login   |    register
Modeling in General
General discussions about modeling topics.
The Best & Favorite
RufusLeeking
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ohio, United States
Joined: January 18, 2002
KitMaker: 330 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 01:49 PM UTC
Hey guys I just want to say in the last couple weeks since I've joined Armorama, I've learned a hell of alot. From modeling tips, to the history of fighting vehicles. I never knew how much I didn't know. I really enjoy reading everyones post, sometimes I get a little lost. Don't know my M4 from my M8 or my M113 from my M&M's. And German equipment...let's not even go there. If I have a question there I'll ask Pipesmoker, he seems to be the German armor expert.
So here's my question, the same question my stepson asked me tonight. And I didn't know the answer, maybe there's not a clear answer. What was the best tank of WWII? And I'll throw this in too, what is your favorite tank of WWII?

Ron C.
Ashtabula, Oh
drewgimpy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 02:23 PM UTC
I don't know myself. I am assuming you are asking which was the best in combat. I know the German tanks where better in combat but not as reliable in most cases. It is a good question and I look forward to the pro's answers.
Kencelot
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Florida, United States
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 05:34 PM UTC
My personal favorite is of course the M4, for a number of reasons, least of is armmament. If you go to the voting box in the upper right side of the main page, click your way into the other polls. We did a little voting on that very question a short time ago. I think the Panzer won out.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,563 posts
AeroScale: 287 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 09:36 PM UTC
Favorite tank is the M4, the best is the T-26E1 Pershing tank. Of all WWII tank designs, this one was still in use up until the Gulf War as the M-60A1 RISE Passive used by the USMC. The T-26/M-26/M-46/M-47/M48/M-60 utilized the same basic design for nearly 50 years.
Besides, the Pershing's 90mm was a big gun that tore through Panthers (PzKpfw V).
ArmouredSprue
_VISITCOMMUNITY
South Australia, Australia
Joined: January 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,958 posts
AeroScale: 116 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 02:11 AM UTC
For myself, and I didn´t mean the best, but my own favorite choice is the Tiger I, for its ruge and impressive shape and powerfull gun...
Cheers!
dls475
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Canada
Joined: February 09, 2002
KitMaker: 3 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 02:41 AM UTC
My personal favourite is the T-34, the T-34/85 is still in use today in some places. The Germans actually considered copying the T-34, and it's influence is seen in the design of the Panther. I personally don't think the T-26E3 saw enough action in WWII to qualify as "best tank" it didn't really show it's stuff until Korea. The M4 was the workhorse of the western allies and fought well considering the reputation it had as a deathtrap.The Panther G and the Stug III both deserve a nod, if the Germans would have focused on producing only those two tanks the war may have dragged on longer than it did.
RufusLeeking
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ohio, United States
Joined: January 18, 2002
KitMaker: 330 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 07:35 AM UTC
Like most of you my favorite is the M4, as for the best tank I don't have a clue. I am leaning towards the Pershing too, and wondering if it was the main battle tank of the allies on D-day and afterwards, how many lives would have been saved.

Ron C.
Ashtabula, Oh
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 08:07 AM UTC
May not be the 'best' , but, "just can't get enough of that Tiger I".

Actually, I've REALLY been getting into the idea of modern armour lately. Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a new thread...

Tread.
Kencelot
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Florida, United States
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 08:22 AM UTC
In my first reply I forgot to mention the "best" of WWII. I must agree with Rob...T26E1 Pershing. Although it was not introduced until late in the war, it possesed the best of all concerns. Heavy armor, powerful gun, and mechanically sound. Although a little underpowered, it had plenty to make up for it.
Ron, I too often wondered what it would had been like, had it been there at Normandy. If it was not argued over by politics here in the States, the difference it would have made in lives saved.
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 09:08 AM UTC
Yeah, it's a shame Patton closed the door on the earlier introduction of the Pershing.
Maybe if they decided to name it after him he might have thought differently....
pipesmoker
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 11:21 AM UTC
Hey ya'll
The best tank or WW2? for automotive reliability - I would say either the M4 or T34
For being able to take hits I would say either of the Tigers. However, once the mechanical problems with the Panthers were sorted out, some are of the opinion that they were the best all around AFV. And I tend to lean towards the Panther myself.
This topic is rather subjective. Since just about every medium and heavy tank had its strength and weakness.
My favorite is not a tank. I like the Sturmgeschuetz III. With the installation of the longer 75mm, it could handle anything it came across. Low silhouette (had to look that one up), easy to hide in ambush. Kind of squat and menacing. Just my opinion, looking at everything from over 60 years distance.
GunTruck
_VISITCOMMUNITY
California, United States
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
AeroScale: 103 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 12:09 PM UTC
I lean towards the M4 - only because it served much longer than the Pershing. If the Pershing had come sooner, then I'd give it the nod for best all-around.

Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,563 posts
AeroScale: 287 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 12:12 PM UTC
The main problem that any turretless tank has is that it is strictly a defensive weapon. No way to accurately fire on the move or to even track a rapidly moving vehicle while stationary. Even if the vehilce is in a defensive position, it will only get one shot off before the target has moved laterally out of the field of traverse. The benefit is low silhouette and cheap to build, but unless the targets are moving directly at you (like down a road), them become rather useless in a fluid battle.
pipesmoker
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 12:20 AM UTC
The main problem that any turretless tank has is that it is strictly a defensive weapon. No way to accurately fire on the move or to even track a rapidly moving vehicle while stationary. Even if the vehilce is in a defensive position, it will only get one shot off before the target has moved laterally out of the field of traverse. The benefit is low silhouette and cheap to build, but unless the targets are moving directly at you (like down a road), them become rather useless in a fluid battle.

True, Rob. But in reading some of the unit histories in "Sturmgeschutz Vor!" the Stug abteilungs got pretty good at it. There are instances where the Sutgs would be set up, catch the Russians coming out of a treeline or over the crest of ridge. Knock out 4 or 5, scoot back and off arond the flanks and when the Russians stared firing at the Stugs old positions the Stugs would catch the Russians in the flanks. Usually with geat losses to the Russinans and minimal to the Stugs.

The Sturmgeschutz was a very good defensive weapon. The experienced driver could follow a moving tank very well by pivoting (sp?) on their tracks.

Plus, you have got to have a bit of admiration for the crews. Freezing you ass off in the Russian winter, bad or no food, proteced by only 50mm of armor.

Just my opinion
pipesmoker
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 12:23 AM UTC
PS to my previous post:
I have to admire all tankers.
As willie said to Joe (or Joe said to Willie) "A moving foxhole attracts the eye"
quote courtesy of Bill Mauldin
drewgimpy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 06:20 AM UTC
Wow, I am suprised to see so many for the M-4. I love the tank and it had a lot of great things about it, but I often hear it was a moving coffin. Maybe the question should be "if you had to be in a WWII tank crew, which tank would you choose?" I would like to hear more about why we didn't use the pershing in more #'s or earlier. Whats the story behind that?
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 06:39 AM UTC
Regarding the implementation of the Pershing, can be summed up in one word...Patton. Put simply Drew (although I'm sure Rob can elaborate on this) Patton was really the main decision maker in establishing the Sherman as the 'main' battle tank of the ETO. I forget the author right now, but the book 'Death Traps' (interesting name for our 'main battle tank' don't you think?) covers the issue quite well.
Even though the Sherman is a crowd favorite I'm not sure the crews themselves would agree. The original engines were seriously prone to fouling and 'eating sparkplugs', the armour was too thin, the (paraphrasing the proper term here) ground contact pressure compared to the german's much wider tracks was too high, and the main gun really wasn't the best choice for taking on the heavier German metal. I certainly wish the choice had been the Pershing (just look at the shape of the turret for an example of it's superiority) but Patton thought otherwise. Soooooooo....

TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 06:41 AM UTC
Jeeez. I just realized I put down the Sherman...Boy am I goin' ta catch hell now!!

Peace everyone... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Kencelot
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Florida, United States
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 07:34 AM UTC
Quite alright Tread. The way I see it, is you put Patton down...deservedly so. Great Generals aren't "great" all the time...
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 08:56 AM UTC
Hey, Patton was alright, so was the Sherman. I guess they both had their faults

Best line I remember about Patton was from the film of the same name.
Qoute; Hey, look, there goes ol' 'blood & guts'....yeah, our blood, his guts"

Tread.
drewgimpy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:03 AM UTC
I figure that the lives he saved with his leadership and tactics still made him an awsome general. I am going to have to do more research to see why Patton was so against the pershing because I like him a lot and want to know his reasoning. If anyone knows any good recourses along with the book listed above please post them so I can look into it, or you can just put the information in a post.
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:40 AM UTC
Darn, knew if I threw any 'bad press' at either Sherman or Patton I'd get in trouble...
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:42 AM UTC
Inshort, he thought the Shermen would be quicker & more manuverable in the European terrain. Thought the Pershing would be slower and heavier.
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:54 AM UTC
Also, in short. (just an old man's opinion) Patton was indeed an intelligent General. My only input is that it was no secret that his ego quite often outweighed his sense. Hence the
"...our blood, his guts" reference.
Believe me, I used to be quite the Patton fanatic when I was younger, I guess my opinion has been ' tainted' by some of the grunt soldier accounts I've read over the years. Sometimes history has the luxury of looking at a 'chief's' accomplishments while not seeing how it affected the 'braves'.



Tread.

Gee, hope this doesn't get me in deeper. If it does I'll just blame it all on my evil twin.lol.
TreadHead
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
AeroScale: 370 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:57 AM UTC
O.K..........enough about Patton.......next subject!!

lol.