superheavy tanks -1 reply

Please wait...

terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#61 15 years ago
Anlushac11You cant tell me what is beautiful any more tthan I can tell you. Each persons opinion of beauty are entirely defined by our own culture and sense of aesthetics. As the saying says "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" Features and things about a tank I admire you may not even notice and the reverse is also true.

While I would of course agree the that there is pretty big range in aesthetics, there are certain minimum standards. For instance there is very few people would consider a girl with severe down syndrom and a skin disorder attractive. On that basis exterme statments like 'all british tanks are ugly' is as inaccurate as 'all nazi tanks were ugly'. Also, I would consider what is pretty to be different from a more general 'good' looks which can including things that are 'ruggedly handsome'. If was talking about 'looks' thats totally different then weather its 'pretty'. For example there are many truck designs that 'look' good but no ones running there saying they look pretty, not like some curvey sports car. The orgami like design ethic of nazi tanks had success just as the british tanks. Also, what tank is best tends to get warped the most capabilty overal, excluding design ethic. For example japan made some of the best tankettes of the war but no one cares because there obsolete. The matlidaII was a great infantry tank, but it wasn't design with at warfare in mind and it shows. Also, Ansch IFRC the the inabilty of the matilda II to accept larger guns because the turret ring was to small was the main contributer of it falling back to ther uses later in the war.




Daisuke Jigen

Lone Gunman

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

285 Posts

0 Threads

#62 15 years ago

I'd have to say that little Matilda 1 is the ugliest tank, but Ohioan raises a good point in mentioning the Grant, too.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#63 15 years ago
terminal-strikeWhile I would of course agree the that there is pretty big range in aesthetics, there are certain minimum standards. For instance there is very few people would consider a girl with severe down syndrom and a skin disorder attractive. On that basis exterme statments like 'all british tanks are ugly' is as inaccurate as 'all nazi tanks were ugly'. Also, I would consider what is pretty to be different from a more general 'good' looks which can including things that are 'ruggedly handsome'. If was talking about 'looks' thats totally different then weather its 'pretty'. For example there are many truck designs that 'look' good but no ones running there saying they look pretty, not like some curvey sports car. The orgami like design ethic of nazi tanks had success just as the british tanks. Also, what tank is best tends to get warped the most capabilty overal, excluding design ethic. For example japan made some of the best tankettes of the war but no one cares because there obsolete. The matlidaII was a great infantry tank, but it wasn't design with at warfare in mind and it shows. Also, Ansch IFRC the the inabilty of the matilda II to accept larger guns because the turret ring was to small was the main contributer of it falling back to ther uses later in the war.

Yes the design of the hull made it difficult at best to enlarge the turret ring. The Matilda II was also considered difficult to build and expensive in manhours and materials. All these factors led to its being pulled from production. It should be noted that Matilda II's served with distinction in CBI and Pacific til end of the war. Its slow speed and thick armor made it a excellent support tank in the jungles and the Japs had very little that could take it out.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#64 15 years ago

Panther Ausf G or Tiger Ausf E.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#65 15 years ago
Jigen DaisukeI'd have to say that little Matilda 1 is the ugliest tank, but Ohioan raises a good point in mentioning the Grant, too.

Matilda I has kind of an elegant grace, a low form factor, and a cute little turret. I like it :assimilate:




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#66 15 years ago
Anlushac11Yes the design of the hull made it difficult at best to enlarge the turret ring. The Matilda II was also considered difficult to build and expensive in manhours and materials. All these factors led to its being pulled from production. It should be noted that Matilda II's served with distinction in CBI and Pacific til end of the war. Its slow speed and thick armor made it a excellent support tank in the jungles and the Japs had very little that could take it out.

Interesting, that explains why the could not get the bigger turret ring in then. I did not know it served in those theaters, I had been speaking of it getting relegated to more secondary roles later in the war in the europon theater. It excellence as infantry tank is undoubted, and by that I mean a vehicle that designed for the infantry tank theory. I would say its succes in AT war was limited by those design goals more then anything, though the problems with complexity of manufacture is interesting point as well.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#67 15 years ago
terminal-strikeInteresting, that explains why the could not get the bigger turret ring in then. I did not know it served in those theaters, I had been speaking of it getting relegated to more secondary roles later in the war in the europon theater. It excellence as infantry tank is undoubted, and by that I mean a vehicle that designed for the infantry tank theory. I would say its succes in AT war was limited by those design goals more then anything, though the problems with complexity of manufacture is interesting point as well.

The Matilda II was pretty much done in the west after El Alamein. Russians last used it at Kursk in 1943 and the Aussies, New Zealanders, Brits, and IIRC Canadians used it in the Pacific and CBI. There was a standard version, a Matilda II CS that had a 95mm howitzer in the turret and the Frog which was a flamethrower tank.




UTHER

ARTE ET MARTE

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

551 Posts

0 Threads

#68 15 years ago

Anlushac its now official you are my "HERO"!,

I thought it was only me who was sad enough to have that kind of in depth knowledge on British tanks. Its great to see some one else educating people on Brit AFV design doctrines. For example the information you gave on the Churchills climbing abilities even though they are well documented i thought i was the only one who had read about it, and if id have raised it in this thread id of been accused of being biased, so its good to see some one else being neutral but informative. I also agree with your statement "beuty is in the eye of the beholder". For me beuty comes when form meets functionality, and if you can see that a form is functioning well for the purpose of its intended use then an attraction or even love for said form can evolve. I will give 2 examples, A) I have read in a book (of which i need to dig out the references) of a battle which took place in North Korea. Basicaly a Battalion of Americans were trying to take a hill, at great cost of life to themselves, they were pinned down by machine gun, mortar and grenades. The local commander got on the blower and asked for support, and to his amazement he watched these mammoth metal monsters climb this hill where even his men had previously been struggling to get up on foot, the squadron of Churchills form 3 Royal Tank REgiment waddled up the hill to the point of trouble and stopped the squadron commander popped his head out of his turret and in that great British understatement said "are you having a spot of bother old man", to which the american commander cursedly answered i was expecting fucking air support, The squadron commander answered sory sir you got us ill see what we can do, he lined his squadron up horizontaly and caried on up the hill letting lose with machine gun fire, to the amazement of the Americans who reproted that at times some of the Churchills were near vertical and feared they might topple over backwards crushing them in the process, this carried on for about 10 mins, when all of the sudden the N Koreans who were dug in like moles got out of there bunkers and trenches and ran on mass down the other side of the hill, the American commander was so impressed with this AFV s ability that he refused to let them return to there own units for the duration of the war, lying on numerous occasions to senior brit and american officers saying that they were all stuck in the mud. B)On a more personal note,in 1990 whilst on a NATO exercise in Vogelsang, Belguim as a REME soldier i was attached to a company of american soldiers as there combat engineer. On this particular day we went to the ranges which consisted of us being in mock houses shooting at pop up targets at varous ranges with our personal weapons, of which theres were M16s naturaly and mine was the old 7.62mm SLR, now all my american colleages considered it to be to heavy, large and unweildy, which i have to admit in comparison to there M16s it was, however when the shooting began i noticed at one stage iwas the only one shooting while my colleages watched me, so i stopped also, they said to me god that thing makes some noise, and you havent missed a target yet, of which i admited to them that iwas not a particulaly good shot but that the SLR was renowned for making a bad shot better, now the platoon commander who had been obsrving the targets through binoculars also commented on the fact that when i hit the targets which were made of wood that a substantial part of it was obliterated, of course this led to my american colleages wanting a go to my annoyance i agreed reluctantly because id spent a great deal of time zeroing the weapon for me and now it would have to be re-zeroed for every user, however this reluctance was soon overcome by the sheer joy on my colleagues faces whilst using my SLR to which they all professed a likeing, and agreed that although there M16s were techniqely better on paper statistics my SLR was nicer more comfertable and satisfying to use. To this i will add that any form is more than the sum of its parts, and that although theoretical statistics and visual perceptions are informative it does not and will not paint a full picture, this will only come from actual practical experience.

Thanks for listening to me guys, il stop driveling on now.




D_Day_Dawson

Missing in action

50 XP

7th August 2003

0 Uploads

750 Posts

0 Threads

#69 15 years ago

Hehe - I detect a poll: "Most Attractive Tank" - I worry about you lot :D

Anyway - I'd take the Panther G out on a date (I'd drive) Or.. PzKpfw III Ausf G/H mit Schachtellaufwerk - Prototype with new large roadwheels and FAMO suspension




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#70 15 years ago

Most beutiful AFV:

JAGDPANZER 38(t) HETZER! offcourse...

:)