What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Terminus



Way to take advantage of the lack of moderation. Bravo![:@]

Tag det roligt knægt. Ellers bliver du sgu aldrig gammel.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

Now put on your nice Arrow Cross uniform and go out and play with the other fascists.....

Way to take advantage of the lack of moderation. Bravo![:@]

Kettel and pot mean anything to you?

"Snivelling little whiner" mean anything to you?

[hawker]

Don´t you have some serbs to ethnically cleanse first?

That a really good answer if coming from uneducated idiot like you.
Your level of conversation is beneath me,every now and then some idiot emerge from mud.
Your insults talk a much of you.

[mdiehl]

Yes, I'm sure they loved the thin armour, and the way it caught fire when they ran over a speedbump. Idiot...

The Soviets had mixed feelings about the Sherman. At the tank battle distances waged in Ukraine they definitely did not like the 75mm gun (bear in mind the Soviets got few if any of the 76 armed M4s). The armor was definitely not thin and it definitely was sloped, giving it effective thickness comparable to a PzVIe (but, unfortunately, with the short 75 Shermans, lacking a gun that could easily HOLE a PzVIe). They loved the Sherman in secondary theaters where they could count on facing Balkan troops, Italians, and Germans possessing a propensity of things built on PzIII and early PzIV hulls (like Stugs, PzIVs, hetzers and other weak AFVs).

The Shermans had other admirable qualities as fighting vehicles. Lots of MG firepower, and, with the diesel/wet stowage Shermans, decent survivability. And of course in the later M4s, gyrostabilized guns, which made them the best scoot n shoot "tanks" on the battlefield (here leaving out the stabilized M36B1 with the 90mm turret situated on the M4A3E8 hull and chassis -- which I regard as a better mobile tank killer than pretty much everything other than the Sherman Firefly and the JS2).

The 76 armed shermans had no trouble penetrating the front of PzVIEs but more difficulty with PzVs beyond 1000m range (again, because properly sloped armor makes a huge difference).

As for catching fire running over a speedbump. Sorry, but that was a characteristic of PzVs (especially the early ones) and all forms of PzVI... too much weight for the transmission. Shermans were mechanically the most reliable tanks in the Soviet arsenal and more reliable than any of the German heavies. Shermans had no trouble with spontaneous combustion as German vehicles did.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: hawker

That a really good answer if coming from uneducated idiot like you.
Your level of conversation is beneath me,every now and then some idiot emerge from mud.
Your insults talk a much of you.

[:

[tc237]

Wow, did this thread go to hell also?
It's like a Danish civil war.
 
I'm going to agree with mdiehl vis the Soviet Sherman.
While not perfect it was certainly capable.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: tc237

Wow, did this thread go to hell also?
It's like a Danish civil war.

I'm going to agree with mdiehl vis the Soviet Sherman.
While not perfect it was certainly capable.

[8D]

[Ursa MAior]

Rune, Flower of tolerance and intelligence. How come that a man of such high IQ like you has not recieved any Nobel Prize yet? Must be some conspiracy. Ala one thing shows that you recieved some form of education tho, and it speaks for you. You skipped insulting my country (unlike ALL american posters with whom I had a quarrel) and started immediately insulting me.

Well I am really honoured since I was called a leftist agit-prop AND a nazi within the VERY SAME THREAD for the very same opinion.

As of Sherman = Tiger could you, reformers of history, specify which version do you speak of? AFAIK The Jumbo had thicker armor than the Tiger but was armed with a 36,5 caliber 75mm gun which was in par with the PzIVs 75mmL24 gun. If you speak about the Firefly, you are right that the gun was able to defeat both cats, but its armor was still MUCH weaker than any of threm. If the cats were so unreliable, unsophisticated and inferior fighting machines why were they so feared? Why are they depicted in significant majority of the american works dealing with this period as they are? Why are they shown in many warmovies (except for russians) as fearsome fighting machines?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

As of Sherman = Tiger could you, reformers of history, specify which version do you speak of? AFAIK The Jumbo had thicker armor than the Tiger but was armed with a 36,5 caliber 75mm gun which was in par with the PzIVs 75mmL24 gun. If

Blatantly false, as any cursory examiniation of relative muzzle velocity will show you.

you speak about the Firefly, you are right that the gun was able to defeat both cats, but its armor was still MUCH weaker than any of threm.

So what? If both sides are able to kill witha hit, armour as a design consideration goes down the drain.

If the cats were so unreliable, unsophisticated and inferior fighting machines why were they so feared?

Human emotions and perceptions aren´t rational nor objective.

Why are they depicted in significant majority of the american works dealing with this period as they are?

And how is that?

Why are they shown in many warmovies (except for russians) as fearsome fighting machines?

[8|]

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
So what? If both sides are able to kill witha hit, armour as a design consideration goes down the drain.

Oh you philoshopher of the millenia, could you shed some light on how many Fireflies were used in comparison to 75 ans short 76,2 armed Shermans?

Human emotions and perceptions aren´t rational nor objective.

Could you explain how such perceptions of a 'theoretical superiority' come to life? Also leftist propaganda? Or even nazi? Every GI has listened to Lord Haw Haw? Or what?

We -the uneducated- fade without the beacon of you wisdom's light.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Oh you philoshopher of the millenia, could you shed some light on how many Fireflies were used in comparison to 75 ans short 76,2 armed Shermans?

Roughly 50000 all told. A bit over 2000 were fireflies. Still more fireflies than the entire run of Tigers and Kingtigers combined. 76mm amred varities composed 3396 M4A1 3370 M4a3 (plus about 3000 M4a3 armed with 105mm asault howitzers). The 76mm and 105mm armed Shermans could kill Kats as well, which puts the entire allied Kat-Killing produstion number higher than the total number of KATs actually produced.....

Could you explain how such perceptions of a 'theoretical superiority' come to life? Also leftist propaganda? Or even nazi? Every GI has listened to Lord Haw Haw? Or what?

We -the uneducated- fade without the beacon of you wisdom's light.

Likely because of initial experiences in Africa and Sicily, where the allies demonstrably didn´t have any weapon proof against the front of the Tiger. They got them later though.

As for the nazi propaganda, well yes. Strangely enough, you often see it perpetuated on gaming boards like this.....

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
Roughly 50000 all told. A bit over 2000 were fireflies. Still more fireflies than the entire run of Tigers and Kingtigers combined. 76mm amred varities composed 3396 M4A1 3370 M4a3 (plus about 3000 M4a3 armed with 105mm asault howitzers). The 76mm and 105mm armed Shermans could kill Kats as well, which puts the entire allied Kat-Killing produstion number higher than the total number of KATs actually produced.....

And because there were more of them, they were better? Wittmann's demise shows that no cat was invulnerable.

Likely because of initial experiences in Africa and Sicily, where the allies demonstrably didn´t have any weapon proof against the front of the Tiger. They got them later though.

As for the nazi propaganda, well yes. Strangely enough, you often see it perpetuated on gaming boards like this....

Yes there is. And there are some of the other extreme, the allied kind.

Now that you found your normal voice please answer me one question. I REALLY would like to know that if ALL allied equipment were superior to the german why did it take so long to defeat a numerically inferior opponent?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
And because there were more of them, they were better? Wittmann's demise shows that no cat was invulnerable.

Not "better". "Up to the job" might be a more appropriate phrase. Funny you should mention Wittman, seeing as he died screaming in a hail of 17 lbr fire (possibly fired from a Sherman).

Yes there is. And there are some of the other extreme, the allied kind.

Heh. And just where might that be at?

Now that you found your normal voice please answer me one question. I REALLY would like to know that if ALL allied equipment were superior to the german why did it take so long to defeat a numerically inferior opponent?

Superiority of german doctrine at the tactical (as opposed to operational and strategic levels). Especially on the eastern front. When this "edge" disappered, so did Germany. "Kats" or not.....

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
Not "better". "Up to the job" might be a more appropriate phrase. Funny you should mention Wittman, seeing as he died screaming in a hail of 17 lbr fire (possibly fired from a Sherman).

Or a fighterbomber. And there is a third option which was a 17 pdr AT gun IIRC.
Well no WEAPON is invicible. There was no way I was implying it, altho it is strange that I ahve to explain plain english. I stated MY fav is the Panther G. When brought up I said it WAS better than the Sherman. (Jumbo had thicker armor, Firefly had a similar gurn but have you seen a Jumbo with a 17 pounder?). Of course it was heavier but they were in the same category. If you want to we can go further (e.g T-34/85 which was on par with the PZ V except the lack of radios).

Heh. And just where might that be at?

Saying that the US/UK had the technical superiority in all areas, throughout the entire war.

Superiority of german doctrine at the tactical (as opposed to operational and strategic levels). Especially on the eastern front. When this "edge" disappered, so did Germany. "Kats" or not....

Oh yes the eastern fornt. I almost forgot about it where the inferior germans were fighting the inferior russians. [8|] Well Germany disappeared the moment Hitler declared war on the US.

So you say that due to a slight advantage in tactical level helped the numerically and technically inferior wehrmacht to last for one year?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Or a fighterbomber.

No airsupport for Totalize Phase II before the late afternoon of the 8th of August. And Wittmann died some time around noon.

And there is a third option which was a 17 pdr AT gun IIRC.
Well no WEAPON is invicible. There was no way I was implying it, altho it is strange that I ahve to explain plain english. I stated MY fav is the Panther G. When brought up I said it WAS better than the Sherman. (Jumbo had thicker armor, Firefly had a similar gurn but have you seen a Jumbo with a 17 pounder?). Of course it was heavier but they were in the same category. If you want to we can go further (e.g T-34/85 which was on par with the PZ V except the lack of radios).

If you account the T34/85 on the same level as the Panther, you will by logic have to do the same with regard to the upguuned Shermans.

Saying that the US/UK had the technical superiority in all areas, throughout the entire war.

Heh. Who is claiming that?

Oh yes the eastern fornt. I almost forgot about it where the inferior germans were fighting the inferior russians. [8|] Well Germany disappeared the moment Hitler declared war on the US.

Germany disappeared the moment Hitler got involved in a Total war without mobilizing the economy for it.

So you say that due to a slight advantage in tactical level helped the numerically and technically inferior wehrmacht to last for one year?

Not necessarily "inferior" in either category. And not "for a year". But yeah, german proficiency at the small scale tactical level (Company to Division) likely prevented complete and utter dissolution as a consequence of allied operational and strategic succes. It couldn´t win the war though, but it could certainly prolong it.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
No airsupport for Totalize Phase II before the late afternoon of the 8th of August. And Wittmann some time around noon.

I dont wanna dig up books, but AFAIK ther is no hard evidence who was succesful. But if you insist so be it.

If you account the T34/85 on the same level as the Panther, you will by logic have to do the same with regard to the upguuned Shermans.

Why is that? The T34 is well known for its good protection (especially the T34/85) the same cannot be said for the Tommycooker.

Heh. Who is claiming that?

You asked what is the opposite of nazi propaganda. The allmighty allied one.

Germany disappeared the moment Hitler got involved in a Total war without mobilizing the economy for it.

No way could Germany won the war (total mobilization or not) after the US has joined. It had such a huge industrial capacity! Dont forget it is a continent of its own.

Not "inferior" in either category. And not "for a year". But yeah, german proficiency at the small scale tactical level (Company to Division) likely prevented complete and utter dissolution as a consequence of allied operational and strategic succes. It couldn´t win the war though, but it could certainly prolong it.

I see.

[Speedysteve]

Hi guys,
 
I hope it doesn't get too personal but I just wanted to postulate on someting.
 
From reading Reynolds' book he suggests that there is still no definite evidence as to how Wittman demised. 'Obviously' all sides concerned want to claim for such an ace but AFAIK both the Poles, British LCU and Allied Air all still have a claim for his destruction no?
 
Regards,
 
Steven

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi guys,

I hope it doesn't get too personal but I just wanted to postulate on someting.

From reading Reynolds' book he suggests that there is still no definite evidence as to how Wittman demised. 'Obviously' all sides concerned want to claim for such an ace but AFAIK both the Poles, British LCU and Allied Air all still have a claim for his destruction no?

Regards,

Steven

Brian Reids "No holding Back" gives a through analysis, and at least takes away the "Typhoon option". Which still leaves the rest of the above metnioned as potentially culpable [;)]. Reid makes a convincing case that it must be either canadian or british tanks who got him, with the emphasis on the canucks. Perhaps it was really the man on the Grassy Knoll [;)]

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
I dont wanna dig up books, but AFAIK ther is no hard evidence who was succesful. But if you insist so be it.

I do.

Why is that? The T34 is well known for its good protection (especially the T34/85) the same cannot be said for the Tommycooker.

The T34 was routinely holed by any of the upgraded german guns from 1942 forwards and is no different than the Sherman in this regard.

You asked what is the opposite of nazi propaganda. The allmighty allied one.

Yeah, but who here is actually proposing such things?

No way could Germany won the war (total mobilization or not) after the US has joined. It had such a huge industrial capacity! Dont forget it is a continent of its own.

Likely correct.

I see

[8D]

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
The T34 was routinely holed by any of the upgraded german guns from 1942 forwards and is no different than the Sherman in this regard.

Onyl the 75mm german PAK 40 (?) was really effective vs the T34. Not the smaller calibers. But in Africa the PzIIIJ with 50mmL60 was capable dealing with M4s armour.

Yeah, but who here is actually proposing such things?

I no way I want to start a flame war I can send you PM about it.