>>120111696 You are asking what's up with a show about iconic WWII tanks and the country who made teh miost iconic WWII tanks? (inb4 whose tankfu was actually better, the most iconic ones are the German panzers)
>>120113198 Really?, i remember reading on how the german tanks were worth their weight in gold for all the tech they had. But i guess the less complicated stuff has the upper hand in the heat of battle.
>>120113353 >german tanks were worth their weight in gold for all the tech they had.
At the beginning of the war. Then Hitler went full retard and stated that bigger = better. Plus plenty of them had shitty engines and more or less prone to breaking down. Panther was very good, but it broke.
On the other hand we had the T-34s and the Shermans which were shit tanks but there were a lot of them.
>>120113353 German tanks were good, but the German edge was a tactical one. Their doctrine was to concentrate their armor at the 'critical' point, so when time came for battle the Allies would have their tanks spread through the lines while hundreds of Panzers could be concentrated in one small area.
>>120112540 Not really when they can barely drive a Panther 250km before it breaks down. Most of them were transported by train, and we all knew what allied air power and sabotage did to railroads. It's also really fucking easy to kill enemy armor when you're fighting a defensive war. The truth is, Western tanks had a kill ratio of about 3:2.
>>120113821 Just to clarify, when you say Western are you including the Soviets, and are you factoring in the huge numbers of American tank destroyers? American tanks were used for infantry support, not generally tank hunting.
>>120113873 I'm mostly talking American and British tanks/tank destroyers. Even though America had a TD doctrine, nobody ever really followed it and they mostly just let TDs roll with with the other armor. American 75mm guns could still knock out Stugs and Panzer IVs, which made up a big portion of Germany's armor power.
>>120114014 So if you combine TDs and Tanks, Allied tanks have a 3:2 ration versus German tanks and TDs? Very interesting. I want to learn more about this, because everyone has heard how it would take 4 or 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger, and most of the Shermans would die (not that Tigers were especially common).
>>120114014 >big portion Yes, but hewre's a polite reminder that Panthers weren't a few, as US Command thought they would be, but made up one THIRD of the tanks encountered after Normandy. Finding them was a certainty, not a happenstance.
>>120114113 >http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/ >http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/275581-common-history-myths-please-read-before-posting/ >inb4 WoT, it has tons of links to other articles
I heard it from the links above, it debunks a ton of myths about the Sherman.
>>120114113 Tigers weren't exactly common, but they do have on average a ~10:1 Kill to Death ratio. (on all fronts). Still, a few hundred of them won't make that much of a difference for the bigger picture.
>>120114286 >http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sherman-vs-tiger.html >http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html World of Tanks as a game is dumb, but you can't deny that the people in charge of actually researching the tanks know what they're talking about. Take a look at The Chieftain's Hatch.
>>120113425 panther was very good on paper in dream land, even if ignore its mechanical problems
it was to heavy front wheals drive were a bad idea, in fact one thing they could have learn from t-34 was a layout
gun while amazing, with great penetration and really flat trajectory was far more suited for a tank destroyer than medium tank
it was brittle so when germans needed HE spitting powerhorse panther was not the one
its weight, front wheel drive, complexity and german logistic problems meant, if you break down in field, you are fucked, if enemy penetrates your lower plate and damages anything in front wheel assembly - panther is almost unrecoverable
germany needed their version of sherman or t-34,
while from technical stand point amazing, panther was far from what germany needed to fight a war
>>120115073 And Russians aren't legally forbidden of talking bad about anything Red Army related. And many do. You'd know this if you bothered to read a book sometimes. Whole Suvorov debacle, "Icebreaker" and all that. Stalin died more than 60 years ago you know.
>>120113821 Think of how much better that ratio could've been if the Murkens hadn't chosen to completely forego upgunning and uparmoring their tanks until AFTER they started getting their anuses prolapsed by the newer panzers.
Panther was less reliable than Sherman, but reliability was similar to T-34.
T-34, despite the "Soviets stronk" propaganda, broke very often. Many Soviet tankers in their diaries and later books commented how German tanks broke less. And how Lend Leased Shermans were Swiss watches in comparison.
Sherman on the other hand had a very high profile making it an easy target. Balance was also an issue quite often. Panthers and even Tigers could move through land that was impassable for Shermans.
Germans lose the war because their industry just couldn't keep up. That is the main reason.
>>120111696 germans built a lot of type of tanks. became the face of what to fear in europe, even if they were more or less easily out numbered. and what are they to be compared to? russians and americans weren't nearly as creative in what they produced but they still show up in the show. british had some crazy ideas and those show up. whats left? shitty third world tanks like italian or japanese tanks? those still show up anyways, they're even on the main roster
>>120116159 Well, the main issue with T34 was that they were generally made by unqualified workers, women and children mostly, since all able-bodied men were drafted into the army. So they were quite often shoddily made. That added on top of some engineering issues like it's transmission and the air filter (these two issues were a lot worse in KV series) in the earlier versions of the tank, but it was vastly improved, got a better turret, more armour and in 43 the definitive version of T34-76 was a very nice and reliable tank. Then they put a new turret with even better gun on it, but it overstrained the engine a bit. But it was a lot easier to repair than German tanks, Soviets always designed their weapons and armour to be as simple as possible. They also didn't have to bring spare parts all the way from Germany while partisans did their best to fuck up railroads and supply lines.
Germans also improved reliability issues of their tanks. Despite their industry getting bombed to shit.
>Statistics from 15 December 1944 show improved reliability: 72 percent of Panzer IVs, 80 percent of Tiger IIs and 61 percent of Panthers were operational by this period. Any remaining reliability issues were mostly due to the lack of lubricants and spare parts suffered by German forces at this point.
Almost 2/3 of tanks operational is actually a very good result for WW2 tanks.
>>120115551 It was all over the news that organization of soldier's mothers got declared foreign agents (traitors) over accusing the Kremlin, that hundreds of their sons, claimed to die in some training (must suck to be in the Red Army), actually lost their lives in Donbass.
>>120116659 There is a book called "Icebreaker" written by a dissident Soviet KGB agent Viktor Rezun (Suvorov is his pseudonim) in the 90s. In this book he claims that the only reason that Soviet Union was losing the war so hard in 41 was because germans attacked literally days before Soviets themselves were going to attack and were taken by surprise because of it, he claimed that Hitler himself only came to power because Stalin ordered German communists to stay out of elections, all of that because Stalin needed someone to begin the world war for him, someone to break the Ice, "Icebreaker" if you will. All of that so he'd have a good reason to conquer Europe and later the world. Yes, of course /pol/ likes it, I once saw it on one of their "recommended reading" lists The book is filled with cherrypicking from historical documents and overall it's just silly. But lots of people who were not really familiar with WW2 history took it seriously. It created a huge shitstorm where many historians wrote books disproving his retarded claims, then he wrote more books with even sillier stuff, etc.
Thread replies: 87 Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 33514
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.