>Honestly the Sherman overhaul of the Lee/Grant was the biggest leap forward for tanks in the US.
M4 sherman was actually a bit of a dead end, technologically speaking
it was an exceptionally successful stopgap
the T20 series would end up being the main line of development
the M4 would benefit from the T20 series, like the T23 turret
Sherman might had been ungainly, but it was competitive up until the 2nd generation of MBTs. The only tank more future-proofed beside the Pershing was the Centurion which barely counted as a WW2 tank.
If you look at the history of US tank design, it's almost always one step behind and two steps moronic.
Ironically the Sherman, despite being a mere stopgap like you say, is their most successful tank, and only because there was nothing wrong with it like there was with pretty much every other generation of US tank design.
Even today the M1A2sep3 is only "the best" because nobody else was competiting after the fall of the soviet union. But if you think about it the sep3 is the US answer to the Panther 3, the K2, the T-14, the Challenger 3, and they're ALL better in one way or another.
And it makes sense, the US is a naval power, they don't need tanks like Russia or Germany. They prefer to spend money on their airforce which is also reasonable, and which they get a lot more mileage from. But it's kinda insane to me at least that the only time the US, which absolutely love winning races, won the the tank race was by default, US tanks were never good.
what a bunch of garbage. what kind of moronic vatnik infested shithole did you crawl out of?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How dare you criticize glorious USA
It's pretty easy actually. It used to be their thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
throwing shit is no criticism
criticism is pointing out that rusBlack person troons are currently routing across an entire front
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean dude just says "lol this stuff is bad" without providing any valid criticism. There have been some dead ends like mbt-70 but most of the cold war US armor is objectively good
Also the long turret bustle, which wasn't really a common thing until post war western tanks.
Only WW2 tanks that have something similar are King Tiger and M36 of the top of my head
On the other hand I wish America had the Bulldog in WW2. the Bulldog Is the best looking tank I can think of, and I Wish was there in WW2 only for aesthetic purpose.
It's the torsion bar suspension with big road wheels.
Also the absence of a hull gunner. But that's because it's a tank destroyer.
Was the Hellcat ahead of it's time?
I mean, it was an upgraded Wolverine.
Honestly the Sherman overhaul of the Lee/Grant was the biggest leap forward for tanks in the US.
>upgraded Wolverine
Fricking what?
>I mean, it was an upgraded Wolverine.
moron
Dumbass
>Honestly the Sherman overhaul of the Lee/Grant was the biggest leap forward for tanks in the US.
M4 sherman was actually a bit of a dead end, technologically speaking
it was an exceptionally successful stopgap
the T20 series would end up being the main line of development
the M4 would benefit from the T20 series, like the T23 turret
>stopgap timeline
>1942-1981
Sherman might had been ungainly, but it was competitive up until the 2nd generation of MBTs. The only tank more future-proofed beside the Pershing was the Centurion which barely counted as a WW2 tank.
I can't believe Shermans were still going up against Panzer IVs in the sixties.
unfortunately, due to how old they were, they were not known to have scored any hits much less kills
T-55's are still in active service today.
If you look at the history of US tank design, it's almost always one step behind and two steps moronic.
Ironically the Sherman, despite being a mere stopgap like you say, is their most successful tank, and only because there was nothing wrong with it like there was with pretty much every other generation of US tank design.
Even today the M1A2sep3 is only "the best" because nobody else was competiting after the fall of the soviet union. But if you think about it the sep3 is the US answer to the Panther 3, the K2, the T-14, the Challenger 3, and they're ALL better in one way or another.
And it makes sense, the US is a naval power, they don't need tanks like Russia or Germany. They prefer to spend money on their airforce which is also reasonable, and which they get a lot more mileage from. But it's kinda insane to me at least that the only time the US, which absolutely love winning races, won the the tank race was by default, US tanks were never good.
what a bunch of garbage. what kind of moronic vatnik infested shithole did you crawl out of?
>How dare you criticize glorious USA
It's pretty easy actually. It used to be their thing.
throwing shit is no criticism
criticism is pointing out that rusBlack person troons are currently routing across an entire front
I mean dude just says "lol this stuff is bad" without providing any valid criticism. There have been some dead ends like mbt-70 but most of the cold war US armor is objectively good
And the large turret bustle.
Also the long turret bustle, which wasn't really a common thing until post war western tanks.
Only WW2 tanks that have something similar are King Tiger and M36 of the top of my head
Some Soviet tanks had sizeable turret bustles, often for a machine gun position
forgot pic
The small size of it gives it away as a WWII vehicle, though. Which is given away by having a person there.
It was the most efficient AFV, in terms of kills to losses, of the war for a reason
what does the two swastika marks on the barrel mean?
I imagine it's vehicle kills.
It was a proto-Leopard 1, at least in spirit, and makes a lot of armored gays seethe endlessly. There's nothing not to love about this thing
On the other hand I wish America had the Bulldog in WW2. the Bulldog Is the best looking tank I can think of, and I Wish was there in WW2 only for aesthetic purpose.
I mean, the bulldog is sort of a natural evolution from the Chaffee, right?
>be light recon tank
>penetrate a Panzer IV from the front
>refuse to elaborate
>leave
the hellcat is peak KINO
bump