quote:

Originally posted by CM_Droid14.EUF:
Lol, yes you're a bit right. But the best Sherman verion is the Firefly en that is British. And the only reason that the Sherman was good was it mass produce. The Germans lost the battle of the Bulge due to enormous masses of enemys. 591 King Tigers against 20.000 Shermans is a problem. Don't you think?

No, the E8 was the best. Our E8s were just rocking, we put new suspensions (HD), guns (76mm), and more on them with that. It does not matter how it was good, if it was good by design, it was good, if it was good by mass production, it was good. Hey, we did win the war, right?

Also the Germans lost because of the massive discrepancies within the high command, and losses due to failure to adapt were perceived as the weakness of their greatest commander, who was intelligent enough to realise where the Allies would land on D-Day and did all in his power to make sure they had a rough landing, unfortunately after Afrika, nobody really beleived he was all that in the tactics deptartment.

And Michael Wittmann was in fact killed by a Sherman Firefly, it is a very neat story, you should look it up.

American and british tanks were able to knock out german panthers or tigers even, for sure. But fact is, not nearly enough as you would expect from the advancement of their technology. It´s no secret that the Americans were reluctant to use non/american technology. Thats why the best AT version of the sherman was the british firefly. And some american colonel even shipped an 88 back to the States right after they fought the germans in Algeria, with the intention to mount or use it in their own war machines. But except for some tank destroyers the army in europe had to wait for the Pershing to get a tank that stood something of a chance head on with a German tank better then a mk4.
Anyway, The allies did win the war yes, thankgod, but adaptability-flexibility or brilliance on the front of tank design (apart from mass production) wasn´t what won it for the western allies.
It did so for the Russians though
Only they build tanks that could match or outdo the Germans. Had the t34 and Kv´s the same aiming technology as the germans, and men trained as good as their german counterparts, then it would have not been so easy to answer the question which nation build the best tanks.

But anyway.. Facing germans in superior tanks only makes my regard for the western allies tankers' even higher. In fact, IMO soldiers did things back then repeatedly without getting a citation, that would give them a VC or MOH instantly nowadays.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rampart9,

Well Rampart, that even lowers my thoughts of the allied tankees, Cause the US and allies havent won the war. It were those soviets. And ofcourse Hitler himself, being a very very very VERY stupid tactician. And besides, who can not see when you are planning an invasion (not D-day but market garden) that a whole german motorised russian front army had been moved on 'holiday' near Arnhem. Altough they didn't had satelites, how can you miss that when you are planning something like that. And ferther more, that Bulge offensive was following the same route as the Von Schlieffenplan what had been used in the first world war, begin of second and in that offensive. So why hadn't the allies build better fortifications there?

The german tank industry had only one impedment , Hitler, without him teutonic ingeneers d have done giant leaps in armoured tech ... they had to rush out new projects to please the furher he he so silly to pretend that monsters like the tiger or the king tiger could go on the same old chassis like panzer 4
the same panther were suffering for weight mismatch , normally these machines had a ridiculous autonomy before getting out of order
The sherman on the other hand was easy to repair all parts had easy access speedy and most important was easy to produce thing that litterally drowned the ardennes with those weird but effective machines

quote:

The sherman on the other hand was easy to repair all parts had easy access speedy and most important was easy to produce thing that litterally drowned the ardennes with those weird but effective machines

I refuse that Sherman is faster than panther. First models of Panther can go up to 55 KM/H, Sherman can go 38.5 Km/H. Panthers had have better suspension design than Russian tanks and allyed... Which if there are obstacles it can fire a gun without moving it up and down... As a repair I think both vehicles are easy to get in the engine. But the parts are hard to get for them than for Sherman. I rather be in Panther than i Sherman... Better Gunned, Better armor, Sloped armor, and Faster...

P.S. U can look for both models on Wikipedia

Hi filon
i agree with you almost on everything i d like to be in a panther rather than a sherman i give you this but last week i was watching a nice program on discovery erm i dont remember exactly the title anyway was about ww2 tanks and they said that the panthers hydraulic suspension system was not
fitting its weight even though the machine was introducing the newest system for firing on the move the coolest ever seen
did you know that to repair a single wheel on the panther was necessary to remove at least 3 more than te damaged one? to repair the turret the german crew had to take the tank in a workshop with a crane where th serman like alittle italin car could be repaired way more easily on spot with the consequent saving of time and resources
I read more and more often on forums the classic question how could germany lose the war?
Well the answer is probably in the fact that sometime in life like in war times is better to be a little uglier but effective than shiny beautyful but clumsy

Germany lost the war on production. They simply couldn't keep up with the production the allied had.

By 1943 the Russians had 17.5 times the amount of production the germans had in Armoured vehicles.

Also, Hitler refused millions of recruits that did not fit the Aryan standards. For example, Hitler had the choice to recruit 1 Miljon soldiers in the Ukraine alone, but refused them due to their looks. A bad choice, since Ukraine was Pro-German and could've made a difference.

And last, Hitlers stuborn decisions. He decided to make ridicilous projects like the Sturmtiger and "maus". Instead of 1 panther, the Germans could produce 4 Panzer 4's in the same time.

The Germans lost on numbers in the end, due to lack of production.

Well, If Hitler dint made war on Jews than there will be more numbers of German military more than spending on Contranctation camps, etc. If they produced Jet fighters in 1943 then they will win the war...

The Nazis didn't lose becouse their less effective production or lack of soldiers. But they lost by that darn Führer that didn't accept the stg44 (mp-43) at first, couse it was a very good gun and if introduced 1 year earlier with the Führers blessing, the allies and soviets would have had a very big problem. Same story with almost all GREAT german machines at the time, just spoiled by that darn Austian house painter.....

I find you people scary, talking about how "terribly sad it is that the germans lost the war" or that "if the furha didnt do this", if the furha was not there or a madman, there wouldnt be a ww2, its a shame he didnt die in ww1 as a runner.. its a good thing that they didnt win, that there tanks broke down, that they invaded russia and the war was illigaly armed due to the conventions from ww1.

You ww2 communitys scare me -.-' neo-nazi's in the making.. wait not even that.. nazi's in the making.. all you seem to talk about is how gr8 german tanks are and how gr8 germany was, scary people ¬_¬ *goes back to hide befor hes burned for saying such things*

quote:

Originally posted by CM_Droid14.EUF:
The Nazis didn't lose becouse their less effective production or lack of soldiers. But they lost by that darn Führer that didn't accept the stg44 (mp-43) at first, couse it was a very good gun and if introduced 1 year earlier with the Führers blessing, the allies and soviets would have had a very big problem. Same story with almost all GREAT german machines at the time, just spoiled by that darn Austian house painter.....

They did, don't try to correct me. It was not because of the MP43 which actually started as the MKB42, it was because of the reasons I said. Simple as that.

@ Jozor:

Scared? For what? German tanks WERE great, Germany made great technological advancements like the Jet and the Diesel engine.

We're not Nazi's, sounds more like some left democrat pussy talk

@ Jozor:

What do you think about germany? I can tell you what happend in that war! A ****ing dictator took the chance to use the disappointed whishes of a people and changed them to the destructive and criminal power of fashism. And in that process the will and creatism of a lot of guys was liberated and a lot of exciting but also frighting processes were pushed ahaid. This were devellopements like industrial destrucion of men (like concentration camps) and also the first stratopheric rocket (the V-2). I know which part of the developpenents where criminal or a-moralic. I know that NOW! But for the guys, which fought in that days for germany, the decision of good or evel was based on other categories than today! In the end they lost everything... Good for all people in europe (even germany) and all the world. But desasterous for them and also desasterous for germany, which lost the most of its mental power and vitality. We had to pay for it. We had to learn our lessons very hard. Maybe this history will be a mirror for all countries, which are so ****ing sure about their ****ing superiority and cultural extraordinaritie.

->

I dont think that one weapon would change the war...(Stg44) I jet plane would and a tank that has more armor, better gunned, and speed.

P.S. Little YouTube video on Stg44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPXEusMmgVU

quote:

Originally posted by stealth_756:
none thier all good for a roll in the game

yes exactly

Well Jozor, the 2nd ww wouldn't have begon if the allies wouldn't have treated the Germans so terribely unfair after the 1st ww. It was a war waiting to heapen and that that Austrian soldier became their leader is just GOOD luck couse thanks to him, he demolished his own country. So before you say anything again, first check history.

A sherman with a 76mm or 75mm gun could never take out a King Tiger. The only Sherman capable of destroying a King Tiger was the British Sherman Firefly And that was from the sides and rear only.

quote:

Originally posted by CM_Droid14.EUF:
Well Rampart, that even lowers my thoughts of the allied tankees, Cause the US and allies havent won the war. It were those soviets. And ofcourse Hitler himself, being a very very very VERY stupid tactician. And besides, who can not see when you are planning an invasion (not D-day but market garden) that a whole german motorised russian front army had been moved on 'holiday' near Arnhem. Altough they didn't had satelites, how can you miss that when you are planning something like that. And ferther more, that Bulge offensive was following the same route as the Von Schlieffenplan what had been used in the first world war, begin of second and in that offensive. So why hadn't the allies build better fortifications there?

In world war one Hitler was a corporal in the army so he coudn't have been a very good tactician. They only lost the war because they invaded Russia if he hadn't he would have defeated the Allies

true, that was the major mistake... Idk how can he be so stupid, russia is a huge country + the half of poland captured and some other countries...look on the map how big is germany to russia???there is no way he would win a war with russia, even if he had won the battle in stalingrad, Stalin would send more and more troops and he will be supper mad about it... Germans dint had good tanks in battle in the city. I mean look in stalingrad, all ruins, y did they lose at stalingrad?

1. German tanks will brake down fast in ruins.
2. Better hiding spots for defenders with AT weapon to take out the tank.
3. Clothes. Especially in winter, russian had better clothes.
4. Remember, russians made siege around the city and push back the german forces in to the city and cut there supply lines.
No tanks = cant move up (like ww1)

Hitler should have let his Generals make decisions. You don't see Gordon Brown or George Bush, (yet), ordering lots of nonsense projects like the Maus and Sturmtiger and thousands of men building V1s and V2s when they could have built many more tanks in that time. Hitler refused support from pro-german countries and just ordered his Generals to be dismissed when they disagreed. He even attacked the Soviet Union which had more men, more factories, a tough leader and leading technology and that ultimately made them lose. The Germans could have won the war but with Hitlers foolish assumptions they lost. But remember don't be fooled by propoganda.

id have to say the heavy tank is the worst yes thier guns are good but thier slowness and rear softspots are easy to get too thier tracks also fall off way to much but can take acoupple of hits as its firing but as soon as its turret is gone abendon it using the key l other then that other tanks have greater manoverability and might get away.