T-44

Why didn't everyone just design a T-44 during WW2? It feels like the most efficient way to maximize armour within WW2 limits of technology.
For example the panther is just straight up inferior to the T-44 as a design in terms of space saved and weight and of course armour efficiency given how small and thus easily more armoured the T-44 is while remaining at a lower weight.
The only problem i can see is that the turret can be a bit hard to manufacture for some countries that can't cast so i guess a schmalturm could work on it for the krauts. But the americans seem good at casting so why not a panhandle turret?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why Alexander Bell didn't just invent a smartphone from a get-go?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the concept didn't occur to them until the later part of the war. the design philosophies of the various countries going into WWII didn't really anticipate needing to penetrate 3 inch thick armor and take it in return.

    they really viewed the tank as a moving weapons platform intended to attack anything and every thing. the people who got the closest were the french and germans, but france was kicked in the early war and Germany was more of a don't knock it and slowly stalled their development in favor of wonder-weapons.

    so the half assed improvement was the M1 sherman, as the US quickly learned about proper tank warfare and was tooling up right before they had to just unleash a shit storm.

    you need to remember that the US military you picture at the end of the war was no where close to the US military at the start. the US military basically started with WWI units using bolt actions and jeeps. they did not have any true tanks to speak of.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the M1 sherman

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the soviets didn't deem a roomy interior, good gun depression and a large ammunition supply all that necessary while Germans and Americans did.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So make the turret taller

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        like this?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bingo

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i don't know what exactly but I feel like this would cause some issues (like easily tipping over?). Shouldn't we have tanks similar to pic related othwerwise?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's not as extreme as actually laying down but some MBTs like Abrams have the driver in a reclined position on their backs. It's not going to tip over as long as the tank is wide enough and they need to be pretty wide anyway.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The main issue you're going to have is the hull not being tall enough to fit an engine and suspension.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              (Saddam Hussein)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What is the Pershing and Patton family

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didnt everyone use AKs and M16s in WW1?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If someone had that idea and managed to get it through acquirement department sure it'd have happened. But it didn't.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for the ussr, the t-34-85 was close enough and they already had optimized the fuck out of production lines for it
    america's shermans were also good enough
    maybe the germans could have designed a better tank if hitler didn't involve his failed artist ass in the process

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah okay Gaijun quit nerfing Germany 3-4.0

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't everyone just design a T-44 during WW2?
    Because it was a total war, and the belligerents involved couldn't afford to start making new stuff when they need more of what they already had. What they already had were tank designs made before the lessons WW2 taught, so the tanks were technically inferior to what they could've been. The only nation in WW2 who really tried to pivot their main tank production were the Germans, and that's only because they were desperate enough to try.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >design in terms of space saved
    The avergae German was between 6-10cm taller than your average Russkie.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The hitlerjugenden are easier to fit into tanks. A 16 year old is like what 170 cm? 160?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't everyone just design a T-44 during WW2?
    Because brits have designed Centurion, a comparable machine, and americans have been trying to get M26 running.
    Also, nevermind how much of a sovietboo I might bee, T-44 had lots of troubles during testing and introduction into service, while not being as well-armed as T-34-85, so it never became as massive in troops as T-34 and T-54.
    inb4 T-44-100
    By the time it was in development, T-54 was almost ready for production, superior to T-44 in almost every aspect
    > the panther is just straight up inferior to the T-44 as a design in terms of space saved and weight
    Germans weren't even aware of T-44's existence.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >while not being as well-armed as T-34-85
      wat

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not just about the best possible tank being a tank. Tanks by the best stats is a soviet mindset. West was combined arms, so the tanks had to help keep the infantry and crew alive and the tank was sacrificial to that. USA could make more metal, but soldiers need to survive to fight another day, to get another enemy kill tomorrow. Russias people are expendable equipment, because it's all Russia can produce without external assistance.

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