Pick your tank

>>32990404
T-34-85

>>32990404
>Pick your tank
>Personally i'd take the ISU-152

OP thinks ISU-152 is tank

Easy Eight Sherman. Up armored with plenty of firepower with the 76. Plus reliable and easy to fix if something does break because shit happens.

m22

Shit on everybody because no gun depression

>>32990439
Tank or SPG, should have mentioned that.

>>32990404
I'd take a Leo 2A6, probably.

File: kv1_10.jpg (31KB, 480x265px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x265px

This beast. Kliment Voroshilov 1 version Ekhranami or Zis 5 gun. 75 or more if E version armor. At the start od war only the 8,8 cm Flak was able to destroy it. Gun wasn't the best but still did the job nicely. Also Kolobanov. I heard that you needed to stop the tank to shift gears. Is that true?

Super Pershing
>just a little fighting
>only one
>didn't get knocked out
100% survival rate

Good luck in your potential coffins, suckers.

File: 357724120.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

Sitting in my king Tiger,shooting Shermans/T34
and then getting blown up by fucking planes or running out of fuel.

Thats life !

File: 1486066635273.png (48KB, 971x397px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 971x397px

>>32990424
I wouldn't do that if I were you. The T-34 demands respect as a strategic asset, but anybody who knows anything about them and would still volunteer to operate one needs their head examined.

>>32990886
Nah, but the gear change was really hard because the gearbox was shit (required about 20-30 Kg of force). Also, being in the turret of that thing was a nightmare because of the shitty layout.

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

307KB, 1600x1200px

As long as I'm making the decision from the perspective of someone who actually has to operate one of these things, any Sherman will do, but if I had to choose one specifically, the M4A3E8 76(W) would be my choice, just so I can have all of the Sherman's advantages and none of the drawbacks of the early models (small hatch bulges, VVSS, no loader's hatch, radial engines, narrow tracks)

>frontal armor had a line of sight thickness of 94mm, and was ductile enough that a hit wouldn't cause spalling and injure/kill one of the crew
>bogie suspension system and front mounted final drive module made repairs a breeze
>vertical stabilizer, fast and precise power traverse with commander's override, and abundant crew optics with wide fields of view and good glass quality made for quick and efficient fire control, even from a turret down position
>Ford GAA arguably the best tank engine of the period
>large, spring loaded hatches that were placed where you would actually be sitting and a belly hatch not designed for children ensured that you could actually get out quickly if the tank burned up
>synchromesh transmission, rubber bushed tracks and HVSS suspension made driving a breeze
>M62 APC and M93 HVAP rounds could deal with anything short of a Jagdtiger

>>32991071
>large, spring loaded hatches that were placed where you would actually be sitting
Sure is the best reason why i'd pick a Sherman over a T-34.

>>32990938
Getting into proper cover and understanding fighter pilot tactics would shield you from aerial attacks. Attackers are fine for interdicting convoys and attacking units in open fields, a tank in a treeline, not so much.

>>32990938
>Be konigtiger
>Look down the street
>OH SHIT IT'S SU152
>shoot it
>hit
>no effect
>REEEEEEEEEE*Blews up*

File: isu-cats-5.jpg (139KB, 817x884px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 817x884px

>Be in Tiger II
>T-34 shooting at you non-stop
>fail to notice the ISU-152
>Helmut is gone

File: 1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer-side-view-in-motion.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>32990404
>Pick your tank
M-18 Hellcat.
It's literally the futa loli of tanks.

>>32991179
That's a big hole

File: 1474068593193.gif (904KB, 427x240px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 427x240px

E8 Sherman.

>people willingly picking commie sardine boxes
Fucking slavaboos.

>>32991204
You can thank top-tier german armor for that. Special mention to the welding seal of the commander's cupola breaking.

>>32990404
>(even though the gunner has a 300L fuel tank right next to his legs...)

That's a good thing. Fuel is armor.

>>32991179
I really wonder what would have happened if that Tiger's armor would've been made in earlier war quality - i.e. less brittle. I mean it sure would have cracked, but would there have been such a huge hole too?

>>32991217
See >>32991235


I personally THINK thats because the german armor after mid-1944 totally went down the shitter because they lacked vanadium and all kinds of alloy materials that make a good armor steel. inb4 naziboo

>>32991205
If su152 is sardine box then e8 is a caviar can

File: isu-cats-1.jpg (240KB, 1002x1575px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1002x1575px

>>32991235
The hole would have been the size of the shell at entry, much bigger at exit. The damage is even worse on thinner armor.

File: luchs.jpg (27KB, 500x274px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x274px

>>32990404
Luchs driver. Being small and agile I can fuck right off when my panzer sense starts tingling or before the shit hits the fan.
I also have tiny bitching autocannon to deal with medium, light threats or infantry.

Hit & run and let the big bois handle the greater threats. Hetzer is the Luchs best friend.

>>32991235
Yeah´the quality of german late war steel was a fucking joke.Also a early Tiger would have better welds

>>32991250
I'm talking about tanks here, Timmy.

File: IMG_20150825_120850.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

All hail the iron fist of Jumbo

>>32991217
Weld was defective because it failed at the weld, not the parent metal. It was a stick weld which is fine, but early welding electrodes weren't very good due to primitive coatings.

It's fun to eyeball the welds on WWII AFVs. Many of them suck as befits a hurriedly trained workforce. Even US steels had issues manifested in structural failure on Liberty ships etc.

>>32991256
13HP/T
Agile...
Yea, no.

>>32991256
>I play too much WoT: the post

File: QUAAAAAAAAAAAAAADD.jpg (54KB, 578x384px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 578x384px

Cause no one knows how to PTFO and bomber niggers are niggers.

>>32991265
Yes. It had nothing to with the armor itself, but with the lack of inert gas shielding and rare metals. Germany at the end of the war really had shitty tanks.

>>32991094
I'm with you on that one. Ignoring all the other good points, I'd pick the Sherman just because I'm reasonably sure I won't die in it.

And the T-34's hatches were pretty ridiculous. If you're the driver, you need to undo the locking latches, push it into the open position, screw the lock into place, then somehow climb out, which was a task in itself because of how cramped the driver's position was, and try not to slip on the front armor slope or get caught on the spare track blocks. And on top of all that, the driver's hatch constituted a fairly significant weak point in the frontal armor.

The bow gunner has no hatch at all aside from a very small floor hatch. The turret hatches have no glaring deficiencies that I can think of, though I imagine the front opening door on the commander's hatch made fighting heads up a chore for him.

The British and the Germans produced tanks with horrible hatches as well, but that's another story.

>>32991269
Find me a tracked vehicle with better hp/t ratio from the 1935-1944 with similar weight and dimensions.
It actually was agile during that time.

>>32991344
BT-7M, similar weight and better armament. Or even M5 Stuart on the american side.

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

102KB, 960x875px

>>32991205
Any Sherman really.

>>32991344
M22 Locust
27HP/T

There you go

>>32991364
Picking either of those is practically cheating. They weren't tanks, they were armored sports cars.

>>32991389
No true Scotsman. They have tracks, a turret, and armor. Besides, other PzII variants had better mobility than the Luchs. It was a failed light.

>>32991182
Rather a yuki onna due to gas engine and open top. speeding through the ardennes in winter?
prepare for arctic temperatures

File: M4A1E8.jpg (457KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1024x678px

>>32990404
I'd take literally any M4 sherman with a T-23 turret and 76mm gun. Either that or a jumbo sherman. For maximum aesthetics an M4A1E8.

>>32990424
T34 all the way boi.

File: Auréole concept.jpg (957KB, 2000x727px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 2000x727px

>>32990404

Die schnell jagdpanzer Aureole

>>32991428
Only real tanks. Wehraboo physics-denying panzers not allowed.

>>32991397
Quick anon, look up in the sky. I think it's the joke flying over your head.

>>32991428
Looks like a obese Jagdpanther

>>32991424

>>32990941

>>32991448
>expecting slavaboos to think

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1805-16,_Nordfrankreich,_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_I).2.jpg (144KB, 481x435px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 481x435px

>Sits in treeline in wait
>destroys Sherman

>>32991446
>Implying Jagdpanther isn't the obese one
It's Jagdpanther with more A E S T E T H I C look

>>32991460
>Sits in the middle of a road.
>Failing to start your Tiger
>Scuffle your """"wonder weapon""""

>>32991467
No need to be upset

File: 1392915294848.jpg (76KB, 345x383px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 345x383px

>>32991460
>le tiger meme

bonjour faggots

File: M8_Greyhound_with_crew.jpg (88KB, 976x697px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 976x697px

King Tigers beware.

File: b1bis.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>32991499
merde

>>32991364
>BT-7M
>14 tons
Significantly heavier than Luchs

>M5 stuart
I think M2 Light tank would fit better.

>M22 Locust
Alright that's pretty good

File: 1487059610913.jpg (515KB, 1698x876px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1698x876px

>all these people are upset because they know the tigers 88mm gun was one of, if not the best gun in the war

>>32991509
was hoping this would pop up

>>32991457
Guess not. Even when they can't get out of second gear without a hammer, can't travel for more than hour without worrying about overheating, can't take a hit without getting killed my shrapnel from spalling, and can't get out of the tank due to their shitty hatches and end up burning to death thanks to there being fuel tanks in the crew compartment.

>>32991527
what about the kraut 128 or the slav 122?

>>32991527
That's nor the KwK 42. Or the 90mm M3.

>>32991527
Who cares about the gun when it can't even get where it's supposed to be

>>32991527
it's OBJECTIVELY inferior to the 17lbr, american 90mm, slav 122 and 100mm

File: 12256734_938819029540951_1281320449_n.jpg (41KB, 400x254px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x254px

The Sherman Skink, as a infantry grinder, with a secondary role as a AA gun.

File: panzer-iv-70-v-1.jpg (20KB, 500x185px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x185px

>>32990404
Jagdpanzer IV/70
80mm sloped armor
low silhouette
high pen gun

why do people who don't know shit about tanks even post in these threads

it's fucking embarrassing

File: Tiger after shelling.png (385KB, 1045x847px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1045x847px

>>32991556
U sure 'bout dat?

>>32991421
>M4A1E8

You, sir, are an old school gentleman and a true scholar.

No seien curves than the smooth hull of the A combined with HVSS

>>32991541
The 128 gun, don't know much about it. Please inform me on it

>>32991546
The 75 mil gun was also very good, but not better imo

>>32991509
I expected there to be a good story there. I was not disappointed.

>>32991562
It was decent in armament, but still has the problem of low quality armor, and the gun was so low it could easily get stuck. Guderian's Duck would still be better than a Tiger.

>>32990404
ISU-152 isn't a tank.

>>32991582
taken from the 128mm anti tank, mounted on the jagtiger. it was a beast, it could punch though a 230mm plate at 30 degrees ar 1000m

>>32990451
>>32991602

File: Comet tank.jpg (359KB, 1772x1787px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1772x1787px

>>32990404
Comet tank.

Seems like fun. That, or the Sherman firefly.

>>32991597
why you think it's armor is bad? 80mm 40° also it's welded steel not cast iron seems decent although not outstanding

File: stug.jpg (76KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x640px

Disposing commies with my StuG III of course

>>32991601
Fuck no. Underpowered, overloaded, and mechanically unreliable. Size and weight made it nearly incompatible with contemporary US logistics.

Case in point. In Korea, the Army decided it didn't want the M26 for those very reasons. What did they substitute them with? Easy Eights, which stomped enemy T-34-85s.

File: Churchill_Crocodile_01.jpg (233KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 800x559px

I'd take a Churchill Crocodile, burning Nazi's alive would be fun I think.

>>32991632
The armor layout is quite good, but the german armor was too brittle and cracked too often. It would survive one hit or two, and then fall apart.

>>32991632
Low quality Steel and bad welds

>>32991628
Comet had pretty bad hatches, and the Firefly was an ergonomics nightmare.

>>32991607
What about reload

>>32991628
>wanting to be in a firefly's turret with an oversized 17pdr
I'd much rather take an E8 instead.

>>32991668
Quite slow because of two-part ammo, but still faster than other similar guns because the interior was quite roomy.

>>32991656
No tank was perfect during WW2. Every single one had problems which made it bad, in their own sense.

>inb4 pershing and tiger
Both unreliable, huge targets, shit logistical footprint and poor armor.

>>32991678
Well if it was more that one to keep up a continuous stream of Fire it would be really good

>>32991669
Good luck penetrating and knocking out any enemy tanks.

File: Sturmgeschutz_III_StuG_III_assault_gun_7.jpg (73KB, 905x614px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 905x614px

>>32991633
Cheers mate, probably the only decent german tank.
(I love the early models despite the 7,5 L/24, they have their charm)

>>32991696
Even a 75mm M3 could take down a Tiger. Even from the front, given certain conditions. A 76mm could do it all day long.

>>32991696
Good luck firing more than one shot every 5 mins because of the huge dust cloud this thing makes.
Not being able to penetrate some targets is not an issue, what is is whether you can quickly exit the tank and it is easy to maintain imo.

>>32991695
Probably not. 3 shots per minute at most.

>>32991695
in the few bits of action a few destroyed a line of bunkers and 5-6 shermans

File: jordanian_panzer_iv_ausf_h_by_wolfenkrieger-d47smac.jpg (130KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 900x675px

>>32990404

>>32991681
>Pershing and Tiger
They were shit too. You won't hear me going to bat for them any time soon.

And I don't think you understand how cramped a Firefly's turret was. It was deemed to have a significant detrimental effect on the crew's comfort and efficiency, and by extension their combat effectiveness. But the British didn't really have much choice, and the T23 turret didn't come around until later in the war.

The US experimented with 76mm guns in small turret Shermans and found them unacceptable, and to my knowledge the M1 had a smaller breech than the 17 pounder. In terms of actual size and the space it took up inside the turret mind you, not in terms of caliber.

As for the Comet, bad hatches are an inexcusable defficiency. A good crew is better than a good tank.

>>32991727
Hardly. Now, had they redesigned the suspension and transmission to accomodate the heavier guns and armor, and dropped in a more powerful engine, then we'd have something to talk about. Although even an early Sherman beat out a Panzer IV in terms of armor, so maybe not.

>>32991775
I wouldn't mind being in a PzIV. Later in the war, in 43, they were quite decent tanks and you could enter and exit them quickly. At least I wouldn't feel trapped like inside a russki tank.

>>32991701
You want to source your statement, anon?

because -
> the 76 mm gun was able to destroy both the Tiger and the Panther, the leadership of Army Ground Forces were not especially concerned by the Tiger. The tests of the 76 mm were later ruled inaccurate, with Eisenhower even remarking that he was wrongly told by Ordnance that the 76 mm could knock out any German tank.

>the 76 mm was not powerful enough against the upper glacis of a Panther. Due to its 55 degree angle, the Panther's 80 mm (3.1 in) upper glacis had a line of sight thickness of 140 mm (5.5 in) with actual effectiveness being even greater. Utilizing standard M79 armor-piercing shot, a M4 might only knock out a Panther frontally from point-blank ranges. Therefore, Shermans had to aim for the Panther's weaker turret and standard, transverse-cylindrical shaped mantlet, the lower edge of which on most Panthers (especially the earlier Ausf. D and A versions) constituted a vulnerable shot trap as-designed. A 76 mm-armed Sherman could penetrate the upper frontal hull superstructure of a Tiger I heavy tank from 400 meters (440 yd); although this lessened the gap between the tanks, the Tiger I was capable of knocking a M4 out frontally from over 2,000 meters (2,200 yd).

not trying to meme,but why were jap tanks shit?

File: TKS_prot.jpg (75KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x443px

For Polen!

>>32991789
On that we can definitely agree. I do like the layout of the Panzer IV, and the late war KwK 40 was something else.

>>32991796
Source what? You're putting words in my mouth. I never said one damn thing about the Panther.

>>32990404
Pershing
because of the clip where its fighting the Panther and its named after one of the most badass generals in history

>>32991799
Because Japan didn't know how to make tanks.
Still not sloping armor in 45 and lacking the industrial resources for making anything heavier than 30 tons.

>>32991806
The hunt is on, right Bohater?

>>32991806
Orlik>any other tank ace in history.
The guy was a fucking hero with his TKS.
Would still suck to fight with one of these however.

>>32991823
thanks friend. i thought it was something to do with the fact that they were a navel power

File: IS-3 130212,1.jpg (85KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x480px

>>32990404
IS-3. Shoddy building quality aside, I still want to command one.

>>32991818
I never implied anything about the Panther, rather just some facts stating the effectiveness of the 76.

British 40mm guns could penetrate Tiger 1 tanks at certain distances. Nearly any tank gun could penetrate a Tiger 1 at spitting distance. The difference is between the combat engagement ranges, where the effectiveness of a tank gun comes into mind. You'd reliably penetrate an enemy tank with a QF 17-pounder than a 76 M1A1, M1A1C, or M1A2.

File: 1423245873877.png (40KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 184x184px

>>32991696
>late-war 76mm
>Good luck penetrating and knocking out any enemy tanks.

what are you even doing here

>>32991840
I's also part of the answer. The Army and the navy kept competing with one another for Japan's resources, and the navy often had the upper hand. The IJA then had to do with the scraps...Makes sense on an island, but it didn't help.

>>32991864
makes sense. you all ready picked a tank?

>>32991846
The IS-3 would be my last choice. It may look cool, but when your tank literally bends itself over time... Have fun trying to get out of this thing while it's on fire.
And also, special mention to the loader, worst job in the world next to toilet scrubbing.

>>32991527
Gun? Yes. Tank? Fuck off with that, I'd rather use a field gun than a German "Wunderwaffe"

>>32991876
I'm actually the OP, so I picked the ISU. But all things considered, I would in fact prefer a StuG III or a Panzer IV just for the sake of being able to get out of the tank.
Plus, maintaining an ISU is a pain in the ass

>>32991860
Nice shitpost.

Check the performance of both guns, dumb aniboo poster.

>>32991886
The only tank half decent with an 88 was the jagdpanther, and even that kinda sucks. Wehraboos always think of the 88 as the best gun, but they fail to realize that almost every tank can knock one another given the right circumstances.

File: 2f8851316290beafd07107186e4b3c44.jpg (22KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x369px

>>32991897
still, that 152 shell is tempting. i would take the jagdtiger.

>>32991909
Why the fuck would you shoot them? They'd just catch on fire or run out of fuel or fall apart.

>>32991905
The 17pdr had better penetration but the 76mm was better in every other regard and was way more than enough to knock out like 99% of the tanks the wehrmacht could throw at it.

Try logging out of World of Tanks and picking up a book sometime.

>>32991916
Do you really want to take care of that suspension? If I were you, I wouldn't and just take a simple medium tank.

>>32990404
I would say a Panther II or Tiger II P, assuming that I was allowed a crew that knew how shitty the reliability can be and has technical and mechanical knowledge.

Plinking away at other tanks (especially if you get a 10.5cm gun) would be ezpz, just keep he top camoflauged.

>>32991916
I would still take the tank with slightly (and I do mean slightly) better chance of not breaking down mid-fight.

>>32991919
True. But sometimes, a sneaky kraut can actually keep fighting in his broken tank, so you might as well kill him with the spalling.

File: ABRAMS.jpg (161KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1920x1080px

OP never said the tank you choose had to be WW2 era :^)

For real tho, how would one modern tank fare VS a whole bunch of WW2 design tanks? Assuming you also had the fuel and spare parts in the supply chain to maintain and repair, but if it was seriously damaged it would be knocked out of the fight for good.

Could modern armour even be harmed by ww2 era stuff? I'm guessing an SPG would still fuck it up, and it could probably be mobility killed, but in terms of crew survivability in tank v tank/s combat.

Cool thing about WW2 imo is by 1944 it seemed pretty balanced, I guess the devs finally broke the Panzer 3 spam meta and worked on making it fun for the main 4 nations.

Tier1:

I mean Sherman a1 = Panzer 4 F2= T34 = Cromwell VII

Tier2:

Sherman A3 = Panzer 4 G = T3485 = Sherman Firefly

Tier 3:

Sherman A3E2/E8 = Panther = IS2 = Comet

>>32991939
>You are a tanker in WWII, and by some sort of miracle you can pick the tank you will end up in.

>>32991939
Modern tanks could probably steamroll ww2 tanks up to 1v5, depending on what tanks are being used. The RHA on modern tanks would (presumably) be effective enough to prevent a lot of AP shell damage.

>>32991939
A big HE shell could break the tracks and damage the optics of a modern tank, but aside from that...Any tank from the 70 and upward are indestructible if you use WWII technology. We don't call them MBT for fun.

>>32991927
good point, shame it had such problems.

>>32991925
>Try logging out of World of Tanks and picking up a book sometime.

Fucking kek the irony and projection. Have you actually read anything about the performance of the 76 M1 guns mid-late war?

>76mm was better in every other regard and was way more than enough to knock out like 99% of the tanks the wehrmacht could throw at it.
what did he mean by this

Literal wehraboo level of delusion, ameriboo

>>32991958
Well, it is actually fun to see german soldiers despising their "wonder weapon" and pick a good old rugged StuG instead. Reality is a bitch to heavy tanks.

>>32991963
Nice arguments you got there

>>32991930
In the case of the Panther, you'd better hope it's at long range in open country. The gunner's tunnel vision high mag optics and lack of a periscope are next to useless otherwise.

>>32991969

see >>32991796

File: TB2phlPaFXXXXbFXXXXXXXXXXXX_754272513_zpsdvz9bnd6.jpg (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

>>32991939
Well in that case, best heavy tank coming through!
>50kmh top speed
>Reload speed of a medium
>Maximum crew comfort

>>32991983
Built in 48, and it would probably have suffered from the same issues the IS-3 had.

>>32991968
i know this sounds bad, but i wish the war went on a few years longer, just to see what would have been made.(leaving atomic bombs out of it)

>>32991979
That's why I'm saying either, since the Pan2 is a better long-range tank, while the T2 P is a bit better of a brawler.

IS-series tanks would be a pain though

>>32991993
They would have kept doing stupid things. The fact every other major nation was building 30 ton medium tanks should give you a clue as to what was the most effective at that time.

M4A3E8. Best combination of quality steel, effective crew coordination, cabin layout, optics, radio, crew survivability and gun performance. Even if we get rekt, which is not likely, there's a much better chance I make it out alive than not.

File: is7-obekt-260-opytnyy-sovetskiy-tyazhyolyy-tank.jpg (274KB, 720x402px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 720x402px

>>32991992
Yeah but the prototypes preformed better than originally expected. Or so they have said. Still this just shows that every tank has problems, some less than others, (Tiger 1, Tiger II, Jagdtiger, Panther, Ferdinand)

>>32992009
i was talking whole world. i think its a topic that needs its own thread, so we can talk about the other areas

>>32992026
Sure the IS-7 is great on paper, but a heavy tank is such a pain in the ass to take care of...
And have you seen the video The_Chieftain on the IS-7? The ergonomics sounds pretty bad.

Cromwell, Pershing, or Super Pershing
If tank destroyers counted I'd use a hellcat or a Stug III

>>32992027
Sure, but it would end up being filled with wehraboos with MUH E SERIES

>>32992075
i think the e series is interesting, but i agree. i think /k/ needs a discord so we can kick the wehraboos and such like out.

Jagdpanther
>Sexy slope
>Sexy Panther chassis
>Great track record, pretty much the only time you get N/S'd is air strike or lacking parts
>Kwk 43 88cm

>>32990404
>I have more chances of surviving
kek, OP thinks playing world of tonks is the same as reality.
rolling against the third reich in a commie coffin.

>>32991939
that filename is making me think

I've wanted to make an inter-board girls-und-panzer-esque tank league using games like War Thunder or World of Tanks, but both are garbage in their own ways so I don't know if it's worth even considering.

>>32992162
i am up for that, even if it is trash

>>32992162
Same here.

>>32992177
>>32992194
If I do set it up, chances are it would be War Thunder since it's easier for boards to make a decently competitive team quickly, and it would be likely 5v5 or 7v7, simple games at first and maybe expand if it gets popular.

>>32991262
>dat german mg
Neat detail.

>>32992212
i would prefer wt anyway. shall we make a discord?

>>32992221
At school rn, give me 6 hours.

I'll brainstorm with some WT nerds here in the mean time

>>32992212
Too bad, i'm not much a fan of WT. I found it fun while it was in beta, but now I can't stand it.

>>32990941
>no track pin retention
That is a lie. The pins would keep out as it drives, but it had this triangle ramp to shove em back in when a rotation was made. It was genius, quick fixing!

>>32992230
i could make one now, just so its ready. i also have a few mates who would be up for it

>>32992232
could also make a clan on wot

>>32992232
I can see why, but I can't think of a better medium. Those two are the only games that really use that concept, and do it decently.

World of tanks isn't that good in the first place IMO, also losing player base in NA pretty substantially.

>>32992235
Ye but when the rod keeping the tracks together would move outward, you'd have to push the back in, otherwise the tracks would be damaged very quickly.

>>32992250
Custom battles would probably be the game style as opposed to clans like that. The clan structure isn't necessary if it is a league.

>>32992244
If you want to sure, I'll be text chat only for now

I'll hit up other boards soon and we'll figure something out

>>32992252
It really depends on what you are looking for in a tank game. WT is more likely for players who are looking for a "realistic" feel to their game, while WoT is more for players who want a simple game, almost akin to a standard shooter.

>>32991204
4 u


We all know it's all you ever wanted

>>32992264
what boards you planing to talk to?

>>32992268
I prefer realism, however it might be arcade rules so that it's not hours of learning weak points and more strategy and group based. It also forces less wall-hugging and side scraping so that you can hit a single position on a tank repeatedly and kill it.

>>32992279
pol, a, b, r9k, any bigger board that can probably find five or 7 people. I'll try all but we'll see who actually joins

>>32992300
Which game we talkin about? Cause I'd re download WoT for this.

>>32991827
Best COD game here.

>>32992305
Looking at war thunder right now

>>32992271
You got that right

>>32992322
planes and tanks?

>>32992331
Just tanks

Easier for teams to field decent tanks against most tiers, far faster than WoT

>>32992322
Ah hell yeah

>>32992336
all right. sim or realistic?

any ideas for the server name?

>>32992350
I say realistic because some people are incompetent when it comes to sim.

>>32992371
sounds good. zis 30 is op in any gamemode anyway

>>32992380
Asu-57 > Zis-30

>>32992385
haven't got it yet, but from what i have thats correct. damn thing hides in a bush and then ammo racks you

>>32992396
Its fucking amazing, I haven't tried it yet with the new BR changes.

File: 14479j4.jpg (63KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x564px

Tiger I - Fahrer
Heavy tank with surprisingly good mobility and speed, good armor (For its time), and that was easy to drive.
As long as the crew worked together and found the time to do maintenance, and as long as the supply lines were working, things were fine.

>>32992216
Thanks. Since the mounts in front of the commanders hatch were already field customs I imagined that the supply chain probably wouldn't give the crew an additional M1919 just for shits and giggles so I thought they obtained their own MG42

>>32991318
>I'm with you on that one. Ignoring all the other good points, I'd pick the Sherman just because I'm reasonably sure I won't die in it.

Unless you got hit with anything larger than a 5.0 cm PAK...

>War Thunder
[Soviet ground forces wrecking everything in easy-mode intensifies]

>>32992455
>Russian bias
Myth. Until now when they move the IS-2 and the ISU-152 down a few br points.

>>32992462
please tell me that they are not doing that

>>32992469
I'll be putting restrictions on allowed tanks anyways

>>32992484
what are you keeping out?

File: 1462266487851.jpg (157KB, 1365x1028px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1365x1028px

Tiger I - the only chance that actually had any survivability against dedicated AT weapons.

>>32992462
Wasn't a myth the last time I played. Now like 3 years ago.
There was absolutely no reason to play anything other than Soviet tanks. Their armor schemes were broken, any error found in them that made them less survivable was corrected immediately (Yet models for German vehicles were left laughably broken) and the BRs were left low so you got fed enemies your vehicle could slaughter in masses while their fire bounced off you.
Things weren't much better in the air.

The game may have very well changed but Gaijin's ineptitude and revisionist bullshit killed the game for me.

>>32992469
They just did in the most recent update. Shame really, I no longer have a russian 6.7 heavy tank.

>>32992497

>only tank

>>32992494
I'll have to check everything again, but Tier 5 is banned across the board for the most part, and then for most nations it's 1/2 way through Tier 4. Keeping very close to WW2 stuff

>>32992499
Yesterday taking a non-german 6.7 tank into tank rb was the most retarded thing ever, now the panther 2 was moved up and you can actually play 6.7.

>>32992497
Say that to a SU-100 qith a D-10T or even a 17pdr...
The Tiger can resist medium to small AT guns, but anything bigger than 75mm will go through it like butter at usual fighting range. But at least, given the size of the thing, you can probably exit it in one piece if the thing catches fire.

>>32992517
I'm expecting to use arcade mode to balance out some of the bullshit a bit, since pen values and so appear to be more even for the most part.

I've never had an issue playing as a German against T-34s or anything for the most part.

>>32992557
the first few t34s get fucked by the f2. there guns are also lacking

>>32992571
Even with the tiger 1 and Pan A it's not soul-crushing in arcade, some small BS here and there but not horrid

>>32992557
I was talking about the stupid kill/death ratio that the panther 2's had, anyone who tried to go up against one without friendly support got fucked. They moved it to 7.0 so now the Americans and the Russians can win at 6.7 now.

>>32992618
and then theres the brits

>>32992618
Makes sense

File: 1485482945476.jpg (151KB, 735x1037px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 735x1037px

>picture of the zsu-23-4 projected proformance

thread dead?

File: ba88301e3b4e8454d60b19c9993d7a50.jpg (44KB, 570x427px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 570x427px

Just fuck my shit up

>>32990994

There's a great report from the Aberdeen Proving ground where they tested a KV-1 the Soviets sent over, and noticed its transmission was a copy of a US tractor gearbox from a decade or two earlier.

>"To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver"

>>32990424
>>32990886
>>32990938
>>32990938
>>32991520
>>32991562
>>32991562
>>32991628
>>32991846
>>32991983d
People who forget about ergonomics are going to have a bad time.
See also: Panther, Jagdpanzer 38(t), Anything with Christie suspension (BT series, T-34 and derivatives, Anything British between A13 and Centurion), Sherman Vc, KV series, etc

File: SOMUA_S_35,_Tanks_in_the_Musée_des_Blindés,_France,_pic-42.jpg (467KB, 905x678px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 905x678px

Somua S35.

Because it's 1939 and it was one of the best options at the time.

>1945 Tanks pls go

File: il2_sturmovik.jpg (42KB, 650x234px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x234px

>>32990404
IL-2

>>32992969
So... Every tank is bad. Gotcha

>>32993017
fuck. you win

File: IS-2 hit by panther.png (80KB, 440x286px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 440x286px

>>32990404
IS-2.

File: panther hit by is-2.jpg (61KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x564px

Because reasons.

>>32991071
>Ford GAA
> 525 hp/1000+ lb-ft of torque.

That's amazingly powerful for a V8 engine of the time. The comparable Panzer IV had a V12 with only 300 horsepower. Anybody know the torque figures?

>>32990994
>kg of force
Jesus. I'm assuming you mean 50-75N

File: 44M_Tas.jpg (62KB, 700x554px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x554px

Do prototypes count?

File: 60 tons of american freedom.jpg (271KB, 1383x979px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1383x979px

>>32991939
Kek.

>>32992944
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/04/aberdeen-t-34-and-kv-1-test.html

>>32993240

> "They assumed that we copied their A-23 gearbox that was built 15-20 years ago by an American company"

The US report states they sourced blueprints. The Soviet rebuttal doesn't deny it or have any facts.

File: Sturmtiger_2.jpg (19KB, 450x325px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x325px

The Sturmtiger, because I have a major problem with my dick.

>>32990404
M6 heavy tank, cause I get to stay in the States.

>>32994226
Checked, good enough.

>>32991071
Make that a Jumbo and I'll join you
>highly resistant to all common Nazi AT
>only slightly slower due to different final drive
sign me up.

>>32991204
>>32991204
>>32991204
>>32991204

>>32991389
>Gotta go fast!
John Walter 'Sanic' Christie

File: 1480694296429.jpg (98KB, 476x805px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 476x805px

>>32993168
>pic

File: M26_Super_Pershing.jpg (174KB, 800x359px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x359px

>>32990404
M4 Jumbo with 76 gun or the Super Pershing.

File: PochNuk.png (351KB, 597x384px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 597x384px

>>32994506
>M4A3E2 (76)
My nigga

>>32990404
Bob motherfucking Semple

Wont even have to fire a single round, all my foes will die from ruptured diaphragms long before I get within shooting range

>>32990616
this, but the Leo 2A7+ URBW

ITT: world of tanks players think they know everything about WWII era tonks

File: is-2-BrandenburgGateBerlin45[1].jpg (37KB, 580x337px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 580x337px

How did the IS-2 fair ?
I really enjoyed it in RO1

File: maus_110.jpg (24KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 594x395px

>WWII tank combat

Man this shit dawg. The only metric I care about is:

>living long enough to survive the battle, or surrender or kill myself if I knew that surrendering in that instance would mean a horrible torture filled death

After hearing the horror stories about burned alive tank crews, the only thing I can base my choice on is "THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ME!"

>>32995874
It was a breakthrough tank made to engage static fortifications. It could go up against other tanks but the two-piece ammunition gave it a slower rate of fire than any German tank it would have seen.
Armor was fair but nothing extraordinary In true Soviet fashion, the driver got shafted with poor visibility and no real way to escape the vehicle.

>>32995937
>Maus
>Crossing over a bridge....slowly...
>the bridge Collapses

>>32995972
>Maus now sitting water
>Second Maus drives over top of first Maus to reach other side
>Second Maus connects onto first Maus and pulls it back onto land
Ist gut!

File: b47f89c73116b2bda6778fcfdf6672e7.jpg (42KB, 736x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 736x400px

>>32995937
>try to go off a road, ever
>Pic related ensues

>>32995961
Thanks !

>>32996137
Make no mistakes, the 122mm gun would have killed just about anything it would face but if it screwed up tat first shot it would give hit before it could get the second off. And usually WW2 tank combat came down to the first hit scored being the winner.

Here's a fairly short video about the IS-2 though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSteO4GzcJc

File: Jabba.png (264KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 480x270px

>>32991846
Ah, chicaboog noon-eeg Solo.

File: 73f1a74e0c86a080995f432ab15a11fc.jpg (56KB, 599x426px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 599x426px

M24 chaffee

post-war? either Sheridan or M60A2 Starship, ATGMs would be fun

>>32991846
>>32996420
Can not unsee

>>32991160

An ISU152 would be fucking perforated from stem to stern by a long barreled 88, don't kid yourself, Vlad.