Unofficial List of Stuff in FH2 - updated -1 reply

Please wait...

wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#171 13 years ago

I have to disagree here... The M26 Pershing was not even in development in 1942. However, the M6 was, and it was a match for either the Panther or the Tiger. It was decided against producing it since it would consume scarce shipping space. Dumb tommies? Don't insult them. Please. The British left many of their best (and only) tanks at Dunkirk. The reason of the "rush to production" syndrome of the early 40's was because of a severe lack of tanks. The reason they focused on easy-to-produce tanks was that they COULDN'T design more tanks until they could meet current demands. It's simply impossible.

chaplain_DMK;4056896Soviets best tank- IS2 (real monster of a tank) US Best tank- M26 Pershing

Look through my posts about four weeks back about how overrated the Pershing is.

UKs best tank- Centurion (the best one)

Soviet's best tank-IS3-It saw combat. US best tank-M4A3-I would definetely say that the King Tiger was the weakest of all WWII tanks if it was a general question. Because if you are talking generally, only the Sherman could be produced in large numbers. UK's best tank-Comet-Armed with the same 77mm (only slightly reduced performance) in the Centurion, the same armor as the Tiger I, and faster if I remember correctly.

The problem is that all of these tanks came to late te prevent the massive tank losses the allies recived because of the germans 3rd generation tanks armed wit the 88s :(

Third generation? I have to disagree with this too. The Americans were some of those who made the first modern steps towards today's tanks: gyrostabilisers and mass production. The American war industry was looking to the future; Germany's was still geared for a "second generation" "Blitzkrieg" war, which (by then) was outdated. 88 was not the most powerful AT weapon of WWII. The Panther's 75mm was more powerful than the Tiger I's main gun. Better still was the Tiger IIB's gun, but the most powerful of all was the 12.8cm gun mounted in the Jagdtiger tank.




A_tree

Worse things happen at sea.

50 XP

7th January 2006

0 Uploads

479 Posts

0 Threads

#172 13 years ago
chaplain_DMK;4056896 and if the dumb tommies would get it together bout their tanks and designed the awsome Centurion in 1942 wed be seeing a different story here...

Yup, your average British infantry man designed tanks for most of the war.




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

10th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#173 13 years ago
wjlasloThe2nd;4057748...Dumb tommies? Don't insult them. Please....

I was wondering how long it would take. ;)

Otherwise wjasloThe2nd, as usual, makes some pretty good points. Bottom line is in 1942 the US Army and the war production board made a decision that it would be "cheaper" to stick with the Sherman and just out-produce Germany. They knew the Sherman couldn't even match the then-new long-gun P-IVs, much less the terrifying Tiger which was just then starting to be seen. But, they decided, they could churn out thousands of tanks which had nothing more to recommend them than they were mechanically very reliable. But they would just overwhelm the German tanks through sheer numbers.

The main problem with the Sherman was the criteria used in determining what kind of tankgun the Army wanted in the Sherman. The gun was intended to be essentially a field gun, primarily anti-personnel, with a very long tube life. With those requirements, a high-velocity, flat-shooting, deep-penetrating tank gun never had a chance of being put into the Sherman.

Patton was one of those "deciders" in favor of the Sherman, and IMO he and they got it wrong. To him the tank should be classic cavalry, able to speedily breakthrough and run wild in the enemy's rear, but not to be used as a slug-it-out weapon. To him tank-on-tank warfare was an anomaly, to be avoided, so a gun which would penetrate more than 2-3 inches of armor was just beyond his imagination for use in a tank.

Of course, the Sherman was eventually and slowly up-armored and up-gunned, but it was always two days late and ten dollars short. There was never any model of Sherman which was an even match with the Panther, Tiger or King Tiger. IMO the US didn't even have the best modification, as the British Firefly was, at least as far as the gun goes, by far the cream of the crop.

But tens of thousands of US tankers were killed, maimed and scarred for life because it was "cheaper" to produce a mediocre Sherman.




A_tree

Worse things happen at sea.

50 XP

7th January 2006

0 Uploads

479 Posts

0 Threads

#174 13 years ago

jumjum;4057902I was wondering how long it would take. ;)

Otherwise wjasloThe2nd, as usual, makes some pretty good points. Bottom line is in 1942 the US Army and the war production board made a decision that it would be "cheaper" to stick with the Sherman and just out-produce Germany. They knew the Sherman couldn't even match the then-new long-gun P-IVs, much less the terrifying Tiger which was just then starting to be seen. But, they decided, they could churn out thousands of tanks which had nothing more to recommend them than they were mechanically very reliable. But they would just overwhelm the German tanks through sheer numbers.

The main problem with the Sherman was the criteria used in determining what kind of tankgun the Army wanted in the Sherman. The gun was intended to be essentially a field gun, primarily anti-personnel, with a very long tube life. With those requirements, a high-velocity, flat-shooting, deep-penetrating tank gun never had a chance of being put into the Sherman.

Patton was one of those "deciders" in favor of the Sherman, and IMO he and they got it wrong. To him the tank should be classic cavalry, able to speedily breakthrough and run wild in the enemy's rear, but not to be used as a slug-it-out weapon. To him tank-on-tank warfare was an anomaly, to be avoided, so a gun which would penetrate more than 2-3 inches of armor was just beyond his imagination for use in a tank.

Of course, the Sherman was eventually and slowly up-armored and up-gunned, but it was always two days late and ten dollars short. There was never any model of Sherman which was an even match with the Panther, Tiger or King Tiger. IMO the US didn't even have the best modification, as the British Firefly was, at least as far as the gun goes, by far the cream of the crop.

But tens of thousands of US tankers were killed, maimed and scarred for life because it was "cheaper" to produce a mediocre Sherman.

It still got the job done though, no matter how much it sucked.




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

10th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#175 13 years ago

Yes, because their plan worked - we had plenty of Shermans, and men, to make it work. But it was still a shockingly cynical plan.

How difficult would it really have been to have decided in 1942, or even 1943, to have come up with a competent tank design? There was plenty of time to have done so and have manufactured thousands by the time of D-Day. And that's thousands of American tankers who would have lived. And what of the many infantrymen who died because their supporting Shermans were torched within minutes beginning an assault on a town as the tanks and soldiers mutually supported each other? With the tanks destroyed, doubtless more soldiers died than would have if the Americans had a survivable tank.

But we had plenty of tanks and plenty of 19-year-olds, so no big deal, eh?




chaplain_DMK

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

22nd August 2007

0 Uploads

50 Posts

0 Threads

#176 13 years ago

u misunderstood me here i ment that if all the good tanks would be put in to production or development earlier (as i said the M26 in 1942 instead of 1943) And the only thing that made the pershing worst than the sherman was its engine, since it used the same type... and it was like 20 tones heavier otherwise it had the same effectivness of a Panther And somehow u got the Centurion realy mixed up... It carried a 105 L7 Rifled gun, top speed of 34 km/h, 152 mm of armour... Compare that to a king tiger: 88mm KwK 43 L/71, 25-180mm of armour, top speed of 41.5km/h But here is where the centurion gets the King Tiger: Weight 70 tonnes for the King tiger and 50 tonnes for the Centurion This was the differance that made the king tigers bad tanks... they would brake down all the time, very hard to get it moving, fires, hard to stear... and eaven wit its top speed of 41.5km/h it couldnt run like that for more than a km since its tracks would simply get broken in to many many pieces because of the added force so its usual top speed was like 20 km/h




chaplain_DMK

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

22nd August 2007

0 Uploads

50 Posts

0 Threads

#177 13 years ago

wjlasloThe2nd;4057748I have to disagree here... The M26 Pershing was not even in development in 1942. However, the M6 was, and it was a match for either the Panther or the Tiger. It was decided against producing it since it would consume scarce shipping space. Dumb tommies? Don't insult them. Please. The British left many of their best (and only) tanks at Dunkirk. The reason of the "rush to production" syndrome of the early 40's was because of a severe lack of tanks. The reason they focused on easy-to-produce tanks was that they COULDN'T design more tanks until they could meet current demands. It's simply impossible.

Look through my posts about four weeks back about how overrated the Pershing is.

Soviet's best tank-IS3-It saw combat. US best tank-M4A3-I would definetely say that the King Tiger was the weakest of all WWII tanks if it was a general question. Because if you are talking generally, only the Sherman could be produced in large numbers. UK's best tank-Comet-Armed with the same 77mm (only slightly reduced performance) in the Centurion, the same armor as the Tiger I, and faster if I remember correctly.

Third generation? I have to disagree with this too. The Americans were some of those who made the first modern steps towards today's tanks: gyrostabilisers and mass production. The American war industry was looking to the future; Germany's was still geared for a "second generation" "Blitzkrieg" war, which (by then) was outdated. 88 was not the most powerful AT weapon of WWII. The Panther's 75mm was more powerful than the Tiger I's main gun. Better still was the Tiger IIB's gun, but the most powerful of all was the 12.8cm gun mounted in the Jagdtiger tank.

err the US was the worst tank developer, eaven tough it had gyrostabilizers or wtf they r called they were still using pathetic tank doctrines witch made all their tanks compleatly useless unless in massive numbers, theses doctrines made 3 general tank classes in the US army: Tank hunters Infantry support tanks Armored recon And since all of these types of tanks were virtualy crap it showed how far advanced the Germans were. The only thing that made the Germans loose in france was air support, the Allies had complete air control so the germans could not use their STILL VERY EFFECTIVE blitz counter attack against the allied beach heads cuz they would gotten slaughterd within 100 km of the beach... The blitz is still the best attack strategy araund, heck it was still used to deadly effect in Iraq by the coalition The last german major blitz attack was in the battle of the boulge but again, it got defeted because of the ability of the allied planes to intercept and destroy german ground support planes (Ju-87, Bf-190) and use their own planes to again prevent concentration of the german tanks




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#178 13 years ago
chaplain_DMK;4060525err the US was the worst tank developer, eaven tough it had gyrostabilizers or wtf they r called they were still using pathetic tank doctrines witch made all their tanks compleatly useless unless in massive numbers, theses doctrines made 3 general tank classes in the US army:

It's called mass production.

Tank hunters Infantry support tanks Armored recon

Correction:

And since all of these types of tanks were virtualy crap

Yes the Sherman was definetly crap. It only needed to get to the side armor of a tank to penetrate it. It worked much better on muddy ground than German or British tanks. It was faster. It had more powerful guns by late 1944. It was more easily produced. Crap, right?

so the germans could not use their STILL VERY EFFECTIVE blitz

Do some research. The Allies had come up with some very effective counters to the Blitzkrieg attack: 1. Meet concentrated armor with concentrated armor 2. No retreats. Once a blitzkrieg loses momentum it is useless. 3. Pockets of resistance. They take out extra supply lines from the forward front, allowing you to 4. Cut the enemy force of and annihlate them. Words spoken by a German soldier who was there.

The blitz is still the best attack strategy araund, heck it was still used to deadly effect in Iraq by the coalition

Most of their success was due to the fact that Coalition forces had overwhelming air superiority (as in, their planes were better, not that they had control of the skies), and that most Iraqi tanks were T55s or T60s: Far outmatched by the (slow and gas-guzzling it may be) M1A2s, used by the Americans.

The last german major blitz attack was in the battle of the boulge but again, it got defeted because of the ability of the allied planes to intercept and destroy german ground support planes

Do some research next time. Planes on both sides were grounded by bad weather for almost the entire campaign. The Germans had already lost momentum around the towns of St. Vith and Bastogne by the time the sun came out and American ground attack planes could fly.

(Ju-87, Bf-190) and use their own planes to again prevent concentration of the german tanks

JU87s again could not fly in the weather any better than American planes could. In any case, all sorties flown by JU87s in the latter stages of the war (1943-45) were chopped to pieces. No plane such as the BF190 exists. The main reason the Battle of the Ardennes failed was that the Germans had the weather against them in the first place: The unreliability of their tanks stopped them very quickly. Neither side had air support from about December 5 to about December 27 if I remember correctly. Speaking of the Mk II Centurion, I did some research and the standard model was armed with the 17 pounder. British armor at the time was somewhat inferior to the Tiger I's armor in quality. In addition it was found that the 88 could still penetrate the Centurion. The Tiger II's 88mm could penetrate the highest amount of armor the Centy had at around 1.5km. I think I can also defend the Germans in saying that they came up with these heavy tanks first and put them into practice. Also, most of late war British tanks (whether intentional or not) were Allied attempts to copy the Tiger tanks. And please put a little more effort into your posts. I go to mine, do research, put punctuation in mine. urs r lk ths end it r3ly m8kes it hrd to under stand




A_tree

Worse things happen at sea.

50 XP

7th January 2006

0 Uploads

479 Posts

0 Threads

#179 13 years ago
wjlasloThe2nd;4061340 British armor at the time was somewhat inferior to the Tiger I's armor in quality. In addition it was found that the 88 could still penetrate the Centurion. The Tiger II's 88mm could penetrate the highest amount of armor the Centy had at around 1.5km. I think I can also defend the Germans in saying that they came up with these heavy tanks first and put them into practice. Also, most of late war British tanks (whether intentional or not) were Allied attempts to copy the Tiger tanks.

Im gonna try and defend the British armor hear, please correct me if im wrong. If your referring to the quality of steel used in tanks, then i find it hard to believe that British steel was inferior to German. By the end of the war due to the lameness of German industry, German steel was of a very poor quality. I've read somewhere that the quality was so poor that Russian tankers where more concerned with Tiger Is, than the Tiger IIs. For the British, on the other hand, the quality of steel could only go up as the war progressed. There was less bombing of industry, and resources where never short. If you didn't mean about the quality of metal, and where refuring to quantity of armor, then yeah, your right.

Could you point me in the direction of some ballistic tests that the Tigers gun could penetrate the Centurions armor from that far away. Seems stupid to use a tank for so long, even when contemporary AT guns could take it with relative ease.

The Tiger tank was basically just a copy of the KV, the panther a copy of the t34. So no, the Germans didn't come up with these kinds of heavy tanks. Also wasn't the centurion the first real MBT, and so not really a copy of anything.




FlyGuy45

*TRA* Spsk. Pilotka VVS

50 XP

21st June 2005

0 Uploads

6,414 Posts

0 Threads

#180 13 years ago

wjlasloThe2nd;4061340 Do some research. The Allies had come up with some very effective counters to the Blitzkrieg attack: 1. Meet concentrated armor with concentrated armor 2. No retreats. Once a blitzkrieg loses momentum it is useless. 3. Pockets of resistance. They take out extra supply lines from the forward front, allowing you to 4. Cut the enemy force of and annihlate them. Words spoken by a German soldier who was there.

Also, a counter attacked would render the Blitzkrieg useless and once the Blitzkrieg stopped, it was doomed.

Most of their success was due to the fact that Coalition forces had overwhelming air superiority (as in, their planes were better, not that they had control of the skies), and that most Iraqi tanks were T55s or T60s: Far outmatched by the (slow and gas-guzzling it may be) M1A2s, used by the Americans.

Well, I would not consider the M1 Abrams that slow, and who cares if its gas-guzzling you tree hugger. :p And I would say they did control the skies: "Many aircraft were unserviceable and many were hidden from American reconnaissance to escape potential destruction." But, reports also state that some aircraft simply ran away.

Do some research next time. Planes on both sides were grounded by bad weather for almost the entire campaign. The Germans had already lost momentum around the towns of St. Vith and Bastogne by the time the sun came out and American ground attack planes could fly.

One of the reasons why Bastonge held was because "the German military strategy involved probing different points of the defensive perimeter in sequence, rather than attacking with a single large force (essentially violating the military principle of "mass"). And I think they always attacked from one side, never with multiple sides at once. And the German planes weren't downed by the weather as much, mostly by the America/British planes.:naughty:

The main reason the Battle of the Ardennes failed was that the Germans had the weather against them in the first place: The unreliability of their tanks stopped them very quickly. Neither side had air support from about December 5 to about December 27 if I remember correctly.

I would agree/disagree here, I would say the lack of supply, suitable roads and of course the unreliability/weight of their tanks. The roads were muddy and their tanks sank, not much fun. I even remember seeing a video of the mud, and it was horrible.

British armor at the time was somewhat inferior to the Tiger I's armor in quality.

I would disagree completely. During 44-45 the quality of German steel was very poor. Their steal at this time was very, very brittle and spalled often. Alot of the time, the German crews would die due to spalling and not the penetrating shell.

I think I can also defend the Germans in saying that they came up with these heavy tanks first and put them into practice. Also, most of late war British tanks (whether intentional or not) were Allied attempts to copy the Tiger tanks.

Of course there are going to be some simularites but I would beg to differ. I know that the Panther was made because their was a contest to build a tank that could match the T34.The other tank looked to much like the T34 thus wasn't made and the Panther won. But I don't think many post war tanks looked like Tigers.