Richard Anderson wrote:Yoozername wrote:This is getting odd, but in fact APG was the Ordnance Department Museum in WWII.
His 'point' was that it wasn't taken very good care of, ergo,somehow it invalidates all the testing that was done that proves him to be a numbtard.
Was it not taken care of back then? Could it possibly matter? How many rusty tanks could they have outside in the elements in 1939???
Oh, I understand, but I lost track of his "point" a while ago and was just trying to clarify that historical datum.
The 40 family was one of the most effective guns in anybody's arsenal. It was powerful enough to prevent a medium tank to have enough armour everywhere to counter it. This why both the Soviets and USA limited effective armour to the front, 3.5" on the gun shield, and went for bigger guns instead.
The British did the same for their Challenger A30. This tank was used to support advancing Cromwells against armour, from a hull down position. Its initial armour was less than the mediums it was intended to support, but was uparmoured to 3.5" where likely to be hit. Details in David Fletcher's Universal Tank.
When everybody is using the same thickness of armour to counter the opponents main AT weapon, it is probable it is reasonably effective.
I would go even further and state, contrary to many peoples opinions, that late in WW2 everyone was producing the right tanks they required. This means no best tank of WW2, because every country needed a different tank.