What's your favourite world war II Tank or Panzer
Mine is the King Tiger

I have none.

My favourite of the era is the Centurion (1945) but it never saw combat in WW2. The are some parts of the world where such a machine would still dominate the battlefield.

T-34 for its forms (looks cool), firepower, maneuverability and cost.
Other than T-34 I like German Tigers ans Panters (purely for the looks)

Panther tank, fast, excellent armour and excellent gun :)

Centurion and JSIII would be contenders had the war lasted just a little longer, of the two though I'd go for the JSIII (just) as the centurion of 1945 wasn't that good.

Comet tank deserves a mention too :)

PH's on the mark! Panther.

The D-Day flail tanks. I'm pretty certain they were modified Shermans.
http://www.softwhale.com/history/D-Day/images/Sherman-flail-tank.jpg

OMG what was that thing for?

Sherman Flail tanks were used to clear mines. The principle was that a roller was attached to the front of the tank with chains on it, and the roller would whirl round fast in order to hit the ground with immense pressure, thus setting the mines off in front of the tank safely. They'd be used to clear lanes through minefields :) It was just one of the many "funnies" that the British employed throughout the war (though IIRC other countries also used the Flail tank during the war also) that had their role to play in liberating europe, most notably on d-day

Not suprising you don't recognise them, I think the Russian version was called a T34, though you tended to need a lot of them ;) :mischief:

Not suprising you don't recognise them, I think the Russian version was called a T34 ;)
Was the picture I posted a T-34? Sorry. :mischief:
I got the pic from this site (http://www.softwhale.com/history/D-Day/MajGen-Hobart.htm), so I assumed it was a Sherman...

Was the picture I posted a T-34? Sorry. :mischief:

Nope, it was a sherman, I was attempting humour, seems I failed :sad:

It's definately a sherman though, and in the flail tanks they could even stop the roller and use the turret and it's gun when needs arose :)

Nope, it was a sherman, I was attempting humour, seems I failed :sad:

It's definately a sherman though, and in the flail tanks they could even stop the roller and use the turret and it's gun when needs arose :)
:lol: My mistake. Ah well. :) That was a really cool tank.

Indeed, it's often ignored in such discussions, but nevertheless proved valuble in places like the Normandy Beaches.

BTW the T34 comment was directed at Gelion and was meant to say that the Russian mine-clearing tank was a lot of T34s just driving through the minefield...

Just an attempt at a joke, I think they had one mine-clearing vehicle. Oh and btw, there's also matilda flail tanks which predate Hobart's involvement in the funnies :) Hobart more developed the DD Shermans and other concepts.

:lol: thx it was a bit confusing. :D But you can't say it didn't work ey? ;)

If you don't mind loosing tank crews and tanks all for the sake of not developing a decent clearer :mischief:

Well the tanks were too good to be blown apart by some stupid mines :lol:.
But the Soviets developed a tank-flamethrover so I'm not sure if mine clearers were not developed also :)....

I think they did eventually, something based on a T34 IIRC, but not in large numbers.

And yeah, they were too good for mines, that's what the Panther was good for :smug:

Sturmgeschutz or Tiger I

= Tiger II

Greatest tank gun in WWII (the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71), and armor that could laugh in the face of the shots from the Soviet 122mm gun (like say, from the IS-2), while returning fire, and typically penetrating on the first shot.

If only they had implemented the planned 1,020 hp engine, instead of resorting to just using the 700 hp one used in the Panthers and Tiger E's.

The most practical tank? No. The lowest profile tank? No. The most economic tank? No. A tank that is going to kill any given enemy tank of WWII in a standoff? Yes.

I'd rather not be in a vehicle so slow and unmanouverable that you might as well hang a big neon sign off it saying "Sitting Duck for allied planes here" thanks :D ;)

I'd rather not be in a vehicle so slow and unmanouverable that you might as well hang a big neon sign off it saying "Sitting Duck for allied planes here" thanks :D ;)

Hmm, by chance do you realize the Pz VI Ausf B Tiger II was capable of the same exact speeds of the late war Pz IV's? It wasn't as 'slow' as people tend to think.

Unmaneuverable? How do you figure? In a dense forest - maybe (with long barrel... in places where you shouldn't be taking heavy tanks anyway), but it had a foot and a half of ground clearance, the capability to turn in place (highly advanced transmission for the time), the new, more effective interleaving (not overlapping) wheel configuration, etc... the thing could literally turn on a dime. Aside from it's size and barrel length, it's about 10x more 'maneuverable' than a Sherman tank. Then again, all the 'big cats' were. When Americans captured them, and looked them over, they were just as amazed at the superior running gear, and transmissions, as they were their armament.

Hill climbing, obstacle courses, power to weight ratio, etc... the Germans tested their own tanks (the famous family of 'big cats') against captured American tanks - namely the Sherman, but other AFVs as well... and made propaganda films of them, the difference was so stark! I guess you've never seen those. The poor little Sherman, that can't climb the hill to save it's life, whilst the manly Panther comes up and does it with relative ease.

Hmm, by chance do you realize the Pz VI Ausf B Tiger II was capable of the same exact speeds of the late war Pz IV's? It wasn't as 'slow' as people tend to think.

I was talking about the Panther, which is much faster thank you :)

Tended to have more of them about too :mischief:

I'm partial to the fuel tanks on Lulubelle...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/lulubelle3.jpg

Oh, you meant those big noisy metal boxes on wheels? Why didn't you say so!

:D

-Elgalad

:rolleyes: ;)

I was talking about the Panther, which is much faster thank you :)

Tended to have more of them about too :mischief:

Sure, the Panther was a good tank - the Pz V Panther Ausf 'G' was arguably the Germans best 'all-round' tank. But, going up against a horde of late war Soviet heavy tanks, if you say you'd rather be in a Panther, than a Tiger II, I'd call you crazy. So many episodes, of single Tiger II's destroying dozens (literally - and sometimes more) of Soviet tanks in a single action. I'd like to see a Panther do something like that against an entire company(+) of IS-2's.

Heck, the Panther is a perfect match for the American Pershing tank. That's about as fair a fight as you're going to get. Pershing vs. Tiger II, though... no contest whatsoever.
Basically, if you want to LIVE, get in the Tiger II. It's your best chance.

Panther tank, fast, excellent armour and excellent gun :)

Centurion and JSIII would be contenders had the war lasted just a little longer, of the two though I'd go for the JSIII (just) as the centurion of 1945 wasn't that good.

Comet tank deserves a mention too :)
Wot? A Soviet machine? :confused:

Now, I realise they made some quality stuff, but the Soviets used Ford parts... and so did the Germans... hence why so many Soviet tanks were used in the German forces, whereas captured British tanks were renegated to troop training or target practice.

I don't know if the Centurion of 1945 was greatly inferior to later Centurion models, but I'm going to assume you overlooked something when you made that statement ;)

...the Soviets used Ford parts... and so did the Germans... hence why so many Soviet tanks were used in the German forces,...

:lol: You are thinking of certain truck models (like the Soviet ZIS-5, manufactured under license of the Ford company - along with others made in Germany and France as well, contracted years before the war), as well as one or two Soviet (light) armored cars (trucks really) which were first contracted going all the way back to the late 20s (like the FAI for ex.)

None of this applied to tanks/tank destroyers during WWII! :lol:

But, going up against a horde of late war Soviet heavy tanks, if you say you'd rather be in a Panther, than a Tiger II, I'd call you crazy. So many episodes, of single Tiger II's destroying dozens (literally - and sometimes more) of Soviet tanks in a single action. I'd like to see a Panther do something like that against an entire company(+) of IS-2's.

They didn't say what the enemy were :p They asked which was my favourite :D I like the Panther, it looks nice, it moves fast and it hits hard, besides, I'd much rather be fighting the westen allies ;)

The Pershing point is a good one though, despite it being the Americans heaviest tank that saw action in the war, one annecdote from Cologne gives an idea of it's worth. There's a series of pictures somewhere of a Panther that's defending the Cathedral square. The series begins from one road at a 90 degree angle to the Panther's facing, with two shermans trundling down it. The panther blasts one, but comes under fire from a Pershing in the direction it is facing. The Pershing has to hit it THREE times to knock it out :eek: Might not have been often that it happened though, but Panther's rock :goodjob:

Now, I realise they made some quality stuff, but the Soviets used Ford parts... and so did the Germans... hence why so many Soviet tanks were used in the German forces, whereas captured British tanks were renegated to troop training or target practice.

I don't know if the Centurion of 1945 was greatly inferior to later Centurion models, but I'm going to assume you overlooked something when you made that statement

Hmm...

Firstly the Germans had respect for many British tanks, notably the firefly and Matilda (though for different reasons obviously!). Secondly the Centurion that turned up in 1945 was nothing like the centurion that fought in the Israeli army and not immensely like that which served in Suez either. Early marks of the tank used the same 17pndr gun as the Firefly IIRC, which whilst good was not exactly the same as the 20pndr or 105mm L7 that made the tank famous. Various other differences existed also, for example, the Israeli's rebuilt much of the engine and so on to make it work better, and the original Centurions suffered from short operational range.

Compartively, because of it's slightly superior armour (from what I read anyway) I'd go with the JSIII :)

None of this applied to tanks/tank destroyers during WWII! :lol:
No, I am thinking of the gears etc..

I didn't say the whole tanks were Ford, I said some of the components were. Germans could replace some components in broken-down Soviet tanks because they were making many of the same parts under license... and French stuff they happened to want could be fixed, because they controlled the French factories... but British tanks were next to useless, because the components were unique, and the factories far away in allied territory.

The Panther is my favourite.

But the T-34 is probably the best tank of WW2.

@privatehudson, Ok, fine - chose whichever 'favorite' tank you may - for whichever reason. But for me personally, when I choose my 'favorite tank' - I try to invision which tank I would personally rather be IN, if I was going into battle... not 'which tank looks better - to Albert Speer, at the Reich Armaments Ministry'.

You were thinking on the 'grand scale of things'... I was thinking of ME, going into battle. :D

Hey I think the Panther looks better to ME, not Speer, I like the way the panther looks :)

The Panther set the standard in technology for most post-WW2 tank designs.

Oohhh! 'Appearance'! That's what's influencing the opinion. 'An aesthetically pleasing design' - eh? Well, as they say: "That, and quarter - will buy you a cup of coffee on the upper deck" in battle. :p

Though for appearance, a lot of people would pick the IS-3, a pretty well-shaped tank (and not too shabby in battle, either!), but - it never saw action in WWII, and must be discounted for the purpose of such a discussion.

Although..... many would also say (and insist)... "my father's uncle's friend's neighbor was there during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945... and HE SAW THEM! There were IS-3's, I promise! They were there!" :mischief:

...never, ever, remotely confirmed. :crazyeye:

The T-34 and Panther could back up their looks with performance also.

:)

Exactly Curt :)

Yeah, Panther side armor of 40mm.. but all the gorgeous looks in world. :p

Heck, the T2 had twice that (80mm) on the sides... it even had 40mm on the TOP (Panther had just under half that @ 16mm). :D

And we were talking about aerial attack disadvantages?? :lol:

Plenty of blasted Allied tanks could testify to the effectiveness of the Panther.

What was the old ratio? - 5 Shermans for 1 Panther?

You have the right of it in one aspect:
Air strikes are the bane of any tank.

Harder to hit a target that moves faster and better :p

Even easier to dodge planes when you're not running out of fuel so quickly either :lol:

I think the ratio is actually: 39 IS-2's destroyed for 1 Tiger II... which actually just ran out of ammunition and subsequently had to withdraw* (see below). :lol:

But... fine - you guys just keep toying around with those silly Shermans and other WEAK west-front tanks. 5 at a time. That's scary. :eek:


"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner,
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,
East Germany, April of 1945.

I'd be intruiged to know how many of those were combat ready and crewed at the time :hmm: Some may have been unable to fight back. Kind of like assuming that Wittman's haul at Viller Bocage represents the norm for a tiger, wrong.

Harder to hit a target that moves faster and better :p

Even easier to dodge planes when you're not running out of fuel so quickly either :lol:

Well, you'd better take out the Tiger II with air power... becase that 'is' THE only way you're going to do it. Either that, or do what the Russians sometimes did, and concentrate insane amounts of heavy artillery on it, and eventually knockout it's engine, tracks, suspension, etc. in an unearthly, ferocious bombardment... and after a while the vehicle will become disabled, and the crew will abandon.

Hey, here's your Sherman for you... :p

http://achtungpanzer.com/images/sherd.jpg

I'd be intruiged to know how many of those were combat ready and crewed at the time :hmm: Some may have been unable to fight back. Kind of like assuming that Wittman's haul at Viller Bocage represents the norm for a tiger, wrong.

Hey, here's your 5(6) to 1 odds:

"One day a Tiger Royal [Tiger II] tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like Tiger, we would all be home today."

- Report by tank commander Sergeant Clyde D. Brunson from 2nd Armored Division, 1945.

Whoops! Looks like you'll need more! (A HECK of a lot more...) :p

I think the ratio is actually: 39 IS-2's destroyed for 1 Tiger II... which actually just ran out of ammunition and subsequently had to withdraw* (see below). :lol:

Those SS tank elite were a breed apart... :cool:

Well, you'd better take out the Tiger II with air power... becase that 'is' THE only way you're going to do it. Either that, or do what the Russians sometimes did, and concentrate insane amounts of heavy artillery on it, and eventually knockout it's engine, tracks, suspension, etc. in an unearthly, ferocious bombardment... and after a while the vehicle will become disabled, and the crew will abandon

OR as the British could do, employ a whole load of Firefly's with special ammunition, sooner or later one will hit it in the butt, and trust me, the 17pndr rounds would cut through it like a hot knife through butter... probably do the same to the side armour :) They weren't THAT invincible :rolleyes:

Unfortunately the British rarely had the chance to try this out since the KTs tended to stay on the eastern front or get thrown into stupid situations like the Bulge.

Whoops! Looks like you'll need more! (A HECK of a lot more...)

Depends on the situation, the tanks involved etc. It's ridiculous to assume that every battle they got into they could knock out 5 or 6 for every one they lost. Besides, even if they could, we outnumbered them so much it rarely mattered :goodjob:

The Konigstiger suffered from a very crappy powerplant - The downfall of the entire Tiger family, I recall.

Still a killer defence machine, though.

An Allied tanker's bad dream.

Thing with tanks and tank warfare is this though.

IMO, tanks are not a defensive weapon, I mean why bother? You might as well build or use A/T guns in concealed positions or SPGs instead, and reserve your armour for a counter attack. In my experience, in the cut and thrust of war, faster more agile tanks that could deploy quickly and exploit gaps combined with the above are much better than heavy tanks sitting in a position doing the job that a A/T gun could do just as well for a lot less cost.

That's why I prefer the Panther on the battlefield, they're fast and useful for immediate counter attacks. They don't guzzle fuel and they don't suit sitting around waiting for the enemy to come to them. If you want a defensive tank, get a Jagpanther, that's what they're built for, cheaper, easier defenisve weapon. A tank in defense is wasted.

Oh and on that note, I'll put in a word for the excellent Jagpanther, speed and armour of the panther, hitting power of the King Tiger. :mischief:

The mission of the heavy tank... it's role is to create that break in the line to begin with. They are designed to attack heavily defended areas, and overwhelm the enemy front, so the faster, more long-ranging tanks can keep going, and exploit that gap.

This is one reason why the heavy tanks (like the Tigers - I & II), have thick armor on ALL sides (because when you are attacking the front, and penetrating it - you are going to get hit on the sides, as you attack and create the break in the line), not just the front, like the Panther. Which is, of course, why they are heavier.

And as I said, the Tiger II was design-intended to have the 1020 horsepower engine, but due to the overall war situation, they just ended up using the 700 hp one of the Panther and Tiger E. But even still, it was only 8 klicks/hr slower than the Panther (38 kph vs 46 kph) - top speed on the road. Like I said, about the same speed as the late war Pz IV models. But who complains all the time about them and their 'lack of speed'?

The mission of the heavy tank... it's role is to create that break in the line to begin with. They are designed to attack heavily defended areas, and overwhelm the enemy front, so the faster, more long-ranging tanks can keep going, and exploit that gap.

The trouble being of course that they were not so often used for this role compared to others, which kind of defeats the point of having them. There's no point having a heavy battle tank if you're going to throw it into battles like Budapest, Arnhem and the Bulge. Makes them even less useful when the country that's using them is low on fuel also to begin with, which makes Panthers and Panzer IV's a lot more useful all of a sudden.

And as I said, the Tiger II was design-intended to have the 1020 horsepower engine, but due to the overall war situation, they just ended up using the 700 hp one of the Panther and Tiger E. But even still, it was only 8 klicks/hr slower than the Panther (38 kph vs 46 kph) - top speed on the road. Like I said, about the same speed as the late war Pz IV models. But who complains all the time about them and their 'lack of speed'?

Probably because they had more of them, and they could use them more often? :mischief: Besides, the Panther was twice as fast off road, which is considerably more important in a battlefield situation.

The trouble being of course that they were not so often used for this role compared to others, which kind of defeats the point of having them. There's no point having a heavy battle tank if you're going to throw it into battles like Budapest, Arnhem and the Bulge. Makes them even less useful when the country that's using them is low on fuel also to begin with, which makes Panthers and Panzer IV's a lot more useful all of a sudden.

BUT... after mid-1943 (Kursk) Germany was on a defensive posture forever more on the eastern front (save hair-brained ideas like Budapest), and the heavy Tiger tanks were really increasingly 'in their element' on the defensive, and immediate subsequent limited counter-attacks to exploit the damage they could do defensively. All too often, entire companies of Soviet tanks were completely wiped out when moving forward. You can just look at the monthly casualty ratios of tanks on the eastern front - and see when the Russians had their main thrusting offensives, because the tank casualty ratio goes up substantially against them. This was in no small part due to the German heavy armor - making them pay dearly as they advanced.


Probably because they had more of them, and they could use them more often? :mischief: Besides, the Panther was twice as fast off road, which is considerably more important in a battlefield situation.

You strategically redeploy (via rail) your prized assets - your heavy armor into a large battle - where they will do a lot of damage in the local battle. They're not meant (not capable) of the long drive from central Poland - all the way to Moscow, as the PzIII, PzIV, Pz38(t)'s etc, did back in 1941.

...and I hope you don't think the Panther was capable of it, either! What's the longest road march you've ever heard/read for a unit of Panthers making at one time? (Trick question) The answer is 25km. Surprise, the Panther is not 'Mr. Mobility', either. A bit more mobile than the heavy tanks, naturally... but no light-weight, cross-continental cruiser. The thing weighed 45 (metric/long, not US/short) tons, you know... technically, it is listed as a "medium heavy tank".

BUT... after mid-1943 (Kursk) Germany was on a defensive posture forever more on the eastern front (save hair-brained ideas like Budapest), and the heavy Tiger tanks were really increasingly 'in their element' on the defensive, and immediate subsequent limited counter-attacks to exploit the damage they could do defensively. All too often, entire companies of Soviet tanks were completely wiped out when moving forward

And here we depart company where this is concerned. I don't consider tanks to be at all useful for defensive warfare, not when you could just as easily use smaller tanks, SPGs or a/t guns. The King Tiger may have been in it's element, but for the cost and expense of building it and developing it, I'd have rather have built more of everything else. They'd equally be "in their element" and there'd be a whole lot more of them, they'd be a whole lot more reliable and they'd probably inflict similar losses :p

What has long road drives got to do with the off road speed in battle? :hmm: I merely commented that the Panther could move faster and better in battle which tended not to be on roads. It might have something to do with the point about fuel, but either way, tank for tank, the Panther and Panzer IV guzzled less fuel, which in a country where fuel was precious was important IMO. Take that and it's engine problems, and the fact that many roads and bridges couldn't support a tank that heavy, and I know what I'd prefer :)

Oh and I know my statistics on WWII tanks as well thank you, I don't need them quoted at me :p

Consider it a personal choice if you like, but the King Tiger to me was a gross waste of resources in a country where resources were precious. Germany could have produced large numbers of other vehicles which would have fulfilled a similar role, instead she built the King Tiger, and then wasted it in positions and offensives where it was totally unsuited. The whole thing was a waste of effort if that was all the result they got out of it.

Well, if they DIDN'T make all those expensive errors of inefficiency, waste, and indecisive project management that you describe, we wouldn't be talking about 'Das III. Reich' anymore, now would we? ;)

Course we would. just we'd be talking a different language :mischief:

Nah - they never would have made it over here. Consider our Navy, versus theirs. :lol:

We had a hundred aircraft carriers... they... were... planning on building one. Maybe. Someday. :mischief:

Plus, we had :nuke:'s - in event of an intercontinental standoff.

They did begin one, they just never finished it, they got as far as training Stuka crews for it though :)

Oh and "my" country didn't have nukes, we had Dad's Army! :lol:

Nah - they never would have made it over here. Consider our Navy, versus theirs. :lol:

We had a hundred aircraft carriers... they... were... planning on building one. Maybe. Someday. :mischief:

Plus, we had :nuke:'s - in event of an intercontinental standoff.

The had some nasty items planned for that standoff, I have read.

V2 missiles with a ton of sarin in the nose was one -
To be launched from a Me-264, within 10 miles of NYC!

Imagine the horror! :(

Lucky the war ended when it did, at the 'dawn' of the WMD age - And not into full swing.

privatehudson
My point being, in terms of naval power projection in general, the USN was the premier force on the planet - by a substantial margin. The Kriegsmarine was all but wiped out.

...makes it a little difficult (i.e. completely impossible) to conduct that trans-Atlantic invasion. And this gap would only grow, if the war went on. It was just a numbers game - and Germany was hopelessly behind. Simple fact: you just can't build a grand navy quickly... if anybody knows that, Germany does. :p

The had some nasty items planned for that standoff, I have read.

V2 missiles with a ton of sarin in the nose was one -
To be launched from a Me-264, within 10 miles of NYC!

Imagine the horror! :(

Lucky the war ended when it did, at the 'dawn' of the WMD age - And not into full swing.

Well, that would have most certainly sucked quite badly, to be sure. But rest assured, if they had used the nasty stuff against us - and done something like that, consequences/ payback would have been quite harsh. Heck, the Japanese 'just' hit us on a military target, with some bombs, bullets, and torpedoes... but look what THEY got in the end... :cringe:

I think we would have made it a national passion to sow Germany's fields with salt, build a giant wall around their country, and let them fend for themselves - and go back to the dark ages. Maybe a couple of nukes as well for good measure, before war's end. (heck, that walled-off idea was actually the proposal by some American generals at war's end... I didn't just make that up!) :eek:

But yeah, good things ended up the way they did. :D
It could have been much more crazy. :(

privatehudson
My point being, in terms of naval power projection in general, the USN was the premier force on the planet - by a substantial margin. The Kriegsmarine was all but wiped out.

...makes it a little difficult (i.e. completely impossible) to conduct that trans-Atlantic invasion. And this gap would only grow, if the war went on. It was just a numbers game - and Germany was hopelessly behind. Simple fact: you just can't build a grand navy quickly... if anybody knows that, Germany does. :p

I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with any of these, I was merely pointing out something about the only carrier they ever got close to building :)

I'd take a new Tiger II :king: and take my chances :mischief: ;) .

With infantry support nearby and a solid area to move about, bring your best LAND forces. :suicide: :hammer: :spank:

Still prefer my Sturm to any other tank other then a Tiger I. Maybe take a Jagdpanzer

I prefer the Panther although the Tiger 2 was also a nightmare for the allied tank commanders.

Adler

Oh I don't care if it was a pain for the allies to fight against, the sturm sure wasn't, just going for practicallity and looks. And plus the way it rolls off the tounge. Sturmgeschutz. Come on. Say it. There ya go. Ain't that a lovly little word?

Purely on aesthetics and beauty of design I'd say the Pather and Tiger I.
If I had to pick one to field as leader of a country in WWII I'd pick the T-34 for simplicity of design, ease of production and overall performance. More bang for my buck.

Oh I don't care if it was a pain for the allies to fight against, the sturm sure wasn't, just going for practicallity and looks. And plus the way it rolls off the tounge. Sturmgeschutz. Come on. Say it. There ya go. Ain't that a lovly little word?

I prefer "Jagpanther" :mischief:

Sturmgeschütz = "Shturmgesheuts"

Yeah, really rolls off the tongue. :p

Tiger II = "Teeger Tsvei" I always like the way the Germans pronounce 'Tiger'. Sounds like something a kid would say at a zoo... "mommy, look at the teeger!" :D

Moved to History.

King Tiger.

Out of German prototypes i would say P 1000, and P 2000 Those thing were the size of houses...!

And around about as mobile :mischief:

P1000 was feasable, but immobile.
p2000 was sheer madness, it would have been impossible to move.
P3000 was the craziest thing in the world.

I know thats why i like them...

Well that's logical.... not :lol:

favourite tank

i think its called BT-8, light tank

the fastest tank of ww2

i.e. "fast tank-8". Speed (I think) 100 km/h. Not a very good tank, but quick as hell. T-34 is a continuation of BT idea.

speed more like around 90 km/H

they werent used in the way light tanks are supposed to be used (bad doctorine)+ crews werent trained, lack of communication etc

but all in all, great tank, 45 mm main gun, bigger than the german Pz III 33mm

well most were abandoned in the beginning of ww2 (bad doctrine yes), but I can't say crews were untrained. And even if they are it's not the tanks fault ;).

ok, i meant inadequte training programs

they werent abbondoned, they were destroyed chachi, because of the reasons i mentioned

who is his right mind would abondon tanks in a war?

specially in a war where the russians were lacking hardware?

The U.S. M18 Hellcat was the fastest of WWII. ;)

I've always been partial to the Sherman. Oh sure, it may not have been the best Tank ever made. But we were able to crank out a ton of them. Not to mention some were build rght in my home town of Cleveland, Ohio in the huge buildng which is now the International Exposition, or IX center. However, during the war the converted it frm a Tank plant to a bomber plant. What they make there? B-29s? Whatever.

The U.S. M18 Hellcat was the fastest of WWII. ;)


hellcat, top speed around 80 km/H

bt-8 was slightly faster

hellcat, top speed around 80 km/H

bt-8 was slightly faster

The U.S. M18 Hellcat was the fastest tracked vehicle of WWII - period (this is common knowledge, atleast in WWII AFV fanatic circles). The 'BT-8' you speak of (really just another name for the BT-7M) could only reach the top speed of 86 kph, with the tracks removed, and driving flat-out on roads - on it's wheels alone. This was only done for redeployments (kind of like how the Tiger tanks had 'transport tracks' - which were narrower - to allow them onto RR flatcars.

And there were numerous *wheeled* vehicles that could go faster than 86 kph. Either way, the BT-7M/ aka BT-8 is not quite the champion of speed. It was fast, though - I'll give you that. ;)

I don't mean to harsh anybody's mellow or anything, but I'll have to go with the Elefant/Ferdinand even though it's really not a tank.

I go for the Tiger 1- Just looks so intimidating!

I don't mean to harsh anybody's mellow or anything, but I'll have to go with the Elefant/Ferdinand even though it's really not a tank.

It was slower than the Jagpanther though and the first variants suffered from having no anti-infantry capacity other than firing HE from it's main gun.

do you know the tracked speed of the bt-8?

anyway if you wanna get into technicalities, wasnt the hellcat a tank destroyer, and not a tank?

Onwar.com suggests around about 52 km/hour for a BT7 :)

well then onwar.com is wrong
bt-7 had 500 HorsePower = what abrams m1 had, until the last upgrade, now they have 600 something

and about 1/4 of the abrams weight (14,000 kg)

do the math

:hmm:

Try This site (http://www.battlefield.ru/specific.html) Which lists the BT7 at 50 km/h off road, the BT7M as 62 km/h off road. (both while using tracks)

Or This site (http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/bt7.htm) which says the same for the BT7

Or This one (http://www.silentwall.com/BT.html) which has the same information

Onwar.com is usually quite reliable :) The only reason I quoted 52 km/h is because onwar didn't seem to have the BT7M ;)

http://www.silentwall.com/BT.html
Try this site :).
The official Soviet sources say the speed was 86km/h. But I know PH thinks they must be byast. :p

No, I think that the 86 km/h is the road (ie when the road wheels were being used) speed of the BT7M, he asked for the tracked speed, which that site lists as 62 km/h

Oh and btw, the last of my links is the same as the link you posted, and two of mine were Russian sites :lol:

So sorry to spoil your smug fun, less a case of bias and more a case of being accurate :mischief:

smug fun, smuuug fuuun, smuuuuuuuuuuuug fuuuuuuuuun

smug fun, smug fun, smuuug fuuuuuuuuuuun


whatever :p



my favourite is bt-8, the fastest tank of ww2!

since well, the hellcat isnt really a tank,and im sure there are faster tracked vehicles,how about those halftracks?

or those funky tracked "trikes" the germans had?

so what is the fastest tank of the ww2, if not bt-8?

ROFL! :D I should have looked. But some other sources say 100km/h on the raod and 85km/h for off-road. I'm not going to try and look for them :).
PH you still don't know the difference between Russian and Soviet! :( Shame on you! ;)

I doubt the 100/85, unless it was somehow intending to use the roadwheels off road :eek:

Oh and one other thing, tracked wise, if the 62 km/h is to be taken as fact, the Cromwell tank (mark I) can outrun it at 64 km/h :mischief:

The M22 locust and M3 Stuart wasn't far behind either at 58 km/h

It's 62 kph for the BT-7M (aka BT-8), guys. But, if you want to talk about taking tracks off, both the BT-2, and BT-5 (of the early 30's) were both 'markedly' faster than it was anyway (they could reach 112 kph on the roads - rigged for redeployment :eek: )

And yeah, the Hellcat was technically a tank-destroyer. But then again, when you take the tracks off the Russian BT's - you are taking it out of the 'definition of what a tank is'. Look it up!

An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.

Hookin' and a jabbin', slashin' and a stabbin'!! Who's next! I love this WWII tank trivia! :cool:

It's hardly suprising, however when dealing with top speeds I prefer to talk about cross country speeds, and at the minimum road speeds when tracked as these are the ones most often used in combat. Top speed which is purely for purposes of redeployment is a bit of a moot point really.

Well, for cross-country speed (in terms of sticking strictly to the 'definition of a tank'), your best bet is the U.S. M24 Chaffee, (easily) arguably the best light tank of WWII.

With it's superior torsion bar suspension (Christie suspension types -like on the Russian BT series- were proven to be inferior/ obsolete by mid-war, even for light tanks), it's going to have the off-road advantage.

And LOL! The M1 Abrams has 1,500 horsepower! Not 5 or 600! I thought everyone knew that! :lol:

Give me a comet or cromwell tank any day :smug: Not light tanks as such, but one hell of a turn of speed :)

Give me a comet or cromwell tank any day :smug: Not light tanks as such, but one hell of a turn of speed :)

You'd better get back in your first choice - the Panther... because if you stay in that Cromwell, and you should meet up with a Panther... you're gonna be kickin' yourself all the way "on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!" :p


(sorry, couldn't resist ;) )

You'd better get back in your first choice - the Panther... because if you stay in that Cromwell, and you should meet up with a Panther... you're gonna be kickin' yourself all the way "on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!"

Firstly, I was talking about compared to a M24, and both the Cromwell and Comet would be much better than the M24, if only because they have better armour :)

Secondly, in the comet, the British crew would stand an excellent chance against the Panther :) Gotta love the 17pndr, even if it was a short version :goodjob:

Yeah, the 17pdr was a superb, deep armor-piercing gun. Not quite as good as the 88mm KwK/PaK 43 L/71 (of the Nashorn, Ferdinand/Elefant, & Tiger II - and would-have-been Panther II, etc.), which was the best of the war, but still, not too far behind in terms of performance.

Although, when you consider the armor of the tanks that were carrying it, compared to the German heavy armor... :mischief:

Well if you gave a comet or another 17pndr some of the specialist ammunition we developed during WWII, those precious heavy armoured german tanks might as well have paper for armour :smug: So it depends, the performance of the 17pndr could match that of an 88mm L/71, but not very often due to the scarcity of the specialist ammunition.

The comet's armour also matched that of a Panther tank with ease, so whatever a Panther could stand up to, a Comet could :)

Well if you gave a comet or another 17pndr some of the specialist ammunition we developed during WWII, those precious heavy armoured german tanks might as well have paper for armour :smug: So it depends, the performance of the 17pndr could match that of an 88mm L/71, but not very often due to the scarcity of the specialist ammunition.

The comet's armour also matched that of a Panther tank with ease, so whatever a Panther could stand up to, a Comet could :)


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought you said you knew your WWII tank stats? How could you possibly say something like that?? (hint - look at the slope angles of all the various armor, and calculate that into the effective 'thickness') :p (the Panther is far more protected - by a substantial margin!)

And btw, if you want to start talking about 'specialist ammunition', the German guns had that as well. It's called 'sub-caliber' ammunition, or APCR... Armor Piercing Composite Rigid, which had tungsten cores. Do a search on what the 88 L/71's armor penetration stats were using Pzgr. (Panzergranate) 40/43 ammo (sub-caliber rounds)....

:eek: :wow:

I am aware of the differences in armour sloping yes, however the Comet was well armoured and quite a capable tank, and with it's 17pndr gun could engage a Panther on something close to an equal basis. Had it been turned out in sufficient numbers before 1945 it would have made quite an impact :) It represented the first real British tank capable of standing up to the heavier german tanks. Unfortunately, chances to compare it to German armour are rare given that it's earliest combat experiences tend to be after March 1945 when you were lucky to find a panther left running :D

Contary to your rather arrogant belief, you're not the only one capable of reading statistics out of a book or off a website :rolleyes: Nor are better statistics the only thing that makes a good tank for that matter

I may have overstated the point slightly at the end of my last post, but facts remain, the Comet was known as the British Panther, and had the similar results to speak for it too.

And yes, I do know about German ammunition, as I said, others can read as well. I merely offered the thought that the 17pndr is more than capable of knocking holes in most German armour with normal ammunition, given the chance to use the more specialist rounds, it would have made short work of pretty much most German tanks. I hardly think the 88mm needed to be using special ammunition to do that, but it's not really very relevant to the performance of a 17pndr as to what the 88 could do. Why bother comparing them when I was merely commenting that German armour was not totally invincible if the right tools were used.

I'm flattered by your comment. Because I rarely refer to sources (nowadays). I've discussed (in more specialized forums - with experts) this subject for years, and most of these stats, I know off hand. And, if the case can be made... I have a good 'picture' of how these tanks will fare against one another, based on my countless hours in some of the finest online WWII tanksims ever made (Panzer Commander, my favorite... the physics are amazing in that one... and the sim calculates muzzle velocity, armor thickness, slope, projectile mass, type, etc. etc. - very sophisticated, and yeilds some very realistic results). That's why when you say the Comet will 'easily' stand up to a Panther, and take whatever the Panther can take, I laugh.

But regardless of my online gaming, stats are stats... and 80mm at a slope of 55 degrees is going to put the front glacis plate of your Comet to shame. That's just a simple numbers game... as is the majority of WWII tank warfare.

When comparing an theoretical engagement between a Panther and Comet, it doesn't matter, since both tanks are quite capable of destroying the other anyway, the fact that it's armour is sloped doesn't detract from the fact that the Comet's gun was eminently capable of punching a hole through it. I've yet to see a single set of wargame rules that rates the Comet as anything more than slightly worse than the Panther, and the majority recognise the fact that the Comet is quite capable of destroying the panther when it scores a hit on it, not all the time obviously, but neither would the reverse. Games are just games though, the Comet's performances in NW europe at the end of the war mark it down as an extremely capable tank and a serious step in the right direction for the British.

As I did mention which you seem to have ignored, the point was overstated slightly, but the fact remains, the comet was the first British tank that comes close to matching the panther in terms of survivability, killing power and speed, all of which were streets ahead of a Cromwell or Sherman in comparison. As one site put it, this was the first British tank that matched the standards of a T34 or Panther in balancing the three main areas of tank design.

Please do pay attention next time though, since I retracted the statment about it being "easily capable" as with hindsight agree that I was overstating the point about the comet and pointed instead to it being a very capable tank and one that represented an excellent change of design in Britain. I don't need a lesson on something I already changed my mind on thank you very much, nor do I expect to have to listen to you repeatedly attack a point I'm not making anymore. :crazyeye:

It's very tiresome to have to reply to things that aren't even about what I'm saying anymore :sad:

I'm sure we all here have good credentials about our knowledge of tanks and reasons for thinking that one or the other is the best from WWII, perhaps we should start afresh and not spend so much time arguing about who knows more ;)

i like the king tiger a lot

Oh if only we could have brought out the Centurion a little earlier :D

Alright, yes, they CAN both kill eachother (armament vs. armor of each tank considered - mainly due to the 17pdr not being a slouch by any means)... but... that aside, if you take the Comet -stand alone-, and the Panther individually, and compare their armor...the Panther is a MUCH more desirable tank. I think that's all I was trying to get at with this subject... maybe... :crazyeye: Therefore, it is a more survivable tank... that cannot be disputed.

But anyhow - these are all just silly-baby tanks compared to the 'King'... :p

Oh if only we could have brought out the Centurion a little earlier :D

<ahem> SURELY, you don't hint/propose that the Centurion would have been able to stand toe-to-toe with the Tiger II?...... :mischief:
...because that would be... not quite silly... but close... :p

Therefore, it is a more survivable tank... that cannot be disputed

No, but what I was saying about the Comet was that it was better than the rest of the British armour at the time, so was an improvement on that at least giving the British a tank that could at least withstand combat long enough to engage the enemy :mischief:

Co-incidentally, the first 1/300th scale wargame I did, I commanded a group of Firefly tanks on this hill and was told to hold it at all costs. Unfortunately, the next turn a company of tigers rolled into view at short range at which point most of the allied commanders groaned. Luckily I was on overwatch and fired first, the tiger company lost 4 out of 5 models straight away :mischief:

Two turns later and another Tiger unit decimated, someone pointed out to me that I was reading the 17pnder with "special" ammo (I forget which) line rather than the standard 17pndr statistics :blush:

Hey I was new! :lol: It taught me to respect the 17pndr and British ammo though :goodjob:

Co-incidentally, the first 1/300th scale wargame I did, I commanded a group of Firefly tanks on this hill and was told to hold it at all costs. Unfortunately, the next turn a company of tigers rolled into view at short range at which point most of the allied commanders groaned. Luckily I was on overwatch and fired first, the tiger company lost 4 out of 5 models straight away :mischief:

Two turns later and another Tiger unit decimated, someone pointed out to me that I was reading the 17pnder with "special" ammo (I forget which) line rather than the standard 17pndr statistics :blush:

Hey I was new! :lol: It taught me to respect the 17pndr and British ammo though :goodjob:

Wait a minute... are we talking Tiger (I / Ausf E)'s here, or Tiger (II / Ausf B)'s?

A hundred bucks says they were Tiger E's. (and you'd better not lie!)
Once you answer that, I'll tell you why I'm so sure...

<ahem> SURELY, you don't hint/propose that the Centurion would have been able to stand toe-to-toe with the Tiger II?......

:eek: Of course the centurion mark 7 would wipe the floor with it! ;) Honestly :D The mark one though wouldn't have stood a chance for one good reason, there was pretty much no Tiger II's left to try it :lol: Seriously though, no, nor do I think that was what the centurion's projected role was at the time either. The Mark I was basically furthering the principles learnt with the Comet tank and seeing how it would work, it was nothing revolutionary, and certainly not intended to be a heavy tank.

That was the job of the Tortioise :D

And yes, Tiger I's. Great fun it was too for a 12 year old :goodjob: Odball eat your heart out :mischief:

There was a few choice words from my 50odd year old opponent until he found out why though :lol:

First off, you surely must realize/admit - that the Centurion was not technically a heavy tank! I don't know how many Brits I've met online have referred to it as a 'super-heavy tank' LOL! It weighed less than the Panther, in reality. But that aside - it's armament quite simply does not have the mass, weight, and velocity to penetrate the Tiger II -anywhere- in the front. Whereas, the T2 will penetrate the Centurion with quite laughable ease -on the front- especially the front turret... which is SUPPOSED to be even thicker (inlcude slope angle!) than the glacis plate... this is the idea of being hull-down.* But Anyhow - the IS-2 had a devil of a time getting through the front of a Tiger II, with it's massive 122mm AP shell (over 3x the mass) - with comparable velocity, etc... your 17 pdr just doesn't have the kinetic energy. With ridiculously THICK armor (like the T2)... the only way to really penetrate it, is to cause traumatic structural damage (crack and 'spall' - as they call it), to weaken the armor with successive hits, and eventually you will penetrate. That's the effect only a large-caliber gun can have. The reason the 88 L/71 was so superb (despite not being > 100mm), is primarily due to it's extremely high velocity...

*You want a great hull-down tank? (without being in a 'behemoth')... The Panther *G* is your tank. That thing is almost impossible to kill... if all that's exposed is it's front turret. Heck, it's hard to kill front the front, even if it's not hull-down, though.

Anyway... 2nd point: A rant about the Tiger I (ausf E)... don't get me wrong, it's a superb tank... but by war's end, with the new generation of Soviet/Allied up-gunned tanks (like the Firefly you mention, 'Jumbo' Sherman, Comet, etc.)... but especially on the eastern front... everything the Russians had, from the T-34/85 upwards, was able to kill the Tiger E, from the FRONT, at a relatively short range (inside 5-600 meters, routinely)... add to that, that the 88mm L/56 was sorely lacking in muzzle velocity (by late-war standards), it could not penetrate the enemy tanks as effectively as it used to.

Take the Pershing for example. Vs a Tiger E... the Tiger stands no chance in open terrain. But the Panther does... because it still has the velocity required to penetrate. Basically, especially one the eastern front, fron mid-1944 onwards, the Tiger was not nearly as much of a threat as it once was. A lot of people don't realize this. But the T-34/85 (much less the SU-100, ISU-122, IS-2, etc.) was more than a match for the non-sloped armor, (relatively, by late war standards) low-velocity L/56 gun of the Tiger.

Now, the Tiger II was a COMPLETELY different story.

First off, you surely must realize/admit - that the Centurion was not technically a heavy tank! I don't know how many Brits I've met online have referred to it as a 'super-heavy tank' LOL! It weighed less than the Panther, in reality. But that aside - it's armament quite simply does not have the mass, weight, and velocity to penetrate the Tiger II -anywhere- in the front.

I refer you to my words:

Seriously though, no, nor do I think that was what the centurion's projected role was at the time either. The Mark I was basically furthering the principles learnt with the Comet tank and seeing how it would work, it was nothing revolutionary, and certainly not intended to be a heavy tank.

That was the job of the Tortioise

So no I don't actually ;) I consider it a logical extension of the Comet (which is a logical extension of a Cromwell and so on and so forth) in that the different design allowed for the use of the full 17pndr and so on. The Centurion tank doesn't really come into it's own until at the least the mark 3 if not the Mark 5 :) By the time we and Israel finished with it though.... :smug:

But Anyhow - the IS-2 had a devil of a time getting through the front of a Tiger II, with it's massive 122mm AP shell (over 3x the mass) - with comparable velocity, etc... your 17 pdr just doesn't have the kinetic energy. With ridiculously THICK armor (like the T2)... the only way to really penetrate it, is to cause traumatic structural damage (crack and 'spall' - as they call it), to weaken the armor with successive hits, and eventually you will penetrate. That's the effect only a large-caliber gun can have. The reason the 88 L/71 was so superb (despite not being > 100mm), is primarily due to it's extremely high velocity...

Ah ha, just two points here:

1) The first company to roll into action was side shots (except one because of the angle IIRC), so it's reasonable to assume they could have been T2s and I was very lucky :mischief: Other than that, that's a quite effective way to take out a KT, ie make use of weight of numbers, get round the back or side of it and pray you manage that before it knocks you all out :goodjob:

2) There was one (kind of) account on record of a Tiger II being taken out by a bunch of normal British Shermans. One of them hit one of it's wheels and damaged that area, and when the T2 tried to retreat, it took a corner too quick (kinda hard to imagine but...) and bust something at which point the crew bailed out and were shot/captured. It's one of the ones sitting in some museum at the moment. It's probably one of the only Tiger II's lost to enemy gunfire from a sherman ;) That must have been quite shameful for the crew though :lol:

General rule? Get lucky or pray it doesn't see you! :goodjob:

And I've personally always rated a Panther higher than a Tiger, I was just very impressed as a 12 year old "noob" to see much vaunted tigers going up in smoke for no response :D

I'm still sticking with my Panther tank though :smug:

Earlier, we were talking about X to Y odds of what it generally took for a certain tank... to kill a certain other type tank. So here's one...

In 1941/ or early '42, how many PzIVD/E/F(F1)'s would it take to penetrate a Russian KV-1?

I haven't read it, but keep it up guys! :D

a certain private needs to go decaf

or on therapy ;)

In 1941/ or early '42, how many PzIVD/E/F(F1)'s would it take to penetrate a Russian KV-1?

Easy answer? None. The Panzer IV short barrel stood about no chance whatsoever of penetrating the frontal armour of a KV1 or 2 (assuming we're talking front armour here). The Germans generally speaking were resigned to stukas, howitzers over open sights or the infamous '88' when they ran into those behemoths.

Coincidentally, talking about the '88' AA variant, it's a crying shame that the British never put into front line use their 3.7 inch AA gun which had a similar performance in the A/T role :sad: It might have needed some minor changes to make it easier to use, but it probably would have been worth it :)

Oh, BTW the Kingtiger was the only tank in ww2, which saw action, which none was destroyed from a hit to the front.

Adler

That's because they were too busy running out of fuel, breaking down or being shot to pieces by planes :lol: ;)

All were destroyed when runnig away? :lol: (;))

All were destroyed when runnig away? :lol: (;))

Nah, a lot of them (especially in the bulge) were abbandonned by their crews due to fuel, technical or ammunition problems actually.

*cough* joke *cough* ;)

Didn't a load of Americans at the Bulge use a captured King Tiger for bazooka practice, and pretty much every shell bounced straight off?

Silly Russian humour :mischief: Wrong forum! :D

Didn't a load of Americans at the Bulge use a captured King Tiger for bazooka practice, and pretty much every shell bounced straight off?

Wouldn't suprise me, the bazooka really wasn't that good a weapon to be frank

How stupid you have to be to try that? :D ... silly Americans.. no sence of humour at all ;)...

Wouldn't suprise me, the bazooka really wasn't that good a weapon to be frank

Being HEAT, it was decent. Still better than the PIAT, but not as much as the Panzerfaust, nor the German A/T gunn based on the Panzerscherck, the Puppchen, was it?

Being HEAT, it was decent. Still better than the PIAT, but not as much as the Panzerfaust, nor the German A/T gunn based on the Panzerscherck, the Puppchen, was it?

Depends on how you define decent, yes it was better than a piat, but generally speaking it still had a hard time taking out Panthers and so on, so it wasn't good enough.

Hudson whats the name of the german SP gun ??? The Herter or something ?
They made it from the old Cezh Light tank chassies (Pz35(t)) and mounted a 76mm gun Jagdpanther style. The manufactured over 6000 in short order. It proved extremely popular with its crews. Its low profile, Diminiative tank was deceptively powerful and well armoured.

It was a tiny little tank that could.

Hudson whats the name of the german SP gun ??? The Herter or something ?

Hetzer :)

They made it from the old Cezh Light tank chassies (Pz35(t)) and mounted a 76mm gun Jagdpanther style. The manufactured over 6000 in short order. It proved extremely popular with its crews. Its low profile, Diminiative tank was deceptively powerful and well armoured.

Actually it carried the 75mm L/48 similar to that which the latter marks of the Panzer IV carried (not sure if it was the same actually, might have been), an effective gun, but nowhere near as effective as the L/70 carried by some jagpanzers or the 88 L/71 in the Jagpanther. You're correct in describing it's biggest pluses though, easy to produce, effective and small, thus harder to hit.

There was a similar model called Marder as well - not much on defence, but good killing power and cheap.

BTW, PH, its Jagdpanzer or Jagdpanther... from the German word Jagd which means 'hunt'.
Though, seeing there's a British metal group called Jagpanzer, the word must be in popular use in Britain - wonder where that came from... :rolleyes:

There was a similar model called Marder as well - not much on defence, but good killing power and cheap.

It wasn't too bad, bit high comparitively though.

BTW, PH, its Jagdpanzer or Jagdpanther... from the German word Jagd which means 'hunt'.

Yes you're right, my appologies :)

On topic again: My favorite tank for all-around excellence and design has to be the Panther.
Counting only killing power, the Königstiger is of course unbeatable.

If we are also allowed to choose tank destroyers, my fav HAS to be the Jagdpanther - nothing else comes close! :D

Yes you're right, my appologies :)

One 'p' would have been enough, thank you very much! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Got you again! :D

Sorry, moderators, couldn't resist - I'll stop playing spelling-police at once! :salute:

If we are also allowed to choose tank destroyers, my fav HAS to be the Jagdpanther - nothing else comes close!

*nods* Fast, lethal and able to withstand the shots of an average battle tank of every enemy country :)

And the day I worry about spelling english is the day I get slippers and start smoking a pipe :lol:

Actually it carried the 75mm L/48 similar to that which the latter marks of the Panzer IV carried (not sure if it was the same actually, might have been), ....

Not quite.
Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer ('Baiter'): 75mm Pak 39 L/48
Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf G (late), -H, -J: 75mm KwK 40 L/48

PaK - Panzerabwehrkanone: Anti-Tank Gun,
KwK - Kampfwagenkanone: Combat Vehicle Gun (Tank Gun)

But that aside (since in some cases there were KwK/Pak guns variant of the same model - e.g. KwK 43/ of the Tiger II, & PaK 43 of the Jagdpanther, Nashorn, Ferdinand/Elefant), note the difference in 39 and 40 of the gun models... not the same! :p

'Jagdpanther', btw - best translates to 'Hunting Panther' ;)

It is the same 'PaK' - that you will find as stand alone anti-tank guns, btw. E.g., the 12.8cm PaK 44 L/55 - was a gun that was equipped on the Jagdtiger (and Maus :p ), and also on it's own as a field anti-tank gun. The KwK's - the tank guns were stilghtly different, to fit into a turret, and still allow good negative elevation (pointing the gun downwards), etc. - a feature which the Russians never really were very good at designing! They were notorious for having very little negative elevation capability on their guns. Heck, all Russian AFVs... the entire war. :rolleyes:

All you had to say was that they're essentially the same weapon with slightly different designs, the technical stuff gets boring after too many figures :lol:

The Panther would be my favorite! :D
Actually, almost all Panzers would be my favorite :)

Hey, it is 'undeniably' a 'different' gun... :lol:

But in terms of performance, they are 'coincidentally' identical... :mischief:

Hey, it is 'undeniably' a 'different' gun... :lol:

But in terms of performance, they are 'coincidentally' identical... :mischief:

Oh yeah, I forget that naming it slightly different and small changes make it totally different :p

Oh yeah, I forget that naming it slightly different and small changes make it totally different :p

For the Hetzer, they made a really good armor piercing 75mm gun, and used that model (39), made some modifications so it could fit in the PzIV turret, named it the model 40, there you go... (once again) up-gunned PzIV's.

That poor Panzer IV was so overloaded as the war progressed. All the extra armor (plus what they would add in the field - see pic below) the later variants were supplemented with... plus the guns kept getting longer (and heavier), the front wheels weren't designed for all that weight... they had to replace them often (and extra maintenance on other suspension/running gear). And if you've ever seen how far they went with the PzIVJ - with adding extra armor EVERYwhere it was possible... no wonder it was about as fast as the Tiger II by war's end. ;)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/pz4hev.jpg

For the Hetzer, they made a really good armor piercing 75mm gun, and used that model (39), made some modifications so it could fit in the PzIV turret, named it the model 40, there you go... (once again) up-gunned PzIV's.


ah ha I knew it.
sorry about getting the gun wrong. I knew it was superior to the standard 75mm


Q Dose any one know why the Germans continued to poduce the Pz2 (Lynx) right up until 1945? And why ?

They used it as a light reconnaissance tank until the end of the war. Only about a hundred were built (ausf L - Luchs), from September of 1943 to January of 1944.