings' frontal armor wasn't thick enough due to weight considerations for shipping them overseas, so, some crews would cut out the front glacis plate of a Panther and weld it on the glacis plate of a Pershing, but this was very rare and time consuming, and the armor of the Pershing was good enough for practiacal purposes.

    Excerpts from German Anti-Tank Gunnery Data, at this link:

    http://www.miniatures.de/html/int/shells-german.html

    Yes, the 128mm in the Jagd tiger had better penetrative power than the L71 88mm of the Tiger II etc., but not the L98 88mm. However, the L71 was considered the best German AT gun because of ease of operation, accuracy and numbers produced.

    Armour penetration values for German infantry anti-tank weapons as well as German guns at 0 to 100 meters range and 0 degrees inclination of armour.

    8.8 cm L.71 FlaK 35/36, KwK 43 & PaK 43 A.P.H.E. (Pz.Gr.) 86 mm
    A.P. (Pz.Gr. 39) 225 mm
    A.P. (Pz.Gr. 39-1) 247 mm
    A.P.C.R. (Pz.Gr. 40) 311 mm
    A.P.D.S. (Pz.Gr. 44) 355 mm
    Originally designed to attack high-altitude bombers, these guns were often used in the anti-tank role. Flak 35/36 deployed at the Battle of Kasserine Pass destroyed vast quantities of closely bunched American tanks at ranges between 3 and 6 miles (bit of an exageration here). The maximum anti-tank firing range is reported to have been 9 miles. The weapon became the main armament of the Tiger II, Elefant and Jagdpanther tank destroyers. The PaK 43 was considered the best German anti-tank gun of the war.

    8.8 cm L.98 FlaK 37 A.P.H.E. (Pz.Gr.) 118 mm
    A.P. (Pz.Gr. 36) 292 mm
    A.P. (Pz.Gr. 39-1) 341 mm
    A.P.C.R. (Pz.Gr. 40) 429 mm
    A.P.D.S. (Pz.Gr. 44) 490 mm
    Developed from the 8.8 cm L.98 FlaK 18

    12.8 cm L.55 KwK 44 & PaK 44 A.P.H.E. (Pz.Gr.) 230 mm
    A.P.H.E. (Pz.Gr. 43) 227 mm
    A.P. (1944) 253 mm
    A.P.C.R. (1944) 350 mm
    A.P.D.S. (Pz.Gr. 44) 400 mm
    Main armament of the Jagdtiger tank destroyer, and the Panther II tank. Panther II is similar to the Panther F described above, except that it has the larger gun. Apparently, Panther II appeared in small numbers in 1945.

    12.8 cm L.61 K 40 A.P.H.E. (Pz.Gr.) 244 mm
    A.P.D.S. (Pz.Gr. 44) 443 mm
    A naval gun mounted in large static defenses like those on the Siegfried line. The 12.8 cm PaK 44 was developed from this weapon, and it was the main armament of the Maus tank, which also sported a co-axial 7.5 cm L.70 KwK 42

    Chris
    Last edited by christof139; June 19, 2008 at 05:52 PM. Reason: double post

  10. #50
    Spartacus the Irish's Avatar Tally Ho!
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Currently; Lancashire, England.
    Posts
    2,639

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by antea View Post
    to sum up, you will get people going "german *insert tank here* is best" arguing with people who go soviet/american/british tank was better

    then you will get 10 pages of pseudo stats and fanboyery which will lead to the conclusion that its entirely subjective and there is no definitive answer.
    I bow to antea's Nostradamus-esque power of foresight.
    Really, what will this thread accomplish?
    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.

  11. #51
    Ojf's Avatar Baitai kihei
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,209

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    I think the Jagdtiger would have been good if it was introduced earlier, when there was more fuel available lol

    And wasn't it a tank destroyer?

  12. #52
    PeteSKTemplar's Avatar Suguchi
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    712

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    I already wrote that it was a tank destroyer but those vehicles were counted as tanks too.
    NON NOBIS, DOMINE, NON NOBIS, SED NOMINI TUO DA GLORIAM!
    Those words were on lips of Templars when charging,
    M2TW DarthMod Team member - tester (Imperial Snowtrooper)

  13. #53
    christof139's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ojf View Post
    I think the Jagdtiger would have been good if it was introduced earlier, when there was more fuel available lol

    And wasn't it a tank destroyer?
    Problem was that the Germans didn't have the know-how to produce it earlier and it consumed much too much resources and time to produce and was simply too heavy and its weight caused many of the mechanical and mobility problems. Only about 48 or so were produced during the war. They did fine in a defensive or offensive role when they had a good field of fire or were on a road that couldn't be flanked, but in the Ardennes Offensive they didn't do to well in the forest.

    The Jagd Tiger was a very impressive peice of equipment, with a lot of problems though including low rate of fire, no turret, extreme weight and mechanical unreliability.

    These and other large tanks were too slow and mechanically unreliable and consumed too much fuel to be used to great effect in the exploitation and fanning-out mode and phase after a breakthrough.

    Chris
    Last edited by christof139; June 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM.

  14. #54
    Centurio
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    439

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    I can only consider 5 tanks for consideration which would be

    IS-2 (AKA JS-2)
    Pershing
    Panther
    King Tiger
    Jagd Tiger (tank destroyer)


    If I had to choose which tank to be in, it would definitely have to be in the King Tiger (AKA Tiger2, Tiger VI B, Royal Tiger)
    Its 88mm KwK43 L/71 was the best mounted AT gun on any tank and could penetrate any allied tanks during the war in excess of 2km.

    It’s a fact that of the 500 King Tigers built and destroyed its frontal armour had never been penetrated. IS-2/ JU 152 and pershings could only hope to penetrate the sides or rear from being a decent possibility under 700m to a max of 1000 metres. (which is of little relevance as the optics on the IS-2 was so poor that it wasn’t even likely to hit anything over 1000m).

    Furthermore the optics on all German tanks were vastly superior to anything the allies ever had, and is the reason why German tanks were consistently able to destroy allied tanks at ranges greater than 2km’s away, with the max being a Nashorn destroying a T34/75 from 4.8 km’s! (the furthest kill shot on a IS-2 from memory was around 4.6 km’s)

    And even further to this is that the King Tiger was believed to of being slightly more mechanically reliable than its possible contenders in the Pershing which was unsatisfactory for a medium tank, it used the same engine that powered the M4A3 (Sherman), which was some ten tons lighter. In addition the IS-2 was greatly suffered from a lack of satisfactory mobility.



    The Jagd tiger had an excellent gun, which In the Summer of 1945, the US Army tested a captured Jagdtiger, which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters. However the limited traverse of the gun, was a severe setback to situational performance and did reputely suffer from far greater mechanical problems than the pershing, IS-2, King tiger.

    The panther has been considered by many to be the best tank of the war with its 75mm KwK42 L/70 gun that out-performed the M26 Pershing's 90mm M3 on all accounts (and even more powerful than the Tiger 1’s 88). Whilst at the same time (from after war tests) the pershing had huge difficulties in trying to penetrate the frontal armour of the panther (let alone a King Tiger). And the Panther had better mobility/reliability than any of the other heavy tanks.

    Though as I said earlier, you just cant go past the defensive armour of the King Tiger for survivability, which also had an even better gun. So in my opinion the panther is 2nd as it had an excellent gun and even though its armour was a bit weaker than the IS-2, which also sported a decent gun. In flat open/ideal conditions as the original poster had mentioned the much greater extra penetrating distance of its gun will allow it to destroy a IS-2 (with a few rounds) before it comes into close enough range to penetrate the panther. At a distance under 1000 metres though I’d rather be in the IS-2 for its ability to penetrate the panther in fewer shots from this close range than what the panther would need to destroy the IS-2.

    As for the pershing, it falls behind in every category, AT gun penetration, armour survival from the German heavy guns, the only area it would probably be better is in a battle with a Panther and were hitting each other in the flanks (and to a much less important category, the pershing suffered in mechanical reliability)

  15. #55

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    To me the perfect balance between mobility, protection and firepower ever conceived as a German tank was the Jagdpanther. They had good speeds and nice armour protection, and the 88mm KwK gun which was devastating. There is an account of how, in Normandy, a Jagdpanzer Abteilung Commander (Frederick Luders if I'm not mistaken) took out several Churchill tanks at distance with three Jagdpanthers before having to retreat due to the lack of infantry support. Undoubtely one of the best.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  16. #56
    christof139's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Except the Jagd Panther wan't a tank but rather a heavy Panzer Jaeger or TD.

    Also, the new model of the American 90mm gun with newer and much more effective HVAP rounds outperformed the 75mm of the Panther, but only a couple of these guns mounted in Super Pershing got into combat it seems. The 90mm of the standard Pershings firing HVAP type rounds I do believe outperformed the 75mm of the Panther.

    Chris

  17. #57
    Tiwaz's Avatar Bunnywabbita
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,225

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    And this thread is still about most powerful tank.

    Which is King Tiger. (not getting into pointing flaws in your arguments for hellcats and whatever chris)

    Pershings did not see nearly enough action to be able to say if they would perform in any notable success. IS series had huge guns, but they lacked velocity of ammunition to give good penetration at longer ranges.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  18. #58
    christof139's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwaz View Post
    And this thread is still about most powerful tank.

    Which is King Tiger. (not getting into pointing flaws in your arguments for hellcats and whatever chris)

    Pershings did not see nearly enough action to be able to say if they would perform in any notable success. IS series had huge guns, but they lacked velocity of ammunition to give good penetration at longer ranges.
    Everyone else mentions TD's such as Jagd Panther and Jagd Tiger etc. Tiwaz so ...

    Also, Pershings did see considerable action, all about 300 and some odd of them, comparable to the numeric value of about 480 or so King Tigers used in the war.

    Also, the 122mm of the JS series was originally to be the better 100mm that was the forerunner of the 100mm used in the T-54/55 series.

    Yes, the King Tiger had the most powerful gun. Well known and old fact. It's funny to see you get discomboobulated though since it is soooo important to you and your psyche.

    Chris

  19. #59
    Centurio
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    439

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by christof139 View Post
    Also, Pershings did see considerable action, all about 300 and some odd of them, comparable to the numeric value of about 480 or so King Tigers used in the war.
    Chris
    Hi Chris, from memory I thought I had read in several places that only 20 Pershings ever saw combat in ww2, and 10 of these was on the island of Iowa Jima towards the end, and of the Super Pershings only 1 was ever transferred to Europe. If thats not the case, could you point to a reference, cause I've always been interested in reading about clashes between the real heavy tanks of the war

  20. #60
    christof139's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Most Powerful Tank of WW2

    Yes, at least 20 in combat with the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions in January, 1945and it seems other divisions also recieved some. Seems about 2,202 to 2,438 Pershings were produced in 1944 through August, 1945. The 300 and some odd number being issued to units in Europe or being stockpiled in Britain for issue to units, I saw on the web, where I can't remember but you can look for it. Since 2,202 or 2,438 were produced from 1944 though August, 1945, it is quite probable that 300 or so reached Europe whether all were issued to units or not, since a rush shipment was placed for them because of the Ardennes Offensive. 20 were in service with the 3rd and 9th AD in January, 1945 so many more must have been issued. Check official US Army documents and other places on the web that have divisional histories.

    http://tinyurl.com/3pzb3w
    Good old Wiki.

    This source states that 2,438 Pershings had been produced by August, 1945, and states that Pershings were used on Okinawa and not Iwo:

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/m-2...eavy-tank1.htm

    I have seen info. referring to 2 Super Pershings being in Europe, so 1 or 2. I never knew there was 1 Pershing on Iwo, that is interesting. Sorry, no links to data of 2 being in Europe, however I saw it on the web whether it was correct or not.

    This Pershing that was on Iwo, was it there later in the battle or earlier?? What Marine battalion or company had it??

    Have read quite a few books on Iwo, and known a few people that were there, but never saw not heard mention of a Pershing.

    http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/m26_pershing.asp

    ***Here 2,222 Pershings are listed as being produced by the end of 1945. 20 saw combat in Europe and another 290 had reached the European Theater with 200 being issued to units and 90 not being issued to units, making a total of 310 in the ETO of which 220 were issued to units. This article states that only 12 made it to the Pacific Theater but none saw combat.

    "The T26E3 was the variation which evolved into the M26 Pershing Medium Tank and was re-designated in June 1944 as a heavy tank. Although production of the T26E only began in November 1944, 2000 had been built by the end of 1945. A total of 2,222 M26Pershings were eventually built, all designated as heavy tanks, but only the original 20, which went to Europe, saw combat in World War II. Another 290 reached Europe, but 90 of those never even got into the hands of the troops. A total of 12 went to the Pacific Theater, but arrived too late to participate in the closing days of the war there."

    Chris
    Last edited by christof139; June 25, 2008 at 04:12 AM.

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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