Look at this piece of shit fuck you

fuck this shitty tank

In before people start inevitably comparing it to the Tiger and expecting a medium tank to out armor or outgun a heavy.

It was meant as a mass production tank

>>31211669
>>31212069

And yet it was Sherman tanks who rolled down the streets of German towns and cities.

File: panzer III A BTFO.jpg (287KB, 800x498px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 800x498px

>>31211669
look at this peice of shit


fuck you

Why do people insist on shitting on what was probably the best medium tank of the war?

It had literally no downsides compared to the T-34 yet people blindly praise that like the second coming of tank design despite its massive flaws.

>>31212638
higher ground pressure due to thinner tracks than on the T34 makes it less ideal when navigating muddy terrain due to high ground pressure

it has higher center of gravity which results in the tank toppling when navigating mountains or when it slides into a ditch, etc.

The tank itself is larger and more prone to hits.

Other than that, the M4 is great, and definitely superior to german medium tanks except for the Panther.

>>31212259
The M4A3E2 did outarmor the Tiger while weighing 24 tons less.

Still managed to be a pig. Ever seen the Swedish postwar terrain trials? Video's on youtube. Non-HVSS Shermans get knocked the fuck out by a Panther in cross country mobility due to shitty suspension and tracks.

>>31212709
Of course, one caveat to this is that a Panther can only move so far in cross country before the shoddily made final drive gives out, whereas a Sherman or T-34 have much better actual range.

>>31211669

Shitty little road wheels.

File: M4 ventilation.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>31211669
>>31212626

>>31212715
>or T-34 have much better actual range.

hahahaha

Something was off with its optics though.

Everytime they meet a German tank they thought they see a Tiger tank.

File: T-34-122.jpg (13KB, 271x186px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 271x186px

>>31212259

Neither the Sherman nor the Tiger had 122 millimeters of the motherland backing them.

You don't need the best armor or the best gun to out produce and out maneuver your opponent.

Germany was doing some technologically impressive shit but it turns out that war isn't a world of tanks match and better stats doesn't equal better warfare

>>31212709

One thing I never got about the Tiger is why is it so heavy considering how relatively thin its armor is compared to the T-55 and Centurion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY Watch this and git

>>31212809
except most early german victories wasnt because of their tanks (which were inadequate) but because of tactics. Their biggest problem was that they had to somehow fight a war against a country with no damage to its infrastructure shitting out massive amounts of tanks.

>>31212823
>(which were inadequate)

They were the only tanks which were capable of what was later knows as Blitzkrieg.

>>31212839
yes but when you look at things like penetration they had issues. And the blitzkrieg was mostly a tactical revelation.

>>31212867
blitzkrieg was mostly a propaganda meme

File: panzers instilling fear in commies since 1942.gif (2MB, 550x479px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 550x479px

>>31212813
a very large vehicle with lots of thick, straight plates, instead of fewer angled surfaces.

>>31212867
It didn't matter in the larger scale because tanks vs tanks shouldn't happen anyway.

Tanks were supposeod to break though the lines and fucking the lines of communications.

>>31212796
Because most German tanks were boxy. Looking at them at a distance, with your adrenaline flowing, and with a relatively low magnification (Compared to optics found on German tanks), it's easy to understand how many Americans thought they were facing a Tiger and not the more likely Pz III or IV.

File: 2hib2oj.jpg (6KB, 206x252px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 206x252px

>>31212839
>only tanks capable of blitzkrieg
nigger what the fuck are you on about
you can literally do 'blitzkrieg' with any tank. It is a method of operations, not a tactical or equipment level issue

holy shit.

>>31211669
Only reason it failed is because of how hard it is to CC. Can't have a tank in your back pocket walking through the trenches, needed something smaller.

File: tiger-tank.jpg (204KB, 1000x906px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1000x906px

Look at this piece of shit


fuck you

>>31213005
"Vasili! Look at that shit piece of tank! We're 4km away and and even from here I can be of seeing it is entirely flat like malnourished Soviet chil-"
>Soviet tank obliterated by 88mm shell

>>31212957
>I have know idea what I'm talking

One word: Auftragstaktik.

>>31211669
fuck you OP

>>31212729
>4 crew
>4 survivors

>>31213005

How would the Tiger have fared if Germany continued to use it after WWII and opted to go the Pershing route and upgrade the chassis and gun until it was replaced for good by the Leo II?

>>31211669
Where is this allusive piece shit at? I'm not seeing anything.

>>31212899
that's actually a neat gif. thanks,

>>31213394

Neither East nor West Germany were permitted to rearm until the mid-to-late 1950's, it would have been grossly obsolete by then compared to the Patton, Centurion, or T-54/55's.

>>31212813
Because it's a very big tank. It's a full meter wider than a Sherman, and the 88mm gun and its breech block is also very heavy.

>>31213394
The Tiger had already ceased production. It was considered obsolete, but Panther and King Tiger production never reaching the specified monthly goals meant it was never fully replaced in service.

Asking the same thing about the Panther would be more interesting, since it did have a good engine, good mobility, wide turret ring. Re-engineered to remove faulty components to improve reliabilityit might have been able to be used into the 60's but it's doubtful.

>>31213628

The Patton itself was a Pershing with a dozen improvements installed.

>>31213005
>the tank that disabled that Tiger with a 1 in a million shot was staring straight down the barrel

Maximum pucker factor.

>>31212729
Well thats a side armour of a tank what do you expect.

>>31212804
122mm with the speed of 88mm, god damn now that's some kinetic energy.
>>31213359
They had 5 crew members
>>31212899
They haven't learn anything about sloped armour. But i don't if sloped armour will make a diffrence to modern apfsds.
>>31213035
Tigers only reinged for a 1 year in war, after the is2 they were a afraid little kittens.

>>31212929
Low magnification? Sherman tanks used 3x magnification while german tanks pre 1943 used 2.4x. Pz IV H, Tiger E, panther and later tanks used switchable 2.5x and 5x. Sherman 76 also used 5x. All german tank destroyers used 5x except much lower field of view than the later 5x sights.

>>31213832
You'd be suprised how much they had planned for the Panther. Electric transmissions, diesel engines (Simmering Sla. 16, Deutz T 8 M 118, DB 507), a new easier to produce transmission AK 5-200, Maybach HL 234.

If they were able to fit a 105mm into a newly designed turret it may have been a decent tank.
The only really groundbraking thing about the Panther was its suspension anyway....

>there are people in this thread RIGHT NOW who think that the Christie suspension is superior to bogies

I mean, torsion bar is far and away better than either system, but at least you can actually have a crew compartment in the Sherman.

>>31211669
wtf i hate this tank now

>>31215919
>IS2
well meme'd

>>31213342
Fuck off Lind.

>>31217410

Not a meme at all, there's a reason why the successor was such a scare factor to the West after the war

Solid armor and decent hp/ton as well as a monstrous gun are a nice mix

>>31213342

Auftragstaktik is a method of operations just like what >>31213342 is talking about. Why would you bring that up?

Anyone can do blitzkrieg by grouping armor together, giving them radios and letting them make their own tactical-level decisions.

>>31212367
So did T34s

>>31213035
>4km
Even the Abrams' gun can barely hit something at that range.

>>31213342
>know idea

>>31213394
According to WoT it could have been fitted with a 105mm which would make it on par with most Cold War tanks.

>>31219337
No they didn't.

File: 1472963189934.jpg (547KB, 471x673px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 471x673px

>>31211669
These shitpost threads have driven me to my limit.

The Sherman's only glaring flaw was the narrow tracks, an issue that was never dealt with. Otherwise the tank was superbly designed. Spacious for crew, good escape hatch placement, excellent ammo stowage, extremely reliable engine and suspension, easy to maintain/repair, very upgradeable.

It was extremely effective when it first arrived on the battlefield, outclassing everything else at the time with its longer 75mm gun and (at the time) thick armor.

It's original design was surpasses in several aspects by LATER tank designs (this is mostly apparent in sheer protection, not firepower).

However even so it was upgraded continually throughout the war and near the end of the war an upgraded sherman (such as the E8) could easily go toe-to-toe with Panthers and Tigers and win with its improved optics and vastly improved main gun (the late war 76mm could slice through late war German armor with no problems). I mean the fucking thing served us through WW2 and Korea, it was a good base design that only improved as time went on.

It only really suffered when there was a lag time between the newer designs it faced and the upgrades to deal with them. Even in those situations they were still excellent infantry support.

File: SUPERIOR GERMAN ENGINEERING.jpg (80KB, 700x460px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x460px

>>31211669

Still good enough.

Who won the war? Sherman > Tiger/Panther