Find a flaw /k/
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
Find a flaw /k/
>>30032209
I don't own one. That's a pretty big fucking flaw
Thin armor which had to be modified on the field, couldn't effectively penetrate german armor with it's small round, narrow tracks got stuck in mud easily
>>30032209
CMP's not selling them.
>inb4 T-34 shitposters
Not a 76mm.
made by clapburgers.
I already have a lighter.
>>30032209
The only real problem that the Sherman had was that it had a high center of gravity which gave them an unfortunate tendency to tip over, hurting mobility. As a result, they weren't as good off-road as other tanks. But there was a reason for this. The Sherman was built to very specific size and weight constraints so that it could easily be transported to Europe and so it could use bridges easily. So even the one real flaw had a reasonable justification to go with it.
Somewhat tardy with introducing safe ammo stowage and early models had issues with the engine.
Other than that, perfectly good medium tank.
>>30032209
it doesnt have any, at worst its components are "adequate"
>>30032233
>thin armor
In what time frame? At its entry into the war the only tanks with better protection were the KV-1 and the Churchill, and it had a far better gun and much more mobility than both.
>couldn't effectively penetrate german armor with it's small round
First off
>it is small round
Second, what time frame. At its entry into the war the 75mm could pen any German tank or self propelled gun at ranges far in excess of what they could pen the Sherman at, except for the extremely rare long 75mm armed Panzer IVs, of which existed a dozen on the Western Front until Italy becomes a second front. Even then, the short 75 on the Sherman was competitive until the end of the war, being able to penetrate everything the Germans fielded except their heaviest and most rare vehicles. It wasn't until 44 that the Sherman's gun became less than optimal, as Panzers finally rolled off production lines in the thousands.
>narrow tracks got stuck in mud easily
This is true. HVSS Shermans were a pretty gud upgrade.
>>30032398
That should be Panthers in the thousands. Panthers were Panzers of course, but someone might think I mean Panzer IVs or something.
>>30032398
>pen
back to world of tanks kiddo
>>30032414
>using shorthand because you're lazy and don't want to type a long word means you play bad games
Go back to /v/ if you wanna be a faggot.
Too expensive for a daily driver
>>30032431
At least it reduces the traffic issue.
>>30032209
Loses a 1/4 mile dragrace to a 911
>>30032209
Too tall.
>>30032421
you wouldn't be assblasted about typing penetrate if you didn't a childish video game
>>30032455
Yeah and you should brush up on rule 6, fagbutt.
>>30032466
I'd be assblasted if he insinuated I played WarThunder, cause I did and I wasted both time and money on that atrocity.
I mean, it was great when I started, and great when I kept playing, and then they removed Sim Tanks.
And then they changed the way penetration works.
And now I'm just fucking pissed.
>>30032482
>they removed Sim Tanks.
WHAT
that was the only redeeming factor
Wow.
>>30032500
This was like two years ago now, where have you been?
But yeah, they removed the one game mode without planes, and guess why I fucking played Sim mode to begin with.
It technically still exists but only as specific events, and surprise sur FUCKING prise, it has planes in it too.
>>30032523
>being bad
>>30032209
A couple, but they could be argued as nitpicks, acceptable design compromises, or the norm for its time.
Radial Engine
Sure it works, but the placement of the crankshaft meant that a rear drive sprocket was more or less impossible. This meant that the M4 had to have a front drive with the driveshaft running under the turret basket, this made the M4 surprisingly tall. (See pic)
Limited suspension travel (Applies to VVSS and HVSS)
The design of the bogie limits the tank to much lower obstacles than other tanks. But it meant that maintenance and replacement was relatively easy with external bogies.
Bow MG
This is more or less a non-issue, as the armor of the era was thin enough that a hole for an MG did not compromise the protection of the crew. Sure it was the norm at the time, but with the radio going to the commander, the amount of extra armor needed to protect the gunner, the limited firing arc, the position of the bow gunner was somewhat pointless.
Other than that the M4 is a perfectly fine tank.
>>30032209
>Huge because they were powered with fucking RADIAL AIRCRAFT ENGINES, thus a huge target
>Armor was good for its time (read: very, very early WWII) but was quickly outdated in terms of tank on tank combat because the US kept the design in use long after AT weaponry surpassed it
>Both gun and armor were kept usable for the role of infantry support through updates but were sub par compared to what it went up against late war
>Narrow treads hindered maneuvering and enabled it to get stuck in the mud
>Did I mention It's FUCKING HUGE
>Tiny road wheels
If ever I had to drive a Sherman, I would want to drive A) A Jumbo or B) A Sherman on the pacific front
>>30032209
Tall silhouette.
Other than that, it was a tank built with a different set of goals in mind than the later German panzers. Cheap, reliable, easy to mass produce, just good enough to be able to destroy a Tiger for every 5 lost. That's how murricans won the war.
>>30032532
The problem was I was GOOD.
And punished for it because bombs are fucking OP and ahistorical as hell because bomberfags complained it was too hard to kill tanks with bombs in their airplane fag game. So Gajew buffed bombs to fucking hell and back, but didn't think to maybe differentiate PvE bombs and PvP bombs.
When I go 18-4 in 3 games, and all three of my deaths are to fucking planes, including being carpet bombed by goddamn strategic bombers, something is wrong with the balance.
Just read this. The early shermans were a POS tinder box until the later ones came out.
>>30032602
Not sure if bait.
>>30032607
It's 110% bait.
>>30032602
>>30032607
>>30032618
>I haven't read the book. So it must be bait.
>>30032624
120%
>>30032602
Baito desu
>>30032602
I'm sorry, shermans are fantastic tanks and the best medium of ww2 and it got produced in massive quantities without faltering QC like the t34.
The fatality rates for sherman were insanely low, meaning being inside a sherman pretty much guranteed your survival
>>30032414
>>30032455
>>30032466
He said pen instead of penetrate, what the fuck is the problem here?
>>30032602
Well I've read a book, according to which the US and the world is governed by invisible space lizards.
>>30032653
Wait, is this b8?
Sounds like b8 and smells like b8. Everything I've read about Shermans says the crews were scared shitlessi going into combat in it.
>>30033106
Like so:
http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/
Can any tank buff rebute this? Honestly icurious here.
>>30033106
>>30033120
It's actually a pretty interesting talk if you can overlook the fact that he's paid by warjewming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
>>30033120
>Can any tank buff rebute this? Honestly icurious here.
Read the comments
>>30033120
>uses Death Traps as a reference
>>30032300
You mean made by the only ones who knew how to make parts that worked for more than one tank? That's a strength, anon, not a flaw.
>>30032209
tommy cooker trash, herrenrasse tank coming through
Ronson tanks
“Lights the first time, every time!”
>>30032557
>thus a huge target
People really don't know anything about how big tanks are, do they?
>>30032602
>anything Ambrose is involved in
Yeah, no
>>30033294
>>30033332
Heh
>>30033290
panzer IV is the definition of a polished turd. It was already outdated in the early war, and they kept adding shit to try to make it serviceable.
>>30033369
Except that's a Pz VI Tiger
>>30033379
They couldn't really do much to help the Tiger I. For a heavy tank it was decent enough. Nothing brilliant, but better than most of the time in ideal conditions. It's armor was sufficient, it's gun was pretty good for the mid-war period, and unlike the Tiger II it was at least possible for it to be somewhat mechanically reliable.
>>30032455
NIGGER
>>30032554
some of these are explainable, others not.
Bow MG is important because 99% of the time, tanks fought infantry or AT guns. A bow MG provides an under-armor MG to suppress infantry and AT positions. The Ferdinand/Elefant proved to be vulnerable to infantry because it had no MG, and they added one on the bow later.
Front drive sprocket was a choice to make operation of the gearbox easier. A rear suspension required a long linkage from the stick to the gearbox. For the technology at the time, this meant the driver needed a lot of strength just to shift gears. I'm certain you know the story about T-34 drivers needing a mallet to switch the gears on their tank. Not being able to switch gears as easily has a huge effect on mobility.
>>30032209
They didn't properly teach how to use the stabilizer. If they had, it would have been even more amazing.
>>30032306
>>30032209
Suspension
>>30032662
"Pen" is a common World of Tanks abreviation. Most of /k/ looks down at people who play it on the grounds that the game is not 100 percent accurate.
But most of /k/ are assholes anyway so take it with a grain of salt.
>>30032602
At it's best, "Death Traps" is a memoir.
>>30033965
>They didn't properly teach how to use the stabilizer.
Depends on the division. IIRC 3AD used them and found them to be useful.
>>30032398
>he thinks long 75mm pz4's were rare
They were extremely common. But thanks to Germany's retardation and making all their tanks big dumb squares, the Sherman's 75 was just as effective as the Pz4's 75.
>>30034260
Most units didn't know how to. There were exceptions, but, like I said, exceptions.
>>30034284
>They were extremely common
Not at that point in the war or in that theater.
>>30034284
No, the "Panzer Special" was very very rare in North Africa. Most of the German armor in North Africa to begin with by 1942 were Panzer IIIs, and the few Panzer IVs on the front were mostly the short 75mm armed versions. You don't see a significant amount of PzIVs with long 75s on any front until 1943 when it became standard, and 1943 is also when the PzIV has its front hull plate up armored to 80mm in thickness, giving it a decent chance at bouncing the Sherman's 75 at a distance, whose penetration was about 94mm at 100m. At longer ranges the German's long 75 had better muzzle velocity and of course was rated to penetrate about 114mm of armor, so it could make short work of Shermans caught in the open, so long as they weren't angling their armor at all. Of course, the PzIV's turret armor was 55mm at the thickest where the gun mantle overlapped with the armor, and the chassis couldn't take more armor to the front of the tank, so even in 1945 a Sherman could hole a Panzer IV's turret at range.
A German Tiger tank ace later wrote, he considered Shermans frontally impenetrable when angled at 30 degrees, and the Tiger's 88 had a good bit more penetrating power than a Panzer IV. So to think Shermans were tinderboxes that caught fire when you looked at one flies in the face of a lot of factors, including eye witness testimony.
Of course, it is unreliable eyewittness testimony, but the math holds up pretty well. Germans angled their tanks too. It's half of why they designed their tanks as boxes. And having flat, thick armor makes your tank less vulnerable to overmatching.
There are pros and cons to tank armor, angled gives you more protection for less weight and crew space unless you build really big. The Sherman had about the same protection on the hull (superior turret protection) as a late war PzIV, but the PzIV was tiny in comparison. Not nearly as roomy on the inside, but not nearly as cramped as the slightly larger T-34.
>>30033833
>Long linkage requires more strength
Jesus christ how mechanically illiterate.
>>30032209
Rear engine and frontal transmission. Makes the tank taller than need be.
>>30032233
its armor was about as thick frontally as a tigers the problem is it was facing 88mm guns.
>>30032209
At the time of first production? Not many. They had to be scrambled out and were built using the basis of an old chassis, IIRC.
In retrospect, so, so many. Too tall, thin treads, less effective weapons, thin armor.
However, it's remarkable that an old tank didn't have many, if any, shot traps.
>>30032209
>Poor armour
>taller than need be
>lightweight gun
>bit slow
Good for the time,but there are many flaws.
Why disguise it if you couldn't hit shit with it.
Firefly.
>>30036320
True, but it wasn't unreasonably tall and they used the space well.
Mandatory reading: Soviet tank pilot's recollections of his time with Sherman tanks
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
The Sherman had its weaknesses, the greatest of which was its high center of gravity. The tank frequently tipped over on its side, like a Matryoshka doll (a wooden stacking doll). But I am alive today thanks to this deficiency. We were fighting in Hungary in December 1944. I was leading the battalion and on a turn my driver-mechanic clipped a curb. My tank went over on its side. We were thrown around, of course, but we survived the experience. Meanwhile the other four of my tanks went ahead and drove into an ambush. They were all destroyed.
>It is considered noteworthy that the Sherman was very well appointed on the inside. Was this true?
It was true. These are not just words! They were beautiful! For us then this was something. As they say now, "Euro-repair"! This was some kind of European picture! In the first place, it was painted beautifully. Secondly, the seats were comfortable, covered with some kind of remarkable special artificial leather. If a tank was knocked out or damaged, then if it was left unguarded literally for just several minutes the infantry would strip out all this upholstery. It made excellent boots! Simply beautiful!
>>30035024
It does in that context.
Remember people complaining that Bullpups have mushy trigger pulls? Mechanical linkages are not perfectly rigid, long linkages have more give to them and the driver has to apply more force to the stick to get through that.
Getting the movement of the gear stick to the rear gearbox also requires a few more changes in force directions, and every time you do that you lose some force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTnS0XS2al8#t=18m04s
The guy driving the T-34 is a former tanker, and not a weakling. The T-34 itself is in excellent conditions.
Look at how much force he has to put on the stick to shift it.
>>30033332
I chuckled.
>>30032209
its not the E2
You do realize even the allied tank crews themselves mocked this piece of shit for its predisposition to go up in flames in no time
Basically it was a coffin
Allied equipment was generally outdated (browning mg was ww1 era too for example) woefully compared to the german one but they made up for it with their zerg rushes/numerical advantages against the axis
>>30037782
So you posted nothing relevant. The book death traps has been proven false.
The M4 when it was made was better than any German tank, it also had exactly the same chance of catching on fire and buy the end of the war was one of the least likely tanks to catch fire second only to the tiger 1.
>>30037782
>Shitty bait or moron spouting nonsense
Either way, here's your (you), dullard.
>>30032233
>memes
>>30036380
best ww2 era sherman variant
>>30032209
Tall
Flat
Squared
>>30032209
Vulnerable to every post-1940 anti-tank weapon, including hand-held ones.
>>30038006
Same as Pz3-4, tiger 1, kv1 and many other tanks. Also the front armor is sloped.
>>30038012
So are the tanks built buy other nations in the same time frame other than the matilda.
>>30034188
Mind if I save that pepe?
>>30032209
High center of Gravity, thin treads, low caliber cannon that didn't have AP rounds (If this is the cannon I'm thinking of), Side armour was easily penned by German disposable launchers and even 20mm Rifles, High profile made it hard to hide, etc...
Most all of the problems stem from Patton still living in the days of WW1 and wanting an Infantry Support vehicle instead of what tanks were moving towards as big heavy brawling bullet magnets
>>30033649
Mature
>>30032209
Gun too small. Get a bigger one.
>>30040294
>High center of Gravity, thin treads
Yes
> low caliber cannon that didn't have AP rounds (If this is the cannon I'm thinking of)
No, the 75mm cannon was THE anti-tank gun of choice for most of the world. The 76mm gun was basically a high velocity variant.
> Side armour was easily penned by German disposable launchers
That's pretty much what a panzerfaust is designed to do. Shaped charges were relatively new weapons. It wasn't until the 1930s that people started making anti-tank weapons with them.
>20mm Rifles
Never heard of that before. Source?
> High profile made it hard to hide, etc...
Granted, it's no StuG
>>30032482
Here you go Comrade
>>30032209
I'll see your tank and raise you a Finnish tank stopper
>>30033291
You realize Ronson didn't use that slogan till the 1950's. In reference to the Sherman, it's revisionist bullshit.
>>30032209
>glorious 105 gun
nice
did the 2nd AD have any markings on the tanks themselves? the insignia or a number or anything, or was it just patches on the crew's uniforms?
>>30032209
It's not a StuG
>>30032602
Haha you mean a book written by a non tanker and a POG and REMF ?
>>30032306
Nevermind, I just spotted the World of Tanks fag
>>30032300
And the equipmentless limey
>>30032209
Mass produced, always something wrong or not up to spec. Was easily rectified due to ease of maintenance however
>>30040817
They started using it long before that, but it was just one of their many, many slogans.
>>30032209
>but muh indestructible sherman
>>30032565
they changed the bombs again because tankers were pissed, so now it is an assault fuse that sits on the ground for like 3 seconds then explodes, enough for a light tank to get away.
>>30042751
You just kicked up my autism!
Since when have the indestructible Sherman ever been a meme? I don't even remember their legendary rep making them the proto-Abrams.
>Look at all those shell piercings that went through the side of it.
Yeah so if you did the same to the Tiger, it would have similar results. I also hear that if you kick a male in the testicles it will cause intense pain.
>>30042751
Nobody claimed the Sherman was invincible. Even the Maus wasn't invincible. The Sherman was simply good enough and it stayed good enough that the US didn't bother replacing it until after WW2.
>>30042791
>I also hear that if you kick a male in the testicles it will cause intense pain.
Of course you'd have only heard such a thing, for you to know it first hand you'd need a pair.
>>30032233
And yet the Sherman has a positive kill ratio against all German tanks if faced on battle.
>>30042751
>tank regarded as good
>"ITS NOT INDESTRUCTIBLE THEREFOR ITS SHIT"
wew lad, how do you sleep at night knowing you're alone and hated by your peers
>>30032602
Enjoy your (You)s
If the Sherman actually had access to HVAP rounds in WW2 like they did in Korea instead of trading for the few a TD crew might be willing to part with, that would have been a game changer.
>>30043239
You've had plenty of pairs draped across your forehead.
>>30032220
Underrated post
>>30043432
Sure have, I'm a cocknoisseur.
>>30043469
I'm too big.
For you.
>>30043413
>a game changer.
changing the game to what?
a scenario in which germany loses the war even more?
a scenario in which shermans come out with even more wins against german armor than they had historically done?
a scenario in which the sherman is an even better tank with one of the best survivability rates as well as battle performances of the war?
>>30043499
>>30040748
lone survivor quote
>>30032209
>>30043502
More crews coming home safely
less dependency on TDs
The legend of the tank would certainly improve too.
If I remember correctly the Russians test that the 75mm alone on the Sherman was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of even a Tiger. Give that it had the proper HVAP ammo.
>>30043267
>implying KD ratios apply in any situation
>>30043577
>hurr durr I rather had rode in muh superior German tank.
Whatever you say bub. Enjoy being a cosmetic nigger like this kraut.
>>30043577
>German tanks are safer
>>30043502
this guys should read
>>30043602
This guy.
The M4's in Korea were knocking out T-34-85s in one shot because of HVAP rounds. You give the WW2 M4's that Anti-Armor Capability to go with their already superior support ability and shit is different.
>>30043748
There's also the fact that the Sherman had more safety against small arms fir, shrapnel, and explosives due it's heavy armor. The Wolverine had an open top where fragments and small arms could rain inside where the commander was. The Hellcat M18, while a total tank killer, had armor so thing that it was vulnerable to 50 caliber fire in some spots.
>>30043863
*armor so thin
Greetings /k/, couldn't find a tank thread, this'll do. Was listening to "Bosnian artillery is led by God", a song I believe you're familiar with,
What tank in pic related ? the wheels/tread setup comes from a western tank design (I would assume a M48 left by the allies), but the turret is from somewhere else.
So ? T34-X turret on an M48 chassis ?
>>30043625
And yet inferior Shermans destroyed more superior panzers than where destroyed by them :^)
>>30043982
That looks like Chaffee or Walker Bulldog.
>>30032209
>Named after a piece of shit who never won a fight against anyone except civilians.
>>30044602
Cry harder, Dixie.
>>30032306
Underrated
>>30044610
He's right, you know
>>30032602
Just going to say, as a grad student in military history, fuck Ambrose.
>>30043863
There's a price for going 60 mph, I suppose.
>>30032209
No need, its mediocre against heavy tanks and tank destroyers.
>>30044919
>>30044919
> Every tank is a heavy tank or tank destroyer
I can see why Germany lost the war
>>30045133
>Muh Warthunder
DESU KYS SENPAI
>>30045290
>>30043982
That's an M47.
>>30044919
After action analysis of tank battles during ww2 by the army corps of engineers found the Sherman was about 9x more effective on the attack than German heavy tanks.
>>30045531
Source?
>>30032298
HEY! I live right by this tank, state college, PA!
Not gonna lie, the English Channel was quite effective at disposing of them
>>30032554
that picture is misleading. you can see that the tiger have sunken into the ground.
>>30045676
I stand corrected, apparently the Tiger II actually does appear shorter than normal in that picture.
Still, the Tiger II is 309 cm tall and the M4 is 274 cm tall. 35 cm isn't much considering the difference in weight.
>>30045585\
Few things it was by the army's ballistic research lab which did the aar. from Steven Zaloga’s Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944
id like to give a link to the actual report but i dont have it.
conclusion was
>The average distance at which a US tank kills a Panzer(late IV, V, & VI) - 893 yards(816 m)
>the average distance Panzers killed US vehicles - 943 yards(862 m)
>Panther v. M4 engagements: Panther had a 1.1:1 advantage while on the defensive
>Panther v. M4 engagements: M4 had a 8.4:1 advantage while on the offensive
>>30032209
Tall as Jamal when he plays B ball
>>30032220
Missing its melee attachment.
>>30046542
I sometimes wonder why we didn't deploy those in Iraq.
>>30043625
They're not a pure measure of how good a tank is, however they do refute the claim that the Sherman couldn't effectively penetrate German armor.
>>30043748
And indirect fire capability.
Most U.S. armor had the facilities to act as impromptu artillery, with great effectiveness.
The vast majority of Axis armor lacked the azimuith indicators or precision elevation indicators that U.S. tanks left the factory with.
>>30046542
Why don't they make something like this but its spins 360 around the tank to disable incoming ATGM's and rockets?
>>30044651
No he isn't samefag. Cry harder.
>>30044919
Call of Duty has now been replaced by World of Tanks.
>>30044602
He won the fight against traitors and slavers.
>>30032554
>Radial Engine
>Sure it works, but the placement of the crankshaft meant that a rear drive sprocket was more or less impossible. This meant that the M4 had to have a front drive with the driveshaft running under the turret basket, this made the M4 surprisingly tall. (See pic)
Radial engines were the epitome of reliability at the time (still are) and being air-cooled, they were cheeper and less prone to failure (fighter planes with entire jugs shot off, etc.) and the Sherman or any tank could be built with a rear drive and rear mounted radial engine (see: M6 heavy tank) and even with a front drive-rear engine configuration, there was no need for the high angled drive shaft if a transfer case had been used (see: M18 tank destroyer).
>Limited suspension travel (Applies to VVSS and HVSS)
Suspension travel on the Sherman was no less then a tank using torsion bar or other type of suspension.
>The design of the bogie limits the tank to much lower obstacles than other tanks.
The bogie wheels have nothing to do with maximum obstacle height.
>Bow MG
>This is more or less a non-issue, as the armor of the era was thin enough that a hole for an MG did not compromise the protection of the crew. Sure it was the norm at the time, but with the radio going to the commander, the amount of extra armor needed to protect the gunner, the limited firing arc, the position of the bow gunner was somewhat pointless.
WWII was an infantry war right up to the end making a hull machine gun critical, which is why the Germans modified their Ferdinand tank destroyers with a hull machine gun and the U.S. had to relocate the .50 on M10 and M36 tank destroyers.
>>30032602
>>30032209
It's reputation
