Did America just rip off the Somua design and scale up the gun and armor?
>>61582518it was an evolution of the m3 which was an evolution of the m2
>>61582518>cast vs welded hull in picture >different suspension >fucking stabilized>bigger gun>different turret layout and crewing>radios literally identical.
>>61582541additionally, the m2, is an evolution of the m1, with the m1 being a pretty typical early tank design
>>61582572but they both have a tiny pp
>>61582575forgot image
>>61582541Thank you. That answered the question. But it raises another! Doesn't it look like they based the M3 Lee/Grant on the Char 2c?
>>61582582the one on the left is a 105mm.
>>61582587No
>>61582518Yes. French military doctrine heavily influenced the US army, as did weapon designs. Inter-allied exchange and research in the interbellum period lead to French ideas of sloped armor, crew compartment layouts, and cast hulls, which was always part of French tank designs, being adopted by both Americans and Britons. That’s pretty much the extent of it though. The m4 Sherman is such a radically different beast compared to the SOMUAs with an excellent radio, stabilizer, powerful main gun ect. The USA was lucky it could sit back and benefit from battlefield reports about Anglo-French tank shortcomings and design their war winning tank.
>>61582587see >>61582582 & >>61582585
>>61582572>>cast vs welded hull in pictureMost of the things you listed are irrelevant. The Germans for example were planning on releasing a Somua S40 that had welds instead of rivets. That's really not that big of a difference from an overall standpoint.
>>61582599fuck, didn't mean to link the >>61582582 guy (funny though)i meant >>61582575 instead
>>61582597>tabilizer, powerful main gun ectThose seem like natural conclusions when scaling up. They don't read like departures at all. >>61582594It seems so. They both went with a larger hull mounted main gun, on the same side, with similar layouts for the hatches and turrets. The Lee/Grant was even riveted, matching the earlier S35. If you took an S35 and just made it bigger I feel like you would end up with a Sherman no matter what. The treads and plating on the treads are the biggest departure point for me.
>>61582591>>61582582Hehe
>>61582541>it was an evolution of the m3I wouldn't really call it an evolution. The M3 was never meant to be anything but a stopgap while they had to figure out the turret mount for the M4.
>>61582646>no someone dared question the prowess of the mighty bald eagleC'mon dude. Give it a break. We get it, you had a bad ankle and you couldn't join the army to gain your manhood. No one cares. Move on.
>>61582646PSA: this reply is a spammer who comments on every single vehicle thread in an attempt to destroy conversation
>>61582646schizophrenia
>>61582654>>61582655Here’s warriortard using a classic firehose of falsehood attack after being called out.
>>61582646>>61582654>>61582655>>61582666>>61582668Can you regards just let us have 1 technical discussion thread. Start a fucking general you retards
>>61582668Got it.
>>61582666>>61582655>>61582654same retard, go back to your BB schizoposting
>>61582681post tank, you notank nigger
>>61582689enjoy the new cookies
>>61582696>enjoy the new cookiesnigger what?
>>61582673>Can you regards (sic) just let us have 1 technical discussion thread>starts the thread with retard nonsense and wonders why it only devolves from thereIf you wanted to troll correctly, use the R35 as your example because the suspension has a passing resemblance to American volute spring suspension. The S35 has literally nothing in common with the Sherman.
>>61582717>use the R35 as your example because the suspension has a passing resemblance to American volute spring suspensionThank you yes, OP here, was not trying to troll but I'm looking for details like this.
>>61582736You should really stop posting during your multiple personality episodes. You’re absolutely ruining the thread
>>61582745At first I was curious, then I was tempted to troll. But now that I think about it there is probably a very real reason you're hyper-sensitive to this topic.
>>61582518Did your mom drink heavily whilst she was pregnant?
>>61582632its literally an evolution, it was an iterative design that just addressed the main shortcomingsas opposed to a revolution, which is a drastic departure in design
>>61582734well then the answer you were looking for is a firm "no", the design lineage of the Sherman (M2 -> M3 -> M4) is well documented and predates the S35, the suspension is uniquely American, the gun is larger than anything France put on a prewar tank, it had reliable voice radio, a gun stabilizer, an engine that didn't suck, it had a three man turret which no French tank fielded during the war had, the only passing resemblance is the sloped front armor (which was becoming common in this period across multiple unconnected lines of tank development) and both of them being vaguely "medium" tanks. The Sherman doesn't share a single bolt with the S35.
>>61582753>lighter>longer barrel, higher velocity out of a shorter cartridge >double the gun depressionwhy does everything America makes in WW2 mog everyone else, even the doorknocker light AT guns are better than their German equivalent
>>61582745>>61582750Leave and don't come back.
>>61582772>the design lineage of the Sherman (M2 -> M3 -> M4) is well documented and predates the S35Except it does not. The M3 looks like they took the basic form of the Char B1 straight up. It's uncanny how similar they are from a conceptual point of view. The M4 just looks like a blown up version of the S35. Sure, the nuts and bolts are quite literally different, but the mere form of the thing is reminiscent. The M3 came well after the Char B1 and the M4 came well after the S35. I don't know why you would lie about easily searchable dates.The M3 uses similar calibers to the Char B1 for example- a 75mm in the hull and a 47mm turreted gun while the M3 opts for the 37mm, which again looks like it was just a copy of the German design:>>61582753
>>61582518>one man turret vs three man turret>leaf spring vs volute spring>rear drive vs forward drive>one specific V8 petrol engine vs a multitude of different engines of varying typesNo.
>>61582783>>lighter...By 50 pounds? Probably because the shield plate is smaller. They likely viewed their crews as expendable. >>longer barrel, higher velocity out of a shorter cartridgeIt's not bad, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. It was outdated as soon as it came into action. The Germans knew the 37mm would be outdated back in the Spanish civil war, that's why they drafted the 50mm.
>>61582800Just trace your finger around the outline bud. It's not that hard.
>>61582541fpbp
>>61582794A 75mm low velocity howitzer is not the same weight class of gun as the American 75mm gun. We've already been over the suspension, but to expand the Char B1 had an incredibly finicky and complex hydraulic suspension to aim the fixed 75mm low velocity gun with the hull. The M3 had a much larger 75mm gun in a sponson capable of independent traverse. The B1 was a slow heavy tank with a one-man turret, the M3 was a medium tank with good mobility and a three man turret. Nothing was copied because French tanks sucked and weren't worth copying. Nobody copied them, except the post-war French, who copied the B1 suspension for the ARL-44 (which was a failure largely because of it's obsolete suspension!)
>>61582815>everything with an M in front of it means it's similarYou are clinically insane. I feel like this is that episode of spongebob where the super villain shows him the pictures and spongebob is in denial about what he's seeing
>>61582810"Tanks are vaguely tank shaped" is not the 420 IQ argument you seem to think it is. With the exception of wacky designs like the Stank, every tank looks vaguely like an FT-17.
>>61582621I didn't know the Frogs made a Derp Gun(tm).
>>61582810>muh outlineIdiot take.
>>61582817>Nothing was copied because French tanks sucked and weren't worth copyingLook at the Char B1 then look at the M3. It's clear that the M3 Lee was taking design cues from the Char B1 (and the M2, Char B1 existed before both). For the S35, scaling it up and applying American technology like in the suspension makes it seem obvious that the M4 is just a bloated outline with random American doodads thrown in.
>>61582823They didn't, that's a German conversion.>>61582821Every French tank looks vaguely like a Vickers Mk 1 Medium if you close your eyes, dip your finger in blotting ink and vaguely rub over the outline until all the features are indistinguishable. Therefore, all French tanks are copies of the Vickers Mk 1 Medium. Sorry, I didn't make the rules, you did.
>>61582794>The M3 looks like they took the basic form of the Char B1 straight uthe M3 was a result of them jamming a 75mm gun inside the M2 medium and ditching all the machine guns after france got wrecked in 1940the likely werent even thinking about the B1 at the time, except perhaps in how large caliber guns were used to destroy them after german 37mm rounds bounced off them
>>61582794Your standard of comparison seems to be "durr, they both have a big gun in the hull".
>>61582829>LOOK BRO JUST LOOK USE YOUR EYES BRO >BUT NOT TOO HARD BRO YOU GOTTA SQUINT AND BLUR IT AND STRETCH IT BRO BUT IT'S THERE YOU JUST DONT SEE IT BROI'm out, have fun in your thread with the rest of the schizos who don't care about tanks
>>61582604what defines a tank?>not design >not armor material or production method>not armament>not powerplant or drivetrain>not vital equipment like stabilizers or the presence of radios>not number of crew memebersall turreted, tracked armored vehicles are literally exactly the same. there is no way to differentiate them at all.
>>61582823It's a full-on SPG, and the Germans made it. It's official designation was 10.5cm leFH 18/3 (Sf) auf Geschutzwagen B2(f). I'll let you figure out what all of that means.
>>61582823They didn't the Germans tacked on their variable field gun onto them>>61582822>"Tanks are vaguely tank shaped">>61582825>Idiot take.I'm just saying the overall design cues are the same. I don't care whether the bolts are 3/8ths of an inch thicker. That's pretty irrelevant because any industry adapting any machine is going to pop it into what their tool makers feel more comfortable with. By your logic, China has never stolen nor plagiarized a single design from America because they use metric instead of US imperial and because they use their own weapons.>Chengdu J10? Actually that uses Chinese missiles so that's not a ripoff at all>J20? Chinese missiles!!>Su 57? Original Russian design. No American nods whatsoever. It's metric baby
>>61582859>I'm just saying the overall design cues are the same.Okay. The "overall design cues" are the same as those of the FT-17. Dumbass. Those "design cues" are what distinguishes wether the tnak is the same or copied or inspired by or none of the above. Not having vaguely similar hull shapes and basic layouts.
>>61582736He didn't like that post one bit, made him come back to the old thread and try again. Life keeps giving him L's and he can't stop to take them.
>>61582859it's funny because there's several famous examples of ripped off, metrified American designs (Tu-4/B-29) and those copies look exactly like the original, because they're copies. You don't have to squint, run your finger over them, navel gaze and throw divining rods at the computer screen to see the similarities, it's just the same plane. The M3 and B1 are so different in design you could build two M3s for the cost of a B1, and crew two B1s with the crew of one M3.
>>61582870>Not having vaguely similar hull shapes and basic layouts.So the Chinese are eternally off the hook. Got it.
>>61582794>>61582829>>61582859shut the fuck up already, you god damn francophile from top to bottom, T1, m2, m3, and m4put it to fucking rest, you idiot
>>61582872>Tu-4/B-29All Russian design bud. Look at the bombs. Not a single part on there is to American specifications. Not a single screw. Get over yourself.
>>61582859>ITT, an M1 Garand is literally a stolen design based on the Kar98k because both are vaguely rifle-shaped.Idiot. Take.
>>61582879>The Americans didn't steal 1 design>They stole 4!lol love it
>>61582889Every tank ever designed was stolen off of the Mark I because they use tracks.Every remotely modern rifle up to WWII was stolen off of the Brown Bess musket, because it pioneered industrial mass production of standardised infantry long arms.Absolute retardiation. Apply yourself.
>>61582889the french just stole this design from the british
>>61582906I think you're mind broken at this point>>61582907That's a mk viii innit? Sponsons are different than hull mounts
>>61582915>has an artillery piece for a gun>has a machine gun>has tracks>is armored against infantry fire>came after the mark 1 yeah, thats a copyyou're not gonna pull yourself outta this one
>>61582518>>61582587this thread has been posted by saori "the only tank i know is valentine" takebeYou know what to do /k/, post tanks with dating advice for tank crews to find her a boyfriend
>>61583013>You know what to do /k/, post tanks with dating advice for tank crews to find her a boyfriendDear Saori,You gotta get the orange stuff to get all the tank grime off your mits. Guys don't like tank grime on their girls' hands.
>>61583013Kek
>>61582794>It's uncanny how similar they are from a conceptual point of view.How else could you build a tank with a hull gun and a turret?
>>61582617>It seems so. They both went with a larger hull mounted main gun, on the same side, with similar layouts for the hatches and turrets. The Lee/Grant was even riveted, matching the earlier S35. If you took an S35 and just made it bigger I feel like you would end up with a Sherman no matter what. The treads and plating on the treads are the biggest departure point for me.It's really only in that they have a big hull and small turret gun, otherwise their designs are in no way related. Saying it looks like the M3 is based on the Char B1 is like saying it looks like the Sherman is based on the T-34 because they both have a turret and sloped armour. The B1 was designed from the ground up to be a heavy breakthrough tank, the M3 was designed to be a medium tank with the 75mm only being added in the turret so they could have effective anti-infantry weapons until a tank was developed with a turret big enough to house the 75mm and the crew for the turret.
>>61582794>These vehicles are not evolutions of preceding models.>They must be based on two French tanks that have nothing to do with one another.
listen you little subtank brats,if you dont behave well,we'll just run over you and crush your pathetic paperthin hulls
>>61582518IIRC it was Canada that designed what would become the M4's hull. The US was mostly concerned with perfecting the turret for the 75mm gun.
>>61582575>>61582585Nah the M1 Combat Car is what the basic US medium tank chassis was based on. You can see an early version of the overhead rollers used by all subsequent tanks.
>>61585029>warriortard wakes up>page 8 bump to keep his shitty thread alive
