Germans actively researched this field. I read it on another forum about all the german weapons that were never put into service.
I wish I lived in 2090......
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
"anther Ausf. G (WTS Koblenz), gut zu erkennen an der Kugelblende und dem Fahrerperiskop,
im Gegensatz zu den Luken der früheren Versionen. Zu beachten ist auch die IR-Anlage an der
Kommandantenkuppel mit dem Infrarotzielfernrohr und dem blauen 200 Watt Scheinwerfer."
Notice the little device on top of the Panther ? That is the 200 Watt Light, and you can also see the Infraredtarget device.
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
Yes, Panthers were the first tanks in the world to be equipped with nigh vision, it drastically increased the night fighting capabilities of the tank. German tanks had no equals in WWII, thats without a doubt.
I wish I lived in 2090......
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
Your saying that because they had a massive searchlight on the top. Don't forget about the British Comet, or the Cromwell to lesser extent, and the American Pershing, which were just as good as their German late war counterparts. The British definately produced infrared technology, they used it in Radar, but I can remember reading about a night sight they developed. The American also made an infrared devise which they mounted on the M1 carbine and was used in the Pacific theatre late in the war.
So your saying that American or British tanks could stand up to the King Tiger or the never introduced Maus? Thats a joke. Germans possessed the most effective tank gun, the most effective tank and the most advanced technology. Its just the German military industry couldn't pump out 40000 of them in two years.
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
Actually....The German war industry was more focused on oppence throughout the war. Near the ned, Germany started mass manufacturing V-2s as a last ditch effort to cripple Britian into surrendering. 6500 V-2s were made, when you consider that each costs even more then a tiger, it really would've better for Hitler to concentrate on his superior tank industry.
I got this from Wikipedia, so I don't know how accurate it is but:
Perhaps no Sherman could stand up to a Koenig Tiger one-on-one but consider this:
1) Tigers were expensive. With a given industrial capacity u can produce more Shermans than Tigers.
2) Tigers were gasoline thirsty. With a given supply line more Shermans will make it to the battlefield than Tigers.
3) Tigers were heavy. Frozen suspensions often crippled Tigers in Russia. They could not be towed back to a service depot so they'd get blown up instead. Also, a broken Tiger blocked the road for quite some time. Not so with a busted Sherman that could be pushed aside in a matter of minutes.
4) Tigers were complicated. As a result damages were more frequent and more dificult to fix. Not so with M-4s that broke down rarely and when they did they could be repaired by the crew on the spot most likely.
5) Tigers were few (as a result of all of the above). The more the merrier. Not only in a tank fight, but in other roles also. For instance, Shermans carried the grunts on their backs from Norway to the Rhine and beyond.
So yes the Tiger was a superb machine in a tank fight. I'd rather be in a Tiger than anything else. But the Sherman had other qualities that were probably more important to the overall war effort than those of the Tiger. I love the wisdom of restrospect..!
The Shermans and the T-34s had drastic advantages over the Tigers in producibility, sheer numbers was what won the war for the allies. They weren't excellent machines however they could be pumped out much faster than the Tigers and the Panthers. They were destroyed quickly however numbers made up for their poor effectiveness in tank on tank action.
In Russia, even when Germans were losing, Russians never achieved anything more than a 7:1 ratio against German tanks, it was around 10:1 in the initial assault on the Russians. In the west, allies couldn't achieve anything better than a 5:1 ratio against German tanks. Thats simply shows the quality and design of the German tanks.
Its also a fact that Shermans and T-34s couldn't penetrate the King Tiger anywhere other than the back.
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
This message has been edited by COWlan on Mar 28, 2006 1:30 PM
There was an American tank that could stand up to the Germans tanks one on one, the M26 Pershing. 310 were in theater by the end of the war.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."-Buddha
------------------------------
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."-Fight Club
------------------------------
"Guide us on the path that we may triumph over the enemy of our salvation and be with you in the end of ends on the planes of enlightenment."- Book of Origin
This message has been edited by OakRidge on Mar 29, 2006 3:32 AM
310 is a drop in the ocean when over 58000 T-34s were produced in WWII.
Pershings were 3 years late compared to the enemies it was designed to combat, and it saw almost no combat in WWII. Pershings were EXTREMELY underpowered and resulted in poor mobility and very bad reliability. The powerpack problem wasn't fixed until 1948 with the induction of M26E2. Pershings were roughly equal in performance to the Panther and not the Mkv Panther either.
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
This message has been edited by COWlan on Mar 29, 2006 4:08 AM
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."-Buddha
------------------------------
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."-Fight Club
------------------------------
"Guide us on the path that we may triumph over the enemy of our salvation and be with you in the end of ends on the planes of enlightenment."- Book of Origin
"Its also a fact that Shermans and T-34s couldn't penetrate the King Tiger anywhere other than the back."
At kursk the 76mm gun proved itself by penetrating the newly introduced Tigers fresh off the assembly line at a distance of 150 meters. Although this is true for the King Tigers in 1944.
The only worth mentioning of the Pershing's use during the war was the taking of the Bridge at Remegan. Other then that, it served little difference in the outcome of the entire war. The same senario took place with the IS-2. These were good tanks perfectly comparable to the panther, but simply lacking in numbers to change the outcome of many battles.
Total of 84000 were produced during the war and after it, most were T-34/85s
This message has been edited by xihaoli on Mar 29, 2006 5:54 AM
Guns are not everything. The Kingtiger was not a good tank. It was incredably unreliable, compared to the Sherman which was simple to maintain. There was also the Sherman Firefly which could destroy a Tiger at a distance of 2km by the end of the war, although it had just the same armour, but had the added advantage of mobility and speed. The Cruiser Comet and Cromwell (as I said to a lesser extent), T-34 and the Pershing were just as advanced as anything the Germans posessed (referring specifically to the Panther), which is what you are trying to get at, so don't go posting stuff like this:
"In Russia, even when Germans were losing, Russians never achieved anything more than a 7:1 ratio against German tanks, it was around 10:1 in the initial assault on the Russians. In the west, allies couldn't achieve anything better than a 5:1 ratio against German tanks. Thats simply shows the quality and design of the German tanks."
Explain to me how that proves you point at the end there, it makes no sense. There's also no need to included information about tanks that were not in service like the Maus. The Americans produced two Super Pershings and the the prototype T-28 super heavy tank, which is what the Maus was. Everyone knows that the weapons ordered by Hitler to be built were because he knew he was losing the war. The Allies could have likey done the same in the same circumstances. Using that logic I could say that the De Havilland Vampire or the F-80 were superior jets to the ME 262, which they were, but I wouldn't because although they were in service at the end of the war, they did not see combat action. Concerning the performence of the Pershing, it was no worse than a Paanther. That is coming from the same source (Wilkpedia) as your statement about the mobility and reliability of the tank.
This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Mar 29, 2006 5:00 PM This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Mar 29, 2006 4:58 PM This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Mar 29, 2006 4:55 PM This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Mar 29, 2006 4:46 PM
The facts are there, look up WWII tank documents and you can easily see that superior German tactics with superior tanks resulted in 1:10+ attrition rates with Russians in the east and 1:6+ attrition rates in the west. Its not being biased, its just stating the facts.
88 mm Kwk 36 L/56 gun and the 88 mm Kwk 43 L/71 were the most effective and deadly tank guns in WWII. Tigers were capable of destroying their most common opponents, the T-34, Sherman, or Churchill IV at ranges exceeding 1,600 m. In contrast, the T-34's 76.2mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 meters firing the BR-350P APCR ammunition. The T-34-85's 85mm gun could penetrate the Tiger frontally at almost 1,000 meters and from the side at over 1,000 meters. The IS-2's 122mm gun could destroy the Tiger at ranges exceeding 1,000 meters from any aspect.
The M4 Sherman's 75mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 500 meters to achieve a side penetration. The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, if firing its APDS round, could penetrate frontally at over 1,500 meters. The US 76mm gun, if firing the most common APCBC ammunition, could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 1,000 meters to get a side kill. However, if the 76mm was firing HVAP ammunition (usually in short supply), frontal penetrations are possible at 1,000 meters.
As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armour (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in WW2). The great penetrating power of the Tiger's gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to kill a Tiger.
Chinese people work their butt off and say nothing. Indians talk their butt off about the work they'll be doing however what they say rarely corresponds with what they actually do.
This message has been edited by COWlan on Mar 29, 2006 9:26 PM
Generally you will find rates like that when a country is under threat. the majority of fighting in W. Europe was done post June 1944, when the Allies were advancing on Europe. It is, after all, easier to defend than attack, and the Germans would have held the advantage in that case. However, I think the main reason for those rates shown is the fact that the Allies mainstay was the Sherman and pitching it up against Panthers and Tigers especially to try and overwhelm them was a huge mistake by the Allied command, resulting in serious casualties. Combining these two reasons should give an answer to the figures show, yet it still does not prove that the Cromwell, Comet, Pershing, Firefly etc. were inferior, as these didn't make up the same proportion of the Allied tanks in use as the Sherman.
This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Apr 7, 2006 6:10 PM
Germans also padded their score against early, obsolete Russian tanks. Against top models of the T-34, the results were more even. At Kursk, the kill ratio was nearly 1:1 in the main, major armor engagement.
German tanks were better defended by having superior armor and they had a better gun in the 88, but they were slow and heavy, consumed lots of fuel and were expensive and slow to build. The Panther tank was designed to be faster, cheaper to build and easier to repair than the Tiger. It was intended to take on the T-34's on more favorable terms. But Hitler insisted on heavier armor, it got slower and it defeated the original purpose.
US tanks and Russian tanks were designed primarily to support rapid, deep penetration thrusts into an enemies rear. German tanks were too, up through the Panzer IV. Then they got concerned about defensive capabilities and started building bigger and heavier tanks with which to confront the enemy armor. The Tiger and Panther were probably better defensive tanks (almost tank destroyers) but were much poorer offensive tanks.
