5
Major
Guy4123, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:19, said:
Clearly the comic was a propaganda piece made by post war Soviets and Americans. Everyone knows the Panther was a glorious death machine touched by the finger of god.
Well yeah, as long as it had trains around, you just can't forget the trains!
I wonder if the Germans ever thought about making armored trains and just laying track to the battlefield, it might have been easier and cheaper to keep going than a bunch of panthers!
Major
Yep. Keep talking.
Either I communicated poorly or too basically, or some are just too full of themselves to make an effort of considering that maybe they misunderstood, but I explain:
Individually, given tanks that are actually on the battlefield, in an actual tank v. tank battle, functional, and in proper fighting trim, with crews that know what they are doing, I'd rather be in the Panther or Tiger than the Sherman. This is what I based my post on. Had I known it would encourage the sort of "feedback" it's gotten, I've would have gone through the trouble to point that out specifically to mitigate this godawful bloody mess.
Strategically, the Sherman absolutely wins hands down. Ease of manufacture, standardization of parts, logistical compatibility and minimal logistical footprint, relative ease of strategic and tactical mobility, operational flexibility, and - against most other armor it could potentially face - stands a good chance of beating, particularly against PzIIIs and PzIVs and all their chassis-based variants. The Sherman wasn't primarily designed to fight tanks because, within American armored doctrine of the time (before that got "debunked") M4s would support the infantry and exploit breakthroughs, while the M10s with their (at the time) larger 76mm guns would specifically deal with enemy armor. Allied air superiority over Western Europe went a long way in making the M4 crews lives a little easier.
The thing that the late-war German armor had going for it was it's ability to fight and destroy tanks - as long as they were in good working order. They were, however, over-engineered, logistical and maintenance nightmares, complex and expensive to produce, and requiring relatively lengthy training periods. I also know that that latest model Panthers had issues with it's front glacis owing to a lower production standard reducing the quality of face-hardened armor.
Yes, I've learned all this already, because - to your doubtless utter disbelief, Jeep - I also own and read books on the subject. Obviously, there is much more to get into, but for the sake of expediency I'll stop there.
I know the M4 is a good tank. For pete's sake, it's my favorite tank of the war. But in an actual tank v. tank fight, there are better performers, and like it or not, that's established fact.
Major
Treetop64, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:37, said:
LOL nonsense.
Anyway, if you had read the thread, you'd know why you are still wrong, and wouldn't be posting this.
Bonus points for hitting several Bingo points in your latest post. Don’t know what I’m talking about? No surprise, but it was covered in the thread and was a lot of laughs.
If you ask nice, instead of being all snarky and Butthurt, I'll explain why.
Major
Treetop64, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:37, said:
Individually, given tanks that are actually on the battlefield, in an actual tank v. tank battle, functional, and in proper fighting trim, with crews that know what they are doing, I'd rather be in the Panther or Tiger than the Sherman. This is what I based my post on. Had I known it would encourage the sort of "feedback" it's gotten, I've would have gone through the trouble to point that out specifically to mitigate this godawful bloody mess.
That's weird, I'd rather be in a Sherman, and here's why:
1. The gun firing wouldn't make me lose my hearing for several days.
2. I'd have to repair the tank less often, and it would have to go back to the depot less often, which means I'd be in a tank more often.
3. When I would have to repair my tank, it wouldn't be as difficult as it would be with the Panther.
4. The superior ammo storage would mean I'd be less likely to get roasted alive.
5. Leather seats are the height of capitalist bourgeois decadence.
6. There's more room in a Sherman.
7. The great HE ammo of the Sherman (75, 76, or 105, doesn't matter, HE for all is great) means I'd be more likely to win a fight with an AT gun or infantry with AT weapons than the Panther, which is important to me because I would encounter them far more frequently than tanks.
Of course, none of these are the sorts of things you can just read off a Wikipedia spec sheet, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't consider them when formulating your answer. But, seriously, don't pretend I can't tell you're reaching for my hat, trying to pull it down over my eyes.
I don't know much about tanking. You know even less, and I have buddies that are to me what I'm to you. So give it up.
Oh, and all that stuff about the Panther beating the Sherman in direct tank-on-tank combat? How about you pick up a history book once in a while?
Major
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:45, said:
Anyway, if you had read the thread, you'd know why you are still wrong, and wouldn't be posting this.
Bonus points for hitting several Bingo points in your latest post. Don’t know what I’m talking about? No surprise, but it was covered in the thread and was a lot of laughs.
If you ask nice, instead of being all snarky and Butthurt, I'll explain why.
You can keep your explanation, and I don't care to read through 25 pages of this thread just to satisfy your indulgent self-righteousness. I posted an opinion, and I took the time of specifying what I based those opinions on. That is sufficient. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. I don't care either way now.
Major
BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:49, said:
Oh, and all that stuff about the Panther beating the Sherman in direct tank-on-tank combat? How about you pick up a history book once in a while?
Not enough pictures in that link man!
And you forgot to mention how blind the Panther gunner was, and how this effected getting that all important first shot off.
Major
Hurk, on Jan 23 2014 - 14:17, said:
Major
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:53, said:
Not enough pictures in that link man!
And you forgot to mention how blind the Panther gunner was, and how this effected getting that all important first shot off.
Dammit! I always miss one!
Major
Insults and non-constructive post removed.
~Moderation Team
Major
Treetop64, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:52, said:
You can keep your explanation, and I don't care to read through 25 pages of this thread just to satisfy your indulgent self-righteousness. I posted an opinion, and I took the time of specifying what I based those opinions on. That is sufficient. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. I don't care either way now.
Point missed again.
The point of reading the thread before posting in it is, learning what has already been discussed in said thread, so you don't look like an ignorant person for posting already debunked, and thus wrong info.
Me being mean to you about the whole thing is really beside the point, it’s you not me who openly admits they came to the thread ignorant, and plan to stay that way.
That’s really your problem, and you shouldn’t blame me for it, I’m just an easy target for picking on all the mistakes you made, thus annoying you. But again, you’re the one coming off like the guy who won’t read the source right in front of them.
And yeah you posted an ignorant wrong opinion, and don’t care to improve yourself, and your proud of it.
WTG dude.
Corporal
BabyOlifant, on Jan 28 2014 - 04:49, said:
That's weird, I'd rather be in a Sherman, and here's why:
1. The gun firing wouldn't make me lose my hearing for several days.
2. I'd have to repair the tank less often, and it would have to go back to the depot less often, which means I'd be in a tank more often.
3. When I would have to repair my tank, it wouldn't be as difficult as it would be with the Panther.
4. The superior ammo storage would mean I'd be less likely to get roasted alive.
5. Leather seats are the height of capitalist bourgeois decadence.
6. There's more room in a Sherman.
7. The great HE ammo of the Sherman (75, 76, or 105, doesn't matter, HE for all is great) means I'd be more likely to win a fight with an AT gun or infantry with AT weapons than the Panther, which is important to me because I would encounter them far more frequently than tanks.
Of course, none of these are the sorts of things you can just read off a Wikipedia spec sheet, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't consider them when formulating your answer. But, seriously, don't pretend I can't tell you're reaching for my hat, trying to pull it down over my eyes.
I don't know much about tanking. You know even less, and I have buddies that are to me what I'm to you. So give it up.
Oh, and all that stuff about the Panther beating the Sherman in direct tank-on-tank combat? How about you pick up a history book once in a while?
lol what. they were nicknamed tommy cookers or ronsons because they caught fire often.
Major
Delerium, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:02, said:
lol what. they were nicknamed tommy cookers or ronsons because they caught fire often.
If you're in a British M4. If you are in a later model American M4 there is a 10% chance that the tank will burn when hit. Wet Ammo Rack ftw.
The Panzer IV had an 80% burn rate, about the same as the early/British M4s and the majority of tanks(Churchill, Cromwell, Panther, etc.).
Major
Treetop64, on Jan 27 2014 - 18:56, said:
In addition to conveniently taking the post out of context, you are borderlining semantics, which leads me to simply discredit your trollish responses altogether. I've wasted enough time with you clowns tonite.
Resorting to insults? LOL
Anyway, taking the "I’m taking my ball and going home!!!!" route is an ok choice, it will stop you from looking any worse, not that you really had further to fall, but every little bit counts.
Your posts context was a fantasy land scenario where a Panther fights a Sherman one on one in an imaginary battlefield where Panthers had good crews, and the Sherman’s didn't. IE Wehraboo reality. But you’re not one of those right?!!?
A few points though, it’s not just us, most of the active posters at this point are just watching the train wreck that is your attempt to spin this in some way to not look so bad.
It’s standard practice by people not considered tools on internet forums to read the thread before you post. Didn’t know that? You do now, don’t be so proud of being a lazy and ignorant person.
Your level of ignorance on the Shermans performance is sad considering you claim to be a fan. I’d really love to see you list some sources that gave you such shit info, too, but your running away like a, well, a lady part.
Major
BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:00, said:
Yeah but he's running away, you know, cause he lacks the ability to back up his ignorant posts.
And did you just see this Tommycooker joker?
Major
Delerium, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:02, said:
lol what. they were nicknamed tommy cookers or ronsons because they caught fire often.
ok the ronson slogan "lights every time" was first used in the 50's, and so the slogan was never associated with the M4.
and i can't actually find any wartime references to the M4 as the Tommy cooker.
Major
Delerium, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:02, said:
lol what. they were nicknamed tommy cookers or ronsons because they caught fire often.
Oh good, I thought this thread was going to do. However, you have graciously injected enough hilarity to sustain us for the next few hours.
Pray tell, what is the source of these nicknames (I'm pretty sure I already know, but I just want to confirm). Also, bingo cards are in need of filling out, and you could help us fill not one, but two squares! How very thoughtful of you.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
