>>65021220
Poor ragebait

>>65021220
T-72 isn't terrible for when it came out, just obsolete. The M4 Sherman and Renault FT wouldn't do so hot on a modern battlefield, either.

>>65021482
It wasn't obsolete at all, it was on par with western mbts.
Only from 80s onwards the west started to produce wunderwaffe tech like abrams, leopard 2 and so on.
From the late 60s till mid 70s the Eastern block had an immense advantage against the west

>>65021482
it isn't great in the open but you can drive it through forests. it has HMGs and heavy front armor meaning it can quickly stun and kill infantry squads. something like a T-80 is too expensive to waste and something like a Challenger only has an MMG so it gets stunned and sideshotted

It was absolute kino that Ukraine was able to effectively counter them with their T-64, which everyone intelligent, including me, has argued was the better tank forever

>>65021220
Behold, opinion of person with intellectual disability that is uninformed, uneducated and illiterate on subject and topic of Soviet main battle tanks.

>>65021499
T-72 was essentially alternative to T-64 for war time production, latter was to be mainstay of Soviet tank force while former was initially design to be a backup in case another large scale or even third world war occurs.

Meanwhile T-62 was overall superior to M60 until M60A3 TTS yet by that time there were T-72A(1979) whose APFSDS could go through front turret of M60 and exist the back.

>>65021220
Don't care, it's still the quintessential tank for me. A low, aggressive looking, lean mean killing machine.

File: 1774727110205342.png (533 KB, 902x1280)

533 KB PNG

>>65021547
>A low, aggressive looking, lean mean killing machine
bait used to be believable

>>65021553
Fuck you, it looks great. It just doesn't perform as well.

>>65021220
What you meant to say
was Behold, the tank,
ever made by man

>>65021220
The weakness of T-72 is that it was always meant to be disposable, to tank rush Europe. I don't think anyone from the land of starvation ever envisioned it as a tank slugging it out on a slow battlefield. That, and the crew gets turned into cosmonauts after a single penetration.

>>65021499
I remember some anon mentioning that, due to various reasons (mostly economic), the Soviets (and their shitty modern descendants) were never able to transition (huehue) from medium tanks to MBTs. All the T-something series are iterations on the medium tank concept, they're not "full" MBTs. The fact that they sort of resemble MBTs is a case of parallel evolution.

>>65021573
>crew gets turned into cosmonauts after a single penetration.
Same as any other tank before the Abrams

>>65021578
>Al the features of an MBT
>the weight and size of a medium tank
>this is somehow a bad thing
/k/ never fails to make me laugh

>>65021578
>were never able to transition (huehue) from medium tanks to MBTs
MBTs are literally medium tanks capable of carrying enough firepower and armor to make heavy tanks redundant

>>65021534
if Ukraine had T-72s and Russia had T-64s the result would've been the exact same.

>>65021578
>All the T-something series are iterations on the medium tank concept, they're not "full" MBTs.
the T-64 introduced composite armor. in a straight up penetration match-up the 64 and 72 made all heavy tanks redundant while retaining medium tank mobility.
>>65021537
>T-62 was overall superior to M60 until M60A3
meanwhile in reality they got popped by upgunned shermans and centurions. soviet fanboys always ignore things like "being able to actually see and hit the enemy"

>>65021600
They notably lack the BIG NIGGER engines of true (Western) MBTs. A T-90 has somewhat lower hp/ton than an M1A2. Also, due to garbage crew ergos, they are less suitable for high/sustained op tempos (they notoriously tire the shit out of their crews, even when not accounting for the extra guy to perform various tasks present in many Western MBTs).

>>65021600
>medium tanks capable of carrying enough firepower and armor to make heavy tanks redundant
first generation western mbts and all soviet mbts, maybe, but second generation westen mbts (leo2, abrams, challenger) are definitely more like heavy tanks that can move with the speed of medium tanks

the weight does still matter for things like bridges, ships and planes

>>65021499
It came out directly after the T-64 due to necessity, and was clearly the rougher of the two designs.

>>65021537
>T-72 was essentially alternative to T-64 for war time production, latter was to be mainstay of Soviet tank force while former was initially design to be a backup in case another large scale or even third world war occurs.
Not quite. They were always meant to be used in parallel, with the cheaper T-72 being the mainstay of the meatwave divisions and the T-64 being reserved for more elite units.

>>65021578
They pioneered the concept of the MBT in parallel with the British. Soviet tanks are fully MBTs, both doctrinally and performance-wise.

>due to various reasons (mostly economic)
This in particular is false. The Soviets poured tremendous resources into their tank development and the T-62 was far advanced of what the west was fielding when it was first adopted in the early 60s.

>>65021620
>They notably lack the BIG NIGGER engines of true (Western) MBTs
Because they were a lot smaller. The T-55 and -62 had comparable power/weight of contemporary Centurions and Pattons. The T-64 and -72 had a comparable power/weight of contemporary Leopards and AMX-30s with much thicker armor. The T-80 had a comparable power/weight to Abrams and Leopard 2s. The T-90 has worse performance than more modern (i.e. 80s) tanks because it continued to use the T-72 engine, but it still has a better power/weight than the T-72's contemporaries from the 70s.

>>65021684
>T-62 was far advanced
*T-64

File: T-64B and T-55 Tamiya mod(...).jpg (318 KB, 2421x977)

318 KB JPG

>>65021578
>were never able to transition (huehue) from medium tanks to MBTs
How are they (T-64, T-72 and T-80 which all have better protection, firepower and mobility then existing heavy tanks) not MBTs? You are not being contrarian are you? Is the Type 10 MBT actually a medium tank since it is only 4 tons heavier then a Panther tank (Modular weight loadout from 40 tons up to 48 tons vs panther 44.8 tons)? Is the Soviet T-10M heavy tank actually a medium tank since it's weight is only 52 tons which is about the same weight as the M60A1 patton which is also 6 tons lighter then the 58 tons M103A2 heavy tank. The MBT designation is not just design feature but also role the tank is gona play on the battlefield. A lot of the first generation MBT's were originally called medium tanks since they existed alongside heavy tanks and light tanks. By the time the T-72 came into service all the heavy tanks were gone from frontline service and the MBT concept and role was the norm. No one serious has called the T-72 a medium tank but instead called it a MBT. Sure it might be very shitty MBT by design (muh cheaper gunner sight that has no automatic lead etc) but it is still a MBT.

>>65021628
>but second generation westen mbts (leo2, abrams, challenger) are definitely more like heavy tanks that can move with the speed of medium tank
So a MBT then?

>>65021620
Their engines are roughly in line with their contemporaries (Leopard 1, M60, AMX-30 etc.), which, yes, is inferior to the western MBTs that came after them.
Criticizing their the Soviets' inability and/or unwillingness to replace the T-64/T-72 with a design whose capabilities are closer to western MBTs from the 80s onwards is fair but that does not make the claim of MBTs as a concept eluding Soviets entirely any more true.
>>65021628
>definitely more like heavy tanks that can move with the speed of medium tanks
In other words medium tanks with capabilities that make heavy tanks redundant
Like the previous MBTs that have been in use since the 50s

>>65021691
>So a MBT then?
the MBT designation is also applied to first generation MBTs like the t-54, centurion, patton, amx 30 and leopard 1, which either trace back to ww2 medium tank designs or fall in the same weight and protection class

the later soviet MBTs remain in the same weight class while second generation NATO MBTs move up to the late war and post-war heavy tank mass (Tiger II, T-10, M103, Conqueror)

all of these are MBTs because all of them were called MBTs

>>65021712
>medium tanks with capabilities that make heavy tanks redundant
no, the abrams and leo2 are heavy tanks with the logistical footprint of heavy tanks but speed and maneuverability comparable to medium tanks

a leo1 or t-72 can cross any bridge a panther can, while the abrams and tiger 2 would collapse it

>>65021800
>>65021712
the semantics break down anyway because no one uses medium or heavy tanks anymore.

you have main battle tanks because all militaries nowadays only differentiate between
>(main battle) tank
>not a tank

late cold war NATO doctrine was to replace all previous tanks with "heavy" tanks that can move fast. late cold war soviet doctrine was to replace all previous tanks with "medium" tanks that have lots of armor and big guns. but in reality since there is no longer a medium-heavy distinction in either, you simply have one class of tank that does all the tank stuff.

>>65021691
>then

File: 1680733255608.gif (146 KB, 600x563)

146 KB GIF

>>65021822
I am very smart and I never spell anything wrong or use the wrong words.

Gif related

>>65021835
I very much doubt that you are.
Or did you forget to greentext an attempt at sarcasm, the lowest form of wit?

>>65021811
>late cold war NATO doctrine was to replace all previous tanks with "heavy" tanks that can move fast. late cold war soviet doctrine was to replace all previous tanks with "medium" tanks that have lots of armor and big guns.
Hence the "parallel evolution" note.
The biggest (doctrinal) difference is Western crews were expected to "live around" their tanks (bongs went as far as putting a miniature kitchen inside theirs). This is a vestigial feature left over from the times of heavy tank brigades, whose crews were expected to stay inside their vehicles for days, once deployed.
Soviets couldn't do that (physically they could, but crew readiness dropped like a lead balloon), because their tanks are claustrophobic shitboxes, owing to them being inflation-fetished mediums.

File: 082.jpg (1.57 MB, 3264x2448)

1.57 MB JPG

>>65021862
>Or did you forget to greentext an attempt at sarcasm, the lowest form of wit?
Why should I greentext? The sarcasm should obvious. Anyway is the T-72 a MBT or a medium tank larping as a MBT?

>>65021863
>Soviets couldn't do that (physically they could, but crew readiness dropped like a lead balloon), because their tanks are claustrophobic shitboxes, owing to them being inflation-fetished mediums.
The bongs did a 72 hour test on two T-55's (one t-55 broke down in the test) and while it sucked absolute ass to be inside a T-55, the crew of the tanks were not completely spent by the end of the test.

File: 083.jpg (1.64 MB, 3264x2448)

1.64 MB JPG

>>65021910

File: 084.jpg (1.76 MB, 3264x2448)

1.76 MB JPG

>>65021914

File: 085.jpg (1.67 MB, 3264x2448)

1.67 MB JPG

>>65021916

>>65021614
>meanwhile in reality they got popped by upgunned shermans and centurions. soviet fanboys always ignore things like "being able to actually see and hit the enemy"
Good to know you have intellectual disability as evident by your inability to differentiate between tank and a crew.

File: 086.jpg (1.6 MB, 3264x2448)

1.6 MB JPG

>>65021919
Now how to apply data from the T-55 to the T-72? For starters the loader is gone so he is not taking up internal volume. The commander is not right behind the gunner anymore so he got leg room and all 3 crew in the T-72 have their own seat with backrest. It should be possible for a T-72 crew to be able to do a 72 hour test and have the same fatigue level as the T-55 crew.

Now I could also be completely wrong if anyone has 72 hour test done using the T-72.

>>65021499
T-72s would have struggled badly against Chieftains and were inferior to M60s

File: 010.jpg (1.73 MB, 3264x2448)

1.73 MB JPG

>>65021930
>crew height and weight used for all the T-55 tests.

>>65021220
Nah, the T-44, T-55 and T-72 were all pretty good when they first entered service. To be the worst ever it would have to be obsolete when it entered service and no the Ha-Go doesn't count because it was designed to be super light for steep terrain.

What got blown the fuck out in combat within 10 years of entering service without it being due to stupid orders like tanks in cities?

>>65021534
Soviets hade "high / low" for tanks the same way the US did for fighters, comparing an older high to a newer low is like saying an F-14 would dogwalk F-16s which they would.

>>65021798
Yeah but when you get to the Abrams the tank it immediately replaced was the M103 and not the Patton, which muddles things somewhat. Ukraine uses "heavy" MBTs like the M1 and Leopard 2 differently to the way it does "light" ones like the T-64 and Leopard 1, and so did the US when Abrams and M60s were in service together, so there is clearly a larger level of distinction than what is willing to be admitted.

File: ukraine black market deli(...).webm (3.43 MB, 640x360)

3.43 MB WEBM

>>65021220
then why is it killing m1 in ukraine?

>>65021962
NTA, I think the Ukies are using them so differently to take advantage of the better optics and fire control in western tanks.
Send the soviet shit into the town where it might be jumped point blank while keeping the Abrams and Leopards 4km back where they can easily land first shot hits but a T-72 firing back might not even see them.

>>65021931
>https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA392790.pdf
>https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf
T-62 is superior to M60.

>>65021220
I understand most of this board is bots, muttmerican reatards, or literal goverment agents.
But I can wrap my head around the fact that ALL tanks performed utterly shit in ukraine so far. Non of them be it western , soviet whatever had any noticable and impactful diference between them.
How could anyone get any conclusion regarding equipment performance if they are do about the same?

>>65021975
>Abrams and Leopards 4km back where they can easily land first shot hits
tank on tank action happend not even a handful of times in the 4 years of war, why would landing first shots be relevant?
war thunder has wreck discourse around tanks for all time.

>>65021993
Tank on IFV, APC and golf cart are still common, keeping them back still lets you keep them safter while taking advantage of the optics even if you are just throwing 50 BMG into houses.

File: Acceptable exchange rate.png (2.58 MB, 2487x3754)

2.58 MB PNG

>>65021968
I am not aware of evne a siongle case of a T-anything killing an Abrams at any point in Ukraine. Also pic relevant and kys, nekulturnij pidor.

>>65021993
>But I can wrap my head around the idiotic brainlet take that ALL tanks performed utterly shit in ukraine so far.
FTFY.

>>65021985
>Tank is so good that if the enemy ever captured one, it has a built in function where it will take off the treacherous capitalist's arm if they try to fire the main gun
Honestly brilliant design

>>65022035
He is uncultured? Says you that omits inconvenient facts, go on deny it that you do not omit despite of hard evidence you posted against yourself by attaching that image/diagram you posted.

>>65022003
fair point, but by far the biggest threat is tank vs IFV, tank vs mine, or tank vs 155/152mm long range death rain.
having better engagement range would be huge if atgms and other tanks were the main threat, agains the other ones not so much.

>>65022037
name one (singular) distict advantage any particular model had that made it stand out ?

>>65022035
legitimate questions, where do soviet made ukrainian tanks fall inside such graphics?

I disagree with your assessment. I would be hard pressed to find any "worst" tank in history. Maybe some prototypes limited production runs. Maybe something Italian or Japanese.

>>65021220
That’s not the Armata

>>65022170
He said made.

Buy an ad lazerpig.

File: Ukie Bradley gunner playe(...).jpg (60 KB, 680x361)

60 KB JPG

>>65021993
>tank on tank action happend not even a handful of times in the 4 years of war
Just because tank on tank footage is not as published as FPV strikes does not mean it was rare. The UAV/ drone spam was not strong at the start of the 2022 invasion which was pure conventional fighting with all the good ol tools from the late cold war seeing action.
>why would landing first shots be relevant?
Because that is how you win in a tank duel and tank duels is what happen when opposing tanks run into each other. Landing the first shot is also important when tanks run into APC and IFV (T-90M duel with two Bradleys at point blank range and the T-90M MISSED THE BROAD SIDE OF A BRADLEY)
>war thunder has wreck discourse around tanks for all time.
That is hardly true. But it has shown that soviet tanks cant compete without secret buffs ( harder to detonate ammo, unarmored fuel tanks that act as spall liners, autoloader that keep tanking lethal damage) against the faster western MBT that keep getting nerfed (turret ammo blast doors that wont work if you bring too many HEAT rounds into battle, easier to damage turret ring etc).

>>65022188
For some reason dronefags have a tendency to memoryhole Kherson and Kursk, which were operations heavily reliant on mechanized forces.

>>65022080
>Maybe something Italian or Japanese.
The issue with Italian and Japanese tanks is being obsolete due to industrial limits, they aren't fundamentally horrible
The French armor (and air force for that matter) on the other hand is the result of a premier land power going full retard for an entire decade

>>65022210
>which were operations heavily reliant on mechanized forces.
An uncomfortable truth that a lot of people wont accept is that mechanized forces are still the key for winning and you need a well trained mechanized force with all the support that you have to win a war. Mechanized forces are also very expensive to operate regardless of wartime or peacetime (fuel is spent when they train and parts wear out with time so you need replacement constantly) and if you waste all of your mechanized forces (Russia doing suicide waves with shit support, wasting steel and trained men) then you have lost your strongest card and you wont be able to regain it in time in a modern war.

People rather want to think that cheap drones will be able to replace expensive mechanized forces but the future will not be fpv drones but mechanized forces made out of ground drones with guns, missiles and bombs etc fighting other mechanzied ground drones. AI tanks will be killing other AI tanks and it is not going to be cheap.

>>65021581
>Same as any other tank before the Abrams
The Soviet carousel autoloader design is uniquely retarded and susceptible to that, though

>>65021583
>my tank is sized for starving midgets, has no armor and is made of the cheapest, shittiest possible materials, and weighs less because of it
>I'm a genius!
very Russian attitude, to be sure

File: Untitled.jpg (10 KB, 259x194)

10 KB JPG

>>65021220
Let me check the bumper book of facts....

>>65021798
>the MBT designation is also applied to first generation MBTs like the t-54, centurion, patton
by people who don't know what they're talking about

File: Soviet ground forces comb(...).png (323 KB, 2741x2300)

323 KB PNG

>>65021499
>It wasn't obsolete at all, it was on par with western mbts.
The soviet themself were not that optimistic about the T-72 keeping up with western tanks with it being rated to be on par with the chieftain mk5 and leopard 1A4, M60A3. It get's worse with more and more thermal equiped tanks joining the western tank fleet. M60A3 TTS absolutely dunks on all the soviet tanks with some exceptions like the T-80U when it comes to fire control system. The absolute best soviet tank is maybe on par with an upgraded M60 tank.
>From the late 60s till mid 70s the Eastern block had an immense advantage against the west
I honestly doubt that but could you elaborate on why? The T-72M spam only happened at the end of the 70's/early 80's so the warsaw pact were operating the T-55A as their best tank in that time period you specify.

>>65021962
m103 was out of service for years when abrams entered service. how did it replace m103 with its special separate heavy tank units?

File: armoredwarloli.jpg (383 KB, 1000x653)

383 KB JPG

>>65021220
>The 'obsolete' tank design it was meant to replace is somehow 35+ years more advanced than its last meaningful upgrade

Total T-62 vindication.

File: SepticTank.jpg (548 KB, 1600x1054)

548 KB JPG

>>65021220
>Behold, the worst tank ever made by man

>A CHALLENGER APPROACHES!

>>65022550
does it make boom boom?

>>65022550
Saar that tank is Arjun not Challenger, do not redeem.

>>65021220
But that's not a T-62...

>>65022550
>brown stain on the road next to it
DESIGNATED SHITTING TANK!

>>65022550
What makes it bad?

>>65022404
>Still seething a week later
I love that pig and how he mindbreaks russians so fucking much.

>>65022807
Anon its an INSAS in tank form.

>>65022550
Why does that one have painted nails?

>>65022877
Not even remotely worst rifle, and all its problems stem from the construction quality.

>>65021220
Fuck off, lazerpig.

>>65022504
You're overestimating m60's a lot. Consider the cost per unit, time to produce, complexity of the system, training time, reliability and spare parts.
You could take a random peasant from Ulan Ude, pop him inside a t-72 and you have a fully trained operator within 3 months maybe less.
They were insanely reliable, they rarely broke down and if they did they were way easier to repair.
Crew survivability is a huge minus obviously

>>65021583
>this is somehow a bad thing
their real world performance would seem to imply that, yes

>>65022807
It's basically the Indians trying to make a Leopard 2A4 and failing, 30 years after the Leopard 2A4 was introduced.

How do we live in a world where people are unironically defending the T-72 when we had turret toss threads for about two years?

File: Swiss_Main_Battle_Tank_Pa(...).jpg (3.1 MB, 2659x1749)

3.1 MB JPG

>To make things even worse, the radios used in the tank tended to interfere with the turret control system, resulting in uncontrolled turret movements whenever the radios were used at full power.
>A year before the Weltwoche article, another very dangerous fault was found. Switching on the heating system could lead to the main gun firing the round in the gun. This problem was caused by some systems sharing the same electrical circuits.
It may have been better than second or third world designs but for a first world country with pride in excellence it was a disaster.

File: M60A3 TTS _tank_thermal_s(...).jpg (1.49 MB, 2783x1820)

1.49 MB JPG

>>65023017
>You're overestimating m60's a lot
Not the M60A3 TTS. It is on par with the M1 abrams and even better at some things like sight resolution IIRC.
>Consider the cost per unit, time to produce, complexity of the system, training time, reliability and spare parts.
M60A3 TTS comes out pretty good. Based on the reliable M60 family

File: Sarjun.jpg (101 KB, 640x359)

101 KB JPG

>>65021220
That isn't the Arjun

>>65023168
>It is on par with the M1 abrams and even better at some things
Lol

File: 1569226997622.png (621 KB, 934x1976)

621 KB PNG

>>65023168
get the fuck back into hell, sprey

>>65021220
Why does it have leather in front of the tracks?

>>65023225
We are not talking about M48A5 vs M1A2 Abrams. It is M60A3 TTS vs soviet tanks in FCS. You are aware that the there is a M1 Abrams variant called just M1 Abrams right? There is also the M1 IPM1, M1A1, M1A1 HC and M1A2 etc.

>>65023232
It's a fender made of plastic.

>>65023168
The reason the M60 TTS had a better thermal sight than the Abrams was the amount of available volume to work with. M60s are mansions on tracks so there was all the space in the world to minmax the thermal sights. They're good sights, given that was the first thermals equipped MBT.

>>65023417
How did the Abrams latter get better thermal sights? More volume efficient electronics for the thermal sight I presume?

File: 1574544271951.png (90 KB, 1688x989)

90 KB PNG

>>65021499
>calling Abrams wunderwaffe tech
>when it raped Sovietshit en masse during Desert Storm
inb4 "d-doesn't count"

>>65023452
Even the monkey T-72s the Iraqis had had adequate armor for defending against Israeli M1s, it was the 120mm upgunned Abrams the US had that truly BTFO'd them.

>>65023442
Yeah it was design improvements or really maturation over time. M60s are fuckhuge tanks on the inside so you can afford to use that space for optics (stack after the mirror in the doghouse) to electronics. That design flexibility matters a lot when you're trying to field first generation thermals.

>>65023452
Bradleys did a great job during Desert Storm too.

>>65021931
>T-72s would have struggled badly against a slow tank with hesh rounds and a fat tank with no stabilizer and worse armor
Hmm not so sure about that one anon

>>65021499
Other than the T-64 which was only produced in comparatively limited numbers, I don't really get the impression that the Soviets were particularly ahead of the west in terms of tanks, considering the propensity for T-55s to get clapped Centurions, upgunned Shermans, Pattons, and South African armoured cars, and the T-62 doesn't seem like much to write home about either.

>>65023485
>t-72 better than an upgunned sherman
Impressive, truly.

File: number of t-64 in service(...).jpg (498 KB, 1164x1682)

498 KB JPG

>>65023732
>Other than the T-64 which was only produced in comparatively limited numbers
>comparatively limited numbers
According to Steven J zalogas book on the T-64 then a total estimate of around 12000 T-64 got built
>1192 T64 (Large number of T-64 being rebuilt to the T-64A standard and got designated as the T-64R)
>4600 T-64A
>780 T-64AK (command tank)
>4200 T-64B
>1200 T-64B1 (lacks ATGM capability)
Then there is also a rather small number or recovery and support vehicles built using the T-64 chassis. For comparison the total number of T-80's built is maybe 5000 and in Mikhail Baryatinskiy book on the T-80 the soviet army operated 4839 T-80 models west of the Ural mountains in 1990 while according to zaloga the number of soviet T-64 operating west of the ural mountains at the same time was 3982. So out of the big 3 T tanks the production number order should be something like this
T-72
>25000 built
T-64
>12000 built
T-80
>5000 built

File: number of t-64 in total.jpg (553 KB, 1195x1632)

553 KB JPG

>>65023873

>>65022291
I think the low casualty rates of the GWOT have convinced a lot of idiots that if something takes heavy losses it's useless.
Lose rates for armour have increased thanks to drones but they are no worse than WW2 lose rates where everyone accepts armoured advances played a huge role.

>>65023963
>I think the low casualty rates of the GWOT have convinced a lot of idiots that if something takes heavy losses it's useless.
Yeah that is a valid theory but if we go back even further to desert storm which was the largest modern conventional conflict the US have participated as of yet then the casualty rate was absurdly low. I have read that the US army was expecting 2000 dead in the first week of the ground offensive while in reality about 148 americans died during the whole conflict. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the number of US dead is again suprisingly low at 139 americans killed while during the occupation of Iraq the US suffered 4,369 dead over a 8 year period.

The idea of suffering 20 tanks destroyed in one battle or 200 men dead in one battle is just not possible in the western citizens mind, the expectation is that maybe 1 or 3 guys die in one battle and even that is high. It just cant happen and if it does then something is obsolete and need to be replaced by something that wont matter if it get destroyed (drones).

>>65023963
Tanks in ww2 were designed to be cheap and expendable.

>>65024090
Honestly I'm happy we have become so casualty adverse, I'm a non-interventionalist and the only thing keep infantry out of Iran right now the the huge casualty rates it would produce.

The US could easily steamroll Iran with a full scale invasion but it'll take 500,000 men and 50k casualties making it politically impossible for an offensive war.
The only way people will tolerate major loses is in a defensive war, not a "defensive first strike".

>>65023732
Didn't one T-54 lose to a Panzer IV as well?

>>65024108
Shermans, one of the cheapest tanks of the war was ~$1m inflation adjusted, a Tiger II was ~$5m inflation adjusted.
Costs have increased but not as much as people think considering we have replaced a piece of glass with FLIR and monitors.

>>65024120
Back then though the majority of tank attrition was tank on tank. Tank loss rates against infantry were hilariously one sided.

>>65024145
AT guns got more than their share of the kills, infantry AT was so shit they mainly targeted APCs.

File: 99120101116_SWVenerableDread01.jpg (112 KB, 920x950)

112 KB JPG

>>65021691
Are Leman Russ tanks better than Ork Battlewagons?

>>65023165
Insulation is capitalist extravagance comrade

>>65023168
Huh, I bought a lens assembly from a surplus store back in high school, and I’m pretty sure it came off that system

>>65024412
Which is why the Swiss of all people should have it.

>>65024173
Yes, but mostly because Leman Russ tanks are at least kind of standardized while individual Battlewagons might be anywhere from comparable to the heavier Imperial tanks to a piece of crap that is basically no better than an oversized technical.

File: file.png (1.44 MB, 2450x950)

1.44 MB PNG

>>65021220
>Behold, the worst rifle ever made by man

>>65024475
*The worst rifle made by Kalashnikov's assistant who stole everything from Thompson

>>65021220
>Makes hour long video about how the T-72 is 'the worst tank'
>Literally not a single paragraph is about the T-72
>It's just fellating the British tanks (built in the tens) and insisting somehow this tiny force would remotely stop the fifity thousand+ horde of Soviet shitboxes showing up en masse

>>65024475
>loses all the war it's been used in
I'm starting to see a pattern here.

>>65023442
Its kinda hard to imagine today with the A1/A2 etc, but back when it was designed the basic bitch M1 was really a budget-tank, where a lot of things were left out due to cost.
This was due to the previous XM-projects having been too ambitious and failing.
What the M1 got right was having a pretty clear plan for future improvements right from the start

>>65023142
The amount of sheer corruption it take to do that is astounding.

Just dozens upon dozens of levels of people taking money and doing fuck all with it outside of hookers and blow.

Because it's not like India as a nation doesn't have good engineers. Even middling engineers that can't secure a work visa would be able to copy a 30+yr old tank design somewhat competently. Fuck, a teen with sprocket and their parents credit card can pull it off.

>>65023225
That guy isnt serious right.

File: Man who claims credit for(...).jpg (48 KB, 706x359)

48 KB JPG

>>65024802
>Mr the gun good the missile is evil isn't serious right?
If only you knew how retarded things were!

>>65023485
>Even the monkey T-72s the Iraqis had had adequate armor for defending against Israeli M1s
they absolutely did not, they failed even against M60s using israeli domestic 105mm APFSDS, let alone much longer uranium US 105mm APFSDS they had during desert storm.

t-72 and all its derivatives have shit-tier armor against anything larger than a 105mm APDS or a 300mm HEAT shell.

File: 1620946876459.png (372 KB, 418x612)

372 KB PNG

>>65023717
>a worthless deathtrap with no FCS and armor full of gaping holes would totally win against tanks it lost to badly historically

>>65021920
>inability to differentiate between tank and a crew.
can you name a case where a soviet tank would be manned by a competent crew except for the few captured tanks used by Israel?

>>65023017
>You're overestimating m60's a lot. Consider the cost per unit, time to produce, complexity of the system, training time, reliability and spare parts.
M60 is vastly superior to T-72 in those metrics.

>They were insanely reliable, they rarely broke down and if they did they were way easier to repair.
vatniggers are delusional beyond any limit. T-72 was less reliable than T-64, cannot swap its shit tier ww2 era engine in the field and is manned by troops with exactly as much training as their combat effectiveness.

>>65025188
Source

File: M60 Hull Sterile.jpg (66 KB, 768x604)

66 KB JPG

>>65025204
M60 hull is one piece casting that greatly streamlined its production making it one of the easiest to produce tank designs, alongside the similar M48.

>>65022526
Neck yourself you fucking gookshill faggot

>>65025251
Everyone was having fun until this faggot showed up.

>>65021499
>on par with Western MBTs
>got fucking mulched by Chadleys

>>65025269
Yeah well nobody said anything about being on par with the IFV now, did they?

>>65025348
... fair enough.

>>65021220
that's not the merkava

>>65025269
I said before the 80's not today.

>>65024109
>The US could easily steamroll Iran with a full scale invasion but it'll take 500,000 men and 50k casualties
Triple that and that's your lucky scenario

File: images.jpg (13 KB, 281x179)

13 KB JPG

>>65021220
Worse than the Bob Semple?

>>65025229
>M60 hull is one piece casting that greatly streamlined its production
At the cost of being exclusively RHA instead of composites, meaning any dipshit with an RPG-7 can frontally penetrate it like it was cotton candy

>>65025229
Dogshit garbage armor quality.

>>65025590
Feels like the RPG-7 is a dying platform though while the M60 is still in production. You hardly ever see launchers on the Russian side of the war anymore.

>>65022550
>>65022616
thanks for the keks!

>>65021220
>made by man
As opposed to what, dipshit?

>>65024475
it has very poor durability as an automatic rifle
if your doctrine is based on waves of overwhelming numbers then endurance isn't important
your rifle breaks after one engagement? no worries, comrade, second wave will prevail
this also means the soviets would've been dogshit on defense
nothing changed there

>>65025806
As opposed to woman. Woman hasn't made a tank yet.

>>65025806
esl moment

>>65025452
Chadley bagged more turret tossers than Abrams during Desert Storm

>>65025806
Italians, or Africans.

>>65021482
Shermans and T-72s fought and the T-72s lost.

Your next post will be "but Arabs in monkey models..."

>>65021581
Nah. Shermans had an excellent survival rate for crews. Even the shitass Lee wasn't bad in that regard.

Americans actually care if their crews live or die and Russians don't.

>>65021583
>Al the features of an MBT
Except not really, since they get owned by IFVs.

It's genuinely impossible for me to understand how the T-72 has dickriders still after the oy-veyers raped them, Americans raped them in Desert Storm, and Ukraine raped them in the 3 day special military operation.

It's a bad tank. You can argue what-ifs and might-have-beens all you want, but every time this thing actually fights, it dies like a fucking B1 battle droid in Slop Wars.

>>65021220
i think people keep conflating people's performance with a given weapon with the quality of the weapon itself.
T72 variants were were not far off from their equivalents in other countries for their time. if the US army and IDF were running T72s you would see them everywhere being praised as the best tank ever made.

>>65026146
First two cases they were severely outclassed. How many tank on tank engagements were there in Ukraine?

>>65025590
>At the cost of being exclusively RHA instead of composites
T-72 ural had all steel turret and even the most modern T-72 variants lack any kind of composite armor on the sides, having the same pitiful and gaping amounts in the front that hadn't been updated since 1985.

>>65025714
but enough about the t-series tanks.

>>65026155
>First two cases they were severely outclassed
the whole design is outclassed by everything made after 1950s, that's the point.

>>65026154
>if the US army and IDF were running T72s you would see them everywhere being praised as the best tank ever made.
total vatnigger delusion. it'd be starship-tier shitheap with even worse reputation because of the instant kabooms.

>>65026322
It was not designed for sitting in a static position anyway.
It was designed with Soviet mass attacks in mind. Combined arms style. It doesn't matter that one hit from the side can cook off the ammo. It's front towards the enemy comrade.

>>65025974
>milled receiver AK-47
>very poor durability as an automatic rifle
This board man...

>>65026138
Which MBT feature does the T-72 not have exactly?

>>65026517
Depends on the model, but I'd say rather simplistic ballistic computer, limiting fire on the move capabilities.

>>65026513
it's the barrel and ammunition, actually
your fun day on the range reproduction is not the same as what a mercury-infused soviet meathead got issued

>>65026629
>it's the barrel and ammunition, actually
What the fuck are you talking about bot?

>>65025590
>cast steel
>RHA
buddy... pick one

>>65026735
>umm ACKCHYUALLY

I think we can all agree that turrets full of ammo in an ammo loader was a very bad mistake. the cumbersome western layouts with blowout panels and secure storage may lead to slower reload but man are those ruskie tanks some death traps

File: ass 2 ass.jpg (485 KB, 1080x675)

485 KB JPG

>>65026878
You are told to have a tank of this size and with auto loader.

>>65026317
>T-72 ural had all steel turret and even the most modern T-72 variants lack any kind of composite armor on the sides, having the same pitiful and gaping amounts in the front that hadn't been updated since 1985.
Steel turret, rapidly given composites anyways while no M60 standard variant had any composites anywhere. They got ERA but that was way later down the line.
>>65026735
Cold war cast steel was comparable to RHA in effectiveness, bringing up cast armor is only relevant in WW2 and earlier due to it being sort of shitty then.

File: CastM3.jpg (114 KB, 722x480)

114 KB JPG

>>65027121
In WW2 there was really only one country that could make large armor castings.
And they made this...

>>65027223
Lots of people made large castings in WW2. France, Australia, Russia, America.

>>65027399
Outside of Australia, only the U.S. was casting whole hulls for medium and heavy tanks.
The Sentinel was the first, but they lacked the sheer production volume of the U.S. and it was just getting into some sort of completion when the M4 series was available in volume.
The Russians were limited to turrets, and not much more.
The French were using castings as components and bolting them together, they weren't doing large one shot hull pours like the U.S. and the Australians.

>>65027442
The US then proceeded to...
>Checks notes
Not actually use the cast versions in serious combat.

>>65027449
lol what, the m4a1 never saw serious combat?

>>65027461
Compared to the welded hulls of the M4, A2, A3 and A4?
Yeah.

>>65027442
>The Russians were limited to turrets
IS-2 had a cast hull iirc

>>65027468
kek

>>65027468
Kek.
9000+Shermans never saw use "because they were cast".

>>65027473
Just parts of it.
It was a "composite" like a lot of Shermans, where it had cast and plate components.

>>65027482
Because their shitty cast hulls crumpled under 75mm fire, while the welded versions actually could take a hit frontally.

>>65027496
so you're now asserting that m4a1 were purposefully held out of action? despite being the first shermans produced and first to the get the 76 mm gun, and despite all the documentation and pictures of them in action?

>>65027501
You're absolutely right, the M4A1 was the most important version of the Sherman.
That's why in almost every depiction of the tank, it's the welded hull and not the cast hull.

>>65027496
Belton Cooper, is that you?
Is this me?

>>65027505
Riiight...we go from calling out as bullshit "Not actually use the cast versions in serious combat" to having that twisted to say "the M4A1 was the most important version of the Sherman" and as evidence "almost every depiction of the tank" is"the welded hull and not the cast hull." Kek again.

File: BritM4A1.jpg (35 KB, 499x498)

35 KB JPG

>>65027505
The first M4's in action were M4A1's used by the British in Africa.
Where the fuck are you getting this insanity?

>>65027516
The ones that got fucking cored like an apple to Pak 38's?

File: PutItDownjpg.jpg (30 KB, 693x553)

30 KB JPG

>>65027468
>>65027496
>>65027505
>>65027521

>>65027521
Tell you what, anon. Pick an argument and stick with it.

File: armoredwarloli2.jpg (210 KB, 1000x662)

210 KB JPG

As a reminder the only T-series variant that has been doing anything for the last 4 decades has been the T-62. Anyone who thinks that the T-72 is better than than a T-62 should be forced to fight a modern T-62.

>>65027121
>rapidly given composites anyways
rapidly as in T-72A production was started half a decade after its introduction? those composites that might as well have been tissue paper against APFSDS due to the obsolete armor scheme that only got progressively worse against newer ammo?
>They got ERA but that was way later down the line.
they got them only several years after the T-72s did.

File: 1749179524028864.jpg (36 KB, 624x469)

36 KB JPG

So the main take away from this thread is that the USSR/Russia should have chosen one tank and it should have been the T-62 right?

Because in the year 2026 the only platform that has a future is the T-62, after all T-62s are the only ones that have had any real development in the last 35+ years.

Spoiler alert: T-62 based hulls are the only ones that have been produced in meaningful numbers for over three decades.

File: __original_drawn_by_tuzik(...).jpg (182 KB, 850x1170)

182 KB JPG

>>65028038
Seriously, the Norks are making Russia look like a joke. Get your shit together vatniks, you already lost your Pacific navy how bad is going to get?

>>65028038
>T-62 based hulls are the only ones that have been produced in meaningful numbers for over three decades
More T-90s were produced in India alone than all cheonma variants combined. They're not being built in cold war numbers anymore, but they're still being built.

>>65028038
Upgrading the T-62 probably would had been a smarter idea than trying to replace it twice only for all three tanks to limp along until the USSR's keel, yet politics be politics.

File: t12.jpg (255 KB, 1000x653)

255 KB JPG

>>65028057
>India
In a hypthetical India-DPRK fight i would expect 1000-1 loss ratios in the DPRKs favor and that is gimping it to help India.

>>65028078
.
T-62s and their ilk are still being made while Russian T-72 based hulls are not. As long as the Norks tanks have that left hand drivers position it is still some form of a highly evolved T-62. Pic related is a T-62:

>>65026357
Then why did it fail massively in the opening phases of the Ukraine war?

File: 1746052953222649.jpg (70 KB, 828x1018)

70 KB JPG

>>65028057
>More T-90s were produced in India alone than all cheonma variants combined.

May i see India's 6000 T-90s?

>>65023155
Because every vehicle was getting dabbed on by drones. Doctrine was the problem (or lack of one).

>>65028153
>>65028057
>1200 in theory

Rooky numbers, with Indian crews. I'd rate Nork T-54/55s as equal.

>>65028175
Kill yourself you pinko slant faced nigger

File: 1741537934035333.jpg (35 KB, 680x453)

35 KB JPG

>>65028205
>pinko slant faced nigger
You have no idea how badly you just outed yourself as a shill do you?

>>65021863
>The biggest (doctrinal) difference is Western crews were expected to "live around" their tanks (bongs went as far as putting a miniature kitchen inside theirs). This is a vestigial feature left over from the times of heavy tank brigades, whose crews were expected to stay inside their vehicles for days, once deployed.
>Soviets couldn't do that (physically they could, but crew readiness dropped like a lead balloon), because their tanks are claustrophobic shitboxes, owing to them being inflation-fetished mediums.
i think there may be a subconscious inclination for the soviets (russians) to have design all their shit as uncomfortable and hostile to its user as possible. like even if you're completely pragmatic, you might consider making spending extra resources to make a slightly bigger tank that's better at keeping the crew comfortable and not dead

but methinks the russians are just categorically opposed to making stuff too soft or "gay", and that designing your tank as a cramped death trap must yield some unknown benefit that westerners cannot attain because they are too gay and soft themselves. if there's 1 thing i've learned from the russian national ethos, it's that they worship suffering and think that the more you suffer, the bigger your reward will be in the future

another sort of related instance of this in history is the germans making thousands of panthers but no spare parts, so half the panthers just ended up being cannibalized for parts for the other half. likely because the nazi german high command and especially hitler just had a fascination for huge tank battles and didn't care about logistics

>>65028134
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g68MmLrGvM
You think M1 would fare better here? I don't recall many tank on tank engagements.

File: vlcsnap-2025-10-14-02h07m(...).png (775 KB, 1920x1080)

775 KB PNG

>>65027547
>>65028115
Lineage of T-72 comes from further development of T-62 and North Korea acquired T-72A/T-72M1 from Iran that captured it from Iraq during Iran-Iraq war hence over time more and more some components and design features of T-72 were replacing T-62, but overall it is a new tank this Cheonma-20 with lofty goals of being comparable or even above K2 Black Panther.

Honestly it is hilarious how Cheonma-20 in essence what Poles initially wanted for K2 in their service, but did not have funds to cover cost of modifying K2 design as too afford to have APS.

>>65021482
tank is supposed to protecc crew, t72 attacc own crew (lethally)

>>65028153
That's a very pokey top. She's not wearing a bra, is she?

>>65028781
>they worship suffering and think that the more you suffer, the bigger your reward will be in the future

They don't even really think about it in terms of being rewarded. They just think it works like some form of moral or even spiritual credit. They think Punished!Russia has built up basically infinity of it during WWII when Russians suffered terribly in order to defeat the Great Satan, and this has elevated suffering to this weird holy status for them.
Everyone around them basically owes them infinite respect and awe forever for saving them from the Nazis (NOTHING happened between 1939 and 1941 okay, NOTHING, SHUT UP) and they also later created this weird myth where they suffered all forms of deprivation just so the other Soviet republics and the satellites could live carefree lives in the paradise, peace and plenty provided for them by the Russians (who totally didn't strip mine these countries for any resource they pointed a finger at essentially for free, no sir, none of that could have possibly happened :^)
They're also unjustly hated by everyone around them even though they basically elevated these guys to sapience, and everyone only wants to exploit, hurt and betray them. So they sit, drink, feel sorry for themselves, reminisce about the good old days and revel in suffering on a national scale.

>>65028038
>>65028045
Self replying faggot

File: lazerpig t72 sucks.jpg (81 KB, 636x360)

81 KB JPG

>>65021220
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxKwC7E9g78

File: snapshot.jpg (477 KB, 1920x1080)

477 KB JPG

>Maintaining 20-30 Challengers is a big deal. Maintaining 20-30 Abramses is a big deal.
>The most effective tanks we ever got given were the 670 T-72s the Poles gave us.
Logistics win wars.

File: iranian_chieftain_wreck.png (417 KB, 690x517)

417 KB PNG

>>65021931
>>65025175
absolutely hilarious statements considering what absolute embarrassments the Chieftain and M60 were in Iran-Iraq. The Chieftain in particular got so utterly raped by T-62s/T-72s that when the Brits came to peddle them to the Iraqis, they got laughed out of the room. Keep in mind these were the same people buying Chinkshit Type 59s by the shipload
>inb4 buh buh buh the Iranians were incompetent
I'm not a tard who writes off an IFV as useless after it jobs, because in any given engagement there's a million factors that influence the outcome aside from hard stats. Regardless, in this instance the inferior slavnigger junk tanks clearly didn't struggle to put down Chieftains like Ol' Yeller over, and over, and over again

>>65021220
Bro actully shit talks a tank that has seen most modern combat and its still used to this day

>>65032040
Young man?

>>65030731
>hurr durr the one war where the tank didn't completely flop and fail despite getting wrecked by TOWs en masse totally shows that all the numberous other wars it was used in with horrible consequences aren't real
choke on a bag of dicks, vatnigger

File: M3.png (3.22 MB, 1659x1173)

3.22 MB PNG

>>65021220
Not even close


>>65021931
chieftains got bodied by the T-54/55 and T-62 in Iran, let alone the T-72. The Iraqis turned down the Chieftain after the war because they thought it was really shit. They tasted it against T-62 SABOTs and it penetrated through the front out the back. This is not mentioning the notorious engine problems with Chieftains.
Dogshit tank for dogshit copers like you.

>>65032301
Just remember.
The Brits (and to an extent the Soviets) wanted the M3 because it was for the most part, superior to their domestic products at the time.

>>65032339
Was that before it was tested in real military operational use? I doubt it. WW2 put a swift end to these weird interwar multi-gun/multi-turret design tanks.

In Russia the tank had a negative reputation even though it was a niche oddball shitbox from the pile of weird mismatched lend lease assortments that they received early war, which is telling.

>>65032350
>Was that before it was tested in real military operational use?
after, it had solid armor and the 75mm was better than what brits had at the time.
>In Russia the tank had a negative reputation
just because retarded soviet subhuman drivers kept toppling it over doesn't mean early T-34s were far worse pieces of shit.

>>65032362
>doesn't mean early T-34s weren't far worse pieces of shit.*

>>65029277
So they're like evangelicals but slavic?

File: t-72_kuwait_city.jpg (108 KB, 744x500)

108 KB JPG

>>65032118
>the T-72 always loses (I cherrypicked every time it did and ignored every time it didn't)
stunning and brave analysis from Anon, go ahead and neck yourself for me please

>>65032362
you are clinically retarded if you seriously think the M3 beats even the worst Kharkiv shitboxes. A shorter 75mm in a rotating turret is roundly better than a longer 75mm stuck in a mile high pseudo-casemate hull, not to mention the T-34 had better armor and wasn't gimped by the M3's crew management "situation"
>just because retarded soviet subhuman drivers kept toppling it over
shitty cross-country performance is in fact an actual drawback and screaming "skill issue!!!!!!" doesn't excuse it

>>65032339
Soviets did not like it at all and were debating on just halting all orders of the thing
>>65032362
Even UVZ's finest would have a hard time being worse than an up to spec M3, and Soviets did not get their Lees up to spec

>>65032666
>I cherrypicked every time it did and ignored every time it didn't
but enough about you deflecting to the iran-iraq war which is the only case where T-72 did anything except get exploded horribly.
>ou are clinically retarded if you seriously think the M3 beats even the worst Kharkiv shitboxes
enough of your cope, vatnigger. imagine making excuses for tanks with polished steel instead of mirrors and flags in place of radios with dysfunctional traverse drives and interior so cramped soviet manlets struggle to fit inside with winter clothes.
>>65032954
>Even UVZ's finest would have a hard time being worse than an up to spec M3
you're dead wrong.

>>65032666
>A shorter 75mm in a rotating turret is roundly better than a longer 75mm stuck in a mile high pseudo-casemate hull
The M2 and L-11 have practically the same barrel length

>>65032666
>not to mention the T-34 had better armor
the armor that spalled into its crews on 37mm hits, you mean?

>>65032964
>>65032977
You can just post the BeamSwine video and spare everyone the embarrassment and wasted time

>>65032362
>comparing the M3 Lee with its retarded top-heavy design, bolted armor, forward-facing 75mm to one of the best tanks of WW2
lol
lmao

>>65033031
>to one of the best tanks of WW2
awful b8

File: war thunder.jpg (176 KB, 1170x1238)

176 KB JPG

>>65032997
>no arguments
as expected from a coping vatnigger

File: kuwait_chieftain_wreck.png (620 KB, 686x515)

620 KB PNG

>>65032964
>which is the only case where T-72 did anything except get exploded horribly.
>didn't look at the attached picture award
Iraqi tanks raped Western armor by the dozen (again) during the Invasion of Kuwait, but I'm sure you'll come up with some gay little cope about why this doesn't count either. I could rattle off more T-72 wins, but it's more fun going one by one since each addition makes you look progressively more retarded
>imagine making excuses
he says, right after making a weak excuse for the M3's balance issues. I didn't excuse jack dick, by the way. Did you even read my post? Are you even capable of reading my post? Do you need help from text-to-speech? Does your wrangler know you are using the internet unsupervised?
>tanks with polished steel instead of mirrors and flags in place of radios with dysfunctional traverse drives and interior so cramped soviet manlets struggle to fit inside with winter clothes.
all that and yet even the shittiest T-34 still beats the M3, because the designers had the genius idea of putting the main gun in a rotating turret

>>65032972
depends on the M3 variant in question, no? Late models had a long gun that has a foot and change on the L-11 IIRC. No idea what difference that makes to muzzle energy and I don't really care since it's irrelevant to my point anyway

>>65032977
not every (or even most) T-34s had flawless metallurgy, but we're comparing them to the (riveted) M3, so the T-34's superiority should be obvious if you have a frontal lobe

>>65021220
I understand you have RDS but you can find dozens of worse tanks.

>>65033369
>Iraqi tanks raped Western armor by the dozen (again) during the Invasion of Kuwait
was this before or after they got obliterated by coalition forces, little ziggie?
>I could rattle off more T-72 wins
even the "wins you already cite" are basically shitty cope that only has relevance because the alternative is just cases of T-72s dying without any kills at all, destroyed relentlessly as the worthless shitheaps they are.
>he says, right after making a weak excuse for the M3's balance issues
nobody except soviets had issues with that, meanwhile every user of T-34 had issues with the tank.
>I didn't excuse jack dick, by the way
your entire post history is filled with garbling zigger dicks and making up exaggerated stories about some, any kind of western equipment, singling out chieftains for some reason.
>all that and yet even the shittiest T-34 still beats the M3
which tank had 90% of its inventory lost in combat again, pidor? the only thing it's been "beating" was its own transmission, which was so unreliable and short lived the tanks had to carry a spare one externally on the back.
>not every (or even most) T-34s had flawless metallurgy, but we're comparing them to the (riveted) M3, so the T-34's superiority should be obvious if you have a frontal lobe
impressive, very nice, let's see the crew survival rates for both then

>>65033484
>even the "wins you already cite" are basically shitty cope
>that doesn't count because, uh, it doesn't, okay??
wow, clocked it
>singling out chieftains for some reason.
you're too retarded to even follow a post chain, incredible. Enjoy this last (You), I'm not going bother wasting any more of my time

>>65025229
How do you make a mold that leaves the insides empty?

>>65021220
It stell looks cool

File: soviet moon program.webm (2.63 MB, 500x282)

2.63 MB WEBM

>>65033499
>copes, seethes, deflects after being called out on extremely cherrypicked examples, runs away
textbook zigger behavior desu