In Russia we pay a lot of respect to tank crews, there are songs

>>34734479
In America, we actually care about their survival and focus on creature comforts. That's how we respect them.

We generally respect the military as a whole ala "support the troops." About the only time you'll see anybody sucking the dicks of any particular branch or unit is if they themselves or one of their family are in that branch or unit.

>>34734479
In WW2 American tanks performed poorly against Tigers. They did put in work but a lot got lit the fuck up.

Korea is virtually forgotten.

Vietnam involved almost no tank on tank fighting.

Desert Storm was very brief.

Iraq and Afghanistan turned into Vietnam after a few weeks.

So we never had a giant brundlefuck of a war where we were fighting for our very existence and a fleet of crude but effective tanks crewed by some very brave and tough men was all that stood between us and our way of life and total enslavement.

>>34734479
тaмy штo aмepыкaнцы нe мaюць вaeнных тpaдыцый

>>34734479
Not enough people watch GuP in America

>>34734617
Oh yeah, all those 1347 Tiger tanks sure made a difference against over 20k Shermans.

>>34734479
America is a sea power, Russia is a land power. So they will have very different approaches to war even after compensating for different personalities, economies, and tech.

Tanks just aren't critical to survival when you have a sea on either side, ice up top and desert beneath, and no major competition on the same continent. A navy is, and present power-projection navies demand aircraft and satellites.

And of course, there's also the pragmatic aspect. If I was a tank crew I'd probably prefer blow-out panels and DU-Chobham armor to pop-top carousel loaders and shitty Slav propaganda musicals.

>>34734617
I feel like posters like you are just pretending to be retarded and it's annoying.

File: 7fa.png (177KB, 279x280px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 279x280px

Sadly in the USA more attention is focused to fighter pilots and aircraft then tanks. This is not only found in films, but also in advertisements, music, and pop culture.

This trend is also seen in museums and surviving examples of each. Airplane museums tend to be well maintained and lots of effort is put towards restoration, while tanks are forgotten about, left outdoors, painted poorly, and left to the elements.

>>34734647
Too many people watch this shit
Weebs are the worst thing to happen to tanks

>>34734617
Although German tanks were good, the Shermins reign surpieror. Americans gave lend lease out the ass to Russia (keeping them alive) and to Free France. The Shermins are just as good and if not better because they were not high maintaince.
>>34734617
In Vietnam, Nixon did "Vietnamazation" which was pull out American troops and arm South Vietnam. So the South had some tanks. The Guerilla North Vietnamese participation in the war faded with time, the regular North Army had tanks. After the Paris Peace Accord ending the war like the Korean war the North invaded the South 2 years later using stuff like tanks.

>>34734760
There is an air museum where I live that is pretty big. They have tons of American, Russian, some British, Candian, German, Itlaian aircraft. It is really well maintained. They have a v2-buzz rocket that was captured in France.

>>34734479
We like jets and boats, being separated from our foes by the oceans. And in American culture, a lot of respect is given to infantry since they're the ones who really get into the shit.

>>34734479
the last time we had a major tank battle it was hilariously lopsided and the lopsidedness was entirely due to the superiority of the M1 Abrams to Saddam's slavshit

>>34734479

American tanks are not dangerous to be in like vodka nigger tanks. You're not nearly as cool having a safe job

>>34735036
You're so "pew pew america!" That i cringed.

Just admit your shitmens were armed lousy.

After world war two america has never seen nor every will see a large scale tank battle.

File: Char_T-34.jpg (18KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x225px

>>34734479
T-34 Reporting!

>>34735271

>After world war two america has never seen nor every will see a large scale tank battle.

I'm literally shaking right now. We never will see any equal foe to have conventional warfare with, just wiping the floor with ancient snow nigger surplus.

As far as the Sherman goes, it was alright for it's time for supporting infantry. It wasn't really meant to fight other heavier tanks, the US had dedicated tank destroyers for that but mostly just loved artillery and aircraft. It was a different approach

File: Handler.jpg (32KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x300px

>>34735048
now compare that to APG,
>Yes this is at a Army base, and is / was part of their collection
>yes that is a fucking tree growing on the side of the grasshopper,

Because in America, if you support the military you are labeled as a retarded redneck republican.

>>34737297
and if you don't you're labelled as a commie fuck, what's your point?

>>34734479
We don't hide in METAL BAWKS

>>34734479

Because the backbone of our fighting strength lay in our airforce, navy and artillery and our infantry.

We used tank hunting doctrine. Contrary to popular belief, only towards the end of the war were shermans utilized in an exclusively Anti Armor role being upgunned with the high velocity cannons. That was more often left to the hellcat line of vehicles.

The American infantry man also fell short strongly when deprived of air assets and artillery, with exceptions such as the battle of the bulge in which it was merely held on by the veterancy and grit of the troops in Bastogne. Hurtgen forest comes to mind when such deficiencies are brought to light.

>>34739327
>only towards the end of the war were shermans utilized in an exclusively Anti Armor
>That was more often left to the hellcat line of vehicles
yes, the 2,507 total produced hellcats which entered service in july 1943 shouldered the us army's antitank burden for the early war period more often than its tanks

>>34734479
Tankers were widely considered infantry support crews during the second world war, meaning few were actually rewarded for the suicidal act of merely going into combat in a T-34.

>>34739517
Well technically American anti tank doctrine was based around ONLY using tank destroyers for explicit tank on tank action. Now realistically that didn't happen

>the other guys still a raging fag because he mentioned the hell cat and not the m10 wolverine

>>34734479
Because they are praising their strongest part of their military. Russia's strength came from their Superior tanks and America's is their good tier air superiority. That's why their are American pilot songs instead of tanker songs

>>34734479
Because troops underestimated the Sherman and thought that Tigers were going to blow them to bits. :(

Americans have that hurrah hurrah song.

>>34739621
>yfw us armored force field manuals always list enemy armored forces as targets

File: CL-_bOXUEAAlxkR[1].jpg (17KB, 600x334px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x334px

>>34739621
>calling an American M10 a wolverine
That was the Leaf and Brit designation annon, the M10 had no name outside of it's model number.

Also No mention of the M36 Jackson

>>34737357
America stands divided and it's only causing a bigger rift through us all.

>>34734479
In America we do that too, except instead of with pilots instead of tankers.

We also make movies about them where they play grab ass in locker rooms and get oiled up and go play volleyball in slow motion.

>>34740280
you mean like the M4 medium tank, the M1 Rifle etc.? nothing really had a "name" in US army back then

File: War_Thunder.jpg (72KB, 800x517px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x517px

>>34734479
America is plane country. We invented the plane, we perfected its use in combat, and we feel most at home in the skies. Tanks are cool too I guess, but it's not like you where we had to rely on them. What we do rely on is aircraft, especially in places like Alaska.

File: Isherman.jpg (159KB, 1115x788px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1115x788px

>>34735271
The Sherman was a rush job because they needed something that could hold a 75mm+ gun in a turret ASAP. When the Jews completed it, it was able to blow up T-55s without breaking a sweat. Not bad for a medium.

>>34734675
That guy simplified it a bit. Tigers, Panthers, Marders, Hetzers, StuGs, and hell, even their AT guns were deadly to the Shermans (I think because late-war German guns were extremely high-velocity and had great optics). There isn't much truth to the whole "Ronson" thing, but given what I said above, it has some basis in reality. They didn't light up all the time, every time, but a whole lot of them did.

>>34734479
Because Russia is a land power, whilst the US has to cross massive fucking oceans to reach its enemies.

>>34734479
because in ww2 russian tank crews where the spearhead on the advance to berlin. american tanks played a supporting role in the war but not the same experiance