Most overrated weapons?

>>32970002
Not really The P 51 Mustang was the dankest meme

File: F-35.jpg (35KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 800x500px

This hunk o' junk

>>32970002

Katana

>>32970002
Nah, the Tiger I was quite capable for 1942 and came by its wartime reputation honestly.

The Me 262 was certainly a bigger meme, as it accomplished exactly zero.

>>32970401

the Tiger I was mean, but it had its problems.

the 262 performed well, but it was too little too late and Hitler insisted on developing it to carry bombs to London instead of keeping it as an interceptor

File: akm.jpg (16KB, 650x209px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 650x209px

>>32970002
It's pretty much shit and the best thing going for it, being cheap, has been nullified by people over pricing it.

>>32970581
>notakm.jpg
>not WWII
This is AR Americlap

File: panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger_227816.jpg (97KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x550px

Tiger I worked fine. Germany had a legitimate need for a heavy tank, that was still mobile, and the Tiger I fit that need best out of what was offered.
They were never going to outproduce the Soviets so they had to outclass them in both vehicles and crews.
Yeah the tanks had some issues, such as the suspension in the frozen mud. But every tank then had problems. As long as maintenance was kept up and railways were available for long distance transport- it worked fine.

That final part is where the Tiger I fails. Germany did not keep control of the rail lines or its depots so tanks ended up having to be driven and put under stress before even getting to the battle (Also happened with the Panthers sent to Normandy, but the Panther had legitimate design flaws with its running gear.)

Tiger commonly ends with two reputations: One as the best tank built during the entire war that was virtually unkillable, the other as some turd on tracks that broke down every day and could have had its role filled by cheaper Pz IVs.

The reality is that Tiger falls in the middle. It was an excellent tank when things worked, but it relied on an extensive network to operate (Transportation, fuel, maintenance, having to get replacement parts from factories). Once those aspects fell apart and Germany's situation changed for the worse, the Tiger was left with the same demands but unable to get them.

>TL;DR- Great tank when it was unveiled and first deployed, but the war swinging against Germany's favor showed its flaws.

File: 1951-North-American-F-86-Sabre-Fights-Against-Soviet-Mig-15.jpg (303KB, 1396x1000px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1396x1000px

Aside from the Sturmgewehr, any of the wunderwaffen are essentially meme weapons.

>>32970401
Without the ME-262, we would have never gotten this beauty.

File: Automatgevär_m1943_-_Tyskland_-_AM.045876.jpg (420KB, 2050x900px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 2050x900px

>>32970002

>>32970002
>prove me wrong
The STG-44 does that already

The maus tank was literally the biggest meme, there were only 2 made. In fact, when the Soviets found 1, they used it for target practice

Me 262 was the biggest WWII meme.

>>32970307
My dude.
Don't get me wrong. It does what it is meant to do. But in no way is it better to any sword of it's time as a whole.

File: 1470605117694.jpg (102KB, 720x696px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 720x696px

>average in every aspect except for the low profile

>can't fire on the move at all

>can't be used in an offensive way

>armour is utter garbage from the sides and any angle not perpendicular to the front

I'm not calling it a bad tank, I'm calling it overrated.

>>32971218
Kind of hard to call it overrated. It was perfect for what it was built for.
Sweden knew what war it was going to fight against the USSR so they built the Strv 103 for that specific role and that role alone.

But anyone who claims it's the best MBT ever or similar vehicles should become standard is being silly.

File: a10_thunderbolt.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

Biggest flying meme ever :

>slow as fuck
>can't turn
>shit load
>old as hell

Fuck the meme gun, this is 2017, we have missiles and bombs, guns on planes are useless

>>32971315
>guns on planes are useless
[Vietnam Airwar flashbacks]

>>32971315
>slow as fuck
>can't turn
no shit. it's supposed to be fast or agile. It's designed for ground pounding

File: little boy.jpg (7KB, 205x245px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 205x245px

>>32970002
Biggest meme.

File: M1A1_Thompson.jpg (235KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1200x800px

>>32970002
As a classic piece of Americana, it's perfect.

As a general issue SMG in World War Two, it gets more credit than what it's worth and should have been replaced by the M3 sooner than it was.

>>32970774
The 43 was the one with a normal gas piston system and was actually alright.

File: gewehr41.jpg (157KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1920x1080px

>>32971674

>>32970307
Maybe this would be true if this were 1999. The Katana meme swung back hard and they haven't been cool in like a decade.

>>32971218
People making posts like this about the 103 don't factor in when it was made.

At this point no tank in the world could reliably fire on the move and it matched or exceeded turreted vehicles even offensively.

>>32971693
That's the dog

>>32970824

I'll agree, it was very good at bullying peasants and cutting people that weren't wearing armor.

>>32970653
>Tiger I worked fine
except for all the times it caught on fire from driving around

>>32971705
indeed. it could engage off-angle targets quickly and defeated turreted tanks in exercises. the m60a1 didn't get stabilization until 1972 ferchrissakes

>>32971218

Along with what other anons have stated:

>those aesthetics

>>32970653
Fuel hog.

>>32971723
I'll disagree

The nips had shit steel and all Japanese swordsmanship martial arts that have survived to the present day put a massive emphasis on never getting the sword into contact with bone while cutting, if possible, and never ever ever meeting anything with the edge (edge against flat being the strongest parry you can make and what ALL, to my knowledge, equivalent european traditions advocate) because the Katana would get fucked up. And it doesn't have a proper point for the same reason. It doesn't feature cross guards for forearm protection or complex hilts for hand protection better than a single tiny disc guard.

It isn't comparable to swords designed for the same purpose in the same timeframe from other parts of the world.

>>32971696

the thread is "Most Overrated Weapons"

/k/ might understand that the katana is average, but ask any normie or weaboo and they'll still tell you all about how amazing it is.

thus: generally overated weapon

>>32971638
BAR was equally trash.

>>32971810
Nah, you are behind the times. Normies know about weeaboos now so the dynamic has changed.

Net effect is that normie don't think katanas are cool anymore and know that they have been over-hyped in pop culture.

Meanwhile real weeaboos have had to reorient their fandom to avoid being labeled 'weeaboo'. Now weeaboos fetishize the pseudo-gothic knight aesthetic of stuff like Dark Souls or Berserk way more than the katana.

>>32971876
That's a great anime and a great game. What's wrong with those things?

>>32971807
So many wrong in one post.

>>32970463
>Hitler insisted on developing it to carry bombs to London
REEEEEEEEEEE

THE JABO WAS FOR STOPPING LANDINGS

IT WAS GERMANY'S BEST OPTION FOR TACTICAL AIR SUPPORT THAT WOULDN'T GET FUCKING MURDERED BY THE SWARMS OF ALLIED FIGHTERS

IF IT HAD WORKED NOBODY WOULD BE TALKING SHIT ABOUT "HERP DERP 262S SHOULD HAVE BEEN INTERCEPTORS ONLY"

262 INTERCEPTOR WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED THE BOMBERS, BUT 262 JABO MIGHT HAVE STOPPED THE LANDINGS

File: 1486453001701.png (26KB, 633x623px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 633x623px

>>32971807

Anon you replied to here. I wasn't praising the sword. It can intimidate people of a lower class and cut flesh is all I was saying.

>>32971915
Show me the Japanese sword art that parries with the edge, doesn't drill concern for health of the blade into the student.

Show me the Katana with crossguard/basket hilt.

Show me the high quality medieval Japanese steel.

>>32970653
>worked fine
Except it was a logistical nightmare, which is what the entire Nazi war machine was built on

>>32971810
> but ask any normie or weaboo and they'll still tell you all about how amazing it is.
Comparing to European sword in XX century it is. Europeans with losing their swordsmanship traditions ended with retarded meme of dull swords. No wander razor sharp Japanese katana performed as lightsaber in the eyes of amazed gaijins.

>>32971948
I'm just adding it wasn't even particularly good at compared to literally any European or Middle East sword designed for the same job.

>>32971913
Nothing is wrong with them, it's just that those are the things actual weeaboos are into now.

Knights are a more popular aesthetic than samurais or ninja in Japanese import culture right now. So I think the characterization of katanas being an overrated weapon is dwindling. Katanas in pop culture were huge through the 80s to the early 2000s, but now they are passé.

>>32971315
Why does the cannon anger you? Slow is an ADVANTAGE in CAS and A10 did nicely in Desert Storm and the Iraq invasion and every other place it's been employed. It's loadout is outstanding for CAS. It takes damage well and is easy to repair including cann'ing parts from more-damaged aircraft. It was designed for high-intensity war in Europe against peer competitors with turning many sorties as quickly as possible.

Why precisely does A-10 bother you and by what personal military experience do you evaluate it as a meme? I've observed their maintenance and they are easy to maintain. The CLSS down the ramp from me at KKMC (I worked F-16s at the time) took full advantage of their design when repairing damage which if sustained by more delicate aircraft would have killed them.

Airframe age is irrelevant unless serious structural problems appear which are too expensive to repair. Aircraft aren't like autos you buy and use until component failure. Periodic maintenance and Phase inspection concepts permit structurally sound airframes to fly indefinitely.

A-10/OA-10 is a nice missile platform that happens to have a cannon. The cannon imposes no important penalty but does offer more options after expending Hellfires and dropping bombs.

I find it exceptionally funny that people hate on Warthogs but don't hate on slower, pitifully delicate attack helicopters which have poor loiter times.

>>32971936
The bombs it carried were tiny. It wasn't stopping shit with that pitiful loadout.

Flying LOW and SLOW enough to bomb accurately would have been a death sentence from AAA and swarms of top cover fighters. Late in the war a popular way to kill German jets was to fly CAP over their bases and kill them on takeoff or landing. Slowing to accurately bomb would impose similar brief but costly performance penalties.

>>32972085
Dive bombing, dumbass. And 1000 kg is more than enough payload. Approach at mid-level, dive to attack, leave the area with lots of energy.

>>32972184

>Dive bombing
>In a 262

Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>32971315
My Dad was a fighter pilot with the Vermont Air Guard for a couple of years before retiring and he said A-10's can be nimble. His F-16 squadron would have mock dogfights with them and he says that after they started giving A-10's sidewinders things got interesting. Flying slower lets you turn tighter, same goes for driving. Since the A-10 is meant for low and slow it can turn better at low speeds than a swept wing jet.

>>32971994

That's an entirely fair point.

>>32972293
>turning at low speeds
>a valid tactic
tell that to the japs

>>32972326
worked for prop pilots facing fagots though

>>32972270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiu8ZmlgwY8

>>32972051
"Unsheathes katana"
Sorry kid, you've gone to far.
"Teleports behind you"
No one says that about m'anime and m'vidya and lives.

Honestly I don't care about being labeled. I'm already a racist a supremacists, anarchist and literally every -Ist. I guess people will always hate something, and normally just find something obscure enough to not be confronted and have to face their conviction.

So if the weeaboos want to like my hobbies to the point anyone who likes them is labeled as them I guess I am.

>>32972326
They didn't have AIM-9. Gun tactics are irrelevant when missile appears.

>>32970653
The real problem is that they couldn't make enough of them because of how complex and expensive they were, and that it was outclassed by 1944. It was mid-war dominant, not late-war.

>>32971315
Correct, a CAS fighter should be smaller, lighter, and more powerful.

>>32971218
It excels at what it was designed to do. It's rated so highly not because it was a "great" tank in general terms, but because it was perfectly suited for a niche requirement.

>>32971936
If Germany hadn't been so autistically obsessed with "tactical air support", maybe they wouldn't have lost the war so badly.

>>32972704
>War Thunder
kys

>>32970653
It would have been a great Allied tank. You know, if it could be efficiently produced, repaired, and was backed by huge oil reserves.

Instead, it was produced by fucking Germany, whose grandeur delusions made it build tanks, but bring the supply by horse cart, all of it while being constantly short of any important resource because they declared war to their suppliers.

tl;dr tank for a superpower, not for Germany.

>>32971638
Yeah, the Thompson looks sexy and is a true McFreedom symbol, but it was shite. I've seen airsoft guns with a longer effective range than the Thompson's. The US should have swallowed their pride and went for 9mm, which wouldn't have just dented steel helmets at 50 yards.

>>32971315
By your retarded assed thinking, we should do away with snipers then because they're outdated when we have gunships.

Idiot. Thinking like that is why we got the shit kicked out of us in Korea, Vietnam, and why my brothers are struggling in the Schmiddle East. "Wah, this is outdated so it's bad". Yeah, well, kid, the lever is as old as man, but we still use it.

Air superiority is not just about missiles and bombs. You HAVE to have a non-electronically guided munition, or you run the HUGE risk of failure. Bullets can only fail by mis-fire. Missiles on planes sometimes won't even launch!

File: Capture.png (38KB, 135x129px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 135x129px

>>32976749
Looks like a horse to me boss.

>>32976749
a fucking horse, probably wasnt even german army lol

>>32977266
The krauts are tricky like that, they also can make trucks look like cattle put out to pasture.

>>32977266
>>32977334

You people are clearly uneducated.

The Third Reich was highly into the Occult. Around the end of the warrior, the Tiger tanks were given Occult magics that shape-shift and bend light to appear as something else.

Commonly they shape shifted into horses. Little did they know that the Allied pilots would still attack. When Hitler killed himself, he severed the contracts of the Occult Gods and thus all their shape-shifting powers stopped.

Open your mind.

KING TIGER RULE 34 WHEN

File: [TONK INTENSIFIES].gif (445KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 650x650px

>>32970002
>Tiger I; designed to take on t-34's on a bad day
>in every game you can play one, have fun getting memed in half by IS-2's, T-29's, Conquerors, and ISU 152's

>Tiger II; designed to take out Kv-1's and similar shit
>have fucking fun with your Is3's and up
>let me see if I can find any paper tanks we can just pretend worked perfectly and assign an arbitrary speed/horsepower


wew
lad

I'd really appreciate a game that accurately modeled reliability.

A tiger would break down after a good amount of wear and tear, or doing something stupid while driving it, and would require quite some time with professional engineers to get back running.

A t-34 would break apart after being sneezed at, but could be repaired by a single drunk blacksmith who's never seen an armored vehicle in his life. Bonus points if you accurately model the gear shifting involving a hammer applied to the shifter.

>>32977266
I'm going to say that you're showing high levels of autism here.
this has always been shown as a joke. a joke that in many cases had a grain of truth to it, but a joke nonetheless.

>>32975576
>War Blunder
KYS!
KYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>32970002
M2 50 cal

>>32970581
>Milled Type 56
>AKM
Pick one,. If it was a Type 56 II, then it would be rightfully called an AKM, as the pre Type 56 were licensed Type III AK-47s. It wasn't till the 1960s that the Chinks managed to successfully reverse engineer stamping procedures copying the Type 4 receiver to mimic the AKM

File: 5002.jpg (52KB, 1000x462px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x462px

>>32970002
Is it a meme? Nah, she does her job as is without issue. Is it overrated? Definitely, to the point it has over-flooded the domestic market preventing the introduction of new, different type of rifles using other self loading actions.

File: tiger tank.jpg (660KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 2048x1536px

>>32970653
>100mm frontal armor for the weight of 60 tons
Yeah nah fuck off desu

>>32971218
It does weigh only 40 tons so you can't really expect it to have a lot of armor.

Any "muh murican war birds" plane.

>>32970653
I see people missed your point entirely by posting arguments that you already covered

>>32971730
That was the Panther.

>>32970002
>Prove me wrong
Why? You are correct.

>>32971723
>cutting people that weren't wearing armor.
Nope, cutting people in armor is fine too... just don't strike the armor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aeWU8CYl5M

>>32971807
>>32971964
TSKSR teach that should you parry, you should do it with the edge. The Bolognese tradition in Europe also said that the parries with the edges are stronger (both false and true), go look at Viggiani, Dall'Agocchie, Marozzo.

Besides, japanese had mostly shit iron, but they managed to make decent steel given time. The japanese sword doesn't need the crossguard cause you would originally use it with gauntlets. A huge guard can mess with cutting mechanics so the japanese simply didn't went around this and kept their hands back as in european earlier styles.

>>32971705
>At this point no tank in the world could reliably fire on the move and it matched or exceeded turreted vehicles even offensively.
Based on what assumption? That every tanks is British Centurion? Even if you were correct on this, turreted tanks can at least aim on the move and then only stop for precision fire. Strv 103 had to fully stop to even begin to aim into anything. Even calling it a tank is a bit of a stretch with its lacking gun elevation. It was essentially a glorified self-propelled anti-tank gun and it was good for this sole role.

>>32971967
>>32970653
Here's a nice video about tank productions, starting at 26minutes, conference is three parts.
https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=1592

>>32971749
>m60a1 didn't get stabilization until 1972
Is this real life? Even T-fucking-54 had gun stabilization.

>>32980253
Yeah. It's just people who in many ways are envious of the reputation the Tiger has and feels the need to bring it down to their level. i.e Sherman fanboys.

File: le stopping tanks man.jpg (186KB, 1600x901px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1600x901px

>>32973046
>The real problem is that they couldn't make enough of them

The Germans couldn't have made enough of ANY tank to stop the Russian steamroller. The problem with fighting a nation as vast is Russia is that your armoured forces will be forced to choose between building a force multiplier effective enough to be fielded in manageable numbers or building a T-34 equivalent and fielding it in similar numbers. Of course, Germany wouldn't have had the industrial capacity to build several million T-34s even if they harnessed the capacity of occupied Europe (very unlikely considering all the sabotage that would inevitably go down when the back bone of your armoured forces are being built by disgruntled oppressed workers who hate your guts) so they went for the option of a force multiplier.

The problem is that 1940s tech was not advanced enough to produce a force multiplier that could both be a reliable, manoeuvrable tank and take down the insane numbers of T-34s each tank would need to kill in order to swing the war in Germany's favour. In the 1940s, that was simply impossible, least of all when you overengineer shit in the way the Nazis loved to do so much. The Tiger and Tiger II were doomed to suffer from the weight requirements of hauling several tonnes of steel both from their armour plate and their main guns, hence why their transmissions were grinding themselves to shit constantly. Even the 'medium' Panther suffered from this ("Boy, Fritz, I sure hope we're not in combat when that final drive breaks after 100km"). So, even supposing that you deal with the inevitable problems caused by huge stress on transmission, suspension, tracks etc, well guess what, the Soviets can just dump that 76mm and replace it with an 85mm just fine. Sure, it's a little cramped for the crew, but they don't care, it's wartime and they can put up with it. But that upgunned T-34 makes your armour useless and now you need to build ANOTHER tank with heavier armour to keep up.

>>32972055
all bait

>>32980145

In 1942 that was more than impressive desu

File: Groovy.gif (2MB, 356x196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 356x196px

>>32983133
>you will never have a last stand against a horde of original T-34's in a Tiger I
>you will never do gif related in your commander's hatch

>>32980466
and the tiger

File: 0uIA3ZYspgk.jpg (179KB, 1280x818px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1280x818px

>>32970002

The Tiger I was a brilliant military machine, where single units could effect the outcome of an entire operational theatre.

Only a mental cuckold would underestimate the capability and performance of the Tiger I and its crews.

>>32971451
Its integral armament is designed for penetrating armored vehicles which have since been replaced with ones with upgraded armor, rendering it obsolete. Since that point, they have been used for light armored vehicles, for which it is overkill and would be better if it used a smaller, lighter round from a smaller, lighter gun. The space and weight savings could be used for just about anything, but having a plane built around a gun that's only good for light armor and similar targets, but limited ordinance carrying ability is completely unnecessary and a waste of money.

File: 1484569056570.jpg (176KB, 866x612px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 866x612px

>>32970653
Now that I think about it the main issue with the Panther was that unlike the Tiger it completely missed the time it would have worked in. Panthers were no better than T-34s in side engagements and were very hard to drive. Only a highly experienced crew would get any extra performance over other German AFVs. When the Panther was finally produced in meaningful numbers, training had bombed to the point that no green tankers should have been permitted within 50 yards of one.

They were designed for 1942 crews but received by 1944 crews. Industrial policy made this even worse, see pic.

>>32977266
lurk moar amigo

File: M4A2 gyrostabilizer.jpg (112KB, 698x480px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 698x480px

>>32971705
>At this point no tank in the world could reliably fire on the move

The M4 Sherman was doing it in WWII;

>>32970761
Largely false, saying that is like saying "Without the V2, we would never have gotten the Saturn V"

If you're making the "first jet" argument, P-80s were deployed to Sicily by the time the war ended, so that's a moot point

If you're making the "swept wings" argument, the 262's wings being swept back were to counter the weight of the engine nacelles rather than for any aerodynamic reason, so that's also a moot point

>>32988944
There was a thread full of trolling and idiocy the other day where people were claiming how without the Third Reich we would pretty much be technologically stunted. As if they were the only ones to come up with designs and concepts for most things used in modern warfare.

>>32988944

no, 4 pre-production YP-80A's were in Europe for operational testing, 12 in total YP-80A's underwent testing in late 1944. 2 YP-80'A's were in England, 2 in were in to Italy.

The P-80 entered service too late to actually play a part in WW2. The main difference between the YP-80A and the P-80 were the attachment of the wing tip fuel pods and the engine. The XP-80A's were powered by a 4000lb thrust General electric I-40 turbo jet while the P-80's were powered by either the 3,850lb thrust General electric J-33-GE-AA or Allison J-33-A-9's

>>32985911
>Only a mental cuckold would underestimate the capability and performance of the Tiger I and its crews.

It was more of a fear factor because at a distance the Panzer IV looked similar to a Tiger I, however a Tiger was rare in a division strength level and most of them were detachments from the heavy armor companies.

>>32988838
nope, no it wasn't... it's gyro-stabilizer was only effective in stabilizing the barrel when coming to a stop. Most of the US tank crews weren't even properly trained on how to use the system and most didn't due to a poor understanding of it function.

>>32980145
Make that 150 mm, the tiger crews were instructed to angle the armor.
Check tiger fibel for reference.

File: 854x480_80803.jpg (51KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 854x480px

>>32971812
Still, I'd rather have a BAR than a Chauchat. But then again, I'd rather have a BREN than a BAR.

File: clover charts (2).jpg (114KB, 992x1342px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 992x1342px

>>32970002
if you think of it as a rolling bunker / stand off weapon things make more sense
it was meant breakthrough tank but that is a suicide mission
I think of it more as an infantry tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tank

also even if Germany could build more tanks and provide them with fuel and ball bearings/engines
they would not have enough people able to man them

but yea
super complex
costs too much
weighs too much
bulky and fragile suspension
tiny engine compartment
inefficient armour scheme
poor serviceability

>>32970653
Questionably true but you're discounting the massive logistical issues of the Tiger (snowflake components and ammo, can't be towed by any normal vehicle, requires highly trained engineers, requires specially trained crews, can't use most bridges, requires specialist train carriages...) and more importantly the concept of opportunity cost: the resources spent developing, building and supporting the Tiger could (and should) have been spent on multiple other tanks.

So yes, its reputation for unreliability is a tad exaggerated (still got good odds it might not make it to the front mind) but its reputation as a strategically unsound design is not. WW2 was an industrial war, tactical effectiveness meant little; when invaded both France and the USSR had tanks as superior tactically to the German tanks as the Tiger (go read up on some of the crazy shit early KVs did) was to the early T-34s or Shermans and it didn't matter in either case because of soft/strategic concerns.

>>32983579
>not thinking about the fate of the design and engineering lest avoiding needles waste of resources

File: panther-12.jpg (22KB, 600x236px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x236px

GREATEST "MEDIUM" TANK OF WW2

>>32985997
tell that the sandniggers who drive around in t55's and unpugraded t72's

>>32990199
Or basically this: the relative cost of putting a single Tiger I in the field vs more Panzer IVs/Stugs/whatever is insane because of how snowflakey EVERYTHING about it was. Heavy tanks were a dead end for a reason.

As for the whole 'The Germans couldn't have won against the Russian Hordes but tried anyway' a large part of that is actually Cold War propaganda: West Germany had to be given something to hold onto after getting fucked during WW2 similar to how the South was given the Lost Cause myth. Also given the situation on the ground (if it went hot West Germany was going to be buttfucked by a wall of Soviet tanks) pushing that line was ideal. Another part of this myth was blaming any and all warcrimes on the SS instead of the Wehrmacht/Germany as a whole; the Waffen-SS was thrown under the bus because a strong Germany was more important than post-war justice.

File: poshbritishexpert.jpg (32KB, 540x325px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x325px

>>32989999
And I'd still rather have the Bren than the Spandau

>>32989999
The Chauchat in it's original caliber (8mm Lebel) was actually an OK weapon... It's the ones given to the US troops in 30-06 that were unreliable as fuck.

File: ttt_tiger_fig1_suspension.jpg (19KB, 500x135px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x135px

>>32990219
same ground pressure and weight as Churchill 2
medium only because the tiger 2 exists

File: laughing nazis.jpg (30KB, 381x453px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 381x453px

>>32970002
>Prove me wrong
Ok

>>32976749
>every single thread that mentions the Tiger
>the exact same trip
>the exact same webm
>the exact same filename
Do you gave a script or something?

>>32970002
It was a meme in Tank to Tank combat but in terms of infantry vs Tank it was a real menace.

>>32989978
You can instruct any crew to angle their armor, that doesn't make the tank itself better.

>>32990326
Germans didn't care about weight. Their classifications were on gun caliber.
Panther had a 75mm gun, it was classed as a medium.

>>32991816
Did well in both as long as the side/rear didn't get enemies on them. Had the suspension been less cumbersome and and the speed slightly more it would probably have been considered the forerunner to the MBT much like the Centurion is.

>>32992525
Question is will the crew be trained enough to do that in battle? Can they pivot their vehicle in place to effectively angle and will there be any weakpoints/ shot traps?

>>32971730
You're thinking of the Tiger P

>>32990326
And yet it had better tactical mobility than the Sherman.

>>32970653

>how to attract sherman shills: the post

Que the faggotry in 5 4 3 2.....