best medium WW2 tank thread

[eleetsdier]

At the Museum of Armor at Ft. Knox, I saw an FT-17 recovered from Afghanistan after 2001. It was not in working condition.

You're lucky that you got to see that museum before it closed. It's now the Patton Museum of Leadership and has about a half dozen armored vehicles. It does still have a pretty cool Stug and Jumbo, but almost everything else is gone.

Someone else mentioned that they didn't think there were very many Jumbos in the European theater - I know there were at least a few, as there was one under Patton's command. I think it's being restored at the new School of Maneuver in Fort Benning now and is called the Cobra King.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Only problem is I have done my research on the false religion of AGW. See this link or this link or this link or this link from a physics scientist or this link on why it's impossible to convert to solar. I can link thousands more.

But your post is a PERFECT example of what I was saying and you proved it since nowhere in your post is any factual proof of anything of value.

While I am not 100% convinced on global warming, things like the pollution from coal power definitely do affect our environment (when you can actually track the soot in the air from China). We will never reach 100% or even 50% renewable in my lifetime, and it may not even be practical to...

However there is a very practical solution wind power.

Due to the natural process of convection, land heats up faster then water and causes a natural breeze, usually known as sea breeze. http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/06.php This breeze is very high during the hottest parts of the day, and very low at nighttime, which follows ALL human electrical consumption. This also happens to be the most expensive time to generate electricity, which is usually 50% more then retail rates and is charged as "peak hours". For example, here in NYC we are charged approximately 17cents/kwh for these peak hours.

Now on top of this nearly 60% of human population lives near the ocean. Given this we could simply build on land wind turbines all along the coast that would create energy when we need it most, without the need of massive power transmission lines. With this we could easily cut pollution and generate significant amounts of power when we need it without having to build storage systems or transmission lines as most renewable naysayers say.

 

[keynes2.0]

Hey guys let's derail the thread /sarcasm.

 

[jju_57]

Steering this back to the Panther tank the issue is that every tank can be rated for many different qualities. And what is important to you can vary based on if you need to attack, defend or something else.

So in order to actually answer the question you need to first define the question in very precise terms. Till that is done all the rest falls into the "it depends" classifications.

 

[Porkman]

While I am not 100% convinced on global warming, things like the pollution from coal power definitely do affect our environment (when you can actually track the soot in the air from China). We will never reach 100% or even 50% renewable in my lifetime, and it may not even be practical to...

However there is a very practical solution wind power.

Due to the natural process of convection, land heats up faster then water and causes a natural breeze, usually known as sea breeze. http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/06.php This breeze is very high during the hottest parts of the day, and very low at nighttime, which follows ALL human electrical consumption. This also happens to be the most expensive time to generate electricity, which is usually 50% more then retail rates and is charged as "peak hours". For example, here in NYC we are charged approximately 17cents/kwh for these peak hours.

Now on top of this nearly 60% of human population lives near the ocean. Given this we could simply build on land wind turbines all along the coast that would create energy when we need it most, without the need of massive power transmission lines. With this we could easily cut pollution and generate significant amounts of power when we need it without having to build storage systems or transmission lines as most renewable naysayers say.

Distrust anything that says we can get 100% of energy from X. Either it's someone trying to disprove something like jju's link or it's someone being way too optimistic.

In jju's example, the guy talks about taking solar from 00.2% of the US energy consumption up to 100.00% a 500 times increase that's massively costly. That isn't, however, evidence that adding some more solar panels on roofs throughout the Southwest is a bad idea. Using more solar and wind than we are now is a good idea, especially since the cost of solar panels and power storage both continue to go down. A better research project than "how much would it cost to convert to "100% solar" would be, "what is the percentage of solar that we can convert to at current technology without costing too much?" It wouldn't be 100% but I suspect a number far higher than 00.2%

Also, on the tanks threads, I think the Panther advocates have been far more disingenuous.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Hey guys let's derail the thread /sarcasm.

You know I just felt that I derailed the Air Tech thread with the word that shouldn't be named... and just wanted to continue .

 

[1alexey]

Now on top of this nearly 60% of human population lives near the ocean. Given this we could simply build on land wind turbines all along the coast that would create energy when we need it most, without the need of massive power transmission lines. With this we could easily cut pollution and generate significant amounts of power when we need it without having to build storage systems or transmission lines as most renewable naysayers say.

Massive power transmission lines are extremely efficient. Energy loss is higher from low-voltage lines that go from nearest transformer substation to homes than going from one side of continent to another.

 

[tommylotto]

Kiss the seagulls goodbye.

 

[Beagá]

Steering this back to the Panther tank the issue is that every tank can be rated for many different qualities. And what is important to you can vary based on if you need to attack, defend or something else.

So in order to actually answer the question you need to first define the question in very precise terms. Till that is done all the rest falls into the "it depends" classifications.

Even if the Panther can be really considered a medium tank is debatable, as the criteria is often the subjective (role) instead of objective (weight) ones.

If US had Sherman AND made a tank EXACTLY like the Panther, with its 45 tons, would US Army consider it a medium? Really doubt it.

Also, it also depends on what you think the most important role is. If it is tank destruction, it´s likely the Panther is better than either Sherman or T34 as it could kill both at ranges where itself couldn´t be killed.

In the end I think this discussion is too academic and misses what is really important, which is how to simulate things in the game and the what-ifs.

 

[dav77-b]

While I am not 100% convinced on global warming, things like the pollution from coal power definitely do affect our environment (when you can actually track the soot in the air from China). We will never reach 100% or even 50% renewable in my lifetime, and it may not even be practical to...

However there is a very practical solution wind power.

Due to the natural process of convection, land heats up faster then water and causes a natural breeze, usually known as sea breeze. http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/06.php This breeze is very high during the hottest parts of the day, and very low at nighttime, which follows ALL human electrical consumption. This also happens to be the most expensive time to generate electricity, which is usually 50% more then retail rates and is charged as "peak hours". For example, here in NYC we are charged approximately 17cents/kwh for these peak hours.

Now on top of this nearly 60% of human population lives near the ocean. Given this we could simply build on land wind turbines all along the coast that would create energy when we need it most, without the need of massive power transmission lines. With this we could easily cut pollution and generate significant amounts of power when we need it without having to build storage systems or transmission lines as most renewable naysayers say.

Germany produces sometimes 20%-50% with renewable energy ( problem is storing all the energy). 2030 or something like that Germany plans to be 100%. But this is so off topic I say something to the medium armour issue:
HoI4 will have different models which we can "customize" with experiance. So players will have the possibility to find the "best" tank.

 

[Axe99]

Which tank served with distinction in North Africa and had no combat losses over the course of the war? The Sentinel! Sure, it was on a movie shoot, but hey, details .

The cost in money isn't that relevant a factor when the Nazis had a bizarre relation with their own supply of money and their economy was supplemented by slave labour. How does it look if you compare man hours required?

Aye, but as long as the cost in money is applied in an equally bizarre sense across all the different tank models, it should be a reasonable comparison. Only if money costs were skewed towards capital, say, and different tanks were more capital intensive than each other, would you get the costs here being unrepresentative of actual effort required to build the tank.

Only problem is I have done my research on the false religion of AGW. See this link or this link or this link or this link from a physics scientist or this link on why it's impossible to convert to solar. I can link thousands more.

But your post is a PERFECT example of what I was saying and you proved it since nowhere in your post is any factual proof of anything of value.

Oh dear. Seriously? I'd highly recommend reading a bit more broadly, unless you prefer hanging out with the equivalent of the crowd that in Columbus' day would have been claiming the world was flat. PM me if you want more info, as climate change is hardly on topic!

 

[Dalwin]

It might be worth noting that "requires more laborious maintenance" is not the same as "poor reliability".

I mean, the M16 might not necessarily tolerate the same conditions as the AK47, but would that automatically mean the M16 is unreliable?

I mean, the term unreliable seems to be reserved for breakdown issues that happen under the best circumstances, not breakdown issues that happen after the "mean time to failure" of a given "thing".

I mean, if the "mean time to failure" of a given mechanism is 10 hours (pure example) and after 15 hours it croaks, are you making a fair assessment in calling it unreliable?

Ironically there were some issues with the first version of the M16 which did make it's reliability questionable. The M16A1 and A2 were better.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I'm back! I see Darkrenown has been here leaving death and destruction behind him...

The thread was started partly to get pressure off the Air DD thread and to give folks the ability to post what tank they think is the best
in WW2. It was not meant to be a "Panther" thread but such is war...

DR you fail to see (again) that which I based my preference on. That the US Army (not an induvidual Author, the Tech Manual was done
by a group of researchers) studies show the US opinion of the German PzV Panther tank in WW2. Based upon THEIR information and the
reports of their forces AT THAT TIME, as in the US Army histories, that they considered the Panther without a possiblilty of doubt a very
successful and dangerous opponent.

Going post war to reports of used armor not involved in combat and to continually talk about reliability rather than overall effectiveness is
to miss the point of what all those folks in WW2 thought. You are dismissing all their input as useless and immaterial. That is a failure
of doing proper research and seeing what you are reading rather than picking out what you want for your conclusion. Research is simply
SEARCH.

I won't go into USSR sources as I find too many that are suspect. Has nothing to do with nationality but the politics of the time that tainted
much that should have been more objective. It has nothing to do with the USSR service in WW2.

The French report is simply not a relevant source of objective information as its based upon post war service of vehicles long past their prime.

The issue of reliability which seems the totality of what critics feel of the Panther can be addressed as any tank in WW2 as has been shown have
their strengths and weaknesses. This includes the T34 and the Sherman, both of which had obvious and documented issues. The T34 issues
are there if you look for them. You may have to sift some sand to find them but they are there.

The issues of each tanks deficenices does not subtract from their effect upon the war which is well documented. If you continue to LIMIT your
view to a narrow scope you will continue to get the wrong answers to your questions.

 

[Darkrenown]

Also, it also depends on what you think the most important role is. If it is tank destruction, it´s likely the Panther is better than either Sherman or T34 as it could kill both at ranges where itself couldn´t be killed.

And yet the Panther never won a single battle against Shermans - which goes to show just how valuable that apparent range advantage was. Again, the key factors in tank vs tank combat are to spot the enemy first, to fire first, and to hit first, theoretical gun range turned out to be rather unimportant.

 

[Opanashc]

Even the best weapon means little, if there is not enough of it. WW2 was a mass army conflict - a lot of average weapons were better in it than a few of the very best. Who cares, if a Panther could stop an attack by 5-10 Shermans/T-34s, if a few miles down the road there wasn't a Panther to stop an attack by another 5-10 Shermans/T-34s, that outflank and cut the Panther supply lines, forcing its crew to blow it up themselves?

 

[Darkrenown]

DR you fail to see (again) that which I based my preference on. That the US Army (not an induvidual Author, the Tech Manual was done
by a group of researchers) studies show the US opinion of the German PzV Panther tank in WW2. Based upon THEIR information and the
reports of their forces AT THAT TIME, as in the US Army histories, that they considered the Panther without a possiblilty of doubt a very
successful and dangerous opponent.

How is it you don't understand that the US army in 1945 was not in possession of all the facts and so their opinion of the Panther was less valuable than, say, the German Panzer commission, Heinz Guderian, or the French army after they'd been operating them for 3 years? Hell, the US army thought in 1944 that the Panther was going to be a rather rare tank, like the Tiger.

Dismissing the French and Soviet reports is just pure ignorance on your part, but screw it, I'm not going to say more, it is not worth trying to talk to you.

 

[Opanashc]

What is a purpose of a tank? To provide artillery support to rapidly advancing units, that have moved beyond the range of towed artillery. Was Panther the best medium tank in this regard? Tank vs tank battles are of lesser importance.

 

[plasticpanzers]

DR, Ignorance is in the eye of those who choose not to see. see?

Induvidual tank types NEVER decided a battle. Tactics, timing, weather, luck, and many, many other fractors did. To ignore ALL to focus
on ONE is to fail young padowan.

This is why you fail...

That would sound better if i was a little bald chubby alien with pointy ears on another world but such is war....

 

[frolix42]

You're lucky that you got to see that museum before it closed. It's now the Patton Museum of Leadership and has about a half dozen armored vehicles. It does still have a pretty cool Stug and Jumbo, but almost everything else is gone.

I was at Knox when they first announced that they were moving the Armor School to Benning. One of the things the CG of Knox "promised" was that the Armor Museum "wasn't going anywhere". They used to have had a bunch of rare vehicles there.

Except for the fig leaf of that tiny building with whatever they decided to leave behind.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Interesting artice on the French historical site
www.chars_francais.net a non-profit research and historical site page on the Panther...

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/.../index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76