Which school of tank design is superior?
The russian durable, easy to produce, easy to drive, easy to repair tank or the german heavy, powerful, expensive and complicated war machine?
Does this logic also applies to other historical weapons, like the crossbow-longbow comparison, and the spear-sword one?
Also talk tanks, I know next to nothing so I'd love some links and such to light reading or videos.
Quantity beats quality with tanks every time. A tank is really just a cannon on tracks. It's only meant to withstand infantry fire. But it can't even do that now that TOWs exist. Basically you can't build a tank with armor strong enough to withstand fire from another tank.
> 1950
> Still having a turret
Best tank coming trough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZm7sLzDwGY
>>342853
>Let's align the cannon with the chassis
>Surely that will make target acquisition fast and easy!
![StuGIII[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/a1d3ZQP.jpg "StuGIII[1].jpg")
>>342853
Arent those called "anti-tank guns", and not actual tanks?
>>342898
SPG is the term, "self propelled gun".
>>342841
>But it can't even do that now that TOWs exist
Now this can't do that now that active protection exists.
There were numerous "tank killer forever" projects, yet the tank still reigns supreme.
>>342922
Also wubbem.
>>342922
The last big attempt at tank war was Iraq trying that shit against USA, and it failed miserably.
Bombers win wars now, not tanks. And of course the ships required to project these bombers far away, and the other ships to protect the first ones.
>>342853
Yeah, you aim the gun in horizontal by turning the whole chassis and in vertical by adjusting hydraulic suspension. I can't imagine how fast and accurate thing thing shoot. Also you basically can't shoot on a move at all, something the traditional tank warfare is about from WW2. I'd say the only reason it's considered a curiosity and not a retarded failure is because it was never used in a real combat.
>>342937
>Bombers win wars now
Is that why ISIS has been stopped 3 years ago?
>>342951
See, the trick is you actually have to bomb your enemy, and not just say you did while continuing to sell them stuff.
>>342951
ISIS bully no so tough after being actually bombed by Russians.
>>342947
You're talking out of your ass. American army tried it out and they saw it had good target acquisition, perfectly acceptable.
>>342971
Yet no one used this design again, not even Swedes themselves. Turret-less design worked well for support guns, which don't supposed to be in the first line of offense, but in MBT it's pretty retarded decision - they can be flanked too easily.
>>342994
Yep, i agree. A turretless gun has its advantages, ease of manufacture and maintanence, cheaper than a turreted tank, lower profile etc. But you can't have a force with only SPG, you need the versatility that turrets give.
"1 Panzer tank is worth 4 Sherman tanks, but the Americans always bring 5"
Thats all you need to know
>>343123
Its this kind of math that gave the shermans that cooker nickname which eludes me.
In the end, the only reason 5 shermans could take on 1 panzer was because of the allies air superiority, and cutting of supplies and preventing germans from using their massed tanks formations.
>>343129
Not to mention 80% of the german military was commited to the east front...
>>343139
Thats not a card you can pull. Much of the american military was committed to their other front as well. Even russians had a large part of their force in the east, rather than fighting Germany.
>>342829
Italian tank Ariete was the best one. Very light, cheap, fast.
>>343123
> Panzer tank
> Panzer
> tank
Surely you meant Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther", my little stormfriend. If so, then yes, it did worth 4 Sherman in production and maintenance cost. On the battlefield not quite so, assuming it could event make it without breaking a transmission or running out of fuel.
>>343129
"Tommy cooker" I believe
>>342829
>>343129
You're parroting historical canards. You didn't need five Shermans to kill a German tank. But five was the smallest unit that Shermans would ever operate in. That's where the myth comes from.
If you're in a unit of 5 tanks, you don't separate just to go kill one enemy tank by yourself. You bring the pack with you. People didn't care about trying to have a fair one-on-one fight. If you had numerical superiority, you used that to your advantage.
In truth, the Sherman was probably the best tank of the whole war, especially once it got upgraded to a higher velocity gun. But even the 75mm M4 was a very effective tank.
>>343129
>Its this kind of math that gave the shermans that cooker nickname which eludes me.
A Ronson lights every time.
>>343236
Did it have five gears, one forward, four reverse?
>>342829
>The russian durable
Lol
>easy to drive
Kek
>easy to repair
Lmao
The russian tanks were purposely designed to be fast, low profile and easy to mass produce.
The soviet ideea was to overwhelm the nato forces not to compete with them in terms of quality.
Stop basing youf opinions on russian tank mmo's
>>343448
At least they have autoloaders.
>>343427
>the Sherman was probably the best tank of the whole war
kek, what posessed you to reach this conclusion. It's well known that the sherman was one of the weaker tanks in the european theatre.
>>343594
Not him, but you might want to check out this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062
In mobile engagements in France, the Shermans were kicking the ass of Panthers, nevermind weaker Panzers.
Remember, most Sherman losses came from fixed anti-tank guns and mines, not German tanks.
Another reading recommendation:
The History of Landmines" by Mike Croll. London, 1998. P 41. (ISBN 0 85052 628 0)
If you add his numbers up, you come up with 870 Shermans lost to German tanks in the entire Western theater from D-Day onward. They got a hell of a lot more in return.
>>343623
>b-but muh German engineering
>>343123
BECAUST THE SMALLEST TACTICAL UNIT WAS THE 5 TANK PLATOON YOU DOLT
>>343280
Let's not forget its miserable exchange ratios in actual combat against Shermans like Arracourt
>>343435
Fun fact: The Panther's design meant gas fumes would often leak into the interior, creating a grave fire hazard.
>>343623
Seems interesting, but doesn't say much about the tanks themselves to be honest.
>>343458
>At least they have Autoloaders.
Not always a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFyXRktIAgo
>>343687
>According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.
>>343594
>It's well known that the sherman was one of the weaker tanks in the european theatre.
Based on what? Most of the tales about the Sherman on the same level as myths regarding the M1 Garand's "Ping": they're tall tales made up by authors who never actually used those pieces of equipment in combat.
Actual German veterans of the second world war have said that the Sherman was a very feared tank.
>>343594
Just like M1 Carbines failed to penetrate thick winter coats in Korea, rather than soldiers missing in an adrenaline fueled panic
Just like muh Ronson, muh Death Traps, rather than considering that most knocked out tanks would have caught fire because it was German SOP to shoot until tanks burned, regardless of if the crew had previously abandoned the vehicle
>>343594
No, that's an exaggeration.
Tigers and panthers could go right through it yes, which is where this idea that it was a paper tank comes from, but they weren't too commonly encountered. The Panzer 4 was common and could knock it out, but the Sherman could take that out just as easily too.
The Sherman was a great tank really. It had decent enough armour, it had brilliant anti infantry abilites, the gun was okay, better on the upgraded ones, it had a good explosive round.
Really, you have to understand that tanks aren't invented to fight other tanks, (expect some) they're invented and used to support infantry, and that is what they will be doing the majority of the time, they could go through many battles and not encounter another tank. And the Sherman excelled at infantry support.
Also in the pacific if was overkill against the little Japanese tin cans.
>T-34 is the first mass produced tank with slope armor
>T-54 is the most produced tank
>T-62 is the first mass produced tank with smoothbore gun
>T-64 is the first mass produced tank with autoloader
>T-14 is the first mass produced tank with remote-controlled turret, potentially the first remote-controlled tank
Rest of the world, are you even trying?
>>343734
That's not quite true. The Sherman was intended from Day 1 to fight tanks. TD's were held back as a mobile counterattack force in case of a 1940-1941 style penetrating attack.
>>343744
Well I'd say it's more like the concept and invention of a tank is to support infantry and break through, it's the cavalry of modern warfare, but they will still give it AT capabilities because it could need them, it's just not the original focus or intent of the machine.
Whereas a Jagdpanther is fully designed to kill tanks.
>>343743
Yes, the world would do well to copy the T-14 "Parade ground Deathtrap" Armata.
>>343710
Yes, read the part "the Shermans fired first". Obviously the tank that fires an aimed shot first has a better chance of winning. It also depends how you define "destroyed", for all we know maybe those tanks were just momentarily damaged and then repaired and put into service again.
>>343714
>>343726
Yes, they are tales, or myths you could call them i guess. Just because it's a myth doesn't mean it has to be false. And the thing about germans fearing the Sherman, you just pulled that out of your ass.
>>343734
Yep, it definitely was a functionable tank. You're right that the main purpose of a tank isn't to fight other tanks BUT it is a task that tanks will have to do eventually, sooner or later tanks will meet tanks on the battlefield. So Tank VS Tank is an important aspect of a tanks fighting ability. And it's a fact that the Sherman did have a poor Tank VS Tank reputation. It could not compete with tanks like the Tiger 2 or T34/85.
>>343763
>Tiger 2
Oh, all 400 of them?
>>343763
It only had poor tank vs tank abilities against obvious tanks of death like the Tiger 2.
It was okay against the common tanks it encountered
>>343763
>It could not compete with tanks like the Tiger 2
If the Tiger 2 could actually get out of the fucking motorpool.
>>343763
>Obviously the tank that fires an aimed shot first has a better chance of winning.
So? The Sherman still won.
>>343763
>Obviously the tank that fires an aimed shot first has a better chance of winning
Anon, that applies to all forms of warfare.
>>343763
>Yes, read the part "the Shermans fired first".
Yes, now look up how the Shermans gunnery stations had a way wider fild of view, whereas Panthers, while having great rangefinders, had terrible scope; you often needed the commander to relay targeting info to the gunner.
As a result, it fired slowly, especially if you were up close. Guess what happens a lot in fighting in bocage?
>>343765
>>343771
>>343780
During the invasion of Normandy Tiger 2's were waiting, for example during Caen the Shermans had to face them in combat, probably with terrible results which lead to the Shermans reputation as a death trap.
>>343781
>>343786
My point is that if the statistics were of situations were the german tanks had fired first at incoming Shermans, the numbers would have been schewed similarily in the german's favor. So the statistics are not a fair assesment of the tanks capabilities.
>>343789
The Panther wasn't perfect, but i would feel much better in that than sitting in a Sherman M4 during normandy invasions, i can say that for sure.
>>343448
If you took the time to research, you'd see many people noting russian tanks were less likely to get stuck in mud, or to break after moving fast through rough terrain, and they required less and less educated people to crew them.
Stop basing your opinions on hatred of communists.
>>343838
>lead to the Shermans reputation as a death trap.
But that "reputation" is a myth. The M4 was one of the safest, most reliable tanks in the war.
>>343838
A Sherman fought a German tank and the Sherman won. There is no "fair" in war. The question is whether the Sherman's gun and armor were sufficient for tank-to-tank combat and the answer is clearly "Yes"
>>343838
Source for Tiger IIs being at Caen?
>>343838
>My point is that if the statistics were of situations were the german tanks had fired first at incoming Shermans, the numbers would have been schewed similarily in the german's favor. So the statistics are not a fair assesment of the tanks capabilities.
And yet even when the Shermans were locally attacking, they tended to fire first. Firing first was in large part an artifact of the different designs, which demonstrates the Sherman's superiority in the sort of fighting that existed in France.
>The Panther wasn't perfect, but i would feel much better in that than sitting in a Sherman M4 during normandy invasions, i can say that for sure.
Then you're a fool. And very likely would have been a dead fool. Numbers don't lie.
>>343427
>In truth, the Sherman was probably the best tank of the whole war
>>343870
Name a better tank then. In terms of overall performance, the Sherman is hard to beat if you're limited to 1930-40s tanks.
>>343878
The T-34 was a better armored tank and more maneuverable.
>>343847
You're doing the mistake of assuming that because it's a myth, it has to be false. Your claim that the M4 was the "safest, most reliable tanks in the war" is quite the statement, taken out of the blue honestly. The safest tanks were probably those of the germans, and the most reliable (depending on what exactly the word means) were probably the russian T34.
>>343849
The Sherman tanks front armor was notoriously insufficient and the crews often took to placing sandbags on the front, which did little to mitigate the damage of an 88mm direct impact. For a WW2 tank that had good frontal armor, look at Tiger 2, Churchill and Panther.
>>343861
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/503rd_Heavy_Panzer_Battalion#Normandy
>"The first company was equipped with twelve Tiger II tanks, the first Pz.Komp to be equipped entirely with this tank. The detachment fought well in combat against Allied tank forces during the battles around Caen."
>>343864
Name-calling is one way of arguing, maybe if you could provide any evidence of the Sherman's "superiority" that could be fun to read, despite most sources stating that the Sherman was a very mediocre tank (especially with the standard cannon which was abysmally undersized).
>>343878
T34 was overall a better tank than the Sherman. In terms of general performance, reliability and practical success in the field.
>>343849
Me and six of my mates will come to your house with toothbrushes, and you can take out your knife.
We will kill you and prove that the toothbrush is a superior weapon.
There is no "fair" in war.
Don't forget the Panther's very thin side armor!
>>343910
m8 you are being contrarian for the sake of it
being in opposition to the norm doesnt automatically make you right
>>343915
But it's true
A Pershing shot a Panther in the side twice, and both shots went through one side and out the other
>>343900
>most sources stating that the Sherman was a very mediocre tank
Perhaps you should list some of these sources.
>The Sherman tanks front armor was notoriously insufficient and the crews often took to placing sandbags on the front
It was enough to win most tank-to-tank battles that the Sherman got into.
>>343888
>>343897
>>343900
Meh, I can see an argument for the T-34, but the Sherman was much more ergonomic. There was no easy way to escape a T-34. The crews for Sherman's definitely had a better survival rate.
>>343888
>The T-34 was a better armored tank
Only on the sides, not the front. And we're talking 3 mm difference, max.
>>343897
>The safest tanks were probably those of the germans, and the most reliable (depending on what exactly the word means) were probably the russian T34.
>>343897
>The safest tanks were probably those of the germans, and the most reliable (depending on what exactly the word means) were probably the russian T34.
[citation needed]
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=37m36s
Roughly 3% of all American tankers in the ETO died during the war. I don't have the figures for German tankers, but I would be astounded if it were that low.
>Name-calling is one way of arguing,
You didn't make an argument. You expressed a personal prefernece. It's not even an anecdote, it's just a keyboard warrior spouting unifnormed crap.
>despite most sources stating that the Sherman was a very mediocre tank (especially with the standard cannon which was abysmally undersized).
You haven't cited one. I, on the other hand, have cited several, all of which point to the same conclusion: The overwhelming majority of Sherman losses were due to non-tank defenses. Tank vs tank, the Shermans consistently trashed the German armor it went up against.
>T34 was overall a better tank than the Sherman. In terms of general performance, reliability and practical success in the field.
Which is of course why they got crushed, repeatedly, in engagements against Shermans in Korea.
>>343955
>Only on the sides, not the front.
Including on the front.
>small difference
Significant difference.
>sherman
Tommy-cooker.
>>343955
You might as well link whitepride.com when talking about racial diversity.
>>343965
So then give us a better source faggot.
>>343962
>Tommy-cooker.
Do you have any actual evidence or are you just going to spew memes?
>>343976
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_cooker
>>343962
>Including on the front.
The sherman's frontal armor was 50mm angled at 45 degrees, for roughly a 70 mm effective protection.
The t-34 had the same 45 degree angle, but only 47mm of front armor.
50>47.
This is literally on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
>>343965
So, you're claiming that USAF AAR's, written 10 years after the war, are propaganda? Care to share why you have this opinion?
>>344001
>The t-34 had the same 45 degree angle
You even linked the article, illiterate yank.
>>343978
Oh look, the internal citation leads to a BBC broadcast, not an actual historian's work.
And said BBC link repeats the same "Ronson" myth, which we know is a myth because Ronson's "Lights up every time" advertisement didn't come out until after the war.
>>344012
Actually I didnt even notice there is something about the tank, I just linked it for the stove.
>>344006
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/vehicle/medium-tank/t-34-medium-tank/1941/t-34-76-1941-medium-tank-03.png
You can fucking see the fucking angle you fucking idiot.
>>343942
>>343955
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV#Western_Front_.281944.E2.80.9345.29
>"The British up-gunned the Sherman with their highly effective QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun, resulting in the Firefly;[91] although this was the only Allied tank capable of dealing with all current German tanks at normal combat ranges, few (342) were available in time for the Normandy invasion.[88] From D-Day to the end of the Normandy campaign, a further 550 Fireflys were built.[92] A second British tank equipped with the 17pdr gun, the Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger, could not participate in the initial landings having to wait for port facilities to be ready to land. It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans, fitted with the 76-mm (3-inch) M1 tank gun, achieved a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV; however, most Shermans were not upgraded with the new gun.[93][94]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Armament
>"A 76 mm M4A2 armed Sherman could penetrate the upper frontal hull superstructure of a Tiger I heavy tank from 400 meters (440 yd); although this lessened the gap between the tanks, the Tiger I was capable of knocking a M4 out frontally from over 2,000 meters (2,200 yd).[50] Sherman crews also had concerns about firing from longer ranges, as the Sherman's high-flash powder made their shots easier to spot. Their gun sights were fixed magnification, while German tanks had multiple magnification settings. Sherman gunners did have the use of a secondary sight which allowed them a larger field of view over their German counterparts. However this advantage was mostly useful in close range situations due to lack of magnification. In summer 1944, after breaking out of the bocage and moving into open country, U.S. tank units which engaged at longer ranges from German defensive positions sometimes took 50% casualties before spotting where the fire was coming from.[51]"
Some interesting sources on the matter...
>>343897
Now I understand why people wanted /his/ to have IDs.
>>343897
The Sherman had better frontal hull armor than the T-34. On the turret, the Sherman also had thicker armor on the front, sides, and rear. In a head-to-head showdown (the situation where armor matters the most) the Sherman would have an armor advantage.
In terms of armament, the Sherman would be at a slight disadvantage unless we're talking about the 76mm gun version. The 75mm cannon would still be enough to kill a T-34, but it would have to get closer.
>>344018
The angle is written black on white, you sack of shit.
No need to look at low quality low resolution images.
>>344023
>the Sherman would have an armor advantage.
Oh man, the Sherman never had an armor advantage. It was at best a mediocre tank in terms of armor, especially in its first rendition it was particularily vulnerable. Maybe it had a few millimetres of more effective armor than the T34? That's hardly the most important aspect of a tank, when most guns on the battlefield penetrate it anyway.
>>342905
a stug is an assault gun you absolute pleb
strumgeschütz
>>344022
The Firefly was a temporary measure. The 17 pdr was too big for the Sherman and it showed. It was not an "upgraded Sherman", and the US Army was not stupid for not adopting it.
>>344035
You're correct, why am i a pleb though? SPG is an english term for self-propelled gun, Stug is a german name for a line of SPGs.
>>344034
>Oh man, the Sherman never had an armor advantage.
Compared to the T-34, it did. And since that was the tank that I was comparing the M4 against, it matters a great deal which tank had better armor.
All that I'm saying is that the Sherman's armor and gun were both good enough for the Sherman to win tank-to-tank confrontations with comparable vehicles of the day.
>>344054
That's not relevant though, what's relevant is; Was the Sherman good enough to win tank-to-tank confrontations with vehicles it actually came up against in combat? To which the answer is "Yes, but it had a distinct disadvantage against said vehicles".
>>344028
You are aware that the citation for the 60 degree angle as well as the thickness goes to the page I pulled that picture from, yes?
That the ciation clearly does not support the "black and white" writing. Now, which is more authoritative, the source, or the claim?
>>344069
Which is of course why it killed said vehicles at nearly 10:1 ratios.
And the Sherman went up against the T-34 in Korea. Wasn't pretty for the Soviet tanks.
>>344072
Nigger, which is more authoritative, the written numbers I can read or what you are claiming to see?
Here is a picture proving that the Sherman is shit. Pictured, a shit tank. Notice how I provide an image, which means I am correct, despite what is written anywhere.
>>344077
How about a source for your "10:1 ratios"? Maybe a source that isn't an isolated incident such as an ambush or a tactical defense victory. You seem fond of quoting particular scenarios in which the Sherman excelled, scenarios which can often be heavily attributed more to tactics and power disparity between forces than the individual tank.
>>344069
>Was the Sherman good enough to win tank-to-tank confrontations with vehicles it actually came up against in combat?
The answer would be a clear and unmitigated "Yes." The Sherman did very well.
>>344092
Are you covering your ears at this point, ignoring the sources i've provided which clearly state the Sherman was capable, but lackluster in comparison to the opposition?
>>344098
Are you just now noticing this?
>>344041
no it is not
a self propelled gun is a gun on the chassis of an armored vehicle
there are tankdestroyers, SPGs, assault guns
if you are calling an assault gun or anti tank gun an SPG you have have no idea what you talking about
moreover
there are overlaps so an SPG is a confusing term
a hellcat, M10 anti tank armor is an open top tank destroyer with a turret...
>>344098
>but lackluster in comparison to the opposition?
How? If it was able to consistently win engagements against other tanks, then that's not "lackluster"
>>344107
You might be correct, or it might be that SPG means any gun on a chassis, and "assault gun" falls under the SPG category, i was confused by the info on wikipedia.
>>344111
Check these 2 articles that i linked in this post, for starters >>344022
>>344119
We can spend all day here cherrypicking statistics to fit our argument. Same thing applies to the germans, most panzer losses were attributed to air bombing.
>>344133
>We can spend all day here cherrypicking statistics to fit our argument.
Exaclty how is whole frontwide compilations of losses "cherrypicking"?
>Same thing applies to the germans, most panzer losses were attributed to air bombing.
[citation needed]
Especially since that would be heavily disputed by other sources; it's usually the flyboys themselves that vastly overestimate their kill counts.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/
>>344149
>Exaclty how is whole frontwide compilations of losses "cherrypicking"?
Well, you just said it, you didn't cite a source. But before you do: Total losses are not related to the efficiency of the Sherman tank. You're looking at the results of the entire operation, in which hundreds of factors were more relevant than the armor thickness of the Sherman (for example).
>>343838
>My point is that if the statistics were of situations were the german tanks had fired first at incoming Shermans, the numbers would have been schewed similarily in the german's favor.
The Sherman had a unique stabilizer that made it easier for the gunner to aim to turret. The fact that Shermans often got off the first shot isn’t a coincidence. It is a clear manifestation of a core feature of the tank.
>>344173
>The fact that Shermans often got off the first shot isn’t a coincidence
It also isnt a fact, since Panthers would shoot from over twice the range. Shermans almost never got the first shot.
>>344173
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Miscellaneous
The utility of the stabilization is debatable, with some saying it was useful for its intended purpose, others only for using the sights for stabilized viewing on the move.[74] Some operators disabled the stabilizer.[citation needed]
>>343435
Ronson didn't even have that slogan till after ww2. Shermans didn't explode that often. The way the ammunition was decide was so that is would slowly ignite giving crews time to escape a boned Sherman.
>>344157
I've cited the source twice. This will be the third time.
"The History of Landmines" by Mike Croll. London, 1998. (ISBN 0 85052 628 0). Page 41.
His internal citation is "Donovan, P.D. and R. D. Moat, RARDE Memorandum 38/83, History of Mines in Land Warfare (Fort Halstead, Kent, June 1983)."
>>343148
The Siberian Garrison was not large. Litteraly 90% of the Soviet Military was in East Europe.
>>344177
E. Benn and R. W. Shephard in December 1951, and available at the PRO, Kew as WO 291/1212, "Ranges of engagement in the ATk battle".
>90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards;
>80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards;
>50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.
Just because the Panther had a gun that could penetrate from further away, doesn't mean they could see the enemy, or get a reliable shot at those ranges. Especially in the relatively well built up areas of France. Bocage limits visibility, which reduces engagement ranges.
>>344241
So 20% of the time a Sherman would cook the crew before it fired a single shot, and the rest of time time it was a matter of luck, positioning or crew ability more so than the tank itself.
How do you take this information and deduce that the Shermans would always get off the first shot?
>>344254
Because it wasn't a matter of "luck, positioning, or crew ability".
Steven Zaloga "Duel 13 Panther vs Sherman":
>"The Sherman's main advantage was that the gunner was also provided with an M4 periscopic sight with an enclosed M47 telescope, which had a wide field of view that could be used for general observation prior to engaging the target. The Panther gunner lacked any secondary sighting device and had to rely on the lower 2.5x magnification view from the telescope.
The Panther relied on the commander's good field of vision to relay tactical information to the gunner, but this is slower than the gunner having the same panoramic view.
This Ballistics Research Lab study
http://i.imgur.com/bxwWdOS.png
Demonstrates that the shermans were firing first a hell of a lot more often than the Panthers were.
>>344342
>Demonstrates that the shermans were firing first a hell of a lot more often than the Panthers were.
No, it doesnt. Did you even read the chart?
>>342829
If you take two different tanks, both reasonable well armored, and well armed, and put them up against each other, then the single biggest predictor of who will win is who gets off the first shot.
If you get the first shot, that means you've already figured out where the other guy is, and you've got your gun already aimed in the general direction of the opposition. Even if you miss or the round fails to penetrate, you're already way ahead of the other guy.
The other tank is gonna be panicking. They likely don't know where you are yet, and they have a very short time to figure it out. The crew is going to be emotionally shaken and unable to perform their best. Meanwhile, you're already lining up your next shot. The other tank might be able to turn things around, but the odds are definitely in your favor.
>>344355
I did. You clearly did not look at the number of engagements column.
Panthers attacking, Shermans fired first 19 times out of 20.
Shermans attacking, they fired first 5 times out of 7.
>>344355
You're only digging your grave deeper, Wehraboo
>>342971
No it isn't, dumbass. It was a stupid design meant for defense.
>>342947
Casemated TD/SPGs were used widely in WW2.
>>344965
They actually could aim the gun vertically just fine. In the S-Tank it fixed to the hull and whole hull had to be elevated with hydraulic suspension to aim the gun - not a fast solution. And these there support guns, they were deployed in the back of front line, there were no danger of active tank fight with flanking and stuff. Swedes wanted to use S-Tank as MBT, and it would be funny to see how contemporary tanks with good stabilization just run aground and flank them.
>>343427
Go to the corner and think about what you just said.
>>342829
>spear sword one
What?
>people honestly believe propaganda memes
>>345009
the T-34 was dogshit, a death trap and nothing but a waste of metal, the IS-2 was the real winning horse of the Soviet army.
>>345485
In terms of effectiveness, they were both roughly identical. The Sherman, however, has the narrow edge if you're factoring in soft features such as ergonomics, quality control and crew survivability.
On average, killing one Sherman took one of five crew members out of Action. Assuming a roughly equal distribution among a platoon that suffers total losses of Shermans, that platoon can be reconstituted with four new tanks assuming no crew replacements are forthcoming, effectively meaning that you have to kill five Shermans to take one out of the fight.
>>345530
well yeah, the Sherman was superior in ergonomics, maintenance and survivability. It could truly support the troops instead of doing it's own thing, they took it everywhere on the pacific because it was so damn handy.
Soviets loved them when they were given a few through lend-lease, the leather seat covers were so fancy they usually stole them.
so much seppo wank in this thread.
>>343148
Except that was not the case. The US and the Allies adopted a Germany First policy shortly after Pearl Harbour
>>343678
Only in the initial production and that reputation was only obtained because Hitler rushed everything he had to Kursk when he was ignoring Manstein's desire to engage in a series of backhanded limited offensives.
New tanks always have their teething problems.
>>342947
Are you saying fixed turrets weren't used in combat?
>>343941
Yeah, the Panther was designed with the Eastern Front Steppes in mind, not urban combat.
>>345557
>have to get married and have children in order to justify myself buying a kobi tank
I have to contend with non-legoesque tanks.
>>345589
Then why did the French postwar using Panthers also continually decry the maintenance problems they had?
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
>>345616
8 cobi tanks so far over here!
I really like 'em. Gonna get the Jagdpanther when it comes out, and probably a Matilda.
>>342951
USA bombs Syrian govt. and arms the Islamic state's "moderate" ally the fsa.
>>345641
>USA bombs Syrian govt
>>345641
>FSA
>ISIS' ally
Now I do believe they're both terrorist shits but to call them allies when they're actually mortal enemies is hilarious
>>345604
Of course they were used, but not in the first line and not in tank battles. They moved behind the main attacking force and shoot from static position or from ambushes, mostly supporting advancing infantry by blowing machine guns and bunkers, but it was used against tank too, but from distance only. It would be a suicide to drive such thing in direct contact with traditional tanks, it can be easily outmaneuvered. WoT and WT isn't the real life, you know.
>>345657
They became mortal enemies at some point in 2014.
Up to that point it was happy trails.
>>345660
is it good stuff though?
>>345618
Slave labour production value.
>>345747
Don't forget the sabotage.
>>343123
I bet you believe in the ronson meme too.
>>343743
>autoloaders
>german tanks
>>346205
>Letting Ferdinand Porsche design a Tiger variant
It was an interesting design that should never have left the design table. To think the man was so arrogant that he requisitioned and built 100 chassis before the competition with MAN was even finished.
I guess it wasn't a total loss. At least we got the Elefant so we may marvel at the sheer waste Germans were quite okay with during a war for their lives.
Frankly I'm surprised Armaments Minister Speer and Tank Inspector Heinz Guderian didn't have strokes at the sheer stupid shit Hitler approved.
>>343123
>>343129
>>343384
>>346324
>sheer stupid shit Hitler approved
There's your problem. Having a final authority that isn't very good at what he does is not how you create an effective military.
>>346650
It's important to remember that Hitler originally wanted to be an artist. He was a romantic at heart, somebody who believed in the power of ideas of things. When somebody showed him something that looked cool, he approved it. When somebody showed him something boring but logistically effective, he denied it. He wanted a Wonder weapon that would win the war by itself. Cheaper, more cost-effective tank wouldn't have interested him. A bigger, scarier tank would make his day.
>>343427
>the Sherman was probably the best tank of the whole war
>a tank designed to be cheap to be mass produced
>a tank so ridiculous that usually get upside down and explode
>BEST TANK IN THE WHOLE WAR
>>346797
>Muh memes are better than actual, verifiable combat records.
>>346797
>THE SHERMAN WAS TERRIBLE!
Meanwhile in the real world it wrecked almost everything it ever went up against while have a good record for quality control, ergonomics, reliability, and crew survivability. America's experience in pioneering mass production allowed it to make a tank that was had quantity and quality united in one package.
>>346682
The biggest flaw a person can have is not realizing that they have flaws at all. If he could have realized that his commanders knew more than he did, they might have avoided Goering wasting Germany's resources on trying to develop wonder weapons.
>>346821
It was so good that germany successfully held the "monsters" with the reserves from taking Berlin, and the inferior commie tanks got it first, even if they were in the other side of the continent.
>>346821
In comparison to T-34s, yeah. That has less to do about design, and more to do with how shit the Soviets were at both making and using tanks.
>>346869
And in comparison to say, the PZIV and Panther, both of whom they spanked on a regular basis, as noted upthread:
http://i.imgur.com/bxwWdOS.png
19 out of 20 firing first on tactical defense.
5 out of 9 firing first on tactical offense!
Killing panthers at a rate of about 3.42:1
But oh yeah, it was only good compared to shit Soviet tanks [/sarcasm]
>>346869
I thought the Soviets were supposed to have been better at tactics and operational art than the West.
>>346869
Yup. The KV-1 was so shit, German tanks couldn't even damage it!
Oh wait.
>>346855
You mean the commies through wave after wave of men to jam the Germans guns so they could take the credit.
>>346878
hahaha
>>345485
>IS-2
>winning horse
nigga, that's a fucking meme
T-34, especially the 85s were the best medium tanks the Soviets had during the war.
>>344377
This would be true for some sort of tank skirmish.
It wouldnt be true for two armies aware of each other, and both having a vanguard of tanks in formation.
>>346878
Soviet tactic: disregard the loses, keep pushing on, we cant stop now or we'll get a revolution going.
>>346875
Nigger this is with complete air superiority and having a large numbers advantage every time.
Stop taking this shit out of context. Its like saying american bullets were superior to german bullets, because more germans died.
>>342829
>The russian durable, easy to produce, easy to drive, easy to repair tank or the german heavy, powerful, expensive and complicated war machine?
Amount of delusion is almost off the scale here.
Russian tanks are anything but easy to repair when compared to modern western tanks.
>>342878
>Let's align the cannon with the chassis
>Surely that will make target acquisition fast and easy!
It was actually faster and more accurate to open fire than Leopard while on the move and buttoned up in Norwegian trials in 1967. In 1975 on US trials it was on average 0.5 seconds slower to open fire than M60A1 AOS, that certainly wasn't the original M60 due to add on stabilization upgrade.
>>342878
Leos got BTFO hard by them on Swedish army exercises
>>343280
>Panzerkampfwagen
>Panzer
>Kampf
>Wagen
Panther Struggle Wagon?
>>348595
>he thinks "panzer" is German for "panther"
>he doesn't know what pzkpfw. stands for
>>342829
>Does this logic also applies to other historical weapons
Barely.
The one pre-industrial weapon I can think about was the Wheellock pistol, it was enormously complicated to make required hard to obtain materials and as a result it was to expensive for general infantry. Instead infantry opted for the far cheaper matchlock musket. Typically Cuirassiers (Spiritual successor of the Knight) had wheellock pistols because they didn't require a burning cord or match. Later both designs were replaced by the Flintlock.
Spears are swords were not direct competitors, Ideally a soldier had both.
Longbows/Crossbows is an entire different topic. The difference was chiefly that bows were employed en-masse in western Europe and as a result required an enormous logistical apparatus to operate it. Crossbows were more often used as a smaller part of an army in an initial skirmish phase and in sieges where their accuracy comes into play. In pretty much all field battles where crossbows alone had to face longbows the longbows outnumbered the crossbowmen at least three to one. Even in French and Burgundian armies longbow use far outnumbered crossbow use.
>>348613
i heard you guys are talking shit about the sherman in this thread and i just wanted to say you stink
>>348630
disgusting
>>348630
>KV-2 for USSR
>not T-34-85
>not IS-2
Well memed.
>>342841
>Quantity beats quality with tanks every time.
Yeah, the republican guard sure held out at kuwait and Saddams iraq empire sure is thriwing.
Wait it doesnt because: Abrahams
>>348693
>Abrahams
>>348693
> Wait it doesnt because: air superiority
Fixed for you.
>>348701
>not knowing undedable abrahams meme
>>348957
see blow out panels work, crew is safe.
>>343897
>T34 was overall a better tank than the Sherman. In terms of general performance, reliability and practical success in the field.
>T34
>Reliable
And we have confirmation you have NO idea what you're talking about.
>>349021
>your opinion
>different than mine
And we have confirmation that you like taking it up the ass. Also no idea of tanks.
>>348362
Part of the reason the Germans failed in the air was their inefficient industrial system to which the production of oversized tanks contributed.
On a 1:1 basis German tanks would probably win a 'balanced' tactical engagement but that doesn't mean shit all. This also assumes the tanks had fuel and didn't break down on the way. A tank that doesn't get to the battle is inferior to any other tank.
If you need proof that the quality of tanks in a 1:1 doesn't matter shit all look no further than the Battle of France. The Germans had MASSIVELY inferior tanks on a tactical level but their use of radios and specialised tactics/airpower allowed them to crush the French (who, in fact, had some of the best tanks in the fucking world in 1939-1940).
A handful of heavy tanks can't change the course of an industrial war or even a battle. The fact more of them died to mechanical failure than battle isn't a point in their favour either.
Caen is irrelevant in terms of casualties because it was a massive strategic failure for the Germans. The allies KNEW they would lose fucktons of men there and attacked it repeatedly simply to tie down the very limited number of effective German tanks/units. This directly led to the American breakout. Had the Germans had more tanks of a slightly lower individual quality they might have been able to defend the entirety of Normandy not a tiny bit of it. Again any tank is better than no tank at all.
In terms of defence SPGs (Hetzer and Stug) or even plain old AT guns are much superior to tanks anyway from a production standpoint.
>>349031
>And we have confirmation that you like taking it up the ass. Also no idea of tanks.
The 't-34 = super reliable' idea is a well known myth. Pick up ANY proper historical text and they'll tell you this. World of Tanks, unsurprisingly, is not a valid source. The fact you are parroting such bullshit makes it clear you've never actually learned shit all about tanks.
Towards the end of the war it improved but early war you'd be lucky for the fucking thing to get to a battle without breaking down never mind survive it.
The T-34 did some things well (sloped armour, general cheapness) but reliability was not one of them. It was also uncomfortable for the crew and had horrendous sights.
In industrial terms it was superior to most German tanks for a whole variety of reasons but individually it was not a great tank.
>>349031
>>349064
In fact the T-34 DID go up against the Sherman in Korea and got fucked over something fierce.
True tactics played a part and it was a slightly later Sherman but the basic designs were the same.
Do not mistake the T-34 for some sort of super tank in and of itself. The Germans feared it because, frankly, their own tanks/at guns were shit outside of the rare designs they couldn't make at anything like a reasonable rate.
>The only good Sherman was the British one.
>>349356
who are you quoting?
>>348362
Read. The. Table.
Most common engagement type pitted a net total of 104 Shermans vs 93 Panthers. 1.1:1 is not usually considered a "massive" advantage".
The Panther wasn't a great tank. It was a great ATG stuck on a mediocre tank, and only truly excelled at really long range tank duels. Put it up against any other circumstance and it just wasn't that good.
There's a reason Fritz Bayerlain asked for more 4s and not more Panthers in France.
>>348328
The IS-2 isn't a medium tank.
>>348595
>Panther Struggle Wagon?
Yes, a wagon that struggled to fight real tanks.
>>349047
>who, in fact, had some of the best tanks in the fucking world in 1939-1940
Heaviest doesnt mean best. French tanks were slower, harder to produce, even harder to repair, and couldnt be entrenched and covered with earth because of how their gun was attached.
>>346855
Germany tried to scare the capitalists allies by pushing west at the end of the war, that way URSS would take most of the Europe, and allies would have been forced too make a white peace with germany in order to fight communism.
Still, Sherman was a shitty tank, but he did the job.
>>349064
T-34 turned the war. From losing handily, into winning handily, with just introducing that one armored gun.
>>349451
Bullshit, Germany put in upch more resistance in the east and surrendered in the west.
Germans wanted to be taken over by the western powers, not Russia, and for a good reason.
>>349461
The goal of the battle of Bulge was precisely a west peace for Germany.
>>349468
>/k/
Who do you think started this thread?
/k/ has been dead ever since /his/ came around. The few people who actually know their military history on /k/ got tired of the meme arguments and morons using vidya as facts and came here.
>>349512
But the meme arguments and vidya as facts are still here.
>>343941
>Pershing
Well, fucking duh it did, in that case
>>343743
Armored superiority appears to be, by all counts, in favor of the west.
>>344377
This. The single biggest factor in a one-on-one tank engagement with at least slightly comparable vehicles is who fires first. It's more than a bit different when it comes to mass engagements, but the point remains: in single combat, tank vs. tank, it's not about which model of tank you're driving, it's who sees who first.
>>348362
>Its like saying american bullets were superior to german bullets, because more germans died.
Glorious thurdy ought six is way better than pissant kraut shit like 7.92mm.
>>349621
Mostly because the west encounter obsolete Russian tanks being driven by Arabs, while having total air superiority.
>>349649
"muh monkey models"
>>348693
>Yeah, the republican guard sure held out at kuwait and Saddams iraq empire sure is thriwing.
Annual reminder that Saddam gave the Republican Guard orders to surrender upon encountering any significant American/Coalition force, which they did.
We lost more troops to friendly fire than to enemy military fire in that war.
So, much like with tootsie pops, we may never know.
>>343743
But the first mass produced tonk with sloped amour was the Renault R35
>>349784
You mean the Renault FT.
>>349413
Did I say IS-2 was a medium tank?
Please love all tanks equally.
>>343123
Which is why the Sherman has a positive kill:destroy ratio against all German tank models?
>>350661
If you decry the IS-2 by comparing it to the T-34, especially the latewar 85 version and claim that the latter is the best Soviet medium tank, by implication you're claiming they're in the same class, i.e. both medium tanks.
>>343123
>US Army’s Ballistic Research Lab which studied WW2 ETO tank vs tank engagements(98 of them if you were wondering) and concluded the following: The most deciding factor of who wins a tank engagement is who engages first. Crew training and other factors also played a large role. The average distance at which a US tank kills a Panzer(late IV, V, & VI) was 893 yards(816 m). Comparatively the average distance Panzers killed US vehicles as 943 yards(862 m). During Panther v. M4 engagements the Panther had a 1.1:1 advantage while on the defensive, however the M4 had an 8.4:1 advantage while on the offensive. Overall the M4 was 3.6 times as effective in combat versus the Panther.
>Overall the M4 was 3.6 times as effective in combat versus the Panther.
>3.6 times more effective
To sum it up I will quote author and historian Robert Forzcyk: “Overall, US armor destroyed more German tanks than German tanks destroyed US tanks, by a factor of about 3:2.”
Sexiest tank of WWII, right here.
Best British tank
>>351258
>He thinks German tanks are good
>>352398
Maybe you should go back to school and learn some reading comprehension. He said the Tiger II was sexy, not the best tank or good.
>>352398
he said sexy, not good.
Don't you love it when people get dogmatic about comparisons.
If you honestly think the Panther wasn't a competent, formidable tank, you're a fool.
If you honestly think the Americans were incompetent or complacent, you're a fool.
Context is so incredibly important. Looking at the bigger picture.
The armor and gun of a Panther were undeniably good.
No, not 'too much for a medium tank', it suffered from specific componentry issues, that does not suddenly make it a heavy tank.
Suffering from specific componentry issues does not make it inherently unreliable either. Panthers could go far, and did in decent numbers.
Not to mention, all tanks had mechanical issues.
The Sherman was not particularly weak either. Sure, 37mm of flat side armor isn't very good.
But with the amenities and attitudes American tankers received on the Western front, I would rather be in their position than elsewhere.
You have to give credit where credit is due.
There is no definitive 'better', there are inherent, irreconcilable differences that defy definitive comparison.
At any rate, the Germans didn't lose because of their tanks. And the Allies didn't win because of theirs.
The Germans were fighting a war they never could have one, and the Allies won in the air most importantly.
>>349356
more like
>the only good british tank was a sherman
and even then, the 17pdr struggled to maintain accuracy against the american 76mm
>>342960
lol thinking ww2 mass bombing tactics are effective
>>352532
Well, they were ultimately effective at the time.
Not efficient, but effective.
>>343838
>probably with terrible results
so you're just guessing about something that's verifiable?
>T-34/85 better than late war Shermans
what am I reading
when these two met in Korea
it was the M4 that came out on top
>>352446
Oh wow, a well thought-out, competent post. No wonder it doesn't have any replies.
>>352446
>Panther is literally wider, taller, longer than Sherman
>"the M4 silhouette is easily spotted!"
>"our tanks barely compare to the Panzer 3!"
>SIX 76 mm projectiles bouncing off a Panther's SIDE
>better sight reticles
I enjoy first hand accounts but some of those are just plain strange.
>>353597
>korean drivers
Shermans were reliable, could be fixed easily, could be produced fast in immense numbers, and were designed to do exactly what proper tank doctrine called for. It and the T-34 were the war winners (with a respectful nod to *tactical* air support). German big cats were a waste of resources; getting tank and aircraft priority all wrong did a lot to ensure Germany's defeat.
>>353781
>Panther is literally wider, taller, longer than Sherman
>"the M4 silhouette is easily spotted!"
"The silhouette presented by the Sherman is far more perpendicular than that of the German Mark V and Mark VI tanks."
The extra height on the Panther is from the cupola, and the Panther's silhouette (by width and height) is objectively more proportionate than the Sherman's. But what the tanker is referring to is the physical shape of the tanks. The Sherman is indeed more perpendicular than a Panther, which he sees as a flaw. This is a perfectly sound criticism, not strange at all.
>"our tanks barely compare to the Panzer 3!"
"In general, it is my opinion that our Sherman tanks rank clumsily with the German Mark III and Mark IV tanks [...]"
You're exaggerating an exaggeration. Of course even the Sherman 75 is better than a Panzer III, any Panzer III, but I don't necessarily think it's strange for this tanker to think so poorly of his own vehicle. Germans have commented poorly on their own tanks as well in first-hand accounts. Grass is always greener etc.
>SIX 76 mm projectiles bouncing off a Panther's SIDE
"Ordering my gunner to fire at the closest tank, which was approximately 800 yards away, he placed one right in the side which was completely visible to me. To my amazement and disgust I watched the shell bounce off the vehicles. My gunner fired at least six more rounds at the vehicle hitting it from the turret to the track."
One 76mm projectile bouncing off a Panther's side at 800 yards.
A first-hand account, and strange indeed, but not necessarily as strange as you might think.
Tank armor and piercing that armor in WWII was far more variable than might be theorized.
In the same manner that particular German guns theoretically should have been able to penetrate particular amounts of armor, the T-34's frontal glacis could withstand a LOT. Angled armor makes a world of difference. Different levels of softness and hardness just throws in more variables.
>>353781
>better sight reticles
This isn't strange either.
German sight reticules are good. IIRC the Russians adopted a similar reticule.
People also criticize the Panther's lack of periscope for the gunner, but the entire point of a cupola as good as the German's had was for the commander to provide sight for the gunner, whose sights had reasonable FOV. So perhaps the gunner in and of himself does not have ideal vision, but that criticism ignores the intended and executed coordination of roles in German tanks.
>>354188
>(with a respectful nod to *tactical* air support)
Air superiority was the noose that tightened around Germany.
The allied advance would have been slower and significantly more dangerous if German ground forces weren't perpetually dogged by attack aircraft. And strategic bombing played one of the largest roles in crippling Germany. Air superiority was vital.
> It and the T-34 were the war winners
Every successfully operational vehicle the allies mass produced were war winners, not singular tanks only.
>German big cats were a waste of resources
The Panther was economical to produce.
> getting tank and aircraft priority all wrong did a lot to ensure Germany's defeat.
Not really, no.
An overwhelming lack of resources and manpower (all well and good if you have infantry, not so good if you have no pilots for your planes, let alone fuel), and starting a war with the two other largest superpowers on the planet; did a lot to ensure Germany's defeat. Not because they wasted armor on big cats.
>>342951
>>353597
Entirely due to crew quality. US crews were well trained and in many cases WWII veterans. North Koreans and Chinese are completely different matter.
>>355030
You sure the 76 mm HVAP ammo, which could kill the T-34s from a longer range than the 85s could kill Shermans had nothing to do with it? Or the thicker frontal armor? Or the better visibility?
Nah, that's just crazy talk, right?
Aesthetics>all
t. hitler
>>355389
>implying the Tiger II has aesthetics
>>355401
>shermans
>something that tiny
>>aesthetic
I can't hear you over the sound of my V12 engine
>>355442
>70 tons
Excessive.
>>355522
Just because your dick is small from years of inbreeding doesn't mean your tanks have to be too
>>355550
No, people with small dicks feel the need to overcompensate with large tanks.
>>355558
>muh compensating
doesn't apply to tank aesthetics f@m
>>355567
Tanks are quite phallic.
>>355573
shouldn't you be in a grave somewhere freud
>>355578
They use their long, hard cannons to penetrate other tanks before exploding.
>>355587
The cannons aren't doing the penetrating though.
>>355372
>Nah, that's just crazy talk, right?
All of those are minor and irrelevant details when compared to difference in crew quality.
>>357154
Very true too.
Another reason why German tanks suffered as they did in the final stages of the war. Without well trained crews, you could be in a tank generations better than what you're fighting and still get beaten. Not to say German tanks were at all generations better, but just to emphasize the importance of good crews.
>>355401
>too tall for its width
>that gross british muzzle break
>a bunch of dirty rags thrown over the front
wouldn't know aesthetics if it hit you in the gob m8
to be fair the firely is the most aesthetic bong tank
>>349451
Put down the crack pipe.
>there are people who doubt the panther ausf G was't the sexiest tank in ww2.
>>357496
This. Note that the Germans tore through Soviet armor in the early stages even with tanks that were woefully undergunned. Better training, better doctrine.
>>357570
Sure it looked sexy as hell, but it wasn't exactly something to enjoy being a crewman in.
Merkava is prob the most useful tank around, seeing as it's made for everything other than fighting tanks.
>>357584
>Merkava is prob the most useful tank around
stop fucking saying this stupid shit.
the merkava is designed for a specific set of needs, AKA the IDF.
>>357581
Seems like being a driver/gunner/commander would be relatively ergonomic and well-protected.
Repairing it is a different experience than explicitly using it. Being a crewman in an operational Panther G doesn't sound bad at all to be honest. Repairing a non-operational Panther G would be a pain, but ze Nazis were apparently decent at doing that anyway.
>>343743
It's needs the engine replaced every 30 minutes?
>>357614
>
I'm a former M60a3 crewman.
Any tank requires almost constant looking after and maintenance. As far as the Panther goes, It was a nightmare to look after. Think about this....If you shift gears too roughly you'll shear the gears on the final drive and then that entails a major project just to repair. A Sherman having the same problem could be fixed in a fraction of the time due to it's design.
How were tanks of the time driven, exactly? With levers? How did that work? Was changing gears just done with a gearshift?
>>343743
>>T-34 is the first mass produced tank with slope armor
>>T-54 is the most produced tank
>>T-62 is the first mass produced tank with smoothbore gun
>>T-64 is the first mass produced tank with autoloader
T34/76s were death traps and lost in staggering numbers.
T-54s were "meat on the table" tanks. You realize that a frontal penetration in the right spot could take out the driver, gunner and commander in the same hit?
T62s were better but nothing to really brag about as they could be successfully engaged by designs such the Centurion and M48/M60s. In '73 they were being knocked out by upgunned Shermans.
T-64-Decent autoloader means less crew to do maintenance among other things. Also, what about the ammo storage? IIRC the first model deployed was called "The Steel Grave".
T-14 too early to tell.
>>343743
I thought the Christie tank had sloped armor.
>>357591
and that's what makes it the best desu
it's one of the few tanks around built for conflicts that one can reasonably imagine one can be in within the foreseeable future.
>>350583
*frontally. side shots would easily kill it
