Don't mind me, just the best tank of WW2 passing through.

>>32825248
Where?

File: anu_cheeky_breeky.png (131KB, 312x294px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 312x294px

>>32825248

It's fucking sexy, comrade. Anu Cheeky Breeki!

>In Russian tank
>Lose foot to transmission
>Advancing in Russian land
>Lose foot to frostbite
>Flying Russian plane
>Lose foot when bailing out

>>32825248
Looks cute anon

Does it come with a keychain?

>>32825259
>>32825407
>>32825429
Is that your response? Really? All the effort I put into my post, and you respond with that ‘witty’ retort of yours? The passions and experiences of my life have been poured into ensuring my post was a masterpiece. You’re merely a peasant that can’t even begin to understand how my post was utter perfection. I bet you couldn’t even replicate even an iota of how great my post was. I laugh at the thought of how bewildered and overheated your brain must be for attempting to even begin to refute my post. Even if you went to Harvard and earned a Master’s in the study of my post, you would still lament your inability to learn the prophetic undertones of my post. But you know what? I pity you, since it is a tragedy you couldn’t appreciate my post. The experience could have changed you… made you a better man. Instead, you will remain the hollow shell of a man who could have received salvation. The anguish of you not being able to truly appreciate my post will haunt you to your grave.

File: M4A1_to_M4A3_tank_animation.gif (3MB, 640x323px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x323px

Since is OP is pic unrelated here's the best tank of WW2.

File: 1461386106118.jpg (74KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1280x720px

>>32826200
Good joke.

File: 1483019130818.png (151KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x630px

>>32826216
>>32825248
Please make better bait.

File: Is-3_lesany.jpg (313KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1024x683px

>>32825248

early war maybe?
overall it's probably either the tiger 2 or panther.
or t34's big brother.

>>32827703
I love that two part front plate, it's like the logical advancement for sloped armour.

>>32826174
Never seen this before. Love it.

>>32827703
Other than the horrible reliability of the Panther, it would've been the best tank of WW2.

T-34 was a shit tank, but the russians had enough shit tanks that eventually the germans kill counter would got overloaded.

>>32827981
You don't get the panther without the teething issues and horrible reliability. It's baked into the design. It's suspension was meant for a tank 10 tons lighter.

If you can see out of it.

File: 2bf2f013846cabf1626b10412579d191.jpg (292KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1920x1080px

>>32825248
Oh hello there

File: panther.jpg (32KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x372px

>>32825248

Wait, here it comes

>>32830120
*Transmission breaks*

>>32827981
You might as well call the Maus the best tank of the war, that is the Maus once it had reached technical perfection, which it never left the prototype phase.

The M4 Sherman and T-34 were were the only tanks to have more than 40,000 built. M4 was Reliable, T-34 was shoddy. M4 had the best crew survival rate of the war, T-34 was a deathtrap.

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

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>32825248
Make way, best thank comin' throughhhh

>>32827785

Only the Russians bothered with the meme that is the pike nose.

>Oh boy, here we go.

>>32827703
>T-34/85
>early war

they first appeared in 1943, and became the mainstay of the Soviet medium tonks at 1944

>no turret basket
>primitive radios, if one was even issued
>no real track pin retention
>abysmal engine cooling system
>armor quality control all over the place
>all maintenance access points are bolted down
>suspension maintenance requires removal of the turret
>poor optic glass quality
>unnecessary sloped side armor and Christie suspension units drastically decrease internal volume
>clutch and transmission unreliable and extremely difficult to operate
>bow gunner has no optics and no means of escape aside from a tiny floor hatch
>driver's hatch takes 10-15 seconds to open and even longer to get out of
>driver's hatch also compromises frontal armor
>commander's hatch prevents him from fighting heads up safely
>no auxiliary motor for charging batteries
>traverse motor underpowered and overloaded
>traverse gears don't prevent the turret from continuing to move after traverse control is released, hampering effective fire control
>NO TURRET BASKET
>lack of basket and several inches of turret overhang create serious head injury hazard for the driver
>poor hatch design, fast burning 85mm rounds and fuel tanks in the crew compartment = death trap
>estimated to be equivalent in price to the superior M4 Sherman, meaning it wasn't even cheap to produce

Yeah, no, it was a piece of crap. That's why it took 78% combat losses, and why catastrophic kills ended up wiping out 50-75% of the crew on average.

>>32826200
Well, close. The M4A3E8 76(W) holds that distinction, with the 75mm M4A3 coming in behind

>>32826216
I hate to tell you, but he's right. In addition to making use of technology that both the Axis and the Soviets found themselves unable to reproduce, the Sherman had the best crew survival rates of any tank fielded throughout the war, and still managed to be produced in massive numbers. It had better quality control and logistical support than the T-34 as well, meaning those numbers actually counted for something.

>>32827703
Fuck no. Panther had too many flaws and was better suited to long range engagement than anything else, and the Tiger II was tol unreliable and too few in number.

>>32827981
It also had bad ergonomics and was stupidly difficult to repair. The gunner's optics were also not well designed. Target acquisition in the Panther took longer than in pretty much any other tank from the period that I can think of, save perhaps the T-34-76.

>>32830216
The M4 had a lot of 'soft' features going for it really. Quality optics with wide fields of view made target acquisition a breeze, and a fast, precise electrohydraulic traverse meant you could get the gun on target soon after you'd spotted it. Important, since the guy who got the first shot off back then usually won. The gyroscopic stabilizer helped quite a bit as well, if the crew bothered to take the time to learn how to use it.

Repairs were easy as shit too. Changing out the transmission took 2 hours on average, fast as hell by the standards of the day. The bogie system used in the VVSS and HVSS suspension designs made changing out suspension units just as easy.

It's nice and roomy inside, even before the T23 turret was introduced. All the controls and instrumentation were well placed, and even the seats were well designed. Soviet crews in Lend Lease Shermans apparently loved the seat leather so much that they would make boots out of it.

Advanced radios, powerful engines, smooth transmissions, spring loaded hatches that you could actually get out of in a hurry. There was a lot to love about these tanks. Even the armor and the guns, which everybody swears up and down are garbage, were criminally underrated. Even the early small hatch Shermans had over 90mm of effective armor, and the 75mm was more than enough to penetrate a Panzer IV from the front or a Tiger I from the sides and rear. It also had greater ammunition variety than its contemporaries, and was equipped for indirect fire as well, meaning it could do far more than just destroy other tanks. The armor and guns got even better with the introduction of large hatch hulls, T23 turrets, and the 76mm M1. And I haven't even touched on the ridiculous number of variants that used the M4's chassis.

>T34/85
>>>>>>>>best tank of the war
LOL

>>32827981
>if it wasn't shit it would be the best

File: m4a3e8.jpg (307KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1600x1200px

Impostor

>>32825248
t. Gaijin

>>32825248
>developed to fight the tiger and panther
>couldnt kill either without close range flank shots

>>32825248
I love being crammed into armor like sardines in a can
I love it when hits that don't penetrate the tank cause spalling and tear me apart
I love having massively hit and miss construction quality

>>32827703
>Panther
And that's how I know you're completly ignorant about ww2 tanks

>>32835328
Panther was designed after T-34

>>32835350
It managed to beat out the Tiger's armor while being lighter and faster, and achieved more or less the same combat performance with a smaller gun. But the optics were not well designed, despite the actual glass quality being high, and ergonomics were terrible. The turret traverse was severely underpowered, repairs were extremely difficult, especially when they concerned the transmission and final drive, the engine was a fire hazard, and the whole thing was generally mechanically unreliable.

I must say though, despite all that, it is a pretty sexy tank on aesthetics alone, especially the Ausf. A.

>>32827703
God, the IS series was fucking ugly

File: DSC00585.jpg (100KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x600px

>>32835714
>I must say though, despite all that, it is a pretty sexy tank on aesthetics alone, especially the Ausf. A

I'm with you on that one

>>32835751
If we're going by aesthetics the Tiger I is still better looking.

>>32835667
I think he is implying the T-34-85 was designed the fight the panther and tiger. I don't know if that is true or not.

File: Tiger1-131.jpg (51KB, 600x295px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x295px

>>32835751
Debatable, but it certainly wasn't ugly

>>32835714
It's nice aesthetic didn't save it from being an unreliable piece of shit though

>>32835964
WWII German military in a nutshell.

File: 3083084a.jpg (191KB, 1200x952px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1200x952px

M4 Sherman with welded hull, T23 turret, armed with either the 75mm M3 or the 76mm M1.
Best tank of WW2.

>>32836013
What's the "4Δ" supposed to mean?

File: pershing.jpg (28KB, 550x424px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x424px

>>32835951
Hey buddy, mind if I shit on your day?

>>32836038
4 Delta?

>>32836042
Yeah, but why did they put it on the tank? Does it mean anything?

>>32835964
I know anon, that's what 90% or so of that post was saying.

File: 1024px-4th_US_Armored_Division_SSI.svg.png (83KB, 1024x861px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x861px

>>32836038
US Armored Divisions had triangle shaped patches/emblems to identify them.
So it would be representing the 4th Armored Division.

>>32836088
That's neat. Thanks anon.

>>32832808
>Advanced radios,
>powerful engines,
>smooth transmissions
>It also had greater ammunition variety than its contemporaries
None of which have anything to do with the design of the tank.

Superior manufacturing quality != superior design.

>>32836013
>Pershing

Anon, the Pershing was a piece of crap too. It was too heavy to be transported by ship, or to cross any of the engineering corps' bridges. It was mechanically unreliable, and the Army themselves admitted that the KwK 36 was better than the M3.

You want to fuck up a Tiger's day? Find an Easy Eight with a 76mm. Faster in terms of both mobility and turret traverse, better fire control, more reliable, and although the 90mm was probably better than the 76mm, the 76mm was more than sufficient, and the chassis it was mounted on had none of the M26's deficiencies.

Case in point, Korean War. Pershings were fairly numerous at this point, but the Army still didn't want them. What did they want? M4A3s, most of them 76mm.

>>32836109
>engines and transmissions have nothing to do with quality
Naziboo please go. Your tank is worthless if it can't get to the battle.

>>32835917
No, the T-34-85 was ADAPTED to fight the panther and tiger.
It is true.

>>32835328
This guy is wrong.
85mm gun was adequate and the armour stats on German tanks misrepresent how effective the armour actually was.

File: T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg (303KB, 800x488px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 800x488px

>>32836124
Wrong post bro.
I agree with you, M4 was better than M26. Pershing was a tank that nobody really wanted, but higher ups demanded, and when it finally got to show its capability in Korea, the results were lacking.
The fact they were replaced with the M4s during that conflict speaks very loudly.

Though as a proposed interim, there was experiments with putting the T26 turret and 90mm gun onto the M4. It worked, but there really wasn't a reason to do it and it would have taken nearly as much time to just wait for the entire M26.

File: e_50_standardpanzer.jpg (41KB, 755x310px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 755x310px

>E-series will never be real

File: 1482932059992.jpg (174KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 720x540px

>>32826200

>>32825407
>mfw i still have 3 more feet

>>32836134
What do you mean (armour part of your reply)? Could you give me an example?

>>32836109
Yes anon, it did. Well manufactured German tanks still had numerous inherent deficiencies.

The SCR-508 was more advanced than the Fug 5. Better frequency range, more reliable, longer transmission range.

Even the worst engines put into a Sherman had more horsepower than their German equivalents. A Continental R975 C1 put out about 400 gross horsepower, versus 296 for the Maybach HL 120, and the superior drivertrain delivered that power more efficiently. Net horsepower was around 350, only a 22% power loss. Things got even better with the introduction of the C4 and the Ford GAA.

The M4's synchromesh transmission was said to be no more difficult to operate than a Ford sedan's, and swapping it out only took around two hours. It was extremely reliable as well. These things were known to be able to go months without maintenance without breaking down.

That last one doesn't even make sense. How does superior manufacturing make any difference in the number of ammo variants available?

>>32836156
Whoops. My bad. Meant for >>32836041

Apologies. I'm with you though, late war Shermans were definitely among the best tanks fielded throughout the war.

>>32836128
You missed the point completely.
I've been in innumerable discussions like this, yet after all this time I'm still consistently surprised by how much difficulty Americans have identifying straightforward ideas from plain language.

>>32836200
Somebody splain to this guy how panthers were made with Jewish slave labour and pig steel

>>32836213
>How does superior manufacturing make any difference in the number of ammo variants available?
Think on this question for 5 minutes then get back to me.

>>32836213
>only a 22% power loss

Pardon me, I flubbed the math there. I should've said 12-13%

>>32836213 The Hl 120 was ment to drive a tank with about 20 tons, not a tank with 30 tons like the M4A3.
Whatt do I need different ammo for if the Pzgr 39 can pierce any tank on the battlefield?

>>32836232
Anon, you either have a certain type of ammunition, or you don't. Manufacturing quality has nothing to do with it.

To my knowledge, German tanks were not typically equipped with canister shot or white phosphorous, and their HE rounds were not as versatile as ours. The M48 had two variants, each of which had two different fuze settings. All of this means that the Sherman can be called upon to perform numerous different roles aside from just destroying other tanks. I don't know if you could say these are inherent features in the designs of these tanks, but I do know that the quality of their manufacture has nothing to do with it.

>>32836232
>Somebody splain to this guy how panthers were made with Jewish slave labour and pig steel

Wehrboos have empty lives so they fap to dreams of a war they'll never see, and most are far too cuntish to participate in available wars. They make the excuse that the purpose of war somehow matters instead of going for the lulz.

Mundane issues don't interest them. They aren't mechanics but will debate machinery all day.

>>32836261
>Whatt do I need different ammo for if the Pzgr 39 can pierce any tank on the battlefield?

Good thing you only fight other tanks and have no need for smoke, HE, or engaging targets at long range, so HEAT isn't needed.

>>32836275
Well, Germans had Heat and Pzgr 40, too. And smoke dischargers on their turrets.

>>32836261
Infantry support? Anti-personnel? Anti-materiel? Tanks in the German army ceased to be employed independently shortly after Barbarossa. If a tank that is tasked with supporting infantry can't support infantry as well as its contemporary, how exactly is it a better tank?

And the HL 120 was fine when the Panzer IV was first introduced, but what about when 80mm glacis plates and long barreled 7.5cm guns first started showing up? The transmission, suspension, and engine never caught up, and what was otherwise a good design suffered as a result.

>>32836268
>Anon, you either have a certain type of ammunition, or you don't.
Where do you think ammo comes from?

Exodus 16:4
Then said the LORD unto Roosevelt, "Behold, I will rain 76 milimeter ammunition from heaven for you; and the tankers shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no."

>>32836298
Smoke dischargers may help conceal your tank, but what happens when you need to blind the other guy's tank?

Smoke and WP rounds proved themselves to be highly effective against enemy tanks. Smoke hampers the enemy's target acquisition, and WP had multiple uses. It could be used for anti-personnel and anti-materiel purposes, and using it against an enemy tank could cause the engine to catch fire.

>>32836298
No shit they had multiple types of ammo because they weren't retarded. You on the other hand specifically said you only needed one type of ammo.

>>32836328
Why sould i try to blind a target if y can kill it?
>>32836338
I meant for tank vs tank Pzgr. 39 is fully sufficient.

>>32825248
>implying it wasn't the cromwell

File: fury75.jpg (102KB, 960x875px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 960x875px

>>32836013
Fuck yeah