Girls und Panzer

Oh wait, an aircraft carrier is a boat. -__-"

That's what I get for posting half-asleep. Just point out when I say something that stupid, please.

Still, the fact that they're on an aircraft carrier is part of the setting, and thereby part of the premise, so the rest of my post stands.

edited 11th Oct '12 4:51:43 PM by burnpsy

I thought I was pointing out that you said something stupid.

Still the Type 70!

Plus this is a Tanks Are Serious Business show, they're not going to let a Panzer III Ausf. N (I'm hoping it's an N, could also be a G/H/early J, all I can swear to is that's not the 37mm and not the long 50mm) take down a modern MBT.

They're using a 4D, with 75L24 ultrashort. Maybe HE spam can work, though all the tanks are using non lethal rounds.

@Another Duck: There's only one tank destroyer shown thus far, and it's the Stu G III. The one full of banners and is multi-colored. Saying it is a tank destroyer and not a tank is being correct, not pedantic. The difference isn't saying if it's an "aircraft carrier" or a "city carrier", the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer is whether it's a battlecruiser or a light cruiser.

The more you know ♪.

Being pedantic means you're being correct. It's just that you're correct about things people who don't know what they're talking about care about. It's like the difference between the terms bullet, cartridge, projectile, round, shot, shell, and maybe a few others, or the difference between a clip and a magazine. Yes, there's a difference, but most people won't care. They're those things you put into guns so they work to kill people, animals, and cardboard cut-outs.

Uh, no, the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer is not the same as the difference among magazine/clip/ammunition/cartridge/bullet etc.

Might as well say that a flashbang is the same as a smoke grenade, they're both grenades that don't kill, and they're both used to distract/confuse the enemy...so they're the same, and most people won't care, I mean, temporary blindness is just the same as smoke, the difference doesn't matter!

And since we're talking about WW 2 era tanks and tank destroyers, that actually came back to haunt the Wehrmacht. The "Prussians" in the army were aghast when the SS generals told Hitler that there's essentially no difference between their tanks and their tank destroyers that they ended up focusing on producing more tank destroyers instead of tanks, because tank destroyers were faster to make. Because they had thinner armor, had "casemates" (i.e. the tank itself had to move to aim; there are no turrets), and are easier to make as I've already mentioned.

US tank destroyers of that period had turrets though, but they practically have no armor, and the crew are actually exposed (no roof).

edited 11th Oct '12 10:16:57 PM by entropy13

Fine. The difference between a cartridge and a bullet is more like the difference between a tank and a tank turret, while the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer is like the difference between an HP round and an AP round. However, that is pedantic, and really missing the point.

The difference between a tank and a tank destroyer, as I've already mentioned, is the same as the difference between a battlecruiser and a light cruiser. Which are two different ships altogether even though they both have "cruiser" in their name, much like how tank and tank destroyer both have "tank" in their name.

And in all of my posts I've never been pedantic. You, however, have been quite pedantic...

edited 11th Oct '12 10:15:27 PM by entropy13

You don't know what that word means, do you?

The difference between a tank and a tank destroyer is a fundamental question of purpose, with all the many possible downstream effects resulting in possible different form, components, shape, and ultimate function.

One might as well describe as pedantry distinguishing between a pickup truck and a midsize car. Yes, there are contexts in which the distinction does not matter. This show, which was clearly designed for those of marginal military literacy, is not one of them. The target audience will in fact know the difference. The difference being defined correctly is thus important.

edited 12th Oct '12 12:11:41 AM by Night

I wonder about that; so far, none of the tank action has been portrayed incorrectly (to my knowledge), so we might actually be in for some genius bonuses ahead. Maybe.*

I'm still going to view this as a comedy first and foremost, because it's funny. If it does turn out to be more along the lines of Saki in tanks, well, I'll stand corrected. But - and this is important! - it will only reach that point when it convinces my brain to stop adding in horrible Nazi-themed jokes at every opportunity, so that outcome is fairly unlikely.

I still wonder about the logic of looking up the hatch while under fire, or wearing school uniforms while in action. Maybe we'll see an explanation.

But to define a target audience with that amount of knowledge would essentially mean a too small target audience for success. I'd go a little wider, and just say "those who think tanks are cool", which doesn't require any actual knowledge about armoured vehicles, but it still a good amount of people you can reasonable aim a show at without just doing it for the art.

edited 12th Oct '12 4:00:16 AM by AnotherDuck

Aiming for "those who think tanks are cool" wouldn't preclude throwing in the degree of military literacy that would bring the distinction between tanks and tank destroyers into relief, though it might mean it's not necessary. If the characters were to, say, refer to themselves or another tank as being "hull down" or "turret down" or in "tank scrapes" or some such may count as a Genius Bonus, but I'm pretty sure it would still at least sound pretty neat to the hoi palloi.

I know I like jargon, whether or not I can understand it. Gives the background more texture.

edited 12th Oct '12 5:38:53 PM by Ernie

I'm not saying that the show doesn't use accurate terminology.

Is it sad that I found the random German words the subbers put in the most entertaining part of the show so far? Second would be the propaganda for the tank sport. Didn't like the student council for being tyrants, someone should totally blow them up later on.

edited 13th Oct '12 3:42:28 AM by fillerdude

Gee, with that kind of attitude you sound like a guy who would be rooting against Hitler...

Fail Mein Fuhrer!

well, i'm loving it so far since im watching mainly for the tanks, and now for the massive city sized aircraft carrier. i tired the German sub version that commie released, but i found it too distracting and couldn't focus on the show.

I made two mistakes. It was a Type 89 (as confirmed by the second episode), not a Type 95. And it wasn't a Panzer III, it was a Czechoslovakian tank, the 38(t). That was arguably one of my worst guesses yet in identifying something in a show. For the other three (Panzer IV, Stu G III, M3 Lee) at least, I got them right.

And their city carrier is probably 20 Ford-class carriers (0.077kmX20=1.54km) wide and 60 Ford-class carriers (0.333kmX60=19.98km) long.

The instructor's tank is most likely a Type 10. Her sister's tank (the one on TV) is a Tiger.

edited 16th Oct '12 4:39:38 AM by entropy13

...the second ep isn't up anywhere I can find. Are you from the future?

This episode made me feel so patriotic. Go forth LT-38! Kick their asses!

You're Czech? What a shame you have to adopt Russian weapons.

"T-38" and "38(t)" are completely unrelated tanks.

Just checked it and most of our weaponry is our own, includyng planes, tanks, riffles and pretty much everything (btw did you ever heard abot Semtex?). There are some Russian one but not more than of american or german.

edited 16th Oct '12 8:16:28 AM by Tenzen12