I think that the power can be determined by easier factors then the being best thing. Take a punch or capability of destroying enemy tanks while surviving.
I think that the power can be determined by easier factors then the being best thing. Take a punch or capability of destroying enemy tanks while surviving.
Roman Rebel
Installation FAQ + troubleshooting
We shall stand side by side even unto death. SPQR for life.
Mgr. ohaj Pavel
I quoted you specifically on that. What other conclusion am I to draw when you write:
To me that sounds like making a connection between seeing action and the 300 Pershings which you then even compare to the numbers of King Tigers which did see more action as a whole. So what is it?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.
Königstiger
and with that,I HEREBY CELBRATE MY 300 POST
The Churchill.
According to the Theory of War, which teaches that the best way to avoid the inconvenience of war is to pursue it away from your own country, it is more sensible for us to fight our notorious enemy in his own realm, with the joint power of our allies, than it is to wait for him at our own doors.
- King Edward III, 1339
According to the Theory of War, which teaches that the best way to avoid the inconvenience of war is to pursue it away from your own country, it is more sensible for us to fight our notorious enemy in his own realm, with the joint power of our allies, than it is to wait for him at our own doors.
- King Edward III, 1339
I think all our tanks were so crap we had to use the yanks Sherman.
According to the Theory of War, which teaches that the best way to avoid the inconvenience of war is to pursue it away from your own country, it is more sensible for us to fight our notorious enemy in his own realm, with the joint power of our allies, than it is to wait for him at our own doors.
- King Edward III, 1339
Sherman isnt that big deal either. It was pretty high one tank, weak cannon, ideal target on the battlefield. Except for armour, design of Sherman was obsolete even before it entered European theatre
Roman Rebel
Installation FAQ + troubleshooting
We shall stand side by side even unto death. SPQR for life.
Mgr. ohaj Pavel
If you're going for the simple "this tank has armor" the IS-3 wins hands down.
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.
No. When the Sherman entered service with the Brits in N. Africa in 1942 it was not outdated. The sShort 75mm of the Sherman was only very slightly inferior to the 76.2mm gun on the T-34/76 and the the 75mm of the Sherman fired a better high explosive round, plus the Sherman's armor was made of better quality steel and equalled or surpassed that of the T-34/76, and the Sherman was more mechanically reliable.
The Long 76mm used in the Sherman was deemed to be better than the 85mm of the T-34/76, and the Soviets themselves made this statement after tests. The Shermans armor got better as the war progressed and with its newer suspension system and wider tracks and ground pressure about 0.1 pound less than the T-34, and the fact that it was narrower meant the Sherman could go places a T-34 and German tanks couldn't. With HVAP ammo the 76mm gun was an effective gun. Also, the Sherman had a British gun gyro-stabilizer allowing it to fire a bit more accurately on the move, and the turret trversing system was reliable and faster than anything the Germans or Soviets had. Hence, the Soviets issued most of he Shermans they recieved from the USA to their Guards units.
****Check on the ballistics tests of the Short 75mm compared to the 76.2mm and the Long 76mm with and without HVAP compared to the 85mm.
The height of the Sherman also worked to its advantage allowing it to fire over walls and hedges, and the Sherman was a narrow target to begin with, so its height didn't enlarge its silhouette that much.
The later day M-48 and M-60's were also purposefully made higher than the T-54/55/62 series of tanks, for the same reason, the added height allowed them to be able to fire over higher walls and hedges etc. in Western Europe and elsewhere when the Soviet tanks couldn't.
Chris
I see I did say that. Sorry. I meant there were 300 in the ETO, and quite possibly more than 20 saw combat.
Of course I compared the number of Pershings available to the number of KT's since the available numbers of both in the ETO were VERY LOW, and KT's affected the final outcome of many encounters very little.
Chris
The Churchill supposedly had the highest crew survival rate of the war.
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.
That's interesting. Must also have been rather roomy inside behind its rather thick armor, perhaps almost cozy.
Chris
JSIII was very impressive, so was what was it, the later T-10M. JSIII simply looks modern and sleek and deadly.
Chris
Roman Rebel
Installation FAQ + troubleshooting
We shall stand side by side even unto death. SPQR for life.
Mgr. ohaj Pavel
The Churchill was a decent/good tank. It had thick armour and was spacious. But it lacked a good gun, first it had the 2 pounder and later it had the 6 pounder or the 75mm gun from the Sherman. The 6 pounder was a good gun but it couldn't penetrate the armor of a Tiger or a Panther. The 75mm gun was a good gun for infantry supporttank, it fired very good HE shells. But it wasn't possible to mount the 17 pounder on the Churchill.
L'union fait la force. Eendracht maakt macht.
Their name liveth for evermore
Roman Rebel
Installation FAQ + troubleshooting
We shall stand side by side even unto death. SPQR for life.
Mgr. ohaj Pavel