Notices
RC Tanks Discuss all aspects of rc tank building and driving here!

Worst tank of WWII

Old 02-23-2010, 03:12 PM
  #51  
pcomm1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Excuse me but the thread is on target, or is it that you just don't like the facts, germantanker?

With all due respect, all posters here are clearly explaining why the Sherman is a worst death trap and or that the generation 3 heavy Axis tanks were combat disappointments, etc.

The tread clearly covers the ins and outs in regards to which tanks worked and didn't work during their generational time periods during WWII combat (1, 2 or 3 tank generations).

And battlefield results are a helpful factor in regards to identifying the worst Allied and Axis tanks that fought during WWII.
Old 02-23-2010, 03:23 PM
  #52  
germantanker
Member
Thread Starter
 
germantanker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Steinbach, MB, CANADA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: googlydoogly


ORIGINAL: germantanker

With all due respect guys, this is quickly becoming a hate the Sherman vs.love the Sherman battle. If you would like a thread that discusses all of the Shermans benefits than please start one as this was a thread for individuals to identify what in their opinion was the worst tank of WWII. Can we please stick with the original purpose of the thread. Thanks [8D]
I thought the original purpose of this thread (which is posted in the wrong section, btw) was to discuss, not merely state people's opinion what they think is the worst tank in WWII.

That's how discussions usually work. One person say one tank is the worst, another person might disagree and state the reason why, and the other person offer a rebuttal.

I understand what you are saying but we are way too focused on one tank, and thus not leaving discussion open to other tanks and possibilities. I started this thread for a cross section of tanks, opinions etc... I would just like more than the Sherman. If I opend in the wrong section you could have Pm'd me too let me know, your point seems somewhat retaliatory otherwise. Thanks
Old 02-23-2010, 03:28 PM
  #53  
germantanker
Member
Thread Starter
 
germantanker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Steinbach, MB, CANADA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: pcomm1

Excuse me but the thread is on target, or is it that you just don't like the facts, germantanker?

With all due respect, all posters here are clearly explaining why the Sherman is a worst death trap and or that the generation 3 heavy Axis tanks were combat disappointments, etc.

The tread clearly covers the ins and outs in regards to which tanks worked and didn't work during their generational time periods during WWII combat (1, 2 or 3 tank generations).

And battlefield results are a helpful factor in regards to identifying the worst Allied and Axis tanks that fought during WWII.

Pcomm1 I started the thread so I know what my intentions were. If I had wanted a debate on the merits and drawbacksof one single tank (Sherman) I would have started it that way. Don't try to bait me with another one of your unwelcome remarks, I love healthy debates regarding WWII, but lets leave this more open. If you would like to start a thread about the Sherman Tank vs. Axis tanks be my guest.

Old 02-23-2010, 03:32 PM
  #54  
googlydoogly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: sandy, OR
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: germantanker


ORIGINAL: googlydoogly


ORIGINAL: germantanker

With all due respect guys, this is quickly becoming a hate the Sherman vs. love the Sherman battle. If you would like a thread that discusses all of the Shermans benefits than please start one as this was a thread for individuals to identify what in their opinion was the worst tank of WWII. Can we please stick with the original purpose of the thread. Thanks [8D]
I thought the original purpose of this thread (which is posted in the wrong section, btw) was to discuss, not merely state people's opinion what they think is the worst tank in WWII.

That's how discussions usually work. One person say one tank is the worst, another person might disagree and state the reason why, and the other person offer a rebuttal.

I understand what you are saying but we are way too focused on one tank, and thus not leaving discussion open to other tanks and possibilities. I started this thread for a cross section of tanks, opinions etc... I would just like more than the Sherman. If I opend in the wrong section you could have Pm'd me too let me know, your point seems somewhat retaliatory otherwise. Thanks
It's not retaliatory just because you don't like what's being said. I just don't get why you yourself have posted several times why a Sherman tank is such a bad tank, yet when people discuss it as well, you suddenly want to shut down the discussion.
Old 02-23-2010, 03:44 PM
  #55  
germantanker
Member
Thread Starter
 
germantanker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Steinbach, MB, CANADA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: googlydoogly


ORIGINAL: germantanker


ORIGINAL: googlydoogly


ORIGINAL: germantanker

With all due respect guys, this is quickly becoming a hate the Sherman vs.love the Sherman battle. If you would like a thread that discusses all of the Shermans benefits than please start one as this was a thread for individuals to identify what in their opinion was the worst tank of WWII. Can we please stick with the original purpose of the thread. Thanks [8D]
I thought the original purpose of this thread (which is posted in the wrong section, btw) was to discuss, not merely state people's opinion what they think is the worst tank in WWII.

That's how discussions usually work. One person say one tank is the worst, another person might disagree and state the reason why, and the other person offer a rebuttal.

I understand what you are saying but we are way too focused on one tank, and thus not leaving discussion open to other tanks and possibilities. I started this thread for a cross section of tanks, opinions etc... I would just like more than the Sherman. If I opend in the wrong section you could have Pm'd me too let me know, your point seems somewhat retaliatory otherwise. Thanks
It's not retaliatory just because you don't like what's being said. I just don't get why you yourself have posted several times why a Sherman tank is such a bad tank, yet when people discuss it as well, you suddenly want to shut down the discussion.
I have no problem with discussion, but the pros and cons of one model of tank (,the Sherman) has received alot of attention.Lets move on or start a thread dedicated to the to debating the Sherman.
Old 02-23-2010, 04:32 PM
  #56  
googlydoogly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: sandy, OR
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: germantanker

I have no problem with discussion, but the pros and cons of one model of tank (,the Sherman) has received alot of attention. Lets move on or start a thread dedicated to the to debating the Sherman.
That's the thing with public online forums. You can't control where a topic might go. It has been a polite and healthy debate, and it's on-topic. You didn't like the Sherman. Some people agreed, some people don't, and a good informative discussion ensued.

Considering how often threads in this forum go off-topic, both good and bad, it's just a little weird you'd artificially try to stifle an on-topic discussion. People have plenty of opinions about the Sherman's role in WWII. Most people don't even know what kind of tanks Italians used in WWII, and you're surprised that the Sherman generated more attention?
Old 02-23-2010, 05:34 PM
  #57  
germantanker
Member
Thread Starter
 
germantanker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Steinbach, MB, CANADA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Hi yes I am quite surprised? But as this was my one of the first threads that I started I will just run its natural course. I will continue to be involved in this debate, and Thank you for your feedback as this is the first forum that I have joined and definitely the first time I have begun posting on. I suppose I have a bit to learn as I am one of those almost 50 year old computer phobs.
Old 02-23-2010, 05:41 PM
  #58  
Rebellion13
 
Rebellion13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Tripoli, PA
Posts: 1,930
Received 28 Likes on 25 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Everyone gets a hug from me
Old 02-23-2010, 05:49 PM
  #59  
rivetcounter
 
rivetcounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: God’s own country “England”
Posts: 1,914
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: pcomm1

The German 2nd and 3rd generation WWII tanks are interesting, my favorite models to build and paved the way for much later modern tank design, for sure. But in 1944 and 1945 those tanks were dangerous duds.

OK, clearly the 3rd generation of German tanks on paper clearly out classed the USA 2nd generation Sherman tank. But in the field the German 3rd generation tanks did not perform to expectations.

The Panthers failed in the 3rd Invasion of Russia, they couldn't even drive to the fight without breaking down. The King Tigers couldn't get through the Ardennes without similar problems.

Patton was right to stick with the Sherman, big Sherman tank numbers, Sherman reliability, beat the new German (more modern for the era); and better high quality industrial design tank concepts on the WWII battlefield.

During WWII, unit movements, logistics and maintenance proved to be the most important necessary factors to achieve armored victory.

Wolfgang Schneider in both Tiger in Combat I and Panzer Tactics repeatedly writes (with some defiant pride, I might add, LOL) about the significant losses of both type of Tigers do to mechanical breakdowns, their inability to travel many road types or terrain; the issues getting across bridges and the painful labor – time required to get any Tiger aboard a railroad flat car for movement to the next fight.

Remember, General Patton had his tankers just drive at top tank speed over European roads & terrain to get to the next fight!

And of course, Allied air power destroyed much of the German rail system making the movement of any German tank even more difficult.

The Germans might be living in Antwerp today if they could have driven all their spearhead King Tigers over the narrow country roads, terrain and bridges during the Battle of the Bulge, December 1944.

But they couldn't and didn't. And that was the key bitter German Military lesson learned and cost Germany virtually all its remaining armored forces necessary to defend Germany's European Front.

A tank that you can't get to the fight is worthless and Patton seemed to know that.

Heck, the US Army was still returning captured King Tigers to the German Army as late as 1956. By wars end the US Army was no doubt the largest operator of German 3rd generation tanks.

Though they had a very difficult time getting them started.


As with a lot of pcomm1 posts they are usually filled with little fact and plenty of propaganda this post is no different.

What are you talking about, you have a situation where Germany has been loosing the war since 1943 its industrial infrastructure is decimated building Pz IV and Stug III in the numbers it did is an achievement in its self but building Panther and Tiger II in this period is an outstanding achievement as for your statement of “Dangerous duds†Tiger II had the highest crew survival rate of the war unlike Sherman which had one of the worst

I take it from this statement you mean Panther D and the battle was Kursk, which as you say was a huge problem but one has to remember that this tank was 9 months from design board to production without testing but by late 43 when the A model was introduced all these problems where resolved and went on to be the finest medium tank of the war and no country then or since including the US has designed and built a tank in 9 months these days not even 9 years.

Patton blah blah blah had his political carrier to guard, pity the Pershing proved him wrong.

Schneider, in all 3 Volumes of Tigers in Combat and other books he has written points out the problems with Heavy tanks and the deployment of these tanks in Russian 90% of roads where not paved but merely compressed dirt which in rainy seasons turned to rivers of mud this effected the Russians as much as the Germans as did the bridges in this area most where made of wood and where designed to carry horse and cart not tanks of any description, yes the Germans had a hard time building bridges to carry tanks but they built timber bridges to carry 56 tone tanks, and if you wanted to invade Russia today you would still have the same problems in many areas but you would have tanks that are now 70 tonnes

Patton blah blah blah again, Sherman shed track ends at an alarming rate apart from spent cartages shed Sherman track ends litter Europe due to there frequent failure and even the mighty Sherman had to have frequent maintenance stops to replace track ends or tighten the bolts on the track ends on top of all the other maintenance issues there are plenty of pictures and film showing the crew with spanners at work on the tracks, top speed would clearly be out of the question especially with vastly overstretched supply lines.

Allied air power did destroy vast amounts of rail but the Germans did move there tanks over considerable distances much to the annoyance of Montgomery

Tiger II was not the spearhead of the German advance in the Ardennes offensive they where used in small numbers in 2 abteilungs, Pieper had part of SS501 attached to him he put them at the rear of the advance this is well documented unless of cause you use Hollywood as reference, and the biggest problem the Germans had was lack of fuel which had to be captured on the first day of the offensive which it was, the offensive was domed to failure due the fuel shortages and lack of man power, and if it wasn’t for the British and Canadians lending a hand again the US cost would have been even higher than it was.

Patton also knew that a tank full of holes when it got to the front was more useless than one that didn’t make it but then he never crewed a Sherman so didn’t have the worry.

The US has only ever returned 1 Tiger II to Germany which was one of 2-3 captured in tact the rest either destroyed by the crews or disabled then destroyed by the crews, the US only ever fought a small Number of Tigers far smaller than the English and Canadians fought in Normandy, the largest operator of German tanks again was not the US but the French who used several Tiger I and II along with Panther, Panzer IV and Stug III the Russians also used a number of captured Panthers, the French used Panther up to the 1970’s and helped in the development of the AMX series they also supplied 75mm guns to Israel for the M50 Isherman which was a direct copy of the Panther 75mm gun , there are no known pictures of German tanks in US use and one Panther “KooKoo†used by the English, the English also built around 30-40 Panther and Jagdpanther for testing purposes after the war Bovington has one of each and there are several other British built Panthers in museums.

Germans only had problems starting there tanks when it was -20 or worse other than that they where no worse than any other tank
Old 02-23-2010, 08:12 PM
  #60  
BIGMIG
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amboy, WA
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Well I read this whole thread...........Looked like it stayed pretty much on topic to me.Most posting their thoughts and why they picked a specific tank.A few of the posts leave me thinking a member or two posting here seems to be dissapointed in the final outcome of WWII..????? I'm glad to see some feel that without the help of Canada and England,The united States would have lost the war and we would have most likely been invaded by the Germans.[:-][:-][:-][:-] Going to have to reread my history books I guess.........[:-][:-][:-][:-]

BIGMIG
Old 02-23-2010, 08:43 PM
  #61  
YHR
Senior Member
 
YHR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie, AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Trust me German Tanker, trying to control a forum thread is like herding cats.
Old 02-23-2010, 09:56 PM
  #62  
pattoncommander
Senior Member
 
pattoncommander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 5,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

What a drag! A mechanics nightmare trying to keep 30 cylinders and 5 distributors synchronized. Only one Shertman used these star cluster 5 Chrysler truck engines. Bovington has one on display and was running when I was there. [:'(] Is this the Bovington engine...background looks like it.[:-]
Old 02-24-2010, 03:41 AM
  #63  
rivetcounter
 
rivetcounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: God’s own country “England”
Posts: 1,914
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: BIGMIG

I'm glad to see some feel that without the help of Canada and England,The united States would have lost the war and we would have most likely been invaded by the Germans.[:-][:-][:-][:-] Going to have to reread my history books I guess.........[:-][:-][:-][:-]

BIGMIG

I think you had better re read your history books, Germany had lost the war in 1943 it was inevitable that the Russians would eventually win just like they did and on there own.

As for the Germans invading the US you made that one up and I think the Canadians would have come to the rescue
Old 02-24-2010, 05:10 AM
  #64  
BIGMIG
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amboy, WA
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

ORIGINAL: rivetcounter


ORIGINAL: BIGMIG

I'm glad to see some feel that without the help of Canada and England,The united States would have lost the war and we would have most likely been invaded by the Germans.[:-][:-][:-][:-] Going to have to reread my history books I guess.........[:-][:-][:-][:-]

BIGMIG

I think you had better re read your history books, Germany had lost the war in 1943 it was inevitable that the Russians would eventually win just like they did and on there own.

As for the Germans invading the US you made that one up and I think the Canadians would have come to the rescue

Well I'm no expert on WWII but if the war was allready over in 1943 somebody really screwed up because we sure ended up with a lot of dead americans in Europe just from June -6-1942 till what they say was the end of the war (May-8-1945 V E day ).?????

BIGMIG

A little typing error here-Should be June -6-1944................Not 1942
Old 02-24-2010, 05:56 AM
  #65  
rivetcounter
 
rivetcounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: God’s own country “England”
Posts: 1,914
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: BIGMIG


ORIGINAL: rivetcounter


ORIGINAL: BIGMIG

I'm glad to see some feel that without the help of Canada and England,The united States would have lost the war and we would have most likely been invaded by the Germans.[:-][:-][:-][:-] Going to have to reread my history books I guess.........[:-][:-][:-][:-]

BIGMIG

I think you had better re read your history books, Germany had lost the war in 1943 it was inevitable that the Russians would eventually win just like they did and on there own.

As for the Germans invading the US you made that one up and I think the Canadians would have come to the rescue

Well I'm no expert on WWII but if the war was allready over in 1943 somebody really screwed up because we sure ended up with a lot of dead americans in Europe just from June -6-1942 till what they say was the end of the war (May-8-1945 V E day ).?????

BIGMIG



6th June 1942 Americans in Europe on this date is news to me.

The term used was “lost†not “over†the two words mean different things; the point at which a war is lost is different to the point at which it is won, what do you think “Operation Valkyrie†was about apart from the removal of Hitler

Now this is going to come as a shock to you but the battle in Normandy also had English, Canadian, Polish and Free French troops involved, what you are saying is either the above mentioned troops where either not involved or had no casualties you in an arrogant manner ignore the loss on all sides.

Old 02-24-2010, 07:13 AM
  #66  
BIGMIG
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amboy, WA
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Well a little typing error on my date on the landings on D-day.Would be more than happy to disscuss a few things about WWII in the war room if you would like to post such a topic.Think we could find a lot to talk about on this subject.But I'll end this in this section with the following taken from wikipedia...........something to think about.....the cost of lives in WWII estimated between
50 and 70 million people and of these the military dead is estimated at 22 to 25 million along with another 5 million prisoners of war dead.So I don't think I'll address all the dead from all the other countries in a rather general statement which it was intended to be.But thank you for pointing out there was other people involved on the June -6 -1944 landings as I was unaware of this fact.


BIGMIG
Old 02-24-2010, 11:08 AM
  #67  
pcomm1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Hi rivetcounter, gee I am sorry you feel that way. But of course your wrong, again.

Relative to the Sherman, even the the Axis T/Cs stated they didn't have enough tanks to put enough shells into all those pesky victorious Allied Shermans nor the force of arms to stop Patton's deadly blitzkrieg across Europe. Plus a tank that won't run isn't any use in combat.

You sound like bitter sour grapes my friend.


I quote my history source material and the facts are facts, so the content I offer is way distant from, perhaps your twisted anti-USA propaganda, pro-Axis account of WWII tanks.

And you all miss the point as usual: comparing a 2nd generation tanks tech performance (Sherman) to a 3rd generation tanks tech performance is not valid or meaningful but was typical of WWII Nat-Zee style photo propaganda during WWII (the 1st gen Grant vs a 2nd gen Panther climbing a grade photo).

Again, I submit for consideration that looking at the overall combat performance of any tank from the day it entered action to the final net result, victory or defeat, is probably a better way to judge the best and worst overall WWII tanks, and quite clearly that upsets you and hits a nerve. Sorry rivetcounter and I don't mean you any intellectual harm. Really. Plus no one is baiting anyone, we are just staying with the historical facts and restating the events as recorded by some very good military historians.

You might want to visit the Aberdeen Proving Ground or the Military Tech Foundation in California to get a handle and glimpse at the amazing number of German tanks brought to the USA during and after WWII for tech evaluation, which was my humorous point; the USA ended up with more running Nat-Zee tanks by the end of 1945 – 1946 than Germany had during that time period.

By the way the US Army put one of their favorite & well respected WWII German Army Panzer Divisions in Sherman Tanks in late 1945 and pointed them towards the East. I will leave it to you to ID the division, but that veteran division liked those Shermans! Take care.

So what is this Sherman?

PS revisionist history rivetcounter is not fact:

The facts are the "The premier striking power of the German Army at the Battle of the Bulge attack came from the concentration of new production Tiger II heavy tanks, which at the time were the most powerful in the world and able to defeat any American or British vehicle on the battlefield, though their actual achievements did not live up to their billing." Read the book "Battle of the Bulge – Then and Now" for a accurate, factual, report on how poorly the KT performed.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Jh16566.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	51.9 KB
ID:	1385805  
Old 02-24-2010, 02:35 PM
  #68  
earlwb
 
earlwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Grapevine, TX
Posts: 5,993
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

I do have to say that the Russian T35 multi-turret tanks do rank up there are being the worst, but they do look most impressive and scary. I'd hate to be the ground troops having to face one. Overweight, underpowered and not enough armor. I think it was originally intended as a infantry support tank.


Old 02-24-2010, 06:09 PM
  #69  
Darksheer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: pcomm1

Worst WWII German combat tanks: Elephant and King Tiger.

Short discussion; go here to learn why in military fight terms, the Sherman wasn't as bad as you guys think it was: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...k-history3.htm

Considering the extreme tank casualties the Soviets took at the hands of German tank forces, by comparison, I am really amazed at how well the USA Sherman did in the ETO, on paper, the German tanks should have killed every Sherman sent to the ETO, 5 times over. They didn't.

Though certainly it would have been way better to send 48,000 Pershings to the ETO on D-Day, but really now, when in all of history has the US Army ever done anything correctly the first time out? And as good as the German tank forces were in a defensive role in WWII, they probably would have knocked out 20 or 30 percent of the Pershings in France and we would be having a what if discussion about how bad the ETO Pershing was. LOL.

Whether the Sherman was a piece of tank design crap or not is probably not that important when the total picture is viewed. Fighting in the WWII ETO (narrow European roads and bridges); the Sherman tank; fielded in great numbers; tactically operated skillfully; by a free; citizen army: that simple to fix and fight Sherman tank turned out to be just good enough and ran long enough to redefine the word blitzkrieg as it raced across France and Germany and contributed to laying waste to the highly skilled, professional German Army and their political leadership.


Winning needs no further explanation.





wrong again pcomm1 troll
america had a conscript army in WW2 perhaps you need to go watch more mel gibson movies
I dont know where your getting this free citizen army from
must be a revisionist history thing you keep refering too

like where america won WW2 all by itself but did have a few brits along to give directions

your getting better please keep up the effort

troll rating 5/10
blatant insults and comments to cause drama 4/10
attempt to spin 4/10

Old 02-24-2010, 06:21 PM
  #70  
Panther G
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florence, NJ
Posts: 5,531
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Over 130,000 yes thats thousands of AMERICANS ENLISTED less than ONE WEEK after the attack by the Treacherous Japanese. so to say that the American army was a conscript army would be incorrect. There where also many American pilots flying for the RAF well be 1942. And many flying in China against the Japanese.
Old 02-24-2010, 07:12 PM
  #71  
stcla1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: catawba, SC
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

i hate to jump off topic here,but i've noticed that most ww2 tanks had front driven sprockets with engines in the rear.it seems to me (i could be wrong) that shortly after most were rear driven sprockets.why the change?is that all that technology allowed at the time(refering to ww2 tank design)?why didn't they make them rear driven from the start?
Old 02-24-2010, 07:30 PM
  #72  
pcomm1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

Hi Darksheer trollz,

Why not go away and do something fun and watch "Inglourious Basterds".

Or better yet, go back over this thread and collect all the listed military history reference sources.

And if your really into WWII tanks that fought in the ETO, the books and web sites mentioned will make for some pretty good reading and will help you discover the factual truth, rather than you just going on and on with your same old incorrect opinions and prejudices.

And earlwb, I agree the 1930's designed first generation tanks that fought in WWII were pretty strange and I really do not know to much about the Russian T35 multi-turret tank. It looks like it would make a great rc model though.

Enjoy, John
Old 02-24-2010, 08:10 PM
  #73  
Darksheer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: pcomm1

Hi Darksheer trollz,

Why not go away and do something fun and watch ''Inglourious Basterds''.

Or better yet, go back over this thread and collect all the listed military history reference sources.

And if your really into WWII tanks that fought in the ETO, the books and web sites mentioned will make for some pretty good reading and will help you discover the factual truth, rather than you just going on and on with your same old incorrect opinions and prejudices.

And earlwb, I agree the 1930's designed first generation tanks that fought in WWII were pretty strange and I really do not know to much about the Russian T35 multi-turret tank. It looks like it would make a great rc model though.

Enjoy, John
sorry watching you make a fool of yourself is amusing to say the least
and while your facts seem right pcomm1 your interpretation of them is incorrect again

and panther you are very correct a huge number did enlist but there was also conscription which invalidates pcomms1 statement making him incorrect again
but i am in no way attempting to belittle the fact that many americans did step up once america was attacked

but his statements about a "free citizen army" are incorrect and that is all I am pointing out
Old 02-24-2010, 09:51 PM
  #74  
germantanker
Member
Thread Starter
 
germantanker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Steinbach, MB, CANADA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII


ORIGINAL: pcomm1

The German 2nd and 3rd generation WWII tanks are interesting, my favorite models to build and paved the way for much later modern tank design, for sure. But in 1944 and 1945 those tanks were dangerous duds.

OK, clearly the 3rd generation of German tanks on paper clearly out classed the USA 2nd generation Sherman tank. But in the field the German 3rd generation tanks did not perform to expectations.

The Panthers failed in the 3rd Invasion of Russia, they couldn't even drive to the fight without breaking down. The King Tigers couldn't get through the Ardennes without similar problems.

Patton was right to stick with the Sherman, big Sherman tank numbers, Sherman reliability, beat the new German (more modern for the era); and better high quality industrial design tank concepts on the WWII battlefield.

During WWII, unit movements, logistics and maintenance proved to be the most important necessary factors to achieve armored victory.

Wolfgang Schneider in both Tiger in Combat I and Panzer Tactics repeatedly writes (with some defiant pride, I might add, LOL) about the significant losses of both type of Tigers do to mechanical breakdowns, their inability to travel many road types or terrain; the issues getting across bridges and the painful labor – time required to get any Tiger aboard a railroad flat car for movement to the next fight.

Remember, General Patton had his tankers just drive at top tank speed over European roads & terrain to get to the next fight!

And of course, Allied air power destroyed much of the German rail system making the movement of any German tank even more difficult.

The Germans might be living in Antwerp today if they could have driven all their spearhead King Tigers over the narrow country roads, terrain and bridges during the Battle of the Bulge, December 1944.

But they couldn't and didn't. And that was the key bitter German Military lesson learned and cost Germany virtually all its remaining armored forces necessary to defend Germany's European Front.

A tank that you can't get to the fight is worthless and Patton seemed to know that.

Heck, the US Army was still returning captured King Tigers to the German Army as late as 1956. By wars end the US Army was no doubt the largest operator of German 3rd generation tanks.

Though they had a very difficult time getting them started.



Pcomm1 just for your education, not every German was a "Nah-zee" during WWII, I see you like to bandy that word pretty loosely.

The picture that says it best for me is the King Tiger parked beside a destroyed Sherman, yes it was captured but guess which crew got to walk away
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ki20642.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	201.8 KB
ID:	1386182   Click image for larger version

Name:	Av68394.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	101.5 KB
ID:	1386183   Click image for larger version

Name:	Wb75710.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	127.3 KB
ID:	1386184   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mf96900.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	33.4 KB
ID:	1386185  
Old 02-24-2010, 10:16 PM
  #75  
pcomm1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Worst tank of WWII

"but his statements about a ''free citizen army'' are incorrect and that is all I am pointing out"... What you don't know is completely amazing and here is a very good read to help you out of your pickle Darksheer:

Citizen Soldiers: The U. S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to…by Stephen E. Ambrose

germantanker, more photos, any countries tank is a worst place to be in if your enemy is scoring hits on you.

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ec88131.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	77.2 KB
ID:	1386211   Click image for larger version

Name:	Uq49610.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	85.7 KB
ID:	1386212   Click image for larger version

Name:	Pu51994.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	76.1 KB
ID:	1386213   Click image for larger version

Name:	Fz74388.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	124.3 KB
ID:	1386214   Click image for larger version

Name:	Cn78563.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	126.5 KB
ID:	1386215   Click image for larger version

Name:	Yo91653.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	72.7 KB
ID:	1386216  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.