What are the best and worst tanks of WWII in each of these categories?
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
>Reliability and Maintainability
>Technical Specs
Please explain and defend your answers.
I know not very much on this so any experts please feel free to knock me down
I would probably say the most cost effective would have been some variant of the Sherman or perhaps a StuG, the worst well that would surely be some strange prototype made by one of the forces
Reliability I think would also go to a late war Sherman as well, least would probably be an early Panzer IV or one of the heavy German tanks when they started to fuck around with them
Technical specs really you need to consider the time period, so say a the T34 or KV-1 had such thick armor that a lot of Axis anti-tank weaponry struggled to penetrate it, similar thing with the Churchill tank in North Africa. Remember that there were also a lot of really shitty tanks made throughout the war too
>>1034128
>>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
Sherman or T-34
>>Reliability and Maintainability
dunno, some russkie tanks found 40 years later in a ditch still worked so
>>Technical Specs
like what, speed, armament, armor?
Aru of duh Japanese tanku are da superior in evewy category ohohoho
>>1034149
The Japanese tanks were the most superior WWI tanks in WWII
>>1034148
>like what, speed, armament, armor?
People often judge tanks just by their numbers, how big is their gun, how fast can they go, etc.
Those numbers are misleading in a real world context though.
Technical Specs would just be going by the numbers, what they are capable of in a closed environment consistently.
>>1034151
>The Type 97 was a WWI era relic
yeah okay bud
>>1034128
>>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
Americans
>>Reliability and Maintainability
Russians
>>Technical Specs
Germans
>>Best Tanks
Brits
>You will never cruise around town and pick up chicks in your Type 95
feelsbadman
Sherman was the worst tank of the war.
>>1034212
oh geez, here we go
Camel vs Tank
>>1034151
>Japanese
You mean Italian
Japs had some good designs for the task that they were made for (infantry support). You're not going to have any big tank vs tank battles in South East Asian jungle.
Italian tanks on the other hand were useless in all roles and were being made fun of by both the Axis and Allied soldiers.
>>1034248
>Italian tanks on the other hand were useless in all roles and were being made fun of by both the Axis and Allied soldiers.
Daily reminder Rommel was never supposed to leave Europe and the Afrika Korps was never even supposed to fucking exist but they had to intervene because Italy can't do ONE FUCKING THING RIGHT
>>1034248
>Japs had some good designs
>>1034270
I met an Afrika Korps member back in the 80's.
He told me that Italian units would ask to borrow German tanks for their individual operations (patrols, etc.)
Some tanks were totally useless like a super heavy T-35 or Char 2C
Some were shitty like >>1034248
Most tanks were atleast decent or useful is a more proper term. The allied medium tanks T-34/Sherman/Cromwell were all excellent as well as the German Panther and Panzer IV.
>>1034197
>you will never make a stunning jungle flanking maneuver and surround arrogant british imperialists
just kill me now
>>1034146
Your post is pretty good, although technically, a Stug isn't a tank, it's a self propelled gun.
>>1034238
camel
>cute
>can eat it in an emergency
>can cut it open and crawl inside it for warmth in an emergency
>icebreaker with ladies
>runs on water
tank
>made of useless inedible metal
>runs on volatile gasoline
>ladies are turned off by an autist in a tank
>has no face and is thus repellent
>will cook you alive if penetrated by gunfire
how can tanks even compete?
>>1034128
The best is a throwup between the T-34, M4 Sherman and the Panzer 4. All three get top marks for reliability and maintenance, assuming a decent logistics chain.
Worst tanks are a tossup between Italian tanks and British Cruiser Tanks pre-Cromwell. Reminder that the Brits picked the fucking M3 LEE over their own Crusader and Covenater because the latter two kept breaking down. And the Lee was a shitty design. Japanese designs are a close second.
The most underrated tank was the Panzer III, especially the L/M variants.
Also keep in mind that allied tanks appeared more reliable because they had huge logistics supporting them, while the German logistics deteriorated into complete and utter shit by the end of the war. Not that tanks like the Panther didn't have problems, although in the Panther's case it was partially a result of no teething period and being rushed into combat.
>>1035326
Forgot muh pic. This was a Lee commander's experience in an M3 Lee.
>>1035326
>The best is a throwup between the T-34, M4 Sherman and the Panzer 4.
The Panzer IV was already getting obsolete by Barbarossa due to its shitty suspension design.
>And the Lee was a shitty design.
The Lee was by far the best tank in North Africa until Shermans arrived.
>>1035373
Point is, the Lee was the least shit in a pool full of pure shit.
Churchills, Matildas and Valentines were too slow and packed wimpy guns. Covaneters and Crusaders kept breaking down and were too hot. The Lee had a very tall silhouette, and a very awkward design. It was also the only tank that packed a 75mm gun and it didn't fall into pieces.
Yes, the Lee did well in the deserts of North Africa, but it was still a bad design overall.
>>1034128
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
M4 Sherman
>Reliability and Maintainability
M4 Sherman
>Technical Specs
M4 Sherman
>>1035416
>M4 Sherman
Yesssss. Believe what we taught you in school.
>>1035408
The Lee was superior than both Pz.III and Pz.IV too in terms of firepower and armor. Its mobility was actually quite decent and it was highly reliable. The only tank that was superior in North Africa was the Sherman.
>>1035439
School would have made you believe that the M4 Sherman was dogshit
>>1035439
Fact: If Hitler had a tank as good as the M4 Sherman, he would have won the war.
>>1035456
Fact: Hitler was a retard who meddled in the Nazi war economy which was a piece of disorganized shit to begin with and thus incapable of producing something as half decent and idiot proof as the Sherman or T34
T34 had both simplicity, good gun, good armour and was reliable
Was basically the turning point in armoured warfare on the Eastern Front
>>1035503
>thus incapable of producing something as half decent and idiot proof as the Sherman
This is absolutely true.
>>1035519
Actually it was very unreliable and a total piece of shit mechanically.
It had horrible crew ergonomics and spotty armor.
>>1035527
>Actually it was very unreliable and a total piece of shit mechanically.
Only the Mod.41 really. Most of the drivetrain problems were solved in Mod.42.
>It had horrible crew ergonomics
Which was why slav tankers had a height limit of ~5'8"
>spotty armor
Designed to specifications actually; only needed to be immune to 37mm and resistant to 50mm as those were the primary German guns of the day.
>>1035527
Soviets soldiers did mention that M4 was COMFY and the first T-34s weren't perfect.
But that's it.
>Cost to effectiveness
Sherman/T-34
>Reliability
T-34
>Technical Specs
Panther
>>1035572
>T-34
>Reliable
>>1035581
Does being reliable for being totally unreliable not count?
>>1035569
>shit radio
Only the Germans had a radio in every tank in 1941/42.
>optics
>licensed Zeiss optics is bad
>crew efficiency
only Germans and American tanks had 3 member turret crews
>situational awareness
The commander/gunner has a rotating periscope and his gun sight. If anything, he had more situational awareness than other gunners at the time as Panthers didn't even have a secondary periscope for target acquisition for the gunner. Only German tanks had cupoula vision blocks in 1941 and T-34 Mod.42 did have commander's cupoula with vision blocks
Chi-Ha confirmed for best tank.
The Tiger II would have been amazing if it was faster and was more fuel efficient.
>>1035558
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
HERE'S YOUR CITATION FOR COMFY M4S.
>>1035503
>ItwasallHitlersfault.jpg
Herr General, bitte
sherminator
>>1035439
>Implying American schools(and every fucking WW2 documentary on tv) think the Sherman was anything but a rolling coffin
My 10th grade history teacher thought that AN MG 42 could penetrate the Sherman's armor. People don't know shit about the Sherman so they assume it blew up when a slight breeze blew when in reality it could go toe to toe with Germany's best tanks and win.
>>1034128
Cost To Effectiveness Ration - isn't that what also covers Reliability adn Specs?
How do you measure cost in planned and/or wartime economies?
>>1034128
Personally, I really like the Tiger 2 with the Henschel turret, however I acknowledge that mechanically it was a piece of shit
>you will never liquidate bolshevik scum in this beast on the eastern front
>>1036237
Did German tanks really need to be coated with that anti-magnetic paint like the Tiger II in that image? Were magnetic mines really that much of a threat?
>>1035503
they used slave labor and had inferior access to quality materials
>>1036243
>you will never drop an armour piercing bomb on top of this barely moving target in your Il-10
>>1036212
>go toe to toe with Germany's best tanks and win
When a Sherman or Shermans came across a Tiger, they would retreat and radio for TDs to assist. That's not really toe to toe.
>>1036244
No. The Germans thought magnetic mines would become the next big thing and pre-emptively developed Zimmerit to counter them, but the Allies ended up never using them much. Zimmerit wasn't entirely useless, but it was unnecessary most of the time.
>>1035864
That is an excellent source. Thank you comrade.
>>1036266
[citation needed] and a preemptive rebuttal :
On December 21st, 1944 at 5 pm, 6 Tigers of 506th Heavy Panzer Battalion attacked the 7th Armored Division near St. Vith in the Ardennes. The Tigers started with Star Shells and followed up with armor piercing, destroying all of the defending American vehicles, including tanks. [1]
Also during the Battle of St. Vith, an M8 Greyhound of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron destroyed a Tiger I tank. [2]
Staff Sargent Lesniak encountered a Tiger in Nouville during the Battle of the Bulge. He quickly fired 3 75mm rounds that apparently did nothing, but the Tiger crew retreated, backing over a jeep and became disabled. The tankers destroyed the Tiger with thermite. [3]
On December 19th 1944, Donald Nichols engaged a Tiger at 600 yards with his 105mm Sherman, resulting in a confirmed kill. He was later engaged by a second Tiger, and retreated. He knew it was a Tiger from the distinctive sound that the 88 mm shells made [4]
Not all wins, but American tankers didn't run and look for help from TDs when they saw Tigers.
[1] Saddles and Sabers: Timeline of St. Vith
[2] The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December 1944. US Army Armor School. Pg. 31
[3] Bastogne: The Story of the First Eight Days. Col. S. L. A. Marshall. Pg. 88
[4] The Tigers of Bastogne. Michael Collins. (which incidentally was not about Tiger tanks during the battle, but the 10th Armored Division, nicknamed "The Tigers.")
>>1036266
>How did you feel going up against the Tiger Tank
>- It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it. One German tank was defeated by two of ours, therefore the victory was credited to both crews. There is a story about this entitled "Hunting With Borzois" in my book.
So in conclusion, the Tiger was regarded as a very serious threat, but it certainly wasn't invincible and the Shermans certainly didn't go running just because 1 tiger was spotted.
Was the T-34 a meme tank?
>>1037684
No, but retarded Soviet armored doctrine, especially early in the war, robbed it of much of its potential usefulness.
>>1037694
What do you mean? I'm interested.
>>1037735
If you look at German tanks as pieces of engineering, for most of the war, ironically, especially when they were on the offensive, German tanks were vastly inferior to those of their adversaries.
What they had, however, was an extremely good set of systems for command and control, which allowed them to use their armor better. Sure, their tanks might not have had as good guns or armor, but if you can identify where their line is wavering, and get a battalion or two of tanks there, with commanders who have enough initiative and grasp of what's going on in the rest of the battle to exploit opportunities without having to be handheld all the time, that can mean a hell of a lot more than raw power.
The Soviet army's human element was pretty bad until late 1943. People weren't taking initiative, because that was a great way to get gulaged or shot. You didn't have good coordination between your tanks and your more mobile infantry elements, necessary in case your armored breakthrough ran into some anti-tank guns; hell, the soviets barely had any motorized infantry at all. And you can just forget about the notion of concentrating mechanized forces near a break and trying to exploit it: Even if that was part of the Soviet battle planning (and it usually wasn't, Deep battle doctrines might have been abandoned with Tucashevsky's purging on paper, but they were still influential, which mean stretching the Germans out and multi-axial pushes were often the orders of the day), it meant that tanks were usually spread out and trying to accomplish dozens of objectives instead of just a few, and the force would be dispersed too much.
None of that has anything to do with the engineering or design of the T-34. But it would affect performance, but you'd get similar issues if you waved a magic wand and replaced them all with PZIVs or Shermans or something.
>>1034128
T-34 - effective, fast, has good armament
T-34- can be assembled from two-three destroyed tanks
T-34
>>1037756
It seems like, going through history texts, every single good decision made on the Eastern front is prefaced with "At the insistence of Heinz Guderian"
What a bro
>>1037783
Why the fuck does no one remember him while the meme master Rommel gets all the attention?
Is it the hat?
>>1037791
Especially since Guderian was even more anti-Nazi than Rommel (arguably)
Guderian openly bickered with Hitler so much there's an entire section about it on his Wikipedia
>cost-to-effectiveness ratio
Best: sherman or t-34
Worst: probably panther or king tiger
>reliability
Best: Probably the Sherman. American tanks in particular were intentionally designed with reliability in mind, and they were able to mass produce replacement parts, and had plenty of well trained crews that could service them all. Other armored american fighting vehicles like a wolverine or hellcat might have been more reliable, but my money's on anything american.
Worst: Panther. 9 out of ten of them never made it to combat because they broke down.
>technical specs
You mean like armor thickness, penetration, range, etc.? If you had to go into combat one on one versus another tank, and it was in perfect mechanical order, and you had nothing else to consider but it's optimal design?
IS-3. Entered in at the very end of the war and only saw a tiny amount of combat against Japan when USSR declared war on them. So there will be people who say it doesn't really count as a WWII tank.
So barring that, I'd say a king tiger or an IS-2.
>>1035456
Bullshit.
The Germans lacked Fuel and Manpower more than anything else. Though retarded more generally, putting all their eggs in one basket with muh wunderwaffe was really the best they could do.
They couldn't afford to put their 0.2 liters of gas and 3.5 surviving actually-trained tankers in anything short of a maximum-cock-compensation wagon in 1944.
>>1037902
The comment was intended as a joke. A humorous parody of the constant: Hitler would have won if X.
But you are right. 100% right. Nothing that you said was incorrect. Every single syllable was a factual statement.
>>1037874
IS-2 was dogeshit
>>1037902
Completely wrong. You imply that Germans had more tanks than they had fuel or tankers for, and that's why they tried to build expensive tanks that they could still find drivers for. That is pretty much the complete opposite of history. Germans fought with severe shortage of equipment compared to their adversaries. German panzer divisions often had single digit numbers of tanks.
>>1034128
>Cost-To-Effectiveness ratio
Bob Semple. Just whack some corrugated iron on a tractor
>reliability
Bob Semple. NZ DIY shines through
>Technical specs
IMPENETRABLE CORRUGATED IRON. SIX GUNS NIGGA, COUNT EM
The Sherman was far and away the most reliable and easy to repair tank of the war.
The T-34 was easy enough to repair, but was in no way reliable. Shifting gears involved hitting it with a hammer after all, and most tanks drove off the factory with a spare transmission as it was expected to crap out within a week.
Which wasn't the biggest problem since front line tanks weren't expected to survive a week but anyways, in terms of cost to effectiveness I'd probably give it to the T-34. They were dirt cheap and didn't have to be shipped over an entire ocean to get to the fight.
Technical specs? In regards to what? Raw armor, biggest gun, most crew comfort, best speed, best vision?
There's a lot of factors at play here. On paper the Panther looks good for instance, but in practice it was a complete toss up. You have model 1 Panthers catching on fire on a slope because of faulty engine designs, and model 4 Panthers striping the transmission bare if they try to make a 30 degree turn at any significant speeds. And then there's the King Tiger which is officially a monster and in practice more are lost to breakdowns than enemy fire, and almost all were lost. IS-2 has a good armor layout and strong gun but probably the worst crew comfort of the war, and then there's the whole "three fuel tanks inside the crew compartment right next to all this ammo including the fuel tank on the front hull so if this tank is ever penetrated everyone inside burns to death and then the tank explodes killing anyone within 20 meters" aspect.
>>1035503
>Panther begins it's life as a t-34 knockoff with a 75mm gun
>20 tonnes later the first Panther runs off the production lines and shatters it's suspension because it's so goddamn heavy
>>1036347
Are you aware that allies saw tigers everywhere and most of the time it was poor pz IV.
>>1038433
>I will rebut these very specific accounts with muh misreporting meme!
>>1038440
It was not a meme. Just compare number of tigers destroyed with the ammout of tigers that fought on western front
>>1038463
If someone provides a specific account that is also sourced, and all you can say in rebuttal is that often people made mistakes, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up sounding 1. rather unconvincing and 2. like someone who can't keep his mouth shut when he doesn't know anything.
>>1034128
>best: Sherman, worst: Tiger
>best: Sherman, worst: KV1 and KV2
>best: Panther: worst: some italian or jap shit.
>>1038498
Best 88 with an experienced crew then the sherman with the ford radial becomes the tommy cooker
>>1037791
Rommel was handsome and didn't look like an evil emperor in his pictures.
Heinz Guderian looks like your typical Bond villain in every picture taken off him.
Yes, people are that simple.
>>1038497
my grandfather insisted he saw tigers leaving our town
i searched sources for it and it turned out no division with tigers ever operated here
eye witness worth nothing in these accounts, you just need to look up the area in the german war diary
im not the guy who you are replying to
>>1038510
>tommy cooker
The Sherman was one of the safest tanks of WW2. When they started wet storaging the ammo, it was a lot safer than any other tank it would meet.
Its only "safety issue" was using gasoline instead of diesel. This issue was shared with the germans and the brits who, also used gasoline engines instead of diesel for their tanks. Only the russians used diesel, but the advantage was lost in their poor ammo placement.
>>1038511
not a matter of looks like you imply but similar to your argument - the positive light in which rommel was painted, that is as a somewhat honorable and highly skilled opponent, was already born during the war itself in the british consciousness as the papers and politicians tried to put a somewhat positive spin on the lack of success in the MENA theater
he was basically a celebrity of sorts
>>1034128
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
Sherman or T34
>Reliability and Maintainability
Sherman or T34
>Technical Specs
Comet or T34-85
>>1038531
And an 88 would go straight through the turret armor well before the 75 came in to range
>>1038543
and an atomic bomb would kaboom the 88 before anyone could see it #rekt
>>1038543
too bad there were not nearly enough 88s to matter then.
Germany relied on PzIII and PzIV. Panthers and Tigers broke down too often to even matter. Meanwhile, the americans could support their infantry with Shermans, meeting mainly german infanty.
Also, a lot of the fighting on the western front was close quarters, in the bocage, and in the cities. The Firefly and Easy eight was perfectly capable of defeating Tigers in such terrain.
On the eastern front it would be more important to have better armored tanks, with larger guns.
>>1038548
>Panthers and Tigers broke down too often to even matter.
This meme needs to stop. Tigers were highly reliable and any issues with them came from Germany's strained logistical system, not the Tiger itself. Or running out of fuel.
The Panther DID have reliability issues but that was because the teething period was done in the field and it was rushed into combat. That's not a flaw in the tank, but a flaw in the use of the tank.
>>1039953
The Tiger was a Maintenance Queen, it was reliable, but only if it underwent constant maintenance. Requiring near constant mechanical work may as well be unreliable.
Panthers were very much a flawed design, its transmission issues were never fixed and its mechanical unreliability in the field was a fact of life. It being rushed out early was the main reason it was unreliable, but just because it only got a half a year of testing doesn't excuse that.
>>1039994
From what I've read, the Tiger wasn't a bigger maintenance queen than any other heavy tank. Heavy tanks by default will have much more stress on them than lighter tanks.
I will say that the Sherman was the shining example of a great, reliable tank. But if Shermans were being used by the Germans in 1944, they would have had massive reliability issues too just due to the nature of Germany's logistics.
>>1038352
>tfw when too embarrassed to tell your grandkids about the retarded-as-shit looking tank they made you drive in the war
>>1037813
Guy also translated everything the Brits had regarding armored doctrine and was a fan of Percy Hobart.
>>1036266
>they would retreat and radio for TDs to assist.
This is not how TDs were used.
>>1038335
>You imply that Germans had more tanks than they had fuel or tankers for
Not him but there are some examples of tanks held in reserve for the defense of strategically important German districts unable to be deployed for lack of fuel.
>>1034282
the fuck, how old are you
how were the panzer tanks?
>>1038531
>Its only "safety issue" was using gasoline instead of diesel.
Stopping crews from lap loading and stowing shells on the floor did more to prevent cook-offs than fuel and even wet stowage.
I'm gonna bump this thread because it's actually great and we're having real discussion
On on /his/ too? What a novelty
>>1041469
In German, Panzer just means armor, so "Panzer tank" would be Tank tank.
A Tiger I is a Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E, for instances.
>>1041493
my bad. Were they good? how did they compare to other tanks?
>>1039953
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
Read this.
>>1038335
Nigger, fuel shortages were life for the Wehrmacht late in the war. Many of those single digit numbers resulted directly from the abandonment of vehicles which had no fuel. This was especially the case with the Luftwaffe.
Also, I said trained (GOOD) tankers, which were in extreme shortage late in the war. I can't remember the name, but there was a battle where a division of Panthers got curbstomped by out-numbered shermans because damn kids were driving them.
And I didn't say it was calculated, just that Germany may actually have suffered even worse with more, worse tanks.
>>1041515
>http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
>worldoftanks.com
>>1041451
>By early April, there was little left to bomb in Germany. The oil war had been won. Synthetic plants were down to 6 percent of normal output and production of aviation gasoline had stopped altogether. The oil campaign “clipped the wings of the Luftwaffe” and impaired the Wehrmacht’s mobility, preventing it from protecting coal resources that powered the synthetic plants. In February 1945, the Wehrmacht had amassed up to 1,500 tanks to stop the Red Army’s drive into the Upper Silesian coalfields, but could not properly deploy them because of fuel shortages. By then the German army was operating under a self-imposed speed limit of 17 mph and under a standing order that “anyone using fuel for purposes other than the immediate conduct of operation will be considered a saboteur and court-martialed without mercy.”
Masters of the Air, Donald L. Miller
>>1038352
Did these things see any actual battles?
>>1035320
had a laff
>>1041552
Nope.
Best tank design of the war was the t34-85 and this is the basis for modern tanks.
Pz IV was probably the best early tank design which was years ahead of anything the allies had, they created the Sherman which was equivalent to the Pz IV and was therefore an obsolete piece of shit.
The big tanks of all nations were very unreliable, especially German.
The British tanks were literally Japanese tier apart from the Matilda which was the best armoured tank in the early war period though pretty shitty in every other way.
>>1041538
The Chieftain is Wargaming USA's inhouse historian.
Yes, the Belarussians hire historians for a bloody arcade tank game.
If ya need more reliable links, I have them.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/from-the-vault-post-war-british-report-on-panther-reliability/#more-3334
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/from-the-vault-british-report-on-captured-panther-tank/
I'm more shocked people don't know about Dmitry Loza.
>>1041692
I'm just kidding man that was a good read. And really shows that the Panther was a great tank that just wasn't suited for the terrain in France. Perfect for the steppes of Russia.
>>1041692
The think tank he did with historians like Zaloga is a good listen, several hours worth.
>>1041741
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLY4FOrnjc&index=1&list=PLEAEU2gs2Nz-aSi3PpjNI9Q4klDGi421D
for just technical specs, the king tiger is the best tank of the second world war. armor thick enough to bounce almost anything the allies could throw at them, and a gun that could pierce the heavens
>>1037783
rommel looks somber while guderian looks smug
I know this is a thread for tanks, but is there any love for the Likes of StuGs and hetzers? Speaking of general war-effort and cost effectivines they did pull alot of weight through the war.
>>1042294
Assault guns are a completely different tools of war than tanks. They are not cheaper versions of tanks.
>>1042304
I know, I just think they should not be forgotten as people tend to just talk about as if it were only tigers,shermans and t34s in the war.
>>1042339
Maybe people are not talking about them because this is a thread about tanks?
![Ref3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ijeSmZL.jpg "Ref3[1].jpg")
>>1042339
You think Stugs are forgotten? Bitch the Panzer III is the most criminally overlooked tank. The original Wehrmacht workhorse.
The only reason why the Pz. IV took over was because it could mount the 7.5 cm KwK 40. Shame they couldn't fit it on the Pz. III.
>>1041741
Załoga is a fraud hack
>mfw people think that anything less than a 3-man turret is acceptable
>>1035320
>compete with an exceptionally complex machine like the body of a camel.
We wont be able to design and create anything as complex even in a 100 years, not to mention back in WW2.
>>1035416
I hate americans sometimes.
These dad memes need to die.
>>1042477
>We wont be able to design and create anything as complex even in a 100 years, not to mention back in WW2
The Pz V Panther had a speedometer made of 54 individual parts. The Germans could have had robotic camels in 1942 if they'd wanted them.
The Americans never sealed their ammunition, so when ever a German penetrated an American tank, it would explode instantly. It took the Americans years to figure out why their tanks kept on doing so lmao. However mass production and a reliable tank, especially the firefly was a pretty decent weapon.
Without a doubt the best tank of the war was the Tiger. Outstanding armour with a great gun and an effective killing machine. The king tiger was a phenomenal anti tank gun but had severe engine problems. The likes of the variants of the Stug and panzer IV were also great tanks in their respective role. The problem was for Germany is that no matter how good your tanks are, wether a tiger, king tiger, Mouse... 60,000 medium tanks on the Russian side and 60,000 tanks on the western front ultimately beats your 1000 tigers. Also shoutout to the Panther & Comet for being genuinely great tanks.
>>1035326
>T-34
>top marks for reliability and maintenance
>reliability and maintenance
>top marks for reliability and maintenance
>>1042373
The range and brilliant penetration ability. Don't worry anon, i feel you.
To say Panthers & Tigers were in need of constant repairs is ludicrous. They were simply brilliant in a short phrase. Not many could match the two, don't get me wrong the Sherman was more reliable but in the grand scheme of things either of the two could rip through a Sherman's armour with relative ease.
>>1042581
Which is why Shermans killed 3.6 Panthers to each Sherman lost to panthers in France.
>>1042528
Did you need to dig up Belton Cooper for that one?
>>1042537
>don't get me wrong the Sherman was more reliable but in the grand scheme of things either of the two could rip through a Sherman's armour with relative ease.
In fact, in the "grand scheme of things", a tank that breaks down constantly ain't ripping through anything.
>>1042528
>The Americans never sealed their ammunition
>sealed
>>1042749
>BELTON COOPER
FUCKING LIAR GET OUT OF TANK HISTORY RÈEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Post good looking tanks.
>>1042817
>>1042817
>>1042869
hai guiz :^)
>>1042882
>be on a slight incline
>can't turn turret
Still, imagine being in a pillbox and seeing that lovable face coming your way.
>>1042742
Gonna need to see a source.
Even then I would question accuracy of identification given the actual number of Ts & Ps around.
>>1034176
This.
It's common sense
>>1043021
http://i.imgur.com/bxwWdOS.png
Which is taken from this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062
And why would the overall numbers of Panthers and Shermans be an issue? In fact, the issue is usually muddied the other way around: People look at a high number of American tank losses, a low number of German tank losses, and conclude that German tanks were vastly superior, when it was things like mines, fixed ATGs, and SPGs that were inflicting the bulk of the American armor losses, not other tanks.
>>1036184
>"Japanese tanks aren't OP because of their size"
fucking O-I fml
>>1043111
Because Panthers and Tigers were frequently misidentified.
And since the significant majority of German vehicles were lost to breakdown, lack of fuel, and air support, it goes both ways.
I was curious to see the source, but the simple fact is it's too difficult, if even possible, to extrapolate vehicle performance and quality from raw statistics, as the number of variables is just too massive. Particularly given how shit German crews were late in the war.
>>1041686
>Best tank design of the war was the t34-85 and this is the basis for modern tanks.
Finally, some intelligence on this Ameriboo thread
>>1034128
T-34 Variants
Sherman, though it seems like I've heard that there is little material to reflect their actual reliability and that their performance may be a matter of the quality of US logistics.
KT or Panther
>>1041686
>Pz IV was probably the best early tank design which was years ahead of anything the allies had
fphtehahuefuhuehueeeze
>>1043251
The main thing is that the Sherman was outright designed to be simple to fix.
The engine could be easily removed with nothing more than a small crane and a wrench, and removing and installing an entirely new engine would only take a couple hours.
Just to fix a part of the engine, not even to remove it, could take several hours on a tank like the Tiger because removing the engine was significantly more difficult and specialized tools would be needed to perform maintenance.
The Sherman also had the benefit of sharing parts with every vehicle the US fielded from half tracks to tank destroyers and even light tanks besides the Stuart. I mean, 70% of US armor was built on the Sherman chassis after all. Parts commonality was a key design for everything the US military built.
>>1034128
Let's switch gears a bit.
Who had the best rifle? At first glance, the M1 Garand might seem like the obvious choice, but remember:
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1460940917827.webm
>>1044142
in isolation it is hard to argue against a semiautomatic rifle in an era of bolt actions
or the sturmgewehr if you are into that sort of thing
but small arms only matter little and even on the level they do matter - small unit tactics - they cannot be really rated in isolation
as for example the use of m1 shows incredibly well with the american approach of no proper squad automatic weapon being chiefly influenced by the adoption of a semitauto rifle
>>1035503
>Fact: Hitler was a retard who meddled in the Nazi war economy which was a piece of disorganized shit to begin with and thus incapable of producing something as half decent and idiot proof as the Sherman or T34
The American and Soviet production was of a different class than the German. The Americans with their quick population growth and development was able to innovate new doctrines of mass production. They designed the most efficient and modern systems for mass production.
Germany ended up with the same old style of more craftsman-like production because that is what they had forever.
The Soviets learned mass production from the Americans. They hired American engineers who went to Soviet Union in the 1920s and directed the building of the new factories. They built immense factory complexes that were virtual replicas of factories in Detroit Michigan or Gary Indiana.
>>1038517
>my grandfather insisted he saw tigers leaving our town
>i searched sources for it and it turned out no division with tigers ever operated here
The up-armoured Panzer IV has a very boxy look to it. The plates around the main chassis and especially the extra plates around the turret make it look more like a Tiger. I can see how one could be mistaken.
>>1034128
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
M4's were good, not because cost was low, but because relative cost as a percentage of industrial output was low, because being isolated by oceans protects your factories from being bombed and your supply chains from being broken. The output of these was so high they were basically giving them away to the allies. Meanwhile, Europe had to deal with securing supply lines and protecting factories, and has reduced industrial output due to being actually in the war.
>Reliability and Maintainability
Early war T-34's were bad. The expected lifetime of a T-34 was short, and Soviet tractor manufacture at the time was bad, so to get as many out the door and into battle, they just churned out as many low quality T-34's, a solid design, as possible, so reliability was poor. People might say big German tanks had unreliable transmissions, but early T-34s were so unreliable they were often sent out with spare transmissions strapped to them. The big German tanks put on many more miles before requiring an overhaul.
>Technical Specs
Maus.
How bout dem pershingz?
>>1044251
somewhat related, but for those who are interested, one of few films depicting an actual tank engagement durig ww2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBI9d0-IfEM
>>1044245
The Germans thought gigantic tanks were the way forward but they turned out to be scrap metal which couldnt get to the battlefield.
The British thought slow infantry support tanks and fast lightly armoured "cruisers" were the way forward, but both turned out to be bad at their roles and useless in any other role.
The Americans had the Sherman, sure it was a good vehicle design which could travel reliably and easily be fixed but it was a shit tank when it came to actually fighting German tanks due to its peashooter cannon and high profile.
The t34 with upgunned cannon and mechanical components was fast, survivable, reliable and could go toe to toe with the big german tanks.
So the actual design philosophy for modern MBT's largely comes from the t-34.
>>1044450
>t34 is upgunned
>MBT ANCESTOR TOE TO TO WITH GERMAN HEAVIES
>m4 is upgunned
>doesnt count originally had a pea shooter
>>1044398
not a very typical engagement since its in urban enviroment with very short distances and relatively good vision without infantrysupport
atleast its something
>>1044450
>75 M3
>peashooter
Lol ok
>>1044478
not very typical, but a fascinating video. There is something very eerie and solemn watching people fighting for their lives some 70 years ago
>>1044470
76mm m4 was only widely accepted after the battle of the bulge when the t34 had already won the war
>>1044485
It was useless against Panthers, Tigers, Jadgtigers, etc
>>1044498
>Implying that 75mm wasn't adequate in most situations
>>1044501
Not being able to FRONTALLY penetrate the armor of some of the heaviest tanks on the battlefield does not mean it was useless at fighting other tanks.
>>1044501
For most situations, it was good enough. The 76mm was better, but it wasn't essential.
>>1041412
It's how the American tank destroyer doctrine was laid out.
Army tank destroyer branch also purposely didn't up the armor on the m10 and m18 because they didn't want it out in the front. They did add rivets on the m18 because they planned for that possibility though
>>1038497
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
Here's a decent source for you for common tank myths.
>>1034128
T-34 or Sherman
Sherman
Panther?
>>1043111
Americans also tended to count operational losses while Germans only counted permanent losses. An American tank can lose throw a track and be considered a loss as it was unable to continue combat while a German tank had all its crew members killed but it was towed back to the repair depot was not considered a loss because it was recovered.
>>1034128
Sherman and T34
Sherman and T34
gonna need you to be more specific here
>>1036266
>>1044681
The TD doctrine had nothing to do with what Shermans did when they encountered Tigers.
The Shermans would actively engage the Tigers, especially with infantry support.
The TD doctrine was used as a mobile defense, designed to counter the German offensive doctrine by snipping off a pincer. They were later used like tanks because there weren't enough German tanks to mount proper offensives.
>>1034176
dude American tanks were reliable as fuck
unless you were going for 1 nation 1 category
>>1034212
terrible meme
>>1042528
damn nigga that's some fine b8
>>1042882
I mean it's a great lovable tank
but holy fuck it's ugly
>>1045612
They could be relied on to be incapable of penetrating a panther at point blank range
>>1034151
...no
Shermans BTFO
>>1046093
Also
>tfw you will never pick up chicks with your 1928 vintage Type 89
>>1046093
>>1046097
>Shermans BTFO
>Every model of Sherman could reliably kill every model of PIVs at regular engagement ranges.
>>1044681
>It's how the American tank destroyer doctrine was laid out.
You said they'd be called in. TDs were never used offensively.
>>1046201
I'd say they were about even and that worked both ways
>>1035373
>The Lee was by far the best tank in North Africa until Shermans arrived.
>>1034173
Yes?
It doesn't even use Torsion bars.
Instead of it, it uses bell-crank suspension which was completely shit and broke whole the time. You'd think that the nation that used tanks quite extensively would know it, as well as they'd know that coaxial machinegun is a nice thing to have but wait... no, they didn't mount it.
The tank was shit. Like typical Vickers 6-tonne derivative would probably stand on the even ground with it, and we're talking about something from early 30's against something from late 30's and tank technology moved ahead quickly.
>>1034248
>Japs had some good designs for the task that they were made for (infantry support). You're not going to have any big tank vs tank battles in South East Asian jungle.
Except once Chinese bought surplus 37-45mm AT guns of various origin which were phased out from every single army because they couldn't deal with tanks anymore, they were getting slaughtered constantly.
One British got their old infantry tanks and M3 Lees in the jungle they've also started getting slaughtered because surprise - every tank can get into jungle, big or small, as long as it doesn't sink in the mud and you can mount dozer blade. Americans used fucking M48's in Vietnam and they worked.
>>1045914
Is this History channel or something?
Shermans had 1,6:1 kill ratio against Panthers when in offensive.
>>1046609
Depends on the model.
In 1942 Shermans were in every way superior to a PzIV and nearly impregnable to the short 75mm gun. Significantly better gun, better armor, and easier to fix.
About the same time Shermans were showing up in force, however, about a dozen of the new long 75mm guns showed up for Rommel. These few tanks were often called "Panzer Specials" and were quite capable of knocking out Shermans at long ranges, but were still quite vulnerable to the Sherman's 75 as well. The gun was a bit more accurate and easy to hit with at long ranges and because of the threat of these, these specific Panzers were targeted first before any other armor, at least officially.
Because the PzIV was entirely pregnable by both new 2pdr ammo, the now more common 6pdr gun, and entirely lacking against the American's new 75mm, and to say nothing of the Russian 76mm, the Germans decided to up armor the Panzer from 50mm to 80mm. Unfortunently because the suspension was already well above the weight it was designed to support they were unable to up armor the turret, so it remained only 50mm thick throughout the war. The hull armor brought up to 80mm gave it roughly the same hull protection as a Sherman however. At close ranges it was still vulnerable to the 75, but at longer ranges it was much more likely to survive a hit. The introduction of the American 76mm changed this yet again, but by that time Panthers were rolling out en masse, entirely designed to replace the now very under armored PzIVs. Throughout the war their long 75mm gun remained potent despite their want of armor.
>>1035408
Valentines were... okay, if only they've had proper guns with proper anti-infanry/material rounds, then they would be even good. Probably the only infantry tank that was somewhat decent. It was sturdy and reliable, relatively light for its armour and again, if it wasn't for lack of decent rounds to hit soft targets with it would be even decently armed.
Maybe because every other infantry tank was dogshit for most purposes(except maybe Churchill but as a support/combat engineering platform, not battletank) so Valentine seems like a decent thing when compared to them.
>>1035439
Jews used M4's until 1970's.
>>1046656
>muh k/d ratio's
>muh baseball stats
>>1044498
>tanks won the war
We got an Ivan here
>>1034146
a panther can penetrate every soviet\us armour from safe distance
but: if you dont have any fuel and no airsuperiority nobody cares how good your tank would be in a "fair" 1v1
>>1037735
Even by 1941 there were complaints about - shit turret, no radio, poor drivetrain and suspension being worse than torsion bars on KV or tested German tanks.
They were supposed to replace it by 1942(the army reform was supposed to end in 1943) but some of these problems were addressed as late as in T-44(suspension) which didn't play any role in WW2.
>>1036244
yes
>>1046704
Lend lease radios, Ford trucks (Built Ford Tough™) and boots won the war, it says so in the bible
>>1046698
>k/d is only relevant when germanotard tanks win
>>1042773
what Sherman is that? it has the improved tracks of the HVSS models but a 75mm gun? is it an E6?
>>1042882
>KV-2
>Tank
>this meme again
>>1044498
no it hadn't. common misconception. 76mm guns had been around for some time at this point. lots of the M4's had em. I bet your that type of ivan that still believes that old "Americans where reactionary in gun production".
>>1046588
I'm not that dude by the way.
>>1046656
Kinda pointless to point out k/d ratios for two reasons:
Panther tankers engaged by Americans were literal kiddos since the nazis were short on manpower with most of the relevant force dedicated to the eastern front.
You're also not looking at Shermans vs Panthers.
You're looking at Shermans with infantry, air support, artillery, logistics vs Panthers with infantry, air support, artillery, logistics.
stop playing world of cuck tanks
>>1044450
Shermans have a 3.6:1 k/d ratio with Panther, a profile on slightly higher than other tanks of the day, and armor nearly as thick as a Tiger's
Fuck off
>>1047016
>a 3.6:1 k/d ratio with Panther, a profile on slightly higher than other tanks of the day
This is based just on total numbers of losses and does not take into account arty and air support, so its a completely useless statistic. Its like saying the US army killed 100 VC's for every GI when they lost the war anyway and a lot of those kills were probably civilians who died in air raids or some shit.
>Fuck off
lel
>>1047077
>This is based just on total numbers of losses
No, it's based on engagement data. If you go by total losses, you'll see a lot more dead Shermans than dead Panthers, because being on the defense, the Germans had much more in the way of stuff that could hit tanks, mines, anti-tank guns and the like.
The attacker usually has the air advantage, but airstrikes are pretty bad at knocking out tanks.
>Irrelevant comparison is irrelevant.
This is why we tell Wehraboos to fuck off, because you're incapable of clear thinking or honest analysis.
>>1046623
movie?
>>1047077
no it's comparing engagement data
dirty dumb wehraboo scum
>>1047666
Historical footage of the First Battle of El Alamein
t. historian
>>1035572
> technical specs
> Not the Tiger II
Get out my thread boy
>>1044179
>Germany ended up with the same old style of more craftsman-like production because that is what they had forever.
Is this the dumbest history meme ever parroted? Germany was an industrial giant, and yet there are people who thinks Germany was stuck in the middle ages.
>>1047911
Before 1944 the UK alone was turning out more war material per year than Germany despite having nearly half the population. Germany didn't properly mobilise their population until mid-1943 (see Goebbel's Sportpalast speech) and even if their industry had been organised properly they lacked access to many critical raw materials.
>>1034128
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
Sherman cheap as fuck and literal matchsticks, but got the job they needed done if anything by numbers alone.
>Reliability and Maintainability
T-34. The main engine was as simple as a typical tractor engine, meaning that even a novice mechanic can realistically repair it on the field, instead of having to haul it back to the factory for mechanical repairs.
>Technical Specs
I would say Tiger II but less than 500 were even produced, so Tiger I. But those specs came a high price for fragile mechanics and just the sheer weight of a heavy tank in the mud of eastern Europe. WWII was not a war for heavy tanks.
>overall
The T-34 was definitely the war winner. the simple and pragmatic design, as well as just being easy to build in mass production won out over specs and performance optimization.
there's actually a good video that came out not too long ago comparing eastern front tanks, definitely worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdK2Sim_ZRU
>>1047931
It's a matter of emphasis. German economy was geared for investment. UK and Soviet economies were geared for equipments. Germany produced things that would let them produce more a few years down the line, while the UK and USSR shit out a bunch of shitty gear to be used like disposable spoons. German production was larger than UK and USSR combined at any time. It just happened that early in the war most of that production was used for expanding factories and tooling, etc.
>>1047947
Sounds autismal 2bh pham
>>1047666
TV remake of Sahara
>>1047911
If you looked at the layout of German tank factories, it was quite similar to guild based production; relying on teams of workers assembling the different parts one tank at a time, requiring a high number of skilled workers. Compared to American and Soviet factories which had better division of labour with every job simplified as much as possible in a flowing line, the German tank industry was quite behind.
>>1047947
[cutation seriously fucking needed]
>>1037684
It was excellent vehicle but Soviet tankers were shit until the later part of war.
Same with Soviet pilots and their planes.
Purges destroyed Soviet officers corps, which had catastrophic effect on all ranks.
That, Stalin's micromanagment and shitty logistics is the reason Soviets failed hard early on.
>>1048302
I don't see a citation; and its well known that Britain out produced the Reich in terms of aircraft every year of the war, let alone the USSR.
So yes, I'm calling bullshit on your claims, that the German factories were "geared for investment" whatever that means, and by what possible metric you could say Germany out produced either the UK or USSR, let alone both together.
>>1047945
WWII was the only war for heavy tanks
>>1038306
IS-2 was dogeshit
Maybe in your favorite video game. In history it's gun and armor and mobility was highly comparable to the King Tiger, had better reliability and could be produced at a fraction of the cost. And they continued to be used a long, long time after the war by the Warsaw Pact countries.
>>1048323
Sorry you'll have to wait for the next spoonfeeding thread.
>and its well known that Britain out produced the Reich in terms of aircraft every year of the war
Isn't that strange since Britain did not outproduce the Reich in terms of aircraft every year of the war.
>I'm calling bullshit on your claims, that the German factories were "geared for investment" whatever that means
I explain whatever that means in the sentence following it. Are you incapable of reading?
>and by what possible metric you could say Germany out produced either the UK or USSR, let alone both together.
I don't know, maybe Gross Domestic Product to start with?
>>1048355
>Isn't that strange since Britain did not outproduce the Reich in terms of aircraft every year of the war.
Wrong. Remember, don't go by airframe numbers, go by gross weight of all planes produced. Luftwaffe production was overwhelmingly dominated by single engined fighters and single to twin engined bombers.
The British, on theo ther hand, had a strat bomb doctrine that was dominated by 4 engined bombers. An Avro lancaster has nearly 8 times the unloaded weight of an Me-109; and even with just looking at raw numbers, the Brits still outbuilt in every year besides 1939 and 1944, and had a larger aggregate.
>I explain whatever that means in the sentence following it. Are you incapable of reading?
To quote Pauli, what you said was so confused it is impossible to tell if it was nonsense or not. Germany did not "produce more a few years down the line" and nothing in their factories indicated that they would somehow be better at retooling than Soviet or British factories. You have provided no evidence that "Most of that production was used for expanding factories", and act as if the British and Russians weren't also expanding their own armament capabilities.
>I don't know, maybe Gross Domestic Product to start with?
Yes, because GDP means a damn thing in a command economy where the regime controls the prices of anything.
Were your mother and father brother and sister? How can you be this retarded?
>>1048334
In Soviet Russia everything is a fraction of the cost
>>1047947
>German production was larger than UK and USSR combined at any time.
literally "no"
this "no" becomes a "*NO*" when you account for the british empire which on its own, without the soviet union, had close 1.5 times to twice the gdp of greater germany consistently throughout the war
>>1047945
>>Reliability and Maintainability
>T-34.
>>1049285
>Reliability and Maintainability
Ivan, out tank was knocked out, can you repair it?
Yes, comrade, we just need spares from the factory.
Ivan, how did you fix it so fast? It is like new!
Comrade, I fixed it using a spare tank we just got from the factory.
>>1048334
Duration of use is not a reflection of quality. The Me 109 was used into the 60s but was not actually competitive at all.
It's armor was entirely inferior, it's gun performed worse, it's fire control was not comparable for the purpose of tank-tank engagement, it's maneuverability was not better because it was extremely front heavy and poorly balanced.
I'm not familiar with reliability, but the KT is not a high standard. Likely no better than typical for a period Russian tank: poor and only redeemed by ease of replacement.
>>1044498
>when the t34 had already won the war
The T-34-76, not the T-34-85, which only began appearing in battlefields in summer 1944. Coincidentally, the same time that the first 76mm shermans were deployed by the US 1st Army. Both the T-34-85 and 76mm Sherman were introduced at virtually the same time.
And before you compare the T-34's 76mm to the Sherman's 76mm, the 76mm F-34's performance was virtually identical in performance to the 75mm M3 mounted on the Sherman and Lee, not the M1A1.
>>1049225
> the british empire which on its own, had close 1.5 times to twice the gdp of greater germany consistently throughout the war
This isn’t as much of an advantage as you make it. Neither the Canadians nor the Australians (the largest and Whitest colonies in an empire of mostly ass-backward brown people) had any kinda armaments industry and were dependent on the UK. By the time Canada got it’s one and only tank plant up and running, the U.S. had half a dozen factories turning out dozens of Shermans ever day.
>>1049225
>Hitler takes control of the economy
>destroys it
kills me every time
>>1046725
Zhukov said it himself.
>"Now they write that the Allies never gave us any aid. But how can one deny that the Americans sent us tso much material, without which we could not have formed reserves and continued the war....We received 350 thousand motor vehicles, and what vehicles they were! ...We had no explosives, no powder, nothing to fill rifle cartridges with. The Americans really helped us with powder and explosives. And how much rolled steel they sent: we could never have organised the production of tanks so quickly if it were not for American help with steel. And now the entire affair is presented as if we already had everything in abundance."
>("G. K. Zhukov: neizvestnye stranitsy biografi," Voennye arkhivy Rossii, vol. 1 [1993])
>>1049398
Sounds entirely like pandering.
>>1049392
You really have to feel bad for Canada and the ANZACs. They build their own tanks virtually from the ground up (in the case of the Ram, from the Lee/Grant's base chassis) and then by the time they're done the US is pretty much throwing shermans at them.
The Sentinel AC4 was pretty impressive at least on paper too.
>>1049406
It can sound like whatever you think it does to you, but I would believe the words of the most prominent general in the Soviet Union over the words of some anon on the internet claiming that the Soviet Union totally didn't need it.
>Everyone underestimates Panzer III and IV
Arguably the most comfortable for tankers.
>>1049528
Sherman was the most comfortable for tankers. All that empty space and leather upholstery, plus the ventilation fan in hot weather.
But the Panzer IV performed well given its age, and in the 30s nobody could have predicted that the most powerful anti-tank gun in the world would go from the French 47mm to the German 88mm within the space of a little less than six years.
>>1049552
The 88 was an artillery/anti aircraft general purpose gun. The weapon on the Tiger was a scaled down version because the Tiger was incapable of handling the recoil.
Both guns were inferior to something like the Soviet's 122mm or 152mm. I get what you mean though. The average gun was around 30mm in diameter. 20mm and 45/47mm were the common outliers with 37mm being a favored middle ground.
And then by 1943 the average gun being produced is 75/76mm and the average round has doubled in length as well. Very rapid technological developments
Large guns had been used for 400 years by this point. 300mm mortars were a late medieval invention after all. But always these guns were used as artillery, WW2 saw them deployed quite directly unlike ever before.
>>1049552
> in the 30s nobody could have predicted that the most powerful anti-tank gun in the world would go from the French 47mm to the German 88mm within the space of a little less than six years.
8.8cm Flak was in service since 1936, so no one needed to predict it as it already existed in the 30s.
>>1048334
The reality is that IS-2 was... mediocre.
Probably one of the better heavy tanks ever, but that's not saying much. After WW2 all interest in IS tanks from the staff dropped after they saw T-54 prototypes and it was only the Stalin's power that kept them being produced.
No wonder they've started getting rid of them once he died.
>>1049225
You need to look at the GDP of mainland Britain. 99% of India and other colonies' GDP was subsistence.
>>1048378
>Germany did not "produce more a few years down the line" and nothing in their factories indicated that they would somehow be better at retooling than Soviet or British factories. You have provided no evidence that "Most of that production was used for expanding factories", and act as if the British and Russians weren't also expanding their own armament capabilities.
Go read Adam Tooze and get back to me with a book report. Or better yet, go read a book for the first time in your life and let me know what that felt like.
>>1049430
>I would believe the words of the most prominent general
That's not Konev.
The reality is that US/British support was vital to the Eastern Front, but people tend to put it over the USSR's production etc.
Once I've jokingly said that in years we'll probably hear that USSR's wartime production of everything equalled 0.
Lend-Lease helped USSR to get an edge over Germans, but it wasn't even close to being 10% of their GDP, which doesn't mean it isn't important.
>>1049855
His point is sort of right though. Due to bigger guns being too heavy, 37-45mm AT guns were the "top of the line" AT weapons of the 30's. Most of them weighted around 500 kg's which allowed for good mobility on battlefield even without ANY towing vehicles or "just" with a horse or a mule. Since nobody had too many tanks that exceeded their penetrative power, investing in bigger AT guns which would increase the need for(heavier) towing vehicles and motorising field artillery was enough to cause shortages, with or without additional AT guns.
>>1049903
His point is not even sort of right. It's 100% wrong as in completely wrong. 8.8cm Flak was made as a dual purpose direct fire gun, and was intended for AT role from the inception of its service in 1936.
>>1049965
Not that anon, but their use as ATG's wasn't exactly expected to become as needed. They were the weapons used most often when everything else failed and the german units were routing back towards prepared positions. If they average enemy tank encountered them, they were probably already doing very well. That was certainly the case in France and the desert.
Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte :^)
>>1049879
Considering they could select what goods were sent to them, that 10% might count for more that it seems. For instance, a disproportionate amount of heavy tanks at Leningrad were lend lease. Most of the Soviet tanks there were the crappy T-26s and BT range. In a game like that, a Matilda or Valentine is a juggernaut, particularly against german AT of the time.
>>1050172
I wish they would make that a flames of war model with it's own rules
unless of course they already did that.
>>1049865
You mean the Adam Tooze who says that the German economy was a gigantic clusterfuck and was sustained only on the plunder from conquered nations? That Adam Tooze?
Why don't you just admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about?
