Akhe100

Well worst comes to worst they can just sell off their excess tanks that they can't crew and use the money to build a better economy and social structure. I mean the market for russian weapons is still very big despite the colapse of the USSR.

Having double checked it seems I forgot to add the angle of the armor into my calculations and at the same angle they actually do have similar penetration. I base what I said about the firefly about what I've read about it and most references to its performance were good ones. My bad about the angle thing. Back on topic my real point is that the tank destroyer doctrine was flawed IMO and open topped vehicles left the crew way too vulnerable.

While the recoil from the M-16's cartridge is fairly light and the direct impingement system makes it lighter still, it's a still a rifle round and a realistic shot at 100 meters is to get 3 rounds on the same person, and that's if you aim a little low to start with. If you can find someone who can get a 3 round burst into that small of a target from that far away, well then, that person should go on tour, cause they are a prodigy.

Actually that is wrong, the 76mm gun on the sherman could penetrate 89mm of steel at 1000 meters where the 85mm gun on the T-34/85 could penetrate 102mm of steel at 1000 meters, this is a significant difference.

Dude for the last time, the T-34 had far superior mobilty. The T-34 could go 53 KPH and the panzer III could only go 40 KPH, also the T-34 had an astounding range of 400 kilometers whereas the Panzer III had one of 155 kilometers. Also the ground presssure of the the panzer III was 13-15 punds per square inch (depending on the model) and the T-34's was a mere 9.1 pounds per square inch. See, there are the numbers. The panzer III was good for it's time, that's true, but it was far too small to be developed far, whereas the sherman, the T-34, and the Panzer IV were not. oh and just one other thing, the panzer three did have the problem that it's armor was too spread around with armor on it's back and sides being in some cases as thick as it's frontal armor, which just doesn't offer combat value commiserate to its wait.

1. Sorry, sargent, you're the one who one who is wrong, the allied doctrine was that the purpose of tanks was not to fight other tanks, but to be infantry support weapons and as such they were not made well to fight tanks. This is a laughable proposition as this assumes that tanks will not often have to fight tanks. 2. While I agree that the british may not have had a good record when it came to tank building, the 17 pounder was arguably superior to anything that either side had at time, exceeding even the great 88 in armor penetration (while being smaller and lighter). 3. Sergent, frankly, it doesn't MATTER what the best western allied anti-tank gun was because the western front allies were just overall pretty bad at tank combat. It wasn't until the 17 pounder that we got a really good anti-tank gun (it was amazing when used on the sherman firefly) but it wasn't used that much on tanks. The eastern front allies had them beat hands down with their 100mm anti tank gun and their 85mm tank gun (which was put on tanks as early as '43)

Also actually, there is no doubt the Panzer III with 50mm of armor an a 50mm gun did very well in the desert campaign vs all of the rather poor cruiser and infantry tanks of the british, but when it came to the sherman, it was beat hands down, even Rommel was forced to admit that "Their new tank, the general Sherman...showed itself superior to any of ours" after the battle of el alamein. It was good in the early war but it was obselete by 1943 when bigger and better tanks like the sherman and T-34 and the KV-1, reared their heads.

First off I said that THE FIRST T-34's didn't have radios, in fact I think I specifically mentioned that the later ones did. Second it doesn't matter if they were SUPPOSED to have radios, the fact was that they didn't until about the middle of the war.

Do you have any idea how many stukas were downed by the RAF during the Battle of Britain, I believe the number was in the hundreds. It was a great close air support weapon but they tried to use it as a medium range strategic bomber, which it was not. It was put to great use when they had air superiority and in places like the medditeranian where the allies had supply problems. But they suffered extremely heavy losses in the late war vs the russians and during the battle of britain.

You want an example, look at the late desert campaign? Or look at the fact that the germans stopped making it halfway through the war and took much off the ones that were left and made them into other things like infantry support guns. Also the Panzer III was also beat hands down and a half in manuverability. (look at my above post)

Use of it in the bombing raids on britain and some of it's use of the eastern front were essentially turkey shoots.

They were made with the point that tanks weren't supposed to engage other tanks, as I said, a laughable proposition,and were overall equipped fairly poorly to do so. Even it's upgraded 76mm gun could only penetrate 89mm of armor, which can't even kill a panther from the front, much less a tiger.

No harm no foul man. It's cool.