-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So, someone unironically sent me this today...
- Thread starter Kangaroo Feathers
- Start date
Guh....buh.......whuh?
Nous avons des crayons rouges pas des communistes.
You wasn't slow dagnabbit, consornit.
Is that French for "Frank Burns eats worms"?
I can get that guy to believe anything.
It is 'I have a red pencil box'. Very limited value in specific situations.
Frank Burns does eat worms.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
War 1 French... that's the funny bit.Question......
What uniforms are those re-enactment soldiers wearing?
If I knew that it might help my reaction. At the moment all reaction in oldbadger is snoozing.......
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Reminds me of that time when Brian Ferry got into hot water for observing - quite correctly - that the Nazis had the best uniforms, in WW2.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Highly arguable about the tanks... if you want to get in to it we can
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Oh look, a woefully pig ignorant trumpette mouthing off without knowing all the facts and generally making wildly inaccurate claims of American exceptionalism . Shocking.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You have 6 meter rule in Americastan?
No wonder you can't go shopping.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
What tanks were better than Tigers?
The Russians could build more but they got clobbered quicker.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The King Tigers were very good, in perfect conditions, and taken in isolation. But that isn't how tanks are evaluated. First of all is that the mechanically complex and resource intensive Tigers were very unreliable under battlefield conditions, and logistically a nightmare to maintain in the field. in a "spherical tanks in a vacuum" sense, the King tiger is pretty impressive, but the fact that the Russians could roll out, maintain and equip 2300 IS3s compared to the 450 odd King Tigers is not something you can handwave. And if you look at the stats, although the German tanks, under ideal conditions, were good, they weren't THAT much better than the Russian and American equivalents. The idea that the German vehicles were some sort of magical wonder weapon generations ahead of anything the allies had is a myth. Compare, then tell me which one you think is better?
Armor 25–185 mm (1–7 in)[3]
Main
armament
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71
Early Krupp design turret: 80 rounds[4]
Production turret: 86 rounds[4]
Secondary
armament
2× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34
5,850 rounds[3]
Engine V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 gasoline
700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)[5]
Power/weight 10 PS (7.5 kW) /tonne (8.97 hp/tonne)
Transmission Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 B (8 forward and 4 reverse)[5]
Suspension torsion-bar
Ground clearance 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)[3]
Fuel capacity 860 litres (190 imp gal)[3]
Operational
range
Road: 170 km (110 mi)[6]
Cross country: 120 km (75 mi)[6]
Maximum speed Maximum, road: 41.5 km/h (25.8 mph)[6]
Sustained, road: 38 km/h (24 mph)[6]
Cross country: 15 to 20 km/h (9.3 to 12.4 mph)[6]
Armor 200 mm (7.9 in)-20 mm (0.79 in)
Main
armament
122mm Gun D-25 (28 rounds)
Secondary
armament
2 x 7.62mm DT MG (coaxial, turret rear, 1000 rounds)
1 x 12.7mm DShK MG (AA, 945 rounds)
Engine V-2-IS (V-2K) (diesel)
600hp@2000rpm
Power/weight 11.0 hp/tonne
Transmission 4 forward, 1 reverse
Operational
range
150 km (93 mi)/120 km (75 mi) (On/off-road)
Maximum speed 37 km/h (23 mph)/19 km/h (12 mph) (On/off-road)
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is my absolute favourite Mitchell and Webb sketch.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Alright. Number 2.
I would prefer to sit above diesel tanks.
Please can I get behind the 8" of armour with the 5" gun.
For a definite decision I would need to know how fast each tank could go backwards.... !!
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
And number 2 is the Russian IS3 heavy MBT, pretty much the Sov equivalent to the King Tiger. Don't get me wrong, the Germans made some very nice tanks, but there has been a LOT of mythologising of them in the last 80 years.Alright. Number 2.
I would prefer to sit above diesel tanks.
Please can I get behind the 8" of armour with the 5" gun.
For a definite decision I would need to know how fast each tank could go backwards.... !!
Ameristan uses 6 feet.
But I made it 6 meters cuz I know that you Eurotrash love everything metric.
You're just lucky I didn't make it 6 kilometers.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thing is, if you got timewarped in to the mid-lete ww2 you would be looking at T34s, Sherman's and Panzers.
As for infantry weapons Brit short and long guns fell behind both US and German weapons.
But my Cadet corps RSM had been in special forces in the war and he would not hear a bad word about the Brit 9mm sten. He could strip and check and re-assemble a sten blind folded. Of course all of his actions had been close.