Panic!...........Just like the TII Commander during the Goodwood offensive?
Best/Favourate Tank in the west
- Thread starter Yeomanz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Panic!...........Just like the TII Commander during the Goodwood offensive?
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.
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.
Not offended but just tired of the same old rubbish about uber tanks
No it isn't. But it is hard to argue against myths and propoganda.
'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.
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?
Neve heard of any decoys before.
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.
Attachments
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)
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 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.
Erich
the old Sage
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
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
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
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.
That my friend is typical in many threads here when someone strikes a point.
Yup he has a total of 22 posts, none of them about World War 2 aircraft, he is disregards other people points, disrespectful to long standing members. He does not answer questions that are convenient for him to answer b/c they prove him wrong.
Seems like a pattern of other newbies who lasted a very short time here. They come here thinking they know everything and after they are proven wrong they never come back. None of us miss them here. Lets see if he comes back with a new attitude, if he does not his stay here could get rough for him.
Well I have posted facts about the armour and penetration ability of the tanks guns... that is proof eneogh for me.
Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter. It is not germain to the thrust of my posts and whatever you think is important may not have the same resonance for me. Is that clear enough?
US units did not even see a Tiger until rather late in the 1944 campaign. I see nothing other than' common belief' to sustain such an assertion. I am, however, open to persuasion if you can show a reference..
Strange that I make no mention of aicraft in a thread about 'Best/Favourate (sic)Tank in the west '?
Perhaps it can be explained why this would be a barrier to expressing an opinion ?
There are no absolutes in this world. Even the most extreme standpoint will have arguments in its favour. This desire to utterly demolish your opponent indicates a failure to fully grasp the definition of 'opinion'
I am far from a 'newbie' in this area. Unlike many here I do not profess to 'know everything' and you vastly inflate your ability to 'prove' me wrong
Rough for me? I think you may be the one 'proved wrong'
Penetration tables are one of the most contentious areas of research. What most people mean is they find a set of statistics that suit their beliefs.
Others with another set of values challenge them and we are subjected to pages of mind numbing data about slope(from horizontal or vertical) nickle content, brittleness, shatter gap, overmatching and downright lies.
Oh now we enter the more intellectual areas of your expertise!
You do not know me other than you 'think' you have superior understanding and insight. I sincerely hope you are able to sustain this elevated opinion of your ability.
Perhaps you could drop in in some of my postings at
Axis History Forum :: Viewing profile
Maybe you could show me how 'foolish' I was in say this thread there.
Axis History Forum :: View topic - Whose Tiger is it?
Could I ask if those with greater understanding than me could add to the threads conclusions?
A peer review from some real 'experts' would be greatly appreciated.
German speakers can call me to task here:
Suchen - Panzer-Archiv
m kenny,
Lets see where to start, I will start here:
You say "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter. It is not germain to the thrust of my posts and whatever you think is important may not have the same resonance for me. Is that clear enough?"
I say yes it is very clear, you do not want to answer my question b/c if you do it will prove you wrong if you say "Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or if you answer picking the Sherman then you are nuts. 1 vs 1 a Sherman dies a very high percentage of the time.
You say "Strange that I make no mention of aicraft in a thread about 'Best/Favourate (sic)Tank in the west '?
Perhaps it can be explained why this would be a barrier to expressing an opinion ?"
Yes the thread is about tanks but the vast amount of the site is about World War 2 planes......mmmmmm funny thats why they call it www.ww2aircraft.net ! Does that mean we can only enjoy your imput on this forum if it has to do with tanks?
You say "There are no absolutes in this world. Even the most extreme standpoint will have arguments in its favour. This desire to utterly demolish your opponent indicates a failure to fully grasp the definition of 'opinion'"
I agree there is nothing wrong with opinions, but you did not just state an opinion here. You are debating trying to prove your point, if you want to post a opinion fine then don't debate. If you want to debate, post a opinion and debate. I do not wish to utterly demolish you, I am just debating your opinion. By doing so I asked you a very simple question that you have not answered b/c it proves you point wrong. You are just to proud or stuborn to admit it, thats not my problem.
You say "I am far from a 'newbie' in this area. Unlike many here I do not profess to 'know everything' and you vastly inflate your ability to 'prove' me wrong"
Seems you do not listen or except other people's opinion when they differ from yours....seems pretty arrogant to me. I inflate my ability to prove you wrong? Nope you do that for me.
You say "Rough for me? I think you may be the one 'proved wrong'"
You have no idea how bad it could get for you if you tick off the wrong people here. You will learn or be banned I know that forsure. If you think you are going to come here with a attitude and talk to Mods or long term members with disrespect.....well it will be funny watching you try. I welcome you to try.
You say "Oh now we enter the more intellectual areas of your expertise!
You do not know me other than you 'think' you have superior understanding and insight. I sincerely hope you are able to sustain this elevated opinion of your ability."
Sarcasm is one of my most loveable triats.....thank you. If I see a spade, I call it a spade. I think you have "tone" and are "disrespectful" to our members, you dismiss their opinion out of hand. That is my only problem with you. I don't care if it is German or Allied tank, best is the best. You came to this thread with your baised opinion and can't except it when people prove you wrong. If you posted a opinion and someone proved you wrong and you said ok, then I would have no problem with you (and no one else would either).
I never claimed to have superior understanding then you in anything. You just keep giving examples of a single action here and there and call it proof. Thats not proof those are isolated examples of where a weaker tank was able to take out a better tank. Numbers do prove that Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks are better 1 vs 1. Where the Germans failed is that they believed that their superior tanks (in limited numbers) could take on inferior Allied tanks (in vast numbers). Germans were proven wrong, Allies swamped Germans with huge numbers of tanks and the Germans could not kill them fast enough. Allies had better plan but the Germans had a better tank when you compare them 1 vs 1.
A different example is if you take the Heavy weight champ (Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tank) in boxing and ten normal guys (Sherman tank). Then put them in fight Heavy weight champ vs 10 normal guys. The 10 normal guys are going to win most times. But if you take the Heavy weight champ vs 1 normal guy.....the normal guy gets his butt handed to him the most times.
As far as your replies to Chris's posts go I will let him answer for himself.
Lets see where to start, I will start here:
You say "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter. It is not germain to the thrust of my posts and whatever you think is important may not have the same resonance for me. Is that clear enough?"
I say yes it is very clear, you do not want to answer my question b/c if you do it will prove you wrong if you say "Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or if you answer picking the Sherman then you are nuts. 1 vs 1 a Sherman dies a very high percentage of the time.
You say "Strange that I make no mention of aicraft in a thread about 'Best/Favourate (sic)Tank in the west '?
Perhaps it can be explained why this would be a barrier to expressing an opinion ?"
Yes the thread is about tanks but the vast amount of the site is about World War 2 planes......mmmmmm funny thats why they call it www.ww2aircraft.net ! Does that mean we can only enjoy your imput on this forum if it has to do with tanks?
You say "There are no absolutes in this world. Even the most extreme standpoint will have arguments in its favour. This desire to utterly demolish your opponent indicates a failure to fully grasp the definition of 'opinion'"
I agree there is nothing wrong with opinions, but you did not just state an opinion here. You are debating trying to prove your point, if you want to post a opinion fine then don't debate. If you want to debate, post a opinion and debate. I do not wish to utterly demolish you, I am just debating your opinion. By doing so I asked you a very simple question that you have not answered b/c it proves you point wrong. You are just to proud or stuborn to admit it, thats not my problem.
You say "I am far from a 'newbie' in this area. Unlike many here I do not profess to 'know everything' and you vastly inflate your ability to 'prove' me wrong"
Seems you do not listen or except other people's opinion when they differ from yours....seems pretty arrogant to me. I inflate my ability to prove you wrong? Nope you do that for me.
You say "Rough for me? I think you may be the one 'proved wrong'"
You have no idea how bad it could get for you if you tick off the wrong people here. You will learn or be banned I know that forsure. If you think you are going to come here with a attitude and talk to Mods or long term members with disrespect.....well it will be funny watching you try. I welcome you to try.
You say "Oh now we enter the more intellectual areas of your expertise!
You do not know me other than you 'think' you have superior understanding and insight. I sincerely hope you are able to sustain this elevated opinion of your ability."
Sarcasm is one of my most loveable triats.....thank you. If I see a spade, I call it a spade. I think you have "tone" and are "disrespectful" to our members, you dismiss their opinion out of hand. That is my only problem with you. I don't care if it is German or Allied tank, best is the best. You came to this thread with your baised opinion and can't except it when people prove you wrong. If you posted a opinion and someone proved you wrong and you said ok, then I would have no problem with you (and no one else would either).
I never claimed to have superior understanding then you in anything. You just keep giving examples of a single action here and there and call it proof. Thats not proof those are isolated examples of where a weaker tank was able to take out a better tank. Numbers do prove that Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks are better 1 vs 1. Where the Germans failed is that they believed that their superior tanks (in limited numbers) could take on inferior Allied tanks (in vast numbers). Germans were proven wrong, Allies swamped Germans with huge numbers of tanks and the Germans could not kill them fast enough. Allies had better plan but the Germans had a better tank when you compare them 1 vs 1.
A different example is if you take the Heavy weight champ (Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tank) in boxing and ten normal guys (Sherman tank). Then put them in fight Heavy weight champ vs 10 normal guys. The 10 normal guys are going to win most times. But if you take the Heavy weight champ vs 1 normal guy.....the normal guy gets his butt handed to him the most times.
As far as your replies to Chris's posts go I will let him answer for himself.
Yes, I am frightened of your cunning trap.
Another example where your superior understanding allows you to trap the unwary?
Oh I see. Disagree with you and you are 'nuts'.
I am a firm believer that one should only offer an opinion if one is au fait with the subject.
Now you can read my mind ?
My every utterance plunges me deeper into the pit!
As you said earlier, anyone daring to disagree with you is 'nuts'.
Oh sorry, I give in .You are right and I am 'nuts'
A quote from a Dirty Harry film ?
Well I am nuts
Proved me wrong?.........Those whom the Gods wish to destroy...............
Your arrogance is breathtaking. Someone proved me 'wrong' and the only course is for me to submit and cry uncle!
Did it ever enter your head that you might be wrong.....naw, probably not.
Anyway is it possible you can give me a link where I can see some examples of your posts on other Forums please?
Now the above is a direct question and we know your opinion on those who dodge such simple requests.
It would be interesting to examine the history of your research in this area
kenny kenny,
At least you admit when you are trapped and you can't worm your way out by side stepping / avoiding questions. Thank you
By disagreeing with me does not mean you are nuts. This is why I think you are nuts if you choose the Sherman:
TigerII - 69.8 tonnes
180mm frontal armor
80mm side armor
88 mm KwK 43 L/71 main gun
vs
Sherman - 35 tons
2.8 inches front armor
1.6 inches side armor
75mm main gun
Those are just two models of each kind. There is others we can compare (different models of all Shermans, Tigers, Tiger2 or Panther) if you want.
In a 1 vs 1 fight you think it is better to choose the Sherman?
You want a Dirty Harry quote? sure ok. Go ahead Punk make my day.
You said "Someone proved me 'wrong' and the only course is for me to submit and cry uncle!"
Nope just you stop repeating isolated examples of a Sherman destroying a Tiger or Panther and calling that proof will do fine. Thanks
You said "Anyway is it possible you can give me a link where I can see some examples of your posts on other Forums please?"
Mmmmm does posting your biased opinions on more than one forum make you an expert? I guess you have that one on me. Well done. Azzholes are just like opinions, everyone has one and they are free. See its easy to answer a person's question. I am not about to list my collection of hundreds of books on WW2.
But you still have not answered my first question other than saying "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter."
Sounds more like you are afraid to answer it. Seems you want to dodge my question by trying to argue with me. Answer my question its really very simple.
In a 1 vs 1 battle Sherman vs Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 which would you choose? All other things being equal ie terrain etc. Which would you choose? This is not brain surgery, just a simple question. You are so eager to have your opinion heard why do you refuse to give it here? Which would you choose? Show us your expert opinion here. I have stated my choice, I would take the Panther/Tiger/Tiger2 any day over the Sherman. Which would you choose?
At least you admit when you are trapped and you can't worm your way out by side stepping / avoiding questions. Thank you
By disagreeing with me does not mean you are nuts. This is why I think you are nuts if you choose the Sherman:
TigerII - 69.8 tonnes
180mm frontal armor
80mm side armor
88 mm KwK 43 L/71 main gun
vs
Sherman - 35 tons
2.8 inches front armor
1.6 inches side armor
75mm main gun
Those are just two models of each kind. There is others we can compare (different models of all Shermans, Tigers, Tiger2 or Panther) if you want.
In a 1 vs 1 fight you think it is better to choose the Sherman?
You want a Dirty Harry quote? sure ok. Go ahead Punk make my day.
You said "Someone proved me 'wrong' and the only course is for me to submit and cry uncle!"
Nope just you stop repeating isolated examples of a Sherman destroying a Tiger or Panther and calling that proof will do fine. Thanks
You said "Anyway is it possible you can give me a link where I can see some examples of your posts on other Forums please?"
Mmmmm does posting your biased opinions on more than one forum make you an expert? I guess you have that one on me. Well done. Azzholes are just like opinions, everyone has one and they are free. See its easy to answer a person's question. I am not about to list my collection of hundreds of books on WW2.
But you still have not answered my first question other than saying "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter."
Sounds more like you are afraid to answer it. Seems you want to dodge my question by trying to argue with me. Answer my question its really very simple.
In a 1 vs 1 battle Sherman vs Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 which would you choose? All other things being equal ie terrain etc. Which would you choose? This is not brain surgery, just a simple question. You are so eager to have your opinion heard why do you refuse to give it here? Which would you choose? Show us your expert opinion here. I have stated my choice, I would take the Panther/Tiger/Tiger2 any day over the Sherman. Which would you choose?
Matt308
Glock Perfection
This is almost better than the political threads.