# .......What is a tank???



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

can some one please inform me as to what is a tank please


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 4, 2004)

I might not be an expert on that but as far as I know, a british Invention designed to mow over german Barbwire and trenches during WWI... later to be perfected by the germans moreso in WWII.
My great uncle faught WWII: italy in one, god blessem


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

A big tin can with a big bang bang gun


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

hi aussie jim, "bang bang gun" . i've never heard of that style of gun. could you tell me a bit more about it please


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

Gun....
big...
goes...
Bang.


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

thankyou aussie jim for your feed back. i just cant help but think you might be taking the p*ss out of me for some reason.  i just want to be as good as you one day but i must still start from the bottom


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

aussie jim, did they really make them out of tin...........


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

I just think maybe you have stumbled into the wrong Forum Sinka  ..and being an Aussie yourself im sure you can handle the sarcasm  Do you really not know what a tank is or have you been living in the bin for too long


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

no i havent been in the bin for to long i dont think. a fly picked me up from the dump awhile ago and droped me over the bin a week or so ago  . i only just got into the whole war thing so i just need a guru like you to guide me along the way. take me under you wing aussie jim, i love you


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)




----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

hello Admin..we have a loose one here


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)

lol...............just a bit of sarcasm aussie jim. i really dont love you  . where in oz are you? can we do something on the weekend together. that would be great. maybe we can go and drive some tanks that go bang bang like the gun you told me about


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)




----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

hi admin, i am only new here so please take it easy on me. i would love to learn more about all this stuff....aussie jim is just hastling me out cause oneday i will be better then him and he is scared of me


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

loose one!!!! what the??? i think you might be losing it aussie jim. dont let me get under your skin. you are my idle so far until i find some else to help me bypass your knowledge of the war and other issues.   . i will defeat you aussie jim  . war has begun in oz land so i am coming to defeat you. get ready, i'm coming...........


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

This could be the funniest forum convo ive had in a while  but i am a bit worried about you Sinka  ... 

Do you really want to know about tanks or is this some freakish thing on  

and no..im not scared of you..just worried


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

hi! there is one thing to know about tanks... that thing is Sherman tanks SUCK and German tanks ROCK that is the most basic thin about tanks you need to know an example would be that ONE German Tiger 1 could hold off an entire armored column of shermans =P im not sure how many tanks are in a column but i know its more than six o and shermans are american but brits and aussies used them too


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

8) hello,..... anybody out there.......aussie jim needs to be defeated  we must all get together and go to his place to defeat this master of the war.......somebody, everybody, join me.......join me now, lets work in unisome. we can do it, i know we can


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

i think he already has been defeated... by me! and Hot Space and Crazy and maybe the lancaster kicks ass and Archer and Viper and itznogood and many others =P


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

i can hear the funny farm truck coming now Sinka...  please come with us ...  


and you wont get much good info out of German...just silly remarks like..Germany is the best and the rest suck  ..but hey he is probably only a kid


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

no actually the panzer thing is true and yes i am a kid, 13 to be exact but germany did have better tech but that was wasted because they also had hitler and the final solution to deal with as well


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

germanrgeniuse, i will be watching for you and we together will continue to keep aussie jim defeated. thankyou for your support........i will remember you forever


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

aussie jim.........are you to scared already  this is what i will do  .... i am sorry but war has begun and there will be no mercy.....i have many on my side and we will not retreat.... your time has come.....


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

OK so this has turned into some Keeraazy post hasnt it  


 


i might just sit back and watch the silliness


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

well...............................aussie jim, hello, hmmmmmm, a chicken hey!!!!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

yes but watch out for my army of Tiger II's... when you hear the diesels...RUN!


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

if you sit in one spot we will find you in an instant.......you cannot hide aussie jim, there is nowhere to run aussie jim........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

technically he can.... Tiger II's are freaking HUGE and loud as hell but if he gets caught in the mg or main gun sights... hes dead


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

see we are coming aussie jim.....................defeated you will be.....say your prayers aussie jimmmmmmmm


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

or in simpler words...yes... we are coming


----------



## SINKA (Mar 5, 2004)

aussie jim, i have started up my plane and i am taking off as we speak............ you will be destroyed tonight and i will be burying you later after the magots have eaton your dead rotton carcas......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 5, 2004)

well thats not a very nice thing to say. uh... fear not, the canadian's got your back. Ive got sharp sticks and some rocks I can throw at them


----------



## Archer (Mar 5, 2004)

Germans, I recall reading some articles online that said the French tanks at the start of WWII were actually better than the German tanks. The only problem was the French we prepared for a static war (like WWI) and for the Germans to be stupid enough to attack through the Maginot Line (seriously, how stupid can you be????). Anyways, the French got massacred anyways because the German command used their brains to attack through Belgium and they had excellent air/ground coordination between Stukas and the like and the ground units.

Oh yes. A tank is something that holds another subtstance. ie a gas tank


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

..and aslo German before your brain gets fuddled thinking the germans were Supermen or anything...no offence meant here chap  

The Tiger was a superb machine but it had its drawbacks as well ..it was overengineered for the Russian front in as it was a war of attrition and could not be produced in big enough quantities to keep the supply up owing to breakdowns in the field. Because it was so technical, when it broke down or was damaged the Field engineers could not readily get it back into battle quickly enough as it took a long time to fix/get the parts.
Which is not wat you want in a frontline tank-especially in the huge Tank battles on the Russian front ..the T34 was an easily mass produced tank that could take out the Tigers (although with a smaller gun and less armour) and was also more manoeverable and quicker. 

It was another case off too little too late .

The Sherman was a good tank being quick and very manoeverable as well although it got the name "Ronson" -after the cig lighter  because it used to brew up fairly quick. The allies as usual had thought it through and made a tank that was what you needed for frontline use..easily servicable/quick turn around times and plenty of parts..undertechnical compared to the German machine but far easier to use as a weapon and something needed in fast flowing battles.

Its no good having the best weapon if you cant turn it around quick (meaning get it back to the front after damge/breakdown) repair it in the field or supply parts. 

There is a good story about the best German tank ace of the war who shot something like 13 Sherman tanks in a convoy (This is in the West) and then proceeded to take a town and flush out a another squad of Americans and then broke down or was hit by enemy fire.He managed to get back to his own lines and get another tank but didnt get back to the town and was killed by Allied air cover later.

It was a good tank but it wasnt implemented into the German war effort properly ..as was more and more usual in the latter stages.

In the desert the British tanks got the best of the German tanks and had superior equipment ..albeit by a margin ..and also used them well-even against the master Rommel.

If your only 13 you should do some reading on some of the British/American/ Russian Tank Generals and Armies ..if only to find out how the other side worked  ..not only the Germans had good equipment and war stories dude.

cheers


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 5, 2004)

All in all the great advantage of using Diesel a la the German tanks over the petrol powered allied ones.

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

yes some french tanks were good...like the Char S-35 which was used by De Gaulle to great effect but not many others... german tanks were the most coplicated machines on the field and when i said they had the best tanks i meant in battle when killing is the most important but yes, after the battle, the damaged ones were screwed for quite a while.... and another deficiency you guys forgot to mention about german tanks was the tread wheels which while they gave a great ride and handling, the overlapping wheels were prone to freeze in russia which was to the advantage of anti tank squads and other tanks but in battle, german tanks were admittedly unsurpassed, ESPECIALLY Tiger II's but in my other posts i should hae been more specific as to how they are better.... o well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

the freanch had some of the best tanks in WWI atleast, and besides, the germans only had 1!!!!!!!! count 'em 1 !!!!!!!!!!! anti-tank guns that could take out a T-34, and that was the 88, designed as a flack gun


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

woot go france


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

yes one anti tank gun but MANY mounted tank guns =P


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 6, 2004)

Lol, the 88 was one of the great guns of WW2, used for flak, anti-tank and anti-shipping roles and a thundering good artillery piece besides.

As for German tanks, they were very good but so were some of the others on offer, all except the British ones for some reason!

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

no the brits had a good tank too but it only entered service in 1944 so it wasnt of much use by then... the tank is...(suspense) the A34 Comet! it was good because the gun was VERY accurate it was fast had moderate armor and pretty good range for a tank


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

and the churchill wasn't that bad.....................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE COVERED THE EXPRESSION 'TANK' IN ANTHER FORUM...AS WELL A BIG TIN CAN WITH 'BANG BANG GUNS' IT CAN BE USED TO DESCRIBED AMERICANS....SEPTIC TANK...TO SHERMAN TANK....TO WHATA WANK....TO A YANK....ITS ALL ABOUT COCKNE RYMING SLANG AGAIN!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

gud yor speliing iz baad - im gettteng u a dickshonary 4 krismas mate!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

sorry mate...but it is getting late...i am tired and i am no longer able to see my keyboard so i am rellieng on my abiltly as a typist to get me through this horriffic times of no lights....(Dad been working on electics and blown the fuse)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

what fun these could be!


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

wow, it works


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

*insert smiley*

(can't be bothered to load them all)


----------



## SINKA (Mar 9, 2004)




----------



## SINKA (Mar 9, 2004)




----------



## SINKA (Mar 9, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

ohhhhhh, a treble..............................


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 14, 2004)

A tank is a large squarish thing either for 
 
a: holding water or other liquids or
b: a self-laying tracked vehicle often with armament!

Clarity --- AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH~~~

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

SINKA said:


> lol...............just a bit of sarcasm aussie jim. i really dont love you  . where in oz are you? can we do something on the weekend together. that would be great. maybe we can go and drive some tanks that go bang bang like the gun you told me about



Aussie i am so glad this guy is 'stalking' you and not the rest of us! he really likes you for some reason!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

wish i had a stalker............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

you'll be lucky.....


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

i think we all need to be gratefull it is aussie jim with whom sinka has a fixation with!


----------



## SINKA (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 now i see this i love you


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

Really sinka???? Word of advice.....Keep with aussie....he obviously has a great amount of patience....whereas i dont......dont say i didnt warn you! :BIG:


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

but you didn't..................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

didnt what????warn him...it was done in a subtle gentle way.....sort of undertone to the message!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

ah very clever......


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> hi! there is one thing to know about tanks... that thing is Sherman tanks SUCK and German tanks ROCK that is the most basic thin about tanks you need to know an example would be that ONE German Tiger 1 could hold off an entire armored column of shermans =P im not sure how many tanks are in a column but i know its more than six o and shermans are american but brits and aussies used them too



The best tank of WW2 was the T-34. 

There can be no argument, as there is no doubt.

It beat the hell out of anything German


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> didnt what????warn him...it was done in a subtle gentle way.....sort of undertone to the message!



No, i just think you forgot to warn him!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

Come on bronze...when did i ever forget to warn anyone before i begin an onslaught of abuse and violence???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> Come on bronze...when did i ever forget to warn anyone before i begin an onslaught of abuse and violence???



That time you hit the school bully with a chair in theatre arts..yes he was asking for it but i think the first warning of your impending beating he got was when you kicked him off his chair and stood over him ready to drop it on his head...as i say Cheddar...be very careful who you choose as a role model


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

> as i say Cheddar...be very careful who you choose as a role model



 i choose my girlfriend as a role model, shei s superior to me in every way (except height, obviously) although she wont take a word of it 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 29, 2004)

c.c are you aware of the fact that you just called yourself ugly?

Reichsmarschall Batista wants his posts back!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

> c.c are you aware of the fact that you just called yourself ugly?



yup, i dont have any self esteem at all and im not gonna lie to you, i am ugly 8) my haircut nearly looks like a mullet, according to one of my friends my ears are wonky and im spotty 8)


----------



## Piaggio108 (Mar 31, 2004)

A note on the king tiger, although it was awsome in firepower and armor, it got .4miles per gallon. The germans could bairly do anything with them by the end of the war.


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)

I agree with bronze... the T-34's gotta be the best!


----------



## Oleanna (Mar 31, 2004)

I must say, i do hope that i dont upset this JJ1982 fellow. He seems like a rather nasty piece of work.. I have just seen a few of his posts. I thought that this was a forum for WW2 aircraft. Sorry JJ1982 if your reading this


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)

Have no fear, things with jj1982 have settled down quite a bit of late  

And yes, for the most part, this forum is for WW2 aircraft, we just tend to get a little sidetracked occasionally  


Welcome!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Although this is an aircraft forum, I may as well bring my knowledge of WW2 tanks to it as well, if not for a short time. 

The best world war 2 tank a T-34? How do you come to the conclusion because on paper it certainly wasn't. It was easy to produce, fast, strong and had good firepower. It's losses were high, even higher than the Shermans. Although on this, there were more T-34s in battle than Shermans. No doubt, the T-34 saved Russia but it certainly wasn't the best tank. 
The Panther destroyed T-34s from over 2km, in one battle 7 Panthers met 70 T-34s and in the 20 minute conflict they destroyed 28 T-34s without a single loss. 
The Tiger also walked all over the T-34, it had a more powerful cannon and stronger armour. The only disadvantages the Tiger had to anything, and I mean any tank of World War 2 were the small numbers and the speed of its turret. On this, the Tiger was 1:1 (Width:Length) so it could turn on the spot very quickly, if the turret wasn't fast enough the whole body would turn to bear the gun. 
The Ferdinand, although not a tank was reported to destroy a T-34 at 4.5 km, that is much further than the average kill distance in tank battles which was 500m. 

The Pershing, an American tank was superior to the T-34 which by 1943 was being out-classed by everything. Why do you think it was up-gunned to 85mm cannon? Even with the 85mm cannon it was weak in armour protection. 

The King Tiger, now the King Tiger was at a disadvantage on the Eastern Front, that's why when it was being designed it was destined for the Western Front. The roads were poor in Russia and Eastern Europe, not only that the ground is less stable due to worse weather. At 68 tonnes, the King Tiger did not fare well. However, it was a great tank and surpassed anything on the battlefield in firepower and armour. 

The A34 Comet, a British tank which could almost match the Tiger was also better than the T-34. 

The JS-2 or IS-2 was the best Soviet tank to see service, with it's 122mm cannon it out classed any other Soviet tank however, even with a 122mm cannon it didn't have the pierce capability of the King Tiger, and with the Tiger they fought on equal footings. The King Tiger and Tiger both had 88mm cannons but due to German engineering were more refined and therefore more powerful. 

The T-34 was said to be good, which it was for many reasons but the main one was due to its ease of build. The T-34 was easy to build and its vast numbers were a major reason it fared so well. In 1941 it was the best tank on the field but when the Panthers and Tigers came along the T-34 was out-classed and its ease of build were what kept it on the field. 
The Sherman wasn't that bad, even some Soviets said that they were good if you knew how to use them. In the Korean war in every encounter between the Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

not only a double, but a big double


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

I was kind of confused to how that happened.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

In answer to the question 'What is a tank?';

A tank is a container that stores liquids of any kind or; a fully tracked armoured fighting veichle, this means it has to have some kind of armament, without it, it would be a tractor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

And since as I read more from this thread I see more mistakes, I must correct them. 

The Germans didn't only have the '88'; 8.8 cm FlaK L/56 to combat the T-34 (which T-34 are you refering to?). The T-34/76 Model 1942 had 80mm armour which could be pierced by the '88' at 1500 m; by the 88mm KwK 36 (the gun on the Tiger) at 2km +; by the 50mm PaK 38 (anti-tank gun) at 100m; 76.2mm PaK36 (AT gun) at 1500m; K18 100mm heavy gun at 2km + and this is to name but a few German guns in 1942. 

A Ferdinand (A self-propelled tank destroyer) was reported to destroy a T-34 in the Battle of Kursk at 4.5km, I do not know which kind of T-34 this was but since it was the Battle of Kursk it could be anything from the T-34/76 Model 1940 to the T-34/85...either way on armour values and penertration of the Ferdinands gun it is possible it was any of the T-34 variants. 

The T-34 could not only be destroyed by the '88' not even in 1941. 

The British Matilda Mk. II however is a different story no German anti-tank or tank gun could destroy the Matildas armour over 100m except the '88'. The average range of tank battles was 500m but the '88' could knock out the Matilda at 1.5km, it was a very good gun.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 3, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Although this is an aircraft forum, I may as well bring my knowledge of WW2 tanks to it as well, if not for a short time.
> 
> The best world war 2 tank a T-34? How do you come to the conclusion because on paper it certainly wasn't. It was easy to produce, fast, strong and had good firepower. It's losses were high, even higher than the Shermans. Although on this, there were more T-34s in battle than Shermans. No doubt, the T-34 saved Russia but it certainly wasn't the best tank.
> The Panther destroyed T-34s from over 2km, in one battle 7 Panthers met 70 T-34s and in the 20 minute conflict they destroyed 28 T-34s without a single loss.
> ...



wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 8) 

see my post in the 'what is your favourite aircraft of WW2' thread 

it completely disproves what you said


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

this could get personal............................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 3, 2004)

It proves nothing, it merely says that the T-34 was a shock to the Germans, this does not mean it was the best tank of the war. As I've already said on many an occasion, the Panther was better, if the T-34 was so good why in a 20 minute battle did 7 Panthers destroy 28 T-34s without a single loss, when they were fighting 70. 

I never said the T-34 wasn't a good tank but it certainly wasn't the best. The Panther did not owe it's apperance to the T-34, if you look at the T-34 compared to the Panther they look nothing alike. 
The original design models look like a T-34 and were mostly based of the T-34 because as I said, they were designed to combat the T-34. However for a start the major difference is the turret position, in the early stages on the drawing board the Panthers turret was at the front like the T-34s but this was changed and if you care to look at the production Panthers their turrets are in the middle. 

Modern tanks are not based off the T-34, they are based off the Tigers and JS-3s, the JS-3 was the best tank to come out of the war, although it never saw service. If not including the JS-3 we can safely say the IS-2 which outclassed the T-34 and was based on the KV-1 chassis.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

Oleanna said:


> I must say, i do hope that i dont upset this JJ1982 fellow. He seems like a rather nasty piece of work.. I have just seen a few of his posts. I thought that this was a forum for WW2 aircraft. Sorry JJ1982 if your reading this



Oh cut the BS - you ARE JJ1982


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

plan_D said:


> It proves nothing, it merely says that the T-34 was a shock to the Germans, this does not mean it was the best tank of the war. As I've already said on many an occasion, the Panther was better, if the T-34 was so good why in a 20 minute battle did 7 Panthers destroy 28 T-34s without a single loss, when they were fighting 70.
> 
> I never said the T-34 wasn't a good tank but it certainly wasn't the best. The Panther did not owe it's apperance to the T-34, if you look at the T-34 compared to the Panther they look nothing alike.
> The original design models look like a T-34 and were mostly based of the T-34 because as I said, they were designed to combat the T-34. However for a start the major difference is the turret position, in the early stages on the drawing board the Panthers turret was at the front like the T-34s but this was changed and if you care to look at the production Panthers their turrets are in the middle.
> ...



I never said the Panther looked anything like the T-34 but it WAS based on the same design because the T-34 was superior to anything the Krauts had...i won't post a huge argument here because i just left one on the 'what is your fav plane from WW2' thread and i can't be bothered to type much more here 

One other thing.... if modern tanks are not based off the T-34 why do some many PROFESSIONAL sources say otherwise? you know better than the Imperial War Museaum for instance?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

looks like there's allot of impersonation going around...............


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

Quite.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

was that realy you??????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

i see no impersonation  just jj1982 posting under a false name


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

well you would now you're a mod...................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

I have found the true definition of 'tank':


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 30, 2004)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY F'IN SHITE!!!! IF THAT THING HAD GOTTEN OPERATIONAL THOSE GERMANS WOULD BE F'ED IN THE A!!!!! isnt that a T-100 or something of the sort? ive seen and used it BF1942 SWOWW2 but dont dont got much info on it, you got any more?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Well since I'm the tank expert here, it is a Heavy Tank T28.
Crew: 8
Battle weight: 190,000 lbs
Armament: Main 1 x 105 mm T5E1 gun
Secondary: 1 x .50 cal MG (AA)

Armour: Maximum 300mm
Minimum 25mm

Maximum speed: 8mph
Road radius: 100 miles. 


Germans, the Germans had much larger tank project on the drawing board. This T-28 is of limited tactical value, it was too heavy and too slow. It was suggested in 1943 but was dropped when they realised the expense, time taking to build and tactial value were pointless to carry on. 
It was nothing special. But it is a very interesting, and big tank.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Germans, out of interest have you ever heard of the German 'Super Heavy Tank' 'Maus'? 


By the way, the T28 is an American design.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

the pic didn't work for me, what was it?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

T28 Heavy tank, or alternatively the T95 Gun Carriage. They are both the same thing...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 30, 2004)

yea ive heard of the "Mouse" (those humble Germans...) thats why i said the Germans would be screwed and the US would find out a way to kick ass with the tank. anyway, the maus wasnt as big but it was better as the turret could do a thing called "rotating" and not just have a limited traverse of gun.


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

The Maus was more heavily armed, and was faster. The T28 (above) had a 105mm cannon main armament while the Maus had 128mm main, and 75 mm co-axial gun plus the MGs. Plus as you said, the Maus had a turret, that's why it's a tank...the T28 above is not really a tank, it's a gun carriage that's why it was later named the T95 Gun Carriage. In other forces it would have been called a Self Propelled Gun.

The T28 was a poor 'beast' it was a needless extravagence, and they were foolish to think of the idea, it was just too heavy. The King Tiger is always said to be heavy, too heavy and it was only 68 tonnes. 
Bridges wouldn't have been able to support either the Maus or T28, even the King Tiger had problems with some lighter bridges.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

the pic works now and my God, that thing's huge!!!!!!!!! shame about the speed though.............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

That's the best American tank of the war...the M26 Pershing only one was lost to enemy actions. 






That's the best British tank of the war...the A41 Centurion..however it never saw service deliveries were made in May 1945 a little late. 






That's the best Soviet tank of the war...the JS-3 (IS-3)..also never saw service but was present in the May 7th victory parade in Berlin. 






And that's the Maus superior to the T95...and very big.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

no mention of the t-34?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The T-34 had plenty of mention before, but as much as none of you will admit it, the JS-3 was a superior tank. 






The tank that saved the Soviet Union...






Even the Germans liked them...






...and the Finnish.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

What now? It got three pictures when the others (all superior) only got one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

middle one dont work


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Oh, it does on mine...hmmm..


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

There.."Even the Germans liked them..."


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

By the way, on the Finnish T-34, the Swastika isn't showing their support of National Socialism it's just for recognition from other Axis forces.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

the bottom one didn't work, what was it?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The very bottom one was a German T-34...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

In my opinion the best German tank. The Tiger and King Tiger could beat it in open battle though. 

This one is called 'Cuckoo' and was captured by the 6th Colstream Tank Guards and used against its former owners.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

isnt that picture of the finnish t-34 computer generated?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I don't think so, it doesn't look like it. 

That one above, the German one with the star is a Panther by the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

the finnish ne still doesn't work on mine, what tank was it?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Just a T-34 because if you saw the page before this C.C was complaining I didn't mention the T-34 with my pictures. So I've given him 5 pictures of it, 1 in Russian, 1 in Finnish and 3 in German.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i bet he'll still find somethinkg wrong...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I'm sure he will, then I'll show knocked out T-34s for the fun of it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

knowing him, he'll say it's computer gennerated, he thinks the lanc in my siggy's comp. generated, it's not, it's the city of lincon.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Hahah. Well that Finnish one isn't. And yours definately isn't. 

I might even show captured Shermans with German markings...some Germans did enjoy them especially the reliability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i think the chirchill could have been one of the great tanks of the war if they'd put sloped armour in it, it had allot of armour on it don't get me wrong, but it should have been slopped...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

No, no it couldn't have been. The ONLY thing it had was decent armour. 152mm maximum on the Mk. VII-VIII but it was poor, low visibilty, under-armed, unreliable, slow..basically it was a poor tank. 

It proved itself in Italy though as a great infantry support tank, even with that, we should have replaced it with the newer 17 pdr armed tanks that we had lined up.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

This is a Mk. II Churchill but...






...it was poor, notice the 3 inch howitzer in the front, this was soon replaced with a MG. The British had many much better tanks. 

For C.C...





...that's a captured Sherman Firefly, the Firefly is a Sherman M4A2 with a British 17 pdr (77mm) gun in it, which improved the tanks hitting power greatly it could finally match the Tiger. 






This T-34 isn't so good now, is it?


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Russian experimental Kv-7...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

And the Germans say "Ve vill hav dis"...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

> the Firefly is a Sherman M4A2 with a British 17 pdr (77mm) gun in it



it was a 76mm..............

and i'm sorry, i didn't realise the churchill was that bad............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > the Firefly is a Sherman M4A2 with a British 17 pdr (77mm) gun in it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh wow  1mm difference! good job you mentioned that   8)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

It wasn't actually Lanc, there was a M4A3 (76W) which had a 76mm cannon, the British 17 pdr was a 77mm cannon.


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

big thing made of meatel killed goes boomb if hit by a maotar


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Well you can't be refering to a tank with that since most mortars had a hard time hitting tanks, you have to have good aim to hit it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

you would have to have a very good aim, be at short range, and the tank would have to be barely moving or stationary...............


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

ok maby not not a maoters but 38 pound shells and you would not see it again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

you wouldn't se much after anything got hit by a 38pdr...........


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

If most things got hit by a 38 pdr they'd be pretty much screwed. The thing is a 38 pdr AT gun was just too heavy, if it had been designed. The British 17 pdr was perfectly acceptable as an AT gun. And the 25 pdr Howitzer that we had throughout the war, I'm sure would have destroyed any tank it hit. 

It was very hard hitting tanks in those days, no computer aided guidance.


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

so take a tiger2 you couldnt detroy that with a 12 pdr


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

If you hit it at point blank range, into its rear you could destroy it with a 6 pdr. We didn't have a 12 pdr AT gun anyway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

i just think brad is trying to sound smart............


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Well at least it wasn't spam, maybe he learnt something.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

yes and knowing him it was "don't try and sound smart, it only makes you look stupid, spam is a better way to get your posts up", expect allot more spam...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

i reckon hes read some of my previous heavy spamming and decided to copy it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

i thought it all got deleted...................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Maybe he's just a new breed of heavy spammer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

i would call myself a medium spammer as i dont do it all the time


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

But a lot of the time, right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

well, i wouldnt go so far as to say that, i do post on topic sometimes  actually, ive been on topic a lot this last week, so i consider myself a MEDIUM spammer, and the lanc is a fighter-spammer 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Ok, well you have been doing very well recently. And since this thread was destroyed, practically by me, this is an ideal thread to just talk about nothing important.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

> and the lanc is a fighter-spammer



meaning what exactily???


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

you post mainly on topic, but you have the ability to spam heavily should you wish


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Interesting title to have, fighter-spammer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

sure as hell beats medium or heavy spammer, this way i can do both............


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

> just think brad is trying to sound smart............


no just stating a fact


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

but what you stated wasn't a fact.............


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

so it was to me


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

you mean a theory 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

no, it was just a load of ....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 17, 2004)

going along with the fighter-spammer, I have proposed a title for the actual Lancaster...... Spammer-Bomber! (propaganda leaflets are the spam, which are bombed onto Germany, as well as regular bombs)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

That was mostly done before the Lancaster came into service though. It was mainly done in 1939, and early 1940. 
brad, how could that have been a fact? There was no 12 pdr AT gun in British service (I don't there was one in any service) and I stated that a 6pdr AT gun could have destroyed the King Tiger if it hit in the rear at point blank range.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Again, no reply...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

nope  why bother thinking of a reply when you can just spam


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

And this thread soon became the spamming thread, right?


----------



## brad (May 19, 2004)

c.c what does i warned you... mean


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

it means he threatened to but a 88 as his siggy, and he did...............


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

I don't remember him warning us, he might have warned you.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

i clearly warned you in the 5 favourite planes thread i said:

right, youre in for it...


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

That's not a warning, a warning would be 'If you don't stop I'm going to put a Breda 88 as my sig'. You just said you were going to do it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

it was still a warning, a warning that you would be in fr it, designed to make you worried


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Yes but when you say 'I warned you' it's normally the warning where we could of prevented the event but didn't. IN your case, you just told us it was going to happen and there was no way of stopping it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

and you weren't very explisit, you didn't actuall tell us what you were gonna do...............


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Therefore, not a warning. Your new sig is good though C.C.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

of course it is, all pictures of P-38's are good


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Even the ones of them in piles, getting burned?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

no such thing. its impossible for one to get shot down or crash


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

i think the P-38 is to C.C. what the lanc is to me......................


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

thanks for telling me


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The problem is that both Lanc and CC have allowed their love of their respective aircraft to skew their vision.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

I was refering to them being burned after the war. Even then I've seen plenty of destroyed P-38s. So, are they good pictures of the P-38?


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

the best piston engine fighter of the war.  Kurt TANK'S TA 152H. Yeah I know this is a goof balls thread but giving another opinion...........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> The problem is that both Lanc and CC have allowed their love of their respective aircraft to skew their vision.



not true, it just so happens that the lanc was the best bomber, fighter-bomber, fighter and recon plane of the war.................


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

You mean the Mosquito, don't you?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

no, he means the roc


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

Lanc are U on drugs ?


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I think he may be, it is worrying.  
The Roc was the best plane, what are you talking about?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

i hate people who take drugs, like customs and the police


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

my brother is on ganja


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

That's amazing Brad. Look at that, he's 10 and saying Ganja. I'd never even heard of marijuana until I was like....12. As long as you don't get any Brad, my God, imagine that a 10 year old on dope...that would really mean this country has gone to hell.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

you could use a cheap pun and say the country is going to pot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

now that is cheap ....................


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

That's so cheap I never even considered it. 

The greatest tank gun of the war; 8.8cm KwK43 L/71; penertration at 2km: 153mm at 30 degrees. T-34/76 Model 1942 had 45mm frontal armour slanted to give same defence as 80mm straight. 
That means the T-34/76 Model 1942 was basically screwed if it got seen anywhere up to 3km away (I don't know the penertration at 3km of the gun but it probably decreased to about 100mm). 
And the particular tank carrying that gun had 180mm frontal armour at 9 degrees, the T-34/76 had to get damn close to kill it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i'd have thought it would decrease to less than 100mm??


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

i thogut it was 90 mm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

> And the particular tank carrying that gun had 180mm frontal armour at 9 degrees, the T-34/76 had to get damn close to kill it.



allot easier when you the tank is frozen up so it can't move and the T-34 can sneak up behind you...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> That's amazing Brad. Look at that, he's 10 and saying Ganja. I'd never even heard of marijuana until I was like....12. As long as you don't get any Brad, my God, imagine that a 10 year old on dope...that would really mean this country has gone to hell.


I agree, the only thing I was thinking about when I was ten was women and tits  . I used to think tobacco was a drug. Seriously brad, chill out when you're ten. Think about tits, it always calms me down. (Not reall, thinking about me woman to be calms me down...)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

yes, you woman, with tits...............


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

Why would you think it would decrease to less than 100mm, Lanc? No offence but you don't know much about tanks, and you don't know what the tank is I'm talking about. 
The T-34/76 would have to have a very good crew, or lucky crew to be able to sneak a 30-tonne tank 3km without being seen. Even if the tank is stuck, it's turret still moves. That's 3km in which the T-34 was in the killing zone, maybe even more. The average kill distance in armoured warfare in World War 2 was 500m...and one of the longest kill distances was recorded by a Sturmgetschutz mit 8.8cm PaK43/2 or in short a Ferdinand destroying a T-34/76 Model 1942 at 4.5km. 

And to rest your mind, the previous tank with the most powerful cannon, and 180mm armour was the...Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B (Sd Kfz 182)...I love complicating things.  
It's the King Tiger or Konigstiger or Tiger II or VK4503.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i used to know a lot about tanks, all gone out the window now though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

that coming from someone that thinks a petrol's better than a diesil...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

no, its coming from someone who KNOWS a petrol is better than a diesel


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Not in a tank it isn't. In what way do you believe petrol is better than diesel?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

in the majority of circumstances, petrol is far superior to diesel. refer to the petrol or diesel thread for all my points cas i cant be bothered to type them all again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

becuase there are no points to argue, jeremy clarkson made it from london to edinbourgh and back with one tank of deisil, you can't do that in a petrol........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

You watched that too...It was a great show.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

im sure several petrol cars could do the same. and besides, what does a diesel audi do for your image when you can have a faster, lighter petrol one which makes less noise and is more refined for less money


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

We want economy in this country, high prices dictate the types of cars we drive. A middle-class person wants economy and class...that's where the Audi comes in...

Who cares about noise and price, in a TANK!?! Diesel is the best form of fuel for tanks...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

yes, for tanks. but for cars, petrol is better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

cars, maybe, but no other form of vehicle..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

planes......motorbikes, i mean can you imagine a diesel motorbike  and generators and lawnmowers and strimmers and hedgetrimmers and leafblowers....and speedboats


----------



## brad (Jun 3, 2004)

> You watched that too...It was a great show.


sad very sad


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

> generators



newsfalsh, they run on deisil................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

our one doesnt, ours is 2 stroke petrol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

i challenge you to find a industriel generator that runs on deisil...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

dont you mean one that doesnt run on diesel?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

yes.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

ok 8) btw, your siggy doesnt work...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

i'd gathered that, my first clue was when i didn't see it come up, my secind, the footprints.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

you're jelous of my abilities............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

course.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

you see, you even admited it..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

*cough* sarcasm! *cough*


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 8, 2004)

A real nutter here....talk about down under!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

You're the champion of random shit. I think we need some kind of spamming awards...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

ohoh, best subtle spam goes to me.....................


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 9, 2004)

does it now?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

well i can pick out the lancs spam, its a skill only us spammers have...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

we really should start this award..............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 12, 2004)

I should get 'creation of the spam award, award'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

i feel so honoured..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

i dont feel honoured being the king of spam, its not like i havent actually won anything else in my life is it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

> its not like i havent actually won anything else in my life is it



it's exactly like that actually..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

how? im used to winning at stuff, im a competetive person, it runs in the family

and what have you won lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

obviously you failed to see my medals and trophys when you came over................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

man i read the first few pages here and that was some funnt shit, but we never did have them spam awards did we.........


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

The term tank was originally a code-name the British developed for their first WW1 fighting vehicles. A lot of these were like mobile, heavy armed and armoured water tanks. They were originally termed tanks to confuse the Germans while they were on their way over from Britain. Somehow the term tank has continued to be used in relation to them. In reality it sometimes gets confusing on just where the line between a tank and other AFVs is. For example the Greyhound has a turrent but because it has wheels it is not considered a tank. In reality most APVs now have tracks so I suppose it is now a case of purpose over physical appearance.


----------

