Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Mines Bigger than Yours by buster126 Mines Bigger than Yours by buster126
This is why Shermans were F****d against the Tigers. lol I'm bored.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconslavikreshetnyak:
SlavikReshetnyak Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2013  Professional Filmographer
<font><font>Когда США спровоцировали войну СССР с Германией, Германия построен комплекс машин, двигатели их рботли на бензин, который принес их к быстрой возгорнию! </font><font>и на конструкциях они были очень сложными и дорогостоящими. </font><font>Их танки могли по налогу только, но защетить себя от T34 они не могли, так как броня не несет их же от российской снаряда. </font><font>Но когда СССР капитулировал Germniyu но США вывезла из Германии все секретные разработки, ткие как ракеты FAO2 и инженера, но таким же образом США уже забрали Leopard на базе которых построен M1A2</font></font>
Reply
:iconwarrior1944:
warrior1944 Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2013
Superb models! :D
Well the first Sherman type had not a big chance against a Tiger or even Panzer IV Special. But later Shermans and the Jumbo was even better than the Tiger.
Reply
:iconslavikreshetnyak:
SlavikReshetnyak Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Professional Filmographer
but now modern again, the world's best German! it is the best tank Leopard 2! Reliability, power and protection
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Every country claims their tank is 'the best in the world'. Russia with their T-90, the US with their M1 Abrams, the British with the Challenger II, French with the Leclerc, etc. It all depends on where you live.
Reply
:iconx-silent-night-x:
x-Silent-Night-x Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Tigers were extremely unreliable tho and there were less of em
Reply
:iconmarcinmurach:
MarcinMurach Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank God that allay dominate in air 8]
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Less than 10% of all German tanks were taken out by Allied air attacks.
Reply
:iconmarcinmurach:
MarcinMurach Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This 10% was Tigers 8] That somthing im dont know. Thanks for info 8]
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It was less than 10% of all German tanks knocked out by fighter-bombers, not just Tigers. 
Reply
:iconbugsbunny85:
BugsBunny85 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013
dammit, i though it was soviet tank
Reply
:iconrtjdudek:
RTJDudek Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Agreed about Shermans with 75mm guns. Variants with 76mm M1 guns and wet stowage bins performed much better than older variants. Check those books www.amazon.com/76mm-Sherman-Me… & www.amazon.com/Sherman-Medium-… should you need evidence.
Reply
:iconbuster126:
buster126 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Student Filmographer
ja, but a lot of those variants would usually be facing panthers
Reply
:iconrtjdudek:
RTJDudek Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Depends on period and combat theater.

During the D-Day, 76mm gun Shermans were indeed minority ( 1 tank in every platoon ); which changed after the Battle of the Bulge, where 75mm gun Shermans were consequently replaced. During the campaign in Germany ( March-May 1945 ), the staple firepower of US Army tank units were M4A1/76, M4A3/76 and M4A3E8/76, supported by tank destroyers with 76mm guns ( M10 & M18 ) or 90mm guns ( M36 ) and newly introduced M26 Pershing tanks, which performed fine against Panthers and Tigers.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Don't forget about the M4 (105) assault guns
Reply
:iconrtjdudek:
RTJDudek Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for reminder.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
No problem
Reply
:iconkodyyoung:
KodyYoung Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nice models
Reply
:iconda-wabbit:
Da-Wabbit Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
hurr hurr
Reply
:iconplayful-absol:
Playful-Absol Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Student Photographer
yep. took four shermans to take out  a tiger...and that's if they were lucky!
Reply
:iconkillerweinerdog:
killerweinerdog Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013
Thankfully, the Sherman could be produced so quickly that those four Shermans were easily replaced by eight. 
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You actually believe that pop history BS? 
Reply
:iconplayful-absol:
Playful-Absol Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Student Photographer
nope. i've done research and it was a valid and used strategy during world war II
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I've done research as well, and what you originally said has been proven to be false.
Reply
:iconplayful-absol:
Playful-Absol Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Student Photographer
Cool. Show me your research! I'm always interested in learning new things!
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Look through these threads on the WoT forums:
as well as these:
and The_Chieftain's Hatch as well:
Reply
:iconplayful-absol:
Playful-Absol Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Student Photographer
Interesting...
Besides these, do you have any HISTORICAL records that this tactic was never used? Because honestly, I've learned not to trust certain online sources; including blogs, wikis, etc.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
So you don't trust archival documents written during WWII about the tanks we're talking about? 

A standard tank platoon is made up of four elements. Tigers were ofetn encountered alone. Thus gave rise to the "4 M4's = 1 Tiger" myth. 
Reply
:iconcanadiandesperado:
CanadianDesperado Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
That, and their armor didn't have a hope of comparing.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The M4A3E2 (better known as the Jumbo) had better frontal armor than the Tiger. 4" thick and sloped back at ~50 degrees.
Reply
:iconfieldnavyfield:
FieldNavyField Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013
Don't you love it when people start comparing the M4 to the Tiger as if they are in the same category? It's like comparing the Pz. IV ausf. F2 against the IS-2 and calling the IS-2 the grossly superior tank!
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Panzer IV cannot kill IS-2! #SovietBias!
Reply
:iconwarrior1944:
warrior1944 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013
Panzer IV could defeat a JS-2 from the sides and back, not from the front although.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I was being slightly sarcastic.
Reply
:iconcanadiandesperado:
CanadianDesperado Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Ah, but that's not the standard M4 Sherman, of which there were over 50,000 made, and there were only 254 of the Jumbos made. And if I remember correctly, the Tiger I was still capable of engaging and knocking out Jumbos at ranges greater than the effective range of the standard Jumbo armament (which still had trouble penetrating Tigers even at close ranges of less than 100 yards, if indeed it could penetrate at all).
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXNXlV…
It's in WoT, so ranges are compressed a bit and there's a prototype Tiger rather than the actual one. But this proves the short 88 has a very difficult time trying to get through the front of a Jumbo. Out of all the shots fired by the proto Tiger, only 2 penetrated (IIRC) and one was by using APCR. 
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
And also, the 75mm M3 could penetrate the Tiger. See here: tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/…
Reply
:iconcanadiandesperado:
CanadianDesperado Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I stand corrected on the Jumbo's main armament.
Reply
:iconcarriemoore:
CarrieMoore Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Jumbos were converted to the 76mm M1A1 (could penetrate 128mm average), which could deal with Tigers quite well. (It had better ballistics than the Soviet 85mm Model 1939) The Jumbo turret was 152mm all around, not including the thick mantlet. Hull armor was 139mm effective. 

Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 1, 2013
Image Size
1.1 MB
Resolution
1024×768
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
542
Favourites
19 (who?)
Comments
38
Downloads
1

Camera Data

Make
SAMSUNG
Model
SAMSUNG WB500, WB510 / VLUU WB500 / SAMSUNG HZ10W
Shutter Speed
1/10 second
Aperture
F/3.3
Focal Length
4 mm
ISO Speed
640
Date Taken
Nov 28, 2009, 11:15:22 AM
Software
Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
×