 | Could America have used heavy tanks?| WW2 General Discuss Could America have used heavy tanks? in the World War II - General forums; Originally Posted by Soren
The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank ... |
|
03-06-2008, 11:55 AM
|
#31 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,882
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren  The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks. | Yes the British did have some really good stuff, too bad it came out in 1946-1947...
You can also include the Battleship "Vanguard" and the Aircraft Carrier "Implacable" which was completed in a blistering fast 5 1/2 years!
Did anyone tell these people that there's a war going on? 
The British tank development really was poor up until 1942-43, as you point out the Churchill was a rather disappointing design, the Crusader was also unrelible & weak.
The few who really did understand modern mech. warfare were ignored.
Col. Worthington in Canada was reponsible for much of the development of the "Ram', he wanted to put a 75mm or better gun on the tank, but was over-ruled by the British tank commission.
"Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun" 
__________________  | 
|  | |
03-06-2008, 11:59 AM
|
#32 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest
Posts: 832
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird "Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun" | "Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..."
__________________
These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda" | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 12:32 PM
|
#33 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,882
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Konigstiger205 "Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..." | Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it? 
I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either....
__________________ | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 12:52 PM
|
#34 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 3,261
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it?
I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either.... | Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V...
__________________
If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 01:43 PM
|
#35 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest
Posts: 832
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkloby Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V... |
__________________
These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda" | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 06:54 PM
|
#36 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,882
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkloby Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V... | The 14" guns were limited by treaty, and by the time they realized that nobody else was going to adhere to the treaty, it was 1936/1937 and it was considered too late or to costly to re-design to a higher caliber. No such excuse for the tank guns, the war had already started, and by late 1940 it was already very obvious that the 2 pounder was too small.
__________________ | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 08:40 PM
|
#37 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 3,261
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird The 14" guns were limited by treaty, and by the time they realized that nobody else was going to adhere to the treaty, it was 1936/1937 and it was considered too late or to costly to re-design to a higher caliber. No such excuse for the tank guns, the war had already started, and by late 1940 it was already very obvious that the 2 pounder was too small. | From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...
__________________
If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 08:43 PM
|
#38 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 804
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkloby From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case... | I'll check on that; I've got an excellent reference book on the Iowa-class BB's. I'm assuming that the dual turret set-up was designed for them. I'll let y'all know . . . . .
__________________  | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 08:47 PM
|
#39 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 3,261
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by SoD Stitch I'll check on that; I've got an excellent reference book on the Iowa-class BB's. I'm assuming that the dual turret set-up was designed for them. I'll let y'all know . . . . . | Actually it was the North Carolinas - I'm away from home and can't reference any of my books...
__________________
If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 10:37 PM
|
#40 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,882
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkloby From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case... | I think you are right, by the time the Carolina's came along the treaty was pretty much DOA. The Germans also designed the triple 11" turret on Scharnhorst to be swapped for twin 15"
__________________ | |
| | |
03-06-2008, 11:55 PM
|
#41 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,477
| How did we go from Pershing tanks to 14" naval guns?
I knew the Germans intended to mount some big caliber guns on their tanks, but not naval ordnance.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
03-07-2008, 12:55 AM
|
#42 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,882
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
"Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun" | Quote:
Originally Posted by Konigstiger205 "Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..." | Quote: |
Originally Posted by freebird Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it?
I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either | I think we were talking about lack of preparation & "head in the sand" mentality.
So do you think the new Pershing would have been a success against German tanks?
__________________ | |
| | |
03-07-2008, 01:20 AM
|
#43 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,477
| Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird I think we were talking about lack of preparation & "head in the sand" mentality.
So do you think the new Pershing would have been a success against German tanks? | The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
03-07-2008, 03:54 AM
|
#44 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,028
| Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3 The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on. | Yes, when the said German tanks were operated by the Hitler Youth..
By the time the Pershing saw action it was no more effective than other Allied TD's. The British Firefly enjoyed much more success.
Three Pershings were kncoked out before wars end though, one by a Nashorn, and the two others by a Tiger Ausf.E.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | 
| | |
03-07-2008, 05:18 AM
|
#45 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,517
Country: | Quote: |
Yeah the Tiger was excellent but get a rocket firing Typhoon on its case and Tiger go boom.
| I like that Basket.
One question: Could the Tiger armor stand agains't a 88mm gun, or a Pak 43?
__________________ 
"His motor's conked out!"
"What's the differance, they're all Nazis!"
"Luke, shut up!"
"Fear the hook!"
"Oh.....I wanna fly."
"You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?"
"What you doing? Oh Nooooo!"
Last edited by Soundbreaker Welch? : 03-07-2008 at 05:27 AM.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM. | | |
