What would you class a Magrider/Vanguard/Prowler?

[Onizuka-GTO]

o. but what im trying to say is that it is obvious that the DEv did mess up the specification of the MBT.

Because IRL you do not field a cruiser or infantry tank to combat a medium or heavy tank. You always attempt to field one that is in the same class or at leased be better then it.

I suppose i won't be so annoyed if they just label the tanks accordingly to its class.
Don't label something as the same when it's isn't....

[Lartnev]

It's an informal label. I think they're all classed as medium, despite what VR training says about the Vanguard.

[Rbstr]

they used shermans against the German Panzer and Tigers and other giant all the time, the Sherman defenetnly not a big tank.

[Onizuka-GTO]

well there is that, quantity over quality.

Of course that won't work if you have the quality and the quantity....

*cough*MakovNC*cough*

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

well there is that, quantity over quality.

Of course that won't work if you have the quality and the quantity....

*cough*MakovNC*cough*

you think we have the quantity? look at the maps, we almost always are in seond or third pop level now.

Markov is different than Emerald look at who wins, it shifts everyday, and ther is negligble 4th empire working

[Indecisive]

Prowler is a box with a gun on it.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Gohan

Prowler is a box with a gun on it.

Vanguard is a gun with a box on it...

[Indecisive]

A more powerfull gun that is more accuarate due to the fucking barrels not switching on you, mounted on a faster, sturdyer (alluminum compared to cardboard?) box.

[Kam]

[Kam]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

they used shermans against the German Panzer and Tigers and other giant all the time, the Sherman defenetnly not a big tank.

Well ok, but it took on average 10 shermans destroyed before an eleventh would put a shell it the panzers weak spot(The ass). In PS that would be the same as 11 lightnings fighting one prowler.

Most tiger tanks had open backs to allow troops protection, so they were not as big a threat. Now the King Tiger Tanks were a different story. The model was put into production in late 1944 and presented to Hitler as a birthday present. 10.5 inches of solid steel proteted that thing in all positions, as opposed to a shermans 1/4 inch armor. Not even our P-51 tank busters could knock a King Tiger Tank out. The only reason they made little significants was because Germany was losing and had little supplies to put into another wonder weapon. (They had already wasted enough on the V-2 rockets and the Me-262.)

My point in that was that in most tank battles there IS a clear advantage and almost never will you a battle that is balanced such as when a T-34 and a Panzer crossed paths on the battlefield.

(Sry about the double post, hit the wrong button.)

[Onizuka-GTO]

10.5 inch is what in mm?

Wasn't the Soviet IS-2 the more powerful compared to the King Tiger?

It had around 160mm front armour, and a 122mm cannon, far more superior to anything the Germans had....

[Kam]

No, the King tiger tank was the most powerful tank of WW2. And yes, 10.5 inches of pure steel. Also at the very end of the war they started putting dumbfire rockets on it to get rid of pescy enemies near the tank.

[Lartnev]

I do believe the Soviets had a heavier tank than the Tigers, could be that. But what they did even better than that, was mass production of smaller, reliable tanks.

[Kam]

Well, they did have more armor on two of thier models but the king tiger was the most powerful overall. And they were reliable, the only tanks that sucked were the sherman and the british tanks.

[SandTrout]

24 mm to the inch, so 10.5 inches would be 252mm of armor.