Jump to content


Top Five Tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

DSWBeef #541 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12567 battles
  • 461
  • [W0RLD] W0RLD
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:15, said:

 

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...o_tank_10.shtml Not the best source.. but ive seen interviews with german tankers and they even used the names.



EnsignExpendable #542 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostTreetop64, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:37, 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.  

 

Yeah, and if the fight would happen in a frictionless vacuum, I'd pick a Panther too. 

 

You do know that was isn't an honourable tank vs. tank tournament-style duel, right? And that tanks aren't immediately deposited on the battlefield, and actually have to get there?


Edited by EnsignExpendable, Jan 28 2014 - 04:22.


Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #543 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDelerium, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:02, said:

lol what. they were nicknamed tommy cookers or ronsons because they caught fire often.

 

Did you know the M4A1 Sherman was so technologically advanced the Germans lacked the technology to copy it? 

 

Well it's a fact. 



BabyOlifant #544 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

You know, I always found it to be a profound ignorance of logic when boos throw that up as some kind of "proof" that the Sherman was a death trap. Besides not being true, I mean.

 

Here are some pictures of roasted kitties:

 

 

 

 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #545 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
You need some shots of it in its other natural state, you know, broken down and abandoned by the crew, or even better, out of gas, or just abandonded by a crew that didn't want to deal with the pile of shit anymore. 

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #546 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:18, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...o_tank_10.shtml Not the best source.. but ive seen interviews with german tankers and they even used the names.

 

 

Did you know the Germans who may or may not have used that nickname, also used captured Shermans any chance they got?

 

 



EnsignExpendable #547 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:20, said:

 

Did you know the M4A1 Sherman was so technologically advanced the Germans lacked the technology to copy it? 

 

Well it's a fact. 

 

They couldn't copy the T-34 mod. 1940, and that was (almost) entirely welded. 



DSWBeef #548 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12567 battles
  • 461
  • [W0RLD] W0RLD
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:21, said:

You need some shots of it in its other natural state, you know, broken down and abandoned by the crew, or even better, out of gas, or just abandonded by a crew that didn't want to deal with the pile of shit anymore. 

Im sorry but its plan ignorant to think the german tanks werent good tanks. Made with poor materials? Sure. But on design they were good tanks hampered by low material supplies. There plenty of images of smoking shermans aswell.



xthetenth #549 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14691 battles
  • 3,529
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

If I were in WWII I would rather be in a Sherman than a Panther because if I were in a Panther I would be on the side run by the sort of blindingly incompetent fools who take half again the weight and therefore precious wartime resources to deliver a tank that is only armored noticeably better against one major threat (75mm AT guns, what about 90mm, AT mines, infantry LAWs, lack of fuel, being outnumbered and their own transmissions) and only from the front. The side's like butter and has these lovely ammo racks in the sponson that are part of the reason that German tanks burned much more reliably than Shermans with wet racks safely in the hull floor. The simple fact of the matter is that if I were on the side that produced such astoundingly awful weapons, I'd be on the side that's liable to lose. Being on the losing side is really unsafe in a war.

 

The fact of the matter is that a tank is a weapon that is designed to drive to the enemy and deliver violence to him until he gives way and then drive through the enemy and cut off his positions and take his land. If a tank fails at driving it is terrible at the first and second and no marginal enhancement (and without a unity sight for the gunner or a good HE shell any enhancement is dubious at best) is going to make up for that.

 

View PostBabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:49, said:

 

Oh, and all that stuff about the Panther beating the Sherman in direct tank-on-tank combat? How about you pick up a historybook once in a while?

 

You forgot Dompaire. Roughly equal forces. French losses were five M4A2 tanks, two M5A1 tanks, two half-tracks, two jeeps; 44 killed and a single P-47 was shot down. After the resulting fight the I/Pz.Rgt. 29 had lost 34 of its Panthers and had four operational, and Pz. Brig. 112 had been reduced to 21 tanks of its 90 and lost 350 dead and 1,000 wounded.



DSWBeef #550 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12567 battles
  • 461
  • [W0RLD] W0RLD
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:23, said:

 

 

Did you know the Germans who may or may not have used that nickname, also used captured Shermans any chance they got?

 

 

Yes I did. Mostly because the german factories couldnt pump out enough tigers and panthers that they grabbed every captured tank they could get. DId you know germany resorted to using more and more stugs cause they couldnt manufacture tigers and panthers fast enough. The panthers and tigers design wasnt bad it was just to expensive to be manufactured by a strangled losing nation.


Edited by DSWBeef, Jan 28 2014 - 04:26.


Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #551 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:23, said:

 

They couldn't copy the T-34 mod. 1940, and that was (almost) entirely welded. 

 

Yeah, Nazi Germans, bad at building tonks... 



EnsignExpendable #552 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostJeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:21, said:

You need some shots of it in its other natural state, you know, broken down and abandoned by the crew, or even better, out of gas, or just abandonded by a crew that didn't want to deal with the pile of shit anymore. 

 

Fig. 1. A Panzerkampfwagen Panther tank in its natural habitat.

 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #553 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:23, said:

Im sorry but its plan ignorant to think the german tanks werent good tanks. Made with poor materials? Sure. But on design they were good tanks hampered by low material supplies. There plenty of images of smoking shermans aswell.

 

No one is saying all German tanks, just the cats, and if you think different, well sorry son, you’re the ignorant one. 



BabyOlifant #554 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 28 2014 - 03:23, said:

Im sorry but its plan ignorant to think the german tanks werent good tanks. Made with poor materials? Sure. But on design they were good tanks hampered by low material supplies. There plenty of images of smoking shermans aswell.

 

aaaaawwww man we got a real smarty pants here.



EnsignExpendable #555 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:23, said:

Im sorry but its plan ignorant to think the german tanks werent good tanks. Made with poor materials? Sure. But on design they were good tanks hampered by low material supplies. There plenty of images of smoking shermans aswell.

 

You can't get away with putting a 45 ton tank on a 30 ton chassis, no matter what kind of materials you use.



DSWBeef #556 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12567 battles
  • 461
  • [W0RLD] W0RLD
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostBabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:25, said:

 

aaaaawwww man we got a real smarty pants here.

I could say the same about you. So why resort to rudeness?



Guy4123 #557 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 4863 battles
  • 2,625
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    05-02-2012
We all universally agree the Panzer III was a great tank so no one thinks all German tanks were bad.

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #558 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostDSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:24, said:

Yes I did. Mostly because the german factories couldnt pump out enough tigers and panthers that they grabbed every captured tank they could get. DId you know germany resorted to using more and more stugs cause they couldnt manufacture tigers and panthers fast enough. The panthers and tigers design wasnt bad it was just to expensive to be manufactured by a strangled losing nation.

 

 

So tell us why you think the Panther and Tiger were so good. Hold nothing back, tell us of Kill ratios and heroic Nazi actions! You know you want too... 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #559 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostGuy4123, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:27, said:

We all universally agree the Panzer III was a great tank so no one thinks all German tanks were bad.

 

Man, this guy just gets it! Post more!



EnsignExpendable #560 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 04:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Pre-Barbarossa German armour designs (except their light tanks) were good for their time. When June 22nd rolled around, something misclicked, and people starting bashing the BIGGER GUN and MOAR ARMOUR buttons.




5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users