 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
The best tank of WWII was..(drumroll).....the P-51!
I seem to recall that at the outset of the war none of the allies, including the Soviets had the foresight to install radios in each tank. They had this insane idea that tanks could be controlled by the same hand signals used by cavalry. The German tanks all had radios in them and the Wehrmacht had extensively practiced using them to maintain cohesion in combat. The US army also studied the use of radios in tanks and other facets of combat. The US system was much more flexible than the German one and IMHO was a major factor in the allied victories in the west.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Evan von Christoph
|
|
M2A3 Abrams, perhaps is a better choice for the new century?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
.....well, of what time? It seems silly to me to argue which was the best of all times, since obviously modern ones are qualitatively better than WW2 ones, and most WW2 ones are more historically important. The T-34 helped change history- I don't see the M2A3 Abrams getting into main-stream history books.
MOst important tank of WW1- F-17, the design on which most future tanks were based.
Best tank of WW2, overall? Panther series- better armor, better gunnery than T-34 or Firefly, fast enought and in sufficent numbers to be significant, unlike Tiger of Konigstiger.
Most important tank of WW2: T-34, produced almost as much as the Sherman during the war, and had a much bigger historical impact.
Best tank after WW2? Well, we need the geeks to give us all the stats on modern MBT- i guess in the running: leopard 2, Challenger 2, M2A3 abrams, Merkava 3, T-90, Leclerc,and so forth.
Most important? T-55. By far the most numerous tank after the war, has seen more combat than all these tanks above combined, the predecessor of most modern Soviet/Russian/Chinese tanks, and thus the impetus for most western tanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
When you get down to the engineering of it, the T-34 was ****. It had some innovative design features (sloped armor and suspension), but the overall fightability of the tank was abysmal - the T-34 dominated from being heavier armed and armored at first, and speed and numbers against an enemy stretched too thin later on, but T-34 losses and crew fatalities were horribly high.
In the early models, the turret was floorless, so the loader and gunner had to reposition themselves as the turret traversed - and if the loader wasn't careful or the gunner not communicative, the breech recoil could be fatal to the loader in a number of firing positions.
Buttoned up visibility was extremely poor, ammo storage layout was poor, there was little to no room for the extent of radio sets common to US and later British tanks, gunsight optics were abysmal and prone to damage, etc.
The T-34 fit the Soviet doctrine and willingness to incur casualties very well, but it was not a good fit for anyone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MattHiggs
|
|
No..... it's too late, you fools don't know what you've released - we're all doomed!
*runs*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:17
|
|
I'm suprised. No one has mentioned my favorites:
Mark 1, JS-3, KV-2, Maus, M-26 Pershing, M-46 Patton, M60A3 (first to use reactive armor), and ther Leopard 3 (casemate turret version).
These are, in my opinion, the most interesting tanks ever built, even if they are not all MBTs (Heavy tanks, anyone?), and even though others may be better in some way or another.
Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
I'm suprised. No one has mentioned my favorites:
Mark 1, JS-3, KV-2, Maus, M-26 Pershing, M-46 Patton, M60A3 (first to use reactive armor), and ther Leopard 3 (casemate turret version).
|
I'm surprised noone has mentioned the Bob Semple. Might not be much in the way of a superior AFV but there's nothing finer if you want a field plowed.
Damn, now where's that link ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
During WWII the suitability of a tank's design for mass production was also a factor in a particular tank's contribution to the overall combat ability of the army. In this respect the T-34 had an advantage over the German tanks, it could be made in larger numbers at a lesser cost.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
I'm suprised. No one has mentioned my favorites:
Mark 1, JS-3, KV-2, Maus, M-26 Pershing, M-46 Patton, M60A3 (first to use reactive armor), and ther Leopard 3 (casemate turret version).
These are, in my opinion, the most interesting tanks ever built, even if they are not all MBTs (Heavy tanks, anyone?), and even though others may be better in some way or another.
Steele |
I think the most interesting tank was the Russian KV-12(?). It has 4 cannons, or somesuch. I don't want to have to load up Steel Panthers to figure it out! Anyway, they were slow and were used for target pratice, but if it hit something, it could kill it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
|
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:17
|
|
quote:
Well, when you put 900 of them into action against 150, and lose 700 wiping out that 150, but you've got 150 left and the other guy has none, yes, you could say it's "dominant" |
Don't you mean 200 left, MTG?
900-700=200, right?
Other then that glaring flaw, I wholeheartedly agree with you judgement. The T-34 was well-designed, but very poorly made. It was rushed (much as in civ...), and thusly was built very cheaply and poorly, with flawed materials.
Steele
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2002 21:44
Attachment: 
|
