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.
The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
You tell me.
How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
You tell me.
Many Shermans sunk indeed. The Panzer IV is way lighter. When Rommel landed, the Italian allies were already there. And they were the reasons for the Germans to go there by the way.How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
You tell me.
What about them? Did he ever do a Marine style assault on any enemy where he was landing his tanks while landing his troops while he was being shot at? Did he ever do a Sea Assault? He never did. His tanks were landed without any opposition. Had he tried to do a sea assault his tanks would have been sunk to the bottom of the ocean because they were just too large and heavy. Now how about coming up with some German equivalents of the Shermans that could have done it. The Japanese tried but theirs was just too light and were taken out with BARs and Hand Grenades.
Many Shermans sunk indeed. The Panzer IV is way lighter. When Rommel landed, the Italian allies were already there. And they were the reasons for the Germans to go there by the way.How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
You tell me.
What about them? Did he ever do a Marine style assault on any enemy where he was landing his tanks while landing his troops while he was being shot at? Did he ever do a Sea Assault? He never did. His tanks were landed without any opposition. Had he tried to do a sea assault his tanks would have been sunk to the bottom of the ocean because they were just too large and heavy. Now how about coming up with some German equivalents of the Shermans that could have done it. The Japanese tried but theirs was just too light and were taken out with BARs and Hand Grenades.
The Panzer IV was a great tank and got better and better. 80.000 Shermans and T-34 were made but only 20.000 Panzer IV. That was the actual problem. And never could a Sherman compete with a Tiger. Shermans were ordered only to engage Tigers when superior in numbers by at least 5:1. I am again referring to the Pershing wikipedia entry.Many Shermans sunk indeed. The Panzer IV is way lighter. When Rommel landed, the Italian allies were already there. And they were the reasons for the Germans to go there by the way.How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?
You tell me.
What about them? Did he ever do a Marine style assault on any enemy where he was landing his tanks while landing his troops while he was being shot at? Did he ever do a Sea Assault? He never did. His tanks were landed without any opposition. Had he tried to do a sea assault his tanks would have been sunk to the bottom of the ocean because they were just too large and heavy. Now how about coming up with some German equivalents of the Shermans that could have done it. The Japanese tried but theirs was just too light and were taken out with BARs and Hand Grenades.
The Panzer IV was a disaster from day one. While the Shermon just got better until it could go toe to toe with even a Tiger the Panzer just got worse in comparison. The problem was, it was just too light and didn't have the firepower nor the armor to survive once the other tanks improved. And it was NEVER used in a Water amphibious landing like the Sherman was. Yes, many Shermans sank but many didn't.
Panthers and Tigers were not tested enough before they entered service. But teething problems were solved. It is clear that only superior weaponry was acceptable in the face of the enemies´ superiority in numbers.The later Panzers evolved into maintenance nightmares; the Reich should have just surrendered in 1943, when everyone knew it was done for, and saved themselves and many millions of others a lot of grief and death.
Panthers and Tigers were not tested enough before they entered service. But teething problems were solved.The later Panzers evolved into maintenance nightmares; the Reich should have just surrendered in 1943, when everyone knew it was done for, and saved themselves and many millions of others a lot of grief and death.
The Germans should have created proper defense lines when it was possible. Instead, a later re-capture was always in the leadership´s mind, while the Wehrmacht hurried from one too late retreat to another. While political solutions were impossible as the allies insisted on total capitulation, an organized withdrawal to meanwhile prepared advantageous defensive lines would probably have been the solution. In the meantime, powerful weapons including guided cruise missiles, SAMs and other were in development and would have dealt with the threats from above.
Don´t know about this. I also don´t think that it is possible to convert a tank to x 88s.Panthers and Tigers were not tested enough before they entered service. But teething problems were solved.The later Panzers evolved into maintenance nightmares; the Reich should have just surrendered in 1943, when everyone knew it was done for, and saved themselves and many millions of others a lot of grief and death.
The Germans should have created proper defense lines when it was possible. Instead, a later re-capture was always in the leadership´s mind, while the Wehrmacht hurried from one too late retreat to another. While political solutions were impossible as the allies insisted on total capitulation, an organized withdrawal to meanwhile prepared advantageous defensive lines would probably have been the solution. In the meantime, powerful weapons including guided cruise missiles, SAMs and other were in development and would have dealt with the threats from above.
I think Rommel said that they should have stopped wasting their time building tanks and just built 8.8cmPak because the Soviets just charged headlong into the crossfire
Which of those tanks, the T34 or the Tiger, had a bigger influence on the future of tank warfare?
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 Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....
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.
Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?The T-34 wasn't a great tank until the 1944 runs, after extensive engineering recommendations from American testers finally got the okay from the politicians. When your side has almost total air superiority and vast numbers, you can get by with crap for equipment, especially if your main tactic is human wave attacks from the 3rd century.
The Shermans did fine for what they were designed for; in WW II the technology race changed almost monthly. They caught up quickly whenever flaws or to counter the Germans new tech. The Shermans also did well in Korea, not as well as the new Pershings but better than the T-34's did. The Sherman Jumbos were great at taking fortresses and assaults of fortified positions. A lot was going on in the arms race, in very short time spans, so just because something got surpassed in February doesn't mean it wasn't viable and upgraded by, say, August, so it's a matter of what day or month it is re being a 'piece of shit' or 'great'.
Some 'civilians' were winning small skirmishes in VN with .38 Police Specials versus AK's, after all, so don't go overboard on touting up tech.
the advantage the Sherman had was you could take it with you. Just load it up on the ships and take it with you. Yes, there were better tanks but not as portable that were as good. The Sherman was very important in the Pacific as well as Africa, Italy, D-day, Southern France and more.
Many Shermans sunk indeed. The Panzer IV is way lighter. When Rommel landed, the Italian allies were already there. And they were the reasons for the Germans to go there by the way.How got Rommel his tanks to Africa?Why no other tanks can be transported with ships?
You tell me.
What about them? Did he ever do a Marine style assault on any enemy where he was landing his tanks while landing his troops while he was being shot at? Did he ever do a Sea Assault? He never did. His tanks were landed without any opposition. Had he tried to do a sea assault his tanks would have been sunk to the bottom of the ocean because they were just too large and heavy. Now how about coming up with some German equivalents of the Shermans that could have done it. The Japanese tried but theirs was just too light and were taken out with BARs and Hand Grenades.
The Panzer IV was a disaster from day one. While the Shermon just got better until it could go toe to toe with even a Tiger the Panzer just got worse in comparison. The problem was, it was just too light and didn't have the firepower nor the armor to survive once the other tanks improved. And it was NEVER used in a Water amphibious landing like the Sherman was. Yes, many Shermans sank but many didn't.
negative--the Panther wasThe Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....
failed response?? what do you mean?the germans' failed response
