>Sherman What are you, amerifag? - #154950484 added by sublimeslimetime at *Heavy Lustful Breathing*

Back to the content '*Heavy Lustful Breathing*'

Refresh

Options

asd

#1 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+113

[-]

>Sherman

What are you, amerifag?

#23 to #1 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply-20

[-]

Seriously tho. Didn't the Germans just copy off of the Soviets?

#54 to #23 - freedomfiend

Reply+1

[-]

Let's not talk about who copied tank designs from whom, because the answer to that is very convoluted. In the end, everyone was copying everyone else, which is why most modern tanks look so similar.

#60 to #54 - captainhotdogs

Reply0

[-]

have you seen the new polish tank? it looks like something out of a scifi movie en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01

#123 to #60 - freedomfiend

Reply+1

[-]

I most certainly have; it's a thing of fucking beauty. However, it's still borrowing a lot from other things, and this does affect its aesthetic.
For instance, the turret has a long back because the ammo is stored in a separate compartment behind the crew compartment (same as most MBTs in NATO countries), it has a torsion bar suspension (like practically every tank since the end of WWII), the front of the hull and turret are sharply angled to increase the effective thickness of the armor and improve the chances of deflecting a hit entirely (again, like most modern MBTs), the armor is made from flat plates of metal-ceramic composites to better protect from high-velocity penetrators and shaped-charge, high-explosive shells (once more, like modern MBTs), and it sports a single main gun, a single coaxial gun, and a single superimposed turret (like most tanks following WWII).

That being said, it does have a good number of new and bleeding-edge technology, such as radar-defeating materials and geometry borrowed from aircraft, Heads-Up Display systems also borrowed from aircraft, and active defense systems similar to those developed by the Israelis and South Koreans. However, the way I see it, the PL-01 is probably just the next link in the chain of global tank evolution; if it proves successful, other nations will begin mimicking the design features that make it unique.

#42 to #23 - herrordar

Reply+28

[-]

>german engineering
>copying soviet engineering

It's like saying a rich man would buy cheap things because he saw a poor man buy those things.
Now those cheap things just so happen to be very practical.

#94 to #42 - anon id: 2625be78

Reply0

[-]

maybe

#43 to #42 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+5

[-]

I'm pretty sure the Germans copied sloped armor from the Soviet T-34 because those tanks performed so well against their own tanks. I might remember that incorrectly tho...

#64 to #43 - GnRNoD

Reply+5

[-]

They only copied the armor usage in the front of the tank, from the early T-34 models, but later moved on to even heavier tanks that had armor all over, poor mobility could have been an issue had the tank crews not being hardened veterans and germans... the germans built the best tank by the end of WWII which was the Tiger II a.k.a. "king tiger" a super armored vehicule with high powered high velocity long range turrets that would obliterate anything in open fields and would serve as great aid for infantry in the defense or taking of towns.
The germans never "copied" anything from an engenieering pov. as they had the hindsight of making panzer III tanks with the option for future upgrades and thus the panzer III became the most common tank used by them during the war, constantly getting upgrades in both armor and weapons also suitable for ocassion, in which they would use P3 tanks that were anti-infantry and different models (of P3) that were anti tank or even low to mid range artillery.
I really like WWII specs and stuff, and there's nothing to beat the germans, they did it cheaper, better and more realiant.
A perfect example is the MP40 a super cheap machinegun that could hold 32 9mm ammunition made by basicly puting tubes together with a few springs, the thompson had greater cadance, better aim (in fullauto, the mp40 was better for singlefire) could hold 20 bullets of 45mm (much more expensive) and also would jam with mud somethign that didn't happen to the mp40.
The standar k-98 rifle was also used as a sniper rifle as well as for light infantry units because it's great range and aim, the single bolt action gave it a slower cadance than other rifles but it made up for it with firepower and aim.

#125 to #64 - freedomfiend

Reply0

[-]

I must disagree; the Tiger II was not the best tank by the end of WWII. While the Tiger II is definitely an ur-example of the modern battle tank, having a good mixture of mobility, armor, and firepower, there was still one tank that did almost everything it did just a little better: the American T26. It was slightly smaller (and therefore harder to hit), carried a larger gun with greater muzzle velocity and projectile mass, and had a higher power/weight ratio (meaning better acceleration). Furthermore, the T26 also had a stereoscopic range finder and a stabilized gun and gun sight, allowing it to fire with great accuracy at long range or while moving, things that the Tiger II was not so good at.

The only advantage that the Tiger II had over the T26 was its heavier frontal hull armor, but the T26 made up for this by having better turret armor, being much easier to repair and maintain in the field, and requiring less maintenance in general (the Tiger II was infamously complex and fickle; its overlapping road wheels were prone to jamming and failure, its engine was quick to overheat, and practically all non-superficial damage required specialized industrial tools to repair).

After field-testing of the T26 in Europe and Asia near the end of WWII, the final production model was named the M26 Pershing. This tank evolved into the M46 Patton and its variants, which is easily one of the most influential and long lasting tanks in history, still used by some countries today (the same holds true for its Russian counterpart, the T-54). Meanwhile, the Tiger line of tanks died with the Tiger II.

#126 to #125 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

You're not taking into account a lot of factors, the why's of everything, perhaps the T26 was a better tank, but for the needs of the germans, and the situation they were in the moment they developed the Tiger II, it was the best tank they could have asked for, protecting the hull instead of the turret gave the tanks a much higher chance of being repaired after battles, and also more chances of the crew to survive (veteran tank crews were hard to come by in 1944). Some of the technologies were not developed in germany at the time, and also they were built in accord to certain basic specs regarding what they could mass produce at dire times to battle the soviets T-34's and the mobility it had was perfect to assist infantry units using a small number of them, cutting corners was very important by the end of the war, the t-26 proably never saw any close quarters action in urban zones. And you're talking of improvements done after D-day, when the germans were very impaired.

#127 to #126 - freedomfiend

Reply0

[-]

But you didn't say that the Tiger II was the tank most suited to German combat doctrine at the time, or that it was the best that Germany was capable of producing, you said it was the best tank of WWII. The fact that other tanks existed that outperformed it in almost every aspect means that statement isn't true.

Also, look at an actual diagram of the Tiger II. Most of the crew are in the turret, including the two most important members (the commander and the gunner). The additional hull armor was there to protect the ammunition, not the crew. This wasn't a concern for the T26, which kept all its ammunition in the turret or turret basket.

#128 to #127 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

You sir, clearly don't understand one thing about survival of the fittest.
IT's not the strongest that survive, it's not the more agile, nor the smartest, it's those that can combine all of those skills in the most suitable way and adapt it to their envoirment.
So who's to say the Tiger II wasn't the best tank, it could win frontal fights in open field vs any tank, and it would win in towns as well, remember the germans built a super gigantic artillery weapon that had it's own train tracks, that could probably destgroy the maginot line had they needed to do so, yet, the practicity of transporting it only over train tracks made it almost obsolete. I mean I just believe that if a tank is better than another one, but because of situational posibilities, it is destroyed by another one, I'd say that the winner is the best, and considering the volume of armored vehicules the allied had available after the first few weeks on invasion, vs the volume the germans had and how they holded out, specially against allied forces. German tank divisions were thinned out between two fronts, and after the failure at moscow, stallingrad and kursk, many of the divisions were really worn out in order to prevent the soviets from trampling over the army.
And as a side note, the tiger II had the best armor available and if it wasn't hit in a certain spot from a certain angle, it was usually impenetrable.

#129 to #128 - freedomfiend

Reply0

[-]

But that's the issue; the Tiger II didn't survive. It was an exceedingly complex, fuel-guzzling monster in a time when the Germans were low on gas and resources. The Tiger design died off because it was simply too impractical to construct or maintain. Like the Schwerer Gustav, it was a theoretically devastating weapon that didn't succeed nearly as well in the field as it did on paper.

You mention victories in urban environments, but those situations were pretty rare, as the tank was far too bulky to maneuver in such situations. M4 crews loved encountering Tigers in towns and cities because they were sitting ducks in such situations.

Furthermore, it was too complex and resource-intensive to mass-produce on an appreciable level, which is why their numbers were so thin. This complexity also meant that it couldn't be repaired in the field. If its cannon (one of its several weak points) was hit, it was as good as dead, because the only way to fix it would be to take it back to the factory and have a new one installed.

Whether certain parts of it could be penetrated depended on the gun firing at it; yes, the frontal glacis of the hull was practically untouchable, but the T26's cannon could penetrate the turret at any angle and the hull from the sides. The rear of the hull was infamous for being soft, to the point where even the measly British six-pounder (57mm) could penetrate it with ease, which practically guaranteed that the exceptionally sensitive engine would light up.

Also:
"I mean I just believe that if a tank is better than another one, but because of situational posibilities, it is destroyed by another one, I'd say that the winner is the best."
By that logic, even the M4 is better than the Tiger II. While the Tiger II was very good at killing other tanks, it usually lacked the mobility to deal with more than a couple at a time, and therefore most were destroyed on contact.

#130 to #129 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

Well, I guess the logic doesn't work, in stallingrad, the soviets, sent wave after wave after wave of men, poorly trained, poorly armed (if any) and like ants crossing a stream, yet they won, because they had men to spare, they probably lost 30 or 40 times the men the germans lost in both taking it and defending it, yet, they broke the hold of the northern army and that allowed them to break thru the southern army when the germans divided in the south to compensate in the north, and that allowed them to use the same clamping technique the germans used on them to destroy the central army, all in all a winning tactic, a pyrrhic victory I guess.
But you make a good point.

#131 to #130 - freedomfiend

Reply0

[-]

What are you even on about? This conversation was about the Tiger II and how it ranked in superiority or inferiority compared to other tanks. Sometimes people drift from their argument, but you just broke the sea speed record racing away from it.

#132 to #131 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

I meant to state a point about how sometimes something that seems flawed isn't.
"If it looks stupid but it works then it's not stupid" basicly.
And albeit you do make some very good points, and you're probably right, I Still think that the Tiger II was the best the germans could have built for themselves, and if a better tank showed up in the war at the time, it might suprass it in specs but not in the field, from a tactic pov.

#77 to #64 - scarycanary

Reply0

[-]

45mm?! jesus the Americans where carrying field guns as SMG`s?!

nah i know it was a typo..., but yeh arnt you forgetting that the M1A1 Tommy (the final militarized version) used 30 round stack mags?

the tommy had a much higher rate of fire and a harder hitting slug but the MP40 was alot more controllable and suitable for prolonged engagements

#83 to #77 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

The M1A1 wasn't developed until the end of the war I believe.
And there were enough 1928 models by the time to suit the men.
But yeah the mp40 was by far the best field weapon, cheap, light, high rate, good cooling , cheap ammo, easy fixing.

#84 to #83 - scarycanary

Reply+3

[-]

the M1A1 was adopted in 1942 and they made like one and a half million of them or so

but yeh the MP40 was a decent firearm

but lets not forget about the almighty

<Sturmgewehr 44!!!

#85 to #84 - GnRNoD

Reply0

[-]

Yeah, basicly the first assault rifle ever made, amazing weapon, tho it had a few technical issues, it was a game changer I am sure.

#86 to #85 - scarycanary

Reply+2

[-]

absolutely

although the concept had been tried years prior by other manufacturers it was the germans idea of the short rifle cartridge that made the concept viable for its purpose, thus making it the first successfully fielded Auto/Semi Rifle

#44 to #43 - herrordar

Reply0

[-]

Guess why the Soviets won. Lots of practical (( if not very long-lasting)) things.
But if you see something work for the enemy that could work for you, you'd be stupid not to take from that.

#45 to #44 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply0

[-]

What's your point?

#46 to #45 - herrordar

Reply+1

[-]

That if it looks stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

#47 to #46 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply-1

[-]

I already knew that. You didn't have to tell me that. .-.

#48 to #47 - herrordar

Reply+3

[-]

yes because i am a mindreader thank you very much
You asked me what my point was. I gave you the answer.
Shut

#78 to #48 - anon id: 4a79bb03

Reply0

[-]

Bit cunty today, eh?

#2 to #1 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+24

[-]

I think it looks cool.

#30 to #2 - SirMartin

Reply+2

[-]

Shermans are drivable coffins.

#39 to #30 - dyelfagget

Reply0

[-]

Guess that's why they had some of the lowest casualty rates of any tanks in the second world war. Not like they were the first to get wet racks and spring loaded escape hatches.

#40 to #39 - SirMartin

Reply+1

[-]

I have apparently heard rumors and false advertising. Someone told me that the crew often called shermans a coffins.

M4 Sherman and T-34-85 was apperently best tanks in WW2 and SU-162 and StuG III was best Tanks destoryers. When it comes to cost, how good they can do their jobs and reliablity. But all in all it come down to the crew inside it.

#41 to #40 - dyelfagget

Reply0

[-]

The M4 and T-34 were both very good. The crews of every tank called them coffins regardless of what weapons a soldier is given they will complain. And yeah there are a lot of falst rumors about many armored vehicles of the second world war for both sides that is.

The Stug isn't a tank destroyer though fam, neither is a SU-152 (assuming you ment this because I can't find anything about a SU-162). Tank destroyers are a very specific doctrinal role that only really existed within the US and British militaries at the time. The US specifically developed an entire branch around the concept then ended it when toward the end of the war they realized it was more effective to just throw a larger gun in a Sherman and have it do everything. The SU-152 and Stug are both assault guns designed and mainly used for infantry support, they are ment for taking on stationary defenses though they may have been used against enemy armor when left without a choice.

And yeah a lot comes down to the crew within the vehicle, the tactical and strategic expertise of their superiors, and the sound doctrine of their armies.

#72 to #41 - simulatedsim

Reply0

[-]

What is the word Jagdpanzer, and the specific creation of the jagdpanzer IV, and the JagdPanther. (I would say JagdTiger too, but its cannon is a bit redundant as it simply destroys everything with one hit).

Though you're right that Stugs were designed as Infantry Support over Tank Hunting, though mid-late war their potential was recognized and they perfomed very well.

Oh, and the Hetzer peice of Shit too. That accounts for the Armored Tank Destroyers, and while the Germans had several SPGs without armor, you can make an equal argument for fire support/Infantry Support as for Tank Hunting.

#101 to #72 - dyelfagget

Reply0

[-]

Oh shit I forgot about the Jagdpanzers. mb, he was only talking about the SU-152 and Stug 3 though which were both not tank destroyers in their doctrinal roles. Jagdpanzers are hardly similar to the American idea of tank destroyers too but technically they are the German equivalent so I guess I fucked up. Jagdtiger never existed in numbers large enough to matter anyway

#31 to #30 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply0

[-]

tommycookers*

#4 to #2 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+27

[-]

//TRIGGERED//

#32 to #4 - alecmason

Reply+5

[-]

That's a nice Cromwell you got there.
Tigergruppe, load APCR, fire on the Tommycooker

#114 to #32 - kripperinohere

Reply+1

[-]

DETUSCHE campaign , best campaign www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4q53dZ3Atw ( und ich will garnicht erst mit Gabriel Angelos Stimme anfangen )

#58 to #32 - captainhotdogs

Reply-6

[-]

>tiger
whelp time to rev out the IS-2

#55 to #32 - sublimeslimetime

Reply0

[-]

Man, this is why I use soviet Shock rifle frontline tactics.

You germans always have such ridiculous tanks.

#73 to #55 - simulatedsim

Reply0

[-]

What the Fuck is that gun. Looks like an MG42 stock and back plate, turned into what I assume is either a 75 or an 88MM Cannon.

Seriously what the fuck

#87 to #73 - sublimeslimetime

Reply0

[-]

Iunno, I get all my tank girls from this game called milihime something.

you are right tho, that is an MG42 firing an 88mm KwK 36 L/56 Tiger I cannon

#52 to #32 - gorogorosama

has deleted their comment [-]

#88 to #52 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+6

[-]

Jawohl.

UKF OP and the poland mission makes me want to hang myself.

#124 to #88 - gorogorosama

has deleted their comment [-]

#115 to #88 - kripperinohere

Reply+1

[-]

Yyyyyyyyyyyup , praise Partisan tactic , game unbalanced and dont even remind me of poland.

#5 to #4 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+7

[-]

Quality < Quantity

#33 to #5 - doggyfashion

Reply0

[-]

Well played, guardsman, Emperor be praised!

#8 to #5 - solidderking

Reply+15

[-]

Quantity is a quality of its own

#12 to #8 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+5

[-]

#14 to #12 - solidderking

Reply+1

[-]

you are standing with whom ?
seriously, i cant make any sense of that pic

#15 to #14 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply0

[-]

standing with you, too lazy to edit it

#16 to #15 - solidderking

Reply0

[-]

i feel honored

#6 to #5 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+2

[-]

Still needs some quality.

#7 to #6 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+5

[-]

It could've been worse tho

#11 to #7 - lathyrusvii

Reply0

[-]

wow, dropping fire.

This was better than the content.

#13 to #11 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+6

[-]

I thought the content was funny.....

#97 to #13 - dinodart

Reply0

[-]

**dinodart used "*roll picture*"**
**dinodart rolled image**who is this person and where can i get some research?

#96 to #13 - dinodart

has deleted their comment [-]

#17 to #13 - lathyrusvii

Reply+1

[-]

Kind of, but I don't think anyone's getting into any of those.

Tanks are one thing, getting "into" anime is probably the easiest, but that woman definitely ain't happening.

#19 to #17 - theomnipresentnerd [OP]

Reply+5

[-]

She used to be very popular meme

#21 to #19 - lathyrusvii

Reply+3

[-]

I know.

#9 to #7 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+7

[-]

Kamaraden, that's a WW1 tank, and one of the first to have a turret.

It was one of the best at the time.

If you want to make fun of WWII tanks, make fun of the italians.

#18 to #9 - lathyrusvii

Reply0

[-]

oooo, someone's french.

#20 to #18 - sublimeslimetime

Reply+10

[-]

You're half right.