Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Husseinarti]

>Pz. IV on par with T-34 or Sherman.

I mean inferiority is now on par I guess.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

>Pz. IV on par with T-34 or Sherman.

I mean inferiority is now on par I guess.

Maybe he means the Panther?

Shall we include the Chi-Ha in this lineup?

[Purpelia]

As far as comparability go I'd say that for the most part the III and IV were behind the others for the simple reason that they were much older vehicles to begin with. We have to remember that the Panzer IV was already 5 years old by the time it first came up against the T-34. It is no surprise that the Germans were having a replacement program for their tanks (Panther) happening mid war whilst the Soviets postponed theirs for after. Several years matter a lot in 40's tank design.

[Husseinarti]

The Germans were already preparing concepts for the replacement of the Panzer IV and the Panzer III. These programs were what the Panther program came from after influences from encounters with the T-34 and KV.

The Soviets were looking to modernize the T-34 by the early 1940s as well, with the T-34M with a torsion bar suspension instead of the Christie suspension.

The T-34 in the form we know and the Panzer IV being the primary combat tank from 1942-3~ onward was only because of wartime keks.

[Fordorsia]

Stuggy and JagdpanzerIV > literally anything

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

>Pz. IV on par with T-34 or Sherman.

I mean inferiority is now on par I guess.

Yes, it was the worst of the three. I guess equivalent is a better word than equal.

>Pz. IV on par with T-34 or Sherman.

I mean inferiority is now on par I guess.

Maybe he means the Panther?

No, the Panther is in a totally different class than the Sherman or T-34, more of what medium tanks would come to be than what they were during the war. The Panther was effective when all factors were on its side: good crews, well maintained, fully fueled, and after the D models were taken back for major overhauls but before German industry began to break down. Given that all these factors pretty much never came together, it suffered as would be expected.

[Purpelia]

The Germans were already preparing concepts for the replacement of the Panzer IV and the Panzer III. These programs were what the Panther program came from after influences from encounters with the T-34 and KV.

The Soviets were looking to modernize the T-34 by the early 1940s as well, with the T-34M with a torsion bar suspension instead of the Christie suspension.

The T-34 in the form we know and the Panzer IV being the primary combat tank from 1942-3~ onward was only because of wartime keks.

Modernize, but not replace. That's the key difference. The replacement for the T-34 is the T-55. The replacement for the Pz IV was the panther. Both tanks had a rather similar life cycle of major updates and a similar life span overall. The T-34 however started later and thus had a more advanced base to work from.

[The Akasha Colony]

For a while it was pretty normal to be what we'd call a wehraboo, grossly misrepresenting how good German vehicles were and how bad allied vehicles were. Now, it seems to be shifting in the opposite direction which is just as annoying. Maybe in some more time there will be a balanced view. For example, things like the Sherman, T-34, and Pz. IV were roughly all on par with each other - the Sherman was probably the best with all factors combined but they were all able to reliably kill each other at range. And the while the reliability differences could very much impact the ability to have massed armored offensives over great distance, I don't think high-level commanders generally concerned themselves with things like whether the Sherman had the 75 or 76mm, or how effective and efficient a panzer's side skirts are.

Inverse Wehrabooism has become as much of a forced meme these days as actual Wehrabooism was back in the day, there just isn't a catchy term for it that makes it more obvious. Though most of the Wehraboos have disappeared, at any rate. Which means that inverse Wehrabooism suffers from the usual echo chamber problems as people go out of their way to be ever-edgier in their denunciation of German military performance.

[Fordorsia]

For a while it was pretty normal to be what we'd call a wehraboo, grossly misrepresenting how good German vehicles were and how bad allied vehicles were. Now, it seems to be shifting in the opposite direction which is just as annoying. Maybe in some more time there will be a balanced view. For example, things like the Sherman, T-34, and Pz. IV were roughly all on par with each other - the Sherman was probably the best with all factors combined but they were all able to reliably kill each other at range. And the while the reliability differences could very much impact the ability to have massed armored offensives over great distance, I don't think high-level commanders generally concerned themselves with things like whether the Sherman had the 75 or 76mm, or how effective and efficient a panzer's side skirts are.

Inverse Wehrabooism has become as much of a forced meme these days as actual Wehrabooism was back in the day, there just isn't a catchy term for it that makes it more obvious. Though most of the Wehraboos have disappeared, at any rate. Which means that inverse Wehrabooism suffers from the usual echo chamber problems as people go out of their way to be ever-edgier in their denunciation of German military performance.

All German soldiers were Nazis and all German tanks were terrible

[Dostanuot Loj]

The Germans were already preparing concepts for the replacement of the Panzer IV and the Panzer III. These programs were what the Panther program came from after influences from encounters with the T-34 and KV.

The Soviets were looking to modernize the T-34 by the early 1940s as well, with the T-34M with a torsion bar suspension instead of the Christie suspension.

The T-34 in the form we know and the Panzer IV being the primary combat tank from 1942-3~ onward was only because of wartime keks.

Modernize, but not replace. That's the key difference. The replacement for the T-34 is the T-55. The replacement for the Pz IV was the panther. Both tanks had a rather similar life cycle of major updates and a similar life span overall. The T-34 however started later and thus had a more advanced base to work from.

The replacement for the T-34 was the T-43.
It was abandoned because war.
Then the replacement was the T-44.
It was abandoned because it was crap.
Then it was the T-54.

The Panther was to replace both the Panzer III and IV, and also the Tiger. In Soviet terms, it was one tank to replace the T-34, BT-7, and KV.

T-43 and Panther were essentially designed and built at the same time. And Panther was better in every single way. The Soviets didn't so much lag behind in development, they just sucked at it. People like to talk of the T-34 taking the Germans by surprise, but when the Panther showed up it blew the Soviet's minds.

>Pz. IV on par with T-34 or Sherman.

I mean inferiority is now on par I guess.

Maybe he means the Panther?

Shall we include the Chi-Ha in this lineup?

Chi-Ha objectively best tank of the war.

Alright than ford. Let's play this. This question is for everyone:

If you had to pick one WW2 German vehicle designed and operated by Germany (so stuff like the Pz-38t don't count) which would be your favorite and why?

BMW R75.
I think the why is self explanatory.

[Fordorsia]

BMW R75.

ooh bb

[Gallan Systems]

Chi To and Chi Nu were the cutest.

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

How did the Panther blow the Soviets away(pun)? Their debut at Kursk was mediocre to put it lightly. Maybe by 44 they were better produced but fuel problems and crew inexperience made them just as unreliable.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Chi To and Chi Nu were the cutest.

Japan makes the cutest tanks.

How did the Panther blow the Soviets away(pun)? Their debut at Kursk was mediocre to put it lightly. Maybe by 44 they were better produced but fuel problems and crew inexperience made them just as unreliable.

And yet, Soviet military engineers, planners, and pretty much everyone who is involved in real decisions, were not idiots. A poor showing by a potentially excellent tank which upped the stakes is not something that is going to get ignored as "lol terrible showing".

There is a reason the T-43 was dropped wholesale when the Panther showed up. There is a reason the T-34M was dropped wholesale when the Panther showed up.

The Soviets reacted quickly, and rather efficiently. The T-34 may be a terrible tank, but it is telling that the Soviets shifted wholesale production to an updated model able to take the Panther on a more even footing. This couldn't be done with the Sherman, although the Sherman was in less of a poor position compared to the Panther than the T-34.

[Fordorsia]

RIP wholesome christian boys asking innocent questions :c

woo

So then weight. Based on the armour and armament specs I made, would it be fine to assume my tank weighs in excess of 60 tons? 55 maybe? Just looking for a general weight range because fuck getting the weight of each plate.

[spoiler]Height: 2.95m
Height (excluding pintle MG): 2.6m
Length: 7.4m
Length (excluding gun): 6.85m
Width: 3.77m

Crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Machine Gunner

Turret Armour:
Turret Face: 100mm
Mantlet: 100mm
Side: 100mm
Rear: 100mm
Main Roof: 20mm
Forward Roof: 40mm
Cupola: 50mm + 100mm front

Hull Armour:
Vertical Front Plate: 100mm
Upper Glacis: 50mm
Lower Glacis: 50mm
Transmission Housing: 100mm
Side: 80mm
Rear 80mm
Roof: 20mm
Floor: 20mm

Armament:
76mm Gun
Coaxial 40mm Gun
Coaxial 8.5mm MG
Hull Mounted 8.5mm MG
Pintle Mounted 15mm MG

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The turret is a cylinder. The entire thing weighs more than a Königstiger and it doesn't have nearly as much firepower as one. It's also crippled by what appears to be an attempt at an BMP-3 turret but with a fucking gigantic Bofors stuck in it.

[Fordorsia]

The turret is a cylinder

No it isn't. Not sure why that would need mentioning even if it was.

The entire thing weighs more than a Königstiger

Dunno about that, which is why I asked

and it doesn't have nearly as much firepower as one.

I guess the 76mm worthless then

what appears to be an attempt at an BMP-3 turret

No

fucking gigantic Bofors stuck in it.

No

[Gallan Systems]

it's like an RPG rulebook tank

[Fordorsia]

I dun even know what than means :<

[Gallan Systems]

It's an "If someone who knew nothing about tanks tried to make a tank" tank.

[Fordorsia]

You have offended me

[Gallan Systems]

Rules One and Four.

Truth hurts.

[Purpelia]

It's random tank question time. For a tank designed in the period between 1934 and 1940 (as in, it would enter service somewhere in between the two, but no idea when exactly) how much of a rounded turret can I get away with? Obviously I can't go all T-55 / IS-2 on it. But how much can I go before it starts looking out of place for the period?

[Fordorsia]

Tank business isn't fun business


Some proper constructive criticism would be nice though. At least give me that after I got pretty much no feedback while I was making it. Just saying it's shit at this point doesn't help.

It's random tank question time. For a tank designed in the period between 1934 and 1940 (as in, it would enter service somewhere in between the two, but no idea when exactly) how much of a rounded turret can I get away with? Obviously I can't go all T-55 / IS-2 on it. But how much can I go before it starts looking out of place for the period?

It's the interwar period. The French proved that any design is possible at any time.

[Purpelia]

French tanks are not really rounded. They are just plain old cast turrets and that ends up with rounded edges. But that's the same as a T-34.
Well, there was the Char G1 but that's like a pre-prototype concept thing.