|
Isn't the entire point that you can't just take the panther in a vacuum but consider the entire picture? Sure if you played a simulation or even world of tanks, on paper the Panther is a good tank but considering all factors required to bring a tank to the front and get it fighting, it was not. So saying 'in a simulation that only models the direct combat aspect, the tank is good' is non-sensical.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:Isn't the entire point that you can't just take the panther in a vacuum but consider the entire picture? Sure if you played a simulation or even world of tanks, on paper the Panther is a good tank but considering all factors required to bring a tank to the front and get it fighting, it was not. So saying 'in a simulation that only models the direct combat aspect, the tank is good' is non-sensical. As non-sensical as "Which is the worst tank", or best for that matter. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:As non-sensical as "Which is the worst tank", or best for that matter. Zaloga's Armored Champion handled the question decently well. The book was broken up into time periods and theaters, and the "Best Tank" was divided between the "Tanker's Choice" and the "Commander's Choice". The Panther and Tiger made it on several times as the Tanker's Choice, but the Commander's Choice was swept by vehicles like the StuG, various marks of the Sherman, and the T-34. Pretty good book, if you can get your hands on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Absolute weight is pretty important for the suspension design. The primary factor behind the main flaw of a unit is very much the constraint, and shaving it down is a good idea. Weight is often the main driver on cost, as you said it induces weight spirals which increases cost pretty much everywhere. But the constraint in the end is cost not weight, weight just creates cost. Nobody builds supertankers out of carbon fiber after all. More weight is basically never good, and yes the Panther is weight inefficient and that's not a good thing. But just the fact that it weights 45 tons is not actually much of a factor in the actual performance of the thing, it's the knock on effects that kill a design 'because of weight', not weight itself. And the only one you can really pin on the Panther is the transmission reliability, it handles it's weight quite well in the other factors. Tekopo posted:Isn't the entire point that you can't just take the panther in a vacuum but consider the entire picture? Sure if you played a simulation or even world of tanks, on paper the Panther is a good tank but considering all factors required to bring a tank to the front and get it fighting, it was not. So saying 'in a simulation that only models the direct combat aspect, the tank is good' is non-sensical. The thing is, as a complete design, the Panther made a certain amount of sense for Germany at the time, unlike the other cats. It certainly would not have made sense for the US or the USSR to have made Panther, but for Germany in 1942 it's not insane. It was not really much more expensive than a PzIV, was a fairly low risk design, using technologies the German AFV builders were familiar with, was something they could build in their current factories, and it was reasonably future-proof. The Germans tanks up to that point had been really quite undergunned, and they were not eager to repeat the experience. Of course the transmission issues made it fall on it's face quite a bit. But i still haven't found a technical description of the issues, so who the hell knows what actually caused them to fail. (Metalurgical tests were done on the gears of the Littlefield collection Panther, they were perfectly fine, and it's far from the only tank to use straight cut gears for this, Centurion did for example and it's a fair bit heavier.) Edit : This was interesting reading on the subject actually http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/ Kafouille fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Zaloga's Armored Champion handled the question decently well. The book was broken up into time periods and theaters, and the "Best Tank" was divided between the "Tanker's Choice" and the "Commander's Choice". The Panther and Tiger made it on several times as the Tanker's Choice, but the Commander's Choice was swept by vehicles like the StuG, various marks of the Sherman, and the T-34. Pretty good book, if you can get your hands on it. Will look into it, thanks
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:And if I had to play a real life simulation and was told to win WW2, I'd be prioritizing very different things than one where I'd have to fight like they fought in WW2, and even more different from tank duels. What would you do then? The Panzer 4 was no longer capable of matching American or Soviet tanks. The Panther, once the issues were ironed out, was not a bad design. Simulation or some gay black hitler what-if scenario. You need what is essentially a main battle tank, but those don't exist yet, so you do the best you can, and you end up with a design not so unlike the Panther. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:What would you do then? The Panzer 4 was no longer capable of matching American or Soviet tanks. The Panther, once the issues were ironed out, was not a bad design. But the issues never were really ironed out, as the French found out post-war. I get the feeling that we're going into "Gay Black Panther" territory here 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah. Cause the Nazis got defeated. Regardless, this all started because of some silly "worst tank" question. All I'm saying is that yes the Panther had flaws, but so many other tanks had many more flaws. Thats all I'm saying on this silly discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
ive found it guys. the worst tank shameful
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
An interesting quote from the Panzer Commision in January, 1945Zee Germans posted:From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100. It doesn't really seem limited to the Panther
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yeah. Cause the Nazis got defeated. Regardless, this all started because of some silly "worst tank" question. All I'm saying is that yes the Panther had flaws, but so many other tanks had many more flaws. Thats all I'm saying on this silly discussion. There is no magic wand they could have waved to make the Panther work, not in 1943, not in 1945, not in 1947. The Panther was a "medium" tank that was unable to make the long marches that German medium tanks made in 1939-1941 that ensured early success in WWII. Yes, other tanks had flaws, but their flaws weren't "completely unsuitable for the task that its class exists to perform". I wouldn't rush to call the Panther the worst tank of WWII, but it's a trap that I've seen many engineers fall into: a bunch of really cool stuff was kludged together into a solution that doesn't solve any problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yeah. Cause the Nazis got defeated. Regardless, this all started because of some silly "worst tank" question. All I'm saying is that yes the Panther had flaws, but so many other tanks had many more flaws. Thats all I'm saying on this silly discussion. I think this line right here is the key contention. While other tanks had flaws (Placement of ammunition racks on certain marks of the Sherman, low reliability of early T-34s, etc), these flaws often weren't crippling, and were either sorted out by the war's end or made irrelevant. In the Panther's case, its flaws were utterly crippling and ultimately may have cost Germany more than it made back for them. Japan's tanks may have been pitiful, but their quality was also irrelevant-Japan could have been fielding M1 Abrams and the result would have been the same, since tanks weren't really all that useful for the type of war they were fighting. For Germany, tank design and production was crucial to their war effort, and instead of designing a vehicle that could get the most out of their limited material and logistical resources, they instead made a tank that proved to be a massive logistical strain while only possessing good, but not great, combat capabilities. And unlike the Tiger or the King Tiger, which at least were intended to be low-production specialty vehicles, Germany's intent was to make the Panther their primary tank, replacing the highly reliable and still decently effective Panzer IV entirely. Did Germany need something more powerful than the Panzer IV? Absolutely. Was the Panther the answer? Hell no, and that's what made it such a terrible tank. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:An interesting quote from the Panzer Commision in January, 1945 It's a real pain to properly norm for things like distance traveled. Saint Celestine posted:What would you do then? The Panzer 4 was no longer capable of matching American or Soviet tanks. The Panther, once the issues were ironed out, was not a bad design. Probably make an updated Pz 3 hull with sloped armor and a big turret ring, with a focus on crew efficiency and see how much cheaper than the Pz 4 I can make it rather than getting a bigger design down to that price. If push comes to shove, make sure the crew can fight it right though. Even if optics cost, save pulling them out for the spartan variant for when it's lost and untrained kids are getting shoved into them. The panther gained all that weight and the strategic weakness that came with it for frontal protection from most but not all threats that turns out to be on something like a 60 degree arc off the front if that, which isn't enough to keep the tank safe on the attack. I know Germany builds taller tanks than the Soviets but at least they could build a reasonable spartan Sherman. At least that tank wouldn't have been considered inferior to the Pz IV by Lehr in Normandy, wouldn't outperform the Panther significantly at Arracourt, and wouldn't be as likely to star in such shameful events as an entire Panther column getting wiped out by a single M10. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Probably make an updated Pz 3 hull with sloped armor and a big turret ring, with a focus on crew efficiency and see how much cheaper than the Pz 4 I can make it rather than getting a bigger design down to that price. If push comes to shove, make sure the crew can fight it right though. Even if optics cost, save pulling them out for the spartan variant for when it's lost and untrained kids are getting shoved into them. The panther gained all that weight and the strategic weakness that came with it for frontal protection from most but not all threats that turns out to be on something like a 60 degree arc off the front if that, which isn't enough to keep the tank safe on the attack. I know Germany builds taller tanks than the Soviets but at least they could build a reasonable spartan Sherman. How exactly are you going to fit a larger turret ring on a PzIII ? The ring is already the whole width of the hull, and you can't use an overhanging ring if you plan to use the larger diameter for a gun, else it'll hit the sides of the hull under recoil. Making the whole hull wider means you either have a bunch of awkward empty spaces or you redesign basically everything that goes into it, and it would be a fairly significant weight growth on the whole thing meaning you can't reuse the drivetrain or suspension. At this point it's not a PzIII anymore. Acebuckeye13 posted:I think this line right here is the key contention. While other tanks had flaws (Placement of ammunition racks on certain marks of the Sherman, low reliability of early T-34s, etc), these flaws often weren't crippling, and were either sorted out by the war's end or made irrelevant. In the Panther's case, its flaws were utterly crippling and ultimately may have cost Germany more than it made back for them. Japan's tanks may have been pitiful, but their quality was also irrelevant-Japan could have been fielding M1 Abrams and the result would have been the same, since tanks weren't really all that useful for the type of war they were fighting. For Germany, tank design and production was crucial to their war effort, and instead of designing a vehicle that could get the most out of their limited material and logistical resources, they instead made a tank that proved to be a massive logistical strain while only possessing good, but not great, combat capabilities. And unlike the Tiger or the King Tiger, which at least were intended to be low-production specialty vehicles, Germany's intent was to make the Panther their primary tank, replacing the highly reliable and still decently effective Panzer IV entirely. What then ? What is a magical wondertank that Germany could have produced without any development risks or unforeseen issues that would have been better than the PzIV ? All of the tested platforms were maxed out, so it had to be something significantly new, and any product development program of that magnitude carries risk and developmental issues are inevitable. That's not specific to the Panther or the Germans, it's the same for everyone. The worst part is, the main flaw that people point out about the Panther (That it's rather heavy for what it ultimately is) is a direct result of the Germans going for a fairly conservative and traditional design. It's not like they did not realize that a rear transmission would make the tank more compact, or that diesel engines were safer, but the german industry and designers had experience with gasoline and front drive. Changing this would have required a whole additional learning period, and the need for a better tank was urgent. I'm not trying to pretend the Panther is some wondertank, it's significantly flawed. But most of these flaws are the direct result of the German situation at the time, and would have been little different in another design. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
There were absolutely ridiculous upgrades to the PzI (PzI Ausf. F) and PzII (PzII Ausf J) that gave them a fuckton of armour, doubled the weight, but kept the same armament. Neither program bore any real results, but for some reason both made it into production and to the battlefield. If only these resources were spent on making tanks that actually made sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Gay black Pz.3's now!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There were absolutely ridiculous upgrades to the PzI (PzI Ausf. F) and PzII (PzII Ausf J) that gave them a fuckton of armour, doubled the weight, but kept the same armament. Neither program bore any real results, but for some reason both made it into production and to the battlefield. If only these resources were spent on making tanks that actually made sense. So i guess the various T-34 addon armor projects and the whole Sherman Jumbo thing is just as silly then ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:How exactly are you going to fit a larger turret ring on a PzIII ? The ring is already the whole width of the hull, and you can't use an overhanging ring if you plan to use the larger diameter for a gun, else it'll hit the sides of the hull under recoil. Making the whole hull wider means you either have a bunch of awkward empty spaces or you redesign basically everything that goes into it, and it would be a fairly significant weight growth on the whole thing meaning you can't reuse the drivetrain or suspension. At this point it's not a PzIII anymore. Sorry. 30 ton tank on a suspension like the Pz 3 with a real sized turret ring. And it's a new tank, that's the fundamental assumption, and why it's something other than a Pz IV ausf BBQ and as many StuGs as I can get. Kafouille posted:What then ? What is a magical wondertank that Germany could have produced without any development risks or unforeseen issues that would have been better than the PzIV ? All of the tested platforms were maxed out, so it had to be something significantly new, and any product development program of that magnitude carries risk and developmental issues are inevitable. That's not specific to the Panther or the Germans, it's the same for everyone. The worst part is, the main flaw that people point out about the Panther (That it's rather heavy for what it ultimately is) is a direct result of the Germans going for a fairly conservative and traditional design. It's not like they did not realize that a rear transmission would make the tank more compact, or that diesel engines were safer, but the german industry and designers had experience with gasoline and front drive. Changing this would have required a whole additional learning period, and the need for a better tank was urgent. Right. However those weaknesses mean that the death spiral of increasing size and weight is much more vicious because the front that they have to thicken is that much taller (and wider up top), the engine is heavy, and so on, so it's even more important to walk backwards along it wherever possible without giving up functionality, rather than rushing headlong into heavy tank territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Well the Jumbo worked and the T-34E projects were both shelved after what, a few dozen prototypes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
There's a pretty big difference between the acceptable reliability for a specialist unit and the mainstay of an army, and between what a Sherman and German tank could do. Also there's a lot more leeway in design for the side that has the vast preponderance of the world's ability to feed industrial war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:So i guess the various T-34 addon armor projects and the whole Sherman Jumbo thing is just as silly then ? lol he wasn't exaggerating when he said they doubled the weight. The Pz II was supposed to weigh about 9 tonnes and the Pz II Ausf J weighed 18 tonnes. Power/weight ratio was something less than 8 hp/tonne, substantially worse than the lumberingTiger II. I can't imagine it was good for any of the other components, either. The M4A3E2 Jumbo was overweight by more like 33% (from ~30 tons to ~40 tons), which obviously isn't great but is at least not immediately ridiculous, with power/weight in line with heavy tanks at a bit under 11 hp/ton. It's also designed for an identifiable tactical niche, which was that American tank forces lacked a real heavy tank due to army doctrine and the limitations of transatlantic transport, so they modified an M4 for the purpose of leading assaults on fortifications as the Allies pushed into Germany proper. However well it worked or didn't work, it's actually a stab at a concept that makes logical sense. What exactly are you supposed to do with an AFV that has a 20mm main gun and a top speed under 20 mph, armored perhaps about as well as an ordinary medium tank? What is the tactical role of this thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Sorry. 30 ton tank on a suspension like the Pz 3 with a real sized turret ring. And it's a new tank, that's the fundamental assumption, and why it's something other than a Pz IV ausf BBQ and as many StuGs as I can get.  (Yes, i know those are models, i can't find a real picture to illustrate properly, it's accurate enough for showing this) And a lot of the width difference is down to the turret ring diameter, so it's down to the gun really. And the Germans really did think they needed to upgun, the 75L48 was adequate versus T-34 but had the Soviets added even 10mm to the glacis of the T-34-85 it would have turned ugly very quickly, and they didn't have the luxury of using tungsten for APCR. We can see now that it was mostly uneeded, but that's with the benefit of hindsight, after all the Soviets had gone from BT-7 to T-34 just before the war, there was no reason to think they wouldn't continue. My point is that if you are developing a new tank, with all new drivetrain (The PzIV was a 15 ton tank originally, using it's drivetrain in a 30 ton one would be a way worse weight growth than what the Panther did), in less than 2 years, then you are taking as much risk with reliability and development issues than historically. EvanSchenck posted:lol And yeah, those things ended up pretty ridiculous, but it's not like that was a huge effort. They basically built a Matilda I out of things that were pretty much completely obsolete, realized that was not terribly useful, then stopped and declared the whole type obsolete. As a last ditch effort to make something out of a set of tooling worthwhile before you just scrap the lot it's not an incredibly offensive waste of resources. I mean they built a whole 7 PzII Ausf J. The tactical role was as a scout vehicle IIRC ? It seems nonsensical for a slow vehicle but then again you're not going to see anything by running past it at 70mph. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:And yeah, those things ended up pretty ridiculous, but it's not like that was a huge effort. They basically built a Matilda I out of things that were pretty much completely obsolete, realized that was not terribly useful, then stopped and declared the whole type obsolete. As a last ditch effort to make something out of a set of tooling worthwhile before you just scrap the lot it's not an incredibly offensive waste of resources. I mean they built a whole 7 PzII Ausf J. EE's blog and the other sources I can find just online say 22, not that it makes a big difference from 7. But I think the Matilda I comparison is apt, because the Brits withdrew all of those from combat service in 1940, whereas the Pz II Ausf J went to the line in 1942 and saw combat in Russia for some goddamn reason. It's not misuse of resources on a damaging scale, or anything, but it is a WTF moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
I think the idea was to have something for recon that's about as well armored as one of your tanks, so that if the enemy wants to take it out he has to used a proper antitank weapon and hopefully reveal it's position in the process. Given that finding AT guns is arguably the main job of the armored scouts it makes some sense to have something cheap and not useful otherwise but has a lot of armor, and the 20mm is probably pretty decent at silencing AT emplacements long enough to get the gently caress out. The design concept is still to keep unseen AT guns out, so it's comparable to the Jumbos in that way, it's just that the initial platform had a lot more work to achieve that. It's not terribly sensible in the end but i can see why they tried. Most nations had some fairly ridiculous development programs and it's easy to mock them with hindsight, the German ones just tend to see more actual combat use of the failed ones, probably because they don't exactly have to ship them far, and they were chronically short of pretty much everything with an engine. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Sup, new pages in the milhist thread.. It's two loving pages of tank chat  HEY GAL posted:still not sure why germans didn't stop at The Imperial Free City of One Dude There's actually a punk rock protest party in Germany that calls for "the re-balkanization of Germany"!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:still not sure why germans didn't stop at The Imperial Free City of One Dude There is a word, and it's a very well known too: Kleinstaaterei.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
I personally like tank chat, but the Panther is turning into what F-35 is for Cold War thread... only goons seem more united in making GBS threads on F-35. Could we get something more on the Ru/Romania and the Hungarians? Maybe something about the Turan? Maybe they had some MGs made of magnesium or something? Of course, you could talk about Soviet failures, too. This thread devotes so much time fighting Soviet stereotypes one starts to wonder how Blitzkrieg even happened. Still waiting for BuOrd, too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Something I want to say, because I have been posting a lot about the Panther recently and my initial point is getting lost: I don't actually rate it all that highly, i still think the various Shermans, the Comet and basically everything the Soviets produced after 1941 is a better medium tank than the Panther, for the conditions of the day. I am mostly defending it because the hyperbole around the various German designs gets really ridiculous, and I think it's a pretty reasonable design, for the Germans. Is the T-34 a better design all around ? Yes, very much so. Same for the Sherman. But a lot of the strengths of those tanks is tied up in the supply chain and the factories that produced them. And Germany in 1942 had absolutely zero chance of replicating those factories and production processes. They did not have the expertise to build those factories even if they wanted to, they had no car industry, nobody who actually mass produced vehicles. And even the tank industry was very young, after all Versailles had forbidden them from building it in the '20s like basically everyone else did, and so they had to make a lot of the mistakes everyone had done long ago, in the 5 years before WWII. They invaded France with what was basically their first generation of AFVs, the Panther was the second try at actually building a serious tank, and the T-34 showed them that they had to play some serious catch-up. (The Panzer I and II were stopgaps because of delays in the PzIII and IV, they were developed concurrently, that's why I don't rate them as their own generation, they didn't get to learn from them to build PzIII and PzIV). So yeah, overall it's record is not fantastic, and it's not a very clever design at all. It's overly focused on antitank work, the reliability issues are pretty serious, and it very, very conservative on a whole lot of things. But given the constraints Germany was under at that time, doing better is actually fairly tricky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can't say that and not post a picture of said APC. lol how have i not seen that before
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
The Pz I to IV weren't first generation tanks at all. The loltraktor and neublablaferzug whatever line of totally unique T-35 wannabes were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
The Leicht and Grossetaktors were not production tanks in any way and were built in single digit numbers, I don't think it really counts as having tank production experience. And the Neubaufahrzeug were built in 1935 alongside the Panzers I and II anyway
Kafouille fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Leichtraktor was the most fun I have ever had in World of Tanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:The Leicht and Grossetaktors were not production tanks in any way and were built in single digit numbers, I don't think it really counts as having tank production experience. And the Neubaufahrzeug were built in 1935 alongside the Panzers I and II anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
I think we should gauge the tank goodness/badness on the most important factor only, i.e. the looks here's the definitive top list of sexiest tanks A. WWI tanks: 1. Renault FT 2. Schneider CA 3. Mark IV 4. St. Chamond 5. A7V B. WWII tanks 1. Panther 2. M24 Chaffee 3. Tiger (new turret, old turret was not pretty enough) 4. T34 (hexagonal turrets only!!!!! -85 also got fat and ugly) 5. Somua S35 honourable mention: Matilda II C. after WWII 1. Merkava 2 2. T72 3. Leopard 2A4 4. Stridsvagn 103 5. AMX Leclerc DIShonourable mention: M1 Abrams, more like ugly-rams
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
So how common are working WW2 tanks? I know there's that one last working Tiger that's in all the movies, but are there still a lot of Sherman's? T-34's? I'd assume there are a lot less axis tanks around since most of them exploded in the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:There is a word, and it's a very well known too: Kleinstaaterei. like, a world where Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn-Altenkirchen exists isn't totally devoid of wonder
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
ban tank chat from the military history thread tia
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:I think we should gauge the tank goodness/badness on the most important factor only, i.e. the looks List lacking Crusader, Centurion and T-55. Ban bad tank list from history thread tia On a more serious note: I know very little about fighters, what makes German multiple engine heavy fighters poo poo while making P-38 the poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's a good word, thanks Pan-germanism and all the developments that lead to german nationalism are quite interesting, but I've never found time to read deeper into that. The discussion about nationalism in general. Lots of stuff on the reading list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Pan-germanism and all the developments that lead to german nationalism are quite interesting, but I've never found time to read deeper into that. The discussion about nationalism in general. Lots of stuff on the reading list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:48
|
|