The Tiger was the first MBT and the T-34 is not the grandfather

File: 1500234911493.png (303KB, 424x318px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 424x318px

>>34692162

>>34692171
Not an argument.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-29-12-51-24.png (197KB, 480x800px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 480x800px

>its an mbt

I've never heard anyone arguing whether T-34 was an MBT. Just that it was the best mass produced tank of the WW2, which of course it was.

>>34692171
Fpbp

>>34692192
Im not the OP but, cmon

>>34692192
T-34 was primitive garbage, M4 a best

>>34692162
lmao
>>34692192
Sherman.

>>34692162
I'l take "reddit spacing" any time of the week over this blob of text. At least make your rambling a little less autistic

>inb4 "not an argument"

>>34692199
>>34692201
Sherman and T-34's were more or less equivalent. I'd give edge to Shermans but it was nothing drastic.

>>34692162
>>>WoT

>>34692274
>what is crew comfort

>>34692192
there was no such thing as mbt back then

t-34 was a medium tank, tiger was a heavy tank

>>34692438
>boo hoo we didn't get our factories bombed 24/7 that's why our designs are better
T-34 is a better design

>>34692162
I'm sorry you're fucking retarded.

>Tiger I: 60 tons - Heavy Tank
>M1A2: 72 tons - Main Battle Tank
What did they mean by this?

File: Panther_Ausfehrung-A.jpg (620KB, 1251x682px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1251x682px

The Panther was the first MBT and the T-34 is not the grandfather of tanks or the most influential tank; the Panther is and modern tanks have adopted way more from the Panther than the terrible T-34. The T-34 can also hardly be called a tank, it was a few plates barely welded together with an underpowered gun, it did not fit the category of a MBT at all, are modern MBTs made in big quantities? No. Are modern MBTs made to be replaced quickly? No. Are modern MBTs made to be expensive, highly engineered fighting vehicles with high powered guns and crew comfort + protection and supposed to kill atleast 10 or 20 russian T-55-72-90 crap tanks? Yes they are. Panther did the same thing in ww2 but with T-34.

>>34693169
The Abrams has 1000mm+ of effective armor protection and can go 45mph

>>34693223
western MBTs sure are panther's descedants
>vulnerable to heavy MGs
>Shit tier transmission
>Shit tier suspension

File: tiger.png (30KB, 1365x173px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1365x173px

>>34693244

>>34693223
>t-34 has underpowered gun
>panther gun isnt underpowered

m36 is best medium tank

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

The Bob Semple was the first MBT and the T-34 is not the grandfather of tanks or the most influential tank; the Bob Semple is and modern tanks have adopted way more from the Bob Semple than the terrible T-34. The T-34 can also hardly be called a tank, it was a few plates barely welded together with an underpowered gun, it did not fit the category of a MBT at all, are modern MBTs made in big quantities? No. Are modern MBTs made to be replaced quickly? No. Are modern MBTs made to be expensive, highly engineered fighting vehicles with high powered guns and crew comfort + protection and supposed to kill atleast 10 or 20 russian T-55-72-90 crap tanks? Yes they are. Bob Semple did the same thing in the interwar period but with American pride.

>>34695167
See, now this thread is getting somewhere

File: syrian MBT.jpg (71KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 690x388px

>>34695167
You just blew my mind.

Just look at this latest syrian MBT

"main battle tank" is subjective

any tank that is used in largest quantities by a nation is considered the "main" battle tank, because it's a tank meant for battle and they're the most used tank by that army.

>>34696022
incorrect. main battle tank is a postwar creation that melded the medium and heavy tank classes. the mbt was first talked about during the american ARCOVE study and the Fourth Tripartite conference between the US, UK, and Canada. both of these occurred in 1957.

>>34692162
The T-34 was the first modern tank. Almost all the tanks that feature prominently in the pop culture of WWII had a 75mm or bigger gun. The T-34 was pretty much the one that started that, before the T-34 a "big" tank gun was 57mm, and when tanks did carry 75mm guns they were artillery, not tank-killing weapons. Basically all armor developments in the latter part of the war were in response to the T-34, and made the earlier tanks look like slow armored cars in comparison. Pretty much all the German tanks after the early model Panzer IV were built to counter the T-34, and even today most tanks in the world can trace their heritage to the T-34.

The Tiger really was not a MBT, that was its main flaw. To qualify it would have to combine the strengths of a medium tank and a heavy tank. The Tiger was just simply a heavy tank. It was pretty powerful, but lacked the mobility and low production cost of a medium tank. It was a threat to medium tanks one on one, but only rarely encountered and when it was, the medium tanks had a numerical advantage. That's what the "main" in main battle tank really means, that you can produce them in sufficient numbers to rely on as the backbone of a fighting force, not something like the Tigers which could only represent a small fraction of the tanks on the field.

The first main battle tank was probably the T-55, as it combined a medium tank chassis with a weapon suitable for a heavy tank. Before then, there were no main battle tanks - a MBT is really just a medium tank that can do the work of a heavy, which didn't exist during the war. The Sherman almost qualifies, but that was more due to the US army lacking a true heavy tank than to it being able to equal a heavy tank one on one.

>>34693244
But it doesn't have a bow gun...

>>34698397
I would say the T-54 is the first true MBT, being the immediate predecessor of the T-55.

On the Allied/NATO side of things, what's the first though? Pershing? Comet? Centurion?

>>34700716
except that it still worked with heavy tanks. t-64 was the first soviet tank that was designed after heavy tanks were discarded. chieftain for the uk. m103 was withdrawn from the us army as the m60 was introduced

>>34698397
>The Tiger was the first MBT and the T-34 is not the grandfather of tanks or the most influential tank; the Tiger is and modern tanks have adopted way more from the Tiger than the terrible T-34. The T-34 can also hardly be called a tank, it was a few plates barely welded together with an underpowered gun, it did not fit the category of a MBT at all, are modern MBTs made in big quantities? No. Are modern MBTs made to be replaced quickly? No. Are modern MBTs made to be expensive, highly engineered fighting vehicles with high powered guns and crew comfort + protection and supposed to kill atleast 10 or 20 russian T-55-72-90 crap tanks? Yes they are. Tiger did the same thing in ww2 but with T-34.
The Tiger was the first MBT and the T-34 is not the grandfather of tanks or the most influential tank; the Tiger is and modern tanks have adopted way more from the Tiger than the terrible T-34. The T-34 can also hardly be called a tank, it was a few plates barely welded together with an underpowered gun, it did not fit the category of a MBT at all, are modern MBTs made in big quantities? No. Are modern MBTs made to be replaced quickly? No. Are modern MBTs made to be expensive, highly engineered fighting vehicles with high powered guns and crew comfort + protection and supposed to kill atleast 10 or 20 russian T-55-72-90 crap tanks? Yes they are. Tiger did the same thing in ww2 but with T-34

>>34692162
You are correct in that modern MBTs (with the T-14, even Russian ones) are meant to be fast heavy tanks, where tanks like the T-72 and M8 AGS are closer to the T-34/Sherman's role in being an easier to produce thing you can throw at the enemy in numbers to get more working guns on the field at once. Both are used for different tasks, depending on whether you want lots of firepower or lots of survivablity.

But the Tiger isn't an MBT, it's a heavy. Its shit reliabilty means that for all intents and purposes it was slow as fuck to maneuver where you needed it onto the battlefield. The Centurion has that distinction.

>>34692460
Not even the slavboos who had to use them think that

>>34698514

With the later SEP they get a CROWS mounted M2 which is interesting. Now that US tanks have been fighting in urban combat as infantry support, they have added back a second machine gun operable from inside the tank, sort of going back to WW2 in a way.

>>34692162

the tiger wasn't an MBT, it was a heavy tank as evidenced by how the jerries still fielded light and medium tanks- at least in the UK the MBT is seen as the unification of all tanks except for specialised scouting vehicles

the centurion is probably the first MBT

File: 1380689567015.png (70KB, 253x235px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 253x235px

>2.7% of produced tanks
>MAIN battle tank

>>34692162
Back in the old days, there were three primary elements of tank design: Armor, Firepower, and Protection. However, you could not have it all due to technical problems. You could only have up to two. It was only postwar that MBTs actually became feasible. Some argue that the Panther was an MBT, but I'm not so certain.

>>34692192
Centurion was first MBT. Fight me.

>>34692438
And crew survivability
And optics, communications, driving, and just about everything aside from serviceability

>>34692274
Sherman had
>Better optics/vision
>Better ergonomics of everything
>Most accurate cannons
>no forward hull openings (driver's hatch)
>superior maintenance and repair
>didn't explode when on fire
>crew survival
and more

File: tank_gallery_3.jpg (244KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1000x750px

>>34692162
>T-34 is not the grandfather of tanks or the most influential tank;
agreed, its pic related

>>34702059
it served with conqueror. fight over.

>>34703302

If you are going to go by that standard, the USSR didn't field a MBT until they phased out the IS tank series after 1970.

>>34693335
It doesn't really count when they were never allowed to drive at that speed because it would break the transmission

>>34703948
what other standard can there be? if heavy and medium tanks exist, there is no mbt. conqueror was retired once chieftain was entering service, the m103 was retired once m60 was entering service, the soviet heavies were retired as the t-64 was entering service. an mbt isn't just the most common tank in service

>>34692162
I say Crusader MK III and M18 were the first WW2 tanks that looked like modern tanks.

>>34698397
>MBT means combining the strengths of a medium tank and a heavy tank.
Will this meme ever die?

>>34704318
>M18
yep. modern tanks lack roofs and shit

>>34704136

So what about all the other countries that operated the; Centurion, T-54/55, and M-47/48 which didn't have anything heavier? What about when they were more or less copied by another country (eg China's Type 59 knock-off T-54)?

>>34704413
MBT is about doctrine and intention, so technically yes. Then again, third party countries weren't the ones who made and designed the tank in the first place. In the end, this is all just pedantry.

>>34704402
Besides the fucking roof

File: 1349478737_desyatka-luchshih-tankov-67301-b.jpg (21KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 704x528px

*blocks your path*

I think we all know the Centurian was the first MBT

>>34704508
It's just a good, solid, tank.