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

balmung60 #81 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:10

    Major

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

"Very specific circumstances" being "most combat ranges from the sides or rear".

 

Nobody upgunned anything in response to the Tigger because Tigger tonks were rare.  If you think a tank was upgunned or designed specifically to counter the Tigger, please tell us, so that we may correct you.



EnsignExpendable #82 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:13

    Major

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

Here is a list of things GABTU wanted to do to counter the Tiger. Please indicate where it says "heavy tank with 122 mm gun". 

 

Also the T-60 could not penetrate a Tiger, but a T-70 could.



Noggmoritz #83 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20341 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View Postbalmung60, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:10, said:

"Very specific circumstances" being "most combat ranges from the sides or rear".

 

Nobody upgunned anything in response to the Tigger because Tigger tonks were rare.  If you think a tank was upgunned or designed specifically to counter the Tigger, please tell us, so that we may correct you.

The T-34-85 was an upgrade designed specifically to penetrate the front armor of the Tiger I. Correct me please. 



cashdash #84 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:18

    Major

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

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. 

 

ok ill just go through your points in order.

 

1.

being able to penatrate the sides, rear, or lower glacis  of an enemy tank within normal combat range is not specific circumstances.

 

2.

my posts are not leading to anything, i am making statements and then showing evidence to back them up, that is how you debate.

 

3.

the T-34 never mounted a 75 mm.

 

4.

not a single tank was upgunned to combat the tiger, tigers were so rare there was not point when the guns you were already using we adequate.

 

5.

the allies didn't build heavy tanks to combat the tiger, if anything the tiger was built to counter allied heavy tanks

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:13, said:

Here is a list of things GABTU wanted to do to counter the Tiger. Please indicate where it says "heavy tank with 122 mm gun". 

 

Also the T-60 could not penetrate a Tiger, but a T-70 could.

 

 

ah thank you, i get them confused.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 01:19.


Noggmoritz #85 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20341 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:13, said:

Here is a list of things GABTU wanted to do to counter the Tiger. Please indicate where it says "heavy tank with 122 mm gun". 

 

Also the T-60 could not penetrate a Tiger, but a T-70 could.

I was more referring to heavier as in armed and not weight, yes the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. I was speaking of the T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, and Pershings, whose armament was a direct response to German heavy tanks/Panther.



Priory_of_Sion #86 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:18, said:

I was more referring to heavier as in armed and not weight, yes the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. I was speaking of the T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, and Pershings, whose armament was a direct response to German heavy tanks/Panther.

The Firefly was. The T-34-85 was just a superior redesign of the T-34. The M26 had been in development(T20 series) since the M4s were being produced. Usually countries build tanks beforehand instead of countering enemy advances.  



cashdash #87 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:23

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:18, said:

I was more referring to heavier as in armed and not weight, yes the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. I was speaking of the T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, and Pershings, whose armament was a direct response to German heavy tanks/Panther.

 

hmm i don't recall having ever seen a report of any of those three being built to combat the big cats. except maybe the Firefly.

 



balmung60 #88 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:28

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 18:16, said:

The T-34-85 was an upgrade designed specifically to penetrate the front armor of the Tiger I. Correct me please. 


The 85mm gun served to hedge against expected heavier future armor, had a better HE round as well (IIRC), and the turret itself was a long overdue upgrade to a 3 man turret.

 

For the most part, it was just a generally better redesign of the existing T-34.

 

If it were upgunned specifically to counter the Tiger, the HE round wouldn't have been much of a consideration, and it would be a stupid call because Tigers were rare.

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

I was more referring to heavier as in armed and not weight, yes the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. I was speaking of the T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, and Pershings, whose armament was a direct response to German heavy tanks/Panther.

The Pershing was a direct evolution of the T20 series, which was in development before the US ever encountered a Tiger.  The 90mm gun was also in development since before then.  That the Pershing mounted it is pretty sensible regardless of the Tiger, just given its size and armor.

 

The Firefly, I'll concede, but then, on the other hand, the US judged it to not be a significant improvement over the American 76mm gun armed Sherman and judged the APDS to be too inaccurate to bother with.


Edited by balmung60, Jan 31 2014 - 01:30.


EnsignExpendable #89 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:31

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:16, said:

The T-34-85 was an upgrade designed specifically to penetrate the front armor of the Tiger I. Correct me please. 

 

No it wasn't. Read the list. It does not mention mounting an 85 mm gun on the T-34. 

 

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:18, said:

I was more referring to heavier as in armed and not weight, yes the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. I was speaking of the T-34-85, Sherman Firefly, and Pershings, whose armament was a direct response to German heavy tanks/Panther.

 

T-34-85? Definitely not. Firefly? Sure. Pershing? Prove it. You are a master of making claims you are unwilling to back up.



cashdash #90 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:37

    Major

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

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:31, said:

 

No it wasn't. Read the list. It does not mention mounting an 85 mm gun on the T-34. 

 

 

T-34-85? Definitely not. Firefly? Sure. Pershing? Prove it. You are a master of making claims you are unwilling to back up.

 

i wouldn't say he is unwilling, unable would be a better word.



EnsignExpendable #91 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:40

    Major

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

Well surely he read it somewhere, otherwise he wouldn't think that.

 

I mean, he wouldn't, right? Surely he wouldn't just come up with something like that on his own and then hold on to it as evidence against his baseless opinion mounts?



cashdash #92 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:41

    Major

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

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:40, said:

Well surely he read it somewhere, otherwise he wouldn't think that.

 

I mean, he wouldn't, right? Surely he wouldn't just come up with something like that on his own and then hold on to it as evidence against his baseless opinion mounts?

 

you give people more credit than i do.

 

in this day and age it is easier to just assume everyone and everything are/is crap until them/it can prove themselves/itself otherwise.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 01:44.


xthetenth #93 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 01:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 19:40, said:

Well surely he read it somewhere, otherwise he wouldn't think that.

 

I mean, he wouldn't, right? Surely he wouldn't just come up with something like that on his own and then hold on to it as evidence against his baseless opinion mounts?

 

Noggmoritz may very well be the director of programming for the History Channel. He also likes aliens.



Noggmoritz #94 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20341 battles
  • 1,162
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

In regards to T-34-85 being a direct response to German heavies:

 

"In late August, the factory number 112 held a meeting which was attended Commissar tank industry V.A.Malyshev , commander of the armored and mechanized forces of the Red Army Ya.N.Fedorenko and senior officials of the People's Commissariat of arms. In his speech V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory in the Battle of Kursk went to the Red Army dearly. Enemy tanks fired on with our distance up to 1500 meters, while our 76-mm tank guns could hit the "tigers" and "Panther" only from a distance of 500-600 m "Figuratively speaking, - said Commissar - the opponent has a hand in half kilometers, and we are only half a kilometer. must immediately set in T-34 more powerful gun " ."

 

In fact, the situation was much worse than it outlined V.A.Malyshev, although attempts were made to rectify the situation since the beginning of 1943.

More April 15 SCG, in response to the emergence of the Soviet-German front, the new German tanks, issued a decree number 3187ss "On measures to strengthen the anti-defense," which obliged GAU subject range tests and anti-tank guns, which were in mass production, and 10 days to submit its opinion. In accordance with this document, the deputy commander of BT and MB Lieutenant General tank troops ordered V.M.Korobkov use during these tests, which took place from 25 to 30 April 1943 on the landfill in NIIBT Kubinka trophy "Tiger". The results of the tests were not very comforting. So, 76-mm armor-piercing tracer gun F-34is not struck the side armor of the German tanks even from a distance of 200 m! However, the most effective means of dealing with a new enemy heavy machine was 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52K model 1939 , which from a distance of up to 1000 m penetrated the 100-mm frontal armor.

May 5, 1943 adopted a resolution GKO number 3289ss "Strengthening artillery weapons tanks and self-propelled guns." It NKTP before and IEC were assigned specific tasks to create tank guns with anti-aircraft ballistics. "

 

http://www.battlefie...u/t34-85-2.html

 

 



cashdash #95 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:09

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 20:05, said:

In regards to T-34-85 being a direct response to German heavies:

 

"In late August, the factory number 112 held a meeting which was attended Commissar tank industry V.A.Malyshev , commander of the armored and mechanized forces of the Red Army Ya.N.Fedorenko and senior officials of the People's Commissariat of arms. In his speech V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory in the Battle of Kursk went to the Red Army dearly. Enemy tanks fired on with our distance up to 1500 meters, while our 76-mm tank guns could hit the "tigers" and "Panther" only from a distance of 500-600 m "Figuratively speaking, - said Commissar - the opponent has a hand in half kilometers, and we are only half a kilometer. must immediately set in T-34 more powerful gun " ."

 

In fact, the situation was much worse than it outlined V.A.Malyshev, although attempts were made to rectify the situation since the beginning of 1943.

More April 15 SCG, in response to the emergence of the Soviet-German front, the new German tanks, issued a decree number 3187ss "On measures to strengthen the anti-defense," which obliged GAU subject range tests and anti-tank guns, which were in mass production, and 10 days to submit its opinion. In accordance with this document, the deputy commander of BT and MB Lieutenant General tank troops ordered V.M.Korobkov use during these tests, which took place from 25 to 30 April 1943 on the landfill in NIIBT Kubinka trophy "Tiger". The results of the tests were not very comforting. So, 76-mm armor-piercing tracer gun F-34is not struck the side armor of the German tanks even from a distance of 200 m! However, the most effective means of dealing with a new enemy heavy machine was 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52K model 1939 , which from a distance of up to 1000 m penetrated the 100-mm frontal armor.

May 5, 1943 adopted a resolution GKO number 3289ss "Strengthening artillery weapons tanks and self-propelled guns." It NKTP before and IEC were assigned specific tasks to create tank guns with anti-aircraft ballistics. "

 

http://www.battlefie...u/t34-85-2.html

 

 

 

well at least he provided a source, a source that seems to be entirely made up but a source none the less.


Edited by cashdash, Jan 31 2014 - 02:09.


EnsignExpendable #96 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:12

    Major

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

View PostLord_Commander, on Jan 30 2014 - 20:05, said:

In regards to T-34-85 being a direct response to German heavies:

 

"In late August, the factory number 112 held a meeting which was attended Commissar tank industry V.A.Malyshev , commander of the armored and mechanized forces of the Red Army Ya.N.Fedorenko and senior officials of the People's Commissariat of arms. In his speech V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory in the Battle of Kursk went to the Red Army dearly. Enemy tanks fired on with our distance up to 1500 meters, while our 76-mm tank guns could hit the "tigers" and "Panther" only from a distance of 500-600 m "Figuratively speaking, - said Commissar - the opponent has a hand in half kilometers, and we are only half a kilometer. must immediately set in T-34 more powerful gun " ."

 

In fact, the situation was much worse than it outlined V.A.Malyshev, although attempts were made to rectify the situation since the beginning of 1943.

More April 15 SCG, in response to the emergence of the Soviet-German front, the new German tanks, issued a decree number 3187ss "On measures to strengthen the anti-defense," which obliged GAU subject range tests and anti-tank guns, which were in mass production, and 10 days to submit its opinion. In accordance with this document, the deputy commander of BT and MB Lieutenant General tank troops ordered V.M.Korobkov use during these tests, which took place from 25 to 30 April 1943 on the landfill in NIIBT Kubinka trophy "Tiger". The results of the tests were not very comforting. So, 76-mm armor-piercing tracer gun F-34is not struck the side armor of the German tanks even from a distance of 200 m! However, the most effective means of dealing with a new enemy heavy machine was 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52K model 1939 , which from a distance of up to 1000 m penetrated the 100-mm frontal armor.

May 5, 1943 adopted a resolution GKO number 3289ss "Strengthening artillery weapons tanks and self-propelled guns." It NKTP before and IEC were assigned specific tasks to create tank guns with anti-aircraft ballistics. "

 

http://www.battlefie...u/t34-85-2.html

 

 

 

Wow, can you use more fonts in your Google translated response, it's still not very difficult to read! And maybe if you actually bothered reading it, you will see the first sentence. "Attempts to re-arm the T-34 have been made since 1942, along with other modernizations and removal of defects."

 

How many Tigers were running around in the USSR in 1942?

 

 



cashdash #97 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:13

    Major

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

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 20:12, said:

 

Wow, can you use more fonts in your Google translated response, it's still not very difficult to read! And maybe if you actually bothered reading it, you will see the first sentence. "Attempts to re-arm the T-34 have been made since 1942, along with other modernizations and removal of defects."

 

How many Tigers were running around in the USSR in 1942?

 

 

 

i actually think he just googled "T-34/85 built to fight Tiger" until he came up with something.



Tupinambis #98 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 36223 battles
  • 15,272
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

Why is Jagdpanzer IV not on anyone's list?


It was probably the best use of the Panzer IV chassis.



xthetenth #99 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14690 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 30 2014 - 20:12, said:

Wow, can you use more fonts in your Google translated response, it's still not very difficult to read! And maybe if you actually bothered reading it, you will see the first sentence. "Attempts to re-arm the T-34 have been made since 1942, along with other modernizations and removal of defects."

 

How many Tigers were running around in the USSR in 1942?

 

 

 

I know of four in the Sinyavino offensive in August 1942. Then again they didn't make contact with the Russians because two broke down and the third overheated. The answer is not many. The first unit to receive Tigers only took them into combat in September, and promptly got one stuck in mud under enemy fire and couldn't retrieve it, for the first total loss of a Tiger.



Tupinambis #100 Posted Jan 31 2014 - 02:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 36223 battles
  • 15,272
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

Wasn't the SU-85 and SU-100, more or less, a direct response to German heavies?

EDIT: And the M36.


Edited by Tupinambis, Jan 31 2014 - 02:20.






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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users