@Dangerous Amoeba  
A lot of multi-turreted tank where prototyped around then. T-35 was the only one to be built in any numbers.  
Trying to direct multiple guns was hell for the Commander, much more practical to just make more single-gun tanks.

@dsagent  
>Massive drain on resources/ man powder.  
>Big “shoot me” sign.  
Something like a moving bunker, aka what this tank is, wouldn’t be that great.  
Soviet’s built one, but it wasn’t that great, it was too much of a drain on resources and couldn’t be armored heavily enough with it’s type of construction. No sloped armor, and thicker plates means more resources. It also had a large profile, meaning it wasn’t very sneaky, and slow. It was just target practice for enemy tanks, saw limited use.
 
But yea, it’s a game and rule of cool wins over realistic practicality.
 

 

 
@OptimusPrimevil  
There was an African nation using ww2 panzers for a while, can’t remember which one, but they where all abandoned DAK (Deutschland Afrika Korp) panzers, which where fixed up and put into limited use. Old mil-surp ends up in places you wouldn’t belive.
 
Also Germany sent over quite a bit of equipment to help Japan. The Japanese lacked the expertise, industry and doctrine to be able to produce good equipment. Japanese tanks where not capable at all of taking on a US or Russian tank, and Japanese aircraft where lacking in technology, which lead to easily fixable weaknesses. Stuff like self sealing fuel tanks, and better engines.
 
So maybe it was a Panzer sent as support to the Japs? Or maybe just sent over for the Japs to copy and make their own? Like the Japanese Nakajimi Kikka, which was a Japanese aircraft heavily influenced by the ME262, but built in japan thus using low teir tech.

@Cirrus Light  
40k has never pretended to be governed by real engineering laws.  
In general form, the Baneblade actually has the greatest resemblance to a realistic, practical design of just about any Imperial armour. Low and wide hull proportions and sloped glacis, not just a cube with tracks right off Little Willy. Sure, Super Heavy and multi-turret tanks are impractical, but there’s the Rue of Cool.

@dsagent  
There are many good reasons they don’t actually make tanks like that…

@Dangerous Amoeba  
wow, the research is impressive!  
personally i think they tried to make a replica (for display purposes) rather have an actual tank because it’ll pretty weird for a PanzerKamfWagen IV to somehow end up in the Philippines.

@Cirrus Light  
Yea, medium tank, powered by a radial engine, is a great thing off road. And it’s height compared to the T-34 made it great for crossing rivers.
 
It was a surprise to the allies that the Tiger and panther had such great maneuverability, because of larger tracks, but it wasn’t as good as a Sherman. Except the Panther, that could go head to head with a Sherman in mobility.
 
Honestly, the allied tankers never really encountered the big cats, most of them where fighting on the east, or having mechanical problems. But when they did, they had a hard time.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
Seems pretty legit. I was aware that the Sherman was really outstanding for its maneuverability and such; being able to traverse terrain and even forjd rivers that the Tigers could never dream of, that needed huge and strong iron bridges.

@Cirrus Light  
>Hah. That’s extremely interesting! And really sad. So I guess they decided the reduced losses wouldn’t account for the extra price of the Pershing? That’s really sad, then, that they could’ve saved a lot of U.S. tank crews.
 
Maybe, one of the great things the Sherman had going for it was it’s cross country speed and maneuverability. The M26, being a heavy tank, just lacked that maneuverability, and was slow as all hell.
 
Again’t German tanks, at least those with good crew, the allied and soviets only really had the overwhelm with numbers tactic. Sure the kraut might get a few, but the rest can take him out. With a slower heavy tank, you would 1: have less in the field and they have more time to take you out.
 
Also German tanks had the famous German gun sights, which allowed gunners to accurately aim further than the soviets or allies could. Kills at 2+ km where not uncommon. A larger, slower heavy tank would have a hard time against a good crew wielding a panzer, even with a 90mm gun.
 
History, hindsight 20/20, right?

@OptimusPrimevil  
Here’s a guide made in paint to show the most obvious features.
 
It’s a PanzerKamfWagen IV, later production with a long barreled 75mm gun.
 
Notice the flat side armor, that is basically a rectangle. The Panzer III had a slight incline then drop in the side armor. (Red square)
 
The cover or shade over the drivers viewing window is also indication of a Panzer IV, Panzer IIIs had a flatter shade and window design. (Brown square)
 
The sheet metal over the track is more covering than on a Panzer III. (Green square)
 
Finally notice the gun manlet is smaller than on a Panzer III. (Pink square)
 
The tank looks like it’s had the muzzle break taken off, maybe regulations of the country, but the gun looks damaged. Like it’s banana pealed.
 

@Cirrus Light  
The Gun Mantle, and not all versions of the Panzer III had it take up the entire face of the turret.

@Cirrus Light  
The element you’re talking about is the gun mantlet. Everything you’ve observed is correct.

@Agent Tasmania  
You’ve got a point there, but also look at the base of the barrel: the element on the front of the turret at the very base of the barrel (that would rotate up and down with the barrel. Some kind of shield or mounting plate?) is as large as the turret with a Panzer III, but is small with a Panzer IV. Also, the structure with the driver window and machine gun is tapered on the front, which is more akin to a Panzer IV than Panzer III.
 
Panzer III:  

 
Panzer IV:  
(You can ignore the spaced armor on the turret. Only sometimes was it there)  

@OptimusPrimevil  
Honestly I’d guess a Panzer III with the 5cm gun, pretty sure all the long-gun IVs had a muzzle break.

@Kappe
 
@Cirrus Light  
thanks for the info!

@OptimusPrimevil  
I think a Panzer IV? I think it was one of the more common tanks Germany mande.  

 
 
@Dangerous Amoeba  
Hah. That’s extremely interesting! And really sad. So I guess they decided the reduced losses wouldn’t account for the extra price of the Pershing? That’s really sad, then, that they could’ve saved a lot of U.S. tank crews.  

@OptimusPrimevil  
Looks like a mid-production Panzer IV. Probably an Ausf F, but definitely a Panzer IV.
 

you guys know a lot of tanks but any idea what kind of tank is this?  
tank?

@Dangerous Amoeba  
I wasn’t trying to argue anything, just defending my choice of tank >:I

@Kappe  
That argument is meaningless, this is what Germany looked like after constant bombing raids:
 
France got off easy, because it was captured so it wasn’t being bombed over and over again. Plus France had the support of the US and Britain. With most industry intact, and the support of 2 powerful nations, it would be expected they made a good tank. Not like it mattered, French tanks where left in the shadow of Russia and US after the war.
 
The M26 could take on a Tiger, it’s 90mm gun was more than enough. But no one wanted to ship a 46 ton tank, when you could ship 2 Sherman for that price.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
Paris was liberated in August 1944. The prototype of the ARL was ready in March of 1946, albeit with a 76 mm gun instead of the 90 mm. For a country that just had its culture and industry sacked, to go from zero tanks to developing a tank like that in 19 months is pretty dang impressive.  
Add in the fact that even into the early 50s the heaviest thing the Allies had was the Pershing, which while an excellent vehicle wasn’t exactly in the Tiger II’s class.
 
Oh, and only 60 produced because they were working on this.

@Cirrus Light  
>Reminder that CAS was pretty much ineffective against tanks in ww2, except for dive bombers.
 
@Kappe  
>After ww2  
>Only 60 produced  
>Too unreliable  
Nyet.
 
Best tank is best tank:  

@Cirrus Light  
I think someone needs a lesson on how hard it actually was to kill a tank from the air ;)

@Dangerous Amoeba  
@Kappe
 
Tanks look impressive. But I like aircraft more. Buh-bye… Well, any kind of tank.
 

 

@Dangerous Amoeba
 

 
>120 mm of sloped frontal armor  
>90 mm gun designed specifically to kill Tiger IIs  
>more reliable and mobile even with outdated pre-war French suspension  
>weighs thirteen tons less than aforementioned overcompensating Boche junk