M4 SHERMAN BEST TANK OF THE WAR

File: 488.jpg (50KB, 1280x452px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1280x452px

For me it is T44 the best tank of the war

File: T44.jpg (53KB, 750x448px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 750x448px

>>34773250

File: 379.jpg (140KB, 877x512px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 877x512px

>>34773252
>>34773250
90mm*60c
impressive
>meanwhile m26 102mm*46c
laughable

Sherman is a meme tank

>>34774493
This, but it's the meme tank that won the war, along with the T34.

The GERMAN tanks, on the other hand--
>way too many versions of the same chassis
>continually pushed new designs instead of sticking with what works
>made everything fragile and complex in typical German engineering fashion
>made the armored divisions too reliant on logistics for parts and fuel, which came back to bite them in the ass later

>>34773250
>T-44-122
>Useful in any way

You can pick one, and only one.

>>34775718
>way too many versions of the same chassis
This allowed them to streamline production and allow them to produce incredibly cost effective vehicles like the StuG III/IV.

>continually pushed new designs instead of sticking with what works
Most of the early war designs were developmental dead ends that necessitated total replacement. The Pz IV is the best example of this.

>made the armored divisions too reliant on logistics for parts and fuel, which came back to bite them in the ass later
Literally any unit possessing mechanized assets will require strong logistics.

File: M4A1 76W.jpg (593KB, 3054x2036px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 3054x2036px

>>34773109
>Assaulting one of the most heavily defended cities on the Western front
>Boy, sure is lucky we had one of our best tanks to use!
So you use a description of one of the best records we have of American armor completely raping a Panther as your example for why American tanks were shit. Here's one; Remember that time Nazi tanks couldn't do anything against French armor, so they had to rely on fucking anit-aircraft guns? German armor confirmed shit tier!

Also
>1 Sherman for 1 Panther
Do you realize how incredibly fucking lopsided those losses are in terms of manpower, experience, and materials?

Look, anon. Look at the tank that won World War II. Look at the tank that carried American crews from Africa, into Sicily, up Italy, into France, and clear into the Rhineland. Look at the tank that stood strong as his friends died around him, but kept fighting anyway. Look at the tank that marched farther in a single day than any other to save it's allies in the dead of winter, when many of it's enemies couldn't even get their engines to start.
Look anon, and remember that they won.

>>34775887
>This allowed them to streamline production and allow them to produce incredibly cost effective vehicles like the StuG III/IV.
>Most of the early war designs were developmental dead ends that necessitated total replacement. The Pz IV is the best example of this.

Well which is it? Where they streamlining production, or did they constantly have to work over old designs because they could just never get it right?

>Pz.IV
>Developmental dead end
>necessitated total replacement
Is this bait? Are you one of those Wehrfags that tries to sell the "The Panther was totally necessary!" bullshit?

>Literally any unit possessing mechanized assets will require strong logistics.
Strong logistics that Nazi Germany, at no point after 1942, was capable of making real, begging the question of why Germany placed so much emphasis on developing weapons they could never hope to support in the field.

File: best tank coming through.jpg (37KB, 580x337px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 580x337px

>>34773250
T-44 didn't see service.

>>34775977
>Well which is it? Where they streamlining production, or did they constantly have to work over old designs because they could just never get it right?
They were able to produce effective tank destroyers from hulls that otherwise would've been built as obsolete medium tanks. They found a way to use old equipment effectively and without disrupting production.

>Pz.IV
The panzer IV was over weighted in its final models to the point its frontal suspension was always compressed causing maintenance issues. To upgrade the tank you'd need to change the suspension and to do that you'd need a new hull or at least one significantly different enough that it would just end up resulting in shocks to production. The panther was not necessary, but a replacement for the Pz IV was.

>>34776000
Although technically it is a WWII era tank. It's development cycle started before some vehicles that saw combat towards the end of the war. Sorta on the same page as the Centurion in that sense.

>>34776055
If we accepting developed in WWII time lines AFVs then it would be IS-3.
>all around 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 protection
>mind blown

File: M4A3E8.jpg (169KB, 1368x915px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1368x915px

>>34776038
>They were able to produce effective tank destroyers from hulls that otherwise would've been built as obsolete medium tanks.
And an obsolete medium tank is still more of a tank than an effective tank destroyer.
Knowing what to do with your shitty tanks doesn't help matters in Germany's situation. Knowing how to build not-quite-so-shitty tanks in the first place does (Up to the point where you lose anyway because Germany was fucked no matter how many Pz.IVs cutting the Panther could have saved them)

Also, as the Russians will tell you; It's better to build 10,000 chronically mechanically unreliable deathtraps than 100 chronically mechanically unreliable but still capable tanks.

Or, you know, you could just do what the Americans did and build a tank just works at being a tank and keeps doing it right through the war.

File: Jagdpanzer VI B Jagdtiger.jpg (68KB, 1126x725px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1126x725px

>>34776141
>AP round strikes weld seam on frontal plates
>Lower glacis falls off
>Strikes driver's hatch
>Jams hatch, possibly killing or blinding the driver, and likely jams the turret
>Strikes lower hull side
>tank goes boom

The IS-3 is a shit World of Tanks spawned meme. The vehicle was entirely over-hyped by western observers based solely on it looking different. In reality it was cramped, carried a cannon that would have been a nightmare to operate within such a small turret, and was poorly constructed in terms of both overall design and quality control.

Also keep in mind that if the war had gone long enough for Russia to field the IS-3, you can bet that Germany would have quite a few more 12.8cm guns on the field to match them.

>>34776207
>the IS-3 is a shit World of Tanks spawned meme.
If anything WoT undermines IS-3 capabilities with their experimental/paper meme AFVs with uberguns everywhere and (((balance))).
>No Elephant doesn't have 12.8cm gun
>Tiger II doesn't have 10,5 cm Kw.K. L/68 too
> no tanks don't fight at 0 meters range sticking gun barrels into each other hatches

>In reality it was cramped, carried a cannon that would have been a nightmare to operate within such a small turret,
It was better than IS-2 in this matter.

>quality control.
And in this too.

> would have quite a few more 12.8cm guns
Yeah, 120 guns instead of 60 hehehe.

>>34776144
>And an obsolete medium tank is still more of a tank than an effective tank destroyer.

The panzer III's main gun was painfully inadequate in dealing with both the British infantry tanks and most Soviet armor, a StuG III's 75mm gun however proved to be a very effective weapon in combating these threats. The StuG was one of the most successful armored vehicle designs of the entire war as it both provided effective infantry support and returned a large amount of enemy armor destroyed per lost StuG.

>>34776935
>and returned a large amount of enemy armor destroyed per lost StuG.
Should be mention that is mostly due to doctrine, StuGs were used in ambushes during defenses or deployed behind infantry in the offence, never leading the way. Obviously campers naturally have better k/d (at the expense of those who lead attacks).

>>34773109

The US followed tank fighting doctrine. While Shermans did engage in anti armor warfare, I believed it was more to be used in an infantry support role, especially the low velocity 75mm gun variants towards the end of the war.

Tank Destoyers were far more efficacious against increasingly armored foes in germany.

Not that it really mattered, as most german crews were highly inexperienced and couldn't maintain logistical autonomy.