Is the Tiger tank the most overrated tank in history?

>>30601118

Yes, Brad Pitt took one out in a Sherman and look at how shitty his bow gunner was

>>30601144
>Had to shoot rear plate.
>76mm could not penetrate a tiger at point blank ranges.

eh Sherman or Tiger. Its hard to pick

>>30601526

Sherman is a funny way of spelling T-34.

No OP, thats the T-34

No, the T-34 is. The T-34 is also the most underrated tank in history.

>>30601118
T-14.

File: tankcandyv3.png (158KB, 526x386px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 526x386px

>>30601118

Close one between the Tiger and the T-34.

The Tiger has a reputation for being an impenetrable fortress, when in reality the quality of the metal used in its armor was actually mediocre. The Tiger truly excelled in two areas: it's main gun, which, by virtue of its velocity, generally out-ranged those of its opponents, and the tank crews that were able to take advantage of the Tiger's offensive abilities to exact proportionally high casualties on its opponents. The Tiger's downfall was not so much tactical as it was operational. German manufacturing couldn't produce enough, much less furnish existing models with adequate supplies of spare parts, ammunition and fuel.

The T-34, on the other hand, was a solid tank from a technical perspective, and it was easier to sustain T-34s logistically than German tanks were. However, the T-34s design largely failed to account for the human element of tank performance, and the machine was notoriously non-ergonomic. The crews were uncomfortable, making optimal performance--especially during long operations--practically impossible.

>but...but...muh sloped armor

Unfortunately, sloped armor actually contributed to the ergonomics problem. Because a tanks' size is limited by the gauge of the railroads used to transport it, the max width of a tank is limited. Sloping the armor decreases the amount of usable space inside of the tank (both hull and turret). The Germans were not ignorant of sloped armor--they simply chose not to use it because the trade-off was not worth it, in their opinion.

>>30601822

The T-14 has not achieved F-35 status...yet.

>>30602146
This.

File: FB_IMG_1468346165103.jpg (12KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 375x375px

shovel grenade

>>30601526
Dafuq? What media do you see praising the Sherman? It wasnt tbe best but its coverage makes it pretty underrated

>>30602282
What confused me at first was that the T-34 was getting praise for the exact same thing the M4 was getting criticized for.

T-34
>hurr quantity has quality

M4
>hurr 5-1 cuz so shit lololol

And so on. It's fucking weird that the T-34 ends up on the top of all those bullshit top ten lists while the M4 is at the bottom, when in reality they are pretty much the same solution to the same problem.

>>30601118
Leopard 2

>>30602351

T-34 and M4 are both marvel of production engineering, however they tackled the problem in different ways.

The American engineers could afford to throw money at the M4 to fix a problem, the Soviets cut out anything they deemed not likely to pay for itself over the lifespan of the tank. I have a list of T-34 design "features" somewhere, and it's amazing what they did.

>>30602146
Finally, something that's not Wehraboo whining.

>>30602351

The stranger part is that they were produced using largely the same factory equipment due to American aid to the Soviets prior to even lend-lease.

>>30602146
Actually in 1942-1943 the steel used was still of high quality, you may be thinking of the Tiger II that had structurally weaker steel (crystalline imperfections that made the armour more brittle).

I could be wrong though.

The T-34 is the most overrated one. The German anti-tank weaponry sucked in 1941, just like it had sucked during the battle of France. The Germans had equally as many problems dealing with KV-series tanks. It was the soviet army as a whole, not a single tank design that won the war.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.fi/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
This blog compiles the shortcomings of the T-34.

>>30601118
Not really. Even wehraboos are usually aware of Tiger's flaws. Now Sherman, OTOH...

>>30602146
> and the machine was notoriously non-ergonomic. The crews were uncomfortable, making optimal performance--especially during long operations--practically impossible.
Both Soviet and modern Russian military regulation never forget to mention that a soldier's service is about enduring all the possible hardships with stoicism. Horrible crew conditions are not a flaw - they are a design feature.

>>30602466
Funny thing really, considering the fuckloads of Lend-Lease the went over to Russia, an M4 and a T-34 could've been made from the same steel as well.

>>30602351
>>30602466

list of design choices on the T-34.

> turning was done by disconnecting the drive sprocket of one track. This means the T-34 has a set turning speed at an given speed. The driver can't "turn slowly" he has either "turn" or "not turn".

- The tracks do not have locking screws. When a track pin becomes too loose, it is slammed back into position by a piece of metal welded to the side of the hull

- The tank is equipped with a canister of compressed air at the front of the hull. If the weather is too cold for the electric starter, the pneumatic canister can be used to start the engine.

- The roadwheels and tracks are all steel. Not as smooth of a ride, but the Soviets were very short of rubber.

>>30602748
meant reply for
>>30602599

>>30602758
sounds like the t-34 is a pretty shitty tonk

>>30602711
>http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.fi/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
Just read "Once Again About the T-34" instead of that.

>>30602817
Still better than most things germans were fielding

>>30602711
>This blog compiles the shortcomings of the T-34.
Well let's see.

>The T-34 was supposed to be the first tank that employed sloped armor.
The revolution in T-34's design was not in the sloped armor (except maybe combining sloped armor with general non-shittiness of design), but in many other things - like rear-engine+RWD scheme, which all the sane white people use to this day. Sherman with it's drive shaft running along the whole length says "hi".

>The presence of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment made any penetration of the tank likely to lead to the complete loss of the vehicle.
Try saying that diesel has advantage in fire-hazard safety when compared to gasoline - and everyone will tell you that it's the ammo cook-off that is the issue, and fuel fires are not a real problem.

>One was the lack of turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns) for the loader.
10 tons of bullshit. Everyone in turret sat on seats, which were parts of the turret and turned with it. Very common American misconception - Sherman had a basket, because it needed one, as something must separate the drive shaft and the legs of the crewmen. In T-34, the floor could actually be its bottom.

>he doesn’t trip on the spent casings.
Even better. T-34 is REALLY CRUMPLED. It's next to impossible to just stand up straigh in the turret, much less so walk around in it to trip over something. Loader was seated 100% of the time. Casings were thrown out the top hatch, as there was literally no space to store them in turret, plus they smoked like hell.

> In the course of the war radio was used more widely but even in 1944 many tanks lacked a radio set.
True, as it was the case for EVERY army that was not US one. Even the SS could not equip each and every of their tanks with a radio.

File: t34weld.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>>30602146

>sustain t-34's logistically
>quality control so bad that parts from different factories wouldn't work on other tanks

>>30603007
As a welder, this triggers me.

File: 1436778872428.jpg (61KB, 1008x562px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1008x562px

>>30603040

File: wtf.png (249KB, 601x356px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 601x356px

>>30603007


>Those fucking welds

Jesus, I mean yeah sometimes mine don't look the best when I'm in a rush but those look like Michael J. Fox did them while having a seizure on top of a washing machine.

What's got wheels, armor, armament, heavy like a tank, and cant fly?

F35


GET IT? GET IT?

File: Oh my.jpg (109KB, 783x463px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 783x463px

>>30603007

>>30601118
If you could put applique armor (spare track) there in War Thunder, I would have killed dozens fewer of those guys. That spot along the side of the front was an ammo rack waiting to happen.

>>30601511
The side armor is the same thickness (82mm) as the rear, but the rear is sloped back and the sides aren't. Best place to hit a tiger is in the side right under the turret. You either hit ammo or crew, but either way it's nasty. Also the 76mm can penetrate a Tiger frontally if the angles are right. Problem is you'll probably only be able to damage the transmission unless you're really accurate and can hit the upper hull, and avoid the driver's viewport (~150mm) and the gun (also extra thick and shaped weirdly).

>>30601526
Sherm is underrated

>>30601605
T-34 is overrated but still good. It was a tank, which meant it was really fucking good at laying down lots of machine gun fire with relative impunity against infantry, as well as having a big gun capable of dealing with more well protected infantry. And they made a shitload of them. Sure, in a tank on tank battle, pretty much nothing in WW2 was better than a Panther or a Tiger, but the Panther's 75mm had ass for HE and the Tiger was fucking expensive.

Realistically, the best balance of both worlds was the Sherman. the 76mm had a less than desirable HE round, but when partnered up with 75 and 105mm Shermans, it made for a plenty capable fighting force.

>>30602146
Ergonomics played a huge role as well, another thing the Sherman excelled at. If not for ergonomics, the best tank of the war (excluding British tanks because they did realistically fuck-all) would be the T-34-85, for its good gun with good HE and AP rounds, as well as it being easy to make a shitload of them.

File: Josef stalin on democracy.jpg (30KB, 599x364px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 599x364px

>>30603007
>This won the war
Germans don't deserve victory for World War 2 if they lost to this

>>30602989
(cont.)
> thus the max speed over cross-country was theoretically 25 km/h but in practice it was only 15km/h because changing from
I'd love to see me a WWII medium tank advancing in combat order over cross-country at 25-30 km/h.
>changing from 2nd gear to 3rd required superhuman strength
Legs. They used legs. They heel-kicked the levers for that.

>Armor spalling
>T-34's armor had troubles holding shots from high-caliber artillery, which it can't hold even in Morozov's wettest dreams.
Among other news - bears shit in woods.

>Christie suspension a shit
True. But Kniepkamp was still a ton worse.

>However Soviet tank guns suffered from low velocity leading to poor penetration and accuracy at long ranges.
True. But the reason Soviets believe that T-34 won the war for them was that they used tanks for everything together with everything, instead of vidya-style tank duels. Most of T-34's standard ammo supply were HEs, since fighting other tanks was it's secondary job.

>and the Panther’s KwK 42 was also superior to the ZiS S-53 85mm in the same areas.
>comparing T-34/85 and Panther
Nice meme.

>Visibility problems
True for T-34/76, much less true for T-34-85, and even then, cupola saw little use even on German tanks, since commanders and drivers preferred (and STILL prefer) to just stick outta the hatches to see anything proper. German own tests of captured T-34/85s proved the gun sights to be good enough by their own standards.

>The majority of vehicles in 1941 were lost due to equipment malfunction. The same reliability problems continued during the period 1942-44
Which certainly has nothing to do with the fact that during 1941-1943, most T-34s had operated under SEVERE lack of maintenance and spare parts. What a magical coincidence that the breakdowns amount dropped drastically after the industry evacuation was finished and frontline was stabilized.

>>30603157
>Sherm is underrated
Not on /k/ it isn't. I don't think you'll find 10 anons here who don't think that Sherman was teh greatest thing evar, while in reality, like every other thing that actually saw some use, it had both awesome qualities and significant flaws.

>but when partnered up with 75 and 105mm Shermans, it made for a plenty capable fighting force
One can argue that Pz-IVs partnered up with Stug IIIAs and Pz-IIIs, and T-34s partnered up with KV-1s and later IS-2s made for even more capable fighting forces.

>>30603271
The vast majority of historians unanimously agree that the T-34 was one of the best tanks and the Sherman one of the worst. It is only on 4chan that I find people claiming these historians are wrong, and, surprise surprise, they are usually American. It's like watching /pol/ deny the holocaust. It's fucking pathetic.

>>30603356
>The vast majority of historians unanimously agree that the T-34 was one of the best tanks
That status quo exists, yes.
>and the Sherman one of the worst
Citation needed. There was an ungodly mountain of widely-used tanks that were much, much, much worse then Sherman. /k/'s ameriboo shilling is certainly ridiculous, but it's opposite is not better in any way.

>>30603356

Belton Cooper, Pierre Spery, and Sputnik/RT form the holy trinity of /k/ shitposting sources.

File: Better welding.jpg (182KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x685px

>>30603064
>>30603040

That's one the T-34/76, once submerged arc welding got standardized on the T-35/85, the quality of welds improved dramatically. Improved technology and the fact that the Germans were no longer at the gates gave the factories more breathing room to make a better quality product.

File: Easy 8 weld.png (438KB, 772x353px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 772x353px

>>30603567

Although improved, the weld quality on the T-34/85 still fell short of the quality on the M4A3E8.

>>30603356
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Stupid soviet tank commander, disagreeing with historians!

>>30601118
>itt Amerifats buttmad because it had 10:1 kill ratio agaisnt M1A2 Abrams

>>30603356
Yeah and Soviet Guard Units wanted to get their hands on every Sherman there was because elite troops wanted to show how great they are when fighting in shit tanks, amirite?

File: Chaffee-Chan.jpg (1MB, 2816x1584px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x1584px

Don't bully Chaffee-Chan, T-34-senpai!

>>30603678
Got a book which mentions this?

>>30603727
THICK

>>30603753

http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

As always, the worst witness is the eyewitness. Dmitriy Loza remembers a few things wrong (the Soviets didn't get the 76mm Shermans like he claimed), but overall he liked his Sherman and you get hints that he preferred it over T-34.

He was in a guards division, and led the first columns into Vienna.

>>30603800

as an addendum, there are relatively few records of tank crewmen making serious complaints about the quality of their tank.

Overall, tank crewmen, regardless of nation, was happy with their tank as long as they had one to drive. They understood that whatever the shortfall of their tanks, it was a hell of a lot better than being infantry, which is what tank crew were often pressed into when they didn't have a tank to drive.

Same goes for the TD crew, when surveyed, almost all the US self propelled TD crewmen stated that they were happy with their equipment, while a most of the towed AT gun crews stated that they would like have self propelled guns instead.

It was the REMFs who complained about deficiencies in everything. see Belton Cooper.

File: SC2056351-1.jpg (509KB, 2714x1809px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2714x1809px

>>30603800
>the Soviets didn't get the 76mm Shermans
what about this

Why does no one ever bring up the fact that the optics on german tanks were multiple times better than what the allies had allowing more accurate fire at further ranges.

>>30603824
Grandpa drove a Sherman in WW2, he lived, even said the tank was a great tank. So it had to have been good lol.

>>30603826

bleh, my mistake, the complete statement should be.

> The Soviets didn't get 76mm Shermans at the time that Loza claimed (Jan 1944)

>>30601118
yea they over did the specification something fierce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_%28short_story%29

>>30603007
try parts from different shifts at the same factory
and it does not matter so much when all you do is sift though the pile of rejected parts till you find one that fits only once

>>30603271

Except the Stug and Pz III couldn't do anything that the Panzer IV couldn't do as well if outfitted with their weapons. In an ideal situation, they'd all be Panzer IVs. 1 tank model>2 and 1/2 tank models, especially when considering logistics.

KV/IS series though, I'll admit it's a shame they never got to send the M-6 overseas, but manufacturing a heavy tank model would cut into Sherman numbers.

>>30603918
People do tend to forget that the huge number of casemate vehicles in the German inventory were only there because they couldnt produce as many tanks, they were largely a stopgap.

i think the sherman was a pretty cool tank,eh kills krauts and doesnt afraid of anything

>>30603800
>http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
>a Guard vet rationally describes a Sherman as a tank with both advantages and shortcomings
>" Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?"
>proceeds to list both flaws and advantages
>(You): "Soviet Guard Units wanted to get their hands on every Sherman there was"|
Sasuga, faggot.

>>30603918
>Except the Stug and Pz III couldn't do anything that the Panzer IV couldn't do as well if outfitted with their weapons
Stug IIIA and Pz III were better at anti-infantry/fortification roles, since Pz IV modifications had to focus more and more at AT role.

>1 tank model>2 and 1/2 tank models, especially when considering logistics.
That's a bad excuse for not having a heavy.

>>30603980

>>30603800
>>30603824

is me

>>30603678
is not me

>>30603989
k

File: P1010306.jpg (163KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1067x800px

>>30603980

You try shipping these fuckers across the Atlantic, especially in a situation like Normandy. It was a miracle that the Pershing got greenlit to be sent over at all.

>>30603980
>That's a bad excuse for not having a heavy.
Simply put the need for a heavy didn't out weight the logistical burden of producing one and shipping it across the Atlantic.

When the vast majority of the tanks you are facing are Pz IIIs and IVs, and your tank performs similarly or better, then what need is there to put more burden on logistics?

>>30603230
>Legs. They used legs. They heel-kicked the levers for that.
The 4-speed gearbox was replaced with a 5-speed one by 1942.

>>30603627
> Although improved, the weld quality on the T-34/85 still fell short of the quality on the M4A3E8

No surprise there - working in comfy factories, with ample time does allow you to weld properly.

>>30604082
>You try shipping these fuckers across the Atlantic
Soviets managed to get their KV-1s across the ice of Ladoga lake into besieged Leningrad, your weak-ass excuses in the context of Allied-dominated Atlantic are invalid. Their lack of use probably has much more to do with them being shit.

>>30604085
>When the vast majority of the enemies you are facing are sandniggers with AKs, and your Bradley performs similarly or better, then what need is there to put more burden on logistics?
Remove Abrams, this dude has it figured out!

Memeing aside, lack of heavy armor meant that any sort of contemporary German AT artillery made advance through it's area a very dangerous undertaking, with the preferred option of waiting for air support, which may or may not be immediately available. This is one of the reasons Ruskies got to Berlin first.

>>30604148
>Soviets managed to get their KV-1s across the ice of Ladoga lake into besieged Leningrad, your weak-ass excuses in the context of Allied-dominated Atlantic are invalid. Their lack of use probably has much more to do with them being shit.
KV-1's were produced in Leningrad itself.

>>30604144
Yes, because the Russians didn't have time for shit by the time the 85 came out.

>>30604168
>Yes, because the Russians didn't have time for shit by the time the 85 came out.
They certainly didn't feel they did, even passed on the T-43 (which is inarguably better than the T-34) out of fear of not being able to produce enough tanks for the upcoming offensives.

>>30604182
Fair counter point, I'll concede.

>>30604148
>When the vast majority of the enemies you are facing are sandniggers with AKs, and your Bradley performs similarly or better, then what need is there to put more burden on logistics?
Which is why the US still uses the Bradley.

>lack of heavy armor meant that any sort of contemporary German AT artillery made advance through it's area a very dangerous undertaking,
This would be true even if the US fielded the Pershing in large numbers. The reason the US didn't field the Pershing early has to do with US doctrine relating to procurement, the units that actually received the Pershing considered them incomplete and were the ones to recommend against fielding it in its state at that point in the war, and the war was over by the time it was actually ready for use.

>>30604148
>Getting a tank across Lake Lagoda vs the Atlantic ocean.

Logistics isn't your strong point.

File: KV-1_production.png (17KB, 865x258px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 865x258px

>>30604164
>KV-1's were produced in Leningrad itself.
Not since the blockade came effect they weren't. How do you even imagine producing tanks in a city that can't receive enough food through the blockade, much less machinery components?

>>30604148
I feel like you either don't understand why an ocean and a lake are different, don't understand logistics, or just don't understand shipping as it pertains to lakes VS oceans.

Which is it?

>>30604205
>Not since the blockade came effect they weren't. How do you even imagine producing tanks in a city that can't receive enough food through the blockade, much less machinery components?

The ones used on the Leningrad front - were assembled locally out of remaining parts, between 41-43.

It's even in the damn wiki article you're using as proofs.

> Кpoмe тoгo в блoкaднoм Лeнингpaдe нa зaвoдe № 371 c нoябpя 1941 пo 1943 гoд из нeиcпoльзoвaнных зaдeлoв кopпycoв и бaшeн и aгpeгaтoв пocтaвлeнных c ЧКЗ, coбpaли eщe минимyм 67 КB-1 (№№ C-001 - C-067), вoopyжeнных пyшкaми кaк Ф-32, тaк и ЗИC-5. Taк кaк эти мaшины шли тoлькo для нyжд Лeнингpaдcкoгo фpoнтa, oтpeзaннoгo oт «Бoльшoй зeмли», тo в oтчeты ГAБTУ oни нe пoпaли.

File: Across_the_ice.jpg (26KB, 800x549px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 800x549px

>>30604164
>>30604205
Aaaand the KV-1 ice crossing was a thing in 1942 - Leningrad was barely capable of manufacturing or repairing ANYTHING by then, and forces in the city needed some armor reinforcements.

>>30604203
>Getting a tank across Lake Lagoda vs the Atlantic ocean.
Exactly:
>getting a tank into a locked down city by a road on a thin ice that barely holds under cars, by night, with no lights allowed, in the direct fire range of Finnish and German artillery, under Luftwaffe air patrols
vs
>getting tanks into fully controlled territory, using freely available massive sea transports, across a water body that is almost entirely secure by 1944.

One could maybe argue that the latter requires more fuel, but that's where the difficulties end.

>>30604236
you have to consider the transport ships also
it's a big trade off to only carry only 2 heavies rather than 4 mediums

>>30604236
Distance, not difficulty is all that matters in this discussion. You shouldn't have mentioned it if you didn't want it rammed up your ass.

>>30603356
>For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Source: Actual russian who killed actual Germans with an actual Sherman. Go to bed kiddo

File: SHERMAN JUMBO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.jpg (964KB, 3495x2668px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 3495x2668px

>>30603980
>That's a bad excuse for not having a heavy.

ahem

filename

>>30604254
It's a very good trade-off for a part of the shipments if the heavy in question can actually fill the heavy niche - it's opens and entire new share of tactical opportunities.

>>30604260
>Distance, not difficulty is all that matters in this discussion
So, logistics are entirely distance? It's not concerned with the availability of specific routes, their security against enemy raids, their required escort, the dynamics of all of these things?

The point is - transatlantic route was very safe and easily available by 1944, and transport shortage stopped being an issue by late 1943. There were no actual logistical issues preventing the production and transportation of US heavy armor to the Western front. It didn't happen because the current US heavy armor was plain bad, and because it would be hard on the budget. That's iy.

>>30604298
>literally a tiny KV-1
>in 1944
pls

File: 1466284399581.png (161KB, 265x281px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 265x281px

>>30604326
>all the tank in half the volume
>pls

Ain't my fault Russkies can't engineer worth a damn.

>>30604305
>There were no actual logistical issues preventing the production and transportation of US heavy armor to the Western front.

Except for you know, the logistical issues you outlined below.

> It didn't happen because the current US heavy armor was plain bad, and because it would be hard on the budget. That's iy.

You seem to have a very narrow view of logistics and procurement and should probably stop talking about it.

Can't we just agree the Ruskies got lucky in that their cheap piece of shit worked for a tank at the time?

>>30604339
Point is - such performance and characteristics were below the bar by late 1941. Straight out embarrassing for 1944.

>>30604343
>Except for you know, the logistical issues you outlined below.
M6 being shit and jews being jew are not logistical issues.

>>30604345
No.

>>30604360
>jews being jew are not logistical issues.
That you think this is not a logistical issue betrays your ignorance of what logistics actually is.

>>30604305
>It didn't happen because the current US heavy armor was plain bad, and because it would be hard on the budget. That's iy.

You're literally Hitler.

Yes. Hitler. Hitler had the same investment you have in big tanks as a symbol of the size of your National Cock. This is a big reason why Hitler lost, and America won.

For starters - Tigers were scarce. They were huge, stupidly expensive, and optimized for combat at very long ranges on the steppes of Russia. They were so scarce in actual practice that they were like the boogyman; everyone screamed and cried and shouted TIGER everytime they heard hostile armor, but most of the time it was just a halftrack, or at best a StuG tank destroyer. If the krauts were lucky they'd get a few Panzer IVs.

Second, "heavy" tanks are best used as assault tanks - wading into the teeth of prepared AT gun defenses. By the time we realized we needed them, it was too late; we were in the bocage. Plus, bocage was so close-in that even heavies had a good chance of getting killed - it was all attrition. Then we broke out and had our fucking way with the krauts in open maneuver warfare, and then there was no point in building a custom assault tank because we welded a shitload of armor onto a Sherman, called it a Jumbo, and it worked. (Some of them were fucking field conversions, even.)

So why the fuck did we need a "heavy" tank, anyway? To prove how big our peen was? I think we proved that on V-E day.

>>30604351
It's performance would be under par if the Panther and Tiger II were produced in large enough quantities to matter, but they weren't. The M4 and with its subsequent variations and upgrades outclassed every medium tank fielded during the course of the war.

File: 1368108277817.png (110KB, 345x304px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 345x304px

>>30604305
>>30604380

File: tank nyan.gif (31KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x400px

>>30604351
>oint is - such performance and characteristics were below the bar by late 1941. Straight out embarrassing for 1944.

It's almost like the decision-makers at the time were more concerned with producing a weapon that could thump the enemy handily rather than producing something that would stand up good in national e-peen comparisons seventy years after the fact.

Fun fact: Russian submarines were so fucking awful on land that they needed to be TOWED to get anywhere. Worst subs ever.

>>30603157
>Sherm is underrated
get a load of this guy

File: bishler.jpg (55KB, 420x407px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 420x407px

>>30604389

Don't be so sure, Anon. He comes in many guises.

>>30604390
I'm pretty sure most nations submarines have awful performance on land.

>>30604380
>This is a big reason why Hitler lost, and America won.
well and because germany didn't join the war when it was already over

>>30603356
>/pol/ deny the holocaust.

Wait, what?

Why is the E8 the best tank of ww2 by miles?

>>30604402
>well and because germany didn't join the war when it was already over
they absolutely did

File: 1464679851150.jpg (74KB, 339x505px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 339x505px

>>30604402
>Stalin bawling like a little bitch demanding the Allies open a second front
>Thousand-bomber Allied raids fucking vaporizing Germany's war industries
>"over"

This is what vatniks and deluded euros actually believe.

>>30604380
>Yes. Hitler. Hitler had the same investment you have in big tanks as a symbol of the size of your National Cock. This is a big reason why Hitler lost, and America won.
Ruskies also had heavy tanks, and they worked really well for them.

>By the time we realized we needed them, it was too late; we were in the bocage,
So, by 1944, there was never a need to advance on German prepared AT gun defenses? Amazing stories you tell.

>Plus, bocage was so close-in that even heavies had a good chance of getting killed - it was all attrition
Again - tell Ruskies about the war of attrition and urban warfare, and how heavies were useless there. Laughing_IS-2.jpg

>we welded a shitload of armor onto a Sherman, called it a Jumbo, and it worked
Yeah, the same way KV-2 "worked", only slightly worse.

>>30604326
Superior to the KV-1 since it can actually bounce long 75mm rounds from a panzer 4 and more with a turret that is pretty much immune to everything. 152mm of pure cast steel all around with a 177mm thick mantle.

>>30604430
>So, by 1944, there was never a need to advance on German prepared AT gun defenses?
>>30604380
>Then we broke out and had our fucking way with the krauts in open maneuver warfare, and then there was no point in building a custom assault tank because we welded a shitload of armor onto a Sherman, called it a Jumbo, and it worked.

Why do you cunts pretend like you can't read? Just because you ignore it doesn't make it go away.

>Yeah, the same way KV-2 "worked", only slightly worse.

[citation needed]

>The M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" assault tank variant had a frontal armor of 102 millimetres (4.0 in), which resulted in a glacis 150 millimetres (5.9 in) LOS thick and over 180 millimetres (7.1 in) effective.[91] Sponson sides had extra plate welded on to make them 76.2 millimetres (3.00 in), a significantly thicker transmission casing, a plate welded to the mantlet and a thicker cast turret for the main gun. Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it was originally to be armed with the 76 mm but the 75 mm was preferred for infantry support and was used. The higher weight required regearing reducing speed to 22 mph. Built at the Fisher arsenal 254 of them were delivered and it arrived in Europe in the fall of 1944 and was employed throughout the remainder of the fighting. They were "considered highly successful".
> Hunnicutt, R.P. Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Presidio Press. pp. 289–290.

There's mine, let's see yours faggot

>>30601118
It was a tank built to be used as a "plug" of sorts, used to prevent breakthroughs in areas along the line, but shuffled around an AO.

It did this job exceedingly well, given the high velocity gun and thick armor which allowed it to shine in its role.

>>30601118
No, the constant complain of 'overrated' makes it actually underrated.
>>30601653
T-34 is mediocre okay, Russians literally won by throwing more men and tanks at Germans than they had bullets and grenades.

Why do people praise the T-34 and shit on the Sherman even though the Sherman was just as good if not better while also being better made, safer for the crew and more ergonomic?

>>30604500
Hitler channel is behind it. So many people watched it and the words from that show have stayed to this day.

>"Good solid tank"

>>30604493
And for some reason people always ignore the horrific amount of resources the Germans had to waste fighting off Allied air raids.

Something like 75% of all 88mm production went to flak instead of field guns.

>>30604423

Allied bombing of war industry didn't have a huge effect until closer to D day after the Luftwaffe had been essentially destroyed.

The biggest benefit of allied bombing in my opinion was the pulling of all those units from the east to the west.

>>30604298
Ground pressure so high if you park it on anything but a paved surface it will sink into the ground and be beneath the Earth's crust by the next day.

>WW2 Tank thread
>German tanks:yeah, overrated
>American tanks: had their problems
>Russian tanks: LIES! RUSSIAN TANKS STRONK! LET ME TELL YOU..
Every time.

>>30604500
Why do people forget that the T-34 was a pre-war tank developed in the late 30s and in mass production at the outset of the war?
The Sherman being better than a pre-war tank isn't very impressive.

>>30604493
> Russians literally won by throwing more men and tanks at Germans than they had bullets and grenades

t. CoH2 Campaign

>>30604584
>>Russian tanks: LIES! RUSSIAN TANKS STRONK! LET ME TELL YOU..
One guy

>>30604601
They don't actually have that much of an age difference, T-34 coming out in 1940 and Sherman in 1941.

>>30604611
This rather represents how different nations talk about their own tanks.

>>30604633
okay then.

>>30604633
The only thing it represents is fanboys.

I'm russian, I perfectly understand that T-34 had a shitload of problems, some addressed, some not.

>>30604642
We can be happy the other nations doesnt have that proportion of "fanboys".

>>30604649
They do. Take a look at wehraboos.

>>30603069
pierre sprey pls go

>>30603007
I wonder if we'll ever have a tank thread in which this pic doesn't get posted.

>>30604603
it's lirerally true though.

>>30604652
Are we visiting the same /k/?

>>30604673
yes, sturmbannführer

now stop pointing that gun on my head

>>30601144
That movie really made me think.

>>30604603
Sometimes art does imitate real life

File: ZgdWJAj.jpg (135KB, 540x800px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 540x800px

Just look up Allied verified stories about what Wittmann, Knispel and co were able to do with the Tiger tanks. They sure had their problems and praising them beyond everything is as stupid as bashing them, dont know why this is so popular, must be because of Fury.

>>30604750
It is simply a counterreaction to the unjustified overall positive appraisal of the Tiger tank shared amongst wehraboos and tank history noobs.

>>30602711
>http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.fi/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
>This blog compiles the shortcomings of the T-34.

Nope, that blog compiles bias of it's author, who has absolutely no fucking clue what he is writing about. He has been absolutely rekt on a lot of military history forums.

I'll analyze AR-15 like he does.

Early M16's were unreliable. Therefore every AR-15 is unreliable, including ones that have modifications to improve reliability. New AR-15's can get badly balanced and heavy if lot of shit is attached to it's accesory rails, therefore every AR-15 is heavy and badly balanced, even ones that were built before shit like laser designators were even invented.

>>30604796
>slavaboos damage control

>>30601653
I disagree, t34 is overrated because
>muh innovation
>muh kills everything
>muh superior russian design
>muh greatest tank ever
whereas their only plus side was the ease of production. and adequte specs with sub bar reliability, comfort and survival rate
Shermans are underrated because
>muh worthless gun
>muh shit armor
>muh ameriburger
>muh ronson LMAO
whereas their biggest plus was absolutely fantastic quality and massive production numbers, stellar crew survivability and great reliability

>>30604832
What model tho?

>>30604362
Bro actually explain why he's wrong instead of just saying he is you smug stupid fuck.

File: animeavatars.jpg (80KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x480px

>>30604842
>Demanding explanation for opinions
Where the hell do you think you are?

Anyways, overall I think the T-34 while overrated (mostly due to it being a mass workhorse of the winning USSR), was still sort of a revolution for the USSR's tank industry, especially knowing that the previous medium tank they had was the T-28.

It did have a lot of flaws, which the USSR didn't manage to fix before the war broke out (T-34M/A-43 project), so they had to make due with what they had. Hence the mass production of deeply flawed tanks and all the effort to fix its issues, while still producing as much as you can.

>>30604858
Why is the number of total losses higher than the number of produced vehicles? Have they marked recovered vehicles as having been lost multiple times?

>>30604858
Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 get your shit together!

>>30604873
I think so.

>>30604877
I bet the jews are behind their low performance.

>>30604405
He is confusing revisionism with denial.
Let the lefty believe in his geysers of blood, lampshades and holocausters.

>>30604750
Tigers genuinely made allies shit their pants and I don't think that's because of muh propaganda.

>>30604912
don't forget the acid ponds

>>30604912
>>30604920
People who /pol/ thinks talk most about human skin lampshade and the like: non redpilled people
People who are actually the one talking the most about human skin lampshades and the like: /pol/

>>30601118
>>30601511

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a376w/m4a3_76w.html

That sherman could pen the tigers frontal chase armor from 250 meters (820ft)

>Tigers 100mm non sloped frontal armour

But thinking about the time and most of the tankers probably said that shooting for the tigers front armor is a gamble you're most likely to loose. Even if sherman would pen the tiger middle shot is going to end up in radio or transmission which will give tiger enough time to shoot the last standing sherman, sherman could've go for the side armor of the tiger and injure or kill the turret crew

File: post-553056-0-80802700-1428742153.jpg (167KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1920x1080px

>>30604858
Also keep in mind that the Tiger was a "Schwerpunktswaffe" and was meant to be used in key areas, so their mobility wasnt that much of an disadvantage, but it also explains the high kill counts of the Tigers, because they always found enough targets, in a way, the same argument can be made for some Axis aces in ww2. Also in regards of the steel quality, afaik the Tigers used a softer steel which meant they were a bit less brittle. All in all its about the role the tank was meant for was a different than the Panthers for example which was meant as a pz4 replacment.
Also all sides constantly evolved so even tank experts have a difficult time to come to a clear conclusion. I simply like the looks of the Tiger I.

>>30602648

There's a lot of misinformation on the quality of steel used in the construction of the Tiger, and German tanks in general. Someone forwarded me a document from US Army Ordnance that found serious problems with brittleness in the steel on Tigers--obviously making it less than ideal for armor.

>>30604936
Shermans would never operate alone though.

File: 85mm vs Tiger at Balaton.jpg (48KB, 600x417px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x417px

>>30604953
They did have a tendency to chip quick significantly.

File: 1437497623238.jpg (119KB, 364x457px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 364x457px

>>30604858
>Every single kill claim is nice and round
>Implying that a retreating force can ever count how many enemies they destroyed while running away from them.
>German K/D claims

>>30603356
this desu, it is impossible to have a normal discussion on this board for all the fucking muricans

>>30604815
>implying I'm slavaboo

Do you know that Christo knows more about tanks and using tanks than a guy who was 20 years in royal tank regiment. He also knows more about driving and servicing T-34 than a guy who actually semi-regularily drives T-34 in shows at a tank museum and also does the maintenance on the fucking thing.

>>30604873
>Why is the number of total losses higher than the number of produced vehicles? Have they marked recovered vehicles as having been lost multiple times?

Yes. That is also the reason why Soviet tank losses are as massive in statistics as those are. Soviets went even further, if a tank broke down on march and was transferred to higher level organization for repairs it was a loss.

>>30603356
T: Slavaboo Murican

>>30604970
[not serious]They were ordered to kill tanks by batches of 10, you fool. That led to a lot of problems and probaly lowered their overall performance, i mean you either retreat early to get a batch of ten, leave enemies to run away unharmed or send a lot of time driving aroud seeking tanks to kill before you are allowed back at base. But nothing could be done about it, Furher odrers.[/not serious]

>>30604970
The numbers are probably rounded for that very reason. They couldn't make 100% sure estimates.

>>30604970
On that base you cant trust a single statistics from ww2.

>>30604997
Difference being that when you advance you can count the wrecks of the shit you destroyed. Do you understand the difference between retreating and advancing?

>>30601118
Oh, Lord yes.

They're not *horrible* tanks, they have pros and cons just like any other tank of the era. But damn if people dont fucking worship them, jesus fucking tits.

>>30605002
>what is lying

>>30604955
Neither the tigers, 1 tiger squad was made up by 4 tigers, but given the time and strategie of the situation;

> Germany losing don't have enough tanks or can't support them logisticly
> It's an ambush mission more then 1 tiger would give away the position

I don't now about american tank formation of ww2, according to movie i guess it was 5-6 shermans to made up a squad.

>>30605031
Provided that the Tiger units actually had enough Tiger tanks to fill them out.

A problem the americans didn't really have.
A squad is 1 sherman btw, a platoon was 4 or 5 tanks and was the smallest tactical tank unit.

>>30605016
When reading historical sources it's always good to check for tendencies and try to figure out if someone is telling the truth.

Luckily that isn't nessesary with nazi kill claims, because they claim something that is impossible for them to have any knowledge about.

>>30602146
>The T-34, on the other hand, was a solid tank from a technical perspective,
T-34/76 from 1941-1942 years was utter disaster from technical and designing perspective.

>>30605055
Not the guy you were responding to, but some of the nazi kill claims might be legit, since the separate heavy tank battalions were often used for counter-attacks. Retreating on the strategic level doesn't mean they were always running locally.

>>30605055
>Luckily that isn't nessesary with nazi kill claims, because they claim something that is impossible for them to have any knowledge about

Great sources you have there buddy.

>>30605067
Are you suggesting that after a russian attack, the germans would go out in the field to determine wether the russian tanks were damaged or destroyed?

>>30605099
if it stops chasing you and the crew bails, you can be pretty sure it's a kill without being right next to it.

>>30605099
Might be that I'm developing Alzheimer, but I distinctively remember talking about counter-attacks. Besides, even on defence there is bound to be total losses on the enemy side, such as catastrophic explosions. At least those are easy to determine.

>>30601118
Not in 1942. They were damn impressive in the Tunisia campaign and the eastern front, despite the serious design flaws.

>>30604584
I'm the closest thing to a foam-mouthed slavboo ITT, and I haven't once claimed that T-34 was NOT a largely flawed machine with a ton of shortcomings in it's design. Only that it was still really good for it's time despite those, and hardly overrated for it's design now.

>>30604832
>muh innovation
Well, it was indeed quite innovative in a number of areas, and THE definitive grandpa of the Soviet (read: most widespread and used even today) tank design doctrine. It's not the MOST innovative or revolutionary tank evar by any means, and many machines of that era were even more creative and revolutionary in their design, but T-34 is still one of the important stepping stones in the history of tank construction. It's also helped by being successfully and widely used, as opposed to being a very clever prototype.
>muh kills everything
Only literal preschool kiddies think that. There were other Soviet machines that >muh killed everything, but they were largely >muh SPGs.
>muh superior russian design
Strawman.
>muh greatest tank ever
Maybe by the historical impact of a single model. That one is hard to dispute, and how can possibly anyone call a design almost a century old "the greatest" in any other way is beyond me.

>with sub bar reliability
T-34's reliability, like that of any tank, depends largely on it's maintenance and availability of spare parts. Until 1943, "maintenance" was a word largely unknown to Soviet tankmen, and available spare parts were something they saw only in their wet dreams - STAVKA was trying desperately and largely failing at keeping up some semblance of frontline and reforming and rearming new units faster than the old ones are taken out - maintaining the combat readiness of existing ones was somewhere waaaaaay down the "to do" list. By 1944-45, when Soviets managed a proper supply chain and maintenance, T-34/85 losses due to malfunctions dropped drastically.

>>30605110
That's a silly assumption, if your breech is fucked and you're detracked you should bail, if your in an SPG you should bail just if you're detracked.

But these things are easily fixed later.

>>30605146
They're still kill

>>30605120
That's true, but that is hardly most, the problem with the German claims is that we have no idea under what circumstances those claims were made, but other than the tank exploding like you point out it's pretty hard to determine without inspecting it.

>>30605153
No a kill is when that tank isn't recoverable. Damaged is when it can be fixed.

>>30605162
no, it's a kill

>>30605132
>I haven't once claimed that T-34 was NOT a largely flawed machine with a ton of shortcomings in it's design.
>Only that it was still really good for it's time despite those, and hardly overrated for it's design now.
Is this to be a joke?
You can see the standard russian pattern
>I dont even like Pution
>I just defend everything about him by coincident, it is only logical ™

>>30605167
Maybe if you're trying to inflate your kill claims to make what ever side you like look better.

>>30605153
One type of them, yeah.

Mobility Kill : You can no longer maneuver effectively, maybe at all. You may be able to serve as a hard point or turret, but someone that can maneuver could kill your ass dead without too much trouble. Bail = Maybe

Mission Kill : Pretty contextual, but something's broken and you won't be doing any more war today. If your tank's snorkel fails when fording a river, it's a mission kill and you get to have a swim and wait to see how the engineers will tow it out from under four meters of water. Bail = Yes.

Weapon Kill: Gun is busted. Drive the tank home to get a new one. Bail = No.

Catastrophic Kill : The only engineers that will be coming for the tank are the undertakers to give it a respectful viking funeral involving demotions to make sure it's utterly useless to anyone else. Maybe not even that if the turret and the hull are too far away to see one from the other. Bail = You are probely too dead to care, but if not, very Yes.

>>30605182
you knock it out of battle, is kill, that's how it works in real life

>>30605190
t. WoT expert

>>30605205
You detrack an Su-76, it's a kill, it's repaired, you detrack it again, it's another kill, it's repaired, you detrack it again, and then 2 more times. You never actually kill any of it's crew and only take it out of combat for 10 minutes.

>5:1 KD guiz xD !

File: tiger tank vs t26e3.jpg (379KB, 498x1495px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 498x1495px

>>30605153
getting stuck on rubble also counts as killed
I think disabled is a more apt term
>just a flesh wound.exe

>>30605224
In American slang, yes. Germans have their own phrases for things.

>>30605216
Real life ain't WoT

>>30605181
>Is this to be a joke?
No. It's just that a good thing can still be good despite having known significant drawbacks. No tank is perfect now, and cyкeфштдн no tank was perfect in 1940s.

>I dont even like Pution
>I just defend everything about him by coincident, it is only logical ™
Kinda like half the /k/ personally dislikes Trump, but will still vote him because he'll be easier on gun rights than Shillary.

>>30605237
>cyкeфштдн
Thank you setting me up Shift+Ctrl
>*certainly

>>30605237
>disliking Trump
top cuck

>>30605216
This post has been brought to you by the No Child Left Behind Act

File: 1459872104473.png (272KB, 896x5456px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 896x5456px

>>30601118
This thread the comic.

File: ttrs.jpg (205KB, 750x936px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 750x936px

>>30605237
You failed to accept that it is overrated, you are not talking about the problem, you are it. Pic related.

>>30605272
I think you're just a little too butthurt that the most useful tank of the war wasn't german.

>>30605254
>disliking Trump
What? I never implied anything like that. By "half the /k/ dislikes Trump personally" I meant that the other half is okay with him on all fronts. I'm personally all for Trump for USA and making America Great Again because from this side of the pond he looks 10 times more fun and interesting (honest, 100% genuinely interesting) than the Fembot.

>>30605272
>You failed to accept that it is overrated
It's not.
> you are not talking about the problem, you are it.
No I ain't.

>>30605290
[x]Lies! Russian tank stronk
[x]You cant say that russian say "Lies! Russian tank stronk", also: Lies! Russian tank stronk!
[x]You butthurt
You are quite living up to the cliché.
Also i dont care about if a german tank was the most useful, i actually called the Tiger overrated.

File: 1449871677001.jpg (101KB, 959x854px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 959x854px

>>30605311
>>You failed to accept that it is overrated
>It's not.
>> you are not talking about the problem, you are it.
>No I ain't.
Now compare that to the picture, russians are truely pathetic.

>>30605324
I am not
>>30605311
>>30605237

You're a memelord though that can't make a single post without an overused meme.

>>30605342
>overused meme.
Someone is extra crispy butthurt over the fact that there are already memes about his behaviour.

>>30604938
Yup and it was actually very good at this role and why many allies feared them, but kinda overrated if you look for the best tank of all time.

>>30605336
>thatsthejoke.jpeg

File: Always the clapper.gif (32KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 250x250px

>>30605352
We can just post image macros at each other if you like. If you feel like that is the maximum level of posting you can attain.

File: 6.jpg (94KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x400px

>>30605336
Wow, aren't you one dense kid.

>>30605352
He insulted me. Why are you hijacking it like it's personal for you? Is this bait?

File: 1348764844816.png (2KB, 244x226px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 244x226px

>>30605373
>>30605359

>>30602146
>was a solid tank from a technical perspective

Well the engine sure had a lot of problems that were only corrected after the war with the model 1946

>>30602989
>Everyone in turret sat on seats, which were parts of the turret and turned with i

Tell me how the loader is going to be sitting down while loading, I want a good laugh.

>loader was seated 100% of the time.

Oh god, you actually DO believe that.

>>30604351
>such performance and characteristics

Faster than a KV-1, more reliable, 75mm cannon shit all over the 76mm that was armed on the KV series despite being smaller. At least put effort into your bait, nigger.

>>30605386
>He insulted me
By saying you failed to call it overrated? By calling you the obvious part of the described problem? Lets not forgot how you started with the butthurt buisness.

>>30601118
>it's a nu-male /k/uckold thread
When will you /k/ucks learn?

File: 1465378933584.png (37KB, 1519x1000px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1519x1000px

>>30604519
>4 million men put on defense for the west
>more than 70% of artillery munitions produced in late 42 and beyond were for anti-air artillery
>this had no effect on german war making elsewhere

>>30605487
>demand proofs
>receive baseless claims
>call out bullshit
>get memed on

File: t34-v-2.jpg (30KB, 600x269px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x269px

>>30605389
it WAS a very fat and obvious sarcasm. I literally repeated the lines from the picture.

>>30605448
Like this. 9 (14 later) shots are within the both arm's reach, and the loader couldn't stand up in the turret if he wanted to - there's just not enough space for that. T-34 is not M60 you know. Reloading like this is not very comfortable, but they managed, and lack of a basket did not make it any harder or easier.

>>30605515
If we would see this so called sarcasm going both directions someone could take it for honest, but it is uncanny one way, must be a mere coincident. Everything saying else is just antirussian propaganda. Remember in america they lynched negros.

>>30605467
>Faster than a KV-1
Same top speed, one less hp/ton.

>>30605472
No? that guy called me a memelord. "T-34 is overrated shit" is a meme discussion that I refuse to participate in. And it wasn't me who called you butthurt. I was rather surprised by someone else taking your arguments as personal insults against him, hence me thinking that he's baiting you.

>>30605515
>The loader had a seat and was sitting the whole time!
>Image for 'proof' shows the loader crouched down on the floor

There's nowhere for this conversation to go when you just proved yourself wrong.

>>30605542
I called you a memelord because rather than answering that guy's post you perpetuated in "russians are inferior people" memes when clearly no one here is even russian.

Attacking a nationality in a place where you can't tell where people are from is just fucking retarded anon.

>"T-34 is overrated shit" is a meme discussion that I refuse to participate in.
Everything is a meme, proofsters, vatniks, slavboos...
It is totaly not like those are based on anything we can see daily on /k/ or so.

>30605542
>

>>30605548
Not him but..
The loader has a folding seat.
Why can't you just look this kind of thing up?

>>30601118
Believing the T-34 is not even more over rated

>>30605552
>when clearly no one here is even russian.
Sure thing, people just furiously defend russian stuff on coincident, while every other nation stuff can be critiqued openly.

>>30605501
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
AA makes up the majority of germany's artillery production
i think i can safely conclude likewise that they consume a fair amount of germany's ammunition production too,since they consume alot of rounds

>>30605552
Go visit /int/ for a change, you can see the same way of defensive arguing in any discussion about russian related stuff.

>>30605582
It's not that people furiously defend russian stuff, it's that sperglords with a hateboner furiously memes about it, and those of us who has a general understanding of equipment don't appreciate that, if you were saying that German tanks never did anything, or that the Sherman was a driving match i'd contradict you aswell.

And i would do that without trying to claim the reason you're retarded is because you're from a different nation than me.

>>30605542
"T-34 is not overrated" should be a meme by now.

>>30605612
Compare the amount of post defending the T-34 so heavily with the rest and cry about the stupidity of your statement.

>>30605599
This whole site has not a single citation i could find, and is very much into "muh KD rates" on litterally everything.

>>30605612
>sperglords
>hateboner
>memes
Its a bit like complaining about people getting guns for defending their home and not about the looters causing this.

>>30605639
A saw a guy say why he thought the T-34 wasn't overrated.

Then i saw an autist have a panic attack over someone disagreeing with him and immediately went into persecuted minority mentality and stated the only reason someone could possibly say he was wrong about something, was that the other person was of an inferior nationality which is known by himself as having a certain character and therefore no proper respondse was required.

Wether the T-34 is overrated or not is irrelevant to you being a retarded memelord.

>>30605655
t. brave defender of the slavboo (totaly not a slavboo)

Russians tanks with quantity, not quality. T30 isnt good tank. My granpa brother die in T30. Till these days nobody know where he is buried.

>>30605665
>gets called a memelord
>responds with a meme to prove it wrong.

>>30605640
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=qCeg7fyWGWIC&pg=PR34&lpg=PR34&dq=german+artillery+production+report&source=bl&ots=fRcrJNcUPL&sig=TwwFwGqBaOncD9SXfKPkf97oT7I&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=german%20artillery%20production%20report&f=false

it talks alot about the rarely defined effect of allied bombing which people usually fail to notice,such as the moving around manufacturing and industrial bases,constant blackouts which makes war planning hellish and the difficulty in training recruits which means that each new batch will have lowered experience,i recommend you going Page 74-89 for that

>>30605655
What we could see from you, is the typical uncanny convient defending of a slavboo sperging right after it was pointed out. You can set your clock to that random occurance, kinda makes start thinking about the true agenda behind it.

>>30605574
see

>>30602989
>loader was seated 100% of the time.

>>30605704
>persecuted minority
>there is a conspiracy against me
>the hidden agenda of people posting on /k/

>>30605671
What are we doing next? Thread long discussions with /pol/? They are getting shown the door for the crap they always try to pull and that is it, at best enough leash to hang themselfs. You dont give them the platform to discuss their shit, because it is all they want, because they can fling all the shit they want and while you are busy moping up after them, they posted enough shit that some will stick, contrary getting exposed for what they try and what their true motives are from the beginning.
Those memes are there for a reason, to save peoples time, keep discussions /k/ related and inform others about the shitposting attempts of the idiots.

>>30605711
>all the russian related memes are forced
>it is not like they have any real basis or anything
>of course you are a memelord, ignore the logical error in this

>>30601118
What about the Jagdtiger?

>>30601118
One of them, from WW2 the most overrated tanks were both Tigers, Shermans (mostly because muh superior HVAP E8) and T-34.

Why? not because they were shit, actually they were pretty good desings for what they were designed, the problem is thanks to the existence of Wehraboos, the guys who hate them start to do the same fucking shit but with the Sherman or T-34, trying to sound more intelligent ala tank hipster. That is why you can never have a good amateur discussion about tanks.

People never talk about supplies, different country doctrines and desing philosophy, and no enough love for Panthers, Comets, Centurions or Pershings

>>30606012
That's because Pershings were shit desu

>>30606012
lol, slavaboos can't even defend their shitty tanks anymore so they settle for cucking everyone's equally bad.
Go fluff your bull.

>>30601118
It's definitely the tiger, deutschaboos WORSHIP the tiger, but it was only a serious threat for the first few months of its existence, allied tanks that could destroy it quickly came to be and it was always a low mobility and relatively unreliable tank.

>>30606064
>3 years of service, not a single armor the gun couldn't penetrate
>only threat for few months

>>30606049
Nigga my favourite tank is the Panther adn then the Comet call me at least a wehraboo.

>>30606029
I know it had its flaws but it was the beginning of the patton line.

>>30606064
Well if with months you mean from late 1942 to early 1944 you are right.

>>30606155
lol you don't even have balls to stand behind your words. You just claim that because of what I said.

>>30606115
>dur hur it's all about the gun
You don't have to worry about the gun if you can outflank the slow and unreliable tank then punch a hole through it

>>30606155
No it was literally months

>>30606174
Yes you are right i don't have the balls whatever makes you feel better man. Thanks you to remember me that not everybody has a good and happy life. I will pray for you man never give up.

>>30606207
whatever you say armchair general

>>30606207
>No it was literally months
Explain more please.

>You don't have to worry about the gun if you can outflank the slow and unreliable tank then punch a hole through it

With that argument you can say that every tank was shit when you use a light tank and that the battles were less than 200m ala Warthunder or WoT. That would mean that things like Chafee or Pumas were monsters in the battlefield.

>the slow and unreliable tank
Did you know that the Tiger I had a little better mobility than the Panzer IV right?

>>30605515
>posting T-34/85

>>30601118
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEdZZpYQjOI
Good analysis from the museum director of the Tank Museum Munster of the Tiger. Language is german but the english youtube subtitle translation works most of the time.

>>30604938
>Also keep in mind that the Tiger was a "Schwerpunktswaffe" and was meant to be used in key areas, so their mobility wasnt that much of an disadvantage, but it also explains the high kill counts of the Tigers,

Just look at the weapon and the armoring scheme of the Tiger. It was optimized for long-range combat on the steppes. Naturally it suffered more in Western Europe.

>>30605487

I'm the guy you responded to, not the other guy, just to clarify.

What you posted is exactly what I was getting at in my post. The industrial centers hit in allied bombing were not too adversely affected, and usually were back up to full production capabilities within a week or two.

The devotion to stopping bombing and the pulling of resources from the eastern front is where the major impact lay, and once the P-51 was in widespread use the almost complete destruction of the Luftwaffe.

>>30606029

It's problems were no worse than the Panther and it was probably in a better place over all design and development wise.

>>30604832
Sherman 75 gun had a great HE round, and the mounted .50 on the back kicks ass

When the Sherman debuted it was enough to take on any Panzer of the day, it was later that it was getting stomped in

>>30604938
The Tiger's cross country speed isn't that much slower than the Sherman's

It uses a goddamn V12 for Christ's sake.

>>30607211
>The industrial centers hit in allied bombing were not too adversely affected
>It was real in my head

>>30604400
The joke.
Your head.

>>30607314
>isn't that much slower than the Sherman's
>It uses a goddamn V12 for Christ's sake.

Never said otherwise. But it was still under powered for its weight and its also about the torque you get at the tracks and the transmission that goes along with it.

File: 1467230942553.jpg (113KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 720x616px

It was a very very good tank. The meme tank was the King Tiger anon. Read up some more.

File: 12T34_85Rear.jpg (52KB, 650x489px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 650x489px

>>30603101

if this picture wasn't so absurdly cropped, you'd see that these "gaps in the armor" are simply the edges of the thin rear engine access hatch.

if they had filled them in, you wouldn't be able to open the hatch.

>>30608049
t. Shylock

>>30605265
Panzerhauptmann wore visor caps.

>>30602146
People fail to understand that the T34 had a higher failure rate mechanically than the Tiger, some estimates say it was even worse than the panther in non-combat failure rates.

>>30603356
>The vast majority of historians
You mean the history channel circa 10 years ago? No, anyone with any knowledge of tanks knows that the T34 was "okay" and the Sherman was fairly decent. Some t34s were atrocious, most shermans were not

>>30603918
>>30603933
Um not quite. The Germans actually had trouble training enough crews to man their tanks towards the end of the war. The number of german tanks produced hardly matter because they didnt have the man power after late 1944

>>30604148
Except there are contemporary documents that literally explain exactly why the sent Shermans and not Pershings

File: 4491b52245422873cd8adcb7c5b16944.jpg (27KB, 530x297px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 530x297px

>>30607314
>It uses a goddamn V12 for Christ's sake.

'cause every V12 is the same

>>30604430
>Ruskies also had heavy tanks
the ruckies won because they outproduced the germans with t34s, not because they had KVs and IS's
>German AT gun defenses
air support

>>30608049
4++

File: mrz1on.jpg (394KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1600x900px

Meanwhile, in a Soviet design meeting somewhere near Moscow:
>WAR IS WON ONLY THROUGH SACRIFICE
>THEREFORE, THE MORE SACRIFICES OUR SOLDIERS MAKE, THE MORE WE WILL WIN THE WAR
"COMRADE FOREMAN, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WILL BE NEEDING PADDING ON THE CHAIRS FOR OUR TANKS AFTER ALL"

>>30608049
>historical records show Tiger could and did take out at least 5 shermans on average
>You're a Wehraboo if you believe facts
Fucking slavaboos

Also terrorists are terrorists whether they were on your side or not.

>>30609748
>>historical records show Tiger could and did take out at least 5 shermans on average
What in the actual fuck you wehraboo. Post your proof and lets see how much shit and gas is in there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

The Sherman is the most underrated tank of all time and this thread is the very proof of that.

>>30608148

He's not talking about the crevice in the center, but rather the big seam between the side plate and the top plate.

>>30610409
>The Sherman is the most underrated tank of all time and this thread is the very proof of that.

If being shat on in /k/ is any indication, T-54/55 would fit that description far better. Proof? Every post WWII tank thread on /k/. There is a good reason why fuck loads of those were produced and those still roll around all third world conflict zones.

>>30604877

Abu Hajaar was a German tanker in Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 in a past life.

>>30608271
>>30605390
Americans fail to understand how redundancy works
Building 3 rockets and having one explode is often cheaper than making 2 rockets go off without a hitch.
American egos have always been more fragile than their funding.
Fortunately, Americans have a South African Anglo at the head of their extra terrestrial initiative, and as an anglo, he is not a man of small ego.

On the topic of tanks, dollar for dollar the Russians can pump out double the tanks America can. And they can man them with conscripts who may be less proficient but possess sufficient skill and numbers to challenge well equipped professionals.
Same thing during the war, except Russia was pumping out T34s for between 270k and 135k roubles, with a ratio of about 5 rouble to 1 USD. 1 USD at that time had the same purchasing power as 13 USD now - so a T34 by the end of the war would be about $351 000USD today.
Meanwhile a single tiger cost 250 000 reichmarks - with reichmarks being maybe 0.4USD. That comes out to about 1.3 mil USD today, and I imagine it would be even more if you removed the cost savings of Jewish slave labour. According to this intensively googled article on the tiger, the actual cost may have been much higher: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

>>30604305
>There were no actual logistical issues preventing the production and transportation of US heavy armor to the Western front.

Aside form shit European roads and bridges that would massively delay transport to the front once they arrived in the continent, sure.

>>30612712

Typical Vatnik thinking

> human lives are free

As long as they are "good enough", the actual qualities of a piece of equipment are secondary. What matters is the training and skill of the people using them. Abrams did well in Desert Storm, and the superiority of Abrams over T-72M1 is a big part of it. The bigger part is that the Coalition tank crews were well trained and good at their job while the Iraqis were not. Put Abrams into the hands of Iraqis and they fucking suck.

Why did the USAF and RAF do so well against the Luftwaffe? The average USAF/RAF pilot had 400 hours of flying experience before he got to the front lines, the average Luftwaffe pilot at that point was lucky to get 100.

To get good, the crew has to get practice. Actual practice hours in heavy equipment is expensive as fuck. 200 hours of operating a Mustang costs about 1/4th the price of the plane itself.

If the crewman dies, you lose the hours invested to train him, you need to train a replacement, and you lose whatever benefits he might have produced in the future.

If you spend a ton of money each to train and produce good crewmen, it makes zero sense to cut corners on the equipment and risk losing the crew to save a few dollars here and there.

>>30614184

And the vast majority of ports had cranes incapable of lifting more than 35 tons.

>>30602648
>>30604953
German metal quality varied wildly throughout the war. It's worth noting that metal deposits in Germany proper are largely mediocre in quality, which is why they imported lots of high quality ores and alloys from Sweden and Norway. One of the big reasons the Germany invaded Norway was to secure those metal deposits.

Even in 1941 there were still reports of German armor breaking due to brittleness. The earliest account I can recall was a Russian report on a captured PzIII and StuG. They mentioned the PzIII's armor was excellent and withstood numerous hits from 37 and 45mm guns without any significant hull weakening, even after penetrations.
But when they tested the StuG they made a variety of complaints about the armor quality. It was penetrated more often and sooner, the armor cracked and broke and fell to pieces after only a couple hits, and the armor weakened extremely as a whole due to penetrations.
The PzIII and StuG shared the same chassis, yet the armor quality was very very different.

German industry itself was anything but centralized. Factories were not all held to the same standards and did not report to the same groups of people, this wasn't really fixed until 1943, but the problem seems to persist well beyond that with the varying quality of German armor. In fact, it seems to get worse the longer the war goes on. I do believe that is because of the loss of metal shipments from the north, as well as the escalation of the bombing campaign destroying German industry and refinement centers.

>>30617017
The most confusing bit about it all is of course the British report on a captured Tiger in 1942, which noted the armor quality of the Tiger was very much superior to the armor quality of British tanks, being about 15% stronger and more durable. Then in 1945 you have the report of 15 75mm Shermans shooting 2 King Tiger's until they fall apart and catch on fire because the armor quality was so shit, or German counterattacks during the American counterattack of the Battle of the Bulge being stopped because the Panther's leading the charge had their front hull fall off after receiving several non penetrating hits.
At the same time American reports mention 76mm Shermans being unable to frontally penetrate or damage Panthers.

It's hard to determine exactly how much of German armor was bad. Whether these reports are just complete anomalies and the only accounts we have being the only times it occurred, or if they were the only times noted or admitted.
It's a fact that German armor quality was anything but standard, that's all we really know. To the best of my knowledge there are no in depth reports or books specifically about this.

>>30617024
This is in fact, the closest thing to a comprehensive report I can find on German armor, which doesn't paint it in an extremely favorable light.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

File: 1399444413073.jpg (102KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 720x951px

>>30605542
>Same top speed, one less hp/ton

But wouldn't that mean... better efficiency and mileage?