Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes since the firepower of a Sherman until the '44 advanced models came out was weak compared to a Panther , Tiger, Elephant...Numbers counted also...The Shermans were a piece of shit but in massive numbers could absorb the loses where as the Germans had limited production which was substantially less than allied manufacturing abilities...So anyway. I am not an expert on tanks, but it seems like, to a simple minded person like myself, which ever tank had the advantage in range of shot and accuracy would win.
Ok, so in close quarters combat, speed and maeuverability could work.
So anyway. I am not an expert on tanks, but it seems like, to a simple minded person like myself, which ever tank had the advantage in range of shot and accuracy would win.
Still vulnerable on all tanks are the tracks. Knock one of the tracks off and the thing is a stationary cannon. Of course a stationary 120mm cannon isn't something you want to walk up to and knock on the door.
If the Tank had infantry support it became a pretty tough strong point, if it didn't have it, it just took infantry time to get to the rear and then pop it with explosives, or start an engine fire and wait to gun down the crew as it bailed.
Still vulnerable on all tanks are the tracks. Knock one of the tracks off and the thing is a stationary cannon. Of course a stationary 120mm cannon isn't something you want to walk up to and knock on the door.
If the Tank had infantry support it became a pretty tough strong point, if it didn't have it, it just took infantry time to get to the rear and then pop it with explosives, or start an engine fire and wait to gun down the crew as it bailed.
Yeah the anti-tank weapons like the bazooka and panzerschrek and panzerfaust were really pretty effective, especially from the sides and the rear. Infantry even carried anti-tank grenades for upclose encounters. Hard to imagine a grenade that could be light enough to carry by infantry couuld disable a tank but if you landed it on top of the engine compartment or the rear if stationary, or perhaps they could also take off a track. Even the PIAT that the British and French used were pretty effective, even against enemy entrenchments.
Of course as with everything else the Germans had the best. The Americans were the first with the bazooka but once the Germans saw it they copied it. The American bazooka anti-tank rocket was around 60mm. The German anti-tank rocket was an 88mm.
The Germans had a fixation on 88. Like in Kill Bill.
The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....
Nope.The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....
Nope.The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34
The small numbers and the late time don´t allow to paint a clear picture of the Pershing. Like the Tiger, the Pershing lacked pure horse power. The modern tank rather originates from the Panther tank. Modern MBT have a focus on mobility which the Tiger and the Pershing had not but the T-34 and the Panther, that was the answer to the T-34. But the T-34 was not modern, whereas the Panther had modern electronics, like a tank detection system.Which of those tanks, the T34 or the Tiger, had a bigger influence on the future of tank warfare?
You can say that both did and neither did. The Tiger was a Main Battle Tank but it was well before it's time. It was just too complicated but it was equal to many times the other tanks in it's time. But it was proven to be able to be defeated at a cost.
Meanwhile, the T-34 was a Medium Tank. It was made in huge numbers and overwhelmed the other tanks with it's numbers. It was just good enough.
I would think that the Pershing or the Panzer IV Long Barrel would be the ones that get the nod for having the most affect on future tanks. For instance, the Pershing linage went into the M46 and the M-60. But let's not sell the T-34 short since it went on to become the T-85. The Panzer IV Long Barrel and the T-85 were very comparable and oftentimes killed each other in battle one for one.
Out of all of these, the only Heavy Tank that went on to be developed was the Pershing. It was more than a match to the Tiger and went on to become the M-60 which is still in service in various Armies throughout the world today.
The small numbers and the late time don´t allow to paint a clear picture of the Pershing. Like the Tiger, the Pershing lacked pure horse power. The modern tank rather originates from the Panther tank. Modern MBT have a focus on mobility which the Tiger and the Pershing had not but the T-34 and the Panther, that was the answer to the T-34. But the T-34 was not modern, whereas the Panther had modern electronics, like a tank detection system.Which of those tanks, the T34 or the Tiger, had a bigger influence on the future of tank warfare?
You can say that both did and neither did. The Tiger was a Main Battle Tank but it was well before it's time. It was just too complicated but it was equal to many times the other tanks in it's time. But it was proven to be able to be defeated at a cost.
Meanwhile, the T-34 was a Medium Tank. It was made in huge numbers and overwhelmed the other tanks with it's numbers. It was just good enough.
I would think that the Pershing or the Panzer IV Long Barrel would be the ones that get the nod for having the most affect on future tanks. For instance, the Pershing linage went into the M46 and the M-60. But let's not sell the T-34 short since it went on to become the T-85. The Panzer IV Long Barrel and the T-85 were very comparable and oftentimes killed each other in battle one for one.
Out of all of these, the only Heavy Tank that went on to be developed was the Pershing. It was more than a match to the Tiger and went on to become the M-60 which is still in service in various Armies throughout the world today.
Nope.The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34
The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....
fail
your streak remains unbroken
90,000 posts
talk to me about *full and exciting lives*, frank
clearly, you're an expert
The Tiger´s engine was too weak and it caused misfires when the tank wanted to turn its front towards the enemy. But the Tiger was also a rare appearance, only 1000 were made. However, 80 % of Tiger and Tiger II were destroyed by artillery or airstrikes or were abandoned and blown up by the crew due to technical failures. So, the Tiger usually survived a battle. Also, Panzer IV were often mistaken for Tigers.The Tiger had the time to show that it was just too complicated, too heavy and too slow to be affective. But boy could that puppy take hits and give hits. But it did have a weak point directly in the rear like most tanks. The Shermans used to gang up on it by taking on it with 4 or more Shermans by coming at it from 4 angles. While one would come in straight on (pretty well a dead given), two would angle in to both sides while a fourth would be able to do an end run faster than the Tiger could swing it's turrent. The Shermans would lose maybe 2 or 3 before the one got the hit from the rear which ended the Tiger. This sounds like the attrition would be in the Tigers favor except the Sherman had about a 10 to one numeric favor or better.
The T-34 was a superior tank compared with Panzer IV A-D variants, Shermans and M24 (in Korea). It was strong, well armored, fast, reliable in the winter and very cross-country. US-tanks had a high silhouette and low operational range. The T-34 caused the Wehrmacht to order that every solider, regardless of his branch, had to go through anti-tank exercises. The Russians loved to gather some T-34 and cause trouble behind enemy lines. So it was possible at any time that a bunch of T-34 suddenly appears in your back. The Panzer IV got additional armor and a new, longer gun (F variant), so it could compete with the T-34. The T-34 was that dangerous that the Germans considered to copy it. But Germany had not the recourses to make as many T-34 as Russia. So they made the Panther. The T-34 also was produced in several variants, for example the T-34/85 that came with a 85 mm gun.The Panzer was probably the best overall tank that operated the longest in WWII. I wonder if Germany had completely forgotten about the Tiger and made more Panzer IVs if it would have had an affect. Maybe not. It might have bought a month or two but probably a day or two until the Air Power took hold for the Allies.
The original Sherman wasn't that good but it had numbers. But at some point, they up armored it and it kept it's spriteness with it's bigger gun. At that point, it became equal or better than almost anything out there.
The T-34 had numbers on it's side and a big enough gun to get the job done. But it was suseptible to the Panzers main gun. While the T-34 was slightly better than the original Sherman, it was not as good as the Panzer IV but made it up in numbers and the tenacity of the crews.
You are not firing through a tank and destroy another. This belongs to the realm of fairy tales. Only 20 Pershings, one Super Pershing saw combat in Europe and several were destroyed, including the Super Pershing.While the Pershing was used little, when it was, it stood hands over foot above both the Tiger and Panzer IV. It could take hits without being penetrated and take both of the other two out with one shot. The Panzer was a Medium Tank but the Tiger and the Pershing were both Heavy Tanks Tanks. But the Tiger was just way too heavy to really be that useful. The Pershing was not. Some claimed the T-34 was better but in Korea, that was proven false where the Pershing went head to head against the T-34 and mopped the countryside with them. The Pershing was used enough to show that it was the superior tank of WWII. It was good enough that it went on to be upgraded to the M-48 and M-60 where the M-60 still serves front line service throughout the world in many armies of the world.
So I give the nod to the Pershing hands down.
It was deployed against British Matilda II tanks in France for example. They were heavily armored but not well armed.Nope.The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34
Yes, sorry. I was thinking of the 8.8cm AA used in 1940
The Tiger´s engine was too weak and it caused misfires when the tank wanted to turn its front towards the enemy. But the Tiger was also a rare appearance, only 1000 were made. However, 80 % of Tiger and Tiger II were destroyed by artillery or airstrikes or were abandoned and blown up by the crew due to technical failures. So, the Tiger usually survived a battle. Also, Panzer IV were often mistaken for Tigers.The Tiger had the time to show that it was just too complicated, too heavy and too slow to be affective. But boy could that puppy take hits and give hits. But it did have a weak point directly in the rear like most tanks. The Shermans used to gang up on it by taking on it with 4 or more Shermans by coming at it from 4 angles. While one would come in straight on (pretty well a dead given), two would angle in to both sides while a fourth would be able to do an end run faster than the Tiger could swing it's turrent. The Shermans would lose maybe 2 or 3 before the one got the hit from the rear which ended the Tiger. This sounds like the attrition would be in the Tigers favor except the Sherman had about a 10 to one numeric favor or better.
The T-34 was a superior tank compared with Panzer IV A-D variants, Shermans and M24 (in Korea). It was strong, well armored, fast, reliable in the winter and very cross-country. US-tanks had a high silhouette and low operational range. The T-34 caused the Wehrmacht to order that every solider, regardless of his branch, had to go through anti-tank exercises. The Russians loved to gather some T-34 and cause trouble behind enemy lines. So it was possible at any time that a bunch of T-34 suddenly appears in your back. The Panzer IV got additional armor and a new, longer gun (F variant), so it could compete with the T-34. The T-34 was that dangerous that the Germans considered to copy it. But Germany had not the recourses to make as many T-34 as Russia. So they made the Panther. The T-34 also was produced in several variants, for example the T-34/85 that came with a 85 mm gun.The Panzer was probably the best overall tank that operated the longest in WWII. I wonder if Germany had completely forgotten about the Tiger and made more Panzer IVs if it would have had an affect. Maybe not. It might have bought a month or two but probably a day or two until the Air Power took hold for the Allies.
The original Sherman wasn't that good but it had numbers. But at some point, they up armored it and it kept it's spriteness with it's bigger gun. At that point, it became equal or better than almost anything out there.
The T-34 had numbers on it's side and a big enough gun to get the job done. But it was suseptible to the Panzers main gun. While the T-34 was slightly better than the original Sherman, it was not as good as the Panzer IV but made it up in numbers and the tenacity of the crews.
You are not firing through a tank and destroy another. This belongs to the realm of fairy tales. Only 20 Pershings, one Super Pershing saw combat in Europe and several were destroyed, including the Super Pershing.While the Pershing was used little, when it was, it stood hands over foot above both the Tiger and Panzer IV. It could take hits without being penetrated and take both of the other two out with one shot. The Panzer was a Medium Tank but the Tiger and the Pershing were both Heavy Tanks Tanks. But the Tiger was just way too heavy to really be that useful. The Pershing was not. Some claimed the T-34 was better but in Korea, that was proven false where the Pershing went head to head against the T-34 and mopped the countryside with them. The Pershing was used enough to show that it was the superior tank of WWII. It was good enough that it went on to be upgraded to the M-48 and M-60 where the M-60 still serves front line service throughout the world in many armies of the world.
So I give the nod to the Pershing hands down.
The Pershing was withdrawn from Korea because it was not suited well for the terrain.
Unlikely for your claims, we can read on wikipedia about the operational history of the Pershing.The Tiger´s engine was too weak and it caused misfires when the tank wanted to turn its front towards the enemy. But the Tiger was also a rare appearance, only 1000 were made. However, 80 % of Tiger and Tiger II were destroyed by artillery or airstrikes or were abandoned and blown up by the crew due to technical failures. So, the Tiger usually survived a battle. Also, Panzer IV were often mistaken for Tigers.The Tiger had the time to show that it was just too complicated, too heavy and too slow to be affective. But boy could that puppy take hits and give hits. But it did have a weak point directly in the rear like most tanks. The Shermans used to gang up on it by taking on it with 4 or more Shermans by coming at it from 4 angles. While one would come in straight on (pretty well a dead given), two would angle in to both sides while a fourth would be able to do an end run faster than the Tiger could swing it's turrent. The Shermans would lose maybe 2 or 3 before the one got the hit from the rear which ended the Tiger. This sounds like the attrition would be in the Tigers favor except the Sherman had about a 10 to one numeric favor or better.
The T-34 was a superior tank compared with Panzer IV A-D variants, Shermans and M24 (in Korea). It was strong, well armored, fast, reliable in the winter and very cross-country. US-tanks had a high silhouette and low operational range. The T-34 caused the Wehrmacht to order that every solider, regardless of his branch, had to go through anti-tank exercises. The Russians loved to gather some T-34 and cause trouble behind enemy lines. So it was possible at any time that a bunch of T-34 suddenly appears in your back. The Panzer IV got additional armor and a new, longer gun (F variant), so it could compete with the T-34. The T-34 was that dangerous that the Germans considered to copy it. But Germany had not the recourses to make as many T-34 as Russia. So they made the Panther. The T-34 also was produced in several variants, for example the T-34/85 that came with a 85 mm gun.The Panzer was probably the best overall tank that operated the longest in WWII. I wonder if Germany had completely forgotten about the Tiger and made more Panzer IVs if it would have had an affect. Maybe not. It might have bought a month or two but probably a day or two until the Air Power took hold for the Allies.
The original Sherman wasn't that good but it had numbers. But at some point, they up armored it and it kept it's spriteness with it's bigger gun. At that point, it became equal or better than almost anything out there.
The T-34 had numbers on it's side and a big enough gun to get the job done. But it was suseptible to the Panzers main gun. While the T-34 was slightly better than the original Sherman, it was not as good as the Panzer IV but made it up in numbers and the tenacity of the crews.
You are not firing through a tank and destroy another. This belongs to the realm of fairy tales. Only 20 Pershings, one Super Pershing saw combat in Europe and several were destroyed, including the Super Pershing.While the Pershing was used little, when it was, it stood hands over foot above both the Tiger and Panzer IV. It could take hits without being penetrated and take both of the other two out with one shot. The Panzer was a Medium Tank but the Tiger and the Pershing were both Heavy Tanks Tanks. But the Tiger was just way too heavy to really be that useful. The Pershing was not. Some claimed the T-34 was better but in Korea, that was proven false where the Pershing went head to head against the T-34 and mopped the countryside with them. The Pershing was used enough to show that it was the superior tank of WWII. It was good enough that it went on to be upgraded to the M-48 and M-60 where the M-60 still serves front line service throughout the world in many armies of the world.
So I give the nod to the Pershing hands down.
The Pershing was withdrawn from Korea because it was not suited well for the terrain.
You must have a reading problem. The Pershing could penetrate both the types of German Tanks while both German Tanks as well as the T-34 could not penetrate the Pershings armor. I didn't say it could fire through one tank and kill a tank on the other side. With as many posts as you make, you sure do make a lot of mistakes. You also left out what destroyed the Pershings in Europe. They were destroyed by Ground Troops like many other Tanks of the time. Both sides were hell on wheels with Anti Tank infantry fired anti tank weapons.
The Pershing was withdrawn because it lacked the suspension required for the terrain in Koea. it was replaced by an upgraded version of itself with a better suspension. The M-46 was an upgraded M-26. Much like the M-48 was an upgraded M-46 and the M-60 was an upgraded M-48.
Unlikely for your claims, we can read on wikipedia about the operational history of the Pershing.The Tiger´s engine was too weak and it caused misfires when the tank wanted to turn its front towards the enemy. But the Tiger was also a rare appearance, only 1000 were made. However, 80 % of Tiger and Tiger II were destroyed by artillery or airstrikes or were abandoned and blown up by the crew due to technical failures. So, the Tiger usually survived a battle. Also, Panzer IV were often mistaken for Tigers.The Tiger had the time to show that it was just too complicated, too heavy and too slow to be affective. But boy could that puppy take hits and give hits. But it did have a weak point directly in the rear like most tanks. The Shermans used to gang up on it by taking on it with 4 or more Shermans by coming at it from 4 angles. While one would come in straight on (pretty well a dead given), two would angle in to both sides while a fourth would be able to do an end run faster than the Tiger could swing it's turrent. The Shermans would lose maybe 2 or 3 before the one got the hit from the rear which ended the Tiger. This sounds like the attrition would be in the Tigers favor except the Sherman had about a 10 to one numeric favor or better.
The T-34 was a superior tank compared with Panzer IV A-D variants, Shermans and M24 (in Korea). It was strong, well armored, fast, reliable in the winter and very cross-country. US-tanks had a high silhouette and low operational range. The T-34 caused the Wehrmacht to order that every solider, regardless of his branch, had to go through anti-tank exercises. The Russians loved to gather some T-34 and cause trouble behind enemy lines. So it was possible at any time that a bunch of T-34 suddenly appears in your back. The Panzer IV got additional armor and a new, longer gun (F variant), so it could compete with the T-34. The T-34 was that dangerous that the Germans considered to copy it. But Germany had not the recourses to make as many T-34 as Russia. So they made the Panther. The T-34 also was produced in several variants, for example the T-34/85 that came with a 85 mm gun.The Panzer was probably the best overall tank that operated the longest in WWII. I wonder if Germany had completely forgotten about the Tiger and made more Panzer IVs if it would have had an affect. Maybe not. It might have bought a month or two but probably a day or two until the Air Power took hold for the Allies.
The original Sherman wasn't that good but it had numbers. But at some point, they up armored it and it kept it's spriteness with it's bigger gun. At that point, it became equal or better than almost anything out there.
The T-34 had numbers on it's side and a big enough gun to get the job done. But it was suseptible to the Panzers main gun. While the T-34 was slightly better than the original Sherman, it was not as good as the Panzer IV but made it up in numbers and the tenacity of the crews.
You are not firing through a tank and destroy another. This belongs to the realm of fairy tales. Only 20 Pershings, one Super Pershing saw combat in Europe and several were destroyed, including the Super Pershing.While the Pershing was used little, when it was, it stood hands over foot above both the Tiger and Panzer IV. It could take hits without being penetrated and take both of the other two out with one shot. The Panzer was a Medium Tank but the Tiger and the Pershing were both Heavy Tanks Tanks. But the Tiger was just way too heavy to really be that useful. The Pershing was not. Some claimed the T-34 was better but in Korea, that was proven false where the Pershing went head to head against the T-34 and mopped the countryside with them. The Pershing was used enough to show that it was the superior tank of WWII. It was good enough that it went on to be upgraded to the M-48 and M-60 where the M-60 still serves front line service throughout the world in many armies of the world.
So I give the nod to the Pershing hands down.
The Pershing was withdrawn from Korea because it was not suited well for the terrain.
You must have a reading problem. The Pershing could penetrate both the types of German Tanks while both German Tanks as well as the T-34 could not penetrate the Pershings armor. I didn't say it could fire through one tank and kill a tank on the other side. With as many posts as you make, you sure do make a lot of mistakes. You also left out what destroyed the Pershings in Europe. They were destroyed by Ground Troops like many other Tanks of the time. Both sides were hell on wheels with Anti Tank infantry fired anti tank weapons.
The Pershing was withdrawn because it lacked the suspension required for the terrain in Koea. it was replaced by an upgraded version of itself with a better suspension. The M-46 was an upgraded M-26. Much like the M-48 was an upgraded M-46 and the M-60 was an upgraded M-48.
