Jump to content


Top Five Tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

Tolos #621 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 20:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,446
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View Postbalmung60, on Jan 28 2014 - 19:43, said:


Except it didn't have to do that.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that no tank actually HAD to do that (or similar).  However, the gun of any tank is going to be easier to load at some angles than it will be at others.

Go read battle diaries from German tankers. They said when facing the IS2 they knew when it was reloading due to the gun depressing. 



Rusber_Optic #622 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 20:53

    Private

  • Players
  • 91 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

1. - T34-76

2. - T34-85

3. - KV

4. - IS and IS2

5. - Gemany T-III and T-IV



EnsignExpendable #623 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 20:55

    Major

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

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:45, said:

Go read battle diaries from German tankers. They said when facing the IS2 they knew when it was reloading due to the gun depressing. 

 

Maybe you should actually link us to some, because that's how evidence works?



Walter_Sobchak #624 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 20:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostToxn, on Jan 28 2014 - 12:04, said:

It's actually amazing, when you read diaries and first-hand accounts of tankers, how often they ended up shooting at random targets which only seemed to be threatening in some way. Or at things that were obscured enough to be invisible. Or at a general area. Or...

 

- Edited for teh links:

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1471110680


That looks like an interesting book.  I'll have to check it out.  I have read a few memoirs written by tankers in the war and you are totally correct.  Very little of what they write about resembles a WoT match.  



Walter_Sobchak #625 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Postbalmung60, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:43, said:


Except it didn't have to do that.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that no tank actually HAD to do that (or similar).  However, the gun of any tank is going to be easier to load at some angles than it will be at others.


Not a WW2 tank, but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that the T-62 gun had to go back to 0 elevation for the auto shell eject to work, and then would automatically go back to its previous elevation setting.  Anyone know if that is true or just some cold war propaganda I read growing up.  I'm feeling a bit too lazy to look through my PDFs of Soviet tank books.



Tolos #626 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,446
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 28 2014 - 19:55, said:

 

Maybe you should actually link us to some, because that's how evidence works?

Or people could do there own research ?.

 

I'm not going to get into a flame war here. 



EnsignExpendable #627 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:08

    Major

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

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 15:05, said:

Or people could do there own research ?.

 

I'm not going to get into a flame war here. 

 

If you are making a statement, back it up. Don't tell people to do their own research. They're not going to, they are just going to think you're wrong and lazy.



Hresvelgr #628 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:08

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7391 battles
  • 156
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010
Call me naive, but responding to someone asking for evidence by saying "no" strikes me as a very easy way to make it obvious you're wrong.

balmung60 #629 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 5668 battles
  • 3,016
  • [401ST] 401ST
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:05, said:

Or people could do there own research ?.

 

I'm not going to get into a flame war here. 


Okay, I'll just put down "do your own research" as my citations on my next research paper.  That'll get me a 100%, right?

 

No, it gets a zero because that's not how evidence or citations work.  You made a claim and were questioned on it, so you best have a citation.



Tolos #630 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,446
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostHresvelgr, on Jan 28 2014 - 20:08, said:

Call me naive, but responding to someone asking for evidence by saying "no" strikes me as a very easy way to make it obvious you're wrong.

Normally I would go and do all the searching again and find the pages etc etc, but honestly I just REALLY cannot be bothered. 

 

If people want to say I'm wrong, that's fair enough. I don't care either way :)



EnsignExpendable #631 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:12

    Major

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

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 15:09, said:

Normally I would go and do all the searching again and find the pages etc etc, but honestly I just REALLY cannot be bothered. 

 

"Comrade professor, I would cite my thesis, but I really cannot be bothered! I definitely saw the evidence somewhere before, maybe you should do your own research!

 

That will be one PhD, please."



Tolos #632 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,446
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jan 28 2014 - 20:12, said:

 

"Comrade professor, I would cite my thesis, but I really cannot be bothered! I definitely saw the evidence somewhere before, maybe you should do your own research!

 

That will be one PhD, please."

Like I said, I cannot be bothered to look, sorry, I just cant lol. 

 

But if you guys want to derail a good thread just to troll me, fill your boots. I'm off to do something else. 



EnsignExpendable #633 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 21:15

    Major

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

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 15:13, said:

Like I said, I cannot be bothered to look, sorry, I just cant lol. 

 

But if you guys want to derail a good thread just to troll me, fill your boots. I'm off to do something else. 

 

You are wrong again. This was never a good thread.



SergeantMatt #634 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 22938 battles
  • 2,527
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Come on man, a thread full of wehraboos making fools of themselves is a great thread.

 



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #635 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 01:11

    Major

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

View PostTolos, on Jan 28 2014 - 12:09, said:

Normally I would go and do all the searching again and find the pages etc etc, but honestly I just REALLY cannot be bothered. 

 

If people want to say I'm wrong, that's fair enough. I don't care either way :)

 

So you are ignorant, proud, and unwilling to change.  That makes you worse than a Wehraboo.

 

WTG dude, you are a real class act. 

 

Just leave the thread and don't come back, with your attitude you have nothing of value to add.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #636 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 01:13

    Major

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

View PostSergeantMatt, on Jan 28 2014 - 15:57, said:

Come on man, a thread full of wehraboos making fools of themselves is a great thread.

 

 

And now we have random idiots making fools of themselves too! This thread delivers!



EnsignExpendable #637 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 01:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Aw, adorable, he neg-repped me.

6Shootah #638 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 01:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9235 battles
  • 96
  • [MOTVE] MOTVE
  • Member since:
    02-18-2013

View Postyota151, on Jan 23 2014 - 22:55, said:


 I am talking about the WW2 version of each tank. Also most IS-3 lost during that war were do to air strikes.

im pretty sure your confusing the IS-3 with the Object 244, it was called the IS-3.  

The IS-3 as in the one with the bowl shaped turret did not fight in WW-2 so please stop, your making my brain hurt just by looking at it...

 

BTW a simple wikipedia search found the whole Object 244 thing, its almost common sense knowing that the actual IS-3 didnt fight in WW2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family#IS-3

you guys can argue all you want about it, just please cite your sources if an IS-3 actually fought in WW2...  please?



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #639 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 01:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 33897 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostRusber_Optic, on Jan 28 2014 - 13:53, said:

1. - T34-76

2. - T34-85

3. - KV

4. - IS and IS2

5. - Gemany T-III and T-IV

 

Can somebody fix this post's rep right quick? I accidentally gave it a -1 because I briefly thought I was in the worst tanks thread.



Knuckleduster_2015 #640 Posted Jan 29 2014 - 14:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014

View PostRedwing6, on Jan 26 2014 - 21:55, said:


The Panther was the best tank in the world until the T-54 entered divisional service (roughly 1950 or so).

 

Too bad that the Ausf. F Schmalturm never got produced though since it would have been even better.

 

Crappiest tanks in WW2 that were mass produced and that russians and some others think were good tanks.

 

5. T-34/85

4. T-34 model 1943

3. T-34 model 1942

2. T-34 model 1941

1. T-34 model 1940

 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users