this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
324 points (96.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6435 readers
519 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll always wonder what the gradbears make of this but I'll never know 'coz they banned me for bringing it up
Interesting, because Stalin himself said they'd have lost without lend lease. It's just not debatable.
Fun Fact: most trucks in the Red Army during the war were American made. While the Allies were a bit leery of making tanks and planes for Stalin, cars and trucks were something we were, at the time, the best in the world at mass manufacturing, so America basically made all the trucks for the Soviets, which let them pour related production into their own tanks (which were better anyways tbh)
Zhukov and Khrushchev also agreed that Lend Lease was crucial, along with many more members of Stalin's inner circle.
Why do you consider Soviet tanks to be better than their American counterparts?
The T-34 are usually considered the best all around tank of WW2, especially if you are accounting for things like production ease.
On paper their performance was relatively similar when accounting for mobility, armour, and fire power. The only real advantage of the T34 was that it had a lower profile and did better in the snow.
The real magic behind the T34 was the rate at which they could be pumped out and still go toe to toe with most anything on the field. They could slap together a T34 in 9000 man hours of work, compared to the 48,000 hours needed to make a Sherman.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
As a result, they usually lost 3 to 1 if they were lucky or 6 to 1 if they weren't. Though crappy training and early ammo shortages didn't help either.
The T34 was cheap and plentiful, but you get what you pay for. You can build more, but you're also going to lose more. Of course, that did fit pretty well with Soviet strategy at the time.
Depends on what year you're talking about.... By 44 they had pretty much all of those problems worked out.
The extra hours weren't much of an issue given American industrial capacity. So I'd say the Sherman was better in most areas, especially in terms of build quality, ergonomics and escape hatches for the crew.