Why do Americans make their tanks so fucking tall? Why make

File: 1441573337104.jpg (59KB, 604x405px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 604x405px

>>33374282

Every fucking time, too tall

>>33374324
Americans tend to be bigger people (as in taller) so they require larger tanks. Since you already have a bigger crew compartment why not put more armor on? And fuck it, toss a bigger gun on it too

>>33374282
>Why do Americans make their tanks so fucking tall?
Pretty simple, really.
>Army demands the use of aircraft grade engines to give their tanks good power/weight ratios for mobility
>only kind available in the required numbers is a radial.
>ok fuck it, the tank has a radial now.
>Transmission should be in the front because using available transmissions in the rear mounted configureation with lever linkages would take considerable effort to use, fatiguing the driver
>Brits, Russians do it anyway, tell drivers to go climb a wall of dicks.
>Americans go with the front mounted transmission.

Thus
>power needs to go from the engine to the transmission
>output shaft of the engine is halfway up the (already quite tall) engine compartment.
>running the driveshaft directly between the engine output shaft and the transmission input shaft, passing through the centerline requires the turret floor be raised a fair distance off the tank hull floor in order to clear the driveshaft.
>so now the tank is 9 feet tall.

>>33374282
The Sherman was made to be as ergonomic as a wwII tank could be. This helped with crew endurance in the vehicle and kept injury to a minimum if the tank was hit. The t34 was uncomfortable and packed like a sardine can so it tended to lose more crew members when it got hit.

>>33374282
>Why make the tank a bigger target? Fucking get low or get shot.
Where is proof?

>>33374282
Good thing out optics were better and have always been better.

File: m4rst_size_by_imntdead-d7jx7ck.jpg (101KB, 1024x436px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x436px

>>33374282

A better comparison would be the T-34/85 compared to a Sherman. The 85 is only 1.6ft shorter than the tallest WWII sherman variant.

The 76 in your photo is way shorter than both, but also vastly less efficient in combat

>>33375031
Might want to use a different image. The M4RST is entirely fictional and creates by some kids on the WoT forums.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/361540-m4rst-sherman/

Guess this is why M4s with 76 kicked T-34/85 butt in Korea.

>>33375185
holy shit

is this autism? I'm so glad I dropped WoT last year.

>>33375700
I still log in from time to time to lay some hurt on fags in either a T-34/85 or M4A3E8

nothing is better than putting a shit heavy driver in their place with a medium

>>33374324
Don't listen to this idiot>>33374639
your answer is here>>33374797

>>33374282
Yeah..blah.

I mean you obviously never heard about crew ergonomics, fatigue and such things.

You know, tanks are no drones. There are men inside. And those can work harder and longer when they have more space to move and breathe.

And, the bigger the tank, the smaller the risk that a penetrating round hits something important.


Also: Russian optics were so shit that they wouldnt even have seen an M60 more than 2000 yards away anyway - if it was at least semi-decent camouflaged.

>>33375031
t3476 is more effective than A1

>>33377129
>russian shit opric meme
post ww2 optic was decent quality

>>33374282
Lol, look at the manlet tank.

Becasue We are not fucking manlets

>>33374639
>Americans tend to be bigger people (as in fatter)
Fixed that for you, burger

>>33377302
I think this is just goodhearted memeing, but it's important to remember that early soviet-era russians were literally malnourished

>>33375777
>WorldOfTanks, or How i Learned to Love The Tears

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

105KB, 1280x691px

Stupid yankee!

Sucre blu! Se tank is to short!

>>33377315

Gods, so much this - the hate I used to get from campers when playing arty was unfuckingreal

>>33374282
Angle of approach Brah

>>33374797
>using available transmissions in the rear mounted configureation with lever linkages would take considerable effort to use, fatiguing the driver

Fuck, I've wondered for ages why they didn't just put the transmissions in the back. That's so damn simple and I don't know why it never occurred to me.

File: size.png (536KB, 1600x522px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1600x522px

>>33377316
Stupid gaijin, know little of true tank design!

>>33377129
>Russian optics were so shit

There seems to be a misconception about Russian optics in general. Granted they are crude but that doesn't always equate to shit.

Americans have the tendency to think that shit is better if it has a lot of shiny electronics on in at it cost a shit load. Russian tend to try jerryrig all sorts of practical solutions for a bag of potatoes and a bottle of vodka.

Take the example of their idea of protecting missiles from the new american laser system.. They basically just glued and duck taped shards of mirrors onto their missiles and went: "Your move american-capitalist-pig!"

>>33377129
The smaller the tank the smaller the risk that something important gets hit BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING HIT.

>>33374797

I'm surprised they didn't use gears to flatten the angle of the driveshaft. At least that would have helped lower the tank's profile and give the crew even more room.

>>33377689
Dude, go look up the tests that were done after WW2, after the Cold War, etc, etc. They all stated that soviet optics were shit. You can google them.

>>33377705
I heard that works real good with those small T-72s - oh and it sure worked in Korea - wait....

>>33377224
Unlike you I had the possibilities to compare the Optics of
T55 (east german)
T62 (soviet)
T72 (east german)
T34 (polish used but soviet made)

with the scopes/optronics of
LeopardA1A1 (west german)
M48 (west german, US-made)
Leopard 2
Marder IFV (west german)

in a real life-scenario. Thats because I'm much older than average /k/ and was lucky enough to be part of the german tank force right after the collapse of the GDR when we got tons of soviet war materiel for free.

I could write a book now about my and the averange experiences, but to boil it down:

- Soviet night vision, no matter of version, was unable to detect tank-sized, uncamouflaged targets beyond 800m

- The T55s optics had problems with reflections and got blurry beyond 2000m. Very hard to detect a tank-sized target unless moving

- The T62s optics were more or less the same
The T72s optics had a very narrow field of view, fogged up pretty bad and were in general unable to detect a tank-sized target if said target was further away than 2500m

The Myth that soviet optics are shit is not a myth but reality.

File: Buford Pusser.jpg (120KB, 353x465px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 353x465px

>>33374282
because we drink lots of milk tiny man

>>33374324
because the americans prefer using cover and the ability to dump the gun. Crew training and comfort being more important than other things.

Unlike the russkies that likes driving a conscript as fast across an open field as possible, making them as low as possible to make the tank a harder target to hit.

Yeah il be behind a hill in my M60 thank you very much.

>>33377748
>Soviet night vision, no matter of version, was unable to detect tank-sized, uncamouflaged targets beyond 800m
which was perfectly fine, because the primary means of detecting possible targets was through the commander's own eyes while sitting atop his hatch. Eyes that can't see much crap in the dark anyway.

>The T55s optics had problems with reflections and got blurry beyond 2000m. Very hard to detect a tank-sized target unless moving
You do realize the farthest one can see in the Fulda gap was somewhere around 1500 m right? Why would you want to see something farther out?

>The T72s optics had a very narrow field of view, fogged up pretty bad and were in general unable to detect a tank-sized target if said target was further away than 2500m
Again, the sights of a tank have very narrow FOVs, much like looking through a straw. You need something like modern thermals that can contrast possible targets in WFOV setting to make it easier to spot for the gunner or actual image processing software that looks for said contrasts.

>>33377770
>Yeah il be behind a hill in my M60 thank you very much.
Bad way to get destroyed by preparatory arty barrages which are standard Soviet doctrine for any kind of attack involving heavy weaponry.
Its also why the Soviets included the ever-present dozer blade on pretty much any tank. If you are going to sit in a prepared position it better be dug until recently.

>>33377773
Dude, have you ever driven a tank under at least simulated war circumstances, yes or no?

>>33377786
>preparatory arty barrages
Bad way to get destroyed by preparatory airstrikes.

>>33377791
>Dude, have you ever driven a tank under at least simulated war circumstances, yes or no?

>>33377689 Here. And no I haven't. Everything I know about tanks or plains comes as a second hand knowledge from maintenance guys when I served with the ground forces and since I now live near an airbase.

However I am become death the destroyer of tanks. Only in simulations though.

File: 1467535392385.jpg (95KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x480px

>>33377826
Plains = planes. Sorry for bad english. I'm not a native speaker, obviously.

>>33377793
>Bad way to get destroyed by preparatory airstrikes.
Be prepared to waste airframes, and consumables pounding nothing but dirt 99/100.

File: 00011.jpg (32KB, 498x307px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 498x307px

>>33374282
It gave the Shermans considerably more gun elevation than other tanks, and the Americans were unique in that they loved using tanks and TDs as impromptu artillery batteries. Each Sherman and Sherman-based TD was equipped with an indirect fire control gear and elevation quadrant for that purpose.

It wasn't unusual for tank/TD units in Italy to spend nearly all of their time as fire support.

File: m10artyb.jpg (95KB, 493x334px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 493x334px

>>33377847
Even in France, TD units would fire some nine indirect rounds for every direct round fired.

File: tumblr_static_enznp7rvxx4wkok48ow00swg4_640_v2.jpg (52KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x385px

>>33377842
And why is that?

File: da.png (141KB, 457x312px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 457x312px

>>33374282
>mfw

>>33377847
That's actually something I never knew, neat

>>33377826
Ok, no offense (seriously, really)

But I drove tanks from 1985 through 1998 and I was part of those tankers who were to find out the advantages and disadvantages of east german war material after the end of the GDR. I rode T55s, 62s, 72s (and a 34 for fun) for more than half a year on a more or less daily base - simulated battles, day and night.

I also spoke long hours to the ex-east-german soldiers who rode these tanks and were prepared for combat.

So please, this aint no stolen valor or something, but when I tell you, that soviet tanks had huge optics disadvantages, you can believe me.

I know, bullshitting on the internet, especially on this mongol fingerpainting board is huge. But this time I'm not a shitposter but a man who knows his shit.

>>33377773
>was through the commander's own eyes while sitting atop his hatch

Wrong. Warsaw pact tank doctrine envisioned a largely irradiated or at least chemically contaminated battlefield. Their commander doctrine was to ride with closed hatches. The pictures we all know are tanks riding into or back from maneuvers

>he farthest one can see in the Fulda gap was somewhere around 1500 m right?
Wrong, Fulda gap has several areas with more than 5000m distances. Also Fulda Gap was only ONE target. The other one was the northern germany plains south of Hamburg - with lots and lots of low lands

>>33377847
Why not put the artillery pieces onto the tank as the main gun?

File: goddamnturks.jpg (95KB, 716x461px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 716x461px

>>33377996
There are already things for that, except your tank can just pack up what its doing and go support the infantry or fight another tonk

>>33374797
My fucking man, what a great answer. Bless you anon.

>>33377962
>Wrong. Warsaw pact tank doctrine envisioned a largely irradiated or at least chemically contaminated battlefield. Their commander doctrine was to ride with closed hatches. The pictures we all know are tanks riding into or back from maneuvers
doctrine is one thing, but in practice most commanders end up sitting up top hatches anyway. There's a huge risk involved with doing so, yes, but most would trade off the added vulnerability to the commander the better SA. Besides its not like there's an arty barrage ongoing or NBC hazard all around all the time, so you can indeed sit up top. If those are around anyway, most of the low-sig targets a commander is supposed to spot better like atgm firing positions aren't around anyway.

>Wrong, Fulda gap has several areas with more than 5000m distances. Also Fulda Gap was only ONE target. The other one was the northern germany plains south of Hamburg - with lots and lots of low lands
Its a neat catch all for the flatlands where WW3 would commense. but just because there are areas with unrestricted horzion doesn't mean your enemy would agree to cede such an advantage to you. They'd use their lower silhouettes to get around killzones via terrain featues as well as obscurants like smoke rounds. Then there's the GLATGM edge in such scenarios.

File: 0_7d75_e0e86a0d_orig.jpg (376KB, 2400x1878px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 2400x1878px

>>33377847
>>33377899
>>33377996

>A Sherman unit would be told they were on call when not in direct combat but close enough for the 75s to reach. They would have men manning radios in the tanks while other tasks were being done, like maintenance, personal things and eating. When they got the call, the designated battery commander for each platoon would listen to the directions on the arty net or get in direct contact with the spotter. They would relay the aiming information out the tanks on the radio or phone net and then they would start firing.

>Once they started firing the hole crew would help feed the gun, and they might even have large amounts of ammo unboxed outside the tank, where the driver and co-driver could feed them to the commander who then fed them to the loader. The M3 75mm gun worked well in this role, since the barrel had a life in excess of 4000 rounds.

>>33378034

In a WW3 scenario, commander SA would be good enough buttoned up, especially if they have wide FOV thermals, which the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard 2 do, and the T-series doesn't.

The other thing to note is that the Soviets never adopted multispectral smoke, so while their own tanks would be blinded, it doesn't degrade NATO SA by all that much.

File: 1482709225567.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>33377664
>Japanese super-heavies that never even had a prototype

>>33378300
How can a single tank be so based?

File: e24037cda6c6f6c2a879686d948b26f9.jpg (134KB, 655x710px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 655x710px

>>33374282

not anymore

>>33377847
This is new to me, thanks anon.

Probably because they radios in them,

Worked fucking great in the hedgerows and the T34 mod.1943 wasn't even a foot shorter.

>>33378311
>In a WW3 scenario, commander SA would be good enough buttoned up, especially if they have wide FOV thermals
No they didn't. The Leopard 2 PERI-17 sight is entirely visual, the Abrams didn't get any commander's sight until the A2 iteration after the CW period, and Chally 2's VS 580-10 is much the same as the PERI-17 as it operates in the visual range as well. What thermals they had were entirely for the gunner's and with narrow FOV's not really great for scanning around.

>The other thing to note is that the Soviets never adopted multispectral smoke, so while their own tanks would be blinded, it doesn't degrade NATO SA by all that much.
they use WP smoke as standard- those burn so hot they render anything behind opaque to thermals. crude, but hey, it works.

>>33374282
Because freedom hides from no one.

File: P0000916.jpg (199KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1536x1024px

>>33378300
>the grin on that dude

For the same reason the Germans did. With front mounted differentials and rear mounted engines, you need to raise the turret to make room for the power shaft and still have space in the turret. The Germans failed in this, as evidenced by the fact that the Panther had a slightly taller profile than the Sherman and still only had a little over 5 feet of room between the turret floor and the roof. Between that and the the fact that most of the ammo was in the hull sponsons, the loader often found it easier to just load on his knees.

Also, if getting low keeps you from getting shot, I'd like to hear an explanation for the T-34's negative kill ratios and the fact that 78% of the entire 1940-1945 production run was lost in combat.

>>33374282
Because fuck you that's why

>>33377689
World War II Soviet optics weren't even crude. Even the early T-34-76s had better optics suites than the Panzer IVs. An early T-34 would have a TMFD coaxial gunsight that could be used for range estimation in a similar manner to the German sights, though with less precision. Later designs, like the TSh-16, were almost 1:1 copies of the German mil triangle sights. In addition to the main gunsight, there was also a PTK panoramic sight in the roof. This could be used for observation, and since it had the same reticle as the main sight, you could also use it for gun laying from a turret down position. The Sherman had a similar but more effective setup, but the Germans never had anything like it.

The problem with Soviet optics lay instead with the fact that there weren't enough general observation optics, and those that were there were very poor in terms of quality. There were two observation slits on either side of the turret, and two vision blocks in the driver's hatch, and that was it. These were very narrow, and were often murky and had a green or yellow tint. This of course makes it extremely difficult to observe the terrain around the hull, and this inability to perceive your surroundings is why the early T-34s garnered a reputation for being unable to work effectively in formation. It got better later on, particularly with the addition of vision cupolas a three man turrets, but the T-34 was still blind compared to a Sherman or Panzer IV.

>>33377847
This is true. The gunner's position was equipped with a precision azimuth indicator, and the tank usually carried all manner of elevation quadrants and other gear designed to turn it into an impromptu SPG.

>>33374282
>>33374324

Because crew comfort.

When the crew can see out of the tank, move more freely and be not rattled to death by the vehicle when it's moving the crew is much more efficient.

>>33378894
>Also, if getting low keeps you from getting shot, I'd like to hear an explanation for the T-34's negative kill ratios and the fact that 78% of the entire 1940-1945 production run was lost in combat.
Performance of a particular piece of gear can be attributed to factors and circumstances outside of just that one quirk of low silhouette. Like how pre-43 most T-34s were lost due to poor usage as in doctrine-wise of spreading them piece-meal as infantry support mostly as opposed to the proven superior one of massing them together, and of course poor skills of the tankers due to low training and similarly deficient human capital(like lol, most tankers were like peasants who have never seen a tractor let alone drive a tank). Differences in accounting also play a huge part- as the Soviets would just count as a loss any tank that didn't make it to the end of the battle for whatever reason such as the persistent powerplant and transmission problems that plagued it from day one, as opposed to the Germans who kept it working in the books as long as even a hulk has even a miniscule chance of being recovered.

>>33378970
>The problem with Soviet optics lay instead with the fact that there weren't enough general observation optics, and those that were there were very poor in terms of quality. There were two observation slits on either side of the turret, and two vision blocks in the driver's hatch, and that was it. These were very narrow, and were often murky and had a green or yellow tint. This of course makes it extremely difficult to observe the terrain around the hull, and this inability to perceive your surroundings is why the early T-34s garnered a reputation for being unable to work effectively in formation. It got better later on, particularly with the addition of vision cupolas a three man turrets, but the T-34 was still blind compared to a Sherman or Panzer IV.
Na its definitely the cramped 2-man turret. Having the commander work the gun meant he really can't take the best observation spot atop his hatch.

>>33379019

The 2 man turret in earlier T-34s was a catastrophe too since the gunner/commander was over encumbered with handling both tasks at the same time. The situational awareness was poor too and buttoned up tank was pretty much blind. This combined with lack of radios in most tanks lead to poor unit cohesion and the T-34s often ended up displaying their flanks to incoming enemy fire and were constantly outmaneuvered by German tanks which were far inferior on the paper.

It didn't help that the T-34 suspension was outdated and cross country driving was nightmare for the crew.

>>33377748
>just listing T-72
Yeah, because it's not like there were any major changes between models, right? kys

File: tenor.gif (115KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 200x200px

>>33377899

>>33379086
Fighting open hatched wasn't the best solution either in this case. The hatches on early T-34s opened forwards, rather than backwards or to the sides. Meaning the commander had to stand fully upright in order to see past it, which in turn meant that his only protection was the hatch, rather than the turret armor.

Later T-34s had the same hatch, but now it's mounted on a ball bearing race. This allowed you to rotate it 360 degrees, which in turn allowed you to observe the terrain to the front of the bow while keeping most of your body inside the turret. Or even use the hatch as a shield from small arms fire while scanning in all directions. If you've ever seen that movie White Tiger, one of the characters does exactly that. But once again, American and German tanks got this right the first time.

File: SO HAPPY.jpg (74KB, 599x563px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 599x563px

>>33377847
>>33374797
This is why I come here.

LEARNING

>>33379112

Fucking retard, he listed
>T72 (east german)

That basically means T72M.

>>33377777
>>33378888

File: What_if.png (593KB, 513x689px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 513x689px

>>33378034
Goal Posts: Moved
>>33377826
>My knowledge about doctrine/tactics/capability is all second (third) hand from people who aren't even trained in those areas

Dude, stop. Seriously.

File: 1 Nae_o7-FaoGSTMf3Jqfgrg.jpg (309KB, 1600x1290px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1600x1290px

>>33374797
>>33377847
I read somewhere that the ontos was also used in indirect fire support; however, I don't remember which book i read that from.

File: Sherman Development.jpg (1MB, 767x3098px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 767x3098px

>>33377996
It should be noted that the M4 Medium was to be blessed with many ideas and concepts that were just never realized. Attempts to up-gun the tank, for example, were made as early as 1942. The 75-mm M3 was seen, from the outset, as a temporary fixture that would be replaced as soon as a superior armament layout was available. The initial ideal was for a 76-mm gun to become the meat-and-potatoes weapon of choice, with 90-mm or 105-mm howitzer-armed tanks seeing a much higher proliferation as supporting units in order to pick up the slacking HE delivery of a 76-mm gun.

You could see this begin to take shape in early 1944, where the M4A1 shifted entirely to production of 76.2-mm armed variants. In fact, the only model of the tank that the 'classic' 75-mm M3 armament off the production lines was the M4A3, and that was being shared with a number of other specialist vehicles being produced on the chassis.

That being said, the ideal that was being reached for beginning in 1942 didn't really begin to its full conception until 1945, by which time it didn't much matter because the M4 was on its way out.

For another example of unrealized dreams regarding the M4, see the picture linked to the left. It comes straight from R.P. Hunnicutt's book on the topic. You can see the lofty dreams and aspirations, and how they (partially) made the journey from ideas to harsh reality several years later.

>>33380272
How in the fuck could you fire that indirectly aren't they really high velocity?
(Im just curious i have some limited knowledge of tanks)

>>33377773
>because the primary means of detecting possible targets was through the commander's own eyes

You think you're seeing 800m at night?

File: M4105W.jpg (137KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x600px

>>33377996
They did. The Sherman 105mm was basically designed as an ad hoc self-propelled gun. Shermans equipped with short barrel 105mm howitzers could give a Sherman platoon what was in effect their own mini indirect fire battery.

I imagine that a platoon made up of a 105, a 76, and three 75s would be able to handle anything that was thrown at it.

>>33380547
Sherman guns weren't high velocity compared to dedicated AT guns like the KwK 42, QF 17, and 76mm M1. They were medium velocity general purpose guns, which is why they were able to provide indirect fire when the need arose. This was also part of what made the Sherman such an effective infantry support tank. I can't think of a gun I'd rather have if I had to lob a shitton of HE at things.

>>33380533
>by which time it didn't much matter because the M4 was on its way out

I wouldn't say that, but they were more or less at the end of their lifespan as far as further development went. In US service anyway. But in terms of their service life, they wouldn't be entirely phased out until the Pattons came around. The Army preferred Shermans over Pershings in Korea for their reliability.

>>33380578
They were organized as 'assault guns,' similar to German StuGs. However, rather than being their own battalions, they served in platoons assigned to the battalion headquarters company. If there were independent battalions of M4(105)s, or if they were even a fixture of independent tank battalions at all, I don't know.

These appear to have been present in the Armored and Armored Infantry battalions of the U.S. Army, meaning that they were generally an animal you would find in the Armored Divisions. The foot-slogging infantry went without, which would seem fitting given the relatively low (in comparison) production numbers.

>>33377847
It was considered such a useful feature that the M26, M46, M47, M48, M60 and M1 all had indirect fire capability, the M1 only losing its aiming mechanism with the move to the M1A1.

File: 1452118178563.gif (97KB, 560x582px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 560x582px

>>33374282
>>33374282
Tanklets, when will they learn.

>>33380614
You are correct. What I meant wasn't that the M4 would be dropped. Rather, that development largely came to a close and it wasn't really the 'star of the show' any more. With the closing of the Second World War, the service of the M4 in the United States would be that of an old entry; serving an auxiliary role along side the still-immature M26. Its final hurrah in American service would be in Korea, where it would serve as a 'guest star' against the Soviet T-34s before finally settling down to a late retirement.

File: p76-2l.jpg (58KB, 1412x836px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1412x836px

>>33380204
>Goal Posts: Moved
concession accepted

>>33379228
>Fighting open hatched wasn't the best solution either in this case. The hatches on early T-34s opened forwards, rather than backwards or to the sides. Meaning the commander had to stand fully upright in order to see past it, which in turn meant that his only protection was the hatch, rather than the turret armor.
huh? If you want to have the hatch as a protection for the commander while he's observing up top he has to clear the turret anyway.

>Later T-34s had the same hatch, but now it's mounted on a ball bearing race. This allowed you to rotate it 360 degrees, which in turn allowed you to observe the terrain to the front of the bow while keeping most of your body inside the turret. Or even use the hatch as a shield from small arms fire while scanning in all directions. If you've ever seen that movie White Tiger, one of the characters does exactly that. But once again, American and German tanks got this right the first time.
lolsto?

File: situational awareness.webm (819KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 640x352px

>>33379228
>>33380956

>>33380595
This was to the Ontos mate i know about the sherman

>>33374282
It's an long term plot by Gajin entertainment
justify the Russian bias in war thunder.

>>33375031
Now post T-54.

>>33377847
Didnt Rommel pioneer this sort of tanks as artillery tactic? I thought he would lure allied tanks towards his position and then bombard them when they got within range with 88s and whatever panzers he had...

>>33380563
With artillery flares behind my back yes i can.

>>33380956
>Concession accepted
I'm not even the guy you were failing to make an argument against.

>>33381033
>Aren't they really high velocity
They're recoiless rifles, so no.

File: headtilt.jpg (78KB, 929x768px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 929x768px

>>33380272
>>33380547
>recoilless rifles as indirect fire
really?

>>33380204
Literally watching this episode rn

>>33374797
best /k/omrade

>>33381435
kek'd

>>33380637
is there any data or anecdotes of 105mm shermans getting in tank on tank fights?
not on purpose of course, but I imagine at least one or two shot at a panzer 4 at some point

File: i3641297157.jpg (386KB, 1296x864px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1296x864px

How poor were the Soviets?

So poor they can't even afford yeast!

>>33381016
I fucking love you anon

File: 7bdae1aea20e063725d391a2e22a48f1.gif (1MB, 500x549px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x549px

>>33374797

You get another (you) for such a good informative job.

http://imgur.com/a/ZD4mf

Also curvy marine girl tits. NSFW

>>33382070
Soviet army was probably the only place manlets were useful.

>>33375700
World of tanks is the embodiment of autism. War thunder is the embodiment of glorious Soviet engineering.

>>33381466
That's not really an artillery tactic, just a classic ambush. Early German tanks had crappy guns, and the later ones went all in on high velocity, precluding them from being able to fire at shallow indirect angles.

And the Flak 88 tactic only came out as a form of desperation when a bunch of British Matildas flanked his division in France and the 88s were literally the only thing in his arsenal capable of piercing their armor.

>>33374797
Bless you anon

>>33377934
If true, that's pretty fucking nifty.

Outside of optics what did you think of each model you rode? How maintained was the T-34?

File: ^24CDE852DF58D235B8B7ADCBE642EDAB985A1B6FC69678AE92^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (101KB, 675x1200px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 675x1200px

>>33382013
I do not recall having ever read one. Given the relative sparsity of the weapon, that's not too surprising.

There are, however, anecdotes of M4 tanks being shot at by German 105-mm guns in direct fire, and it's never pretty. I can only assume that it would be a similar case if the tables were turned.

The 105-mm M4 had, to its credit, a shell designated HEAT, M67. This shell had an appreciable penetration of some 101-or-so-milimeters. The tank, however, lacked a powered traverse. At least, in some models; I have heard that there were models with power traverse, but I have not felt the need to get too curious about it.

Pictured is a shot I took with my phone from United States vs. German Equipment, compiled by Major General Isaac D. White. There are a couple of reports regarding the M4 with the 105-mm M4 howitzer, and all of them come to about this conclusion.

>>33382412
thanks man, I appreciate it.
that's a really report, appreciate the sharing.

>>33382453
I should add, before you potentially take it as gospel, this is in the beginning of the book and is General White's summary of officer opinions on the state of equipment. Further in, there are more detailed personal reports from individual crewmen and officers; the things listed on the page I took a picture of are merely White's "tl'dr" version for Eisenhower.

>>33381469
HAHAHA ok 9.7/10

File: image.gif (826KB, 328x366px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 328x366px

>>33379279
No funs but agreed.

File: 1488499093807.jpg (30KB, 545x453px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 545x453px

>>33379279

>Goes to Chinese cartoon masturbation site for defective men to "learn" instead of reading actual books by subject matter experts.

Kill yourself Millennial.

File: low pass.jpg (2MB, 3088x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3088x2048px

>>33382205
Don't forget gunners in aircraft

>>33374282
If memory serves it was because of the only engine they had available at the time the M3 Lee/Grant went into production needed the tank to be that tall. Even when there were better options it wasn't worth fucking up the logistics since they were mostly on the offensive anyway and height matters less.
As for why it happened in the Cold War I'm not sure, it's probably because the USSR put less emphasis on crew comfort and more on mass tank rushes where low height (maybe) increases survivability.

File: JB124.jpg (21KB, 354x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 354x250px

>>33380653
I knew they kept the system in tanks after the Sherman but didn't know it lasted that long. I assumed it was so common in WW2 because the Sherman's 35° of elevation meant they didn't have to prepare emplacements.

>>33381466

He would lure allied tanks into his AT guns.

>>33382185
Shit dood. I thought all wooks were gross.

>>33377894

>when da HEAT too fire

>>33377996
a 75mm howitzer was a pretty normal artillery piece back then bruhvna

File: 1467148178969.jpg (4MB, 6018x6000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6018x6000px

>>33378404
At least use a properly scaled image.

File: 7.2in recoiless.jpg (268KB, 1749x951px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1749x951px

>>33381973
I don't know if it was ever designed for an indirect fire role, as opposed to lobbing HESH at fortifications, but pic related.

Could the Italians have gotten their shit together and made a proto-MBT with their actually really good 90mm gun?

File: tegaki.png (6KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 400x400px

>>33377315
But now that they removed the cross team chat there is so little salt.

File: IMG_0767.jpg (38KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x580px

Supposedly the last French Char 2C super tank was taken from France to Germany for display. It was lost after the war.

There are rumors it was scrapped
Taken as a prize by the Russians or hidden in east Germany.

If 4chan can find that halfwit Shia then /k/ can find the Champagne!

>Pic Char 2C #99 "Champagne"

>>33384236
In WWII, Shermans were built high due to the combination of using larger radial engines and using a front-mounted transmission, requiring the tank to be built high.

During the Cold War, higher tanks had better gun depression, which fell in line with NATO's doctrine of having their tanks wait in prepared hull down positions and plinking Soviet tanks when they attempted to charge.

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

182KB, 568x542px

>>33382013
>>33382412
>is there any data or anecdotes of 105mm shermans getting in tank on tank fights?

The Marines used M7 Priests (same 105mm on a Sherman chassis) as tank destroyers in the Pacific. It was apparently very effective against Japanese tanks.

>>33377996
the M8 Scott had a 75 mm short gun that would use heat and HE

>>33382412
the heat shell had apron 130mm penetration, but was unreliable, and would commonly detonate before hitting the target if it were to hit brush or pass through a fence.

>>33386385
aprox*

>>33386117
A slingshot would've been pretty effective against Japanese tanks, they were nearly 20 years behind the times on tank development.

>>33384959
your "properly scaled image" also uses the original M1 and not even an M1 IP/M1A1 or any more modern variant with the new turret design. The M1 is radically different from all later variants.

>>33377934
I'd love to hear more about the different tanks.

>>33385918
There's no "all" chat anymore

Fucking WG

>>33386415
More like 4 years for tanks retained for the defense of Japan.

>>33384547
Ex M60a3 tanker here. Training for indirect fire was pretty neat and made for a nice break from memorizing sight reticles and stuff.

>>33382185
>wearing her HIGHLY REFLECTIVE PT BELT

I lost it.

>>33386421
You say that like it makes a difference.

>>33377129
>The bigger the tank, the smaller the risk that a penetrating round hits something important.
Whoa, this is a new level stupidity.

>>33387462
Yeah? Why?

File: diston.jpg~original.jpg (98KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x694px

[Screaming in Chrysler]

>>33386050
>that halfwit Shia
what meme is this

File: crush60.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33378381

>>33388817
>This kills the /k/

File: 654564645.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>33378404
>He fell for an armatard meme

>>33381973
If you fire anything at an extreme enough angle it is indirect fire..
> just not always effective

>>33377308
Even today, look what happens when American infantry does a joint op with Frenchies or Britbongs.

>be US squad
>show up at joint operations base
>find the nearest person person after getting out of vehicles
>eltee says "herp a derpa b-bb--b-b-b-b me want candy"
>sarge walks over to this little kid standing on the side of the road who seems to be the bravest of all of his friends and bends down. "That's a neat costume you've got there little buddy, can you tell me where the soldiers with all the shiny stuff are?"
>kid replies "mon dieu, I am the base commander"
>sarge says: "Sure you are kid, c'mon people let's go find someone in charge"

>>33378001
damn shame to loose a fine a4. fucking hell the turks dont give a shit about their soldiers and crews.

>>33378001
Story behind that pic?

>>33387577
If you seriously need an answer, getting a non-critical hit is still worse than non getting hit at all.
Also bigger silhouette.
Also a penetrating shoot ANYWHERE in the crew compartment means bad news to the crew, splinters, HEAT jet, remaining from the DU, etc.
Bigger is not better, or something to brag about in any case.

>>33392274
>Turkey attack ISIS territory
depending on cases:
>sends Leo 2 A4 with no infantery
>lets them stand around basically in the open with no support
>ISIS sneak up to sides and ATGM them from far away

>set up camp
>unman tanks
>a VBIED appears
>everyone runs leaving tanks behind

>mobility kill
>tank is left behind and blasted by ISIS

>Turkey bombs left behind tanks

>>33387921
>He doesn't know about HWNDU
You are missing out my man.

>>33384074
All those tanks and they left out the Matilda.

File: Chrysler A57 multibank.jpg (190KB, 1024x689px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1024x689px

>>33387743

Just goes to show how good American technology and manufacturing was, that a half-ass-off-the-cuff design that essentially slapped together 5 straight-six truck engines, was still better then anything the Axis or Allies would produce.

>>33394338
That's kinda hilarious that a half-ass job was better than contemporary designs.

>>33382231
>World of tanks is the embodiment of autism. War thunder is the embodiment of glorious Soviet engineering.

War Thunder also comes with an uninstallable download manager which uses your computer as a server. the download manager also does not have a quit button and restarts itself if you kill the process,

don't install russian malware

don't give money to russian developers

>>33394338

How exactly did they lubricate this thing? Like, where did the oil pool?

>>33374282
better off-road performance.

>>33377689
>Hurr le comrade xD so ebin simple le manly russia ;P :DDDDDDD

Neck yourself, faggot. In the real world, precision engineering>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>some dogshit taped together by a drunk slav

>>33374282

Crew comfort and survivability

A crew can operate a sherman much longer than a T34 before needing to rest

Further, if there's a penetrating shot it's less likely to kill the people inside

T34s and Cromwells by comparison are sardine cans, there's a reason Russians and Brits generally preferred Shermans.

>>33394338

Nah, A57 wasn't exactly a good engine. It was a stopgap to utilize the pre-existing tooling to make car engines for tanks. It was considerably heavier and larger than other tank engines of the day, and we didn't really use them ourselves, but rather gave them out for lend lease.

The Soviet mechanics hated the fucking things, since they had 60 valves and 30 spark plugs.

>>33374282
The engine that gave them the performance they wanted, that was available immediately were actually monkey modeled aircraft engines. The catch? Those are piston engines. That means they're big.


That, and actually conducting maintenance on the vehicle was a consideration in it's design. It might save on space, but putting the transmission in the back of the tank leads to mountains of salt when the crew has to virtually disassemble the tank to perform what should really be basic maintenance. American crews had to pop off some screws and the transmission disconnected from the front of their tank.


>>33394338
During 30's and 40's Americans by far had the most advanced manufacturing techniques available in the world.


>>33377689
>>33394701

Soviet optics did what they needed to do. The problem wasn't the optics but instead- and the Germans made the same mistake with the Panther- that the gunner needed more than the gunnery sight. It'd be like trying to play football or soccer or basketball with binoculars strapped to your head.

>>33395047

> The catch? Those are piston engines. That means they're big.

Every WW2 tank engine was a piston engine, you mean radial?

>>33374797
I may be late to the party but goddamn you won the day. I learned something about tanks AND I have a new insult

File: 1429846043011-0.jpg (4MB, 4125x2820px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4125x2820px

>>33395047
> but putting the transmission in the back of the tank leads to mountains of salt when the crew has to virtually disassemble the tank to perform what should really be basic maintenance.
Where did you hear that?
The rear plating of the T-34 can be unbolted and completely removed to get at the transmission just as easily as the front of the M4.

File: Detroit-Chrysler-A57-multibank-installation.jpg (172KB, 1024x850px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x850px

>>33394984
>Nah, A57 wasn't exactly a good engine.

Nonsense, it was only sub-standard in comparison to other American engines and it produced good horsepower and torque and was utterly reliable, with over 7500 being built.

>>33374282
>Why do Americans make their tanks so fucking tall?

Why do Ruskies make their tanks so wide?

The Sherman was purpose built to pry Europe out of the grasping hands of Hitler and Stalin, and thus save roughly two hundred million people from a fate worse than death.

As a result, it was built narrow, to get into those shitty little streets those lazy Europe fucktards could not be arsed to make a decent width.

You're fucking welcome, shitbags.

File: 1376464362599.jpg (428KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 2048x1365px

>>33374282
BECAUSE AMERICA STANDS TALL IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING

>>33396210
Was thinking more in terms of the Germans, who had to lift the turret off their panthers and take half the tank out before they could do some basic maintenance.


Or remove half their road wheel assembly to deal with a bad wheel.
Although now that I think about it, the panther had a forward positioned transmission too. The tank was just a shit design.


>>33395163
Yes. For some reason I kept telling myself, 'rotary' and I kept telling myself, 'no, they're not using a shitty rotary engine.'


Plus not all Sherman engines were radials. The Ford GAA was a standard V8, the GM 6046 was a diesel, and the Chrysler A57 was a multibank.

>>33397509

There were considerably better engines in other countries service. Rolls Royce Meteor was the big one. Maybach TPM 210 was better, V-2 is better.

File: Chrysler A57 multibank-02.jpg (157KB, 1026x1024px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1026x1024px

>>33397882
>Rolls Royce Meteor was the big one. Maybach TPM 210 was better, V-2 is better.

The Meteor wasn’t in (limited) service until D-Day and the Multibank was better then German engines and FAR better then the obsolete and absolutely shitty quality Soviet engines.

>>33375031
>M4RST
As a tank (informal) studier, WHAT THE FUCK IS AN M4RST

>>33380272
>>33380547
>>33381973
>>33385577
>>33390064

They would load them with Flechette rounds, explode on impact.

>stepdad is nam vet. He road the shit out of the ontos's

>tfw he said the ontos was piece of shit.

>>33377219
Most things were better than the M4A1

>>33377664
Have fun with your blueprints, jap!

>>33377894
>when Ivan drives into a 37mm

>>33378300
You could probably use all those casings as an ad hoc substitute to sandbags

>>33378664
this

>>33385752
No, because they're Italians.

>>33386117
Basically anything, even massed .30 cal's, could take out the jap tanks

File: chrysler.png (1MB, 800x1118px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1118px

>>33387743
>>33394338

File: 1439828566450.jpg (221KB, 848x948px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 848x948px

>>33397866
>who had to lift the turret off their panthers
On the Panther you can get unbolt the roof above the hull crew positions and pull the transmission out through it.
The removable section is visible in the image.

File: IMG_0875.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

Just to clear this up /k/ids.

This is a radial engine.

File: IMG_0877.gif (294KB, 630x446px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 630x446px

>>33399280
And this is a block engine.

File: IMG_0876.gif (488KB, 450x308px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 450x308px

And here's an opposed piston engine just for comparison.

>>33399295
>>33399286
>>33399280
And all of them suck compared to the legendary 13b :^)

>>33387743
>tank has a VVVVV 30 engine

hot damn

>>33394338

It's beautiful.

>>33377773
>the primary means of detecting possible targets was through the commander's own eyes

Imagine any vs the TTS equipped M60a3.

>>33381469
If you could see 500 meters count yourself lucky.

>>33399252
Seen pictures of that being done. All things considered, it's still a massive pain in the ass.

>>33377730
To expensive and hard to maintain over a drive shaft. One of the nice things with Shermans were just how easy it was to maintain or repair.

>>33395047
Turbine engines are the best tank engines, just ask the Russians

File: 1464424788843.gif (903KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 300x200px

>>33380672
I came here to say this.

>>33374282
Well in the case of the Sherman it was because of the Radial aircraft engine which made it pretty tall.

>>33385752
The P43 and P43bis are proto MBT but they only made the wooden mock up before the armistice

>>33387743
jfk can we get one more distributor added.

File: d21.jpg (398KB, 1527x861px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1527x861px

>>33396210
if we are posting cutaway drawings anyway i might as well join in. This is the Strv m/42 btw, it was the swedish medium tank of the 2nd ww era

>>33374282
Why were russian tanks so damn prone to spalling?
Why did russian tanks force the crew in like a sardine in a can?
Why were russian tanks a fucker to bail out from?

>>33382013
>>33382412
>>33386117

There are a few anecdotes in this report about the battle of St Vith during the Bulge, including action against King Tigers (which were in action around the Bulge fairly extensively).

This is also where the story of the most based M8 Greyhound of all time came from. (Page 12)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a952910.pdf#page=23

File: panther_94.jpg (76KB, 853x576px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 853x576px

>>33399252
True, but it was still a massive pain in the neck.

File: opposed engine.gif (194KB, 220x136px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 220x136px

>>33399295

That's a flat engine, this is an opposed engine.

>>33403048
That looks like something that breaks down often..

>>33374282
t. manlet

File: Ford GAA-custom.jpg (142KB, 1056x739px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1056x739px

>>33403048

File: M8 Armored Car 1.jpg (84KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x600px

>>33402328
>losing a tiger to a m8 armored car

how embarrassing

>>33402328
>server not found

>>33401866

Most of it boils down to very poor quality control. An earlier thread had this detailed PDF detailing how weapons procurment worked in the USSR, but I didn't manage to save it.

>>33377777

>>33403086
(Cries in Leyland)

>>33374282
It's almost like WW1 and WW2 were real world learned for that new invention the tank and was also the end of tanks having classes and dedicated roles

>>33398643
doughnut steel OC.

>>33377873
'cause Americans can't hit shit unless they blanket the area. even then it's 50/50.

>>33401866
>Why were russian tanks so damn prone to spalling?
multilayer nature of Russian tank armor which includes air spaces disagree with you.

>Why did russian tanks force the crew in like a sardine in a can?
Waste not, want not. Every excess cubic meter requires additional tons of heavy armor to protect.

>Why were russian tanks a fucker to bail out from?
Each crewman having their own hatch(with exception of T-14, but then again either hatches for the gunner is within arms reach) says fuck you.

>>33399737
>Imagine any vs the TTS equipped M60a3.
Contrary to popular belief only the gunner had the thermal sight, with the commander relying on basic bitch Image Intensifiers, of which the TKN-3 of the T-72 and T-64 favor enough, but which the TKN-4S on the T-80 utterly stomps.

>>33402328
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a952910.pdf#page=23

>The only excitement there had been when an M8 armored car from Troop B destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position near the boundary of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron and Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion, when the Tiger approached the lines at right angles to move along a trail in fornt of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the latter slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment, the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on it. It was a race between the Americans, who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm gun would be effective on the Tiger's thin rear armor, and the Germans, who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly the M8 closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was an muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position.

Absolutely amazing. 10/10

File: Stridsvagn_103_Revinge_2015-4.jpg (19KB, 300x194px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x194px

>blocks your path

Are you gonna give him your lunchmoney, /k/?

>>33377633
Same dude, nice dubs.

File: paveway.jpg (81KB, 2000x1368px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 2000x1368px

>>33406942

File: North Korean Air Force Su-25K.jpg (32KB, 899x556px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 899x556px

>>33406942

Nyet

File: 1466893719003.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Who had the best tanks in WWII?

I'd say Great Britain.

>>33398658
>Flechette rounds
>Impact detonation

What's the fucking point then? Flechette rounds project the flechettes in a cone from the point of detonation, not in every direction like a HE-Frag munition.

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33407369

To add on a much earlier point from someone else: the Red Army ended up incentivizing inflated loss totals. See, for most of the war their maintenance crews were kinda ass and had a big backlog anyway due to lack of quality control. If you said
>our company had 2 tanks destroyed and 6 tanks disabled or broken
you were expected to fight with 4 tanks (2 old 2 fresh) until the remainder were fixed. If you instead went
>we lost 8 tanks gibe tonk plox
they would just give you 8 fresh tanks on the spot no questions asked.

Also Soviet statistics in general were always shit.

File: caltrain_loading_gauges.png (22KB, 265x320px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 265x320px

>>33374282

Because our transportation networks allow us to do so. For example, the loading gauge (ie max dimensions) of American railroads is double that of European railroads. This means our trains can move double the cargo. The most obvious examples of this are double-stack containers and tri-level automax railcards.

That's the base standard the military has to work within, and they do. Like any sane military they use the maximum dimensions possible when designing equipment.

File: SUCK IT YUROS.gif (31KB, 1059x757px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1059x757px

>>33407827

[patriotism intensifies]

File: god bless.jpg (225KB, 1024x699px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1024x699px

>>33407836

A regular American locomotive pulling a regular European locomotive (built for export since europe doesn't have any industry anymore).

>>33407891

An American freight train. Notice how the maximum height of any cargo is about 22'. Not much special here, these are common all over the US.

>>33374282

fucking tanklets when will they learn

File: freedom train.jpg (95KB, 769x383px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 769x383px

>>33407918

forgot image, though also notice how long the trains can be as well as tall

File: europe.jpg (143KB, 1386x672px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1386x672px

>>33407936

For comparison, a European freight train. Notice that it cannot even take a standard ISO container without the same lowbody well cars. Due to the height restriction, the physical size of any cargo is effectively half of what it would otherwise be in America. Also notice how short the train is.

Did someone order some freight trains?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwO-ZGqIZ9I

>>33374282
Cuz having a low profile really helped the T-72s during gulf one

>>33406536
Takes a tank entering service in 1976 to counter one that has fielded since 1961?

>>33408620
You should read his post before you post.

>>33385752
>let's make tiny tanks with lots of rivets
>let's make tanks with lots of rivets mid war
>should we ask the Germans about licensing their good tanks?
>nah, facism is about self-reliance

File: IMG_5748.jpg (29KB, 513x293px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 513x293px

Americans make tall tanks:
Russians make tanks that fly over those tall tanks.

File: IMG_5749.jpg (75KB, 973x450px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 973x450px

There's also some tanks that may not be tall but are long

>>33388817

A member of a militia group is forcefully disarmed and his weapon destroyed, circa. 2016.

>>33407958

There's actually a lot of implications from that. Because of the smaller tunnels in Europe, their trains aren't as good at hauling cargo, so they haul people instead. The task of hauling cargo is left to the road system, and European roads are chock full of trucks(lorries) hauling ISO containers. So much so that actually trying to drive on those roads at specific times becomes downright dangerous due to the large number of poorly trained truck drivers, which pushes people to rail even more.

>>33399305
>not b16a
:/\)

>>33409412

>not RB26

Honda pls go

>>33409418
>not ls1
Imports REEEEEEEE

>>33377664
>posting wot-tier tanks

File: nlaw finns.jpg (111KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1023x682px

>>33406942
>teleports behind you
Yeah, how about no

>>33409831
>implying teleportation is possible
Give us your technology!!!!!

File: gauge3a.gif (16KB, 901x246px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 901x246px

>>33407827
>>33407836

File: vl85 (1).jpg (192KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x750px

>>33407891
>>33407936
>>33407958
>Non-Russian "freight" "trains"

File: 2a3 kondensator & s-103 & 2b1 oka.jpg (283KB, 1709x1204px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1709x1204px

>>33409106
It's a howitzer, not a tank.

>>33406439
The laser range finder on the abrams will return to the FCS and output a firing solution out to 5000 meters, above 50/50 accuracy, which only gets better as you get closer, to near 100% accuracy at below 2000 meters.

Accuracy isnt an issue, why shoot something when you can bomb it more easily.

>>33407827
>Because our transportation networks allow us to do so. For example, the loading gauge (ie max dimensions) of American railroads is double that of European railroads. This means our trains can move double the cargo. The most obvious examples of this are double-stack containers and tri-level automax railcards.
What kind of bullshit non-sequitur is this? Tanks are loaded in open flatbeds, with no option for stacking. Even the gigantic M60 just about reaches the top level of the locomtive itself. If there is a limit inherent in rail infrastructure its width.

File: 1389126844395.jpg (295KB, 800x401px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 800x401px

>>33403048
that desing is originally from wartime junkers. soviets copied the principal to some extent
2-stroke diesel one was used in t-64 prototype, was compact and made a third more hp than previous v-12 engines used, and in way more compact package... shame soviets were doing shitload of concepts at the same time and just focused on fastest production to fund the failing soviet economy.... so many funky engines in the prototypes... flat-20 in the obj.416 or something like that

>>33412446
it was flat-12 diesel in obj.416, needed to check it out

>>33374820
Specifically, the Sherman lost .17 crewman per average knocked out tank and the T-34 lost 1.7

>>33409366
I wasn't aware of that--so, the whole reason socialists love commuter rail is based on the fact that European tunnels are too small to be used for more efficient cargo transport instead?

>>33377664
Name red tank please

File: German countryside.jpg (61KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 960x640px

>>33412792

It's not the whole reason, but also European population density is leaps and bounds higher than US population density. Where you have high population density, you get viable commuter rail.

The other part of the hammer is that car ownership in the US is so much cheaper, which makes commuter rail less functional despite high population density, since people just drive to work.

One last thing, the layout of European suburbs/countryside also works well for commuter rail. Pic related is what the German countryside looks like, the population is densely concentrated, so you can walk to your commuter rail station very easily. In the town where I live in, the commuter rail station is 3 miles away, which is a 40 minute walk. You need a car to get to the commuter rail station to ride the train into the city. At which point you can just drive there instead.

>>33407958
Why are euro trains so short?

File: IMG_0630.jpg (25KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 338x305px

>>33375648
The most salient factor is always crew training and competence of the command structure, neither of which the Chinese and Koreans had.

Moreover, what you say is just patently false. Shermans got their asses kicked; in fact, most of outback equipment at the beginning of the war was inferior. That's why when Ridgeway took command he made a big deal about getting upgraded and new gear to the American forces, most notibly the F86 Saber and the Pershing tank.

File: 1280px-Sr1_kaksinveto_yhteenkytkentä.jpg (224KB, 1280x873px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1280x873px

>>33412967
Depends how often you have to sent the trains.
And you need larger stations to handle longer trains.
Do you find this image lewd trainfags?

>>33413088
What are you talking about? Shermans were always consistently popular in the Korean War because they were more reliable and mobile than Pershings. The Sherman was never truly phased out until the Patton came along.

>>33413380
https://www.google.com/amp/s/weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/09/14/sherman-vs-pershing-in-korea/amp/

>inb4 source is website

Not at home right now, but when I am I will post excerpt from a book I have detailing Ridgeway's equipment upgrades in Korea.

>>33413380
Forgot to add: the Army deemed that the improvement in combat efficacy was worth the trade off in reliability. They weren't phased out because it was a logistical nightmare to get them there.

>>33413505
You mean to tell me it was easier for them to ship out unwanted Pershings than Shermans?

>>33413270
So European trainstations are just too small, so all their freight trains are short?

File: 6363.gif (94KB, 595x349px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 595x349px

>>33413651
Usually they keep it short, since arranging long trains would need the main tracks for longer times, but those are needed by commuter trains.

Aren't the long trains used at long distances where there aren't commuter trains at all?

>>33413782
Sure seems like it, judging from that picture.

>>33413484
What point are you trying to make here? The article just says that the Pershing was judged to be better at tank on tank fighting. If someone asked me if tanks with a bigger gun and more armor are better at fighting other tanks, I would probably agree with them. It doesn't really say much else about the tank. Also, I have learned from the past to not take the conclusions of the military as gospel. Remember when the Air Force concluded that their fighters no longer needed guns due to the introduction of missiles?

Also, where does it say that the Shermans got their asses kicked? According to the site, they had a K/L ratio of 2.35. It may be a lot lower than the M26, but it's hardly bad. The Korean War demonstrated that the Easy 8 and the T-34-85 were very comparable to each other, and seeing as the Norks didn't have anything besides T-34s, I would hardly say the Sherman was obsolete then.

Also, 119 engagements is hardly a very large sample size, so I think the K/L ratios shouldn't be given that much weight.

I think the M4 and the M26 both had their own separate strengths and weaknesses, but while the M26 was still experiencing growing pains, the Easy 8 was a fully-developed workhorse that could still hold its own years after it was introduced.

>>33382185
I had a taste, now I need more

>>33413651
why would it make sense to you to attach 3 motor car to a train 3 times longer instead of sending them separately?

>>33413782
The American passenger train system is shit, and always have been. FFS president LBJ (?) created Amtrak as a government for profit company to try to bring america up the 50 years it fell behind compared to Europe. However European cities like Paris, which sees more trains in a day then like chicago does all year, are better setup for it then American cities. EG short vs long distances. Even in the North East there's problems like the majority of NE being built on own city design that is inconducive to things like many urban stations and high speed rail.

The thick lines in your picture are reflective of where massive amounts of stock needs to move, EG notice all the Frieght coming out of the port of LA, shit coming over the border at Laredo, machined goods out of the mid west, grain out of the same area, etc etc.

>>33414664

You only need one crew to man the triple-train, iirc

>>33386630
And 4 years of war is a shitload of time. Any tank used in 1939 was completely useless in 1943.

Jap tanks were simply a big piece of shit in the middle of the battlefield.

>>33415088
>Any tank used in 1939 was completely useless in 1943
>armored vehicles being useless in any sense
If you don't see the usefulness of stopping enemy projectiles I guess so.

File: IMG_5751.jpg (27KB, 416x234px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 416x234px

>>33411511
Thanks anon, now I feel like an idiot. I should do my research.

>>33414664
If it doesn't make sense for economic reasons, then why is it done that way in other parts of the world?

File: 1490404493203.jpg (237KB, 444x566px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 444x566px

>>33374639
>>33390510
>Amerifats
>taller than slavs

Lmaoing at your life

>>33414704
US rail infrastructure went to shit way back when in large part because government regulations demanded passenger service to continue on lines that were increasingly unprofitable. With postwar airline and highway construction expansion, Americans increasingly abandoned trains use for travel. The railways were going under steadily until things were deregulated and issues dealt with over time. It wasn't until about the mid 80s when things began to turn around some but only as far as freight is concerned.

File: gundepression.png (29KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x450px

Having a tall turret allows you more gun depression so you can hide your hull on a reverse slope. The Israelis used this tactic against a massive Arab zerg rush in the Golan heights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3zGWMPhxS0

>>33374639
>bigger guns
>T-34-85's 85mm vs Sherman's 76mm
>T-54/55 and T-62 with 100-125mm guns vs M48 and M60, with mostly 90mm guns and a few 120mm
>T-90's 125mm vs M1's 120mm
>T-14 with a possible 152mm stalincannon vs canceled kraut 140mm
Ivan has always had bigger guns. Not better tanks per se, but the guns are usually bigger.

>>33421302
>>T-54/55 and T-62 with 100-125mm guns vs M48 and M60, with mostly 90mm guns and a few 120mm
What the fuck are you on about? T-62s had 115s, not 125s. M48s mostly had 90s, some later variants had 105s. M60s always had 105s, with some more modern variants, which I don't think have ever been procured, having 120mm guns. Some M60s had 152s, but RIP Starship.
>T-14 with a possible 152mm stalincannon vs canceled kraut 140mm
No. Neither of these were going to happen.

>>33382070
>pump sold separately

File: 9C2Ng4e.jpg (21KB, 474x296px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x296px

>>33416325
>Cold War America
>thinking steak and potatoes American men are shorter than half starved communist conscripts

File: 1472275353415.gif (21KB, 455x364px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 455x364px

>>33382185
This shit is great!

>>33374282
Americans have a thing about height

>>33377831
No need to be sorry, thanks for being in a tank thread.

>>33377934
Neat. You're a top ten /k/ poster now.
You should trip yourself, something like opfor.