Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
duck    6/13/2004 7:02:51 AM
Which tank is better
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
PAK43    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/21/2004 3:19:48 PM
The T29 looked like it had even worse handling than the Tiger II. That was the only saving grace of many of the US tanks. I also bet the German 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 could still punch holes into the frontal armor without much difficulty. I think it was the T29 that had two main guns none bigger than the 90mm already on the Pershing. Given the choice I would have mass produced the Pershing over that. Also there is no record of any gun not even the British 17 pounder using tungsten rounds punch a hole through the front 10mm plate of the Tiger II.
Quote    Reply

PAK43    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/21/2004 3:20:42 PM
Should have been 180mm front plate.
Quote    Reply

duck    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 7:31:03 AM
T-29 was armed with a 105 mm gun (still use in M1 Abrams)in a conventional turrent. Its shielding varied between 25.4 mm and 279.4 mm. It was 11.57 m long (with the gun), 3.80 m broad, 3.20 m in height and it weighed 63.873 tons. So in my opinion it was better tank, but never used in battlefield.
Quote    Reply

PAK43    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 3:00:13 PM
I was getting this one confused with the T6. I don't believe it was the same 105mm. The Abrams used the British L7 which I don't think was available till the late 50's. Still with that much armor it would run into the same cross country problems that any 60 ton tank had during WW2. It might be proof against the 88 at all but extremely close range. I don't know how it would fair against the newer 128MM like those used on the Maus. Either way its a shame because it could have been used in Korea against the Russia tanks.
Quote    Reply

duck    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 4:33:42 PM
Quote    Reply

duck    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 4:50:17 PM
This gun have very good result: Muzzle velocity: 945 meters per second Range: 24 678 meters Caliber: 105 mm L/65 Barrel weight: 2948.4 kg Weight of the projectile: 15.88 kg
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 5:05:22 PM
Not that i know any better but isnt Russia the only country that designates her tanks with a T?
Quote    Reply

duck    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/22/2004 5:14:10 PM
no, US prototype tanks are designated with a T for example T26E3 = M-26 "PERSHING"
Quote    Reply

Backfirecb    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   6/24/2004 8:37:29 PM
Going with this argument I would say the better tank of WWII would of been the Panther Ausf F or Panther II it would of had the same gun as the King Tiger(Kwk 43) similar turret armor but greater mobilty then the King Tiger and porably the T-29 and was the US M18 Hellcat showed: good mobility + one powerful long range gun = good tank killer.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    KING TIGER vs US M6 HEAVY TANK   6/25/2004 3:28:33 PM
(another What If) Had the US M6 reached production, the US would've had itself a heavy tank by the end of 1942 (500 were to be built that year, followed by 5000 in 1943). The tank requirement asked for 3inches of armour and capability to mount a gun of 75-105mm. One example used a gas-electric powerplant, and one used a torque converter transmission. The initial armament was a 75mm gun and a coaxial 37mm gun. Whereas the M3/M4 series mediums used a hull will 3 twin bogied roadwheels on each side, the M6 used 4 (and prototyped a HVSS-type suspension). There were considerable problems with the braking and cooling systems, as they had to support a tank weighing about 63 tons. The tank pioneered many features used in later tanks (such as powered traverse), but there were various complaints of reliability and maintenance difficulties from the trials crews. Had the vehicle made production, most likely these would have been lessened or eliminated. Obviously, the larger turret ring could have accomodated the 17pdr gun more easily than the Sherman, and the 90mm gun could have fit just as well. If the request for the M26 was not more favorable, then quite possibly the Tigers and Panthers would have faced a far different opponent than just thin-skinned Shermans (at an earlier date than the M26 finally reaching service in early 1945). Perhaps the M6 would have been the "American Tiger". That could have proven an interesting battle after the 90mm gun (AA converted to AT use) had been fitted. Perhaps even the British 32pdr gun (the AT-convert of their potent 3.7inch AA gun) could have been adopted later as well (this was prposed for the failed Tortoise SP gun, and with APDS could destroy any known battle tank at the time). Coupled to the Allies' use of the first APDS ammo, the situation of German armour superiority over Allies may well have been reversed..
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT