.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

BCT Commander- Save $8.00
winSPWW2- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 26th, 2014, 12:41 AM
gila's Avatar

gila gila is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
gila is on a distinguished road
Default Tigers vs Shermans

Great reason to use good use of terrain to attack them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3slnEXOoSo
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gila For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old January 28th, 2014, 07:38 PM

codman codman is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 52
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
codman is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Thanks for the interesting video clip.

For those of you who might be interested about the development of the Sherman tank, Steven Zaloga's book "Armored Thunderbolt" has plenty of data for you to ponder. A very even handed ( IMO ) account of the development of the Sherman and why it turned out the way it did. There's also some good info about other tanks as well and how they compared to the Sherman.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 31st, 2014, 07:15 AM

PvtJoker PvtJoker is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 144
Thanks: 12
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
PvtJoker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Interesting clip mostly for the veteran interviews and "tank porn" (despite the T-55 based "Tiger" on action shots). Some sloppiness typical to documentaries for general audience such as the Tiger's "gun sight", which didn't look anything like real WW2 German tank gun sight picture. Only some Soviet pre-war tanks had such oversimple sights. Also the implication that the Tiger I was designed primarily as a tank killer is wrong; the specs called for a breakthrough tank rather than a defensive tank killer vehicle, which also explains why the Tiger had so thick side armor for its time (1942).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 31st, 2014, 08:06 AM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,308
Thanks: 98
Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

I always thought the Tiger was the first tank designed specifically as a tank killer, not defensive mind. Added bonus of the 88 was it could also better defend itself vs infantry & ATGs as tank formations in WWII quite often acted independently as in outrunning their infantry support.
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 31st, 2014, 08:23 PM

PvtJoker PvtJoker is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 144
Thanks: 12
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
PvtJoker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp View Post
I always thought the Tiger was the first tank designed specifically as a tank killer, not defensive mind. Added bonus of the 88 was it could also better defend itself vs infantry & ATGs as tank formations in WWII quite often acted independently as in outrunning their infantry support.
Yes, of course tank killing was a major part of the breakthrough tank role, but it was not the sole purpose of the Tiger as designed. Conceptually the Tiger had many fairly close predecessors, the KV-1 one being the closest one, but the French B1bis was not very far, either. All of them had a quite respectable tank killing ability for their time (the Soviets in fact would have wanted to put a bigger gun on the KV-1, but no such gun was ready for production in 1941).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 31st, 2014, 09:02 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,308
Thanks: 98
Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Okay the first tank designed that came to fruition with the role of tank killing in mind, & yes breakthrough as in blitzkrieg. Other German tanks were like all designs then infantry support based.
Many people state it was designed as a tank killer in response to the T-34 & that is indeed wrong because it was conceived before the start of the war, the Panther was born from the T-34.
Char B1bis & KV were infantry support tanks / breakthrough tanks with slightly improved guns to help deal with armour. Char B after all carried as its main gun what was basically a howitzer not a high velocity tank gun, it didn't even have an APC round to start with because its an infantry support tank. Both it & the KV were I think designed originally to take out heavy targets like bunkers
__________________
John

Last edited by Imp; January 31st, 2014 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old February 1st, 2014, 08:22 AM

PvtJoker PvtJoker is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 144
Thanks: 12
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
PvtJoker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp View Post
Char B1bis & KV were infantry support tanks / breakthrough tanks with slightly improved guns to help deal with armour. Char B after all carried as its main gun what was basically a howitzer not a high velocity tank gun, it didn't even have an APC round to start with because its an infantry support tank. Both it & the KV were I think designed originally to take out heavy targets like bunkers
Both the B1bis and KV-1 had good enough guns to destroy any German Panzer in service frontally, the B1bis of course with the 47mm SA35 gun in the turret, while being completely impervious to German tank and AT guns frontally (except the 88mm AA gun of course). The 75mm gun of the KV-1 even had a wide margin in summer 1941. I fail to see how that was much different from the Tiger in 1942. The armament choices of the B1bis and KV-1 came to be specifically in order to improve their anti-tank capability over previous generation tanks (the original B1 and the T-28/T-35, respectively). In case of the KV tanks there might have been more emphasis on bunker busting, but really, armor is armor whether it is reinforced concrete or steel. In any case, the actual bunker-busting version was the KV-2 (the 152mm gun fired Semi-AP ammunition ideal for bunker busting due to its devastating after-armor effects).

So, in my opinion there was at best quantitative difference between the Tiger I and the earlier heavy breakthrough tanks.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old February 1st, 2014, 03:15 PM
scorpio_rocks's Avatar

scorpio_rocks scorpio_rocks is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,036
Thanks: 337
Thanked 432 Times in 311 Posts
scorpio_rocks is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Speaking of the Tiger's initial concept as a Breakthrough tank: were the S-mine dischargers fitted to early versions effective? Were they ever actually used?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old February 1st, 2014, 09:35 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,308
Thanks: 98
Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

Okay & last we will say on it, Tiger was designed from the start for the role of taking on armour.
The others were upgraded to do so, it was not in their original design criteria. Made sense due to the fact they had good armour. Not even sure first models even had radios, needed tactically if you are going to take on armour.
This is what happened to most early tanks, they were upgraded to take on armour not designed that way at the outset. German MkIII & MkVI for example.

The Germans were the only ones that envisioned tank battles, I think it dawned on the French just before war started but everybody else was stuck in there ways.
Infantry support & break through just like in WWI which is what the tank was originally conceived to do.
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old February 2nd, 2014, 05:11 AM

Griefbringer Griefbringer is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 385
Thanks: 1
Thanked 75 Times in 67 Posts
Griefbringer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Tigers vs Shermans

I would say that in late 30's tank design, capability to take on enemy armour seems to have been well considered, since a lot of the tanks were armed with a weapon that was used as the main anti-tank gun in the respective armies. These certainly were quite capable of tackling most enemy armour of their era (though less capable once the armour levels started to go up during the war), while their HE content was rather restricted.

For example:
- British 2 pounder gun was used as ATG and to arm early cruiser and infantry tanks
- Soviet 45 mm gun was used as ATG and to arm later T-26 and BT tanks (and on smaller gun turrets on T-35)
- German 37 mm gun was used as ATG and to arm early Panzer III (though these were designed with upgunning to 50 mm gun in mind)
- US 37 mm gun was used as ATG and turret gun on Stuarts and M3 medium tanks

There were also numerous tank designs that were armed with big, low-velocity weapons (usually around 75 mm caliber) mainly for the purpose of attacking enemy infantry.

That said, many of the tank designs from Japan, Italy, Poland and France were designed less with tank combat in mind, being armed with lower velocity guns.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.