ITT: Lets talk about overrated weapons.

1st for Leopard 2

File: 9KYJObJ.jpg (111KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1000x750px

>Most of them that saw action were knocked out by mechanical problems
>downgraded side armor from it's predecessor
>slow as fuck
>late war shermans could penetrate it's turret face

Germany should have stuck with the panther desu

>>34498204
This.

Heavy, unreliable, expensive and difficult as fuck to maintain, overly complicated, underpowered even after engine upgrade with the B, extremely optimized pilot/rio workloads which were acceptable for the late 60's and early 70's but completely ridiculous for an aircraft operating in the 80's, 90's and 00's.

>>34498532
>extremely optimized

unoptimized

File: 1418096607579.jpg (816KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 1280x720px

>>34498204
I think the CFA-44 is much better.

File: T-34 tank.jpg (20KB, 254x155px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 254x155px

>Most broke down on the way to battle
>Holes in welding
>No radios
>Bad armament
>Russian

>>34498504
Kill yourself and stay kill yourself

>>34498534
>CFA-44
>turn too sharply
>fall out of the sky

no thanks

>>34498559
I would but my damn FAL keeps jamming.

>>34498563
meant for >>34498535

File: 1498116548608.jpg (17KB, 316x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 316x239px

>>34498569
clean and maintain your rifle you fucking ape

>>34498540
>daily thread
>SSDD
T-34 was just a balanced tank (the radio ones were drawback though)
>reasonable armor
>reasonable gun
>not bad but not good gunner sight (germans were good)
>good mobility
>numerical superiority
>reasonable range

It's the main reason Germans were forced to deploy more powerful tanks but with shittier maintenance and logistics. (In "initial" phae of eastern fronts WW2, Germans had difficulty dealing with T-34, so they had to bring 88mm flak to do the job.)

File: a10.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

>>34498204
hail to the king

>>34498639
>Actually defending the piece of junk the T-34 was
Tiger I was a far superior tank, and it worked like a charm.
>saying it has a good gun and armor
Its gun could not penetrate more than 10cm of armor, and its armor was easily penetrated by the superior Tiger I, the best tank of the war

File: pasternak.jpg (282KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1280x720px

>>34498563
>He doesn't accept his new ADMM + Mega High-G Turn overlords
What a fag, I bet you like the A-10 too, huh?

File: B1_bis_-Flandres-.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>34498639
>Breaks down every 100 km
>horrible weld jobs
>just because it fit the Russian doctrine of throw everything at it until it is dead means it's a good tank
>Americans made more Sherman in a shorter amount of time than the Soviets

yea other nations also had tanks that were immune to everything other than the 88mm, pic related

>>34498204

The firelance, who would even want black powder weapons in the first place? Spears, swords and trebuchets are good enough

>>34498666
>implying that all T-34 crews were too retarded to know the weak spots of Tiger and attack recklessly
Side/rear armor, track and interspace between hull and turret were the weakspots, and allieds tried to aim on then whenever possible within range (except for Sherman Firefly XDD)

>Tiger is best
fuel efficiency was really bad
Maintenance wasn't good
Reported unreliability

>>34498685
>breaks down ever 100km
Where does this story come from?

>>34498726
>implying that any T-34 crews had brains
the T-34's had no idea how to fight other tanks, other than shoot at them.
>fuel efficiency was really bad
that wouldn't have mattered if Germany won at Stalingrad. There would be plenty of fuel for the Tigers.
>maintenance wasn't good
Are you saying that the repair crews had no idea how to repair?
>reported unreliability
not all of them broke down, as you seem to believe

>>34498659

>inb4 spergs

A-10s have done amazing in uncontested air space. But feel free to read up on their performance in the Gulf War. A-10s were getting shot down continuously by tactical SAMs.

File: 12-vi.jpg (240KB, 1000x738px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1000x738px

>>34498756
The mental image of the T-34 travelling hundreds of kilometers without stopping is fantasy.

Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%. The percentage stayed below 50% till October 1943 when it rose to 78%, in the next month it dropped to 57% and in the period December ’43 - February ’44 the average was 82%.

The V-2 engine had serious reliability problems. Depending on the source in 1941 it supposedly lasted for 100 hours on average. This figure went down in 1942 since some T-34’s could not travel more then 30-35 km.

>>34498762
Tiger's reliability and maintenance issues are quite well known m8.

>if they won, logistics will not ever be a problen
>>Allied bombed the shit out of Germany
>>many transportation units were disabled though there were enough fuels
>>"fuel efficiency wasn't problem"
Wrong

>>34498800
You say they are wrong, but you don't say how they are wrong, why is this?

>>34498783
over 20% of coalition casualties in the Gulf War were caused by friendly fire, a lot of them by A-10's

>>34498817
>>>that (((wouldn't have mattered))) if (((Germany won at Stalingrad.))) There would be plenty of fuel for the Tigers.

Read faggot

>>34498817
How can field army have enough fuel when transportation units are disabled?

Even luftwaffe had similar fuel problems

>>34498829
>>34498851
But the Caucasus had plenty of oil and petrol for the Germans to fuel their war machine.

It's where Russia got most of their fuel from.

>>34498829
If the Germans won at Stalingrad, the Soviet Union would be considerably weaker, without their fuel. After the USSR surrendered, the Germans would turn around and easily take England, not allowing for the Allied bombings of Germany.
>many transports were disabled
Where did you find that one?
>believing fuel efficiency was good on any other tanks

File: M14 Service Rifle pic.jpg (22KB, 690x175px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 690x175px

Worst service rifle ever fielded by the US.

Yes, even worse than the Krag.

>>34498659
>irreplacable
>finally try to decommission
>still needed and brought out of retirement

BRRRRRRRRRRT

>>34498872
>believing the fuel efficiency was good on any other tanks
Learn the difference between diesel and gasoline engine

File: index.jpg (7KB, 287x176px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 287x176px

>>34498453
>downgraded side armor from it's predecessor
simply not true

>late war shermans could penetrate it's turret face
>Sherman's reliably penetrating 180mm of armor
yeah maybe there was one crazy ass fluke shot, but not even the propaganda department would try and push shermans knocking out tiger 2s front on as fact

>Most of them that saw action were knocked out by mechanical problems
That was as much due to design flaws as to the unfavorable logistics situation of being in a collapsing army, not to downplay its mechanical shortcomings but the real problem was that the Tiger 2 was designed for an army that simply wasn't 1944-5 Germany. With strong logistics, development teams,production capacity and time the Tiger 2 could've been refined into a far more capable machine.

regardless the Tiger 2 dealt horrendous damage in the battles it was used, particularly in the East where most of the war was being fought and was borderline unstoppable in combat even against huge odds,as a result the typical solution to deal with German heavy tank units was to bypass them and cut off there supply and logistics and let the inevitible happen.

but still for all its flaws its fierce reputation in actual combat can't be taken away.

File: equipped for total failure.jpg (22KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 720x480px

>>34498204
ITT: Lets talk about overrated weapons manufacturers.

File: E4zqJpi.jpg (262KB, 1218x812px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1218x812px

>>34498920
Tiger II had a side armor of 80mm, Tiger I had 82. While it's not much, its still a downgrade.

Shermans equipped with the M1 76mm gun had an M93 APCR shot that was capable of penetrating 230mm of armor with ease.

I'll agree that the Tiger II could have been much better if it was used by say the US Army, but it's just as overrated as the Tiger I.

>>34498204
>>>34498829
>If the Germans won at Stalingrad, the Soviet Union would be considerably weaker, without their fuel. After the USSR surrendered, the Germans would turn around and easily take England, not allowing for the Allied bombings of Germany.

considering the economic blockade by UK, absence of German surface fleet(and carriers), US lend lease act
Your argument is somewhat naive.
Anyway, German had limited resources but their new weapon systems only imposed more burden on then.

>>34498976
>then
them

damn phoneposting

>>34498961
>Tiger II had a side armor of 80mm, Tiger I had 82. While it's not much, its still a downgrade.

Both Tiger and Tiger II side armor are 80mm but the Tiger II sides are sloped. If anything it's an upgrade.

>>34498961
>M93 APCR shot that was capable of penetrating 230mm of armor with ease.
>At 90 degrees from 200 meters
Would not call that "with ease" and HVAP was still very rare.
Tiger II side armor was at slight slope ~25 degrees and the lower side plate was also 80mm and covered by outer 5mm plate, while Tiger I had only 60mm down there.

>>34498970

71-portable, central
10-41 Shots fired

>>34498790
Looks like very crude manufacturing,no wonder if you ask me.

File: M18 Hellcat.jpg (66KB, 736x559px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 736x559px

>>34498204
It's all summed up by one quote as far as I'm concerned:
>"M18 crews succeeded in spite of their vehicle, not because of it"

>no armor whatsoever for the sake of speed
>speed being the key to the US's entire flawed tank destroy strategy
>General Bruce pushes "gotta go fast" meme to under-gun and under-armor all his vehicles
>Turns out road speed and combat speed are different things
>operates slower than the M4s it's supposed to support because no fucking armor and nobody wants to get decapitated by artillery fire or a tree branch
>"hurr but they could flank Tigers and Panthers!"
>meanwhile no other nation's TDs had to do this to defeat the tanks they were designed to kill
>Somehow building a TD around the expectation of it being used only by suicidal crews is seen as a good idea
>worst of all, the "gotta go fast" meme makes the piece of shit famous, instead of the best fucking tank killing crews of WWII that operated it.

>>34498827
I mean, it definitely hit and killed what it was shooting at there

>>34498666
>actually defending the piece of junk FT17 was
Abrams was a far superior tank

>>34499345
that is something, i guess

File: tank-m4-sherman-jjii7768-01.jpg (61KB, 600x335px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x335px

>>34498204
M4 sherman
>shit gun couldn't even penetrate t34 before 76mm came out
>called "lighter" by SOVIET tankers
>shit paper thin armor on sides and behind
>big as house
>pop from 1 german 50mm shell

File: 1474424258600.jpg (129KB, 500x476px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 500x476px

>>34499366
>Posts the 105mm version

>>34499616
>say sherman is bad
>posts sherman
all shermans are shit

>>34498902
as a DM gun it's perfectly fine anon. Stop being gay.

>>34498559
>m-muh obsolete trash!