The most lethal tank in ww2

Yes. Being able to fire quickly was essential, especially when facing more than one enemy tank. Two-piece ammunition is not a good thing for a tank.

 

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but the Stalin tanks were 2 part loads and they could fire 2 to 3 rounds per minute. That's not bad when you consider taking between 20 to 30 seconds to acquire your target and shoot.

As standard compliment was only 10 rounds of AP, I don't see that as an issue.

Any thoughts?

:smok:

 

Ooooops!
It only carried 8 rounds + one in the barrel.

Yes, I agree that it was potentially the most lethal tank (it had a battleship-caliber weapon, after all), but its combat record was not exactly sparkling...

 

10 stored AP rounds must have surely been an issue around Tirgu Fromus in Romania in early May 1944. The IS-2s were not successful against the Tiger Is and Panthers of Grossduetschland. This was a prolonged engagement at long ranges which GD won.

Perhaps the IS-2s simply ran out of AP? Did the Tigers and Panthers simply out slug them with more ammo and better optics?? In any event their thrust (and that of the rest of the attacking Soviet forces including T34/85s and T34/76s) was stopped soundly.

 

Going back a bit - Roel answered the Question:
"which tank would you rather be in if you were defending Berlin from the Soviets" with:

ohhh, dangerous!
Very few of the nice new T-34/85s were captured, so you'd probably be in a T-34/76, so inferior to start with (although it's your scenario, it could be a T-34/85 I suppose!).
Most importantly, the Soviets will be shooting at you as you have a nice set of BIG German crosses on your tank, and the Germans will be shooting at you because you're in a T-34!

You can dance round all you like, but everybody on the battlefield will be shooting at you...

I had this thought at the time, but forgot to post it, then lost track of which thread...

 

Of course, since I have the choice of tank, I would pick a T34/85. And it seems to me that this scenario would involve you standing alone, so the Germans would not be shooting at me; I would paint nice camouflage over the big crosses and still do my thing.

Actually I didn't make this post as a serious suggestion, but rather to show all those people who really lik German heavies that there are other ways to win a battle.

 

I was assuming that you would at least have infantry.

Ok, ok, it was a good example, but it could definately get hairy if you recieve reinforcements.
Hey, you could always just motor long at the rear of a Soviet column if you wanted!

 

:lol: Yeah, wait till they line up for the assaut and then hit them in the weak rear...

 

My vote is got to be the Panzer-I, it has almost no armor, carried only machine guns, which meant that for a tank crew, it was probably the most lethal tank in the German Arsenal to be driving in :lol: :lol: .

 

Jagdpanther hands down

 

And why exactly is the Jagdpanther more lethal than the Tiger II, which had the same gun but also had a rotating turret?

 

Germany a second rate player???
One wich had to be crushed by atleast 2 mayor ones and even this took more than 3 years.....

Tiger II no question about it!

 

I think Greg was referring to the struggle that would follow if Patton had had his way, in which the defeated Germany would have played only a very small role if any.

Welcome to the forum, Ome Joop! Now I have an uncle too.

 

Tanks Roel

Is Patton's way almost the same way as Churchill's way??

 

The Tiger I was definetely very lethal, but also heavy and expensive. I wouls say that the IS-2 definetely is a contender, as is the Jagdpanther. To me it seems like the bigger and heavier and more complex the tanks got, the more problems they got, as well as decreased "battle value" for the money. What would be more effective in the field, a single Königstiger or several Panzer IV's? Some tanks just got "too heavy" and would not be worth the time, materials and production costs. Thus I think the most lethal tank probably was the T-34. (Flame suit on)

 

I would definately prefer a Tiger II over two Pz.Kpfw.IVs.

 

I would rather have the latter. What were the production costs compared?

 

It was comparatively cheaper to manufacture, transport and field a Tiger II than two Pz.Kpfw.IVs.

Christian

 

How did they manage to make it cheaper? I mean, a King Tiger weighs more than two PanzerIVs even of the newest versions.

However, Panzerman, this topic really has only one answer and therefore it's kind of pointless, which was pointed out earlier. The King Tiger simply is this role, but only within the limitations of the scenario given.

 

Two PanzerIV's need twice as much manning than one Tiger II, twice as much ballbearings, twice as much main guns etc.