What was the best tank of WW2 and why was it the Tiger II (H)?
It was the T-34 /thread
why does it have to be the most ineducated piece of shit that create the thread ?
>>30159112
>what is fuel consumption
>what are production costs
>what is an airstrike
It did a great job of ripping the enemys first line, but was too big to use the momentum. Best tank was the Panther (T34 closely behind)
Go back to playing WoT
>>30159112
why always tanks?
Best truck of world war 2 and why was it the duck?
it's still seeing service the world over
>>30159211
>lived in Wisconsin for most of my life
>never ridden a duck
I feel like a fraud sometimes.
>>30159112
You are wrong OP. It was the M4 Sherman and the T-34 who were the best tanks of WW2.
>>30159260
kek the Sherman was shit. You cant mass produce a 1941-42 tank in '44 and expect it to work
>>30159282
>what is panzer 4
>what is panzer 5
>what is panzer 6
>>30159112
You misspelled IS-2.
>>30159282
The Panzer 4 was put out of producion in favor of the Panther, which was in no way a 1942 or earlier tank. The Tiger I was also replaced, although that does not matter anyways, because so few were made overall
>>30159432
Incorrect.
The PzKfwIV was never "put out of production" in favor of the Panther, it was put out of production by Nibelungenwerke being bombed into near inoperability. ~55 PzKfwIVJ's were still being made, per month as late as April '45.
>you are now aware that the krauts have managed to fit a turbine engine into a Jagdtiger
>ywn witness a Nazi laughing maniacally as the Jagdtiger wines to life
>ywn watch as a battalion of Jagdtigers roll up a hill unimpeded by any obstacles
Why even live
>>30159282
>You cant mass produce a 1941-42 tank in '44 and expect it to work
and yet, here we are
>>30159282
>>30159260
>>30159174
The Sherman could actually get to where it was going without breaking down or leaving the crew too exhausted to fight. It might not have been the best at fighting other tanks, but for everything else, it was by far the best tank of the war.
>>30159432
How is a tank that was designed and entered production before '43 in no way a '42 tank?
>>30159648
Turbine engine seems a poor choice for a casemate TD, since their limited turret traverse means their best in a stationary ambush role, rather than as an actively maneuvering force. And turbines are very inefficient at anything less than full speed, which means a TD waiting for the enemy to come to it would inevitably be wasting lots of fuel, or shut down its engine and be unable to move without preparation.
>>30159199
Uneducated*
>>30159282
>produce 41 tank
>it works in 45
>and in 48 to 49
>and still in 50 to 53
These posts about the T 34 being anything good are pretty funny, especially when the Sherman BTFO'd those as well.
>>30159705
And its flaws are greatly exaggerated by the Death Traps crowd. It wasn't really any more vulnerable to fire than any other gasoline fuelled tank (and contrary to popular belief, German vehicles were predominantly gasoline fueled, the only exceptions I know of being some of the larger scout cars). And the 75mm gun wasn't that great against tanks, but then again the German 7.5cm L/24 was even worse, neither being predominantly designed for tank vs tank. The Sherman 76mm was roughly on par with the German 75mm.
>>30159750
Shermans greatest strength is that they actually function after two decades of use. T-34s from before 1944 pretty much fell apart after 1000 miles or so.
And yes, the Easy 8 outclassed the T-34/85 in Korea.
>>30159790
And they had almost as much frontal armor as a Tiger E
>>30159944
>T-34s from before 1944 pretty much fell apart after 1000 miles or so.
At their worst they struggled to reach 300km before needing to be completely rebuilt.
OP is a joker.
But honestly, it was the Tiger 1. Best tank of the war with the greatest kill ratio of any mass produced AFV of WW2. Precursor to the MBT. Decent tactical mobility (on par with a Panzer IV) and armament that made it lethal all the way to 1945.
Crews loved them for the all-around protection. Entire German strategic offensives hinged on the performance of Tiger heavy tank battalions. Single vehicles were known to fuck with the entire Allied operations (not even referring to Villers Bocage because that's too easy).
>>30159727
I was talking about the standard on the battlefield. The Panther saw combat action in 43 and was far ahead of the time. The Sherman was good against the tanks it faced in North Africa (except the Tiger), but it was certainly not in Normandy.
>>30159690
Keep in mind that the T-34 was heavily upgraded throughout the war, same goes for the Panzer 4
>>30159520
It was never put out of production, but most of the factories producing it switched production lines to the Panther
>>30159750
The T-34 is still being used by North Korea, although it is far outdated and effectively useless against anything. Same goes for the 50s Sherman
>>30159282
gr8 b8 h8r i give it 8/8 m8
>>30159737
They were testing it for the Panther II trials since it needed to be modified before it could fit in the panther. But they actually did put it in a Jagdtiger, and not the Panther.
>>30159112
Who gives a shit about tank?
In the end, it's either bow down to the U.S or succomb to the gamma ray...
>>30159972
I was deliberately overestimating it because i didn't want to actually look it up, but yeah, they hardly qualified as motorized vehicles.
In contrast, you can totally replace the engine and transmission on a Sherman in a manner of minutes.
>>30159112
>tfw a tank destroyer with paper armor, an anemic gun and an engine two sizes too big managed to bring shame to werhaboos everywhere by spanking Tigers and Panthers on it's first outing
>>30159690
The 85 mm is a 1944 tank.
>>30160102
The Hellcat had a puny gun. By the time it was in the field the Germans basically had no armor.
>>30160065
flags on /k/ when
>>30159944
>>30159972
>>30160075
You guys are thinking about 1941 and 1942 when it was at it's worse where some tanks failed at 30 kilometers or so and the quality was so poor overall that rain came into the tank and the filters sucked so much that they made the engine lose power.
It got significantly better in 1943 and 1944. At the end of the war, T-34's were able to do forced marches of 500 kilometers. Post world war 2 T-34’s warranty mileage reached 2,000 kilometers.
>>30160142
Considering the first time it was deployed it they were able to take out 20 German tanks, may of which were apparently the newer Panthers, while only losing three of their own
>>30159986
>It was never put out of production, but most of the factories producing it switched production lines to the Panther
Also incorrect, Krupp was tasked with building the Sturmgeshutz IV in '43, and Vomag was tasked with building the JpIV in '44.
Both were based on the PzKfwIV chassis.
>>30160102
>>30160142
hellcat could chew up anything in it's time and spit out the bones. especially in packs.
>>30160142
I'd hardly consider the 76mm M1 a "puny" gun. Especially when firing HVAP which the Hellcats had far more often than the 76mm armed Shermans.
>>30159112
Pic related is this threads ultimate ending.
>>30160267
Reminder that the German commander at Bastogne lost 30 tanks to a single platoon of Hellcats from the 705th TD battalion. This made him slow his advance thinking that there were more defenders than he previously thought.
>>30160314
>>30160339
hellcats were considered the most viscous and successful tank killers in ww2.
even tanks that they couldn't hope to pen from the front fallen to their guns.
>>30159112
>>30159112
everyone ITT is wrong so far
>pic related
>>30160314
>>30159112
as much as I don't like the sherman, it was the sherman.
>shit load produced and handed away like candy
>all produced to high quality
>one of the safest places to be in the war was in a sherman
>great crew ergonomics
>adequate armor and gun
>no reliability or shitty production runs like T34
>BTFO more modern tanks in hands of israelis
>>30160486
Jumbo was better.
>>30160486
> No HE
>>30160486
>Gun that can't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with its sabot rounds
>Solid shot performs similar to US 76mm
>Gun ergonomics are shit
>Best tank
Yeah, nah
>>30160550
This DESU, hell even the e8 was better.
>>30160151
That's Curtis LeMay posting from the afterlife boy
>>30160629
>Solid shot performs similar to US 76mm
That's incorrect, but the Americans decided that the loss in accuracy of the 17 pounder meant that at ranges where the 17 pounder was likely to hit, the 76mm was likely to pen (against a Tiger frontally, IIRC). It was generally just not that accurate.
There was also the issue of how much dust it kicked up when firing.
It was a major compromise to simply get powerful guns to the front lines to deal with Panthers and Tigers. The Comet and M4A3E8 were both superior designs. IMO the easy eight was the best all around vehicle of WW2, considering quality and reliability, ease of production, and combat ability.
>>30160608
that was the 2 pounder
>>30160749
> HE shittier than the regular sherman with a 75mm
> One tank to blast HE, on to blast APCBC
> S-still best tank!
>>30160812
>HE shittier than the regular sherman with a 75mm
So did all the other high velocity guns around that caliber, including the 76mm M1.
>>30160486
17 pounder, how cute.
>>30159210
Those tanks were so good they only ever had to be refueled once because they would break down before they ever needed to be filled up.
>>30160633
Hell, most of the A3 series was better. Even the M4A3105 could do a number on a Panther if it was issued HEAT.
>>30161151
>>30161151
>WWII
>posts a tank from the 50's
>>30159174
>/threading your own post
>>30160734
I stand corrected. I guess I should have said it wasn't enough more to make it appealing.
