Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Best Tank ... Of 1946

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Assuming there is petrol to drive the engine, and the bearings can take the strain, plenty. (I've built a scale model Maus)
    What in 1946! It was bad enough to find fuel early in 1945.

    Paul
    ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
    All human ills he can subdue,
    Or with a bauble or medal
    Can win mans heart for you;
    And many a blessing know to stew
    To make a megloamaniac bright;
    Give honour to the dainty Corse,
    The Pixie is a little shite.

    Comment


    • #47


      I see someone mentioned the T28 (mot T-28) as a posibility here. It looks good and it looks mean but in the end it crawled slower then a turtle.

      It was well overweight for its 41hp engine. This was the same tank engine designed by Ford that you found in various forms in veraious tanks.

      It only gave this 190,000 lbs battle-ready monster a top speed of 8mph with a range of only 100 miles.

      Nice to blow up bunkers with, but well you talk about bait for an air raid. I have seen turtles that moved faster then this thing.

      Now, here is the problem, logistics wise this thing is a nightmare to even consider getting into position. This weight of this thing would tear roads up, Bridges are far and in between that could support in this time frame.

      It would displace about 3 M26 tanks in shipping. Shipping on the rail system would still be a bad dream, even though the outside tracks can be removed and stowed. This thing just isn't logistically possible to get it over in needed numbers.


      A better solution would be to send the T29 over. But with a combat weight still over 139,000 lbs, it would still be a bad dream to ship. But it's higher speed of 22 mph means that it can move with the Pershing. Still has the same firepower as the T28. Yes armor is thinner (T28\T30\T34 had armor that was still based on the system used on M26.

      Basically the US would face the same problems the Germans had with the Pzk.pfw VI Asuf B King Tiger. Both tanks were roughly comparable to each other.

      Chamberlain, P., & Ellis, C. (1978). WW2 Fact Files: Axis Combat Tanks. New York City: Arco Publishing.

      Chamberlain, P., & Ellis, C. (1984). British and American Tanks of World War II. New York City: Arco Publishing.

      Hunnicutt, R. P. (1988). Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
        What in 1946! It was bad enough to find fuel early in 1945.

        Paul
        The Maus - the best semi-stationary pillbox of WW2

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Dashy View Post
          Don't know if this has been done yet, which Tank, in your opinion, would have been the most effective Tactically (Company/Platoon scale combat) had WW2 gone on another year...
          In reality we are only probably talking about a few contenders. One would need to consider the terrain, but I presume we are talking Europe here? Also are we talking about a squadron or so (say 20ish tanks) with a company of infantry?

          Germany
          Panzer IVH - Okay but aging.
          Panther VG - Some excellent features, but many weak points.
          Tiger 1 - Still okay, but too big for what you get.
          Tiger 2 - Great tank killer, but too heavy and lacks real mobility.

          Soviets
          IS-2m - Great on paper, but not without its flaws.
          IS-3 - Some real mechanical issues in 1946.
          T34-85 - Still great in many respects but lacks protection.
          T44 - A real contender.

          USA
          M26 - Similar to the T44, but larger with better AP ammo.
          M4A3E8 76mm or 105mm (w) - Still useful 5 years later, but lacks both punch and armour.

          UK
          Comet - Good but not a Centurion.
          Churchill VII/VIII - Good but not a Centurion.
          Centurion II - A real contender.

          So imo Centurion vs M26 vs T44. It would depend on the mission, but on balance I would give the Centurion the nod.

          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            In reality we are only probably talking about a few contenders. One would need to consider the terrain, but I presume we are talking Europe here? Also are we talking about a squadron or so (say 20ish tanks) with a company of infantry?

            Germany
            Panzer IVH - Okay but aging.
            Panther VG - Some excellent features, but many weak points.
            Tiger 1 - Still okay, but too big for what you get.
            Tiger 2 - Great tank killer, but too heavy and lacks real mobility.

            Soviets
            IS-2m - Great on paper, but not without its flaws.
            IS-3 - Some real mechanical issues in 1946.
            T34-85 - Still great in many respects but lacks protection.
            T44 - A real contender.

            USA
            M26 - Similar to the T44, but larger with better AP ammo.
            M4A3E8 76mm or 105mm (w) - Still useful 5 years later, but lacks both punch and armour.

            UK
            Comet - Good but not a Centurion.
            Churchill VII/VIII - Good but not a Centurion.
            Centurion II - A real contender.

            So imo Centurion vs M26 vs T44. It would depend on the mission, but on balance I would give the Centurion the nod.

            Well I don't think you can ignore the other tanks the US had in the pipe. Accoring to HUnnicust the T29 series of tanks had been approved for production. They were going to be used in the same fashion of the Tiger II, but they would have had the reliability of the M26.

            Comment


            • #51
              ...but they would have had the reliability of the M26.
              Which, although better than the KT, was still not all that great.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X