Was the armor so shit that they made it as easy as possible for the crew to exit the vehicle before it exploded?
>>65194317That's a tank destroyer aka GMC (gun motor carriage) or self-propelled gun.It's not a tank. By official U.S. Army procurement, intentional design, and doctrine.Picrel is a HMC (howitzer motor carriage).
>>65194317Yeah
>>65194317>>65194349About that
>>65194317And the Brits didn't seem to mind, though they did upgrade the gun.
>>65194317One, these kinds of designs are not exclusive to Americans. And two, these are manned by artillerymen, who appreciates an open top turret.
>>65194317From my understanding, it was because they couldn't fit the firing mechanism into the turret in a satisfactory manner that didn't look ridiculous. Some of them had foldable roofs for when they weren't firing.
>>65194349>>65194357>>65194369Please stop, it's against the Geneva conventions to own OP this much
>>65194414I DEMAND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
>>65194337This thing's pure sex. America always pulls off the most dakka on the smallest platform, from super frigates like Old Ironsides to the Bradley being a tank killer today.
>>65194560
>>65194357>>65194349>>65194369>>65194446Bodied that faggot
Although safe, observation via periscopes was apparently disliked.
>>65194446Archer. Will punch through a Tiger or about half a dozen Ha-go.
>>65194560>America always pulls off the most dakka on the smallest platform, from super frigates like Old Ironsides to the Bradley being a tank killer today>to the BradleyDo NOT look up which company produces the Bradley. Protip, it isn't an American one.
>>65194698Bradley was originally made by United Defense, which grew out of FMC, and wasn’t acquired by BAE until the GWOT era. It’s a similar story to the F-35 lift fan, which was originally designed by Allison.
>>65194317Most threats to a tank didn't come from above, especially in WW2. Also, picrel is a tank destroyer which was built for the American doctrine demans.
>>65194756>Cab Rank air support never happened.>FAC is a myth.Teenagers.
A thread died for this
>>65194767why spout all that when you could just say "CAS"
>>65194777CAS is not what they had.They had aircraft circling waiting for a target.When one shot its load it would head for home and join the back of the queue.CAS is probably 20 years later as a term.
>>65194774Such is the circle of life.
With high-energy cannons, ventilators probably wouldn't have been sufficient to handle the heat and gases. Barrel blowers didn't exist before the M26 Pershing.
>>65194774It was probably a shit tread tho
>>65194788>CAS is probably 20 years later as a term.I don't fucking care when the term was invented, the PRACTICE was CAS
>>65194317Lots of gun depression without a roof for the breach to crash into.Also >>65194337
>>65194817I don't care who pulled a train on your mom.The practice was CAS.
>>65194827Lighter faster and sometimes ambush predator.Don't hang about when the heavies can be called in.
>>65194833I'm a little sad air and arty killed the glass cannon concept, I would love to the fastest / heaviest armed vehicles we could build today if we didn't give a shit about armour.
>>65194841Just look at shit like the EBR, 10RC, Jaguar, and any other line of wheeled AFVs. Centauro especially stands out
>>65194841>air and arty killed the glass cannon conceptair and arty ARE glass cannons
>>65194774Yeah but we got to watch OP get raped.
>>65194871Fair point.>>65194877Technically correct but not what I mean and you know it.
>>65194698God I hate you newfag wikipedia warriors.
>>65194317Mostly because that's technically not a tank. It's a tank destroyer. Tanks need roofs because infantry can throw grenade into open topped vehicles as they overrun a position. The M10 Wolverine is a Tank Destroyer, it wants to stay away from infantry and snipe enemy tanks. An open top saves some weight and lets the crew breath while trading shots with a Panther.
You're both wrong, but not why you think.>>65194756>Most threats to a tank didn't come from above, especially in WW2Irrelevant because no tank can pack enough armour to defeat attack from above.That being said, the decisive means of defeating tanks in WW2 was indeed "threats from above", i.e. airpower.>>65194777>whybecause the Germans also had CAS, in fact pioneered the doctrine and used it to great effect in 1940, but they didn't have "cab rank" air support which is a British innovation, and which is now what most people refer to when they say "CAS".>>65194817this is correct, although clearly by accident>>65194831No, you correctly described the cab-rank system in your post above.What you and anon are both missing is CAS before the invention of radio and FACs with aircraft radios, which is what everyone did before the cab-rank system. Most commonly, it involved time-coordinated airstrikes against known enemy positions.
>>65194349How about a 150mm howitzer instead of a 75mm AT gun?
>>65195222Verdammt.
>>65195200Nope, aviation wasn't even in the top 3 when it came to destroying tanks in WW2.https://youtu.be/O5DcY8TmOpA?si=-C4bikw6VNfTXck0
>>65194337kawaii
>>65195234>aviation wasn't even in the top 3 when it came to destroying tanks in WW2Based on the specific metric of tanks found on the battlefield with the marks of ordnance on them, yes.But thanks to Allied bombing, a greater number of tanks were damaged along the way, all the way from Germany to the front line. The Germans reported as many tanks written off in the workshops and leaguers as were destroyed in combat. This was because the British began bombing tank leaguers at Second El Alamein and found it extremely effective in disabling tanks without ground troops ever having to face them in combat, and the Americans followed suit beginning in the Italian mainland campaign.That's why I specifically said "airpower" and not "CAS", because these missions are usually classed as "strategic bombing" or "interdiction".
>>65194349>>65194357>>65194369>>65194446>>65194568>>65194683PUT ME IN THE SCREENCAP
>>65194317>>65194337Funnily enough the armor on the US tank destroyers WAS comparatively shit because the design emphasis was on rapid relocation to blunt incoming massed armor attacks. The plate is only thick enough to stop rifle-caliber bullets and shell shrapnel, and the bosses on the M10 in particular were supposed to be mounting points for applique armor. Apparently this fact was not enough to deter ground commanders and OP from thinking they were like tanks, because they're tank-shaped, therefore they can do tank-shaped things, even though they lacked things like machine guns.
>>65195524>US TDsYeah it wasn't necessarily that great of an overall design concept. Also they had trouble getting the turret to mass-balance on the original M10, and upgunned successor M36Design via doctrine, committee
>>65195524The funny thing is that most TDs ended up getting used more as an infantry support gun anyway to shell infantry. Rarely were they ever where an enemy tank was when you needed them or facing targets where the lack of armor would cause concern.
>>65194446OP's ass must be red raw at this point.
>>65194414OP never claimed other nations didn't do this. You are somehow more of a faggot than he is.
>tank destroyer>tiny cannon>m4 sherman -> supposedly not made to defeat tanks>huge ass firefly cannon made to defeat tanksmakes no sense at all
>>65196512>makes no sense at allDoctrine never does
>>65194317on vehicles like the M10 and M36, the lack of an armoured roof is mainly for two reasons. Firstly, as a Tank Destroyer, they were designed not to engage targets in support of the infantry, they ended up doing this anyway, partly because why waste a whole ass battalion of gun carrying vehicles just because their preferred food (german tanks) aren't around, but that was not their intended use. In their Intended use the open top allows for much greater commander (and other turret crew) surveillance and observation. As they were designed to move to a position enemy armour was moving towards, this allowed them to spot the enemy first. Four out of Five times, the winner of a vehicle gunnery duel in WW2, was the vehicle to spot and fire upon the enemy first. This greater ability to survey the surroundings allowed the Tank destroyer to achieve the first sighting of the enemy, and engage the enemy before being spotted. Secondly, the lack of a roof meant that the gun could depress to a greater degree, allowing for the tank destroyer, to engage from a position that minimizes the amount of the vehicle that could be visible from the axis of enemy movement, by being on the reverse slope of a natural, or dug out, fighting position, further aiding in the ability of the tank destroyer to get the first shot off in its intended doctrinal engagement. Where it falls apart is that, the Tank Destroyer battalions, are doctrinally, and therefore designed to be, a defensive weapon, and are therefore subpar in an attacking role, but were used in an attacking role anyway, and a vehicle capable of moving, aiming, and firing a 3", or greater caliber gun, is better than nothing, and lacking enough of their intended food (german tanks) many tank destroyer battalions found themselves being used in ways contrary to doctrine. Interestingly, the US Tank Destroyer doctrine, and German Tank Destroyer doctrine, is practically identical, Just bigger formations (company vs battalion)
>>65196512i know this is a bait post but i love to roll in the shit with the pigsThe M4 sherman, when designed, had a gun fitted that had a different engagement profile to that of the tank destroyers. The Sherman, as a medium tank, was fitted with a gun that was intended for good general purpose use but that also had good anti-tank capabilities, and the best gun for that profile, that could be fitted into the turret, was the 75mm. The Tank Destroyers, however, were intended to only engage tanks, and therefore, the primary concern when choosing a gun was the anti-armour capability, both penetration and after-penetration results. The Sherman was considered with a 3" gun, but the gun would not fit, and was too heavy, likewise with the 76mm, while it could fit, the compromises in terms of crew ergonomics, and the lack of a german tank requiring the gun to take out at the time encountered, meant that the Ordnance department considered it unworkable in its current state. (Before this point, the Tiger had not yet had any combat). Development continued on the 76mm, and it was lightened which allowed a reduced counterweight, and this made the gun workable in the sherman turret. The smaller cannons originally fitted to the tank destroyers, 37s and 57s, were at the development of the TDs at the time, the largest guns able to be put on those chassis, the open top turret allowed the 3" gun, which the 76mm was developed from, to be fitted to the M10.
>>65196587Your point about ergos is too-often overlooked, even today. As the pendulum has swung back on the Sherman, and it's gotten more props as the >good, solid tank that it always was, too many have dickrode the Firefly, when it was always a stopgap that sacrificed everything in the name of greater penetration.The shortcomings of the standard Sherman turret are made obvious when considering the US's purpose-built 76-carrying Shermans, which have a noticeably enlarged turret, to make it more comfortable to operate. Consult the chart if you doubt.Even there, despite further upgrades by countries like Israel and Argentina, it was clear that the Sherman had reached its upper limit by the end of the war, hence the replacement with the Patton series shortly thereafter (though those took a while to mature).
>>65195226One more, because fuck OP.
