Centurion also was best in theatre in Korea, and was used by Australia in Vietnam. Ironically, the vehicles in Korea were the first export examples being shipped to Australia, and when the Korean War broke out, the ships were diverted north, the vehicles never seeing Australia. In Vietnam, the vehicles were used as Infantry support, no tank on tank battles took place. It had a reputation as virtually unstoppable to RPG, so the Aussies used them in a battlefield tactic known as Hammer and Anvil. The Centurions, supported by M113 mounted infantry would sweep through an area, the hammers, then the Viet Cong would flee the area, onto the waiting ambushes of a static infantry unit, the anvil. Very effective. The Centurions also moved to the north east of Saigon following the failure of the Tet Offensive, setting up Fire support bases, (Coral and Balmoral), which engaged fleeing Viet Cong forces, remaining static but safely tucked in behind anti RPG fencing. If anyone thinks tanks and jungle don’t go together…….get Centurions. The Sherman probably was the best of WW2, because it just worked, everywhere it went. It was reliable, easy maintenance, if needed quite often, and crews could easily be trained, it was good at mobility, it’s gun was good enough, and the vehicle enjoyed an incredibly long and successful post war career. You could argue the T34/85 was better, but it never started to go everywhere until after WW2. T34 also has a reputation as being a bitch to drive and service. The ugliest tanks were the Soviet light tanks, except the T70, anything Italian, and those horrible Austrian Wheel/ Track garbage things.
For the last question, a lot of it is the crews, training, tactics and the situation. I would argue the Germans, to refer to the Stug being the best tank destroyer, had very good crews and were able to win even against the Russian numerical superiority, and very good T-34 tanks. Oh, and thanks for dressing up. Where's your tie? LOL
but yeah crew training is also very important, and especially early german crews were pretty good. but good crews can extract more from the material they've been given which also at the same time shows well how good the vehicle was
Hi Collin ! It's not fair to say that US TDs didn't pull their weight. Although StuG is on top, the actual kill ratio for M-10 and M-18 is not bad considering they were a defensive force caught on the offensive. And StuG of course had way more opportunities. They had an IS-3 and a StuG III along with a Comet. IS-3 is incredibly small for a heavy tank. I wonder how comfortable the crew felt in up-gunned Mathildas. Imagine you get "double the gun" in that small turret. That is without considering larger shells. As for the Middle East: Syrian and Egyptian tankers were nowhere as well trained as the Israelis.
Link to the Discord Server: discord.gg/GuXZajECSj
Centurion also was best in theatre in Korea, and was used by Australia in Vietnam. Ironically, the vehicles in Korea were the first export examples being shipped to Australia, and when the Korean War broke out, the ships were diverted north, the vehicles never seeing Australia.
In Vietnam, the vehicles were used as Infantry support, no tank on tank battles took place. It had a reputation as virtually unstoppable to RPG, so the Aussies used them in a battlefield tactic known as Hammer and Anvil. The Centurions, supported by M113 mounted infantry would sweep through an area, the hammers, then the Viet Cong would flee the area, onto the waiting ambushes of a static infantry unit, the anvil. Very effective. The Centurions also moved to the north east of Saigon following the failure of the Tet Offensive, setting up Fire support bases, (Coral and Balmoral), which engaged fleeing Viet Cong forces, remaining static but safely tucked in behind anti RPG fencing. If anyone thinks tanks and jungle don’t go together…….get Centurions.
The Sherman probably was the best of WW2, because it just worked, everywhere it went. It was reliable, easy maintenance, if needed quite often, and crews could easily be trained, it was good at mobility, it’s gun was good enough, and the vehicle enjoyed an incredibly long and successful post war career. You could argue the T34/85 was better, but it never started to go everywhere until after WW2. T34 also has a reputation as being a bitch to drive and service.
The ugliest tanks were the Soviet light tanks, except the T70, anything Italian, and those horrible Austrian Wheel/ Track garbage things.
Very fun read about the Centurions in Vietnam thank you for your contribution!
For the last question, a lot of it is the crews, training, tactics and the situation. I would argue the Germans, to refer to the Stug being the best tank destroyer, had very good crews and were able to win even against the Russian numerical superiority, and very good T-34 tanks. Oh, and thanks for dressing up. Where's your tie? LOL
next time ill have a tie with me, promise ;)
but yeah crew training is also very important, and especially early german crews were pretty good. but good crews can extract more from the material they've been given which also at the same time shows well how good the vehicle was
Hi Collin !
It's not fair to say that US TDs didn't pull their weight. Although StuG is on top, the actual kill ratio for M-10 and M-18 is not bad considering they were a defensive force caught on the offensive. And StuG of course had way more opportunities.
They had an IS-3 and a StuG III along with a Comet. IS-3 is incredibly small for a heavy tank.
I wonder how comfortable the crew felt in up-gunned Mathildas. Imagine you get "double the gun" in that small turret. That is without considering larger shells.
As for the Middle East: Syrian and Egyptian tankers were nowhere as well trained as the Israelis.
are you dutch?
Yessir
Love the concept, but too short?
The StuG has an esteemed war record, but I like my tank destroyers with a turret.
yeah it might be to short, might make a part 2 soon which is a bit longer :)
Tiger 1
Lovely Tank
🧀
STUGGG
Stuuug