Jump to content
1.JaVA_KEBEN

Tiger to strong ?

Recommended Posts

On 1/2/2020 at 3:16 PM, NHK295M said:

my opinion m4a2 stronger than t34 and better weapon against tiger, and m4 have anti-air .50, best tank on red side. 

Does the M4A2 get M72 (AP), or M61 (APCBC) shells? 

 

On 1/3/2020 at 1:01 PM, SCG_Neun said:

I understand the frustration....as I've experienced it with german vehicles and aircraft many times in the past.  Never quit playing over it though.

 

I'd like to see them add some physiological effects with hits suffered from large caliber rounds, like the 122 rendering the crew incapacitated and unable to return fire after a period of time.  I think this would be neat but also add a new dimension to the sim that might end up being kind of frustrating and at the same time realistic.  

I've heard taking a hit in a tank described as a "significant emotional event." Perhaps shots which hit hard enough could apply some sort of fatigue to the crew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

Does the M4A2 get M72 (AP), or M61 (APCBC) shells? 

Against Tigers i use M72. And M61 as main weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 12:21 PM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

There is a reason why the top 10 panzer aces were in tigers and had over 100 kills each. :P

Few of the "Panzer aces" claimed kill counts and regard the kill counts reported for them as nonsense. There's no records of "kills", and most of the sources claiming these end up citing other sources without hard data and continue to inflate kill counts. Similar to the counts that aircraft made on all sides during WWII, they're often inflated to absurd degrees. 

 

There's a great video here on this misconception: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know that fact very well and it also differed from unit to unit but the trend is still there, most of these kill claims were from tiger crews, a few panther aces and some few stugs but they are far fewer and not a single panzer IV makes it to the top list. Several ways of reading the data but to me from all articles and books and this trend of some units counting kills to some doesnt, it still shows the tigers had high kill counts from 43-44 before they dropped in 45 while panzer IIIs and PAnzer IV and most other german tanks didnt do as well.

then one can argue to death for exact numbers but I wont go into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JudgeDeath actually pointed this fact about the Panzer Aces out to me the other day.  Suffice to say, you can bet that the ones listed were excellent hunters and had the crew to back them up.  So while I'm not worried about numbers everyone knows who the Aces are in any particular unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 6:21 PM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

There is a reason why the top 10 panzer aces were in tigers and had over 100 kills each. :P

Yes, a good education, courageous and skillful. In addition a good tank. 😌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TIGRE88 said:

 

 yes and there is enought tank games which offer unrealistic situations, with sherman or T34 who manage to destroy tigers and tigre2  in 2 cannon shots from the front

This was completely possible irl depending on the gun used and who shot first. The 76mm and 17lbr of the Shermans could penetrate the Tiger 1 frontal armor at various ranges depending on ammunition and angle. I don't know how they fared against Tiger 2s but I'm not sure they'd be able to pen the front glacis plate but they could potentially pen the gun mantlet depending on the range I think.

 

Late war T-34 with 85mm guns could probably do similar but I have no idea what the performance of these guns were so I can't say for sure.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGRE88 said:

 no it is not possible, in the game there is no firefly and no T34 85 ... 

I'm talking about the standard sherman and the T34 76, I'm not talking about the forefly and the T34 85 .. and of course it is possible with these basic tanks, but by the flank and at very short distance and hoping that the tiger don't be angled

Sorry I thought you meant with Shermans in general (75mm, 76mm, 17lbr, etc). In-game of course not unless at very close ranges (within 100 yds most cases pretty much point blank) 

The 75mm sherman we have in-game is capable of penning the Tigers front glacis armor within 100yds beyond that it's pretty much impervious to 75mm rounds of the sherman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

 


this sherman of TC I find it quite strong, gun and armor point of view .. it looks better than a T34 ..

Don't have TC yet so I don't know how it performs in-game but I've heard the Russian tankers really like their Shermans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

 2, sometimes 3 shots, 5 shots by the 88 mm tiger canon to destroy a sherman at 50 meters .. it already happend 5 shots :)   

normally at this distance 1 single shot is enough .. especially that I touch the turret or the front in the middle .. I would not like to be in the place of a crew member of sherman during the 2nd world war

Statistically the Sherman was actually one of the safest tanks to be in. Plenty of them got knocked out sure but crew survivability was high.

 

1 shot is usually enough to knock out any tank as long as it penetrates, of course this depends on what it actually hits when it pens the tank. Crews fighting on after the tank is penetrated is rare, from my understanding the crew would bail most of the time if the tank is penetrated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

 

in a weak tank like the sherman I hope that we can be saved quickly when we are hit 

Sherman isn't really weak but ok. It did what it was designed to do and it did quite well. It was on par if not superior than most of the opposition that it faced in the western front (PzIII, Pz IV, Stug, etc) It wasn't designed to take on the Tiger or Panther but it could when equipped with the right gun and ammunition.

 

The Sherman is not a heavy tank so why should we expect it to be on par of the likes of the Tiger or  the Panther (which imo was superior to the Tiger 1 anyways even though it was a "medium" tank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Statistically the Sherman was actually one of the safest tanks to be in. Plenty of them got knocked out sure but crew survivability was high.

 

1 shot is usually enough to knock out any tank as long as it penetrates, of course this depends on what it actually hits when it pens the tank. Crews fighting on after the tank is penetrated is rare, from my understanding the crew would bail most of the time if the tank is penetrated.

Yep. Early war (before wet-ammo rack) Shermans had a burn rate which was "unacceptably" high to US Armored force. They did a whole study on the burn rates and what caused the sherman to have around the 82% chance of lighting on fire when penetrated. The source was determined to be the ammo storage which was in the sides of the hull, just above the tracks. You'll notice that other tanks from this era with similar stowage configurations had similar burn rates (tiger & Panzer IVs at 80%, Panther's at 63%). After wet stowage the burn rates dropped to around 15%. (Zaloga, Armored Thunderbolt)

 

10 hours ago, TIGRE88 said:

 

in a weak tank like the sherman I hope that we can be saved quickly when we are hit 

It's a good thing the frontal armor of the M4 was effectively 101mm-118mm thick, effectively the same as the tiger. Why is it that we call the Tiger's frontal armor "thick" when it's the same? 🤔 

 

For the gun topic, i'm not going to argue with that as i feel WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery Provides good enough data for many of the WWII guns and puts any of those arguments to rest. 

image.png.111cec905872cb6cbe8132552a600e6c.png

Edited by Kataphrakt
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIGRE88 said:

at some point it must be admitted that the sherman is weak. it makes absolutely no sense to find excuses that make no sense ... at that time the panzer38 T is equal to a sherman so .. it also has a slanted armor made of paper

Yes, because 30mm=100mm huh? 

 

You're living in a fantasy land 🤣

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGRE88 said:

don't take your case for a generality dude.. 100mm... the good dream ... a simple panzer4 can destroy your 100mm of dream at 1800 m ..

 

I fail to see a mathematical proof showing how 30=100 🤔  As i said above since i knew this would come up as it always does with such discussions:

14 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

For the gun topic, i'm not going to argue with that as i feel WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery Provides good enough data for many of the WWII guns and puts any of those arguments to rest. 

I have no intent to over-state the qualities of US guns, nor understate the qualities of german armor. The above source does an extensive comparison of armor penetration values for all guns and explains how it all works.

 

Since you now want to argue about Panzer IV against M4 sherman, i'll oblige. The Panzer IV Ausf. D has a 7.5 KwK 37 incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of a sherman with APCBC. Fortunately for those crews the Sherman only has 50mm of side armor which it can penetrate at up to 1000m. The Ausf. D only has 60mm of frontal armor without slope which can be penetrated at ranges over 2000m with the 75mm M3 gun and APCBC ammunition. 

 

The Ausf G with a 7.5 kwk 40 and APCBC rounds can penetrate sherman variants at a maximum range of about 750-1250m, with the APCR further extending that to 1250m and the 1800m you stated. The Ausf. G has improved frontal armor increased to 80mm without slope, which the same 75mm M3 gun firing APCBC ammunition can penetrate up to 800m away. 

 

I will leave out 76mm gun data since it's irrelevent to IL-2 at this time since no 76mm armed Shermans are in game. 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGRE88 said:

 

 i dont understand why do you spend all this time coming out of numbers and arguments? however my remark at the beginning was simple, the Tiger is superior to the sherman ... there is no one else to add .. why try to say that not by what this and that? it is however simple to understand, a Tiger is superior to a sherman. we cannot even say that they are equal. it would be a lie. 

Again, i demolish your and you decide to ignore it and switch to something else huh? 

 

1 hour ago, Kataphrakt said:

It's a good thing the frontal armor of the M4 was effectively 101mm-118mm thick, effectively the same as the tiger. Why is it that we call the Tiger's frontal armor "thick" when it's the same?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIGRE88 said:

you are completely delirious

I'm delerious for stating hard statistics? I've never once said nor implied that the sherman was invincible, or superior to the tiger. I simply pointed out the sherman had equivalent frontal armor to the tiger.

 

2 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

while the tiger does not suffers no damage even at close range ..

I even gave you a source showing exactly this, yet you decide to insult me for it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGRE88 said:

 


but I don't care about your sources, can't you understand or you don't want to admit that your sherman is weak? it does not have the gun to face a tiger nor the adequate shielding. so the TIGER is superior to the sherman ... 

Again, i just pointed out the armor, and look how triggered you got.

 

5 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

it does not have the gun to face a tiger nor the adequate shielding.

And also again i gave you a source showing how the sherman was incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of said tiger from outside 100m: 

1 hour ago, Kataphrakt said:

For the gun topic, i'm not going to argue with that as i feel WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery Provides good enough data for many of the WWII guns and puts any of those arguments to rest. 

image.png.111cec905872cb6cbe8132552a600e6c.png

 

You "dont care" about the source; however, as i have mentioned before it goes to great detail about the capabilities of the 75mm gun, and also covers the 88mm gun. You're insisting i'm arguing points that i am not arguing simply because i made a remark comparing the armor on your beloved tiger to the Sherman tank. 

 

If you would stop being a child for five seconds and read said source, you'd realize that i have already agreed that the 75mm M3 gun is incapable of penetrating the frontal armor on a Tiger at any reasonable distance flat-on, and likewise the side armor when at a 30 degree angle. Meanwhile the 8.8 cm gun on the tiger was an incredibly powerful weapon. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger88 and Kataphrakt please stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

768px-CH-Vortrittssignal-Stop.svg.png

Edited by namhee2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGRE88 said:

I understood that the sherman was the tank of your dreams, you want at all costs to show his qualities, but do not come to contradict me when I say that a Tiger is superior to a sherman by what that tends to annoy me, I do not dislike lies and propaganda.

I never once said the sherman was better than the tiger. You continue to put words in my mouth when i have only said the opposite. If i wanted to "at all costs to show his qualities" i would bring up the 76mm M1 gun, or the QF 17 pound gun; however, i have explicitly stated that they're irrelevant since they are not in IL-2, and i would further argue that they're irrelevant for any M4 sherman vs Tiger discussion since the majority of Tiger vs Sherman action was in the African theater before those were fielded. 

 

2 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

anyway everyone knows that a sherman is not intended to effectively confront battle tanks.

You bring up a lie for no reason here. Why dont you read US Army Field Manual 17-10 and point me to the page that says the M4 was not supposed to fight tanks? The manual literally states otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an update came out a few days ago.

Has anyone noticed a change/improvement in the situation APCR vs the sides / back of the tiger?

Wondering if I should get drawn in again or it's still a waste of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIGRE88 said:

 


but I don't care about your sources, can't you understand or you don't want to admit that your sherman is weak? it does not have the gun to face a tiger nor the adequate shielding. so the TIGER is superior to the sherman ... 

That right their just main your viewpoint nearly invalid. What you're basically saying is you don't care about facts and will stick to your viewpoint even it it is in error.

 

Yes the Tiger is superior to the sherman in most respects that's just a simple fact but it does not mean the Sherman was incapable of taking on the tiger like you seem to be implying. It also doesn't mean the Sherman would always be destroyed by the Tiger. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most tanks of WW2 had to get beween 200M-500M to knock out a tiger this became less of problem US 76mm,British 17PDR and the Russian 85mm but only just for some  of  them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Yes the Tiger is superior to the sherman in most respects that's just a simple fact but it does not mean the Sherman was incapable of taking on the tiger like you seem to be implying. It also doesn't mean the Sherman would always be destroyed by the Tiger. 

A great example of this is when you look at how the Sherman did vs the Tiger in Africa and in Italy. In Africa, Sherman forces suffered heavy losses from Tigers as they were able to make great use of its long range gun. Later in Italy when US tank forces had more experience, and were generally fighting at closer ranges the Sherman did significantly better than Africa. 

 

If we go further to the Western front just after Normandy, we see most engagements taking place within 500m. While Tigers were not terribly common, the equally heavy panther didnt do particularly well despite having frontal armor that a 75mm armed M4 couldnt punch through, even the Panzer IVs did better than the Vs. At this point with 500m engagements the M4 could defeat the front armor of a Pz IV, while the Pz IV could also do the same. Battles came down to flanking and the side that could get the first shot. We see this as a common theme on all fronts actually. When the Tiger was used on the Eastern front in its intended role (As a "breakthrough" tank) it did very well. It had a good speed and low ground pressure (Lower ground pressure than the M4 until the HVSS suspension came about) allowing it to flank quickly off-road. When on the offensive they did incredibly well, lending to the high tank "kill counts" many tank aces had. The role of the Tiger in its golden days can really be compared to that of the US tank force under Patton. 

 

Now if we wanted to cherry-pick data to make the Sherman look good, we could compare the M4A3(76)W HVSS tanks to the tiger. With the variant having 118mm of effective frontal armor (Tiger 100mm), lower ground pressure than the Tiger, higher speeds, and a gun capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger out to 2500m. Anyone who knows enough about WWII tanks will easily see the flaws with this comparison though: it's comparing a tank fielded in 1942 with a tank variant fielded only in limited quantities in 1944, and with an ammunition most M4 crews were lucky to have a single round of. On top of this i could dig up US reports of 75mm gunned M4's taking out Tigers from the front; however, anyone who has looked into this significantly knows that A) those reports are from the ETO, where there are only 3 verified encounters between M4s and Tigers and B) US tankers were so bad at IDing enemy tanks that they often reported Pz IVs as Tigers. 

 

Anyone looking for sources, most of this comes from Zaloga's book Armored Thunderbolt with gunnery/armor related info coming from WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

A great example of this is when you look at how the Sherman did vs the Tiger in Africa and in Italy. In Africa, Sherman forces suffered heavy losses from Tigers as they were able to make great use of its long range gun. Later in Italy when US tank forces had more experience, and were generally fighting at closer ranges the Sherman did significantly better than Africa. 

 

If we go further to the Western front just after Normandy, we see most engagements taking place within 500m. While Tigers were not terribly common, the equally heavy panther didnt do particularly well despite having frontal armor that a 75mm armed M4 couldnt punch through, even the Panzer IVs did better than the Vs. At this point with 500m engagements the M4 could defeat the front armor of a Pz IV, while the Pz IV could also do the same. Battles came down to flanking and the side that could get the first shot. We see this as a common theme on all fronts actually. When the Tiger was used on the Eastern front in its intended role (As a "breakthrough" tank) it did very well. It had a good speed and low ground pressure (Lower ground pressure than the M4 until the HVSS suspension came about) allowing it to flank quickly off-road. When on the offensive they did incredibly well, lending to the high tank "kill counts" many tank aces had. The role of the Tiger in its golden days can really be compared to that of the US tank force under Patton. 

 

Now if we wanted to cherry-pick data to make the Sherman look good, we could compare the M4A3(76)W HVSS tanks to the tiger. With the variant having 118mm of effective frontal armor (Tiger 100mm), lower ground pressure than the Tiger, higher speeds, and a gun capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger out to 2500m. Anyone who knows enough about WWII tanks will easily see the flaws with this comparison though: it's comparing a tank fielded in 1942 with a tank variant fielded only in limited quantities in 1944, and with an ammunition most M4 crews were lucky to have a single round of. On top of this i could dig up US reports of 75mm gunned M4's taking out Tigers from the front; however, anyone who has looked into this significantly knows that A) those reports are from the ETO, where there are only 3 verified encounters between M4s and Tigers and B) US tankers were so bad at IDing enemy tanks that they often reported Pz IVs as Tigers. 

 

Anyone looking for sources, most of this comes from Zaloga's book Armored Thunderbolt with gunnery/armor related info coming from WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery 

 

Another Sherman that did very well was the M4A3E2, it had thicker frontal armor than the Tiger and an overall effective thickness of upwards of 160-180mm. Also when equipped with the 76mm gun could penetrate the Tiger 1 frontally from long range while the Tiger 1 would have had trouble penetrating the Sherman beyond 500m.

I don't think the E2 ever met the Tiger in combat (maybe at the buldge or later idk) but if it did it would have fared rather well imo.

 

1 hour ago, Buggeredsteel823 said:

Most tanks of WW2 had to get beween 200M-500M to knock out a tiger this became less of problem US 76mm,British 17PDR and the Russian 85mm but only just for some  of  them.

For the most part yes (frontally anyways) but like you said later Shermans could penetrate the Tiger frontally from over 1000yds.

Share this post


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

Another Sherman that did very well was the M4A3E2, it had thicker frontal armor than the Tiger and an overall effective thickness of upwards of 160-180mm. Also when equipped with the 76mm gun could penetrate the Tiger 1 frontally from long range while the Tiger 1 would have had trouble penetrating the Sherman beyond 500m.

I don't think the E2 ever met the Tiger in combat (maybe at the buldge or later idk) but if it did it would have fared rather well imo.

Practically, since only around 250ish E2s were produced, they're fairly insignificant in numbers. The E2s all were built with the 75mm gun; however, later around 100 were field-refit with the 76mm since crews loved the tanks. There were also a number of M4s which were field-refit to be similar to the E2 in terms of armor, but there arent many accounts of that. 

 

This webpage provides some good detail about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

Practically, since only around 250ish E2s were produced, they're fairly insignificant in numbers. The E2s all were built with the 75mm gun; however, later around 100 were field-refit with the 76mm since crews loved the tanks. There were also a number of M4s which were field-refit to be similar to the E2 in terms of armor, but there arent many accounts of that. 

 

This webpage provides some good detail about it. 

Of course they were insignificant numbers wise but everywhere they went they were successful and the crews loved them. I think it was Patton that wanted more E2s so he had shermans field modded to have more armor. Here's a few pictures of up-armored Shermans, not sure what units they all served in though.

 

Up-armored_M4A1_Remagen45.jpg

 

1f81f5ddec90a0c2d8998273b58c0fa8.jpg

 

M4A3E2-picture-009-640x433.png

 

2db18c26ab900c856e3ab6172d1b03a0.jpg

 

a6.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 9:37 PM, Kataphrakt said:

Few of the "Panzer aces" claimed kill counts and regard the kill counts reported for them as nonsense. There's no records of "kills", and most of the sources claiming these end up citing other sources without hard data and continue to inflate kill counts. Similar to the counts that aircraft made on all sides during WWII, they're often inflated to absurd degrees. 

 

There's a great video here on this misconception: 

 

 

 

If you would ask Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton how many race wins he has he wouldn't know.They asked Sebastian Vettel some time ago in an interview and he said 41 and that he only remembers the number because he's team made a poster .I've seen many F1 interviews and many of them don't remember .That doesn't mean there aren't people that keep score.

 

Tank kills are proven by:

Combatants People that took part in the battle on both sides.

They might not know after the war but after every battle they would have known with more accuracy .

There would have been people who put this stuff on paper to calculate the efficiency of the tiger force for example.

War diaries .

There are battlefield photos (sometimes made by tank crew themselves).

Aerial photos.

Locals.

 

I also have the book that this guy is talking about( Alfred Rubbel "Erinnerungen an die TIgerabteilung 503 ") .

And he basically said the sherman was no danger to the tiger.He sees the rusian tanks as more dangerous.

And even with the 76 mm gun it was a "half way a usable tank and i now way comparable to the russian tanks" .(pages 93-94)

 

What Rubbel said about  kills is he's book

-"13 february 1944 of the 7 t34 and sherman we destroyed  6" (talks about unit not himself)

-"14 february 1944 at least 20 enemy tanks were destroyed "(same as above)

-"15 february around 20 tanks destroyed but we lost one of out tigers. This was a rare event , must have been an upgraded t34 with 85 mm cannon that shot the tank from the side at close range, the crew got out safely , no wounded  "

 

This is just 3 days but you notice what the idea is.

 

9 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

ow if we wanted to cherry-pick data to make the Sherman look good, we could compare the M4A3(76)W HVSS tanks to the tiger. With the variant having 118mm of effective frontal armor (Tiger 100mm), lower ground pressure than the Tiger, higher speeds, and a gun capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger out to 2500m

 

Please stop pushing your personal "Sherman was great agenda". This is a sim about the early sherman and early version of the tiger.

If you really want to i will pull out my Korean war stuff and show you how " great" your upgraded  sherman was.:D

 

14 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

M4 was effectively 101mm-118mm thick, effectively the same as the tiger

 

Please stop pushing your  "Sherman was great agenda".It was not equal and even if :The fact that it was mathematically equal means nothing .Do i actually have to tell you why ?

 

Edited by IVJG4-Knight
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Please stop pushing your  "Sherman was great agenda".It was not equal and even if :The fact that it was mathematically equal means nothing

I see you also cannot read. I very clearly stated the following to point out why those arguments are entirely flawed. If you had taken even a second to read before responding you would have avoided making a fool of yourself.

 

17 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

Anyone who knows enough about WWII tanks will easily see the flaws with this comparison though: it's comparing a tank fielded in 1942 with a tank variant fielded only in limited quantities in 1944, and with an ammunition most M4 crews were lucky to have a single round of.

 

Why is it that when i bring up great hard-data showing the issues the M4 would have had with penetrating even the side armor of the Tiger everyone assumes that i'm trying to push how great the Sherman was? I've brought up plenty of flaws yet all you Tiger fanatics have bitched at me about claiming the M4 was some "Amazing" tank that could destroy hundreds of Tigers in a second! 

 

Go back and read the data i posted, and then try to tell me i'm lieing that the Sherman was some super tank. Everything i've posted has been in favor of the Tiger. 

Edited by Kataphrakt
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 1:40 AM, IVJG4-Knight said:

Please stop pushing your  "Sherman was great agenda".

 

 

Get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kataphrakt

Well you posted this:

On 1/25/2020 at 11:03 PM, Kataphrakt said:

It's a good thing the frontal armor of the M4 was effectively 101mm-118mm thick, effectively the same as the tiger. Why is it that we call the Tiger's frontal armor "thick" when it's the same?

 

This claim or another i've seen by the Chieftain that sherman armor was almost as thick as a tiger doesn't have any value.

-First of all the alloy is different .

-Secondly there's  overmatch at play  so while theoretically relatively thick , practically it offered poor protection.

(This is for the tanks present in the game ).

 

Ps: Video you posted :"Truth about panzer aces"

 

It's complete nonsense .What truth did it show .Not even an interview.But oh i spoke with this guy and he told me this.

What about the american historians .

What about the french historians .

That covered this aspect many times before .It's like this guy thinks he's the first to talk to a tank ace . 

 

So so low value .Why didn't he just film the interview with the veterans (i really like this kind of video interviews with ww2 veterans).

 

 

On 1/28/2020 at 4:27 AM, Gambit21 said:

Get a grip.

 

Thanks but my post was accurate .

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...