Which tank would you rather be in??

The IS3 try to own me

 

The JS-3 was never used during WWII, though, and was therefore not a WWII tank.

Christian

 

I would probly use the brit firefly the tiger was to complexed and broke down alot the shermans gun wasn't that good but the fire fly hade a better gun and armer and was fast


AND WHY NOT TD"S ITS MY NAME

 

Do you have any evidence that the Tiger had a more frequent breakdown-rate than other World War II tanks? I would realle be interested in such information, as none seems to be available.

Christian

 

Hi everybody!

I don't speak english very good, I'm sorry. This panzer-homepage is very good. I'm a moderator in a hungarian national website, and I edit the World War II. gallery.

My favorite tanks are the medium tanks in world war II, for example Pz. IV., T-34, A-34 Comet, Sherman V., but i like every armored machine in the second world war.

The M18 Hellcat was the most beautiful tank-destroyer!

My worldwar tank gallerie:
http://suttogo.uni.cc/album_cat.php?cat_id=18

See you

 

Don't apologise - your English looks absolutely fine to me!

Welcome on board.

Your gallery looks very interesting - I wish I could read Hungarian...
I loved the cutaway picture of the StuG III.

 

The M4A3E8 was the best Sherman without doubt. Its gun may have been worse than the 17pdr in armour penetration but it had better HE, higher ROF and carried more ammo. Furthermore its armour was thicker, its suspension better and its tracks wider than the Firefly.

 

In terms of being the most balanced platform--with the most 'hustle'--I'd favor a PantherG with the long-barreled 75mm gun. It had better speed and manueverabilty... and the HV 75mm could penetrate most anything the allies fielded... short of the front glacis-plate of an IS2 maybe.
In terms of ultimate survivability and prestige, when the Tiger1 was first introduced, only top-crews were considered for service. If you were a Tiger Cmdr, I expect your money was no-good when it came time to buy a drink. They were the elite of the Panzer Corps.
I really don't think you could go wrong crewing a Panther or a Tiger1.


Tim

 

Hi!

What's Your opinion about hungarian tanks in W.W. II.?

My favorite vehicle from my land is the Zríny assult gun.
But the Turan III. prototype was very good construction. But no one built under W.W.II..

The hungarian Turan I, or Turan II was the typical medium tank. The Turan III had an 75 mm gun, and two MGs. It was only prototype in 1944.

 

Hi!

This was the Turán III. prototype.

<IMG_SRC=http://www.stud.u-szeged.hu/Kriston.Andras/images/panzer/TURAN3.JPG>

 

I would feel safe in Elefant (but rather with working MG...)

 

Hey, that's an interesting site there.
www.stud.u-szeged.hu/Kriston.Andras/images
What are these...??

 

On second thought i would be in a russian T-34/85 , it's fast , and can take on a Tiger. :bang:

 

It'd have trouble...
I like your choice though, in terms of mobility this tank was one of the best and neither armour nor gun would be that bad if Russian steel quality would be up to any standard. :-?

 

The main problem is that the small edge it had in some automotive capabilities didn't make up for its inferior gun, armour, optics and ergonomics.

Christian

 

I know a tank where i absolutly wouldn't be in...it's way to cramped!



http://www.skylighters.org/potd/03262003.html

 

I wouldn't want to be in some hulking , massively large tank , allthough well protected . I'm sort of impatient I'd be yelling "can't this damn thing go any faster" !!!! with the T-34 you got a hard hitting gun , decent armour, good mobility ,and good speed ,I wouldn't care that much if the steel quality is below average compared to western standards. As long as the tank does what it's supposed to do , I won't complain.

 

Hi, ButyokH

About that cut-away Stug...
Do you know where it's taken? I think I've seen it somewhere. And that background, firs, could be from Finland!

 

Code:

                             Tiger     T-34/85
Road speed, km./h.            45.5          55
Cross-country speed, km./h.  15-20          25
Fording, m.                    1.6         1.3
Trench crossing, m.            2.3         2.5
Step climb, m.                0.79        0.73
Climb, degrees                  35          35

Seems fairly equal to me. The T-34/85 had a gun comparable to the 7,5 cm Kw.K. L/48, which was not a bad gun, but still far from the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56.

Christian

 

they were also an "all weather tank" the tank was fast and manueverable , could take out a tiger with a couple hits , the turret rotated fast , the T-34 could dodge hits , and deliver them without being hit . But if the tiger is hiding in a bush and fires ... your dead if you got the tiger in the open and you can see it , you got the upper hand , tank crew training is also a factor. I'm just on a mindless rant :lol: im just very bored.