The Black Prince certainly had a great weapon and armor, but if the mobility of it was similar to other Churchill models the Panther (or any other AFV) would have driven circles around it…
That’s what you get with a Vauxhall. The Black Prince was a no-goer, though, once the Centurion had been prototyped. The most serious threat to Black Prince, Comet and Centurion, even, would have been the odd panzerfaust.
Even the M3 performed well in CBI!
That just goes to show that you can’t believe everything you read, doesn’t it!?
For the same weight, I’d rather have a Pershing. However, even that has a petrol engine. A little has been said about the advantages of diesel engines and the risk of fire. Make no mistake, diesel burns - you just have to get it hot enough. I should think that exploding ammunition will do that. I don’t know that a diesel fire would be any less worrying than a fire with 100 octane (necessary for the Sherman’s radial engine). Less explosive, probably.
What a diesel gives you is the opportunity to forget about changing spark plugs and adjusting ignition timing etc etc. If you think that’s trivial, remember that the Comet’s engine had 24 spark plugs each of which required 1 hour’s work to unscrew and 12 of which were inaccessible without removal of the engine. The Chrysler A-57 multibank engine (oh yes, it’s not just the English who make odd engines) had 30 cylinders, 3 carburettors, 3 distributors, 30 high tension calbes, and 30 spark plugs.
Also, electrical systems (especially necessary for petrol engines) have a habit of not mixing well with water.
Sure,a petrol-engined tank is quieter, but really, how much “surprise” do you get with a petrol engine vs a diesel engine?
So, my vote for the best tank of WW2 goes to the IS-2 / IS-3. Same weight as a Panther, a gun and armour equal to the Tiger, and reliability equal to the Sherman - plus it could be sericed by illiterate conscripts, plus, the IS-2 served in large numbers. By extension, the ISU-152 assault gun would be the most dangerous/useful of SPGs.
…here we go again with the myth that the Russians were all a bunch of illiterates…in all armies during WW2 the more intelligent/higher aptitude conscripts were more oftern than not assigned to mechanized (armor) divisions, including in the US Army…and there were plently of illiterate conscripts in ALL armies in the 40’s, including the US Army…
…the shot penetration power of the 122mm vs the Panther 75mm at any significant distance was inferior…
I would probably ride a panther during the latter part of the war. It is more mobile than the tigers. I will probably choose the pershing if it had’nt come too late to figure in real tank battles with the panzers.
A movin’ foxhole attracts th’ eye.
~Bill Mauldin
RE: The penetration power of the German 75 vs. the Russian 122, my “research” (laugh track up) reveals the impact of the 122mm projectile often failed to penetrate it’s target’s armor, instead frequently separating the struck part from the rest of the tank. Good enough in my book. The Russian 122 did however have a slow rate of fire…two-part ammo, I believe, and rather hard to maneuver in the cramped confines of the IS turret.
BTW, we frequently use diesel fuel to get a campfire going. It will burn. The point about making sure a Sherman was “dead” is valid, and practiced by both sides. Also, Sherman crews were frequently guilty of having “loose” rounds stored in the tank, out of the racks, due to sometimes erratic supply. Kind of negates the advantage of “wet stowage”…
I said that the engines COULD be serviced by illiterates, not that all Sovs were illiterate. The emphasis here is on simplicity of the engines, not the crews.
Referring back to the M36B1 and the M26, they were both available at the same time. It wasn’t until late 1944 that 300 M4 hulls were available to create the M36B1. I don’t believe they made it to front line units until after Jan. 1, 1945. It was the original M36’s that used the same chassis as the M10 that fought through many of the more important battles.There was also an attempt to put the M36 turret on a M18 chassis and was found to be feasible, but the concept of the separate tank destroyer vehicle was giving way to the main battle tank that the M-26 and the JS-II/III came to envision.
One of the items that helped end the concept of the open top armor vehicle was the proximity fuse for artillery shells which allowed for greater use of air bursts.
My nominee for best armor vehicle of WWII would be the M-26 Pershing, as it was the new step forward. The Panther was a good design but unreliable. After the war the French army used Panthers and other German tanks for a limited time, before going to Shermans. The problem was the breakdown rate of these vehicles under peace time situations was very high. They did make use of the excellent 75mm gun that the Panther used for upgrading other vehicles.
Didn’t the JSII/III have a not a great depression and elevation range on their gun as the Pershing?
Mike T.
Not much room for depression inside the teenie wee turret…the breech-end of the 122 was kinda big. Not sure of the actual numbers, though.
Pershing!
I’m going to throw out a bit of a radical concept here, but…
Best armor in my opinion was the Panzer I. Yes, I know, not terrifically armored, small main weapon, and quickly overtaken by newer versions/new technologies. And yes, the thing was obsolete by 1939. But, the Pzkpfw I paved the way for modern tank warfare as we know it and sparked the innovations we’ve seen over the last 60 years. It brought into the mainstream design elements around mobility, firepower, coordinated tank tactics and the need/ability to be compatible with infantry. It was the game-changing technology of its day.
thoughts? comments?
…I would respond, but I am too busy running for cover becuase the sound of incoming is growing LOUDER…!!!
[quote user=“Manstein’s revenge”]
I take it that you think I am WAY off base.
Given that I am by no means a historian, enlighten me as to my foolish thinking…
[quote user=“IA Novice”]
…LOL…I wrote that in jest, not foolish thinking at all. But I think a better question to your answer would have been: “What tank in history was the most influental, or has had the biggest impact on the evolution of modern armor?”
Putting it that way it sounds like a new thread for here:“Armor Jeopardy”
And the catagories are…
I can’t get the quote function to work [censored][banghead]
Anyhow, I hear you Manny, but let me take it from a differnet tact.
Rather than look at the war as a whole and say, “which tank can kick all the others a**” - which by default will lead you to tanks built/developed at the end of the war (like the Pershing), I tried to look at which tank could kick every other tank’s a** during the time frame it was around. Then, I tried to think about whether the particular tank represented new technology (whether it was firepower, mobility, production numbers, etc). If it did represent new technology how many inovations did the tank have, in other words, how cutting edge was it really. And lastly what impact did the tank have beyond its lifetime
To me, those criteria ferret out what the “best” is better than what was the last tank standing.
Lastly, I did say it was a provocative comment…
…I like provocative, but if you put it that way I would still disagree and vote for the 1941/42 T-34/76…at the time it was cutting edge technology: sloped armor (totally new concept), deisel engine, simple to maintain, fast, good armament, great ground pressure, etc…and at he time, IT COULD kick anything else to the curb in a one-to-one fight…so much so that the Germans actually seriously considered copying it without shame and fielding it, but Hitler’s pride wouldn’t allow it so they waited for the Panther…
Based on your criteria IA very few tanks would apply. Most are the result of evolution rather than revolution. The MkI was Germany starting from scratch into the tank business between the wars. They had no real foundation in tank design/buiding to build upon and this was the result. Yes it was certainly innovative, but compared against other countries’ tanks of the same time period, it did not stand out above the others. Britain, France, and even Japan had tanks of similar performance, armor, and firepower at the time the MkI was in its’ prime. For innovation in armor, firepower, and mobility, I would have to say the T-34/76 model 1940 would have to be the MOST cutting edge tank of that era.
O.K. I’ll buy the T-34. I’ll take mine in winter white, just send me the bill.
But seriously, I still stand by the notion of discerning the best from the criteria I laid out. If you look at it the other way, it is nothing more than a last man standing approach. Besides, isn’t the goal of criteria to weed out the masses so that “very few [tanks] would apply.”