POST TANKSOld thread at image limitPrevious Thread: >>64994020JUMBO edition
>>65052408>unknown Russian conscript after weekly round of dedovshchina. 2024.
>>65052468rangeban ex warsaw pact shitholes
>>65052408For rounds 7,8,9 did they lift the entire plate to get it at 0*? Also what does BL mean in No BL Obtained?
>>65052574I think they used a device similar to the one seen here>>65052368not sure what BL means though
>>65052408this is DISGUSTING
>>65052548That would include russia
Here's a rarity, a T-50, there are two known survivors, this in Finland and one in Russia
>>65052955checked, neat
>>65052352I've seen that exact tank in person before
>>65053138and by before, I mean many times because it's less than 10 miles from my house. they're building a new museum too, it should be open soon.
>>65052548Yeah, sure. Sounds like a good time.Rangeban India while we’re at it.
This is my favorite WW2 tank.
>>65053340Ok normie, hope the barista doesn't mess with your order this morning
For your consideration: Norks driving one of several captured Cromwells:
>>65052352>DOOM TURTLE
>>65053556Observation: It's protection comes mostly from the huge mantlet and sloping of the armor, it isn't extremely thick.
>>65053601>>65053556https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Re-Assembly_of_the_T28_Super_Heavy_Tank.webmThe sides and hull weren't that thick at all, although the gun mount was a huge target and 12 inches so in a frontal assault it was just fine which was it's job. The road wheels offered more side protection than the side hull armor which is why it had two sets of tracks, the tracks were the armor.
>>65053325it's only a model
Some Panther turret bunkers on the Italian front destroyed several Churchill tanks. If Germany had had the resources to strengthen its inland fortifications, there might have been opportunities for bunker-buster tanks like the T28 to prove useful.
>>65052352Anon there is already a tank thread up?>>65037952
>>65058352We can use two.There should be more threads like this on the Weapons board Catalog (instead of all the off-topic irrelevant $#@m)
One of the best tanks of 1940, too bad its now 1945.
>>65058719>bong tank>best of anythinglol, lmao, rofl even
>>65059434It was good for the first few years of World War II.Other things and new scenarios/tactics came along towards the end.
>>65059434It was probably the 4th best tank in the world in 1960 after the KV, Pz.III and Pz.IV. Maybe the M2 light after that.
>>65060208>It was probably the 4th best tank in the world in 1960 after the KV, Pz.III and Pz.IV. Maybe the M2 light after that.>1960Anon what?
>>65060244checked, yeah idk what he meant by thatPz III was best tank in the world 1940. maybe KV after thatPz IV didn't really get into "it's role" (as stopgap / 'all we have left') until 1942 and later
>>65060244>>65060358>they don't know about the Israeli Super Matilda IIs up gunned with L7s.
>>65060358You can make an argument for most tanks to be the best in 1940 and it really comes down to what you determine as the most important metrics?Matilda II has great armor, the 2pdr is heads and shoulders above the majority of peashooters everyone else has, and contrary to popular belief was actually very reliable compared to other vehicles that were put in the same position but of course is extremely slow and doesn't have exactly the best crew ergonomics. KV-1 on paper there is nothing that matches the speed firepower and protection it has but the thing wasn't known for the best build quality and the crew was virtually blind.Panzer III has by far some of the best crew ergonomics and they can actually see out the tank but its armed with a peashooter, has painfully mediocre armor, and the transmission was known to give frequent problems.and of course if you are completely insane you'll pick one of the French tanks in 1940.>>65060520Dem crafty Jews! Here was me thinking anon was from an alternate timeline!
>>65060692>if you are completely insaneS35 or Chi-Ha for me.
>>65060692>File: 6pdr Matilda II.jpgnice
>>65060782>>65060692The Sentinel E1 had the same turret ring diameter as the Matilda II. 17pdr is technically possible.
Swords to plowshares
>>65052548So...Russia?
>>65060752They got many things right with it in 1936:>large displacement high torque diesel>no fuel in fighting compartment, unlike "diesel is totally safe to bath in Ivan">large road wheels>good tracks>external easy to fix suspension>cupola>upgrade potentialAlthough few flaws of it's day still around:>2-man turret>rivets>machine gun placementBonus:>air-cooled engine = cooling system immune to freezing, evaporation and leaking>magnified commander periscope
>>65052574>>65052587It means there was a very disappinted fujo that day
>>65061217is that the one with 120 mm
>>65061245Yeah.
>>65060752>>65061220I have always maintained for the 1930's the Japs had some pretty good tank designs. The main problem is they were still being used all the way into the 1940's.
>>65062147At a minimum, they were suited for what they needed a tank for. Chucking some HE at the occasional Chinky brand bunker, machinegunning squishies, and being reasonably bulletproof and low maintenance. They weren't poorly made (you don't just shit forth an air cooled Diesel and have it work), they were just not meant to be used against armored opposition much sterner than a PzKfw2.
>>65062147The war department gave the IJA one major break for a modernization project, and they used those resources to make the OI tank. That more or less killed interest in giving them more investment over the navy.
>>65062867I always think should judge based on what else was around during the time period they entered service rather than what they were pushed up against. When something like pic related is considered one of the more "cutting edge" designs around at the time it is built I tend to be more sympathetic to Jap tank design over say Ital.>>65062871I have always heard rumors that thing was actually built and shipped to China. I wonder if there will ever be solid evidence ever produced on this?
>>65056930>thought that was a turret toss at firstNGL, that would've killed me too
>>65061220>>65062147>>65062867yep, the diesel is what puts 'em over the top for menice job Nippon
>>65052574>>65052587Did digging and only 'BL' I could find references to are 'blind light' or 'ballistic limit' which both seem to refer to the round producing some sort of effects on the other side of the plate? The number that follows seems to be a velocity requirement for getting effects.
>>65063914Its not gay if the barrels don't touch!
>>65064215I love how it looks like it was designed for 40k but it was actually a real thing.
>>65063963i dunno but the (P) i think means "penetration" and the number is the depth in thousands of an inch.
>stares at you with my autistic eyes
>>65066497stug lyfe
>>65066502What is that? It looks like a Panzer II with a modernized Pz 38 turret on top?
I don't know much about tanks, but they look cool.
>>65067256>The face on the guy on the rightFucking kek!
>>65067228you transposed those
>>65068493122 ?
this is the greatest tank in the world.
>>65052470
>>65052368That's a big x-ray machine.
>>65069231read up on these during research into the Obiekt 430/T-64 lineagealso Obiekt 150, Obiekt 287late 50s-1960s Soviet tank development was wacky
>>65052470holy moly the turret on that t34!
Used until 1997.
>>65073116Didn't one get used in Ukraine back in 2014?
>>65073116the most kino USSR heavy tank
^^explain
>>65075991>Celere-SaharianoThat would have been a pretty decent tank for the Italians if it came out in 1941. Too bad it was 1943.
>>65071804by that time it was too latelooks neat though, 'wedding cake' tiered turret-cupola
>Battle of Medenine>3 Panzer Divisions>41–52 tanks
>>65077883Gulag Division?>>65077888Panzy Divisions more like it.
>>65079387>Im going to go armor so that I can sit behind thick steel and be impervious to the main killers on the battle-field: artillery and machineguns
>>65079293>Everyone returns to Stug
>>65082110Did they have reports on how it worked on the Chaffee? Sherman seems too heavy but a Chaffee seems light enough?
>>65082786>too heavy? Not much difference in weight between them
>>65083633Anon you can be looking at a 20 ton difference depending on the variant? Or to put it in perspective, a whole entire another Chaffee?
>>65084427Looks like something that kids would play with.
>>65084461Say that to my face not online
>>65084417it's not double an M24 weight
>>65053601>Observation: It's protection comes mostly from the huge mantlet and sloping of the armor, it isn't extremely thickIt has close to 300mm of frontal armor, they literally don't get much thicker than that on a tank. outside of composites.
>>65067228Panzer 38 NAWelded Panzer 38 variant designed for recon duties.
>>65084621Depending on variant? Yes it could. 75's usually were around 30 ton mark, 76's were about 35 tons and the Jumbos were pushing past 40.
>>65085501Jumbos are an anomaly, and none of that matters regarding track grousers that were used (not just by U.S.) on much heavier tanks and AFVs
>>65086733>There is an imposter among us
Ok, let's post pictures of thanks that make you go hmmmm....
>>65087069dollar store tanks
>>65087053Is that a Uruk Hai vehicle?
>>65087220wheels, tracks you choose
>>65086733Check the chap at the back, a Panther.
not enough Pz III in these threads
It's a baby tank Wolfie.76mm
>>65087346Back when "ear-pro" was for faggots.I learned to shoot when someone would be assigned to get YOU ear-pro because you were SPESHUL.I was not speshul.
>>65087383That works for me, it would suck to be the loader.
>>65071804
>>65087392prepping for invasion of Japan
>>65069231Why is it so droopy
>>65087644Low on air.
M103
>>65087647>me when ur mum sits on my dick
>>65087647Do want. Probably about 5k on Temu.
>>65087663something about these just looks imbalanced
>>65067241CV90 / variants are kino modern AFVs
>>65088393
>>65087996I think it may be the height of the turret relative to the body
>>65089050maybehull just looks weird, turret also has overlong rear basketidk just doesn't look as proportional as, say, the (bigger hull) immediate postwar T29 - T30 - T34
>>65087663M103 my beloved
>>65053618>>65053601>the thickest Rolled Homogenous armor of all time outside of maybe a few Soviet heavy tank prototypes>its armor wasn't thick at allOkay retard
>Reading comprehension>Doesn't watch the posted clip or read the wiki>The ball-shaped gun mantle had a thickness of 11.5 inches.[11] The lower hull front had 5.25 in (130 mm) of armor, and the sides 2.5 in (64 mm).The mantle WAS the quoted 300mm frontal armor, the vid posted clearly shows that the hull itself wasn't all that thick since they show the thing cut in half in cross section. Try actually reading up before you post bullshit, IS tanks had equal or heavier overall armor besides the gun shield.
>>65090887Don't you have some piss jugs to be guzzling?
Upgraded Sherman, my beloved.
>>65089640engineer tanks are the best
>>65089640I missed this an I got an erection looking at it.
>>65090230(at right of pic) StuG life
>>65094187I really don't like the Leopard 2 for no other rational reason other than I feel its a little soulless. I did like the Leopard 1 though. Is there anything wrong with me?
>>65094897>Is there anything wrong with me?Generally, yes.
>>65094897>Is there anything wrong with me?No, it's a pretty boring-looking tank. I think it looks cool enough, but I prefer the look of the Abrams.
>>65096376What's the story here?
>>65096413How does the Abrams look any less boring? All modern tanks look the same (i.e. very gay).
>>65096805>How does the Abrams look any less boringSlopes.
>>65098845dig the M3-style cupola and rearward AA mg
>>65096376ouch
M551 is cool looking
>>65103413>Stugs on Stugs
>>65087403It wasn't breech loaded inside the turret?
>>65104049Why is this fucking my brain so hard?
>>65098015I bet you were a Digimon kid
MIGRATE TO NEW THREAD>>65106421>>65106421>>65106421
>>65060208Put T-28 and T-34 on the list as well>inb4 hurr T-34 sucks actually
