Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you compare the 2 sides in WWII it's clear the Germans built the better tanks.
In todays arena I think the M1 Abrams is an excellent tank and comparable to the modern Leopard A5 and slightly outclassed by the British Challenger 2.
There's all kinds of other factors that go into this also. Supply for instance. The M1 Abrams is a thirsty beast, I was told it requires 12 gallons of kerosene a minute just to warm the engine up and about 8 gallons a mile after that. It has a HUGE heat signature from the rear which costs in the stealth department. Maintenance isn't that easy either, if you need to change the barrel of the gun you need to remove the entire turret whereas on A T-90 2 men and a truck come along, unscrew the barrel and screw in another in about 20 minutes.
I'm really interested in the new Russian Armata that's supposed to go into production 2015. It's a whole different beast with an unmanned turret.
Overall I'd say the M1 is in fact kind of average in todays arsenals all things considered.
To continue your quest for accuracy the Graf Spee did have a radar system. I remember reading an article a few years ago (when part of the ship was being salvaged to be sent back to Germany) that the British mission to Uruguay had at least attempted to salvage some of the radar equipment almost as soon as the wreckage cooled after it was scuttled.
If you compare the 2 sides in WWII it's clear the Germans built the better tanks.
Strongly disagree. German tanks were better than the US/British tanks, but the Soviet tanks were better than either. Better even, as I understand it, than the best German tanks (which in any case were introduced too late and in too small numbers to shift the balance or justify the attention they get.)
Almost any tank was "better" than the Sherman but we made hundreds of Sherman for every one of the German's made. Lots of good enough beats a few perfect tanks.
I have to wonder about the usefulness of tanks in future conflicts. Huge cavalry charges across barren deserts are not likely as future warfare is likely to be in crowded urban environments against irregular insurgents armed with anti tank rockets.
Strongly disagree. German tanks were better than the US/British tanks, but the Soviet tanks were better than either. Better even, as I understand it, than the best German tanks (which in any case were introduced too late and in too small numbers to shift the balance or justify the attention they get.)
The tank kill ratio on the Eastern front was 8:1 (from what I've read) in Germany's favor which does not speak for the quality of Soviet tanks. If you field 10 times more tanks you still win though.
Simply put, NO. The main battery guns of the Abrams and the Leopard II are 120mm smooth-bore weapons. The largest WW2 German tank gun was an 88mm rifle (not smoothbore).
There are many, MANY other differences. This one will suffice for now.
While you are quite correct there is some lineage. The 17-pounder was replaced by the 20-pounder which shared several characteristics with 88 KwK 43. The 20-pounder was then bored out to make the L7 105mm which became the NATO standard and was original equipment on the Abrams and Leopard. The current gun is a 120mm Rheinmetall design which was "all new" and developed following the failure of the 152mm MGM-51 Shillelagh missile gun.
The British, in the interest of being British, went with a 120mm rifled gun of Royal Ordinance design on the Chieftain and now Challenger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat335
If you compare the 2 sides in WWII it's clear the Germans built the better tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAK8
Strongly disagree. German tanks were better than the US/British tanks, but the Soviet tanks were better than either. Better even, as I understand it, than the best German tanks (which in any case were introduced too late and in too small numbers to shift the balance or justify the attention they get.)
"Better" is really such a relative term. For the most part the tank designs that were produced in the largest numbers: Pz.IV, Sherman and T34 and saw the most widespread use were all pretty comparable.
I don't know. I've read a lot of things from Soviet tankers who said that the crews who got the Shermans were considered the lucky ones by the guys who got the T-34s. The two were roughly equal, all things considered - each had different strengths and weaknesses. When the tanks are that similar, the best one is usually whichever one you have the most of. I remember a quote from one German tanker after the war, something to the effect of "one of our tanks was equal to 10 Shermans. The trouble is, they always had 11 Shermans."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are American tanks today as good as German tanks back in WW2?
