was the M4 Sherman really all that great tho, won first place at Bastogne which sounds impressive but like was the competition even any good oralso WW2 art thread
>>541014417i don't know but the bmw m series is a shit performance car.
They were designed to be mass produced cheaply and were simple to outfit and ship overseas and to the front. One estimate I saw was that in the time it took for the Germans to produce one Tiger tank, the US could produce, outfit and ship to the front 700 Shermans.
>>541014524I'd still drive the 7 Series
>>541014596This. They had generally shit armor and a weaker gun but treated like pack animals they were highly effective. Must have been amazing being the commander of a tank and hearing the rounds whizzing by and shit.
>>541014417You can shit on it all day if you remove it from the reality of the time and do 1v1 comparisons with its contemporaries by end of war. At start of war they actually outclassed most other tanks. The ability to produce and deliver them to the field on a massive scale is what made them a powerful asset in the war though.
>>541014417Qrd
>>541015191It's a tank
>>541014417No but it was American. Mediocre but quick to produce and could replace the superior competition fast as hell.
>>541015191>>541014417The first generation of shermans US landed with in France were pure and utter shit. Just look at the number of tanks lost in any of the early USA - Germany tank battles. Can't remember specifics but the every Panzer was taking out on average 4 or 5 shermans before being taken out. German tank engineering and gunnery was phenomenal as was most of their other tech. Shermans were known as metal coffins.It took awhile but by the end of the war the US had relatively good armor.
>>541014417They were pretty good for tanks, obviously they took high loses advancing into enemy territory. Comfiest tank in the war and little things like short stop stabilization gives them little advantages.
>>541015236>>541015472It's the fury tank from that brad pitt movie?
It was shitty compared to what the germans had but the germans had shitty equipment too. They had a lot of mechanical problems with their machines and they didn't have many replacements. Our macro was better. That's why we won.
>>541015665almost but not quite the same version.
>>541015316>No but it was American.
Sherman tank was utter dogshitJust like soviets war doctrine with their piece of shit: spam and outnumber the enemyGerman tanks were great but far too many varients and costly production etc.Shouldve just conceded to spam tigersBut germany's hubris to overengineer amd complicate things fucked them over among a host of other deficiencies in their war doctrine and logistics
>>541014596not trueUS vehicles had extremely high production quality and engineeringA Sherman cost almost as much as a Panther even though it was 1/3rd lighterUS equipment has always been of much higher quality than anyone else simply because our economy and manufacturing ability dwarfs every other country (until the rise of China of course)
>>541015835Kys poo.
Made no difference when you have a complete air superiority
>>541015665That's exactly the shape.
>>541014417>ChatGPT>ChatGPT>ChatGPTFuck off
>>541015665Yes.Picrel is the late in the war US answer to superior German tank and anti-tank guns. An essentially majorly beefed up sherman anti-tank destroyer. By the time they were mass producing these tanks, the war was basically already over.The US relied mainly on the regular shermans to overpower a weakened Germany using Warhammer 40k ork swarming.
>>541015665watch this great movie shlomo;http://www.whitetiger.mosfilm.ru/
>>541014417We sabotaged Germany's ball bearing production very early.
>>541016208https://worldfilmreviews.us/white-tiger
>>541015918>US vehicles had extremely high production quality and engineeringYes. But they skimped on the gun and the armor. They also dropped the curves so they could make more. This was a "high quality engineering" decision. This allowed them to make more. Also the engines didn't break down. Meaning they didn't have to be pulled everywhere via train. Again a "high quality engineering" decision, which added to its cost, but not to its resource requirements. The Germans had different constraints, they were fuel starved, steel starved, aluminum starved, manpower starved. They were forced to design machines that could confront superior numbers. The allies just had doctrines and machines that allowed them to mass far more numbers in their force concentrations. And once the air was open, could bomb the rails that would've enabled the germans to effectively respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uZWlKGRZis
>>541017254https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-1JCRguZ0reminds me of this
>>541017523if you can't out kino real photos....you are prooompting poorly
>>541014417It was just sort of OK, not terrible but not as good as most frontline contemporaries. Better than a lot of British tanks though. The 75mm gun wasn't exceptional and not great at anti tank. It had a high profile and not great armor. It was reliable and comfortable, prone to burning due to using gasoline. So mediocre and below average easily by late war. Had decent optics but too many shortcomings, it's really easy to see it was based too much on obsolete designs from the 30s.
>>541017678
>>541015968Guess again, dipshit
>>541017410nice tooimagine an empire over the northern hemisphere us, ruskis and germans! just imagine!
>>541014596>Tiger tank, the US could produce, outfit and ship to the front 700 Shermans.When do you guys admit defeat and just admit to yourselves that you are retarded and don't know what you're talking about?
>>541017698
>>541017743yeh....a northern empire could've been very very kino. Too bad about zimmerman note and uboats killing civies, a few bad PR events gave us this anglo-NWO rather than a multipolar northern order.
>>541014417An M4A3 with HVSS and the 76mm gun was a really good tankAn M4A3 with VVSS and a 75mm gun was not as goodThe M18 Hellcat was probably the best tank, though technically a tank destroyerNo American tank strictly conformed to any kind of rigid tank doctrineSo you had M10s, M18s, M3s, M4s all doing the same sort of thingsSupporting infantry assaults, taking out pillboxes, towing guns, shooting tanks, etcBut the M18 could go 55mph, and had a big ass gun, so I like that oneI also like the M24 Chaffee, because it's preciousLook how cute it is
>>541018070too bad, this timeline sucks to be locked in!imagine what is possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>541014417It was reliable, easily mass produced, decent engine reliable engine, had decent armour, decent cannon (75mm or 76mm), had a stabiliser, could be easily transported.It was the best tank of the war because it was the best wartime producible tank for a total war economy. Better to have 2 or 3 reliable Shermans than one unreliable Tiger or Tiger II.In comparison the T-34 was mass producible but did not have the same quality and reliability. The Sherman represented American mechanical engineering at it's finest.
>>541018255highcastle timeline was pretty shit. "imagine if california was raped constantly by shinto-chinks". If you guys sealoned before pushing east, we would've locked down north america, taken the rest of the commonwealth as states, and split china with japan
>>541017678I tried
>>541018444the series is an alternate timeline nothing more...this movie good too, with Rutger Hauer.
>>541018249Now ask Mexicans. https://www.alexjoneslive.com/2026/08/18/alarming-students-on-beach-cant-answer-simple-questions-about-america/
>>541018713better. The first image (in OP) I liked.https://www.minimax.io/blog/minimax-h3played with this last month. Would let you do much much better. could put in an image, say "use this images composition, color pallette and vibe", then put a second ww2 image in say "put this tank in first image". then describe the overall thing you want in more detail. The image gen itself is stupid cheap.
>>541018720will check it out. haven't watched a war thriller in a minute
>>541018883the images only exist in my head tho
>>541019000its also an alternate timeline and cool. watch it!
>>541018713i think about the bombers a lot. i wonder what was going through their minds.
>>541018790>rights enshrined by 1st and 2nd amendmentburgers have rights?
>>541014417Sherman was a good tank. It wasn't the best tank. It was outdated by 1944, but so were a lot of things that still served well. The idea that it was "good enough" is really, really erroneous, ahistorical, backwards thinking. Everyone in the war was thinking about how to improve and advance their designs. Literally all the time. The US never settled on the M4, it was always planning on replacing or updating it. Ameriboos have become as bad as Wehraboos or slavaboos with that shit. Panther was the objective standard that all of the allies judged their new tanks against and all of their designs were ineffective. That's why the post-war was Pershing, Comet, Centurion, T-54/55, all big tanks with big guns and thick armor filling the role as MBT. For whatever flaws the Panther had, the crews could be confident they had a big gun that could take on anything and armor that could resist most things. When you read actual allied war memoirs, from people who actually crewed these tanks in battle, they always ask for more armor.>>541018441T-34 were quality. It just wasn't as well finished because it was war-time production. No war-time tank was expected to last, they were expendable tools.
>>541019135you could scribble with crayons (or MSPaint), to get the initial composition image. Throw 5 bucks at it, and you wont be gpt-slopping any more.
>>541018441The T34 is considered to be the greatest tank ever made. Basically perfectly balanced and excelling at everything a tank is expected to do. The Sherman and T34 do not compare at all, other than the Sherman being more comfortable and ergonomic.
>>541015316>Mediocre but quick to produce and could replace the superior competition fast as hell.Midwit take.
>>541015472Shermans were known as Ronsons.Still, in the normal run of things, "taking out" a Sherman often meant it got repaired and returned to the fight. War diaries show this with numbers of units effectively regenerating after losses.You've fallen for a myth and its the same myth the Germans themselves fell for.German tank engineering was appallingly bad. All but unfixable in the field, overly complex, no such thing as spare parts, take a part off one Panzer to put on another from the same factory, it doesn't fit.A few premium items was not the way to fight "the war of engines". The Sherman was designed for production on a colossal scale encompassing something like a dozen manufacturers, Panzers were built like pre-war sports cars.You've completely missed the point and missing the point is how you lose wars.
>>541019408ruskies drivers reportedly preferred the t34 rather than lendlease shermans. how real that is???? is that more a logistical thing??? who knows.
>>541019299I've slopped before (asked AI to describe something instead of making it myself) yeah, but I know what it should look like, ms paint skills are cooked tho, not saying I can draw
>>541019503>All but unfixable in the field,bingo. precision, close tolerances. this can be great. but putting in slop tolerances (like the AK) can be its own quality if done intentionally.
>>541019202yeah, the right to not be taxed on unrealized capital gains based on private equity valuations
>>541019180
>>541019563the uncanniest is from gpt limiting your compute. If you are asking for a bunch of generations, they will throttle you even more, you are costing them money. if you throw a few bucks somewhere else you remove that. minimax taking style cues from real images mean that the artifacts (like lens distortion, camera color shifts, depth of field) and details (like skin pore density, lighting direction) are at least consistent.
>>541019509They liked the Sherman actually for being comfortable and easy to drive, it's just as capable or survivable of a machine. They liked that weird Bell Airacobra thing too for some reason, I think a combination of comfort/easy to fly/low altitude performance IIRC. The lend lease thing tends to be a bit overstated, the produced extreme quantities of T-34's.
>>541019769>it's just as capableNot as capable*
>>541019721if there was something that images better edited i'd it use
>>541014971>They had generally shit armorThey had decent armor, but not extraordinary. It also depended a lot on the variant. It was a really good all around tank that got a late start compared to other countries programs. By the time it got genuinely good in the E6-8 it was getting ready to be replaced by the M26. That being said our transportation infrastructure couldn't transport heavier tanks in quantity at the time. It was basically as much tank as we could ship to the front in in masse. We didn't have the train cars and bridges to ship M26's in quantity until something like 1947-49. That's one of the main reasons so much of our heavy equipment was roughly Sherman size and weight or less during WW2. It had some shortcomings, but it had a lot of good qualities too. Everything at the time did. For one of it's primary rolls as infantry support it was fantastic. Doctrine at the time was that heavy armor concentrations were an Artillery, Army Air Corps, or Tank destroyer Corps problem. It could and did do that too. It just took losses when it did.
>>541019663this image is exactly the slop I'm taking about. there are like 15 different sources of light, none of them practically (as in originating within-the-environment) motivated other than the eye light which is modeling a on camera flash. This is a huge issue of Gen-AI. Giving them a reference image for details automatically solves 99% of those issues. The depth of field, and lens length is also all fucked up in this image.
>>541014417As I understand it... T-34 could go 150 miles before needing an engine rebuild or swap. The Sherman could go 1500 miles before needing an engine rebuild or swap.Also. People harp on the regular Sherman having a weak gun. Tank Vs Tank combat wasn't all that common, in the scheme of things. The Sherman's 75mm was a really good field gun. Threw a pretty big HE charge. It was primarily an infantry support weapon and it was good at that. People always do the Tank Vs Tank arguments. But in reality the whole purpose of a tank is to support the infantry. In that the Sherman was really good.
>>541019995yeah nobody like ai, specially the pictures are utter shite! soon we cant differentiate if real or not.
>>541015472You also have to remember Germans were mostly in defensive/ambush positions.
>>541019995fair point but we work with prompts so if the ai is translating it wrong is that really on me
>>541019266I think this is the biggest flawPanzer V: 6,300Sherman: 49,324T-34: 84,000You can look at this in terms of stylised one-on-one duals but the benefits of compromising for mass production are obviously invisible then.WW2 tanks are really interesting in that they tell you everything about the countries that made them. The US had mechanised production, nearly all WW2 American war equipment and even clothing is like this. Shermans are easy to drive and fix in part because you have a population that owns and drives cars and gets that stuff. German stuff is all pre-war, their tanks are basically an artisan product and are over-worked because of competition between manufacturers in a fascist system. We didn't have mechanisation on the same scale but did understand how to do design for mass production, our tanks look like they were made by people who mostly like making steam trains, mainly because they are. Its fascinating to me how national character gets expressed like this.
>>541014417Yeah, it was great, especially the 76mm version. It could engage any german tank it saw because they all got at least a few HVAP rounds. On top it was comfortable to crew and easy to escape, had a stabilizer and easy maintenance with abundant standardized parts. If I had to crew one WW2 tank it would be the Sherman, no question.
>>541020157YESnumbers made the difference>thousands of shit tanks overrun everything
>>541020116I can't wait for that moment. "Look mom I made an Art!" sort of energy will evaporate once it does and a 5 year old will be able to prooooooompt as well as a basement dwelling. Then it'll come back to the artistry within the image, rather than "oh its really real feeling" thing going on right now.
>>541020140YOU KEEP UPLOADING IT HERE. YES. THIS IS 100% ON YOU BRO
>>541016693Crews themselves mostly rejected the firepower upgrades. Iirc they reported encountering enemy tanks like 15% of the time they were firing their guns. Sherman's were meant for breakthrough and fire support. Tank destroyers were for killing tanks.
>>541014417>pic related
>>541020109Exactly. A Sherman could go 10 hours for every 1 hour of maintenance. A Tiger could 1 hour for every 1 hour of maintenance. Sherman engine could be repaired in the field while the Tiger engine had to be shipped via train to Hannover and then shipped back.
>>541020334exactly right and something i hadn't even considered, that's the thing with prompting no ceiling, but now i know the fatal mistake: every light source needs a logical origin in the environment, once you get that down the image improves, but only if you know what to fix first so appreciate the critique
>>541020347Yeah see that's another thing, the Sherman is similar to the M3 Lee in that regard. When it was designed, it was meant to be a sort of all purpose tank that would support infantry advances. That's one reason it has a lower velocity gun, it was meant to lob HE rounds at trenches and lighter fortifications. I think that was one of the reasons they made it taller, for more commanding visibility. It was like a semi WW1 tank in design.
>>541019820M4's kicked the shit out of T34's in Korea. T34 had an average service range of 2-400 KM before catastrophic breakdown or less. It was less reliable than the panther. Also the armor was comically overhardened and brittle.
>>541020538it can't do this consistently without a reference image. It is a universal approximator. Since lighting sources are all over the place, there are secondary and tertiary light bounces. These models cannot handle that. Its why unreal5 and blender renders look realler than genAI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2paNFnw1wRsyou are in insanity territory. "I'll just do the same thing and get different results". This is classic AI-psychoses territory. Step away from the tech for a month. Never "talk with" or "chat" with any of these tools. And do not compromise on your high standards. Right now you have no standards.
>>541020602It was taller because of the primary engine. The radial was too tall to make it any shorter. It was the best we had for what we were working with at the time. The high mounted gun sights were an advantage and were placed up high for that reason though.
>>541020936Thought for 1syeah fair points, I learn by seeing and seeking, light can still improve tho, but changing one word in a prompt a day is enough
>>541019769Also for the Airacobra- its centrally mounted nose cannon was accurate and easy to aim. Aiming one central cannon means you don't need to worry about convergence like you do with wing mounted cannons. Accurate, foolproof firepower was appreciated by the Russian pilots
>>541015472>Panzer was taking out on average 4 or 5 shermans before being taken out.100% false and it wasn't panzers or stugs taking out shermans, it was towed antitank guns sitting in ambush that succeeded in getting one shot off before being eliminated.The kdr ratio is far in favor of the sherman. The best the germans could do was trade even, and usually not that.
>>541019180shrapnel and flak
>>541016634me on the left
>>541021428heh
>>541017756After seeing them do this exact shit online for the better part of 25 years, I can safely promise you that they’re paid to post.
>>541016208>>541016684Thanks
>>541018441It’s silly fo ever compare german vs american manufacturing due to the issue of micratwrials used in manufacture. One of the main reasons thenpanther had a poor transmission was due to the need for alternate alloys, as the correct alloy was unable to be sourced.The blockade did this
>>541021968ok your welcome
>>541020858Complete nonsense, the T34 is better than the Sherman in almost every way on a tank-tank basis and the T34-85 version has a gun comparable to the 88mm German gun back in WW2. The T-34-85 has a better gun and better armor than any Sherman variant. You are thinking probably of the M46, which is indeed better than the T34 but it's an entire generation ahead and is contemporary to the T55.>It was less reliable than the panther. Also the armor was comically overhardened and brittleNeither were true. The T34 was famous for it's reliability and simplicity.
>>541014417Whatever happened to those "brand new Sherman" tanks that Trump promised?
>>541014417Look at actual Axis tanks available at the time. The ones that could beat the Sherman were profoundly limited.
>>541020994Also made it easier to put more on a ship side by side.
>>541021987i remember reading some German train engineer talking about this. That the trains ran on time. But because they couldn't get whatever material for the bearings, it meant that the train was basically totally refit every night with bronze bearings or whatever. and the shot parts were recast the following day so they could do it the next night all over again. Crazy the knock on effects resulting from a shortage of small thing.
>>541022087Then why did the Sherman score a better than 2-1 in Korea? The Pershing had better than 6-1, but we aren't comparing them.
>>541022193It's actually very interesting especially considering the Treaty if Versailles. Thr Panzer program was kept an open secret. The Pz I and II were basically proof of concept with plausible deniablity. They were armed with machine guns and a 20mm auto cannon respectively. If anyone complained Germany could argue they were lightly armed and armored and meany for "internal security" purposes.They also bought tabks from the Czechs - the oft forgotten Pz.35 and Pz.38. The Panzer III was supposed to be mainstay general purpose tank while the IV was supposed to be the "heavy" breakthrough tank that would eventually be superseded in that role by the Tiger.
>>541021987It's funny when you think about it things like the STG44 and Me262 and realize as cool as they were, their production would have been bombed into oblivion and the US would have just reverse engineered it and simplified production on the other side of the pond.
>>541022368North Korea received only 260 tanks total and by 1950 there were already 500 US tanks in South Korea so things like numbers and battlefield circumstances matter, plus how they were used by each side. It is not a boxing match between individual tanks. North Korea likewise invaded the south with 75,000 troops and by 1950 there were 300,000 US troops in South Korea (in addition to tons of South Koreans) with a peak North Korean strength of 260,000 personnel total. So the US had a decisive advantage in manpower, material but particularly air power which North Korea lacked. The US did consider the T34-85 a major threat so that explains the buildup of tanks.I don't believe either China or North Korea expected US intervention when they greenlit the invasion in 1950. Likewise, the US mopped the floor with the North Koreans, got too ambitious and decided to push all the way to China's border where it was pushed back by 1 million half starving freezing chinks with shovels, smg's and bolt action rifles.
>>541022877>260 at the beginning.>They lost over 313 through the war>At the beginning we only had M24's and very few of them.The Sherman vs T34 engagements the Sherman out scored the T34/85 by more than 2-1 and was a significantly better over all tank. I know slavaboo's love muh T34, but come on. The Sherman wasn't perfect, but especially for it's time it was an all around good tank that in it's very early career was pressed into action before is was fully worked out. That happened a lot in WW2. If it was a choice I would gladly take an E* over a T34/85, but you do you slavaboo.
>>541019202the bill of rights ensures they wont be taken actually. The effectiveness of that can be argued.They are naturally ours tho, not granted by any piece of fuckin paper or dude in hat
>>541014417the first version of the sherman literally had a cross marking on it that if shot would expoded the ammo store
>>541023404I also wonder how many of those Sherman crews were experienced veterans.
>>541023404Yet the T34 performed much better overall against German armor than the Sherman did. The T34 is better almost every way but that's only one factor, just like how dogfights come down to how good the pilot is. There is a multitude of factors. The North Koreans had a severe deficit of tanks, for one.
>>541016529you mean the uk? production never even fell it kept rising. myth for commando copers
>>541014417It's good was the fact that it was easy and cheap to mass produce and decent enough to punch holes in other tanks.That's all you need. A premise we've clearly forgotten judging by all our overpriced toys.
>>541014417The M4 was built for the conditions and hence the allies won easily.The Nazis were retards who kept building heavier and heavier tanks when they had no fuel to move them and lacked the manpower for their upkeep.Best tank means best for the conditions, not best on paper.
>>541019408t34s are cramped deathboxes with no radios, literally used flags at the start of the war, no optics and most had useless armor due to rushed production. with improvements late war they were better but still have the root issue of being a deathbox.best all round tank is p4 or stug
>>541020109what if the infantry need support against an enemy tank...
>>541014417>was the Sherman really all that great
>>541014417The Germans built a grand total of 2400 Tiger tanks during the entire war, the US produced 50 000 shermans alone in the few years they were in the war.
>>541024766Fun fact, he beat his wife.
>>541024798how many goys died in burning shermans tho
>>541024918What? Then he truly was the grandpa I never had.
>>541022368>>541023404Because the biggest tank battle of the war was like 10 tanks on each side and North Korea never had a coherent tank doctrine. It was all piece meal and close range. And posting the weld gap meme pic proves you don't know what you're talking about.
>>541024351Portable Anti Tank Weapons are a thing.
>>541024798and the US only built 300 Jumbosthe germans built like 30k tanks. They just had a bunch of names.
>>541023836Not a lot of them.>>541023865I'm not super vested in this argument so AI answer is not really. It just pisses me off that there's soo many misconceptions.Vs. Panther: The M4 Sherman achieved a 3.6:1 kill ratio against the German Panther tank in direct engagements, debunking the myth that five Shermans were required to destroy one Panther. Overall: US armor destroyed more German tanks than it lost, with an overall ratio of approximately 3:2. Vs. T-34: In post-WWII conflicts like the Korean War, Shermans defeated T-34s with a recorded ratio of 47:20 (approx. 2.35:1).T-34 PerformanceVs. German Armor: The T-34 suffered significantly higher losses, often losing 3 to 5 tanks for every German tank destroyed in direct tactical combat. 1941-1942: In the early war years, the loss ratio was even steeper, with Soviet forces losing roughly 6 to 7 tanks for every German tank lost. Causes: The high loss rate was attributed to poor Soviet training, inferior optics, and a lack of radios, which hindered coordination and situational awareness compared to Allied forcesThe Sherman wasn't perfect, but in reality the T34 was kinda bad and wildly overrated. The Sherman catches a lot of the T34's flack in the narrative for some reason. Picrel look at the over hardened armor failure on the turret. Pretty much nobody else had that problem.
>>541026139Fuck pic didn't post
>>541017756I don't know whether it's true and it sounds like bollocks but to be fair the metric he used was time to produce not cost.
>>541026158man that whole crew in the turret got turned into mush from that shot.
>>541025410>Posting things that frequently happened means I don't know what actually happened in context.The welding and armor problems were mostly resolved after the war and the T34/85's in Korea largely didn't have the, but they still lost in engagements of roughly equivalent numbers. by more than 2-1. The overall tank was worse to crew and operate and tended to be less effective at anything other than swarming with vast numerical superiority. I don't remember any other army having to threaten to have their crews executed because they kept breaking down so much. I know this is just going to turn into a shit flinging contest and isn't worth the time, but still. Both tanks had there flaws. Especially in earlier generations, but when end of war Shermans went up against post war T34's the T34's lost decisively.
