because the army rejected Christie's ideas? The US could have had a legendary tank like the T-34 for WW2. Instead it had death traps like the M3 and Sherman that got shredded in every engagement by German big cats.
Literally what was the army's problem?
>had a legendary tank like the T-34
Soviet tankers that operated both the Sherman and T-34/85 during WW2 preferred the Sherman. They considered the T-34 a pos deathtrap even compared to the Tommy cooker.
>Soviet tankers that operated both the Sherman and T-34/85 during WW2 preferred the Sherman
according to dimitri loza
>76mm gun was okay, preferred it to the short-gun
>very smooth ride
>had an amazing ability to not catch fire, T-34s would always explode in the same situation
>M4 was very comfortable inside with the interior painted all-white and with comfortable seats, they had to guard their damaged M4s so that other troops wouldnt steal the cushions to make boots
>if anything broke it got replaced no matter where they were, when they had problems with the solid-block tracks their agent got them the newer chevroned ones in days
>it also had an APU so they didnt need to keep the engine running to charge the batteries, a T-34 needed to run its 500hp engine if they so much as wanted to use headlights
>they hated the churchill and matildas, calling the latter "worthless", the only british tank they liked was the valentine with 6-pdr
>did not like is tendency to tip over if climbing steep slopes and older shermans had hatches that could clonk on your head
>they also experienced hard fighting in hungary, pit against panthers and tigers, where they did excellent work
>they hated the churchill and matildas, calling the latter "worthless", the only british tank they liked was the valentine with 6-pdr
Literally not true. Firstly, when the first Matilda II's arrived during lend lease (a mystic thing /k/ thinks only the USA gave, ignoring UK and Russia literally invaded Iran to make it more efficient) the Russians didn't use the wireless communication sets but used flags instead - wasting an advantage the Matilda had over their own tanks. Secondly they preferred to manually aim the turret instead of using the powered traverse - again, wasting advantage. They said they loved the armor of the tank because it was essentially on par with the KV-1 which wasn't that numerous. Reports of 89 non-penetration hits were recorded. It was considered highly reliable - much more than their tanks. Matilda was technically a light tank but fell between Light and Medium for Russia, which put it in an odd doctrinal position. Which is where the complaints come from. Its weapon wasn't that of a medium or heavy tank, but its speed wasn't that of a light tank. Which is the only complaints they had. This, again, due to doctrinal differences. But the fact it was a heavily armored tank that was reliable literally made it popular. It had issues with cold weather like any tank did but things were found to fix it. When the M4's turned up shit changed because the M4 is from a different time period in the war.
As for the Churchill, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade successfully counter-attacked at Prokhorovka with Churchills and that's a pretty famous action. Again, they appreciated the armor which they said was 'excellent', the reliability and the large tracks.
The Sherman was however a doctrinal medium tank that was better than the T-34, but the T-34 was domestic and was still viable.
>Literally not true
>Well, there were always problems. In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda's deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble. Some fool in the General Staff planned an operation and sent our corps to the area of Yelnya, Smolensk, and Roslavl. The terrain there was forested swamp. The Matilda had skirts along the sides. The tank was developed primarily for operations in the desert. These skirts worked well in the desert-the sand passed through the rectangular slots in them. But in the forested swamps of Russia the mud packed into the space between the tracks and these side skirts. The Matilda transmission had a servomechanism for ease of shifting. In our conditions this component was weak, constantly overheated, and then failed. This was fine for the British. By 1943 they had developed a replacement unit that could be installed simply by unscrewing four mounting bolts, pulling out the old unit, and installing the new unit.
this is literally what he wrote down in his memoir
>Bong cope
The Sherman tanks where also a lot more comfortable with a bit of thought given to crew comfort and during downtime the Russians had to put guard on the Shermans to stop their fellow vatniks stealing the comfy leather padded seats for making boots.
>Soviet tankers that operated both the Sherman and T-34/85 during WW2 preferred the Sherman
T-34s were far more numerous so I don't know how you're measuring this alleged preference.
>T-34s were far more numerous so I don't know how you're measuring this alleged preference
Not him but that's the most moronic post by far.
Preference if tankers didn't decide production or lend lease numbers you brainlet.
And it obviously comes from tankers who experienced both.
> how you're measuring this alleged preference
By taking into consideration tankers that served on both vehicles. Of course homies who never used a Sherman wouldn’t know the difference but there were Soviet crews who fought on both machines and they considered the Sherman better.
low effort but you'll get people anyways.
>low effort but you'll get people anyways.
Any excuse to post an M1931 Christie is valid
have a BT
Not much involvement in any mayor war.
While the Europeans were constantly at war.
So their tanks were better.
No more mayor wars 🙁
hehehehehe
lmfao
Yeah the army pretty much thought they'd only be sending horse calvary to frick around in Mexico for the rest of time
>While the Europeans were constantly at war.
>So their tanks were better.
There was no major European war between 1918 and 1939, the same period of tank development.
But the European countries were developing on their tanks from the WW1 experience during that time. The Americans didn't even have a tank during ww1
Germany lost its whole WWI tank experience to the Versailles treaty.
The Versailles treaty dictated that all Germans with experience in tank warfare should forget what they learned? Where is your tard wrangler?
>ww1 landships matter at all to ww2 tanks
what? the only thing you could learn would be that rivetted armor is bad, i guess.
Germans still practiced with 'tracked agricultural tractors' and 'special purpose vehicles' despite the treaty.
that isn't ww1 is it?
No its the interwar period
>WW1 experience during that time
Which resulted in a heap of horrible French and British pre-war tanks.
>a heap of horrible French and British pre-war tanks.
You will apologise to the Somua S35 for this slander. I'm not even French, but that's just a lie.
>No radio
Radios in tanks are an overrated meme feature. France would have fallen in a week whether the whermact had radios or not.
Germany would have probably lost the Battle of France if they didn't have radios. Radios let them get their forces massed and moving faster than the French.
>Somua S35
>3 man crew
I mean, it's better than having 2 guys like a Renault, but still moronic.
There was plenty of conflicts to test out new tech and doctrines in europe alone, much less the colonial holdings of the euros. Dumbass
>There was no major European war between 1918 and 1939
Was Spain a major war?
Does it matter?
>Spanish Civil War
>Polish Soviet War
>Winter War
>a legendary tank like the T-34 for WW2
I hate myself for swallowing this 2/10 bait.
The Sherman outclassed the piece-of-shit T-34 in every possible way. Shermans rolled of the assembly lines like fricking Chevys and had the same quality too while being technically superior to the piece-of-shit T-34.
Numbers don't lie. Every report on tank vs tank action shows the T-34 was a better tank for Europe than the Sherman.
>Every report on tank vs tank action shows the T-34 was a better tank for Europe than the Sherman.
So why did T-34 units get their asses handed by Sherman units in Korea?
>Every report on tank vs tank action
Yeah... dumb motherfricker. American tank doctrine was kinda different from the soviet one. FRICK ME, why am I still chewing on this piece of bait?
Counter bait: Why did EVERY soviet soldier prefer Lend-Lease-Shermans over T-34s?
>Counter bait: Why did EVERY soviet soldier prefer Lend-Lease-Shermans over T-34s?
reports from defectors saying whatever the americans wanted to hear are on representive of the soviet army anon
cope
>Numbers don't lie
>Battle of the Bulge: 900 US tank losses vs 554 German tank losses
>Battle of Kursk: 6000 Soviet tank losses vs 1200 German tank losses
Yep. The numbers really don't lie. shiT-34 maintaining a solid 1:6 k/d against StuG and Pz IV while the Sherman comes close to 1:2 against King Tigers and Panthers.
not supporting the T-34 but make sure to remember that soviets (and the allies in general) would often count a tank as 'killed' even if it was recoverable with only a medium amount of work, while the germans would go through hell and back to avoid writing one off even if it was never ever going to be fixable.
>not supporting the T-34 but make sure to remember that soviets (and the allies in general) would often count a tank as 'killed
soviets mention about 60-70% of the losses were write-offs
so thats 3.6 losses for every 1.2 german losses
zalogas estimate for bulge losses was 1.5 US losses for every 1 german tank
see? much more accurate already.
>while the germans would go through hell and back to avoid writing one off even if it was never ever going to be fixable
Bullshit.
German tank units routinely underreported their strength.
The reason was due to the Kampfgruppen system allowing commanders to spontaneously draw groups of tanks from different units together for important tasks, which worked very well and created great tactical flexibility, but tank units hated losing some of their tanks because of temporary reassignments so they underreported their strength to disincentivize generals from taking some from them.
The literal opposite if what you write is true, wtf is wrong with you?
>The literal opposite if what you write is true, wtf is wrong with you?
'hell and back' is a overstatment, yeah, but they wouldn't write a tank as killed if it could technically be repaired, at least on the western front, while the allies had a 'kill' be 'unable to fight', again, for the most part.
I think you're confusing write-offs with readiness reports, anon.
Americans always had extremely high readiness numbers because they just sorted tanks out that couldn't be made ready again easily and quickly due to minorbreak-downs.
The tanks not in the statistic anymore weren't write-offs, they just weren't part of the unit anymore in readiness reports and ideally would be replaced pretty fast with fresh/overhauled machines.
The Germans worked differently. They kept tanks in their rosters and repaired way more stuff on location instead of sending it back (which, considering the size of the eastern front and the state of logistics back then was probably the right call for their situation).
No nation wanted to write off tanks and did what they could to get them running again. Germans were also keenly aware of the concepts of mobility kills and the like, but none of that has much to do with post-battledamage assessments and verification of kill-claims.
Nowadays we do that by looking at both sides, comparing write-offs and readiness reports. The soviets often lied massively about the outcomes of battles, invented phantom divisions of German tanks they destroyed and so on, but their and the German readiness reports often paint a much more realistic picture.
Also as I said, German tank companies underreported their readiness numbers to avoid encouraging overly eager commanders from pulling some of their tanks out for improvised battle groups.
PS: There is actually a huge battle which had people believe the Soviet version until like the 90s, that only changed because an SS veteran remembered being there and quickly realized it's bullshit due to the soviets, among other thing, claiming to have killed more tigers than existed at the eastern front and hundreds of other tanks because the commander didn't want to get killed for losing hundreds of soviet tanks while barely killing any German ones and his direct superior covered for him.
I think it was Prokhorovka.
Don't forget Germans had numbers like "1800 tanks lost (1246 to mechanical failure)"
But they le didn't, fellow r/history nerd
anon I....
Your own source says it's unreliable and there's no context.
Is that the first time Panthers were used?
Which tanks does it refer to at which time?
Why try to be a smartass when you just look moronic instead of being a genuine person people don't feel natural disgust towards?
it says it's a rough estimate, so what error margin do you think that is? 10%? 20%? 30%? Pick a number, anon. What does that mean to you?
Also stop being such a mad c**t. It impresses exactly no one.
>it says it's a rough estimate
With no context as to what the numbers refer to.
>waaaah waaaah stop being mean
Lmao
Stop being a deceitful little israelite why don't you?
>says it's a rough estimate
>very rough approximations
>source very hesitant
That literally holds 0 value and I don't understand why you'd think you could convince anybody with these preschool tier attempts at propaganda with a mutilated meaningless source posted in tiny snippets while you refuse to give the context that would lend the quotes enough meaning to at least know what the frick they're talking about.
There are plenty of war time reports, why are you embarrassing yourself like this?
Shockingly, spoonfeeding the willfully ignorant isn't my day job.
You too could do minimum effort searches to find the same information.
If Guderian had a 50% margin of error in his hesitant, rough estimation that would still be thirty percent casualties to their own manufacturing- pretty not-insignificant.
But hey, I'm sure the people who were there had no idea about their own tanks, right?
>Shockingly, spoonfeeding the willfully ignorant isn't my day job
Black person you posted numbers without context that aren't backed up in any way and 4 posts later you still refuse to show what they actually refer to lmao
You're just trying to spin a weird narrative and I can't believe you actually think anybody could fall for that lmao
>Black person you posted numbers without context that aren't backed up in any way and 4 posts later you still refuse to show what they actually refer to lmao
Actually he consciously removed the context.
Those numbers could be about anything from the last months of theearto a single operation.
And that assumes Guderian is being honest which the tiny little quote itself seems to doubt.
His own writings on it have been proven wrong so often that there's no reason to blindly believe him either.
What a weird series of posts.
>m36
Thing was a fricking monster in CoH2 loved it
mid 1943 germany on the eastern front vs late 1944 germany on the western front is absolutely night and day as far as actually being capable of waging war goes. there's a million reasons why this is a moronic point to make but i know you don't care because you never grew out of your tank autism phase.
>muh 1944
>Operation Spring Awakening: 31 German tanks lost vs 152 Soviet tanks lost
Congratulations the T-34 continued to maintain a 1:5 k/d even in 1945 against the Germans. Seeth. Cope. Dilate.
>Vienna offensive: 1345 German tanks lost vs 603 Soviet tanks lost
wow! i'd like to see you cope your way out of this one. you might actually have to cope so hard that you finally try to look at a war as something other than a world of tanks match where things other than "k/d" matter and there are actually combatants other than armored vehicles, but i won't get my hopes up.
the Red Army used a lot of Shermans Vienna.
You're actually moronic if you think this proves *the T-34's* superiority and not the Sherman
Have a look at the crew fatalities.
t-34 was built so poorly and to such a low standard and had vital equipment missing to the point it makes russian army in ukraine look like no2 superpower in world by comparison.
T-34 is contender for one of the worst tanks ever built.
>The Sherman outclassed the piece-of-shit T-34 in every possible way.
except in killing nazis in 1941...
Total number? Sure.
K/D-wise...
i meant because the sherman didn't exist in 1941, anons.
also,
>crew 'survival' rates in a t34 was 15%
fricking kek. please also source me for t-34s lacking fricking seats
Not him but both the survival numbers and the seat thing aren't exaggerations.
Look up
>Factory N.183 (UTZ)
>Malyshev Factory
It produced the majority of t34s in WWII.
even the fricking chieftain didn't quote t-34 survival numbers of 15% crewmen per knocked out tank. that's goddamn ridiculous
crew survival rates in a sherman was 85% on direct hit
crew 'survival' rates in a t34 was 15%
enjoy sitting on whatever you can find for literal hours because putting a seat in cost too many production man-hours & stalin needs his tanks
All of Lazerpigs fur turned white after reading this shite bait
frick off homosexual
Lazerpig is a Black person homosexual.
Yes, but unfortunately he agrees with me on several topics, which makes him correct on those topics.
>T-34 literally unusable
>Tiger works about as well as could be desired for the German automobile industry's "reliability"
>Sherman functional and useful
>Lee/Grant best tank in North Africa in 1941
>British Tanks are worse than the British automobile industry
>Russia is a fricking disaster
functional and useful
I can't even meme you c**ts anymore, fricking brainlets
Please explain to the class that while the Sherman might not have been the biggest and baddest thing on the battlefield, it wasn't a well designed and highly survival and easy to repair and produce solid medium tank that played well into the Americans' industrial capabilities
>well designed
no
> and highly survival
no
>and easy to repair
yes though difficult to repair if the crew are all dead
>and produce solid medium tank
borderline light tank but sure
>that played well into the Americans' industrial capabilities
yes and it was also great at roasting crew alive, not so good at destroying German tanks
>still believing the roasting crew alive meme
Imagine basing your knowledge on History Channel in 2022.
Are you on some kind of anti-American kick or are you actually that stupid?
>yes though difficult to repair if the crew are all dead
You're projecting again, Vasily. Sherman crew survival rates average to roughly one dead crewman per tank knocked out. T-34 crew survival rates average to roughly one surviving crewman per tank knocked out.
>T-34 crew survival rates average to roughly one surviving crewman per tank knocked out
ha, utter bullshit
Nope. T-34s had less stabilizers in their HE ammo so they tended to explode faster. There was also issues with the armor being overhardened to the point it spalled and even cracked from HE hits. I've spoken at length about the driver's hatch before and the cramped conditions also made it difficult to evacuate in case of an ammo fire.
maybe you could cite an actual source for that statistic then. because claiming that all crew save one died in the average knocked-out t-34 is demonstrably bullshit
Not him but the most common scenario was total crew death. When you have 4-5 people escaping in other scenarios it quickly drags the number upwards.
most common scenario? lol. all the sources i cited
dispute that. please educate me with any reputable source
>all the sources i cited
# dispute that
No they don't.
interesting head-in-the-sand debate style you have there, anon.
I provided the same amount of proof you did.
yep. not citing anything at all is indeed the same as providing resources that show the t-34s casualty rate was not all crew but 1 in the average knocked out tank.
Anon, all those sources you mentioned?
They agree with me and disagree with you.
You also don't know how a citation works.
I've provided the same amount of proof you did. Your move, Black person.
30 t-34s lost, 55 casualties
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2016/03/tank-crew-losses.html
they agree with you how, exactly? jesus christ /k/
>they agree with you how, exactly
They say what I said and disagree with what you said.
The video explicitly says 15% survival rate.
and this is the point i realize i'm being trolled. had me going for a while; well done, anon.
Anon, the 15% number all those people in this thread were referring to was about t34s, not Shermans.
Read back.
Niggy that's 12th grade biology.
>Anon, the 15% number all those people in this thread were referring to was about t34s, not Shermans.
>Read back.
and i'm talking about the t-34? read what's circled in the screenshot and the link that i provided from tankarchives.ca
Oh I'm sorry.
I didn't know you were moronic.
it's what i get, i suppose, for trying to bring reason and sources to a debate on /k/. have fun in world of warthunder, kid
That statistic is nowhere in the video. At 35:00 he starts talking about getting out of a t-34 and how it was a nightmare, though
the statistic from the video disproving the assertion that only 15% of t-34 crew survived per knocked out tank is literally timestamped in the video link for you as well as posted as a screenshot with the relevant information circled in red.
i mean anon, come on.
the thread didn't go as you wanted it to go, did ya?
>how to debate when you don't have an argument or remotely know what you're talking about
>"ha, utter bullshit."
I'm guessing this thread didn't go the way you planned.
see chieftain's myths of american armor video, zaloga's armored champion, reports on tankarchives.ca. that claim would be laughable if it wasn't so moronic
That "borderline light tank" had all-around superior armor to T-34, on top of vastly better crew survivability in case of penetration. Guess T-34 is just a straight-up overglorified light tank then.
33 tons in weight.
frontal armor rivaling the Tiger I.
>borderline light tank
ok moron.
>Gunner Periscope coordinated with gunsight
>Stabilized electric traverse
>crew actually has periscopes
>multiple radios and crew intercom
>30,000mi reliability
>rubberized tracks provide superior grip on all surfaces
>both 75mm and 76mm accurate out to 2km
>Useful HE round and artillery sights in mills for accurate indirect fire and the onboard radio to do it, crew even has an artillery slide-rule for calculations
I love bait
Compare to panth(turd)
Was t55 first tank to have tube skeleton to stop these sheets of steel imploding like paper bags
wat
>crew even has an artillery slide-rule for calculations
I call bullshit. Americans love our range tables. Rather than teach our artillerymen ballistics we just made huge books full of range tables for every conceivable circumstance.
What is artillery but weaponized math? And what is a firing table but premanufactured math? And what was American artillery doctrine in WW2 other than the industrialization of death-math?
Granted, but the US armored corps was thrown together in a hurry. Rather than try to teach tankers the math they had entire buildings of math crunching women create books of firing tables.
works about as well as could be desired for the German automobile industry's "reliability"
Tiger readiness rates were barely below PanzerIV rates, which were just fine for WWII.
Further below if we include the fact that pz4 readiness rates were intentionally underreported by crews, but compared to other tanks that doesn't make the Tiger any worse.
Lazerpig is a contrarian midwit centrist pedophile.
>Lazerpig is a contrarian midwit centrist pedophile.
To be clear, he is a homosexual who lusts after little boys.
>homosexual is a pedo
that's basically every gay, unless they're exclusive to "bears"
>Tiger readiness rates were barely below PanzerIV rates, which were just fine for WWII.
Both were shit, and Germany lost. And German automobiles are actual garbage that need specialty tools and require massive disassembly for regular maintenance to fix problems that other cars don't even experience at 100,000mi.
Plus we have the VW Golf Diesel fiasco where they had emissions mode for car inspection testing.
>Both were shit,
Objectively false.
But you know that, you've just been seething about Germans the entire thread.
Where does the obsession come from?
>Tiger readiness rates were barely below PanzerIV rates, which were just fine for WWII.
Tigers had an organic repair&maintenance components for each battalion that was close in size to that of a medium tank (IE, Panzer III/Panzer IV/Panther) regiment. Gee, doing just slightly better with three times the maintenance crews per vehicle sure is a testament to how reliable your ride is.
Pic very fricking relevant, shit probably caused dozens of suicides among poor Wehrmacht technicians.
Worth it.
>lee best tank in North Africa 1941
That would be the panzer IVF
He is a literal drag freak whose center of employment was burger king until he started youtube full time.
I actually think a light tank based on the Christie designs would have been neat but why bother when the M8 greyhound exists
If the Christie tank had been accepted (and J. Walter Christie had been willing to allow modifications), then it would have been in service a decade before the M8 was even conceived.
>I actually think a light tank based on the Christie designs would have been neat
In American service you double Black person
Less than the number of Russians that died because their society is ass-backwards.
The Christie suspension was actually pretty damn bad. Very little stabilization and you need a lot of internal space for the springs. That and Walter Christie was a pain in the ass to work with.
Also, the T-34 was more of a deathtrap than the M4. Overquenched armor tended to splinter when struck and the driver's hatch was a nightmare under normal circumstances.
Pic related
Clearly legendary status NTR822
Wow one emergency production means tank bad!
I guess the Germans running away from them means nothing. (They never ran from Shermans)
Not him but the vast majority of T34s were shoddily made. 60% of all were made in a single factory which was known as basically the worst source of them. The left out half the parts (literally) and had horrendous failure rates.
The factory itself unironically looked like some image from 40k.
post factory
I don't know without looking it up because soviets went with gobledyasiatic wodkaBlack person speak names and letters and numbers.
Just Google "which factory produced the most t34s in wwii" and you'll find out.
i got you
Factory N.183 (UTZ)
Malyshev Factory
guess what country its in now
Glorious Mongolia.
ukraine
>(They never ran from Shermans)
Well clearly that's because the Shermans killed them without giving them the opportunity to run. And also because Shermans didn't get to fight a german tank park armed with nothing more powerful than a 50mm gun, if even that.
>Tankers who used both vehicles says the Sherman is better.
>Anon: "But there was so many more T-34!"
Non sequitur much?
I mean, tbf... did ANYBODY like the Lee?
The Brits were actually okay with the Lee. They knew it was shit and merely a stopgap for a better tank but it had a 75mm gun, enough space for multiple loaders, and were solid by the liberty ship full. Good enough for the Brits to get their shit together in North Africa.
The T-34 was so cramped that even the North Koreans during the Korean war found the thing to be cramped, not only are the Koreans smaller than your average Russian tank, but they were also the 85 variant which had more room than the old T-34-76 tanks.
pls ignore
>tank
after Russian
>hover over embed
>see the dude is some kind of vatnig
ignroed
>thumbnail is literally "It actually sucks"
moran
I see a VDV hat, I assume vatnig
simple as
UK aid was a drop in the bucket. Your people were barely surviving and couldn't give very much despite how much you hype "LITERALLY INVADED IRAN, LITERALLY" that means you deposed a goat herder warlord.
UK aid was a drop in the bucket when the bucket was empty. Remember, the USSR had to move all it's industry east of the Urals and that was a massive toll on it's resources.
>I see a VDV hat, I assume vatnig
>simple as
multiple kinds of stupid. impressive.
It's actually the opposite, they're the biggest anti-Vatnik on Youtube
anon's an idiot, but he's really not missing much
BT tanks were fast, but that doesn't do much good when they were charging headlong into slugfests with Panzer IIIs and IVs.
The funniest thing about this is that the Americans owned both half the blueprint and the factory tools used to make the T-34 and if it weren't for us the USSR would be using KV-1 derived tanks up into the 50s
>KV-1 derived tanks up into the 50s
Ughhh...what could've been.
Just another reason to hate FDR
Yet another bait thread that people fall for. It's so tiring. He even uses the same pictures and you fricks can't recognise this?
This is /k/ . Highest lead intake of all the boards
The Christie suspension wasn't that good and the Russians planned to replace it the moment the T-34 entered service with torsion bars
>How Many Americans died because the army rejected Christie's ideas?
Zero.
You moronic? That soviet shitbox was deathtrap
Before the war interrupted them, the Soviets were planning on switching over to the T-34M which got rid of the Christie suspension in favor of torsion springs.
People that shit talk the Sherman and praise the T-34 are people who clearly never had the displeasure of riding the latter.
as always, /k/ bites the most simple of baits possible. what a incredible board full of smart people!
Red army crews liked the sherman a lot.
They didn't like the Lee though.
Holy shit did you just time travel from 2008 or something?
When did the next country field a working gun stabilizer?
three
Because the M4 wasn't designed or produced by subhuman (foreigners), the gun stabilizes itself.
Going straight to petty insults I see.
>Going straight to petty insults I see.
They immediately reach for the mutt images and repeated vitriol as soon as they realize they aren't winning
You should have seen the explosive seething all over PrepHole today just because America won a soccer game no one cares about here
yeah, also why didn't they use sloped armor?
>why didn't they use sloped armor?
57 degrees from vertical.
Weak bait, bud.
That's what the British did with their cruiser tanks, but their crews generally preferred shermans
I always liked the look of that one.
Too bad all british WWII tanks were shit.
Centurions were good
Don't think Cromwells were bad either
>Centurions were good
They weren't WWII tanks, anon.
Frick meant the comet, my bad
Char B1 was actually a good tank for 1940 and the one-man turret problem was less of an issue because there was a dedicated radio operator, and the 75mm was the primary weapon.
>there was a dedicated radio operator
But no radios.
The Char B1s had radios.
Not all of them. The French tried to save money by only having the commander's tank carry a radio.
No, every B1 had a radio. It was just that they were only capable of wireless telegraphy, not voice-transmission.
>It was just that they were only capable of wireless telegraphy
Not him but that would be completely useless in battle or even when just in motion. Tanks were loud.
No wonder they used flags.
Morse code was more easily (and reliably) heard than voice transmissions on the radios of that era.
Absolutely true and correct.
However, the reason why nobody used it was that you couldn't make out/decipher Morse code while being in action,which made it useless when it actually mattered. It was also extremely slow.
Otherwise all WWII tanks would have used more code.
Even a skilled operator (andchamces are the guy in the tank commander didn't do it daily before the war) takes quite a while to relay messages.
They communicated via flags, anon.
Both their planes and artillery were great. America entered the war fresh with years of preparation and the largest economy on earth while Germany had years of warfare and a depleted economy and ammo stores.
A large enough artillery advantage makes every ear a math problem and America's was huge.
>America entered the war fresh with years of preparation and the largest economy on earth while Germany had years of warfare and a depleted economy and ammo stores.
It wasn't just that, it also has to do with Germans spending resources on moronic wunderwaffe shit and building maintenance-heavy weapons with a far larger logistical footprint than they could sustain.
Was it really wise to build a V2 rocket in place of the three strategic bombers or ten piston-engine fighters that could have been built for the same price? Or manufacture experimental rocket planes that explode as often as they launch, when the allies are rapidly superseding you in both quantity and quality of piston-engine fighters?
Sherman was the right tank for the job no matter what anyone says. It had to be "good enough" in combat but this was secondary to being designed for insane reliability, unified maintenance procedures, and simplicity of manufacture. The Tiger was a better tank pound-for-pound but that shit doesn't matter when they're massively outnumbered and hamstrung by inadequate materiel support. Germany really should have invested more in cheap, reliable, spammable weapons.
>It wasn't just that
Yes it was.
Even if we assume you are right about everything, arent exaggerating in the slightest and didn't fall for any memes and that your understanding of perfectly tly exchangeable production lines, workers and factories is correct and that your view on technology,the economy and resources available to them isn't dumb and really surface level and they would've done everything right:
It still wouldn't have mattered.
You're right about the Sherman with being good enough and being designed around the American economy sometimes to the detriment of its performance.
But consider this: America actually could have afforded making a tank more optimised for combat and less for its industry.
Also
>insane reliability, unified maintenance procedures, and simplicity of manufacture
Insane reliability is wrong, american logistics kept them running, they weren't incredibly reliable and the readiness rates worked differently to German ones since American units took tanks that took longer to repair or were lost out of the roster (meaning any they sent back as well), while Germans repaired a lot more at the front, didn't take them out and didn't take out losses until they were replaced either. That's why an American tank company could be at half strength but 100% readiness while German tank companies couldn't be (and basically never were).
As for simplicity of manufacture and spammable weapons, the Panther cost about as much to built as a panzer4 and with the Ausf. F it would've been even cheaper than the PzIV due to the schmalturm. Making it cheaper and easier to produce was a high priority.
Way too many people think in video game terms or believe designers and manufacturers back then were just being morons, things have reasons and if something seems weird it's usually just because you lack knowledge, which was surprisingly often true even for the commies.
Tldnr: Yes, but also no.
>that could have been built for the same price?
Monentary expense doesn't equal production capacity. Even if they used the same materials, and even if they used the same machine tools they didn't have the same man-hour cost. Perhaps a V-2 shell and an airframe are similar in construction (they aren't) but the V2's rocket engine is very different from a piston engine and the construction of one thing is not the same as building six things.
>Literally what was the army's problem?
I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.
Bravo anon
Why did capitalists sell their tank designs to communists, and even designed their best tank factories for them before Hitler was even around?
Zog.
because they knew communists were useless without lend lease
they wanted money. soviets were willing to pay.
they were also the only people willing to put up with the dude because no one else liked him.
I hate Sherman homosexuals so much. They're the braindead vaxxies of the tank world
>“Whoever was responsible for supplying the army with tanks is guilty of supplying material inferior to its enemy counterpart for at least two years or more,” one an angry armoured cavalry lieutenant told the New York Times in March 1945. “How anyone can escape punishment for neglecting such a vital weapon of war is beyond me.”
>The young officer didn’t stop there.
>I am a tank platoon leader, at present recovering from wounds received during the Battle of the Bulge. Since I have spent three years in a tank platoon doing everything, and at one time or another held every position and have read everything on armour I could get my hands on during this time, I would like to get this off my chest. No statement, claim, or promise made by any part of the Army can justify thousands of dead and wounded tank men, or thousands of others who depended on the tank for support.
Worked with doctrine. Lards inflicted massively disproportionate casualties against the Germans overall. The German military was quite professional, and the doctrine and material that gave the less well trained Americans a 5:1 casualty ratio over them is honestly about as good as you can hope for.
>Lards inflicted massively disproportionate casualties against the Germans overall.
Not him but that's 95% based on the air and artillery advantage.
>German tanks only sucked because German everything sucked.
Yeah, doctrinal advantage. The US had massive supply lines across the Atlantic and were initially forced to work with amphibious landings and small beach heads. They were in many cases outnumbered by the Germans initially or at parity with them, but were incredibly good at using their advantage of fully mechanized forces and much greater mobility to chop off bits of German strength, encircle them with a massive artillery advantage, which in turn led to huge surrenders.
It was the focus on mobility and long range artillery firepower advantage that allowed the US to put German forces in hopeless positions again and again, getting surrenders. The tank was just part of that larger doctrine. And it worked, the US had lopsided casualty rates against all opponents in the war.
Treating prisoners decently also certainly helped get those big surrenders.
>Treating prisoners decently also certainly helped get those big surrenders.
Huge numbers of axis prisoners ended up immigrating to the United States, often to the regions their camps were in
Cope, gay. Keep repeating the opinions of folks who had never used, performed maintenance on or even actually fought a Tiger. They never dealt with the parts shortage. They never saw how often they suffered mechanical difficulties. They didn't know about all the production issues. They didn't have to deal with overcomplicated maintenance and repairs. All they knew was "muh big scary German tank" and got pissy that the Sherman wasn't also the wunderwaffe they thought the Tigers/Panthers were.
The two advantages Tigers had were sheer range and relative armor thickness. Just two issues:
>The range advantage barely mattered, since combat didn't take place in some wide open steppe like in the east. Engagement rangers were much shorter, and so the difference in firepower became negligible.
>Because of those shorter engagement distances, the 76mm was actually more than capable of punching through the Tiger's armor at conventional distances.
But even if we forget all about that, there's just one thing:
The chance of fighting a Tiger one-on-one was statistically negligible. They were fricking unicorns, most people who thought they fought one actually fought a Panther or even a PzIV. It was much more valuable to the war effort to have a working, competent tank in large amounts, with spare parts and tons of interchangeable ammo, right at the frontlines than rushing some prototypes into production to specifically fight just a fraction of 4% of all German tanks in existence.
of those shorter engagement distances, the 76mm was actually more than capable of punching through the Tiger's armor at conventional distances.
Kek
Life isn't a video game, anon.
Most shots that should pen simply didn't back then and angles are both omnipresent and extremely meaningful.
That only stopped in the cold war when penetrators started flying so fast they began acting like liquid on impact.
>the virgin ghetto welded T-34 with the ergonomics of a rat trap and turret layout of a pinhead
>the chad cast hull Sherman with functional sloped armor equivalent of Tiger I and wet stowage for ammo
USSR had these the thousands for the express purpose of yolo Deep Battle bullshit bamboozling the road networks of Western Europe once Germany/France had 'exhausted' themselves. US gave it a fair shake, it just was too small (as in tankette tier); served its purpose for developing cavalry doctrine for a time in the interwar period. That's it.
Some units preferred the 75mm for the HE performance (most shells fired would be HE, typically in support of infantry or at AT positions). Tiger shock wasn't helped by the turret Shurzen, that rounded out Pz. IV turret profiles. As you said, inside 400m was mutually assured penetration for just about everything an all sides. Even angled, there was nothing preventing turret ring jamming, detracking, or hull deck deflections on the Tiger in question (or the rest of your unit simply pummeling it; or calling in artillery). There's at least one instance of a Tiger crew being concussed to death by HE spam -- the frontal armor otherwise uncompromised by the Shermans doing the spamming. We should be past the fuddloring of Shermans' inadequancies by now.
King of 'adequate'. Sloped armor fetishism is just that. Armor strength/hardness and shit welds were equivalent to late war Germans' issues from the start and for the duration; clutch was excessively a beast to work; turrets were cramped blind dogshit until the -85s' go into production (exacerbated by 'button up' doctrine and meh optics). They're impressive for the sheer volume shat out and serviceability.
Incredible pasta, screencap lmao
>>the chad cast hull Sherman with functional sloped armor
American castings were bad enough that they only offered about 80% of the protection of equivalent rolled homogenous steel according to German tests and the Tigerfibel.
Cast armor was also less prone to shattering like the T-34's overquenched armor. It was also less prone to spalling.
Good armor did neither anyway.
I don't think soviet standards are what we should go by since at that point we might as well prefer Italian riveted armor.
>lieutenant
>platoon leader
Who the frick cares what some butter bar thinks?
All these do are strengthen my belief that the Sherman's bad postwar reputation compared to the T-34 isn't because it was actually a bad tank but because American tankers whined a lot thanks to an entitlement complex that was reinforced by their leaders assuring them that they shouldn't have any problem fighting heavy tanks twice the weight of their own.
On the other hand, I get the impression that Soviet tankers were just happy to have any tank at all, and didn't expect their 30 ton medium to be able fight toe to toe with a Tiger.
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE SHERMAN TANK
>To Corporal Francis Vierling of the U.S. Second Armored Division, “the Sherman’s greatest deficiency lies in its firepower, which is most conspicuous by its absence.” He continued:
>Lack of a principal gun with sufficient penetrating ability to knock out the German opponent has cost us more tanks, and skilled men to man more tanks, than any failure of our crews- not to mention the heartbreak and sense of defeat I and other men have felt when we see twenty-five or even many more of our rounds fired, and they ricochet off the enemy attackers. To be finally hit, once, and we climb from and leave a burning, blackened, and now useless pile of scrap iron. It would yet have been a tank, had it mounted a gun.
>Yet for top Allied commanders, the official position was that the M4 Sherman was the right tank at the right time. It seemed that at the highest political and military levels, the fix was in.
>“We have nothing to fear from Tiger and Panther tanks,” insisted British general Bernard Montgomery, even as Allied troops in the summer of 1944 were stricken by the “Tiger Terror” in Normandy. “We have had no difficulty in dealing with German armour.”
>Corporal
BWAHAHAHAH
get vaxxed, sherhomosexual
Contrarian moron homosexual detected. I heard CNN said eating your own shit is bad, so you should do it.
Not him, but vaxxie opinions hold no weight.
People who let the media talk them into forever changing their DNA with a foreign messenger RNA strain can't be taken seriously.
6 years from now a meaningful part of every living cell in your body will be filled with the mark of your government.
quite the grasp of biology you picked up there, fren
I replied to him because I felt that comparing Shermangays to vaxgays was a false equivalency. Yes, it's good to think critically about the general concensus, but contrarianism for the sake of contrianism makes you just as brain dead. And if anything, muh German tanm superiority is still the mainstream.
Anti vax and vaxxies arguing is moronic. Anti vax being super moronic overall
What the frick do vaccines have to do with tank autism? You have your bait mixed up.
Here's the thing, only 1347 tiger tanks were ever produced. With `40,000 Shermans on one side and 45,000 T-34s on the other a measly thousand tanks and change just didn't matter.
As for the Panther, they just used HVAP to pierce the turret. That's where most of the crew is and a tank isn't much of a threat without it's turret crew.
>With `40,000 Shermans on one side and 45,000 T-34s on the other a measly thousand tanks and change just didn't matter
Idk a 13,5 to 1 KDA verified through loss and readiness reports from all sides means they took plenty of enemy tanks with them.
Granted, mostly t34s, but still.
>Idk a 13,5 to 1 KDA verified through loss and readiness reports from all sides
no such report exists
the after-action reports from the allies involving king tigers have no single battle where a king tiger destroyed more than a handful of tanks, with an average of only 1-2 tanks destroyed in an engagement
the best single action by as tiger at normandy was the destruction of 15 british tanks at the cost of 6 tigers
even exceptional cases only got as far as 3:1
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Tigers and king tigers are included in that number (just tigers would likely make for a way higher kill rate).
And if you're interested in it look up the video of MHV on tiger efficiency.
>You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
There is only a single battle where either a king tiger or a tiger score at least 13 kills
And in that same battle, they took 6 losses
No other battle occured in either normandy or the bulge where a tiger got more than a handful of kills each
>And if you're interested in it look up the video of MHV on tiger efficiency.
MHV literally says that the 10:1 ratio should be taken with a grain of salt
>There is only a single battle where either a king tiger or a tiger score at least 13 kills
>And in that same battle, they took 6 losses
>No other battle occured in either normandy or the bulge where a tiger got more than a handful of kills each
That's entirely irrelevant and not how it works, anon.
It's fine if they only get 1-2 kills or engagement as long as they survive and other tanks don't. A working tank can fight again. For a tank to get a K/D rate of 13 it just needs to kill 13 before it is destroyed.
You're not particularly smart, are you?
>MHV literally says that the 10:1 ratio should be taken with a grain of salt
That is not what he says and that's not the ratio he mentions either, nignon.
Are you israeli? Will you call it an 8:1 ratio next post?
Oy vey,those evil Germans with their 6:1 ratio, how can they get a 4:1 ratio?
A 2:1 ratio? That's insane!
>That's entirely irrelevant and not how it works, anon.
if they are losing about 2-3:1 in every battle they are in, it will be near impossible for them to hit 13:1 because even if the unit collects 13 kills over the course of several battles they will have lost about 6-7 of their own tanks along the way
king tigers, who took 150 losses in the bulge, would have needed to knock out over 1900 allied tanks for a 13:1 kill ratio, so it would be incredibly unlikely considering the allies only took 900 losses the entire battle, only way to get 13:1 is if german AT guns had a negative number of kills
>That is not what he says and that's not the ratio he mentions either, nignon
he opens up with a statement about the constantly overinflated kill caims
>>That is not what he says and that's not the ratio he mentions either, nignon
>he opens up with a statement about the constantly overinflated kill caims
Lmao this is the most israeli shit I've ever seen
>you made that up, he didn't say that
>but he kinda said something sort of similar at the start!
You're like the guy who made the starship troopers movie after reading 10 pages but less honest
Carius destroyed 15 IS2 and 5 t34s in about 15 minutes with 2 tigers in a battle.
Frank Staudegger solo'd 60 T34s, killing 22 before retreating on the 8th july 1943.
Michael Wittman killed 21 in Villers-Bocage on the 13th of June in 1944.
Why would you choose to lie about something so dumb?
Anon, why don't you stop making shit up and stop pretending the eastern front didn't exist?
You're right, if your numbers would be correct, you would be correct, but they aren't and you're making them up based on single battles while ignoring an entire war and lying.
>opens up with a statement about the constantly overinflated kill caims
Very different from what you wrote before and while it's right that it's not an exact science, your earlier quote was still entirely made up and he goes into detail why he thinks the numbers are the way they are.
You watched the first 10 seconds AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.
Jesus man
>Michael Wittman killed 21 in Villers-Bocage on the 13th of June in 1944.
this is one of the only, if not the only, battle where tigers get close to 13 kills
but in the same battle, 6 tigers are lost leading to a total tally of 3:1 not 15:1
>You're right, if your numbers would be correct, you would be correct, but they aren't and you're making them up based on single battles while ignoring an entire war and lying.
because to preserve a 13:1 ratio when major battles at normandy and the bulge where german armor got by with 3:1 at worst would require the presence of other battles where allies take losses in the thousands to sing-digit german losses to preserve the average
>this is one of the only, if not the only, battle where tigers get close to 13 kills
>but in the same battle, 6 tigers are lost leading to a total tally of 3:1 not 15:1
Do you think the other tigers just did nothing?
And curious how you ignored the others.
Even more curious how you keep focusing on late war and western front battles.
Does the dominant period of the tiger in the east somehow not fit into your childish web of lies?
>because to preserve a 13:1 ratio when major battles at normandy and the bulge where german armor got by with 3:1 at worst would require the presence of other battles where allies take losses in the thousands to sing-digit german losses to preserve the average
You really suck at basic math.
The vast majority of tank engagements were not major battles, anon and often ended without tiger losses, particularly in the wast where the vast majority of tank-on-tank warfare happened. What a stupid frick you are.
Just admit you were wrong, this is getting ridiculous and your increasingly desperate attempts to ignore the east are just pathetic.
And watch the video you tried to lie about before. It's not just based on kill claims either.
You're just wrong, anon.
>this is one of the only, if not the only, battle where tigers get close to 13 kills
There are literally 2 other examples with more than 13 kills and 0 losses in the post you're replying to.
Why are you being such a israelite?
not the anon, but given the germans were on the defensive, having more kills then the attacker is pretty much expected. especialyl against russian ''''''armor'''''
Tell that to the Russians during Barbarossa.
The reason why the tiger was so good basically boils downtown side armor. One got like 213 hits and then drove all the way home to Berlin (the latter was obvious propaganda circus, but surviving over 200 hits in a single battle is still impressive).
And Franz Staudegger's action, just like the one by Carius were rather aggressive.
Staudi was busy repairing his tank, fixed it enough to function, charged dozens of T34s, shot all his ammo and then came back.
Not exactly an ambush scenario.
>this is one of the only, if not the only, battle where tigers get close to 13 kills
>if not the only
>Carius destroyed 15 IS2 and 5 t34s in about 15 minutes with 2 tigers in a battle.
>Frank Staudegger solo'd 60 T34s, killing 22 before retreating on the 8th july 1943.
Huh?
And how does that magically remove (if it were true) not just those engagements but also all the smaller skirmishes without tiger losses?
>this is one of the only, if not the only
French wikipedia says 17 instead of 22 for Staudegger's solo heroics in that battle, but you're still wrong.
Used to have an English lage too I think, but activists of your tribe seem to have removed it.
Oberscharführer dans la 1re division SS Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler de la Waffen-SS, il est célèbre pour avoir détruit par surprise à la grenade, la nuit du 5 juillet 1943, lors de l'opération Citadelle, deux chars T34 russes après s'en être approché en croyant avoir affaire à des chars amis. Son plus grand exploit eut lieu le 8 juillet 1943 : alors que son char est à l'arrière du front pour réparer des dégâts mineurs, il décide de retourner au combat et vient en aide avec son seul char Tigre, à une unité de la 2e compagnie du régiment de grenadier "Deutschland" attaquée par un groupe d'une cinquantaine de T-34 soviétiques dans le secteur sud de la bataille de Koursk. Staudegger utilise toutes ses munitions perforantes, détruisant 17 chars russes, galvanisant l'infanterie allemande qui l'appuie et forçant l'ennemi à battre en retraite. Il aurait ensuite poursuivi son attaque avec des obus explosifs détruisant 5 chars supplémentaires et n'aurait entamé sa retraite qu'une fois complètement à court de munitions.[1]
Il recevra pour cet exploit la croix de chevalier de la croix de fer le 10 juillet 1943, et sera le premier tankiste opérant sur Tigre à recevoir cette distinction. L'équipage de son char Tigre était composé du pilote Herbert Stellmacher, du radio Gerhard Waltersdorf, d'Heinz Buchner comme tireur et de Walter Henke comme chargeur[2].
>As for the Panther, they just used HVAP to pierce the turret.
with only 50mm of side armor, 40 on the lower side hull, it was actually easier to defeat than the tiger
panther only has an advantage over the tiger from a frontal 30-degree arc where its sloped front matters
at 45-degrees, the 3-in AT gun can see and defeat the turret side and hull side about half of what is seen
at 60-degees entire side hull and side turret are visible and vulnerable
the 80mm side armor of the tiger gives it more protection over a wider range of angles, even if its weaker in a head-on engagement
since it can wiggle around a lot more before an attack is considered flanking
though at 50-tons, you should probably expect to be well protected
How much of a brainlet are you that you think you're making a point while telling people that a heavy tank had better protection than a medium tank?
because most people claim the panther was more well-armored than the tiger due to a 160mm effective frontal plate
>because most people claim
No they don't.
>muh german tanks
Less than 10% of Sherman losses were by german armor.
Also
>lieutenant
>corporal
LMAO, anecdotes from a butthurt enlisted and a butterbar. Truly worthwhile when the cold, hard statistical data paints a completely different picture.
>Less than 10% of Sherman losses were by german armor.
US book keeping doesnt make the distintion
And it would be hard to tell apart as the 75mm and 88mm used by tanks are the same as the one used by AT guns
But in terms of numbers of enemies engaged, armor made up 15% of total combat scenarios
Though this includes assault guns
like most Russian gear, T-34 wasn't badly designed
in fact, ones built up to spec were fairly competitive against Shermans
the problem is that 90% of T-34s weren't built up to spec
shitty soviet factories used every corner cutting technique available in order to fulfill their impossible quotas
it's unfair to say that the theoretical T-34 is a bad tank for its era, but the real T-34s that were in service were a total piece of shit
Do you have any source for the 90% claim or is just more made up Sherman boomer shit?
Sherman was a successful strategic asset, Armor Force had very modest losses and OP is a nupid stucking figger vatshill. Every US tank had to cross an ocean to get to the fight and Sherman was (like the Panzers and StuG) sized for rail/bridge/roads of the time.
US drivetrains were highly reliable and easy to maintain to this day demonstrated by restorers easily making one Sherman from multiple range wrecks.
Just about everything about the M4 was easy to maintain. In fact the only big maintenance issue I can recall was that if you didn't run the radial engine for a while the oil would pool in the bottom cylinder and you'd have to manually crank the engine to get the oil distributed again.