>3 man crew >commander/gunner/radio operator all in one

>Can build 7+ for every tank your opponents produce
>Meme tank

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>3368177
The Sherman was easier to make and had higher quality control

>>3368069
>muh k/d ratio
More T34 were killed because there were more of them to kill.
AT guns and mines claimed the majority of tank kills on either side.

>>3368210
Mines actually didn't score that many kills.
Here is an interesting video on the subject.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ENc2ZDgkv7Q

>>3368265
linking youtube video should be a bannable offense desu

>>3368273
You're right I'm lazy.
Would it help if I told you that all his info comes from primary sources with citations?

With the American doctrine the Sherman wasn't suppose to fight other tanks anyway.

>>3368069
Soviet junk. The T-34 is an overrated piece of shit tank that the Russians made. Its the worst tank in the world. You see German tanks were probably better the problem was that they didn't produce enough. A Sherman could easily take out this Russkie piece of shit vehicle.

>meme tank
>germans decided to use it if they captured it
ummm....

>>3368589
m8 the nazis looted more equipment than a nigger after hurricane irma, if the engine still worked they used it

>>3368589
>implying they used it in combat

They would have no or very little ammo for it

They probably just used it to haul artillery and other shit until something broke and they had no replacement parts

>>3368559
ban yourself faggot

File: 220px-Montgomery_receives_Order_of_Victory_HD-SN-99-02756_cropped.jpg (19KB, 220x193px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x193px

>>3368069
When your team has four times as many players as the enemy team, it is difficult to get a good K/D.

>>3368592
>>3368604
The German army, always short of equipment, was always more than happy to employ as much captured materiel as possible and T-34s were not an exception. Fighting on the Eastern Front saw large numbers of T-34s captured, though few were T-34-85s. These were designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747(r). From late 1941, captured T-34s were transported to a German workshop for repairs and modification to German requirements. In 1943 a local tank factory in Kharkiv was used for this purpose. These were sometimes modified to German standards by the installation of a German commander’s cupola and radio equipment
The first captured T-34s entered German service during the summer of 1941. In order to prevent recognition mistakes, large-dimension crosses or even swastikas were painted on the tanks, including on top of the turret, in order to prevent strikes from Axis aircraft. Modified T-34s were also used as artillery tractors, recovery vehicles, and ammunition carriers. Badly damaged tanks were either dug in as pillboxes or were used for testing and training purposes.

>>3368575
>You see German tanks were probably better
The guns were, it took them fighting the T-34 to figure out sloped armour was a better option, and then they made the mechanical systems so fucking stupidly complex it took a day to fix what should have taken 2 hours

>>3368653
Well despite their flaws, the Germans probably had better tanks. Sorry. The T-34 and everything the Soviet/Russians produced was a piece of shit. The T-34 is the worst fucking tank ever. It was poorly made, they made over 80,000 of these pieces of shit, they only had a 76mm gun later upgraded to a shitty 85mm still not as good as the Sherman or the British or the German tanks. Everything that Russia produces is a fucking hunk of shit.

>>3368210
>More T34 were killed because there were more of them to kill.

That isn't how combat power works.

If you outnumber the enemy, you take less casualties, not more.

>>3368718
If you kill your enemy, they win.

>>3368718
That is how Soviet tactics worked. Throw men and armour at them until you come out ontop.

>>3368735
And if the Germans had outnumbered them, they'd have taken more casualties.

Especially after they lost and the Germans began exterminating them.

Wow what a great thread...not

>>3368751
I'm just saying that the T-34 was and still is an overrated piece of shit. Its soviet shit so its junk and it sucks.

I think the French tanks were even worse than the T-34. Two man crews which led to poor performance with even poorer guns and armor thinner than wet cardboard. True, they weren't exactly going up against Panzer VI's, but they still performed poorly against Germany's Panzer III's and 38t's.

>>3368759
Is it wrong that I like the Char B2?

>>3368759
They fukken rekt Panzer IIIs and 38t's nearly every time they got into a tank vs tank battle.

>>3368759
What French tanks? Any historian will go on record saying that France had both more and higher quality tanks than Germany at the time of the invasion of France, they didn't mass them properly, they were only used as infantry support, thats why they weren't successful. Some French tanks such as the Char B1 had very thick armor and completely repelled German anti-tank rounds (see Pierre Bilotte).
The T34 was unreliable (had an even higher failure rate than the Panther, the worst of the German tanks), had poor fire control and crew compartment, had one the worst ammunition configurations of any tank (more likely to detonate than Shermans), and its sloped armor is overrated (early production had quality problems and the armor itself was only effective because it repelled the more common German 37mm anti-tank guns). The t34 was easily mass produced and that was it.

>>3368717
it was stop gap to produce,and later model were still able to compete against German tanks
i guess you're so engrained in this everything Russia made is shit meme
>>3368735
you've never heard of deep battle right

>>3368765
no see
>>3368770
>>3368772

>>3368772
>they were only used as infantry support,
This is a retarded meme. The problem with the way the French used tanks was they weren't properly used together with infantry, not the other way around.

>>3368782
By "infantry support" i mean a handful of tanks were given to each battalion to be used when needed, instead of in large masses formations. The French only had a few tank (i believe they were called cavalry) divisions and the rest of the tanks were dispersed piece-meal among infantry units.

>>3368774
Yes everything that Russia has made with the exception of the AK-47 is a fucking piece of shit. Thin armor, shitty design, fucking retarded crew, horrible accuracy, and a fucking tank gun that can't penetrate worth shit. The Iraqis had the 4th largest army and they had soviet shit lol, they got fucking destroyed by our superior weapons. Fucking Soviet shit, its been shit since the T-34 and since then they haven't done a good job at anything. Their T-14 also looks like fucking shit.

>>3368782
Agreed

>>3368788
The only thing the Russians really had running for them was sheer numbers, but even then they still have difficulties fighting their battles. Tis' better to have a hundred men with guns that work, then 1,000 with broken guns.

>>3368788
>got btfo by soviet equipments a couple of time
>t-the soviets never produce anything worthwhile
my mistake in thinking that you'll produce a worthwhile argument

>>3368802
Look it up faggot. Look up how many Iraqis in their shitty BMPs, T-72 lols, and their shitty MiG-21s got assblasted by our superior western equipment. They can't produce worth shit. They have the worst tanks ever. The Japs had better tanks than the soviets and the Russians had and the Japs tanks in WWII sucked but they weren't shitty as fuck like the Russikie tanks had.

File: 31terr.png (90KB, 292x696px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 292x696px

>>3368817
that's the fault of shitty arab crewman,who are notoriously shit with any thing given (look up footage where they fucking get rekt in abrams due to mismanagement)

>>3368787

>The French only had a few tank (i believe they were called cavalry) divisions and
French had 3 armored divisions + 3 more in reserves, 3 light mechanized divisions, and 5 cavalry divisions which were a mix of armor and cavalry.

>the rest of the tanks were dispersed piece-meal among infantry units.
This did not happen. Some tanks were used as independent battalions because France didn't have enough supporting elements to form armored divisions, but tanks were not given out to infantry formations piecemeal. How do you people come up with something like that anyway.

>>3368849
Well the Arabs suck at war but they still used shitty russky tanks that were fucking garbage and were designed poorly as well. Tell me Putinbot, how much does the Kremlin pay you to spread propaganda about your shitty Soviet/Russian army? How much? Take your vatnik shit somewhere else. Lol I bet the T-14 is a big piece of shit. And nice citing the North Vietnamese lol. Their kill ratio is a fucking joke.

>>3368851
And it's worth noting that when the French used tanks as independent battalions, they were used in groups of 2 battalions, i.e. they massed as many tanks as a typical armored division of WW2. What they were missing was not tanks, but mobile infantry support.

>>3368861
The T-34 was a terrible tank to start with in WW2, and got even worse in the Arab-Israeli War as technology progressed, and got worse yet again in the Vietnam War as technology bettered once more. I'll be surprised if the tin cans aren't used in WW3.

>>3368200
the sherman was better that is true.

The M4 Sherman was probably the best all around tank of the war.

>>3368907
I'm going to be cheeky and say the Panzer IV was better

>>3368559
>Would it help if I told you that all his info comes from primary sources with citations?
cheeki breeki

>>3368782
>>3368787
>>3368851
>>3368865
In what world is a battalion (or 2) not a handful of tanks. 2 battalions is 20 tanks tops, per divisions that actually had them. A German tank division at the time of the battle of france would have had anywhere from 90-150+ tanks. The French didn't use mechanized infantry in conjunction with their tanks correctly but thats not the issue that they had. The Germans always had more tanks at the point of attack, and as you mentioned, better support, however, to say the French improperly supported their tanks is completely false. Its also worth noting that some of the French tank divisions weren't ready for combat/were still being pieced together.

>>3368865
you're confusing a brigade with a battalion
2 battalions does not equal a division

>>3368929
Muh field repairs.

File: IMG_4273.jpg (86KB, 794x542px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 794x542px

>>3368986
No better place to do it than under enemy MG fire

>>3368564
Wrong.

>>3368265
1. This guy is godawful and never to use him as a source.
2. Using a secondary source and trusting iffy numbers like these

And finally even using his sketchy ass numbers he shows that per use a laid down mine had a 15% chance of destroying a tank, which is a buttfuck insane rate and cannot be right.

And even then he lists it as a closecombat weapon for whatever reason.

>mother fucking torsion bar suspension
>simple transmission (made to only drive to berlin once)
>all parts extremely simplified, tracks pins not even held in and just hammered back in as the track rotates
>can be repaired by an idiot with a metal bar
>slopped armor
>fucking V-2 DIESEL engine

Sometimes engineering isn't about what has the highest numbers, but what is the most practical. Most of the allied tanks, and the Nazi tanks were overly complicated and unreliable.

For starters, the sherman had an airplane engine and ran on high octane airplane fuel. It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke. It's profile was way too large. Granted, it did have the best crew safety features and highest crew survival rates, such as each crew having their own above-head spring loaded hatch, and the crews were the best trained.

However, once the upgraded 76 mm and better turret came out, the t-34 was good enough. It could face most of the Nazi tanks at the time. Once the 85 mm version came out, it could answer to all but the Tiger 2 and elefant.

This isn't even looking at the real winners of the war, the KV tank and the IS tank.

>>3368717
"only had a 76mm gun"
So what does that make the rest of the tanks in 1940, when every other tank had a 37mm or at most 47mm gun, with a few 75mm howitzer tanks sprinkled around?

>>3369119
Shermans: mediocre performance but good survivability
Tigers: excellent performance but broke down more often than your used car from the sixties
T-34: terrible performance, terrible survivability, but a fucking million of them

>>3368200

>made in USA
>vastly superior to made in USSR

no fucking shit, still not proof of a meme tank, or an argument

>>3369140
If you stop at 1945, there were about equal numbers of T-34s and Shermans made. About 50k Sherman variants and about 60k T-34 variants.

>>3368604
>They would have no or very little ammo for it

nigga you can just make shells for anything in a factory they aren't that complex

>>3368765

would honestly be wrong if you didn't.

>>3369162
This. People are really missing the point. Russia was never going to produce a top-quality tank during the war. They had no resources and Stalin's purges wiped out all the trained men. The engineers knew they had to make something easy to make and easy to use, but would still be effective. There are tons of large engineering feats seen in the T-34, even if it wasn't the "best" tank.

The real joke are British tanks.

>>3369175
>The real joke are British tanks

True

How could they escape ridicule for so long

File: 1480310992058.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>3368817
>The Japs had better tanks than the soviets

File: 1465480268375.gif (3MB, 286x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 286x258px

>>3369175
>British tanks

>>3369088
What's wrong with him? The sources in his description look pretty solid

>>3368851
Not him, but I came up with that idea from reading books by German and French tank commanders of WWII.

File: 1388837388539.gif (825KB, 350x246px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 350x246px

>>3369175
>British tanks

File: 1433542390894.jpg (1MB, 2205x1429px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2205x1429px

>>3369119
> mother fucking torsion bar suspension

The T34 used internal coil spring suspension, (Christie type) which took up a lot of room inside the hull.

> simple transmission (made to only drive to berlin once)

If by “simple” you mean a piece of shit, then you’re correct.

> all parts extremely simplified

See above

> can be repaired by an idiot with a metal bar

The Soviets didn’t bother with field repairs, as they had neither the parts nor the skilled crewmen to do the job, they just pulled the engine or trans and replaced it.

> slopped armor

The Sherman also had “slopped” armor on the front.

> fucking V-2 DIESEL engine

That was a piece of shit and broke down after a 100-some miles.

> For starters, the sherman had an airplane engine and ran on high octane airplane fuel.

That was powerful and utterly reliable, like all American engines.

> It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke.

Nonsense, bogie wheels are simple and easily repaired or simply swapped out for an entire new one.

> It's profile was way too large.

This is a minor issue and it was on par with other tanks in the war.

> However, once the upgraded 76 mm and better turret came out, the t-34 was good enough.

The Soviet 76mm gun was equivalent with the U.S. 75mm and their 85mm was similar to the U.S. 76mm/3” gun.

File: 1430301668983.jpg (235KB, 1024x1019px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x1019px

>>3369175
>The real joke are British tanks.

Indeed, they were on par with the Italians and if it wasn't for the U.S. providing half the tanks the Brits used in WWII, they'd have been fucked.

>>3368069


Another
>muh sherman
thread.

Please go live out your inferiority complex somewhere else, Americunts.

>>3368069
You forgot to mention the crew consists of an Alcoholic; a sex crazed pervert; and a guy who claims tanks talk to him and eats nothing.

T-34 had a four man crew and the T-34-85 had a five man crew.

>>3369175
British tanks in WW2, with exception to early war, pre war and 1944 onwards were designed to br cheap and effective. For the most part they were, the Cromwell and Churchill both filled their respective roles with the adequate 6pdr gun and short 75mm anti infantry gun. The 6pdr itself was so effective the US used it as the M1 anti tank gun. Hell, the centurion with the proven 17pdr was in production months before the war ended, and the centurion didn't go out of service until the 1960s because it was a forward thinking and highly modifiable design.

>>3369598
>Cromwell
wow it only took them 3-4 years longer than anybody else to get a sort of decent 75mm medium tank (sort of faster than the Sherman and shorter but mostly worse otherwise), after everybody else already had one.
good going Brits
I also like the riveted armor, gives it a nice Italian/Japanese look to it

>>3368069
>3 man crew
>haha, lets take all 20K tanks SU has and count them as losses
>even when a lot of them were in the Western part of SU
>even when half of them arent even operational
>even when most of the Soviet divisions didnt had fuel
>1:3 KD
>thinking tanks are responsible for most kills of enemy tanks
>not realizing that SU lost more tanks simply because it was attacking, not defending throught the most of the war

>>3368968
>2 battalions is 20 tanks tops
20 tanks is 4 tank platoons, or slightly larger than a tank company.
A battalion would have 3 companies plus a few tanks attached directly to the battalion command.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/940GXPG.pdf

What a shit thread.
People actually think the Sherman was better than the T-34.

>bad optics
False.
I'd say M4 was a better tank overall, but it's not like T-34 was far behind.

>>3370143
Can you elaborate on what made it better than the M4, then?

>>3370136
Your PDF isn't loading for me, can you give me the name of the pdf?

>>3368788
Even Hugo Schmeisser had a hand in the development of the AK47 but the Russians won't say. It was only a few years ago that Kalashnikov himself would even admit that captured German designers "helped". And I'm not even talking about the general visual similarities between the AK and the STG

>>3369647
The Cromwell's design philosophy was literally speed and firepower above all else, including cost, hence the riveting . The Cromwell was unbelievably cheap and produced decent results for what it was, a fast cavalry tank with decent firepower.

>>3369119
>This isn't even looking at the real winners of the war, the KV tank and the IS tank.
I think people massively overrate tanks in general, there were barely any of the fucking things compared to infantry.

>>3370277
It loads for me.

Niehorster, L.W.G., German World War II Organizational Series, Vol 2/1, Mechanized
Army Divisions (10 May 1940), Germany, 1990

>>3370460
Cheers, no clue why but the entire usacac website doesn't load for me, I'll try and use proxies to see if that changes anything.

>>3368907
it's amazing for its BR

File: good tonk.png (15KB, 669x351px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 669x351px

>>3368069

>>3370272
not him but
>in service 2 years earlier
>design reaching maturity when Sherman was only just coming off production lines
>much lower silhouette, smaller target
>mechanically simpler, Sherman used an aircraft engine
>better all round protection, especially from the sides
>superior suspension
>lower ground pressure
>much more significantly upgunned so it could compete with newer German tank models, 85mm>76mm

ultimately though comparison is ver difficult since the T-34 fought in Russia and eastern Europe while the Sherman fought in north Africa, Italy and France, theaters with vastly different conditions

File: 8862551hzc.jpg (389KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1800x1200px

>>3369598
> British tanks in WW2, with exception to early war, pre war and 1944 onwards were designed to br cheap and effective. For the most part they were,

British tanks throughout WWII had a terrible track record for unreliability as well as being under-gunned and crippled by a small turret ring preventing up-arming and this was further acerbated by the Brit’s stubborn insistence on an obsolete tactical philosophy of separate infantry and cruiser tanks.

> the Cromwell and Churchill both filled their respective roles with the adequate 6pdr gun and short 75mm anti infantry gun.

The development of the Cromwell was so slow that it’s use in WWII was limited to reconnaissance units and the Churchill was so unreliable, that it was almost canceled and even once all the bugs had been worked out, it was still glacially slow (due to the above tactical philosophy).

> The 6pdr itself was so effective the US used it as the M1 anti tank gun.

The 6pdr / 57mm gun was arguably the best towed anti-tank gun of the war, providing good armor penetration in a reasonably light and small package but towed anti-tanks in general were obsolete and the 6pdr’s use in British tanks was (again) crippled by the Brit’s insistence on only supplying it with armor piercing ammo, requiring the use of howitzer equipped support tanks.

> Hell, the centurion with the proven 17pdr was in production months before the war ended,

While it was a good tank, the Centurion never fired a shot in anger during WWII, only arriving after the war was over.

>>3368564
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

>>3368873
>terrible tank to start with
>pretty much unkillable except for pak 40 and 42 during the early days
>goes in tune with soviet doctrine and situation the soviets are in

its certainly dumb to put it for the no.1 tank in that greatest tank show but it did its job,anything that can kill a tiger at 400 metres and run over a defense line was fine enough

>>3369119

> It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke.

The Sherman had the easiest transmission system to fix out of all the WW2 tanks.

All you had to do was untension the track, jack the tank up, unbolt the bogies from the side, and bolt new ones back on, and re-tension the track. The ability of the Sherman to change out suspensions extremely fast was one of it's bigger advantages.

VVSS/HVSS bogie units were more mechanically complex than torsion bars, but they don't have to be repaired in the field. The battalion motor pool simply stocked spare bogie units as spare parts.

Also T-34 doesn't have Torsion Bars, it has Christie. KV and IS are the ones with torsion bars. Christie suspension required the hull to be opened up to replace a unit. So does Torsion bars, which also requires you to fish out all the broken torsion bar chunks.

The downside to bogie suspension is limited travel and vulnerability to battle damage, since the suspensions were not under armor. The benefits are ease of repair and taking up zero hull volume.

>>3370801

> towed anti-tanks in general were obsolete

Obsolete in American and British service, since they expected to be on the attack most of the time, where towed guns would be too unmaneuverable.

Towed guns were still terrific and cost-effective on the defense, but the Western Allies weren't doing much of that.

File: rso-pak-11.jpg (99KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x600px

>>3371146
>Towed guns were still terrific and cost-effective on the defense

Towed anti-tank guns had zero mobility and virtually no protection, allowing them to be outflanked and/or overrun, which is why the Germans were desperately sticking anti-tank gun on anything with an engine.

File: HVSS-assembly-7067331-front-and-side-views.png (4MB, 2200x1378px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2200x1378px

>>3371128
>VVSS/HVSS bogie units were more mechanically complex than torsion bars, but they don't have to be repaired in the field.

The horizontal volute spring suspension units were even easier to repair in the field, as the individual road wheels could be swapped out without removing the entire bogie assembly.

File: My+sides+_a02eb1f1865eb22420fd4aa32b76650e.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>3369282
Ahahahha motherfuckers even cross-sectioned the gunner.

>>3369303

In combat British tanks were useless but the 'funnies' proved extremely useful in assisting infantry. Clearing obstacles etc.

>>3369137
It's a shitty fucking Russian piece of shit tank. Their 76mm lolgun was fucking junk. They couldn't even penetrate our Shermans and Pershings during the Korean War. lol it sucked.
>>3369183
Compared to the Soviets yeah they did. Jap tanks were bad against our Shermans but they weren't as bad as Ivans and their shitty hunk of shit they call a "tank" for like a deathtrap. You pro-Russian faggots need do more research on your precious soviet junk of a tank known as the T-34 lol.

>>3368817
>Look up how many Iraqis in their shitty Bradleys, Abrams lols, and their shitty F-22s got assblasted by our superior ISIS ahem soviet equipment.

>>3372276
The Korean failure was due to the ammunition, not the gun.

As a russian, i gotta say it's extremely amusing to see how westfags always try to downplay our powah while portraying Motherland as a huge threat in their propaganda at the same time.

File: korea.jpg (59KB, 919x540px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 919x540px

>be NK T-34-85
>shoot down F-80C jet with your 85mm cannon
>how can capitalist boys even compete

>>3372406
>ISIS
>soviet equipment
you can't fool me, I saw those mother fuckers with M16s.

File: 18690_600.png (126KB, 459x600px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 459x600px

>>3369282
>That was powerful and utterly reliable, like all American engines.
ok

>>3372430

Locusts are also a threat, though only when they zerg rush a farm field...

File: 1504971122090.jpg (156KB, 991x702px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 991x702px

>>3372430
They fear the Soviet warrior.

>>3372514
>4 miles per gallon
>Of lubricant
Holy fucking shit.

>>3372553
No kidding, considering the RD-1820 was a conversion of a 9 cylinder radial engine to run on diesel..

>>3372784
Also, to show the difference between Diesel and Gasoline performance at the time. The RD-1820 had 450 HP on a displacement of 30 liters, while the GAA had 500 HP on a displacement of 18 liters.

The famed V-2 had a displacement of 39 liters to produce 500 horsepower.

>>3371192
>Towed anti-tank guns had zero mobility and virtually no protection, allowing them to be outflanked and/or overrun, which is why the Germans were desperately sticking anti-tank gun on anything with an engine.
Towed guns are lethal to armor because they are set up and hidden in advance of armor's approach. SPGs are not capable of the same level of concealment.
Outflanking AT guns is something that happens only due to infantry failure or in your fantasy. AT guns don't stay in one place unless the location is fortified. You are supposed to get the first strike then move elsewhere to conceal.
Germans used many times more towed AT guns than SPGs.

>>3371146
>Obsolete in American and British service, since they expected to be on the attack most of the time,
Towed direct fire guns were used for the entirety of the war and saw great use. Contrary to your fantasy, attacking doesn't mean that you have to fire on the move.

File: 128mm Pak 44.jpg (104KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1600x960px

>>3372803
> Towed guns are lethal to armor because they are set up and hidden in advance of armor's approach.

That ought to read; “in advance of the armor’s EXPECTED approach”.

> SPGs are not capable of the same level of concealment.

The ability to maneuver on the battlefield is far more important then concealment (that’s lost the moment the gun fires).

> Outflanking AT guns is something that happens only due to infantry failure or in your fantasy.

Do you think the enemy just keeps coming straight ahead at you like a vidya game?

> AT guns don't stay in one place unless the location is fortified.

Towed AT guns have no choice but to stay in one place, until their tow vehicle can get to them (while under fire).

> You are supposed to get the first strike then move elsewhere to conceal.

Indeed, which is why SELF PROPELLED anti-tank guns were preferred by everyone.

> Germans used many times more towed AT guns than SPGs.

Not by choice.

>>3373056
>Not by choice.
They would've used gundams if they had the choice. That doesn't mean anything that wasn't a gundam was obsolete. The same applies to towed guns. Tens of thousands of towed guns were used to great effect. Listing off some theoretical disadvantages of towed guns over SPGs (which are mostly based on an uninformed, fantasy version of military history) doesn't obliterate what happened in actual history.

>>3372276
So again, what does that make other tanks in the same era with 37mm or 47mm guns or 75mm howitzers?

File: engines.png (1MB, 941x645px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 941x645px

>>3372514
> Disqualified after
> 3197 miles
> 2907 miles
> 3837 miles
> 4295 miles
> etc.

What’s your point?

File: pipe-fedora[2].jpg (66KB, 750x751px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x751px

>>3372276
>he rates Japanese tanks

File: 57x441mm_Brit-6pdr-Normdy.jpg (173KB, 900x889px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 900x889px

>>3373075
>Listing off some theoretical disadvantages of towed guns over SPGs

There is nothing theoretical about it, which is why every army attempted to self-propel as many anti-tank guns (and other artillery) as possible.

Self propelled > towed, this isn't debatable.

>>3370379
"firepower above all else"
wow they sure fucked that one up, when its firepower was worse than the average Sherman
Also riveting is less effective than welding, if one wanted to save weight then one welds a tank. The reason why the British used riveting is because they couldn't weld and had to settle for rivets.
And where's your citation for "unbelievably" cheap? I've never heard anything about Cromwell costs vis-a-vis the other medium tanks of the war.

File: disgustingplebian.jpg (13KB, 245x270px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 245x270px

>>3368069
>the sherman
>best tank in the world

>>3373093
There are advantages and disadvantages to both, which you don't understand and therefore appreciate. You don't think it's debatable entirety due to your ignorance of military history, tactics, and strategy.

File: 8862554g4x.jpg (209KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1800x1200px

>>3373108
> There are advantages and disadvantages to both

Their only advantage is smaller size (ignoring the size of the tow vehicle) and lower cost but despite this,
every combatant in WWII tried to self-propel as many anti-tank guns as possible.

The only exception being the U.S., which actually tried to return to towed guns, (for the cost benefits) only to find themselves fucked after Normandy, when they had to scramble and reconvert towed AT battalions back to self-propelled.

And then the West abandoned towed anti-tanks as fast as they could post-war, while the Soviets only kept them on because they were broke-ass commies.

>>3373139
>every combatant in WWII tried to self-propel as many anti-tank guns as possible.
Where is your proof? Going from the fact that they built SPG to the conclusion that they tried to self-propel as many anti-tank guns as possible is a pretty remarkable leap of mental gymnastics.

>>3373139
>And then the West abandoned towed anti-tanks as fast as they could post-war
There was no need for them, as smaller weapons with equal effectiveness were invented.

File: Egyptian_Archer_1956.jpg (188KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x652px

>>3373194
> > every combatant in WWII tried to self-propel as many anti-tank guns as possible.
> Where is your proof?

For Rommel’s sake, read a book untermensch.

>>3373207
> > And then the West abandoned towed anti-tanks as fast as they could post-war
> There was no need for them, as smaller weapons with equal effectiveness were invented.

Nonsense, everybody was still using big ass guns to take out tanks after WWII and well in the 1960s, the West just replaced their SP anti-tank guns with actual tanks, as there was minimal cost and logistics benefit to the SP vehicles compared to tanks and none at all, to keeping towed guns around.

Hand held AT killed the AT gun star

>>3372799
Yeah, it's still like that.
>2013+ Dodge Ram 3500 6.7L Cummins turbodiesel I6: 320 BHP
>2010+ Dodge Ram 3500 5.9L Hemi V8: 385 BHP
Diesel engines have pretty poor performance; they exist for long lifespan and high duty cycle applications, not for their power to weight or power to size ratios.

>>3373243
Another important point, especially during the war era, was that diesel was mostly considered a byproduct, and was more available than high-octane airplane gas that most allied tanks ran on.

>>3373232
Provide some proof. Provide source that states and proves with evidence that every combatant in WWII tried to self-propel as many anti-tank guns as possible. Provide literally anything. I'll give you exactly 1 hour to google something up.

>>3373232
>if a sandnigger country uses outdated equipment that means everyone did it because there was no alternative
Look at the ToE of a typical western army division. Tell me where you find bigass anti-tank guns, you uneducated simpleton.

File: Detroit Diesel-Sherman.jpg (537KB, 1000x781px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1000x781px

>>3373243
> Diesel engines have pretty poor performance; not for their power to weight or power to size ratios.

It’s low rpm torque that matters, not high rpm horsepower (particularly for heavy ass tanks and such) and there, diesels out perform gasoline engines.

The Chevy Colorado for example, is available with a 219 cu in V6 gas engine that makes 300 hp and 300 ft lbs but their (actually an Iveco) 152 cu in L4 turbo diesel makes 200 hp and 400 ft lbs of torque.

That’s more torque then a 1970 Z28 Camaro with a 350 cu in LT-1 V8.

>>3373243
>>3373291
Don't forget

>energy density
>fuel efficiency
>flammability

Diesel best tank fuel.

>>3373312
>flammability being an issue

>hit gas fuel tank
>it lights on fire

>hit diesel fuel tank
>it lights on fire

>>3373321
>light napalm on fire
>it burns
>light beeswax on fire
>it burns

You're right, no difference.

The IS tank was the flat out best tank made in WW2. The gun might not have been perfect, but most of the other aspects of the tank were really well engineered. In terms of how well made it was, the Sherman would be a solid second.

Only tanks with less than a 50% breakdown rate make my list.

>>3368210
>More T34 were killed because there were more of them to kill.
still adds up to more dead T34's any way you try to justify it.
best tank of WWII? i think not.

>>3373348
Yeah, it was such a good tank that it was used for a couple of years and then abandoned immediately with no continuations after the war.

File: Sk251-22.jpg (250KB, 1014x661px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1014x661px

>>3373261
> give me a doctoral thesis on a Tibetan finger painting board!

German SPAT gun and tank destroyers production rates 1940-1945 from “Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two” - Chamberlain & Doyle - 1978

SPATG:
1940 = 173
1941 = 214
1942 = 1222
1943 = 1695
1944 = 457
1945 = 16

TD:
1943 = 70
1944 = 3280
1945 = 1750

STUG:
1940 = 184
1941 = 548
1942 = 789
1943 = 3315
1944 = 5172
1945 = 988

>>3373270
> Look at the ToE of a typical western army division. Tell me where you find bigass anti-tank guns, you uneducated simpleton.

You find them on tanks nowadays, you barely literate mongoloid, just as I pointed out up-thread.

>1:3 KD ratio even at the end of the war against ragtag german tanks operated by 14 year olds with no fuel
That's just wrong though, the most generous kill ratio you can squeeze out for the Germans in the final year is 1:1.

File: ahahahaha.png (20KB, 535x311px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 535x311px

>>3373373
Sure mate, sure

Do tankfags realize how silly they sound when they talk?
>>3368069
>pictured: tank A
>description: tank A
>conclusion: tank Z

>>3371192
>Towed anti-tank guns had zero mobility
>this thing that doesn't move on its own has ZERO on-its-own moving capabilities and was virtually motionless when it wasn't being moved

>>3373373
1945 is skewed because the entire german army was counted as losses when they surrounded

File: Patton.jpg (57KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x500px

>>3373387
>
> Self-propelled anti-tank gun

“Holy shit, we need to get out of here!”
“OK”
*quickly drives off*

> Towed anti-tank gun

“Holy shit, we need to get out of here
“OK”
*go get tow vehicle, drive it back to AT gun, prep AT gun for towing, hook it up and and load ammo on vehicle, drive away… all under fire.*

>>3373255
Also diesel is less flammable (inflammable? imflammable?) than gasolene.

>>3373365
kek

>>3373425
As a third-party observer, all I'm saying is that sometimes you folks take a lot of highfalutin strategic tacticool lingo to convey really simple or even irrelevant ideas.
To a guy who doesn't know that every conversation about tanks is a continuation of some previous faith-based competition, bringing up Shermans, out of nowhere, after opining about T34s sounds fucking wacko.

>>3373440
>I don't understand!
>I don't have any context!

File: oooohh.jpg (27KB, 350x468px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x468px

>>3373425
I can totally see Patton not giving a fuck what some ninny has to say about tank talk and moving right on with the discussion as if he was just another soldier.

>>3373446
Sometimes when you get caught up in a debate for too long you start saying really redundant things with overly complex language.

>>3373365
Come on, everything changed after the war due to new technology. People went to jets and new Tank arounds and armor.

You'd be lying you didn't say the IS line didn't continue after the war.

>>3368717
I really wonder what fuckhead came up with the Tiger II and put the same engine in it as the Tiger I

>>3373479
>When you over engineer everything so much you think your Panther tanks need speedometers

The Sherman had a stupid drive shaft going from the rear to the sprockets in the front. This forced the turret to sit needlessly high.

>>3368069
>Is there a bigger meme tank?
My tank is better than your tank is the meme.

Unit tactical and strategic coordination is king.

Crew training and coordination is queen.

Equipment armament and capability is only used to focus the doctrine of the first and enhance the second.

Mai tank is better than ur tank doesn't matter. If my coordination, organization and training is better than yours my shitty T-55's will stomp your Leo 2's because your men can't effectively cooperate and your commanders can't exploit their equipment.

File: quote-if-one-does-not-fail-at-times-then-one-has-not-challenged-himself-ferdinand-porsche-147569.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>3373479
>I really wonder what fuckhead came up with the Tiger II and put the same engine in it as the Tiger I

>>3373557
I think those things go hand in hand. The respective militaries chose their tanks based on their doctrines.

>>3373386
That is the chart I was trying to quote from memory yes. However, as an aside hard 1945 numbers are a bitch to get a hold of (that is, apples to apples comparisons of tank losses on both sides) due to the collapse of German accounting. The only operation I know of that we can do that for in that era is Spring Awakening, where 355 German losses were found (NOT claimed, I mean 355 German AFV wrecks were individually numbered and photographed by collection teams during that operation) versus 165 Soviet losses. This also brings us to the issue of German bullshit accounting. According to German reports, only 42 AFVs and a single half-track were lost, and another 400 were "in long-term repair."

Source is Tomb of the Panzerwaffe, although almost any semi-recent book about Eastern Front tank engagements will bring up something to this nature as well.

>>3373581
It's really mostly hit and miss, especially in WW2. All sides had dozens of versions of their tanks that kept changing as things were tried and improved upon.

>>3369140
the sherman had the advantage of being made in US factories which weren't being bombed.

it had limitations though because it had to be trasported by ship, and unloaded at ports and docks using cranes, so it couldn't be too heavy.

File: M36-M36B1.jpg (115KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x705px

>>3373510

Most tanks were front drive / rear engine but the Sherman was annoyingly higher due to not using a transfer case on the radial engine to lower the drive shaft and when other engines came on-line later, the hull shape was still retained.

They could have and should have lowered the deck height and sloped the sides on later Shermans, as was done with the M10 and M36 TDs.

File: IMG_4274.jpg (74KB, 800x444px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x444px

>>3373425
Or, just fuck it and run. You're losing the war, might as well book it and hope your Grille 15 gets here soon.

T-34s steamrolled the germans in the early war years, although they were badly supported

It remain a reliable war machine capable of fighting the germans, and arguably forced the germans into focusing on upgunning their arsenal, hindering their capacity to build more tanks

their sheer presence forced hitler into such a nerd rage that he began his obsession with all the wonder tanks like the panthers, tigers etc etc

>>3373655
KV-1 steamrolled the Germans in the early war years

FTFY

File: KV-1.jpg (211KB, 982x720px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 982x720px

>>3373677
*blocks your path*

>>3373677
The T-34 was more effective, being faster and more reliable than the KV

germans didnt have enough AT guns to deal with either anyway, and the evidence shows with the KV series being phased out for the IS

>>3373655
>hindering their capacity to build more tanks
That's was the fat fuck Goering's fault. Even if Pz. IVs were sufficient for the entire war, Goering would have wasted his time trying to make rockets anyways.

>>3373718
it's true though, the things struck alot of fear for the germans

>>3373725
Sure, I'm not saying that T-34s were bad tanks. I'm just saying that they didn't force the Germans to focus on upgunning their arsenal.

>>3373739
well they had to start making for a long barreled variant for pz iv since you only had to stugs as a mobile counter

>>3373706
No, the KV was the real nightmare. The Panzer 3s, along with the few panzer 4s with small guns like the 57, were no match for the KV. The only equipment the Germans had when they went into Russia that could penetrate the KV was the 88 flak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai

>>3373758
Sure, but that's a remodel at most. The real problem was that they didn't have enough Pz IVs to begin with because Goering was getting steel and fuel that could have gone towards the war effort.

>>3373763
A single KV-2 during that battle managed to hold off a large portion of the 6th Pz.Div. The Germans wouldn't have a good counter until the Tiger rolled around.

>>3373887
It was probably a KV-1. I've heard different accounts, but since that battle was mostly 38(t) and Panzer 2s, I've read ridiculous claims that it took out at least 100 enemy tanks. I have no doubt those tanks could do absolutely anything against the KV, hence the attempt to use only the AT guns, and I'm sure any enemy tanks that got near the KV were history.

File: panther 1392352127761.jpg (252KB, 1077x709px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1077x709px

>>3373739
>Sure, I'm not saying that T-34s were bad tanks. I'm just saying that they didn't force the Germans to focus on upgunning their arsenal.

The T-34 (and KV) absolutely did force the Germans to up gun both their tank and anti-tank arsenal, the 50mm L/60 on the Panzer III and 75mm L/43-48 on the Panzer IV were direct responses to the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks and further more, directly lead to the development of the Panther tank.

File: battleship Bismarck.jpg (163KB, 744x1012px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 744x1012px

>>3373794
>they didn't have enough Pz IVs to begin with because Goering

The Germans would have lost sooner if they had fewer aircraft.

They should have shit canned the navy and diverted the resources elsewhere though, as it did fuck all throughout the war (subs aside).

>>3373988
>Panther tank.
I read memories of a 34 guy who rode captured panther. Said he almost got arrested for avoiding battles before NKVD realized Panthers could not move as fast as T-34s when ordered to rush B.

>>3374021
they did scared the crap out of the Royal Marines though

>>3374021
What they needed were 109s, not jets and rockets.

File: Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor.jpg (1MB, 1485x1090px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1485x1090px

>>3374061
>What they needed were 109s, not jets and rockets.

It was too late by the time jets and rockets were being built.

What had been needed was more Focke-Wulf 200 Condor bombers.

>>3373084

The idiot only read "disqualified", and not the fact that these engines ran for 4-5 times the automotive lifetime of a T-34.

>>3374130
FW-200's would be completely neutered by the escort carriers, and 4 engine heavy bombers cost a fucking ton.

>>3371322
that bit always looked weird to me as a kid

Soviet tank crews often lacked radios and proper gun sights. They did far better than the Americans or British would've done in such a scenario.

>>3374375
>not trained to use modern equipment
>don't expect any modern equipment
>do well without modern equipment
I bet that tank crew could shoot on the move without a stabilizer much better than the crew of an M1A1, but guess which tank I'd rather have on my side.

>>3374293

I was suggesting using them against the Soviets, as it was the only long ranger bomber the Germans had.

>>3374464
most of the plants had very large amount of AA
daylight bombing would be suicidal
night time bombing would have its own problem

>>3374021
They had really fucking bad luck, Nazi Germany lost like 1/3 of their surface fleet when they took the Netherlands and couldn''t keep up with radar/sonar

>>3373291
Torque isn't actually relevant. The Abrams makes 1500 horsepower but only 275 ft-lbs at the turbine shaft, which is multiplied by integral 10:1 reducer gear. You could do that in the transmission or the final drive to get the same result, but it's hard to make a transmission that can survive 30,000 RPM input speed and 2,750 ft-lbs output torque at the same time. With gas and diesel engines, there's no reason not to handle all of your gear reduction inside of the transmission.

>>3373706
>Although the Germans now knew where they were being attacked from, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. The German tanks got bogged down when they moved off the road onto the surrounding soft ground making them easy targets. Twenty-two German tanks and two towed artillery pieces were knocked out by Kolobanov's tank before it ran out of ammunition.[1] Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks had been destroyed by the five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

>The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1. After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 156 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the armor.
geeman angineerink

>>3374658
>luck

>>3375354
Obviously if Germany had the incredible good luck of never taking a single hit while always landing critical hits on the enemy, they would have won.

>>3368273
Agreed!
And here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwymzCmqB80

File: Honeywell AGT1500.jpg (180KB, 1024x783px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x783px

>>3374946
> Torque isn't actually relevant.

Which of course explains why busses, tractor-trailer rigs, garbage trucks, bulldozers, etc. don’t bother with high torque diesel engines…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

The Honeywell AGT1500 is a gas turbine engine. It is the main powerplant of the M1 Abrams series of tanks. The engine was originally designed and produced by the Lycoming Turbine Engine Division in the Stratford Army Engine Plant. In 1995, production was moved to the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama after the Stratford Army Engine Plant was shut down.[1]

Engine output peaks at 1,500hp (1,120kW), with 2,750lb-ft (3,754 N-m) of torque at that peak,[2] which occurs at 3000 RPM.[3] This is output after a 10:1 reduction gearset in the engine assembly.[4] Maximum torque of 3950lb-ft (5,355 N-m) is reached at 1000 RPM.[5] The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and Marine Diesel.[2]

>>3376029
You must have missed this part:
>This is output after a 10:1 reduction gearset in the engine assembly.
That 10:1 reducer gear turns 275 ft-lbs and 30,000 RPM into 2,750 ft-lbs and 3,000 RPM. You can make whatever amount of torque you want with gearing.

File: Lawnmower.jpg (406KB, 1600x1072px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1600x1072px

>>3376198
>That 10:1 reducer gear turns 275 ft-lbs into 2,750 ft-lbs

Doesn't work that way, otherwise your car would have a 2hp lawnmower engine with a magic reducer gear.

>>3374021
>>3374061
Germany could have potentially forced Britain into a stalemate surrender if they had achieved air superiority. All that talk about never surrendering would probably go out the window once they're getting bombed daily with no way to retaliate

>>3368788
I don't even know what to say to this

Has the Soviet wanking finally come full circle and we're back to thinking everything about them is incompetent

>>3370287
they look alike, but their internal mechanics are completely different
The AK-47 is hardly an StG 44 clone.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/05/rifle-paternity-test-pinning-down-the-m1-garands-influence-on-the-ak/
The M1 Garand had much more influence

>>3370770
Some Shermans were used by Soviets

>>3373108
The fact that no one uses them anymore is proof of their obsolescence in the face of weapons than can be self propelled or much lighter infantry portable TOW systems and shoulder mounted weapon

>>3377918
The Russian Army still uses them actually, though I do agree they are obsolete

>>3376445
It does actually work that way. My car in first gear makes about 110 horsepower at about 5200 RPM, which is about 110 ft-lbs at the crank. That turns into 347 ft-lbs at the transmission output shaft in first gear, and then into 1,492 ft-lbs at the axle. That's a lot of torque, but it tops out around 30 MPH in that gear, and no one wants to be bouncing off the rev limiter just driving down the street.

You could use gearing to make a 2 HP lawnmower engine output the same amount of torque, but it would be 110 / 2 = 55 times slower at that torque output. Now you're topping out at about 0.5 MPH.

>>3368069
>The Sherman was clearly the best tank in the world even up until 1957
Why is this board so full of braindead Americocentric neo-cons?

>>3377986
/k/ is spilling over

>This thread again

File: 5ed3kz.jpg (76KB, 1000x743px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x743px

>>3377967
Everyone and their moms still use them. Why wouldn't they?

>>3377986
>neo-cons
Nice buzzword fagbroth.

File: Transmission.jpg (599KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1600x1200px

>>3377981
>It does actually work that way.

No, it’s doesn’t.

X% of the power produced by an engine is lost thru the transmission, so you need an effective amount of power to begin with, otherwise you’re not moving anywhere regardless of what gearing you’re using.

File: M109 Korean.jpg (202KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1600x900px

>>3378712

Field artillery isn't an anti-tank gun and even there, everybody who can afford it, mechanizes their artillery (with the exception of towed pieces for light units).

>>3379990
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about and it's painfully obvious.

>>3368718
this is apparently wrong

germans suffered most of their losses when they got reinforcements, a group 30-40 vehicles on an attack, repeatedly until their numbers went down to critically low

then they somehow became more effective or more careful but losses in percentages tend to drop there, so yes, the higher the numbers the more losses you will suffer in armored combat as stupid as it sounds

File: Desert Storm.png (357KB, 2500x1760px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 2500x1760px

>>3380029
>so yes, the higher the numbers the more losses you will suffer in armored combat

>>3379984
Power is just (torque * RPM). If you have no power, obviously you're not moving because you have no RPM. Or, I suppose, you have no torque, in which case you still have no RPM because you can't overcome internal friction.

I'm not really sure what your point is, though. You're trying to say that power is only needed to overcome drivetrain loss and that torque is somehow completely unrelated to power?

>>3380303
>i am american please take this retarded example as my last defense since i dont know what is obseslete equipment

>>3380303
He's right though. Germans reduced the number of armor in their armored divisions between BoF and Barbarossa because the original 2 regiments led to more armor losses without any increase in combat efficiency. Then Germans reduced the sized of their infantry squad to 10 from original 12 without suffering any combat efficiency but incurring fewer losses.

>>3379990
US army hasn't updated its self-propelled howitzers since over 50 years ago. Since the last SPG update, the US army has introduced two types of towed howitzers, the latest in 2005.
SPGs have far less strategic and operational mobility than towed guns.

File: 1505322864816.gif (1MB, 384x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 384x480px

>>3375298
>>3373913
After their experience of the Battle of France, you would think Germans would have accelerated gun development. And it's not like they had to start from scratch too : the Flak 18 already showed the value of a high-velocity gun.

>>3374464
The Soviets had lend-lease P-47's that would have absolutely minced the FW-200's. Nothing the Luftwaffe had could actually escort the FW-200's to the Urals.

>>3380701

That's different.

You are talking about the effect of splitting larger units into smaller units. The net amount of equipment involved is the same, only the organization changed. Ex, changing infantry squad from 10 to 12 might also involved a change at the platoon level from 3 squads of 12 to 4 squads of 10. The platoon might find itself more effective because it has more units to maneuver with.

What the other guy is talking about is that on the entire front, the Soviets might have 3 times as much armor as the Germans. That means Soviet armor is 3 times more prevalent, and the net number of individual tank engagements fought by Soviet armor could be 3 times higher. If a tank had a 10% chance of being destroyed per engagement, an army with 1000 tanks might lose 100 tanks over the course of a campaign, while and army with 100 tanks might just lose 10.

File: 17883731_10155194990943057_8556004889166027786_n.jpg (17KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x370px

>>3380743
>SPGs have far less strategic and operational mobility than towed guns

>>3381147
Well, they were already planning to transition their Pz III's to the 50mm gun before the war.

File: wtfomg.jpg (12KB, 163x196px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 163x196px

>>3368644
under the assumption of equal ability per individual entity the exact opposite is true

>>3381497
You think it's different because you don't know military history. No, what happened was number of tanks per armored division decreased and number of riflemen per infantry squad decreased. Additional platoons or whatever were not added to a division.

>>3368069
>The Sherman was clearly the best tank in the world even up until 1957
the sherman was better than t55?

>>3381519

From a supply chain perspective, suppose you had 1000 fully ready guns, but a shortage of specialty engines/tires/suspension, meaning those 1000 guns cannot be deployed. On the other hand a towed gun can be towed by any vehicle capable of moving the tonnage, those 1000 guns can be deployed immediately. The USA experiences meta advantages due to having the most extensive road and automobile transportation network anywhere in the world.

>>3381519
Towed guns are air mobile you retard. Don't ever post on my board again.

>>3378712
That's indirect fire artillery, actual purpose built AT guns are rare among any modern first rate military

>>3383671
They are rare whether they are towed or self-propelled, because AT can be done by manportable weapons. The disappearance of towed AT guns has nothing to do with towed weapons being "obsolete" as that autist claims.

>>3381775
>From a supply chain perspective
then dont outrun your supply chain, towed guns take a lot longer to set up and set down than SPGs do and unless they're being towed by a similarly tracked vehicle have greatly decreased offroad mobility

the only advantage towed guns have is being parachute deploy-able and fitting more in a plane, so they're better way across the ocean but not so much on your doorstep.

>>3382639
>put towed gun in plane
>drop it wherever you want
>decide you need it somewhere else
>have to pack it up and move it
its only an advantage if you're actually doing a parachute operation which most only certain specialist units will ever do

also
>your board

>>3383716
What is helicopter you dumbfucking neanderthal.

>>3383711
literally nobody has claimed that towed weapons are obsolete, the claim being made is that TOWED AT WEAPONS are obsolete

>>3383794
Towed AT weapons are no more, no less obsolete than Gun Motor Carriages/ "tank destroyers." That has nothing to do with the fact that they are towed but everything to do with the fact that it doesn't require a bigass gun to kill tanks.

>>3383836
They are completely obsolete compared to any modern day TD equivalent because of how much more mobile modern armies are and how easily a static position can be flanked or avoided altogether and attacked indirectly

>>3370287
Hugo helped work out the kinks in soviet work flow for stamped parts production for the AKM. The AK-47 Types 1 & 2 were already in production by the time he was brought in (if he was).

File: 1486450713007.jpg (56KB, 720x531px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x531px

>>3368772
>>3368782
>>3368787
>>3368968

where can i read about post battle analysis on the battle for france? seems really interesting for military history.

>>3384524
I recommend Strange Victory, both the essay and the later book of the same name.

>>3368717
>the Germans probably had better tanks

Crews. Their crews were objectively better because there were:
1. enough crew members per vehicle to divide duties into manageable sectors
2. trained crews that knew how to operate machinery and had even rudimentary training before actually getting into a training vehicle
3. radios and other equipment for communication to coordinate with the rest of the brigade and the greater regiment and division in combat

Their tanks were alright, up until they got huge and over-engineered. Then they just became moving pillboxes with big guns sticking out of the front, which is great against the early Shermans, and pretty much shit against anything with a 76mm or a 90mm.

Early German tanks lacked sloped armor and they had underpowered guns compared to what they needed, even against the T34, which required some crew in 1941 to track the vehicle, roll a gun to only 50 yards away, and shoot the turret until they penetrated it. The Germans had never planned to face tank brigades like they faced on the Ostfront, so they just had specialized equipment and artillery that could take out hard targets like bunkers.

The real area where they succeeded were their tank chassis. Despite suspension that was too complex, they were reliable early on and fairly easy to convert into tank destroyers. The StuG III and IV are probably the best examples, and the most successful.

Late war production was mostly just lack of materials, staff, and factories. Having your factories bombed to shit day and night doesn't make for good quality vehicles rolling off the production line.

>>3368849
What is rolling thunder supposed to prove? ALmost all of the US losses were due to anti-aircraft fire.

>>3369391
Hey, when your tank decided to beat out 75% of the existing German tank designs just by having sloped armor and a 75mm gun off the assembly line, you give us a call.

>>3369569
>and a guy who claims tanks talk to him and eats nothing.

Who sees siberian cats murdering fellow soviets, tovarish

Fuck Russia

>>3373685
Enjoy trying to fit even two squatting slavs in there.

Still though, KV1 and 2 are some scary, overgunner motherfuckers, all told.

>>3372406
>Iraqi f-22s

>>3374036
kek. Do you have a source?

File: Pz III-012.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

>>3385175
> Crews. Their crews were objectively better because there were:
> 2. trained crews that knew how to operate machinery and had even rudimentary training before actually getting into a training vehicle

This was the critical advantage the Germans had and maintain throughout most the war; tanks were seen as cutting edge high-tech weapons and panzer troops were considered elite troops, so there was strict recruitment process and extensive training whereas the Allies (particularly the Soviets) saw tank crews as just another element of the armed forces.