In 90% of the cases movies arn't correct, theres always something thats untrue in them even if they are based on a real event.
Thats not the battle I was on about...the film is Zulu Dawn
Charge 7 said:The point is that if you make alot of an inferior weapon and your opponent makes very little of a superior weapon you can win by production alone. The ability to mass produce and the design that allowed this to happen are what made the Sherman a great tank - not its armor, not its firepower.
Charge 7 said:It did however have the advantage over the Tiger in mobility. It was faster and lighter and it's turret turned much faster. These elements allowed it to kill the Tiger though even then only by shooting it from the rear. As I stated, this took about four Sherman's to accomplish. Production assured that there were four Shermans so it did happen.
Charge, I realise this argument is going nowhere but by God I just can't help myself.
Doppleganger said:How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?
rOk said:Doppleganger said:How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?
_they never ran out_ ....that's how, nobody's saying that the Sherman was a marvel of technology _however_ it did it's job...either that be 4:1 or 1:1...doesn't really matter does it?
Damien435 said:I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
Damien435 said:I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
MontyB said:Damien435 said:I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
The only modifier in that for me would be that both the Abrams and Challenger have stood up to the combat test where the Leopard hasnt so while I hear good things about the Leopard and on paper it should be superior until it sees some form of combat (ie doing its job) I personally cant put it in the number one spot.
Armyjaeger said:Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?
sleepyscout said:Its not how good the tank is but the people using it. no one tank has a hugly supior advantage over another tank so we fall on the much tryed and true method. The law of murphy, thy who shoots first wins.
Armyjaeger said:Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.