her jet can transform to robot mode!

@AzriBoss  
The Hydra is a mix between an F-35, a Rafale, and a Harrier, this is anything but a Hydra.

She use the Hydra jet

If this happened…

@Deserter  
Yea, probably. Really the Germans lacked the resources late war to get the better engines, and such. Their steel was also lacking, it was getting brittle due to lack of certain additives.

@Kazapsky  
I wonder if a contemporary plane engine could move it.  
You know, kind of like the Abrams using a gas turbine, but less extreme.

@Dangerous Amoeba
 
You speak truth. The biggest problem with the Tigers was their sheer mass - if one broke down, good luck getting it to a repair shop.
 
That size was also the root of many breakdowns, as Germany simply couldn’t build a powerful enough engine to move the darn thing.

@Kazapsky  
>mechanically reliable and easy to produce in large numbers.  
This may be the reason the German tanks failed. The allied and soviet tanks where really reliable, unlike the Germans who had frequent transmission and engine problems. And the allies could produce tanks at an insane rate while the Germans just couldn’t. So even when a Panzer IV, Tiger, Panther, etc could take out 4 or 5 tanks, there where always more coming.
 
Too bad, it would be interesting to see Tigers and Panthers after the war, like we saw Sherman and T-34s used by other nations. Some African countries still use shermans and T-34s as their main battle tank.
 
Not a Nazi, just like German tanks.

@Dangerous Amoeba
 
British tank design in general suffered from poor funding and outdated thinking. Prior to the war, British strategists still saw the tank as having a support role - a mobile pillbox to shield infantry, as it served in WWI. Then blitzkrieg happened, and the Brits realized too late that they had a bunch of clunkers designed for a style of warfare that had already fallen by the wayside.
 
The US, which had virtually no standing military forces in the late 30’s, was taking notes from the early years of the war, seeing what worked and what didn’t. They also had at least one major flop before they came out with the Sherman, that being the Lee-Grant. The L-G was a joke of a fighting machine, used by the British only because they simply didn’t have the capacity to manufacture tanks as fast as they were losing them.
 
Lessons learned in Africa and elsewhere led to the Sherman. Which was still an undergunned, underarmoured piece of crap, but it was mechanically reliable and easy to produce in large numbers.

@Ichijoe  

@Kazapsky  
That too…

@Ichijoe
 
Actually, the reason was the Brits basically stopped using their own tank designs once Shermans were available in large numbers because A) British-made tanks weren’t all that great for the most part, and B) British manufacturing capacity and supplies were stretched to the absolute limit during the war; using American-made tanks (to replace all the ones the Afrikakorps blew up) saved them a lot of logistical grief.

@Dangerous Amoeba  

@Background Pony #F884  
Yet (To play Devils advocate here), its ok for someone to use that word as part of their Handle, and post in this thread?  
I’m not saying I agree with the Picture in question. But, this Site does seem to play rather fast & loose with its own rules at times.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
Let me think for a moment:
 
You’re using a image, that has a particular word on it, on a safe image…yeah I can see why it would get deleted.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
This image is a ban able offence.
 
How old are the mods here?
 
 
@Ichijoe  
>Armor Musium at Fort Knox Kentucky  
I’ve heard of the place, but i live in canuckistan and have no intentions of going south anytime soon.
 
>Tanks were mostly a British Invention  
Sucks how the Brit tanks where hardly used compared to the more widely produced Sherman. Although in the numbers the British made their tanks, they would have gotten ripped apart by the Superior Sonderkraftfahrzeug 161, Panzerkampfwagen IV.

@Niggoslav_Krawczyk  
Hey, I played that not too long ago.

@Poptard The storyline of this game is apparently a fanciful child-like take on letters sent between friends and collegues who wound up on opposite sides of the war.  

@Ichijoe  
I actually know what you’re referring to. Who knew videogames could be so educational?
 

@Dangerous Amoeba  
No it just saved me from having to make a similar comment. About how Tanks were mostly a British Invention to counter the stalemate in WWI.
 
A really cool place to visit is the Armor Musium at Fort Knox Kentucky. Where you can see some very early WWI Armor designs which were litte more the a Service Rifle poking out of a Shell where the user had to push it along by crawling on the ground.

@Ichijoe  
@Ichijoe  
Sorry, just the /k/ommando in me.

@Ichijoe  
Response to: @Dangerous Amoeba

@RandomBlank  
The first actually working “tanks” where the British mark V tank and german A7V, where built to counter trench warfare, because infantry had a hard time doing it. There is a diffrence between an armored car, and a tank. Not to mention there are many types of tank and armored car, each judged by it’s specific purpose. The Leopard 2 is a Main Battle Tank, while the Panzerhaubitze 2000 is a Self Propelled Gun, even though both are tracked and armored vehicles, they are built for different purposes.
 
WW1 posed an interesting scenario, horses and cavalry where fully obsolete but engines and car designs hadn’t caught up to be useful in warfare. The mark V for example had a 150 HP engine, weak compared cars even, had a max range of 70 KM, and a top speed of 8 km/h. All tanks where early on, where moving bunkers, and they where weak to anything but bullets. After the was was when tanks started to really get better, but again it was all due to what kind of philosophy the builder operated with.
 
Tanks are kind of an evolution of cavalry, aka hard hitting fast troops. But they branched off to early in purpose and tactics to be comparable to anything other than their own class.