Thoughts on the m26? was it a giant bloody mistake like the panther? or was it a success?

>better armour
Depends on which patton
>lower profile
>only 37 tons of weight
>slavs caring about crew comfort
>better armament
On par, soviet ammunition is always a letdown
>still in service today
And so is the patton

soviet 100mm gun made in 1944 is on par with cold war 105mm L7

get a load of this viking rapebabys delusions

in real life, fights were very even
T-55 would win some, patton would win others, and it really came down to crew

Okay Gaijin

M48 has an L7 you mongoloid.

amerimutt

Not him, but there is only 12 years difference in development between the D-10 and L7. They're both good guns, that still serve nations to this day. APFSDS was developed for the D-10 in the 80s.

The D-10s received stabilizer and extractor upgrades in the 50s. Give some context here, the 120mm Rheinmetal designed guns have been in service for over 40 years. Same with Soviet 125mm variants. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO developed great tank cannons. But that will never be agreed upon here.

you vodka addled piece of shit DT-10 doesn't even have a stabilizer and projectiles have kinetic energy around the same as German long 88mm gun, not comparable to cold war kinetic penetrators

>call it an upgrade
>is actually a whole new gun

Attached: 1517574632026.gif (200x200, 3.89M)

superiority brings jealousy

Attached: yellow rage.png (380x440, 49K)

>WW2 gun with roughly equilevant kinetic energy to Tiger II's 88mm
>Superior cold war gun
completely braindead

>gun can't get improved over time
In 1964 APDS was developed for the gun which culd penetrate 290mm of steel at 2000m, being exactly the same as APDS present in L7 at the time. But sure, I'll let you have you WAAAH WAAH ITS RUSSIAN SO IT MUST BE SHIT WAAAH

Attached: brainlethole.jpg (246x205, 9K)

Please explain to an ignorant autist like me why do the edges of the armour seem so irregular like in the front slope between the tracks, also sides of the turret. Really contrasts with how straight the cannon is.

The nose and the turret is cast

The D10-T's best modern rounds fall short of even penetrating 500mm RHA, L7 has rounds that can do +650mm, are the russians bad at engineering or could it be the 1944 gun is really not as good as more modern gun?

shush amerimutt, where are your sources?

Attached: 1517156130790.jpg (1280x904, 335K)

DT-10 was in main focus to around late 60's and then all attention shifted to the 115mm and 125mm guns. NATO used the L7 late into the 80's and even developed DU rounds for it, can you compare a late 80's L7 to an early 60s DT10?

>M900 105mm APFSDS-T
compared to
>100mm D-10T: M309 APFSDS-T

>DT-10 was in main focus to around late 60's and then all attention shifted to the 115mm and 125mm guns.
False, latest 100mm round was developed by Russians in 1999

The 1944 gun also fired GLATGMs. Capable of penetrating over 850mm of RHA.

And there's no readily available data about the 1970s and 80s ammunition developed for it. A basic google search yields this information. The D-10T was a fantastic gun for decades. Its obviously outclassed now and it was on par with the L7. They took different design routes, with the soviets developinh relatively reliable GLATGMs and developing 115mm and finally 125mm guns with autoloaders. How do you compare two different weapon systems designed with two different doctrines in mind.

No, it isn't.

>How do you compare two different weapon systems designed with two different doctrines in mind.
Dude it was the vatnik that claimed its comparable to L7 when in reality the top performance falls short between a quarter and a third
>The 1944 gun also fired GLATGMs. Capable of penetrating over 850mm of RHA.
I was comparing kinetic penetrators only

GLATGMs are such a meme I'm not sure why you brought them up.
And we know what ammo they developed because we fucking captured it decades ago.

M48 a shit.

M60 Best girl.

If we captured it decades ago, why is there no available data on half of it. GLATGMs are a threat to armor, just like regular ATGMs.

D-10T is comparable, the L7 just has a far better history.

It's called Jane's
And GLATGMS are costly, uncommon, space-consuming, pointless and have never really been used by a wealthy country much less fielded by the poorest superpower ever.

test

American early turrets always reminds me of the face of a baby. Look at the Sherman, Locust, Pershing, M48 patton. They all share that same baby face look. The roundness, the blubbyness. I never digged it. I always liked the more masculine look of German tanks. Straight, angled, disciplined.

The Schmalturm is so aesthetic

Attached: schmalturm.png (800x412, 602K)

T I G E R S

Attached: russia.png (1218x715, 607K)

Attached: 1513424284726.png (690x494, 458K)

>mentioning the J-word

Oh this should get the thread going

nah senpai, shit looks like a niche Lego piece

He's a pretentious faggot.

Jane's hides its info like that behind paywalls. If they even have it.

This. Just the mere mention of Jane's on Jow Forums gets all the retards seething

It wasn't a mistake like the Panther. The Panther had insufficient testing before it saw combat, and the biggest issues weren't solved (mainly the final drive and maintenance of the suspension and transmission)

The Pershing got to have that testing. Where it was found the engine and transmission were complete shit and nobody in the field wanted them. Which should have been the end of it along with the dozens of other prototype tanks America had in the works that never saw service. The problem is that the guys behind designing it were convinced it would be proved in the field. So they grabbed a bunch of brand new M26 tanks, shipped them to Europe, and gave them to combat units.
The results were mixed. The armour was decent against the big German guns, and the 90mm was absolute murder. They were also maintenance hogs, broke down constantly, and were heavy enough that during one engagement to cross the Rhine, a Bailey bridge was thrown up, the infantry crossed, the Shermans crossed, the Pershing was left behind and didn't participate in the next battle. Then there was 'Super' Pershing, with a prototype high velocity 90mm that used a completely unique round (thereby fucking up logistics, especially when the ammo was sent to the wrong unit) and which one Belton Cooper was asked to up-armoured. The additional plate of armour on the mantlet, and the entire front armour section of a Panther welder to the hull, utterly destroyed what little reliability it had, as well as it's fuel efficiency, speed and ride quality (like what happened to late war Panzer IVs, but worse)

In the end, the Pershing did nothing in WW2, it shot up some things, a couple were knocked out of action, and nobody really liked it. Then Korea happened and since America put a halt on tank development after the war, the Pershing was called up again with only some of it's issues fixed. It did well against the few tanks the Commies had, but nothing much more than the 76 Shermans in reality.

Finally, thankfully, a version of the Pershing was made that fixed all the major issues, and proved to be a workable tank design. However this required redesigning it so much they ended up calling it the M46 Patton. Then the Marines got all the existing Pershings because the Army had a ton of tanks and spare parts they didn't need/want.

tl;dr- It wasn't disastrously bad, but had enough serious issues it probably shouldn't have seen combat at all.

the m48 didn't receive the l7 until late 1975, by which time fucking t-80 was less than a year from service

>giant bloody mistake
>like the panther

Attached: 171837291.jpg (246x205, 9K)

The M-48 was seeing service w/the USMC by then and would soon be replaced w/older M-60s By 1974 the US Army had the M-60E2 w/ a totally new, gyro stabilized, turret

user, I think you got lost somewhere in the conversation...

best heavy tank of WW2

I guess it could be considered a success because the Patton tank was developed from it, and the Patton served the US up until Desert Storm. Plus it was sold to other countries who still use it today.

Attached: m-48-general-george-s-patton-medium-tank-1.jpg (400x221, 85K)

Tell that to the Israelis

It's almost like compiling information on weapons costs money or something.

Was shit. Had massive reliability problems like the Panther, especially in Korea.

What was the point of the Panther?
>unreliable
>repair took three times as long compared to a pz 4
>high explosive round was small
>huge profile
>frontal transmission
>ammo in the sponsons
>guzzles fuel like a king tiger
>interleaved roadwheels lol
>no hatch for the loader
>no periscope for the gunner
>shitty hatch for the loader, not even springloaded, you have to fucking crank it
>cramped turret
>transmission takes an eternity to replace compared to other tanks of its period
>huge hull, and yet it's somehow cramped inside the hull for the crew
>its sidearmour could be fucking penetrated by 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles (until the sideskirts became a thing)
>used gasoline
How did this tank get through the quality checking? It's fucking garbage.

Attached: 1527672733348.png (1280x904, 1.78M)

Cheaper to produce than the Tiger, only marginally more expensive than a Pz IV. 6,000+ were built, with most design flaws being rectified by '43 or '44.

>Belton Cooper was asked to up-armoured. The additional plate of armour on the mantlet, and the entire front armour section of a Panther welder to the hull,

Put your spergy romanticism aside. In war one does what on can to defeat the enemy, most allied tanks were taken out by anti-tank guns/mines why not give the NAZIs a big target to shoot-at, one that is literally bullet proof, a bullet magnet that allows the other tanks to flank and destroy the enemy. If that tank breaks down, it was seen, like all military material, as disposable even unwanted. This was a win-win situation for the military.
t-x 45B3H

Not him
>unreliable
Because it couldn't get tested anymore and replacement parts weren't possible because of bombings maybe?
>repair took three times as long compared to a pz 4
Source?
>high explosive round was small
Source? This sounds even more uninformed and stupid as the 88 had a similar penetration as the 122mm of the IS2 lol.
>huge profil
Wtf are you even on about, it was smaller than a Sherman
>frontal transmission
Transmissions in the back were tested by Porsche but deemed shit. Didn't have the Sherman also frontal transmission behind the bolted armour?
>ammo in the sponsons
Source, I couldn't find any on it.
>guzzles fuel like a king tiger
Because it uses the same engine, dumbshit.
>interleaved roadwheels lol
Holy shit, open a fucking book. The interleaved wheels help to with the weight of the tank and also made the tank much more stable.
>no hatch for the loader
The loader could climb out of the rear turret hatch in the back or the commander ones
>no periscope for the gunner
The commander on a German tank designates targets. It was sufficient for the gunner to acquire a target and engage it. Was a disadvantage tho.
>shitty hatch for the loader, not even springloaded
Watch the video of the Chieftain again you moron. The commanders hatch had an extra blast proof mechanism to seal off the hatch. Showing how to open that mechanism under pressure is something different than just showing the purpose as the Chieftain did it and spring loaded hatches later were early outphased by the Americans.
>cramped turret
Show me a picture of it being cramped
>transmission
Literally the same as the Sherman lol. Both needed a crane to lift it out.
>huge hull, and yet it's somehow cramped inside the hull for the crew
Again, post some pics
>sidearmour
Was the purpose of the design to make it as light as possible same as the Leopard.
>used gasoline
Maybe because it was scarce you chimp? It also had it's advantage against Soviet suicide dogs.

Attached: img_1059-1024x768.jpg (1024x768, 317K)

You forgot to mention that the sideskirts were already in Kursk, while Sherman was "fine" with thinner side and never got skirts.

>Literally the same as a Sherman

Attached: 1398827_1.jpg (630x630, 39K)

So they replaced the shitty, overengineered engine?

>M60
Not a Patton

Never heard this before. What can you possibly over engineer in a V12 engine?
It seem to have been very powerful engine for it's size though. Took time for the allies to beat it.

The engine wasn't too much of a problem for the Panther, especially after it received upgraded gaskets, bearings, and a governor in 1943, and an extra bearing in 1944. It was a fucking cast iron block, I don't know why the overengineered meme hit the Panther.

Thanks, gonna remember it next time
Prove me wrong
>I don't know why the overengineered meme hit the Panther.
Sherman fanboys would be my guess.

Attached: 751.jpg (598x792, 58K)

Panthers we're notoriously unreliable and lacked even basic materiel support on a regular basis, by this point in the war germanys industrial capacity was wanting what with the massive shortages of vital meterial and lack of competent oversight on developement programs. The Germans would've been much better served pumping out updated pz4. Let's not mention the tendency of panther armour to shatter due to improper casting.

Attached: 1535124557637.jpg (960x713, 187K)

>people harping on medium tanks side armor when it was made for long range engagements with a gun that had better penetration than Tiger Is 88mm

>panther final drive could fail after 150km
>half of all abandoned panthers in Normandy had evidence of a damaged final drive

>the panther was reliable

The over engineering meme is a result of German habit of over engineering things, spending too long to develope something that is marginally less effective than what everyone else is building for cheaper with less effort. Case in point, the panther

If the krauts suffered from lack of competent production in the later years, why did british tests find that at no point in the war did the armor plating quality change, nor did the methods of production?

>has all these fancy details but cannot quote a MTBF value (Mean time between failures)

I like it!

Attached: poorlittlekoreanboy.jpg (800x359, 174K)

Because they did... Where are you getting you inf bud?

>why did british tests find that at no point in the war did the armor plating quality change, nor did the methods of production?
Depends on what vehicles they were testing, there was limited amount of good quality plate and it got prioritized, there are plenty of images panthers front plate getting outright shattered

>Literally the same as the Sherman lol. Both needed a crane to lift it out.
The Sherman transmission could be removed with only a fork lift. The Sherman’s transmission was several magnitudes easier to repair then the panthers as you didn’t have to removed the driver and bow machine gunner’s seats and equipment to be able to lift the transmission out of the top.

>pantherfags

Attached: 1FCD8ECB-16EB-4D91-AE4D-390D48085D43.jpg (1412x1026, 615K)

>T-34s would fail after 100km
>45,000 of the 55,000+ T-34s that were produced were lost by the end of the war
>but it's somehow reliable

The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of around 255-280 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for the corresponding thickness level of the Tiger's armor, by WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. About this issue, and according to Thomas L. Jentz, "there is no proof that substandard german armour plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war" (JENTZ, Thomas L. Germany's TIGER Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications).

Moreover, in the same reference book, Jentz presents the data from a British testing of the Tiger's armor protection by firing different guns against it. The tests were realized in a place beside the the main road from Beja to to Sidi N'sir in Tunisia, on May 19, 1943. The reports from these tests stated that the resistance of the Tiger's armor was "considerably higher than that of the British machineable quality armor. The side armor, with a thickness of 82 mm (nominal thickness was 80 mm) had a resistance equivalent of 92 mm of British armor" (Jentz, op cit, page 15). However, a little further, when addressing directly the issue of the Tiger's armor quality, the report states that "The armor plates (with exception of the hull roof plates) did not show any marked tendency to brittleness, and their behavior generally was not unlike British mechineable plates.

Attached: t34weld.jpg (999x749, 233K)

>Testing one types armor
>All German armored vehicles must use the exact same standards and armor type as the tiger 2

>the panther was reliable! The final drive was not an issue!
Please stop strawmanning. We have more then enough data to called panther unreliable.

I like how you bring up testing and data only relevent to the tiger 2, seeing as this thread is entirely tiger 2 related and definitely isn't about other vehicles as well, is not primarily.

>Source?

You don't need an expert to figure out the tank with interleaved road wheels and requires gutting the driver and radioman positions to yank the transmission out with a crane is going to be take longer than one with basic wheels and a transmission servicing hatch.

>Source, I couldn't find any on it.

A google image search for the interior of a Panther hull will show you how they store the ammo, it was in the walls of the vehicle.

>The loader could climb out of the rear turret hatch in the back or the commander ones

The rear hatch was incredibly heavy and cumbersome to open without help from outside the vehicle, it was for loading the vehicle, not for a quick escape.

>Literally the same as the Sherman lol. Both needed a crane to lift it out.

You're ignoring the fact that the Sherman only leads the crane to lift the suspension off the front of the vehicle because its too heavy for a person, where as the panther needs to lift it through the cleared out driver and radioman positions and then maneuver it through the roof of the vehicle.

Lol that pic shows the panther being much bigger than the Sherman.

>We have more then enough data to called panther unreliable.
Then what was the mean time between failures? "Could fail after 150km" is absolutely fucking meaningless, you could have brain hemorrhaging next time you sneeze, doesn't mean its gonna happen in your lifetime

>French Le Panther 1947 report is meaningless!

>putting trust in French mechanics working on a foreign tank

That data isn't referencing the Tiger 2, and the Tiger was produced alongside the Panther. The Panther line was prioritized for production over the Tiger, and you'd expect any armor quality issues supposedly present in the Panther to be present in the Tiger 1 or 2.
The same report that said the engines had an operational lifespan of ~1000km and a maximum lifespan of ~1500km?

>Mean time between failures (MTBF) is the predicted elapsed time between inherent failures of a mechanical or electronic system, during normal system operation. MTBF can be calculated as the arithmetic mean (average) time between failures of a system. The term is used for repairable systems, while mean time to failure (MTTF) denotes the expected time to failure for a non-repairable system.
So whats the value?

>believing the french who recovered battlefield wrecks and refurbished them to questionable quality.
The book gives a table of the all the standardized RHA types, whether they were used by the King Tiger or not.

The French are the longest users of the Panther. Their replica parts were made to a much higher standard then wartime German production parts.

In the translation that I have is says it is not operable over 1500km with the average engine life being 1000km.

>— The truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km.
>— Half of the abandoned Panthers found in Normandy in 1944 showed evidence of breaks in the final drive.
I completely recede my statements. The Final Drive on the Panther was not an issue. The Panther infact was the most reliable tank in military service at the time, more reliable than the Sherman (which isn't a high bar to past since that tank was notoriously unreliable and hard to repair). It's MTBF was infinity as it never failed. The only way to explain the Panther's low readiness rates during the war is that the crews driving them were just too nice and wanted to give the Allies a fighting chance.

>>believing the french who recovered battlefield wrecks and refurbished them to questionable quality.
>WAHH the French didn't build it right! Ignore that this information is corroborated with German sources!

>The Germans would've been much better served pumping out updated pz4.
Which had about as severe reliability problems thanks to getting overweight. It was only marginally cheaper and with worse armor, gun and mobility.
I don't know if they did end up using as bad quality materials on it, but without Panther they certainly would have.

"Expensive" doesn't mean much when your country is using funny money and loads of slave labor, it was slightly easier to construct than the Pz IV but used around ~80 tons of materials compared to the IV's ~40. Also the vehicle itself was highly flawed in that it was a medium tank with nearly the tactical and strategic limitations of a heavy considering the staggeringly high fuel costs and the fact the maintenance was a far more intensive affair in comparison to other mediums both in service with German and designs in service with other countries.

A noble goal to get something a little beefier to the soldiers in Europe during WW2. Some wanted it rushed into service, some even advocated for just taking the turret and gun for D-Day (pic related. An experiment to show it worked with the M4.) Army Ordnance Dept. made the entirely correct decision, in my opinion, to not rush something over without knowing it worked. That's where problems with many later German armor came from and they really didn't have time to test it properly, even if they wanted to.
The M26 turned out to be a decent tank but it (Specifically its gun) only would have been "needed" the few times where armor crews encountered heavy German vehicles and couldn't find a way to flank them or call for support. M26 became the American tanks during the Cold War, so for that they are notable, but for WW2 and Korea, they shouldn't be held on too high of a pedestal.
Decent design and what they really show is how taking your time to work on things has big dividends. M26 is the start of a proud linage of tanks even of that first step wasn't the most stable.

Attached: T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg (800x488, 303K)

I don't understand why they made Panther so frigging large yet gave it only 80mm frontal plate

The issues in All German armor production near the end of the war we're a result of the loss of strategic resources such as nickel. This compounded with pressure to build as many tanks as possible led to the armor being too brittle to withstand glancing blows by a 75. While standards may not have changed, the product sure as hell did.

Attached: 1535132827569.jpg (800x564, 61K)

Expense still matters in the context of comparison between various German tanks. For instance the Tiger 1 cost 800,000 marks and 300,000 man-hours of work, each. Or as the Tigerfibel says "one week of hard work from 6,000 people." The Panther cost a couple grand more than the Pz IV.

>can't withstand glancing shots from a 75mm
>posts the result of a 122mm HE shell
fuck off and bring me proof that german armor plating quality suffered, see

Attached: 1535383219366.jpg (767x644, 44K)

But they would've been able to put out 10 pz4 for every 8 pz5. And at that point the quality didnt of the tank didn't matter as much, quantity would've served them better than the shit they got from building 7 or 8 different tanks at the same time

Material and man-hours are a far more important metric, especially when Germany was relying on forced labor far more '43 and on wards.