The T-34, of course. That way, comrades can die together as brothers, instead of getting traumatized over the one loss when their tank gets hit, like those decadent American imperialists.
More like arm both sides, let the moronic socialists kill each other, and then nuke whoever survives. Eliminate two kinds of socialism for the price of one.
T-62 kills are actually unconfirmed, though there were T-62s in the area where M51s were active
they do have T-55 kills confirmed, though
M51 showcases how much growth potential was in the M4
they could really just weld extensions to both ends of the T23 turret to accommodate a massive gun
and the engine bay was meant to hold a large radial engine, the GAA engine didnt even fill the whole space, so it was able to slot in post-war diesel engines easily,
>60mm at 45deg armor on the front >76mm to 90mm turret armor
For medium tank this pretty average and well protected
Panzer IV had an amazing 50mm of vertical armor on its turret and 80mm of vertical armor on its hull
While the T-34 had 45mm at 60deg front armor, giving functionally identical frontal protection
The worst that can be said is that it was same protection for more weight, but the M4s engine gave it similar HP/ton
>Make it heavy and well protected >Then give it a powerful engine
If it worked for the Sherman, and in retrospect works for the Abram why wasn't this same, simple philosophy applied to the Patton?
Less than 300 men died inside a Sherman. It was the safest tank of the war and one of the best places to be in the war.
Stop reading technical stats and imagining tank duels, those rarely happened during the war.
>astoundingly low casualties >more than half the number of tankers killed died outside of their tanks >crew survivability on a tank kill was around 70% >able to penetrate almost everything they ran into >optics were above average >deployed in such large numbers that enemy formations were easily overrun >more likely to be knocked out by AT mines and engine malfunctions than infantry AT
I would rather have fought in a Sherman in Patton's riskiest moves than as a mail clerk on the eastern front.
What should they have sent them to their deaths in?
The T-34, of course. That way, comrades can die together as brothers, instead of getting traumatized over the one loss when their tank gets hit, like those decadent American imperialists.
Not tommy cookers
But what? What was the superior alternative that could be shipped from the states?
>What was the superior alternative that could be shipped from the states?
aid to germany to end bolshevism
More like arm both sides, let the moronic socialists kill each other, and then nuke whoever survives. Eliminate two kinds of socialism for the price of one.
a non-shit tank
All ww2 tanks were shit. Shermans were not notably shit for ww2
Like which one?
>Whines about Shermans
>The tank that BTFO the T-62s built decades after them
>The T-62s being sent to their deaths now
> shermans beat t62s
Where???
T-62 kills are actually unconfirmed, though there were T-62s in the area where M51s were active
they do have T-55 kills confirmed, though
M51 showcases how much growth potential was in the M4
they could really just weld extensions to both ends of the T23 turret to accommodate a massive gun
and the engine bay was meant to hold a large radial engine, the GAA engine didnt even fill the whole space, so it was able to slot in post-war diesel engines easily,
Jewtopia
Winners aren't criminals.
t.
t. loser
>automatic deflection and strawman
You're a third worlder.
is the pic a sherman being used as target practice? since it doesnt have a gun or mgs
probably, given it's been penetrated half a dozen times
Enough about your experiences at summer camp, what about the pic of the sherman?
>60mm at 45deg armor on the front
>76mm to 90mm turret armor
For medium tank this pretty average and well protected
Panzer IV had an amazing 50mm of vertical armor on its turret and 80mm of vertical armor on its hull
While the T-34 had 45mm at 60deg front armor, giving functionally identical frontal protection
The worst that can be said is that it was same protection for more weight, but the M4s engine gave it similar HP/ton
>Make it heavy and well protected
>Then give it a powerful engine
If it worked for the Sherman, and in retrospect works for the Abram why wasn't this same, simple philosophy applied to the Patton?
American tanker loses very comically low
As many died in england on the dry run for D-DAY as died on D-DAY
Amazing how american nationalists have convinced themselves this POS was actually good despite every source saying the opposite.
One source, Death Traps, thoroughly deboonk'd.
Ok smart guy, which tank of the era is the superior machine. I'll wait
Look I'm sorry okay I thought it would be a bit of a laugh.
same moron who made m3 bait thread earlier?
But Sherman's had a pretty good survival rate? Especially compared to the T-34..
Less than 300 men died inside a Sherman. It was the safest tank of the war and one of the best places to be in the war.
Stop reading technical stats and imagining tank duels, those rarely happened during the war.
>astoundingly low casualties
>more than half the number of tankers killed died outside of their tanks
>crew survivability on a tank kill was around 70%
>able to penetrate almost everything they ran into
>optics were above average
>deployed in such large numbers that enemy formations were easily overrun
>more likely to be knocked out by AT mines and engine malfunctions than infantry AT
I would rather have fought in a Sherman in Patton's riskiest moves than as a mail clerk on the eastern front.