I just have this problem where i can't stop talking about tanks (WW2).. So i wanna talk about tanks. KV-2 is the best tank. What is best tank in your opinion and why?
>KV-2
>Tank
More like self-propelled howitzer.
I have a sneaking suspision the K-2 was designed by a legitimate retard
>>1087096
fuk u cunt tiger win roar heil wehrmacht n shi
>>1087107
No you did not design the KV-2. Stoopid
>>1087111
You know that the Tiger 1 has a "anti-air" gun
>>1087116
no
>>1087107
Shut up amurikan kunt suk diks
>>1087107
Shut up amurikan kunt suk blek diks
>>1087111
>german WW2 tank
>Tiger I...
>not even Tiger II...
>especially not Stug IIIG...
You dun goofed.
>Like WWII tanks
>Only online tank games are made by butthurt Russians that consistently nerf German tanks while giving the T34 Stalinium magic armor
I'm not joking they have one multiplayer game where a Jagdpanzer IV is the same battle tier as a PT-76.
They actively punish players for playing tiger tanks by making them fight against post WWII vehicles with 1950s and 60s guns and ammo.
i like the sherminator, vroom vroom
>>1087096
After watching Tiger Brigade drive 50 mph through the sand blowing turret after turret after turret off of dug in T60's, the M1A1 has my heart.
>>1087096
TOG MASTER RACE
I have grown fond to early british tanks in ww2. Matilda, Crusader, Valentine, Cruiser MK 4. I know they were crap most of the time but they have a certain charm. Anyone else feel like it? ;_;
>>1087096
KV-1>KV-2
desu
>>1087157
I've always liked the Sherman over the kraut meme tanks.
Dem curves boiiii
>>1087146
Oh look, another buttflustered wehraboo.
>what is the best tank
This is going to be dependant on what you mean.
The T-34 was the best, most important tank of WWII... in the sense that it did the lion's share of the fighting, was easy to mass produce, reliable enough, really outclassed its peers when it showed up on the battlefield, was pretty mobile, etc.
Now if instead you're imagining some sort of 1 vs. 1 cage match between one tank and another tank, it wouldn't be the best tank in that regard. If you put it up with a King Tiger, for example, it would be completely outclassed. Not nearly the armor, not nearly the gun.
Now if you're asking what's the best in this regard, I'd say the IS-3.
What's my personal favorite? Probably the M-18.
>>1087096
panther considered best ww2 tank by literally every expert
high mobility
good armour
extreme armour penetrating and accurate gun
wrong board faggot
>>1087898
>IS-3
>WW2
You should probably just reevaluate your life.
>>1087912
Entered service May of 1945. Deployed in the east against the Japanese, before the ending of the war later that year.
>>1087096
I always liked KV2, had some impressive achievements individually, even if it was terrible on larger scale.
>>1087104
I don't get why people are obsessed with strict definition (what not all country use anyway) of tank. Even original tanks wouldn't count as tank under it.
>>1087146
Show on puppet where WoT developer touched you.
>>1087921
The use of the IS-3 against the Japs is unverified as far as I'm aware.
>>1087966
The Soviet Union claims that they did. There's no surviving evidence from other sources either way. It's known to have entered production and service by may of 1945, it was in the Victory Day Parade, claiming that it wasn't a WWII tank just kind of reeks of German butthurt.
>>1087909
>high mobility
if its drivetrain doesn't breakdown
>good armor
40mm of side armor that can be penetrated by fucking PTRS
>extreme armour penetrating and accurate gun
all guns at the time had similar mechanical accuracy, the biggest source of error is range estimation, which the high velocity gun did help
however, its penetration is not really special; about the same level as the 17pdr
>>1087096
thats very diffcult to choose, because they are very good tanks, since 1939 to nowadays.
But in my opinion, the best tank is the T-34,but the germans, the british and the americans (the M4 Sherman had good qualities) they had (and have) good tanks
>>1088361
another pic of the T-34
>>1087909
Are you 12 years old?
Just kill me, this tank exists
I just post merkava
>>1088443
bad news, that tnak had exist. A Bob Semple tank, of New Zealand
>>1088448
>good tank-destroyer
It was an assault gun and its doctrine was to be used as an assault gun.
>>1088473
I know that, but it was used for that purpose (tank-destroyer)
>>1088473
Tank destroyer is not a term denoting a type of a machine. It properly describes a US doctrine. Anything from self-propelled direct fire guns to towed AT guns were part of tank destroyer units.
>>1088361
>T-34
Which one?
>>1088491
Well, I didnĀ“t know it that fact
>>1088513
Both, but specially the T-34-85
>>1087096
Nice derp gun you got there
>>1088491
Germany did have self propelled tank destroyer units. Assault gun units are considered artillerymen and are usually attached to infantry divisions whereas tank destroyer units were usually independent or attached to armor units.
>>1087096
>KV-2
Couple major issues with the KV-2, both a result of the weight of the turret; small hits that no possibility of penetrating could easy jam the turret ring, and the turret could not traverse unless on completely level ground.
>>1087146
in warthunder there's huge Russian bias but in WoT Americans are probably the best at basically everything since like 2014.
>>1087912
Used in Vienna once. Proved what Russian staff already knew. I think there were 2 of them destroyed, one by flanking(Panther flanked it), second one by infantry with panzerfausts.
No wonder they were so reluctant to their heavy tank programme and scrapped it all together after Stalin died.
>>1088448
>but I donĀ“t think that it has been a good tank
well, you are wrong but that's okay
>>1088375
poor lt35 (or is it 38 i always get them confused) :(
>>1088443
Better than the Japanese ww2 tanks
>>1089543
I don't think such a feat is possible for the Bob Semple.
>>1089543
nah
>>1087122
it actually does
>>1089609
this is really gay
>>1087111
Except it's rangrange was 1 mile.. if it didn't break down yet.
>>1089454
The KV-2 wasn't meant for tank combat, I hate when people base their history off a retarded game called War Thunder.
>>1087912
Three IS-3 faced off against two Maus tanks personally commanded by Hitler outside the Reichstag.
>>1088456
Merkava a cute
A CUTE
>>1088448
>the Sherman have good things, but I donĀ“t think that it has been a good tank
But that's wrong. The Sherman was arguably the best medium tank of WW2 and a prime contender for best WW2 tank overall.
Took the gf to see this a few months ago and climb over.
Best is probably the legendary L3/33. Rumor has it that the Soviets would sacrifice four or five T34s to take out one of these beasts
>>1091801
That is a fucking abomination, would have been better if it had suffered a direct hit from a 88.
>>1091801
that pic is so cringy.
>>1091801
Where's a fucking Panzerfaust when you need it?
>>1091736
>The KV-2 wasn't meant for tank combat
What does that have to do with its faults?
>>1088375
I wonder how a tank battle gets this fucked up.
>>1092162
People think that the purpose of tanks was to fight other tanks. While they did fight other tanks, including KV-2s, that was only a fraction of what they did.
Ironically, I suppose this guy got the idea that tanks were supposed to fight tanks from video games.
>>1092186
Gun is jammed. Crew member wounded. Commanders seeing tanks around him being destroyed, orders the driver to ram. All kinds of crazy shit happened in tank combat.
>>1089474
Citation needed.
>>1087142
Isn't STuG III an assault gun, not a tank? No turret, and it was primarily for bunker destroying?
>>1092255
The original purpose was for assaults. So bunkers, machine gun nests, any kind of fortification that could stall an infantry advance.
Like many armored fighting vehicles, it found it worked well in multiple roles, including an anti-tank role, particularly because it had a low profile and easy to conceal.
The whole point of casemate style tank destroyers is that they're much cheaper to produce than turreted tanks. If somebody wanted to call them a tank for the purposes of this I don't have a problem with that.
>>1087146
Try playing with high tier American tanks in War Thunder, then you will know what pain truly is.
>>1092298
I'm tier 5 in americans and I haven't got a problem.
But yeah, werhaboos are whiny as fuck. Their vehicles are perfectly competitive.
>>1092218
Like those pea shooters would even be effective against a T-34.
Then again ramming must be pretty effective against a tank with riveted armor, if shots to the armor plates could cause lethal shrapnel in the crew compartment imagine what a ram would do.
>>1089533
it's LT 38
35 has the long benish shaped thing over the barrel
>>1091801
>gf
Fuck off
>>1087984
Yeah, I'm not a German. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence it actually served.
>>1087157
>sherminator
Best tank of WWII and the cast hull M4A1 is the cutest.
>>1087096
There's so many but I'm going with Panzer IV ausf H. There really isn't anything bad I can say about it. It was combat effective, reasonably cheap and good looking. It's called the workhorse of the German army for a reason. The only negative thing I can say is that by 1945 it was losing it combat potency to newer allied medium tanks. I also have a softspot for the Italian M13/40.
>>1092654
Anon, they didn't have seat belts in the 1940s. They didn't have airbags or cushioned seats or crumble zone panels. That they did have is lots of awkward pointy metal bits sticking around at all sorts of angles. So if you're cruising along at 40 kmh and you hit another tank, a tree, or a big rock... somebody's going to get hurt.
>>1093588
So damn adorable.
>>1093661
>manual breech
laughing slavs.webm
>>1093931
They won't be laughing when all the ammunition explodes around them.
>>1093946
or when their fancy autoloader inevitably fucks up and they can't do the shooty shooty bang bang part of being a tank.
>>1093931
cryingarmlessslavs.webm
The T-72's autoloader was reputed to have removed the arms of hapless Slav loaders.
>>1094000
>The T-72's autoloader was reputed to have removed the arms of hapless Slav loaders.
If you ignore the large metal plate that separates your arm from the autoloader, sure. If anything, the lack of a physical barrier behind the breech of the Abrams makes it more prone for the loader to be injured.
>>1091736
Yes, but that doesn't stop the KV-2 from facing enemy tanks.
Tanks were meant to break through fortifications, but tank-on-tank battles were so common that you can't rule it out.
>>1093647
>Good looking
Not with the Schurzen it isn't.
>>1087096
KV-2 was an especially bad vehicle.
Firstly, it is less of a tank and more of a self propelled gun. Whilst on rare occasions it did engage armoured vehicles it's main purpose was anti-material specifically pill boxes and fortified houses. This does not require the vehicle to be an effective fighting machine rather it just had to get its gun and crew to the target under its own power.
The engine in the vehicle was similar or exactly the same as that used in the KV-1 a significantly lighter machine thus giving the KV-2 a massive performance disadvantage in mobility and in the long run reliability.
The immense weight of the turret made the KV-2 top heavy and prone to falling over without much effort. The weight also significantly effected the turret rotation, if the vehicle was at a 2Ā° incline, it would not turn at all.
>>1091743
that thing is awesome
>>1087116
Are you retarded? The Flak 88 and the KwK 36 were developed independent of each other.
Centurion mk3
>Literally ol, boy
>Queens cruiser
>Dat gun
>Dem angles
>Don't even get me started on the side skirts
>It makes me want to cum
>It will take you out to dinner and treat you light a naughty girl that night.
>>1094297
Centurion huh.
>>1094431
I came at least six times
>>1093661
>moving that shit around in CRBN gear
fugg
>>1093588
>Sherman
>Best at anything
The soviets literally called it "A coffin for six comrads".
>>1094454
Could be worse.
>>1094460
>A coffin for six comrads
That was the M3.
>>1094463
As far as I have seen when I got to watch the local military fire one, they have all the doors and hatches open when they fire that thing. I had to make a conscious decision not to automatically close my eyes when it fired.
Also, I'd be fore worried about that loaders ears than his arms. It's really fucking loud.
>>1094297
It's just a good. Solid. Tank.
Make way for Ontos. The tank destroyer that's just six 105 mm recoilless rifles on a metal box.
>>1094431
Is that the 20 pdr?
Who the fuck thought that this big piece of shit was a good idea?
>hurr, lets send this slow piece of hunk metal to the enemy
>meanwhile the enemy can just blow it to shit with artillery or use ground attack aircraft
The Germans actually stuck to the Casemate TD concept after the war.
>WW2: You can never have too much armour
>Produces the most infamous and menacing tanks of the war
>Cold War: Armour just means you're scared of getting hit
>Produces the most widely used tank in Western Europe
The Germans were truly the masters of tank warfare.
>>1087104
>hurrr
No. KV-2 was mostly used in direct fire missions, therefore it was not used as a howitzer.
>>1094490
someone squished this tank
>>1094293
>Flak 88
FlaK 88 was an unofficial designation for FlaK 36 and renamed KwK 36 after being put into a tank.
>>1094297
Literally obsolete when it was introduced. Centurions were garbage until L7.
>>1094460
>The soviets literally called it "A coffin for six comrads".
The slavs called every tank a coffin for _ brothers.
>>1095304
>>1094463
Fume extractor is kill?
>>1094268
Agreed the su-152 was way better in every aspect
>lower profile
>longer barrel
>better gun elevation
So much so that it could be used as arty at long range
>>1092332
Higher tiers are retarded though
Grinding up a tiger 1H only to get oneshot by postwar tanks isn't fun, even if the 88 more than makes up for your lmaonoslopes
In arcade battles I don't give a shit but on realistic that's retarded. Battles should be sectioned up by vehicles actually used in the war.
Let the maus faggots rot in hell for all I care.
>>1088443
>somebody unironically thought this was a good idea
>>1094545
yes
>>1095864
>>Battles should be sectioned up by vehicles actually used in the war.
You'd still have to deal with M-36 Jacksons, British Firefly Shermans and M-26 Pershings.
>>1087096
>>1089574
Mah ę¦å
>>1091840
I can't find shit about this tank's service record in WWII other than gunning down Ethiopians, but I'm assuming that you're trying to ruse me.
>>1095864
>being bad
>not being good
Personally I think the Land Raider is the best tank. Multiple turrets cover a wide area and can provide massive amounts of downrange fire when all targeting the same direction. Great thing about the tread design on this behemoth is its ability to overcome incredible inclines as well as steep descents.
This tank is also great because it serves as a troop transport vehicle. This vehicle can transport a squad of terminators to the battlefield. These tanks are like relics and part of lost technology noone knows how to make so each one holds an almost mythological status among the chapters of space marines who are fortunate enough to employ them.
>>1094496
jej, i got that reference
Maybe not the best but certainly my favourite, there is just something about the Churchill tanks that I can't stop loving.
>>1096659
That's reasonable, though.
>>1098833
Yeah, they call those "jokes", you might've heard of them before.
>>1099189
The Churchill would have been the tank to rival the Tiger if it didn't have a shitty 6 pdr.
Black Prince-Tiger battles would have been legendary.
Jagdpanther is Cute. CUTE!
>>1100113
No, the Jagdpanther is sexy.
The Hetzer is cute.
>>1100113
>>1100172
Jagdtiger is the butch wallflower sister you don't fuck around with. Thankfully she's too heavy to be agile.
>>1099517
kiwi design written all over that
>>1096695
It looks like a tractor that's been refitted to be a tank
>>1099003
>Personally I think the Land Raider is the best tank.
NO IT IS THE BANEBLADE!!!!
>>1100638
>any sci-fi tank
>more awesome than the crucio
>>1096309
It was a good idea.
The idea was that New Zealand was in a position where the Japs might be invading any day now so they needed a tank, period. Even if it wasn't the greatest tank, it still would have been much better than no tank.
>>1103205
The Bob Semple was probably more advanced than most Japanese tanks.
>>1100172
>TFW FUCKING RUSSIANS SHOOT THROUGH THE GUN MANTLET AND KILL THE CREW
Fucking warthunder
>>1094495
>That shell being ejected
There's something odd about this tank. I don't know how to describe it but it just doesn't seem... tanky?
>>1099517
Fucking lemon squeezer hat.
>>1100638
>NO IT IS THE BANEBLADE!!!!
A valid proposal that the baneblade is a worthy tank. Though debatable as to its merits when considered superior to the might and battlefield superiority of a land raider.
Perhaps while the baneblade is more a symbol of raw power the Land Raider carries with it the emperors blessing far outweighing any armament found among the ranks of the imperial guard?
>>1091801
>>1103541
good point.
pic unrelated
>>1104376
forgot pic
>>1096659
Include the jagdpanther, and that's what I call a fair fight.
>>1091768
T34 is a medium tank
>>1087096
HAY YO TANKS THO
>>1100429
It literally is
>>1099525
This webm is so humanizing I love it
>the dog
>the guys giggling and smiling at the carnage
>the inspector kicking the wreckage
>>1096659
To be fair Shermans with M1 AT gun were dangerous enough for Tigers.
>>1094905
The concept has never really disappeared, just wait for some major war(I know, sadistic) between industrialised countries and you'll see them again.
During peacetime there's no much reason to make dedicated vehicles for economical reasons(TD's or assault guns are cheaper because turrets cost enormous amount of money, especially if they are electrical), but during a war it becomes a thing.
>>1087096
>just fuck my silhouette up senpai
The soviets have so many great tanks that are not a rolling target, why pick this ineffective pile of trash?
>>1104607
You mean the one that fires 76mm shells? I thought those were only good from the side?
>>1099189
>very difficult to maneuver
>the shittiest vision in all off WWII, if dust got whirled up you could not see shit
>cannon barely able to scratch proper armor
>motor barely able to pull its weight
>frame to big for its own good
The brits did not have a single good tank in WWII, did they?
>>1104903
The Comet.
>>1096047
> The Soviets loved the M4 though.
They said it was comfy.
Personally, I think tanks should be comfy. But that's not the only thing tanks should be.
>>1096757
God.
I actually have something even more retarded.
>>1104865
No. It had more trouble with the Panther though.
>>1104981
>>wheels
aww why couldn't they give them tine little tank tracks?
>>1104865
Assuming steel plate at 90 degrees(vertical, like in Tiger), M1A1 could penetrate:
101mm with 50% success rate at 1250 metres. Which means that below that range, Tiger was kill more often than it wasn't.
That's for M68 APC round, which was the most common AT round for this gun. Then you've also had M79 which did 97mm at the same range.
HVAP M93 did 160mm at the same range. At 2500 metres it penetrated 108mm.
Of course the ordnance equipped TD's first with HVAP(just like awful lot of them siphoned M1 guns from Shermans because ?????) but generally speaking it wasn't THAT needed.
>>1094481
They are wearing hearing protection, the loader probably has ear plugs.
>>1105026
it is also important to note that the majority of tank combat happened way below those ranges
i want to say 500m average or was it 800m, i dont remember
>>1104377
Not enough DAKA ya git for a real tank!
>>1094460
> literally regurgitating post-war Soviet propaganda
Which as has been point out to you, was directed towards the M3 Lee, which was so reliable and effective it was STILL in service with the Soviets in 1945.
>>1104903
That seen service? If so, the comet. There where plenty of designs that didnt see service during the war that where great, centurion for example.
>>1103210
That's a little unfair, Japanese tanks weren't really bad by 1939 standards. They could contend with the various Vickers 6-ton variants (T-26, 7TP, etc.), Cruiser Mark III or IV, the Panzer IIIf, IVd or the M2 Light. The issue is that tank technology advanced by leaps and bounds in Europe, whereas China pretty much ceased having tanks after 1937. Virtually any 1942-43 tank could have BTFO'd any 1939 tank in the way US tanks annihilated their Japanese equivalents.
>>1104967
They also said that it had better armor than the T-34.
>I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
>>1103269
Just stop playing. It's not worth the bullshit. It only gets worse later on like some anon said.
>>1105044
Ehh not necessarily true. Eastern front was more preferential for longer range engagements
>>1087924
He's talking about war thunder wot isn't made by Russians I think, or maybe I've just made s fool of myself but anyways the kv2 is a shit tank that really dosent function for the purpose of thanks at the time
>>1108251
This is called spalling
>yfw the russian primary medium tank didn't catch up to three man turret design until fucking 1944
>yfw soviet tank doctrine at small scale operations was donkey shit the whole war; crew stayed buttoned in combat and constantly blundered into ambushes
>muh armor and gun
>>1110765
>crew stayed buttoned in combat and constantly blundered into ambushes
- Did you lock your hatches during combat in built-up areas?
- We absolutely locked our hatches from the inside. In my own experience, when we burst into Vienna, they were throwing grenades at us from the upper floors of buildings. I ordered all the tanks to be parked under the archways of buildings and bridges. From time to time I had to pull my tank out into the open to extend a whip antenna and send and receive communications from my higher commander. On one occasion, a radio operator and driver-mechanic were doing something inside their tank and left the hatch open. Someone dropped a grenade through the hatch from above. It struck the back of the radio operator and detonated. Both were killed. Thus we most certainly locked our hatches when we were in built-up areas.
>http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
>>1110817
>urban combat is the usual for armored units
>implying situational awareness isn't more than worth the risk
>>1087898
>reliable enough
>was pretty mobile
t34s were actually notorious for shaking themselves apart on long distance drives.
>>1103541
>Anything
>Better than monstrous creatures
Tyranids are best faction.
sorry guy's, but coolness always wins.
Also the ABC weapon protection is pretty nice
I wanna talk about cold war era soviet laser tank, They tried to make space magic but failed.
Can't we all agree that the Tiger is and has been objectively the most feared tank of all time?
>102mm of armour. Excellent at the time.
>88 mm KwK 36 L/56 Anti-Everything Tank gun
>Effective speed of 38 kmph. Fast for a heavy tank.
>Allied troops feared the Tiger even though it rarely appeared on the Western Front
>Allied troops often mistaking other tanks (and even farm tractors) for Tigers
>>1114751
wouldn't the ones like tiger2 logically be more feared?
or are you asking whether it is the most iconic (by virtue of its prowess)?
>>1114827
The King Tiger was also feared but it was the Tiger that kept the Allied on the edge.
>>1114751
Nah, objectively, it's probably the Mark I, or the M1 Abrams.
>>1114837
The Mark I was pretty feared when it was introduced, but it was pretty easy to kill. Rifles could pen the armour and grenades were enough to fuck it up.
The Germans also developed an effective anti-tank rifle (T-Gewehr) and even stole a bunch of em.
>M1 Abrams
>Feared
>>1114841
I'd say the crew of the Mark I were far more afraid of it than the infantry.
>>1114841
>The Mark I was pretty feared when it was introduced, but it was pretty easy to kill.
Yeah, but the category of "objectively the most feared tank" was created to ignore all of the Tiger's shortcomings, so that shit doesn't matter for the Mark I. You can't compete against people who have literally never seen a tank before.
>M1 Abrams
>Feared
Tell you what, what sounds more terrifying to you, being an American Tanker on the Western Front, or being an Iraqi Tanker in the first gulf war?
>>1114847
Even better. Definitely the objectively most feared tank.
>>1088448
>but I donĀ“t think that it has been a good tank
The Sherman was great in WW2, it was reliable, had a gun that could take out most of the armor it would be facing, and was surprisingly mobile.
Not to mention that when it did get penetrated, most the crew was able to get out alive thanks to properly designed hatches.
