Most survivable tank

I am gobsmacked!
The Panther has catastrophic damage and has completely burnt out.
It is a total loss and here you are claiming that because it isn't in bits then it is somehow better than other wrecked tanks!
By the way the explosions that blow tanks into little bits is not the power of the shell that penetrates but the ammo inside exploding. There are enough turetless Panthers and Tigers about there to show it can happen to any tank.

Oh and clearly this is not a 152mm hit.

 

I suppose you would claim this Tiger is another example of superior craftmanship.
Though knocked out it is in one piece and clearly not like the puny Allied tanks who would be blown to bits in the same situation.




Oh hang on, I forgot I have another view.....

'

'


'

'






There are others.....


.


.

.

want another example to prove it was not a one-off?




To paraphrase Michael Caine...not a lot of people knew that!

 

Gravity would give a projectile launched horizontally a drop over two seconds of approximately 20 m (1/2g t^2)

 

How exactly is that an argument against the Tiger being survivable? OMG, its vulnerable to the side from the most powerful western gun? What a piece of crap! I sure wish I didnt have that much armor on my (insert any allied tank).
Holy crap, it takes only 8 hits with a 152 to partially destroy a Tiger! What garbage!

This Panther is not burned out, a burned out tank would have the gun depressed into the fired position. Youll notice most German tanks with their gun "fired" after being burned. Also, notice the burned out Tiger suspension is "flat", which is also a sign of burning.
Also, The source states this is from Russia, and they know what hit it. They say a 152, and your own pictures prove my point. Compare entrance holes. Both sides used nearly the same caliber weapons, and even if this was an APDS penetration the penetrator is 37mm.
Since I do believe this is a 37mm, it brings up another issue. The APDS was not known for lighting tanks on fire. It has no bursting charge. In fact, the British crews rarely if ever kept their APDS. The standard APCBC was very lethal, and the accuracy of the APDS was so poor that at the useful ranges, the APCBC would work just as well or better.

And so what if its ANY gun, the armor on the sides of the Panther is a joke, and the Tiger is not invulnerable. Its resistant to fire.

This entire rant about the 152 was only to prove that the 152 was not a Tiger killer. The 100mm was the only weapon guaranteed to kill a Tiger from the front. Even the 85mm had to be dangerously close. The 85mm could penetrate the Turret of a Panther, just as a US 76mm could, and at nearly the same distances. There is no real evidence to support the 85 being able to really mess with the Tiger head on.
Every single piece of information states that the 152 is not outstanding in any way. Either it is not so great, or the Tiger is insanely resistant to fire. You have to pick one, not both depending on which one is against the Germans at the Time.

Also, dont you think its funny that those holes are nearly perfectly square? Maybe youve never seen how they cut armor out of enemy tanks, but thats what it looks like.
This also brings up another problem with the entire scenario. They didnt cut armor out of tanks which burned. This tank was burned afterwards, or whoever cut it up was a tool. Either way, those wholes are not made from shells.

What this comes down to is that you are saying a tank is not survivable because it
A) can only be penetrated from the sides by the best guns
B) it can burn when hit with only the best guns

Im pretty sure that means its pretty damned survivable.

How about instead of being negative nancy's, you nominate a better tank and say exactly how it was more survivable than a Tiger.

 

Yes, that is correct. its not quite two dozen, but its several times the height of a tank. That was the entire point, as someone else was claiming you could set a range and simply move the sight from top to bottom of a tank depending on range. Even a few hundred meters makes a huge difference.
If we are talking about the T-34 or 152mm, it takes about 3 seconds, since the maximum velocity is only 660, and 600 with normal ammo. An average of about 500 makes for a 3 second flight, and 45m drop.
I think its fairly safe to say you just cant point and shoot, but this is all a technicality, since our friend already proved himself wrong by listing that the accuracy was a joke at 1000m, forget 1500+

Either way, its good to keep facts straight, thanks

 

Just because I say a single German tank was the most survivable does not mean I am a German fanboy. In fact, I spend much of my time on other forums expressing for many Allied tanks were better than they are stereotypes to be. For instance, the Sherman was the best tank in the world when it came out. People like to say it was inferior to the T-34, but the T-34 had a major issue with the two long barrel 50mm guns, while the Sherman was immune to the 50mm from the front. It was specifically design to be.
The reason is American armor quality. In fact, the Sherman deflected 1/20 75mm rounds, which is pretty impressive seeing as how even the L/43 was immensely powerful.
The thing about Russian tanks is that the quality of the materials is so poor, they are quite a bit more vulnerable for a given thickness of armor. We tend to consider the late war German tanks as crap, but in reality they simply reduced quality to the Russian standard. British tanks were of questionable quality as well, but the quality of armor was really average.
We have to face one thing when talking about western vs. eastern quality, and that is that the Russian equipment was disposable, while western equipment was expected to last long if it was not destroyed. The Russian crews were not given training, and were not really valued much at all. The US crews got the best, if sometimes ignorant, training.
It shows, as the US loss ratio was half that of the Russians, and doesnt that seem kind of funky when the US is driving around in what are stereotyped as the worst tanks in the world?
Germany was not the best nation, but the Tiger tank was definitely the most survivable type in my eyes.
Personally, I think the IS-2 is not great. People rip on the Tiger for engine problems, but the IS-2 was really plagued by them. It doesnt surprise me, the thing has the drive system of a T-34. I cant think of any other tanks which really succeeded with that kind of setup, even the Sherman Jumbo was unreliable, and the Sherman was far more reliable than the T-34. You dont see Sherman's driving around with a transmission strapped to the rear deck.
The 122mm gun was not really a great tank killer, because it really wasnt meant for it. The shells were actually kind of laughable, but they could penetrate the sides like most other guns.

If I was to pick one Russian weapon I respect, its the 100mm gun. It continued to be deadly for decades, especially after the intro of Sabot rounds in 1968. The 100mm is quite possibly the best tank gun ever. It may not have been totally overkill on the enemy like the 88mm L/70, but it was deadly at normal combat ranges against all non-composite tanks out there. You cant say that about the 90mm, or the 20 pounder.
There is the issue of accuracy, but that is an issue with the rangefinder and not the gun. The gun is the gold standard for all purposes. Until the Abrams came out, every tank was compared to the 100mm cannon. Even today, medium vehicles are built specifically to be protected from 100mm rounds.
It is absolutely the most successful Russian tank cannon.

 

You know what I was going to avoid this but I do have to agree somewhat with Jadgermesiter. Despite one's feelings about the tiger, or the flaws the tiger contained, such as the fuel consumption, lack of serviceability, etc etc. It was a good all round tank, it did do exactly what the Germans wanted it too, it did cause massive amounts of damage on all fronts, and it was very capable of withstanding many attacks on it from other tanks in a frontal engagement. Sure lucky hits would have occurred where small calibre weapons disabled the tank but that is simply war. Was it the best tank of the war? No, there is no such thing as a best tank.

Was it the best tank for 1940-1945 Germany, Possibly so. Sure more Mk 4's many have helped the consumption of fuel on a unit by unit basis but overall they probably would have used more in the long run. Also there is no guarantee they could help sway the oncoming enemy as effectively as the tank had done.

All in all the tiger was an attack stalling weapon, it did for a fact cause fear within the ranks of many nations men, and it certainly was able to withstand attacks on it within reason, but it was far from the perfect war winning weapon.

 

Why don't you just say you believe Carius above all other sources because you want to. Your double talk about this colonel and what you would believe makes little sense.

 

Must be a bit desperate when you have to twist
'hit 8 times'
to mean
'it needed 8 hits to knock out a Tiger'

I assure you it is burnt out.
I have a larger photo and you can see the zimm is burnt and flaked -not forgetting the most obvious fact that the suspension HAS collapsed.
Look at the position of the rear idler and compare it to an undamaged tank.
It is a burnt out wreck

It is one of the series done on the Balaton wrecks. I have several copies of it.
a 152mm shell would leave a substantial entrance hole. The chunk missing at the front may be due to an internal explosion or it may by due to cracks caused by smaller hits. It could even be a 152mm hit but the hole ringed in white is not a 152mm penetration.

In Normandy it was found that up to 80% of Shermans caught fire compared to 'only' 60% of Tigers and Panther!

Yep those sneaky reds had to cut holes later and pretend they were penetrations.
Everyone knows it took an atomic bome (direct hit) to even dent a Tiger!

Please post your pictures of these square holes. I don't see any.

No. I am saying you are confused and seeing things..

 

The Tiger was just an all round great tank, and I believe that its speed and mobility makes it even more survivable than the KT.

I disagree with this completely.[/QUOTE]

Just because you are louder does not make you correct.

How exactly do you disagree with the Tiger being more survivable than a Panther and KT?

I disagree that it is an all around great tank. I don't see it as mobile and speedy but in comparison with another mechanical mess like the KT one might come away with that description. More mobile and faster than the Panther. Really?

Your story of the Sherman WP round cracking the Tiger is incorrect, I just happened to have read that story and the tank was not damaged and was returned to the US for testing. The only part of that story which was true was the confusion of the tank crew due to the smoke.

I suggest you read it then. You are wrong.

Death Traps, p 258:
"The point of impact of the white phosphorus shell was similar on both Tigers. It struck the upper-right-hand corner of the front glacis plate about a foot and a half from each edge. The detonation probably deafened the driver, and the blast opened up the cracks in the welds."

Im not going to do all the work for you, they are on the first page of results when you search for them.

Most people are willing to provide data sources as I have above. You do not probably because you are lying or seriously mistaken, as with Coopers story about WP. I guess it easier to just say "I saw this on the internet...it must be true."

Perhaps you should have spent the time double checking your info before posting "oh rly" like a schoolgirl.

Perhaps you should try posting like an adult. I will not hold my breath on that.

 

Further to What M Kenny says - the burned out Panther's gun is not depressed because it is on it's travel rest.

 

It shows, as the US loss ratio was half that of the Russians, and doesnt that seem kind of funky when the US is driving around in what are stereotyped as the worst tanks in the world?

Worst tanks in the world? That's funny. Can you back up this claim? If you really believe this it should be easy. I'll help you, just name a better tank in its class. Point out where the Sherman, Stuart, Chaffee and Pershing were lacking. Please say why you believe it better and if you are quoting someone be good enough to at least supply their name...or at least where you googled the information from.

 

It occurred to me as I thought about putting a response up to this thread that much of the talk of this topic centers around armor thickness, gun, mobility, etc., as such discussions often do. There are other ways to discuss survivability in a tank, other factors to consider. Can you survive in a tank with thick armor and a potent gun if you have no fuel? What does a crew do when their tank is out of gas...they bail out and are thus very vulnerable. If their support and maintenance is bad the crew will be forced to return to the rear or again bail out. Further if a tank is greatly outnumbered by its enemy armored units survival is once again limited. The advantage a Tiger had in armor protection is negated by the sheer numbers it must face. Along similar lines if a tank is facing an enemy with air supremacy or superior tactics again this tank is no longer more survivable than others.

I think discussions of many war machines; tanks, airplanes, etc., center around the idea of taking the machine out of the context of the battle it was in; let's picture the Sherman in one on one duel with Tiger, the Panther vs. the T-34, etc. Axis tanks in Europe often were outnumbered, facing overwhelming air forces (even if they were not killing tanks the aircraft offered harrassment and destruction of infantry and supply), artillery and an enemy far superior in logistics. How is a tank like the Tiger more survivable in an environment like this?

 

The problem being that when you consider all those factors, the most survivable tank is probably a training tank in Canada or the US, etc. . The nature of the discussion means that it has to centre around individual tanks taken out of context.

 

The nature of the discussion means that it has to centre around individual tanks taken out of context.[/QUOTE]

Good point but if one takes them out of the context of the European battlefield where do you put them so that they can be evaluated? Perhaps we should just say the Maus is the most survivable and leave it at that.

 

Perhaps what we need is a clearer definition of 'most survivable tank'.

How about; 'The tank that allows its crew members the greatest chance of surviving the destruction of the tank'

instead of the hardest tank to kill, which is what it has drifted towards

 

Going right back to the first post in the thread

The question seems to be, which tank is the easiest for the crew to bale out quickly? I nominated the M3 Medium Grant/Lee because of the large side hatches and relatively uncluttered interior - at least from what I've seen.