Jump to content


Best (and worst) Tanks of WWII - Album on Imgur


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

railer1999 #41 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 09:27

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12295 battles
  • 323
  • [CSA-1] CSA-1
  • Member since:
    08-05-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Oct 12 2016 - 06:13, said:

 

Using 0 degree penetration data (based on German test plates and using the DeMarre equation with references to both the 75mm L/43 and L/70), the 75mm L/48 will penetrate ~133-142mm of armor at 0m. Out past 500m or so, the L/48 will struggle to penetrate a late-model Sherman glacis.


Even the 88mm L/56 will struggle to penetrate the Sherman's glacis at around 1000-1500m and this was reflected in combat (North Africa), where long range 88mm fire often bounced off.

Sure the Sherman would be able to barely bounce of in that distance but that amount of force will shrapnel the tank and injure the crew and bring damage to the tank. 



WulfeHound #42 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 09:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postrailer1999, on Oct 12 2016 - 03:27, said:

Sure the Sherman would be able to barely bounce of in that distance but that amount of force will shrapnel the tank and injure the crew and bring damage to the tank. 

 

Spall, you mean? US steel was (aside from the early flawed plates) quite ductile so spalling was quite minimal.

Zinegata #43 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 09:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postrailer1999, on Oct 12 2016 - 16:27, said:

Sure the Sherman would be able to barely bounce of in that distance but that amount of force will shrapnel the tank and injure the crew and bring damage to the tank. 

 

Spalling occurs even in heavy tanks like the Panther/Tiger. The Sherman's 75mm for instance carries as much kinetic energy as a small sedan smashing headlong into a wall at around 30kph. 

 

Tank shells only bounce without consequence in World of Tanks. In real life they leave pretty serious dents all the time even when they bounce.



Tjtod #44 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 18:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,334
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013
Wouldn't spalling on non penetrating hits have  to do the quality and makeup of the steel rather than the thickness of the armor?

Anlushac11 #45 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 20:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 33153 battles
  • 2,108
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

@ Zinegata - 6lbr the puniest gun that could fire a APDS at over 1200mps.

 

Must be why Soviets put the 57mm ZiS-2 back in production til 1945.

 

IRL a 6lbr or ZiS-2 model 1943 didn't have to hit a tank 20x to kill it. One or two penetrations were sufficient.



Zinegata #46 Posted Oct 13 2016 - 03:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostAnlushac11, on Oct 13 2016 - 03:18, said:

@ Zinegata - 6lbr the puniest gun that could fire a APDS at over 1200mps.

 

Must be why Soviets put the 57mm ZiS-2 back in production til 1945.

 

IRL a 6lbr or ZiS-2 model 1943 didn't have to hit a tank 20x to kill it. One or two penetrations were sufficient.

 

The point isn't that the gun didn't have great penetration, the point was that it could penetrate the Panther even though it was really small and easy to conceal.

 

As I said, war is not a Trump card battle. Bigger caliber and longer barrel wins in a Trump card battle - and in that regard the 6 pounder would be out-trumped easily because it's so puny - but they are in fact often liabilities in real combat. 


Edited by Zinegata, Oct 13 2016 - 03:44.


WulfeHound #47 Posted Oct 13 2016 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Hell even the 45mm M-42 could from around 500m with AP

Anlushac11 #48 Posted Oct 13 2016 - 22:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 33153 battles
  • 2,108
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

IIRC small high velocity guns are good at medium to short range, the problem was they lost energy too fast over distance so were not as effective at long range.

 

The dual purpose capability of the 75mm and 76mm guns of most combatants and the ability of the larger rounds to not lose energy as fast over distance meant the small guns had mostly been relegated to secondary roles by end of war.

 

@ Wulfe - IIRC as German armor started getting thicker as war progressed the 57mm ZiS-2 was introduced to replace the 45mm Model 1939. The 45mm model 1942 stayed in production since it was still useful against lighter armored vehicles and the sides of the heavier vehicles.

 

And a 50mm PAK 38 could pen Shermans, Cromwells, T-34's and IS's from the side so whats your point?


Edited by Anlushac11, Oct 13 2016 - 22:07.


EnsignExpendable #49 Posted Oct 14 2016 - 17:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
The ZiS-2 was introduced before the war at a time when the 45 mm mod. 1938 (not 39) could effectively penetrate any German tank.

aethervox #50 Posted Dec 08 2016 - 23:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 25007 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

I'm unfamiliar with 'Imgur', however, my' two cents' on the Best tanks of WW2 would be .........

T-34: the basis for most of the advanced designs of later WW2, in general, a very well balanced tank design.

IS/IS-3: there was no other Hvy tank in WW2 that came even close to the production numbers of this tank design (nor it's relative superiority of design).

The Russians clearly had the best overall tank designs of WW2.

 Did Russia have the best guns, the best production quality, the best speeds, the best radios? Probably not.

However, they had the best numbers of tanks and the most simple but effective designs.

Russia made the most of what they had, pure and simple.

Did the Americans have innovative features?  Yes.

Did the Germans have effective designs themselves? Yes.


 

As to the worst tanks of WW2? Every nation (even Russia) had failures that could be termed the worst.


 

I often think Wulfehound comes across as overly 'know it all', especially on topics where it is opinion based only.

However, I will say he knows a lot of tank information for which he spends the time to inform us other less informed posters (which is good).


 



CapturedJoe #51 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 13:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Postaethervox, on Dec 08 2016 - 23:05, said:

As to the worst tanks of WW2? Every nation (even Russia) had failures that could be termed the worst.

 

None of them as spectacularly bad as the Bob Semple, though. Although it's already a stretch calling that a "tank" so it probably doesn't count anyway...



TLWiz #52 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 15:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17681 battles
  • 8,903
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View Postrailer1999, on Oct 11 2016 - 03:20, said:

This is post that I've recently found in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/gallery/u1yyu

Now how accurate is this list?

 

Everybody has an opinion.  

acosnil #53 Posted Dec 12 2016 - 21:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Oct 11 2016 - 14:33, said:

 

They weren't, originally. As the VK numbers imply, they were supposed to be 45 tons and 30 tons respectively, a very reasonable weight for a heavy and medium tank. Then the design just kind of ballooned out and nobody was willing to sacrifice something to slim it down. This consistently happened with German designs. The Maus, for example, was "only" supposed to weigh 100 tons at inception.

 

 

 

 

I think the geometry of the tanks and general compromises figure into it. Transmission and engine size definitely figured into the shape of the Panther, and the fact that the Germans were trying to drive cost out of panther production meant that everything was being welded, where as the Americans and the Soviets both made at least some use of cast parts in the frame of their tanks. The thin armor of the Panther makes perfect sense if you consider what they were working with- big, flat plates can add tons pretty quickly with even a small increase in armor thickness, which is at least part of how the Panther weighs as much as an IS-2 or an M26 while having the flank protection of an M4 Sherman or a T-34. At least the frontal plate was thick though, right?

 

 

And the Tiger was the poster child for inefficient use of armor plates. IIRC the German's unwillingness to adopt well angled armor actually stemmed from the fact that they lacked sufficient replacements for interior equipment that relied on the additional cabin space their traditional designs allowed for. If you consider their success in France and Poland it does make a bit of sense that they wouldn't want to give up those radio suites.

 



sy_r #54 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 21:31

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 7274 battles
  • 85
  • [_CCCP] _CCCP
  • Member since:
    09-27-2014

The best heavy tank of world war 2 was the tiger 1. But they lost just by the fact that Soviet soldiers and partisans regardless of the losses in his life fought for their freedom.


http://signature.kttc.ru/na/user/sy_r.png


Edited by sy_r, Apr 08 2017 - 21:33.


PrimarchRogalDorn #55 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 21:53

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 807
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Postsy_r, on Apr 08 2017 - 15:31, said:

The best heavy tank of world war 2 was the tiger 1. But they lost just by the fact that Soviet soldiers and partisans regardless of the losses in his life fought for their freedom.


http://signature.kttc.ru/na/user/sy_r.png

 

Less than 1400 produced, and they destroyed at best 1.5-2 tanks for every one lost. On top of that, it was a failure as a breakthrough tank despite being designed as one. It's highly overrated as a tank




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users