Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 4 - M4 Sherman (USA) vs Centurion (Britain)

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

  • Hanov
    replied
    But we should compare such ratios to other Soviet AFV. Then the importance becomes more obvious

    posted from mobile

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    I don't see you making a case for "better" other than to say you've been in one (I''m guessing it wasn't in combat while trying to fight for survival.) Hell, I don't see you making any case at all, not even one counter to the faults I've mentioned. It was more complicated because it was engineered badly, thus maintenance was more time consuming. This makes little sense for a combat vehicle that needs to be in the field, not in a maintenance yard or on a train because it is too fragile to move on its own power. You know that Guderian reported to his superiors in early 1945 that the crews have no confidence in the Panther because of its mechanical shortcomings (Jentz- Panther; Germany's Quest for yadda yadda, yadda.)

    Tell me about its record. Don't forget to include those engagements with 75mm toting Shermans where Panthers came out on the losing end.
    Yeah, I know the T-34 won the war. Just don't forget that German AFVs achieved a kill ratio of better than three to one against T-34s in direct combat.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Better is often more complicated to maintain, but it's record speaks volumes.
    I don't see you making a case for "better" other than to say you've been in one (I''m guessing it wasn't in combat while trying to fight for survival.) Hell, I don't see you making any case at all, not even one counter to the faults I've mentioned. It was more complicated because it was engineered badly, thus maintenance was more time consuming. This makes little sense for a combat vehicle that needs to be in the field, not in a maintenance yard or on a train because it is too fragile to move on its own power. You know that Guderian reported to his superiors in early 1945 that the crews have no confidence in the Panther because of its mechanical shortcomings (Jentz- Panther; Germany's Quest for yadda yadda, yadda.)

    Tell me about its record. Don't forget to include those engagements with 75mm toting Shermans where Panthers came out on the losing end.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    I voted Yvonne De Carlo

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    What would I know better? That a tank with a crew blind to the field of combat is a good thing? That an engine that overheats after 30 minutes is good engineering? That a fragile final drive is not important?
    I may have never been inside the tank but I have seen MANY pictures of broken down Panthers which their crews abandoned. I'm not formally educated in military science but I do know that when tanks break down and are no longer part of the war it subtracts from a units combat effectiveness.
    This should be obvious. I think you should know better.
    Better is often more complicated to maintain, but it's record speaks volumes.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Had you, you'd know better.
    What would I know better? That a tank with a crew blind to the field of combat is a good thing? That an engine that overheats after 30 minutes is good engineering? That a fragile final drive is not important?
    I may have never been inside the tank but I have seen MANY pictures of broken down Panthers which their crews abandoned. I'm not formally educated in military science but I do know that when tanks break down and are no longer part of the war it subtracts from a units combat effectiveness.
    This should be obvious. I think you should know better.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    I own a fine example of German engineering. It has dumped more oil than the Exxon Valdez. I've nicknamed it Hitlerjugend, it's such a nasty piece of work.

    So, was the M4 a cavalry tank or an artillery tank?
    Comrade, buy Ruskie.



    http://www.englishrussia.com/images/cool_cars/3.jpg
    Last edited by 101combatvet; 19 Sep 14, 10:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Yup, no one can beat German engineering. And I haven't been sucked into the T-34 myth.
    I own a fine example of German engineering. It has dumped more oil than the Exxon Valdez. I've nicknamed it Hitlerjugend, it's such a nasty piece of work.

    So, was the M4 a cavalry tank or an artillery tank?

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Had you, you'd know better.
    Crew in general was not blind: according the French (who used Panther in post war period) commander's cupola with its 7 periscopes provides a nearly perfect all-round visibility. Soviets report says too that commander and driver had good, radio-operator satisfactory, while gunner and loader had poor visibility.

    Issue with Panther was that gunner, aside from his gun sight, has no other type of observation device. He was therefore practically blind, one of the greatest drawbacks of the Panther, being completely dependent on the tank commander to acquire and bear to the target. This apparently made target acquisition a good deal slower in the Panther than in a tank with more vision devices for the gunner. French report gives 20 and 30 seconds before the gunner can open fire. According to them, it is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, and stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.

    According to the Soviet wartime report, the Panther had no longer a large amount of observation devices like on the Panzer III and Panzer IV, in order to increase protection. The Panther was rated equivalent to the IS-122 in observation quality (indeed they have almost the same number of observation devices) and certainly inferior to the Panzer III and Panzer IV, which were rated very high.

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Influenced more post war designers than the T-34.
    Few of the aspects of it's design did become common in post war designs, and some particular features, such as overlapping road wheels, were never used in post war production vehicles except for a few experimental or limited series French vehicles. Therefore, while impressive for it's power and size, much so like Tiger and Tiger B, it was not so much the forebears of post war tank design but more of dead end on the evolutionary tank design tree which started with Panzer III.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    No, like the overwhelming majority of the folk here I have not. Why do you ask?
    Had you, you'd know better.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Ever been in one?
    No, like the overwhelming majority of the folk here I have not. Why do you ask?

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Influenced more post war designers than the T-34.
    For overall tank design concepts as used by Western nations, perhaps ... but ... not forgetting, of course, that the design and very creation of the Panther was itself significantly influenced by the T-34; indeed, the Panther as we know it would not have started on the drawing-board had it not been for the T-34. So the opposition could say, that the T-34 was the tank that influenced the tank that influenced the other tanks you're thinking of!

    On the other hand though, if you were so inclined, you could counter-argue that the Panther did the whole thing better than the T-34 did (albeit at a much higher cost and heavier weight). Too bad for the Germans that it had serious mechancial issues (but lucky for the Allies).
    Last edited by panther3485; 18 Sep 14, 22:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    Yeah, nothing like sending a crew in to combat blind. FINE engineering!
    Ever been in one?

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    Yup, no one can beat German engineering. And I haven't been sucked into the T-34 myth.
    Yeah, nothing like sending a crew in to combat blind. FINE engineering!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X