>>64307839
>semi-decent gun and ammo
>Very well trained crews
>Modern tank doctrines
It's not as much about the tank but a broader approach that decides who wins battles and wars.
So to speak the IDF was much more competent using their tanks even though they were "just" Shermans.
The french 105 did a good job at penetrating, they had good optics and a good diesel engine. And they were just better than the arabs.

File: consider the following su(...).png (731 KB, 800x629)

731 KB PNG

>>64307839

>>64307850
>semi-decent
It's got what is essentially the Frog L7 anon, firing HEAT-FS. That's practically the best the west had for quite a while

>>64307866
Nah man, not really. Compared to the L7 it has a considerably lower pressure. And the Sherman version also had a shortened barrel.
AFAIK the IDF tried to get the L7 into the Sherm but had to stop because it just didn't work.
>Dat time years ago when I saw a scale model of a "What if?" Panther that had been upgraded by the IDF instead of the Sherman
Don't worry searching the site. It's gone. There's another IDF Panther but it's not the same.

it really didn't. your thinking of the patton m45
and the persing M4.2

the sherman wasn't that good at korea trust me.
yes yes. the northkoreans where using the old chi ha and the T55
no the m4 got destoryed by T55's all the time
no early in the war M4's where used against recycled chi ha's which they did meh againist

but the T55's killed everything the allies had.
expect the british challager 2 and the 2nd gen persing and paton m45
In fact the paton m45 was desgined to take out t55's

the T55 had better armor better gun and better mg's
it was fast at a top speed of 60kmh/40mph

where as the M4 had a top speed of 30mph/5kmh and thy only used the fury varient the number 5 varitant.

no it wasn't good by the korea war.
in fact you could say what made the allies lose the korean mommium all together.

they where only used because the persing and patton 45 whetre nevr in huge numbers
it was a very awkward time.

they used the rocket laugher version as well in korea alot.

beleive it or not the most successful version was the rocket toped version. that was used in the war.
too mad there wasn't that many though.

>>64307874
They were firing HEAT, as long as they could hit the target the muzzle velocity being lower doesn't really matter. Sure hitting the target gets harder, but as long as it hits it's gonna go through

>>64307876
>the sherman wasn't that good at korea trust me.
>they where only used because the persing and patton 45 whetre nevr in huge numbers
I remember hearing the claim was the crews preferred the shermans because of underperforming engine of the pershing

>>64307876
>the northkoreans where using the old chi ha and the T55
way to out yourself as a know nothing nigger.

it's always the fucking namefags and shitskins, man.

>>64307876
There weren't any T-55s in the Korean war

Imho soviet tanks were never good in a real fight. Even their WWII tanks (especially the IS series) had more breakdowns than a Tiger II. They were unreliable and cooked the crews more than any other tank on this planet. And now they have flying turrets to reach other stars.

>>64307899
>Imho soviet tanks were never good in a real fight.
early soviet tanks lacked radios and where forced to use signal flags, but once we get to the T-34-85, its decent, fast, has effective gun that can threaten German heavy armor frontally and is reasonably well protected

>>64307909
the 85mm ZiS-S-53 was to 99% used with AP ammunition and only good in the range from 0 to 250m.

While germans, and the same goes for the israelis, destroyed many tanks at a distance between 1km-2km.

>>64307909
russian copium

>>64307936
russians don't even know their tanks didn't have radios, mate

>>64307886
>>64307887
>shows they where not there on the earl-y days.
okay retard.

the T60's are all chinese
we are not talking about chinese tanks okay.

also late war fags need to stay out
the m4 sherman was use almost as mainstay in the early years and was the leading cause of losses.

th persing was introduced in summer 1963
now fuck off.
late war veterns didn;'t ahve to fight as hard as us early fighters.
also weapons got hella better mid way though the war.

man read a history book or something.
persings only took over after 1963
and towards end the paton m40 and m45
the challager 2 was used even more then tha any other thank of that war.
even though persings literally out numbered everything. by winter 1963

but if you where there in 1959
yeah that was bad man real bad.
that war some somewhat short dew to the badd ass commanders on both sides.

literal war horse of men.
next your'll say the p18 shooting star was useful against other air units

please go fuck your self late war fags.

>>64307956
the T-60 is a light soviet tank with 45mm doorknocker

>>64307850
Did they keep the stabilizer on the M51? Did it work with the frog 105?

No.64307961
we're not talking about RUSSSIAN Versions here you coping knuckle brain
chines made their own versions. and they don't have the 45mm gun
this are CUSTOM versions
yes mods where a thing in korea.

i mean just look at the M16 grand
and it looks exactly like the gtrand but a magizeine on it.
it the year of customized millitary hard where we are talking about.
either you guessing your your too young
just fuck off. you don't have to be right all the time young fag.

>>64307976
*M14
the m14 is such a franken rifle and you assume the chinese didn't have fucked up shit
and then you think the norks didn't get inventive
*faceplam*

look i get you got the america FUCK yeah!n type shit going on.
But hello some of us where on the ground.

the sherman wasn't shit.
but it did become shit the longer the war went on.
i mean it wasn't even that great in ww2 either.
it was just needed as general patton once said.

just as the T50 and T55 where used because russia wasn't going to give the new t6x family to anything.

the IS-3s is the T55
it just got custom radio and better engine that got antifreeze and it was given a bulldozer fount which isn't shown in displays.

and no the m4 didn't pwn anything that was of the era.
the fury isn't a super man. its 90mm light tank
the IS-3s is heavy MBT

stop coping retard.
also you may of notice some IS-3s had padded tracks
snow with standing

again i told you about custom jobs being a thing in the korean war being a thing

the russian T55 looks nothing like the IS-3s
which is why there is name change
because the turrent is NOT from the host county

M4 where left overs of the 1944 fury and uparmored version called version 5
which had a cooler and better raido and newer motor to deal with cold.
this was unheard off but really they didn't change all that much other than replacing the mg's for flamethrowers
keep in mind all versions of M4 where used in korea
not just the furies but all versions
trust me when the usa deploys it DEPLOYS.

again it was used in mass just like the other war it was in
the persing really is the star of the korena war.
and not the m4 coffin

File: stonecoldwhat.gif (1.62 MB, 476x348)

1.62 MB GIF

>>64307956

>>64307839
The T-55 is kind of average in the worse and best ways possible: it can win from any position (like coring a modern MBT from a side shot) just as well as it can lose from one (like getting cored by a WWII vehicle from its own side because that's where the protection was sacrificed to keep it from weighing as much as a Tiger II.)

>>64307899
if you read the israeli accounts of the yom kippur war they give a lot of praise to the T-55
>>64307866
it was a low pressure 105
nothing like the L7
the reason they were slinging HEAT is that it didn't have the velocity for APDS

>>64307965
no

>>64307909
>decent
>fast
>reasonably well protected
Gun was usable, I'll give it that, but the tank was so horrible and plagued with horrendous production and design flaws that it would've been better to use that steel for literally anything else

>>64308248
>they give a lot of praise to the T-55
They are praising their own modifications for the captured T-54/55/62 tanks... the Tiran-4+ tanks.

They always make fun how dumb the soviet engineers were and how better this tank is with Israeli modifications.

>>64308376
They did the same with the shermans. They loved their up gunned Shermans.

>>64308376
nah
i'm paraphrasing from one of the write ups of michael mass

they are smaller, lighter and yet still as well armored
they didn't spray the crew with burning oil when penetrated and they didn't have awkward angles so they were more survivable
their transmission and suspension was more reliable
and unlike the israeli tanks, they had night vision

but crew comfort was abysmal and so is endurance as a result

SHERMAN STRONK

>>64307874
>Compared to the L7 it has a considerably lower pressure.
But the round was better.

File: IMG_1428.jpg (38 KB, 600x315)

38 KB JPG

A Sherman can give you a very nice… edge

>>64307854
These seem cool until someone breaks out any anti-tank weapon or a real tank shows up.

File: 69bb34427aebb558cf9dab1e4(...).jpg (41 KB, 650x975)

41 KB JPG

>>64307839

>>64308904
So, you haven't heard of when a Greyhound nuked a Tiger, huh?