Jump to content


Photo

American Equipment And Generals Suck, Part Whatever


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#241 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,441 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted Yesterday, 10:08 AM

Panther was the German "Proto-MBT", I don't think they envisioned it that way, but I think it's fair to say it was showing the path forward, the Comet was another "proto" but I think the type truly came into being with the T-44 and Centurion.  

 

Or at least it would have developed into one. The E50 design looked very close to the M48 and Centurion in weight and gun.


  • 0

#242 Martin M

Martin M

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,843 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 10:34 AM

 

Panther was the German "Proto-MBT", I don't think they envisioned it that way, but I think it's fair to say it was showing the path forward, the Comet was another "proto" but I think the type truly came into being with the T-44 and Centurion.  

 

Or at least it would have developed into one. The E50 design looked very close to the M48 and Centurion in weight and gun.

 

 

 

the original Panther is also similar to the Cent 1


  • 0

#243 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted Yesterday, 11:49 AM

 


Perhaps you could consider the Panther a heavy tank?
So the Germans were phasing out medium tanks in favor of better protection.

 

 

 

Why should I? The Germans didn't. :D I could as well consider the T26E3 a heavy tank, just because OCM 24277 of 29 June 1944 redesignated the T26 series as "heavy" when they had been designated "medium" until then. Both the Panther and T26E3 served as medium tanks, in medium tank companies of what were effectively medium tank battalions in armored divisions built around medium tanks.  :D 


  • 0

#244 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted Yesterday, 05:34 PM

Yeah, nowadays people hardly ever take into account that just six years prior to the Tiger, there was no tank in the world capable of stopping shells. They were merely bulletproofed.

The German 37 mm gun was hugely successful because it was extremely effective, easily moved, easily hidden.


When and where was the "doorknocker" this successfull? 41 against the Soviet lights or did they ok against the French not lightly armored lights too?
  • 0

#245 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted Today, 02:22 AM

Yeah, nowadays people hardly ever take into account that just six years prior to the Tiger, there was no tank in the world capable of stopping shells. They were merely bulletproofed.


Char 2C? :)

I have always wondered why Allies did not make casemate versions of their main tanks. "Shermangeschutch" could have taken 90mm gun easily and better armour. Germans and Soviets seems to have found the concept useful.
  • 0

#246 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,069 posts

Posted Today, 02:32 AM

 

Yeah, nowadays people hardly ever take into account that just six years prior to the Tiger, there was no tank in the world capable of stopping shells. They were merely bulletproofed.


Char 2C? :)

I have always wondered why Allies did not make casemate versions of their main tanks. "Shermangeschutch" could have taken 90mm gun easily and better armour. Germans and Soviets seems to have found the concept useful.

 

 

Well the Churchill (initial marks), Char 2B and M3 Medium all had their main gun in a casemate, so does that count?

 

The main role for vehicles like the Stug was originally to provide fire support for the infantry. Would better artillery co-ordination in British and US armies negate that to some extent?


  • 0

#247 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted Today, 08:17 AM

 

Yeah, nowadays people hardly ever take into account that just six years prior to the Tiger, there was no tank in the world capable of stopping shells. They were merely bulletproofed.


Char 2C? :)

I have always wondered why Allies did not make casemate versions of their main tanks. "Shermangeschutch" could have taken 90mm gun easily and better armour. Germans and Soviets seems to have found the concept useful.

 

 

You could have a Sherman with the turret replaced by a TD one with the 90mm gun: M36B2....why go al the way to develop a stug type vehicle ?


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users