Excuse me, best tank of WW2 passing through.

>>32562874
eh, Sherman Easy 8 proved to be a match in Korea and Pershing was better

File: charb_finished_sz_3.jpg (86KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 700x467px

wrong

File: strv_m42-6.jpg (176KB, 850x542px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 850x542px

I bet you fags aren't even neutral.

>>32562874
>Pic related

>>32562919
We have a genius amongst the gentlemen

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>32562970
Forgot pic

>>32562919
Sherman in general was easily best tank of the war.
Such a wide variety of what could be done with them and they were all fairly easy to fix/swap part out of. Really a great tank that often gets overlooked. Which I get, people like the big cats like Tiger, Panther, etc. they have a certain appeal to them and they command a certain reputation.

File: 476576.png (947KB, 1920x1049px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 1920x1049px

>>32563054
>Sherman in general was easily best tank of the war

>>32563708
What was then?
Shermans were easy to produce, extremely versatile, relatively light to transport,and also easy to fix/maintain compared to other tanks.

>>32563738
The T34-85

>>32563738
A tie between the StuG III, Panzer IV, and Panzer V.

>>32563753
No.
Every T-34 variant suffered from the same fundamental issues: Varying construction quality, difficult to repair, and a poor crew layout.

>>32563813
StuG III - Not a tank.
Pz IV - A tank that reached its absolute developmental limit fairly early into the war. Not a bad tank by any means, but there were better.
Pz V - Tank that never fully got past its teething issues and also had some issues with the vehicle layout.

>>32562874

Only good thing about the T-34 was that there were 50 trillion of them.

File: download.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>32562874
lol

>>32563054
The sherman was the best medium tank of the war if you don't count the panther as a medium tank. But calling it the best tank is misleading.

>>32563954
I'm talking about tanks as an overall system and instrument. Not just a single vehicle that's assumed to eb fully functioning.
With that in mind, I don't think it is misleading. I cannot think of any other tank from that time period that blended performance, simplicity, ease of production, and quality as the M4.

File: tanktakesadrink.jpg (156KB, 950x1236px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 950x1236px

>>32562919
And the Centurion was better than both of them

Because technically Centurion was introduced in WW2 :^)

But in all seriousness you are right.

>>32563954
The panther had a fundamental design flaw in the drive train, which necessitated a rebuilt approximately every 150km driven. Post-war, the design proved entirely unsalvageable, and after 12 years the French gave up in disgust.

File: israeli tank crashes.jpg (2MB, 1680x4370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x4370px

>>32563992
Are those Israelis?

>>32563992

Centurion and T-54/55 can be considered the first main battle tanks, though neither was actually classed as such. Also you need a really big shoehorn to fit an L7 into a T-55.

>>32564709
That's a Mk3 in Korea

>>32563855
There were more Shermans built during the war than T-34s.

>>32563753
>>32562874
> no turret basket

>>32563813
>heavy
>complex
>inefficient
>mediocre guns
only thing German tanks have going for them is well trained crews
and early access to radios

File: 657589.jpg (96KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 720x479px

>>32564709
hey, other nations are perfectly capable of epic fail with their armoured vehicles as well, like pic related for example (not a tank. but it's not exactly a jeep either)

File: 1476475376853.jpg (155KB, 720x533px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 720x533px

>>32564868
2/2

File: 33fffc89995f6ff8d25ffea03d0d54bc.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>32564813
48966 Shermans
58701 T34

Still, same ballpark.

>>32564831
What, you mean the crew don't accomplish their tasks simply be existing within the vehicle?

>>32564856
>>heavy
>>complex
>>inefficient
>>mediocre guns

...right.

File: T-34 Welding.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>>32564895
A turret basket is a pretty big deal. Without it, you're forced to sorta start stepping around as the turret turns, meaning you focus less on your actual job. Especially if where you gotta reach for the ammo didn't rotate around with you due to having no basket.

Also, build quality is shit.

>>32562874
Z Żagania?

File: 1450038980872.jpg (189KB, 785x545px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 785x545px

>>32562874
German tanks broke because they were so heavy, but the T-34 is a miracle of horrible quality.
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.fi/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

File: e1de695bc7cda7a354500fe0c86a9c27.jpg (48KB, 564x356px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 564x356px

Stupid tanks. The real MVP has arrived

Truck mounted 88

File: Churchill MkVI.jpg (80KB, 800x627px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x627px

>>32562926
definitely one of the prettiest, along with pic related

>>32563855
I wouldn't go that far. The T-34 was by no means a bad tank, unless you count the early-war emergency production models slapped together and sent to the eastern front.

It was definitely superior than any German tank at the time of its introduction and remained competitive to the end of the war. Calling it the best tank would also be wrong; It had godawful ergonomics, standard soviet design idiosyncrasies (such as portholes the crew were supposed to shoot out of with sidearms if the main gun goes down) and, of course, bad quality control. But the fact that the Ruskies were able to build a decent tank and shit it out in far higher numbers than the Germans, combined with the limitations of '40s technology, meant that Jerry would never be able to produce a force multiplier effective enough to stop the steamroller of T-34s coming at them, nor could they match the sheer numbers of T-34s produced.

Against Sherman, the T-34 is probably inferior. Apart from debatable advantages in guns and armour, it has inferior sights, clumsy interior design, crude mechanics (both an advantage and a disadvantage) and an average production quality and crew quality lower than the Sherman. This resulted in situations like >>32562919 in the korean war (by which time both tanks were starting to become obsolescent in the face of the T-44, Pershing and Centurion)

TL;DR: the T-34 is often labelled a shit tank by burgerboos and God's Tank by vatniks. The reality is somewhere in the middle: a decent tank Soviet hampered by design and production flaws.

>>32565232
*A decent tank hampered by Soviet design and production flaws.

>>32564880
>aa, satanaaa!!

File: DSC00055d.jpg (152KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 640x480px

>>32563885
Are you paid to be an idiot, or is this your genuine state of mind?

File: wehraboo.jpg (101KB, 988x688px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 988x688px

>>32565173
>wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

>>32565319
This is a 1/16th scale model

>>32565332

tfw toys are better quality than russian tanks

File: Sherweld2.jpg (20KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 360x270px

>>32565354

>>32565319

Rusaboo's so pathetic they try to post toys. lol.~

File: Mirage III vs T-34 1978.jpg (23KB, 195x344px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 195x344px

>>32562874
T-34 was in combat use still in 1978 in Angola.

>Gun camera shot from a Mirage-IIICZ as it strafes T-34 tanks near Cassinga.
>The 30mm Aden guns on the Mirages could not penetrate the main armor of the T-34, but they could disable it by destroying it’s tracks or damaging the top of the engine.
>The pilot of one Mirage said that a T-34 hopelessly was firing at his plane with the tank’s main gun

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/t-34-in-angola-1970s-1980s/

>>32564895
the pz4 costs just as much to produce as a panther
and the pz3 is even worse for cost effectiveness

>>32565441
Can't blame the crew, i do the same thing in war thunder when my tracks are off and i see bomber approaching.

>>32562919
Tell me more about how the Korean War was part of WW2 senpai.

>>32565208
Warthunder go home

>>32566107
I can imagine myself ordering the main gun to engage aircraft if I'm tracked and they're coming in for the kill.

1/1000000 is good odds against certain death.

>>32564917
I'm more concerned about why the welder attempted to weld the rear engine cover to the top engine cover.

the fuck is up with you and all the negative waves?
its a beautiful tank

>>32563753
Easy Eight Shermans handily kicked the T-34-85's ass throughout the Korean War

>>32566165

You're an idiot.

He's saying how they match up.

They both participated in WW2, but they never fought each other in WW2. They did fight in Korea, and we actually saw how they matched up there.

Retard.

Bait, but I'm stupid, so I'm taking it

>poor cooling systems caused frequent overheating and detracted from a truly well designed diesel engine

>underpowered electric turret traverse, considered inferior to contemporary hydraulic systems of the time

>radios not standard issue

>shit tier optics

>unnecessary sloped side armor led to drastically reduced internal volume

>obsolete internal suspension exacerbated this problem, and caused several of its own

>track pins had no form of retention and were poorly manufactured, often causing them to either slip free, or shatter under fire

>poor quality welds and steel

>can't make field repairs without tools to remove dozens of bolts

>abysmal clutch and transmission were extremely difficult to operate and broke frequently

>lackluster ergonomics

>hatches were too small, too difficult to open, and too few in number, virtually ensuring that a catastrophic kill would wipe out the crew as well as the tank

>NO FUCKING TURRET BASKET

There are little things I won't get into, like the lack of a secondary motor for charging batteries and the bow gunner having no optics, or things that were later fixed, such as the two man turret, the engine filters, or the water leakage problems, but still, the T-34 is an extremely overrated design. It's not BAD by any means, but it was definitely not the best design fielded throughout the war.

File: id_m4a3e8_4id_pettit_106_20051202_700.jpg (63KB, 504x361px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 504x361px

http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

For anyone interested, this is an interview with a Soviet tanker who crewed a Lend Lease M4 Sherman giving his thoughts on that design.

File: dat tank.jpg (95KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 480x360px

>>32562874
The only reason why "experts" on the History channel like it so much is because they jack off to production numbers like people on here jack off to lolis.

This same mentality is why the same people get a hardon over the T54/55, calling it the "best" Cold War tank, despite being inferior in specs and performance to the Centurion.

>>32566165
Korean War can actually be described as WWII's unfinished business.

Plus it was fought mostly with WWII hardware.

File: 1482265102668.png (157KB, 176x272px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 176x272px

>>32566177
Ayy someone else plays the GOAT tank game

My nigga