Jump to content


How could Germany have done better?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1955 replies to this topic

EnsignExpendable #1741 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 00:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Ah, so according to you, after 444 km, the King Tiger's performance declines to 75% of its original? That is pretty much the worst tank ever, dude. Not even tank, vehicle. Worst vehicle ever.

Rhomer #1742 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 01:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22634 battles
  • 1,042
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Apr 28 2013 - 00:36, said:

Ah, so according to you, after 444 km, the King Tiger's performance declines to 75% of its original? That is pretty much the worst tank ever, dude. Not even tank, vehicle. Worst vehicle ever.
Nah, the Panther dies after 150km thats a performance decline of 100%

EnsignExpendable #1743 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 02:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
It will be fine as long as you have a truck full of final drives following you.

Zinegata #1744 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 04:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostJager1990, on Apr 27 2013 - 19:45, said:

The test conditions make a huge difference. And the fact that the hull plate of the KT was never penetrated in combat would help to prove that kubinka was innaccurate on alot of things.
I could go on about the Kubinka tests, like how they came to the conclusion that the IS-2 could reliably penetrate the panthers front plate at 1000m but it was later found that this was only true in a direct confrontation, the IS-2 actually could not penetrate the front plate of a panther at all if the angle was 30 degrees or greater.

Quite bluntly, the claim that the Tiger II's armor was never penetrated is just another myth. Knispel wasn't killed by peeking out of the turret commander's hatch. And then there's that action at Padeborn where the Tiger IIs were "taken out" by WP rounds...

We do have pictures of Tiger Is being penetrated frontally by the supposedly weak 75mm guns - a consequence of brittle German steel (which you spent a magnificant amount of time denying the last time you were active). We have data on how as many as 1/5 of the Panthers lost in some engagements in the East were due to 14.5mm anti-tank rifle shots. Hell, Chieftain put up an article shoting how nine Tiger IIs were destroyed at Puffendorf, mostly by direct-fire.

The idea that the Tiger II was some kind of invincible monster was a stupid, stupid myth. No tank was invincible to enemy fire. Heck, comparing the AP value of the 122mm vs the armor of the Tiger II is even stupid in most respects, because in actual battlefield conditions the IS-2s tended to fire HE shells at Tiger IIs and just spall the crew to death. Heck, all you need to kill a Tiger II is to take out its track - real life tanks take 4+ hours to fix a thrown track, not 4 seconds.

The best protection in a WW2 battle was to not be spotted at all. This is why Stug > Tiger IIs.

Edited by Zinegata, Apr 28 2013 - 04:29.


EnsignExpendable #1745 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 05:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Never frontally penetrated, you say?

Posted Image

Oops, so much for that. Well maybe the turret armour does better...

Posted Image

Waiting for someone to claim that shooting anything but the UFP is dishonourable.

Jager1990 #1746 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 06:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Apr 28 2013 - 00:36, said:

Ah, so according to you, after 444 km, the King Tiger's performance declines to 75% of its original? That is pretty much the worst tank ever, dude. Not even tank, vehicle. Worst vehicle ever.

The vehicles werent in good condition to begin with. Evident by the fact they were replacing parts of the drive train just trying to transport it.  Do you know how far those tanks were driven before the battle? The whole dispute to these tests runs on things like that. There is much discertion about the condition of these tanks being tested. It doesnt mean the tests are crap. It means that the German tests werent crap either. There is a huge difference between a tank with xxxxx many miles on it vs a tank with xxx miles on it. We dont know how well the tanks were maintained. We dont know if the tanks were operated properly not by the german crew or the soviet testing crews. There is much uncertainty surrounding this. It leaves the door open for any of it.

I think everyone is well aware of your photos. Especially the bottom one. None of those show the Tiger 2 frontal plate being penetrated, which is the famous claim. And I have done plenty of searching for it. good luck in finding that plate penetrated.

Jager1990 #1747 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 07:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011
I think this guy lays out a pretty good argument, even though as he points out some aspects can be disputed.

http://forums.totalw...Pic-Heavy-Post)

Also he happened to have this picure

Posted Image

This is the same picture you have without the damage to the upper plate. So which one is real? Also come to find out those lower hull shots didnt penetrate and the guy is proving that by putting his hand in them and showing its still solid. However, no argument that the lower portion can be penetrated. It certainly could be. The claim is the frontal 150mm plate which was not penetrated.

Smoothupinya #1748 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 07:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16391 battles
  • 118
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
Germany, fisrt you got to give them credit they almost had the world by the balls, even if Hitler was crazy. I dont believe in what they were fighting for, but give credit were it  is due. Should not have screwded with Russia first of all, atleast not until they had control of all of Europe. Just my opinion. Im intitled to it.

The tanks, well i think the big rail guns they had were devistating, if the could of some how made a tank with a rail gun on it, I know would of been a monster just to support that gun. Maybe even a Bismark on tracks. If they would of finished the Bismark and not sent it out half done and half manned we may be all speaking German right now. Sinking that ship was lucky, knocking out the steering so it could only do circles. Anything that is said to be accurate to the curve of the earth is scarry. Meaning all it had to do was spot you.

All a bunch of ifs. I wasnt there, my Grandfather was, I remember him to this day saying when that rail gun went off and that round flew buy it was like the size of Volkswagons flying by. Cant even imagine something that big, that fast wizzing by.

I may be off topic I dont care its just my opinion and I have done tons of WW2 history, studied all military guns from that era, even owned a few.
You couldnt beat the German inginouty (how ever you spell it) from that era.

Edited by Smoothupinya, Apr 28 2013 - 07:37.


Toxn #1749 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 07:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011
All that's wrong with how we teach history in only four paragraphs. That has to be some kind of record...

balmung60 #1750 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 09:06

    Major

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

View PostSmoothupinya, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:35, said:

Germany, fisrt you got to give them credit they almost had the world by the balls, even if Hitler was crazy. I dont believe in what they were fighting for, but give credit were it  is due. Should not have screwded with Russia first of all, atleast not until they had control of all of Europe. Just my opinion. Im intitled to it.
Okay, you're entitled to it, but we can also point out that it's wrong.  Hitler had a surprisingly successful military run, but he certainly never had a chance of actually winning in Europe.  He lost the moment he picked a fight with the Soviet Union, and he was already in a war he could never win the moment he declared war with the UK (which would most likely have ended in a stalemate absent outside forces).

View PostSmoothupinya, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:35, said:

The tanks, well i think the big rail guns they had were devistating, if the could of some how made a tank with a rail gun on it, I know would of been a monster just to support that gun. Maybe even a Bismark on tracks. If they would of finished the Bismark and not sent it out half done and half manned we may be all speaking German right now. Sinking that ship was lucky, knocking out the steering so it could only do circles. Anything that is said to be accurate to the curve of the earth is scarry. Meaning all it had to do was spot you.
I assume you're talking about Dora and Gustav, also known as "Hitler's Willy Extensions" (by me).  They were essentially useless as weapons.  Too slow, too bulky, and required too many resources to function.  The stupid things required special rail to be laid and took too long to set up to be of any real use.  They did draw up plans to mount the stupid weapon to a "tank", the 1500-tonne Landkreuzer P.1500 Monster(by the way, take a drink).  It would have, theoretically, moved about as fast as the Space Shuttle crawler, and practically, not at all and it would have been a magnet for aerial attack and actually been big enough that the Chair Force might actually hit it.  Anyone in range would basically only have themselves to blame.  Know what would have been a better use of resources than Dora and Gustav, much less the Monster​? Literally anything else.

The Bismarck was an outdated battleship when it was built with an obsolete (pre-"All or Nothing" armor scheme) and any feats of accuracy on its part could certainly have been matched or surpassed by Allied vessels (or at least American ones, as I don't know about the Brits, but I assume they had similar access and use of rangefinding and fire control radar) , which had equal or better fire control.  Sinking it when the Brits did may have required some luck, but it would have gone down eventually even if it had gotten away then.  Furthermore, her most noteworthy achievement was sinking a vessel of even worse design with a lucky shot to the ammo magazine (at that range, hitting a specific part of a vessel is largely luck).

View PostSmoothupinya, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:35, said:

All a bunch of ifs. I wasnt there, my Grandfather was, I remember him to this day saying when that rail gun went off and that round flew buy it was like the size of Volkswagons flying by. Cant even imagine something that big, that fast wizzing by.
I find it highly unlikely your grandfather ever saw Dora or Gustav fire (or was on the receiving end of it), at least assuming that both you and your grandfather are American.  If he was Soviet, he might have witnessed it, but that's still unlikely at best.  It's also still less effective than just dropping 2,000 lb GP bombs unless you're targeting heavy fortifications like the Maginot Line, and then you're still probably better off calling for air support than counting on Gustav or Dora.

View PostSmoothupinya, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:35, said:

I may be off topic I dont care its just my opinion and I have done tons of WW2 history, studied all military guns from that era, even owned a few.
You couldnt beat the German inginouty (how ever you spell it) from that era.
It sounds more like you've done loads of WWII "history" (which means History Channel garbage and other pop-history drivel) and your study of the guns began and ended with "biggest gun is best gun".

As for German "ingenuity" (protip: spell check is your friend (just like it's mine)), their ingenuity was largely of the school of "it's good, but can you make it bigger?".  Tanks are good, right?  Make them so big that they weigh so much they they throw their final drive after an average of 150km and has no more armor by thickness than a Panzer IV.  Ooh, and make another carry a pointlessly large gun and be even heavier.  Then make an assault gun/tank destroyer out of that with EVEN MORE ARMOUR, even though the tank it was based on was already nearly impossible to penetrate from the front and then mount a gun so powerful that it's literally pointless, especially given that the tank it was based on could already penetrate pretty much everything in the war, meaning that the bigger gun only reduces the amount of ammo that it can carry.  Guns are good, right?  Make them so big that it takes several days to set them up and they need special rails.  The Germans weren't about building it better, just bigger.

Oh, and please, please, please use the spell checker, check your grammar, and check your punctuation.  This isn't that hard and it helps make people take you more seriously, or at least treat you more maturely.

Tiger_23 #1751 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 15:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10437 battles
  • 10,212
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:01, said:



Posted Image



Seems legit :/

Zinegata #1752 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 16:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 06:19, said:

The vehicles werent in good condition to begin with.

Knispel was in a pretty new Tiger II for the Budapest operation.

Again, how was he killed when he was riding a Tiger II if your claim that a Tiger II was never penetrated is true? Magic teleporting bullets?

Zinegata #1753 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 16:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postbalmung60, on Apr 28 2013 - 09:06, said:

I find it highly unlikely your grandfather ever saw Dora or Gustav fire (or was on the receiving end of it), at least assuming that both you and your grandfather are American.  If he was Soviet, he might have witnessed it, but that's still unlikely at best.  It's also still less effective than just dropping 2,000 lb GP bombs unless you're targeting heavy fortifications like the Maginot Line, and then you're still probably better off calling for air support than counting on Gustav or Dora.

No rail gun in the West was ever confirmed to have fired, actually. The only super-heavy rail battery was I think at St Lo, but it was taken out by Allied aircraft well before it could be in range to bombard anything in the US or British sectors. In the East the only confirmed use was in Sevastapool really... and I doubt any Russians survived through that one (because the garrison was pretty much either all killed, or captured then killed),

Moreover, the power of one individual shell is a completely laughable measure of artillery power. Quantity and speed of delivery is what matters. The US Army in 1944 fired something like ten times the volume of arty shells fired by Germany.

Edited by Zinegata, Apr 28 2013 - 16:33.


EnsignExpendable #1754 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 17:28

    Major

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

View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 06:19, said:

The vehicles werent in good condition to begin with. Evident by the fact they were replacing parts of the drive train just trying to transport it.  Do you know how far those tanks were driven before the battle? The whole dispute to these tests runs on things like that. There is much discertion about the condition of these tanks being tested. It doesnt mean the tests are crap. It means that the German tests werent crap either. There is a huge difference between a tank with xxxxx many miles on it vs a tank with xxx miles on it. We dont know how well the tanks were maintained. We dont know if the tanks were operated properly not by the german crew or the soviet testing crews. There is much uncertainty surrounding this. It leaves the door open for any of it.

I think everyone is well aware of your photos. Especially the bottom one. None of those show the Tiger 2 frontal plate being penetrated, which is the famous claim. And I have done plenty of searching for it. good luck in finding that plate penetrated.

They didn't just guess 444, that number was supported by the tank's documentation and instruments.

So what is your argument? That the Tiger II is such a terrible tank that its condition decays after only a relatively short march, even after maintenance?

Ah, here's the "UFP is the only fair spot" argument :) I guess you'll complain that the Kubinka tests are somehow unfair, since there are plenty of photos of the UFP being penetrated.


View PostZinegata, on Apr 28 2013 - 16:26, said:

Knispel was in a pretty new Tiger II for the Budapest operation.

Again, how was he killed when he was riding a Tiger II if your claim that a Tiger II was never penetrated is true? Magic teleporting bullets?

Heart attack.


View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 07:01, said:

I think this guy lays out a pretty good argument, even though as he points out some aspects can be disputed.

http://forums.totalw...Pic-Heavy-Post)

Also he happened to have this picure

Posted Image

This is the same picture you have without the damage to the upper plate. So which one is real? Also come to find out those lower hull shots didnt penetrate and the guy is proving that by putting his hand in them and showing its still solid. However, no argument that the lower portion can be penetrated. It certainly could be. The claim is the frontal 150mm plate which was not penetrated.

My mistake, looked like penetrations to me. But I love it when people go from "the KT was never penetrated in combat" to "the KT was never penetrated in the front" to "the KT was never penetrated in the upper front plate".

Jager1990 #1755 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 18:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011

View PostZinegata, on Apr 28 2013 - 16:26, said:

Knispel was in a pretty new Tiger II for the Budapest operation.

Again, how was he killed when he was riding a Tiger II if your claim that a Tiger II was never penetrated is true? Magic teleporting bullets?

You assume that knispel was killed when his tank was penetrated on the 150mm plate how?
Acording to this report released by czech sources not to long ago who claim to have found Knispels remains they say he was killed by being shot in the abdomen while him and his crew were leaving their tank.
The article translates rough but i cant read czech at all
"  He fell in our area, 28 April (1945) was seriously wounded in the fighting at either a comet or near Nová Ves, where he was reportedly shot in the abdomen suffer - when damaged tank damages and his colleagues tried to extricate the tank," said Vlastimil Schildberger of the Moravian Museum. Twenty-three trooper also called the Black Baron died the next day at the field hospital."

Do you have some magical picture of Knispels Tiger tank or something? I would love to see it to add to my gallery. How do you know his tank wasnt pentrated form the side? How do you know his tank was even penetrated by AT fire. Maybe they ran over a mine? Ran out of fuel or broke down and had to abandon the tank? Knispel had been in action for a more than a week straight before his death and 3 days earlier he did report 24 hits absorbed in engagements that day. Thats his last report given before he is killed. I dont think there is any proof of how knispels tank was knocked out/destroyed. Only that he was fatally wounded by a gunshot wound to the abdomen.

edit: since google translator isnt an a good source. ill post this guys translation from the wot forums. http://forum.worldof...ng-place-found/

Edited by Jager1990, Apr 28 2013 - 18:39.


Jager1990 #1756 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 19:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011
444km. from what? Its 1333km from Ogledow to Kubinka. So it traveled 444km. while being loaded and unloaded in that journey maybe? The tank assuredly had more than 444km. on it in its lifetime. Secondly, yeah it wouldnt be uncommon for a KT to have breakdowns in shorter distances considering its august 1944 and still in its teething phase. Breakdowns would be common for any new tank that has only been in service for 3 months. check out the teething phases of tanks like Panther,T-34, KV-1 or even Centurion. You dont see KT operational rates increase until about february 1945.

Actually I have finally looked through all 53 pages of your kubinka report and i could not find results or photos for the frontal ballistics test. I did find the side armor ballistics tests on p.42-43 but no photos of it either.

The photo i know of from kubinka is this one

http://www.achtungpa...ust-of-1944.htm

But there is no frontal penetration, just the structural collapse of the entire vehicle from being shot at so many times.(from your report the sides of the tank alone were shot 138 times, 58 on the right and 83 on the left)
Achtung panzer says the kubinka tests resulted in several conclusions including this one "4. The front armor plate cannot be penetrated, but heavily damaged by 152mm and 122mm armor piercing / high explosive shells fired by artillery pieces. The result is the damage of the tanks mechanical components"

Jager1990 #1757 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 19:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011
And lastly, I am sorry for assuming that you knew enough about the topic to know that the claim is that the frontal plate was never penetrated. I didnt think you would resort to trying to point out a penetration of a 100mm bottom plate or a 185mm turret plate. I thought we were beyond that but I must have been wrong.

Jager1990 #1758 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 20:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8366 battles
  • 515
  • [STD-] STD-
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011

View Postbalmung60, on Apr 28 2013 - 09:06, said:

Okay, you're entitled to it, but we can also point out that it's wrong.  Hitler had a surprisingly successful military run, but he certainly never had a chance of actually winning in Europe.  He lost the moment he picked a fight with the Soviet Union, and he was already in a war he could never win the moment he declared war with the UK (which would most likely have ended in a stalemate absent outside forces).


I assume you're talking about Dora and Gustav, also known as "Hitler's Willy Extensions" (by me).  They were essentially useless as weapons.  Too slow, too bulky, and required too many resources to function.  The stupid things required special rail to be laid and took too long to set up to be of any real use.  They did draw up plans to mount the stupid weapon to a "tank", the 1500-tonne Landkreuzer P.1500 Monster(by the way, take a drink).  It would have, theoretically, moved about as fast as the Space Shuttle crawler, and practically, not at all and it would have been a magnet for aerial attack and actually been big enough that the Chair Force might actually hit it.  Anyone in range would basically only have themselves to blame.  Know what would have been a better use of resources than Dora and Gustav, much less the Monster​? Literally anything else.

The Bismarck was an outdated battleship when it was built with an obsolete (pre-"All or Nothing" armor scheme) and any feats of accuracy on its part could certainly have been matched or surpassed by Allied vessels (or at least American ones, as I don't know about the Brits, but I assume they had similar access and use of rangefinding and fire control radar) , which had equal or better fire control.  Sinking it when the Brits did may have required some luck, but it would have gone down eventually even if it had gotten away then.  Furthermore, her most noteworthy achievement was sinking a vessel of even worse design with a lucky shot to the ammo magazine (at that range, hitting a specific part of a vessel is largely luck).


I find it highly unlikely your grandfather ever saw Dora or Gustav fire (or was on the receiving end of it), at least assuming that both you and your grandfather are American.  If he was Soviet, he might have witnessed it, but that's still unlikely at best.  It's also still less effective than just dropping 2,000 lb GP bombs unless you're targeting heavy fortifications like the Maginot Line, and then you're still probably better off calling for air support than counting on Gustav or Dora.


It sounds more like you've done loads of WWII "history" (which means History Channel garbage and other pop-history drivel) and your study of the guns began and ended with "biggest gun is best gun".

As for German "ingenuity" (protip: spell check is your friend (just like it's mine)), their ingenuity was largely of the school of "it's good, but can you make it bigger?".  Tanks are good, right?  Make them so big that they weigh so much they they throw their final drive after an average of 150km and has no more armor by thickness than a Panzer IV.  Ooh, and make another carry a pointlessly large gun and be even heavier.  Then make an assault gun/tank destroyer out of that with EVEN MORE ARMOUR, even though the tank it was based on was already nearly impossible to penetrate from the front and then mount a gun so powerful that it's literally pointless, especially given that the tank it was based on could already penetrate pretty much everything in the war, meaning that the bigger gun only reduces the amount of ammo that it can carry.  Guns are good, right?  Make them so big that it takes several days to set them up and they need special rails.  The Germans weren't about building it better, just bigger.

Oh, and please, please, please use the spell checker, check your grammar, and check your punctuation.  This isn't that hard and it helps make people take you more seriously, or at least treat you more maturely.

Germany never had a chance to win the war= false
Bismark was already an outdated battleship when commisioned= false
Bismark only accomplishment was sinking an older, weaker vessel= false
German philosophy is bigger is better= false
Everything else= seems right or justified.

EnsignExpendable #1759 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 20:08

    Major

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

View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 19:52, said:

444km. from what? Its 1333km from Ogledow to Kubinka. So it traveled 444km. while being loaded and unloaded in that journey maybe? The tank assuredly had more than 444km. on it in its lifetime. Secondly, yeah it wouldnt be uncommon for a KT to have breakdowns in shorter distances considering its august 1944 and still in its teething phase. Breakdowns would be common for any new tank that has only been in service for 3 months. check out the teething phases of tanks like Panther,T-34, KV-1 or even Centurion. You dont see KT operational rates increase until about february 1945.

Actually I have finally looked through all 53 pages of your kubinka report and i could not find results or photos for the frontal ballistics test. I did find the side armor ballistics tests on p.42-43 but no photos of it either.

The photo i know of from kubinka is this one

http://www.achtungpa...ust-of-1944.htm

But there is no frontal penetration, just the structural collapse of the entire vehicle from being shot at so many times.(from your report the sides of the tank alone were shot 138 times, 58 on the right and 83 on the left)
Achtung panzer says the kubinka tests resulted in several conclusions including this one "4. The front armor plate cannot be penetrated, but heavily damaged by 152mm and 122mm armor piercing / high explosive shells fired by artillery pieces. The result is the damage of the tanks mechanical components"

There's this thing called "trains" that you can transport tanks with. No tank traveled from Ogledow to Kubinka on its own. The tank traveled 444 km before making it to Kubinka from the factory. The report I linked only has ballistics tests for 76 mm guns and the Soviet 85 mm, with no photographs. The report with ballistics testing is a different one: http://www.mediafire...nt3c6r4c991z7uh

My favourite part about that report is the absolute failure of the Panther to penetrate the front hull of the KT, even with APCR, at 100 meters, while the T-34-85 could do it from 300 meters. Achtung Panzer is a damn liar, then, because there were many honest penetrations of the upper front plate during testing. It is penetrated by literally the first shot fired at the tank, by anything.

I don't know where you got "138 times, 58 on the right and 83 on the left" from. My report states that it was shot from both sides a total of 48 times and from the front 36 times. Stop pretending you've read it when you clearly have not.

Edited by EnsignExpendable, Apr 28 2013 - 20:13.


EnsignExpendable #1760 Posted Apr 28 2013 - 20:10

    Major

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

View PostJager1990, on Apr 28 2013 - 19:56, said:

And lastly, I am sorry for assuming that you knew enough about the topic to know that the claim is that the frontal plate was never penetrated. I didnt think you would resort to trying to point out a penetration of a 100mm bottom plate or a 185mm turret plate. I thought we were beyond that but I must have been wrong.

Claim what you claim. "Never penetrated in the front" is not the same as "never penetrated in the upper front plate". I know enough about the topic to have heard all sorts of ridiculous garbage from people whose only introduction to history is from the History Channel.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users