This is the ideal WW2 tank. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

all worse
this might be close, but it wasn't finished until the wars' end.
Still, was it actually better? In which ways?

Attached: 5452b84b435ec800294c063361335ae6.jpg (1024x662, 94K)

T28, T29, T30, T32, T34

too heavy

>goal posts moving faster than an A34

there's a reason why none of these projects was pursued further
M26 might be a contender

Attached: M26.jpg (969x663, 335K)

Slavaboo /v/edditors need to go back

M26 was underpowered and had reliability issues, it took being upgraded to M46 standard for it to be a great tank.
>Panther
Shit
>Tiger 1
Overrated and shit
>Tiger II
Shit
>Sherman
Good, but not great
>Panzer IV
Obsolete in 1944

Wrong

Attached: Brit Sherman Firefly.jpg (2623x1999, 1.3M)

Sherman.

>misses barn from inside the barn

>there's a reason why none of these projects was pursued further
Yeah, because the war ended you twat. By 1945 the weight limit placed on tanks by the Army had risen considerably. We could probably have shipped an entire tank factory to Japan in a month, let alone getting a couple of tanks to Europe.

Attached: T30_Heavy_Tank.jpg (778x396, 64K)

Anyone remember the Jow Forums version of the I love the hole world song? I remember there being a Jow Forums sings about it but can’t find it

that 'upgrade' essentially made the tank worse than the standard 75mm Sherman
better than the T-34? maybe.
better than the T-44? Fuck no.
So why was the M-26 produced after the war?

Attached: Panzer IV winter tracks.jpg (550x510, 33K)

So was centurion,
See above

Attached: 1200px-Centurion_cfb_borden_1.jpg (1200x900, 353K)

>So was centurion,
no it wasn't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank)

but still, what was the better tank, Centurion or T-44? and why?

Attached: Panther G.jpg (709x503, 68K)

A quote from your source:
>Development of the Centurion began in 1943 with manufacture beginning in January 1945
The war ended in may. Centurion was put in production before wwII ended.
Anway, imo centurion is better overall mainly due to far superior ergonomics, internal space, gun depression ect.
Both have comparable armour, and firepower of each varies depending on whether you're comparing the 85mm/100mm and 17pdr/20pdr gun, as t44 and centurion fielded those guns respectively. The 85mm is comparable to the 17pdr, while the 20pdr is comparable to 100mm.
Therefore I'd say centurion wins just because of the other factors I mentioned earlier.

Comet was clearly the best tank actually deployed in WW2.

Thats a funny way of spelling Matilda

That's an odd way to say the M1 Abrams.

Yeah but you conveniently let out the following sentence saying the Centurion prototypes arrived in Europe right when the war was over. T-44 was ready in 44
Where did you learn about both tanks' ergonomics and?
M4 and T-34 were better

>So why was the M-26 produced after the war?
Alright, first of all it's M26. Get your hyphen out of here and go fuck yourself with it.
Second, by the end of WWII the US already had the tooling to manufacture the M26 en masse. Making tanks is expensive, and after the war defense spending in the US plummeted. Most R&D projects, regardless of their potential, were cut just to save money.
I'm not here to argue about whether the M26-derived heavy tanks were better than the T-44; all I'm saying is that the end of their development had literally nothing to do with their weight. All it came down to was bad timing.

>Comet was the first good tank designed by the British.

ftfy

Wasted trips.
Matilda II was a solid tank, Cromwell compared well with its contemporaries, and the Churchill was a beast of a machine that could get around in what most other vehicles would consider impassable terrain. The Brits weren't outstanding when it came to designing and building tanks, but they hardly deserve the Italian/Japanese tier reputation they get.

Attached: Churchill Mk VII.jpg (550x332, 28K)

Tanks are overrated, there is not a single vehicle in WW2 that outperformed the StuG III. A single division of 11 battalions took out in excess of 400 vehicles while only losing 8 units. At the end of the war each active StuG III took out 10 - 15 vehicles on average.

Attached: latest.jpg (849x509, 127K)

Sure I ignored that sentence, but my point is that the centurion tanks were in development/produciton during wwII, same as t44. Neither saw combat, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

These vids (I know they're from WoT, but the vids are done by the tank museum and are pretty decent) show inside the centurion and t54, Which I imagine would be pretty similar to t44.
youtube.com/watch?v=638QflWLdWE
youtube.com/watch?v=TEDhB9evPvw
I'm sure there was one directly comparing them where he states the centurion to be much more comfortable and easy to live in, but can't find it.

Interesting, thanks

Actually, scratch that last bit. If you look at the end of the centurion vid (20 minute mark) he compares centurion and t54 directly.

Attached: 1439280783639.jpg (436x432, 30K)