There is no more dirty and smelly "history" than the participation of the United States - Britain and France and Poland in the "war against fascism" and how they became "winners" and not accomplices of Hitler
After the Victory of the USSR over Euro-Fascism and Hitler ---- from 1945 to 2022, it was the USA and England that firmly took the place of the new Hitler No. 2 and International Terrorist No. 1. Spending tens of billions of dollars again on the revival of a new Euro -fascism and Nazism in Europe and arming the entire world terrorism from Ukraine to Syria ( ISIS ) to start a new World War No. 3. The USA has been the main sponsor of terrorism and Nazism since 1932-2022 From the Antanta ( 1920) -Hitler (1932-1945 ) -NATO ( 1945-2022 )-Ukraine -Taiwan - Explosion of gas pipelines---WW 3 USA ====Hitler №2
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cNyUxl0MXWQ.html ;; D-DAY war reenactment on Santander beach, several videos of the day “Vehicles, Landing and paratroopers in a very interesting day of remembrance
this go's to a shout out to seargent James mooring my great grandfather who served our great country it ww1 and ww2 he joined ww1 when he was 16 then stays for ww2 I give a big salute soilger
the last one to roll is a British Bren Gun Carrier. It is basically a scout vehicle and a light personnel carrier. It could also tow 6lber. (57mm) anti tank guns...
The M4 was not a coffin relative other tanks of the war. Nor was it a bad tank. It was certainly not a scandal. Armor development from Summer of '1943 to Spring of '1944 as a whole, sure. But not the M4.
I assume you mean Tigers and Panthers...Yeah the "easy eight" version of the Sherman is heads and shoulders above the first M4s. The US had a strange doctrine that tanks were designed to support infantry and to lead breakthroughs but NOT to fight other tanks; hence the short barreled 75mm gun. Tanks would be attacked by tank destroyers (the second tank in the parade was actually an M10 tank destroyer). TD's were faster than an M4 and had the 76mm anti tank gun, but were very poorly armored. The "easy 8" version of the Sherman had a long barreled 76mm gun that was probably 90% as good as the Panther's 75mm (especially when when firing HVAP ammo). They also had wet sleeve liners in the ammo racks so no more catastrophic fires when the ammo was hit. I was surprised that the frontal armor was almost as thick as a Tiger I. Of course the long barreled 75mm in the Panther and all versions of the 88mm could still penetrate it... Lastly it was FAST. It was much more mechanically reliable than the panzers. One on one the "cats" would win most of the time, but most of the time the panzers were outnumbered, and they had to fear the "jabos". Lastly half the panzers in a panzer division were PzIV's and not Panthers. The "cats" were superb tanks, but they like all tanks had flaws as well advantages. I think the allies played to their strengths better the the Heer played to theirs on the western front.
panther 2 was a proto and 75mm panther is "ineffective" still can pen......so you cant comparate it because in war there are huge numbers not few proto that can change the battle :)
Xxx Xxx I'm confused...what are you saying exactly (and I'm not being sarcastic). I'm having trouble figuring out your point...I thought my comment was readonably accurate. The "cats" were superior tanks one on one, but the allies figured out how to defeat them (numbers, airpower, and artillery).
