« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!  (Read 3466 times)

Offline EskimoJoe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2011, 02:30:46 AM »
Logged
Quote from: DA98 on March 25, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
Put a +1 on your geekness atribute  :aok

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2011, 09:55:44 AM »
Quote from: Tyrannis on March 19, 2011, 01:21:46 AM
only reason im not arguing with ack on what the 105mm is capable of in AH is because i know he'll allways think his opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong (strongly supported by his A-BOMB discussion).
you should start listening the the old men...ack ack is right.
Logged
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2011, 12:24:01 PM »
Quote from: Tyrannis on March 19, 2011, 01:21:46 AM
didnt you call ppl in my thread ankle humpers for doing the exact same thing you are doing right now? what a hypocrite  :rolleyes:


only reason im not arguing with ack on what the 105mm is capable of in AH is because i know he'll allways think his opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong (strongly supported by his A-BOMB discussion).

so its not worth getting in another 2 page long argument with a stubborn old man.


and skorpion, it looks bad when you do the exact same thing you try to insult others for doing  :ahand just saying.

just give up on your failjack....

:ahand 
Logged

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2011, 03:49:19 PM »
Quote from: Tyrannis on March 19, 2011, 01:21:46 AM


only reason im not arguing with ack on what the 105mm is capable of in AH is because i know he'll allways think his opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong (strongly supported by his A-BOMB discussion).


Then show any evidence that the 105mm howitzer was a superior anti-tank gun compared to the 7.5 cm KwK 40 on the StuG.

ack-ack
Logged
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2011, 04:25:46 PM »
Quote from: Ack-Ack on March 19, 2011, 03:49:19 PM
Then show any evidence that the 105mm howitzer was a superior anti-tank gun compared to the 7.5 cm KwK 40 on the StuG.

ack-ack

you and me and everyone else on this thread knows that he cant do it.
Logged

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2011, 05:13:07 PM »
Quote from: skorpion on March 19, 2011, 04:25:46 PM
you and me and everyone else on this thread knows that he cant do it.
can you be any more of a kiss arse? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Ack-Ack on March 19, 2011, 03:49:19 PM
Then show any evidence that the 105mm howitzer was a superior anti-tank gun compared to the 7.5 cm KwK 40 on the StuG.

ack-ack
the armor penetration for the STUG III is 2.95 inches. the 105mm howitzer shermans HEAT rounds are 6 inches.only thing the stug has over the 105 is reload time.
Logged

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2011, 06:36:53 PM »
Quote from: Tyrannis on March 19, 2011, 05:13:07 PM
can i be any more of an idiot?
the armor penetration for the STUG III is 2.95 inches. the 105mm howitzer shermans HEAT rounds are 6 inches.only thing the stug has over the 105 is reload time.

105 was innacurate as hell too....stug had reloading time, aiming speed and more armor than the 105. give up on your failjack and stop being such a  :ahand
Logged

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2011, 06:45:41 PM »
Quote from: skorpion on March 19, 2011, 06:36:53 PM
105 was innacurate as hell too....stug had reloading time, aiming speed and more armor than the 105. give up on your failjack and stop being such a  :ahand
so your saying a vehicle that has a fixed forward firing gun and has to use track rotation to get the target within its sights, is faster than a tank that has a rotating turret?


i'd love to know where you get your info skorpion. then maybe i'd understand why you dont make sense.

oh, and the sherman had more armor than the stug, but the difference is little.


i find it hilarious how your humping the ankle of half the ppl here, when you tryed taking shots at other ppl in my thread for ankle humping.


as AKAK once said.

"aw,the fickleness of youth..."
 :rolleyes:
Logged

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2011, 06:50:27 PM »
Quote from: Tyrannis on March 19, 2011, 06:45:41 PM
so your saying a vehicle that has a fixed forward firing gun and has to use track rotation to get the target within its sights, is faster than a tank that has a rotating turret?


i'd love to know where you get your info skorpion. then maybe i'd understand why you dont make sense.

oh, and the sherman had more armor than the stug, but the difference is little.


i find it hilarious how your humping the ankle of half the ppl here, when you tryed taking shots at other ppl in my thread for ankle humping.


as AKAK once said.

"aw,the fickleness of youth..."
 :rolleyes:

if you havent noticed, the post that said the 105mm turret turned painfully slow (i dont remember who said that) it was slower than the StuG III where it had a 30 degree rotation a second and the 105 only had 20 degrees rotation.
like i said, either get out of the thread or i call in the banhammer on ya for failjacking, repeatedly.
you dont want another strike now do you? because its 3 strikes and your OUT.
Logged

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2011, 07:01:27 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:35:01 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2011, 07:04:46 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:35:12 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #56 on: March 19, 2011, 07:13:06 PM »
See Rule #4

He will not have to cry to me to ban you.  You keep breaking forum posting rules and you will get it done yourself
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:35:57 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #57 on: March 19, 2011, 07:16:45 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:36:10 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #58 on: March 19, 2011, 07:21:50 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:36:21 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: StuG III-AH's first tank destroyer!
« Reply #59 on: March 19, 2011, 07:24:23 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:36:39 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »