The Ultimate Tank?

[Ed Anger]

I donated my old computers to a church.

I suggested buying a new one, not robbing your church.

I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.

Great.  You, BB and Martinus can team up to fag the forum up.

I'll start wearing white trousers.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?

[frunk]

At least it kept them warm.

[Ed Anger]

Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?

Ronson.

[Alcibiades]

I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.

[Viking]

Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?

The Germans called it "Tommy Cooker" and in British parlance it got called "Ronson", because it lights up first time, every time.

[PDH]

Sorry, any list without the FT-17 is nonsense.  I hereby declare war on the military channel.

[Razgovory]

When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made?  If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55.  Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.

[Admiral Yi]

When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made?  If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55.  Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.

Criteria are longevity, "fear factor", innovation, and....fuck, what't the last one?

[Mr.Penguin]

Sorry, any list without the FT-17 is nonsense.  I hereby declare war on the military channel.

Secound that...

[Zanza]

B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel,  and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.

It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.

[Syt]

B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel,  and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.

It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.

An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm amazed that no  one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.

[PDH]

I'm amazed that no  one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.

Thanks for ruining the thread.

[Razgovory]

When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made?  If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55.  Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.

Criteria are longevity, "fear factor", innovation, and....fuck, what't the last one?

Fear factor?  That's idiotic.  What a about thinngs like usefulness, or fitting well with doctrine?  The french built some very inovative and scary tanks during the interwar period but weren't to useful.