Best Tank

[Exel]

Ummm.. didn't the Panther stop being around after WWII simply because Germyn lost? And didn't the French use Panthers for quite some time afterwards?

Germany losing didn't stop for instance Messerschmitts being used by a number of countries and from them being further modified. Nor did it stop the StG44 from becoming the basis for the G3.

Of course a big part of Panther's lack of post-war success probably has to do with all the great powers already having their own "post-war tanks" in production or at least on the drawing boards. France was the only exception but even there the Panther's lineage was cut short with the exception of the gun that undeniably was a very good one.

The influence the Panther had as a design is debatable, and although some even credit it as the first MBT, I see little in it that couldn't also be credited to T-34. Sure it improved and passed along the characteristics of T-34, but in a really revolutionary way? Many of the Panther's own unique features were abandoned in later designs - even by the Germans themselves.

 

[Vladson]

Sure it improved and passed along the characteristics of T-34, but in a really revolutionary way?

What chareacteristics besides the overall size, weight, increased firepower, have the Panther passed?

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Of course a big part of Panther's lack of post-war success probably has to do with all the great powers already having their own "post-war tanks" in production or at least on the drawing boards. France was the only exception but even there the Panther's lineage was cut short with the exception of the gun that undeniably was a very good one.

Actually the French AMX were simply improvements of the Panther. They were not cut short, but France was in no position to afford to build they own tanks while the US throw theirs almost for free.

Germany couldn't develop they own tank, but once the restrictions were lifted, the Leopard continued the linage. Which tank would you put as his ancestor?

The shape of the T-34 are similar, but to claim they don't follow two different designs philosophies (while sharing some technical solutions) is a bit understating it.

 

[unmerged(6093)]

The tank the french wanted was the ARL 44 a refined ARL 40 dropped becuase they got Shermans and M47s dirt cheap and the AMX-30 has nothing in common with the Panther nor has the Leopard 1 (both had their roots in the same joint project).

 

[unmerged(13241)]

The tank the french wanted was the ARL 44 a refined ARL 40 dropped becuase they got Shermans and M47s dirt cheap and the AMX-30 has nothing in common with the Panther nor has the Leopard 1 (both had their roots in the same joint project).

So who designed the Leopard 1?

 

[unmerged(6093)]

Germany losing didn't stop for instance Messerschmitts being used by a number of countries and from them being further modified. Nor did it stop the StG44 from becoming the basis for the G3.

The StG44 has nothing to do with the G3, The CETME (on which the G3 was based) was a outgrowth of the Mauser StG 45.

 

[Exel]

The StG44 has nothing to do with the G3, The CETME (on which the G3 was based) was a outgrowth of the Mauser StG 45.

I stand corrected, however I might argue that the StG45 is a direct successor to the StG44. It has a different firing mechanism (later passed on to G3) but in many other aspects it loans a great deal from StG44.

Germany couldn't develop they own tank, but once the restrictions were lifted, the Leopard continued the linage. Which tank would you put as his ancestor?

Well that's just it, because the Leopard 1 didn't really inherit anything from the Panther. Most of the unique features of German late WWII tanks died with the Panther and King Tiger. Against that background their direct influence on later designs seems a little iffy. Of course on a conceptual level we can argue if the Panther really was the first MBT, in which case it would have to be seen influencing a whole new breed of tanks, but I would give that credit to T-54 and Centurion. Panther, much like Pershing or the Soviet T-44, were still built too much along the WWII medium/heavy design philosophies.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Well that's just it, because the Leopard 1 didn't really inherit anything from the Panther. Most of the unique features of German late WWII tanks died with the Panther and King Tiger. Against that background their direct influence on later designs seems a little iffy. Of course on a conceptual level we can argue if the Panther really was the first MBT, in which case it would have to be seen influencing a whole new breed of tanks, but I would give that credit to T-54 and Centurion. Panther, much like Pershing or the Soviet T-44, were still built too much along the WWII medium/heavy design philosophies.

The German heavy/medium approach was different to other nations. They medium was heavier then some heavies anyway.

Which unique futures?

 

[Easy-Kill]

"This is why most offensive tanks tend to ride very high, whereas defensive tanks tend to be very low and sloped."

That are your words... looking at Jagtpanther you will see that it is higher not only comparing to T-34, but also to Koenigstiger and Jagtpanther was a tank destroyer, which is aimed at defence...
anyway, thinking logically you would understand that it is an attacking tanks that should have a low silhouette since it is them which maneuver trying to break through the defensive lines and while they do this, they appear to be a good target for an anti-tank guns, tanks destroyers and other... thus low silhouette was a "thing" that gave more safety to an offensive tank...
more than that these 50cm of additional height will unlikely be giving an additional viewing distance... 50cm is nothing in respect of viewing distance but is very valuable when you become a target... 50cm comprises about a forth part of all the silhouette square... and i suppose it`s rather significant in respect of being less vulnerable...



so you will likely be argreeing that it is their uncapability of creating such kinda gearbox, than their "attack-mindness" that lead to this reverse speed equalling to 5km/h

Dude, I think you misunderstand the idea of sillhouette. I'm sure some of the tankers will correct me if I am wrong here my experience comes not as a tanker but as someone hiding and watching, but height alone does not make a silhouette. You have to take into account the the size, shape, shine and movement all play an equally big part in camouflage.

Something like the Jagdpanther, while having a large size doesnt have the most distinct shape unlike a traditional tank would have , the angular sheets make it less likely reflect light. Plus a low sillhouette really means nothing unless you are sitting in a place where someone is going to see your sillhouette (and if you are retarded enough to park on top of a hill you deserve to be shot). On the other hand, if your T34 is rushing over a hill, having a lower height would be beneficial as you would create less of a tank like shape ontop of the hill.

So the Brits got it wrong when they produced the Centurion tank (which I would argue was the first MBT) one of the best tanks at the end of the war. So they should have produced a lower tank? I think the particular design of a tank is based upon needs and while you might argue that for a pure offensive tank a low sillhouette would be good, I would argue other wise. If you are sitting low you aren't going to see you and those infantry with the panzerfaust are going to make mincemeat out of you pretty quickly ... wasn't the biggest killer of T34 in WW2 the panzerfaust?

 

[Exel]

Which unique futures?

Interleaved road wheels is probably the most notable one.

 

[Vladson]

Dude, I think you misunderstand the idea of sillhouette. I'm sure some of the tankers will correct me if I am wrong here my experience comes not as a tanker but as someone hiding and watching, but height alone does not make a silhouette. You have to take into account the the size, shape, shine and movement all play an equally big part in camouflage.

Something like the Jagdpanther, while having a large size doesnt have the most distinct shape unlike a traditional tank would have , the angular sheets make it less likely reflect light. Plus a low sillhouette really means nothing unless you are sitting in a place where someone is going to see your sillhouette (and if you are retarded enough to park on top of a hill you deserve to be shot). On the other hand, if your T34 is rushing over a hill, having a lower height would be beneficial as you would create less of a tank like shape ontop of the hill.

So the Brits got it wrong when they produced the Centurion tank (which I would argue was the first MBT) one of the best tanks at the end of the war. So they should have produced a lower tank? I think the particular design of a tank is based upon needs and while you might argue that for a pure offensive tank a low sillhouette would be good, I would argue other wise. If you are sitting low you aren't going to see you and those infantry with the panzerfaust are going to make mincemeat out of you pretty quickly ... wasn't the biggest killer of T34 in WW2 the panzerfaust?

Concerning silhoutte: Ok, maybe i`m wrong but i suppose that a tanks silhoutte is a square of tank`s hull surface which is seen from your angle of view... so if you`re on top of the hill and take a look under the hill where a tank is situated you will also see a top of the tank, the top of the turret... so the silhoutte will be bigger then in situation when you look at the tank when it is on the same level with you... silhoutte has also nothing to do with the angle if armor plates... as i said it`s silhouette just a square which u see from your angle of view..

Concerning "low view": as i have already said 50 cm won`t give you an additional viewing distance... more than that, while attack nobody looks out of the tank from the turret... the way the tank is directed (while attack moves) is the small "window" 5cm in height and 20cm wide and it`s not situated on the turret... it`s situated on the frontal armour in the middle of the plate usually on the right or left side of it, beign placed 1-1.5 m above the ground... certainly there is another one on the turret (to aim at the target) but it`s not so handy in respect of of searching for targets...
more than that, tanks (not only T-34) are killed with panzefausts not because a tank crew didn`t manage to find a panzefaust position, but because tanks are vulnerable to such kinda attacks since they lack mobility comparing to infantry, especially in a town combat...

Concerning Panzefaust: maybe the Panzefaust was a bigger killer and it must be so...
i`ll explain why very briefly: Germans were running out of tanks by the end of 1944 and lacked them significantly, however they had to kill overwhelming Russian tanks somehow... they came up with a "solution of Panzefaust"...
secondly: the volumes of T-34 production were rising since 1941 and by 44-45 reached huge levels so there were a lot of T-34 on the battlefields...
thirdly: Germans were a defending side... so it is no wonder that their infantry (sitting in ambushes) and being equipped with Panzefausts used it everywhere especially in town combats, hitting the attacking T-34 which often broke away from it`s main forces...

so thinking logically it`s not so hard to understand why so many T-34 were lost to the Panzefausts...

 

[Easy-Kill]

Concerning silhoutte: Ok, maybe i`m wrong but i suppose that a tanks silhoutte is a square of tank`s hull surface which is seen from your angle of view... so if you`re on top of the hill and take a look under the hill where a tank is situated you will also see a top of the tank, the top of the turret... so the silhoutte will be bigger then in situation when you look at the tank when it is on the same level with you... silhoutte has also nothing to do with the angle if armor plates... as i said it`s silhouette just a square which u see from your angle of view..

Concerning "low view": as i have already said 50 cm won`t give you an additional viewing distance... more than that, while attack nobody looks out of the tank from the turret... the way the tank is directed (while attack moves) is the small "window" 5cm in height and 20cm wide and it`s not situated on the turret... it`s situated on the frontal armour in the middle of the plate usually on the right or left side of it, beign placed 1-1.5 m above the ground... certainly there is another one on the turret (to aim at the target) but it`s not so handy in respect of of searching for targets...
more than that, tanks (not only T-34) are killed with panzefausts not because a tank crew didn`t manage to find a panzefaust position, but because tanks are vulnerable to such kinda attacks since they lack mobility comparing to infantry, especially in a town combat...

Concerning Panzefaust: maybe the Panzefaust was a bigger killer and it must be so...
i`ll explain why very briefly: Germans were running out of tanks by the end of 1944 and lacked them significantly, however they had to kill overwhelming Russian tanks somehow... they came up with a "solution of Panzefaust"...
secondly: the volumes of T-34 production were rising since 1941 and by 44-45 reached huge levels so there were a lot of T-34 on the battlefields...
thirdly: Germans were a defending side... so it is no wonder that their infantry (sitting in ambushes) and being equipped with Panzefausts used it everywhere especially in town combats, hitting the attacking T-34 which often broke away from it`s main forces...

so thinking logically it`s not so hard to understand why so many T-34 were lost to the Panzefausts...

Dude, people will be much more likely to debate with you if you do not enforce your opinion on others and you do not talk down to them. You will find that there is always a few people who are a lot more knowledgeable and others which are much clevererer than you Most of your statements have no historical context, at best they are plainly wrong yet at worse they are made up.

1+2) I assume you have absolutely no experience in the field whatsoever. While my experience is limited to non armour you obviously do not have the slightest grasp of cam and concealment in the field and your statements have no relation with reality. I therefor suggest that you either gain some experience or even better read a book on the subject.

3) Again, complete and utter shite, please read a book and gain an understanding of reality. German Tank/SP production in 1944 was nearly 33% higher than 1943, and about 4% lower than Soviet tank production for 1944. In 1944 production was nearly 5 times that of 1941.

Like I said nobody minds you having an opinion and joining the debate, thats why people come here, but please do not talk down to people and use made up statistics.

 

[Vladson]

Dude, people will be much more likely to debate with you if you do not enforce your opinion on others and you do not talk down to them. You will find that there is always a few people who are a lot more knowledgeable and others which are much clevererer than you Most of your statements have no historical context, at best they are plainly wrong yet at worse they are made up.

1+2) I assume you have absolutely no experience in the field whatsoever. While my experience is limited to non armour you obviously do not have the slightest grasp of cam and concealment in the field and your statements have no relation with reality. I therefor suggest that you either gain some experience or even better read a book on the subject.

3) Again, complete and utter shite, please read a book and gain an understanding of reality. German Tank/SP production in 1944 was nearly 33% higher than 1943, and about 4% lower than Soviet tank production for 1944. In 1944 production was nearly 5 times that of 1941.

Like I said nobody minds you having an opinion and joining the debate, thats why people come here, but please do not talk down to people and use made up statistics.

Maybe i lack some experience, but my thoughts come as a result of logic thinking... you don`t have to be an expert to undertand such simple things that i said earlier... there are some things that can be proven without appliying to statistics...

concerning your statement about tanks production volumes: did you know that USSR had ten times more tanks than Wehrmacht by the moment the war with Soviets began? even then the volumes of tank production were higher... so if you take the fact that Germany was fighting on two fronts by 1944 into consideration, and that they lost a great amout of tanks during Kursk battle, you will undertand where i`m driving at... (as to be historically approved, i read Tippelskirch (he was a commander on the eastern front) book "The history of WW2" where he states that Wehrmacht was experincing the lack of armour by 1943 (immediately after Kursk battle)...

P.S. i`m not tryin` to show my superiority, i only try to prove my opinion...
by the way, instead of saying that i`m wrong you`d better prove where and prove it, you can also do it logically as i did...

 

[Exel]

I'd just like to point out that we shouldn't confuse silhouette with camouflage. A target's silhouette is the area of it that you see from whatever angle you are looking at it from. Camouflage may reduce its visibility but it does not directly reduce silhouette. Third visibility factor is the thermal / IR signature of the target that produces the "silhouette" you see in your thermals or image intensifiers - camouflage can reduce that signature.

 

[Easy-Kill]

P.S. i`m not tryin` to show my superiority, i only try to prove my opinion...
by the way, instead of saying that i`m wrong you`d better prove where and prove it, you can also do it logically as i did...

I did. You stated that the germans had very few tanks, I provided a number from a reputable source stating the complete opposite, that infact 1944 was the most productive and probably numerous year for German tanks. And yet again you come out with a complete bollocks statistic. According to Beevor's Stalingrad the SU did not have 10 times the amount of tank as Germany, it certainly had the largest tank force in the world, but it wasn't 10 times the amount. Nobody minds you defending your opinion but trying to prove it with made up statistics is not the way to do it.

@Exel.
Indeed, you are right. The point I was trying to make is that hight alone isn't all that determines the silhouette, shape has a very important place in it. While something like a jagdpanther may be higher, it has less of a sillhouette because of more natural shape. IE the shape doesn't look like a tank. C+C is also a very important factor, but im sure you can tell us more about this.

 

[Exel]

C+C is also a very important factor, but im sure you can tell us more about this.

Cover & Concealment?

Oh yes, you don't want to end up like this:

Now spot two (2) tanks from this picture:

And finally, a silhouette of a target:

 

[Easy-Kill]

Cover & Concealment?
SHizzle

Thanks. Interesting on the third you can make out a vehicle particularly well, I wonder if it was a different shape, would it be so prominent.

Bad skills too, sitting up there so visible like that. I guess if he was in a Challenger2 he wouldn't have to worry too much about being shot at

 

[Vladson]

Exel is trying to say that a silhouette is a space that you see, and the angle of armour plates doesn`t play any role... on the first and third photo you can clearly see a silhouette, an it is a space (square) of the "thing" inside the borders of an observed target...

here is an illustration of a silhouette:

While something like a jagdpanther may be higher, it has less of a sillhouette because of more natural shape. IE the shape doesn't look like a tank. C+C is also a very important factor, but im sure you can tell us more about this.

Jagdpanther is higher and it`s silhoette is even biger than the one of Koenigstiger, since Tigers silhoutte is reduced by the smaller turret size, and look at Jagtpanther, it looks like a House on the wheels...

 

[Exel]

Thanks. Interesting on the third you can make out a vehicle particularly well, I wonder if it was a different shape, would it be so prominent.

Bad skills too, sitting up there so visible like that. I guess if he was in a Challenger2 he wouldn't have to worry too much about being shot at

The fog in the back helps alot in its visibility. However it is the best spot to be behind that ridge. Elsewhere he would position himself just higher, meaning the silhouette would stick out even more (against the sky on a clear day). But the target has no camo to break the shape, so it distinguishes badly against the terrain.

A good camouflage blends the colors and shapes of the target into the terrain around it and reduces its IR reflections and thermal emissions.

Something like this:

Or this:

(Note: the glints are reflections from target simulator prisms)

 

[Vladson]

Sihouette:


Jagtpanther silhuette form the particular angle of view:





P.S. i make this not to talk anybody down, but to clarify a definition of a silhoutte better, for the fact i understood that my words were wrongly interpreted...