![]() |
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
|
Re: 17 pounder Yea..since Germans were defending mostly all the times...and those tanks were not attacking one next to each other.For example...At the battle of Stashów,ONE T34/85 took out like 3 or 4 Tigers II-that dosn't mean that for one T34/85 there were like 3 Tigers II,besides that..History channel tells bullshit instead of history.:rolleyes: |
Re: 17 pounder People never think.... There were RARELY, EVER cases of Tigers that were lone wolfs. Wittmann was a major exception, and it was only during one battle, hell, even Carius and Knispel didn't do that. Most Tigers fought in 4 tank squads, and often 2 squads worked together. This meant that each covered the other.... Sure, it may take 5 shermans to get 1 around that Tiger, but will it survive when the tiger's 3 buddies shoot at him? Same with Panthers and King Tigers and every other tank ever used by any side. Lone Wolfs were RARE, extremely RARE. 4-5 tank squads were the norm, so they could cover each other. Now, onto the issue of the 17lber used in North Africa, yeah, it was used, though too late to do much good, and the Tigers mostly faced the americans. |
Re: 17 pounder Too bad that evidence shows that the allies not only outproduced, but outFOUGHT the axis, as well--maybe not initially, but as they wizened up to the process by which their enemies operated..... |
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
|
Re: 17 pounder As I recall it was 2 Tigers and 2 Pz4H. And Wittman was an idiot for that attack on the village. Stormed in with no infantry support and lost both Tigers, which were recovered later. |
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
|
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
|
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
|
Re: 17 pounder Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.