Best tank in the war

>>31932530
>this bait again

Alright fine. Best tank of ww2?

"There isn't one. A tank protected with 45-millimeter armor was invulnerable in 1941, but it was doomed to quick defeat by 1945. A tank armed with a 76-millimeter gun was a world-beater in 1941, but by 1945 was a pop-gun in a tank-versus-tank duel."

>http://nationalinterest DOT org/feature/killers-the-most-lethal-tanks-world-war-ii-13797

T-34 of course. It had sloped armor so enemy shells would bounce off it harmlessly.

File: 1478536324759.jpg (30KB, 318x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 318x350px

>>31932530
>its a retard thinks tatical effectiveness wins wars more than logistics and strategic mobility thread

I want the Henschel shills to leave

>>31932612

Well he did qualify the question with impact...

I'd say T-34. I think it was a shit tank, but it had a ton of relevance in terms of tank design and direct combat impact(through force of numbers more than anything else).

T-34

>>31932643
Its just a good solid tank

>>31932661
Yes t34s impact on tank design was big, sloped armor, easy to mass produce a long with an ok gun. But the turret being cramped with no radio did make it difficult to use.

File: 1473718075540.jpg (73KB, 680x423px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 680x423px

>>31932530
Tiger 1
>inb4 salty slavaboos

>>31932643
I just always hate this question because its fucking Wehraboo bait.

"Muh Panzer IV" "Muh King Tiger" "Muh Ronson Shermans"

>>31932927
The Wehrmacht could have had 10 StuG IIIs or 3 Tigers. Factoring in reliability (because "German Engineering"), 7 StuG IIIs or 1 Tiger.

File: 114_rd.jpg (62KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x386px

r/shitwehraboossay is flooding /k/ again i see

File: 1478170827470.png (19KB, 332x356px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 332x356px

>>31932981
>he unironically implies 3 tigers weren't better than 10 assault guns

File: 1475971711404.jpg (74KB, 720x560px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x560px

>>31933075
Just don't reply to slavaboos/tankies anon

File: wehraboo delusions.webm (1MB, 310x175px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 310x175px

Here comes the autistic Allied dick riders

"Hurr durr SHERMAN!"

"Hurr durr T-34!"

This whole "lol we made more of them therefore it's good!" meme is just that: a fucking meme. If you retards put an AT rifle on a bren gun carrier, then produced millions, you morons would say it was the best tank of WW2. Even if it couldn't penetrate and you lost thousands of them in every engagement. But no! Just because LOL LE MILLION OF THEM XDDDD means it's somehow this great game changing best tank ever!

>>31933126
Lets be honest.

No one in WW2 had good tanks. They just shit out mediocre and shit tanks and threw them at the problem and hoped it stuck.

WW2 tank doctrine was insanely different than what we see today. So it's really easy for us to critique the faults of each tank and praise the benefits. When in reality they were ALL shit.

>>31933126
I always side with the victor, and that there was the Shermans. Germany has gone from building tanks to building apartments for migrants who will never leave

>>31933126
germans produce massively over engineered machines which are hellish to maintain in the field and prone to breakdown
even if the allied tanks are qualitatively inferior to each german tanks they still were easily produced,replaced and maintained

>>31932530
M1A2 Abrams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL00YjWbHI&lc=z13gxf1ots3qhh2fx23xjvagqrvag51xg04

>>31933396
panzer iv a qt, though

>>31933086

I'd never date a Panther or a Tiger if that matters.

These are the definition of a high maintenance relationship.

>>31933412

Fucking typo.

Pzkpfw IV a OK

>>31933396
>>31933436
le samefag

>>31933200
That's an infantile view of the conflict. Implying that they are shitty because we have better technology allowing for more efficient machines and application of them in combat, is rather like saying we all shit out mediocre tanks because in seventy years they will be similarly obsoleted.

There were tanks that were objectively better in a variety of areas, whether it be survivability at a given range, mechanical reliability, cost of production, etc.

>>31933200
>When in reality they were ALL shit.

^this^

almost all tanks in WWII broke down really often, and it was more important to have good logistics, higher production, and simplified designs than an uber death machine that just chucked a tread and fried its gearbox and cant fight.

its not unsurprising to see many tanks out of action from damage, lack of fuel, or mechanical problems in an SS tank division. sometimes up to 50% out of action.

>>31933478

yeah no shit, I deleted the first one after I saw the typo.

File: Best_tank_of_war.jpg (103KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x450px

>Thread consisting of people doing nothing but complaining about slavoboos and ally fags arguing with them, little opposition
WELL WELL WELL /POL/FAGS, WHAT WE OF HAVINGS HERE??? A TIGER? NYET PROBLEM FOR STRONK IS-2! STRONK IS-2 CUT THROUGH TIGER ARMOR VERY QUICK, DA, WILL DESTROY ALL TIGER IN 500 METER RADIUS. NO MECHANICAL ISSUE. 100% RELIABLE. VERY GOODNESS DA. Named of the Stalin, guided by His greatness, cream through armor, hit ammorack with SPECIAL Russian shells. Very good, da.

>>31933562
Shh, don't let the wehraboos hear, they'll spit roast you on their rough words and lack of actions. Better be careful walking outside, /pol/ users will get ya!

>>31933686
CARRY ONLY 28 ROUNDS AND ABLE TO FIRE ONE EVERY HALF HOUR OR SO. ARMOR SO HARD HITS HARMLESS TO OTHER TANKS MAIM CREWS WITH SPALL. MUCH GOODNESS DA

File: slavshit.png (598KB, 900x471px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 900x471px

>>31933686
HAHA le is2 is indestructible comrade! viva le rvolucion! xD

what are some good websites to learn about tanks?

File: 1414387023049.jpg (85KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 620x414px

>>31932530

Tiger I.

Just read one of the crew memoirs. They were loved by their infantry and feared by everyone else.

>>31933962
of course, the tiger in that picture is destroyed

>>31934069

In front of a position littered by dozens of Shermans and 50 KIA USGIs.

>>31934218
we see the same number of destroyed shaermans as destroyed tigers, and a bunch of living commonwealth soldiers. nice fantasy, though

Unabashedly M4 Shermans, all the way to the end of the war. Why?

Because the goal of the tank isn't to have zomg hard stats. It's to be perfect for winning a war. These were reliable, very ergonomic (the ability to effectively fight a vehicle are more important than it's gun or armor if it couldn't be so), which is why it beat the living shit out of Panthers through France.

Sherman's guns were more than able to easilly frontally KO anything but heavy tanks they faced and to a lesser degree Panthers. And those were destroyed through proper maneuver warfare and combined arms with the infantry.

Again. It's the M4. Soviets with lend-lease M4s vastly preferred them over T-34s.

>>31934069
Your point?

>>31934218
That Sherman in the picture wasn't even destroyed by the Tiger, it was hit by a Panzerschreck.

>>31932530
Sherman or T-34 for pure strategic impact. Sherman also has crew survivability and reliability on its side.

>Shermans kicking anyone's ass
>Lelelel zerg rush shermans T-34s lel
Tiger 1 hands down. No tanker with a functioning brain would pick anything other than the granddaddy of all MBTs. Who the hell would pick the tanks where you had a pretty high chance of being outclassed by the enemy?

>>31934509
someone who, you know, would want to actualy win a war.

>>31934546
>Germany would have won if using the Sherman or T-34
kekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekek

>>31934434

How would you know?

>>31934509
>grandaddy of all MBT's

You mean the T-54?

Because it sure as shit wasn't an extremely overweight box passed as a heavy tank and called the Tiger I.

>>31934509
>Tiger 1 hands down. No tanker with a functioning brain would pick anything other than the granddaddy of all MBTs.
MBTs are an evolution of medium tanks, not heavy tanks. You'd be more accurate to call the Sherman, T-34 or maybe even the Panzer III/IV (three man turrets and manoeuvrability) the 'granddady', the Tiger 1 was part of an evolutionary dead-end.
>Who the hell would pick the tanks where you had a pretty high chance of being outclassed by the enemy?
Do you know the actual mathematical odds of meeting a Tiger 1 or 2 in a Sherman? Very few were built, many broke down or did not have sufficient fuel (high consumption a shit), ammo (one of many German snowflake rounds) or infantry support. High chance my fucking arse and you can still easily defeat it with any number of tactics (no, 6 Shermans rushing one Tiger is a myth). Hell worst case the crew survival rate in a knocked-out Sherman is significantly higher than most other tanks of the period.
Tiger Aces were the exception, not the rule, and were mostly a result of the Germans being too retarded to rotate veterans out to train new recruits rather than the magic tank.

>>31934572
Germany would not have won the war without some major strategic difference. This does not mean the Tiger was a worthwhile investment. In the defensive period of the later war Stug IIIs were unarguably a better choice.

The Tiger is a cool looking tank no doubt but that's as far as it goes.

>>31934579
Because I have the fucking book that picture is from.

>>31934658
World of Tanks/War Thunder kiddies don't understand what books are anon. You'll have to explain it to them slowly.

>>31934642
The Americans quite literally had three encounters with Tiger tanks throughout the entirety of the Normandy campaign.

One of them was a unit of Tigers that had been loaded onto a train, so I'm not sure if it really counts.

>>31934670
Was not aware of the actual numbers but I'm not surprised it's so low.
>One of them was a unit of Tigers that had been loaded onto a train, so I'm not sure if it really counts.
Also worth noting transporting them by rail took special rail cars and replacement of the tank's tracks and roadwheels. More logistical hassle for a country that already struggled to produce enough of anything. The Tiger is not just worth 3-4 Stug IIIs as that's only comparing the cost of manufacture. Factor in the whole logistical trail and reliability issues and you're looking at fucktons of possible tanks. Then you've got to factor in how slow they were to get to the front and god help you if there was a river you wanted to cross in a hurry.

>>31934642
On the note of MBT's line another Grandparent would be the Comet. The Centurion and T-54 would be the parents in-between. The Pershing and arguably the Patton were really following on from what seemed to have worked in WW2 i.e. heavy tanks, generals are always planning to fight the last war. The USA made with the M14 instead of going with the .280 and FAL.

>>31933686
suka blyat idi niahui

>>31934658

You're full of shit.

File: wargames2+007+[Résolution+de+l'écran].jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>31934670

>The Americans quite literally had three encounters with Tiger tanks throughout the entirety of the Normandy campaign.

The British has a dramatically different relationship with the Tiger I in Normandy, especially around Caen.

They weren't so fond of it.

>>31935143
with the tactics they used, it's no wonder

>>31935154
The Caen offensive(s) were designed to pin down the German (heavy) tanks while the American forces went for a breakthrough. This they achieved. It actually played to the strengths of both forces as the American troops were extremely well-equipped for assaults but rather less experienced, particularly with urban warfare. It didn't go quite to plan as the breakthrough was a lot slower than originally accounted for but by the time Normandy was over the American troops had earned valuable battle experience without being crushed by tanks. That's not to say that it was a cake-walk by comparison, the American troops had it tough, just that going toe-to-toe with the best enemy troops around for your first engagement ends poorly.

Do note that such a pinning attack would have been less effective if the Germans had more tanks or if their tanks were more mobile.

>>31935216
i was more meaning the bumper-to-bumper tank attacks that were blinded by their own smoke while they drove into the teeth of active antitank guns

>>31934772
>needs 4 tracked vehicle to tow it if it gets immobilized
>needs a special railcar to move it by rail
>gigantically complicated track system which needs to be disassembled completely
>cant get across most bridges
b-but muh kd ratio though

The best tank was the one that killed the enemy tanks more than it was killed.

>>31935234
>i was more meaning the bumper-to-bumper tank attacks that were blinded by their own smoke while they drove into the teeth of active antitank guns
Fair enough. It's worth noting that certain engagements were heavily propagandised on the German side though, mostly notably Villers-Bocage. Also, as you pointed out, the deadly nature of the Tigers was more a result of poor tactics on the allied side than magic German engineering.

>>31935286
>mostly notably Villers-Bocage
agree. especially once the german reinforcements entered the town and were trounced. but i'm off to bed now.

File: 1428168571996.jpg (450KB, 2000x1485px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 2000x1485px

>>31935154

>with the tactics they used

You mean modern, mechanized maneuver warfare with massed use of artillery and air superiority?

They were simply bested by better men and those pesky Tiger I tanks which just couldn't be compelled to leave the heights around Caen..

>>31935216

>he Caen offensive(s) were designed to pin down the German (heavy) tanks while the American forces went for a breakthrough

Is this your theory or do you have some documentation?

File: 1427475596917.jpg (375KB, 1024x706px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1024x706px

>>31935259

Here the Tiger I excelled.

That's why it's crews lived long enough to become proficient.

Any medium tank crewman was basically just waiting to die the moment he encountered an AT gun. Panzer IVs, Shermas, T-34s, had no chance of surviving an encounter with a dedicated anti-tank weapon. They were merely infantry support vehicles.

The Tiger I tank is the first dedicated tank-killing MBT.

>>31935576
hey fucktard an MBT by definition is built for doing more than killing tanks

thats why its called a "main battle tank"

the phrase "dedicated tank-killing MBT" is an oxymoron

>>31932530
>>31932927

Riddle me this Batman, why is the Tiger a "superior tank" when it was completely withdrawn from service before the 50s and all the supposedly "inferior" T-34s and Shermans lasted until the 21rst century, and occasionally knocked out T-55s?

>>31932530
The one with a crew that knew how to use it.

>>31935718
op here, complex question realy. war was going a diferent way then heavy tanks, germany was useing a diferent doctrne then ww2, and the other contryes were starting to make mbts instead of heavy tanks. but think we could still be useing heavy tanks instead of mbts. just something to think about, and armor is pretty much not really a concern wiht all the op as fuck tank guns

>>31932530
>1939
7Tp, maybe the Somua S35
>1940
T-34/76
>1941
T-34/76
>1942
Tiger
>1943
Tiger
>1944
IS-2
>1945
IS-3

Just my opinion from years of WW2 research (I design tabletop games)

File: 1446361787565.jpg (43KB, 465x465px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 465x465px

>>31935649
i'm not sure if you really know what the word oxymoron means

File: 1428262475261.jpg (318KB, 1231x822px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1231x822px

>>31935649

That's very cute, but the Tiger I had the firepower and armor of a super heavy tank, the mobility and weight of a medium. It is by all means the first true MBT, with a heavy emphasis on killing armour.

>>31935718
>why is the Tiger a "superior tank" when it was completely withdrawn from service before the 50s and all the supposedly "inferior" T-34s and Shermans lasted until the 21rst century
more to do with the nations that produced them rather than the qualities of the tank.
Germany was beaten to a pulp and not really capable of mass producing tanks for export. US and Russia on the other hand had been mass producing these tanks for years, and so tried to get rid of them to as exports. Sold them off cheap because they had so many of them. Many countries used them for many many years because they were cheap and fairly reliable. The exact opposite of the Tiger which was expensive, not really mass produced in the same way as the T-34 and Sherman, and unreliable, as well as needing specialist parts you could only get from Germany who had stopped producing them.

>>31935718

Well, for starters, production facilities were destroyed, the labour force was scattered.

Second, it was an archaic design by the late 40s, and it didn't fit into the tank doctrines of the other nations.

>>31935920
Wrong. It had fucking 110mm of frontal unsloped armor.
A goddamn Sherman, weighing half as much, had effective ~80mm sloped. And it's gun (particularly the 76mm) could punch clean through any part of the Tiger frontally.

>>31932530
In terms of impact on the entirety of the war, probably either T-34 or M3 Lee, and I'd give the edge to the T-34 most of all.

The Lee/Grant, via Lend-Lease, let the British open the African front with better armour parity against the Germans, and while not a great design did allow American factories to begin the transition to armoured vehicle production including the later Sherman.

The T-34 was a tremendous shock to German commanders and completely changed around their armour development - the Panther tank owed it's existence to attempts to reverse engineer it.

>>31935932

Except the victorious allies outright took wholesale German industry. Both equipment and personnel, for their own purposes (most notably the rocket program).

Cost, man-hours to build and reliability are as much part of a superior tank as a big gun.

>>31936396
>it's gun (particularly the 76mm) could punch clean through any part of the Tiger frontally.
lol no. at 600m a 76 can only penetrate 97mm, at 100m its about the same. Still not enough to penetrate a tiger.

>Sherman had effective ~80mm sloped
Still easily penetrated by an 88 500m away, even up to 1.5km away

US were way behind on tank deisign when they entered the war. They didn't really know what they were doing and got some pretty nasty surprises from the german armor that happened to annihilate medium tanks and take any punishment they could deal out, unless to the side or rear at point-blank range.

>>31936588
US was behind on tank design in the beginning of the war

then they learned and made the hellcat, sherman, and pershing, some of the best tanks of the war


the M4A3E2 with a 76mm gun had MORE effective armor thickness than a tiger, was more mobile, way more reliable since it was literally just an up-armored sherman, and had a gun that could penetrate its frontal armor no problem

but you know what? that didn't matter because the americans encounted tigers so few times that it's basically unheard of AND the time shermans encountered tigers GUESS WHO WON

the tiger was an unreliable meme, the T-34 showed how inferior it is to the M4A3E2 in the korean war, and the germans fucked up by going on with making shitty overcomplicated tanks and not just making do with their already effective enough assault guns and tank destroyers

the fucking 75mm did its job fine enough regarding panzer 3s and 4s and tiger encounters were so incredibly rare that it didn't matter

File: 1478300357857.png (361KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 800x800px

>>31935887
Best post in the thread and one that I would agree with.

allyfags vs wehraboos vs slavaboos is tiring, this thread reminds me of why I left /k/ in the first place

>>31933126
>tripfag has shit opinions

What a surprise.jpg

>>31933767
t. World of tenks player

IS-2>Konig Tiger>Tiger>T34-85>KV-1>T34-76=PZIV>PZIII>any amerishit

>>31936653
>GUESS WHO WON
Thats more to do with production than quaility of tanks.

British + Soviet + US + All other allied countries Production > German + Italian Production

WW1 and WW2 were wars of production. Whoever produces the most stuff and has the most men wins. US+Russia+Britain+Allies just had overwhelming production and manpower compared to germany. No matter how good the german tanks or tactics were, there was no way they could win.

Also dont forget the T-34 is a 1937 design. Shermans didn't get built until 1942. Comparing them is kind of stupid, especially the Sherman jumbo which is a 1944 design. Of course its superior, the same way an IS-2 is superior to the generic Sherman with a 75mm of 1942.

Supposedly there were 126 Tiger I's on the western front when the allies invaded, there actually quite a few accounts of encountering tigers in the battle of the bulge. Most end with either the allied tanks being destoyed, the tigers withdrawing, or infantry taking out the tigers with bazookas.
One tiger even destroyed a Pershing.

>the fucking
no need for strong language friend, dont let your emotions get the better of you.

>>31936851

I'll give you a hint...

>filename.

>>31935920
I count 4 and a half baits. Congratulations, I usually max out at 2

>>31932530
The tiger only gave us one thing and that is modern tank suspension. I'm not saying it isn't ascetic as fuck but it just wasn't a well thought out tank

>>31933805

Not /k/ that's for fucking sure.

>>31935129

Different anon, I too have the book

It's "Allied Fighting Effectiveness in North Africa and Italy, 1942-1945" by Andrew L. Hargreaves, Patrick J. Rose, and Matthew C. Ford for Brill publishing, 2014.

>>31932981
>factoring in reliability
>when Tiger Is were equally reliable and operationally available to Pz IVs and more reliable than Panthers

I want people like you to be gassed.

>>31936874
>Also dont forget the T-34 is a 1937 design. Shermans didn't get built until 1942. Comparing them is kind of stupid, especially the Sherman jumbo which is a 1944 design. Of course its superior, the same way an IS-2 is superior to the generic Sherman with a 75mm of 1942.

That's the problem - even though T-34 is an old design, people praise it like it's a second coming of Jesus Christ. Doesn't change the fact that we should compare them, because they were used at roughly the same time.

T-34/76 and T-34/85, which were respectively worse than Sherman M4A1 with 75mm gun and M4A3 with 76mm gun.

>>31939223
>they were used at roughly the same time.
in 1937 the US had no T-34 equivalent. They dont come out with an equivalent tank for 5 years.
5 years is a very very long time in a technology race. Even 2 years can be a very long time. compare Pz.III of 1940 to a Tiger of 1942. Massive difference.

The first mass produced Shermans with 76mm guns came out in 1944, by which time the Soviets were producing IS-2s, which would shit on them from 1.5km away and easily take anything coming out of that 76mm, at any range. Compare that.

File: 1476854277310.jpg (355KB, 2431x1375px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 2431x1375px

>>31933065

>>31939447
IS-2 had the same problem that T-34/76 had - 2-man turret. The tank commander was responsible with finding targets, aiming the gun and maintaining radio contact with platoon commander. Good luck with that.

Moreover, M1 76mm gun could penetrate 110 mm of armour at 30 degrees from 2200 meters, so I guess it could penetrate 120 mm of IS-2's frontal armour at 1,5 km. Still, it's not like you need a specific terrain (like desert or steppe) to exchange shots at that range. Most tank engagements took place at around 800 meters anyway.

Also, have fun reloading two part ammunition.

File: 1478211067800.jpg (272KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 688x1434px

>>31936396
>A goddamn Sherman, weighing half as much, had effective ~80mm sloped. And it's gun (particularly the 76mm) could punch clean through any part of the Tiger frontally.

This is so goddamn delusional it's sad.

The 75 mm was absolutely pitiful in anything other than punching holes (aka liberating) through French apartment blocks and the 76 mm was barely any better, deemed insufficient against German heavy armor in 1943, which resulted in the speedy development of the HVAP round which was only circulated widely in 1945 by which time Germany had no armor.

You tards somehow keep forgetting that the M1A1 is the same gun that was used in the Wolverine, which is basically a recycled Navy gun from the 1920s...

File: 1476981665691.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>31936653
>M4A3E2

>Using faity tale tanks as a bsis for comparison

Well, I'll raise you the late German E-1500 Landritterkreuzer 9000, Multi-turreted V-2 launching self-propelled assault Shturm howitzer equipped with Vampir nightvision latrines.

Go back to WoT

>>31937457

is it any good?

>>31940212
Even 75mm Shermans are recorded to have killed Tiger Is frontally. Google Sgt Dring's Tiger you dunce.

>>31940350
>Even 75mm Shermans are recorded to have killed Tiger Is frontally.

Except there are numerous reports from Sherman tankers of firing from point blank range would do nothing but shatter the shells.

>>31935887
IS-3 didn't even see any action or not any significant amount at least, also the IS-2 's ability to counter German heavy armor is over exaggerated, it suffered from many of the inherent problems of soviet armor (2 man turrets etc.) on top of its slow rate of fire and poor ballistic performance vs the high velocity 88 and 75mm German guns. As a breakthrough tank for destroying enemy hard points it did excel but on that basis alone I don't think it could be considered a better tank then the Panther in 1944 which probably had the best balance of armor, mobility and firepower out of all of the tanks operating at that point in the war.

>>31933065
>posted as my transmission fails

>>31932612
>76mm was popgun by 1945
Not really.

>>31936485
given that 4/5ths of German armor was rushed to the Eastern front to stop the Soviets I think the T-34 would easily take the cake

>>31933126
Bren gun carriers were brilliant.
Everyone used them.
Bitch.

File: WxUcnIS.jpg (133KB, 860x753px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 860x753px

>>31940381
Gee, anecdotes from tankers who thought every wehrbox they shot at was a Tiger, or photographic evidence of Tigers knocked out in combat by M4A1s. Which is a better representative of reality? Pic related.

>>31936653
muh American-centric history just over 200 of your M4A3E2's came in to the war in late 1944 by that stage the Germans had next to no armor on the Western front so calling it the best tank of ww2 is a total meme, also most of the fighting happened on the Eastern front (by a very very big margin) so that's where you are going to find your so called "best tank" of the war

>>31940503
this took them 6 shots at 120 yards of which only 2 penetrated, and only because the Tiger crew bailed out as soon as they took fire. yep I'd sure want to be in a Sherman in a head on battle with a Tiger

>>31933126
if the bren gun at carrier won the war, it would be better yes

>>31932530
>long as fuck range
>heavy as fuck armor
>mainly used in a sniper role
>no fucking chance against the russian horde

It's like they didn't know what they wanted when they made it, but we can't deny that design is iconic as fuck

File: .22_em.jpg (303KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 600x400px

>>31933126

It is plain to see then, that great weapons do not win wars. Whining on the internet won't change that.

Accept against the japanese, but we only needed to make two of those.

Alright, time to fuck all over the retards.

1. Quit this fucking "2 man turret IS-2" joke. It had three men in the turret and one in the hull. A driver, a loader/radioman, a gunner and a commander. Fucks sake, you didn't even TRY to research.

2. The 3" gun on the M10 was an entirely different design than the M1A1/A2 used in the Shermans. Even then, that 3" gun was busy fucking all over Tigers in North Africa and Italy in 1943. The reason it even took the Americans so long to put the M1A1 on a Sherman in the first place was because 75mm M3's and 3" guns were already killing Tigers and Panzers perfectly fine.

3. The fucking M1A1 with standard APC shells had no trouble dealing with a heavy tank twice its weight at 600 yards, which was slightly over the average tank combat range of the war (500 yards). At that distance the shells were rated to punch through 116mm at a 90 degree angle, which is quite fortunately a quarter inch more armor than the Tigers huge flat 102mm plate was. The sides and rear were vulnerable out to 1500 yards.

>>31932530

Either the Stug 4 or the Hetzer.

File: fgX821a.jpg (144KB, 1100x770px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1100x770px

>>31940759
I just don't get it, given the Sherman is supposedly equal if not superior to the Tiger and Panther tanks then why did big groups of them get destroyed or battered into withdrawal by far smaller groups of German heavy armor and the Allies often had to rely on air support, infantry or for the Germans to run out of fuel or ammo to advance. The way you make it look I dont even know why the Allied crews were so scared shitless of Tigers I mean on paper the Sherman can deal with them, they easily should've re-done the blitzkrieg through the German Armoured divisions right?

>>31940898
gotta love the hetzer, not really sure about the stug 4. stug 3 was already really good

>>31941108

They were never designed to singlehandedly destroy Nazi armor.

They were designed to overwhelm their opponents with numbers.

>took about three Shermans to shoot one Panzer in the ass

>>31940759
i was aware that later IS series tanks did have 2 man turrets, well it is pretty hard to aim in a so not all the time did they even hit a tiger so please stop with this sherman pen tiger front meme.

>>31941108
m18 hellcats used to rape panthers and tigers.

>>31941108
>I just don't get it, given the Sherman is supposedly equal if not superior to the Tiger and Panther tanks then why did big groups of them get destroyed or battered into withdrawal by far smaller groups of German heavy armor and the Allies often had to rely on air support, infantry or for the Germans to run out of fuel or ammo to advance

Bait, but I'll bite. They didn't. The Americans outmaneuvered Germany so hard on the strategic level in France and Belgium that massive amounts of material, weapons, and vehicles had to left behind. This would not have been possible of the US was losing thd bullshit 3-5 tanks per German tank retards like to spout. A majority of losses were to mines, AT guns, and infantry weapons. The majority of times Americans ran into German armor, they wiped the floor with the Germans. See El-Guettar, Arracourt for examples.

>>31941243
>They were never designed to singlehandedly destroy Nazi armor.
>They were designed to overwhelm their opponents with numbers

You are wrong on every level. See above.

>>31940759
THIS MAN KNOWS HIS SHIT. READ THIS AND LEARN.

All of this 'It took X Shermans to beat Y Germans' is nonsense. At multiple battles, the Americans (who mind you, are attacking) come across superior german numbers and beat the shit out of them.

Look at Arracourt. Some 160 panthers take on 120 Shermans (mostly 75s) with no air support and get their asses kicked brutally.

Panthers had horrible deficiencies in their fire control, ergonomics, and reliability. Shermans did not, and ends up, that's worth more than a few mm of armor or a more penetrating gun.

Look also at Korea: 76mm M4A3E8 Shermans were more than a match for T-34/85s.

File: baitzkrieg.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

> 1939+5
> not using sloped armour

ISHYGDDT

File: benin.jpg (270KB, 812x883px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 812x883px

>>31933126
Mr. Lulz I thought you were better than this. I should have known.

File: sekritdocuments.jpg (56KB, 385x354px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 385x354px

>>31933686

>>31940759
14mm is not a quarter inch, and on top of that, 90 degree angles of engagement were exceedingly rare.

>>31935129
I have that same pic in a book called "Last Of The Panzers" from Salamander Press that i picked up back in 1986.

When Tigers would break down and couldn't be towed they would at least try to position them as road blocks and either mine the possible ways around them or use the blocks for ambushes.

>>31941755

Yeah, we all agree Panthers were defective tanks.

They didn't even come in this thread.

The Tiger I however was vastly superior to anything fielded by the Allies and has the performance to match.

>>31934665
Makes one wonder if they even know what books are.

File: 1477200720557.jpg (174KB, 1200x806px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1200x806px

>>31940503
>Gee, anecdotes from tankers who thought every wehrbox they shot at was a Tiger, or photographic evidence of Tigers knocked out in combat by M4A1s

Gosh, that's interesting.. If the American army in France encountered Tigers a WHOLE THREE TIMES, how and where did these alleged encounters take place.

Funny how you accuse someone of using anecdotes, yet offer nothing but anecdotes. Are you autistic?

>>31941755
Apples and oranges.

You can't compare vehicles on the basis of K/D ratios while ignoring differences in crew training, experience, competence, and overall doctrine.

>>31941872
>crew training, experience, competence, and overall doctrine

What is overlooked in every single discussion of various weapons systems.

>>31941872
>>31941884
It's almost as if a few mm of armor or whatnot means jack shit compared to logistics, training, tactical situation, competence, doctrine, etc...

My god. So you're saying the tank designed to win wars is superior to a tank that's a piece of shit with big hard stats, shit soft stats, and an overblown reputation?

>>31937435
Yeah, interleaved roadwheels are still totally a thing.

File: ATGM the t stands for tent.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>31941806

It is pretty funny people are taking my post seriously even when the filename is "Wehraboo Delusions".

>>31941926
No, if anything, we're saying all this fawning is a bullshit.

You should also consider that the US could likely have made more panthers than the Germans could have made Shermans if development had been traded.

And no matter what the Germans made it would have been a rushed piece of shit.

>>31941108
Comparing straight loss figures is misleading; not only did the Germans, Americans, and Soviets count a tank as "lost" in different circumstances. The Germans only counted a tank as knocked out if it was a complete loss - recoveries did not count as casualties. The Soviets on the other hand counted a loss every time the tank was knocked out of action, which meant some tanks were "killed" several times over - leading to some inflation in the statistics.

Furthermore, most losses were generally from anti-tank guns or mines, rather than direct tank vs. tank action. If you simply compare number of tanks knocked out then the StuG III was the most effective armoured vehicle of the war (and even then only after towed guns in ambush positions).

What's more, the later phases of WWII featured offensives pushing into territory which the Germans could prepare with ambushes or strongpoints. An attacker generally speaking always takes more casualties than the defender.

>>31941870
>Gosh, that's interesting.. If the American army in France encountered Tigers a WHOLE THREE TIMES, how and where did these alleged encounters take place.

Golly, that's amusing. Where did the post ever say Americans? Did you even look up Sgt. Dring's Tiger like >>31940350
said?

>Funny how you accuse someone of using anecdotes, yet offer nothing but anecdotes. Are you autistic?

Funny how you make accusations without reading the fucking thread. Are you retarded?

>>31941926
I'm not going to get into various shitfights here. But if i had to be a tanker in WW2 i sure as hell would rather be in a Sherman in the US Army rather than a Panther in the German Army.

Better odds on overall survival.

File: tiger334cvb.jpg (153KB, 600x316px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 600x316px

>>31940503
>>31940350


Funny you bring this up and accuse others of using nothing but anecdotes, and yourself use anecdotes.

LUCKILY, this tank was the first Tiger I lost and captured in Normandy and is very well studied by actual historians who have actual primary source documents and photos.

This tank is referenced in Stuart Hill, By Tank Into Normandy. page 108/109.

>Meanwhile A Squadron had begun moving up from Fontenay, the plan being that they would come through us and thrust towards Rauray. John Semken was Squadron Leader and he had already heard from C Squadron that there were tanks about, so his gun loader put an AP shell up the spout, just in case. As they cleared Fontenay, they were suddenly confronted by an enormous tank coming round the bend in front. It was hard to khow who was more surprised, but John shrieked, 'Fire, it's a Hun', and they loosed off about ten rounds into the smoke. As this cleared away, it was observed that the crew were baling out as small flames came from inside the tank. It was a Tiger of 12th SS Panzer, the first Tiger to be captured in Normandy, and made an impressive sight at close quarters as both its size and the thickness of its armour became apparent. Although the range had been only sixty yards, not one Sherman shell had penetrated that armour. The fire in the Tiger, we discovered, had instead been caused by a shot hitting the side of the driver's observation visor and showering white-hot splinters into the tank. The driver had screamed that he had been hit and the commander had obligingly ordered his crew out.


There's also lots of photos of it with no penetrations visible.

Sorry, there are no recorded penetrations of the 75 mm Sherman against a Tiger I.

Try a little harder next time.

>>31942028
>Although the range had been only sixty yards, not one Sherman shell had penetrated that armour.

BUT MUH ANECDOTES

MUH SGT DRING

File: M4A3E2.jpg (287KB, 1200x902px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1200x902px

>>31940235

There weren't a lot of them made, but M4A3E2 was not a fairy tale paper tank.

>>31940511

> late 1944 by that stage the Germans had next to no armor on the Western front so calling it the best tank of ww2 is a total meme

Yea, because all those tanks were lost in the summer and fall. When the Falais pocket closed 10, Panzer divisions with some 1500 tanks were basically wiped out in whole.

> strengths of the 10 panzer divisions of Army Group B on 22/23 August, 1944:

> 2. Panzer: 1 infantry battalion, no tanks, no artillery

> 21. Panzer: 4 weak battalions, 10 tanks, artillery unknown

> 116. Panzer: 1 infantry battalion, 12 tanks, approximately two artillery batteries

> 1st SS Panzer: weak infantry elements, no tanks, no artillery

> 2nd SS Panzer: 450 men, 15 tanks, 6 guns

> 9th SS Panzer: 460 men, 20-25 tanks, 20 guns

> 10th SS Panzer: 4 weak infantry battalions, no tanks, no artillery

> 12th SS panzer: 300 men, 10 tanks, no artillery

> (9th Panzer and Panzer Lehr provided no reports. Both divisions had been destroyed)

The Germans lost as many troops in Overlord as they did in Bagration.

File: 952cec5af308fd6bf653a567a53009b7.jpg (400KB, 923x671px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 923x671px

Look up the battle of Dompaire.

>French armored unit consisting of roughly two dozen tanks of varying make, including M5's, some M10's and mostly 75mm M4's
>assaulted by an entire Panzer brigade (the 112th)
>equipped with 45 Panthers out of an attacking force of 109 tanks and assault guns, as well as 800 men
>attack forms into two groups
>rather predictably, the Germans completely fuck everything up despite having every possible advantage
>lose 34 Panthers and 26 Panzer IV's, an unknown number of assault guns, 350 dead and over 1000 wounded (this is from the official German report, not the French)
>the French lose 80 men, six Shermans and a pair of Stuarts

>when your entire Panzer brigade can't even defeat 5 platoons of Frenchies in a random mish-mash of tanks

>>31942260

Who knew an unreliable tank with poor situational awareness, poor side armor, and very large profile would do awful on the attack?

The Panther excelled in the defense, put it on the attack and it's hopeless.

>>31935143

They dealt with it though. A lot of people go on about Wittman's rampage, but conviniently seem to forget that the next day the Tigers tried again and the British completely curbstomped them and took the town.

As ever, it's just German fanboys cherrypicking.

>>31935559

Where would one even begin, given it was literally the overarching strategy of the entire war in France at the time? The British absorbed the heavy armor and concentrations around Caen and kept the Germans fixated on it like a hinge, while the Americans with their generally more mobile forces in greater numbers swung south, east and then rolled up the flank.

And it worked really fucking well. The Germans got absolutely frozen in place with their heavy armor blunted by the Brits, while the Americans steamrolled around. It's probably the most successful US/UK joint op of all time up until the Gulf War. (Which in terms of easy winning will likely never be bested)

File: x1a.jpg (235KB, 1016x762px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1016x762px

>>31936653

The best achivement the US probably made in tank design during that period was the Stuart: it got nothing but praise across its entire tour, and its still in service to this day after modernization.

>>31942028
>>31942047
The Tiger mentioned here is #334, the one Semkin knocked out. There were 3 Tigers total in the area, along with several Panthers and Panzer IVs. And thanks for proving what I said here >>31940350
American 75mm guns have knocked out Tigers on multiple occasions, by both American and British troops.

And yes,

>numerous reports from Sherman tankers of firing from point blank range would do nothing but shatter the shells.

is anecdotal at best unless you have a scholarly work or primary source to back it up.

Here's the document excerpts concerning both Semkin's Tiger and Dring's. Semkin's is the one noted here, as seen by Lt. Fearn.

>Appendix 'E' to
>21stArmy Group RAC
>Liaison Letter No.2

>Extract from a Report to HQ Second Army >from Col.A.G.Cole, DD of A
>(No. 20 WTSFF)


>The extract is of tank actions near RUARAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul.

>SHERMAN - 75 MM GUNS.


>4. Lt. Fearn angaged a PANTHER side on with his 75mm and APC
>It was moving about 12mph at 80 yds range and he brewed it up with
>one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie

>He saw his Squadron Commander engage a Tiger ( previously
>examined by us) on the road. At 120 yds the Tiger was head on.
>The 75mm put 3 shots on it and the crew bailed out without firing.
>He put in 3 more. The tank brewed up. Four shots had scooped on
>front plates.One had taken a piece out of the lower edge of the mantlet
>and gone into the tank through the roof,and one had ricocheted off the
>track and up into the sponson.

>At another Panther he fired 5 shots with HE. The enemy
>made off without retaliation.

File: t3xx2.jpg (406KB, 958x1000px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 958x1000px

>>31943635
(cont)

>Appendix 'E' to
>21stArmy Group RAC
>Liaison Letter No.2

>5. Sgt Dring started out south from FONTENOY LE PESNIL with
>his 75mm and fell in with a MK IV which he shot through the drivors
>visor. It brewed up and the crew baled out.

>Next he fell in with a Tiger at 1000 yds. The Tiger fired whilst Dring
>was traversing but missed. Dtring then pumped 5 shots in without further
>retaliation. The last one hit the drivers periscope and the crew baled out.
>(this tank is believed to have been recovered for shipment to the UK.)

>Next he came on a Panther at the cross roads, This he got with one shot
>with APC in front of sprocket and the crew baled out. Hit at normal and at
>about 500yds range. It brewed up

>Next he took on a Tiger at 1400 yds just outside Rauray. He fired 6
>shots of which 4 hit and the last one brewed it up. Tp. Cmdr. thought he had
>missed it and only hit the wall behind. Sjt. Dring's next shot brought the
>sparks and the remark "You don't see a brick wall spark like that".
>This tank has been seen and is much shot up. It now has one scoop in front
>vertical plate, five penetrations in rear, four strikes with no penetrations in rear,
>plus a scoop and one plate of engine hatch smashed

>Finaly to the east of RAURAY he took on a MK IV at 1200 yds, fired two
>HE ranging round and then one AP through the tracks, which went in and
>finished it.

Dring's first Tiger was most likely #114, which was also sent back to Britain. This is based on all pictures of #114 after its capture missing the upper section of armor around the driver viewport. The second, pic related, was not recovered. It had caught fire and burned after perforation of the turret. These Tigers most likely belonged to Warmbrunn, Möbius, and Amselgruber. Amselgruber was most likely Dring's second Tiger, as both he and his gunner were wounded by a turret perforation before it burned.

>>31943635
>>31943646

Game and Match
Well played.

>>31941959
Because people dont know how to respond when you post.

Even when you are a known tripjoker.

>>31940394
But IS-2 had a 3 man turret.
1 Driver, 1 Gunner, 1 Loader and 1 Commander.

>>31939612
>M1 76mm gun could penetrate 110 mm of armour at 30 degrees from 2200 meters
not from the figures I have, which are US army figures from the period.

Couldn't even penetrate 100mm armor at 100m. This is with a regular APC round that they would have used. HVAP rounds were only issued to tank destroyer units like hellcats. Even the very small amount of regular shermans that were actually able to get HVAP rounds, probably by begging or stealing from QMs, only 5% of that very small group actually fired them in WW2. So we should assume pretty much all regular sherman 76s are firing APC rounds. which have a penetration of ~95mm at 500m and ~75mm at 2000m. You'd have to be very close and to the side or rear to actually penetrate a tiger.

Dont forget the 76mm Sherman variant didn't come out for 2 years after the Sherman was introduced. in those 2 years Tigers wrecked Shermans and couldn't be touched by their relatively short barreled 75mm

>>31940235
>>31940381
>>31940629
>>31941244
Sehrmaboo is getting BTFO here.

Have a fun video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igm-SRxMEFY
>Allied tankers, once they had introduced the longer barreled 76mm gun, were disturbed to find they had to close to 700m to penetrate the turret of the tiger, while the tiger could still annihilate them at 1800m

British-built Sherman Fireflies with 17pdrs were the only medium tanks able to destroy tigers at combat ranges - 800m+

>>31940898
neither of them are tanks though anon... Both are sexy armored vehicles though.

File: william atwater.jpg (28KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 704x528px

>>31932690

>>31947092
>Couldn't even penetrate 100mm armor at 100m.
Why do you lie on the internet?