| Subject: Re: Attention, mere mortals! |
Author:
Campisi
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02:06:42 01/12/06 Thu
In reply to:
Andy
's message, "Re: Attention, mere mortals!" on 01:50:08 01/12/06 Thu
>As for tanks, these are my general thoughts (facts, if
>you wish)
>
>The germans: Began with extremely reliable, if a
>little bit weak, tanks, and alter tehy got superior
>tanks with superior armor, guns and optics. The
>problem? Not so reliable, and teh bigger ones needed
>tons of gas.
>
>Russkies: Mass-produced stuff. The T-34 was good in
>teh beginning (when nothing but the german 88mm FlAK
>could take them out), and reliable, but it couldn't be
>uparmoured. They were uparmed with 85mm guns, which
>made 'em somewhat OK again, but that was not until
>-44, and theys till had overly weak armor. Other
>russian tanks were somewhat OK, even if they had
>trouble with the german 88 (all tanks had, so...). And
>then there's the fact about crew ergonomics... they
>were non-existant. The best point? All tanks were
>designed to be mass produced.
>
>The brits: Either too slow, or unreliable as [beep]...
>and never a really good gun (those freakin' 2pdrs
>until 42?). The only "good" stuff they had was
>Shermans refitted with 17pdrs and Churchills, I'd
>say... true, the Cromwell was good as well, but only
>had a 75mm (as did the Churchill, but that one had
>better armour)
>
>The yanks: Well, the Sherman weren't great, mostly
>because it should have come a year earlier. It had
>poor armour, at least when compared to the gusn
>germans had, and its own gun (75mm) was initially
>quite soddy... but bear in mind that the Sherman
>wasn't designed to fight other tanks, so that's mroe
>to blame on the planners. It was later, however,
>equiped with 76mm guns, which made things much better,
>and were uparmoured as well, although they were still
>in danger if a 88 was in teh viscinity. And then, when
>the war was almost over, they finally came with a
>succesful tank, in teh M26 Pershing. Enough armour to
>be safe from long range shots from 88s, and a 90mm gun
>capable of taking out Tiger IIs...
> For fighting tanks, there was the tank destroyers,
>which were fairly successful, especially teh M36
>equiped with a 90mm gun...
>
>As for teh italians and Japs, I'm afraid alck
>knowledge about the exact details, but I know tehy
>were to weakly armored, and most fo teh guns were to
>weak as well...
>
>Woops... that's what you get for getting me
>motivated...
I went off on a similar rant in the Camaro thread when Ian brought up the Mustang.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 