Tank Thread

Ugh, what could have been... The War really ended too soon.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What tank?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M60A2 or a predecessor concept of it.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Germany had only attacked Communists, the US probably would have joined the Axis. Imagine what a wonderful world this would be.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      America worked against Germany even before the war started and did everything but send troops to support the allies before pearl harbour.
      >but why
      Excellent question, anon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > the US probably would have joined the Axis
      Cope
      >a wonderful world
      I hope you go to the hell you wish for after death, freedom hater

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >freedom hater
        Hope you enjoy the trannies and moron riots! No refunds!

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would the E-50 had been Germany's Patton/T-55 if it came to fruition?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it'd be more akin to the Centurion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nope, the e series were just shittier versions of better tanks to cope with the deteriorating quality of manufacturing and raw materials then

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Would the E-50 had been Germany's Patton/T-55 if it came to fruition?

        Allies in 1945: >Our future AFV suspensions will utilize advanced torsion bars

        Meanwhile, in Nazi germany: >B E L V I L L E W A S H E R S

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Allies in 1945: >Our future AFV suspensions will utilize advanced torsion bars
          doesn't britain count as an ally?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >All those cogs, springs and moving parts
          For what purpose

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wherever the kraut goes, he must engineeeeer

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >All those cogs, springs and moving parts
              For what purpose

              https://i.imgur.com/lAwzZ0r.jpg

              [...]

              Allies in 1945: >Our future AFV suspensions will utilize advanced torsion bars

              Meanwhile, in Nazi germany: >B E L V I L L E W A S H E R S

              The point of the washer suspension the swiss used after the war for a while was that small workshops all over the country and guys in some shed somewhere could have supplied the parts and repairing it was easier than repairing torsion bars below your tank.
              I fucking hate ignorant retards like you who can only think in memes so goddamn much.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    obligatory 90mm sherman
    the brits actually requested a few

    iirc, they were never developed because they thought it would have delayed the M26
    but the M26 never made it to combat anyways and they would have gotten valuable information on 90mm ballistics and commonality with the M36

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Iirc the issue was a lot more boring in that the turret ring was too small for the 90mm, and if you're going to widen the turret ring you need to widen the chassis. The T26/M26 program was pretty much developed out of an attempt to make a Sherman with a bigger turret ring. They share a surprising number of parts.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M4 sherman turret ring was the same size as the M26s
        Which is why the M36B2 was able to just slap the M36 turret on a unmodified M4 hull with no problem
        And the israelis were able to stuff the 105mm F1 gun in the T23 turret with the addition of a counter weight

        The M26 turret itself fit on the M4, as seen in the above pic, though its more of a proof of concept

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This. The main issue was that a decision had been made 2 years earlier to focus on the 76mm gun as the big upgrade, which resulted in 90mm gun production getting largely shut down after enough AA and AT guns had been made. New 90mm guns couldn't have been built in the large quantities needed for tank units much earlier than the Pershing went into production, so there just wasn't much justification for starting a new program to up-gun the M4.

          In hindsight, the correct answer was to skip the 76mm and go straight from 75mm to 90mm on the M4; but, the 90mm *did* have some downsides, in particular the greatly-reduced ammunition load, which was considered to be far too small for the extended operations which US armored doctrine called for. Remember, the US wanted to conduct breakthrough operations just like the Germans and Russians, with tanks spending potentially days behind the enemy's broken lines with supply units trying desperately to keep up.

          Another potential answer would have been to develop HEAT rounds for the 75mm. The Germans had them, and I've never heard a good answer why the US never seemed to even try. My only real guess is that the Munroe Effect wasn't understood well enough at the time, and penetration wouldn't have been any better than 75mm APCBC; but, again, that's just a guess.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Another potential answer would have been to develop HEAT rounds for the 75mm. The Germans had them, and I've never heard a good answer why the US never seemed to even try.
            WW2 mechanical fuzes sucked ass and couldnt hit past close range due to dropping like a stone

            the US did have 75mm HEAT, but they were reserved for 75mm howitzers which had stubby barrel
            you are right about the penetration though, the HEAT on the 75mm howitzer was about 90mm identical to the AP on the M3 75mm cannon

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >75mm howitzers which had stubby barrel
              M8 is cutte!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This thing fucks on war thunder.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A challenger appears!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ahh, a fellow low BR Chad

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Thanks; I had been wondering about that for a few years, and had never found an actual answer to my question. It's a pity, because I suspect that a 1960s-era 75mm HEAT round probably *would* have been good enough.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I suspect that a 1960s-era 75mm HEAT round probably *would* have been good enough.
                In War Thunder (I know, I know) Bulldog's M496 HEAT round could penetrate around 250mm

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's a pity, because I suspect that a 1960s-era 75mm HEAT round probably *would* have been good enough.
                The soviet 76mm cannon used on the PT76 had a little under 300mm of penetration, thanks to the advancement of HEAT technology
                This would have been enough to pierce a king tiger

                Mechanical fuzes were too imprecise to allow for optimal standoff, there was always a tiny lag between impact and detonation, so could only defeat between 1.5x to 2x their charge diameter (the 75mm HEAT would be limited to 150mm of pen at absolute best)
                Electrical fuzes could allow something like 4-7x charge diameter, so the 105mm HEAT beats close to 500mm of pen and soviet 73mm HEAT on the BMP beat roughly 350-400

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                theoretical limit for mechanical fuzes are closer to 2.5x-3x actually, so you could have gotten up to 200+mm of penetration out of a 75mm gun

                but mechanical fuzes had other problems
                low-velocity as the shell couldnt be hardened against G-forces very well
                and poor performance against angles as the fuze could be torn off without triggering

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The entwicklung series is interesting but what i don't understand why double down on the mediocre design of the panther? Sponsons are not needed, you can go for a design like the T-44 or the centurion. Also put the transmission in the back for powerpack.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sponsons are not needed,
      they werent needed post-war, when small power packs were available that made rear-wheel drive vehicles have no downsides

      but mid-late war, powerpacks were still too big
      thats why the T-34 has its turret so far forward, to offset the size of its powerpack and it caused it to dig its barrel into the ground when going over hills
      the M26 was such a breakthrough for the US because it had rear-wheel drive while still having a centrally mounted turret

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish there was a cooperative tank game (ideally all of you in the same tank) that didn't suck. Even just in separate tanks would be nice. War thunder is fucking shit and for autists, and now actively punishes you when you decide to play as a team. GHPC would be cool, but coop is the last thing on their roadmap, instead shit that should be extras is all before. JFC I just want a fun tank game ffs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Red Orchestra 1 had multiplayer tank crews. Nothing better than getting a good driver and a hull gunner while bombing it around Kursk sniping Stugs at 1200m.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ro2 had it too

        But nothing else really has it now (that's cooperative); I like squad as the next best thing at the moment. Mostly because tanking even with friends in it is hectic. You get shot even if it's minor it makes you panic. Get tracked you're fucked, you have to coordinate. It doesn't feel like you're in some OP armored shit box, you feel vulnerable 24/7. It's great.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But nothing else really has it now (that's cooperative)
          Gunner Heat PC intends to have Coop
          https://gunnerheatpc.com/news/articles/ghpc-faq
          >Q: Will there be multicrew?
          >A: Yes, one of our goals for multiplayer is to allow multiple players to operate the same vehicle together if they wish. In fact, this will likely be among the first multiplayer modes added. Multicrew will not be forced, though.
          It literally just came out and is in early access though, so who knows when it will be added.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah it intends to ... at the end of its lifecycle. So what'll happen is it'll fucking die trying to implement all of the features and content in between, and when they finally get around to it, it'll take forever and be half assed because the game has died by then.

            Better to do it now, at the start of that roadmap, and focus purely on content extras after. Huge mistake.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IL-2 Tank Crew is a really good WW2 sim that has multicrew support, it's built on a flight sim engine so the maps aren't so detailed. Hell Let Loose and Post Scriptum have multicrew tanks and other armored vehicles like Puma and Greyhound.

      Red Orchestra 1 had multiplayer tank crews. Nothing better than getting a good driver and a hull gunner while bombing it around Kursk sniping Stugs at 1200m.

      The Darkest Hour mod for RO1 is much better.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but HLL to me is so boring. The gun play in it is pretty awful as well. Can't stand it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Check out WWII Online, which is against all odds still alive and going after 20 years, and is in the process of converting all of the graphics to UE5.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        WWII online is still a thing? Jesus Christ I can distinctly remember reading about that game in PC Gamer and getting excited, I can’t believe it still has people playing.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    wouldn't have mattered. ussr and usa outproduced Germany in tanks by something like 50:1. really a shame of Germany to keep fighting the war even tho they had lost it in 1941

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A wehraboo's dream is a mechanic and engineer's nightmare

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      weren't they supposed to be easier to produce and maintain?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They've found a way to overengineer the program to maker their tanks simpler to build. Should've just improved the Panther and build more of them, it got pretty effective and cheap near the end of the war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were, anon is being retarded.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Eh, they should have just made a MBT and changed their doctrine instead of looking for a way to make their traditional tank philosophy work for less money.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody was thinking about the term MBT until the 60s
      Throughout the 50s Britain, France, USA and USSR still had or were tinkering with heavy tank concepts

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/20/a29-clan-the-forgotten-cruiser/

    Giant ass 17 Pounder armed British heavy tank would have been fucking awesome

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Giant ass 17 Pounder armed British heavy tank

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What the fuck happened to my pic?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Was it taken in Austrailia?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not 17pdr, TogII has 94mm

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think that's the Australian model, not the British one, anon.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's with the British obsession of making their heavies as vulnerable as possible to a mobility kill?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Brits want maximum armor coverage for infantry using tanks as cover during advances, it's in their blood.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        British expect to only ever fight outnumbered and out gunned (unimaginable for us/rus/Chinese I know) and so therein if out manuvered, you have been out done tactically, and therefore you wouldn't have won.
        That's why everything is always in some super niche, not used with ambitious expectations of tactical perfection it's fucked, but if the expectation is met, it can fight 1v10 and win. Which as a tiny island that ruled the world, that's the standard which has to be met.
        Now 90%, of British design don't cut the mustard, but when they do...

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Now 90%, of British design don't cut the mustard, but when they do...
          They're average.
          Sounds like a shitty deal.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you're referring to the protruding and exposed tracks at the front, that's for crossing trenches and climbing obstacles. The TOG II* could probably handle a 55 degree slope (I don't think it was tested but that seems reasonable) and manage a 2 meter tall obstacle. Pitfalls, anti-tank ditches, tank traps, of the kind that would have stopped any WW2 tank would not have been sufficient to stop a determined TOG.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the TOG II was designed by the same people who designed the british tanks in WW1. it's basically a WW1 tank with a turret on top and the tracks running under the hull rather than over
      pic related is the TOG I, which was much closer in appearance to WW1 british tanks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's wrong and dumb.
        The TOG II was the first and best attempt at an electric tank with all-round firepower. What The Old Gang were trying to do is create a proper heavy tank. It's armor is thick, it has torsion bar suspension, a large turret with good gun depression, plenty of internal volume for stuff.

        It's not just that it wasn't a WW1 tank in the wrong war, it was ADVANCED for 1942, and if you compare it modern tanks and IFVs, it actually compares quite favourable. It's armor is thick enough to stop autocannons but not main guns, true of every MBT, it has the electrical power available for all the gadgets which is the limiting factor on most MBTs and certainly many IFVs, it has the internal volume and turret ring for the next gen large caliber autoloaders and all-round fire means it can actually cope with urban combat. A modernized TOG 2 or TOG 3 if you like would actually be considerably better than any other AFV, NATO or Soviet.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          TOG2 had 115mm of frontal armor and 76mm of side armor, nearly identical to the 100mm front and 80mm of side armor the tiger had
          but it was 80tons, heavier than the tiger and the king tiger, and less mobile with a Hp/ton of 7.5

          the churchill black prince was already considered hilariously impractical which is why it was skipped in favor of the centurion
          but it has the same gun, a 17pdr, 152mm of frontal armor and 90mm of side armor, and only weighted 50tons
          it was only slightly more underpowered with 7 hp/ton compared to the tog, but if it was installed with a meteor engine like intended it would have had the same HP as the TOG but with less weight

          in the end, neither the tog nor the super-churchill were really any good at all
          the centurion just surpasses either

          >A modernized TOG 2 or TOG 3 if you like would actually be considerably better than any other AFV, NATO or Soviet.
          not even bongs can be this delusional, as they rightfully stuck with the centurion

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >TOG2 had 115mm of frontal armor and 76mm of side armor
            And roughly equivalent to an Abrams or a Challenger 2 once you remove the applique, the spacing, and the spall liners. It's just RHA instead of Chobham.

            Now you can put a better engine in it, and fix up the electric transmission with modern stuff, and you'll have speed and acceleration that's better than an Abrams with a range and endurance better than a Challenger 2.

            >not even bongs can be this delusional, as they rightfully stuck with the centurion
            Because they have a bullshit belief in the power of the Blitzkreig and the unbelievable military prowess of the not-really-a-nazi Rommel thanks to the self promoting efforts of Liddel Hart. This is how they explained their defeat at the battle of France as something other than their own incompetence, when really the Germans just fucking lucked that shit. The actual reason was the French army was so riven with incompetence due to nepotism and politicking, while the British army was so completely inflexible in strategy it was unable to deal with the Germans behaving even slightly unpredictably.

            So the development, particularly of the early cold war british tanks like the Chieftain, was rooted in cope and mythos, not in sensible doctrine and needs assesment. It's not until more recently with the M1A2 and the Merk IV that we start to the big blocky heavy tank that just uses engine power to deal with it's weight instead of sacrificing armor and gun.

            But where the current gen MBTs are looking at the need to go from 120mm manual loaders to 130mm+ autoloaders and realizing it's a tight fit, the TOG 2 has more than ample space to take the turret of the other British memetank, the FV4002 shitbarn, in fact you could put actual armor on such a turret and the TOG 2 would still manage without much issue.

            So a modernized TOG 3 is actually more or less where MBT development is going. We just went the long way to get there.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >And roughly equivalent to an Abrams or a Challenger 2 once you remove the applique, the spacing, and the spall liners. It's just RHA instead of Chobham.
              what are you talking about?
              the M1A2 uses NERA and DU to provide protection, not chobham which has not been used since the baseline M1
              if you are talking about all-steel armor, the M60A3 has 300mm of frontal protection and 76mm of side armor which also handily defeats the TOG2

              is this some british reformer rubbish? trying to shill for a tank that was stupidly outdated at the time of its unveiling?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wait is the tank in "The Last Crusade" a TOG pattern tank??

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/7mEjHNg.jpg

      >Giant ass 17 Pounder armed British heavy tank

      Tog II actually has a 28 pounder/94mm.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God, what could have been…

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we will never see Maus VS IS-3

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They would've broken down on the way before they can even see each other.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What that thing in the top of the turret?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tiger I turret.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Crazy to think that these big bros actually saw combat.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/orI5IS3.jpg

          this is claimed but disputed
          germans like to think the maus saw combat defending its factory against the soviets, but no evidence has ever surfaced supporting it, especially since the soviets claimed they captured the maus only partially intact and would not have been fit to fight

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How do the driver get out?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just weld him in at the factory and feed him through a tube.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Turret's front now resembles Merkava

        But hey, the maus probably could carry infantry, the turret's inside looks about as big as a small office. Or you could install a bunch of composite arrays in there.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the forgotten patton

Your email address will not be published.