Which tank would you rather be in??

Can I choose the maus?

 

If we're going to go there, can I choose the T28?

 

I wouldn't want to be in a Maus when you realize that these beasts were so rare, the force it encountered would probably send about ten thousand aircraft over to destroy it.

 

Which you are very unlikely to stop or keep off your heavy armoured body 8)

 

Better than that having an enemy shell cut you to pieces.Now let me think, would I worry more about my engine cutting out or would I worry about my HEAD being cut OFF!????

Tiger crews felt relatively secure (as they were) even when up against hordes of enemy armour. I don't know of any other tank crews who felt the same. Perhaps IS-2 crews might have but then they didn't face King Tigers too often. If they did they probably would have felt differently.

 

I think a broken down engine would result in a cut off head just as well

you're absolutely right here. But I think it's rather strange that Tiger crews felt so safe; the tiger had its weak spots as well now didn't it?

 

Yes, it had weak spots like all tanks in WW2. It just had fewer of them than other tanks and was pretty much unique in this respect. The fact that the Tigers were almost always involved in bitter fighting yet the crews were still upbeat serving in them only goes to show just how safe and confident they must have felt. They wouldn't have felt this way without good reason.

The Tiger I had 80mm thick side armour. Even though this was vertical just a small shift by facing the hull at an oblique angle to the enemy on the flanks gave the side armour good ballistic qualities. Tiger crews learned to do this on instinct so that even the side wasn't easily penetrated on the wide open spaces of the eastern front which is where most Tigers operated.

 

Being engaged in a major project, placing documents on my site - thus far, among others, North Irish Horse War Diaries and Battle Reports for WW II - and now working on WW I, my daily visits to the Forum have been of the lurking variety.

However, on reading the interesting posts on this subject, time is taken out to post the thought that a rider to the question, "in which theatre of operations," may add to its interest.

With best wishes to everyone,

Gerry

 

When mr. Chester kicks in it's bound to add perspective... Welcome back to the forum and good luck with your website.

The theatre of operations definitely adds a frame to your wishes, both because of the environment and nations involved and because of the development of armour at the time. No Tigers in France in 1940, for example, or IS2s in Italy. It surely complicates the choice.

In North Africa, my choice would be the Churchill over all others. Its massive armour just made it the safest thing around, even more so than the few Tigers present. In Italy I think I'd choose the same weapon, because the Churchill is, being an infantry tank, more suited for close combat of confined terrain.
The other theatres are harder to choose in, and I'll take some time for that one.

 

pacific theater: definitely the Sherman
N. Africa: Sherman (British tanks were unreliable)
Italy: Sherman (difficult terrains)
France 44: Tiger
Eastern front: Tigers all the way

 

Nice to see you back Mr Chester and a good question you raised.

1.) Eastern Front 1941 and 1942 = T34/76 or KV I.

2.) Eastern Front 1943 and 1944 = Tiger I. Panther as second choice.

3.) Eastern Front late 1944 and 1945 = King Tiger

4.) North West Europe 1944 = Tiger I. Panther as second choice.

5.) North West Europe late 1944 and 1945 = King Tiger or Panther G. Pershing would be a good choice in late winter/spring 1945.

6.) Italy = Tiger I. Even though the terrain was not really suitable very few Tigers were actually despatched by enemy action here. I wouldn't feel as safe in a Sherman in Italy with Panthers, Pz IVs, Stugs and Tigers as the opposition. In North Africa the Sherman just had a few PZ IV F2s and Gs to face and very few Tigers, even less Stugs and no Panthers at all. The Churchill would have been better in Italy.

7.) North Africa = Sherman or Churchill (Tigers were not used to their true effectiveness in North Africa). The PZ IV G lacked good protection.

8.) Pacific = Japanese Type 97. No, that was a joke. The Sherman. Not much competition to worry about. The Japanese did not get the Tiger I they purchased delivered.

 

StugIIIs and other non-tank-tanks were out of the discussion remember! That'd make it too easy, I'd be in a SP gun every day of the week if I could choose because of their generally better armour and gun.

 

Yep, I forgot that. I re-edited my post to not include Stugs and Jagdpanthers.

 

Lyndon, Tiger lover and mind reader. Good choices all around, I wouldn't disagree with any of them.

 

It's probably cheating,but I'll take the Maus.

 

I'll still take the T28.

 

Hard to disagree.

 

But the T28 (renamed T95) didn't even start trials until after the war - the first pilot model being completed in September 1945.

It would be nice to be in, agreed (I'll be in my A41!), but it is surely disqualified by time-frame.

 

And the Maus never saw action.

 

It´s interesting to note that while the Centurion was more combat ready than the Maus by the end of the war, it still is considered a post-war tank while the Maus is considered a WWII tank.