panther should not be buildable since hellcat is trash and easy 8 is overpriced at least compared to coh2 jackson

[LOLwhat2]

title says enough

[Zeno]

Origineel geplaatst door Cipher Esteria:

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

What is " general tank superiority " even supposed to be ?

I have generaly clearly the better Units than you.
kinda, I guess.

Germany only had a rather small number of tanks, not allowing them to produce cheap trash, their tanks were all top quality and designed to repell an enemy outnumbering them.

yes.... no.... yes.....somewhat?
So there are multiple problems with that.
If you look at german tanks in General you will notice a lot of Letter attached to the tanks.
This comes because most of the early designs got changed, as the germans loved to tinker with their models.
Look at the Panzer 4, it started as an infantry support tank, just to get turned into a Jack-off-all-trades Tank over the course of the war.
This hurt their production numbers more than anything, it also tended to cause "child problems" as the Panther and Tiger had during their debuts.
Most Panthers at Kursk where actually taken out by breakdowns and technical problems.
They mostly got fixed, the Tiger wasn't so lucky tho, as it was to heavy for it's treads even at the end of the war.
A lot of the german big cats were also made out off need, rather than good decisions.
Duo to the increasing lack of ressources and manpower, they had to go with smaller numbers and bigger vehicles.

There are also other problems.
Like during Barbarossa how the Germans dealth with Kv-1s and T-34, was mainly a mix out of combined arms and overwhelming. I believe most Kv-1s were actually taken out by Stukas.
Panzer 3s did work, but they had to get often to close, and the Flak 88, while making a mockery out of Soviet armor, was often to slow to deploy for the Blitzkrieg Barbarossa was.
So Tanks, Tank Destroyer, Panzergrenadiers and the Luftwaffe worked very hard in tandem to break any form of Soviet resistance.
It also helped that the T-34 and Kv-1 were still rare, most Soviet Tanks they encountered were later dubbed Toy Tanks, T-26,BT-7s, tanks that by their own couldn't stop Panzer 3 and 4s.

Other scenarios have something like North Africa.
The Italians had massive problems with british armor, mainly the Matilda and were literally forced to retreat whenever they appeared.
That basically changed when I believe 14 Matildas were lost during the first encounter DAK had with them.
Marders and Flak 88s turned Matildas into practice dummys, as they could combat Matildas from a range, they couldn't really fight back.
At the same time the Italians got a lot of german officiers and leadership under Rommel, which allowed them to show how fearsome and strong soldiers they actually were.
Seriously like 65% of the DAK forces were Italians and they performed excellent with the Support the Germans gave them.

Then you have something like the Sherman.
The Sherman was basically the best Tank of the war, as it performed in it's roll perfect troughout the war.
The Sherman was mainly an infantry support tank, capable of fighting medium german armor to a degree. And from battle reports only 10% of Shermans deployed ever encountered armored combat against german tanks. The rest mainly fought Infantry, Halftracks, Armored Cars and such, what they were excellent in fighting.
Heck whenever the Germans captured Shermans they loved them as well.

Keep believing whatever it is your are believing. But no need to get emotional because a country that is not yours, desinged better tanks during WW2. Its just a little cringeworthy, talking to someone who calls himself "TANKinator " but is not aware of the most basic facts in regards to WW2 tank history..

The problem is that most tanked served different roles.
Panthers and Tigers were mainly anti-tank Tanks.
While Shermans were meant for Infantry support.
Churchills and Matildas were Infantry Tanks, while Crusaders and Cromwells were Cavalary tanks. One was meant to support the Infantry against field weapons and other infantry and one was supposed to fight tanks and have a speed advantage.

Going by Numbers the most effective "Tank" during WW2 was the Stug.
Stugs served as both AT as well as Infantry support, were relative cheap to make and pretty damn well armored.
At the other hand, the Sherman might as well be as good, as it did it's Job also remarkeable.
Then we have the Panther who also did it's Role excellent.

The one thing basically everyone can agree on tho, Soviet Tanks were ♥♥♥♥.
The crews hated them, the caputred vehicles were generaly hated, they were to stuffy, to complicated to operate, often lacked basic comfort features for the crew, crews were often stuffed in like sardines, optics were terrible and in some cases would the recoil of the gun cause crew members to get knocked out oh and they were a pain to reload to, also the ammo was often stored in places like.... I dunno under the Drivers feet.

Yes, there are indeed multiple aspects to consider when evaluating the effectiveness and performance of German tanks during World War II. While it's true that German tanks underwent various modifications and adaptations throughout the war, it's also important to acknowledge that this flexibility allowed them to respond to changing battlefield conditions and technological advancements. The evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV from an infantry support role to a more versatile platform demonstrates the Germans' ability to adapt their equipment to meet operational needs. However, it's worth noting that this constant tinkering could indeed lead to production delays and technical issues, potentially impacting their overall effectiveness on the battlefield.

No, it's not accurate to attribute most of the Panthers' issues at Kursk solely to breakdowns and technical problems. While mechanical failures were certainly a factor, other issues such as inadequate crew training, logistical challenges, and strategic errors also contributed to their difficulties. Additionally, while the Tiger tank did face mobility issues due to its weight, it still proved to be a formidable adversary when employed effectively, showcasing the complexity of evaluating tank performance beyond just technical specifications.

Yes, the German approach to dealing with Soviet armor during Barbarossa did involve a combination of tactics, including coordinated air support and combined arms operations. However, it's essential to recognize that the effectiveness of these tactics varied depending on factors such as terrain, weather conditions, and the quality of enemy resistance. While Stuka dive bombers could be effective against Soviet tanks like the KV-1, they were vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft defenses and faced diminishing returns as Soviet air defenses improved over time.

Somewhat, while the Italians initially struggled against British armor in North Africa, their performance improved with the support and guidance of German leadership under figures like Rommel. However, attributing the success of the Afrika Korps primarily to Italian soldiers ignores the significant contributions of German forces and oversimplifies the complex dynamics of Axis cooperation in North Africa. Additionally, while specialized anti-tank weapons like Marders and Flak 88s were effective against British tanks like the Matilda, their deployment and effectiveness were also influenced by factors such as logistics, terrain, and enemy tactics.

Yes, the Sherman tank played a crucial role as an infantry support vehicle throughout World War II, demonstrating versatility and reliability in various combat scenarios. Its widespread use and relatively straightforward maintenance made it a valuable asset for Allied forces, despite criticisms of its armor protection compared to heavier German tanks. However, it's important to acknowledge that the Sherman's effectiveness against German armor varied depending on factors such as tactics, crew training, and battlefield conditions. Additionally, while captured Shermans were sometimes repurposed by German forces, their adoption was not indicative of the Sherman being universally regarded as the "best tank of the war" but rather reflected the pragmatic approach of utilizing available resources.


Yes, it's true that different tanks were designed with specific roles in mind, reflecting the varied needs of military operations during World War II. Tanks like the Panther and Tiger were indeed primarily intended for anti-tank roles, leveraging their heavy armor and powerful guns to engage enemy armor effectively. On the other hand, tanks like the Sherman were optimized for infantry support, providing mobile firepower and versatility on the battlefield. Tanks such as the Churchill and Matilda served as infantry tanks, prioritizing armor protection and firepower to support ground troops in direct engagements, while tanks like the Crusader and Cromwell were designed for cavalry roles, emphasizing speed and mobility to exploit breakthroughs and engage enemy tanks.

However, while each tank had its intended role, their effectiveness in combat often depended on factors beyond their design specifications. The Sturmgeschütz (Stug) indeed emerged as a highly effective weapon during World War II, serving both as an anti-tank platform and as infantry support. Its relatively low cost, simplicity of design, and robust armor made it a formidable adversary on the battlefield. Similarly, the Sherman tank proved to be remarkably versatile and capable in fulfilling its role, demonstrating adaptability across various combat scenarios. The Panther also excelled in its designated role, showcasing impressive firepower and armor protection.

Yet, it's essential to avoid overly simplistic assessments of tank performance and effectiveness. While Soviet tanks may have had design flaws and ergonomic shortcomings, it's misleading to categorically dismiss them as ineffective. Soviet tanks like the T-34 played a significant role in World War II, leveraging innovations in design and mass production to provide numerically superior armored forces on the Eastern Front. While they may have had issues with crew comfort and ergonomics, they were still formidable weapons on the battlefield, contributing to Soviet victories against Axis forces.

Your claim that German tanks were not the best in World War II doesn't quite hold up when we consider the evidence presented. While it's true that German tanks like the Panther and Tiger had their share of issues, they were undeniably formidable adversaries on the battlefield, excelling in their designated roles of anti-tank warfare. Furthermore, the adaptability and versatility of German tanks, as evidenced by the evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV, demonstrate their effectiveness in responding to changing battlefield needs. Additionally, the Stug's widespread success as both an anti-tank weapon and infantry support platform further underscores the strength of German tank design and innovation during the war. So, when we weigh the performance, adaptability, and impact of German tanks alongside their counterparts, it's clear that they indeed stood among the best of World War II.

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Origineel geplaatst door Cipher Esteria:

I have generaly clearly the better Units than you.
kinda, I guess.



yes.... no.... yes.....somewhat?
So there are multiple problems with that.
If you look at german tanks in General you will notice a lot of Letter attached to the tanks.
This comes because most of the early designs got changed, as the germans loved to tinker with their models.
Look at the Panzer 4, it started as an infantry support tank, just to get turned into a Jack-off-all-trades Tank over the course of the war.
This hurt their production numbers more than anything, it also tended to cause "child problems" as the Panther and Tiger had during their debuts.
Most Panthers at Kursk where actually taken out by breakdowns and technical problems.
They mostly got fixed, the Tiger wasn't so lucky tho, as it was to heavy for it's treads even at the end of the war.
A lot of the german big cats were also made out off need, rather than good decisions.
Duo to the increasing lack of ressources and manpower, they had to go with smaller numbers and bigger vehicles.

There are also other problems.
Like during Barbarossa how the Germans dealth with Kv-1s and T-34, was mainly a mix out of combined arms and overwhelming. I believe most Kv-1s were actually taken out by Stukas.
Panzer 3s did work, but they had to get often to close, and the Flak 88, while making a mockery out of Soviet armor, was often to slow to deploy for the Blitzkrieg Barbarossa was.
So Tanks, Tank Destroyer, Panzergrenadiers and the Luftwaffe worked very hard in tandem to break any form of Soviet resistance.
It also helped that the T-34 and Kv-1 were still rare, most Soviet Tanks they encountered were later dubbed Toy Tanks, T-26,BT-7s, tanks that by their own couldn't stop Panzer 3 and 4s.

Other scenarios have something like North Africa.
The Italians had massive problems with british armor, mainly the Matilda and were literally forced to retreat whenever they appeared.
That basically changed when I believe 14 Matildas were lost during the first encounter DAK had with them.
Marders and Flak 88s turned Matildas into practice dummys, as they could combat Matildas from a range, they couldn't really fight back.
At the same time the Italians got a lot of german officiers and leadership under Rommel, which allowed them to show how fearsome and strong soldiers they actually were.
Seriously like 65% of the DAK forces were Italians and they performed excellent with the Support the Germans gave them.

Then you have something like the Sherman.
The Sherman was basically the best Tank of the war, as it performed in it's roll perfect troughout the war.
The Sherman was mainly an infantry support tank, capable of fighting medium german armor to a degree. And from battle reports only 10% of Shermans deployed ever encountered armored combat against german tanks. The rest mainly fought Infantry, Halftracks, Armored Cars and such, what they were excellent in fighting.
Heck whenever the Germans captured Shermans they loved them as well.



The problem is that most tanked served different roles.
Panthers and Tigers were mainly anti-tank Tanks.
While Shermans were meant for Infantry support.
Churchills and Matildas were Infantry Tanks, while Crusaders and Cromwells were Cavalary tanks. One was meant to support the Infantry against field weapons and other infantry and one was supposed to fight tanks and have a speed advantage.

Going by Numbers the most effective "Tank" during WW2 was the Stug.
Stugs served as both AT as well as Infantry support, were relative cheap to make and pretty damn well armored.
At the other hand, the Sherman might as well be as good, as it did it's Job also remarkeable.
Then we have the Panther who also did it's Role excellent.

The one thing basically everyone can agree on tho, Soviet Tanks were ♥♥♥♥.
The crews hated them, the caputred vehicles were generaly hated, they were to stuffy, to complicated to operate, often lacked basic comfort features for the crew, crews were often stuffed in like sardines, optics were terrible and in some cases would the recoil of the gun cause crew members to get knocked out oh and they were a pain to reload to, also the ammo was often stored in places like.... I dunno under the Drivers feet.

Yes, there are indeed multiple aspects to consider when evaluating the effectiveness and performance of German tanks during World War II. While it's true that German tanks underwent various modifications and adaptations throughout the war, it's also important to acknowledge that this flexibility allowed them to respond to changing battlefield conditions and technological advancements. The evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV from an infantry support role to a more versatile platform demonstrates the Germans' ability to adapt their equipment to meet operational needs. However, it's worth noting that this constant tinkering could indeed lead to production delays and technical issues, potentially impacting their overall effectiveness on the battlefield.

No, it's not accurate to attribute most of the Panthers' issues at Kursk solely to breakdowns and technical problems. While mechanical failures were certainly a factor, other issues such as inadequate crew training, logistical challenges, and strategic errors also contributed to their difficulties. Additionally, while the Tiger tank did face mobility issues due to its weight, it still proved to be a formidable adversary when employed effectively, showcasing the complexity of evaluating tank performance beyond just technical specifications.

Yes, the German approach to dealing with Soviet armor during Barbarossa did involve a combination of tactics, including coordinated air support and combined arms operations. However, it's essential to recognize that the effectiveness of these tactics varied depending on factors such as terrain, weather conditions, and the quality of enemy resistance. While Stuka dive bombers could be effective against Soviet tanks like the KV-1, they were vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft defenses and faced diminishing returns as Soviet air defenses improved over time.

Somewhat, while the Italians initially struggled against British armor in North Africa, their performance improved with the support and guidance of German leadership under figures like Rommel. However, attributing the success of the Afrika Korps primarily to Italian soldiers ignores the significant contributions of German forces and oversimplifies the complex dynamics of Axis cooperation in North Africa. Additionally, while specialized anti-tank weapons like Marders and Flak 88s were effective against British tanks like the Matilda, their deployment and effectiveness were also influenced by factors such as logistics, terrain, and enemy tactics.

Yes, the Sherman tank played a crucial role as an infantry support vehicle throughout World War II, demonstrating versatility and reliability in various combat scenarios. Its widespread use and relatively straightforward maintenance made it a valuable asset for Allied forces, despite criticisms of its armor protection compared to heavier German tanks. However, it's important to acknowledge that the Sherman's effectiveness against German armor varied depending on factors such as tactics, crew training, and battlefield conditions. Additionally, while captured Shermans were sometimes repurposed by German forces, their adoption was not indicative of the Sherman being universally regarded as the "best tank of the war" but rather reflected the pragmatic approach of utilizing available resources.


Yes, it's true that different tanks were designed with specific roles in mind, reflecting the varied needs of military operations during World War II. Tanks like the Panther and Tiger were indeed primarily intended for anti-tank roles, leveraging their heavy armor and powerful guns to engage enemy armor effectively. On the other hand, tanks like the Sherman were optimized for infantry support, providing mobile firepower and versatility on the battlefield. Tanks such as the Churchill and Matilda served as infantry tanks, prioritizing armor protection and firepower to support ground troops in direct engagements, while tanks like the Crusader and Cromwell were designed for cavalry roles, emphasizing speed and mobility to exploit breakthroughs and engage enemy tanks.

However, while each tank had its intended role, their effectiveness in combat often depended on factors beyond their design specifications. The Sturmgeschütz (Stug) indeed emerged as a highly effective weapon during World War II, serving both as an anti-tank platform and as infantry support. Its relatively low cost, simplicity of design, and robust armor made it a formidable adversary on the battlefield. Similarly, the Sherman tank proved to be remarkably versatile and capable in fulfilling its role, demonstrating adaptability across various combat scenarios. The Panther also excelled in its designated role, showcasing impressive firepower and armor protection.

Yet, it's essential to avoid overly simplistic assessments of tank performance and effectiveness. While Soviet tanks may have had design flaws and ergonomic shortcomings, it's misleading to categorically dismiss them as ineffective. Soviet tanks like the T-34 played a significant role in World War II, leveraging innovations in design and mass production to provide numerically superior armored forces on the Eastern Front. While they may have had issues with crew comfort and ergonomics, they were still formidable weapons on the battlefield, contributing to Soviet victories against Axis forces.

Your claim that German tanks were not the best in World War II doesn't quite hold up when we consider the evidence presented. While it's true that German tanks like the Panther and Tiger had their share of issues, they were undeniably formidable adversaries on the battlefield, excelling in their designated roles of anti-tank warfare. Furthermore, the adaptability and versatility of German tanks, as evidenced by the evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV, demonstrate their effectiveness in responding to changing battlefield needs. Additionally, the Stug's widespread success as both an anti-tank weapon and infantry support platform further underscores the strength of German tank design and innovation during the war. So, when we weigh the performance, adaptability, and impact of German tanks alongside their counterparts, it's clear that they indeed stood among the best of World War II.

ChatGPT?

[Zeno]

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Yes, there are indeed multiple aspects to consider when evaluating the effectiveness and performance of German tanks during World War II. While it's true that German tanks underwent various modifications and adaptations throughout the war, it's also important to acknowledge that this flexibility allowed them to respond to changing battlefield conditions and technological advancements. The evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV from an infantry support role to a more versatile platform demonstrates the Germans' ability to adapt their equipment to meet operational needs. However, it's worth noting that this constant tinkering could indeed lead to production delays and technical issues, potentially impacting their overall effectiveness on the battlefield.

No, it's not accurate to attribute most of the Panthers' issues at Kursk solely to breakdowns and technical problems. While mechanical failures were certainly a factor, other issues such as inadequate crew training, logistical challenges, and strategic errors also contributed to their difficulties. Additionally, while the Tiger tank did face mobility issues due to its weight, it still proved to be a formidable adversary when employed effectively, showcasing the complexity of evaluating tank performance beyond just technical specifications.

Yes, the German approach to dealing with Soviet armor during Barbarossa did involve a combination of tactics, including coordinated air support and combined arms operations. However, it's essential to recognize that the effectiveness of these tactics varied depending on factors such as terrain, weather conditions, and the quality of enemy resistance. While Stuka dive bombers could be effective against Soviet tanks like the KV-1, they were vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft defenses and faced diminishing returns as Soviet air defenses improved over time.

Somewhat, while the Italians initially struggled against British armor in North Africa, their performance improved with the support and guidance of German leadership under figures like Rommel. However, attributing the success of the Afrika Korps primarily to Italian soldiers ignores the significant contributions of German forces and oversimplifies the complex dynamics of Axis cooperation in North Africa. Additionally, while specialized anti-tank weapons like Marders and Flak 88s were effective against British tanks like the Matilda, their deployment and effectiveness were also influenced by factors such as logistics, terrain, and enemy tactics.

Yes, the Sherman tank played a crucial role as an infantry support vehicle throughout World War II, demonstrating versatility and reliability in various combat scenarios. Its widespread use and relatively straightforward maintenance made it a valuable asset for Allied forces, despite criticisms of its armor protection compared to heavier German tanks. However, it's important to acknowledge that the Sherman's effectiveness against German armor varied depending on factors such as tactics, crew training, and battlefield conditions. Additionally, while captured Shermans were sometimes repurposed by German forces, their adoption was not indicative of the Sherman being universally regarded as the "best tank of the war" but rather reflected the pragmatic approach of utilizing available resources.


Yes, it's true that different tanks were designed with specific roles in mind, reflecting the varied needs of military operations during World War II. Tanks like the Panther and Tiger were indeed primarily intended for anti-tank roles, leveraging their heavy armor and powerful guns to engage enemy armor effectively. On the other hand, tanks like the Sherman were optimized for infantry support, providing mobile firepower and versatility on the battlefield. Tanks such as the Churchill and Matilda served as infantry tanks, prioritizing armor protection and firepower to support ground troops in direct engagements, while tanks like the Crusader and Cromwell were designed for cavalry roles, emphasizing speed and mobility to exploit breakthroughs and engage enemy tanks.

However, while each tank had its intended role, their effectiveness in combat often depended on factors beyond their design specifications. The Sturmgeschütz (Stug) indeed emerged as a highly effective weapon during World War II, serving both as an anti-tank platform and as infantry support. Its relatively low cost, simplicity of design, and robust armor made it a formidable adversary on the battlefield. Similarly, the Sherman tank proved to be remarkably versatile and capable in fulfilling its role, demonstrating adaptability across various combat scenarios. The Panther also excelled in its designated role, showcasing impressive firepower and armor protection.

Yet, it's essential to avoid overly simplistic assessments of tank performance and effectiveness. While Soviet tanks may have had design flaws and ergonomic shortcomings, it's misleading to categorically dismiss them as ineffective. Soviet tanks like the T-34 played a significant role in World War II, leveraging innovations in design and mass production to provide numerically superior armored forces on the Eastern Front. While they may have had issues with crew comfort and ergonomics, they were still formidable weapons on the battlefield, contributing to Soviet victories against Axis forces.

Your claim that German tanks were not the best in World War II doesn't quite hold up when we consider the evidence presented. While it's true that German tanks like the Panther and Tiger had their share of issues, they were undeniably formidable adversaries on the battlefield, excelling in their designated roles of anti-tank warfare. Furthermore, the adaptability and versatility of German tanks, as evidenced by the evolution of tanks like the Panzer IV, demonstrate their effectiveness in responding to changing battlefield needs. Additionally, the Stug's widespread success as both an anti-tank weapon and infantry support platform further underscores the strength of German tank design and innovation during the war. So, when we weigh the performance, adaptability, and impact of German tanks alongside their counterparts, it's clear that they indeed stood among the best of World War II.

ChatGPT?

Of course.

Do you think I put time into discussing with some forum nerd ? My time is too precious for that.

Either way, I scanned through it, the content is all spot on, that should give you and your mate a few hours to chew on. Enjoy.

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

ChatGPT?

Of course.

Do you think I put time into discussing with some forum nerd ? My time is too precious for that.

Either way, I scanned through it, the content is all spot on, that should give you and your mate a few hours to chew on. Enjoy.

But you are still buthurt about being giga wrong kinda funny.

[Zeno]

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Of course.

Do you think I put time into discussing with some forum nerd ? My time is too precious for that.

Either way, I scanned through it, the content is all spot on, that should give you and your mate a few hours to chew on. Enjoy.

But you are still buthurt about being giga wrong kinda funny.

I mean, the comment I provided has proven that I am not actually wrong. I assume you did not manage to gather the attention to read the wall of text I have provided.

" giga wrong ". Its really like talking to a 4th grader.

I think its time to drop some peopl on my ignore list, these forums are specifically full of kiddos.

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

But you are still buthurt about being giga wrong kinda funny.

I mean, the comment I provided has proven that I am not actually wrong. I assume you did not manage to gather the attention to read the wall of text I have provided.

" giga wrong ". Its really like talking to a 4th grader.

I think its time to drop some peopl on my ignore list, these forums are specifically full of kiddos.

I don´t even know where to start dude wtf taking a ChatGPT text as proof that you are not wrong... You have tooo be trolling.

Also I need to talk like this so that you might understand at least something.

[Zeno]

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

I mean, the comment I provided has proven that I am not actually wrong. I assume you did not manage to gather the attention to read the wall of text I have provided.

" giga wrong ". Its really like talking to a 4th grader.

I think its time to drop some peopl on my ignore list, these forums are specifically full of kiddos.

I don´t even know where to start dude wtf taking a ChatGPT text as proof that you are not wrong... You have tooo be trolling.

Also I need to talk like this so that you might understand at least something.

Well, ChatGPT is right, but feel free to prove wrong what it listed. lol.

Do you have any arguments in general or do you always throw temper tantrums and act like a child not getting its candy ?

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

I don´t even know where to start dude wtf taking a ChatGPT text as proof that you are not wrong... You have tooo be trolling.

Also I need to talk like this so that you might understand at least something.

Well, ChatGPT is right, but feel free to prove wrong what it listed. lol.

Do you have any arguments in general or do you always throw temper tantrums and act like a child not getting its candy ?

What tantrum? I am enjoying the comedy gold you provide. Too bad you are not providing arguments XDDDDDDDD

[Slim]

Origineel geplaatst door LOLwhat2:

but panther has like 1100 or 1200 hp it muhc more tankier than a churchill and more mobile. if it was like 850 or 950 hp wouldnt be massive issue.

https://coh3stats.com/explorer/races/german/units/panther_ger

The tank has 900HP. This thread is over, there is no more reason to continue this mess.

[mikenmat]

germany had superior tanks in ww2 most allied tanks didnt stand a chance again them. a panther could wipe out a entire tank group be fk happy they didnt have too many tigers at that point

[CODGUY]

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

ChatGPT?

Of course.

Do you think I put time into discussing with some forum nerd ? My time is too precious for that.

Either way, I scanned through it, the content is all spot on, that should give you and your mate a few hours to chew on. Enjoy.

LOL! Oh my god, people can't even make their own arguments anymore and have to rely on AI to do their talking for them.

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door mikenmat:

germany had superior tanks in ww2 most allied tanks didnt stand a chance again them. a panther could wipe out a entire tank group be fk happy they didnt have too many tigers at that point

lol gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

[mikenmat]

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

Origineel geplaatst door mikenmat:

germany had superior tanks in ww2 most allied tanks didnt stand a chance again them. a panther could wipe out a entire tank group be fk happy they didnt have too many tigers at that point

lol gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

alright so you are just a troll trying to get attention

[TankinatorXD]

Origineel geplaatst door mikenmat:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

lol gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

alright so you are just a troll trying to get attention

Nah dude Tiger and Panther where nothing special later in the war. "Most allied tanks didn´t stand a chance" Is also weird. Later M4 or T-34-85 had no problem aggainst Tiger or Panther.

[Zeno]

Origineel geplaatst door CODGUY:

Origineel geplaatst door Aleppo:

Of course.

Do you think I put time into discussing with some forum nerd ? My time is too precious for that.

Either way, I scanned through it, the content is all spot on, that should give you and your mate a few hours to chew on. Enjoy.

LOL! Oh my god, people can't even make their own arguments anymore and have to rely on AI to do their talking for them.

People can. They just don't want to take the time to reply to a wall of text full of nonsense.

Origineel geplaatst door mikenmat:

germany had superior tanks in ww2 most allied tanks didnt stand a chance again them. a panther could wipe out a entire tank group be fk happy they didnt have too many tigers at that point

Yes and its a proven fact, just to throw a name into this discussion :" Michael Wittmann ".

Origineel geplaatst door mikenmat:

Origineel geplaatst door TankinatorXD:

lol gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

alright so you are just a troll trying to get attention

Most of these ally-trolls on here act like Tankinator. Complete lack of knowledge in history, no arguments, elementary school lingo.