Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Soldiers Tank - Europe 12/44-5/45

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Best Soldiers Tank - Europe 12/44-5/45

    Which tank do you think was the best soldiers tank of this period?

    M26 Pershing



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

    M4 Sherman


    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...89626dca4a.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

    Tiger 2


    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tige...ce.1944-02.png

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

    Panther G


    http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww...t_am_rhein.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

    T-34-85


    http://www.scalemodelguide.com/wp-co.../07/T34-85.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#T-34-85

    IS-2


    http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww...teBerlin45.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family

    Comet


    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...56629417de.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(tank)

    Churchill


    http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0...II-Croc-01.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank

    Other?
    50
    M26 Pershing
    10.00%
    5
    Sherman
    4.00%
    2
    Tiger 2
    44.00%
    22
    Panther G
    12.00%
    6
    T-34
    4.00%
    2
    IS-2
    6.00%
    3
    Comet
    10.00%
    5
    Churchill
    8.00%
    4
    Other
    2.00%
    1
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • #2
    Tiger 2 - mainly for the armour protection, and pretty good mobility if you needed to make a tactical retreat.

    Reliability is unimpressive, but then the British and Americans didn't do any better when they attempted tanks in the same weight class.
    "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
    - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

    Comment


    • #3
      Tiger II. A slow M60 for all intents. It's gun will demolish anything it comes up against. It has sufficient armor to survive on a battlefield, and good crew survival. The reliability takes a hit, but from a "I'm having to use it" POV, it'd be the tank you'd want to be in.

      Comment


      • #4
        The King Tiger
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hanov View Post
          The King Tiger
          I think the Tiger 2 will win here, specifically for its gun and frontal arc armour. It even had decent flotation. Its the same reason why some people choose the Panther over the Sherman.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #6
            My opinion is that a good commander's tank is objectively much better than a good soldier's tank - they are not equal. I also think that a good commander's tank will probably generate fewer casualties over time than a good soldier's tank, due to it being more suited to quickly completing a campaign.
            "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
            - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
              My opinion is that a good commander's tank is objectively much better than a good soldier's tank - they are not equal. I also think that a good commander's tank will probably generate fewer casualties over time than a good soldier's tank, due to it being more suited to quickly completing a campaign.
              Agreed. Lanchester's (Square) Laws imply that two tanks with an individual rating of 1 will be twice as good as one tank with an individual rating of 2, everything else being equal. The commanders sensibly want the tank that is only half as good in itself, but twice as good in practice, given twice the numbers if available.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #8
                The Pershing arrived too late and in too few numbers, and with a number of unpleasant teething troubles.

                The much vaunted Tiger was too few, too slow, too heavy for a lot of bridges in Europe and too large a target.

                I stayed with the Panther on this one, and Germany should have as well.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I liked the Pershing for this too, and the King Tiger... but who wants to spend 90% of their time tinkering with a beast like that?
                  And then there was the Comet... if I was with a Cavalry Regiment, that is what I would want.

                  But damn... just look at that 122mm blockbuster !
                  Sure, the IS-2 had little ammo or fuel, so you have to stay in close contact with your logistics, but that could also be seen as a good thing... by the poor schmoes that have to ride in it.
                  Or maybe not, not when you hear about that lone Tiger that caught them refueling at night, and roasted two Company's worth.
                  ... yeah, maybe not.

                  Panther.
                  Had to be, eh?
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A lot of us are looking at this from the survive-ability point of view.
                    More of a "Which of these beasts will I stay alive longer in?"

                    My vote on that point is the Tiger2 for all the same reasons I've chosen it before. You won't win any races in it, and there are may places it can't go, but it's damn hard to penetrate, and that may let me survive a battle that other tanks' crews won't.
                    BoRG
                    "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Tiger II again, and for the same reasons as before.
                      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        answered below

                        Good morning/evening Panther!

                        I have a small question...

                        Could you clarify exactly what a "Soldier's" Tank is...

                        Is it a tank suitable for co-operation with infantry? Is that what you mean?

                        Drusus...
                        Last edited by Drusus Nero; 09 Dec 16, 10:56.
                        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                          Good morning/evening Panther!

                          I have a small question...

                          Could you clarify exactly what a "Soldier's" Tank is...

                          Is it a tank goods for co-operation with infantry? Is that what you mean?

                          Drusus...
                          Hi Drusus,

                          As spelled out by Nick in the lead-up to these polls; essentially you ask yourself this question:

                          If I were a tank soldier in this theatre/time bracket of WW2, which of the tank types listed would I prefer to serve in?
                          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                            Tiger II again, and for the same reasons as before.
                            This is one of those with the benefit of hindsight scenarios.

                            I will be the first to admit that the Tiger 2 looks scary to the enemy, has a really beefy gun, and the best frontal armour of any tank in WW2. If I were a tanker in WW2 that would be what I would want to be in.

                            However, with the benefit of hindsight, the high level of protection the Tiger 2 appears to have, is anything but. If the Tiger 2 was able to be built cheaply enough to swarm the enemy with numbers and firepower and armour, then it would have been a great Soldiers tank.

                            The big problem with the Tiger 2 is its image. Opponents will simply attack its sides, and at 80mm, it does not quite have enough armour for such a huge tank. The IS-2 had c90mm, as did the early Churchills, because this was what was needed in an attack tank by this stage of the war. If you are looking for a defensive tank, the Panther is superior to any Tiger.

                            By contrast, The Churchill VII's front armour, while not as good as Tigers 2, will still keep out Tiger 2 AP rounds at usual combat ranges. Further, while the Churchill had initially 89mm max on its sides, superior to the Tigers 2 80mm, it was found that a small increase to 95mm made a significant difference. This means a Churchill will be far more likely to survive being hit, and a heavy/infantry tank is supposed to be used on the offense, so much more likely to be hit first.

                            The other reason for choosing a Churchill is that it is a smaller target, and WW2 tank crews appear to like small.

                            OTOH the Tigers 2 gun is far more impressive. This is why a soldier might choose a the German machine over the Churchill.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              ...

                              If I were a tank soldier in this theatre/time bracket of WW2, which of the tank types listed would I prefer to serve in?
                              Right then, Panther over Tiger for me.
                              Same engine with 20 tons less beef to haul around, and the gun is enough to take care of just about anything out there.
                              "Why is the Rum gone?"

                              -Captain Jack

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X