Best tank

Huh? Wich Early Tiger didn't have machine guns (even the prototypes had them)?

 

Maybe SS3589 means the Ferdinard? The only tank that comes in my mind without MGs in its early form is the Ferdinard--later Elefant...

 

The Sturmgeschütze didn't have hull machine guns either.

 

The Sherman Firefly proibably had adequate firepower, seeing as it could take out a Tiger at almost the same range that a Tiger could take it out. The T-34/85 also had to move in pretty close to destroy a Tiger, but I'm not sure about it's reliability. I don't think the JS-2 is as unreliable as a Tiger, but heavy armour still takes it's toll. As for price, maybe the Firefly isn't that bad of a contender. I think it might be the Firefly, Easy Eight, T-34/85, or the JS-2.

 

No,i did not say perfect,but best oweral.JS-2 was heawy armored,but it was lighter then tiger,more mobolity then tiger,had same AP gun,but far more powerful HE,and it was definitly cheaper.

Proof of reability T-34/85 is that they r still in use (50y later)

 

sinissa:
Not disputing the JS-2 was a cool tank, but it was a different breed of animal as compared to it's adversaries. It was a super-heavy breakthrough tank.
Its 122mm rounds were multi-part, and as a result it was slow-loading between shots. The real kicker here is that it only carried 28 shells total. It's forte was H.E. support fire against infantry and AT-guns. At least til it ran-out of main-gun ammunition... which didn't take long. Also cramped quarters for crew...
(for comparison purposes
The Panther had stowage for 81 hi-velocity 75mm rounds. Much more versatile platform, faster speed, more main-gun ammunition meant it could stay in the fight MUCH longer than the JS-2.

Your claim of reliability of T34/85 by merit of it's long service means little except the countries that fielded it couldn't afford a better, more modern tank. Weak arguement for reliability son.

Tim

 

The Tiger I was designed several years prior to the JS-2. The Tiger II had comparable mobility, and a more powerful AP gun (granted, the JS-2 has a better HE gun, but it carried far less ammunition and fired much slower, which resulted in a poorer saturation (except when fighting against bunkers, where the JS-2 would be superior).

That's a question of maintenance. Pz.Kpfw.IVs were used by Syria in 1967 against Israel. That doesn't automatically make themany more reliable.

 

They were sold by Spain but they were not prepared to operate in the desert and suffered from reliability. At the end I think they were used as pillboxes.

I wouldn't say it is that versatile because it always suffered problems of reliability, no surprise since the transmission was designed for a 35 ton vehicle. The engine tended to overheat as well. Side armour was rather weak and this would have been a problem if used to attack enemy positions.

The theoretical power to weight ratio was 11% superior in the IS-2, and this is only in theory because in the Tiger-II it was forbidden to ride at max rpm, and was usually limited to 2500rpm. Thus the difference would be higher in real life.

Regards.

 

THey were still used, nonetheless, and the T-34s in use today doesn't exactly perform admirable either.

Proof?

I wouldn't exactly call it 'rather weak'. In either case, it was about the same as that of the JS-2.

The Tiger II still had comparable mobility.

 

Spielberger: "Schwere Jagdpanzer", Doyle, Jentz. I have the quotes but not in english...

I was talking about the Panther, not the Tiger-II.

Based on what? the Tiger-II had the same engine than the Panther, and it was 50% heavier, so you got ~69 ton for an engine which overheated when installed in the Panther.

Regards.

 

Please do post the quotes regarding the Tiger II's reliability from Schwere Jagdpanzer.

Fair enough.

Its automotive capabilities.

 

Again I was talking about the Panther:

Según Spielberger/Doyle/Jentz :

Segun Panzertruppen 2, citando a Guderian:

Spielberger: "Schwere Jagdpanzer" p. 47.

These were supplied by a colleague. There is also this one:

- Department of Weaponry of the Red Army, late 1944.

This is not really a proof. When compared in Kubinka the IS-2 radius of action was 25% higher. I won't mention the other troubles because it has been discussed in the past.

Regards.

 

OK. The quotes you bring forward particularly concern the final drive of the Panther Ausf.D and Jagdpanther, though. The final drive problem was fixed once identified.

That the transmission gives problems after 1 500 km wouldn't surprise me, since this is a considerable distance for any tank. I would like to know what kind of treatment the tanks were given, though.

Yes, but that was a test of one vehicle which was not operated according to the manual.

 

In each of these fields except HE capability and range, the late-war Sherman is superior to the T-34/85. I do not understand why you ignore it.

Blaster: the problem with the Firefly is that it is essentially an early-variety Sherman with a bigger gun and with its hull MG deleted. It does not enjoy the improvements in armour thickness, armour slope, wet storage or the new turret that the late-war Shermans had. Therefore whether or not this tank is superior to late-war Shermans of American make is arguable. I would not put it above the Easy Eight even if its gun was a lot more powerful.

 

No,i did not ignore it,but nobody answer my question,but i think that T-34/85 is a bit slightly superior.
IS-2 is betther then any off that 2 tanks,in firepower,armor but speed,price and radius,economic etc probably not,so i prefer medium tanks.

 

Like Christian and Hoosier said above, the problem with the JS-2 is that its gun was both slow and poorly stocked. Twenty-eight rounds for the main gun means the tank will be useless after a few minutes of intense combat.

 

A comparison between both types was done in Yugoslavia (M4A3E4 vs T-34-85) and they were found to be equivalent. The T-34-85 had better optics and the Sherman better situational awareness (SA).

The 1500 figure referred to the engine.

In the "Schwere Jagdpanzer" quote it says that the use of a lower quality steel '37 MnSi5' prevented the transmission problems to get fixed. Check the order by the Red Army directorate, some units got to operate Panther and they found them unreliable, and were more than happy to exchange them for T-34-85.

The germans on the other hands were defending and didn't need to advance long distances, or carry out breakthrough operations in which the low side armour would have been a penalty. In defensive operations the Panther was at it's best: excellent gun, optics and frontal armour.

Yes, the ROF was lower, but tanks rarely use the maximum ROF, only in ambushes. In a dynamic battlefield you have to maneouver, identify the target, aim...

The ammunition was enough for one day of combats. Check documents written by IS-2 units.

Regards.

 

No, it will be useless after a few minutes in a video game... Liek Alejandro said, round capacity and ROF are really not the most vital features in a tank... If you find yourself firing your 122mm cannon at maximum ROF, chances are that you're vastly outnumbered and won't last long enough to fire off half of those 22 rounds... If you're running out of ammunition after a few days the problem is with the supply lines, and not with the tank... Like infantry combat, tank combat is far more contingent upon coverage and deployment than individual capability... Only it occurs at ranges of 1km or 2km so the likelihood of spotting a new target every 25 seconds is highly, highly unlikely... That and you will have 100's more tanks backing you up... There is no way in hell any one of those tanks would be required to use up his maximum ROF... and if he does, it is likely due to a failure in command; which has left him vastly outnumbered in a situation where no amount of phenomonal ROF is going to save him...

A suitable analogy to make would be to ask what you, as a commander, would prefer to have... 50 soldiers with G-43's? Or 10 soldiers with STG-44's...It would be the 50 soldiers of course... despite having less firepower overall (an STG-44 has hundreds of times higher ROF), there are 50 of them, so they can spot the enemy better... and every time one dies, you only lose a small percentage of your firepower...

The only manner in which ROF might possibly matter is if the first shot fails to penetrate the target... Then he might spot you, turn his turret, and you better hope you get the next shot off fast...
With a 122mm calibre gun however, I doubt the JS-2 would have that problem

 

When the two types met in the Korean war they were found to be roughly equal.

 

If anything I would have thought that the Sherman had superior optics... Most sources I have read have idfentidied the T-34/85 as having comparitively poor optics when compared to its rivals on the eastern front... I havent heard any complaints about the optics of the Sherman, though perhaps this is because visibility was a more determinant factor in the wide Russian fields than in the French Bocage...