Search Results
6/15/2025, 11:49:34 AM
>>527500813
You can LITERALLY see the difference in the penetration patterns. A penetration on tanks like the Sherman or the Panzers had, well, the hole of the projectile like you would expect. On soviet tanks, the metal was so brittle that picrel was the pattern. You can see how it seems like "glass" shattering. The metal was indeed HARDER, but less against high velocity impacts. Also the post that you make has as source "trust me bro", as the guy who wrote it, Igor Gennad’evič Želtov, is just a museum worker.
>>527501282
I'm a tank fag, not a shermanfag. Fun thing is that i like the T-34, and the sheer velocity of their production should be praised and envied, but they were shit tanks compared to everything else.
You can LITERALLY see the difference in the penetration patterns. A penetration on tanks like the Sherman or the Panzers had, well, the hole of the projectile like you would expect. On soviet tanks, the metal was so brittle that picrel was the pattern. You can see how it seems like "glass" shattering. The metal was indeed HARDER, but less against high velocity impacts. Also the post that you make has as source "trust me bro", as the guy who wrote it, Igor Gennad’evič Želtov, is just a museum worker.
>>527501282
I'm a tank fag, not a shermanfag. Fun thing is that i like the T-34, and the sheer velocity of their production should be praised and envied, but they were shit tanks compared to everything else.
Page 1