Anyone interested in a thread about WW2 weapons? I mostly like artillery pieces and tanks, but small arms are welcome too.
My favorite tank is probably the Panzer V Panther. I'm not well-versed in the "Ausf." classifications. I know one type of Panther used the goofy-looking mantlet in my related picture. Possibly the Panzer V Ausf. J.
Also pictured on the bottom right is a 75 mm gun, classified as KwK. I know this is different from the 75 mm Pak. Is Kampfwagenkanone (KwK) the designation for any gun on a tank? I only see the term used when it's this short, stubby anti-infantry gun that's pictured.
Feel free to share cool information about your favorite WW2 tank or any cool things about other weapons from that period.
The Stug III was the most produced German armored fighting vehicle during the war. The Panzer IV was the second most produced.
The Stug was an infantry assault gun. It was supposed to be a type of self-propelled artillery. The Germans intended to assign it to the panzer divisions, but they didn't want to administer any more units of Stugs. Simialr bureaucratic balking kept the Stugs from being assigned to infantry units. Thus, the Stug units were administered by the artillery corps.
>Anyone interested in a thread about WW2 weapons?
>Is Kampfwagenkanone (KwK) the designation for any gun on a tank?
yes! it literally means 'tank gun' (or, well, 'fighting vehicle cannon')
even the panthers gun was "KwK", the 7,5 cm KwK 42
First in for Sherman was best tank.
>cheaper to produce than T-34
>more mechanically reliable than any of its contemporaries
>actually stood up to contemporary German armor instead of getting killed in droves
The first one of you motherfuckers to post Belton Cooper in this thread is getting a bunch of very hurtful reaction images.
one thing about early war armor which i don't get... it's not even directly related to armor specifically, more like operations and tactics and whatnot
- the germans had, in the early months of the war, even in france and even partially in russia but not to that extent (and tempered with more better models), had tons of absolutely shit tanks - even relatively for that era, panzer 1s and 2s, vehicles incapable of going toe to toe with for example the most numerous british/french models
but they achieved stunning victories nonetheless
now i understand encircling an opponent is a huge win regardless if you do that with shit tanks or top of the line ones, but still it puzzles me, you know? how did they take out so much enemy armor? did they pick and choose where to strike with the pz1 and 2s so they would only face infantry and not tanks? would they simply wait for artillery if they met heavier enemy tanks?
like i said i understand tank combat when it gets to the part where both sides have comparable armaments, or at least armaments capable of actually hurting the enemy
but how hundreds of pz1 and 2s achieve anything against markedly superior vehicles is beyond me
i have come to the conclusion that the hurr durr sherman wuz shit argument boils down to one thing - "it wasn't a tiger", as in a big and iconic and nasty and heavy hunk of metal with the biggest gun and the thickest armor and whatever
which it wasn't
and which ignores the realities of war which call for tanks to simply be effective, not excessive
(and which ignores the most numerous german afvs being the STUG LYFE and pziv)
yeah, well, thats not helping me wrap my head around it
"let's talk them to death fritz?"
again i understand how that would make coordination and operational success easier
but still you are in a tin can with a gun (or just machine guns!) that can't hurt enemy armor at all
Fun fact: Fritz Bayerlain, commander of the Panzer Lehr division, requested that he get more PzIVs, not panthers for fighting in the bocage.
The Panther's wide tracks and chassis, vital in Eastern Europe where you had shit roads and mud, made it too fat to maneuver easily in northern France. And it's slow moving turret gave it trouble in rapid target acquisition at short range, which a lot of bocage tank fighting degenerated into.
>how did they take out so much enemy armor?
Mostly, they either bypassed it and waited for the enemy tanks to fall apart without access to things like repair yards or fueling stations, or they did what Rommel would do later in North Africa and lure them to fixed anti-tank guns. Or maneuver to the back and shoot them there.
>did they pick and choose where to strike with the pz1 and 2s so they would only face infantry and not tanks?
Whenever possible, yes.
> would they simply wait for artillery if they met heavier enemy tanks?
There was a lot of running away too.
German tanks avoided enemy armoured formations, leaving infantry and !artilleri! to deal with them.
Most of soviet losses were to 105mm guns with bunker buster or 88 subcaliber rounds.
Also enemy tanks were not that good. French ones had bad crew task distribution - commander had to do pretty much everything. Soviet had a lot of tanks, but most of them were old types. T-34 was brand new then and most of them were even not supplied with ammunition for the gun.
>i have come to the conclusion that the hurr durr sherman wuz shit argument boils down to one thing
It mostly comes down to two interrelated things, both wrong, or at least misleading.
A) You look at most of the battles in the Western Front, and you'll see the Anglo-Americans losing more tanks than the Germans.
B) You get a mistaken but nonetheless widespread belief that most German armor was destroyed by the overwhelming Allied air advantage.
Which gets things amusingly wrong: More than 50% of Allied tank loses were to either fixed ATGs or mines, and it's really hard to kill a tank with a WW2 airstrike, and that air power was more used in reconnaissance and support missions (Why blow up the tank when you can blow up its fuel depot?), and that Allied tanks did most of the direct anti-tank destruction that was performed on the Germans.
All right, hands up. Who saw this movie and laughed?
The M4's strength was ease and flexibility of manufacture, and it lacked catastrophic self-destructive flaws, even though it was poor to unremarkable in virtually all performance metrics. It was however, at least as good, if not better than other country's staple bread and butter tanks, because the US put very little effort in designing anything but M4 and M4 variants.
You know, aside from "Kill the enemy"
Chart is from this book.
Please note the greater than 3:1 kill to death ratio between the Sherman and the Panther.
Come on, you didn't bust a gut when the German SS Leutnant started giving a pep talk to his troops, IN FORMATION, while a firefight was going on only a dozen meters away?
Actually one of the more accurate things in the film. Not sure the Germans really used green tracers, though, and they still made basically every round a tracer, too.
The invasion of Poland taught them Panzer II's were shit. From my limited knowledge, the Polish didn't have a lot of tanks, just anti-tank guns. They were still doing cavalry charges with horsemen.
Not him, but I'm pretty sure he's going for
>They were still doing cavalry charges with horsemen.
Which yeah, didn't happen. They did have cavalry, but they fought in the manner of dragoons, if you want to borrow an earlier parlance. Rode, but dismounted to fight. You didn't actually have guys on horses with lances trying to hit German tanks.
Good tank porn.
That last stand was straight out of a Medal of Honor game though. Shia Labouef was surprisingly good. The sheer butthurt that movie caused amongst wehraboos was hilarious.
Are you counting Med and Middle east as the first years of the war (1939-41) or the first years of the war starting when the Afrika Korps shows up and the war in the desert really heats up (1941-43)?
For the Germans, the PZIII is the main workhourse, with 4s becoming gradually more prevalent as you get later in time.
For the British, It's mostly matildas in 1941, and those mk 3 cruiser tanks are #2.
As the war progresses, you'll see more American tanks; I believe by El Alamein the Grant (British Shermans) was the single most common tank in the inventory. Home made designs had Valentines as the most common frontline tank, IIRC.
Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. Yeah, the Grant was the M3, not the M4; and yes, the M3 was pretty awful.
But the most common tank by late 1942, IIRC, was the M4 for the British.
(And I thought the lee and the Grant were different turret variations among the M3, but seeing how I've slipped up previously, now I'm not so sure)
Wasn't it due to infighting bullshittery when Guderian took over the panzer divisions that they weren't considered tanks?
Stugs were a great vehicle, although classed as infantry support still served as decent anyi armour.
>That last stand was straight out of a Medal of Honor game
I still can't get over that. These seasoned tankers decide do something that flies in the face of everything armor guys are supposed to when their tank gets knocked out. Okay, yeah, maybe the characters are all suicidal at this point, but that doesn't excuse the fact that (what we are lead to believe is) an elite SS unit can't deal with a lone disabled tank despite their overwhelming numbers and anti-tank weaponry.
Okay, rant over. Look at this fucking Firefly.
>You know, aside from "Kill the enemy"
>for Sherman vs Panther, the highest casualties listed are all from engagements in which the Enemy was attacking and the Allies were defending AND fired first
Well duh. The book where that chart is from stresses the value of firing first, and from that it can definitely be concluded that the Sherman was a very competent tank, but I don't believe that chart demonstrates the complete superiority of the tank. There are numerous other factors to be considered in those engagements as well.
There's also the matter of qualitative evidence of Sherman v Panther engagements, heres Jentz's list of American tanker's accounts. Note the fair criticism in addition to the intimidation of fighting them.
>Well duh. The book where that chart is from stresses the value of firing first, and from that it can definitely be concluded that the Sherman was a very competent tank, but I don't believe that chart demonstrates the complete superiority of the tank.
Yes, but the Shermans are firing first 95% of the time they're on defense and more than 50% of the time they're on offense. That's pretty indicative of a superior tank, given how important that first shot is.
>Yes, but the Shermans are firing first 95% of the time they're on defense and more than 50% of the time they're on offense.
Are we talking about the Sherman vs the Panther or the Sherman in that chart in general? Because those two things have totally different statistics.
>and more than 50% of the time they're on offense.
There are 30 Sherman v Panther engagements listed in the chart. 19 of those are listed as Enemy attacking Allies and Allies firing first. That's already well over 50% and that's when the Panthers receive their greatest casualties.
The 2 engagements in which the Allies were attacking and the Enemy fired first resulted in collective casualties of literally 3 Allied tanks to 1 enemy tank.
> That's pretty indicative of a superior tank, given how important that first shot is.
I suggest you read what the American tankers thought of the two to get a more well-rounded idea of what each individual tank was like. There are more factors in tank engagements than just statistics.
>Are we talking about the Sherman vs the Panther or the Sherman in that chart in general? Because those two things have totally different statistics.
I did mean Sherman v Panthers in there, sorry for being unclear.
>There are 30 Sherman v Panther engagements listed in the chart. 19 of those are listed as Enemy attacking Allies and Allies firing first. That's already well over 50% and that's when the Panthers receive their greatest casualties.
There are only 9 examples of the Allies attacking (tactically) on it. Of them,the Allies fire first in 5 of them. Ergo, they fire first in more than half of the times they're attacking.
>I suggest you read what the American tankers thought of the two to get a more well-rounded idea of what each individual tank was like. There are more factors in tank engagements than just statistics.
And when you read what German tankers thought of American vehicles, you see similar fears. (Otto Carius's memoirs, for instance). Furthermore, the statistics are more accurate appraisals than people who are operating under imperfect information in highly stressful environments.
American tankers thinking that German tanks were better do not in fact prove German tanks were better, only that American tankers thought they were.
>There are only 9 examples of the Allies attacking (tactically) on it. Of them,the Allies fire first in 5 of them. Ergo, they fire first in more than half of the times they're attacking.
Well you're really limiting your sample size there.
Just take into account the times when the Allies were on the defense, you still get good results for your argument. It's completely fair to conclude that the Sherman was more than competent on the defense, and considering Germany was strategically on the defense for most of the Western Front, it's undoubtedly fair to say the Sherman's inferiority is a complete myth, considering those statistics.
>And when you read what German tankers thought of American vehicles, you see similar fears. (Otto Carius's memoirs, for instance).
Yes, and often for good reason.
> Furthermore, the statistics are more accurate appraisals
Of a tank's singular superiority? Hell no. Those statistics are broad and leave out qualitative factors.
> than people who are operating under imperfect information in highly stressful environments.
Those people pick up on perfectly valid aspects of what made the Panther good though. Smokeless powder and quiet engines are both very important factors to consider, yet are nowhere to be seen in quantitative comparisons. Devaluing those accounts as simply being from scared tankers with experiences less accurate than statistics can only make more misinformed conclusions.
>American tankers thinking that German tanks were better do not in fact prove German tanks were better
There will literally never be a total 'better' in comparing these AFVs. 'better' is relative to so many factors, some of which each side fulfilled better than the other side, and what American tankers thought they were are still valid, primary evidence.
You can't discount one kind of evidence for another in this context, as both are very valuable, and neither add up to 'this tank was the best' or 'this tank was entirely better'.
They actually did mount charges on rare occasion.
the infamous case of horses V tanks is actually a direct result of the poles charging a rifle unit on horseback and routing them.
Had they been on foot, they'd likely have been slaughtered.
It actually did really, really well against contemporary german armor.
Actually you would be wrong, German statistics for operating tanks would necessarily entail componentry failures. And it was its final drive, not its transmission, that stifled the Panther. So no, completely wrong, quantitative comparisons do cover garbage components.
Still, we see them carrying all sorts of anti-tank weaponry in the scene leading up to the last battle, but all that shit mysteriously disappears as soon as their actual attack begins, and they have to do a whole 'nother establishing shot of them uncrating some Panzerfausts before they start using them against Fury and her crew.
There's something inspiring about the fact that after the debacle that was pre-war and early war British tank doctrine and design, you started getting gems like the Cromwell and the comet.
Never really realized how much the Centurion looks like a development of the Comet.
i find these comparisons highly autistic
firstly, armor was not meant to fight armor
it was either an infantry support, or a highly mobile tool to spearhead into key locations (junctions mainly), and hold out until the infantry support arrived
i find armored warfare of ww2 highly romanticized, kinda like new medieval knights
>charge into battle
>taking hits, firing on the move
>ignore all danger, keep fighting
after reading several books from military historians (native sadly, so it wont help you)
both on eastern and western front tenks had a very gruesome task of drawing fire on themselfs, get hit, knocked out(abandoned, immobilized, stuck, penetrated etc), before firing a shot
what im trying to say is, it didnt really matter what kinda vehicles you have as long as you DO have enough of them
If you can read english, it's the account that says a 76mm round bounced off the side of a Panther once, and yes it's possible, there are accounts of high-caliber German guns bouncing off of armor they theoretically should be able to penetrate, because theoretic penetration statistics aren't always going to apply in reality 100% of the time.
Remember bounced ONE shot, fired SIX. Read the account.
>i find these comparisons highly autistic
Oh how promising, the ever ambiguous 'autism'.
>firstly, armor was not meant to fight armor
>it was either an infantry support, or a highly mobile tool to spearhead into key locations (junctions mainly), and hold out until the infantry support arrived
That mentality became obsolete very quickly into WWII and you should feel ashamed to believe it today. Armor was meant to fight armor, but INITIALLY armor was supposed to fight infantry, too bad that the quantity and strength of some tanks necessitated other countries create tanks designed to fight other tanks.
>what im trying to say is, it didnt really matter what kinda vehicles you have as long as you DO have enough of them
Well clearly it did since, ideally, your tanks wouldn't be getting knocked out and would be knocking out other tanks. There was a standard set in WWII, and Russia would not have been able to cull the Nazis with hundreds of thousands of T-26s and no other tanks.
You seem to forget the Allied faced Kwk40s and 88s. They both had practically the same armour.
The Cromwell is superior because it's smaller and faster. The Sherman (and the Americans in general) has an admittedly easier-to-operate gun. The Sherman is also sexier.
>World War II tank thread
>I can't see a single Tiger here
no, armor was not meant to fight armor
armor was meant to encircle or push through, if you need to engage you will
remind me again why are the soviet guard tanker divisions carried a buttload of AT guns? yea? yea because thats what will counter armor
>get to point
>infantry and AT set up multiple layers of defense
>continue to next point
your tank will be knocked out
your tank will break down, your crew will panic, your crew will drive it into a ditch, it will be penetrated
most successfull tanks on all sides? yea the stugs, the shermans and the t34
mass produced, with enough firepower
>germans wouldnt be able to cull the commies with Pz.II-s
yea shitter, thats the fucking point
your tanks are not some modern age knights to charge at eachother
and i dont mean "infantry" tanks, or the british doctrine, read more books before you consider yourself such an "expert"
>armor was not meant to fight armor
Explain why most tanks were equipped with modified anti-tank guns instead of howitzers.
Explain why tanks and self-propelled guns were developed as different concepts.
>no, armor was not meant to fight armor
Yeah, that's why they mounted AT and high velocity AA guns on them, because those guns are so much better than howitzers at fighting infantry and static positions, right?
>most successfull tanks on all sides? yea the stugs, the shermans and the t34
They were made to fight tanks, whether or not their intended application in the field was is variable, but the upgunning of the Sherman and T-34 weren't for them to counter infantry you complete mongoloid.
>yea shitter, thats the fucking point
No shitter, your point was some stupid fucking blanket statement about all you need is a lot of tanks, and now you're moving goalposts and saying that was your point all along when that was a completely different point you made.
>read more books before you consider yourself such an "expert"
Yeah okay, get some elementary knowledge about tank design in WW2 you retard.
>most tanks were equiped with anti tank guns
it was developed later to offer more utility
the PzIV, started with a howitzer
the stug, started with a howitzer
the T-34, started with a short barreled gun
the ammonution loadouts, even at the latest stages of the war, indicate their job was not some romantic epic tank duel, but to blow any opposition away, which is mainly unarmored
self propelled guns were developed to offer heavy artillery support to units leading the strategic attacks
speed and protection
something the original artillery lacked with its horses for transportation
obviously nobody in their right mind would purposely make their equipment useless against the enemy, so they entered a useless caliber race
its useless, otherwise the PzIVs and T-34s wouldnt be the most successfull designs with their guns
the thing you are talking about are tank destroyers, upgrading your equipment is natural
obviously you will want enough firepower for your armor to not to be useless, eventhough Pz.II-s were against russians, yet they faired well
im not moving any goalposts, you are just buttmad i found a loophole in your ebin TONK VS TONK EPIC childish fantasy
you have none, so get out
>it isn't true most tanks were equipped with AT
T-34 - 76.2 mm F-34/85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun
KV-1 - 76.2 mm M1941 ZiS-5 gun
KV-2 - 152 mm Howitzer M1938 (M-10)
IS-2 - D25-T 122 mm gun
A15 Crusader - Ordnance QF 6 pdr
A22 Churchill - Ordnance QF 75 mm
A27M Cromwell - Ordnance QF 75 mm
Sherman Firefly - Ordnance QF 17-pounder
Panzer III Ausf. F-J - 5 cm KwK 38
Panzer IV Ausf. G-J - 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 main gun
Panther - 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70
Tiger - 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56
Look at all these common tanks. Look at the amount of tanks with howitzers.
Where are all the armour with howitzers? They're in the list of self-propelled guns- very different from tanks.
>T-34, started with a short barreled gun
Which happens to be a high-velocity tank gun, meant to destroy other armoured targets.
this faggot knows whats up
sure tanks could be used as a anti tank option (wich they often where) but their main purpose was to push through and encircle/ fuck over unarmored targets/encampments
the best way to deal with tanks is to let them drive into the firing line of these
Nah its like every 5 rounds, the mg42 just had a disgusting fire rate (1100-1200rpm) so it would seem that it's every round.
As far as green tracers, I always see german tracers being green.
Tracers are used to see where you are actually shooting your mg, you won't always have time to line up your sights on some dirty kraut with a panzerfaust.
Also they are used to zero your sights if you feel they are unzeroed.
tanks are a offensive weapon
why use offense against offense that will result in major casualties on both sides when you can deploy defence that fucks over the offense with minimal casualties on your side
The existence of the HEAT shell, and the fact that it was used in takes defeats your argument..
>what's the stug
>what's the Wolverine
>what's the use of the american 76 over the 105
>what's the use of the German 75 Pak over their 120 used on the maus
Damn it's like they were used to fight other tanks or something?
>leaving out the variants which doesnt fit your agenda
The Panzer IV G, H, and J were the most produced variants of the Panzer IV, idiot. All Panzer III variants had high-velocity AT guns.
There's a fucking reason they chose to give the Pz IV High-velocity AT guns and left the howitzers to the Stugs.
>so they entered a useless caliber race
But it wasn't useless, the use was to penetrate other enemy tanks you retard.
>its useless, otherwise the PzIVs and T-34s wouldnt be the most successfull designs with their guns
With their AT and high velocity AA guns that made most of their production runs, you mean?
>the thing you are talking about are tank destroyers, upgrading your equipment is natural
No retard, the thing I am talking about is that in WW2 tank design one of the foremost considerations was to counter enemy tanks. Of course tanks aren't PURELY designed to tank on other tanks in this era, but the basic fact of that matter that high velocity AA and AT guns wouldn't have been mounted in the vast majority of the tanks in the war if there hadn't been other well armored tanks to shoot at.
The number of machine guns mounted on tanks, size of crew, and existence of turrets denotes an ability to effectively fight against infantry, but the guns mounted denote an ability to fight other tanks. Tanks were meant to be able to do several things, to say they were NOT made to fight other tanks is outright wrong.
>eventhough Pz.II-s were against russians, yet they faired well
Only because Russian coms were incredibly poor and Germany had the full momentum of their strongest offensive combined with incredibly effective infantry AT.
Many people may not know this and like to chalk up the French as surrender monkeys but throughout the battle of France, when they weren't actually running away, they stood their fucking ground pretty damn well. As you mentioned in your own post, poor tactics and poor generals was what fucked the French over.
Additionally, German armor losses during Fall Gelb were appalling. You saw Pz.1's and 2's going up against Char B's and getting absolutely wrecked.
>"The design of French tanks were not inadequate to their German counterparts; in fact, many French tank designs out-powered various early German tanks used during the first stages of the war. One single Char B1 was able to destroy thirteen German tanks within a few minutes in Stonne on 16 May 1940, all of them Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. The 37mm and 20mm guns the Germans used were ineffective at penetrating the thick armour of the B1, which was able to return safely despite being hit a large number of times."
>im not moving any goalposts
>what im trying to say is, it didnt really matter what kinda vehicles you have as long as you DO have enough of them
>Well clearly it did since, ideally, your tanks wouldn't be getting knocked out and would be knocking out other tanks.
>your tanks are not some modern age knights to charge at eachother
See the discrepancy there, mong? You make a retarded blanket statement, that being that you just need more tanks, regardless of their standard. I call you out on being a retard. You go back to a completely different point in your original post
>i find armored warfare of ww2 highly romanticized, kinda like new medieval knights
That had nothing to do with it. Moved goalposts, you're a mong.
> you are just buttmad i found a loophole in your ebin TONK VS TONK EPIC childish fantasy
I've never had such a fantasy you projecting mental deficient.
The reality is that tanks did fight each other in WW2, and the primary armaments of the most highly produced tanks were made with this consideration in mind. Am I saying tanks were solely on the field to kill other tanks? That they fought in epic duels by charging in? Nope. Never once implied that. Tanks were made to cover multiple roles though, and fighting other tanks was definitely one of them.
I might be inclined to disagree with that actually. AT guns can be towed with relative ease.
Tanks weren't made for cross-country offensives/defenses. AT guns obviously aren't ideal or even really operable in an offense, but they're probably easier and more reliable to get to another spot than tanks were.
it was, a kwk42 could deal with any and all targets
the high explosive ammo made them deadly, not some MG with 5 rounds firing almost blind
>not purely designed
>but tanks were made to fight tanks!
>made to fight tanks
stay mad kids, gargle up some more popular history, sure it will make you smarter
You can move a AT piece faster then the "Frontline moves"
I get the feeling you are talking out of your ass and you dont understand ww2 era combat all that well
Tanks are a offensive weapon, yes they can deal with other tanks but thats usually not their main purpose
>a kwk42 could deal with any and all targets
Yeah that's right, it could.
You know what guns couldn't deal with any and all targets?
Sherman's, Panzer IV's, and T-34's initial guns.
You know why they were upgraded? To deal with tanks.
>not some MG with 5 rounds firing almost blind
Thousands* of rounds, firing with either periscopes or on the commander's directions. High explosive ammo made them deadly against infantry too though, yeah.
Tanks were made to fight tanks. Not solely, but as a primary part of their design.
>stay mad kids, gargle up some more popular history, sure it will make you smarter
Yeah man, I'm so mad right now. I have so much to be mad about with your totally-not-butthurt responses. The funny part is I don't even disagree with your sentiment, tank combat has been romanticized, but what you've said is still wrong.
You are a retard.
Also Finnish SS troops got a lot of recognition for their military success.
"The battalion was praised by many Waffen-SS commanders, even Heinrich Himmler, for its combat performance. Himmler said "Where a Finnish SS-man stood, the enemy was always defeated." Neither the unit nor any of its members were ever accused of any war crimes."
Is the Tiger I the best tank of WW2?
>Fast for its weight (45.4 km/h maximum at 54 tonnes)
>Great armour at its time (100 mm front, 60-80mm sides)
>Powerful gun (88 mm KwK 36)
>Spacious crew compartment compared to most other tanks
>Feared by many (Despite being rare on the Western Front, the US and UK constantly feared the Tiger)
Or you could start citing design documents, requirement specifications, etc. instead of fantasising backwards from equipment.
I think Achtung Panzer! has a decent account of the requirements decisions in panzer acquisition.
The US is wonderful at ensuring such documentation was kept, if not in great order.
No. Not by a long shot. I get the feeling you're false-flagging too since that's the most generic wehraboo style of glorification on the internet.
And I think it's sexy as fuck.
>practically slow regardless of theoretical top speeds
>while probably a decent stop-gap for their time and purpose, interleaved road wheels clearly aren't practically ideal
>componentry issues no doubt due to its weight, like the Panther
>gun performance not preferable to the Panthers
>tfw the workers unite and make better improvised tanks than the capitalist pigs
id go as far its fame and the propaganda around it contributed to the german defeat significantly
instead of further mass production of otherwise useful designs it shifted valuable resources to superweapons