Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    Which tank do you think was the best commanders 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?
    56
    M26 Pershing
    16.07%
    9
    Sherman
    26.79%
    15
    Tiger 2
    0.00%
    0
    Panther G
    8.93%
    5
    T-34
    7.14%
    4
    IS-2
    1.79%
    1
    Comet
    28.57%
    16
    Churchill
    1.79%
    1
    Other
    8.93%
    5
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • #2
    Comet - basically 80% of a Panther, but with rock solid reliability.

    T-34/85 if you are more concerned about fuel consumption.
    "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
      I'm going to have to think about this one.

      The Tiger II and IS II don't cut it. Neither is something you can ever press into general service and both have serious shortcomings.

      The Sherman, T34/85, Panther, and Comet are a generation behind where tank design was in 1945.
      The Sherman and T34/85 got superseded. The Panther was out because Germany lost. Nobody bought or copied anything about the Comet which says everything you need to know there.

      The Churchill isn't even in the running anymore.

      The M26 has serious issues that don't get sorted out until the M46 and M47. They really don't get sorted out totally until the US goes to the M48.

      If I were to choose here it'd be "other." I think the T 44 was where medium tanks were really going. The T44 100 had potential. It was tested with a 122 but found to be cramped and have the same small ammunition capacity of the larger IS II. The T44A had outstanding armor for the time: 120mm turret front, 90mm hull, with excellent ballistic shaping. The only weak point was retention of the 85mm gun. But, it had acceptable armor penetration and a good HE round.
      With a new turret, it became the T 54 / 55 series. That was definitely a flagship design and a commander's tank for the post war era.
      It was officially introduced into service in 11/44.

      Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 07 Dec 16, 15:54.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
        Comet - basically 80% of a Panther, but with rock solid reliability.

        T-34/85 if you are more concerned about fuel consumption.
        I nearly went Comet as well, but chose the Churchill because it had far more varients, and therefore more useful. Although the Comet is better than the Easy 8, I would still choose the Sherman over British cruisers if simply because there were more variants.

        This is why I will do a couple of polls with specific tanks, rather than generic tank types.
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          Although the Comet is better than the Easy 8, I would still choose the Sherman over British cruisers if simply because there were more variants.
          I think the Comet is only marginally better than the Easy 8 - lower profile, slightly better gun, a bit faster. Maintenance and service issues don't really apply as the Comet barely needed much of either. That said, the Sherman had better ergonomics, was easier to produce, was available in greater numbers etc.

          It's basically the latest iterations of well-tried favourites (Comet/T-34/Sherman) vs. not properly worked-out next generation tanks (M26, Panther G).
          "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


          • #6
            Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
            I think the Comet is only marginally better than the Easy 8 - lower profile, slightly better gun, a bit faster. Maintenance and service issues don't really apply as the Comet barely needed much of either. That said, the Sherman had better ergonomics, was easier to produce, was available in greater numbers etc.

            It's basically the latest iterations of well-tried favourites (Comet/T-34/Sherman) vs. not properly worked-out next generation tanks (M26, Panther G).
            Basically disagree with your first point, but agree with your second .

            The Comet is substantially better than the Easy 8, but it should be, being a far later design. It fails on belly armour, and a flat hull front, but is superior on almost every other detail, even such as fuel consumption cross country. Where the Comet fails, much like the Sherman, is that it is the end of the line for c35 ton battle tanks. The '77mm' was extremely accurate, and the plentiful apds was effective, making it far better than the 76mm, but more powerful guns were needed.

            As far as the next generation is concerned, I agree with you regarding the Panther and M26. Also the Centurion was too late for WW2 to be considered. However, while the infantry tank was a dead end by the finish of WW2, the heavy was not. The IS-2 was good enough to be kept in service in Soviet use until 1967 iirc, being extremely reliable and hard hitting.
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • #7
              The Sherman. For all the same reasons it was the best choice in Nov 44. If it was the best choice for Nov 44, it's still the best choice until the end.
              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

              Comment


              • #8
                I sent with the Comet. Just about all the tanks on the list had serious issues. I had not really considered the T-44, but it looks like a good design.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  I sent with the Comet. Just about all the tanks on the list had serious issues. I had not really considered the T-44, but it looks like a good design.

                  Pruitt
                  I love the Comet, but it wouldn't be my choice as commander. I'm sticking with what works, what's proven, and what's available in large quantities. The Sherman.

                  It doesn't matter where tank design was going in 45. What matters is what was happening on the ground. So yes, the Sherman was the end of the road, but the road still existed up to the end.

                  Sherman all the way!
                  Last edited by Gixxer86g; 07 Dec 16, 18:51.
                  ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                  BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                  BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    I sent with the Comet. Just about all the tanks on the list had serious issues. I had not really considered the T-44, but it looks like a good design.

                    Pruitt
                    The T 44 fixes all the really big issues with the T-34. Torsion bar suspension. New power pack with a powerful 520 hp flat opposed diesel engine. It was fitted for the 85mm gun but tested with the 122 D-25 and 100mm LB-1 gun. The later was selected for installation but with the new turret as the T-54.
                    The 122 worked but was slow firing (3 or 4 rpm max) and only 28 rounds could be carried.

                    The armor was 90mm on the hull front and 120mm on the turret face. That with the slope and such was really outstanding design in 1944.
                    The second crewman in the hull was eliminated, as would occur with virtually all post war tanks.
                    All of that on a weight of about 32 tons as well.

                    The vehicle was also 30cm shorter in height than the T-34. Due to the discontinuation of vertical springs, the new low profile diesel, and careful design.
                    With the 100mm gun this was a really strong, going design.

                    For 1944, it still would fit in with Soviet tanks in 1970 as a first-line vehicle almost with no modifications.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      For me, a near-run thing between the Comet (At last a competitive British tank) and the T-44, a logical development of the iconic T34.
                      The Russian machine, I think.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The T-44 never saw action, so we will never know how good it might have been, therefore not an option on this poll. If you do consider the T-44 a front runner, you may as well go Centurion, which was at least in the front lines in May 45.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          The Comet is substantially better than the Easy 8, but it should be, being a far later design. It fails on belly armour, and a flat hull front, but is superior on almost every other detail, even such as fuel consumption cross country. Where the Comet fails, much like the Sherman, is that it is the end of the line for c35 ton battle tanks. The '77mm' was extremely accurate, and the plentiful apds was effective, making it far better than the 76mm, but more powerful guns were needed.
                          As far as belly armour is concerned, this isn't as simple as being about thickness alone - ground clearance is also important, and a couple of inches can make a big difference. The Comet at 18" was reasonably good in this respect.

                          Also important is whether the mine is detonated under the track or directly under the belly plate (i.e. remotely). British tests showed that the 10mm thick armour of the A30 Avenger's belly plate was good enough to withstand a Tellermine detonation under the track. However, for a detonation directly under the belly, even 25mm thick armour was not really sufficient.

                          So this is another area where compromises have to be arrived at - it probably isn't worth it for the average tank to attempt immunity against detonations directly under the belly plate. The Centurion's belly armour was 17mm, which is better than the 14mm of the Comet, but very far from what is necessary to provide comprehensive protection.

                          The complaints about the Comet's belly protection all came before it saw action, not after. In the event, very few mines were encountered in the advance into Germany, and not a single Comet was lost to mines.
                          "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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                            As far as belly armour is concerned, this isn't as simple as being about thickness alone - ground clearance is also important, and a couple of inches can make a big difference. The Comet at 18" was reasonably good in this respect.

                            Also important is whether the mine is detonated under the track or directly under the belly plate (i.e. remotely). British tests showed that the 10mm thick armour of the A30 Avenger's belly plate was good enough to withstand a Tellermine detonation under the track. However, for a detonation directly under the belly, even 25mm thick armour was not really sufficient.

                            So this is another area where compromises have to be arrived at - it probably isn't worth it for the average tank to attempt immunity against detonations directly under the belly plate. The Centurion's belly armour was 17mm, which is better than the 14mm of the Comet, but very far from what is necessary to provide comprehensive protection.

                            The complaints about the Comet's belly protection all came before it saw action, not after. In the event, very few mines were encountered in the advance into Germany, and not a single Comet was lost to mines.
                            However, given that things like Tellermines detonate form ground pressure, belly armor need not be very thick because the tracks are almost always the source of the explosion.

                            Still, an interesting point.

                            Panther G, still. It was an excellent machine, and the Germans screwed up royally by getting distracted into the Tiger I, Tiger II, Elefant and other dreams of grandeur.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              I nearly went Comet as well, but chose the Churchill because it had far more varients, and therefore more useful. Although the Comet is better than the Easy 8, I would still choose the Sherman over British cruisers if simply because there were more variants.

                              This is why I will do a couple of polls with specific tanks, rather than generic tank types.

                              IMO, the Churchill's slow speed and poor armament make it the wrong choice for a commander's tank or anything other than it's designed role as an infantry tank.

                              Generally, the cruiser tanks were the land-based equivalent of the British RN battler cruisers - fast but lightly armored and therefore ill-suited to the WWII battlefield in general. Same argument would apply to our won tnk destroyers, BTW. Nice gun...but no turret roof?
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X