T-54

>>35173968
Low caliber bait.

>>35173968
T-54 is a still a post war tank you fucking autismo

>>35173977
one year after made with pretty much late war ww2 tech
T-44 was made during the war. This is pretty much an uparmoured T-44

>>35173980
Still tho, the T-54 only really entered production in 49-50

THE FUCK IS THIS POST, FUCKTARD?
FIE AND SHAME!!!

>>35173968
Teh Pya'desyat chetirye is easier to pronounce than Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B?

>>35173995
still ww2 tech, but yeah, you are right.

>>35173968

>why can't germans besieged on every front, at 1945, with their production facilities bombed to dust able to design, test and produce better tanks than the ruskies in 1946 ?!?!


I have no idea OP, no idea at all.

>>35173968
Warthunder teach me that Leopard 1 is the better tank

>>35174042
you'd think that an 70 ton heavy tank would be able to stand its ground

>>35174057
T-54 using 1946 ammo couldn't defeat a Konigstiger frontally.

>>35173968
>still bounces 88mm and up from any angle
T-thanks gaijin.

>>35173968

Weapons tech advanced extremely quickly during the war friendo

>>35173968
>Why couldn't germans make proper tanks?
They were autistic.

File: 122.gif (404KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 342x342px

>>35173968
>using war thunder for your "facts".
Please go shill put some more money to gaijew you noguns /v/ poster.

>>35173968
Why did the soviets call it a T54 if it was adopted and fielded before 1954?

File: 1457703668199.png (256KB, 767x750px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 767x750px

>>35174115
To confuse their enemies, of course.

File: BS-3 D-10S-T.jpg (476KB, 1914x1010px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1914x1010px

>>35174074

>>35173968
Don't forget fire controls.

>>35174074
It could defeat some parts of frontal turret <1000 meters. Same for KG shooting at T-54.

>>35173968
Tiger's armorscheme was inefficient, but it was also thicker all around. What you neglect to say is that a backshot that would be a glancing blow on a Tiger would outright penetrate the T-54 which likewise has a slower turret traverse, as exploited by Shermans in the ME.

File: 645645.png (171KB, 700x880px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 700x880px

>>35174305

>>35174122
So within 500m at best, and even then a square hit to the turret face behind the mantlet is required.

Tiger IIs upper glacis was a sloped 15cm plate, which I believe was equivalent to roughly 20cm, the turret face was 18cm, but also almost perfectly flat, negating some of its value.

The T-54 on the other hand has either a 12cm or 10cm sloped glacis (depending on what model and when) that is also equivalent to about 20cm line of sight thickness. The turret is tricky because it is cast, which means the thickness changes along its length. I do believe the face is somewhere near 20cm, with large portions of it being rounded.

Both tanks are fairly resilient to one another's guns at long range, but one has much greater maneuverability and a more squat profile, making it a smaller and more difficult to see/hit target.

Really is just matters who gets the first shot off, because if one tank managed to hit the other, even with a non-penetrating shot, it will probably disorient the crew enough that the follow up shot can destroy it. Being hit by large caliber shells inside a tank is like being inside a church bell being rung. It's not like the movies where the shell just "plinks" off, unless its a very small shell hitting very thick armor.

>>35174357
Same for 8.8 cm KwK 43 vs T-54.

File: 1461379139690.jpg (238KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1024x683px

>>35174115
the morozov design bureau tradition
the t-34 was named after a decree fro 1934, even though the tank appeared in 1940
the t-44 actually appeared in 1944
and from then on all then on their tanks ended in a 4: t-54, t-64, t-84

>>35173977
>>35173995
T-44 100 was a WW2 prototype and it was renamed T-54 1946. Still shows that if war would've continued somehow, T-54 would be the king of the hill. The 50s and later productions are the famous ones. Productions before 50s are not that famous.

>>35174389
Missing the great point here. If a 50 Königstiger and 50 T-54 1946s would leave their base for 50-80km road march to a position which
they will fight for it's capture so army can advance. Only 5 Königstiger would make it there while 40 T-54s would be waiting there.

Germans lost with putting a 70t tank on a suspension designed for 40t tank.

>>35173968
>APHE is completely broken, where it is much more powerful than it should be
>conveniently works in slav's favor because they mostly use APHE
>t-34-85 completely breaks tier III tanks
>armor bounces fucking everything off it for no reason
>hidden armor plate behind driver's hatch
>viewports absorb every shot
>shoots APHE that penetrates anything at any angle
I fucking hate this game so much

File: 1480190871558.webm (2MB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x550px

T-34 stronk! Can bounce an 120mm APDS!

>>35173996
He's been posting this in War Thunder General on /vg/ for weeks and I guess he's looking for new people to fall for his bait.

File: 1476796405874.jpg (426KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1600x900px

Tiger II a shit. Can't even penetrate T-34 side turret at less that 500m.

>>35176874
>expecting anything to pen at that angle

>>35176876
i haven't posted this kind of post for a month or two. unless it is someone else that does it these days.

>>35176889
Worst was when I shot an unangled T-34 from 20 meters.
Driver's vision port removed the shell from time and space like a black hole.

File: hqdefault.jpg (20KB, 246x138px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 246x138px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm5Y6Vwu6b8

>>35173968
To be fair, the germans weren't very good at making tanks for the entirety of WW2

>>35177489
>>35177649
Russian's viewports are strong as hell

>>35173968
>T-54-1 production was slow at first, as only 3 vehicles were built in 1946 and 22 in 1947. 285 T-54-1 tanks were built in 1948 by Stalin Ural Tank Factory No. 183 (Uralvagonzavod); by then it had completely replaced T-44 production at Uralvagonzavod, and Kharkov Diesel Factory No. 75 (KhPZ). Production was stopped because of a low level of production quality and frequent breakdowns.

Must have been the worst garbage tank ever if even Russians would stop production because of quality problems.

>>35177727
The drivers view port on the Tiger 1 is just as bad. Even shooting it with an SU100y at almost point blank range fails to pen it

>>35174057
To be fair a top tier German tank crew is better drilled for more situations and contingencies than their Eurasian counterparts
They might be boxing under their weight class but that didn't stop France from surrendering in two weeks

>>35176637
>Only 5 Königstiger would make it there while 40 T-54s would be waiting there.

Of the 40 T-54s that arrive;
3 cannot fire due to one issue or another
1 has burn marks from being on fire
2 have shrubbery stuck in them from hitting trees
5 crews are drunk
1 crew is naked
2 tanks have cavalry sabers and are charging
1 tank has a commissar hat on and immediately shoots one of the failures
Russians still win the battle.

>>35178741
You forget the 10 that arrived with no ammo

>>35177992
>To be fair a top tier German tank crew is better drilled for more situations and contingencies than their Eurasian counterparts

Not in 1945 they weren't.

>>35178741
>1 crew is naked
Kek.
>You got tank, why are you askingnfor clothes? You think those grow on trees?