What is the best WWII tank destroyer? I'm torn between

M18 Hellcat

Casemates are a meme

File: m36.jpg (119KB, 1024x786px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x786px

>>35068355
>doesnt even post best american

hetzer was the most effective

>>35068355
>76mm
nah

>>35068398
>Needing anything more when you can flank the opposition

>>35068355
Using piss weak gun for TD is a meme.

File: GERMANY_IS_WINNING_IN_ALL_FRONTS.jpg (306KB, 1074x609px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1074x609px

>>35068386
This guy gets it hetzer best girl

Though id vote jagdpanther over su100

the German economy

File: download.jpg (11KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x194px

>>35068291
oy are you a retard. Its the fucking jadgtiger.

File: 348593485796534.jpg (9KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 273x185px

>>35068386
Jackson has to be my all time favorite TD. However you can't forget about the real meme machine

>>35068538
jagdtiger was a hunk of shit which would lose its zero after any amount of off road driving.

>>35068538
>>35068556
Pictures for ants?

>>35068556
>Camouflaged so well it was lost in a field for 30 years

File: 0_4e1a4_14ed778a_XXXL.jpg (295KB, 1280x877px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1280x877px

The ISU 152 will always be number one.

>>35068471
>>35068398
You kids are supposed to be in school, compare the M18's combat record with any other TD during the war

>>35068556
Wew lad if you just make the picture shit quality it looks like cgi for cnc red alert 2

>>35068681
>the M18's combat record
>against volksturm and hitlerjugend
lmao

File: hetzer.jpg (85KB, 652x489px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 652x489px

>>35068291
Hetzer because it's cute. CUTE!

>>35068291
Its obviously the German JagTiger

>>35068386
>hetzer was the most effective
what is the StuG

I know it's not all down to this, but the fact the the su100 is still in service with various nations must say something about it. Also a similar story with the su152

File: Фаустпатрон.jpg (1MB, 3792x1016px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3792x1016px

U guys all suck

>>35068291
You mean, Gun Motor Carriage? Because "tank destroyer" is a tank hunting unit that can use towed guns as well as GMC guns as gear.

File: stuh42.jpg (65KB, 750x490px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 750x490px

>>35068960
something that should have been replaced by the StuH since its supposed to be an assault gun in the first place

>>35068782
Well maybe the Germans should have fought better

File: waiting.gif (2MB, 480x326px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x326px

>>35069116

>>35068538
That sort of mindset is why hitler lost the war

>>35068996
Just because North Korea still uses t34s doesn't mean t34s are still good.

>>35069128
>yfw you're too autistic to realize the entire world doesn't use us army terminology

>>35068291
Fucking StuG obviously, your overbuilt garbage can't stand up to the most effective tank destroyer in the German army.

File: Stug life.webm (875KB, 480x256px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 480x256px

>>35068291
Remove Sotkas from left and right.

>>35069389
What is this garbage?

File: Jagdpanzer IV KwK 42.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>35068291
I'd say either the American models or the Jagdpanzer IV (if it's used defensively, as it was intended)
>extremely effective anti-armor gun
>very low profile, easy to hide
>cheap to produce, built on a reliable chassis

All those who say StuG or Hetzer are wrong, the StuGs were assault guns with a focus on infantry support =/= tank destroyer role and the Hetzer was cramped and had a weak gun and armor.

The Jagdpanther was OK, not as unreliable as earlier Panther versions and a very powerful gun, but probably not necessary considering that the Jagdpanzer IV could destroy every allied tank as well.

The SU-100 was the best all-rounder of anything listed in this thread:
>capable of knocking out any AFV at 1km or in most cases much farther, with great accuracy
>staggeringly useful HE round--one brigade in Berlin did not record any instances in which a target returned fire after the first round, and when hostile forces were on rooftops they simply demolished the buildings with at most 3 rounds
>main gun received active support up past 1979 because it was ported straight to the T-55
Issues of course included:
>entered widespread service at the extreme end of the war, making it borderline cheating
>less armor than the obvious counterpart, the Jagdpanther
>no machine-guns

>>35068538
*breaks down in your path

File: M36 Jackson (2).jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>35068355
>>35068681
>>35068448
The M18 is a meme and you're a fucking idiot. Let's review.
>General Bruce falls for the "Gotta Go Fast!" meme
>Fights pretty much the entire Army to get his piece of shit TD put into production
>Nobody wants it when it arrives in Italy
>The gun is adequate against the majority of German AFVs at this point in the war, but fails against heavier armor
>Open top and light armor means that advancing cross country at it's intended speed is incredibly dangerous
>To cope, TD crews are forced to use what anyone with any ounce on common sense would see as entirely suicidal tactics.
>In a cruel twist of fate, the ingenuity of American TD crews (among the best tank-killers in the world at the time) when presented with substandard equipment is overshadowed by the equipment itself, the M18's biggest flaws being twisted by propaganda into it's "greatest strength"

In short, the M18's combat record is that to it's crews working in spite of their vehicle's flaws.

>>35068556
Please take your sexy, sexy superheavy tanks elsewhere. This is a TD thread.

File: 0764318780.jpg (106KB, 345x442px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 345x442px

>>35068291

>>35070628
>The weight is much further forward in the hull than the original T-34, causing excessive wear on the front suspension units and worse cross country performance due to bogging down
>Had retarded clunky steering gear, unlike the superior planetary arrangement of the IS-2 based ISU-152, which is a major drawback when you have limited gun traverse

File: e979af6fd2b90de49175bfdcc40210a2.jpg (227KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1200x900px

>>35071304
The only reason American tank crews had ingenuity is because America didn't.

Americans hate to believe this but on a 1:1 basis, American forces have always been pretty terrible.
Even since the colonial armies American forces have been lower quality than the people they're fighting.
The only reason the American revolutionary war only lasted 4 years was Brits had too much sense to fight a bitter insurgency they couldn't win. They're not Portuguese.
Same thing in 1812; American militia performed terribly, even against Canadian militia, according to general President Madison.
During the Civil War the United States of America suffered twice as many losses despite possessing ~5 fold greater force.

During World War II any success the United States had was derived from an incredible advantage in men and materials, compounded by force multipliers.
Anything American tankers faced in Europe was gimped by Allied (American) air supremacy fucking up their already inadequate supply trains.

>>35071453
>During the Civil War the United States of America suffered twice as many losses despite possessing ~5 fold greater force.
But both sides were American.

File: 1470644247116.jpg (54KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 612x612px

>>35071453
>American's are shit because they're really great at winning wars despite being thoroughly outmatched

Okay? I'm not sure what part of my explanation of why the M18 is shit caused this total sperg-out, but... alright.

>>35071472
Forsaking your sworn duty to the United States and joining a group that goes against everything America stands for is decidedly unamerican.

>>35071557
>inb4 this perfectly good Tank Destroyer thread turns into another /pol/-fueled Civil War shitposting party because of this faggot

>>35071555
>despite being thoroughly outmatched
America doesn't win wars, and when they do, the OTHER side is thoroughly outmatched.

>why the M18 is shit caused this total sperg-out,
you were touting how great US soldiers are and i felt like taking the wind out of your grandiose ideas.

>>35071599
>perfectly good Tank Destroyer thread
Puh-lease. It's already been destroyed by American vatniks.

>>35071613
I know it's Labor Day and all, but there's school tomorrow so you should probably be getting to bed kiddo. Either that or contribute something to this thread besides your autistic bitching.

File: 1470646833937.jpg (282KB, 900x702px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 900x702px

>>35071613
>American vatniks
hello newfriend

>>35071655
What kind of echo chamber do you live in you are so quick to dismiss well founded assertions as teenage misanthropy

>>35071676
Well they have every thing in common with vatniks but the country they're shilling for
What should I call them, Jingoists? Chauvenists? Those mean nothing to people here.

>>35071557
Supreme court ruled that they're American Veterans, so yeah they're Americans. Also American values have been fairly fluid: the founding fathers included plenty of slave owners, but since that side didn't end up the ultimate victor, we wrote it as being a separate enemy and not an internal one. They were holding onto the older state-centric viewpoint of the union: Robert E. Lee himself just decided to side with his state and not for the politics. They also had a uniquely American culture that still exists today only in Southern communities, usually among rural blacks. Modern countries don't "stand" for something, they adapt to whatever flavor of the month ideal counts as "patriotism" in their very nature.

>>35071304
>>35071453
>the m18 is shit, it only did well because of the crews!
>all us soldiers are terrible!

which is it? your mad seems to be hampering your meager intellect

File: IMG_5924.jpg (22KB, 295x171px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 295x171px

>>35068291
Make way for the best in German Enginerring

>>35071855
We're clearly different people so don't talk about hamster intellect.

>>35071821
>Robert E. Lee himself just decided to side with his state and not for the politics.
I doubt I can change your mind any more than the commissar's, but here we go.
Statehood is a manifestation of politics. The state of Virginia is an organization invented to serve and reconcile the different interests of people residing in the land the state claims as its territory.
The United States is an organization invented to serve and reconcile the interests of the people residing in Virginia and other similar political amalgamations.
Townships have their own rules, which are superseded by city rules, then by state, then by national.

Imagine if you owned a Denny's in Atlanta, and the city of Atlanta is about to pass a law that will make selling soggy pancakes illegal, thereby destroying your business. You can fight the law, in court, but you can't literally fight the law.
You can't just decide to declare your property "The City of Denny's" and start shooting at the police car in the parking lot until the police inside surrender, then get in a protracted armed conflict with the Atlanta police. The reason you can't do these things is because A) it clearly goes against the common good, and B) you lack sufficient force of arms.
Obviously Atlanta has the support of the US and you are outmatched a billion times over.

You can skirt the law only if your ability to oppose it exceeds their ability to enforce it.

The USA had 5x greater ability to enforce than the CSA had to oppose.

The idea Lee was apolitical is absurd. Lee should have hanged as all soldiers who fight for the enemy should.

>>35068386
>hetzer was the most effective

It's funny how /k/ is almost completely and laughably wrong on everything.

I guess it's because you people don't read any books.

The Hetzer was almost completely ineffective, the ergonomics prevented it from being useful, read about some actual engagements of the Hetzer, from the POV of the crews.

Terrible fucking vehicles.

>>35072138

>fallacies the post

>>35068556
>sir, we have this great new tank that can take on anything they throw at us
>put it on the next ship to Japan
>about that...
>well fuck it, let it rot in a field

>>35072094
It is asault gun not tank destroyer.

>>35072162
Contradiction without support is a fallacy, dumbass.

>fallacies the post
literally has nothing but fallacy.

File: lincoln.jpg (130KB, 640x820px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 640x820px

>>35072138
>comparing sovereign states as outlined by the consution to fucking denny's
No. Hell no. Your hypothetical is shit. The difference is that Denny's is a corporate entity that can be considered a citizen of multiple states you ignorant shit. For example, let's say Denny's is HQ'd in Missouri and incorporporated In Delaware (like most massive companies are) it would be considered a citizen of both of those states. Personal Jurisdiction is where things get messy. Under the Constitution, states are considered to be their own entities but we've gotten away from that idea in recent years. Corporations are not the same under the law. You can thank the system of common law for that.

>A) it clearly goes against the common good
You do understand what ascriptive language is right? "The common good" is an arbitrary term that people use to justify all sorts of bullshit on both sides of the spectrum. Who is to say that outlawing soggy pancakes is for the common good? What authority do you have to make that decision? Would a reasonable person make that conclusion? What if outlawing soggy pancakes isn't for the common good?

>B) you lack sufficient force of arms.
The US Civil war was an interesting beast. Nobody though the CSA would last beyond First Manassas. Everyone that though that was dead wrong. You are writing off the complexities of a conflict that still affects the US with very basic and somewhat arbitrary ideas that make little to no sense to anybody that has read anything on the war.

>Lee should have hanged as all soldiers who fight for the enemy should.
There is a reason Lee wasn't hung, the nation was tired of killing on the scale that was the Civil War. That and he also commanded the respect of people on both sides of the conflict. FFS Jackson was cheered by Union prisoners in Charlottesville after his valley campaign, which is still an outstanding examples of classical maneuver warfare. The Radical Republicans fucked reconstruction up hard.

>>35071453
>American forces have always been pretty terrible.
I love how you're omitting the Mexican-American war, The Spanish-American war and even the Great War.

>Brits had too much sense to fight a bitter insurgency they couldn't win
[citation needed]

>Same thing in 1812; American militia performed terribly
Now you're making shit up.

>During the Civil War the United States of America suffered twice as many losses despite possessing ~5 fold greater force
>what is war of attrition

>During World War II any success the United States had was derived from an incredible advantage in men and materials, compounded by force multipliers
This is pretty much the definition of a good fighting force. Having good logistics, manpower and materials is a key factor in any army. Are you trolling, dude?

>Anything American tankers faced in Europe was gimped by Allied (American) air supremacy
What? Most allied armor was capable of defeating anything the Germans had. FFS Germans still used horses for logistics.

>>35072146
How come the STuG never gets love?

File: mostpowerfulrace.jpg (247KB, 960x697px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 960x697px

>>35071453
>Same thing in 1812; American militia performed terribly,
Is that why the invading force that burned Washington had it's ass handed to it by Maryland militiamen at Baltimore?

>>35072460
>and even the Great War
yeah about that...

>>35068556
That's not a tank destroyer, lad. It's just a casemate super heavy tank.

>>35072759
>It's just a casemate super heavy tank.
nope. From German point of view it was assault gun (in Germans sense of the term). Both by design and tactics used.

File: image.jpg (50KB, 461x360px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 461x360px

>>35072784
assault tank =/= tank destroyer.

>>35072784
who gives a shit what someone else thinks about it?

>>35072380
>Denny's is a corporate entity
You're invoking legal technicalities that does nothing but obfuscate the issue. Organizations are artificial. They are more made up than Mickey Mouse. At least mice exist.

>Common good is meaningless and cannot be defined
The common good is whatever the most powerful and motivated group says it is.
In the case of the civil war, and in my example, that group was those loyal to the United States.

As it happens, there's not a lot of philosophies that says slavery is okay. Even Islamist savages who say slavery is okay still put traitors to death.

>The civil war was super complicated, can't be measured by force in arms.
The civil war was very simple. It had two sides, one wanted to make their own country for their own reasons - the other wanted to stop them, for their own reasons.
Forces wore uniforms of one side or another.
It had a clear start and a clear end.

The very concept of you claiming it was complicated when normally rebellions and civil wars are so confusing you can have intellectuals spend their whole lives studying them and still disagree what YEAR the war even started. Whereas with the American civil war we to a minute EXACTLY when it started, and when it ended.

>The reason Lee wasn't hung was because of blah blah blah
Yeah of course there were reasons he wasn't hanged. Whatever they were, they weren't nearly enough.

>>35072496
Imagine if you sent your son to burgle my house, and take my shit, and I shoot him dead. Then I go to your house and burn it down. Eventually you scare me off with a shotgun. Who is the winner in that scenario?

>>35072496

Explain Baltimore.

>>35072819
Made by Germans for Germans so German opinion is only that matters.

>>35072886
>T28/T95
>made by germans for germans

File: jackson disgusting.jpg (18KB, 299x387px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 299x387px

>>35072839
>You're invoking legal technicalities that does nothing but obfuscate the issue.
Because that is the law dipshit. You attempted to compare two separate entities with their own definitions and did a terrible job at it. Legal technicalities are still important when comparing states and corporations.

>The common good is whatever the most powerful and motivated group says it is.
Again, entirely ascriptive. Does that make that group right?

>The civil war was very simple. It had two sides, one wanted to make their own country for their own reasons - the other wanted to stop them, for their own reasons.
Is it? Or is your feeble understanding of a war that tore families apart and highlighted a deep riff that has existed between geographic regions since the 1600s that bad? Your statement doesn't take into account the WHY, or the backgrounds of either side which are still more complex than you make them out to be. You are making out an issue to be more simple than it is. An absolute shame.

>Forces wore uniforms of one side or another.
Objectively false, especially considering the CSA and Union had a hodgepodge of uniforms to choose from. During First Manassas friendly fire was common because the uniforms were the same.

>Whatever they were, they weren't nearly enough.
Your opinion, so who gives a shit? What is your authority? You're just some faggot on the internet.

>Imagine if you sent your son to burgle my house, and take my shit, and I shoot him dead. Then I go to your house and burn it down. Eventually you scare me off with a shotgun. Who is the winner in that scenario?
Oh look, another terrible hypothetical. Robert Ross was killed after the sacking of Washington and the army that did the burning was defeated on the battlefield by the Old Line State. It was a huge strategic loss for the British.

>>35072846
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Point

>>35072967
>>35072094

What's better ? World of tanks, or war thunder tanks

>>35073002
>Because that is the law dipshit.
You keep attacking the analogy, are you actually this incapable of rendering an actual argument?

>Again, entirely ascriptive. Does that make that group right?
War doesn't decide who is right, only who is left.

>war that tore families apart
Ho ho. There's the emotional appeal.

>highlighted a deep riff that has existed between geographic regions since 1600s
The civil war didn't occur in the 1600s. It occurred between April 12, 1861 and May 9, 1865. Everything before it is simply background.

>CSA and Union had a hodgepodge of uniforms to choose from
Now you're literally just talking about military fashion in a discussion about politics.

> It was a huge strategic loss for the British.
Yeah, in their invasion of the United States.
The War of 1812 was declared by the United States with a particular goal in mind, annexing Canada.
Not only did their invasion of Canada fail OVERWHELMINGLY, THEY were the ones dealing with an invasion.
Any strategic loss the British suffered while fighting within the US or its territory during that war wasn't a loss, but a failure to win. It may have been a loss for some British commanders or lords, but it wasn't a loss for the British empire.
Meanwhile, having red coats running around willy nilly burning things for that long was a huge blow to the prestige of the United States and confidence of the American people. To this day, the White House sits in the center of Washington DC, having been rebuilt there instead of its original position for fear once again an invading army could penetrate deep into American territory, and set alight houses of government .

File: qlad.png (485KB, 525x777px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 525x777px

>>35073342
>You keep attacking the analogy, are you actually this incapable of rendering an actual argument?
Because it is a shitty analogy that you keep clinging to. It is a mainstay of your argument, attacking it is a valid argument. Corporations and states are two different things, to compare them is terrible.

>War doesn't decide who is right, only who is left.
Oh, so you do admit that your statements are ascriptive?

>Ho ho. There's the emotional appeal.
>facts are now emotional appeals
Dumbass.

>The civil war didn't occur in the 1600s. It occurred between April 12, 1861 and May 9, 1865. Everything before it is simply background.
Which is still important to understand when looking at historical events that have as much weight as the Civil War.

>The War of 1812 was declared by the United States with a particular goal in mind, annexing Canada.
Not only did their invasion of Canada fail OVERWHELMINGLY, THEY were the ones dealing with an invasion
Does this change the fact that a militia from Maryland kicked the shit out of an invading force? No. It does not. Try again.

>Meanwhile, having red coats running around willy nilly burning things for that long was a huge blow to the prestige of the United States and confidence of the American people.
Tell me, given the facts, does having your invasion stopped in a critical moment by a militia constitute running around willy nilly? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

>To this day, the White House sits in the center of Washington DC, having been rebuilt there instead of its original position for fear once again an invading army could penetrate deep into American territory, and set alight houses of government .
So, just talking out of your ass. Sauce please. Try invading the US now and watch what happens. Nothing good for the invading force.

>>35073320
World of Tanks is more arcade-focused with faster progression. War Thunder has more realistic aspects as well as a semi-realistic "arcade mode", which is still a step above WoT in realism. WT also has the benafit of (as of very soon) having tech trees that stretch from Pre-WWII to late Cold War and possibly up to modern AFVs if they continue on their current path. People around here tend to lean more towards WT based more or less on it's more historically accurate build. I started with WoT when it was in Beta, so I'm a little bias towards that.

Objectively speaking, WoT is the mechanically better built game,
while WT is the better Tank game. WoT has solid gameplay and WT has scale, as well as technical and historical accuracy. WoT has a lot of stupid paper-panzer bullshit and some balance issues, and WT has some serious coding problems that result in more than occasional ballistic oddities.

I'd just suggest downloading both and seeing which you like better. Both are free and don't take up very much space at all on even basic computers. Play a few dozen games in each and you'll find pretty quickly which you prefer.

File: M18 Hellcat.webm (2MB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x480px

>>35068355
FPBP.

>>35073266
you replied to the wrong post, dipshit:
>>35072784
>>35072759
>>35068556

File: travelingourlands.jpg (47KB, 576x577px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 576x577px

>>35071557
>>35071821
>>35072138
>>35072380
>>35072839
>>35073002
>>35073342
>>35073534
/pol/ faggots get the fuck out of my tank thread right the fuck now.

>>35073684
He started it.

>>35068782
Did the volksturm and hitlerjugend have their own armor?

>>35073765
you mean like, you know, the 12.SS-Pz.Div.?

>>35068291
Newfag when it comes to armor. What makes tank destroyers any different from regular tanks? Also if tank destroyers kill tanks, why not replace tanks with tank destroyers?

>>35073765
>volksturm
>having anything

>>35073892
different countries had different design requirements and doctrine, so your first question gets a big "it depends." the second question, tank destroyers were largely replaced by tanks, and not vice-versa, post-war. at least until missiles came along

File: Type 89.jpg (213KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1067px

>>35073892
You're asking a very big question there. The truth is that it's all fairly relative. A TD is, ideally, a vehicle that has a gun more capable of killing tanks than it's contemporaries and/or the tank it's based off of, with the trade off of generally being less well-rounded than a traditional tank. Doctrine also plays a large role, as what one nation calls a tank destroyer, another might call an assault gun.

For example, the Jagdpanther mounted an long 8.8cm gun on a Panther chassis, which as a tank was only capable of mounting a 7.5cm gun. The same can be said for the SU-100 in relation to the T-34. Some vehicles are purpose built for the task, like the American M18, but most tend to be conversions of an existing tank chassis.

In a more modern context, tank destroyers tend to be any AFV armed primarily or even exclusively with ATGMs. Some, like the Chinese Type 89, retain a traditional cannon armament, but lack the armor and/or mobility to be called a true MBT.

File: 800px-British_Chieftain_tanks.jpg (114KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x523px

>>35073536
>WoT has a lot of stupid paper-panzer bullshit
War Thunder's been moving that direction for a while now too. I keep sinking hours into despite the horrendous grind still since they're also going full steam into the mid Cold War and I love military hardware from that time period in general.

>>35074088
I haven't seen a lot of the imaginary tank bullshit in WT. I mean, sure there's a lot of prototype stuff, but as far as I'm aware they haven't taken the WoT approach of "We need to fill a slot. Here's a design some German engineer drew on a cocktail napkin for Hitler one time." Pretty much all the new(ish) Japanese heavy tanks exist only as written proposals, although they're really the extreme of the issue. At least a lot of the Soviet and American stuff existed as blueprints (aside from their bullshit T28 model)

I do hope, for everyone's sake, that they reduce the xp costs for tanks now. I get that people will grind no matter what, but given how long it takes the casual player to reach tier V, I think they'll have to make some changes.

File: 1200px-Su76_nn.jpg (323KB, 1200x867px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1200x867px

This kills the german fucking shit

File: 1473804145434.png (384KB, 1024x887px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1024x887px

>>35073684
the lefty started it

File: french pride.jpg (28KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x350px

>>35068291
white flag

File: SU100-cairo-1957-life-1.jpg (96KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x528px

>>35068291
>penetrates your tiger from 3000 meters

>>35068797
An also combat ineffective, might you try some StuG?

>>35069409
Finnish war movie about a stug crew in the continuation war

>>35072472
Because it's an assault gun at heart.

>>35068662
This. Who needs high velocity guns when you have an ISU that throws 152mm trash cans at tonks, laden with so much HE that it rips turrets of and even if it dont penetrate, it shatters the crew to pieces

>>35074136
The grind is definitely the worst, but Jap tanks like the Chi-Ri were built, which I would agree is much better than WoT.

>>35075409
Becaue ISU is an assault gun, not a tank destroyer.

>>35068556
What is the giant thing?

>>35071557
>>35071472
Confederate generals were overwhelmingly better considering some of them graduated from West Point, same as their American counterparts and some had the same classes.

Some of the union generals were even dead last in their classes.

>>35073320
Thunder no contest.

World has damned hitpoints and you can't see past 500 meters. Tanks just disappear in teh thin air (because muh historically balanced gameplay). World is Korean MMO where mounts are dressed in tanks skins.

>>35075409
>Who needs high velocity guns
Someone who wants 1000 meter battle-sight range instead of 500 meters and rate of fire high than 1.5 rounds per minute.

>>35073765
No, at best they had relatively modern rifles and Panzerfausts.
>>35073779
That was a dedicated Waffen-SS division, only named after the Hitlerjugend.

Also this
>>35073896

File: pzkpfwiv_8vst_kp_kolb.jpg (73KB, 515x642px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 515x642px

>>35073896

read a fucking book sometimes.
pic related is PzKpfw IV that was used by 8th Volkssturm Company (under the command of Hauptmann Schulz aus Pasewalk) during battle for Kolberg in march 1945.

>>35072138
>different people
>who share the same writing style

Lol

>>35071740
You call them fatniks, newfag.

File: k What is the best WWII tank destroyer I m torn be Weapons 4chan.png (10KB, 473x136px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 473x136px

>>35076478
I mean, the bitch isn't wrong

File: tig.jpg (467KB, 1588x979px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1588x979px

>>35075289
Tiger I production had already ended when that thing came. Try to make your way too 400 meters with that armor.

File: Archer.jpg (41KB, 615x482px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 615x482px

Gentlemen please.

>>35068355

A Hellcat can be killed by an MG-42 AP belt or a mortar strike.

File: jr6l7RT.jpg (53KB, 419x604px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 419x604px

>The 1239th Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment took part in the liberation of Byelorussia and Poland. Equipped with twenty M10 tank destroyers, the regiment supported Soviet units advancing on Lublin. On 30 July, 1944, the regiment advanced along the Warsaw Highway with SU-85s of the 1441st Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment. The column was repeatedly subjected to air attack, destroying several SU-85s. The 1239th, whose M10s had large Browning anti-aircraft machine guns, had no losses while the gunner of one M10, Sergeant Lendovsky, shot down a Ju-88 bomber.

>>35068355
>Having a separate unit dedicated to quick response of enemy tanks, using their speed to get there quickly and outflank the enemy tank force, than using your own tanks to counterattack.

Except that never happened.

File: Qo3Cc6W.jpg (97KB, 1024x514px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x514px

>>35068398
>>35076675
American TD's spent 90% of their time firing indirectly anyway.

>>35076868

For that job the M10 is superior.

>>35068529
Underrated post

>>35076304
>The ST-10 telescopic sight used for direct fire was graduated up to 900 metres. A second, panoramic, sight was used for direct fire up to 3,500 meter range

>>35068355
>*gets penetrated by MG42*

File: A39.png (1MB, 1318x732px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1318x732px

*blocks your thread*

File: angry proteus.png (178KB, 316x310px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 316x310px

>>35076852
>The 1239th, whose M10s had large Browning anti-aircraft machine guns, had no losses while the gunner of one M10, Sergeant Lendovsky, shot down a Ju-88 bomber.

>>35076852
>war thunder actually happened in real life

File: 80779960.jpg (42KB, 355x732px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 355x732px

>>35072183
>PANZERJÄGER Tiger (P)
I swear, people on /k/ love to be autistically pedant about terminology they don't even understand.

Assault gun : low-velocity high caliber gun often taken straight from the nation's artillery arsenal, ordnance was mostly HE shells, part of infantry divisions.
Tank Destroyer (in German, Panzerjäger) : high-velocity gun, ordnance was mostly AP shells, part of armored divisions.

>>35068662

Fucking.
This.

ISU-152 a best.

>>35077029
>Tank Destroyer
>part of armored divisions
Fucking what? US tank destroyer doctrine was completely separate from armor doctrine. They were different branches of the army, as separate as the army air corps.

>>35076861
Except it does happen and it still modern doctrine. Now we just use helicopters instead of M18s.

File: Panther_repair_engine_inthefield.jpg (225KB, 510x530px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 510x530px

>>35068291
can anyone explain to me how you're supposed to replace the transmission on a jagdpanther ?

I know that the panther you lif it up by rmoving the front hull armor but you can't do that with the jagdpanther
so can anyone explain this has been puzzling me for a while now

>>35077251
I'd guess that they'll have to remove gun first and then the roof.

File: qfsdqgf.jpg (91KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x480px

>>35077288
that's what i tough but then you take a look at the roof ...
it's a single welded panel and none of the hatches seems big enough ...

this is bothering me

File: 1503114189917.jpg (63KB, 575x584px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 575x584px

>>35077251
Fucking hell how strong are those guys

File: 1504622311006.jpg (150KB, 510x530px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 510x530px

>>35078064
They're on Nazi Space Magic strength enhancing Übermensch drugs.

There's a crane, you can see the very end of the chain where the transmission is hanging.

>>35078133
How heavy was the engine?

SU-100's cannon was used later in T-55.
So you can guess my choice

File: Panther and SdKfz. 251.jpg (1MB, 3000x2125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2125px

>>35078490
>How heavy was the engine?
Don't know man, probably at least a few hundred kilos.

>>35072460
>even the Great War.
yeah, american performance in that one was impressive on one level and pretty fucking horrific on another.

strategically and logistically, they managed to get a large number of men to the front and equipped by wars end, and that was impressive considering their starting position.

but tactically the american performance was markedly inferior to british or french troops, largely as a result of a stubborn american insistence on refusing to listen to the advice of the british and french liaison officers because the british and french had after all been fighting for years and hadnt made significant gains yet. The fact that the british and french had already tried everything the americans thought was a good idea already and died by the thousands finding out what did and didnt work seemed to have slipped american notice. As a result the american performance in WW1 can best be described as brave, enthusiastic, gallant and rather ineffectual a good performance for 1914 in 1918. Far fewer american troops would have died had pershing been overruled and those that did die would have died achieving more for their cause than they did.

File: 20150512234936.jpg (166KB, 800x539px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x539px

>>35077288
that cannon disassembly got me thinking
dear god i think they had to remove the gun,the gun mount and the entire front shroud just to get the trany out

it's so stupid but this is literally the only way
fuck this is retarded

File: 20150512234740.jpg (92KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x546px

>>35077251

File: (((.png (544KB, 800x678px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 800x678px

>>35078892
GERMAN
ENGINEERING

>>35077347
I see two loops for lifting so i guess the top plate screws in from the inside.

>>35068291
M36B1. All the fun of a 90mm gun capable of killing anything on the field on a Sherman's chassis. What's not to love?

File: finnish stug.jpg (871KB, 3003x2252px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 3003x2252px

Stug operated by finns. Finns wrecked anything the soviets had.

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

Anon offers false choice: Vote for NAZI
Vote for Commie

>>35077205
He's talking about the german army you idiot. Pay attention.

>>35079937
No, it's welded on. Also, if you're looking at what I think you're looking at, those aren't lifting brackets, they're shields for periscopes; note the holes beneath.

>>35068662
https://youtu.be/a0rTqR2rioc?t=457

"ISU 152 confirms tiger kill"

feels good man

>>35071304
Thats a T25/2, you fucking moron.

>>35077205
>>35080530
armor was not a branch in the us army in ww2, anyway

>>35081704
Nice bait, but try harder.

>>35081720
Also pretty sure this is bait, but in any case try telling that to the 1st-39th Armored Divisions.

>>35082017
>Also pretty sure this is bait, but in any case try telling that to the 1st-39th Armored Divisions.
try telling that to congress, who had the power to create a new branch of the army, and did so by creating the armor branch in 1950 with the army organization act

>>35082174
Wait, are we just having a bullshit argument about semantics here? If you're arguing that there was no literal "Armored Branch" of the US Army during WWII, then yes.
On the other hand, if you're arguing that there were no armored forces within the US Army during WWII then please go read just about any book about WWII ever written.

>>35082265
you're the one saying armor and tds were as separate as the army air force when both the armor and td commands were under army ground forces. the armored force was renamed the armor command precisely because it did not have the independence of the air, ground, or service forces

>>35082322
No, I wasn't. That was the other guy. I was the one saying that none of this matters because these idiots were arguing whether or not the Panzerjager Tiger P) was a TD based on American tank destroyer doctrine for some stupid fucking reason.

>>35083453
oh. i agree with you, then.

>>35082017
You sir are fucking retarded, if you cant tell the difference between a T25/2 and a Hellcat you dont belong here cocksucker.

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>35084976

>>35071453
>American Revolution only lasted 4 years

Anon, I...

>>35076023
T-28 super heavy tank. Thing was so heavy that nothing could effectively get it off the US mainland. No one was willing to give her a chance when some 4 or 5 Shermans could have taken her place.

>>35076972
>i don't know what battlesight is

>>35069409
Yer mum's wedding porno, wtf does it look like?

>>35068616
Story?

File: HNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.jpg (20KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x300px

>>35072094
Ay fren

File: 1504646674246.jpg (971KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1920x1080px

>>35071304
>To cope, TD crews are forced to use what anyone with any ounce on common sense would see as entirely suicidal tactics.

Rest assured this suicidal fighting spirit lives on in War Thunder, M18's charging bravely full speed at the enemy and getting killed in a single shot anywhere on the thing by Tigers, T-34's, IS-1's, and ripped apart by AA and AAA vehicles too. Losing half our team in the first 5-10 minutes of the match, because the majority of its users don't know how to flank and harass the enemy.

>>35080426
Nam de filmu? tx jaja

>>35087022

Sounds just like WOT too, anon.

>>35087158
Yeah but the problem is you get the most research points for the next 90,000 whatever RP vehicle you're grinding for days from winning the match not from kills, so if we lose half our team the enemy is in greater numbers and in superior tanks because those who lose their M18 without enough SP can only spawn in dinky AA vehicles or useless M24's and easily get fucked by any tanks the Soviets or Germane have, and its almost always a guaranteed loss.

US tanks win rates in RB must be like 3:10 I swear.

>>35071304
But the Hellcat had the best Kill/Loss ratio of any tank destroyer. They did not charge wildly across the open.. Why would they?

>>35087158
At least in War Thunder if you blow off the track of a tank as big as an IS-2 it doesn't disappear in the middle of an open field.

>>35087298

You know, people keep saying that, but they don't just disappear. Sure, they disappear from view, which I grant you is dumb, but the tank is still there.
More then a few times I've had a tank disappear from view, and managed to score a kill shot anyway.

>>35087507
Sure I can guess that it's still there, but more often than not he repaired his track and is moving again.
It's still bullshit.

>>35087158
you can also bang your head against the wall it's a faster way to waist your time

WT might have bad player but wot is just a bad game

statistically speaking the StuG III was the most effective tank destroyer of the war, but one could argue that the numbers are somewhat inflated due to the endless hordes of obsolete tanks the soviets deployed during the first years of the war.

>>35074088

>War Thunder's been moving that direction for a while now too.

What with? Apart from the Panther II, Tiger II 105 and E-100 I can't think of anything in WT ground forces that didn't physically exist. (And even all those three are not complete paper designs)

>>35068355
Great choice for the early war, especially if you know you're not going to run into anything heavier. (for example, knowing full well all the good stuff is getting wasted in Russia by Germany and the Soviets)

>>35068291
My favorites in order of effectiveness without economy:
1)JagdTiger
2)JagdPanther
3)Hetzer

SU-100 is a good equivalent to the Jagdpanther though, but the weight for the Jagdpanther according to wikipedia and those that cite it seems a little too high(10 tons?). The books I have on tanks doesn't mention it.

SU100 does actually slightly better within medium range, and the Jagdpanther does very slightly better past that. Jagdpanther does have 100 and 80 mm in the front, SU100 has about 75mm. Probably not too big of a difference aside from the casemate being 100mm thick. The range on Soviet tanks are usually pretty good though-to make up for the fact they won't have much oil by the time they get where they're going, but ideally they'd have more operational flexibility.

Overall, it takes either poor mechanical quality, close air support, or an act of the Divine to destroy units of JagdTigers, so I'm putting those on top despite expenses and the delay it takes to move it's ammunition.

>>35089045
>M18
>early war

>inb4 it seems 10-20 tons too high, the jagdpanther

>>35089066
Lookup it's gun range tables and tell me you'd feel comfortable going against anything with +75mm of armor. It's got the lightest armor it could, only designed for small arms resistance. It can maneuver on open territory, like Africa, but probably harder in an area like the Ardennes, so less chance of jinking and the enemy would know it.

>>35089092
my point was that it didn't exist for the early war

>>35089092
Not him but 75mm of armor is not much to the 76mm. With AP you could easily penetrate the front of a tiger out to a decent distance. The only thing that would give you a lot of trouble is the panther but even then their side armor is pretty weak

>>35089125
Oh right. I was speaking in the context of beginning a war and not knowing how it'd turn out, or if someone had to be a tanker for that force.

>>35089135
75mm sloped at long range could be, but that's why I'd prefer the safety of the Jagdpanther 100mm which would be better up to medium range.

>piercing tigers with your dinky 76
Ugh, no. Tiger 1's only, if fighting them at close range would be reliable. You might be thinking of the later M93.

>side armor is weak
Like it is on every tank. There's almost no point bringing this up, because almost all sidearmor(even on super heavies) can be penetrated by medium powered and caliber tank guns. By the way, the JagdTiger was based on the Tiger 2, not the Tiger 1. It has 150mm glacis and 250mm casemate. I'd like to see a ww2 Hellcat do that.

>>35089135
Almost forgot to mention, when we're talking real world warfare, it's not whatever tank game you guys are playing. There are formations, strict adherence to radio procedure, and playing on the terrain at ALL times. Getting a sideshot is going to require an enemy to expose themselves.

>>35076530
Only Vatniks call others fatniks.
Seriously, i cant believe how people can be so stupid to actually parrot this shitty, forced, uncreative insult.

>>35089249
>Bringing up the armor values of the Tiger II as if it even matters

No gun fielded by the allies during WWII could reliable penetrate the Tiger II and derivatives. The only guns that stood a chance were the 122mm and 152mm (which would just break the front armor, not penetrate it) or, if the shot was lucky enough to go through the turret armor, the 17lbdr with APDS or the long 90mm. But the Tiger II had armor and a good gun at the sacrifice of literally everything else. It had shit mobility, reliability, and was supported by a country that had shit logistics. The US only ran across them a handful of times and would almost always come out on top. The main targets for US tanks were Panzer III and IV tanks, StuG TDs, and Panthers. Of which only the panther was well protected against the 76mm.

There is a reason Germany lost kraut cuck

>>35089318
>if the shot was lucky enough to go through the turret armor
The turret armor is thicker. Do you mean the actual turret?

>The US only ran across them a handful of times and would almost always come out on top

In an already winning war. Tank for tank, or in an alternate war situation, that wouldn't happen. There's a couple videos on youtube that talk about the 3 Jagdtigers,knocking out 25 US tanks before the US held or backed down. Other instances of 2 Jagdtigers taking on a large number of British tanks, in several situations.

And it's mostly political. If we factor in a war where Albert Speer began the industrial program in 1940-completing it in 1942- then there would've been a couple of thousand of these by 44. But then we get back to the matter excluding all of that: tank for tank, it's superior in every way a tank should be.

>muh 50mph hellcat
>muh paper armor

Designing a tank for speed doesn't make very much sense for any country using CAS. Armor,weapons, and yes reliability, are really all that there is.

>reason Germany lost

Is this the part where I bring up that a country in the middle of Europe drowned in debt in one decade goes onto fight the four largest world empires with unlimited resources and manpower pools, vast swaths of land, and fully industrialized while it's allies have few raw materials, less manpower, and far less land-and somehow it lasts 6 years and they beat all of the minor nations around them on the way?

>>35068291
STUG III had more kills than both of these combined.

>>35089402
Would you fuckers stop the CAS meme? It's not really able to knock out tanks with WW2 era technology, providing it even spots them in the first place.

But no, the Hellcat is good because it can rush into positions quickly and then run away as quickly to set up the next position. The best armor is not speed or thick steel, it's good terrain. Any amount of armor you could put on the Hellcat wouldn't really matter, mid to late war guns would penetrate it all the same. Better to leave the armor thin to keep speed higher.

Stug III was the best tank destroyer of the entire war.

Hellcat/Jagdpanther were the best late-war productions.

>>35073660
NANI?! KANSEI DORIFTO

>>35068291
>What is the best WWII tank destroyer?
Soldierly incompetence

File: pak.jpg (101KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x345px

>>35090239
in that case

>>35068529
the only person who gets it.

File: hetzer.jpg (212KB, 1024x598px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1024x598px

>>35068797
post a real pic fag

>>35089255
>What is an ambush
>What is flanking
Side shots happened in real life jackass

>>35091178
That had its failings, but wasn't that bad. Gun traverse was awful.

>>35089402
Yes I meant the turret front that was 180mm. The UFP had more effective thickness. Some allied guns could theoretically penetrate the turret though none actually did in combat, it was a hard shot.

The king tiger was an impressive tank, I'm not denying that, and the Germans had significant advantages to the allies in terms of armor due to experience on the Eastern front and because their front was in their territory and they didn't have to worry about floating a 70ton tank across the Atlantic and into france.

Also if the war had dragged on, the US would have responded to the growing threat of the German heavies. Look at the heavy tank program. By just after the war they were putting 120mm guns and other experimental weapons that could deal with them. The US was aware of their deficiencies but the war was over before it was a major issue. Unlike the Germans we took our time and made sure our tanks worked before we sent them out to war. The suspension and engines of the day couldn't handle the weight of the German heavies and it shows in the breakdown rates.

File: stugs.jpg (293KB, 1024x695px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1024x695px

>>35090463

>>35073342
>Yeah, in their invasion of the United States.
The War of 1812 was declared by the United States with a particular goal in mind, annexing Canada.
False, that is british propaganda. The United States actual goals were to stop British arming of natives and impressment of US sailors with a dab of "allow the us to trade with France.

>>35087277
See:
>In a cruel twist of fate, the ingenuity of American TD crews (among the best tank-killers in the world at the time) when presented with substandard equipment is overshadowed by the equipment itself, the M18's biggest flaws being twisted by propaganda into it's "greatest strength"

M18 was shit, which makes the success of their crews so much more amazing. Keep in mind that tanks don't drive around and shoot all by themselves; it takes a well trained crew to make them work, and a better crew can get the most out of even a piece of trash vehicle. The same could be said for the opposite situation; imagine how devastating the Jagdtiger could have been if they weren't all manned by totally fresh crews.

>>35086984

>In 1974 the last prototype was discovered abandoned in a field at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It is unknown where it spent the intervening 27 years. It is the sole remaining example of these tanks and was exhibited at the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor in Kentucky.

File: M36 Jackson (1).jpg (932KB, 1728x3072px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 1728x3072px

>>35090239
>The best armor is not speed or thick steel, it's good terrain.
> Better to leave the armor thin to keep speed higher.

Or, you know, just build a vehicle with superior firing range and forget all of General Bruce's "we need our new Sanic tank you guys!" autism.

File: Preserved Armor at Ft Benning.png (2MB, 1297x836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1297x836px

>>35092858
Currently being stored for restoration at FT. Benning, visible on google maps no less!

File: 1466253310887.jpg (149KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 530x600px

>>35071453
>british education

>>35068556
IT IS THE DOOM TURTLE

>>35071304
So what your saying is that the German crews were absolute fucking shit.

>>35089271
Would you prefer freeaboos, teaboos, ouiaboos and so on?

File: 1502843719454.jpg (5KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x224px

>>35092989
>your
Fuck me.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat#Combat_performance

>>35090239
>It's not really able to knock out tanks
True, but it's capable of destroying fuel and ammo trucks which lead the germans to abandon tanks.

>>35076530
>>35093013
No one calls them fatniks, nor freeaboos. Just say burger. It's simply, quick, and slightly derogatory. Then again I've seen people use it with pride.

>>35078854
>but tactically the american performance was markedly inferior to british or french troops, largely as a result of a stubborn american insistence on refusing to listen to the advice of the british and french liaison officers because the british and french had after all been fighting for years and hadnt made significant gains yet. The fact that the british and french had already tried everything the americans thought was a good idea already and died by the thousands finding out what did and didnt work seemed to have slipped american notice. As a result the american performance in WW1 can best be described as brave, enthusiastic, gallant and rather ineffectual a good performance for 1914 in 1918. Far fewer american troops would have died had pershing been overruled and those that did die would have died achieving more for their cause than they did.

Cite that claim please.

>>35089045
Give me a good example where the JagdTiger wasn't both a waste of a hull and calling back a seasoned Tiger crew.

Otto Carius said it was complete garbage because it would lose zero at any type of offroad driving, be mechanically unreliable, and lacks what all casemates lack. Being able to punch through a building to shoot a sherman on the other side with negation to your accuracy at range or maneuverability is not a good tradeoff.

>>35092826
I repeat again, why would they be charging across the open and getting shot? That's not what tank destroyers are for. Practically any gun that would be shooting at them by the mid to late war was capable of killing them, regardless of whether they had marginally more armor or not. So they used that speed to great effect- in moving to and from locations. This is why Hellcats did well in the Bulge- they were able to get into position to blunt the German advance, and had the speed to get out of their fighting positions when the position became untenable.

>>35092875
Or you could recognize that said gun was nowhere near ready for deployment, namely due to turret problems, when the Hellcat was created.

>>35093032
That would be correct, but that's not CAS. That's interdiction. Learn to pray to the interdiction gods like I do, for they are the true strength of airpower.

>>35071453
>Citations needed the post

>>35076675
>>35076977
Cite claim please.

File: 1503216760909.jpg (81KB, 780x851px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 780x851px

>>35092826
Holy crap, your autismo hatred towards the M18 has been plaguing /k/ for the last few years.

>>35093255

>Open top vehicle
>25mm of armour is maximum

Nigger just put the two and two together.

File: M36B1.jpg (67KB, 700x309px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 700x309px

>>35093021
What is this wikipedia article supposed to prove beyond my already stated point regarding the incredible skill and performance of American Tank Destroyer crews in spite of their meme machine?

Also I never said that German crews were any worse than anyone else's. I was simply illustrating the point of how powerful weapons can be handicapped by poorly trained and/or inexperienced crews.

>>35093092
>why would they be charging across the open and getting shot?
Because the inadequacies of their 76mm gun against late-war German armor forced them to develop bold flanking tactics. This isn't up for debate you know; it happened. We aren't just making up some story about how M18s needed to use their speed to get around larger German tanks, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against it.

>Or you could recognize that said gun was nowhere near ready for deployment, namely due to turret problems, when the Hellcat was created.
The "turret problems" it had were essentially identical to the M10's. The mounting itself was easy, since the M10 had been designed around the ability to up-gun to a 17pdr or 105mm howitzer. The project was further belayed by General "Gotta Go Fast" Bruce, until AGF and Ordinance told him to fuck off. True, the M36 came about later than the M18, but the fact that the Ordinance had produced the T72 prototype with the same 76mm gun shows that there were viable alternatives to the Hellcat, (notably ones that could be converted to M36s if needed)

Admittedly there is a subjective nature to the argument for one major reason; Tank destroyers are designed to kill tanks, which the M36 could do a lot better than the M18. However, American tank destroyers were designed for and (in theory) used to rapidly move around the battlefield to respond to massed armored attacks, something the M18 had a decided edge in.

>>35093384
I've only been at it for about four or five months now, so either I've left quire an impression or there are a couple of people here who I'd like to meet.

File: A38 Valiant.jpg (676KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 2592x1944px

>>35093384
Also I never claimed to hate the M18. It's not a vehicle to be hated. It moved and wasn't expressly designed to get it's crew killed, which is respectable for the time compared to a lot of other vehicles (pic related).

The issue I have with the M18 is that it's an attention whore. It's the hotrod that everyone fawns over while ignoring the insane amount of skill and bravery it took on the part of the M18 crews to successfully operate such a dangerous machine.

Also General Bruce was objectively a complete idiot who took his pet projects far too seriously, leaving the TD crews under his command to deal with the consequences.

>>35092883
Holy shit thats awesome, not just the T-28 but the other tanks too, I bet they're in almost museum condition.

>>35071453
>being this assmad

cool story m8, but why don't you toss in your shit-tier bong TD?

>>35093444
>Because the inadequacies of their 76mm gun against late-war German armor forced them to develop bold flanking tactics. This isn't up for debate you know; it happened. We aren't just making up some story about how M18s needed to use their speed to get around larger

Its kinda funny how this continues to this day, in videogames, in War Thunder, the crazy flanks I've done just to get at the sides of the Germand and Soviet tanks and pop their ammo racks with a nice APCBC shell to the sides, where most German tanks kept their ammo. Meanwhile against T34's and KV-2's at the rear and rear sides of their turrets. I've even done more suicidal than anything in real life and got up into their flanks point blank and taken advantage of their slower turret traverse and speed to destroy them effectively.

Not saying a videogame in any way compares to real life examples but I found it funny how similar the tactics essentially are because of the weaknesses and strengths of the vehicle being recreated prettt effectively.

>>35093431
Cite claim, making another claim doesn't count as a source.

>>35092971

Fuckin' Doom Turtle, mang.
Just make sure you're flank is protected.

>>35093444
Can you cite any soutces that state that the M18 suffered poor performance? Only thing I'm getting is that the barrel is a bit random in penetration.

>>35093734
Doubtful, although they appear to at least be working n the T28; they have the track laid out, and you can see the auxiliary tracks.

>>35093444
>... prove beyond my already stated point regarding the incredible skill and performance of American Tank Destroyer crews in spite of their meme machine?
That's a claim you haven't proven. First, you have to prove that American tank destoyer force crewmen were fantastically skilled. Then you have to prove why the Hellcat has superior kill/loss ratios over other GMCs.

>Because the inadequacies of their 76mm gun against late-war German armor forced them to develop bold flanking tactics.
But that's bullshit. If the enemy is attacking, their flanks are going to be exposed. Realize that this is what happened in reality. How else do you explain Arracourt? Surely the Panthers with their vastly superior frontal armor would have the advantage, right? RIGHT?

If the fucker is sitting in a hull down position a kilometer away with open sight lines, you're not getting past him no matter the vehicle. Call artillery on his head until he goes away. Or smoke up and take advantage of his obscuration. Either way, wild flanking maneuvers don't work, and they didn't fucking happen.

As for the supposed inadequacies of the 76, it performed well enough. Panther's frontal glacis (without HVAP) was a challenge, but funnily enough, HVAP was given to tank destroyer battalions far more freely than to normal tank units.

>We aren't just making up some story about how M18s needed to use their speed to get around larger German tanks
But you are. You have not even the slightest clue what you're talking about.


>The mounting itself was easy
But took months, because they wanted powered turret traverse, unlike the M10's shitty manual traverse. My grandfather served on one of those, and oh boy did he have a poor opinion of that feature. But again, you're ignoring that the first prototypes were being produced after hundreds of Hellcats had been created, and those prototypes had a lot of work to go before they were finally standardized later the next year.

>>35093836
It's the tank that almost makes it worth playing Americans, beyond the M60.

>>35072176
Someone please get a drawfag to make this

>>35093956
>Either way, wild flanking maneuvers don't work, and they didn't fucking happen.
Tell it to the Brits that cut off the Italian retreat in Morocco via a deep flanking maneuver

>>35095523
>wild flanking maneuvers don't work, and they didn't fucking happen.
or hell, almost all of the German maneuvers in Barbarossa

File: 1388742723458.gif (466KB, 127x139px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 127x139px

>>35079472
I have several questions.

>>35093832

7.92 AP can pen 1 inch of armor.

The Hellcat has 1 inch on the sides and rear.

>>35096635
Where are you getting 1in from? At most what I can see is 18mm at 90° at 100m. That is a little over half inch, which could still pen the sides of a hellcat at close range, but don't act like the 8mm would simply ventilate the hellcat because that is bullshit

>>35095523
That's operational scale maneuvers, not tactical mad dashes. Learn the fucking difference.

>>35097384
>~10kg blast teller mine
>tank destroyer
Anon pls, blast mines cut the tracks and fuck up the roadwheels or blow up light vehicles. They don't destroy tanks.

File: M18-90mm gun 01.png (2MB, 1796x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1796x726px

>>35071304

The M10 was also open-topped, in addition to being larger, slower and heavier and armed with (essentially) the same gun and while it had slightly heavier armor, it was meaningless vs the German 75mm tank and anti-tank guns in use.

The M36 had all the same issues but had a much better gun but was only issued in the final few months of the war.

Now an M18 with a 90mm gun…

>>35096635
Fucking hell, just hand me some statistic or image of 7.92 AP penetration statistics.

>>35076868
>American TD's spent 90% of their time firing indirectly anyway.

Tanks of all kinds by all forces spent 90% of the time firing indirectly.

>>35096635
Which round are you referring to? Only one I see is the K bullet which only penetrates 13mm (.5 inch of armor) at 100 meters.

>>35098886
Don't forget the lack of powered traverse on the M10.

>>35091547
Nah "Impressment" is an excuse madison used to justify the war, Every Country was having sailours impressed at the time


Madison wanted to annex Canada and he failed horribly and almost lost detroit as a result

>>35087039
Tali-Ihantala

File: (you).jpg (323KB, 1433x1279px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1433x1279px

>>35071321
>He thinks close air support destroyed meaningful numbers of tanks on the battlefield during the second world war.

File: T-28 Super Heavy 014.jpg (88KB, 1024x459px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x459px

>>35068556
Did the Germans have anything that could have penetrated the T95 from the front?

File: M-T28-105mm2.jpg (123KB, 839x640px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 839x640px

>>35068556

The T-28 wasn't intended for use as a tank destroyer, it's purpose was to destroy fortifications.

>>35068538
Shoo shoo JTfag

File: hetz-size.jpg (26KB, 400x247px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x247px

>>35072146
> The Hetzer was almost completely ineffective
> Krauts build 2,500+ because it’s ineffective
> Czechmates continue using it post-war because it’s ineffective
> Swisscheese buy 150 after the war because it’s ineffective