Americans made the best guns and vehicles in WWII.
>>60163826
But call of duty says the mp40 and the ppsh were the GOATs of WW2
>>60163826
If they won it dosent mean they had best weapons
>>60163826
Carcano is ok but I prefer mosin nagant
Kar98k is love
>>60163984
Carcano works great for killing presidents, +3 attack if you're in a book storage building.
>>60163826
Guns is true. Vehicles was a tie between the Sherman and the T-34 as to which was the better tank.
And no, While German tanks were mechanically impressive, they were over engineered to the point of being a both to make and repair. They also guzzled gas like nobodies business.
>>60163826
>implying
>>60164219
Israeli Shermans destroyed "modern" MBTs such as T-55 and T-62 in '67. Sherman is the better tank.
>>60164329
Yeah, but look at who was using the modern tanks
>>60163826
And, Britain made the funniest gun.
Thinking about it, they really did.
I think that from the top of my head, the only "bad" guns they had were the M1 Carbine, which did excell in it's intended role as a support troops rifle but became underwhelming when frontliners had to pick it up and use it, M1 flamethrower which sucked ass but then the M2 came out as the best in the war if not one of the best of all time, Tommy gun that was too heavy to be useful but then the Grease gun was developed which was a nice, cheaper and lighter alternative. If you want to bait you can say that the 1911 was also bad and not as good as the High Power, but really, at that time, 8 shots were enough and they continued to be enough until the "wonder nines" started to creep up.
>>60164402
you mean ugliest
>>60164402
And what have you made
>>60164329
To be fair, the Israeli's could be given sharpened sticks and still manage to destroy an Arab armoured contingent with minimal casualties.
>>60164554
That's kind of unfair, Arabs barely know how to operate a sword.
>>60163826
>Implying this beast isn't sexier than the American snipers
>>60164705
>Arabs barely know how to operate a sword.
they seem to be alright flying planes.
>>60164536
Our guns are fucking beautiful like our katana 2bh
>>60164787
>College educated Arabs who took classes in flight school
>Still crash into buildings for the glory of your sand god
Why is this? Are they mentally ill as a people?
>>60164800
I meant military use
>>60164888
It's because they are taught from a young age how the Islamic world used to be the center of civilization and all that shit. But realize once they go to western countries how much of a shithole their countries actually are. That kind of contradictory belief can break a persons psyche.
>>60164329
Ar*bs would've lost even if they had T-90S and T-14 tanks and any other possible equipment and armory. These sandniggers are pathologically incapable of any organized warfare, only for slaughtering each other in masses.
>>60163826
This is, hands down, the best gun produced during WW2.
>>60164953
You should ask it to your grandpa. He might know firsthand the power of our gun.
>>60165685
He got shot by one of y'all but he got way because the guy who shot had terrible aim. He drove the boats that would drop off troops on the beaches btw. Pic related
>>60165685
Delet this
>>60163826
True. At the very least they had the best rifles.
>>60166296
It's ok we have something that get them
>>60163826
PING
>>60165492
A prototype barely put into service.
The Mauser was still the german infantryman's standard issue gun in 1945.
Imagine how much fun this would have been to land.
>>60163826
German > American >>>> Russian >>>>>>>>>>> British > Japanese >>>> The rest
Step aside untermensch fucking shits
>>60163826
their machineguns were bad, especially BARs (M2s were pretty good)
M4E8 and Pershings were way better than T-34-85 and Panthers (not sure about T-44, but they played even smaller role than the Pershings anyway)
American TDs are completely different class than the Soviet/German, but all modern tank destroyers are American school "gotta go fast", rather than having 2 meters of frontal armor
Heavy tanks are overrated
>>60164454
M1 was actually really good, sort of a proto-assault rifle/PDW
I don't know where you got "intended role as a support troops", that's complete horseshit
>>60165492
this
>>60166597
>A prototype barely put into service.
not at all, they made like half a million of them
but it came too late to make a difference
>>60166920
>each platoon needed an extra squad just to carry ammo
nah
30 cal, slow, more precise, still deadly
What would you all use if you were a solider back then
I AM
>>60167208
I can't just choose to use any weapon I want, I'd have to use whatever I have ammo available, so basically what the army issues to me.
>>60167015
>their machineguns were bad, especially BARs (M2s were pretty good)
the BAR is a fucking WWI weapon, actually it was designed even before that
it was HUGE, very heavy and the mag had room only for 20 rounds
not fair to compare it with German weapons designed in the 30s
.30 cal and .50 cal BMG were the shit
>Heavy tanks are overrated
true, they're only useful as semi-mobile anti-tank vehicles (see Tiger I/II) but at that point TDs are better, smaller and faster (like the Hetzer or the Panzerjagers)
>>60167308
Oh, and in which case I'd very much like to be in the American army, where the standard issue rifle was a semi-auto instead of a bolt action like everyone else. Plus I'd get a nice 1911 on the side.
>>60164329
T-34's were much more influential though, almost all of Germany's tanks were based off changes made by it.
The panther and tiger tanks which were based off of t-34s were objectively superior to shermans.
Crazy krauts made some operator-tier shit
>>60165492
Muh dik
>>60164536
Watch your mouth, worm
>>60167015
>T-44
Serial production started in the end of 1944, they just came a bit too late for the party, just like JS-3.
>tfw yuropoors can't even own the rifles that saved them from living under a repressive nazi regime
>>60167448
I'll grant you the Panther since it has sloped armor, but the Tiger had nothing to do with the T-34.
>>60167457
Is that FG-42?
>>60165492
Too little, too late.
Also German soldiers said it was awkward to operate because after shooting it for a while the barrel gets too hot and you've got to place your left hand on the magazine since the designers didn't even put some wood to protect the hand from excess heat.
>>60167311
>not fair to compare it with German weapons designed in the 30s
exactly, they had obsolete WWI machineguns
but to be fair, Marines had had a few Johnson MGs, which were pretty good
>>60167494
yeah, their real importance was that they later evolved into T-54/55
they even look kinda like T-55 with T-34 turret
>>60167089
The MG42 was the reason the Germans were so effective in battle, 1200 rounds per minute meant there was a wall of lead sent your way if you poked your head up. a slow machine gun is a useless machine gun, an MG's primary role is not to kill but to suppress the enemy. And the MG42 was the best at it.
>>60167655
A modern version (MG3) is still in use
>>60167606
Yes
>>60167502
You can - just without the firing pin.
You can easily pick up an LE from most high street antique traders for around about £ 400 *thats $7000 in stripper bills
>>60167448
reply to this >>60164219
>>60167015
they had fundamentally different tactics though.
russian tanks and tank destroyers were built to produce defense hardpoints to counter the blitz, american and western front tanks were used for blitzkrieg style war.
>>60167457
That looks like it would hurt your wrist to try to aim for any period of time.
>>60167655
It's a good weapon, hell a great weapon, but requires extra manpower to be fully operational and despite being cheaper to manufacture than the MG34 it consumes so much ammo the Germans ended up wasting money anyway.
Perfect for defensive positions, not much on tanks or infantry platoons (which is why the MG34 was still the primary machinegun for tanks and infantry until 1944).
>>60163913
They were.
No French weapons. I'll fix that.
>>60167644
>obsolete
bruh, it's a machine gun, if it shoots where the barrel is pointing and in quick succession it's working.
The 50 cal Browning M2 is still used today, with few modifications since WW2.
>>60165685
Yeah first hand experience shooting it in our ranges after we pulled them off of your dead bodies.
>>60167738
>they had fundamentally different tactics though.
I know, most of the "XYZ had the best XYZ" are honestly kinda pointless,especially without realizing the doctrines and tactics they were used for
>>60167924
it was heavier than any comparable gun
the ergonomics were terrible
the little thigs - the bipod was secured by wing-nuts, which made it really awkward to deploy (especially under fire), nearly everyone else used modern bipods that just clicked into place and hold still
but most importantly, 20 rounds is too little for even a light MG
it was obsolete in all ways possible (expect the rate of fire, I guess)
the reason why did they get away with it was that everyone had a semi-auto rifle and they get the firepower that way
>>60168370
That's the BAR, they also issued the M1919 and well, the M2. Those two are belt fed.
>>60167550
He was probably reffering to Tiger II
>>60167907
looks kinda steam punky
>>60167502
You can though.
sexy
>>60169482
>garbage rod
>good
>>60168921
Half their guns look that way
>vehicles
no
>>60163826
I thought the Germans had the best machine gun, no?
>>60168477
M1919 was not especially terrible, but it wasn't particulary good either
as you said it, it's a belt-fed machinegun, nothing more, although it's bit too bulky and there is no way you can fire it on the move to provide covering fire, you have to deploy the tripod, which limits it's usage a bit
M2 is really a different class altogether
>>60169616
Is that the WW1 piece of shit we bought from them?
M1 Garand > Kar98 > Enfield > M1 Car > Mosin >>>>>> Japshit
>what is the Lee Enfield
lad.............
even towelheads still used Enfields in afghan
>>60169790
Idk they were using old stuff
>>60169925
everyone everywhere uses some WWII weapons to some extend
>>60170211
after wwii brits gave out truckloads of enfields to anyone and everyone they liked, and afghan was once brit clay
if the locals still haven't thrown out their enfields after being given aks by saudi arabia and the cia in the 80's then something's sparked with them desu
best raifu of ww2 coming throug
>>60170470
Hell no desu
>>60170390
because at longer ranges (shooting from one mountain to another), it's better to use full-sized rifle, but in most cases you wouldn't be in that position (especially in WWII)
they also used Mosin-Nagants a lot
as a matter of fact, Ukranians still use some WWII Mosins and anti-tank rifles right now
>>60171072
If it ain't broke don't fix it
>>60169925
Cheers for giving us a mention, It served us well in the war.
amazing what one can do with plumbing equipment
But were their vehicles /cute/?
>>60168527
That's some BR Favellatech looking shit.
>>60163826
>Thompon is very expencive, cheaper analogs are shit
>M1 carabine has this big "window" for extraction
>Same goes to M1 rifle with its loud "ching" and reload difficulties
>no good rifle scopes
>>60164095
This one is pretty good for manufacturing out of iron pipes or iron table legs.
>>60165492
Nice thing.
>>60169790
We've been buying this piece of shit during WWI too.
>>60171623
Tbh they were cheap made and our paras never liked them much, they weren't very reliable.
>>60170738
nugget senpai
/thread
>>60168527
>>60172017
Looks kinda out arty gun in WW2 put together more... "seriously".
>>60163826
I have used both an m1-garand and a nosing nagant, in a war I think I'd prefer the garand, but for fun, I definitely prefer the nugget
These are the only WWII era weapons I have ever used.
>>60164095
My grandpa saw some guy using one during WW2, he told me it was very unstable.
>>60172780
they weren't great, we've bad far better weapons desu. see >>60169925
>>60172780
They were so unreliable it wasn't uncommon throw a loaded Sten into a room instead of a grenade.
>>60172843
the magazine on the side makes me feel icky :p
>>60172843
I know, I believe they were build en masse and actually helped a lot, I'm not denying that, I was just sharing an anecdote. He also told me that the british rifles were said to be the best ones btw.
>>60169876
I'd put japshit ahead of mosin
Honestly, it's true.
Not even memeing
Württemberg Stronk
>>60164219
They didn't guzzle any more gas than other tanks at the time though, and mechanical problems were rampant in both Soviet and US vehicles.
>>60173491
What did cause the sherman to catch fire easily?
or is that just an old meme?
>>60163826
Whats your angle here italiatio?
>>60167448
Haha you dumbass, the Panther was a shit.
It was too heavy, too blind and too big to be worth it. Rushed out a year early and so underdeveloped it caught on fire on slopes because of an engine defect.
T-34 was influental, sure, but in every measurable aspect except size the Sherman was better.
The only time the T-34 has any measureable upper hand is with the T-34/85, as its 85mm gun had better HE than the 75 or 76mm Shermans, although the 76mm did have better penetration for anti tank work.
>>60163826
m1 carbine was shit
BAR was shit
thompson was shit
>>60173257
The finnish mosins were quite nice.
>>60167655
German infantry tactics were exactly the opposite of this.
The riflemen suppressed enemy infantry and the MG42 set up and killed the enemy squad.
Also there's a reason everyone who was given a license to produce the MG42 and even the Germans themselves at the end of the war started producing modified versions that only had 800-950rpm. 1k+ rpm is a dreadful waste of ammunition against people.
>>60173576
The idea is based on the fact that gasoline burns faster and it's easier to be put on fire than diesel.
>>60173839
All the mosins are nice.
>>60173826
So progressive.
Bravo.
>>60173826
>thompson was shit
Oh yeah, say that to my face
>>60172780
Depends on what version of the Sten.
Early Stens were roughshod POS desperation weapons.
Late war Stens and Stens made for commandos were of considerably higher build quality, and probably one of the most overall solid SMGs of the war. The suppressed Stens were nearly silent, you could only hear a light puff and the bolt clicking against the metal.
>>60173939
WHITEY WILL WALK
>>60173826
>m1 carbine was shit
Not sure
>BAR was shit
100%
>thompson was shit
M1 was shit. M1928 was great, but expencive. M1A1 was okay, but still expencive.
who StG44 here
While the tanks and other equipment are arguable, the USA undoubtedly had the best artillery in WW2.
Because we allowed NCOs to command artillery shots it drastically reduced the time to set up a shot. We also had special tables set up for every single possible situation including the heat of the guns, humidity, altitude, etc. created by a small army of mathematicians.
Pic related, each brigade had thousands of these and special tape measures to go with them.
All WW2 rifles.
>>60174239
saved
>>60174239
nice
>>60173576
>>60173875
Myth.
The Sherman burned exactly the same as any other tank did at the time. And that's because upon entry to the war they went into battle with 250% of the designated ammo supply.
The British were actually storing extra ammo underneath seats.
So anytime a Sherman was penetrated, it caught on fire at best and exploded at worst. You see this problem with literally every tank fielded, which is why militaries started limiting combat loads.
The Germans forgot about this upon deployment of the Tiger II, which initially stored ammo in the turret as well as the hull. On first deployment 3 of the brand new Tiger IIs were immediately knocked out by T-34/85s shooting the sides of the turret and setting off the stored ammo, causing all three tanks and the crew inside to be total and unrecoverable (and unrecognizeable) losses.
After the commanders started heavily restricting how much ammo you could put inside a Sherman fatality rates dropped considerably, as did burn rates. In 1944 wet ammo stowage became a thing which further dropped burn rates. To the point that in testing only 25% of frontally penetrated Shermans caught fire, and in practice, only 50% did in combat.
It is worth noting that a common tactic was to shoot a tank until it caught fire, so as to render the tank unrepairable if recovered. The fact Shermans only had a 50% burn rate as opposed to an 80%+ one shows that wet ammo stowage had a considerable effect.
Post war studies showed that of all the vehicles deployed by the Allies, Shermans were by far the safest. Casualties per penetration were under 2 out of the 5 crewmembers, something like 1.4 or 1.7.
It's worth noting that casualty rates for British and American crews were different, specifically because British tankers wore soft berets and American tankers wore metal tanker caps. As a result, the rate of wounded American tankers was higher, but the rate of killed British tankers was higher.
>>60174179
nerds
>>60173723
>except size
Sherman was only like 20cm taller at that
>>60173826
m1 carbine was essentially pistol replacement for low rank officers, rear troops (drivers, artillerymen,etc.) and was used by paratroopers who needed light weapons, sometimes by other soldiers because long rifles are awkward and heavy and .30 from close range will kill the guy just as good as the .30-06
thompson was really good, but also really expensive
bar was shit
>>60163826
What about the svt40 ppsh-41, kar98k mg42/34?
>>60174479
Oh and the STG44
>>60174411
Sherman does have a considerably larger profile than a T-34. It is only slightly taller, but it's hull is much larger, and it's turret is much much wider. The Sherman had four times the crew space as a T-34, it was roomy as hell but there was definitely more space occupied as a result of that.
>>60167877
>mp40 was the goat
PMSL the mp40 couldnt hit shit if it was farther away than 5 meters learn your facts
>>60174328
>>60174364
Thanks.
>>60174549
Bullshit commie propaganda as always.
>>60174694
The mp40 was so shit that germans on the eastern front eagerly tossed their mp40s aside if they found a ppsh on a dead russian.
>>60174832
All armies made heavy use of captured enemy weapons, especially anything automatic. The Germans had a chronic shortage of automatic weaponry throughout the war, especially early on when German rifle platoons were running into Russians armed with nothing but sub machine guns on a company sized basis.
The Russians used captured MP40s as well.
Automatic weapons were a rarity. They were used at every available opportunity by every army.
>>60174832
I don't believe that one bit.
>>60174239
>Winchester lever action..
>>60172626
It's a French MAS-38
>>60174832
Well, with all the dead Russians there was free ammunition everywhere.
>>60174832
We did that on RTCW all the time.
>>60174371
>British tankers wore soft berets
Gotta stay smart, even in death!
>>60174479
>svt40
Good, but why would you need it when the short range is covered by SMGs and the long is covered by bolt-action rifles?
>PPSh-41
Great, but heavy and the early production was kinda crappy - 71rnd drums could turn out to be suited only for certain piece. Later the problem got fixed.
And those 71 round drum mags were a bitch to resupply - between the fights you had to pull the spring and then put every round in its place. Common problem of any drum mag.
>Kar98K, MG
Nothing to say,influental and popular designs.
>>60174694
MP-40 was easy to control and light, that's the main advantages. The accuracy on long distances was shit, but then why do people used rifles?
>>60174832
>tossed their mp40s aside if they found a ppsh on a dead russian.
Funny fact - many soviet soldiers have been fond of MP40 because of its weight and many spare mags.
>>60175044
Well, germans have included PPSh in their weapon nomenclature in both 7,62 version and 9mm version converted to be used with MP40 mags.
>>60163913
The MP-40 was so good that every rich person in Brazil had one for protection.
>>60175205
>The accuracy on long distances was shit,
No shit Vlad, its a submachine gun not a rifle.
>Well, germans have included PPSh in their weapon nomenclature in both 7,62 version and 9mm version converted to be used with MP40 mags.
Thats because of shortages in supply not because the gun was better.
>>60175205
What about the pps 43. Very similar to the mp40 but higher rate of fire, less moving parts and i think a bit lighter?
>>60163826
I put like 500 rounds through my 91/30 on Memorial Day and only like 50 through my Garand.
Checkmate OP.
>>60175412
I pumped 500 rounds into your ass last night?
>>60163826
>TFW you have enough money to buy a Garand.
>>60175412
Your mother had 500 black cocks in her vagina and only like 50 white cocks.
Checkmate anon.
>>60173862
Someone know what he's talking about.
The Germans used riflemen for suppression and MGs for killing.
>>60164329
Comparing the Israeli Sherman's to ww2 Sherman's is like comparing the t90 to the t72
>>60163913
STG44 was the best sub machine gun of WW2. Anything else is debatable.
>>60175851
>STG44
>sub machine gun
triggered
>>60175365
PPS 43 was easier to produce, much lighter, but it couldn't use those famous 71 drums. It was pretty popular, but the production rate wasn't as impressive as PPSh's.
And the looks weren't brutal enough for artists and movie makers.
>>60175356
>Thats because of shortages in supply
More like because MP40 never was purposed to be a weapon for any soldier but for squadleaders and tank commanders. And trophy PPSh had great rate of fire, wooden stock and lots of spare ammo.
>>60175708
My grandpa was so disgusted with war that he never talked to me about it. And then he got an Alzheimer.
According to the documents he was an engineer. In 1945 he has crossed Oder and after capturing a lodgement he was constructing the bridge for infantry over the blown up railway bridge.
>>60175953
My grandpa was furious with any type of Asian person. My father said he lost two childhood friends and believed a Philippine nurse killed his wife. This was him never really got to know him due to Alzheimer's
>>60175632
No it isn't. They had the same armor and the same gun that was used towards the end of the war.
>>60175953
>More like because MP40 never was purposed to be a weapon for any soldier but for squadleaders and tank commanders. And trophy PPSh had great rate of fire, wooden stock and lots of spare ammo.
Yeah, so like I said, it was an issue of supply. average Joes wanted to ditch their bolt actions.
>>60173972
>The suppressed Stens were nearly silent, you could only hear a light puff and the bolt clicking against the metal.
nice bait
>>60175953
>My grandpa was so disgusted with war that he never talked to me about it.
Same mate.
He was shot down over Russia and somehow survived gulag and all that crap. Nobody knows how... Sad he died really early.
>>60176427
?
They used subsonic ammunition and were pretty damn quiet. The Germans would have made copies but Hitler didn't like it.
Allegedly one German fired off an entire magazine in the air behind his superiors to prove how silent it was. They didn't believe him until he showed them the spent casings.
>>60173723
>Le terrible Panther meme
Nice
Epic
I like it
>>60175174
It was mostly that you had to wear a radio set, and wearing a helmet and radio was horribly uncomfortable. Distracting even.
The US tanker helmet was specifically designed to incorporate the radio headgear.
>>60165346
From Brezhnev's memoirs.
"We urged them to make peace with Israel, but no, they insisted on war. So we gave them everything they asked for - aircraft, tanks, artillery, the latest. Even things that Vietnam did not have. They had double superiority in aircraft and triple superiority in artillery. Sadat called me on the phone at least three times screaming for me to save him. One of these instances was at 1:00 AM. I told him no, this is crazy. We were not going to die for them!"
>>60176658
i read the panthers were great in the battlefield, but had like a 50% chance of braking down on their way to the battlefield
don't know why though
>>60164329
Israelis with sticks > Arabs with M1A1's
>>60176925
Those were the initial Panther Ds, and even these proved just as capable in Russian wartime tests as the refined versions used by Bongs and French and babysitted by German engineer teams.
As a matter of fact, later in the war Panther's reliability surpassed that of the Panzer IV, but that was rather due to the latter becoming ridiculously overweight.
>the Irish Germanboo is back
>>60177059
The Panther was an unreliable mess throughout the war and never achieved any favorable kill rates. At best they were 1-1 at worst they lost more Panthers than they knocked out enemy tanks with.
>>60164329
>Arab warfare
should've stayed to swords and camels. atleast they'd do something with that
>>60163826
imo, the best guns, and by best i mean most influential (both good enough for its intended purpose and produced in large enough numbers for it to be widely available) were the m1 and mg34/mg42. these were the weapons around which the entire infantry tactics were formed. the american squads were groups of riflemen capable of firing rapidly from close range or firing precisely from far away, accompanied by a shitty machine gun, so the m1 rifle did most of the work. on the other hand the german squads were basically cenered around the mg, with the riflemen being there just to protect the machine gunners (the mg did most of the killing).
>>60177372
>At best they were 1-1 at worst they lost more Panthers than they knocked out enemy tanks with.
Well, I call for bullshit without finding any numbers.
The over all lose ratio (let's just pretend that the allies had no air superiority and killed many tanks this way and therefore call it kill:lose ratio) was 3:1. So every German tank killed 3 allied ones. Now you should know that the Panther was by far not the worst German tank. Keep in mind that the Panzer IV was still the most used tank till the end of the war.
>>60177372
Hence why it was universally considered the best tank of the war by analysts and historians, right?
>>60177999
>Hence why it was universally considered the best tank of the war by analysts and historians,
>>60178065
Well, it was.
It just was the best mix of good/sloped armor, speed, maneuverability and a great gun.
Of course it had not a big impact as the T-34 because it came to late and in way to little numbers, but quality =/= quantity.
>>60173939
Yea against unarmed civilians theyre great, thats what american weaponry is designed for.
>>60178285
Careful with that edge, Eugene.
>>60168547
Thank you merchant you really are our greatest ally
>>60178285
>says fucking germany
>>60178472
... the country that never had a real bomber squad like the allies.
>>60175708
>>60178511
... the country that started the holocaust and generalplan ost
>>60178600
>an oven is a weapon
What are you? Brit?
>>60178600
... the country that lost tanks to fucking SPEARMEN.
>>60177372
Thats entirely made up.
Did you guys know?
The brits won WWII because they had better infantry guns
youtube.com/watch?v=VXQygRVvEmM
>>60178600
Got any proofs for that?
>>60178758
Lindybeige a shit.
>>60178773
*tips stalhelm*
>>60178798
Thought so.
>>60178285
Yeah, why use weapons when you can use gas chambers?
>>60177936
Where are you getting these numbers from?
In tank on tank engagements in Normany the loss rate was 1-1. Over half of all Allied tanks were knocked out by anti tank guns alone. Mines knocked out a lot more. By the time you get to Germany itself 90% of all Western Allied armor was being knocked out by Panzerfausts and Paks.
German tanks performed on par or worse than Allied armor on the Western Front. And you can't claim air power was the cause of this. Ground Attack aircraft accounted for less than 2% of German armor destroyed.
>>60178798
Looks like the bait was far too obvious
>>60178179
>speed
It depends on the road quality and the model. The thickness of armor was different from one model to another.
The armor itself have suffered because of the decreasing alloy quality.
Can't say anything about maneuverability, since I've never tried to drive a tank.
KwK 42 cannon is comparible with ZiS-S-53 cannon.
>quality =/= quantity.
Yes.But, again, real war has nothing to do with duel of two tanks in an open field during a hot summer day. There's a lot of other factors. For example, the weather, the supporting troops, the tactics chosen by commanders.
Another strong side of T-34 is the reliability, simplicity of maintanance and use of spare parts from other tanks.
>>60167907
MAS 36 à cute
>>60178179
It also had horrible optics for the gunner, a massive profile, terrible reverse speed and couldn't go full speed without stripping the transmission. Making sharp turns at speed also stripped the transmission. And even if the transmission was taken care of it still died faster than it should have because the Panther was so bloated and overweight.
It's gun was great for AT work but it's HE was downright anemic. And the primary role of the tank had it facing infantry and AT guns far more than other tanks.
Tank on tank was a rarity.
Kind of explains why Panthers suffered such horrible casualt rates against anti tank guns. On top of their thin side armor of course.
>>60179811
Indeed
>>60179404
Which MAY have something to do with most of these tanks being manned by little kids pulled right out of school.
Also, even a Panther doesnt work so well once its just standing there awkwardly due to running out of ammo and fuel.
>>60175851
No, STG44 was the best medium tank of WW2.
>>60163826
T-34 > All
>>60172780
I guess that's what happens when you don't have a handle or grip of some kind.
>>60164787
>flying planes
nigga crashed it into a building how does it get worse?
>>60180491
Even trying to claim that you have the Battle of the Bulge where experienced tankers die in droves to American Tank Destroyers armed mostly with 76mm guns, although a few of the M36s were around with the 90mm guns.
A study was done to see how tank engagements usually played out. Overwhelmingly and largely irrelevant to the quality of the crew itself, the first tank to fire usually won. A tank ace explained this, "if you fire first you're calm and collected, and the guy you're shooting at is experiencing an existential crisis."
I believe I've butchered that quote but it is along the general flow of it.
owen gun was the best gun of WWII
>>60164095
They jammed. A lot. At least post the SMLE.
>>60181348
>tfw it would be illegal to invent that today
;_; I just wanna tinker in my shed without being arrested for being a gun-runner
Americans made the most cumfy and fun guns of WW2 this is a accepted fact.
>BOW BOW DING
>rattatatatatatata
You already know what American guns those are just by the sound.
>>60165685
>>60164800
They are pretty tbqh
>>60182137
>ding
Triggered as fuck
>>60167457
>>60167457
That gun was unbelievable fun and fucking operator to use.
>>60182137
w-what are they?
>>60182482
garand and tommy gun
>>60165492
The crazy long magazine always pissed me off, going prone with it would be awful.
>>60170738
>basing your firearm preference off of memes
The SMLE was better in so many ways:
>double the capacity
>more accurate
>detachable magazines
>still retains clip loading features
>>60164402
>anything worse than nip pistols
>>60174371
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
Here's a really good interview from an old Russian soldier about his experience with the M4.
>tfw you've had a M1 Garand and M1 Carbine delivered to your door for the princely sum of 730 dollars each
>>60181348
>mfw the owen gun was highly favorable by the americans and new zealanders to the point they swapped the thompsons out for them
>>60163826
pure SEX
>>60181348
That gun just screams NOICE
>>60185787
No memes involved. I just like it. Hard to get a scope on it
>>60181931
That very nearly happened to a mate of mine that has his own milling machines in his shed.
>>60189159
Did he also have a gun licence, or just the milling machines?
>>60165685
ask your women about how it felt to be raped en masse by Australian and American soldiers in revenge for comfort woman you four foot protein dodging pin cocked parrot
>>60189247
Just the machines. The cops raided his house and he was looking at getting in some pretty deep shit. But thankfully he hired a good lawyer that managed to get it down to a fine and possibly some community service or some shit like that. It's been a while since I heard the story, so I can't remember the particulars in exact detail.
>>60186833
Yeah. Nip machine guns for aviation.
>>60189528
like they wouldn't just do that because he had milling machines surely, must have been something else going on??
>i will never die storming the beaches on d-day
>>60189687
They didn't do that just because he had machines, they did that because they had reason to believe that he'd been machining gun parts, which he had been. He still has all his maching gear, but now he stays away from machining that type of thing.
>>60189447
Not the first time an Aussie has roasted a nip.
>>60189759
>maching
machining*
Fuck I think I need a nap.
>>60189447
>ask your women about how it felt to be raped en masse by Australian and American soldiers in revenge for comfort woman
Did that actually happen or are you just bantzing the pantz off him?
>>60163826
What a coincidence, I was planning on buying an M1 carbine replica chambered in 9mm tomorrow (well technically today)
>>60189770
Fuggen brilliant mate.
>>60165492
This
>>60186833
that looks "space aged"
original design, I'll give them that
>>60189851
Is that one of those reproductions /k/ was going spastic over?
>>60166406
weapons like this make me wonder why anyone sane volunteers for war
>>60189895
Well meaning people that are ultimately mislead and told that they're doing the right thing by invading shitty countries and killing poor people.
>>60189860
>"space aged"
Since Nambu was an inspiration for pistol designs in Code Geass and Dougram.
Fact.
>>60166406
pyromaniac here
I want one of those so bad ;_;
>>60189941
As far as I know, some flamethrowers are sold to farmers for some purpose.
>>60189890
It's my STG-44, took that picture the day I bought it.
Don't know about /k/ going spastic but it's chambered in .22 LR and the mag only holds 10 rounds which is kinda disappointing
Also it only fires in semi-auto, obviously
Still a bretty cool gun tho
>>60189935
>best tank
kek. It's like "let's discuss who is stronger batman or superman".
>>60190002
Have you ever shot someone?
>>60189969
Ones I've used and seen are more like flame-dribblers, they're not pressurised like those military ones.
Lmao plebs get outta my way
>>60190011
>It's like "let's discuss who is stronger batman or superman".
As in there are points that both sides can make, that both sides are pathetic, autistic fucks for having such a debate or both?
>>60189969
I doubt civilian versions are as potent as military issued
>>60190016
I shot my friend with an airsoft gun once
Other than that, no
I have taken it to the shooting range though and shot paper targets
>>60190027
the russkies totally copied us
>>60189793
Ahh man all bants aside it actually did happen and is a pretty big black spot in Australia's history, iirc during the occupation of japan in about '46 a bunch of Aussie troops cut the telephone lines of a few japanese blocks and just raped every woman and girl, don't hear about that on Anzac day
This is, in my mind, absolutely inexcusable.
that said thoguh FUCK you japanese a shits you creepy little slit eyed fucks you gimme the shivers
>>60190074
>not killing tanks with big ass rifles
>>60189895
I think hearing the screams of men burning alive is enough for me to not volunteer
https://youtu.be/ftInwlNNQ7Y
>>60190035
I'd say kind of both.
>>60190038
Mostly made from propane tanks and don't shoot out a stream
