>America's Tiger

>America's Tiger
Lmao

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    agreed, that title belongs to the 76 Jumbo

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a giant ice cream bar with tracks

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Churchill was the Allied equivalent of the Tiger I, it had the same effect on German morale by a handful of Churchills. Its armor was heavier than the Tiger and the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks. Churchills dominated Tunisia and the ETO. A single Churchill could destroy dozens of StuGs, Panzer IIIs and IVs with the ease of a Tiger destroying Shermans and T-34s

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
      I've seen some pretty delusional teabooing in my time, but this is inexcusable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oh my fucking god
        >the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all

        https://i.imgur.com/TkeFhS0.jpg

        >the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.

        bro wut??

        but 17pdr got long 88mm equivalent penetration

        APDS rounds just before D-Day gave the Churchill's 6-pdr a new lease of life as an anti-armour weapon, with penetration almost equal to the 17-pdr on the Sherman Firefly, and therefore the Tiger/Panther.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          By the time Normandy came about a large portion of Churchills in service had the 75mm, not the 6 pounder, since the latter had poor HE and was just as useful against Panthers (not very). APDS was only available in quantity at the tail end of the war where it didn't matter anyways, and it still couldn't penetrate a Panther glacis.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok we get it you played Bf5 once

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      oh my fucking god
      >the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based, God save the King!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its off road capability's are impressive
      however its a bit slow due to the weight of its armor
      guns ok, good pen but not much burst

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here's your (you). 8/10.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its off road capability's are impressive
        however its a bit slow due to the weight of its armor
        guns ok, good pen but not much burst

        Based, God save the King!

        oh my fucking god
        >the gun is not comparable to a tiger at all

        Ok we get it you played Bf5 once

        https://i.imgur.com/3brS2NX.jpg

        >the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
        I've seen some pretty delusional teabooing in my time, but this is inexcusable.

        British tanks were downright superior.
        Prove me wrong.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I look at the performance stats and know in every way the panther was a better tank than the sherman, then leddit starts citing the results of lopsided meeting engagements and the meme-breakdown factor

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/UD0RcJg.png

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            British tanks were downright superior.
            Prove me wrong.

            >Sherman
            >British

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fun fact: The 76mm M1 on the US sherman was more accurate than the Firefly 17 pdr.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but 17pdr got long 88mm equivalent penetration

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              nice
              I'm sure that house behind the enemy tank would get devastated.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The only good and massive British tank is American, that's funneh.

          https://i.imgur.com/tykfNGP.jpg

          It did have top tier propaganda potential

          Just like T-35 and NbFz

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.

      bro wut??

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to be fair, man looks like he's about to rip a tiger in two

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      gun strait off of a medium tank

      https://i.imgur.com/UD0RcJg.png

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      British tanks were downright superior.
      Prove me wrong.

      >not British
      >meh off road performance
      >cramped turret
      >poor ammo storage
      >low rate of fire
      >inaccurate
      at least simp for the Cromwell while you are at it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks.
      It was worse. Hell, it was worse than KV-1's 76 mm cannon. KV had good AP shells and great HE - good HE is a must for a good heavy tank cannon

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ConeofArc is a wiki consumer.
    He looks at an obscure tank on wiki and reads the article out.
    Kinda like Mark Felton

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mark Felton authors the books wikipedia writers and history channel show makers read up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The furry guy goes to the primary sources at least and does a lot of reading.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        too bad he only does so for his wet dream coulda woulda shoulda tank

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        are you talking about spookston?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's a guy with a few channels (Dark Skies, Dark Seas, etc.) that's really fucking guilty of this, pretty sure he reads sections of articles/pages verbatim to make videos on planes and other shit.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M6 was a cool looking tank but it had no place in US doctrine. Large, difficult to ship/offload, no real advantage over the existing M4 medium.
    Tiger at least played a role for the Germans, acting as a breakthrough vehicle or stand-off weapon as needed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It did have top tier propaganda potential

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >doctrine means we can't have a decently armoured tank
      if they'd made this thing over the m4 there'd probably be fewer losses

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looking at numbers and the max armor isn't that much difference. M6 has more on the sides but it presents a larger, slower (when not advancing) target.
        Focusing on building them would also mean less tanks. So losses are felt more overall.
        The M6's strength was the 76mm gun and that eventually found its way onto the M4 anyway. Hell, the M26 turret and 90mm gun could have gone into the M4 if it was deemed necessary.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >take yer swing

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Too big
    Too heavy
    Too slow
    Unreliable
    Bad ergonomics
    Not worth the trouble

    Yeah

    It was definitely the American tiger

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *