What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Deathtreader]

Well boys,

Been an interstin' diatribe......now please get past it you two -- this is a hobby site and the rest of us are here to talk tanks!!
My vote goes to the JS II (I don't think the III quite made it in time -- but I could be wrong).
Heavily armoured, powerful gun, fairly reliable as heavy tanks go.
Surprised to hear no mention of the Comet.
Regards,

Rob.

[morvwilson]

What, no one else likes the russian T-35?

[Ursa MAior]

Nice big bunch of comments.
 
1. Ursa Maior is a stellar constellation meaning Big Bear. AFAIK mocking someone's nick is a prime crime against netiquette. Puppy take note![:-]
 
2. 50Kerry. You are right about problems with the EU allies (esp France). But an alliance is about compromizes. (sp?). USA + EU will be strong enough only MAYBE to counter a forming Russia-China India or Iran alliance. Check under Shanghai Cooperation. http://www.sectsco.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization
 
3. "simply a vicious, hatefull little troll" It's evident that you are an uneducated, naughty little dog. Thanks for the argument it was a real pleasure to meet G I Joe himself.
 
4. As of arguments. What do you DON'T understnad under: I accept US military, therfore economical and political supremacy. I accept and enjoy MOST part of the american culture. Iraq, Afghanistan (even Lebanon 2006) has showed that regular armies can not deal with insurgencies (a known fact since ages check Napoleon in Spain 1808 onwards).
 
5. I visit the University of the Reformed Church and it is one of the most conservative schools in the country. So according to you who live outside your allmihgty country and does not lick you boots is automatically a leftist commie. What a way of thinking! Stick! Fetch!
 
6. I state again USA DOES NOT SUCK! As a WWII billboard said. Business as usual? US open your eyes. All you have to do is accept that you are not strong enough already to rule the world alone. We have more common (even you and me) than I have with a chinese or a russian. And they will conquer Eurasia if dont unite our forces. Read Brzezinski. He aint no commie and says the same. Watch Red Dawn the movie. It is not far away (except chinese replacing the cubans). Unless we dont find a way.
 
If you want to reply in a normal manner we can go on if not we should really finish.

[Knuckles_85]

4. As of arguments. What do you DON'T understnad under: I accept US military, therfore economical and political supremacy. I accept and enjoy MOST part of the american culture. Iraq, Afghanistan (even Lebanon 2006) has showed that regular armies can not deal with insurgencies (a known fact since ages check Napoleon in Spain 1808 onwards).

Are you sure about that? The Romans were pretty good at putting down insurgencies especially amongst the Jews using brute force. The US was able to pacify the Philipines and in Vietnam after Tet the Vietcong was all but wiped out. Oh and ask the Brits about pacifying an insurgency against the Boers. It's not that the US don't want an alliance with the EU it's just that it doesn't really benefit us. There are a select group within the EU that bullies the others in the EU to bend to their will that set policy against the US. The comment you missed a good oppurtunity to shut up is a good example. They expect the US to be their military wing. To have us be the heavy lifters with absolutely no input. That's not gonna happen. We tried that in Somalia and in Serbia and where did that get us?

[Twotribes]

I LIKE the idea of the T-35, so many cannon, but reality is it just wasnt gonna work ) .

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I LIKE the idea of the T-35, so many cannon, but reality is it just wasnt gonna work ) .

True enough! When ever I used them in Steel Panthers or Squad Leader(guess I am aging myself there) they either broke down or made excelent target practice for the other side[:D][:D]
I think I managed to make some Finnish troops do a moral check once using a T-35, which they succeeded at. That was about all the damage I ever did with that type of tank, but it did supply some comic relief!

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: pauk

Tiger than Panther.

Axis fanboy[:'(]

[Speedysteve]

For me it's the Panther G...........

[BailChannis]

Well, it started out as a nice thread ... [&:]

[robpost3]

Sherman and the Chruchill they were Kings...did it all...Crabs, Onions, DD with water wings, AVRE, Bangalore Torps, Rhino...sexy

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85
The comment you missed a good oppurtunity to shut up is a good example.

You mean I should shut up?

[Knuckles_85]

No I meant the comment Chirac made in the build up to war. He made that comment to countries that wanted in the EU but sided with the US.

[Ursa MAior]

I see thanks.

You have some valid points, but the rules of engagements and the treatiment of the civilians have significantly changed since the romans. Oh yeah one more thing. The lst one to fully conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great. Ha married the daughter of a chieftain. Maybe that is the way to go.

The brits have indeed defeated the boers but in such an inhumane way (concentration camps anybody?) that was comdemnded even by the contemporary comments. They were more succesful in Malayasia with winning hearts and minds.

The french are nuts we all know that. Even though in a EU+US close cooperation -in NATO- would require both sides to give up some interest it is still beter then sinking with the colors flying, see my previous pots about Brzezinski. (BTW ther were no EU only UN troops in Mog).

IMHO Serbia was a success for both EU and US (NATO that is) it is really a pity thet the EU has to lend ukrainan planes to fly his troops to somewhere.

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior



You mean I should shut up?

Not at all, don't be combative. When Jock ChIraq tells smaller EU nations that dare back the US or state that it is in the interests of western civ to present itself as an Aegis against radical Islam and the best France and Germany can come up with is "maybe we don't need YOU EU members or any new slavic or eastern nations involved" it speaks volumes about the integrity and "democracy" of the EU. It is in no nation's best interests to allow its sovereignty to be subsumed to nations who have not subsumed their own.

That's how it looks from this side of the pond anyway.

An alliance is "give and take" not "give and give" or "take and take".

[mdiehl]

If you call an open-topped AFV a "tank" I most like the US M36.
 

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Well boys,

Been an interstin' diatribe......now please get past it you two -- this is a hobby site and the rest of us are here to talk tanks!!

You may be here to talk tanks, but baby bear is here to talk trash:

It's evident that you are an uneducated, naughty little dog

So according to you who live outside your allmihgty country and does not lick you boots is automatically a leftist commie. What a way of thinking! Stick! Fetch!

you are not strong enough already to rule the world alone

In other words, "Americans suck." What does all this continued leftist agi-prop have to do with tanks?


Not too bright, either, as

AFAIK mocking someone's nick is a prime crime against netiquette. Puppy take note!

Is immediately followed by

you are an uneducated, naughty little dog. What a way of thinking! Stick! Fetch!

It seems blatent hypocrisy is becoming a pattern here.

You mean I should shut up?

When you're digging yourself into a hole, the first step is to stop digging.
While a child's eye view of world politics can be entertaining, tantrums can be tedius. The first step in being taken seriously is to be more respectfull of the grown-ups.

[Knuckles_85]

Concentration camp is a propoganda tool to equate a nation to Nazis. The death rate inside the interment camps where better thn outside them even though yes the Brits were pretty harsh. You still didn't address the Phillipines and the Vietcong. Both were in modern times with care taken toward civilians.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85

Concentration camp is a propoganda tool to equate a nation to Nazis. The death rate inside the interment camps where better thn outside them even though yes the Brits were pretty harsh.

Along that train of thought....

I would venture that American Slaves were in better conditions then if they were living in the African continent. Does not mean that that condition was acceptable, good, or even reasonable. The term Concentration Camp does bring up the horrors of WW2 camps, but it is an appropriate term for the camps in South Africa that the British set up.

The British did not provide adequete housing, medical supplies, medical personnel, bedding, cots or even food for the "interned" families. On top of that they specifically rounded up women and children and old people for no other reason then to terrorize the Boers into surrendering. Most if not ALL the camps were set up in abysmal spots. Along river banks or on open plains. Again the tents that were provided were old moldy, in most cases tattered and full of holes. And the occupants were required to provide their own bedding and in most cases if they didnt bring something to sleep on, at least at first, they slept on the cold ground.

Did it work? Sure did. I suspect if the US used those tactics or even the ones used in the Philippines Insurrection our enemies would be happy as an ant at a free picnic.

Even if the rounded up personnel were provided state of the art medical and dental care, high rise apartments and furnished rooms with over adequate food, the action of rounding up a civilian population and placing it behind barb wire would result in comparisons to WW2 camps. And while it might work, the arguement would be made that it would only work until such time as you eventually released the people "interned" or you killed everyone capable of fighting you.

Just look at what is said about the US rounding up Japanese descendants in the US during WW2 for a semi current comparison. OR better yet check out the hysteria by some over Gitmo and ACTUAL enemy combatents.

The British action in South Africa was barbaric. Both in the treatment provided and the REASON for the round up. The US internment of American citizens was illegal and while I wouldnt call it barbaric, I would call it hysteria and ulimately unneccassary.

[BailChannis]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85

Concentration camp is a propoganda tool to equate a nation to Nazis. The death rate inside the interment camps where better thn outside them even though yes the Brits were pretty harsh. You still didn't address the Phillipines and the Vietcong. Both were in modern times with care taken toward civilians.

How can it have been a "propaganda tool" when the Nazis didn't even exist yet? That's what the British called the camps - concentration camps. Surely, they were not engaging in prescient propaganda against themselves?

Also, conditions in the camps were pretty bad, as there was little experience on anyone's part in running camps of that size. Sanitary conditions were poor and there were outbreaks, which resulted in nearly a 50% mortality rate. However this was not a result of deliberate policy - it was simply a factor of inexperience.

The work camps that proliferated during the Depression were also referred to as "concentration camps" in English speaking countries, and conditions were relatively good in those (owing to more extensive experience and planning).

[morvwilson]

Maybe we should have a seperate thread for the asymetric/guerilla warfare line, check the new thread[8D]