New USA/UK anti-tank weapons for "historians"

IS-3 did. Used after the war.
RPD did, used after the war.
Nukes, I don’t know what’s Serial for nukes but pretty much after WW2 both US and USSR were stockpiling them.

1 Like

Took USSR a few more years. We had a monopoly on nukes for a minute
And really? The IS-3 saw full scale production in WWII? Full assembly lines and mass production and everything?

How else do you produce tanks?
125 in may, 140 in June, 265 in August 1945, while WW2 is still going on.
However, it’s not a tank that needs to appear on WW2 battlefields.

1 Like

I’m just surprised the Soviets had the capacity to put something that heavy into full scale production. Especially considering they can’t even produce their current tanks at all

Dude, they made the most tanks in the war. During the war, they made more than 1000 T44s, while he did not take part in the battles, he was only near the front on trials

2 Likes

Matter of fact, the USSR came out with the best tanks at the end of WW2.

T-54 was in testing by spring 1945

As well as IS-3

And T-44

While the Germans were going crazy with Jagdtiger and Maus, and the Americans only had 90mm M3 available all the way till M60 Patton, the best the Brits had by 1945 was still the 17-pounder.

At the same time the Soviet tanks have generally switched to 122 mm and much better armor such as on IS-3.

3 Likes

If the allies somehow get their hands on a panzerfaust It would be stupid if the Germans don’t get their own belt fed MG of 100 rounds or 150 and they should get the M20 at this point.

3 Likes

So wait was it in production or was it in testing? Those are two entirely different things

So wait, was it in production or was it in testing? Those are two entirely different stages of development

Aight calm down crazy man. I’m sure you’ll eventually get your 100 round belt. No need to go round asking for our M20 before we even have it. It’s like the M3 Halftrack all over again

1 Like

I think it’s almost been three years now and yet the Germans still don’t have a belt fed MG with 100 rounds

It’s dumb. There’s 0 reason to only have 75 rounds

1 Like

First testing then production, obviously
image

1 Like

Lol. Barely over 2000

Fine then. I cede

1 Like

Especially when you look at the American one and the Soviet premium MG they literally have the belt dangling everywhere.

1 Like

About the same as M26 Pershing and more than Tiger 1/2.
Your point?

1 Like

Low numbers

image

1 Like

Lol. Strongest Soviet manufacturing capabilities

Just take a look at the 100,000 + T-54/55 if you think that soviet production was “weak”. Or just take a look at the 50,000 T-34 during ww2

2 Likes