Which tank is stronger

Panther all the way, The greatest advantages for the Panther are a more powerful gun and much better optics.

 

the fact it has a nickname ie "Panther" bit like boxers etc the better they are the better the nickname panther sounds more impressive than t-34, or would we still have the same debate if the panzer 5 was nicknamed the "Daffodil" or "Panzy"?

 

'Panther' wasn't nickname, but partof the official designation (i.e. Pz.Kpfw.Panther).

The name doesn't change the operational characteristics, though.

Christian

 

only the best used

the 88 was a fine weapon but its reputation is due more to tactics that anything else. as a tank weapon it was about as good as it got but almost everyone had weapons as good. the US 90mm AA for one. in the pacific it was known as the triple threat and was a super AT gun. its just that the germans used the 88 up front a lot more than anybody else. AT guns are primarily a defensive weapon even on offense so the 88 got more chances to shine.

 

The 88 was first used as a AT-weapon effectively in France by Rommel.
The Brits counter-attacked and penetrated to the rear of Germans, where were few 88s, who then shot all the Brits. So the true effect of 88 was learned accidentally.

 

Re: only the best used

Um...
Which 90mm was that? I know of the 90mm AT gun mounted in the Tank Destroyers & the Pershing - is it the same one? I'm fairly ignorant...
As far as I'm aware (after reading months of debate on here & various sources elsewhere), essentially the developments of the 88 kept it as a better performer than any Allied AT gun throughout the war.

Pacific experiances in AT work are not really applicable, as the Japanese tanks were not known for their impenetrable armour...

 

It´s plain that Panther was superior to t34/85 as an opponent one to one, but I cannot explain Colonel KBO´s excitement.
The German cat was overweight and had a very long and painful birth, and few brothers. :kill:

 

'
Not maybe overweight, but the second one is definitely true.

 

And I cannot explain your provoking attitude, but would you please stop it ?

Thank you !

KBO

 

Than I´ll try to explain it to you.

Some people call it joking.

But, of course, if it seems to be a problem, I´ll do my best to behave myself, Sir!

 

Well then you should remember the "expressions/Smiley's", as it isnt a face-to-face conversation.

I hope you understand this, as its hard to catch such a joke without some sort of expression to point it out.

And incase this isnt another joke -

Im not your "Sir" Izaak, ignore the forum ranks as they bear no authority-level's.

KBO

 

Izaak Stern, sometimes it´s better just to ignore KBO.

KBO, when did you become a moderator ?

KBO, you have behaved fairly well for a few months now, but there will be no more chances for you if you return to your old habits again. And, please, use the PM system the next time you have something to complain about.

 

Re: only the best used

Welcome to the forum, Lynn1212.

The 90mm AA/AT gun was indeed the equal (AFAIR) of the early, Tiger I-mounted 88mm L/56. However it appeared on the battlefield years later, it played but a marginal role in American AT actions except when mounted on the M36 Jackson, and it still certainly wasn't a match for the superb 88mm L/71 the Germans used later in the war as the PAK43 and main gun of the King Tiger, the Nashorn, the Jagdpanther and the Elefant tank destroyers.

 

Skua thats really rude !

What do you mean ?

What did I do ?! I didnt complain about anything !

 

Understood.

 

Actualy first use of 88 in AT role was in Spain. I assume you are talking about Arras. If Brits had adecuate infantry suport thigs could end a bit differently.

88 earned its reputation in Western Desert mostly due tactics. Light german tanks ( DAK used mostly PzKpfW II in the beggining) attack and withdraw at first sign of british tanks. Brist give chase. DAK tanks withraw behind screen of 88 wich destroy british tanks. This tactics was used time and time again, almost to the end of DAK in WD and Tunisia.

 

True, it was the only weapon the "Condor Legion" had that coould knock down a T26. After all, they had an AA battery, but no AT unit.

 

I agree that in single combat the Panther wins, but in war it is not often a single combat thing to decide who wins. The t-34/85 is my vote because it was cheaper, simpler to make, allowing more to be made cheaper and faster, which in turn allows the superior numbers to override the one on one advantages of the Panther. I would also like to point out that the t-34/76 was already a match for the Panzer IV. The only reason why the Germans beat the t-34 early on was better tactics and training, not better equipment. The Panzer IV with the long barraled 75mm and the t-34/76 are about equal in my mind, but the t-34 runs circles around the front heavy Panzer IV.

 

The 76.2 mm. gun of the T-34/76 was nowhere near as good as the 7,5 cm Kw.K. L/48 of the Pz.Kpfw.IV lg. The Russian 76.2 mm. is better compared to the 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 in terms of penetration capabilities.

The Pz.Kpfw.IV lg. was altogether equal to the T-34/85.

Christian