Tanks & armored vehicles discussion thread

[Avrellon]

Panzer V was the best tank of WW2. Speed, armor and firepower combined in the best way.

The Panther was a pretty decent tank...when it wasn't broken down, that is. I mean, the thing had serious reliability problems, considering early models couldn't go more than 150km without major maintenance and later ones could only go 600 to 800 before having to be serviced (compared to Allied tanks that could do as much as 2000km).

[Arlenton]

Wow, I just noticed the Churchill got a vote.

Not a bad tank, but still I wasn't expecting that.

[Montchevre]

The poll said "best tank." Since it has nothing to do with practicality and mass production, the King Tiger is by far the best (and most bad-ass). Even heard of another tank whose frontal armor was never pierced for the duration of the conflict it was involved in? I didn't think so.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wow, I just noticed the Churchill got a vote.

Not a bad tank, but still I wasn't expecting that.

Hey, gotta love Hobart's Funnies!

[Montchevre]

BTW guys, the Sherman was a complete death trap. Life expectancy of a crew in the Normandy campaign (not just the landings, the move inland as well) was less than four hours. It was inexcusably bad, but we just had the numbers to take those casualties.

[Arlenton]

The poll said "best tank." Since it has nothing to do with practicality and mass production, the King Tiger is by far the best (and most bad-ass). Even heard of another tank whose frontal armor was never pierced for the duration of the conflict it was involved in? I didn't think so.

Practicality and the ease of production have quite a bit to do with how successful tanks though.

[Montchevre]

The poll said "best tank." Since it has nothing to do with practicality and mass production, the King Tiger is by far the best (and most bad-ass). Even heard of another tank whose frontal armor was never pierced for the duration of the conflict it was involved in? I didn't think so.

Practicality and the ease of production have quite a bit to do with how successful tanks though.

True. To be fair though, if the Germans had had the time the general staff wanted to solve their transmission problems before the war began, it would have been unquestionably the best. Other tanks one-on-one or even two- or three-on-one never stood a chance against Tigers or King Tigers (despite what world of tanks will have you believe, lol. That game irritates me so much!). I definitely understand the argument for T-34s though, but not for Shermans.

[Arlenton]

Wow, I just noticed the Churchill got a vote.

Not a bad tank, but still I wasn't expecting that.

Hey, gotta love Hobart's Funnies!

True lol. The Churchill Crocodile was great.

[Montchevre]

And Shermans were still death traps.

[Arlenton]

And Shermans were still death traps.

But because they were easier to mass produce, many more could be made than the enemies heavy tanks, so they could be replaced.

[Shonburg]

BTW guys, the Sherman was a complete death trap. Life expectancy of a crew in the Normandy campaign (not just the landings, the move inland as well) was less than four hours. It was inexcusably bad, but we just had the numbers to take those casualties.

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.
e: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

[The Two Jerseys]

Hey, gotta love Hobart's Funnies!

True lol. The Churchill Crocodile was great.

How could you not love burning your enemies to death from the safety of an armored box?

Seriously, I'd probably be in full psychopath mode if I was a crewman in a flamethrower tank...

[Avrellon]

And Shermans were still death traps.

Actually, no. Belton Cooper's book, Death-Traps, has been thoroughly debunked and is no longer regarded by most historians as a credible source on the performance of the Sherman. Statistically speaking, the Sherman had one of the highest survivability rates of any tank, largely thanks to excellent hatch design.
To quote Nicholas Moran, armor expert, former M1A1 commander, and chief historical consultant to World of Tanks:

Death Traps is not a reliable source. Don't cite it. Or the History Channel show based on it.
Here's the issue: Death Traps is a memoir, not a researched historical work. These are the recollections and perceptions as the man saw them, recited some 50 years after the fact. This leads us to two problems:

Firstly, that of perception. The premise of the book, even the title, is that M4s were rolling coffins, and got destroyed a lot. He gets this impression by looking at all the M4s which got brought back to his maintenance shop for repair after getting knocked out. He did not get to see any of the German vehicles which were knocked out, as nobody brought them to him for repair. He did not get to see the M4s which won the battle, as nobody brought them to him for repair. As someone who saw nearly nothing but destroyed Shermans coming out of battles, it is not unreasonable to come to the perception that the tank was problematic.

Secondly, the author makes no attempt to distinguish what he saw from what he surmised, from what he heard through the grapevine. He presents as fact things which simply were not true, demonstrably so in many cases. No attempt was made to provide a source or reference to some of the claims he makes. It is up to the reader to make his or her personal determination as to the accuracy of anything in the book.

It is likely that the things he personally saw are somewhat close to fact. But statements about machinations seven pay grades higher than him and several hundred miles away are a little more suspect.

Cooper's book is probably the most egregious example of citing a memoir and making more of it than one should, so I merely use it as a learning point. Less controversial memoirs, such as Carius' Tigers in the Mud or Loza's Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks should be viewed just as much from the same lens, but in fairness to them, they suffer from far less overreach and can be taken far more at face value.

Link to the post in question here.

Also, to paraphrase Lloyd Clark, "the King Tiger was far better as a fortification than it was as a tank."

[The Two Jerseys]

And Shermans were still death traps.

Actually, no. Belton Cooper's book, Death-Traps, has been thoroughly debunked and is no longer regarded by most historians as a credible source on the performance of the Sherman. Statistically speaking, the Sherman had one of the highest survivability rates of any tank, largely thanks to excellent hatch design.

At least if it had a 76mm.

If you have a 75mm, it sucks to be the loader.

[Arlenton]

BTW guys, the Sherman was a complete death trap. Life expectancy of a crew in the Normandy campaign (not just the landings, the move inland as well) was less than four hours. It was inexcusably bad, but we just had the numbers to take those casualties.

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.

Have a source?

Osprey's Kingtiger says this "The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat."

There is this photo however, that apparently shows a King Tiger with possible penetration on the front turret just below the gun to the left.

There were at least two King Tigers who's frontal armor was penetrated, but by friendly fire.

Soviets managed to break off chunks of the King Tiger's frontal armor by hitting weak spots, but only while testing a captured models. And only with the SU-122, SU-152, and BS-3 AT gun. Not IS-2s.

[Shonburg]

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.

Have a source?

Osprey's Kingtiger says this "The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat."

There is this photo however, that apparently shows a King Tiger with possible penetration on the front turret just below the gun to the left.

There were at least two King Tigers who's frontal armor was penetrated, but by friendly fire.

Soviets managed to break off chunks of the King Tiger's frontal armor by hitting weak spots, but only while testing a captured models. And only with the SU-122, SU-152, and BS-3 AT gun. Not IS-2s.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

Here is the source.

[Napkiraly]

Mk IV tank, best tank ever.

[Arlenton]

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.

Have a source?

Osprey's Kingtiger says this "The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat."

There is this photo however, that apparently shows a King Tiger with possible penetration on the front turret just below the gun to the left.

There were at least two King Tigers who's frontal armor was penetrated, but by friendly fire.

Soviets managed to break off chunks of the King Tiger's frontal armor by hitting weak spots, but only while testing a captured models. And only with the SU-122, SU-152, and BS-3 AT gun. Not IS-2s.

Actually the IS-2 has the 122mm gun like the SU-122, so maybe it was an IS-2?

But there is no proof of it happening in combat.

[Arlenton]

Have a source?

Osprey's Kingtiger says this "The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat."

There is this photo however, that apparently shows a King Tiger with possible penetration on the front turret just below the gun to the left.

(Image)

There were at least two King Tigers who's frontal armor was penetrated, but by friendly fire.

Soviets managed to break off chunks of the King Tiger's frontal armor by hitting weak spots, but only while testing a captured models. And only with the SU-122, SU-152, and BS-3 AT gun. Not IS-2s.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

Here is the source.

Looks like you're right, it could penetrate it, but after hitting it in the same spot that was just hit by two AP rounds and one HE round. I really want to find an example of it happening in combat though.

[Montchevre]

BTW guys, the Sherman was a complete death trap. Life expectancy of a crew in the Normandy campaign (not just the landings, the move inland as well) was less than four hours. It was inexcusably bad, but we just had the numbers to take those casualties.

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.
e: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

Maybe it's feasibly possible, but no King Tigers EVER had their frontal armor penetrated. Even if it could, it never did.

[Ogrien]

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.
e: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

Maybe it's feasibly possible, but no King Tigers EVER had their frontal armor penetrated. Even if it could, it never did.

Penetration isn't the omly way to damage a tank. The low-quality steel available to the Germans by the time the Tiger II was produced was highly vulnerable to spalling, which is highly dangrous, if not lethal, to the tank's crew. Most tank engagements were decided by who could get off the first, regardless of what was on the receiving end.

[Herador]

IS-2 could penetrate the front of the King Tiger.
e: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -cats.html

Maybe it's feasibly possible, but no King Tigers EVER had their frontal armor penetrated. Even if it could, it never did.

Which is super duper impressive until you hear the Russians shot out the side armor with anti-tank rifles. 11/10 tank, it's why the Nazi's won the war.

...wait.

[Revanchism]

The poll said "best tank." Since it has nothing to do with practicality and mass production, the King Tiger is by far the best (and most bad-ass). Even heard of another tank whose frontal armor was never pierced for the duration of the conflict it was involved in? I didn't think so.

Let's see...
Poor-quality steel and bad welds meaning the armor spalled and fractured even from non-penetrations.
Interleaved road wheels that hurt maintenance and increased the cost because Nazi Germany was one big ponzi scheme.
Horrific reliability overall.
Weight over 55 tons and was thus a transportation nightmare.
Gas guzzler at a time when Germany was very, very low on fuel.
Less than 500 ever made, meaning it had virtually no impact on the war.

[Herador]

The poll said "best tank." Since it has nothing to do with practicality and mass production, the King Tiger is by far the best (and most bad-ass). Even heard of another tank whose frontal armor was never pierced for the duration of the conflict it was involved in? I didn't think so.

Let's see...
Poor-quality steel and bad welds meaning the armor spalled and fractured even from non-penetrations.
Interleaved road wheels that hurt maintenance and increased the cost because Nazi Germany was one big ponzi scheme.
Horrific reliability overall.
Weight over 55 tons and was thus a transportation nightmare.
Gas guzzler at a time when Germany was very, very low on fuel.
Less than 500 ever made, meaning it had virtually no impact on the war.

But no one ever shot through it's front armor so there, gg no re.

E: The Sherman's winning and now I can bathe in delicious wehraboo tears.

[Revanchism]

Let's see...
Poor-quality steel and bad welds meaning the armor spalled and fractured even from non-penetrations.
Interleaved road wheels that hurt maintenance and increased the cost because Nazi Germany was one big ponzi scheme.
Horrific reliability overall.
Weight over 55 tons and was thus a transportation nightmare.
Gas guzzler at a time when Germany was very, very low on fuel.
Less than 500 ever made, meaning it had virtually no impact on the war.

But no one ever shot through it's front armor so there, gg no re.

E: The Sherman's winning and now I can bathe in delicious wehraboo tears.

Glad my vote counted for something.