Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ponasozis

Glorious Tank Thread

Recommended Posts

Post your tank waifu here

my tank waifu is the waifiness that is bob semple

Bob_Semple_Tank_on_a_parade_on_10_March_

Look at its Thicc broadside its tall gun turrets its massive abbs of tractor tracks

Bob Semple stood by his design and even stated "I don’t see anyone else coming up with any better ideas."[

 

Altrough i have a second waifu that is the Ni tank

NI_tank.jpg

Glorious soviet engineering made a tank out from nothing 

only soviet people are so resilent and capable

 The NI tank (/ˈniː/; Russian: Танк НИ tank NI, abbr. На испуг, Na ispug, literally "for fright"), was an improvised Soviet armoured fighting vehicle, based on an STZ-3 agricultural tractor, manufactured in Odessa during the Siege of Odessa.[1]

Literally slapped some metal frames together and stitched any guns they could find to make best tank ever

 

Post your best tanks bois

 

 

 

 

Edited by ponasozis
  • Like 1
  • You need communism 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:19 AM, SteakOnSpear said:

main-qimg-cb8e3671e997631666c0624525593c

 

For me this tank is the best. I mean, just look at it, it's glorious.

the Batmo-Tank

Edited by Derdan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it has to be the Panzer VI tiger II Ausf. B Aka King tiger. For me the most epic tank.

 

Resultado de imagen de panzer tiger B

 

As for pure functionality the Panzer IV is my favourite tank overal.

Resultado de imagen de panzer IV

 

Just imagine being an aussie at tobruk 1942 seeing this guy on the horizon on top of a panzer iv.

 

 

Resultado de imagen de panzer rommel

 

Edited by TheVinylRaider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When your armor can't be penetrated but this thing straight up knocks you out anyway. *Cough 501st Heavy Tank Btln *cough.

 

JS2_unknonw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 5:50 PM, Feanor said:

When your armor can't be penetrated but this thing straight up knocks you out anyway. *Cough 501st Heavy Tank Btln *cough.

 

JS2_unknonw.jpg

The IS-2 was insane tank but i value more the german counterpart as soviets had all the resources in the world to keep improving their stuff. Germans were GOAT in efficency, hell they still are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheVinylRaider said:

The IS-2 was insane tank but i value more the german counterpart as soviets had all the resources in the world to keep improving their stuff. Germans were GOAT in efficency, hell they still are.

 

Quite the opposite. Their insistence on mass-producing complex and mechanically unrealiable tanks such as the Tiger and Tiger II (King Tiger) were a great example of inefficiency. And the continued work on super-heavy tanks like the Maus and Lowe show that this was not an aberration. If they were all about efficiency, they would have produced a more reliable version of the Panther, or a further upgraded Panzer IV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Feanor said:

 

Quite the opposite. Their insistence on mass-producing complex and mechanically unrealiable tanks such as the Tiger and Tiger II (King Tiger) were a great example of inefficiency. And the continued work on super-heavy tanks like the Maus and Lowe show that this was not an aberration. If they were all about efficiency, they would have produced a more reliable version of the Panther, or a further upgraded Panzer IV.

I disagree, they had bad resource distribution but their technology was efficient ashell. Germans needed heavy tanks and king tiger was basically what ur saying an upgraded panzer IV with much more armor i don't see it as an inneficient tank. There was no way Germans could break through more fortified lines without heavy tanks also their enemy kept improving theirs so they had to do the same themselves. And please... there were only 2 prototypes of Maus and they were almost not even produced the Lowe didn't even pass the blueprints so not sure if you got the data correct in ur mind lol. The production of the IV was BY FAR the most extense because as u point out it was the perfect balance between light and heavy tank.

 

 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheVinylRaider said:

I disagree, they had bad resource distribution but their technology was efficient ashell. Germans needed heavy tanks and king tiger was basically what ur saying an upgraded panzer IV with much more armor i don't see it as an inneficient tank. There was no way Germans could break through more fortified lines without heavy tanks also their enemy kept improving theirs so they had to do the same themselves. And please... there were only 2 prototypes of Maus and they were almost not even produced the Lowe didn't even pass the blueprints so not sure if you got the data correct in ur mind lol. The production of the IV was BY FAR the most extense because as u point out it was the perfect balance between light and heavy tank.

 

 

 

Other than your opinion, what do you have to back this up? The Tiger and Tiger II were both notorious for poor mechanical reliability. This is a basic fact. If you don't believe me, read some accounts of the Tiger and Tiger II in service. Its transmission was especially poor. The same goes for the Panther. By the time these tanks went into production, the Germans were not busy breaking through fortified lines, they were desperately fighting for survival. Not to mention that these tanks were not properly optimized for breaking through fortified lines anyway. They were traditional heavy tanks, not heavy assault guns, or something like the KV-2 (a tank actually designed for breaking through fortified lines, look at the type of gun it uses). As for the "data correct in ur mind lol", I was showing you the direction that German tank design philosophy was headed in. After the PzKpfw IV they basically did not produce another medium tank. Some historians class the Panther as a medium tank, but even if you accept this, it's the heaviest medium tank of the war, and suffered from similar reliability issues. 

 

As to stating that the Tiger is "basically what ur saying an upgraded panzer IV with much more armor"... are you high? Or just incredibly stupid? Take a look at the designs side by side. Other than both being German WWII tanks with a roughly similar-ish layout, in what world is one an upgrade of the other? Different turret, different chassis, different gun, different engine... It's like saying that a Honda Civic is an upgraded Ford Model T. Just with a more modern design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Feanor said:

 

Other than your opinion, what do you have to back this up? The Tiger and Tiger II were both notorious for poor mechanical reliability. This is a basic fact. If you don't believe me, read some accounts of the Tiger and Tiger II in service. Its transmission was especially poor. The same goes for the Panther. By the time these tanks went into production, the Germans were not busy breaking through fortified lines, they were desperately fighting for survival. Not to mention that these tanks were not properly optimized for breaking through fortified lines anyway. They were traditional heavy tanks, not heavy assault guns, or something like the KV-2 (a tank actually designed for breaking through fortified lines, look at the type of gun it uses). As for the "data correct in ur mind lol", I was showing you the direction that German tank design philosophy was headed in. After the PzKpfw IV they basically did not produce another medium tank. Some historians class the Panther as a medium tank, but even if you accept this, it's the heaviest medium tank of the war, and suffered from similar reliability issues. 

 

As to stating that the Tiger is "basically what ur saying an upgraded panzer IV with much more armor"... are you high? Or just incredibly stupid? Take a look at the designs side by side. Other than both being German WWII tanks with a roughly similar-ish layout, in what world is one an upgrade of the other? Different turret, different chassis, different gun, different engine... It's like saying that a Honda Civic is an upgraded Ford Model T. Just with a more modern design.

Literally a tank that was never registered to have their front armor pierced in combat during the whole war. Sure you can make the case they could deviate more resources to more medium tanks (they would have lost the war either way). KT inflicted literal fear on the enemy that is well documented and it played a role on its effectiveness. The registered ratios of panzer battalions that used KT was above 1:10.

 

You are making an invalid comparison, first of all toyota and honda are different companies so at least name me different models of the same company if you're gonna make shit comparison make it correctly. Second i ment it was an updated panzer IV like panzer IV was a continuation of panzer II a very light tank compared to IV obviously they kept reinforcing and improving their armor as they updated panzer models and obviously you will need to change chasis and stuff if you wanna add weight to the vehicle, but its essencially on the same family line of all panzerkampfwagens.

Ty for calling me idiot and disliking post. Diplo hospitality ftw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 11:41 AM, TheVinylRaider said:

Literally a tank that was never registered to have their front armor pierced in combat during the whole war. Sure you can make the case they could deviate more resources to more medium tanks (they would have lost the war either way). KT inflicted literal fear on the enemy that is well documented and it played a role on its effectiveness. The registered ratios of panzer battalions that used KT was above 1:10.

 

You are making an invalid comparison, first of all toyota and honda are different companies so at least name me different models of the same company if you're gonna make shit comparison make it correctly. Second i ment it was an updated panzer IV like panzer IV was a continuation of panzer II a very light tank compared to IV obviously they kept reinforcing and improving their armor as they updated panzer models and obviously you will need to change chasis and stuff if you wanna add weight to the vehicle, but its essencially on the same family line of all panzerkampfwagens.

Ty for calling me idiot and disliking post. Diplo hospitality ftw.

 

And yet it was taken out by concussive force with few issues. As for kill ratios, these numbers are fuzzy to put it mildly... and again you are ignoring their glaring issues. Look at the attempts to use the Tigers in combat around Leningrad, in their primary role; breaking open Soviet defenses. They failed miserably, and even lost a vehicle to the Soviets (captured mostly intact). The only thing it was good for was stopping abortive Soviet frontal attacks in favorable terrain.

 

As for kill counts, the Germans did a very poor job of estimating tank losses. They counted any Soviet tank that was out of action for any reason as a "kill" including tanks immobilized in terrain. Meanwhile for their own losses they only counted tanks that were destroyed beyond repair. The SS in particular loved to claim ridiculous kill ratios with little substance.

 

On the subject of penetration: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html

 

Their operational rates, in the good times hovered around the 70% mark, and this was relatively rare.

 

Panzer IV and Panzer II are differen tanks. And the Tiger was explicitly not a continuation of the Panzer IV line, but instead a new design. On the subject of "obviously you will need to change chasis and stuff"... do you know what a chassis is? If you've changed the engine, hull, chassis, gun, and turret how on earth is it an upgrade of the previous tank? What's left? The radios?

 

You're talking nonsense. It's why I disliked your post. Between poor spelling and obvious ignorance of basic facts, perhaps you're not stupid. Perhaps just very poorly educated.

 

TL;DR Tigers were impressive feats, technologically speaking, but a poor choice of tank to focus on. The King Tiger has an undeserved reputation for being awesome, but that has little to do with its actual battlefield performance and everything to do with wargaming and the romanticization of tank duels. As if the primary purpose of tanks is killing other tanks...

 

EDIT: There are few things more diplo then getting insulted in an argument about WWII tanks.

 

EDIT2: Here's a great piece of the first use of the Tiger II on the Eastern Front, at Ogledow. Note the outcome even against T-34-76s, nevermind the JS-2s. Real war isn't about pretty tank duels against the front arc.

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/07/king-tigers-at-ogledow.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...