PzKpfw V Panther....the best tank in WW2 ?

World War II German Military
#681

As for ol’ Adolf being a ‘creepy wanker’ … well, I never met him, so I couldn’t make that call,
however, unlike Winnie or nasty uncle Joe, he didn’t have the over-inflated ego to have tanks named after him,
or dress in fancy uniforms & cover his chest with bogus awards…

& as for Diesels, I guess Harley-D motorcyles can be likened to Diesels… but if if they actually were,
then… they’d be even more lame, [with perhaps an exception, if it was Porsche designed like the V-Rod… or Tiger…]

& Steben, I happen to own a M-B CE, but not a stinky, lazy Diesel… they NEED the turbo, but if you force-feed a petrol
mill, then you’re in the drivers seat…

#682

Well, Hitler did have industrial programmes “Adolf Hitler Panzer Programme” named after him, not to mention regiments like the Liebstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, so I’d suggest the ego wasn’t radically smaller.

The Churchill tank name is a little obscure - Winston had a famous ancestor named John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (one of the reasons, I suspect, for his sense of destiny) who just happens to be one of the greatest generals in history. Given that a couple of other British tanks have been named after famous generals (Cromwell, Black Prince) it doesn’t seem implausible that it was in fact named after his ancestor, with a double entendre about Winston.
That wasn’t unknown at the time - with Battleships for instance it was normal to name the first battleship class of a monarch’s reign after them. King George VI however insisted that it should be named after his father (who never got one) rather than him. The Admiralty, therefore, named the second and third ships of the class “Prince of Wales” and “Duke of York”, after him and his elder brother (Edward VIII).

#683

But wasn’t Winnie reportedly so upset by the inability of his namesake tank to do anything useful at Dieppe that he wanted to disown it?.

I’ll bet Hitler had lots of boosters imploring him to name stuff “Hitler”, but he did generally limit it, since both the 1SS LAH was originally his personal bodyguard & he did take a keen interest in tanks…

#684

cool
good for you. w(“c”)124 model?
I had a 300CE of 1988 as well until last year. :wink: No kidding. Very nice car. Blackblue with black leather. Cult car. Non turbo gasoline.
Don’t get me wrong: gasoline is very comfortable, quiet and has a very “sports” character.

Still, in the dense-traffic country Belgium is, you really enjoy the low-end torque of a (turbo)diesel. I have to admit. In jams, a gasoline really really drinks a lot of fuel and you need automatic in order not to go crazy. And yes, diesel over here is cheaper than gasoline… that helps as well ;). Driving diesel can get 50% cheaper in total (25% cheaper at the pump, 25% less consumption).

No one claims gasoline is an idiocy as such. It’s all about power distribution and economics. Diesel suits a heavy working vehicle much more. In combat, you don’t care about power at 5000 or 6000 revs or quiet cruising. You wnat to be able to move as efficent as you can and accelerate quickly for a couple of meters without burning the engine. So you need torque.

#685

Is it very wrong of me to claim that your desription is in fact the description of any tank?
A Tiger has a gun, a steel chassis and tracks, yes. Just as any tank.

The gun that was mounted on the Tiger was powerful, but in fact it was “just” the Krupp Flak 88 design. The gun was “by coincidence” useful. The Germans were very keen in playing the cards they had, yes. But it doesn’t make the gun an element of a MBT doctrine. In fact, not that much before the Tiger came into action, the Allies already were impressed with the 75/43(48) cannons put on the IV. Russians wrote repports about “a new heavy tank” at first. This gun was already able to knock out any Allied tank of that time (1942-1943) at rather higher distances than was good for the Allies. The KwK40 was designed as a tank gun, the 88 was not. there is no reason to assume that the way the IV had been given the Kwk40 gun is any different than the Tiger. It doesn’t make the IV that less closer to the MBT thinking.

The gun was put on a “spare” Porsche turret design. High Command was playing more “divide and rule” on putting the Tiger together than getting at a well thought design. Yes it was big. BUT… any german turret (starting from the pzIII or even pzII) was designed to have comfortable interior space, making the 3-man turret possible. Again: it doesn’t make the II-III-IV that less closer to the MBT thinking than a Tiger.

The hull and chassis was a reinforced heavy panzer IV design. Not efficient in weight, armour and production technique. It was used because they needed a heavy tank. Engine and transmission were often in breakdown.

#686

Wrong, if WW2 pre-Tiger…

Matilda II, well armoured[albeit not 88-proof], but let down by being slow & criminally prevented from firing H.E. rounds…

KV 1, again well armoured & equipped with a fairly capable gun, but hamstrung by poor sights, ergonomics, communications, smoky/noisy Diesel mill & stlll vulnerable to that 88…

That 88 was the trump card, & could neutralise all line-of-sight opponents… the Tiger chassis provided a reasonably proof
vehicle with good sights & comm’s to project that power against all other tanks/infantry/A.T. guns/mines/field artillery/pill-boxes & etc.

The Tiger B incorporated the Panther sloped armour/L 71 hi-velocity gun features…

Earlier panzers were simply too lightly built to heft that kind of heavy metal about the field…

The modern MBT is designed to emulate that Tiger proof-of-concept…

How well did those light AMX/Leopard 'MBT’s actually go in combat?

Did the Israelis want them?

& yes, a late production W124 CE 24/3.0ltr, leather/power seats, charcoal black/light blue grey interior very comfortable/capable/stylish touring car…

#687

I think you are missing the point. The early models are the way they are because they were designed in a period were rather small guns and light armour was present in most nations. The concept was able to knock out most armour of the enemy. The earlier panzers had all the tech the Tiger had, except for the thick armour and big gun and minus the problems regarding the cost, deployment and maintenance.
All errors (viewed in modern eyes) of the earlier panzers are present in the Tiger.
The biggest difference between the Tiger and the lighter ones, is that the Tiger was beefed up to counter the allied (especially russian!) heavies encountered during the war.

The modern MBT is designed to emulate that Tiger proof-of-concept…

all the things that make the Tiger different are the thicker steel and the beefed up gun. There is no proof-of-concept. there is almost no concept at all in the Tiger except “let’s make something tougher”.

How well did those light AMX/Leopard 'MBT’s actually go in combat?

I think the most destroyed tanks in history are the Russian T’s.

#688

The French have used the AMX30 (as well as a few other nations in combat), the Leo 1 has been used in combat as well. Versus equally capable tanks well thats not so common but then the Leo 2 has never faced an enemy tank and is still rated as one of the best MBT’s of today despite being a nearly 30 year old design.

#689

Right! I wish JAWs would read the book he cites here, as that pretty much states that the Tiger was used in small numbers as a specialist heavy breakthrough tank augmented by Panzer Mk IV’s and, later on, Panthers. Only a fool would state that is in any way tantamount to a main battle tank…

#690

Ndf, I think you need to get the revised edition…& stop making a ‘fool’ of yourself…

The U.S. thought that the Tiger would be the standard panzer, built at 800/month! Hitler wished…

Leccy, both the Matilda & KV, were insufficiently equipped to deal with 88/field artillery compared to the Tiger…

In fact, Stalin was so unimpressed by the cost-benefit of the KV vs T-34 that he de-emphasised it, until it could be
brought up to spec as the J.S…

The Tiger in WW2 [developed though B series] remained a fearsome battlefield entity… hard hitting & hard to knock out …exactly what bona-fide MBTs are now…

As for petrol being “a poor 2nd choice” you’ve got that around the wrong way…

Diesel is the poor mans choice, used as a cost saving…

For example, the Meteor engine used in the Centurion was a de-rated R-R Merlin, down from ~2,000hp in
supercharged aircraft applications to a third of that power for donkey work in an AFV…

Could a T-34 mill be uprated to 3,000+ hp & power a Mustang around Reno at ~500mph?

#691

When did the U.S. think this? Is that what your shit book is telling you? Because everything I’ve seen is that it was assumed that only a few would ever be produced which is why the U.S. Army never bothered to revise the awful Tank Destroyer Doctrine. In hindsight, the Army really wasn’t that wrong as I think the production schedules were about 50 a month with over 600 Panthers to roll off the line. Of course, this is another “fool’s” argument of yours. You see, if the Tiger was tantamount to being the forefather of the MBT, then how could it be so low production? I’m getting my figures from Tooze BTW and this is off the top of my head. But a low production tank that is complex and ticky cannot be considered a main battle tank…

Leccy, both the Matilda & KV, were insufficiently equipped to deal with 88/field artillery compared to the Tiger…

Compared to the Tiger? Or compared to anything? The Sherman tanks inflicted heavy losses on 88mm mounts due to their excellent HE shell and this caused the Heer to develop a lower profile, exclusively AT version of the 88…

In fact, Stalin was so unimpressed by the cost-benefit of the KV vs T-34 that he de-emphasised it, until it could be
brought up to spec as the J.S…

The Tiger in WW2 [developed though B series] remained a fearsome battlefield entity… hard hitting & hard to knock out …exactly what bona-fide MBTs are now…

Um, everyone thought their tank was “hard to knock out.” What the hell kind of point is that? The U.S. Army thought the Sherman was hard to knock out and comparatively speaking it was until 1943. And the U.S. Army often stated that the M-1A1 was virtually invulnerable until the advent of IED’s has destroyed numerous examples…

As for petrol being “a poor 2nd choice” you’ve got that around the wrong way…

Diesel is the poor mans choice, used as a cost saving…

Um, no dolt, it isn’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. If “petrol” makes any sort of a great engine, then why does no tank or AFV (or major piece of construction equipment) use it?

For example, the Meteor engine used in the Centurion was a de-rated R-R Merlin, down from ~2,000hp in
supercharged aircraft applications to a third of that power for donkey work in an AFV…

Could a T-34 mill be uprated to 3,000+ hp & power a Mustang around Reno at ~500mph?

There are no 2000 hp tanks to this day, probably because they could never get enough air in them since they can’t fly and travel at 400mph on the ground…

And I’ve had it with the same idiotic trolling with circular arguments. Two week ban…

#692

I should point out that there was already a thread discussing a perma-ban with two votes in favour in the War Room when Nick imposed this ban, so J.A.W. is IMHO extremely lucky to be allowed back after that. This was relating to Holocaust apologia in another thread.

#693

I guess him potentially screwing young family members possibly leading to suicide, being a teetotaler veggie-*****, later appearing to be asexual, and wiping out tens of millions of people isn’t enough?

#694

hey, nothing wrong with “veggies”, as long it is not compulsory :wink:

#695

oh, no …

#696

You must understand that no one in command will prefer 1 Tiger to be produced instead of 10 T34’s and KV’s.
Well, no one, perhaps you. Or Hitler. But he lost.
There is a difference in determing your design and production and driving a tank.
In command, you want to win the war, so you build 10 T34’s. Driving a tank, you choose the Tiger.
You must understand this. The question is whether you want to.

Again, a MBT is NOT designed to be just invulnerable.

In fact, Stalin was so unimpressed by the cost-benefit of the KV vs T-34 that he de-emphasised it, until it could be
brought up to spec as the J.S…

T34 is in fact more the MBT vs the KV-1, which is comparable to the Tiger. That’s what we keep trying to tell you.

The Tiger in WW2 [developed though B series] remained a fearsome battlefield entity… hard hitting & hard to knock out …exactly what bona-fide MBTs are now…

  1. The Tiger B is not an upgraded Tiger I. It is rather a (to) heavy Panther. Again: a Panther is more MBT than a Tiger II.
  2. Was the Tiger really the only Hard-hitting vehicle? There is a thing as seiing things “relatively”. Every T34 and KV-1 could knock out any German tank in 1941 - 1942. That makes them seriously “hard hitting” in that time. The German succeses of the early days proove that even underperforming tanks on paper can win campaigns.

As for petrol being “a poor 2nd choice” you’ve got that around the wrong way…

Again, you mis the poitn of looking at things in perspective. Diesel is crap in motor bike races, yes. Diesel and petrol are both good choices in cars, given the right purpose. No seaship on the other hand runs on petrol. And trucks stopped using petrol as well last 30 years or so.
Don’t shout, think.

Diesel is the poor mans choice, used as a cost saving.

I’m sorry, but that is bull****. Ndf is rght: you have no idea what u are talking about.
Diesel cars are more expensive in purchasing. Because they are heavy, high mileage, low maintenance engines that historically serve higher capital client / professional “miles eaters” that need low running costs. Diesel is an investment that pays off on the long run. To speak in rough simpleness: Diesel makes businesses rich much easier than petrol. taxi’s for example. Why are taxi’s diesel? because a taxi “needs” so called inferior technology? :neutral: no…
Poor men didn’t buy diesel for ages. they drove small petrols. Actually poor men can’t buy a car.

For example, the Meteor engine used in the Centurion was a de-rated R-R Merlin, down from ~2,000hp in
supercharged aircraft applications to a third of that power for donkey work in an AFV…
Could a T-34 mill be uprated to 3,000+ hp & power a Mustang around Reno at ~500mph?

hp… hp…
A tank needs torque. at as low rev’s as you can get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque Again, you have no idea. They did not “De-Rate” the engine, they designed it to TORQUE at lower rev. Show me a German tank petrol engine that ran higher than 2500 rev?
Some tanks that switched to turbodiesel have lower max power ratings than the petrol ancestors, but still run faster! How come? Torque and transmission.
Racing needs hp at high rev’s instead: they have very low power at low rev’s. Stop comparing vehicles that have weight ratios of +50 times. It doesn’t work that way. Why do you need an engine that brings a light vehicle at 500mph if you are talking about tanks? A tank would need perhaps an hour at least to reach that speed if you have a racing engine with low torque at the bottom.
A mustang at 500 mph is nothing. Plain nothing. A tank of 60 tons at 30 miles an hour has a crushing “momentum” that is 3,5 times as much.
Figure of speech right? It must be. Well, a Mustang around Reno is no good “figure”. You will not convince anyone. Hitler perhaps at the time…
check this out:
http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/media_library/hq/hq_mpc_reference_site/trucks/distribution/antos/technical_data/antos_technical_data_engines_375kw_de_07_2012_pdf.object-Single-MEDIA.download.tmp/antos_technical-data_engines_375kw_de_09-2012.pdf

Just a mainstream mercedes truck engine. Check the power. check the rev. Check the torque. +12000cc.

#697

Almost as amusing as annoying regurgitating the same opinion while ignoring anything that does not agree.

#698

not everywhere :slight_smile:
Diesel is definitely cheaper in many EU continental countries
Or allow me to correct: petrol is definitely more expensive :wink:

#699

At present in the U.S. a gallon of gasoline (regular, 87 octane mixed with 10% ethanol) costs about $3.50, while a gallon of diesel sells for about $3.75 .

#700

In belgium

DIESEL
+/- 1.35€ / liter (6.77$ / gallon)

GASOLINE (95 octane)
+/- 1.60€ / liter (8.04$ / gallon)

Big difference are taxes, taxes and taxes.
Again, I keep telling my American friends: How socialist would you label Belgium if a US gouvernment that would be raising taxes to get$ 4.00 per gallon is called socialist?
All that is not fitting the wallet is called socialist. It’s everywhere the same, but if you compare the prices and taxes, I would dare to say that you Americans don’t even come close to what it is to get taxed FOR REAL :slight_smile:

Still, even in the US, a tank that drinks 30% less fuel is still far cheaper running on diesel. And I doubt the gouvernment “suffers” a lot of its own taxes :smiley: