Is this faggot at it again? Lindy Beige said the 57mm 6lber

>>32349548
he's dumb and doesn't understand firearms or things past the year 1 AD

>>32349548
watching this

this motherfucking faggot just said the churchill was 'the best tank of ww2'

File: 642f877696561259ceffbc7da06ab795.jpg (11KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x236px

>>32349548
I'm pretty sure this guy stays relevant by sprinkling bullshit into his videos to get autistic threads like this on /k/

>Is he the biggest bongboo of all time?
Can you be a *boo for your own country? Isn't it just patriotism/nationalism then?

>>32349915
you're 100% correct but retards like OP don't care and just use memes no matter how wrong

>>32349915
he is the sam hyde of france

the Churchill was the Allied equivalent of the Tiger. The 6 pdr was fully the equal of the 88mm

>>32350020
lindy beige detected

>>32349554
>he's dumb and doesn't understand firearms or things past the year 1 AD

he has no clue about swords and armour either senpai.

It was like a 20 minute long video, were any of the core ideas wrong? Or are you just being autistic?

>>32350322
>Or are you just being autistic?
Didn't watch the video, but /k/ is pretty autistic when it comes to Lindy Beige. There have been entire threads where people have been shouting up and down that he was wrong about the Bren being better than the SPANDAU (lolb8), when if you actually watched the video until the end, his conclusion was something like, "they're different guns, idk lol :^)"

Actually correction, /k/ is autistic with anything that doesn't represent ancap fantasyland where all small arms, from a wooden club to a Davy Crockett recoilless rifle, are completely unregulated (except for black people)

>>32349548
He knows a little bit about the roman empire which gives this SWING DANCE INSTRUCTOR the authority to dispute literally anything he can think of and act like everybody is retarded for not being as smart as him

>>32350687
The problem with his "Bren v Spandau" video is all the inaccuracies in it. Yes, they both have their own advantages and disadvantages, but in addition to making a mountain of mistakes, he completely ignores the advantages of whatever he labels "the Spandau".

He tried to make a valid point, but completely failed in the attempt, thus undermining anything else he said.

>>32350753
Yes, but all those mistakes take up about ten posts, the other two hundred are usually just /k/ circlejerking.

>>32350687
Sometimes Lindy can't see the forest through the Union Jack. He can be extremely biased towards all things British even when it all leaks oil.

File: British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg (12KB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x229px

>>32350076
>
17 pdr was the equal of the 88m

>>32349548
Stop viraling your shitty youtube channel you cuck.

>>32350951
17lber shooting sabot rounds had a 0% hit rate on a 5x5 target at 400 yards out of 70 rounds in US testing when they were thinking about using that when upgrading the Sherman

17lbr firing more traditional AP had performance marginally better than the 76mm AP with much slower reloading in a cramped compartment with much inferior optics and stabilizing

17lber a shit

Why are you morons giving him hits?

>>32351279


The 17 pounder was fine as a field gun. In a tank.... it was just a poor match. It just barely fit into the M4 Sherman, it had a habit of discharging hot gas into the crew compartment, the necessary muzzle break would kick up all kinds of crud on the ground, and numerous changes had to be made to the tank.


In reality what the Sherman needed was a gun that did a better job of handling it's recoil.


>>32349548

Actually, the 6 pounder was pretty close in performance to the M3 75mm gun. While the British did introduce some specialty rounds- APCR in '44- the US never really did that despite knowing that the CBC rounds they had for the 75mm gun were vast improvements over their basic AP rounds. You also need to remember that the two 6 pounder designs that went on tanks were the mark 3's and 5's. From about 500 meters, firing AP rounds both guns have about 80-84mm of armor penetration on a good hit.


Not that it really mattered- in Africa the Commonwealth and the Americans were predominantly fighting Panzer 3's and 4's, and heavy armored elements from the Germans- all two of those battalions? I forget- might have a compliment of 12 or 16 Tiger 1's each. If everything went well. Same held true in Italy. It wouldn't be till France that the need for a better AT gun would become apparent.

>>32351572
This.
All publicity is good publicity, even negative, because it still spreads someone around and draws more people to them who might actually view them positively.
So if you truly dislike what a person is about and you aren't trying to actively trying to organize to stop them, never share them or their message with any other person even in a negative light and let them and their idea die with you.

>>32349548
Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a drug abuser?
I don't know what it is but I feel like this guy pops pills

File: Lindy1.png (697KB, 832x753px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 832x753px

>>32349915
I really want to post this again.

Thank you based anon who made this out of my post.

>>32352784
Oh, that was from yesterday or the day before? Anons were grasping at straws so much they were complaining that he said "barrel breaks" even though he acknowledged in the clip himself that muzzle break was the correct term.

/k/ needs to chill out, and stop sperging over simple stuff like COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROL

|
|>
|b
|
|

>>32350290
But he sure does know his mud huts.

File: 142874047.jpg (2MB, 2580x2856px)

2MB, 2580x2856px

>>32349548
57mm had slightly better performance than 75mm with APC round. And much greater performance with APDS round, and this difference mattered, 57mm could actually defeat Tiger I from front.

>>32349548
He has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. i swear he goes on reddit for his info.

The 57mm has better penetration only at short range. The 57mm was seen as a better AT gun due to it's access to sabot and it's higher shell velocity.

Then he said some shit about 50% hit rate with sabot. This was proven false by american testing. The sabot was seen as inaccurate due to the fact it lacked a tracer and when it impacted the ground, it kicked it only small amounts of dirt therefore making it hard to see where your shots are going. the low hit rate wasn't due to inaccuracy, it was due to being unable to see where your shells were going. this relates to what >>32351279 says here.
The 17pdr was closest to the German long 75 found on the panthers.

he's an absolute ape. Take everything he says about guns and ballistics as lies and look up the info yourself. I've never seen a man with such a big following, have so little knowledge

>>32353290
Trying to make sense of these charts, but at 1000 yards, it looks like the 57mm has 1.2 inches of pen and the 75mm has 1.3 inches of pen

the performance of the 57mm drops off more than the 75mm the longer the range is and the more sloped the armor is, the more advantage the 75mm has over the 57mm

no one can seem to figure out if the 57mm in Churchills, Cromwells, etc were ever issues APDS, British only started giving APDS rounds to 17lbers in spring of '45 and was never really used

I read the firefly got its name not from the bug that blinks but because the muzzle blast was so huge it would usually set things on fire in front of it like trees and bushes and this would give away its position so it had to shoot 'fire' and then move to a new location 'fly'

File: making sense.jpg (842KB, 2516x919px)

842KB, 2516x919px

>>32354760

>What is his problem?

He's an attention whore fishing for clicks.

And guess what stupid fuck just gave him a view, and then advertised the video in question? Yeah, you.

>>32353762
>Take everything he says as lies and look up the info yourself.

Fixed that for you.

>>32349548
The 57mm gun was a great gun. However, it achieved its high penetration (for its time) by having a very small projectile moving very fast. This led to two things. First, penetration dropped rapidly at range. Sure, at close range the 57mm will have superior penetration to the 75. At medium to long range, that is no longer the case. Further, the 57, being a smaller round, has MUCH less explosive filler in its HE round.

So yes, the 57 is a nice gun for the weight, but the 75 is only marginally less effective against tanks at short range and superior against literally every other threat in every other condition.

Never mind the fact that the 75 would kill almost everything it faced at combat ranges.

>>32349548
>watching "youtubers"
>caring about "youtubers"

Fucking functionally illiterate millenials.

>>32356975
Go take your pills, Grandpa. Don't hurt yourself on your way to the bathroom

>>32356606
>At medium to long range, that is no longer the case.
Too bad ballistic graphs disagrees with you.

>Never mind the fact that the 75 would kill almost everything it faced at combat ranges.
>what is Tiger
>what is Panther
You are mistaken 75 with based D-25T and D-10T.

>>32357997
>Too bad ballistic graphs disagrees with you.
But they do agree with me. Are you sure you're reading them

>>Never mind the fact that the 75 would kill almost everything it faced at combat ranges.
>what is Tiger
>what is Panther
Tanks which did not comprise anywhere near the majority of what Shermans fought. Even assuming they were, a 57mm gun is not going to do you much good against them frontally. Yes, they can achieve frontal penetration from extremely short ranges. However, those ranges are so short that they don't even really matter. You'd likely die before you got a chance to use them. And against everything else, the 75mm gun will kill them just fine. This includes Panthers from the side.

>You are mistaken 75 with based D-25T and D-10T.
Slavaboo pls go

>>32355044
Youtube pays you money for all those clicks..... So I can see why a person would be an attention whore for clicks to their channel.

>>32349548
Just got REEEEEEE over the muzzle brake video.

Fucking Churchill, man.

>>32356606
>The 57mm gun was a great gun.
Not compared to what Germans and Soviets had at the same time. That makes it a meh gun.

>Never mind the fact that the 75 would kill almost everything it faced at combat ranges.
Dammit I always knew that everyone shifting towards much higher calibers on their tanks towards the end of war was a pure meme with no reasoning.

>>32358566
>Soviets had at the same time.
Soviets had " lol 45mm worse than German 37mm" in the same role.

>>32358566
>Not compared to what Germans and Soviets had at the same time. That makes it a meh gun.
Incorrect. Compared to its contemporaries, such as the German 50mm guns and Soviet 45mm and 57mm, it was by all accounts a very good gun. But a good gun in 1942 and a good gun in 1945 are different. Even so, these calibers remained popular in antitank guns because they were capable of killing the vast majority of tanks while still retaining reasonable mobility.

>Dammit I always knew that everyone shifting towards much higher calibers on their tanks towards the end of war was a pure meme with no reasoning.
Technically speaking, sort of. In the large scheme of things, these larger calibers didn't mechanically change much of anything. The vast majority of tanks did not have the armor to protect against these medium caliber guns from normal combat ranges. The Allies mostly fought Panzer IIIs, IVs, and their derivatives. However, bigger guns comforted the men who used the vehicles. And yes, they were useful when fighting those relatively few opponents that did in fact have the armor, but those opponents would never have made a change on the strategic scale.

>>32358680
>in the same role...
...Soviets had KV-1 with ZiS-5, unless T-26 is your definition of "same role". No other comment needed.

>>32358733
>Compared to its contemporaries, such as the German 50mm guns and Soviet 45mm and 57mm, it was by all accounts a very good gun.
German 50mm and sorakapyatka were considered VERY VERY VERY OUTDATED VERY VERY VERY SHIT by their own users. 57mm being better than shit that is getting replaced all around 1941 is not an achievement.
> But a good gun in 1942
By 1942 Soviets had TONS on ZiS-5 on their tanks, and Germans had Pz IV Ausf, F2 with 7,5 KwK 40 L/43, and 8,8 KwK 36 L/56 on Tigers. That's not even a competition

>However, bigger guns comforted the men who used the vehicles
Zhukov would like to say you a few words about how he desperately needed 122mm on IS-2 for "comforting his men".

Uh...

/raises hand

Which Brit gun went on the Sherman Firefly?

>>32358932
QF 17-pounder. Actually a good gun, unlike the 57mm bad joke. Not as ZOMGSUPRGOWDAWSUM as /k/ often believes it is, though.

File: 1458346144145.jpg (11KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x194px

>>32358798
>same role

>>32358949
Hm. Maybe Lindy fup duck and got his Brit-pound guns confused.

>>32358899
>German 50mm and sorakapyatka were considered VERY VERY VERY OUTDATED VERY VERY VERY SHIT by their own users. 57mm being better than shit that is getting replaced all around 1941 is not an achievement.
Nope. Short barreled 50 was mediocre, long barreled 50, the kwk 39, was relevant for years to come, especially with APCR. However, it was introduced in numbers too late, as by that point the Germans were doubling down on the Panzer IV. Remember, the ausf F2 was only really getting introduced in the middle of 1942.

>By 1942 Soviets had TONS on ZiS-5 on their tanks, and Germans had Pz IV Ausf, F2 with 7,5 KwK 40 L/43, and 8,8 KwK 36 L/56 on Tigers. That's not even a competition
In the opening months of 1942, Germany and Russia were both primarily working with much smaller guns than that. As I mentioned, the 50mm guns. Russia was still predominantly relying on guns in calibers other than 76.2 mms. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

>Zhukov would like to say you a few words about how he desperately needed 122mm on IS-2 for "comforting his men".
Do you think senior officers are immune to the hysteria, for that is indeed what it was? To be frank, it wasn't needed.

And yes, the 6 pounder remained relevant throughout the war. Did you think that the only tanks the Germans produced were Tigers and Panthers? No. The vast majority of them were significantly thinner skinned than that, easily penetrable by smaller guns.

>>32358949
It's a good antitank gun, not so good in tanks. I'd much rather have a 76mm M1 than a 17 pounder.

>>32358977
Lindy was talking about how 6-pdr was an awsum tank gun for the awsum Churchill, so we're talking tank armaments. Also - Soviets had much better ZiS-2 for the role of puled AT since 1940. And again, with feeling: 53-К was considered AMAZINGLY shit by 1941 standards, and replaced in favor of M-42 by 1942, which lost favor to the same old ZiS-2, WHICH WAS STILL CONSIDERED TOO WEAK FOR IT'S JOB AND REMAINED IN USE ONLY BECAUSE INDUSTRY COULD NOT POSSIBLY SUPPLY EVERY UNIT WITH A 76MM AT LEAST.

>>32358988
Lindy was talking specifically about the gun on Churchill. QF 17-pdr was never mounted on any Churchill.

>>32349548
>Is he the biggest bongboo of all time?
well he is definitely biased towards all things british, this isn't the only video that shows that

>>32359055
>Short barreled 50 was mediocre
Mediocre means gets your men killed, means shit.

>In the opening months of 1942, Germany and Russia were both primarily working with much smaller guns than that
Yes, and enjoyed the price of it - they could not reliably take out their respective opponent's tanks and fortifications at combat distances. Hence the bloodbath that is Ostfront 1941-1942.

> Russia was still predominantly relying on guns in calibers other than 76.2 mms
Yes, because the industry was in the process of being evacuated beyond Urals, and could not reliably supply the forces with ZiS-5 and and F-34, which were the lowest bar for "okay gun". 45mm through 50mm were used out of desperation coming from limited industrial capabilities, not because they were any good.

>Do you think senior officers are immune to the hysteria, for that is indeed what it was?
I think you are much less immune to idiocy than Zhukov is immune to hysteria. He needed tanks that could take out enemy armor and heavy fortifications without waiting a week for B-25 to come and bomb them for him.

>And yes, the 6 pounder remained relevant throughout the war. Did you think that the only tanks the Germans produced were Tigers and Panthers? No. The vast majority of them were significantly thinner skinned than that, easily penetrable by smaller guns.
If your AT emplacement scares off a dozen Pz IIIs with its fire, but then a single Jagdpanther rolls around and turns it into a mash of mincemeat and burning metal without taking a scratch - it means that AT emplacement had a way too shit gun.

>>32359127
>Also - Soviets had much better ZiS-2 for the role of puled AT since 1940.
ZiS-2 production numebrs was fucking nothing for USSR. It was even dropped in 1942 becusae industry couldn't make it. Organic AT of soviet divisions were shity 45mm 53-K, M-42 and so-so 76.2 mm ZiS-3. Long story short: soviet AT sucked hard and it was one of the reasons reasons that soviet infantry divisions provided zero resistance against German tank attack and could only hold front when supported by tanks and front level artillery reserves

>>32359321
But anon, we were just explained here that 6-pdr, which at 500m had penetration very close to that of M-42, was "damn fine enough". How come M-42 is shit then?

>>32359266
>Completely ignoring that the kwk 39 was a thing
Sasuga anon
> they could not reliably take out their respective opponent's tanks and fortifications at combat distances.
That's mostly false. Most of the tanks COULD take each other out from combat distances. Yes, there were a relatively few tanks that bucked that mold, but that is just the thing. The VAST majority of tanks were not those. The ensuing bloodbath has more to do with both sides fighting for initiative. You're probably completely unaware of the many counterattacks and counteroffensives that occurred.

>Yes, because the industry was in the process of being evacuated beyond Urals
Partially. The main part was because the tanks they had DIDN'T USE THOSE GUNS. Russia lost tens of thousands of tanks in this time period. They didn't have 76.2 mm guns.

>I think you are much less immune to idiocy than Zhukov is immune to hysteria.
I think neither of us are immune to either of them, as both are integral parts of being human. Both get wrapped up in emotions. Yes, that includes reports from the front.

>He needed tanks that could take out enemy armor and heavy fortifications
No, he didn't need tanks that could take out enemy armor, he wanted primarily fortification busters.

>If your AT emplacement...
That's not how the war worked, though. You'd be holding off hundreds of panzer IIIs and IVs for any one of the larger tanks, and even then, the large tanks didn't wander around by themselves. Instead, they were used as units. Thus, your antitank emplacement would likely hold against whatever came your way, and then MAYBE the only battalion of Jagdpanthers within three hundred miles rolls out and kills your ass. As it turns out, that being the only Jagdpanther battalion, it can't cover three hundred miles. All along the line, your antitank emplacements and tanks have absolutely no trouble dealing with the rest of the German army. The Jagdpanthers don't change the outcome.

>>32359456
> Most of the tanks COULD take each other out from combat distances
"COULD at all" does not mean "COULD reliably".

>The VAST majority of tanks were not those.
So Germans enjoyed taking out all that VAST majority of T-46s, T-28s and (if barely) T-34s. Until they ran into a duet or trio of sad KV-1/2, at which point the whole division's advance screeched to a halt for up to DAYS, until Luftwaffe support or KVs running out of fuel/ammo spared them this misery. So much for Blitzkrieg. Same with Soviet counteroffensives and Tigers.

Also - what's with you completely disregarding effective range? It's really "nice" to be able to take out a Pz IV from 100 meters. It's infinitely nicer to be able to do so from kilometer and over, since it actually gives you more than 50% chance of staying alive through the ordeal.

>The ensuing bloodbath has more to do with both sides fighting for initiative. You're probably completely unaware of the many counterattacks and counteroffensives that occurred.
I am very much aware of them. I am similarly aware with many, MANY unnecessary deaths on both sides happening due to insufficient range and/or power of supporting artillery.

>Partially. The main part was because the tanks they had DIDN'T USE THOSE GUNS
>F-34
K V - 1
V
-
1

T - 3 4
-
3
4

> You'd be holding off hundreds of panzer IIIs and IVs for any one of the larger tanks
THAT'S not how the war worked. If the enemy recon knew that you have small caliber AT (and only that), and it usually knew, then it was not likely that they'll sent hordes of Pz IIIs for you to much through. Instead, they'll send those to where they know you have no AT at all. And towards you, they'll sent the Tigers and Panthers, and they'll tear the front, and all those hundreds of AT emplacements along the line will have to pull back without taking out a single Pz III, or get encircled and die with no ammo.

Exactly THAT happened hundreds of times on the Eastern Front.

>>32359367
>6-pdr, which at 500m had penetration very close to that of M-42
>penetrates 50% more
>very close to that of M-42
How about fucking no?

>>32359641
>"COULD at all" does not mean "COULD reliably".
I do mean "could reliably". The vast majority of the tanks had guns that could pierce each other's armor at combat distances.

>Also - what's with you completely disregarding effective range? It's really "nice" to be able to take out a Pz IV from 100 meters. It's infinitely nicer to be able to do so from kilometer and over, since it actually gives you more than 50% chance of staying alive through the ordeal.
Panzer IVs had shit all armor at this point. They also didn't become the Wehrmacht's primary tank until late in the year. Yes, they could be taken out at combat distances by existing "small and worthless" guns.

>muh T-34
>muh KV-1
You realize they were tiny portions of the Soviet motorpool, right? And that the handful of cases of the "IMPERVIOUS KV-1" had no real bearing on how the war occurred. At most, and in only the absolutely most rare of cases, the KV-1 would last until nightfall.

And no, the vast majority of soviet tanks, with the T-34 and KV-1 being the exception and still EXCEEDINGLY few in number, the Soviet tanks did not use those guns. But no, you're obsessed with these things so much that you can't see the reality of the situation.

>I am very much aware of them...
The bloodbath had nothing to do with effective range against each other, as the vast majority of tanks could kill each other at combat ranges.


> If the enemy recon knew... and it usually knew
HAH. No, it did not. Recon was very much a precious commodity and good intelligence was a rarity indeed.

As to your main point, you have absolutely no clue how warfare works. You are not sending numbers of tanks towards each other. You are moving battalions, regiments, divisions, corps, armies, and army groups. No, you don't have the heavy tanks in anywhere close to the majority of these units. This was used as a explanation of why small numbers of heavy tanks don't matter.

>>32359780
>penetrates 50% more
Do fucking tell me how 6-pdr penetrated 90mm AT 500 METERS.

Does the dude just sound like he knows what he's talking about? I've only watched a few of his videos and it wasn't anything I know a lot about (medieval weaponry and the like).

Should I drop the channel

>>32359797
>The vast majority of the tanks had guns that could pierce each other's armor at combat distances.
"COULD at all" does not mean "COULD reliably".

>Yes, they could be taken out at combat distances by existing "small and worthless" guns.
See above

>And no, the vast majority of soviet tanks, with the T-34 and KV-1 being the exception and still EXCEEDINGLY few in number
By June 22 1941, USSR had 1066 combat-ready T-34s, and about 900 of KV-1. Put together, that's more than the amount of all Churchill variants with 6-pdr produced EVER.

>The bloodbath had nothing to do with effective range against each other
It had a lot of things to do with those -

>Recon was very much a precious commodity and good intelligence was a rarity indeed.
Germans were EXTENSIVELY using Sd. Kfz's and air recon (exploiting their air superiority) for that precise reason.

>You are moving battalions, regiments, divisions, corps, armies, and army groups
I'm so fucking sorry that I ran out of post space and had to cut down on wording.

>No, you don't have the heavy tanks in anywhere close to the majority of these units.
German Panzerabteilungen were armed with Tigers and Sd. Kfzs and were used specifically to tear through the front where the AT could not reliably harm them. That's EXACTLY how they were used HUNDREDS of time, with even minuscule amounts of tanks often providing strategic results. You don't have to tear the frontline in a dozen places to fore Soviets into a retreat along the line.

>>32349548
I'll bet you he plays world of tanks.

>>32359916
Dammit forgot that part
>It had a lot of things to do with those -
- insufficient artillery power forced the tanks to move in closer with each other, and AT ambushes to allow the tanks to get closer in, constantly risking exposure and imminent death. Meanwhile, spotted AT emplacements could be taken out by the tanks with NO RISK AT ALL for the latter - AT emplacements don't have anything to penetrate, the tank gunner only has to land a HE in it's general vicinity to kill the crew, all while staying way out of a 45mm or 6-pdr's effective penetration range.

>>32349548
He is a legit anglo chauvinist. He still gets angry about Napoleon "literally Hitler" Bonaparte.

>>32359804
>>32353290

>>32359916
>"COULD at all" does not mean "COULD reliably".
For the numbers we're talking about, they ARE reliable.

>By June 22 1941, USSR had 1066 combat-ready T-34s, and about 900 of KV-1. Put together, that's more than the amount of all Churchill variants with 6-pdr produced EVER.
The Soviets entered the war with 20,000 tanks. 2,000 tanks is literally nothing.

>It had a lot of things to do with those -
Considering that they

>Germans were EXTENSIVELY using Sd. Kfz's and air recon (exploiting their air superiority) for that precise reason.
I'm well fucking aware. They STILL they had problems with getting enough reconnaissance, as did everyone.

>I'm so fucking sorry that I ran out of post space and had to cut down on wording.
Funny, I've had to do the same thing

>German Panzerabteilungen...
You could just call them battalions, you realize? Like I did.

And yes, German doctrine tried to call for the Schwerpunkt, or decisive point, where concentrated force would break through the lines in a single place and then the enemy would be defeated. As it turns out, the Tiger tank and those like it really weren't that much more effective than any other tank in that role. Sure, your leading battalion might accomplish something, but everyone behind him won't, and the battalion can't win the war on its own. The heavy tanks, even when used, achieved no significant strategic effects. And just so you know, the vast majority of the part of the war that Germany had the initiative or the initiative was being fought for? The time when those breaches happened? These heavy tank battalions didn't exist. The first only went into combat in September 1942. There were only 18 Tiger equipped battalion in the entire war. They were a nonentity. They changed nothing, and yet fucks like you praise the heavy tank, thinking that they actually did a goddamn thing, and that guns which could destroy these things frontally actually matters, when they were miniscule compared to everything else.

File: ScreenShot.png (79KB, 779x561px)

79KB, 779x561px

>>32360019
Actually fuck you. 78mm vs 61mm at 500 meters, BEFORE we consider that Soviets required higher minimal percentage of penetrating shots during tests to consider a gun capable of reliably penetrating a given amount of armor.

And the thing is - such numbers ARE shit. But do go on about how very much comparable 6-pdr was great and nice, while M-42 was undeniably way too weak.

File: 1456857835792.jpg (45KB, 554x439px)

45KB, 554x439px

>>32360137
>Compares 30 degrees penetration with 0 degrees

>>32359971
>Meanwhile, spotted AT emplacements could be taken out by the tanks with NO RISK AT ALL for the latter
Oftentimes, the conditions don't allow for you to be in a position where you can do it from outside their effective range. If the enemy commander is any smart, he won't let you see you or have line of fire on you until you're well within his effective range, which is really not terribly much shorter than yours, for the better small guns.

>AT emplacements don't have anything to penetrate, the tank gunner only has to land a HE in it's general vicinity to kill the crew
This is also wrong. Antitank emplacements are generally dug in and concealed. You need to find a very small object that's behind an earthen mound. As it turns out, dirt is very hard to punch through. So trying to land that HE shot is very difficult.

But no, the bloodbath was caused because of the scale of the conflict and the operations that were occurring in it, not because of any weapon. If you removed the weapons and gave the soldiers sticks and stones and put them in the same battles, it would likewise be a horrific bloodbath.

File: Lend-Lease-Churchill.jpg (857KB, 1376x914px)

857KB, 1376x914px

>>32349616
>this motherfucking faggot just said the churchill was 'the best tank of ww2'

He says these things for a reason, he knows how people will respond and already has some premeditated counterpoint, some caveat about the Churchill being the best early war infantry support tank or something, it's just a bait and switch argument commonly used in entertainment. If all he did was repeat common knowledge without editorializing he'd have a boring, stagnant channel without threads like this to spread it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

>>32360136
>For the numbers we're talking about, they ARE reliable.
I'd so much fucking LOVE to put you in a 45mm crew trying to stop the advance of a German tank force on the outskirts of Voroshilovgrad in 1942.

>The Soviets entered the war with 20,000 tanks. 2,000 tanks is literally nothing.
Of those 20000, less than 10000 were even combat-ready. Most of those were T-26s, T-46s and T-28s, of which most were ABANDONED. T-34s and KV-1s (which being the best machines, were crewed by the best tankmen RKKA had at the time) constituted the most of armored resistance that actually contributed to slowing down the Blitzkrieg.

>Sure, your leading battalion might accomplish something, but everyone behind him won't, and the battalion can't win the war on its own.
The leading battalion surely can't do anything of importance - like, say, RAISING HELL IN THE ENEMY'S REAR AND LOCKING THE DEFENSES ON EITHER SIDE IN A TWO-WAY COMBAT ALLOWING THE REST OF THE LINE TO BE EASILY OVERWHELMED? Did you even read ANYTHING about Germans using tanks on the Eastern Front?

> The time when those breaches happened? These battalions didn't exist.
Tigers were late for the Kharkov disaster and encirclement of Leningrad, but it was indeed used a lot for the precise job of tearing through Soviet frontline a plenty of times in 1943 through 1944, 'cause >what are the German counteroffensives? >what is Citadel?

>thinking that they actually did a goddamn thing
If heacy tank did not do a goddamn thing, than not any other singular piece of equipment did a goddamn thing on the Eastern front.

>and that guns which could destroy these things frontally actually matters
Of course they were not Alpha and Omega, but having sufficient powered artillery mattered a plenty - it was the top priority for the Soviet industry in 1941-42. And the point is - by those criteria 6-pdr WAS NOT A GOOD AT GUN.

>>32360198
>Oftentimes, the conditions don't allow for you to be in a position where you can do it from outside their effective range
And oftentimes, they do. In those times, your men die, your weapons are lost, your defenses are in tatters and you lose heights, villages and rivers specifically because you had to fight with a significant disadvantage because of your weapons. If such things happen, it means the weapon in question is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.

If the enemy commander is any smart, he won't let you see you or have line of fire on you until you're well within his effective range
The enemy commander is EVEN MORE limited in his use of terrain - as the defending side, he can't choose where exactly the attack will happen. It will happen in the EXACT place where it is the weakest, and where the terrain will play for him. At which point the rest of awesomely established emplacements won't matter, as the crews are pulling their guns with trucks and horses towards a new frontline.

>This is also wrong. Antitank emplacements are generally dug in
Tank gunner still has a MUCH bigger target than the AT gunner tasked with hitting a Pz IV's vulnerable projection.

>and concealed
Ambushes worked great sometimes. Failed miserably often too.

>So trying to land that HE shot is very difficult.
Taking out a tank is even harder.

>If you removed the weapons and gave the soldiers sticks and stones and put them in the same battles...
...the Ostfront would be one big Soviet advance, that would end in 1943 with red banner hanging from a long and bloodied stick atop Reichstag.

>>32360323
>I'd so much fucking LOVE to put you in a 45mm crew trying to stop the advance of a German tank force on the outskirts of Voroshilovgrad in 1942.
I would die for reasons other than my gun. Of course you fail to realize that.

>T-34s and KV-1s (which being the best machines, were crewed by the best tankmen RKKA had at the time) constituted the most of armored resistance that actually contributed to slowing down the Blitzkrieg.
This is an utterly unsubstantiated claim, fabricated to try and preserve your incorrect worldview.

>The leading battalion surely can't do anything of importance...
That's correct. The leading battalion can't do that. The heavy tank battalions were only good at the initial breach. At that point, more forces were required in order to exploit that breach. These are not heavy tanks. The same breaches could be created without heavy tanks and quite regularly were, considering how few in number the heavy tank battalions were.

>Did you even read ANYTHING about Germans using tanks on the Eastern Front?
Let me turn the question around: Have YOU? Or have you only read about Tigers occasionally and think they were the be all end all of the war? Face it, the vast majority of the war was done by units other than heavy tanks. Heavy tanks were strategically irrelevant.

>If heacy tank did not do a goddamn thing, than not any other singular piece of equipment did a goddamn thing on the Eastern front.
That's correct. No single piece of equipment actually means anything. In the case of the heavy tanks, this was even more true.

>Tigers were late for the Kharkov disaster and encirclement of Leningrad...
Did you read what I said? "The time when Germany had the initiative or the initiative was being fought for". I'm sorry to say this, but the Germans lost the strategic initiative in the winter of 1942/3. They no longer controlled the war. The Tiger first saw combat in late 42. You do the math.

Cont.

>>32360323
>And the point is - by those criteria 6-pdr WAS NOT A GOOD AT GUN.
It was a good gun. It could destroy those things frontally. However, the fact that it is a good gun doesn't matter in the slightest to the outcome of the war.

>>32360448
>I would die for reasons other than my gun
I wonder why STAVKA did not adopt your logic and arm most of the men with literal sticks and stones - it didn't matter at all anyway.

>This is an utterly unsubstantiated claim, fabricated to try and preserve your incorrect worldview.
Battle of Belostock–Minsk. Most significant role of all the mechanized Soviet forces was played by the 6th mechanized corps, which had most of T-34s and KV-1s of all forces in battle (and the most experienced crews and officers).

The battle was an utter defeat for Soviets, but German advance was still slowed down for the first time, and forces armed to stand against the German armored battalions played a significant role.

>That's correct.
Did you just ignore my ALLCAPS?

>considering how few in number the heavy tank battalions were
They were indeed few, and for that reason they were used extensively and constantly, unlike most of the less well-armed units.

>and think they were the be all end all of the war
I specifically stated that nothing ever was all end all. But you're just arguing another, opposite bullshit - that not a single piece of equipment mattered at all ever. If we adopt that stance, than NO weapon ever was good OR bad, and the original claim of 6-pdr being good is again full of shit. Truth here is somewhere in between.

> I'm sorry to say this, but the Germans lost the strategic initiative in the winter of 1942/3.
Too bad they did not surrender the same time, and managed to kill a lot of people and stomp a lot of Soviet efforts even since 1943.

>>32360410
>specifically because you had to fight with a significant disadvantage because of your weapons.
But you aren't. Your weapons are good enough for the task. Even the shitty 45mm anti-tank guns could take out Panzer IVs into the middle of 1943 from combat distances.

>the defender can't make better use of the terrain because the enemy decides where to attack and will somehow choose the exact right place to do so.
Even if military intelligence was fucking magical, this still is difficult to pull off. The defender is still in good terrain. Even at his weakest point, he still holds the advantage over you. He has time to prepare his positions. Hell, he often chooses where to place himself based on the terrain so he is best able to fuck up your day.

>Tank gunner still has a MUCH bigger target than the AT gunner tasked with hitting a Pz IV's vulnerable projection.
>Taking out a tank is even harder.
Are you fucking insane? Anti-tank guns are WAY smaller than tanks. When dug in, they present an even smaller target. The tank is far bigger, and thus far easier to hit. If you can hit him, your gun is likely able to take him out. Never mind that you can conceal yourself and he can't, considering he needs to move forwards in order to attack. This ain't even an ambush.

>...the Ostfront would be one big Soviet advance, that would end in 1943 with red banner hanging from a long and bloodied stick atop Reichstag.
I honestly think you're retarded at this point if you've missed the point this much.

Calm down

>>32360621
>Even the shitty 45mm anti-tank guns could take out Panzer IVs into the middle of 1943 from combat distances.
True. And even the shitty T-70 with a 45-mm L/46 could take out a Panther in an ambush (there actually was a documented case of T-70 taking out TWO Panthers), and could down the absolute most of . I wonder why Soviets ever bothered producing anything else. 45mm's and T-70 were good enough for the task - they were literal retards for wasting the industrial capabilities on stuff like KVs, T-34-85s, IS's, SU-100, SU-152 and ISU-152.

>Anti-tank guns are WAY smaller than tanks
They also do not have to be hit precisely to take out. 7,5x495 cm HE was over 5 kilos of explosives. It could reliably kill the crew with shrapnel by hitting anywhere within 5 to 6 meters from the emplacement itself.

>Are you fucking insane
1941-43 Soviet AT crews losses > German tank losses. 1943-1954 German AT crews losses > Soviet tan losses.

>I honestly think you're retarded at this point if you've missed the point this much.
My point there is - German advantage in material (along with logistics and tactics) played a quite significant part in the success of 1941 offense. With material equalized for both sides, it would play out very differently.

>>32360717
*the absolute most of fortified weapon emplacements with a spot-on direct hit
*1943-1945

>>32360640
Mate we're having us some fun here!

>>32360577
>I wonder why STAVKA did not adopt your logic and arm most of the men with literal sticks and stones - it didn't matter at all anyway.
You're fucking daft. Even if I had a fucking Abrams tank, I'd still be dead, because I was fucked on an operational scale. There was no way I'd be getting out of that no matter what weapon I had.

>Battle of Belostock–Minsk...
The funny thing is that you're wrong about this proving that those tanks were good, and it proves my point about no individual weapon mattering much.

Here's how the battle went- Germans are advancing. The Soviets set up their first big strongpoint around Bialystok. The strongpoint is encircled. The Soviets attempt a counterattack, it fails, and then they're fucked. They did not significantly impede German progress, as the German Panzer Groups just rolled on past them.

The T-34s and KV-1s made up only a tiny fraction of the tanks in the pocket. Hell, they only made up a third of the 6th Mechanized Corps. And you want to know the real kicker? The 6th Mechanized only saw combat on one day, and then it dissolved. They hardly even slowed the Germans down more than anyone else did.

>Did you just ignore my ALLCAPS?
I addressed it. The leading battalion won't be doing much of any of that. They're only there to punch a hole for others to flow through and exploit. I just said as much, but apparently you can't read.

>They were indeed few, and for that reason they were used extensively and constantly, unlike most of the less well-armed units.
Everyone else was in combat nearly all the time, anon. Do you think they just sit there on the front lines not doing anything?

>But you're just arguing another...
See>>32360458
It is a good gun, capable of penetrating pretty much everything the Germans could throw at it while remaining light and mobile. However, whether or not it was a good weapon doesn't matter in the large scheme of things. Tactical is beneath Operational, which is beneath Strategic.

Okay, I just watched a few of this guy's videos.
He's being retarded on purpose, right? Just to piss people off?
Nobody could legit believe that... right?

>>32360717
>they were literal retards for wasting the industrial capabilities on stuff like KVs
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is objectively true.

>>32350687
Black people account for like 97% of all shootings in new york

>>32360765
>Even if I had a fucking Abrams tank, I'd still be dead, because I was fucked on an operational scale.
Are you >implying that material does not matter at all at operational scale and above? Boy I'd love to dump you in one of those 1945 Allies vs USSR threads that always boil down to "Allies win 'cause B-29 and nuke". Again, I'm left wondering why R&D even exists.

>Everyone else was in combat nearly all the time, anon. Do you think they just sit there on the front lines not doing anything?
More heavily armed forces saw better supply, faster casualties replacements and higher repairs priority, and were constantly used in ways which guaranteed that they see combat, all that indeed leading them to seeing significantly more use.

>however, whether or not it was a good weapon doesn't matter in the large scheme of things.
Now, talking about 6-pdr - that is certainly true. However, the nature of original thesis - "It is a good gun" - implies that we don't give much of a shit about the grand scheme of things. We're just comparing one weapon to it's contemporaries. And seeing as similar or even better armaments of the period are repeatedly regarded by their users as way inefficient, we can only conclude that it can't be good. Sure, it was "good enough" scaring away armored cars across Africa. It would probably be "good" in a conflict between you and a tribe of Polynesian natives armed with spears and bows, as well. Both are hardly an achievement.

>>32360782
Remember - he has no relevant education. He teaches Lindy Hop for a living. All his expertise is stuff he read on the Internets and heard from his LARP pals. Some things he got right, some things he got wrong. He certainly noticed long ago that he doesn't need to bother much with fact-checking, so he just spews with attitude whatever he sees fit.

>>32360765
>It is a good gun, capable of
Dude, you're on /k/. That's not how /k/ works. If it worked like that, we'd all have us a couple of Glocks and spent our evenings endlessly complimenting each other.

>>32360717
>True. And even the shitty T-70 with a 45-mm L/46 could take out a Panther in an ambush (there actually was a documented case of T-70 taking out TWO Panthers), and could down the absolute most of . I wonder why Soviets ever bothered producing anything else. 45mm's and T-70 were good enough for the task - they were literal retards for wasting the industrial capabilities on stuff like KVs, T-34-85s, IS's, SU-100, SU-152 and ISU-152.
Because by that point in the war, the T-70 was not a good tank. You only need to mass produce a weapon that is good enough to kill the vast majority of what it faces. Once the average gets too high, you need to upgrade. This is why the Soviets used the T-34 throughout the war. While at first it was significantly better than its opponents, it quickly lost that edge. However, it remained "good enough" throughout the entire war. However, the Soviets did in fact upgun it. I attribute that to psychological effect. The German cats and their ilk have no real strategic effect. Too few in number. However, their existence made Soviet tankers less sure of their guns. They were scared. Scared of what was essentially the boogeyman. They would likely never face them, and even if they did, despite having tanks that were inferior on paper, the Soviets would likely come out on top, due to operational and strategic advantages. So did the addition of the 85mm gun really change anything? Sure, it probably increased tank exchange rates by a small amount, but the strategic calculus was such that this tiny change didn't matter.

The same is true of the 75mm M3 being being supplemented by the 76 mm M1.

Cont.

>>32360717
>>32360960
>They also do not have to be hit precisely to take out. 7,5x495 cm HE was over 5 kilos of explosives. It could reliably kill the crew with shrapnel by hitting anywhere within 5 to 6 meters from the emplacement itself.
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that they're dug into the fucking ground. No, you can't just put the shell anywhere close. The earth is between the exploding shell and them. You have to put it directly on top of it in order to take it out. That means hitting a small target.

>1941-43 Soviet AT crews losses > German tank losses. 1943-1954 German AT crews losses > Soviet tan losses.
Operational concerns, actually. As it turns out, not being able to run away once you've been outflanked is a bit of a disadvantage, and leads to high losses if you're overrun. Mobility is king.

You can actually see this play out in the US Tank Destroyer units. Towed guns proved that they were great in North Africa because they were such small targets and could spot and kill a tank before the tank could do the same to it. This led the US to abandon the idea of making every tank destroyer unit mechanized with gun motor carriages. And then they got into the Bulge, where GMCs could fall back and fight another day, while towed guns were overrun. Consequently, the Americans decided that GMCs were the way to go for the future. Before they axed the Tank Destroyer Force entirely, that is.

> German advantage in material is
Germany had NO advantage in material other than aircraft. German tanks were only equals to much Soviet equipment, and were in fact inferior to the T-34 and KV-1. However, Germany excelled at the operational level of war. Russia simply couldn't compete at this point in the war, especially given that most of the talented officers had been purged by Stalin.

>>32360960
>>32360977
Great points all around, especially on towed guns and GMCs. I still disagree over the 6-pdr and somewhat on the role of material on strategic level, but I'm too tired to carry on.

Good night, fellow /k/ommando. It's been a pleasure shitstorming with you today.

>>32360960
>>32360977
>>32361061
Forgot to add that this argument started (and really, STAYED) in the semantics mostly, but would never bother us.

>>32360885
>Are you >implying that material does not matter at all at operational scale and above?
I'm implying that once you're good enough, that's really all you need. I'm also saying that small scale technical marvels don't change wars. If I had my Abrams in that situation, I would still be overrun and destroyed. A few tanks will not decide the war.

>More heavily armed forces saw better supply, faster casualties replacements and higher repairs priority, and were constantly used in ways which guaranteed that they see combat, all that indeed leading them to seeing significantly more use.
Certain units were indeed given preferential treatment because they were intended to be the Schwerpunkt. Or because someone liked that unit. They were given time back from the battlefield in order to rest and refit in order to achieve this. Contrast this to the normal German unit, that would (only slightly exaggeratedly) stay on the line until they are combat ineffective. (Hitler preferred making new units to reinforcing old ones.)

As to why exactly we're talking about why something being a good gun doesn't matter, that has to do with you taking offence from me saying that the 75 mm M3 was a perfectly capable gun, and that upgunning from it didn't really matter.

But now, on to the 6 pounder. It was indeed a good gun. 6 pounders killed everything up to and including Tigers. They had penetration to spare. They were accurate enough. They were also light and easily mobile. They were in short the perfect anti-tank gun for infantry units. Light and mobile enough to move up to the front lines with the rest of your infantry, not even requiring anything to tow it (once it got close enough, of course), yet powerful enough to take on the vast majority of what the Germans could throw at it. As a tank gun, it has a few minor failings, notably the weakish HE round. However, that does not make the gun bad, and in fact it was very good, especially for its size.

>>32360951
>Remember - he has no relevant education
He actually does have an archaeology degree. How the hell he managed to get one with his standards of fact checking, I have no clue.

I still wouldn't say that said education is relevant for most of what he talks about, but it is something, at least.

>>32361061
>>32361077
Good night, mate. Pleasure arguing with you.

File: 1451526805436.jpg (387KB, 379x3795px)

387KB, 379x3795px

>>32360137
>perforation of homo

File: Penetration table.png (27KB, 642x698px)

27KB, 642x698px

>>32349548
I dont like him, but he's right this time

>>32349548
no there is still nutnancy and the she-male from the history channel

>>32352784
>when someone uses your OC
feel good man