>>65145583 why would it? drones both allow you to lob HE at things easier and those guns offer nothing to deal with them. even more so, with the proliferation of modern portable anti-structure munitions like the AT4 there's even less need for it.
>>65145839 What is the rate of Kurd removal though? >>65146062 That's pretty neat. Was hard to tell from that angle. >>65146459 Each pic I see of that really doesn't do it justice to judge the scale and how big those things really are.
>>65148459 >What sort of manner of insane person design- >French Okay carry on. >>65148660 I didn't even need to read the filename to know it was French. >>65148810 The only source I can readily find is a Bong museum but without citations of who called it that.
76mm was not as good as 17 pounder, though the reason the US didn't go with using the brit 17 pounder on later shermans is because they thought the new 76mm would perform just as well. Obviously it did not once it went into production, but it was still a decent gun, on par with the 77mm HV used on the comet
>>65154072 Really shows how useful the adjustable suspension is outside of purely combat situations. They also drop the suspension when its time to load ammo as well which seems like another useful situation.
>>65163696 >Our company uses a T-26 for sentry duty as that is what Comrade Stalin intended >Four Finns burst out of the treeline interrupting our midnight buttfucking session >"Cyka blyat!" >I grab my ushanka and get inside my tank. >Gun down the first chukhna with the DT leaving him riddled with bullet holes >Fire the 45mm loaded with frag, it misses entirely as it isn't stabilized and it blows up the tent containing the company pidor >Have to resort to the shrapnel shells, spin tank towards treeline and fire "Cheeki Breeki!" >Shrapnel shreds two of the Finns in half and wakes up the company commissar >Give the order driver track troops and the vehicle moves forward towards the last intruder. >He is crushed under the weight of the tank and we are all sent to a Gulag in Siberia for showing individualism, just as Comrade Stalin intended.
>>65167914 WW2 they were going out their way to hide their tank for good reason. I don't think if anyone tried tank art they survived for long outside of a parade.
>>65175586 More a case a fast lightweight 105mm howitzer seems ideally suited to the terrain of Korea and I think the infantry would have loved such mobile fire support. Then again Shermans did exist.
>>65175903 T88 was under development for the invasion of Japan. It was another open-top turret design like the Army's 'tank destroyers' and M8 HMC, by Korea those types had overall been relegated to second-line units or export.
>>65177293 Left hand column >Can't tell looks like a dune buggy >Can't tell looks like a Wiesel >Wirbelwind >Panzer IV H >Tiger I >Strv 103 >Merkava - possibly a Mk1 or early MK2
Right column >BA-6 >An bus >Stuh 42 >An fire truck >T-34 /57 >Gepard >M3 Lee
and of course the Maus in the middle
>>65177296 A lot of these could be anything so going going from top left to right x x x Looks inspired by the Merkava Gepard or Type 87 Abbot SPG possibly T95 JagdPanzer x x Leopard 2 or Type 90 x
x= not a tank
>>65177298 See above x x x MBT-70 Looks inspired by the Merkava Looks inspired by the Sheridan TV-8 Gepard or Type 87 x x Looks inspired by the Object 279 No clue
The armoured car right top is BA-10. I think every BA-6 had the turret with the rear overhang. And the T-34 looks like a bastard child of a T-34 (1943) and some post-ww2 upgrade with a high velocity gun. The first tank up top left looks vaguely like the German leichttractor.
>>65177414 >the T-34 looks like a bastard child of a T-34 (1943) and some post-ww2 upgrade with a high velocity gun. There was a T-34 with a high velocity gun in WW2 though?
>>65180777 >>65180791 IF this image IS REAL it is the prototype of the Somua SAu-40 a sort of TD\CS SPG based on I believe was theS-40 chasis. This image shows it without the 75mm gun and cupola. Images of this tank are not very common.
>>65174109 What's up with that shot of a tank coming up a hill slightly side ways aiming at something in the horizon behind the camera that makes my penis so hard?
>>65145625 Why did recoil buffers below the barrel go away, sorry I only know an autistic ammount of information about small arms and am branching out?
>>65186387 it was a weak spot that needed to be armored. keeping it inside the turret solved that problem. because it it gets hit then the cannon is useless
>>65186389 >>65186431 The design hasn't exactly change much and if you are in a position where your fuel tank has exploded yet still having to use the rear escape hatch you've got yourself into one hell of a retarded situation.
>>65187137 >The Sherman Delusion Still was a decent tank though, especially the later models. And having stuff like an APU and a gun stabilizer really put it ahead of its time, even though the crews didn't even know how to turn it on and use it half the time.
>>65188866 Still the best tank of the war. The main issue is they were running on the assumption that the Germans were only going to be churning out Panzer IV's and Stug III's which even a 75mm armed Sherman is more than capable of dealing with. In hindsight we know just how wrong they were.
>>65189450 >best tank of the war / 'churning out' No. It was the most produced, and quantity beat quality (in more than just AFVs) for the Allied side. Also quantity 'made' quality, the logistical superiority of America (compared, for example, to USSR) meant that they had access to the best raw material supplies, machining facilities & process, American mainland wasn't being bombed or shelled every 12 hours et cetera. Like the German factories, machine and workshops were. That's why every NPC says all the fucking time >'it was the best of the war' And the arguments about "well the Germans should've dumped ________ and built ________ instead" are hypothetical and not relevant, if ? Germany hadn't invaded Russia mid-1941 and instead somehow concentrated on shoring up its regime's access to needed fuel and raw materials so that what it built industrially was reliable, well machined and QC-manufactured then a ? Panther tank for example might've actually been able to replace the Panzer III-IV series in quantity with quality reliable final drives and metallurgically sound armor by 1943-44. But that did not occur. The war happened the way it did, because it did. There's no alt-history or cherrypicking to be had
>>65189509 What would your pick be then for best tank as nothing over 40 tons is going to be in the running not with the way infrastructure was at the time.
>>65192094 >best tank Of World War II? Panther hands down. It also had the best power to weight ratio of any non-light tank aka normal tanks. Whether Germany was able to properly mass-manufacture, maintain, and deploy them (in sufficiant numbers or otherwise) after the year 1942—by December of <--said year they'd ninety percent lost the entire war—is another question entirely.
Runner-up might be the M24 Chaffee, a good balance for what it was. Both the Panther and Chaffee properly examplify where tanks were headed post-1940s. (Diesel engine power hadn't yet become a thing and wouldn't until the 1950s-later)
>>65192188 Panther was a decent tank, one of the few Gernab tanks used post war in any significant numbers, specifically by the french. The 75mm used on the AMX-13 basically is a copy of the gun and could fire the same ammo. Unfortunately had transmission and engine problems which required them to govern the engine and limit RPM's
>>65193342 Manufacturing quality control, and source materials/metals quality, of all German tanks simply worsened from 1943 onward, even though the (for example) Panther was design-improved in subsequent variants D — A — G. From the engines to the drivetrain, transmissions to the armor plate etc. all of Germany's manufactured output suffered and degraded as time went on. Yes the Panther was for its time an excellent and futuristic overall design.
>>65181757 You probably don't feel anything because a 20 lb projectile is not going to move a 30-ton object in the slightest degree. Also you probably wouldn't really hear anything particularly loud over your ear protection and anybody who says that tanks "ring" when getting hit is an unbelievably stupid fucking moron.