696 replies to this topic

[BeingBadNotBeingGood]

BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:49, 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?

Don't forget being able to fight in more terrain because your turret is better balanced so it doesn't jam on an incline and that the gunner can acquire the target much faster than the Panther because of the periscope.

[IronWolfV]

bah late war german tanks were built like swiss watches: IE hard to repair, took forever to repair and well prone to breaking down.  Why I rate the M4 and T34 as the two highest. Built in large volumes, easily repaired and maintained.  For example I'll believe that germany had a 5:1 knock down ratio in the beginning of the war. What isn't said is how many times those tanks were repaired and put back in the field. 4:5 tanks usually returned to the battlefield far as T34s and M4 shermans.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

EnsignExpendable, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:29, said:

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.

 

Yeah they were ok until they ran into the mighty M3 Lee in the desert and got their asses kicked. 

[DSWBeef]

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

Edited by DSWBeef, Jan 28 2014 - 04:32.

[EnsignExpendable]

xiantom, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:29, said:

Don't forget being able to fight in more terrain because your turret is better balanced so it doesn't jam on an incline and that the gunner can acquire the target much faster than the Panther because of the periscope.

 

None of these things matter when tank combat in your mind happens on a featureless plane where the two tanks spawn pointing their guns at each others' UFPs and keep clicking until the other one is dead.

 

[EnsignExpendable]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

 

Experience dictates that you shouldn't engage tanks frontally. Ever. Because if you are engaging them frontally, they can shoot at you, and that's not a nice feeling, regardless of how much armour you have.

[BabyOlifant]

Really? Any allied tanker?

Do you have any idea how rare German AFVs at all were during the war? Most allied tankers never saw an enemy AFV, much less engaged a big cat.

When you boos say things like this, we can call you out with impunity. So why not get the heck off this thread? Go hump Hitler's Hugo Boss-clad leg somewhere else, little fascist doggie.

[BeingBadNotBeingGood]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

Tank warfare isn't a joust just so you know. It's almost always unprepared skirmishes and ambushes. It's somewhat rare that you end up in a situation where you must shoot at the enemy from the front.

[ChiefKim]

The first Panthers were so bad, that even the ultimate Wehraboos couldn't accept them. The 1st SS Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler' (I think only the 12th SS may have been more fanatical than them), rejected all of theirs when they were given them in Italy.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

TalonV, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:29, said:

bah late war german tanks were built like swiss watches: IE hard to repair, took forever to repair and well prone to breaking down.  Why I rate the M4 and T34 as the two highest. Built in large volumes, easily repaired and maintained.  For example I'll believe that germany had a 5:1 knock down ratio in the beginning of the war. What isn't said is how many times those tanks were repaired and put back in the field. 4:5 tanks usually returned to the battlefield far as T34s and M4 shermans.

 

Wehraboo be gone. There is no saving you. 

[Priory_of_Sion]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

I would doubt any German tanker would want to engage allied tanks frontally. 

 

Germany couldn't field enough of anything. However, having a tank that can only go ~150 km before breaking down due to a 35 ton final drive on a 45 ton vehicle is also a reason why Germany didn't field that many tanks.

 

Even when Germany did field their Panthers, they sucked. 

[DSWBeef]

BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:33, said:

Really? Any allied tanker?

Do you have any idea how rare German AFVs at all were during the war? Most allied tankers never saw an enemy AFV, much less engaged a big cat.

When you boos say things like this, we can call you out with impunity. So why not get the heck off this thread? Go hump Hitler's Hugo Boss-clad leg somewhere else, little fascist doggie.

Yep there it is. Claiming im some facist neo nazi member because I think the "cat" tanks were good is exactly why the WoT forums are in the shit. I actually love the sherman, cromwell, comet, hellcat, ect ect. And I would praise them all day except I wasnt talking about them. So whose the blind fanboy now? 

[EnsignExpendable]

Early Panthers were so bad that the Soviets considered the Flammpanzer III a bigger threat with more interesting technological solutions.

[EnsignExpendable]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:36, said:

Yep there it is. Claiming im some facist neo nazi member because I think the "cat" tanks were good is exactly why the WoT forums are in the shit. I actually love the sherman, cromwell, comet, hellcat, ect ect. And I would praise them all day except I wasnt talking about them. So whose the blind fanboy now? 

 

Less whining more evidence, thanks.

 

 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:30, said:

You can ask almost any allied tanker. They did not want to engage those tanks frontally. And it wasnt just propaganda telling them that. They knew from experience. 

 

Germans couldnt field enough panther or tiger tanks. Their economy couldnt allow it. Thats how we beat them. We strangled there supplies to death. We lost 1 sherman 5 more were there to be replaced. The tanks themselves were good tanks but to complex which made them to expensive.

 

But im not gonna argue with you guys. I dont have the time or the urge to continue. I would love to have a nice debate but knowing this forum its gonna end up in a pissing contest.

 

[content moderated - insult, not constructive]

~GM/Mod Team

 

 

[DSWBeef]

EnsignExpendable, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:38, said:

 

Less whining more evidence, thanks.

 

 

Its my opinion. And Ill leave it at that. Atleast I dont have to resort to childish name calling.

[BabyOlifant]

DSWBeef, on Jan 28 2014 - 03:36, said:

Yep there it is. Claiming im some facist neo nazi member because I think the "cat" tanks were good is exactly why the WoT forums are in the shit. I actually love the sherman, cromwell, comet, hellcat, ect ect. And I would praise them all day except I wasnt talking about them. So whose the blind fanboy now? 

Hold on, let me check.

Yep, still you.

[IronWolfV]

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:35, said:

 

Wehraboo be gone. There is no saving you. 

Why because I consider late war german tanks hunks of junk? Which they were. Take a panther vs a M4 sherman. M4 gets taken out, unless the tank was literally blown to pieces, the M4 was dragged back to the rear, fixed, refit and sent back into action. Take a Panther, it gets taken out on the battlefield, most times it got left on the battlefield.  Barely any panthers were dragged back to the rear and put back into service.

 

Why the german tanks late war are big pieces of crap.  Take one of them out, it usually isn't coming back.  Knock out ten shermans to take out a panther, 8 of those shermans, probably coming back.

[EnsignExpendable]

DSWBeef, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:39, said:

Its my opinion. And Ill leave it at that. Atleast I dont have to resort to childish name calling.

 

Your opinion is not founded in reality. Leave it at that if you choose, but don't deny it.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 19:33, said:

Really? Any allied tanker?

Do you have any idea how rare German AFVs at all were during the war? Most allied tankers never saw an enemy AFV, much less engaged a big cat.

When you boos say things like this, we can call you out with impunity. So why not get the heck off this thread? Go hump Hitler's Hugo Boss-clad leg somewhere else, little fascist doggie.

 

You can bang my sister this week, your a swell guy!