Favorite Tank Thread!

File: m1a2_abrams_l1.jpg (86KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1152x864px

>>34114165
Does it matter what era it's from? Anyways, mainly the good ol' Abrams, especially comfy with the woodlands camo. Hope they give it some of the magic kraut and goy active protection upgrades, babe could use an update.

I also like the Stuart, Jumbo, Easy Eight, Super Pershing, and Patton. All comfy tanks.

>>34114165
I want an M41 Walker Bulldog

>>34114518
that was a very handsome machine

File: M551A1_Sheridan_Armored_Reconnaissance_Vehicle_Fort_Lewis_Military_Museum.jpg (159KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 800x531px

Despite the Sheridan kind of sucking in actually use, I think with a bit more development and the ATGM's working properly it would have been better.

Maybe I just feel pity for an aluminum tank but it's pretty cute.

>>34114773
I'd imagine a super modernized Sheridan would be basically an M3A3 Brad but no dismounts.

Personally, I see having super modernized Sheridans being effective for 19Ds, but whatever.

>>34114773
It looks adorable and that's good enough for me.
9/10 would ship into battle with.

File: m51-super-sherman-.jpg (45KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x431px

M51 Super Sherman

All the sexiness of the A1 cast hull plus HVSS combined with the Mad-Max-style of the Israelis

File: left7.jpg (31KB, 799x334px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 799x334px

>>34114883
I also highly recommend this read here:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5798.0

Basically some dude asked himself the question "What if the IDF had gotten Ex-Nazi Panther tanks and upgraded them like they did in real life with the Shermans?" and tried to make a scale model out of that thought.

File: Merkava IV Trophy.jpg (187KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x532px

>>34114165
>76 mm Gun Motor Carriage M18
>Gun
>Motor
>Carriage

Where in that title do you see the word "Tank" anon?

Also pic related. Until we see T-14s in tan, the Merkava remains the official kebab removal tank.

>>34115083

The M18 is closer to a tank than the goddamn S-Tank.

File: Stridsvagn 103B(1).jpg (481KB, 1920x1241px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1920x1241px

>>34115090
>I know nothing about tanks, the post

WoT pls go

>>34115092

>butthurt swedeaboo detected

File: 1493675200762.jpg (293KB, 1016x568px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1016x568px

>>34115095
>Gets called out on bullshit
>"Better call him names"

Wow, you sure showed me.

>>34115092
Technically that's an assault gun. The strv 103 was considered MBT only because of odd swedish doctrine. It was never proven in battle.

>>34115090
>Strv 103
>Designed to perfectly fit the role of the universal tank (MBT)
>armored
>adequate firepower to defeat both hard and soft targets
>ability to act in tandem with supporting infantry
>ability to act independently against opposing armored forces
>Ability to provide reconnaissance in high-intensity conflict environments

vs.

>76mm GMC M18
>It kills tanks (poorly)

>>34115124
>Swedish doctrine says it's an MBT
>I say it's an assault gun because hurr-durr no turret
>It's never been proven in combat so I guess I'm right.

File: Finnish_StuG_III_Tienhaara_1944.jpg (2MB, 2600x1707px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2600x1707px

STUG

STUG

STUG

STUG

>>34114903
Thanks m8

File: M8 Scott.jpg (44KB, 550x373px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x373px

>>34115147

>>34115133

>doctrine
>something subjective
>mattering in objective analysis.

Yah, nah, go fuck yourself.

File: itsatankdumbass.jpg (187KB, 798x413px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 798x413px

>>34115090
>A Vehicle classified as a tank by its parent nation
>Used as a tank
>And for all intents of purposes is a tank
>Is less close to being a tank than a tank destroyer

Here's a tip. Literally zero physical characteristics matter when classifying a vehicle.

Here's another tip. If you autistically screech about it having a case mate instead of turret then I will refer you to pic related

I hope you have a nice day and that you educate yourself further in the matter.

>>34115133
Indeed, by definition the hardware is an assault gun.

It is the only turretless "MBT" ever and it was never used in that role, so it is questionable to call it such.

>>34115150
By that twisted logic then you would classify the Panther as being a heavy tank, or the Churchill as one too.

Doctrine matters whether you like it or not.

>>34115154
Give me the textbook definition of an assault gun.

Reference it please.

File: Stridsvagn 103B.jpg (91KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x480px

>>34115150
Alright, here's this then:

>Strv 103
>Designed to perfectly fit the role of the universal tank (MBT)
>armored
>adequate firepower to defeat both hard and soft targets
>ability to act in tandem with supporting infantry
>ability to act independently against opposing armored forces
>Ability to provide reconnaissance in high-intensity conflict environments

>An Assault Gun
>designed for use in the direct fire role in support of infantry when attacking other infantry or fortified positions.

Alternately
>Saying a nation's doctrine is irrelevant in your subjective analysis of a tank

Or
>saying you are providing an objective analysis after stating that there is no combat record, and thus no data from which you can form that objective analysis

Any of these doing it for ya?

>>34115156
>you would classify the Panther as being a heavy tank
I mean, the Soviets did when they first saw one. As did the British and Americans, judging the technical documents they got from the Soviets.

Seriously, everyone OTHER than Germany thought it was a heavy tank.

>>34115154
You do realise that an assault gun is a doctrine classification too? It has nothing to do with hardware.

The StuG and StuH may be assault guns and fall into the "hardware definition" you present.

You then have the M8 "Scott" and Sherman 105 which do not. You could potentially argue that the Cromwell VI was one too which also invalidates you argument.

Doctrine matters.

Hardware does not.

>>34115172
>Seriously, everyone OTHER than Germany thought it was a heavy tank.

Its a good job Germany is the only country that matters when classifying it then.

The funniest thing about this thread is that I made one post which triggered two sets of autists to still argue semantics.

>>34115172
Okay... and? Who among them were building and fielding the Panther? (inb4 Bovington Bongther)

This isn't a game where everyone gets a say. You build the tank, you pick what it is. Thus far nobody has been stupid enough to abuse this, and so there has never been a conflict of "you call it an MBT but it doesn't do anything an MBT does" yet. It helps that everyone pretty much builds standard-pattern MBTs now anyway, so it's irrelevant to anything besides tanks or non-tanks that are no longer in service.

>>34115160
Gun in a fully enclosed casemate on a tank chassis. What's your point?

>>34115178
Hey, don't try to take all the honor now, it wouldn't have succeeded without my tactical support.

>>34115184
My point is that your own definition is incorrect.

see

>>34115175

You're applying physical characteristics to doctrine classifications. There i no connection between the two.

File: Ardeer Aggie.jpg (8KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x197px

>>34115175
>Doctrine matters.
>Hardware does not.

I wouldn't go quite that far, at least insofar as doctrine generally determines the hardware that goes on an AFV. Doctrine is generally the deciding factor, but this is not to say that hardware is irrelevant. For example, without knowing anything about their employment on the battlefield, and only looking at armament, one could easily deduce that the Churchill IV was a tank (specifically a heavy tank), and the Churchill AVRE was an assault/engineering vehicle. (pic somewhat related)

>>34115178
>Be wrong on the internet
>Instead of accepting that and learning autistically screech

LOLITROOLU

You just look retarded

File: db0.jpg (40KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 349x642px

>>34115178
>>34115184

>>34115192
>infantry tank =/= heavy tank

[spoiler] Churchills don't share the same characteristics as most heavy tanks [/spoiler]

>>34115194

I literally made one single post. The idiots disagREEEEEEEEEEEEEing with you are not me.

>>34115194
>the autist just cant drop it
Good thing you're acting so mature. :^)

Who would win in a fight?

1 Tiger or 50,000 Shermans?

>>34115176
So it was a heavy tank. Didn't they also have to classify the original literal assaultrifle as SMG just to satisfy Hitler?

>>34115208
50,000 tigers

>>34115201
This is a fair assertion, and I will agree. While the Churchill was the heaviest of Britain's Infantry Tanks, there is a clear distinction between the two classes.

A note to OP: this is how you accept being wrong and learning like an adult.

I choose the Merkava 4M.
Here's why:

*Has an APS, and first to have it in wide active service, proven highly useful recently.

*Universal. The front mounted engine allowed an easy development of an heavy APC, IFV, CEV, ARV, and possibly more in the future.

*Highly protected. It has probably the best armor coverage you can find. The sides are thickly armored all the way from the front to rear, the rear is protected with both spaced armor and slat, and the top is also fitted with very thick armor.

*Highly mobile. If it beat the Abrams in mobility trials, you gotta give it to them. They know how to build mobile tanks. The spring suspension allows driving on sharp rocks at very high speed (55km/h vs Abrams' 40km/h in off-road). As a bonus, the heavy springs are made of armor-grade steel, and provide immense protection against IEDs.

File: Merkava lollipopped with turret still attached.jpg (47KB, 538x599px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 538x599px

>>34115608
>The spring suspension allows driving on sharp rocks at very high speed

File: oplot_m650.jpg (76KB, 650x357px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 650x357px

T-64/80 and their variants make me rock hard.

>>34115608
>armor-grade spring steel
Full retard, never, etc.

>>34115083
>if the name doesn't contain the word tank then it's not a tank

Well I guess there's no such thing as French tanks since those are called "Chars" and german "Panzers" are not actually tanks either.

Or perhaps you just have autism and need to take a nap before you have another tantrum.

File: foto_6_1420606801-ss-o-73814a2a41e697113363c89da107c291.jpg (230KB, 928x619px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 928x619px

>>34114165

M4 Sherman, a hero rejected by its homeland.

File: 15996212_1363478553686144_1436075381_n.jpg (32KB, 690x430px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 690x430px

>>34114165
Not liking this semen demon

>>34115142
Best answer of any thread ever.

File: stugiiifbg_4small.jpg (70KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x420px

STuG III F. because it's cute

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

167KB, 1024x680px

"tank"destroyer. this thing to me sounds incredible, packs the 88 and what doesn't sound cool about "hunting panther"

File: hellcatbestcat.jpg (9KB, 188x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 188x200px

>>34115126
>poorly

The 76mm m1 with hvap could penetrate 178mm RHA at 1km. That's pretty fucking good considering what it's mounted on

>>34115083
He's right, a tank is defined by how it's used. The S-tank is a tank. The British Mk IV was a tank. The M18 is not.

>>34115150
Yes it matters you retard. I guess the Panther was actually a heavy tank because it was significantly heavier than allied medium tanks and closer in weight to allied heavy tanks.

File: download.jpg (12KB, 308x164px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 308x164px

"Super Pershing". One of numerous experimental high velocity 90mm tanks of the late 1940s, only two were shipped to the European theatre. Out of those, one saw combat. Due to normal M26s drawing fire and being knocked out quickly, some engineers chopped up some boiler plate and a Panther's frontal upper glacis and attached them to the modified T26. The Mad Max monstrosity allegedly jousted with a Tiger II and won. Ultimately the long 90mms were dropped due to ammunition advances making the conventional, smaller 90x600R more effective. The single piece long 90s were around a meter long, making loading a nightmare in the cramped turret.

>>34114773
Sheridan was the last US airborne AFV and worked rather well in Viet Nam where tracked mobility was more important than being invulnerable and unable to drive in jungle. Now all TAFV must be invulnerable landships and mobility is irrelevant since if we can't easily drive somewhere it doesn't need tracked firepower.

The ideal US tank today is an Abrams crossed with a Merkava crossed with an Idaho class BB. Everything else should have tires so tanker MOS have less reason to exist.

Once the US discovered Airborne infantry don't need firepower and can conquer any foe by beating them to death with their tacticool athlete penors, Sheridan retired and AGS was cancelled. Infantry are so awesome we should scrap all the other troops and their systems. If you can't carry it on your person you don't need it, except for AMC aircraft to deliver Airborne so they can seize the airhead and become combat pedestrians.

Sheridan being an ancient design its termination made sense, and contested air assault against a capable opponent is as totally obsolete as contested beach assaults so no one but Russia is serious about doing it. The US can't afford the losses in our recreational wars.

File: T-90.jpg (75KB, 700x468px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 700x468px

I just love how T-90 looks like, it's battle capabilities are low/none against other MBT's cause it's old construction and all it's downsides. but that doesn't matter, it looks just beautiful.

>>34115608
>heavy springs are made of armor-grade steel

No, they are simply heavy springs.

BTW if Abrams were fitted with Davis suspension they'd outperform conventional suspensions, weigh less and have higher XC speeds.

Unfortunately while Davis suspensions have been proven for decades in military testing, budgets are so tight and procurement so bizarre they've not made it into production except on first responder vehicles and mining equipment (total success) and a few military prototypes whose parent programs were cancelled. I've been out of touch with them for a few years so dunno current program status.

http://davissystemsintl.com/company.html

File: BT-5_ftleftview-credits_Yuri_Pasholok.jpg (442KB, 800x464px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 800x464px

CAVALRY TENK NEVER DIE

FAST FAST B L Y A T REMOVER

>>34115608

> It has probably the best armor coverage you can find

If you call having a ridiculously thin frontal upper and lower glacis of borderline just RHA and the engine to be "best armor".

>>34116947
>allegedly
kek
are you a lawyer?

File: 1495315500471.jpg (427KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 2048x1365px

>>34115641
Over-modernised tanks in general are fucking hot. There's something arousing on seeing a 30, 40, even sometimes 50+ years old platform being upgraded, upgunned, rearmored, protected and have the old warrior face new threats. I know that this sadly isn't widespread in the West apart from some projects for poorfag countries, but the East Bloc countries and Israel are doing a great job at it.

>>34114165
Aesthetics
>Comet
Role/Capabilities
>Matilda II

The Matilda was such a glorious tank, completely immune to German anti-tank guns forcing them to utilize AAA to kill them, plus its gun wasn't half bad either.

>>34117386
>Matilda II
>Tank designed for infantry support
>mounts a 2pdr with useless HE

try again

>>34117411
Could rape German tanks without the Germans being able to do anything about it. However if it makes you feel any better the KV-1 or Char b1 which were both similarly nearly immune to German guns.

>>34116862
It was an adequate gun for the time the tank was initially designed, but by the time it reached Europe the M36 was already the superior choice. The thing about tank destroyers is that, in theory, they should be able to destroy the tanks they face. We can argue day-in and day-out about how many Tigers, Panthers, and Tiger IIs US forces actually saw, but the fact is that if your tank destroyer cannot fulfill the role of killing them without putting it's crew in extreme danger (thank you, General Bruce).

It was fast, and fast is good and important for a reactionary force like the US TD Battalions, but fast at the cost of armor and firepower (the latter being the hallmark of a successful tank destroyer) is not an acceptable trade off.

The M18 did well thanks to the training and bravery of their crews. The success came in spite of the vehicles features, not because of them.

File: Churchill VII.jpg (28KB, 550x332px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x332px

>>34117473
>Could rape German tanks without the Germans being able to do anything about it

Is that why they were already phasing them out by 1941? Is that why after North Africa the British dropped it like a hot rock? Is that why it's performance against German tanks doesn't change the fact that it was a poor choice for what it was designed to do?

If you're going to pick British infantry tanks, at least pick the only one that wasn't complete shit.

/k/ always seem to forget that the STRV 103 was not the only MBT in use during it's time. The Swedish variants of the Centurion were also used in large numbers well into the 80s and the last 80 Centurions weren't taken out of active service until 2000, well after Sweden had bought it's first Leopards.

The Swedish army was well aware of the limitations they had with the STRV 103 and the role it was to fulfil was more akin to that of a traditional tankdestroyer than a MBT while the Centurions were to be used as traditional MBTs.

>>34117490
Literally it's only drawback was the gun and that was only a late war problem. It popped panzer 4's no problem and Panthers at all but the least advantageous angle. Obviously the m36's 90mm gun was superior for knocking out the tigers 1 and 2, but it came with drawbacks of its own. Dismissing the vehicle because it couldn't reliably destroy the latest and greatest is just silly. It's like saying rpg-7 was a failed experiment because it can't pop Abrams, merkavas or challengers.

>>34117473
It still amazes me that the Germans had such big sucess in France and initially in Russia while having less and worse tanks than France and Russia.

>>34117009
>worked rather well in Viet Nam where tracked mobility was more important than being invulnerable and unable to drive in jungle
the m48 was better at jungle bashing and better armored. cav troopers preferred the m48 to the sheridan in vietnam

>>34117268
works for the abrams...

>>34117544
>The Swedish army was well aware of the limitations they had with the STRV 103 and the role it was to fulfil was more akin to that of a traditional tankdestroyer than a MBT while the Centurions were to be used as traditional MBTs.
this is completely wrong

>>34115169
You're like that guy who singlehandedly memed the "Gavin" nickname for the M113 into existence.

>>34117613
yep. using history and facts is just like meming gavin for the 113

>>34116947

" Irwin described this German tank as a Tiger, but Zaloga was skeptical of this claim."

>>34117560
If you were going to war against a force armed with either the M1, Challenger, or Merkava, and touted the RPG-7 as your front-line apex anti-tank weapon, then I'd say you have failed to provide an adequate anti-tank measure, and thus a poor one.

The M18 was not some stopgap "Throw these at the enemy and hope it works" vehicle like the German Marder series. The M18 was the final evolution of what General Bruce wanted the tank destroyer to be. It's thin armor was well known and dislike by crews, and it's ability to perform road marches at great speed meant nothing in combat, where the open top and aforementioned lack of armor caused crews to move about the battlefield more cautiously than their fully-enclosed tank counterparts (many of whom shared the same firepower with the benefit of greater ammo capacity and armor)

Also, the M18 was entered the war in summer of 44. It's entire career was as a late-war tank destroyer. You could make that argument for the M10, but the M18 is a very different beast.

File: IMG_9961.jpg (168KB, 1124x752px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1124x752px

Can't beat the AMX 13 for me
It's cute and speedy, plus it takes only 3 people to operate.

>>34117540

im guessing he meant against earlier german tank models

around 1941 however it was becoming obsolete

for supporting infantry their tanks were alright

>>34117595
Nope, the STRV 103 was to be used primarily for defensive combat and was designed for defense in depth while the Centurions were to be used for attacking.

One of the reasons Sweden abandoned the STRV 103 similarity in designs during the long test and evaluation to replace it was that keeping a STRV 103 style MBT in the armed forces also meant Sweden needed a secondary MBT to efficiently use for attacking.

Please post your soruces though.

File: slick-tank.jpg (16KB, 411x295px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 411x295px

i really like the aesthetic of the centurion

>>34117654
>posts bullshit and gets called out
>"post your sources though"

>>34117647
Goddman that is cute

File: m18_90mm.jpg (80KB, 959x529px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 959x529px

>>34117640
Well alright. I'll concede the point then, because it certainly was at odds with it's intended purpose. I don't think that makes it a bad vehicle though, just not properly employed. Conceptually it had some really good things going for it, like an engine compartment that would slide out on rails for quick and easy maintenance. Also, it isn't relevant to the argument since it was never actually developed, but there were two prototype m18's with 90mm guns installed. With a muzzle break, the size and recoil of the larger gun showed to have marginal if at all noticeable effect on it's overall performance

>>34117673
>I want to learn your position
>LOL fag retard it's not my job to educate you

>>34117654
>The S-tank was conceived as an offensive weapon, considered equal in role and
performance to the foreign tanks then in development.

http://tanks.mod16.org/2016/08/19/stridsvagn-103-was-not-a-tank-destroyer/

>>34117718
indeed, you'd do poorly if that was your job

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

84KB, 800x600px

>>34117701
Well spoken. I want to make clear that the M18 was not a complete failure, but, as you said, simply in the wrong place. It's no coincidence that one of it's immediate predecessors, the T22, would be developed into one of the Army's primary reconnaissance vehicles.

The M18 was a well built vehicle from an automotive standpoint, no doubt about it, and the 76mm gun provided a significant firepower advantage over vehicles like the M3, M5, and M8. In a similar role I would argue that the M18 would have been a highly successful reconnaissance tank, if not a bit redundant given the introduction of the M24.

>>34117701
Even with all the faults, it was a very successful design. IIRC, it held the highest kill to loss ratio of the war.

File: Kv2.jpg (58KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x452px

out of my way capitalist pig dogs

>>34117750
See
>>34117490
>The M18 did well thanks to the training and bravery of their crews. The success came in spite of the vehicles features, not because of them.

It was an alright design muddied by Bruce's "Gogga go fast!" approach to tank destroyer design.

The real amazing factor here is the ability of American TD crews to face down an enemy who, effective or not, has built up such a formidable mythos among your own ranks.

>>34117817

mythos means little when you can still die like any other human i reckon.

nothing wrong about respecting your enemy

>>34117817
It's not like the armor really mattered all that much though, in my opinion. A hit on a sherman with anything PaK 40 or higher means it is going to be knocked out. The only way around this is more armor, or to not get hit. Typically, the first penetrating hit won because the crews would scuttle at that moment. What the M18 gave you is a small, fast TD with a gun that was powerful enough to frontally engage everything except Tigers at range and Panthers. That, coupled with an open top design, allowed it to be useful in ambushes and hit and run attacks. While the crews had a lot to do with it, the TD was also important. You couldn't take the same crews and get the same results if you put them in Stuarts or Greyhounds. The biggest disadvantage I see with it is it being more vulnerable to German FlaK guns and smaller cannons like the 50mm and short 75mm. This would lend it to be used more situationally, of course, but that is the point of having a specialized vehicle as such.

I see your point, but I think you should give a bit more credit to the design and doctrine of the TD.

File: image.jpg (401KB, 1450x890px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1450x890px

>>34117330
>poorfag countries
The modernizations of old American Lights are all really cool.

File: Panther Showing Off.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

Haters gonna hate

File: panzer468_v-vierspaltig.jpg (118KB, 760x428px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 760x428px

>EXCUSE ME OFFICER, AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I BEING DETAINED?!

File: Baneblade_with_Infantry.png (1MB, 947x532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 947x532px

The only thing to hate about it is that it doesn't exist.

File: damascus-syria-1.jpg (136KB, 1368x1026px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1368x1026px

>>34114165
T-55.

In particular old T-55 models that are still being used. The combination of old Soviet ballistic shaping and the effects of decades of (dis)use give it a great look. Old warhorses and all that.

>>34119281
>*breaks down*

File: IMG_1772.jpg (364KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1600x1062px

>>34117009
>Sheridan was the last US airborne AFV

Not for long.

>>34119737
yep, the marines are known for their parachute ops

>>34119753
Who said anything about the USMC.

>>34119803
the dipshit who posted the marines

File: IMG_1773.jpg (304KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2048x1360px

>>34119824
>he doesn't know

Those aren't marines.

>>34119942
deep down we're all marines

File: M41frontright.jpg~original.jpg (56KB, 640x475px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x475px

M41 Walker Bulldog
Aesthetic as fuck
used in lots of old movies
pretty decent light tank
widely exported

File: 1481338432532.jpg (718KB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 4096x2304px

I like the boxy Leopard 2s.

>Looks like a Tiger
>Has powerful main gun like the Tiger did in its time
>complete with identical-looking clone to MG42

File: 9781849087759PB.jpg (855KB, 3001x2203px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 3001x2203px

Iron coffin

>>34119942
If those aren't marines, why does it say "USMC" on the side of the hull, smartass?

File: real M10.jpg (81KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x430px

Mine favorite tank ist das Wolverine. I like it's lines und turm.

>>34115218
I feel sorry for you. The maintenance hell that's going to be

File: Who is Best girl.jpg (396KB, 1000x1776px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1000x1776px

filename relevent

File: 1380612176283.jpg (149KB, 1000x587px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x587px

>>34125429

>>34117562
>French tanks
>1 man fucking turrets
>Good

File: JT.jpg (93KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x414px

King tiger:

>Fuckhueg
>way too heavy
>inpenetrable frontal armor
>gun powerful enough to kill anything at any range it could hit (possible exception is the 1944 mod IS-2)
>slow
>unreliable

and then hans decide they need something
>even bigger
>even heavier
>even slower
>even bigger gun
>no turret

I'm sorry, but what the fuck is the point of the damn Jagdtiger?
no fucking clue

Does it mean i dont love it? hell no

>>34125489
The Jagdtiger was built as a cheaper alternative to the King Tiger. Think about it. You don't need to waste resources and time on building a turret. Get the Chassis built, slap on a 128mm gun and have fun.

>>34125668

forgot to add. At that point the Wehrmacht was on the defensive. So you build defensive minded vehicles in that situation.

>>34125679
its was just worse than the jagdpanther in that regard

>>34125690

Yes, the Jagdpanther should have been a primary focus, but the King Tiger was building built by the hundreds in late 44 - early 45. They couldn't leave all those chassis unused, so might as well get it out there as fast as they could.

It follows the example of Ferdinand Porches arrogant assumption he would get the Tiger contract and proceeded to impress Armaments Minister Speer with 100 Tiger (P) Chassis ready for final outfitting at the earliest convenience. He didn't get the contract and there were 100 unused Tiger bodies. So they slapped 88's on them and that's why the Elefant exists. Got to use everything you have.

File: Hetzerfus.jpg (241KB, 1381x991px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1381x991px

>sempai don't l-look at front glacis... uuuguuu

File: jagdpanzer iv.jpg (403KB, 2048x1482px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 2048x1482px

underrated beauty

File: Panther_II..jpg (134KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x600px

>"Haha Fritz, you are a genius with this Panther II.... wait... what do you mean you fixed the Panther teething problems and added side plating... ack, mein work ist for nothing... NOTHING!"

File: hummel-101.jpg (36KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x350px

op

File: British_tank_design.jpg (125KB, 600x575px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x575px

Why is it that the bongs can't place a drivers hatch without creating a weakspot that is penetrable even by modern autocannons?

>>34125756

They don't like input from others. They start mumbling about rule Britannia and two world wars and a world cup.

File: mexas.jpg (102KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x768px

Sup'

>>34125787
is that a piss bottle on top?

>>34124984
Save yourself some embarrassment and do a cursory google search.

File: Challenger 1 Mk3 Tankfest 2009.jpg (1MB, 2136x1424px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2136x1424px

Can't beat that Challenger 1 turret aesthetic.

>>34117540

>Is that why they were already phasing them out by 1941? Is that why after North Africa the British dropped it like a hot rock?

It wasn't phased out. It fought in France, it fought in Africa, and then it spent the remainder of the war bitchslapping Japs. Matilda II was one of the few tanks to be in existence before the war began, and still be in a useful role when the war ended.

>>34117590

Abrams at least has thick frontal lower glacis, which effectively is the entire frontal armor, unlike the Merkava.

File: IMG_0797.jpg (121KB, 800x607px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x607px

>>34114165
Panther, now and forever.

I love they way this thing looks, even more so with it's rear and I have no idea why.

Not going to lie, I'd have babies with this tank.

File: ASU_85_98789465.jpg (360KB, 1600x959px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1600x959px

>>34125429
>>34125438
Sauce on this please?

>>34128039
you should be ashamed to ask.

dirty fox is a universally loathed /ak/ artist who can't draw shit

File: Untitled.png (627KB, 1919x995px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1919x995px

>>34127567
Are you literally retarded?

>>34128374
>82nd airborne
>marines

File: 1304292407043.jpg (741KB, 2040x1329px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 2040x1329px

>>34127640

I see your Challenger and raise you 2

>>34131385
Feels longest confirmed tank kill man.
To add insult to injury: It was a rifled barrel.

File: h1.jpg (162KB, 1280x834px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1280x834px

If Terminator was a tank

>>34131405
Not insult to injury when we're talking the Brits: they adore that HESH life.

File: Challenger1.jpg (1MB, 2840x1860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1860px

>>34131442
what are the advantages of HESH

>>34119281
25% of the drive train lifespan used up right there

>>34119281
There's a reason why the Panther or the Tiger didn't see much service past WW2, but Pz4's and StuG's did.

>>34131487
It's more like a General Purpose round, it can deal with armour and infantry

>>34131442
The salt is not quite there but it's certainly tangible.

>>34117654
The SOLE reason similar designs was abandoned was due to proper vertical stabilizers.
When the S-tank was designed there wasn't any.

The swedish army did tests you know.. S-tank wasn't even a full second slower than the centurion to fire and hit even while going full foward and shooting at a target 90 degrees to the side.

Once decent gun stabilizers where developed it was a moot point, turrets became king. But not when the S-tank was primarily active.

File: Sturmtiger.jpg (19KB, 450x325px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x325px

>tfw no 380mm gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSNMkOwWs8

>>34131612
It wasn't HESH as well, it was APFSDS.

>>34131487
They're really good at talking out fortifications and light armor due to the fact that they're built to spall, not penetrate. For heavy armor they have APFSDS though.

>>34131714
Nothing beats firing HESH into a fully-packed APC and thinking of what would happen on the inside.

>>34131731
Unless there is any sort of spaced armor, like the Warrior IFV that took a friendly fire HESH and no one died.

File: ZTZ-96.jpg (214KB, 1280x831px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1280x831px

>>34131807

File: ZTZ-99.jpg (196KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x960px

>>34131833

>>34131824
Well it is practically explosive paint.

File: BMP-1.jpg (2MB, 3000x1974px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1974px

>>34131824

BMPs wouldn't be so lucky

>>34131704
For what reason do you need a gun that big

>>34131852
BMP would look like a jar of strawberry jam.

>>34131888

Fortification clearing was it's intention. Causing chaos was what it ended up doing.

>During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (a total of 7 units), and attached them to the 6th SS-Panzer Armee to take part in the battle. The Sturmtigers were originally tasked with using their howitzers against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to effectively hit the bridge. During this action, one of the Sturmtigers in Sturmmörserkompanie 1001 near Düren and Euskirchen hit a group of stationary Shermans tanks in a village with a 380mm round, resulting in nearly all the Shermans being put out of action, and their crews killed or wounded.

>>34131969
Imagine being the tank while being hit by that.

File: Panzerjager_V_Jagdpanther_Sd_Kfz_173.jpg (86KB, 1104x517px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1104x517px

hnng

File: T-72-20130822-rBgw2w.jpg (194KB, 1600x865px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1600x865px

My choice is the simple and humble T-72.
There's a reason they're so common. When new, they were extremely fearsome and today they're still adequate for anyone not facing a more modern Western tank.

>>34115083
Fucking autism, go shit up another board you no-friends fag

File: the beast 2.webm (3MB, 1067x600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1067x600px

>>34132164

>>34132118
Too bad it's unlikely to face anything but itself.

File: Renault_FTeam.jpg (990KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1920x1200px

>>34114165

>No love for the Renault FT

Lets fix that!

File: T-62_2.jpg (2MB, 2250x1458px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1458px

I have a soft spot for round turret tanks

File: pzkpfwiv.jpg (99KB, 473x646px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 473x646px

>>34125429
poor panther girl and her bad ankles. pz.kpfw.iv a qt, though

File: 1382518062617.jpg (442KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2000x1333px

>>34132236
It'll work against itself, and has many times. 125mm HE is pretty good for infantry support as well. Which seems the be the role that the T-72 has found itself in most of the time.

>>34132614
That's not a good thing.

File: 5b5df8106e2f6c391c4a5e1b60db63f7.jpg (72KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 736x552px

she's a big girl but I still like her
>tfw never saw combat

File: tmp_22626-panzermadels-character-1892234647.jpg (58KB, 400x540px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x540px

>>34132581

M4 >>> your shit tier tank waifu

File: Tank_dac800_5854395.jpg (94KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x601px

>>34133628


pffft

>>34131537
It's a pivot turn. It's neutral steer that destroys the final drive.

>>34125787
T H I C C

File: m103_03_of_88.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

>>34133050
she is most definitely a big gal

File: p40-26.jpg (153KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1024x768px

The Sherman killing iron coffin. I wish these things were actually used by the Italians before they surrendered.

File: M84_of_the_VRS.jpg (500KB, 2050x1397px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 2050x1397px

>>34114165
M-84, its basically a T-72
Only because my dad drove it in the war. Survived 3 rpg hits and once they got it stuck when they were plowing trough a house.
I was riding in it as well at the end of the war, around the barracks.
The tank is now in Serbia, i think, maybe they still use it or maybe they sold it, i dont know.
Could be in Kuwait as well

File: Christian-Fry-Hangar-Office.jpg (119KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1000x500px

>Favourite tank
>Not favourite aircraft
uncultured ground swine need not apply

>>34134623
THICC

>>34134752

Wehrmacht and the RSA used the p40

File: tank.jpg (216KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1920x1280px

>>34114165
I'm biased but I like merks. Mark IV specifically.
Though I have to work with them so I have to like them.

File: fae804faee1aa7ab387c38ec07bc664e.jpg (181KB, 1233x767px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1233x767px

>>34134784
>not picking what is basicly a hot rod mossie
for shame sir

File: 146844.jpg (283KB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1800x1196px

>>34134809
I prefer axis planes to allies

My personal favourite, the Dora series.

File: imagesDNGY0O5X.jpg (7KB, 337x150px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 337x150px

>>34134824
very nice, i do love some of the german planes

>>34132624
>>34132236
Great argument, you've really brought some fantastic points

>I don't like it

File: zsu_23_4_shilka.jpg (95KB, 600x435px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x435px

GET OOT OF THE FUCKING THREAD YOU FUCKING INSECTS

File: Il-28_01.jpg (153KB, 1300x768px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1300x768px

>>34134842
surely tovarishch, you would not shoot down another russian?

File: 9918e51ca3743ff10a0ffb78442c6444.jpg (40KB, 300x230px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x230px

>>34134850
this is a tank thread
all tanks of all places are welcome
make a thread of your own

>>34117769
*falls over*

File: renault_ft_17_by_ogurki-d48t7zn.jpg (241KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1032x774px

>>34134858
allright, you win

File: bf109-nose.jpg (56KB, 800x549px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x549px

>>34134858
How about fuck you and I keep posting aircraft now because you are being a dick?

File: bf109-formation.jpg (38KB, 800x569px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x569px

>>34134891

>>34123614
>boxy tanks.
Hhhhnnnngggg

File: F8F Bearcat.jpg (27KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x427px

>>34134784
Love me a cool cat.

File: AntonovA40[1].jpg (22KB, 513x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 513x293px

>>34134784
>>34134858

>>34134910
came here to post this

File: giphy%20(2)[1].gif (3MB, 308x219px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 308x219px

>>34134891
this is my favourite jet

File: semple-tank.jpg (63KB, 700x554px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x554px

outta the way you shits

File: Il2_sturmovik.jpg (42KB, 650x234px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x234px

>>34134910
>>34134924
Hey guys look I found another flying tank

File: pz II luchs.jpg (53KB, 600x349px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x349px

cute!

>>34134933
>no turret
nice try, that's a SPG
tanks only

>>34114773
DOD definitely need light tank.
Seriously IBCT, airborne and non-airborne lack enough firepower.

>>34134943
>tfw he's right
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1486588863703.jpg (540KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 2000x1333px

does anyone have a spurdo version

>>34134778

zanimljiv sam, pricaj dalje

>>34114502
>post 1960 tank
>3 man crew
absolutely disgusting

>>34117640
>touted the RPG-7 as your front-line apex anti-tank weapon
the RPG-7 isn't a front line anti tank weapon any more
it's for shooting everything more lightly armoured than a tank
so basically, it's for shooting everything that isn't a tank, but needs shooting

>>34115218
>be American
>be presented with a choice
>X or Y
>choose unicorns and popsicles
This is why America doesn't win wars.

>>34117070
>it's battle capabilities are low/none against other MBT's
ha
it's got 125mm with Ruskie magic missiles and decent enough optics/electronics
kilo for kilo it might not compete, but it's still formidable

File: Dank Panther 16.jpg (56KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x581px

Reminder anyone talking shit about the Panther is basing it off the buggy Ausf D and not the reliable Ausf A that broke down less than cheap shitty commie T-34s and Amerifat M4 Shermans, and the only reason it didn't continue service after the war besides in France is that only Germany was advanced enough to maintain a vehicle so far ahead of it 's time

>>34123614
>>complete with identical-looking clone to MG42
merkel's buzzsaw

>>34128039
Look at the filename.

File: BMPT-72.jpg (27KB, 501x293px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 501x293px

>>34131421
BMPT-72 "Terminator"

>>34135070
Well, that doesn't change the fact it was insanely expensive and sophisticated to produce and therefore inferior to T34s

t. a Wehrboo

>>34132236
And maybe some T-62s and T-55s

>>34125005
...that wolverine looks funny

>>34135117
the panther wasn't that expensive tho it was "only" twice the price of a t34

>>34135117
Not much more expensive than a Panzer IV (((Wehraboo)))

>>34134979
>you're interesting
>talk further

Dad got into a motorized brigade because he was a trucker, we had some tanks in Bosnia but most came from Serbia including his.
My mom worked on the tanks, electronics and shit.
I was born during a famous battle to break trough and make a corridor, even today you can see that corridor on the ethnic map of Bosnia.
He had many stories but only talks about the good ones.
Like the time they were arguing who will hit the mosque tower, the commander started hitting everyone because shells were expensive and a hillbilly paid for it because he hit it at the base so that the tower falls over the cupola and wrecks the entire mosque.
Then he talked about the time they occupied a croatian village in bosnia and since alcohol was in very short supply and high demand they celebrated when they found a distilling setup with all sorts of sugary things in the bowl to ferment instead of just plum slosh.
They politely asked a local captured croat to drink a liter of rakia, to see if its poisoned then they didnt knew what to do when he drank a fucking liter of it in a minute at gunpiont.
He got only alcohol poisoning and they dont know if he lived or not since they didnt want to treat drunks in the medic tent.
Then he told me about the time the volunteers from Serbia, mostly criminals and gyppos, were guarding the tanks sides, going into buildings of the street he was supposed to pass trough.
Thats where he got hit 2 times but only at the front because there were battles going on in the buildings and no rpg could reach it from the side (kind of what the fucking SAA should be doing).
After capturing the neighborhood, the criminals started evacuating industrial machines, appliances and all sorts of electronic shit.
Dad had to drive the tank pulling trailers full of goods.
Gyppos tied a cable to the tank and then he pulled the thick underground copper wire, gyppos even took all copper from the houses too.

>>34134979
He talks with great pride how the crew once got super drunk and wanted to piss off the local warlord smuggler that owned a gas station.
They shoved all the fuel the station had into the tank and into a cistern then shot at his golf 2 that was parked there.
He never had the balls to try and retaliate because the entire brigade wanted the smuggler dead. He was way too protected by political figures and other scum that flocked in from Serbia.
He was responsible for arming muslims in Bihać, sold them mortars and shells and got paid not only by the muslim soldiers but buy muslim politicians.
Dad also did business with bosnain croats when he towed the artillery and shells services of which the croats bought, 3000 DM a shell to fire at muslims.
The commander gave a few on the house, then the muslims started paying too.
Thats the 3rd time the tank got hit in the tracks and they evacuated themselves and the tank.
Before the croats assembled a great army to purge the serbs from croatia, the yugoslav specialists came to confiscate The Ox, which was the name of the tank.
It remained in the eastern outskirts of Banja Luka guarded by Serbians, its where i rode on it few day after the war ended.

>>34134979
Dads favorite movie is Kelly's Heroes

File: Grant_Command_001.jpg (128KB, 1024x665px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1024x665px

My favourite tank is the M4 Sherman.

>>34133628
"i have a flail attachment if you're into that"

>>34134940
jingles pls

>>34134623
for you
>>34125429
Panther qtest here
>>34132581
Panzer IV had such a perfect pussy in the full frontal assault patch desu lads, clearly best girl in Panzermadels

File: 1480049848011.jpg (195KB, 1046x843px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1046x843px

>>34134971

>>34135461
>Panzer IV had such a perfect pussy

i had to look that up and holy shit you are right

File: MBT-70_Aberdeen_Speed_Test.jpg (132KB, 1367x902px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1367x902px

I have a fondness for tanks that didn't really pan out.

>>34134824
>Tfw have seem the D-9 irl

Gorgeous plane... Really

>>34135967
if you ever find yourself in moscow before may, make sure you get near the Tupolev's that are practicing before their parade

>>34136689
i meant before May

File: image (1).jpg (167KB, 1366x735px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1366x735px

i like improvised stuff

File: 1479212339719.jpg (151KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1200x675px

>>34136727

File: snad land monstrosity No. 1.jpg (279KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 2048x1365px

>>34136730

>>34115149
M8s are the lolis of tank porn

>>34135138
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/panther-tank-disguise-m10.html

File: amx.jpg (133KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x768px

AMX ELC because of it's intended purpose and interesting design.

File: FB_IMG_1490363658601.jpg (51KB, 845x845px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 845x845px

>>34117009
>recreational wars

>>34136735
The mighty War Badger rides again!

File: 1407677503097.jpg (69KB, 862x508px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 862x508px

>>34136735
how hard would it be to get one of these rolling today, nvm the fact they dont exist

>>34134959
"want to see me go 60-0 in less than a second?"

>>34138326
ERA, Shtora and Arena are missing on it.
It would be a legendary tank if it had those accessories on it 20 years ago.
Who ever faced it in combat would shit blood

>>34133628
>>34133676
t-34 and sherman are qts, too. didn't include them because they weren't on the original image. also, haven't heard of that patch...

>>34135054
>3 man crew
niggawat

>>34135070
>the reliable Ausf A that broke down less than cheap shitty commie T-34s and Amerifat M4 Shermans
kek

File: m22-locust-bastogne-barracks-belgium.jpg (76KB, 650x459px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 650x459px

I can help too!

>>34134982
does it even turn?

>>34138950
Fuel was stored in the between the tracks: on the one hand, it's diesel so minimal risk or fire and it absorbs vibrations...
On the other: WHY?

>>34114165
M18 GMC is a Gun Motor Carriage, not a tank.

>>34139552
Did you not read the thread? Or are you the same goober from earlier

>>34135070
>weighs 50 tons but has side armour vulnerable to AT rifles

>gunner has *no* vision devises besides the narrow telescopic sight

>even if the transmission *were* reliable, you still have to remove the hull roof and crane it outta there to do any significant maintenance

ok

File: M26firing.gif (3MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x360px

I'd have to say my faves are M26 and IS-2.

>>34139968
a PTRS/D could not penetrate the panthers side armor

>>34140024
Still, 40-50mm, even sloped, is disproportionately thin for a 50 ton tank. M26 Pershing had ~76mm side armour while being several tons lighter.

>>34125429
Jesus christ you anime fags need to go. Two bombs wasn't enough.

File: Capture.png (2MB, 1920x975px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x975px

>>34129380
Not to fuel the flames... but the 82nd was on a joint exercise with II MEF Marines that is why your seeing the army with LAV-25s

>>34129380
I have a hard time understanding why the vehicle says USMC on the side?

File: M32(narita)-1.jpg (29KB, 483x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 483x250px

recovery tanks make me turgid

>>34133050
M103?

File: eafe7e57340b33a20bd6814a5c0a46dd.jpg (46KB, 736x513px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 736x513px

>>34134795
Mainly as static defense positions because a lot of the P40's were built without engines. I'm not able to find much info on how well the tank did in combat either.

>>34140124
Because they borrowed our pigs to drop out of planes those fucking faggots.

>>34135138
Nein. You're just seeing things, mein Amerikan freund.

>>34140024
Only after the Panther was outfitted with side skirts, before that 14.5mm could penetrate the side.

>>34117743
>provided a significant firepower advantage over vehicles
And the M4. Particularly considering that the M-18 was better adapted and crews trained for tank hunting.

>>34114165
NOT A TANK

>>34131841
>>34131833
Somebody give me the rundown on Chinese tanks. Similar doctrine to soviets I assume? Good in general or stats still quite secretive?

>>34139968
>gunner has *no* vision devises besides the narrow telescopic sight
Maybe if the Americans were able to make telescopes with decent FOV, articulation and adjustable magnification they wouldn't have been so desperate to have to fit two different sets of sights on the M4.

>even if the transmission *were* reliable, you still have to remove the hull roof and crane it outta there to do any significant maintenance
As opposed to having to pull the front of the tank off and crane it outta there to do any significant maintenance.

File: chinese_tanks_1.png (581KB, 1870x1574px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1870x1574px

>>34142621

File: chinese_tanks_2.jpg (208KB, 1452x391px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1452x391px

>>34142766

File: 17212151_10155144299632658_1100024663557537753_o.jpg (327KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 2048x1360px

>>34140092
The LAV-25's were crewed by 82nd airborne soldiers, they have USMC markings because they were borrowed.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/517224/3bct-lav-live-fire
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/the-armys-82nd-airborne-is-preparing-to-use-a-marine-vehicle-for-airdrops

>>34142668
>Panther gunner sight
28 degree field of view at 2.5x magnification
14 degree field of view at 5x magnification

>Sherman gunner periscope
42 degree field of view at 1x magnification
11 degree field of view at 6x magnification
>Sherman gunner telescopic sight
13 degree field of view at 3x magnification

Not gonna lie, the Sherman gunner had better options.

File: 136.png (96KB, 731x319px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 731x319px

>>34142952
Factor in the periscope's four milliradians of slack between the gun, the telescope's awkward positioning, the lack of articulation necessitating the gunner moves his head to follow the sight as the gun elevates and depresses, both sights generally mediocre lens quality and the fact that most M4's lacked commander's cupolas meaning that when buttoned up the commander had very little vision, meaning the gunner had to put more work into finding targets.

>>34143290
>M4 periscope sight
>M55 telescopic sight

Try being a little more honest with your comparisons.

>>34143290
I don't think you want to bring up a comparison of the ergonomic in a Panther.

>>34119341
The Emperor smiles upon us today.

>>34125735
Lehr had tons of them for Normandy. Just the L/48 guns though at the time.

>>34134940
I'll ruin that tank for you right quick. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>https://derpicdn.net/img/2016/12/1/1307646/large.jpeg
Wanted to throw up when I saw this.

File: T69_1.jpg (197KB, 1023x680px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1023x680px

>Love the history of armoured warfare
>Fascinated by prototype/blueprint vehicles of all types
>If I try and combine the two in a thread, get accused of being a 'WoT kidde'

Props to the game for making so many interesting and obscure vehicles playable (even if half of their tanks are straight-up fictitious), but fuck the shitty armchair expert fanbase it spawned.

>>34144132
The brief run of American oscillating turret tanks get brownie points for smexyness.

You're all so full of shit

>>34141361
at point blank and 90 degrees on the earlier versions with only 40mm sides, maybe. other than that, no way

>>34136735
>>34136730
Imagine what a HEAT round would do to those

>>34144360
or HESH even better

>>34114773
What exactly do manufacturers combine with the aluminum to make the tank impermeable enough?
Surely it's not just aluminum.

>>34124984
>Whyzit says USMC
Because
U
Suck
My
Cock

File: Jagdpanzer_IV-70(A)_Saumur-museum2.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>34125735
>>34144022
Last surviving jagdpanzer iv/70 has seen some shit... And there's a shell still embedded in it.
Surprisingly it was still operable in that state and was put to use by the French.

File: Beautiful.jpg (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

>>34123614
I really don't care if it's armed with ERA's or APS's, but when will the Germans learn to move away from box / flat armour?

The Nazis messed the Tiger up pretty bad and it still ended being a meme to the Allies. They had Tigers before Panther (prioritisation) when they just would not admit that sloped armour are way superior.

That turret just turns me off.
Now make way for the most beautiful tank of all time.

>>34135099
>numbers
?????!!!

>>34144386
nothing they can do really. duraluminium is most likely used bc it has the needed tensile strength.

>>34117009
>recreational wars

Sides in orbit atm

>>34135068
Consider doctrinal usage though. T-90 and its predecessor were likely not made to vs Western tank like a 1 v 1 match-up.

Considering the Soviet/Russian industry, high mobility of these tanks means that they are used for mostly offensive purposes and assault (doesn't mean they can't still be used for defending, just not on the West level)

With that said, you wouldn't send a T-90 against a M1A2 and its derivatives to expect results. A platoon of these guys supported by infantry makes more sense.

File: Chrysler_multibank.jpg (1MB, 2498x2493px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2498x2493px

>>34142668
>Maybe if the Americans were able to make telescopes with decent FOV, articulation and adjustable magnification they wouldn't have been so desperate to have to fit two different sets of sights on the M4.

Because reducing time between spotting target, and getting the sights aimed to it, as well as being and to spot it in a turret down position, is a useless feature according to you, apparently.

>As opposed to having to pull the front of the tank off and crane it outta there to do any significant maintenance.

Because it unbolts from the outside, and you don't have to remove the entire interior of the driver's compartment? It took several more hours to remove a Panther transmission than an M4.
>German Big Cats have a reliability measured in a few hundred KM's.

>Meanwhile we just slap 5 car engines together to make pic related, and test vehicles can go 4,000 miles before the engine has any significant problems.

>>34132337
source of foreground, right?

>>34144532
i'm not sure if you're joking or really don't know shit

File: ERCpA5_I6Tw.jpg (234KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1280x782px

The venerable T-72 gets my vote, especially the early B variants

The first one might not get you, but the other three will.

File: 1447979705108.jpg (184KB, 774x386px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 774x386px

Ossies get bonus points for aesthetics

>>34144708
Even if it proves to be standing up to the latest tank cannons, the Leopard 2 doesn't look aesthetic to me. And it really is true that the idea for Tiger was thought up before the Panther.

Consider the shock received by the Wehrmacht which drove them to go for sloped armoured tank like Panther. I'm not even sure if Panther is even going to enter service if they never faced T-34's

>>34144739
The sun will kill us before the enemies get to anyway

>>34116846
What's with the grid patterned armour on the jagdpanther here?

>>34144756
Zimmerit coating.

Anti-magnetic. Stops the mines.

File: Leopard_AS1_2.jpg (423KB, 900x586px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 900x586px

>>34144739
cunt?

File: cold-war-8-057.jpg (2MB, 2813x1908px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2813x1908px

>>34144808
nah m8

>>34144744
i implore you to read "tigers in the mud"