WWII

Sherman.

Sherman

All round armor, gun, and speed

Able to be modified for any need (mineclearing, amphibious, anti-tank, flamethrower, etc.)

Cheap, reliable, and easy to fix

The idea of a "best tank" among countries with different doctrines, industrial capabilities, and logistical limitations is a pretty flawed one.

However if you want some success stories, the T-34 was a miracle that allowed the Soviet Union to build a functional, fairly capable vehicle under the worst conditions imaginable. The StuG III allowed the Germans to repurpose the production of obsolete Pz III hulls into an armored vehicle that would remain effective through the end of the war. The M4 Sherman fought successfully in every theater and environment and was a safe and easy to maintain vehicle.

Attached: e4dc03ce57a775177f554c960f65293e.jpg (736x490, 85K)

What would you put? Detonate on impact panzer 4 or the 20 tons over what its drivetrain could carry Panther? If you say cromwell or any variant I will blow your head off

How about M4A2(76)W.

Anything but a vehicle that literally killed itself more often than enemy tanks. The thing literally didn't even have a turret basket, it was supposed to do shit apart from a shield for advancing infantry, it couldn't engage enemy tanks nearly as successfully as the Germans or Americans, the crew couldn't see shit, parts from two different factories were completely impossible to interchange, the bead welding was so bad the side armour plate would literally fall off and non-penetrations could still kill crew.
The T-34 sucks and not even its cheap cost is a pro as most broke down before even seeing the enemy.
The only advantage was its quick production time, price doesn't matter when you don't use it but if you can make enough of them that quality control becomes irrelevant than it becomes a strength.

Pz IV or Sherman

Attached: stugs.jpg (1024x695, 293K)

Daily reminder for all the T-34 fanboys that Soviet tankers preferred their ‘Emchas’ to any other domestic or imported tank, and were fielding entire tank armies that consisted of over 60% Sherman’s.

As much as I like the Pz.IV it was really just a stopgap for most of the war. Germany should have really focussed more on their Panther and standardisation as the heavy tanks were a really big waste of time.

Attached: panther.jpg (979x720, 211K)

obviously; the M-4

Attached: KJpO3ij[1].png (429x410, 23K)

Sherman > Panther > T-34

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-124-12A,_Russland,_Infanterie_und_Panzer_im_Kampf.jpg (800x507, 48K)

Cultural relativism reaches Tank Culture

Attached: 1331651780953.jpg (848x480, 39K)

>Please think about production, crew survivability, enemies, engine breakdown and of course stats on paper
>Production, enemies, reliability

Every country needed a vehicle to suit their own needs, there's no one tank answer.

The M18 Hellcat.
>"But that's not even a tank," says the burning Panther.

Attached: Hellcat.png (1066x486, 145K)

Easily the worst answer here

M36 best TD. Change my mind.

Attached: 1522077000346.jpg (964x641, 171K)

*gets knocked out by a bmw gunner*

Attached: r75.jpg (800x509, 110K)

the suspension made that big of a difference you think?

The M551 Sheridan of course.

>The thing literally didn't even have a turret basket
why do people harp on this? when you stow ammo in the floor (which is the safest place for it) you don't add a turret basket. look at late-production shermans and the pershing, for example

1939: Pz III
1940: Pz III
1941: T-34/76
1942: Pz IV
1943: M4
1944: M4
1945: M4

Sherman and it's variants, no contest.
>inb4 wehrascreeching and commielarpers
German tanks were either hit or miss but overall are pretty overrated since the higher ups kept focusing on dumb shit instead of the tanks already proving themselves successful, and Soviet tanks like the T-34 were good because you could make a fuckton of them throwing everything else out of the question. The Shermans were like a perfect combo of both.

>teleports behind your flank
pssh nothing personnel Tiger

Attached: gotta go fast.jpg (2048x1360, 364K)

which was the best td of the war tho?

Attached: Jagdpanzer-IV-V.jpg (800x600, 128K)

Good luck, you're tied to the roads which will invariably be covered by enemy AT guns anywhere near the front line.

hetzer a cute

Attached: pakwagen.jpg (820x566, 188K)

Attached: hetzer.jpg (1024x598, 212K)

Have I gone off the deep end if I find tanks cute?

Not really. The M18s narrow tracks weren’t ideal for deep mud off-road, but it’s relatively low ground pressure and high power to weight ratio meant that it was still able to do cross-country as well as most other tanks.

Soviet and American tests only really complained about it having issues with huge snow drifts, and really horrific mud.

Soviet Union: Su-85/100
Germany: StuG III/IV
US: M10

Attached: 412342234.jpg (716x483, 116K)

if they would have designed a turreted puma with a pak 40 instead of the kwk 39 i would nut

Attached: puma.gif (480x258, 2.11M)

M36 is literally just an M10 with a better engine and gun.

>as well as most other tanks.

So its essentially a shitty open topped M4 thats vulnerable to AT rifles.

It'd be fair to include that as well, though it didn't see as much use during the war.

or an m10a1 with a better gun

>best kill-loss ratio of any US armored vehicle
>saved the Battle of the Bulge
>BTFOs Panthers
>can beat your tank in a race
>made by the company that would also make the greatest automobile of all time, the 1987 Buick GNX
I honestly don't see how tankfags can compete.

Attached: M18 Hellcat.png (1024x527, 612K)

Pretty sure Germans didn't generally field AT rifles in the West that late in the war. What the M18 was vulnerable against was just about anything else of a high caliber. Mortars, artillery, AA guns could tear the vehicle to shreds, so it's not capable of assaulting any kind of fortified positions.

>I honestly don't see how tankfags can compete.
Being capable as an offensive vehicle?

Any sherman made after 1943 is a decent tank in my book

Shh.. they dont know late war shermans had no turret baskets ))

>gets shredded by 7.92 SMKH

stay in your lane and stick to ambushing offensives

Attached: M G.v1.jpg (804x604, 89K)

youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Glorious Shermenator!!!

T-34 drove 80 miles then broker down like clockwork.

Glorious neo commie propaganda

Attached: ripper_8_450x.jpg (450x277, 44K)

then they need to be educated

Can someone explain to me why tank destroyers such as the Stug would be considered superior to something like the PzIV? It seems to me that not having a turret wouldn't provide any benefit other than smaller silhouette at the cost of adaptability that the turret would provide. Of course I'm not well versed in armor doctrine

It's easier to armor, easier to mount a larger gun, and has a lower profile. But the primary reason is that it's cheaper, easier and quicker to produce, which was the big appeal for the Germans at the time. The turret isn't all that necessary, especially in defensive fighting.

because the gunner can simply tell the driver to turn x degrees and it can be done in seconds

So early in the war the Germans relied on turreted tanks to support their infantry, but when they started to get beat back they changed their doctrine to turretless hulls?

no

All this tells me is that the Panther is so shit that even an mg is better.

No, they used turreted tanks throughout the war, they just produced StuGs to get armored vehicles that were almost as good made in a hurry.

nah early in the war Germany's infantry support vehicles were the short barreled Pz IV and StuG III
as the war progressed the Pz III turret couldn't mount the needed guns anymore but the chassis could take it and it proved to be sufficient whilst being easy to produce, so they kept on doing it

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (736x529, 82K)

>best kill-loss ratio of any US armored vehicle

In an incredibly small volume against targets of little consequence, and a claim I've never seen backed up with an actual credible source.

>BTFOs Panthers

It had the same gun as an M4, so they could too.

>can beat your tank in a race

Only on roads.

>I honestly don't see how tankfags can compete.

By offering a reasonable compromise between protection, mobility, and firepower.

The Germans fielded a variety of small bore AT weapons on the western front, both of their own designs and from captured supplies. The 8mm AP ammo issued to infantry could also defeat sections of the M18's armor.

not worth restating why the t34 is the best tank overall
because Jow Forums is literally dominated by homosex retards

This. Also bud light is the best beer and hi-point c9 is the best handgun.

Would definitaly take the Panther G so 1944 version which took care of all problems but yeah the metallurgy at this point was shit because of scarce resources. Hitler should've kept his hands out of this, the original one was perfectly balanced.

Only about 1/3 of the 76 mm models didn't, the rest had a half basket and all 75/105 mm variants kept the whole basket.

>Hellcat
>same gun as the M4

>1987 Buick GNX

Attached: flat 550x550 075 f.jpg (458x550, 35K)

Hellcat, this is inarguable
>SEVENTEEN TO ONE

Attached: M18 Hellcat (20.jpg (800x437, 69K)

Both were equipped with the 76mm gun in the later years of the war, only the TD were getting the APCR ammunition.

Shame it didn't see combat. Most potent early cold war tank. It could be up gunned, up armoured, best gunnery compared to most, good survivability and reliability considering one survived a nuclear blast to only throw a rod on the trip back.

Attached: centurion-mk1.jpg (893x478, 51K)

It was easily the least capable armored vehicle in use with US forces in ETO. It wasn't even better than the interim vehicle it was supposed to replace.

Pic related was the nuke tank "169041" which I think likely gave about 12 people cancer and survived a rpg hit in nam.

Attached: 169041_x_1.jpg (640x430, 55K)

EM CHA

Attached: SC2056351-1.jpg (2714x1809, 509K)

>slowfags

M18 wasn't any faster than any other tank off road, which is where the fighting is.

>slowfag damage control

Enjoy your cowardly running away TD

Attached: the StuG life chose me.jpg (2028x1380, 230K)

>least capable
>17:1 kill/death ratio
sure

>equipped with the 76mm gun in the later years of the war
Some Shermans had 76mm guns but the short 75mm gun was standard for the entire war.

Care to back that claim up? The only places that use that figure are either amateur historians or the history channel.

They began phasing out the M3 gun through 1944, which also happened to be when the M18 was entering service.

>It was easily the least capable armored vehicle in use with US forces
What? I think you're getting thrown off by the memeing in this thread, because the Hellcat was actually pretty damn good as a tank destroyer and a fire support vehicle.

>1944 version which took care of all problems
except the final drives

yes, the last 76 mm models produced. the ones made after the most lessons had been learned

>interleaved wheels

>because the Hellcat was actually pretty damn good as a tank destroyer and a fire support vehicle.

It was inferior to the vehicle it was supposed to end up replacing, and as a fire support vehicle its low ammunition capacity became an issue. There really wasn't anything it did better than any other comparable vehicle in service.

this

>They began phasing out the M3 gun through 1944, which also happened to be when the M18 was entering service.
The M18 was developed during 1943 and introduced in early 1944. 76mm Shermans existed in a limited form at that time but the Allies did not need or want them until mid-1944 because the 75mm gun was entirely sufficient until they started encountering Panthers in large numbers; at that time the Hellcat was the only common US vehicle mounting the 76mm gun, which is why they were so valuable until more upgunned Shermans were available. By the beginning of 1945 only about 1/4th of tanks had the high-velocity gun.

>at that time the Hellcat was the only common US vehicle mounting the 76mm gun
which was identical in ballistics to the 3" gun on the M10...

>It was inferior to the vehicle it was supposed to end up replacing
By what metric?

>By the beginning of 1945 only about 1/4th of tanks had the high-velocity gun.

Roughly half, not a quarter. Both the number of 76mm M4's and M18s was comparable, and unlike the M18s the M4s weren't held back due to a flawed doctrine. There's also the M10s that were in service whose M7s were pretty close the 76.

>According to a report written by Guderian on March 5, 1944, the constant improvements to the Panther tank series resulted in some positive feedback from the user community. He wrote that one Panther tank-equipped unit on the Eastern Front stated that they felt their tank was far superior to the Red Army T-34 medium tanks. They went on to report that all the early mechanical difficulties that had so bedeviled the early production units of the Panther tank had been ironed out of the design. As roof, they offered the fact that service life of the tank’s engine had gone up to 435 to 621 miles (700 to 1,000 km). In addition, the same Panther tank-equipped unit reported that final drive breakdowns had ended and that transmission and steering gear failures were now within an acceptable range, which is damning with faint praise.
Source: Page 50 “Panther: Germany’s Quest for Combat Dominance” by Michael and Gladys Green

see spielberger, who notes that, despite financial incentives, the final drives were never corrected.

>Roughly half, not a quarter.
Where are you getting that?

The M10 had better protection and ammunition capacity. The M18's on road speed did not translate to off road performance and terrain effected both the same, though the M10 was far more survivable.

Hunnicut, Sherman A History of the American Medium Tank. By Spring of 1945 well over half of the M4s had 76s.

Guys. This is easy. Come on now.

Attached: 1E048BAB-D509-4D10-BFB1-AA90D095A759.jpg (734x660, 127K)