User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 8:47:52 AM EDT
[#1]
I have to go with the Tiger II. Bad .. bad machine. Wish I could get one...heheh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 12:27:59 PM EDT
[#2]
You CAN get one - slightly scaled down, however.
A fellow in England is making scaled down working models complete with a firing cannon. John (saw it in Military History magazine) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 4:18:42 PM EDT
[#3]
I am reading a book on Germany's final stand in the East, and it claims German Tigers scored about a 10 to one kill ratio. It seems that up to the very end, the Soviets couldn't match the Germans at a tactical level, and relied on mass. And they had the advantage of mass everywhere . . .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 5:01:02 PM EDT
[#4]
I think the T-34 was the most revolutionary and longest lasting. (They are still in service in Yugoslavia & Africa)
My favourite design is the Panther. It was designed to be an improvement on the T-34. Looks menacing, yet nimble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 6:29:45 PM EDT
[#5]
M1A1 Abrams
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 6:49:51 PM EDT
[#6]
7 is DEAD on taget with that !!!!!!
I was in units that had 48's, and also 60's. BUT before I finally became a free man, my unit at Ft Hood got the M1.... I saw the first hand the ULTIMATE Armor.... Soviet's and Nazi's can take one HE up the turret....And I know the machine that can do it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 7:00:35 PM EDT
[#7]
The Germans should have just copied the T34, easy to make and maintain, unlike the Tigers and Panthers, much more complicated, expensive and time consuming to produce.
I read that the silver bullet round (fin stablized, discarding sabot, depleted uranium) in the Gulf War in one instance penetrated a T72, went all the out the rear to penetrate and destroy another one behind it (Tom Clancy's Armored Cav), and when one of the Abrams got stuck and couldn't be towed away, they decided to destroy it by firing tank rounds in it, even the M1A1's sabot round had trouble penetrating the Chobam armor until they fired at a favorable angle, even then the Halon system put it out quickly. It was examined later, and found to be still operable. Take a look at the MBT 70, the joint U.S and West German effort that was abandoned [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/older.htm[/url] For modern main battle tanks, this is a good site: [url]www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html[/url] , has small arms, wheeled vehicles, and many other weapons/equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 7:49:15 PM EDT
[#8]
I'll take the Sherman and high tail it for cover like the rank coward I am. Nothing like mechanical semi-reliability.
Besides, TigerII, T-34s and Abrams never earned the sobriquet "Ronson," or "One-shot lighter." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 8:22:50 PM EDT
[#9]
duffypoo - there was a near exact duplicate of the t34 that was proposed, a design by daimler/ mercedes, but the MAN design got the nod as the high command (hitler in particular) could not fathom the thought of copying something built by the russians. the MAN design became the pzkfw V of panther.
the t34 to me is like the amc gremlin - you hate to look at them as they are so crude - but you know that little bastard with run forever. i too have a strong liking for the m1a1 - probably the best tank ever made. the top secret chubam (sp?) armour from what i understand is a composite laminate of relatively simple materials originally from the u.k. somekind of 'plastic' made from soyabeans (?) invented by that guy from england. steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 10:13:00 PM EDT
[#10]
the germans never made anything simple. and never have! its an atitude thing. knd of like our pioneer attitude. everthing must have close tollerances and must fit and work perfectly. even their aircraft were over enginered. the soviets were the other extreem. every thing was dirt simple. we are somewere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 10:23:19 PM EDT
[#11]
And another thing:
First I should say that I am a big fan of Tigers. NOTHING looks cooler than German Tanks. But as far as WWII Tigers and Panthers and such, were they all that great as the sum of reliability, mobility and ease of production. Tiger II??? As in King Tiger???? Good God, look at the thing. It's a moving dugout. What was the topend speed of the thing? Around 8 mph? How many of these could the Germans produce compared to a cast hull design like the Sherman? How could they protect them against allied air superiority? The Tiger II seems kind of like moving a house around. Too bad the Germans didn't get a chance to build that "land monitor." We could have gone after it with a B-17 Aphrodite conversion or something. I think that the Tiger was overrated, although I wouldn't want it shooting at me. I'll take manouverability and flexibility (ie capacity for infantry support) over some behemoth that gets strafed after breaking down in a ditch. Let's face it, we outproduced the shit out the Germans even though they did kick our ass on a one-to-one basis. And I seem to recall reports that the Panthers were often broken down by the side of the road. "I fired three shots at the Tiger hoping to force it back. After the third shot, the German commander popped out of the hatch, produced a handkerchief, and smilingly wiped at the scratches in the armor. I would give my left arm to find that guy today." From "Patton's War." In the modern situation, aren't tanks rather large and easily found targets? I would be interested to see how tanks would do in a situation where air superiority was not guaranteed. I doubt any armor does very well against Mavericks.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 11:08:26 PM EDT
[#12]
steve I'm a history and armor buff [:)] The Germans just couldn't bring themselves to copy something from a population they considered sub-human. Toward the end of the war armor and firepower kept getting more emphasis, post war era saw the German Leopard 1 and the French AMX-30 that totally unlearned the lessons in WWII, that speed is NOT the substitude for protection. That it took four or five Shermans to knock out a single Panther or Tiger in France was deeply demoralizing to the brave tank crews that manned the M4s. Remember the WWI battle cruisers fiasco? They were armed like a battleship but were fast, sacrificing their protection in order to achieve speed, they were unfortunately used as battleships and traded shots with battleships and other battlecruisers where their thin armor belt failed them. Also recall in the Gulf War, Bradleys that were supposed to be scouts also traded shots with main battle tanks, and suffered accordingly. The Israelies believe in "tactical mobility", meaning it's how fast you dare to move when under fire. If your tank can't withstand the HE and penetrator rounds from enemy tanks and infantry antitank weapons, how fast and far would you dare to move? I think the Abrams and Leopard II were the first MBTs that had an almost perfect mixture of protection, firepower and speed, in that order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2001 11:53:17 PM EDT
[#13]
As far as modern tanks, that's easy, M1 Abrams. One bad ass looking Tank. Tanks should look bad ass,besides the rumbling of the engine and tracks, evil looking tends to be very disconcerting to enemy infantry.
As far as WW2, the Germans were way ahead on design for most of the war. The Russkies finally came up with one(T-34 I believe) with armor that could deflect incoming rounds sometimes(angles on the turret),but the Germans still killed them something like 10 to 1. The Panther is probably my favorite, to bad they rushed it into service before they got the bugs worked out, but by then they had no chance of winning the war. Once again I defer to the combat veterans interviewed on the History channel.They had a great show on WW2 armor in which they were interviewing US and German tank crewman veterans. Germany could never match the production of the soviets and didn't have a chance in hell of matching the US (one of the reasons they invaded Checkoslavakia, factories for arms). They had better guns and armor, but it doesn't matter if they are always breaking down and even if your killing allied tanks 10 to 1, it doesn't matter if they got a hundred more where they came from. A german vet said the great thing about the Sherman's were that they were very reliable(compared to thiers) and very quick and agile. They were'nt impressed by the soviet tanks, no radio's to talk to each other so they could not coordinate, they would just manuever and kill, couldn't keep up with the mass attack strategy though( too many russians, to few Germans). Somebody here(not this post though) said the movie "Kelly's Hero's" sucked, but I loved it because they used authentic WW2 Armor(Shermans and Tigers,very rare to see real German Armor). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 10:16:15 AM EDT
[#14]
I don't think the Tiger I in Kelly's Heros is a real one, just look at the road wheels, Panthers, Tiger I and II all had these interleaving wheels that got stuck in mud easily.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 10:40:19 AM EDT
[#15]
How about M(?) Pershing of verylate WWII. Saw b+w film footage shot by a very brave cameraman of one on one duel between Pershing and Panther in rubble of German city. Panther lost. Obviously, not the best tank of all time but film was awesome stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 11:42:17 AM EDT
[#16]
IIRC, the Tiger was not clearly superior to the big KV and JS tanks. Of course, the Germans had much better doctrine and training so they still managed to do well against the heavy Russian tanks.
It is not really fair to compare the Tiger heavy tank to MBTs like the M4/T-34/PzMkIV. King Tigers were twice the size of those tanks. The Panther was a little better than the T-34, but the T-34/85 was about as good, and the Russian tanks were much easier to produce and maintain. Again, the German doctrine and training gave them the edge. But I just do not think any of those tanks were as superior to their contemporaries as the M1A1 is to its competition. It is almost revolutionary. I wonder how the newer British and German tanks would compare to the M1A1? The German tank has the same gun. The M26 Pershing was a good heavy tank, on par with the Tiger, but only a few saw combat. That was due to faulty US doctrine, which ephasized mobility over firepower and armor. Patton had a lot to do with that mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 6:00:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Challenger I and II, Leopard II and Abrams all use Chobham armor, I know the Abrams and Leopard II have the same smoothbore 120mm gun, the new Lepard II has a different gun. Challengers are not as reliable as Abrams, and they both saw combat in the Gulf War, don't think Leopard II was ever used in a battle yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 8:10:19 PM EDT
[#18]
yeah - i remember the big hubbub when the m60a1's 105mm gun was being tested against the 120mm german smooth bore. if i remember correctly the first prototype abrams used the 105mm. for some reason i thought there already was a leopard IV? or am i mistaken. anyone know of any good websites for the leopard tank (again my german bias is showing!)
as far as WW2 armour - had they been produeced in sufficient numbers - i would wager that the jadgpanther tank destroyer would of held a stonger place in history. the us built m36(?) was the best match gun wise (90mm?) to the germans - but as duffypoo pointed out - you need the armour to stay in the fight. i can't even imagine the pucker factor of being in one of the us tank destroyers when it came accross a konigstiger, sent one off, only to have the ktiger traverse it's turret!!!! yikes!! steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 10:19:45 PM EDT
[#19]
the 105mm gun is a British weapon, most Western armies adopted it for their MBTs. The German Reinmetal 120mm is a smooth bore that limits the spinning of the sabot rounds.
The tank destroyer idea may have been good in WWII, but in today's manuever battlefield, its limited gun traverse probably wouldn't make very good offensive weapons. The new Leopard II sure looks different than the original slab sided Leopard II, the turret has sloped wedges, kind of looks like the Sheridan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 11:02:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The M26 Pershing was a good heavy tank, on par with the Tiger, but only a few saw combat. That was due to faulty US doctrine, which ephasized mobility over firepower and armor. Patton had a lot to do with that mistake. From what I understood, this was due to transport issues. Transport accross the atlatic, that is. On Panther vs T-34/85, from an armor/gun perspective, the Panther has a slight edge (from the front, the most common area for hits). The Panther's superior optics would give it more of an edge, and of course training and tactics were excellent. Numbers, of course, favored the T-34. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2001 11:35:28 PM EDT
[#21]
The thing with the thin armor of the AMX-30 and the Leopard 1 was that the desstructive power of tank guns made heavy armor pointless. Speed and acceleration was what counted. They were designed to stop non-tank guns on the frontal arc - 20 mm?
The tiger 2 had its share of problems. Germany was desparatly short of alloying elements needed for armor toughness and ductility, and non-piercing shots often shattered the armor. Compare pictures of shot up German and American armor. The mechanical reliability of the Tiger 2 was abysimal. In one combat move in the east, about 40 Tigers marched to the battle area past the railhead. About 37 broke down by the side of the road, adn the 3 that made it were ambushedby a lone T34/85 firing that "silver bullet" ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2001 12:28:52 AM EDT
[#22]
you're right pogo, by the time AMX30 and Leopard I came out, rolled homogenized armor would have to be so thick, even favorably angled to give more than double its thickness, it wouldn't have been practical. Their front glacis is no more than 75mm, the barbett a little more. The Soviet's T62 and T72 have something like 200mm, when sloped it's more than 500mm, a sabot fired from a 105mm gun had no problem penetrating it as demonstrated by the Israelies way back then and the coalition in the Gulf War. I don't think discarding sabot rounds hit the battlefield till either the end or after WWII, the AP rounds were solid shots. Germans had a tank gun that's tapered toward the end of the barrel to squeeze more velocity out of the round, but the barrel would get eroded so quickly it wasn't used. In the Gulf War the Abrams always outshot the T72 and T62, having thermal sights and rounds that could engage and destroy targets at 4000 meters, it's the blind fighting the sighted for the Iraqis. Even if an Iraqui sabot round had hit it couldn't have penetrated the Abram's armor, made of depleted uranium, kevlar, ceramics and hardened steel, just about the only thing that could defeat the Abram's armor is the new TOW that has two warheads, or a top attack AT missle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2001 12:54:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Oh my, this is heaven for us tank heads:
[url]www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2001 10:34:51 AM EDT
[#24]
duffypoo - you da' man! great website! i've promptly book marked it for further late night pajama theatre!
one point on the m60a3 - i thought this was the varient with the sheridan's 155mm(?) gun, the site shows it with what looks like the british 105mm - then which model does the marines use with the reactive armour? and are the marines going to or do they already have the m1a1? interesting point by pogo on the alloying metals. comparing the damage to tiger and panther hulls vs. ktiger - you are right, the ktiger hulls appear to me more shattered than 'gouged'. the early tiger hulls seemed to be more 'maliable' to the soviet guns, or it could be the soviet rounds became more powerful as the war dragged on. the ktigers were woefully underpowered and i can only imagine what the stresses were on the drivetrain. the tigers aufs 'a' had to gain speed to power up small hills, lord knows what a white knuckler it must of been in a aufs b. steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2001 12:29:03 PM EDT
[#25]
hehe, glad you like the web site [:)] The Sheridan's gun/missle system never worked well, and its aluminum armor couldn't even stop a heavy machine gun round, the M60 variant fared just about as well. The M60s were probably given to national guards units, sold to foreign countries, and used for training. The Israelis suffered heavy losses in their M60s, it has a high profile and its armor, as pogo pointed out, even if doubled, still wouldn't be able to cope with infrantry AT missles and tank AP rounds. That generation of tanks, before the advent of MBTs, were just evolutions of their WWII predesesors, with incremental improvement on mobility and firepower, their armor would never be able to sustain them. When opposing forces met in the battlefield, it'd be training that saw them through, unlike the Gulf War where technology played an equal part (thermal and night vision sights used in the day as well as night because the oil fire smoke blotted out the sun, long range guns, etc)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 6:14:47 AM EDT
[#26]
i know the sherridan (sp?) saw service in vietnam - and the aluminum armour fiasco (also in the m113's)with heat rounds from prg7's. though i did hear the israeli's solved with is internal kevlar lining in the m113.
i imagine the m60a3's were dropped with the advent of the abrams. good point on the m48-m60 being a ww2 progression, never really thought of it that way. now here is a brain teaser i never knew the answer to. the m48 was called the patton - was the m60a1 ever given a name? or was it still the patton? steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 7:08:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Actually my favorite was the Panzer IV. It had a very interesting progression as the war went on, becoming better armed and armored.
If I could buy one, it would be the Stuart. Totally outclassed during WWII, but it would be fun to use four wheeling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 7:43:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Wasn't the shortlived M60A2 the one that mounted the Shillelagh gun/missile system?
For detailed information on WWII German armor, look for these books: Germany's Panther Tank, by Tom L. Jentz, published by Schiffer Military History. Also by the same author: Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I&II Combat Tactics Germany's Tiger Tanks: V.K.45.02 to Tiger II While Germany was beaten by superior numbers, the Allies sure traded a lot of blood for it. "Tiger I&II: Combat Tactics" has a section titled "American Tanker's Opinions of Tigers." It's interesting reading. I think the mocked up Tigers used in Kelly's Heroes are the same ones used in Saving Private Ryan. From the upper hull and upward, they look damn authentic. Even the exhaust manifolds and covers looked good. It's only when you see the idler wheel at the front that you realize it's fake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 10:39:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Steve, I believe the M60 is still called a Patton. I don't think any RHA plate that's put on a tank can withstand a modern HEAT round, let alone a two-warhead AT missle, it'd have to be so think the tank would be a pillbox because it couldn't move. The problem with the aluminum armor is not that it couldn't protect against a HEAT round, since even the much thicker steel armor had problem with it, but it couldn't even stop a 12.7mm machine gun round. The Israelis put this honey comb lining/shell outside of the M113 to stop (wedge) a heavy machine gun round before it gets to its aluminum armor, it also acts like a spaced armor and gives some standoff distance if a HEAT or AT missle hits. It's not a blazer, which is a passive reactive armor, it's just a shell.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 10:50:13 AM EDT
[#30]
ss109- i too have a soft spot for the pzkfw IV also, the aufs 'j' with the 'schurzen' and 'ostketten'(? please forgive my poor german) looked pretty good. the outclassed award for me goes to the maitlda! (which fell like flies against the early IV's in 'nord afrika').
wadman - i think you are right on the m60a3 /a2. as far as the books i already have tigers in combat vol I and II and the panther book. there is apparently a new one out specifically on the action record of schwere pzabtl 503 that looks interesting and most likely the next purchase. the 'tiger fiebel' is also an interesting look on how to operate one of the beasts! when i 1st saw the promos for private ryan i just about pooped in my pants when i thought i saw a real tiger on the go. only upon seeing the movie, the size and dimmensions were off and the rollers of a t34 (blasphemy!) could be seen. though kudos to spielberg for trying to get it so close anyway. steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 2:47:20 PM EDT
[#31]
The Matildas were heavily armored, but had a puny main gun, the Germans used their 88 for the first time as an AT gun when the BEF had a local counter attack that smashed through everything the Germans put up to stop them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 3:54:42 PM EDT
[#32]
interesting historical note on the 88's. never knew that was the first time they were set in horizontal position. always thought it was a given that they ruled the land and air. was it rommel's idea or something that just happened? the matilda was small cramped, heavily armoured with a whimpy main gun. i just always thought they looked 'funny' with 'personality' - in a good way. i heard that many were captured and put into use with the DAK.
from what i have read and seen, the early campaign in nord afrika was really the last time chivalry was still intact in combat. the two opposing commanders were still gentlemen from another time. they would treat each others' wounded and would give quarter when able. there was that one story where rommel - stopped into a field hospital to see his men to give moral, and upon entering, realized it was a british unit! he still went thru saluting and shaking hands apparently and left, much to the stunned medical personnel and wounded 'tommies' inside! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 4:01:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By steve m: one point on the m60a3 - i thought this was the varient with the sheridan's 155mm(?) gun, the site shows it with what looks like the british 105mm - then which model does the marines use with the reactive armour? and are the marines going to or do they already have the m1a1? Actually the M60A2 was equipped with the 152mm gun/launcher system, and it was every bit as problematic on the '60 chassis as it was on the M551 Sheridan. The main gun had to be recalibrated every time to lauch the missle - not a good thing in a combat environment. Fortunately neither are still in the inventory, except perhaps for use as hard targets. [;)] The Marines are still using both the M60A1 [RISE] and the M60A3, which at the end of the day are pretty much the same thing, the M60A3 simply incorporating most of the [RISE] improvements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 4:05:02 PM EDT
[#34]
steve, I do believe it was Rommel's idea to depress the muzzle low enough to engage the Matildas in the French campaign. The allies had a numerical and qualitative advantage in armor and aircrafts, but their doctrine was different than the Germans who organized their armor in independent armored divisions, the allies primarily used tanks to support the infantry, especially the Brits, that's why there were cruiser tanks that were supposed to be light and fast but thinly armored, packing a small gun, and there were heavy tanks, slow but heavily armored, if they were fast the infrantry couldn't keep pace anyway, so went the armor doctrines at the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2001 10:57:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Ah, yes - the 88. Small units of 3-4 guns racked up huge scores of British armor.
What is interesting is that the Russians were convinced of the inferiority of their new tanks (KV-1 and T-34) vs. the Germans. After the fall of France, they were to some extent convinced that German tank armor could not be penetrated by existing tank guns. In 1940, there was considerable effort to feild a high velocity 107 mm tank gun that could stand a chance against the Germans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2001 11:39:46 AM EDT
[#36]
yep yep, the Germans had a real hard time dealing with tht T34/75 and Kievs, their 35mm and 50mm AT guns, towed or mounted on Panzer III and IV couldn't penetrate their frontal armor, the rounds just bounced off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2001 5:09:04 PM EDT
[#37]
duffypoo- interesting light on the british tactics and influence of tank design. very english! depressing the 88's would seem like an idea a 'rebel' like rommel would do with or without high commands concent.
does anyone know of the highest scoring 88 crew. how many and where they served? they only stats i have are of the tiger schw/pzabtl units in the 'ostfront'. the percived inferiority of the soviets own t34/kv1 would go hand in hand with the lack of radios (!) and discipline. also goes with the soviet method of just throwing men and material at the enemy, regardless of casualties. i think the soviets only started to succeed when stalin relinquished control of the troops and at the same time supplies or re-supply to the forward units stopped. i read of one ostfront panzer veteren who spoke of the only reason they lost was they ran out of everything! all supplies were apparently being diverted south. steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2001 8:51:38 PM EDT
[#38]
steve, the Germans weren't unconventional, they just applied logic and their technology where it counted, instead of wasting it on old and useless theories. Rommel said the same of the green U.S. troops after Kasserine: "What was really amazing was the speed with which the Americans adapted themselves to modern warfare. They were assisted in this by their tremendous practical and material sense and by the lack of all understanding for traditions and useless theories." Horwizters have been used against tanks when batteries were overrun, but their high explosive shells usually didn't do too much to well armored tanks, the 88, being a high velocity, flat shooting AA weapon was better suited.
Michael Wittman was probably the most famous German tank "ace", his Tiger I and five others,all that was left of his company, destroyed an entire regiment travelling on a road near Villiers-Bocage, I don't know the numbers of tanks he destroyed until his demise around Caen (a Hawker rocket hit the engine deck of his Tiger I and killed the crew, its turret flew up in the air, it was not ambushed by Allied armor), probably in the 200+ range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2001 9:42:40 PM EDT
[#39]
M48
Beautiful....... [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m48.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 8:55:29 AM EDT
[#40]
yes the m48 does have the retro look going for it, and i know it saw service in vietnam - does anyone know why the m60a1 did not?
i just noticed - we have done it lads! the largest post in 'history' in all of 'history section!' i am sure it will be beat one day. danke schon! steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 12:08:21 PM EDT
[#41]
M48 vs. Tiger II, I think Tiger II would more than hold its own...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 4:57:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Duff,
At the end of WWII, the Swedes persuaded the French to transfer an intact Tiger II for testing. The Swedes wound up developing the S-tank. Lessee, now. The French went with the wimpy AMX 30, ball bearing stabilized round and all. Even though they had access to perfectly good Tiger IIs. The Russians dragged back all manner of German crap at the end of the war, and used a lot of German technology in their jets such as the Mig 15. They loved to steal technology, as they so readily proved in copying our B-29 which they turned into the Tu4 Bull. The Russians had Tiger IIs at Kubinka. They in no manner decided to copy the Tiger II Enter the Americans. We dragged a Tiger II back to Aberdeen. We wound up with the M-48, which is admittedly not cool looking. OK, as of this tally the vaunted Tiger II is 0/4 In fact, WHAT POST WAR NATION ADOPTED THE TIGER II??????? Even the Israelis who used all manner of junk like overtorqued Jumo-211 powered Me109s did not rush out to get Tiger IIs. Perhaps the Tiger II is more deficient than one might guess. Perhaps?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 6:11:26 PM EDT
[#43]
ustulina-
very good point on the non-adoption of ktiger technologies by the allied nations. i think the main reason was the fruition of devestating air delivered and hand carried AT weapons made the battle use of a heavy tank expensive and obsolite. the ktiger really was the last of it's kind in terms of build. also the technologies needed to make such a concept of a invincible heavy tank (engines, armour, etc) were not available at the time. NOW we have the abrams which is everything the ktiger could of been had the technologies been present. so we do now have modern ktigers - abrams, challenger, and leopard 2-'S' (thanks duff) if there were a pitch battle between the m48 and a ktiger? if the ammo used by both were the same - the edge would go to type of terrain and how seasoned the crews were. it would be really really close. if it were open plain like in the ukraine - i'd go for the ktiger. marshy swamp or hilly and up close the m48 would have the edge..... steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 6:39:01 PM EDT
[#44]
In my opinion, though the M48 was much newer, it didn't represent the armor/firepower milestone the Tiger I and II did. True that nobody adopted Tiger II, for all its prowess it was expensive to make and had poor mobility because of its weight/engine ratio, and it was designed for a war that didn't have guided missles and fin stablized, discarding sabots. Come to think of it, Tiger II wouldn't have problems facing the M60 either. The M60 can fire on the move, is faster, has modern fire controls, etc, but the solid shot AT round from the 88 can penetrate it just the same. Tiger I's 88 can penetrate 120mm of armor at 100 yards, 112mm at 500 yards, 102 at 1000 yards, Tiger II probably had better performance 88 and shells. The M48's thickest armor is no more than 120mm, it'd outshoot the Tiger II but itself would be vulnerable. Like steve said, the Tiger I and II were like the modern day Abrams, a few of them would be sufficient to deal with multiple M4s, T34s, KVs because of its armor/firepower superiority.
The S tank is nothing more than a tank destroyer, thinly armored with limited gun traverse, it must stop to fire its main gun unless it's dead ahead. The Russians would have little to learn from the Tigers, the KV1, KV2, the JS series up to the T52 and above till T80 and T90, were all conventionally armored,which is to say totally inadequate against modern (and old technology) AT rounds and missles, the armor was as thick and later, thicker than the Tiger II, but again these tanks were designed for a battlefield long gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 6:51:16 PM EDT
[#45]
1. Every combat system is a compromise. The King Tiger would have been relatively useless in a Blitzkrieg style offensive campaign. It is a defensive tank, unless your idea of offense is advancing a couple of miles per day. I think that as the war progressed, the Germans adopted weapons that were better suited to defensive engagements. Hence, the
2. I have never compared a Tiger II and M48 in field trials :) No idea how they'd compare, but considering that the armament seems similar, I'd take the increased mobility of the M48 2. From what little I know, the majority of tank destruction was not from tank on tank engagement. Stalin wasn't the best military genius, but he made a good point when he referred to artillery as the "King of weapons." 3. Any of you guys want to pit an Abrams against a Super Cobra lugging a Maverick? I think that you could make a strong case for MBTs being thoroughly obsolete. In an earlier post, I wondered how an Abrams would do against a Strix, Maverick, Hellfire, or any other type of weapon that can find the thin skin on a modern MBT. 45, 50, 70 mph, a tank ain't gonna outrun a functional anti-tank missile. A tank is a big target, and it is putting out a lot of signature. I think a modern MBTs life in a non-air secure environment is going to be measured in minutes. The weight of the Abrams system is *high.* this means gluttonous fuel consumption, a very limited number of bridges that can support the tank, and general transport problems. The military has made its share of mistakes in procurement, and I am keeping that in mind. Nevertheless, they are making a decision to go to a wheeled armored vehicle. This would indicate that they have concluded that MBTs have serious limitations. I think that modern MBTs are incredible machines. But all the wars in the future ain't gonna be like Iraq. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 6:55:41 PM EDT
[#46]
It's been a fun discussion. I agree with most of the stuff you guys have said, but I still dislike the Tiger II. It is Disney-like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2001 8:21:46 PM EDT
[#47]
here's another link [:)]
I never knew there was a M103, only 200 made and actual was in service, never in combat. [url]battletanks.com[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2001 12:53:04 PM EDT
[#48]
I have some doubts that Hellfire and the like would penetrate the frontal armor of the M1A1. In Iraq, the 125mm gun - which is no poodleshooter - of the T-72s could not penetrate the Arabrams frontal armor. The only losses were from rear hits. I have not heard of any ATGM losses of M1s in that war, and the Iraqis had plenty of BMPs.
Of course, only the army knows how vulnerable the M1A1 is to ATGM, and they are certainly not going to tell anyone. I think their interest in a wheeled vehicle is another manifestation of the US Army's fetish with mobility over firepower. That is in part why we ended up with M4s instead of M26s in WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2001 1:33:53 PM EDT
[#49]
hm, I don't know if the Abrams were ever hit by an AT missile, HEAT, or AP round in the Gulf War. I do know no Abrams were destroyed by enemy actions, a few Bradleys were. Abrams outshot the T72 and T62, the crew could see the rounds fall short, but like I said there was no report of a round actually hitting the Abrams. In my previous posts on this thread, even other Abrams had trouble destroying one that got stuck in the sand. The only thing that could penetrate its frontal armor is a Maverick and the new TOW2 that has two warheads in tandem. The newer Abrams have depleted uranium armor, in addition to the Chobham.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2001 1:43:42 PM EDT
[#50]
There were apparently at least 4 M1A1s from 1-37 Armd put out of action by enemy fire in the Gulf War.
See the last post of the following thread: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=20680[/url] I can't remember if it was from the book mentioned or another I read recently, but some M1A1s were hit in the front by T-72 rounds. The projectiles actually stuck in the Arabam's armor. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
