toy win;t know if challenger IIhas a weak spot or not until they fight-on a battlefield where the Abrams haven't already killed the significant opposition.
@rigamarrow most of what the abrams has faced has been t-72 or older but as the leapord II, Leclerk,merkava,challenger II are all allied tanks however without good crews it would not matter what tank you had a well trained crew can make a verry large diference. the crew survivability on the abrams is verry high however in iraq one was knocked out by Ied caught fire and the driver was still alive when the tank was reteived after the battle ended in 03
Rudolf Diesel was thrown off a ferry by German snitchers to prevent him giving away his invention abroad.Other suspicious cases are Gottlieb Daimler who died after they had tried without success to throw him out of his own company.His widow was forced to remain silent with threats to start a smear campaign.There are many other suspicious deaths like Paul Drude.Or Fritz Haber who invented the ammonia synthesis.He died in 1934 before he could leave Germany to avoid persecution as a jew
@wwwtotalitaerde Please excuse his mental illness. Martin Bott (wwwtotalitaerde) is suffering from a psychosis that makes him believe the government is after him, controlling minds everywhere etc. >_> His allegedly murdered brother even went to court against him because he didn’t want him to use his name for that nonsense. Now he sticks to defaming my country in Youtube videos. He’s a madman and wants to make his shitty conspiracy-homepage look important, nothing else.
@TalonMercenary The gun of the Jagdpanther and the KingTiger was the same. The KWK42 I guess with 88mm. The panther had the 75 mm gun , but its muzzle velocity was higher than the 88 ones.
@adiratus The assult gun like the jagdpanther would have to be used in offensive operations since it has no turret to rotate it wouldnt be able to fight dug in hull down because it couldnt rotate its gun that way. I do enjoy seeing the ww2 german armor though. The swed S tank didnt have a turrent ether i beleve there out of production now. I liked how low it was in siloette compared to a tank with a turret
@sass225 Actually the self-propelled AT was most useful in defence. And if you knew, such aces as Wittman suggested to turn whole tank to the enemy, as face him with the thickest frontal armor than simply turn the turret. The 88mm KwK 43 gun (same as used in konigstiger) was capable of striking down every allied tank from more than 2km (the record was something like 4km, the effective gun range of today!), while most of allied tanks had to come to at least 1km distance.
@Shchetchynianin I am aware of Wittman what I was refering to was that you would have to be free to manuver a fixed dug in postion wouldnt work but then the tank shines best in manuver warfare which is why i dont like the german king tiger it was to slow and basicly a pillbox that could move but to big to use any bridges other than railroad ones
Ur seriouslly mistaken about the King Tiger`s mobility mate...the KT beeing slow is just a myth without a shread of truth in it. In fact the KingTiger was faster and more mobile than the Panzer 4 , slightlly slower offroad than the Panther , but with higher range and faster than it on road , and to compare it with allied tanks...it was faster on rough terrain than the Sherman .
@Cosmin1511 perhaps I like the wide tracks the T-34 had. I also know that the use of sloped armor vs flat plate allowes the tank to be lighter and have same protection. If the Germans had addiquate fuel stocks they would have made it farther in the buldge
@Cosmin1511 Please state sources for this nonsense. The Panther ran at 34 mph while the KT could only get to about 23 mph. The Sherman ran circles around the KT both on and off road. Where do you get this?
Tiger 2 : Top Speed - 41.5km/h , Avg sustained road speed - 38 km/h , avg sus. Cross-country spd - 18-20 km/h , road/cross-country range - 170km/120 km , smallest turn radius - 2.08m
Panther Ausf G :
Top Spd : 45.7 km/h , Avg Sust Road spg - 30-35km/h , Avg Sus Cross-country spd:20 km/h , road/off-road range - 200km/100 km , smallest turning radius - 4.7 m.
Sourse - Jentz, Thomas L. ;
I can provide u with other interesting "nonsense" if you want mate .
About the Sherman ... do you have any idea what ground pressure the Sherman had ? The Tiger 2 had 1.03 km/square cm with the combat tracks on, which was WAY LOWER than the Sherman`s....
To put it in plain english the TIger 2 had a much better floatability ,which allowed it NOT to sink in soft terrain and travel much faster despite its twice the weight .
All the bad things about the Tiger 1 &2 mobility are just stupid myths mate , nothing more .
@Cosmin1511 dude thats what they sad of the KT in videogame, that tank was only nice on paper, on the field it was a total disaster.Already the tiger had engine problems but it wasnt a real problem, but in the Kt it got a problem, it was to heavy, to big . The engine had a hard time moving that 60 tons tank. And it run fast out of full. It also had problem corssing briges that tank was or to heavy for the brige or the brige wasnt big enougt for it. It also was a easy target for air planes
Sadly though games get their info from many outdated source that contain, even on the military channel or the history channel they constantly keep repeating these mistakes.
Even experts like mr. Atwater keeps repeating old myths and mistakes.
And that is the picture that old myths and lies want to portray.
From books we actually find out that it was nowhere near as awfull as was once claimed, Cosmin and I we stick to books and mainly those produced by the biggest experts on tiger tanks, mr Jentz amongst others.
The Tiger II despite it's weight and engine still had a good speed both on and off road, very manouverable, low ground pressure.
The two most spread myths about the KT were related to its mobility and reliability . Fact is the KT was quite mobile ... and to adress the reliability issue , the fact was the KT was as reliable as Germanys most "reliable" regarded tank ...the Panzer 4. The % of KT operational on both the W and E front in various stages of the war show that the % of KT available for operational service was equal to the % of Panzer 4s availalble for combat . The statistics dont lie mate.
Best well known and respected specialist on Tiger tanks is Thomas Jentz . If ur interested in the subject look for his books like " Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics " or "Germany's Tiger Tanks: VK45.02 to TIGER II Design, Production & Modifications"... also there is Christopher Wilbeck - "Sledgehammers: Tiger tank battalions " or Walter Spielberger& Hilary Doyle -"Tigers I and II and their Variants "
@Cosmin1511 This might not be exactly a "Tiger I" book but also recommended is Germany's JAGDTIGER - The Most Powerful Armoured Fighting Vehicle of World War Two Technical History by Andrew Devey. I haven't read much of the book but the photos and techinical drawings of the Jagdtiger are just spectacular - considering it was a late-war 70 tonne behemoth that wasn't able to make good account of it self :(
@Cosmin1511 Yes the power to ground pressure of the Tiger Ausf B was surprisingly good at 15.2lb/sq inch - only abit higher than the Sherman A3 at 14.3lb/sq inch! Only problem was Tiger Ausf B again while its mobility wasn't as bad as people percieve it was it nonetheless was tricky for enough drivers/crews to get it going at all times. At least the Kubinka tests were just full of propaganda YET the Western Allies were amazed and shocked by how damned durable the armor was!
"Dude " ...ur mistakeing me for one of your mates who play videogames with tanks ... and its not the case . Read some literature about ww2 , since you clearlly have no clue about the topic ... not to mention that the user " 0341MarineInfantry" who asked me the question that i replyed to wanted me to provide him with a source...which i did ... and clearlly you didnt recognize it . get a clue.
Mate...the KingTiger was a good tank ... the downside of this tank was that it required a LOT of maintanance from an experienced crew...specially drivers , which Germany was lacking in the later part of ww2. Sure the points you made about the disatvantages of its weight are pertinent ...but those arguments lay at the foundation of the many myths and legends about the King Tiger that simply arent true .
The good thing was that The germans were very good organizers , and kept good records about many of issues in their army .
Modern authors...that had acces to those records, that until recentlly were classified , wrote entire books on the subject...in this particular case the KingTiger , recording many of the Parameters of the tank ... and ofc contradicted many of the so called myths surounding this tank .
@giuseppeRraimondo While Jentz is a good author for reference reading, another good reference is Tanks of the World by David Miller - not a huge lenghty book but provides good summary of technical details of WWI and WWII tanks - esp the Tiger Ausf B and the Tiger I - the book states the Tigers were reasonably compact tanks and in terms of suspension they had fine damned suspension that allowed smooth rides...
@0341MarineInfantry do you know if the S-tank from the 8os could also do this I studied AFV once but the American M-60MBT only one I ever road in. Always wanted chance to see leapordII and ChallengerII Tanks. Someone told me the Lecerk tank was an improvment on the abrams but I admit that Im baised against French Armor and sceptical of how good it may be.
Mmmhhh ... what a nice ''outfit'' !!! ''Jagdpanther'' is for sure the finest looking WW2 armor vehicle , there's no doubt about it ! Thx mate for sharing with us this lovely video :)
@ToonandBBfan Yes - the 88mm kwk 36 was nasty on the Tiger I but with the advent of the PaK43/41 or the kwk 43 on the Nashorn, Bengal Tiger, Elefant and Jagdpanther - that just made it a WWII nightmare on the battlefield - particularly on the defensive.
redreaper2020 Ah I can see about the armor then. But regardelss it is obvious both tanks were a danger to the infantry and thin-skinned vehicles nonetheless in anybattles I take? And it is difficult to stop many a tanks with just a rifle and machine gun. If you've got AT-guns and rockets thats fine but once exposed to the gun...I can't imagine the details :(
@redreaper2020 If you say the T-34 was not as reliable as the books say it is then how does it compare to the Iosef Stalin 2 tank? Lets dismiss gun and armor for now and on durability/reliablity/performance. I reckon the T-34/85 has a chance because it is lighter, faster and cheaper to produce. Plus unlike the IS-2 tank the ZiS 53 does not have the hindering of a two piece loading ammunition
@HeirofGojira91 nothing Russian from that era compares. Of any type. The numbers of Sov tanks produced, it's all at a cost--reliability. Everything from that era except trucks and trains was a frantic cost-cut, and consequently totally unreliable.
But when the krauts are at your front gate, it doesn't have to drive far...
@HeirofGojira91 we were engaged in wars mostly in the desert or europe when the Sherman really came about. Long spaces of land, lots of movement. The Soviets were driving tanks out of factories directly into combat. A lifespan of several months, even years, for a Sherman, versus 2-3 days for a Russian tank (plus an industrial base only crippled by demand, not war). The soviets won by making what they needed, and only that--and reliability didn't matter.
@redreaper2020 I always looked for durability and abuse-resistance when I'm making a model or just looking for hardware. Thankyou for the kind lesson. I understand much now haha. Indeed America was not severely bombed or damaged as much as most other countries in the war - if you don't count German Saboteurs who got caught in Florida and the famoust Japanese paper bombs over Texas and Japanese torpedoes off California. But I thought in 1944-45 Russian supply outstripped demand? :)
@HeirofGojira91 It may have. They were still producing the same as before, though, since they thought they'd finish Germany and hit France, Allies would be tied down in an invasion of Japan. The Sovs thought we'd attack, so they'd preempt us (Stalin was a huge admirer of Patton, oddly enough), and unlike the Germans, we had massive numbers and could crank them out far faster than even the Soviets (we built around the same amount in WW2, in half the time, while half of production went to ships)
@HeirofGojira91 America had the benefits of a well-organized industry, huge resources, and was untouched by the war. It produced from maybe 43-45 almost as as many tanks as Russia, when half of its production resources went to ships. If Japan had not invaded, it's easy to reason we could have made more tanks than Russia, and our main tank would have been the Pershing by 1946 (which, in Korea, totally outclassed the T-34/85. The shells went totally through at all angles, and 85s bounced off.)
You do relise the t-34 by the end of 1942 was already outclassed by the tiger, panther, and so forth ? The only good thing the t-34 had was early in 1940 with its sloped armor and late war by its sheer numbers.. Thats it.
@1ownjoo2 Well, T-34 actually wasn't a bad tank later on. It had 90mm LOS front vs the panther's ~120mm, and the T-34/85 had the same performance firepower-wise, in a lower, more compact, and faster chassis. 34/85 vs Panther isn't a true match, but since the Sovs also tacked on a lot of armor on later tanks, you can expect similar armor figures on the front
My original argument was that our medium tank would've been the Pershing & we'd have full industry making tanks. Imagine 80,000 Panthers.
@1ownjoo2 50% of US steel and manufacturing was put aside for ships. The Pershing is about as complicated as a Sherman. You'd have 2x as many Pershings as we had Shermans. Also, we had 50k shermans, and, if you study mass production, you'd know that the more you make of something, the easier it becomes to make. Vertical integration and efficiency analysis comes into play heavily as does standardization. Why the first model T's cost about $20k in today's dollars, but the last ones $3-4k.
@ArchitectDream True. German HE rounds used petn, more sensitive than TNT, tended to detonate when hit. By contrast shermans burned, but the crew often had a chance to get out, even before 'wet stowage' was refitted.
@WaffenSSLegion i know i have a jagdpanther in wot and now that wot came out people are going crazy about tanks i hope when i join the army all m1 armored crew man slots are not taken >:O
@ArchitectDream im willing to accept that im wrong :L i got confused between the two :) fair play and at least ur not totally ignorant unlike many these days
@ArchitectDream There was no armor over the treads. With broken tread, Jagdpanther is toast. HE is effective at breaking treads. German tanks were unbalanced that way: heavy frontal armor, weakness in mobility
@DonMeaker Hah, German Jagd-Panther has weakness in mobility, your a funny one, quit your American flag waving will you? You want mobility issues, how about the Shermans narrow tracks, getting stuck in mud and soft ground, despite the fact that it was a much lighter tank then the Jagd-Panther! I notice that in every site you make disparaging remarks about German WW2 tank technology and push the great qualities of the Sherman tank, the fact is the Sherman was one of the worst tanks of WW2,period
@haiherosner I agree M-4 had narrow treads and higher ground pressure. That narrowness was an advantage in the woods and in cities, and a disadvantage in valleys or on soft fields. To compensate for that US had light tanks to cross soft ground and find suitable ground. US had different types of machinery, while germans tried to make fewer types do all jobs. US and UK also had minefield clearing vehicles, bridge layers. Look up "hobart's funnies.
@DonMeaker Here is a quote from Maj. Gen I.D. White "Sherman's also posessed cross country mobility that was INFERIOR to PANTHER's on ALL SURFACES. Meanwhile it is important to note that the Panther is around 15 tons heavier than the M4." Also a quote from Brig. General J.H. Collier "I saw where some Mark V (PANTHER) tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over 5 inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field, the same day and bogged down" The Panther was superior to M4
@haiherosner I have read ID White's comment before. By contrast, Sherman had superior on road mobility, and 2nd Armored Division roadmarched from its position north of the Bulge to defend the Meuse river bridges. Sherman's Operational mobility was superior to Panther, which is why Panther could never get a significant breakthrough. German 24th Pz reported Sherman could climb hills that Panther couldn't. So each had differing advantages.
@DonMeaker Im not sure where your info is that a panther couldn't climb hills a sherman could, as the panther was far superior in its hill climbing, and trench crossing ability's. The Sherman never won the war. The air force did. If Americans didn't control the skies, they would never have had a chance. Tigers and panthers were taken out by planes, Shermans were scout tanks more or less, and never had a real use against the german tanks other then to blow up.
@spirit774 The info on the Panther couldn't climb hills as well as a M-4 came from German 24th Pz div. The German Army was destroyed(~80%) by the USSR. M-3 was one of the first tanks to have both useful antitank capability AND excellent HE round. M-4 continued that, added stabilized 75mm gun or coax with good chance of hitting on the move. (M-3 had a stabilized 37mm gun and coax.) To counter the 75mm dual purpose gun Germany fielded Heavy tanks, and couldn't produce enough of them.
@haiherosner Jagd Panther had weakness in mobility because of its unreliable final drives, engine, transmission, and suspension. Because of its unreliability, it needed rail movement to build a concentration, or would lose many along the road. By contrast US tanks could use road marches to concentrate on the battlefield, and did.
@DieKampfgurke94 Please note: I mentioned final drives, engine, transmission, engine and suspension, to be specific, the roadwheels broke often. Eventuall y the number of fasteners on the road wheels was doubled, which helped a lot, but didn't completely solve the problem.
@haiherosner Ironically, the crappy sherman would rape the T-34/85 in Korea.
As for mobility--A sherman's worst mobility was on ground. Was mechanically more reliabile than anything else in the war, had bushed tracks with extremely high reliability (even by today's standards) and no clogging or lubing, and while it had narrow tracks, also weighed half as much as a german tank (so the SAME ground pressure). Sherman's tracks traded performance in mud for performance on roads & reliability.
@redreaper2020 YES - the 76mm M1 was surprisingly superior to the T-34/85's ZiS 53 or D5T gun. Furthermore the Sherman had a pretty good rotating turret and I'm guessing good gun optics as Russian tanks were noted to have somewhat poor optic equiptment.
@HeirofGojira91 T-34 really didn't have sights at all. Meanwhile the Sherman had the first mass-produced gyrostabilization system. Even the centurion vs the T-55, you see the same thing--sights are the tiebreaker between similar tanks.
Besides, T-34s had godawful reliability. War models had a lifespan of 250km before a total driveline replacement. A sherman went 3,000km before just a track change. Then again, T-34 in combat lasted an average of 2 1/2 days.
@redreaper2020 And training - Allied Tank crews were few in reaching the status of Michael Wittmann, Bobby Woll, Otto Carius but with the T-34's I hear some crews had only 3 days of crash driving training before being carted off to battle in masses...And with your comment on the Sherman yes indeed - the Sherman in Korea was the late war upgrade w' the 76mm and the HVSS Easy 8 Configuration (I actually like the Easy 8 Sherman haha).What about Armor? T-34/85 -> 90mm yet Sherman 60-70mm?
The frontal armor of the T-34 versus the Sherman is very similar.
T-34: 45mm@60degrees, 90mm LOS
M-4: 51mm@56degrees, 91.2mm LOS
Sherman was a tiny bit thicker and less dependent on slope. They're essentially identical, minus the superiority of American steel to Russian. As well, the Sherman had, obviously, massively improved sights and reliability. The single failure was, though, that its side armor was ~42mm, and vertical. from the front that's ok, but broadside...deathtrap
@redreaper2020 Umhhh, The Sherman did not have the same ground pressure as the Panther tank, the Panthers ground pressure is 150 MMP, the Sherman's ground pressure is 280MMP, even though the Sherman weighed less than the Panther, it would still get stuck in soft ground or mud, in comparison to the Panther. The Panther's extra wide tracks would distribute the weight more evenly and float on mud and soft ground, whereas the Sherman would sink in mud. Even the Tiger 1 tank ground pressure=230MMP
@redreaper2020 Source: D. Rowland, "A REVIEW OF VEHICLE DESIGN FOR SOFT GROUND PERFORMANCE", these facts are well known to armour engineers and enthusiasts, and to military acadamies. Despite the fact that the Sherman only weighed 28-32 tons, it's narrow tracks caused a very high ground pressure of 280 MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure), thus causing it to get stuck in soft open terrain, whereas the Panther's extra wide combat tracks "borrowed" idea from the Russian T-34, had only 150 MMP,far superior
@redreaper2020 Cont part 2...Here is a quote from Maj. Gen I.D. White "Sherman's also posessed cross country mobility that was INFERIOR to PANTHER's on ALL SURFACES. Meanwhile it is important to note that the Panther is around 15 tons heavier than the M4." Also a quote from Brig. General J.H. Collier "I saw where some Mark V (PANTHER) tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over 5 inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field, the same day and bogged down"
@redreaper2020 When tracked vehicles traverse soft ground, the pressure under the track rises and falls as the bogie wheels of the track run over the track itself, as in effect a tracked vehicle is a continuous track-laying device. The average of the peaks of ground pressure, the MMP, is determined by factors such as vehicle weight, track width, track pitch, and the number and size of bogie wheels, with the lower the MMP the better. To be continued....
@hailherrosner not to be continued. To be silenced, hopefully. Maybe to be ignored.
The difference in pressure is miniscule under the track, but far higher where the wheels touch the track (on the inside of the track). German shortages in rubber necessitated the design, and was why they had all-steel tracks even late in the war (all steel lubricated track clogs up with dirt, creating higher resistance compared to rubber-bushed track. It's also heavier and inherently less efficient).
@hailherrosner Also, Germany had the problem of independent wheel suspension. Interconnected designs were popular because they lowered individual point track loading by their lever-like action--load on one wheel was displaced to the other, to minimize track wear. This is very important when tracks of those days were very fragile. The connector and pin system of German tanks was used later by the Russians, which, due to its ridged surface, works great in mud but wears out fast due to friction.
@hailherrosner howEVER, this design has two serious flaws. one, it wastes a lot of energy from the engine trying to pull around a heavy chain, whereas American tracks were bushed and live track--about 30% less resistance to the engine. Second, while it tends to "dig" in mud, on asphalt it will tear up roads and, in the process, tear itself up. The tracks have small connectors which mean if they're not actually digging into ground, they have very HIGH ground pressure.
@hailherrosner the American designs used live track with attachable pads instead, with a lot of rubber insulating every contact point. This created far less wear (about 20% as much), their suspension was easier to fix and lighter loading on the track itself. VVSS was easier to maintain and didn't shed track as easily. But the attachable pads meant that it had fairly universal low ground pressure. And while maybe in mud a Panther might do a tiny bit better, over grass or road the Sherman wins
@hailherrosner if roadwheel layout had a serious effect on ground pressure, bulldozers, with their tiny wheels set up specifically to resist track shedding, would have serious problems. But trying to explain longterm pressure effects on minutely deformable metals to an idiot on youtube like you is like trying to explain rocket science to my cat--I get a few grumbles, but it's pointless. Then again, maybe i have an advantage since I've spent a lot of time working on tracks up close and personal
@redreaper2020 The only idiot on youtube is you mate, try to keep it civil, don't insult my intelligence, I know a litle bit more than your idiotic cat, shit for brains, read both parts of my comment before acting like a typical American asshole! I know what PSI stands for you turd, but guess fucking what? When you have wider combat tracks and more Bogie wheels, that PSI is spread out more evenly Turd Brain, but hey, maybe you seem to know more than the U.S. Army and German Army Turdbrain!!
@hailherrosner you seem to love the phrase "turdbrain", but don't love the fact that it's just a subject where you really aren't capable of understanding things. The tracks themselves greatly even out the pressure. I'm not going to bother explaining this to you. You're just too stupid to get it. I gave you the reason and you just argued, so why should I bother attempting to set you straight?
@redreaper2020 Let me "Set You Straight" Turd, the U.S. army no longer uses HVSS suspension systems that were in the M4 Sherman, they use Torsion Bar suspensions that were used originally in the Panther and Tiger tanks in WW2, the U.S. also uses wider combat tracks, just like in the Panther, they also use a lot more bogie wheels now then before with the Sherman, the bogie wheels are also bigger than were used before in Sherman, are you clueing in yet Genius? Look at Pershing much better than M4
Actually the large bogie wheels are because of the rolling resistance of small tires being higher than large due to greater rpm for the same speed--frictional losses. Smaller wheels make it harder for tracks to be shed, since you can keep more steel guiding the tracks, meaning less slippage. The Sherman also had the same amount of bogie wheels as most tanks now. As for Tbar vs HVSS, that's because Tbars have more travel. The wider tracks accompany more weight too
@redreaper2020 Surprisingly despite the fact that due to less armour Allied tanks were generally smaller and lighter than their opponents, their mobility was somewhat inferior due to suspension and track designs that had high ground pressure. Due to experiences with soft ground in Russia and the adaptation of large diameter overlapping bogie wheel suspension for axle loading and suspension travel concerns, German tanks such as the Mk V Panther and Mk VI Tiger had low MMP’s of 150 and 230.
@hailherrosner You obviously don't understand caterpillar track design. If overlapping roadwheels and large roadwheels worked much for ground pressure you'd see them on earthmoving equipment. Overlapping roadwheels on tanks were for a different reason--lower loading on the track itself, due to Germany's rubber shortage. The only possible advantage for the panther is the low-rubber track/pin/contact design, which makes that mobility difference--but at the cost of 1/5 the track life.
@haiherosner just stop talking. The more you talk, the more retarded you look. This is like going "A tractor trailer has bad gas mileage, and it's a diesel, so diesel must be less efficient than petrol!" or such. You don't get it. Track design is a surprisingly complex and intricate subject.
Tracks are designed around longevity, reliability, and suspension performance. Ground pressure doesn't matter much. We'd attach long connectors to make the psi lower when needed--Germans did it too.
@redreaper2020 = Turd Genius (A Legend IN HIS OWN MIND) LOL, have a nice day!!! You have no clue about tank technology, LOL.. stick to your farm tractors or construction, LOL.
@redreaper2020 Read,"United States Equipment vs German Equipment" by Maj General Isaac D. White,is a report by him to General Eisenhower Supreme Commander European theatre,in March 1945. This book dispels any notion Sherman was a match for the Panther in mobility/armor. Ike said "Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther. Neither in gun power nor in armor is the present Sherman justified in undertaking such a contest"
@hailherrosner first of all, the panther was basically a heavy tank for its day. Twice the size. Second, you're talking about a time when they were desperately trying to push the Pershing into service. Third, it's not going to be a match in power or armor, it's essentially a light cavalry tank!
@redreaper2020 Hint - READ BOOKS!!!! Panther can pivot on the spot to face the enemy frontally, Sherman can't, it needs half a field, Panther can float on mud because it has wide tracks and better suspension and more bogie wheels, therefore low 150 MMP, Sherman can't because of inferior suspension and narrow tracks therefore high 280 MMP, Panther has better gun sight optics by Leitz and far better high velocity gun with a flat trajectory, Sherman has inferior gun with low velocity, blah,blah,..
@hailherrosner get out. I've already told you how you're grossly incorrect. 11.6psi Panther vs 12.3psi Sherman. That's hte ground pressure. Also sherman's turning radius was extremely short, braked diff steering is essentially "stop one track & skid around that point". And the panther never could, in practice, neutral steer, because the final drives would cry for mercy.
YET AGAIN, you prove to make yourself look like an idiotic twat on youtube crapping out whatever you're told. GET OUT
@redreaper2020 The Shermans turning radius was 62 feet, it could not neutral steer on a dime, the Panther could neutral steer on a dime, ie both tracks turning in different directions, and so could the Tiger tank, Yet Again, you prove how incompetent a twat you are on youtube, you know absolutely nothing, A Sherman needs 62 feet to steer around or half a field, a Panther need only it's own space, now whom is the Twat?LOL
@hailherrosner you still are, because 62 feet is blatantly incorrect. Don't pull numbers out of your ass and hope that I won't notice. You can lock the track on a Sherman's braked differential steering and it will turn on "a dime" located in the center of the locked track (under 15 feet) Where you got such an absurd figure, attempting to fire back false information in a vain attempt to look like you know something, i don't know. But get out. Just go. Get. We know you're full of shit.
@redreaper2020 Oh god, please read some books, the turning radius of all Sherman models are between 18.9 meters-19 meters or 62 feet, it could NOT turn on a dime, period. The Panther and Tiger could turn in their own spot or lenght by neutral steer, it is documented fact, twat!! Now your starting to sound really silly and foolish by arguing against historical fact, read "United States Equipment vs German Equipment", unless you seem to know something the U.S. army does not know,LOL!! THE END!!
@hailherrosner You're absolutely absurd. Your argument is full of shit. Braked differential steering is apparently beyond your realm of understanding, but look on youtube and you can watch Shermans turning in very tight radiuses with ease. I don't know how you can argue against something you can just pull up a video of and watch, which is also documented by the simple way it was constructed. That shows true ignorance.
@redreaper2020 comment by Maj Gen Isaac D White "The small turning radius when standing still is a desireable feature of the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks." source "United States Equipment vs German Equipment" march 1945, a report by General White to Eisenhower, Supreme commander of European Theater of Operations. Boy, keep it up, I'll make a fool out of you yet, but hey maybe you seem to know something that the U.S. army does not, LOL!!!
@hailherrosner Pivot steer isn't the same as point steering. There's a difference, yes, but 60+ feet steering is ridiculous. In first gear the tank goes 2-3mph; you can steer under 2 tank lengths easily under 5-10mph.
Also, get out. I'm not going ot keep schooling your dumb ass. This conversation is over.
@redreaper2020 Your funny, the only one here that needs schooling is you, the Shermans turn radius is 62 feet on good solid ground, read "M4 Sherman at War", and "U.S. Equipment vs German Equipment" and many many other serious tank books before acting like a TROLLOLLLOLL, CLASS DISMISSED, good bye dumbass!!!
@redreaper2020 Lesson part 2, read "PANZER TRUPPEN (volume 2) The Complete Guide To The Creation and Combat Employment of German Tank Forces 1943-45" by Thomas L. Jentz, 1996. He clearly mentions that the Sherman Tank has a turn radius of 19 meters or 62 feet, and he is a tank expert. I suggest you call him up and tell him that he's pulling numbers out of his ass, just like you told me. CLASS DISMISSED TROLL!!!
@741Webster Yes, it does matter, because all modern main battle tanks (MBT) are based on the Panther tank, sloping armour, torsion bar suspension system and high velocity long-barrel guns are all standard now on all modern tanks, with all due respect! So you see it does REALLY MATTER, and I DO UNDERSTAND!! :D
@ArchitectDream no his turret was smashed off and he was killed.. and his precious tiger tanks were blown apart by 6 pounder AT guns and a few shermans
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during 5.5 years by the German BND,the former GESTAPO. I recorded more than 100 videotapes which ended up in the legal system. My brother was tortured during 1.5 years despite several legal procedures pending. He was assassinated on July 11th 2009 because of our homepage, linked on my channel, and our book Der Totalitäre Staat. If my homepage disappears,the BND will have assassinated me as well
Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing my parents
Imagine driving to the McDonald's Drive thru in that. "Uhm yeah I'll have a Big Mac-" "Sir, we're going to have to ask you to leave." "What? Why?" "SIR. You have an amored weapon of war in our drive thru!"
the russians were conscripting millions of soldiers and throwing them into fateful and frontal attacks untill they die and then conscript other millions and try out a new stupid plan and hope for success, thats how the weak stuupid russians won
@DonMeaker that junk was dating from the 1930's it was panzer 2's and 1's which proved to be awesomly effective in france but later found themselves out matches so were scrapped. after that the germans dident produce a single piece of junk. if they did. NAME IT
@dividednation44 Certainly Tiger II was junk, unable to get out of its own way. Ferdinand/Elephant was junk from the start, with many germans dying in fire trying to open the breech block to fire a machinegun down the barrel against infantry. In general, german designs were over weight, slow and they never got around to fielding a stabilized gun as all US tanks of wwii had. that meant the germans couldn't hit on the move.
the tiger II is basically a mobile bunker. you dont just hope to do like in the hollywood movies and jump out in the open and shoot a couple bullets from your pistol and expect it to die. it was also usually supported by infantry. not left out in the open! the tiger II was also only built for the porpuse was to defend their homes. not to take the war to the enemy!
@dividednation44 I guess they parked the very few they made by the wrong homes. The infantry positioned to support it had a really rotten job, as US artillery had airburst fuses, and the noise of its poor overburdened engine gave off such a dying scream that it was easy to identify, and the artillery came soon thereafter. As a bunker it was a failure because it cost much more than any reasonable bunker.
@DonMeaker and where is the german artillery? and where is the german luftwaffe? artillery would have a hard time trying to hit a tank, and would most likely fail. the king tiger would survive infantry attacks anyway, with its 180MM armor. your gonna DREAM to destroy one. it scared the shit out of infantry anyways, none would dared attack it. it was the best of the best..... but yes. it costed massively.
@dividednation44 Where is the luftwaffe? that is what many Germans asked. If the planes came at night they were British, if they came in day, American. If you saw no planes at all, that was the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe fail gave birth to Das Deutches Blick, a parody of das Deutches gruss. TigerII was massive fail, with a broken track it was dead. Unable to be recovered, unable to be repaired, unable to be rearmed, moved. It was certainly not an effective tank. Massively expensive roadblock, yes.
@dividednation44 Where is the luftwaffe? that is what many Germans asked. If the planes came at night they were British, if they came in day, American. If you saw no planes at all, that was the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe fail gave birth to Das Deutches Blick, a parody of das Deutches gruss. TigerII was massive fail, with a broken track it was dead. Unable to be recovered, unable to be repaired, unable to be rearmed, moved. It was certainly not an effective tank. Massively expensive roadblock, yes.
@DonMeaker luftwaffe was THE best airforce in WW2 but came in few numbers because they were prohibited by their french oppressors in the treaty of versailles to have an airforce so they started building a new one. unable to be repaired? shut the fuck up. it wasnt a massive fail. oh no it wasnt, its 180MM armor is no a fail. its 88MM gun isnt a fail and its reasonably exellent speed for a heavy tank of 25MPH nearly matched the sherman. so dont corrupt facts and make lies
@dividednation44 Tiger may have had 180mm armor in the front, 0mm armor over the treads. power to weight was about 9. for tiger b compared to 15.8 for Sherman. Your notion of best air force is flat wrong. German had zero heavy bombers. Fighters are fun, bombers make policy. Here's a hint: the best AF in wwii dropped two nuclear bombs.
@dividednation44 Tiger may have had 180mm armor in the front, 0mm armor over the treads. power to weight was about 9. for tiger b compared to 15.8 for Sherman. Your notion of best air force is flat wrong. German had zero heavy bombers. Fighters are fun, bombers make policy. Here's a hint: the best AF in wwii dropped two nuclear bombs. Tiger wasn't a tank, it was an overpriced antitank gun that sometimes transitioned to overpriced pillbox.
@DonMeaker oh yeah? fighters for fun? how about the skyruler FW190 which ruled the skies of WW2 for a year unmatched. and how about the ME264 the first fight jet? and how about the super awesom Arado Ar 234 "blitz" jet bomber? and the HE111 was another good bomber with exellent protection and speed. overpriced pillbox? just shut the fuck up, mechanical failures dont happen 80 times a day. so just shut the fuck up. US has the best AF? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice joke
@dividednation44 And when the US bombers got over a German aircraft fighter factory the Germans lost a thousand aircraft that were not produced as they they tried to put their factory back together. The only reason Tiger mechanical failures didn't happen 80 times a day is because they rarely had 80 tiger IIs that would work on any given day. So, how many bombs did Germany drop on the US in WWII? I make the number as between Zero and the Null set.
@dividednation44 Your rudeness shows your mother failed raising you. Your example of Arado 234 is a curious monster that had no effect on war with its " Barney Fife+1" armament. HE111 is not remotely in same class as B-17, B-24 or B-29. German Air Force was the 4th or 5th best AF in Germany in 1945. When someone else occupied your airfields, you don't really have an AF, do you? even Ju-87 was shot out of the sky early, and with its fail, Germany couldn't win through combined arms.
@benutzer29915022 I will note that US joined war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war. USSR began war as ally of Germany against little Poland. Before US joined, US provided lend lease aid: M-3 and M-4 tanks in the desert, B-24 bombers to GB that permitted long range anti submarine patrols, US destroyers that escorted convoys so British could eat. Soviet Union did indeed destroy most of German Army. US destroyed most of German air force, in the air, on runways, and in factories.
@benutzer29915022 Of course if Hitler hadn't attacked his allies: Attacked Poland which allied with him against Czechoslovakia, attacked USSR which allied with him against Poland.
Of course his attacks against USSR and Poland were also ideologic, and foolish, but you are ok with them.
@DonMeaker US armys greatest "success" was bombing cities and civilists and wasting their own guys as men-material, outnumbering was their only chance because their equipment was even worse then the russians. The IL-2 was way better then every american faggot-plane, and so was the T-34 genius w
The panther and jagdpanther just look so great. Good to see them working as well.
smilo996 1 week ago
god you gotta love the hum of the jagdpanthers engine
TheX534 1 week ago
no top comment at last my chance............boobies XD
coolkid123456100 1 week ago
holy shit, i think i just jizzed my pants after seeing that jagd...
jolorulz 2 weeks ago
@scaeface1995boy130 The Sherman is no where near as "gay" as the T-34
J0hnFr33man 3 weeks ago
the sherman tank was gay and the jagt tiger look it up the sherman qulten had a chance!
scarface1995boy130 3 weeks ago
@scarface1995boy130 @J0hnFr33man tanks cant be gay.
giuseppeRraimondo 3 weeks ago
toy win;t know if challenger IIhas a weak spot or not until they fight-on a battlefield where the Abrams haven't already killed the significant opposition.
rigamarrow 1 month ago
@rigamarrow most of what the abrams has faced has been t-72 or older but as the leapord II, Leclerk,merkava,challenger II are all allied tanks however without good crews it would not matter what tank you had a well trained crew can make a verry large diference. the crew survivability on the abrams is verry high however in iraq one was knocked out by Ied caught fire and the driver was still alive when the tank was reteived after the battle ended in 03
sass225 1 month ago
Rudolf Diesel was thrown off a ferry by German snitchers to prevent him giving away his invention abroad.Other suspicious cases are Gottlieb Daimler who died after they had tried without success to throw him out of his own company.His widow was forced to remain silent with threats to start a smear campaign.There are many other suspicious deaths like Paul Drude.Or Fritz Haber who invented the ammonia synthesis.He died in 1934 before he could leave Germany to avoid persecution as a jew
wwwtotalitaerde 1 month ago
@wwwtotalitaerde Please excuse his mental illness. Martin Bott (wwwtotalitaerde) is suffering from a psychosis that makes him believe the government is after him, controlling minds everywhere etc. >_> His allegedly murdered brother even went to court against him because he didn’t want him to use his name for that nonsense. Now he sticks to defaming my country in Youtube videos. He’s a madman and wants to make his shitty conspiracy-homepage look important, nothing else.
xSuperiorManx 1 month ago
PORN!!!!!
SWEET BEAUTIFUL LEGACY PORN!!!!
Oso1G 1 month ago
sexy
magnvsmarcvs 1 month ago
Jagdtiger had 128mm , the best gun was 88mm used by the tiger tank
AnteCashovina 2 months ago
Look at that barrel! Thanks to the length, the Panther and Jagdpanther had one of the strongest tank guns in ww2
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
@TalonMercenary The gun of the Jagdpanther and the KingTiger was the same. The KWK42 I guess with 88mm. The panther had the 75 mm gun , but its muzzle velocity was higher than the 88 ones.
MadGuyMunich 1 month ago
The Perfect Tank Destroyer of WW 2.
adiratus 2 months ago
@adiratus The assult gun like the jagdpanther would have to be used in offensive operations since it has no turret to rotate it wouldnt be able to fight dug in hull down because it couldnt rotate its gun that way. I do enjoy seeing the ww2 german armor though. The swed S tank didnt have a turrent ether i beleve there out of production now. I liked how low it was in siloette compared to a tank with a turret
sass225 1 month ago
@sass225 Actually the self-propelled AT was most useful in defence. And if you knew, such aces as Wittman suggested to turn whole tank to the enemy, as face him with the thickest frontal armor than simply turn the turret. The 88mm KwK 43 gun (same as used in konigstiger) was capable of striking down every allied tank from more than 2km (the record was something like 4km, the effective gun range of today!), while most of allied tanks had to come to at least 1km distance.
Shchetchynianin 1 month ago
@Shchetchynianin I am aware of Wittman what I was refering to was that you would have to be free to manuver a fixed dug in postion wouldnt work but then the tank shines best in manuver warfare which is why i dont like the german king tiger it was to slow and basicly a pillbox that could move but to big to use any bridges other than railroad ones
sass225 1 month ago
@sass225
Ur seriouslly mistaken about the King Tiger`s mobility mate...the KT beeing slow is just a myth without a shread of truth in it. In fact the KingTiger was faster and more mobile than the Panzer 4 , slightlly slower offroad than the Panther , but with higher range and faster than it on road , and to compare it with allied tanks...it was faster on rough terrain than the Sherman .
Cosmin1511 4 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 perhaps I like the wide tracks the T-34 had. I also know that the use of sloped armor vs flat plate allowes the tank to be lighter and have same protection. If the Germans had addiquate fuel stocks they would have made it farther in the buldge
sass225 4 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 Please state sources for this nonsense. The Panther ran at 34 mph while the KT could only get to about 23 mph. The Sherman ran circles around the KT both on and off road. Where do you get this?
0341MarineInfantry 4 weeks ago
@0341MarineInfantry
Tiger 2 : Top Speed - 41.5km/h , Avg sustained road speed - 38 km/h , avg sus. Cross-country spd - 18-20 km/h , road/cross-country range - 170km/120 km , smallest turn radius - 2.08m
Panther Ausf G :
Top Spd : 45.7 km/h , Avg Sust Road spg - 30-35km/h , Avg Sus Cross-country spd:20 km/h , road/off-road range - 200km/100 km , smallest turning radius - 4.7 m.
Sourse - Jentz, Thomas L. ;
I can provide u with other interesting "nonsense" if you want mate .
Cosmin1511 4 weeks ago
@0341MarineInfantry
About the Sherman ... do you have any idea what ground pressure the Sherman had ? The Tiger 2 had 1.03 km/square cm with the combat tracks on, which was WAY LOWER than the Sherman`s....
To put it in plain english the TIger 2 had a much better floatability ,which allowed it NOT to sink in soft terrain and travel much faster despite its twice the weight .
All the bad things about the Tiger 1 &2 mobility are just stupid myths mate , nothing more .
same sources
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 dude thats what they sad of the KT in videogame, that tank was only nice on paper, on the field it was a total disaster.Already the tiger had engine problems but it wasnt a real problem, but in the Kt it got a problem, it was to heavy, to big . The engine had a hard time moving that 60 tons tank. And it run fast out of full. It also had problem corssing briges that tank was or to heavy for the brige or the brige wasnt big enougt for it. It also was a easy target for air planes
giuseppeRraimondo 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
Sadly though games get their info from many outdated source that contain, even on the military channel or the history channel they constantly keep repeating these mistakes.
Even experts like mr. Atwater keeps repeating old myths and mistakes.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon what i am saying is that the KT is in most of the games very balanced and made to work, not like it really was
giuseppeRraimondo 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
And that is the picture that old myths and lies want to portray.
From books we actually find out that it was nowhere near as awfull as was once claimed, Cosmin and I we stick to books and mainly those produced by the biggest experts on tiger tanks, mr Jentz amongst others.
The Tiger II despite it's weight and engine still had a good speed both on and off road, very manouverable, low ground pressure.
There's a lot of surprises for the Tiger II.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
The two most spread myths about the KT were related to its mobility and reliability . Fact is the KT was quite mobile ... and to adress the reliability issue , the fact was the KT was as reliable as Germanys most "reliable" regarded tank ...the Panzer 4. The % of KT operational on both the W and E front in various stages of the war show that the % of KT available for operational service was equal to the % of Panzer 4s availalble for combat . The statistics dont lie mate.
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 where did you get those statistics?
giuseppeRraimondo 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
Best well known and respected specialist on Tiger tanks is Thomas Jentz . If ur interested in the subject look for his books like " Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics " or "Germany's Tiger Tanks: VK45.02 to TIGER II Design, Production & Modifications"... also there is Christopher Wilbeck - "Sledgehammers: Tiger tank battalions " or Walter Spielberger& Hilary Doyle -"Tigers I and II and their Variants "
etc etc etc
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 This might not be exactly a "Tiger I" book but also recommended is Germany's JAGDTIGER - The Most Powerful Armoured Fighting Vehicle of World War Two Technical History by Andrew Devey. I haven't read much of the book but the photos and techinical drawings of the Jagdtiger are just spectacular - considering it was a late-war 70 tonne behemoth that wasn't able to make good account of it self :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Cosmin1511 Yes the power to ground pressure of the Tiger Ausf B was surprisingly good at 15.2lb/sq inch - only abit higher than the Sherman A3 at 14.3lb/sq inch! Only problem was Tiger Ausf B again while its mobility wasn't as bad as people percieve it was it nonetheless was tricky for enough drivers/crews to get it going at all times. At least the Kubinka tests were just full of propaganda YET the Western Allies were amazed and shocked by how damned durable the armor was!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
"Dude " ...ur mistakeing me for one of your mates who play videogames with tanks ... and its not the case . Read some literature about ww2 , since you clearlly have no clue about the topic ... not to mention that the user " 0341MarineInfantry" who asked me the question that i replyed to wanted me to provide him with a source...which i did ... and clearlly you didnt recognize it . get a clue.
Cheers !
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 sorry for calling you une of my "mates". But its usally were most of the peopel get the idea that the Kt was a good tank.
giuseppeRraimondo 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
Mate...the KingTiger was a good tank ... the downside of this tank was that it required a LOT of maintanance from an experienced crew...specially drivers , which Germany was lacking in the later part of ww2. Sure the points you made about the disatvantages of its weight are pertinent ...but those arguments lay at the foundation of the many myths and legends about the King Tiger that simply arent true .
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo
The good thing was that The germans were very good organizers , and kept good records about many of issues in their army .
Modern authors...that had acces to those records, that until recentlly were classified , wrote entire books on the subject...in this particular case the KingTiger , recording many of the Parameters of the tank ... and ofc contradicted many of the so called myths surounding this tank .
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@giuseppeRraimondo While Jentz is a good author for reference reading, another good reference is Tanks of the World by David Miller - not a huge lenghty book but provides good summary of technical details of WWI and WWII tanks - esp the Tiger Ausf B and the Tiger I - the book states the Tigers were reasonably compact tanks and in terms of suspension they had fine damned suspension that allowed smooth rides...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@sass225 The Jadgpanther was great for the defense and the gun could traverse 11 degrees left and right giving it a good field of fire at its range.
0341MarineInfantry 4 weeks ago
@0341MarineInfantry do you know if the S-tank from the 8os could also do this I studied AFV once but the American M-60MBT only one I ever road in. Always wanted chance to see leapordII and ChallengerII Tanks. Someone told me the Lecerk tank was an improvment on the abrams but I admit that Im baised against French Armor and sceptical of how good it may be.
sass225 4 weeks ago
Mmmhhh ... what a nice ''outfit'' !!! ''Jagdpanther'' is for sure the finest looking WW2 armor vehicle , there's no doubt about it ! Thx mate for sharing with us this lovely video :)
Damir1able 2 months ago
That 88 is a beast of a gun!
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Yes - the 88mm kwk 36 was nasty on the Tiger I but with the advent of the PaK43/41 or the kwk 43 on the Nashorn, Bengal Tiger, Elefant and Jagdpanther - that just made it a WWII nightmare on the battlefield - particularly on the defensive.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
nice jagdpanter still alive!...
mattabiko24 4 months ago
redreaper2020 Ah I can see about the armor then. But regardelss it is obvious both tanks were a danger to the infantry and thin-skinned vehicles nonetheless in anybattles I take? And it is difficult to stop many a tanks with just a rifle and machine gun. If you've got AT-guns and rockets thats fine but once exposed to the gun...I can't imagine the details :(
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 If you say the T-34 was not as reliable as the books say it is then how does it compare to the Iosef Stalin 2 tank? Lets dismiss gun and armor for now and on durability/reliablity/performance. I reckon the T-34/85 has a chance because it is lighter, faster and cheaper to produce. Plus unlike the IS-2 tank the ZiS 53 does not have the hindering of a two piece loading ammunition
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 nothing Russian from that era compares. Of any type. The numbers of Sov tanks produced, it's all at a cost--reliability. Everything from that era except trucks and trains was a frantic cost-cut, and consequently totally unreliable.
But when the krauts are at your front gate, it doesn't have to drive far...
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 we were engaged in wars mostly in the desert or europe when the Sherman really came about. Long spaces of land, lots of movement. The Soviets were driving tanks out of factories directly into combat. A lifespan of several months, even years, for a Sherman, versus 2-3 days for a Russian tank (plus an industrial base only crippled by demand, not war). The soviets won by making what they needed, and only that--and reliability didn't matter.
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 I always looked for durability and abuse-resistance when I'm making a model or just looking for hardware. Thankyou for the kind lesson. I understand much now haha. Indeed America was not severely bombed or damaged as much as most other countries in the war - if you don't count German Saboteurs who got caught in Florida and the famoust Japanese paper bombs over Texas and Japanese torpedoes off California. But I thought in 1944-45 Russian supply outstripped demand? :)
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 It may have. They were still producing the same as before, though, since they thought they'd finish Germany and hit France, Allies would be tied down in an invasion of Japan. The Sovs thought we'd attack, so they'd preempt us (Stalin was a huge admirer of Patton, oddly enough), and unlike the Germans, we had massive numbers and could crank them out far faster than even the Soviets (we built around the same amount in WW2, in half the time, while half of production went to ships)
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 America had the benefits of a well-organized industry, huge resources, and was untouched by the war. It produced from maybe 43-45 almost as as many tanks as Russia, when half of its production resources went to ships. If Japan had not invaded, it's easy to reason we could have made more tanks than Russia, and our main tank would have been the Pershing by 1946 (which, in Korea, totally outclassed the T-34/85. The shells went totally through at all angles, and 85s bounced off.)
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 Ah - Them Liberty Ships eh? Yep 90mm shells naturally superior to the T-34/85
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@redreaper2020
You do relise the t-34 by the end of 1942 was already outclassed by the tiger, panther, and so forth ? The only good thing the t-34 had was early in 1940 with its sloped armor and late war by its sheer numbers.. Thats it.
1ownjoo2 4 months ago
@1ownjoo2 Well, T-34 actually wasn't a bad tank later on. It had 90mm LOS front vs the panther's ~120mm, and the T-34/85 had the same performance firepower-wise, in a lower, more compact, and faster chassis. 34/85 vs Panther isn't a true match, but since the Sovs also tacked on a lot of armor on later tanks, you can expect similar armor figures on the front
My original argument was that our medium tank would've been the Pershing & we'd have full industry making tanks. Imagine 80,000 Panthers.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020
There would never have been 80k pershings, they barely made 30k shermans..
1ownjoo2 4 months ago
@1ownjoo2 50% of US steel and manufacturing was put aside for ships. The Pershing is about as complicated as a Sherman. You'd have 2x as many Pershings as we had Shermans. Also, we had 50k shermans, and, if you study mass production, you'd know that the more you make of something, the easier it becomes to make. Vertical integration and efficiency analysis comes into play heavily as does standardization. Why the first model T's cost about $20k in today's dollars, but the last ones $3-4k.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 No! If you take account of the angle the panther had a frontal armour of ~ 140 mm
dastotalebroetchen 3 months ago
Deutscher Stahl !
MrRedFireIbG 5 months ago
German and Russian tanks best tanks of wo2
Miedies 6 months ago
@ArchitectDream True. German HE rounds used petn, more sensitive than TNT, tended to detonate when hit. By contrast shermans burned, but the crew often had a chance to get out, even before 'wet stowage' was refitted.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
I wish my Jagdpanther in WOT would sound like this one.
WaffenSSLegion 6 months ago 9
@WaffenSSLegion whats wot? :P
killerman19880385 3 months ago
@killerman19880385 World of Tanks
WaffenSSLegion 3 months ago
@WaffenSSLegion i know i have a jagdpanther in wot and now that wot came out people are going crazy about tanks i hope when i join the army all m1 armored crew man slots are not taken >:O
Blueatchley12 3 months ago
It is missing armor skirts. :O
Evangelinger 6 months ago
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangweilig
ThorgalsWalhalla 6 months ago
@ArchitectDream im willing to accept that im wrong :L i got confused between the two :) fair play and at least ur not totally ignorant unlike many these days
ThisNameWasntUs3d 7 months ago
@ArchitectDream No, he got a few tanks, but a division is much more than what Whittmann got.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@ArchitectDream There was no armor over the treads. With broken tread, Jagdpanther is toast. HE is effective at breaking treads. German tanks were unbalanced that way: heavy frontal armor, weakness in mobility
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker a tank that isn't faced is automatically at a disadvantage against another so its really just a tossup as to what it hits after that
tombo4444 7 months ago
@DonMeaker Hah, German Jagd-Panther has weakness in mobility, your a funny one, quit your American flag waving will you? You want mobility issues, how about the Shermans narrow tracks, getting stuck in mud and soft ground, despite the fact that it was a much lighter tank then the Jagd-Panther! I notice that in every site you make disparaging remarks about German WW2 tank technology and push the great qualities of the Sherman tank, the fact is the Sherman was one of the worst tanks of WW2,period
haiherosner 6 months ago 41
@haiherosner I agree M-4 had narrow treads and higher ground pressure. That narrowness was an advantage in the woods and in cities, and a disadvantage in valleys or on soft fields. To compensate for that US had light tanks to cross soft ground and find suitable ground. US had different types of machinery, while germans tried to make fewer types do all jobs. US and UK also had minefield clearing vehicles, bridge layers. Look up "hobart's funnies.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker Here is a quote from Maj. Gen I.D. White "Sherman's also posessed cross country mobility that was INFERIOR to PANTHER's on ALL SURFACES. Meanwhile it is important to note that the Panther is around 15 tons heavier than the M4." Also a quote from Brig. General J.H. Collier "I saw where some Mark V (PANTHER) tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over 5 inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field, the same day and bogged down" The Panther was superior to M4
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner I have read ID White's comment before. By contrast, Sherman had superior on road mobility, and 2nd Armored Division roadmarched from its position north of the Bulge to defend the Meuse river bridges. Sherman's Operational mobility was superior to Panther, which is why Panther could never get a significant breakthrough. German 24th Pz reported Sherman could climb hills that Panther couldn't. So each had differing advantages.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@DonMeaker Im not sure where your info is that a panther couldn't climb hills a sherman could, as the panther was far superior in its hill climbing, and trench crossing ability's. The Sherman never won the war. The air force did. If Americans didn't control the skies, they would never have had a chance. Tigers and panthers were taken out by planes, Shermans were scout tanks more or less, and never had a real use against the german tanks other then to blow up.
spirit774 5 months ago
@spirit774 The info on the Panther couldn't climb hills as well as a M-4 came from German 24th Pz div. The German Army was destroyed(~80%) by the USSR. M-3 was one of the first tanks to have both useful antitank capability AND excellent HE round. M-4 continued that, added stabilized 75mm gun or coax with good chance of hitting on the move. (M-3 had a stabilized 37mm gun and coax.) To counter the 75mm dual purpose gun Germany fielded Heavy tanks, and couldn't produce enough of them.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@haiherosner but before they can run away their are blown to bits
ICanHazCheezeBurger5 5 months ago
@haiherosner Jagd Panther had weakness in mobility because of its unreliable final drives, engine, transmission, and suspension. Because of its unreliability, it needed rail movement to build a concentration, or would lose many along the road. By contrast US tanks could use road marches to concentrate on the battlefield, and did.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@DonMeaker
JagdTIGER had problems with the tracks, but not the panther
DieKampfgurke94 5 months ago
@DieKampfgurke94 Please note: I mentioned final drives, engine, transmission, engine and suspension, to be specific, the roadwheels broke often. Eventuall y the number of fasteners on the road wheels was doubled, which helped a lot, but didn't completely solve the problem.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@haiherosner Ironically, the crappy sherman would rape the T-34/85 in Korea.
As for mobility--A sherman's worst mobility was on ground. Was mechanically more reliabile than anything else in the war, had bushed tracks with extremely high reliability (even by today's standards) and no clogging or lubing, and while it had narrow tracks, also weighed half as much as a german tank (so the SAME ground pressure). Sherman's tracks traded performance in mud for performance on roads & reliability.
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 YES - the 76mm M1 was surprisingly superior to the T-34/85's ZiS 53 or D5T gun. Furthermore the Sherman had a pretty good rotating turret and I'm guessing good gun optics as Russian tanks were noted to have somewhat poor optic equiptment.
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 T-34 really didn't have sights at all. Meanwhile the Sherman had the first mass-produced gyrostabilization system. Even the centurion vs the T-55, you see the same thing--sights are the tiebreaker between similar tanks.
Besides, T-34s had godawful reliability. War models had a lifespan of 250km before a total driveline replacement. A sherman went 3,000km before just a track change. Then again, T-34 in combat lasted an average of 2 1/2 days.
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 And training - Allied Tank crews were few in reaching the status of Michael Wittmann, Bobby Woll, Otto Carius but with the T-34's I hear some crews had only 3 days of crash driving training before being carted off to battle in masses...And with your comment on the Sherman yes indeed - the Sherman in Korea was the late war upgrade w' the 76mm and the HVSS Easy 8 Configuration (I actually like the Easy 8 Sherman haha).What about Armor? T-34/85 -> 90mm yet Sherman 60-70mm?
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
The frontal armor of the T-34 versus the Sherman is very similar.
T-34: 45mm@60degrees, 90mm LOS
M-4: 51mm@56degrees, 91.2mm LOS
Sherman was a tiny bit thicker and less dependent on slope. They're essentially identical, minus the superiority of American steel to Russian. As well, the Sherman had, obviously, massively improved sights and reliability. The single failure was, though, that its side armor was ~42mm, and vertical. from the front that's ok, but broadside...deathtrap
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@redreaper2020 Umhhh, The Sherman did not have the same ground pressure as the Panther tank, the Panthers ground pressure is 150 MMP, the Sherman's ground pressure is 280MMP, even though the Sherman weighed less than the Panther, it would still get stuck in soft ground or mud, in comparison to the Panther. The Panther's extra wide tracks would distribute the weight more evenly and float on mud and soft ground, whereas the Sherman would sink in mud. Even the Tiger 1 tank ground pressure=230MMP
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@hailherrosner Ha, what's your source then?
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Source: D. Rowland, "A REVIEW OF VEHICLE DESIGN FOR SOFT GROUND PERFORMANCE", these facts are well known to armour engineers and enthusiasts, and to military acadamies. Despite the fact that the Sherman only weighed 28-32 tons, it's narrow tracks caused a very high ground pressure of 280 MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure), thus causing it to get stuck in soft open terrain, whereas the Panther's extra wide combat tracks "borrowed" idea from the Russian T-34, had only 150 MMP,far superior
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Cont part 2...Here is a quote from Maj. Gen I.D. White "Sherman's also posessed cross country mobility that was INFERIOR to PANTHER's on ALL SURFACES. Meanwhile it is important to note that the Panther is around 15 tons heavier than the M4." Also a quote from Brig. General J.H. Collier "I saw where some Mark V (PANTHER) tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over 5 inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field, the same day and bogged down"
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@haiherosner actually, the ground pressure difference between the Panther and the Sherman is only 1psi (11.6psi panther vs 12.3psi Sherman).
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 When tracked vehicles traverse soft ground, the pressure under the track rises and falls as the bogie wheels of the track run over the track itself, as in effect a tracked vehicle is a continuous track-laying device. The average of the peaks of ground pressure, the MMP, is determined by factors such as vehicle weight, track width, track pitch, and the number and size of bogie wheels, with the lower the MMP the better. To be continued....
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@hailherrosner not to be continued. To be silenced, hopefully. Maybe to be ignored.
The difference in pressure is miniscule under the track, but far higher where the wheels touch the track (on the inside of the track). German shortages in rubber necessitated the design, and was why they had all-steel tracks even late in the war (all steel lubricated track clogs up with dirt, creating higher resistance compared to rubber-bushed track. It's also heavier and inherently less efficient).
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@hailherrosner Also, Germany had the problem of independent wheel suspension. Interconnected designs were popular because they lowered individual point track loading by their lever-like action--load on one wheel was displaced to the other, to minimize track wear. This is very important when tracks of those days were very fragile. The connector and pin system of German tanks was used later by the Russians, which, due to its ridged surface, works great in mud but wears out fast due to friction.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@hailherrosner howEVER, this design has two serious flaws. one, it wastes a lot of energy from the engine trying to pull around a heavy chain, whereas American tracks were bushed and live track--about 30% less resistance to the engine. Second, while it tends to "dig" in mud, on asphalt it will tear up roads and, in the process, tear itself up. The tracks have small connectors which mean if they're not actually digging into ground, they have very HIGH ground pressure.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@hailherrosner the American designs used live track with attachable pads instead, with a lot of rubber insulating every contact point. This created far less wear (about 20% as much), their suspension was easier to fix and lighter loading on the track itself. VVSS was easier to maintain and didn't shed track as easily. But the attachable pads meant that it had fairly universal low ground pressure. And while maybe in mud a Panther might do a tiny bit better, over grass or road the Sherman wins
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@hailherrosner if roadwheel layout had a serious effect on ground pressure, bulldozers, with their tiny wheels set up specifically to resist track shedding, would have serious problems. But trying to explain longterm pressure effects on minutely deformable metals to an idiot on youtube like you is like trying to explain rocket science to my cat--I get a few grumbles, but it's pointless. Then again, maybe i have an advantage since I've spent a lot of time working on tracks up close and personal
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 The only idiot on youtube is you mate, try to keep it civil, don't insult my intelligence, I know a litle bit more than your idiotic cat, shit for brains, read both parts of my comment before acting like a typical American asshole! I know what PSI stands for you turd, but guess fucking what? When you have wider combat tracks and more Bogie wheels, that PSI is spread out more evenly Turd Brain, but hey, maybe you seem to know more than the U.S. Army and German Army Turdbrain!!
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@hailherrosner you seem to love the phrase "turdbrain", but don't love the fact that it's just a subject where you really aren't capable of understanding things. The tracks themselves greatly even out the pressure. I'm not going to bother explaining this to you. You're just too stupid to get it. I gave you the reason and you just argued, so why should I bother attempting to set you straight?
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Let me "Set You Straight" Turd, the U.S. army no longer uses HVSS suspension systems that were in the M4 Sherman, they use Torsion Bar suspensions that were used originally in the Panther and Tiger tanks in WW2, the U.S. also uses wider combat tracks, just like in the Panther, they also use a lot more bogie wheels now then before with the Sherman, the bogie wheels are also bigger than were used before in Sherman, are you clueing in yet Genius? Look at Pershing much better than M4
hailherrosner 4 months ago 2
@hailherrosner you're funny.
Actually the large bogie wheels are because of the rolling resistance of small tires being higher than large due to greater rpm for the same speed--frictional losses. Smaller wheels make it harder for tracks to be shed, since you can keep more steel guiding the tracks, meaning less slippage. The Sherman also had the same amount of bogie wheels as most tanks now. As for Tbar vs HVSS, that's because Tbars have more travel. The wider tracks accompany more weight too
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Surprisingly despite the fact that due to less armour Allied tanks were generally smaller and lighter than their opponents, their mobility was somewhat inferior due to suspension and track designs that had high ground pressure. Due to experiences with soft ground in Russia and the adaptation of large diameter overlapping bogie wheel suspension for axle loading and suspension travel concerns, German tanks such as the Mk V Panther and Mk VI Tiger had low MMP’s of 150 and 230.
hailherrosner 4 months ago
@hailherrosner You obviously don't understand caterpillar track design. If overlapping roadwheels and large roadwheels worked much for ground pressure you'd see them on earthmoving equipment. Overlapping roadwheels on tanks were for a different reason--lower loading on the track itself, due to Germany's rubber shortage. The only possible advantage for the panther is the low-rubber track/pin/contact design, which makes that mobility difference--but at the cost of 1/5 the track life.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@haiherosner just stop talking. The more you talk, the more retarded you look. This is like going "A tractor trailer has bad gas mileage, and it's a diesel, so diesel must be less efficient than petrol!" or such. You don't get it. Track design is a surprisingly complex and intricate subject.
Tracks are designed around longevity, reliability, and suspension performance. Ground pressure doesn't matter much. We'd attach long connectors to make the psi lower when needed--Germans did it too.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 = Turd Genius (A Legend IN HIS OWN MIND) LOL, have a nice day!!! You have no clue about tank technology, LOL.. stick to your farm tractors or construction, LOL.
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner yeah ok. Have fun in la-la-land.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Read,"United States Equipment vs German Equipment" by Maj General Isaac D. White,is a report by him to General Eisenhower Supreme Commander European theatre,in March 1945. This book dispels any notion Sherman was a match for the Panther in mobility/armor. Ike said "Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther. Neither in gun power nor in armor is the present Sherman justified in undertaking such a contest"
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner first of all, the panther was basically a heavy tank for its day. Twice the size. Second, you're talking about a time when they were desperately trying to push the Pershing into service. Third, it's not going to be a match in power or armor, it's essentially a light cavalry tank!
And fourth, stop bugging me.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 and 5th of all, you don't know shit, LOL
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner keep tellin yourself that.
Get out of here. nobody cares about your shit.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Hint - READ BOOKS!!!! Panther can pivot on the spot to face the enemy frontally, Sherman can't, it needs half a field, Panther can float on mud because it has wide tracks and better suspension and more bogie wheels, therefore low 150 MMP, Sherman can't because of inferior suspension and narrow tracks therefore high 280 MMP, Panther has better gun sight optics by Leitz and far better high velocity gun with a flat trajectory, Sherman has inferior gun with low velocity, blah,blah,..
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner get out. I've already told you how you're grossly incorrect. 11.6psi Panther vs 12.3psi Sherman. That's hte ground pressure. Also sherman's turning radius was extremely short, braked diff steering is essentially "stop one track & skid around that point". And the panther never could, in practice, neutral steer, because the final drives would cry for mercy.
YET AGAIN, you prove to make yourself look like an idiotic twat on youtube crapping out whatever you're told. GET OUT
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 The Shermans turning radius was 62 feet, it could not neutral steer on a dime, the Panther could neutral steer on a dime, ie both tracks turning in different directions, and so could the Tiger tank, Yet Again, you prove how incompetent a twat you are on youtube, you know absolutely nothing, A Sherman needs 62 feet to steer around or half a field, a Panther need only it's own space, now whom is the Twat?LOL
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner you still are, because 62 feet is blatantly incorrect. Don't pull numbers out of your ass and hope that I won't notice. You can lock the track on a Sherman's braked differential steering and it will turn on "a dime" located in the center of the locked track (under 15 feet) Where you got such an absurd figure, attempting to fire back false information in a vain attempt to look like you know something, i don't know. But get out. Just go. Get. We know you're full of shit.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Oh god, please read some books, the turning radius of all Sherman models are between 18.9 meters-19 meters or 62 feet, it could NOT turn on a dime, period. The Panther and Tiger could turn in their own spot or lenght by neutral steer, it is documented fact, twat!! Now your starting to sound really silly and foolish by arguing against historical fact, read "United States Equipment vs German Equipment", unless you seem to know something the U.S. army does not know,LOL!! THE END!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner You're absolutely absurd. Your argument is full of shit. Braked differential steering is apparently beyond your realm of understanding, but look on youtube and you can watch Shermans turning in very tight radiuses with ease. I don't know how you can argue against something you can just pull up a video of and watch, which is also documented by the simple way it was constructed. That shows true ignorance.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 comment by Maj Gen Isaac D White "The small turning radius when standing still is a desireable feature of the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks." source "United States Equipment vs German Equipment" march 1945, a report by General White to Eisenhower, Supreme commander of European Theater of Operations. Boy, keep it up, I'll make a fool out of you yet, but hey maybe you seem to know something that the U.S. army does not, LOL!!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner Pivot steer isn't the same as point steering. There's a difference, yes, but 60+ feet steering is ridiculous. In first gear the tank goes 2-3mph; you can steer under 2 tank lengths easily under 5-10mph.
Also, get out. I'm not going ot keep schooling your dumb ass. This conversation is over.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Your funny, the only one here that needs schooling is you, the Shermans turn radius is 62 feet on good solid ground, read "M4 Sherman at War", and "U.S. Equipment vs German Equipment" and many many other serious tank books before acting like a TROLLOLLLOLL, CLASS DISMISSED, good bye dumbass!!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Lesson part 2, read "PANZER TRUPPEN (volume 2) The Complete Guide To The Creation and Combat Employment of German Tank Forces 1943-45" by Thomas L. Jentz, 1996. He clearly mentions that the Sherman Tank has a turn radius of 19 meters or 62 feet, and he is a tank expert. I suggest you call him up and tell him that he's pulling numbers out of his ass, just like you told me. CLASS DISMISSED TROLL!!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner That information is still wrong. And we're done here. Go away.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 = TROLLL (whom thinks he knows better than tank experts) LOL!!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner nutjob
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 3rd Lesson, source wwIIvehicles site clearly states in the M4 Sherman Specifications 19meter turn radius, END OF LESSON!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner that doesn't say it's right, just says it's popular. IDIOT.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 Whatever Troll!!
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@haiherosner With all due respect but does this really matter?
741Webster 3 months ago
@741Webster HUH? what are you asking?
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner Never mind, you wouldn't understand
741Webster 3 months ago
@741Webster Yes, it does matter, because all modern main battle tanks (MBT) are based on the Panther tank, sloping armour, torsion bar suspension system and high velocity long-barrel guns are all standard now on all modern tanks, with all due respect! So you see it does REALLY MATTER, and I DO UNDERSTAND!! :D
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@hailherrosner I see it has a point in war but why discuss about it on this video? Write a blog or something ? ;p
741Webster 3 months ago
@741Webster don't bother talking to hailherrosner, he's just a retard.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 = Verzögert Arschloch:D
hailherrosner 3 months ago
@ArchitectDream no his turret was smashed off and he was killed.. and his precious tiger tanks were blown apart by 6 pounder AT guns and a few shermans
ThisNameWasntUs3d 7 months ago
@ArchitectDream And he was killed in that engagement by a Sherman Firefly...
ThisNameWasntUs3d 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during 5.5 years by the German BND,the former GESTAPO. I recorded more than 100 videotapes which ended up in the legal system. My brother was tortured during 1.5 years despite several legal procedures pending. He was assassinated on July 11th 2009 because of our homepage, linked on my channel, and our book Der Totalitäre Staat. If my homepage disappears,the BND will have assassinated me as well
Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing my parents
wwwtotalitaerde 7 months ago
Certainly one of the most impressive tank destroyers to fight in the second world war. In many ways it was superior to the German tiger series.
MadMilitiaMen 7 months ago
NICE
hva1967 8 months ago
оооо...це друзья нимцы к бандеровцам приихали....
stas19689889 9 months ago
Imagine driving to the McDonald's Drive thru in that. "Uhm yeah I'll have a Big Mac-" "Sir, we're going to have to ask you to leave." "What? Why?" "SIR. You have an amored weapon of war in our drive thru!"
MegaMumbles 9 months ago
@MegaMumbles Nice imagination! :)
ChoppedLiver44060 6 months ago
germans produced the high quality shit but allies produced shitloads a junk
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 Quantity over quality. That's how the Russians won.
MegaMumbles 9 months ago
@MegaMumbles thats how all the allies won dude
the russians were conscripting millions of soldiers and throwing them into fateful and frontal attacks untill they die and then conscript other millions and try out a new stupid plan and hope for success, thats how the weak stuupid russians won
germans were outnumbered BUT NOT outgunned
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 Germans produced a lot of junk too. It ended up scattered all over europe.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
@DonMeaker that junk was dating from the 1930's it was panzer 2's and 1's which proved to be awesomly effective in france but later found themselves out matches so were scrapped. after that the germans dident produce a single piece of junk. if they did. NAME IT
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 Certainly Tiger II was junk, unable to get out of its own way. Ferdinand/Elephant was junk from the start, with many germans dying in fire trying to open the breech block to fire a machinegun down the barrel against infantry. In general, german designs were over weight, slow and they never got around to fielding a stabilized gun as all US tanks of wwii had. that meant the germans couldn't hit on the move.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
@DonMeaker let me tell you something
the tiger II is basically a mobile bunker. you dont just hope to do like in the hollywood movies and jump out in the open and shoot a couple bullets from your pistol and expect it to die. it was also usually supported by infantry. not left out in the open! the tiger II was also only built for the porpuse was to defend their homes. not to take the war to the enemy!
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 I guess they parked the very few they made by the wrong homes. The infantry positioned to support it had a really rotten job, as US artillery had airburst fuses, and the noise of its poor overburdened engine gave off such a dying scream that it was easy to identify, and the artillery came soon thereafter. As a bunker it was a failure because it cost much more than any reasonable bunker.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
@DonMeaker and where is the german artillery? and where is the german luftwaffe? artillery would have a hard time trying to hit a tank, and would most likely fail. the king tiger would survive infantry attacks anyway, with its 180MM armor. your gonna DREAM to destroy one. it scared the shit out of infantry anyways, none would dared attack it. it was the best of the best..... but yes. it costed massively.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Where is the luftwaffe? that is what many Germans asked. If the planes came at night they were British, if they came in day, American. If you saw no planes at all, that was the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe fail gave birth to Das Deutches Blick, a parody of das Deutches gruss. TigerII was massive fail, with a broken track it was dead. Unable to be recovered, unable to be repaired, unable to be rearmed, moved. It was certainly not an effective tank. Massively expensive roadblock, yes.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Where is the luftwaffe? that is what many Germans asked. If the planes came at night they were British, if they came in day, American. If you saw no planes at all, that was the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe fail gave birth to Das Deutches Blick, a parody of das Deutches gruss. TigerII was massive fail, with a broken track it was dead. Unable to be recovered, unable to be repaired, unable to be rearmed, moved. It was certainly not an effective tank. Massively expensive roadblock, yes.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker luftwaffe was THE best airforce in WW2 but came in few numbers because they were prohibited by their french oppressors in the treaty of versailles to have an airforce so they started building a new one. unable to be repaired? shut the fuck up. it wasnt a massive fail. oh no it wasnt, its 180MM armor is no a fail. its 88MM gun isnt a fail and its reasonably exellent speed for a heavy tank of 25MPH nearly matched the sherman. so dont corrupt facts and make lies
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Tiger may have had 180mm armor in the front, 0mm armor over the treads. power to weight was about 9. for tiger b compared to 15.8 for Sherman. Your notion of best air force is flat wrong. German had zero heavy bombers. Fighters are fun, bombers make policy. Here's a hint: the best AF in wwii dropped two nuclear bombs.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Tiger may have had 180mm armor in the front, 0mm armor over the treads. power to weight was about 9. for tiger b compared to 15.8 for Sherman. Your notion of best air force is flat wrong. German had zero heavy bombers. Fighters are fun, bombers make policy. Here's a hint: the best AF in wwii dropped two nuclear bombs. Tiger wasn't a tank, it was an overpriced antitank gun that sometimes transitioned to overpriced pillbox.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker oh yeah? fighters for fun? how about the skyruler FW190 which ruled the skies of WW2 for a year unmatched. and how about the ME264 the first fight jet? and how about the super awesom Arado Ar 234 "blitz" jet bomber? and the HE111 was another good bomber with exellent protection and speed. overpriced pillbox? just shut the fuck up, mechanical failures dont happen 80 times a day. so just shut the fuck up. US has the best AF? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice joke
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 And when the US bombers got over a German aircraft fighter factory the Germans lost a thousand aircraft that were not produced as they they tried to put their factory back together. The only reason Tiger mechanical failures didn't happen 80 times a day is because they rarely had 80 tiger IIs that would work on any given day. So, how many bombs did Germany drop on the US in WWII? I make the number as between Zero and the Null set.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Your rudeness shows your mother failed raising you. Your example of Arado 234 is a curious monster that had no effect on war with its " Barney Fife+1" armament. HE111 is not remotely in same class as B-17, B-24 or B-29. German Air Force was the 4th or 5th best AF in Germany in 1945. When someone else occupied your airfields, you don't really have an AF, do you? even Ju-87 was shot out of the sky early, and with its fail, Germany couldn't win through combined arms.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker Germany was outnumbered and defeated by economical/political power.
If the Nazi dictature hadn´t wasted the Luftwaffe in the ideologic, foolish attack on the British isles,
USA would never even joined war, because they are the nation which joined the war because Brits and Russians won it for them.
benutzer29915022 8 months ago
@benutzer29915022 I will note that US joined war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war. USSR began war as ally of Germany against little Poland. Before US joined, US provided lend lease aid: M-3 and M-4 tanks in the desert, B-24 bombers to GB that permitted long range anti submarine patrols, US destroyers that escorted convoys so British could eat. Soviet Union did indeed destroy most of German Army. US destroyed most of German air force, in the air, on runways, and in factories.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@benutzer29915022 Of course if Hitler hadn't attacked his allies: Attacked Poland which allied with him against Czechoslovakia, attacked USSR which allied with him against Poland.
Of course his attacks against USSR and Poland were also ideologic, and foolish, but you are ok with them.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker US armys greatest "success" was bombing cities and civilists and wasting their own guys as men-material, outnumbering was their only chance because their equipment was even worse then the russians. The IL-2 was way better then every american faggot-plane, and so was the T-34 genius w