Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

nobleknight    

Rank #22173 on Comments
no avatar Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to nobleknight Block nobleknight Invite nobleknight to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/26/2011
Last Login:11/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#22173
Highest Content Rank:#29045
Highest Comment Rank:#6471
Content Thumbs: 21 total,  39 ,  60
Comment Thumbs: 1172 total,  1791 ,  619
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -21 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -20 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 48% (24/50)
Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:2716
Times Content Favorited:3 times
Total Comments Made:858
FJ Points:1259
Gamer, avid reader, and writer.

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 713
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +2
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/11/12
    Awesome time Awesome time
  • Views: 323
    Thumbs Up 2 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -8
    Comments: 9
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/10/12
    Shattered Shattered

latest user's comments

#185 - Whatever floats your boat 11/21/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#177 - It's obvious you refuse to listen to any input that goes again…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/20/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#184 - infraredanus (11/21/2014) [-]
Except it is true, the Tiger is superior in firepower and armor. Everything else the Sherman is superior in. The fact that you have to comment on my opinion means you are out of argument. I'll take my victory since you seem essentially admitted defeat.
#185 - nobleknight (11/21/2014) [-]
Whatever floats your boat
#140 - go to 6 minutes 50 seconds for one example at how th…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#176 - infraredanus (11/20/2014) [-]
Give a man an knife and he can defend himself, give him a Tiger, he can really defend himself. That doesn't change the fact that the Sherman was a much better military tank, both for the speed, and the cheapness of production. Also as stated in that video, it wasn't mean't to be a Tank Killer, so the fact that it even had a chance is impressive. The Tiger is literally just Hitler's way of saying "I have a small penis". A smaller force (Tigers, in that battle you mention) can easily withstand a massive assault. Look at the Finnish Winter War of 1939 for example (Just wikipedia it, look at the casualties/army sizes, etc). Now for your clarification, which I've stated a few times before, 1v1, Panzer's are better, Hell 1v3 they are better. In Battle they are better. BUT. BUT. They are expensive to make, they break down a shit load, and were slow and heavy as hell. Thus the Sherman was a much better tank. Now the Panzer was also DESIGNED to blow up other tanks. The Sherman is a Medium Tank, intended to support infantry. Tiger, Heavy Tank, to be a mobile artillery piece (Christ the Gun itself was just the standard AA gun put on a tank). Now the fact that a Sherman could still potentially beat a Tiger (even 1v1) makes it in my mind better. It was much more versatile and could adapt better to situations. A fair fight would be Sherman's v T-34's, because they were designed with the same idea in mind, Medium tank, very fast and versatile. Both proved a successful counter to Tiger's, both were cheap. I would say a T-34 had a better chance than a Sherman though. If there is one rule in history that anyone should know, it's "Don't question German Ingenuity", they knew/know their shit. But what Hitler asked from the Tiger was just ridiculous. Then he wanted the Maus, even more ridiculous. In the end both those tanks are just very expensive scare tactics.
#177 - nobleknight (11/20/2014) [-]
It's obvious you refuse to listen to any input that goes against what you think. It's sad how history is viewed in such a narrow minded manner.
#184 - infraredanus (11/21/2014) [-]
Except it is true, the Tiger is superior in firepower and armor. Everything else the Sherman is superior in. The fact that you have to comment on my opinion means you are out of argument. I'll take my victory since you seem essentially admitted defeat.
#185 - nobleknight (11/21/2014) [-]
Whatever floats your boat
#135 - Kursk was defense on Germany's part and the Bulge was a counte…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#139 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Unless I'm thinking about a different battle with that many trenches... Reach the point of no reply, sorry.
#137 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Half of that is untrue, that's like saying .22 can't kill, not even at point blank. Please. And Kursk? Kursk was where the Russian's lured the German's into a trap, where Russia had built the same amount of trenches as the entire Western front in WWI (or close too it). Tell me how Russia attacked while still staying in their trenches? It was also the biggest tank battle of all time... Or maybe just the war... Not sure, but most tanks during that battle fought at... 100 yards? 50 yards? not much. Russia actually lost a lot of tanks because they went through a choke point. But later the T-34 kicked ass. It's not only about quality, and I never said the Sherman could take on a Tiger 1v1, Tiger would win, hands down. I am saying the Sherman isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
#132 - You act as if the Abrams is original and "best". For…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#134 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
... Abrams is the modern Day US tank... It has nothing to do with WWII. German was not picking it's lines, it was launching many counter offensives. Look up the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge, after that it was a straight retreat to Berlin, while leaving defenses at places such as river crossing and other choke points. After those two battle's German had lost the war. Panzer or no Panzer, they were done.
#135 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
Kursk was defense on Germany's part and the Bulge was a counter-attack against the Americans. The fact of the matter was Germany had the better tanks however the Americans built more. When there are accounts of a Sherman shooting a Tiger at point blank range in the front and it can't penetrate the armor that just shows who has the better tank.
#139 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Unless I'm thinking about a different battle with that many trenches... Reach the point of no reply, sorry.
#137 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Half of that is untrue, that's like saying .22 can't kill, not even at point blank. Please. And Kursk? Kursk was where the Russian's lured the German's into a trap, where Russia had built the same amount of trenches as the entire Western front in WWI (or close too it). Tell me how Russia attacked while still staying in their trenches? It was also the biggest tank battle of all time... Or maybe just the war... Not sure, but most tanks during that battle fought at... 100 yards? 50 yards? not much. Russia actually lost a lot of tanks because they went through a choke point. But later the T-34 kicked ass. It's not only about quality, and I never said the Sherman could take on a Tiger 1v1, Tiger would win, hands down. I am saying the Sherman isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
#128 - Also it took sheer numbers for Shermans to gain the upper hand.  [+] (1 new reply) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#131 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
This is known. But why waste time on quality when you can pump more out that still get the job done? There is always that balance, and almost every tank during WWII didn't get it right (T-34 probably was the closest though, their armor design is what saved them)
#127 - Tigers operated at long range. They could easily pick off Sher…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#130 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
But of course, there were always shit tons more Sherman's. Most tank battles happened at close range, you would have to have a lot of planning and maneuvering skill to set up a Tiger to snipe other tanks, even then you could probably get off a few shots before Sherman's got in range, and if you hit a few, good job, you are still 1v5. Tiger was over beefed up, and was really unnecessary. Basically the same reasons that the T-34 was able to beat the Tiger. Stick any of the up against an M1 (or is it M2) Abrams and oh boy... It will be a slaughter.
#132 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
You act as if the Abrams is original and "best". For the later part of the war Germany was picking its defensive lines. The Tiger crews could pick a nice spot and wait for the Americans to walk up in line and die.
#134 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
... Abrams is the modern Day US tank... It has nothing to do with WWII. German was not picking it's lines, it was launching many counter offensives. Look up the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge, after that it was a straight retreat to Berlin, while leaving defenses at places such as river crossing and other choke points. After those two battle's German had lost the war. Panzer or no Panzer, they were done.
#135 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
Kursk was defense on Germany's part and the Bulge was a counter-attack against the Americans. The fact of the matter was Germany had the better tanks however the Americans built more. When there are accounts of a Sherman shooting a Tiger at point blank range in the front and it can't penetrate the armor that just shows who has the better tank.
#139 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Unless I'm thinking about a different battle with that many trenches... Reach the point of no reply, sorry.
#137 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Half of that is untrue, that's like saying .22 can't kill, not even at point blank. Please. And Kursk? Kursk was where the Russian's lured the German's into a trap, where Russia had built the same amount of trenches as the entire Western front in WWI (or close too it). Tell me how Russia attacked while still staying in their trenches? It was also the biggest tank battle of all time... Or maybe just the war... Not sure, but most tanks during that battle fought at... 100 yards? 50 yards? not much. Russia actually lost a lot of tanks because they went through a choke point. But later the T-34 kicked ass. It's not only about quality, and I never said the Sherman could take on a Tiger 1v1, Tiger would win, hands down. I am saying the Sherman isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
#124 - Sherman could only take down a Tiger at extreme close range on…  [+] (10 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#125 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Sherman's could out maneuver a Tiger easily, they're too slow in comparison. Like I said, tank battles occurred at VERY close ranges. I'm guessing you love Tiger's the most? Guess what, so do I, but I still know that Sherman's were more than capable... Though having draw backs at first (Namely, catching fire a lot?)
#128 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
Also it took sheer numbers for Shermans to gain the upper hand.
#131 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
This is known. But why waste time on quality when you can pump more out that still get the job done? There is always that balance, and almost every tank during WWII didn't get it right (T-34 probably was the closest though, their armor design is what saved them)
#127 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
Tigers operated at long range. They could easily pick off Shermans way before the Shermans could return fire. On average it took 3 out of 4 Shermans to kill one tiger. 3 Shermans had to die to kill 1 Tiger and that was the average overall.
#130 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
But of course, there were always shit tons more Sherman's. Most tank battles happened at close range, you would have to have a lot of planning and maneuvering skill to set up a Tiger to snipe other tanks, even then you could probably get off a few shots before Sherman's got in range, and if you hit a few, good job, you are still 1v5. Tiger was over beefed up, and was really unnecessary. Basically the same reasons that the T-34 was able to beat the Tiger. Stick any of the up against an M1 (or is it M2) Abrams and oh boy... It will be a slaughter.
#132 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
You act as if the Abrams is original and "best". For the later part of the war Germany was picking its defensive lines. The Tiger crews could pick a nice spot and wait for the Americans to walk up in line and die.
#134 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
... Abrams is the modern Day US tank... It has nothing to do with WWII. German was not picking it's lines, it was launching many counter offensives. Look up the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge, after that it was a straight retreat to Berlin, while leaving defenses at places such as river crossing and other choke points. After those two battle's German had lost the war. Panzer or no Panzer, they were done.
#135 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
Kursk was defense on Germany's part and the Bulge was a counter-attack against the Americans. The fact of the matter was Germany had the better tanks however the Americans built more. When there are accounts of a Sherman shooting a Tiger at point blank range in the front and it can't penetrate the armor that just shows who has the better tank.
#139 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Unless I'm thinking about a different battle with that many trenches... Reach the point of no reply, sorry.
#137 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Half of that is untrue, that's like saying .22 can't kill, not even at point blank. Please. And Kursk? Kursk was where the Russian's lured the German's into a trap, where Russia had built the same amount of trenches as the entire Western front in WWI (or close too it). Tell me how Russia attacked while still staying in their trenches? It was also the biggest tank battle of all time... Or maybe just the war... Not sure, but most tanks during that battle fought at... 100 yards? 50 yards? not much. Russia actually lost a lot of tanks because they went through a choke point. But later the T-34 kicked ass. It's not only about quality, and I never said the Sherman could take on a Tiger 1v1, Tiger would win, hands down. I am saying the Sherman isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
#121 - M3 Longer derivative of the M2. Equipped American and Brit…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#123 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Of course it does, but it was still unnecessary. That's like 9mm v .45 acp. Both will still kill a man.
#118 - Sherman used the same gun until they switched the the 76mm gun.  [+] (8 new replies) 11/19/2014 on murica fuk yuh 0
#120 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
So they did switch. 1mm isn't that much, they could have just upped the power a little bit in the 75mm if they really needed too.
#140 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK5KaKWEG3s

go to 6 minutes 50 seconds for one example at how the Tiger could defend. Hell watch the whole thing and learn something
#176 - infraredanus (11/20/2014) [-]
Give a man an knife and he can defend himself, give him a Tiger, he can really defend himself. That doesn't change the fact that the Sherman was a much better military tank, both for the speed, and the cheapness of production. Also as stated in that video, it wasn't mean't to be a Tank Killer, so the fact that it even had a chance is impressive. The Tiger is literally just Hitler's way of saying "I have a small penis". A smaller force (Tigers, in that battle you mention) can easily withstand a massive assault. Look at the Finnish Winter War of 1939 for example (Just wikipedia it, look at the casualties/army sizes, etc). Now for your clarification, which I've stated a few times before, 1v1, Panzer's are better, Hell 1v3 they are better. In Battle they are better. BUT. BUT. They are expensive to make, they break down a shit load, and were slow and heavy as hell. Thus the Sherman was a much better tank. Now the Panzer was also DESIGNED to blow up other tanks. The Sherman is a Medium Tank, intended to support infantry. Tiger, Heavy Tank, to be a mobile artillery piece (Christ the Gun itself was just the standard AA gun put on a tank). Now the fact that a Sherman could still potentially beat a Tiger (even 1v1) makes it in my mind better. It was much more versatile and could adapt better to situations. A fair fight would be Sherman's v T-34's, because they were designed with the same idea in mind, Medium tank, very fast and versatile. Both proved a successful counter to Tiger's, both were cheap. I would say a T-34 had a better chance than a Sherman though. If there is one rule in history that anyone should know, it's "Don't question German Ingenuity", they knew/know their shit. But what Hitler asked from the Tiger was just ridiculous. Then he wanted the Maus, even more ridiculous. In the end both those tanks are just very expensive scare tactics.
#177 - nobleknight (11/20/2014) [-]
It's obvious you refuse to listen to any input that goes against what you think. It's sad how history is viewed in such a narrow minded manner.
#184 - infraredanus (11/21/2014) [-]
Except it is true, the Tiger is superior in firepower and armor. Everything else the Sherman is superior in. The fact that you have to comment on my opinion means you are out of argument. I'll take my victory since you seem essentially admitted defeat.
#185 - nobleknight (11/21/2014) [-]
Whatever floats your boat
#121 - nobleknight (11/19/2014) [-]
M3
Longer derivative of the M2. Equipped American and British vehicles such as the M4 Sherman, the later models of the M3 Lee and the Churchill III/IV (scavenged from General Sherman tanks in the North African theatre). US Army also experimented with mounting of the M3 on various wheeled carriages for use as anti-tank gun, but the program was cancelled due to lack of requirement.[3]

Barrel length: 40(37.5) calibres (3 m)
Muzzle velocity: 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) with M72 AP shell
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg (14 lbs)
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 100 m, at 30 degrees from vertical): 72 mm of FHA armour or 88 mm of RHA armour
Muzzle velocity: 617 m/s (2,024 ft/s) with M61 APC shell
Shell weight (M61 APC): 6.63 kg (14.62 lbs)
Armour penetration (M61 APC shell, 100 m, at 30 degrees from vertical): 77 mm of FHA armour or 76 mm of RHA arm


76mm
Penetration of armor at 30 degrees from vertical at two ranges
Ammunition 500 m 1,000 m
Armour-Piercing Capped (APC), US M62 or Soviet APC 109 mm,[8] 93 mm[9] 92 mm[9]
Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC)[10] 98–93 mm[11] 88 mm[11]
High-Velocity Armour-Piercing (HVAP)[11] 139 mm[10] 127 mm[10]
High-Velocity Armour-Piercing M93[9] 146 mm 127 mm
High-Velocity Armour-Piercing T-4[8] 147 mm 120 mm

76mm had better anti-tank performance.
#123 - infraredanus (11/19/2014) [-]
Of course it does, but it was still unnecessary. That's like 9mm v .45 acp. Both will still kill a man.

user's channels

Join Subscribe feels
Join Subscribe wallpapers
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1560 / Total items point value: 2300

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#5 - garymotherfingoak has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1 - fuckyowhiteass (11/09/2011) [-]
GO **** YOURSELF
#2 to #1 - nobleknight (11/09/2011) [-]
GTFO you racist cunt
User avatar #3 to #2 - fuckyowhiteass (11/12/2011) [-]
I WANT TO **** YOUR ASSHOLE WITH MY HUGE BLACK COCK
#4 to #3 - nobleknight (11/15/2011) [-]
wow racist and a Richard Simmons
 Friends (0)