Tanks & armored vehicles discussion thread

[Shonburg]

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.

Except the 122 would kill the crew with spalling and break the welds on the armor.

[Shonburg]

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.

They penetrated the turret front with 1 shot.

[Avrellon]

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.

It's not that none of them did - it's that no one has found photographic evidence of it. There's a great deal of uncertainty around it. (There is one image that shows a possible frontal turret penetration, but it's not particularly clear.)

However, the ISU-152, while not capable of penning the Tiger II's glacis, likely could have taken it out with the sheer explosive force of its ML-20S howitzer's HE rounds (simply through having enough explosive filler to lift the turret straight off of the vehicle; there are apparently documented instances of it doing this to Tiger Is). (There's a reason that thing was known as the "Beast Slayer;" there's a picture out there somewhere of a Tiger I with its front glacis pushed into the engine compartment by the force of one of those rounds.)

[Husseinarti]

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.

Less than 300 LT vz. 35s were produced and they had a huge impact in the early war from 1939 to 1941.

[Immoren]

Bob Semple was clearly best tank,.

[Blakullar]

Bob Semple was clearly best tank,.

Lies, it's obviously Heemeyer's bulldozer.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Starship best tank. Transcend ages. 152mm stronk. Fight Communists, time machine, fight Nazis.

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.

Less than 300 LT vz. 35s were produced and they had a huge impact in the early war from 1939 to 1941.

So King Tigers had less impact than early war tanks? lel

Nazi Germany confirmed for shit taste.

[The RODina]

I actually really like the Panzers III and IV, they were certainly older than their counterparts, but that is the main reason i like them. They were really the first medium tanks, unless you count the Matilda II as a medium tank. They also rolled over the Russians in 1941 before they could field the T-34. Although of course the T-34 was more than a match for the Pz. 3, it was still inferior to the Panther, in terms of raw performance. I am also quite a fan of British tanks like the Cromwell.

I was never a fan of the Sherman, tbh. Any sherman fans care to explain what is so awesome about the Tommy Cooker compared to the Panther and Cromwell?

[Husseinarti]

Starship best tank. Transcend ages. 152mm stronk. Fight Communists, time machine, fight Nazis.

Less than 300 LT vz. 35s were produced and they had a huge impact in the early war from 1939 to 1941.

So King Tigers had less impact than early war tanks? lel

Nazi Germany confirmed for shit taste.

I mean Panzer 35(t)s and Panzer 38(t)s were instrumental to the German's early victories.

Along with that, the LT vz. 38 chassis lasted from its design in 1938 throughout WW2 on a number different designs like the Hezter, Grille, and other variants. The chassis was also used into like the 1970s by the Swedes.

[Fordorsia]

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.

The Panther was taking damage and casualties from AT rifles, which was solved by adding 5mm plates along the side above the road wheels. The Tiger II never had such an issue. Try again.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I actually really like the Panzers III and IV, they were certainly older than their counterparts, but that is the main reason i like them. They were really the first medium tanks, unless you count the Matilda II as a medium tank. They also rolled over the Russians in 1941 before they could field the T-34. Although of course the T-34 was more than a match for the Pz. 3, it was still inferior to the Panther, in terms of raw performance. I am also quite a fan of British tanks like the Cromwell.

I was never a fan of the Sherman, tbh. Any sherman fans care to explain what is so awesome about the Tommy Burner compared to the Panther and Cromwell?

The Sherman was actually useful at things. And it was American.

Also, the Panzer III were not the first medium tanks. The T-28 predates them.

Starship best tank. Transcend ages. 152mm stronk. Fight Communists, time machine, fight Nazis.


So King Tigers had less impact than early war tanks? lel

Nazi Germany confirmed for shit taste.

I mean Panzer 35(t)s and Panzer 38(t)s were instrumental to the German's early victories.

Along with that, the LT vz. 38 chassis lasted from its design in 1938 throughout WW2 on a number different designs like the Hezter, Grille, and other variants. The chassis was also used into like the 1970s by the Swedes.

So an early-war tank was more useful than the Tigger. lel

[Fordorsia]

So an early-war tank was more useful than the Tigger. lel

That is correct.

Repeating yourself instead of actually refuting the point isn't exactly smart.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'll tout the T-34. A great general design which was adaptable enough to fit the needs of the Red Army throughout their fight, and a tank which generally held up against anything it was thrown against. It could be churned out in ridiculous numbers (more than 80,000 by war's end) rather quickly, unlike those ridiculously overengineered German tanks it was up against.

The T-34 quite explicitly wasn't adaptable. It was outclassed pretty much as soon as the Germans had a chance to study it. Certainly, the Panther, more or less directly influenced by experience with the T-34. The Pz III and IV were also uprated to face the T-34.

It took the T-34 a good couple years to get the 85mm gun, which needed a lot of reworking to fit it. The Russians designed and developed new, better tanks. The T-43 and T-44, the latter especially. But this would mean not building T-34s. Eventually at the end of the war, this led to the T-54, a blueprint for "modern" tanks as we know them of the postwar era, leading into the T-55.

King Tiger is best tank. Second best is the Sherman's

The King Tiger is the prime example of my "ridiculously overengineered German tanks". Logitical nightmare with limited unique utility.

Poor crew training was the overriding issue with the Tiger II. The powertrain, though given to a much heavier chassis, was proven as it was the Tiger I powerplant.

Tiger II is a pretty clearly Panther-ised Tiger I with standoff firepower.
What "unique utility" do you think the Tiger II was meant to have? It was a heavy tank developed too late in the war to be used as a proper heavy tank and was basically turned into a pseudo-tank destroyer, along with its actual tank destroyer variant.

Bah!! They still couldn't be matched in battle!

They were formidable in direct tank fights, but such things are incredibly rare in WWII. Most of the time it was large scale formations and battles of maneuver around and amongst infantry assaults, under artillery barrages, and with air power overhead. They were slow, unwieldy beasts, suffering from decreasing quality of manufacture, huge fuel budgets, and an increasingly sophisticated foe used to dealing with heavy tanks. The Tiger 2 was meant to win matches on Warthunder, not win on the Eastern Front

Pretty sure it saw much more service on the western front than the east. IIRC the Jagdtiger served exclusively on the western front.

[The RODina]

The Sherman was actually useful at things. And it was American.

Also, the Panzer III were not the first medium tanks. The T-28 predates them.

It was american is hardly an argument. I can imagine the number built being an important factor, otherwise it just seems like an average tank like the T-34.
Also what is to say that the Germans would have been incapable of producing a similar number of Panthers if their industry hadn't been totally flattened from like 1942-1945. (And had crews to fill them ofc).

For example, if the United States had for some reason developed the Panther, would they have been able to churn out as many of them as they did Shermans?

The T-28 was an expensive, operationally ineffective pile of junk tbh (explainable by the fact it was made in 1933)
The Panzer III was the first effective Medium Tank to be employed on a wide scale. Is that better?

[Husseinarti]

I actually really like the Panzers III and IV, they were certainly older than their counterparts, but that is the main reason i like them. They were really the first medium tanks, unless you count the Matilda II as a medium tank. They also rolled over the Russians in 1941 before they could field the T-34. Although of course the T-34 was more than a match for the Pz. 3, it was still inferior to the Panther, in terms of raw performance. I am also quite a fan of British tanks like the Cromwell.

I was never a fan of the Sherman, tbh. Any sherman fans care to explain what is so awesome about the Tommy Cooker compared to the Panther and Cromwell?

Because it gets the job done.

The names given to it are either from German publications during the war (i.e. propaganda) or post-war revisionists who give them anachronistic names like 'Ronson'

In short, the Sherman, once its early kinks got sorted, evolved into one of the best machines an American or British tanker could find himself in in WW2. It was armored with high-quality steel, given a good angle from the front. Unlike the fucking Cromwell.

Its 75mm gun was capable of engaging the majority of German armor save like the IV Ausf. H, Panther unless it hit the driver's visor, which happens a good bit in AARs. However the M1A1 76mm gun was able to kill Tigers at distances of within 300 yards iirc, using its nicer APCR ammunition. However there were a number of instances in which the driver's ports of the Panzer IV and the Tigers were targeted by Allied tankers and would be successfully engaged to make them either blow up or to bail out of the tank.

There also was an instance of an M8 Grayhound knocking out a Tiger II but putting a bunch of 37mm rounds into its rear at less than 25~ yards.

[Fordorsia]

It was american is hardly an argument.

It is an argument, because America had the luxury of a huge untouched manufacturing industry that could churn out well made tanks in the thousands.

Also what is to say that the Germans would have been incapable of producing a similar number of Panthers if their industry hadn't been totally flattened from like 1942-1945. (And had crews to fill them ofc).

Ah the old "Germany would have done better if their situation was better" argument

(explainable by the fact it was made in 1933)

The B-17 was designed in 1935. What a pile of junk

Its 75mm gun was capable of engaging the majority of German armor save like the IV Ausf. H, Panther unless it hit the driver's visor, which happens a good bit in AARs. However the M1A1 76mm gun was able to kill Tigers at distances of within 300 yards iirc, using its nicer APCR ammunition. However there were a number of instances in which the driver's ports of the Panzer IV and the Tigers were targeted by Allied tankers and would be successfully engaged to make them either blow up or to bail out of the tank.

There also was an instance of an M8 Grayhound knocking out a Tiger II but putting a bunch of 37mm rounds into its rear at less than 25~ yards.

Don't forget the time a Tiger was knocked out with 30+ HE shells, killing all its crew :V

[Germanic Templars]

Which nation had/has the best tanks? - America now with the M1A2 Abram

Which nation had/has the worst tanks? - The nation without a tank

Aside from that, my favorite armored car would be the BDRM2. Favorite APC would be OT-64

[The RODina]

I actually really like the Panzers III and IV, they were certainly older than their counterparts, but that is the main reason i like them. They were really the first medium tanks, unless you count the Matilda II as a medium tank. They also rolled over the Russians in 1941 before they could field the T-34. Although of course the T-34 was more than a match for the Pz. 3, it was still inferior to the Panther, in terms of raw performance. I am also quite a fan of British tanks like the Cromwell.

I was never a fan of the Sherman, tbh. Any sherman fans care to explain what is so awesome about the Tommy Cooker compared to the Panther and Cromwell?

Because it gets the job done.

The names given to it are either from German publications during the war (i.e. propaganda) or post-war revisionists who give them anachronistic names like 'Ronson'

In short, the Sherman, once its early kinks got sorted, evolved into one of the best machines an American or British tanker could find himself in in WW2. It was armored with high-quality steel, given a good angle from the front. Unlike the fucking Cromwell.

Its 75mm gun was capable of engaging the majority of German armor save like the IV Ausf. H, Panther unless it hit the driver's visor, which happens a good bit in AARs. However the M1A1 76mm gun was able to kill Tigers at distances of within 300 yards iirc, using its nicer APCR ammunition. However there were a number of instances in which the driver's ports of the Panzer IV and the Tigers were targeted by Allied tankers and would be successfully engaged to make them either blow up or to bail out of the tank.

There also was an instance of an M8 Grayhound knocking out a Tiger II but putting a bunch of 37mm rounds into its rear at less than 25~ yards.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the M4 per se, I just don't see what makes it so special, considering Panthers and Tigers could engage alot of allied and soviet armour at ranges far in excess of 300 yards.

Also the Cromwell has better armour than the Sherman, regardless of angling, and is armed with a very similar gun. I sort of see this as the exact same sort of "MUH COUNTREE HAD THE BEST EVERYTHING" shit i see with wehraboos and soviet-lovers. I can't tell a difference.

It is an argument, because America had the luxury of a huge untouched manufacturing industry that could churn out well made tanks in the thousands

Nothing to do with the tank, they could have invented something different and have churned out just as many

Ah the old "Germany would have done better if their situation was better" argument

You are completely missing my point, I'm not saying anything about Germany, I am talking only about the Panther. If the Panther was made by a nation with the industrial capacity of the USA, would it have been churned out as much as the Sherman.

(explainable by the fact it was made in 1933)

The B-17 was designed in 1935. What a pile of junk

I'll use your argument then, the B-17 is an exception because it is American.

Are you new to making intelligent arguments?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which nation had/has the best tanks? - America now with the M1A2 Abram

Which nation had/has the worst tanks? - The nation without a tank

Aside from that, my favorite armored car would be the BDRM2. Favorite APC would be OT-64

but why

[Germanic Templars]

Which nation had/has the best tanks? - America now with the M1A2 Abram

Which nation had/has the worst tanks? - The nation without a tank

Aside from that, my favorite armored car would be the BDRM2. Favorite APC would be OT-64

but why

On which ones?

[Washington Resistance Army]

but why

On which ones?

The bolded and italicized, BRDM a shit

[The RODina]

On which ones?

The bolded and italicized, BRDM a shit

off topic, why would you want an anti gun Johnson/Weld as someone obviously pro gun

[Washington Resistance Army]

The bolded and italicized, BRDM a shit

off topic, why would you want an anti gun Johnson/Weld as someone obviously pro gun

Because the other options are Hillary "the Australian model is worth considering" Clinton and Donald "Obama speaks for me" Trump.

[Husseinarti]

It was american is hardly an argument. I can imagine the number built being an important factor, otherwise it just seems like an average tank like the T-34.

Considering the majority of T-34s produced were lost in WW2, either to combat kills or just scrapped due to damage. However the Russians forgone repairing extensively damaged tanks and would just straight put the crew into a new tank instead.

Also what is to say that the Germans would have been incapable of producing a similar number of Panthers if their industry hadn't been totally flattened from like 1942-1945. (And had crews to fill them ofc).

kekius maximus

Well the industry of the United States utterly dwarfs everyone else, the Russians might come close to raw scale of output, but don't come close to quality of output. T-34s suffered from laxed quality control, due to a very understandable "Hey ivan they are like 100km from Moscow build tank now" situation, however these differences were pretty stark.

For example, if the United States had for some reason developed the Panther, would they have been able to churn out as many of them as they did Shermans?

Well the majority of the 2,100 Pershings produced were built in a span of less than 12 months which outdid the previous 4 years of the Tiger I and Tiger II production runs.

It wouldn't be anything like 21,000 Shermans produced in a year like in 1943 but it'd make BMW, Krupp, Porche, Henschel and all them literally fucking cry the second Detroit Army Tank Plant, Fisher Tank Arsenal, and Lima Army Tank Plant start turning out fucking tanks.

american industry magic oo

The T-28 was an expensive, operationally ineffective pile of junk tbh (explainable by the fact it was made in 1933)

Captain hindsight strikes again!

The Panzer III was the first effective Medium Tank to be employed on a wide scale. Is that better?

The first effective medium tanks in German service were Czechoslovakian designs rippppp

[Germanic Templars]

On which ones?

The bolded and italicized, BRDM a shit

Because it is fuckin adorable and is street legal as far as I am concerned.