Best ww2 tank vote

the original 75mm fought roughly at parity with the H
but the 76 would have had wet storage and a better gun

to clarify, the 76mm gun is slightly inferior to the l/48
but the M4 as a total fighting package would have prevailed
the M4 held its own against the panzer 4 even with the old gun, but the 76mm, even if it wasnt quite the same, would have represented a very good upgrade and turn what used to be parity into superiority

youtube.com/watch?v=vSUKbFJ7BtQ
Da Big Pictur

youtube.com/watch?v=O-cFP4S7bc4
youtube.com/watch?v=Mwiy1bdqMfQ
>>better than every panzer except the H
Which panzer is H?
mm version was better than the H
They still called in TDs to deal with Panthers and Tigers
>>more reliable than every german tank
Unlikely, Germans didn't only use Panthers, Tigers and Ferdinands.
>exceeded 1000km before even seeing battle, panther needs an engine overhaul every 300km
Any source on that?
>>relatively safe, extremely safe with wet storage
True
>>built to extreme numbers, only t-34 out produced it, but quality was much higher
True
>>had vertical stabilizers and automatic fire suppression
Also true
The Sherman had however big problems with any terrain that wasn't flat and solid ground.

>Which panzer is H?
l/48 with 80mm hull
>Unlikely, Germans didn't only use Panthers, Tigers and Ferdinands.
panzer IV and III were comparable, but the sherman was still the more reliable one
>Any source on that?
zaloga
>The Sherman had however big problems with any terrain that wasn't flat and solid ground.
it was better than the panzer IV at floatation and hill climbing, but inferior to the panther
duckbills put it at parity with the panther at flotation but not hill climbing
easy 8 surpassed panther in both flotation and hill climbing

>easy 8 surpassed panther in both flotation and hill climbing
the panther's mean maximal pressure was 150 kN/square meter, while that of the hvss sherman was 205

M4A3 76W (HVSS) ground pressure, zero penetration: 0.772 kg/cm^2
Panther Ausf. G ground pressure, zero penetration: 0.880 kg/cm^2

look up nominal ground pressure and mean maximal pressure and get back to me

youtube.com/watch?v=s8sEKEL8spo

>it was the United States main battle tank during world war II

And that's where I stopped watching the video.

>girls with cancer
>credible source for anything but literal cancer

So enlighten us, what was the US main battle tank in WW2, if not the M-4, the M-3 perchance?

For what they were made for (over running china's man power only army) they were great for it and did it well. They were cheap to make and most were light enough that just dudes could get them unstuck when they fucked up (rolled over, threw tracks, ect.)

Japan never made them or designed them for Tank on Tank.

>Unironically using post war terminology to refer to second world war vehicles

Attached: govorkov-nyet-1954.jpg (400x582, 63K)

The United States didn't use an mbt in ww2. We had heavies, mediums, lights, and tank destroyers.

The HVSS Sherman used was an M4 (105), not a 76mm armed one. Learn that different variants have different ground pressures. I will agree that yes, the Panther's large interleaving roadwheels give better flotation on soft ground, as surprise, lots of large wheels give better flotation than smaller ones.

The concept of the main battle tank is a post-war invention.

>I will agree that yes, the Panther's large interleaving roadwheels give better flotation on soft ground, as surprise, lots of large wheels give better flotation than smaller ones.
that was my entire point countering this bullshit:
>easy 8 surpassed panther in both flotation and hill climbing

zaloga gave 12psi for the panther and 10psi for the HVSS sherman

see

>getting this fucking shrecked
>whilst trying to be a smart ass

I bet you felt so confident.

Attached: laughingwhores.jpg (398x241, 30K)

zaloga would never lie
he is the expert on shermans

jesus christ he's using a different--and much less useful--metric, dipshit. that's why i'm telling you to look up the different between nominal ground pressure and maximal mean pressure

user, i'm not part of your argument but I am curious as to the difference between them. Would you care to explain?

Yes, it is possible for a vehicle to have a lower nominal ground pressure yet have worse flotation. HVSS roadwheels are only ~520.7mm (including tire) while Panther roadwheels were around 180mm larger in diameter. So while the nominal ground pressure was higher slightly on the Panther (due to it weighing more), it had better flotation due to the larger roadwheels.

I used that picture just to trigger fags like you.

NGP is simply the vehicle's weight divided by the ground contact area, which really doesn't mean shit because the pressure isn't even distributed across the whole of the track. mean maximal pressure is the average pressure under each road wheel, which is more indicative of a vehicle's performance on terrain

>unironically watches anime
>calls other people fags

Come out of the closet user.

reminder that Jow Forums was made by weebs for weebs. the name of Jow Forums comes from the japanese word for weapons and if you don't like it please by all means feel free to fucking leave. if you unironically get angry about anime on Jow Forums you are a loser among losers. have a great day.

>no panther 2
>no 88mm kwk
>no autoloader
>no infrared vision
>no stereoscopic sights
>no active nightvision

Attached: panther2.jpg (525x327, 26K)

Panther II never was intended to have an 88mm gun, an autoloader, IR sights or night vision, retard

multiple were finished with all of those things before surrender

A single Panther 2 chassis was completed. The 8,8 cm L/71 KwK 43 was too large to fit into the turret and still be acceptably functional, let alone with an autoloading mechanism.

Yea nah. A single chassis was built and used for testing, and wasn't even armed (it just had weight rings on it)

You don't English very well, do you? Look-up the word 'main' then come back in a year or two, don't even lurk!

look-up the word 'main' as in: Main means of transportation. God dammed troglodytes

It's the Sherman. We already know it's the Sherman. Go read the Sherman tank website.

Stay mad weeb. Just because that was the origin doesn't mean the website is the the same all these years later. You're not required to think anime is worth anything more than porn.

Also the panther is GARBAGE. So what if it has thick frontsl armor? Literally the rest of the thing is worthless. Hell, the thing is vulnerable to anti-tank rifles.

yeah, that guy sure is objective

the other contender is the t-34-85
compared to the sherman, it is a bit faster, a bit more mobile, smaller, and has a bigger gun

but it was way less reliable, has poorer optics, didnt have good vision, was much more prone to cooking off, and was very cramped lowering crew efficiency

the t-34 did meet the m4 sherman in korea, but it was the easy eight with experienced crews and HVAP so it ended with shermans winning most fights
but official assessment put the machines as equal

He seems to be, yes. He considers all options, consults a miriad of sources, and created an expansive website to explain it all.

Shermans had plenty big enough guns. Let's not forget tanks are not built exclusively to fight tanks. That's part of the job, but tank on tank fights are the exception rather than the rule. That's why they carry more HE than AP.

T34s are cheap, short, tough and with larger treads. In all other ways they are unpleasant. They're hard too see out of. Less reliable. Far less comfortable. And they are amazingly rattly. It's like a paint Shaker being in one.

>He seems to be, yes.
kek

Boy user that's a great point I'll have to agree with you there

good. i'm glad you realize that his posts on various forums indicate he's anything but. his site is very useful for the references he has stockpiled, but his personal opinion should be taken with a grain of salt

In my opinion their were few bad tanks.
Most tanks were good for their nation, based on the technology, resources, and problems of the nation.

The Germans focused on short aggressive wars, where they can get away with being outnumbered, so long as they have the tactical upper hand through better training/organisation. Additionally, they struggled to have enough oil to run their warmachine, even if it wasn't even close to being mechanised/motorised (most of it was not), so while they had plenty of steel and such, they could not afford to create too many armoured vehicles. Thus their focus on the most expensive 'wonderweapon' tanks makes sense. If they can only give fuel to 3000 tanks at a time, why make 5000?

After the losses of 1941-42, the Soviets could not afford to slow down production for an instant so they standardised everything and worked on cutting the costs (time, material, skilled labour) out of their tanks after they conducted a study and found the horrifyingly short life expectancy of tanks on the frontline (

The USA also did mass production, but their focus on high reliability and standardisation was because of their logistics conundrums. They needed to ship tens of thousands of tanks (and trucks, and troops, and more) across two different oceans, and the only way to do it cheaply/efficiently is via long production runs of as few designs as possible. So one type of Medium tank, one type of transport for moving said tanks from ship to shore, one type of depoloyable bridge that can hold said tanks weight, etc. They needed large numbers and high reliability because they needed to fight a large war far from home, so changing production at some point to make 'better' tanks like the M26 was simply laughable, as it would raise the cost per tank immensely (since you would then need new transports, bridges, etc to make that tank even reach the fight, which is just not a quick and cheap thing to do).

In case you somehow missed or just ignored the dripping sarcasm, you're a stupid nigger

We're not even talking about his forum posts lol. We're taking about his website, as I said before. Now you gonna contribute or not?

kek yes, user, your mensa-level sarcasm went right over my head. as i said, his website is very valuable for the references he has collected, but his opinion pieces are essentially the reciprocal of belton cooper's, and worth as much

>M-4
>M-3
yikes

Japan was a naval power, and they were not going to win their wars by having a ton of super tanks, they were going to win with ships and planes. Their main focus for ground troops was their grinding war in China, where the Chinese defenders had little-to-no tanks and dedicated anti-tank weapons. In this situation, it makes sense to make a handful of small, lightly armed and armoured tanks, since their resources available are small, and they only need to be able to defeat basic infantry in a mountainous and/or jungle setting.

Italy was in a similar situation, they were not going to win by having a bunch of super tanks, they needed ships and planes to hold the Mediterranean, and their pre-war plans expected another war in the north of their country, where it is mountainous. Thus a similar tank production plan as Japan makes sense, small tanks meant for general infantry fighting in rough terrain, while the majority of resources go to the Navy.

>best tank of WWII
>OP Votes for the Sherman
>post an M4A3E8

Mah Nigga

Attached: PochNuk.png (597x384, 351K)

Your opinion is worthless you stupid cunt. Either say what's not true about his writing or shut up

awfully sensitive to criticism there, jeeps_guns_tanks

Oh yeah I remember that guy

He named what he did and didn't agree with

Almost like he's over the age of 12 or something

Maybe you should do that

Playing WoT is not a good source of information. Sped.

yeah, this is probably a good assessment
although there were a lot of bad decisions made with tanks nonetheless
the panther didnt need its extreme frontal armor, the original design was ~20 tons, before reaching 30 tons, and finally hitler personally made the decision to increase it yet again to 40 tons
this weight increase turned the panther into a fuel hog with horrible reliability issues, the original D variant had 15% combat strength, later models increasing it to a maximum of 60%
the panther was perfect for a defensive war, which they eventually ended up in, and its proficiency in tank killing is only slightly exaggerated, but it would be difficult to call it the best with its fragile transmission, flammable engine, and reliability issues

It's objectively not a tank; it doesn't have a turret. It's an assault gun. It was used as an assault gun. It's name is literally "Assault Gun III". This isn't fucking difficult to understand.

the first tanks didn't have turrets

so when were the first tanks tanks?

renault ft?

nice strawman. Do me a favor and go copy this into a German to English translator, then come back and tell us all what it says
>Sturmgachuts

Sorry, let me correct my abhorrent spelling, since I'm sure you'll just come back and rip on that rather than admitting you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
>Sturmgeschütz

the british mkV only had sponsons with functionally the same traversal range as a stug

if what the british designed is indeed the first functional tank then assault guns (with covered tops) are tanks

first turret after dozens of designs tested in the field

>He thinks that a vehicles designation has to do with physical characteristics and not what the nation that operates it doctrine dictates

laughingwhores.gif

>if what the british designed is indeed the first functional tank then assault guns (with covered tops) are tanks
retard

>>no Churchill
>posts litterilly not the Churchill Mk X

Attached: 1410503937228.jpg (173x179, 13K)

Yeah, except I literally said "It's called an assault gun", ie the germans determined what it is, and it's an assault gun.
Yes, there can be tanks without turrets, but the StuG sure as fuck isn't one of them, if for no other reason than because that's what the Germans called it.

The British called the Mk.V a tank, so it's a tank. The Germans called the StuG an assault gun, so it's an assault gun. That's how it works.

>unironically no Churchill or p4 or p3

Why are these polls allowed?

PANTHER G

-considered the best medium tank even by an allied evaluation council
-heavily influenced post war tank design

guys, I know, if u are an amerishart, sherman is best tank, if u are a vatnik/wot fag t34 is best tank, but face it, your own armies considered the late panther versions as the best allround mbt so deal with it and stop bitching around. your tommy cookers/ivan coffins were nice but not the greatest.

>40 tons
>unreliable
>flammable
>maintenance nightmare
>only 300k before overhauling the engine
>transmission breaks if you jerk it around too wildly
it would 1v1 fights, but it was a very hard to keep tank
at best, it could only keep 60% field strength due to breaking down, and thats the G, the A was 40 and the D was 15

the panther was the best in terms of hard stats, but it lacks heavily in the logistical department
keeping in mind that the germans lacked trucks large enough to reliably carry the panther, the americans specialized tank carrying truck could only carry a single pershing, and transport by rail would leave you vulnerable to air attack

between a powerful tank you could only use sometimes or an OK tank you could use always, its the latter choice hands down
its not the biggest gun or thickest armor that wins

What parts influenced post-war tank designs?

Stug Life

ah so the Germans never even built a single tank, they built panzers

Attached: FOV801024A-2.jpg (500x292, 106K)

Most of those points are the fault of the exhausted industry.
They weren't able to keep Panzer IV field strength any better during the later war.
If we go by cost effectiveness at removing enemy tanks then clearly this.

Attached: StuG life.webm (480x256, 875K)

Attached: jagdpanther_04.jpg (580x372, 72K)

Attached: elefant_05.jpg (471x280, 21K)

What about the fucking maus?

shit

what the fuck is this LMAO sherman is literally ww1 tech

if you rate the tanks by pure firepower and efficiency nothing will come close to panther/tiger/tankdestroyer versions.

it is another thing to discuss if it would be better to have a ton of t34 instead of this but thats not the argument here

>attacked by fighter-bombers
>whole crew bails
even without a direct hit, it would be under heavy rocket barrages all day
the tank would be abandoned in a day

flametanks are the superior form of armored combatant

Attached: m132 zippo.webm (540x402, 1.46M)

yeah but thats the case for EVERY tank..the same thing is correct for sherman, tiger, or t-34

just ignore americans, everything that's not a sherman is "vulnerable to air forces"

the maus is the size of a barn with a max speed of 20kph
that thing will be a very easy target

something smaller and easier to transport and hide would be much better

>CTRL+F
>IS-3
>Nothing
to the gulag.

Attached: Is-3_lesany.jpg (1024x683, 313K)

Attached: american armor advancing towards germany.webm (854x480, 2.54M)

yeah the maus is not a good tank because you can build 10 other tanks for the same costs nevertheless the "air" argument is totally false in a discussion regarding which is the best tank.

this story is about tanks, not about air.
tanks will be compared 1v1 in theory even tho almost nobody fought 1v1.

gtfo with air attacks

the maus would also be impossible to retrieve if it fell into a ditch