Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Walter_Sobchak

Tank Myths

Recommended Posts

I knew a guy who knew a guy that was the janitor at his middle school who, during World War 2, was a Tiger tank commander. This one time he stood in the turret of his tank, laughing maniacally, while American Sherman tanks futilely bounced shells off the impenetrable KRUPP STAHL. Did I mention that he was laughing maniacally? Yep. He laughed maniacally while his gunner one-shotted every Sherman with ease. That was until the last Sherman treacherously used a ditch to sneak around him and fired a shot into the rear of the Tiger at point blank range, blowing him in half.

...

...

He got better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sherman's 76mm was a reaction to the Panther.

 

And the T-34's 85 mm, and the IS's 122 mm, and the M26, etc. 

 

Seems to be a common line of thought to say that tanks are always direct reactions to other tanks instead of more organic development processes. Not to say reactions to enemy tank technology advancements are not a factor in some of these scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M3 Lee was a bad tank and should never have been made.

The Comet was a good tank, better than the Sherman.

Patton killed/delayed the M26.

The Sherman's 76mm was a reaction to the Panther.

The Christie was rejected by the Army because NIH.

In regards to the Comet, I suppose it depends on which version of the Sherman you are comparing it to.  It has some real advantages over the 75mm armed M4A4s that the British Army was used to.  However, I wouldn't take it over an Easy Eight Sherman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M3 Lee was a bad tank and should never have been made.

The Comet was a good tank, better than the Sherman.

Patton killed/delayed the M26.

The Sherman's 76mm was a reaction to the Panther.

The Christie was rejected by the Army because NIH.

Christie was no tanker (and also kind of a wanker) although he did make a model or two. However; these were all testers (made to scare up investors) and as such had barely any guns, armour or crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie was no tanker (and also kind of a wanker) although he did make a model or two. However; these were all testers (made to scare up investors) and as such had barely any guns, armour or crew.

Is there a particular melody this piece of poetry can be sung to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie was no tanker (and also kind of a wanker) although he did make a model or two. However; these were all testers (made to scare up investors) and as such had barely any guns, armour or crew.

 

A read of Hunnicutt actually paints the Army as super interested in Christie's designs. It's just that by the time they had gotten enough funding for light tank procurement, they moved on to bigger and better things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A read of Hunnicutt actually paints the Army as super interested in Christie's designs. It's just that by the time they had gotten enough funding for light tank procurement, they moved on to bigger and better things.

As I understand it, the Army also got really tired of his refusal to alter his vehicles to meet US Army specifications.  They would say "we really like what you have, but can you add armor and guns?" And he would say yes, then resubmit the same damn vehicle and say he knew best what the army needed.  This did not please the army.  

 

One a somewhat different note, I would like to take this opportunity to make fun of the biography that Christie's son wrote about him, "Steel Steads Christie".  It was a small print affair and now goes for big dollars on the second-hand book market (100+).  I don't own a copy, but I have been able to see it.  I just want to share this one paragraph from the book, it's a delightful bit of insane hyperbole.

 

christie-8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Army also got really tired of his refusal to alter his vehicles to meet US Army specifications.  They would say "we really like what you have, but can you add armor and guns?" And he would say yes, then resubmit the same damn vehicle and say he knew best what the army needed.  This did not please the army.  

 

One a somewhat different note, I would like to take this opportunity to make fun of the biography that Christie's son wrote about him, "Steel Steads Christie".  It was a small print affair and now goes for big dollars on the second-hand book market (100+).  I don't own a copy, but I have been able to see it.  I just want to share this one paragraph from the book, it's a delightful bit of insane hyperbole.

 

christie-8.jpg

 

Britishers owe their thanks to Christie Tanks that enabled the British to defeat the German General Rommel on the Sahara Desert?

 

U WOT M8?

 

%C2%A9%20IWM%20(E%2018972).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some myths about Soviet MBTs. 

  • T-80 performed poorly in 1995 and were easy targets to destroy;
  •  Main reasson of T-64/72/80 ammorack fires and explosions is autoloader;
  •  Soviet composite armor was vastly inferior to any other non-Soviet armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britishers owe their thanks to Christie Tanks that enabled the British to defeat the German General Rommel on the Sahara Desert?

 

U WOT M8?

 

%C2%A9%20IWM%20(E%2018972).jpg

 

Erwin "The Desert Rat" Rommel, no less!

 

 

T-34 was the best tank in WW2

 

This isn't the "facts that are correct" thread, hth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's reasonable arguments for either the T-34 or M4 to be the best tank of WW2. Depends a lot on what variant you're talking about, what environment it's being used in, etc. Then you start arguing about whether the M26 counts, whether the IS-2 counts because it was a heavy tank, some clown brings up assault guns, it ends with everyone in tears.

 

(Saying the Panther or Tiger is best is grounds for getting shivved.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's reasonable arguments for either the T-34 or M4 to be the best tank of WW2. Depends a lot on what variant you're talking about, what environment it's being used in, etc. Then you start arguing about whether the M26 counts, whether the IS-2 counts because it was a heavy tank, some clown brings up assault guns, it ends with everyone in tears.

 

(Saying the Panther or Tiger is best is grounds for getting shivved.)

 

Maus best German heavy tank, never penetrated in combat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A read of Hunnicutt actually paints the Army as super interested in Christie's designs. It's just that by the time they had gotten enough funding for light tank procurement, they moved on to bigger and better things.

Christie's tanks did generate a lot of initial enthusiasm in the combat branches. MG Campbell King thought they could be the main component of the mechanized force, and Infantry Chief MG Stephen Fuqua wanted some as fast breakthrough or flank actions. Cavalry officers were perhaps the most excited. Some biographers claim Patton, who was very enamored with the Christie tanks, may have helped finance Christie, though Patton's son denies this claim. Cavalry MAJ CC Benson was a strong proponent of the Christie tanks in articles in the Infantry and Cavalry Journals: In 1929 he even wrote that Christie's tank should be called the Model 1940 because it was that far advanced. Actual experience with the product, however, was deflating. In 1932 Cavalry MAJ Robert Grow complained about the tanks in use with Detachment for Mechanized Cavalry/Detachment, 1st Cavalry (Mechanized): "On only one day were all four Christies running...I complained bitterly that the Christie was not built as a fighting vehicle but only as a mobile 'cradle for an engine.'"

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  

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By T___A
      This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.
×