Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 152
Thanks Tree94Thanks

Thread: Tanks

  1. #41
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,875
    Thanks
    19117

    From
    america
    In retrospect maybe they should have concentrated on improving the already decent panzers and not fooled around with the [although pretty cool] Tiger and Panther.
    --Yes. In that area of "Strategic Planning" the Germans get a big F!

    They simply had too many different models of Tanks, AND Planes.

    Compared to the Allies, who would choose only a FEW models, then crank them out in mass numbers.

    One Tiger might take on a platoon of Shermans, and win. But, at the end of the day, the allies could scavage those parts and put half a platoon of tanks back out in the field, while the Tiger was stuck, waiting, for a new engine part.....

  2. #42
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    --Yes. In that area of "Strategic Planning" the Germans get a big F!

    They simply had too many different models of Tanks, AND Planes.

    Compared to the Allies, who would choose only a FEW models, then crank them out in mass numbers.

    One Tiger might take on a platoon of Shermans, and win. But, at the end of the day, the allies could scavage those parts and put half a platoon of tanks back out in the field, while the Tiger was stuck, waiting, for a new engine part.....
    For the Germans the concept of platform sharing was about as far away as Pluto.

  3. #43
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Reminds me of that stupid plane they made with a prop at the front and a prop at the back..2 engines.. such a huge waste of time and money.

  4. #44
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,891
    Thanks
    4427

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    So, am I the only one wondering just what the outcome between this thing and the Abrams would be?
    Basically.. Russian tanks are evolved step by step from the WWII T34. T-80, T-90... pretty much a T72 with more bells and whistles. The Abbrams was not a "better M 60" it's a whole new animal.

    In 2 wars vs Iraq the Abrams vs T-72 score was....something like 500-0. This T-90 version.. may close that gap. However.. you still have other factors. The USA has Apache Helicopters, A-10 Warthogs.. both lethal tank killers. Our Bradleys and Strykers.. can kill tanks. We ain't playing with WWII Shermans. It is VERY hard to kill an Abrams. At best. It can find you anmd kill you. It's fast. It has more firepower..it has quick target/react time. It is supported by other armour and air.
    Until a hostile tank knocks out an Abrams.. I bet on the Abrams.
    Thanks from Tedminator

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,299
    Thanks
    34182

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Tell that to the boys and girls who served in Korea, Vietnam, desert storm, Iraq and Afghanistan.
    You are supposed to be a teacher, even in Arkansas a teacher should know that specific words have specific meanings.
    World War II was the last time the U.S. Congress voted to legally declare war on a nation(s). Period.

  6. #46
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,891
    Thanks
    4427

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    Reminds me of that stupid plane they made with a prop at the front and a prop at the back..2 engines.. such a huge waste of time and money.
    The concept is okay. Cessna made a plane with front + rear prop The Army used them in Nam, It was a good civillian plane. It flys like a single engine as all the thrust is centered. You however get the extra safety and power of 2 engines.
    Thanks from Zaragunudgeyon

  7. #47
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
    The concept is okay. Cessna made a plane with front + rear prop The Army used them in Nam, It was a good civillian plane. It flys like a single engine as all the thrust is centered. You however get the extra safety and power of 2 engines.
    The concept is okay.. true I agree... except for the complexity.. the German mechanics were having a really hard time keeping up with and fixing the radical stuff coming out into the field. Just wrong time for that plane.

  8. #48
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,891
    Thanks
    4427

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    The concept is okay.. true I agree... except for the complexity.. the German mechanics were having a really hard time keeping up with and fixing the radical stuff coming out into the field. Just wrong time for that plane.
    well... the Germans tended to overcomplicate stuff. The Russian T-34 was pretty simple...but tough. The Sherman was reliable and mass produced but NOT a good tank Germans did some HUGE artillery guns, but they were not very mobile.

  9. #49
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
    well... the Germans tended to overcomplicate stuff. The Russian T-34 was pretty simple...but tough. The Sherman was reliable and mass produced but NOT a good tank Germans did some HUGE artillery guns, but they were not very mobile.
    Yea the Germans were guilty of trying too hard to build a "superweapon" ...which meant complicated, costly... time consuming pain in the ass.

  10. #50
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Why do the tank builders seem unconcerned with that big gap between the turret and the hull.?. the "shot trap" ,, seems like the perfect spot to aim at.

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tanks, but no tanks!
    By Cicero in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 30th April 2013, 03:18 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29th April 2013, 05:32 AM
  3. Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks
    By Singularity in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10th October 2012, 07:46 PM
  4. Bread, guns, and tanks
    By The Man in forum Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th September 2011, 04:58 PM
  5. Beck movie tanks.
    By Ronin Tetsuro in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 4th December 2009, 07:51 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed