I guess the stock browser would probably work, though.

Although it only gets really bad with texts ignore the unit number or regiment number and just say “The Northumberland Hussars advanced on…. entered on… ” and expect the reader to know who they were serving under at X time.

Reading the unit history’s for the allies (USA) are like that sometimes tbh. Because some of the history’s were written right after the war (48-mid 50s) and the unit never knew at the time what German unit exactly was opposing them… But I let that sort of stuff slide since it is immediately after the war.

It is the later texts from the 1980′s onward that I tend to be most annoyed with when they ignore the unit numbers… Either that or having issues tracking an unit’s history down.

Paper tanks are roughly condensed into 3 cagoriess.

The fully laid out and drawn/planned (engine, gun, radio specs, ammo specs, etc) but they are never built or entered production for one reason or another.

The partly planned tanks such as the GW Panther and a few others from different country’s which existed as wooden mock ups at best, builders model’s, engineered design study’s partly put to paper.

And lastly the tanks that don’t meet the above but are not in the realm of fantasy. That is to say they exist in the base of fact and real ideas put to paper in the form of words… but they never made it to detailed drawings or made it to wooden mock ups.

At least that is how I would do it.

Granted some Brit TDs like the CGC were real, but Achilles and Archer should’ve filled the spots taken by AT 2 and AT 8.