re: Spinoff WWII Thread: Armored Fighting Vehicles You Like

I'm guessing there are some World of Tanks players up in here...

DV will have a much more technical (and better) answer, but mine is;

Tank - closed turret
Tank Destroyed - open turret
Assault Gun - no turret

quote:
What's the story on the King Tiger's "textured" surfaces? Is that a high build coating to add depth or shadows to the camouflage?

Meant to prevent a magnetized mine from being attached to the hull.
------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting... Thanks for the response. (I meant to ask Darth, because he posted the pic. But if I had to reply to the "wrong" guy, I'm glad it was you. Y'all know your shite!)

quote:

---

World of Tanks players up in here...

---

I play WOT Blitz on my iPhone. My favorite tanks so far are the PZII and PZIV-D. I liked the Luchs until they needed it recently.

The game is highly addictive.

quote:

---

Pardon a dumbass question,but what are the technical differences in a tank, a tank destroyer, and an assault gun?

---

Good question, I'll start with the tank. First off, during the time of WWII there were differing opinions on the role of a tank. Many thought the tank was an infantry support weapon to be used to help break through enemy defense but not engage in battle with other tanks. They saw the tank as being something to do things like silence MG positions, bust pillboxes, and break through enemy entrenchments. This is why many early war tanks had high caliber, low velocity guns. Here are some examples....

M4 Sherman


Panzer Mk IV


Both of these tanks would serve throughout the war, being up-armored and up-gunned to enable them to engage other tanks.

The Germans did produce a tank early on designed with the main purpose of killing other tanks. This was the Panzer III...

...which had a smaller caliber gun with higher muzzle velocity than the Mk IV

As for Tank Destroyers, these were less armored vehicles designed with the main purpose of killing enemy tanks. The American armored warfare doctrine of the time called for the M4 to breakthrough enemy defense while the tank destroyers took care of any enemy tanks. Early on we had half-track mounted anti-tank guns....

M3 Gun Motor Carriage


And later the Hellcat (which did have an open turret)


And the much better M36 (which also had an open turret until later versions got a thin roof)


There were also numerious German "casemate" style tank destroyers as well, many of which have been posted in this thread. Here's a Jgdpanzer IV, which was based off the Panzer Mk. IV


The Germans designed and built numerous casemate style TD's because these were cheaper and easier to produce than traditional tanks. They knew they could never keep up with Soviet tank production on the Eastern Front so they resorted to pumping out TD's.

The Soviets also had this style of tank destroyer. Their two main ones were the

SU-85


and SU-100


Then there's the "assault gun". These were much like TD's, even sometimes being used as TD's. But usually these were used much like many tanks were used in the early part of the war, namely in infantry support to help break through enemy defenses. They generally had large caliber, low velocity main guns. Some examples....

Soviet SU-152


German Brummbar


One thing of note about TD's and assault guns, in both the German & Soviet armies, these were considered to be part of the artillery arm instead of the Panzer Forces or Tank forces respectively.

Very interesting. Thanks to everyone who replied.

quote:

---

Finally, someone mentions the lowly little Sherman that actually won WWII.

---

Negative. The tank that actually won WWII was the T-34. Which amazingly nobody has mentioned.

quote:

---

This was what they came up with to answer the T-34....

---

And late war production of the Panther was running an average of about 60 a month, fewer Tigers, while the Russkies were pushing about 1000 T-34s off the line every month.

Even with a 10:1 kill ratio, by doctrine, the Germans were still losing on paper (and in reality).

How about the 222 or the Puma

quote:

---

And late war production of the Panther was running an average of about 60 a month, fewer Tigers, while the Russkies were pushing about 1000 T-34s off the line every month.

Even with a 10:1 kill ratio, by doctrine, the Germans were still losing on paper (and in reality)

---

That's one thing I've never understood about the Germans their approach to tank production. Instead of settling one really good design they could produce in large numbers, they instead wasted resources by spreading things out in producing small numbers of a wide variety of AFVs.

And not only did this limit the total number of tanks they could put out, it also created a nightmare for the front line maintenance units who had to try and cobble together spare parts and ammo for them all. This was especially a huge problem later in the war when a number of shattered formations would be joined together to form s "kampfgrouppe". You could have as many as two or three different model tanks and the same number of different types of TDs all trying to work together. Looking at things from a logistics standpoint, it's a miracle the Germans held out as long as they did.