What was the best tank of WW2?

Best for what?
You question is so broad that it's a mere argument starter with no possible resolution.
And that's terrible.

>inb4 300 replies thread

m18 hellcat
decent gun
fast as shit

>>32485868
Tank Destroyers=/=Tanks.

>>32485899
Like trucks aren't cars and Catholics aren't christians? Go be dumb some place else

File: t34 advance.jpg (301KB, 762x1018px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 762x1018px

>>32485807
Pic related is what I would put forward as my pick for "best" tank.

Reliability, decent firepower and armour all rolled up in a cheap and easy to mass produce package.

You've got to remember that choosing something like the "best tank" isn't simply a game of top trumps with the biggest number being all that matters, you've got to take into account how effective it was at altering the outcome of the war and how the tank suits the situation of the country it was used by.

File: 1463861165225.gif (4MB, 327x194px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 327x194px

>>32485807
The Sentinel, clearly.

File: Comet Cruiser tank.jpg (149KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x768px

Probably overall the Comet, just that it was fielded to late and didn't have chance to have an impact.

>>32486147
>reliability
>broke down all the time

>armor
>armor that was worthless against the 75mm/43 and /48

>killed most of its crew on penetration
>in a war of attrition

>>32485807
Late model tigers were reliable and could fight enemy tanks accurately at great distance. Inb4 unreliable meme

>>32485807
>actually saw wide service
M4A3E8
>in theory
T-44
Comet
>technically not a tank but still counting it
StuG

>>32486147
Sherman was a better vehicle in an individual basis (Compared to the T-34), easy to mass produce, easy to do maintenance on, and was adaptable to just about every role.

File: 1416896401398.jpg (320KB, 1000x712px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1000x712px

>>32487020
StuG is love
StuG is life

Centurion.

>>32487064
and the rooskies loved the one's we gave them

File: tank laughs.jpg (69KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x333px

>>32486318
>killed most of its crew on penetration
>in a war of attrition
The Russians didn't exactly have a manpower shortage.

>>32486041
>I'll take false equivalencies for 500 Alex

>>32486041
You can bitch and moan all you want, the hellcat still won't be a tank

File: 1380149520683.jpg (281KB, 1280x821px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x821px

>>32485807
Challenger 2

>>32488874
which is objectively worse than the abrams, but nice try

File: 1476590685217.jpg (10KB, 205x249px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 205x249px

>>32488874
>rifled gun

>>32488954
Abrams didn't exist in WW2 dumbass.

>>32488954
neither did the challenger 2 you kike

>>32488990
holy shit you're dumb.

>>32489006
>projection: the post
kys faggot

File: 1446021742302.jpg (80KB, 431x424px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 431x424px

>>32488643
They had a tanker shortage. Losing your crews over and over and over and over and over reduces the effectiveness of your army massively.

Germany, for example, lost nearly it's entire 1939-1941 "successful" army and experienced soldiers during Operation Barbarossa and the winter of 1941-42. Almost everyone beyond that point was a replacement.

Tanker casualties in the RU ran into the 75% range, and not wounded either. Dead.


Here, I think I have an ebook on it.

https://mega.nz/#!3E0xUbDR!d-a_v66vhl8oO7yg5o_Jzty9e0H7b-nvr48SxZfBQ44

Spoilers: Russia and Eastern Europe was pretty depopulated by the end of WWII.

>>32489015
>>32488974
>>32488990

>being so autistic you don't know when people are fucking with you

>>32485807

Sherman and Panther

The Panther brought an extremely powerful, easily mass-produced package of armor, speed and firepower which surpassed most enemy heavy tanks to the table at the cost of reliability, which got better but never received a real, proper fix

The Sherman was less about the raw fighting power but about keeping the excellent US logistics' momentum strong and being able to seize the enormous industrial potential of the United States, all while having a favourable combat value due to crew ergonomics the T-34 lacked and raw fighting power that was at the very least decent if not good.

>>32487020
>M4A3E8
Agreed Easy 8 was a great tank.

>>32489140
In 1942 the Sherman was outclassed by pretty much everything in production, save perhaps some Jap tanks. US couldn't into tank design - they were pretty new to it.

They eventually added more bits to it and improved the armor, but it aint the great tank you make it out to be, it was just numerous and easy to mass produce.

Shermans would be great in 1939.

>T-34 lacked and raw fighting power
It had plenty of raw fighting power in 1940, 1941, 1942. The germans got a nasty shock when they first encountered them on the eastern front.

>>32485807
>Early 1930s
Vickers 6 ton
>Mid 1930s
Somua S-35 or 7TP
>1939
Matilda II
>1940
T-34/76
>1941
T-34/76
>1942
Pz. IV F
>1943
Panther
>1944
T-34/85
>1945
IS-2

>>32489140
>The Panther brought an extremely powerful, easily mass-produced package of armor, speed and firepower which surpassed most enemy heavy tanks to the table at the cost of reliability, which got better but never received a real, proper fix
There was no fixing the Panther's reliability. The transmission and suspension were not intended for a 45 ton tank. And while it's gun was good, it wasn't intended for a medium tank. The lack of a competent HE round hurt the tank badly enough that crews who had to fight the tanks would often report that they couldn't tell the difference between HE and AP rounds.


>>32489843
>In 1942 the Sherman was outclassed by pretty much everything in production, save perhaps some Jap tanks. US couldn't into tank design - they were pretty new to it. They eventually added more bits to it and improved the armor, but it aint the great tank you make it out to be, it was just numerous and easy to mass produce.


In 1942 the Sherman was the best medium tank in the west. Cheaper to maintain and keep in the field than a Panzer 4, incredibly easy to maintain, because many components were lifted in near-whole cloth from the M3 Lee, very little retooling had to be done. Even German reports from Africa conceded that the tank was quite good.


Most of the flaws were either overblown- relative to other medium tanks the Sherman wasn't actually worse in terms of catastrophic ammunition detonations or engine fires, certainly not Panzer 4's- or the fault of planners and crews more than the tank itself. Planners intentionally withheld Shermans with the 76mm guns, only issuing them in unusual circumstances, and the special ballistic capped rounds for the 75mm gun that dramatically improved it's armor penetration were flat out not issued. Plus it helped nothing that tank crews were in the habit of stuffing ammo anywhere it'd fit in the tanks. Because, you know, wet rack stowage can't help you if you don't put rounds in it.

>>32489843
>In 1942 the Sherman was outclassed by pretty much everything in production, save perhaps some Jap tanks.

you could say the same thing about the panzer 3s and 4s

neither had sloped armor or were retrofitted with it, and both had shitty guns in their initial designs. sure, they were later upgraded with high velocity 50 and 75 millimeter guns, but in a stand up fight, the French and Russian tanks of that period were comparable if not better.

>>32489843
>In 1942 the Sherman was outclassed by pretty much everything in production, save perhaps some Jap tanks. US couldn't into tank design - they were pretty new to it.

Which is why the Sherman rekt both Panthers and T-34/85s. Could have fooled me

>>32490026
>In 1942 the Sherman was the best medium tank in the west
matildha II and valentine want a word with you. You can't expect a country brand new to tank design to know what its doing, its ok.

Somebody post all those images of shermans with sandbags all over them because the crew had no faith in their armor protection.

>>32490028
yeah the T-34 really was a huge leap forward, although the Pz. IV variants of 1942 began to outclass them

>>32490040
Shermans never fought T-34/85s in 1942, and panthers hadn't been produced yet... are you dumb?

Post war shermans were a very different story to the short barrel 75mm armed shermans of 1942.

As for panthers, they're a very difficult tank to get the most out of, and when you're heavily outnumbered, and likely not the best trained crew, its easy to get swamped.

Remember WW2 was a war of production. If you can produce enough average vehicles like the T-34 and Sherman, you can overcome even the most advanced vehicles through sheer numbers.

>>32485807
>preps h8 sheild
The StuG III G
Decent gun, decent armor, decent mobility
It maybe not be "the best"
But it helped germany in the war (albeit not enough to win) fufilling offensive roles at the begining of the war, and defensive at the end

>>32487074
Mein nigga

>>32490002
This guy has the right idea

>>32487064
>easy to do maintenance on
Only with extraordinary American logistics. Sherman was a perfect time for service in peace time.

>>32490092
>short barrel 75mm armed shermans of 1942
The same ones that exchanged favorably to Panthers at Arracourt when present in similar numbers?

Blow it out your ass, Wehraboo

>>32485807

M4, Followed very closely by the T34, and PzKFWIII.

File: Biolith5163c406969b2.jpg (61KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x437px

>>32485807
From numbers(produced, kills, losses), users and the supported..

There is only one answer, and that answer is the Stug III. Do your research and you will know it to be true.

File: 1395078932343.jpg (357KB, 676x800px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 676x800px

>>32490563
>>32485899
Before the "TD's" are not tanks argument hits in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

(protip, Mark 1 is regarded as the first operational TANK and it had no turret)

File: 1436467169473.jpg (146KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 654x539px

>>32490563
>>32490588
Designation is decided by doctrine, not by configuration or equipment (eg Stridsvagina 103 being a MBT). The StuG isn't even a tank destroyer, it's technically an assault gun.

File: 1403236009310.gif (689KB, 266x199px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 266x199px

>>32490812
"Tank" is not a designation so while correct in its content, your argument is invalid.

>>32490862
>"Tank" is not a designation
how is it not

File: 1404431878989.gif (984KB, 416x234px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 416x234px

>>32490884
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tank

It's a nickname or the name for the whole category of armored tracked armed vehicles.

Light Tank
Medium Tank
Heavy Tank
Tank Destroyer
Main Battle Tank

etc. are designations like >>32490812

>>32490160
Still, if something broke your could fix it or take it off to put a new one on.
Bogie broke? Unbolt it and put on a new one. Engine shit the bed? Fix it or tow it to a repair facility for a new one. Even the transmission could be removed in one piece and replaced.

The Soviets built the T-34 to fight, die/ break down, and be replaced by another tank. The Americans built the M4 to fight, die/ break down, and be fixed to return to the fight.

>>32490921
>strict etymology
>actual military doctrine
Pick one.

File: 1429401863460.gif (784KB, 257x193px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 257x193px

>>32490954
So far there has not been a single war or time in the history of warfare that Tanks would have been designated as "Tanks" in military doctrine.

>>32490990
In what category did the US Army put the Sherman in then?

>>32486318

WW2 was not a war of attrition

File: 1429404296362.gif (2MB, 300x189px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x189px

>>32491006
"The M4 Sherman, officially Medium Tank, M4"

File: 1410978648168.png (12KB, 167x307px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 167x307px

>>32491038
Thought so

File: 1432159657860.jpg (29KB, 500x746px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x746px

>>32491062
The M4 Sherman, officially Medium Tank, M4
Medium Tank, M4
Medium Tank

Not Tank, If you categorize them by having the word Tank in the designation, then guess what.. Tank Destroyers are again valid!

>>32491079
The keyword here is destroyer.
Stop confusing subject and object.

>>32491079
In the US classification, Tank Destroyer was a role and not a designation.
Vehicles used as Tank Destroyers had the designation GMC (Gun Motor Carriage). Tanks were labeled, and used, as tanks. With the only differences being Light, Medium, or Heavy.

File: bong laughs.png (27KB, 469x462px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 469x462px

>>32488972
Laughing at Megatron.

>>32490812
You're an assault gun.

>>32491102
So your main category that tank destroyers belong to, would be destroyers. But anon I thought they were ships. Seriously though Tanks are all armored tracked and armed vehicles unless the designation is specified. While I know its common to associate it with turreted Tanks, but quite honestly there is no real reason to do so, original Tanks did not have turrets and none of the tank designations are just Tank

>>32491159
>if I keep making shit up and doing damage control maybe people will start believing the idiocy I got called out on

>>32485853
>The thread will be derailed with vague comments that add nothing to the conversation.

>>32490059

>matildha II


Could only fire solid shot. Many used water cooled engines- remember, these were fighting in a desert- maintenance was a bitch, pricey to build, poor mobility, poor usage of armor.


>valentine


Not much better. The 2 pounder gun was reaching the end of it's effective life in 1942.
>You can't expect a country brand new to tank design to know what its doing, its ok.


Were it in a vacuum you may be on to something, but the US wasn't Italy and wasn't deaf to what the rest of the world was doing. The US owed a huge deal to European developments- the 75mm gun was based on a WW1 field gun the French employed, the 76mm gun was based on the British 6 pounder, and a great deal of the components the M4 Sherman used, were lifted in whole cloth from the M3 Lee, which the British were heavily involved in the development of.


Very little on the tank was wholly original. Suspensions were borrowed from successful tractor designs, aircraft engines were used, casting techniques refined to produce something other than tanks were borrowed to mass produce turrets.


The country with little idea of what it was doing was actually Italy.


>Somebody post all those images of Shermans with sandbags all over them because the crew had no faith in their armor protection.


No one had faith in their tanks, everyone complained about something. In terms of statistics though? Sherman tanks crews had the best survivability rates of the war.

Sherman EZ8 and T-34/85.

>>32489039
>Pretending to be retarded on /k/.

>>32487020
StuG what you dumb nigger. You might as well have just said
>Panzer

BOB SEMPLE

>>32486147
piss poor visibility, several dozen cases where the tanks drove into gullies, crew standing ontop of ammunition...

Did the T-34 ever get a real turret basket? I've tried searching but get mixed results.
Some say yes, some say no.

>>32490181
>due in part to poor German tactics and the terrain, the 4th Armored Division's CCA, in concert with U.S. tactical air forces, defeated two Panzer Brigades and elements of two Panzer divisions in a series of engagements over an eleven-day period

Seems like more a case of bad tactics and shoddy crew than inferior equipment.

I mean you only need to look at the basic stats of each tank to see the difference.

Panther was faster, had much, better gun, much better armor all around.

Knowing the basic facts doesn't really make me a werhaboo. Overestimating the capabilities of the Sherman does make you a Seppo-boo though

>>32491208
Matildha was a purely anti tank vehicle, designed to support infantry against armor. For this purpose in 1939 it was perfectly capable. Dont forget its a late 1930s design.

Valentines by 1942 had a 6-pdr. Far superior to the short US 75mm. And they had 60mm all round, much better protection than the Sherman. They were slower, and didn't fire HE (nor did the Mk. VIII have MGs) but they were excellent in their role as anti-armor infantry support.

>>32491208
>No one had faith in their tanks
Most german crews did, especially in Tigers. Most KV-1 crews had great faith in their tanks. Even T-34 crews in the early years of Barbarossa considered their tanks excellent - had to be hit multiple times at close range to be taken out by the early Pz. III and IVs.

>>32490160
The Russians liked it because you hardly had to do any maintenance on it, in their opinions.

>>32491327
most tanks in 1940 that weren't german had pretty mediocre visibility.

>>32491327
>crew standing ontop of ammo
most tanks

>>32491589
While in numbers the Panther is better. In reality, and actual operations, the Shermans were more effective.
Panthers only had good armor from the front and their layout had some serious flaws such as no periscope for the gunner (Only the optic they aimed with), a small turret and high-mounted gun that made loading difficult, and it being difficult for the crew to evacuate the vehicle if hit.
And that's not even looking at the reliability issues, most notably the final drive that would destroy itself.
Panther is not a better tank, it is a better blueprint.

As for Germans adding applique armor, it was common with the medium tanks and StuGs. Thought it was mostly spaced. On the Tiger it wasn't needed because the armor worked at range (Where the tank as intended to be used) and also because there really wasn't anywhere to put it.

>>32485824
This

Fuck you OP, I absolutely despise threads like these. Nothing comes out of them but shitposting and baseless claims.

>>32491589
>WW2 tactical air
>actually knocking out tanks

Except the Sherman's fire control, which consistently allowed it to get the first shot. This led to positive exchange rates against the Panther, not only here but across the ETO.

>overestimating the Sherman

I'm contending that you are underestimating it because it's combat performance suggests that, as a system, it was superior to most of the German armor it faced in spite of apparent deficiencies in hard factors.

>>32491636
>Panthers only had good armor from the front
Compared to a sherman it had good armor all around. At the front it blows the Sherman out of the water armor-wise. Especially considering the shermans short 75mm against the panthers equivalent of 100mm (sometimes estimated as more) of armor.

The panther was a difficult tank to get the most out of. If the crew didn't know what they were doing, or weren't well experienced in the vehicle, its unlikely the would do that well. Most of the best German crews had been lost by that stage of the war.
On paper Panther is excellent, but so much of tank combat is in the crews and tactics rather than the paper statistics. Hence Germans overwhelming superior tanks in France and Poland. With the right tactics you can easily defeat a superior foe.

>>32491673
>WW2 tactical air
>actually knocking out tanks
confirmed for not knowing shit about WW2.
Or did the US not have the AT bomblets that the Russians were using?

> it was superior to most of the German armor it faced in spite of apparent deficiencies in hard factors.
So you're saying it was superior despite the fact that it was inferior. That doesn't make sense. See >>32491682 with superior crew and tactics you can defeat superior equipment.

>>32485853
>INB4 Panthers
>INB4 Shermans
>INB4 T-34
This threads are the /k/ equivalent of /a/'s waifuwars. No one is gonna win and there will be a lot of biased shitposting involved.

>>32491682
The Panther's side armor was bad. They were developing the Panther II to fix that problem, before they came to their sense and just added schurzen to stop anti-tank rifles and other projectiles.
And armored warfare does indeed have a large part to do with crew skill and tactics, which by 1944 the US had better. The crews in the Panthers, Tiger IIs, etc. were not all the veterans originally placed in the Tiger I. The war had taken its toll on Germany's pool of men as much as it did its pool of material resources.

>dealing with day/k/are who have never read a book about WW2 in their life, and base their assessment of which tank was best on history channel documentaries.

Your homework is to go read some books, read some memoirs. Read about German airmen taking out 4 tanks in a single pass with AT guns (it was a Henschel Hs 129), and about IL-2's with AT bomblets, then report back on how effective you think tactical air power is.

Is it possible you're confusing tactical air power with strategic bombing, which wasn't as effective?

>>32491701
Sauce me bro, because everything I've seen points to aircraft overclaiming tank kills exorbitantly on all sides throughout WW2.

>>32491175
It's ok anon.

>>32491721
>The crews in the Panthers, Tiger IIs, etc. were not all the veterans originally placed in the Tiger I. The war had taken its toll on Germany's pool of men as much as it did its pool of material resources.
Thats what I said, try to read my posts before replying.

The Panthers side armor was somewhat better than the Sherman's side armor. 40-50mm at an angle on the panther, vs 30-40mm vertical on the Sherman. Yes its not great compared to the front armor or the side of a tiger, but its decent for a medium tank - which is essentially what the panther was. A medium tank with a massive glacis and an excellent gun.

>>32491730
Just for one example, hand-Ulrich Rudel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Anti-tank_operations

He's described in this video too:
https://youtu.be/ichrcupEbvA?t=36m5s

I dont know about US, but certainly the Germans knew how to take out tanks from the air.

>>32491787
I highly doubt Rudel's numbers.

>>32491787
Rudel was full of shit. Pilots consistently overestimated their kills on fucking EVERYTHING by a huge margin. Especially tanks.

>>32491608
Russians like it because you could breathe there, lol. As for T-34 and maintance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohz9NzpkrQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fe4YI2N4ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OoS8Zhg6EM

>>32491138
i've licked that tank

File: 136.png (96KB, 731x319px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 731x319px

>>32491673
>Except the Sherman's fire control, which consistently allowed it to get the first shot.
That's bullshit.
A single axis stabilizer that most crews weren't even trained how to use or maintain wasn't some game-changer compared to the Panther's stadiametric range finder and dual magnification sight.
While the M4 might fire the first shot, it's not likely to be the first to land a shot on target, especially not with the sight-linkage inaccuracy on the periscope and the bad ergonomics on the direct sight.

File: T20_tank_pilot_at_Fisher_plant.png (2MB, 2150x1263px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2150x1263px

>>32487020

I agree with this anon

Adding to the in theory though, I think the T-20 would have been one of if not the best tank of the war

It's a sherman but lighter, lower profile, better armored, and 76 standard.

of course it wasn't worth the resources and hassle to produce them instead of shermans, but still.

>>32491843
I mean, if you read "Commanding the Red Army's Shermans", you'll see the guy (who commanded a battalion of Shermans) out and out said that the men loved the Shermans because they hardly ever required maintenance compared to the T-34.

>>32492168
To note that same Soviet tanker (whose name escapes me) also served in T-34's iirc so actually had experience with both. His memoirs are very interesting reads

>>32491257
wow so intelligent you sure showed him, how could we know if he's referring to the most produced 'tank' of the germans or the stug iv?

File: IMG_1564.png (898KB, 700x1050px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 700x1050px

IS3

>>32485807
My cock, 2bh

File: 1482887898324.png (745KB, 800x700px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 800x700px

>>32491079
What the fuck

By this logic both a cheese sandwich and a sandwich toaster are a 'sandwich'.

>>32491194
>also, memes and shouting

>>32489037
They also had a shortage of factories that could be realistic to make anything better

Hence why T34s change drastically depending on factory

T34 design allowed for shit tolerances, shit steel and shit production

>>32491079
Ah, but let's take a look at the official categorization of the Hellcat. It's the "76mm Gun Motor Carriage M18". Gun Motor Carriage, not Tank. Neat.

>>32490923
Do you really think most other tanks were held together with one way plastic clips?

The only difference is that the Americans had a logistic system to support their tanks

>>32492224
Dmitri Loza
he also said Shermans' 75mm lacked stopping power, and they were carrying 2/3rds HE or more by the end of the war, as armor penetration was a pipe dream, so to kill a Panther or Tigers they'd have two tanks striving to mobility kill from the front and one trying to flank for a shot with APC

>>32492552
T-44 was designed and prototyped in (wait for it) '44, but the decision was made to not send it into production
T-34/85 was approved instead

>>32485868
warthunder pls go

>>32492581
>2/3rds HE or more by the end of the war,
I'm going to offer an alternative explanation for this. By that point in the war, Germany had very few tanks. As such, it would make sense to adjust the mix of HE and AP shells to address the threat mix (not much armor, lots of personnel, buildings, and guns). If you're only carrying 1/3rd of your shell load as AP shells, that's still 30 rounds of AP. Maybe 25, if you're carrying 5 smoke rounds. Not sure how many the Soviets got. Still, 25 rounds per tank, with numerical superiority almost guaranteed against whatever they faced. That's enough for several engagements. Second, the vast majority of German armor was vehicles that the 75mm Gun M3 could indeed penetrate.

>>32492622
guy specifically wrote they were engaging tanks with HE

>>32491159
Tank destroyers are SPGs though.

>>32492772
I don't remember that in the book, friend.

>>32490002
>Matilda II

Too slow to be used in blitzkrieg, too slow to react to blitzkrieg, laughably bad HE, two man turret... Was it even properly radioed up?

>>32492819
so maybe read it again, friend
it's right before the part where he gets sent to Manchuria iirc

>>32490160
That has nothing to do with logistics. "Easy to do maintenance on"means not having to take of the turret when fiddling with the gearbox, for example. Actually having a new gearbox is where the logistics come into play.

>>32490026

>Le transmission meme.

Guess what the Germans wanted to replace by the end of the war? That's right.

With the King Tiger's transmission the problems would have been gone.

>Le bad HE round meme

Posted from captured Panthers that were used as artillery thanks to their ability to bring a HE shell to a target with pinpoint accuracy

>>32489843

I didn't refer to the T-34 in terms of combat value, I know it was an excellent tank on paper, but still a cramped slavbox that in no way was as well-designed as the Sherman

>>32492811
No

Tank destroyer typically use high velocity gun while SPG uses shorter, lower velocity gun

>>32491257
Oh please
which one do you think, autismo

>>32485807
Sherman. Most reliable, light enough to cross bridges and floating bridges. Good armor, good gun, great ergonomics, best crew serviceability of the war.

>But they called it a Ronsen because it caught on fire
The crew escaped alive.

>muh T-34 defeat capitalist
Shermans spanked T-34 in Korea.

>>32489843
M4 Sherman served in Korea and obliterated the T-34.

>>32492878
When he's fighting in Vienna? Those weren't Shermans that were firing the HE.

>>32485899
Gun Motor Carriage =/= Tank Destroyer or more precisely, GMCs were tank destroyers but not all tank destroyers were GMCs.

>>32492947
>Guess what the Germans wanted to replace by the end of the war? That's right.

>With the King Tiger's transmission the problems would have been gone.


Well, without knowing what it would have cost? It would have eased production but the King Tiger wasn't exactly the poster child of reliability either. Without knowing what the tank could have had happen, you're left with speculation. Meanwhile, even after fielding them longer than the Germans did, the French were not at all bothered when they dropped the Panther from their armed forces.


>Posted from captured Panthers that were used as artillery thanks to their ability to bring a HE shell to a target with pinpoint accuracy


Your anecdote < facts. I'm sure it happened but the fact of the matter was that no one really had a way of mixing high velocity rounds with good HE power. Accuracy is nice, but the panther, still, was not a SPG. No one really struggled with putting rounds where they wanted- excluding the British with their 17 pounder and it's discarding sabot round- so the point of it being accurate is kind of moot. The best thing to come out of that tank was actually the jadgpanther.


>I didn't refer to the T-34 in terms of combat value, I know it was an excellent tank on paper, but still a cramped slavbox that in no way was as well-designed as the Sherman


Ergonomics were thought of with the T-34. You just need to remember that you were tall in the Union if you were more than 5'7 or so. Decades worth of food scarcity and outright famine will do that.

File: 1417456772001.png (124KB, 336x308px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 336x308px

>>32486188

>>32494456
T-34 had a 75% crew kill rate with tank destruction.
Sherman had 18%.