>has basically the same gun as the tiger 1 but weighs 56% as much

>has basically the same gun as the tiger 1 but weighs 56% as much
How were the soviets so good at designing tanks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By compressing its crew and sacrificing essential designs.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Statically 4.4 out of 6 T-34 crewmembers died for each tank lost
    Lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The t-34 didn’t have 6 crewmen, moron

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

      >How were the soviets so good at designing tanks?
      Now that I'm older I understand, if your country was invaded by murdering krauts you'd try your best to make the best tank possible or face extinction.

      ?si=yCjD-RzH-BHbnjyD

      Okay but why tanks in particular? The ussr also had to make lots of other stuff but tanks stand out as the thing they were good at

      There was literally nothing wrong with the Tiger I

      It was shit. If you want a good heavy tank from ww2, you go for the is-2. The pershing gets an honorable mention

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The pershing gets an honorable mention
        Why not Centurion while we're at it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The t-34 didn’t have 6 crewmen, moron
        ok 2.9333334 out of every 4 survived. it's literally the same thing, moron. the stat he gave made perfect sense.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The t-34 didn’t have 6 crewmen, moron
        Are you mentally impaired?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just tell him they were all the American T34s heavies and he'll shut up and go away.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah

      By compressing its crew and sacrificing essential designs.

      yeah

      There was literally nothing wrong with the Tiger I

      >transmission lifespan
      >track lifespan
      >general reliability
      >terrain load
      >operational range
      >too wide to fit railway cars
      >bazillion Reichsmark and man hours to make one

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bazillion Reichsmark and man hours to make one
        >hurr durr quality craftsmanship is le bad
        You’re brown.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          quality craftsmanship has no place at war.
          the only way to win is to go for "adequate" or "good enough" craftsmanship

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >eh we lost the war but at least our tanks are going to be shifted up a tier in a videogames about tanks in 70 years

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >transmission lifespan
        >general reliability
        There is no proof these were significant problems with Tiger I. Doesn't matter how much some try to make it true.
        The main technical faults of Elefant, Panther and Tiger II weren't present in Tiger I.
        >track lifespan
        This is new.
        >too wide to fit railway cars
        You really are this stupid?
        >terrain load
        That's one of the things which made Tiger I very mobile for it's weight.

        I want to remind people that allied experts during WW2 estimated that the production cost of a T-34 was the same as a Sherman. The T-34 was way more expensive to produce than what is being presented today.

        T-34 price dropped greatly on factories which produced it for 4+ years.
        Sherman was hardly in production that long and went through much more significant changes to everything: suspension, hull, turret, gun and on the way adopted a new engine. Few factories got to build any of the main compotents nonstop.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everything aside from price applies to the T34. Which also happens to be one of the last tanks you'd want to find yourself in if you're an allied soldier. I bet you'd have to google the name of the drivetrain used in the T34.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          don't kid yourself, lots of ww2 tanks were a lot worse. see:
          >panzers 2, 3
          >early panzer iv
          >BT-anything
          >T-26
          >T-28
          >just about any british shitbox

          >2man turret

          Yikes!

          the t-34-85 (seen in pic) had a 3-man turret though

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're still more likely to die in a T34 than any of those. Even the T26 did good early on in service and didn't see any frick ups until they started fricking with Finland.
            The T28 is one I'll give you, but that thing has a reputation for being knocked out, repaired, and redeployed like almost no other, the T34 doesn't.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Panzer 3's were great and panzer 2's were good considering they were only a stop gap.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >panzer 3s were great
              at the very start of the war, maybe. by kursk they'd be free xp
              >panzer 2s were okay for what they were
              not a consolation if you have to be in one

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Panzer 3's were from the early 30's. Easily the most advanced tank of its time. I don't know why people insist on comparing interest designs to mid and late war designs

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because the discussion is about ww2 and it’s a tank that featured in ww2

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kill sọyjak posters

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      source?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    by not understanding that crew comfort is a major thing when it comes to tanks. Dont get me wrong, Tigers wasnt great but T-34s, even 85s was absolute shite

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was literally nothing wrong with the Tiger I

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So shite in fact they won the war

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        T34 didn't win shit moron, unless bleeding on the enemy is considered defeating him. T-34s were so shit that even when Germans captured them and could maintain them, they still didn't.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Holy /k/ope

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Despite the best efforts of the Soviet leadership Germany managed to lose the war.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Throw enough shit at the wall, eventually some will stick.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tigers wasnt great but T-34s, even 85s was absolute shite

      The T34 with its good armor, ideal shape, and magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled cannon was universally feared and a threat to every German tank up until the end of the war! At that time, the 37-mm Pak was still our strongest armor defeating weapon. If lucky, we could hit the T34 on the turret ring and jam it.

      From "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius: started out the war as the loader on a Panzer tank. By the end of the war he was the commander of a Tiger tank company.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the dude that said he shot down an IL-2 with a Tiger's 88, isn't it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To paraphrase, apparently an IL-2 kept flying over the same route over and over, which made it of course predictable. The crew was so fed up with the noise, that the gunner trained the gun in the predicted path, he came over, nice and slowly, and got shot down with the main gun.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most t-34s got knocked out by panzer 3s and 4s

        What defeated germany was the allied bombing, they would have easily steamrolled russians if their factories werent reduced to sand

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What defeated germany was the allied bombing, they would have easily steamrolled russians if their factories werent reduced to sand
          this is a myth. German materiel production increased every year until 1945. The things the Germans ran out of were fuel and well-trained officers; what defeated Germany were all the defeats.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >German materiel production increased every year until 194
            because they were building more factories, but aerial bombing was causing more material to be redirected towards repairing factories rather than expanding
            and even if we accept your logic, then we reach the conclusion that bombing was increasing german production

            and the increased production was only reached with significant compromises caused by allied bombing
            panther production was kept steady but spare parts production halved, because to hit their quota something had to be sacrificed
            fighter plane production was kept steady, because they stopped building twin-engined bombers almost entirely and rapidly increased production of single-engined fighters to stem the onslaught of bombers

            >what defeated Germany were all the defeats.
            defeats that occurred because they stopped producing bombers in favor of single engined fighters, because they produced less tanks and artillery shells, because they ran out of spare parts

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's not my logic, it's a fact - German wartime production increased every year until their defeat. The problems in German logistics were not caused by a shortage of factory operation hours, they were caused by a lack of oil.
              The allied strategic bombing campaigns are generally overrated. Their most important effect was to deplete the Luftwaffe by pulling their fighters into combat and getting their pilots killed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >German wartime production increased every year until their defeat.
                it was increasing at a rate far lower than they would have if not for the bombing

                >The problems in German logistics were not caused by a shortage of factory operation hours
                the german truck factory was hit by bombs and never recovered because all the resources were focused on tanks rather than trucks
                this is a specific instance of bombing having a real effect on german logistics

                >The allied strategic bombing campaigns are generally overrated
                allied bombng is perfectly rated
                it had a huge effect on overall german strategy and people recognize that
                the defeats on the ground owe a lot to the war in the air

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >they would have easily steamrolled russians if their factories werent reduced to sand
          ah yes, all the german factories destroyed before the critical defeats of Moscow and Stalingrad.

          moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ah yes, all the german factories destroyed before the critical defeats of Moscow and Stalingrad.
            yes, did you know the war kept going after those battles
            and that the slowed growth of industrial capacity was why the war didnt last much longer and russia had a much easier time afterwards?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Less armor.
    No radio.
    Cramped space.
    Less ammo capacity.
    Inferior performance even if lower weight.
    And a bunch of smekalaka in making the production as simple as possible which worked more or less well depending on the situation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      germany still lost the war bud :^)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks to Americans and British defeating them. ;^)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We are talking about tank design here.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Less armor.
      True, but slopes
      >No radio.
      A myth
      >Cramped space.
      Have you ever entered one, or talk from someone else's perspective?
      >Less ammo capacity.
      Tanks don't fight alone.
      >Inferior performance
      How do you measure it?

      https://i.imgur.com/hdAPUG8.jpeg

      >has basically the same gun as the tiger 1 but weighs 56% as much
      How were the soviets so good at designing tanks?

      It was an alright design. Too bad superior alternatives were either not ready at the time (T-34M with commander cupola, 76mm F34 cannon and torsion bar suspension was meant for late 1941 tests and production and it would be superior to actual T-34/76) or were too troublesome to implement (fixing of T-44 was a mess) or added no benefits over base model (T-43 had a torsion bar suspension and a new turret that was later put on 34-85, but added no other advantage).

      The t-34 didn’t have 6 crewmen, moron
      [...]
      Okay but why tanks in particular? The ussr also had to make lots of other stuff but tanks stand out as the thing they were good at
      [...]
      It was shit. If you want a good heavy tank from ww2, you go for the is-2. The pershing gets an honorable mention

      >The ussr also had to make lots of other stuff but tanks stand out as the thing they were good at
      Because Baltic and Black Sea naval warfare wasn't that epic or impressive (I mean, talk to average history nerd and he would recall either bombing of Marat or sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff, most of actual sea warfare was about small barges and boats providing cover to destroyers and aiding various land operations), and various air force related things are overshadowed by enormous killcount of german aces (which may be overblown, btw) and by the fact that top soviet pilots usually hit their fame whil using imported P-39s (even though they started off with I-16s, Yaks and many others have finished war flying La-7).

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    by purchasing the rights to the American design

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was really that good. The Christie suspension solved a problem for which more workable solutions were devised less than 10 years later. Was still an important development and all that but by the time of the t34-85 the off-road speed wasn't any better than a Sherman hvss

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its crazy how this is basically the genesis of the MBT

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How do you mean?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they were good at shitting out 30 t34s for every tiger produced. as we can see in a certain war that is currently happening, quantity has a quality all of its own.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets were not that good in desinging tanks or in particular tank guns. Check armor penetration statistics for German 88mm snd Soviet 85mm tank guns. Not to mention different level of armor protection between the two tanks.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >has basically the same gun as the tiger 1 but weighs 56% as much
    same is a stretch
    85m gun has a 790 m/s muzzle velocity, the tigers 88mm has 850 m/s muzzle velocity
    using the same standards of testing, the tiger can penetrate about an inch more of armor
    not a large difference, but a noticeable one when facing angled targets

    and T-34 only has comparable armor when viewed frontally
    50mm LOS side armor means that the T-34 is vulnerable to flanking shots at a steep angle, the 80mm thick side armor of the tiger means that the tiger 1 has a very wide zone of invulnerability compared to the T-34 against the same gun

    while the T-34 can be considered a strategically superior weapon due to the sheer number made
    to say the T-34 can match a tiger on a per-weight basis is a little questionable

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How were the soviets so good at designing tanks?
    Now that I'm older I understand, if your country was invaded by murdering krauts you'd try your best to make the best tank possible or face extinction.

    ?si=yCjD-RzH-BHbnjyD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >murdering
      bolshevik detected, opinion discarded

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want to remind people that allied experts during WW2 estimated that the production cost of a T-34 was the same as a Sherman. The T-34 was way more expensive to produce than what is being presented today.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At what point in time? The T-34 went through a lot of incremental upgrades designed to make it cheaper to produce without worsening it, e.g. by simplifying the turret and gun

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I want to remind people that allied experts during WW2 estimated that the production cost of a T-34 was the same as a Sherman. The T-34 was way more expensive to produce than what is being presented today.

        CIA got their hands on a NK T-34-85 in the korean war

        By their estimates, with the manufacturing capabilities of their time and built to their standards, it would cost as much as the M4 sherman

        This is in contrast with the wartime price tag of the T-34, which pegged it about 25% lower than the M4
        This could be chalked up to soviet engineering, but this unlikely as soviet manufacturing processes were about 10 years behind US manufacturing

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >76mm
    >same gun as a Tiger 1 (88mm)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OPs pic shows the T-34 with 85mm gun, not the 76mm gun
      88mm was still more powerful, but the gap between it and the 85mm was much smaller

      by US standards of testing (50% shall mass remaining, no angle) the 88mm can do about an inch more penetration
      noticeably stronger but not by a wide margin

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An extra inch in how thick armor plate? 2 or 20 thick?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          140mm thick rolled steel plate at 0 angle with a full perforation, ie the hole is all the way through for the 85mm
          160 of the same standard for the 88mm

          US test is more forgiving than the standard soviet standard, but thats not important for the purposes of the comparison
          this is not meant to simulate real world performance, just give an idea how much stronger gun A is to B
          in this case, the 88mm is about 15% stronger

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Any data on how they compared to similar American and Bri’ish guns?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              using the same US standard, the M1 76mm on the sherman could penetrate 130mm of armor and the british 17-pounder could do 170mm
              both at the muzzle
              though the US later got the 90mm that was slightly stronger than the german 88

              there are a few factors that,while rare, are worth considering
              the british and US had tungsten sub-caliber ammo issued in the last year of the war
              they were very limited distribution and priority went to the TDs rather than tanks, so an M4 crew might only have 5 or less tungsten rounds on hand
              but this is compared to literally zero sub-caliber rounds issued to either german or soviet crews
              in which case the 76mm and 17-pdr could penetrate 200+mm at the muzzle

              though in addition to their scarcity, the 76mm HVAP had very poor sloped armor performance and the 17-pdr had poor accuracy past 400m

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >remove armor because russians are dispensable
    >tank gets lighter
    yeah

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russian tank design historically favours having a higher calibre than their rivals, but in terms of actual performance they tend to fall behind for varying reasons.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love these threads. These homosexuals can't wrap their head around hating both /misc/ nazi homosexuals and ziggers.
    Everyone has got to be on one fricking side or the other.
    Lmao.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >fricked up the transparency

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its an easy rule to live by. Socialists of all stripes get the rope.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My favourite thing to paraphrase from a Soviet WW2 Tanker is
    >"Everyone thinks that the T-34 is superior Panzer IV except those who have sat in one"

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT:
    >commies who still live with their parents repeating the same pop-history bullshit they saw in a YouTube video
    >tank autists arguing over which dogshit metal can was less ergonomic
    >about 3 sources, and 30 claims
    >wheraboos somehow being less annoying than the commies
    >reason: drowned out
    >shit: lost
    For frick's sake, it's not hard to take your time before posting cringe.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >2man turret

    Yikes!

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They had less shit to put in it, and because the Soviets loved Taylorism as much as the Yanks, you end up with something with a high rate of production

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How were the soviets so good
    Because Ukraine.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The T-34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T-34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million israelites. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >When the Germans invaded Russia in June 1941, they were surprised by the quantity and quality of Soviet armour. Hitler ordered that the T-34 be copied and the result was the Panther, which saw action for the first time at Kursk in 1943.
    >The Panther was larger and of much better quality than the T- 34. The Panther’s suspension system was more complicated than that of the Russian T-34, involving torsion bars and 18 overlapping road wheels on each side. Wide tracks spread the Panther’s weight when travelling over soft ground. Its 75mm gun was a vast improvement on the Russian equivalent. Production of the Panther was slow and there were never enough of them to make a serious difference to the fighting in Russia, Italy or North West Europe.
    uhh... what is this, fellow /k/opers? T-34 was so good that the Germans started to copy it? this can't be true. everything the Soviets made was trash, or at least the "experts" from the Cold War told me that.
    https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/panther

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >T-34 was so good that the Germans started to copy it?
      germans didnt copy crap
      guederians idea to copy it was shot down

      the panther incorporated some ideas from the T-34, heavily sloped armor and wide tracks, but the panther program existed before they even met the T-34

      > or at least the "experts" from the Cold War told me that.
      experts from the cold war both heavily over and under estimated soviet armor at the same time
      but the "T-34 was a deadly war winning weapon that shocked the germans" was a result of NATO historians being quick to believe anything the germans said or did, regardless of truth value

      the T-34 being an uber weapon that required the panther to be built to counter comes from the same people who said that germany would have won the war if nobody listened to hitler (because it made the generals look competent and blamed everything on hitler, so they could have a spot in the west german brass)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh no. The panther program didn't exist before the T-34. You're thinking of the VK 30 prototypes and they had to be changed when the T-34 appeared.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans tried to copy the T-34 directly, but it was shot down when it was compared to the competing design that would actually become the Panther.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the Panther is still based on the T-34 and looks like a larger T-34

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >based on the T-34
          Nope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            are you blind?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Overly cramped turret and sloped armor, I guess the T-34 was a copy of the S35

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Soviet designers assumed it would only be natural for the tanks to be manned tiny, malnourished manlets from beyond the Caucuses, so they intentionally made them cramped, uncomfortable and unsafe. I can think of no other reason a panel of engineers would intentionally make tanks so antithetical to operation by normal sized people.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Problem with the tiger is it costs roughly 4 times a much to manufacture compared to allied medium tanks such as the Sherman or T-34 yet based off the German heavy tank battalions war records only achieved a kill record of roughly 4 to 1. So beyond the tactical level the tiger didn’t provide Germany with any real advantage to capitalize on. The truth is the Germany was so successful in beginning the same way the Roman legion and the Napoleon corps system was so effective. The panzer division like the former two was an independent unit with multiple arms under on unified command structure with a sophisticated communication system that allows them to out maneuver any opponent with larger numbers while able to overwhelm any opponent with the ability to match their maneuverability. Basically short any traditional infantry unit they faced was easily out maneuvered while any tanks they faced were in much smaller regiments with no support

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also they were the first to have effective cas coordinated with a breakthrough armored attack

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They really weren't. Let's go over what made the Turd-34 garbage:
    1. No turret basket
    2. Cramped fighting compartment.
    3. Dead end christie suspension.
    4. Not built to last.
    5. Shit optics/situational awareness.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No turret basket
      the T-34-85 got one
      specifically, it got suspended chairs which is exactly what the M4A3 got

      >Not built to last.
      components were rated to 2000km

      >Shit optics/situational awareness.
      situational awareness was improved with the addition of a cupola on the 1943 model
      optics were actually something the soviets were good at, with the soviet telescopic sight having better clarity than US optics

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    by 1939 the Soviets had more tank-building experience than anyone else in the world
    The Soviets had constructed more tanks than the rest of the world combined up until that point

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can really tell when a russian semen slurping homosexual entered the thread.

      the Panther is still based on the T-34 and looks like a larger T-34

      are you blind?

      >No turret basket
      the T-34-85 got one
      specifically, it got suspended chairs which is exactly what the M4A3 got

      >Not built to last.
      components were rated to 2000km

      >Shit optics/situational awareness.
      situational awareness was improved with the addition of a cupola on the 1943 model
      optics were actually something the soviets were good at, with the soviet telescopic sight having better clarity than US optics

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you can also tell when the Germans started to copy the T-34, guess they liked Russian semen as well. they didn't had to be so tsundere about it and invade, though

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You are not making this better for yourself. Jfc, it's like armatard entered the thread.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the clown here, in full denial of reality

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              see

              You are not making this better for yourself. Jfc, it's like armatard entered the thread.

              I almost forgot how repetitive and useless it was to talk to armatard.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was a piece of shit, and was also produced in response to the Tiger, which existed for a number of years before the T34-85. The Tiger was also much better protected and had a significantly more accurate and penetrative gun.

    Notable deficiencies of the T35-86 are at the start of the CIA engineering assessment of it at (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01044R000100070001-4.pdf), the highlights include:
    Excessively difficult to drive and impossible to drive well due to deficient designs of steering and drive train control systems.
    Severely inadequate ground clearance.
    Turret had to be hand cranked for aiming (with only 1000 mechanical advantage and having to turn the drive motor as well, compared to >4000 for the drive motor) because the turret drive was absolute garbage for anything but slewing.
    Many gaps at the joints of armor sufficiently large for frag or bullets to enter.
    Numerous mechanical design faults contributing to difficult repairs and extremely unreliable engine (eg inadequate air filtration, bad lubricant seals).

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The gun was originally a piece of shit that they had to upgrade so late into the war that it hardly even mattered.

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