Sup /k/ I tried asking pol but there were only a few weapons

Tiger

>>31453102
Is that true? In the world of tank forums, everyone is saying that the tiger wasn't that good, saying how it was disabled with one shot from a churchill III

>>31453111
>WoT
>accurate source of info
..lad
also its not the Tiger its the panther
Tiger was a big box..with big gun
slowish and broke down cuz krauts cant make enough spare parts
panther is not as bad..

M18 Hellcat

>open top
>60 mph

>>31453126
cant reverse
open top means crew is exposed

>>31453120
going 30km/hr on 60 tons is pretty relatively fast desu sempai

>>31453126
>90 km/hr in one direction in a straight line
>terrible turret/tread traverse rate
>meant to peak over hills and gtfo by releasing breaks since no reverse

how is that the best for the crew? it had 14mm of armor

File: 1391941312895.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>31453088
Tiger

>>31453151
but no sloped armor

>>31453129
>>31453138
Seriously? Holy shit I never knew
C-...can it reverse in games?

>>31453196
It can reverse because of balance reasons. In fact many tanks in the game are modified to make it playable

>>31453088
the most survivable tank, for its period, was the KV-2, followed very closely by the Tiger 1 and 2
those things were literally unstoppable lumbering nightmares until the right AT gun tech finally came online (the German 88 to kill KVs and the British long 75 to kill Tigers)
and even then

>>31453223
But the practical offensive power is a bit shit

>>31453223
Tiger 2 has the best armour of any WW2 tank. It wasn't that unreliable either. To OP: Tiger 2 is best tank off WW2 per your definition.

>>31453111
That was the Tiger in Bovington, and it was an incredibly lucky, one in a million shot that managed to jam the turret.

The Tiger has been overhyped in the past, and Shermans had a decent enough chance of destroying it at short range, but at standard engagement ranges it's gun and armour made it pretty terrifying.

If I had to pick the best all round tank of the war I'd probably say the Comet. It had speed, firepower, decent armour and great maneuverability.

>>31453240
The Tiger breaks down before it even reaches the front.

>>31453111
>world of tanks
Oh man you really should grow up first and mods should do their job.

>>31453236
for the KV-2, yes
thing could do MAYBE two rounds per minute, had a turret traverse of MAYBE 5 degrees per second and carried 18 or 19 rounds total
it was meant to break bunkers, not fight tanks
however its fuckhueg gun was perfectly capable of one-shotting any other tank ever fielded in WWII, so there is that.

>>31453243
KV-2 has better armor, and more of it. dealwithit.laughingcommissars.jpg.exe

>>31453261
Lol, what? Soviet armour quality wasn't much better than even late war German. Tiger 2 also has twice the thickness and more sloping. KV2 was a useless meme tank.

File: 1463107718435.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>31453252
Don't be a fag. The people there are surprisingly knowledgeable and provides documentation. With that logic anyone can look at you and say
>4chan
>plz grow up

>>31453254
How's the accuracy on that thing? Short barrel is pretty much a mortar

>>31453261
I hope you're not an american hick.

Tiger 2 - 150mm sloped at 55 degrees from vertical
150/cos(55) ~~ 255mm of armor

KV2 - 75mm of armor, no sloping except for small segment of upper glacis

>>31453273
Soviet steel armor quality was top-notch, they had all the special materials they needed unlike the Germans who needed to make do with pig iron and prayers to Odin that the spalling won't be too bad
be that as it may, the Tiger 1 had 100 mm of frontal armor on the turret, whereas KV-2 had 110 mm
Tiger also had 60 mm of upper glacis armor at 60 degrees, whereas KV-2 had 100 mm sloped at something insane like 35, for a much greater LOS thickness
both had the retarded flat barbette under the turret, with equal thickness (100 mm)
lower glacis was much the same for both, again slight advantage to the KV for angle (I can't remember, something like 15 degrees difference)

>>31453289
I did say Tiger 1 and KV-2
now fuck off with your Wikipedia "knowledge"

>>31453311
The fuck? Kv-2s shared the same chasis as the Kv1 and Kv1s, where the fuck are you getting 110mm from? Some obscure prototype?

>>31453314
>I did say Tiger 1 and KV-2

Like, no you didn't you cuckface.

>>31453316
110 mm of armor on the turret front
READ, bitch. READ.

>>31453321
>>31453223

>>31453327
>what is a gun mantlet
are you sure you're from /k/. Tiger 1 had 100mm on top of the 50mm or so gun mantlet that offers spaced armor protection

>>31453311
Lol, soviets used CAST armour, not RHA like the Germans. Where the fuck are you getting these stats from? I was talking about TIGER 2 anyway.

File: m26-pershing.jpg (44KB, 460x302px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x302px

imo

At least best tank used by Americans

File: Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png (58KB, 650x255px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x255px

>>31453347
there is not 100 mm of armor behind the gun mantlet, don't be daft
the gun mantlet is there to protect the gun mount, which is, like, really not armor

>>31453356
Pershings didn't see much action

>>31453353
soviets used cast turrets, but rolled, welded and case-hardened armor plate for hulls

>>31453359
but like, it protects the crew. German tanks put their transmission in the front so achieve the same effect, so that's armor. Similar to how russians piled their dead soldiers on their tanks or americans using sandbags

>>31453368
The quality difference is still negligible if you consider how much thicker the Tiger 2 armour is. KV2 only has 75mm of armour, and none of it is very sloped. A KWK40 could penetrate it's turret from 2000 meters.

>>31453362
they were there though. can be said to be better than some soviet tanks since it performed pretty well in the korean war as well.

>>31453392
Pershings had Panther-tier reliability.

>>31453377
KV-2 has 110 mm of armor max on the turret, 100 mm everywhere on the front of the hull, at various angles
you keep giving me figures for KV-1 for some reason, and you keep comparing it to Tiger 2 for some reason

>>31453395
Panthers were actually very reliable from the ausf. D versions because they fixed all the problems with battlefield experience.

>>31453392
IS-3 was also "in" ww2, but is considered a cold war era/proxy war era tank. Pershings and Pattons fall in the same category

>>31453397
>100 mm everywhere on the front of the hull
That's the obscure variant kv220-2, not the standard kv1

>>31453392
oh yes Pershing totally dominated T-34/85
however it really was not used in WWII
it would have been interesting to see a large scale engagement with Pershings and Panthers...

>>31453404
I am talking about KV-2 you ultrafaggot, not KV-1
stop bringing the KV-1 into it

>>31453414
and kv1 and kv2 shared the same hull you cockgobbler

>>31453406
L70 7.5cm kwk can't penetrate a pershing's frontal armor can it? What about the 90mm on the pershing to the panther's 140mm effective sloped armor?

>>31453404
oh btw... KV-1 hulls produced from winter of 1941 onwards had 90-100 mm armor thickness as well, through application of supplementary armor plating on the existing hull
you can imagine what that did to the suspension and final drive...

>>31453429
it would have been "who shoots first and straightest wins", yes

>>31453430
the same thing that happened to the super pershing's frontal suspension?

>>31453419
nope

>>31453437
fag

>>31453435
when they added the frontal hull armor from a Panther to it as "spaced armor", yes
the KV-1 transmission had to be redesigned... the things were croaking after like 30-40 km in mud

>>31453437
Not that guy, but they did have the same hull. The main difference was the weapon, and then the turret with increased armour was designed around that. But the KV-2 had some many problems beyond its reliability issues, it also could only traverse its turret on flat terrain because it was essentially too heavy.

>>31453440
it's funny because the KV 220-2 you speak of was actually a KV-1 turret stuck on a KV-2 chassis, as an expedient weapon during the siege of Leningrad

>>31453449
they did not have the same hull. KV-1 hulls were actually uparmored to KV-2 standard as the war went on...

>>31453397
I've been talking about the Tiger 2 this entire time. Learn how to read, you fucking slavaboo mongol.

>>31453453
Can you provide a citation for that? I've never heard of the hull being any different

>>31453088
M2A1, M2A2, M2A3 since they never actually saw combat.
Very safe for the crew.

>>31453473
even the wiki page knows about uparmoring the KV-1... start from there maybe, they have a nice list of versions

>>31453522
Wiki says kv1 were up armored, it says nothing about kv1s using kv2 hulls which had 100mm

>>31453088
Honestly depends on time frame. Early war the T34/KV1 were your best bet because Russians drunkenly stumbled upon the genius that was sloped armor and utilizing tanks as more than just anti-infantry. For a good year, those were unstoppable. However that's what kicked the Germans off to create anti-tank weaponry such as PaK 40s as well as the likes of Tiger tanks. But then get into the mid to late game where Germany was starved for good supplies and even their mighty Tiger 2s were made from recycled time traveling Ford Aluminum that would break down if a squirrel dropped a nut on it.

>>31453563
The french actually discovered sloped armor first. Look at their 1930s tank designs. Amx 38, 40, ect

>>31453356
You forgot the upgraded armor version that managed to take out a KT solo

>>31453803
No it didn't lol. You mean the superpershing?

>>31453827
Yes, it was modified to fight the KT but only managed to encode during the war. It won the engagement

>>31453837
This is what happened. The KT was cresting a small "hill" and the lower glacis was exposed. The SP shot it and killed essential crew members to put it out of commission. But any tank could have shot the unangled lower glacis and got the same effect, so it doesn't really prove what is better