Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,553
#5,553
i know that was looking at numbers alone, but quality wise would be a laughable difference as well. i think about 9000 (wikipedia) of their tanks are 80's (series) and it has been proven numerous times our abrams far outclass them, not as much hard data on their 90's series but I am willing to bet the Abrams would still come out on top.

and the most important number of aircraft was hugely in our favor.

another interesting note, I didn't know our pop was almost twice theirs.
 
#5,554
#5,554
LouderVol said:
i know that was looking at numbers alone, but quality wise would be a laughable difference as well. i think about 9000 (wikipedia) of their tanks are 80's (series) and it has been proven numerous times our abrams far outclass them, not as much hard data on their 90's series but I am willing to bet the Abrams would still come out on top.

and the most important number of aircraft was hugely in our favor.

another interesting note, I didn't know our pop was almost twice theirs.
Click to expand...

The Abrams is pretty much the top of any class. And that's including Western designs. About the closest thing that would compare would be the Brit's Challenger II, the German Leopard II and maybe, maybe the French Leclerc and South Korean K2.

We build good weapons. Other nations might out quantity us, but generally don't out quality us.
 
#5,556
#5,556
Velo Vol said:
I hadn't noticed that China has more "proven" oil reserves than the U.S. Wonder where they are?
Click to expand...

Probably 2 miles off the respective coasts of Vietnam, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and Antartica. These are Chinese territorial waters, you know.
 
#5,559
#5,559
Grand Vol said:
The Abrams is pretty much the top of any class. And that's including Western designs. About the closest thing that would compare would be the Brit's Challenger II, the German Leopard II and maybe, maybe the French Leclerc and South Korean K2.

We build good weapons. Other nations might out quantity us, but generally don't out quality us.
Click to expand...

to me the only contender is the Leopard, the Germans know tanks. challenger is up there but we took too much of it and just made it better for me to consider it a real challenger. (Chobam armor and a lot of the basic architecture) hadn't read up on the SKs will look into it. There are plenty of other specialized tanks that are better at their rolls but if i am taking one battle tank it is the Abrams.
 
#5,560
#5,560
Best WWII tank? Go!

Has to be between one of the German MBTs and the Soviet T-34.

We Americans have come along way with our tank tech, but I don't think the Sherminator was worth much.

And I was reminded last night, whilst watching a scene from "The Pacific," how crappy Japanese tanks were. My god, those things looked like some peasant welded them together in a backyard somewhere outside Tokyo.
 
#5,561
#5,561
volprof said:
Best WWII tank? Go!

Has to be between one of the German MBTs and the Soviet T-34.

We Americans have come along way with our tank tech, but I don't think the Sherminator was worth much.

And I was reminded last night, whilst watching a scene from "The Pacific," how crappy Japanese tanks were. My god, those things looked like some peasant welded them together in a backyard somewhere outside Tokyo.
Click to expand...

I honestly feel sorry for all those guys that had to go against german defenses. Seems like we should have been ahead of the curve in that department. I guess they figured why build them if they could just keep holding off an invasion.
 
#5,562
#5,562
volprof said:
Best WWII tank? Go!

Has to be between one of the German MBTs and the Soviet T-34.

We Americans have come along way with our tank tech, but I don't think the Sherminator was worth much.

And I was reminded last night, whilst watching a scene from "The Pacific," how crappy Japanese tanks were. My god, those things looked like some peasant welded them together in a backyard somewhere outside Tokyo.
Click to expand...

depends on your definition of 'best', I would argue for the Panther but it had a lot of engine troubles, transmission i think- IIRC the bearings or something in there needed nickle and that was one of the things they couldn't get so they had crappy replacements. Pretty much every country had a lot of 'one offs' so to speak (low numbers). The Konigstiger has to get mentioned here, Russians had some up-gunned t34s as well which were mean, not sure on the numbers though. IS-2s were mean SOBs basically Russia's Tigers. Look up the German Maus if you want ridiculous.

and while talking tanks i want to give a shout out to the SPGs, the jadgpanther would once again be my favorite of these, better armor, lower profile, big ole gun and fewer problems.
 
#5,563
#5,563
#VFL__ said:
I honestly feel sorry for all those guys that had to go against german defenses. Seems like we should have been ahead of the curve in that department. I guess they figured why build them if they could just keep holding off an invasion.
Click to expand...

we should have been ahead in what department?

You guess the germans stopped building what?
 
#5,564
#5,564
#VFL__ said:
I honestly feel sorry for all those guys that had to go against german defenses. Seems like we should have been ahead of the curve in that department. I guess they figured why build them if they could just keep holding off an invasion.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the Navy, I don't think the American Army/flyboys were to well-equipped for a foreign war. Our hardware seemed much more geared towards homeland security.

Kind of makes sense though, because we went isolationist again post-WWI.

I'll say this though, I hate that WWII happened, but it sure did make America into a much finer international fighting force, for better or for worse (whatever your perspective may be).
 
#5,565
#5,565
volprof said:
Best WWII tank? Go!

Has to be between one of the German MBTs and the Soviet T-34.

We Americans have come along way with our tank tech, but I don't think the Sherminator was worth much.

And I was reminded last night, whilst watching a scene from "The Pacific," how crappy Japanese tanks were. My god, those things looked like some peasant welded them together in a backyard somewhere outside Tokyo.
Click to expand...

the Japanese never really need or had a role for a main battle tank. as behind as Japan was their land invasion targets were even further behind. and then most of our fighting was on flyspeck volcanic islands where a tank has limited use and mobility.
 
#5,566
#5,566
volprof said:
With the exception of the Navy, I don't think the American Army/flyboys were to well-equipped for a foreign war. Our hardware seemed much more geared towards homeland security.

Kind of makes sense though, because we went isolationist again post-WWI.

I'll say this though, I hate that WWII happened, but it sure did make America into a much finer international fighting force, for better or for worse (whatever your perspective may be).
Click to expand...

i would argue that nobody was really built to fight an international/overseas battle at the time. getting from here to there was a huge issue. If Hitler had taken Britain no way we could have successfully gotten involved in Northern Europe.

and i would say WWII proved even our navy wasn't up to speed, we still depended on our battleships before Dec 7th 1941. The japanese aircraft carrier and German U boats were ahead of us.
 
#5,567
#5,567
LouderVol said:
we should have been ahead in what department?

You guess the germans stopped building what?
Click to expand...

Caliber of US tanks. The war in the east had been raging for four years. I'm sure they had some type of knowledge on Germany's tank capabilities. Sucks for the guys that had to be told, well we out number them so just attack in numbers and it'll be A okay.

“Why, at this late stage in the war, are American tanks inferior to the enemy’s?” Baldwin asked. “That they are inferior the fighting in Normandy showed and the recent battles in the Ardennes have again emphatically demonstrated. This has been denied, explained away and hushed up, but the men who are fighting our tanks against much heavier, better armored and more powerfully gunned German monsters know the truth. It is high time that Congress got at the bottom of a situation that does no credit to the War Department.”
 
Last edited:
#5,569
#5,569
#VFL__ said:
Caliber of US tanks. The war in the east had been raging for four years. I'm sure they had some type of knowledge on Germany's tank capabilities. Sucks for the guys that had to be told, well we out number them so just attack in numbers and it'll be A okay.
Click to expand...

1. yeah it did suck for the boys
2. it takes a while to develop a good tank
3. we got involved in 1942, the panther didn't roll out until mid 1943, a little late for us to come up with something.
4. at that time the best german tank would have been the upgunned Mk4, which the Sherman was compatible with, and definitely better than the earlier versions. See N. Africa.
5. The first tank we threw in with major numbers was the Lee, and thankfully we tanked that early, pun intended.
 
#5,570
#5,570
Velo Vol said:
???
Click to expand...

no place to land. our boys wouldn't have been up to fighting condition after spending a month plus at sea to take a foothold in Ireland or wherever we decided would be 'home'. even with britain we brought over huge numbers of men and equipment over years and built up and trained for the invasion. also we would have had zero air capability. I don't think we had any air craft carriers in the Atlantic until way late in the war.
 
#5,571
#5,571
Engineering wise i think you'd have to rank a lot of German weapons at the top. However, the T-34 was a engineering marvel in itself. The soviet made PPsh-41 was a desirable weapon to find on the battlefield. Although, not as advanced technology wise, the soviets made some dependable, durable weapons.
 
#5,572
#5,572
Pacer92 said:
Engineering wise i think you'd have to rank a lot of German weapons at the top. However, the T-34 was a engineering marvel in itself. The soviet made PPsh-41 was a desirable weapon to find on the battlefield. Although, not as advanced technology wise, the soviets made some dependable, durable weapons.
Click to expand...

this. Russian were really good at decomplicating complex German equipment, which made them cheaper and more reliable, if less accurate/powerful/etc.
 
#5,573
#5,573
So here's a question.....without complete air superiority, Germany's lack of fuel and resources and them fighting only on the western front, would the invasion of Normandy been a success?? I don't think it would have been. Jmo
 
#5,574
#5,574
LouderVol said:
no place to land. our boys wouldn't have been up to fighting condition after spending a month plus at sea to take a foothold in Ireland or wherever we decided would be 'home'. even with britain we brought over huge numbers of men and equipment over years and built up and trained for the invasion. also we would have had zero air capability. I don't think we had any air craft carriers in the Atlantic until way late in the war.
Click to expand...

If we're straying into hypotheticals, the U.S. would have attacked from the south (which they did) or east.

At any rate, it was the Russians who defeated Germany.
 
#5,575
#5,575
Pacer92 said:
So here's a question.....without complete air superiority, Germany's lack of fuel and resources and them fighting only on the western front, would the invasion of Normandy been a success?? I don't think it would have been. Jmo
Click to expand...

no, basically if the Germans had got Hitler out of the chain of command after about 1940 or so history would have been completely different. Hitler thought himself a military leader, and he was not. basically Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded Russia while Britain was around.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top