[Admiral Nelson]

the tank was hopelessly out classed against Mk V and Mk VI panzers.

The problem with this statement is that the Sherman was not intended to fight these tanks, or indeed any enemy tank.  This was a job for dedicated tank destroyers such as the M10, M18 or M36.  US doctrine viewed tanks as anti infantry vehicles, hence the preference for 75mm guns.  Thus rathern than the "5 Shermans vs 1 Panther" chestnut, the US doctrine called for deploying these dedicated tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks.  The war showed that this was a flawed doctrine, to be sure, but it certainly didn't save the Germans.

[BengalTiger]

A Sherman with the high-velocity 76mm gun (they did indeed upgrade them, though it was not always consistant; some fought to the end of the war with their original guns) was a capable enough tank for most purposes; it would not take a Tiger, but neither would the T-34. The Panther could penetrate armor better, but the Panther had the ridiculously long-barreled 75mm/L70 with the muzzle velocity to beat almost anything. Still, one on one, a Sherman/76 would have had a fighting chance against a Panther and better-than-even odds against the Panzer IV. And the Sherman was subjected to continous upgrades; the M3E8 version with improved frontal armor could shrug off an 88mm/L70 hit at a thousand yards, something no version of the T-34 that ever went into combat could claim.

To say nothing of the Brit variations on the Sherman mounting the superb 17-pounder antitank gun, which could take a Tiger. The VC Firefly was probably the best medium tank the Western Allies produced. If there had ever been an M3E8 with the 17-pounder then it would have been the best Allied medium tank period.

Let me fix something:
M4A3E8, not M3E8.
And one thing- the Panther's 75 mm was simply long.
This is rediculously long:

88 mm cal, 71 calibers long (6.25 meters).

To reach ludicrous length, we need the 128 mm/L55 (7.04 meters)

I knew about the Pershing, just that they weren't exactly as common as the Sherman was.  Although I could sworn that the Pershing was the eqivilant of the Tiger    Thanks for the correction on the Sherman.

I think the M26 Pershing was the best WW II tank, even though it came to the front lines in Feb 1945.
Those things weren't heavy enough to be a pain in the @$$ to be moved around the battlefield (41.9 tons, vs ~45t Panther, ~57t Tiger I, ~70t Tiger II or 61.4t Abrams), they killed Panthers (and a few Tigers and King Tigers with a little luck too), and in the Korean War they scored half of all T-34/85 kills, showing that they're better not only than the German, but Soviet tanks too.

Pershing behind an unfinished German E100 prototype

BTW- to get the thread a bit back on topic:

The P-1000 Land Cruiser Ratte, armed with 2 280 mm naval guns, a 'secondary' 128 mm and a bunch of AA guns, was meant to weigh 1000 tons. Too bad it never made it to production, Hitler would have killed himself as soon as he'd see the refueling bill, ending the war on Day 1 the P-1000 was deployed. The monster was to be powered by either 2 U-Boat engines or by 8 torpedo boat engines, giving it up to 17 000 HP, and a road speed of 40 km/h.

(note the 128 mm is in the hull, because the turret mounted guns are too high for close range fighting)

(dimmentions in milimeters)

(2 twin 37 mm Flak turrets on the back)

[Admiral Nelson]

And here are some awesome color film clips of various Japanese ships in 1945:

HYUGA

HARUNA

AOBA (you can see right through her bow!)

AMAGI

IDZUMO

[Mefustae]

*Snip*

I don't suppose we could stay away from the Germans' paper army. Not that it isn't rather interesting, but everything just gets damned asinine very quickly when people start bringing up the Maus or the P-1000.

Oh, and for the record, let's also refrain from getting into a pissing match over what the best tank of the War was. The T-34 was awesomely mass produced, the Panther was awesomely designed, the VC Firefly was awesomely effective, whatever. There are too many variables to pin it down to a single tank. Purely theoretically, the "best" tank of the War would invariably stem from far more than simply design or kills, and must stretch into price, construction, resources needed, tactical and strategic effectiveness, etc. As such, it's a little beyond a bit of internet research to conclusively state the winnar with any hope for accuracy or impartiality.

[Admiral Nelson]

Oh, nonsense.  The best tank of WWI was without a doubt the Bob Semple!!  Fear the mighty Kiwis....

[BengalTiger]

Naah, Bob was second best, right after Goliath:

[NGTM-1R]

I don't suppose we could stay away from the Germans' paper army. Not that it isn't rather interesting, but everything just gets damned asinine very quickly when people start bringing up the Maus or the P-1000.

They did actually complete and deploy the Maus, but it ran out of gas on its way to meet the Red Army and was abandoned. The P-1000 was pure fantasy; you'd never find terrain able to support it, and "engineering casuality" keeps coming to mind every time I look at the thing.

[Mefustae]

Naah, Bob was second best, right after Goliath:

The Goliath wasn't too bad an idea. It was just ahead of its time, and the technology to make it work exactly as intended simply didn't exist.

But hey, at least it's a damn sight better than the Soviet idea to strap explosives to dogs and train them to run under German tanks.

[TrashMan]

They did actually complete and deploy the Maus, but it ran out of gas on its way to meet the Red Army and was abandoned. The P-1000 was pure fantasy; you'd never find terrain able to support it, and "engineering casuality" keeps coming to mind every time I look at the thing.

We should try to bild something like that now, with current tech and knowledge.

Mammoth tanks FTW!

[Mefustae]

We should try to bild something like that now, with current tech and knowledge.

Mammoth tanks FTW!

Aaand then a single Hellfire rocket disables it.

The usefulness of the main battle tank concept in modern warfare is starting to be questioned, and you want to bring back the age of the land battleship!?

[Admiral Nelson]

[BengalTiger]

We should try to bild something like that now, with current tech and knowledge.

Mammoth tanks FTW!

Aaand then a single Hellfire rocket disables it.

The usefulness of the main battle tank concept in modern warfare is starting to be questioned, and you want to bring back the age of the land battleship!?

So what do you want to replace the land battleship (I mean Abrams, not the one Admiral Nelson posted) with? A Stryker MGS?
The only thing that has the armor, and could hold it's ground against tank rushes would be...

Maybe not an Abrams and not a Mammoth for sure, but a 20+ tons lighter beast similar to this:

but it will still be a tank.


P.S.
Back to BB's:

[NGTM-1R]

Aaand then a single Hellfire rocket disables it.

The usefulness of the main battle tank concept in modern warfare is starting to be questioned, and you want to bring back the age of the land battleship!?

It's not that simple. More to the point, the people questioning the usefulness of the MBT are questioning its usefulness in anti-insurgency actions. (They've also obviously never seen one used in that situation. They make a superb anchor for a force of lighter vehicles and infantry.) The tank, and all AFVs/APCs are going to be with us until someone invents something better.

I'd also note that a T-90 or an M1A2 can take a Hellfire to the front glacis plate and live to tell.

[IceFire]

MBT's were going to be phased out till Afganistan proved them to be so useful.  Same thing happened to the A-10 actually (almost ironic as its on the other side of that battle).  The Canadian military sent in our tanks and then opted to lease more tanks from Germany to help our forces in Afganistan as the MBT is still the final word in land combat.  They provide cover for troops, they have big guns, they can absorb allot of punishment (MBT's have been known to take several RPG-7's and keep going apparently) from what insurgents can pump out.

Something like the Stryker isn't quite there.  I think the MBT as a concept will stay but it might change somewhat.  I think we'll see some smaller, faster, lighter, but equally as powerful tanks in the future that will have similar capability but be easier to transport. The Stryker is just a little too far towards lighter I think.  On the other hand the Israeli's are quite happy with having their Merkava V's around...big honkin suckers those are!

[Mefustae]

MBT's were going to be phased out till Afganistan proved them to be so useful.  Same thing happened to the A-10 actually (almost ironic as its on the other side of that battle).  The Canadian military sent in our tanks and then opted to lease more tanks from Germany to help our forces in Afganistan as the MBT is still the final word in land combat.  They provide cover for troops, they have big guns, they can absorb allot of punishment (MBT's have been known to take several RPG-7's and keep going apparently) from what insurgents can pump out.

Against malsupplied insurgents working with aging technology, sure. But what about a clash between modern armies? The technology of anti-tank missiles and similar munitions has advanced almost parallel to the MBT concept, leading IMO to the point where the vulnerabilities of an MBT against a top-of-the-shelf antitank rocket will ultimately outweigh the advantages of having a fully mobile assault platform.

Although to be honest that's just IMO from what i've seen and read, and i'm getting a little too far into armchair general territory for comfort (). Hence, let's just get back to the topic at hand:

Has the age of the battleship truly passed, or could a revival be on the horizon with the advent of more advanced technology, ie. railguns that can follow the curvature of the Earth to shoot faster, farther, and inflict more damage than an entire Carrier Air Wing?

[Kosh]

We do have these things, called "cruise missiles". An Exocet or Sunburn is nothing to laugh at, especially if there is a bunch of them heading your way.

[BengalTiger]

Problem with cruise missiles is that you can:
a)fool them with chaff/flares/ECM
b)shoot them down

With a high power railgun (I really hope the Iowas will still exist when such a weapon will be developed), you'll have darts flying at the enemy.
These darts won't have to be guided because their speed will guarantee they reach the target before it takes evasive action, so they can't be jammed.
The darts will also not need explosives and rely on kinetic energy to shoot through armor a few meters thick, which means you can't detonate it in flight like a missile.
The railgun also has the advantage of firing the next shell as soon as the previous one leaves the rails, giving it a rate of fire limited by rail overheating and speed in which the next projectiles can be loaded (ie. 9 oversized machineguns firing short bursts from the Iowa).
Also with the arrival of railguns on the battlefield, heavy armor will be needed for a ship to even think of surviving a single salvo, giving another reason for the BB to come back, only this time in a more expensive version, with multilayer armor belts, and maybe reactive armor on the exterior surface.

On the other hand, the battleship will have a carrier alternative, with nearly invisible, unbelievably maneuverable unmanned fighters and bombers, giving us a reason to continue this topic.

[Wanderer]

Reactive armor ain't exactly useful against kinetic warheads... more like useless

[TrashMan]

We should try to bild something like that now, with current tech and knowledge.

Mammoth tanks FTW!

Aaand then a single Hellfire rocket disables it.

The usefulness of the main battle tank concept in modern warfare is starting to be questioned, and you want to bring back the age of the land battleship!?

There are very few missiles in the world that could pierce a 300+ mm armor or similar.
A land battleship would have redicolous armor, and would require specialized weapons to even graze.
Expensive? Yes.
Excessive? Yes.
Cool to the max? YES.

[Wanderer]

Well.. standard issue RPGs penetrate past 700 mm of armor...