You sited no sources. None at all. You just spout off bull crap. You are funny!!!! Really funny and boring...
SITE SOURCES!!!!!!!! Please!
No facts, Out produce America... LOL How, Where? Anything? Come on. Just this one fact.
Please!!!!
again, I made statements, you said they are bull crap, so it's up to you to disprove my statements - that's a simple logic .
if you don't have sources to disprove my statement then you should fuck off or make an excuse for your shitty statement and ask for answers - that's a simple logic
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
Yeah, I also would be very interested to see sources cited during arguments (overall)
Apart from strengthening the discussing people's cases, it also makes it much more interesting to follow the discussion since other people can also learn some stuff from these sources.
Yeah, I also would be very interested to see sources cited during arguments (overall)
Apart from strengthening the discussing people's cases, it also makes it much more interesting to follow the discussion since other people can also learn some stuff from these sources.
I can answer and explain but first the guy needs to excuse for his words or disprove my words.
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
I would say in WW2 soviet tanks on average were out armored but not out gunned. They had an easier time fighting German armor than the US & British did, mostly due to their high calibre main guns. They knew this. They most likely used poor visibility and the snow to hinder their advance of being seen when assaulting if you can't hit the armor in a snow storm or at night it wouldn't matter how many inches the tank had on it.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:05 am Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
No...T-34 really is the best all around tank in WW2 due to production rate, innovative sloped armour (Germans copied later) and good balance of speed/protection. Yes later in war, the Tigers and Panthers were superior...however by the time they arrived it was already too late. The Germans had been routed in Stalingrad and it was the T-34 that broke the backs of the Axis forces.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:18 pm Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
The writing was on the wall for the Germans in the fall of 1941. The Army was over streched, poor logistics, not nearly enough fuel, ammunition, limited tanks, vehicles and never enough soldiers to replace the losses.
The Tiger and Panther good defensive tanks as they were, were over engineered, costly to produce and required a skilled work force to assemble, specially in the case of the Tiger, hence why only a limited number were built.
The T34 was designed to be mass produced by a semi / unskilled work force in large numbers. It couldn't have been that bad as one of the manufacturers who was competing for the Panther contract produced a prototype near identical to the Russian tank.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
Quote:
No...T-34 really is the best all around tank in WW2 due to production rate, innovative sloped armour (Germans copied later) and good balance of speed/protection.
T-34 sloped armor was based on S-35 armor shape.
due to lack of AP shells the main AT ammo for T-34 76mm gun was HE or cannister set on impact till like mid 1942 so they couldn't really fight the German tanks unless in ambush.
Quote:
Yes later in war, the Tigers and Panthers were superior...however by the time they arrived it was already too late.
again, PzIVG was already a pure T-34 killer.
Quote:
The Germans had been routed in Stalingrad and it was the T-34 that broke the backs of the Axis forces.
in Stalingrad around 50% of the RA tanks were T-60/70.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: T-34 not the best tank?
Quote:
The writing was on the wall for the Germans in the fall of 1941. The Army was over streched, poor logistics, not nearly enough fuel, ammunition, limited tanks, vehicles and never enough soldiers to replace the losses.
ha! both Germans and Soviets thought differently till like spring 1943 .
example: half of the USSR population remained on the occupied territories by late 1942.
Quote:
The Tiger and Panther good defensive tanks as they were, were over engineered, costly to produce and required a skilled work force to assemble, specially in the case of the Tiger, hence why only a limited number were built.
Tiger wasn't a defence tank, Panther was.
Quote:
The T34 was designed to be mass produced by a semi / unskilled work force in large numbers. It couldn't have been that bad as one of the manufacturers who was competing for the Panther contract produced a prototype near identical to the Russian tank.
not correct, T-34 was a high tech for the Soviet industry and it was very hard to produce it.
but VK3001(db) was never accepted . and somehow very few captured T-34 were pressed to service and before they were upgraded to suit the German demands...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
