32 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

A tank at heart IS a drivable bunker.

 

If your enemies live in terror of your equipment, odds your equipment is pretty darn good. The Americans, the British and the Soviets all lived in terror of the Tiger. It failed because it was available too late in the game in too small numbers. The Tiger's situation is similar in nature to the StG 44. Amazing piece of technology for its time, but too late to save the war effort. Sherman could only beat the Tiger by brutally outmassing and overwhelming the Tiger. The Sherman's gun couldn't even pierce the Tiger's front armor. Sherman crews would have to make the Tigers essentially play whack-a-mole until they could get a good shot at the back of the Tiger to have a chance. The only good things about the Sherman were it was easy to make and easy to fix. It had literally no other advantages over its contemporaries.

 

King Tiger and Elefant were more resource-hoggish and wasteful than the Tiger. King Tiger was underpowered and Elefant was unreliable. 

 

 

I won't turn this into some tank debate, suffice it to say that if you think the Tiger was not a complete failure, then you have little idea about how wasteful the design actually was.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Some good answers about the strength of the German Tanks:

 

https://answers.yaho...04230945AAMGz3X

 

https://answers.yaho...02182344AAXSC2f

 

 

I won't turn this into some tank debate, suffice it to say that if you think the Tiger was not a complete failure, then you have little idea about how wasteful the design actually was.

 

 

May I ask you if Do you think that Alqaeda or ISIS equipments and military tactics are epic wins?

 

If so, I don't think so. They're just lucky that they have no strong/serious enemies in the battlefield.

[Fidite Nemini]

May I ask you if Do you think that Alqaeda or ISIS equipments and military tactics are epic wins?

 

If so, I don't think so. They're just lucky that they have no strong/serious enemies in the battlefield.

 

Where did that question come from?

 

And no, I still don't want to derail this topic into a hobby analysis on military capacities.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Where did that question come from?

 

And no, I still don't want to derail this topic into a hobby analysis on military capacities.

 

Ah... the good ol' groups where you could ask questions and do analysis.

[Fidite Nemini]

Ah... the good ol' groups where you could ask questions and do analysis.

 

Well, you could go create a thread like "BFNs great weaponology debate club - We are experts on everything that kills" and I would join into the debate. Just not in here.

[Han Shot First]

I won't turn this into some tank debate, suffice it to say that if you think the Tiger was not a complete failure, then you have little idea about how wasteful the design actually was.

 

If I were a tanker I'd rather be in a Tiger than a Sherman, as it had a bigger gun with more range and was better protected. But from a 'big picture' perspective, I agree that the Tiger was a major waste of resources. For every Tiger that was built Germany could have built a couple medium tanks. It also was a gas guzzler prone to mechanical problems, something that Germany could ill afford in the mid to late war. And it was too heavy to cross many European bridges.

[General TSAR]

I'll watch it on release day If the protagonists are anything like Oddball and his tankers.

 

 

However if it's an over-nationalistic CGI emotionless clusterfest like Red Tails, staying the hell away. 

 

 

The Beast was one of my favorite movies from the '80s, so I'm kind of stoked to see another tank movie. 

Yeah it was okay, minus the propaganda.