EnsignExpendable Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 The British added the 75mm sponson gun, huh? Get with the times, now this guy is claiming that anti-tank guns didn't exist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 If he referenced the M6 at all then it could have made sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 So we could all give it bad reviews just based on what Walt has posted. Lets spam bad reviews at him, for the honor of the Sherman and Lee!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zinegata Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Wow, that is really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeuCeaMia Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperComrade Posted August 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Lol, Panthers in 1942...yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 There isn't any references but there are wikipedia links strewn about. Wikipedia... The guy might have been better off with 4Chan.. RobotMinisterofTrueKorea 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobotMinisterofTrueKorea Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Side Effects from reading may include: Anger, frustration, loss of vision, metallic taste in mouth, ocular bleeding... Belesarius, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks and LoooSeR 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.