fa0d8d No.333505
>tfw you'll never be able to drive a WW2 tank
I just wanna drive a King Tiger, /k/.
>feels bad man
>why even live?
What WW2 tank would you want to drive, /k/?
edd539 No.333511
I would love to drive a Sherman, T-34, Panzer IV and Valentine so I could compare them all I have no interest in the Jap shit.
If I had to pick one it would be the Panzer as the German gear is meant to be great when it works.
7319a4 No.333521
>>333505
A Elefant with a better Electric Engine.
ac4347 No.333527
>>333511
A Panzer IV was probably very well built and well designed, but it was a generally old design by WWII, a Panther was a lot more technologically advanced.
fa0d8d No.333528
>>333507
Can't argue with that.
>>333511
>I would love to drive a Sherman
Any Sherman or a specific type?
>>333521
Aren't those hulls from the Porsche Tigers? Interesting choice.
b66189 No.333530
>I just wanna drive a King Tiger, /k/.
You can only drive it on flat ground for 25 miles before it breaks down.
I'd rather drive a Stuart, Cromwell or a T-34, thank you very much.
fa0d8d No.333531
>>333530
I still wanna drive it.
937d79 No.333535
>>333530
>T-34
>A tank so unreliable they carried spare transmissions on the engine deck because they constantly blew out
>A tank with nothing holding the track pins in because they weren't expected to live long enough for them to wiggle out
>On top of all that is soviet and therefore horrible for crew comfort
No thank you. I will stick with the M24 Chaffee thank you very much.
>75mm gun as good as a medium tank's
>Gyroscopic stabilizers
>Two engines
>Hydramatic suspension system
>Leather seats
f83e2f No.333536
IS-3 and T-44 are technically WW2
2076a9 No.333537
I'd love to drive a Panzer 2 or a Panther.
Driving some of the WW2 assault guns or armored cars regardless of country would be nice as well.
20a6c0 No.333539
Do they have to be real, or can they be Hitler's failed wet dreams? I choose the P1000 Ratte.
b66189 No.333542
>>333535
>M24 Chaffee
Wasn't that late war? Stuart was far more used in WWII, and it's just as good.
Chaffee is a Lamborghini of WWII tanks though, I wouldn't mind driving that.
fa0d8d No.333543
>>333536
>IS-3
But it was shown after the war ended, during the Allied victory parade.
>>333539
Jesus, that's a big tank.
14da62 No.333544
I'd probably go with a Sherman with Calliope mounted - it still qualifies for a tank, but it's also artillery. Pershing with a T99 would be pretty sweet too. I mean, area denial artillery is my fetish, so are tanks, so this is like a double down animal style superfetish option.
20a6c0 No.333545
>>333543
Yep, the issue they ran into (same for the maus) was that superheavy tanks would destroy roads that they moved along and ravage bridges. There was also the P1500 monster that Hitler dreamed up. Basically a giant mobile artillery piece.
The P#### is the tonnage by the way.
fa0d8d No.333546
>>333544
I completely forgot about those tanks.
>That Pershing
I think I've found another favorite tank.
14da62 No.333547
>>333546
No kidding, that thing looks like Red Alert Apocalypse, but with 100% more freedom.
f83e2f No.333548
>>333539
Yeah, but it entered production in May. And T-44 was produced since 1944. And then there was a T-43, which actually participated in combat, even though there were only three of them made.
>>333545
Dude, ignore their P100000 projects. Maus was already a pinnacle of retardation. You know how it was supposed to cross the river? In pairs. Two tanks get connected with power line, crew seals the first tank and leaves it, then they remotely drive it across the river bottom, then they do the same with the second tank.
937d79 No.333550
>>333542
>Straight bogey suspension
>37mm peashooter incapable of hurting even a lowly panzer 4
>Just as good
I may seem a little hard on the honey tank, as while it's gun was pretty wimpy, it was good infantry support and could maybe take out a panther from the side if it got the drop on it.
But the M8 was way cooler
>37mm too wimpy
>Just cut the top off the turret and drop a snub nosed howitzer in it
afba37 No.333551
>>333505
M36 jackson, to murder you weaboos with
>>333535
>>333550
Good taste
20a6c0 No.333552
>>333548
That's the whole point though. Hitler was clinically insane and had some crazy as shit ideas.
As a more serious answer, easily the M26 Super Pershing, a regular Pershing with a 90mm gun. That or any model of Stug.
937d79 No.333553
>>333552
Normal Pershing already had a 90mm. Super Pershing's 90 was longer giving it a higher muzzle velocity
20a6c0 No.333555
>>333553
Ah, I was under the mistaken impression that it had an 80mm gun.
b66189 No.333598
>>333543
That's no TANK, that's a BATTLESTATION!
>>333544
Can you imagine rolling up to a Tiger and unleashing 44 rockets with 100mm HEAT warheads at point blank range?
>>333550
I raged so hard when they removed it from WOT.
937d79 No.333602
>>333598
The M8 is still in WOT. They made it its own designated TD instead of turning the light tank M5 into one when you get the top turret and gun.
0026b1 No.333607
>nobody mentions the StuG
Disgraceful.
Honorable mentions to the M18 Hellcat and the BT series.
86231d No.333608
>>333607
>StuG
Only German armor that is not overrated as fuck.
f1b15c No.333613
>Tanks
No thanks.
Cant wait until I can finally afford one of these
Remove tanks and tank operators
fa0d8d No.333614
>>333608
>people forgot about the Stug Life
2bb510 No.333617
>get picked on by tiger commanders about how my tank isn't invincible like theirs
>watch as they foolhardly get themselves killed
>paranoid about everything as i wait to spring the ambush, but not dead.
f21b0d No.333618
I would love having a M5A1-based TD with a casemate mounted M1897
>go fast
>slide around tanks
>shoot them in the engine and fuck off
b66189 No.333621
>>333602
No it's been moved from the M5 line to the M8A1 line.
The M8A1 platform has ten times slower turret turning, accuracy, reload, speed and is overall shittier in every way than M5 Stuart. The derp was also heavily nerfed in terms of penetration and damage by the armor changes, it's a completely retarded weapon now.
Wargaming took an interesting weapon system and shat all over it so hard that it became just one more module to grind out until the top gun.
14da62 No.333626
>>333598
>Can you imagine rolling up to a Tiger and unleashing 44 rockets with 100mm HEAT warheads at point blank range?
"Hey Anon, we've got a report of a Kraut Tiger in the area, what if we approach that thing to a point blank range with our carboard armor and unleash all our rounds onto that thing?!"
I can't even imagine a Russian or Japanese soldier suggesting anything like this.
f98040 No.333633
If we're allowing experimental designs then one of the 6 prototypes of the Tortoise Heavy Assault Tank.
937d79 No.333636
>>333626
>Pershing
>Cardboard armor
4dc959 No.333641
Fuck tanks
S C O U T C A R B O I S
97b4f2 No.333642
>>333636
You are probably thinking that strapping unprotected explosives to the turret makes an ERA, but no, it makes a ded tank.
937d79 No.333644
>>333642
HEAT only explodes in one direction so you would be alright but probably with a minor case of severe hearing loss
97b4f2 No.333648
>>333644
Yeah, but MLRS uses HE rockets
b66189 No.333654
>>333648
That's the point, replace it with HEAT for greater effect vs tanks.
b66189 No.333655
Although 4.5 inch rocket had a semi armor penetrating warhead with a capability of punching through 5'' RHA for bunker reduction, so that might be used as well.
a4342d No.333680
>>333613
>He thinks he can kill tanks with a fiddy.
bf3791 No.333685
>tanks
I'd like to drive a Turan III and a Toldi light tank.
However, more feasibly I'd probably take a BT-7 because gottagofasd even though they have terribad armor.
Or maybe a Panzer II
7319a4 No.333719
>>333528
>Aren't those hulls from the Porsche Tigers? Interesting choice.
Yes, the first version of them was even called Ferdinand after Ferdinand Porsche.
They were replaced by the Jadgpanther and Jadgtiger, because of their unreliable electric motor and weight, but they still have the best Kill/Death ratio of any Tank destroyer in WW2.
7319a4 No.333732
>>333528
>Aren't those hulls from the Porsche Tigers? Interesting choice.
Yes, the first version of them was even called Ferdinand after Ferdinand Porsche.
They were replaced by the Jadgpanther and Jadgtiger, because of their unreliable electric motor and weight, but they still have the best Kill/Death ratio of any Tank destroyer in WW2.
8072b3 No.333738
>>333607
My SturmGe-Bruder!
> tfw you will never sit in your comfy StuG and wait for the enemy to approach your ambush point
> tfw you will never fire the first round taking out the enemies commamd vehicle
> tfw you will never sit back and watch the hail of machinegun fire beat down anything that attempts to get out of the troop transports
e9e76e No.333785
>>333539
>>333545
>>333548
>>333552
The Maus and P10000000 were both Krupp's ideas, Hitler only okayed them before cancelling all super-heavy projects in the end of '43.
The whole "Hitler was obsessed with super-tanks" narrative is History Channel fiction just like "death trap" M4's and hyper reliable T-34's.
>>333738
>comfy StuG
I adore the stug, but the thing is has the ergonomics of a clown car.
f1b15c No.333873
>>333690
>>333680
No, about tree-fiddy.
2e1f4c No.333904
Tank Destroyers are sexy.
2e1f4c No.333906
>>333785
I always thought it was semi-ridiculous how anybody could insinuate that Hitler personally crafted every aspect of the German war effort. The amount of papers he signed and briefings and meetings had on a day to day basis were probably overwhelming as is. I doubt he had the time to micromanage ever thing regardless if he wanted to or not. He was allegedly already on stimulants so that he could keep his energy up during the day (though I don't know if that was just one of those baseless claims that pop up")
72db8c No.333907
>>333904
weren't there like two dicker's ever produced, and didn't one of them go explodie upon firing for the first time?
72db8c No.333908
>>333906
He was a high energy type a guy.
2e1f4c No.333912
>>333907
I don't know about their history, just that I like Tank Destroyers. Especially those with 10.5cm guns.
>>333908
Yeah, I doubt he was ever lacking in energy when it came to thinks that mattered to him.
fa0d8d No.333916
>>333873
I got a little giggle.
98c1e5 No.333918
>>333607
>You will never set up ambush points and waiting for russki while cuddling with your waifu.
fa0d8d No.333937
>>333918
>second best waifu
Still great taste.
98c1e5 No.333943
>>333937
Yukari transcends the concept of waifu.
fa0d8d No.333948
>>333943
I got a good kek out of that webm. Am saving this.
0bfcad No.334044
A Ju-87 G-2 or Ju-87 B-2. A Focke-Wulf 190 A-4 would be neat as fuck too.
Oh yeah tanks, the Panzer IV ausf H.
0bfcad No.334045
>>334044
Panzer IV H
three image limit
tfw no more real dogfighting
0026b1 No.334096
File: 1458328977162.jpg (119.87 KB, 1336x813, 1336:813, 12.8_cm_Selbstfahrlafette_….jpg)
>>333912
You're going to like the Sturer Emil then. Mounted a longer 12,8cm gun than the Jagdtiger.
b66189 No.334121
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>333785
That's actually comfy compared to a T-72.
t. someone who has squeezed into a T-72 at base borden
>>333904
Hetzer is probably the most beautiful assault gun in existence.
When I first saw it in a youtube video, I had dreams for weeks afterward about touching the outside angles and riding in one.
5ff3c4 No.334130
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>334121
There was never any assault gun called 'Hetzer'.
And the ergonomics of the JPz.38 were just as bad as the T-72.
d80544 No.334132
>>333904
You call that a tank destroyer? THIS is tank destroyer!
b66189 No.334140
>>334130
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer
It's a Hetzer to me, and it is a beautiful vehicle.
If you think otherwise we're going to have to fist fight.
>>334132
>not sturmtiger
It's like you don't want to hit your enemy with a 380mm 350kg shaped charge shell.
d6f4cb No.334158
Toss up between a Cromwell, a type 62, a Chaffee, or a BT-5/7.
Fast tanks are love.
5ff3c4 No.334208
The Stalin-2, of course.
Assuming the cannon loads itself somehow.
e6de37 No.334512
>>334208
>post-war fenders
>these bulges on the sides
it looks like a chubby sissyboi wearing a skirt
are you gay, pepik?
fa0d8d No.334591
>>334512
I had a slight kek.
a49312 No.334609
Fuck do you guys even do research.
>The 1st company of s.Pz.-Abt. 502 fought in the vicinity of
Leningrad with Army Group North until the battalion was reunited in the summer of
1943 after having been refitted in accordance with the E battalion K.St.N.6
>Because the Soviets did not posses a tank or armored vehicle
capable of defeating the Tigers, except at close range, Tigers dominated the battlefield in
the restricted terrain.9 From 12 January to 31 March 1943, this company destroyed 160
Soviet tanks and lost 6 Tigers.10 This means that 26.7 enemy tanks were destroyed for
the loss of each Tiger.
pg. 43
>After the British victory at El Alamein in late October and early November 1942
and the Allied TORCH landings during that same period, Panzerarmee Afrika was forced
onto the defensive and withdrew toward ports in Tunisia. As a result of the emphasis
placed upon this theater by Hitler, OKH ordered s.Pz.-Abt. 501 to North Africa. The first
elements landed in Bizerte, Tunisia on 23 November 1942.
>S.Pz.-Abt. 501 destroyed more than 150 Allied tanks in North Africa while losing
only eleven Tigers.25 The battalion turned over the remaining eleven Tigers to s.Pz.-Abt.
504.26 This gives the battalion a kill ratio of 13.6 enemy tanks destroyed for every Tiger
lost. Most sources do not differentiate the kills of the Panzer IIIs between those of the
Tigers, but the unit diary is filled with specific entries that indicate the kills of the day
were by the Tigers. There are no entries that specifically mention the Panzer IIIs
destroying an enemy tank.
pg. 44
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a415948.pdf
2e6a63 No.335011
Why don't we start a platoon in war thunder?
937d79 No.335120
>>335011
Because WT is awful communist propaganda
fa0d8d No.335135
>>335011
I dunno how or where to start, plus I wouldn't want to be in charge of one of those things, hot-pocketry isn't in my blood. However, I wouldn't mind playing with /k/. I find it a lot better than World of Tanks atm.
fab942 No.335156
Experimental & prototype tanks make me hard
ae620c No.335242
>>335011
Because WT has horrible Russian bias because the dev, Gaijin is Russian.
For example even the reserves are more powerful, they have 4xMG with 3000 bullets, while all the other factions have 1000/1200 and 2xMG.
9a97b8 No.335245
>>335242
wargaming net is also russian, guys that do armored warfare are russian too
We can play tanki
fa0d8d No.335249
>>335245
We're stuck at a crossroads when it comes to online tank games, and guess what? All the options are bias Slav games, that favor their tanks by a noticeable margin. What a fucking time to be alive.
ae620c No.335259
>>335245
Armored Warfare was actually developed by Obsidian, but the publisher is Russian so they get control.
Yeah, all tank games are slavshit that bias ruskies so fucking much.
b66189 No.335367
>>334609
>>334610
Are you aware that Wermecht classified a tank destroyed only if it was completely irrecoverable, whereas Allies classified a tank destroyed if it became incapable of carrying out the mission?
These are very different things.
>>335249
>ive never played matilda or fv304
o-ook!
937d79 No.335368
>>335249
WoT seems a lot less biased seeing that no one drives the T-34 on the account of it not being very good when stacked up against the Sherman and Cromwell. Also the fact that the M103 and Conqueror walk all over the mighty tier below IS-3 and same tier T-10 not to mention the T-54 and even the tier above T-62.
>>335367
Is the matilda even that much OP seeing how slow it is (like in real life) and how its armor is historically accurate? I would be much more interested in the crusader and its fucking 6 pound minigun being able to load, fire, and eject all in 1.8 seconds.
b66189 No.335371
>>335367
tl;dr if they recovered or fixed the tiger, it magically disappears from the destroyed column. The Germans essentially underestimated losses for propaganda purposes, to make themselves seem invincible.
Soviets also counted one tank as lost several times. If a tank got mobility stopped, it was lost. After getting fixed, if it got mobility stopped again, it was counted lost a second time. Soviets overestimated losses for propaganda as well, because it made their industry seem invincible (ie every time a tank was repaired it counted as a new one).
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/07/cheating-at-statistics-part-3.html
Oh and Tigers didn't work alone, they were accompanied by a ridiculous number of tank destroyers, assault guns, infantry, air power, artillery and so on. So we'd have to see the complete distribution of weaponry on each side before making a conclusion.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/04/tiger-tactics-as-observed-by-red-army.html
e662f0 No.335376
>>335371
I fail to see the problem, if the tank is recovered, then it wasn't destroyed.
Besides, it isn't like the Germans had any chance to recover many vehicles after 1941 anyway.
b66189 No.335377
>>335368
I have both Crom and Matilda, and Matilda is more OP given that it's tier 4. The only time Matilda has a bad day is if it faces artillery or one of the heavier hitting tier Vs like BDR G1B.
Compare Matilda with T-28, what people keep saying is the best tier V medium.
Matilda has better camo, view and signal range, so its going to see the T-28 first. Better HP volume, less chance of fire, better armor across the board, so its more survivable. The 40mm Matilda gun reloads faster, has better aim time and penetrates better than the 57mm Soviet gun, all this translates into better real DPM.
Soviet bias is a myth. Soviets, Germans and Americans are just the tank lines with the most tanks and the most variety, so obviously they stand out vs other tanks. Soviets are more friendly to skilled players because generally they have larger guns which are more inaccurate, but if someone is skilled enough the inaccuracy is diminished and they seem to hit harder.
But "stalinium armor" and such nonsense is stupid, some of the most heavily armored tanks are japs, brits and french.
93b0ce No.335378
Muh Ha-Go
Just need to up the armor a tad bit and add a much better power plant. I wanna see that fucker move.
b66189 No.335379
>>335376
If Wermecht counted every malfunction and operational loss as destroyed, the numbers wouldn't be so disparate.
Example battle 1:
>10 Tiger vs 10 T-34-85
>5 Tigers penetrated
>5 Tigers recovered/repaired
>0 Tigers counted destroyed
vs
>5 T-34-85 penetrated
>5 T34-85 stuck in mud
>10 T-34-85 recovered/repaired
>10 T-34-85 counted destroyed
Example battle 2, same tanks meeting a second time:
>10 Tiger vs 10 T-34-85
>5 Tigers penetrated
>5 Tigers recovered/repaired
>0 Tigers counted destroyed
vs
>5 T-34-85 penetrated
>5 T34-85 stuck in mud
>10 T-34-85 recovered/repaired
>10 T-34-85 counted destroyed
Total Tigers destroyed in the two battles: 0
Total T-34-85s destroyed in the two battles: 20
e662f0 No.335382
>>335379
Each side keeps its own statistics.
German claim:
10 T-34 destroyed
0 Tiger destroyed
Soviet claim:
10 T-34 destroyed
10 Tiger destroyed
Actual losses:
0 T-34 destroyed
0 Tiger destroyed
As you can see, neither side has accurate records but the Germans are more accurate due to the Soviets counting tanks that aren't destroyed as destroyed.
Being temporarily stuck in mud doesn't count as destroyed.
e662f0 No.335383
>>335382
>Being temporarily stuck in mud doesn't count as destroyed.
NVM, tired and misread the article.
The point doesn't change, the Soviets are retarded with their loss claims while the Germans at least attempted to report accurately.
e662f0 No.335384
>>335383
Which means Soviet numbers are undervalued, not German numbers are overvalued.
Fuck really need to go to bed
e1b37e No.335387
>>335383
>Germans at least attempted to report accurately
>report disabled russian tanks as "destroyed"
>don't report their own tanks as "destroyed" if it was recovered eventually
>not German numbers are overvalued
Naziboo pls.
e662f0 No.335388
>>335387
>report disabled russian tanks as "destroyed"
Well how do you know if the tank is disabled?
If you fire a shell into it and the crew bails out, you count it as destroyed.
If they come back later and manage to fix it, there isn't anything you can do about it and no way to record that info.
>don't report their own tanks as "destroyed" if it was recovered eventually
If it is fixed, by definition, it is not destroyed.
Come to think of it, all of this could be avoided by simply having a "damaged" category.
But the soviets would probably fuck that up too, recording tanks getting stuck for 5 min as "damaged"
e1b37e No.335389
>>335388
You see Beavis, when you make pretese of being accurate, you don't go and record inaccurate info, whatever is your rationale for doing it - if it's inaccurate, you can't call it accurate, by definition.
e662f0 No.335390
>>335389
They were accurate.
>only count own tanks as destroyed when they're actually destroyed
>make a good guess if enemy tanks are destroyed due to no way of recording enemy salvage operations
e662f0 No.335391
>>335389
They were accurate.
>only count own tanks as destroyed when they're actually destroyed
>make a good guess if enemy tanks are destroyed due to no way of recording enemy salvage operations
Compared to Soviet
>count tank as destroyed 5 times before it reaches battle
>make a good guess if enemy tanks are destroyed due to no way of recording enemy salvage operations
Fuck you cripple kike, let me post
e662f0 No.335394
Also to stay on topic, I would probably drive a Sherman.
I hear they're pretty comfortable and I probably wouldn't come anywhere near a German tank.
Pic only somewhat related but cool as fuck.
e1b37e No.335395
>>335391
You were straight up arguing semantics from the get go, but now you're simply moving the goalposts.
Soviets at least had decency not to write recovered tanks off losses count as if they were some invincible contraptions immune to gunfire.
e662f0 No.335396
>>335395
>Soviets at least had decency not to write recovered tanks off losses count as if they were some invincible contraptions immune to gunfire.
No they just wrote them off as destroyed multiple times a day.
e1b37e No.335398
>>335396
And it's the right thing to do. If your statistic is omitting some information, it's worth jack shit. If you were to lose 80% of your tank garrison but managed to restore all of them, that'd make for a statistic with zero tanks lost. That directly implies that the tanks are outstanding battle machine, even though their actual performance is piss poor. On the flipside, if you record every incident of tank getting penetrated, stuck, internal failures, etc., you get good breakdown about possible problems with it, you have something to work with in terms of improving the machine.
Part of the reason Germans did so poorly in WW2 is dishonest statistics reporting, they deluded themselves into thinking they're some unstoppable war machine.
e662f0 No.335403
>>335398
>And it's the right thing to do.
No it isn't.
>If your statistic is omitting some information, it's worth jack shit.
Yeah which is why I suggested a "damaged" category.
German data suffers from not enough info and Soviet data suffers from blatantly wrong data. A tank that gets towed out of mud is not destroyed.
>On the flipside, if you record every incident of tank getting penetrated, stuck, internal failures, etc., you get good breakdown about possible problems with it, you have something to work with in terms of improving the machine.
Sure, but classifying them as destroyed is not correct.
I hope you're not implying that the Germans didn't keep any records on tank maintenance.
>Part of the reason Germans did so poorly in WW2 is dishonest statistics reporting, they deluded themselves into thinking they're some unstoppable war machine.
No, it wasn't that fact that Germany was up against an alliance with multiple times the industrial capacity, it must be that Germans are all delusional liars!
Come on now.
e1b37e No.335406
>>335403
Well if you read the papers they exceedingly rarely write "destroyed", they write them as "put out of service". It's a grand total of all tanks that were put out of service for any reason. There's separate statistics for different reasons why they were put out.
e662f0 No.335410
>>335406
>Well if you read the papers they exceedingly rarely write "destroyed", they write them as "put out of service". It's a grand total of all tanks that were put out of service for any reason. There's separate statistics for different reasons why they were put out.
So just count the unrecoverable losses when comparing to German data.
Problem solved, much ado about nothing.
To be honest, someone should probably write a book analyzing WW2 losses and statistics, maybe even include the primary sources, there would certainly be enough material to go on.
b66189 No.335479
>>335403
> A tank that gets towed out of mud is not destroyed.
But it is made operationally unusable.
If you start with 1000 tanks and 100 get stuck in mud before reaching target, the politicians have to know about it if they're going to make policy changes or approve a new variant.
>>335410
I'd like to see Soviet "unrecoverables" vs German "destroyed".