Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Sadly I wasnt there. But I have interviewed a number of German and Allied tankers.
|
Were the US vets you interviewed, men you knew and were they tankers or infantry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Both agree that the Sherman, despite its faults, was an excellent tank.
.
|
So you base this on 2 interviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Your dismissal of wet stowage goes some way to show that you have little experience in this regard..
|
What dismissal of wet stowage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Consider the fact that the Panther burned just as easily and the Sherman starts to shows its faults are not so much of a hinderance.
|
The reality was the Tiger and Panther were a better tank than the Sherman as was the T-34.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Perhaps you could list the reasons for the MkIII and MKIV being superior as I previously asked you?
|
Well now you've lost all credibilty because you can't even get your posters and quotes correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by PactOfSteel
Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans.
|
That's the guy not me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
I doubt you will though.
|
Your right, for once, I won't,........ ask Pact of Steel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
As for the British Vs. USA arguement of who won the war... I dont involve myself in such pathetic childish ranting that quite frankly is an insult to the men who died serving their nations.
Grow up.
|
You are making incorrect assumptions again, that was merely a quip concerning our resident tank expert with the bunker fetish.
I just mentioned that the Sherman was an inadequate medium tank basically because of its lack of armor and lesser firepower than the Mk V, VI and Tiger II. The tankers called them Ronsons among other things due to the problems with earlier models but then later in general because they weren't satified with their performance and you see that in the development of the T-24 and T-26.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
So the best form of defence after making a sweeping inaccurate statement is truly pointless attack is it Peter? You really do get more and more random as time passes. |
You were rather generally smug in your original comment and once again did not read what I said, before your Britannia's Typhoons to the rescue comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
I reckon having put up with the arrogant Hollywood 'we won the war alone' attitude of the ill-informed on ww2 history there's nothing wrong with sometimes making an attempt to redress the balance and stress the fact it was an allied victory, particularly in an arena where there really was great cooperation between air forces, such as over and around the Ardennes. We could go into detail of the Czechs, Poles, Frenchmen, etc.
|
Well you couldn't be more wrong, it was an Allied effort, but see you have a chip on your shoulder about that and other things my long haired friend. If I was so Gung Ho about the US Army winning the show wouldn't I then say the Sherman, the best tank of the war....certainly not. And Hollywood, really, you should know me better than to think I believe anything from Hollywood. I would say America shouldered a major part of WWII and would be correct I saying so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
also flying those planes but that just wouldn't fit your narrow parochial view as stated at all would it. On WW2F, just as on WW2T, some level of accuracy is considered desirable.
|
There's that chip again, maybe you should change your brand of Vodka
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
I now await your usual trend of making some random blurt relating to US politics, that's what normally seems to happen anyway. I'm sure the tank losses in the Ardennes were something to do with the voting balance in the house of representatives in your unique view of the war.  . |
Wrong again Adam