/k/ - Weapons

>>515551

Easily the Maus.

>>515551

pic unrelated

>>515557

How so? :^)

>>515591

Didn't russia make a KV train consisting of multiple BT fast tank turrets, a two man T34-76 turret, KV2 turret and fucking katy rocket rack that ended up SHOOTING ITSELF when it saw combat?

>>515601

No

>>515551

>another M60A2 hate thread

The M60A2 would still be American's #1 MBT had those retards in the DOD pulled out like the faggots they are instead of fixing the problems.

>>515618

this. Super heavies have their purpose on the battlefield, it is just very niche one .

>>515618

I thought that was what shit like assault guns were for.

>>515628

That's what T-95 is.

>Saddam Hussein's bootleg of a bootleg, armoured with concrete and made to worse standards than chinkshit

/thread

>>515571

>belittling the only thing NZ ever created

>>515696

1. literally who

2. did you watch the video or do you seriously believe saddam hussein was an expert on tank design

>>515733

>Saddam was engineer hurr

>>515733

Mike "Super Gavin" Sparks.

Guy is a known sperg that make up half-the shit he says and poorly interpret the other half, and was booed down from everywhere anytime he was asked to provide sauce to his rants.

Even when he's right (which does happen) it's more due to coincidence than his actual capacity to interpret data…

He's the guy that is kind of right… but for all the wrong reasons. He's the bellingcat of the 2000's.

>>515755

huh, i had no idea. what circles is he known in, tank community?

>>515755

>He's the guy that is kind of right… but for all the wrong reasons.

That's actually the sad part about him. He does indeed manage to be right at times but the way he arrives at the right conclusion is completely wrong.

>>515755

Bellingcat is only relevant in the wider world because Brown Moses happens to be friends with a lot of journos by the power of being a mod on Something Awful's politics board.

>>515766

Lee is a weird case of being a retarded design that was actually good. Mean it would have been infinitely better if that 75mm was on a turret but when it first saw action it outclassed everything the Germans could throw at it. It quickly became obsolete though but the chassis made a good spg

>>515770

it seriously isnt all that hard to outclass german tanks in early war. All french tanks were better armed and armored, brit equipment at the time was… ok but still mostly better, not even mentioning czechs. What germs had better was doctrine, speed and leadership. Fuck even our rare tanks were individually better

>>515592

>Hating the TOG 2

Do you want to talk about the Lowe, Maus, or the Ratte?

>>515771

Honestly the most impressive thing about the Lee was that it was designed, tested and adopted into full production in less than a year. It managed to close the massive tech gap in such a short time seeing as we went from the M2 medium which was an almost bullet proof rolling machinegun nest made out of sheet metal to a vehicle that, while lacked the tech for a large turret ring and compact engine which made it too tall for its own good, was superior in firepower and protection to German vehicles at the time which were carefully designed and meticulously tested over the interwar period.

>>515770

>Mean it would have been infinitely better if that 75mm was on a turret

The whole reason why the Lee ever entered service is because the variant with a 75mm turret (i.e. the Sherman) was two years from production and they needed to have something in production within the next six months.

>>515755

>>515696

Except its true, saddam tank was put together from smuggled polish parts and truck parts, in a german volvo factory.

It shot STAINLESS STEEL short penetrators, only command tanks had tungsten short penetrators.

No suspension and an engine so bad the tank was better used as a pillbox. Armor made of concrete instead of exotic ceramics. No ERA.

It was a disaster, the Bradley with applique was better armored and had longer range.

>>515868

Where are your sources?

>>515755

I'll also say this in his defense: He is a /k/ommando before any of us. He just lacked corrective influence of acommunity like ours, and was driven insane by top-down ordered attacks by brass. He loterally shitposted himself into embarrassing officers and corporations alike.

Hes also right more of the time than anyone in establishment, reasons less often but who cares. His battlebox idea was revolutionary and came out 15 years before Dutch, Russians, Chinks etc started using the idea.

>>515769

And dont forget funded by soros.

>>515870

He's actually right for example about the Patton being a better Tank than the Abrams for ALL the wrong reasons. Patton is actually a better Anti-Sandnigger Tank than the Abrams will ever be especially the modernized versions with spaced armour and ERA galore

>>515868

But that has little to do with Saddam the T-72E M and S series of the T-72 always had much thinner and simpler armor because they needed to be mass produced by the soviet allies, that didn't have the soviet production capacities when it came to high end materials (rather than anything else, it was important to soviet military planners and by communist doctrine that allies could make their own shit alone. Note that Yugolslav T-72 were actually much better, because the yugo had a good domestic electronic production and some advanced material making capacities).

Polish and Czech and whatnot T-72 are shit. Well not shit but it's better to see them as a seriously upgraded T-55 than anything else. Always have been, they were there to make up for the numbers same as France had a shitload of AMX-30B that couldn't hope to go toe to toe with soviet T-80s.

Soviet T-72 were better (to way better depending versions) but also there to make up for the numbers while soviet main tank formations had a much more high tech tank.

Now sure the shoddy assembly of the Iraqi didn't help, but even if they had been delivered "pure" M and E tanks it's extremely dubious they would have fared better (and in fact the ones they did get pre-ban DIDN'T fared better against Iran).

>It shot STAINLESS STEEL short penetrators, only command tanks had tungsten short penetrators.

Just like T-72M/M1, probably like T-72A (2A46 guns had a very short barrel life… tungsten perpetrators made it even shorter)

>Armor made of concrete instead of exotic ceramics. No ERA.

Just like on any T-72M1. There is no ceramic armor on export T-72 until the S series (and I'm not even 100% sure) based on T-72B…

So yes Saddam T-72 were shit and the US should tone down the bragging. But, as usual, it has nothing to do with what Sparky says.

Good conclusion, bad reasoning.

>>515601

an internet person made a plastic model and a story about a KV train

>>515759

anyone who does any military research knows who he is, he pollutes any search you make

>>515870

literally what? he was never attacked by "the brass" because he was never anybody, he's a nutcase reservist parachute rigger that has an autistic hatred of the marines for washing him out of OCS

>>515942

>Saddams tanks were not made by soviets,

He didn't say that

>Why do you refuse to discuss domestic manufacturing conditions?

He didn't do that.

>This is an outright lie

He didn't lie, he didn't claim that the T-72M1 had concrete armor and you don't seem to have a source that proves all of the points you keep trying to make.

Where is your source, leaf?

>>515942

Clowns get attention. Doesn't make him anything other than a butthurt autist who has retarded fantasies.

>>515618

90 tons, 500 hp.

>>515774

>Löwe, Maus

Failed heavy tank projects like the Black Prince or the M6. The future of tank development was the E-50 and the E-75 anyway.

>Ratte

Only widely known because a goon put the story of the napkin drawing in his ebin goonbook.

>>515950

>he didn't claim that the T-72M1 had concrete armor

>Armor made of concrete instead of exotic ceramics. No ERA.

>Just like on any T-72M1

Then he admits to lying

>which was then incorporated on some of the latter M1 models and above

lol

Are you another liar?

>>515961

We are not talking about T-72A or B, but T-72M1.

Observe the liar as it tries to raise as many contentious points as possible, to hide its lie. Kind of like a squid squirting ink.

>>516174

That's not what he meant, retard, learn how to read. He meant there was no ERA like the T-72M1, not that it had concrete armor supposedly like it.

Where are your sources? List your sources or fuck off, faggot. You're ruining the thread with your intellectually dishonest babbling.

>>516193

It's a Leaf

>>516195

Oh right, I forgot without the flags reminding me.

>>516157

Did it work?

>>516202

Yes, and it would have dominated the battlefield and slaughtered anything in its path but it got stuck in mud

>>516174

>Guys post an unmarked pic of "an iraqi T-72" as a source

>prove that the pic is an early T-64 turret (object 432) from the original Russian source (or as anyone with actual knowledge of soviet tanks can tell by the shape…)

>I'm the liar.

Go back to your safe space sparky, as usual you're only embarrassing yourself.

>>516231

If they hadn't gotten them out by 44 there was no way another year would have made a difference.

>>516241

Well put it this way, it's better to ask if Germany got it's shit together during the early war as these are designs they should have been not even thinking about but prototyping in 41 with 42 being when the first production batch appearing, 43 at latest. As it stands these were designs they came up with late war which is far too late in their situation to be coming out with new vehicles. Even the designs that Germany produced in 44 were developed long before then and prototyped in 43 e.g Tiger II and Panther.

Anyone who asks "But what if Germany got one more year!" and thinks they wouldn't suddenly be eclipsed in Tank design really doesn't know what they are talking about as you'd suddenly see swarms of M26 Pershings, Centurions, the Tortoise which just downright beats the Maus in armour protection, let that sink in for a second lots of IS-3's, and the early T-54 T-44 with the 100mm gun

>>516202

Those huge wheels are made of steel. Theyre so heavy they got stuck in the mud.

>>516193

>>516230

>admits to lying

>doesnt apologize

I only give 2 chances for that, blocked.

And Im American, I served in USMC until they threw me out. This flag is just dumb.

>>516261

Give it time, strelok. Me and a team of engineering students are making a reproduction Pz38(t), if it works, we'd love to work up to bigger and badder tanks as it goes.

>>516260

>Marines

wew

>>516261

What you'd end up with is a Leopard 1

>>516261

If you did what you would end up with is a Leopard 1

Fucking cuckmonkey let me post!

Think this is the 10th time I've tried to post in this thread. I wonder if any of my posts saved?

>>516296

and the answer? none at all

>>516260

>>admits to lying

I didn't lie, though. Try reading IDs sometime, newfag. Also you still haven't posted sources so who is to say you're not lying?

>blocked.

Good thing I can change my IP, but it doesn't matter. Everybody can see how much of a colossal retard you are without you having to see me point it out.

>>516202

It got stuck in mud and was left there till 1923

>>515942

because he's a Class A autist and he accidentally gamed google search results by spamming bullshit about every topic imaginable and link referencing himself.

also he sockpuppets on every board under the sun.

>>516261

youre hurting me

>>515931

>Polish and Czech and whatnot T-72 are shit.

not for a loooong ass time. Also we are trying to replace them with another "light tank". thats what project pl-01 and anders were all about. sadly i think they are stuck in limbo

also why is it that every time saddams tanks are mentioned there is huge shitstorm over it?

>>516386

>also why is it that every time saddams tanks are mentioned there is huge shitstorm over it?

Because nobody seems to know what they're talking about.

>>516386

Because gulf war is used as example of the best western tanks defeating the best soviet tanks, thus ending any discussion over which philosophy is better.

If anyone suggests saddam tanks arent the best soviets had to offer…. people get butthurt.

Never mind the fact that Kuwaiti M84 tanks didnt lose a single one, and kept up just fine with western tanks

inb4 every kuwaiti m84 was surrounded by a shield of western tanks shrugging off all incoming weapons, rpg, atgm, saddam tank fire…

>>516285

How are you getting steel made to order on that scale? Is it a sponsored project or something?

>>516386

>also why is it that every time saddams tanks are mentioned there is huge shitstorm over it?

Key component of the Baitbrams saga.

>>516386

>also why is it that every time saddams tanks are mentioned there is huge shitstorm over it?

The M1 is the best tank ever because it was capable of killing Iraqi tanks.

Nevermind that the vast majority of them were Chinese Type 59/69 and T-55/62 of dubious origins and it's a like bragging that the M-60 is better than a Panzer IV…

>But, but, but, nah han Iraq did have like two T-72 which is, like, the best soviet tank ever! They were like the 3rd most powerful army of the world or something… (cold war France? Italy? UK? West Germany? With their thousands of modern tanks, planes and 1+ million conscripts each? Mother fucking China? "Poo in it" India? Balkans psychos of the JNA? "all those greek islands belong to us" Turkey? Iran… you know the guys that actually WON THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR§§§. "Oy vey that looks like my sand you filthy goyim" Israel? Never heard of it).

Initial propaganda is why this turn to shitstorm.

US tanks formations raped Iraqi ones because their much better training and capacities to outmaneuver them (as usual, daily reminder that western civilization has never lost a 1v1 battle against arabs in the entirety of human history), which was only made worse by the fact that the US had top of the line western equipment when the Iraqi had eastern bloc sloppy second.

>>516481

First of all, that's another false claim, 80 Abrams have been knocked out so far, so it's not exactly invincible.

Second of all, the criticism Abrams gets is for having too much armor, not too little. For example if Abrams was lighter and a bit more independent Saddam wouldn't have escaped in 2003, and the war wouldn't have lengthened enough for guerrilla groups to form, which would mean occupation wouldn't last 10+ years, and which means the power vacuum when we pulled out wouldn't be strong enough to make ISIL, which would mean that Europe wouldn't be flooded with sandniggers. The fatness of the Abrams directly led to the destruction of the European race. That's worth almost every tank crew we have dying horrible agonizing deaths in light tanks to prevent.

>combat proven meme

Where the few tanks the japs had any good at all?

>>516481

>we would have had at least a handful of them knocked out by Iraqi fire

Except there was quite a few knocked out of action. They were later recovered and pressed back into service but for some reason that doesn't count as them being knocked of action out even though you could do a quick google search and find said reports easily it's not even worth debating. Please don't be fucking retarded and argue that a Tank being taken out of action then later recovered does not count as being knocked out, you may as well then just admit that the Italian Tankettes during WW2 are the greatest Tanks of that war ever since so many could be recovered and be pressed back into service after being knocked out. That is exactly what you would be saying

The M1 is a good tank but the problem is it's NO teh GREATEST TANK EBUR which is the other extreme of the the shitshow that unfolds whenever it is discussed. Hell I hate to say it but the best Tank in NATO for the actual wars we've been fighting is actually the Britbong Challenger 2, that 120mm Rifled Gun is infinitely better at Removing Kebab than the 120mm Memebores that are obsessed around Ivan's latest and greatest Tanks at the expense of all else e.g effectiveness against Infantry and Bunker Busting. Like NATO in the past 40 years has decided to take every lesson from every war in the 20th century and throw it out the window.

>>516486

>The fatness of the Abrams directly led to the destruction of the European race.

>believing the invasion of Iraq would've stopped Wahhabism

>hating liberals but buying into their memes

there's no need to be this retarded anon, this shit has been boiling over since the collapse of the ottoman empire.

>>516487

lel no. They made Italian Tanks look good. The ones that could be competitive with say the Sherman were still a generation behind in Tank development.

>>515592

>hot tog2

u got that right

M3 Lee

>>516490

For what the japs were using them for they worked but when something like the M4 came around shit went south. None of them were designed with the idea of fighting other tanks, just chingchong peasants and infantry.

>>516481

>It isn't the fact that we "beat" them, its the fact that we beat them with the only incredibly light casualties being from friendly fire. If the Abrams was really as terrible as every slavophile on this board claims, we would have had at least a handful of them knocked out by Iraqi fire

That's exactly the retarded assumption that make this turn to shitstorm.

Why would the Iraqi incompetence and shitty gear mean the Abrams is a good tank???

The french Daguet division, that went the furthest in Iraq did so only AMX-10RC and AMX-30B2.

They knocked out a bunch of Iraqi tanks and captured the rest (around 50 including T-72 in the mix, some captured ones are still in the french tank museum in Saumur), just the same and came back with no losses save actually a lot of blue on blue UXO (which is a real good reason to do something about cluster munitions BTW, it's only fine if you're bombing places you have no intention to send infantry in after).

Hell even the Emirates/Koweit/Qatar AMX-30 did very well against the Iraqi (though they did take some loses) during the defense and early actions.

And an AMX-30B has less armor than pretty much all Cold War tanks and a perfectly average 105mm when a AMX-10RCR has no armor to speak off (certainly nothing that can withstand a tank round… probably not even a late WWII one) and a weird 105mm (not full pressure). They used the greatest secret tech developed by the French army in Africa to never get knock out: fighting people that can't aim.

Doesn't matter to not have armor when you have professionals crews, they will hit before getting hit or dodge/hide, etc… That's how our ERC-90s regularly take on T-55s and win, and those can barely withstand HMG fire!

Beating up the time of the half paralyzed kid doesn't make you a great runner…

If there is something to win all it does is making you a smart one.

For the record "knocked out" entails everything from throwing a track up to just before the tank becomes a burning irrecoverable hulk.

>>516486

>and the war wouldn't have lengthened enough for guerrilla groups to form,

There were already plenty of guerrilla/paramilitary groups operating in the country at the time. So ending the war earlier wouldn't of done much to fix this particular problem.

>>515592

The OI and such never existed, and were manufactured wholecloth by crazy ruskies.

The Tog 2, was however enormously stupid.

However, the T95? Actually worked. It was fine. Just obsolete before it left the drawing board.

>>515685

Funny fact:The Concrete armor actually functioned quite.

>>516241

More Hetzers anon. More Hetzers. Piles of them.

Reliable and effective

>>516530

>It was all the M1 that did all the work

>Not the fact the Chair Forces completely decimated Iraqi Logistics and their armoured divisions

>Pretending that the Iraqi forces were in any fit shape to put up a real fight at all.

The M1 did frankly diddly squat. You could have achieved similar results using boy scouts using bicycles in fact we pretty much did considering what some countries brought with them All the Gulf War did was highlight the importance of having air supremacy.

You have to be retarded or 12 to think that the Gulf War was a true test of the M1. For some reason people think it was a true test of the AMX-30 seriously why does anyone think that Leopard 1 reject is any good? for the similar reason when neither Tank did or any really of the NATO coalition did any of the heavy lifting, just the mopping up. In fact don't think there was a single vehicle that war which wasn't shilled heavily with an overexaggerated performance from that conflict, manly cause the Cold War had just "ended" and NATO were hard pressed to justify the cost of their new toys to the public.

The only Tank that can be said for definite for encountering a real fight during the Gulf War were the Kuwaiti Chieftain Tanks which proceeded to wipe the floor with the Iraqi Tanks in a real battle, yet that is conveniently ignored.

>inb4 butthurt Burger with incredibly poor reading comprehension cries about his Abrams Tank again and tries to deflect his non arguments with it being butthurt Slavboos

Also really nigger, complaining about double standards when you say that any US Tanks that have been knocked out are shitty export models yet allow people to defend the retarded shit when shitty T-72M export models being knocked out is like facing the real deal? Project much? Until a Western Tank faces something like a T-72B'89 in battle nobody is going to take the Gulf War seriously as a true test of a Tank's abilities.

>>516518

>tfw the sherman duck could have been a cheap wood hull boat instead of the retarded canvas dingy and not sunk like rocks.

welp

>>516522

as armor, it works, but the weight is ridiculous.

the concept behind it, using a tank as a glorified pillbox, is goddamn terrible. could have done a few layers of ghetto spaced steel for less weight.

>>516584

>biggest tank battle since kursk

>and the badass thunder run

>nothing

>>>/4chan/

>>516602

>Kursk was mainly a Tank battle

Burger education ladies and gentlemen

>>516613

Prokhorovka (part of the fight for Kursk) was the largest historic tank battle you tea sucking illiterate.

military history was sparse when i was in school, probably nonexistent now, but blow my ass if your pass/pass education system does any better.

>>516618

It involved a fuckload of tanks but also a fuckload of artillery, infantry and air power as well. It was the largest combined arms engagement but if you want pure tank battles you need to look earlier in the war in particular opening stages of Barbarossa and North Africa. Saying that any part of Kursk was the largest Tank Battle in history is pretty inaccurate, especially when it is famous for Infantry BTFO of Germans who fell for the TD meme. Kind of like saying that Italy was fought with mainly bears cause it had the largest concentration of bears in the theatre good read that one actually

tl;dr version for you illiterate burger: Kursk had the largest concentration of Tanks but it was by far the largest pure Tank Battle in history as even the Soviets were smart enough to use combined arms tactics.

>>516626

conceptually it was better then Wiesel.

Wiesel is shit and i will get eaten alive by autistic germans for saying it

>supposed to be support for paratroopers

>actually cant be paradroped

>>must be transported by helicopter

>why not transport something more usefull instead? good question

>doesnt offer protection against small arms

>effectivly paying millions for what greeks were doing with donkeys

>>516645

But it's a cute. A CUTE!

>>516626

>>516645

Well that's were they go the idea "we don't need the tank to fly… we can just drop them".

>>516632

nigger what the fuck, Prokhorovka is one of the purest examples of tank combat. open flat terrain, mass armor on both sides. your criteria for a what constitutes a tank engagement, like World of Tanks match with nothing but tanks (not even people manning the spooky ghost tanks) is ridiculous.

as if every stage of North Africa wasn't combined arms, and well known for use of field guns. you're also misunderstanding combined arms, the greater army is always operating in combined arms. CA is a matter of unit level usage - having integrated infantry or artillery as opposed to in a separate formation, as opposed to napoleonic style artillery/infantry/cavalry formations.

>>516797

>>516766

you both confused me for a minute, thought you were talking about the drivers position, like on the challenger. that's not the proper armor of the turret, that whole bulkhead is several layers of standoff armor. the heebwheels location looks the worst.

>>516602

>Implying at all that Tanks were responsible at all for the success in the Gulf War

>Not use of overwhelming airpower turning shit like 73 Easting into a Turkey Shoot.

If anyone belongs on 4chan it's you.

>>516838

>Prokhorovka is one of the purest examples of tank combat

>I get all my sources from kikepedia, the post

>I am going to contradict myself heavily several times in one post

Except it's not you double nigger, you can see that pretty much from the true casualty figures that infantry were with the Tanks. Every battle that happened at Kursk overall has more in common with the Gulf War in terms of how it was fought and that airpower was greatly underplayed with Tanks taking the glory. Seriously the amount of airstrikes that happened on Kursk was insane with Germans committing theirs on Soviet frontline while Soviets used theirs in disrupting their logistics. Guess who won?

Also saying Prokhorovka is the largest Tank Battle in history is pretty dumb. Oboian had more Tanks committed and earlier in the War there was a fuckton more Tanks that took part in the counter-attack at Kiev.

>>515560

Could we get a source ?

>>516665

You'd have to be retarded not to be terrified of flying a gliding tank with practically no controls

>>517088

Something like a Sprut is only 17-18tons. While it clearly wasn't doable at the time (mainly because the amount of trial and error in design… which isn't a problem today with computer assisted designs and simulations) it would be perfectly doable design some kind of disposable glider kit to a light tank, or hell just a cargo glider really.

It's weird the whole concept of the Hamilcar was abandoned despite being widely used and widely successful in WWII (even when airborne ops weren't successful, the gliders always managed to put nearly everyone where they were supposed to be).

The M22 Locust was in the 7.5t range already and the Hamilcar were cheap and simply made of fabric, birch and plywood (with a bit of steel reinforcement here and there)… and they weren't even disposable, the British used the same over and over (in training but they also took back and re-used the ones undamaged in combat), they were surprisingly safe to use (2800 training landing. 3 lethal incident… which for WWII means it was the safest airborne assignment) even if they looked like a brick with two wings glued on it (which was exactly that).

Most British CVR(T) were around 8 tons and the Messerschmitt Me 321 while being a bit retarded was able to carry 22 tons (M8 AGS with level II armor).

I guess it's one of those "not cool enough for the airforce" things.

>>517144

>M22 Locust

I don't know what's worse - seriously planning to use the thing or that the British actually did use it.

>>516983

Just a quick glance at this http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/A39-Tortoise.php

Not surprised though. German Tanks weren't actually that heavily armoured compared to their weight during WW2. The Tiger I was for example shockingly underarmoured for a vehicle that weight, having similar protection to later Cromwells and the Comet Tanks which were around 20 tonnes lighter.

>>517145

Well it's shit as a ground vehicle but like nobody would seriously consider using a Wiesel if given the choice, airborne operation means you don't get the choice. It's that or you lug everything with legs Mk.1.

Of course it would have been smarter to do like the Germans wanted and use a StuG III equivalent to save weight but putting a bigger bang on it (ditch the turret on the Tetrarch and put a QF 6-pdr instead).

>>517148

>>516983

>Not surprised though. German Tanks weren't actually that heavily armoured compared to their weight during WW2. The Tiger I was for example shockingly underarmoured for a vehicle that weight, having similar protection to later Cromwells and the Comet Tanks which were around 20 tonnes lighter.

>The Cromwell in action

>showed the Cromwell struggling with the narrow lanes and hedgerows of the Normandy countryside. Hedgerow-cutters were hastily welded to the beak of some tanks, but losses were generally high. At Villers Bocage, on June 13, 1944, an entire column was ambushed and wiped out by a few Tigers commanded by Michael Wittmann of the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. Most of the 27 tanks, lost in less than 15 minutes, were Cromwells.

>it was soon discovered that neither the armor nor the firepower was a match for the Tiger and Panther that were already one step further.

To know what was wrong with British tank design one just need to study the construction of the drivers hatch of the Cromwell.

>>517173

>TORfag can't read

>Mentioning the battle that Wehrboos fap to where the History channel neglects to mention that the Germans got BTFO the very next day

Not even surprising, not even going to answer your post until you actually bother to read what I said.

>>517182

>>517173

>TORfag can't read

>Mentioning the battle that Wehrboos fap to where the History channel neglects to mention that the Germans got BTFO the very next day

That was the reason why the British as well as the Russians used captured German tanks like the Panther.

>Not even surprising, not even going to answer your post until you actually bother to read what I said.

Your claim was that British tanks were made from magic, better armored and 20 tons more light weight.

>>517185

>How has nobody posted the Saint Chamond?

In first world war, were nearly all tanks looked like huge boxes with guns poking out, basically movable pillboxes? Give them some slack

>>517185

well, it is ww1 design and these barely count since all of them were experimental and retarded

>>517186

>Your claim was that British tanks were made from magic, better armored and 20 tons more light weight.

and having three times worse cannon with half as much ammo

>>517186

>Your claim was that British tanks were made from magic, better armored and 20 tons more light weight.

Again learn to fucking read. Where the fuck did I say any of that apart from the lighter part?

>>517192

>>517188

>At least most other tanks could cross trenches. The damn treads were too small to do anything useful.

Surprisingly the British got that right with their first Mark I model.

The battlefield of that time would test even modern tanks, the mud, holes, trenches and masses of barbed wire ready to caught any moving object.

>>517145

Americans used them too

>>516486

>believing any of this shit

holy fuck anon

>>517192

>making long dead war veterans look like amateurs in this certain electronic tank combat simulator I may have dropped $80 on at some point recently

just steer to the left or right a bit before trying to cross the trench.

>>517236

>in this certain electronic tank combat simulator

there is a tank simulator with ww1 vehicles?

>>517240

Holy shit did they just invent turreted tanks?

>>517316

The Tsar tank had a turret as well. What's more interesting is that the main gun is a 120mm naval gun.

>>517316

Well the guy who designed it was the son of the periodic table dude.

>>517316

and unlike >>517192 it actually

looks like it could cross trenches.

and it looks like it would be using russian train factories, which would lead to use of production and minimize costs

as far as early tanks go, this is very good design

>>517349

Assuming the engine and crew compartments are armored, this isn't the worst idea in the world I guess.

Smaller target is harder to hit with heavy shit, after all. SO all you have to worry about is infantry, rather than the usual other tanks and artillery.

I bet it's trash in practice, in any case.

>>517242

>That reminds me, how useful tanks would have been in the eastern front? They were used in the middle east, but to little effect. With how mobile the fighting was there, I think they would have been more of a logistical problem than a revolutionary new weapon.

as usefull as a man commanding it wants it to be. Its mobile bunker with naval cannon and machine gun. Great for sieging cities, and everything that is important is inside cities. It would be more of infantry support breakthrough tank then anything else

>>517327

Smart family.

Mendeleyev managed to imagine and accurately predict chemicals that no one knew existed.

>>517354

Imagine how much more survivable it would be if all the void space were filled with more armor panels. Armor panels being hit isn't what disables a tank, machinery and humans being hit is what disables a tank. And those machinery and humans are still present in that tank.

>>517391

ir was devised as a light tank so of course its low on armor

>>517391

Everything that actually needs armor is enclosed within the well-armored fighting compartment and gearbox. Armoring the void spaces would be totally pointless.

>>517354

It actually worked really well, it had better mobility and armor than basically anything else in service. The only reason why it wasn't adopted was because the original design didn't have a cannon and the war ended before they could produce a second prototype.

>>517391

Looks like most the vital bits do have some armor. Now, probably not enough for artillery or another tank's gun, but then, you're also much harder to hit by those large pieces.

Filling out the space would increase the likelyhood of being hit by the pieces, and then you've got issues of the kinetic force and shrapnel flying through your expensive tank bits.

No idea how it'd work in practice, but I can definitely understand the concept behind it.

>>517453

>>517485

Armoring the void space would provide one more layer of armor for projectiles to pass through before reaching humans or machinery.

If a projectile passed through "voidspace amor" but not "vital armor", that wouldn't disable the tank anymore than if the projectile passed through the voidspace without armor. Tanks don't take damage like they do in video games.

>>517507

again, the point was to make light fast tank and this is why it has only necessery defences. Adding more armor would only weight it down which would slow it.

>>517514

Skeleton Tank (developed in 1918) did 5mph instead of the Mark I's (developed in 1915) 3.7mph. I don't think that extra 1.3mph will make you nimble enough to dodge artillery or machine gun fire. You'd be better served moving at a slower speed with more armor. Or better yet, moving at the same speed with more armor (Mark IV, developed in 1918, 5mpg.)

The Skeleton tank had hardly thicker armor than the Mark 1. By 1917, German armor piercing 8mm was turning Mark 1 equivalent armor into swiss cheese. The Skeleton's armor was obsolete before it was ever made.

No matter which way you look at it, it's a retarded tank. Which is probably why it never went into production.

>>517550

>(Mark IV, developed in 1918, 5mph.)

>>517550

hey it looked like a good idea at the time. And even fact that it uses less resources then normal tanks makes it viable, especially , you know, in a war of atrition

>>517558

>hey it looked like a good idea at the time.

Did it really though? They only made one prototype…

>>517550

>>517551

>>517558

>>517593

>Tank going 5mph as opposed to 3.7mph

>That would have been more than enough for the drivers to put on that era's equivalent of Eurobeat.

>>517605

I really doubt that difference would even be noticeable to German machine gun crews.

I know they look cool and all, but all the German heavy tanks were impractical hunks of shit.

>>517674

>Moments before the Carrier was rammed by a container ship

>>515560

What the fuck is that from?

>Captcha of idc oh g

>>518109

one off edit from power pack

Comic is quite good if you are dirty childfucker like janusz pawlacz 2 who made so much for poland

>>518574

okay whats wrong with it? Its pretty much modern hetzer

>>518576

oh please not this disscusion again.

>>518576

>both Brits and Burgers tested it and found no real disadvantage

>>518575

Should there be something wrong with it?

The only problem I've heard from an officer that drove it, was that it had pretty high ground pressure so the risk of getting stuck on very soft ground was pretty high.

>>516617

I mean, Prokhorovka was a battle in which tanks heavily featured and were the main factor. That is not discounting the massive hordes of infantry, air power, and antitank guns that played a part as well. The rest of Zitadelle was just normal combined arms warfare, tanks supporting or supported by infantry, soviets plastering a whole area in artillery, the germans stuka-ing the shit out of anything that moved….normal shit, just on a bigger scale

>>518582

Its a but of a glass cannon.

For example if a RPG, PTRD or HMG breaks the hydraulics or tracks, it cant move or shoot, its a coffin. The lack of height also means lowered situational awareness, and lack of dorsal armament means it cant see or chase away rpg/ptrd/hmg teams before its too late…

Lets not pretend its perfect, if it had no massive conceptual flaws it would still be in service.

>>518704

That's why it should be classified as a tank-destroyer, why the Swedes insisted on calling it a tank is beyond me

>>518704

>if it had no massive conceptual flaws it would still be in service.

Not entirely sure about that. It was made in the 50's-60's for the sole use of a small nation. T-55s are still everywhere, but that's more due to the scale of production and versatility.

>>518753

While I haven't found anything myself, can you post any info regarding the percentage of rounds fired (accurately) from moving tanks against other tanks in that time period? Everything I've found states that stabilizers of the era weren't good enough to make firing on the move practical for anything more than suppression purposes, hence why the Bong report after testing the 103 said there was no actual disadvantage to the turret-less design.

What would be a decent APC desigh that can also function as an assault gun? People attack the Stryker for being so shitty.

>>518763

Its not about moving and shooting in motion persay, but the fact that the tank cannot have the gun pointed in the targets general direction while in motion and thus, has to aim completely from scratch once it makes a full and complete stop unlike vehicles with even the most basic stabilizers. Making it worthless in any type of offensive maneuver. Yes the tank was never supposed to take ground, but I think basing your entire tank off of the concealment value of chest high walls is rather dubious because Ivan would probably maybe? wisen up and figure a way to avoid areas that give it an advantage or fight in areas with so few embankments that it would be obvious to tell where all the tanks that can only operate in embankments would be Though Russia was never exactly good at learning and invading others…

>>518765

I doubt the MOWAG Piranha became the staple 8x8 APC of the free world by being shitty. Making an APC an assault gun is just asking for trouble though because you will have to store lots of ammo where lots of troops are supposed to sit so you ether make it really crampt and unsafe like a BMP or are forced to only be able to carry small fire teams and push a relic from the early 60s to serve for another 100 years like the Bradly.

>>518769

Fair enough, although I would argue that with the geography of Sweden, it's not as simple as just going another way. All-in-all, I think we can agree that the 103 would (probably) have worked very well in it's intended role, although likely disadvantaged in an offensive capability.

So, why there is no mention of the Panther which had such a retarded development and inception process, that it literally made the Panzerwaffe run out of tanks and start relying on StuGs only a year afterwards (PzDiv 44)? With non- combat losses being more than half of the total unit strength right up to Ausf.G?

Considering that thr British put the same kind of gun on a Sherman with good effect is very funny as well.

>>518765

BMP-3

>>518753

Yet the AMX-30's are shilled beyond belief here.

>>518763

Look up the Centurion, it could fire on the move reasonably accurately

>>518769

> and push a relic from the early 60s to serve for another 100 years like the Bradly.

It's called being "green".

>>518778

>although likely disadvantaged in an offensive capability.

When was the last time the Swedes tried to offend anybody?

>>518850

Well, they offended Poland pretty badly back in the day.

>>518868

It's a lot easier to use missiles and rockets.

>>518868

>USSR had a shitload of assault guns which smaller countries could have bought.

Well duh, ASU-57 and ASU-85 were build with aerial mobility in mind, which is irrelevant for those countries. Not to mention that they were built in rather small numbers, purely for the needs of VDV. What's the point of buying those, when you can just buy PT-76 and swim in it?

>>518869

Google Racketjagdpanzer, Khrizantema and barrel launched missiles, it's not really an exclusionary principle for casement-tanks.

>>518870

Excellent argument, but it doesn't address my main question: If it was as good as a turreted tank for small countries, why don't half the small countries have an S-tank itself or a copy of it?

There are 140 countries smaller than Sweden, a third of those more mountainous, so lets say 46 countries. Shouldn't half of those (23) have extremely easy to manufacture defensive tanks for rough terrain?

Even shitholes could manufacture them.

>>518874

shit thats a good question. Maybe shitholes prefered buying older obsolete tanks instead? Maybe its because they werent produced in enough numbers to satisfy market? maybe the higher ups just thought they are stupid? who knows

>>518874

>>518877

Think why the turretless SPGs existed in the first place:

1) It allowed you to mount bigger gun than the turret would've been able to hold (or the turret that holds said gun would be too retarded - think how failure called KV-2 was turned into SU-152 that was beloved by troops, just by removing the turret).

2) Turret ring was one of the hardest tank parts to produce.

Right now, none of those are issues. If your turret can't hold a proper gun, stick a missile launcher or even a low-pressure gun on it.

>>518874

I meant like RPGs and TOW. The US expected that it's tanks would get raped to the point that tank crews would have a life expectancy of 5 minutes in the opening days of ww3.

Why aren't anti tank laser guided mortars a thing?

>>518879

Technically they are a thing, with Worst Korea having a good workable example.

>>518878

I think they just existed because a lot of new production turrets went to repairing tanks whose turrets were penetrated in the field, which left WWII producers with extra tank hulls.

>>518879

Assuming it's going to be defensively used you'd be able to cheaply stack 2000mm of RHA equivalent armor on the front of a casemate tank, and get away with nothing on rear or top, and far less on sides. This would make it immune to frontal attack from any cannon rounds, and ERA/APS/Cage could easily make it immune from rockets.

>>518769

It's worth pointing out that the S-tank was designed at a time when the swedish army focused solely on light mechanized infantry (because a war against the soviets would be impossible to win without the manpower, so the focus would be on guerilla warfare) and they didn't think the russian tanks could traverse swedish terrain (bogs and all that fun stuff).

At a later point in time they got their hands on some russian tanks and saw that they worked fine on swedish terrain, so the work on (if I'm not mistaken) the CV-90 began.