This is as bad sending ziggers to die in T72s

This is as bad sending ziggers to die in T72s

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In what way?
    I do agree that modern russian equipment is essentially WW2 tier but I get the feeling that this isn't the point you are trying to make

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's also a poorly designed POS

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The M4 Sherman is well known to have high rates of crew survival after their tanks were hit and disabled. It wasn't terribly unusual for a single crew to go through as many as three tanks on the front. This is not an experience that tankers in T-72s tend to share, given the carousel autoloader's munitions stows having a tendency to catastrophically detonate when hit.

        Literally everybody liked the M4 Sherman, including the Germans.

        Guaranteed replies from morons: the thread

        Correct. Citation: am moron

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Literally everybody liked the M4 Sherman
          except the crews

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The operators did like the M4.

            [...]
            Nothing to oppose to those statements :
            The M4 was the least worst design possible for a tank that would have to be shipped and maintained in large volume across oceans.

            >The M4 was the least worst design possible for a tank that would have to be shipped and maintained in large volume across oceans.
            "The least worst" is basically the best you can do.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >except the crews
            crews absolutely loved the sherman though
            the russian crews in particular couldnt stop praising it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Source; I sucked Black person dick until I passed out and then hallucinated it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Literally everybody liked the M4 Sherman, including the Germans.
          Except the moron that made a book from his time towing the wrecks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The M4 Sherman is well known to have high rates of crew survival after their tanks were hit and disabled. It wasn't terribly unusual for a single crew to go through as many as three tanks on the front. This is not an experience that tankers in T-72s tend to share, given the carousel autoloader's munitions stows having a tendency to catastrophically detonate when hit.

        Literally everybody liked the M4 Sherman, including the Germans.

        [...]
        Correct. Citation: am moron

        >Literally everybody liked the M4 Sherman, including the Germans.

        It was good for its time.

        And it shined best as a marvel of mass-production design.
        The T-34 was just cheap and fast to produce. The M4 was also cheap and fast to produce but also easy to maintain, ship, repair & integrate along with the rest of the US Army equipment.

        It was meant to be a "good enough" flexible tool.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The T-34 was just cheap and fast to produce.
          It wasn't though, not really. It wasn't a particularly cheap design, it was just made cheaply, and the enormous production volumes simply came down to necessity and availability of engineering resources.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            they did get prices down through optimizing designs and omitting unneeded features
            resulting in the T-34-85 actually costing less than the original T-34 despite having more armor, a bigger gun, and actual QoL features

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/p13uwSV.jpg

            There's a difference between being cheap and cost effective.

            The Sherman was cost effective, balancing the need to mass production with maximizing crew comfort, survival, firepower, and transport efficiency. The T-34 was not, it was cheap, but only by cutting corners, at the expense of the men who operated them.

            Nothing to oppose to those statements :
            The M4 was the least worst design possible for a tank that would have to be shipped and maintained in large volume across oceans.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >least worst
              yes just like the T72

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >T72
                >Easy to maintain
                >Easy to ship
                >Perfect compromise between factors

                Yeah no : it's a death trap

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                T-72 is unironically a worse tank than a modernized M4, birthed from compromises in the T-64 program because the Soviets were low on resources.
                T-64 is a supreme tank for its weight class, having far superior protection and firepower to the the M10 Booker, AMX-30, and Leopard 1 it's comparable to. All it needs is better optics.

                Of course, for something trying to take on a 70-ton western MBT, it sucks total ass but that's par-for-course when it comes to tanks

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The M10 Booker?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's a difference between being cheap and cost effective.

          The Sherman was cost effective, balancing the need to mass production with maximizing crew comfort, survival, firepower, and transport efficiency. The T-34 was not, it was cheap, but only by cutting corners, at the expense of the men who operated them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And it shined best as a marvel of mass-production design.
          >The T-34 was just cheap and fast to produce. The M4 was also cheap and fast to produce but also easy to maintain, ship, repair & integrate along with the rest of the US Army equipment.
          Checked and correct. Thing is that you are arguing with morons whose military experience was gleaned from playing video games. Those idiots cannot comprehend the importance of production and logistics on this scale. Really they can't do it.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just want to remind you that the battle of Okinawa was "too many casualties" for the US forces in the scale of WW2.
    Okinawa is a whole island with multiple settlements.
    The US forces lost 12.000 men.

    The Russians lost more than 20.000 men trying to take Bakhmut, a small town. In a special military operation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Russians lose millions of men and nobody gives a shit. Russians are literally snow Black folk.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Guaranteed replies from morons: the thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      /k/ is unquestionably the easiest board to troll.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >find easy way to get people mad on each board
        >lol so easy to troll lol
        That applies to every board

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you should try PrepHole. Things are even worse over there.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not going to say the Sherman was the best tank of WW2. But it was good enough and able to be produced in number.
    If America was still sending troops to war in Shermans now, because they could no longer make Abrams, then you would have a point.

    The absolutely shocking thing for Russian troops now is that it's a T72 'if you're lucky'.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    laughing at m4/t34 shills
    from the Golan Heights

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      syrian panzer IVs have no known armor kills in the war and were knocked out by centurions in their first fight
      they did have some spent shell casings in the tank, so they might have hit something, but probably just some soft targets

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >doubt

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ah, the infamous Sherman. Often referred to as the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans.
    The nickname referred to when the Germans starving from lack of rations, would scavenge destroyed Sherman tanks for the precious cooked meat inside. In fact, the designers of the Sherman designed it to light every time, so that cooking of the crews was guaranteed. Of course, the Germans would often eat the allied tank crews whether they were cooked or not, regardless. My grandpappy told me this in great detail when I was a young boy. Truly the horrors of war.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Still falling for Tommy Cooker meme.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >less than 1 fatality per knocked out tank
    >less than 8% chance of ever burning on knockout with wet ammo stowage
    >stabilized gun
    >2 hatches for turret, 2 for hull
    >best visibility from button up
    no bump for you.

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