Why do burgers get so upset when you insult this POS tank?

>unless you were a crew member getting burnt alive?
Exaggeration. That had more to do with British handling of ammo. Later Shermans got wet stowage which mostly eliminated that problem.
>the absolute cope of americunts

The absolute state of you, I'm Russian.

Ok come on at least try to be good b8

shit tier compared to the tiger

ridiculous argument. The German army was a mix of heavy and medium tanks, whereas the US only had this medium POS

as such it should be compared against those heavier tanks

both were excellent vehicles *as designed.* Soviet quality control was vastly inferior.

Because the numbers say it was a very good tank regardless of your preferences or nationalism.
t. non-burger

>T-34 didn't have a better gun, nor did it have better ammo
Except it did
>higher velocity
>better HE shells
>Better sub caliber shells

Attached: 3c7.jpg (249x249, 17K)

>Soviet quality control was vastly inferior

Only in the early part of war. Tanks built before were good (but had some teething issues), and tanks from roughly 1943 onward were also good.
Obviously worse than the quality of American vehicles, but adequate.

We didn't have that many of skilled workforce, and we moved a large part of our industry eastward at breakneck speed. Quality obviously suffered.

The German Army had a handful of heavy and medium tanks. A turretless SPG was their most produced (and most effective) vehicle. That "medium POS" was easily serviceable, could run for more than 250km (unlike those heavier tanks you seem to be so fond of), and was in abundance.
>as such it should be compared against those heavier tanks
this makes no sense. There were 5-10 M4s for every heavy tank the Germans had, so if you want to compare them that much, how about you compare a lone heavy tank to two whole platoons of M4s.

>Korea

>and tanks from roughly 1943 onward were also good.

But soviet quality declined throughout the war. They literally replaced their skilled factory workforce with women, old men, cripples and children and the quality dropped considerably.

>higher velocity

I don't have precise numbers now but even if it was higher it was only slightly higher. F34 and M3 were both medium velocity guns. Perfectly adequate to deal with the most numerous German tanks.

>better HE shells

Source for that. In any case, marginally better performance is absolutely irrelevant in the grand scale of things.

>Better sub caliber shells

Issued in very small numbers. Not sure if they were better, honestly don't know. But you're nitpicking. On average, it was the same fucking gun, for all intents and purposes.

Tank Autists should be permabanned

Declined compared to prewar level, improved compared to early war level. It was adequate in any case. Now don't post some bullshit like the rear of T-34. No one obviously gave a fuck about cosmetics.

In service, according to field data, T-34s and Lend-Lease M4s had similar reliability. That's all that matters.

>Vatniks should be permabanned*

tank newb here,

was the 105mm Sherman any good vs german tanks?

>Sovietboohs still getting triggered by the Bovington T-34/85
>Sovietboohs still getting triggered by the Aberdeen report on the T-34

Wouldn't it be terrible if someone posted the soviet tank losses statistics.

>Sherman was fine. Good armor
Frontal armor was fine but sides are even worse than Panther's, even Japanese light tanks could penetrate it.
Good thing the Germans did not employ large numbers of anti-tank rifles like the Soviet did.

I can only recall 1 account of Sherman 105s engaging German armour. They fired HEAT at a Panther and managed to penetrate it frontally.

>why do burgers [...]?
>>>/kc/

no

Attached: TigerITankTunis.jpg (900x592, 324K)

On average, the Sherman lost ~.8 crew members per killed sherman.

being this happy to sacrifice your crews live

why wasnt the 105 more popular if it Packed more punch?

Meme.

The American infantry is the most well trained and funded army in the world. Combat is rendered nearly as safe as a 20 mile daily commute to work due to its effectiveness. People tend to make the argument " lol Americans just retreat when X shows up"...and make it a point to show ineffectiveness. US doctrine is ordnance is cheaper than bodies, monetarily and politically--and has been since world war 2.

This is not ineffectiveness, incompetence, or cowardice. This is soldiers doing that they're trained to do, leveraging the tools given.

Define more popular.

Is this a mockup? The steel infront is bent af like aluminium.

why didnt the US use more 105mm Sherman tanks

Go look up the M4A1.

Not talking about the hull in general but the one close to the transmission cover.

>this meme again.

T-34 was cramped with no radio and shit optics, German tanks broke down before battle. What exactly is so awesome about what you’re comparing them to?

I don't give a fat shit about performance. The German tanks looked the coolest, and that's enough for me

The gun was generally less effective against tanks.
Low velocity and high trajectory makes it difficult to hit targets directly at longer ranges.
Fire rate might not look too bad, but it was still an issue in the time when first hit probability was low.
It also carried less shells and a wild guess that HEAT were more expensive than conventional AP shells.

A lot of factors caused there to be fewer 105 Shermans. Stuff like a somewhat troubled development, Sherman upgrades happening at the same time, late production (Feb 1944, none landed on D-Day).

Would recommend that you read

the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4_105mm/m4_105mm.html

Gives a detailed look into the life of them.

>The gun was generally less effective against tanks.

Why are you wanting anti tank performance out of a vehicle used in an assault gun platoon?

>better than Panzer IV
hahahahahahaha

medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-hell-on-wheels-and-a-death-trap-502b0d99e744

overall performance that gives you nothing when you're sitting in this can and every german tank and at gun opens you up like a fresh can of toasty sardines from up to 2000m

the "muh sherman had top overall performance" meme just comes from the fact that the average performance is derived from a huge number of vehicles

Ah, the infamous Sherman. Often referred to as the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans. The nickname referred to when the Germans starving from lack of rations, would scavenge destroyed Sherman tanks for the precious cooked meat inside. In fact, the designers of the Sherman designed it to light every time, so that cooking of the crews was guaranteed. Of course, the Germans would often eat the allied tank crews whether they were cooked or not, regardless. My grandpappy told me this in great detail when I was a young boy. Truly the horrors of war. Why couldn't we just use the war winning T-34 like the Russians?

Attached: axNn7.jpg (900x675, 161K)

>overall performance that gives you nothing when you're sitting in this can and every german tank and at gun opens you up like a fresh can of toasty sardines from up to 2000m

I'm pretty sure that applies to all medium and light tanks during WW2.

>i dont give a fat shit about preformance, [x] looked the coolest and thats enough for me
Perfect summary of every vehicle/equipment thread on Jow Forums.

S E E T H I N G

thanks a lot!

Attached: michaelfassbender.gif (500x331, 99K)

>all this heavy tank wanking

who cares about logistics, reliability or being able to have enough tanks?

>having shit taste

could it beat the Sherman?

Attached: 1543990797448.jpg (495x742, 90K)

Why wouldn't it? There's multiple accounts of teenage Volkssturm tank hunter teams destroying Sherman tanks by shooting the through the frontal armor with Mg-42's (called Hitler's Buzzsaw because it sawed straight through the Sherman's estimated hull armor of 2.5mm). Any penetration of the armor immediately led to the IMMEDIATE lighting and detonation of fuel/stowed ammunition.

>Pretty much the best tank in the war, in terms of overall performance

Attached: 1516697098537.png (1277x556, 260K)

>Most tanks at the time ran on diesel
And immediately dropped

There are literally accounts by trained and experienced tank builders that got forced into service of how shit the tanks were. Some noted how plates of armor were so fucked up they could see through the gaps.

>World of tanks garbage written by their forum celebrities

At least you're honest about it

what, unironically, did they run on? I'm curious

Pastas had a mix of gas and diesel, bongs, krauts and frogs had theirs on gas, and the only ones to go full diesel were the slavs and nips.
So the burgers using gas would be part of the majority, rather than the other way around.

Why do wehraboos hate facts so much?

Well, that and “MUH GASOLINE CAUSED SHERMANS TO BURN” is bullshit. There was little to no difference in burn rates between tanks with Diesel engines and gasoline engines.

Mainly because the stowage going off made diesel's advantages (higher ignition temperature, lower combustion heat, lower volatility) irrelevant. Propellant charges and HE warheads make for excellent accelerants.

>we
Thank you for giving yourself away

Your grandpappy also yanked your crank on a regular basis

>>destroying Sherman tanks by shooting the through the frontal armor with Mg-42's
KYS

It's hard to win when your 1 god-tier tank is being swarmed by 10+ "shitty" tanks.

Jow Forums desperately needs geographical flags.

>It's hard to win when your 1 god-tier just broke its transmission and the rest of your tank battalion are driving shitty PzIIIs.

It certainly wasn't the best when it entered the war, simply because it didn't have a wealth of experience throughout it.

It was a short howitzer, not a normal tank gun.

So, it had a low rate of fire and a relatively slow, arcing muzzle velocity.

In short, it was an assault gun/SPG, not a tank.

The skills and blood of your soldiers are a coin best spent sparingly.

utter shit bait.

kill yourself, please.

This. It wasn't the fuel, it was the ammo. Once wet storage entered service, the chances of a fire upon penetration went way down. A lot of "wet" Shermans still burned--*after* their crews bailed out, because all sides generally liked to keep shooting until the target caught on fire, so that it couldn't be recovered and repaired.

Sherman: Better performance, better armor, more reliable, gunner had their own wide angle sights which meant the TC could roughly aim the main gun and the then go back to situational awareness. Better radio, better internal comms. 75mm main gun capable of easily penetrating PZ III and the PZ IV from any aspect other than front. On paper it was not super better but good design allowed for synergistic quality superiority. And quantity has a quality all it's own. It was easy to make. As far as we can tell it took about 60% of the effort to build than a PZ IV and about half of the Panther.

SEETHING

The Sherman was an excellent tank that struck fear into the hearts of the Wehrmacht. 9.5/10 tank, best armored vehicle in the war bar none.

>The Sherman was an excellent tank that struck fear into the hearts of the Wehrmacht
Of course they would be, the screams of the Sherman crews burning to death echoing across the battlefield would terrify anybody.

Because non-Sherman tanks never once caught fire.

Literally no one thought it was a bad tank until one disgruntled officer who never saw combat wrote a completely debunked book about it.

>Shermutt Victories: 1
> Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182 "Koningstiger" "Hitler auf Rädern" "Bürgertötenjudenbrecher 9000" Victories: 0

Attached: 344256454352354.jpg (1000x1000, 267K)

Attached: m36b1.jpg (700x643, 78K)

Attached: M4A3E2_56.jpg (800x593, 243K)

Attached: e9suspension21.jpg (800x600, 214K)

>tries it’s best

Attached: 87EE4B83-95D2-4837-A50A-2E11B1B795BC.jpg (1486x1115, 293K)

On a small scale it actually did a pretty damn good job.

>the "muh sherman had top overall performance" meme just comes from the fact that the average performance is derived from a huge number of vehicles
Yuropoors confirmed for not understanding how statistics works

It seems my superiority has caused some controversy.

Attached: M4A3E2-picture-010-640x429.jpg (640x429, 77K)

The B1 was an outstanding at the time, just the lack of radios and general WW1 mindset of the french army meant that it couldn't be deployed effectively.
If you look at Germany's European campaign purely from a weapons technology standpoint, its practically inconceivable that they were able to win - their tanks were near obsolete shit boxes, the fighters were severely undergunned at the outset and the majority of their small arms were inferior to what the british and french were packing.

>1 man turret
the real reason

What nobody mentions is we had to haul a tank from the fucking midwest to europe. Now consider the logistics of that? The tiger couldnt even fit on a standard euro train line without special tracks fitted. The US put a decent tank in play and were able to modify the tactics to accommodate. Also when it was designed the only troop carried anti tank weapons were large caliber rifles. Lastly, i think we forget how much of an issue even a shitty tank is when it encounters infantry. If you can spam with proper tactics, an OK tank and a handful of grunts you will have the upper hand in any engagement

I like the Panzer aesthetically and because I wish the Nazi's won

Soviet tank losses was mainky down to doctrine and poor low level leadership. After all, they didnt have an ocean to hide behind and had purged a shitload of officers just before the war.

>called Hitler's Buzzsaw because it sawed straight through the Sherman's estimated hull armor of 2.5mm
Bait
Or retarded

As well as poor tank design such as in the optics, crew ergonomics and armament...

I could go on and on but then again I didn't get my education in the subject from the history channel.

>he can't load the gun, aim the gun, command the tank, command the platoon and use the radio at the same time

Get a load of this guy.