The people's tank

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The people's tank


  • Total voters
    244
Status
Not open for further replies.

Maschine Pistole-38

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
683
0
0
33
Oregon
Its a machine not a human it would always be mobile unless it gets its tracks blown off or the engine overheats which would require a lot of fancy engine pushing driving.

Its the principle behind it, but I bet a fat person would have adjusted better than a machine. A fat person will be used to the weight and his legs would be stronger than a skinny person.

Actually, the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Panther. It just weighed 25 tons more!

Same engine but more weight? Thats extra strain put on the engine plus the fact you are trying to drive it like a medium tank.
 

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
well that is true thy tiger II did have pore gase milage, compaired to other tanks.

as for GP I have seen 12psi and 15psi stated for the tanks GP, what ever the tanks real GP is it sertenly was not bad considering that it massed twice as much as the tanks you are compairing it to.

Most of the problems that pepole complaine about the Tiger II was automotive in origien, problems that could be solved. After all it dose take time to work out the bugs in a new tank design.
 

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
You have it backwards. The Me110 was produced to be used as a 2 engine long range fighter, and it was a dismal failure in its intended role. It was later adapted to use as a night fighter, and performed adequately, but was still really too slow. It was NOT "used in the wrong role". It failed in its role so was used for another.
Next you're going to tell me the Me 210 was a good plane. Sure, like the Elefant was a good tank. It was a piece of s--- which had a good gun.

The Bf110 failed in its role as a twin engine heavy fighter or escort fighter because of its twin engine configuration and wing loading/weight (making it unmaneuverable) not because of bad design as you stated previously. Read more carefully! As for the Me210 only one version was a "bad plane":) : The Me210A. The Me 210A was extremely unstable (stall/spin prone) and hard to fly. No Me 210B's were made. The Me210C on the other hand was an improved version (longer fusalage, automatic wing slats, much improved stability) that saw service with Hungarian pilots and proved very popular with them. They used them with great effect on the Eastern Front. The Me 210C was so superior to the Me 210A that the Germans adopted its refinements into a new model known as the Me 410 which itself was not a bad plane.:)


One more thing this is not an airplane forum but if you want to discuss planes I recommend that we both join a Luftwaffe forum:D

As for the Elefant tank (not Ferdinand) it was not a piece of ****. It was a very effective, impenetrable, tank killer.


Try to keep on topic everyone
 
Last edited:

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
well that is true thy tiger II did have pore gase milage, compaired to other tanks.

as for GP I have seen 12psi and 15psi stated for the tanks GP, what ever the tanks real GP is it sertenly was not bad considering that it massed twice as much as the tanks you are compairing it to.

Most of the problems that pepole complaine about the Tiger II was automotive in origien, problems that could be solved. After all it dose take time to work out the bugs in a new tank design.

Well said
 

A-tree

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 3, 2006
370
11
0
UK
You seem to forget that at pretty much evey battle, no matter how uber they where, german heavy tanks where defeated by T34s or Shermans.

Also the 110 failed at what it was intended to do, and thus it was a bad design. Two engines for a fighter was a design flaw.
 

BSE|Vietcong

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2006
185
0
0
Germany
Even if the Tiger II was a good design that was not yet fully functional, it didn't work as expected in real life. So if we would add it to the game, this should be taken into consideration. Since that is not really funny (random breakdowns, random armor quality, whatever), I don't think it is a good idea to add it.

Other tanks were more important and saw by far more action
 

Letum

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 24, 2006
466
1
0
Don't forget the slow production time and high production cost of the Tiger II compared to the wonderfully economic T-34.

The BF-110 was fantastic at taking out Lancaster bombers. Lancaster's had no downward facing turrets and the Bf-110 had a upward facing turret. Lancasters where forced to to barrel rolls to avoid the Bf-110s just sitting underneath them and shooting.

The Lightning is a fantastic twin prop fighter if it is used right too, just Zoom and boom it.
 
Last edited:

A-tree

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 3, 2006
370
11
0
UK
All two engined fighter would always be out classed in a dogfight with a single engined fighters.
 

Maus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 8, 2006
294
0
0
www.norml.org
Not exactly a glowing report, don't you think? You see, I, like you, am wowed by what the Tiger did accomplish, but that is seeing only half the picture. The reality is that the Tiger, throughout all its iterations, was an expensive, slow, heavy, gas-guzzling, mechanically unreliable vehicle that was only able to show its offensive prowess in few instances and usually in small numbers. Given this and Germany's ever-chronic fuel problems after 1943, one wonders why they pushed forward with a design that had more drawbacks that positives. Germany would have been much, much better off focusing on Panther and Panzer IV poduction.

The King Tiger when compared to the Tiger I, was actually not that expensive. If i remember correctly, the King Tiger cost somewhere around 1.5 times as many reichsmarks to produce as the Tiger one, thats 2 king tigers for every 3 tiger I's. In terms of ability, it was a great leap forward without increasing the price too much. But yes it was expensive.

Slow, the tiger II was not slow, It was just SLIGHTLY slower then the Tiger I, and was within 4-6 kilometers per hour slower then the the sherman tank depending on the terrain. At the same time, it was able to negotiate obstacles on the battlefield spectacularly, surprising when looking at it's size and mechanical reliability.

And yes, it was mechanically unreliable. In that if you pushed it too hard, it would break down... It's limit was much more fine then that of other tanks, thus inexperienced drivers often pushed it too hard and it broke down. It was more then capable of going a long time without breaking, as was any tank, if you handled it right... Really, handling the Tiger II was a feat of great skill.

Reliability was always a problem with new tanks... From the churchill, to the tiger, new tank designs had IMMENSE problems when it came to reliability that required time to pave out. The first panthers broke down in droves, as did the first tigers, and the first churchills as well among other tanks. In the case of all those tanks, the reliability problems were paved out over their evolution, even the last tiger tanks were mechanically sound... not suffering anywhere near the number of breakdowns as the first production models. The King Tiger, was a new design. And given the circumstances in which it was entered into the conflict, designers and builders just didnt have the time to pave out the bugs before the war ended.

And about the 'heavy' comments, really weight doesnt matter. It's weight distribution... You could have a 6-ton rodent of a tank sinking in mud and bogging down in even the most tame conditions, while on the other spectrum you could have a 100 ton monster going through some of the harshest quagmires and being able to handle them. Weight distribution, and the Royal Tiger had excellant weight distribution.
 

Letum

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 24, 2006
466
1
0
All two engined fighter would always be out classed in a dogfight with a single engined fighters.

Rubbish!
I play IL-2 Online often. The P-38 can out climb almost anything apart from the late war German experiments if you keep your energy high.
If you get in to a turning competition than it is outclassed, but if you dive in, shoot, get out fast and repeat then your untouchable!
Same goes for the mosquito.
Two props = more speed + less manoevrability
If you use the speed and don't let your self get stuck in dogfights then twin props are as good or superior to single prop aircraft.

However they are harder for amateurs to fly effectively.

*edit* the BF-110 if hopeless tho, no power.

Sorry for going off topic!
 

Ornagy Tom

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
58
0
0
Adelaide, Australia
*COUGH* Mosquito was a light bomber and carried NO gun armament except for specialized night fighter versions. *COUGH*

*COUGH*I suggest you do your homework first*COUGH*

Edit: For the record, No.211 Squadrons website, a squadron that flew Beaufighters but were converting to mozzies just as the war ended, informs us that 2600 FB mk. VI's were produced, the daytime fighter bomber varient. According to Wiki, 6,710 mosquitos were made during the war, of 40 different varients. The FB. Mk.VI was made in numbers more than any other varient.
 
Last edited:

18Bravo

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 31, 2006
525
1
0
Tennessee, USA
Speaking of tanks with design flaws, while I know it was supposed to be a heavy tank destroyer, You'd think they would at least put a ceiling over the Nashorn, that tank's crew could be taken out by a good mortar crew. That and maybe some of the Marder series tank, while open top tanks can help make it easier to spot and reload, it also makes its crew softer bullet magnet.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Speaking of tanks with design flaws, while I know it was supposed to be a heavy tank destroyer, You'd think they would at least put a ceiling over the Nashorn, that tank's crew could be taken out by a good mortar crew. That and maybe some of the Marder series tank, while open top tanks can help make it easier to spot and reload, it also makes its crew softer bullet magnet.Yesterday 09:03 PM
Most SPG's were lightly armored and had ope tops like the Su-76 for example.
They were ment to fire from a distance.
 

Bezukhov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 30, 2005
49
0
0
how bout a Hummel, Jagdtiger/Panther and the SU series maybe some lend lease british tanks valentines churchills and cromwells and some m3 Grants
 

SheepDip

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,626
495
0
38
The Elitist Prick Club
*COUGH*I suggest you do your homework first*COUGH*

Edit: For the record, No.211 Squadrons website, a squadron that flew Beaufighters but were converting to mozzies just as the war ended, informs us that 2600 FB mk. VI's were produced, the daytime fighter bomber varient. According to Wiki, 6,710 mosquitos were made during the war, of 40 different varients. The FB. Mk.VI was made in numbers more than any other varient.

Indeed. Thankyou Ornagy Tom :)
The Mosquito was a very capable Fighter/Fighter Bomber/Night Fighter/Bomber



Nasty cough going round.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.