all right! Time to slowly dump raws for chapter 4 of Girls und Panzer: Ribbon Warrior
Don't skip taking your meds, Anon.
Remember boys and girls: leave the ramming tactics to the Canadian themed school, eh!
those god damn background mob characters...
tired after a long round of sex inside the tank.jpg
French is such a beautiful language to swear in if you ask me
forgot to say, De Gaule-chan is named Asparagus, and they were the ones that Saunders lend-leased the M22 to
kind of fun to go back to look at the pre-kancolle vehicle girls.
Damn, and I was thinking just now how I couldn't wait for the next chapter in January.
maybe more like this then?
Did /ak/ enjoy Daisuke Jigen's Gravestone?
It's not like someone who works with Lupin will ever want for money or something trivial like a particular firearm. If Jigen's using it, it's probably because he wants to.
Neat. Had no idea it was out.
you know the cliche where two guys with katanas rush past each other and there's a single strike and both wait a moment before one realizes he's dead
that happened with tanks, the panel with the sword is a visual metaphor (also the Saunders girl had a gun instead of a sword b/c america)
Tfw a moron destroyed an SVD and an SVD-S, the former one of 4 known examples, and the latter completely unique in the US, that he inherited because he was commiefornia scum who was afraid of guns and his wife told him to.
What's even worse is he committed several felonies, from creating an SBR to improperly disposing of a weapon.
Was that legit though?
I wanted to think it was an pretty good troll.
I have come to this thread to escape the other one.
SO CUTE GIRLS AND TANKS RIGHT?
I don't understand why people can't loveall tanks, ships, planes, guns, and countries equally.
TIME FOR CUTE GIRLS!!!
>I don't understand why people can't love all tanks, ships, planes, guns, and countries equally.
Not all tanks are created equally. To enjoy them all equally is asinine and a farce.
But anon, the quality of the tank doesn't matter, all that matters is that you enjoy Sensha-do.
And if you come last in the race you still get a trophy. Its a pity the world doesn't work like that and to think otherwise is to delude yourself.
Not all tanks are created equal - to treat them and revere them all equally is asinine.
Th-thanks anon. We here at /ak/ pride ourselves in being civil and quality posters.
>only the better tanks win and it does always
I was under the impression that both the series and the reality disagree with you, Anon.
The best COMMANDER is the one who usually wins.
Good for her. Thank goodness we don't all hold her flawed philosophy to be higher than the bible.
Its a relief that some of us live in the real world and don't pretend that everything is equal.
>Surely we're all here because we love tanks?
But we don't love every vehicle equally as she wants us to.
If a tank is garbage and had shit service record then it deserves to be shunned and hated by all.
Sorry to inform you of this anon but we don't live in Hollywood movie land. The underdog loses 9 times out of 10.
This is why you should strive not to be the underdog. The underdog is the loser.
I pity your wallet, judge of character and life decisions.
It is. :(
I don't know but it sure is cute.
Because they wanted the enemy to see them coming, so they had time to shit themselves before they were blown back to the stone age. HIDING IS FOR COWARDS!!!
Where do you think you are?
No need to cringe friend, enjoy the tanks and cute girls.
>Did they just cease to exist or something?
Well seeing the amount of millsurp destroyed in Australia/Bongland, i guess so.
Or it just went off market in M.E or some shit like that.
>I enjoy girls und panzer
>I do not enjoy people refering to tanks as cute
Forgive me that I find it painfully embarrassing to be associated with people who refer to tanks as cute and "Kawaii".
I supposed I should stop enjoying girls und panzer and just focus on actual tanks instead simply because you said so.
I believe the correct response to this is to tell you to fuck off and die in a ditch.
You need to calm down and redirect your autism into something more constructive and adorable.
Over several decades.
The problem is you're basing this match on only one thing: knocking out the other tank. Tanks can do a lot more things, such as scouting or infantry support, that the 38(t) would be much more suited for than the IS-2. Every tank has something it's good at.
>Every tank has something it's good at.
And some tanks are clearly better than others, can do the same roles better and are generally all round superior to their counterparts.
But according to your holy tomb we should treat them as if they were the same - despite one vehicles obvious superiority.
Yes, because most tanks are generally good at what they're supposed to do for when they were built. A Panzer IV wouldn't stand up to a Leopard II, are you saying that that means the Panzer IV is useless?
Don't give up just yet anon.
All we're saying, is that we like tanks for tank's sake, pic related.
I like it.
In the 1980s it would be.
The fact is, as I've already explained, not all vehicles are created equally. To treat them as equals is asinine.
To praise every vehicle for not being a pile of shit is asinine. That what your sacred tomb does.
It finds one good thing to say about a heap of shit and that it. To love all tanks equally is asinine.
You know it. I know it.
You don't love them all equally and I sure as hell don't.
Its a complete farce and posting >le tog maymay >>118219280 is fucking embarrassing.
Grow up and get out of this tank fantasy land.
Both taken by edgelords. And teh dedicated one of this thread is rather smug, even if his facts don't check. Like, he's arguing not that tanks have intrinsecally different capabilities, but that they, and I quote, "to enjoy them all equally is asinine". Big flash, Anon: enjoyment is not related with capabilities. You're mistaking the fictional sport of senshado and the fandom about cool machines with their usefulnes in actual combat.
And he's also doint it wrong. The argument about how a 38(t) would be unable to do anything against an IS-2 even with a better commander just cracks me up. He surely ignores that there's an even more extreme mix-up - a M8 car vs a Tiger. And the M8 *won*.
inb4 "source" - boku no google it, all requests belong to /r/. Now, before he says "b-but that's an unlikely case", yes, why, thank you for noticing, that's why it's a proof of a superior enough commander.
Please, folks, just ignore him and return to how Shizuka and Rin should get a goddamn room
Clearly I'm in a thread surrounded by children who live in a tank fantasy land. Children who blindly follow the rule that not tank is bad if you can find one crummy, shitty good thing to say about it.
Lol I think this guy is just funposting.
TOG2 was cool, but I'm more partial to the classics
I hope you had fun baiting on another board since your home board got nuked. I'm off to go kill myself for replying to such shitty bait.
Beaver puke furniture is sexy
To be fair, that one was more a case of shit generals and the tank being designed for an outdated doctrine. Had WWII been another trench war, it probably would have done its job right.
>I enjoy inferior military vehicles that get shit on by their contemporaries.
So this entire thing is about justifying enjoying shit vehicles? You guys really went through all this to do that?
>He surely ignores that there's an even more extreme mix-up - a M8 car vs a Tiger.
Because actually giving citations would be cheating now wouldn't it? I'm just going to presume you've made it up.
Much like how I recall a Medium Mk. A Whippet destroyed a M1 Abrams - but no sources that would be cheating. You'll just have to trust me, okay?
>Please, folks, just ignore him
I'm sorry for tearing apart your hugbox of every tank being equal and should be loved equal but unfortunately the truth hurts. Trying to silence me isn't going to change that.
Is the Vol. 4 Red Steel High omake included in the chapter? The archive ones 404'd
A fandom that reveres every military vehicle exactly the same no matter its abilities. Ironically you've been posting military analysis in your fandom thread. We all make mistakes.
Don't worry anon, I'm laughing at your poor English and anger over your little world crumbling about you.
I'm sorry I don't blindly follow the cult. Forgive me for applying different worth to different vehicles. I truly have sinned by not acknowledging that all tanks, no matter how good or shit, are all equal in the hugbox children universe.
As i said before - grow up and start living in the real world.
no substitute for a nice AK, my canuck friend
Sad to say anon but your google search doesn't bring up anything of note unless you really want to use wikipedia or even worse axis historyforum as your source?
At which point I'm going to die of laughter after putting it in the trash where it belongs.
>dismissing Wikipedia outright
Anon, the Wiki is useful for the kind of things that aren't subject to opinion, like tech articles or verified combat records. "During the Battle of St. Vith in the Battle of the Bulge, an M8 of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron was able to destroy a German Tiger I heavy tank. The M8 fired three 37 mm rounds through the relatively thin rear armor of the Tiger from only 25 yd (23 m), setting it on fire. Source: U. S. Army Armor School Staff (1998), The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17–23 December 1944: An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense, Merriam Press, pp. 31–32, ISBN 978-1-57638-145-8"
What is this I don't even.
>Nobody makes Kar98k's, Luger P08's, etc anymore.
Truly suffering but it gives them a special status at least.
Do you think bolt action rifles will completely disappear one day ?
Don't respond to obvious bait anon.
Its an East Coast thing.
>Anon, the Wiki is useful for the kind of things that aren't subject to opinion, like tech articles or verified combat records.
Pity your sources don't actually contain the combat records of the engagement. President Obama might as well have use a time machine and killed it with an M72 for all we know.
Oh well another post into the trash. Wikipedia warriors thinking they know everything.
Even those can be lovable!
>Its now edgy to not hold all things in equal value
Amazing what you people are willing to do to shitpost.You're this butthurt I had the gall, the sheer gall to believe that your precious tanks aren't all equal.
Canadian here. Haven't seen milk bags in ages. Used to be amused by them when I was younger, and would poke and squeeze them in the grocery store.
Get a hunting license and enjoy.
Depend where you live but here it's pretty simple and you have access to wide range of guns.
>It'll probably stay around for sniper rifles
Why is that ?
I mean is there an improvement other than reliability and easy maintenance over semi-automatic systems ?
>>Its now edgy to not hold all things in equal value
You've said this too many times, son. You're repeating yourself.
May I suggest you changing the wording? If you ar eto serve as amusement, at least put some effort
>get a hunting license
I'm still in college, so even if I had a license I couldn't become hasguns.
>Why is that?
In bolt action, all the gas is directed towards pushing the bullet out the barrel, while in semi-auto and automatic, part of the gas is used to push the bolt back.
They're lighter, more accurate, and simpler to maintain in harsh conditions.
Semiautomatics have their own advantages too, though.
>You're repeating yourself.
Because you unfortunately lack the intelligence to understand simple things.
>If you ar eto serve as amusement, at least put some effort
if y ouar eto serv eas amuseme ntat lea st pu tso meff ort in. If you're going to defend your holy script you could at least try instead of impotent butthurt rage.
Oh no! Not all tanks are equal! What a crime!
>To be fair, that one was more a case of shit generals and the tank being designed for an outdated doctrine
Just like the M4, but everyone INSISTS that was a perfecctly fine tank.
*YOU* were taking about T-34 and saying "some tanks are good at being destroyed". *I* was answering that post with another tank thats good at being detroyed.
sorry for explaining the joke
No doubt you'll be able to give countless examples of them being
"tore the fcuk up" by Iraqis.
In fact why don't you just list the problems you have with the Bradley and we'll be sure to blow you the fuck out on every one - do try to think outside of pentagon wars.
I know its unfair denying you your primary resource.
>needing reason to poke fun at I-Go's propensity for beng whiteflaged
There was a reason it was left in that cave, you know...
>So what German units were involved at or near St. Vith that might have had tanks in that time frame? St. Vith was on the border between 6th Panzer Army in the north and 5th Panzer Army in the south. The closest units were those of the 6th Panzer Army's 2nd SS Panzer Corps and it seems that elements of the 9th SS Panzer Division were possibly those involved since it was sent in to support KG Hansen of the 1st SS Panzer Division farther north at Poteau. There was much intermingling of units on the limited road networks in the area and getting definitive location/time fixes for the units is not simple.
>Heavy tanks in the German armored units in the area all seem to have been Tiger II's, though Tiger I's were with one battalion (PANZER-ABTEILUNG (Funklenk) 301) that did not make it into the area. I spent some time looking at all these Tiger units' histories and could find only losses of Tiger II's on the 18th and none in the vicinity of St Vith, although Panzergruppe Peiper had some just north of St. Vith.
>The 7th Armored Division's combat on the 18th, according to Maj. Boyer's account, was primarily with elements of the 1st SS Panzer Division and the division's reported kills by the end of the 18th included 1 King Tiger, 9 Pz. IV's, 1 "assault gun 88mm (Ferdinand)", 2 75mm assault guns and 8 armored cars.
>Since there were numerous Pz IV's and Panthers operating with all these known German armored units, the possibility that the tank said to have been killed by the M8 was one of them cannot be ruled out, given the frequency with which the IV's and Panthers were misidentified as Tigers, and (for that matter) Nashorns and Jagdpanthers were misidentified as Ferdinands.
>Given what we know of the Tiger II's rear armor being 80mm, similar to that of the Tiger I, it stretches the imagination to conceive how a 37mm weapon (with at best around 50mm penetration) could succeed in knocking one out, even at point blank range from the rear. To be fair, both Tiger I and II did have openings in the rear hull for exhausts and it is not impossible for a lucky hit to penetrate one of those exhaust port openings and proceed on to ricochet in the engine compartment and perhaps damage the engine and/or fuel lines. Is this what happened?
>Like Jason, I have to agree that the evidence to prove this story is conflicting and not necessarily convincing. We have the documentation of a mechanized infantry company commander that he witnessed this M8 knock out a tiger and he was convinced enough of his facts that he reported it to his battalion S-3 (operations) officer, Major Boyer.
>In the end, each reader will have to decide what he elects to believe about this story: either the wartime reports of witnesses (and the well-regarded histories published after the war) or to depend upon postwar analysis of data, albeit by an amateur (yours truly.) Objectively, I have to give great weight to the latter (data), but the former (wartime reports) cannot be entirely discounted since, as we all know, in wartime almost anything seems to happen at least once.
>My take on it is that it is entirely possible that it happened, but the odds are frankly against it working out as described. Now I leave it to some other forum member to simulate the attack and see if his M8 can penetrate a Tiger's rear from point blank range.
Textbook example of what happens when you allow rumors and hearsay to run rampant and don't inform/educate your personnel.
tl;dr Murken military can't stop being retarded.
>each reader will have to decide what he elects to believe about this story: either the wartime reports of witnesses (and the well-regarded histories published after the war) or to depend upon postwar analysis of data, albeit by an amateur
So you are the same guy. Wonderful. I get to see you get #wrecked in two threads in such a short time.
In fact, a post where the armchaitr historian asks someone to try to replicate the scene in the videogame to see if it would work.
Really, REALLY wish it wasn't against board etiquette using emoticons, becaus this needs a "roll eyes" one.
Oh, what the fuck. Just once. 9_9. My apologies for that.
you were the one to make a claim, the other anon asked you to quantify it
all you are doing is dodging his question
The question isn't whether or not it worked, the question was whether or not there were even any Tigers there as claimed.
The combat units he quotes are the ones that say they withnessed a M8 knocking out a Tiger, and how. Not just an unconfirmed tale by the crew. A confirmed kill with withnesses (plural). THOSE are the ones I choose to believe.
I'd honestly trust the combat mission forums more than bad sources on wikipedia.
This being possibly one of the most realistic second world war game? With accurate vehicles, penetration, armour and everything else you would need?
Would you prefer us to drag Tiger 131 out and shoot at it with a M8 Greyhound instead?
>I'd honestly trust the combat mission forums more than bad sources on wikipedia.
We already knew your opinions were disregardeable, you don't really need to provide even more proof.
You seem to misunderstand. My first post is >>118221221 which first asked you for examples of them being "tore the fcuk up" and then asked you to list the problems that you have with the vehicle.
I'm willing to ignore the "tore the fcuk up" and merely require your problems with the Bradley.
So what are they?
>Forums with autists who pick over tiny details
>Shit wikipedia source
They're both pretty terrible. The Combat mission one is just not as terrible.
Its like choosing between a shit filled diaper and a shit and puke filled diaper.
you made the first claim in >>118220176 therefore the onus is on you to say what you think is wrong with Bradleys
you realize >>118222086 was telling him to say what he thought was wrong with Bradleys?
Not sure if that one was translated/typeset. I'm going to post a few that probably aren't archived in the wiki.
stop dodging and tell us what you think is wrong with Bradley's
Less moving pieces and tighter tolerances help with accuracy and consistency.
Kind of sad when /ak/'s commissioned pillow covers are the only new merch out there for Upotte.
Then again, the only other one is a bootleg FAL probably made by the chinese 2 years ago.
Sod it, trying to list everything is an exercise in futility; I'll just give you what I have so far.
It tries to be too many things at once.
It can't even carry a full squad.
It's got an overly high target profile.
It's excessively heavy and its mobility suffers as a result. Also, ground pressure.
It's not easily transportable (it can only be carried by the largest transport aircraft).
It's considerably more expensive than its contemporaries.
Its firepower is pathetic (25mm peashooter with a rate of fire slower than most muzzle loaders).
The utility of TOWs is a severe liability given that it renders the platform a sitting duck and poses a hazard to personnel nearby.
Its ergonomics suck.
Its fuel is stored internally.
Its armor can't stop anything larger than rifle caliber bullets (additional armor just exacerbates the weight issue).
It failed to fulfill its very raison d'etre: it DOESN'T SWIM!
The fact that no one else wants it is pretty indicative of its merit as an IFV.
>tank changes direction in a split second
>eponymous character knows the exact moment when the enemy will fire
>4.7 tonne tank rams 7.4 tonne tank and doesn't pop its flag
Gee, and here I was expecting the Type-97 with its unstabilized gun to fire a shot while moving at top speed and still somehow manage to land a direct hit on a target moving at top speed in the opposite direction. I'm not sure whether or not I should be disappointed.
>It tries to be too many things at once.
It tries to do the same amount of things any IFV does, and it is successful in them.
>It can't even carry a full squad.
It carries 7, just like its contemporaries.
>It's got an overly high target profile.
Except it doesn't.
>It's excessively heavy and its mobility suffers as a result. Also, ground pressure.
It has similar weight to its contemporaries.
>It's not easily transportable (it can only be carried by the largest transport aircraft).
Air transport is not the primary method of moving vehicles either.
>It's considerably more expensive than its contemporaries.
Except it isn't.
>Its firepower is pathetic (25mm peashooter with a rate of fire slower than most muzzle loaders).
Because of available ammunition has more penetration with that 25mm than any of its contemporaries.
>The utility of TOWs is a severe liability given that it renders the platform a sitting duck and poses a hazard to personnel nearby.
TOWs are no more dangerous to nearby personnel than any other ATGM
>Its ergonomics suck.
Compared to Russian IFV's they are luxurious.
>Its fuel is stored internally.
Are you serious?
>Its armor can't stop anything larger than rifle caliber bullets (additional armor just exacerbates the weight issue).
It is rated for 30mm cannons on all sides.
>It failed to fulfill its very raison d'etre: it DOESN'T SWIM!
That was never its raison d'etre, proven by the fact that no one cares that it is not amphibious.
>The fact that no one else wants it is pretty indicative of its merit as an IFV.
Except it is used by more than just the US.
>It tries to do the same amount of things any IFV does, and it is successful in them
Other IFVs try to destroy tanks?
>It carries 7
BMP can carry 9.
>Except it doesn't.
Contemporaries are shorter.
>It has similar weight to its contemporaries
>Air transport is not the primary method of moving vehicles either
If you want to get them somewhere in a hurry it is.
>Except it isn't
Operating costs, costs of maintenance and repairs (which is required exceptionally often), etc.
>Because of available ammunition has more penetration with that 25mm than any of its contemporaries.
They said it could knock out MBTs. They lied. It also doesn't accommodate anything even remotely effective in terms of antipersonnel munitions.
>TOWs are no more dangerous to nearby personnel than any other ATGM
It's supposed to work in tandem with dismounted infantry.
>Compared to Russian IFV's they are luxurious.
>Are you serious?
Yes I'm serious.
>It is rated for 30mm cannons on all sides.
Overrated in the most literal sense.
>That was never its raison d'etre
Remember Lang Vei? (apparently not...)
>proven by the fact that no one cares that it is not amphibious
Not sure if you're trolling or just retarded.
>Except it is used by more than just the US
The only other user is Saudi Arabia, and the only reason they have them in the first place is because we gave them to them for free as compensation for allowing us to use their real estate to stage military operations during the Gulf War so we wouldn't have to actually pay them. Further orders are not forthcoming from there or anywhere else.
I want to see her in the movie, fighting alongside Anzu.
The versions of Saunders and Gloriana you see in the gag spinoffs.
>Other IFVs try to destroy tanks?
Quite a few do, the lack of built in ATGM's on Russian IFV's is a shortcoming.
>BMP can carry 9.
BMP's carry 7
>Contemporaries are shorter.
By a negligible amount.
>If you want to get them somewhere in a hurry it is.
A C-17 can carry 2 Bradleys, are they slow now?
>Operating costs, costs of maintenance and repairs (which is required exceptionally often), etc.
So you have no idea what the costs actually are.
>They said it could knock out MBTs. They lied. It also doesn't accommodate anything even remotely effective in terms of antipersonnel munitions.
Bradleys did knock out T-72's in Iraq with the 25mm, and they got more tank kills overall than Abrams did.
>It's supposed to work in tandem with dismounted infantry.
Firing a TOW is not dangerous to dismounted infantry.
>Yes I'm serious.
BMP's carry their fuel internally as well.
>Overrated in the most literal sense.
Except it is true.
>Remember Lang Vei? (apparently not...)
Something that happened before Bradley's were even thought of, and has no relevance.
>Not sure if you're trolling or just retarded.
I should be saying this to you.
>The only other user is Saudi Arabia
Everyone who cannot make their own IFV is either ordering wheeled vehicles or picking up old slavshit from the bargain bin.
>Quite a few do
Not as a default feature.
>he lack of built in ATGM's on Russian IFV's is a shortcoming
Depends on the mission it's tasked with; even then ATGMs have their drawbacks.
>BMPs carry 7
They CAN carry 9.
>By a negligible amount.
In a deathtrap like that I'd like to reduce the odds of taking a direct hit as much as possible.
Just like the Badly!
>A C-17 can carry 2
Yeah, you have any idea how much it costs to operate one of those things? Have you considered the facilities necessary to accommodate them?
>So you have no idea what the costs actually are.
More that I didn't think you'd care to crunch numbers.
>Bradleys did knock out T-72's in Iraq with the 25mm
The BMP's primary weapon has a larger bore, a heavier projectile, a more powerful charge and a comparable muzzle velocity and it can only punch through 55mm of armor (i.e. not enough to punch through MBT armor from ANY side). How does the hype explain this discrepancy?
>and they got more tank kills overall than Abrams did
Yeah, MBTs aren't the only vehicles classified as tanks. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
>Firing a TOW is not dangerous to dismounted infantry.
It is when said infantry is close by.
>BMPs carry their fuel internally as well
The M113 has external fuel cells to minimize risk to the crew and passengers.
>Except it's true
Practical experience says lol no.
>Something that happened before Bradley's were even thought of, and has no relevance.
That incident is the reason they decided to develop the Badly, you moron.
>I should be saying this to you.
Trust me, you're looking more questionable as far as that's concerned.
>Everyone who cannot make their own IFV is either ordering wheeled vehicles
We use those too; they're a complete disaster (even more so than the Badly).
>or picking up old slavshit from the bargain bin.
Still more functional than what we've got AND capable of wrecking the Badly.
I've been torn between my Touhou waifu and /ak/ raifus, but sometimes they play together.
Also some of them can be pretty metal.
Not really into Touhou, but man am I sucker for
cat/fox eared girls