[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 300px-M3grantmini.jpg (17 KB, 300x208)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
So this is the power...of American engineering...
>>
yes, that's a stopgap
what about it?
>>
File: 1372384472921.jpg (284 KB, 953x850)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
>>
File: bob_semple_c1.jpg (29 KB, 311x250)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>35403180
Oh, I see where this is going.
Lets get this out of the way, early.
>>
>>35403197

I'd fuck it.
>>
File: saint chad tonk.jpg (38 KB, 473x355)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>35403180
Then there's this...
>>
File: SBX23b.jpg (27 KB, 500x271)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
Yes, this is a failed tank design thread.
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (150 KB, 1280x720)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
>>35403180
ELEVEN BARRELS OF HELL
>>
>>35403279
>Lee
>Failed design

It outclassed every single Axis tank in North Africa (including the Tiger by virtue of not breaking down ever 10 miles and being actually useful)
>>
File: best tonk.png (125 KB, 425x250)
125 KB
125 KB PNG
>>35403180
This is best tank
>>
>>35403303

You have no clue what you are talking about.
>>
File: Even better.jpg (44 KB, 508x372)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>35403180
Wait even better.
>>
>>35403180
we took the phrase "when in italy do like the italians" to literally, literally.
>>
>>35403328
You have my attention.
Please present your counter-argument.
Pictures are nice, too.
I like pictures.
>>
>>35403396
Muh coffin for seven brothers!
>>
>>35403396
Only Tiger that broke down in Africa was by one of the luckiest shots in human history
>>
>>35403180
Compared to a short tubed PzKfwIV,that was king of the shitheap.
>>
>>35403433
And since only one tiger was ever knocked out in Africa, the nazis won that theatre!
Oh, wait...
>>
>>35403180
For a nation that didn't have any experience in tank manufacturing or use, it was an amazing stopgap that outclassed its peers upon its introduction. Sure, it had problems that made it have a shelf life of about a year, that was all that was needed to design, prepare the facilities for, and produce a better tank.
>>
>>35403465
no, they had like a fifth of the people there. The tiger is always going to be a better tank than the M3 and saying anything else is silly
>>
File: damn vegetables.jpg (23 KB, 334x354)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>35403465
>moving goalposts
>>
>>35403396

The long barrel 50mm Panzer 3 as well as long 75mm Panzer 4's were present in North Africa both of which had a smaller profile, equivalent or superior armor depending on the mark, and a much better AT gun than the M3 mounted properly on the tank no as if a retard try to mate a StuG with Stuart.

As for the Tiger breaking down that's just a myth. The only real big technical issue with the Tiger is that the all the rubber elements on the tank would wear quickly and require constant replacement otherwise fuel would leak.
>>
>>35403483
"better".. At breaking down or overheating,or running out of gas. Or being abandoned by it's crew in masse.

Yep, "better" by far. One led to something better. One led to a dead end.
>>
>>35403530
The Grant was literally removed from the battlefield because it was shit compared to the Tiger
>>
>>35403506
>The long barrel 50mm Panzer 3 as well as long 75mm Panzer 4's were present in North Africa both of which had a smaller profile, equivalent or superior armor depending on the mark, and a much better AT gun than the M3 mounted properly on the tank no as if a retard try to mate a StuG with Stuart.
Legitimately going to need some proof for this.
>>
File: 1K17 Zhatiye.jpg (171 KB, 1406x792)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>35403180
>>
>>35403506
> By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun, which he deployed to spearhead his armored offensives.[79] The longer gun could penetrate all American and British tanks in theater at ranges of up to 1,500 m (4,900 ft), by that time the most heavily armored of which was the M3 Grant.[80] Although more of these tanks arrived in North Africa between August and October 1942, their numbers were insignificant compared to the amount of matériel shipped to British forces.[81]
>>
>>35403582
Not many but they were there.
>>
File: hemi_ad_sm.jpg (290 KB, 910x1200)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
>>35403180
Nope, this is.
>>
>>35403433
>thinks breakdowns are only caused in combat.
Mate, if you look at the history of the 501st, you'll see that's blatantly not true. They continually had problems getting their tanks operational. This includes keeping them operational after battle damage.

>>35403530
You're going too far. Tigers were nice when they were there, but really, they weren't that much better and gave little operational advantage.

>>35403506
The long 5cm guns were not as good as you say they were. While they were a significant improvement over both the 3.7s and shorter barreled 5cms, they were outranged by the 75mm gun on the M3s. As in, they had to be at 500 meters even with the rare Panzergranate 40s. With normal AP, they did not stand a chance.

As for the Panzer IVs with the long 75s, by the time they were introduced into the theater in small numbers, Shermans were turning up in large numbers. Panzer IIIs were always the majority of Rommel's forces.

No, the biggest threat was instead anti-tank guns. Course, that's true of every tank in North Africa.
>>
>>35403679

Over all there were not that many tanks in the Panzerarmee Afrika, there were like 44 tanks for the Siege of Tobruk. And at one point one of the divisions was reduced to 4 tanks.
>>
File: 1478060592895.jpg (19 KB, 300x300)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>35403285
>tfw you will never be part of a baneblade crew
>>
>>35403702

> As for the Panzer IVs with the long 75s, by the time they were introduced into the theater in small numbers
You do realize that the Afrika Korp had over all very few tanks. At the start of the campaign they had only one Panzer Regiment. And that number didn't really increase much till Tunisia.
>>
>>35403679
I can't find any evidence the small number in theater made any sort of operation impact.
>>
>>35403744
I'm aware. You're underplaying how many they had to try and make the Panzer IVs with long 75s seem like they had more impact than they did.
>>
>>35403764

I never even mentioned impact. All I mentioned is that the Axis had better tanks than the Lee and that the Tiger didn't have break downs like you mentioned.
>>
>>35403779
The Panzer III is objectively worse than the M3. You MIGHT have a point with the handful of Tigers and Pz IVs that made it in theater significantly later, but the M3s were indeed the best tanks in the desert until the Shermans arrived.

And no, I'm not the person who made those statements, but you're still incorrect. Look at the 501st's history. They had SEVERE difficulties keeping their Tigers operational, oftentimes only having readiness rates of 33%.
>>
>>35403746
Given their numbers they most likely did not, but "not in theater" and "not in theater in significant numbers" are two different things.
>>
>>35403180
Don't you dare talk shit about Lulubelle!!!
>>
OP is shit tier Hugo Boss wanna be
>>
>>35403715
>ywn drive a Baneblade during the Great Crusade with a hundred other Baneblades and a Warlord titan or two at your back while fighting a filthy greenskin horde

Just throw me into the warp now, sempai.
>>
>>35404350
Honestly, I just so badly want a 40k game that's slightly larger than normal 40k, focused on armored warfare. Epic is just way too big, but standard 40k is just too small. It might work, but the playing space isn't generally enough.
>>
>>35404392

Updated Panzer Commander from 2001 except Leman Russ tanks. pls
>>
>>35404392
Dawn of War SS w/ Apocalypse mods what you want.
>>
File: 1492826652919.gif (3.92 MB, 327x194)
3.92 MB
3.92 MB GIF
>>35403214
>>
>>35404462
Close, but no cigar. I'm thinking more Combat Mission. Still a strategy game.

>>35404544
Not quite. The maps aren't designed properly and the engagement ranges are fucked.
>>
File: sahara 1995.webm (2.86 MB, 640x480)
2.86 MB
2.86 MB WEBM
>>35403840
>>
File: Lore. Fuck the lore.jpg (421 KB, 2880x1800)
421 KB
421 KB JPG
>>35403197
It looks like it belongs in WH40k; it feels like someone smashed Tau and Imperial technology and this is the end result.
>>
>>35404712
is that a tao-converted space marine
>>
>>35403180
The were extremely effective in the pacific, so much so that the Japs were so desperate to kill it that in one case they had a guy in a tree with a samurai wait for the tank to drive underneath so he can jump in and hack at the guys inside
>>
>>35403197
niiiiiiiiice
>>
File: kasserine.jpg (1.03 MB, 1784x1395)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
The M3 was the best tank in the war for the first few months it saw service.

That might make you appreciate how fast tanks evolved.
>>
>>35406085
The japs pulled that shit against all kinds of tanks. Because they could hardly kill a tank otherwise. But yeah, they were fine in the Pacific. They still had the 75, but they could also fire canister out of the 37. Canister is really nice given Japs are Japs.
>>
>>35406156
It's an arguable point. Some might say a KV-1, for example, was a better tank. I wouldn't make that argument, but I see how one could make it.
>>
>>35406167
Not to mention 4 M1919A4s, against infantry or pillboxes these tanks were pretty effective... esp if they didn't have good AT weapons... like the japs
>>
>>35405565
i think so, but i want to know more. it would give me a boner to know there are Tau aligned space marines.
>>
>>35406252
It's fanart.
>>
>>35406156
The M3 was never meant to be a long term program, the army wanted a tank with a 75mm turret even back in the 30's, and for the tank crews to have something.

However The tooling to make the turrets and the cast hulls hulls were still in development. So the M3 was quickly designed and the M3 used off the shelf existing tooling / techniques to build while the infrastructure was getting ready for M4 production.

Same story happened with the M47
>>
>>35406241
>four
Not unless you have the two bow guns, which nobody ever kept on, because they were a retarded design. No, normally there were only two. One in the commander's cupola, the other mounted coaxially with the 37.
>>
>>35406319
yes true, by the time the war got going the two bow guns were plugged. On most of the brit lees though they removed the commander mini turret copula and swapped it out for the M3 Grant low profile copula

>Fun fact the lee used in the 95 remake of Sahara is a Brit lee as it has the Grant pattern copula, the original film used a US version and the copula 1919 shoots down a plane.
>>
>>35406355
Low profile cupola? More like low profile turret, without the commander cupola/turret thing that was going on there. Americans must have loved the design, as they used in on their Pattons later. Course, in that case, it's more forgivable, considering they were expected to be fighting in NBC environments.Which only partially explains the weirdness of the original Abrams commander's machinegun.
>>
>>35406403
Yeah it's funny how everything went full circle and gets replaced for the same fucking reasons
>>
File: M3-Lee-latrun-5.jpg (218 KB, 1296x972)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
>>35406403
But no in addition to the Grant the Brits did use the Lee, and they promptly used the grant's copula on the turret roof
>>
>>35406487
History has a way of doing that.
>>
>>35406185
>Some might say a KV-1, for example, was a better tank.

It was a heavy tank, so its not a great comparison. But it had a three man turret which had the tank's main gun, so yeah, much better.
>>
>>35406517
Yeah,
>M3 designers
>Lets give the commander his own turret! Yes!!
>Oh shit it's too tall, fuck lets shrink that shit down on the sherman!
>Patton designers
>Hey we learned ALOT in the last war, ok lets keep it low profile
>Hey I just realized NBC is a thing... lets change to a new copula and give the commander a turret!! YES!
>Hey guys the IDF came back and said that the mini turret is bad and is too tall, they want to use the old patton copula again
>>
>>35406588
You just explained why the enclosed cupola on the M60 had a reason to exist.
>>
>>35406646
That was their justification for it. Thankfully, we'll never know if it would have been indeed well suited for fighting in NBC environments, or whether the extra size was a bigger liability.
>>
>>35406583
There were a number of problems with the KV-1 that make it difficult to say for certain. For example, was the cost worth it? Was the VAST decrease in reliability worth it? Decrease in vision, lack of radios, etc. All in all, I think it's a difficult call to make.
>>
>>35406730
Honestly the fact that the commander doesn't need to consider nearly as many factors is huge. He doesn't need to be in communication with at least four people at the same time, he isn't close to the radio, and the layout isn't very good for ergonomics or communication.
>>
>>35406772
Depends on what exactly he's doing. If he's trying to direct the two guns at once, to an extent, but let's be real and consider that he's probably not going to be ordering them both at once except MAYBE in an initial contact. At the same time, there are more eyes with better vision watching out there. The Lees had him close to the radio, and the KV-1s had their radios, when they had them, not very close to their commanders either.
>>
>>35403577
No it was removed because they knew it had problems and they designed a better tank. The Tigers saw so little action in North Africa they may as well not have been there at all.
>>
>>35403197
BATTLE TECH IS NOW.
>>
File: t546464.jpg (31 KB, 600x340)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>Runs over spear chucking Ethiopian
>>
>>35403828
Have three operational tigers is so insignificant it doesn't make a difference.
>>
>>35407367
What does the impact of the Tiger have to do with whether or not long 75mm armed pz IV were in theater?
>>
>>35403530
>One led to a dead end.

You mean the Tiger? That's incorrect. The King Tiger was the successor to the Tiger. Bigger, heavier, longer gun, and even shittier drive train. A quasi-mobile pillbox.

But damn, it could raise some hell when it was running. If you welded the hatches shut to keep the crew from bailing out. When it had fuel. If ammo was available. And you can't deny those Hugo Boss uniforms were pretty nifty.
>>
>>35403818

>The Panzer III is objectively worse than the M3.
No it's not, it has a lower profile, a functional turret, a better vehicle lay out. Only advantage the M3 Lee has is better mileage and speed.
>>
>>35407694
>Only advantage the M3 Lee has is better mileage and speed
And being impenetrable frontally by the Panzer III until short ranges for the desert. And having a gun that would punch through the Panzer III at far longer ranges. And having superior reliability. You know, the characteristics that made it better than the Panzer III by the Germans own admission.
>>
>>35404392
Have you looked at Dropzone Commander?
>>
>>35407736
's not 40k. For all of it's retardation, I'm too much in love with the universe.
>>
>>35407732

>And being impenetrable frontally by the Panzer III until short ranges
Only for the short barrel versions.

>And having a gun that would punch through the Panzer III at far longer ranges.
It's not a video game were only pure gun performance comes into play.
The gun is in a shit position, not to mention there are two guns for the commander to worry about, the whole mounting point on the side makes no sense, nor does the existence of the 37.
>>
>>35407742
Just use the rules along with some old Epic Armageddon minis. You have to Forge the Narrative, noob.
>>
>>35407743
>The gun is in a shit position
You could say the same about the StuG and yet the StuG was considered one of the best armored fighting vehicles of the German forces at the time.
>>
>>35407809

>You could say the same about the StuG
And I do say the same thing about the StuG, though at least on the StuG it's a center mount.

>yet the StuG was considered one of the best armored fighting vehicles of the German forces at the time.
Mostly by people who don't actually know or care about how the StuG was used and functioned.
>>
>>35407743
>Only for the short barrel versions.
Nope. Even for the Kwk 39s shooting Panzergranate 40.

>It's not a video game were only pure gun performance comes into play.
That's correct. However, it's still what made the M3 far superior to the Panzer III. Yes, the 75mm's position is not ideal. However, it was still able to be put into use, especially in the desert, where sight lines were long and places for tanks to hide were few. This is why anti-tank guns were fantastic in the desert.

The gun was in an acceptable position. Mounting the gun on the side makes sense. It allows both guns to be on the tank of its size. The 75mm is on one side, the 37mm is on the other. The TC was more than capable of worrying about two guns, especially with the 75 always looking forwards.

The addition of the 37 is relatively straightforwards. It was a not unheard of feature for tanks of the time. They had a hull mounted howitzer for lobbing HE and a turret mounted gun for shooting AP. This was true of the M3, to an extent. The turret allows for all the advantages of a turret, and it shoots just fine. A turret of some sort was seen as necessary. It'd kill anything up to a Panzer III J with ease, but with the J's introduction, started to get long in the tooth, although could still get kills against them. And honestly? That covered pretty much everything in North Africa in 41 and 42. Against the Panzer III Ls, it definitely lost much of its ability frontally. But still, it was a capable gun against almost all of the armor they fought, and it was certainly capable enough of basic HE work. It also gave you something with a coax, as casemate guns with coaxes are somewhat... Limited.

>>35407809
Or if we want to talk about equally shit positions, go with the Jagdpanzer 38t. People jerk it off like none other, and yet that gun was horribly mounted.
>>
>>35403329
Wait, is this thing fucking real? It can't be real, right?
>>
>>35407852
It's an incredibly obviously photoshopped M3.
>>
>>35403303
Okay, against Panzer 1,2, and maybe 3 or even 4... the m3 could work well with the nicely sloped armor against mere pea shooters on the pz 1 and pz 2...

(Americans didn't call it lee or grant, brits did that with our shit. It was the m3, then the m4 later on)

But to say it out classed tigers?....let alone the Panzer V... no, that 75 didn't do shit against it when it was on the m4, the m3 faired even worse, considering the mess of guns it was (I swear Patton himself designed it at that point and would still find more places for guns).
So yeah... you're talking out of your ass a bit too much. M3 wasn't completely shit, but it wasn't great. The only places it is good or even over powered is in war thunder and world of tanks (if you can't work this shit in world of tanks, then don't play the game...really, the lee is actually op as hell in that game)
>>
>>35403329
>Patton laughs in the distance
>>
>>35407918
>no caps
>ellipses spam
>talking about Panthers in North Africa
Mate, lurk moar.
>>
>>35407918
>the m3 could work well with the nicely sloped armor against mere pea shooters on the pz 1 and pz 2
Want to know how I see you get all your tank info from shitty games like War thunder?
>>
File: Matilda II(1).jpg (110 KB, 748x561)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>35407365
>runs over spear sucking Italian
>>
>>35405565
>>35406252
There is a precident for Tau and Ultramarines fighting together against Necrons, and I swear I remember reading about one group of Space Marines that signed up with the greater good or whatever space hippie zen shit they're into.
>>
>>35403180
On a side note.

>American military doctrine
>>
>>35407918
>im 12 years old, the post
>>
>>35408221
> t. Russian spy handbook
>>
>>35403530
Is..

is this a new meme? Or is this what americans genuinely believe?
>>
>>35403285
You do realise that has 12 barrels right?
>>
File: 1418379549944.jpg (135 KB, 647x488)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
rip
>>
how tho
>>
>>35408478

>Be Piere
>Be gunner for 300+ mm howitzer/mortar
>See Boshe tin can
>Aim at said tin can
>Miss by 3m, flip it over with the blast
>>
>>35407609
Fuck off wehraboo
>>
>>35408505
Are you retarded by chance?
>>
>>35408505
>salty burger
>>
>>35403197
Oh my...
>>
>>35404603
Crickey!
>>
>>35403197
We Hammers Slammers now
>>
File: rear-fiat-200-tank[1].jpg (54 KB, 650x443)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>35406156
Not even close.
And even if you look only at similar concepts (hull gun + AT gun under turret) the B1 bis was way superior.

>>35403260
That's an assault gun design from 1915, tho. At the time the only other tracked platforms available were artillery tractors, and they looked more like steampunk bathtubs than proper vehicles.
>>
>>35407609
>Implying that the German WWII tank designs were not the Dodo Bird of tank development

Design wise all of the WWII german tanks were dead ends, and arguably failures. As almost none of their design ques continued after the war and were all shelved

>But Muh Leopard
The fucking Leopard has 0 things in common with the WWII legacy german tank designs, I don't know why this meme exists. The only thing the Leo has in common with the older tanks is the big cat name sake. Other than that the Leo is nothing more that a kraut improved patton

The only thing that I can think of that came from the german tanks that lived after the war was the Panther's main gun which the French continued to improve and wound on the M50 Shermans, and further french tinkering would up with the 105mm version that ended up on the M51. But those too are dead ends and didn't progress after the 1970's

Meanwhile I can point to the Abrams or *insert most western tank designs here* and directly connect the track deign to the M2 medium tank of the 30's
>>
File: M-3Grants-E_014053.2.jpg (102 KB, 798x603)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>35403180

That's an M3 LEE you fucking pleb shit moron, the M3 Grant had a new turret and redesigned frontal hull
>>
>>35408987
>M3 grant has a redesigned frontal hull from the M3 lee

I got some bad news for you
>>
>>35408987
Hull wise the only difference btwn the Lee and the Grant is that the Lee has the radio in the hull and the brits wanted it in the turret. Armor wise they are the same
>>
>>35403197
looks a lot like a bradley if you squint
>>
>>35409197
It'd confuse the hell out of the PLA
>>
>>35405565
I think so but you missed the filename.
>>
>>35403506
Says Tigers breaking down is a myth, then says all the rubber elements had to be constantly replaced or else the fuel would leak.

Sounds pretty similar to breaking down to me.
>>
>>35408658
>Not even close.

Thank you for letting us know how little you know, the B1 also had inferior guns and inferior armor.
>>
>>35403180
I'm not gonna lie, while it is a stop-gap tank on the road to the standardized model with the Shermans, It looks so cool in a childish way.
>>
>>35407826
>Mostly by people who don't actually know or care about how the StuG was used and functioned.

Or by people interested in how vehicles performed instead of just wanking to the biggest thing around.
>>
File: M3 Medium.webm (2.85 MB, 622x480)
2.85 MB
2.85 MB WEBM
>>
File: M10 factory.webm (2.94 MB, 640x480)
2.94 MB
2.94 MB WEBM
>>35409958
>>
File: Sherman tanks.webm (1.72 MB, 640x480)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB WEBM
>>35409971
>>
>>35403696
>not an LS
>>
>>35408027
>runs over
More like slowly crawls over. Seriously the Matilda is too fucking slow. But why?
>>
>>35405565
the artist had some story to this picture:
an imperial engineer wants to design an astartes armor that non astartes soldiers can operate. The mars priests dont like this. He flees to the tau and produces it for their auxillary human forces.
>>
>>35403702
Funny thing, until the Sherman and the long barrel Panzer IV showed up, one of the hardest hitting tanks in Africa was the italian Semovente.
>>
>>35408505
>guy mentions many of the Tiger 2s logistical and mechanical vulnerabilities
>this makes him a wehraboo
>>
>>35408985
Panzer III
Panzer IV
>failure

Whatever you say...
>>
>>35407918
Panther in North Africa my sides
>>
>>35408985
>and arguably failures
The PzIV was a failure despite being one of the best mid war mediums? The StuG was a failure even though it was incredibly effective as a tank destroyer and assault gun while being cost effective and not interrupting production of other vehicles? Also no shit the designs were all shelved, the country that designed and built them was bombed to dust and then torn apart.
>>
>>35403180
Go big or go home
>>
>>35407918
>no, that 75 didn't do shit against it when it was on the m4
The 75mm on the M4 worked just fine at putting down Tigers and Panthers.
>>
File: dumb implications.png (40 KB, 1149x367)
40 KB
40 KB PNG
>>35410449
No, it did not work "just fine". The Panther had an effective 120mm of frontal armor, the Tiger I 100mm. The 75mm Sherman had to close in to 100m to even have a chance of killing a Tiger frontally, the Panther was impenetrable frontally.

The Shermans only maintained due to better ergonomics and optics (in comparison to the Panther) and due to the Allied superiority in numbers, fuel, air power, artillery, etc.
Also it came in handy that most German tanks (when they even were available on the Western Front) weren't Panthers or Tigers but StuGs and Panzer IVs.

The Sherman was a very good tank, especially with the 76mm, but the 75mm gun was shit after 1942.
>>
File: 1499077524900m.jpg (142 KB, 714x1024)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>35410558
>>
>>35410626
Read my post
>>
>>35410639
read my post
>>
>>35403260
THE CHAD St. Chad
>>35403180
THE VIRGIN M3
>>
>>35410235
best panzer reporting in
>>
>>35403279
What the fuck is that thing, it's absolutely hideous.
>>
>>35410651
All hits to the sides, back or vision slot, all due to the Sherman crews being able to outmaneuver the German heavy tanks. If you're dependent on better maneuvers and the hope that you catch your enemy from the side or back your gun is shit. Period.
>>35410704
The best Panzer IV was the H variant.
>>
>>35410558
Not him, but that's not telling the whole story. Shermans achieved very good loss ratios against Panthers. Especially when the Shermans were on the defensive. I mean, just read >>35410626 for proof of a 75mm gunned Sherman killing multiple Panthers in a single engagement. If you look operationally, hell, Panthers required more numbers to reliably kill a Sherman (on the offensive) than Shermans required to kill Panthers.
>>
Somebody's grinding tier 4.
>>
>>35410741
I know, and the Sherman was certainly a better tank, but that doesn't change the fact that its gun (talking about the 75mm) was insufficient.
>>
>>35410764
If they're achieving these loss ratios against much heavier tanks, were they really insufficient?
>>
File: le panther 2.png (45 KB, 741x452)
45 KB
45 KB PNG
>>35410794
Well the Panther was a really really bad tank on the attack because the Gunner did not have a periscope and was limited to just his gun sight, meaning he was effectively blind.
>>
>>35410794
Yes, they were. As I said the Sherman still did well because it was an otherwise fantastic tank (and the Panther pretty shit tbqh), but even the StuG III and Panzer IV, the most numerous German AFVs, had frontal armor protection which the 75mm gun could only penetrate on ranges of 1000m or below.
>>
stop arguing and post pictures
>>
>>35410764
Unoptimal maybe (which is why they were getting more 76s out), but enough for the job. It's better to make a capable, logistically supportable 'do everything' vehicle that can annihilate infantry (which is 90% of what armor fights at all times), than a more expensive specialist.
Incidentally, 76 Sherman is almost certainly the best all around actual best tank of the war because of this stuff. It beat Panthers, and it beat the shit out of T-34-85s and IS later in Korea.
>>
File: 1477505682192.jpg (175 KB, 923x881)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
>>35410875
>>
File: 1414296256107-1.jpg (222 KB, 1292x882)
222 KB
222 KB JPG
>>
File: 1467279698639.jpg (93 KB, 800x788)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>
File: 1467273185397.jpg (32 KB, 400x549)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>
File: Sherman 122mm gun.jpg (141 KB, 700x414)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>35410875
>>
File: Marder Panzerjäger.jpg (494 KB, 1987x1158)
494 KB
494 KB JPG
>>35410875
Amen
>>
>>35403279
Kek, the T-28 is the pinnacle of shitty soviet engineering.
>>
>>
File: M3 and M4 Medium tanks.jpg (511 KB, 1000x853)
511 KB
511 KB JPG
>>
File: t-35-replica[1].jpg (84 KB, 650x395)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>35410988
That would be the T-35.
>>
>>
>>
File: 1461822966213.jpg (335 KB, 1024x655)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>35411033
I love all the weird dumb Sherman variants.
>>
File: 1444069649966.jpg (80 KB, 1008x644)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>
Panthers seen from another Panther
>>
>>35411068
to intelligent
>>
>>
File: 1462753970518.jpg (92 KB, 1024x675)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>
>>35410999
Thanks for the correction
>>
>decent ergonomics
>reliable mechanical systems
>400 horsepower engine
>synchromesh transmission
>gyrostabilized guns
>solid armor for the time
>bogie suspension and front mounted transmission/final drive unit greatly simplified maintenance and repair
>fast and precise electrohydraulic traverse
>gunner's optic combines telescope and unmagnified periscope and can be used for gun laying while turret down
>good operational range for gasoline engine
>heated crew compartment

I see nothing wrong with this, and neither did the British. The Germans certainly did however, when they realized that their Panzers were no match for it in terms of strategic mobility, reliability, armor, or firepower.
>>
>>35403180
When you consider the thing went into production so fast that they were sending the drawings to the factory to build the tooling the night after they drew them up, the first few tanks had to share a transmission because there weren't enough in existence, and that it was only supposed to built for the time it took America to figure out how to properly cast a large enough turret to fit a 75mm then, yes, it is very much indicative of the power of American engineering.

Seriously, we built the largest factory in the world solely to build a tank for about a year. And in that time we built more of them than Germany ever managed Tigers or Panthers, and were less than 1500 units behind the Panzer IV, which was produced for 9 years.
>>
>>35406085
In particular, the 37mm had something like 60 degrees of positive elevation. Load it up with canister shot, and anybody hiding in the treetops is fucked.
>>
>>35403180
Literally the best medium tank in Africa
>>
>>35411210
GUP is a bad show
terrible taste
>>
>>35411313
Well, until the M4 was introduced anyway.
>>
>>35411189
The design layout was anachronistic and far less advanced than its contemporaries. The armor while somewhat good for its time but was insufficient protection against the later PzIII's which had the L/60 gun, it also used rivets in its hull construction a practice that most other countries had phased out. The British Matilda and Valentine had better protection, comparable handling, and a far better layout. The PzIII's had a three man turret, a capable gun, and were designed with easy communication and coordination in mind. If you're trying to say that the M3 even held a candle to the other tanks in North Africa you're nuts, the M3 and many of the tactics they used were dated, then we got our shit together and built the M4, arguably the best tank of the entire war.

> neither did the British
The British needed more tanks, beggars can't be choosers.
>>
>>35411210
>which was produced for 9 years

I shouldn't be surprised by a GuP fan being so wrong.
>>
>>35411470
Produced 1936–1945

Production models
Main article: List of Panzer IV variants

Ausf.A, 1/BW (Sd.Kfz.161)

35 produced by Krupp-Gruson, between November 1937 and June 1938.

Ausf.B, 2/BW

42 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from May to October 1938.

Ausf.C, 3/BW

140 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1938 to August 1939.

Ausf.D, 4/BW + 5/BW

200 + 48 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1939 to October 1940.

Ausf.E, 6/BW

206 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1940 to April 1941.

Ausf.F, 7/BW

471 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from April 1941 to March 1942.

Ausf.F2, 7/BW Umbau (Sd.Kfz.161/1)

Temporary designation for Ausf F chassis built with long 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 main gun, later renamed into Auf. G and 8/BW.

Ausf.G, 8/BW

1,927 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from March 1942 to June 1943.

Ausf.H, 9/BW (Sd.Kfz.161/2)

~2,324 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from June 1943 to February 1944.

Ausf.J, 10/BW

~3,160 produced by Vomag Nibelungenwerke from February 1944 to April 1945.
>>
>>35411470
>>35411476
BTFO
>>
>>35411078
How the fuck would you hit anything with a slow as shit WW2 era turret traversal and why would you waste a tank on something that a truck can do better?

Looks cool though.
>>
>>35411476
Thats 7 years.
>>
>>35410111

Britbongs had this idea of an "infantry tank" that acted as a bullet shield for the troops and take care of bunkers/pillboxes for them, and by design couldn't go faster than a running man, in order to prevent the tanks from outrunning the troops.

Yeah. It was dumb as fuck.
>>
>>35403260
To be fair at that time no one really knew what they where doing
>>
>>35411522
Accepted into service as the Versuchskraftfahrzeug 622 (Vs.Kfz. 622),[10] production began in 1936 at Fried. Krupp Grusonwerk AG factory at Magdeburg.[13]
>>
>>35411547
It wasn't in mass production, the first mass production (though small) was in 1937. The first mass production model was the PzIV A that went into production in '37.
>>
>>35411578
>post 1
>>which was produced for 9 years
>post 2
>>I shouldn't be surprised by a GuP fan being so wrong.
>>
>>35411454
You'd be right if the operational records of the British didn't directly contradict you. That, and the complaints Rommel reportedly received from his subordinate commanders regarding the inferiority of their Panzers to the British M3s.

The Brits heaped praise upon these things, even in comparison to their own domestic designs. That doesn't sound like a 'beggars can't be choosers' situation to me.
>>
>>35411592
Its not my fault you're illiterate in these matters, the first Me-262 prototype was accepted by the Luftwaffe and flew in 1941, this does not mean that the Me-262 started production in 1941.
>>
>>35411454
The M3 was objectively better than the Panzer III and Panzer IV up to the F2, mate, and certainly LEAGUES better than what the Italians could throw into the mix.The Kwk 39 is a capable gun, but still couldn't penetrate the M3 from range.
>>
>>35411526
>Yeah. It was dumb as fuck.
not really,
first of all, less speed means less stress on all components, less fuel consumption, smaller chances of catastrophic accidents,
and if you design a tank to slow(er) in the first place, you wont sacrifice mobility for armour, of which you can now fit more
hence the fact that the Matilda II had armour unlike anything else during its service
>>
File: rekt.jpg (402 KB, 1000x444)
402 KB
402 KB JPG
>>35403180
>So this is the power...of American engineering...

No, but picrelated is.
>>
>>35411644

And then the later German AFVs shit all over the whole concept, which was obsolete by about 1943.
>>
>>35411189
Actually, we need to be completely accurate here. There were things wrong with the design. Namely, it had such a high silhouette. This was seen as a problem, especially by the British, who made a lower profile turret for the thing and got rid of the commander's cupola-turret. Even with said deficiency, it was objectively the best tank in the theater for half a year or more after its introduction/
>>
File: gupzergface.png (1.01 MB, 1280x720)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB PNG
>>35411322
>Get off my boat
>>
>>35410875
Honestly, you're what's wrong with the site. Imagespam helps no one, needlessly bumps the thread, and reduces the number of available images for use in on topic discussion or shitposting.
>>
>>35411622
>Panzers
This term can refer to any German armored vehicle and the Afrika corps had the PzI-III. Also I'm not saying the M3 was somehow irredeemable, it was a hot mess with some good features. The British in particular enjoyed the fact it fired HE, their tanks were not issued this ammo (not yet at least). Also you can get good results with bad equipment, the M3 was important to the theater, but in comparison to the designs of its contemporaries its not very efficient, easy to use, or all that well thought out but that last part is a result of the sponson.
>>
>>35411643
You can't just say its objectively better than tanks that clearly have several superior qualities and expect people to just agree with that statement.
>>
>>35411779
Its one advantage was having its main gun in a turret. The M3 has a decent gun for the time in its turret as well.
The M3's 75 could penetrate the Panzer III at all appreciable combat ranges. The 37 could penetrate everything up to the J out to 500 meters, which is where the Panzer III has to close to to try and penetrate the M3, providing they're using a Kwk39 and firing Panzergranate 40s. And in the desert, that's not likely.

Does having a turret with a gun that's really not that much of a threat really make it a better tank than the M3?
>>
>>35411657
truth, the Matilda was great during the opening stages of the war, i mean if the Germans have to resort to using their flak as ground support due to inadequate AT weapons, you're doing something right
but as soon as the Germans started up-armouring and refitting their Pz III and IV's, not to mention the Tiger being introduced, it became obsolete at an incredible pace
>>
>>35411857
>Does having a turret with a gun that's really not that much of a threat really make it a better tank than the M3?

The three man turret isn't just for the gun, it greatly enhances the awareness of the commander and allows for easier communication. The M3's turret contains only a 37mm, but that's not bad for '42 unless you're looking at a T-34. The sponson gun's issue isn't just that its fixed and awkward, its also another station the commander needs to take into consideration and he's also the farthest person in the tank from that gun position. Its cumbersome to say the least and puts a lot more work on the commander.
>>
>>35403279
There's one of these monsters still running in Russia.
>>
>>35411972
Source?
>>
>>35411984
You can find it on Youtube. Was restored to running order not long ago.
>>
>>35403197
Is this Hammer's Slammers?
>>
>>35412042
You mean the T-35?
>>
>>35410558
Besides what the others are saying, metallurgy was also a problem with the Panthers. Their armor was too brittle, and would spall, crack or even shatter. The few ones that were up to standard however, could shrug the shots off very easily.
>>
File: type95hago-03.jpg (31 KB, 500x363)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>35410875
>>
>>35411956
>The three man turret isn't just for the gun, it greatly enhances the awareness of the commander and allows for easier communication
I'm aware. It's just not a significant advantage when your enemy has 3 man turrets as well. Like the M3 did. So you're saying that its one advantage was that it had a 3 man turret, when the M3 had a 3 man turret as well. The guns in said turrets would penetrate each other at about equal distances. But then the M3 has the addition of the 75mm gun. This you somehow assume makes the commander completely incapable of commanding the tank. The sponson by design can only be pointed in the direction the tank is looking, something the commander is already going to be very aware of, and trying to point it at his enemy anyways. Really, the only big mental calculation he has to do involves trying to figure out its sight lines, not because he's 4 feet to the left, but because he's sitting 3 feet above the line of site of the gun. Which really, in the desert, isn't that big of a concern until you start getting into the more mountainous areas.
>>
File: IMG_0732.jpg (71 KB, 602x452)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
meanwhile...
>>
>>35412352
>phoneposting naziboos
go back to r*ddit
>>
>>35412207
>Like the M3 did

My mistake, forgot the 37mm had a loader as well. The 37mm gun is the AT gun (and was sufficient), and the M3 being a medium tank would have trouble using its sponson mounted gun against other moving vehicles. The sponson is also not usable in the hull down position.

While the commander is not incapable of commanding his tank he is burdened with far more than the commander of a Panzer II-III or a Matilda or valentine. He also needs to be directing both guns (37mm gunner lacks a periscope and has no situational awareness), not just thinking about sight lines. At the same time he must also direct the driver, keep in contact with his platoon through his radioman, and always be surveying his surroundings. He must do all of this while located off to the far left of the vehicle. This is far from ideal especially compared to a tank where the commander sits at the center and has only one gun to direct or operate. Also the tank was expected for use anywhere, not just in the desert.
>>
>>35407918
M3 Lees are guaranteed free kills. I have never seen one get a kill.
>>
>>35406304
It was stop gap, it was known stop gap. It used the gun the next tank was going to use and got it out on to the battlefield in numbers 11 months earlier. It used quick and cheap design and manufacture. Till the next gen of German tanks got out it outclassed them. By then the M4 was out. And the M4 was not a uber tank but it was good and reliable. It had good crew comforts. It had single axis GS for a much better ability to shot on the move or fire faster more accurately when stopped. It had better optics for the gunner so the TC could find a target lead the gunner to it's general vicinity and then get back to situational awareness.

It was reliable. 100 M4s in the field were 94-96 FULLY FUNCTIONAL in the line of battle. If the German ever got 100 Tigers together they would of been lucky to get 60 SOME PARTIALLY FUNCTIONAL into combat and 15 of those would break down in hours of use without enemy action being involved. Nobody had a tank so reliable in WWII in mass use.

It was fast over country, it was easy to modify and improve.

Books being written by guys who were only seeing the casualties were wrong. Russian cheering section need to read actually history and not Sov Propaganda (T-34 had a few nice features but was overall a average tank). German o'philes know they had some cool and good tanks but were too few, too unreliable, poorly utilized technology (For Example:Not giving good optics for gunners find targets) and their special snowflake nature made their logistics hard to support.

The M3 production helped build the infrastructure that made the M4 a success.
>>
>>35410140
Then the "Space Marine" in that image should be smaller. The power armor doesn't add much in terms of size. 40k SPESS MEHREENS are just Xbox huge.
>>
>>35412609
>and the M3 being a medium tank would have trouble using its sponson mounted gun against other moving vehicles.
Only if they're right up close, which is very unlikely. Normal engagement ranges would not cause overmuch concern for engaging moving targets with the sponson. Even if your target is moving perpendicular from you at 500 meters out, the angle is not changing fast enough to make you incapable of taking repeated shots. And its true, it's not usable in a hull down position, but it does have the turret still. It does allow for the right sponson to be poked around an obstacle, giving minimal exposure of the rest of the tank, although the applications for this are admittedly few. I suppose it'd work in more urban areas on the defensive, when you have time to set up such a position.

Anon, there's only one appreciable difference between the M3 and the other tanks you mentioned (many of which have their own problems): the addition of the casemate gun. This is by your own admission, as it's the only additional thing on the list. And actually, the Valentine only had a two man turret, which most would agree would put FAR more stress on the commander than having an additional gun mounted in a casemate that only pointed forwards. No, this does not "far more burden" the TC. It's a minimal addition. No, his placement on the left of the tank is not crippling in any way, and the bigger issue, as I mentioned, is the height difference, where a target you could see might be unseen by the people below you because of your elevation.

To be frank, anon, your opinion of the M3 is clouded with the patently false idea that commanders were unable to command them effectively. If it was truly a big issue, it would have been recorded as such. But it wasn't. The addition of a casemate really doesn't change much about how you'd use the tank, with the possible exception of ease of engaging pop-up targets with HE, which is ameliorated by the 37's presence.
>>
Panzer IV > Panzer III >>>>> M3 Lee
t. Warthunder Pro
>>
>>35411857
Kwk39 with Pzgr could penetrate the M3 Lee out to 1000m.
>>
>>35413198
*Pzgr 39
>>
>>35410325
>>35410235

Ok, so then it will be really easy to point out how many tanks today that have design elements from the Panzer IV series? Or features that can be traced directly to the PZIII or IV???

>I'll wait

I can point out some components that are evolved from the Sherman, or the M2... PZIII or IV yeah not so much
>>
>>35413209
Not frontally. Are you sure you're taking angles into account?
>>
File: leopard2a5dk_desert_ba.jpg (107 KB, 428x285)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>35413289
>Slat armor = Shurtzen

Ok I concede the PZIII and IV family did contribute something however other then that there is not a whole lot
>>
File: Capture.png (752 KB, 980x956)
752 KB
752 KB PNG
>>35413328
Yes, frontally.
>>
File: 1503652622273.jpg (177 KB, 505x960)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>35403285
MFW even Baneblades have M2s on them
>>
>>35413056
> No, his placement on the left of the tank is not crippling in any way
I never claimed as such, my entire argument is that the crew arrangement of this vehicle is anachronistic and far less efficient than the Matilda and PzIII.


>To be frank, anon, your opinion of the M3 is clouded with the patently false idea that commanders were unable to command them effectively.

Among the primary advancements in the development of armor during the second world war was the improved utilization of interior volume and crew ergonomics, namely making the job of commanding an armored vehicle far more easy. Contemporary tank since the second world war has been focusing on streamlining the job of the commander as well as making crew and inter vehicle communication as easy as possible (which the PzIII and Matilda did better). Also my opinion on the M3 was that it was a stop gap vehicle that despite some anachronistic design choices performed adequately prior to its fairly rapid replacement by the M4. I am not claiming that the M3 was a failure or ineffective.
>>
>>35404656
I downloaded the exact same VCR copy a while ago in some torrent website.

I loved this movie, probably watched it around 2004 on cable TV at Max Prime, I remember it repeated for a whole weekend
>>
>>35410725
>If you're dependent on better maneuvers and the hope that you catch your enemy from the side or back your gun is shit.

>If you can't hurt a man without kicking his balls, you're weak.

also in that case why bother building medium tanks at all
>>
>>35403197
Kong from Desert punk?
>>
File: 40k_Heavy_Stubber_2.jpg (18 KB, 697x256)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>35413637
In the grim darkness of the far future, even the Ma Deuce is still in service.
>>
>>35414525
God-Empress of Mankind
>>
>>35403260
Assault caterpillar.
>>
File: IMG_0319.jpg (72 KB, 500x548)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>35410875
>>35410875
Shut it. The arguments are the best part. I don't get good honest discourse at my school.
>mfw I have to come to fucking 4Chan for good conversations
>>
>>35410725
are you retarded or just not understand WWII tank combat?
>>
>>35409992
>LS
Literal shit
>>
File: 1280px-M4A4_cutaway[1].png (649 KB, 1280x743)
649 KB
649 KB PNG
Sherman Tank

>stupid radial engine, because reasons
>instead of making it rwd. they have the drive sprockets and transmission in the front.
>angled propshaft means the the turret has to shit higher.
>xboxhuge profile
>navy took all the diesel engine production
>>
>>35414768
and still the best tank of the war too
>>
>>35413329
Shurtzen performed an entirely different function than slat/bar/cage armor.
>>
>>35414845
only because the Panther and Tiger were unreliable shit, and the t34 was too crude.
>>
>>35414768
the profile and front drive characteristics also characterize the german tanks you spergs seem to love
>>
>>35414878
T34's are also unreliable as shit, they just were so numerous and had such low survival odds that it hardly mattered
>>
>>35414878
>only because the Panther and Tiger were unreliable shit
both were unreliable by design
>>
>>35414768
I don't understand why they made it so big.
The Panzer IV and T-34 (both 30s designs) eventually had better guns in a lower profile than the sherman (40s design).
>>
File: m3leecross[1].jpg (194 KB, 801x480)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
>>35415070
engine supply demanded it.

plus it is an evolution off the M3. which also had stupid radial engines.
>>
File: Sherman_M-60_01.jpg (50 KB, 1030x726)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>35415070
>The Panzer IV and T-34 (both 30s designs) eventually had better guns
and so did the sherman
>>
>>35411939

this
>>
>>35411512

i think it was one of the ideas on the table for a stop gap SPAA
>>
>>35415114
Irrelevant in this context.
They should have given the Sherman a bigger gun (ideally 90mm) in the first place.
>>
>>35415201
>>
File: Super_Pershing[1].jpg (174 KB, 800x359)
174 KB
174 KB JPG
>>35415201
>>35415114
>Tadaima!
>>
>>35415265
Yes, this.
>>35415270
No, get this turd out of here.
>>
>>35415265
>just fuck my profile up
>>
>>35414751
Literally the best engine ever made. Hemi fags stay eternally btfo with thier ecu sensitive piece of shit, and cracking blocks.
>>
File: 2ev3i90.jpg (35 KB, 600x272)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>35413329
>Applicate armor hung on the sides of the tank to slow down and degrade incoming rounds be either a shell from another tank, or a shape charge rocket

Yeah they kinda are similar in purpose
>>
>>35414868
This, >>35415454
>>
>>35404656
Name of movie?
>>
>>35415454
>>35415471
>>35413329
>>35414868

Yeah it's important to note that schürzen evolved into mesh screens late in the war, as the Germans came to fully appreciate the unintended protection the former provided against shape charges and refined it into something lighter (and consuming less metal).
>>
File: Trap Card.jpg (192 KB, 720x524)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
>>35408221
You just set off my trap card.
>>
>>35403506
The Tiger was stupidly expensive and time-consuming to manufacture
They tried to make special fording equipment for the Tiger because it was too fat and heavy to cross most bridges constructed by combat engineers, but said fording equipment proved to be almost as complicated as the Tiger itself
Its transmission was sensitive, and although not a piece of shit like the Panther's, would fail if not maintained constantly
Its overlapping suspension system made maintaining the spokes and treads annoyingly difficult
It had a high track tension, which meant that sometimes small explosive charges had to be used to get the tracks off
It had two sets of tracks, one for combat, the other for transport

TL;DR the Tiger was, expensive, overcomplicated, and overrated
>>
File: Tanks WW2.png (343 KB, 640x429)
343 KB
343 KB PNG
>>35415733
Pic related, Tiger took x30 times more man hours than the Sherman to build.

We know about that 10'000 man hours figure for the Sherman, and the 35'000 man hour production figure for the T-34 because the Americans and Soviets were both constantly, ruthlessly trying to make their tanks cheaper and kept a good records to help with this.

We know about the figure for the Tiger because the Germans bragged about it in the manual. The *bragged*, like they were proud of it, their whole mentality about industrial production, they looked at this wonky hand built by skilled artisans monster and thought those were *good* qualities.
>>
File: images.jpg (7 KB, 123x186)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>35415506
1995 remake of Sahara
>>
>>35408047

A lot of humans allied with the Tau after realizing the Tau treated them better.
>>
File: m3burnt.jpg (93 KB, 1100x686)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>many examples, sad!
:^)
>>
File: 1507207726246.jpg (460 KB, 1163x1600)
460 KB
460 KB JPG
>>35415909
Where are you getting those numbers for cost?
>>
>>35406583
>But it had a three man turret which had the tank's main gun, so yeah, much better.

KV-1, with initial turret at least, had a rather weird layout for its turret. Instead of the usual commander, gunner, loader, it instead had: gunner on left, commander/loader on right, and assistant driver/mechanic in rear, who may or may not be present to make room in turret.

KV-1S's new turret got the more sensible layout right, though. (Though for some reason, the commander's cupola had no hatch--the hatch was in a different part of turret.)
>>
>>35414010
I saw it as a kid, probably the first WW2 movie I ever watched. It was a made for TV movie and it took me years to find a copy.
>>
>>35408221
It's to make the Russians hesitate.
>>
>>35409938
>M5 better than SA 35
>Better armor
Riiight. And that's a tank that was 5 years older than the M3.

Lee also had worse cross-country abilities and was more maintenance heavy (a feat in itself).
>>
>>35416187
Screenshot from a lecture.

https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=46m40s

The guy mentions that the $ values are questionable because the Reich-mark and the Rouble were both monopoly money during the war years, whose real value was wildly divergent from their nominal value.
>>
>>35411655
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ
26:00

Obligatory.
>>
>>35417703
>>35417925
I'm glad I introduced this lecture to the site. Parshall is a good dude.
>>
>>35413637
If it ain't broke
>>
>>35403396
>Pictures are nice, too.

Nice grammar, Ledskey
>>
>>35415003
Muh Russian zerg tactics
>>
>>35417946
I had been referring to his website (combinedfleet) for years without actually realizing that was his.

A few months ago, I came across one of his Midway presentations on youtube, and recognized some of the artwork he used. I was rather happily surprised to discover the (obvious, in retrospect) connection.

He has 2-3 good Midway videos that have been posted on youtube (largely saying the same things, but with a few different minor details here and there), along with a very informative Pearl Harbor one, plus this Kursk/tank production one that taught me sooo much about the strategic bombing campaign and logistics issues on both fronts.

I wish he'd do more; he has a great way of making events make sense over the course of a battle.
>>
>>35418072
Did you watch his lecture on Kamikazes in 1945? The one that illustrates the ludicrous growth of American AA throw weight over the course of the war? If not, lemme see if I can dig it up, it's a good one, that I was there live for. If you're ever interested in meeting the man, he's often one of the speakers at the International WW2 Conference, which is held at the National WW2 Museum down in New Orleans. Over the course of a couple of days, they give a series of talks focused on the given year. Sadly, very American centered, but hey, you can't win everything. Anyways, it costs a pretty penny, but I highly suggest you go. You also get passes to the museum, which is well worth the trip in and of itself. You also might get a chance to eat breakfast with the guy. I only exchanged a few words with him when I got my copy of Shattered Sword signed, but I ate breakfast on one of the days with another of the speakers/authors.
>>
>>35418072
>>35418145
Preemptively found it and posting for anyone interested. Mr Parshall comes up at about 1:41:30, but the rest of the video should be well worth it. Especially the Jap's portion, to add a bit of perspective.

https://livestream.com/nww2m/events/4477761/videos/105040073
>>
>>35418145
Oh, I completely forgot to list that one. Yeah, it was great. Another excellent example of logistics and technology driving operations.

I'm hoping to do a ACW/WWII trip someday--Vicksburg, Naval ACW Museum, Benning, a couple BBs, NASM, etc. NOLA is a bit out of the way from Vicksburg; is it worth it, compared to those others?
>>
>>35415909
>they looked at this wonky hand built by skilled artisans monster
Yeah Jewish slave labour is literally the same as "skilled artisans"
You know that slave labour of starving people who know they're doomed is less efficient than people with motivatetion and full stomachs, right?
Also, you know being bombed constantly decreases efficiency, right?
>>
>>35418171
If you're not close, I wouldn't go to New Orleans just for the museum, but it's supposedly one of the best museums of any type in the world. Some places rate it as the 3rd best museum in the nation, 15th best in the world.
>>
>>35418171
I suppose I should amend my statement to say that if you do have the chance to go to the conference, go. It was fantastic. I learned so much, and it was a great experience.
>>
>>35410713
T-35 Heavy Tank
>>
>>35414878
>hurr the sherman was only the best because the other designs were objectively worse

Thanks for the input.
>>
>>35418175
That was the V-2, not the Tiger.

A lot of the final assembly of the Tiger (and most other German tank designs) required skilled welding and grinding, that a layman or even a journeyman would not be able to do.

For example, look at how the bow armor meets the belly armor--it's not a straight weld, the plates are cut to fit and interleaved (completely by hand!). That sort of precision is found all over the tank.
>>
>>35410998
I like the welded over fixed hull machine gun ports on the M3 sitting next to this thing. It's hard to understand how they didn't look at that while designing the M4 and say "Shit, this isn't a very good idea... Maybe we should just not..."
>>
>>35418175
>Yeah Jewish slave labour is literally the same as "skilled artisans"
It isn't, that was part of the problem for the Germans. Their racial slavery system meant that they were increasingly reliant on unskilled and unwilling slave labourers, but their industrial production never really shifted to match this. They still designed their factories as if they were using teams of skilled machinists, but that skilled machinist was dead in a ditch in Ukraine and there was a French forced labourer in his place on 1800 calories a day sitting in his place.
>>
>>35403279
looks like a 40k tank
>>
>>35415003
While it is true that T-34s had early teething problems, and during early 1943 there were serious quality control issues, you have to remember that the soviets were forced to abandon and move numerous tank factories, something Germany and US didn't have to do.

And even then, the T-34 was far simpler to repair than a many German tanks such as Panther, and that's extremely important too, as the even the most reliable tank will eventually need heavy maintenance, especially after battle.
>>
>>35418980
This is true. Though I would argue that T-34 being simpler to repair than a Panther says more about the Panther than it does about the T-34. Both of these vehicles are absolute nightmares when it comes to field maintenance. It just so happens that the Panther is worse.

T-34 requires constant adjustment of steering clutch plates and replacement of air filters, every single maintenance access point on the hull is bolted down, including the fuel filler port, and you have to remove the turret if you want to repair or replace the forward suspension units, which is often necessary. But on the other hand, it won't take you six hours for a simple transmission swap like it would with a Panther, assuming a spare Panther transmission could even be found by uts crew.
>>
>>35419155
Yeah. Unlike the Americans, the soviets didn't really have the resources to mass produce their main vehicle *without* using shittier components. ("If it only lasts so long before the enemy destroys it, then it's a waste of materials to design it to last longer than that")

To be fair, the soviets were wanting to change the Christie suspension in favour of torsion bar, but a certain event in 1941 prevented that.
>>
>>35415201
Despite the fact that the 75mm proved in no way inadequate in Africa and Italy? 75mm Shermans were killing what few Tigers and Panthers they encountered, and the Panzers were completely helpless. If the 90mm would have been such a boon, why were 76mm Shermans being refused by a number of armor divisions even after the Normandy breakout?

And aside from that, you would have had to design an entirely new turret. The 76mm in a small turret Sherman was deemed completely unacceptable due to the deleterious effects it had on ergonomics. Try sticking a 90mm in there and see where that gets you.
>>
>>35419216
Plus, Panthers were hideously vulnerable from the side, even to 75mm M3. Panther's side was what, 45mm on D/A models and 55mm (but poorer slope) on the G model? Even the M26, which was 46tons vs the Panthers 49, have 75mm side armour.
>>
>>35419174
Planned obsolescence. Saw the Kursk lecture I take it? Good shit. Glad to see it posted on /k/.

And yeah, I'm not throwing shade on the Russians here. I realize their design choices were deliberate, and once I saw the logic behind it all, I came to respect the T-34 a bit more. All the same though, facts are facts. T-34 was a bit of a pain, but again, I'd rather be asked to repair that than a Panther.
>>
>>35419248
All true. And even if a Sherman crew couldn't maneuver for a good flank shot, it was apparently common practice to deal with heavier tanks like Panther and Tiger by firing a white phosphorous round into the engine deck and machine gunning the crew as they abandoned the (hopefully) now-burning vehicle, or by bombarding the turret with HE rounds until the crew died from concussion.
>>
>>35419304
Lieutenant Homer Wilkes, 747th Tank Battalion, Sherman platoon vs. Tiger, 20 November, 1944

>“At this time a Mark VI engaged three Company A tanks in a gun battle at the range of 2,000 yards, the Tiger having an 88mm, high muzzle velocity gun. One Company A tank was commanded by Sergeant Herman Deaver.

>Deaver first fired a high explosive, fuse quick, hitting and breaking one track. He then turned to armor piercing, which failed to damage the Tiger. The foe was slowly traversing for the purpose of engaging the three Americans, therefore the Company A men used their only recourse.

>They commenced pounding his turret with high explosives, which jarred the tank and gave the crew concussion. The German knocked out two of the tanks and shot the vane sight off Deaver’s turret, located in front of the commander’s head, without hitting Deaver.

>Eventually the Mark VI ceased firing. Then Deaver set him aflame using white phosphorous. Later, Deaver inspected the tank to find all the turret crew dead"
>>
>>35419304
You know, it's kinda weird how a lot of media says that a Tiger can only be knocked out from the *rear,* since all the armour drawings I see, show the Tiger's rear plate as the same thickness as sides. (80mm)
>>
>>35410988
T-28 was designed and produced from early 30's. For 30's it was an excellent tank.
>>
>>35419391
Wasn't T-28 the first tank to have a vertical stabilizer?
>>
>>35419372
Yeah, that bothered my autism a bit in Fury.

That, and the fact that there were two 76mm Shermans in that platoon which could have easily penned a Tiger frontally at those ranges. But I suppose that wouldn't make for a good movie.
>>
>>35419530
Wonder if we'll ever get a WW2 movie showing an M26 in Köln against the Panther.

Or alternately, the Tiger knocking out Fireball, then the next day another M26 destroying a Tiger and two PzIV's at a much greater range,
>>
>>35405565
>>35406282
>>35406252
This is not. It is also heresy. I'm a tau player and *I* think it's retarded.

Human size powered armor *already exists in 40k* you fucking nitwits, the tau have goddamn BATTLESUITS, why would they want powered armor? There's literally an entire boardgame faction that wears human sized powered armor.
Go back to jacking off to eldar on plebbit
>>
>>35408047
Nope, no space marine gue'vesa, just a healthy respect for each others combatants, go back to /tg/ though guys, this is /k/, I'll meet you there
>>
>>35403577
There were only 22 Tigers deployed to North Africa.
>>
>>35419586
Well, thanks to the History Channel and the like, people would probably call bullshit on an American tank of any description destroying a German cat. But yes, a dose of reality in WW2 cinema would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>35419959
I think the first shot that hit the Köln Panther was while the M26 was still moving, no less.
>>
>>35403197
it looks like an m3 and a dalek had a baby
>EXTERMINATE
>>
>>35403194
How hurt are wehraboos that burgers went from not having any tanks to having an effective stop gap in months
>>
>>35420089
It's been some time since I've seen the footage, but I wouldn't doubt it. Whoever crewed that Pershing was on their shit. Shame about the Sherman crewman who got his leg blown off.
>>
>>35420110
Yeah...

Question, would the M26s have been able to cross the Remagen bridge had the failed attempt not destroy ir not occurred? Or would they have needed to be barged either way?
>>
>>35420106
Considering we had only built around 100 or less medium tanks prior to the war, and considering that our stopgap design was far and away superior to all of their existing medium and light tanks, and considering that the next design we put into service was easily one of if not the greatest overall tanks in the world, and arguably remained so until the end of the war, I'd wager very.
>>
>>35420144
Well, considering the engineers' complaints that the new tank being foisted on them was too heavy to cross any of their bridges, I doubt they were going to be crossing that one either.
>>
>>35420172
Hmm, possibly....yeah, even as a railway bridge, America has by far the best weight capacity, and even then it was a struggle to find flatcars capable of carrying the 46 ton M26.
>>
>>35420147
Maybach: We can't make this engine last long in your tanks!

Chrysler: we slapped five strait-6 car engines together and it works perfectly fine.
>>
>>35420303
>we slapped five strait-6 car engines together and it works perfectly fine.

It was a radial tho
>>
>>35403197
We Slammers now?
>Tfw no 20mm plasma pistol sidearm.
>>
>>35420303
>Maybach: We can't make this engine last long in your tanks!
>Chrysler: we slapped five strait-6 car engines together and it works perfectly fine.

FTFY:
>heavily strained, bombarded and resource-poor industry: this engine we designed needs more precious raw material we are lacking, and the design is barely out of the prototype phase
>largest industrial power company with manpower and resources to spare: hey we've used radials in tanks before and that worked fine, now we have a better design and there's no one to interrupt production, need some more?
>>
>>35420307
Only the M4 and M4A1 had the radial. The A1 had a cast hull, all other welded.

M4A2 had two destroi 6-71 diesels merged together

M4A3 had the GAA V-8

M4A4 has the Chrysler multibank I referred to earlier.

(And M4A6 with a different radial but very few of those were made)
>>
>>35420426
*Detroit
>>
>>35410713
Oh, so you're a homosexual, ok.
>>
>>35415070
They wanted to have a good power to weight ratio, good engine reliability, good crew protection, easy maintenance, and good crew protection.

Each of these things requires space and size, and they didn't want to compromise.

I think it was the right choice.
>>
>>35403260
>The CHAD chamond
>Long prominently erect 75cannon
>Doesn't need a turret or a low side profile because he's always charging straight towards the enemy
>The Virgin mkIV
>Cannon so puny he needs 2
>So many captured by the enemy that people thinks it's a German tank




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.