About a year ago some retarded britoid said in a thread that the M3 wasn't terrible but the T34 was still better.
Well, he's wrong about both. The M3 might've been garbage in pretty much every way and so inefficiently designed that it literally carried enough empty air around to stuff 10 armed soldiers in there according to soviet tests, but it remains way better than the T34.
>but the T34 could be built quickly and easily!
It couldn't, it was more expensive than the fucking Sherman to build, they just left up to 60% of the parts out in the factory that built the majority of them. You could've done the same with the M3 if you'd be a retarded commie.
The only thing worse than a brit pretending their armor was or is good is a brit pretending it's worse than it was.
>About a year ago some retarded britoid said in a thread that the M3 wasn't terrible but the T34 was still better.
Before anybody asks, I'm a busy guy so I didn't get to make the thread until now, but I think that's the image he posted back then.
nagger its been a year also is that the imperial war museum? been wanting to visit but i dont want to go anywhere near london
The T-34 has wider tracks so it’s better
>For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
>Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose!
>But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
>t. Dmitriy Fedorovich, Soviet Sherman commander and Hero of the Soviet Union.
Yeah nah, that homosexual was a traitor and made up bullshit for the west constantly, it's literal propaganda.
Meanwhile the T34 was so easy to use literal women could do it.
>Yeah nah, that homosexual was a traitor and made up bullshit for the west constantly, it's literal propaganda.
dmitri loza was a company commander who had been fighting since 1943 and saw some serious fighting until the end of the war in austria, germany proper, and then against the japs in manchuria
he was such a traitor he got "Hero of the soviet union" (admittedly a worthless medal, but still an acknowledgement of his loyalty)
The M3 was a heavier M2 too rushed to get a real turret, a SPG would had been far superior. It's building quality and chassis was far better but
The T-34 is the third iteration of the christies tank designed for tank combat in mind from the start.
>designed for tank combat in mind from the start.
Which tank wasn't?
The M2, an "obsolete" design influenced by the pre-1935 period. The M3 was just a rushed modification to make it useful against real threats.
Was the M2 not designed with combat in mind, anon?
No. Why would American tanks have such narrow tracks otherwise?
Pre 1935 combat, like IJA tanks pre shinhoto chi ha, french cones, vikers 6ton, T-26 (37mm), and so.
>Pre 1935 combat,
>nobody has fought before 1935
Truly a more civilized time.
Kek
Khalkhin Gol and Spain had a lot of influence on tanks and that was used in later designs, aka the M4. American chassis were good and adaptable. The M3 was an interim solution and the M2 was simply a bad idea, not better than the far older Christie tank.
didn't the soviets call the M3 a coffin for five brothers
which is just slightly less bad than what the israelis called patton tanks(charred body transporters)
there weren't many T-34 survivors to make up a nickname for it after experiencing trouble, even fewer survived after cheka heard about it.
I'm not sure if people actually believe this shit and can still unironically make an Ian Fleming mistake. It's not 50s anymore, you can be more objective and correct, ffs.
>T-34 got a little over hyped
Was it? I thought that no one but few German generals, soviets and maybe Zaloga said anything good about T-34 for decades.
"The tank that won the war" is what retards called it for decades.
Would you rather serve in an M3 or T34?
The M3 is a clear winner
Because it did won the war. It was good enough, easy to make, had potential for modification, and, sadly, soviets just couldn't introduce a better tank they've developed right before the invasion, as well as mid-war developments like T-43 and 44.
You are clearly a newfag and never watched history channel from the period of about 1995 - 2010.
Consider killing yourself you retarded child.
>didn't the soviets call the M3 a coffin for five brothers
Anon, they called every tank that, only the numbers changed.
After the war the reports that mentioned it for soviet tanks were mostly purged though.
>didn't the soviets call the M3 a coffin for five brothers
Seven. The M3 has seven crew, because it is a machine designed by and for madmen.
And i love it for just that
I think being a soviet tanker was probably just a different way to die. Didn't really matter what you were given. Though if you had a choice you were probably best off in an M4.
>About a year ago
Must have touched a nerve if you are still thinking about it?
No I just had the image saved and haven't found the time yet to make a thread about it.
>M3 better than T-34
Alright, I know the T-34 got a little over hyped and we're in the middle of a correction swing, but I'm not going to buy that statement.
Does everyone really have to be a contrarian these days to feel validated? M4 and T34 tanks were still in service with minor militaries in the 1990s. The M3 was replaced during WW2. It was known to be obsolete from the start. Even the Canadians converted them into quasi-M4s by making the Ram.
>Does everyone really have to be a contrarian these days to feel validated?
Yes, and it greatly degrades the quality of this board.
>commieboos seething
>Because it did won the war. It was good enough, easy to make,
>easy to make
>>but the T34 could be built quickly and easily!
>It couldn't, it was more expensive than the fucking Sherman to build,
In OP's defense the M3 had...some redeeming features! That's more than some other tanks of WW2 like the Covenantor can say. The M3 had alright armor for it's time, the 75mm gun was actually terrifying for 1942 and could kill any Panzer III or IV up to the end of the war. It had a stabilizer, the 37mm wasn't entirely useless (could still pen the front turret of a Panzer IV or spray canister over an obstacle while keeping most of the tank covered)
The M4 was a sophisticated weapon of WW2 with standard design.
The T-34 was a crude weapon of war with innovative design, making the best of an industry unable to produce sophisticated tanks.
The M3 was a piece of shit obsolete from the moment it went out. No justification in having a 7 man casemated tank when 4-5 man turreted tanks with same main gun calibre with miles better gun traverse, lower profile and cost are possible.
there are two major T-34 variants, pre-1944 and post 1944. T-34-76 aka the pre-44 variant is a steaming pile of shit with no radio, polished metal as periscope, welds that pop on first hit and engine that breaks down and gasses and burns down the crew even without enemies. oh, and the 2-man turret with permanently broken hydraulic rotation mechanism is also there.
post-44 T-34-85 was still made like shit and only got more reliable electric turret drive in 1945 but at least it was just a poorly made mediocre tank. the only ones without glaring QC issues were made post-war.
I'd take M3 over the pre-44 T-34 any day.
>no radio
On few production occasions, yet LaserPig and others overblow it to "T-34 got no radio at all".
>polished metal as periscope
On the first production series.
>On few production occasions, yet LaserPig and others overblow it to "T-34 got no radio at all".
Why lie?
Yes,why ignore the fact that T-34 was recieving multiple upgrades in various aspects throughout the war, with most notable distinction being between 1940-41 76, 42-43 76 and 43-45 85s
> few production occasions
Come on nagger
those lend-lease supplied American radios must've been nice
They never installed US radios on soviet tanks. I doubt they even had radios shipped separately from tanks, planes etc.
Except for Firefly and Centurion. One being mostly American and another coming too late
>I doubt they even had radios shipped separately from tanks, planes etc.
they absolutely did. like half of all the radios used by soviets were supplied by americans, particularly the longer ranged kind.
>like half of all the radios used by soviets were supplied by americans,
Got source?
Especially on use of western radio sets in tanks, because, again, I've never seen any mentions of Soviet made vehicles using American radio sets installed.
Why cover for the faults of Grigory Kulik, Semyon Budyonny and other "wreckers" of the Soviet Union who escaped the purges (because they were Stalin's friends), anon?
>Kulik had a highly conservative outlook in military technology and theory. He was a strong opponent to Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky's reforms and his deep operations theory, and dismissed innovations such as the T-34 and KV-1 tanks and the Katyusha rocket artillery system.
>In 1937, Kulik was appointed chief of the Main Artillery Directorate, making him responsible for overseeing the development and production of new tanks, tank guns and artillery pieces.
>Though it was both more effective and cheaper than the L-11 gun then in use, Kulik opposed the adoption of the F-34 gun designed by Vasiliy Grabin's workshop at the Joseph Stalin Factory No. 92, as he was a political patron for the Leningrad Kirov Plant, which manufactured the L-11. Due to his status, the relevant armament bureaucrats failed to approve the newer gun for fear of retaliation. This eventually necessitated a rushed retrofit of the KV-1 and T-34's gun in the midst of the German invasion when it became apparent that the L-11 could not reliably penetrate even the lightly armored Panzer III, which was arriving in large numbers.
>Budyonny was a staunch proponent of horse cavalry. During the Great Purge, he testified against Mikhail Tukhachevsky's efforts to create an independent tank corps, claiming that it was so inferior to cavalry and illogical that it amounted to "wrecking" (sabotage). After being told of the importance of the tank in the coming war in 1939, he remarked, "You won't convince me. As soon as war is declared, everyone will shout, "Send for the Cavalry!"[2]
the T-34 did universally have radios before they entered the war, but due to shortages the main production model in 1941-42 did not except for the platoon leader, who used it to receive orders
when radios being standard issue isnt clear, you have pictures of T-34s in late 1942 still using signal flags, but by 1943 they should have had standard issue radios as intended
dmitri loza said he commanded long gun shermans and doesnt even recall short guns in his unit, so thats probably the wet ammo storage at work
the position of the ammo rack meant they were unlikely to be hit and so unlikely to be detonated
If you turned the Soviet industry into building T-M3s, you get tanks as shit as the T-34. But half of them.
>Why didn't the soviets just pull radio industry and the QC of the biggest automotive industry of the world out of their asses when they were producing tanks in shitty tractor plants hastily moved to the Urals and build M3s lol
You're unironically retarded.
cope, shit tank is a shit tank
Have you tried not being a product of the American "education" system and therefore functionally a nagger?
Unless the soviets somehow magically can conjure skilled labour, advanced machine tools, advanced light industry for optics and radios, institutional automotive knowledge and so on out of their arse, the T-34 is the quality they're going to get.
That doesn't mean that using twice the metal to produce one tank at a hull profile of a multistory house with an armament suite of a fucking sposon like a fucking 19 century pre dreadnought is somehow less retarded.
The T-34 was cope for the soviet shit industry, the M3 was cope for America thinking war is something that happens to others, then emergency rushing a tank to get something semi competitive at higher cost than actually war prepared countries.
>when they were producing tanks in shitty tractor plants hastily moved to the Urals
almost all of those factories were designed and built in detroit, the T-34 is a fundamentally American tank
Akshually very early T-34s only had a bad turret design but the quality wasn't abysmal.
The problem was Ukraine invasion and bombing. The new Ural factories weren't up to par, automatic welders included.
>The M4 was a sophisticated weapon of WW2 with standard design.
The early M4s were standard weapons of WW2 with a standard design. Thoroughly average. The late M4s, like the E8, were exceptional weapons of war with a finely tuned design.
Between this, the entire valentine series, and the Matilda 2, the bongs really need to give up the absurd defeatism they have about being dogshit.
It's funny how the only time bongs had the best tank in the world was when they first invented them, and were number one solely for the fact that nobody else had any.
Hint: None of the bong tanks were good.
Crusader was faster and had better AP than an early war Sherman. Valentine was more reliable and better armored than the crusader, albeit slow its reliability allowed it to be used as a cruiser tank, the Russians loved it, the tank could have the 6pdr or 75mm the former better at AP the latter better at HE. The Matilda 2 was untouchable for awhile. The problem with British armor performance was they were also relying on interwar tanks because they couldn’t catch up on all the equipment they lost making the mistake of trusting the French to not defect to the Nazis. The cromwell was still used more like a light tank in doctrine so it’s highest speed lower armor makes sense compared to a Sherman. The comet was brutally good, the firefly was great in a TD role, the centurion was the best tank in the world in 1945. The Churchill’s had better armor than the tiger, insanely better mobility(not speed). In their roles as light or medium tanks they were great, the idea that those were the two roles the British armor was built around was stupid.
Irrelevant cope.
I accept your admission of defeat
I didn't even read your shit, anon. All of the people serving in them and all experts disagree with your assessment.
Sorry bongoloid, come back when your country manages to make more than one acceptable tank every 50 years.
>can’t read
>everyone agrees with me
Yeah then I guess the Sherman is a POS because they called it a Tommy cooker despite it having the highest survival rate. Tldr is compare the tank to the roll it fit. And also just read. the Matilda 2 was loved by Brit’s and feared by Germans and Italians. And the valentine was loved by the soviets.
>Yeah then I guess the Sherman is a POS because they called it a Tommy cooker
>they
>anon thinks the history channel is a respected medium for accutate information
lmao retard
tommy cooker might have been used in real life, just not often and possibly just to refer to any tank
there is a reference to a tommy cooker in british communications, which would only be done if everyone knew what they meant, but it was in reference to a valentine tank and due to how hot it got in north africa
wouldnt be a stretch to imagine someone calling an M4 sherman that for the same reason
>tommy cooker might have been used in real life, just not often and possibly just to refer to any tank
Which makes it irrelevant to what I originally said, but I agree.
Anon's just a dumb retard who actually fell for troll memes on /k/.
and soldiers agree with me
Correct.
>>”experts and soldiers” are retards when they don’t agree with me
Also correct.
>You’re such a mouth breather, you can’t read, don’t read, then assume the history channel
>muh tommycooker
>your barely non surface level youtube channels are the only sources out there
>muh tommycooker
lmao
>experts and soldiers agree with me
>”experts and soldiers” are retards when they don’t agree with me
You’re such a mouth breather, you can’t read, don’t read, then assume the history channel and your barely non surface level youtube channels are the only sources out there
>Sorry bongoloid, come back when your country manages to make more than one acceptable tank every 50 years.
Careful there burger, the abrams is coming up on 50.
I love crusader it looks cool.
I have nothing to say other than sponsons are cool
>retarded britoid
Lazerpig?
Good guess but lazerpig hates Soviet shitboxes and has weird copes with brit kit so I doubt it was him.
This guy literally made shit up that he knew nobody was going to look into due to the time frame he made up just so he could seethe about bongs lol. What kind of autism is this?
>This guy literally made shit up that he knew nobody was going to look into
Like what?
Does anyone actually have numbers on how the Grant/Lee performed relative to its peers?
Not well compared to what followed but forthe brits if was great because they gimped the guns on all of their designs and left no design space for bigger ones.
the lee was made in 1941-42, so by manufacture date its closest to the panzer III with 5cm gun and panzer IV G with short 75mm
so when it rolled out in north africa it absolutely stomped the panzer IIIs and panzer 38s they had
the panzer IV G with long gun was available near the end of the north africa campaign and it would have been more than a match for the M3, but by then the M4 was available and closed the gap once more
it is worth noting that the 37mm gun on the turret was far from useless when it first rolled out, the thinly armored panzer 38s and italian tanks were vulnerable to it
it had trouble penetrating panzer IVs, even the earlier ones, but thats why they put the 75mm gun in the first place
even with the shoddy uncapped rounds they shipped with it would have defeated them frontally and the 80mm armored panzer IVs came out in 43 by which point capped rounds were available and the M3 was already mostly replaced by the M4 , and the 75mm gun got a slight caliber increase to boot
>G
meant F had the short 75
the G was the one with the long gun, though its sometimes called the F2
>the G was the one with the long gun, though its sometimes called the F2
The G and F2 models are different, both had the long gun.
Shut the fuck up retard, Jesus Christ. How are you this misinformed?
>when it rolled out in north africa it absolutely stomped the panzer IIIs and panzer 38s they had
That never happened.
Nice alt history!
Inside the M3 was a good, solid tank striving to escape.
>shows t-34/85
thats basically a heavy tank at that point
a m3 is probably better than earlier model t-34s sure
Try finding a picture with a common WWII version of the T34 next to an M3 in a museum, nagger.
specify what t-34 variant then retard
>anon is too autistic to pick up on obvious context cues
Cute!
says t-34, shows t-34/85
u-ur retard for assuming it was a t-34/85!
cute!
>context: WWII and the M3
Pic related, (You).
is t-34/85 not ww2????? (it is retard
Anon, when was the M3 introduced to the battlefields of WWII and how long did it last?
If you're gonna count upgrades you might as well count the sherman as an M3 upgrade.
M3 is twice as good as T-34 because T-34 has one cannon and M3 has two.
It's just another stealth warriorturd thread
Dude really rents his head to the bongs free 24/7
Depends on the version of T-34, the early T-34 suffers quite a lot from being basically blind and likely not having a proper radio.
However I would say that the 1942 and 43 models were better.
The M4 clears both however, although it was the kind of tank that could only be produced at scale by American industry.
One thing to take into account is the industrial side, which extremely important to understand armored warfare in WW2.
Designs were dictated as much by industry as they were battlefield needs.
The T-34 was able to be produced incredibly cheaply once production had been streamlined, the reason that the USSR produced relatively few light tanks was that it was simply cheaper to build more T-34s.
The T-60s and T-70s that were built were made in former tramcar plants that couldn't handle the weight of the T-34s.