Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:40 amCzech tanks are barely tanks so they don't count ripppppppppppppppppppp
I read it and it said after three shots, one HE and two AP. Am I reading the wrong part?
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Tanks & armored vehicles discussion thread
Page 9 of 18
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:40 amPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:41 amI read it and it said after three shots, one HE and two AP. Am I reading the wrong part?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:41 amFordorsia wrote:Czech tanks are barely tanks so they don't count ripppppppppppppppppppp
Little tanks are still tanks.
Plus they had some decent early war medium tanks.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:43 amGermanic Templars wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The bolded and italicized, BRDM a shit
Because it is fuckin adorable and is street legal as far as I am concerned.
Well yeah it looks cool, but it's still commie junk at the end of the day
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:44 amThe Rodina wrote:I actually really like the Panzers III and IV, they were certainly older than their counterparts, but that is the main reason i like them. They were really the first medium tanks, unless you count the Matilda II as a medium tank. They also rolled over the Russians in 1941 before they could field the T-34. Although of course the T-34 was more than a match for the Pz. 3, it was still inferior to the Panther, in terms of raw performance. I am also quite a fan of British tanks like the Cromwell.
I was never a fan of the Sherman, tbh. Any sherman fans care to explain what is so awesome about the Tommy Cooker compared to the Panther and Cromwell?
But there have been plenty of medium tanks before that? The T-28 and Vickers Mark I come to mind. But even back to WW1 there was the Medium Mark A Whippet, and then the Mark B, Mark C, and Mark D.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:47 amThe Rodina wrote:regardless of angling,
and this is when i stop taking you seriously at all
angles don't matter fuck the us is dumf
metal bawkes 4ever, mk V was right all along
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:48 amHusseinarti wrote:Considering the majority of T-34s produced were lost in WW2, either to combat kills or just scrapped due to damage. However the Russians forgone repairing extensively damaged tanks and would just straight put the crew into a new tank instead.
I don't particularly like the T-34. I consider it a very poorly designed tank that worked well against the early Panzer IIIs and IVs, but faults in its design started to really show up after a while, too late to fix. I just see the Sherman as an average tank too, even if it is better, it isn't by a significant amount, especially in 1944 with the T-34-85, which fixed alot of the biggest problems.
Husseinarti wrote:kekius maximus
Well the industry of the United States utterly dwarfs everyone else, the Russians might come close to raw scale of output, but don't come close to quality of output. T-34s suffered from laxed quality control, due to a very understandable "Hey ivan they are like 100km from Moscow build tank now" situation, however these differences were pretty stark.
Well the majority of the 2,100 Pershings produced were built in a span of less than 12 months which outdid the previous 4 years of the Tiger I and Tiger II production runs.
It wouldn't be anything like 21,000 Shermans produced in a year like in 1943 but it'd make BMW, Krupp, Porche, Henschel and all them literally fucking cry the second Detroit Army Tank Plant, Fisher Tank Arsenal, and Lima Army Tank Plant start turning out fucking tanks.
american industry magicoo
I already stated I dont like the T-34. Also I don't see what you are trying to argue, I am not saying anything about Germany, I am talking simply about the Panther, that it would have been available in much greater numbers if the country which operated it had the capacity of somewhere like the USA, making it probably the best tank, just because of tactical superiority, the only reason it flopped was the Germans inability to actually make it work properly in large deployments.
Husseinarti wrote: Captain hindsight strikes again!
Okay?
Husseinarti wrote:The first effective medium tanks in German service were Czechoslovakian designs rippppp
the vz 35 and 38 were more light tanks, tbh.
This is sort of MUH COUNTREE DA GRATEST IN EVERY ASPECT USA USA USA is no different than the T-34 fanboys and Wehraboos, you are getting way too fucking defensive here. Chill the fuck out bro.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:50 amArlenton wrote:But there have been plenty of medium tanks before that? The T-28 and Vickers Mark I come to mind. But even back to WW1 there was the Medium Mark A Whippet, and then the Mark B, Mark C, and Mark D.
The Rodina wrote:The Panzer III was the first effective Medium Tank to be employed on a wide scale. Is that better?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:50 amWashington Resistance Army wrote:
Well yeah it looks cool, but it's still commie junk at the end of the day
Unless you got a non-commie cheap amphibious apc I would be happy to see.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:51 amI said regardless, of angling, not that angling isn't important ffs
Cromwell armour is better, yes, the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference, but the Cromwell ultimately had better protection.
I have nothing against the US you fucking lunatic
Sherman =/= USA
I love the Airacobra, the Mustang, the B-52 and lots of other American shit, but not the Sherman. That doesn't make me hate the US. You are just projecting muh nationalism because surely muh coutnry iz bezt in evry wayyy
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:53 amThe Rodina wrote:I sort of see this as the exact same sort of "MUH COUNTREE HAD THE BEST EVERYTHING"
The Rodina wrote:This is sort of MUH COUNTREE DA GRATEST IN EVERY ASPECT USA USA USA is no different than the T-34 fanboys and Wehraboos, you are getting way too fucking defensive here. Chill the fuck out bro.
He is Czech-Asian and I'm British, yet here we are defending the Sherman. Weird.
The Rodina wrote:the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference
So what you're saying is the Sherman had better armour
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:54 amPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:57 amThe question is, What is the best? Well the best is easily the King Tiger, it's recorded kill ratio is just ridiculous over 10-1 in it's favour. Most of it's losses were it's own crew blowing it up to prevent capture so combat losses only it is even higher.
Yes it was a massive waste of money and fuel and god knows what else and that probably only hurt the German war effort but the question in the poll is not which tank had the biggest effect on the war but which is the best tank. One on one the King Tiger would smash any others on the list. It's the best.
If you want to talk about most effective towards a war effort from the list well that is either the Sherman or the T34. The Panzer IV should get an honourable mention here also.
Yes it was a massive waste of money and fuel and god knows what else and that probably only hurt the German war effort but the question in the poll is not which tank had the biggest effect on the war but which is the best tank. One on one the King Tiger would smash any others on the list. It's the best.
If you want to talk about most effective towards a war effort from the list well that is either the Sherman or the T34. The Panzer IV should get an honourable mention here also.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:57 amAnyone have an opinion on post war French tanks?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:00 amFordorsia wrote:The Rodina wrote:I sort of see this as the exact same sort of "MUH COUNTREE HAD THE BEST EVERYTHING"The Rodina wrote:This is sort of MUH COUNTREE DA GRATEST IN EVERY ASPECT USA USA USA is no different than the T-34 fanboys and Wehraboos, you are getting way too fucking defensive here. Chill the fuck out bro.
He is Czech-Asian and I'm British, yet here we are defending the Sherman. Weird.The Rodina wrote:the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference
So what you're saying is the Sherman had better armour
Not what I said, completely out of context
The Rodina wrote:yes, the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference, but the Cromwell ultimately had better protection.
Again, are you new to intelligent comments?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:00 amFordorsia wrote:Czech tanks are barely tanks so they don't count ripppppppppppppppppppp
The T-72M2 Moderna would like a word with you. Technically Slovakian, but oh well.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:01 amThe Rodina wrote:I don't particularly like the T-34. I consider it a very poorly designed tank that worked well against the early Panzer IIIs and IVs, but faults in its design started to really show up after a while, too late to fix. I just see the Sherman as an average tank too, even if it is better, it isn't by a significant amount, especially in 1944 with the T-34-85, which fixed alot of the biggest problems.
Well when T-34-85s and M4A3E8s when head to head in Korea the Sherman found itself on top.
The M4 accounted for the largest majority of confirmed US tank kills in Korea. However tank-on-tank fights were super rare in Korea, with like less than 150 ever happening.
The Rodina wrote:the vz 35 and 38 were more light tanks, tbh.
The 6th, 7th and 8th Panzer Divisions used 35s and 38s in lack of Panzer IIIs.
And they took all of 110~ damaged 38s with 17 scrapped 38s for all of the invasion of France.
The Rodina wrote:This is sort of MUH COUNTREE DA GRATEST IN EVERY ASPECT USA USA USA is no different than the T-34 fanboys and Wehraboos, you are getting way too fucking defensive here. Chill the fuck out bro.
I mean the US was a backwater in terms of tanks until WW2 started. 300 tanks produced in between like 10 years of development. Terribad. They had cool ideas though.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:01 amNew Antonalia wrote:Anyone have an opinion on post war French tanks?
AMX-30 seems pretty good, with the coaxial autocannon and all.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:06 amHusseinarti wrote:Well when T-34-85s and M4A3E8s when head to head in Korea the Sherman found itself on top.
The M4 accounted for the largest majority of confirmed US tank kills in Korea. However tank-on-tank fights were super rare in Korea, with like less than 150 ever happening.
Pls read my post better:
The Rodina wrote:even if it is better, it isn't by a significant amount
You are also failing to take into consideration how abysmal the North Korean tank crews were, if they were equally matched crews, I could still see the Sherman coming out on top, but hardly by a significant amount.
Husseinarti wrote:The 6th, 7th and 8th Panzer Divisions used 35s and 38s in lack of Panzer IIIs.
And they took all of 110~ damaged 38s with 17 scrapped 38s for all of the invasion of France.
That doesn't mean it is a medium tank. The T-34 took a role traditionally filled by the BT-7, does that make the BT-7 a medium tank?
Husseinarti wrote:I mean the US was a backwater in terms of tanks until WW2 started. 300 tanks produced in between like 10 years of development. Terribad. They had cool ideas though.
That was mostly because they had no real need for any tanks, unlike European powers, nobody on their hemisphere was really a threat, and they had no intention to get involved in a war in Europe again. Of course that did change, but it is understandable, it would have been quite a waste of money, from their perspective.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:10 amPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:13 amNew Antonalia wrote:Anyone have an opinion on post war French tanks?
Its cool but it lacked the overall serviceability and flexibility the Leopard 1 has.
Like out of 1970, the AMX-30 keeps just slowly degrading over time while the Leopard 1 stays relevant. Don't get me wrong it also goes down as well, but it has great systems like second-to-none fire control, a great gun, good ammo, etc. The AMX-30 had good stuff, but either because it wasn't was widely developed as the Leopard 1 or something else, just couldn't hold itself up as long as the Leopard 1 did.
The Rodina wrote:Fordorsia wrote:
He is Czech-Asian and I'm British, yet here we are defending the Sherman. Weird.
So what you're saying is the Sherman had better armour
Not what I said, completely out of contextThe Rodina wrote:yes, the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference, but the Cromwell ultimately had better protection.
Again, are you new to intelligent comments?
Protection value is a relative term for tanks as it is a whole heaping mess of values beyond x mm at y angle, which is typically a gross, if slightly correct and incorrect at the same time measurement.
A tank with say, 15mm at 45 degrees has better armor than a 20mm plat at 0 degrees. However said 15mm at 45 degrees is going to be a bit worse than 50mm at 0 degrees. However, the 45 degree angle of the 15mm plate may allow it to deflect certain project tiles, while the 50mm plate will just need to take them head on.
Then there is stuff like wet ammo storage, fire walls, easy to bail out, etc etc.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:27 amThe Rodina wrote:You are also failing to take into consideration how abysmal the North Korean tank crews were, if they were equally matched crews, I could still see the Sherman coming out on top, but hardly by a significant amount.
You simply can't throw out the fact that the North Korean Army was not only backed and heavily trained by the Soviets to Soviet standards, but also were hardened veterans of years of fighting the Japanese. The Koreans did almost kick everybody off the peninsula, requiring the US to conducting naval landing operations to cut off the supply lines of the North Korean Army.
The Rodina wrote:That doesn't mean it is a medium tank. The T-34 took a role traditionally filled by the BT-7, does that make the BT-7 a medium tank?
It was used as a medium tank by the German army until improved variants of the Panzer III replaced them. It was considered comparable to the Panzer III's earlier models until overtaken by the much more improved models.
Panzer III Ausf. A though to the F were all just a few tons heavier than the LT vz. 38s and 35s, which put them into a similar weight class as well. They aren't labeled 'medium tanks', but the Germans used them as medium tanks in lieu of lack of the Panzer IIIs.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:07 amWhat point? That the Tiger II accomplished shit? That's already an obvious conclusion.
It's the only argument I need.
I can imagine the number built being an important factor, otherwise it just seems like an average tank like the T-34.
The T-34 was also built in large number. Really, you could consider the average WWII tank to be one built in large numbers, and by that criteria the Panther is below average.
The T-34 was also no used in as many utilities as the Sherman.
Also what is to say that the Germans would have been incapable of producing a similar number of Panthers if their industry hadn't been totally flattened from like 1942-1945. (And had crews to fill them ofc).
They didn't, so that's a moot point.
For example, if the United States had for some reason developed the Panther, would they have been able to churn out as many of them as they did Shermans?
The Americans would've used it for everything, like they did the Shermans.
The T-28 was an expensive, operationally ineffective pile of junk tbh (explainable by the fact it was made in 1933)
But it was a medium tank. I wasn't arguing about its effectiveness.
The Panzer III was the first effective Medium Tank to be employed on a wide scale. Is that better?
Not really, because that wasn't your initial statement.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:10 amThe Rodina wrote:Fordorsia wrote:
He is Czech-Asian and I'm British, yet here we are defending the Sherman. Weird.
So what you're saying is the Sherman had better armour
Not what I said, completely out of contextThe Rodina wrote:yes, the Sherman has better angling which makes a difference, but the Cromwell ultimately had better protection.
Again, are you new to intelligent comments?
>Saying the Cromwell is better protected than the Sherman
>Intelligent
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:What point? That the Tiger II accomplished shit? That's already an obvious conclusion.
Oh I would love to know what the Tiger II accomplished besides successfully being a drain on manpower and resources, ending the war sooner.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:21 amFordorsia wrote:The Rodina wrote:Not what I said, completely out of context
Again, are you new to intelligent comments?
>Saying the Cromwell is better protected than the Sherman
>IntelligentThe Empire of Pretantia wrote:What point? That the Tiger II accomplished shit? That's already an obvious conclusion.
Oh I would love to know what the Tiger II accomplished besides successfully being a drain on manpower and resources, ending the war sooner.
The Tiger II didn't even get to be in Fury even though it would be more appropriate than its big brother from Africa, it was so pathetic.