Thus the answer is clear, the MG34 has the advantage of “open swing” when it comes to changing the barrels.
Favorite Tank
-
T-34 great tank and easy to fix.
they had so many they dident need to they just left it and 2 more took it’s place
-
T-34 (85 mm variant).
GG
-
T-34 cheaper than the Panzer but still just as good.
-
KING TIGER!
-
KING TIGER!
Tiger TOO- TOO expensive, TOO much fuel, TOO heavy, TOO slow, TOO much maintenance, TOO long to build, TOO easy to bomb, TOO late.
-
T-34 taught the Germans how to design tank armor, engines and tread. In late 1941 it gave the MkIII’s and MkIV’s Matilda style trouble. The T-34 with the 85 gun was still an excellent medium/light tank in 1945!
PZIV was obsolete in 1942 but had a solid gun. I believe the same gun the StugIII’s used to good effect the second half of the war. PZIII’s and PZIV’s had their success against the lighter tanks in France due to better German tactics. WAY better tactics and good crews. Don’t get me wrong, these were good tanks. Little things like radios and well designed loading systems go a long way.
Panther, good tank but a 1943 design that was as good armor wise as the Soviet’s 1941 T-34. Showed the German engineers learned their lessons from the Communists. Panther did have an excellent gun and good speed. Once the Panther became reliable the good command control, use, and ride habits of German tanks.
Tigers had to be like a tank destroyer to use. A 3 legged slow dog with a gun a battleship would be proud of. Stick it on a hill in a building or under cover and let it command a battlefield. Then wait for it to catch up with your infantry.
King Tiger has to be compared with the 1944 Allied low production tanks. Soviet IS2’s probably had more than 3,000 produced during the war. TigerII King Tigers list 492. (Don’t even mention our 20 Pershings which saw service during the war.
-
KING TIGER!
Tiger TOO- TOO expensive, TOO much fuel, TOO heavy, TOO slow, TOO much maintenance, TOO long to build, TOO easy to bomb, TOO late.
All very true.
-
too scary, too fearsome, too armored, too hard to kill(tank - tank), too big
-
what roll did the churchill realy play
-
too scary, too fearsome, too armored, too hard to kill(tank - tank), too big
The tiger was a good tank. It was limited by it’s weight. I would rather have a tank that was better balanced than the tiger, the Panther, T-34 or Panzer IV.
-
Alright, it’s not precisely WWII, but I think I just found my favorite tank. :-D
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11511886 -
they had wood tanks though
-
Panther was designed a year after Tiger so naturally it took some lessons learned from the T34 into account. Good speed, good armor. Had a great gun itself. Tiger seems like Rommell’s blend of a bigger Matilda and his 88’s.
-
@ABWorsham:
If you were a ruler of a country and wanted to build an armor force from the WWII era, which tank would you choose for the job?
Panther G model with the T34-85 a close second.
-
One of my favorites is the E-75 Standardpanzer. Germany’s Entwicklung series was intended to have been a replacement for its existing tank designs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series . The Entwicklung series tanks were intended to be simpler, easier-to-produce, more mechanically reliable versions of the tanks they replaced. The series ranged from the E-5 (5 - 10 ton light tanks and armored reconnaissance vehicles) to the E-100 (a 100 ton successor to the Maus).
The E-75 was the intended successor to the Tiger 2 (a.k.a. the King Tiger). The E-75 was significantly better armed and better armored than the Soviets’ IS-2. However, the E-series tanks were still in the prototype phase when the war ended.
Suggested Topics
