Top 10 British and American Tanks

  • Compared to the other tanks in this film...the M-18's mobility is stunning. The late war British tanks were light years ahead of their early war models, but the concept of angled armour seems to have escaped British tank designers.


    Coercive collective action in the name of the greater good not only is immoral—who decides who has the gun?—it also is destructive of human happiness and ruinous of human potential.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Shuckins Deux ().

  • Yeah, yeah....technically, it is a tank-destroyer. But what's the actual difference? It is a tracked, armoured vehicle with its main gun in a rotating turret. Besides...I didn't add it to the list....the author of the film did.

    Coercive collective action in the name of the greater good not only is immoral—who decides who has the gun?—it also is destructive of human happiness and ruinous of human potential.

  • Yeah, it's just a convertible.

    MNN on 6/18/19

    "chump will assuredly lose 2020 barring an event that cancels the election - he just cant keep his scummy yankee mouth shut"


    MNN on 6/24/19

    Chump is going to tote an ass kicking nov 2020


    MNN on 11/14/19

    fact is it is within a year of the election, the Senate will not allow him to appoint her successor. Nov 2020 he will lose.

  • but the concept of angled armour seems to have escaped British tank designers

    Things were often produced in a hurry in quite difficult conditions.



    My grandmother worked in a factory during WW2, a German bomber came in low enough to machine gun the glass roof out (there was an AA gun on the roof so that was likely the target).


    Now after this they of course went back to work, probably the same day, rain pouring in through the smashed glass roof as they stood on pallets as uninsulated electrical cables lay on the ground below.



    And people (boomers mainly) complain today that the wireless internet in a shop is slow.

  • The armour configuration on the front of the hull was the same for the Churchill, Cromwell and Comet...with a large section set vertically. The continued use of that substandard arrangement is inexplicable.

    Coercive collective action in the name of the greater good not only is immoral—who decides who has the gun?—it also is destructive of human happiness and ruinous of human potential.

  • Tigers were way overweight because of the layout and needless thickness of the armour. Too heavy for many of the bridges in Europe. The sloped armour on the Panther was more efficient, giving better protection.

    Coercive collective action in the name of the greater good not only is immoral—who decides who has the gun?—it also is destructive of human happiness and ruinous of human potential.

  • Pretty sure even the American 76mm gun was outclassed by the German 88 in terms of range. Tigers could kill almost any allied tank (including Shermans) at 2000 meters or more and the Shermans endured horrendous losses as they tried to close the distance for a kill shot.

  • Pretty sure even the American 76mm gun was outclassed by the German 88 in terms of range. Tigers could kill almost any allied tank (including Shermans) at 2000 meters or more and the Shermans endured horrendous losses as they tried to close the distance for a kill shot.


    Range, yes. But the point was that with the 76mm + 17 pounder, the Tiger 1 was no longer nigh invulnerable.


    Hell, the Tiger 1 couldn't kill the Jumbo Sherman from the front itself with the short 88...