Tank Destroyers

Slugger > Hellcat

>>33014711
Su-100.

>>33014711
M36 and su 100

I think* (lol) I remember reading somwhere that m36's had like and 8:1 kill/death vs German tanks.

>>33014759
Jagdpanther.

>>33014796
>panther
lol

SU-100 and Jagdpanther

>>33014759
>>33014810
shame that the su-100 saw like 3-2 months of combat

>>33014783
They also fought in Korea and had no issues turning soviet tanks into scrap

>>33014842
It's being used in Yemen as we speak.

>>33014810
>>33014796
Too slow, turretless and too few in numbers to have a real impact. All German heavys are a meme. Stugs, pz4 and towed 88's would have been more then enough. So much time and supplies wasted on tokien heavys.

File: 1486756919634.jpg (93KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x500px

>>33014890
>StuGs and PZIVs vs IS-2s and T-34 85s

>>33014862
With alll that t54/55 ammo laying around in the desert my grand kids will be fighting them

>>33014711
The British had a better 76mm gun. Not sure why the US couldn't just use theirs. After all, the British had no qualms with using Shermans.

>>33014907
Stugs and pz4 could crack a t34/85. Is2's weren't being used till it was over and 88s could tune em up good. Personally I would have made a million hetzers.

>>33014917
The 17lber was extremely inaccurate over distance and too big for the Sherman. With newer ammo by late war the American 76 was much better

>>33014929
>Stugs and pz4 could crack a t34/85
Yeah and most anything could crack a PZ4 and StuGs can't effectively engage tanks. What's the Wehrmacht supposed to do with no medium tanks to engage the Russians with? Stay eternally on the defensive?

>>33014959
Sure I'll give having some Panthers and what not around would help but you gotta admit the turbo autism Germany had for heavys was a huge logistics nightmare

>>33014992
Germany's entire war effort was a logistics nightmare. The same tanks, rolled out of US manifacturing lines for US troops would have performed admirably.

File: IS-2.gif (482KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 800x535px

>>33014929
IS2 entered mas service in early 44 and was fielded during Operation Bagration in late 44.

>>33014992
Nah man. Heavy breakthrough tanks had a role and people need to stop pretending 5000 extra panzer 4's would have changed anything.

Reading about Otto he often takes objectives with just 4 tigers and shrugs off the AT and T34 fire. If he had been using 16 p4's half of them would be smoking wrecks after each mission.

>>33014890
t. ivan

>>33015069
It wouldnt have made a difference you are right. The second the us or the USSR got involved it was over. 15,000 tigers couldn't change that.

>>33014721
Idk, the hellcat has twice the speed and still packs a punch. TD doctorine turned out to be silly, but in application the hellcat was a more versatile tank than the m36

>>33014796

Nah on Darkest Hour I always blasted allies with Stug first,then JPIV,then za Hetzer,then everyone and his own mother started to abuse exploits and make onesided maps but if I have to choose between them then

The Stug.

>>33014711

JagdTiger because it's cool, fuck you

File: Hetzer_lesany.jpg (367KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x768px

Best tank destroyer of WWII

File: hetzer turret.jpg (61KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x390px

>>33017066
It even had a turret.

File: jagdpanther-sdkfz173.jpg (73KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x550px

>>33014711

>>33017072
I remember reading a lot about how shitty this was.

File: hetzer-starr_2.jpg (5KB, 288x150px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 288x150px

>>33017096
Maybe it was another one of those good idea bad execution.

>>33014917
Because you're a completely ignorant casual pretender that has no clue why the Firefly was a failed experiment kept afloat due solely to the fact that the British were already used to bad tanks. Do some actual research instead of parroting bullshit about shell penetration as the sole factor in anything as if War Thunder was a documentary.

File: dfrrtgetrgtrh.jpg (70KB, 1024x489px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x489px

>>33017112

File: 20170216_165526.jpg (2MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x2340px

>>33014711
Do prototypes count?

File: sdkfz-184-ferdinand-elefant.jpg (127KB, 800x465px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x465px

If we are talking about kill/loss ratio I believe that the Elefant / Ferdinand had the highest average ratio of 10:1.

>>33017772

They shouldn't, since real world consequence of action cannot be determined. On paper the Jagetiger should have been the best TD, but it was awful due to real world conditions not taken into account at the early design stages.

>>33017813

I would argue for the StuG, purely on the basis to me means both most influential, and had greatest impact on the war. No allied TD had this effect, their air power proved to be the bigger decided factor in ATW, on the Axis the StuG had a much greater impact both overall and strategically than the Elefant on the basis that after it's introduction you saw a noticeable stalling in Allied advances, their production rate was comparable to enemy tank production rate and thus acting as a viable counter, and influenced the tactics of the enemy, forcing them to re-adapt themselves to deal with them. The Elefant's were great (despite some apocryphal tales), but they were never deployed in enough numbers or across enough theaters to have a strategic effect that the StuG did.

>>33017868
I agree with you in that the StuG was most likely the most influential for the Germans. Even after the war its influence was felt in projects like Kanonenjagdpanzer. I agree with what you classify as being the best as opposed to my thought of kill/loss ratio. I was speaking purely in kill/loss ratio which is often how people measure it.

>>33014955

>extremely inaccurate

Le early sabot meme xDDD

>Too big

I'll give you that, it was really cramped as bongs used an old turret

The Sherman did pack much bigger guns in its long service life though

>newer ammo by late war

That fixes the inaccuracy also senpai

File: 8573442512_140ec23f6d.jpg (140KB, 486x500px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 486x500px

>>33017813
PORSCHE POWER
(I know the Ferdinand/Elefant was really crappy but they're still my favorite TDs)

>>33017939

kill/loss doesn't work in the context of Armored Warfare though. It barely works in infantry warfare (as the Soviet Army proved) but even less so for Armor as, do you take into account that most tanks knocked out are recovered? Are we talking about crew kills or chassis kills? Is a kill made by AT guns but supported by a tank count? Or artillery? Or Aircraft? Or infantry support?

It's like saying the Sherman is the best tank overall of WWII. This is probably true but not for the reason most would go for. It's sheer volume of numbers, the rapid redeployment of them when knocked out (less than 1 day to repair, rearm and send out an M4) made them more or less impossible for the enemy to counter, which has a much greater strategic effect then say the Panther, which while a better tank in all appreciable ways, was unable to have really ANY strategic effect. I equate this idea to Jutland; yes the Germans sank more, heavier ships, but they didn't dictate the battle time or location and were unable to hold the sea. Taking and/or holding 'ground' is really the only thing that matters in war, killing is basically expected and thus inconsequential, and of any TD in the war, on any side, that was best able to have this effect it was the StuG. It was a huge folly to divert production efforts away from the StuG into the Jagepather-tiger-Elefant where the potential tactical gains were HUGELY offset by the strategic losses of not being able to field as many, not being able to maintain them AND losing the strategic ground by the lack of more numerous StuGs.

As a runner up I would vote the M10, purely as she was the most similar in effect to the StuG of any other TD, as she was simple, easy to build and maintain, shared a GREAT number of components with other TD's/Tanks (which is huge), and had armament capable of dealing with the vast majority (in *numbers*) of enemy tanks.

>>33014955
The issue of course with the late war American 76 tungsten ammo is that its in such short supply that it is inconsequential. If I remember rightly it was issued at a tiny rate of something like 1 round per month per tank with tank destroyers having priority.

>>33018023
I would agree with your thoughts for the M10. I would also praise its ability to accept "most powerful" guns (76 M1, 17pdr). Its reliability. Its ability to accept additional armour plating etc.

>>33018023
I would argue that the Sherman was objectively the best of the medium tanks, and that medium tanks were objectively the "best" sort of tank in the war, thus leaving the Sherman quite reasonably the best tank, without even regarding repairability.

File: 73481219.jpg (150KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x576px

Tank destroyers were a meme, as evidenced by the fact that after WW2 they were almost completely eradicated from the armed forces of every military on earth.

Today the closest thing we have are ATGM carriers, and even those are 50% meme.

Anything a TD can do, a tank can do better.

>>33017044
dubs dont lie

File: 20170216_165733.jpg (2MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x2340px

>>33018022
Hey i just got pics of one of those today

File: T28_Super_Heavy_Tank.jpg (2MB, 1761x1174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1761x1174px

>>33017772
Is that a fucking T28?

>tfw it was so heavy and big they weren't able to send it to the other side of the atlantic at the time.

>>33019198
US tank destroyers were a meme

Sov and german tank destroyers were desperate economic compromise

>>33014917
the US like their tank destroyer to be able to fire HE. British indigenous tank gun were bad at throwing HE (except for the howitzer tank)

>>33019182
T-34 was better.

inb4 I'm a commieboo

>>33014890
>too slow

It was either on par or faster with better tactical mobility than contemporary Allied vehicles. Plus it had a much better transmission than it's predecessor which solved the Panther's problems.

All in all, deadly tank destroyer and certainly the best German TD of the war.

>>33019818
That's a Wolverine mate.

>>33020029
That's an M36 MATE you can tell with the 90mm cannon and the completely different turret.

>>33019198
>Meme

Fuck this word.

Tank destroyers fell out of service for the same reason heavy tanks did, MBTs. With some exceptions like the s-tank.

Also>>33019931. Though they were desperate, but effective.

>>33019986
Better structural design sure, but it has shit gunsights and no radios and fared worse against German equivalents than the Sherman did.

>>33019986
Better at what, exactly? Roadspeed, sure. Offroad speed, not as much. Climbing some terrain? Sure.

Protection and armament are roughly equivalent in purely hard factors for most variants, but the T-34 loses out in actually bringing those to bear. Fewer and worse radios than the Sherman. Worse gunsights. Less reliable/easy to maintain. More likely to suffer critical damage to crew and equipment on a penetration, and the T-34's hatches were less accessible than most Shermans, thus making it less able to be returned back to combat. The Sherman also has something that the T-34 lacks- a gun stabilizer. Let's also not forget simple crew comfort and ease of use, which is important when campaigning.

>>33020246
>Less reliable/easy to maintain

This might have something to do with the Russians literally cutting the resources and time they spend making their T-34s in half, they didn't aim to make them reliable past 6 months of service because they'd be past their life expentancy by then.

>>33020541
the one major advantage the t-34 had over the sherman were just the target profile, and the t-34 had to sacrifice interior room and crew comfort for it.

otherwise the sherman had considerable better quality and crew comfort at the expense of being easier target. Even then, Guard armor division prefer the "luxury" of the sherman over the t34.

>>33019986
You're a fucking retarded slavaboo

>>33014959
>StuGs cant effectively engage enemy tanks
>most effective tank of the war
Go away

>>33017096
proofs

>>33019884
>The US army somehow lost this thing in a fucking field for 20 years

>>33020073
looks like the slavs got ahold of that one postwar

>>33020828
>"Fuck friend, I think it threw a rod or something. I can't get it running"
>"Let's take the truck back and mark it down destroyed. They ain't gonna need any of these with the war over anyhow".

>>33018167
If I had fuck you amounts of money, I'd buy one of these, restore it, and then install some 800+ HP turbo diesel just to see if it could crack 100mph.

>>33021004
buy a helmet for when the tracks disintegrate

ITT: video game players have no idea what a tank destroyer is

>protip: only America had them

>>33017813
Is that 10 fires/failures to 1 kills?

File: It lights itself on fire to keep the crew warm during winter- it's a feature.jpg (250KB, 752x768px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 752x768px

>>33021868
>filename

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

179KB, 1280x818px

>>33014917

>The British had a better 76mm gun. Not sure why the US couldn't just use theirs.

The 17-pounder was a huge gun that fired a round almost 1.5x as powerful. Just compare the casings for the two.. Sure, they have the same bore calibre, but the US 76 mm was a toy compared to the 17-pounder.

>The 17lber was extremely inaccurate over distance and too big for the Sherman. With newer ammo by late war the American 76 was much better

It wasn't, but the 17-pounder was too heavy and powerful for the Hellcat chassis. The Firefly method of using it in a heavily modified Sherman turret was clumsy and crude.

>>33021135
Oh here comes the pendantic fuck

>>33014959

Just use a PZ3

>>33019198

Technically so was the whole "light" tank or "medium" tank classification. The acceleration towards the MBT concept in many ways helped to streamline and simplify the production of the nation's armored weapons for a variety of reasons.

File: jagdtiger.jpg (193KB, 1216x753px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1216x753px

jajaja

>>33021135

Leave it to the Americans to have to dedicate a an armour branch to fighting tanks because their standard tanks couldn't do it without british hand holding.

>>33022175
"Hans! We threw a track, ran out of fuel and our transmission broke again!"

>>33017066
It was wayyy too fucking cramped

File: 1432260870678.jpg (266KB, 1280x810px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1280x810px

StuGs got way more shit done than people give them credit for

>>33021135
If you wanna go full autism just call them gun motor carriages while you're at it

>>33020768
>StuG
>tank

>turretless assault gun
>engaging tanks effectively from anything but a static position

File: 1374291628650.png (344KB, 517x505px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 517x505px

>>33015069
>Reading about Otto
>that part where they ambush a column of T34s with infantry riding on them and the 88s where launching them in the air.

File: Idole der Nazis 01 - Otto Skorzeny. SS Agent für Hitler (2010).mp4_snapshot_06.21_[2013.09.02_21.59.54].jpg (108KB, 432x924px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 432x924px

>>33022292

>That part when he gets annoyed by a Soviet ground attack plane, so he shoots it down with the main gun.

File: A Bridge Too Far IRL.webm (3MB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 718x404px

Stug life.

File: 455402.jpg (319KB, 736x1802px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 736x1802px

>He received the Iron Cross, First Class, after taking out his 50th enemy tank. He was awarded the Tank Assault Badge for his 100th tank battle. After his 126th confirmed kill, he was awarded the German Cross in Gold. While commanding a Tiger I tank and then a Tiger II, he destroyed 42 more enemy tanks. Knispel was the only non-commissioned officer named in a Wehrmacht communique.

>He never received the Knight’s Cross that was typically awarded to tank aces. It’s likely that this did not bother him much as he never seemed to strive for awards. Whenever there was a dispute over who got a kill, he always allowed the other party to get the credit.

>His slow promotion is credited to conflicts he had with superior officers. He once attacked an SS officer he saw mistreating Soviet prisoners of war.

Meet Oddball from Kelly's Heroes irl

>>33017813

No. Even the Abwehr cut after action reports from the SS by as much as half. Ignoring that, the Elephant's design worked against itself- tank destroyers need to be reasonably well armored, but more than that they need some real ability to disengage and re-position themselves as needed. And they need to have a low profile so they can be adequately hidden.
The elephant was none of these things. Instead they piled on armor that wouldn't save them- an elephant was effectively lost if it couldn't move under it's own power- and gave it a gun that was wholly unnecessary to fight the bulk of the Soviet army in most situations.


>>33017066

The Hetzer was a great design considering Germany's strategic situation at the time but in practical terms it was bad. The only reason it was getting made was because it's what the Czechs could make. In reality, if they could have been building more StuGs that would have served the Germans better- Stugs had better sighting and better turret traverse and they weren't entirely blind to their right flank.


>>33014917

The 17 pounder had serious issues in terms of compromises- the muzzle brake caused problems and they had a habit of belching super heated gas into the crew compartment. Firing them at night caused problems too. Early on to achieve it's impressive armor penetration, sabot rounds had to be used that were inaccurate outside of 500 meters. More over the US 76mm gun was perfectly capable of achieving comparable penetration figures without the accuracy issues, and without making significant impositions on the M4 Sherman if they just used HVAP munitions.


In reality, the Americans weren't really hurting for armor penetration, they just elected to not supply specialty rounds in significant numbers. Between CBC- I think it was CBC?- rounds for 75mm's, HVAP for 76's and then the 90mm guns, the Americans had plenty of options for ramping up AT performance if they really needed it.

>>33021983
>stop pointing out myths and ignorance

>>33022191
The British preferred American tanks when given the option.

>>33022246
Not all tank destroyers were self propelled.

>>33020612
I cant find the picture but the T-34 is not that much shorter.

File: Marine m7 Siege Gun.jpg (182KB, 568x542px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 568x542px

>>33014711

The Marines used the M7 Priest as an assault and antitank gun in the Pacific. You can imagine what the 150mm howitzer did to Japanese tanks.

>>33023969
>150mm

>>33023979
*105

File: panther-got-fucked-up-by-an-ISU-152[1].jpg (61KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x564px

>>33014759
Su-152

File: Jagdpanzer38.jpg (311KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1920x1280px

>>33023032
The Hetzer weighed half of the stugs weight and had more armor.

>>33019931
>US Tank Destroyers
>Meme


The combat record for self-propelled Tank Destroyers from Normandy onward is outstanding.

File: 1487087434518.jpg (241KB, 1002x1575px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1002x1575px

>>33024012
That's a Panther hit by IS-2 from 1200 m. A hit by SU-152 would probably have blown the entire Panther turret off its ring.

>>33023032
>Abwehr

The Abswehr was a pro-Allied seditious organization.

File: Sprut water.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Someone said tank destroyers?

>>33014711
TDs ended up just being tanks.

So the best TD is the best tank. So the Sherman.

>>33024847
??????
Best td would be hands down the stug
It was a cheap to build tank and highly effective

File: 1479532794881.jpg (92KB, 800x529px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x529px

>>33014711
Best K/D ratio.

File: 1460830334621.jpg (759KB, 2000x1474px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 2000x1474px

>>33023032
>More over the US 76mm gun was perfectly capable of achieving comparable penetration figures without the accuracy issues

Not even remotely true

>MUH HVAP

Had no influence in WW2 and should not be discussed in any WW2 frame.

File: 2s25 sprut-sdm-1.jpg (337KB, 2144x1424px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2144x1424px

>>33024821
Sprut-SDM when?

The best tank destroyer of WWII was a Finnish dude and a log and a petrol bomb.

>>33025149
>Had no influence in WW2 and should not be discussed in any WW2 frame.
It certainly did have an influence. It was more prevalent in tank destroyer units, for obvious reasons, but it was still issued out to normal tanks, who could be expected to have one or two if they needed it. To be frank, that's enough to make a difference, considering the amount of big cats they faced. 15-30 rounds in a company. Yeah, it's significant enough to matter.

>>33014959

You better tell the news about Stug not being able to engage tanks to Finnish Army - which knocked out 87 Soviet tanks with its Stug IIIG while only losing 8 assault guns in the process. Most of the Soviet tanks where knocked out in counter-attacks.

Stug, although it was technically a field gun

>>33025275

Petrol boms (better known as "Molotov cocktail") were actually kind of MEME - they were most commonly used to destroy knocked out or at least demobilized tanks. The improvised antitank weapon in Finnish inventory that actually proved somewhat effective was a satchel charge, which was put in industrial mass-production during the war.

File: tmp_1222-1469306695343356645899.jpg (253KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x1600px

>>33022175
>GIVE ME ALL THE GAS, I'VE GOT A WAR TO LOSE

File: Elefant_USAOM-01.jpg (162KB, 699x420px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 699x420px

>>33014711
Elefant > all

>>33022215
>Check again, we just turned on the engine!

>>33024847
>Sherman
Fucking keked hard

File: IMG_0639.jpg (65KB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x400px

>>33014711
Marder III Ausf M

>>33024541
It was more vulnerable from the flanks- in practical terms ANY AT ordinance was penetrating- it had a significant blind spot on the right side of the gun, it's turret traverse was significantly less, and the thing was cramped as fuck.


It was a good use of available resources, that's about it.


>>33025149
The 17 pounder struggled to hit barn sized objects at ranges in excess of 500 meters. The 76mm gun was perfectly adequate, and the Americans had multiple avenues to improve the performance of existing guns that only involved new ammo types. What little HVAP was distributed proved more than adequate.


You don't exactly need to overcompensate when your opponent is going to lose half their tank fleet to mechanical failures over the course of a major offensive.

File: 1058536.jpg (42KB, 510x525px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 510x525px

>>33028870

>>33030474
>The 17 pounder struggled to hit barn sized objects at ranges in excess of 500 meters.

Nice meme. Which garbage are you regurgitating. This is obviously not an opinion you arrived at through diligent research, but rather shitty ass board culture.

>It certainly did have an influence. It was more prevalent in tank destroyer units, for obvious reasons, but it was still issued out to normal tanks

Tanks only got it in 1945, and by then, there was like ZERO German armor on the Western front.

So HVAP had no role in WW2 and does not belong in any WW2 context.

The 76 mm guns was quite obsolete and already outdated in 1943.

>>33017772
But it isn't a tank destroyer you stupid twat. Someone's been playing too much WoT.

>>33019931
>Strv 103
>Tank Destroyer

Pick one

>>33022561
Glad I'm not the only one who's picked up on this

>>33024702
So I don't read Russian, but I see a very clear "152" and no mention of "122" in either of those captions. I'm having trouble believing it's a coincidence.

>>33014844
We rocked TD's in Korea...?

>goes and reads about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

That is badass.

File: xKfMYiO.jpg (39KB, 593x350px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 593x350px

>>33032174
I'm firmly in the M36>M18 camp, but it's probably also worth mentioning that both vehicles also saw conflict in one of those loopy Balkans wars. I believe the Yugoslavians operated both standard M18s, and also some of this pic related bullshit

File: e3873e0ba84b0d6d5a978f1e42a02907.jpg (60KB, 1023x526px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1023x526px

Surprised no one has posted "Sturer Emil" yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturer_Emil

>>33032074
>Nice meme. Which garbage are you regurgitating. This is obviously not an opinion you arrived at through diligent research, but rather shitty ass board culture.


American evaluations of the gun. The Americans certainly had the manufacturing capabilities to make their own domestic versions of the gun since they were already doing it elsewhere. The 76mm gun was lifted in near whole cloth from the British 3 inch and the 75mm was adapted from a WW1 era French field gun.


But no, American evaluations of the 17 pounder concluded that it had elementary accuracy issues stemming from it's sabot round.


>The 76 mm guns was quite obsolete and already outdated in 1943.


In 1943 the principal tanks Germany was sending to fight Americans were panzer 3's and 4's, and the M4 Shermans equipped with 75mm guns were more than adequate.

>>33018022
Did this ever enter service?

>>33033726
Probably because its just another nashorn/elefant, and there were two of them

>>33024762
>The Abswehr was a pro-Allied seditious organization.

the Abwher was the military intelligence service run by admiral canaris and absorbed by its SS counterpart, the SD, at the end of the war.

File: M6-37mm-GMC.jpg (707KB, 2092x1686px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 2092x1686px

>>33014711
Tracked vehicles are for little bitches.

>>33034289
not gonna lie, ive always loved the WC trucks they used

>>33014929
By the time IS-2 1944 rolled into full production, it was ogre.

File: Super Hellcat.jpg (85KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x604px

>>33034240
No

File: My sadness.jpg (120KB, 392x495px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 392x495px

>>33034318
>the recoil caused the M18 to move backwards almost two feet
>tfw that will never be modeled in war thunder

>>33024702
Its from a 152mm

>t.slav

Third sentence on the second paragraph starts with 152mm

>>33018010

Aesthetically pleasing, but the traverse speed on it and the Achilles was slow as shit.

>>33014807
>>33014890
Ameriboos in denial

File: laughing ares.gif (2MB, 300x228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x228px

>>33022215

File: tom hanks.jpg (16KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x500px

>>33027857

SOURCE!

>>33023969

I remember reading about them using M7 Priests to protect a routed group of soldiers from on coming Panzer4s. The Priests leveled the shit out of the IV's using the 105s.

File: 5cd451bc7a5d6f008cca6fb7f3595258.jpg (69KB, 604x407px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 604x407px

>>33034288

Because Canaris hated Hitler with a passion, permitted all his spies to serve as double agents to the allies, saved Jews, Convinced Franco to stand up to Hitler, spent much of the war pushing the Allies to negotiate peace, and when that fail, got deep into the Hitler assassination plots.

Canaris was the best ally the Allies ever had and he was rewarded for it by spending every day after the July plot being tortured and then being stripped naked and hung on a meat hook at the very end of the war.

>"Badly mishandled... Nose broken at last interrogation. My time is up. Was not a traitor. Did my duty as a German. If you survive, please tell my wife...I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience. I only did my duty to my country when I tried to oppose the criminal folly of Hitler."

>>33014711

>Speed

You can kill a hellcat with a peestol, penetrate it with an HMG, and it's strategy mobility is not that good.

Best TD was probably the Jadgpanzer 4.

>>33024654

It's not that hard to kill Marders, Renault FT's and the ocasional Panzer 4.

>>33021135

>A retarded burger appears out of nowhere

>>33024702

>It's written 152mm on the hull, the hole is circled as well
>YOU SEE I AN AMERICAN WHO CAN'T READ CYRILLIC KNOWS IT'S 122

>>33034288

Canaris was a traitor, read about him.

>>33033824
>The 76mm gun was lifted in near whole cloth from the British 3 inch

No it wasn't. It's based on the 3" gun from the Wolverine TD, and that is based on some naval fun from the 1920s.

>>33034991
Thats what traitors deserve

>>33033824

>American evaluations of the gun.

The very same evaluations even admitted they were using faulty ammo, and given the extremely high level of US and British rushing to claim accomplishment in the post war era, these tests should never be regarded an unbiased source.

If someone can find a source from a British Army deployed unit stating it was that inaccurate, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

>>33021970
What am I looking at here?

File: Daimler_Armoured_Car_Mark_2.jpg (352KB, 800x675px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 800x675px

Superior AT platform coming

>>33014711
I'd like to interject for a second. What you are calling "Tank destroyer" is actually a Gun Motor Carriage. "Tank destroyer" refers to military units/detachments whose main purpose was reacting to enemy armored formations. Tank destroyers used Gun Motor Carriages as well as towed guns.

>>33034452
In denial of what? Winning the war?

>>33035881
Looks like a captured T-34/85 sans tracks? But idk, the hull doesn't quite match a T-34/85 correctly I don't think

>>33015069
What about 5000 extra Ottos?

>>33035881

Someone put together an alternate timeline WW2 T-44 from 1946 with a Panther roadwheel replacement. 1:35 scale model.

>>33024654
The combat record of american TDs even before Normandy was breddy gud. Fargos and M3 GMCs did work in africa.