Best tank of the Second World War? Defenetly the Tiger II. With

>>30796986

When it didn't break down, sure. Or ran out of fuel. Or replacing the tracks. Or doing any maintenance in the field without any cranes. Jolly good time.

File: PanzerV_Ausf.G_1_sk.jpg (215KB, 800x465px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 800x465px

>Tiger 2
>Literally cant go 30kms without breaking down

>>30796991
That's the problem with German tanks.
They're designed not to break down but when it does it's really hard.

Russian tanks are designed to be fixed easily.

File: panther-ausfg1.jpg (27KB, 590x301px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 590x301px

>>30796996

>>30797000

It's a problem with just heavy tanks in general during that era. Even the KV, Churchill (More on the British thinkers than the tank themselves) Pershing (Until it got categorized) and IS had some troubles but not to the extent as the Germans. Maus, well that got canned. Tiger II(P) and (H), the super TDs.

>>30796986
>Tiger II
>Best tank of WW2

TOP-NOTCH BAIT, LADS! T'was a bloody centurion!

>>30796986
In battle, yes, best tank of WW2.
Whilst in transit? No.

>>30796986
at 68 or so tons it cant go over many bridges in europe and there is a major river every 100 so miles

>>30797037

I wouldn't say the Mark one, it was still good but the fucking mark three was shitting on the damn commies in Korea.

Also it sadly didn't see combat in WWII, what a shame. Oh well, upgrades and some atomic test later, it's a good design, well done chaps, have another tea on me!

>>30796986
>2592x1944

The ghosts of war are talking to us...

>>30796986
>Best tank of the Second World War?
Ehhh.
>Only 492 units were produced
Nope.

>>30797041
i would say the best battle tank of ww2 in combat would be panther with the consideration of getting into and out of combat.

File: T-34color08.jpg (41KB, 600x253px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x253px

Best tanks of WW2 I would say are:

T-34: Cheap and easy to produce, fast, expendable. Great all round sloped armor for early war. Decent weapon for early war, /85 was also passable at close range

Panther: Fast, great armor and weapon. Too complex for field repairs though.

Cromwell: Fast, decent weapon, decent armor

Chaffee: Fast, decent weapon. Best light tank of the war.

Honorable Mentions: StugIII (not a tank) Panzer III and IV Chassis for being great medium tanks. Sherman for being a decent medium tank and easy and cheap to produce. Fiat M14 Carro Armato - Pretty good light tank, so many MGs it was excellent for mowing down infantry. IS-2 You dont fuck with an IS-2 - drawback: slow firing. Pz. VI Tiger I: great armor and weapon, too complex though, issues with fuel and breakdowns.

>>30797235
>No Hellcat
>No Sherman

>>30797269
>Hellcat
>Tank

Also, he did mention the Sherman.

>>30797271
Fuck, I'm still hungover. Give me a few hours before I can pull off a proper shitpost.

>>30797281

We look forward to it cunt

do you fucking know how much this steel behemoth cost to make? not to mention that it's weight limited it heavily. also, is-3 weighed less, had a bigger gun and thicker armor.

>>30796996
>>30797012
Panther wasn't the most reliable tank but god damn it was the sexiest.

>>30796986
back to world of tonks with ya

I especially love how the Tiger 2 was just as fast as the crusader tank. It really took the British a while to figure out the whole armor thing, but in the end it worked out.

>>30797321
The IS-3 was even less reliable and had side armor as thick as a light tank's. They turned the things into bunkers because they were completely unusable in practice.

>>30797549
the beak splitting apart from the main gun firing also caused issues

>>30797549
80 mm sloped at 60 degrees on the upper side and 80 mm non sloped at the lover side. also i'm sure the reliability can be attributed atleast partially to the fact that russian build quality is shit.

>>30797000
American tanks were designed to be easily repaired. Russian tanks were designed to be discarded when they broke down.

German tank unreliability is overstated
At first they had issues, once these were worked out they were very reliable. ALL TANKS have unreliability issues at first.

Issue was replacement parts, they didn't have many because of all the bombing.

Tiger II was very fast cross country too.

They would have been highly efficient despite their cost if they had access to replacement parts/fuel.

>>30798076
the issue was also to do with the complexity and downright dumb designs that required a tank to be in a dedicated factory in order to repair it successfully.

Panther you had to take out pretty much everything inside in order to get to the transmission.

Then factor that difficulty of access with the difficulty of getting the right specific parts, and you suddenly have tanks you cant repair, and can't get parts for even if you could.

The Tiger II improved to a fairly acceptable standard once the connections and hoselines were changed to a better design. Still a pain to do maintenance on, but only the Americans really nailed that aspect of tank design the war.

>>30797235
>T-34: Cheap and easy to produce, fast, expendable. Great all round sloped armor for early war. Decent weapon for early war, /85 was also passable at close range
You misspelled IS-2.
>only 1.5 times more expensive than T-34/76 1942, faster, better reliability than T-34/76, 3 men turret, real armor viable till the end of war, FUCK YOUR SHIT tier cannon

>>30798434
And your rate of fire was deplorable because of the two piece ammunition. Good for breakthroughs and firing on stationary targets (Which was the design's purpose) but I wouldn't want to deal with that hassle if fighting other tanks.

>>30798434
much slower, much slower rate of fire

>>30798492
Who cares about rate of fire when your rounds literally bounce of enemy armor? 122mm on the other hand crush German AFVs like a bugs.

File: 00002.png (27KB, 623x1263px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 623x1263px

>>30796986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp22_BHJDJk

>>30798511
Because the 88 and long 75 did not bounce off armor that frequently. And if they did then there was another shell on the way a few second later.

>>30798666
Were are talking about T-34 and its 76mm here.

>>30798512
To be fair, this was their only chance. They didn't have the resources to mass produce like the Soviets, so they had to gamble on quality over quantity. Quality however only beats quantity to a certain degree.

>>30798013
>Russian tanks were designed to be discarded when they broke down.

History disagrees with you.

>>30798013
Except the soviets never threw stuff away, they just mothballed it all.

The graveyards were mostly from the collapse of the USSR.