|
burexas.irom posted:But what about German WWII tanks though? What were they like? Pieces of poo poo that broke down and were built of brittle metal. Not that that really mattered since the later crews who got the more advanced tanks were untrained and scared of anything bigger than a kübelwagen.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Didn't the German tanks run into problems when they started running into stiffer resistance that the blitzkrieg couldn't circle around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
burexas.irom posted:But what about German WWII tanks though? What were they like? They were fight. SpaceGoatFarts posted:From the Nazi blueprints, duh My Tank is Flight
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
Randaconda posted:Didn't the German tanks run into problems when they started running into stiffer resistance that the blitzkrieg couldn't circle around? They ran into problems when they stopped being able to get good steel, which lead to the armour spalling really badly. They were also over-engineered to a very high degree making field repairs to them very difficult. The big name German tanks like the Tiger, whilst technically very good suffered massively from these issues. Tanks like the Panzer IV was a very successful tank. People love to poo poo on the Tiger for how unreliable it was but for most of it's life it was up against Churchills and M4 Shermans and caused them some really serious problems*. *Source my grandfather was a British tank commander in North Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
They ran into problems when they ran out of oil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
A problem that has plagued all machinery and tin woodsmen since the dawn of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
spog posted:You inspired me to google and there are at least 3 model kits of that craft: The Revell kit is almost certainly a reboxing of one of the Squadron kits, they do that a lot. Squadron are weird; I've bought stuff from them and now every month they send me a catalog which usually contains some bizarre hyper-patriotic U!S!A! poo poo and rather more SS models than the average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:A problem that has plagued all machinery and tin woodsmen since the dawn of time. I was referring to crude oil. The Germans didn't have enough fuel to run all their tanks by the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:They ran into problems when they ran out of oil. Should have taken over the Middle East instead of attacking the USSR. Of course, then the war would maybe have dragged on for a number of more years, so it's for the best Hitler didn't do the smart thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:I was referring to crude oil. The Germans didn't have enough fuel to run all their tanks by the end of the war. This is pretty much where the war was won. The Russian T-34 could be repaired with pretty much anything you found laying around, and you could fuel it with anything that would pour and burn. It was also simple to use so you didn't really have to train the replacement crews. The German tanks where hard to use, hard to maintain, could only use good fuel. By the end of the war they're being crewed by kids who have no idea how to operate such a complicated machine. quote:Should have taken over the Middle East instead of attacking the USSR. That's pretty much what the whole Battle of Stalingrad was over, securing oil fields. That and one of the reasons they went into North Africa Aramoro has a new favorite as of 12:31 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sheckyyoungman/status/1008850582109503489?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Randaconda posted:Should have taken over the Middle East instead of attacking the USSR. They tried that. Iraq joined the Axis for a short period and got steamrolled by the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:They tried that. Iraq joined the Axis for a short period and got steamrolled by the UK. Yeah, but I more meant Hitler sending all those tanks and poo poo he was wasting in Russia down there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Welp I'm no historian, but if video games have taught me anything it's that if they wanted to win they should just GIT GUD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
Brewmaster posted:Welp I'm no historian, but if video games have taught me anything it's that if they wanted to win they should just GIT GUD. If it was a movie they'd just need a training montage
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Brewmaster posted:Welp I'm no historian, but if video games have taught me anything it's that if they wanted to win they should just GIT GUD. Well the main problem there was as thier tank crews died noobs rushed the vehicle spawns and took them all before they could respawn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:They ran into problems when they stopped being able to get good steel, which lead to the armour spalling really badly. They were also over-engineered to a very high degree making field repairs to them very difficult. The big name German tanks like the Tiger, whilst technically very good suffered massively from these issues. Tanks like the Panzer IV was a very successful tank. People love to poo poo on the Tiger for how unreliable it was but for most of it's life it was up against Churchills and M4 Shermans and caused them some really serious problems*. The list of problems the Panther tank had when analyzed by the Allies (the French made reports on captured tanks because they needed to use them until their military could be built back up) is staggeringly awful: * The biggest problem is that even though it was classified as a medium tank because that was the original design intent, the weight ballooned until it was actually a heavy tank in terms of size. They never redesigned the drive system, which meant that the final drive had a tendency to break down and strand the tank after less than 200 kilometers. The Panther never got into the fight as much as it should have because it had to be babied and carried by rail even short distances, lest driving it under its own power cause it to poo poo out its transmission. * The turret rotation speed was tied to the engine speed on some models, so the gunner and driver needed to coordinate to let him actually aim. * The gunner had only a magnified gunsight without an unmagnified sight or vision block to see the outside world. Tests found that it took 20 to 30 seconds of back-and-forth between the gunner and commander to aim at a target once identified because the gunner could only see a tiny portion of the field. * The gun couldn't be rapid fired for more than a few rounds to avoid wearing the barrel out. * The turret rotation system was so weak that gunners were forbidden from attempting to fire on mild slopes, as the gun would rotate down under gravity. * The drive system was so fragile that neutral steering (turning the tracks in opposite directions to spin in place) was forbidden and drivers were cautioned not to shift gears too fast on hills to avoid breaking the transmission. Basically the only way to use the Panther effectively was to transport it by rail as close to the battlefield as possibly, put it in a hidden ambush spot, and point the gun at a pre-determined location that you expect the enemy to come through. Actually trying to use it as a tank was futile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
 Just saw this and it made me laugh quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Basically the only way to use the Panther effectively was to transport it by rail as close to the battlefield as possibly, put it in a hidden ambush spot, and point the gun at a pre-determined location that you expect the enemy to come through. Actually trying to use it as a tank was futile. Which is the one from the movie Fury where it shows up and they're all like, "Uh oh, we're hosed now!" and it's able to take out about half the American tanks on its own before Brad Pitt outsmarts it and blows it up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Which is the one from the movie Fury where it shows up and they're all like, "Uh oh, we're hosed now!" and it's able to take out about half the American tanks on its own before Brad Pitt outsmarts it and blows it up? That's the Tiger. Actually that tank they used is the only running Tiger left in the world and was very carefully borrowed from the Bovington Tank Museum for the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ1SuEr6JFQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
burexas.irom posted:But what about German WWII tanks though? What were they like? Pretty big. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The list of problems the Panther tank had when analyzed by the Allies (the French made reports on captured tanks because they needed to use them until their military could be built back up) is staggeringly awful: Indeed they were so awful they could only destroy hundreds of allied tanks and kill thousands of allied soldiers. Battles are not fought on pencil and paper, there are plenty of battle reports of Panthers blowing up allied tanks with impunity on open battlefields, whilst it was totally useless in the towns and narrow, steep sided roads of France. Saying how bad the Panther was doesn't change the fact the US almost completely hosed up by not upgrading the M4 Sherman which could not penetrate the front of a Panther, at the Battle of the Bulge allies were losing 3 tanks to every German tank destroyed. So yeah the Panther was a deeply flawed design, but in the context of the second world war arms race it was a really key vehicle and a lot of tank design was based around it's existence. Like the Sherman Firefly, the combined efforts of the US and UK armies designed specifically to combat the panther.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
didn't the tank destroyers do most of the work for that? and didn't the fact that the nazis only had like 300 tanks while the americans had like 2500 also skew the "tank destroyed" number crazily?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:didn't the tank destroyers do most of the work for that? and didn't the fact that the nazis only had like 300 tanks while the americans had like 2500 also skew the "tank destroyed" number crazily? Yeah there is some skewing in the fact the allies had loads more tanks to destroy that the Germans, you're looking at 1100 Tanks and Tank Destroyers for the Germans and near 4400 for the allies. But the battle itself caused the allies to really rethink their designs and come up with better strategies. Even though they won the Battle of the Bulge it would have been better to win without losing 900 Shermans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:didn't the tank destroyers do most of the work for that? Oh dear lord no. I want to send you to the milhist thread but TD chat is discouraged even there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Yeah there is some skewing in the fact the allies had loads more tanks to destroy that the Germans, you're looking at 1100 Tanks and Tank Destroyers for the Germans and near 4400 for the allies. But the battle itself caused the allies to really rethink their designs and come up with better strategies. Even though they won the Battle of the Bulge it would have been better to win without losing 900 Shermans. that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Which is the one from the movie Fury where it shows up and they're all like, "Uh oh, we're hosed now!" and it's able to take out about half the American tanks on its own before Brad Pitt outsmarts it and blows it up? If I recall that was a Tiger, which is a different tank. E; f,b
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Saying how bad the Panther was doesn't change the fact the US almost completely hosed up by not upgrading the M4 Sherman which could not penetrate the front of a Panther, at the Battle of the Bulge allies were losing 3 tanks to every German tank destroyed. Tanks were very rarely destroyed by other tanks in WW2. Tanks mainly feared air attack and infantry, the Sherman didn't need to go head to head with Panthers because that situation almost never happened. The Sherman was an excellent design for what it was built for - they were not used primarily to fight other tanks. The Germans in WW2 feared Americans for their artillery and air support, and to a lesser extent infantry-borne anti-tank weapons. The Panther was a specialized machine that was pretty terrible for anything outside its specific purpose, and was mechanically speaking a piece of poo poo. Panthers did not destroy hundreds of tanks or kill thousands of soldiers, and were uncommon sights in general. Stop reading Nazi propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Remember that tanks are not designed to fight other tanks as their primary goal; that would be incredibly wasteful. Tanks are mobile gun platforms to support the infantry by blowing up soldiers in cover, gun emplacements, and occupied buildings or bunkers. They only fight other tanks when they incidentally encounter other tanks on the battlefield. The Panther was a tank designed specifically for fighting other tanks. Even ignoring its mechanical and design issues, it had a lovely HE shell and overly long barrel that had difficulty in urban and heavily forested environments. It wasn't as good as other tanks like Shermans and T-34s at basic tank duties even when it made it onto the battlefield without spewing its own transmission out its rear end. The Nazis were actually really terrible at the grander side of warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Panthers did not destroy hundreds of tanks or kill thousands of soldiers, and were uncommon sights in general. Stop reading Nazi propaganda. They did, its just that hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers in the context of WW2 is basically none.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:They did, its just that hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers in the context of WW2 is basically none. They did not. Panthers were uncommon vehicles in the Wehrmacht, much less common than Panzer IVs or StuGs, and no one was impressed with them at the time. It was a specialized design that was effective in its specific niche, but was on the whole a mediocre to downright awful tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
My tank can beat up your tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
My Tank Is Fight!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:They did not. Panthers were uncommon vehicles in the Wehrmacht, much less common than Panzer IVs or StuGs, and no one was impressed with them at the time. It was a specialized design that was effective in its specific niche, but was on the whole a mediocre to downright awful tank. They built what, 9000 Panzer IV and 11000 Stugs. They were by far their most effective tanks for sure, but they did build 6000 Panthers and they were used extensively. Panthers did destroy allied armour and did cause a specific response from the allies. Namely the t-34-85 and the Sherman Firefly. No one is saying it was some supertank, it was really poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. But it's also wrong to say it had no effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
burexas.irom posted:But what about German WWII tanks though? What were they like? Look at this page. This is your fault. Are you proud?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
SHUT. THE. gently caress. UP. ABOUT. TANKS. SPACE TANKS!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Aramoro posted:They built what, 9000 Panzer IV and 11000 Stugs. They were by far their most effective tanks for sure, but they did build 6000 Panthers and they were used extensively. Panthers did destroy allied armour and did cause a specific response from the allies. Namely the t-34-85 and the Sherman Firefly. No one is saying it was some supertank, it was really poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. But it's also wrong to say it had no effect. The T-34/85 was developed in response to a general increase in armor in German tanks. The Tiger and Panther hit the field, but also Panzer III and IV variants started having additional armor applied. The Sherman Firefly was an attempt to upgun the American-supplied tanks ever since the battles in Africa. The Panther and Tiger by themselves never made an appreciable difference in Allied development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:58
|
|