Americans will unironically defend this deathtrap.

File: 1470777579208.gif (3MB, 560x416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 560x416px

Ameribooohoooohooos

File: 1446165711035.jpg (104KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 400x300px

>When the tank is on fire and the loader have no hatch because it is 1942.

>>33051224
And this deathtrap will unironically defend Americans.

Was the last bait thread not enough?
Someone destroys the argument that the M4 was a bad tank or worse than a T-34 so you run off to start a new thread.

>>33051948
I would argue that for the overall US strategy in WW2 it was a somewhat adequate tank, but for the Amerifat tankers being roasted and killed in these they were fucking terrible

>>33052109
did you forget what was posted in the last 500 threads about this subject, kid?

2/10 for making me reply

File: shermanpanzercomp.png (200KB, 580x773px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 580x773px

>>33052109

US armor had positive kill ratios against german armor which makes sense because the Sherman was superior to it's German counterpart by just about every measure.

>>33051948
Ay hol up.
You want to tell me that the M4 was a better tank than the T-34?!
You ameriboos are in denial if you think any pre M4A3 variant was good. Even later shermans with extra armor and 76mm gun were quit laughable.
Now go and cook Tommies somewhere far far away from any T-34

>>33051224
Is it being used by Brits?

>>33052119
I really want to look into those stats, they smell like BS

>this thinly armored, poorly made, under-gunned tank had a low death rate

>>33052130
75mm armed Shermans roflstomped T34/85s in Korea.

>>33052124
Is that a PzIII? Shit comparison

>>33052130
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

Everything on this page is cited.

The T-34 was trash.

>>33052168

It's a PZ4, which was Germany's counterpart

>>33052149
maybe you should look it up retard.

>>33052124
>postive K/D
Probably counted the same way as in Vietnam huh?
>oh we drove over a damaged tractor +1
>oh look there is an empty german halftrack, lets shoot at it +1
>Sir we need to break throug this car barrier +3
>We successfully liberated a junkyard +200

>>33052202

Are you arguing that the US didn't maintain a positive kill ration in vietnam?

>>33052149
>thinly armored,
Best armored medium tank
>poorly made,
By the only nation with intact industrial base, right. Actually highest build quality of any wartime tank
>under-gunned tank
75mm was adequate against any foe short of a Tiger
>had a low death rate
Finally something that isn't BS.

Once the brits learned to not stuff a week's worth of shells in every nook and cranny of the tank, it was the tank on the battlefield with the best crew protection in the case of a pen (eg wet storage, escape hatches that actually worked, etc).

>>33051911

>1911 check'd

>>33051224

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

>>33052186
Considering that the army reused already shot (with dead crew) Shermans this is the only possible way that the Sherman outperformed german armor.
In the end the tank got reused and welded severa times but dozens of crew members had to die before they got their first kill.

File: snake-in-computer-01.jpg (36KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x480px

Well okay if you really want to go there (Again)
>T-34
>Abysmally poor space for crew, even compared to other tanks of the time
>No turret basket
>Unnecessarily sloped side armor, making the Christie suspension take up even more space than it already did
>Driver and bow gunner have next to no chance of escape if hit
>Driver needs a hammer to change gears
>When the driver is killed the tank may take off on its own
>Accessing the engine is a hassle because every thing is bolted close
>Commander's awareness not as good as other comparable medium tanks
And that's without going into the issues suffered by the earlier versions or the overall range of quality between tanks from different times/factories.
T-34 was not some amazing tank. The only thing it had going for it was the sloped frontal armor and that advantage was more or less gone by 1942 once the Germans had better AT guns (longer 75mm) and the Tiger with the 88mm.

>>33052246
Nicholas Moran is great. He knows his stuff and he focuses on how tanks actually were for the crew that was inside them. What conditions they would be under, how the layout of the tank helped/hindered them, and how they would (or would not) be able to get the fuck out of the tank when hit.
Those areas are often ignored in favor or raw numbers lime armor thickness and sloping, gun caliber, or weight. But at the heart of it all if you're crew is miserable/untrained/dead, they are not going to do much good in making the tank work well.

>Whataboutism
>The thread

File: empireretirementhome.png (136KB, 700x545px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 700x545px

>>33051224
Americans will unironically defend this death trap

>>33052130
>pre-M4A3
Sure, if we can bring up the 1941 models of T-34, with the laughable 2-man turret, no optics and a pop gun

>>33051224
ah, sherman threads. always full of intelligent, reasoned, and nuanced discussion. a true place for experts on historical armor to talk.

File: 1387633946254.jpg (672KB, 2205x1429px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 2205x1429px

>>33052297

Didn't the commander have to aim and fire the main gun as well as directing the crew and coordinating the tank with the other tanks in his unit?

>>33052403
Earlier T-34s had the commander work as the comm., loader, and flag man. Unit commanders had radios in their tanks.
But this was an issue fixed pretty quickly and every vehicle got a radio.

>>33052362
kek'd

>>33052250

All militaries did, a tank was too valuable of a weapon to just leave on the battlefield because someone was killed in it

It's the same reason Germans would continue to fire upon destroyed Shermans until they caught fire, to prevent them from being recovered, which is where the ronson myth stems from.

The german counterpart was simply inferior in every way, with the exception that it got a long gun sooner

File: Screenshot_20170219-195410.jpg (792KB, 1104x1840px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 1104x1840px

>>33052403
Never noticed this before

>>33052501
I remember seeing that as a kid and thinking it was awesome. Also, it's more than likely what happened to him anyway

File: tmp_9301-1487139680523-354386636.jpg (32KB, 260x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 260x300px

>>33052501
>poo
>hand positions

wtf

>Experiencing WWII from the inside of a M4 Sherman tank was famously dangerous. Henry J. Earl retells his experience with the Sherman in a 1983 letter to Lt Colonel Haynes Dugan, one of the G-2 intelligence officers for the 3rd Armored Division.

>The hit was low on the side. The interior of the tank was lit by a ball of fire caused by the terrific friction of the penetration. A white hot eighteen pound projectile entered the empty ammunition rack under the floor. The earlier modes of the M-4 “Sherman” medium tank did not store ammunition under the turret floor. The steel walls of the compartment prevented the molten metal from striking the interior of the hulland ricocheting throughout the tank. This saved the crew.”[i]

>Unfortunately, many Sherman operators of WWII were not this lucky. The M4 Sherman was the primary tank utilized by the United States army during World War Two. It also became the main tank of the other Allied countries, except for Russia. The popularity of the Sherman was not due to its superior design, but its availability and mass production. On the contrary, this tank suffered from serious design flaws. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that it was the soldiers within these tanks that bore the brunt of the Sherman’s problems.https://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

>>33053419
>Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

>“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”[iii]

>Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”.

>>33053506

>Not as armored as the panzer iv
>More armored

well that was an easy paragraph to debunk

>>33052246
Very informative video. Thanks for sharing.

>90mm LOS frontal armor for small hatch hulls, 94mm for large hatch hulls
>164mm frontal turret armor including gun mantlet (plus a 50mm rotor shield), 184mm including mantlet for T23 turrets
>average of 0.6 casualties per knocked out tank
>less than 1,500 destroyed in ETO
>crew can egress (hatch opened and crewman on the deck) in less than 10 seconds, even in small hatch variants
>hatches are actually placed directly above their crew positions
>hatches were also spring loaded after 1942
>belly hatch was actually large enough to get out of
>W E T S T O W A G E
>semi-automatic fire supression system in the engine compartment and multiple handheld extinguishers in the crew compartment
>75mm rounds were well known for igniting very slowly even when the tank was penetrated catastrophically
>unlike T-34, armor was ductile enough that non-penetrative hits wouldn't cause spalling and injure the crew

Yeah, there's a deathtrap for you. Fuck you for making me reply to a bait thread.

>>33053506
>>33053419
are you literally trying to hit the bingo?
>under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks
The Tiger was a long range killer, not a rolling bunker like the KT. The 76 would penetrate the Tiger.
>out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks.
You mean when the Panther would actually work?

>>33053506
dayum.

>>33053553
Didn't the early M4s have something like 3 1/2 inches of frontal armor accounting for slope? Frontal armor on Panzer IVs was unsloped and was never more than a hair over 3 inches, and the Sherman had nearly 4 inches when the large hatch hulls came around.

>>33053586
And hell, those are just things pertaining to crew safety. The Sherman had shitloads of other advantages in automotive/mechanical systems, optics, crew comfort, ergonomics, quality control, logistical support, you name it.

>>33052130
You mean the T-34 that took 78% combat losses? As in 78% of the tanks produced throughout the entire war, destroyed? Yeah, I'd love to get my ass into one of those.

>>33052139
Christ I hope not. The Brits were a bunch of silly ass motherfuckers who thought they didn't need to wear helmets in a tank and thought that shoving a 17 pounder with its fat fucking breech into a small turret Sherman was a good idea.

>>33053728
>17 pounder with its fat fucking breech into a small turret Sherman

Don't forget they liked to max out the amount of shell they can carry in the tank. So no wet storage.

File: 4477582769_c199e20f3e_b.jpg (170KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x683px

>>33051887
>When the tank is on fire and your only options are to wait 45 seconds for the driver to get unstuck and get out or try and squeeze through a rathole floor hatch

>>33053768
Hadn't even thought of that. If Russian 85mm rounds are anything to go by, a gang of burning 17 pounder rounds would probably create one hell of a conflagration.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh though. The British, at the end of the day, were damn good tankers, and it's not like they had a lot of choice when they came up with the Firefly. They did have some pretty decent tanks of their own as well, though the egress points on many of their designs left much to be desired.

File: loza.jpg (41KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x450px

>>33051224

Soviets will unironically defend this deathtrap.

>Finally, an order arrived. But with other, stunning contents, that sent chills running up and down our spines: "Remove the turrets and hull machine guns from the Shermans. Warehouse them. Deliver the armored hulls—as tractors—to civilian enterprises." We had to report compliance with this order within five days.

>Why, for what reason, from where did such an abrupt change in the subsequent fate of the foreign tanks come? What forced Moscow to take such a final ["murderous" in original text] decision? For days after receipt of the "death certificate" (as the tankers nicknamed the order), work proceeded on a broad front. All the brigade, corps, and army maintenance units were thrown into the demilitarization of the tanks, making "tractors" out of them.

>I cannot forget the total dejectedness of the crews as they stood on the sidelines with heads bowed. The death of each tank showed on their faces. At one time, the Emchisti had signed hand receipts for the tanks from the brigade command. We all were heavy-hearted. Many choked back tears, and some, not holding back, cried bitterly. How could this be? How much effort and energy had been given to them—the Shermans—there in the dry Mongolian steppe, in the silent desert sands of the Gobi, in the rugged southern reaches of the Grand Khingan? And how many obstacles had been overcome on the central Manchurian plain? These men had cared for them, cared for them like the apple of their eye. And now this final humiliation. Farewell, Emcha! Each inomaiochnik will have good memories of you for the rest of his life.

>An epitaph came out of these mournful days (how could it not), "Yesterday it was a menacing tank, and now, by order—they took off the turret—it has become a tractor. Front-line comrade, how painful to witness the death of the Emcha. Try not to cry!"

http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Food for thought. Interview with a Soviet tanker who crewed a Lend Lease M4A2 Sherman (the one with the twin GM diesel engines)

He noted several good points and advantages over the T-34, but also noted a few drawbacks that in fairness were mostly pertinent only in the Eastern Front.

>>33053685

you will never convince a ruskiphile that soviet/russian equipment isn't hot garbage, even though it objectively is, and gets BTFO against western gear time and again.

even the russians knew shermans were better, they loved them.

>>33052523
>I remember seeing that as a kid and thinking it was awesome.
me too man!, that was a nice book.

>>33053881
Now don't get me wrong here. The T-34 had its good points, especially later in the war when they came from the better factories like Nizhny Tagil.

Although the Brinell hardness of the armor was far too high, the steel itself was usually high quality, and the welds were extremely strong. The engine was good, though its supporting systems (cooling, air filters) were much less so, and they along with the transmission held back its potential. The running gear was good, though there was room for improvement. The wide tracks gave the tank a nice, low ground pressure, though the lack of any real track pin retention beyond a simple guide ramp is questionable, and the use of single center guide horns and rollers seems less effective than the dual sprocket wheels found on many of its contemporaries. Each road wheel had its own independent suspenision unit, and replacing the road wheels themselves looked to be pretty simple. I do like the gunsights, and the traverse control is a nice example of simple elegance. And by all accounts, the ZiS-S-53 was an excellent gun.

However, even its good points were not without their respective caveats.

>>33053773

Still a more viable floor hatch than the one in a Matilda

>>33053506
>Ronson meme

Well there's how you know most if not all of that was bullshit, as if that wasn't evident already. Nobody has ever managed to prove that Shermans were given that nickname by anybody, British or American.

File: NOR047Page1.jpg (51KB, 495x429px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 495x429px

>>33051887
>My grandfather finished WWII commanding a small unit of shermans. He landed in France 5 days after D-Day and accepted the surrender of Colditz Castle towards the end of the war. It was way better then being a rifleman.
The reason guys would ride the back of the tank like this was to get better vision and keep the hatch unblocked if the tank caught fire or they died. Another reason was to keep sharpnel out of the tank, not so great for the guy outside though.

>>33054125
Chieftain, get out of here, we're having a shit flinging match.

>>33053378
Right hand is on elevation controls, left hand on turret rotation. It was awkward, but on the T-34/76 there wasn't enough room to do right hand on traverse comfortably.

This was changed in T-34/85.

File: pg-bt-smoke-na-622x397.jpg (30KB, 594x396px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 594x396px

>>33053506

All interwar and WWII era tanks burned at the slightest provocation. The Sherman is no exception.

>>33054145
That guy isn't a tank crewman, he's usually someone from the infantry unit the tanks are accompanying.

Sherman tanks served as frontline MBTs with smaller countries into the 1970s, and Sherman-based support vehicles were in service into the 2000s. The same goes for T-34s, only those tanks were a lot less comfortable.

Meanwhile France couldn't keep a company of Panthers running five years after the war. They even found they needed to be freighted to front lines or else the transmissions would blow up.

How cool something is has no effect on its effectiveness in combat.

>>33054195
>That guy isn't a tank crewman, he's usually someone from the infantry unit the tanks are accompanying.

Thanks I'll believe my oral history.

>>33054188
Actually, it was after wet stowage came around. After that, only something like 5-15% of Shermans burned when penetrated, while all the other tanks burned at the same rates they always had.

And it was noted by both American and Soviet Sherman crews that both 75mm and 76mm rounds took a relatively long time to cook off, whereas the 85mm rounds in a T-34-85 would cook off right away. The disparity in how easy it was to egress from these tanks meant that a Sherman crew had a decent chance of escaping a K-killed Sherman, whereas a T-34 crew would be pretty much screwed. It didn't help that T-34-85s stored a shitload of ammo along the walls of the turret, in clips as opposed to armored boxes. Though in fairness, the majority were stored in boxes on the floor, which was probably much safer.

>>33054237
This. If you like it because it's cool, fine. German tanks are pretty sexy aesthetically. But at least be honest about it.

>>33053773
Don't forget that the driver's hatch constituted a major ballistic weak point in the frontal armor. The US did away with small hatch hulls and direct vision ports in the Sherman for that very reason.

>>33052130
>M4A2 was bad

The GM 4064 was unquestionably better than the Kharkiv V-2, and the Ford GAA beats it handily as well.

And even the Wright Whirlwind variants in the M4A1 were better in terms of gross and net output than the underpowered Maybach piece of crap that the Panzer IV was stuck with, and unlike the V-2, they didn't have shoddy, inefficient transmissions to contend with, meaning the Whirlwind could actually utilize its power. Which incidentally it had more of relative to its weight than the V-2.

>>33054423
>GM 4064
I think you meant 6046. Otherwise, nail on the head.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>33054266
The problem is that many people become interested in tanks from tank vs tank video games, not a bad thing at all but it leaves a huge amount of people who only view tanks in tank vs tank engagements and wouldn't even think about more important aspects such as logistics or operational mobility when comparing tanks.

>>33054247
The Soviets used single base propellant because "fuck you, that's why."

>>33054482
Hell, never mind all that. They never even think about what it would be like to actually crew one of these things. Crewing a Panther would probably suck, having to maintain and repair one would definitely suck, yet how many guys out there slobber over the damn thing?

>>33054517
Well, look where it got them.

Doesn't matter how good the ZiS gun is if you take a hit and your own ammo wipes out the crew.

>>33054423
All true, but I still wouldn't want to drive an M4A1 if I had a choice. Fuel accumulation in the lower cylinders was a pain to deal with, and you had to upshift and accelerate pretty carefully if you didn't want the engine to blow itself out.

It did have a pretty good power to weight ratio as noted though, and they were extremely quiet, especially compared to diesels.

>>33051224
I'm not America, and I'll unironically defend it. I'll also unironically most German and British tanks as well.

>>33053553
So actual contemporary tankers hated the m4, but it's better because muh 90mm

>>33054891
Most accounts from US Sherman tankers that I've heard have been positive, and the Sherman was indeed superior in terms of armor compared to the Panzer IV, so I don't know what any of that noise is about.

>>33054891
I've never heard of tank crews that hated the Sherman. They may have felt outmatched by stuff like Tigers, which is why "Tiger Panic" persisted and Americans mistook Pz IVs or even IIIs for Tigers.
Nearly every soldier at some point thinks the enemy has better equipment in some form. As they say, the grass is always greener...
Realistically though the Sherman with the 75mm was perfectly fine up until 1944 when the Panther and Tiger II made their appearances in Western Europe. By then the 76mm was already widely available. Next to no one in combat thought the 90mm and the M26 it was fitted to was necessary.

File: a fucking bullet with a bandana dual wielding knives.jpg (98KB, 965x421px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 965x421px

>>33051911
>1911

>>33055027
Though the 90mm was a damn good gun. Better than the KwK 36 and the QF 17 by all accounts. But as you said, it wasn't necessary.

>>33052159

You mean 76mm armed, but yes you are correct.

>>33052403
That cutaway always makes me laugh. It constantly contradicts itself, often in single sentences.

>T-34 was an incredible tank leagues ahead of its contemporaries

>here are a gaggle of design flaws

There really is always a "but". It's just that most people wouldn't try to put a positive spin on it.

File: 411.jpg (45KB, 640x398px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x398px

>>33051224
>death trap

File: FB_IMG_1487064256199.jpg (18KB, 429x343px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 429x343px

>>33052159

>>33052159
You are now aware that the US military used exclusively M4A3E8s in Korea - and those were all armed with the 76mm.

So what this Anon writes, Gentlemen, is pure bullshit.

>>33052362
Underrated post.

>>33051911
>nineteen elebunn confirmed True American Freedom dispenser.

>>33052323

His videos about the Panther really convinced me that it was a pretty bad tank, despite looking impressive.

>>33056894
I wouldn't go so far to call it a bad tank, just one with a very limited use.
Park a Panther in concealed position or in a corridor where the enemy has to enter your line of fire and you're great. Long 75 will fly will very little lead needed and with little drop and will punch right through.
But if you're in a moving engagement where you have targets on multiple angles, you're kind of screwed.
It looks so pretty though.

File: aye.png (9KB, 429x431px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 429x431px

>>33051911
>>33051911
>>33051911

What's the total number of these shit threads?

>>33056992
Lim(ε->0) 1/ε

>>33056974

In the situation you described where a panther does well, a Jagdpanzer IV will do just as well, and a Stug III only somewhat worse but much more price effectively.

So it's awful at doing "tank" things because of the crap side armor, unreliable automotive components, and mediocre fire control. It's only good at doing tank destroyer things, but for much more money than a tank destroyer.

Therefore, it's crap.

File: 1473437506359.jpg (714KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 1024x1024px

>>33051911

>>33054238
>implying grandfathers dont make up 90% of their war stories

>>33057197
>>33056974

Guys did you even watch the video?

The interior layout and crew ergonomics in the Panther are horrific. They can barely do their jobs.

File: IMG_2069.gif (404KB, 312x176px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 312x176px

>>33051911
>1911

File: B3F4F407-BAE7-4AE6-96E6-14F76F5EBE6D-470-0000005B24B96C25_tmp.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>33051911

lowest crew losses in the war

>>33058831
I wouldn't say horrific. It's still better than a T-34 or a Sherman Firefly. It is pretty bad though.

>>33054482
Who is this QT

>>33051224
implying the T34 was not with a ratio of 20 to 1 deaths by enemy action.

>>33051224
t-34s were worse and more of them were destroyed

File: casualties Wiking Panther.jpg (31KB, 800x561px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 800x561px

>>33052109
>but for the Amerifat tankers being roasted and killed in these they were fucking terrible
I doubt being protected by muh krupp stahl gave pic related much comfort in his final moments.

>>33051224
>>33058560

OP is a homosexual.

>>33059753
>BlackwaterFallujah before it was cool

>>33052159
>Korea
>Manned by Chinese
Military training in the PLA is a joke by Western standards, and they're a superpower.
60 years ago, the USSR had the best trained military in the East.
60 years ago, the average Soviet fighter was far less capable than the average American one.
60 years ago, the Chinese the were a bunch of illiterate farmers armed with AKs and molotovs.
The Red Chinese could hardly even equip their soldiers with boots and rice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Volunteer_Army

File: Panzerjäger_G_13_-_Steel_Parade_2006.jpg (573KB, 2336x2160px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 2336x2160px

>>33059300
FCM36

>>33059732
It was more like 4-6 to 1, which is still atrocious.

>>33059762
How many more of these do you figure we'll be seeing today?

>>33052246
This mothafucka! Hating Shermans is a meme.

Is that a Tommykocher?

>>33053813
>>33053728

The 17-Pounder wasn't the greatest fit in the turret, but what other choice was there? The 76mm and HVAP wasn't really available in the required numbers for when D-Day started, and the Challengers weren't being produced fast enough.

Fireflies, then converting Valentines into Archers, then converting M10s into M10c (Achillies) and then as many Challengers as they could. They knew they would likely be facing the brunt of the heavy armor (and they were right) so they were in a full on "get every big gun you possibly can" mode at the time, with the 17-Pounder being the only gun that was truly ready for that level of production with the needed punch and was available for the British AT THE TIME.

Later on the 77mm and the 76mm on the Comet and later Shermans proved to be more balanced guns, even if they lacked the raw penetration. And after that the 17-Pounder had gotten good enough to be fantastic on its own for the Centurion, but back at the start of D-Day, that was their option. They took it and they made it work in practice.

It went into the field and it worked.

You can't ask for much more than that.

File: john-moses-browning.jpg (28KB, 611x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 611x400px

>>33051911

>>33060220
I love Moran. The man is a walking anti-bullshit device.

>>33060252
You're right, and I did say that they didn't have a lot of choice in the matter. It did its job. how much better it could have done that job is irrelevant. My irritation must seem a bit misplaced here. I'm more annoyed by people mindlessly blowing smoke up the Firefly's ass because they only take penetration tables into consideration when determining a tank's actual effectiveness.

File: Ram cruiser 144.jpg (111KB, 1280x668px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x668px

>>33053419
>>33053506

Holy shit, that's a lot stupid there.

File: Maus slide.gif (1MB, 478x405px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 478x405px

>>33060409
>He dyed his hair some brown/red
>He has a fiancee
My heart has been shattered like a Pz IV getting hit directly with 152mm HE

>>33060464
You can still love him in your dreams anon

Also, that's what you get for rolling around in a Panzer IV.

>>33052237

I'm pretty sure he isn't

>>33054237

That's more of a result of having massive stockpiles of parts and equipment still in production though, whereas the German manufacturing capability for their parts had more or less evaporated into thin air, and the current stock of vehicles were much less, having had the shit kicked out of them during the war, whereas there will still thousands of t-34 and Shermans kicking around by the end of the war.

Panzer IVs still saw service with Syria up into the 60s.

>>33052501
> showing the intestines
"shit while were drawing the insides the tank in this picture why don't we draw the innards of the crew as well"

I't a tiny nitpick but I can't keep my mind off of it

>>33055332

They aren't mutually exclusive, it was leagues ahead of its contemporaries, but there were still lots of things wrong with it.

The French were dicking around with one man turrets at this point, the brits were still using the cruiser/infantry tank designation, and the Murricans just started production of the Lee

File: ammo Tiger vs Firefly.jpg (825KB, 2905x1056px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 2905x1056px

>>33053768
>>17 pounder with its fat fucking breech into a small turret Sherman
>Don't forget they liked to max out the amount of shell they can carry in the tank. So no wet storage.

The issue was that the ammo for the 17pdr was substantially larger (on par with the Panther and Tiger I's ammo in size) then the ammo for the M3 75mm gun.

>>33060668
You aren't wrong, but as the British discovered in Exercise Dracula, the Sherman's reliability was inherent in its design. It wasn't due solely to US logistics. Same deal for Shermans in post-war service.

>>33060740
True, but it is still pretty funny.

And we do often forget the boneheaded designs coming from other nations around this time. I would argue that the Lee/Grant is not one of those however. It had its drawbacks, and it does look pretty bizarre, but the British had not one bad word to say about it for the most part.

>>33060766

I was more pointing out that a tank seeing widespread use after the war doesn't necessarily mean it is better, just that there were more of them and nations will use whatever they can get their hands on if need be.

>>33051224
this death trap will unironically defend the free world.

>>33060788
Fair, but the same could be said of the T-34.

>>33060824

Undoubtedly

File: Sherman VC Firefly.jpg (428KB, 1600x1040px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1600x1040px

>>33060817

>17

File: Wright R-975 Whirlwind_Sherman.jpg (231KB, 1288x966px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1288x966px

>>33054627
>All true, but I still wouldn't want to drive an M4A1 if I had a choice. Fuel accumulation in the lower cylinders was a pain to deal with, and you had to upshift and accelerate pretty carefully if you didn't want the engine to blow itself out.

Yes, but those are issues only in relation to other American engines, the Whirlwind was still far better in all regards then British, German and Russian engines of WWII.

>>33060885
Oh, surely, no doubt about that. I'd take a radial engine Sherman over a Panzer IV any day. I'm just saying I'd take a GM twin diesel or Ford GAA over both of them.

>>33058818

My grandfather flew Spitfires in North Africa

according to him, they spent most of their time buzzing Arabs in the desert to make them fall off their camels. Then they would chase the camel away.

OP in a nutshell:
ignores basic statistics backed by hiratory and research.

Shits on any dissenting opinion.

Can't back up own arguments.

I bet if OP could've...be would've voted for hillary.

>>33060966

*he won the DFC, I assume for camel chasing

>>33052362
kek..Kek kek

>>33060668
>That's more of a result of having massive stockpiles of parts and equipment still in production though

A mechanical devices's reliability has no relation to how many spare parts might be available.

If you have to keep replacing broken parts, it's not a reliable device.

File: 1475308517003.jpg (152KB, 924x683px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 924x683px

>>33051911
>1911

>>33051911
Someone screencap this

>>33053506
>Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”.

Polfag here, and this is pure bullshit. Most of polish tankers were pretty damn happy with a shermans.

Hell, best polish WWII tanker memories are "Her name was Lilly" by Bohdan Tymieniecki. (sadly never translated to english - and the guy was fucking awesome, and great storyteller. He won two separate Virtutti Militari (polish equivalent of VC or MoH) ). Lilly is of course name of said sherman. And one thing thats very clear from the book is that he really fucking loved her and her sisters. He never complains about them in the whhole book, and the guy is a big grognard, complaining about pretty much everything else: commnders, infantryman, other tankers, food, logistics... but the whole book gives overhelming impression that if somebody dared to bitch about her, he would beat 50 shades of shit out of him.


Of course considering that she was Firefly he had every reason to be happy... in 1939 he was infantryman , and had to face kraut tanks with his rifle. The he escaped to romania, and then france, where he joined polish forces again - and once again fought against germans as a grunt. So when he went to britain via dunkirk, and went to tank school, he really appreciated having a fuckass 17 pounder next time when he faced kraut panzers.

Also fun story : he scored hit on a moving german staff car from about 5000 yards with a first shoot. 100yards deflection, somewhere about 7 seconds of shell flight time.

>>33061293
Well, given the initial conditions to which he was exposed, I can't imagine he found much to complain about even with that big old 17 pounder breech taking up all the space in the turret. Either way, thanks for sharing anon. Too bad this book was never translated. Sounds like a good read.

>>33052323
It's a shame World of Tanks have to involved, but if it's the only way I get to see his vids then so be it.
His one on the M4 was an eye opener. So was his one on either the tiger or panther (I can't remember which):
>What's that?
>You want to escape the turret?
>That's fine, all you've got to do is take an age unscrewing the fucker with a handle first

>>33061510
Panther. And somehow the T-34 driver's hatch managed to be even worse. At least you can actually get out of the commander's hatch on a Panther quickly once you go through the ordeal of actually getting it open.

>>33054238
>Tank crewman frequently road on the outside of their tank where they have zero protection and can't do their job because they're not in the fucking tank
Grandpa was just fucking with you, you bought it.

>>33061510
That's the Panther. He's never looked at the Tiger.
The Wargaming Europe history expert Richard Cutland (The_Challenger) has his own videos but they are very brief and boring.
He doesn't have any personality or extensive knowledge like Nichloas Moran does.
I play World of Tanks regularly. It's what got me into learning about armor, so I don't mind the association. Though some think that association automatically voids any facts or valid points brought up in his videos/articles.

>>33061639
It does kind of make me look at open turreted US TD's in a better light, the ability to just jump and 'nopenopenope' out if then must have come in handy.

>>33061668
Ah my bad, he needs to hurry up and get his hands in 131 then! I have seen a few of the other guys videos but yes, he's dull.
I suppose the association doesn't bother me all that much. My only problem with the game is that it makes looking of obscure armoured vehicles online a lot more frustrating as it usually just throws up WoT results.

David Fletcher's 'Tank Chats' are good too, love that guy.

>>33061803
Can't imagine it was very comforting if the enemy had CAS in play or had significant indirect fire capability, but if your only concerns are tanks and AT guns, I imagine the ability to just hop out and haul ass came in handy.

>>33061834
If Moran does a Tiger, a late war Sherman, and a Panzer IV, I'll be more than satisfied.

>>33061639
I'm guessing most Panther commanders kept their hatch in the 'open, cover' position where they could just swing it to the side and GTFO. Or the loader would unlatch the loading hatch and fling it open to bail out the back of the turret.
Those at the front of the hull had their own exits.

>deathtrap
>most survivable tank in the 30 ton class
Have fun bailing out of your communist coffin, ivan. Oh wait, you wont, because the committee that designed your crate didn't take that into account. Meanwhile the majority of Sherman crews went home alive and the tanks took a mere day to repair when hit.

>implying we needed anything else to fight 3,000 StuGs and 20 panthers

>>33061837
Well no, in the case of CAS or shrapnel everyone probably became very envious of the driver...

>>33061848
That's the conclusion the Chieftain came to, and I don't see anything wrong with that hypothesis. Still, personally I'd rather have a hatch that I can open and close quickly and easily, whether or not I'll actually have it closed most of the time.

>>33060668
The Panther could only make its final drive go 76km before blowing up like a Dana 35 on a rock crawler. The Sherman could drive, on its own treads, halfway across Europe reliably. It was an excellent cross country tank and they hardly ever actually broke down.

>>33061846
And free access to everything in Kubinka.

I really need to go to tankfest this year....

File: Ferdinand interior splice.jpg (69KB, 579x215px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 579x215px

>>33061834
Oh yeah 'Tank Chats' is an informative and comfy series.
I feel you, as much as I love the game it can get bothersome to be trying to read up on the actual vehicle and keep coming up on results from the game.

>>33061846
I have a feeling he'll get to the last two of those three at some point. They were both in the Littlefield collection they filmed a lot of episodes at.
I wish he took a look inside the Ferdinand when he was at Kubinka. But from what I've heard the vehicles there are maintained only in an exterior fashion.
Maybe Moran or Cutland can look at the Elefant that's now at Bovington.

>>33054145
Nobody did that, and the commander would tell him to fuck off and stop playing with his gun if they did.

In combat the commander's cupola was generally open to maximize situational awareness. If the situation justified buttoning up then standing on the engine deck playing with the commander's gun would be a deeply unsafe place to be.

File: back_to_back_world_war_champs_eagle_poster-r13715f1e1978499ca6f1adddc6e49661_fsnd1_8byvr_512.jpg (48KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 512x512px

>>33051224
>>33051911

>cock huffing europoor sissy homo lala man whose ancestors sucked American cocks for liberating them gets destroyed by JMB's ghost in the form of a 1911 get.

It took me hours to finally stop saluting and post this.

File: 2ybanana.jpg (24KB, 401x401px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 401x401px

>>33051911
>1911

>>33061937
>implying anyone would be firing at the tank whilst busy ducking in the face of the mighty ma deuce

>>33061930
If Moran's IS-7 video is anything to go by, Kubinka does indeed appear to be more concerned with the exterior of their vehicles than anything else. The interior of that tank was downright disgusting compared to the MVTF vehicles he's done.

>>33052250
You mean they had to bail out relatively unhurt.

File: tank.webm (3MB, 640x344px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x344px

>>33061951
Our big green style cannot be defeated

>>33061951
>cock huffing europoor sissy homo lala man
What an excellent string of profanity and insult. Well done to you, sir!

>>33062040
awesome movie, that one.

>>33061008
>>33061905

Again, I was making a point that just because it has a particular vehicle has seen usage far beyond its intended scope does not necessarily mean it is somehow a better vehicle, as many countries adopted the T-34 and Sherman post war simply because there were shit loads of them leftover from the war and could be had for cheap.

The same can't be said for axis vehicles simply because there weren't as many made and being on the losing side means that you don't end up with very many operable examples to sell to another country.

>>33062175
I've actually never seen it, but I do have a rough idea of the plot.

Love that damn webm though. If I had a hundred grand or so on me, I'd love to get my hands on an M4. Where I'd put it is beyond me, but hey, one step at a time.

>>33061293


>Also fun story : he scored hit on a moving german staff car from about 5000 yards with a first shoot. 100yards deflection, somewhere about 7 seconds of shell flight time.

I call bullshit on this

>>33061834

David Fletcher is hilarious

His writing is also hilarious, my favorite is his book on the Light Tank MkVI

I love that man no homo

>>33062294
Eurgh, I've already got an entire bookshelf of books I've got to read, now there's more...

>>33062418

It's a short book, but it's just humorous because he's detailing all these interesting quirks and how well made and reliable it was, and his last sentence just ends with how it was utterly rubbish at actually doing anything.

File: M51.jpg (88KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x584px

The only question you need to ask yourselves is:

>Which WWII tank did they continue to use after WWII?

Guess which one it was...

>>33052202
INB4 foreigner tries to claim America lost Vietnam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

Some people just can't the superiority.

>>33063537
>implying they cared about the livesof the tankers

>>33063605

So Soviets won Afghanistan?

>>33053506
>Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”

Robson didn't start using that slogan until a decade and a half later.

>>33051224
>deutscheboos will unironically insist that everything german is superior to everything american

File: t34weld.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>>33054086
>and the welds were extremely strong.

>>33059300
Just another irrelevant French interwar tank with great armor but shit speed/gun

>>33061956
>spider 2 y banana.jpg

>>33061900

Well in the case of CAS, the Stuka has to make it past the Mustangs and Spitfires first.

Hint, they can't.

File: t-72b3_-_tankbiathlon2013-09.jpg (330KB, 780x509px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 780x509px

>>33053854

Enjoyed that. thanks, anon.

>>33065553
Did you even read his post?

File: Check_Em.jpg (145KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x599px

>>33051911
>1911

>>33065876
No stukas flew in the western front after Britain

>>33051808
Fun fact: that crying "Indian" was actually a Sicilian.

The best stat is:

25% of Sherman crew died when their tank was penetrated
90% of T34 crews died when their tank was penetrated

>>33066847
Why are you intentionally making shit up?

Do you hate the T-34 so much you are now making shit up for it?

>>33063537

Yeah, the fact that they're just about the only thing available in large quantities has any bearing on it

File: 1280px-Type_89_Yi-Go_at_Tsuchira.jpg (217KB, 1280x938px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1280x938px

Unrelated.

it's just Japanese tanks look so cool.

>>33063537
T-34/85's were being used in the war in angola.
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/t-34-in-angola-1970s-1980s/

Today it is seeing action in Yemen. So the T-34 outlasted the Sherman.

>>33051224
It was cost effective and able to be mass produced in huge quantities while being small and light enough to make transporting them to the front and on landing craft reasonable. You think the quality of the equipment is anywhere near the first priority or something? You fuckers in Europe didn't have to drag your tanks across a goddamn ocean before they could be used.

>>33066912
Those stats probably are made up, but the Sherman actually did have extremely low crew casualty rates.

I think something like 1,500 Shermans deployed to the ETO were destroyed, and only 0.6 crew members were lost per destroyed tank.

>>33051911
/thread

>>33056502
105 mm howitzer shermans were used in korea, and the marines used a platoon of POA-CWS-H5 flamethrower shermans

>>33062294
flecther gives no fucks, and his understatement can be fucking hilarious. examples:

on testing dd tanks by mounting rockets on them to get them out of mud or over riverbanks, etc:
>Generally it appeared to work quite well and drivers soon got used to it, but there were occasions when the screen buckled under the pressure or even caught fire, which was not at all what was required.

on a world war i mk.iv tank that was used to give rides to tourists at southend-on-sea after the war:
>Operated by a consortium of retired Tank Corps officers, and stripped of its sponsons, it had seats inside for those who wished to be deafened and a wooden upper deck for passengers who preferred fresh sea air.

>I actually just finished a book that will be out in May next year called “Armored Champion” which is a general look at tank warfare in World War 2 that puts it into a broader context. One of the things I did in the new book Armored Champion is try to distinguish between what I call “tankers choice” and “commanders choice.” And what I mean by that is the tankers choice is what the tanker wants, the individual tank crew wants. The individual tank crew obviously wants a tank that is extremely powerful, very well armored, had a very powerful gun. So if you compare a Tiger or a Panther or a Sherman, the tanker is going to want the most powerful tank available. The commanders choice is very different, because the commander wants combat power. And combat power doesn’t necessarily come from the best technology because in many cases the best technology has issues.

>>33051224
The M4 is a good support tank
+Cheap
+Cannon has 75mm shells
+Can load HE
+Frontal Armor impregnetable by 20mm cannons
+good cross country speed
But that's it because it wasn't meant to battle against other tanks.
-Terrible reverse speed (Urban battles are a problem)
-Every 75 can penetrate it.
-Medium velocity 75mm gun
But overall it was a successful tank.
Sorry dor my bad english

>>33068208
Cont
>So the Tiger during World War 2 cost the Germans something in the neighborhood of 300,000 Reich marks. You can buy a Stug III assault gun for about 70,000 Reich marks or a Panzer IV tank for about 100,000 Reich marks. So in other words you can get three Panzer IV tanks for every Tiger that you buy. And on top of it, the Tiger, because it was so big it was extremely unreliable. Things like the Stug III and Panzer IV had about double the reliability of Tiger. So if you’re a German senior commander, it’s an open question whether you want a force built up entirely of Tigers because they are unreliable and expensive so you are not going to get a lot of them. You’re going to get a lot more Panzer IV or Stug III vehicles for your Reich marks. So in that book I’m trying to compare those type of issues. And you know, that comes up with the Sherman. One reason there is 11,000 US tanks and tank destroyers In Germany in April 1945 is because the US decided to concentrate on a tank that was extremely reliable and relatively economical to build. And I don’t think anyone would claim that the Sherman was the best tank from the perspective of the tank crew, it didn’t have the best armor, it didn’t have the best gun, but from commanders perspective it was an excellent weapon. There were just lots and lots of them, so they gave the commander a lot of battlefield power. That can’t be said for a lot of the better German tanks because they simply were too expensive to be built in large numbers and they weren’t reliable enough, you couldn’t count on them. So it depends on the perspective that you are looking at it from

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/

>>33068244
Cont
>Did US tankers suffer disproportionately in terms of casualties compared to their opponents or to other branches of service? There is a popular saying that it took five Sherman tanks to kill a Tiger that gets mentioned often in books and documentaries.

>No, that whole business about five Shermans for every one German tank, I don’t really know where that comes from, that seems to be totally apocryphal. My suspicion of where it comes from is not the US use of the Sherman but probably from the British use of the Sherman. And I think that that issue has been misunderstood. The Brits took very heavy losses with their Sherman tanks in the Normandy fighting against German units, in the Caen sector in Summer of 1944. In a lot of early tank writing, we’re talking 1960’s and 1970’s, practically everything that was written about tanks, and written about US tanks were written by British authors. There weren’t a lot of US tank books out at the time. So a lot of the stuff that came out about the Sherman came out from the British side. And the British side did take disproportionate casualties in Normandy. And it’s largely for tactical reasons. I’m not going to get into it, it’s way too complicated to explain, but yes the British did suffer very high losses against the Germans for a variety of reasons. That was not the case on the US side.

>>33068296
>What people don’t realize is that the US tank force didn’t really encounter very many German tanks in Normandy. The first month of the fighting was concentrated mostly up the Cotentin Peninsula during the drive by 7th Corps to Cherbourg. The Germans in Cotentin Peninsula had two tank battalions, both equipped with war booty French tanks, so basically very poor quality tanks. There wasn’t a lot of tank fighting. Then in the month of July the US pushing through the boscages country, finally resulting in operation Cobra, the big breakout operation by 2nd and 3rd armored divisions at the end of the month. The Bocage country wasn’t very good tank country either. The Germans did have a couple of tank divisions there, the Panzer Lehr Division, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich didn’t see a lot of tank fighting simply because the terrain wasn’t suitable. Panzer Lehr did launch one major attack in the middle of July and got completely shot up by the US side. But in the case of both German Panzer divisions they didn’t see much fighting against US tank forces, they were fighting mostly against US infantry and tank destroyers and they took significant losses. And then in August of course the breakout operations, so US tanks are running like wild through Brittany, through France to Paris and there are scattered encounters with German tanks but on a very small scale

>>33056502
You're right. I missed the line where the ORO report specified that the T34/85s destroyed by 75mm gun fire had been killed by M24 Chaffee light tanks.

Mea Culpa

>>33068580
Which report and what page?

The "US armor in the antitank role korea 1950" states that only 1 T-34 was destroyed with direct fire from M24 chaffes at page 14 with data at page 17

"US armor in the antitank role korea 1951" to direct quote "With the exception of the 75-mm gun in the M24, which lacked sufficient power to overcome the armor of the T-34 at most angles of impact or lacation, the guns mounted in our tanks in korea were able to penetrate with relative ease the armor of the T-34 when HVAP or APC ammunition was used." on page 17

>>33054482
>>33054542
Games really fuck up people's perception of tanks and tank combat in general. Stuff like War Thunder gives people a really skewed idea of how things are, because they make combat about totally destroying tanks rather than disabling them and about wiping out the crew rather than making them bail, and that totally shifts the balance of tanks and their weapons. Suddenly the high penetration solid projectiles that were so effective IRL become weak, and shitty APHEs become OP because they can kill a whole crew easily.

>Deals with nazi tanks in ww2

>Deals with Russian tanks in Korea

>Ha ha Americans built such a crappy tank.

Whatever helps you sleep at night!

File: Berlin 150km.jpg (241KB, 1200x1032px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x1032px

>>33068220
>+Cannon has 75mm shells
Impressive observation there, Anon.

>>33067175
Sherman is still in active service in Paraguay.

>>33067128
N O T A E S T H E T I C

>>33067128
Jap tanks are really really ugly looking and is lang-bogged. I mean, being oil-strapped, its not surprising they should have just went airborne soldiers and arms instead.

>>33067128
Unrelated

it's just that your taste in tanks are so uncool

>>33069610
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/01/01/paraguay-keeping-m3-stuart-and-m4-sherman-tanks-in-service/
>Less is known about the status of the three M4 Sherman tanks. They are reported to be part of Paraguay’s Presidential Escort Regiment. These three vehicles are “repotenciado” tanks modified by Argentina. They resemble the Firefly variant of the Sherman but with a diesel engine and the 105 mm FTR L44/57 gun (an Argentine licensed copy of the CN-105-57 Gun used on the AMX-13)
Arguably these M4 shermans are better then any T-34 still in service unless North Korea pull some weird shit with their T-34's.

File: Somua.jpg (21KB, 450x297px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x297px

>>33065700
S35 was greatest, GREAT

>>33066687
And most Cowboy films were directed by Italians.

>>33051224
>deathtrap
the real deathtrap is our physical bodies.

>>33062267
It's worth stating that the French experimental formations operated more Panthers at one time than German had at any point in the entire war.

>>33052241
>Best armored medium tank
this belongs to the panther, although that piece of shit is usually on fire

>>33070405
>hardtack armor
>good
Panthers were as brittle as six day old biscuits.

>>33063537
T34 :>

>>33069606
Fast firing and decent damage against infantry and structures.

>>33063537
A better question is
Which tank were they using to kill Russian tanks after the war.
They were putting super Sherman's up against everything from t34s, t-55s and even Jordanian m48s.
Not bad for a death trap.

>>33070544
I meant that 75mm cannons usually fire 75mm shells.

>>33057101
DNE?

>>33070739
Oh

>>33070405
Let's be honest, the Panther is not really a medium tank. Or if it is, just barely.

Barring the Panther, the Sherman had thicker armor than a late war Panzer IV when it was first introduced, and large hatch variants had frontal armor equal to the T-34's. The frontal turret armor on the T23 turret variants in particular was absurd for a tank of that size. 94mm LOS, same as the glacis, plus an 89mm gun mantlet.

File: Coming harder.jpg (20KB, 405x456px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 405x456px

>>33051911

>1911

File: untitled.png (151KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x333px

>>33051911
>OP tries to shit on a Freedom Machine
>Forgets that since November the spirit of nationalism has been awoken
>Gets shutdown by a Freedom Machine
sweet poetry.

File: 99120105048_LemanRussBattleTankNEW01.jpg (35KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x620px

>>33066547

>>33070469
This revisionist americunt bullshit really pisses me off

>lol german tanks broke down
>muh m4 light tank

>>33061036
A number of things make me uncomfortable about this post
>that this reaction image exists
>i recognize that image

>>33072571
It's not revisionism, late war German steel was dogshit for various reasons.

>>33071735
*K Machine blares in distance*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIkfHCLwInQ

>>33067128
>narrow tracks

>rivets

>no discernible optics or vision blocks

>radio range less than a mile

>57mm gun

>17mm armor

I mean, I know it was designed in 1928, but still, goddamn.

>>33072571
That's not revisionism, retard. By the end of the war, German tanks were quite shit. Soviet tank designs were outpacing them and American tanks were not because of their design but because German steel was absolute crap

File: 1404476853315.jpg (166KB, 1103x674px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1103x674px

>>33051911
>1911

>>33053854
That's cute, but I would take that with a grain of salt. Just thinking about the "What about your relationships with the civilian population?" it's all an idyllic tale of how not only they didn't destroy a thing or raped any woman, but they also, in the middle of a strategic offensive, found time to care for the local peasant's garden. If that's not agitprop, what is.

The Red army raped and looted their way through Eastern Europe, and where hated as much as the Nazis. The image of the illiterate Red Army peasant soldier, proud of two looted watches, exist for a reason. Also, he doesn't even know that one of the watches is a gas or pressure meter.

>>33051911
preach my brother

>>33067128
That dude looks so happy.
I wish I was one tenth as happy as that asian guy commanding a tank.

>>33051911
thats a fucking post

>>33060730
I thought it was their stockpile of sausage. You know, for when they got hungry or something.

>>33054247
Wet Stoage only reduced the ammo racks catching fire the enegie and the fuel were still very flammable

>>33075913
Which are much less dangerous to the crew than an ammo fire. And the rates do not seem to support that it is a significant chance.

>>33051224
>best crew survival rate of the war
>death trap

>>33065700
Interwar and WWI tanks were designed to move at the pace of an infantryman as a mobile bunker to support the infantry advance.

It took lots of hard lessons to learn why slow tanks are a bad idea.

>>33070544
>Fast firing and decent damage against infantry and structures.

How many HP per hit?

>>33075913
That's a tank problem, not a Sherman problem. They're full of flammable shit like fuel, fumes, and hydraulic fluid. And for the record, it's a tank problem that the Sherman experienced less often compared to its contemporaries. The T-34 had problems with shell penetrations igniting fumes from the fuel tanks, two of which were placed inside the crew compartment. And the Panther was even worse for various reasons, though these problems mainly plagued the engine and posed little danger to the crew.

>>33076638
Kek

For real though, the M3 doesn't get enough credit. It had a flat trajectory and was highly accurate, it had a wide variety of ammunition available to it, and the controls, traverse drive, and optics were such that the gunner could actually get the most out of it.

Even its armor penetration is underrated. The 75mm could still (in theory) penetrate a Tiger under certain conditions, and a platoons of Shermans were known to be able to just batter Tigers and Panthers into submission. Assuming they ever met them at all, considering their relative scarcity. When you compare the 75mm Shermans to their most common opponents, the gun's performance is more than adequate.

>>33076267
>Slow tanks are bad idea

Not back then, they weren't :
There wasn't a squad-level weaponery to take them down easily.
So while more vulnerable than a fast-moving juggernaut spewing dead from every holes, they could still do the trick : provide a rallying strong point from which to break through.