Youtube recommended me this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GipCoSrLPakAutomatic cannon gyroscope leveling system.Anti-explosion compartments.While the germans spent resources on brute force.Americans spent on being smart.No wonder the germans lost the war.I guess the m4 was the best tank of the war.
Hot take: There was no "objectively best" WW2 tank because different nations had different needs for their tanks.
>>65582928Depends on whether or not you consider the Centurion to be a WWII tank.>>65582956Arguably there is a case for Japanese tank design when it comes to spreading a finite amount of metal over the most units possible because the enemy they're facing doesn't need anything thicker than stopping small arms but all your infantry need organic armor.
>>65582928>Was the tommy cooker the best WW2 tank?No, it was the IS series. The nazis were laughing at M4, while on the other hand theyre quivering in their boots at the sight of IS-1 and IS-2.
It's this thread again. kys shitskin OP
>>65582928>>65582969I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.
>M4Whomst was M1 & M2?I know grant was M3.
>>65582928It's a:>good>solid>tank
Wasn't the sherman easy 8 just as good as a tiger regarding firepower and armor protection?
>>65583423Grant, Lee and Sherman were all assigned by the British and for whatever reason stuck. I dont think the tanks that never went to Europe got titles like that. I still adore the absurd amount of mgs the M2 had, especially with the retarded ass-mounted bullet deflectors so you can shoot people hiding behind your tank
>>65584297Of course forgot my image
>better optics, fire control, range,...tiger>better protection, mobility etc,...tiger>easy to mass producet-34>american patriotismm4
>>65582928The M4 was good and it served the purpose it meant to, but even the Americans knew it wasn't the best because the moment that the M4 was put into full production, development on what would become the Pershing was immediately startedThe Americans knew the M4 was too tall and that a 75 wasn't going to cut it long term, but you can also see a lot of the lessons that they learned from the M4 be put into the M26 via all the test vehicles that led to it
>>65584312Christie suspension made the T-34 harder to churn out than the M4, which is why so many of them failed quality control and didn't measure up to their paper specs.
>>65584420tall tank is simply part of our national myth
>>65584420>The Americans knew the M4 was too tall>lessons that they learned from the M4 be put into the M26The M4 was too tall, so they built the M26 that was... the same height? Do you even think before you post?
>>65582928in my heart M3 Lee / Grant was the superior tankit was there when it was needed the most
>>65582928yes
Most produced tank
>>65583406Im relatively new here. Is this old pasta?
>>65584312>easy to mass produceM4>soviet patriotismT-34
>>65585753Anyone using the phrase, "Tommy Cooker", or "Ronson" by now is either trolling or deeply ignorant. I'm assuming that post is just a little silliness.
>>65584312t-34s were only 'easy to produce' because they literally didn't give a fuck about quality control as long as it drove and shot
>>65584312Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Maybe.Now, Fuck Off back to Belton Cooperland, and return to eating WherShit and SovDung.
>>65585753it's ancient.>>65583406always good to see.
>>65585753Reasonably old.
>>65584312TRVTH nukes!!!!
>>65585772the tiger and sherman had similar speeds despite the tiger weighing twice as much.the tiger had thrice the armor and didnt burn its crew.
>>65584504Wtf is this overpriced drones fodder?Wtf with you murican and inability to produce cheap shit en mass??
>>65582928Shermans had a lot of expensive features which other nations outright couldn't afford.All hatches being spring loaded, meaning they could be heavy yet easily operated.Crew all having rotating periscopes, a lot of tanks only having fixed ones if they were lucky.Wet ammo storage, making it much less likely to cook up quickly if at all. Even the HVSS suspension was pretty good and comically easy to maintain. Germans wouldn't make a comparable suspension until the E-Series spring-washer system which was never put onto an actual tank.
>>65584312>PicrelHoly shits, It works!!!Lmao, now hiroshimutt will never stop me spreading awareness in his site.
>>65582928One item of note for the M4 is that the driver's controls were much more like an automobile so training drivers was simpler and quicker.
>>65584299That's more a primitive armored fighting vehicle than a proper tank. What is that, a 40mm cannon?
>>65582928the Shermans are many things, good looking they are notand since looking good is half the battle...
>>65585805The tiger would very much burn it's crew.>>65585807Reformers lost
>>65582928No, that would be the Tiger I.
>>65584274Not all around, and the 76 wasn’t as powerful as the 88 obviously. The Tiger was a bonafide heavy tank with good armor on the front sides and rear. The M4A3E8 was a medium tank taken to the maximum extent the chassis could handle without rapidly wearing out its machinery like the Jumbo, which was for all intents and purposes better armored than anything the Germans fielded except their super heavies; Tiger II, jagdpanther, that sort. But the E8 had less frontal protection than a Tiger l, not massively so because of the heavy sloping, but still less by about 10mm of effective protection.
>>65585805Tigers had similar burn rates to Shermans and dramatically higher burn rates than wet stowage Shermans
The Rabbi Sherman tank was a medium tank, and therefore shit.Just like the Panzer IVs, T-34s, the Sherman simply had no protection whatsoever for its crew besides against small arms and indirect artillery. Any time a Rabbi Sherman tank would encounter a dedicated anti-tank weapon, vid related was the result:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXB_tBgq6Rc&list=PL_r3BXGJhYJm3GDt15P_hwBvlJec10OfqBut it had good automotive qualities and benefited from US industrial dominance back in the day (no longer the case).The best tank of WW2 was the Tiger I because for almost 3 years, it gave its users a huge, asymmetric advantage in combat thanks to its combination of heavy armour, good mobility and gun.
>>65584430It also took up a lot of internal volume
>>65585807>drone fodderNotice the APS>cheap shit en massIt's better to produce good, expensive shit en mass, no?
>>65586601>Rabbi ShermanYeah but by then most of the Tiger's extra protection was dead weight so it was routinely being outperformed by absolute fodder vehicles like the T-54 while the Sherman legged on.
>>65586601The Sherman was immune to most of Germany’s anti tank weapons frontally, which required them to upgun everything they could to long 75’s, which were still never a majority of their anti tank weapons so they kept doing weirder and weirder shit like turning their 37’s into giant grenade launchers or arming infantry with suicide weapons like the panzerfausts. And the bigger problem is that the long 75 was such a powerful anti tank gun you couldn’t armor against it reasonably. It would go right through a Tiger. As did equivalent Allied guns like the 17pdr or 90mm.
>>65586734>>65586805delusional kvetching tards kek
>>65586839?Even the 7.5 could still bounce off the front plate of a Sherman or the turret in general if it didn’t get a solid angle on it, and it had almost double the punch of the 5cm. Until summer 1944 the allied perception of the Sherman was that it was above and beyond what was necessary both in firepower and armor. Considering it was mostly engaging Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs their 75mm had no issue dealing with, Italian tanks, and a lot of 37mm and 50mm guns. North Africa and Italy just didn’t have many heavy German armor units. Tigers were deployed in the double digits, panthers deployed in piecemeal numbers, heavy SPGs were even more rare. The first time the Allies encountered massed 7.5cm guns wasn’t even Normandy, it was in the bocage. And they won, absolutely creaming and overrunning the Germans during Cobra. The literal only time heavy German armor got the better of the western allies in non one-off engagements was Caen. After Caen every single massed armor engagement between the Germans and the Allies comes off with German armor getting outmaneuvered and annihilated, or running into anti tank weapons and getting blunted before they can accomplish anything. Even Ardennes follows this trend, with German heavy armor overrunning unsupported infantry divisions then… running into anti tank formations and getting shredded, then outmaneuvered by allied armor.
