tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post3250190684021573270..comments2023-08-02T01:07:55.877-07:00Comments on Kesler12: RE: Common Myths About WWIIkesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-10594229455167492082023-02-22T16:32:40.538-08:002023-02-22T16:32:40.538-08:00The only parts I disagree with are your statements...The only parts I disagree with are your statements regarding the M4's "fire-proneness, and a few of your sentences from the"Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns" section.<br />Firstly the 75 and the 88 were guaranteed to penetrate almost anything back in the war, so it's unfair to criticize the M4s armor for being "too thin" for it. Not even the Panther or the Tiger I could withstand a direct hit from either of those guns.<br />Secondly the myth regarding the Tiger was; "German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns."<br />So technically the question was whether or not the allied guns could penetrate those tanks at all, rather than just head on. While I agree with you in terms of how those allied guns were pathetic against the Tigers head on, I'll have to agree with Tank Archives regarding how the Tiger Is were (technically) vulnerable to 75, 76, and the 85mm guns.<br />jgreen2993https://www.blogger.com/profile/13198510349520180459noreply@blogger.com