Tanks!
- Thread starter Barbas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, yes, the cruiser tanks! The M3 Stuart (or "Honey") was another favourite of mine. The Cromwell's initially riveted armour in particular has a strange sort of rugged charm to it.Strazdas said:
Well, I guess I didn't specify that they had to be real vehicles...okaaay, have that one on me. It'll never match their legions of metal bawkses, though.Akichi Daikashima said:
I am going to commit Heresy and say that I am not a big fan of the T-34. While I cant deny it was influential to future tank design, it was ugly as all get out, the gun was underpowered, fixing that problem created another one (creating a massive weak spot), and it relied on swarm tactics, which I reflexively have an aversion to.
Came with two 8" inch guns from a battleship, a 128mm cannon (same as the Maus) in a forward flexible mount, at least two 15mm autocannons, and no less than 20 20mm AA guns. It was to weigh 1000 metric tons and be powered by 6 V-20 Diesel engines from a destroyer, they estimated it could get up to 20 mph. Obviously, it would have had enough armor to turn it into an even bigger fortress than the Maus. And of course, it would have been entirely amphibious, because why the hell not? Oh yes, did I mention that the man in charge of designing and building it was an admiral in the German Navy? Cant imagine why.
So on to the real tanks:
An American light tank built in the tail end of WW2, and used in Korea, it was equipped with the same 75mm gun from an M4 Sherman. That deserves repeating. THEY BUILT A LIGHT TANK WITH A MEDIUM TANKS GUN!! So while it would have still been on the fragile side, it was fast and you can bet your ass that it would have packed a wallop.
Remember how the normal M4 Sherman only had its numbers going for it and was so weak armor wise against German guns it got such nicknames as "Tommy Cooker" and "Ronson"? Well you can forget those with the Jumbo. They welded an extra 8 inches of forward armor to the tank, which gave it enough armor to survive a shot from an 88mm gun. Unfortunately, this robbed it of its speed, since it still used the stock Sherman suspension and the engine was only slightly more powerful than the normal Sherman.
A British modified version of the Sherman, this thing was designed as a tank killer. They replaced the weak 75mm cannon of the normal Sherman with the feared 17-pounder anti-tank gun. Meaning this tank could kill just about anything it came across. How feared was it? German Tiger crews were told to shot at any Fireflys first because they could kill the Tiger from long range with one or two shots. So fear it.
Come, you cant talk about tanks without the Tiger. It is one of the most well known tanks in the world, and it is a monster on the battle field. I would also argue it was the last of the mega-tanks Hitler designed that was actually good in design and combat. Its replacement was unreliable and a gas-guzzler, and they only went down hill from there.
Now, while this is entirely subjective, I would argue that the Abrams represents the current pinnacle of armored warfare in the world. It is the fastest tank on the planet (limited to 55mph, but they have been known to get up to 70mph without the limiter). The 120mm gun shots ultra-high velocity rounds and it can equip any round for the job, guaranteeing that, yes, when you pull the trigger, what ever you are shooting at is no longer going to exist. Its only problem is that it is a thirsty beast thanks to its gas-turbine engine, but even that isnt all bad, as it can run on any combustable liquid (Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosene, etc) while its diesel rivals can only run on......well diesel.
EDIT: I completely forgot about another tank:
Made in Israel, it may be slow, but it was designed with defense and crew safety in mind. The drive sits on the left side of the tank rather than the middle, the engine is mounted in the front so it is destroyed rather than injuring the crew, and there is a door on the back allowing for quick access. It can even carry 4 soldiers in addition to the crew, giving it limited troop carrying capacity. All round good tank.
I will see your Panzer VIII Maus, and raise you one LandKreuzer P-1000 Ratte:gigastar said:Cant have a thread about WW2 tanks without mentioning the Panzer VIII Maus.
Came with two 8" inch guns from a battleship, a 128mm cannon (same as the Maus) in a forward flexible mount, at least two 15mm autocannons, and no less than 20 20mm AA guns. It was to weigh 1000 metric tons and be powered by 6 V-20 Diesel engines from a destroyer, they estimated it could get up to 20 mph. Obviously, it would have had enough armor to turn it into an even bigger fortress than the Maus. And of course, it would have been entirely amphibious, because why the hell not? Oh yes, did I mention that the man in charge of designing and building it was an admiral in the German Navy? Cant imagine why.
So on to the real tanks:
An American light tank built in the tail end of WW2, and used in Korea, it was equipped with the same 75mm gun from an M4 Sherman. That deserves repeating. THEY BUILT A LIGHT TANK WITH A MEDIUM TANKS GUN!! So while it would have still been on the fragile side, it was fast and you can bet your ass that it would have packed a wallop.
Remember how the normal M4 Sherman only had its numbers going for it and was so weak armor wise against German guns it got such nicknames as "Tommy Cooker" and "Ronson"? Well you can forget those with the Jumbo. They welded an extra 8 inches of forward armor to the tank, which gave it enough armor to survive a shot from an 88mm gun. Unfortunately, this robbed it of its speed, since it still used the stock Sherman suspension and the engine was only slightly more powerful than the normal Sherman.
A British modified version of the Sherman, this thing was designed as a tank killer. They replaced the weak 75mm cannon of the normal Sherman with the feared 17-pounder anti-tank gun. Meaning this tank could kill just about anything it came across. How feared was it? German Tiger crews were told to shot at any Fireflys first because they could kill the Tiger from long range with one or two shots. So fear it.
Come, you cant talk about tanks without the Tiger. It is one of the most well known tanks in the world, and it is a monster on the battle field. I would also argue it was the last of the mega-tanks Hitler designed that was actually good in design and combat. Its replacement was unreliable and a gas-guzzler, and they only went down hill from there.
Now, while this is entirely subjective, I would argue that the Abrams represents the current pinnacle of armored warfare in the world. It is the fastest tank on the planet (limited to 55mph, but they have been known to get up to 70mph without the limiter). The 120mm gun shots ultra-high velocity rounds and it can equip any round for the job, guaranteeing that, yes, when you pull the trigger, what ever you are shooting at is no longer going to exist. Its only problem is that it is a thirsty beast thanks to its gas-turbine engine, but even that isnt all bad, as it can run on any combustable liquid (Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosene, etc) while its diesel rivals can only run on......well diesel.
EDIT: I completely forgot about another tank:
Made in Israel, it may be slow, but it was designed with defense and crew safety in mind. The drive sits on the left side of the tank rather than the middle, the engine is mounted in the front so it is destroyed rather than injuring the crew, and there is a door on the back allowing for quick access. It can even carry 4 soldiers in addition to the crew, giving it limited troop carrying capacity. All round good tank.
are we forgetting something?
I think we are!
No tank thread is complete without the FV4034C2
That's the Challenger 2 to you and me. great british engineering at it's finest, eh?
I think we are!
No tank thread is complete without the FV4034C2
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I'll confess I don't know very much about tanks, but I've always thought amphibious tanks like the old DD (Duplex Drive) ones were funny:
Shame their effectiveness was mixed in practice and often ended in disaster for the crews on-board when they sunk :-/
Shame their effectiveness was mixed in practice and often ended in disaster for the crews on-board when they sunk :-/
I remember reading in a book about German spies that went into Russia to assess their armour capabilities when Hitler was gearing up to begin the invasion of Poland, and it was discovered that due to the Soviet Unions massive industrialisation push, insane work ethic and emphasis on speed over flourish, the output of a single Soviet tank factory was 10 times that of the entire German tank production output at the time.Barbas said:
Hitler threw a wobbly and nearly had the poor spy executed for treason, the other generals found it further proof of how screwed they would be from picking a fight with Russia, and we all know how that went.
On Topic:
Personally I love the current British Tank, The Challenger 2.
Not because it looks good (It's way too bulky IMO)
Not because it's flawless (It's way too heavy)
But because it has the best tank armour in the world: Chobham tank armour. Made in Britain.
So good that the Americans with their 400 billion dollar research budget still have to borrow our Chobham armour to use on their M1A2 Abrams battle tank.
It's the little victories.
The Abrams is a decent tank, but I still prefer the Leopard II when it comes to modern MBTs. The Abrams is faster (only slightly), but it runs on jet fuel, which lights it up like a christmas tree for infrared. Meanwhile, the Leopard II runs on good old fashioned Diesel.
I shall have to add that one to the OP by popular demand, I think...along with a few others (my lips are sealed!)Fraser Greenfield said:I find it quite shameful that no one has mentioned the best tank of WWII. It combined the best elements of the t-34, Panzer IV & VIBy 1942 Soviet tank production had almost reached it's peak, and yet they could only field 5 tanks for every German one (favourable odds for Germans who generally broke even at 7:1). Ultimately it was Allied bombing of German industrial centres that destroyed the Reich's ability to provide the Wehrmact with the parts, fuel and replacements to keep the war machine going. Even so, the Panther was hands down the most effective tank of the war.
It does look well-made, doesn't it? Sleek, deliberate and purposeful. That's what you want out of an effective machine, I guess.
I like the Leopard II, although it does look a little bit like a squashed pancake. IT's strange that I can't recall seeing much sloping turret armour on tanks these days. I heard the current model of Abrams can run on various different types of fuel, though I don't understand how that'd work in practice. Jet fuel seems...flamboyant, expensive and potentially disastrous, to be honest, but I haven't really designed an effective tank before. :/Soviet Heavy said:
I dont really know much about tanks but I know that jet fuel is actually very similar to diesel. Ive known of people with diesel cars using jet fuelBarbas said:
The difference between jet fuel and diesel is simply the additives that they use.
The reason tanks and pretty much all military vehicles can run on diesel and jet fuel is because if you operate from a base with aircraft then jet fuel is readily available rather than having multiple sources of fuel. If aircraft are taken on detachment its a lot easier and efficient to take one type of fuel that can be used universally
Edit: @soviet heavy is correct the jet fuel will burn hotter which will show up on infrared but a diesel engine will run on jet fuel (with reliability issues) and it will run pretty reliably with certain additives
Jet fuel is kerosene but more specifically Jet A. Jet B is a more naptha based. The main problem as ive already said is that kerosene is a dry fuel (not lubricated) if you want to run an interal combustion engine on it you need a lubricating additive and it will run fairly reliably in a diesel engineFraser Greenfield said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel (click on the "piston engine use" section) although it basically says everything ive just said
gas turbines are pretty robust and can take various fuels but its just a case of choosing a specific fuel to optimise the engine. Having said that most aircraft are optimised for jet A as its pretty much a standard in most airports
you'll find that most ground support vehicles in airports and even more so in military airfields will be run on jet fuel (with additives). This is probably why the military run tanks on it because it saves storing various types of fuel.
The main reason ive known people to run cars on it is because a lot of it goes waste and would otherwise be disposed of. Granted its not 100% legal but it saves wasting fuel and it means people can fill up their car for free. Considering a 777 takes 181,000 litres to fill a 40-50 litre tank is only a small amount of fuel
You... I like you! Love the Panther... and rather bizarrely, once Albert Speer got his hands on the production lines, the Panther was only a little more expensive to produce than a T34-85 was when it first rolled out of the factory...Fraser Greenfield said:
Sloped armour is/was only really good for shot deflection, but that was only for muzzle velocities below a certain point. Once capped rounds became normal, sloped armour ceased to be as effective as it was viewed and the emphasis on armour research went to spaced and composite. The height in sloped armour technology came in the 50's as a result while the Brits came up with Chobham armour in the 80's/90's (I think) which was the (then, again, I think) height of composite armour. Sloped armour of any composition is no more useful or less useless against a solid piece of tungsten from an APDS(FS)/LRP round that travels at almost two kilometres a second (fast enough to enter one side of a tank, turn the organic contents of said tank to a primordial soup because of the inrush of air caused by the lack of air pressure behind the round, then suck it out the hole made as it leaves the tank).Barbas said:
Modern tank armour is ceramic or reactive, isn't it? I've heard of some very nasty grave developments in their ammunition as well. Thinking about the sort of weapons pointed at humans today tests my constitution.SckizoBoy said:
Well, I suppose I ought to get around to adding the Panther to the OP...any other vehicles you might like to see?
Let's try my hand at this.
The Sherman Firefly. More, or less, it was a M4 Sherman tank armed with the British 17 pounder gun, so named for the weight of it's projectile. The greatest challenge in developing this tank was mounting the far larger(in size of the mechanism, not caliber) gun into the standard M4 Sherman turret. The only way they found they could do it was by turning the whole thing on it's side. Even so, maneuvering around the turret was a bit more awkward. However, that's a small price to pay. The standard American 76mm couldn't hurt enemy German tanks frontally at acceptable combat ranges. Yes, even the lighter Panzer III and IV's could shrug off a round if the tank was properly angled against incoming fire(changing the angle from 90 increases the effective armor of a tank just like sloping does), unless it was using the rare HVAP(high velocity armor piercing) ammo. The 17 pounder did not give a shit. At ranges up to 1000m, standard ammo could go through the front of a Tiger. The biggest issue was though the gun could kill most any German tank it came across, the armor was still that of a Sherman and the profile was still gigantic. The Germans could still kill a Sherman Firefly from far beyond it's own effective range with any tank except the Panzer III. Hey, at least you got a fighting chance.
The Sherman Firefly. More, or less, it was a M4 Sherman tank armed with the British 17 pounder gun, so named for the weight of it's projectile. The greatest challenge in developing this tank was mounting the far larger(in size of the mechanism, not caliber) gun into the standard M4 Sherman turret. The only way they found they could do it was by turning the whole thing on it's side. Even so, maneuvering around the turret was a bit more awkward. However, that's a small price to pay. The standard American 76mm couldn't hurt enemy German tanks frontally at acceptable combat ranges. Yes, even the lighter Panzer III and IV's could shrug off a round if the tank was properly angled against incoming fire(changing the angle from 90 increases the effective armor of a tank just like sloping does), unless it was using the rare HVAP(high velocity armor piercing) ammo. The 17 pounder did not give a shit. At ranges up to 1000m, standard ammo could go through the front of a Tiger. The biggest issue was though the gun could kill most any German tank it came across, the armor was still that of a Sherman and the profile was still gigantic. The Germans could still kill a Sherman Firefly from far beyond it's own effective range with any tank except the Panzer III. Hey, at least you got a fighting chance.
If fictional tanks count, my favourite is definitely the Baal Predator of Warhammer 40k (Blood Angels chapter)
It has two miniguns on the turret, then a guy on the hatch with another machine-gun, and then it has PIVOTING SIDE-MOUNTED FLAMETHROWERS. It shoots bullets and fire.
Glory and wonder behold!
It has two miniguns on the turret, then a guy on the hatch with another machine-gun, and then it has PIVOTING SIDE-MOUNTED FLAMETHROWERS. It shoots bullets and fire.
Glory and wonder behold!
I think WH40K is going to be quite major in this thread. On that note, let me say for real life, it's got to be either the t-42 super heavy for general symbolism and greatness, or fictionally, the Baneblade
IT HAS 13 MASSIVE GUNS.
So impractical.
So wonderful.
So impractical.
So wonderful.
By the mid point of World War 2 the numbers were more like twenty or thirty allied tanks to each German tank.T0ad 0f Truth said:
In Bletchley Park there are some blackly funny transcripts of decoded messages between German high command and officers in the field where Wermracht armoured units were being expected to hold ground with ten to fifteen tanks (only two or three of which would be Panthers or Tigers) against hundreds of Allied tanks with air and artillery support.
How can you go about making a list of the most powerful tanks of all time, and leave out the Merkava battle tank? This is one ungodly beast. However, my favorite tank of all time has to be Leopard 2A7 This thing is a beast with multiple battle field applications (such as medical retrieval due to the back hatch and extra protection provided by a forward engine, anti-infantry with its 360% remotely controlled machine cannon mounted turret, and a real seated massive cannon capable of firing multiple types of munitions (such as airburst, bunker busters, and anti-armor rounds)).Barbas said:
All in all, we have some very interesting technology when it comes to tanks, you should really look into it. In fact i wish the game manufacturers would look into it, so I don't have to see M1A1s, M1A3s, and Panziers all over the damn games all the time.
As a military historian I take almost a sadistic joy in deflating people's obsession with WWII German military hardware, but I must admit that the Panzer III was a beautiful machine. Honorable mentions go to the T-34/76 and T-34/85.
My favourite tank of all time is probably the T-72B (with plenty of ERA please!). I just love that thing. I don't really have any interesting facts on hand unfortunately. XD
My favourite tank of all time is probably the T-72B (with plenty of ERA please!). I just love that thing. I don't really have any interesting facts on hand unfortunately. XD
I've always been quite fond of the M50 Ontos, used in the Vietnam War. Light and fast, with six recoilless rifles rather than the usual guns of other tanks, it was designed as a tank destroyer but saw most use as infantry fire support. It was an extremely effective design that could go where heavier tanks couldn't, and was highly manoeuverable. It had very light armour but excellent firepower, and was quite cheap to make.
