Why couldn't any of the other nations in WWII create anything

>>34430806
Because only the Soviets really needed or could make use of the T-34. The US could afford a better made tank that actually took less man hours to build. The German's issue was mostly related to manpower and wouldn't be able to make use of a tank like the T-34.

>>34430843

>Better

During WWII?

>>34430806
Communism. Other nations had private companies. They build stuff to make profit for company and create job places for country. USSR build tank for war.

>>34430860
Yes? The Sherman had higher quality steel and just as much sloping. The 75mm was more effective than the 76.2mm and the 85MM was only about as effective as the 76mm. It also had a transmission and final drive suitable for taking the tank cross-country on its own tracks, while the reason you don't hear about the T-34 having a transmission as bad as the Panther's final drive was is because they had plenty of spares on hand and would just leave the tank sitting where it was if they couldn't be assed to rip the thing apart to replace the transmission.

It's not really a contest. The T-34 even took longer to make, somehow, despite being a remarkable crude vehicle.

>>34430860
Yes.

>>34430860
Also I'm not posting the images of T-34 hull welds with visible daylight through them because I'm being merciful.

File: 32525.gif (3MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x203px

>>34430806
>he fell for the t-34 meme

>>34430806
>>34430843
Soviets had many tanks but the T-34 and T-70 chassis were the most ideal for both role and production followed by the IS chassis late war. Most T-70's were turned to SU-76's. The T-50 has an honorable mention as being sort of an earlier but more portable T-34 with later period APCR 45mm shells that would have about the same performance of penetration to the legacied 76mm field gun shell.

>>34430933
It would be, if it weren't for the fact the T-50 was prototyped after the T-34 was in production. And speaking again to the armor quality used in T-34 production, the thinner armor of the T-50 was actually more effective at stopping shells then the armor of the T-34 because they actually used steel that was worth a fuck on the prototypes. It never progressed beyond the preproduction stages but it did see limited trial service, in which one was captured by the Finns and pressed into service.

File: besttank.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>>34430806
T-34 best tank ever create)))))))

File: Tanks WW2.png (343KB, 640x429px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 640x429px

>>34430806
The thing that made the T-34 effective was the efficiency of its production more than anything.

The Germans, naturally completely missed the point and ended up building a delicate bespoke expensive maintenance whore when they tried to copy it.

>>34430904
please don't be merciful, I wanna save them up for anytime in future someone tells me T-34 was best tank

>>34432069
The sherman with the long 76mm was the better tank, but those seemed to be output only later into the war.

The T-34 can be credited for its earlier qualitative superiority against early german tanks, and latewar numerical superiority against german tanks.

85mm was also much more useful with its larger HE rounds too, same could be said with the IS series's 122mm. But both suffered from russian guns being varied in terms of quality which reduced muzzle velocity.

>>34432088
Alot of small things made the difference.
Hitler himself wanted a 50mm on the mark 3 before Barbarossa, but only got it halfway through. Making more Stugs, Mark 4s and maybe afew panthers would have drawn germany's war for far longer.

T-34-85>m4-76 long>t-34-76>m4-75 short
YOU LITERALLY CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG

File: 1497162734363.jpg (7KB, 300x285px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x285px

>>34432088

File: 1496672769886.jpg (55KB, 639x606px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 639x606px

>>34432088

>300,000 man hours PER TANK

holy fuck

Could you imagine spending all that money and labor to make something like that and have it blown to pieces a few days later?

>>34430806

Because other nations had actual engineers and designers.

>>34432069

wew lad.

>>34432100
>Go back to 1940
>Convince Hitler to convert the entire Panzer III line to StuG production
>???
>StuG Lyfe

File: Panzer IV.jpg (3MB, 4168x2698px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4168x2698px

Why do you compare the Sherman and T-34 to the Tiger when the Tiger was a heavy tank and just about 1000 of it were built?
The German counterpart would much rather be pic related.

File: Panther.jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

>>34432232
Or even the Panther or StuGs, but not the Tiger.

File: 1479318299313.jpg (687KB, 1599x1000px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1599x1000px

>>34430806
Why would you make mediocre tanks when you can make better tanks?

>>34432238
Panther looks so sexy, but why was it so shit?

>>34430806
That orange-black stripes and star look so fucking ugly holy shit why did they put it on their tanks during those parades?

>>34432276
>but why was it so shit?
because it was rushed into production by autistic hitler, also it's side armor was a bit weak, the HE capabilities of the gun were insufficient, the optics weren't well suited for close range and the transmission on the early models were unreliable.
Also it was often driven by inexperienced crews.
All these issues could have been ironed out fairly easily under better conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38

>>34432141
or gets abandoned once it runs out of fuel, or it's transmission breaks and it's abandoned

>>34432276
Rushed. If they'd take the time to fix transmission and engine it would've been an excellent tank.

>>34430895
>The T-34 even took longer to make, somehow, despite being a remarkable crude vehicle.
The Sherman was manufactured in fewer hours thanks to a high level of tooling and automation in US factories, which greatly improved production line efficiency. Had the Americans made the T-34, they'd have done it with greater quality and consistency, even quicker than they did Shermans.
But the Sherman was best tank so there's no need.

>>34432282
Man, Hitler did ruin everything for everyone, innit.

>>34432302
>But the Sherman was best tank so there's no need.
Wasn't it, like, very tall?

>>34432127
>t-34-76>m4-75 short
>YOU LITERALLY CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG
I don't need to, you already did.

>>34432306
>Man, Hitler did ruin everything for everyone, innit.
Germany would have lost anyway, no matter how good the weapons could have been (except maybe if they developed nukes). But in the sense of declaring war on everybody and betraying the German people, yeah, he did ruin it for anybody.

>>34432306
The Sherman was quite tall, yes. Around the height of a Tiger II.
But in practical service, it had many 'soft' factors which made it a significantly better service tank than any other, despite apparent shortcomings in 'hard stats'.

>>34432302
>But the Sherman was best tank so there's no need.
WE ARE STANDING TALL BECASUE WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF NAZIS EVEN IF WE'RE VISIBLE FEW KILOMETERES AWAY!

File: 1477173695464.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>34432282
In short, it wasn't the tank fault.
Also it wasn't that shit like people make it out to be.

File: Shermans destroyed in Peruggia.jpg (2MB, 2159x1601px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2159x1601px

>>34432316
>WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF NAZIS EVEN IF WE'RE VISIBLE FEW KILOMETERES AWAY!

a little later...
(joke, i know the Sherman was a good tank)

>>34432308
t.retard. T3476 can pen. tiger from front while m475 can't

File: 1490544143553.png (291KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 500x514px

>>34432321
>T3476 can pen. tiger from fron

ITT: Tommy cooker internet defence force

File: comettankisbesttank.jpg (15KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 282x179px

>>34430806
The Comet was a pretty good medium cruiser.
Don't forget the Centurion; Britain's copy of Germany's copy of the T-34.

>>34432321
t. retard
75mm Shermans killed Tigers from the front, even using HE and WP. There's more to a tank than armor penetration in mm and armor thickness in mm.
The 75mm Sherman was superior in every important respect to the T-34/76:
More reliable
Better crew comfort
Better visibility
Better SA
A radio
Better turret drives
Better ammo
Better parts life
Better armor quality
And so on.

>>34432324
>extremely reliable
>easy and cheap production
>good at every task expected from a tank
>good crew survivability

except for (long-range) engagements with powerful AT guns and heavy tanks it was a very good tank, just not the super machine it is sometimes claimed to be.

File: 7DrN5DJ.jpg (317KB, 1808x1017px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1808x1017px

>>34432326
>Britain's copy of Germany's copy of the T-34.
More along the lines of "Britain's counter to Germany's counter to the T-34". Neither was a copy- the Dalmier prototype for the Panther was more a copy, but was not selected.
Likewise, the Cent was a very different beast to the Tiger and Panther, not a copy.

>>34432339
>75mm Shermans killed Tigers from the front, even using HE and WP.

Any source on that?

look at all these fucking fake nazis

YOU GOT YOUR ASS REKT IN BY THE t34

DEAL WITH IT AND PULL THAT SWASTIKA SHAPED DILDO OUT UR BUM

>>34432346
Source:my favorite hollywood movies
dog bless america

File: post-7344472-0-08824400-1405881061.jpg (452KB, 1000x1435px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1000x1435px

>>34432346
Ask and ye shall recieve

>>34430806
Americans kinda did and they've did it better.

>>34430806
Because they valued human life more than the Russians

>>34432238
Panther was really above T34's/Sherman's punching weight.
>>34432306
>Wasn't it, like, very tall?
About 50cm taller than T-34, 30 cm taller than Panzer 4, 10cm taller than Cromwell, 15 cm shorter than Panther.

It was quite tall but irl it mattered a little.

>>34432313
>Around the height of a Tiger II.
WELP.

>>34432312
Well, I've read a thing or two on how they could do (As opposed to how they did) and, at least in Russia, they lost on their own request. The way they treated the people there, who weren't very fond of the commies and didn't gather enough allies (namely Funland and Poland).
It could've happened differently.
Anyway, I was more about the StG44 fiasco as well as Panzer4/Tiger/Panther thing going down. Ah well.

>>34432395
Seriously, where did the "Sherm a tall" meme came from then? I swear to God, someone made me a fool.

>>34432367
>>34432379
got to be rough when the post right after yours makes you look like a retard.

File: img_1059-1024x768.jpg (317KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1024x768px

>>34432407
I believe this pic is from the Littlefield collection.

>>34432395
>Panther was really above T34's/Sherman's punching weight.
not for the 76mm M4 or T-34/85 on normal combat ranges and/or from the sides.
>>34432407
allying with the occupied territories could have helped a bit but the industrial power of the British Empire, the USSR and especially the US was just far greated than that of the Axis.

>>34432413
>implying he believes anything noted down by ((((them)))

>>34432069
>those welds
wew lad

File: 14778583771230.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>34432069
kek

I can see the Factory that created this T-34 in the great war.

>Be Woman in Soviet Union
>WW2
>Husband Send to frontline
>You neighbor Rapes you
>Send to Work in Tank Factory
>Mother Russia Strong
>Become Welder
>Master Welder Rapes you
>You Husband Die in War
>The Comissar Rapes you
>You Drunk
>Time to Weld

Cykaaa ))))

>>34430895
Stopped reading at
>"same sloping as t34"
Retarded kid or a dedicated Ken m tier troll Reddit fag or something either way kick rocks

>>34432379

You believe this? Lmao

>>34430806
it was only by 1944 that the T-34 had the more "spacious" turret.
while many innovations came with the T-34, it was still destroyed in combat in greater numbers than any other tank.
so overall maybe not so good.

File: T34_rear_view_at_Sinsheim.jpg (2MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2736px

>>34432069
Does anyone realise that its a photo of the engine cover and rear removable (hence bolts) plate. It is not meant to be welded...

>>34432605
>so overall maybe not so good
Only way to judge would be to find out Soviet M4/M3 or losses and compare them.

>>34432617
still would not change the fact that it was destroyed in greater numbers overall.

>>34432617

>comrade commisar i have question, why does t34 blow up when penetrated? why doesn't sherman tank blow up the same way?

>>34432413
>>34432506

See? >>34432601

>>34432431
The Brits were pretty much dead at one point and without the influx of European pilots and with Germs playing smart marine warfare they could've been kept in check (invasion would still be out of possibility tho) IMO.
Would America act against such odds?
I reckon the USSR would have tough time getting over the Uralus and back again, especially with out their leaders (Stalin didn't flee Moscow IRL and in this timeline Krauts could actually capture it, no?).
Anyway, that's some "alt history" BS, so whatever.

>>34432418
I don't know, Sherman is not really taller than the other one, but still looks like it would be, because of how the front panel looks and how the whole silhouette looks narrow-iss. But it can be me.
Cheers.

>>34432306
The T-34 is less than a foot shorter than the M4.
>>34432568
A difference of less than 15 degrees is irrelevant. Please, keep pretending that invalidates the fact that even with marginally less slope the armor was still more effective.
>>34432321
>a worse gun pens more than a better gun
Slavaboos are fucking hilarious.

>>34432937
>Sherman is not really taller than the other one
The Sherman turret top is roughly on the level of the Panther's cupola, and the Panther also isn't a short tank.

>>34432695
I'm going to assume that he's baiting, but it's so poor that you get the (You), he's undeserving.

>>34432097
No, Shermans with the short 75mm gun were more than adequate against Panzer IVs of the time.

>>34430860
To give you an idea, the T-34 was built using US-made factory equipment on a suspension type that the DoD deemed obsolete. The US could have built a carbon copy of the T-34 if they wanted to, but they didn't since the T-34 has limited modularity and ergonomic issues that many people tend to overlook. Soviet crews liked the M4 Sherman more because the interior was livable even if it meant a slightly higher profile.

On the other hand, the Pershing and Patton series were derived from studies of the Panzer III, whose suspension they viewed superior to what they had.

>>34433101
Post the actual US trials of the T-34 and KV-1. That'll be good for a fee laughs.
>the US only half-jokingly stated that the air intake and filter assembly was likely designed by a saboteur

>>34432088
This is why Germany lost. You build field an entire Sherman PLATOON, logistics vehicles and all for the price of a single kitty.

>>34432613
Of course not, this is a board for Americans, and Americans here act exactly like vatniks and Wehraboos, thus everything non-American is utter shit while Sherman's gun could nuke a Tiger from 3km.

>>34433124
>platoon
You mean company.
And then give it to a fucking infantry division.

File: fender_underside.jpg (61KB, 649x615px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 649x615px

The T34 was so poorly built that the pins holding the track together weren't locking, to save miniscule costs they just added a piece of protruding metal to push the pin back in to place

File: img_72_21916_2.jpg (219KB, 1280x1268px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1280x1268px

>>34432395
>About 50cm taller than T-34, 30 cm taller than Panzer 4, 10cm taller than Cromwell, 15 cm shorter than Panther.
75mm Shermans were 274 cm tall over the turret hatch, 76mm shermans were 297 cm over the turret cupola.

pz iv ausf h was 268 cm

panther was 299.5 cm

cromwell was 249 cm over the antenna mount

t-34 was 240 cm-252 cm. t-34-85 was 270 cm

>>34432418
that's the canadian war museum

>>34432506
where's the proof WWII even fucking happened tho

>>34433889
Where's the proof Tigers were ever built? All the ones in museums are the result of a conspiracy.

>>34433987
where's the proof you even exist? For all I know I could be speaking to a bot.

>>34434058
how do you know that YOU are not a bot? maybe we are all bots?

>>34433148
>this is a board for Americans
where in hell did you come up with that "fact"?
i am an american, but i'm not hung up on the origin of the weapon systems like so many other /k/ommandos are.
the designs should stand or fall on their own merits/demerits.

>>34433849
russians are obsessed with low profile, yet every one of these american tanks could depress their main gun further than any russian can.
which in hull down means smaller overall target.
lower profile means less overall space and limited gun depression.

Have some copypasta:

A mechanical engineer friend of mine went to Aberdeen a while ago and looked at the T-34, Sherman and PzIV.

The gun mantle on the T-34 was a ragged, torch-cut piece of steel. Like they handed a recruit a cutting torch and said "Cut this out", because part of the cut was pretty good.
The Sherman mantle was a bandsaw-cut slab of steel.
The Mk. IV mantle was cut on a bandsaw... and then the slab of steel had all the machining marks ground off with a sander, and all corners chamfered at 45 degrees.

The T-34 fender was a piece of bent steel with an upward lip, welded on with brackets, and could be fabricated and attached with hand tools.
The Sherman fender was three pieces of stamped steel welded together with a bead along the top, designed to maximize use of machines and can be welded by a beginner.
The Mk. IV fender was bent in a "saddle curve", and then welded together with a through weld, which requires a very skilled welder, and then the weld ground smooth which requires an expert touch with the grinder.

He said that, as an engineer, the T-34 was designed to be built by unskilled labor, the Sherman was designed to be cranked out like
automobiles, and the Panzer IV was like a $25,000 custom-built hunting rifle

>>34434389
>and the Panzer IV was like a $25,000 custom-built hunting rifle
maybe starting out, but not for long.

>>34432252
because you can make a lot more mediocre tanks than you can better tanks...like 20x more....

File: M51 Sherman.jpg (109KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x531px

>>34433148
>Sherman's gun could nuke a Tiger from 3km.
Tbf,they could.

>>34434515
>Judische Physik

>>34433347
There is the context of the war as well, American tanks were being made in nice factories stateside.
For a time, Russian tanks were rolling out of the factory into the battle without paint because the Germans were withing grenade-throwing distance of the front door.

The Soviets were also a good 15-20 years behind the rest of the world when it came to industrialization as well.
To them, it didn't matter if the quality was questionable, the vehicle just had to survive 2-3 battles then be replaced by a new one.

>>34434515
Yes, after being upgraded for decades

>>34433124

Brought to you by the same country that kept wasting resources on the V-2 rocket, killing more people during the production than during than it killed civillians when it was used.

File: IMG_3621.jpg (54KB, 564x465px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 564x465px

Out of the way

>>34434593
>There is the context of the war as well, American tanks were being made in nice factories stateside.
For a time, Russian tanks were rolling out of the factory into the battle without paint because the Germans were withing grenade-throwing distance of the front door.

Did this really happen throughout the T-34 production? Did they move the factories inch by inch towards Germany?

>>34434728
Note

>For a time

Up until Stalingrad, the Soviets were consistently loosing ground against the German forces.
After going on the offensive, they weren't going to slow down production to make a moderately better vehicle. Soviet brass wanted to keep pushing the Germans back.

For them, it was better to churn out as many vehicles as possible, simple replacing losses with new vehicles.
This is also where the oddities of Soviet vehicle loss reporting is noticeable. For them, if you were unable to fix a tank in the field, it was written off as a complete loss.
Other armies at the time would record these vehicles as damaged, repaired and returned to service.

File: 158f6c33-f5db-49e0-95bc-d04623a1753e.jpg (17KB, 636x348px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 636x348px

>>34430806
Because everyone else were too busy making tanks that weren't shit... well maybe not the Japs,

File: IMG_1175.jpg (31KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 220x293px

>>34436405
Apologize

>>34433124
considering they had slave labor to build them and less trained men to crew them it was more intelligent than u think

File: carro-armato-m13-40.jpg (74KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x550px

>>34436405

Lemme sing the song of my people
When we built tanks so shit people wanted to drive tankettes instead
When we refused Skoda tanks and Panzer IIIs
When Hitler himself offered the plans for the PzIVs and the Panther

And we kept building these

Just a friendly reminder that the Soviets managed to lose more T-34s than Germany had AFVs. Yes. The USSR lost more T-34s than German production for the entire war. This isn't including losses of other tanks which were astronomically huge as well.

Friendly reminder that 85% of total production was lost in the field.

Friendly reminder that more T-34s were lost than Shermans produced.

Friendly reminder that the T-34 didn't even have a turret basket and the crew had to shuffle inside the turret when it moved.

Friendly reminder that the T-34 is "the best tank of the war"

File: sherman.jpg (46KB, 639x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 639x480px

>>34430806
They did.

>>34437203
You are mostly correct, but still:

Friendly reminder that T-34 was still a better tank than anything Germany produced.

File: T-34-122.jpg (13KB, 271x186px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 271x186px

>>34434598
Which is exactly what makes the Sherman a better tank than the T-34. After a certain period of time, the T-34 hit a brick wall in modularity that means modern examples in service today are either field guns unable to use their turrets due to the turret ring being too small or are still using the stock 85mm where Shermans have moved onto 90 mm guns and larger.

File: 1467151646519.jpg (161KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 900x600px

Fun Fact

Norks still use them.

>>34437733
>Better than Germany
>Lost to literally inferior vehicles
>Still claims MUH BEDST STANK OF DAH WARRR

>>34433347
Fucking this, >>34437203

to put things into concept though, the tank was only designed to last a couple of battles so engineering and tooling up little track retention pins was not needed and saved time / resources.

File: PochNuk.png (351KB, 597x384px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 597x384px

>>34437893

The German built an improved copy, but didn't put it into production because they couldn't be seen to be using Slavshit. Then they built the Panther which is just a T-34 loaded down with extra German engineering.

>>34434623
to be fair if the V2 program had fully come to fruition it very well may have been a game changer, out of all the stupid wunderwaffe it was the one with the most potential. everything from the R7 to the tomahawk to saturn and soyuz are all built upon the foundations laid by the V2 and other german missile programs

imagine a V2 combined with the guidance tech from the fritz-X used against allied shipping. all the men and materiel in the world can't do anything from the bottom of the atlantic.

>>34437203
>the crew had to shuffle inside the turret when it moved.

They had seats suspended from the turret ring.

>>34430895

Pretty much.
The only really unique part of the '34 was the dual start V-12 diesel. The M4 was otherwise better in all other respects.

>>34432418
hey just visited there recently, fun stuff.

>>34434478
The Ausf.J just makes me feel bad.

>>34437982
Read up on the T-34 tank commander that defected and saw a T-34 in a museum. Up until that point he thought it was a modern and effective fighting vehicle, and only then did he realize they sat his happy ass in a literal metal coffin.

>>34434711
What tank is this and why is it so important?

>>34438180
Got some proofs?

>>34438242
just like 76mm shermans and the pershing, etc

>>34438439
um...char b1 bis

>>34438445
not that anon, but try jentz, spielberger, etc, for the first part of the post. the second part is a bit of hyperbolic trolling, agreed

>>34438439

French Char B1. You know all the stories of Tiger 1's wiping out whole formations of lesser tanks? That's what the Char was doing to Panzers during the fall of France.

>>34436639

Slave labors don't mean you can afford to waste labor.
If they could pump 300.000 man-hours into building a single tank, why not pump them into making 10 slightly less good tanks ?

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

319KB, 1920x1080px

>>34430806
why doesn't /k/ compare tiger tanks and panther tanks to their true counterpart: The IS-2 and its derivatives? The t-34 is literally an early war tank similar to the panzer iv.

>>34438833

Because wehraboos need to feel good about their heavy tanks pwning medium tanks 5 to 1.

Also the IS series was seemingly pretty mediocre. Of course extra points have to go to the T-10 which continued in use long after it's "medium" tank brethren had surpassed it in armor, mobility and firepower.

>>34432683
wet stowage

>>34434530
>*Fabrik

>>34434711
>surrenders

>>34438833
The IS series was developed in response to the Tiger, Panther is a more apt comparison. The Tiger itself was developed to combat the KV-1 / T-34

>>34432321
How do you know that? What actual documentation supports that claim?

>>34434623
>30 TONS of potatoes

>>34439000
even before wet stowage, shermans would burn while t-34s tended to blow up

>>34439163
And Shermans were the easiest of all to egress to boot.

>>34439165
except for the loader for most of its production run, who had to try to scuttle under the gun after the tc and gunner had gotten out

>>34439165
>35 seconds to escape a Panther's top hatch
>it's also the only hatch
If you weren't a retarded Brit, Shermans were p safe.

>>34430806

They did. The M4 had sloped armor on the front and was more reliable than the T-34 in addition to being far more ergonomic.

The Panther had sloped armor and a better gun as well as being far more ergonomic.

The T-34 is vastly overrated, which is not to say it's not a good tank, it is, but it's far from the be-all, end-all of tank design, even in WW2.

>>34430806
I hate to break it to you, THE ZERG RUSH ALWAYS WINS!

File: PMM013.jpg (57KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x333px

>>34439179
>it's also the only hatch
niggawhat

>>34439211
Even when it has to ride a clutchless transmission that gives out in 75km and has to be shifted with a hammer?
>>34439228
It's a bit of a squeeze.

>>34439246
>It's a bit of a squeeze.
the majority of tank hatches are

>>34437733
>and we only had to outnumber their inferior tanks 50:1 - 10:1 with our superior tanks to minimize losses to 200 - 50% per campaign

>>34438614
Too bad B1 had nothing going for it besides it's armor.

>>34432252
"Better"? as in "More M4 Shermans?"..

Gotcha.

>>34439136
[screams in irish]

>>34439269

At the time it's gun was bigger than most opponent's armaments.

>>34432276
> but why was it so shit?

terrible engineering.

Ten + tons over design weight, paper thin side armor to compensate, made basically by hand.

This is in addition to the innumerable existing issues the Germans had with making any tank in real volume at the time.

>>34432317


Sorry Yukari.. Kay is right. The M4 was better, and the M26 was it's far better.

Love it all you might, the Panther was an evolutionary dead end, and a massive waste of resources.

Love your PzKfwIV.. It at least was reasonably reliable, and served well.

>>34439312
Fuck off autist.

>>34434389


Mantle and rotor shields on most M4's was a precision casting/machined component.

Hunnicutt's books are what you need to read.

>>34439324

How about you go fuck yourself, assblasted boxhead.

>>34439289
It's debatable. The 47mm cannon wasn't that powerful and the 75mm one was extremely hard to operate thanks to very limited space inside the tank.

>>34439350
>Says the guy literally roleplaying with an autistic chinese cartoon on the weapons board of autistichan

Fuck

Off

>>34439352
Lack of crew to properly serve the very good 47 did not help.

It was a very good ATG in it's time, but hampered by ridiculous French doctrine.

>>34436599
???

>>34439371

Oh teh noes, you seem ..-disturbed-.

Perhaps you should fuck off over there, when people who actually know what they are talking about are having a discussion.

>>34439396
gb2>>>>>>>>>>>>>/a/utism

>>34439163

Nonsense, the "burners" were ones that overloaded their stowage. Usually with HE stowed everywhere.
Properly stowed a M4 was literally the safest tank of WW2 to crew.

>>34439409
You first, you hugbox craving maniac.

>Its a it was all the Brits fault and no American shermans burned episode

>>34439428
You are literally role playing to an autistic, imaginary character on an image board dedicated to weapons

I don't know If i could explain to you how utterly pathetic and sad that is. I don't think I can find a correct expression to encompass how autistic that is.

Get help.

>>34439420
i was praising the sherman there, retard. it's better for it to burn than explode. 60-80% of shermans burned before dry stowage. improper ammo stowage definitely played a role, but those are big numbers. and i don't think that you can literally say that without citing some studies. to be frank, i'd rather be in a late churchill

>>34439378
I need to slightly correct myself. While the 47mm was actually quite powerful (definitely powerful enough to destroy any German tank from long range) and quick firing it's potential was very limited thanks to one-man turret being used in the B1.

>>34439175
True, but the casualty rate was generally about equal for all crewmen. It was mostly a matter of not being the guy nearest the penetration.

I'd be curious to see if any data got specific enough to show if there were higher rates of loaders killed during a fire. I bet it would be the case, but the only data I've seen combines all combat kills not specific types.

>>34439436
>Its a it was all the Brits fault and no American shermans burned episode

Yep.

Unlike German tanks using low octane, absurdly volatile fuels, and shoddily constructed fuel systems that burst into flame with absurd regularity..

Oh wait, you probably believed "Death Traps" and think that " High Octane aviation fuel " is actually "More volatile"...

Stand by while I laugh at you.

Okay..
"No, it is not." All U.S and LL M4/s excluding the Diesel variants ran on the same U.S. Mil Standard 80 Octane fuel as every other gasoline/Petrol powered bit of kit in the U.S Inventory.

>>34439496
>No American Shermans ever burned ever
>Not ever

>>34439512
Just to spite you, I'll say "and No other tanks ever burned, in far greater volume".


Asshat.

File: Bt42_parola_2.jpg (524KB, 1199x978px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1199x978px

>>34430806
Step aside for the true king of the battlefield.

>>34439548
>No American Shermans ever burned ever
>Not ever
>Literally what you said
>Being the deluded
>Being this blinded by shermanism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
Wehraboos BTFO

File: Bob Semple Stronk.webm (3MB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x377px

*blocks your path*

File: post-68-1176070909.jpg (119KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x480px

>>34439576
>Shermanfags on suicide watch

>>34432141
This is why you don't get jews to work in your factory. That tank could have been build in 300 white man hours.

>>34439641
You'd think the jews would be horrified at the last of efficiency!

Think of all that money going up in smoke.

>>34439654
the money is going into their pockets

File: IMG_3919.jpg (71KB, 720x543px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 720x543px

>>34439641

>>34439588

Oh look, boxtanks on life support.

>>34439654
90% of their clocked hours were spent complaining.

>>34439669
Which then goes back into the economy when they go to happy camps.

File: trubia_naval_credits_rojoyazul-net.jpg (14KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x270px

>>34439582
Is this /raretanks/ thread now?

>>34439707
no wonder the germans were voting nazi

>>34439211
>t. someone whose never played any of the Wargame series

>>34438421
I can't find it

>>34438421
Source?

File: Italy enters the war.jpg (227KB, 1280x961px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1280x961px

>>34436867
People would have wanted to drive tankettes anyway.

>>34430806
This link pretty much covers evey problem with the T-34 in explicit detail,it is well worth the read.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

>>34439588
>One destroyed tank
>Dude it was bad lmao
At least try

File: North Korean Army Pokpung-ho MBTs on a parade.jpg (215KB, 2065x1264px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 2065x1264px

>>34438421
>Up until that point he thought it was a modern and effective fighting vehicle

Why would he think that when the Norks have modern-ish tanks?

I wish Shermanator was still around. It's nice to see /k/ has gradually moved from meme'd myths to actual historical knowledge over the years.

>>34438220
Eh, if the V-1 had entered full production in 1940, it might have won the war; Britain didn't have a good answer for it until virtually right before Germany started using it en masse in 1944, when the US sent over literal boatloads of radar-aimed AAA batteries, which accounted for the vast majority of V-1s launched.

But in 1940, the V-1 could have handled the Blitz and allowed the Luftwaffe to keep hitting the airfields.

>>34437982
How are these guys able to have nukes and "ballistic" missiles to carry them?