Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:27 PM   #191
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,368

Quote:
Originally Posted by chefren View Post
That's not what he wrote...
What he wrote was: "...more powerful engines, better suspension systems and lightweight composite armour allowed a tank to have the firepower of a super-heavy tank, armor protection of a heavy tank, and mobility of a light tank all in a package with the weight of a medium tank...."


Quote:
...check the T-55 for example:

205 mm turret front
120 mm hull front at 60 degrees angle

compared to the IS-3:

100 mm turret front with 155 mm gun mantlet
100 mm hull front at 60 degrees angle

yet the T-55 is 10 tonnes lighter, and this is with steel armor....

So the armor is more concentrated on the T54/55
Whereas on the JS family it's more evenly spread out

Not sure of your point - are you saying the T54/55 is better protected overall ?


Quote:
...the T-55 has a 100 mm gun, not as heavy as the IS-3's 122 mm gun but still more powerful than the 85 mm gun of the original IS and the 88 mm guns that the Germans used in the Tigers.

The T54/55 came out over a decade later than the Tiger I

Nazi Germany was building bigger guns and had the war gone on another decade it would have fielded a Tiger with a comparable gun.
Poly is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:39 PM   #192

Tairusiano's Avatar
Skull collector
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Brazil
Posts: 2,795
Blog Entries: 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The T54/55 came out over a decade later than the Tiger I

Nazi Germany was building bigger guns and had the war gone on another decade it would have fielded a Tiger with a comparable gun.
Altrough T-55 entered in some years after WWII, his gun the 100mm D-10 gun was developed in WWII to counter german tanks, it saw use in WW2 in the SU-100 tank destroyer.
Tairusiano is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:39 PM   #193
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
I thought the fascination with big tanks in 42 on was a Hitler thing.
Not really. A lot of Germans realized that 41 could have gone a lot worse if the Soviets fought better, as they did have better tanks in terms of guns and armor. Germany didn't even have a heavy tank, Russia proved they needed one.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:44 PM   #194
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
How can you have the armor of a super-heavy tank and the weight of a medium tank ?
Yes. By having a better type of armor than just steel, RHA or cast. Like steel-glass-reinforced textolite-steel, or Chobham, or DU armor. Another factor was with superior armor design the hull and turret were sloped sufficiently that even though they had thinner armor than an earlier super-heavy tank it was still better protecting because of the angle.

As an example, look at the Tiger, the armor is 90 degrees, that is a terrible design.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:44 PM   #195
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 982

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
You know that Chobham armor is heavy right ?

Tanks equipped with Chobham armor are "super heavy". EG: The M1 Abrams

Most MBTs don't use Chobham armor

If you have Chobham armor, why would you use steel armor ?
I must have misread something the other day which suggested Chobham armour offered improved protection for less weight, I'll check it out.
Arminius is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:45 PM   #196
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 982

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
You know that Chobham armor is heavy right ?

Tanks equipped with Chobham armor are "super heavy". EG: The M1 Abrams

Most MBTs don't use Chobham armor

If you have Chobham armor, why would you use steel armor ?
Perhaps I have misread something the other day which suggested Chobham armour offered improved protection for less weight, I'll check it out.
Arminius is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:46 PM   #197
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 982

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Yes. By having a better type of armor than just steel, RHA or cast. Like steel-glass-reinforced textolite-steel, or Chobham, or DU armor.
Well at least that was what I thought!
Arminius is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:55 PM   #198

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,854

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Are you kidding ?

It was the world's first MBT
It was designed as a heavy tank, and it was used as a heavy tank by the Germans.
If you are looking for a tank to retrospectively label as a MTB the Panther/Pz IV/T-34/Sherman are far better fits for tanks capable of fulfilling all the roles required of a MTB.

Last edited by redcoat; January 3rd, 2018 at 03:00 PM.
redcoat is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:15 PM   #199
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,368

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tairusiano View Post
Altrough T-55 entered in some years after WWII, his gun the 100mm D-10 gun was developed in WWII to counter german tanks, it saw use in WW2 in the SU-100 tank destroyer.
Yes tank guns take some time to develop

Germany had already developed a 128mm gun but it saw very limited service by the end of the war.
Poly is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:17 PM   #200
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,368

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
It was designed as a heavy tank, and it was used as a heavy tank by the Germans.
If you are looking for a tank to retrospectively label as a MTB the Panther/Pz IV/T-34/Sherman are far better fits for tanks capable of fulfilling all the roles required of a MTB.
Panther possibly

Panther II with an 88mm gun (or bigger) definitely.
Poly is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 09:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 02:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.