Why was it so utterly abominable between world war 1 and the centurion? It's just a 20+ year streak of crimes against armor engineering despite being one of the inventors of the tank.
>>65550652You could have posted something else than the best British tank design of actual WW2.
One can sense a consistent design concept in the turret shape, leading up to the masterpiece Centurion.
>>65550672>You could have posted something else than the best British tank design of actual WW2The cromwell being their cutting edge medium tank of the war is really sad, almost as bad as the italians pretending the P26/40 was a heavy tank.
>>65550672>best British tank design of actual WW2Uh... why did you post that with a picture of 2 knocked out Cromwells?
>>65550652That's because you're a dumbass jeet who can't do more than five seconds of research.
>>65550652Tanks were a low priority because they aren't the best investment for defending an island nation.t. Aussie that is still annoyed we are building an armoured force just so we can follow the US into their next quagmire.
>>65550728>armored force >quagmire The fuck? Light infantry and helicopter unit's are what you should be afraid of, if they are pushing those then we're probably looking forward to "Trying to Civilize Muslims: Episode XIVILIVI".
>>65550732We are an island, the best bang for our buck is naval and air assets to keep cunts off our shores, if they have landed we are already fucked.We built an armoured force specifically so we can send it where ever the US drags us next.
>>65550734>if they have landed we are already fucked.This attitude is antithetical to actual military planning. You'll never win if you don't at least fucking try.Any kind of landing is a very precarious position for the enemy to be in and is an optimal target for an armored counterattack.
>>65550737Anon the only country that could get past our naval and airforce are China, if they land we are fucked.Being patriotic is good, being jingoistic is retarded.
>>65550739>if they land we are fucked.Elaborate on this a little, will you?
>>65550744The whole ADF is 64,000 strong and based on the 10/1 support/combat ratio common in western forces that gives us about 6,400 combatants.
>>65550745And you assume that would remain the fact in case the world was heading towards a war where China invades Australia?
>>65550746I think China could move on Taiwan at any time and if the US went in out best goy politicians would jump in too.If we had decades of warning like China building a heap of massive landing craft we would still have 6,400 because that's the exact situation today.
centurion is a ww2 tank
>>65550750Russia had to build-up for the invasion of Ukraine for over a year and the US could easily tell it was going to happen long before it did. The overtures of further war in Europe have been ongoing for years now, EU countries have been prepping for a potential coming war for a good while now as well.Where do you get this notion that China could all of a sudden just launch itself into a successful invasion? To begin with, the US intelligence community has been spreading the notion that China is preparing for war by 2027. We've had years already with that warning being repeated in official US military publications. If China does invade Taiwan, it absolutely will not happen by surprise. The same dynamic would apply to Australia as well. We would know the war was going to happen, or at the very least there would be so much threat of it, that Australia would prepare itself for the war.A tank force serves as a credible deterrent against any kind of landing, whether naval- or airlanding operations, since without adequate lines of supply or stable frontlines with which to blunt the armored offensive through use of depth, an armored offensive is an incredibly severe threat to any operation of that sort.This applies to any kind of hybrid operation as well, where little green men or "insurrectionists" might try to take over land and destabilize the situation. Russia had to outright invade Ukraine in 2014 to stop their operation from being crushed. Similarly, China would recognize the need for a major war to actually set foot on Australian soil. This increases the cost and threat of attempting such an operation in direct correlation to the power of Australian ground forces. And this is without considering the rest of NATO, the US especially.
>>65550739There's also a fine line between realistic and being an actual defeatist, you sad sack.
>>65550765I want us to build a nuclear deterrent but no way are our spineless pollies pissing off the world like that.
>>65550728The AS21 is pretty cool desu. But yeah. If it were up to me Australia would have got that long range navalized never to be built second version of the F22 with canards that Japan also wanted.
>>65550739Chinese units range from functional knock-offs of western gear to horse-bound cavalry and T-55 copies. And they're going to send the good shit to fight the US, Taiwan, and Japan first and foremost; are you going to surrender to a horse? Let a Type 69 that's older than its crew's parents bowl you over because you couldn't bother to bring any tanks of your own?
All tank doctrine and design in all countries prior to World War II was a grab bag. Yes the Brits went on various epic journeys during that era but so did other nations. It was a combination of various engineering designs and types being tried after WWI but also the military brass not being able to achieve concurrence and finality on what tracked armored vehicles were actually to do/what their purpose was on battlefields, and how much effort to devote to it. And during the interwar years, a relative lack of smaller-conflict experience for many of the major military leaders to base their doctrines on or center them around.Additionally, even during World War II itself it wasn't about 'tank design' in the sense of the way that, for example, air force fighter and bomber aircraft were purpose-designed (those were intended for clearly defined, discrete mil roles and tasks). Tanks, even considering the 1930s Panzers of Germany, were built and designed according to broad military doctrine role-filling not per se whether the tank was 'good' in the now-typical "armor - mobility - firepower" criteria of post-WWII battle tanks. The Allies were simply concerned with getting as many tanks to the front lines as possible in the shortest timeframe possible, they threw whatever type of engine (air- or water-cooled) was available into them. WWII battle tanks' armor protection and firepower were almost continuously modified and upgraded as the relatively new phenomena of armored warfare changed and evolved from 1940-1945 in Europe.
>>65550739Could Japan defeat the mighty Australian navy?
>>65550652At least they’re not Japanese or Italian tank designs.>>65550728>low priority>when your war plans for the next tumble with Germany boil down to let’s just fight in France again
>>65550720>Good means invincible
>>65550728Fucking retard.
>>65551108Japan had the excuse of China having absolutely nothing for armored vehicles and it's main threat being us from the sea. England fucking knew Germany was gonna be a problem and yet prepared for a sea threat despite Germany being about as good at sea as Russia
>>65550745Maybe you all should stop being bitches? You are already being invaded by asians
>>65550652It's '40 to '43 and it's something to do with them caring almost entirely about their navy and air force during that period for some strange reason
Small, indie island nation, please understand.I don't know how that explains their abominable airplanes though.Or their abominable women. Other island nations do just fine.
>>65551168>Germany being about as good at sea as RussiaG*rmoids aren't AS BAD, AS EVIDENCED BY maersk
>>65550652You say abominable, I say soulful.
>>65550862We should have let the Aussies and Nips buy Raptors
>>65551421>abominable womenEvery nation has ugly people and non-ugly people. You telling me American Samoa is full of 10/10's when 70% of the nation is obese? Really? You then mention, say, New Zealand or Australia... Who were all Bongs.
>>65550739The chinks aren't going to touch you militarily, that's not how they operate. Look at Fiji, they're actually friends with Fiji; and that "friendship" has turned the place into a regional drug hub without a single PLA boot touching the ground. You've heard this all before, the Asian Invasion was a well worn topic even in the 2000s.
>>65550652Because if British soldiers were allowed to have nice things then they might forget that they're working-class scum who deserve nothing but suffering.
>>65550652>Why was it so utterly abominableThey had fantastic tanks. Just their doctrine was weird.
>>65551438People dont know this, and those that do know (Americans and, may God forgive me, the Fr*nch) dont want YOU to know, but the Matilda was very OP during the early war.
>>65550761>EU countries have been prepping for a potential coming war for a good while now as well.I'd laugh but it's not funny. With the exception of Poland and Finland (+France I guess) Europe has ammo to fight for maybe two days
>>65551438>>65551700This is one of my favorite WW2 tanks>a literal instant win condition when playing gates of hell ostfront.>Nothing can penetrate it other than flak-88s during early war.Bongs missed out on its full potential by not putting HE rounds in it though, who gives a fuck if the 2pounder doesn't have enough explosive filler, its basically just a long range frag grenade.
>>65550652>forgetting the best sherman
>>65550652I saw that specific Cromwell last year. 10/10 museum.
>>65550652Tanks as envisioned as support vehicles to infantry built by locomotive/carriage manufacturers rather than automobile industry. No need for speed as they're supposed to ride with dis-moutned infantry, no comprehension of welding; they're made by riveters, built by island nation that favour another ship over armour divisions.
>>65551108Chi-Ha was a solid design. It's fair to say Japanese got most things right with it. They simply didn't have a pressing need to go bigger until far later. It was in 1943 they first encountered Grands, Lees and Shermans. At that point they already though of ending tank production all together, since tanks were seen as offensive weapons and the army still needed plenty more infantry kits and artillery to equip dozens of divisions.Chi-He was very much a Chi-Ha model 1941. It shared fair amount of parts with Chi-Ha, yet they thought it wasn't worth it to pause their little production and kept making Chi-Has a bit longer. And Chi-Nu is just a Chi-He with big ass turret. They might as well have put the same turret on Chi-Ha.
>>65551700>armor protection of a bunker>and slightly better mobilityWhat's not to love?
>>65551700The Churchill was the Allied equivalent of the Tiger I, it had the same effect on German morale by a handful of Churchills. Its armor was heavier than the Tiger and the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks. Churchills dominated Tunisia and the ETO. A single Churchill could destroy dozens of StuGs, Panzer IIIs and IVs with the ease of a Tiger destroying Shermans and T-34s
>>65550652>The best tank the british could make before the centurion is a glorified slightly more armored Panzer 4>Except it has severe issues like an internal mantlet which makes any shell hitting it jam the fucking turretLMAO
>>65554903>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanksis this pasta
>>65554984it's shitposting
>>65554903excellent post. can I ask you your opinion of the spandau as well?
>>65554903
>>65550728
>>65551168Retard. Britain was a global maritime empire, and there was exactly one way for them to actually lose the war: At sea.
>>65555406It doesn't really matter if they focused on their navy or not, their navy would have outmatched germany and disallowed any german naval invasion either way. Britain would have very easily lost the war if1. The united states was not led by an interventionist president that wanted war with germany2. Japan would have been chill enough to not attack the united states, armed conflict between the united states and japan being much less likely if the united states didn't have an interventionist president that insisted on embargoing japan.The UK can't actually do anything against germany on mainland europe, they can't liberate france or poland on their own, stalin himself stated the soviet union would have lost without US lend lease, and the japanese were embarrassing every task for the british sent to the pacific. Germany and britain are effectively stuck in this stalemate where neither can completely defeat the other, but the allies are still in an infinitely worse position, the european members of the allies being occupied and britain's ties with the rest of the empire being cut off.The outcome of the war was entirely dependent on whether the united states intervenes or not. The UK can't win without the US in the allies, conversely, the UK can't lose with the US in the allies.
>>65555357Thirdies are terrible at using memes. Look at how butchered this is.
>>65555030Don't say its name or you may actually summon him and his retarded take on two man tanks!
>>65551613>Who were all Bongs.Free range Britons.Big difference.
>>65550652>Why was it so utterly abominable between world war 1 and the centurion?Modern day british tank also overweight abomination, see Challenger 2 as an example.
>>65550750>I think China could move on Taiwan at any time and if the US went in out best goy politicians would jump in too.So you don't support defending Taiwan against mainland territories attack?
>>65555431>keeps seething about the challenger in literally every thread
>>65552082Was this picture used in steel panthers?
>>65555422You're completely misunderstanding feelings of the 30s>Lmao look at all those white Dutch women being killed by bow legged monkeys in Asia>ah well we don't careNot gonna happen
>>65554903>the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanksgr8 b8 m8 I r8 it 8 of 8
>>65556425Polls found over three quarters of the american populace opposed armed intervention of any kind as late as 1940, only the attack on pearl harbor changed this.
>>65555357Why would we strike australia? We have more important matter in SEA to be dealt with. -t. Indon
Got caught up on the infantry and cruiser labels and let the intended role result in designs that were not balanced. Which did level out as the war progressed and moved towards a more universal design.And to an extent, being an island nation meant they either wanted their tanks to be cheap/light for shipping, OR so protected that a tank would survive to make the costs of getting it there not be in vain.
>>65554903absolutely true, just look how the churchill performed most exellent at Dieppe.the brits wasted too much time & build up on untested doctrinal models, cruiser tank n'shieeet. and then they had to horseshoe what they had into the roles the battlefield demanded.the more versatile designs of the germans and their better industrial base in this regard allowed a faster adoption of chsnges on tanks, spgs etc.
>>65556974Polls also found out the majority of Americans wanted to help the UK before Japan acted against themIf Japan hadn't attacked the US but still attacked UK/Dutch then the US populace would still be sickened by what I said
>>65557627A moderate majority, a little over half wanted to provide material aid to the united kingdom, not join the war, and the choice of joining or not remained controversial all the way up to pearl harbor, much of the prior support for merely helping only coming after the goverment began to mobilize and the country was directly threatened.The germans had conquered the czechs, the poles, the dutch, the belgians, the danish, the norwegians and the french and the american public still didn't want intervention. Threats against the united states and propagandizing the populace and an administration pushing for war only managed to sway the public from overwhelming support for non-intervention to just considering material aid. Just providing lend lease would have been very uncertain without the roosevelt administration, much less direct intervention on behalf of the UK.
>>65557676They wanted to materially support the British before bow legged little Asian men were raping and murdering white European women, yesYou're delusional
>>65554903Lol, lmao.Chruchell is as usefull as a Chellenger 2 in ukraine. A highly explosive metal coffin that prone to breakdown and stuck in the terrain thanks to its weight.
>>65552082Eh, I question the>Asbestos liningBut it was at least an attempt at minimizing heat in the tropical conditions, which is more than what most armies of the time attempted
>>65558368>russian randomly crying about the uk and ukraine
>>65555320Audibly giggled
>>65558457https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/Chellenger/It's some sort of LLM having a melty.
>>65558439Japanese also developed air-conditioning system for their tanks and tested it. It helped somewhat. I can't recall why it was abandoned.Those air-cooled diesel engines made them probably the best tanks for tropical heat and cold winters. Also came with some of the lowest ground pressures.
>>65560229I would assume that's incredibly intensive in terms of production and maintenance for a branch of the ground forces that did not hold priority, the ground forces in general not holding priority in the overall japanese military of the time.
>>65551613>when 70% of the nation is obese?They're muscular as fuck brick shithouses
>>65560229>cold wintersYou would definitely need block heaters
>>65550759its engineering development began—somewhat parallel to the U.S. M26—during mid-war, but neither are really 'world war 2 tanks' because they barely saw operational service and war ended (only the M26 was even deployed prior in small numbers, the Centurion afterward) months later
>>65557525>Using [singular engagement] as proof of anything>ESL>Fellating Germans (lost both world wars they started)>the brits wasted too much time & build up on untested doctrinal models, cruiser tank n'shieeet.Worked for capturing 120,000+ Italioids in North Africa (while greatly, greatly outnumbered), and then killing an incredible amount of Germans at the Second Battle of el Almein, which the "Desert Fox" was never able to recover from, losing the strategic initiative for the rest of Germany's time on the continent.>and then they had to horseshoe what they had into the roles the battlefield demanded.Do you think "making use out of vehicles you already have" is a thing unique to the Brits? Read about how much captured shit Nazis pressed into service because their own industry was constantly lagging in terms of what the army needed in tanks and motorized components (invading the Soviet Union with a primarily horse-based supply chain lmao; what are the horses going to eat come winter, and what will happen when they don't have winter clothes? Lots of dead Germans). Read about how many variants of the Universal Carrier, Sdkz. 251, M2 and M3 halftracks there were.>the more versatile designs of the germans and their better industrial base in this regard allowed a faster adoption of chsnges on tanks, spgs etc.Anything with a working transmission and tracks is versatile. The Stug III was made because the Pz. III's fucking turrent couldn't mount an AT gun good enough to deal with Shermans, Churchills, KV-1s, or T-34s at range, meanwhile the Valentine did use its 75mm variant up until the end of the war, as well as the Archer SPG, which was essentially a Stug III but used doctrinally as a defensive, mobile anti-tank gun (both used by the Royal Artillery). Anything can be versatile, it just depends on how desperate you are for the bigger gun/payoff of efficiency task for not using a specialist vehicle.
>>65561813>Do you think "making use out of vehicles you already have" is a thing unique to the Brits?To the Germans*
>>65550739You already lost when you let their nepo kids and criminals buy up all your housing and resources years ago.
>>65561244>block heaterschecked, thanks anon for the bad memories
>>65550728>t. Aussie that is still annoyed we are building an armoured force just so we can follow the US into their next quagmire.Negro, have you looked at the size of your country in a map?
>>65550739>Anon the only country that could get past our naval and airforce are China, if they land we are fucked.Well, with that kind of thinking of course you are. Might as well give up now and invite them in.
>>65551168>Germany being about as good at sea as RussiaCome on, man, let's not exaggerate here.
>>65561813nigel condition: mad
>>65551734some would take issue with that claim
>>65550652Because it wasn't, you're just an idiot.
>>65559267especially funny when you consider only 2 of the 14 in Ukrainian service have been lost in the three years or so of service*, as opposed to the thousands of tanks Russia has lost. * = unless you believe whatever telegram paid-shills tell you
>>65550761>Where do you get this notion that China could all of a sudden just launch itself into a successful invasion?he is a defeatist and demoralized fuck that buys the enemy (chink) propaganda at face value. They always start self rationalizing their own inferiority complex with>we already lostThis attitude is way too common where I am from>t. balt
>>65551712The three balts have been heavily dumping into their defense too and Sweden+Denmark have not been sitting on their ass too. Also why do you equate finland with poland anyway when finns are way more comparable to the baltic trio situation by their weight class. Poland is more of an Ukraine caliber roadblock>laugh but it's not funny>has ammo to fight for maybe two dayssee, this is the defeatist inferiority complex at full display. Fed to you, willingly or not, by zigger propaganda. Now if (you) respond you will furiously start typing how there is no xyz and its absolutely impossible to produce xyz because of xyz, usually germany/france/UK, not having any will to do anything and all is DOOOOMED
>>65565717>only 2 of the 14 in Ukrainian service have been lostOnly because they rarely fields that under armored overweight piece of shit!Also there are definitely more than 2 that destroyed/damaged. Unfortunately just like any other anglos you refuse to see truth.>Reee there is no proofs. If there is any then it is the telegram lies.Yeah sure, pidor. Suit yourself.
>russian shill has started using pidor after seeing his ilk mocked with itMonkey see monkey do.
>>65550677>consistentchecked, the hulls-suspension from Cromwell forward are also
>>65566107But no banan tho
>>65566101>under armored>overweight citation needed
>>65566599>overweight>citation neededmy man the challenger 2 is 75 metric tons at combat load, it's literally the heaviest tank to ever see combat
>>65550652Isn’t that an Avenger? That isn’t a Cromwell?
>>65567516this is an avenger
>>65567846>cope cage in the 1940sThe fuck?!How did the Anglo-Saxons predict drone warfare?
>>65567850
>>65567882
>>65550677The Centurion is overrated, it was the result of reflexive British favor-armor formula turning out to be right thing to do, plus lessons learned from WWII cleaning up technical hangups before they happened. It was a dice roll. If Soviet bloc RPG hadn't proliferated the Americans and Germans would have been right.
>>65568020This tank is overrated because despite it being really good uhhh what if infantry AT didn't exist?
>>65568020>in an alternate timeline the centurion would've been bad
>>65568020Your post makes no damn sense, its such an insane straw-clutching statement that they did the right thing but no no it doesn't count.
>>65551425Maersk? The container ship company?
>>65562395Okay, that's a bit harsh. Second worst at sea after Russia, still behind Mongolia. I'm not b8ing here, what can Germany claim for their naval victories besides the Hood, that one cruiser that went bananas alone in the Indian Ocean, and killing a bunch of unarmed freight vessels? That also includes any earlier "German" group like Prussia, they've never been particularly noteworthy at sea
>>65568069They did pretty well at the battle of jutland considering they were significantly outnumbered in every class of ship present and managed to somehow inflict more losses than received instead of being completely destroyed against the most powerful navy in all of history in the largest concentrated battle ever.
>>65566611>75 metric tonsOf Anglo hopium and dreams. But seriously, how is the 75 -ton Bongoid tank as vulnerable as the T -90M, which weighs far less than that? Where the fuck did the weight go ?
>>65550652>Infantry Tank Doctrine>Bespoke Boutique manufacturing >presumption (correct) of elite capture of America by hook or by crook [Desperate Deception, Thomas Mahl; Atomic Spy Klaus Fuchs]
>>65568214>But seriously, how is the 75 -ton Bongoid tank as vulnerable as the T -90M, which weighs far less than that? Where the fuck did the weight go ?It's physically a much larger tank, with fuckhuge ammo bins everywhere inside.
>>65568069If Germany had the same numbers of ships during WW1 they would've won the naval war pretty handily. At Jutland they held their own despite frankly bullshit odds.WW2 Germany? Yeah well what did you expect from a previously disarmed nation that has two decades of naval industry completely wiped off the slate.
>>65568319There was nothing wrong with Bong doctrine in WW2. The only issue is their cruiser tanks sucked. Having massed armor for mobile warfare is smart. Having armor integrated into infantry is also smart. Accomplishing breakthrough with infantry+armor and then having dedicated exploitation formations is fucking great. Only problem is that it relies on set-peice battles. Simple as.
>>65568032>>65568036>>65568027What I'm saying is the designers weren't genius they were lucky. And only lucky that one time re: this thread
>>65569455provide an objective distinction between genius and luck applicable to this instance
>>65568400>a much larger tankWhy don't they make it smaller?
>>65569813Why don't they make the smaller tank larger?
>>65568214>as vulnerable as the T -90MIf a T-90M with its inferior armour is destroyed, its crew is guaranteed deadNot so for the C2
>>65569813>Why don't they make it smaller?Then you can't fit the fourth person in there, and as much ammo, fuel, etc.
>>65569820>Not so for the C2If a C2 gets penetrated, it's full of propellant bags in the hull. It'll burn up nicely and crisp up the crew.Which is exactly what happened in Ukraine when one of them was destroyed.
>>65569821Japan managed to retain all of that except ammo capacity with a tank that's overall smaller than a T-90 and almost half as heavy as a challenger 2.
>>65569822C2's propellant charges are stored in armoured, sealed ammunition bins separate from the crew compartmentThe crew of that destroyed C2 all successfully evacuated
>>65569825how about an extra 12 tons of armor
>>65569835Based on its 4.5 tons of composite being rated to protect it from modern 120mm guns frontally on a smaller vehicle I would say it's protected adequately.
>>65569825Jap tanks have fuck-all armor.
>>65557676Anon I think you fundamentally underestimate how racist Americans were in 1941. Pearl Harbor doesn't happen, but the moment reports come out of Japanese soldiers gangraping Dutch women and British/Aussie burses, not to mention the treatment of POWs, Americans would absolutely be chomping at the bit to kick Japan in the nuts.Think taking up arms to avenge raped and massacred Europeans in SEA vs our timeline's insanely, unreasonably, fuck ass mad "You touched our boats". So maybe not genocidal hatred, but definitely not isolationism.
>>65569834>all successfully evacuatedProofs??
>>65569834>C2's propellant charges are stored in armoured, sealed ammunition bins separate from the crew compartmentThe bins are literally IN the crew compartment. They're tough bins, but they aren't stopping a fucking 120mm uranium penetrator punching through lmao. >All successfully evacuatedYeah, yeah sure they did lmao
