Could the FT-17 be considered an MBT?

>No, because MBT is a designation for tanks built towards the end of/after WW2 that were designed for high mobility, firepower, and protection, with the Centurion being the first to be designated as such.
How about Tiger I, in comparison to every other armored fighting vehicle in existence when it rolled out?

No, because it was not designated as such or used like an MBT by the germans, being given out to heavy tank battalions.

Add maids

Attached: Tank maids.jpg (1144x1000, 504K)

But Centurion I had worse protection scheme than the Tiger, how can you say it had good protection when it come out several years later?

>But Centurion I had worse protection scheme than the Tiger, how can you say it had good protection when it come out several years later?
1. No it didn't
2. What does that have to do with what I wrote? The Tiger isn't an MBT because it wasn't designed or used as such.

>1. No it didn't
Tiger I has thicker frontal armor and protection improves when angling armor.

He said "good", not "the best". Thus it can still qualify even if there are other tanks, even older ones, that have more protection. The MBT designation isn't about being the bestest most ultimatest tank for anti-tank warfare ever that will emerge victorious in any and all one on one duels, it's about not bothering with having medium and heavy tanks doing different jobs and instead having a single type capable of doing both jobs. So if the tiger or tiger 2 or maus had more armour... doens't fucking matter. What matters is if our MBT has enough armour to the MBT job. The Centurion did.

And of course...
Tiger 1: 25-120 mm of armor
Centurion: 51-152mm of armor
But sure, maybe if we average it out over whatever we consider relevant with some suitable weighting we can probably get whatever result we want for which was the better protected.

>. What does that have to do with what I wrote?
That Tiger I would actually serve better in that role than the tank explicitly designed for it by the British

>Tiger I has thicker frontal armor
No.
>protection improves when angling armor
Well the Tiger 1 was incredibly slab sided.
Again, that doesn't matter- the Tiger was not used as an MBT by Germany nor was it designed for such a role.

>Again, that doesn't matter- the Tiger was not used as an MBT by Germany nor was it designed for such a role.
You're suffering from something called 'functional fixedness' which is a self-inflected brain injury user en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness

I am saying that Tiger I would be better in the role and you're even incapable of parsing the meaning behind my words

The Tiger was slow and terrible in some battle scenarios, totally not an mbt

Probably the opposite
>low mobility, firepower, and armor

>No.
Only part of Centurion I with better protection than Tiger I is the face of the turret

>You're suffering from something called 'functional fixedness' which is a self-inflected brain injury user
You have claimed that the Tiger 1 was an MBT, this is not the case. It was never designated or used as such.
>I am saying that Tiger I would be better in the role
That is incredibly debatable (and almost certainly wrong) but it isn't relevant.

>The Tiger was slow and terrible in some battle scenarios
Tiger I had excellent combat mobility

>You have claimed that the Tiger 1 was an MBT
I am saying Tiger I would perform better in the role, if you cannot comprehend the distinction this board might be too technical for you

Fix it to be able to perform like a medium and then maybe. Otherwise just no.

Tiger I faster than fastest Sherman

>How about Tiger I, in comparison to every other armored fighting vehicle in existence when it rolled out?
Implies that you did. In any case, it had rather poor mobility due to its underpowered engine, despite it's theoretically good speed on firm ground.

Of course. It's a tank for a refined gentleman and 'avec', which as-such requires proper interior cleaning. The brass on the shells must be polished.
Mechanics can tend to the engine and such, but someone has to serve tea, coffee, or wine with sandwiches during lulls between skirmishes, and cook meals in general. Also the garage and personal quarters need a hand to stay in tip-top shape. Not to mention, there has to be someone to do the laundry, cleaning uniforms and helmets.
Yes, maids are a must.

Attached: gentleman.jpg (475x348, 40K)

>12-16 mph offroad
>performed like shit in rough terrain
No

>I am saying Tiger I would perform better in the role
Dude, prior to you never said a word about that. The thread was about if the FT-17 could be considered an MBT. You then start off with "How about Tiger I", and the implication is thus that you're wondering to what extent the Tiger I could be considered an MBT, not if it could have been at that job. If that wasn't what you meant to ask then, sorry, we're not telepathic. We can only read what you write, not what you think.

>We can only read what you write
It would help if you read, because you didn't, clearly

This started with the idea that the FT-17 was an MBT due to its general use and jack of all trades stats. Whoever brought up the Tiger, which was a HEAVY tank first and foremost, will be shot with a Karl Geratz mortar.

>ywn build small fleet of FT 17, assembly a small mercenary army and use them to conquer, something, tijuana maybe?

the tiger looks like an mbt in design, firepower, and size. But it mostly just 'looks' like an MBT aesthetically. It is severely lacking in the maneuverability needed to be an MBT

it's also fucking ugly

Heavy tanks were still a thing after the mbt idea came about.
The tiger would have qualified as a heavy.
> heavy armor
>slow
> big gun
>slow
>did I mention slow and unreliable