[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: T-34 0009.jpg (318 KB, 942x533)
318 KB
318 KB JPG
Aside from the T-34, what are other examples of those military machines that you could spend an eternity laying out their flaws, ranging from the minor to the seemingly catastrophic, but which were nonetheless unarguably the best weapon for the role and the historical situation?

Like how the Fairy Swordfish is one of the most effective torpedo bombers of ww2 despite being a biplane, or the AK-47.
>>
>>41743528
>enjoying a cup of hot coffee
>while driving a T-34
things that never happened
>>
File: E0UyJ.jpg (679 KB, 2205x1429)
679 KB
679 KB JPG
>>41743528
>his cross section has no intestines

*Ahem*
>>
File: T-34 0001.jpg (118 KB, 1099x420)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>>41743544
I'm fond of this one, if only because of the optimism of that little first aid kit
>>
File: ACD00012450_0_l.jpg (54 KB, 512x308)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>41743528
>Ju-87 Stuka
While proven mostly obsolete in a divebombing role on the western front, the krauts found it useful as a tank buster against the vatniks until the very end of the war.
>>
>>41743620
>until the very end of the war

They withdrew them in 43, at that point the Soviets had partial superiority over the front and Ju-87s were absolute sitting ducks
>>
>>41743639
They were still flying stuka missions in 45' on the eastern front to great success. If you were not an illiterate retard you might have known that.
>>
Iconic, and while definitely not perfect, I dare you to name something more iconic from the time
>>
>>41743528
What was biggest flaw of T-34?
>>
>>41743735
They were often filled with Russians.
>>
>>41743735
Sloping the side armor made the tank unnecessarily cramped. Not only did it make it hard for the crew to do their job but it also meant that shooting the T-34 anywhere could result in damage to multiple components and\or crewmembers. When the T-34 took damage it was also hard to get out of it. You only had 2 hatches, one for the driver cut out of the glacis plate and one for the gunner\commander. If the tank caught fire chances were you'd loose most of the crew.

The sloped side armor also meant a smaller turret ring which meant that up gunning the T-34 meant a complete turret replacement. Hence the T-34-85 looking drastically different than the T-34

Finally, the sloped sides weren't even that beneficial as a shot one foot lower would hit the flat lower hull or treads as the T-34 had no skirt armor.
>>
>>41743535
As if Soviets could afford such luxury as coffey
>>
>>41743672
>>41744323
They were also a bitch to shift gears, had no turret basket, and the sloped sides actually made it easier for german gun cas to penetrate from above.
>>
>>41743735
Production wuality
When it appeared in 1939 it was absolutely the best tank until 1942. Panzers 3 couldn't hope to compete with it/
>>
>>41743746
This is a mic drop moment.
Take a bow, good sir.
>>
>>41744376
>When it appeared in 1939 it was absolutely the best tank until 1942. Panzers 3 couldn't hope to compete with it
And t-34's couldn't hope to compete with pziii's at the time either. You know those stories where a t-34 would bounce dozens of 37mm shells before being knocked out? In the majority of those cases the crew in the t34 was so blind that even after taking all those hits they still couldn't see who was shooting at them. Krauts were even able to roll 37mm AT guns up stupid close range to penetrate t-34s without being spotted.
>>
>>41743701
Very informative file name anon
>>
>>41744343
The shifting gears was more of a build quality issue than design (although I believe the T-34 used a rear transmission design that tended to stick) and taking out the turret basket dropped costs while adding precious internal space in exchange for occasionally KOing the loader.

>Vasily, be careful, I'm swinging the turret left

Wait, what?*Clonk*

>...Vasily?
>>
>>41744457
People forget that you have 255 characters for a file name.
>>
File: Panzer.jpg (36 KB, 652x300)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>41743528
>military machines that you could spend an eternity laying out their flaws, ranging from the minor to the seemingly catastrophic
>but which were nonetheless unarguably the best weapon for the role and the historical situation

Panther tank?
>>
>>41743672

Nuisance attacks at night were also flown by biplanes, this doesn't mean that they still weren't obsolete.
>>
>>41743544
I remember seeing this in a book as a kid years ago. Had no idea what was going on at the time.
>>
>>41744429
> Implying the T-34 would have ammo to shoot at the AT gun
The ammo shortage of 1941 neutered the firepower advantage of the T-34
>>
>>41743528
>military machines that you could spend an eternity laying out their flaws, ranging from the minor to the seemingly catastrophic, but which were nonetheless unarguably the best weapon for the role and the historical situation?
>>
File: 92d.jpg (5 KB, 211x239)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>41744547
That's the whole point of the thread dipshit. Obsolete or extremely flawed shit that still got the job done.
>>
>>41744537
Daimler's submission to the VK30 program would have been more serviceable, which counts for a lot. I would propose the Sherman in its place. Numerous flaws yes but there simply wasnt a more well balanced and serviceable vehicle in any inventory anywhere. Dead simple to work on, reliable, just heavy enough, just powerful enough, didnt try to kill it's own crew, and if you needed one with a better gun or more armor, shit, those were on standby too (muh Jumbo, muh 76).
It wasnt a perfect tank but it was the perfect one for the task at hand.
>>
>>41744429
Nevermind the AT guns, those things were always hard to spot. I've heard tales that T-34 crews missed entire Panzers because they couldn't see them.
>>
>>41744787
Also about two dozens on T-34's were destroyed by an ambush of only a few panzers one after another because of lack of radio communication or some shit.
>>
>>41744726
>"arguably the best weapon for the role"
>totally obsolete by 1942
>ended up used in a role shared by armed training aircraft

It lost its job early in the war and the squadrons were resupplied with fw-190, what are you on about?
>>
>>41743735
Build quality.

That and then optics.
>>
>>41744429
no they weren't lmao it's all is a german retarded myth, there's no place in t34 where a 37 mm could pen
>>
>>41746032
Yes it could Ivan, underneath the sloped side portion right above the tracks. It's been done.
>>
>>41743620
obsolete even before entering service,
fighter bombers are much better and much more resourceful
>>
>>41744537
the panther is the direct opposite of what the germans needed, a complex, expensive and impossible to maintain on the battlefield
>>
>>41746211
Look at the population numbers between the Soviets and the Nazis. If the Nazis didn't build top quality machines that could trade 5:1 with the Russians they'd loose on attrition alone.
>>
>>41746203
so was the fairy swordfish but op said it qualified.
>>
>>41746211
Too complex, tiny unnecessary details and early ones were riddled with baby flaws, but it was exactly the kind of tank germany needed. They didn’t have the oil or rubber to compete numbers wise, so a technological edge was one of the only ways germany had to compete. Hence they exhausted any wunderwaffe they could.

That said a low mag or unity sight for the gunner would’ve helped. Or dropping the mechanical turret clock lining the cupola. Or dropping the cupola vision block wiper. Or not putting on a paste that only counters magnetic mines, which only you use.
>>
File: 1434610285815.jpg (441 KB, 2000x1125)
441 KB
441 KB JPG
>tail falls off
>pilot has to wear oxygen at all altitudes to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning
>total failure as a high altitude interceptor and replacement for the Spitfire

but once the design matured:

>powerful low altitude interceptor
>by far the most influential commonwealth fighter bomber
>in the running for the best fighter-bomber of the war overall
>>
>>41743528
But the Soviets also employed the Sherman in the same theater, which outperformed the T-34. Similarly, the Sherman outperformed the T-34

>>41744343
>WW2 CAS
>getting direct hits on tanks

Bless your heart

>>41744376
Panzer 3s had something like a 3:1 exchange ratio vs T-34s. The T-34 had one of the worst ever combat debuts, and it didn't get much better for the rest of the war.
>>
>>41743544
I once saw an anon reply to this image saying they've heard a story about the turret dismembering a crew member while turning, is that actually possible?
>>
File: dunning-kruger-3.jpg (216 KB, 1200x1041)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>41748829
>WW2 CAS
>getting direct hits on tanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE

Fucking retard

>Panzer 3s had something like a 3:1 exchange ratio vs T-34s.
Source very fucking much needed

>The T-34 had one of the worst ever combat debuts
like the part where Soviet tank aces achieved kill counts in the dozens upon its introduction?
http://wio.ru/tank/ww2aces.htm

>inb4 muh soviet propaganda
The T-34 is greatly exaggerated effectiveness but retards over compensate when bashing on them. If they were as ineffective to the point of almost unusable as people make them out, then the success of Soviet Armour offensives must boil down to the Germans being absolutely shit at fighting tanks, which we all know is very far from the case.
>>
File: 1189_rd.jpg (71 KB, 500x235)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>41744547
>Nuisance attacks at night were also flown by biplanes, this doesn't mean that they still weren't obsolete.
Except biplanes were not protected for ground attack nor could carry adequate weapons for tank busting. As I said before the krauts were still flying stuka missions on the eastern front until 45' in broad daylight with stupid success.
>>41744907
>It lost its job early in the war and the squadrons were resupplied with fw-190, what are you on about?
It lost its divebombing job early on but continued on tank busting with 37mm cannons until the very end. The ground attack 190's only supplemented the stukas as they were never produced in enough numbers.
>>41746203
see post >>41746408
>>
>>41744376
>>41745844
This is what I have heard too, some units were very well made with all components working together and on some units you could see light through welding seams.
>>
>>41746293

Finally someone with above room temperature IQ on /k/
>>
>>41748665

Was effortlessly cucked by the F4U
>>
>>41751645
>The ground attack 190's only supplemented the stukas as they were never produced in enough numbers.
Fw-190's began to replace Ju-87s in the ground attack role by early 1943 and outstripped them in numbers by that time next year. The Fw-190 was THE mid to late war ground attack aircraft for the Luftwaffe.

> As I said before the krauts were still flying stuka missions on the eastern front until 45' in broad daylight with stupid success.
There were literally 10 Stukas on the eastern front for carrying out AT missions. Of those ten, nine were serviceable by January of '45.

>Except biplanes were not protected for ground attack nor could carry adequate weapons for tank busting.
You've missed the point. I was pointing out the only jobs it could handle confidently were those also carried out by those aircraft as well.

I mean the point of the thread is that despite technical deficiencies how does the equipment end up as the best weapon for the role, and the stuka simply doesn't stack up when its outperformed by virtually all of its contemporaries and is pretty much redundant within its own airforce.
>>
File: you have to go back.jpg (85 KB, 768x1024)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>41751682

>hurr durr whistling death bombing a handful of japs stuck on an island surrounded by hundreds of us warships

ok retard

the f4u wasn't even the most impressive US fighter bomber
>>
>>41743746
KEK
>>
>>41751855
>There were literally 10 Stukas on the eastern front for carrying out AT missions. Of those ten, nine were serviceable by January of '45.

not to sure which crevice of you body you pulled that one from, but surely a little common sense would tell you thats a fucking stupid claim.
>By 31 January 1945, only 104 Ju 87s remained operational with their units. The other mixed Schlacht units contained a further 70 Ju 87s and Fw 190s between them.

Not an awful lot and im sure plenty more FW190's were dedicated to ground attack but still enough to make a significant contribuation to the last great German air attacks that helped delay the Soviet push on Berlin.

>In the first three days of February 1945, 2,000 vehicles and 51 tanks were lost to German air attacks.
> The contribution of the Ju 87 was exemplified by Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who claimed 13 enemy tanks on 8 February 1945.


So totally obsolete airframe? Sure. Biplane tier obsolete? Now thats a gross exaggeration.
>>
>>41744338
Or even cups
>>
>>41750626
No, it boils down to the soviets having no better tactic than to zurg rush the germans who couldn't kill the soviets fuckin fast enough. Its a piss poor, dishonorable strategy, but I guess I can't complain cause the communists ended up getting a lot of communists killed.
>>
>>41752496
Way to fucking go Hans!
>>
>>41752510
>the soviets having no better tactic than to zurg rush the germans who couldn't kill the soviets fuckin fast enough.
Well just in case we needed any more confirmation of your ignorance, literal meme tier opinion.
>what is deception
>what is encirclement
>what is deep penetration
>what is withholding tactical reserves
>what is good timing
>what is out maneuver
>what is good use of recon and intel
>what is logistical foresight/planning
>what is psychological warfare
>what is unconventional warfare

but no according to you it all boils down to "hurr durr muh zerg rush just like in my rts games! XD"

pathetic

fun game take a guess at where you fit on the dunning kruger chart (pro-tip: its not where you think you are) >>41750626
>>
>>41744323
>>The sloped side armor also meant a smaller turret ring which meant that up gunning the T-34 meant a complete turret replacement. Hence the T-34-85 looking drastically different than the T-34
the sherman had a relatively huge turret ring, but they still needed a new turret to fit the 76 mm gun.

>>41744323
>Finally, the sloped sides weren't even that beneficial as a shot one foot lower would hit the flat lower hull or treads as the T-34 had no skirt armor.
you mean, through the wheels?

>>41744343
late shermans dropped the turret basket as well
>>
File: tank no drive good.jpg (46 KB, 548x314)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>41745844
For people who don't closely follow T-34s: it's good to note that the warranty on a T-34 was for around 250km (if it broke down before then the factory had to fix it with spare parts they bought out of their own pocket), and May 1944 is when T-34/85 production started going into overdrive.
>optics
This right here. Until the T-34/85 was introduced the crew visibility was a joke, and this was pointed out repeatedly to the factories in the buildup to the war but they didn't care because muh quota. The T-34/85 had German-quality optics except for one area: anti-glare treatment wasn't invented in the Soviet Union until after the war. This meant in certain weather conditions max range suffered horribly.

The best book on why the T-34 was initially so flawed is "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa" by Boris Kavalerchik. It covers everything down to the fire extinguisher. It's available as an ebook so there should be a pirated version somewhere.
>>
>>41752496
>not to sure which crevice of you body you pulled that one from, but surely a little common sense would tell you thats a fucking stupid claim.
The Last Year of the Luftwaffe by Alfred Price.

>Not an awful lot
Most of the Luftwaffe's ground attack squadrons were equipped with Fw-190's by mid '44.

>In the first three days of February 1945, 2,000 vehicles and 51 tanks were lost to German air attacks.
Of which ju-87's likely had little role in due to the fact that they'd essentially been replaced in the ground attack role by the beginning of '45.
>>
Ju 87s would've probably been better if they were able to slap rockets underneath its wings. Hell, they should've put rocket hardpoints on every mass produced plane.
>>
>>41752610
You didn't study Deep Battle tactics. Essentially, it's a bluff and one that backfired against the Soviets anytime the Nazis had the supplies for defense hedgehogs. You're gambling that the enemy will retreat rather than risk being surrounded rather than cut off your offense from your main body.
>>
>>41754772
>one that backfired against the Soviets anytime the Nazis had the supplies for defense hedgehogs.
Like the Courland Pocket? Or the 8 Fester Platz Army Group Center set up prior to Bagration? Or any of the dozens of other independent strongholds Germany set up on every front that only proved it is less intensive to contain a stronghold than to man it?
>>
>>41743535
>Hit bump or driver fucks up a gear shift and jerks the tank
>Scalding hot mixture of boiled water, sawdust with some coffee shavings, falls onto crotch
>"Actually it's not too bad, kind of counters the frostbite."
>>
>>41754850
Point.

Counterpoint.
Hedgehog defenses defeated Russian advances during the Battle of Moscow, Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive, and the battle around Orel.

>>41744338
That's right, they couldn't even afford the generic version of Coffee, coffey. The fact that they had any modern military organization let alone enough to make it to Berlin is a Testament to Slavic tenacity.
>>
>>41743746
Lel
>>
>>41751871

Remind me of which one stayed in active service in Korea?

Oh right. :^)

PS-- F4 had better rate of climb, turn, roll, and was much more durable that your little cuck wagon.
>>
>>41749571
after watching enough industrial accidents videos on here i'm pretty sure anything that spins or has tension, or really any machinery in
general will you in new and exciting ways
>>
>>41743528
gay thunder begs to differ
>>
>>41755623
There is of no russian bias tovarisch. Pay us $50 real american dollars for one tank.
>>
>>41754291
>The Last Year of the Luftwaffe by Alfred Price.
You are wrong and both a faggot and a nigger. Try reading up to date literature sometime.
>>
File: 76mm_gun.jpg (41 KB, 352x333)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>41754128
Not quite to fit, more like to make crew work comfortable...
>>
>>41755805
if it's considered ergonomically unacceptable, it doesn't fit
>>
>>41755661

It was a fucking squadron listing.
>>
File: image.jpg (24 KB, 362x314)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
The Devestator's problem was that it was designed around its torpedo.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q7RpyUJB10
>>5040
>>
>>41755835
Sometimes... you don't have choice...
https://youtu.be/__Y8YJeas4I
>>
>>41755866
then it was not unacceptable
>>
>>41743528

> Swordfish
> good
> retired a month after war ended
>>
File: Robo_Kek.jpg (18 KB, 357x405)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>41755438
>will you
I hope this becomes a meme
>>
>>41755885

I'm sure it does, shitposts and forced memes in
general will you in new and exciting ways.
>>
>>41744323
>The sloped side armor also meant a smaller turret ring which meant that up gunning the T-34 meant a complete turret replacement.
No, you are confusing two separate issues.The T-34-85 did not change the sloped armor. The T-34 could handle a larger turret ring, it just simply wasn't manufactured with a larger turret ring in the first place.
>>
>>41743528
>Like how the Fairy Swordfish is one of the most effective torpedo bombers of ww2 despite being a biplane, or the AK-47.

I mean it pulled off miracles at Taranto and against the Bismarck, but they usually got slapped down pretty hard. They were deployed against the Kriegsmarine during the channel dash but got demolished.
>>
>>41750626
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE
wow three clips, one of which is a definite kill the others just kick up dust clouds from missed shots
>>
File: 1546664446292.jpg (28 KB, 400x363)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>41752610
Eesh, the soviets having at least double the losses of the Germans, again, only goes to show that tactics went out the window, and five dudes with one rifle went to the frontline. Why are you denying the garbage performance of the Soviet union? They literally relied on retreating and dying so much that the Germans ran out of gas and bullets. The soviets only made it to the win because papa USA was there to hold their feminine little hand throughout the war. Pfft, bitch ass ruskies, couldn't make it on their own, then try to puff their chest at the world. My sides, they are beyond orbit
>>
>>41756885
You have be memeing. Theres no way you can be this braindead about the eastern front
>>
>>41755423
The navalised Tempest: the Sea Fury, fought in the Korean war and scored a MiG-15 kill.

Afaik the Sea Fury and the F4 are the only props with MiG-15 kills.
>>
>>41755314
>Hedgehog defenses defeated Russian advances during the Battle of Moscow, Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive, and the battle around Orel.
Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Operation Bagration, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive and Vistula–Oder Offensive all involved the use of Deep operation against "hedgehog" type German defenses and all used encirclement leading to literally the greatest individual allied military successes of the entire fucking war. YOU claimed that wasn't possible, and now you've been proven to be pulling shit from your ass in that regard. Showing 3 examples where it worked out the way you claimed doesn't undo all the occasions it was the exact opposite. I almost got to give you credit for being able to make such a titanically false claim and still come back with this shit as a "counterpoint".

>You're gambling that the enemy will retreat rather than risk being surrounded rather than cut off your offense from your main body.
Its ok we didn't need more clarification you obviously dont know what youre talking about, surrounding German military units was done frequently and with ever increasing success and grave cost to the German military as the war progressed.

>>41756885
im just gonna assume you're baiting because in a thread full of ignorant retards spouting "definitive knowledge" this one takes the cake for most retarded
>>
>>41755423
>Remind me of which one stayed in active service in Korea?

Cool.

This thread isn't about what's the best vehicle, it's about vehicles that were actually pretty good despite having crippling, existential flaws. The Typhoon absolutely, 100% applies.

The Typhoon was the most important Commonwealth fighter bomber of WW2- neither the Tempest nor Mosquito FB VI were available in the same numbers, and were often deployed in different roles (Tempest as a V1 interceptor, Mosquito for longer-range operations anti-shipping/submarine). The only serious competition for the title of "most important fighter-bomber overall" among the Allies was the P-47.

The F4U had a literally trivial presence in the European theater of WW2, while CAS was less important overall in the Pacific. By the time the F4U actually started being relevant as a CAS aircraft (Korea), it was already being replaced by the A-1.

I don't know why you'd try to force this comparison except that you're an autistic crayon eater.
>>
>>41755835
The entire T-34 was considered ergonomically unacceptable (completely appalling) by Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
>>
>>41759681
...and the US Army didn't use it
>>
>>41746293
You can sacrifice a LOT of the Panther's complexity without losing combat capability. Compare the Panther to the E8 model Shermans. Very similar in armor, armament, and worlds apart in cost. And the E8 wins on ergonomics and crew efficiency.
>>
>>41759694
All I'm saying is the Sherman could fit the 76 by Russian standards without a turret change. The T-34 couldn't manage that. The silly cast iron egg turret of the T-34-85 really reinforces that the turret ring was too small.
>>
>>41759724
other countries' standards are irrelevant
>>
>>41756157
I never said otherwise. Rather, the implication was that the turret ring of the T-34 meant that it was far smaller than what the chassis could handle. That in turn led to a smaller turret with not enough interior space to upgun.

Compare this with the Sherman where it was possible to fit a larger gun if you accepted less crew space.

As a result, the T-34-85 was a massive refit, bordering on an entirely new tank.
>>
>>41757435
>YOU claimed that wasn't possible

Bullshit. I said it was a gamble and if the enemy had either air superiority to resupply or existing stocks of supply the Deep Battle strategy would fail. Don't go putting words in my mouth.

And indeed, we do see cases where Deep Battle fails. Note that Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Operation Bagration, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive and Vistula–Oder Offensive all occured at or after mid 1943 when the supplies ran out and Germany started to loose air superiority In fact, the German Army was pushed so far to it's breaking point that by the time Deep Battle was being used successfully the Red Army had severe advantages over the Wehrmark.

Zhukov send hundreds of thousands to die when all he needed to do is wait for the Nazi's to fall apart.
>>
>>41759706
Oh yes, german engineers just couldn't help themselves. Many of these features should have been deleted from the final design but the Panther was rushed with insufficient testing or oversight. The Panther II fixed most of the issues but in the end it was all too late.
>>
>>41759706
>Compare the Panther to the E8 model Shermans
they are not really comparable
aside from its armament I do not consider the panther to be a medium tank
>>
File: PzKpfW_VI_Panther.jpg (246 KB, 1280x720)
246 KB
246 KB JPG
>>41762292
iirc the Panther was supposed to be ~10 tons lighter but apparently Hitler got into the mix somehow and insisted it be uparmored and other changes made. all this was done without any changes to the suspension, transmission, engine, etc. which is why the Panther was so troubled (also i've heard that it was Jews in the forced labor camps sabotaging final drive components, and while that does sound like wehraboo cope it also DOES seems like the kind of thing people who have been essentially enslaved to make war material for their oppressors might do). this may be bullshit that has filtered it's way into my brain over the years but it sounds plausible enough, you know?

anyway, classifying weapons systems esp. large war machines like tanks, ships, etc is as much about doctrine as it is statistics. the Panther was a next-gen medium tank, heavier than it's predecessors in armor and armament because why would you downgrade your new equipment from it's predecessor? compare the Panther to the T-34/85, Pzkfw. IV and Sherman, and then to the IS-2, Tiger/Konigstiger and Pershing, and see which set has more doctrinal and performance similarities.
>>
>>41762345
>next-gen medium tank
at that point the mk4 Churchill becomes a medium tank
>>
File: Pzkfw_IV_Panzer4.jpg (35 KB, 550x367)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>41762374
Not really considering their performance was wildly different and their doctrinal uses were as well. Some quick comparisons in stats (that are still less important than how it's used imo) reveal such. You specified the Mk. IV Churchill so we'll compare it to the Ausf. A Panther rather than the G model.

Panther
>Armor: turret front/mantle 100mm, front hull 80mm, sides/rear 40mm
>Armament: 75mm KwK, 2x 7.92mm MGs
>Range: 200mi road, 100mi cross-country
>Speed: 28mph road, 18mph cross country
>Weight: 49 tons

Churchill Mk. IV
>Armor: turret front/mantle 89mm, front hull 102mm, sides 76mm, rear 64mm
>Armament: 57mm QF 6pdr, 2x 7.92mm MGs, 3x .303cal MGs
>Range: 183mi road, 96mi cross-country
>Speed: 15mph road, 8mph cross-country
>Weight: 44 tons

Obviously, although the Panther weighs more than the Churchill and has a comparable armor scheme, it hits harder, goes further, and moves faster than the Churchill. Also telling is the Churchill's huge secondary armament compared to the Panther, which is an artifact of the Churchill's original role of an "infantry" or breakthrough tank, a heavy machine meant to support infantry in cracking a fortified line, making a breach for the faster "cruisers" (medium tanks) to exploit. Panthers on the other hand are 100% a child of the huge tank battles of the Eastern Front, meant to move quickly across the battlefield responding to enemy armored thrusts, exploiting breakthroughs by rapidly punching through weak points and causing chaos behind the lines, all while being just heavily armored enough to take a hit from a 76mm ZiS and quick enough to get the hell out of dodge afterwords. It's a pure medium tank, truly it would be more appropriate to dub it the first real MBT (although a little on the heavy side, admittedly) rather than lumping it in with the rest of the Cats or IS family.
>>
>>41762345
I did read in a german memoir (can't remember which one) where the author constantly complains about factory labor sabotaged equipment and tank ammunition.
>>
>>41743746
Based
>>
File: fullretardguy.gif (338 KB, 220x217)
338 KB
338 KB GIF
>>41756885
>>
>>41759706
>You can sacrifice a LOT of the Panther's complexity without losing combat capability.
Such as? I'm just curious.
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (156 KB, 1185x786)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
>>41743528
Panzer IV. Used from the beginning to the end of WW2 and used as basis for many other AFVs.
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (179 KB, 1174x861)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>41762713
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (1.12 MB, 1700x1097)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
>>41762716
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (122 KB, 910x654)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
>>41762723
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (217 KB, 1200x819)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>41762727
>>
>>41762713
y'know, between Jagdpanzers and Flakpanzers you've got almost all your bases covered.
>>
>>41744395
>EDIT: thanks for the upvotes and reddit gold!
>>
>>41748665
Short lived but very effective. Tiffie pilots were never able to leave a pub sober if any soldiers were present.
>>
>>41762734
O lawd he coming
>>
>>41751682
doubt.
tempest V was one of the most outstanding late war fighters.
better armament
better climb
better visibility
better wing loading
not made of cloth
>>
>>41759983
>Bullshit. I said it was a gamble
Also you
> it's a bluff and one that backfired against the Soviets anytime the Nazis had the supplies for defense hedgehogs

you claimed some bullshit and got proven wrong now stop embarrassing yourself
>>
>>41743528
IS2 heavy



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.