Tanks & armored vehicles discussion thread

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Yeah, I mixed those two up.

The M10 still isn't an M4 variant

I thought variants meant tanks that shared the same chassis.

[Arlenton]

Yeah, I mixed those two up.

The M10 still isn't an M4 variant

It used a modified M4 chassis. Sort of a variant, like what the Jagdpanzer IV is to the Panzer IV.

[Husseinarti]

I would have to say that the M4 was the best tank of WWII. It was easy to produce(Unlike the panzer IV), it had relatively good ergonomics(Unlike the T-34), its optics were good(Unlike the T-34), its reliability was decent(Unlike the German heavy tanks), had a huge number of variants including the M18 which was phenomenal in tank to tank combat. Its one disadvantage was the fact it had a nasty tendency of going off in flames.

The Panzer IV was relatively easy to produce considering the circumstances German industry was in.

The optics on pre-war T-34s were noted to be great by the US who tested them at Aberdeen. However war-time T-34s lost that quality due to the dire need for tanks right away, and quality optics would be hard to do.

The Hellcat wasn't a Sherman variant.

Also the tendency to go up in flames was something all times like to do when you hit ammo and fuel.

The US had a serious bad run with all TDs, both towed and self-propelled and didn't use them for much longer after WW2 ended the M36 lasted into the 1950s, the debacle that was TDs left a bad taste in the US Army's mouth.

[Fordorsia]

The M10 still isn't an M4 variant

It used a modified M4 chassis. Sort of a variant, like what the Jagepanzer IV is to the Panzer IV.

The Jadgpanzer IV is more of a variant of the Panzer IV than the M10 is of the M4. Jagdpanzer IV uses a Panzer IV chassis, whereas the M10 uses a chassis that is based off the M4's and heavily modified.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

[Arlenton]

It used a modified M4 chassis. Sort of a variant, like what the Jagepanzer IV is to the Panzer IV.

The Jadgpanzer IV is more of a variant of the Panzer IV than the M10 is of the M4. Jagdpanzer IV uses a Panzer IV chassis, whereas the M10 uses a chassis that is based off the M4's and heavily modified.

I see. So more of a distant relative.

[Pandeeria]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

Nothing a King Tiger can't handle.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

Nothing a King Tiger can't handle.

The King Tiger was a garbage tank...

Horribly expensive

Steel used in the armor was of inferior quality to that of the Tiger I's, making its armor less effective

Too heavy

Huge drain on the already burdened German logistical system

Too vulnerable to get overwhelmed for a tank its price, due to slow turret traverse

Guzzled too much fuel

[Fordorsia]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

That's because it should be forgotten

Steel used in the armor was of inferior quality to that of the Tiger I's, making its armor less effective

A slight drop in steel quality doesn't matter when no Allied gun ever penetrated your front slope

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

That's because it should be forgotten

It was a good tank...

[Pandeeria]

Nothing a King Tiger can't handle.

The King Tiger was a garbage tank...

Horribly expensive

Steel used in the armor was of inferior quality to that of the Tiger I's, making its armor less effective

Too heavy

Huge drain on the already burdened German logistical system

Too vulnerable to get overwhelmed for a tank its price, due to slow turret traverse

Guzzled too much fuel

I'm not talking about over all practically, I'm talking about per individual tank. Literally the only criticism I saw that was relevant to that was that it was too heavy.

Very well, then bring out the Tiger 1. Or even the Panther.

[Fordorsia]

That's because it should be forgotten

It was a good tank...

Which is why the British used the Sherman more during the war and why it was replaced by the Comet

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

The King Tiger was a garbage tank...

Horribly expensive

Steel used in the armor was of inferior quality to that of the Tiger I's, making its armor less effective

Too heavy

Huge drain on the already burdened German logistical system

Too vulnerable to get overwhelmed for a tank its price, due to slow turret traverse

Guzzled too much fuel

I'm not talking about over all practically, I'm talking about per individual tank. Literally the only criticism I saw that was relevant to that was that it was too heavy.

Very well, then bring out the Tiger 1. Or even the Panther.

Sure it was good individually, but what good what that do when I come after your one horribly expensive tank, with five cheaper tanks that can overwhelm you.

As for the Tiger I, it suffered from many of the same problems as the Tiger II, being too expensive, and being a leech in the system. I can literally use the same tactics again, overwhelming using cheaper tanks. The Panther was one of the better tanks of WWII, it was around the same price as a panzer IV, but its reliability had massive problems, so it broke down often.

[Husseinarti]

Actually I completely forgot about this bad boy.

Nothing a King Tiger can't handle.

A Centurion Mk. I would give the King Tiger a good run for its money.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

It was a good tank...

Which is why the British used the Sherman more during the war and why it was replaced by the Comet

That was more to do with the huge number of surplus shermans produced by the US, rather than the quality of the Cromwell.

[Fordorsia]

Which is why the British used the Sherman more during the war and why it was replaced by the Comet

That was more to do with the huge number of surplus shermans produced by the US, rather than the quality of the Cromwell.

So what you're saying is Britain was dumb for insisting they make their own tank when vast numbers of Shermans were already at their disposal.

[Pandeeria]

I'm not talking about over all practically, I'm talking about per individual tank. Literally the only criticism I saw that was relevant to that was that it was too heavy.

Very well, then bring out the Tiger 1. Or even the Panther.

Sure it was good individually, but what good what that do when I come after your one horribly expensive tank, with five cheaper tanks that can overwhelm you.

As for the Tiger I, it suffered from many of the same problems as the Tiger II, being too expensive, and being a leech in the system. I can literally use the same tactics again, overwhelming using cheaper tanks. The Panther was one of the better tanks of WWII, it was around the same price as a panzer IV, but its reliability had massive problems, so it broke down often.

We're not talking about grand battle, we're talking about a one on one fight.

[Fordorsia]

Sure it was good individually, but what good what that do when I come after your one horribly expensive tank, with five cheaper tanks that can overwhelm you.

As for the Tiger I, it suffered from many of the same problems as the Tiger II, being too expensive, and being a leech in the system. I can literally use the same tactics again, overwhelming using cheaper tanks. The Panther was one of the better tanks of WWII, it was around the same price as a panzer IV, but its reliability had massive problems, so it broke down often.

We're not talking about grand battle, we're talking about a one on one fight.

Which is dumb

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd like to import and restore a T-72 to fully functioning status at some point.

As for best task of WW2? Sherman or bust, commies and nazi's gtfo

[The East Marches]

I'd like to import and restore a T-72 to fully functioning status at some point.

As for best task of WW2? Sherman or bust, commies and nazi's gtfo

Cobray T-72 kit when?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd like to import and restore a T-72 to fully functioning status at some point.

As for best task of WW2? Sherman or bust, commies and nazi's gtfo

Cobray T-72 kit when?

As soon as I buy the company of course.

[Fordorsia]

Everyone keep talking, I look forward to having a good laugh tomorrow :V

[Arlenton]

So earlier we were debating on what the first tank to actually be built was. Whether it was Little Willie or the Russian Vezdekhod. Well I found a source that seems to clear up the Vezdekhod mystery quite a bit.

https://latvianhistory.com/2014/07/16/first-tank-made-in-riga-the-myth-of-the-russian-vezdekhod/

According to this, the Vezdekhod began construction on Feburary 1st, 1915 and was tested on May 18th, 1915. So the prototype was completed, at least completed enough to actually be operated, sometime between Feburary 1 and May 18, 1915. While construction of the British No. 1 Lincoln Machine, AKA "Little Willie", began on August 11th, 1915 and was first tested on September 9th, 1915. So, if this source is correct, the Vezdekhod pre-dates Little Willie by like four or so months.

...But this source also seems to imply that the Vezdekhod was not necessarily meant to be a combat vehicle, and was more of a armored cargo carrier. Or maybe it is saying that the Vezdekhod prototype was only testing an armored vehicle able to go over rough terrain and then could be developed into either a cargo carrier or a combat vehicle? I can't really tell.

It also says that the turrets seen in many drawing of the Vezdekhod were added later by Soviet propaganda to show that "We superior Russians made the first tank".

These common drawings were never real designs, apparently.




Here is how it was actually supposed to look.

So I guess this shows that the Vezdekhod was made before the famous Little Willie, but whether or not it was a "tank" is up for debate. So maybe Little Willie still holds the title unless there is some really obscure vehicle I don't know about. I personally would say the first tank title belongs to the Vezdekhod, but that's just me.


There was also a "Vezdekhod II" design that was scrapped and never built, but there is what looks like an either doctored or misidentified photograph of Russian troop riding on what appears to be a "Vezdekhod II or maybe the original Vezdekhod but modified in some way.

[Avrellon]

Guys, I think we can all agree that the best tank of the war was New Zealand's Bob Semple Tank.

• Top speed of around 5 mph
• Corrugated manganese armor plating - that way bullets always hit sloped armor!
• Top gunner lies on top of a mattress that rests on top of the engine - very ergonomic
• Crew of 8
• Armed with SIX Bren machine guns
  
  If only they'd had more of these, New Zealand could've won the entire war all by themselves.
  
  Checkmate, Wehraboos.

In all seriousness, though, I think that the best tank of the war would have to be the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman, with the T-34-85 in a close second. German tanks such as the Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther, while impressive on paper, were pretty terrible in actual combat, given their very poor reliability and overtly complex designs, among other things

[Shonburg]

Panzer V was the best tank of WW2. Speed, armor and firepower combined in the best way.