Best tanks

Roel, I'm not trying to get anyone annoyed.
Seriously.

My comment was foolish, ment as tongue in cheek.

If I have annoyed anyone in my posts - I apologise.

 

The Panzer IV Gs* Hs and Js had a very decent gun in the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 which was capable of defeating most Allied and Soviet armour at pretty good ranges but unfortunately it's armour let it down. It was very underarmoured compared to the Tigers and Panthers. It was only 25 tons in weight with vertical plates. You need something to withstand enemy reciprocating fire especially as the enemy's tank guns improved later on.

*early Gs had the L/43 gun.

 

1. panther, more armour than a churchill mkVII (by 10mm),
75mm gun that is really affective, (long barelled so the velosity* of the projectile is alot higher, unlike the sherman which with a stubbish gun that cannot penatrate a tiger, but a panther could easily penatrate a tiger even on its frontal armour) and the panther it might be big, but still has a fair speed. overall it is my fav tank and i would put in front of the king tiger (alough i wouldnt for fire power hehehe )
2. t-34
3.tiger

 

The Panther's gun was only marginally more effective than the Tiger I's in anti tank. Actually at ranges longer than 2,000 metres (quite common on the eastern front) the Tiger's gun was slightly superior to the Panther's. Also the Tiger I fired a MUCH more potent HE round than the Panther. The Tiger I was more heavily protected all round than the Panther was. The Tiger I's side and side turret armour were more difficult to penetrate than the Panther's and the advantages the Panther had in frontal armour was very marginal and limited to the front glacis only. The turret front was no stronger and the Tiger's frontal glacis plate presented a smaller target area to hit.

 

Later versions of the Sherman, with the longer 76mm gun, could actually penetrate Tigers and Panthers from a reasonable range. I still agree with you on the best tank of WW2 though; the Panther had better armour, a better gun, better sights etc etc than the Sherman.

OMG, I was defending the Sherman there. Danyel are you proud of me?

Seriously Lyndon, where did you get the idea that the Panther had less armour than the Tiger?

 

Tiger front armour = 100mm (glacis, nose,)

Tiger side armour = 80mm (top), 60 mm (bottom)

Tiger turret = 100mm (front) 80mm (side and rear) , 100 to 110mm (mantlet)

Tiger rear plate = 80 mm


Panther front armour = 80mm (glacis top), 60mm (glacis bottom)

Panther side armour = 40mm (top*), 40mm (bottom)

Panther turret = 110mm (front), 45mm (side), 45mm (rear), 100mm (mantlet)

Panther rear plate = 40mm

* Panther G had 50mm side armour (top only)

You'll see that the Panther on average had only half the thickness of the Tiger I on it's side and rear. The Panther's front glacis plate was sloped at a very good angle and this deflected shots a great deal but the rest of the Panther's armour wasn't sloped enough to make it stronger than the much thicker armour of the Tiger I. Early Panther crews complained that the side armour wasn't stong enough. Tiger I crews didn't make this same complaint. They hardly ever complained about their vehicles except to get rid of the early dustbin commanders cuppola.

 

Though still very rarely head on. There isn't much eveidence that this happened a lot and there are precious few shots which show the Tiger I's or Panther's front plates cleanly penetrated.

 

The Panther's armour was sloped all over, which significantly improved the amount of actual armour a shell met when hitting the tank horizontally. The Tiger had no such armour. So while the numbers show great differences, the Panther's armour was far closer to the Tiger's in reality. Frontally, the PzV had a lot more of it.

 

Not much evidence? Come off it, crews of the 76mm armed Shermans will usually tell of occasions in which they dispatched Tigers from the front. Also, with 141mm of armor on their front glacis, they didn't have much to worry about from the Tiger until the gap was closed.

 

I already said that the Panther's armour was sloped and this made it very tough head on. However the degrees it was sloped at the side (30 degrees) and the turret (25 degrees) were slight and it wasn't enough to make it stronger than the Tiger whatever you might think. That is simply not true.

The Tiger had a round horse shoe shaped turret that was 80mm thick all round. This shape in itself has good ballistic qualities for deflecting shots. The Tiger's nose plate was sloped inwards at 24 degrees (just look at any pictures to see this) while the glacis plate was not actually vertical but slightly sloped at 10 degrees.

 

Which adds 2 millimeters of armor and no balistic value. Doesn't change a whole lot.

 

According to Allied tank crews almost every tank they encountered was a Tiger. Do you believe everything you hear? I have records of all Tiger actions. Sorry Phelps but I tend to believe this rather than what you say. There is a difference between it 'happening' and it 'happening a lot'. I can't find much evidence of Tigers being so easily defeated as you seem to believe. :roll:

 

Who said it did? I just pointed out that the frontal armour of the Tiger was was not completely vertical that's all. Still 100mm thick. And I already said that the slightness of the Panther's sloped side and turret armour didn't make it stronger than the Tiger I's which was twice as thick.

 

Sorry, but I am confused now...
(just generally confused - Danyel, I only use your quote as a general example of the topic trend!)

It has been posted on various other topics that there were not all that many Tigers on the Western Front (esp. after the Normandy campaign).

Now Tigers vs. Shermans is common?

Which is it?
Lyndon - you have all the info on what Tigers were where.
Please tell me how many Tigers were on the Western Front & when.
(I know that it is not that simple, but please try & keep it so!)

My brain is hurting...

 

Ricky,

The truth is that after Normandy there were very few Tiger I's in action in the west so I don't know where Daniel gets his " lots of Tiger Is knocked out by Sherman 76mms " from. According to others, the 76mm Sherman wasnt around much during Normandy.

I'll do my best with some research tonight (after the football of course) and get back to you tommorrow with the units which had Tiger Is in the west after Normandy.

 

I didn't say alot were. Never have I said that. I just said that it did happen.

 

Ok then, point taken. But you 'implied' it was rather par for the course. Incidentaly I never said it DIDN'T happen, just that it wasn't common and that Tigers weren't as easily to defeat as you seem to think. And I've never said the Tigers were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm just defending them from people who downgrade them which is ridiculous given it's combat record.

Add up the less than 1,000 Tigers destroyed through enemy action (tanks, anti tank guns, air power, infantry) and consider how many tanks and personnel the allies and Soviets had to go through for the sake of just 1,000 Tigers. Not very easily despatched in my view.

 

The Sherman/76 appeared only during the final and decisive stages of the Normandy campaign, and was first used in action during Operation Cobra. That means that very few of them were used in Normandy indeed.

 

sherman76

are you sure of that? I was under the impression that Cobra started July 25th? Most of the war diaries I have giving reports of the DDay landings
seem to have quite a number of Regiments (British) equipted with these tanks during the landings.We are refering to the same tank are we not?
I'm refering to the 17pounder/76mm tank.

 

The British Sherman Firefly (17 pounder) is different from the 76mm armed Sherman I often refer to, which is the American M4A1-A3 76(w), which sports an improved gun, improved armor, and an improved ammunition storage system that corrects the error of early shermans brewing up when penetrated.

England received only maybe a third of the American 76mm armed Shermans, though admitingly the British 17 pounder cannon far exceeded the capabilities of the American 76mm M1 cannon series.