Which was best?

File: 1485368251562.png (207KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 400x400px

>rivets lol
I'd take the panzer

>>34585785
Panzer, hands down

>>34585785

Panzer III Ausf. L

>>34585785
I have been told panzer 3s were only issued 2 machine guns, configuration depending on the situation. The image has 3 mounted. How often would panzer 3 crews mount an additional machine gun, either issued or captured?

File: WW2 medium tanks (1).jpg (1MB, 3332x972px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3332x972px

>>34585904
I don't know, honestly.

What now?

>>34585904
>>34585785
follow-up;
is that the panzer III at bovington they talked about in tank chats? i noticed its missing that turret spaced armor for its mounting lol

File: Panzer III & Tiger I.jpg (345KB, 1920x1233px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1920x1233px

>>34585932
I think it is, because the last fuctional Tiger I is in Bovington, afaik, and the Panzer in this pic looks really similar.

>>34585932

Well, you can see Tiger 131 in the background of OP so, yeah, that's it.

>>34585785

Crusader MkIII as pictured wasn't nearly as bad as the MkI, actually quite underappreciated.

But the Panzer III is the clear pick here.

>>34585931
if warthunder has taught me anything, that T34 will consistently bounce flak88 shells, and its tracks can devour an atgm

File: Panzer IV.jpg (438KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1600x1066px

>>34586156
Why was the Crusader worse than the Panzer III? >>34586177
kek

>>34586232

Generally more reliable (although the MkIII did fix most of the reliability issues), had better armor and the Panzer III didn't need to reduce its turret crew for the bigger gun.

They could both knock one another out from most ranges, but overall the Panzer III was just a pretty good tonk for its day.

>>34586177
fuck the IT-1 spam in tier V

>>34585785

Lemme talk about Italian tanks. Lemme talk about the time when an Italian General in North Africa wanted to do a demonstration exercise with the Dear Allies, and they got three M13 and three PzIIIs in a sort of tank biathlon ( a race and a shooting exercise). The six tanks start, and the German ones quickly reach the end line: one of the Italian tanks fails to start, another barely manages to do ten meters, and the last one manages to end the "race" at half the speed of the PzIIIs. They tow the tanks to the shooting area and start hitting a old abandoned British tank. The PzIIIs show excellent accuracy and rate of fire, the Italian tanks manage to hit two times out of twentyfour shots.

The Italian general that organized the demonstration stormed out and vowed that he would not eat with the German officers until he got better tanks. He never ate with Germans again.

See, I can't tell you the best tank, I can tell you about the worst one. Daily reminder that FIAT-Ansaldo managed to stop all attempts to get different tank models (Skoda tanks, PzIIIs, even a direct offer from Hitler for the PzIVs, and even the PzVs) and kept selling crap tanks because they could. Daily reminder that a SINGLE MAN (Eng. Giuseppe Rosini, if you want a name, from Ansaldo) developed ALL ITALIAN ARMOURED VEHICLES between 1933 and 1943. As one author says, even if he was the best engineer in the world, a bit of help could have done wonders, no?

The hidden history of Italian tanks is fascinating. They were crap, but the why is eye-opening.

>>34585842
the only answer

File: tie ww2.png (562KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1080x1080px

Sherman

>>34588200
>yfw the cannon's recoil combined with the engine's thrust spins the plane on its centerpoint every time it's fired

why did ww2 and interwar tanks have hull mounted machine guns?

>>34588346
to shoot people

>>34588346
No, really, >>34588355 <-- this is the answer.

They got ride of them because they realized that the gun port is a weakness in the armor and people started making more reliable co-axial firing systems. The main advantage of having a hull mounted machine gun (reliable anti-infantry weapon) was negated and the disadvantage of a major weak point in the hull armor became paramount. This was exasperated by the escalating penetration capabilities of anti-tank weapons post-ww2. As an added benefit, not having a hull machine gunner was one less man in the tank meaning either a smaller tank or more ammo (or both).

>>34588346
Unfortunately, >>34588582 seems to be getting his info from World of tanks.
The hull gunner, and his manually-traversed gun, is the only weapon on the tank capable of hitting things while the tank is moving. They persisted because their removal wouldn't really make the tank worse, the idea of the actual mounting being a weak spot is perpetuated by video games, and in reality the opposite is usually true. In addition, an extra set of hands while doing maintenance on the vehicle is always welcome (This is the main argument today against the inclusion of autoloaders in western tanks). The front gunner's effects on the overall protection of the vehicle are not completely negligible, however. Having two men in the front limits what shape the front of the tank can be, so after the war, when stabilization became effective, the front gunner was almost universally ditched in lieu of increasing frontal armor protection (the best example being M46/M47 vs M480.

File: soon.png (236KB, 641x358px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 641x358px

>>34585971

>>34588200
why is there a radiator on the fucking crew compartment?

>>34591018
air conditioning

File: 0f5e62e9b76116dda658560f316766db.jpg (86KB, 736x706px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 736x706px

>>34585785

>>34585785
The Crusader Mk III had the best AP value while the Panzer III M has the best armor in the category.

>>34585931
T34 1941 F34 is the best not because of it's gun and armor, but has terrible crew fighting conditions and turret tracking performance. The M4 is the best tank for the class in mobile warfare with gyroscopic targeting. Panzer IV D was a logistical mistake when it used the same engine as the Panzer III but without the performance benefits of suspension stabilization of one made it slower offroad.

>>34585785
You have the panzer which was actually decent, some unholy riveted abomination, and then legitimately one of the worst tanks of the entire war.

>>34592042
The Matilda's 2 pounder was outclassed by kwk38's when flanked. The British had to downgrade it as an infantry tank, to only be effective and support infantry as a means to draw fire and suppress enemy infantry units.

>>34585931
Long gun>short
Sloped> flat armor
so probably t34

File: WW2 medium tanks (2).jpg (891KB, 3332x936px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 3332x936px

What now?

>>34592266

Individually, the Panzer.
In a group, T-35

>>34592241
>legitimately one of the worst tanks of the entire war

6 Pounder Still has a better armor penetration value than the QF75 while the lower silhouette of the MkIII had about the same armor thickness as the Panzer III F-J.

>>34592266
M4E8>T-34-85>Pz-IVH

people forget that with the Long gun the Panzer IV was a cramped POS, the T-34-85 actually had good ergonomics in comparison.

>>34592266
The M4(76W)HVSS had the best ammo selection while the Panzer IV and T34/85 have comparable armor penetration values. However the Panzer IV H is the worst in overall performance just because it's outdated chassis is not even overhauled to deal with the additional armor with existing medium tank 300HP engine.

>>34592310
It also only used shot which meant less damage when it perforated armor.

File: WW2 heavy tanks.jpg (1MB, 3332x976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3332x976px

What now?

>>34592266
>t35
Wat?

>>34592593
Pershing > IS-2 > Tiger

Should have put a King Tiger there, desu.

>>34592593

The IS-2 has really bad gun depression with its 122mm, it's really cramped and has to load the shell and powder separately, prolonging the reload.

Tiger has flat armor, but is roomy and has an okay gun.

Pershing, though with its problems in production, ironed out it was okay. 90mm is on par with the 88mm and can be reloaded faster than the 122. Its armor is only somewhat better than the Tiger's but inferior to the IS-2's.

So I guess the Pershing.

File: ISU-152.jpg (1MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3456x2304px

>>34592609
>>34592266
oh shit, *34 of course

File: WW2 medium tanks (3).jpg (893KB, 3332x936px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 3332x936px

Is this comparison more fair?

>>34592622
>King Tiger
König Tiger is German for bengal tiger

File: 1471515705305.jpg (297KB, 1024x585px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1024x585px

>>34585931
Panzer IV F2, because it came months before M4. Latest Panzer III is also better than T-34-76.
>>34592266
>>34592675
Obviously.
Panther, because it came a year before T-34-85 and M4 76.

File: IMG_4735.jpg (62KB, 640x406px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x406px

>>34587713
Good read. Thx for the heads up about spaghetti tanks!

Have a spaghetti stug!

>Semovente da 75/18

>>34592434
t. War Thunder player.

>>34587713
Things that never happened and things that are factually wrong.

File: cromwell jump.jpg (264KB, 1375x1072px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1375x1072px

>>34592757
It's spelled Königstiger you philistine.

Why is the Cromwell and its related developments left out of the discussion? They were pretty good tanks.

>>34592869
>It's spelled Königstiger you philistine.
my bad, my german is limited to informing people of the black battle tank I have in my leather pants

>>34592770
>Latest Panzer III is also better than T-34-76.

Panzer III could not penetrate T-34-76 even with the L/60.
There was a reason they rushed the F-2 into service.

>>34592869
Because romanticism.

Noone wants to talk about the Africa stuff because the US and Russians weren't involved to any meaningful degree until the Germans had already shit the bed and withdrawing despite Britain cutting off Africa being the single most important move of WW2 since it prevented Germany access to easy oil supplies with which to expand.

Allies were sorta lucky that Norway wasn't an oil mogul till the 70s. If Germany had that oil in WW2, they might have done better.

That or actually bothering to proceed with a war economy prior to actually committing to a continental war.

>>34593006
The Cromwell didn't see action until D-Day.
Also have a Comet. Does anyone know why it has that huge flat plate in the front? It looks like they tried sloping it and then went "nah fuck it" when they got to the hull MG.

File: Comet_tank_1.jpg (139KB, 900x555px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 900x555px

>>34593039
IT MIGHT HELP TO FUCKING SELECT THE FUCKING IMAGE FUCK

>>34593039
>Does anyone know why it has that huge flat plate in the front?
because if it wasn't flat, how would they provide the driver with a viewport like that without making it even less practical than it already is?

>>34592972
Actually it could to over 500 meters depending on angle.
At that range F-34 could not penetrate their 70mm front either.
Germans just needed a more superior tank to rape soviets from greater range.

>>34593039
>>34593041
>It looks like they tried sloping it and then went "nah fuck it" when they got to the hull MG.
that's just how most did tank design at some point before they went full slope, for example german tanks before panther and tiger2 and russian KV tanks.

guess it shows how slow brits were with tank design using that so late into the war.

it's probably easier to mount the front MG, and it gives more room for the driver and assistant driver escape hatches while not requiring to have a fuck-huge front armor plate

>>34593006
Norways oil would have never helped because its in the north sea and Brittain still ruled the sea making oil extraction impossible in a large scale.

File: StuG III.jpg (472KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1024x768px

Anyone know how the StuGs fared as tank replacement?

>>34593074
Stugs were pretty damn good, accounted for the majority of soviet tank kills at Kursk if memory serves.

>>34593082
this

File: Jagdpanzer IV.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>34593082
>>34593083
how about infantry support? Wasn't the lack of a turret a huge disadvantage?

>>34593091
they only used non-turreted support against bunkers and shit so they didnt need a turret. they used the pz3/4 with short-barrel for other support tasks where a turret was needed.

>>34593091
It was if you were trying to use it like a normal tank, but they're assault guns - you find a target for them (e.g. a building, pillbox, or enemy tank), get them in position, and fire away.

Or you dig a hole for them to sit hull-down in and ambush the advancing enemy.

They shouldn't be supporting the infantry by themselves, but even if they were, enemy infantry isn't going to look at it and think "Don't worry about it, it hasn't got a turret". They think "Oh shit it's a fucking tank, get in cover and fetch the bazookas."

>>34586177
Mahh Nigger I know your pain.

>>34593066
>f34 could not penetrate 70 mm armor on 500m
nigga wut?

>>34585931
Sherman

>>34588323
That could be compensated with an asymmetrical tail, but it isn't drawn like that.

File: vickers light tank.jpg (59KB, 798x487px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 798x487px

>>34593071
>guess it shows how slow brits were with tank design using that so late into the war.
They had fully adopted sloping armour before the war (pic related).

However the British went with the principle that 102mm flat plate is always going to be at least 102mm, more if you angle it, where if you had 102mm effective angled armour, and your're either above or below a target then the angled armour is not goint to be 102mm effective any more. There was also a lot to say for getting the drivers face as far forward as possible

In some aspects british tanks were far ahead of other nations in terms of layout, ammo storage, communications and especially so in terms of transmissions and optics

>>34592336
Bullshit. i'm 5'4 with a VERY small frame, and even i had a hard time fitting in a T-34/85

>>34593039

I asked this question to some of the people on my last trip to Bovington.

The MoD issued as part of the requirement a frontal hull MG using the BESA Braced MG mount used on all current British tanks of the time, These MG mounts where proveded as a preproduced unit and was to fit without modification in the hull
This meant they where forced to keep a flat plate mount, This is also why the mantlet was kept as flat plate for a Co-ax brace

The Manufacturers wanted a fully sloped glacis but weren't allowed until the centurion which was proposed with a wedding cake cast MG turret for the BESA

>>34594022
I never understood why Bongs even used BESA
>standard rifle caliber throughout Army, Navy and Air Force .303 British
>need an MG for tanks
>choose a Czechoslovak weapon using German standard rifle cartridge
>*keep* the German cartridge
>cue thousands of logistics personnel across the Commonwealth forces scream in horror

>>34593071
>>Guess it shows how slow brits were with tank design using that so late into the war.

I don't think so - I'd rather think the railway gauge specification was to blame meaning the tanks had to fit on the slim British railway cars and so the tanks in turn needed to be slimmer. The problem is that when sloped armour is added to things like a rear mounted transmission that's in a low profile vehicle anyway the tank simply becomes too long. Also British tanks were rather short and the way the 'body' was set between the tracks compounded issues with the battle between internal space again making tanks longer.

Maybe it's easier just to say the Brits were behind in heavy industry all together? That or they were choked by issues they couldn't change.

>>34592249
The Matilda was always an infantry tank and has been classified as a Cruiser Tank. It's literally called "Infantry Tank Mark II".

>>34594094
As I understood we where meant to have been switching all services from .303 rimmed to rimless 7.92mm
This was started with the BESA, but with the onset of war the idea was abandoned and converting the BESA to rimmed was considered too time consuming.

As a nice side effect it allowed tanks to use captured german ammo

The Bren gun was also a Czech gun design

Panzer 3 hands down

File: Soviet 76.2mm guns and ammunition.png (29KB, 422x760px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 422x760px

>>34593694
That depends fully on what ammunation they used.
Americans and Germans very rarely had their most penetrating dicks with them, so many people don't even bother taking them into account.

>>34594236
I can understand wanting to make the switch to rimless cartridge, but logistics-wise once the war started it might have made more sense to use something like Vickers K or even Lewis without the barrel shroud. Of course there is the issue of how practical a pan-fed light machinegun as a tank machinegun would be, Soviets decided it was "practical enough" and developed a tank version of DP for the job.

>The Bren gun was also a Czech gun design
indeed, though with it they took the effort of converting it to .303 British

>>34594450
Another suggestion could be the Browning .303 Mark II adopted by the RAF. It could potentially ease logistics even further by having both British produced and lend lease tanks using the same ammunition as you could replace the .30s on the Shermans & Stuarts.

>>34594127

>Maybe it's easier just to say the Brits were behind in heavy industry all together? That or they were choked by issues they couldn't change.

Not in overall heavy industry, they outproduced Germany and Italy by a massive quantity.

Their priorities were (somewhat rightly) elsewhere for much of their industry. Air and sea mattered more to them, and with the very good M4 available from the US, they saw little need to throw more into tank development like other nations focused more on.

Note how huge the advances and pioneering strides were that they made in air and sea compared to ground.

Just a matter of priority where the money, time and expertise went.

File: Centurion I.jpg (158KB, 1101x587px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1101x587px

>>34594765
Well they did design the best tank during the war.
Keeping maximum slow Churchill around and not putting much armor on the cavalry tanks is why none of them really shined during the war.

>>34585904
>How often would panzer 3 crews mount an additional machine gun, either issued or captured?
When they had 3 guns, either issued or captured.
This is not rocket science.

>>34586860
>Falling for the atgm meme

File: challenger_2.jpg (26KB, 600x374px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x374px

Step aside boys.

Boom Boom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWmDHO_0P5Q

>>34585931
>That gun on the M4 and T34
How can German men even compete?

>>34598032
>bv only makes tea
All rations are boil in the bag too.

File: Educate_yourself.png (642KB, 614x466px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 614x466px

>>34593066
Front glacis was completely immune.

T-34 frontal Glacis is equivalent to ~135mm of armor vs 50mm guns, point blanc armor penetration of 100mm for 50L60.

Even if you account for shitty quality steel, that's a massive disparity in armor and penetration.

vs the 75L48 it's 115 equivalent armor vs 135mm penetration (again not accounting for steel quality)

>>34592757
royal actually

File: P E A K E D C A P S.jpg (492KB, 750x1125px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 750x1125px

>>34592770
>be panther commander
>see enemy T-34
>tell the gunner
>he can't see it because he can only use the magnified sight
>barrel gets stuck on a tree
>try to back up at 2kph
>final drive burns out
>see russian infantry approaching from the sides
>try to use the hydraulic turret drive
>engine bursts into flames
>get shot by a PTRS
>mfw

>>34594952
>"during" the war

>>34592593
a tank from 1942, a tank from 1943 and a tank from 1945

hmmmmmm guess which one is best

>>34585785
let me tell you about the italian tank
Our tank were meme tier and outdated
The armor?
Riveted,but thats not the worst thing
Most of the top quality steel was used for the production of the 4 littorio class(muh Terni steel)
The rest of the production was absolutely shit tier
So the armor was both easy to break and riveted
The engine?
The tank was underpowered and the engine really unreliable(this was fixed in the successor:the M14 but the tank arrived when the brits had fucking sherman)
Also the fuel quality was really low making the engine run even worse
The gun?
The gun was good for 1940
It even outperformed early brits tank and had a good ballistic and accuracy
With EPS it could match the Pz III gun
Too bad the EPS was almost never issued
Instead the tank had some good and reliable machine gun
The turret layout is outdated but they were fighting early brits tank so its accetable
Still this put it behind the Pz III
All the updated version that arrived to fix these problem were then facing M4 sherman and 6pd
The only good ''tank'' were the semovente series
Its incredible that the Italian armored unit would fight on these piece of shit and its even more incredible that we had that much success in north africa

>>34598242
What is T/D ratio?
Usaully people say tht T-34 front is worth about 80mm.
At least the turret has flat surfaces to penetrate.

>>34602792


Lmao i played Theatre of War: africa and dear god the italian units. So brave but so shit.

>>34602878
Well our war machine was shit tier and starving for every major resource
At least our navy menaged to deliver 80% of the convoy to africa

>>34585785
sherman

>>34585785
The panzer has a welded hull. Riveted armor can actually have armor break off if it takes a bad enough hit.

>>34593091
Nigga at that point StuG's were already working with Infantry units as an AT detachment before Panzers became implemented in actual Grenadier regiments, to be renamed Panzergrenadier or Volksgrenadier. To the Germans they were guns, much as the same as the Pak 40.

>>34602859
Thickness of armor/diameter of shell, the smaller your shell is, the less inertia/surface area it has and the more it will be deflected as it passes through sloped armor.

>At least the turret has flat surfaces to penetrate.

small areas though,

>>34585785
Probably the panzer, but if North Africa is the game, I'd take a Matilda or M3 Lee.

>>34603204
but which panzer of the 3

>>34585825
ayo rivets are cool as fuck

File: Tiger II.jpg (399KB, 1920x1278px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1920x1278px

>>34602928
There's no Sherman in the pic
>>34603393
This is an English speaking site, therefore tank = tank, Panzer = German tank with turret from WW2

>>34585785
Could you imagine us naming a tank "Crusader" today?
I'd take that one just for the lulz.

>>34585931
Panzer has DAT CUPOLA, so if you're blitzing, go for the Pz

>>34603361
Those numbes just don't looks so realistic.
KwK40 didn't have much problems penetrating T-34 from 1km.
Of course at that range better striking angle negates some of the slope, but still.
And they supposedly did penetrate T-34 front with 50mm guns in combat multiple times from 500m.

File: Panzer III (4).jpg (379KB, 3000x1936px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 3000x1936px

>>34603451
kek or rather "Mujahideen", you don't want to upset SJWs, do you?
>>34603458
pic related

>>34598032
A Challenger appears

File: Panzer IV (2).jpg (796KB, 1617x1008px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 1617x1008px

>>34603487
/fa/ as fuck imo

>>34603478
>KwK40 didn't have much problems penetrating T-34 from 1km.
Numbers don't dispute this
>And they supposedly did penetrate T-34 front with 50mm guns in combat multiple times from 500m.
You're going to need sources because i have heard claims to the contrary.
The 1943 tankers manual, for example, states that the only place you could hope to penetrate the front, at any range, was the the very small lower hull plate and the small areas of turret face behind the gun casemate.

>>34603822
Maybe it was with apcr shells?
They had about 1/5 apcr/apcbc ratio at that those times, though I don't know how does sloping affects apcr.

>>34603410
Especially if they become shrapnels from not penetrating shots

>>34592675
Panther

>>34585825
look closer, the panzer is riveted too.

>>34600578
Aaah
Mannschaft Festung 2; Made by Ventil. OK game. But you get autobanned when you say something political incorrect. 14/88 i would say.

>>34585785
Panzer III
>>34585931
T34
>>34592266
Panzer IV
>>34592593
IS-2
>>34592675
Panther

>>34604351
It is not, retard.
That's the vopanzer additional armor plates installed on the front. The rivets are linked to a welded support, not to the tank itself.

>>34585931
If the Panzer IV was not an early model, I'd say it's the best of the three, closely followed by the Sherman.
But since it has the shit L/24 gun and the M4 has the retardo dumbissimo turret, the T-34 wins hands down.

>>34592869
I hope you know the tank was never called Königstiger by the germans...

>>34604500
>early T-34
>ever
>thinking that being deaf and blind in combat is a great idea just because you have armor

>>34604521
It's not an early T-34, it's a model 41. It has the best gun of the bunch, had good mobility and, yes, decent armor against these two.
THe problem with visibility is real though, but soviet tactics implied that the Tank commander would get out to observe the battlefield, and given this is a mod 41, it has optics built in the hatch to protect him while being out, at least frontally from small fire.
So all in all, I still think it's pretty decent.

File: 1500488464587.png (139KB, 627x596px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 627x596px

>>34585785
M13/40

>>34604537
>soviet tactics implied that the Tank commander would get out to observe the battlefield
I thought early soviet tactics strictly required the crew to button the fuck up and stay that way which explained the relatively poor performance of this thing in the early stages of Barbarossa against even such turdmachines as Panzer II
The result being that Germans were running around with shit kit with turd guns and armor that had to get into flanks of other tnaks to kill them but Soviets rolling around in indestructible tin cans with no way to see where the guys trying to kill them were

>>34604563
Well they were only ordered to stay inside if they were being shot at.
While inside the tank, they only had decent visibility from the front, which somewhat explains this, although it was very rare.

As an aside note: the main reason why the soviets sucked so hard during the early stages of Barbarossa was the work of a fine Marshall, named Kulik, who had the bright idea of cutting the production of 76mm shells, the kind of ammunition the T-34, KV-1, and pretty much every light field guns used...Add to that the fact that soviet crews only received pamphlets on how to maintain the T-34 in early 42, and suddenly it makes a lot more sense that a tank that is technically superior behaved so poorly.

>>34593074
A S S A U L T G U N

File: rytdyjtuyjt.png (1MB, 1000x351px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x351px

What about now, huh?

File: StuG III.jpg (132KB, 1484x951px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1484x951px

>>34604637
I know, but it was the most numerous German AFV of the war, and was often around when actual tanks weren't
>>34604647
BT-7M > Panzer II > M2 due to armament alone

>>34604606
>only ordered to stay inside if they were being shot at.
So at all times when an enemy could see them

>>34593091

>lower silloutte
>traversing a whole tank was faster than traversing a turret ( german crews mostly traversed the whole tank anyway )
more armour

>>34604647
BT after replacing the turret with a rotating fighting compartment mounting a 114mm howitzer & developing a proper HEAT -round for it.

>>34604693
Not really. And as I said, the T-34 had a special vision slit made into the hatch that allowed the TC to see clearly in front of him while using the hatch as a shield. So it was not like he was also totally defenseless.

And you have to remember that most tank engagements were at distances of 500m or more, at distances where a normal infantryman would have a real hard time hitting someone who is half protected inside a metal box.

The TC was only ordered to stay inside if he was in close quarters i.e if they were in an urban situation or in close quarter combat.
And besides, most tank crews didn't bother much about the laws: every TC kept his hatch open unless there was a real threat of getting a molotov in the face, and the soviets were no exception.

File: destroyed-bt42-assault-gun.jpg (121KB, 650x443px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 650x443px

>>34604721
SEXY

>>34604647
hotchkiss h-39

File: kawaii-tan.jpg (139KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 720x500px

>>34585785
best tank reportin in

>>34604647
BT-7, without question.

File: BT73.jpg (74KB, 749x538px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 749x538px

>>34604975
>this kills the tanker

>>34604500
>and the M4 has the retardo dumbissimo turret, the T-34 wins hands down.
yeah, the 2-man t-34 turret is light years better.

>>34604721
>>34604740
>>34604986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSMCDAWPUrs

>>34604986
if it's from that record jump into the water vid nobody was harmed in it, maybe except the poor tank that was forced to jump and the crawl ashore

*and to

>>34585785
The crusader with a 6 pounder could give a panzer 3 a run for its money

>>34586232
Crusader MkI hated the desert as much as Anakin Skywalker, it did performed extremely poorly in the desert for reliability though did have good speed.
-Shot Trap City
-Extreme probability to "Brew up"
-Never issued HE ammo for the 40mm

As >>34586437 stated, the MkIII fixed most of these issues.

>>34592675
yes, yes

>>34605217
Hate this tank anime and whatever other machinery anime girl shit.

Makes me irrationally angry.

>>34606006
Good for you. Want an award for it?

File: zrinyi.jpg (67KB, 644x321px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 644x321px

>>34592803

>my nigga

File: 1476512427074.jpg (633KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1280x1920px

>>34606006

File: Somua.jpg (21KB, 450x297px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x297px

>>34604647
S35

File: 1464770319986.png (127KB, 342x343px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 342x343px

>>34606006