I used to think tanks were still like in WW2.

The guns and armor kept getting bigger.

People that didn't want their tanks to get steamrolled had to at least keep up.

>>31791972
I kind of wish they made a semi turreted jagtiger with that sexy boxy superstructure.

File: Panzer IV Chassis.jpg (416KB, 1753x986px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1753x986px

>>31791972
>Jagdpanzer IV
>3 Track Support Rollers

Artist clearly doesn't know what he's doing. Jagdpanzer IV is based on a panzer IV Chassis, which has 4 track support rollers, as opposed to the Pz.III which has 3.

>>31793294
Well, you obviously have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
The artist is correct, you are not.
Early Jagdpanzer IV models have 4 return rollers like the Panzer IV, such as the 0-Serie, (such as the type you posted) and early production of the Jagdpanzer IV with PaK 39 L/48 had 4, but the one in the OP picture is a Panzer IV/70(V) which was designed and produced with 3 return rollers.

Moron.

File: 14196078_1225793957450909_4160252581693609372_o.jpg (520KB, 2048x1319px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2048x1319px

Will dump tanks for a bit

To answer the OP question, tanks changed when their missions changed. WWI type tanks were tasked with infantry support and making breakthroughs through enemy lines.

The one in the Indiana Jones movie is based off of that.

When the idea came around that tanks could fight enemy tanks, perform breakthroughs, exploit breakthroughs, and support infantry, their design changed as well.

File: 13339549_782302185245912_6091254817870820554_n.jpg (34KB, 450x283px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x283px

In the German Army, tanks were assigned different roles in the lead up to WWII, thanks to General Guderian.

Panzer II's were cavalry tanks, meant to exploit breakthroughs in enemy lines, as they were lightly armed, armored, and had good speed and mobility.

Panzer III's were the tank fighters. Their main gun was 37mm, short barrelled 50, long barrelled 50, and later short 75. They were tasked with fighting enemy tanks, and they did quite well in Poland, but had trouble facing French tanks.

Panzer IV's were the breakthrough and infantry support tanks. Their short 75mm packed plenty of HE punch to take on fortifications, infantry formations, and dug in enemy infantry.

>>31793294
>>31794206
i hope that one day i can achieve this level of autistic knowledge of tanks, you are both an inspiration.

File: 13325518_782295328579931_7857164568803817079_n.jpg (56KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x435px

>>31794286
It takes many hours of long, boring duty shifts and dumb ass field exercises that have a lot of down time to gain knowledge such as this.
I wasn't a tanker in the Army, but I did have a lot of free time while I was in.

I would always have my face buried in a book or my Kindle, reading.

File: 13627164_1195375220492783_3240219986825184537_n.jpg (70KB, 800x393px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x393px

Very early models of the Panzer III had 8 road wheels per side, like the IV. (Ausf. D)
Serial production of the Ausf. F and later didn't.

File: 12801326_729232230552908_5505728812242418093_n.jpg (57KB, 720x444px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x444px

As the war went on though, and the Germans encountered Russian T-34's and KV tanks, they found the Panzer IV's short 75mm to be insufficient. The Panzer III's long 50mm could hold its own, but they quickly realized they were falling behind.
Thus, the Panzer IV was upgraded with more armor, and a longer 75mm main gun to hold the line until Tigers and Panthers came.

File: 12790838_729228090553322_5654894773811772472_n.jpg (51KB, 720x573px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x573px

The Tiger's KwK 36 L/56 88mm main gun enabled the German's to take T-34's and KV's head on, but Tiger's were heavy, and expensive to produce and maintain. There a lot of myths surrounding the Tiger, but that is better saved for another thread.

The Tiger could perform all the roles of the tanks that came before it. Infantry support, tank killing, breakthrough (to which is was best suited to), and exploitation. (To a lesser extent)

Tiger's were best used as a QRF of sorts. They were either used to spearhead, or quickly react to enemy offensive pushes.

File: 12901231_750933061716158_7654017588363548125_o.jpg (135KB, 1251x827px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1251x827px

Many people like to say the Panther was the culmination of German tank design during WWII, and was the precursor to the MBT of the Cold War, but I would say that honor should be given to the Tiger. The Tiger best performed all those roles.
The Tiger and Panther had similar mobility and similar gun statistics, but the Panther was easier and cheaper to make than the Tiger I.
The Panther should have been relegated to medium tank work the Panzer IV had, but was often forced into heavy tank duties like the Tiger.
Despite this, the Panther could perform both equally well.

The Panther wasn't without its faults though, it really should have had a better engine, transmission and gearbox.
Most of the problems it had with the Null series and Ausf. D were fixed with the Ausf. A and G.

File: ku.jpg (194KB, 1400x513px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1400x513px

This >>31794206
Autismos >>31793294

File: 14233016_1228384163858555_5430685494846195064_n.jpg (140KB, 795x556px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 795x556px

The Jagdpanther bears special mention. A heavy tank hunter (not destroyer-two different words and meanings in German, but were usually used in the same fashion)
The Jagdpanther had a heavily sloped front plate, and used the deadly PaK 43 L/71 gun, the same one mounted on the Tiger II. It could reach out and touch Allied tanks and knock them out without retaliation.

>>31791972
They have tracks, turrets, guns, and armor.

How exactly are they different other than having different kinds of armor and different kinds of guns (unless you are british)?

File: 13244168_775945839171610_7255300290215155824_o.jpg (61KB, 1017x651px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1017x651px

The Ferdinand/Elefant also bears special mention.

Originally designed by Ferdinand Porsche as competition to the Henschel and Sohn Tiger project, it was ultimately rejected because of the diesel electric motors. They used valuable copper, were expensive to build and maintain, and didn't give the Tiger P the engine power it needed.
Despite this, Porsche went ahead and built some chassis thinking he would win the contract, but lost out. The OKH and the Inspector General of the Panzerwaffe didn't want to put those chassis to waste though, so gave it an armored superstructure and a PaK 43 L/71 which was re-branded the StuK 43, or Sturmkanone.

>>31793294
>>31794206
They are both wrong. (5) is the correct answer.

File: 13320914_782301235246007_6677887632570375759_o.jpg (417KB, 1920x1204px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1920x1204px

The Tiger II, or Royal Tiger was the final Tiger tank of the war. Armed with the proven KwK 43 L/71 88mm gun, 150mm of sloped armor and a 700hp engine, it was a fearsome machine to behold. Even though it was one of best protected tanks on the battlefield, the lack of fuel and spare parts for it caused more losses than combat.

File: 1008271-doc2fb_image_02000036.jpg (33KB, 600x328px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x328px

The Jagdtiger was the heaviest and most powerful tank to achieve serial production in WWII. It had the deadly PaK 44 128mm gun and around 9 inches of frontal armor, but came too late to do any good. It was nearly unbeatable in a head on fight, providing it had a clear field of fire and didn't have to turn.
As with the Tiger II, lack of fuel and spare parts were its downfall.

File: world-of-tanks-wallpaper-maus-wallpaper-2.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

The last tank in OP's pic is the Panzer VIII Maus.
Another Porsche monster, the Maus was a mechanical nightmare. It couldn't be penetrated by anything frontally, but if it was fired on it could return fire with a vengeance. The 128mm gun was the same on the Jagdtiger. It had a coaxial short barreled 75mm and an MG34. There were also plans to put a 20mm AA gun on the turret roof.
Its mobility was piss poor and would ultimately be too expensive to produce. Only two variants made it off the production line.
On the Russian's push to Berlin, they encountered the destroyed Maus, but managed to salvage the turret and hull of both vehicles. The V1 hull was mated with the V2 turret, and was dragged back to Moscow for trials and later was put on display at Kubinka.

File: IMG_20161014_205607-2.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>31794327
This.

I picked up weapon's grade autism about ww2 sub-machineguns in the Marines. Any time some pointless hurry up and wait horse shit would strike I would have my face in a book reading about STENs, lanchesters, Mp40's and PPSH44's.

I actually motivated my autism into practice and built a modified MP-3008 clone.

Now im trying to get licensed to manufacture and sell these things.

Jesus fuck. Its probably the ONE thing I took away from infantry life that might benifit me.

>>31794610
Infantry huh? I bet that was fun. I was CBRN in the Army.

My platoon sergeant was pretty cool, we would usually do our own thing in the field while the rest of the company fucked around all day. Once were we done with training we could do whatever. I would read about tanks and tank tactics all day long.

I would say my 'tism about tanks is pretty bad, but probably nowhere near as bad as yours is.

>>31794280
>infantry support tanks
tank support tanks

>>31794206
Dang, there goes my method of telling panzer III and IV tanks apart at a glance without looking at the turret or engine area.

Ah well, it mostly still works

>>31794645
Oh I have tank autism too. Im a TOW and JAV guy. Armor ID was brutal, they would flash a drive sprocket, exhaust port, or Escape hatch from some tank on the screen for 5 seconds, you would then get 30 seconds to scribble down

"T-72, MBT, RUSSIA, STEEL COMPOSITE ARMOR, 125MM SMOOTHBORE MAIN GUN"

Based off of a close-up photo of the commanders hatch you only had 5 seconds to look at.

But it only covers stuff as far back as the T-55, so WW 2 shit aint in my tism lexicon, plus its been a few years and im getting out soon so im starting to get rusty.

Can still ID tanks though. I sperg out in movies where for some reason the americans are rocking BRDMs, or its supposedly a WW2 documentary where the narrorator is describing the american push on the western front but the stock footage of tanks dramatically advancing across the screen in black and white are T-64's.

>>31794593
Cheers for the info

>>31794610
>bipod
>telescopic sight
I'm not sure how I feel about this

>>31795812
That was for humor sake, I had an old optic rail, a cheap-china optic, and a bipod sitting around not doing anything so I figured "fuck it, bubba time."

Don't worry, I didnt defile any relics to make it, I built it from sratch, its a 100% new fabricated rifle.

Ya know, they REEAAAAALLLY cut corners on the original ww2 builds. I tightned up some tolerances and fixed the barrel (original design barrel can rotate freely in it bushings)

I get 4 inch groups at 100 yards with the damn thing.

>>31791972
WW II, electric boogaloo was the Cambrian explosion of weapons design. Only the fittest types went on to reproduce and develop. That's why you don't see diversity like you used to.

any good channels about tanks

preferably post-war stuff

>>31794593
"Production line". These where prototypes, so not much production there

>>31794593
It was destroyed by the germans themselves right?

I didnt think they ever saw combat.

>>31795412
Yes, tanks support other tanks, but there is a type of tank that was dedicated to support infantry.

Ones that come to mind?

The Churchill series
The Panzer IV up to the F1
The Panzer III Ausf. N
Matilda

Infantry support tanks are characterized by their slow speed, heavier armor, and low velocity guns that are meant to take out emplacements and fortifications.

>>31795745
We had to do vehicle ID in gunnery too, but it never went that crazy. We were just shown NATO and Russian vehicles and were told to write down which model they were.

I know a Russian tank when I see one. The only thing that really got me was the BMD and BTR variants confused. BMPs were easy.

WWII German and Russian tanks are my thing though.

>>31795798
Just a basic overview, nothing in gory detail.

You're welcome though.

>>31796727

For conversation's sake I said that. I know only two prototypes were built and there was no real "production line" involved but when most people see "production line" they understand what I'm saying.

>>31796910
Yes, the crew of the vehicle placed explosive charges in the hull and fighting compartment.

They didn't see combat. That is why I put an "IF" in the description of the Maus when talking about how it could return fire.

>>31796393
Youtube channels? Hmm.....
Not off the top of my head.
I know the Chieftain does some good videos that go pretty in depth about WWII era tanks. Walk arounds of the outside, stuff on the inside, etc, but post war? I can't really think of anything.

Why don't you start your own!

>>31795645
It mostly works. Like I mentioned, it was pre-production models and early production models that had those odd characteristics.

>>31794234
>WWI type tanks were tasked with infantry support and making breakthroughs through enemy lines.

That's still their role today.

>>31794280
Sad part is, wasn't the late war Panzer IV a better tank killer than the Panzer III?

>>31797686
Yes, but tanks now days also engage and destroy enemy armor, where in WWI that wasn't part of their mission.

In WWI, tanks were only for infantry support and breakthroughs, because that is what t=hey were limited to technologically. It wasn't until the inter war period that tanks could engage enemy armor as well.

I can't remember the name of the British fellow who thought of that, but Heinz Guderian based a lot of his work off of him.

I believe for the Russians it was Rokossovsky but I could be wrong.

The concept of the Main Battle Tank didn't arrive until the Cold War, where tanks could do everything that light, medium, and heavy tanks of WWII could.

>Light tanks
Scouting, recon, exploitation with good mobility

>Medium tanks
Exploitation of breakthroughs, infantry support, engaging enemy armor with fair mobility

>Heavy tanks
Making breakthroughs, engaging enemy armor, infantry support with poor mobility

>MBT
All of the above

MBTs can fill all the rolls of mediums and heavies with the mobility of mediums and lights.

>>31797820
>Yes, but tanks now days also engage and destroy enemy armor, where in WWI that wasn't part of their mission.

Yeah because the first time tanks appeared on the battlefield, there were no enemy tanks to shoot at.

But people figured it out and we've had tanks that shoot at other tanks since the 30's.

>>31797786
Panzer III's really stopped being used as tank killers past 1943.

The upgunned Panzer IVs like the Ausf. F2-J that were armed with the KwK 40 L/48 were better tank killers than the long barreled 50mm Panzer IIIs.

>>31797838
I understand that, but you are just nit picking now.

That is why I said,
>It wasn't until the inter war period that tanks could engage enemy armor as well

Inter war being the late 20ies to the mid 30ies.

It seems that I know what I am talking about, and you don't and you are just trying to get a rise out of me.

So, congrats. Here is your (You) that you have been hunting for.

>>31794504
I think OP more or less meant how tank warfare in general has changed.

>most anything tanks can do, some form of infantry can do it too
>heavy tanks are a thing of the past
>tank destroyers too

That one really hurts.

>massed tank formations are on the way out
>tank hunting is no longer anything more than pointing a laser on a target anymore
>73 easting was probably the last major tank on tank fighting we'll ever see

>>31797904
>vote for Hillary
>she causes WW3
>vatnik tank formations invade Europe
>tank battles

There's always hope anon.

>>31797137
thanks for the primer on infantry tanks. note that matilda and churchill were often armed with high-velocity guns with little or no HE issued. and the fact remains that panzer iv was to support the lighter tanks, not infantry. sturmgeschuetze for for infantry support

>>31797786
yes. the 7.5 cm kw.k.37 l/24 was a better tank killer than the 3.7 cm gun, and had comparable AP performance to the kurz 5 cm gun

>>31798437
Okay, fine, you win.

The Matilda did carry more AP rounds, but the fact still remains it was infantry support tank.
"With its heavy armour, the Matilda II was an excellent infantry support tank but with somewhat limited speed and armament."

Note how it says infantry support?

The same thing applied to the Churchill.

Germany tended to have a lot of redundancy in their military.
Yes the Sturmartillerie had Sturmgeschutz to support infantry, but Panzer IV's filled that role as well.

" In concept, it was intended to be a support tank for use against enemy anti-tank guns and fortifications"

So yes, infantry support was its mission. As was "tank support" as you keep calling it.

We're both right, but since you insist on nit picking, I'll concede the argument to you.

You win!

>>31798646
i wasn't arguing that matilda or churchill were not infantry support tanks, just that your definition of infantry support tank didn't necessarily apply. and again, the pz.kpfw.iv was intended to support the lighter tanks, not foot troops. when it was being designed as the begleitwagen, german tanks were being concentrated into panzer-divisionen to be used as the fast striking force. infantry divisions wouldn't have had any panzers to provide them support; the tanks were not to be tied down to the infantry. combined arms are necessary, of course, but the early pz.kpfw.iv had very thin armor (thinner than the pz.kpfw.iii) so would not be very useful slogging through an attack with the troops. as your wikipedia quote implies, infantry wouldn't need much support against AT guns, but tanks with small-bore guns (i.e., pz.kpfw.ii and iii) would. i can give you some quotes from jentz, guderian, or spielberger if you'd like

not trying to be a dick, just trying to help. despite the fact that the pz.kpfw.iv had a 7.5 cm gun, they did not intend for it to be an infantry support tank. it was escorting ("begleit-ing") the lighter tanks, not the foot troops

>>31798750
I understand that, and understand what you are saying.

I know that Panzers weren't task organized to infantry units, and I understand that the Panzer IV was an escort vehicle, but my point still stands.

So, like I said we're both right. I don't need quotes from various people.

It could fill the role if needed.

>>31797858
>Here is your (You) that you have been hunting for.

No, I really didn't need you to reply to me with huge autismwalls.

>>31797904
>Most things tanks can do, infantry can do too
Not really. The motto for tanks these days is firepower and battlefield mobility. Nothing rivals a tank in firepower (usually 40+ rounds of main, 15+ boxes of coax/AA mount), Armour that allows it to brawl with anything out there, and speed - tanks have the best offroad capabilities. Infantry are too slow, too squishy and not heavily armed enough to do all these things effectively, even with IFVs and APCs. Not to say the infantry are useless, because they are far from it - but they simply can't offer what tanks can.

>>31794286
Honestly, I learned everything from War Thunder.

>>31799007

And from getting dem sources, right anon?

>>31799446
speaking of, what are some good websites and whatnot for learning about tanks?

>>31794415
They REALLY didnt like slopped armor

I just want sponsons back, for some reason I love how they look.

File: 1376455671263.jpg (172KB, 800x439px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x439px

>>31800724
Slopped armor trades off crew space. The Germans didn't want to make that trade.

Eventually they had to.

>>31794454
>it really should have had a better engine, transmission and gearbox.
>implying the Germans had a choice in that regard

We fucked their industrial capacity to shit. They couldn't make proper transmissions if they wanted to. You had Panthers coming out of the factory with only 3 gears working
.

>>31791972
Well for one, they have for the very most part stayed the same as they were in the end of WW2.

I mean look at the Panther tank, Easy 8, Comet, or T-34-85. Pretty much those era's equivalent of the modern MBT.

As for Tank Destroyers and SPGs, German, Soviet, and British Tank Destroyers and SPGs for the most part were built the way they were due to cost and manufacturing capabilities.

Much easier to take a farm tractor and slap a 76 on it than it is to mount it on a turret, dig?

>>31794327
What are some good books to learn?

File: 26.1.jpg (154KB, 970x797px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 970x797px

>>31798969
>what are ATGMs

Firepower AND mobility without risking an asset as expensive as a tank.

Just as the isrealis what a bunch of dipshits with ATGMs can do.

>>31802214
Tigers in the Mud is a starter
Panzer Tactics by Wolfgang Schneider
The Combat History of German Heavy Anti Tank Unit 653 in World War II by Karlheinz Munch
Thomas Anderson Tiger
The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503 in WWII by Dr. Franz Wilhelm Lochmann, Richard Freidherr von Rosen and Alfred Rubel
Sledgehammers by Christopher Wilbeck
Achtung Panzer by Heniz Guderian
Ferdinand and Elefant Tank Destroyer by Thomas Anderson
Any books by Steven Zaloga
Wikipedia
the Achtung Panzer website
Tank Encyclopedia website

Those were just on my Kindle.

Just Google "books about German WWII tanks" or something like that, and you'll find a bunch of stuff. Mostly historical accounts of battles and such, but there are books on tactics and stuff there too. Just find a couple that peak your interest and buy them. Same thing with the sites I mentioned, just find something that you want to read about, and start reading!