Is Russian engineering a meme?

...

.t buttmad Ameriburger

>i dont know whats memetic about it
It used to be that you could get one for

They did build the Tokamak.

The mosin wasnt terrible,but arguably the worst bolt action rifle in both world wars.

I'm Russian actually.

source?

By who?
Even Russian tankers are reputed to have preferred lend lease Shermans over t-34s due to being less likely to burst into flames when shot.

What is the kalashnikov

sure... source?

Panzers outclassed them in every way. Russian warfare was just overwhelming any oppoition through sheer numbers.

This was the only source I could find online.
>For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

This guy talks about the good and the bad of the Sherman seems to think fondly of it though.
iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Sure on paper panzers were impressive, when they had fuel, were not broken down from equipment failures.
And Shermans were a work horse they could clear mines, shoot rocket barrages, tow, and even bulldoze.
Looking at it from a capability perspective there are more things a Sherman could do then any other tank in the war.

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD.

WHOOOOO IS ROKKKOSOVKY , WHAT IS DEEPP BATTTTLE TELL ME WHAT IS DEEP BATTLE.

Sherman's are the Ronson lighter meme tanks, T34s were Diesel and much less likely to brew up when hit.

>Sherman's are the Ronson lighter meme tanks,
What did he mean by this?

My bad I remembered it wrong it's that Shermans were less likely to explode from munitions cook off.
Still pretty important piece of information when fighting on the offence.

>Ronson lighter
Thats a meme and untrue tho

Shermans also had worse guns worse armor (both not by a huge amount although 34-85 more so) t-34 also had low profile and could be repaired in the field by illiterate peasants.

Wrong I read a thesis on this and it was true until they put in wet stowage for ammuninition. it was always somewhat of a meme through.

I saw a video with sources that said your thesis was written by a lying faggot.

fuck off cunt, it was called zippos, ____, and ronsons, the sherman tank ww2 something something.

The ronson slogan related to lighting the first time didn't even exist until after the war.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

yeah no shit it was about the popular idea of the sherman's going up in flames and like investigating the truth and shit.

TLDR it was exaggerated cos the USA tankers were getting shot to shit all the time and so obvs the tanks blew up but they were slightly more likely to blow up for some reason maybe to do with where the ammo was.

No

maybe the thesis was shit sue me.

The sherman was literally the best medium tank in its weight class

HAHAHAHA LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THE ARISAKA

all jap weapons were shit, we don't count those due to obviousness.

Arisaka has a much smoother bolt than the nugget, actually.

Not exactly, Russian Space Magick is still a thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=gtMssTSnRHU

...

Not really. Everyone shits on the Mosin-Nagant, but people forget that it took Germany until 1943 to issue a semi-automatic rifle while Russia had the SVT-40 before the war even began.

wow so uneducated. Its not the fuel, its the ammunition stowage, and T34s were equally as likely to go up in flames

Why were Japanese weapons so bad? I don't think I've ever seen anyone praising a WW2 era Japanese weapon.

Did they just use all their time and money on the air force?

>Shermans over t-34s due to being less likely to burst into flames when shot
What. Are you sure you didn't get it the wrong way around?
The Sherman was called the "Ronson" because of its tendency to explode and catch fire

It was seen as effective because A. 37mm anti-tank guns, and some 75mm anti-tank guns...the most common that the Germans had, were not effective against its armor...and B. it was really cheap and easy to make....other than that the T34 was easily one of the worst designed tanks of the war, it had a higher failure rate than the Tiger, Tiger II, and even the panther, all of which are commonly criticized for being break down prone. Additionally the t34 has poor ammunition stowage, poor ergonomics, and initially, a tiny turret with shitty fire control

Russian tank engines were all american designed and a lot of their later equipment was heavily inspired by equipment they received during the lend-lease period.

...

Thats a meme, the Shermans ammunition was protected far better and as such, the tank burst into flames upon being penetrated a decent amount less than the T34, which had shitty ammunition stowage. Field data supports this. The ronson thing, as the thread has said, is a post-war meme.

If they did they wouldn't have been flying paper planes with machine guns bolted to them.

Japs had some impressive equipment for the limitations they had on resources.
The problem is impressive by their limitations is a shadow of average for the other war participants.

The Type 38/99 is a fantastic rifle, what are you talking about.

unironically best bants 2k17

1 faggot talking shit out of his ass

I want to see a statistic you don't know what evidence is right?

Lets google for a source that supports my belief

nope it is not

The 38 and 99 were based off Mausers,while a lot of german guns are overrated,they were just a great design,everyone did their version of the action.

The japs had excellent equipment like the Zero fighter and their submarine program engineered to carry a plane within. Invesely, you have absolute shit like the nambu and every tank every produced by the japs.

You can never find a good in-between where the good outweights the bad, it's always black-or-white.

>First hand accounts are not evidence
What did he mean by this?

one experience of one person is not evidence show me a statistic how many cought fire and we are fine

try reason and logic before you type next time

You believe in Bigfoot too, I assume?

So you want statistics that would require digging through years of ussr records?
First hand accounts say the Sherman was less likely to explode from shells, and the fact it used wet ammunition storage backs this up, how about you show evidence that the t34 was safer without this.
>Comparing a vets first hand accounts of battles he was in and equipment he used with Bigfoot sightings.
I do by the way.

Nice

You heard this on a Podcast the other day? I did.

Fun fact about that, they up gunned the machine guns into autocannons from what I remember which made it too heavy and carry significantly less ammunition for the guns.

>T-34 is often seen as the most effective tank of ww2
Leave this board slavshit

The most effective tank was either the PzIV/StuG IV or M4 Sherman

Atleast they were designed with comfort of the crew in mind

>worse guns worse armor
>t. historically illiterate person

>and could be repaired in the field by illiterate peasants.
Almost no T-34 was repaired, because it was cheaper to just send out another tank
Slavshits didn't even have any proper tank recovery units

Mid war Sherman had same armor as a t34 with a better angle so slightly better effective armor, late war Sherman had better armor then a late war t34

Mosin-Nagants outnumbered SVT-40's on the eastern front bruv
One can't fight wars on concepts, and as such the SVT-40 had too many drawbacks both for field use and production to make it a truly viable standard issue rifle, regardless of how many rounds it could pop off in a minute.

Its pretty much a meme.Their pistols sucked ass,but their rifles,machine guns and artillary were good.the type 38 was actually a great sniper rifle due to the low report it produced and the japs were among the few that actually put scopes on their machine guns.

not really, the 50. in the turret and the rubber in the tracks made it good for urban warfare, and they would rather use this tank than a T34

A tank is literally never good for urban warfare. It can be better than others, but never good.

weren't they tanks the best in the early 30's?

>tank only lasts 100 hours of operation before breaking down
>this is okay because the tank only lasts 60 hours on average before getting knocked out

lol no
only their handguns and tanks.

yeah no shit

but how is that related to my post?

Screen capped.

>what is armored deck senpai?
>what is damage control senpai?
>why is our aircraft carrier fleet burning sinking senpai?
>what is fire control senpai?
>what is RADAR senpai?
>what is damage control senpai?
yeah the japanese navy was overrated as fuck too, the IJN was shit compared to the US one

>unzips katana

>the 50. in the turret and the rubber in the tracks made it good for urban warfare
A tanker would probably tell himself "I would rather not be in a city" than "I would rather be in this city with a t-34"

>Uses hammer to change tank gear

>arisaka 38
>carcano
>ross in ww1

>they put scopes on their machine guns
Which didn't really matter since their mg's were pretty inaccurate. The type 38's 6.5mm cartridge was also weak compared to western cartridges (weak enough that the japs decided to chamber the type 99 in 7.5).
Also, their heavy mg's (besides the one that was based off the captured czech ones which I forget the name of and was rarely mounted on anything except vehicles) used 30-round ammo strips and were therefore shite

Both the Type 38 and Carcano are severly underrated, and definitely not "terrible".
The Ross wasn't bad, it just wasn't designed for trench conditions.
Stop repeating fuddlore.

Their mountain guns and light artillery were very good. Their small arms were for the most part average. Their tanks were average too for their time, by the halfway point of the war they were just outdated. The knee mortar was good.

The type 38's 6.5mm was severely underpowered compared to western weapons. I didn't mean the ross was a bad gun, I meant that it was a bad gun to be used in trenches.

*both panther and T-34 break down*

Wrong the type 11 and 96 were very bad.