Tanks!

[Fijiman]

First off I would have to say the Da Vinci Tank.

Spoiler

It may have been designed/destined to fail, but it's still pretty cool.

Next, we have some of the first successful tanks to see battle.

Spoiler

They may have been incredibly slow and not great all around, but they were some of the first.

Out of all the tanks I've used so far on World of Tanks, this one is probably my favorite.

Spoiler

The Jagdpanther is simply an awesome tank.

 

[maturin]

Spoiler: Mandatory schoolgirls singing Katyusha while driving tanks to battle in formation

But I will say the T-34 fascinates me. As in, it wasn't even that "good", it's just that the sheer quantity of them the Soviets could field (because it was cheap to build and easy to replace units) was something the Germans simply couldn't keep up with.

Calling the T-34 "not good" takes a whole lot of nerve.

It is a medium tank that kills all other medium tanks better than they can kill it back. Quality and Quantity both. For a brief moment that Germans had very little that could pierce its armor, which was thicker than anything but their heavies.

As one of the very few examples of a weapon that actually won a war (instead of the tactics/bravery of the men using them)

Statements like that can only ever be hyperbole against the backdrop of something so massive and relentless as the Eastern Front, so far as I'm concerned.

It was a modern total war. If you cut the enemy's supply and disrupted their organization, numbers and weapons cease to matter. There were times in 1941 (ie, before Germany's best tanks were operational) that Soviet armored groups lost battles while using T-34s against a tenth that number of German armored vehicles.

 

[ecoho]

The Abrams is a decent tank, but I still prefer the Leopard II when it comes to modern MBTs. The Abrams is faster (only slightly), but it runs on jet fuel, which lights it up like a christmas tree for infrared. Meanwhile, the Leopard II runs on good old fashioned Diesel.

the Abrams can run on whisky if it needs to man, and can basically kill your tank from about a mile out. (whats funny is I believe it was a German who said the Abrams has a targeting system he likes to call "I wish it was dead" because its that good)

OT: Ive been in both the Abrams and the crusader 2 and gotta say I wouldn't want to bet on which is better, and I thank god everyday that we are not enemies of Brittan. (between those tanks and the SAS you guys are just scary)

WW2 tanks though gotta go with the Sherman. able to be mass produced and modified that tank was the work horse of the US, and the fact that you didn't have to break your legs to get in it made it a bit more fun to drive then the T-34.

 

[Daniel Ferguson]

I read about tanks on tvtropes and it seems the military is moving away from them. But, I'm writing a book that has all kinds of cool stuff, like a pair of tanks - one slow but powerful and well-armoured, the other a spider tank - fast, agile, but a bit more fragile. Why am I using tanks? Rule of cool I guess. That's not really contributing much, but I just wanted to pitch in about sci-fi tanks I want to use.

I might have to read the rest of this topic. For a small sense of accuracy.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Leopard 1A5DK

Spoiler

As an example of its bad-assery I'm just gonna quote the wikipedia page on "Operation Bøllebank" in the Bosnian war. This thing dot only did well, but did well while being caught in an otherwise well-executed ambush and outnumbered by the Serbians.

"Operation Bøllebank (English: Operation Hooligan Bashing) was the first combat operation conducted by Danish Armed Forces since World War II. In April 1994, a Danish contingent with elements of the Jydske Dragonregiment on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia, as part of UNPROFORs Nordic battalion (Nordbat 2) located in Tuzla, was ambushed, when trying to relieve a Swedish observation post, Tango 2, that was under heavy artillery fire by the Bosnian Serb ?ekovići brigade at the village of Kalesija, but the ambush was dispersed when the UN forces retaliated with heavy fire.

The Incident:

The ambush started with grenade attacks near Saraci, 8 km southeast from Tuzla, which were ignored. The column, however, came under attack by anti-tank missiles when they reached the village of Kalesija, further east. The UNPROFOR column requested air support, which was rejected. Due to restrictive rules of engagement imposed by the United Nations, Lt. Colonel Lars R. Møller was hesitant, but he decided to return fire. The attack on them ceased after this, but intensified again later, provoking an even stronger response.

The seven German-made Leopard 1A5 tanks fired 72 rounds and destroyed several Serb artillery pieces, an ammunition dump and several bunkers. Serb forces brought three T-55 tanks to the scene, but apparently the Danes did not engage them, as they made no offensive moves. The Leopards, however, fired 19 armour-piercing rounds. The Danes could see in their thermal tank sights that the guns on the T-55s were cold and therefore had not taken part in the engagement according to a non-official report. However, an Italian source claims that, despite the UNPROFOR rules of engagement, the three T-55 were actually hit by the Leopards.

Post-incident:

This was the first time a Leopard 1 fired its guns in anger and is one of the largest engagements that took place between UNPROFOR forces and military units involved in the war in Bosnia. It was also the first time since WWII that Danish soldiers were involved in combat operations.

The Danish commander characterized the incident with the words: "the mouse ate the cat", and subsequently named "Operation Hooligan Bashing".

Another incident took place later that year between Danish peacekeepers and Serb forces near Gradacac, in the course of the Operation Amanda."

And here is an image of Colonel Lars "Badass" Møller himself.

Spoiler

 

[Thomas Hardy]

I might have to read the rest of this topic. For a small sense of accuracy.

If you're writing a story about tanks and you're already a reader of TV Tropes, I'd suggest you look up "Literature: Bolo" and the Bolo wiki at bolo.wikia.com. The "Bolo" tank is actually a concept going back to the 70's that is part of a shared Universe now. It might be worth looking into.

Spoiler

Spoiler

"You knew what was at stake here. It was the ultimate test of your ability to perform correctly under stress, of your suitability as a weapon of war. You knew that. You knew that General Margrave and old Priss Grace and the press boys all had their eyes on every move you made. So instead of using common sense, you waded into that inferno in defiance of all logic-and destroyed yourself. Right?"

"That is correct, sir."

"Then why? In the name of sanity, tell me WHY! Why, instead of backing out and saving yourself, did you charge? .....Wait a minute, Unit DNE. It just dawned on me. I`ve been underestimating you. You KNEW didn`t you? Your knowledge of human psychology told you they`d break and run, didn`t it?"

"No, sir. On the contrary, I was quite certain that they were as aware as I that they held every advantage."

"Then that leaves me back where I started. Why? What made you risk everything on a hopeless attack? Why did you do it?"

"For the honor of the regiment."


----Excerpt from "Field Test" by Keith Laumer"

I know this thread is mostly about real-life and historical tanks, but I was going to do a post on BOLOs or Mobile suits regardless.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

Spoiler: M1A2 Abrams

Now, while this is entirely subjective, I would argue that the Abrams represents the current pinnacle of armored warfare in the world. It is the fastest tank on the planet (limited to 55mph, but they have been known to get up to 70mph without the limiter). The 120mm gun shots ultra-high velocity rounds and it can equip any round for the job, guaranteeing that, yes, when you pull the trigger, what ever you are shooting at is no longer going to exist. Its only problem is that it is a thirsty beast thanks to its gas-turbine engine, but even that isnt all bad, as it can run on any combustable liquid (Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosene, etc) while its diesel rivals can only run on......well diesel.

I take your Abrams and raise you...any European Tank ever made. Seriously, the only thing the Abrams has over other Tanks is it's Engine - a Engine that if the governors were ever removed would rip the tank to shreds, so it's full speed advantage can never be used.

To contrast - the British Challenger 2 has better armor (with the only Challenger 2 ever destroyed was done...by a faulty explosive shell inside the tank, compared with the Abram's record being tarnished during the War in Iraq where Iraqi infantry were able to disable many by way of short range AT Rockets, and post invasion were reliably damaged by IED's and the RPG-29), the German Leopard is a more technologically advanced vehicle, the Leclerc has a superior rate of fire, and the Russian T-90 is known as the "Flying Tank" for a reason. Much like the American Sherman, it's a rather overrated vehicle.

Moving on with personal nominations however, we have (and it escapes me why it was missed off by everyone) the Mammoth Tank.

Spoiler

Be it the original X66 or the more up to date versions seen in C&C 3 and C&C 4, everyone loves the Mammoth Tank. Able to take on any other heavy vehicle and demolish them in one on one combat, when that base absolutely had to die, everyone goes to the Mammoth.

Unless you're a Noddie.

Also, there's the Vanu Magrider.

Spoiler

The love child of a Tank and a Helicopter Gunship, the Magrider's hover capability gives it's crew of two mobility none of the other tanks in Planetside have as it runs circles around them with it's plasma cannon. With the right Certs, the Tank can even pop up into the air for ambush attacks!

I'd nominate more realistic tanks, but the one's I'd put forward have all been mentioned by previous commentators.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Lets get some tanks from the other end of the awesome spectrum.

Spoiler: Type 95 Ha-Go

Type 95 Ha-Go

They say you design a tank to fight a certain kind of war. This tank was designed to fight a war against near medieval Chinese peasants and second string colonial defense troops. At which it admittedly did a bang up job.
Unfortunately it wound up having to fight World War 2 after the allies were done with Hitler.
The much maligned Sherman Tank? It was a Tiger compared to these things...
The moment it hit real opposition well... this quote from an encounter with the Russians: "no sooner did we see the flash, then there would be a hole in our tank! And the Russians were good shots too!"

Spoiler: Asad Babil

Asad Babil

You know in that movie Multiplicity; When you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as, well, the original?
Well the Asad Babil is a cheap knock off of the T-72M, which is in turn a cheap export knock off of the T-72.
The result is a T-72 shaped....thing.....
This store generic brand tank went up against the US and lost embarrassingly badly. When your enemies scouting elements are inflicting significant casualties, and losing more material to friendly fire, you know that you got shitty equipment.

And the WORST tank in history?

Spoiler: Bob Semple Tank

Bob Semple Tank

JUST LOOK AT IT! It doesn't even start with dignity! Resistance fighters under Nazi Occupation have literally built better armored vehicles! Its a tractor with a work shed on top of it, with some machine guns. The "armor" is manganese roofing material. One of the gunners is lying on top of a mattress which is directly on top of the engine. The only contribution is shaming the Kiwis into working harder for the war effort. It can't even serve as an example to others because nobody is stupid enough to even try it.

 

[Squilookle]

Since it hasn't been posted, I should like to introduce the Trailer for White Tiger:


Unfortunately, the trailer is better than the film itself. You look at that and think 'holy shit! It's Moby Dick on tank treads!' A ghostly, action packed cat and mouse game between an unkillable driver and an unstoppable tank!

Which it is... at least for the first half. The second half is really hard to get any enjoyment from at all.

...except perhaps if you really like frozen strawberries... yeah don't ask.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Spoiler: M1A2 Abrams

Now, while this is entirely subjective, I would argue that the Abrams represents the current pinnacle of armored warfare in the world. It is the fastest tank on the planet (limited to 55mph, but they have been known to get up to 70mph without the limiter). The 120mm gun shots ultra-high velocity rounds and it can equip any round for the job, guaranteeing that, yes, when you pull the trigger, what ever you are shooting at is no longer going to exist. Its only problem is that it is a thirsty beast thanks to its gas-turbine engine, but even that isnt all bad, as it can run on any combustable liquid (Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosene, etc) while its diesel rivals can only run on......well diesel.

Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.

Also, you don't need to compromise yourself with a massive IR signature to get good speeds.

The Leopard 2A5 (and upgraded versions) does the same kind of performance (1500hp, and 72km/h), and it has a V12 twin-turbo multi-fuel diesel engine.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I take your Abrams and raise you...any European Tank ever made. Seriously, the only thing the Abrams has over other Tanks is it's Engine - a Engine that if the governors were ever removed would rip the tank to shreds, so it's full speed advantage can never be used.

To contrast - the British Challenger 2 has better armor (with the only Challenger 2 ever destroyed was done...by a faulty explosive shell inside the tank, compared with the Abram's record being tarnished during the War in Iraq where Iraqi infantry were able to disable many by way of short range AT Rockets, and post invasion were reliably damaged by IED's and the RPG-29), the German Leopard is a more technologically advanced vehicle, the Leclerc has a superior rate of fire, and the Russian T-90 is known as the "Flying Tank" for a reason. Much like the American Sherman, it's a rather overrated vehicle.

First off, I have to admit that there is a massive "Home Team" bias involved. Because when it comes to cars, guns, warplanes, tanks, and basically everything else, I am basically Richard Hammond: The fact that it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it is 95% of the reason I like it. There are still things I like from overseas, but they are rare (like the Israeli Merkava I added to my list just recently).

However:
The Challenger is slow and loud, and its rifled gun cant shoot the sabot AT rounds we use that can one shot almost any tank.
The Leclerc gets its ROF from an auto-loader, which can be a pain in combat and in some cases shoots slower than a well-trained human.
The Leopards tech works against it to make it overly complicated. The Abrams was built to be "GI-proof" after all (the man the tank is named after once said that if you leave a GI in the desert with nothing but an anvil for 3 days, he would find a way to break it).
The T-90 is EXPENSIVE, has the same auto-loader problems as the Leclerc, and is complicated to build.

Plus, the Abrams turbine gives it one thing you wouldnt expect with a tank: Stealth. I remember reading about one incident where a company of Abrams was doing war-games with a German Leopard company, and the Leopards lost because they got ambushed by the Abrams. Turns out, not only couldnt hear the turbines from the Abrams, because they run more quietly than a Diesel engine. So when they rolled into an area and didnt expect anything because they couldnt hear/find them, here comes several Abrams charging out from the trees, and wiping them out before they can fight back.

Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.

And? Its still a mostly American design, and a good one at that. There is a reason we have left the skeleton and the major guts unchanged since the 1980's.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Just remember to thank the Germans for that swanky Rheinmetall L/44 120mm gun (or as it's known in the US, the M256. It's still a German gun though).

And the EMES-15 (used in the Leopard 2) derived Fire-Control system used in the M1A2SEP.

And? Its still a mostly American design, and a good one at that. There is a reason we have left the skeleton and the major guts unchanged since the 1980's.

Well seeing as both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams can trace their past to the joint MBT-70/KPz-70 Keiler project and they both perform about the same, I think I'll go with the one that instills a primal fear in its enemies hearts just by its name (Leopard. One of the fiercest, most aggressive big cats), and not the one named after some random general (who the hell was Abrams anyway?).

Just remember that the business-end of your Abrams is a German piece of hardware and we'll get along fine.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

First off, I have to admit that there is a massive "Home Team" bias involved. Because when it comes to cars, guns, warplanes, tanks, and basically everything else, I am basically Richard Hammond: The fact that it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it is 95% of the reason I like it. There are still things I like from overseas, but they are rare (like the Israeli Merkava I added to my list just recently).

However:
The Challenger is slow and loud, and its rifled gun cant shoot the sabot AT rounds we use that can one shot almost any tank.
The Leclerc gets its ROF from an auto-loader, which can be a pain in combat and in some cases shoots slower than a well-trained human.
The Leopards tech works against it to make it overly complicated. The Abrams was built to be "GI-proof" after all (the man the tank is named after once said that if you leave a GI in the desert with nothing but an anvil for 3 days, he would find a way to break it).
The T-90 is EXPENSIVE, has the same auto-loader problems as the Leclerc, and is complicated to build.

Plus, the Abrams turbine gives it one thing you wouldnt expect with a tank: Stealth. I remember reading about one incident where a company of Abrams was doing war-games with a German Leopard company, and the Leopards lost because they got ambushed by the Abrams. Turns out, not only couldnt hear the turbines from the Abrams, because they run more quietly than a Diesel engine. So when they rolled into an area and didnt expect anything because they couldnt hear/find them, here comes several Abrams charging out from the trees, and wiping them out before they can fight back.

At least you've come out and admitted there was home team bias. That said, again - the Abram's one thing it does well is in it's Engine.

The Challenger is slow and loud, but then I recall it's a Main Battle Tank, not the Ezekiel's Wheel. It's designed to punch people in the face, not skulk around the battlefield. Besides, no other Tank in the world has an inbuilt Kettle for onboard cups of tea while punching people.

Most tanks last time I looked used Autoloaders. However, the Leclerc's Autoloader was specially designed for the tank to mitigate most issues with autoloaders you'd find on something like - for example - the M1 Abrams, so it had to count for something (plus I had to find at least one good thing to say about a French Tank, and we really scraped that one together).

Again, I do think the Leopard 2's technological edge still puts it out there. Also, the fact that Canada, Chile, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Poland and a shit tonne of other countries use it says a lot about how effective the tank can be. Would it benefit more from an experienced crew? Yes, but so would any tank in existence ever.

As mentioned above, the T-90 does not have the same autoloader problems as the Leclerc. That said, there are a few other tricks it has to compensate for it. Also, FLYING TANK.

In comparison, the Abrams has only it's Engine still going for it. The stealth thing? ENGINE. It only further proves my point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I read about tanks on tvtropes and it seems the military is moving away from them. But, I'm writing a book that has all kinds of cool stuff, like a pair of tanks - one slow but powerful and well-armoured, the other a spider tank - fast, agile, but a bit more fragile. Why am I using tanks? Rule of cool I guess. That's not really contributing much, but I just wanted to pitch in about sci-fi tanks I want to use.

I might have to read the rest of this topic. For a small sense of accuracy.

Spider tanks? As it, it walks on legs?

Yeah, massive problems there. Armouring it is going to be a pain. A big solid slab like a modern tank has relatively few surfaces that need armouring, but with legs sticking out of it, you have to armour all the sides of those, and especially the joints. You'd probably want as much surface area on the ground as a tank's tracks, which is a lot, especially as not all the feet will be on the ground at the same time.

Also, it's not going to be faster on flatish surfaces, tracks or wheels would be much better. It's really not going to be faster when you've added all that weight to it.

Now, not saying you couldn't make one, but you'd almost always be able to make a better tank cheaper the old fashioned way.

 

[maturin]

To contrast - the British Challenger 2 has better armor (with the only Challenger 2 ever destroyed was done...by a faulty explosive shell inside the tank, compared with the Abram's record being tarnished during the War in Iraq where Iraqi infantry were able to disable many by way of short range AT Rockets, and post invasion were reliably damaged by IED's and the RPG-29), the German Leopard is a more technologically advanced vehicle, the Leclerc has a superior rate of fire,

The Challenger 2 has better *frontal* armor (probably, since these things are classified). Neither the Abrams nor Challenger has ever suffered a penetration from the frontal arc, so the service records don't really differ. But with upgrades, Abrams side protection is markedly superior, which is an outgrowth of the tank actually being used extensively in urban combat. It's easy to claim that your tank has never been destroyed when it almost never sees action. The LeClerc and T-90 are downright invincible by that token.

The Abrams' record was in no way 'tarnished,' unless you subscribe to myths of invincibility. It was put into situations where tanks are supposed to be useless and helpless and did very well, occasionally being disabled by weapons that were more than up to the task. Decent short-range AT weapons will always be able to threaten the side, roof and rear armor of tanks. That's a fact of life. So I'll remind you that the Abrams does better than the competition in protecting all the above categories. The Abrams has been knocked out many times, but has done an outstanding job of keeping its crew members alive. Almost all the fatalities that have occurred are from massive IEDs, often big enough to flip the entire tank over. No one has ever bothered to contend that any other armored vehicle on the planet would have fared better. And I'm not sure how you can say that the RPG-29 "reliably" damages an Abrams. So far as I know the incidents of known RPG-9 attacks can be counted on one hand. The most well-documented case caused penetration of the crew compartment, but no actual component damage or casualties.

Given that the Abrams has a superior gun to the Challenger and perhaps better armor than Leopard, with the best FCS out there, I think it's fair to say that it is the most well-rounded in the critical categories. Sure, it's a fuel-guzzling behemoth, but unlike armor and firepower, mobility and cost effectiveness are evaluated in relative terms, based on your military's resources and logistical capacity.

Edit: Abrams is on par with the slightly newer Leopard. But the other Western tanks all have shortcomings by comparison. I don't think you would ever want to face a Leopard or Abrams in a Merkava, Challenger of LeClerc.

 

[ecoho]

First off, I have to admit that there is a massive "Home Team" bias involved. Because when it comes to cars, guns, warplanes, tanks, and basically everything else, I am basically Richard Hammond: The fact that it has "Made in the USA" stamped on it is 95% of the reason I like it. There are still things I like from overseas, but they are rare (like the Israeli Merkava I added to my list just recently).

However:
The Challenger is slow and loud, and its rifled gun cant shoot the sabot AT rounds we use that can one shot almost any tank.
The Leclerc gets its ROF from an auto-loader, which can be a pain in combat and in some cases shoots slower than a well-trained human.
The Leopards tech works against it to make it overly complicated. The Abrams was built to be "GI-proof" after all (the man the tank is named after once said that if you leave a GI in the desert with nothing but an anvil for 3 days, he would find a way to break it).
The T-90 is EXPENSIVE, has the same auto-loader problems as the Leclerc, and is complicated to build.

Plus, the Abrams turbine gives it one thing you wouldnt expect with a tank: Stealth. I remember reading about one incident where a company of Abrams was doing war-games with a German Leopard company, and the Leopards lost because they got ambushed by the Abrams. Turns out, not only couldnt hear the turbines from the Abrams, because they run more quietly than a Diesel engine. So when they rolled into an area and didnt expect anything because they couldnt hear/find them, here comes several Abrams charging out from the trees, and wiping them out before they can fight back.

At least you've come out and admitted there was home team bias. That said, again - the Abram's one thing it does well is in it's Engine.

The Challenger is slow and loud, but then I recall it's a Main Battle Tank, not the Ezekiel's Wheel. It's designed to punch people in the face, not skulk around the battlefield. Besides, no other Tank in the world has an inbuilt Kettle for onboard cups of tea while punching people.

Most tanks last time I looked used Autoloaders. However, the Leclerc's Autoloader was specially designed for the tank to mitigate most issues with autoloaders you'd find on something like - for example - the M1 Abrams, so it had to count for something (plus I had to find at least one good thing to say about a French Tank, and we really scraped that one together).

Again, I do think the Leopard 2's technological edge still puts it out there. Also, the fact that Canada, Chile, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Poland and a shit tonne of other countries use it says a lot about how effective the tank can be. Would it benefit more from an experienced crew? Yes, but so would any tank in existence ever.

As mentioned above, the T-90 does not have the same autoloader problems as the Leclerc. That said, there are a few other tricks it has to compensate for it. Also, FLYING TANK.

In comparison, the Abrams has only it's Engine still going for it. The stealth thing? ENGINE. It only further proves my point.

ok I can end this right now, its not the tank its the training. Yes both US and British crew are well trained but an Abrams tank crew can operate at maximum efficiently right out of AIT (which is shorter then the British equivalent) were as the crusader crews tend to need another 3 months to be as good as the guy who've been driving it for the last year. I know this to be true due to some joint exercises with the Brits who BTW are not to be fucked with

the leopard is a tech nightmare and as such very few people can drive the dam thing the way it should be.

don't know anything about the T-90 other then the dam things huge and a lovely target as one tanker said.

 

[Neverhoodian]

No love for this ol' girl?

Spoiler

The Matilda. What a lovely name for a tank.[footnote]Technically it's the Matilda II. You can see the first model in the background of the first photo[/footnote]

It may have been slow and ponderous, but the Matilda was the best tank Britain fielded in the early stages of World War II. It trounced Italian vehicles and had armor thick enough to withstand most German munitions of the time. Indeed, the tank shaped the course of the war significantly for both sides. For example, the German 88mm gun may not have earned its fearsome reputation if not for the Matilda.

During the Battle of France, the Allies launched a counterattack at Arras, which included a sizable force of Matildas. The attack got off to a promising start and caused considerable consternation for the opposing 7th Panzer Division, commanded by Erwin Rommel. Their tanks and anti-tank guns were insufficient to penetrate the Matilda's thick armor. In a fit of desperate innovation, Rommel ordered the division's 88mm anti-aircraft guns to be used against the Matildas. Only then were they stopped and the Allies driven back. While not the first time the dreaded "eighty-eight" was used against ground targets, the result of this particular engagement proved its effectiveness as an anti-tank gun. It would go on to be used with deadly efficiency against a variety of targets for the remainder of the War.

The Matilda's a right beast in World of Tanks as well. It's slow as molasses, but its upgraded gun is fantastic. It's fast-firing, accurate and has insane penetration for its tier. Couple that with thick armor and the thing's a veritable doom fortress when it's top tier, ventilating anything that moves while bouncing return fire like a mofo.