Author Topic: Happy birthday harm  (Read 2055 times)

I admit it. The Tiger tanks were great. When they weren't on fire and/or broken. Which was not often.
the T34 was an excellent tank for tiger commanders to practice their shooting. And certainly T34s were effective on their own, and didnt require massive numbers for success.

Tell that to the M4 Sherman.

Sherman M4A3E8 and Firefly were the best Sherman. For its time the 75mm Sherman was decent enough, but past 1943 onward it was pretty bad. While the T-34 is good, its overrated as the unstoppable medium tank of the war. Soviet tanks designed prior to the T-34 were pretty bad(see T-26, BT-5, KV-1).

In the Korean War the M4A3E8 Sherman and T-34/85 were pretty much equals, whoever shot first won. With the new American Pershing tanks, there were reports of the tanks over penetrating. American soldiers said the 90mm gun would punch through front and back and the shell would go into a hillside.

also you should rename thread to tank discussion thread

Sherman > Lion of babylon


The KV-1 wasn't a medium tank.

I didn't say it was a medium and you are right, it was not a medium. Tt was a Heavy and the T-26 and BT-5 were light tanks. KV-1 had mechanical problems, but its armor was tough in the early parts of the war. However it wasn't suited for tank on tank combat as soon as the long barreled Panzer III and Panzer IV variants came into play.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 01:15:08 PM by Harm94 »

[im g]http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Tanks/m51_10.jpg[/img]
shieeet