Stand aside, the best tank of WW2 is coming through!

File: t44_27.jpg (40KB, 700x401px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x401px

*Blocks your path*
T34-"Who are you?"
T44-"I'm you but better"

>>34006852
its gun was mediocre.

sloped armour did prove to be crazy effective though.

>>34006880
>its gun was mediocre.
Still better than Sherman/Cromwell/Comet/*Insert ally countrpart* gun

>>34006919
Are you including the 76mm variants?

File: king tiger.jpg (212KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 900x600px

>>34006919
>thread about BEST tank of a combat era
>*Insert ally countrpart* gun

We talking Axis boi

>>34006962
That thing was pretty much the same basis as the modern Abrams.
>Put a shit load of armor and a huge gun on a massive slow moving gas guzzling platform
>Wonder how you the rest of your tanks ran out of gas
>Lose war cause the rest of the army can't move through your 70 ton road block

>explodes

>>34006880
It had a good glacis. Also, for some reason, probably by luck, the Soviets didn't constantly fuck up their metallurgy like the Germans did (what use is a well engineered armour layout if you overharden everything?). Nonetheless the T-34s record is really weak outside of some early success.

>>34006958
76 T34 is superior to 75 short M4
85 T34 is superior to 76 long M4
>>34006962
Axis have good guns but lack everything else

>>34006852
*explodes*
>>34006860
*never sees combat*
>>34006962
*breaks down*

>>34006852
>The armor was made of anything drunk peasants could put together. Mostly open sand castings. Which is shit.
>The optics were so poor, most crews used their machine gun tracers to find the range of the target.
>It lacked a fucking turret basket.
> Driver opening his hatch compromised the armor of the tank
>Need a hammer to change gears
>no room inside for anything

Sherman was better because
> Just as reliable
>More comfortable
>Better optics (They actually had optics unlike most T34 tanks)
>had a stabilizer
>Had an actual turret basket so the crew doesn't shuffle around like a bunch of Kansas city faggots while trying to acquire a target
> More than one way to escape the tank
>The hull gunner had his own set of periscopes

>>34007270
The gun isn't worth shit if you can't see your target.

The usual way the soviets found targets was after the enemy tank knocked out a company of friendlies, they could clearly see where the enemy was shooting from.

>>34007298
>The gun isn't worth shit if you can't see your target.
That wasn't problem in T34 anyway

>>34007315
> none/shitty optics

Are you high? Lay of the krokodil.

When the Russians got the M4A2, they attested that it was a better tank than anything they made.

File: -you see ivan-.jpg (79KB, 960x574px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x574px

>>34006852
*blocks your path*

>>34007335
No they attested that it burns like sun

>>34007285
>Sherman was better because
> Just as reliable
Since when was T-34 reliable?

>>34007341

All tanks burn.

>>34007231
>Abrams
>slow moving
Pick one and only one

>>34007401
He means that Sherman is as reliable as t-34
So not reliable

>>34006852

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

2 rouble for you comrade!! Go buy American bluejeans!!

>>34007285
The Sherman was the most reliable tank of the war. They drove across North African, and from Normandy to Germany.
T-34's were on par with Panthers and Tigers when it came to reliability.

>>34007252
Soviets might've just gone for a simpler heat treatment, if any at all.

>>34007548
only the Challenger and Ariete are slower

>>34007612
This is very important. Units with both Shermans and T-34s noted the main difference being Shermans could drive farther.

>>34008460
Is this before or after the train carried the T-34's most of the distance?

File: 800px-B1_bis_'Héros'_Mourmelon_4.jpg (118KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x600px

Lemme get a uhhhh 13 vs 1

>>34008502
I just remember a report noting that several parts on the Sherman would only fail after significantly more stress than T-34 ones, and they should be studied for the postwar medium tank project that just started at the time. Something about the tracks never coming off either.

File: 23000693411_79d5c253f5_o.png (597KB, 645x432px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 645x432px

Blocks your path .

File: 8144995801_bd8a23f9d7_o.jpg (199KB, 1024x716px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x716px

>>34006852
>*Blocks your path*

File: soviet cube thing.jpg (48KB, 900x545px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x545px

*singlehandedly blocks your entire 6th panzer division"

Daily reminder that the 76 mm M1A1 outperforms the T-34's 85mm D-5T and ZiS-S-53 in terms of armor penetration because the Soviets had no clue how to manufacture armor piercing caps worth a shit.


Size doesn't mean shit if your shells fall apart because they're made out of steel little better than pot metal.

File: Strange-German-Tank.jpg (72KB, 547x348px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 547x348px

Blocks your path .

>>34008415
>WW2
>Entered service 1946

wew

>>34007231
>I Know Nothing About The M1 Abrams; The Post.

>>34007285
>shuffle around like a bunch of Kansas city faggots

Slim Pickens knew shit about tracks.

File: P3bviWk.jpg (98KB, 500x215px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x215px

>>34011542

File: 5dbf0324-dd71-4caf-a700-8c5ddb2ae059.jpg (123KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x800px

>>34010280

>>34011569
>stuart
>birtish
I laughed heartily.

>>34008404
What's your point? "Slow" and "one of the slowest" are not the same thing.

>>34011590
The chassis is a Bren Carrier. That is not even a Real M3A1

File: thatsthejoke.jpg (31KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x450px

>>34011653

>>34011653
holy fuck I just realized
god that's brilliant

>>34006852
I'm sorry, is the best tank of WW2 behind the T34-85 in that picture? Should post a better angle so we can actually see what tank you mean.

File: T34.jpg (327KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 2048x1536px

>>34007270
The T-34/76 line was inferior to the M4 Medium in almost every way, except top speed and profile. At 500m the Soviet 3-Inch could get through 62/69mms of RHA @ 0 deg from vert, no slope 50%+ of the time with BR-350 APHE out of L11/F34 guns respectively. The M4's 75mm M3 could deliver a M61 APC(BC) through 81mms under the same conditions. The HEF shell for the American 75mm also had an extraordinary about of explosive filler, making it one of the best general purpose shells of the war, considering tanks encountered infantry and gun emplacements far more than enemy tanks.

The standard M4's had better metallurgy, better effective frontal armor thickness, gun stabilizers, better breach design, radios, (not all T-34s had these until later in the war), excellent movement capability and hatch placement, superior ease of maintenance, etc. The end result is that the M4 was a vehicle that was extremely survivable assuming your ammunition didn't get hit and catastrophically detonate. The T-34 was primarily useful due to its mass production value; it's sloped armor was startling to the Germans, but had very little effect while its thickness held up, (1940-42), due to Stalins orders which placed barely trained personnel into vehicles and rushed them into German death traps. T-34s were butcher en mass. By the end of the war, the armor was being successfully penetrated over 90% of the time from the front, and its claustrophobic interior and poor hatch placement meant crew were being torn to shreds by spalling and burning alive, unable to squeeze out.

Here's a pic of one at the local tank museum, (American Armored Federation). The owner, if memory serves, considered it a rolling pile of junk which earned its reputation by virtue of being so numerous that they ant swarmed the Nazis by 1945.

File: k19IcED1bAM.jpg (128KB, 1200x810px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1200x810px

>>34011569
>Blocks your path .

File: 14952316260140.jpg (58KB, 640x584px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x584px

>>34011923
>T-34s were butcher en mass. By the end of the war, the armor was being successfully penetrated over 90% of the time from the front, and its claustrophobic interior and poor hatch placement meant crew were being torn to shreds by spalling and burning alive, unable to squeeze out.

i like this bullshit. by the end of 1944 t-34 war already replaced by other tanks. heavier and with better guns. additionally the writer of this shit just copy paste the text from cherman description.

>>34007285
T-34 superior tank?

Optics you don't need optics Soviet man has eyes of eagle! Connected to the people so does not need to see out of glorious paragon of working man engineering. (No situational awareness.) and so on...

>>> we are talking about a tank that often had thumb sized holes between hull plates due to bad construction practices.

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/20/tank-clash-the-german-panther-vs-the-soviet-t-34-85/

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

>>34013256
The fact the Soviets replaced it as soon as they had a chance to do it is a good demonstration of need. They had Germans almost taking two of their most important cities and only the fact infantry was more useful in urban defense saved them. So getting some tank better was not the most important thing.

>>34008534
>surrenders within minutes

>>34011923
>The T-34/76 line was inferior to the M4 Medium in almost every way
It was actually vice versa T34 has much more aces than M4

>>34006852
where the hell is that greentext about the T-34

>>34008534
>fucking bolted armour
No, thanks, I'd rather not have a high chance of something bouncing around in my tank at high velocity after every shot to the plate, thank you.

>>34013256
>by the end of the 1944 t-34 war already replaced by other tanks
No, it was not replaced. IS-2 (the actual IS with 122mm) was put into service alongside T-34-85, not instead of it.
And hey, have you ever seen the inside of one? It's not as fun as you think when you have to load the 85mm.

>>34013925
>aces
>T-34 was literally build en masse and expected not to survive more than a few battles
>"Aces" were simply crew changing tanks like gloves

File: 1469742257301.png (101KB, 211x211px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 211x211px

>>34006962
>those treads

File: 1423981764232.png (272KB, 896x5456px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 896x5456px

>>34014544
Diesel engine allowed them to do it without being blown up.

>>34007270
No, soviet guns were largely shit for the war.

Their 76 was inferior to their counterpart's 75s, like wise their 85 performed worse than western 76/77s. They had to use huge cumbersome 122s and 100s to complete with 90s and 88s.

>>34006852
*Meep Meep*

File: 18386941_818090045011562_2053954609_n.jpg (24KB, 480x307px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x307px

>>34010189

>>34007270
Why would you come into this thread and tell lies?

>>34014962
Diesel vs Gasoline had nothing to do with the tanks catching on fire.

File: Tigers.jpg (34KB, 800x544px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x544px

>>34006852
Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list/database of production costs for WWII tanks? Its a crucial variable often ignored in these sorts of discussions.

>>34014962
>muh death traps

>>34006852
>implying tanks were a factor in ww2 ardennes buggaloo

>>34017325
dig through loc.gov faggot we're not going to do your homework for you.

File: yu.jpg (408KB, 1920x1298px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1920x1298px

>>34006852
>Stand aside, the best tank of WW2 is coming through!

best tank to die in

>>34007285
>>The optics were so poor, most crews used their machine gun tracers to find the range of the target
You realize that everyone did this until improved stadia reticles and then laser rangefinders became standard, right?

>>34010862
Prototypes hit the beaches in '45 a few days before Germany surrendered.
Cause and effect ;)

File: T-34 Mod.1943.jpg (246KB, 1024x630px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1024x630px

>>34019144
>Thinking having a built-in ranging gun to supplement your optics is the same thing as using your coax because you pretty much don't have any optics.

>>34014524
which one you lookin for anon? I might have it. >>34013256

>1944 t-34 war already replaced by other tanks
What tanks would those be? The T-44 that never saw combat, or the IS-2 that was designed and employed for entirely different uses than the still very much active T-34? That's like saying the Pz.IV was replaced by the Tiger in '44, or the Sherman was replaced by the Pershing in '45.

>>34013756
Pierre Billotte and his crew singlehandedly took out 11 Pz IIIs, 2 Pz IVs, and some field guns.

But le surrender XD

>>34014962
Where the fuck does this meme even come from? Fuel type had very, very little to do with the frequency of vehicle fires- most were caused by ammo racks getting struck with rounds. Of course, German tanks did have engine fire problems, but that was owed more to poor ergonomic designs for maintenance and the fact that many of their tank designs- the panther and tiger specifically- had to have air tight engine compartments to allow for fording rivers. This meant that any gasoline vapors around the engine, built up and stayed around the engine.


Between the M4 Sherman, the T-34 and the Panzer 4, the M4 was actually pretty unremarkable for vehicle fires and by the end of the war concerted efforts by the US in design changes had significantly reduced the rates. Turns out having ammo racks located so that any round striking the center of gravity of the tank would likely strike an ammo rack was a terrible idea.


>>34007270
The 75 and the 76 for early model M4's and T-34's were virtually identical in performance. This also holds true between the 76 and the 85. Special rounds had been developed- APCR? I forget what kind but it was some composite round- for the 75mm guns that had dramatically superior armor piercing performance but those were never put to production, and similarly the 76mm had HVAP rounds that didn't see significant circulation because it just wasn't that necessary. Most tanks were neutralized by infantry operated ordinance anyways- a German tank crew had more to fear from an anti-tank gun hidden in a forest or some douche with a bazooka or an AT rifle than another tank. Or, you know, their own tanks failing.

Where did this exiting new "Russian tanks had no optics" meme come from?
Soviet sights were generally comparable to American ones, although the M4's telescope lacked the articulation that many other tank sights featured.

>>34007285
>The optics were so poor, most crews used their machine gun tracers to find the range of the target.
That's true of every other tank that lacked stadiametric rangefinders.
How do you think an M4's gunner found the enemy's range?

>>34023057
>How do you think an M4's gunner found the enemy's range?
Usually? Estimating using the size of the target.

>>34006852
ITT: Amerihaes defending their tommy cookers

File: IMG_2670.jpg (30KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 470x313px

>"Not if I have anything to say about it!!"
BBRRRRRTTTTT!!!!!

>>34006852
Most other military forces would've used sandbags, logs or even more tracks as added armour but the soviets were way ahead of their time with their added removable in an instant Infantry armour

>>34024092
>BRRRT
>WW2
Pick one.

File: steven seagal lawman bald outing balding.jpg (32KB, 500x287px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x287px

>>34014544
The T34 was designed to be rugged and simple, and very easily field repairable, no tank is designed to "not survive more than a few battles" are you fucking retarded?

File: Ultra-ShKAS.jpg (20KB, 900x208px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 900x208px

>>34024125
Why not both?

>>34006962
king tiger was shit
>>34007231
you're an idiot. Not at all the same "basis" as the Abrams. The Abrams goes fucking 70 kph, actually has decent reliability, and isn't a piece of shit.

>>34010196
this.

>le my shells are slightly larger diameter than your shells, that means they're better, 85>76 LOLOLOL

fucking vatniks. Been pulling that shit since the 50's

>>34022686
also, the sherman had pretty much the highest crew survival rate of any other comparable tank. If you were a tank crewman and wanted the best chance of surviving being destroyed, you'd take the Sherman