/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27745886

[45 / 8 / ?]

1MiB, 3553x2269, 195.jpg

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:14:43 No.27745886 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27746261 >>27746697 >>27746984 >>27747120 >>27748225

Sherman was best tank of WW2. This is fact.

All the 'Sherman was shit.' comes from a book called Death Traps by Belton Cooper that is mostly half truths and shit he pulled out of his asshole.

Sherman had more effective frontal armor than both PzrIV and T34.

It did not burn like a ronson.

It did not require 5-10 shermans to take on 1 Tiger.

Even the 75mm equipped sherman could penetrate a Tiger I's manlet with APCBC ammo at 500 yards.

There were lots. It had good optics. It was reliable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:17:43 No.27745904 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27745921 >>27745944

The Sherman has rare encounters with the Tiger, in fact there weren't even more than a dozen.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Tiger after shelling.png, 385KiB, 1045x847

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:20:12 No.27745921 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27745904
This test was performed firing a 75 mm M3 gun from an M4A2 Sherman with M-61 and M-72 rounds. Here are the results:

Side, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mm
Side, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.
Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40mm deep, 120mm diameter.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: same as above.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:21:16 No.27745923 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Get ready for another bait thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:23:35 No.27745938 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Oh shit OP.

Don't go around stating facts on /k/.

That's how shitstorms get started.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:24:08 No.27745944 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27745904
That's on the western front though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 045ada9648058536390d740ae59f9961.jpg, 23KiB, 300x250

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:56:05 No.27746229 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748255

>bongs actually think shoving a 17 pdr into a sherman turret was a good idea.
>these same bongs think it's a superior design to the 76mm in a purpose built turret.
>mfw 17 pdr sabot accuracy past 500 yards

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 16:59:47 No.27746261 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27746685

>>27745886
Sherman was okay, the T-34 was just better :3

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 17:45:47 No.27746685 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27746910

>>27746261
quantity has a quality all its own?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 17:47:17 No.27746697 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27746808

>>27745886
tell that to all of the poor sods that had to be in those metal caskets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:00:04 No.27746808 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27746697
That goes to pretty much every tank crew from every nation during every war.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:12:27 No.27746910 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27746948

>>27746685
Non flat side armour, and a center of gravity that isn't so high that it flipped on the side when driving with 1 track over a rock or slump.
Also better speed later versions also were better armored.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:16:37 No.27746948 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747098

>>27746910
Also had reliability problems, horrible visibility, bad ergonomics, heavy ineffective hatches, bad gun velocity, worse frontal armor, and bad gun depression. The T34s were not the worst, but definitely not the best.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IS2_2[1].jpg, 56KiB, 590x375

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:19:40 No.27746984 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748254 >>27748317

>>27745886

>Sherman was best tank of WW2

Look at this amerikanski and laugh

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:24:38 No.27747039 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747069

I honestly do not understand why people make these threads.

The Sherman, of any variant, has not seen service in 6 decades. Same goes for T34's, Tigers, Panzers, Cromwells, Stewarts, IS2's etc.

>inb4 well hurr durr 1 was in use in this one shithole at this one time during that time period

I like to learn about old stuff too, but why people get so worked up to defend "their" tank, WWII fighter, artillery piece, rifle, etc. is beyond me. So what if someone else says the Panzer IV is better. Neither you, nor they, will ever go to war in one, get to drive and maintain one, shoot the gun, training on the optics, etc.

TLDR who fucking cares America won Germany lost, the rest of Western Europe is cucked by the US and has shit militaries to this day, Eastern Europe has, and always will suck and Russia may as well be stuck in the time of the Tsars

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:28:00 No.27747069 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747082 >>27747130

>>27747039
I got to load and ride in an M4A3E8...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:29:14 No.27747082 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747069
How do I sign up for this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:31:03 No.27747098 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747121 >>27747137 >>27748175

>>27746948
>T-34 more reliability problems than sherman
okay burger.

>Bad gun depression
Yeah that's true.

>bad ergonomics
Maybe, but ergonomics rarely win battles

>horrible visibility, ineffective hatches, bad gun velocity
Your opinion, and the later models of the T-34 had better kinetic energy so for those models that is objectively false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:33:14 No.27747120 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27745886
>All the 'Sherman was shit.' comes from a book called Death Traps by Belton Cooper
Strawman much?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1363216595837.png, 337KiB, 720x720

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:33:17 No.27747121 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747141

>>27747098
>ergonomics rarely wins battles
>bad hatches and horrible periscopes is an opinion

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:33:56 No.27747130 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747069
right and you can compare it to all of your experience with Tiger I & II, Panther, PzI-IV, T34, IS2, and Churchills I am sure.

How about the M4A3E2? M4A2? M4A1 surely?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:34:44 No.27747137 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747327

>>27747098
The T-34 could run its engine for about 100 hours before it needed a total overhaul.

They usually didn't last that long, so it wasn't really an issue.

Also, it never managed better than a 2-1 loss rate against German armor, even in 1945.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:34:55 No.27747141 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747366

>>27747121

>Horrible periscopes

That is bullshit, the T-34 had superior optics. The often cited "It had no optics at all!!!!!" is an isolated incident at Stalingrad, where they rolled out from the factory into the battlements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:55:29 No.27747327 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748354

>>27747137
who told it you had a life of 100 hours.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 18:59:29 No.27747366 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747395

>>27747141
>the T-34 had superior optics
AHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA

No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:03:37 No.27747395 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747883

>>27747366

Yes.

Soviet optics were of rather good quality, the same cannot be said about the Americans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:35:12 No.27747720 Report Delete

Quoted By:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/04/aberdeen-t-34-and-kv-1-test.html

I've never seen the full report the americans wrote about their tests of the T-34 but if anyone has it i'd like to see it, until then you always have this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:43:37 No.27747824 Report Delete

Quoted By:

http://strawpoll.me/5878575

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:49:19 No.27747883 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27747953

>>27747395
this is b8

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:56:10 No.27747953 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748149

>>27747883

At Aberdeen trials the Americans praised the gunsights and called them incomparable to anything manufactured in the states.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:13:32 No.27748149 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748166

>>27747953
The Soviets were aiming their cannons by literally looking out of the fucking barrels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:15:10 No.27748166 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748149

Which is why they needed these sophisticated sighting devices.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_ll91ufPKQV1qjcvvio1_500.gif, 493KiB, 500x378

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:15:46 No.27748175 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748209

>>27747098
>later models of the T-34 had better kinetic energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:18:14 No.27748209 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748317

>>27748175

Poorly worded, but the 85mm gun certainly was superior to the Sherman's 76mm.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Comet Korea.jpg, 116KiB, 800x627

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:19:35 No.27748225 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748254

>>27745886

I'd still rather ride in a comet if I had to fight Panthers and Tigers

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:22:44 No.27748254 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748317

>>27748225

Refer to >>27746984

>Mostly immune to anything smaller than a 75mm KwK 42
>One of the three best guns of the war
>Decent mobility and low profile for a heavy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:22:54 No.27748255 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748280

>>27746229
>bongs think its superior to the purpose built 76mm turret
Not really, Firefly was a stopgap and everyone knew it. Only some retard WoT player would say otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:25:04 No.27748280 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748317

>>27748255

It was the more potent AT gun and a decent tool versus Tigers or Panthers but the fact remains that a Firefly was a glorified tank destroyer in the end.

Also the "Inaccurate sabot" meme was quickly fixed, just like the "Ronson" thingy the Sherman had.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:29:29 No.27748317 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748375 >>27748386 >>27748416

>>27746984
>>27748254
It's hardly perfect.
>three fuel tanks surround the crew, one on the front, one on each side
>EXTREMELY cramped compartment, even moreso than T-34s
>required the gun to depress to load shots, making it an extremely slow firing gun
>two piece ammunition made the fire rate even slower
>low ammo capacity
>penetrations were often catastrophic because of ammo being in the crew compartment
>turret only 100mm thick at the front

>>27748209
No, it was not. The 76 and 85mm had almost identical AT performance. The 76 had about 2mm of extra penetration over the 85, the 85 had better HE for firing at soft targets, but it also had a lower fire rate as the rounds were heavier and harder to load.

For all intents and purposes both guns performed almost identically.

>>27748280
It was never fixed during the war. Not until sabot technology improved. The first run of sabots were inaccurate no matter what you fired them from, it's just that the 17pdr was one of the few guns that was actually issued sabot shots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:33:34 No.27748354 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747327
his butt hole

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 85mm vs Tiger at Balaton.jpg, 48KiB, 600x417

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:36:14 No.27748375 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748451

>>27748317
Except the energy in the 85mm round was much higher which meant that the spalling effects and armour disintegration was better.

85mm guns didn't have to penetrate tiger tanks, the sheer energy transfer was enough to crack the armour entirely. A principle that was also used in their 122mm and 152mm AP rounds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:37:15 No.27748386 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748451

>>27748317

>>three fuel tanks surround the crew, one on the front, one on each side

God forbid the Soviets put the fuel where it is least likely to receive a hit.

>>EXTREMELY cramped compartment, even moreso than T-34s

For four crew members.

>>required the gun to depress to load shots, making it an extremely slow firing gun

That's a lie.

>>two piece ammunition made the fire rate even slower

A common fate of large-caliber guns. It more than made up for that with its sheer destructive power both against tanks and soft targets.

>>low ammo capacity

I'll give you that.

>>Penetrations were often catastrophic because of ammo being in the crew compartment.

And the IS-2 is alone with that problem, right?

>>Turret only 100mm think at the front

>What is gun mantlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:39:43 No.27748416 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748451

>>27748317
>penetrations were often catastrophic because of ammo being in the crew compartment

Why do so many people think this is unique to a select few tanks in WW2? Every fucking tank at the time had this problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:43:40 No.27748451 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748467

>>27748375
The larger rounds didn't use spalling to destroy tanks, they used the massive shockwave to destroy the armor and blow it open. Spalling is when the armor stays intact, the 155mm HE rounds simply blew the tank open.

>>27748386
>>27748416
>and the IS-2 is alone in that?
Not exactly, but the IS-2 suffered extensively from this problem as the tiny space, combined with the fuel tanks being in the crew compartment along with the ammo meant that if the tank was penetrated it pretty much exploded. This was a problem with ALL Soviet tanks. It was less a problem with other nation's tanks because they usually either
1. Forbade tanks from carrying ammo inside the turret itself save a handful of ready rounds
2. Had larger interior spaces meaning a penetration could occur without striking the ammo

Tiger II's for instance stopped carrying ammo in their turrets because of their first encounter being disastrous for that reason. They could still carry plenty of ammo in the hull.
The IS-2 had no such luxury as its ammo capacity was already tiny.

>what is a gun manlet
Also 100mm thick.
To be fair, the turret is mostly sloped, only the cheeks were relatively flat, and the entire turret was 100mm thick except on the roof. But the IS-2 was hardly impregnable. That fact shows in that of the 4000 they made, 2000 were lost in combat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:45:06 No.27748467 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748451

>Also 100mm thick.

Surely I need not explain overlapping armour to you, huh?

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches