What was wrong with German tank design of WWII?
>>28060877
Ergonomics and Mass Production
>>28060877
Nothing
>>28060877
Things they thought they were good at (such as Heavy Tanks) the Soviets did better.
>>28060877
>panther
start 30
end 45
>tiger 1
start 36
end 45
>tiger 2
start 45
end 70
>>28060921
Found the slavaboo. Soviets had mass production on their side, as we've been over many times before. Little more.
>>28060948
NAZIBOO GO BACK TO /POL/
>>28060921
>is2
>fighting königtiger
Yeah no ridf pls go
>>28060969
>REEEEE
>>28060877
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/wwii-myths-german-tank-strength-in.html
554 pz1 tank
920 pz2 tanks
what ever happened to tactical superiority ?
>>28060877
Only making like 5 of each.
>>28060877
Well, to start the Germans weren't planning on war so early, so they started with the lightest of light tanks, which they used in large groupings to flank the shit out of French formations and heavy tanks.
Their tanks were engineering marvels, they were typically superior to all equivalent vehicles in their size range, but the German infrastructure and industrial capacity were whittled away faster than they could deploy the best designs.
By comparison, the Soviets had essentially infinite time, space, and American aid to develop their industry, and their tanks were designed to be used by retarded peasants. As a result, when Russian armor went head to head on equal numbers with the Germans, they lost and lost hard. But the numbers were almost never equal, and the Germans couldn't replace Panzer losses while the Soviets were producing more tanks than they could possibly lose.
>>28061041
This. Eight Soviet tanks against one Panzer is a Soviet win even if only one Soviet tank comes out of it intact.
>>28060877
>front transmissions and with it, height
>weight weight weight and with it, reliability
>manufacturing costs and time
One could add latewar steel quality but that was hardly the tanks fault. People also hate on the suspension but it was hardly as Bad as people make it out to be. In terms of comfort, it was in fact better than most used during that time
>>28060877
Overengineering. The biggest problem of German WW2 designs.
>>28061041
>memes, the reply
>>28060877
Overcomplicated. Which meant high costs, low reliability, low numbers.
>>28061261
>meme, the rebuttal
>>28060877
Interleafing track wheels and suspension
Germany's best ability, Useless overengineering of simple components, has no positive effect in the field of war.
do the Germans have a somewhat gimped development program ?
perhaps well trained crews and good optics
but I don't think the Germans have very good drive trains and guns
>>28061298
The reason why the final drives always failed was due to a lack of tooling to create enough helical gears and a lack of high grade steel, so they switched to straight cut spur gears to keep production up with how many tanks they were putting out.
As per your gun comment, the pak 44 would like a word with you
>>28060921
>IS-2
>Heavy tank
Pick one
Corporal Hitler demanded bigger guns and more armor that made tanks too heavy for their designed suspension and engines.
Those things caused breakdowns and bad cross country mobility.
Also they mostly used front transmissions and gasoline, but so did the British and Americans.
If you compare German medium tank production numbers to T-34, Sherman or even British from the same time (don't count the tanks made before or after war) they actually didn't do that bad, considering how much their industry was bombed.
>>28060877
some of this:
>>28060903
some of this:
>>28060934
but mostly they didn't have the industry capacity to replace losses in the field. Russians cranked out something like 40,000 t-34s. USA similar number of Shermans. Germans couldn't match that.
>>28060877
Essential /k/ viewing. Skip to 26:11 if it doesn't automatically
http://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ
It's a lectures about Soviet, American, and German tank production. Biggest problem of German tank design? I'll give you a hint which he goes deeper on in the video:
Henschel theoritical capable monthly tank production: 200-300
Actual monthly tank production: 60-90
>>28061298
>German guns
>not good
Nigga, you what?
over engineering shit so its last forever when its just going to go right in to the grinder and get blown up.
Yes, i know that their transmission and engine didn't last long but that is mainly because Hitler wanted to have a retarded amount of armor on everything.
>>28061362
the heaviest gun that could be deployed with only man power is the 5cm pak 38
and you have to be brave to take out a t34 or kv1 with that
7.5 pak 40 requires horses or a truck
and gives more room for error
trying to move the 12.8 pak 44 is another level again and is a bit over kill
that said all they have to do is deploy faster than what they are trying to destroy
the 7.5 kwk 42 and 8.8 KwK 36 are apparently sufficient if you are closer or to the flank
but if you have enough distance put a 8.8 pak 43 somewhere
that's a summery of my current understanding
>>28061041
>lightest of light tanks
Other than the Panzer 3 and 4, which were comparable to other tanks designed in the 30s.
>superior
That's a bit of a stretch. They had their strengths and weaknesses.
>infinite time
Which they bought by soundly defeating the Germans during the first year. They Germans could have won then, but they fucked up the actual battles. The Soviets won, and then the industry thing kicked in to take the initiative.
>>28061362
The PaK44 was also produced in tiny numbers. The Germans were consistently behind the curve when it came to guns, and constantly in a state of panicked catch up work.
The Krauts couldn't make a design that would just work to save their lives. They made fantastic designs but often made it too complex for field repairs and made it so you had to pull out everything just to get to the engine. The majority of Panthers broke down on its way to the battlefield from sabotage in the factories and its gears would get stripped if you put it to the top gear. The engine used a similar concept to the Sherman and used gas and had seen times where it would catch fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRpY6anuJE4
>>28061391
the numbers are target weights of the prototypes that lead up to the latter and heaver vehicles
its all in bigger guns and thicker armour
even the panzer 4 gained near 8 tonnes over its service life
>>28061445
The 75 could take out everything but the IS with ease. The KwK 88 could take the IS
>>28061391
Industrial capacity isn't something that happens by accident, though. It's a set of skills and organisational competencies, like anything else.
>>28061460
it caught fire so often because its fording capability
so when you went up a hill frontwards leaking fuel pooled by the engine and could not escape
and the gear box was designed for a much smaller tank even before compromises made to its integrity by bad supply
>>28061489
Thank you for the correction, i forgot the exacts so i was trying to work off of memory.
>>28061463
>KwK 88
Weren't they finished in 45?
>>28061506
it is pretty much a heavy tank so they wanted it to swim rather than rely on bridges
I find it odd that the pz3 has a better view port arrangement than the pz5
but if you think of the tank as being more second or third line tank it makes sense
>>28061508
KwK 88 could have been a few different weapons, but I assume anon is talking about the gun that was on the Tiger, derived from a ground based ATG/AAA.
>>28061565
Might have been a production issue as well. I know they removed various ports and viewpoints in the later versions of the Panzer 4 to speed production, maybe the viewing ports were seen as armour weaknesses, or something that added too much to production times?
>>28061565
Yea, but you also have to take into the fact that its a wartime design so they also cut corners. That may have played its part in why the view port arrangement was the way it was.
>>28061508
the L56 version was available in 42
and the L71 in 44
>>28060877
at first, nothing.
during the war:
>material shortages
>lack of machinery
>sabotage
>rushed into action
>and last but not least. the fucking german industry didnt go into full war mode before 1943 I think.
they produced consumer goods while getting stomped in bob and later in russia
anyways I really fucking love the panther and tiger 2.
the engineering on those things are so fucking awesome. like how the germans went from well made high quality high finish pz3 and 4s to the panthers which were designed to be mass produced with the shitty materials and methods they had
>>28061575
>>28061579
the last version of the pz4 had hand cranked traverse and the turret ring with only half the bearings
so cost cutting is a strong factor yes
cutting a few view ports is one thing
but god dam people getting all up in your tanks blind spots with grenades and Molotov must be pretty terrifying
>>28061620
see
>>28061460
>>28061489
The Panther and Tiger 2 had so many problems.
>>28061620
somehow a panther costs 1/4 of what it takes to buy a pz4
>>28060877
Tiger 1: Cupola hatch opened in a way that let every Soviet sniper in the vicinity know you're peeking out
Was later changed to a hatch that swivels to the side and thus made it possible for the commander to actually observe the battlefield in relative safety (comparetively speaking)
The Soviets not only lacked any form of proper coordination of their tank units, they also never opened their hatches to take a look at how the battlefield is looking, keeping their eyes open for AT shots from well-camouflaged PAKs etc
Hence why they just drove in to get shot and die
The biggest flaws were the constantly interrupted production thanks to Bomber Harris and his boys, the fact that shit was rushed to the front without proper field testing (reason why the germans lost Kursk, instead of fucking shit up they waited for Panthers and Ferdinands to arrive which broke down because of all their teething issues and had barely any impact during that battle)
Lack of standardization was another issue, the germans tried to correct this later on in the war but it was too little too late
Guns were fine despite what some rearpained Vatnik thinks and shitposts, more concerning was that some Panzers didn't have drive locks for the guns that could be disabled from the inside of the tank but required somebody to go out, free the gun from the driving position lock, get back in and Vorwärts, Panzer!
Oh, and the Jagdtiger was notoriously bad at holding its zero because it constantly wore out the drive sprockets of the gun
>>28061634
which mostly stems from shitty resources, and production capabilities.
and the fact that they rushed it into service
the design itself is pretty based, the excecution is what is bad
>>28061598
Please you are giving me the autism.
Having same caliber doens't make them different versions of same gun, just different guns.
>>28061598
He's laughing at you for "KwK 88" when it's fucking "KwK 36" or "KwK 43".
Or perhaps you wanted "8.8 KwK".
>>28061695
what else do you call it
all that really changes is barrel length and cartage shape
then the recoil damper rate and counter balance weight
you could use the tiger as aa with the flak ammo it you really wanted to
>>28061620
>the fucking german industry didnt go into full war mode before 1943 I think.
Common myth. The state started talking about going full tilt after Kursk, but the Germans already had made their guns and butter choice earlier. 1943 onwards just happened to show a lot of earlier investments paying off.
And don't believe the bullshit you hear about Speer, either. Guy took a lot of credit and did very little.
>>28061794
well at some point they stopped producing consumer goods, when did that happen?
>>28061654
>Soviets
Down to a lack of radios and sufficient crew as well. Their hatches also precluded driving around with your head out, as they opened fowards.
>waited for Panthers
Both the Panther and the Ferdinand had significant impact during the battle. They were amongst the most effective tank for tank combatants the Germans fielded there. They rushed the production because they were desperate. Starting early wouldn't have helped at all. It's not like the Germans were just waiting around JUST for the Panthers. They prepared and accumulated in every other respect as well.
>standardisation
Common myth. The German armed forces were always pretty standardised by WW2 standards. Most of their production of tanks in any given year tended to be around 80% 3 types.
>guns
Eventually. But in France and Russia, the Germans found they were consistently outgunned compared to their opponents. Most of their tanks in France were either Panzer 1s or 2's, remember. Very little armour, very little dakka.
>>28061816
They were always producing consumer goods, like every other country. But even back in '41, more than half of them were going to the army.
Their issue was also a personelle and resource issue as much as anything else. They didn't have the steel, or the skilled labour, or the unskilled labour. They were on 1 shift days because they didn't have the workers for 2 or 3 shift days.
>>28061787
>he doesn't know a Tiger on the Eastern Front shot down a plane during WW2
And without loading Flak Ammo
>>28061794
>Adam Tooze plz leave
He said that the industry didn't kick into production until '43
>>28061825
>Common myth. The German armed forces were always pretty standardised by WW2 standards. Most of their production of tanks in any given year tended to be around 80% 3 types.
No it's not a myth, it's a fact. Look at all the various types of vehicles you had in service at the same time. You do t think single production run tanks had any impact on labor?
>>28061825
>starting early wouldn't have helped at all
It would've, because delaying the Kursk offensive allowed the Soviets to dig in and fortify themselves which was the reason why the Battle of Kursk was a lost cause from the beginning
>german armed forces were always pretty standardised
You call having three-four different sidearms with at least two-three calibers standardized? You call "Let's just capture the soviet SMGs and use them" standardized? The only arm of the german military that seems to have been thoroughly standardized in WW2 was their Navy.
>>28061839
>Steel
They had the steel. German steel production was about twice that of the Soviets till '43/44
>skilled labor
Agreed to an extent
>unskilled labor
No.
>>28061825
5 cm kwk 38 any good for a rampage ?
main opponent being hotchkiss h35 and m3 grant
char b1 and Churchill too strong
>>28061843
>without loading Flak Ammo
god dam
>>28061843
>Welcome to the Eastern Front, how tough are ya
>>28060877
If War Thunder taught me anything, it's that flat armor sucks and that those fucking suspensions will break if you breathe on them too hard
>100 replies later
>>28061962
i shat in a fox hole for a week.
It was a bit maintenance-heavy, but that wasn't the main problem. The main problem was that they were fighting a large fraction of the world's resources with a tiny fraction of the world's resources. They were never going to win a war of attrition.
>>28061962
I played the Pz.III spotter for a Heavy Tank Battalion for over three months
>>28061973
all it taught me is aim for the drivers hatch and the engine deck
>tfw playing with a track ball
>>28061021
Who fights the King Tiger then?
They didn't make enough of them.
>>28062095
the evil t34 85 and js1
>>28061872
>Look at all the various types of vehicles you had in service at the same time.
I have. It's not that impressive a variety. Particularly considering almost all of them were either Panzer 3s or 4s.
>>28061883
>steel
They HAD steel, yes, but it was also the choke point for most of their production efforts. They had steel, but they never had enough.
>unskilled labour
Very much so. Hence the need for slaves to be involved in such sensitive operations as the V2 project.
>skilled labour
Compounded by an immature industry that needed a lot of specialist capabilities to manufacture their designs. They built tanks like aircraft. They didn't even used fixed tools until the very end.
>>28061879
>it would've
Delaying the Kursk offensive allowed the Germans to build up as well. And with the constant reteat, they needed every moment of respite they could get. Attack early, attack later, they were fucked either way. You're either talking an underequipped German force, or a better dug in Soviet one.
>armed forces standardisation
>sidearms
I'd call the sidearms irrelevant. I'd also call them mostly what they Germans already had the factories for, or in stock for years. Why they didn't issue universal semi automatics. Like everyone other than the yanks.
>just capture SMGs
Everyone used captured gear to a greater or lesser extent. When you've got a constant supply of ammo, why not? The PPSH was a decent gun for the circumstances.
>>28061917
Quite good. Pity less than %15 of the German tanks were Panzer 3s, and pity that almost all of them had the earlier guns. And the Grant wasn't particularly worried by it either. It could fight the grant, sure, they weren't reduced to close range flank shots, but that went both ways.
>>28062117
>Pity less than %15 of the German tanks were Panzer 3s
Sorry, that was for france. Obviously the odds are a bit better by the time the lee starts turning up.
>>28062117
50 % of steel went to civillian goods in 43
>>28061883
>They had the steel. German steel production was about twice that of the Soviets till '43/44
They had steel, but lacked other, very important alloys. Copper, Molybdenum, etc. - that put a serious strain on things like armor production
>>28062135
Exactly. A vast amount of steel was allocated to the military alone. And that's not even getting into how many civilian goods were purchased and used by the military.
>>28062095
The US used artillery or Pershings.
>>28062095
air craft
>>28062117
No, I said STEEL PRODUCTION. Also, they didn't use slave labor en masse until late in the war
>>28061211
>One could add latewar steel quality but that was hardly the tanks fault.
The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of around 255-280 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for the corresponding thickness level of the Tiger's armor, by WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. About this issue, and according to Thomas L. Jentz, "there is no proof that substandard german armour plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war" (JENTZ, Thomas L. Germany's TIGER Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications).
The main problem the Germans faced was that almost everything was made with a different hull, and the stuff that was made with an older hull grossly over weighed what the original hull was supposed to carry.
The Panzer IV hull was designed to support a 25 ton AFV. It ended up being a 32 ton AFV which in turn led to huge maintenance and reliability issues. The Panther was designed to be a 30 ton AFV but ended up being a 44 ton AFV instead. The suspension and drive train were never properly improved to accomodate, although the suspension was dramatically improved in later models.
There was also a distinct overcomplication of designs thanks to political, mainly Hitler, meddling. Despite the Panther being 23 tons heavier than a Panzer IV, it was only 20% more expensive to build. This isn't a sign that the Panther was cheap, but rather that the Panzer IV was an overcomplicated mess that took significantly more man hours and complicated parts to create than its contemporaries and even superiors.
You also have the problem of the German economy just being ultimately ill suited for total war. It heavily relied on imports to create high quality metals and war materiel, and when these imports were hampered, blocked or lost their war economy suffered heavily. Original line Panthers were frontally impervious to the 122mm gun of the IS-2 at ranges further than 600m. As the war dragged on their rare metal imports from Norway and Sweeden dried up and they were forced to substitute metals.
This meant that Panthers suddenly become very pregnable to the IS-2 at ranges much further out than 600m. It wasn't just the Panther that suffered though. One engagement in 1945 was between two King Tigers and 12 75mm armed Shermans.
One might think, oh, the King Tigers wiped the floor right? You'd be wrong, the Shermans simply overwhelmed the Tigers with raw volume of fire until the tanks' hulls broke apart and caught fire.
>>28061261
>meme
>scientific and historically supported claim.
Jesus then history itself its a meme
>>28062905
Captured Jagdtiger testing by both the British and Russians also noted that the armor quality was sub standard. The armor itself cracking and falling apart after just a few non penetrating hits, as well as the massive mobility problems and reliability issues the vehicles had.
Not all German tanks were like this, even at end war. But there are multiple accounts by the British, Americans, Russians, and Germans themselves of German tank armor breaking and falling apart after non penetrating hits.
Some of this is due to sub standard metal batches, some simply due to poor quality control leading to hulls that are weaker than they should be, and sabotage is also a likely explanation for at least some of these occurrences. Yet, plenty of German tanks withstood multiple hits and continued to fight even until the ceasefire was declared. It should not be thought that substandard metal quality was the average or norm, rather it was a notable exception, but nevertheless, an exception that further degraded German armored fighting ability and helped contribute to their defeat.
>>28062905
>This isn't a sign that the Panther was cheap
It was cheap enough. I recall reading a comparison between the production costs of a standard Sherman and a Panther. The Panther ended up costing something like 30% more. I'd much rather have three Panthers than four Shermans.
>>28061962
i pushed 20 slavs into a grave and shoot them point blank range.
without any ammo
>>28062966
Moreover, in the same reference book, Jentz presents the data from a British testing of the Tiger's armor protection by firing different guns against it. The tests were realized in a place beside the the main road from Beja to to Sidi N'sir in Tunisia, on May 19, 1943. The reports from these tests stated that the resistance of the Tiger's armor was "considerably higher than that of the British machineable quality armor. The side armor, with a thickness of 82 mm (nominal thickness was 80 mm) had a resistance equivalent of 92 mm of British armor" (Jentz, op cit, page 15). However, a little further, when addressing directly the issue of the Tiger's armor quality, the report states that "The armor plates (with exception of the hull roof plates) did not show any marked tendency to brittleness, and their behavior generally was not unlike British mechineable plates. The following table gives a list of Poldi hardness, corrected to Brinell figures, taken at the surface of the armor".
>>28062966
I wouldn't say it contributed to their defeat as much as just spead up the inevitable. When you have a nation supplying weapons to both its allies that has more production capacity than all other participants combined and another who believes in drowning you in bodies then it's not a question of if you're going to lose, it's a question of how long you can last.
>>28062979
Even the Germans liked Shermans better than their own tanks.
Too complicated/expensive to produce
>>28060877
Nothing
>>28062979
To do what?
If you're engaging infantry or hardpoints the Shermans are going to be significantly better at that task than the Panthers.
If you're engaging enemy armor the Panthers have a definitive edge in combat, but the Shermans are much more likely to actually get to the combat zone combat ready.
Also that's initial run Panthers, which among being some of the most mechanically unreliable tanks in the war, also had several serious design flaws like gas tanks that spilled on inclines leading to the engine catching on fire, and poor gunner visibility (which was never fixed).
Also if you're going to have significantly more trouble getting three Panthers across the Atlantic than you would four Shermans.
But at any rate, you're missing my point while also supporting it.
Panthers were 20% more expensive than PzIVs and 30% more expensive than Shermans.
There is no reason a PzIV should be more expensive to produce than a Sherman yet be smaller, have similar armor protection (inferior on the turret), be slower, and be less reliable. The only explanation is that the PzIV was a production nightmare and clusterfuck of a design.
When you get right down to it that's exactly what it was. The T-34 was simple to make, the Sherman was simple to make, the Panther was simple to make, the Panzer IV was a convoluted mess.
>>28062905
>The main problem the Germans faced was that almost everything was made with a different hull
You mean almost everything was either a Panzer 3, Panzer 4, or Czechnology.
>Panzer 4
Because the stock panzer 4 had 30mm of front armour and a low velocity 75mm gun. It was totally unsuited to midwar combat onwards.
>>28060877
They were designed for an offensive war, where "killed" vehicles could be quickly repaired, recrewed, and sent back to the front. As soon as the front line stalled, they couldn't get their broken tanks back, so the relatively low numbers they fielded started to bite them in the ass. This was a bifurcated problem, as well, since the war was costly on manpower as much as on industry, so they both built fewer tanks than they lost, and couldn't crew them properly once they were built.
In the end the tank design didn't factor into it. They were deadly when they were properly crewed, and had a supply and support line to back them up. Having 102mm frontal armor is great, you're really hard to kill, but once a 76mm Sherman rolls up and sticks HVAP into your transmission, and you're stuck in 1st gear, you can't retreat, and you've got no allies around to help you out, you're fucked.
>>28063146
>There is no reason a PzIV should be more expensive to produce than a Sherman
American industry was considerably more efficient.
>>28063183
>and the stuff that was made with an older hull grossly over weighed what the original hull was supposed to carry
>>28063200
The Panzer IV itself was an inefficient design is the problem. Something like that would have never been fielded in the US. Even the wacky looking shit the US made prototypes of was still remarkably more streamlined than German designs.
The German war industry being less advanced and less efficient only adds more problems to something already problematic.
>>28063130
Best waifu coming through
>>28063130
>>28063432
Garupan is a disgrace and the only redeeming quality it has is that Takotsuboya three-part Doujinshi
>>28063146
>If you're engaging infantry or hardpoints the Shermans are going to be significantly better at that task than the Panthers.
Sure, that's what they were designed for. However, the US made the mistake of assuming that tank-on-tank engagements would be much rarer than they turned out to be. Battlefield experience taught them that the Shermans needed bigger guns and/or thicker armour to do the job they were supposed to do if the job they were supposed to do brought them into contact with enemy armour as often as it did.
>you're going to have significantly more trouble getting three Panthers across the Atlantic than you would four Shermans.
Absolutely. The US had the unique advantage of being safe halfway across the world from their enemies, but also the unique disadvantage of having to ship anything they wanted on the battlefield halfway across the world. This unique position led to design constraints that someone like the Germans or Russians didn't have. The US needed something like the Sherman that was easy to ship and they were perfectly willing to give up a little bit of combat effectiveness for it.
>>28060877
Nothing. Production numbers were a function of the resources available. The Allies had two countries each the size of a continent. They also had command of the sea which gave them access to the resources of the whole world. Germany got most of its iron ore from Sweden and that was it. It also needed its coal to synthesize fuel. Hence the abiity to make steel was limited.
People who complain about the manhours it took to make a German tank overlook that Germany ran a slave economy and the one thing they had no shortage of was labor. On the tactical level Germany was superior to its enemies. So there was nothing wrong with their designs. Had Germany had the same amount of land area, people, food, oil, coal, iron ore, rubber and other resources as the Allies the war would've been over in a matter of months and ended in world domination by Germany.
In light of the huge economic imbalances one wonders why it took the Allies almost six years to bring Germany down and why it couldn't use these favorable circumstances to achieve a favorable k/d ratio. So the real question is: What was wrong with Allied tank design of WWII. And what was wrong with Allied doctrine. The sad thing though is that a war that is won never leads to changes in thinking. It's only the loser of a war who really thinks about why things went the way they went.
>>28064264
>Battlefield experience taught them that the Shermans needed bigger guns and/or thicker armour
Except they had the plans for the 76mm to be the standard Sherman before they'd even heard of the Tiger, when the Sherman had a commanding advantage gun vs armour against everything it came against.
>>28064662
Dank memes, brah.
>>28062095
Mud and artillery
>>28061962
I chopped off my buddies frozen legs for his boots.
Panzerfaust were the best anti tank weapons of ww2 due to their cheapness and effectiveness.
Toward the end of ww2 fresh conscripts were often issued a single shot panzerfaust and nothing else. The generals at the time liked to joke that they could use them as a club afterwards. Who says Germans don't have a sense of humour?
>>28062001
It taught me that Russians are so corrupt that they will always make Russian tanks OP
>>28061430
I think its because shermans would hit a tiger then you know if that was less armored i would of killed that before being sniped by a king tiger from a few miles away.
