Chose one :

1.) Sherman is limited to 40kmh and barely ever reaches it, panther has a much more powerful engine and reaches 40kmh offroad even thanks to the overlapping roadwheel suspension.
2.) Neutral steering, faster off road on road, better acceleration
3.) If not penetration then explosive mass. The 75mm on the shermans had 670g of tnt, 76mm 400g of tnt, panthers gun 730tnt
Only things shermans got againts panthers is mass producion and reliability

>more agile
>n-no
What you mean with that exactly?
In the Swedish mobility tests Panther won in every occasion.

Attached: Panther mobility.webm (480x360, 2.65M)

>What you mean with that exactly?
just an uneducated burgerboo

That suspension is so good, shame it is so bad to maintain

hey fellow boomer

Attached: 1528159726437.png (380x349, 77K)

>1.) Sherman is limited to 40kmh and barely ever reaches it, panther has a much more powerful engine and reaches 40kmh offroad even thanks to the overlapping roadwheel suspension.
Yes the Panther has a more powerful engine, it also has one that barely lasts for 1000-1500km after being derated to 580hp. It was also overstressed and had an alarming tendency to burst into flame. Also, source on the 40kph off-road claim?
>2.) Neutral steering, faster off road on road, better acceleration
Neutral steering was a meme on the Panther, using it would destroy the transmission, final drives, or both. In theory the top speed is higher, in practice it would never actually reach it due to the gearing being too high
>3.) If not penetration then explosive mass. The 75mm on the shermans had 670g of tnt, 76mm 400g of tnt, panthers gun 730tnt
75mm HE shell has 660g of TNT, 76mm HE has 390g of TNT, while the KwK 42's HE round has 653g of 60/40 Amatol, not TNT. TNT is a superior explosive at producing fragmentation compared to Amatol, in addition to having greater explosive velocity.
Yet according to the British, the Panther couldn't even complete the mobility tests due to general unreliability.
The reason why the Germans picked the dual torsion bars was because they couldn't make an adequate stabilizer. They realized their mistake with the complexity of said suspension by designing the Panther II and Tiger II with single bars.
I know more than you

SHERMAN NUMBAH WHAN

Attached: american chinese.jpg (600x304, 44K)

>anally annihilating something galaxies out of your weight class
Little Mac eat your heart out

>I know more than you
kek

It's true though

you have no idea, champ

Sure thing, mate.
Without googling it, explain the difference between uparmoring done in 3rd Army armored divisions compared to uparmoring done in 7th Army armored divisions.

Armor Piercing shells with High explosive fillers usually only have enough to break the shell into pieces (more like the head and a few shrapnels from the wall).
So, the difference in damage of both shells (M61 and Pzgr. 39) are negligible

>actually believing Hellcats and Typhoons were effective tank killers
well, you're 50% accurate, user. Gotta give you credit for that.

The Canadian War Museum is fucking great.

>The Canadian War Museum is fucking greht.

a really cool museum. i want to go back there and be less significantly hungover.

Attached: 1520076257247.jpg (2407x1600, 1.04M)

Hellcats were great tank destroyers though. They just didn't get updated like everything else, so they weren't very effective latewar. That's as bad as calling all Sherman's shitty coffins with peashooters

Oh boy, it's time for me to do my thing!
Excerpt from Steven Zaloga's "M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97", 2004
>In retrospect, the M18 76mm GMC was a bitter disappointment. Tank engineering involves compromises between firepower, speed, and protection. This was especially the case with US tank destroyers, since weight constraints placed on the designs forced even greater compromises in terms of firepower and protection. The primary role of a tank destroyer was its ability to knock out enemy tanks and in 1944, the M18 did not have enough firepower to effectively carry out this mission without exposing its crew to extreme risk. General Bruce's obsession with speed distorted the design and resulted in a poorly balanced tank destroyer. By focusing on a fanciful tactical doctrine and ignoring the likely evolution of the enemy threat, Bruce and the Tank Destroyer Command concentrated on the wrong balance. At the time it entered service in the summer of 1944, the M18 was not capable of defeating standard German tanks like the Panther under normal combat conditions. Tank destroyer crews were obligated to perform extraordinary maneuvers to effectively engage the Panther. The M18 Hellcat had no firepower advantages over the M4 (76mm) tank, which enjoyed better armor protection and a larger ammunition supply than the M18. Although many of the young crewmen enjoyed the M18's high road speed, there is no evidence that such high speeds translated into significant combat value on the battlefield. Bruce confused high road speed with battlefield mobility. Although the M18 could race forward at high speed on road, speeds near the forward edge of a battle were restricted by the usual constraints of road congestion and slower speeds in cross-country travel.

Attached: Consider This, Kraut.png (720x503, 463K)

Cont...
>Furthermore, the thin armor and open turret roof of the M18 did not encourage experienced crews to speed forward when in close combat range, but rather to move forward in a slower and more wary fashion to avoid exposure to enemy sniper fire and artillery fire. These design shortcomings combined with an unrealistic tactical doctrine meant that M18 battalions were not primarily used for tank fighting, but were committed more often to improvised roles, usually direct fire support for infantry units. They were not ideally suited to this mission either. Compared to tanks, their poor armor protection meant they could not be used in close terrain such as woods or urban areas due to their vulnerability to enemy infantry. Their firepower was inferior to the normal M4 tank with 75mm gun, since the 75mm gun fired a high-explosive round with twice as much high explosive content as the 76mm projectile. The excellent combat record of my M18 tank destroyer battalions during World War II occurred in spite of of its design features, not because of them. The Hellcat's combat record is attributable to the training and dedication of its crews, not to its ill-conceived design.

>time for me to do """"""my""""" thing
>regurgitates an editorial piece
Meanwhile it had the highest k/d of any American tank destroyer or tank in the war and performed admirably in itally. It couldn't take Panthers and tigers reliably for sure, but 4's and 3's weren't a problem. What's more is that your shit prescribes it's lack of firepower to extreme compromises that were inherent to the design and irrovocable. But as the original post said, they just weren't updated. There were 2 prototype vehicles built where they mounted the 90mm M3 with a break to an otherwise unmodified hellcat. The engine and suspension were perfectly capable of handling the added weight and recoil forces, but the war ended before it got any farther. It was an excellent tank, but it didn't get updated like everything else did

>effective fragmentation
>aphe
See

You goofbutt. The Panther was so bad at killing entrenched infantry that an entire SS Panther Tank Battalion threw fucking conniption fit when they got held up for hours by a fucking Artillery Observation unit with a crate of bazookas that they had to resort to war crimes.

>Meanwhile it had the highest k/d of any American tank destroyer or tank in the war and performed admirably in itally.

In Italy the M10 was favored over the M18 with Colonel F. W. Morse saying as much. Also k:d isn't actually that impressive when you consider slapping light tanks and armored cars is mostly that entailed and the vehicle was used mostly for fire support, a job it also failed to do as well as the M10 due to its smaller ammunition capacity.

>It was an excellent tank, but it didn't get updated like everything else did

Everything about this vehicle points to the training and experience of its crews to be the reason for any of its successes, the vehicle was designed to serve a broken doctrine and it shows. It was hardly any better than any of the other armored vehicles in service off road, its gun was described as being "the minimum ideal", and the crews preferred the preceeding M10. It was a design as awkward and inefficient as the doctrine that directed its creation.

Attached: 1521920557139.jpg (1600x1066, 344K)

real talk though: the 76mm was better than the 17lb.

>Not enough armor to matter
>fuck it, why not just not have it armored at all out it isn't going to matter
>give the thing excellent operational mobility
Is not a tank, never was meant to be one. It was a means to rapidly move at guns into ambush and defensive positions and provide them means to self relocate those guns. Nobody was ever supposed to take it on agressive tank hunting patrols. It turns out the m10 was adequate enough at this job that the m18 was superfluous, but that doesn't mean it was some retarded concept for a retarded doctrine. You seem educated enough to understand the doctrine was to fix/delay an enemy breakthrough long enough for armor units to counterattack.

>Is not a tank, never was meant to be one. It was a means to rapidly move at guns into ambush and defensive positions and provide them means to self relocate those guns.

It wasn't effective in this role and terrain and the tactics of the enemy made this far more difficult than the planners of the TD doctrine had imagined. The M10 wasn't a tank either, yet was still able to provide a decent level of protection for its crews. The only point I was really trying to make was that the M18 compared poorly with its contemporaries and was one of the least capable armored fighting vehicles in service with the US army during the latter half of WWII.

>the doctrine was to fix/delay an enemy breakthrough long enough for armor units to counterattack.
>that doesn't mean it was some retarded concept for a retarded doctrine.

I wouldn't say retarded, but the TD doctrine was a mess. While there was some merit behind it, it was overall pretty unsuccessful or at the very least just not useful. The fact that most US tank destroyers fired the majority of their ammunition in fire support roles honestly says enough.

Well I'll point out that I didn't see anyone else calling out the M18 before I took the time to transcribe all this from the publication, as well as make the image. Also, I would learn the difference between "editorial" and "analysis".

More to the point, the "Super Hellcat" is not the hellcat that saw service in WWII. Yes, it was a fantastic solution to a very real problem, but what you don't seem to understand is that it not being adopted had nothing to do with any sort of ignorance of the problem on the part of the US Army; it was merely a matter of the war ending before it could be fielded. It's no different from claiming that the M26 was an outstanding heavy tank based on the performance of derivative vehicles like the T29 and T34.
I'll also remind you that the M18 entered service in the spring of 1944; It's entire career was as a late-war tank, so you can hardly compare its upgrade history against a vehicle like the M4.

I feel like anyone who wouldn't choose a Jumbo Sherman with the 76 doesn't know much about WW2

Sure its not as reliable as the already massively reliable standard Sherman, but that armor...

Attached: Jumboshermanglacias.jpg (736x453, 70K)

Not that guy, but off the top of my head- Patton listened to his engineers, who told him that any uparmor other than ballistic steel was a waste of weight, so his 3rd army cut up dead Shermans and doubled the armor on their tanks, whereas 7th army allowed concrete and sandbags, if only for morale effect.

>there are people who would unironically would pick the Sherman "Ronson"

Attached: tumblr_oh148numdu1s7e5k5o1_500[1].jpg (500x297, 40K)

Depends. M51 is more competitive, what with blowing the tops off of T-55s during the 50s. I'd like to see a Panther try and do that - oh wait, they did try, and they failed.

>ronson invented time travelling

>there are people who would unironically call the Sherman "Ronson"

I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, of which he had started in a New York orphanage.

And you are 10 % accurate.
It does not take a direct hit from a 'phoon on a POS Kraut-box to kill the tank.

It just has to "kill" the crew and it's logistics.

It just takes the mean old Phoon shooting the fuck out of your supply lines under the cover of total air superiority, while Lancs bomb the shit out of your factories, to make your day all the shittier.

After a brief time, you get sick of your ersatz uniform making you itch, and your sawdust bread making you shit Masonite, your substitute ammo often failing to go off, and your "Improved" engine bursting into fire, to decide that "Maybe those C-rations are not so bad."