IS 2 greatest tank of ww2
- Thread starter 7thGuardsTankDiv
- Start date
Wow 3.5 years and still going. Funny to see ones own posts from back then.
Awesome how this thing is only 4 pages short but 3.5 freaking years old, that's got to be a record of some kind.
Awesome how this thing is only 4 pages short but 3.5 freaking years old, that's got to be a record of some kind.
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Eh, the problem with this, and similar threads, is that there is no one best tank, people stare themselves blind on just one of the tanks uses, that of "tank killer", but tanks are ment to do more than just blow up other tanks, this is why there exists light, medium and heavy's, if tank warfare was only about tank on tank engagements, there would only exist heavy's.
Is the T-34 a bad tank because the Tiger could shoot it? no, it's a very good medium tank, fast, manouverable, reliable, well enough armed in its weight class, it's just not a heavy tank ment to slug it out with other heavy tanks.
Is the Tiger a bad tank because it was slow and heavy? no, just don't try to use it as a light cavelry tank, it isen't one, it's a heavy tank killer.
If you're going to find the "best tank", you'll have to specify "best at what" first, else, it's a bit like arguing that a B17 is a worse plane than the BF-109 because it's no good at dogfighting.
Is the T-34 a bad tank because the Tiger could shoot it? no, it's a very good medium tank, fast, manouverable, reliable, well enough armed in its weight class, it's just not a heavy tank ment to slug it out with other heavy tanks.
Is the Tiger a bad tank because it was slow and heavy? no, just don't try to use it as a light cavelry tank, it isen't one, it's a heavy tank killer.
If you're going to find the "best tank", you'll have to specify "best at what" first, else, it's a bit like arguing that a B17 is a worse plane than the BF-109 because it's no good at dogfighting.
when will the ppl finally understand that the TigerI when compared to other medium german tanks was neither slow nor had it a higher groundpressure
when will the ppl finally understand that the TigerI when compared to other medium german tanks was neither slow nor had it a higher groundpressure
Never, because we understand that Germany was not the only maker of tanks, and thus aren't limited to comparing it's speed only to that of other Germans
Have at thee!
Never, because we understand that Germany was not the only maker of tanks, and thus aren't limited to comparing it's speed only to that of other Germans
Have at thee!
stop trolling mah captured thread!
It had the best gun of WWII, but only marginally, and I don't think they up-armored it versus a regular Pershing, which didn't have nearly as thick armor as the Tiger II.
It was certainly awesome and would have been facehump when used in tandem with a legion of swarming Shermans, but in a 1-1 with a Tiger II, the Tiger II has a better chance of surviving whereas the Tiger IIs HV 88 would melt the Pershing. Granted, at any range the Pershing would have a better chance of penetrating the frontal plate of a Tiger II than any tank in the war.
T-34s kick ***. I loveeeed using them in Combat Mission against German players who bought **** tons of super heavy tanks.
Fast as hell! And the /85 has a kickass gun. As long as you always outnumber the Panther/Tiger 2 or 3 to 1, you'll kill it, even from the front.
Fast as hell! And the /85 has a kickass gun. As long as you always outnumber the Panther/Tiger 2 or 3 to 1, you'll kill it, even from the front.
When you have T34/85's it's all good and well. Where it's really hard for the Russians in CMBB though is late 1941 through to late 1942. During that period you have the Germans with the PIV's and Stug's carrying the long 75 not to mention early Tigers in late 42'.
The Russian player really has his work cut out for him in that period.