so if a light armored vehicle with a overpowered gun is called "a glass cannon", how do we call the opposite, a tank with sufficient armor but with absolutely shit gun?

>>64059308 (OP)
Challenger 2

Stone wall?

>>64059308 (OP)
>how do we call the opposite, a tank with sufficient armor but with absolutely shit gun?
British

Landship

>>64059308 (OP)
Infantry tank?

>>64059356
Correct. Pretty sure that goes back at least to the 80s.

>>64059331
C2 armor isn’t all that impressive, and with protection module it’s too heavy compare to the like of abrams or Leo without sufficient protection to warrant all that mass

>>64059402

bingo

>>64059402
The Churchill was the Allied equivalent of the Tiger I, it had the same effect on German morale by a handful of Churchills. Its armor was heavier than the Tiger and the 6-pdr was fully the equal of the 88 in penetrative capabilities and destroying enemy tanks. Churchills dominated Tunisia and the ETO. A single Churchill could destroy dozens of StuGs, Panzer IIIs and IVs with the ease of a Tiger destroying Shermans and T-34s

>>64059583
That's the most retarded copypasta of the last decade.

>>64059583
>6 pounder was equal to the 88mm
Jesus when will the brits stop pretending their 57mm was some hyper capable weapon unique to them. The fucking 2pndr with the little John squeeze bore adaptor had more penetration at 500m than the 6 unless youre gonna compare using the sabot and that's coming from the British Ordnance Board. Never mind the dog shit HE charge

>>64059308 (OP)
Female tank

>>64059665
The Brit’s did all the heavy lifting in North Africa and Italy the US contribution is LARP just like the rest of the war for them

>>64059308 (OP)
>how do we call the opposite, a tank with sufficient armor but with absolutely shit gun?
For anything modern that'd be an APC or similar, something whose primary job is to be well armored taxibus that lets infantry get too/from and deploy where other mechanized ground forces moving about in relative safety.

If you're talking ancient obsolete stuff then fact is a lot of experiments were tried when people were trying to figure out what worked and what didn't and working within a fairly primitive technology (and often economic) envelope. Some of the experiments worked and evolved into modern stuff, some didn't and that too taught lessons for modern stuff.

>>64059308 (OP)
A matilda, or better yet an infantry tank

>>64059495
It's still better than what the Merkava does to achieve similar.

>>64059308 (OP)
>fat and bulky with small load out of a tiny cannon
me

>>64059308 (OP)
a potato cannon

>>64059791
They also did the heavy lifting against the bulk of the German tank force in Normandy. Americans were shitting themselves encountering a few stray Panzer IVs, while the British forces were slamming headlong into entire platoons of Panthers and shit, and WINNING.

>>64059308 (OP)
British

>>64059791
>>64060595
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
brits won the war guys

>>64060659
Of course they did, the Anglican bank founded Israel.

Slampig, fat cunt, whale, elephant, hamplanet... or steelplanet, maybe.

>>64060659
they did, pretty much, atleast the allies certainly couldn't have done it without them.

>>64060917
To be fair without Britain there wouldn't have been any need for anything to be done.
After the Fall of France there wouldn't have been any allies left. France most likely would have agreed to a peace treaty, probably with reparations and some territorial concessions, and afterwards germany would have went balls to the wall against the Soviets without any outside intervention...
Wait, britain, what the fuck?

>>64059308 (OP)
Assault tank

>>64059308 (OP)
shitwagon, shitpanzer for german tanks

>>64061056
Most people don't seem to understand just to what extent the pride of the British empire was a factor: and that's not as bullshit a reason as you night think.

The Empire was a guarantor of the safety of multiple countries, both allied and neutral. Think about it like the US today: if they renege on their international agreements their future promises will be worth a lot less.

>>64059308 (OP)
memebunker.

>>64059308 (OP)
"Brick shithouse"

>>64061056
To be fair without the dumbfuck (((British))) there would not have been a war .Glad you lost your empire faggots.

>>64059308 (OP)
>a tank with sufficient armor but with absolutely shit gun?
"French"

>>64061303
Sure but that was admittedly not what I was focused on. Britain probably was the linchpin for the allies so in a way it is inherent that the allies couldn't have done it without them.

>>64063267
The fuck do you think I mean with
>wouldn't have been any need for anything to be done.
?
Do you lack any reading comprehension, you dingus?

>>64063312
To be fair, putting a 75mm field gun in a turret was an incredible amount of firepower for the early 1920s, a time when it was rare to have anything more than a 37mm in a turret mount.

The Char 2C only seemed under-gunned for its size because it was nearly 20 years old when it was facing brand new German tanks.

Peashooter

>>64063312
>shit gun
That gun was usable until 1942 if you update the ammo. In fact it was similar to the M4 gun.

>>64059308 (OP)
a tank

>>64059308 (OP)
Chode.

>>64059308 (OP)
M103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtUKjLWigFQ

>>64065520
the M103's gun was pretty good I think, it was just huge