most feared tank of ww2

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:35 pm

About waht "magnificent" M26 you are talking about ?

Jan-Hendrik

corderex · Post by **corderex** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:59 pm

What do you have against the Pershing?

OK. So it had not the adequate engine for a tank of its weight, but the Tiger had that same problem at the beginning, and even when it got the Maybach 230 engine it was not without its share of transmision troubles.
And let's not get into the Panther, which some guys here really praise as "the best tank of WW2"

Ok, let's face it: the Panther and the Tiger were, simply put, mechanically unreliable, especially the former.

von_noobie · Post by **von_noobie** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:47 pm

ok now

the pershing had a 18 litre ford V8 , it had a total output of 500hp , its weight was 41900 kg , it had an average of 11.9 hp/tonne

the tiger had a V12 21.4 litre maybach , it had a total output of 690 hp , its weight was 57000 kg , it had an average of 12.1 hp/tonne

the tiger 2 had a V12 23.9 litre mayback , it had a total output of 700 hp,
its weight was 70000 kg , it had an average of 10.0 hp/tonne

the panther g had a V12 23.1 litre mayback , it had a total output of
700 hp , its weight was 45500 kg , it had an average of 15.4 hp/tonne

the firefly had a 5 x In6 20.5 litre chrysler , it had a total output of 425 hp,
its weight was 32700 kg , it had an average of 13 hp/tonne

hope this info helps

Soldat1942 · Post by **Soldat1942** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:51 pm

I would have to say that it REALLY depends on the terrain and situation.

Bryson C · Post by **Bryson C** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:26 pm

I would have to say the Tigers are the most feared tanks of WWII simply because - to the Allies just about any German tank was a 'Tiger'.

ericv · Post by **ericv** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:57 pm

With regard to british armour: The Mathilda struck fear in the hearts of axis soldiers up until end 1941 or so. At least that's the impression I get when reading about the Afrika Korps.

The german tanks coming out of the ardennes in 1940 struck more fear in the hearts of the Allied High command, then the Tigers ever did in 1944/1945. We're talking panzer II,III and IV's here. In fact, I believe they struck more fear then any other tank later in the war. France lost the war because of them.
Sure, also because of the new german tactics, outdated allied use of armour, the operational plan, german training. etc, etc.. All of which eventually culminated in the appearance of the german armoured force on the wrong side (for the allies) of the Maas. That really struck some fear I think.

However, It all really depended on the situation, the time, who you ask etc.
For the germans I would guess that any russian tank would almost certainly strike more fear in the heart of a german soldier than an allied tank. For if the german would survive the outcome, the pow policy of the allied side would be much preferred to that of the soviets.. regardless of the superiority of the soviet tanks.

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:08 pm

Dear corderex , you are referring to an old , through internet widespreaded myth ...

Neither Panther nor Tiger were less or more reliable rhan the other german tanks . They had thier "Kinderkrankheiten" in their first weeks of combat , but that was it !

I would recommend you to take a look in Tom Jentz's books !

Jan-Hendrik

corderex · Post by **corderex** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:38 am

Hi Jan-Hendrik

Let's not change subjects. When can have a nice and fruitful discussion about the mechanical reliability of the Tiger and Panther which, I assure you, will not be based on what I gather from the internet. Even Jentz has something to say about it.

But first, what's with the M26?

regards,

corderex

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:47 am

Hi corderex ,

you brought into this discussion the "magnificent" M26 . Well , during its service in WW2 the few ones that where sent to Europe fought , as far as I remember , with mecanical problems , too . We call this in Germany the usual "Kinderkrankheiten" . If this tank was better motorized and had got a superior gun I would follow your classification ( maybe I am getting you completely wrong and that was meant ironically ....) , but so it was better tahn the rest of werstern alliies tanks , but far away from being magnificant .

My opinion ..

Jan-Hendrik

Reb · Post by **Reb** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:05 am

Jan Hendrik

M26 Pershing got upgraded almost immediately to Super Pershing - problems ironed out, armour upgraded etc. It was a Super Pershing that engaged and defeated a Tiger II (IRRC). This suggests a pretty solid initial design.]

For good details on this see "Deathtraps" which is by a ordnance maintenance officer in 3rd US Armoured. As the title perhaps suggests, he was not particularly impressed by Sherman!

At Aberdeen Proving Ground there is a road leading to the Museum which is quite intersting in that it has a whole string of various US heavy tanks that led eventually to Pershing. The venerable M26 was a tank that unlike Sherman, was able to subsequently hold its own against T34/85 in Korea.

The most important post war American tank of course, was the M47. Was there ever a giant monster, lurching and slithering hungrily towards Tokyo, that was not engaged (albiet futilly) by M47?

cheers
Reb

Casarez · Post by **Casarez** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:42 am

Reb wrote:The most important post war American tank of course, was the M47. Was there ever a giant monster, lurching and slithering hungrily towards Tokyo, that was not engaged (albiet futilly) by M47?

I know of some M47/48 Pattons that were taken out by Super Shermans (M50/51) during the Six-day war.

The Super Pershing did add armor but the engine on it had issues moving with it. Cooper's books talks about that too. I have honestly not seen anything that backs up the claim a Pershing took out a Tiger II. There are some accounts of it firing at something but nothing confirmed. Now everyone has seen the regular Pershing take out the Panther in Cologne I believe.

corderex · Post by **corderex** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:32 pm

There's a good English equivalent for Kinderkrankheiten:
"teething troubles"

Rosselsprung · Post by **Rosselsprung** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:45 pm

M26 Pershing got upgraded almost immediately to Super Pershing - problems ironed out, armour upgraded etc. It was a Super Pershing that engaged and defeated a Tiger II (IRRC). This suggests a pretty solid initial design.

Reb, where'd you find that bit about a Super Pershing knocking out a Tiger II? The Super Pershing hadn't even been deployed during WWII, and the first M26's were reaching the front very close to war's end. I recall only one was knocked out- by a Nashorn.

PS- what does IRRC mean?

Casarez · Post by **Casarez** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:28 pm

Rosselsprung wrote:Reb, where'd you find that bit about a Super Pershing knocking out a Tiger II? The Super Pershing hadn't even been deployed during WWII, and the first M26's were reaching the front very close to war's end. I recall only one was knocked out- by a Nashorn.

There was a single Super Pershing I believe, maybe two but not much more than that.

PS- what does IRRC mean?

IF I Remember Correctly

Reb · Post by **Reb** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Rosselspring

I saw that in "Deathtraps." Had pictures as well. I nearly bought it recently but saw my first ever copy of Kurt Meyer's book at the same time and had to make a choice.... I always buy the one I can't find in the library if it comes to a choice.

cheers
Reb

Feldgrau.net

most feared tank of ww2

Most Feared Tank

Re: Most Feared Tank