To get back to your question I dunno Reaper- I mean the Abrams has Chobham armour and a turbine engine that's based on '70s technology, you couldn't build the tank at all with '40s tech. It's like the F-15 vs. Stuka brought up in jest- you can't build a F-15 with '40s tech in any situation.

Though I'm not too sure the Tiger II would have a chance against those tanks designed to defeat the Tiger I - aka the M26, Comet, and IS-II. The latter tanks designed to kill the Tiger II- the IS-III, Centurion, and T29-T34 series would eat the thing for lunch.

And the Soviets kept up production of their Tiger killer, the IS-III leading the US and UK to develop the M-103 and Conqueror, which I'd think would crush anything including a E-75 or E-100.

Guess I'm not sold on how great German hardware was. The Tiger II had a superb gun and piles of armour but the engine and transmission were garbage. Personally I'm certainly no expert but I think German panzer design peaked with the Panzer IV and went downhill from that point to expensive garage queens that looked great on paper but never worked very well in the field.  

Don't even get me started on the Maus, only someone on serious drugs could consider this thing as anything less than a sick joke....

Its either that or I just so happened to have put Robin Hood on the blue ray player when I read you last post.

Bish

 

Edit: And before you say it, no, Crowe does not get a Longbow.

I'm beginning to think you have been trained in the ways of the Jedi! 

I can do nothing but admit defeat... 

hogfanfs

Bish, you always have to throw in a monkey wrench! 

OK, I'll give you the Wookie, but, I'll raise you a Russell Crowe!

And someone always has to take it to far, that's not meant to be a Roman chariot you know.

But ok, you get Crowe. But the Wookie is trained in the Dark Side.

 

Edit: And before you say it, no, Crowe does not get a Longbow.

Bish, you always have to throw in a monkey wrench! 

OK, I'll give you the Wookie, but, I'll raise you a Russell Crowe!

hogfanfs

Bish, 

If the chariot driver is Charlton Heston, then the AT-AT has no chance. Just the way of things...

Even if the AT-AT is being driven by a Wookie?

By the way that chariot would stomp all over that AT-AT

I apologize to all, HeavyArty to you especially. My outburst was unwarranted and childish. It's hard to discern emotion or intent from typed text. I discerned wrong. As far as WOT goes, I honestly didn't deduce this question from that game. I don't even play it. I hate how people play that game and think all of a sudden they are tank experts. I got the idea from the History Channel program that used to pit warriors of different ages against each other and compare different stats and try to decide who has the advantage. I forget the name of it though. But this is serious. Why not compare armor of old to armor of new. Besides technology, is the base vehicle really that much different? There are many examples of weaponry and the likes that have withstood the stand of time because they were so effective, I'm sure you guys can think of some. Anyway I wish I could close or delete this post because it has caused more trouble than its worth.

Bish, 

If the chariot driver is Charlton Heston, then the AT-AT has no chance. Just the way of things...

GMorrison

 

I think this is where WOT and its like gets us. F-15 versus Stuka? But the Eagle doesn't get it's avionics...

 

 

Now someone is just being darn silly. With or without avionics, the Stuka wins every time.

Now, how about something more realistic.

                                                                    VS 

Discuss. 

Why do people say no disrespect meant,why is it followed by a disrespectful comment.It doesn't make attacks okay when you say that.i have sways found Gino's comments helpful and not attacks.

Cool gets you dead, right? Someone I think it was Noel Coward said "I'd rather be a handsome corpse than an ugly person" or some such.

There was a similar discussion in Ships. People often think about those German aircraft carriers. A kit comes out from time to time. What coulda, mighta?

Well they took 7 years to build one and start a second. By the time they'd started the second, in late 1942; the Japanese and the US had each had four big ones sunk in battle, and the British six.

I think this is where WOT and its like gets us. F-15 versus Stuka? But the Eagle doesn't get it's avionics...

And Reaper, calm the heck down. Ask a question, get an answer. Move on.

Reaper, nothing HeavyArty said toward you was offensive or snide. He merely corrected your error, typo or not. "Correction": is what this forum is all about--how else do you learn?

I might also point out that he responded in a gentlemanly manner to your outburst. Seriously, forget about it and move on.

As far as the Tiger vs Abrams, the Tiger wins on "cool" factor. :)

Really.  You need to take a chill pill man.  You are wound way too tight.

Typo or confusion, who knew, since there is an M2A2.  It is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, not a version of the Abrams tank.

You might want to go back and read all the other threads where I help people out, answer questions, and tell people how good their models look.  What you seem to have issues with is called constructive criticism.  Most people find it helpful.  Without pointing out issues with builds, how do you expect people to improve?  Most people expect feedback (good and bad) on their builds when they place them on a modeling site.  If all you are looking for is pats on the back and 'atta boys, you will never get better. 

By the way, I'm not that much older than you.  Don't just make assumptions and dictate who you think should be on the site.  Who's being elitist now?

Also, there is an edit button to fix typos.  It is the little pencil below your text box on the left side, opposite the reply button.

No disrespect or I'll will towards you though, but I've seen a few threads where you jump on people for mistakes, or calling people's work mediocre ( not necessarily their work, but their kits. Once or twice their work though.) I take it your an older gentleman and have been in the hobby for years. I'm 31 and have only been doing modeling for 10 years, Armor for only a year. When you jump on people, especially younger people, you kind of make them not really be interested in the hobby because they feel like they aren't producing quality work or don't know anything. The last thing we need is for these young punks these days with their I pods and I phones and xbox to completely write off our hobby. We are a slowly dying breed gentlemen, and it's a sad and unfortunate reality.

HeavyArty you can relax with your snob a$$ attitude. It's a Fricking typo. No s**t there is no M2A2. If there is one person I can think of on this forum that SHOULD NOT be here, it's you. You always have to go around correcting everyone and making snide remarks about people's work. Do yourself a favor and STFU once in a while. Nobody needs an elitist member ruining their thread.

I guess my point is that I would be satisfied to fight with the Patton. Anything after that is just mo' betta.

First off, there is no such thing as an M2A2 Abrams.  It is an M1A2 Abrams, which would destroy the Tiger due to the size of its rounds, 120mm, and thicker armor.  The 88mm Tiger rounds would bounce off the Abrams with no effect.

The M 48 Patton has a superior cannon to the KwK 43, the T54. 90 mm at 3,750 fps vs. 88 mm at 3,700 fps.

Also a diesel after the A2C.

I'm good there.