Did America just rip off the Somua design and scale up the gun and armor?

Did America just rip off the Somua design and scale up the gun and armor?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was an evolution of the m3 which was an evolution of the m2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      additionally, the m2, is an evolution of the m1, with the m1 being a pretty typical early tank design

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        forgot image

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/dy75S9m.jpeg

        forgot image

        Nah the M1 Combat Car is what the basic US medium tank chassis was based on. You can see an early version of the overhead rollers used by all subsequent tanks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you. That answered the question. But it raises another! Doesn't it look like they based the M3 Lee/Grant on the Char 2c?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        see

        but they both have a tiny pp

        &

        https://i.imgur.com/dy75S9m.jpeg

        forgot image

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          frick, didn't mean to link the

          but they both have a tiny pp

          guy (funny though)
          i meant

          additionally, the m2, is an evolution of the m1, with the m1 being a pretty typical early tank design

          instead

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this thread has been posted by saori "the only tank i know is valentine" takebe
        You know what to do /k/, post tanks with dating advice for tank crews to find her a boyfriend

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You know what to do /k/, post tanks with dating advice for tank crews to find her a boyfriend

          Dear Saori,

          You gotta get the orange stuff to get all the tank grime off your mits. Guys don't like tank grime on their girls' hands.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it was an evolution of the m3
      I wouldn't really call it an evolution. The M3 was never meant to be anything but a stopgap while they had to figure out the turret mount for the M4.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its literally an evolution, it was an iterative design that just addressed the main shortcomings
        as opposed to a revolution, which is a drastic departure in design

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >everything with an M in front of it means it's similar

        You are clinically insane. I feel like this is that episode of spongebob where the super villain shows him the pictures and spongebob is in denial about what he's seeing

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cast vs welded hull in picture
    >different suspension
    >fricking stabilized
    >bigger gun
    >different turret layout and crewing
    >radios
    literally identical.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but they both have a tiny pp

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the one on the left is a 105mm.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          but they both have a tiny pp

          Hehe

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't know the Frogs made a Derp Gun(tm).

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They didn't, that's a German conversion.

              >everything with an M in front of it means it's similar

              You are clinically insane. I feel like this is that episode of spongebob where the super villain shows him the pictures and spongebob is in denial about what he's seeing

              Every French tank looks vaguely like a Vickers Mk 1 Medium if you close your eyes, dip your finger in blotting ink and vaguely rub over the outline until all the features are indistinguishable. Therefore, all French tanks are copies of the Vickers Mk 1 Medium. Sorry, I didn't make the rules, you did.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's a full-on SPG, and the Germans made it. It's official designation was 10.5cm leFH 18/3 (Sf) auf Geschutzwagen B2(f). I'll let you figure out what all of that means.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They didn't the Germans tacked on their variable field gun onto them

              "Tanks are vaguely tank shaped" is not the 420 IQ argument you seem to think it is. With the exception of wacky designs like the Stank, every tank looks vaguely like an FT-17.

              >"Tanks are vaguely tank shaped"

              >muh outline
              Idiot take.

              >Idiot take.

              I'm just saying the overall design cues are the same. I don't care whether the bolts are 3/8ths of an inch thicker. That's pretty irrelevant because any industry adapting any machine is going to pop it into what their tool makers feel more comfortable with.

              By your logic, China has never stolen nor plagiarized a single design from America because they use metric instead of US imperial and because they use their own weapons.

              >Chengdu J10? Actually that uses Chinese missiles so that's not a ripoff at all

              >J20? Chinese missiles!!

              >Su 57? Original Russian design. No American nods whatsoever. It's metric baby

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm just saying the overall design cues are the same.
                Okay. The "overall design cues" are the same as those of the FT-17. Dumbass. Those "design cues" are what distinguishes wether the tnak is the same or copied or inspired by or none of the above. Not having vaguely similar hull shapes and basic layouts.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not having vaguely similar hull shapes and basic layouts.

                So the Chinese are eternally off the hook. Got it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's funny because there's several famous examples of ripped off, metrified American designs (Tu-4/B-29) and those copies look exactly like the original, because they're copies. You don't have to squint, run your finger over them, navel gaze and throw divining rods at the computer screen to see the similarities, it's just the same plane. The M3 and B1 are so different in design you could build two M3s for the cost of a B1, and crew two B1s with the crew of one M3.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tu-4/B-29
                All Russian design bud. Look at the bombs. Not a single part on there is to American specifications. Not a single screw. Get over yourself.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ITT, an M1 Garand is literally a stolen design based on the Kar98k because both are vaguely rifle-shaped.
                Idiot. Take.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>cast vs welded hull in picture
      Most of the things you listed are irrelevant. The Germans for example were planning on releasing a Somua S40 that had welds instead of rivets. That's really not that big of a difference from an overall standpoint.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what defines a tank?
        >not design
        >not armor material or production method
        >not armament
        >not powerplant or drivetrain
        >not vital equipment like stabilizers or the presence of radios
        >not number of crew memebers
        all turreted, tracked armored vehicles are literally exactly the same. there is no way to differentiate them at all.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. French military doctrine heavily influenced the US army, as did weapon designs. Inter-allied exchange and research in the interbellum period lead to French ideas of sloped armor, crew compartment layouts, and cast hulls, which was always part of French tank designs, being adopted by both Americans and Britons. That’s pretty much the extent of it though. The m4 Sherman is such a radically different beast compared to the SOMUAs with an excellent radio, stabilizer, powerful main gun ect. The USA was lucky it could sit back and benefit from battlefield reports about Anglo-French tank shortcomings and design their war winning tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tabilizer, powerful main gun ect

      Those seem like natural conclusions when scaling up. They don't read like departures at all.

      No

      It seems so. They both went with a larger hull mounted main gun, on the same side, with similar layouts for the hatches and turrets. The Lee/Grant was even riveted, matching the earlier S35. If you took an S35 and just made it bigger I feel like you would end up with a Sherman no matter what. The treads and plating on the treads are the biggest departure point for me.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It seems so. They both went with a larger hull mounted main gun, on the same side, with similar layouts for the hatches and turrets. The Lee/Grant was even riveted, matching the earlier S35. If you took an S35 and just made it bigger I feel like you would end up with a Sherman no matter what. The treads and plating on the treads are the biggest departure point for me.
        It's really only in that they have a big hull and small turret gun, otherwise their designs are in no way related. Saying it looks like the M3 is based on the Char B1 is like saying it looks like the Sherman is based on the T-34 because they both have a turret and sloped armour. The B1 was designed from the ground up to be a heavy breakthrough tank, the M3 was designed to be a medium tank with the 75mm only being added in the turret so they could have effective anti-infantry weapons until a tank was developed with a turret big enough to house the 75mm and the crew for the turret.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >no someone dared question the prowess of the mighty bald eagle

    C'mon dude. Give it a break. We get it, you had a bad ankle and you couldn't join the army to gain your manhood. No one cares. Move on.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      PSA: this reply is a spammer who comments on every single vehicle thread in an attempt to destroy conversation

      Here’s warriortard using a classic firehose of falsehood attack after being called out.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Got it.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    PSA: this reply is a spammer who comments on every single vehicle thread in an attempt to destroy conversation

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    schizophrenia

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      PSA: this reply is a spammer who comments on every single vehicle thread in an attempt to destroy conversation

      [...]
      >no someone dared question the prowess of the mighty bald eagle

      C'mon dude. Give it a break. We get it, you had a bad ankle and you couldn't join the army to gain your manhood. No one cares. Move on.

      same moron, go back to your BB schizoposting

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        post tank, you notank Black person

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          enjoy the new cookies

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >enjoy the new cookies
            Black person what?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    >no someone dared question the prowess of the mighty bald eagle

    C'mon dude. Give it a break. We get it, you had a bad ankle and you couldn't join the army to gain your manhood. No one cares. Move on.

    [...]
    PSA: this reply is a spammer who comments on every single vehicle thread in an attempt to destroy conversation

    [...]
    schizophrenia

    [...]
    Here’s warriortard using a classic firehose of falsehood attack after being called out.

    Can you regards just let us have 1 technical discussion thread. Start a fricking general you morons

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can you regards (sic) just let us have 1 technical discussion thread
      >starts the thread with moron nonsense and wonders why it only devolves from there
      If you wanted to troll correctly, use the R35 as your example because the suspension has a passing resemblance to American volute spring suspension. The S35 has literally nothing in common with the Sherman.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >use the R35 as your example because the suspension has a passing resemblance to American volute spring suspension
        Thank you yes, OP here, was not trying to troll but I'm looking for details like this.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          well then the answer you were looking for is a firm "no", the design lineage of the Sherman (M2 -> M3 -> M4) is well documented and predates the S35, the suspension is uniquely American, the gun is larger than anything France put on a prewar tank, it had reliable voice radio, a gun stabilizer, an engine that didn't suck, it had a three man turret which no French tank fielded during the war had, the only passing resemblance is the sloped front armor (which was becoming common in this period across multiple unconnected lines of tank development) and both of them being vaguely "medium" tanks. The Sherman doesn't share a single bolt with the S35.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the design lineage of the Sherman (M2 -> M3 -> M4) is well documented and predates the S35

            Except it does not. The M3 looks like they took the basic form of the Char B1 straight up. It's uncanny how similar they are from a conceptual point of view. The M4 just looks like a blown up version of the S35. Sure, the nuts and bolts are quite literally different, but the mere form of the thing is reminiscent. The M3 came well after the Char B1 and the M4 came well after the S35. I don't know why you would lie about easily searchable dates.The M3 uses similar calibers to the Char B1 for example- a 75mm in the hull and a 47mm turreted gun while the M3 opts for the 37mm, which again looks like it was just a copy of the German design:

            https://i.imgur.com/DNF1Fy6.jpeg

            [...]
            At first I was curious, then I was tempted to troll. But now that I think about it there is probably a very real reason you're hyper-sensitive to this topic.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A 75mm low velocity howitzer is not the same weight class of gun as the American 75mm gun. We've already been over the suspension, but to expand the Char B1 had an incredibly finicky and complex hydraulic suspension to aim the fixed 75mm low velocity gun with the hull. The M3 had a much larger 75mm gun in a sponson capable of independent traverse. The B1 was a slow heavy tank with a one-man turret, the M3 was a medium tank with good mobility and a three man turret. Nothing was copied because French tanks sucked and weren't worth copying. Nobody copied them, except the post-war French, who copied the B1 suspension for the ARL-44 (which was a failure largely because of it's obsolete suspension!)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Nothing was copied because French tanks sucked and weren't worth copying

                Look at the Char B1 then look at the M3. It's clear that the M3 Lee was taking design cues from the Char B1 (and the M2, Char B1 existed before both). For the S35, scaling it up and applying American technology like in the suspension makes it seem obvious that the M4 is just a bloated outline with random American doodads thrown in.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >LOOK BRO JUST LOOK USE YOUR EYES BRO
                >BUT NOT TOO HARD BRO YOU GOTTA SQUINT AND BLUR IT AND STRETCH IT BRO BUT IT'S THERE YOU JUST DONT SEE IT BRO
                I'm out, have fun in your thread with the rest of the schizos who don't care about tanks

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The M3 looks like they took the basic form of the Char B1 straight u
              the M3 was a result of them jamming a 75mm gun inside the M2 medium and ditching all the machine guns after france got wrecked in 1940

              the likely werent even thinking about the B1 at the time, except perhaps in how large caliber guns were used to destroy them after german 37mm rounds bounced off them

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your standard of comparison seems to be "durr, they both have a big gun in the hull".

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Nothing was copied because French tanks sucked and weren't worth copying

              Look at the Char B1 then look at the M3. It's clear that the M3 Lee was taking design cues from the Char B1 (and the M2, Char B1 existed before both). For the S35, scaling it up and applying American technology like in the suspension makes it seem obvious that the M4 is just a bloated outline with random American doodads thrown in.

              https://i.imgur.com/NSN1d9l.jpeg

              They didn't the Germans tacked on their variable field gun onto them

              [...]
              >"Tanks are vaguely tank shaped"
              [...]
              >Idiot take.

              I'm just saying the overall design cues are the same. I don't care whether the bolts are 3/8ths of an inch thicker. That's pretty irrelevant because any industry adapting any machine is going to pop it into what their tool makers feel more comfortable with.

              By your logic, China has never stolen nor plagiarized a single design from America because they use metric instead of US imperial and because they use their own weapons.

              >Chengdu J10? Actually that uses Chinese missiles so that's not a ripoff at all

              >J20? Chinese missiles!!

              >Su 57? Original Russian design. No American nods whatsoever. It's metric baby

              shut the frick up already, you god damn francophile
              from top to bottom, T1, m2, m3, and m4
              put it to fricking rest, you idiot

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Americans didn't steal 1 design
                >They stole 4!

                lol love it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Every tank ever designed was stolen off of the Mark I because they use tracks.
                Every remotely modern rifle up to WWII was stolen off of the Brown Bess musket, because it pioneered industrial mass production of standardised infantry long arms.
                Absolute moroniation. Apply yourself.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think you're mind broken at this point

                https://i.imgur.com/gmOj0Ha.jpeg

                the french just stole this design from the british

                That's a mk viii innit? Sponsons are different than hull mounts

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >has an artillery piece for a gun
                >has a machine gun
                >has tracks
                >is armored against infantry fire
                >came after the mark 1
                yeah, thats a copy
                you're not gonna pull yourself outta this one

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the french just stole this design from the british

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It's uncanny how similar they are from a conceptual point of view.
              How else could you build a tank with a hull gun and a turret?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >These vehicles are not evolutions of preceding models.
              >They must be based on two French tanks that have nothing to do with one another.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You should really stop posting during your multiple personality episodes. You’re absolutely ruining the thread

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    At first I was curious, then I was tempted to troll. But now that I think about it there is probably a very real reason you're hyper-sensitive to this topic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >lighter
      >longer barrel, higher velocity out of a shorter cartridge
      >double the gun depression
      why does everything America makes in WW2 mog everyone else, even the doorknocker light AT guns are better than their German equivalent

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ...By 50 pounds? Probably because the shield plate is smaller. They likely viewed their crews as expendable.

        barrel, higher velocity out of a shorter cartridge

        It's not bad, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. It was outdated as soon as it came into action. The Germans knew the 37mm would be outdated back in the Spanish civil war, that's why they drafted the 50mm.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did your mom drink heavily whilst she was pregnant?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    You should really stop posting during your multiple personality episodes. You’re absolutely ruining the thread

    Leave and don't come back.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >one man turret vs three man turret
    >leaf spring vs volute spring
    >rear drive vs forward drive
    >one specific V8 petrol engine vs a multitude of different engines of varying types
    No.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just trace your finger around the outline bud. It's not that hard.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Tanks are vaguely tank shaped" is not the 420 IQ argument you seem to think it is. With the exception of wacky designs like the Stank, every tank looks vaguely like an FT-17.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh outline
        Idiot take.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He didn't like that post one bit, made him come back to the old thread and try again. Life keeps giving him L's and he can't stop to take them.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    listen you little subtank brats,
    if you dont behave well,
    we'll just run over you and crush your pathetic paperthin hulls

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IIRC it was Canada that designed what would become the M4's hull. The US was mostly concerned with perfecting the turret for the 75mm gun.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >warriortard wakes up
      >page 8 bump to keep his shitty thread alive

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *