Posted on 12/28/2012 5:39:16 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
I have some ration coupon books partially used. They have my grandmothers hand written lists of how many apples, peaches, cherries and other stuff she canned.I think the stamps were for sugar, flour and milk. I don’t remember fruit being in there. I need to dig them out and see.
The M7, called the Priest by the British, was the allied answer to the German Wespe (wasp), which mounted a 105mm howitzer on an obsolete PzKwII chassis. As self-propelled artillery, both were highly effective.
Now, what are we going to do against that Nazi “mobile pillbox” that mounts an 88? That thing sounds like a real tiger on the battlefield....
The PzKwIV C and D, with a short-barrelled L24 75mm gun started WW2 officially labeled as a “heavy tank.” By 1944, it had been up-gunned to the high velocity L48 75mm gun, and had the anti-tank armor skirts added around the tracks and turret. In the “H” and “J” versions it continued in production until the end of the war, and in the hands of a skilled crew was still effective on the battlefield. It was by no means considered a “heavy tank” by then, with the Tiger, Stalin and Pershing all prowling around. One problem with the PzKwIV was the narrow tracks, which didn’t provide good footing in the Russian Rasputitsa and heavy snows of winter. Both the Tiger and Panther did have wide tracks, which emulated the highly successful Soviet T-34.
If I were to vote for my top tanks of WW2, I would put them in the following order:
T-34: A terror to the Germans in 1941, it was given improved armor in the T-34/43 version, and upgunned to the long barrel 85mm gun with the T-34/85. Rugged, excellent cross country ability, good armor, capable of upgrades, easy to maintain and manufactured in mass quantity, I put it at the top of the list. Only drawbacks were lack of radios (more due to Soviet industrial shortcomings) and the motors tended to burn out after about 500 miles.
Panther: Most of what the T-34 was, the Panther was too. It had a better gun, better gunsights, and better armor-piercing ammunition. But it was difficult to maintain, and like most things German, was over-engineered making it complex and difficult to mass-produce. Part of the maintenance nightmare was not only that it was overly complex, but that the Germans never hit upon one standard chassis and stuck with it. By 1944, the standard pattern panzer division had one battalion of Panthers, and one battalion of PzKwIVs. Maybe that’s what German production dictated, but it made it hard as hell to maintain them in the field.
Tiger: It was fearsome, king of the battlefield. But the Germans were only able to make 1500 of them. As noted, their 88mm guns had a long reach at ranges where their armor made them immune from retaliation. But they were gas guzzlers and maintenance headaches. You practically had to have PhD in mechanical engineering to operate the transmission.
IS-2 Stalin: On paper, it should have been better than the Tiger with it’s 122mm gun. However, the gun was the tube from the A-19 long range artillery piece and not designed as a tank gun. It didn’t have muzzle velocity, and had a very slow rate of fire. Plus, the ammunition rounds were so large it limited the number of rounds carried in each tank. But it was still a solid fighting vehicle. Some Soviet tank regiments were equipped with Stalins as late as 1972.
King Tiger: It was the land version of the IJN Yamato. Nuff said.
Sherman: While the average Tiger could take out 10 Shermans, the Germans found there was always an 11th one.
The Sherman tank was not a great tank. Mass producing it was one the USA’s biggest mistakes of WWII. There were better designs available. Suicide boxes.
Who would have guessed a thread with a title about canned fruit would get the most replies we’ve had all month? That’s the power of tanks! Better even than airplanes for generating activity.
I also took that to be a reference to the Tiger. And we didn't really have an answer for that, did we? Lucky for us they couldn't make nearly as many Tigers as we could Shermans.
Recent data says the M4A3E8 was easily compatible with the T24/85. I don’t understand why so many like to tear down US designs in favor of German ones. Comparing the supertanks they only had a few of against our mass produced ones is apples and oranges. Our tactical doctrines produced tank destroyers that were perfectly capable of dealing with their heavy tanks. And where that didn’t work close air support did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.