Did the T34 or the Tiger influence future tank designs more?

[westwall]

in this order:
firepower
armor
mobility

Depends on what the purpose of the tank is. For a scout tank (Alvis Scorpion, as a for instance) mobility is more important than armor or firepower.

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

This is not true. The Pershing was vulnerable to the 88, and the 75 mounted in the Panther out to 800 meters. The Pershing could punch the Tiger out to 1000m but the AP rounds that it was supplied with couldn't punch a Panther at any range. The one exception was late in 1944 the AP-T33 arrived and that could punch the Panther at around 400 meters IIRC.

And the Panthers were vulnerable to the 90s of the Pershings considering the 90 was shared with the anti tank weapons systems. Plus, the M-10s could easily take out a Panther and usually did. Panthers didn't fare real well on the Western Front.

 

[westwall]

the Panther was in response to the T34--not the Tiger
this is very basic WW2 knowledge
the Tiger does not have sloped armor!!!

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

This is not true. The Pershing was vulnerable to the 88, and the 75 mounted in the Panther out to 800 meters. The Pershing could punch the Tiger out to 1000m but the AP rounds that it was supplied with couldn't punch a Panther at any range. The one exception was late in 1944 the AP-T33 arrived and that could punch the Panther at around 400 meters IIRC.

And the Panthers were vulnerable to the 90s of the Pershings considering the 90 was shared with the anti tank weapons systems. Plus, the M-10s could easily take out a Panther and usually did. Panthers didn't fare real well on the Western Front.

Only from the side until the AP-T33 was provided to them. The most famous film we have is of a Pershing in Cologne shooting up a Panther at close range from the side. At distance it was an entirely different story. The first Pershing that was lost was a Tiger kill. The second Pershing lost was from artillery.

Your claim that the Panther did poorly on the western front is not born out by fact. Ernst Barkmann's action in Normandy is an example of the outstanding superiority that the Panther enjoyed, and the fear it engendered....


"When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out two leading tanks and then tanker truck.Two Shermans tried to go around burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one.In the response, Americans retreated and called up the tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged and some of the crew members were wounded. Using the element of suprise two Shermans attacked "wounded" Panther but were also knocked out.Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while leaving.His driver managed to moved their damaged Panther to the safety of nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles."

Achtung Panzer! - Ernst Barkmann

 

[Unkotare]

....the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank .....

Thanks to the Renault FT.

 

[Syriusly]

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

This is not true. The Pershing was vulnerable to the 88, and the 75 mounted in the Panther out to 800 meters. The Pershing could punch the Tiger out to 1000m but the AP rounds that it was supplied with couldn't punch a Panther at any range. The one exception was late in 1944 the AP-T33 arrived and that could punch the Panther at around 400 meters IIRC.

And the Panthers were vulnerable to the 90s of the Pershings considering the 90 was shared with the anti tank weapons systems. Plus, the M-10s could easily take out a Panther and usually did. Panthers didn't fare real well on the Western Front.

The M-10's carried the 76 mm gun which was good- but I don't believe it could take out a Panther from the front- if it could it would have to be close range. And the M-10's of course were too thinly armored to trade shots with any tank- any German tank could take them out.

As I recall the biggest threat to Panthers were attacks from the air- and artillery.

 

[harmonica]

Tiger cost 250,000 RM ..Panther 117,000 RM
Tiger I Information Center - Tiger history
...one the most famous Tiger encounters was at Villers Bocage where one Tiger destroyed a whole Brit column
...this is a good indication of how good the Germans were and how well trained/etc
Panzer Ace | Villers-Bocage, 13th June 1944

 

[harmonica]

in this order:
firepower
armor
mobility

Depends on what the purpose of the tank is. For a scout tank (Alvis Scorpion, as a for instance) mobility is more important than armor or firepower.

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

again---how many times do I have to say it??
I provide PROOF/evidence and you provide:
NOTHING but your beliefs

4. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
it's not heavily armored
Military tank
sure....
Scorpion armor 12.7mm aluminum!!
M1 Abrams 450mm to 900mm
M1AHA 600mm to 1300mm !!!

 

[westwall]

Depends on what the purpose of the tank is. For a scout tank (Alvis Scorpion, as a for instance) mobility is more important than armor or firepower.

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

again---how many times do I have to say it??
I provide PROOF/evidence and you provide:
NOTHING but your beliefs

4. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
it's not heavily armored
Military tank
sure....
Scorpion armor 12.7mm aluminum!!
M1 Abrams 450mm to 900mm
M1AHA 600mm to 1300mm !!!

Eight tons is heavy. Certainly not as heavy as a MBT, but it absolutely fits the definition.

 

[harmonica]

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

again---how many times do I have to say it??
I provide PROOF/evidence and you provide:
NOTHING but your beliefs

4. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
it's not heavily armored
Military tank
sure....
Scorpion armor 12.7mm aluminum!!
M1 Abrams 450mm to 900mm
M1AHA 600mm to 1300mm !!!

Eight tons is heavy. Certainly not as heavy as a MBT, but it absolutely fits the definition.

I doubt very much the 90mm would scratch a tank
I'm finding it penetrates only 100mm at 60' obliquity
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/PDFs/Contents/Ammunition (8 November 2011).pdf
no match against the T72 armor at 280 mm...inclined glacis gives 500mm
Armor: Why The T-72 Survives
even almost no match against an old T54
T-54/T-55 - Wikipedia

so it is not an anti-tank vehicle ...it cannot go against MBTs
still think it's a tank??

..it stand's 0 chance against these MBT's guns or even more lightly armed vehicles
...the armor is only 12.7mm

 

[westwall]

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

again---how many times do I have to say it??
I provide PROOF/evidence and you provide:
NOTHING but your beliefs

4. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
it's not heavily armored
Military tank
sure....
Scorpion armor 12.7mm aluminum!!
M1 Abrams 450mm to 900mm
M1AHA 600mm to 1300mm !!!

Eight tons is heavy. Certainly not as heavy as a MBT, but it absolutely fits the definition.

I doubt very much the 90mm would scratch a tank
I'm finding it penetrates only 100mm at 60' obliquity
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/PDFs/Contents/Ammunition (8 November 2011).pdf
no match against the T72 armor at 280 mm...inclined glacis gives 500mm
Armor: Why The T-72 Survives
even almost no match against an old T54
T-54/T-55 - Wikipedia

so it is not an anti-tank vehicle ...it cannot go against MBTs
still think it's a tank??

..it stand's 0 chance against these MBT's guns or even more lightly armed vehicles
...the armor is only 12.7mm

Yes. It meets the definition of a tank. Its mission is not to engage MBT's, its mission is to FIND them, and the gun it has is for dealing with soft skinned vehicles, and lightly armored vehicles, like its counterparts in other armies. The point being, not all tanks are Main Battle Tanks. Your argument is akin to a Napoleonic era frigate isn't really a ship, because a Ship of the Line would destroy it with a single broadside.

Do you understand the silliness of your position?

 

[harmonica]

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

again---how many times do I have to say it??
I provide PROOF/evidence and you provide:
NOTHING but your beliefs

4. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
it's not heavily armored
Military tank
sure....
Scorpion armor 12.7mm aluminum!!
M1 Abrams 450mm to 900mm
M1AHA 600mm to 1300mm !!!

Eight tons is heavy. Certainly not as heavy as a MBT, but it absolutely fits the definition.

I doubt very much the 90mm would scratch a tank
I'm finding it penetrates only 100mm at 60' obliquity
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/PDFs/Contents/Ammunition (8 November 2011).pdf
no match against the T72 armor at 280 mm...inclined glacis gives 500mm
Armor: Why The T-72 Survives
even almost no match against an old T54
T-54/T-55 - Wikipedia

so it is not an anti-tank vehicle ...it cannot go against MBTs
still think it's a tank??

..it stand's 0 chance against these MBT's guns or even more lightly armed vehicles
...the armor is only 12.7mm

Yes. It meets the definition of a tank. Its mission is not to engage MBT's, its mission is to FIND them, and the gun it has is for dealing with soft skinned vehicles, and lightly armored vehicles, like its counterparts in other armies. The point being, not all tanks are Main Battle Tanks. Your argument is akin to a Napoleonic era frigate isn't really a ship, because a Ship of the Line would destroy it with a single broadside.

Do you understand the silliness of your position?

hahahahah
12.7mm is all I need to say...it's a scout car/recon car/combat recon vehicle/armored recon vehicle
tank ?? hahahahahahhahahahahah
12.7mm
so there's not much of a difference in FV101 armor and the other tanks mentioned???!!
yes--different--- HUGE difference---NOT the same

hahah you messed up
all of the tanks are vehicles......all the sailing vessels are ships---- this is how they travel-
the size makes their terminology different
small = frigate ....large = destroyer/ cruiser/battleship
FV101-small/light = car/recon vehicle ........ heavy/large = tank

 

[Bleipriester]

The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....

The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34

No, it wasn't. A single T-34 stopped Army Group Center during Barbarossa. 280,000 men and equipment halted by a single tank with four men in it.

I heard about this. But the tank that won´t be destroyed after several hits was the KV-1, the first heavy tank of the SU. Luckily for the Germans the factory was captured before a significant number was made, otherwise, this turret-monster with its 150mm gun would have been a real problem.

 

[harmonica]

in this order:
firepower
armor
mobility

Depends on what the purpose of the tank is. For a scout tank (Alvis Scorpion, as a for instance) mobility is more important than armor or firepower.

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs

 

[westwall]

Depends on what the purpose of the tank is. For a scout tank (Alvis Scorpion, as a for instance) mobility is more important than armor or firepower.

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs
View attachment 179856

Indeed it is. But, it can cross terrain that an MBT would sink out of sight in. Thus, for SCOUTING purposes, it is far superior. Like I said, you design the TANK, to meet the requirements.

 

[westwall]

The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....

The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34

No, it wasn't. A single T-34 stopped Army Group Center during Barbarossa. 280,000 men and equipment halted by a single tank with four men in it.

I heard about this. But the tank that won´t be destroyed after several hits was the KV-1, the first heavy tank of the SU. Luckily for the Germans the factory was captured before a significant number was made, otherwise, this turret-monster with its 150mm gun would have been a real problem.

The KVII (the one with the 152mm main gun) was actually not a threat. The turret was huge and if on more than a 8 degree slope would spontaneously traverse to where the barrel was pointed towards the low ground. The KV I on the other hand was indeed a dangerous opponent and one of those caused all sorts of troubles for Army Group North when it punched through the lines and shot up everything it cam across for several miles. The driver was finally killed by a 5cm hit to the periscope which caused the tank to drive into a trench where the German infantry climbed up and submachine gunned the crew.

 

[Bleipriester]

The Tiger was the Germans response to the T-34....

The Tiger was in service before the Germans ever faced the T34

No, it wasn't. A single T-34 stopped Army Group Center during Barbarossa. 280,000 men and equipment halted by a single tank with four men in it.

I heard about this. But the tank that won´t be destroyed after several hits was the KV-1, the first heavy tank of the SU. Luckily for the Germans the factory was captured before a significant number was made, otherwise, this turret-monster with its 150mm gun would have been a real problem.

The KVII (the one with the 152mm main gun) was actually not a threat. The turret was huge and if on more than a 8 degree slope would spontaneously traverse to where the barrel was pointed towards the low ground. The KV I on the other hand was indeed a dangerous opponent and one of those caused all sorts of troubles for Army Group North when it punched through the lines and shot up everything it cam across for several miles. The driver was finally killed by a 5cm hit to the periscope which caused the tank to drive into a trench where the German infantry climbed up and submachine gunned the crew.

The Russian heavy tanks were all not that impressing as they were vulnerable to Panzer IV guns, particularly the sides.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

the Scorpion is NOT a tank
that's why there are no scout tanks in the US military--to my knowlege

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs
View attachment 179856

Indeed it is. But, it can cross terrain that an MBT would sink out of sight in. Thus, for SCOUTING purposes, it is far superior. Like I said, you design the TANK, to meet the requirements.

I have to agree. There never was a perfect tank made and never will be. You make one for recon and it really won't stand up against a head on encounter with a MBT. You build one that can go head to head with a MBT and it can't do a decent job as a Recon. You put a huge canon on it you have to take off weight so that it can move. You make it so it can take damage you have to avoid bridges and crossings. All tanks are compromised.

Wow,, I agreed with you one something. Did I just feel the ground shake? Did the earth all of a sudden almost come to a complete stop?

 

[westwall]

It's not? What then do you call this?

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs
View attachment 179856

Indeed it is. But, it can cross terrain that an MBT would sink out of sight in. Thus, for SCOUTING purposes, it is far superior. Like I said, you design the TANK, to meet the requirements.

I have to agree. There never was a perfect tank made and never will be. You make one for recon and it really won't stand up against a head on encounter with a MBT. You build one that can go head to head with a MBT and it can't do a decent job as a Recon. You put a huge canon on it you have to take off weight so that it can move. You make it so it can take damage you have to avoid bridges and crossings. All tanks are compromised.

Wow,, I agreed with you one something. Did I just feel the ground shake? Did the earth all of a sudden almost come to a complete stop?

Nah, we're not flying off into space so the Earth is still rotating OKAY!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

ARV--CVR....NOT a tank
FV101 Scorpion - Wikipedia
Army Guide
the M1 is a tank
M1 Abrams

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs
View attachment 179856

Indeed it is. But, it can cross terrain that an MBT would sink out of sight in. Thus, for SCOUTING purposes, it is far superior. Like I said, you design the TANK, to meet the requirements.

I have to agree. There never was a perfect tank made and never will be. You make one for recon and it really won't stand up against a head on encounter with a MBT. You build one that can go head to head with a MBT and it can't do a decent job as a Recon. You put a huge canon on it you have to take off weight so that it can move. You make it so it can take damage you have to avoid bridges and crossings. All tanks are compromised.

Wow,, I agreed with you one something. Did I just feel the ground shake? Did the earth all of a sudden almost come to a complete stop?

Nah, we're not flying off into space so the Earth is still rotating OKAY!

It's almost hilarious that we think corkscrewing through space is normal.

 

[westwall]

The Scorpion is most assuredly a tank. It is a light cav scout tank. It is armored, it runs on tracks, it has a main gun, and the gun is housed in a turret, thus by every definition of a tank it most assuredly IS a tank.

it's a toy compared to MBTs
View attachment 179856

Indeed it is. But, it can cross terrain that an MBT would sink out of sight in. Thus, for SCOUTING purposes, it is far superior. Like I said, you design the TANK, to meet the requirements.

I have to agree. There never was a perfect tank made and never will be. You make one for recon and it really won't stand up against a head on encounter with a MBT. You build one that can go head to head with a MBT and it can't do a decent job as a Recon. You put a huge canon on it you have to take off weight so that it can move. You make it so it can take damage you have to avoid bridges and crossings. All tanks are compromised.

Wow,, I agreed with you one something. Did I just feel the ground shake? Did the earth all of a sudden almost come to a complete stop?

Nah, we're not flying off into space so the Earth is still rotating OKAY!

It's almost hilarious that we think corkscrewing through space is normal.

Perceptions a wonderful thing, ain't it....