/thg/ - treadhead general

Panzer IV was reaching the end of it's usefulness. They'd already packed as much extra gun and armor as it could handle. So Panther was inevitable. That said, if they had put resources otherwise wasted on their many wunderwaffes into production of proven designs like the IV and the STuG it might have helped a bit. Though it would have been an equal or better contribution if they put more effort into recovering and repairing knocked-out armor. A lot that could have been put back into use was simply abandoned.

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

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>34646466
but considering everything, cost, reliability, infantry support, actual combat performance, which was the better tank in ww2?

File: 28krjmb.png (204KB, 920x680px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 920x680px

>>34646423

I think the IV could have soldiered on a bit longer if they'd have simplified the design a bit and really focused on it. I'd love to recommend that they should have gone with the sloped armor Ausf K, but all that proposal did was illustrate just how close they were to the limits of the chassis even back in 1942.

However, one of the real problems was the way German procurement worked at the time. You had a very arcane procurement office coupled with an odd decentralized web of contractors making all of your parts. If you would get this under control and simplify the design, you might be able to extend the IV's service life

I'm of the opinion that the Germans really fucked up when they made the decision to split things between 2 tanks in the 30's (resulting in the III and IV). For no particularly good reason (From all I've read on the subject, it came down to them just issuing two different requirements) they split the roles and branched the whole development of each (separate specifications, competitions, etc). I'd argue this really limited both vehicles.

It's interesting to think about what might have resulted if they'd have focused it down and built a slightly longer, beefier III chassis in dual role from the start.

File: C5lwBcFWcAA478o.jpg (149KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x799px

>>34646423

File: C3azajhWYAADhFk.jpg (228KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1200x797px

>>34648052

>>34648052
>>34648082
holy shit that sight weak spot

>>34646760
>made the decision to split things between 2 tanks in the 30's

This was do to design limitations of the day. You could either have a large caliber, low velocity gun that could fling an HE shell to take out bunkers and shit or you could have a smaller bore, high-velocity gun for armor piercing anti-tank work.
You could try to remedy this by mounting the big gun in the hull and the smaller gun on the turret ala the Char B1 or the M3 Lee/Grant or you could just build two different tanks. The Germans chose the latter option.

File: BTR-80A.jpg (80KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x509px

best variant

File: 14590930_Indonesian Army Leopard 2RI MBT. Credit to Pen Divif 2 Kostrad.jpg (103KB, 1080x798px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1080x798px

>>34648052

>>34648114
or you could have the same tank with different guns...

File: Leopard-2RI-MBTs-TNI-Angkatan-Darat-foto-4.jpg (280KB, 1200x756px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1200x756px

>>34648052

File: C4Jf_rIWQAIpBkD.jpg (209KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1200x797px

>>34646423

>>34648208
Germans BTFO

>>34646760
The Panzer III certainly was a mistake, but when they were developed and put into production they hadn't encountered the T-34 and what it was capable of. It seemed to be an adequate design at the time.

As soon as they realized differently, all factories should have retooled for the IV or at least halt everything and use the chassis for StuGs

>>34646423

No, the Germans were just kicking the can down the road with Panzer IV production after 1941. The long barelled Jagpanzer IVs towards the end of the war wrre the absolute limit of what the chassis could handle, streamlining Panther production, giving it the King Tiger transmission and Schmalturm as planned and phasing out the Panzer IV in its favour would've meant a huge boost to the strength of the Reich's armored forces - you'd have the Krupp plants, VOMAG and the Nibelungenwerke (The largest tank factory, producing almost 5000 Panzer IV from late 1941 to 1945 by itself) churning out the best medium tank of the war.

That is if no party nepotism or army brass dick waving contest happens, of course. Krupp, for instance, was ordered to halt Panzer IV production immediately in 1943 and produce Panthers, just to have this reverted in August after the first Panthers sucked, costing them enough man hours to produce roughly 150 tanks. You can't afford that if your enemies hold 2/3 of the world's industrial potential.

>>34649002
>your enemies hold 2/3 of the world's industrial potential.
it doesn't matter either way

File: 1792129.jpg (245KB, 1600x855px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1600x855px

The US Army is looking into upgrading the ~2000 M113's that are not part of ABCT's.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/us-army-looks-possible-m113-upgrades/

File: 800px-Stridsvagn_103_Revinge_2013-1.jpg (94KB, 800x542px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x542px

Stridsvagn 103 looks spergy but is cool.

File: STUGLIFE.jpg (61KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x437px

>>34646423

#StuGlyfe

File: P9040117.jpg (225KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1200x900px

>>34650586

All that money wasted and no one to honestly waste for the past HOW many decades?

File: KV-2-1940.jpg (14KB, 340x242px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 340x242px

>>34646423
when it comes to tanks, in my opinion, go heavy or go home

File: pzkpfw-v-panther-medium-tank-29.png (460KB, 1242x768px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1242x768px

>>34646423
weight. All the autist in this thread saying "muh IV WAS GOOD SOLID TANK!" are retards. IV was outdated at the start of the war.
Don't get me wrong, it was reliabe relative cheap machine but it was good machine for the 30s.
The suspension on the later variants was already at it's limits and adding more armor or heavier gun would simply make it unreliable as fuck.
At some point you just gotta say goodbye and make a new modern tank and this is where Panther came in. Early models were unreliable as fuck but when they came to ausf G model most of the problems were solved.

>>34652467
*gets stuck in the mud*
*gets bridge collapsed under it*
*goes 5km/h*
*engine and suspension need to be changed every 50km*
There's a reason MBT aka medium tank with the gun of the heavy tank exist.

File: 1485162535712.jpg (85KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 900x600px

>>34646423
I've often thought about what the best possible tank could have been for Germany to build after 1941. They really needed something along the lines of a single, do-everything main battle tank, but of course Hitler's micromanagement and the procurement processes mentioned by this anon >>34646760 would've made focusing design into a single, ideal tank - a "super medium" of sorts - a very difficult task.

Arming it with something similar to a QF 17-pounder would be a good starting point, maybe by taking the KwK 40 and lengthening it to somewhere between 55 to 60 calibers, putting it on par with or even exceeding the 17-pounder's penetration, but not making the gun overly long like the KwK 42's 70 caliber length.

A diesel engine would be a must as well, partially to help with reliability, but mostly because fuel consumption was a real issue for the German tanks and using diesel would've helped there significantly.

As for the armor, it's hard to spitball about armor thickness vs weight without loading up a CAD program and doing some number crunching, but if there was a way to make the overall layout of the Panther smaller, or at least not as tall, then keeping a similar armor scheme would make this hypothetical tank quite robust in combat.

Then there's all the little things, like ditching the overlapping roadwheels, giving the gunner the option of using a panoramic sight as well as the telescopic one, improving the turret traverse, and fitting some kind of stabilizer system - something that might be doable with a lighter 7.5cm L/55 gun, rather than the big, heavy 7.5cm L/70 or 8.8cm L/56.

Of course, all this would be for nought if the Germans couldn't produce it all for less man-hours and cost than the Panzer IV, and it would need to be reliable from the get-go.

I got QuizUp just to see if there was a Tank Quiz. Is this normal?

>>34652510
its not the tanks fault for being heavy, its the roads fault for being weak
i do see your point though

>>34652663
tanks are underappreciated in this modern world
tanks should be road legal at least ones light enough to not fuck up the roads they drive on

>>34652505
The biggest ones weren't, being the crew hatches, optics, and far more importantly than both of those combined, the final drive. The T-34 clutchless 5-speed grenading at a similar mileage to the Panthers final drive was less of a problem because they could afford to abandon tanks or had the transmissions to replace them with if they had the time to bother with it. The panzer formations had no such luxury, making the retention of that straight-tooth geared abortion of a diff a total blunder.

File: Panzer IV sloped armor.jpg (96KB, 700x487px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 700x487px

>>34646760

>>34649409
What HMG does the pic m113 have mounted?

>>34653944
An M2 with a MILES training kit.

Regarding the Panther.
Central prop shaft is extra height is extra mass is extra weight. So why didn't the krauts put the drive sproket at the back of the vehicle to make it lower
Seems like a good way to solve the major problem of weight and all of the knock-on effects like gearboxes shitting themselves due to the strain.

>>34646423
What's the best tank like vehicle that can be built but doesn't exist? Can be something of your own description and/or design even.

File: The standoff at Checkpoint Charlie Soviet tanks facing American tanks, 1961 (1).jpg (389KB, 1600x1204px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1600x1204px

>>34653969
Oh thanks!

File: homemade_weapons_10.jpg (33KB, 640x501px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x501px

don't know shit about tracked rigs, but love these threads. Modern warfare {track edition} seems to be moving to this type...field expedient

File: homemade_weapons_11.jpg (50KB, 640x486px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x486px

>>34654314 this one kinda cute

File: 13.962-seizure-engine.jpg (152KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x600px

The last attempt at a THG got shitposted away in less than 24 hours.

>>34651576
English, motherfucker

>>34646503
Panzer IV 100%

>>34654361
the one about the american m2 tank? that was interesting. there doesn't seem to be much out there about early burger tanks

>>34654361
Welcome to summer-/k/

Watching the british ammo-debate in that one tread was amusing though

>>34654997
The one where the (presumably) Bong thought CHARM 3 was spin stabilized?

>>34655361
Yeah, sounds about right. Someone made a claim regarding british pen values and it all went to shit from there

IV was shit.

It had to stop in order to turn the tank.

Should have just taken Henschel's Tiger (Hull, motor, transmission), given it Porsche's Tiger suspension, sloped the front armor like the Panther, and possibly looked at putting the 88mm KwK 43 L/71 into the turret.

>>34655605
>t. someone who has no idea how steering systems work

>>34654171
>>34653969
also, i think those rods around the barrel are holders for the barrel blocker, because they fire blanks there is not enogh recoil to cycle the mechanisem, so this device helps to overcome this problam

>>34654830
there was the link thg guy posted in the last thread. also, that site has the same background color as /k/.
>yfw the people who made that sight are /k/ommandos

File: mkive.png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

Can anyone tell me what this is/what its for?

I've always wondered

>>34658865
Holds the barrel for transport

>>34658865
knocks the radio antenna out of the way

>>34658875
But both it and the barrel are attached to the mantlet I thought. How would that do anything for transport.

Or does it attach to the hull to keep the whole turret aligned forward, like a barrel lock.

>>34658944
That makes more sense.

>>34658865
it's the radio antenna

>>34654015
Pretty sure they preferred front driven setups because it gave better handling, and you didn't have to run control lines from the front of the tank to the back, so there was less maintenance involved in that particular aspect.

>>34659827
not sure about handling, but the shorter steering controls and the track cleaning aspect were big factors according to spielberger

File: b8fdb13cc5c0895e564121e9de348.jpg (97KB, 564x376px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 564x376px

Anything new on this

>>34660013
looks like a stug III with no main gun to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_zXuOQy6A

well there was a successful test of the navy railgun in a salvo.

when are we going to see railguns on tanks?

File: SPz_A1_Saurer_(2) (1).jpg (746KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1024x685px

>take proven foreign design
>"improve" it to the point where it can't mount an autocannon

are Greeks mentally retarded?

>>34661041
When tanks get nuclear reactors.

>>34661042
I've yet to meet a greek that isn't.

Does anyone have the penetration values & armour values for current MBTs?

>>34661586
You mean guesstimates.

>>34646423
>Although a little outdated, the late models seem to resemble the successful Shermans and T-34s more than the Panther does.
And the Pz4, any model does not resemble the Patton, Centurion or T-54.
All of these where designed in the late stages of WW2, technology can only be itteratively upgraded so many times before you have to design something new from the ground up.

The PZ4 was designed in the days when 37mm and short 50mm guns where all that was expected, She was upgunned to 75mm long barrels but was limited in its ability to fit much more in upgrades as the war would go on.

>>34658865
What >>34658944 said.
To elaborate, since the gun barrel is grounded (Direct metal-metal contact all the way to the ground), and 1940s technology necessitated the radio aerial being uninsulated, what you would have happen when the turret was rotated past the mast was that once the barrel contacted it, the tank would completely lose it's ability to send or receive messages. What that piece is, is an insulated piece of metal to shove the antenna out of the way before it's grounded by the barrel.

File: Panzer IV uses.jpg (978KB, 1200x1642px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1200x1642px

>>34661801
>And the Pz4, any model does not resemble the Patton, Centurion or T-54.
And neither do the Sherman or T-34, still both were used extensively after the war, even the IV was used a bit in the Middle East.

So was the IV (despite it's age) relatively on-par with these medium tanks or was the Panther really necessary that early?

>>34662195
The Germans figured out late in the war that turrets were a meme and went back to making stugs.
All of the German big cats in reality are big pieces of shit that are not versatile platforms what so ever, the only thing they're good for is jerking off to and working as propaganda pieces (and they continue to do a good job today)

Something that popped into my facebook feed today, that i figured might be of some interest

https://misterxanlisis.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/achtung-leopards-in-syria-full-analysis-of-the-leopard-2a4tr-in-syria/

>>34649700
Does it have 18 jerrycans? Or is it small QD armor skirts?

>>34646503
>but considering everything, cost, reliability, infantry support, actual combat performance, which was the better tank in ww2?
The Panther, but it was too late.

>>34654826
>Panzer IV

The Panzer IV cost 103.000RM.
The Panther cost 117.000RM, much better gun, much better armor and much better horsepower per ton.

>>34661808
thanks

File: WW2 Panther variations.jpg (410KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1200x790px

>>34665241
>The Panther, but it was too late.
So what were the worst problems with the Panther and could they have been solved easily?

Also, why were German heavies/"mediums" like the Panther, Tiger, Tiger II so much heavier than their Allied counterparts while having comparable specs/performance?

>>34653062
they are.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1088124_the-ins-and-outs-of-owning-a-tank-in-one-infographic

>>34663390
t. angry swede

>>34665403
kek

File: panther tank.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>34665330
It was underpowered and the running gear sucked, according to /kommandoes who know the minutiae of such things.

>>34665330
using helical gears would outright solve the transmission issue.

the panther was meant to be a streamlined medium tank, everything about it is designed to be as cheap as possible using the german industry

>>34665330
>Also, why were German heavies/"mediums" like the Panther, Tiger, Tiger II so much heavier than their Allied counterparts while having comparable specs/performance?

The Sherman, T34 and Panzer IV was the early multirole main battle tanks.
After tank on tank combat became more common near the end of the war, the need for offensive tank destroyers with high survivability became obvious, hence the reason why Panther, Tiger, Tiger II was made.

File: M3 Lee.jpg (393KB, 1300x1002px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1300x1002px

>>34665715
I see why they were built but wasn't the IS-2 for example comparale to the Tiger II in terms of armament and armor while weighing just a bit more than the Panther? Why is that?

>>34665757
Culture, pride and crew expendability.
Germans want BMW's, not Škodas.

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

379KB, 3000x1936px

>>34665841
but where did all these extra tons go to? What were they used for?

File: COBI.jpg (136KB, 1400x786px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1400x786px

Does /thg/ like fake lego tanks?

>>34665885
It had less armor.
The IS front armor was 100mm on the front hull and 155mm on the front zone of the round turret.
The Tiger II had 185mm on the front hull and turret face.

Also, overengineering makes cars/tanks heavy.
A Skoda octavia is 77% the length of a Maybach 62 but only weights 53%.

File: Panther gunsight view.png (694KB, 886x513px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 886x513px

>>34665330
Final drive wasn't reliable.
They planned to change that to one used on Tiger.
Secondly the French claimed that it took too long for gunner to find targets because gunner didn't have additional sights, but it it's intresting that there haven't been such claims from Germans.
Might be slightly exaggeratet to get new tanks faster or they weren't trained well enough with it.
Once a Finish tank gunner wrote how their T-55M had great sights compared to those shitty ones in Leopard 2A4. Others suggested that he just didn't know how to zoom out.

>Also, why were German heavies/"mediums" like the Panther, Tiger, Tiger II so much heavier than their Allied counterparts while having comparable specs/performance?
Specs wise all three were way superior to their counterparts when they came out.
Or what are you comparing them at if you don't see this?

>>34665450
I don't see how Panther is any more underpowered than other WWII medium or heavy tanks.

>>34665757
Tiger II has more front armor, better gun for anti tank role, room for loading the gun in decent time and carries three times the ammo load.
Untill T-14 all Russian tanks have been much lower than most western tanks.

>>34665450
see this if you already haven't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-cFP4S7bc4

>>34665241
>much better gun
Arguable. It had better penetration, sure, but the length of the barrel was an unwieldy 17 feet, and the very high velocity projectiles meant it wore out quickly and further reduced the explosive volume of the HE rounds, since the shell walls had to be stronger.

The muzzle brake also caused occasional concussion and deafness to any troops standing nearby.

>>34666393
It is like comparing a Bobcat compact track loader with a Caterpillar dozer.

>>34666524
Yes.
The Panzer IV was a MBT.
The Panther was a tank destroyer.

>>34666565
Was 8.8 cm KwK 36 somehow unfitting for Panther?
Penetration wasn't much lower really.
Anyone have some HE shell comparison numbers?

Why do large caliber hunting rounds have flat noses?

>>34666777
You want high sectional density and bullet weight (and medium velocity) to improve penetration depth in big soft animals like elephant and water buffalo.
High speed is good for (shallow) penetration of kevlar and steel.
Low sectional density is good for early energy transfer (varmint hunting).

Who goes hunting with a tank?

File: c49db7d7.jpg (57KB, 696x682px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 696x682px

>>34666688
Penetration figures (90 degrees)
8.8 cm KwK 36
PzGr. 40 (APCR)
Muzzle velocity 930 m/s (3,100 ft/s)
Penetration (mm) at 1000m
>179

Penetration figures (90 degrees)
8.8 cm KwK 36
Hl.39 (HEAT)
Muzzle velocity 600 m/s (2,000 ft/s)
Penetration (mm) at 1000m
>110

Penetration figures (90 degrees)
7.5 cm_KwK_42
Pzgr. 40/42 (APCR)
Muzzle velocity 1,130 m/s (3,700 ft/s)
>199

8.8 cm KwK 36 was short, fat and heavy, 7.5 cm KwK_42 was long and fast

8.8 cm KwK 36 was OK for antitank and a great Sturmgeschütz.
7.5 cm KwK_42 was a better pure antitank round.

>>34667109
A Panzerjäger.

Are there any weapon related podcasts that anyone can recommend? Is that even something that exists?

File: 5.56x99.jpg (11KB, 185x462px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 185x462px

I helped a friend clearing out a storage container and they found over 100 guns inside. He's gonna give me an Arisaka for my time and I need to know if I should get the Type 99 in 7.7 Jap or the Type 38. in 6.5 Jap.

>>34667591
There is Arms Control Wonk if you are interested in missiles and nuclear weapons.

File: 20170304_083110.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>34646423
Bovington is love <3

I got more pics from when I went.

There's actually mistakes at bovington in the displays

>>34667950
I also have a translated version of the original tiger tank manual. Shits fucking great. It shows Robert e Lee as a stereotypical jew

File: 20170726_201019.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>34667988
Civil war confirmed as jewish conspiracy

File: 20170726_201003.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>34668016
Compared to the great men of the north

File: M3_Lee_NA1_HD_XXL.jpg (449KB, 2014x1046px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 2014x1046px

>>34668016
The M3 Lee looks like something a 16yo boy would design.

>>34649700
Does it have 18 jerrycans? Or is it small QD armor skirts?

>>34651999
Can someone please name these models?

>>34668495
Panzer IV Ausf.H, 1st SS Panzerdivision Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, France, summer 1944.

Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) preserved at the US Army Ordnance Aberdeen Proving Grounds museum, later displaced to Fort Lee, outside Petersburg, Virginia.

StuG IV in Ukraine, early 1944.

Flakpanzer 4 "Whirblewind" anti aircraft tank with a 2cm Flakvierling 38 gun mount.

Wespe, Fallschrimpanzerdivision Hermann Göring, East Prussia, winter 1944-45.

Late type Brummbär at the Saumur tank museum, covered with Zimmerit.

>>34667932
Not the Anon you replied to but I just subscribed and downloaded an episode, looks like it should be an interesting podcast.

>>34668666
Thank you Anon.

>>34668978
Visit www.tanks-encyclopedia.com for more.

I like how the late era Panzer IV looks. It is a tonk's tonk with all the upgrades that looks really advanced (even if its not).

I hate how the Panther looks. It looks like it has the Downs. Maybe it's the very large hinge for the cannon that breaks up the shape in just the wrong way.

>>34668666
>Wespe
hummel, you mean

File: g01343_7229136.jpg (159KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x652px

>>34669466
What do you think of the Panther II?
(The Panther II never got past prototyping and never was produced.)

>>34669741
Like a simpler and cuter younger sister that just needed more love.

File: PT-91 Twardy.jpg (268KB, 1000x653px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1000x653px

So, /thg/, what is your favorite obscure T-72 variant?

>>34669741
The fact that the reaction to "AT rifles can go through the sides of our new tank" was "Design a new tank" is so hilariously German I can't handle it.

File: 1416888731744.jpg (2MB, 2830x1860px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2830x1860px

>>34671203
this one

>>34665022
They was designed to function as both infact.

File: 1024px-T-72M4_CZ-Lesany-3.jpg (158KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x768px

>>34671203
REAL FUKIN NATO T-72

>>34671822
kek

>>34654171
US tanks spaced out to allow them all to fire.

Soviet tanks in a line meaning that once the two in the front and one in the back are dead the rest are just fucked.

>>34671876
To me they both look pretty similar. Sure, there are 3 soviet tanks on a line, and only two US ones that we can see in a place.

File: t 72m2 moderna.jpg (884KB, 1327x765px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 1327x765px

>>34671203
MODERNA
O
D
E
R
N
A

>>34668427
It's both!

File: Heavy_Tank_RA.jpg (74KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x352px

>>34671203
Does this count?
>>34671876
I think the Soviets just wanted to keep middle lane clear.

File: t-64.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>34646423
Would Nazi Germany have been able to make a T-64 manufacturing capabilities wise and if so, what impact would it have had on the war?

>>34672763
they's have been far better off with less fragine panther and tiger engines and transmissions. those alone would have made them at least 30% better. nothing would have positively impacted the war unless the suddenly got more manpower, resources and factories. really they just shouldn't have invaded russia.

File: SdKfz 251.jpg (3MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3504x2336px

>>34672763
don't know if they could have built it but this >>34672801
save for nukes no weapon could have impacted a war when you can't run or built it due to a lack of fuel, ressources or manpower.

File: t-64 orcish beaty.jpg (937KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 2560x1920px

>>34672831
>>34672801
well they did make a shitload of tanks so... what if all those were T-64s?

>>34672839
probably just get bombed by allies more

>>34672831
>save for nukes no weapon could have impacted a war

pretty sure som 100 Tu-22m would have allowed the Reich to win the war even without nukes. The ASM would have been enough to keep anything the US, UK or Russia could send far away from the Reich.

File: tu-22m.jpg (107KB, 1280x676px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1280x676px

>>34672848

File: Me 262.jpg (324KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1600x900px

>>34672848
well if they had them until 1943 or so, maybe, but even a spaceship wouldn't have helped when there was no fuel to run it.

File: 1498392536757.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>34672763

File: Type 69 - II Iraq.jpg (1MB, 2830x1915px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2830x1915px

favorite export variant of a tank /k/?

>>34659861
>shorter steering linkages
Why is this a concern at all

File: falcon turret .jpg (299KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1024x768px

>>34673869
This is pretty cool.

I do wonder why specifically Oman and Jordan (and only them) like export Challys

File: challenger 2e.jpg (37KB, 600x556px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x556px

>>34674084
Oman has the E monkey model. they bought them because british tanks regularly exercise in Oman, so omani crews got hands on it before they bought them.

2E isn't a bad tank, but it's missing a lot of stuff that the regular challenger 2 doesn't have, but you can buy the basic model and upgrade almost everything once you get the fund together. and it comes with an easy repair europowerpack

Jordan uses the challenger 1, and was given them as a gift with chobham and everything. They later bought upgrades that bring them as close to challenger 2 spec as possible.

>>34666524
>Unwieldy
Tough, short if putting a stubby barrel on no tank is going to do too well in forest/tight space
>Muzzle blast deafened nearby troops
A problem common to every single tank of world war two

File: m60 under there.jpg (165KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 900x675px

This ain't no Abrams my boy

File: 1482866478467.jpg (37KB, 663x419px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 663x419px

>>34674299
wots dis m8?

File: 1482831833656.jpg (77KB, 640x338px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x338px

>>34674299
>>34674316
wot about dis?

File: 1482830774562.jpg (53KB, 600x417px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x417px

>>34674321

>>34674191
>A problem common to every single tank of world war two
Fuck, that brings back memories. Got my M113 parked between two Leo 2's on the firing line one time, and each time they fired it felt like someone punched me in the gut. Sucked having to work the .50

>mfw they tell us that the sabot petals can kill you out to 2-300 meters

>>34675923
why would anyone spend time and energy creating this?

File: 1457719306800.jpg (2MB, 1944x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1944x2592px

>>34675958
why would anyone spend time and energy creating anything?

>>34673915
Reduced maintenance, improved steering/gear shift response, less chance of something breaking in the middle of battle.

File: 1500762467651.jpg (469KB, 1530x1127px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1530x1127px

>>34676178
because Goering was too fat and lazy to do his fucking job

File: Panzer_III_Ausf_N_with_schurzen_2.jpg (184KB, 1384x993px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1384x993px

>>34648114

Except the IV's L/24 75mm fit just fine in the III, which the Germans demonstrated with the Ausf N.

>>34675923
>>34675923

Is that the new M17A1? I heard they're too big to deploy to the sandbox but maybe they'll see action in Korea

>>34653906

>28 tons
>1/2 ton heavier than the Ausf H

The Jagdpanzer IV /70 and Brummbar were about this weight, and had major issues with the chassis being overloaded.

I mean, it's pretty impressive they managed to tack 10 tons onto the IV over its life and still have it work. But you're at the absolute limit for the chassis at this point.

>>34658865
artilleryman here. Cannon Safe for transport

>>34665330
i could only reverse at less than walking pace

yes its important

>>34677811
sorry, redleg. this has already been answered and you're incorrect.