Hello /k/. Just watched the movie Fury and had a few questions.

>>33842670
Its about as unrealistic as you can get dude. In general 1 good hit that gets into the fighting compartment means your tank is kaput. Tiger had a big gun with a big shell that could turn the insides of your tank into a mess.

Meanwhile the armor was impervious to short barelled shermans.

>>33842670
The side armor of the tiger is the exact same as it's back armor

Also the tiger has neutral steer, which means it could probably outturn that Sherman

Oh, and tank fights don't happen at point blank

>>33842670
Literally all of the Shermans depicted would defeat the tigers armor at that range, and that would be it for the fight.

>>33842700
Go be a faggot somewhere else.

>>33842670
>is the only weak spot on the tiger truly it's rear like in the movie?
The 75mm Shermans would've had a tough time with it but at that range Fury and the other Shermans that had 76mms could've easily taken the Tiger frontally.

File: dubs.png (360KB, 534x460px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 534x460px

essentially the scene was fucking bogus anyways, the tiger wouldn't have been alone and wouldn't have fucking banzai'd three shermans.

>>33842670
>From my limited knowledge of tanks, I know the Sherman was almost a 4:1 ratio to tigers in terms of quantity and their only saving grace was their speed.

A good start; you know nothing about tanks.

First and foremost, Fury was an action movie, not to be taken any more seriously than a film like Kelly's Heroes in terms of historical accuracy.

Now allow me to educate you on the Tiger I:

The Tiger was a powerful vehicle, yes. More accurately, it had a powerful gun. It is true that the KwK 36 could chew through really any mass-produced American armor of the war. This is all well and good, but what the film overlooks is that the Tiger's greatest asset was it's crew. By this point in the war many German tank crews had seen extensive combat, and those trusted with the limited number of Tigers were no slouches. This is where Fury truly falls flat, as in reality no Tiger commander, facing three Shermans across an open field, would ever advance; the Tiger's advantages all stood at range, and it's ability to fire on the move was limited at best.

Another greatly important piece of information is that the M4 Sherman was, by the end of the war, nowhere near as poor a performer as it's often made out to be. M1 76mm gun armed Shermans were highly capable tanks, had more or less sufficient armor, and were superior in mobile combat to just about any other tank fighting in World War II (inb4 this turns into a Pz.IV Vs. M4 Sherman Vs. T-34 shitposting thread)

They did not burn like people say they did. This is largely attributed to the accounts of Belton Cooper in his book, Death Traps. These claims were wildly exaggerated, and play on the reader and general publics sense of pity for tank crews (all of whom were having a shitty time) to paint the M4 as a bad peice of equipment. This, combined with a British habit of completely filling their tank with ammo, led to a negative view of the Sherman as compared to the "superior" tanks it (rarely) faced.

>>33842716
>Don't happen point blank
Just how it is? Or there's a rule against it in regard to a tank fight?
>>33842723
That's what I was wondering. They were like what, 100 feet away from each other and the tiger just ate 3 direct hits. Even I was calling BS.
>>33842716
So where did the myth of the tiger having weak back armor come from? It's also present in video games. Or are you saying the sides were also weak as fuck?
>>33842717
So the tiger was really just meant for long range then?

>>33842781
Regarding the ranges of tank engagements; there's really no defined standard. Vehicles fighting on the streets of Cologne would obviously have been closer than the massed formations on the steppes of Kursk.

>>33842781
not the other guy but
>Just how it is? Or there's a rule against it in regard to a tank fight?
They can fire and hit targets at hundreds of meters, with modern tech, thousands

>Even I was calling BS.
Yeah, it was, every tank would be super dead at that range
>So where did the myth of the tiger having weak back armor come from? It's also present in video games. Or are you saying the sides were also weak as fuck?
Weakest point of a tank is the side and rear armor. It would be too heavy to move otherwise.
>So the tiger was really just meant for long range then?
It was supposed to be a heavy tank for the Germans, but was so poorly designed and overly complex they mainly broke down before they even got to the battlefield.

>>33842817

The Tiger's side armor was actually relatively heavy compared to other tanks that came after it such as the T-55, which is also why it was 10 tons heavier than the later in spite of having worse maximum thickness.

>>33842809
Yes that's true
>>33842817
>poorly designed
Really? I thought the "German engineering" was always considered God tier in WW2 era.
>>33842768
Huh. I didn't know any of that. Thanks for the info anon!

Coming to the present, what makes a tank the "best" by today's standards? Are they like smartphones now that have hit a wall in terms of how fast and efficient they can become with each new iteration? Or is tank tech still large and important? Only modern tank I even know of is the Abrams tank because I'm M'urican

>>33842856
"german engineering" was making things as unnecessarily complex as they can because everything had to be AWESOME and RADICAL and COOL according to a bunch of people who knew nothing about tank warfare

>>33842876
Yeah that is bullshit, just like your mainly broke down "claim", but as long as you can spout meme shit you're happy I guess, so go on.

File: banana sherman.jpg (60KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x385px

>>33842670
>were the tiger tanks really as powerful as the movie portrayed

Read up about SS Panzer Divisions chewing up Russian spam armor. Buy the book
Sledgehammers by Christopher W. wilbeck. They were feared because they were capable tank
killers. Germans were almost reckless with there tanks at times (1943) because for a good while
nothing could knock them out. This helped cultivate the fearsome reputation they had. The 88 took
care of everything they came across.

Mobility was the problem for them. Constant changes in the front. Soviets change of direction
forced long road marches. Train to detrain takes time. Maintenance Units always under pressure
to repair and replace with time they didn't have.

For Shermans get Belton Coopers book Death Traps. The man was there when the tanks came
in. He saw the damage they took. Fuck 33842768. His post is literally hollow patriotism.
'MERICA OVERCOMES MERICA IS BEST.' Now they're acting like jews and trying to subvert truth.
FURY shows a lone tiger (tigers were grouped into larger formations- suicide charging the enemy
unsupported. It's saving private ryan: line the Germans up knock them down style movie. Hollywood isn't
real life despite the jews wishing the Germans went down that easy.

Another read is For Want of A Gun The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII. They pulled the youtube video
advertising the book because 'patriots' cried there eyes out. Third party violations my ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwYfzsyg9o
Engineering Disasters The Sherman Tank of WW2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXB_tBgq6Rc
French tank crew removing body of dead soldier from tank

I like the reactions that vid ^ generates. People say "oh my god" and moan after they see it. That's what it
was like for Sherman crews. Missing heads and hollowed out torso's because we built our own t34 throw away
tank.

>>33842923

Kill yourself.

File: 1484509277080.png (2MB, 1643x1288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1643x1288px

>>33842876

I want the fucking nu-/k/ faggots that decided the best way to combat historical myths was just to assume the complete opposite was true instead to leave. Everything is one extreme or the other with you shitheads.

Someone from /pol/ calls you a cuck or some shit once and now you decide it's your personal crusade to go into every tank thread on /k/ and say dumb shit like UH ACTUALLY GERMAN TANKS WERE MADE OF CARDBOARD AND PILOTED BY BABIES LOL.

I bet you think the Tiger I was a slow tank too.

>>33842856
The later German tanks were too heavy for their time, supposedly because Adolf wanted their armor to be impervious.
Technology for 50+ ton tanks wasn't tested enough. Some parts just broke under strain after cross country driving.
Also that kind of suspension wasn't tested in earlier vehicles either.
Shermans suspension for excample had been around for many years, most notably in M3 Lee.

Hard to say how much they suffered from decreasing production quality. T-34 could break from too much road driving thanks to shit gearboxes and other stuff they produced.
Also the lack of trained mechanics and time for repairs made them abandon more tanks.

>>33842923
You're such a fucking nigger

File: 1479839518380.jpg (41KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x417px

>>33842856

>Really? I thought the "German engineering" was always considered God tier in WW2 era.

That's a bullshit meme, for every German design there is an allied equivalent that matches or exceeds its performance, they just weren't fielded because it would've disrupted logistics. Getting a sufficiently large force and their supplies to where they can actually fight the enemy is what wins wars, not marginally better tanks.

Their fighter aircraft had good performance, but this was mostly due to them making major sacrifices in range. For the entire war they made numerous failed attempts to design a working heavy bomber. In the meantime the Americans had designed and fielded the B-29, arguably even more advanced than any jet Germany fielded among several other designs.

German designs tank designs tended to be much more expensive than their equivalents due to the lack of cast parts, thus the need for large amounts of welding. It's important to note that the majority of German armor didn't consist of Tigers and Panthers, but instead consisted of the smaller, and more reliable Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs. Both of these designs were inferior to the Sherman in armor and had roughly the same armament.

When comparing the Sherman to the Tiger its important to consider that it is almost twice the weight. Despite this even the earliest Shermans manage to equal its frontal armor. The only field most Shermans were deficient in were their guns, with most being equipped with the 75mm M3 which was unable to frontally penetrate the Tiger. Later variants were armed with the 76mm M1 which could frontally penetrate the Tiger.

The only fields that the Germans had a technological edge in were rocketry and arguably jet engines and submarines. The submarine advantage was mainly out of necessity, they knew they had no hope of challenging both the British and the US fleets for naval superiority so resorted to torpedoing merchant shipping.

>>33842923
>death traps
jesus h christ

>>33843006
you sound like you got a lot of shit on your plate there bud

perhaps go back to /pol/ so they can console you and your overcomplicated designs

>>33842919
what the fuck are you talkinga bout

>>33842923
No, the Sherman was a good, capable tank. Very easy and cheap to produce, the Shermans that weren't Fireflies or running 76mm guns were somewhat outclassed near the end but that does not make them death traps or any form of shit you fool.

You and>>33842876 are fools that know no moderation. You jump from 0 to 100 without ever setting a foot upon the other numbers. It's either complete shit or the reincarnation of God for you. Just shut up if you only come here to ring your own bell.

>>33842670

the movie does a lot of dumb shit in that tank engagement.

the shermans there have 76mm guns with 1 having a 75mm gun. I believe those 76mm guns could penetrate a tiger out to 100-150m easily using standard ammo and further loading APCR though they were limited supply.

also the tiger moves out of the smoke and keeps going toward the shermans which completely abandons any advantage of the 88mm gun it has.

there's a lot more weird stupid shit the movie does but honestly it's for flare and it's more realistic than most shitter war movies these days.

>>33843033
So over building the tanks led to having to under build eventually out of necessity
>>33843066
I didn't even know Germany had non tiger tanks. Everyone and their mother seems to ride the tiger tank dick in movies, games, books.

What the hell started this fascination if the late 76mm model shed and we're just as capable? And how did just going from a 75mm barrel to 76mm make the Sherman capable of full frontal penetration? Is that 1mm making all the difference? Or did the tech behind shells used also improve?

File: g11open.jpg (46KB, 468x309px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 468x309px

>>33842856
Depending on your definition of god-tier. These were the guys who thought the internals that closly mirror that of Big Ben was a good idea

>>33843075
>the Shermans that weren't Fireflies or running 76mm guns were somewhat outclassed near the end
Not exactly. Lots of crews preferred the 75mm gun because it had superior HE rounds, and most of what the tanks were doing was shooting HE at infantry, buildings/bunkers, and anti-tank guns. It didn't have the penetration to take down the big cats from the front at combat ranges, but the majority of German tanks were Panzer IVs or StuG III and IVs, which could be penetrated from the front at combat ranges.

>>33842768
this pretty much

A real Tiger crew chief, or an crew chief with combat experience, would've never left cover if he didn't have to

>>33843075
every tank credited with "GERMAN ENGINEERING" was most likely an overcomplicated piece of shit that took a day to swap out its engine, had to be transported by train, destroyed its own bogey wheels through general usage, or destroyed its own drive train via neutral steering. that or it wasn't even made!

I'm not saying all their tanks were overengineered trash heaps, I'm saying their WUNDERTANKS are.

>>33843115
germans had tons of tanks, and there were very few american encounters with tigers.

>>33843115
>And how did just going from a 75mm barrel to 76mm make the Sherman capable of full frontal penetration? Is that 1mm making all the difference? Or did the tech behind shells used also improve?

the 75mm on the shermans were really low velocity guns. the barrels are ridiculously tiny and that was because the Sherman was designed around supporting infantry and not directly going for heavy tanks. that was the job of the tank destroyers.

the 76mm has a way higher velocity due to a much longer barrel. more velocity means more penetration and you're penetration stays high out to longer ranges.

so it was more the length of the barrel than the shift in shell diameter.

>Or did the tech behind shells used also improve?

the tech on the 76mm improved a ton. APCR ammo could punch through a tiger out to 2km. even the standard ammo could pen a tiger out to 750+ meters.

File: tiger sherman armor.png (313KB, 727x749px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 727x749px

>>33843115

>What the hell started this fascination if the late 76mm model shed and we're just as capable?

The Tiger entered service in 1942 and had plenty of time fighting "inferior"(read: smaller) tanks and 75mm Shermans.

>And how did just going from a 75mm barrel to 76mm make the Sherman capable of full frontal penetration?

The 75mm gun was designed primarily for infantry support, thus was low velocity for lobbing HE shells at infantry and fortifications. For a gun designed for killing other tanks you want high velocity, because this allows your AP shells to penetrate more armor. This requires that you make the walls of your HE shells thicker, giving them less filler and making them less effective.

Think about it as the difference between a rifle and a pistol.

File: Life-March-26-1945-Battle-of-the-Tanks.png (2MB, 3249x2119px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3249x2119px

>>33842670
After the Bulge journalists in Europe began sending back stories critical of the Sherman. There was some truth to them, but part of the narrative was spun into the larger story surrounding the Bulge and, as yellow journalism was still a thing in the 40's, it created the mythos later seen in books like 'Death Traps'. Pic related is such an article from 1945. It's critical of the tank, but it's not completely negative. Take notice of who they give the final word.

Now, here's a defense of such stories written by Lieutenant Colonel Albin F. Irzyk, HQ, 8th Tank Battalion in 1946. http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/uploads/2/5/4/1/25411694/article_by_us_army_tank_battalion_commander_-_tank_versus_tank_1946.pdf

>>33843143

also don't forget 1 huge thing about ww2 that leads to wacky statistics involving tigers having ridiculously high kill ratios versus allied vehicles:

the germans were fighting a defensive war after 1942. the Americans, British, and Russians all were on the offensive at those points in different areas which meant fighting a defensive opponent that could choose the engagement locations and knew the terrain and had time to pick ambush spots and other shit.

that's why the Bocage in france was a fucking nightmare. It was nothing but ambushes and bomb craters.

>>33843143
>the 75mm on the shermans were really low velocity guns. the barrels are ridiculously tiny and that was because the Sherman was designed around supporting infantry and not directly going for heavy tanks. that was the job of the tank destroyers.
No. The 75mm was a medium velocity gun, and it was designed to take on enemy tanks. So was the Sherman. The Sherman was not designed for infantry support. The Tank Destroyer Force was formed in response to the concentrated German armored divisions. They were to respond to such concentrations and blunt the German advance.

>>33843167
Please don't post that pic, it's riddled with awful information and the speds are guy to keep repeating that for months upon months because it merely looking official is good enough.

>>33843183

yeah upon rereading I was wrong. the Sherman wasn't designed for infantry support.

>>33842856

>kraut engineering
>be afraid of ze kang tiger tank when ze work ja

>>33843033
This is definitely true for the heavies made after the Tiger I, but the Tiger actually worked really well off-road. It wasn't fast, but it could slog through mud, snow, etc. with relative ease.

File: mmu_get_jpeg.jpg (27KB, 504x291px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 504x291px

>>33843115
Another defense of the 75mm was, being low/mid velocity, it had a barrel life of several thousand shells. American tank doctrine included the use of tank and tank destroyers as impromptu artillery, and every Sherman had equipment for indirect fire. The terrain in Italy meant many tank and TD units would spend the majority of their time "on call" to provide fire support. In France, TD units fired something like 8 of every 10 shells indirectly.

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

162KB, 1116x805px

The Sherman did have two indisputable weaknesses compared to its contemporaries.

Ground pressure, it had less track area in contact with the ground than other tanks resulting in poor mobility on bad terrain and the tendency to sink into mud.

It also had a high center of gravity could cause it to tip over.

It burning more than other tanks is a myth. Especially if followed by the claim that this is caused by using a gasoline engine, since German tanks used it too.

It having inferior armor to other tanks in a myth.

It having an inferior gun is arguable, but the 75mm M3 was perfectly adequate against most of what it faced.

File: sherman.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>33843195
I'd say it's more important to know the actual history of Sherman criticism. It's just as ignorant to wave "Death Traps" around as being pure fiction because someone watched a Chieftain video that derides parts of it.

>>33842670
>Not to mention a single direct hit from the Tiger was enough to completely disable a Sherman American tank.

This part is true. getting hit is not fun and even if the shot doesn't penetrate, you can get killed by the spalling.
>>33842817
>>So the tiger was really just meant for long range then?
>It was supposed to be a heavy tank for the Germans, but was so poorly designed and overly complex they mainly broke down before they even got to the battlefield.

You're thinking of the Panther. The Tiger E was actually pretty mechanically reliable. The Panther was a hot mess.

>>33843217
>>be afraid of ze kang tiger tank when ze work ja

Or when Hans finally gets the jerrycan filled up. About ten times

>>33842923
>says us built throw away tanks
>compared to cou try that had like 6 super tanks that always broke down before reaching the battlefield and then was using thousands of tanks that were considered obsolete by the end of WW ONE

File: shermanvtigerrange.png (204KB, 861x281px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 861x281px

>>33842670
At the ranges depicted in the movie (under 500m) there would really have been not a whole lot of need for either side to maneuver - both tank guns could have penetrated each other at that range.

The Tiger could and should have shot much, much earlier, at a distance of maybe a kilometer or more - but that's hard to get into a single camera shot in a film. This is true of most popular media depictions (games or movies) of armed conflict, in that the ranges are much, much shorter than real life.

The main advantage the Tiger had over Shermans was the better performance, and their heavier armour also meant that Shermans had to get much closer to be effective. The chart here shows some estimated penetration ranges from the German Army's weapon testing agency in a report from 1944. It assumes a 30 degree angling by targets.

>>33842923

>tldr ww2 : Spoiler alert ahead!!!!
>krauts lose

File: speer-interrogation-german-tanks.jpg (166KB, 866x612px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 866x612px

I wonder how many claims re: reliability of German tanks should instead be attributed to human error.

>>33842856
>Coming to the present, what makes a tank the "best" by today's standards?

Currently the 'highest' point are whatever upgrades the M1A3 (when it finally happens) Abrams, Leopard 2A-#, Challenger 2, some other Western tank, T-14 armata prototype, whatever China has. Currently the tanks are slowly being improved but since the cold war ended and the middle east shithole is too 'slow' combat wise, not major improvements right now. At most is comes down to better crew, cause the people of the desert sure can't tank for shit.

>>33843115
>And how did just going from a 75mm barrel to 76mm make the Sherman capable of full frontal penetration?
A lot more goes into a gun than just the caliber of shell - the gun and ammunition together form an entire system. Two guns of the same caliber could use entirely different ammunition set-ups. Even if the ammunition is the same, other factors like barrel length can considerably affect ballistic performance.

File: deathtraps.jpg (192KB, 508x784px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 508x784px

>>33842923
Oh my. You laud 'Death Traps' in one paragraph then complain about Hollywood Jews in the next. Fury was literally based on 'Death Traps', including the "knock em down" scene.

>>33842730
>Doesn't understand that this very thing happened quite often because of Germany's Ace Cult
Read a book, nigga.

75mm Sherman: Side or rear hits.
76mm Sherman: Front will pen inside of, what was it, either sub-400meters or sub600meters.
Most tank fights took place at like 800 meters IIRC, and German armor didn't matter worth a dick fuckall once in an urban setting with knifefighting ranges.

>>33842670
TL:DR of this whole thread.

Logistics wins wars not Weapons systems, soldiers, generals or patriotic fervor. The Logistics train is the most important and powerful part of any army.

The US learned this in the 1860s, the rest of the world didn't understand it until after World War 2.

>>33843363

>carefully planning your supply chain
>making sure you deliver supplies as needed across military branches and theaters of operation

Krauts remind me of sand people that spray from the hip and yell "allahuu snackbar"

>>33843227
the flame myth started due to the german's playing on defense in a loosing war, instead of punching one hole into a Sherman and hamburgerizing the crew and calling it a day they also were determined to light the grill on fire so it couldn't be used again so they would fire multiple shells into a "disabled" tank till it burned.

during their advancing war fronts they'd punch a hole through the tank hamburgerizing the crew then once the battle was over they'd scrape the meat out and patch the holes then use it to further hambergerize more enemies...

honestly the Germans were the most apt to take enemy equipment and field it and in some cases improve on the original design. For instance the T-34(r) they added the commander cupola to fix the horrible visibility of the tank

>>33843167
>compares early non-E8 sherman to a heavy tank and a breakthrough tank

but why?

>>33843280
A tank is a tank. Short of driving it into a ditch, you shouldn't be able to disable your vehicle simply by driving it.

I forget where it was, but I recall seeing an illustration showing that King Tiger crews, when driving on flat, winding roads, should simply drive in a straight line rather than following the road, so as not to put "unnecessary" stress on the tank. If the Panthers in that depiction were taken out of action for a similar reason, I'd still call that an issue in engineering the tank.

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

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33842923
fuck off, nigger.

If anything the Frenchy video only proves that the allies had the time to film this shit. I'd like to see a crew of any German tank looking better after taking hits like that.

>>33842670
It's a mixed bag. The engagement starts at something like 500-600 meters according to the German tank commander's dialogue. The 76mm shermans could've possibly penetrated from the front but not a sure shot. By 200m though they absolutely could, and the autistically short range they went to get into rear armor was completely unnecessary.

Keep in mind tiger fear was a very real thing though. It's not completely unheard of for allied tankers to do dumb things when facing a tiger due to panicking, but that seems unlikely with how experienced Fury's crew was supposed to be.

As for the tank taking multiple shots to knock out, the American tank shot the Tiger in it's ass, aka the bigass chunk of steel called an engine. The tank was essentially knocked out with the first hit, but the engine could've potentially stopped the round before it made it to the crew. Remember as well not all 5 got out, which implies a couple died inside from the round penetrating.

>>33843272
No?

File: dead kraut.jpg (56KB, 534x800px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 534x800px

>>33843564
>nigger

Wow dude you'Re so edgy!!! guise he said nigger!!! this guy is a badass!!

>>>/pol/

and fucking stay there

I think you have to distinguish between when the USA first entered the war in North Africa Vs German armour and troops Vs the late war

The memes hold up in the early war. The Sherman was shit and the German armour superior and so were the troops. Late war less so. There are incidents like that depicted in Fury that occur in Normandy too, I am reminded of a group of British tankers that unexpectedly encountered a tiger when coming out of heavy cover and got chewed up.

I'd have to find the reference

>>33844034
>The memes hold up in the early war. The Sherman was shit and the German armour superior and so were the troops.
But anon, the Sherman was the best tank in the desert at the time it was introduced. German tanks were predominantly shittier old models. And yes, despite what you may think, early war German tanks sucked ass.

>>33844041
It was murder. They rolled right into the muzzles of the concealed eighty-eights and all I could do was stand by and watch tank after tank blown to bits or burst into flames or just stop, wrecked. Those in the rear tried to turn back but the eighty-eights seemed to be everywhere.

>>33844051
See, what you're talking about is something different entirely. You're talking about well entrenched and concealed antitank guns ambushing tanks in the flat desert. Yes, this was extremely common, because what little terrain deviation there was wouldn't cover armored vehicles, giving the antitank guns wide open fields of fire. This happened to everyone in the desert.

Does it say anything about the tanks in question? Absolutely not.

>>33844019
>I'm being a newfag and no one can stop me!

>>33844051

What are you talking about? The Sherman tanks first major combat was at the Second Battle of El Alamein, where it performed perfectly well.

Despite the Axis forces having well prepared defenses with hundreds of anti-tank guns and half a million mines, they suffered more casualties than the attacking Commonwealth forces over the course of the battle.

>>33844066
>See, what you're talking about is something different entirely. You're talking about well entrenched and concealed antitank guns ambushing tanks in the flat desert. Yes, this was extremely common, because what little terrain deviation there was wouldn't cover armored vehicles, giving the antitank guns wide open fields of fire. This happened to everyone in the desert. Does it say anything about the tanks in question? Absolutely not.


Losing their firepower standoff advantage, the Shermans quickly found themselves engaged at short range, from all sides. Panzer III and IV tanks easily destroyed the shermans with side and rear shots while the Tigers 88mm gun smashed anything it hit.The Shermans also displayed their unfortunate tendency to burst into flames a characteristic that caused the British to give them the nickname 'ronsons'. Early model Shermans used highly inflammable gasoline uel rather than diesel fuel and their gas tanks were badly protected"
Defeat at Kasserine: American Armor Doctrine, Training, and Battle Command ...
By Major Mark T. Calhoun
Pg 86

>>33844139
>What are you talking about? The Sherman tanks first major combat was at the Second Battle of El Alamein, where it performed perfectly well.

kasserine

>>33842670
M8 greyhounds are far far better than shitty tigers

The M3 tank was quickly replaced with the M4 Sherman after kasserine because it was shit

like I say memes hold for early war not late war german troop and armour was superior at kasserine and the Sherman and its crews were subsequently slaughtered

>>33844019
not him but nigger

>>33843115
>I didn't even know Germany had non tiger tanks.
Was this some kind of fucking joke?

>>33843363
TLDR of your post
>I am a historically inept cunt who knows nothing related to the topic

>>33844034
Besides the fact that at the time of its introduction the 75 m4 was one of the best tanks around?
Moron

A few things to keep in mind:
The Tiger and Tiger 2 are heavy tanks, whereas the Sherman M4 was a much lighter medium tank. This means ultimately you're comparing two very different types of tanks that rarely fought one another.

As covered some by anons earlier; The M4 armed with the M3 75mm was envisioned primarily as a weapon to engage enemy fortifications and infantry, BUT still able to engage armor if required. This was a doctrinal choice, and like a lot of doctrinal choices, it didn't work out that way in real engagements. This is why there was even a tank destroyer doctrine.

The Sherman was easy to repair, and surprisingly comfortable as tanks go due to being fairly spacious and having a rather smooth ride due to suspension. Mind you that it's still a tank and this is incredibly relative. The crew of an open topped Hellcat in the middle of winter tended to be pretty damn miserable for example.

The whole Ronson thing is much like a lot of other battlefield retellings: Overblown. Did it happen at least once? Probably. Did it happen every time? Hell no.

Tiger tanks tended to have transmission issues. Not as bad as the Panthers or Tiger II but still something a driver had to keep in mind. The other two big cats had the bad tendency to just break down. Too much weight on overstrained drive trains.

Tigers were in scarce supply! There were barely any on the west front, and allied tankers tended to attribute losses to them willy nilly (at least in France). Throw in a few 88mm AT guns and the confusion gets worse. The initial fights in the bocage were also at point blank ranges in a lot of cases, excerbating the confusion.

Most German tanks didn't have slopped armor. Slab sided designs meant they tended to have heavier armor with imposing thickness on paper but also imposing weight. The M4 may not have had massively sloped armor like the T34 but it did have sloped glacis and frontal armor. There were also issues with the metallurgy of German armor.

>>33844019

double nigger detected

>>33844308
Sloping means nothing when the entire crew gets torn apart by spalling from even non penetrating hits

>>33844192

Let me put it this way, how would the outcome at Kasserine have been different if the US forces had been equipped with German tanks?

>>33844320
Mostly it means weight savings and a slightly higher chance of non-damaging ricochets. The weight savings is the important part here.

>>33844186
>tank guns do what tank guns do
>Shermans taking fire from all sides
>was a bad time

No shit.in a situation like there's no good outcome for armor short of a Gundam

>>33844186

That troops may have called their tanks a derogatory nickname like Ronson seems pretty plausible. The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.”

So what does this mean? Not much really. Perhaps the “lights every time” slogan was used in a radio jingle and not in print ads. Or perhaps the troops mistakenly attributed the slogan to the Ronson brand. However, based on the available print ads its probably fair to question the validity of the “lights every time” myth.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/04/28/from-the-editor-lights-first-every-time/

>>33842670
No. At the range they were even the 75mm armed M4 would've gone through the front, the 76mm wouldn't have had issues.

I did like the glancing shots in the movie though. There's lots and lots and lots of examples of poorly aimed rounds glancing off the sides of vehicles and leaving giant gouges.

>>33842716
>Oh, and tank fights don't happen at point blank

Oh but they can, and did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaba8PispE

>lol only 88mm

File: Toxic.jpg (41KB, 500x427px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x427px

>>33842999
>>33843062
>>33843067

You can tell /K is mostly shit now. 18 year olds who watched hollywood films
are now war experts. Disagree and now we encourage suicide. Human fucking garbage.

>>33843075
>No, the Sherman was a good, capable tank. Very easy and cheap to produce,

This is always the argument put forward. Its cheap and easy to make! AND THAT MAKES YOU
NO BETTER THAN THE RUSSIANS. This train of thought costs the lives of countless american
soldiers because we had an INFERIOR tank. We knew Tigers and Panthers existed. The idea
coming from the top down claimed they were few in number is an outright lie. Then on top of
this we export a throwaway medium because it was "easy to transport across the ocean."
as the excuse. It's a Stain against america and a white washing of history at worst.

You want the best armament for your soldiers. You want them to survive and annihilate the enemy.
We knew the German's way of war was superior to that of our own so a conscious decision was made.
We will tie them down with superior numbers and bleed them white while carpet bombing all attempts at
organized resistance. And to do this, you need large numbers of spam tanks.

Kurt 'Panzer' Meyers observation of American and English armor movements was that the allied powers
were waging ww1 style tank warfare.

>>33843075
>Shermans that weren't Fireflies or running 76mm guns were somewhat outclassed

This is the second most common statement regarding the Sherman tank. the short 75 mm gun
was not up to the task of taking on the Tiger head on. This is dream land thinking. This level
of patriotism makes Americans look insane. This is why you see the statement 5 Sherman's
for 1 Tiger. And it actually gives credence to the idea!

>>33843304
Fury is German Hate propaganda. Gunning down children had to be put on the big screen didn't it?
We had to go there. The directors went in for maximum edginess. Working up a unit to kill an unarmed prisoner,
nice touch don't you think?

>>33844633
is this the new reddit spacing?

>>33844308
>>33844320

Sloped armor weighs the same as vertical armor. However, a sloped plate will not generate spall as easily as a vertical plate.

>>33844633
>toxic

Get out, you Reddit sperg. Also kill yourself.

>>33844708

>Get out, you Reddit sperg. Also kill yourself.

Not the same guy, but.... Jesus, /k/ is literally filled with sperglords and kiddies nowadays

>>33842670
I would think that a Tiger I crew would have preferred to use range to their advantage, since their gun has an effective range double-and-then-some of the Sherman's, as well as, in the case of bog standard Shermans, an advantage in terms of maximum possible level of optical magnification on gunsights

>>33844633

>there tanks

>>33844633
>ww1 style tank warfare
>60 miles a day

>>33842670
Short range tank fights are a must in movies, it just doesn’t look as good on the screen to have a tank fire at a dot half a mile away.

>>33842670
The Tiger has better "combat stats" than the sherman does, but when you factor in the logistics, and the quality of the crew working conditions, and the crews ability to make use of the vehicles capapbilities, the sherman makes more sense.

For ther ecord, it was American doctrine at the time of the war that the platoon is the smallest unit that should engage (concerning tanks anyway), so even if there was only one PzIIIf, the allies still send 5 Sherman of various models after it

I just want to take a moment to appreciate early-morning /k/

This thread is full of fucking glorious info, backed up by solid sources and images. A lot of people who were called out have admitted that they were wrong, and apologized like goddamn men. We've all learned a shitload today.

Fuck, I love early-morning /k/ so goddamn much.

>>33844308
This tbqh

I think comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank is a product of all the history channel bullshit during the 90ies and early 2000's.

This >>33844633 is absolutely correct though.
>You want the best armament for your soldiers. You want them to survive and annihilate the enemy.

Is absolutely the mentality any battlefield commander needs to have, and German heavy tanks (Panther included because in reality it was a heavy) did this very well.

Arm chair and keyboard generals with no experience in the military think that having a vehicle that is "easy to produce and maintain" only have experience from what they read in books, but when you are actually in the hatch of a vehicle, you want to survive, and that is why the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger are always going to be better tanks than anything the Allies had, save the IS-2.

>>33845321

You absolutely want the best for your troops, but you also want them to be equipped with the necessary combined arms equipment in the first place. For the US & Commonwealth forces in Europe, the alternative to a mass produced medium tank would have meant more soldiers running up against those MG42s on foot.

My only major criticism would be of the US delay in introducing up-gunned 76 Shermans, especially considering that the UK had managed to introduce the stop-gap Firefly before D-Day. That said, the US encountered comparatively few operational Tigers until the Ardennes, so I would still argue that having more medium tanks available probably saved more Allied lives from German machine guns, shrapnel and snipers, than if they had shut down the factories in Detroit for weeks/months and retooled to make fewer, heavier tanks.

>>33844490
Fuck that's brutal

>>33844202
The M3 was literally a stopgap used until the US could figure out how to mount a turret with a 75. That's why the M3 and M4 are so similar.

The M3 was replaced when the M4 entered service because it no longer had any reason to be used.

You are full of crap.

>>33844320
>>33844308
The Sherman was also notable for having among the highest survival rates after getting hit among any tank of the war. This can be attributed to the good design/ergonomics and the high quality of the steel used.

>>33844019
>>>/lgbt

>>33843267
Interestingly, the jerry can itself is proof of superior German engineering.

>>33842670
The 88mm meme is real, it was able to destroy most anything it went up against, and only got better with the long barrel version that came later. Sherman Tanks had good speed, but their mobility was so-so. The relatively narrow tracks exerted a lot of ground pressure, leading them to do poorly in some soft terrain. This improved over time, especially with the switch to the HVSS suspension instead of the old M2. As for the Tiger being weak only in the rear, that's only a half-truth. The American 76mm could penetrate it at something like 500m at good angles from the front and sides. The problem with this was that Tigers were really good at sitting far away and blasting everything they could see (1km+). The shermans charging somewhat makes sense, as their best chance for survival is to get close enough to hurt the Tiger and neutralize its range advantage. Why they didn't split up and go for the flanks is beyond me (probably so they could die and look cool). But yeah, shooting the tiger in the ass (where the fuel and other flammable stuff is) is a good idea.

>>33849581
If we're talking about the movie, the 76mm guns should have penetrated the front of the Tiger at the distances they were at.

>>33842670
>Hello /k/. Just watched the movie Fury and had a few questions.
>how can i get /k/lueless autistic /k/ids to respond with over 100 posts?

File: HMS Tiger's gunners have seen some shit.png (817KB, 1035x1190px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1035x1190px

>>33844490

christ

the only job worse(in terms of getting your legs torn off by spall) was being inside the turret of a Battleship

>>33842717

The long barrel ones, or whatever you yanks call your fireflies, yes the 17pdr can penetrate something like 150mm of armour at 100m. The Tigers front plate is 100mm.

However if it was realistic the Tiger crew would have had the hull on a 45 degree angle toward the enemy making the front plate something like 160mm and the side 130mm + the angle. The shermans still could have dicked over the gun mantlest easily, though.

Fury overall is a shitty movie, though. German AT gunners can't hit anything. 4 shermans charge unkown enemy force with no support. Tiger charges 4 shermans with no support and it was entirely alone... The Tiger's round bouncing off some logs on the side of the sherman........ The over big crew compartments (cameras i guess)... That Pak crew in the city scene somehow misses a sherman at like 20m away, they seemed to be aiming for a building for some reason.... The germans are just chilling in that bar or whatever but somehow don't hear the engines of multiple tanks and didnt have piquets...

>>33842723
the early shermans actually had a round developed that could penetrate 115mm of armour at 300 yards. but the army just didn't supply them, kept giving the lackluster 80mm at 100 yards or whatever abysmal crap it was.

The early shermans could kill a Tiger to the side with their crappy rounds out to about 300 yards. Problem is you would be taking fire from about 2500 yards away.

>>33846624
>The Sherman was also notable for having among the highest survival rates after getting hit among any tank of the war. This can be attributed to the good design/ergonomics and the high quality of the steel used.

No no.

The Sherman WAS a little exploding thing until it got wet ammo storage. IT did have a reputation as the 'tommy cooker', 'ronson' etc and was very prone to exploding until it got wet storage. When it did it had a decent survival rate but prior to that no. Not a good thing to be in.

>>33853095
No.

>>33853095
Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

>>33844019
Welcome new friend, here is your "Nigger".

>>33844490
>clearly a Panther
>guy still calls it a Tiger
Everything was a Tiger to American tankers wasn't it?

>>33843227
It also had a higher profile than most tanks making the front easier to hit. It's important to note in a head to head fight even a Sherman 76mm couldn't penetrate a panther unless it was using HVAP ammo and was pretty damn close. Panther had around 150mm RHA frontal armour (not actually 150mm of armour but rather the effectiveness of that due to the sloped design) Although the side armour was incredibly weak with only 40mm of RHA. 76mm was also inferior to the 88mm (both the tiger and tiger 2 88mm) and L/70 7.5cm gun on the panther. It was also inferior to the 17 pounder which the british just loved sticking on their tanks and it was about the equivalent to the 85mm on the newer T-34's

>>33842670
Yes.

AT a distance of less than 100 meters against a 76 M1? No, even at that distance the armor can be penetrated frontally with a crew kill or possible cookoff.

That 88mm round should have never defected of the mantlet like it should.

>>33843363
Logistics is a big part of fighting wars but it doesn't win it on its own. Logistics doesn't do jack shit if your army is poorly trained, poorly equipped and led by a clown of a general.

File: NhmWHA2[1].jpg (107KB, 799x486px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 799x486px

>>33855388
>Panther Armor
>Good

File: 1472931532036.jpg (34KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x355px

>>33845598
>the alternative to a mass produced medium tank would have meant more soldiers running up against those MG42s on foot.

This is easily the most ignored point when discussing tanks of WW2. Everyone focuses on how tanks stack up against one another without recognizing the actual situations they faced on a day to day basis.

Even if you take Shermans as literal deathtraps, crew casualty rates were still far lower than infantry units serving alongside them. Without widespread armored support, even rudimentary defenses with man-portable weapons become meat grinders. That is precisely why tanks were fielded in the first place.

>>33849756 As depicted in the movie (<100m, flat angle) it probably should have penetrated.

>>33853122
Not the same guy, but the combo of poor ammo storage / no blowoff panels and gasoline engines (4 of them) made any hit more likely to be a catastrophic kill via cookoff or totally burning to the ground. Their reputation for this is exaggerated, but real.