Jump to content


PZ III K premium turd tank


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Altwar #21 Posted Feb 13 2018 - 19:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 54678 battles
  • 3,751
  • [A-F] A-F
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostHurk, on Feb 13 2018 - 09:49, said:

the TOG has good gun handling, this pile of trash does not:

 

I have them both and agree with your point.  My point was that like the TOG, the K can't readily break from an engagement and is actually worse at that ability IMO.

spud_tuber #22 Posted Feb 13 2018 - 20:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 51025 battles
  • 6,239
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
You can really feel that 0.35 bloom in play.  It hurts, badly.  If the tank trade system allowed it, I'd trade the 3k in towards a different tank without hesitation.

StiffWind #23 Posted Feb 13 2018 - 21:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14766 battles
  • 2,071
  • [MOV] MOV
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

The anti-German bias is as real as the pro-Russian bias.

 



Gnatcatcher #24 Posted Mar 04 2018 - 15:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6099 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    10-07-2016
:popcorn:

macblastr #25 Posted Mar 05 2018 - 17:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22531 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    08-19-2012

View PostFiremoth, on Feb 13 2018 - 08:15, said:

remind me about how germany's superior bloated loltraktor tanks won against the industrial might of america and the soviet union, who actually managed to rub two brain cells together and not produce garbage like the tiger.

 

did you just call the tiger garbage? holy crap you need to watch interviews with people who actually went up against the tiger and realize just how feared that tank was.... 

 

and a little history for you:

 

Michael Wittmann is known for his ambush of elements of the British 7th Armoured Division, during the Battle of Villers-Bocage on 13 June 1944. While in command of a Tiger I tank, he destroyed up to fourteen tanks and fifteen personnel carriers, along with two anti-tank guns, within the space of fifteen minutes. FIFTEEN MINUTES.



MacDaddyMatty #26 Posted Mar 05 2018 - 17:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25767 battles
  • 6,172
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    10-07-2016
Forgot I had this...

Gothraul #27 Posted Mar 05 2018 - 18:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 2044 battles
  • 4,713
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
One of the last tanks I ever bought with money and gladly compensated through TR, could have been a fun tank had it not been for the cancerous soft stats and standard mm.

Hurk #28 Posted Mar 05 2018 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 51158 battles
  • 16,792
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Postmacblastr, on Mar 05 2018 - 09:28, said:

 

did you just call the tiger garbage? holy crap you need to watch interviews with people who actually went up against the tiger and realize just how feared that tank was.... 

 

and a little history for you:

 

Michael Wittmann is known for his ambush of elements of the British 7th Armoured Division, during the Battle of Villers-Bocage on 13 June 1944. While in command of a Tiger I tank, he destroyed up to fourteen tanks and fifteen personnel carriers, along with two anti-tank guns, within the space of fifteen minutes. FIFTEEN MINUTES.

 

The "single-handed" attack by Wittmann early on, has excited imaginations to the extent that some historians and writers conclude that it has dominated the historical record to an unwarranted degree and that while "remarkable", the role of Wittmann in the battle has been exaggerated.

 

John Buckley attributed the hyperbole about Wittmann to the lingering influence of the German propaganda campaign and criticised D'Este and Meyer for exaggerating his role and implying that he single-handedly stopped the 7th Armoured Division. Buckley wrote that Russell A Hart's claim that Wittmann "all but annihilated" the 7th Armoured Division spearhead was wrong and that "the complete German propaganda treatment" was available from Gary Simpson.[184] Badsey called Wittmann's attack and the attention it has received, "remarkable but massively over-written".[179] In 2013, Buckley wrote that unquestioning regurgitation of Nazi propaganda by writers and historians was inexcusably casual, when a glance at the facts showed that the defeat of the 7th Armoured Division by one Tiger crew led by Wittmann was a myth. Wittmann made a bold attack, which helped to stop the advance of the 4th CLY but did not make a solo effort; the action at Point 213 was led by Rolf Möbius.[185]



favrepeoria #29 Posted Mar 05 2018 - 19:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29067 battles
  • 1,629
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostHurk, on Mar 05 2018 - 11:19, said:

 

The "single-handed" attack by Wittmann early on, has excited imaginations to the extent that some historians and writers conclude that it has dominated the historical record to an unwarranted degree and that while "remarkable", the role of Wittmann in the battle has been exaggerated.

 

John Buckley attributed the hyperbole about Wittmann to the lingering influence of the German propaganda campaign and criticised D'Este and Meyer for exaggerating his role and implying that he single-handedly stopped the 7th Armoured Division. Buckley wrote that Russell A Hart's claim that Wittmann "all but annihilated" the 7th Armoured Division spearhead was wrong and that "the complete German propaganda treatment" was available from Gary Simpson.[184] Badsey called Wittmann's attack and the attention it has received, "remarkable but massively over-written".[179] In 2013, Buckley wrote that unquestioning regurgitation of Nazi propaganda by writers and historians was inexcusably casual, when a glance at the facts showed that the defeat of the 7th Armoured Division by one Tiger crew led by Wittmann was a myth. Wittmann made a bold attack, which helped to stop the advance of the 4th CLY but did not make a solo effort; the action at Point 213 was led by Rolf Möbius.[185]

I was going to say wasn’t it proven that Wittmann in fact did not destroy all of those tanks? I thought some of this was allied paranoia and callling Pz 4s Tigers like normal. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users