WW2 tanks in WW1

PzIIF
France

File: infantry-tank-mk2-matilda-ii.jpg (108KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x550px

>>31224201
Literally any tank would be better than the shit they were using in WWI. But I'd bring back a Matilda II.

>>31224205
Is that just cause of the auto cannon?

>>31224201
Churchill MK. VII
Britain
Battle of the somme

>>31224212
why a matilda? would you be better of with a churchill?

>>31224216
because its
>A E S T H E T I C

File: image.jpg (85KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x559px

>>31224225
>but how could you not want the crocodile?

File: 1300710065_13-461[1].jpg (71KB, 812x445px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 812x445px

When frog and anglo need removal, accept no substitute

>>31224201
either Panzer IV F or H
I guess F , because H's schürzen were mainly for the HEAT which didn'T exist

File: HEADER.png (147KB, 1308x739px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1308x739px

>>31224267
That beast on the somme would be a helluva sight

>>31224269
HE shells existed though, so the skirt would still offer some advantage

>>31224279
ehhh I guess

from what I read though, they were a pain to add to the tank and snugged on all sorts of foliage

File: ed7.jpg (45KB, 596x628px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 596x628px

>>31224297
>tanks getting stuck on leaves

File: e-100-maus.gif (206KB, 2000x1106px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 2000x1106px

>>31224297
Huh. haven't heard that before. although I doubt there would be much foliage left.

>>31224315
>>31224311
well when you look at Strykers with their cages, I can see plenty of problems when you drive your tank/IFV trough woods

also all that barbed wire in case of WW1

File: 429320.jpg (521KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1440x900px

>>31224325
would barbed wire be strong enough to have any effect on the skirts? a tank being disabled because of barbed wire would be pretty ironic

>>31224328
I guess it would depend on the length and amount

at a certain point you only have so much horsepower to slug trough

File: TankGrazd_43_0001.jpg (160KB, 1162x867px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1162x867px

>>31224338
>tanks were designed to cross barbed wire and trenches
> tanks of the future get stopped by the very thing they were created to conquer because of add on armour thicker than some points on the original tanks

>>31224201
Valentine with 3-inch howitzer. Normally they were issued only smokes but I'd put HE in them and have fun. The tank itself is rugged and reliable and there's literally no WW1 weapon that can pierce its armour.

>>31224345
Actually majority of post-WW1 tanks need a dozer blade to deal with shit like barbed wire. Not that it's a problem unless you have piss-shit suspension since basically every post WW1 tank could mount some form of dozer blade. The reason for it is that more modern types of suspensions are more "open" so the wire gets into them and fucks them up.

>>31224269
>I guess F , because H's schürzen were mainly for the HEAT which didn'T exist
Common misconception. Skirts where for 14.5mm AT rifles and 76mm HE rounds of soviets. Schürzen could not stop HEAT rounds. So in context of WWI schürzen is actual very useful because 3'' field artillery with HE rounds were main AT weapons.

>>31224328
It can rip skirts off.

File: t-35-4.png (172KB, 1600x829px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1600x829px

>>31224358
Germans had 105 and 150 mm towed field guns. I'm pretty sure a direct hit from an AP round you fuck up a valentine anon :/

>>31224370
so basically majority of WW2 tanks would actually struggle to navigate a WW1 field without modifications? what does the barbed wire even do to a tank?

>>31224389
>I'm pretty sure a direct hit from an AP round you fuck up a valentine anon
Good thing that both of them were howitzers and howitzers are "renowned" for accuracy.
>>31224389
>so basically majority of WW2 tanks would actually struggle to navigate a WW1 field without modifications? what does the barbed wire even do to a tank?
It entangles roadwheels, which eventually "jams" them. Sometimes there's enough torque to tear it up but the answer for it is to have "denser" barbed wire. But as I've said, mount a fucking dozer blade and it's done - it doesn't "let" the wire to get into suspension.

>>31224389
>what does the barbed wire even do to a tank?
http://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/index/5440?stillsgrid_5440_166_s_e_Record_page_media_stillsgrid_interval=15

File: KV_2U1_bp01.jpg (348KB, 2177x1532px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 2177x1532px

>>31224408
isnt that the reason massed fire was used in the first place?

>>31224416
ouch. whats with the "blades" on the side of the treads? were they supposed to aid in destroying obstacles or something?

Either a crocodile or a tiger 2. Maybe a maus, just for shits and giggles

File: Ferd_3.png (87KB, 2749x1092px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 2749x1092px

>>31224536
I was thinking a maus as well, purely because of the firepower it brings and the fact that basically nothing would be able to pen the monster

>>31224387

That sounds very lewd

File: image.jpg (120KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x427px

>>31224201
IS-3s for the Russian Army
>Russians smash unsuspecting German Army
>Nicholas II is immensely popular for leading his people to a swift victory
>commies btfo, the world is safe for autocracy

>>31224215
this pretty much, churchill was slow but good on rough ground, decent gun, bloody hard to kill, and v good for infantry supporting, also crocodile

>>31224328
>a tank being disabled because of barbed wire would be pretty ironic
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-destroy-a-tank-that-has-active-protection-systems

File: 348593485796534.jpg (9KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 273x185px

>>31224201
>ultimate breakthrough/trench warfare tank.

Prove me wrong.

>>31224215
This is the best answer.
Other good choices would be some of the French tanks from the start of the war.
Reason being that the Churchill and French tanks were designed around the conditions encountered in WW1.

>>31224884
>man that must be a bitch to fix

>>31224900
>a single hill and you're down to a blistering 0mph

>>31224908
what about the moving bunkers? like the t-35 and the maus?

>>31224201
Pershing or Comet.

Punch thorough the trenches then blitz into the Fatherland.

>>31224982
pershing wasn't that fast anon
I'd agree with the comet if it wasn't for the Armour

File: SU.jpg (103KB, 787x496px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 787x496px

>>31224201
behold, the only logical answer

>well armored
>wide tracks dissapate its weight to an acceptable degree allowing it to traverse muddy terrain well
>mobile 6 inch gun because fuck your bunkers and fuck your happiness.

>>31225047
this is a much better option than a t95. also it would be fucking hilarious to see this thing in action

File: DSC_1258.jpg.5283773a.jpg (86KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1024x680px

>>31224201
Canadian Leopard 2
Vimy Ridge.

>>31225079
>hey remember when the nazis had leopard 2's?

>>31225047
Saw a video where some ruskies got an old beast like this running.

>>31225110
hey I saw that as well
pretty sure this is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7gy5Aof0U

>>31224201
M3 Lee.

Nothing on the battlefield of the time requires a cannon larger than 37mm. The 75. Takes care of bunkers. Whole thing is armored against the main at weapon of the time, MGs. Can fire the mg and 37 for anti infantry duties while buttoned up, 37 has a beehive round and the vehicle has reasonable cross country performance while able to be churned out more quickly than other ww2 vehicles.

>>31225139
I thought the lee had problems crossing heavy/steep terrain due to weight? either way you're right about the dual turrets usefulness

>>31225123
Yea. Wish i had a rusted tank like that to jury rig.

File: sherman_sprocket_hvss3.jpg (107KB, 613x376px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 613x376px

I'm going with a HVSS equipped Sherman, armed with the 75mm gun. Most important factor is reliability, and in that sense, the Sherman was the best tank of the war. The 75mm gun has better HE than the high velocity 76mm, and it can mount a dozer blade for cutting barbed wire.

>>31224267

> Drives 50 km from rail depot to front line
> Breaks down
> No spare parts in 1914 to fix it
> Tank is not bunker

File: image.jpg (53KB, 530x306px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 530x306px

>>31224201
Churchill I-VII,
Unparalleled terrain crossing ability, thick as fuck frontal armor, a frontal mounted cannon in the hull ( earlier variants ), 2 machine guns, and still space for a QF 75mm gun in the turret.
Not to mention a flamethrower variant.

>>31225321
>Ammo, fuel and spare parts are not a problem.

Is reading hard

>>31225428
Apparently so

Pretty much any of the infantry tanks the UK put out

assuming they aren't going up against enemy tanks from WW2, too, then the armament, slow speed and armor on things like the Churchill are perfect

>>31225154
Well VVSS was rather limited in a vertical climb.

File: 300px-Sturmtiger_2.jpg (20KB, 300x217px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x217px

>>31224267
if you want to use a big guy, why not this one

File: SBX23b.jpg (27KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x271px

Why are you guys all going with heavy tanks?
Their gun and armor are plain overkill, in addition, if it got captured, it would present an even greater problem.

>T-35
>Multiple turrets
Need I say more?

>>31226629
Shit broke down on paved road. It was complete trash.

M4A3E2.

File: Bovington_102_Somua_S35_1.jpg (941KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 2592x1944px

brehs

File: T_28.jpg (51KB, 694x466px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 694x466px

>>31224201
T-28, Germany, Eastern front (specifically Baltics, because fuck Russkis, also I want Ingria returned to Finns, large portion of the working class in St Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad was Finnish until Stalin's purges in late '30s anyway...)

STUG

>>31227156
cannon or howitzer version?

>>31224678
OP said a tank, not a bunch. Russia in 1914 couldn't even produce enough nuggets for the troops, I doubt they could reverse engineer the IS3 completely, and mass produce it.

>>31226182
This, or a Flakpanzer 38(t), because fuck your trenches.

>>31224201
>Matilda II.

Obviously a Tiger II is the best tank to bring back. Bunch of WW2 hipsters picking obscure tanks to act cool. It's the tiger II so shut up you fucking tank hipsters.

File: tank.jpg (36KB, 634x363px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 634x363px

>>31224201

Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

File: Challenger_2_Main_Battle_Tank_patrolling_outside_Basra,_Iraq_MOD_45148325.jpg (462KB, 1920x1277px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1920x1277px

Now. What about any modern tank you could bring back to World War 1?

I think it's obvious.

File: Leclerc-07.jpg (262KB, 2048x1364px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 2048x1364px

>>31227592
>he doesn't want to go FAST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN-AwDX77h8

File: 1422750171848.jpg (437KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2048x1365px

>>31225301
He's a pic you may like anon

File: stuglife.jpg (61KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x437px

>>31225079
>>31227592
>ww2 tank
dont skip school, kids. you need to learn how to read.

>>31227545
I think OP meant one that was actually BUILT anon.

>>31225101
They said Canadian, not German.

>>31228222
How can they have a photo of it if it wasn't built?

>>31228209
Maybe learn to read you fuck
>>Now. What about any modern tank you could bring back to World War 1?

>>31228288
>implying that's the topic

>>31228303
>GUISE WE NEED TO STAY ON TOPIC GUISE
autism

File: 1430936250051.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>31228209