If you were anticipating fighting an enemy that would not be fielding large caliber anti-tank weaponry or their own armored units it would more than suffice your anti-infantry operations. That being said I don’t know who the fuck would think like that past 1916 but the point still stands.

>>64905167
Close infantry support. I'm not arguing it makes sense, but you can tank hits and carry a lot of ammo, provided you have true AT support.

>>64905167
To be humble

>>64905167
There is no point, that's why they died out and got replaced by MBTs.

>>64905167
>Suspension can't handle a fuckhueg gun because more armor was added than necessary
>A bigger gun would require a bigger turret
>A bigger turret would require more armor, which means more tax on the transmission, and bigger guns would need more internal storage space unless you want to carry less ammo for the fight
Something like that.

>>64905198
>Just bong things

If the gun had the accuracy to throw a HE shell into the opening of a pillbox, a 40mm or 57mm would have been sufficient for infantry support roles.

>>64905167
I don't think that's a small gun. It's about average, maybe even above average in size. It is just operating in cold weather. Fuck you!

>>64905176
>That being said I don’t know who the fuck would think like that past 1916
The British

>>64905167
The bow MG was originally a howitzer. Infantry support tank; low speed, good obstacle clearing ability, heavy protection, AP and HE options.

>>64905167
... and the other things that she said

>>64905167
If that thing rolled up to your compound would you be laughing at the size of its guns?

Right answer is poverty
Look at the old engine the were forced to use

File: images(74).jpg (29 KB)

29 KB JPG

a strong build and a small cannon is the masculine ideal. a big cannon is a sign of a barbarian savage

>>64905167
Be Italian, find a tank that will fcuk you over all day every day.
Matilda 2 could be better but in that place and time it was a Warthog (A10).

It was based on 1920s-30s era tank design philosophy and convention overall.
Idea, concept of a big/huge powerplant (to vastly increase mobility) in a tank hadn't yet come to the forefront, partly for technological propulsion development reasons : no engines with the sufficient hp/weight ratios that could feasibly be mounted in a tank existed back then.
So they were basically still stuck in the WWI-era tank as 'landship' mindset. Slow moving, with good armor and various artillery pieces/guns/MGs attached or stacked onto it.

>>64905318
>rolled up to
Ran over / mogged

>>64905560
This sculpture is like, the ideal figure of someone's dad.

>>64905167
Because it's not a tank. It's a self-propelled barricade.

File: 113918452_p4.jpg (207.3 KB)

207.3 KB JPG

>>64905560
What was the grecian perspective on being a grower but not a shower?
Maybe these statues just have really powerful and manly prostates

>>64905167
Motherfucker how big do you think the average gun was in 1941?

>>64905604
>So they were basically still stuck in the WWI-era tank as 'landship' mindset. Slow moving, with good armor and various artillery pieces/guns/MGs attached or stacked onto it.
What are cruiser tanks

>>64905176
Tell me more about large calibre anti-tank weaponry at the start of WW2

>>64905167
Flex on Italians smugly
>>64905787
Germans wanted a 75mm in 33 but didn't have the industrial capacity to produce those,though they new France was going in that direction. Weird they didn't add the 88 short case on a casemate.

>>64905802
>Weird they didn't add the 88 short case on a casemate.
the 88 as a vehicle-mounted weapon was completely unnecessary when the 75mm L/43–L/70 classes exist

File: Black_Prince_1_Bovington.jpg (887.9 KB)

887.9 KB JPG

>>64905167
It grows and raises when he spots an interesting target.

>>64905784
>What are
They are much smaller lighter weight thin armored tanks with the same small shitty weak engine.

>>64905976
demonstrating they did not have a 'landship' mindset

>>64905167
>We paid for all these 2pdr guns and by George we're going to use them!

>>64905832
88mm is much better at HE-slinging.

>>64906018
My post that rustled (You)r jimmies referred to the OP's "large tank with small gun" post
('cruiser tanks' didn't even appear until the *late 1930s*)
Do a flip Faggot

>>64906120
Slightly better

>>64906069
probably this

>>64906134
>'cruiser tanks' didn't even appear until the *late 1930s
And when did the Churchill appear motherfucker

What is a big gun, what is a small gun?
What is thick armor, what is thin armor?
What is a heavy tank, what is a light tank?

Are these determined by your sense of aesthetics? No. The size of your gun is determined by your offensive requirements, the thickness of the armor by your defensive requirements.

>>64906145
>Churchill
is a big tank with a small gun
just like every other Fucking God Damned tank of the 1920s-1930s
You Stupid Faggot Plebbitard

>>64905167

WW2 was a time of rapid development and evolution, something that the British design process had trouble keeping up with.
When it was started to be designed, the 2 pounder was a good gun to use against the tanks of the time, as most were only bullet proof. By the time the Churchill came into production, most armies had armoured up their tanks to a level the 2 pounder couldnt damage, so the 2 pounder armed mk1 and mk2 Churchills were slowly upgunned as well with 6 pounders, and later 75mm.

Same thing happened in other early war armies - German Pz IIIs started the war armd with 37mm cannon, Pz IV and Stugs with low velocity 75mm howitzers, Americal Stuarts with 37mm, etc.

Also, the Churchill was influenced by WW1 tank design, a long slow armoured box designed to cross trenches. The original design even had spaces either side for side sponsons (for hosing trenches when the tank straddles them), but these were dropped and turned into entry hatches by the time it was fielded. Trench warfare was over by ww2, but the germans made heavy use of bunkers at times so the churchill and it's variants (Crocodile, AVRE, etc) were found to be good for a slow crawl towards such heavily defended positions.

>>64906018
You can have two complimentary design concepts. British believed the 'Landship' Infantry tanks, slow and heavily armoured (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill) would accompany and support the infantry attack, while the lighter and faster Cruiser tanks would do the scouting and exploiting gaps, like cavalry used to do. It was only later that Medium Tanks like the Sherman and Cromwell, and post war MBTs like the Centurion that can do everything took over both roles as designs improved.

>>64906406
interesting

File: 1764827447032209.jpg (387.3 KB)

387.3 KB JPG

>>64905617
Women are so retarded that it is unreal.

>>64905832
Couple points:
>88 has more hi ex against infantry
>88 has noticeably better pens than 75x495, it's the longer 75s that catch up
>88 is cross compatible with the primary AA guns used by rear guard batteries

File: fucking skywalkers.jpg (72.8 KB)

72.8 KB JPG

>>64905176
>>64905179
>>64905305
Literally nobody had any idea how tanks were going to develop in the 1930s. Most countries were still fucking around with tankettes. And heavy armor+small gun was actually a battle winner in the early war. The Char B1s actually did very well in the battle of France, but were let down by the lack of real support they had and the Matilda II literally smashed everything it came up against in North Africa until the Germans rolled out Pz IIIs.
Stop acting like the people back there had the benefit of 80 years of hindsight.
Pic unrelated

>>64909002
>Stop acting like the people back there had the benefit of 80 years of hindsight.
It all seems like common sense. That's the problem. You still have America coming up with bunker theory adding too many MGs (and only MGs) to the M2 tanks as late as 39, bullet deflectors used at Normandy, and more flights of fancy. Designers were basically retarded outside of eastern Europe (Germans + Slavs).

>>64905778
Possibly more accepting. Priapus was meant to be a moral lesson on how not to act, although from a superficial reading of existing stories by a Western mind, he doesn't come off as much worse than most of the venerated gods.

File: M3-lee-camp-polk.jpg (446.7 KB)

446.7 KB JPG

>>64905167
>What's the point of a small turret on top of a giant, thinly armored tank with a tiny gun that already has a huge, much better gun in a sponson bolted to the side???? Who would think up such a bizarre idea??? I don't know who would think like that past 1916??!!

>>64909002
>>64909011
It's arguably neither hindsight nor common sense. It's an arms race; it's incremental.

>>64909020
What is the point that you are attempting to passive-aggressively make, like a bitch?

>>64909020
imagine going up against that in a m13/40

>>64909011
>Designers were basically retarded outside of eastern Europe (Germans + Slavs).
Yeah because the T-28 was such a great design. The Russians copied the germans during their brief period of detente and the germans were copying the czechs, who'd developed the Lt vz 38 (pz 38t, the actual best tank of the early war) which they'd captured shitloads of from skoda when they captured the sudentenland.
And get this, the czechs almost lucked out into the best tank design because they were short on time, money and materials and needed something they could build quickly, so they couldn't afford the extra turrets and huge armor other people were building. It just so happened that was also the optimal way to design a tank.

>>64909037
That OP is a retard and so are you. It also wasn't passive aggressive, it was the imageboard equivalent of literally aggressively pointing at you and repeating your words back to you in a stupid voice and pulling a stupid face. Literally the most many way of contending with some, a thing of such simple beauty even small children have no difficulty grasping it.
You're the one being womanly by pretending not to understand that and demanding answers to questions you already know the answer to, bitch.

File: typo.gif (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB GIF

>>64909057
>Literally the most many way of contending with some
*Literally the most manly way of contending with someone
Fuck my dyslexia, (which is the most manly of special needs).

Go ahead, this is your moment to shine, champ. I made a typo, the battle is yours.

>>64909002
>nobody had any idea how tanks were going to develop in the 1930s
This.
Do not use
>"Literally"
especially not to start a sentence.

>>64909089
Based.
>>64909057
Cry. Learn Laconism, Attic pedo.

>>64909002
>>64909057
>LITERALLY
Go back or kill yourself, you underage and disgusting piece of shit.

>>64905836
I don't care how underpowered it was, Black Prince is one of the best looking tanks built.

>>64905167
short gun easier in urban combat. doesn't get caught on buildings. small shells easier to load.

>>64909020
>M3-lee
(this is the point made ^^^upthread about the '20s-'30s general mindset, of stacking guns/turrets)

>>64905198
you're missing that developing superior tank engines and transmission is what really allowed the firepower-armour-speed triangle to be "cheated"

>>64905176
>le cavalry tank memes
"blitzkrieg" insofar as tanks are concerned is a myth, even the US Army in the late war and the revived Bundeswehr post-war (who further developed the US WW2 model) had infantry-heavy setups, only at the heaviest ever pairing 2 battalions of infantry to 2 of tanks
the real blitzkrieg has always been aerial. WW2 was a war of CAS.

>>64905802
>Weird they didn't add the 88 short case on a casemate.
how many fucking tank variants did you want their already-strained-to-the-limit six-year-old war economy to produce?!

>>64906406
>took over both roles as ENGINES improved
ftfy

>>64909002
>Char B1s
bruh the Germans could fire at five or six times the Char's RPM WHILE running rings around it because the guy giving evasive orders to the driver, keeping an eye on the terrain, keeping an eye on the enemy, loading the gun, estimating range to target, and traversing the turret didn't ALL have to be the same one guy instead of three

>>64909099
>>64909106
I'm sorry you're dumb, I guess.

I'm fat and have a small peepee. What is the point of me?

>>64910224
No point.

File: A1E1 Independant.jpg (144 KB)

144 KB JPG

>>64909020
There's always room for more turret!

>>64909483
>bruh the Germans could fire at five or six times the Char's RPM WHILE running rings around it because the guy giving evasive orders to the driver, keeping an eye on the terrain, keeping an eye on the enemy, loading the gun, estimating range to target, and traversing the turret didn't ALL have to be the same one guy instead of three
The Char had a gun that could penetrate the enemy tank

>>64910265
The Panzer IV had a gun that could fire at five or six times the rate of the Char B1, immobilise or blind the tank by detracking or blowing in observation slits, or jam its turret traverse mechanism, or stun and injure the crew, and then flank it and blast at its less-protected rear end

>>64910265
>>64910312
what is the point. just let snipers shot at them with anit tank rilfes?

>>64910324
antitank rifles couldn't penetrate anything thicker than a Panzer II C, i.e. about 10-15mm of RHA

>>64910338
vision ports, tracks, engine blocks and side armor could all get penetrated by them + you got more of them + they can hide better. i also don't count applica armor since after a few shots that stuff also fell off.

>>64910355
with volume, yes, but antitank rifles didn't put out anywhere near enough RPM for the infantry to disable a tank in time before they got mashed
(literally, WW2 had many instances of "Driver, tracks, troops!")

>>64910361
anti tank guns killed most tanks in ww2. after that land mines.

File: you.png (336.4 KB)

336.4 KB PNG

>>64910370
>a PaK41 is exactly the same as a Boyes mmkay!

>>64910312
>>64909483
>bruh the Germans could fire at five or six times the Char's RPM WHILE running rings around it because the guy giving evasive orders to the driver, keeping an eye on the terrain, keeping an eye on the enemy, loading the gun, estimating range to target, and traversing the turret didn't ALL have to be the same one guy instead of three
Cool theories. However, in reality the Chars repeatedly blasted their way through german lines, but repeatedly had to fall back or get surrounded because they had zero infantry or artillery support.

>>64910489
>theories
German reports of how they killed the Chars
>repeatedly
lol
lmao

>>64910496
Germans were reporting that they were having it in the bag since 1938. They had virtually no casualties kek.

>>64909002
>pic unrelated
Is it, anon? IS IT?!?

>>64911227
and French were reporting they were having it in the bag all the way through the war, they surrendered willingly kek

>>64911242
Only the French armor let them drive into Russia as far as they did. Too bad that the French haven't build more of it tho.

>>64910175
>Still acting like a female.
You're doomed.

>>64905167
If I was forced to make a choice between more gun or more armor, I'm going to go for more armor (the real answer is fence-sitting balance of course). It just makes sense since you'll be less vulnerable to a whole spread of antitank weaponry.

File: 555555555.jpg (334.2 KB)

334.2 KB JPG

>>64905778
why...why would the prostate even be a thing to mention here

File: 97065693_p0 (1).jpg (991.1 KB)

991.1 KB JPG

>>64914755
I thought growers had more powerful prostates but googling it says that's not true.
It probably is actually true and they're just hiding the truth

>>64910496
>German reports on their successes
Kek you could at least try to sound impartial.
>>64909037
Faggot

>>64914801
>your sources are biased because they're German accounts of this battle
>my sources are not biased because they're French accounts of this battle
most impartial Frenchman

>>64909106
Literally what is your problem?!

>>64905167
Fighting anti tank guns

>>64905179
But QF 2-pdr is garbage for infantry support?

>>64905787
>Churchill
>start of WW2
Nigga the Churchill is a contemporary of the Tiger 1. Both tanks even had their first combat experience in August 1942.

>>64905167
It made more sense in an era when good anti tank weaponry was hard to find and never in the hands of infantry.

>>64915144
Originally it was meant to have a 3 inch hull howitzer as well.

>>64915144
have you seen what infantry support Panzer Is and IIs were packing for Fall Gelb?

>>64920237
Panzer II at least had HE even if it was just 20mm.

>>64920325
buddy, even the Churchill's AP round had as much HE as a Panzer II's 20mm HE

>>64920352
Proofs? Cause the 2pdr by that point was mostly solid shot with a few of the APHE around and the improvised HE shells was more an Pacific Matilda II thing.

>>64920377
>Proofs
QF 2pdr AP shells carried ~20g of picric acid
Panzer II HE shells carried ~20g of TNT

Because:
1) it was an infantry tank
2) the 57mm gun was adequate against anything but the big cats

>>64920406
A lot of 2pdr AP shells had the explosive filler removed.
>>64920505
The one OP talking about is a 40mm.

>>64920615
>A lot of 2pdr AP shells had the explosive filler removed
Proofs?

File: Chart that anyone could have made up that seems to match up with what other people have said on the 2pdr shell.jpg (80.3 KB)

80.3 KB JPG

>>64920691