ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
1 I see that you can't give an answer on a basic question .
Sure I can...I told you to ask anybody...If there is no such thing as a good tank, you should not get a response...But, I am fairly certain you will get a response.
ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
2 I did NOT say that there was no need for tanks outside NZ after PH : I said that if there was a need for the Semple tanks outside NZ after PH, they would be used .
The Bob Semple tank is a tank is it not?? Everybody calls it a tank.
Tanks were needed after PH were they not??
Yet, the Bob Semple tank was not used even though tanks were needed.
Thus, the Bob Semple tank was so crappy, It was useless as a tank...Which it was.
ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
3 If the Pz 2 was crap why did the Germans built him and why did they continue to use him after Barbarossa ? The US stopped also with the production of the Sherman,of the Patton,of the Pershing,does that mean that these tanks were crap ?
The term you are looking for is obsolete.
ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
4 If the Semple tank was crap, so was the Pershing ,because the bridges in NZ could carry only a weight of 25 tons ,and the weight of the Pershing was 46 ton,that of the Sherman was 38 tons,that of the Patton 38 tons .
Bridges? Why are you bringing up bridges? Can't tanks ford rivers?
ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
5 In 1975 the Belgian army usedthe new German Leopard 1 and the old M48 Patton tank, but nobody would say that the M 48 was crap .
Again, the word you are looking for is obsolete.
If the M-48 was not obsolete, then why was it replaced?
ljadw wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:53
The Patton was as good a tank as the Leopard .
If the M-48 was as good as the Leopard 1, the Leopard 1 would not have replaced the M-48, as there would be no reason to.
Yet, the Leopard 1 did replace the M-48. Thus, the M-48 was not as good as you claim.