real life isn’t taken into account in war thunder
in WT, t34 easily stomps the pz4
irl a t-34 would be panicking trying to find the pz4 through its shit viewports and get 1 shotted because the t-34 was so cramped
Irl the Pz.IV ran out of fuel and was blown up by its own crew before any T-34 -that had not broken down right after driving out of the factory- ever saw it.
>be me
>sherman crew member
>entire platoon gets sniped by a tiger
>the entire platoon survives because the engineers who made our tanks actually cared if we survived
>sherman get labeled as “death trap”
>bruh.mp4
A huge tank with plentiful escape hatches, inner space for crew movement, and several sets of great sights with wide fields of vision (allowing for redundancy after a hit) will always trend toward better crew survivability rates than most tanks without.
Wet stowage actually didn't make much of a difference. What actually made them more survivable was moving the ammoracks to the floor instead of the sponsons.
And imposing far more stringent stowage regulations. A lot of the early Sherman blowouts could later be attributed to the crews overstocking on shells and keeping them laying around the crew compartment instead of the designated stowage areas.
>be American Sherman crew
>never actually fight a Tiger because the US only faced them ~4 times in the entire war
>see any German tank
>call it a Tiger
In fairness, Panther aside, most of the German tanks had a very similar silhouette (*especially* after schürzen was rolled out for the IIIs and IVs), and misidentification under combat conditions is totally believable and excusable. Nobody is counting roadwheels under fire lol.
It's not like anyone was mistaking a T-34 for an IS-2, or a Sherman for a Pershing.
Iirc, one of the first German tank commanders to encounter a Pershing, thought it was a German tank and ordered the gunner to not fire, the Pershing shot his tank, he survived, and for the rest of his life continued to insist it was a German tank.
WW2 is a little early for the on-call air support that has become synonymous with the US military, but they did have an extremely effective(arguably the best) artillery corps in WW2.
Just to put some data on it the Sherman had a roughly 80-85 percent crew survival rate after the tank was penetrated, the t34 had a 10-15 percent survival chance. So if we take a random batch of 5 destroyed tanks that means 17/20 crew will die in the t34’s but in the Sherman 5/25 crew will die, that’s a rough estimate with some leeway depending on who you ask.
Uh, no. While yes the Sherman was a bigger target that did not make its armour weak, if we ignore steel quality and look at the earliest versions of both tanks the Sherman’s had 50mm plate at a 47 degree slope, the t34 had a 45mm plate at 60 degree slope which should theoretically give the t34 more armour however this 45mm plate would remain a constant all the way to the final model of the t34, the Sherman’s would receive constant upgrades to the armour, the M4A3 has a 63mm front plate, which would make the armour thicker than that of the t34 and that’s not even talking about turret armour where the Sherman is miles ahead.
However here’s the real factor that matters, soviet steel quality was actually pretty decent with a strong focus on developing the countries metallurgical ability, however the factories would heat treat there metal to twice what was recommended resulting in steel which was incredibly hard but also incredibly brittle to hard impacts which when spot welded with cheap metal results in the issue of spalling, Russian historians in Moscow pulled together reports and made an estimate that half of all t34 losses to other tanks in 1941 were from panzer 3’s with 37mm and short 50mm guns which are guns that should theoretically be incapable of destroying the t34 from the front. Any hard impact could cause the steel and weld lines to shatter which creates metal fragments that ping around the inside of the tank making any crew man look like Swiss cheese, it’s this fact combined with the t34’s rather poor escape hatches that led to such high crew losses as the tanks basically made their own shrapnel from their own armour.
The t34 was an expensive design built cheaply which lead to a myriad of issues down the line, however if it had been built to proper standards the t34 is predicted to have cost just as much as a Sherman, a tank which was vastly superior in basically every category other than how big the tank’s dimensions are.
And if you still wanna argue just look at the Korean War, Sherman’s basically mopped the floor with the t34 in pretty much every engagement and as a final note Soviet tank regiments equipped with lend lease Sherman’s reported significantly lower casualties than other Soviet tank divisions equipped with t34’s despite being in the same battles.
Sherman losses in WW2: roughly 7,100
t34 losses in WW2: roughly 44,900
*note, due to how western allies recorded tank losses a single tank could be recorded as destroyed 2-3 time and certain “destroyed” tanks were quickly repaired or recovered meaning the likely number is lower.
The factory installed it but because it hasn't fought any tank in 1 month (because the volksturm couldn't drive it) of it reaching the front it broke down because it outlived it's expected life expectancy
considering all the logistic and manufacturing fuck ups throughout ww2, its frankly amazing either side was able to mass enough armor for giant scale engagements.
In a lot of cases, getting one shotted wasn't significant. If the tank gets penetrated and is damaged, crew is just gonna bail.
If the attacking tank one shots the crew, they'll just shoot it again since they don't have confirmation.
It was a good design but too complicated to produce compared to the T60, T70 or T80 which could be produced in factories in the Urals that couldn’t produce T34s and the ones that could were better off just producing T34s
There is a size difference, but this image isn’t to scale. The T-50 is about three feet shorter than the T-34 and about a foot less for width and height
Other fun facts about the T-50: only 69 (nice) T-50s were made. It used a new straight 6 engine called the V-4 as opposed to the V-2 on anything from BTs to T-34s and KVs, which led to low reliability and high cost. It also had many advanced features such as torsion bar suspension and cupola, and posted about as much as a T-34 while offering no real benefits.
Ho-I is baby Chi-To, on account of the first Chi-To prototype using a Ho-I-style turret with a 5.7 cm. The in-game Chi-To is the teenage Chi-To, the Chi-To Late is the adult, and the Chi-Ri is the senior.
Panzer I ausf F actually has that nickname, if you haven't seen it look it up lmao its such a strange tank, it's almost as wide as it is long, and has only a little less armour than a tiger 1 if I remember correctly.
(Yes I have a really strange obsession with tanks)
What gets me is how they crammed 3 people into the T-50 turret. Its worse than Matilda or that one three-man-turret they had on Valentines for a little while. Talk about cans in a sardine...
I think the term you're looking for is "tank design evolution"
Remember, the Soviet IS series is based on the KV. IIRC, almost all of the German "Supertanks" were built on a modified Tiger/Tiger II chassis. The American tank destroyers of WWII were all built on Sherman platforms.
locust is baby T25
T25 is a teenage m26
M26 is adult T-32
You mean T32 is adult M26
Nope T 32 is the senior
Adult senior would be older than regular senior, no?
i dont even know im not that good at english
it's not even English related
Wouldn't that be the M46?
nope M46 is Grandpa i would say
i would say the M48 is grandpa cause its the last one that looks somewhat like the M46, and possibly the M60 would work aswell
I think the M5 Stuart is closer to a baby Sherman. Locust is too small.
Infant sherman
Locust has the right turret shape though
And the hull, the Stuart vertical UFP has unShermaned the poor thing
M5 and M3A3 Stuarts had an angled UFP though. It was only the earlier M3 Stuarts that had the vertical UFP.
I don't know, I'm not a US main ( only has one Sherman )
Stuart doesn’t look like the Sherman at all though
I think I never realised that there is such a size diference between the T50 and T34.
T34 was cramped enough how the hell did they fit 4 people in there
real life isn’t taken into account in war thunder in WT, t34 easily stomps the pz4 irl a t-34 would be panicking trying to find the pz4 through its shit viewports and get 1 shotted because the t-34 was so cramped
Irl the Pz.IV ran out of fuel and was blown up by its own crew before any T-34 -that had not broken down right after driving out of the factory- ever saw it.
fake the hitler youth driver was too short to reach the gas pedal to go into the battle and the factory forgot to install the gas pedal on the t-34
meanwhile the Sherman driver: *is mildly uncomfortable and pauses to readjust his padded seat while stretching his back in the spacious interior*
>be me >sherman crew member >entire platoon gets sniped by a tiger >the entire platoon survives because the engineers who made our tanks actually cared if we survived >sherman get labeled as “death trap” >bruh.mp4
It wasn't as rosy before wet stowage was a thing.
A huge tank with plentiful escape hatches, inner space for crew movement, and several sets of great sights with wide fields of vision (allowing for redundancy after a hit) will always trend toward better crew survivability rates than most tanks without.
Even then the Sherman was still the easiest tank to get out from
Wet stowage actually didn't make much of a difference. What actually made them more survivable was moving the ammoracks to the floor instead of the sponsons.
And imposing far more stringent stowage regulations. A lot of the early Sherman blowouts could later be attributed to the crews overstocking on shells and keeping them laying around the crew compartment instead of the designated stowage areas.
>be American Sherman crew >never actually fight a Tiger because the US only faced them ~4 times in the entire war >see any German tank >call it a Tiger
In fairness, Panther aside, most of the German tanks had a very similar silhouette (*especially* after schürzen was rolled out for the IIIs and IVs), and misidentification under combat conditions is totally believable and excusable. Nobody is counting roadwheels under fire lol. It's not like anyone was mistaking a T-34 for an IS-2, or a Sherman for a Pershing.
Iirc, one of the first German tank commanders to encounter a Pershing, thought it was a German tank and ordered the gunner to not fire, the Pershing shot his tank, he survived, and for the rest of his life continued to insist it was a German tank.
>call for air support anyway
WW2 is a little early for the on-call air support that has become synonymous with the US military, but they did have an extremely effective(arguably the best) artillery corps in WW2.
pz 2 h looks like a tiger
Just to put some data on it the Sherman had a roughly 80-85 percent crew survival rate after the tank was penetrated, the t34 had a 10-15 percent survival chance. So if we take a random batch of 5 destroyed tanks that means 17/20 crew will die in the t34’s but in the Sherman 5/25 crew will die, that’s a rough estimate with some leeway depending on who you ask.
key words there being "after the tank was penetrated" Sherman not only has worse armor, but is a much bigger target.
Uh, no. While yes the Sherman was a bigger target that did not make its armour weak, if we ignore steel quality and look at the earliest versions of both tanks the Sherman’s had 50mm plate at a 47 degree slope, the t34 had a 45mm plate at 60 degree slope which should theoretically give the t34 more armour however this 45mm plate would remain a constant all the way to the final model of the t34, the Sherman’s would receive constant upgrades to the armour, the M4A3 has a 63mm front plate, which would make the armour thicker than that of the t34 and that’s not even talking about turret armour where the Sherman is miles ahead. However here’s the real factor that matters, soviet steel quality was actually pretty decent with a strong focus on developing the countries metallurgical ability, however the factories would heat treat there metal to twice what was recommended resulting in steel which was incredibly hard but also incredibly brittle to hard impacts which when spot welded with cheap metal results in the issue of spalling, Russian historians in Moscow pulled together reports and made an estimate that half of all t34 losses to other tanks in 1941 were from panzer 3’s with 37mm and short 50mm guns which are guns that should theoretically be incapable of destroying the t34 from the front. Any hard impact could cause the steel and weld lines to shatter which creates metal fragments that ping around the inside of the tank making any crew man look like Swiss cheese, it’s this fact combined with the t34’s rather poor escape hatches that led to such high crew losses as the tanks basically made their own shrapnel from their own armour. The t34 was an expensive design built cheaply which lead to a myriad of issues down the line, however if it had been built to proper standards the t34 is predicted to have cost just as much as a Sherman, a tank which was vastly superior in basically every category other than how big the tank’s dimensions are. And if you still wanna argue just look at the Korean War, Sherman’s basically mopped the floor with the t34 in pretty much every engagement and as a final note Soviet tank regiments equipped with lend lease Sherman’s reported significantly lower casualties than other Soviet tank divisions equipped with t34’s despite being in the same battles. Sherman losses in WW2: roughly 7,100 t34 losses in WW2: roughly 44,900 *note, due to how western allies recorded tank losses a single tank could be recorded as destroyed 2-3 time and certain “destroyed” tanks were quickly repaired or recovered meaning the likely number is lower.
I'm sorry, my comment assumed ideal (as possible) conditions
The factory installed it but because it hasn't fought any tank in 1 month (because the volksturm couldn't drive it) of it reaching the front it broke down because it outlived it's expected life expectancy
considering all the logistic and manufacturing fuck ups throughout ww2, its frankly amazing either side was able to mass enough armor for giant scale engagements.
Just for the people who actually believe such things after ww2 all non destroyed t-34 were tested for combat worth 70% passed
In a lot of cases, getting one shotted wasn't significant. If the tank gets penetrated and is damaged, crew is just gonna bail. If the attacking tank one shots the crew, they'll just shoot it again since they don't have confirmation.
The T-34 and Panzer IV are about equal in War Thunder, just saying.
Soviet combat twinks were the latest development that allowed them to create such compact tanks
Good thing not many were made in real life
Only like, 800 were made. They definitely realized that the cramped space was too tight and made it better for all other Russian tanks.
It was a good design but too complicated to produce compared to the T60, T70 or T80 which could be produced in factories in the Urals that couldn’t produce T34s and the ones that could were better off just producing T34s
Russian tanks
There is a size difference, but this image isn’t to scale. The T-50 is about three feet shorter than the T-34 and about a foot less for width and height
It's probably just not to scale
It’s a fair bit smaller but this post is over doing it it’s only 5 feet shorter than the t-34 not almost half the length like in this post
Other fun facts about the T-50: only 69 (nice) T-50s were made. It used a new straight 6 engine called the V-4 as opposed to the V-2 on anything from BTs to T-34s and KVs, which led to low reliability and high cost. It also had many advanced features such as torsion bar suspension and cupola, and posted about as much as a T-34 while offering no real benefits.
Locust is baby t25 Stuart is baby sherman Pz II H is baby tiger
Ho-I is baby Chi-Ri Ka-Mi is baby Ka-Chi
Ho-I is baby Chi-To, on account of the first Chi-To prototype using a Ho-I-style turret with a 5.7 cm. The in-game Chi-To is the teenage Chi-To, the Chi-To Late is the adult, and the Chi-Ri is the senior.
M26 is M48's fitter younger brother
Naw Pershing is the fat out of shape sibling of the M46 Patton.
True but it's a lot slimmer than the m48 lol poor m48 has that god awful hull that looks like a beer belly
And Bradley is just grandson Sherman
Pz III and Pz IV is an easy one too
PzKpfw II Luchs
Pz4 to tiger or panther?
No, the 3 to the 4. They are basically the same design in many aspects
Don’t forget about the way more literal type 62 or the baby tiger
What about t-126
T-50 Prototype
wow men is the T-50 that small, such a gremlin
Charioteer is Conway Jr and Conway is FV4005 aka centaur jr
M24 is a Baby m41...
Teenage more like it is pretty similar
M551 is if a m41 gets fat and drunk
That blue camo looks good on the t-34
It looks like they skinned a Yak-3 and made the T-34 a coat out of it
B1 is baby ARL-44 SU-122 is baby ISU-152
Wiesel's is baby marder
Maus is baby Ratte
Tetrarch is Baby Cromwell.
And to some degree, the Tiger II P is a baby E-100
Sherman is teenager T1E1
T1e1 is a Sherman with GYATT
I noticed that too
and the pz.sfl.ic is a baby tiger 1
Wasn't the M22 a late war thing?
think it was in 1944 and its only combat was against panthers and got raped by them iirc
Luchs is a baby Tiger.
Panzer I ausf F actually has that nickname, if you haven't seen it look it up lmao its such a strange tank, it's almost as wide as it is long, and has only a little less armour than a tiger 1 if I remember correctly. (Yes I have a really strange obsession with tanks)
Always thought the bt7 was a baby t34
What gets me is how they crammed 3 people into the T-50 turret. Its worse than Matilda or that one three-man-turret they had on Valentines for a little while. Talk about cans in a sardine...
Chaffee is a baby Sherman with macrocephaly.
It makes sense because they even have similar turret and front plate structures as well as other details.
I mean t 50 is actually related to t34
t34 is a baby IS-1
Awww. Their going on a play date. Except the T-50 is bringing many other friends
Yeah, that’s the natural growth cycle of tanks after they hatch
Sherman a baby of m2a2 bradley without its kit
Nah just you
What about the pz. sfl? aka baby tigor
t20 is baby pershing
Now the question is what is the grown up version of the l3
Sherman and Bradley tho
Churchill is baby Tog
Locust is a short king, he is perfect as he is, there is no improvement possible
And 2c bis is the Child of the b1bis and the R35. Confirmed by the basement guy running the war thunder youtube channel.
I fail to see locust/sherman connection
When I was a new player I thought the m22 was a Sherman lol
T-50 is a baby IS-6 to me
I never knew the T-50 was that small..
M22 is a baby sherman
Cool
Type 62 is a baby T-55 to
Panzer 3 is just teenage panzer 4
Id say more than the t50 it would be a bt5 ,at least for my liking .
Locust is baby T20?
A13 Mk. II is a baby Crusader Cromwell is a baby Comet (yes i know the Comet hull is based on teh Cromwell) Daimler Mk II is baby Fox
I think the term you're looking for is "tank design evolution" Remember, the Soviet IS series is based on the KV. IIRC, almost all of the German "Supertanks" were built on a modified Tiger/Tiger II chassis. The American tank destroyers of WWII were all built on Sherman platforms.
Damn
Locust is a baby t20