>Multirole is stupid and just adds too much useless junk, everything should be specialized!
>>30260673
funny thing is, most of the 14 year olds on /k/ who think the F-35 is a lemon also think OP's pic was an effective AFV
>>30260682
It's a TD.
And most people know the Ferdi was shit, Porsche just HAD to build something with the Tiger P chassis.
First version had NO infantry protection whatsoever.
>>30260673
did its job better than any other tank
>>30260673
multi use is dominant in the dynamic modern day battlefield
because every needed specialization for a situation could not be where its needed all the time.
Statistically speaking, the Ferdinand/Elefant was a great tank destroyer.
Shame it had absolute garbage mobility, a tremendously weak power train and those big flat sides.
>>30260786
except for the fact that it was unreliable, heavy, expensive, and there was a much cheaper alternative;
the Hornisse/Nashorn had the same gun wrapped in a much smaller, lighter(three times lighter in fact) and unlike the Ferdinand, it didnt share its parts with an unreliable snowflake tank(assuming the porsche chassis shared parts with the henschel one)
>>30260873
If you have to specialize to the point where you're worthless against even the most common of threats (like infantry crawling on your vehicle), you've already lost.
>>30260985
if your vehicle designed to take out threats outside their own guns range is scaled by infantry, the battle was lost quite some time ago
>>30261015
I guess that's what happens when you design a vehicle that's only good in a wide open space with no terrain or cover.
>>30261037
gotta love those steppes
>>30260967
Nashorn had little in the way of effective frontal armor though. It relied entirely on not getting seen or hit.
>>30261145
Sounds kind US Army TD doctrine?
>specialized to do one thing
>breaks down all the time
>can't even perform the one task
>>30260967
It didn't if it was based on Porsche's submission to the Tiger I contract. Just finished reading Tiger by Feist Culver. Hitler himself shilled for Porsche and they still lost. It must have been complete shit beyond just breaking in its first trial.
>>30261247
It had the highest K:D ratio of any TD in the war.
It had a lot of problems engineering wise and operationally (The latter of which was fixed with improved visibility and an mg). But, when they worked, they did very well.
>>30261326
What's the point of a TD if your tanks themselves are vastly superior than everything else on the field?
If you read actual reports from the Eastern front they were absolutely demolishing T-34s and IS-2 even though the latter was a "better" tank.
>>30261347
For Germans, TDs were about cost, quicker RoF, and more powerful guns.
You didn't have to worry about the complexity or small space of turrets. Casemates allowed bigger spaces for the crew to operate the gun.
While stealth was also an aspect, that obviously does not apply to the Ferdinand/ Elefant or Jagdtiger. That goes more for the StuGs and Jagdpanzer 38t.
Keep in mind that the Ferdinands were just conversions of pre-built hulls because as >>30261311 said, Hitler heavily favored Porsche. So they were already built and the only costs were to throw on an armored superstructure and gun.
>>30260967
The only difference between the Tiger II models was the turret design. Otherwise they were the same vehicles with the same gun and same mechanical problems. The Porsche had the sexy, sleek curved turret while the Henschel used the boxy, welded turret. Interesting but an ultimately useless tank, the Tiger II.
>>30261458
(we were talking about the Tiger I)
>>30260673
>First version had NO infantry protection whatsoever.
pistol ports.
no very effective, but protection none the less.
>>30260702
>First version had NO infantry protection whatsoever.
pistol ports.
no very effective, but protection none the less.
>>30261498
my bad
>>30261510
Faggot
Why did Germany use gasoline for what seems like all of their fleet over diesel? Surely diesel fuel or alternatives would have been easier to procure than highly refined gasoline. Notwithstanding the advantages of flashpoint and flammability diesel has too.
>>30261549
my guess is that wasting rescources on producing gasoline was more efficient than modifying all powerplants for alternative fuels
>>30261549
Everyone exept the soviets used petrol/gasoline. Small diesel engines was (and is) difficult to make and in the 30s when german tank production was restarted they started with smaller tanks (such as the Pz I and II). They could have swapped to diesel later on when their tanks got heavier but I assume that there was a logistical benefit of using the same fuel as every other vehicle in the army uses.
>>30260673
Only Stug3 was better.
Funny how specialized vehicles like TD's are so damn good at that job they do.
>>30261685
Towed Flak 88 was better than it, didn't break down anywhere near as much and could go anywhere the Elefant could all while being less complex AND the crew could protect themselves from infantry.
>>30261158
Other way around, we based our TD strats on German tactics. Ironically the StuG turned that on it's head. Pak op pls nerf
>>30261737
Towed guns wasnt anywhere close to beeing as mobile as a TD. Once the battle has started they are basically stuck until the battle is over. They are also a perfect target for artillery/mortars.
On top of that the 88mm FlaK guns were shit AT guns compared to dedicated AT weapons like the PaK 43.
>>30261780
>Towed guns wasnt anywhere close to beeing as mobile as a TD. Once the battle has started they are basically stuck until the battle is over. They are also a perfect target for artillery/mortars.
How is any of this different from the Elefant which always ended up being a worthless pillbox because it broke down all the time?
>>30261780
>88mm FlaK guns were shit AT guns compared to dedicated AT weapons like the PaK 43.
but they were still better than most other AT guns jerry used, and they were multi-role which was a nice bonus
>>30261797
It was a pretty pillbox.
>>30261797
It didn't always. Out of 90 vehicles, about half broke down or otherwise had to be destroyed because they couldn't be retrieved. While that's still abysmal, that still means half of them were working.
It wasn't just about anti-infantry protection it was about overall protection. The Elefant was heavily armored and most of the pictures of them knocked out I've seen were destroyed by a direct hit from a large gun (152mm +). If a similar shell even landed near a towed artillery piece, the crew would be taken out.
At Kursk, the Germans knew the Ferdinand was not prepared to fight infantry and planned accordingly by assigning tanks and infantry to cover them as they pushed.
>>30261814
Efficiency wise they should've upsized the PaK to combat russian armor instead of putting FlaKs on tanks.
>>30261846
From a design and production standpoint it wasn't that bad of an idea. You already have foundries tooled to make the guns, so just adapt the design to serve a different purpose.
Even the Americans did that with several of our late and post war designs.
>>30261846
they never did put flaks on tanks, they made adapted variants, the kwk's
afaik pak/flak/kwk were only partially interchangeable, but i have no idea if you could use actual flak munitions in a kwk, or if they had 88mm AP rounds specifically for the Flak 36
>>30261814
>A large gun is better than a small gun.
No shit. The smaller AT-guns should be compared to smaller AA guns and not the 88mm FlaK.
>>30261999
i was refering mostly to the 75mm guns, and of course the 88 was better than the 37mm
but its ridiculous to call the Flak a shit AT gun when it outperformed basically all the other AT guns sans the 88mm PaK
>>30261779
we designed our TD's to use speed over protection, it worked.
>>30261406
you should really check out the crew quarters for a Jagdpanzer IV/70 and the Hetzer.
The casemate only BARELY allows for the gun a lot of the time.
The Stug III is probably the best example of what you're saying though
You also do not want to be in a box w/ a Pak 43 firing either.
>>30261845
They all broke down regularily and then had to be repaired on the battlefield or towed away. When you lose half the damn inventory to breakdowns, either your repair&recovery train is shit (which would be rather curious given the heavy TD battalions had as much capacity as regular Panzer REGIMENTS) or the damn vehicles break down every few miles to the point where calling them self-propelled becomes a sad joke.
>>30261779
completely wrong.
German TD's evolved from assault guns, lower cost alternatives to tanks to get armored fighting vehicles to more troops. That's what the Stug 3 was. The principle proves successful so they converted bigger vehicles along the lines of the Stug 3.
US TD doctrine, and the equipment to suit that doctrine came from observing the fall of France. They notice the Germans like to concentrate armor into a spearhead to punch through the lines. Thus the US TDs were made lightly armored and speedy. They were to be deployed en-masse, and use their speed to hit the flanks and blunt a german armored offensive. When overwhelmed, they would use their speed to disengage and set up another killzone further back and wear down the german push.
What ended up happening is that the Germans never massed enough armor for the US TD doctrine to see it's intended use, so the TD's got doled out to infantry regiments to serve as assault guns. The Germans were always on the defensive against superior allied armor. so they dug their assault guns into ambush positions to defend against allied tanks.
Equipment is designed for a doctine, whether they are deployed according to doctrine is a whole other matter.
>>30260673
why isn't the armor slopped?
I clicked on this thread hoping there would be conversation about breaking the main battle tank back into specialized roles again.
Wouldn't making more light tanks (and thus turning the current MBT into the new 'heavies') fit modern warfare better? Create light tanks whose role is infantry support with a 'good enough' main gun. And better able to traverse difficult terrain, and less of a loss if hit from the air by a drone strike. And light tanks are probably just as good against insurgents as the way heavier MBT.
The Germans developed a modern tankette that can be airlifted behind enemy lines to assist paratroopers.
>>30265320
>And light tanks are probably just as good against insurgents as the way heavier MBT
The issue with that is refitting your fighting force for asymmetrical warfare leaves you open when the enemy begins fighting conventionally, which is what happened when HAMAS opened up conflicts with Israel.
>>30265495
True, but don't have to abandon the MBT in order to field lights.
>>30265072
I think that it is a tiger tank chassis that has been reworked to be a casmate tonk
>>30265320
>he doesn't know about IFVs armed with 25mm-120mm guns
READ A BOOK NIGGA
>>30265495
Hamas never fought conventtionally against Israel, and neither Hezbollah.
>>30268587
>IFVs
ITS JUST NOT THE SAME.
>>30268663
nigga you retarded
You can put a 105-120mm on a god damn people carrier or wheeled chassis and shoot shit
A light tank and a ifv are basically interchangeable.
>>30260682
because it was, nigger.
it has the highest K:D ratio of any AFV in wwii
16:1 IIRC
>>30261347
>What's the point of a TD if your tanks themselves are vastly superior than everything else on the field
the stugIII killed more shit than any other AFV in WWII. they are cheap, small, carry large guns, and are fantastic on defense.
>>30268846
That's not difficult to do when you only make 91 of the things. Get one good enfilade ambush on a column of vehicles and wow look at how good our k/d is surely if we'd made more we would have won the war :^)
>>30261626
>but I assume that there was a logistical benefit of using the same fuel as every other vehicle in the army uses.
They had no diesel. It all went to Kriegsmarine.
>>30260673
F35 is fine. Ferdinand was ALSO fine. And I'm a slavboo ffs.
>>30260702
>And most people know the Ferdi was shit
No it wasn't.
>First version had NO infantry protection whatsoever.
It wasn't his job to fight infantry.
>>30260967
>the Hornisse/Nashorn
They could also lose a shootout with a T-34-76, as it could fuck them up even from the front.
>>30260985
Almost no Ferdinands were lost to "infantry crawling on them". They were lost to outflanking AT and VVS ground attackers.
>>30261797
>How is any of this different from the Elefant which always ended up being a worthless pillbox because it broke down all the time?
It was still HELLA more mobile AND well protected than towed guns.
