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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


I thought these things were death traps. Why did the consensus change?
>>
People stopped believing memes and started observing actual facts
>>
People now base their knowledge on Warthunder gameplay instead of low-budget action movies
>>
>>56152855
>>56152844
checked
>>
File: 1669229207971876.jpg (58 KB, 346x482)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>56152835
Because Hollywood ran out of underground plots.
>>
>>56152835
Everything was a death trap back then, it's just that every other tank was even worse.
>>
>>56152876
underdog*
>>
>>56152835
Because everyone who remembered dies.
>>
>>56152835
Weren't there a large number of subtypes of these?
Say speaking of Hollywood - Fury.
The Fury tanks should have been able to penetrate the Tiger, albeit not with a 100% chance.
Would have also been targeted first so is kinda moot, but you know what I mean.
76 mm gun.
>>
File: M47 King Tiger.png (2.27 MB, 1759x673)
2.27 MB
2.27 MB PNG
>>56152876
>ran out
Hello?
It's been nothing but "scrappy, street-smart allies win the war with nothing but their brains and dogshit equipment" since before the war even ended
>>
pendulum, same as how katanas went from le epic magic swords to worst thing ever, and how spears went from something nobody really cared about to the ultimate weapon and literally nobody in history ever used a sword. Or big german tanks went from le ultimate weapon to the worst waste of resources that broke down all the time etc etc.
>>
>>56152835
Which one?
M4A1?
Firefly? Easy Eight?
Jumbo, the special kid?
>>
>>56152835
there's that adage about idiots talking loudest and talking often, so naturally idiotic opinions were what people knew most back before you could easily disprove it
>>
Most history books that claim loss statistics about the Sherman are either lying or not providing context. They also fail to mention justifications for the Sherman's design, those justifications usually being more important than being the tank with the biggest dick. Finally, they usually round things off by comparing the Sherman to the T-34, calling it one of the best tanks ever built, despite the fact that the T-34 is basically an equivalent tank in design on paper but wasn't usually built nearly as well.

Oh there's also the fact that everyone loses shitloads of tanks in war. All sides lost shitloads. Complaining that the Sherman wasn't invincible is retarded.
>>
>>56152855
Kek this. People will risk a lifelong prison sentencing smuggling out top secret tank info just for correct balance in-game
>>
>>56152881
Shermans were remarkably easy to get out of, see this video (yes I know it is a bit cheesy, but you get the point) https://youtu.be/q6xvg5iJ4Zk
>>
>>56152913
I can't watch them old war movies anymore ever since I learned what a real Tiger II looked like.
>>
>>56152989
Early Shermans could get the loader killed pretty easily because the ammunition storage, but that got fixed. Speaking of, that's another problem with the Sherman, when something got fixed, most people interpret this as just proof that the tank is shit, as though every other tank didn't see improvements through the war.
>>
File: beans man.jpg (65 KB, 615x419)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>56152913
it really was just a matter of who had more bodies and resources to throw, wasn't it, no amount of technological development will ever change that shit will it?
>>
>>56152835
Well yeah the armor wasn't good enough for 1944. It's just another example of how God has to nerf USAiyans to keep us from being too OP. It's impressive US tank divisions did as well as they did in Europe considering most if not all tank crews knew they could easily die if they got hit once.
>>
>>56153015
absolutely not
the US and UK took comparatively light casualties because of their doctrines and overall favorable resource + technological positions
>>
>>56153015
No, not really. Allies honestly needed a very large lead over Germany, more than most people think. Take for instance the fact that a shitload of Soviet farmland was behind enemy lines at one point or another. They needed allies to offer food in order for them to stay in the war. The war effort wasn't just equipment and trained men, true, but Germany was still doing way too well against the Soviets. Yeah the Soviets won, but that was because the manpower, equipment, and resource advantage they both possessed and also were given was extremely disproportionate. If you had two Germany's fight each other except one is starting the war with Soviet equipment and training, then the vanilla Germany is probably gonna stomp the fictitious one.
>>
>>56153011
>when something got fixed, most people interpret this as just proof that the tank is shit, as though every other tank didn't see improvements through the war.
The funny thing is that a lot of the T-34’s major problems never got ironed out, yet it (used to be) talked about quite favorably.
>>
>>56152835
They were death traps according to one guy who only ever worked with destroyed ones and decided that since he had a job recoveringdestroyedAmerican tanks that meant the Sherman was awful, going off actual data they had the highest crew survivability of the war
>>
>>56152835
Because at some point people realize that certain factors like 'crew comfort', 'ease of maintenance', 'endurance' and 'reliability' are actually pretty damn important to creating an effective tank, instead of just slapping bigger and bigger guns to things
Amusingly save for crew comfort all the traits are frequently attributed to the T-34, which barring some of its upgrades is overall an objectively worse tank while the Sherman kept getting unduly mocked and criticized
>>
>>56152835
all ww2 tanks were death traps by modern standards, solid steel armor is just not very good against high velocity guns and HEAT warheads
tank battles back then were decided by numbers and logistics which is why the Sherman performed well
>>
>>56153100
well I'm assuming because on its most basic merits the tank wasn't designed for the crew, but rather to be an 'effective assault tank' with its 360 sloped armor

I bet a penetration on most T-34 would lead to the entire crew being lost, while on a german or american tank there would at least be one person able to scramble out. I think the fact the T-34 is so cramped means anything that gets in will probably kill everyone.

American and German tanks definitely had more consideration for their crews... which big shock, if you have no more experienced tank crews, you're going to put newbies in your shiny new upgraded tanks... bad idea..
>>
>>56152835
The only people who had experience with T34s would have been shot for talking shit about glorious motherland invincible tank
>>
>>56152835
People saw how much ass they kicked against tanks that are being used to ferry mobniks into their graves in current year, and realized that for the time they were made they were actually pretty good.
>>
>>56153182
>I bet a penetration on most T-34 would lead to the entire crew being lost
Didn’t even need to be penetrated. Thanks to shitty heat treating, armor spalling accounted for like half of all T-34 crew fatalities
>>
>>56153215
I don't think it's anything like that. I think it's literally just people handwaving away problems with the T-34, refusing to believe anything wrong with the tank affected battlefield performance.
>>
I personally blame the misunderstand of American tank doctrine and now that people have videos explaining what the fuck it actually means, stuff like the M4 Sherman series is getting its rightful praise.
>>
>>56152835
all tanks without wet stowage are death traps, wet stowage shermans were safer than most tanks in ww2
>>
>>56153237
yeah I always forget that spalling happens on non-pens too when the metal deforms and violently explodes into metal bits right at the crew compartment lol

can't imagine being in one of those shitboxes and something like one of those little German Pzt tanks that had a smaller fast firing cannon absolutely obliterating the side of your tank and it's just blasting spalling into the crew, fun!
>>
>>56152835
It didn't. It was a shit tank but it was used in the best way it possible. You go to war with what you have, not what you want.
>>
>>56152909

Fury is a crap movie from every possible angle. You can start by considering how an entire company of panzergrenadiers armed with stacks of panzerfausts were unable to damage a lone disabled tank in open terrain or harm anyone in the crew who were huddling outside it.
>>
>>56152835
Anglo retards started believing the memes and disregarding actual facts.
>>
>>56153324
Wow an actual for real baby boomer on 4chan.
>>
>>56152835
>I thought these things were death traps. Why did the consensus change?
Because as we slowly near a century after WWII people can start looking at all the myths more objectively, as evidenced by a readjustment of a lot of war narratives over the last few years
>>
>>56152835
Unironically I think world of tanks had a lot to do with it. It was the first game that really got people heavily into not only tanks but also taught them basic things like what the crew did or ammunition types, and tank-specific terms. In-game the M4 were more or less equivalent to the T-34, a tank that had been memed into godhood years ago while the similarly worshiped Tiger had to go up against IS-2s and other tanks that broke the illusion of invincibility.
People started asking why this supposedly garbage tank was doing just fine against tanks that were said to be much better. It may have been for the purpose of game balance but it got the ball rolling. Once people got interested they started looking past the memes and realizing just why the Sherman was made like it was.
I think there has been a great shift in interest on the internet concerning military topics from easily entertaining and digestible muh Mobility muh Firepower muh Armor to more mundane and deeper topics like logistics, communications, politics, and strategic-level command. Traditional TV TOP TEN TANKS and other related small focused shows died out, replaced with youtube channels like Perun, Battle Order, and Operations Room. Regardless of their actual validity of their content it's clear that a ton of people are simply interested in that sort of thing now.
>>
>>56153330
And 'actual facts' are that?
>>
>>56152835
Because just like fuddlore ( in fact the exact same thing), the rise of the internet made information available to everyone so the truth is no longer a "well X said Y and I respect X so he knows what he's talking about you're mistaken about Y" thing when you can search for the information without spending days at a library to refute a point
>>
>>56152844
No the memes just changed.
>>
>>56152835
Information became more widely available as well as people reading actual accounts from tankers. Stephen Ambrose really had a whole generation of people convinced they were shitty with that dumbass Death Traps book. Back when that book came out it was pretty hard to find any information on the M4 that wasn't just technical documents or anecdotes. Even up to a few years ago, a lot of people were totally unaware of things like wet storage, the 76mm gun, HVSS, and other upgrades. A lot of people use to fall for the German tank propaganda usually spouted post war and fail to look at crew survival rates compared to it's contemporaries.
>tl/dr: accurate and factual information became more common and easier to access
>>
>>56152932
>same as how katanas went from le epic magic swords to worst thing ever
They are two handed sabres.
Which is the worst possible combination to have as it combines all the worst sides of each category with nearly none of the strengths.
The swiss actually tried out a sword extremely similar to the katana atcone point and basically immediately dropped it.
It only survived in Japan for the same reason why not equipping armies with shields survived, if everybody is as retarded as you nothing matters.
>>
>>56153324
>You go to war with what you have, not what you want.
Sherman was the tank they wanted. M2 Medium was the tank they had and M3 Lee was the tank they went to war with.
>>
>>56153324
>It was a shit tank
wrong
>>
>>56153472
the growth of human knowledge is fueled by iterative memes which draw closer to the truth
>>
>>56153543
this was a shitpost but also deep truth – free to play tank games lead to channels like nicholas moran's which have shifted the memes from "good tanks have big guns and lots of armor" to "good tanks have good ergonomics, visibility, and chieftan fits inside them"

neither is a complete version of the truth, but the newer memes are truthier than the old ones
>>
>>56153480
The History channel showed it non stop in the early 2000's back when they actually tried to show history. It was not a bad tank, it just got bitch slapped by Tigers and 88s while on the offensive. Also panzerfausts shredded them in French hedgerows. The k/d is noticeable.
>>
>>56153324
The Germans, Italians, French, British, Soviets, Japanese, Americans, Israelis, Canadians, Belgians, Brazilians, Egyptians, Greeks, Filipinos, Chinese, Turks, and Polish all disagree with you.
>>
>>56153595
The Sherman didn't see very many engagements with Tigers, US crews had a tendency to confuse German tanks. A lot of "Tiger encounters" were more than likely Panzer IVs or the Panther. As for the 88, there weren't many, if any, tanks that could shrug off a decent hit from one of those, same as the panzerfaust if fired at the right range. The thing about the M4 though, is that later variants had upgrades like wet storage, higher quality metal, and had the luxury of being a fairly easy tank to bail out of if there was a need to do so. Many British, Soviet, and German designs didn't have such luxuries.
>>
File: SUSK.jpg (1.29 MB, 2620x3028)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB JPG
bring back shermans for the medium tank requirement instead of griffon
>>
M4: Solidly designed medium, optimized for mass production, lots of frills US industry could tack on without breaking a sweat.
T-34: Solidly designed medium, optimized for bare bones no frills mass production cause sophistication wasn't something the Soviets could easily deliver.
Pz 4: Solidly designed medium, lots of frills also the German industry could deliver, but lacked in the ability to get mass produced like the other ones. Didn't lose on the battlefield, being equal to Sherman and slightly superior to T-34, but in the factory halls.

Panther: Overtuned medium that sacrificed reliability and mass production for combat performance. Not worth it the moment the overmatch stopped by introduction of next generation guns into the enemy tanks, marginal even before.

None of them are truly shit, none of them are truly good, what won the war for the Allies was superior production capability while churning out solid designs. Germans couldn't compete with production using an equal design and their attempt to overmatch had enough drawbacks to not be worth it in the end.
>>
>>56153325
Really there is no reason the Germans should have committed that much to Fury in the first place, so they're guarding that one intersection, the Germans could have easily realized that the tank was off and unable to move and gone around.

Or gone around threw some smoke out, then snuck up from behind the tank to throw a bundle of grenades on top of it.
>>
>>56153720
Except for some SPG and late war tanks most of german tank were designed with little armour. Unlike the Sherman or T-34 the Pz-IV and III had many appliqué armour and engine upgrades but still it ended with severely degraded mobility quite afar from the initial designs.
>>
>>56153720
>Panther wasn't worth it despite being cheaper than a Pz4 while still being outright superior
>>
>>56153808
I've always wondered whether production problems with the panther were because of something wrong with the design or the b17s over the factory
>>
>>56153822
probably because it was rushed out to the battlefield too soon for the design flaws to be fixed
>>
>>56153822
When your country is being blockaded and you're using slave labour in bombarded factories to build a new tank then you're probably going to start out with a few defects. 1943 models definitely had transmission and engine issues; but this was greatly improved by 1944. It was also a shit tank for close-range combat like in Normandy, more suited to the East.
>>
>>56153822
Just like the B-17s that did a quick rework in the balls bearing design.
>-50% production in 2 raids.
>>
People eventually saw the truth and shook off the boomer bullshit from the History Channel.
>>
>>56153720
panzer 4 was kind of shit honestly, really showing its age by the end of the war
>>
>>56153720
>Solidly designed medium, optimized for bare bones no frills mass production cause sophistication wasn't something the Soviets could easily deliver.
This is a complete lie. It was an expensive and deeply flawed design that got manufactured cheaply. If it was the design for any other country, it would have been written off as a failure.
>>
>>56152835
>Why did the consensus change?
Because of youtubers that failed at becoming historians
>>
>>56153325
I liked the scene where the tank crew has an uncomfortable dinner with that german family.
>>
>>56153480
>Stephen Ambrose
Wasn't it Belton Cooper who wrote that book?
>>
>>56152835
they were never expected to duel with a tank, while they COULD that wasnt their role
they were for supporting the infantry and excelled at it
>>
>>56153901
Why do people unironically make posts that bots would make? You copy and pasting the pig's exact quote isn't good.
>>
>>56153966
Shermans were meant to attack in Blitzkrieg style combat into the enemy rear. Supporting the infantry was just the new doctrine when the US realized they were throwing away tanks and/or Sherman commanders were just kinda refusing to advance their tank into suicide. It was not originally designed as an infantry support tank. I don't even think what the Sherman did for most of the war qualifies as infantry support tank, it was more analogous to "generic WW2 medium tank".
>>
>>56153808
Panther was a later design than Pz 4, of course it's supposed to be better. Like say Hurricane and Spitfire, who also competed at the beginning but the Hurri dropped off while the Spit went on - the Pz4 got to the end of it's design quicker than the M4 or T-34 (by virtue of the Pz4 being originally a 75mm short light armoured CS tank).

However, if you compare a Pz4 late to a vanilla M4 and a Panther to a Firefly, the Pz4 isn't a worse design.
>>
Because people actually started reading Death Traps and realized that Belton Cooper is retarded.

Multiple times in the book he copied paragraphs with just a few words changed to have conflicting information.

All hail testing results, anecdotal evidence is dead
>>
>>56153901
Fuck off, T-34 was a shock to Germans and the best fucking tank in the world at the time of it's inception if the soviets would have had the capability to produce radios for it.

Can you explain to me how you can produce an expensive design cheaply, you retard?
>>
>>56152844
FPBP. The Sherman had a better survival rate than most tanks thanks to a wet ammo rack and spring loaded hatches.

https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
>>
>>56153965
Yes, I couldn't remember his name and ran with the first source I saw. But it was Belton Y. Cooper
>>
>>56154095
Well for one you don't put a hatch in the glacis plate. For all the arguments for and against the T-34's design that one driver's hatch is an inexcusable fault. Cutting the hole through the hatch was time consuming and the hatch needed a spring to open and a locking mechanism to stay open. The hatch was visible from the front making it a weakpoint the enemy could exploit and it was hell to get in and out of at the best of times.

Meanwhile, everyone else was using upwards facing hatches that were little more than a steel plate with a hinge.
>>
>>56154133
>thanks to a wet ammo rack and spring loaded hatches
that only started to get implemented in 1944 when the war was over
you dont get to base your performance on something you threw over the finish line in the last second, when the entire rest of the race the tank was a deathtrap skyscraper with a peashooter
>>
>>56154207
Except for the part where you have to just redesign the whole fucking tank so that the driver could have this "easy" hatch.

It's a neccesary drawback of a compact design with sloped armour, not a weakness.

But probably in some retarded World of Tanks or whatever people can snipe through this cause the weakness is exaggerated 10 times for gameplay purposes and aiming with a mouse precisely is equivalent to cranking a turret at 1000m, so it's basically the fucking Death Star exhaust pipe.
>>
>>56153367
This anon is at least partially correct, if not completely.
>>
>>56154340
Not him.
6% longer to get a simpler design is too much? all tanks soviets from ww2 and after have top hatches. The weight increase would be 4-5%.
>>
>>56154340
>Except for the part where you have to just redesign the whole fucking tank so that the driver could have this "easy" hatch
"Redesign"? I'm asking why the hatch was there in the first place.
>It's a neccesary drawback of a compact design with sloped armour, not a weakness.
The Sherman had sloped armor and it didn't have a front facing hatch. The KV-1 had sloped armor and a upwards facing driver's hatch. The Panther had sloped armor and it's driver's hatch faced upwards, not forwards.

Why does the T-34 have a forwards opening hatch?

>But probably in some retarded World of Tanks or whatever people can snipe through this cause the weakness is exaggerated 10 times for gameplay purposes and aiming with a mouse precisely is equivalent to cranking a turret at 1000m, so it's basically the fucking Death Star exhaust pipe.
That's one of four points to cover.
>>
>>56154330
>that only started to get implemented in 1944 when the war was over
Ignoring the fact that the heaviest fighting was done in 1944, at least 1 in 4 shermans had the wet ammo rack
Not including new production 75mm shermans
There were more shermans that got the wet ammo rack then there were panzer IV Hs

Not that the dry sherman was particularly bad
US statistics for the start of normandy when they started with primarily dry shermans was that they brewed up 60% of the time
This is equal or better to most british, german, or soviet tanks of the Time
>>
>>56154330
Not that guy but if we're just going from the earlier Shermans, it still has better survival rates. Shermans weren't any worse off in terms of armor on the whole as compared to most other tanks, and all tanks in their weight class.

And no, it was not a peashooter. Nobody cares about the dozens of Tiger battles or whatever. The M4A3E8 cannon wasn't even a strict upgrade over the older cannon, it was worse at targets like fortifications, meaning this was part of the reason Sherman squads would never be made up completely of E8s.
>>
>>56154472
>The M4A3E8 cannon wasn't even a strict upgrade over the older cannon, it was worse at targets like fortifications, meaning this was part of the reason Sherman squads would never be made up completely of E8s.
Fuck that shit. Just run your Tank Plts with all E8s, and attach 105 Sherms as needed from the Assault Gun Plt
>>
>>56154095
>T-34 was a shock to Germans
This is true
>and the best fucking tank in the world at the time of it's inception if the soviets would have had the capability to produce radios for it.
This is not. The Sherman was already in service in 1942, and the T-34 was a total piece of shit by comparison.

You don't need to take my word for it; look at what the engineers and technicians of Aberdeen Proving Grounds had to say when they tested it: https://web.archive.org/web/20200528121246/http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html
>>
>>56154466
Because people who aren't as completly retarded as you ate have decided they want a compact, sloped armour 76.2mm armed tank and designed the hatches to fit into their concept then, instead of fucking making the hatches the center piece of the tank design and fucking adding 5% of weight. Which for not retards means same engine pulling 105% of weight, same fuel only making 95% of range, same armour weight only giving 95% armour and so.

How often your mother has dropped you onto your head that you think all those drawbacks are worth it over "well the hatch opens crooked hold my pearls"?
>>
>>56153367
WoT also decided to hire an Irish-born Californian immigrant Nasty Girl Cav/Tanker to run around museums and archives to figure out things like armor shape and thickness on each tank, and, oh, while you're at it, make us some videos to help advertise our game.
>>
>>56153501
> basically immediately dropped it.
Source: your ass

http://www.waffensammlung-beck.ch/waffe194.html
>>
>>56153100
>Everything was a death trap back then, it's just that every other tank was even worse.

Pretty much this. The Sherman is seen as a failure because it wasn't perfect. While the T-34 is seen as an achievement because it worked at all.
>>
>>56154783
>some guy volunteered to use modern measuring tools on a M60A3 museum piece to fix the bugged gun mantlet on the M60-series
>revealed that it is, in fact, 300-400mm thick on the mantle, a solid block metal
>as opposed to the 127mm thick box with a ~250mm thick plate as it is in game
>warthunder says thanks but no thanks and does nothing
>M60 moves to volumetric armor, mantlet is modelled at 300+mm armor for a brief moment before getting stealth-nerfed back to 250mm

gaijin gaming is suffering
>>
>>56154711
T-34 is a 1940 tank. At it's inception, you can compare it to the M3 maybe, which basically a fucking house on tracks armed with a fucking sponson like a 19th century battleship and a turret belonging onto tanks a third of it's weight. Or germoid Pz3 with 37s or 50s at best or Pz4 with a CS 75.

Also, I have no doubts that the Sherman is the better tank. American industry shits at Soviet industry and this is reflected in the quality of their tanks.

That doesn't mean that the 34 was a bad design, it extracted the most combat capability out of an industry that simply couldn't compete with American one.

And by the fact of the Germans being obsessive autists and the Soviet being determined bastards, it could actually conpete with the German one.
>>
>>56154917
>T-34 is a 1940 tank.
This is a good point.
>>
>>56154917
>At it's inception, you can compare it to the M3 maybe
T-34 mod 1940 has a 2-man turret, only a single turret periscope, the L-11 gun witth 70mm of penetration at the muzzle, and no cupola
these saw very little combat except at the start of barbarossa

the 1942 version, the one that was a peer of the M3, at least upgraded the gun to the F-34
the M3 was lacking a turret, so thats an instant point in favor of the T-34
but the M3s 75mm gun had 70mm of penetration with its capped round, giving it roughly the same firepower, but due to the dedicated loader could fire off its entire ready rack with aimed fire at a rate the T-34 could only achieve with snapshots

the M3 did have a huge advantage in number of periscopes, the gunner on both the 37mm and 75mm had a periscope while the commander had a periscope in addition to his MG turret
>>
>>56153966
>they were for supporting the infantry
…which often included engaging enemy tanks
>>
>>56154712
My dude. A fucking hatch is not going to weigh a ton and a half.
>>
>>56155079
the sherman was expected to fight enemy tanks and the sherman tnak manual had a section on dealing with enemy tanks
it was not expected to aggressively seek and destroy heavy concentrations of enemy armor, but they were expected to engage enemy armor if encountered
and the main german tank was the panzer IV which the 75mm gun could handle and the main german AFV overall was the stug III, which the 75mm gun could also handle

and it infantry support and tank busting were not its main job either
its was expected to act as a cruiser tank, in which it would be used for maneuver against the enemy by exploiting breaches in the enemy defenses and flanking and out-positioning the enemy
hence why they were organized into armored divisions where they were supported by infantry and not the other way around, though they would increasingly allow for more flexibility with infantry-heavy formations when the situation called for it such as in dense terrain
>>
File: T34-001.jpg (93 KB, 750x418)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>56154712
>compact
The T-34 has a bigger footprint than the M4. In fact, sloped armor meant that there was less internal space than an M4 Sherman despite similar rough external volume.
> fucking adding 5% of weight. Which for not retards means same engine pulling 105% of weight, same fuel only making 95% of range, same armour weight only giving 95% armour and so.
5% doesn't sound so bad. Especially when you consider that the shoddy hatch meant the driver and hull gunner could escape immediately if the ammo caught fire.
Although I would argue that the spring needed to physically lift the hatch meant that it was more like 2% more weight. The spring assembly is rather massive.
>How often your mother has dropped you onto your head that you think all those drawbacks are worth it over "well the hatch opens crooked hold my pearls"?
Why so mad? Do you have a personal stake in a communist tank made before you were born?
>>
>>56154712
Removing the back slope or using lateral hatches the weight would be the same. The T-34 could be called BT-9 or 10. The frontal hatch is the legacy of an obsolete design, the BT-7, a modernized Christie tank with the same pattern as the FT tank.
>>
>>56153966
>>56155079
A better interpretation is that US ground forces figured that if you send tanks against tanks you were going to loose tanks. Ground forces didn't want to loose tanks so they generally called in air or artillery support on enemy tanks whenever they could.

That being said, most of the time a tank isn't going to face another tank. They'll face infantry, armored cars, self propelled artillery and AA, or even aircraft if you could being bombed or strafed. So designing a tank to only kill other thanks is kinda stupid.
>>
>>56155260
iirc, tanks only met enemy armored vehicles about 15% of the time
buildings, AT guns, infantry made up about 60%
the rest were trucks, armored cars, and hardened structures
>>
>>56154330
>that only started to get implemented in 1944 when the war was over
Ah yes the...minimal number of Shermans produced and used in 1944
>>
>>56155376
i think they are referring to wet shermans specifically, as if they never saw any use
they actually made about 3000 M4A3 75mm shermans with wet racks

this single type of sherman, not even the most widely produced wet sherman, has a production run equal to the entire production run of the panzer IV J, the most produced panzer IV variant
>>
>>56152881
Eh, they werent very good at all in terms of armour for a 1944 or 1945 battlefield, they were very poorly armoured (most models). But they were fairly spacious and (relatively) easy to exit. And the Ammo wasnt in the turret or otherwise prominently located.

>>56153612
The British thought they were decent for 1942, but they very much werent for 1944 or 1945, they were massively outdated by then. The British slapped on a 17pdr and kept using them because they just wanted as many tanks as possible. The Americans either kept the 75mm or added in a 76mm, because their doctrine at the time was that tanks were not expected to actually fight other tanks, on account of a particularly retarded artillerty general (this proved a spectactularly bad and unpopular doctrine when it met reality). Shermans are largely helpless against Panthers, Tiger Is and Tiger IIs, and vulnerable to the mass of Panzer IVs and STUGs. The Sherman's only real qualities in the late war, outside of the 17pdr armed ones, were the low cost and ease of maintenance/ not constantly breaking down. The 17pdr ones had decent firepower though, the firefly could theoretically send an APDS right through the UFP of a Tiger II.
>>
>>56155825
>for a 1944 or 1945 battlefield, they were very poorly armoured
Compared to what?
>>
>>56155118
The 75mm sherman could deal with a Panzer IV H at 1000 metres, but relative to said panzers, it had worse armour and a worse gun with worse range. Likewise with the STUG. Furthermore, they germans very much did have newer and better vehicles like the panther, and they could and did deploy them. True, they broke down a lot, but when they encountered them the 75mm shermans were almost useless.
>>
>>56155825
>Shermans are largely helpless against Panthers, Tiger Is and Tiger IIs, and vulnerable to the mass of Panzer IVs and STUGs. The Sherman's only real qualities in the late war, outside of the 17pdr armed ones,
This is some mildly elaborate but ultimately transparent trolling
>>
>>56155825
The frontal armor was great throughout the war and the side armor was still average, basically only the Tiger and maybe a T-34 could do better there.
>>
>>56155860
>it had worse armour
lol
lmao even
>>
>>56155860
>The 75mm sherman could deal with a Panzer IV H at 1000 metres, but relative to said panzers, it had worse armour and a worse gun with worse range
1000m is already in excess of standard combat ranges in the western theatre
average engagement range was closer to 400m
and the only part of the panzer IV that can resist the 75mm gun at long range is the 80mm upper front plate
turret was at an easy-to-defeat 50mm, and the side armor of the panzer IV was an even easier 30mm + 5mm mild steel skirt
thin side armor means the panzer IV can only wiggle about +/-10 degrees to either side before a 75mm can punch through it

the M4A3 sherman had 90mm effective armor on its hull, 90mm effective armor on its turret, and 40mm of side armor
so it can wiggle about +/-15 degrees before the side armor becomes an issue, in fact the M4 at a slight angle becomes fairly resilient against the L/48 due to compound angles
at close ranges where the L/48 can put a shell through a sherman regardless of angle, the 75mm sherman can do the exact same thing to the panzer IV but with the advantage of a faster rotating turret and more periscopes

>but when they encountered them the 75mm shermans were almost useless.
US encountered the first panthers in western europe before they even had 76mm shermans, and the first 30 panthers arriving on-scene were destroyed with relative ease
the next largest battle, where no 76mm shermans were available though with a few 3-in gun armed M10s for support, was arracourt
again a decisive US victory
>>
>>56152932
It's funny how the Panther's reputation is swinging into a low point right when Germany tries to hype up their new tank by reviving the name.
>>
>>56156023
a low point where, on 4channel.org?
>>
>>56156091
No, the internet in general. People shitting on the reliability and the tank's overhyped combat record is all anybody has talked about recently.
>>
File: tdc3ivytkqs01.jpg (188 KB, 950x604)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>56155859
Pretty much anything else. Comet, Cromwell, Churchill, Panther, King Tiger, IS1, IS2, SU-85M, Pz. 4 H or J, jagdtiger, jagdpanther etc. The only still in use tanks that they were definitely better than were the midget tanks like the M22, and the T-34 with its dogshit quality control/armour/optics/engine/transmission/visibility/ergonomics/fuel economy etc etc.

>>56155875
It was decent for 1942, bad for 1944/1945 but kind of got by as it ended up facing a lot of 1942 tanks anyways, and had often had air superiority to deal with actual 1944/45 tanks.

>>56155943
90mm effective, even if tracks are thrown on, isnt enough to stop a 148mm pen APCBC from a long 75 even at long range (unless the pz4 whiffs its shot and hits the ufp at an extreme angle rather than the sides), but a 80mm ufp, if tracks are thrown on, can be enough to stop a 109mm pen APCBC from a 75mm at close range, and even without at longer range. The Shermans also had the same side armour as the panzer IV. The stronger turret is an advantage, but the hull is absolutely massive.

The vast majority of German armour, six and a half divisions, including Panthers, faced off against the largest D-Day force, which were the Commonwealth British and Canadian forces. Which involved the 21st army group fighting for Caen, where the British had 17pdr armed tank destroyers and firefly conversions. The Americans, who did not have fireflies or 17pdr TDs, faced only one and a half armoured divisions and struggled to deal with them, although both sides struggled in the boçage due to vulnerability to ambush.

At Arracourt, yes the shermans managed to flank the panthers and the inexperienced crews of the 111th+113th, with infantry and artillery support, and terrain advantage. They knocked out a dozen or so Panthers and more PzIVs, but planes and artillery accounted for the vast majority of armour losses for the Germans versus American forces, at arracourt and in general.
>>
>>56156129
Idk, people have mostly been shitting on Russia for the last 9 months instead of talking about WW2.
>>
>>56156233
>It was decent for 1942, bad for 1944/1945 but kind of got by as it ended up facing a lot of 1942 tanks anyways, and had often had air superiority to deal with actual 1944/45 tanks.
No. The frontal armor was great throughout the war and the side armor was still average, basically only the Tiger and maybe a T-34 could do better there.
>>
>>56156233
>90mm effective, even if tracks are thrown on, isnt enough to stop a 148mm pen APCBC from a long 75 even at long range
according to german penetration guides, the sherman can achieve protection against german L/48 at 30-degrees, especially when you take into account deflection due to sloping

at median 400m engagement range, the 75mm can easily defeat the panzer IVs hull and turret, 80mm front plate only resists the 75mm gun with an angle, but thin side armor of the panzer IV means that the only angles that the 80mm protects is at angles the 30mm side armor is vulnerable
> The Shermans also had the same side armour as the panzer IV.
sherman had 40mm side armor, panzer IV had 30mm side armor and a 5mm sideskirt
side skirt had no effect on AP rounds due to being mild steel

>, but planes and artillery accounted for the vast majority of armour losses for the Germans versus American forces, at arracourt and in general.
planes were nearly a non-factor in german tank losses
50% of all german tank write offs were due to gunfire, AT or tank
>>
>>56152970
>T-34 is basically an equivalent tank in design on paper
2 man turret
>>
>>56155875
Its frontal armour was good for '42, compared to say a Crusader, Matilda, Panzer IV F or Panzer III J, but didnt really compare to the frontal armour of a Tiger, Panther, KV1, IS1 or IS2, Churchill III or VII, Comet/upgraded Cromwells (Cromwell I was initially planned to be 64mm frontally, which was pretty similar, but was changed to 74mm ufp and 102mm turret, which is continued in the Comet). Side armour is worse than all of these tanks too. Its frontal and side armour was however about on par with the T-34 or Panzer IV, which of course were all also early war medium tanks.
>>
>>56156233
>Pretty much anything else. Comet, Cromwell, Churchill, Panther, King Tiger, IS1, IS2, SU-85M, Pz. 4 H or J, jagdtiger, jagdpanther etc.
Are you really comparing the 100 Jagdtigers with 50,000 Shermans? Maybe we should bring in the Maus as well, everything else has real dogshit armour then.

80% of the time, a German tank in 44-45 is still going to be a Pz3, 4, or Stug; all of which have equal-or-worse armour compared to an M4.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with the Cromwell/Comet either, they had virtually the same protection as an M4.
>>
>>56156379
>80% of the time, a German tank in 44-45 is still going to be a Pz3, 4, or Stug; all of which have equal-or-worse armour compared to an M4.
well, not really
panzer III was phased out after kursk
by 1944, german armor was 33% panzer IV, 33% stug III, and 33% panther
they built them in roughly equal amounts per year
and german tank records held panther strength at 50% of total tank strength, because they didnt consider stugs tanks

as for the panther, it had 180mm of effective front armor and 50mm effective side armor
pretty good, but about what you would expect from something that weighted 42 tons
>>
File: htxhgtc.png (72 KB, 983x506)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>56156405
>well, not really
>panzer III was phased out after kursk
>by 1944, german armor was 33% panzer IV, 33% stug III, and 33% panther
>they built them in roughly equal amounts per year
if we ignore every German tank made before 1944 you get ~20% panthers at best
>>
>>56156359
Anon you're forgetting that the Comet and Cromwell have perfectly vertical armor plates, they had WORSE protection than later Shermans.
>>
>>56156405
>and german tank records held panther strength at 50% of total tank strength, because they didnt consider stugs tanks
How the FUCK does that MATTER?
>Sir our M4s encountered 10 armoured vehicles today, 8 stugs and 2 panthers
>oh just ignore the stugs, they uh "don't count"
>>
>>56156359
>Compares armor of a 36 ton medium tank to the armor of much, much heavier tanks
>See! Armor bad! Not as armored as IS-2 or king tiger!
Brainlet.
>>
>>56156359
>This retard deliberately ignores how common was applique armour and Jumbos. Unlike other designs the M4 easily could be up-armoured.
>>
>>56152881
I dont think so. Kindve seems obtuse to apply a subjective perjorative regarding crew safety to a vehicle that was safer than its contemporaries. It was done out of ignorance of the actual performance statistics that the army tried really hard to collect during the war, in deference to anecdotal evidence from veteran accounts coloured by various biases.

I think the most obvious sign of this ive seen is the Chieftans video on Sherman Myths or something like that, where he gives a slideshow presentation to a crowd. In spite of all the evidence presented, some fat old man cant help but phrase a question afterwards as if it were undisputed fact that the Sherman was being massarced constantly by far more powerful german tanks while fighting in europe. Its as if he didnt even watch the presentation.
>>
>>56156274
side armour:
M4A1=38mm
PzIV=30mm
T-34=45mm@40* (but dogshit quality)
SU-85M=45mm
Cromwell/Comet=43mm
Churchill III=76mm
Churchill VII=96mm
Panther=50mm@30*/41mm+5mm skirt lower
Tiger 1=82mm
KV1=75mm
IS1=100-90mm
IS2=100-90mm

With the big drawback that the M4A1's hull was cast. M4A2/3s werent though.

>>56156461
And? If the claim is that its armour is "great", and it is much lesser than many common tanks of the other powers, then its armour is not, in fact, great. If the claim is that the armour is decent for its weight, then thats entirely different and probably correct. I would say decent for its size, but the sherman has a very very large profile.

>>56156440
No, 76mm plus whatever impact angle works out at about the same, but they had stronger turrets and much lower profiles.


>>56156503
Only 254, out of 50,000 Shermans, 0.00508%. Were Jumbos well armoured? Yes. Are they representative of Shermans? No.
>>
>>56156628
>254/50,000
>0.00508%
Come on anon you can't be THIS RETARDED
>>
>>56156642
He obviously is anon...
>>
>>56152835
Because the people complaining were the ones that escaped. The ones in the the real death traps couldn’t complain as much
>>
>>56156628
>76mm plus impact angle works out to be the same
Wrong. Late sherman UFP is 63.5mm at 47 degrees. Just factoring in the angle puts that above the bong tanks, and that's ignoring the poor normalization of full-bore steel shells. Add in a compound angle and the sherman pulls even further ahead.
>stronger turrets
Only compared to the 75mm, the 76mm turret was no slouch. And the 76mm turret is the more fair comparison since the Cromwell and Comet were very much so late war tanks. Comet in particular barely got in service before it ended.
>low profile
fair enough.
>>
>>56156379
Cromwell/Comet had much better turret armour, which was not cast, and much lower profiles.

Ok if you dont want to compare jagdtigers due to low production run then fine, but they were an opponent which the sherman would theoretically and indeed did have to compare itself against, and unlike the Maus they were actually produced and deployed. Most of the german super heavies, like the Tiger IIs or Jagdtigers, had relatively low production runs, on account of the expense, lack of manganese/nickel, lack of fuel, and also the RAF bombing the henschel and porsche tank plants. Despite that, encounters with german super heavies had a great impact on allied tankers, and german heavies had a large practical impact in cases where they didnt break down/were abandoned/plane'd. Plus the Tiger Is had a run of 1,300, Panthers had a decent run of about 6,000. Then there are the Churchills at 5,600 ,IS1+ IS-2s at 4,000. These arent insignificant numbers of much better armoured tanks which were not an uncommon sight on a 1944/45 battlefield, compared to which the Shermans (excepting the jumbos but those are statistically insignificant as per your complaints re. the jagdtigers) are poorly armoured. If you were to pick an actually well armoured American tank for 1944/45, then the Pershing would do, but not a fucking Sherman.
>>
>>56156642
0.508, sorry, im tired. But thats still an insignificant proportion of Shermans.
>>
>>56156737
Let's go back to step 1
>>56155825
>they werent very good at all in terms of armour for a 1944 or 1945 battlefield

tigers, panthers, other assorted heavy tanks
great
but they were always a minority, this is a fact I'm not going to bother arguing
so when we look at a 1944-45 battlefield we look at not just the heaviest 20%, we include the other 80%
and in that true context, unless you call all the 80% "not very good", then the M4 was perfectly average-or-better
>>
>>56152835
This thread is a perfect reason why consensus changed. You can't argue properly with a poorly researched book, or in a bar against some old boomer, or against a bullshit History channel documentary.

When the internet arrived though, you had to prove your shit or you get autists coming out of the woodwork to argue about minutiae of armor angles, years of deployment, thickness, steel types, wet stowage, shell types, engagement distance, tactics, cost-per-unit, logistics footprint, etc...

Sherman is considered pretty great because when people really argued about it, that was the logical conclusion based on the evidence of history.
>>
>>56156710
The Cromwell/Comet line have a small flat ufp, an angled middle section, then a lfp, quite a lot like a Tiger 1 in layout. Theres the 76.2mm ufp, a 32mm@72* middle plate, and a 63.5mm@19* plate inbetween the middle plate and the lfp. The sherman ufp is one large 65.5mm plate angled at 47* yes, so its theoretically 87mm, but its at a relatively shallow angle, and it is very huge, which reduces its effectiveness at longer ranges compared to a flat plate or more extreme angle. So i personally lean towards the comet being as well armoured on the hull, if not better, but i get where you're coming from.

>>56156781
Well i say 1944/45 battlefield because of this heaviest 20-30%, which might not seem like much but you absolutely will encounter them, otherwise the battlefield is still a 1942 battlefield and nobody would have needed to bother with upgunning or uparmouring tanks or introducing new heavy tanks, which we know for a fact that everyone did. The total run of Panthers was pretty high, and the total proportion of Panthers in France was pretty significant. Many Panzer IVs and STUGs were produced, and a lot were used in 1944/45, but most of the early war ones had long since been lost in North Africa or the Eastern Front, and the production run in 1944/45 wasnt far off that of the Panthers at all, maybe 7,700 to 4,700 ish. So it'd be pretty reasonable to expect to encounter a Panther in late 1944 as well as a Panzer IV or a STUG (indeed youd probably face them all at the same time), and thats the context you've got to judge the M4 in if you are going to judge it in a 1944/45 battlefield. As well as the other tanks that the other allies also have, and those which America itself is also bringing out. America has the M26, Britain has the Churchill, USSR has the IS2, these are all in the thousands and are all much better armoured. Compared to the 1944/45 tanks, its not well armoured, compared to other 1942 tanks still floating around, its decent, as i said.
>>
>>56157010
>65.5mm plate angled at 47* yes, so its theoretically 87mm
More like 93mm (63.5/cos(47)) LOS.
>>
>>56156710
*of course the late shermans are the M4A2s and M4A3s, but the earlier ones like the M4A1s with its thinner and cast ufp were still around in large numbers. Plus for comparing the turrets, the shermans still had cast turrets even on the 76mm shermans, and the turret thickness is weaker, not a slouch but definitely weaker, some 90mm cast on the mantlet compared to 102-130mm RHA on the comet's mantlet. The mantlet/turret face on the 76mm is much smaller though, which is a plus, but that is because the comet's turret is larger due to the larger gun.
>>
>>56157031
true, ngl i lazily typed it into an armour calculator and forgot to change it to cosine fron sine, as i cba to do it manually on my phone .
>>
>>56156827
Agree, sometimes it gets a bit spicy but I appreciate and enjoy the sincerity that comes from both passion and autism. History channel-tier slop and surface level boomerisms are quickly and easily proven wrong but the best discussion is when both sides of an opinion on a really specific detail are argued well and have a not insignificant amount of logic and data supporting them.
>>
>>56157010
How does the sherman's size "reduces its effectiveness at longer ranges compared to a flat plate"? Outside of simply being a larger target, any increase in fall angle is more than mitigated by losses in velocity. And you're forgetting that angled armor is more than just increasing LoS thickness, it has the effect of turning away shells, especially big chunky solid steel ones.
>>
>>56157010
>that giant paragraph just to say "heavy tanks existed" with no point
You're fucking rambling
>>
>>56152844
dubs of trvth
>>
>>56157062
>of course the late shermans are the M4A2s and M4A3s, but the earlier ones like the M4A1s with its thinner and cast ufp were still around in large numbers.
earlier ones with a thinner hull were also slightly more angled, so the difference in protection was by about 1mm
and while cast armor was softer, it was a difference of only 10% at most, so effective protection would have varied to a minimum of 82mm while also offering better overall structural integrity due to being as solid piece and not many small ones

but M4A1s were mostly replaced via attrition, so by 1944 the ones who still had the older M4A1s would have been the ones who saw the least combat
while the 2nd and 3rd AD who saw a lot more combat would have transitioned to A3s with 76mm guns much sooner due to higher turnover

as for the turret, the 76mm- thick cast turret and the 90mm thick mantlet overlap slightly near the edges, presenting with 120-140mm of protection on several parts
so protection was extremally variable with some parts with 90mm protection where the rotor shield did not overlap with the mantlet to 76mm at a very steep angle at the very edges
>>
>>56157165
Well thats what i meant. It provides one huge target to hit, which is hard to hide. Yes at certain angles it can more easily cause deflections, but at many of these angles a flat plate can also cause deflections, and the sherman's huge profile exposes its side as a prominent target at many angles. As for increases in fall angle being mitigated by losses in velocity, that is a fair point, although the guns it faced had pretty decent power, the long 75 would still penetrate 116mm at 1000 metres with AP. The biggest advantage of the angle is to increase LOS thickness and take advantage of poor shell normalisation, so if it strikes from a high angle on a relatively gently sloping plate, then the LOS thickness will be closer to true thickness, this could be either as a result of range or of elevation. Whereas if it strikes a flat plate then the LOS thickness will increase. I'm honestly not sure if this wouldve made that much difference between a penetration or a non penetration between the two vs a long 75, or if it ever did, I'll look into it. It was given as a reason for flat plates in a book i read, aside from ease of construction, internal space and strength of the hull. If the sherman's ufp was sloped maybe 10 more degrees then this wouldnt be valid, but it does seem to be unfortunately suited to meeting the ballistic arc of a WW2 era shell at likely elevations/ranges. Nonetheless the long 75 could penetrate both the sherman and the comet's ufp at close-medium range if they werent angled.

>>56157198
Heavily armoured tanks define the late war battlefields, the point is that a 44/45 battlefield involves many better armoured tanks compared to a 42 one. The likelihood is that an allied tank would encounter a Panther, or a German tank would encounter a Churchill VII, M26 or IS2. A tank's armour is good relative to all of the tanks it is likely to encounter or serve alongside. The Sherman's is decent relative to a Panzer IV, not a Panther.
>>
>>56152855
But late tier Shermans get absolutely dunked and early Shermans are pretty middle of the pack in that game
>>
>>56157395
Only because lol american players. Gyro stab is busted as fuck if you know how to use it.
>>
File: M4 T-34.jpg (143 KB, 1200x728)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>56157377
>Well thats what i meant. It provides one huge target to hit, which is hard to hide. Yes at certain angles it can more easily cause deflections, but at many of these angles a flat plate can also cause deflections, and the sherman's huge profile exposes its side as a prominent target at many angles

effect of size on odds of being hit are extremely exaggerated
the M4 is about 1 foot taller than the T-34 at most
and the hull is only about a square meter larger than the T-34

and considering that combat in WW2 took place between 400m-600m at most, the effect size has on ability to hit or avoid being hit is marginal

>heavily armoured tanks define the late war battlefields,
heavy tanks were exceedingly niche vehicles that would only be used for a short moment
>>
>>56157377
Let's hammer this through your thick fucking skull
Quote
>they werent very good at all in terms of armour for a 1944 or 1945 battlefield
Quote
>A tank's armour is good relative to all of the tanks it is likely to encounter or serve alongside

You know what armoured vehicle an M4 would encounter 80% of the time in 44-45?
Not a Panther or Tiger

You know what armoured vehicle a Germany tank would encounter more than 80% of the time in 44-45?
Not an IS2 or Churchill

You know what kind of armoured vehicle a tank is likely to encounter or serve alongside in 44-45?
PzIV chassis
PzIII chassis
T-34 chassis
M4 chassis

Is an M4's armour good relative to those above tanks it's likely to encounter or serve alongside in 44-45?
Yes
>>
>>56157417
While I enjoy the gyro stab, I always get volumetric'd by the funky ass Panther mantlet. I hate the Panther.
>>
>>56157366
Fair enough for the M4A1, although the M4 and M4A1 production was some 18,000 tanks total, which is a not inconsiderable chunk of the 49,000 total run, so i'd have thought that 18,000 odd shermans wouldnt have been lost already by 1944. Then again i dont actually know what the attrition rate for shermans was in North Africa, or if they scrapped the older M4s by 1944. Would have expected a not inconsiderable number of them with the allies in France otherwise though.
I think it works out that during WW2 Britain gets 17,200, USSR gets 4,100 and USA gets 20,300, then theres a few more thrown around to irrelevant countries. I know that the soviets mostly get M4A2s, but i dont know the split of different marks between Britain and the USA, so im not sure where most of the M4s and M4A1s mostly actually are in 1944.
>>
>>56157444
Those are 1942 tanks, it is likely to encounter them yes, but it is also likely to encounter or serve alongside 1944/45 tanks in 1944/45. So *for* 1944/45 its armour isnt great, as it *will* face these tanks because it is not a 1942 battlefield. Tanks are rarely faced in isolation, they are usually part of regiments, from July 1944 Panthers were present in France on the western Front in large numbers, the Panthers were deployed right alongside pz4s and STUGs, to face one is typically to face the other. You cant just ignore the appearance of 20% of tanks which are much scarier than yours and can kill many times their own number of yours.
>>
>>56157488
soviets got 4000 M4A2s
brits got 5000 M4A2s, 7000 M4A4s (they were the only users), and 2000 M4s

US in 1944/45 had mixed amounts of M4A1s, M4A3s, and M4s
M4A1s did serve in a non-trivial amount as mentioned above, but they stopped accepting new models in january of 1944

>so im not sure where most of the M4s and M4A1s mostly actually are in 1944.
exact breakdown per-unit would require going through the records of each unit, so that will be time consuming and not even hunnicutts book goes into that much detail

but according to anecdotes, M4A1-equipped units tended to be used in less critical theatres like italy and wouldnt be committed to battle unless they had to
while newer units might have nothing but M4A3s
>>
I'm no expert on the subject matter but I think a lot of the conflicting opinions on the shermans performance comes from the fact that germans based their opinion on it on fighting the basic bitch M4 that was land-leased to the british and became known as the "Tommy-cooker" because of the dry ammo rack and what not, wich a lot of post war media latched on to because it made for a good story.
The US however never used the M4 in combat because when they entered the war they had all the upgraded versions. So now they pull out their combat statistics and crew survival rates, wich never included the british Shermans and everyone accuses each other of being full of shit.
But as I said, that's just my uneducated opinion.
>>
>>56157538
>and can kill many times their own number of yours
well they didn't, you obnoxious gay bitch
>>
File: NPC.png (52 KB, 1833x341)
52 KB
52 KB PNG
>>56157597
>'m no expert on the subject matter but I think a lot of the conflicting opinions on the shermans performance comes from the fact that germans based their opinion on it on fighting the basic bitch M4 that was land-leased to the british and became known as the "Tommy-cooker" because of the dry ammo rack and what not, wich a lot of post war media latched on to because it made for a good story.
someone from a few threads ago has the whole story about why people believe the "death traps" meme

> So now they pull out their combat statistics and crew survival rates, wich never included the british Shermans and everyone accuses each other of being full of shit.
US statistics are pretty wide and comprehensive
the british used the exact same tank as the US early on, the M4A1 and M4
the US did later get M4A3s but they served alongside the M4A1

US statistics differentiate between dry shermans and wet shermans, the former being what the british got
and they found that dry shermans burned 60% of the time and wet shermans burned 15% of the time
british reported a 80% burn rate in north africa, but this was due to a difference in doctrine, british were not guaranteed fresh refill so they would put more ammo in their tanks as for why it burned so much

but 60% for dry shermans is actually pretty good, as the wartime average was closer to 70%
>>
>>56157538
Why do you keep saying "1942 battlefield"? This is what was on the field in 44-45. We're judging by what was on the field in reality, not whatever autistic fantasy is being concocted in your brain. Those 20% exist, is their armour much better than average? Yes. You know what armour was around the average as determined by the other 80%? The M4
>>
>>56157639
>british reported a 80% burn rate in north africa
I guess that's where the "Tommy-Cooker" meme started among the german armed forces (If that even was a thing) since it was the first time they encountered the Sherman and Cooper's book was later used as a "confirmation" by the germ media. Thank god I stopped believing all the shit I "learned" from "documentarys" years ago. Thanks anon.
>>
>>56157656
On the field in reality in Normandy the Panzer divisions had 1 regiment of Pz IV and 1 regiment of Panthers generally. There are 2 or so understrength divisions like 21st Panzer and 9th SS Panzer that have 1 of their regiments missing on DDay
>>
File: 1667376188491018.png (2.39 MB, 1461x2066)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB PNG
>>56153015
More where you were positioned with what kind of access to resources, bodies and industrial base. How easy it was to build a unmolested factory in US vs building one smack in the middle of Germany?

People seem to not get how gigantic the atlantic and Pacific oceans actually are. The natural protection barriers it provides is ridiculous when even a relatively narrow straight was a insurmountable obstacle if it had decent defenses. US supplied not only the war in Britain, north africa, Italy and eastern front, itself engaged in direct combat over western euro and the entire pacific. Down to the point where two competing theater commander were just each supplied with their own invasion groups to see which one works the best.
>>
File: Chan Burauza.jpg (1.99 MB, 3000x1203)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB JPG
>>56152835
Since this is a tank thread and I don't feel like making another one, why did Panther tanks never get Schürzen? Wouldn't it help combat against the captured panzerfausts being used by the Russians since it acts like spaced armor? Did it make the Panther too large?
>>
File: controller.jpg (86 KB, 1200x675)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>56157656
Because, you fucking autist, a 1942 battlefield looks different to a 1944 battlefield despite many of the same or similar tanks being used. The tanks you use are going to be judged by their performance relative to the new and better tanks which they face, you can play all the probability games you want, but at the end of the day shermans were not well armoured for 1944/45, panzer ivs and stugs werent either, but that doesnt mean shermans were. If your enemy has a numerically and statistically significant number of tanks, against which your guns and armour are not just bad but almost obsolete, then those tanks are not well armed or armoured for the theatre, no matter that 50% or more of enemy tanks arent that well armed or armoured. Its actual dribbling morons like you that get people killed irl, the exact same stupid thinking which caused US planners to not bother uparming shermans or M10 in the run up to D-Day despite fucking knowing about the Panther, and then scrambling to react to the shock of encountering Panthers, which was a shock to nobody except the planners who dismissed them as irrelevant. But no, you know better. Eisenhower, what a retard, desperately upgunning M10s due to their poor performance versus Panthers, when everyone knows that Panthers arent the average German tank, and Churchill that moron, why bother to stick 17pdrs in M10s and Shermans before D-Day, when everyone knows that the average German tank is the panzer 4, oh and dont get me started on these idiots adding armour to tanks, or worse, creating new heavy tanks, we all know that the shermans are already good compared to a panzer 4, so why bother? You absolute cabbage.
>>
>>56158047
>If you look at my very specific example for a 3-month period of 44-45 you might find a slightly higher proportion of Panthers
>....which just means during other periods there must have been a correspondingly lower proportion of Panthers
You're running out of straws to clutch, just shut up
>>
>>56158103
>why did Panther tanks never get Schürzen?
they did get a thin-strip of schurzen, actually
it covered the area between the wheels and the sloped area of the sides
its purpose was to stop 14.5mm rounds from hitting that unrpotected area of unsloped 40mm armor
>>
>>56158103
Schürzen was mostly for defense against AT rifles because the soviets were shitting out PTRDs by the thousands, and those could definitely pen the side of a Pz. III or IV if it got a clean hit. It would break up the brittle AP core before it hit the main armor. But the panther had enough side armor that it didn't need it, the upper side was thicker and angled while the lower side had the skirts. And I'm sure captured panzerfausts were a relatively small consideration since the Soviets never really fielded anything quite like the bazooka by themselves.
>>
File: schürzen.jpg (2.37 MB, 5120x3200)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB JPG
>>56158103
Schürzen were not meant to protect against shaped charges but against soviet AT rifles and the Panther did have Schürzen on the lower side armour for exactly that reason.
>>
>>56158138
no one was desperately up-gunning tanks in 1944 you history channel believing retard
>>
>>56158138
>a 1942 battlefield looks different to a 1944 battlefield despite many of the same or similar tanks being used.
in 1942, the germans used the short-barreled panzer IV, a very small number of long-barrelled panzer IVs, and panzer IIIs
in 1944, the germans used the panther, the panzer IV H and J, and the stug III

the 1942 shermans with the 75mm gun was an absolute overmatch against 1942 tanks
the 1942 sherman is an equal match for the 1944 era panzer IV and stug III, while the later 1944 shermans were superior to them

>but at the end of the day shermans were not well armoured for 1944/45, panzer ivs and stugs werent either, but that doesnt mean shermans were
this makes zero sense
if the sherman has comparable armor to most tanks the germans had in 1944, then it was by no means bad

and no, the panzer IV H is not a 1942 tank, its a mid-1943 tank
>>
>>56153367
Consensus has always been that Shermans were great.
It was just that normies exposed to post war propagandas thinking shermans were crappy.
And normie opinions do not matter.
>>
>>56153679
The panzer is was literally one of the few tanks that had a hatch for every crew member. Done of the German tanks were just as easy to bail out of.

>>56152835
Overall , I would like to mention to everyone saying the Sherman's are actually amazing, that their high survivability numbers are not because the Sherman is a better tank than other tanks, it's that American and British doctrine, numbers, technology, and momentum, and most of all air superiority were absolutely top notch. The m4 overall was a great tank by the end of the war. The armor profile , maintenance, increased caliber, and wet storage were excellent. But it being a great tank compared to German tanks is just dumb. All tanks have ups and downs. If the germans had the numbers , air power , logistics , simplicity, and trained crews that the allies had, good fucking lord the tiger and panther and stug iii would be considered tanks sent by God himself. But unfortunately, nazi Germany by 1944 was a disorganized mess that spent everything it had on the eastern front. The Sherman is ugly as dogshit but it was a good tank. If nazi Germany had not angered the Soviets than the war would have ended in stalemate at worst. It's okay though, the stuka and sbd dauntless are tied for the best dive bomber ever made so the krauts werent totally useless.
>>
>>56158339
the US did get a tank comparable to the tiger, the M26
and they did not want to use it in combat because it was unreliable and untested
and even earlier in the war they had the M6 heavy tank that they also did not press into service because it was cramped and heavy

so no, they would not have thought the tiger was the best tank ever if they had one
because their own heavy tanks, the M26 being a lot better than the tiger, were not held in any particularly high esteem
>>
File: Sherman Tank.jpg (80 KB, 978x833)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>56152835
Ah, the infamous Sherman. Often referred to as the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans.
The nickname referred to when the Germans starving from lack of rations, would scavenge destroyed Sherman tanks for the precious cooked meat inside. In fact, the designers of the Sherman designed it to light every time, so that cooking of the crews was guaranteed. Of course, the Germans would often eat the allied tank crews whether they were cooked or not, regardless. My grandpappy told me this in great detail when I was a young boy. Truly the horrors of war.
>>
>>56158339
>War drags on
>US deploys nukes in 1945-46
>????
>Germany surrenders after a few cities are deleted
All the planes and tanks become irrelevant when your opponent enters the nuclear age
>>
>>56157599
They generally didnt because they got bombed to shit by Typhoons and P-47s, or ran out of fuel or broke down, which in turn was mostly a consequence of getting blockaded and bombed to shit, resulting in fuel shortages, infrastructure issues and lack of proper materials for the transmission or even armour at the very end. That and they were often given to inexperienced crews with poor communications and scouting, as well as the poor logistical support. In combat they were very good when they were used properly, as the 75mm couldnt penetrate them frontally at all, the 76mm could penetrate only the mantlet at extreme close range and with a good angle, 76mm tungsten AP could penetrate the mantlet up to 900m but was generally not avaliable.

>>56158164
I didnt say bad, i said not good or great, and it'd be misleading to say average imo. It has comparable armour to the tanks it had comparable armour to previously, but now there are new tanks, and in large numbers, they may not be the majority but they are a significant proportion and are significantly better, therefore in terms of armour on the battlefield it is no longer good or 'average' outright, just average in comparison to the older German tanks still in use. Panthers and Tigers made up about 1/3 of German armour by late 1944/45.
Plus in response to your point about 1942 tanks.
Late 1942 the germans have the pz III, pz4G, Tiger Is, Stug F and are starting to have Stug G, and Stuh 42 . In 1944 they have pz4 H and J (worse H), Stug F and Stug IV, which is extremely similar to Stug III. Yeah short barrelled panzers are still around in '42 but gone in '44, as are panzer III's largely, but otherwise the situation is extremely similar between the tanks still in use. The panzer IV H is just a G with schützen and zimmerit, a single ufp instead of 50mm+appliqué, and a new transmission. Yes its from 1943, but its essentially a G, which is from 1942, theres little to no appreciable difference in tank combat.
>>
>>56158867
>I didnt say bad, i said not good
what the fuck do you think "bad" means?
>>
File: who won WW2.png (253 KB, 1271x854)
253 KB
253 KB PNG
>>56152835
>Why did the consensus change?
american propaganda needs 80-100 years to set in and mandela effect peoples minds.

in 1945 everybody knew who did what and what was what - which tank and plane was trash, who actually did all the job etc etc.

fast forward 90 years and voila! lies became truth.
>>
>>56158140
Yeah... the percentage of Panthers only rose.
>>
>>56158357
>M26
I know it’s completely irrelevant to you post, but I just want to laugh at all the idiots who say “Well, the US could have had Pershing by D-Day” as if putting a brand new completely untested design right into the thick of combat is a good idea. Looking at you Panther.
>>
File: th-1057622694.jpg (23 KB, 474x389)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>56152835
never.

US tanks were valid as long there were no kraut tanks around or any kraut with picrel
>>
>>56161061
Any tank was valid unless a Super Bazooka, Panzerschrek or Panzerfaust were around.
>>
>>56152975
Reasonable , all things fair and balanced
>>
>>56161106
yeah maybe, but a tiger or a panther was still better protected. And better armed.
>>
File: death to francoids.jpg (768 KB, 3000x2500)
768 KB
768 KB JPG
>>56159020
shut the fuck up frenchoid
>>
>>56152835
People figured out that basing their view of Shermans on the opinions of someone who only came in contact with Shermans through their job at recovering combat casualty tanks might have been slightly biased.
>>
>>56159020
French were commie sympathizers until it became convenient to change opinion , what else is new?
>>
>>56161131
Wine tasting is a meme, but it makes if it makes the Fr*ch salty, I’m all for it
>>
>>56158339
>If the germans had the numbers , air power , logistics , simplicity, and trained crews that the allies had

I would like you to consider for a moment that it is because of their designs that many of these things were not possible.

The Sherman is a better tank than any German tank, certainly not qualitatively but overall, because it was a strategically superior option due to how easy it was to build, ship, and maintain. Keep in mind that it had to make it over the sea, be cheap enough to produce in massive numbers, and work flawlessly in the absence of proper maintenance, none of which were values that the German tanks could boast. Would I have rather been a Tiger crewman? Definitely. But if I was a general choosing between Shermans, and their cost equivalent in German tanks, I'd choose the Sherman every time. It is a vastly superior tank in terms of cost-effectiveness.
>>
>>56153325
They wanted to make an action-packed Alamo sequence but couldn't figure out another way to do it besides "lol fight off this entire battalion with your one immobilized tank". Involving Fury in a larger suicidal defensive battle with more people/vehicles wouldn't make much sense in the time period the film took place in.
>>
Wet ammo stowage made these pretty safe
>>
>>56157395
has a lot more to do with matchmaking and "balance" contrivances than the tank's actual capability.
>>
>>56157825
80% burn rate is normal for a WW2 tank.
>>
>>56152835
The guy that said the M4 was a deathtrap, was a midwit, and now people have access to more information and have now realized said guy was a midwit.
>>
>>56159012
Bad is bad, its not good because its not good by 1944, relative to the average german tank the armour is average/decent, but relative to the standard of armour for a good or decently armoured tank by this point, its not good and not average either, especially as it cant actually stop any shots from any range, at almost any frontal angle, from a long 88. Save maybe a glancing hit on the turret cheek or an extreme impact angle on the ufp from the side. So to outright call it average would be misleading, as its completely incapable of holding up to about 1/3 of german guns under most circumstances, and has significantly less armour than a panther, which to the Germans is also a 'medium' tank and a fairly common one too.

For example, from the german side; A very well armoured tank would be a Tiger II or jagdtiger, a good/decently armoured tank would be a Panther or Tiger I, an average armoured tank would be a Jagdpanzer iv or pziv/70, a not great but not terribly armoured tank would be something like a Hetzer, Stug III G or pz4H, which is where the majority of german tanks sit. A poorly armoured tank would be something earlier war like a Pz4F.2 or Stug III F. And a terribly armoured tank would be something like a PUMA or Nashorn.

For America
A well armoured tank: Sherman Jumbo, T26E1-1
A decently armoured tank: M26
An average armoured tank: M6A1, T25(if fielded)
A not great/not terriblly armoured tank: M4A2/3
A poorly armoured tank:M4A1, M36
A terribly armoured tank: M22, M18

For the Americans
>>
>>56165626
I'll let you in on a secret: "not good" is the literal definition of bad
>>
>>56165626
>not average either, especially as it cant actually stop any shots from any range, at almost any frontal angle, from a long 88. Save maybe a glancing hit on the turret cheek or an extreme impact angle on the ufp from the side. So to outright call it average would be misleading, as its completely incapable of holding up to about 1/3 of german guns
>1/3 of German tank guns were 88/71s
>>
>>56165626
>Bad is bad, its not good because its not good by 1944, relative to the average german tank the armour is average/decent, but relative to the standard of armour for a good or decently armoured tank by this point, its not good and not average either
So your amazing revelation is that the average of either side wasn't as good as the best? We are truly blessed to have such an intelligent poster among us
>>
>>56165626
>this retard thinks that the battle availability of a Tiger II or Panther is the same as a Hetzer, PzIV or StuG
>Deliberately ignores the reality of the battlefield and the US doctrine about tank engagements
>No P-47, no no no
>>
File: p1030715_med_hr.jpg (225 KB, 1486x1114)
225 KB
225 KB JPG
>>56154790
thats a sexy sword, but I still like the wallace a489
>>
>>56152835
Pop-historians interviewed US tankers, and noticed many of them complained that their Shermans got destroyed by German tanks. They decided that it must have been a shit tank since similar stories were told by many veterans.

Later actual historians looked at loss statistics and compared it to other countries. Turns out the reason a lot of veterans remembered escaping buring Shermans was survivors bias. Most people who's Shermans got blown up survived. You don't hear many stories from Soviet veterans of their T34s getting destroyed because if you were inside a T34 and it caught fire you most likely died.

Statistically, Shermans did well. They had heavy losses but that's because they were always on the offense.
>>
>>56154783
He's a Texas nasty girl thank you very much
>>
>>56156628
I thought cast hulls were significantly more rigid. Maby stronger is not the word.
>>
>>56157461
I usually try to shoot the capula which usually kills the turret crew.
>>
>capula
>>
>>56166047
Cast is about 10% weaker than RHA, but there are some structural strength reasons for having a single large cast piece if you dont want to or are not able to weld or bolt pieces together sufficiently well.

>>56165788
The avaliabilty of the Panther was fairly high in 1944 and 1945, and the Germans fielded their newer tanks alongisde the older ones, especially after they prioritise the western front more after D-Day. Pre-D-Day US doctrine about tank engagements was contrary to the doctrine of the other allied nations by this time, the US was given due warning about the panther by British intelligence, and they chose to ignore it, and suffered as a result. After being very quickly proved wrong in Normandy by actual field experience, the "tanks dont engage tanks" doctrine was duly abandoned by Eisenhower, despite the protests of the artillery generals. The domination of allied air power, specifically Typhoons and P-47s, which caused the majority of German armour losses, has no bearing on if the tank was objectively good or not, that is its own issue.
>>
>Typhoons and P-47s, which caused the majority of German armour losses
This is a marathon of stupid posts
>>
>>56166191
This. Aerial attacks against armor usually amounted to barely anything, but pilots almost always said whatever they shot at was destroyed when that wasn’t the case.
>>
>>56152989
>Shermans were remarkably easy to get out of
thats good considering they were shitty tanks with bad armor that were prone to catching on fire.

it seems the survivability rate of shermans wasnt due to the tank actually being well designed or armored, but because you can get out of it easily kek.
>>
>>56166152
>The avaliabilty of the Panther was fairly high in 1944 and 1945,
Lmao, "availability", all late war panther tanks didn't had enough ball bearings. Germany couldn't even get ball bearings and you're talk about "availability" compared to 1943 when they still did some maneuvering. Laughable.
>>
>>56166242
>wut
immense effort was put into tracking the movements of panther and tiger tanks in teh war, because they were so effective and superior to tanks like the sherman.

the panther and tiger had better or equal mobility, much better armor and massively better gun which allowed them to kill or knock out shermans at ranges the shermans could not even touch.

in fact sherman tank crews did not engage tiger tanks and avoided them unless absolutely necessary
>>
File: 11.jpg (11 KB, 300x291)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>sherman tank crews did not engage tiger tanks
>>
>>56166367
why would you engage a tank that you can only kill frontally with a point blank shot, but can kill you frontally from far away?
>>
>>56166236
>but because you can get out of it easily kek.
That in itself is a good design. If your crew can escape a knocked out tank, they can go and crew another tank rather than die with the vehicle.
>>
File: 1669128461693170.jpg (34 KB, 725x1024)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>56166306
>the panther and tiger had better or equal mobility,
>gearboxes without ball bearings, trash engines that auto-ignited, and the seriously overweight chassis made them unreliable and slow
>Hans Panther's is moving at the incredible speed of 0 krautmetric per hour
I CAN'T EVEN
>>
>>56166306
>the panther and tiger had better or equal mobility, much better armor and massively better gun which allowed them to kill or knock out shermans at ranges the shermans could not even touch
Too bad that was much less of a factor when you started fighting in woodlands and hedge growths compared to open tundra of desert.
>>
>>56166412
Why would you continue posting inane bullshit for days when half the board is laughing at how stupid you are?
>>
>>56166413
agreed but it still means the sherman had poor armor, meaning bad tank and ineffective.
>>
>>56166436
right, the shermans small 75mm gun was far superior to the german 88mm high velocity flak gun.

also every single german tank broke down could not move despite the war lasting 6 years and being the most technologically advanced nation in ww2 who somehow could not make ball bearings.

also all the german panzer aces are fake and never happened.
>>
>>56166462
strangely one of your less stupid posts
>>
>>56166462
>the shermans small 75mm gun was far superior to the german 88mm high velocity flak gun.
Biggest advantage the gun had was range, which became irrelevant when battling in obstacle-ridden Europe. The Tiger also did not have a stabilizer, which is a gigantic hinderance when you have to stop moving to take a shot. The Sherman did have a stabilizer, so it didn’t have this problem to such an extent. Gun caliber and armor thickness isn’t the end-all be-all to what makes a good tank. A good tank is something that the crew can work really well with an has features that allow it to actually work with the crew, rather than against it when it’s in combat.
That’s why the Tiger Tank featurewise is good (biggest issue is the fundamental flaw of heavy tanks as a concept).
It’s also why the T-34 is hot garbage, and the M4 Sherman is excellent.
>>
>>56166462
>most technologically advanced nation in ww2 who somehow could not make ball bearings.
It's called strategic bombardment retard.
> a conversion process began to use sleeve bearings in the Panther tank, as there was a shortage of ball bearings. The sleeve bearings were primarily used in the running gear; plans were also made to convert the transmission to sleeve bearings, but were not carried out due to the ending of Panther production.
>>
>>56165685
Not good is anything between mediocre, below average, poor in many circumstances and outright just bad.

>>56165734
In total there were 13,500 pz4s, 5,700 pz3s (reserve by 1944), 2,800 hetzers, 12,000 StuG IIIs, 1,140 StuG IVs, 1,700 Marder IIIs, 900 jagdpanzer IVs.
In contrast, in total there were around 6,000 Panthers, 1,100 Jagpanzer IV/70s, and,1,368 Tiger Is.There are also cumulatively a lot (about 1,572) of L88 armed tanks or tank destroyers like the Tiger II (489), Nashorn (494), Jagdpanther (413), Jagdtiger (85), and Elefant (91).

So about 38,000 lesser tanks including tanks sent to reserve, compared to about 10,100 with the long 75 and the 88, which is roughly 1/5 of the total of all german tanks made during WW2. Then if you account for massive earlier war losses of the older tanks in North Africa and Russia between 1940-1943, as well as admittedly some 1000 or so Panthers, you end up with a heavier proportion of more heavily armed tanks, production wise the heavier tanks are certainly the majority in '44-'45, with 11,900 StuGs and lesser PzIVs+variants built, compared to 1,100 Kwk42 armed jpzIV/70s), 4,700 Panthers, 640 Tiger Is, and 1,572 heavier tanks. 11,900 compared to 6,912 works out as 36.7%, or over a third of all new tanks being armed with the kwk42 or an 88. True, there are differences in priority and being operational, as well as surviving tanks from 1940-1943 (including a further number of Panthers and Tiger Is), but the likelihood is that somewhere between 1/4-1/3 of the tanks in operation in 1944-45 being heavily armed is pretty close to the truth.

Just one company of German heavy tanks could and did hold up/destroy an entire regiment of Shermans until air support arrived.
One company of Jagdtigers for example, destroyed 16 shermans for the loss of one jagdtiger (to a plane) before surrendering in april. So despite lower numbers they had a disproportionate impact and did form tank forces that allies were likely to encounter
>>
File: plens.png (145 KB, 720x813)
145 KB
145 KB PNG
>>56166191
>>56166220
>Aerial attacks against armour usually amounted to barely anything
>>
>>56166606
lol, more fanfiction

let it go, retard. you're gonna hurt yourself
>>
>>56166638
concession accepted
>>
>>56166606
>production wise the heavier tanks are certainly the majority
>...works out as 36.7%
Anon do you have some kind of fetish for being shamed? Is this all a kink thing?
>>
>>56166306
The Panther had a much worse turret traverse but it was designed to operate from longer range. The Shermans were able to leverage this slightly in Normandy as the bocage country meant that most engagements happened extremely close in, so they could use terrain to flank Panthers, especially with many inexperienced Panther crews and lack of integrated scouting platoons. But a 75mm Sherman could only penetrate a Panther from the side, while a Panther could penetrate a Sherman from anywhere and at any range. Which put the 75mm sherman at a massive disadvantage generally, hence the desperate scramble to upgrade to 76mm for the sherman and 90mm for the M18, and the British already having upgraded to one 17pdr firefly in every sherman tank platoon. Once the fighting moves out of Normandy the 75mm sherman gets fucked, after the battle of the bulge they're entirely removed from front line duties, although the 76mm isnt much better, but they didnt avoid engaging beforehand per-se, rather they held position and waited for artillery, air support and tank destroyers, or tried to flank with the assistance of infantry TD platoons. That being said, TDs like the M18 were barely any more capable until upgrade to 90mm. Around Caen the British bore the brunt of the armour (6+1/2 divisons to 1+1/2) which spared the unupgraded American tanks from suffering huge early losses.
>>
>>56166640
cope

>>56166679
woman
>>
>>56152965
This. Threads over.
>>
>>56152835
>functional armor of tiger, or near too with the slope
>best serviceability of any main battle tank fielded
>wet ammo stowage in hull reduced first round cook offs
Around 400 yards and you had mutually assured destruction between any of the tanks that met each other, with favor going to the first round shot/hit. The numbers for Sherman's survivability and lethality just don't add up in hindsight. Everything and anything was identified as 'Tigers', and turret Shurzen on Pz. IVs fudging the silhouette at range enough to make it plausible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
>>
>>56152835
Contrarians
>>
>>56152835
Italy had the best tanks.
>>
>>56152835
The actual kill stats collected by Army researchers are not the same thing as emotions which are what ignorants use to form opinions.
>>
>>56166734
Meant to say a significant proportion, not sure why i typed that, sorry. Still, a significant proportion of German armour in 1944/45 had a kwk 42 or an 88, as i went over in that post.
>>
File: 1655839023384.jpg (35 KB, 350x350)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>56153237
>armor spalling accounted for like half of all T-34 crew fatalities
Where to read more on this claim? Even if exaggerated this is a very interesting topic
>>
>>56166638
Yeah. You think fucking strapping bazookas to planes really amounted to much? Air attacks were more effective on stuff like logistics rather than armor.
>>
>>56166493
>Biggest advantage the gun had was range
that alone is a HUGE advantage.

but it also had larger rounds with much higher energy. so basically it was just a far superior tank armament overall which is one reason it handily killed shermans.

>which became irrelevant when battling in obstacle-ridden Europe
right, most tank fighting was done in cities lmao. but even then you have a more powerful gun and armor.

>you have to stop moving to take a shot
advantage negated when you can snipe kill your opponent before he can even hit you. look at all the stories where relatively few tigers were attacked by shermans in large numbers but decimated them. if you cant penetrate your opponents armor let alone hit him before he can hit you (multiple times with a much more powerful gun) youre fucked m8.

when did /k/ get full of fudd and/or leftypol shills? im struggling to see how these sorts of retarded opinions are commonplace now.
>>
>>56167049
Strapping bazookas to planes? No, but Bombs and RP3s? Absolutely yes. They did destroy tanks outright, but even when they did not, they often caused mobility kills, which were often abandoned or destroyed as a result, and made the crews bail out in panic when they saw the tank was on fire, e.g. at arracourt like 80 panthers were destroyed/abandoned because of air strikes. Yes most american airmen saying they killed 5 Tiger Is is absolute bullshit, they were likely panzer IVs, but P-47 and Typhoon bomb/missile runs did knock out a huge number of tanks, the Panther being particularly vulnerable to catching fire from air strikes.

>Horst Weber, an SS panzergrenadier serving with Kampfgruppe Knaust south of Arnhem in the later stages of Operation Market Garden, recalled that, during a battle with British 43rd Wessex Division on 23 September 1944:
>"We had four Tiger tanks and three Panther tanks ... We were convinced that we would gain another victory here, that we would smash the enemy forces. But then Typhoons dropped these rockets on our tanks and shot all seven to bits. And we cried... We would see two black dots in the sky and that always meant rockets. Then the rockets would hit the tanks which would burn. The soldiers would come out all burnt and screaming with pain."
>>
>>56167318
retarded wehraboo fantasies are literally that. cry about /leftypol/ somewhere else dumbass
>>
>>56166809
>Around 400 yards and you had mutually assured destruction between any of the tanks that met each other

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
>An M4 might only knock out a Panther frontally from point-blank range by aiming for its turret front and transverse-cylindrical shaped mantlet, the lower edge of which on most Panthers (especially the earlier Ausf. D and A versions) constituted a vulnerable shot trap.

yeah the sherman as good as the tiger. we should use shermans instead of m1 abrams they are so good.
>>
>>56167351
>quoting wikipedia seriously
your tanks didn't do shit hans
>>
>>56166746
> TDs like the M18 were barely any more capable until upgrade to 90mm
>he doesn’t know
>>
>>56167368
Would you seriously, unironically, in a combat situation, rather be in an M4A2 over a Panther? A 75mm M4A2 cannot penetrate the Panther's frontal arc from any range, the Panther can penetrate the M4A2 from any range and any angle. In hard factors, the Panther is a better tank, no amount of mcdonalds in your bloodstream will change that. The sherman's redeeming quality was the avaliability of it, and the massive logistical, aerial, numerical and organisational advantages that the allies had on the western front, as well as the British having already upgraded their shermans with 17pdrs so as to provide the allies with actual anti-tank capabilities. The 76mm sherman can penetrate the Panther's mantlet at extreme close range, or with the rarely avaliable tungsten AP at 900 metres, but still not the glacis, the Sherman has to aim for a weakspot, the Panther does not.
>>
>>56167439
> Would you seriously, unironically, in a combat situation, rather be in an M4A2 over a Panther
What a retarded question
>>
>>56167439
Not him.
>M4A2 over a Panther?
Of course, better a M4 than a burning Panther with barely enough fuel and about to be strafed.
>>
>>56167473
>the tiger is a worse tank because germany had low supplies in the last months of the war
?????

yet they were still able to operate tanks.
>>
>>56167473
not to mention the high chance the panther had already broke down
>>
>>56167450
Just because i am addressing a retarded person, it does not make the question itself retarded.

>>56167473
So you only go with the m4 if you do not actually have to fight the panther? But rather a plane does it for you? You do know that tank on tank engagements did happen for realsies right?
>>
>>56167439
lmao, the deluded wehraboo just can't make a fool out of himself
>>
>>56167503
By that logic, the Maus and the T95 were the best tanks of the war
>>
File: FiIE91lWAAERJN4.jpg (39 KB, 886x680)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>56167508
Lol, cope.
>>
>>56167529
No, the Maus never entered production, the Panther was a common medium tank, 6,000 Panthers produced compared to 2 Maus. False equivalence.
>>
>>56167538
you are a loser that's doing the equivalent of publicly shitting your pants

i bet you're some nazi obsessed shitskin because germans aren't that retarded and let it go a long time ago
>>
>>56167554
Would you seriously, unironically, in a combat situation, rather be in an Panther over a T95?
>>
>>56167529
le strawman fallacy

tanks have 3 main attributes: firepower, mobility and armor. the german tanks surpass the sherman on all 3 aside from superheavy tanks like the maus of which only 2 were made.
>>
>>56167439
Depends on how good the supply lines are. The M4s were very reliable for a wartime tank and were easy to maintain. The Panther was rushed into battle and had a number of minor flaws that led to maintenance issues. The transmission, for example, was too fragile for a tank that heavy.
>>
>>56167577
False equivalence, its a super heavy TD compared to one of the most common German tanks, especially as it is a post-war prototype tank that never entered production, only 5 were ever made post-war, compared to 6,000 panthers during ww2. Its equivalent would be the Maus, and i'd rather be in a Maus than a T-95.
>>
>>56167594
the problems with the panther are exaggerated. the panther was developed in wartime and on a much shorter timeline than a prewar tank and the initial panthers had lots of problems. however most of these were fixed and later panthers were some of the best tanks of the war.
>>
>>56167661
So what you’re saying is that hard numbers aren’t be be-all end-all of tank design?
>>
>>56152975
Now I'm curious.
Any examples of War Thunder vehicles having specifications that aren't supposed to be known to the public?
>>
>>56167664
> later panthers
Later Panther were worse than late PzIV, overweight with a overheating prone engine and with no ball bearings or tungsten ammo.
Germans didn't solve any of the problems with the PzIV they simply sloped the front glacis and added a larger cannon. Everything else was the same or far worse.
>>
File: 1660687941218278.jpg (47 KB, 851x851)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>56167559
Sorry for proving you wrong, i guess i must be a loser, you absolute child.
>>
>>56167675
Gaijin doesn't use sekrit document leaked by users, the british and chink trying to improve their tanks wasted their time and freedom.
>>
>>56167674
no anon you have it all wrong. why would we have 500 m1 abrams, when we can have 5000 m3 stuarts?
>>
>>56167696
you're proving yourself wrong with every post you make

you're a brown retard that simps for losers that were already history when your parents were born.
>>
>>56167675
Technically speaking, no. By their own rules and maybe by law, they can’t actually reproduce shit that’s revealed through classified information. So in fact all those people that leaked shit (it’s happened what, four times?) did it for nothing.

Realistically speaking, if it’s well and truly classified, there’s no way to know
>>
>>56167689
>Later Panther were worse than late PzIV

>mobility better or equal to pzIV
>better firepower
>better armor
what did he mean by this?
>>
>>56167674
Well if the T-95 was a WW2 tank, and had ever entered production, and then been produced to a numerically significant extent, then you might have a point. But it didnt, so this is just a shitty strawman. Hard numbers arent the be all of tank design no, logistical factors are important, but ultimately secondary, and the numbers produced are obviously very important. Single digits production numbers may affect a few engagements/battles, but are never going to change the course of a theatre or war. A few hundred of a very good tank might, and a few thousand of a good tank certainly will make a huge impact.
>>
>>56167721
Does your carer know that you're using the internet?
>>
>>56152835
> crews were undertrained
> they were almost always advancing not defending
> were up against veteran forces with world class gear.
Always advancing is a factor you dont see mentioned a lot but they had such a different mission than did German armor compairing stats is pointless.
Go down that road that might be mined into a town that likely has an ambush set up some place and flush out the troops that have a load of disposable AT weapons they dont want to lug back to Germany.
>>
>>56167730
The chassis of the PzIV was less overloaded than the Panther chassis.
Why the "unpenetrable" needed such so up-armored over its original design? They german design of tiny wheels made it worse than a obsolete PzIV, the self-destroying engine was another problem and irl it needed to be derated making the Panzer a slow tank compared to their enemies. More so if it's moving at 0km/h a third of the time.
>>
>>56152835
>Why did the consensus change?
Every other tank started looking worse in comparison
>t34
Shit and poor crew survival tank
>Tiger
Comfy but shit
>crusader
Lol desert
>whatever the fucking french had
French shit
>>
>>56167829
>The chassis of the PzIV
no. one of the reasons they made the panther was because the pzIV was too small to accommodate the 88mm gun.

>slow
lol no

the rest of the stuff in your post is wrong too.
>>
>>56167675
Gaijin just makes shit up in order to fulfill their slavic power fantasy, they pull insane bullshit which provokes all the document leaks, as they play a game of pretending that they actually have documents (but wont ever show anyone them) and then taunt people into proving them wrong by showing them documents, which they know arent avaliable. Occasionally someone gets pissed off enough to actually produce a secret document, but then gaijin doesnt implement it anyways. Its happened twice for the Challenger 2 as gaijin, in their wisdom, decided that Britain had forgotten to add any armour to 1/3 of the turret face, despite the composite blocks being clearly visible. Gaijin also decided that the lower front plate was unarmoured too. They have no source for any of this, they just make shit up.

For WW2 tanks they do mostly use documents, as they are avaliable, but they also fuck with them in order to accomodate wehraboos and slavaboos. For example they nerf the 17pdr's performance by 50mm, dont take into account brittle soviet steel for the T-34s, reduced the Churchill III's frontal armour just enough to let the T-34 penetrate it, the Panther's mantlet mg port acts as a black hole, the T-34 driver hatch is now the strongest part of the tank instead of a weakpoint, etc etc.
>>
>>56167878
>the rest of the stuff in your post is wrong too.
Like the no ball bearing for Panthers? or the self-burning engine? lmao
>>
File: 1124221042.jpg (164 KB, 1179x1382)
164 KB
164 KB JPG
>>56166638
>>56167330
>>56166152
losses to ground attack aircraft were almost irrelevant.
>>
>>56165930
He was in Commiefornia at the time; he's since returned to Texas, although in order to get his latest promotion, he had to start commuting all the way to El Paso instead of Killeen.
>>
>>56167892
>shortage of ball bearings in wartime germany
t. retard
not an attribute of the tank. all tanks, planes, everything uses ball bearings.

the reliability issues of the panther were almost entirely due to it being rushed into production. only like 3 panthers caught fire and later panthers were as reliable as the tiger (very good). the panther was so good, the americans and british had nothing really in response and had to design new tanks.
>>
>>56168014
>as reliable as the tiger (very good)
>the panther was so good, the americans and british had nothing really in response and had to design new tanks.
we're reaching the levels of historical revisionism never thought possible
>>
>>56168061
the tiger I was pretty reliable though, on par with pzIV
>>
>>56168014
>t retard that even doesn't know the state of Schweinfurt
>>
>>56168014
>sherman issued before panther
>sherman still US standard tank by the end of the war
???
>>
>>56168092
>only used by germany
>all factories bombed
>germany entirely destroyed
>not allowed to have a military
hmmm
>>
>>56168118
>build soperior tank
>lose
big think
>>
>>56168152
>so the tank was superior after all.
>>
>>56168186
>so the tank wasn't superior after all
>>
>>56154859
WoT, not WT. Different bunch of Russia-loving devs.
>>
>>56167591
>tanks have 3 main attributes: firepower, mobility and armor
Oh god, not this trading card bullshit again.
>>
>>56166441
>>56166236
Retard.
>>
>>56167906
Thats a decent source, but i'm not really convinced, especially as these reports were based off of random sampling rather than surveys, and this table gives almost the same number as the confirmed number of tanks knocked out by planes at arracourt alone. In addition to arracourt, there are multiple confirmed losses on the German side from Typhoons, such as the Normandy landings, at Arnhem/Operation Market Garden, and the Falaise pocket, which ought to add up to at least 100 by the typhoons alone, purely off of anecdotal german evidence. Plus there is the outright impact that air strikes had on the german counterattacks;

"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force ... The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory"-Eisenhower on the german counter-attack at Mortain.

Yes pilots exagerrated their kills, but the Germans and operational results first hand confirm the effect of being under aerial attack, being that several tanks were destroyed completely and outright, and those which werent outright destroyed were often abandoned as the crew was set on fire/demoralised/tracks blown off/engine set on fire. I'd not be surprised if many of these were listed under miscalleneous or artillery/HE. Plus it lists hollow charges, and RP-3 rockets were hollow charge weapons, although the P47's were not unless they were HVAR AP.
>>
>>56167664
Later Panthers were made with poor metallurgy and destroyed industry, and were far from the best tanks of the war.

>>56167848
French tanks were really good by 1939 standards. They were just trained and doctrinally organized like shit. France wasn't scared of the Panzer III because of performance statistics.

>>56168014
Be quiet, child. Panthers were unreliable nonsense, including in their use after the war.
>>
When the hell did this turn into a discussion about panthers and tigers instead of the sherman
>>
>>56168634
one retard just couldn't help himself. just look at the post counter
>>
>>56168634
The autists that need the Sherman to be shit need a new talking point. So they try to rehabilitate the Panther, a tank whose serious flaws blunted its use in the war, because in terms of combat metrics and doctrinal use it is a tank that can win in a 1:1 or 10:10 engagement with the Sherman ezpz if both sides have a completely sanitized, by-the-book combat engagement.
>>
>>56168118
France used Panthers after the war that they'd salvaged, as did Romania, but they suffered from lack of avaliability of tanks in good condition, lack of parts, and poor transmissions due to a lack of rare earth elements like molybdenum in 1945.
The 75mm shermans which werent upgraded to 76mm or 17pdr were just scrapped. The 76mm shermans hung around for a few years in US service, but were mostly dumped onto 3rd world countries and France/Italy (i repeat myself) who held onto them until the 50s. It was upgraded by France (for export) to mount a high velocity 75mm gun with the amx 13's oscillating turret, and later a 105mm for Israel. The Firefly was sold to Italy and Argentina, or otherwise left with the Indian army or in reserve. Ultimately the allies each had their own new tanks that they'd already developed or had been developing in response to the panther, which were better and didnt suffer from wartime german constraints, and there was such a huge surphlus of allied tanks that they didnt feel the need to produce wartime german tanks for their allies, especially when they were developing their own new tanks to sell.

Britain had Centurions from 1945 and had them in numbers from '48, they were better than the Panther in every way, just a bit late. Otherwise Britain was still set on using the Comet (and Churchill AVRE/flamethrower Churchill) to make up numbers. The fireflies are considered obsolete, and the expense of producing panthers is pointless when that'd take resources away from centurions.

USA had the M-26 and later the M-46/7, although they maintained 76mm shermans until Korea, where it faced the T-34-85s, also from WW2.

USSR had IS2s and T-34-85s which in its mythos won the war, it proceeded to dump the shittier wartime productions onto its allies, plus it had its new IS-3s, and from 1947 the T-54.
>>
>>56168726
>USA had the M-26 and later the M-46/7, although they maintained 76mm shermans until Korea, where it faced the T-34-85s, also from WW2.
I'm generally ignorant about the Korean war except the basics, but how did those WW2 tanks do in that war? I'd imagine they weren't as important being as there aren't great vast plains all throughout Korea.
>>
>>56168812
The T-34s did good against the light tanks, but they got absolutely molested by Shermans.
>>
>>56168812
actually korea is pretty open so tanks did see a decent amount of use. Shermans handily btfo t-34s that time, there is even US analysis of the tank where they note that it'd be about as cheap as M4 to make and praised tankers who could fit into the thing while wearing winter clothes.
>>
>>56168575
watch literally any of the Inside the Chieftain's Hatch videos on pre-war French tanks and you will see this is a myth that has been thoroughly busted.
>>
>>56168812
They did fine, Korea didnt have many tanks anyways, the 76mm Shermans were fairly limited by terrain, but so were the T-34s, they traded decently with T-34-85s, it mostly depended who got the first shot off, which tended to be the Shermans as they were stabilised and had better optics. The Centurions absolutely raped the T-34-85s but didnt encounter many, as the shermans deployed first and the norks threw most of their T-34s away against them. They had much better rough terrain capabilities than the shermans though so ended up being heavily used vs infantry, theres accounts of centurions hosing one another down with mg fire to get chinkies off of each other. The churchills were also good in rough terrain, but were often mostly crocodiles or AVREs, the crocodiles were used to set fire to chinks. I dont know if the Churchills ever actually knocked out a T-34 in korea though.
>>
>>56168879
>korea is pretty open
Some parts, but it's largely mountains and valleys
>>
>>56168883
Yeah well my uncle works for Nintendo and he says otherwise.
>>
>>56168726
soviets actually continued to make T-34s after the war and made around 5000 more of these things until 1950 before offloading the production onto Yugoslavia and Poland in the 1951. T-54 was first made in 1947 but after a short production run it was stopped due to utter dysfunctionality of it, with revised mass production beginning in the very late 1949 and primarily 1950.
>>
>>56161124
Until the transmission snapped and the engine caught on fire
>>
>>56169034
1943 issue under control by 1944
>>
>>56152844
>actual facts
R*ddit moment. Kys, retard.
>>
>>56168461
>I'd not be surprised if many of these were listed under miscalleneous or artillery/HE. Plus it lists hollow charges, and RP-3 rockets were hollow charge weapons
massive amount of statistics bending you're talking about. regardless, there is absolutely no way in hell air attacks were responsible for the majority of german armor losses. but even almost 10% was extremely effective in 1944.
>>
>>56153100
>T-34’s major problems never got ironed out, yet it (used to be) talked about quite favorably.
Only capitalist agent would dare to complain about Comrade Stalin's Iron Fist!
>>
>>56152835
It had a gun that was perfectly good for a medium tank and fighting common german tanks, giving your medium tank a gun that can frontally kill contemporary heavy tanks from long range is unnecessary at best and impractical at worst. Tigers were rare and king tigers were practically a ghost story. Though later shermans were able to frontally kill tigers from long range, a nice upgrade.
The armor for each model was above average when they were designed, not going to save them from heavy tanks, but perfectly reasonable for a medium tank and will protect them against light AT and a few medium AT gun shots with some luck.
Crew conditions were good(see soviet tanks for how skimping out on this detail can cripple the performance of your vehicle).
The mobility was good.
Crew survivability was above average.
Now here's the most important part, they weren't expensive to produce, reliability was good, spare parts were plentiful, and they were easy to maintain. Quality control was also good(once again, see soviet tanks for why quality control is important).
You make a good tank, perhaps even an average tank, and the rest is down to logistics. There is a point where your tank can be bad enough that no amount of logistics can save you, this was the case with most japanese and italian tanks. Welded hull shermans were nearly immune to close range fire from some japanese medium tanks, even from the sides and rear.
>>
>>56153070
>and overall favorable resource position
i.e. More stuff to throw at the enemy. Having way more planes, artillery, tanks, and trucks is obviously a massive advantage and you'd have to seriously fuck up to still take more casualties than the enemy in that scenario, like the soviets. Its easier to take less causalities when you have every material advantage. But its precisely because the Allies had more stuff that they were able to do so well and win, had the material/resource situation been equal it would have been a different story entirely. Hell if Germany could produce as much as the US could(and the number of people to man it all) they would have won the war handedly. To be able to produce as many ships and planes as the UK, to be able to field as many tanks and trucks and artillery as the Soviets, D-Day would never have even been possible to begin with. So yeah, it was numbers.
>>
>>56152835
after years of being ridiculed as the worst tank in existence bare some japanese and italian thing, some guy made a youtube videos were he disagreed and it became the new contrarian thing to believe.
I guess both US, and USSR have an assessment about the sherman during and after the war that give an objective picture of its capability, and scouring data like a madman wont give you anything but bias because no army compiled them in the same way anyway.
>>
>shit thread by the ghost of belton cooper
let it sage
>>
>>56166886
i think this source is from ''Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century'' by John Erickson, as far as i know its a very trustable source.
>>
>>56163529
>I would like you to consider for a moment that it is because of their designs that many of these things were not possible.
Uh no, its because they literally did not have as many resources as the Allies did to begin with. Most German vehicles, trucks, planes, AFVs, ect. were not significantly more complicated than Allied ones, the handful of complex heavy tanks are not why they lost the war, if they built Shermans instead they still wouldn't have been able to make as many tanks as the Allies had or be able to fuel all of them. Having slightly more simple designs would still not make the numbers even, that guy is right if they did have the resources/numbers/production capacity that the Allies did, or even just as much as the US alone did, the war would have gone very differently.

>and work flawlessly in the absence of proper maintenance
Lol no tank in ww2 fits this description.
>>
>>56168944
Yes that is true, the soviets were obsessed with numbers, and they "drank their own koolaid" with regards to how good it actually was, although tbf in the immediate post-war it could kill a sherman or comet, if not a centurion or patton. They dumped the shit quality wartime production tanks on their clients/allies, and continued with t-34-85 production with some degree of quality control for a few years for the soviet army. They did build about 2,300 IS3s, and retained IS2s in use, plus about 1800 T-44s between 1944 and 1947, im not sure if these were prioritised or value over the T-34-85, the IS-3s at least were generally stationed in Europe with the guards battalions.

>>56166886
The soviets heat treated their armour to too high a degree of hardness, and used less nickel in their steel. This resulted in T-34s being a shrapnel canister, which is part of the reasons why soviet tankers actually quite liked having matildas or shermans.
>>
>>56170864
>which is part of the reasons why soviet tankers actually quite liked having matildas or shermans.
dmitri loza, commander of a guards unit equipped with M4A2s, actually hated the matilda

they were equipped with matildas early in the war and he got a piece of frag in his leg, it got so infected that they almost had to chop it off
when he got the same injury from an M4 sherman hit, he got no complications from the injury at all

years after the war, they asked him if they wanted to remove the decades-old piece of sherman in his leg
he declined saying that he trusted american steel
>>
>>56171031
That is a completely arbitrary but otherwise understandable reason to hate a tank



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.