WW2 Tanks

>>1727004

And FYI my personal favorite is the Panzer IV.

File: strv_m42-6.jpg (176KB, 850x542px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 850x542px

Muh torsion bar suspension.

But for real, the Panther and T-34 were both bad tanks.

The Panther had awful availability, and the T-34 had awful reliability and awful performance.

>>1727004

Why? Tank design is pretty much demonstrably less important than tank doctrine and tactics in terms of tank performance.

Were Soviet tanks actually good or, as always with the Russians, they need much larger numbers to beat the enemy?

>>1727024

OK tactics and shit too I'm trying not to drink this whole bottle of whiskey tonight so go nits just keep it on tanks.

>>1727011
>no secondary armament
>favorite tank

But why?

>>1727029

As far as I know they were much simpler to use and make.

>>1727029

Soviet tanks as designed were good.

Soviet tanks as built were often not good.

Soviet tanks as used were often terrible.

>>1727032

Purely because the Tiger had serious issues with breaking down due to it's size.

>I'll begin the thread with a healthy debate - German Panther vs Russian T34
One was designed and built as a response to the other, I wonder what that might mean, hmm.

>>1727029
The T-34 had problems with a lot of subtle things that you wouldn't think would matter, but really, really did.

You could only fit one crew member in the turret at a time, which ruined situational awareness.

There was no turret basket, because reasons

The loader didn't get a seat, and if he fell down while the turret was turning, there was a non-zero chance of his legs being crushed.

They skimped on radios a lot during the early war.

The crew quarters were so cramped that typically, if the tank was penetrated, three of the four crew would die.

The cheap single base propellant that they used for the tank shells would violently explode, so the crew would have to run for their lives if the tank was hit, in the hopes of being outside the blast radius.

The transmission and engine were both absolute dogshit by German or American standards, but the Soviet High Command didn't expect most tanks to last long enough to require maintenance.

For whatever reason, the Red Army didn't invest in armored recovery vehicles, so tanks that broke down were typically just abandoned.

Combine all these together and you have loss rates of like 3-1 throughout the entire war.

Why is this thread not in /k/

>>1727058
>/k/
>anything history related
ayyy
that place is even worse than his and thats saying something

>>1727058

Why would you want to be?

>>1727052


I don't mean to imply that anything you said in that post was wrong, but you shouldn't overlook the difference of doctrine either. The Soviets often sent their armor into situations that even the most axebitten commanders from other major powers would think twice about. They used tanks for recon a lot more than others would. They would send in tanks before infantry a hell of a lot more than anyone else would, even for non-exploitation roles.

Not only was it not recovery, they didn't invest heavily in halftracks, so they often wound up using tanks for a lot of more mobile infantry roles that other armies performed, which necessarily drove up their tank losses.

tl;dr, in addition to the mechanical and technical issues, the Soviets often put their tanks in positions to be shot at far more often than others.

T-34 was a decent tank with flaws that ended up having to be worked out in the middle of a war to the death. Was good enough to get the job done.

>>1727038
This sums it up very nicely.