Best tank of ww2

the centurion never fought in any theater of the war and the panther II never made it past prototype

Well, if we’re going off of mobility, the Hellcat delivered similar firepower and was much more mobile. That was a successful doctrine, the Hellcat had an incredibly successful K/D ratio. Kek.

>there is only one surviving tank doctrine that has ever had any success and that is maneuver warfare

"Maneuver warfare" is a concept that predates the invention of armor and isn't even an armor doctrine. I'll give you another hint, Blitzkrieg isn't a doctrine either.

>also the "unreliability" of the panther is a slavaboo cope used to slander the tank which had its problems rectified within a year of its deployment, the tank was no less reliable than a t-34 once it got fielded for a bit and the initial problems(that every tank ever made has in some variety) were fixed

The Panther's final drive remained an issue for the tank through the end of the war and was to be addressed in the vehicles successor, this issue was made worse by the necessity to remove the driver and radioman's positions and maneuver the final drive through the roof with a crane. This issue also restricted the strategic mobility of the units it was a part of. There are numerous issues with the vehicle, though this is the most glaring. In comparison the T-34 is far easier to fix.

A good tank should complement the capability of the force it is a part of and create as few problems as possible, not to "take hits" or "deliver shells on target" or any other number of know-nothing phrases. The Panther wasn't the best tank of the war, it wasn't even the best tank the Germans made.

Attached: Germany's finest.jpg (778x1216, 124K)

>Sherman>Panther

in terms of what?

crew survivability? fine I'll give you that

armor? nope

armament? nope

mobility? nope

crew visibility? nope

Honestly, I’d argue that the Hellcat is better than the Panther. More reliable, similar to better firepower, and very mobile, which made it arguably more survivable than a Panther. Excellent on offensive maneuvers because of speed, useful on defensive as a fast-moving harasser. I think it has more utility, and less problems than the Panther.

Imagine thinking this overpriced, under-produced, mechanically fucked thing was the best tank of the war.

Attached: zhukov2.jpg (648x767, 135K)

the hellcat was a tank destroyer and the concept of tank destroyers is completely obsolete for obvious reasons

it would have been significantly more effective if it had the ability to receive hits from anti tank guns

>The Panther's final drive remained an issue for the tank through the end of the war

ok so we're telling lies now

slavaboos made it to the thread

also you are the biggest psuedo-intellectual I have ever seen on Jow Forums commit suicide

slavaboo cope intensifies

The concept of a fast-moving and reliable vehicle that can hit hard is, however, not obsolete. Which is what the Hellcat is at the end of the day. Or was the M1128 invented for shits and giggles, and not for use in warfare?

It did remain an issue through the rest of the war and even though its reliability improved in later models, also the ludicrous steps to maintain it never changed. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that isn't still an issue with the final drive.

>also you are the biggest psuedo-intellectual I have ever seen on Jow Forums commit suicide

Because I don't think "manuever warfare" is the best tank doctrine? Maybe you should actually read a book.

Sherman was the best tank because it was moderately effective while being produced on a massive scale none of the other tanks were and could be repaired quickly due to a plethora of replacement parts available at any moment.

An alright tank on the battlefield is better than a great tank in the shop.

gee maybe it was designed to up the firepower of a motorized unit

Don't worry, OP is just some variety of fucking retard. Probably the same guy that sperged out super hard about 'Anti-Wehraboo' shit a few days ago. Apparently a final drive that requires crane assisted maintenance is perfectly fine in his mind.

>Maybe you should actually read a book.

(PSUEDOINTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY INTENSIFIES)

overall utility does not make something the "best"

the tanks themselves are the only things that ought to be compared

and in such a comparison the sherman is not as effective as its contemporaries

the sheer ability of sub 70 iq slavaboos to circlejerk in any thread is astounding

But wait... oh yeah! It doesn’t matter! Because it’s about the best tank of WW2! So why does the tank doctrine being obsolete matter today, when we’re arguing about the quality of a tank during WW2? Oh yeah, wait, it doesn’t. Kek.

What this guy said.

>(PSUEDOINTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY INTENSIFIES)

Ok, so just make things up instead of doing the bare minimum. So anything other than just straight up lying is someone being a pseud.

The crane just half of it. So you want to swap the Panther's final drive or perform anything other than basic preventative maintainence? All you need to do is totally clear out the driver and radioman positions, literally take the roof off of the forward compartment and pull it all out. Next you need to connect the crane to the transmission and maneuver it ninety degrees through the open roof hatch. Now do it all in reverse, including re-installing all of the radioman's gear. For comparison it takes three times longer than a swap on an M4.

Not enough were made to make a difference and most broke down. a shit

because you were trying to answer the question of naming a surviving doctrine other than that held by the modern MBT

fucking retarded nigger

Well, everyone, I suggest that OP is a faggot who knows not what he speaks of. Any seconds? All in favor say “aye”

reminder that tankie retards who think German tanks were bad and Russian tanks were good are never right about anything and are coping about their small penis

>blitzkrieg was proto-modern armour doctrine

"Blitzkrieg" is a buzzword that the Western press picked up in the opening stages of WWII.

Seems to me like all 3 of the winning powers were using Shermans.

its also a colloquial term used to describe German armored doctrine that is both non-verbose and enough of common knowledge that you dont need further explanation to discuss it

Aye.

>overall utility does not make something the "best"
>the tanks themselves are the only things that ought to be compared

Probably the dumbest statement I've read in a while. Congrats!

aye

>thread about
>best tank
>WELL AKCTUALLE IF U CONSIDER...

kys incel

samefag tankie

Whatever lets you sleep at night user-kun.

>Produced by a country that lost the war
>Entered service right about the time they started to lose.

It sure as fuck can't be the best tank of the war when its not even the best tank the germans built.

Sherman, T34 and Panzer IV, in that order.

As the person who wrote the first, I can confirm we just all think you’re a tard. Sorry bud. Don’t talk about things you don’t understand, and stick to WoT.

A tank's job is to add to the capability of the force it is a part of, that's what it should be judged on.

True, but it can be misleading when used to describe them outside of the early war.

>Panzer IV

underarmored, undergunned, unupgradeable, and a huge profile

its not that good

do I look like OP to you

also the fact that you even brought that fucking game up confirms to me you are some tankie weeaboo videogame playing child

Yeah right, I bet you also think the best tank was one of the ones that needed vices in the factories to modify parts in order to fit them onto the tanks they were built for.

>knowing the game exists and is autistic is apparent proof that I am a child
Sure user. Well, you know anime exists and brought up I’m a weeb, so according to your logic, you are a weeb too. Nice logic kid.

>undergunned, unupgradeable, and a huge profile
the kw.k.40 was dangerous to the sherman/t-34 throughout the war, the pz.kpfw.iv was upgunned and uparmored, and it was smaller than the sherman

The T34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T34's superior angled armor. Said T34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of German blood. Fear of the T34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million Jews. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T34-85, and by extension, the T34-series as a whole.

Attached: 27330-T-34-85.jpg (1920x1200, 602K)

>world of tanks retard

Attached: 1518283914102.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

this man knows the truth

FPBP

M18 had the greatest mobility, Ha-Go was the easiest for island hopping, IS-4 had the best armour, T28 had the greatest frontal armour, Tiger 2 had the highest velocity gun, KV-2 had the heaviest projectile, Sherman had the best crew suitability, T-34 had the shortest combat life--
What do we take from all this? That the M1 Abrams is the best tank ever

>the tank was no less reliable than a t-34 once it got fielded for a bit and the initial problems were fixed

I suggest you go read about the T-34's reliability before using it to support an argument about your tank's reliability. That's like saying the saying a tank in 1945 had good firepower because it's gun was no less powerful than the 75mm M3 or KwK 39.

Attached: 1522775384866.jpg (400x250, 22K)

Germany: Panzer IV H
USSR: T-34-85
USA: M4A3(76)W
Britain: Comet
All of these were pretty easy to produce, low cost, reliable or in the case of the T-34-85 as by this stage the t34 was a lot more reliable and easy to fix. They were mobile, decent firepower, sufficiant armour and generally well rounded machines

Historical retroactivism is cancer
>hey guys lets treat 1944 like it's 2018
>hurrrrrrr
Each tank filled it's own role based on it's respective country. But to continue the shitposting I choose the American TD line.

Final armaments of the Sherman>Final armaments of the Panther
And the Panther was still in active service when the M-51 rolled out

Attached: super_sherman.jpg (1115x788, 159K)

/thread

The only reason the war lasted as long as it did was because the Germans had them too.

Attached: 1384742414295.jpg (800x445, 77K)

Real intellectual answer: Sherman
They fucking ran, unlike the tiger or the panther
Also, spacious, ergonomic interior, good optics, and (hot take incoming) a perfectly acceptable gun, even in the early versions.
Even late in the war, the tank that shot first usually won the engagement. This negates a lot of arguments about armor thickness and penetration.
youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

The T-34 and its variants. And I say this as an unironic #4 in this picture. Comparing individually, the Panther would be the best, yes. But it was too expensive and complicated to produce. Germany knew this and had plans to solve this through a standarized series of tanks:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series
They learned much too late that quantity is indeed a quality of it's own. The Bolsheviks produced over 50,000 of them, despite losing major industrial centers in Ukraine and western Russia, like Kharkov for several years.

The same thing happened with the Luftwaffe. The Me 262 fighter jet was the best plane in the world. Nothing could catch it. It could sweep from above a bomber formation and destroy several of them with its powerful cannons before the escort fighters even saw it. But there simply was not enough of them, not enough skilled pilots, not enough fuel. As well as it being vulnerable during take off and landing.

It's very easy to produce something of "high quality" by engineering a million pieces in it. This will make it very unreliable, however. It's much more difficult to create something that is easy to produce and maintain with simple engineering.

I also see a lot of "what if" scenarios people seem to ask regarding German military technologies. Such as what if the StG 44 was the standard issue rifle, what if the Panther was the standard mass produced tank, what if the Me 262 was the standard fighter. There's no need to debate that Germany would have won if they had a large amount of those superior weapons. The problem was getting a LARGE amount of them. Which was simply impossible due to the conditions at the time, and the complexity of the equipment. So IF Germany could produce these weapons in LARGE amounts, they would absolutely be the best weapons of the war. But sadly, that did not happen, for one reason or another.

Attached: wlw1nch8zg8z.jpg (320x274, 20K)

>Literally anyone with a drop of intelligence and knowledge about history but zero understanding about economy and logistics: Panther

neither Centurion nor Panther II were deployed or even fully developed during the war

Attached: Shermanwithsandbaggedhull.jpg (831x571, 88K)

>not the Bob semple tank

>fapping to the though of the panther never running out of fuel
sherman best tank ww2. usable in every environment, cheap to make, didn't run out of fucking fuel because the nation making them wasn't retarded enough to go to war with 2 world powers simultaneously without direct access to a large fuel source

Having fuel? Way better than the panther at that shit.

You might be retarded kiddo.

>Centurion
>Sherman better than the Panther
Leave and never return

Soviets and USA would have shortened the war if they would have been produced the Panther.

The USA could have got rid of a the entire line of tank destroyers with the Panther, especially they wouldn't have run away from every single Panzer "It's a Tiger!" IV in Nothern France.

the sherman.

Germany was effectively defending against the overwhelming Soviet forces because of the doctrinal superioty of German warfare. Soviets got fucked with their attempt of their large scale offensive after Kursk because the German Mission-type leadership was that superior.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

aye

fuel availability has got little to do with tank design

Attached: 2rcabo4.jpg (707x490, 46K)

The Panther was actually barely more expensive to produce than the Panzer IV.

>not running your tanks on solar energy if you don't have enough fuel

Sherman a best!

>Battle of the Bulge
>of fuck our 75mm Shermans are fucking pieces of shit
>rushed 76mm Shermans and the M26 into service.

Attached: munster-panzer-IV-tank.jpg (650x336, 72K)

inb4 no fuel to run your "best" tank

sherman over the course the course of the war, even during the service life of the panther, was better than the panther

also is better than panther

So triggered

Would it have been smarter to produce this instead of the Panther?

Attached: 260sz0n.jpg (700x390, 25K)

Attached: GER_Panzer_IV_K.jpg (800x600, 143K)

Attached: 28krjmb.png (920x680, 204K)

Attached: 2072ao0.jpg (661x845, 53K)

Bob Semple is best tank of WW2, no units were lost to the enemy

overburdened tank is overburdened.

It wasn't reliable and had some of flaws in design one was related to gunner optics which I don't recall exactly what was the issue.

Sherman was reliable but it wasn't too good in tank on tank combat nor was it designed for.

T-34 good idea on paper not that great on field.

Concept of best tank is a meme. It's always some sort of compromise that will work or not.

Sherman comming up the rear

Attached: xxxxxx10[1].jpg (800x503, 193K)

Centurion was deployed.

Not the tank's fault Germany was shit and couldn't hold out longer.

Too bad they didn't have the gas to run them

>panther
>transmission brakes every 5km and replacing it takes days

>Development of the Centurion began in 1943 with manufacture beginning in January 1945. Six prototypes arrived in Belgium less than a month after the war in Europe ended in May 1945.[10]
nice deployment you got there

The transmission didnt have any issues.

Its problems were the engine and final drives.

Also it was fixed. Though the engine was downrated

great, the mobility part of the panthers advantages is now gone.

Shermanfags are fucking retarded

>M3 Lee = best early war tank, victor of North Africa
>M4 Sherman = best WW2 tank, extremely accurate and adequete gun, excellent use of armor, average of 1 crew death per destroyed tank, best in the war.
T-34-85 honoribu mention with mid-late war upgrades, KV-1 was breddy gud too. Panther was the best German tank.

>armor? nope
>armament? nope
Even the 75mm sherman would kill most german tanks frontally with a single shot. Your stastic is irrelevent.

>mobility? nope
Broken tank mobility is pretty shit, American tanks had reliability far superior to every other nation.
>crew visibility? nope
muh magical german optics is a false meme.