|
#11
●
06-09-2011, 03:47 PM
| ||||||||
 Benevolent dictator Poster Rank:57 Arse fucker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 25,643 Mentioned: 17 Post(s) Quoted: 1450 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
I've seen most of the German tank projects that didn't make it far as i am a tank lover. http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...e-tanks-27589/ |
|
#12
●
06-09-2011, 03:53 PM
| ||||||||
| Benevolent dictator Poster Rank:57 Arse fucker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 25,643 Mentioned: 17 Post(s) Quoted: 1450 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
Everywhere states that the Tiger had a range of 250kms but this is bullshit, it had a range of less than 100kms in combat conditions and even less off road in the mud. Sorry to point this out but a supertank would not be able to maneuver on a battlefield at all, this maybe why these projects never made it into production.
|
|
#13
●
06-12-2011, 03:24 AM
| ||||||||
 King of East Texas Poster Rank:356 3 legs Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,445
Contributions: 1
Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Quoted: 915 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
yup, too big for its own good, i really cant stand it when people just start talking about the tiger and its supremacy, Germans had the nicest tanks( or russians, or even the american pershing, depending on who you talk to there is always someone saying something), yeah, but also had some of the most problems, and the tiger and just king tiger were too big for their own good, none the less, being a Texan i love all loud giant things that can crush and make a huge bang
|
|
#14
●
06-12-2011, 04:15 AM
| ||||||||
| Benevolent dictator Poster Rank:57 Arse fucker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 25,643 Mentioned: 17 Post(s) Quoted: 1450 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
The Tiger is my all out favourite tank ever, even if it was outclassed by the Panther and the T-34/76 T-34/85. At the time of its introduction there was not a single cannon that could defeat its armour, and it scored almost perfectly for its fear factor. The mere mention of Tigers caused panic and anxiety amongst allied tankers even if it was over weight, under powered, and mechanically unsound. That 88mm cannon punished everything it hit even though the 75mm cannon on the Panther was balistically more effective.
|
|
#17
●
01-10-2015, 07:13 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: FIRST LIEUTENANT Poster Rank:242 Male Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 5,695 Mentioned: 15 Post(s) Quoted: 1530 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
First off, it's not a 'tank' in the truest sense, it's more like a Self-propelled gun (SP) and it's use is totally different. As for being no match for a Panther or any other German armor, this tank wouldn't have done well offensively because of its ponderous size, but a Panther's HV 76mm gun would have barely nicked this tank. More likely it would break down on its own.
|
|
#18
●
02-02-2015, 05:25 AM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: SERGEANT Poster Rank:1063 male Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 624 Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Quoted: 82 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
its german in its design.an oversized version of a tank hunter though not built for that purpose.looks nothing like any american tank that was produced or that their designers came up with.russian models were also close to this design.just sayin .
|
|
#19
●
02-02-2015, 07:48 PM
| ||||||||
 So Fucking Banned Poster Rank:55 Pull on it Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 25,957
Contributions: 3
Mentioned: 160 Post(s) Quoted: 12750 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Largest US Tank of Ww2, Too Big for Combat
Before they started moving it, the ordnance museum at the Aberdeen proving ground has this tank and many, many more on display. Fortunately, I got to visit it twice, the Jagdtiger was as large and impressive as you could imagine  |
