Post really dumb WW2 designs that actually went into production and were in use

Looks like a plane with a gasmask

>rocket volley nazi jet

I'm pretty sure these things were literally powered by liquid fuel rocket engines.

Funny how these all seem to be German designs

Attached: SIA-MoparsStarCars_04_1000.jpg (1017x1367, 700K)

Attached: Typical Sherman.jpg (1920x1080, 153K)

The T34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T34's superior angled armor. Said T34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of German blood. Fear of the T34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million Jews. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T34-85, and by extension, the T34-series as a whole.

I get it.

Attached: kek.jpg (413x395, 15K)

>went into production

Well, ze germanz produced less that 10 pieces of this... thing, but technicaly, its still "production"

Attached: Bv_141.jpg (1400x969, 524K)

Attached: 3AFBECB5-81DE-4D58-8188-BD139FDBF3D1.jpg (770x450, 59K)

Pretzelniggers have a flare for the dramatic

so....as usual?

Attached: 29492575147_a09eb239fe_b.jpg (1024x683, 284K)

ACKTUALLY it was not in production. A few test units were built but it lost the contract to the much more conventional FW 189, they even have an extremely similar cabin.

However, British test pilot Eric Brown was able to test fly what was probably the last remaining example before the Russians destroyed it for scrap. He thought it was a very good aircraft and pointed out a very cool defensive feature.

You see how the horizontal stabilizer is only on one side? That's so when the aircraft is under attack, it's designed to be able to stand on it's left wing tip so the rear gunner has an unobstructed field of fire. He said aside from the limited visibility to the left, the design was very good.

Damn straight buddy.

Attached: _107847654_kursksovsgetty[1].jpg (624x293, 51K)

Why germans were obsessed with expensive giant heavy tanks that only could be built in limited numbers. Instead of cheaper tanks in larges quantities like t34 and m4. Especially late into war when germany started losing resource bases

Not enough fuel

IIRC this was a Natter rocket plane, they were vertically launched from a platform and flew straight into bomber formations where the nose was ejected and a volley of ~2 dozen rockets was fired. Then it flew back down and the pilot probably ejected along with the engine on a parachute.

Basically a VTDOL Me-163

>lets build more tanks that we can’t fuel

user what was the population of Germany versus the Soviet Union in 1941?

or crew or maintain or repair or transport
Tigers were bit too much, but Germans certainly needed a tank which could survive better in battle than the counterparts.

>thinking bogward was a stupid idea
youtu.be/CriudpuCy84

The cables ware relatively easy to cut using grenades or shovels, but it was still a dangerous weapon and a sound idea, especially since they had radio controlled ones too. I sometimes think they would make sense today as well.
youtu.be/5HvVELbd-No

Drücken sie diesen knopf nicht.

>I sometimes think they would make sense today as well.
I mean we have wire-guided missiles and vbieds, so we're really right back to where we started. Honestly I'd be surprised if someone in syria didn't produce some kind of remote controlled car bomb.

what was so bad about the ole pingger ?

It was a good design, given the design goals, it was just a really bad idea for Germany at the time.

A Canadian designed it

Extremely easily jammed by dust and mud.

Bedding on the stock wears out and your gun loses zero if you disassemble it too much.
AKA design of the disassembly system is incompatible with military use.

Attached: shaking scream.gif (413x413, 285K)

Basically prototype bomber hunter that would use rockets to shot down bombers.

>easily jammed by dust and mud
what ww2 gun isnt jammed by dust or mud easily in a fucking warzone you dolt?

Attached: Jagdtiger_323_schwere_Panzerjager_Abteilung_653.jpg (1126x725, 75K)

It's kinda cool actually it's a Sonic rocket fighter it'd blast the fuck off and shoot missiles was made outta wood n sheeeeeeeeeiiiittt cus jews

Attached: 1566529444125.jpg (615x482, 72K)

Every nation hated its light tanks, they were a fucking mistake because they couldn't integrate with infantry and had literally nothing to shoot at. A light tanks gun was too small to kill a medium tank, no one was operating lighter vehicles that it could engage, and it was too heavy to engage infantry directly.

Right and the F-15 is the dumbest aircraft design that ever went into production during cold war.

Rocketry is a type of jet propulsion. The vehicle is propelled by a jet of high-speed exhaust.

>Drücken sie diesen knopf nicht.
Ich drucke! Ich drucke die knopf! Deuteche wirt mich nich sagen was zu machen, kurwa!.....BOOOOOOOOM!
In reality, when the front squad at the barricade reported they found it, they ware ordered to leave it untill command sends specialists to examine it. They later ignored it, took it inside the controlled area, gathered excited people, drucked some knopfshen..... And we had a literall red rain of flesh an blood (that part in the movie isn't made up).
I remember report of one officer, who watched the entire scene from the balcony from a distance. He said to fellow officer:
"Jesus. Look at all those people. What if this thing would ex...." *BOOM!*

Life's too cheap for muslims.
I keep wondering, why aren't we using remote robot/tanks for clearing buildings and assisting infantry. There have been so many prototypes for so many years, but I don't think any saw front line action. I wouldn't mind an armoured battle buddy when engaging enemy.

Attached: maars-robot-768x768.png (768x512, 280K)

Almost 70 tons, the front of the turret only has 180mm of armor. The kang tigger has an astonishingly terrible armor layout that provides poor protection for its mass.

>By this time, the lead King Tiger had begun to swing its massive turret looking for its tormentor, but in all the dust raised by the impacts of the 85 mm gun, they could not find a target. Oskin's tank fired three rounds at the front of the turret, which bounced off without effect. The fourth round penetrated the turret ring, and the lead King Tiger began to burn from an ammunition fire. The third King Tiger, blind in the smoke from the fuel fire on the second King Tiger, began to back off the road at top speed. Oskin detonated the MDSh smoke cans at the back of his tank to give himself some cover, and began chasing after the third King Tiger. The fleeter T-34-85 soon caught up and Oskin managed to manoeuvre around to the rear of the King Tiger where they knocked it out with a shot into the engine compartment through the thin rear armour. On returning to the road, one of the King Tigers had stopped burning, so Oskin fired at it again with his last round of hypervelocity ammunition. Two of the King Tigers subsequently suffered catastrophic ammunition fires which blew off their turrets. German losses were eleven dead of the fifteen crew including Lt. Karnetzki and Wieman, and some of the survivors were taken prisoner by Oskin's tank riders. The Tiger battalion did not
Know what had hit them, and their losses were attributed to 'massive anti-tank defences'.

Attached: 4 (2).png (128x128, 28K)

n word lol

Attached: doge.png (500x511, 233K)

Funny how the soldiers who actually used it in combat thought it was great.

Attached: IMG_4689.jpg (750x637, 107K)

>why aren't we using remote robot/tanks for clearing buildings and assisting infantry.
Its likely the cost to train and equip a new doorkicker or 4 is significantly cheaper compared to construction and maintenance on the bots

>effective in every theatre it served in WW2
>fought with distinction in korea
>ended up seeing more service than its intended sucessor the M26
>fought and defeated T-34s in korea
>upgraded versions served well in other countries till the 60s, giving T-55s a bloody nose
most vehicles wish they had as long and distinguished career as the M4

what did the curved barrel do

Nobody cares. It was a shit tank that was good because it had numbers and a decent gun.

>shoot and destroy 1 tank
>by the time you fired it another 5 tank drove around the wreckage
could it be possible to use such tactics nowadays?

It was far from one of the worst of Germany's ideas at the time. Look at the maus, me-163's, and other pseudo "wonder" weapons for bad ideas
Because even if they did just build cheaper throw away tanks like the m4 and t-34 they would still be vastly outnumbered anyway
Even the American T series of heavy tanks developed during wwii to counter the tiger ii only had 203mm's of turret mantlet armor. As for the tiger ii the protection was adequate judging by the fact that it was only frontally penetrated once.

germany needed lighter tanks, not heavier

king tiger breaking down would have zero way to be towed home, even a normal tiger needed 3 ARVs working in tandem
to be pulled
a quality vehicle capable of killing greater amounts of enemy resources than it takes to be built only works if the vehicle itself has a very long lifespan, not be abandoned in the firsr ditch it finds

>I keep wondering, why aren't we using remote robot/tanks for clearing buildings and assisting infantry.
I think it's because terrestrial robots can't keep up with infantry moving over the same distance and terrain, Which then raises the question of why haven't stationary remotely controlled weapons taken off?
There are so many outposts that would benefit immensely from being able to disperse and utilize defenses across a larger area then they can physically occupy.

Attached: 0 QCsFEAiE3nGU6TmY.jpg (699x465, 161K)

>avenge the 6 million Jews

Stop spreading falsehoods.

Germany was fucked either way. Big tanks mean a lot of resources put into one vehicle, but a well-trained crew is given a powerful weapon. Smaller tanks means you need more crews for them and those vehicles will be using up more fuel once you produce enough of them. From 1944 and on, Germany started to face shortages of both fuel and skilled manpower.
Obviously things like the Maus were stupidly large and served no purpose on a battlefield, but I can see a case why things like the Tiger I and II were built. They had mechanical issues and were pains to maintain/fix but if you could keep them working then they were effective at starting to make up for the numerical disadvantage.

Attached: tumblr_mzs8d0VOdn1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg (1200x645, 129K)

Coping fatnik

This.
Fucking hypergolic propellants, no ability to taxi, and a maximum endurance of eight minutes at full power.

actually , the t34/76 had a shit gun and the gunner had to go into embryonal position if he wanted to keep his legs, when tue turret was turned.

>I'd be surprised if someone in syria didn't produce some kind of remote controlled car bomb.
No need to when you can just put Ahmed behind the wheel

>when the first post is also the worst post

Attached: 1500063142555.jpg (200x200, 12K)

yeah but he's not wrong

Attached: bunsenburner.jpg (1280x766, 124K)

and which tank helped win the war in the East? Protip, it wasn't the Maus

what did it increase to now i don't want to be called anti-semitic

Attached: 800px-Italian_Soldiers_WWII_GM6.jpg (800x495, 127K)

Based

Great for propaganda, terrible for reality

Attached: 1557333985025.jpg (640x640, 36K)

They missed the 1000lb load of explosives?
>"Jesus. Look at all those people. What if this thing would ex...." *BOOM!*
>red rain of flesh an blood

Attached: Jesus Christ.jpg (887x1097, 77K)

Lmao this is what americans actually believe

They did actually well when led by Germans.

So good the Germans even used it

Attached: download (2).jpg (425x314, 26K)

Cooked burger tastes pretty good desu

>80% losses
>good

youtu.be/U1UtRnGn5hc

they were made to be lost tbf

Maus did help win the war in the East though, just not for the Germans.

What the fuck were they thinking?

Attached: lmitrjx9itv01.jpg (2048x1536, 875K)

the british actually had the worst luck with the sherman, due to stuffing the walls with extra rounds
this led to an equivalent burn rate to panzer IVs, about 75%

later in the war, they stopped shoving as much ammo in the sponsons and got it to slightly better than average 60% burned
wet ammo, applied as standard to 76mm shermans and retroactively equipped to 75mm shermans, had an astoundingly low 15% burn out rate

>Geheim
>still posts it

reported to your local Gestapo. Get rekt.

What is it with the Brits and careless ammo storage? Was it WWI or WWII when they finally realized that they should not store the powder for their shells on their ships in paper bags?

We're too proud for our own good, same reason tank crews only wore berets instead of anything remotely protective. That's how a significant number of British tank crewmen got injured.

>We're too proud for our own good
I wish you weren't.. I truly wish. Also checked.

>With its crew at that point of the war

germany couldn't handle loosing skilled tank operators in droves
same reason why modern western tanks are huge and cost tons

U-flaks.
>let's make a small and unstable platform dedicated to AA on a vessel that shouldn't even engage aircraft in the first place

Attached: 1540742912395.jpg (983x1413, 167K)

It would curve the round so you could hit something behind a wall.
Ingenious design, really.

>same reason why modern western tanks are huge and cost tons
its mostly a consequence of modern guns needing a very wide large turret ring, composite armor being very voluminous, and having to carry ammo for extended combat
square cube law means that even small increases in volume leads to large increases in weight

First post best post

I like the idea. They were supposed to protect uboats heading out to sea and most of the planes had no idea what they were flying into before they caught on to what they were doing so they scored some kills.

>upgraded versions served well in other countries till the 60s, giving T-55s a bloody nose

citation very fucking much needed, this sounds like vatnik level exaggeration

>Great for propaganda, terrible for reality
The tiger ii was bad meme is about as stale as the ronson sherman meme. Aside from mechanical issues early on the tiger ii did fine in its intended role and aside from a handful of encounters with heavier german armor the shermans were fine also.

Until the aircraft realized they could just loiter, wait for reinforcements, and overwhelm the boat with numbers.

the famous M51 sherman had a 105mm HEAT round which could, and did, penetrate a T-55s armor

underrated, this is such an overlooked point in German take design. the 3 Stugs/pz 4s to your 1 tiger arguement has far less weight than people think.

>The Virgin' Shirmin'

-Famous only for merely being 'good enough' and 'plentiful', the tank equivalent of Indian tech support.
-Spineless centrist M4-cultists drown in their own semen while fawning over boring shit no one cares about like the hull lifting rings
-Can see them at any mom and pop local museum, no one pays it any attention.
-Miserly nature won it much favor among the Israelis
-Assembled by women
-Even the media meant to glorify it has to have it teleport behind a tiger from 800 meters to explain why it doesn't die sooner

>The PanzerChadwagen VI Ausf. E

-Lives eternal rent free in the minds of LITERALLY EVERYONE
-Will always be the most talked about and provocative tank of the war
-Legions of adoring fans from around the globe flock to a backwater village in Dorset for the mere chance to smell its exhaust fumes
-Astronomical K/D ratio is even more impressive when you consider the only thing that killed most of them was based German engineering
-Its rare and majestic form is so desired that filmmakers try their best to turn lesser tanks into pale imitations of its grandeur
-Greatest tank battle in history was put on hold so that the Tiger could make it even greater

Attached: dragon-tiger-tank-6624-1024x678.jpg (1024x678, 131K)

the issue is that tigers needed more maintenance per hour, more men in non-combat roles, and represented a larger waste in material if it meets a premature end to falling in a ditch or waiting for a railway to be fixed

this means its more susceptible to crew shock, as a bailing crew will leave a valuable weapon behind
and it will spend less time being utilized, tigers spend more time being maintained or transported, leading to less time spent actually used in combat
and fewer numbers mean less ground held and much more weakness to flanking, which will force a retreat regardless of tactical success

>Astronomical K/D ratio is even more impressive when you consider the only thing that killed most of them was based German engineering
german estimates put it at 1:5, which is still a massive over estimation of its capabilities, as they were overreporting enemy losses by a wide margin

and boring but practical details regarding logistics, transport, maintenance are worthy of far more discussion than what are ultimately non factors in warfare like big gun