A Soviet M4 crewman actually said the T-34 as well was more likely to combust. The infamous Ronson slogan attributed to them didn't exist until after the war, and the bad reputation stemmed from British crews improperly stashing ammunition unsafely, which American crews did not do.
Hell, for all their reputation Shermans were less likely to catch fire than panzers. I'm sure they had a lot of mechanical problems, but not as many in comparison to what the Germans had to deal with. American tanks were much more reliable than German ones. I mean how many people in either Europe or America would flock to a film about the Indian-Pakistani wars? I'd consider it interesting, but let's be honest, most people would consider it esoteric. There also seems to be a number of people exasperated at how there's "another WW2 movie" (although they seem to be much rarer this decade), but if you're going to make a tank movie what choices do you have? There's only so many wars with actual big tank battles Americans or even most western audiences would identify with. Seems the countries with the fewest problems over Hollywood featuring Americans are the countries that have decent film industries of their own. You can have an M4A1 with the vanilla 75mm and still take out a Tiger by getting the first shot off.Īnd I also lol'd at all the people upset that an American war movie focuses on American soldiers.
Which is why Americans outperformed the Germans in their tank on tank battles apparently. On paper it's got thicker armor and a bigger gun, but fundamentally it's still a tank and a tank is only as good as its crew and the people leading them. A Soviet T-34 crew (probably with the 85mm) took out three King Tigers in a single patrol and survived. With gold ammo, you think E8 is possible to duel several Tigers? Possible.
0 kommentar(er)
