I'm gonna let you finish... but the T34 was the best tank ever.
General Off Topic: Stuff not related to cRPG. (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/board,27.0.html)
General Off Topic: Stuff not related to cRPG. (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/board,27.0.html)
germany had best tanks of ww2 period
T34, cheap, mass produced, russian. (Better than the IS2)
Why do you think a rifled tank gun is better than a smoothbore? Among other things smoothbore gives a lot more options for ammo selection. Afaik even the British will change to smoothbore for their next tank, even more with HESH rounds considered to be obsolete.Yeah, in tank vs tank, but this is just a general comparison. Like someone said there's waaaayyyyy too many factors to decide which tank is the "Best". Also yeah, the Abrams and Leopards smoothbore can use a variety of rounds; HEAT, APDS, Canister rounds with ceramic ball-bearings, MPAT, HE-OR-T, and a few others. But yeah, I see where you're coming from.
Anti-tank is done with long fin-stabilised sabots(long dart) anyway. I don't see rifling being effective with this kind of ammo. In terms of penetration those long projectiles perform best without a spin. Also smoothbore barrels get their projectiles off with a higher velocity than rifled barrels because some of the pressure is lost through the rifling itself. Also they are lighter and suffer from less barrel wear.
The only advantage I see from the rifled tank gun is the higher reach for the non-anti-tank ammo. But in terms of tank vs tank smoothbore is better imo.
Most warfare these days is assymetrical and were it not to be (some hypothetical modern total war scenario), tanks would be irrelevent anyways. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are obsolete, but it's heading in that direction. Single use infantry AT weapons are much more efficient and common than they were in WW2. They certainly aren't worth much if there is no equivalent air superiority, beyond making good targets.Yeah, tanks are pretty negligible nowadays, but I still think they're pretty cool.
Well I for one is trying to be in the army, mind you I am hoping to get into a paratroopers batallion, but still.
it sucks coz we have fucking thiefs and bundle of stickss in gouverment)
so do 95% of all the other countries
Nobody's mentioned the most important elements: crew and doctrine.MODERN. TANKS. BRO, yeah the french had tanks that surpassed the german tanks in both firepower and armor, but late war the germans still had the best tanks.
In 1940, French tanks in all categories were superior to their German counterparts, sometimes markedly so. But German tanks swept the French from the field. The reason was that while the Panzer III and IV were inferior in armaments and armor, their crews were better trained and their armored doctrine was superior. Similarly when the Germans invaded Russia, while the T34 was superior, the German crews were veterans by this point and their better tactics and communications gave them victory where on-paper statistics spelled defeat.
With that in mind, consider the Abrams crews versus the crews of a Leopard. Which contains more combat veterans? Which units have fought together in combat? Which larger formations have their logistics base accustomed to repairing battle damage and keeping their vehicles operational?
You really have to give it to the Abrams in this respect.
MODERN. TANKS. BRO, yeah the french had tanks that surpassed the german tanks in both firepower and armor, but late war the germans still had the best tanks.
Better target practice for German tanks, yes.
There's also the fact that the Sherman could easily be field repaired by their crewmen, that helped.
T-34 was also the most reliable tank. Your German tanks would be rotting in a field somewhere with their engine on fire.
What. Nobody said a thing about reliability.
I meant German tanks would be the target practice due to breaking down :P