Is this a tank? or an IFV?

>>30902140
it might aswell be cthulhu if your an infrantryman on the receiving end without an AT weapo

>>30902475
You could just shoot it with your rifle you know.

>>30902483
>15mm of steel.
>7mm of bullet.
>Not German AT rifle.

>>30902483
Nah, it wasn't well armored, but it was impervious to rifle fire except if you were firing down into the engine compartment from above.
It also got up armored after 1939.

At the time it qualified as a tank. These days it'd be an IFV.

>>30902140
Does it carry infantry internally? If not, WHY WOULD YOU CALL IT AN IFV?

It's obviously a tank, you fucking idiot. Interwar tanks were often armed with only machineguns.

>>30902140

It is a tank.

IFVs are designed to carry a squad of infantry

>>30903832
15mm of steel on the front, 7mm elsewhere. I don't think you'd even need an AT rifle, a .50 cal MG would do.

File: 2t_stalker.jpg (86KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x375px

>>30902140
dunno.
is picrelated a tank?

>>30902140
A tankeete

>>30905097
thicc

>>30905113
That's far from a tankette.

File: wiesel1withRMK30mmautocannon.jpg (83KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x420px

>>30905130
> tankette
unusual armor thread is a go?

>>30905130
Tell me how you would define a tankeete

>>30905155
Why not since apparently /Thg/ isn't happening this week.

>>30905168
small, feminine tank

File: 3.7inchHowitzerTowedByCarden-LoydMortarCarrier1929-2.jpg (55KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x584px

>>30905179
fine then, have a Carden

>>30905168
Primarily, less crew and smaller body. The Panzer I was a full sized tank for the period, just with light armor and armament because it was never intended to be used in battle, but rather for use as a training tank.

>>30905180
And PzkwI isn't small and feminine enough?
If it was a girl and you would ride it, you would end up in jail for pedophilia

>>30905230
>The Panzer I was a full sized tank for the period
No it wasn't at all. It was a 5 ton tankette with only machine guns in an era when tanks were 15 tons and up, and had 40mm or better guns.

File: GB-Mark9 troop carrier-ThePig.jpg (53KB, 650x288px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 650x288px

>>30903882
this is the first battle taxi

>>30905230
Except it was used in combat
Spanish civil war and Invasion of Poland
I guess you can argue it was borderline tankeete/light tank, but I think a tank needs a cannon to be a tank
>>30903882
No it wouldn't

>>30905097
get out of here stalker

>>30905267
Bullshit. Compare with the US. And most tanks DIDN'T have very big guns at all, certainly not larger than 40mm. 37 is the number you probably should have named.

>>30905324
>I guess you can argue it was borderline tankeete/light tank, but I think a tank needs a cannon to be a tank
So is the Mark IV Female a tankette?

File: 2t_stalker_l5.jpg (178KB, 1024x750px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1024x750px

>>30905405
HET

File: Strv 103.jpg (99KB, 720x696px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x696px

>>30905155
Reminder that S-tank is best tank.

>>30905499

I freaking love assault guns/turret less SPGs.

Infantry protects side and rear, anything in front dies, combined arms.

But anon why no turret?
>reduced cost
>reduced weight
>less weakpoints
>less shit than can break

Sure a turreted tank is more advanced and tactically flexible, but spamming droid tanks with infantry support is cheaper and works just as well.

>>30905499

This guy knows whats up.

>designed in an era when stabilizers was shit and every tank had to stop to shoot anyway.
>105mm L7 with a 1 meter longer barrel.
>Incredible RoF, still hard to beat
>can turn the wole tank around faster tan most other tanks could turn their turrets.
>Only needed a crew of 3. Could operate with one person if in an emergency.

>>30905552
>I freaking love assault guns/turret less SPGs.

The S-tank is a MBT and to call it a assault gun or SPG is a disgrace. It was used in a MBT with a lot of sucess. One time during a exercise a company of S-tanks knocked out a company of Leopard 2A4s with only one tank lost.

>>30902140

It's a light tank, which contrary to popular belief still exists, you know.

>>30905411
>Bullshit. Compare with the US. And most tanks DIDN'T have very big guns at all, certainly not larger than 40mm. 37 is the number you probably should have named.
Hey it's almost like the internet exists you can google the information yourself. Let's look at the smaller tanks that the main powers used in 1940
>Britain
Cruiser Mk. III - 14 tons, 2 pounder (40mm gun)

>France
Somua S35 - 17 tons, 47mm gun

>Soviets
BT-7 - 14 tons, 45mm gun

But keep telling yourself that every country used a 5 ton tank with just machine guns as its mainstay.

>>30906345
>>30905411
And yes, older French cavalry tanks did use the 37mm gun, which still doesn't mean most tanks in 1940 were 5 ton, 60 hp shitcans with a couple of MGs.

>>30905624
>The S-tank is a MBT and to call it a assault gun or SPG is a disgrace. It was used in a MBT with a lot of sucess.
I think it's an extension of the "defensive tank" oxymoronic meme

>>30906396
>"defensive tank" oxymoronic meme
This to be honest kazoku. Tanks should be offensive weapons, not AT guns that are harder to conceal and cost way more.

File: strv 103 hull down.jpg (71KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x328px

>>30906451
The S-tank is not particularly hard to conceal. It can quickly dig itself into a hull down position with its integrated dozer blade (that doubles as frontal armour).

>>30906451

It was oftenly used as an offensive tank. The swedish armys armoured brigades was all tasked with offensive tasks, while the infantry brigades had more defensive tasks

>>30906451
>should be
And they are.

>>30906345
>Hey it's almost like the internet exists you can google the information yourself. Let's look at the smaller tanks that the main powers used in 1940
The Panzer I had already had its entire production run completed for three years by 1940. So no, let's not do that. Let's instead look at its contemporaries, from 1934

>Britain
Vickers 6 Ton Mark E - 7 tons for combat weight. One variant was armed with two turrets with machineguns, one had a 3 pdr in one turret, machineguns in another
Vickers Light Tank Mk III- 5 tons, solely armed with machinegun
Vickers Light tank Mk IV- Essentially same thing

And for a 1936 design, which you should know
Vickers Light Tank Mark VI - 5 tons, only armed with machineguns

>France
H35 or R35, ~11 tons, 37mm gun.
Admittedly a year later.

>USSR
T-26, which was at first simply a modified Vickers 6 Ton Mark E

>US
Absolutely nothing of note, even tanks Combat Cars built in 1937 were armed with machineguns only.
>But keep telling yourself that every country used a 5 ton tank with just machine guns as its mainstay.
I'm not. I'm just not deluding myself into thinking that the Panzer I was a tankette, and not just a light training tank forced into wartime service. No, it didn't have the armor or armament to compare to tanks designed and built in the late 1930s, but it was never designed to do so.

>>30906770
>let's not look at the actual time period but look at a generation earlier
Keep those goalposts moving.

>>30905499
>>30905591
>>30905624
All they need to do is make a newer version.

>Strv 2020

>same overall shape
>gun: 120mm/L77
>front armor is basically 3 layers of the newest Abrams front turret at that steep slope.
>slap on APS
>engine is now 2,200hp 60* V14 diesel
>95kmph top speed, 80kmph sustainable, can idle for a week using only 4 cylinders when on standby
>aux fuel drum holders because why not
>Crew: Commander & Gunner/Driver mix.

Make the targeting system semiautomatic, gunner selects target and computer automatically moves the tank to make the shot; can be used by the commander as well.. can be done manually as well.

>>30905499
>>30905591
>>30905624
All they need to do is make a newer version.

>Strv 2020

>same overall shape
>gun: 120mm/L77
>front armor is basically 3 layers of the newest Abrams front turret at that steep slope.
>slap on APS
>engine is now 2,200hp 60* V14 diesel
>95kmph top speed, 80kmph sustainable, can idle for a week using only 4 cylinders when on standby
>aux fuel drum holders because why not
>Crew: Commander & Gunner/Driver mix.

Make the targeting system semiautomatic, gunner selects target and computer automatically moves the tank to make the shot; can be used by the commander as well.. can be done manually as well.

>>30906965
The Pz I was first produced in fucking 1934. I just showed you other tanks from 1934. And then a tank from two years later which was exactly the same thing. So yeah, I did move the goalposts, but you have to realize that it's actually correcting the mistake you made. Why the fuck would you compare the Panzer I with tanks 6 years newer than it, while it was never even designed to see combat? It's perfectly in line with light tanks produced at the same time it was.

>>30907140

Now that stabilizers isnt shit its a dead end.

Would be cool as fuck tho.

>>30907197
>Why the fuck would you compare the Panzer I with tanks 6 years newer than it
To correct your statement which was"Panzer I was a full sized tank for the period"

>>30907222
Damm rights it would be.

AMERICA, fund this shit, and build enough of them to basically do a "Spartan Phalanx" with them.. and give them all to your allies to make the rest of NATO less shit.

Call them "Schwarzkopf"

>>30907475
But it was. I just posted a number of tanks that were designed and produced in the year it was first produced, as well as a tank from two years later. They were the same size, and same armament. Or did you just miss all that?

>>30902140

Yep, albeit a poorly designed one.

It's also a great example of how stubborn the Wehrmacht was in pursuing failed projects when they built 30 of the Ausf. F (20ton tanks with 80mm frontal armor and the same shitty MG turret) before it got cancelled, and those were delivered (but not used) in fucking 1942

File: strv2000.jpg (1MB, 1134x1037px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1134x1037px

>>30907140
I'd rather see the Strv 2000 actually made. There is something incredibly sexy about a tank with a 150mm main gun and a coaxial 40mm Bofors, but nooo... someone decided that it would be cheaper to just buy a bunch of Leopard 2.

File: 63e57fa6d5cc4a26303a3b19696bcf80.jpg (59KB, 642x254px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 642x254px

JagdChieftain

>>30907763
>great example of how stubborn the Wehrmacht was in pursuing failed projects when they built 30 of the Ausf. F
It was cheap, the machinery already existed, and ausf.F was for infantry support anyway.

>>30907827

It was a 140mm main IIRC.

>>30907827
>but nooo... someone decided that it would be cheaper to just buy a bunch of Leopard 2.


Well, they we're right.

>>30907841
Wasn't the "Canadian Stug" basically this on Wargame: Red Dragon???

>>30907920

Actually building the Strv 2000 in the 90s would have ended up in a disaster. Defence budget was cut and like 90% of our armed forces are gone.

Bulding a snowflake tank would have been really expensive and in the end we probably only would have been able to afford a few dozen.

File: 1468197017003.jpg (50KB, 680x684px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x684px

>>30907927

One of these faced a KV-2 during Barbarossa

According to kraut wiki the crater is still visible

>>30907960

If Jimmy Neutron was a tank...

File: kv2 107mm.jpg (59KB, 714x1024px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 714x1024px

>>30907958
kek

>>30907957
... yeah...

File: Panzer_I_MVTF.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

Panzer I a cute!

>>30902140
I've never really see a lot of tankettes, someone must of used the ones around as cannon fodder.

>>30907936
>Makes the filename the description

wut

>>30907936

That's what I've been talking about earlier in >>30907763

>>30905007
.50bmg and the M2 were originally intended to be an anti tank weapon.

>>30908584

This thing makes me want to make a Stug III bed for my child.

Like the race car beds only better because its a fucking Stug

>>30908004
Sire beats me having to ask about it or looking it up myself

>>30902140
Tankette.

The definitions are loose, but here's how I define em:

Obviously all of these are fully tracked and have a turret

all armor facings are <15mm: Tankette
at least one facing of 15mm or more: Light Tank
at least 2 facings of 30mm or more: Medium tank
at least 2 facings of 100mm or more: Heavy tank

This system should denote a Stuart as a light tank, a Panzer III and IV as a medium tank, a Panzer II as a light tank, and a panzer I as a tankette.
A panther would be a medium tank, and KV-1's and Tigers would be heavy tanks.

>>30905591
>>30907140
I almost feel like this tank would've been great for urban, coastal warfare. From the Leopard 2's sawed-off barrel and dozer blade to the Abram's TUSK plate armor; all of the worlds' military's attempts at adapting their MBTs for urban combat have felt pretty shortsighted.

>>30909018
This is a shitty scale, because tanks changed so much during the war, let alone in the decade leading up to it.

>>30902140
no it is an armoured fighting vehicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sd.Kfz._designations#Sd.Kfz._100_to_199
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_I

tank is a British term and is largely non descriptive

>>30902140
>you will never pull up at a drive-through in your Panzer Mk. I

File: Krupp L.K.A.2.jpg (83KB, 782x532px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 782x532px

>>30905130
dude 2 cm Kampfwagenkanone 30 L/55

>>30909018
I think its better to measure them by weight rather than armor thickness

>>30910132
Even that isn't perfect, the panther weighed only .2 tonnes less than the kv-1.

>>30907827
Holy shit I have an erection

File: arD9tmI[1].jpg (229KB, 1861x893px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1861x893px

>>30907140
Uhh i mean they thought about going with a somewhat simmilar design in 1978 when they just found out about composites, but the turretless tank concept is dead since long ago. Stabilization is very important today and they already started to go away from the turretless tank concept in 1973-74

File: s24.jpg (477KB, 1647x933px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1647x933px

>>30906396
>>30906451
In practice it wasnt used any differeantly from the swedish centurions so the defensive tank argument has no merit. It was a tank, it did tank stuff like attack. It didnt just sit there waiting for the enemy to come to it, that would have been a vaste of the mobility and armor and that was something regular infantry with AT weapons could do better anyway

>>30902140
training tank

File: Pvkv_IV_Värjan.jpg (510KB, 1882x1265px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1882x1265px

>>30907813
Have a better picture

>>30902475
first post best post

>>30908551
Just in case if anybody wonders why did they put double 25 pdr on it.

They figured out that they have roughly the same recoil as 17pdr and wanted to test whether the chasis will survive the tensions caused by firing that gun without having to design and make new turret to fit actual 17pdr.

>>30908584
VDV always gets the craziest slavshit

>>30905180
still gay

>>30905499
You mean Söt-tank

>>30905552

Daily reminder there is literally no advantage to having a turretless vehicle sporting a similar weapon to it's turreted counterparts except for reduced costs

fuck,

it's been almost a year since I played tanks and all these ww2 shit is getting my boner going

>>30908397
Flying through the stars

>>30913267
>lower profile
>better armour for the same weight
>ability to use a longer barrel for the same overall vehicle size
>better handling of recoil
Sure, no advantage whatsoever.

>>30910132
>>30910729
Yeah and any sane nation would have called them heavy tanks, but no, because it's Nazi Germany they made a separate vehical that is even bigger.

>>30913267
The climate of tank design was different back then. Stabilizers were in their infancy and most tanks had to stop in order to fire accurately. And armour was losing to Heat rounds. A turretless tank was easier to hide, and it could still fire accurately same as a turreted tank. Stationary, just by rotating the whole tank instead of the turret.
It also allowed for an autoloader, and a bigger gun since the limits of a turret didn't apply.

A tankette.

>>30913279
(No one was inebriated during the making of this post)

File: JGSDF_Type60_RR(SP).jpg (2MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2048px

Japs had this self propelled recoilless gun carrier.

>>30908412

No it wasn't you retarded nigger.

>>30913955
The problem is STILL that you have a limited gun traverse. You CANNOT react easily to pop up threats, especially those on the side. This may be acceptable on defense, but in offensive action they are absolutely screwed.

File: 110828-Tgb1111.jpg (94KB, 730x548px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 730x548px

>>30914426

Sweden had this.

>>30902140
definition of tank has changed over the course of warfare.

>>30906574
why did you post a picture of a dirt mound?

File: wat.png (9KB, 468x148px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 468x148px

>>30907927
>>30907958
> was looking up that account but I found this

File: Strv 103 i lera.jpg (78KB, 720x654px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x654px

>>30915918
>The problem is STILL that you have a limited gun traverse.
No, you don't have a limited gun traverse. Depending on how you want to define things, you either have unlimited gun traverse or no gun traverse at all. Turning the tank is your gun's only method of traverse, because the gun is fixed.

>>30916379
>No, you don't have a limited gun traverse.
Are you fucking retarded? No, that's not how this works. With your hull stationary, you can only turn your gun so far. The gun isn't welded to the tank, it DOES have limited traverse inside the tank itself. And yes, this is the standard definition. I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking.

File: Stridsvagn_103_outside_the_Swedish_Army_Museum_in_September_2015[1].jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

>>30916401
>The gun isn't welded to the tank
Yes, it is.

>>30908412
Your a retard, it was made for anti air guns and to put on planes.

>>30916472
That's a travel lock, you idiot.

>>30916472
This guy is right it it, they moved the suspension up and down a tiny bit. Very very limited.

>>30916530
No, it is not. The "travel lock" is welded to the hull. The gun is fixed. It cannot move.

>>30916530
No, the S-tank (Strv 103) did have a truly spinal mounted gun. It had no traverse of any kind in any direction. Aiming was done completely by traversing the body of the vehicle and by manipulating the suspension.

While this seems like an odd choice for a MBT you must consider the role of STRV 103. It was built completely for the purpose of ambushing and destroying russian units invading Sweden and in this role it would have excelled. It had an extremely low profile and it's 105mm gun was not only very accurate but it's solid mounting allowed it to use an autoloader that effectively made it a 150rpm autocannon. It could be driven either from a front or rear facing driver's seat and had a fully mirrored gearbox, being able to drive forward or backwards at the same speeds.

It was so easy to operate, a two man crew would have sufficed, but they opted for a 3 man crew as to not put too many duties on the commander's shoulders.

This ambush-and-run overspecialization eventually lead to it's replacement by the STRV 122 (Leopard II) as it was not very good at doing anything else.

File: DSC00302.jpg (179KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1024x576px

>>30916658
Forgot my picture. STRV 103 displaying maximum gun depression.

>>30916658
>It was built completely for the purpose of ambushing and destroying russian units invading Sweden
Stop memeing, kid. Tanks are an offensive weapon and the Strv 103 was an MBT not a self propelled gun. Swede doctrine from the time saw them as fully-fledged main battle tanks suitable for offensive use.

>>30916684
Ehm... no we didn't? Sweden at the time was not considering any offensive operations at all, the only purpose of swedish armed forces was to stop the russian. It wasn't until the fall of the soviet union and the end of the cold war that reconsidered that poisition. That also led to the replacment of the STRV103 for the more multi-purpose STRV 122

>>30916777
The STRV103 might be one of the most obvious examples of this very defensivly oriented stance, but the Norrköping class missile boats are another good example. Their only real purpose was to go out into the baltic at extremely high speed and unload their considerable payload of anti-ship missiles at any enemy vessels before high-tailing out of ther

File: Strv_103_c[1].jpg (4MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2736px

>>30916401
The strv 103 has a fixed gun. It has no gun traverse whatsoever. The whole point is that the hull moves instead to aim the gun

File: s25.jpg (250KB, 1749x937px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1749x937px

>>30916777
Educate yourself
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/

>>30916777
>Sweden at the time was not considering any offensive operations at all, the only purpose of swedish armed forces was to stop the russian.
And that requires armored counterattacks to disrupt the enemy attack from inside its rear areas. Go look up your actual doctrines from the time. The Strv 103 was an MBT intended for the full range of MBT tanks, according to your own armed forces.

>>30917153
Regardless of what it was intended for, they should've just given it a turret instead of trying to be cute with a novel design.

>>30917171
>opinions
Why are you even replying?

>>30917153
>intended for the full range of MBT taSks
whoops

>>30917171
I'm sure you know better than the experts who designed it or who tested it, because they all agreed that its turretless design held significant advantages over conventional, turreted tanks.

>>30917153
And if it was supposed to do that, then it should have had a turret, because as it stand it is at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage when on the attack due to the lack of turret. Or are you going to completely ignore that?

>>30917497
>"It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move."
t. final report from the British s-tank trials of 1973

>>30917497
>because as it stand it is at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage when on the attack due to the lack of turret.
Except it was not at a disadvantage due to the lack of turret. Read the thread before you reply.

>>30917539
so what the big deal with gun stabilization then ? are they kinda useless ?

>>30917539
>>30917547
The issue is not firing on the move, you fucking idiots. The issue is pop up threats to the sides, especially when on the attack. In any other tank, you are more able to quickly bring your gun to bear, starting even BEFORE the driver has stopped, never mind the fact that you can be scanning while moving because it can be oriented in a different direction than that of travel.

So let's say you're doing a platoon attack down a field, with a woodline to your left. With conventional tanks, while moving you could have a section scanning that woodline while in motion. Sure, they might stop to take the shot, but they'll already be pointed in essentially the right direction, and the gunner will already be mostly on target.

Is this hard to understand?

>>30917637
>The issue is not firing on the move, you fucking idiots. The issue is pop up threats to the sides, especially when on the attack.
The Swedes tested those scenarios, you idiot. Read the reddit link posted in this thread before you open your fat mouth and embarrass yourself again.

>>30917316
Yeah and I'm sure you know better than the experts who designed literally every other tank in the world.

>>30914426
Cute

Like a Bren Gun Carrier.. but better.

>>30917671
And I'm calling bullshit on that, especially given how it states that the commander's override is what makes it special, when it is a common feature on most other tanks. Never mind the fact that two sets of eyes are better than one. And if you read the document, you'd read that they WERE slower. "Inisignificant" is not a unit of measure, and ever moment matters in such situations.

>>30917671
>The strv 103 proved to be an evolutionary dead end, however. Stabilization technology improved rapidly during the 1970's, especially with the introduction of gun-follows-sight technology, and the next generation of Western MBT's that appeared around 1980 were only slightly less accurate on the move than they were at a standstill. The heavily sloped but not all that thick front armor which offered good protection against 1960's armor-piercing rounds was completely insufficient against newer 1970's "long rod" penetrators. It was a very innovative and very Swedish think-outside-the-box solution in 1960, but it should have been replaced around 1980-1985 - the original requirements called for a technical lifetime of 15 years.

here we go s tank went obsolete when reliable gun stabilization was introduced and considering only potential opponent for them were ruskies this happened instantaneously

>>30917588
Gun stabilization is much better now than it used to be. It has reached the level where it's actually useful.

>>30916277
topkek

>Top gear: I went to the internet and found this

>>30917713
>"Inisignificant" is not a unit of measure
Engineer here, "insignificant" is the most commonly used unit of measure.

>>30917763
You'd be a pretty bad engineer, cause you've still got to math that stuff out even if you THINK it's insignificant.

>>30917691
Unlike you, I'm not claiming to.

>>30917774
Nope. If you know what you're doing, you can pretty easily tell insignificant from significant. It's when you don't know what you're doing that you need to do the math.

>>30917818
The entire point is that you should still do the math regardless of whether or not you think you know what you're doing.

>>30906574
that looks so comfy.

>>30914426
the guy up top looks like Shozo Endo from the fucking Batsu games.

>>30917844
Who's the engineer here, you or me? When you are dealing with a familiar problem, you will often know from experience or by knowing how it factors into your figure of merit roughly how large the change in a factor needs to be for it to be significant. It speeds up your work process to be able to for example look at a deviating value in your production line and know that it is at least an order of magnitude smaller than anything you need to care about. That it is insignificant.

>>30916530
>>30916401
>>30915918

fucking idiot BTFO, great thread boys.

File: iraniantank.jpg (173KB, 800x557px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x557px

>>30910132
Or by gun type. If its 40mm or below, its a gun carrier (and under that classification, a modern Bradley would be a gun carrier)

And 105mm and above is tank.

The only gun calibre I am aware of between 40mm and 105mm in the West is 76mm Naval guns.

>>30907957
it's not like we have more leopard 2s in working condition atm...

>>30918182
that's just a shitty copy of the american super light and fast tank

>>30906574
I don't think there's a tank with better hull down than this

>>30918182
France has armoured cars with 90mm guns.

>>30918182

>The only gun calibre I am aware of between 40mm and 105mm in the West is 76mm Naval guns.

wew
e
w

>>30918004
sure kid, you really btfo the Swedish Army

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/

>using autistically arbitrary definitions instead of what the users designated it at the time it was in service

>>30917671

>read the reddit link

You're on the wrong site kiddo.

>>30919686
>>30917127
>linking to reddit
Gas yourself

>>30907958
How was this supposed to have happened if they were lost in norway?

>>30905499
Look at that S tank go!

>>30907957
How about not cutting the budget? That would do wonders.

>>30917983

arr rook same

>>30918476
how do you turn ? S tanks are retarded

>>30921349
That fucking bootlegger's turn tho

>>30908013
How do you get in and out of the turret?

>>30922704

My guess is you didn't. Pretty sure they had a way to aim from inside the tank once they received a target.

File: nöjd karolin.png (47KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1200x900px

>>30921342
>that smooth traverse