Posted: 27/May/2006 at 04:21 | IP Logged  |

EngineerSoldier wrote: (again, dumbass)

EngineerSoldier wrote: (dumbass)

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 17:21 | IP Logged  |

Since ES and others think that the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger was we will have a duel, ES vs. twiw.

This is my choice:

ES is sitting in this one:

I'll let have ES the first three shots for free.

Place your bets.

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 17:33 | IP Logged  |

More bullshit. It's not the best tank that helps you winning the war, but the industry that is capable of producing tanks by the required numbers.

You know, being a member of the team that wins doesn't make each member of that team the "best". It makes the team the best, but not the individuals, nor the equipment.

According to you Greece has the best soccer-keeper in Europe - the team won the European soccer championchip after all.

ROFL.

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 19:09 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: Since ES and others think that the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger was we will have a duel, ES vs. twiw.

Wars are not tank on tank duels.

If you showed up to our duel with a tiger tank. I definitely would not show up with any tank. I'd show up with a squad of Engineers and a bunch of our evil gismos and you would be totally fucked.  You'd be driving around confident that you've got the coolest tank on the block, moments later both you and your cocky attitude would be splattered all over the inside of the tank.

But you still would have the best tank, twiw, so don't feel bad.

Maybe your buddies can hose you out of it, fix it up, and use it again, because it is a very nice tank.

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 19:11 | IP Logged  |

r

twiw wrote: According to you Greece has the best soccer-keeper in Europe - the team won the European soccer championchip after all.

I'm sure that all the 9year old girls on both sides did their best, that is what counts after all.

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 19:16 | IP Logged  |

EngineerSoldier wrote: If you showed up to our duel with a tiger tank. I definitely would not show up with any tank.

Problem is you don't have any of your gizmos, nor any of your engineer buddies. You just have that Sherman, the definitely better tank - like you said for about a dozen times now.

And I have the inferior Tiger.

What shall I write to your mom?

Posted: 27/May/2006 at 22:28 | IP Logged  |

I think the point is probalby that the Sherman was a more effective tank during the war.

Give ES five of those tanks placed strategically around you and fully stocked while you have half a tank of gas because your tanks are too costly.

Posted: 28/May/2006 at 02:57 | IP Logged  |

What your retarded ass is failing to grasp is that warfare is not a "whos got the coolest toy" contest.  If you think the way you are currently thinking in a real conflict, you will almost definitely lose.

Posted: 28/May/2006 at 03:22 | IP Logged  |

You guys are sooo dumb

Tiger beats Sherman in one on one combat.

Sherman is easier to built and cost less.

Germans always built the best things, Americans always built the most.

Quantity over Quality, Quantity almost always wins.

Posted: 28/May/2006 at 04:49 | IP Logged  |

The whole way of thinking is stupid (twiw's way)

Your big awesome Tiger tank can be killed rather easily with a 7.5 kg shoulder fired missle.  Your big awsome Tiger tank can also be killed with landmines, explosives, tank traps, running out of gas, or a grenade.

We used running out of gas against the Germans because they were stupid enough for it to be effective. You can have a nice tank and lose your war.

M136 AT4 Light Antitank Weapon (LAW)

The M136 AT-4 LAW is a shoulder-launched anti-armor weapon designed to defeat modern threat main battle tanks. The AT4 is manufactured by FFV Ordnance, Sweden and Alliant Techsystems.

The M136 AT4 is a lightweight, self-contained, anti-armor weapon consisting of a free-flight, fin-stabilized, rocket-type cartridge packed in an expendable, one-piece, watertight fiberglass-wrapped tube. Though the M136 AT4 can be employed in limited visibility, the firer must be able to see and identify the target and estimate the range to it. Unlike the M72-series LAW, the M136 AT4 launcher need not be extended before firing. The maximum effective range is 984.3 feet (300 meters).

The M136 AT4 is used primarily by infantry forces for engagement and defeat of armor threats. The rifle's design permits accurate delivery of a 84mm High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead providing excellent penetration capability (more than 15 inches -400 mm - of rolled homogenous armor) and lethal after-armor effects. It replaced the M72-series LAW as the Army's primary light antitank weapon.

The M136 AT4 is man-portable and is fired from the right shoulder only. It is 40 inches (101.6 centimeters) in length and weighs 14.75 pounds (6.7 kilograms). The bore diameter is 3.3 inches (84 mm).

M136 AT4 launchers are marked with color-coded bands. A black with yellow band indicates an HE anti-armor round (early models had a solid black band). A gold or yellow band indicates a field handling trainer (as in the photos on this page); no band indicates an M287 9-mm tracer bullet trainer.

AT4 training, 25th Infantry Division, 2nd Brigade, 31 January 2004.

M136 AT4 CS (Confined Space) Weapon

The M136 AT4 CS is an advanced version of the AT4 munition that can be fired from a confined space, significantly increasing the soldier’s ability to fight in an urban environment. The AT4 CS consists of a shock resistant, fiberglass-reinforced launching tube fitted with a firing mechanism, pop-up sights, a carrying sling, protective covers and bumpers. The recoilless design is superior to that of rocket-type weapons for confined space applications.

The system weighs 7.5 kg and has an effective range of 984.3 feet (300 meters). There are two versions: High Penetration (HP) and Reduced Sensitivity (RS).

Posted: 28/May/2006 at 10:18 | IP Logged  |

EngineerSoldier wrote: AT4 training, 25th Infantry Division, 2nd Brigade, 31 January 2004.

Great. Say why didn't you use your stealth bombers in WW2? Or your Cruise Missilies?

odin wrote: After the war, they used to say over here how it must have pissed off the Germans, to get there tanks knocked out with a piece of drainpipe (Bazooka)

But not the Tiger or King Tiger. The lots of reported stories about Tiger tanks that received plenty of (up to 227 !) Bazooka hits without any of them penetrating.

The only chance to kill a Tiger was actually with planes.

Of course. But not on a battlefield with exactly one Tiger and one Sherman. And that's what's the issue here.

The Tiger was by far the better tank, getting outnumbered didn't reduce the superiority of a single Tiger tank by any means.

That ES wants to kill a Tiger with his weapons from 2004 is another story.

Posted: 04/June/2006 at 14:06 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: The only chance to kill a Tiger was actually with planes.

or blow its tracks off, or set it on fire, or trap it in an obstacle, or run it out of gas, or shoot it in the rear, or kill the infantry and supply lines  it depends on to survive.

a tiger by itself is about as useful in warfare as a BMW without an autobahn to drive on.

i could beat a BMW in a foot race through the woods therefore my NIKE's are a faster vehicle

Posted: 04/June/2006 at 14:19 | IP Logged  |

because there was no need, europeans are a stupid enemy that practically kill themselves and can be done on the cheap. stealth and modern technology was needed for the more competant russians

Posted: 29/July/2006 at 22:48 | IP Logged  |

If you kill 9 Shermans with a Tiger, there will always be a 10th one to shoot you in the ass

1:1 combat, there is no contest. Tiger FTW.

1:5 combat. That depends, with the right tatics and a lot of luck, the Shermans will win.