Which WW2 Tank Would You Want?

>>33084968
Because I want to kill everyone else's tank

File: IMG_8961.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>33085013
Forgot pic

>>33084968
>Firefly meme

M4A3E8 does everything better

File: ba5a24d3fc7cff34a1f549bdc9937686.jpg (1MB, 1973x1345px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1973x1345px

>>33084968

Tiger II.

>>33085065
GIT OUT

>>33084968

I like TDs and assault guns more, but I'll take a Panther, please

>>33084968

M4A3E8, with stabilization, and 105mm.

(Waits at the Kube smokes a bit to make something that was never meant to be, then does so anyhow.).

were m3 lee good for the first years of ww2?

>>33085076
Why would you not want a Tiger, especially considering how rare they are? There is not a single operable Tiger II (to my knowledge), while Shermans are relatively easy to come by.

>>33085170
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dhPW_ksFcM

>>33085170
>There is not a single operable Tiger II
and for a good reason

>>33085194
Oh mein Gott.

>>33084968
> not picking the one and only true choice, Bob Semple

Its like you dont even tank

>>33085022
Fucking this, gotta go fast

>>33084968

Considering that they would not let me use it for actual combat, something fast and funny to drive around.
So a BT-7.
If I had to pick on other criteria then a pershing

>>33085170
There is a functional Tiger II at museum in France. Only working version I know of.

I'd have a hard time choosing between a Tiger I, Tiger II, and OPs Sherman Firefly. Id probably have to choose the Firefly since its more maneuverable, and a Tiger killer.

>>33085343
and the Tiger is an everything killer.

>>33084968
Soviet T-34. Sloping armor ftw.

Strv m/42.

Why this tank? It was Swedish, and the Swedes were neutral. I'd rather not be in a war if I can avoid it.

TOG 2 the party bus that never happened.

>>33085271
>BT-7
that would be a good choice, basically a Christie M1931 only with the bugs worked out by the time they got to the -7

I'd either pick what that guy picked (BT-7) or something comparable, like the A13 Cruiser. Or the only Crusader ever fitted with a Meteor engine.

>>33085415

> Or the only Crusader ever fitted with a Meteor engine.

They made one? Didn't know it. Looks like another very nice option

>>33085365
True, but it cant out maneuver a Firefly, which will kill it.

>>33085394
Fucking pacifist

>>33085491
Not a pacifist, just someone who would rather not fight and die if he doesn't have to.

>>33085139
It was a bizarre phase where the us had no concept that a tank only needed one good gun and ammo for that gun, and that sharing/wasting compartment space was retarded

Although if I had to guess American tank crews and lendleasers "made it work" and only appreciated how shit the design was once they got their shermans, cromwells, wolverines, churchills, 36's, and pershings

>>33085516
read the OP...youre not volunteering to fight, just saying which tank youd like to own

>>33085139
Actually "Yes" if handled well.
"In the desert with Rommel " has an account regarding Brits using M3 Lees well against DAK troops. The good crews would use the wacky 37mm turret to scout, and fire the 75mm like an artillery piece.

>>33085207you can wiki it, the French salvaged two it's to make 1 working kt, albeit I think with a relatively more reliable tiger engine

>>33085540
>the us had no concept that a tank only needed one good gun
That's not why the M3 was made, please stop making up answers. STFU and read more.

>>33085546
>and fire the 75mm like an artillery piece.
If you say "like an artillery piece" I assume you mean IDF. Indirect fire was just an extra mission sometimes given to tank units, it has nothing to do with the M3's performance as a tank or the 75's performance as a tank gun.

>>33085643
Save it (*the U.S 75mm") could and did act as artillery.

Have you ever been in and served a WW2 era U.S tank, or dealt with WW2 era U.S artillery? Just asking, since you've posed a question that inferrs you have not.

File: cbdb87bffe9a83bff65685a261414569.jpg (29KB, 550x297px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 550x297px

>>33084968
According to wikipedia this beauty is a WW2 era tank.

>>33085643

No as the vast majority of US Armor in WW2 could and did act as impromptu artillery. Including TD's, etc.

Not sure what of this you dont understand since less than five minuted in the turret of any large bore U.S armor of the era would reveal a bore transit and precision azimuth indicator.

>>33084968
Tetrarch

>>33085394
>It was Swedish
Top cuck.

File: post-535723-0-62721500-1454172927.jpg (155KB, 1323x604px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1323x604px

>>33085764
Excellent choice....why not the t30 though?

>>33085458

Made one. Tested it. Damn thing went to 70kph then spun off a road into a ditch.

Too much engine for it. It was literally too fast for its own good with it.

>>33085764
If we're being pedantic fucks, either a centurion, or a T-54, whichever you prefer, would shit on absolutely everything else.

>>33084968

>Have no use for tank
>Ask for Maus
>sell for scrap metal
>Buy lots of guns
>The /k/ube and myself are satisfied

>>33086066
I forgot about that one, much better choice than pretty much any other tank of the era.

>>33084968
76mm Gun Motor Carriage T86

Amphibious Hellcat with still-obtainable ammo
Tanks are nice, but a Hellcat does less damage to the road than a loaded F250.

>>33085719
>>33085776
you have comprehension problems

seek help

>>33085185
A good choice. They were incredibly reliable and were generally easy to operate. A shame about the armor brittleness.

File: 1486954762535.png (909KB, 963x619px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 963x619px

>>33084968

Is the Centurion close enough to count?

>>33086749
No

>>33086310

Right. And the last live WW2 era armor armor you dealt with or fired was?

Get back to me when you have actual experience with the shit you are talking about.

Cause I can post proof.

>>33086341
Or the loss of steering /braking if the pneumatics died.

But otherwise, yeah.

>>33086668
tanks are cuties

>>33085022

M18 is hands down the most enjoyable WW2 vehicle you could own nowadays

>looks like tank
>cool name
>fast
>convertible

File: 1014046_375181972635867_1928890504_n.jpg (38KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 720x540px

>>33086966

No, they aren't.

But they do have their attractions.

>>33087018

Hardly, but at least they are easy to work on, and fairly reliable.

Getting to the fucking batteries suck, and the fuel selector switches are prone to dropping their linkages (after 50 plus years) but otherwise?

yeah not bad.

Mind the power traverse, it's stupid fast.

>>33086937
Loss of braking isn't a big risk, but loss of steering is pretty fucked.

>>33087086

The engine was in the back, and by the time shit went pear shaped, the loss of lats was wee on the list of "what the fuck" . Since you , as the driver had to drawl all the way back the vehicle to get out.

I swear, the one owned by the Littlefield collection probably still has chunks of my scalp in it.

File: IMG_3558.jpg (776KB, 1250x884px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 1250x884px

>>33084968

>>33086104
Pretty dope....would be my second choice after >>33086066

>>33087028
I dont know if I want to insert muh dick into barrel, or insert barrel into muh ass :/

>>33085394

>The Swedes aligned themselves with the axis powers.

>>33087909
/thread

Except it was never made....Id jizz with the power of over 9000 suns if one existed.

>>33087993
Never specified that it had to be in action just WW2 era, also gonna need more crew members you in?

>>33087959
And yet they didn't actually fight in the war. Is this hard to comprehend?

>>33085022
Patrician taste anon.

File: t28.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

How was this not chosen already?

>>33088400
Because no one wanted to loose the stealth tank in a field for 20 years again.

>>33088439
Does it still count as a ww2 tank if it hasn't come home yet due to slow speed?

>>33084968
A34 Comet.please

File: com%2004.jpg (129KB, 1025x768px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1025x768px

>>33088720

File: 2qx534l.jpg (243KB, 1024x726px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1024x726px

hide in bush all day every day

>>33089116
good job, france!

File: Sherman_Jumbo_Cobra_king_Andreas_Grewin-2-of-13.jpg (230KB, 1200x795px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x795px

I'd like to have a Jumbo please. I want to laugh at the German PAK shells ricocheting while driving mighty ford V8 power and enjoy the freedom of titty pinup posters inside.

File: 1394191737030.jpg (167KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x680px

tank destroyer but whatever

>>33084968
BT-7, but with a turbine engine,a 120mm long gun and composite armor.

>b-but anon, it's not a BT-7 then

Fuck you, you are not the /k/ube.
Are you doubting it's power?

>>33090344
im doubting the physics of 90% of that

>>33090344
here

I have to concede to >>33085271, BT-2 it is for me then.

>>33084968
>>33084968
I´d want to have a few King Tigers. I want to learn to drive it, without fucking up the transmission and general powertrack.

File: 1467594486571.png (444KB, 653x705px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 653x705px

>>33090465
>I´d want to have a few King Tigers
Due to your greed, the /k/ube has decided to give you NOTHING.

File: german-inspect-kv2[1].jpg (50KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x600px

>>33084968

A Klit Vrecker

>>33084968
Tiger Tank. It's hands down the superior tank, Germany just couldn't make enough.

>>33085194
It's just so beautiful.

>>33084968
Is 2

File: 62369e1d3ececa07eadaea8a66e0b697.jpg (94KB, 960x576px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x576px

>>33084968
Hard time between King Tiger and Panther aus G, assuming that /k/ube has also granted me unlimited supply of fuel and spare parts. But i'd have to go with Panther i think. It's smaller than king tiger so i could ride it into town to do my shoping or to just show other people that i own fucking wwii tank. Also are modifications allowed? I'd put more powerful engine that's for sure.

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

307KB, 1600x1200px

>>33085027
Truth. The QF 17 was an excellent gun that would've benefited from a larger turret.

>>33085139
Surprisingly yes, according to the British. The Soviets were much less enthusiastic about it, but they didn't say it was bad. And both sides recognized the Sherman as a vast improvement, which is more reflective of the M4 than the M3.

>>33085185
>rivets

>>33085271
>Pershing

Fuck no. It's basically an overweight Sherman that somehow manages to be less effective. The 90mm is its only redeeming quality.

>>33085389
A large hatch Sherman's frontal armor is thicker, and actually attempts to balance hardness and ductility. Never mind the shitload of other advantages.

File: bob-semple.jpg (10KB, 252x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 252x200px

>>33084968
The Bob Semple and 7 other good goyim to die with me.

File: sherman_M4A1_tunisia_battleofkeren.jpg (223KB, 731x426px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 731x426px

Basic bitch Sherman. Or something really rare, so I can sell it, buy my Sherman, and have cash to supply her.

>>33085076
Ameriboo in denial.

>>33091548
Nigga, at least get a welded hull M4A3 with HVSS.

>>33091488
>T-34: 45mm at 60 degrees, 90mm effective

>large hatch M4: 64mm at 47 degrees, 94mm effective

Huh, look at that. Only marginal improvement, but still. And I do remember hearing that cast hulls were supposedly more effective than the numbers would indicate due to the additional obliquity introduced by the rounded surface.

>>33089690
Atleast pick the 76 jumbo.

>>33090664
>I'd put more powerful engine that's for sure.
Its the transmission that doesn't work.

File: T-34-85_góra_RB.jpg (212KB, 1266x620px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1266x620px

OT 34-35 pls

File: M22_Locust_(4535915157).jpg (3MB, 3456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2592px

Who /fast/ here?

>>33092206
So like i said if i had endless stream of fuel and parts i'd do some mods. Sell some parts for either scrap or to collectors or to museums so i could hire somebody to make me a modern transmission.

File: 2959b268d2195c1d5aa58bd911700abd.jpg (98KB, 736x420px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 736x420px

>>33092232
Why go fast when almost nothing can touch me.

>>33090664
The engine worked just fine. It was basically a slightly less well made version of the Tiger I's engine, except it was powering a much lighter vehicle. The Panther's engine troubles stemmed mainly from the poorly ventilated engine compartment, which led to the engine becoming fire prone for various reasons.

What this anon >>33092206 said is partly true. The transmission and steering systems weren't very user friendly, but they weren't quite as failure prone as a Tiger I or II transmission. The real problem was the differential. Germany didn't really have the best automotive industry even before the war, and real most of the rest of the world lagged significantly behind the United States in that regard. By the time the Panther entered production, they no longer possesed the capability to mass produce a well engineered design. It was either/or, and they went with quantity over quality. Consequently, the Panther's performance suffered. The final drives rarely lasted more than 100km before failing, and some of the tank's seemingly more attractive features, like zero radius steering, had the potential to damage or destroy the differential and transmission.

All in all though, the Panther wasn't a bad design on a fundamental level. There was just a lot of room for improvement, namely in the areas of ergonomics, optics, and of course automotive technology, and it would've benefited from better industrial capability and logistics, which in this period of time could only really be found in the US.

>>33092408
I think what anon meant for putting more powerful engine was to make his Panther super fast, sonic tier. What's the most powerful engine that could be fitted into the Panther?

File: restored-T-44-kubinka.jpg (664KB, 1200x659px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1200x659px

A T-44 would be nice.

>>33092425
Fucked if I know. I suppose it depends on whether you limit yourself to period technology, or decide to cheat and use a modern engine.

If you go the period route, the Panther was already stretching it as it is, but there were more powerful engines used in tanks than the HL 230. They just usually came from boats. The question is whether or not they'd fit.

File: FB_IMG_1487794275723.jpg (48KB, 980x658px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 980x658px

>>33085022
The Jägdtiger laughs at this notion

A Sherman, with a twin turbo Cummins 6.7 swap. not really even for power, i just like hearing diesels and the availability of fuel.

and the change the oil now and again ease of maintenance on that engine.

>>33092425
GT 101 gas turbine ?

File: Ronson.jpg (156KB, 1024x810px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x810px

Sherman ronson flamethrower tank

I like my sushi deep fried

>>33086170
You motherfucker.
On the one hand, I commend your capitalism, but on the other, you're a monster.

>>33092524
Sherman Zippo, you goober

>>33086170
You could be making way more money for naziboos and fags with hard on for tanks from letting them inside the mouse and driving it around. I mean the only working mouse in the existence.

>>33092544
Not like the Maus was good for much else

>>33092524
Ronson did not use that slogan until ten years after a fucking war
It's a ZIPPO you paste eating faggot.

File: dkr_batmobile.jpg (82KB, 600x429px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x429px

Rubber bullets. Honest.

>>33092606
I don't think he's making a Ronson joke. I think he's actually confusing the two.

Or maybe he is a paste eating faggot, I don't know.

>>33085022
youre not wrong, its probably the best single-person tank

first option that came to mind

File: 1412206270666.jpg (858KB, 1667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 1667x1000px

Purely for the A E S T H E T I C S

>>33088751
nigga, didnt one tiger kill 25 of those

>>33090611
the cranium shaker 9000

>>33092432
>most had no sights
>shit aim

File: comfy bunker.jpg (248KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x683px

I would just live inside of it

>>33092483
Did it get through the whole laugh before it broke down?

>>33092634
the only thing that could get through her hide wasnt from this planet.

god i would love that batmobile.

>>33092728
They ever put that thing into any of the movies, and I'll cum in my pants right there in the theater.

>>33092748
they tried with the nolanbats batmobile

>>33092606
>>33092574
I thought the stuart flamethrower was the zippo, sorry famalam

>>33092720
Why not? It's effectively a studio apartment on tracks. Christ, I don't envy the poor bastards tasked with doing track maintenance on that thing.

On a somewhat related note, why the fuck does Kubinka only do superficial restoration and maintenance on their vehicles? The Maus I can understand. There's not much you can do restoration-wise when the interior was destroyed and there's only one unit left in the world. But the Chieftain did a video about their IS-7, and the condition of the interior was horrible despite the thing being otherwise fully intact.

>>33092761
True, and although I fell in love with the new Batmobile, I do still have a soft spot for the Tumbler.

>>33092773
There was a Stuart flamethrower?

>>33092805
we'll always have the DKR cartoon. Which was fucking great.
>nb4 /co/ fit me fgt

>>33092822
Don't even get me started. /co/ has such shit taste at times. I loved both parts, and I'm actually re-reading the comic right now. When college isn't taking up most of my life that is.

>>33092790
>On a somewhat related note, why the fuck does Kubinka only do superficial restoration and maintenance on their vehicles?

Money matters and preservation is enough to save them for future generations.

>>33092790
Because Slavs

>>33092790
Money and the russians themselves. Some of the vehivles in kubinka are left to rot because ruskies don't care about them. Guy from WoT made a video about Sturer Emil in kubinka and when they showed an interior there was litteray a candy wrapper on the remains of the interior. Ruskies don't care about their german machines because muh nazis and they don't care about most of their soviet machines machines becasue no rubbles becasue museum is in Russia. Bovington and Samur are 10000x times better becasue they are in Central Europe so if you are euro fag you can always go there + they actually do care about all of their machines + those museums actually LOOK like museums and not a typical garage in commie block complex like kubinka does.

>>33092920
MVTF is pretty good too, and right in my home state. I'm not sure what the status of that place is though nowadays.

File: 42_tiger_vk_4501_p_02.jpg (100KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x560px

If it's going to be in permanent working order (No breakages, malfunctions, repairs needed, etc), then I'll take the Porsche Tiger.

>>33092748
>batfleck in the TDKR tank

Sign me the fuck up

>>33092199
Are you high? I wanna throw HE

>>33089116
I wonder how those did against the soviets in barberossa

>>33085365
especially itself.

>>33093025
>(No breakages, malfunctions, repairs needed, etc)
The only way to have a German tank without replacing everything.

>>33093417
But thats the reason to have the 76, slightly less explosive power but the capability to kill late war tanks.

>>33094018
To be fair, any armored vehicle from that time would have issues and things breaking. The question is how easy it would be to fix.
If you're left having to do maintenance and repairs then the only smart choice would be some kind of light tank (M24, M22, BT series, various tankettes) or a Sherman if you had access to a crane.

>>33094037
To be fair: when most Jumbos had switched to the 76mm (feb/March 1945), most German tanks were on the eastern front and the biggest AT threads facing the western allies were Paks and Panzerfausts

File: B1_bis_-Flandres-.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>33084968
Bumping thread with a beauty. it's gun may not be effective against late war tanks but this bulky design is lovable

>>33092483
*Jagdtiger

File: 1.jpg (855KB, 1102x632px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 1102x632px

T26E1-1

i know you could go with the T30 and be effectively the same thing, only better, but the Super Pershing just looks awesome with the add on armor and the helper springs.

File: S35.jpg (170KB, 1218x864px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1218x864px

>>33094584
My french qt

>>33084968
P1000 Ratte

>>33085065
>Grosstractor

I bet it smelled inside

File: 1428274082121.jpg (210KB, 1488x1008px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1488x1008px

S T U G
L I F E

I cannot understand wanting a T30, it is just a derp tank with strong turret armor.

No more an anti-armor tank than a KV-2.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (211KB, 1599x902px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1599x902px

>>33095180
The T29 was designed for killing King Tigers. The T30 just has a bigger gun. So yes, it is (or atleast designed to be) anti-armor.

File: barbarossa-027.jpg (2MB, 4404x2259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4404x2259px

>fast
>light
>good gun
In its intended role the cromell was great.

File: M50-Supersherman-latrun-1.jpg (162KB, 1116x805px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1116x805px

>>33091951
Why not a M-50 Super Sherman?

>>33085170
There weren't many operable Tiger IIs back then either

>>33092483
*flanks you*
*shoots HVAP through your side armor*
Heh, nothing personal kraut

>>33084968
centurion.

because being able too bounce just about everything the germans could throw while replying with a 17 or 20 pounder from a turret comfortable enough to mount a 105mm L7 when they get developed is gonna be fun

>>33092647
Ronson was the flamethrower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronson_flamethrower

File: IS-7_Photo.jpg (56KB, 700x336px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x336px

>>33095670
Typical case of Class dysphoria. Centurion is a medium tank that thinks its a heavy tank. Same with the IS-7, a heavy tank that thinks its a medium tank.

File: Gepard.jpg (80KB, 736x519px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 736x519px

Stretching the definition of tank I'd choose the Flakpanzer Gepard. Pro's being that there are none left, It's rather small and the parts which would wear are the 38t based meaning easier upkeep. Cons obviously being small and open top meaning you'd need a garage for it.
>>33091951
Not OP but I think the earlier Shermans are more aesthetic. It's not like you're fighting with it anyhow.

File: 1443168043732.jpg (67KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x404px

>>33084968
I'd hate to be in a Sherman Firefly. Yeah, it had a nice gun, but it had to be hell for the 3 crewmen sardined into that tiny turret. The 75mm still took out plenty of Panthers and Tigers anyhow.
>>33094584
>>33095081
The French have the cutest tanks. I also like how they think outside the box, like the AMX-13, instead of just building more of the same, or worse, over complicate something that isn't complicated like the Germans do.

File: 1487130753355.jpg (49KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x673px

>>33093025
It's pure sex to me. I'd booty blast out of all my problems in that thing.

>>33088057
Sure thing, Im in. Whats my role? And only if we can tow a t30 behind us to be used for sneak attacks.

>>33095335
It has a low-velocity derp gun.

The Long tom fired the same projectiles 150 m/s faster and only managed 190mm pen point blank.

>>33092672
>>33090664
>>33090326
It's like they were conceived 10 years ago.

File: Y9ObPrj.png (795KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 960x720px

>>33093991
fucking lmao

File: Tiger P 003.jpg (228KB, 1280x814px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1280x814px

>>33095915
It does look great. Part of me wonders why they didn't keep Porsche's suspension but use Henschel's transmission.
Too bad only one Tiger P was ever completed, used at Kursk to command a unit of Ferdinand TDs, but I think it had to be abandoned and destroyed by the crew.

>>33096234
I don't think the crew or the russians destroyed it, it probably caught fire when the transmission was used and they abandoned it.

File: M43_75-46.jpg (25KB, 800x378px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 800x378px

>>33084968
Semovente 75/46

Because it's aesthetic and cozy as fuck and I'm half pastanigger.

File: 01rtyuio.jpg (70KB, 742x471px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 742x471px

>>33096295
That's what I was kind of alluding to but I worded it poorly.
Transmission probably caught fire and they ditched it, I guess by that point there would be no need to use demo charges. No idea where it happened though, never seen any photos of its wreck or anything.

File: Handler.jpg (32KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x300px

>>33086066
>mfw one of the only surviving T30s is only 15 minutes from my house

>>33096378
Benning?

>>33092408
>much lighter vehicle
I doubt that

>poorly ventilated engine compartment
a result of trying to make it capable of fording

>The final drives rarely lasted more than 100km before failing
they were also designed for a tank at lest 10 tonne lighter

add to all this the panther has poorly placed vision ports compared to the pz3,4,6

>>33096165
>with the 20mm
p r i s t i n e

>>33088751

Theres one for sale on milweb atm

>>33092690
Think youre thinking of cromwells

File: Bedroom Gown.png (1MB, 2307x1442px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2307x1442px

Renault FT. With an updated armament befitting its size.

>>33085065
>I like attempting to fix my vehical 3000x more than I enjoy driving it and removing commie

>>33092790

At least they built a fucking shed over them, looking at you Aberdeen (yes i know theyre moving into buildings now)

Also go watch the restoration of Aberdeen's elefant, they so the same external only stuff.

File: b1 bis.jpg (73KB, 850x536px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 850x536px

Many penetrations and complete kills will come to you, but only if you post 'merci baguette tank' in this thread

>>33085194
that afterfire tho

>>33097241
merci baguette char

>>33096423
No....The one at Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI

>>33096700
>I doubt that

The Panther weighed about 45 tons to the Tiger's 60 tons.

>>33084968
Persherman.

an O-I

by selling it, I'll have enough money to buy all the tanks I actually want

>>33097241
mercie baugette char of shell absorption

>>33097195
Thic

>>33085540
>US had no concept that a tank only needed one good gun.
Unadulterated bullshit. They were well aware of this, they just didn't have a turret ready for the 75mm, the M3 was just the quickest way of getting the 75 into the field.

File: TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg (246KB, 1840x1032px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1840x1032px

>How long is a Togg 2?

File: 57x441mm_Brit-6pdr-Normdy.jpg (173KB, 900x889px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 900x889px

>>33085027
>>Firefly meme
>M4A3E8 does everything better

Except punch holes in enemy tanks.

The U.S. 76mm gun was more or less on par with the British 6pdr (57mm), it was a wasted effort, as it wasn't much better then the Sherman's 75mm gun yet threw a smaller HE load with excessive muzzle blast.

The U.S. should have stepped up from the 75mm gun to the 90mm.

File: tank plant.jpg (297KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 640x481px

>>33097964
>The one at Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI

Where is it and can people check it out?

I've lived my whole life in Warren and remember back when I was a kid, the Tank Plant had a T92 HMC and T93 GMC as parade monuments parked out front on Van Dyke.

I've heard that TACOM has all kinda tanks and prototypes hidden away on the property but all they've got on display is some modern stuff out on 11 Mile Rd.

File: part-2-photo-no-3.jpg (170KB, 576x365px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 576x365px

Matilda, block the roads tractor style it would be glorious.

The lack of Tigers I choosen in this thread is alarming. Why doesnt /k/ love the bitching brick with the 88 slaped on top? Reading Tigers in the Mud really made me want a Tiger, even if only to have it parked in front of my house

>>33087959
I thought that was Finland - taking stuff from "ze Germans", fighting Russians, nothing more, since they couldn't be bothered to help their so-called allies.

>>33095338
>filename
For fuck's sake.

>>33095532
Because WW2 tanks, you queer.
Not post-WW2 modifications made by The Greediest Country In The World.

>>33096361
I doubt it was the transmission itself. Remember, we're talking 1940 technology, paper wrapped copper wires and all that. If there's any point of failure in the whole petrol-electric drive-train, it's that.

stuh 42 or hetzer

File: toldi.jpg (39KB, 640x445px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x445px

Clankity clank. I'm coming for your flank.

>>33085389
>Be slav
>Turn down the road
>Get penned by a tiger from the side
>Get caught on fire because the fuel tanks are in the front
>Die in your tractor abortion death trap.

File: tumblr_okl2j7RHjp1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg (80KB, 797x383px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 797x383px

>>33103219
Here comes the big brother

>>33095338
>flat armor

>>33103709
>Be slav

>not even pass into the Tiger's ambush point because obsolete constant mesh spur gear transmission shit the bed

Or, alternatively, the commander had to call a halt to let the engine cool down so many times that the Tiger crew got bored and moved on

File: T92_240mmHowitzer.jpg (214KB, 1280x965px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1280x965px

>>33101322
>the Tank Plant had a T92 HMC

(bumping for an answer)

>>33101322
>>33106509
I honestly don't know. I haven't been out by there in years.

>>33106509
just because you saw it on war thunder or world of tanks doesn't make it a tank and not a self propelled howitzer.

File: TACOM Warren MI.jpg (118KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 580x387px

>>33107046
>I honestly don't know. I haven't been out by there in years.

What I'm asking is; does TACOM in Warren offer guided tours of the tanks and prototypes it's got?

>>33084968
Char b1 bis

>>33097241
Merci tank al le baguette

>>33085476
why do people fail to realize that the tiger was just as fast as the sherman

>>33084968
must be fun being a tankie

be around 3 guys slowly bond with them just drive around shoot things people and other tanks buildings sleep in tank

gang out with your new friends get drunk bring some random frwau from village have sex with her oh the great fun of being a tankie

must be fun being a tankie must be like having a fun road trip through war

>>33109686
Because they think a heavy tank automatically means low speed and reliability.
In reality the Tigers were pretty speedy and nimble for tanks. Wide tracks meant more weight dispersion and lower ground pressure, and the steering system meant the driver wouldn't have any problems unless they got stuck in mud or something.
The Tiger was a great design and had the Germans simplified it a little more (Specifically with the suspension) and stopped tinkering with the design on the production lines, they would have truly been onto something.

>>33088215
these guys die so easily on coh only thing they are good against are the enginers lol

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

127KB, 800x465px

Great Heavy but it needed infantry protection otherwise a great tank.

>>33109814
it'd also be nice if they stopped it from catching itself on fire so often

>>33110437
Did the Tiger have that issue?
I always associated that more with the Porsche Tiger/ Ferdinand designs due to the electoral components which could be jostled loose and spark.

With the Tiger the most common problems I've heard off were suspension breakages (or the wheels freezing when getting caked with mud), being difficult to transport, and needed an insane amount of fluids and regular maintenance.

File: 405e4abcb8f8c9d80d27f8eae4131f3a.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

It's sort of a Pz. IV so it counts

>>33109917
>otherwise a great tank
Reliability in general was horrendous.

>>33086010
Fuck off.

>>33087959
Never officially. We played the hell out of the diplomatic game. Not putting that out as something to be proud of, it's just the facts.

>>33085408
>The Royal Navy's contribution to armored warfare
Is there any other choice?

File: Stag II 3 inc..jpg (119KB, 1024x690px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x690px

this

File: IMG_4855.jpg (189KB, 1408x618px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1408x618px

>>33085170
>There is not a single operable Tiger II (to my knowledge)

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

File: 1484373379035.jpg (268KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1920x1080px

>>33084968
Can I have a WWI tank instead?

>>33113562
The FT17 was still in use when WW2 started.

File: Creative_Wallpaper_Heavy_tank_IS-2_094337_.jpg (319KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1920x1080px

This

File: 44m_tas.jpg (67KB, 580x427px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 580x427px

>>33104920

Mein Neger.

File: IMG_0264.jpg (291KB, 1650x1238px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1650x1238px

Super Sherman is best Sherman!

Because I love that ugly thing!

File: IMG_0265.jpg (51KB, 600x321px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x321px

>>33113562
I'm with this guy.

I want one of a kind!

File: IMG_0269.jpg (105KB, 1280x691px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x691px

>Not wanting a tank and a house.

>>33089116
>>33094584
>>33095081
>>33095885
>>33097241
https://youtu.be/OqcLMPjmDUs?t=2m40s

Sounds pretty good too

File: Ostwind.jpg (160KB, 1200x1254px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1200x1254px

>>33110505
I'd rather have an ostwind

File: nimrod (2).jpg (343KB, 1920x1419px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1920x1419px

>>33113864

>unironically not choosing the best AA tank of WW2.

>>33110471
No they didnt just catch fire thats a meme coming from the porsche tiger

>>33113881
I never knew about it, seems cool. Hungarians made some cool shit like that primitive tow, I shoulda choose the tank they equipped some of those with.

File: Luchs.jpg (103KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x720px

Who Luchs here?

File: rockettoldi.jpg (756KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1280x1024px

>>33113934

Alas, it was only experimental, only one was known to exist and it was probably never deployed in combat and even if it would have, it would have been inaccurate.

Still, it was a sign of things to come.

>>33084968
M18

Tiger 2 Henschel Turret

>>33113562
The GOAT

>>33113952
My god, what a qt3.14

>>33084968
I just need something to stop Jamal's problem solver, so I'd be happy with an ISU-152

>>33097241
Merci, baguette tank.

>>33092524
At least the fire is outside the Sherman, right? (I know it didn't, just memeing)

File: M24_Chaffee_in_Detroit.jpg (320KB, 1228x852px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1228x852px

>>33087162
What are your thoughts on the Chaffee?
>>33084968
I'm hard pressed to choose between a Chaffee and a late model Sherman.

File: 7413981992_ecb3a59680_b[1].jpg (83KB, 685x353px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 685x353px

ITALY STRONG

>>33118205

Interesting, the dual caddy mills were not at all hard to keep going, but the odd old Hydromatics take some getting used to. "RTFM" is your friend there.

Also you need to synch the mills for the tank to really run right. It's not impossible or hard, just a bit tedious.
Suspension is very durable. Decent armor and an excellent gun for it's size/mass.

All in all easily the most "modern" of any WW2 light tanks.

Those adorable tankettes like >>33118333

File: mias+en+accion[1].jpg (338KB, 1190x1340px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1190x1340px

>>33118461
until you realize it's not a tankette, it's just a machine gun with an engine.

That's right motherfucker, no seat. Nor floor.

>>33084968
P1500 monster and jizz all over it

>>33118480
i want one.
where buy?

>>33110471
>>33113898
check out the tigers in combat series sometime to see how memeworthy it is

File: Zagan_Czolg_T34-85.jpg (826KB, 2507x1547px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 2507x1547px

Thought this might be of interest. I was reading through a CIA analysis of the engineering of the T-34-85 performed on a tank that was captured in Korea. Just thought I would condense the tank's good points and bad points according to the report.

Good
>select moving parts were precision machined and made from high quality materials
>major engine components make use of nickel-chrome Krupp steel
>high quality alloy steels used in armor, making use of molybdenum, manganese, silicon, chromium, and nickel in varying amounts and combinations
>welds were extremely strong when properly applied in better factories i.e. Nizhny Tagil
>gun safety switch automatically tripped by main gun recoil prevented the gun from firing until the loader reset the switch, decreasing the likelihood of his being injured by unintentional firing
>estimated cruising range of 185-225 miles
>auxiliary compressed air starter
>engine and transmission easy to remove due to there being minimal lines and wires to disconnect; aluminum castings allowed the use of smaller cranes
>effective weatherproofing prevented rusting of major moving parts
>pistol ports for turret crew
>good optics suite (i.e. number and placement of optics)
>well designed maintenance access ports (aside from the suspension access ports, and disregarding the fact that everything is bolted down, fuel port included)
>good turret ventilation
>silicon-aluminum engine block castings mostly made use of virgin metal rather than secondary metal
>batteries were not quite up to US standards but were rugged and had estimated 100 ampere hour capacities

>>33118798
Bad
>poor tempering and excessive heat treatment led to high Brinell hardness (430-500) which gave increased effectiveness against AP rounds but frequently led to spalling
>multi disc dry clutch and brake steering
>spur gear clutchless constant mesh transmission
>no shock absorbers
>excessive noise due to lack of rubber engine mounts and mufflers, exacerbated by all-steel tracks
>low ground clearance
>imprecise power traverse
>liquid based engine cooling system was often ineffective and considered to be a potential vulnerability in combat (cold weather or battle damage may interfere with cooling system and compromise engine functionality)
>lack of turret platform or basket posed injury hazard to loader and hull crew
>hand operated carbon tetrachloride fire extinguishers were considered potentially dangerous to the crew and insufficient for their intended purpose
>electrical system was only partially shielded and was vulnerable to water damage
>no auxiliary motor/generator setup for charging dead batteries without the main engine
>alternator did not provide the required 75 amperes for full scale battery charging
>primitive seals on powertrain components and engine systems
>poor engine intake filters
>certain components required frequent adjustment/maintenance/replacement (clutch plates every 10 hours, air filters every 25 hours, suspension every 50 hours)

>>33113952
thanks jingles

>>33118629

Apparently only two were built, the one above with the two machineguns, and one with a 40mm mortar.

You know it's a bad idea when even Mussolini thinks it's retarded.

File: img_0043.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>33084968
A tie between the Churchill gun carrier and the sIG 33 on a Panzer III.

Maybe a Carro Veloce.

>>33118916
That thing looks high as balls

File: 09233%20.jpg (245KB, 700x459px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 700x459px

>>33118953
1.20m

>>33119103
Dammit anon, I was making a stupid remark about that thing resembling the face of a man who spent an entire afternoon hitting the bong.

>>33085103
EZ8 hands down all the way

File: 1477179049158.jpg (32KB, 800x623px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x623px

>>33119158
Oh for fucks sake I see it

>>33085194
like watching a Trex come alive

>>33084968
as a kraut,
A firefly sherman.

>>33084968
Hetzer is love, Hetzer is life

>>33092232
This, either the Locust or the Char B for me

>>33119535
You'd be better off with an Easy Six. Similar AT performance to the 17 pounder without the ergonomics issues, lack of accuracy, and overspecialization.

>>33096165
yes

>>33097241
merci baguette tank

File: 1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer-front.jpg (329KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2048x1360px

>>33092232

Locust is adorbs, I rather doubt I would fit in one though.

>>33097241
merci baguette tank

>>33113752
What is that? It's beautiful...

>>33119585

I am becoming convinced that it's one person replying like this. The moment anyone mentions the firefly for any reason, you immediately leap on it with MUH EASY EIGHT.

Facts or no, it just stinks of overdefensiveness in the form of, "No! Someone might not know what I know!"

M26 Super Pershing.

One of them was deployed to ETO and fought, so it counts

>>33119735
But the Easy 8 was better than the firefly.

You can't expect a board full of weapons autists to let that go.

>>33119746
>a board full

>>33119735
Well, you'd be wrong, but fairly often it's me, because "Firefly is best Sherman" is an old myth, and myths annoy me.

>>33113952
Fetus tiger

>>33119746

Then if someone comes on saying that "Firefly is better than everything" than you can make a discussion.

But it's literally at the point where if someone so much as mentions the word even in isolation and without any context of comparison, you're immediately ramming into people's throats out of terror that someone MIGHT not have heard it all yet and it's coming off as incredibly autistic about MUH EASY EIGHT

It's like, if I talked about an M60A2 being pretty cool, I wouldn't expect someone to go MUH SABRA or something. Just chill.

>>33119860
I have never once seen that happen. I only see people respond like that in threads like these.

>>33119746

Except the topic isn't about "which tank is best". It's about "which tank would you pick if you could have one".

You're trying to go full on "my tank is better" in a thread that isn't even about comparing them. The Firefly is an iconic vehicle, of course some people would choose it.

I've noticed the same thing he is and it's really fucking annoying by this point that people can't discuss the thing at all without the 'Easy Eight crowd' immediately flooding the discussion.

>>33113625
>long nosed
Gee, I wonder who crews this tank.

>>33118480
>firing while marching forward
>stumble
>look as your machine gun defects to the enemy

>>33113625
there wouldn't be a super sherman without first having the Easy 8

>>33092336
You can't outrun a shell

>>33118916
>>33119158
>>33119374
>widdly scuds?

The obvious Tigger II or a a34 cruiser mk.IV with a 2 pounder gun. I adore the design and it has surprising visibility for a pre war tank.

>>33119746
>But the Easy 8 was better than the firefly.
>people actually believe this

>>33084968
A T-34.

I wanna die on it, actually i want one to be my coffin.

>>33085271
Werent BT-2s or BT-7s always on fuel shortage?

>>33120759
In actual operation, yes, it was. The 17 pounder's best ammunition, the SVDS round, was extremely inaccurate inside normal combat range, being nearly useless over 500 yards. The M93 HVAP was as accurate as the rest of the 76mm's range of ammo, which is to say extremely. All the other rounds available to both guns were sufficient for their tasks and gave comparable penetration. Further, the 17 shared the 76mm's deficiencies in terms of HE performance.

Since we're talking about the M4A3, which is what most people think of when they think Easy Eight, I should also point out that the Ford GAA was superior to the Chrysler A57 found in the Sherman VC. I don't know if the Firefly ever received HVSS suspension (which incidentally is the Easy Eight upgrade. 76mm Shermans were beneficiaries of the Easy Six upgrade, so Easy Eight is a bit of a misnomer), but if not, that would be another point in the A3's favor.

And most damning of all, the QF 17 was just too big for the original Sherman turret. The US experimented with 76mm guns in small hatch Shermans and found them unsatisfactory. The guns completely fucked up the ergonomics and drastically decreased the turret crew's effectiveness. This is why 76mm guns were almost never installed independent of the larger T23 turret. The 76mm was a much smaller gun than the QF 17, so it stands to reason that the problem would be greatly exacerbated for the Firefly, and a US evaluation bore that out, deeming it the least desireable Sherman variant. It only gets its reputation because the British brought Fireflys to Normandy, whereas the US left the 76s behind for various reasons, most of them logistical in nature.

TL;DR It did nothing better than the 76mm, and did at least two things worse.

>>33121326
Well, at least you're being realistic.

I think the T-34 gets a bad rap though. And that's coming from somebody who's shit on it more than once. There's a fundamentally good design in there, and even in practice some aspects of the T-34 were truly excellent.

Just a shame about the transmission, egress points, and shit tier Soviet manufacturing.

File: 1420089717772.jpg (759KB, 2000x1474px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 2000x1474px

Preferably a MK. 3 or 7, but any would be nice.

>>33092814
yeah, but they were called satans

>>33121380
they way you write out easy [number] really irritates me

>>33121477
that second crew really needs to clean their tank. there's all kinds of shit on Shingle.

>>33121817
Well isn't just too bad. Take it up with the dead guys who gave those names to the HVSS and 76mm programs seventy some-odd years ago.

>>33121903
mufugga i know what the suffixes are. the way you unnecessarily write out the phonetic and number is dumb. it's not a goddamn mike four able three easy eight, and once those modifications were standardized the -Ex suffix was done away with anyway, so the way you're writing it is dumb from that angle as well.

File: 1464318566260.jpg (35KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 351x351px

>>33119948

>>33118527
Not picking the superior p2000

>>33085065
>>33103709
>>33105613
http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/history-research-third-reich-ww2/3-king-tigers-vs-t-34-85-a-272607/
Some harsh reality check on naziboos

>>33095151
Look at this niggas,this killars

>>33113382
I came twice

>>33121477
"s" platoon or company i take?

>>33118910
well hell, its settled then. if mussolini thought it was retarded, i gotta have one.
conceptually flawed or not when bullets get to flyin', it's not a bad place to be, behind some armor that is.