 | 
11-06-2006, 10:56 AM
|
#76 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,057
Country:  | m kenny, you live in a dream world. The Tiger and King Tiger were no myths, they were far superior to anything the Allies produced in firepower and armour. And the Panther - well that was better at everything. There was no better rounded tank than the Panther.
If you're so sad, m kenny, as to not see the facts then that's your problem. But the facts remain, the Tiger captured in North Africa was in good enough shape to drive it back to the German lines. It was a lucky hit, whereas if the Tiger had hit the Churchill in the same place - the Churchill turret would have gone missing from the chassis.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | 
|  | |
11-06-2006, 11:49 AM
|
#77 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,856
Country:  | I think it is a matter of not being able to admit the Germans were able to produce something better...
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
11-06-2006, 01:52 PM
|
#78 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by plan_D  m kenny, you live in a dream world. |
A 'Tigers are cool' dream world? Quote: |
If you're so sad, m kenny, as to not see the facts then that's your problem. But the facts remain, the Tiger captured in North Africa was in good enough shape to drive it back to the German lines. It was a lucky hit, whereas if the Tiger had hit the Churchill in the same place - the Churchill turret would have gone missing from the chassis.
| Yep the Tiger was 'unlucky' and the crew ran away.
Tiger '114' in Normandy was 'unlucky' and the crew ran away.
The TII in Goodwood was 'unlucky' because the commander 'panicked' and tried to reverse out of trouble........
It was 'unlucky' that it had to be knocked out by its own A/T guns (course I believe it)
The 100+ Tigers that were destroyed in the 8 weeks of the Normandy campaign were 'unlucky.
Gosh what an 'unlucky' tank it was!
7 'unlucky' Tigers in Russia. | |
| | |
11-06-2006, 02:51 PM
|
#79 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,266
Country:  | Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz this thread needs to be closed | |
| | |
11-06-2006, 02:52 PM
|
#80 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,784
| Yes M_Kenny its all one big conspiracy, cause like we all know the Germans won the war so they wrote the history books and we all know what that means ! OMG, we've all been fouled ! Panic !!
Christ ! 
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | 
| | |
11-07-2006, 03:17 AM
|
#81 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren OMG, we've all been fouled ! Panic !! | Panic!...........Just like the TII Commander during the Goodwood offensive? | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 09:24 AM
|
#82 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,856
Country: | It it is actually funny. It seems like m kenny takes offense and is all butt hurt because others see things differently. I think it is kind of hard to argue that the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger were not the best tanks of WW2.
No one here said they were in invinsible, yet m kenny takes it upon himself to put words in everyone elses mouth rather than see what they are really saying.
No allied tank was better armed or better armoured than the Tiger, King Tiger or Panther except maybe varients of the T-34.
The western allies approach to building tanks was not the same as the Germans. The allies wanted to have a tank that was easy to build, could be mass produced and was cheap. Hense came the Sherman. The allies new that there tanks were inferior and hense they created tactics to stop the German Panzers and the tactics is why huge numbers of Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers were destroyed. With those tactics and superior numbers and using decoys the allies became very successful against the Germans.
It is not a shame to not have a tank that was better than the German tanks. I dont understand what the problem is here.Opinions are one thing and are fine but mocking to the point of insult because someone disagrees is just plane ignorant.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 01:11 PM
|
#83 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet It it is actually funny. It seems like m kenny takes offense and is all butt hurt because others see things differently. | Not offended but just tired of the same old rubbish about uber tanks Quote: |
I think it is kind of hard to argue that the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger were not the best tanks of WW2.
| No it isn't. But it is hard to argue against myths and propoganda. Quote: |
No one here said they were in invincible, yet m kenny takes it upon himself to put words in everyone elses mouth rather than see what they are really saying.
| 'They' are saying the German tanks were far better than everything else and everyone should be able to see it. Well I can counter it with referenced instances where the uber weapon was bested. No more no less. Quote: |
No allied tank was better armed or better armoured than the Tiger, King Tiger or Panther except maybe varients of the T-34.
| So the M4A3E2 Sherman (photo below. note the gouge on the glacis and the others on the mantlet) that shrugged off 3 X 8.8cm hits before a 4th 'lucky' shot penetrated through the gun telescope opening was not as well armored as a Panther or Tiger? Quote: |
With those tactics and superior numbers and using decoys the allies became very successful against the Germans.
| Neve heard of any decoys before. Quote: |
Opinions are one thing and are fine but mocking to the point of insult because someone disagrees is just plane ignorant.
| I am not offended at all by anyone elses comments. However I find it funny that when remarks such as :
"you need to work on your English reading skills"
"Since your understanding seems to fail you at the moment, I'd rather not go off "your understanding".
"Yes Adler you've got that right, so don't bother yourself with those two and there meaningless remarks"
"Believing that the Sherman and anything else was better is quite naive."
"m kenny, you live in a dream world"
"If you're so sad, m kenny"
are aimed at those in this thread who do not accept the uber weapon myth then there is not a peep about 'insults'.
I can live with this banter and I know you can. | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 01:30 PM
|
#84 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country:  | M Kenny,
I have not seen anyone say that the German tanks undefeatable. All weapons can be beat, just some are harder then others to beat.
Allies had numbers on their side and that is what won the day in tank battles. Thousands of Shermans vs few hundred German tanks.....Shermans are going to win.
One vs One I would not want to be in a Sherman vs a Tiger or Panther tank. But if I had 5 Shermans vs 1 Panther or Tiger well then I would choose the Sherman.
I am not saying German tanks are "uber" or "undefeatable" they do have more armor and bigger gun. Thats all guys here are saying is that German tanks (Tiger, Panther, Tiger 2) were better 1 vs 1 with the Sherman.
Not sure if that seems to be a problem for you to except or not but it is fact. They have very detailed measurements of German and Allied tank armor as well as their gun performances. It is all simple fact that 1 vs 1 the Sherman will lose more times then it will win vs a Tiger or Panther or Tiger 2.
Do you agree with what I have said? (I am not a champion for German or Allied tanks, just the truth)
__________________ 
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 01:38 PM
|
#85 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Country: | The only flaw the mantra of 1:1 combat is that rarely, if ever, did 0ne tank attack one tank.
It was always Unit v Unit and thus any paper advantage was lost in the melee. | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 02:11 PM
|
#86 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by m kenny The only flaw the mantra of 1:1 combat is that rarely, if ever, did 0ne tank attack one tank.
It was always Unit v Unit and thus any paper advantage was lost in the melee. | In my post I said the Allies far out produced the Germans in tanks. I agree but you are side stepping my question.
Which tank would you sooner be in yourself in a 1 vs 1 battle. Sherman or Tiger/Panther/Tiger 2. Thats all I am asking you. Please answer.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 03:43 PM
|
#87 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,266
Country: | Personally I think armor sucks eggs ............. but I see Michaels points as well as others. probably we could agree that the Panther and especially variants of the Tiger I and II were quite well suited for ambush and the defensive terrain of the Reich towards 1944 and wars end. As an attack vehicle just too much demand on the crews, slowness / lack of power, rotating turret, faulty engines and mechanics, and just plain heavy in sloppy mud.
did the 7.5 and 8.8cm have the hitting stopping power ? without a doubt. did the Panther and Tigers have excellent optics ? without a doubt. maybe the thread needs to be changed in some way to see which of the German armored vehicles was best suited for the Normandy bocage or literally go back to the original title of Afrika. No panthers and no Königstigers and the Tiger 1 was just plain crap in the desert due to engine/filter problems. I'm actually putting in for a big fat 0 on any of them. How about the 8.8cm Flak 18 ? ............ guess we can't do that | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 07:30 PM
|
#88 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In WW2 Land, CODUO, SWON
Posts: 705
Country: | Quote: |
go back to the original title of Afrika.
| I've been waiting for someone to say something. Anyway, in North Africa, I would call it a close call between the Shermans and the Pzr IV F2's (at least, I think they made it to that theatre). The later Pzr III with the 60 caliber barrel was nice, but by the time it showed up, the gun was just a tiny bit on the small side. Still, it probably worked well as an ambush tank, because from looking at pictures, it would seem that it had a lower profile than say the Sherman. M3 Stuart though, it takes the real prize, for being thrust into a situation it really wasn't meant for, and still managing to perform well, which in turn is a testament to the quality of the crews and the mechanics. | |
| | |
11-07-2006, 11:27 PM
|
#89 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,856
Country: | Erich and Hunter I agree and that is what I have been trying to say the whole time.
m Kenny what I am talking about with decoys was a common tactic by atleast the American Tank units and they would send out one sherman that would get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would come around and flank it and hit it in the vulnerable spots.
If you would read the long posts above it explained that quite well.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
11-08-2006, 08:23 AM
|
#90 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet Erich and Hunter I agree and that is what I have been trying to say the whole time.
m Kenny what I am talking about with decoys was a common tactic by atleast the American Tank units and they would send out one sherman that would get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would come around and flank it and hit it in the vulnerable spots.
If you would read the long posts above it explained that quite well. | Chris what I find funny is that I ask a simple question and he will not answer it. That in itself tells me something.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| | | |
