Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Yeomanz]

Well what is your favourate tank from North Africa ...?

i think ive got most of them but it would only let me do so many , so i left out the M 13/39
M3 Stuart
and MkI Cruiser

[plan_D]

I take it we don't seperate tanks from tank destroyers, or self-propelled guns.

The Tiger was the best in the desert, although it extremely limited service. My favourite from the desert has to be the Matilda, since it created many oppurtunites for victories in the desert. So often only stopped by the FlaK 18 & 36 88mm cannon.

I'm confused as to why you put Pz.IIF, as it really makes no difference as it was crap.

It's either got to be the Matilda or Pz. Kpfw IV F/2, as my favourites but the vote goes to the Matilda.

[Soren]

Well I'd have to chose the Tiger, but as Plan_D mensioned is wasnt used until the very end of the African campaign.

So my choice for the best tankk in the desert before the Tiger, would be the PzIV F2 without doubt. It had better optics than the British and U.S. tanks could ever hope to get, and a better main gun (7.5cm L/43).

[plan_D]

The optics on the Mark IV 'Special' weren't remarkable. Certainly nothing I feel would be worth mentioning when comparing them to British or US tanks. In fact, I only ever mention their superiority against the Soviet tanks because they made a lot of difference on that front because Soviet tanks were equipped so badly!

Discounting the Tiger though, the IV F/2 was certainly the best. Although the M4 Sherman was a very close match-up for it. In fact, I'd give it largely to crew skill than tank when those two met.

[Soren]

The 'Zeiss' optics used on the PzIV were 'Far' superior to any U.S. or British tanks optics. Thats a fact

And the Allied tanks in the Desert also learned this the hard way, as the PzIV F2 would have no problem in making first round hits at 1000-1500m. And this wasnt because their gun was more accurate, it was the Zeiss optics with build in range-scales !

[plan_D]

The optics on the Pz. Kwpf IV Ausf F/2 were not amazing. I fail to see where you get that idea. TZF5f had a maximum range of 3,300 metres with high explosive (HE) ammo, reduce that to 2,500 metres in tank combat for the armour piercing round.
The KwK40 L/43 could penertrate 63mm at 2000 metres. 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. A few hits would destroy but we'll delete them at this moment, since a lot of tanks can have very unlucky moments.

The Sherman M4s cannon, M3 75mm, could destroy the F/2 at around 1000 metres. I know for a fact that the Shermans optical sights were able to provide the vision required for armoured battles at those ranges. Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2. As the F/2 was not in full position to destroy the Sherman until at 1000 metres, the same distance for the Sherman.

Both tanks optics gave them good sighting at 1000m.

The only reason the Pz. Kpfw IV F/2 was in such a good battle ground in the desert was because the British tanks facing it were so obviously inferior. The best facing it were 40mm armed Matildas and Crusaders.

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.

[cheddar cheese]

Since I lost all my knowledge of tanks many years agao, Ill stick with my favourite from that list, the Sherman

[Soren]

As a matter of fact Plan_D the the Zeiss optics on the PzIV accurate enough to consistently make the 7.5cm L/43 cannon on the mod.F2 hit first time at 1500m.

The sight on the Sherman would almost never get a first round hit at 1000m or even at 800m, I dont know where you've been told the 7.5cm M3 gun on the M4 Sherman was capable of that, but it certainly aint the case most of the time !

The M3's dispersion was simply too great to make a first round hit at 1000m

[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.

[plan_D]

The lack of accuracy on the part of the M3 has nothing to do with the optical sights used. You've just back-tracked, big time.

The reason the KwK40 L/43 was capable of striking distance of 1500 metres is because the gun itself was remarkably accurate, as most of the German guns were.

In fact, I even stated that the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm in my last post. You just can't read.

The fact of the matter is, the optics on the F/2 were not giving it the amazing advantage in the desert as you like to make out. It's cannon was.
Combat between M4s and F/2s would take place around, mostly below, the 1000 metre mark. In that range area both tanks could hit, and destroy one another. I never stated that the F/2s optics weren't any better than the M4s, I stated that the M4s were capable of the job at which its M3 was capable of destroying the enemy.
On top of all of that, the M4 had a Gyro-Stabiliser. It could keep on the move while firing.

[Soren]

The lack of accuracy on the part of the M3 has nothing to do with the optical sights used. You've just back-tracked, big time.

Yes the M3's optics actually made a difference ! But i guess you just don't know what it was.

The reason the KwK40 L/43 was capable of striking distance of 1500 metres is because the gun itself was remarkably accurate, as most of the German guns were.

As a matter of fact the 7.62cm M1A1-2A guns on later Shermans (Easy 8's and the like) had a lower dispersion than the 7.5cm L/43 on the F2, but they couldnt make first round hits as frequently as the 7.5cm L/43 at 1500m. This was because of the much better 'Zeiss' optics used by the Germans.

In fact, I even stated that the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm in my last post. You just can't read.

Never said you did, but you said the M3 was accurate at 1000m, wich it wasnt

The fact of the matter is, the optics on the F/2 were not giving it the amazing advantage in the desert as you like to make out. It's cannon was.
Combat between M4s and F/2s would take place around, mostly below, the 1000 metre mark. In that range area both tanks could hit, and destroy one another. I never stated that the F/2s optics weren't any better than the M4s, I stated that the M4s were capable of the job at which its M3 was capable of destroying the enemy.
On top of all of that, the M4 had a Gyro-Stabiliser. It could keep on the move while firing.

Do you even know how useless that Gyro-stabilizer was ?! Allied tank crews sometimes had them removed, and the british didnt want them in the first place !!

Also the long stretches in the desert would often mean very long range engagements where the F2 had a definitive advantage

[plan_D]

Again, you've failed to read. I stated that the optics equipping the M3 were capable of sighting the targets at 1000m. It was then left to the M3 accuracy, to strike the target.
The US, Soviet or British tank cannons were never as accurate as German cannons (save the 17 pdr QRF). That is why the F/2 could strike first.

Now, again, provide a source for this remarkable advantage the F/2 had, solely because of its sights. Or shut up.

The stabiliser was not removed, it was all situational on if you use it or not. But you wouldn't know that.

[Soren]

The US, Soviet or British tank cannons were never as accurate as German cannons (save the 17 pdr QRF). That is why the F/2 could strike first.

Haha !! Soviet guns might not have been accurate, but later U.S. and british guns sure were !!

Now, again, provide a source for this remarkable advantage the F/2 had, solely because of its sights. Or shut up.

My primary source would be: "WWII projectiles and ballistics by Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingstone

The stabiliser was not removed, it was all situational on if you use it or not. But you wouldn't know that.

[plan_D]

Did I say that US and British guns were inaccurate? Nope, certainly didn't. Someone isn't reading properly, again. I said they were never as accurate as German guns, which is a fact. And I also seem to state the 17 pdr as being on par with German guns...oh...OH...what's that, IT WAS BRITISH..!?! Well...there we go then, someone needs to read the posts a bit better before typing...

TOODLE-SQUAT... You gotta love these facts...and a SOURCE...my word...where can I buy it...!?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Did I say that US and British guns were inaccurate? Nope, certainly didn't. Someone isn't reading properly, again. I said they were never as accurate as German guns, which is a fact.

It isnt a fact, and it never will be What you just said is a Total 'LIE' !

If you'd known every U.S., UK and German guns Dispersion data then you would know that