Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

"The Story of Tanks"


SuperComrade

Recommended Posts

Now I want to go on Youtube and find the worst comments on tanks and string them together into an e-book. 

 

"this tank(M4) has crappy armor and was cheap."

 

"The Soviets killed German civillians and were acting HORRIBLE!"

 

"They needed more M1A2E2 jumbo Sherman's 76mm gun with 102mm of angled frontal hull armor 136mm rounded turret armor and could reach 49mph summed up same armor as the tiger and pretty much the same gun as the panther while as fast as the Sherman M1A1 and M1A2"

 

"The only way Germany became defeated was numbers alone Now I understand this and other films similar to this tank film were made during the war and the dialog censored so the Americans and British could save face by lies and also to kiss the Russians ass.But there will come a tme when the Americans British and Russian film makers will have to tell the American public and future generations the truth. And that truth is the Germans were never out thought never out classed and never out general ed there is no reason why the Germans should of never lost world war two tell history especially world war 2 history the WY that history should be taught show some courage tell the truth."

 

I'm ready for press. 

 

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even more:

 

American antitank guns were not much better than their tanks. The first “tank destroyers” used in North Africa were World War I– vintage, seventy-five-millimeter cannon mounted on half-tracks, whose quarter-inch armor was vulnerable to everything except small-arms fire. When one of the guns was fired broadside, its recoil often tipped the vehicle over. Harry Semmes, who had miraculously recovered from his head wound in the Argonne and fought under Patton in North Africa, said that in the presence of German tanks, the half-tracks had no alternative but to run like rabbits.
 
How the hell does one fire "broadside" with gun that only has limited traverse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And even more:

 

American antitank guns were not much better than their tanks. The first “tank destroyers” used in North Africa were World War I– vintage, seventy-five-millimeter cannon mounted on half-tracks, whose quarter-inch armor was vulnerable to everything except small-arms fire. When one of the guns was fired broadside, its recoil often tipped the vehicle over. Harry Semmes, who had miraculously recovered from his head wound in the Argonne and fought under Patton in North Africa, said that in the presence of German tanks, the half-tracks had no alternative but to run like rabbits.
 
How the hell does one fire "broadside" with gun that only has limited traverse?

 

 

Someone link him the fake story/images of the KV-VI that "rolled over and exploded after firing a broadside" and replace all references to Stalin with Roosevelt.

 

See results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And even more:

 

American antitank guns were not much better than their tanks. The first “tank destroyers” used in North Africa were World War I– vintage, seventy-five-millimeter cannon mounted on half-tracks, whose quarter-inch armor was vulnerable to everything except small-arms fire. When one of the guns was fired broadside, its recoil often tipped the vehicle over. Harry Semmes, who had miraculously recovered from his head wound in the Argonne and fought under Patton in North Africa, said that in the presence of German tanks, the half-tracks had no alternative but to run like rabbits.
 
How the hell does one fire "broadside" with gun that only has limited traverse?

 

 

Well duh, if you rip the gun from the mount, weld it on perpendicular to the vehicle, and fire, the consequences are dire. It makes perfect sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Holy hell, I bought it and am about a quarter of the way into it.  Its terrible.  I almost wonder if its a parody?  It's like every bad stereotype of US WW2 tanks and Wehraboo wankery all rolled up in a blanket of poor writing and completely false facts.  Lets marvel as just how wrong this paragraph is:

 

Probably no incident in World War II demonstrated the stopping power of a superior tank as graphically as the exploit of Michael Wittmann, the commander of a Tiger tank who encountered a British armored column near Bayeux, France. Attacking alone, Wittmann and his crew knocked out the lead Sherman with his first shot and the last Sherman in the column with his second. Rumbling down the column, he proceeded to destroy nineteen Shermans, fourteen half-tracks, and fourteen Bren gun carriers in five minutes.

 

 

That's not even what happened. The only guy I know of to claim "shot the tank in front, shot the tank in back, shot the trapped tanks in between" was from Ambrose while interviewing a German Colonel who had to "encourage" a flak battery into action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Kindle /E-Books are the new vanity press?

 

Okay who does the guy list as references, and is "4Chan" in that list?

 

There isn't any references but there are wikipedia links strewn about.

 

e.g.

The Grant, basically a light tank, was soon discarded for the medium-weight M-4, or General Sherman, which became the Allies’ workhorse of the war. It, too, was inadequate. Its high, boxy profile made it an easy target, and its short seventy-five-millimeter gun was out ranged a full thousand feet by the German Panther, which the Nazis began producing in 1942 to deal with the Soviet T-34. Further worsening the odds, the Sherman’s gun-stabilization system was so bad that gunners preferred to turn it off and rely on their cross hairs.

...

 

On July 18, 1944, during Operation Goodwood, an attempt to break out of the Normandy beachhead, 1,350 British- and Canadian-manned Shermans were pitted against about 400 German Tiger and Panther tanks near Caen. “Almost in one minute,” wrote a British survivor, “all of the tanks of three troops and Squadron HQ were hit, blazing and exploding.” In seventy-two hours, the Germans destroyed at least 300 Shermans. No wonder they nicknamed them for the flame thrower Ronson - they lit up every time

 

The only logical escalation of the T-72 autoloader myth the ability to load the gunner's balls...

 

But Soviet MBTs also had many defects, which emerged in the Arab-Israeli wars. While the low silhouette added to a Soviet tank’s survivability, the Soviets’ determination to reduce the size of their tanks (to make them harder to hit) left so little room for the crew that no one taller than five feet four inches could fight in one. In prototypes of the T-72, the autoloader revealed a distressing tendency to load vital parts of the gunner, who was jammed next to it. One U.S. Army tanker who studied Israeli-captured tanks said, “We believe this is how the Soviet Army Chorus gets its soprano section."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...