Skip to content


The Best tank of World War 2


Moderator: Edpow1


Postby Silvio » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:29 pm

aha; here it is it wasn't the end of '44 it was approx mehn the Allies crossed the Seine. 15 operational Panthers were left in the west. and it wasn't ~13 000 it was ~11 000 from SS: The Secret Archives; Western Front... Ian Baxter
User avatar
Silvio
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:55 am
Location: Canada


Postby Nameless1 » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:36 pm

Damn right Ed!

The panzer IV was the back bone of the german tank forces and was easily upgraded to the rising demands of the battlefields on both east and west (Variants A through J). As well the chassis provided the bases for a few support gun, anti-air and mobile artillery platfroms, (jagdpanzer and hummel to name a few).

Many people love the panther but when it was first used in Kursk more then half broke down and were prone to catching on fire because of flaws in the exhuast system. Only the later models were actually good tanks.

The tiger I like it cause of the psychological effect it had 100mm thick frontal armour is nice to. but it's to damned slow.

the King tiger was a very good tank but by the time it entered the war allied air power which dominated the skies over Europe were it's greatest threat and factory levels were not meeting quantities needed at the time .....to little....to late.

The T-34 was a good tank but the russian tsctics at the time didn't do it justice until the later part of the war when tank crews became more experienced with tank warfare, and the t-34 could handle winter conditions alot better then there german advesaries but as far russian tanks are concerned the t-34/85 got my vote
Nameless1
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Canada


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:05 am

I vote for StalinII. It's low height made them hard to hit and their thick armour was almost impenetrable, even the Tigers had problems with them. A german Tiger officer tell that he lost many men and Tigers on one StalinII. The StalinII's power full cannon could easily make a piece of junk of a Tiger. The only disadvantage I can think of is their small space for the crew and they could only carry 28 shots.
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby Gapiro » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:30 pm

although. kt can tear through stalins lol... i think the js 2 is somewhere in between the tiger and the kt...
my favourite tank is definatly the t34/85... here are my reasons:
It looks cool [:p]
I has good frontal armour
When it was introduced, the german pak 50/75 guns couldn't hurt them unless they got a really lucky back shot... the first time the t34 attacked it took out lots of german stuff and it was only when one determined german atg moved behind it that it was killed
They can hurt tigers and kt
They were mass produced, and by using 4-5 of them on any tank, they could always prevail
They were easy to maintain
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby TheDuke » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:04 pm

totally agree...

there were allot of cooler tanks but in very limited no.

the German the King Tiger ... a fkn monster that... problem is what bridge was going to carry that beast.

the Russian the last IS3 with the frying pan turret which was A1 for defelcting kenetic energy.. don't think it ever saw action only that it took part in the Russian victory parade.

the VI can never win because it was a car with a bit of metal weldet on... ok, it was the bakc bone of the german arm but it wasn't exactly a technical feat... although I like the VI jagd panzer.. now that looked agreessive and had seriously sloped armour.

the T34 will always win as it was the one tank that got the ballance between fire power, protection and speed right. No point sitting in a few hundred tons of Krupp steel with a few Mustangs or IL2 overhead. Speed is the key.
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Gapiro » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:47 pm

what do you mean by the vi?
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby TheDuke » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 pm

PzKfz VI - the one before the Panther (also know as PzKfz V)
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Edpow1 » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:37 pm

he means IV - panzer 4, panzer V = panther, panzer VI = tiger, panzer VII = Maus, panzer VIII = Lowe (lion) never got built
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby TheDuke » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:43 pm

sry... got my roman numerals all arce way... [:I]

I thought VI meant 4 not 6... [B)]
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Edpow1 » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:38 pm

lol i got a bit miffed when u described the Panzer VI (Tiger) as a car with krupp steel welded on - be a big old car
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:14 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Edpow1</i>
<br />he means IV - panzer 4, panzer V = panther, panzer VI = tiger, panzer VII = Maus, panzer VIII = Lowe (lion) never got built
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I thought PzKfz V was Tiger.[B)]
Well, you learn something new everyday.[:I]
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby Edpow1 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:37 pm

The Pershing was a good tank in terms of having a solid shape and being very reliable, had no problems hunting Panthers, but against heavier tanks it was outclassed, and a key problem with it was that the crews simply were not using tactics which the Russians would. Pershing crews drove as if they were in Shermans, Stalin crews and t34 crews generally drove without hesitation into built up areas - this is why Stalins got a great reputation, they were really good in cities, low profile, not too much stuff on the outside for infantry to damage and a 122mm gun to blow up buildings, on the open battlefield their poorly trained crews did not stand much chance against Tigers and KTs
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Keks » Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:59 am

Sturmtiger :D

the ability to nuke 5 shermans with one shot and the abiltiy to torn down a block of houses with one blast of its missilelauncher its teh uber

sadly there were not much of them
and they havent been used well
but i know that it once hit a sherman tank formation and took out 5or more i think with one shot

page is in german but just look at the pictures....
http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/sturmtiger.html

perfection of german engineering :)

they just didnt do much in the war since there were so few of them

well as it goes for the most effective tank iam with you on that Pzkpfw4
even though the early version lacked firepower and armor they still kicked ass
Keks
Volksturm
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:20 pm


Postby Siddy » Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:18 am

U can drive those on UO(United Offensive) und their complete a***holes to blow up wiv a panzerfaust their like the anti anti tank weapon[:(]
User avatar
Siddy
Hauptman
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:32 pm
Location: In my Bunker Happily downing Beer whilst Mowing down the Rooskies with my MG42!


Postby Silvio » Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:02 pm

User avatar
Silvio
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:55 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to ww2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest