Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"The mighty M1", a stupid media product ....

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
M6D

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
No offense to your army...but er..your history doesnt say much, like in world war II, a little thing about shermans...... that doesnt exactly speak well, out numbereing the enemy in combat because it was the only way to beat them isnt anything to be proud off.




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
You cant really claim a tank being the best purely because it fought against older tanks. It is impossible to say which tank is the best atm. Why? Most competitors for the M1 are either not used much or we dont get detailed information of theire actions. M1 is a decent tank but is it better?, perhaps its the worst modern tank. We dont know. You can again claim how well it fought in the first gulf war against underequipped, under trained, tired, poor morale crews and poorly maintained tanks and crews. It just doesnt work like that. Otherwise i can say the AK47 is the best assault rifle because of its history.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
So the 125mm has never seen combat? Research yer history before making outlandish statements like that, my friend.

The much vaunted 'JagdTiger' of WWII saw comat against allied forces. True to say they did not appear in too great a number, but only the heaviest of allied tanks could take them on and win.

Not a very good tank either - square box gun 'thingy' - had to move the tank to aim, but it account for a few allied tanks before they were knocked out by fighter-bombers and JS-IIIs etc.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Was it the most modern version of it at the time? I really doubt that. Did it the tanks have the latest series of anti tank ammo? I doubt that even more.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The Point Of It All


Originally posted by M6D
No offense to your army...but er..your history doesnt say much, like in world war II, a little thing about shermans...... that doesnt exactly speak well, out numbereing the enemy in combat because it was the only way to beat them isnt anything to be proud off.

Losing a war isn't anything to be proud of either. The Germans didn't have to ship their tanks across the submarine-infested waters of the Atlantic, so they could build tanks as big as they wanted.

Allied commanders decided a bunch of light, maneuverable tanks were a better choice for an invasion force than behemoths that would get stuck in the first mud bog they encountered.

While that was just a small part of a big war, it is a tactic that seems to have paid off. Given the circumstances, the Sherman did an outstanding job in Europe.

Carping about tactics that win is silly. The best tactics are the ones that win. How do you improve on victory?

I can 't understand how folks could lose sight of something so fundamental to war. I mean seriously.

All this penis-measuring over tanks is irrelevant if you can't win a war.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Sorry folks, I really meant to say 128mm.

As for ammo, yes - I think it used the most modern ammo available to the Germans - at that time.

But yer right!

It's superiority of arms, tactics and of course intelligence that wins wars - not to mention the overwhelming desire to win, against all the odds.


M6D

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
It did a outstanding job?! having to take on german tiger tanks on a 5 to 1 basis??? hell, only the british 6 pounder firefly had a real ability to be a tiger killer! and even then it wasnt deffinitive, in fact, neither was the 76mm and the 75mm would glance off the front and sides at almost any range!
if it was so hard to ship? how come the T-26's later introuduced at the end of the war could be shipped oveR? in fact, in 1944 the allies pretty much owned the seas! we were hunting down THEIR subs!
it wasnt even that much of a risk at that time to ship over tanks!
You know, it was Patton who even told sherman commanders, they couldnt even stick sandbags on their tanks to protect against enemy tanks that bit more?! he basically sent crews to their deaths, in tanks, that were easily peentrated and destroyed by tigers, and the like!
he even opposed the creastion of the T-26!
now please, again, try to tell me how the sherman was so brilliant, a baseline sherman, not the jumbos or the british firefly's, if they were so easily taken out by germantanks resulting in many loss's of life for tank crewers?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
First of all, just about EVERY Allied tank, with the exception of the T-34 and a couple of others were easily destroyed gy German tanks in WWII.

Secondly, the T-26s could be shipped over by train. It wasn't so much the German subs that were the problem with shipping the Sherman over, it was the size of the ships we were putting them on. The choice was either ship over large numbers of a not so good tank, and try to make a difference with them, or ship over small numbers of bigger tanks and risk not having enough in theater.

The Sherman WAS a POC against German tanks, but so was just about everything ELSE on the field. German tanks were the best built at the time and had a reputation of being able to take on all comers. I've heard of German tanks taking the biggest round available to the Allies at the time, and keep right on rolling.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
"The much vaunted 'JagdTiger' of WWII saw comat against allied forces. True to say they did not appear in too great a number, but only the heaviest of allied tanks could take them on and win.

Not a very good tank either - square box gun 'thingy' - had to move the tank to aim, but it account for a few allied tanks before they were knocked out by fighter-bombers and JS-IIIs etc."

That's because the JagdTiger wasn't a tank. It was a tank destroyer. You put the biggest gun, and most armor you can on it, remove the turret, and drive around blowing up enemy tanks.


M6D

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Indeed, german tanks could still deflect 90mm shells of their armour, our closest things, the centurion was a mere month or week away from seeing any action against tigers, but it would of been nice of seen what it could of done, the 90mm T-26 however, was the closest thing the americans had to even taking out german tanks at range, and its armour wasnt bad either, but it certainly was a better tank then a sherman, orgional shermans were so bad they were called ronsons! because theyd just flame up, a T-26 has several recorded kills at range, somthing a sherman can never clame.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Panther wasnt exactly a sluggish benemoth. It was a fast manuverable, heavily armoured and armed tank. Thanks to its sloped armour the armour of the panther was better than that of the Tiger Ausf E. The koningstiger owned every tank on the armour department unless it was made from bad steel what happend occaisionally. The T34 was very troublesome in the beginning but later tanks were at least on par with it. Later panzer 4's were on par if not better than the T34 and better than the Sherman. I say the panzer 4 is perhaps the best developed tank of WW2. No other tank was viable throughout the war. It was a perfect tank of upgrading.


M6D

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
And thats why the T-26 was such a good tank, it took out a panther which is well recorded, in a village,and the crew bailed. not sure if they were gunned down or not, The german tanks were still far ahead, but whats really the issue is the men at the tops ingorance to save lives of their tank crewers, somthing for which patton the not so almighty general is responsible for, in fact, patton even reprimanded a tank commander for putting sandbags on his tank, and he opposeed the t-26 creation!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
How was the panther taken out?

The panther could just have been disabeled.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Public Service Announcement.

Don't forget that this thread is about the M1 Abrams tank.




[edit on 11-7-2005 by dbates]


M6D

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Sorry, let me just say this.

the panther was smacked in the side once that killed it, the crew bailed because that set it on fire, but just to take the piss they shot it,frm what i can judge, at least another three times. so id say its abit more then disabled kill :p



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Panthers and Abrams have the same problem actually. Rear vulnerability. On the Abrams the armor is thinner, allowing RPGs to damage the engine and disable them. The Panther carried external fuel drums due to the small fuel tanks built into them, they were mounted on the rear behind the engine.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Zaphod58 after lessons learned in Iraqi cities the Army has put more emphasis on rear protection with the Abrams increasing armor to its engine area and putting a steel cage around it to better protect it from RPG. Not prefect but better than before.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Yeah, I know. I was just trying to find a way to tie in the Panther and the Abrams and get the thread back on track.


M6D

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
exellent er ....thinking.
Of course, i have no idea if sloped side armour would still help or not, because no tanks nowerdays really have sloped sides.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
It always helps. It makes the Armour thicker and makes shells easier to bounce off.






top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join