Thread 64166260

Remind me hows it that the t34 is superior to the panther or the tiger.

I read that the Sherman was even cheaper and easier to make than the T-34 (provided you could build the factory).
I wonder if that's true...
Well anyway I want to have touch hot Pantherbutt.

>>64166260 (OP)
Reminds me of how OP is a flagrant homosexual

In the middle of a given battle I might prefer to be in a Tiger or Panther. If I want to equip my military for a war I'd want Shermans

who is worse: tank autists or plane autists

>>64166509
Plane autists are true autists, the kind that yells at loud noises and doesn't care if they shit themselves while playing vidya.
Tank autists are normies by comparison, they get their knowledge from youtube channels like the chieftain mighty jingles or the bovington museum, and keep 3d figurines of yukari from girls und panzer on their glass displayer

>>64166260 (OP)
Who won?
>>64166509
Tank autists 110%

>>64166269
they were estimated pretty much on par in terms of labor cost when they analyzed one in Korea, the soviet one would be cheaper because of soviet labor but consequently the build quality would also suffer

>>64166509
plane autists. those guys are actually retarded.

>>64166260 (OP)
they made 50,000 of them
only 7000 panthers and 2000 tigers were ever made

it would also be difficult for whittman to have destroyed 30+ british vehicles when the british only actually wrote off 27 tanks in total
not to mention whittman didnt act alone but had about 20 other tanks with him, of which 15 were lost

As the number of guns and shells capable of penetrating the 80mm side armor of German heavy tanks increased towards the end of the war, German tank aces lost their lives one after another without being able to make any notable achievements.

>>64166653
Oddly specific answer but okay

>>64166509
train autists

>>64166260 (OP)
I think WW2 is my favorite war

>>64166260 (OP)
Except the "12 yanks" lost the battle and all died except for 2(?). Air power and reinforcements won the battle in the end.

>>64166837
wouldnt that still be a a successful holding action that slowed the germans down enough for reinforcements to arrive?

>>64166851
Yes, but the op image says they defeated the attack. they didn't

>>64166857
at least in typical military context, a successful holding action that allows for reinforcements to arrive is still considered a defeat of the enemy

>>64166864
it doesn't say defeat it says destroy

>>64166260 (OP)
>T-34: Introduced 1940
>Panther: Introduced mid-1943
>Tiger: Introduced late 1942
The Panther and Tiger were both developed as a response to Soviet tanks, which were objectively superior to the Panzer IIIs that were most of the German fleet at the time of the invasion. It would be extremely retarded if they managed to not be better vehicles. In reality they probably would have been better off if they just piled more resources into upgunned PzIV though because they never ended up having enough time to get through teething issues of the Panther/Tiger. Soviets and the US had next gen tank projects on deck as well but devoted way less resources into them and they only appeared when the war was already over in late 44 anyways.

>>64166269
like the other guy said they were pretty similar. T-34 had a better profile but the Sherman won out on basically all of the 'soft' factors like fit and finish, crew comfort, reliability and adaptability. People mock the German wunderwaffen tanks for reliability but the T-34 was pretty abysmal as well.

>>64166900
>In reality they probably would have been better off if they just piled more resources into upgunned PzIV though because they never ended up having enough time to get through teething issues of the Panther/Tiger.
their given reason to abandoning the panzer IV K was that the panzer IV was not going to be produced for much longer and they were going to phase them out for pure panther production

in hindsight, given that the panzer IV was produced until the literal last day of the war, the improved K version might have been a good way to keep them relevant
but its not like any of them could see the future

>>64166260 (OP)
Soviet MIC could churn them out in far superior numbers, plus massive population back then meant that they could replace losses much quicker than the Nazis or Western Allies could.

>>64166260 (OP)
Sherman > T-34 > Panzer IV >>>>Panzer V/VI
You /pol/ wehrboo fucks will cry otherwise but this is the truth

>>64166924
>plus massive population back then meant that they could replace losses much quicker than the Nazis or Western Allies could.
soviet population was about equal to the US population
US and UK combined equals a greater total manpower pool than the soviet one

the western allies just had to split between both the pacific and europe while also having the burden of moving troops across oceans
so it was more economically viable to just have more of their population in factories to support a smaller army then it was to have a big one, they need a ship for every division and that means more welders and more riveters versus soldiers

>>64166924
>Soviet MIC
*Lend lease

>>64166509
Wehraboos. Tank vs plane vs bote doesn't matter.

The fact that the front of the turret could not be increased from 50mm was puzzling and also closed off the future of the Panzer IV.

>>64166900
>People mock the German wunderwaffen tanks for reliability but the T-34 was pretty abysmal as well.
both the T-34 and the panther have been accused of being unreliable and yet also actually reliable at the same time and its not always clear which one is true

the 8th mech corp recording 50% losses due to road marches for example, indicating poor reliability
but the US found that only 2% of T-34 losses were due to mechanical failure, despite the primitive conditions and lack of equipment that the north koreans faced
the manchurian campaign, which progressed at such a furious pace that tanks were driven until they stopped, showed that the T-34 was only slightly worse than the M4A2 sherman

two given reasons are that the soviets would keep really old tanks in service until they were destroyed, resulting in a skew towards higher mechanical unreliability
the older tanks both consisting of early built T-34s that had lower QC and of tanks that just havent had a factory rebuild and were overly taxed
the second, according to dmitri loza at least, is that crews sabatoging their own vehicles to not go on a risky attack was endemic, and the increase in reliability came from punishing those people

>>64166962
the gun was increase from 24 to 48 calibers long, so it was unbalancing the turret
increasing the front turret armor would result in the turret being unable to turn

theroetically, increasing the rear of the turret would counter-act the increased length of the gun and allow more armor
the M4 turret did this by adding a longer bustle to the rear of the turret and then putting the radio in it for good measure
but the germans never even considered it because the panzer IV was not expected to see service for much longer and so spending money on it was a waste
curiously, both the tiger I and II did have the turret project past the turret ring which would help counter-balance the gun while the panther didnt

The Soviet tank's semi-power pack configuration likely helped it stay operational. In German tanks, simply pulling out the transmission would set the sun down.

>>64167057
It required turret removal on some models. Which is a "what the fuck were you thinking" engineering decision. You could just make a bigass armor plate that bolts over it with some lifting eyes like the Americans did but the great tradition of teutonic engineering had to have it the overcomplicated and stupid way. I bet their grandchildren stayed in the family trade to design BMWs.

The US tank's approach was also quite bold.

>>64167002
>Manchurian campaign/North Korean T-34s
Basically all of these would have been late or even post war production which would explain why they were substantially more reliable. The vast majority of early production T-34s were either destroyed or mechanically rebuilt by that point. By the late war, allied supply chains had opened up, the factories in the Urals had been running for years and there wasn't the same degree of desperation as in 41/42.

The T-34 was a fine design overall and most of the mechanical issues were manufacturing slop/teething.

>>64166269
Eh, the Sherman was probably more expensive than most T-34 models, just from fitting more complex systems like better radios, the gun stabilizer etc.

>>64167346
It was, the T-34 was cheap because of how many corners they had to cut just to shit them out and even then it was barely cheaper then the Sherman.

>>64166672
>>64166292

>>64166260 (OP)
>T-34 uses fucking internal coil springs for suspension
>Eats up a shitload of internal volume, wastes even more space due to inner bulkhead
>Doesn't even give you a good ride
>Annoying as fuck to maintain too
Literal nigger-tier engineering, meanwhile the Germans were using torsion bars that are still used to this day.

Im gonna have to say Plane autists are the best

>>64166900
iirc the panther was originally designed as a simpler, more mobile medium tank to compete with the upgraded T34/85 but Hitler personally intervened in the design process and demanded it be made a heavy tank for Operation Citadel

>>64167763
This is a dumbass internet myth that people keep spreading about.
The Panther started off pretty petite compared to it's final form but this is like pre-Barbarossa designwork.
Once the actual war started she weighed 44 tons or so, then Hitler demanded 20mm extra armor on the front which bumped her up to around 45 tons.
Hitler's influence added a ton of weight at the most.

>>64166900
British and French tanks were superior to all German tanks in 1940. The issue was they used 'Pocket Tank' tactics (i.e, a single tank surrounded by infantry) while Germany used mass tank formations. Being superior doesn't really matter if doctrine and tactics trumps it. Obviously tactics and stuff changed, but that's how it worked.

Every major nation had 'next gen tank projects on deck' why do you think the Bongs made the Centurion or Conqueror? All preparing for the 'next' war.

>>64167330
>so cramped most people can't fit inside the tank in winter clothes
>the atrocious two man turret that's even tighter
>no radios and polished steel plates instead of mirrors
>overhardened armor that spalls from the smallest cannon hits
>unworkable hydraulic traverse mechanism that hardly ever functioned, crews relied on manual wheeling
what a fine design!

>>64167763
the VK prototype that would eventually become the panther was a 35-ton medium tank that would replace both the panzer III andIV

one prototype was essentially just a german-ized T-34 which would have been cheaper to produce and had a diesel engine
the second was essentially something closer to what the germans already used, just with sloped frontal armor

hitler actually preferred the first design, the diesel engine would have actually helped with the german oil shortages because synthethic oil can be converted to diesel more easily than petrol and made it so the navy and their new tank could use the same fuel
the brass preferred the second design, because it had a more modern torsion bar suspension and it used the same engine as the tiger, so they could just take advantage of existing engine production while also giving it more internal volume

the brass actually won out in this case, with the second design winning out despite hitlers preference for the first
hitlers decision to increase the gun and armor actually came before operation citadel was planned, but he did delay operation citadel to make sure he had more panthers available for the operation
speer certainly thought the armor was unnecessary, claiming that the increased weight basically negated the original idea of a 30-ton medium tank

The lack of nickel and other materials meant that the armor quality had to be compensated for by increasing its thickness. The toughness of the thin side armor was so poor that it was often not only penetrated but also cracked.

>>64166658
>Who won?
The jews

>>64167789
>the VK prototype that would eventually become the panther was a 35-ton medium tank that would replace both the panzer III andIV
No it fucking wasn't.
The MAN panther prototype was identical to the Panther in dimensions just with 20mm less armor on the front.

>>64167839
the MAN design was designed to be 32 tons, just like the damlier design, and was 36 tons during testing

>>64167861
The MAN design is identical to the Panther in dimensions just with 20mm less frontal armor.
Guess how much 20mm of steel weighs, with the area of the frontal glacis?
The fucking CHASSIS might've weighed 36 tons at some point, but add a turret and it goes up.

>>64167002
T-34/76 obr 1940 and T-34/85 obr 1946 are two different tanks.

>>64167869
>The fucking CHASSIS might've weighed 36 tons at some point
the model they built in 1942 and submitted for testing was 36 tons
albert speer mentions that they had a 35-ton tank, not specified if he was referring to the MAN or daimler, but that hitler had it increased to more than 40 tons
he probably wasnt referring to the daimler, since it was dropped by the time hitler ordered changes to the design, so the MAN design was at 35 tons as a full package at that point in development

>>64167885
>the model they built in 1942 and submitted for testing was 36 tons
The Nazis managed to reduce the density of steel by a good 20% or so? Damn they were more powerful than we thought.
Again the MAN design was identical to the Panther in all respects but 20mm off the front hull.

>>64167888
>Again the MAN design was identical to the Panther in all respects but 20mm off the front hull.
and for whatever reason, the designs were 36 tons as submitted in 1942
an increase in weight over their earlier 32 ton proposal in 1941
unless speer was grossly informed of the weight of the prototype, it was 36 tons at the time the proposal was on hitlers desk

>>64167898
Anon, why are you being retarded and suggesting the nazis broke the laws of physics for their medium tank prototype?
It weighed 40+ tons in total. 36 tons without a turret.

>>64167902
thats just what MAN proposed to hitler and what speer claims they started with
it was, as of 1942, a 36 ton vehicle

>>64167905
Except as of 1942 the fucking thing was the size of the Panther.
It weighed more than 40 tons fully equipped.

>>64166260 (OP)

T-34s could fill their intended role (being cheaply made and easy to service and replace) to the Soviets’ satisfaction, the Panther and the Tiger failed to despite being objectively better by every metric besides cost. In part because of engineering flaws stemming from rushed development and because their original intended roles rapidly became redundant as Germany found itself fighting a defensive war.

Also only half of the 30 vehicles Wittmann destroyed were actually tanks, the rest were trucks and half-tracks. And while I’m not going to stoop to Lazerpig’s level and accuse him of being a talentless hack (you already needed to be a cut above to be entrusted with a Tiger), his abilities as an officer were rather lacking and his performance at Villers-Bocage exemplified that. He ran off to single-handedly take on the British, left the men under his command without orders, nearly got himself killed, and his actions ultimately led to the loss of several irreplaceable Tigers.

>>64166900
>which were objectively superior to the Panzer IIIs
have fun without a radio, commanders cupola and three man turret

>>64166260 (OP)
>Hollywood fiction meets Nazi propaganda