Question.......

I disregard Achtung Panzer as a valid source because the German bias of the site gushes from the screen. I prefer sites that aren't writen with bias either way, but just give the facts.

Also, Panzer means Tank in German. German tanks in general were called Panzers.

Also I would like to see this video. Not that it would much matter since it is most likely a propaganda video, much like how American videos of the time portrayed the Thompson to be more accurate than the MP40.

 

Offcourse i know Panzer means Tank.......what i was trying to say was that there wasnt so many Panthers and TigerII's at Italy as in Normandy....

And dont disregard a site because of such feelings because its very very correct site, with alot of sources........

Anyway that site you showed me is a Bias of an american site....

KBO

 

Try www.gp.co.uk it is unbiased.



LOL

 

Its a very very correct site that is also very very selective in the information it gives.

And my site isn't biased. Its a site for registering restored Shermans. And by the way, its a Dutch site. It also doesn't speak of enemies to America as animals as Achtung Panzer does for Germany.

 

The Tiger II's turret engine depended on the main engine. The Tiger II wouldn't need to move to turn its turret using the engine, it would only need to use the main engine, which was possible wihtout moving the tank itself.

Regarding Achtung - Panzer !, I don't want to go into any discussion on wheter it's biased or not, but it isn't very correct. There are many errors on Achtung - Panzer !, but unfortunately George seems to be both short of funds and time to update the site.

As for crew evaluation reports - in general, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The testimonials from US tankers (see for example JENTZ, THOMAS L. Germany's Panther tank - the quest for combat supremacy. Atglen: Schiffer Military History) favours the Panther's and Tiger's mobility in especially soft grounds, where the Sherman's narrow tracks were more easily stuck.

As for turret rotation - the widest arc it would usually be needed to turn a turret is 180 degrees (if it's 181, you might as well move it 179 ot the other side, unless something is blocking). Still, even in the time frame of five to ten seconds, most experienced crews would be able to fire two rounds towards the target before being fired upon. This is after it has been discovered, which would most likely not be until the first round had hit (in the scenario of multiple frontal targets). Any tank taking three hits, at least one of which is carefully aimed, will have a lucky day.

In either case, what is most important is overall reaction time. I am not all too familiar with the quality of the US optics, but I have a feeling that they are somewhere between Russian and German ones. This would give the German tank the advantage in case of long-range engagements.

 

Hello.
Just a thing on the Achtung panzer video it is a Lee and not a Sherman.
but as Danyel Phelps said it is a propaganda film.

 

bloody hell why is everyone getting the ass in their hands about sherman tanks.

lets face it they were a bag of old spanners, if u gonna be stuck in an allied tank then id go for the Pershing T-25 E1 which managed to out gun the tiger 2.

if u stuck in a german tank then it gotta be a Tiger 2, dont forget if u surrounded its how many hits u can take b4 u done for, as they say in pop music on that score the sherman would definetly be a 'one hit wonder'

 

Ugh, forget it. I've writen at least 10 essays about the Sherman for this forum and I don't feel like doing yet another one.

 

I would pick either an SU-100 or the Mk IV Stug

The gun of the SU was a killer and it was reasonably well armoured and manueverable. It also had a very low silhouette. Same with the Stug except for the armour.

The original question is too vague.

 

I will answer your original question and its limitations.

Just to clairify one point, It doesn't say surrounded, therefore I will assume I have the enemy at 12 O'Clock at 2500 metres and the twighlight of the setting sun at my back.

With my elite crew and the latest King Tiger, with all the bugs fixed, and the latest night fighting optics. I would take anyone on until I ran out of AP rounds.

With the latest in nightfighting optics, like the ones used on the Panther VG picture shows us, I am confident that when the dawn breaks anyone alive to witness the carnage would see one fuctioning King Tiger and a lot of dead enemy tanks.

Its the best choice that I have.

 

The Tiger II never received any infra red equipment, though.

Furthermore, the infra red equipment, although workable, wasn't exactly the sixth wonder, and didn't have a range anywhere near 2,500 meters. The system was quite primitive, and was only used a few times on the Eastern front with mixed success.

 

Well, most people seem to prefer the Tiger 2. Probably because the Tiger 2 was often in that situation, and did ok for itself.

The choice of a Sherman for its manouverability is the only real departure.
I would say that this is a fair choice, depending on:

a) the amount of cover on hand
b) exactly which tanks you are up against

If it is PzIVs, hey, have fun! Just be careful.
If it is anything heavier, be very, very, very careful, and I'll consider getting a wreath in just in case.
(hey, Danyel, I have listened to your lectures - a few months back I'd have called the Sherman a load of old spanners too! )

That is the beauty (or even the saving grace) of the Tiger 2 - it is 'unlikely' that the enemy tanks you are facing will be superior in any department save mobility.

 

You cant be serius........ the T-25 Pershing did not at all out gun the TigerII....it was the exact oppisite

The 90mm T15 gun on the T-25 wasnt nearly as powerfull as the 88mm L/71 gun located on the TigerII... The kenetic energy created by the 88mm L/71 gun was unmatched throughout ww2 and a good time afterworhts too........

"Christs" the 88mm L/71 gun could pierce as much armor with an APBC round at 2500m as the T15 gun could at 500m........."says abit about the kenetic energy difference between the two"

But the 90mm T15 gun was more powerfull than the 88mm L/56 gun on the TigerI though, but only just......

Regards, KBO........

 

And that was a gun that was in operation on the Tiger way back in 1942.Almost 3 years later and the allies come up with a gun only marginally better?

 

I thought that we did have a similar-performing gun to the early 88mms - the 3.7in AA gun. Except we decided not to use it in any role beyond AA...

 

Using the 3.7 into the AT role was tried at least once in the western desert. It was found it threw up such a pillar of dust that they might as well have had a big neon sign saying 'WE'RE OVER HERE!' You would figure however such a problem could have been got round if they tried hard enough.

I would imagine it production. If you want to use 3.7 for AT as well as AA you'll probably need far more of them than your currently using. That means that factories will have to retool and a factory retooling is a factory not making anything. That why Britain decided to churn out the 2 pounder after the fall of France rather than try to switch up to the 6 pounder. It also the reason why the Sherman continued to soldier on till the end of the war.

 

pshaw!
you and your logical replies!

Although surely during the build-up to D-Day, when the only fighting is in Italy, they could have made made a few.
Why not develop it, just to see the potential?
After all, they developed/built the 17pdr from scratch - why not simply develop the existing 3.7 inch instead?

 

Hey wow wow...... take it easy...
I said that the 90mm T15 gun on the "Super pershing" was better than the TigerI's gun... ("Remember only 24 Super Pershings were built")

But the T15 gun was extreemly less powerfull than the 88mm L/71 gun on the TigerII...
No allied tankgun during ww2 could compare with the 88mm L/71 gun....

The 90mm M3 gun on the "Normal" Pershing was equal to the TigerI's gun in some aspects...
Between the 90mm M3 gun and the 88mm L/56 gun, the 88mm L/56 gun would come out on top........
Allthough the penetration of the two guns were about equal, but the 88mm L/56 was more precise and had better optics than the 90mm M3 gun, so thats why the 88mm L/56 would win.....

KBO

 

Just look at the difference in cartridge size....

1: 88mm L/71 gun Cartridge size: "822mm Long" / 146mm wide" = AKA 88x822mm Cartridge.....For the "TigerII" and "Jagpanther".......

2: 90mm M3 and T15 gun cartridge size: "600mm long" / "130mm wide" = AKA 90X600mm cartridge... For the "Super Pershing" and "Pershing"..

3: 88mm L/56 gun Cartridge size: "571mm long" / "111mm wide" = AKA 88x571mm cartridge.....For the "TigerI"

4: 75mm L/70 gun Cartridge size: "640mm long" / "122mm wide" = AKA 75x640mm Cartridge... For the "Panther"

now the 88x571mm and 90x600mm aint that different in size, but when compared to the 88x822mm for the L/71 gun then they are very small in comparreson....

Just look at this pic:

From the Right: 1: 88x822mm / 2: 88x571mm / 3: 75x640mm...