Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
That’s pretty much me when i play war thunder
Source
not provided yet
Subjects of Equestria! We are pleased to kick off the Nightmare Night Festivities and the 14th anniversary of the return of our beloved Princess Luna! Join us in celebration!
Offended? What? When? How?
Exagerating kill claims is the same as faking them, about the continuity, you’re not talking about the f&%ing drawing itself, you shoul’ve talked about it from the begginging instead of getting offended
I never said they were fake. I said kill claims were exaggerated and that the two belligerents were facing entirely different tactical situations.
I’ve already given you primary sources to disprove your initial claims. If you have nothing more to offer, I don’t see a point to continuing this.
So, everything is a lie when it doesn’t benefit you then, are you implying that the top tank aces of the German army were fake? show me some original documents that prove that buddy
Considering that those documents are declassified and publicly available, just give me the names. The fact that you have not even cited a period document is telling. I have, however.
With regards to tank aces: That’s a rigged comparison and you know it. The Allies and Axis were facing entirely different tactical situations. That being said, kill counts get fluffed up anyway. In particular, the schwere Panzerabteilungen are notorious for it.
Do you expect me to scan original 1940’s documents and send them to you? how about this, name the top american tank aces and i will name the top german ones
Stop being a drama queen.
@waffengrunt
Your sources are an archived three year old 4chan thread that cites no sources (and, in any case, doesn’t reach a consensus). It isn’t even /k/, where people are likely to care about debates regarding weaponology and the history thereof. It’s /pol/, the place that everyone thinks of when they think of all the super scary stuff regarding 4chan.
Oh, also, a thread where no one directly quotes a source. Only an apptoximate quote from a non-primary source based on someone’s memory thereof.
Oh the other hand, I’ve cited period manuscripts to you. Your debate tactics are interesting.
“American tanks were not to engage German tanks head on, that was the job of the Tank destroyers. The Shermans were to engage enemy infantry and open holes in German lines. Many would be knocked out, but they were designed for repair in the field.” i’m pretty sure i’ve watched at least 100 documentaries saying the same, apparently i just saved a “million years”
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/130411974/
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/21943-88mm-kwk-36-l56-accuracy-test-and-some-ideas/page/11/
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/historical-events-eras/world-war-ii/armor-in-world-war-ii/german-and-axis-armor/101746-tigerphobia-did-it-actually-exist-in-ww2-as-we-perceive-it-now
Thanks to you i just found out that after the tiger and panther tanks were designed, the Russians were also told not to do it, it wasn’t orders however, they were mainly reccomendations
Now you’re applying what someone else said to me. Stop that.
With regards to a one-to-one comparison, you can indeed compare things on a one-to-one basis. As long as you keep in mind that the comparison doesn’t in any way reflect reality. Armored divisions of all the major powers included battalions of tanks, mechanized infantry, and supporting batteries of artillery and reconnaissance assets. Tanks do not exist in a vacuum.
You can say that the kill/death ratio was in no way a myth, but reality will disagree with you. All you need to see in order to debunk the myth is the fact that it’s never the same between any two people. Some will say it was 3 to 1, some will say 5 to 1, 7 to 1, all the way up to 21 to 1 is the highest I’ve seen. However, the kill-death ratio never exceeded 2.5 to 1 in favor of the Germans, which isn’t anything to be surprised about since they were on the tactical defensive.
Again, you say the M4 was “way too weak” but you dance around the issue by never saying why. Man up and make your case, already.
As for American tank crews being ordered not to engage German tanks: You will never, in one million years, be able to find a single document to back that up. FM 100-05, FM 17-33, and other period documents regarding the employment of armor and its intended purpose on the battlefield disagrees with you. In fact, the Tank Destroyer manual (FM 18-5) states the following:
“Since the Armored Division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile armored attack or counterattack is imminent.”
Even the Tank Destroyer branch acknowledged that the tank was the first line of defense against enemy armor.
tl;dr: Stop making shit up.
I thought there was no such thing as a one on one comparison, heheh, the kill/death ratio of the tanks was in no way a myth, you’re just avoiding that subject cause you know the shermans, stuarts and so many of the American tanks were way too weak. Now you made an interesting point, the Russians had very good vehicles like the T34/85 that one was superior to many German tanks, so was the is-1, however due to the poor russian strategies and lead they sometimes lost 10 times more men than the Germans, but not because of their tanks, the kill/death ratio of the british was usually the same when they were fighting the Germans but when it comes to the American tanks that was a different story, a lot of American tank crews were ordered not to engage german tanks directly and called air strikes or artillery strikes instead since their vehicles were weaker in many ways
You say “Allied tanks.” You need to be more specific.
Are you just bashing the M4? Okay. So, a vehicle designated a tank destroyer can kill tanks. That goes without saying. The M4, however, was on par with (and in many ways, superior to) its direct peers in one-to-one comparisons.
The M4 Was by no means a perfect design. But, then again, none of the primary medium tanks of any major power were. The Pz.Kpfw IV had its own host of problems, as did the T-34. The M4 only begins to pale in comparison when you start comparing it to vehicles like the “Panther” and “Tiger;” or, in this case, a dedicated Tank Destroyer which is a stupid comparison in the first place.
Also, with regards to the kill-death ratio: It is largely a myth, as confirmed by analysis of tank losses time and time again.
Edited
Archie Wavell (a British General) after losing to the Italians said: A big butchers bill was not necesarily evidence of good tactics
In the own words of the team you support You’re just looking for excuses to justify how bad the allied tanks were and the sad tactics they used to win, i think the fact that the German tanks had a ridiculously high kill/death ratio over the allied tanks is no myth, it’s a fact, sorry
Who had the top tank aces and the best tanks? oh yes, the Germans, again you’re bragging about numbers and unlimited supplies but not quality, you know one German tank was more likely to destroy 10-20 of your somehow superior allied tanks before getting knocked out, in that case let me brag about the time when i kicked a 7 year old girl’s ass with my 100 buddies at school that’s the same kind of action, go to sleep buddy
ok wehraboo
All tank enthusuasts look forward to both sides of your myths dying.
There was no such thing as a one-on-one engagement, because tanks don’t move singularly unless they’ve already lost all their friends. Even a lone platoon was uncommon.
The actual combat statistics pretty firmly demonstrate no actual advantage from having a theoretical monster tank which is surrounded, overrun, broken down, being bombed, and crewed by inadequately trained bottom-of-barrel conscripts.
They knew they could never have the necessary quantity, so the Nazis tried to turn the quality dial to 11 and just broke the dial.
And bonus point, if your Sherman was knocked out you were upward of twice as likely as any other tank to bail unharmed and get back in another tank. US Tankers were the safest frontline combatants in WWII.
Edited
Some salty kid didn’t get his christmas present i see
You know in a one on one fight this vehicle raped shermans like one child molester vs 100 kids, plus this one didn’t have transmission problems, having ridiculous numbers as your main strategy is not something i’d brag about, i’d rather die knowing that i took a thousand enemies with me
runs out of gas beacuse oil shortages
gets overwhelmed by hundreds more Shermans
lack of tanks to replace captured surrendered tank destroyer beacuse lack of workers and steel
somehow didn’t get bombed from air superiority by the USAF beacuse by D day Luftwaffen was a meme
“Clean Wehrmacht” is a fallacy that has been debunked time and time again over the years. In any case, the armed forces of Nazi Germany reflect the national interests of the Nazi regime. There really exists no legitimate argument against this.