M4 was a piece of shit, and was clearly outclassed by Panther and T-34's throughout the war.
>gasoline aircraft engine that took fire every hit, unlike the T-34
>had a cannon inferior to the Panther and T-34, firing a smaller shel
>had crap cross-country mobility, getting stuck and breaking down
>paper thin armor of only 50mm compared to T-34 and Panther
It was the shittiest tank of the war. Face it.
Why didn't the US field M26 Pershings earlier? The Soviets managed to field IS tanks quite easily, including self propelled guns too.
>Yes, he is. For defending crap tanks, that is.
>But Americans will defend anything anyway.
The US tank doctrine was to always show up in atleast a squad of 5, regardless of threat
Why do we allow low quality threads like this to be posted over and over again?
What is /k/? Are we a top quality board or another plebeian board?
Post your take on the ACTUAL worst tank of the war.
Gonna do a lot of damage with dat dank .303 main gun there.
By having absolute air-supremacy in any battlefield outside of the MiG-alley.
Same applies to the Abrams. Never fought one vs one against an equally well supplied and trained force, without having the airforce stomping up whatever the enemy can muster days before.
>America was still thrown out of North Korea by literally frozen and starving chinks
>By having absolute air-supremacy in any battlefield outside of the MiG-alley.
I can't recall much of T-34's being taken out by aircraft fire.
>America was still thrown out of North Korea by literally frozen and starving chinks
I guess they were thrown out of Iraq aswell according to your logic
>Air-strikes and interdiction not wreaking havoc on enemy supply lines and infrastructure, making the usage of tanks more difficult to the enemy.
>Home by Christmas
Then it turned out to be:
>Home feet first in boxes by Christmas
>Longest and harshest retreat in all US military history
>Regimental colors captured by ill-equipped chinese light infantry troops
>North Korea not destroyed and Northeast China not freedomized as MacArthur wanted it
>Worst tank of the war
>not pic related
Neither has the T-90, Tovarisch.
Either way, T-34s made up for it by their ammo cooking off.
>inferior to the Panther
At AT work. HE on the Panther was pathetic.
The T-34's 76mm gun is worse than the 75mm gun on the Sherman. The 85mm had better HE but similar AT as the Sherman's 76mm.
>crap cross country
Not really. It had decent cross country, what it couldn't do was cross muddy ground well. The T-34 was hardly perfect at cross country though. It especially had trouble climbing hills because of its wheel layout.
>paper thin armor
Superior frontal armor to the T-34, superior hull armor and similar turret protection to the T-34/85, weaker sides and rear armor, better side turret armor on the base T-34, worse than the T-34/85's side turret armor.
Had great hull armor, decent turret armor, but lackluster side armor easily penetrable by 75mm guns at most any range.
>why didn't the US field the M26 Pershing earlier
It was kinda shit. Basically a better Panther, but that's not saying much.
>field IS tanks quite easily
Define easily, half of the ones fielded were lost in combat and the IS-1 was deemed inadequate. The IS-2 had flaws but functioned, but the IS-3 was deemed a failure and the IS-4 was basically an abortion of a tank that worked better as a bunker than a tank.
>self propelled guns
Russian SPGs were suicide. On top of thin armor, they had awful visibility, slow loading times, and many a crew suffocated by the gun's vapors being unable to vent out of the hull. Or were simply incinerated by their own highly volatile ammo when it went off. Sometimes without even a penetration.
That's not really how airstrikes work. Airstrikes now can outright destroy tanks, but when engaging a defensive enemy in the 50s airstrikes were of limited use at removing hard targets or limiting their ability to fight.
All they have to do is sit under a bush and wait for clear shot. You can't interdict that. The Norks still got their shit pushed in because their crews were bad, their visibility awful, and their support nonexistant.
>At AT work. HE on the Panther was pathetic
Let me take this opportunity, in the obvious troll thread, to shed some insight on HE from tanks in general..
in rifled barrels, the higher the velocity of a shell, the faster the shell is going to spin in flight.. With really fast shells, its in the hundreds of thousands of RPM's..
Now, for the steel casing to hold together, the steel in the case must be thicker than a lower velocity to shell, to hold together under those centrifugal stresses.
This is why tanks, like the Panther, had shit HE performance than a given gun of the same caliber but lower velocity shells.
Its also why some guns had two different velocity shells, fast for AT and a lower velocity shell for HE..
Its why some guns had a very stubby short barrel.. They deliberately had very low velocity to increase the volume in the shell dedicated to HE..
Panther's gun had inferior HE performance to Sherman" The Panther was also quite flammable when penetrated from the flanks. T34/76 has been repeatedly and thoroughly shown to have been a deathtrap.
That retreat saved the eighth army from destruction and said formation went on to repel several Chinese offensives aimed at taking the South.
Oh the chink shill turned up again.
>threw us out of the North
Well considering how the North has turned out I wouldn't be happy defending that statement
>Well considering how the North has turned out I wouldn't be happy defending that statement
Great argument. Same can be said about American "victories" in the middle east turning Iraq into an absolute shit hole.
So, america pretty much lost there as well, right?
You seem to completely disregard the shortcomings of the PVA in the Korean War, or the insanely high casualties they took due to fucked logistics. They tried to pull a Bagration on us at Chosin, but UN forces managed to fight their way out while inflicting such casualties that Song Shi-Lun offered his resignation following the battle. Also, quite a large number of Chicom prisoners did not want to be repatriated back to the PRC, which says a bit about the country at the time.
You seem to be avoiding successes like Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Iraq, while currently in the shitter, is something that we are still involved in. China has North Korea, and they've gone completely downhill.
You seem to completely disregard the discrepancy of armament and equipment between PVA and the US forces at that time.
While the super hardcore american Marines cried like little bitches when they could only rely on air-dropped supplies (no thanksgiving turkey for them BAAW), an entire regiment of PVA soldiers froze to death while waiting in ambush against the retreating US Marines. This tells you about what poor fellows these PVA soldiers were, lacking even basic stuff like actual military boots (straw sandals were still worn in the cold winter). Pic related:
Deal with it. You lost against these people, despite having 24/7 Napalm bombers supporting you and air-dropped supplies around the clock.
Chinese had no means to take out American Shermans besides suicide charges with satchels.
We drawed with them. China's future offensives achieved next to jack shit.
>cried like little bitches
More like dealt with the situation and fought their way out of hell killing as many chicoms as possible. American troops fell back south, and continued to contest the Chicoms for the rest of the war. We failed to save the North, but we did save the South. American troops can at least feel good that the part of Korea they saved didn't turn into a starving shithole ruled by a madman.
The PVA are the most valorous soldiers the world have ever seen.
Equipped with nothing but captured japanese rifles, satchel-charges and grenades, they fought against the industrial might of the United States and their heavily mechanized forces, as well as their omnipresent airforce that was raining hell on them 24/7.
They took massive casaultes, but never bent. They pushed the US pigs out of China's precious buffer-zone and held the lines against all US attempts to attack the North again.
Americans should be ashamed. Ashamed of fighting and losing against starving, ill-equipped peasants who had nothing but their malnourished bodies.
Yes, the Americans had to retreat in the face of a surprise attack by a numerically superior enemy they were not expecting to fight. Retreat was the right call, since if they had stayed they would have been encircled and destroyed to a man like the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Instead, they got away relatively intact to fight another day, repelling Chinese offensives at the 38th once the element of surprise had worn off and the Chinese outran their supply lines.
And nowadays, South Korea is a major Chinese ally, who not only send back the remains of PVA soldiers with full military honors, but also joins China in their hate and contempt against the US-puppet Japan.
Oh, how the US must feel frustrated when South Korea hates their favored lieutenant and feudal-lord of their Pacific protectorate, while joining China in nearly all her endeavors in containing Japan and even the US (remember AIIB?).
And how South Korea is against the deployment of the THAAD, well in accordance to the Chinese concerns.
You Americans did a great job in 'defending' South Korea, for it to fall so quickly into Chinese influence.
See how much Spaghetti your trusted Lieutenant is spilling infront of your 'Ally' South Korea.
See these people?
Noen of them are American. But one of them is an 'US Ally'. And she is with two major Anti-American leaders.
Considering South Korea still has a defense pact with the US, keeps a large American military force within their borders, and regularly buys American military equipment, I don't think their siding with China any time soon.
I mean, America has economic deals with China. Does that mean America is a major Chinese ally?
At the end of the day, SK knows that when push comes to shove, they can count on the US having their backs. Can they really say the same about China?
"Heavily outnumbered, and fighting in ball-freezing sub-zero temperatures, Puller’s troops broke the enemy lines, smashed through seven enemy divisions, and then stayed behind as a rear guard, bearing the brunt of the Chinese onslaught so that the rest of the Marines could complete their retreat (Puller refused to refer to it as a retreat, however, he preferred to call it, "attacking in a different direction"). The 1st Marines withstood fierce attacks by hordes of Communist soldiers but held their position, inflicted tremendous numbers of casualties on the enemy and managed to provide enough time for the Allies to evacuate all of their wounded men and salvageable equipment. Sheer bravery in the face of intense fire and a seemingly winless situation earned Chesty Puller his fifth Navy Cross – an unprecedented accomplishment that has never been equaled".
>Because world leaders aren't allowed to meet with their rivals.
It's called diplomatic relations. I guess it's something fiddy cents don't have a concept of. I mean, there's a LOOOOONG tradition of American presidents meeting leaders of rival nations, like Obama with Putin, or Nixon's trip to China. Doesn't necessarily make the US close allies with them.
>having equipment at all
Not valorous at all.
Basically mall-ninjas who attempt to get their obese bodies off from the car-park into the nearest Burger-Town during a 'cold winter'.
Yet it was the only 1930 era tank that was still transcontinental transportable and combat effective by 1945.
Poor guys probably never even knew what was coming their way until it was too late. It was chilling to read the accounts of squads that were ambushed first and were desperately trying to get on the horn and warn the others that they were overrun and about to die.
You realize the US literally controls the South Korean military right? Like when South Korea goes to war it's American generals that lead them. That's by their request not ours. S. Korea couldn't be more of a US ally if they were Kansas.
Symbolic support doesn't make for a military or economic alliance. I won't deny the Chinese and Koreans share a beef against Japan, but that alone won't be enough to turn SK against the US. Especially with the specter of North Korea continually hanging over their heads.
>Help, starving mexican refugees are overrunning us!
>We only have the US Airforce supporting us with 24/7 napalm strikes!
>I havent eaten warm burgers for hours!
>War is hell.
Pic related is valor.
Surrounding and destroying an american combat unit and capturing their colors, despite being completely outclassed and outgunned in any conceivable way.
Not even the Nazis or the Japanese ever managed to do that to an US unit.
You mean that South Korea still has hard feeling against Japan? Yeah that's no secret. They both play nice for big daddy USA though. They'd probably be at each others' throat if we weren't there but if anything their continued relations with Japan just reflect how strong South Korea's ties to the US actually are.
Hey OP would you like a non meme response?
The M4 was a great tank for 1941, it fell behind by the time of Normandy as it became clear that although it was roughly equal to the Pz IV H it was no match for the Panther or Tiger, as 76mm armed variants, Jumbos and the Easy 8 filtered in replacing the older variants throughout 1944, and better Tank destroyers like the M18 and M36 proliferated, American Armour became more than adequate, even if the average American tank was no match for a Panther, they could still take them out especially with TD support, and Germany's logistical problems by that stage hamstrung them.
South Korea decided to buy Chinese surface to air missiles this summer, but John Kerry flew in to beg South Korea to keep buying their Patriot missiles (like they always did for decades). I don't think they listened.
very hunerabr they had nothing nothing at all! just look at that no winter clothing
found the equivalent of the laughing slavs
look at these poor chinks nothing at all
>T34/76 has been repeatedly and thoroughly shown to have been a deathtrap.
All tanks during the war were deathtraps. Upon penetration, 1-2 crew members were killed, regardless of the vehicle.
The Sherman's crew safety rating was actually very high. The average mortality rate for a Sherman crew was around 0.2 fatalities for every knocked out Sherman. You actually had a higher chance of dying OUTSIDE the tank than in it.
Marines capturing chinks
From my research I've come across 1-2 deaths in almost every vehicle upon the first penetration. What the Sherman did well was avoid getting set on fire upon a hit, thanks to the wet ammo racks that were installed later on.
That and the hatch arrangement allowed for speedy exit compared to Soviet vehicles.
Yeah, just like when push came to shove the US had Ukraine's back.
So no they don't they don't know that, so now they are getting closer to China and hoping that China will push for a Korean reunification on their end.
>a country that makes all of the US's shit, and that has explicit treaty obligations with the US is the same thing as a country that the US barely cares about and has no legal obligation to defend
How about you obey the 18+ rule, bucko.
The Sherman was on the same level as the T-34 (comparing the 76mm Sherman and 34-85), although the Sherman had several superior qualities.
>Superior crew comfort (also lead to the hull being tall as fuck)
>Good reliability (T-34 was easy to maintain....but it wasn't all too reliable, the tracks sucked ,especially the pins, and the transmission was a bitch. But this can be explained by the Soviet's production, that is "we need lots of tanks RIGHT NOW".
>Has a turret basket
>Wet ammo storage
The Soviets ended up taking all the positive aspects of the T-34 and refining it into a superior vehicle, the T-44, and later the T-54/55.
These tanks completely outclassed NATO vehicles until NATO caught up with the introduction of tanks like the M60, Chieftain, and Leopard 1.
1. Sherman armor was softer than T34, so ricochets off T34 could severely injure crew while internal fragments were less frequent with Sherman (Sherman used 260 Brinell Hardness armor while T34 used 440 Brinell)
2. T34 had additives to HE rounds so they packed extra explosive punch, but this gave them a greater chance of exploding after tank was penetrated. Loza points out that T34 crew could be killed outside the tank, while they ran, due to the power of the exploding HE ammo. With Shermans this was less of a problem (47 degree glacis Shermans would have wet stowage for ammo, which decreases chance ammo explodes).
3. Sherman 75mm gun outpenetrates T34 76.2mm, and Sherman 76mm outpenetrates T34/85 85mm weapon.
4. Sherman has three man turret, T34 has two in turret, making Sherman more efficient.
5. U.S. 75mm HE rounds are very effective, U.S. 76mm HE has small HE burster and is inferior to 85mm HE.
6. 2.5" American armor at 47 degrees from vertical on M4A2 Sherman glacis is more effective than T34 45mm (high hardness plate) at 60 degrees from vertical versus 75mm and 88mm ammo.Germans found that PzKpfw IVH 75mm APCBC could not penetrate U.S. 2.5" plate/47 degrees at 1000m, but it could hole T34 glacis.
US inspections of KO'd T-34-85s in Korea found that 75% of the NKPA crews did not survive their tanks destruction compared to 18% in US tank crews. 97 T-34-85 were destroyed in tank vs tank actions, with another 18 claimed as probables by US forces vs losses of 34 US tanks of which 15 were total writeoffs.
T34= turd on wheels.
Oh shit nigger! World leaders in the same picture as one another? America is fucked Obama is a Russia's puppet!
One of the few sensible posts in this thread.
You are one delusional little fuck. I have many South Korean friends, and all of them reaffirm that they see our two countries as bros. Considering that you're probably the same fiddycent from the YJ-18 thread, it's probably pointless to argue with you since you've apparently got Mao's cock shoved down your throat.
I'd say we should be proud for killing so many communist scum in the defense of an ally that, despite what you seem to believe, is still one of our best regional friends. Also your "valorous" soldiers were defending a shitty regime that only got worse.
>outclassed and outgunned
>literally outnumbered our units by several magnitudes
>attacked using the element of surprise
Plus that same unit actually did have it's colors taken previously since it was one of the units stationed in the Philippines when it fell during the initial Japanese invasion. Your argument is invalid
>armor gets penetrated and ammo catches fire
Wow! Just like every singe tank fucking EVER!!
>post an image of a KO to be used as proof of how shitty the tank was
DAYUM Your SO SMART!.... AND FUCKING EDGY!! You must get so much pussy ur dick cant cum anymore!
Hey watch this!!!
>German WWII tanks are shit
>Gasoline engine, ammo stored in crew compartment...when they get penetrated they catch fire
>too complex design with shitty access for maintenance
>Russian T34 is slavshit
>Shit design has ammo in crew compartment so when penetrated it catches fire and blows the turret off
>so often the turrets blown off the germans had a saying for it, "tip your hat to the tiger"
>76mm gun was so shitty they had to bump it to 85mm
>even with 85mm they with russian crews were still getting pwned by M4A3E8 in Korea
>only reason why ppl suck it's dick b/c its slav and plebs love dat over blown commie shit and suck its cock so much it elevates it until fags like to think that it can fly and also become a submarine
also 5/10 for making me reply... Oh yeah pic related... and drink whats under your kitchen sink
>3. Sherman 75mm gun outpenetrates T34 76.2mm, and Sherman 76mm outpenetrates T34/85 85mm weapon.
This is a point of contention that is very difficult, and very convoluted. Different sources will say different things. The testing parameters of the two countries were different, the shells that they used as their primary types were different (changing how they interact with opposing enemy armor plate of different manufacture.) It's a very, very tight race. So close, in the end, that it's almost not even worth comparing.
>4. Sherman has three man turret, T34 has two in turret, making Sherman more efficient.
T-34-85 had a three man turret, as well. Both tanks were generally improved as their production runs went on.
>6. 2.5" American armor at 47 degrees from vertical on M4A2 Sherman glacis is more effective than T34 45mm (high hardness plate) at 60 degrees from vertical versus 75mm and 88mm ammo.
Not quite. As per WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston, the T-34 had the advantage. See attached photo of page 13.
The bothersome thing about these numbers used is that I've heard as little as a 2.5 multiplier for 60° plates from other primary sources such as WO 185/118. However, I'm not going to argue with Bird and Livingston, as they have access to far more sources than I do.
>These tanks completely outclassed NATO vehicles until NATO caught up with the introduction of tanks like the M60, Chieftain, and Leopard 1.
Not really. Untill M47 and M48 appeared, the T-54 didn't completely outclass the Western tanks.
>mfw I made this thread for some ebin trole of /k/ to get a WWII tank thread starting
>mfw it turned into a chink spergout over Korea
Sherman was probably the most adequate tank of WWII, and all I wrote in OP is just myths and terrible assumptions presented by History Channel :^)
who do you think supplied , trained and also rode with the Norks and Chinese??
if you need a guess pic related
Swarm tactics, mostly. By the time the Panther and T-34 came out the US were cranking out Shermans faster than the Nazis could knock them out. Before that the M4 exchanged well with the Pz.IV and absolutely dominated the Pz. III and Pz.II
And the worst tank of WW2 award? Possibly the French Char B1 tanks. Slow, with the commander pulling double duty as gunner, and a giant exposed vent on the flank. Sure, it had some nice frontal armor but that didn't save it during the blitz.
The M4's predecessor the M3 Grant comes close, though with a hull mounted 75mm gun.
The KV-1 escapes the list by virtue of being so heavy that only 88mm guns could kill it. Well...88mm guns and bridges. The KV-1 was so heavy that no bridge in Russia could hold it's weight.
But being a pilot and tanker are two different things.
One is stuck near the battlefield while the other flies around and can go back to the airfield which is safer.
I mean the T-34 was only a serious danger during the start of the conflict, After the norks got pushed back it became rare to see.
It's not hard to see russian officers giving out orders and his opinion but russians in direct frontline ground operations (russians in tanks) are not that plausible.
>Swarm tactics, mostly. By the time the Panther and T-34 came out the US were cranking out Shermans faster than the Nazis could knock them out.
>Possibly the French Char B1 tanks
Is this bait? The B1 fucked the krauts shit up in 1940, and Pz IIIs and early Pz IVs couldn't do shit to it.
>The KV-1 was so heavy that no bridge in Russia could hold it's weight.
The KV-1 was 45 tons, the Tiger I was 50 tons.
Is it wrong that I find French tanks to be the sexiest tanks of WW2?
>Why didn't the US field M26 Pershings earlier?
there was no real need for it.
No, seriously, when you have to send every tank, spares for them, and all other required supplies several thousand miles in ships, and then keep sending that stuff to keep them operational, you start calculating if it's worth to do all that crap for sake of killing few hundred Panthers and dozen of Tigers that survive through your air superiority.
>hull mounted 75mm gun.
hull mounted 75mm was a thing, because no US factory could make turret for it within given time.
Thing people forget is that in 1941 US had virtually no industral capability to produce anything but light tanks.
From that to 50 thousand Shermans and about as much other AFVs by end of 1945 is nothing short of amazing
what if they have one tiger and a pointed stick?