So I was watching lindybeiges video on British tanks and apparently German tanks were no match for them at all. The Germans were more heavily armored sure, like Tiger and Panther, but the British would simply circle around them and shoot them up their weak rear.
This just got me thinking, why have tanks at all then? Would it not be more efficient to mount guns on cars then if armor doesn't really matter? Why were Germans so stupid?
Other urls found in this thread:
>lindymeme
>why have tanks at all then?
Because it at the very least protected them from the Bren.
Too few Adolf Bonapartes.
...
Will he ever reveal the results of his DNA test?
germans truly cannot compete with the anglo warrior
Ah lindy. you're an alright chap but your understanding of modern history is serious pseud level
Tanks aren't made just for fighting other tanks. They can be like pillboxes that move forward and carry a big cannon because if you have a powerful enough engine to move a big brick of armor around, why not have it carry a cannon too?
Granted, there are tanks specifically designed to be Tank Destroyers but the average tank is multi purpose, and without having them your army is going to end up in a WWI-style situation where breakthroughs are hard to accomplish and harder to exploit. Even if your tanks aren't as good as your enemy's, you still need them for mobile land warfare.
Cars will die to small arms fire unless they're so heavily armored they become tanks. If you build a moving shield for infantry to hide behind in order to advance into machinegun fire, you end up with a shitty tank. Again, even a shitty tank is better than charging machinegun fire on foot though.
reminder that Lindybeige claims:
>no one used swords, axes
>no one used horses
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used double strap arm shields
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
>no one used torches
>Pikemen didn't fight each other
>no one spoke French during the French revolution
>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
>battle of Zama didn't happen
>Romans carried one pilum
>Vikings weren't real
>berserkers weren't real
>climate change isn't real
>stagnant social mobility isn't real
>castles were defended by three soldiers
>butted mail is better than riveted mail
>operation market garden was a success
>Napoleon was literally Hitler
>The Churchill was the best tank in WWII
>The English won the Hundreds Years' War
>British naval guns on Malta could launch projectiles into space
>brodie helmets were superior
>English accents are superior
>English is the best language
>Normans weren't French
>imperial system is better
>dunkirk was a british victory
>british officers don't duck
>the bren gun was like a full auto sniper rifle
>boer concentration camps were refugee camps
where's the flaw?
>*circles behind you*
>Heh... Too slow... Kid...
>*shoots your rear armour*
Kinda unaccurate, but the OP is probably inaccurate too
What I can't get my head around is why europeans get so histrionically threatened by a Brit that's unafraid to proudly speak to the truth of our island's noble history, and qualities.
>correct
>incorrect
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
>I don't know about this one but probably incorrect
>correct
>incorrect
>correct
>correct if you don't twist it like you did
>correct
>man-made climate change isn't real so correct
>correct
>correct
>incorrect
>incorrect
>correct
>correct
>incorrect
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
>incorrect
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
>correct
He has a degree in archeology.
That's more than 90% of Veeky Forums.
...the truth that there is none such?
Except they beat the shit out of them
>Would it not be more efficient to mount guns on cars then if armor doesn't really matter?
it might be more economical, which is why the fuck-off guys do this today
T. G*rm
2 WORLD WARS AND 1 WORLD CUP
The krauts and bongs could have swapped equipment and that would still be the outcome.
krauts absolutely seething lmao
A degree he himself admits has very little to actually do with ancient weapons and warfare and even less with modern military tactics and strategy.
Still more than 90% of Veeky Forums.
he's mad
>>battle of Zama didn't happen
I know this is a meme post but for any autist who takes it seriously (like me), he was approached by a professor who told Lindy thqat he thinks Zama didn't happen. Lindy then provided his arguments, and then disproved them in the same video, claiming he still believes Zama happened.
yes we can kill and overkill anything we can field
you make tanks so that whoever youre fighting needs to make something heavier than small arms to fight them
I beg to differ.
everything but napoleon is right
>millions dead on account of his own personal glory quest
hmmm
Literally nothing wrong with cont*nentals getting rekt
pay that danegeld, bongfriend
...
everything's correct you fucking nigger stop taking things out of context each of these claims has a 20 minute contexr
>gets majority French DNA
>next video: "Why DNA Testing Is a Waste of Time"
Right after the marbles return to Greece.
T.buthurt kraut nigger that gods chosen people have humiliated your revolting “””””people”””””
They circled the tigers cause the tigers were out of fuel, but you are right about earlier models
Why limit it to modern history? His understanding of ancient history is also seriously pseud level.
>Because it at the very least protected them from the Bren.
Or so you think... while in reality hypersonic 3.03 Brrritish rounds cut through Krupp-Stahl with ease!
...
yes the universal carrier was the best tank of the war, no stupid armor to slow it down and the mighty pin-point accurate bren cannon
>The Churchill is the best tank of the war because it's so heavily armored you can't take it on from the front, doesn't matter that it advances at walking pace
>Kraut tanks are all shit because they're so slow you can just drive around them because they're too heavily armored
Which one is it, you limey fuck?
>ITT Soyboy brainlets jealous they'll never be a successful historian like Lindybeige
Jokes aside, somebody must stop him.
>Lindybeige
>successful historian
>devotees are all bong NEET incels
>???
I'm not a bong NEET incel
>you
>cuckold
>brainlet
>NEET
>not killing yourself
??????
I see nothing wrong with any of these claims. French genocide when?
Need you even ask? British, to be sure! How is this in any doubt?
trips of truth
I need that folder
Maybe not watch that fucking angloboo
t. Hans van Clemenceau
If the British tanks were so good why did it take them 3 months to take Caen? Checkmate Lindy
Hitler said he wanted the best of the best for his tanks so his engineers got to work designing very complex machines. In a lab setting this is great but in battle it was very difficult for repairs. They over engineered these things. Apparently each tank by the end of the war even thought they were the same models, no tank was the same.
I remember trying to watch some of lindy's videos. One of them was kinda neat and was talking about trees and forests and stuff, I legitimately didn't know about how people cultivated trees.
Then things took a retarded turn.
Fire arrows were never used? That only takes a minute to disprove. Flails didn't exist? Again, super easy to disprove. I'm actually surprised anyone interested in history, especially military history, would claim this considering their cultural significance to the Hussites and Jan, probably the greatest general who ever lived. Dual wielding never happened? That argument was one of the strangest, since it starts out with him immediately discounting the most prominent example of the parrying dagger in duelist culture as if pointing out how he's wrong helps his argument. He then goes on to talk about role playing games, warfare, and finally some retarded mechanics and physics argument. As if all combat took place solely in formation warfare, or that the only factor in a weapon was force generation.
You'll always be a sperg for wanting to wear a cloak, lindy.
>So I was watching lindybeiges video on British tanks and apparently German tanks were no match for them at all.
LOL! British tanks in WWII were on par with the Italians, (they were shit) which is why half of British tank strength in WWII was made up of American tanks.
He's a good orator. Gets his stuff out in a single take generally. A lot of it is conjecture and opinion but so is a lot of history, if i want pure source material i'll read the source material. Beats the shit out of watching extra credits history.
Because it means you have to change your tactics to circle around them
>Full plate armor provides more protection sure sure, but people simply could grapple them then stick their swords into the joints.
British literally had the worst tank designs during the war, after Japanese and Italians.
>circle around them
Well you can circle around with anything and shoot weaker armor, but that's not something easily done against a good opponent.
For example, late war British design, Cromwell, had 63 mm of unsloped armor on both glacis and turret front. It also had a very weak gun, and was a maintenance whore. They were deployed in relevant numbers in 1944, but they were worse vehicles in terms of performance than up-gunned Panzer IVs from 1941.
Only thing they had going for them was speed, but speed doesn't equal mobility.
Sure, Brits later put out Comet which was somewhat adequate, and Centurion which was great (but wasn't fielded in WW2), but their WW2 tanks were quite inferior in many ways.
They were crippled by lack of funding in interwar period and insistence on cruiser-infantry tank division.
lots of falsehoods in this pasta
Le lindy french
>implying the British even needed tanks to destroy German ones
A single BRITISH hand gun bullet would travel at mac-12, and would be capable of destroying a German carrier, much less a simple tank.
This
A literal bisexual propeller plane from WW1 managed to sink the most powerful battleship in the worst no problem
The year is 2019. Lindybeige videos are growing exponentially in length. His latest upload "No One Used Weapons in War" has a run time of 4 years, 9 months, and 23 days. Approximately 13 months of the video are dedicated to Audible.com, in which Lloyd describes the site so vividly that he eventually just recites the binary code of the domain in a long sequence of 1's and 0's.
Most of these if not all of them are correct in some way depending on perspective. For example would you really consider the Normans to be "French" in a way thats useful in a historic context? Or is it much more useful to understand their northern background and their success at ingratiating themselves into the ruling class of that area before conquering other lands.
Lol
>So I was watching Star Wars on Rebel fighters and apparently Imperial space stations were no match for them at all. The Imperials were were more heavily armored sure, like the Death Star and the second Death Star orbiting Endor, but the Rebels would simply fly through a trench and shoot a torpedo into the exhaust port.
No, British tanks were the very best ones. They just took pity on their colony and used some Shermans so the Americans wouldn't feel bad about themselves.
you realize the death star is basically just a propaganda tool with no real military use
Tanks weren't developed to kill other tanks, tanks were developed to act as force multipliers in a combined arms operation (meaning artillery, infantry, vehicular and aerial cooperative deployment or some combination therein), specifically by combining defensive capabilities of standard hardpoints with at least Infantry levels of mobility and light-artillery destructive capabilities.
The tanks the Brits began using at about the midpoint of the war were very good at killing other tanks, but they were designed with that major goal in mind, whereas the German tanks had mainly support roles in mind, they were meant to move with the larger Blitzkrieg deployments and soften any potential defensive formations.
Germany also wasn't sufficiently industrialized to support the entirety of its military under stress, and German tanks just flat broke down often enough that it seriously undermined their deployment capabilities.
>fantasy analogy
Ofc when he talks about the battle of france he says how the Panzer I and II were sufficent against the french since the they didnt have AT weapon.
The British tanks were "better" because the Brits tank doctrine focused on specialized tanks at an earlier point in time than that of the Germans.
When the British fielded 500 light tanks and 500 heavy tanks, the germans would fiend 1000 medium tanks. So sure, those 500 heavy tanks would be "better" than those 1000 medium tanks, but they're just not gonna get you anywhere anyway.
There's a reason why the germans blew the british out of the fucking water in almost every tank engagement they had - the british tank doctrine was shit and the german tank doctrine was excellent. No amount of "better" tanks was going to save that.
Lindymeme is just Veeky Forums incarnate, talking shit without proofs and is a waste of time
Hey, I'm not a bong.
>The year is 2031
>Lindybeige's synthetic exterior is starting to degrade
>His latest video "Human's were never used in wars" has just hit 50 billion views
>"The French actually lost the Battle of Castillon due to superior English synthoid manufacturing, which enabled England to recover from their losses much faster than the French."
>Anglo-Synths across the Anglo-sphere(Earth) rejoice, reassured in their supremacy
...
Not even going to tackle the whole thing, but
>Bren was like a full auto sniper rifle
Is this the origin of the “Bren was too accurate” meme?
>unironically watching LindyBeige
Is it possible to watch a Youtube clip ironically?
I appreciate there are different brain states with regards to levels of scepticism one can have while watching a video but it does not seem to me that you can perform the action of watching a Youtube clip in an ironical fashion.
I've always loved this song.