Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yeomanz i left out the... M3 Stuart |
Grrr!
The Crusader fulfilled a good role as a FlakPanzer and gun tractor etc.
The PzIII G E/50 was competitive when compared with enemy tanks in NA from August '40 'till the end.
The StuGIII could deal with a Mathilda from it's introduction, as could the PzIV when using HEAC/CPHE rounds. When the G and F2 models respectively were released, they stayed formidable.
- I'm gonna plump for the StuGIII.
PlanD: Quote:
|
Discounting the Tiger though, the IV F/2 was certainly the best. Although the M4 Sherman was a very close match-up for it.
|
It had less chance than a T34/76.
Quote:
|
The M4 Sherman, however, had 75mm armour maximum armour. Therefore, the IV F/2 will only be bothering the Shermans with good hits at those ranges.
|
That's a maximum, the hull front for e.g. was a favourite aiming point for German gunners.
The PzIV's fume port and other ports like the driver's etc were also unable to stand upto even a Boys AT rifle though!
Quote:
|
A few hits would destroy but we'll delete them at this moment, since a lot of tanks can have very unlucky moments.
|
A wise move, thank you D. However this applies when matching RoF's...
Quote:
|
Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2.
|
The ranges here can be more like 6+ miles!!
Quote:
|
Also, the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm. The German cannons were so good because of their high velocity and accuracy.
|
You are correct, a high-velocity, well mounted cannon makes the job much easier.
Soren: Quote:
|
The 'Zeiss' optics used on the PzIV were 'Far' superior to any U.S. or British tanks optics. Thats a fact
|
It can count for nothing. Sand storms and the weird effects of heat can render any optical equipment useless, it's like aiming underwater at times!
Quote:
|
the PzIV F2 would have no problem in making first round hits at 1000-1500m.
|
Yes, on a good day. The Sherm ain't gonna be able to do that, the M10 might though...
Quote:
|
optics with build in range-scales !
|
Wow! I bet the Allies/Soviets wish they had that!
The only time range-related equipment that amazes me is the laser range finder on the very late Panthers.
Quote:
|
Never said you did, but you said the M3 was accurate at 1000m, wich it wasnt
|
Course it was.
Quote:
|
WWII projectiles and ballistics by Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingstone
|
Thanks again Soren! I take it you've already got the (Nation's) Artillery series of books?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by toffigd Why no one votes for the underestimated M 13/40? It couldn't be as bad as most people think, as it was widely used by Germans and British (Australian) as well. |
Because it was available, that's why. The gun is arguably themost important part of a tank and on the Carro this was good. The armour was worse than useless though and the gun couldn't make up for it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P38 Pilot Im going to stick with the good old American Sherman M4 because she was a fast tank! (Perfect for the dessert) |
It had pathetic floatation unlike the fantastic T34.
The rubber pads also had a habit of melting!
Good tank, but not in the desert, though it was probably the best tank around when introduced (but called a Swallow).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vassili Zaitzev they were vunerable to flak 88s and Tigers, but which american or british tank wasn't |
The Mathilda and Chuchill had a degree of survivability here, but were just too damn sloow!
The best points of the PzIV and Sherman had was mechanical reliability, something only the Stuart, Valentine & Pz/StuG III could match?
Belly armour is also a huge consideration. I know of a Sherman that survived a mine, dunno if it was AT or not.
- only kidding! 
('44)
