Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[Bratislavskaya]

Well I think this changes the airborne APC design I'd been fiddling with over the last few days. CVR(T)-style common chassis for airborne troops, Y/Y?

Yes. Many yes.

[Mizrad]

Any more light tank advice?

[Doppio Giudici]

So why exactly did Germany start off with the panzer-III in WW2 and end with the Panther?

It just seems like all the nations in play started up-gunning and up-armoring, but I can't figure out why.

Isn't the point of an arms race to counter what the other side does and not to do something expensive to combat things that don't exist?

[Laywenrania]

So why exactly did Germany start off with the panzer-III in WW2 and end with the Panther?

It just seems like all the nations in play started up-gunning and up-armoring, but I can't figure out why.

Isn't the point of an arms race to counter what the other side does and not to do something expensive to combat things that don't exist?

You want to be ahead of your enemy, not run behind his inventions. But I don't really understand your other two points...^^

[Crookfur]

So why exactly did Germany start off with the panzer-III in WW2 and end with the Panther?

It just seems like all the nations in play started up-gunning and up-armoring, but I can't figure out why.

Isn't the point of an arms race to counter what the other side does and not to do something expensive to combat things that don't exist?

Because everyone else either had or very quickly started making tanks that had better protection and fire power.

It's been said a billion times that panther was a response to the t-34 and it probably was but equally the designers would also have had an eye on possible British and American deveopments. After all if the Russians can come up with t-34 what sort of scary beast might the yanks produce?

The German thinking also called for a qualitative over match, in thier mind they simply couldn't afford a new design to be about as good as the t-34 they had to have one that out matched it to stand any chance.

Edit: as already said an arms race is about getting ahead of your rival. If all you aim to do is equal him you've lost before you even started.

[Stahn]

It's been said a billion times that panther was a response to the t-34 and it probably was but equally the designers would also have had an eye on possible British and American deveopments. After all if the Russians can come up with t-34 what sort of scary beast might the yanks produce?

Meanwhile in the U.S.A.=

[Korva]

It's been said a billion times that panther was a response to the t-34 and it probably was but equally the designers would also have had an eye on possible British and American deveopments. After all if the Russians can come up with t-34 what sort of scary beast might the yanks produce?

Meanwhile in the U.S.A.=

he probably meant the sherman, which was the best tank of the war

also, stahnese leopard 2:

[Sileasia]

What makes the Sherman the best tank of the war

[Gallia-]

It was better protected, similarly or better armed, and more reliable than its contemporaries (Cromwell, T-34-76/85, and Panzer IVs of various make). More importantly, American tank crews were well trained and well drilled (perhaps comparable only to the British) thanks to having an ocean between them and the Nazi empire by the time the Sherman saw combat, certainly more so than either their German or Soviet counterparts.

Unfortunately, apparently no one was prepared for the true terror of WW2 armour: towed AT guns.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

What makes the Sherman the best tank of the war

Reliability, speed, and ubiquitousness.

The Sherman was a great tank for most of the war; while it was rather lacking in armor, and did not always perform well against enemy armor, it still did the job.

Reliability; it could go far without breaking down. A lot of people make out tanks like the Tiger as being highly unreliable and breaking down at the drop of the hat. This was at least partially untrue; with good crews, and at least a partially intact supply system, a unit of Tigers could perform well. The problem came when poor crews were combined with the dreaded jabos making short work of any supply trucks in sight. Some late-war crews were being thrown in with only a few hours of ever being in a tank; either gasoline shortages, or just plain time shortages prevented any great amount of training. The Sherman, on the other hand, had the advantage of being on the side of America, which had a massive industrial base and was completely protected from anything which might disrupt said industrial base, e.g. massed bombing raids.

Don't get me wrong, the Sherman broke down. Any tank is inherently a very complex machine. But the Sherman broke down a lot less.

Speed; I'm not saying it would break any records. To go back to the Tiger, that tank, despite being a heavy tank, had a top speed roughly comparable to the Sherman(~45kph); however, there's a distinction between tactical and strategic speed. From a strategic standpoint, the Sherman was very fast, being less likely to break down, easier to repair, etc. This means that if a breakthrough is achieved in the enemy lines, the Sherman will be able to exploit that breakthrough much better.

Ubiquitousness; it can do anything. The Sherman had a very large turret ring diameter; this means it can mount a variety of guns. The T-34 was limited in gun availability because of a small turret ring diameter; the Soviets wanted to mount a gun bigger than the 85mm but were unable to because of the T-34's small size. The Sherman, while being decidedly bigger and boxier than the T-34, was thus able to mount a variety of guns. The 75mm gun was an effective gun for most situations, but when a better anti-tank gun was needed, it could be had - be in the 76mm, 17pdr, or even higher-power guns used by postwar Shermans.

That's basically it. Am I wrong anywhere?

[Doppio Giudici]

You forgot that it's cheap and roomy.

You could fill it with piles of stuff and still have space, it was that kind of tank.

[Purpelia]

That's basically it. Am I wrong anywhere?

Well for a start, you cite crew training and supply/maintenance ability as something in favor of the tank. This of course is an inherently flawed view to take as said factors are in no way inherent to the vehicle. If the tanks had been reversed we would have been hearing about glorious american tigers going from washington to Berlin on one set of spares and of shoddy German shermans breaking down every 5km.
Than of course there is the fact that you are not comparing like with like. A tiger is designed with very different things in mind than an M4. And thus they are bound to behave differently even under ideal conditions. A heavy tank is simply always going to be inherently less reliable than a medium one on account of having more weight pushing down on everything. If you want to find an equivalent match to compare the M4 too I would suggest it be the panzer IV or maybe panther. Although personally I'd lean toward the panzer IV.

Other than that, you are about right.

[Axis Nova]

How heavy is the M81E1 gun/launcher that the Sheridan used?

[The Kievan People]

The Sherman was a crummy design built very well.

[Korva]

How heavy is the M81E1 gun/launcher that the Sheridan used?

1097 lbs

[Radicchio]

WTF this?

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

That's basically it. Am I wrong anywhere?

Well for a start, you cite crew training and supply/maintenance ability as something in favor of the tank. This of course is an inherently flawed view to take as said factors are in no way inherent to the vehicle. If the tanks had been reversed we would have been hearing about glorious american tigers going from washington to Berlin on one set of spares and of shoddy German shermans breaking down every 5km.
Than of course there is the fact that you are not comparing like with like. A tiger is designed with very different things in mind than an M4. And thus they are bound to behave differently even under ideal conditions. A heavy tank is simply always going to be inherently less reliable than a medium one on account of having more weight pushing down on everything. If you want to find an equivalent match to compare the M4 too I would suggest it be the panzer IV or maybe panther. Although personally I'd lean toward the panzer IV.

Other than that, you are about right.

Well, the vehicles are only good if the nation fielding them can supply sufficiently. I'm a little unsure as to your first point, sorry.

As for the second, I was just using the Tiger as an example because it's another very well-known tank; in hindsight, comparing it with the Pz. IV probably would have been better, but oh well.

[Korva]

(Image)
WTF this?

AMOS: 120mm mortar turret

[Lamoni]

(Image)
WTF this?

Patria AMV with a double-barreled 120 mm AMOS mortar. AKA short range artillery on steroids.

[Axis Nova]

How heavy is the M81E1 gun/launcher that the Sheridan used?

1097 lbs

Bah, screw that idea then. *tosses it into the good idea paper shredder*

[Rich and Corporations]

The Sherman was a crummy design built very well.

And the T-34 was a great design built poorly.

---

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russia ... 455890cb9f

In depressing news.... Russia reveals new family of IFVs and tanks.

[Radicchio]

I am trying to G,E&T source some newer Guideline missiles for my t-54/t-55 based launch systems and Man, that is like pulling teeth with some of these communist nations... The ones who do want to sell them, want to sell me Scrap Soviet era junk, i have not gotten an offer for anything newer than the V-750...

Anyone here who may want to help a brother out, here is the thread. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=338183

[Radicchio]

Also, What in the Blue Fuck is this?!

[Elan Valleys]

I think the Cromwell was the equal of the 75mm Shermans.

[Lamoni]

Also, What in the Blue Fuck is this?!
(Image)

VBL Recon (as it says in the URL for the picture), with some sort of ATGM launcher.