What went wrong?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What went wrong?
>>28090048
War
>>28090048
What did, exactly?
>>28090048
It was a good tank. Perfectly acceptable. WW2 was an industrial war. The USSR and America outproduced them. The end.
>>28090109
You can win against better production, you just can't be as retarded as the Nazis were.
>>28090126
>You can win against better production
When has that ever happened?
But it was the second best tank of the war, after the Sherman.
>>28090048
Its age began to show.
The Sherman and T-34 could be upgraded beyond the Easy Eight and 85, while the Pz IV was at its peak with the Ausf. H and the overweight Jagdpanzers.
>>28090137
Iran-Iraq, but that was more of "didn't lose when a mechanized army attacked a mostly light infantry force."
>>28090137
Winter War.
>>28090048
Nothing, it was the best tank in execution that Nazi Germany produced.
god I hate the panzer 4 so much
slightly above average gun on the F2
shit tier armour and mobility
fucking
trash
>>28090261
you are joking right ?
>>28090291
The USSR produced more shit than Finland, and yet they lost.
>>28090288
Bait
>>28090288
YOU'RE A BIG BAIT
Oh sure it was a good tank, but look at the tank design itself. It was a fucking production killer. So much drilling, so much milling of steel plates.
>>28090315
so you are joking, look up what ussr wanted from finland and what they got from peace treaty
>>28090334
its not like its mobility or armour is a fucking secret retard, the only thing even remotely debatable is the gun penetration, and its not amazing.
>>28090348
Not him, I don't think you consider such a terrible k/d ratio a "victory" for the soviet union. They got their small islands but at what price?
>>28090365
yeah, in your video game logic, while in real world soviets gained all territory they wanted and more
>>28090356
Mobility was always good but became okay tier when it got heavier
Armour was bad for a medium, but it's still among the top three med designs of WWII.
>>28090365
I bet Vietnam was a victory too
>>28090403
>mobility was only okay, armour was bad
>STILL IN THE TOP THREE MEDIUM DESIGNS OF WW2
without even thinking about it I am sure the top 3 inlude the Sherman, and two other soviet designs
the instant you reply saying the Sherman was bad, I have won btw
>>28090403
>Armour was bad for a medium, but it's still among the top three med designs of WWII.
4th more likely, Sherman=T-34>Cromwell>Panzer 4.
>>28090401
Germany holding out as well as Finland did against the Allies would be a tremendous victory for Germany.
Using war goals to say the Soviets won is winning by setting low standards. They lost hard if you consider expected losses vs actual losses, which throws off the initial cost-benefit by a decent bit.
>>28090401
>>28090414
Lol'd
You don't understand what politics is? Soviet union could have conquered all fucking scandinavia as far as the world was concerned, that would never have changed the fact that they lost more than 35% of their force for conquering worthless stripes of frozen land. It's a defeat in the world's eyes.
>>28090424
>Implying I'd ever call the Sherman bad
I'm not a Wehranigger.
The Ausf. H is third after the T-34-85 and Sherman for me.
What's your second slav tank?
>>28090365
>Real-life wars are decided by k/d ratio
I mean, it's always nice if you have fewer deaths than the opposition, but that isn't a good measuring stick for determining who is the winning.
>>28090424
T-43 and T-44 saw no service against the Germans, so he probably didn't think of them.
If late war tanks are included, that would include Centurion as well.
And here I expected a healthy discussion about tanks.
>>28090472
>Cromwell
>Bolted armour
>Shitty ergonomics
>Worse gun than the PIV
>Only saving grace is being fest
Bongistani please get out, only actually relevant WWII powers allowed
>>28090497
Ask public opinion about that
>>28090515 is right, though. let's not change topic
Flat sideed armour.
Sloped armour is superior, which was why it got incorporated in all of Germany's later war tanks such as the panther and Tiger 2s.
Source: Warthunder
>>28090048
Hitler wanted his magic "superweapons" instead of reliable and proven designs.
>>28090472
You got that a bit wrong.
Sherman>Panzer 4=Cromwell>Human feces>T-34
Glad I could clear that up.
>>28090532
did you know that the superiority of sloped armour that 90% of people 'know about' is actually fucking bullshit and based on false math?
>>28090557
Quite sure basic trigomometry has some weight to itt
>>28090557
Haha, get a load of this guy.
>>28090557
False math or limitations in video game programming?
>>28090472
>>28090474
soviets wanted x
soviets got x
still loss, yep sounds about right
>>28090048
Not enough produced, instead they chose to focus on tigers and crazier tanks
>>28090612
Pyrrhic victory rings a bell?
This might dodge the topic, but if they streamlined Tiger production, ironed out the engine reliability issues and sloped the armour at least on the front insted of going for the Panther, would it have been better?
>>28090567
>>28090573
>>28090577
>>28090584
how much of the tank does the sloped plate cover compared to the vertical one?
why not just slope it by 90 degrees so it has the maximum possible thickness
face it, you have been living a lie your entire fucking LIFE
>>28090567
>>28090573
>>28090577
>>28090584
READ IT AND WEEP FUCKERS
If you increase the horizontal thickness by increasing the slope while keeping the plate thickness constant, you need a longer and thus heavier armour plate to protect a certain area. This improvement of protection is simply equivalent to the increase of area density and thus mass, and can offer no weight benefit. Therefore in armoured vehicle design the two other main effects of sloping have been the motive to apply sloped armour.
>>28090048
Tanks are obsolete m8. RPGs fuck them up.
>>28090663
No because it was still a 60 ton tank with the capability of a 40 ton tank.
>>28090472
T-34 is over-hyped a lot but it is an amazing tank design. There's a lot of really ingenious design choices in T-34 that people miss.
>>28090694
Wow.
That sure is some nice bait.
>>28090109
Germany could mass produce the upgraded Panzer 4 and Panther at much greater rate if Hitler wasnt such a retard and wanted bigger heavier shit that takes years to produce
>>28090719
Haha.
No.
>>28090732
>There's a lot of really ingenious design choices in T-34 that people miss.
Examples?
All I'm aware of are the defects.
A country with mediocre industrial capacity when to war the the two largest industrial powerhouses on earth.
>>28090741
>>28090758
IS THIS A JOKE
AS YOU INCREASE THE SLOPE THE ARMOUR COVERS LESS AREA HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND
THERE IS ZERO GEOMETRY BASED ADVANTAGE TO SLOPED ARMOUR
WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK THIS
AN ENTIRE PLANET OF PEOPLE FUCKING SPOUT THIS BULLSHIT WHEN ITS CLEARLY FALSE
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>28090719
Sloped armor means that the incoming shell no longer hits at the normal and part of the energy of the shell is deflected.
It saves weight by reducing the need for a separate horizontal plate to protect the tank from overhead threats.
>>28090789
Keep on baiting m8
Someone will fall for it eventually
>>28090048
A shitty suspension that could not handle the growth in overall weight, but especially the increased frontal weight as that armor grew thicker
>>28090261
>winter war
>win
>>28090789
Are you fags still arguing over this shit?
How hard is it to wiki things?
Sloped armour is armour that is neither in a vertical nor a horizontal position. Such "angled" armour is often mounted on tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), as well as naval vessels such as battleships and cruisers. Sloping an armour plate makes it harder to penetrate for antitank-weapons, such as armour-piercing shells (kinetic energy penetrators) and rockets, if they take a more or less horizontal path to their target, as is often the case. The better protection is caused by three main effects.
Firstly, a projectile hitting a plate at an angle other than 90° has to move through a greater thickness of armour, compared to hitting the same plate at a right-angle. In the latter case only the plate thickness (the normal to the surface of the armour) has to be pierced; increasing the armour slope improves, for a given plate thickness, the armour's level of protection at the point of impact by increasing the thickness measured in the horizontal plane, the angle of attack of the projectile. The protection of an area, instead of just a single point, is indicated by the average horizontal thickness, which is identical to the area density (in this case relative to the horizontal): the relative armour mass used to protect that area.
If you increase the horizontal thickness by increasing the slope while keeping the plate thickness constant, you need a longer and thus heavier armour plate to protect a certain area. This improvement of protection is simply equivalent to the increase of area density and thus mass, and can offer no weight benefit. Therefore in armoured vehicle design the two other main effects of sloping have been the motive to apply sloped armour.
>>28090567
You forget overmatching effects against shells larger in diameter than the thickness of the armor as well as the increased weight as a result of horizontal coverage
>>28090840
One of these is a more efficient envelopment of a certain vehicle volume by armour. In general, more rounded forms have a lesser surface relative to their volume. As in an armoured vehicle that surface has to be covered by heavy armour, a more efficient form can lead to a substantial weight reduction or a thicker armour for the same weight. Sloping the armour can lead to a better approximation of an ideal rounded form.
The final effect is that of deflection, deforming and ricochet of a projectile. When it hits a plate under a steep angle, its path might be curved, causing it to move through more armour – or it might bounce off entirely. Also it can be bent, reducing its penetration. However, these effects are strongly dependent on the precise armour materials used and the qualities of the projectile hitting it: sloping might even lead to a better penetration. Shaped charge warheads may fail to penetrate and even detonate when striking armour at a highly oblique angle.
Did you know that out of 54.000 T-34s that were built during the war, 45.000 were destroyed?
Based on statistics, upon penetration of a T-34, there was a 75% crew mortality rate. In comparison, when a Sherman got penetrated by a shell, statistics only showed a 12% mortality rate.
So combining both numbers and you could basically argue that well over 100.000 T-34 tankers died in the war.
Oh and the Russians lost nearly 100.000 AFVs.
>>28090643
soviets gained more than there initial war goals
red army in 1939 was around 2 million strong
with 11mil that could be mobilized
with 20k tanks
and they lost just a fraction of there combined fighting strength
while finland lost most of their aircraft and armored vehicles, ~ 50% of their active combat personal were dead or unfit for combat
so mater how far you will move your goalposts
all the bs in the world will not change god damn historical facts
pyrrhic victory my ass
>>28090789
>cruise control
the 90% of projectiles that come at the tank horizontally will have a higher chance of being redirected by the slope of the armor, rather than dumping all of their energy into it. This correlates with a lower chance of penetration.
>>28090895
>>28090850
I solved this shit.
It's a dead argument.
>>28090048
Actually it was a revolutionary design. Infantry support tanks of the time usually were large and lumbering land ships (Vickers Independent, T-35, Char B1, Neubaufahrzeug, first Churchill marks), the Pz. IV was a clean no-nonsense design with great crew ergonomics.
Only when the T-34 appeared it was pressed into the AT role - first due to its powerful HEAT grenades, second after it got its long-barreled gun.
Thank Wehrmacht planners for not giving the Pz III (a superior design in terms of medium tank requirements a larger turret ring.
>>28090779
This is a production engineering one, but the T-34 does not have track pin ends. The pins for T-34 are not machined with holes for a locking bolt.
Instead the Soviets welded a slab of metal to the side of hull. Whenever a pin got loose, it would bash into the protrusion and get jolted back into place.
This saves the Soviets the trouble of having to drill each individual track pin, machine end connectors for each pin, and having to buy and staff equipment to do that drilling and machining. All the resources saved can then be devoted to the ultimate goal of cranking out more tanks.
Sure it's noisy, unsophisticated, and ultimately bad for the track in the long term. But it's not necessary to make tracks that last 2000 km if the average tank only drives for 1500 km before it is knocked out. What is important is that every unit that needs a T-34 has one.
The Sherman could be produced faster and cheaper than a T-34, but that's because the US has more money to solve production problems and better production tech to start with.
There's plenty of other thinks like this in the T-34.
>>28090870
>armored vehicles
They had a handful of operational but outdated tanks at the start of the war.
They captured a lot more from the russians than they lost of their own.
>~ 50% of their active combat personal were dead or unfit for combat
More like ~25%, but still very heavy losses.
>>28090917
maybe you should call me a faggot next
>>28090949
US factories were also producing Shermans in relative "calm" so to speak, while Soviet factories were producing T-34s at "We need 300 T-34s today or else we start fighting inside your factory" rates.
But in post-war designs, you see a MASSIVE increase in quality and design in Soviet armour. They still didn't do much in ways of crew comfort, but that was a cultural thing and for a long time they saw that as unnecessary.
Only in the past ~10-20 years or so have they started to appreciate the increase in efficiency that is brought about by crew comfort (Su-34 being one of the best examples).
>>28090949
The Americans could basically throw money at a project until it was mass-produced.
40% of the world's industrial power in one nation, man. That's saying a lot.
>>28090949
This. What people don't realize is that unlike the Germans, the Soviets pretty much built their vehicles on the concept of planned obsolescence, because they believed from their experiences in World War I that any major war fought in the future would be attritional. By that logic, why build a tank that will last as long as possible instead of spending less resources to build a tank that will last the average time to destruction in battle? Over I think about 2 years, they drove the cost down on the T-34 by half, reduced 5000 parts from the design, and also greatly reduced the man-hours needed to produce it.
This panel goes into some detail on the difference between US, USSR, and German manufacturing methods. (Section by Jonathan Parshall)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&feature=youtu.be
>>28091121
I find that hard to believe seeing as Deep Warfare (meme warfare) seems to be about avoiding attritional warfare and instead focusing on breakthroughs and envelopments, and exploiting breakthroughs
>>28091181
Inferior to what?
>>28091184
The Soviets preferred a scientific approach to their study of warfare. If they found that the average tank drove 1,000 km before being destroyed than building a tank with more than say ~1,500 km of drivetrain life is wasteful.
>>28091184
You have to throw men and tanks at the enemy line first to get a breakthrough to exploit, and that's where most of the casualties happened. Once you have the breakthrough casualties drop off somewhat.
>>28091184
Attritional warfare does not mean throwing bodies into the grinder until your opponent runs out of ammunition. It inflicting losses on your opponent that they can't fully replace. By the very nature of warfare, you are going to lose men.
In a large scale war like the USSR thought it would be fighting, there will be no places to turn an opponent's flank without having to break his lines first (at least, no places left after the first few weeks). So in order to win, the USSR's military thinkers came up with the idea of breaking through the enemy's lines to get at his reserves and C3. This is what deep warfare actually is, the envelopement portion is essentially a happy side affect and not the actual goal. The goal is the reserve units and command and support elements behind the lines that are not heavily entrenched and not expecting an attack. If your opponent cannot replace those losses quickly, then he will lose, and this is what is meant by attritional warfare. This is also the reason why the USSR had over 14 million trained reservists before the war began, and how they were able to form 13 entire armies between the time September and December 1941. 6 of these went to Moscow, and the Germans, who thought the USSR had no reserves left, was hit by a counteroffensive of 1.1 million men.
>>28090126
fuck you kike
Syrian Panzer IV captured from Syria in 1967 six-day war.
>>28090261
It wasn't really long enough for production to factor in.
>>28091116
Not after 1942, certainly not after mid-1943
>>28090126
>not knowing that Stalin was about to invade Europe and the only reason all of europe didn't go full commie for 50 years was because hitler invaded his ass
>>28090865
Because the T-34 while being more likley to deflect or take a hit, was also more likley to be a catastrophic kill when a penetration did occur.
(Ruskies didnt really give half a shit about ammo storage)
Its actually a huge design flaw on all T-series tanks, they got shitty ammo racks and they are inslalled in the turret, so a solid penetration has a much greater chance of causing sympathetic detonation.
Or atleast thats what they taught at anti-tank school when I was in.
No idea if the aramata has this issue or not, but historically the ruskies ergonomics and crew saftey measures have always been terrible to non-existent.
>>28090949
I've read stories of T-34s rolling off the assembly line unpainted straight into combat during the battle for stalingrad.
The Pz. IV was intended to only be a support tank. The Pz. III was supposed to be the strike tank, but then they needed to upgun further than they could fit on the Pz. III chassis so the Pz. IV it was. Ended up doing pretty well so the stop-gap solution turned into a long-term thing. The Panther was supposed to replace it but never could be manufactured in high enough numbers so they had to stick with the Pz. IV.
>>28090789
Your picture is wrong. Simply flipping one triangle does not accurately represent the relative width increase of actually rotating a piece of material. You actually thin the relative area by doing what you did.
Pro tip: if the rest of the world seems to be off of its fucking meds, you're probably off of your fucking meds.
I love it when /k/ommandos start trying to do math.
>>28090789
Well, yes, the armor's actual thickness is reduced but that's not important.
The important thing is that the cross section of armor the shot has to go through has increased
See, sloped armor works on the assumption that the enemy is shooting from the same elevation directly at the tank. If the enemy is shooting down at an angle then it doesn't really do anything.
Also, that image of yours also implies that you've elongated the piece, covering more surface.
>>28093160
>Also, that image of yours also implies that you've elongated the piece, covering more surface.
I think that's kind of his point.
You have to elongate it, because if you don't then it won't cover top to bottom. Which means the whole "effectively thicker" bit is ruined for parts that don't naturally lend themselves to a sloped shape (the front usually does). You give it a few degrees of slope to gain extra effective thickness, but this makes the plate larger since it's no longer taking the shortest path, so to keep it the same weight you make it thinner, which cancels out the increased extra thickness from the slope.
So if we look at a Pz4, at the front we can draw a shorter line from the top of the near vertical armour plate with the driver's vision slit to the very front than the two surfaces there currently follow. So if we swap to sloped there we save weight straight up, allowing for thicker plates at the same weight. Good!
But if we try to slope the sides, there's no such short cuts to be taken. We're going to need bigger plates to reach from the bottom to the top, so if we keep the weight we must thin down the plate. This will also most likely make things more complicated to produce, and make the volume in the fighting compartment harder to utilize effectively.
