Meme Tank Thread

How would it perform in WW2?
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/amx-40/

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    king meme tank reporting in

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Build an SPG
      >Insist that it's a main battle tank
      What the fuck were the Swedes thinking?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What the fuck were the Swedes thinking?

        Too much mental energy spent on gadgets and too little on practicality. The S-tank did not only have a hydraulic suspension system, it also had two different kinds of engine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        tbh the definition is of mbt is mostly doctrinal anyway.
        The S tank was actually pretty competitive in its day, remember that before stabilised turrets tanks couldn't hit shit while on the move anyway.
        It was also the first tank to use a turbine engine.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Gun stabilizers existed before the S tank. The Sherman had a gun stabilizer, ffs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Sherman had a gun stabilizer
            Vertical stabilizer, not two-plane stabilizer.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Fine then; the Centurion Mk.3 had a two-plane stabilizer in 50s, which the Swedes operated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Still wasn't able to usefully fire on the move

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How do blast 100 rushing USSR med tanks with 1 swe tank before they occupy everything, and be able to out run them so I can fight 100 more tomorrow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That baby could dig it's own trench with a shovel-attachment

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The reason for choosing the design was the result of studies from WW2 which showed that almost no shots hit lower than 1 meter on the tank

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Call me a newfag, but what the fuck am I even looking at here?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The wedge tank.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At a tank that found a penny.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sus dog

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hearty chuckle

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Very unconventional Swedish tank, the Stridsvagn 103. The cannon is completely fixed to the hull, and the gunner aims it by pivoting the entire tank. It never saw combat and was eventually replaced by Leopard 2's. It is one of the few AFV's made after WW2 with a hull-mounted cannon instead of a turret and looks very derpy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It can even shoot down enemy aircraft!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >when the birds wake you up before sunrise

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      SLAMMED
      T
      A
      N
      C
      E
      D

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >me when not thinking of little girls

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Build an SPG
      >Insist that it's a main battle tank
      What the fuck were the Swedes thinking?

      IMO it's not a tank but it makes sense for a defensive war in the 80s / 90s. Hell it would probably still to pretty good against Russia today seeing they have fuck all PGMs.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry, but if I saw this fucking thing, I'd run like hell.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Definitely not a meme.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    HESH

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to arabia

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      SHEESH

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Super High Explosive Expanding Squash Head

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I like it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is this the beast with a 183 mm gun ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes

        Also I think it was only fired once with a crew inside and it lifted the front of the tank off the ground and the crew said

        "No we are not going to test it with the gun aiming to the side next"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >sharts on your IS3/IS7

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
        Every russian tank was a technical disaster. Every tank of the IS-series had more breakdowns than a Tiger II. Russia had only two good designs: T-34 and T-54.
        The rest was just propaganda because they won the war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
          lolno

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          T-72 was good at it's introduction, it's just been kept about 40 years too long.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There was a reason why the russians never used the T-72 in the afghan war. Because they knew that this tank was not good enough.
            There are many books from the 80s about this matter. Even german DDR ones and that if it comes to a battle with west germany and the nato bloc that they should use T-62 and T-55 tanks first because better reliability.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >There was a reason why the russians never used the T-72 in the afghan war.
              Where on earth do you get this shit from?

              >they should use T-62 and T-55 tanks first because better reliability
              They mix their old and their new in together to make the new last longer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The IS-3 was a failure and raped by super shermans in the six-day war.
          egptian IS-3As never fought M50s or M51s

          the only battalion committed to battle fought M46s
          their armor did prove effective, with even HEAT leaving non-penetrating hits on its front, but still lost the engagement with several destroyed to flanking
          the rest were disabled by operational losses
          M51s did destroy T-55s however

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          T-34 was equally garbage and is glorified because they won the war. The Russians were losing 9 T-34s for every German tank they knocked out.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but warthunder told me hesh/hep fucking sucks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >believing a russian bias grinding game

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The T-35, a Soviet heavy tank with 5 turrets (3 with cannons, 2 with mg's). As you might expect, they were too heavy and unreliable to be truly effective in combat.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >three man crew
    >the turret would probably be insanely >cramped
    >no improvement in firepower over the S->35

    The radio and sloped armor are good features, and a decent french medium tank with Christie suspension would certainly be interesting, but I don't think it'd do particularly well

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I see your round tank and raise you this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At least it could turn around

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why the fuck aren't there more 4 track tanks? You could put so much more armor on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because it would be horrifyingly complex from a mechanical perspective. In a turn while driving forwards, each of the four tracks would need to be moving at a different speed, necessitating four separate transmissions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Couldn't you just make two of the tracks undriven, just there to carry the weight?

            I guess not because you might get stuck on things if your drive tracks come off the ground. But still.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pros are it has good deflection on the turret and and lots of space for the gun. The cons are the the turret could simply be shorter and you woulf not have a massive shot trap in the middle re all everything below the mid point of the turret is creating a shot trap.
      Lower it and it kind of prints a modern taks sillowet.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How, uh, how do you see out? The driver has three slits, there's what appears to be a hole for a stereoscopic rangefinder, and then what? Is that it? There's no cupola, no vision blocks, no periscope?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >when you fuck up the Y axis on a 3D model.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >When your MRE is shit and you farted inside your tank too often.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Does this count as brap posting or inflation?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        vore (crew entering tank), fart (crew farting), and inflation (tank inflating from vored crew farts)

        it's the /d/ank tank

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    -No hatches on the turret and shit visibility.
    -2 man turret.
    Yikes Hard Pass

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    assuming it was ready in time for 1940, it would have performed similiarly to other french tanks of its time
    a straight overmatch against germans tactically due to its impressive for its day hard stats
    but operationally inferior due to bad soft stats, poor vision for the turret, a 2-man turret, slow top speed

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man the post CD on this board sucks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To bad this was never made. 40k in real life right there.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's WAY bigger than the Baneblade.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any new tanks designed around how strikes from above are the main problem with modern stuff

Your email address will not be published.