steal beasts?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.
looks more like armed assault movie to me....
steal beasts?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.
Well you're wrong.liquix wrote:
For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-07-28 15:00:15)
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 tigerBertster7 wrote:
Well you're wrong.liquix wrote:
For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.
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.
But the Sherman cost so little you could quite happily build 15 for every King Tiger. The T-34 was simply much better.liquix wrote:
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 tigerBertster7 wrote:
Well you're wrong.liquix wrote:
For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.
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.Bertster7 wrote:
Well you're wrong.liquix wrote:
For the time, imho no tank was better than the Königtiger.
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.
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.Bertster7 wrote:
But the Sherman cost so little you could quite happily build 15 for every King Tiger. The T-34 was simply much better.liquix wrote:
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 tigerBertster7 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.
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.
Last edited by seymorebutts443 (2007-07-29 06:24:11)
ig wrote:
is this a joke, M1A2 ftw easily
You fucking bumped a year old topic to simply post thatMAGUIRE93 wrote:
ig wrote:
is this a joke, M1A2 ftw easily
ELITE-UK wrote:
This thread should be closed, its nothing but trouble.
Speaking of WW1 tanks. It was a French tank which set the precedent for all tanks to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT-17The 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]
m3thod wrote:
nerds topic.
booooooooooooring.