Comments on: New Fury “Behind the Scenes” Trailer

By: Urie van Kerr

Urie van Kerr — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:00:39 +0000

OK, I will correct myself…….Just read that, full of Russian STRONK and a bollocks set of untrue/ inaccurate information.

Happy now.

By: Expat_Poke

Expat_Poke — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:53:18 +0000

If I recall was not the mighty Wittmann killed by a 75 mm Sherman? Average combat ranges largely negated the range advantage of the Tiger. Plus it is some what hard for a tank to out range arty and air strikes.

If the German tanks were so superior to the Sherman, why did the Sherman knock out more German tanks than German tanks knock out Shermans?

By: Expat_Poke

Expat_Poke — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:44:30 +0000

So close, if the number 1 factor in who wins a tank engagement has little to do with armor and pen of the gun, why waste resources building something that stresses and breaks the limits of transmissions of the time on things that don’t matter? That is how you end up not having enough materials to field a mobile army. Amazing almost 100 years of combined armed operations to look at involving tanks, artillery, infantry, and air power and people still don’t get it. The Tiger and panther were resource hogs that limited the armor support a German grunt could expect to have backing them up.

Also I have family and friends that fought losing friends to stop communist aggressors. So you can close the fridge door saying the US has nothing to hang their hat on since WW2.

By: 30K

30K — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:59:28 +0000

it took 50000 shermans to take out 1500 tigers… are you fucking kidding me? fire this fucking guy!

By: David Eff

David Eff — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:56:21 +0000

I remember my Father expressing his dissatisfaction directly after my request to watch “Operation Burma” back in the days of four television channels. He was not a Burma veteran, but the offended feelings were shared by many back in those post war years of unity in Britain.
I am expecting Michael Bay without the upgraded breasts and lip enhanced short skirt, tight top wearing female eye candy…

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:51:52 +0000

They accepted American M47s (Whether they accepted them or had them shoved down their throat is debatable) and then when they built the AMX-30, it was heavily based on American designs and the Leopard I, which was also heavily based on Western design philosophy. Even the Germans didn’t use any design ques from the Panther.

By: randomcommenterwithlowIQ

randomcommenterwithlowIQ — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:29:12 +0000

Even with France which took some design themes from the Germans, they quickly shuffled a lot of the German’s stuff off to the side. Front mounted transmission, and german optical systems were never even toyed around with, and turret and armament were radically revised.

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:00:33 +0000

Shermans “burned” (Rather, cooked off) because Brits loved to stuff them full of ammo in every spot they could possibly put it, outside of stowage spec. So it wasn’t uncommon for British Shermans to cook off. This wasn’t as big an issue with US-issued Shermans because ammo stowage was more strictly regulated. Then later when Shermans started getting wet ammo stowage from the production line the cookoffs virtually stopped.

The Brits had the same problems with their own tanks in North Africa. You know. Diesel-powered tanks.

It wasn’t the fuel. The fuel had little to do with it. That’s a myth. Just like the whole “Ronson” nonsense. When Ronson didn’t even start that ad campaign until the mid-50s…

Shermans also had several advantages over the T-34. Namely in build quality, reliability and crew comfort and safety. The M4 actually had real ammo stowage. It didn’t have the turret crew standing ontop of ammo crates for stowage like the T-34 did.

Neither were “inferior” to the Panther, because both the T-34 and the M4 could be counted on to actually work when they reached the fight. The Panther was likely to break on the way to the fight…which is why the Germans transported them by rail everywhere…

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:51:54 +0000

The Panther didn’t see any evolution because it wasn’t really that great a design. Had it come out the 35 ton tank it was originally intended to be, maybe. But it was far too mechanically unreliable to truly be anything more than a liability.

The French tried to copy German designs and eventually gave up and went with Western-themed designs. The US based everything after the war on the Pershing, and the Soviets based everything off the T-34 and then the T-54. So no, the Panther saw no evolution. Because it was a dead-end. There was nothing to evolve that US and Soviet designs weren’t doing better/more efficiently.

By: Alexander Yordanov

Alexander Yordanov — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:28:36 +0000

T-54 is closer to a MBT (and arguably is one) then the Panther.

Nice that you repeat things I know though.