Is the Jumbo unequivocally the best tank of ww2?

>>34330920
A34 Comet is better in my opinion. Moderately weak armour aside, combining high mobility of the Cromwell and the strong firepower of the 77mm that's comparable to 17pdr means its pretty comparable to even the Pershing. Since I don't know much about it's combat history I'm just going to assume it's more reliable than Tigers and Panthers.

Just my opinion though.

File: DSC44[1].jpg (362KB, 640x395px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 640x395px

>>34330920
outside of the M4 W(90) prototype the upgraded version with the 76mm... it's one of the best sherman variants created

File: comet.jpg (106KB, 798x800px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 798x800px

>>34330954
Hi friend.

>>34330920
Wait, Jumbo came in something else than 105mm HE chucker? Well sign me down for scareoused

>>34330966
Hi anon :^)

Nice drab covering there. Where is this area?

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26258,_Panzer_V_-Panther-.jpg (257KB, 799x539px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 799x539px

haha ein tommycooker, nein das is not the best tank.

File: comet in korea.jpg (105KB, 800x646px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x646px

>>34331013
Germany

>>34331026
Tommycooker memes.
> Panthers can be killed with .50s

>>34330996
Jumbos had 75mm cannons and some were upgraded to 76mm.

>>34330954
Cromwell variants were pretty mechanically reliable - there was nothing really new on them - engine and running gear etc were all well-known and established in their own right.

Probably the best all-rounder of the war, but didn't see enough service to really be able to measure it as well as the Jumbo/Easy-Eight. Certainly informed the development of the Centurion which would have been hands down the best tank of the war had it had the chance to partake.

>>34331026
I did initially thought about having Panther as the best tank of WW2, but I decided it's more of a "tank-destroyer" rather than a true tank, and that it's reliability record isn't exactly excellent.

The 75mm KwK-42/70 is an excellent cannon, don't get me wrong. Long barrel meaning high accuracy and kinetic energy, it could rival 17pdr and gun of the Comet, but because of that high speed trajectory, it's not exactly good as a multi-role gun.

Personally it is very hard to decide on a single tank in WW2 and name it the best, so I'll put Panther as a very good tank at the very least, at most being among the best.

>>34331043
>Inb4 being called a WOT fag

Thoughts on Centurion / M46 Patton vs Panther II / Eintwicklung-50 ?

File: t-44-9002.jpg (276KB, 1181x886px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1181x886px

Technically speaking ( invented and produced during WW2 ) that would be JS-3 or T-44

>>34331043
>but didn't see enough service to really be able to measure it as well as the Jumbo/Easy-Eight.
You avin a giggle?
Over 10,000 cromwells, 200 challengers & 1000 comets were in use by the wars end.

250 or so jumbos were ever produced & easy 8s were still rare by 1945

>>34331091
I love the fact that even though the Centurion succeeded the Comet in 1946-8, the Comet wasn't put out of British service until 1958. That's the legacy and pinnacle of WW2 era cruiser tank.

>>34331102
Even by 1951 & their use in the korean war they were considered to still have sensitive technology.

File: centurion-625x450.jpg (50KB, 625x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 625x450px

>>34331091
Cromwells undoubtedly had an extensive service history - they went ashore on D-Day and fought until the end of the war. Wasn't saying they didn't.

Comets on the other hand, for whatever reason, ended up with units that didn't see a huge amount of action - there just isn't the depth of experience with them that you have with other Sherman variants. Though as >>34331102 says, it was clearly effective as it lasted almost 15 years in service when vehicles that were - on paper - were in widespread use.

>>34331066
Both the Panther II and E-50 are literally Paper Panzers - we'll never know how they would have stacked up when you put them all together, but looking at the quality of product that German factories were turning out in late '44/'45, they would have suffered greatly from poor-quality steel being used for armour.

However, the 20pdr gun on the Centurion would have made the KT sweat profusely, it was incredibly versatile and maneuverable and had a lower silhouette (so harder to hit). I'd say the Centurion would have walked over either of them.

Don't know enough about the Patton to be able to comment with any confidence.

>>34331238
Actually fair point. Why did I even bother with comparing real tanks to something that isn't even a materialistic project. I have even seen a clip of the Centurion firing every 3-4 seconds. Considering it had a 84mm, that't pretty damn scary.

>>34331238
>Comets on the other hand, for whatever reason, ended up with units that didn't see a huge amount of action
Crossing of the rhine and autobahn pushes during the last two moths of the war saw more comets (500) committed than jumbos saw over their whole existence.

Its not that they didn't see a lot of action, its that the action they did see was poorly recorded.

They were pretty prominent in the battle of teutoberg forest, osnabruck canal, liberation of belsen (where comets and Cromwells chased down & smoothied germans attempting to flee). the crossing of the elbe ect.

>>34330920

The Jumbo was very slow and had crummy off-road performance because of all the extra armor they piled onto it.

It was great for taking a hit at the front of a road convoy and returning fire, but not great for general combat.

>>34331381
oh, so it was basically a tiger?

>>34331395
A tiger that actually had sloped armour, fire-on-the-move capability as well as real reliability.

>>34331395

That's a funny way of thinking about it. I suppose, yeah - a goofy stopgap instead of a real heavy tank.

>>34331395
Tiger was breddy gurd off road though...

>>34331354

This is true, and a better way of putting what I was trying to say - the records of what the Comets got up to aren't as well known as the 'famous' E8s and Pershings.

By the limited accounts available, they were very well liked by crews, were very maneuverable both on and off road (especially if you had a cheeky fitter who would take the governor off the engine) and the gun packed quite a serious punch in a more compact package than the 17pdr. Vastly outclassed the PzIV Ausf F that would have been it's main opposition in '45.

Makes you think what difference a tank like the Comet would have made, had it been available around El Alamein instead of the Sherman.

>>34331966
>'famous' E8s and Pershings.
this is only because they were predominantly used during the korean war.

>>34332001
>this is only because they were predominantly used during the korean war.

But that then makes people read up on their history, so their base level of knowledge is skewed.

It's like the Hollywood effect: something like 65% of Americans below the age of 18 didn't even know there were allied troops in Northern Europe that weren't American. It's like 87% for the Pacific - all because the media focuses on the US, so everyone reads up on the burgers, so they only know about burger things to make media... It's all self fulfilling.

File: shermans-ww2.jpg (164KB, 1440x804px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1440x804px

>>34331026
You know why the schurzen are there? because the 14.5mm shells of the PTRS single shot anti-tank rifle could go right through the side armor of the Panther and kill everyone inside by bouncing around.

>>34330920
Are you really asking that of a tank that served alongside the Easy 8?

>>34330996
Life is not WoT and if you're using the 105 you're doing it wrong.

>>34331395
except that Germany had to use their tanks for defence, where the Tiger type of tank was really good, whereas the jumbo wasn't very suited for offensive operations that the allies had to take upon themselves.

File: 1476922718708.jpg (42KB, 600x655px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x655px

>>34332027
I like you.

>>34332027

You mean the PTRD.the PTRS is semi auto witha 5 round clip.But yea,german tanks were terrible.

>>34331414
>A tiger that actually had sloped armour
it didn't though.

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

58KB, 650x255px

>>34334354
it did!!!!!! 8 degrees!

Easy 8 was the best tank of the war which saw combat use. Comet had crew quality-of-life issues (driver/co-driver hatches).

>>34334354
>>34334456
Reading comprehension.

>>34334791
Sorry, i dont listen to hip-hop

>>34331026
The transmission breaks after 150km

>>34331026
>fifty tons
>medium tank

>>34332021
I think this is true of everyone. I've spoken to Russians who had no idea that there were tank battles in North Africa, or that there was even a North African theater at all.

>>34331238
>poor-quality steel
That's a meme. German steel was fine, the British railguns and subhuman naval guns being fired at it later in the war were a bigger problem.

>>34335130
Ah, the Wehraboo awakens!

File: Alt_Knight_and_FedEx_Man.jpg (79KB, 960x700px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x700px

>>34330920
The US industry was the greatest and most indestructible tank. Unsinkable ship. Best gun. Biggest bomb

Prove me wrong.

Actually just post America. I love America. I'm not even American. God I love America.

>>34334801
Nor English.

>>34335130
Your sentence doesn't make any sense. Are you saying German tank armour failed to come up to standard at the end of the war because the allies were shooting at tanks with Railway Guns (Railguns are a very different thing) and Naval guns?

Wasn't even aware the allies had any Railway Guns in NW Europe. Their systematic destruction of the railways prior to June '44 would have made that a pretty thick decision...

File: Jumbo.jpg (36KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x391px

>>34330920
>jumbo
Even the italians had better tanks

>>34330996
I bet you're one of the faggots who grinds for the T29 with the E2 without getting the 90mm from the T20 first, aren't you?

>>34330920
These were so shit in company of heros i liked the hell cat design cos it looks like a modrn day tank

But really infantry was the best just give them a bit of bazokas and all tanks are dead

>>34331078
>JS-3
get that anglicised bullshit out of here. It's IS-3 and you need to suck a cock.

More to the point; the IS-3 was a terrible tank that compounded all of the shortcomings of the IS-2 into an even smaller vehicle. Crew comfort was among the worst of any production armored fighting vehicle in history, and build quality was questionable at best. Few other tanks that entered mass production, before or after, ever had to worry about their front end falling off spontaneously due to poor welding. Like the many German tanks of the second world war, it was such a shock to the west purely in terms of a appearance that we overreacted. Arguably the two most useless tanks ever put into production by NATO members, the Conqueror and M103, were direct responses to the IS-3, and were themselves not very good.

T-44 is arguably the best from the standpoint of all of the things that spawned from it. It's difficult to trace the M1 Abrams back to the M26, or the Challenger II back to the Centurion I, but at least on a superficial level, it's easy to see the similarities between a T-90 and a T-44.

>>34335130
No, that's a fact based on the germans running our of manganese for the production of more elastic RHA and instead switching to readily available high-carbon steel instead. Late war german tanks had a bad habit of cracking like IPhone screens.

>>34336094
Look at the turret anon that tanks was used for gunnery practice and then evaluated.

>>34336640
Nah, i just buy the T34 and bounce away ;)

>>34332027

That wasn't an issue exclusive to the Panther and fixed with later models

File: tiger.jpg (47KB, 650x255px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 650x255px

>>34334456

File: 1494905007047.jpg (100KB, 780x1133px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 780x1133px

>>34332027

>>34331078
Neither of those saw action in WWII. If we're calling those WWII tanks, then we would also have to consider the centurion to be.
In that case, the centurion would have been the best tank of the war.

We wuz Ronsons n shiet

>>34340466
I thought it officially entered service circa 1946-8? I mean designs would have to be earlier of course but it entered service during late WW2?

>>34340466
none of them
neither did centurion

>>34340565
6 prototypes were tested by the Guards Armoured Division in July '45

>>34340207
i appreciated this

>>34340207
Yeah....im gonna save this

>>34330954
>the strong firepower of the 77mm that's comparable to 17pdr means its pretty comparable to even the Pershing.

That's objectively wrong though. Neither the 17pdr or 77mm came close to what the 90mm could do.

>>34341892
>Neither the 17pdr or 77mm came close to what the 90mm could do.

False, the postwar tests were as follows concluded that the 17pdr was superior at range, however the 90mm was superior at close range, but that didn't matter anyway.

They found that the accuracy & trajectory of the 77 & 17pdr were incredibly good.

>>34342072
the accuracy on the 17 pounder was shit. It barrely had anything over American long barreled 76mm

>>34342101
>accuracy was shit
Using a particular round, yes.

>>34342101
wrong again, the issue was repeat shots throwing the gun off its original marker, meaning corrected shots were harder to correct.

If you dialled in the gun properly & did proper spotting & calc before hand it was more accurate.

>>34342124
Aye, this, APFSDS rounds were in their infancy, improperly machined & poorly standardised

>>34335379
By
>Subhuman naval guns
He probably meant the ISU-152.

>>34340207
Now do the same for a T-34, but in reverse.

The best is probably the regular US M4A3(75).
Aside from going up against the Tiger I or II, or a Panther, frontally, the 75mm M3 was a perfectly acceptable gun. Decent AP penetration for what was expected to be encountered, and better HE than the 76mm M1 which was appreciated by tank crews in the Pacific.

>>34332027
You do realize that the Panther had better side and rear armour than a Sherman, right?

>>34342294
above the tracks , below the slope it was pretty weak

>>34335302
>the joke
>your head

>>34342294
Your point?
Protecting against 14.5mm rounds from At rifles is what the skirts in the side of the panther were for, it was just a happy coincidence that the skirts also helped with HEAT rounds.

>>34334354
>>34334456

He meant that the Jumbo had sloped armor, and was "like a Tiger with sloped armor".

>>34342294
But the Sherman was 15 tons lighter and Germany was fighting russians with PTRDs since june 1941.

Making a 30-35 ton tank immune to the panzerbuchse 41(and later,the panzerfaust) was impossible,making a 45 ton tank immune to the PTRD was easy.That's why we mock the Panther.

>>34336693
I'm pretty sure the Abrams was derived, however loosely from M60 Patton developments wasn't it? And once you get to the Patton it's easy to trace back to the Pershing and T29 experiments

File: 1436915503785.jpg (43KB, 337x404px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 337x404px

>>34342593
>Deliberate misinterpreting

>>34344218
The Pzb41 is an AT gun you retard, it is not comparable to the PTRD or Pzb39.
The T-34 was immune to the Pzb39 while the M4 Sherman was not.

>>34342294
Don't even both with these retards, they'll probably shit on the Panther's HE round next while ignoring the fact that the 76mm Sherman also had a weaker HE round.

>mfw wehraboos get btfo and then start projecting and deflecting
better than their master race armor can do lmoa

>>34330996
Jumbos came in 75mm. Some were later given 76mms. The Shermans with 105mms were something else entirely.

>>34346807
Ignore him, he apparantly thinks there's any connection between WoT and real life.

>>34345064
We're not talking about the T-34 here. The goalposts are the other way, franz.

>>34344927
Well the T-29 and the Patton tanks are two totally separate branches of development from the M26. Given out liking for the 105mm guns, I wouldn't even go as far to say that the T34 had anything to do with the development of the M1's current armament. The point I was really making was that, if you put an M1 next to an M26 you aren't going to see much of a similarity, whereas if you put a T-90 next to a T-44 you may very well be able to figure out that the former came from the latter.

>>34330920

Having actually fucking worked on one (Was owned by the Littefield collection), "yes" .

They were pretty damned good. The one I dealt with supposedly bounced a shot from a PAK 40, then MG'd the ATG crew, and crushed the gun.

A PAK 40 is a pretty badass rifle. Mind you this tank bounced the shot, then went on to trackrape the gun. Took a good gouge from the frontal armor, but a M4A3E2 is absurdly well armored.

Will look for the pics. If I find them will post, where they filled the dent with weld.

>>34346925
>supposedly
then in the next line the story is taken as fact. anyway, sure a jumbo may have resisted a german 7.5 cm round. what matters is the range.

>>34346921
oh from a purely visual standpoint you're absolutely correct, the Abrams only has very subtle indications of its relation to the M60 via the MBT70, and from the m48 to the m26/m46/m47

>>34348474
>its relation to the M60 via the MBT70, and from the m48 to the m26/m46/m47
you mean like tracks and a turret