Once this new Panther is mass produced the Soviets will

File: deak_1-032113.jpg (271KB, 950x688px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 950x688px

>>2748019
Could anything stop them?

>>2748019
Why not just make a bunch of anti-tank guns instead, mein fuhrer?

Did they produce a single panzer that wasnt absolute hell to maintain and didnt break down every other week? Panzer II? Leopard?

Once this new V2 rocket is mass produced UK will be finished in no time

>>2748071
Pz IV. Some generals like Guderian argued that the Pz IV should just be further upgraded instead of wasting time and resources on unstable new prototypes.

>>2748019
NO

BUILD STUG

SPG = FUTURE

>>2748090
Like that prototype with sloped armor

>>2748019
Drive this thread away to /k/!

>>2748090

Panzer 4 had reached the end of it's effective life cycle by 44 thou.

The weight of the Panzer 4 had increased from 18 tons to 25 tons. This put a serious strain on the suspensions and power pack, and extensive re-designs could only mitigate this so far. The turret ring was too small to mount anything larger than the KwK 40.

What was the best WW2 tank?

>>2748333
The one with big gun and thick armor

>>2748375
So the King Tiger.

>>2748389
nigga u just said some dumbass shit

Wasn't Germany still producing civilian cars by '43?

They should just mass produced a simple and reliable tank like the Soviets and Americans did, they could have still had Tigers and stuff but man, they dropped the ball.

>>2748333
t34 is the only non meme answer
also nice digits

>>2748054
Well, if it managed near the front line without being put out of action by an aircraft atack, it would probably have a mechanical breakdown while trying to get to the combat area.

>>2748849
Nah, t34 was good but theres a good argument for the sherman as well. Much better ergonomics.

>>2748825
Yeah, one major problem with Germany during WW2 was a lack of commitment and inability to seriously rally. Civilian industries like cosmetics were still open until 1943. Even companies that were focused in military matters dropped the ball. For example after the invasion of France and finding out that German Panzers were lacking in regards to firepower, a order was placed to begin producing Panzer 3's with longer 50mm guns. This got blown off by the companies in charge until the invasion of Russia and when the Germans ran into stuff like T34's in the hundreds.

File: Shermans v Panthers.jpg (127KB, 680x1060px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 680x1060px

>>2748333
The entire question is retarded. Tanks do not operate in a vacuum, and which tanks a given tank unit is operating (barring something completely obsolete and helpless on the battlefield it finds itself in) is enormously less than a bunch of other factors, things like troop training, armored doctrine, how much support they have from other arms of service such as infantry and air forces, general maintenance culture and supply situation of the force they're in, and how good their intelligence is.

Saying what "tank" is better, and then looking at a bunch of stats, is good for dickwaving on fora like /int/ and not much else. They bear almost no relation to combat records. Compare, say, the M4 Sherman of 1944 in France, (overhwelmingly the 75mm short nose cannon variant) with the Panther tank. The Panther, with a longer range main weapon and thicker frontal armor, "should" be able to fire first against its opponent in direct confrontations far more often than not. In actual combat though, it rarely did so. (Pic is from this book) https://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

>>2748879
>Much better ergonomics.

Like catching on fire randomly.

>>2748333
the Cromwell

Sherman was 2nd best.

>>2748910
nice meme.

>>2748333
In terms of getting shit done probably the T-34

File: knockoffs.jpg (421KB, 1388x916px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1388x916px

>>2748333
The only answer is the T-34. It completely upended German armor design. If you had offered the Panther as a design in May 1941 they would have mocked it for having a gun that extended over the hull. The crew might hit something!

>>2748879
There isn't honestly, T-34 was better. The best american tanks were the tank destroyers.

>>2748190
The kwk 40 was fine as a late war general purpose gun. All the pz4 really needed was sloped frontal armor to become a good general medium tank.

>>2748910
dank af

>>2749287
>>2749302
>T-34
>best
lol try running this by /k/ and see how hard they laugh at you

>>2749414
I think the best tank shouldn't merely be combat-effective, but also influential.

>>2749426
So because the T-34 was sold to dozens of third world shitholes that somehow makes it superior to the M4? Nice bait but the M4 was better in practically every field except raw cost in which it lagged behind only slightly

>>2749414
what is ease of production, what is ease of manufacture, what is ease of repair.

fuck you retard obviously not counting the things that actually matter the jagdpanther would be the best tank.

>>2749426
Actually to add onto this, let's break things down with varying conditions for best-hood:
>highest armor kill ratio: probably the StuG series
>most sanic: BT-7
>most armor: Jagdtiger
>most available: T-34
>most survivable: Sherman
>most likely to violently murder driver: Valiant

>>2749445
>ramble ramble ramble
indeed lol

>>2749443
what is the T34-85, what is sloped armor. What is low profile. What is first combat barbarosaa 1941 vs september 1942.

>>2749445
T-34 loses hard to the M4 on ease of repair. Check the engine access on both the T-34 and the Sherman, the T-34 was built to survive maybe a few battles tops because that was how long the Soviets calculated a tank would typically last while a Sherman can easily replace nearly any part at a field workshop

>>2749460
t-34 could be repaired in the field by retarded peasant conscripts. Sherman was pretty good I'll concede. Ultimatley in a war like world war 2 what matter is logistics and how many tanks you can spam out that the average retard without much training can do well in.

t-34-85 is easily the most aesthetic ww2 tank.

>>2749456
> what is the T34-85

what is the 76mm M1

> What is sloped armor

The soviets didn't invent sloped armor retard, and to suggest they did is a meme. The M2 and M3 medium also had sloped armor and were developed at roughly the same time. French tanks like the S35 also had sloped armor, the only reason the Germans didn't have any is because they didn't deem it necessary.


> What is low profile


This is a benefit, but it also led to the tank being very cramped which reduced practical rate of fire and severely reduced crew survivability considering how difficult it was to escape from the tank


> What is first combat barbarosaa 1941 vs september 1942
Not really relevant, being out sooner doesn't magically make a tank any more effective

File: 1461002210264.jpg (206KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 640x480px

>>2748019

>>2749471
I'll agree to the fact that both tanks were much easier to repair than most others of the era. And I definitely agree that a war of that scale is won by industry, logistics, and adequately trained men

File: TKS tankette.jpg (10KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 292x173px

>>2749483
But what about the cutest tank of the war?

File: QT.jpg (277KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1280x960px

>>2749498

File: Carro Veloce tanklet.jpg (2MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2736px

>>2749498
c a r r o v e l o c e

File: 4 tankmen and dog plus some extras.jpg (100KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x600px

>>2748333
I'm split between T-34 and Sherman and mosty pick T-34 for sentimental reasons.

>>2749486
Dozle did NOTHING wrong.

>>2748333
Air superiority

>>2748825
Guns and butter. It was a way of keeping the civilian population content with war and its purported benefits.

File: 1491534267285.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>>2751501
Hitler we need to produce more, can we get the women working in factories.

NO MY IDEOLOGY

>>2748019
That'll be nothing once the death bells are finished.

File: 1492719230455.jpg (56KB, 803x737px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 803x737px

>>2748019
Ok but make sure it's too heavy, unreliable, and costly to ever be on equal grounds with the T-34 or M4.


And while we're at it make sure it's side armor is thin enough to be penetrated by Soviet AT rifles and even old Polish AT rifles from before the war even started

>>2748019
>gets stuck in endless mud
>winter is coming

>>2748054

Shifting gears

>>2750657
That image isnt from the war its from a tv show

>>2749054
Cromwell was still pretty bad anon
but Sherman is severely underrated, later versions like M4A3E2 and especially M4A3E8 are superior to Panthers and T-34-85s
let alone Super Shermans, which managed to wipe floor even with T-62s

>>2748849
The T-34 was indisputably the best medium tank, but arguments could be made for some of the heavy tanks.

>>2752396
>M4A3E8 are superior to Panthers

see a neurologist asap you just had a stroke

>>2749054
>riveted
dropped
Not even the Soviets wanted it.

>>2748907
Underrated post.

>>2752287
That's why he mentioned the sentimental reasons.

>>2752435
tank breaks down all the time and can't be repaired, loading the gun is almost impossible due to shitty ergonomics, side armor could have been penetrated by .50 cal before they added thin spaced armor

I recommend looking up Inside Chieftain's Hatch
it will bursts your "pather is teh best" bubble
it did for me

>Once this new Panther is mass produced

And there's the problem. It was never produced in sufficient numbers to make big enough impact.

>>2748907
This. Saying that the T-34/M4/whatever is the best tank is like claiming that the Jumbo Jet is the best plane, it's a judgement based on random specifics while ignoring a ton of other aspects.

Guys watch it. Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xKYicir_i8

>>2752640
didn't they build almost as many panthers as pz4's ?

File: IMG_0012.jpg (252KB, 800x469px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 800x469px

Guys seriously, by far the best armored vehicle was the stug 3.
Easy to build, easy to maintain, low silhouette, good gun, good armor, massive kill death ratio vs so called best tank of ww2 t34.

>>2753002
Please. It had 0 offensive capability whatsoever. It was an ATG that could be shuttled around quickly. That's nice and all, but you can't get large offensives and encirclements on its back that you could with a real tank.

Saying the STuG was the best AFV of WW2 is an analysis that only makes sense if you think real war works like Call of Duty and it's all about killing things of a similar class in a favorable ratio. A great tank's record isn't measured in how many armored vehicles it takes down, it's how many command posts and supply dumps and airfields it overruns.

>>2752435
The Panther isn't all it's cracked up to be, in the battle of Arracourt they lost hard to a force with mostly 75mm M3 armed shermans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

File: m4a3e8-medium-tank-sherman-09.png (1MB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x683px

>>2748333

Every answer that isn't M4 Sherman is wrong.

>>2753002
the Stug is great in comparison to most other german AFVs, but an M4 or T-34 are both much more cost effective considering they can do just about everything a Stug can and more

>>2748910
>Reminder that according to first hand accounts of a Russian tanker that served in the Sherman and the t34 the Sherman was less likely to explode from ammunition cook off.

>>2748054
If it was stationary, surely it was a hard nut to crack

While moving?

>what kind of fire control system do you want pham

WEHRABOOS BTFO!!!

>>2748054
Did Stalin speak English?

>>2753659
Well, he spent a couple of weeks in London in 1907, and I'm blanking on the name, but one of the other communists at the time mentioned he could communicate, with difficulty, with the natives. At a guess (and I'm working off of a forum post I half remember) he probably spoke a smidgen of English, but not with anything approaching fluency.

>>2753689
Stalin probably just said some random combination of words to FDR and he went along to laugh so it would look good for the press

>>2752287

His filename says otherwise

>>2753770
Or someone in his entourage (there had to be at least one english speaker there) told him a joke to repeat, parrot like, for the cameras.

>>2753161
Seems like that loss was due to a tactical error. Obviously the panther wasnt invincible.

>>2749445
>what is ease of repair

There's no way you'd be saying this if you'd done any research. The T-34 was a fucking nightmare to maintain and repair.

>>2754717
Not compared to tanks like the Tiger and Panther.

File: R6p564I.jpg (150KB, 319x691px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 319x691px

>>2753161
>m-m-muh kruppstahl

those fucking losses lmao, shitmany btfo

>>2754997
Thats such bullshit, we are talking about late 44 which means that 1. Most of those tanks were prob destroyed by airpower.
2. The ones that did not get destroyed by air prob were abandoned by lack of fuel.
3. Germany had lost so much manpower that 80% of its best troops were either dead or in russia.
So the americans with their bs we won the war we beat the powerful germany is total bullshit, try invading germany in 40 41 42 43 u would get rekt at the beaches.

>>2756581
Fact that the most succesful german division in france the hitlerjugend were 16 - 18 year olds (which the americans had serious problems with) shows the state of the german army at the western front. Try fighting the SS Panzer corps which took Kharkov in early 43 and then we will talk about how succesful american tanks were.

>>2748868
>>2752264
>>2753448

I meant if anything could stop uncle joe and his american lackey.

>>2756581
>Thats such bullshit, we are talking about late 44 which means that 1. Most of those tanks were prob destroyed by airpower.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/
>2. The ones that did not get destroyed by air prob were abandoned by lack of fuel.
I'm sure that your baseless speculation has supporting evidence.
> Germany had lost so much manpower that 80% of its best troops were either dead or in russia.
[citation needed] once again.
>Fact that the most succesful german division in france the hitlerjugend were 16 - 18 year olds
No it wasn't. Are you retarded? They weren't a patch on formations like Panzer Lehr. And let's not forget all the static formations, and axis satellite troops (Romanians and Hungarians, ooh how dangerous) that the Soviets were often bulling through.

>>2756797
Fact that you ask me to provide links for things which are common knowledge for anybody who knows anything about ww2 shows that you know jack shit. You are even unwilling to acknowledge that germany suffered massive manpower shortages because of heavy losses and attrition, i think the discussion is over.

File: Comparison_of_Landkreuzer_P_1000_Ratte,_Maus_and_Tiger_tanks.png (3KB, 280x70px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 280x70px

>>2748019
>We need to go bigger
German autism sure is something

File: c20ebc20e87b21b885ed62296c7c1df3.jpg (219KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1200x720px

In every way but physically I'm a well engineered tank
*transmission falls out*

>>2756956
German engineers built and designed this with lack of time and under massive pressure with shortages of everything, in bombed out factories using many foreign workers with no will to make a good product, ahum panther model g (very reliable model early versions were no good i agree)

>>2753002
Unless they get attacked from the side lmao

>>2756911
>lol like I don't need proof for my claims, it's like common knowledge, just accept what I tell you at face value and don't question it because I am obviously not a wehraboo and instead a learned scholar on the subject
>btw your counter-sources don't count and this discussion is over because I have obviously lost and this gives the illusion of not conceding with my tail between my legs
/his/ - History & Humanities

>>2748333
In terms of what?
Speed?
Amour?
Best tank destroyer?
Going through rough terrain?

>>2757006
>Hitler: Here is the tank *points to T-34*. I simply want you to make it better.
>Porsche: That is what we are trying to do, mein Fuhrer, but honestly, it is impossible.
>Hitler: MOROZOV WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS THIS IN A BOMBED OUT FACTORY! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
>Porsche: Es tut mir lied, mein Fuhrer. Ich bin nicht Morozov.

>>2748907
>The Panther, with a longer range main weapon and thicker frontal armor, "should" be able to fire first against its opponent in direct confrontations far more often than not. In actual combat though, it rarely did so.

Your own source contradicts you, dumbass.

>>2757779

85%+ of all third reich combat deaths including the virtual entirety of the SS occurring on the eastern front *is* a fact accepted by all historians, though. take ten seconds to start doing some basic research on WW2 and you will that see for yourself

for someone so obsessed with pedantic nitpicking and evidence, you haven't even posted anything but one dot com link. "counter-sources", lol

>>2757890
I'm not even the guy you're replying to. Nice sources to your original claims btw. Very interesting reads and the absolute pinnacle of believability.

>>2757826
>>2748333
Thats a silly question as is been pointed out. For example, German tanks, including the Panther, were less break down prone than the T-34, and yet the T34 was easier to produce and the Russians could actually afford to use it.

File: Goalposts.jpg (24KB, 256x202px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 256x202px

>>2757890
And wrong, by the way. You might want to look into Rutiger Overmans's work. Even the OKW statistics are about 80/20, but of course they leave out all of 1945, when the ratio of deployment was very much not 4:1 in favor of the eastern Front. And of course this further overlooks the fact that the Western Allies took enormously more battles prisoners than the Soviets did, netting more in France and west Germany before hostilities ended than the Soviets took in the entire war; which won't show up on killed lists, and even that ignores things like bypassed pockets, which are every bit out of the war even when they're not closed.

You dumb nigger.

>>2757890
That's beside the point. We're talking about the one instance in the Battle of Arracourt, not the whole war. How do you refute the the fact where supposed superior German Steel in greater numbers got utterly BTFO.

Ok, here's a list of misconceptions that you dipshits really need to correct in your mind.
>The T-34 was not "more reliable" than any German tank, the Panther was probably the worst in that department and it was still had a lower rate of break-down than the T34.
>The Sherman was only marginally more reliable than most German tanks aswell.
Obviously these points are better argued from the point that the German war machine simply couldn't keep pace however...
>The Germans literally had hundreds of unused tanks sitting in factories and train depots because they couldn't train crews fast enough to man them, so no, the idea that Germany couldn't field enough wasn't because they spent too much on developing and manufacturing complicated tanks, it had more to do with crews. Not to mention the fuel consumption of a larger tank fleet would have been prohibitive. In some theaters there were difficulties getting parts however.
>German tanks weren't as difficult to service as advertised...
>The Tiger II had better track-to-ground weight ratios than the Sherman.
>The German tank kill ratio is mostly a myth.

>>2748389
bengal tiger tank*

>>2748879

The T-34 was the miracle man.

>sloped armour
>fast as fuck boi
>vladimir the farmer could drive it
>slap some duct tape and it's fixed
>cheaper than a russian shack
>good firepower for a small tonk

What didn't it have? Tactically good, strategically superb, logistically godsend.

Coming from a massive wehraboo.

>>2752396
it was fast as fuck boy

>>2757914
Not that guy, but using a cherrypicked battle as a proof for something is extremely retarded

>>2758007
>What didn't it have?

I've heard its crew survival rates in the event of a breach weren't great.

>>2758096
>how many fighting age men did russian have at its disposal?

>>2757836
>>Porsche: Es tut mir lied, mein Fuhrer. Ich bin nicht Morozov.
>lied
so close

>>2758181
Entschuldigung, bitte. Deutsch ist nicht mein erse sprache.

>>2758007
>no turret basket means the leader is in constant danger of having his fucking legs cut off
>turret is so small that only one person can realistically function in it at a time, which means it takes absurdly long to find and engage targets
>the mechanical reliability was so bad that the engine needed a complete rebuild after 100 hours of running
>single base propellant means the tank will fucking explode if penetrated
>crew quarters are so cramped that on average three crewmen die every time one is penetrated, compared to one crewman on average for a Sherman
>more expensive to produce than an M4

>>2758191
You did well enough

>>2748849
At killing its crew, sure.

It was slaughtered by on-paper inferior tanks throughout 42 where you don't have the "muh Barbarossa" excuse

>>2756581
>airpower
>actually hitting tanks
>actually hitting anything
>WW2

>>2758226
Well, I mean, it had to hit something. Not what they were aiming at, but SOMETHING.

>>2748054
Stairs

>>2749287
>Implying you have a gf

>>2758220
>It was slaughtered by on-paper inferior tanks throughout 42 where you don't have the "muh Barbarossa" excuse
Actually, it was generally slaughtered by German anti-tank guns, not so much by German tanks themselves.

>>2758480
Either way, German tanks were better at not getting killed.

Either that or the Soviets had worse AT gunnery.

>>2758519
The wehrmacht was way, way better at actual battlefield coordination than the Soviets were in '42, it's not even so much a question of the tanks and guns themselves, but rather they were much better at actually getting the ATGs to face enemy tanks and their tanks facing targets that weren't equipped to deal with armor than the reverse. The clearest example of this is if you really want to bog yourself down in artillery casualty estimations; the Germans would consistently get their guns to kill more people than the Soviets were despite that they almost always had both fewer and mechanically worse artillery pieces than the soviets did.

>>2756931

I wish they built at least one Ratte.

>>2759338

>Not the H45 super dreadnought with 31.5-inch guns

>>2752396
>Cromwell was still pretty bad anon
How?

>great speed
>good armour
>great gun
>more survivable if hit than a T-34

>>2758091
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it cherrypicked.

>>2759474
not him but the panther was objectively a superior tank to any american one cept maybe the pershing.

>>2759643

Except in terms of actually winning tank vs. tank engagements, which is the only metric that really matters. Shermans shit all over panthers anytime they actually met.

>>2759652
So fucking what miyamoto mushshi could 1v1 me with a wooden stick even if I had a proper sword.

American's had air superiority and better trained crews. the panther tank was better. Sherman gun was fucking shit had like 300m kill range on front armor compared to like 2km with panther. Infact tanks like the panther excelled on the defensive in the west because they could camp behind bushes and weren't driving around fast as fuck so they didn't break down all the time. Also if you want to be a retarded brainlet and count 5 shermans vs one Panther as a win for the sherman design go ahead.

>>2759652
Sherman /=/ Sherman firefly btw.

>>2759664

>the panther tank was better.

Except at actually winning tank vs. tank engagements, which is the ONLY metric that actually matters for a tank.

>Sherman gun was fucking shit had like 300m kill range on front armor compared to like 2km with panther.

Completely irrelevant because tank fights on the western front took place at close range.

>weren't driving around fast as fuck so they didn't break down all the time.

And oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Shermans didn't break down, whereas Panthers broke down all the time. A good, solid, reliable tank that works when you need it to is better than an over-engineered behemoth that doesn't even function in battle.

>>2759686
The sherman was a worse tank, the panther's mechanical issues had been fixed by 1944 it was much less over engineered than the Tiger. What specifically was the sherman better at, you can win battles with an inferior tool or tank, if the US had the same number of Panthers as they did sherman's it would have been much easier for them.

>>2759652
>Except in terms of actually winning tank vs. tank engagements, which is the only metric that really matters. Shermans shit all over panthers anytime they actually met.
As someone who thinks the Sherman is almost criminally undervalues, are you fucking retarded? Tank vs tank engagmenets are sure as shit not the only metric that matters, and is probably one of the least important uses for a tank you goddamn retard. I really hope you're trolling.

>>2759749
It was really, really reliable.

It was also really cheap to produce.

It was designed so that it could be produced on converted automobile production lines, and the US had the world's most automobile production lines.

By the time you got to the Jumbo, it actually had pretty potent guns and thick armor.

Really good crew layout.

>>2759764

You're right. Overall war performance is just as important as pure tank vs. tank engagements, which were relatively rare on the western front anyway. But even by that metric, the Sherman is far superior, being a more reliable, more practical tank that is light enough to cross bridges but heavy enough to take on enemy armor if it has to.

>>2759779
no shit the T-34 was a better design than the tiger including money etc etc. but 10 Panther's vs 10 shermans the panthers are going to be better.

>>2759796

>Implying you could get that many panthers in one place without half of them breaking down on the way there

>>2759788
The sherman wasn't good at taking on tanks on the western front. Tiger's panther's, and various Jagd(whatevers) were superior to the sherman. And the PzIV was it's equal. The greatest strength of the sherman was its versatility and ease of manufacture but it is a real jack of all trade master of none situation.

>>2759796
Depends.

Do the 10 Panthers start in the battlefield or at the factory?

Because both teams start at the factory, team Sherman is winning on numbers alone, because the Sherman is so much more likely to actually be in service at the front line at any one time.

>>2759805
implying that the 1945 panther's issues were the same as the panthers rushed into battle for kursk in 1943. The panther was only slightly more expensive than the PvIV and was the model for the MBT.

File: Patton quote.jpg (359KB, 1234x961px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1234x961px

>>2759806

>>2759686
was literally arguing that Sherman's would beat panthers in 1 on 1 tank engagements which is just stupid.

>>2759465
>Design somewhat dated when introduced
>Not very mechanically reliable
>Short vehicle range; required frequent refueling
>Riveted, flat-faced armour of relatively low effective thickness
>Shed its tracks if it turned too fast
>Less upgradeable than the other two
>High ground pressure
>Gun equivalent to the Sherman with only the 6 pdr and 94mm howitzer as alternative

>>2759814
that's a source from 1945, firstly american tankers were dumb as fuck and everytime they saw a pzIV they thought it was a tiger or panther secondly there weren't many tigers of panther even on the western front and when used correctly as in an ambush tiger's and .panthers were very effective. secondly a huge amount of german tanks were lost due to attack from air NOT from other tanks.

A skilled commander who used the Tiger and Panther correctly and accounted for their poorer mobility could have great success. See villers bocage.

>>2759819
yeah firefly was better.

>>2759836
>I will ignore every source actually posted in this thread and continue to repeat memes.

Go on, let's see some reports of American tankerss mistaking 4's for Tigers (especially after destrying them), or of mass destruction of German armor from the air, confirmed by follow up ground crews, not just claimed by the flyboys.

> there weren't many tigers of panther even on the western front
Tigers, sure. But when you stop and consider that you had about 3 panthers made for every 4 Panzer 4s, and that as the war draggeed on you'd have more of the newer ones and fewer of the older ones, that assumption is pretty stupid.

> and when used correctly as in an ambush tiger's and .panthers were very effective.
It's a very, very damning indictment of your tank when it's "correct use" is the same thing as a towed anti tank gun that costs about 1/20th of the tank.

>>2759338
It would have been hilarious to see it wiped out with a single 250 lb. bomb.

>>2759876
At the time of the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, there were initially only two Panther-equipped Panzer regiments in the Western Front, with a total of 156 Panthers between them. From June through August 1944, an additional seven Panther regiments were sent into France, reaching a maximum strength of 432 in a status report dated 30 July 1944

. At the Ruhr pocket, two Jagdtiger commanders failed to attack an American armored column about 1.5 km (1 mile) away in daylight for fear of attracting an air attack, even though the Jagdtigers were well camouflaged.[ Both vehicles broke down while hurriedly withdrawing through fear of an air attack that did not come

in Operation Goodwood (18 to 21 July), the 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed 257 tanks destroyed.A total of 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using rocket projectiles.

>>2759338
Yeah, I love seeing retarded superweapons being thrown out as a desperate last ditch effort and getting totally BTFO. See also, the Battleship Yamato

>>2759959
wasn't yamato just a really good battleship though?

File: 93c55a3c234b423025d435447608bec0[1].jpg (28KB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x209px

>>2748019
Once big maus is mass produced...

>>2748019
Whoa, not so faust

>>2748019
*breaks down*

>>2759943
>At the time of the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, there were initially only two Panther-equipped Panzer regiments in the Western Front, with a total of 156 Panthers between them. From June through August 1944, an additional seven Panther regiments were sent into France, reaching a maximum strength of 432 in a status report dated 30 July 1944
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Lehr_Division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_SS_Panzer_Division_Das_Reich
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=748

That's at least 3 divisions with Panther regiments, and a lot more than 156 between them.

>in Operation Goodwood (18 to 21 July), the 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed 257 tanks destroyed.A total of 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using rocket projectiles.
Yes, air pilots always CLAIM a lot of kills. And then, when they investigate later, those claims are almost always bullshit. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

Stop repeating dumb memes.

>>2761368
MAXIMUM STRENGTH.

1st Dec 1943: 85 Pz V's in service on the Western front; 912 total in front line service, that leaves 827 that theoretically could be on the Eastern front.

Jan '44: 1084 in service; 157 on the Western front; leaving 927 possible for the Eastern front.

Feb '44: 1205 in service; 180 on the Western Front; possible 1025 for the East front.

March '44: 1339 in service; 290 on the Western front, leaving possible 1049 for the East front.

April '44: 1617 front line Panther inventory; 323 on the Western front; possible 1294 for the East front.

May '44: 1649 in service; 513 on the West front; leaves 1136 panthers for the East front possible.

June '44: 1898 in service; 544 on June 1st, 663 on June 10th 1944 for the Western front; 54 on the Italian front (record availible); 226 operational on the East front (record for Eastern Front begins on June 15th.

Not all of those would be operational, some being repaired etc.

and fuck you dumb memes my ass if you had the slightest knowledge of the invasion of Normandy you would know that german's had 0 air superiority and were terrified (for good reason) of getting bombed to shit or strafed by Mustang's or P-47 thunderbolts

>>2761389
Oh look, more unsupported assertions. Also ones that have disagreed with your previous claims>>2759943, and of course not supporting your initial point>>2759836 Considering you haven't made a single mention of the number of 4's operational, none of these numbers mean anything anyway, even if they are accurate.

>and fuck you dumb memes my ass if you had the slightest knowledge of the invasion of Normandy you would know that german's had 0 air superiority and were terrified (for good reason) of getting bombed to shit or strafed by Mustang's or P-47 thunderbolts
And anyone who has the slightest knowledge of how CAS worked in WW2 knows that planes were overwhelmingly sent against soft targets, where they were actually far more effctive. It was tough as balls to bomb a tank, compared to much easier targets like artillery, mortars, repair yards, fuel depots, command posts, etc. Come on, SHOW your shit.

>>2761414
Yeah CAS on soft targets like advancing infantry accompanied by tanks. Stuka's (I know not on the western front) routinely bombed infantry and tanks in a CAS role at stalingrad. Hell the IL-2 was designed specifically for CAS and taking out german tanks

Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20-30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara.
—Glantz and Orenstein 1999, p. 260.

>>2756611
Burgers didn't want to shoot kids

>>2761479
They obviously hadn't read their Stirner.

File: 1478948081674.png (90KB, 322x858px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 322x858px

>>2759474
>the japs actually had a kd of +infinity lmao merisharts BTFO xDD
this is how retarded you sound

>>2759987

Is that tank armored with concrete?

>>2759686
>Except at actually winning tank vs. tank engagements, which is the ONLY metric that actually matters for a tank
You realize that a tanks primary role is infantry support and not tank on tank engagements, correct? Tank battles are uncommon as fuck.