Best Tank of World War II

[SeinfeldRules]

Just curious..why does sloped armor help?

I think sloped armor makes the shell bounce off the armor and into the air. I'm not 100% sure though.

[yuiop]

Sloped armor also increases the effective thickness of the armor. For example, a piece of metal 1 inch thick would have an effective thickness of almost 2 inches if it was inclined at a 45º angle. This is assuming that the projectile striking the armor is coming horizontally. If the projectile comes from above (from a soldier in building with a bazooka for example) and hits the armor perpendicularly(sp?) then of course the benefit of the sloped armor is nullified.

[USMA2010]

Yeppers. Although at certain angles a kinetic energy round might bounce off.

[AzH]

I like tanks, I would love to drive one, but my older brother say Girls can't drive tanks

My borther has a model of a Panzerkampfwagen and I think it's sexy. I have found a picture on the Internet:

[USMA2010]

For the love of God...

Panzerkampfwagen what? I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIB? All that means is that your brother has a model of a tank.

And yes, girls can't drive tanks. It is considered a combat arm so you can't play war with us.

[Admiral Donutz]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

1939-1943 I would say T-34/76 model 1943.

1943-1945 I would go with Panther G late model with the manlet chin armor.

I have to agree Wub your Panther (ausf G late)! Panther is a good machine overal: armour, firepower, speed, only it's height could be seen as a problem.

slighly offtopic:
Best thing is that n00bs run for the nearest Tiger while you calmly enter your Panther and don't even get TK-ed by doing so.

I like tanks, I would love to drive one, but my older brother say Girls can't drive tanks [img]images/smilies/sad%20%28frown%29.gif[/img]

My borther has a model of a Panzerkampfwagen and I think it's sexy. I have found a picture on the Internet:

*finds pic* damn it is dead anyway i was about to show you a pic of a rather hot russian tanker. So yes females can drive tanks perfectly okay, not only these days but also back then. But then the russians let almost everybody fight incuding feamles (if they weren't already producing ammo etc.)

[azndethman]

Originally Posted by [11PzG] USMA2010

The Sherman had two nicknames that always stuck out for me:

Ronson (A lighter company who's motto was "Always lights on the first strike!")
The Coffin for 5 Brothers

Now, would you rather be in this tank, or the one that scared the shit out of German crews until the Tiger (the tank whose sole purpose was killing T-34s) arrived on the battlefield?

i perfer tiger over both of them but i said i perfer the sherman 2 the t34

[Nesh_reanimator]

Compering T-34 with Sherman??? Your are idiots. If Sherman is american tank, it doesn`t meend it automaticaly the best.

Best tank, besides, meens not the wight, power of engine or something else! It`s, first of all, balance of all! T-34 were the best in balance of Power-Speed-Armor, and we prooved it under the Kursk, while you western front were near to colapse. And, take any respectible history resource. It`s a well-known fact, that T-34 have betten much more tank than any other in the same way showing great "healthy" (I couln`t find the right word). So, we betten more, and we loose less. That`s all we need.

There was also IS-2, that esialy break any armor, including famous Tigers, Elephant (Ferdinanas), and even Tiger II. The firhst tank, that rich Berlin was IS-2. And one more thing. Just before war ended, we constructed absolutly new tank - IS-3, that was one of the best tank for more than 15 years!!! I imagine, what this tank could do with your sherman.

[USMA2010]

Um, near to collapse? Kursk was 1943 buddy. By that time we were preparing for the invasion of France, all but secured northern Africa and began our offensive in Italy. With all due (read: no) respect, it is you who is the idiot.

The IS2 was great, but hard to resupply. If we went to war with you Russkies right after the WWII ended, we would have had M26s and M36s all over the place hunting down your precious T-34s, IS-2s, and maybe even IS-3s.

BTW: By the end of the war the Sherman we are talking about, the M4A3, was being totally replaced by the "Easy Eight". Not an easy kill there buddy. Not to mention the fact that our fighterbombers would hunt down IS tanks like a fat kid eating popcorn. Not to discredit the IL2 or LA-7, but the P-47 and Tempest are simply better jabos. The P47 takes alomost as much damage to shoot it down as the IL2, plus it is a full blown fighter. The Tempest is much better armed than an LA7 (twice the 20 mm fun!) and is plain faster.

[FreakNasty]

Originally Posted by Nesh_reanimator

Compering T-34 with Sherman??? Your are idiots. If Sherman is american tank, it doesn`t meend it automaticaly the best.

the Sherman wasn't the best tank just because it's a US production! and again for a better understanding,
the early versions of the Sherman were not meant to fight enemy tanks. the US-tankdoctrine gave
the M4 a infanterie-support-role and was meant to knock out enemy held positions. many of the early
Shermans weren't even equipped with AP shells! Tankhunting was the job of the tankdestroyers.
during the years the M4 evolved to the most versitile tank ever created. there was nothing
imaginable the M4 chassis wasn't used for. later versions of the Sherman were equipped with
the more powerful long 76mm gun and other weakpoints have been eliminated. Shermans with
76mm gun were anything but defenceless against German tanks, not to mention a T-34.
after WWII Israel showed that the M4 was able to carry even bigger guns than the British 17pounder.

in a few words, there was a Sherman-variant for any task imaginable, it was created for
massproduction, was highly reliable, easy to maintain and to handle.
if you consider all this, you must agree that the Sherman was in the main an excellent tank.

of course a Sherman stood probably no chance in a 1on1 on open field at high noon against a
Tiger, but i don't think this thread was about what tank would win at robot-wars...