BF2S Forums Best tank in the world !

Katash wrote:

BTW heres a taster of Steel Beasts, the commentary was from a docu on disovery channel but someone replaced the video with in game footage, dont much like playing the M1.

steal beasts?
looks more like armed assault movie to me....

liquix wrote:

For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.

Well you're wrong.

The best tank of the era was the T-34. The best value was the Sherman. The King Tiger was an iconic tank, but of little practical use.

Bertster7 wrote:

liquix wrote:

For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.

Well you're wrong.

The best tank of the era was the T-34. The best value was the Sherman. The King Tiger was an iconic tank, but of little practical use.

Ok, 15 to 1 sherman/tiger was a pretty bad ratio i guess. T34 was a good tank, but it underwent significant modifications before it surpassed the tiger

Bertster7 wrote:

liquix wrote:

For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.

Well you're wrong.

The best tank of the era was the T-34. The best value was the Sherman. The King Tiger was an iconic tank, but of little practical use.

T-34 or T-34/85 varient.

on a different note, i think it would depend on the skill and training of the crew and not the vehicle itself, the vehicle can only go so far. personally i'd say the Merkava Mark IV is the best.

Bertster7 wrote:

liquix wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Well you're wrong.

The best tank of the era was the T-34. The best value was the Sherman. The King Tiger was an iconic tank, but of little practical use.

Ok, 15 to 1 sherman/tiger was a pretty bad ratio i guess. T34 was a good tank, but it underwent significant modifications before it surpassed the tiger

But the Sherman cost so little you could quite happily build 15 for every King Tiger. The T-34 was simply much better.

The King Tiger itself was really a bit rubbish. It was unreliable and underpowered, despite having a great gun. It also cost an extortionate amount. Meaning it was typically vastly outnumbered by the Allies cheap Shermans.

15:1 isn't that great a ratio either - compare that to the 200:0 ratio for the Challenger.

The downfall for the king tiger came from allied air superiority, had we not been able to bomb the living shit out of their factories they would've built the king tiger very well, but when they captured a few and examined them they found that the metal used was very very poor quality. in reality the Panzer VI Ausf. B was a terrible tank, but in theory it would've dominated with the right alloys at the time.

Last edited by seymorebutts443 (2007-07-29 06:24:11)

MAGUIRE93 wrote:

ig wrote:

is this a joke, M1A2 ftw easily

You fucking bumped a year old topic to simply post that

close

ELITE-UK wrote:

This thread should be closed, its nothing but trouble.

this

HurricaИe wrote:

this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … e_tank.jpg

Speaking of WW1 tanks. It was a French tank which set the precedent for all tanks to this day.

The FT 17 was the first tank with an armament in a fully rotating turret, and its configuration with the turret on top, engine in the back and the driver in front became the conventional one, repeated in most tanks until today; at the time it was a revolutionary innovation, causing armour historian Steven Zaloga to describe the type as "the world's first modern tank".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT-17

In service     1917-1945

m3thod wrote:

nerds topic.

booooooooooooring.