Worst looking AFV of the War

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka:

even today the tanks are not supposed to give their broadside to the enemy, <hr></blockquote>

That's fine on defence but makes it hard for them to move forward and exploit a penetration since AT guns farther along the enemy defensive line can get flank shots. I think the Amis got it right, producing large quantities of mediocre medium tanks rather than putting all their eggs in a small number of precious baskets.

As for battleships, well, in their case they actually SHOULD put their flanks towards the enemy, but your point holds the same if you just rotate it 90 degrees.

[PeterNZer]

CMplayer:

read how the tankers of the time viewed their equipment. Coopers "deathtraps" is a good start.

otherwise I'll not comment on your statements as they are obviously troll-bait.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lindan:

read how the tankers of the time viewed their equipment. Coopers "deathtraps" is a good start.

<hr></blockquote>

What does that have to do with how stylish tanks look? As for accusing me of trolling, since I follow through on the discussion you are plainly out to lunch with your assessment.

[StuG]

I think the Grant is the most ugly piece of machinery in the war. It's so bloody hideous, it's unbelievable!

Dan

[CMplayer]

Any tank, and I mean ANY TANK even a bulbous, protuberous, wierdly angled lopsided Grant must have looked beautiful to friendly infantry right after it saved their behinds.

[Roksovkiy]

The Limeys must be up there for the ugliest WW1- era design tanks of the war. From the matilda, churchill, cromwell to the firefly. Awful tanks in combat as well as looks.

[PeterNZer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CMplayer:

What does that have to do with how stylish tanks look? As for accusing me of trolling, since I follow through on the discussion you are plainly out to lunch with your assessment.<hr></blockquote>

Then stop mixing all kind of arguments in your posts or at least don't pretend to be surprised when you get answered in kind. And for trolling...

you don't REALLY want to pose as the innocent victim here, don't you ?

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lindan:

And for trolling...

you don't REALLY want to pose as the innocent victim here, don't you ? <hr></blockquote>

You seem to have a different idea of what trolling is than I do. I could mention a few things I believe it isn't. Joking, mixing arguments, playing the devil's advocate, and sticking to unpopular opinions are _not_ trolling. A real troll has no genuine interest in the subject matter, not the slightest affection for his fellow forum participants, and only wishes to provoke anger. That not being the case here, you SIR are reFUTED.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>

[StellarRat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Patgod:

the 190 shares with nobody! *slaps the spit down* <hr></blockquote>

EEEEWWW! The FW-190 wasn't nearly as cool looking as the Spitfire. In fact, the Spitfire was coolest looking plane of WW II. I'm not saying the best performing, just the best looking. Specially the later models. You also have to remember that the Merlin engine was widely used and very successful. I've got one in my Prelude...

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]</p>

[Fieldmarshall]

The ME 262 was the best looking plane of the war, closely followed by the P-51

[Roborat]

I've always considered the Mosquito to be the best looking WWII aircraft.

[Affentitten]

Well let's keep it to the worst looking stuff. If we're talking planes, I vote for this French effort, the Amiot 143. Though you've got to admit, a joy ride in that gondala would have been pretty cool.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

best looking plane, hmmmmm the Spitfire i think has to win out there. 2nd would go to the Fw-190.

[CMplayer]

Agreed the spitfire is damned cute. If I had to be bombed and strafed I'd really prefer it to be by a spitfire.

[Ex Bellator]

Hehe - can't resist...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The Limeys must be up there for the ugliest WW1- era design tanks of the war. From the matilda, churchill, cromwell to the firefly. Awful tanks in combat as well as looks. <hr></blockquote>

Very funny, the Kaiser's men must have had kittens seeing the Fireflies and Co. heading at them. Although perhaps they didn't as they were apparently so rubbish.

Lemmie see that list - there's the Queen of the Desert, virtually invulnerable for years and it's mere presence on the field could induce mass surrenders.

The Churchill, whose variants were so feared by German infantry a special priority target order was issued.

The Cromwell, well not brilliant but just basically a fast Sherman.

The Firefly, hmm, they were so awful but they killed the best tank ace of the war in his Tiger. That must mean that Tigers were really awful then

[Gyrene]

The Me262 looks like a shark with two vaccuum cleaners stuck under the wings. And that is not a good thing.

I'll agree with the Mosquito and the P51 (Esp, the D) and the FW190 is not bad.

The P38 is also one sweet looking bird and don't forget the PBY Catalina & the Corsair.

Ugly planes? Any German WWII twin engine bomber/night fighter and any Russian biplane.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Ugly planes? Any German WWII twin engine bomber/night fighter and any Russian biplane.<hr></blockquote>

Eh? What about the Me 410. It may not have been a great performer for its day but it sure was one sleek, gorgeous looking aircraft. BTW, I agree with the Mosquito being a great looking (& performing) plane... how could I not since my old man flew the night fighter version over England! (456 Squadron).

Now as for the French conglomeration, whose idea was it to strap a bloody alpine cable car to the bottom of a perfectly good twin engine aircraft fuselage?

Regards

Jim R.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CMplayer:

That's fine on defence but makes it hard for them to move forward and exploit a penetration since AT guns farther along the enemy defensive line can get flank shots. I think the Amis got it right, producing large quantities of mediocre medium tanks rather than putting all their eggs in a small number of precious baskets.

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the design of the Panther was a direct consequence of fighting on both the Eastern Front and in the Western Desert, where the fighting tended to be far more fluid and where AT guns didn't tend to play as big a part as they did on the Western Front.

In both Russia and North Africa, essentially, no matter how much care was taken, it was quite easy to become aware of a threat and so it was possible to turn your thickest armoured parts (ie bow) towards the enemy. In most cases, particularly in the Western Desert, you weren't often surprised by AT guns either (unless you're British ).

So, in the case, it mights it actually sensible to design your tanks with thicker bow armour and thinner flank armour, if that is the only sort of environment(s) that you're going to fight in.

As to the Amis "getting it right" - they could have done a lot better - sticking with diesel engines perhaps, rather than making use of volatile petrol fuelled versions. Internal and external stowage was also an area where they got it badly wrong, while dry, unprotected stowage of ammunition, well, I'll say no more.

In the end, they could have done better. What they did, was barely adequate.

They won but the cost was high.

[CMplayer]

Okay but it's still ugly.

[CombinedArms]

I'm getting my vote in late but it definitely goes to that Kiwi monstrosity, the Bob Semple, and kudos to this board for having the depth of knowledge to nominate a tank THAT obscure.

The Sherman, Lee, Cromwell, Churchill, King Tiger and Panther are all bathing beauties compared to that one.

I'd rank the best looking fighters as: Spitfire, Mustang, Fw-190, P-38 (I always thought it looked cool, anyway) and P-40 (the Flying Tiger version with the shark teeth)--in that order. I also think the gull-winged Corsair looks kinda cool, but most of you will probably laugh at that.

[Cpl Carrot]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I'd rank the best looking fighters as: Spitfire, Mustang, Fw-190, P-38 (I always thought it looked cool, anyway) and P-40 (the Flying Tiger version with the shark teeth)--in that order. I also think the gull-winged Corsair looks kinda cool, but most of you will probably laugh at that.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah they are all nice looking aircraft. I guess if you like the P-40 then you would hate to see a P-400

Cpl Carrot

[Bullethead]

While I have to agree that the Kiwi Horror is a strong contestant, my vote goes for this:

This was the Bison, a post-Dunkirk lash-up job. It consisted of cement pillboxes on a Thornycroft truck chassis.

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

[/qb]

As to the Amis "getting it right" - they could have done a lot better - sticking with diesel engines perhaps, rather than making use of volatile petrol fuelled versions.<hr></blockquote>

It was my understanding that over 10,000 Shermans (A2 model and variants) had twin GM 6-71 diesels. However, it seems that most were either given to British forces and/or sent to the Pacific. I think this was partly to simplify the supply chain, so that American forces in Europe only had to deal with gasoline engines, while the Marines (which already used diesel in all their boats and vehicles) got the diesel ones.

One of the reasons that there were so many Shermans is that every American automative company got into the act with whatever powerful engines it could make available in large numbers. Thus you had different Sherman models with Continental radial engines, Ford V8s, GM Diesels, Chrysler multi-bank engines, and even Caterpillar diesel radial engines. If the U.S. had limited production to only diesel models, production would have been slowed significantly.

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead:

This was the Bison, a post-Dunkirk lash-up job. It consisted of cement pillboxes on a Thornycroft truck chassis.<hr></blockquote>

Well it sure is ugly, but can it really qualify as an Armored Fighting Vehicle?

Its basically a MG pillbox on wheels. Probably made to stand around immobile, like real pilboxes - except this one you can relocate.

[Bullethead]

The Commissar said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Well it sure is ugly, but can it really qualify as an Armored Fighting Vehicle?

Its basically a MG pillbox on wheels. Probably made to stand around immobile, like real pilboxes - except this one you can relocate.<hr></blockquote>

Well, according to the info at Bovington, where the beast resides, it was intended to be a true ersatz main battle tank. The Home Guard was going to use it to repel the invading Panzer divisions. So I guess that qualifies it as an AFV

The Bison was a product of the same last-ditch school of design that produced the various and wonderful Molotov cocktail launchers (chambered for widely available soda and beer bottles) as Home Guard ersatz artillery pieces and anti-tank guns. No, I'm not making that up--I've got pictures of them, too Such a weapon could easily have been mounted on the Bison firing over the top edge of the concrete walls. This would have given the vehicle a real "gun"

People think the Japanese weren't being reasonable when they armed militia units with spears and such in anticipation of the final invasion, rather than surrendering. Such people forget the Brits were just as unreasonable when placed in the same situation.