back to article Every billionaire needs a PANZER TANK, right? STOP THERE, Paul Allen

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has launched legal action against a firm he has accused of failing to properly sell him a World War II German panzer tank. Don't worry, Allen hasn't gone all tinfoil hat and decided to start a militia. He merely wants to buy a rare German tank for the collection of the Flying Heritage Collection …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I know where there's one you can buy

    My grandfather used to drive round in one of those, I can tell you exactly where it is, though it might need a little work, a little welding here and there and the permission of The Ukraine Goverment to remove it from a field near Kiev.

    It's also going cheap.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: I know where there's one you can buy

      It's probably been repurposed. After all the rebels drove a Josef Stalin 2 off its pedestal in Donetsk, one wonders how that is possible, the motor must have been blown a long time ago. Or maybe it was just for "our side's" propaganda purposes because the lettering "TO KIEV!!" was still very visible, striking fear in freedom lovers everywhere.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I know where there's one you can buy

      Now that's NOT how you sell them! Try this:

      "Panzer IV, cherished by its elderly German owner and always garaged when possible. Longest trips were to church (St Basil's, Moscow, then heading home to Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche, Berlin). Forced sale owing to property boundary dispute so seller eager! Buyer must collect"

      See? Gone in a blitz!

      1. VinceH

        Re: I know where there's one you can buy

        "Gone in a blitz!"

        Nice. It's a shame, though, that you weren't replying to someone called Craig - because then you could have said:

        "See? Gone in a blitz, Craig."

        1. Steve Evans

          Re: I know where there's one you can buy

          Can't help being reminded of Topgear's VW advert...

          Clarkson at his least political correct... :-D

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKTXK8YiCzk

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I know where there's one you can buy

      If you tell Allen I think it will take care of everything... can't see any government in East Europe say no in front of a pile of cash.

      1. fanboi #451

        Re: I know where there's one you can buy

        Well, it works well for Western Europeans as well ... look at Minecraft.

    4. rototype

      Re: I know where there's one you can buy

      It's next to the Brooklyn Bridge, offers anyone?

    5. Fluffy Bunny
      Angel

      Re: I know where there's one you can buy

      "It's also going cheap"

      Which is strange, because they usually go vroom, vroom, bang!

  2. Anomalous Cowshed

    Mamaaaaaa!

    An American billionaire crisis in one act, by William A. Cowshed, the unsung playwright of the Internet in the early 21st Century

    [Paul] Mama, I want that tank! Gimme that tank!

    [Paul, repeating himself several times] Mamaaaa, I want the tank! I want the tank! I want the taaaaaaaank!!!! Waaaaaaa!

    [Papa, trying to watch the baseball game] Darling, take some of this cash and go get him that tank, for heaven's sake, I can't concentrate!

    Mama grabs a wad of cash and pops to talk to the owner of the tank. The owner is cheeky. He says Paul can have the tank, then changes his mind. Probably because he wants more cash.

    [Paul] Mamaaaaaa! Papaaaaaa! I want my taaaaaaaaank! Waaaaaaa!

    [Mama] Don't worry, we will get you another tank!

    [Paul] No I want this one!

    [Paul] Waaaaaaa! Waaaaaa!

    [Papa] That's it, I'm going to sue that tank owner for disrupting my baseball watching!

    1. dan1980

      Re: Mamaaaaaa!

      You do realise that he is using his own money (or so it seems) to purchase a rare piece of military history so he can donate it to a museum where it will be preserved for future generations, right?

      I mean, I know he earned his riches purveying software that many dislike but preserving our history is an admirable goal.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Mamaaaaaa!

        Whilst I do agree with you, it does seem that this purchase is of a tank already in a (US) collection, rather than quietly rotting in some forgotten barn/field in Europe.

      2. Uffish

        Re: Mamaaaaaa!

        Well, there's admirable goals and there's admirable goals - I have a preference for Gates' admirable goals if we're talking about Microsoft founder philanthropy.

        The main point of the article, and the Mamaaa! coment, is just a little schadenfreude at a panzer buyer's expense, maybe not admirable but certainly fun.

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Probably cheaper to drop the "historicity" and have one built from original plans.

    1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

      Wouldn't be possible. The plans are all in metric.

      It's like a foreign language I tells ya...

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Expecting a Hitler skit about "THOSE PLANS ARE ALL IN METRIC!" soon.

  4. gregthecanuck
    Trollface

    It's going off the tracks...

    Crank's tank bank bid shoots blanks thanks to skanky wanks.

  5. Triggerfish

    Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

    That must have been some conversation with the post office.

    "Did you check and see the neighbours haven't got it? Maybe he tucked it behind the bins..."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

      Has he checked over the fence to see if UPS have lobbed it over the back gate?

      1. Vanir

        Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

        UPS are investigating how many drones it needs to deliver / drop it. May be an opportunity for some unemployed storks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

      Maybe it was sent with MyHermes, in which case I'd check that it's not in his wheelie bin.

      (Yes, I know someone who really had a parcel left in their bin. Thankfully not on the day the council empty it).

      1. wikkity

        Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

        MyHermes once claimed to have left a parcel at my front door, not surprisingly it wasn't there when I got home from work. A friend also had a parcel left at the backdoor when they lived in a flat that only had a front door, I that was city link though.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

          Only the other day I had an Amazon delivery which was left with a Mr Brown next door (according to the email I received)... Except there is no Mr Brown in my road, let alone the old boy next door who's been there over 30 years.

          Instead the package was found on the door step when I arrived home shortly afterwards.

          Unfortunately for the delivery guy, I have CCTV... Some lovely footage has gone off to Amazon.

      2. Kris Akabusi

        Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

        Happened to me as well although they did leave a card saying that they had left it in the recycle paper bin.

    3. Sureo

      Re: Allen's firm alleged it had not received the panzer.

      Its due to be delivered by Amazon's drone but it can't get it off the ground.

  6. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Headmaster

    Pedantry alert

    Given that "Panzer" (short for "Panzer Kampfwagen") is German for tank, Panzer tank sounds a bit over the top. I bit like river Avon, actually.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Re: Pedantry alert

      Could be worse; they could have asked for their PIN number to get the cash out.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Hans 1
      Headmaster

      Re: Pedantry alert

      >Given that "Panzer" (short for "Panzer Kampfwagen") is German for tank [...]

      Given that "Panzer" (short for "Panzerkampfwagen") is German for tank

      So, jetzt wissen alle, wie man das schreibt.

      Bitte!

      1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

        Re: Pedantry alert

        Vielen dank!

    3. bharq
      Coat

      Pedants beware!

      Panzer = armour

      Kampf = combat

      Wagen = vehicle

      so Panzerkampfwagen = tank

      and Panzer tank = armoured tank - so while somewhat pleonastic, it's by no means two words with the same meaning.

      Nothing attracts pedantry like an error in a pedantic post...

      At least I hope the River Avon tasted good when you bit it!

      That Panzerregenmantel is mine, thanks.

      1. MyffyW Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Pedants beware!

        Avon takes it's name from the Welsh Afan.

        And in Welsh river is afon.

        So you have the Afon Afan.

        None of which have any relation to Kerr Avon, one time scourge of the Terran Federation.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pedants beware!

          There is a hill in South Wales called Mynydd Pen Bre (think about it). And there is a street in Kentucky called College Street Road.

          1. Steve Aubrey

            Re: Pedants beware!

            That would, obviously, be the road that goes from here to College Street.

            It isn't hard - it's just logic and parsing.

        2. Dick

          Re: Pedants beware!

          AVON is German for telephone directory

          AVON ist die Abkürzung für Amtliches Verzeichnis der Ortsnetzkennzahlen

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

            Whatever happens, don't mention the tank!

            AVON ist die Abkürzung für Amtliches Verzeichnis der Ortsnetzkennzahlen

            Du nimmst das Pissen, Hans!

      2. Radbruch1929

        Re: Pedants beware!

        > That Panzerregenmantel is mine, thanks.

        Tents are outside. Please excuse the inconvenience.

      3. BlartVersenwaldIII
        Pint

        Re: Pedants beware!

        Corrections to German grammar aside, thumbs up simply for dovetailing in "pleonastic", a much underused, underappreciated and undervalued word. You're also now my number 8 google hit for Panzerregenmantel :)

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Pedantry alert

      That was my first thought as well Michael, a tank tank. Is that like the Ikea Book Book?

    5. NogginTheNog
      Coat

      Re: Pedantry alert

      I bit like river Avon, actually.

      Except that if you just say "Avon" there's a sizable number of the membership here who'll think you're referring to a late 70s leather-clad sci-fi character of ambiguous loyalties.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Pedantry alert

        Am I the only one whose tired eyes and brain saw the letters resolve to 'pantswagen'?

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Patched Out

        That puts a whole new spin ...

        ...on the slogan from a well known American cosmetics company: "Ding, dong, Avon calling!"

  7. Sequin

    Flying Heritage museum? It'll take a big engine to get a Panzer off the ground!

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      It's *got* a big engine.

      What it's lacking is wings.

      1. Sequin

        Re: It's *got* a big engine.

        You don't need wings to fly - if you push something fast enough. Big as the panzer's engine might be, I don't think it's big enough to get it up to liftoff speed. Wings would help, and they could try what Hannibal Smith and the A Team did in the (awful) movie - firing the big gun for a bit of Newtonian action/reaction

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8W6_0UcQWA

        1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: It's *got* a big engine.

          "You don't need wings to fly - if you push something fast enough."

          Yeah..it's not exactly rocket science is it? Errr...hang on...

      2. Brian Souder 1

        Re: It's *got* a big engine.

        "What it's lacking is wings."

        Like this design:

        http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img840/6789/experimentalspecial3kur.jpg

      3. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Neil Barnes Re: It's *got* a big engine.

        "What it's lacking is wings." The early versions of the Mk IV had the Me321 glider, but I think that maxed out at 24 tons.

  8. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

    Picking the nit...

    "feared the world over"? The IV? While not bad, it was hardly a scourge, even with the later gun upgrade. Good, solid MBFT, sure, but a bit outclassed later in the war.

    I think it's more the V (Panther) and VI (Tiger) and their variations you're thinking of. Those would far more likely raise an "oh shit" from those on the receiving end.

    I suppose Mr. Allen is doing a Pokemon (gotta collect them all) and already has those in his stable?

    1. Marcus Aurelius
      Mushroom

      Re: Picking the nit...

      Panther IVs were the workhorse of the German army through the middle of the war and an adaptable capable vehicle.

      Every man and his dog claimed to be fighting Tiger tanks when most of the time it would be Panzer IV or Panthers. Tigers also broke down if you looked at them funny.

      Panzer IV: 8,500 approx

      Panther: 5-6,000 approx

      Tiger I: 1,500 approx

      Tiger II: 500 approx

      Against this we have

      T-34: 35000

      T-34/85: 30000

      Sherman: 40000-45,000

      1. Stevie

        Re: Panther IVs were the workhorse of the German army

        Actually, mein generale, I think you'll find that role was assumed by the Panzer III. Many of the German high command felt there was more need for those than any other Panzer Tank Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicle (that should get the redundancy Nazis firing up their engines and heaving on their epicyclic steering). There were certainly more upgrade variants of the model than any other during WWII.

        The IV was a heavy support tank in concept - intended to supplement formatiopns of IIIs - and had weaknesses the III did not (such as removing most of the rear armour to save weight so the tranny didn't fry). Doctrine said the IV should stay at the back and so it wouldn't get shot in the arse.

        However, the fate of the III was sealed when turret ring could not be upgraded to carry heavier armament - similar problem suffered by the M4A1 Sherman which resulted in the eventual introduction of the Patton.

        There's a bloke out near me has a Tiger Ausf B in drivable condition, apparently. I've never seen it but I've been invited to go for a ride sometime.

        1. Marcus Aurelius

          Re: Panther IVs were the workhorse of the German army

          The only reason the Panzer III wins is if you include the Stug-III self-propelled gun/tank-destroyer.

          The Panzer-III in basic form was the most numerous German tank in 1941 but by 1943 was out of the front line. Also numerically less were produced (5,000 than the Pzkw IV or Panther. The original idea of the Panzer III being the lead tank backed up by IVs didn't last for a long time in the face of opposition by Grants, Shermans and T-34s

      2. G Mac

        Re: Picking the nit...

        I maybe nitpicking here but if you are going to break out the T-34/76 and T-34/85 variants as separate counts then it should also be done for the Sherman 75mm/76mm/17pdr variants for equivalents.

        Also with respect to the 8-1 T34 vs. Tiger battle, the Sherman wasn't much better - I have heard 5-1 on various programs and that wasn't on the Steppes.

        I take my hat off to those crews in either the T-34 or Sherman - it is one thing to go into battle in something like a Tiger, and another to go in with a 20% chance of not being destroyed.

        1. bep

          Re: Picking the nit...

          As General Omar Bradley observed, the Allies willingness to expend Shermans was scant comfort to the crews who had to expend themselves as well.

        2. Stevie

          Re: take my hat off to those crews

          Absolutely. Actually, I take my hat off to all servicemen and servicewomen, indeed everyone who for whatever reason got stuck in.

          But if a hat is coming off it should be mentioned that one Russian anti-Tiger tactic I came across was to have a soldier run alongside a moving Tiger while feeding barbed wire into the roadwheels.

          I mean, how much Vodka would *you* need inside you to contemplate that?

          1. Marcus Aurelius

            Re: take my hat off to those crews

            Well actually being alongside a Tiger tank is relatively good, especially if they don't have any infantry support.

            It's being in front of one that requires lashings of vodka....

      3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Picking the nit...

        The T34 and T34/85 numbers include the numbers for the post-war production runs, license runs to other countries (North Korea, Warsaw pact), etc all the way until production was terminated ~ 1953.

        While the Soviet army had a core of IS2s by end of war and some IS3s produced thereafter, etc there was an enormous pile of T34s and T34/85s produced for the role of cannon fodder in a semi-conventional WW3. That number skews the stats quite a bit.

        1. Marcus Aurelius

          Re: Picking the nit...

          The figures I quoted were for 1941-45 T-34 production only. The Russians also had about 800 T-34s before the start of the war, but lost virtually all of them in the first six months.

      4. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Picking the nit...

        "Panther IVs were the workhorse of the German army through the middle of the war and an adaptable capable vehicle....." Yes and no. It was never intended to be the main tank-fighting tank, that role was given to the MkIII with it's 50mm gun, but that was outgunned by the Grant, T-34 and then the Sherman. The problem was the MkIII's turret could not take a bigger gun. The MkIV had been designed as a support tank with a 75mm howitzer, but it could take the longer 75mm anti-tank gun and so was intended to be a stop-gap until the Panzer V Panther with its extra-long 75mm gun was available in enough numbers. That never happened because the Panther program was behind schedule and production was never sufficient to meet demand. The MkIV actually had thinner armour than the late versions of the MkIII it replaced but could not be given thicker armour due to weight restrictions. But the MkIV was reasonably quick and cheap to produce and a reasonable match for the Allied tanks, so desperate production continued alongside the Panther.

        "....Every man and his dog claimed to be fighting Tiger tanks when most of the time it would be Panzer IV or Panthers...." One of my relatives was in the Western Desert and faced MkIVs in the Crusader tanks. His opinion of the post-D-day 'Tigers everywhere' reports was that only the green units that had not seen a German tank before made that error, not experienced tankers like the Desert Rats. He also put it down to an Amercian desire for bragging rights, where every tank knocked out by the Yanks 'just had to be a Tiger'.

      5. denzil

        Re: Picking the nit...

        picking the nit

        i know it can be a shock but the u.s.a were not the only people fighting the nazis in ww2

        what about all the tanks from the uk and ussr or dont they count ?

        1. Stevie

          Re: what about all the tanks from the uk and ussr or dont they count ?

          Not if you don't want to die laughing they don't. The only British tanks that could be said to have been successful designs for most of the war were the superb Churchills and Matildas, and they were infantry support AFVs that could not fulfill the then-current "cavalry" mode the Germans were showing everyone they'd need to fight effectively on account of the top speed being on the order of 14 mph.

          The history of the British Cruiser Tank is perhaps suitable fodder for a Dad's Army reboot but one doesn't hold them up in polite tank conversation unless one is playing for laughs.

          The USSR were the silly buggers who showed the Germans how antiquated their Panzer designs were. It was the shocked reaction to the BT-type tanks (that would soon morph into the T34) with their radical sloped armour that set the Germans stampeding along the track to the Panther and the "King" Tiger.

          Better thank providence that even the Germans had their own doctrinal stick-in-the-muds or the manufacturing plants would have been race-tuned to make only Panzer Vs and derived hulls therefrom.

          And for all the complaints that the Panthers broke down, various armies across the world were happy to deploy War Reparation Panthers through the mid 50s. Newsflash: All tanks break down eventually, and a lot sooner than you might think in them days on account of the Weapon Calibre/Armour Thickness/Power Plant balancing act producing the same results no matter who did the sums. The Panther had its problems but in its weight class was a superb fighting machine.

          I might mention the doctrinal idea common to all German WWII designs that the Commander should be a commander and not a loader or gunner, and the consequent provision of space for a larger more role-focused crew. I might mention the cupola with its periscopes so the commander could fight without poking his nice soft head out into all the bullets and shrapnel. CF the T34 that had a roof hatch for the commander to crouch behind, or the Sherman that sat so high it was hard to get hull down in fighting terrain - important since the Sherman's armour was so thin and adding improvised armour like the popular sandbag/concrete/battlefield-junk glacis caused the tranny to fry out prematurely.

          The Panther's main failure mode was the breaking of the front torsion bar due to the weight of the gun being born primarily by that wheelset. It should be understood that even drooping the Panther could and did fight on.

          Yesyesyes the battle of Kursk. But they learned what was wrong and fixed what they could in record time to produce a superb AFV well ahead of anything the western allies had in the field in that role. Fast, hard and hard-hitting.

          Hate the people that made 'em, hate the people who drove 'em, hate the people who told them where to go, but don't rubbish the design 'cos it weren't half bad.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: Stevie Re: what about all the tanks from the uk and ussr or dont they count ?

            ".....The history of the British Cruiser Tank is perhaps suitable fodder for a Dad's Army reboot but one doesn't hold them up in polite tank conversation unless one is playing for laughs....." A common misconception. The British cruiser tanks at the start of the War were as good as the Panzer III and had a superior gun, and much better than the most numerous German tanks, the Panzer I and II. In the Western Desert, the British cruisers were always superior to the Italian tanks and only really outmatched when the Panzer III 'Specials' arrived in late 1941, by which time the Yanks already had the Grant in production for us. The Germans knew this, the majority of British cruisers destroyed in North Africa after late 1941 were due to German anti-tank guns, not the Panzers. The main problem with British tanks was the awful design committees that delayed the introduction if the 6pdr-armed tanks in the post-Dunkirk panic, otherwise we would have had the 6pdr-armed Cromwell in time and numbers for el Alamein, a tank that was a match for the Panzer IV 'Specials'. Continued fudging with designs like the TOGs tanks didn't help, nor did the silly restrictions on balanced and not geared elevating systems which meant British turrets effectively had less room for the gun. But the British cruiser designs matured into the Comet, a far better tank than the Sherman, and finally into the excellent Centurion, a tank which was so good it was later chosen over all American types by the Israelis.

            The Sherman was probably the best all-rounder in the 1942-43 period but was starting to be outmatched thereafter, but the American designers shortsightedly sat on their hands in the belief the Sherman was good enough to win the War, leading to the delays in better designs like the M26 Pershing. One question often ignored is why the British didn't pursue the Canadian Ram tank design as this was better than the Grant and available with the 6pdr before the Sherman arrived.

            ".....the Sherman that sat so high it was hard to get hull down in fighting terrain...." Er, you must have missed the bit about the Panther being almost a foot taller than a Sherman. One good point of the Sherman design was that the turret was actually very small, even in the later 76mm variants, which meant that when it could get hull-down it exposed a smaller target than the Panther or Tiger.

            "....I might mention the doctrinal idea common to all German WWII designs that the Commander should be a commander and not a loader or gunner....." That wasn't solely German doctrine, it was the same for the Brits and the Yanks. A lot of German tank doctrine was actually pinched from the work of the British, especially Fuller's mechanized division.

            ".....It was the shocked reaction to the BT-type tanks...." The BTs were simply Russian developments of the American Christie tank and the British Vickers Six-Tonner. The Christie was also the basis for the British cruiser tanks from the MkIII onwards. Part of the reason the T-34 got stuck with a two-man turret was because of the smaller turret ring caused by the width restriction forced by Christie's high-speed suspension design.

            ".....adding improvised armour like the popular sandbag/concrete/battlefield-junk glacis caused the tranny to fry out prematurely....." Hmmm, seeing as the Sherman had special variants with considerably heavier loads than sandbags and no record of such transmission failures I can find, I'd have to call that one a myth.

    2. MyffyW Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Picking the nit...

      In the main event (Kursk, 1943) it was the simpler Soviet T-34, produced in large numbers, that won above the more sophisticated Panzers. The Panther was a benchmark for post-war designs, but wasn't available in sufficient number to overcome Soviet tanks and deep anti-tank defences.

      It's the difference between fiendishly clever and good enough. Paris agrees with me. Probably.

      1. naive

        Re: Picking the nit...

        Sounds fun until you were the crew in the Russian tanks. Their strategy was to attack individual tigers with 8:1 or more, and hoped one of them could place a hit on the chain of the tiger.

        The fact that in the process half of them were blown to pieces by the 88mm gun of the tiger did not bother the Red Army high command.

        1. Marcus Aurelius
          Go

          Re: Picking the nit...

          The T-34 was a good enough tank, but its abilities were over-rated. The primary advantage of the T-34 was the fact that the Russians made lots of them, but they also lost a lot too. The previous poster mentioned an 8-1 advantage, which was also approximately the kill ratio that the Germans scored against Russian tanks through the war.

          Shermans, on the other hand were a much better tank than reported. They were one of the first tanks able to fire accurately on the move. They were a good compromise of speed, gun, armour, reliability and mobility. Their early tendency to blow up was mainly due to ammunition storage issues, which was solved by storing the ammo in the bottom of the tank in water/anti-freeze filled boxes. The Israelis were still using variants of the Sherman up to the 1980s.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Picking the nit...

            Dad was RA and North Africa/ Italy invasions. He said Shermans were known as "Ronsons" after the lighters because if they got hit somewhere round the back the fuel tanks blew out spectacularly.

            1. Marcus Aurelius

              Re: Picking the nit...

              Yes but having the fuel tanks blow up is not a problem. As long as an engineer platoon can pick the tank up and repair it or use it for salvage everyone is happy

              What you're really trying to protect in a tank is the crew, so you're trying to prevent crew compartment fires and explosions, and spalling (lumps of metal flying round the crew compartment killing everyone)

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Picking the nit...

                Sorry I wasn`t explicit enough, that was related to the mentioned "ammo going off" problem. If there was a back hit crew protection if still alive, was by bailing out ASAP as external fire was more friendly than sitting in a metal box full of inevitable death.

                If the unspent munitions onboard went off (as they usually did shortly after), there was not much left for a single engineer ( let alone a whole platoon of them) to repair.

      2. dan1980

        Re: Picking the nit...

        War is as much about logistics as it is bravery or strategy or technology.

        Rugged, reliable and readily available is a powerful combination.

      3. Potemkine Silver badge

        Re: Picking the nit...

        T34 was way superior to PzKpfw IV (better armament, larger tracks), the standard workhorse of Panzerdivisionen in 1943. I'm not even sure that Panther was better than T34/85, mostly because of its poor reliability and the risk to be immobilized by mud when weather was getting cold because of its "crossing wheels" design. And at the time Panters become more common, USSR had IS2. At the end of the war, USSR had the more efficient tanks.

        1. Getriebe

          Re: Picking the nit...

          Panthers

          Also their fuel tanks blew up from a side it. Something the Russians soon exploited

          Also their transmissions broke (something of a German speciality)

          Whatever is said about German vs. Russian tanks - the deciding factor is - who's was in front of the Reichstag on May 2nd 1945?

          1. Stevie

            Re: Who came second?

            "Whatever is said about German vs. Russian tanks - the deciding factor is - who's was in front of the Reichstag on May 2nd 1945?"

            Agreed. Apropos of nothing I saw both a new Rolls Royce and a new Mini Clubman yesterday.

        2. Martin Gregorie

          Re: Picking the nit...

          T34 was way superior to PzKpfw IV (better armament, larger tracks)

          Quite, and this was acknowledged by General Guderian, who almost got shot when asked by Hitler what he needed to win the tank war, by answering "A T34 factory". At that time the Germans didn't have the technology to build T34s.

          It was the first tank to have fully welded hull and the first to have a gun turret mount that was wider than the chassis, and hence carried a bigger gun than the Panzer IV. It used Christie suspension, as used by faster amour and those wide tracks helped a lot - there are photos showing T34s driving easily past a Panzer IV that had sunk immovably into the same bit of softish ground.

      4. deadlockvictim

        Re: Picking the nit...

        It's the difference between quality and quantity, if I remember my WWII history correctly.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Stoneshop
      Headmaster

      Re: Picking the nit...

      Also, "world" in this case being limited to Europe, Northern Africa and those bits of Asia west of Moscow.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: Picking the nit...

        Still covers a bigger area than World Series Baseball.

    5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Michael Hoffmann Re: Picking the nit...

      Yes, Allen bought the wrong tank! (The one in the headline pic is an Ausf G from the Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster, Germany, not the one at the Littlefield Collection.) The Littlefield Collection has a much deadlier Panzer V Panther, a tank which actually did scare Allied tank crews, whereas the Mk IV was matched by the Sherman, the T-34, the Cromwell and Churchill tanks. Still, it would be good to see one restored to mobile condition rather than just static displays in museums.

  9. bharq

    tinfoiled

    "Don't worry, Allen hasn't gone all tinfoil hat"

    I believe that's why he bought the tank - it offers a far superior Faraday cage than a tinfoil hat!

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: tinfoiled

      It's a bit heavy though. And can cause neck pain, if worn for long periods.

  10. Otto is a bear.

    For heavens sake

    Most of us made do with our Airfix model PZKW IV, as used by the Afrika Corps, come on Paul if you love it so much at least you can also have some fun making one up, and the display it in your office. If all else fails, you can always sniff the glue, oh wait.......

    Rich people with Tanks is always a bad idea, there was a guy who used to park his PINK, Abbot Self-propelled gun outside New Scotland Yard as a protest against The Met. It was always fun watching Westminster City Council try to tow it away. Mind you could liven up down town Seattle.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: For heavens sake

      Someone in London 15 years ago was driving round in a bright yellow Scimitar or Scorpion (I forget which). Obviously he was one of the few motorists in Central London with no parking problems.

      There's also a London company who've bought an old Warrior IFV, and re-purposed it. They took out the gun-ports, and replaced them with darkened windows, painted it pink, and fitted a small bar and DJ station. It's now a hen night limo.

      Apparently one advantage is that the floor is still bare metal, so you can just hose it down and all the vomit washes down the drain-holes.

    2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: For heavens sake

      He could do a James May.

      Get someone to life-size the plastic kit, and have fun building it. He could also put 'himself' into the driving position.

  11. hammarbtyp

    You call that a game!!!?

    maybe now his old alma mater has splurged the cash on minecraft, he is intending to recreate battlezone using real tanks.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is that your Panzer parked outside?

    Ja, I only drive it to church on the Sudeten Line.

  13. bitten
    Flame

    Fight it out

    Allen has the best lawyers, but the faundation still has tanks.

    1. Kit-Fox

      Re: Fight it out

      Hang on you are forgetting Hari Seldon's Plan here, which clearly says, the foundation can never be beaten ;)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fight it out

        that's right says the Mule, the foundation was never defeated

  14. RainForestGuppy
    Happy

    Legal argument aside

    Surely the person in the right here is the owner of the tank, because a) they have a tank and b) you don't.

    If you want to argue I'll give you a 10 meter head start.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Legal argument aside

      Yeah, but Allen has warplanes. These guys only have tanks. Although if they've only got fighters, then I guess it's a stand-off. Who runs out of fuel first...

      1. el_oscuro

        Re: Legal argument aside

        What if Allen has Warthogs? That would be a very bad proposition for the tank..

    2. el_oscuro

      Re: Legal argument aside

      Wasn't there a movie awhile back called "Tank" which pretty much said the same thing?

  15. disgruntled yank

    really

    " dreaded foe of Allied armour the world over." In the China/Burma/India theater? During the campaign in Ethiopia or the Solomon Islands?

    Considering the rate at which DoD is giving away military equipment---apparently the San Diego school district has large armored vehicle-- perhaps Mr. Allen should incorporate his own city. I haven't heard of Uncle Sam giving away M-1 tanks, but maybe it will come to that yet. The M-1 may lack the historical glamour of the Mk. IV, but it's a big, bad machine.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: really

      But the DU armor will drive greens crazy.

  16. 8Ace

    Scotland

    Alex Salmond put in a higher bid, the Scots are going to need kit for their own army

    1. Marcus Aurelius
      Joke

      Re: Scotland

      Judging by the reports on how big the Scottish army will be after independence, one tank will be all it needs or can afford.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Scotland

        Nae King! Nae laird! Nae PzKpfw IV!

        If they can only afford one tank, it should be a T72. Suitable for narrow roads, CBNW hardened, lots of cheap spares available. Just the thing when they go back to border reiving.

        1. Marcus Aurelius

          Re: Scotland

          I wish them lots of luck when it meets a Challenger 2 or M1 Abrams at the border....

  17. Potemkine Silver badge

    Flying Heritage Collection

    I knew for pigs, I didn't know that PzKpfw IV fly too

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Back to the original story

    Just get an old 1970's Volvo and paint it in camo; the (Yank) tourists will never be able to tell the difference.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Back to the original story

      http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m403r2tnNP1rv6podo1_500.jpg

  19. jason 7

    So you are entering into a $2.5 million dollar deal to buy a tank...

    ...I would have thought there would be some form of paper trail, contracts, etc. to prove this situation one way or another?

    You don't just send a cheque out of the blue through the post with a post it note slapped on saying "This is for the Panzer IV!"

    Or maybe you do if you are a billionaire?

    By the way the FHC has a nice blog here - http://flyingheritage.tumblr.com/

    Plenty of interesting facts and oddities about the aircraft they look after.

    1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: So you are entering into a $2.5 million dollar deal to buy a tank...

      There is a paper trail. It says what you'd expect:

      Allen: "How much for the tank?"

      Them: "2.5 mil"

      Allen: "Done. Where do we send the dosh?"

      Them: "Here".

      Allen: "Done".

      Them: "All your stuff, including the tank, will be shipped to this marshalling yard".

      (days go by...)

      (Everything but the tank gets delivered).

  20. Lars Silver badge
    Coat

    Hmm

    I must admit I rather have the tank than the Apple I.

    1. jason 7

      Re: Hmm

      Well the Gf/wife might be a little more impressed as it would look a bit more value for money.

  21. Speltier

    Golan Heights

    Read the Syrians (before Assad and the ISIS mafia) had a hull down Panther as a pill box till the Israelis moved into the neighborhood. Maybe Allen should make some inquiries.

    1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Golan Heights

      This is an ex-Syrian Panzer...

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Golan Heights

        I think you'll find the tank the Syrians were using in the Golan was a Panzer IV that came via Spain of all places (http://www.ww2incolor.com/modern/Syrian+PzIV.html).

  22. Getriebe

    If you are in Redmond

    Hire a car and go to the museum. His selection of items is great and they all work. And the people who work there know a great deal.

    Small compared to say the USAF in Dayton but a real gem

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Silicon Valley doesn't sell out to Microsoft

    Whether it's tanks or search engines, no way, no sale. Rather be burnt alive.

  24. largefile

    It's a great museum and collection.

    While Paul may be thought of as eccentric. He's philanthropic in many big ways and he's put together a fine museum and collection of incredible restorations, almost all of which still fly and operate.

    http://flyingheritage.com/

  25. el_oscuro

    I need one of those too

    I know the gas mileage may not be great but the DC traffic is horrible. Then again, maybe not. This tank is a classic. You don't drive a '57 Chevy in DC traffic so you probably shouldn't drive one of these either. Might be better to get a surplus M-60, Challenger 1, T-72, or Leopard 2 for this application.

  26. Oathkeeper

    Got to just love these wealthy elite folks like Paul Allen! Whilst Allen buys an entire operable military tank, he donates a half a million U.S. to an anti gun ballot measure to further restrict law abiding citizens rights to keep firearms. It has been reported that Allen does not have to register his new Big Gun, but Dad cannot give his grandson his old English Double without paying a tax, and having it registered.

    All this while the bad guys keep buying their guns on the black market with no restrictions whatsoever.

    1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      It's not operable without ammunition, which isn't included in the deal, and by the way, your tin foil hat is slipping.

  27. Overlord

    Ver iz zee paperz (A vank statement vill do) to prove zee ownership ov zee panzer...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like