Jump to content


Top 5 German Tanks of World War II

German tank top5 russianbiaspls PanzerIIIstronk StuGlyfe box

  • Please log in to reply
954 replies to this topic

Noggmoritz #61 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostBydloKurwa, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:21, said:

Panzer IV was the probably one of the worst tanks the Germans fielded during the war. It was as slow and unreliable as the Tiger but without the gun or armor.

 

Source:

 

http://www.fprado.co...site/tiger1.htm

 

Scroll down to the table "Percentage Operational At The Front". Even tigers had higher availability rates than the Panzer IV.

But if we don't propagate the Tiger unreliability myth, we won't have a coping mechanism for our vastly inferior allied tanks. 



EnsignExpendable #62 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:15, said:

 

do you really need him to answer that? i thought it would be obvious.

 

I am taking a lesson from the book of a well known, but righfully unloved historical character.

 

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:24, said:

So after someone posts 75mm guns are adequate and fully responsible for knocking out Tigers (as if it's a common occurance) the burden of proof is on me to tell you a gun with 80mm of armor penetration is ineffective against Tiger Is and IIs? Makes sense. 

 

You made the claim that the majority of Tigers were lost to aircraft and breakdowns. It is on you to prove it. Cashdash claimed that the Sherman could penetrate a Tiger, and he has proven it. He does not have to prove anything else.

 



EnsignExpendable #63 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:26, said:

But if we don't propagate the Tiger unreliability myth, we won't have a coping mechanism for our vastly inferior allied tanks. 

 

Just because the PzIV was bad does not mean that the Tiger was good.



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #64 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 33897 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostBydloKurwa, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:21, said:

Scroll down to the table "Percentage Operational At The Front". Even tigers had higher availability rates than the Panzer IV.

 

In the Panzer IVs defense, I believe that is partially because the Tigers had dedicated maintenance units attached.



Daigensui #65 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 30705 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostBydloKurwa, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:21, said:

Panzer IV was the probably one of the worst tanks the Germans fielded during the war. It was as slow and unreliable as the Tiger but without the gun or armor.

 

Source:

 

http://www.fprado.co...site/tiger1.htm

 

Scroll down to the table "Percentage Operational At The Front". Even tigers had higher availability rates than the Panzer IV.

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 15:26, said:

But if we don't propagate the Tiger unreliability myth, we won't have a coping mechanism for our vastly inferior allied tanks. 

 

Apparently having a higher operational percentage most of the time in spite of the shortage of parts and the special treatment the Tigers received means Pz IV was less reliable.

 

Sometimes I have to wonder what kind of logical leaps you have to make to believe in such wrong assumptions.



balmung60 #66 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 5668 battles
  • 3,016
  • [401ST] 401ST
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:24, said:

So after someone posts 75mm guns are adequate and fully responsible for knocking out Tigers (as if it's a common occurance) the burden of proof is on me to tell you a gun with 80mm of armor penetration is ineffective against Tiger Is and IIs? Makes sense. 


Tigger tonks (both 1 and 2) have side armor about 80mm thick.  The American 75mm Gun, M3 had about 90mm of penetration.  Do yon math and thou shalt see that General Sherman can kill der deutsche Tiger.



Feminist #67 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:34

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11622 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 16:28, said:

 

Just because the PzIV was bad does not mean that the Tiger was good.




Noggmoritz #68 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:27, said:

You made the claim that the majority of Tigers were lost to aircraft and breakdowns. It is on you to prove it. Cashdash claimed that the Sherman could penetrate a Tiger, and he has proven it. He does not have to prove anything else.

 

This is what cashdash said:

 

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 17:13, said:

even their much touted armor were no advantage when a M4 Sherman with a 75 mm gun could pen a Tiger or Panther.



Urban_Cohort #69 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 11140 battles
  • 2,824
  • [KURO] KURO
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011
The best tanks on the field were the ones Germany could sustain production of and keep in fighting condition on the field...so not the Tiger; not the Panther; maybe the PzIV; probably the STUG (though it's not a "true" tank per se, it's close enough to count though).

Daigensui #70 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 30705 battles
  • 29,990
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
And 75 mm M3 could penetrate 76 mm at 500 meters. Given that most engagements were less than that, you can see a 75 mm Sherman defeating a Tiger.

Noggmoritz #71 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:36, said:

And 75 mm M3 could penetrate 76 mm at 500 meters. Given that most engagements were less than that, you can see a 75 mm Sherman defeating a Tiger.

Therefore, armor = useless.


Case closed. 



cashdash #72 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:34, said:

 

This is what cashdash said:

 

 

yes that is what i said, and then i provided links to back up what i said.

 

 

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:27, said:

 

I am taking a lesson from the book of a well known, but righfully unloved historical character.

 

which one?

 

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:27, said:

You made the claim that the majority of Tigers were lost to aircraft and breakdowns. It is on you to prove it. Cashdash claimed that the Sherman could penetrate a Tiger, and he has proven it. He does not have to prove anything else.

 

 

thank you.

 


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 00:47.


EnsignExpendable #73 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:34, said:

 

This is what cashdash said:

 

 

even their much touted armor were no advantage when a M4 Sherman with a 75 mm gun could pen a Tiger or Panther.

 

He said it could, and then proved it could. You then said it didn't, and then failed to prove that it didn't.



Noggmoritz #74 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 00:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View Postcashdash, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:46, said:

yes that is what i said, and then i provided links to back up what i said.

Another red herring. You provided links proving the capability of 75mm guns penetrating Tigers. But you also said this: "even their much touted armor were no advantage" No advantage? Brushing off the Tiger I & II's armor as "no advantage" is absurd, and that's why I called you out. 

 

 

 

 



EnsignExpendable #75 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Tank warfare isn't an honourable knight duel. If a Sherman commander sees a Panther or a Tiger in the distance, he will not sit there and shoot at it continuously, he will withdraw and engage from a favourable position, such as the side. Making your front armour ridiculously thick does not add all that much protection to your vehicle if its sides are vulnerable and it lacks mobility to resist a maneuverable enemy. 



Noggmoritz #76 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20350 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:52, said:

 

He said it could, and then proved it could. You then said it didn't, and then failed to prove that it didn't.

I never said it didn't, I said there is no evidence to suggest 75mm guns were adequate for the destruction Tigers even though they *could* penetrate the armor in very, very specific circumstances. His posts are misleading, when Tigers were usually lost (apart from breakdown) due to artillery and aircraft. If the Sherman and T-34 75mm guns were adequate the Allies wouldn't have bothered upgrading their guns, let alone develop heavier tanks of their own in response. 



EnsignExpendable #77 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:05, said:

I never said it didn't, I said there is no evidence to suggest 75mm guns were adequate for the destruction Tigers even though they *could* penetrate the armor in very, very specific circumstances. His posts are misleading, when Tigers were usually lost (apart from breakdown) due to artillery and aircraft. If the Sherman and T-34 75mm guns were adequate the Allies wouldn't have bothered upgrading their guns, let alone develop heavier tanks of their own in response. 

 

There you go again. You made a claim. Prove it. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true.

 

Also the T-34 never had a 75 mm gun. Also, if anything, the Germans developed the Tiger in response to Soviet heavy tanks, not the other way around.



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #78 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 33897 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:05, said:

I never said it didn't, I said there is no evidence to suggest 75mm guns were adequate for the destruction Tigers even though they *could* penetrate the armor in very, very specific circumstances. His posts are misleading, when Tigers were usually lost (apart from breakdown) due to artillery and aircraft. If the Sherman and T-34 75mm guns were adequate the Allies wouldn't have bothered upgrading their guns, let alone develop heavier tanks of their own in response. 

 

 

There's other reasons to develop heavy tanks other than killing Tigers. For instance, the IS series were used as breakthrough tanks, and engaged enemy fixed positions. That the D-25 was also excellent at punching holes in cats was a nice bonus.



aswitz87 #79 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 5921 battles
  • 6,974
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012
All I have to say, seeing damage to tanks is so interesting to look at.

cashdash #80 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 5556 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:57, said:

Another red herring. You provided links proving the capability of 75mm guns penetrating Tigers. But you also said this: "even their much touted armor were no advantage" No advantage? Brushing off the Tiger I & II's armor as "no advantage" is absurd, and that's why I called you out. 

 

 

 

 

 

yes except any gun with higher penetration than those 75 mm also could easily penetrate a tiger, so lets see how many tanks have equal or greater penetration off the top of my head.

 

M4 with 76 mm

T-34/76

T-34/85

Su-76

Su-85

Hellcat

Jackson

Wolverine

Kv-1

Kv-2

IS

IS-2

T-34/57? i don't believe i have the penetration test results on me, Ensign?

Sherman Firefly

T-60T-70 with HVAP

and that is just off the top of my head.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 01:20.






Also tagged with German, tank, top5, russianbiaspls, PanzerIIIstronk, StuGlyfe, box

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users