If Germany supposedly made the best tanks ever created, then why do over 80% of all the nations in the world use a Russian MBT (or Chinese derivative)?
en.wikipedia.org
Why is there only one functional Tiger 1 tank left in the world, but over a thousand T34s that are still serving in less-developed nations in 2019?
Why do boomers suck Wehrmacht dick when their tanks were super expensive, broke down all the time, and the Germans ultimately lost the war?
Bait
you don't need best if you need cheap shit to kill your own people
because the germans and russians were in a war of attrition, not technology
a thread died for this, kill yourself at your earliest convince and give us a good start to the new year
Because they're cheap
>If Germany supposedly made the best tanks ever created, then why do over 80% of all the nations in the world use a Russian MBT (or Chinese derivative)?
Because The Soviet Union(And the Russians by extension) are friends with all the poverty vermin.
serious historians know that germany's tanks were not the best that the world has ever seen. they had a sweet spot round about 1941-1942 where they were definitely superior to their opponents in a few ways, but the technology gap was closed pretty quickly and germany was drowned by superior numbers in any event.
hell, germany's tanks at the *start* of the war were pretty garbage, they only managed to get as far as they did because of other reasons that had nothing to do with the design of the individual vehicles involved.
>Germany supposedly made the best tanks ever created
Lol, according to who? Retarded wehraboos?
Because the germans lost
What does Jow Forums think of the Tiger I?
Obviously it was kind of a meme for being so expensive to make and keep running when Panzer IVs and Panthers would do.
But from what I understand, was quite formidable when in combat and even unmatched when it debuted.
if Germany had had its act together they would have built the Tiger several years before the war started, when they were first thinking about heavy tanks and even building the first prototypes that would later become the basis for the Tiger. they only built it because they invaded the Soviet Union and suddenly realized that their existing tanks weren't going to cut it.
If they had actually tried building the Tiger in the late 30's they would have had a pretty decent tank - possibly the best in the world - by the early 40's. instead they shelved it because "lol nobody needs a heavy tank!!" and then promptly got their teeth kicked in by the Soviets.
effective but extraordinarily expensive and quickly surpassed
dealing with those overlapping road wheels looks like it was a nightmare too
Because Russian tanks are cheap. It's not as strong or powerful as German or Chinese tanks but their cheap. Even a monkey can operate one. America has been suppressing history, China had the best tanks in WW2, it was noted that Japan lost to America only because the majority of Japan's army was tied up by China.
Lol they didn't even have tanks in WW2
>quickly surpassed
Excuse me, but these things were dangerous well into 1944 and 1945.
Ask the British what they thought of the Tiger I around the Caen sector..
The Tiger I was THE BEST tank of the war, full stop, when going by the simple metric of combat efficiency. It was not the most expedient tank to manufacture, nor had the fastest road speed or other bullshit, but EVERY time the heavy tank battalions went into action, there was no force that could stand against them.
Get fucked Ytzhak Sherman revisionists.
>why is cheap slavshit you can fix with a 10 pound hammer and a nutfucker that had more than 50000 made and were kept in stockpiles until the fall of the USSR, or given as military aid more prevalent that german tanks made in relatively small numbers that have no parts availability post war
gee I can't guess why
>there was no force that could stand against them.
>The Tiger I was THE BEST tank of the war, full stop,
What about the Tiger II?
>combat efficiency
>combat efficiency
If you totally ignore the effect of maintenance/repair downtime on force ratios, sure thing bro.
>woah when you sneak up behind things you can even take out a tank with a firey boi
>Combat can only occur when two tanks engage each other head on at 1km
Once anecdote means nothing really.
An M1A1 was penetrated by 23 mm ZU-23-2 fire in the engine deck and destroyed in 2003 near Basra, just to shatter your stupid Muttnik delusions.
A Merkava Mk II tank was penetrated by a .50 caliber HMG round in the turret ring and taken out of action.
Etc. etc. etc.
Now hold my beer, and watch this single Tiger I tank smash an entire British spearhead and delay them on an Operational level.
>Combat regularly took place with a Greyhound parked 5 m behind a Tiger I
>Once anecdote means nothing really.
Other than it demonstrates that the Tiger wasn't invulnerable (or any tank for that matter), shit it couldn't really be moved during day light hours on the western front.
Good job missing the point entirely.
>Other than it demonstrates that the Tiger wasn't invulnerable (or any tank for that matter)
No shit.
What is your point exactly?
Tiger units often lost tanks in combat, in retreat, were bypassed, and lost in unexpected ways. It was an effective vehicle but not as amazing as the history channel tier post suggests.
It's cute the wehraboos are super defensive about their meme tanks getting exposed after all that propaganda they bought into as kids
It's a numbers game.
The Soviets produced 57,300 T-34s of various types, 86,000+ T-54/55s, and 25,000+ T-72s.
Germany only produced. 5,764 Panzer III's with an additional 10,086 Stug III variants, 8,800 Panzer IVs, 6,000 Panthers, 1,347 Tiger 1s, and 4,744 Leopard 1s.
That means the Soviets had 168,000 tanks that they eventually would role out of service and could sell to foreign nations, minus any wartime casualties on their most produced models of tank. While the Germans had a combined total of 36,741 tanks that could be sold to on the arms market, minus any wartime casualties. This makes Soviet tanks cheaper to procure.
If you have the choice of buying 1 tank that you will be using to fight primarily rebel forces that do not have armored vehicles or buying two slightly less optimal tanks to fight unarmored rebel forces you are better off going with the option that gets you more tanks.
>The Tiger I was THE BEST tank of the war, full stop, when going by the simple metric of combat efficiency
>Combat efficiency
It could be destroyed frontally at combat ranges by the Sherman's 76mm. It really was quite overrated other than having a decent gun.
let's also not forget that late-war shermans had nearly as much frontal armor as a tiger did
the whole myth of the tiger being this super undeadable tank that nobody could scratch is pretty ridiculous. especially considering that all tanks are deadable as long as you hit them enough times.
By the time the upgunned shermans came into service there were plenty of tanks that could beat the Tiger. The Panther was a much better tank overall for the Germans. However the Panzer IV should have been the focus of German manufacture not the Tiger or Panther. The German KwK 40 in the L43 and L48 were more that sufficient to take out even the toughest armor during the war.
The PzIV was surprisingly complicated to build for what it was. The Germans seriously fucked themselves for tank designs, though they probably wouldn't have been had they just built a medium tank in the 30 ton range like the army had asked for. The panther was actually fairly streamlined in terms of production compared to the Pz IV, just much more costly in materials and absolutely miserable to actually maintain.
>propaganda they bought into as kids
Ask any Soviet that faced Tigers at Kursk, or Brit or Canadian in Normandy.
Oh wait, they're all dead, leaving post-war defective beta males to fabricate BS narratives
>However the Panzer IV should have been the focus of German manufacture not the Tiger or Panther.
Isn't this what happened, though?
I was under the impression that they were still building Panzer IV's pretty much all the way to the end, and the IV took over the lion's share of production at some point once they realized the III was a silly, silly tank that was only fit for bullying.
>Oh wait, they're all dead, leaving post-war defective beta males to fabricate BS narratives
savage
>It could be destroyed frontally at combat ranges by the Sherman's 76mm
Lolno. Let's not forget the 76 mm gun has been around since the 20s, and was used previously on the M10 Wolverine, as a tank destroyer and proved totally unremarkable and inadequate against Germany heavy tanks.
And the 76 mm Shermans did not get the magic HVAP meme round until early 1945, by which time ALL of the remaining Tigers were on the Eastern Front blunting waves of Soviet Shercuck and T-34 death traps.
>Oh wait, they're all dead, leaving post-war defective beta males to fabricate BS narratives
Most of them are dead because the Second world war happened over 70 years ago, not because some bloated krautmobile shitbox with brittle armor broke down on the way to fight them.
the obvious implication here is that they wrote about the Tiger before they died, genius
>Be latest Shercuck
>Get dabbed on by a box tank from 1941
The heavy tank battalions on the western front were typically bypassed by allied units because they had terrible mobility at anything above the lowest tactical level, they really weren't very effective at actually blunting major operations. When they found one it was typically then harassed by aircraft and artillery to impede its mobility and then really wasn't very useful on the defense as it couldn't be moved into position in front of the Allies' push. The real threats to Allied armor were AT guns and tank destroyers, and then to a lesser extent infantry AT.
> ITT Jow Forums talks about shit they never experienced and will never truly understand all the delicate intricacies of because originals were destroyed, firsthand accounts are either worthless REMF shit or dead, statistics can easily be skewed (and often were in wartime), and a whole lot of NO U
Every fanboy in this thread is a faggot
They actually managed to build ~6000 panthers in the last two years of the war and over took Pz IV production for a bit. That and the Pz III hull was made in to the StuG III which is arguably the most valuable AFV design the Germans had.
Gotcha. I didn't realize the Panther was built in such quantities. Do you have any good sources where I can read up on this?
I've read a few books, but when it comes to production it comes mostly from lectures and a few fairly well researched youtube channels. Military History Visualized did a useful, simple vid on this youtu.be
Oh cool, I love that channel. Thanks for the link.
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.
What most people don't seem to understand is that the Tiger was a stopgap measure to get the 88 mounted on a rotating turret ASAP, which is why it has a dated armor layout and profile, espeically for the weight class. For something that was essentially slapped together, it was a brilliant design, even though it was still clearly an improvised one.
Link to story?
It had a development period of about a year and was based upon work that was undertaken in the late 30's, its like calling the M4 an improvised design.
>4 Shermans = 1 Tig-
>destroyed frontally at combat ranges
With what? The ultra rare HVAP round the most Sherman crews never got their hands on as it was prioritized to TD crews, or the APC round that could penetrated the Tigers front plate 0-200 yds and 900-1100 yds, shattering in-between due to improper heat treatment - the nose was too soft compared to British and German APC by a good 2-3 Rockwell C and the gradient from the hard outer surface to the soft interior was too steep.
The M4 wasn't assembled in a year, it was the result of gradually upgrading the M2 Medium tank in increments.
Too hard to maintain, too heavy for where it was operating, >meme arrow unangled armor despite the year that it was.
All in all ok, but not great by any stretch.
>Get dabbed on
>reddit spacing
congratulations, you win my first "get a load of this faggot" of 2019!
By that logic the M1 Abrams is an offshoot of the M60 is an offshoot of the M48 is an offshoot of the M26 is an offshoot of the T25 is an offshoot of the T20 is an offshoot of the M4 is an offshoot of the M3 is an offshoot of the M2 is an offshoot of the Mk.1
Except it's not. The M1 was derived off of an all-new chassis made from the joint efforts of Germany and America while the M26-M60 was the same tractor with an increasingly better armor and engine, which itself was a different chassis from the one that the M2 to M4 used which was derived off the M1 Combat Car. If you were to cut off the top part of an M2 and the top part of an M4 and just left the driving mechanisms, the two would be indistinguishable.
By the same logic, the Tiger I was an all new chassis made specifically to accommodate the 88, distinct from the Panzer III/IV and the Nezzabuchwhatever the fuck you pronounced Germany's first heavy tank design.
>if caviar is the best food, why doesnt everyone eat it
the m26 can be traced to the m47, but the m48 used a new hull and turret design
Holy fucking shit. Talk about being unlucky
E X P E N S I V E
and all the part factories were obliterated.
Why boomers? They hate the nazis and love everything commie related. Zoomers are wehraboos mostly.
Why are the turrets backwards? Ambushed transport?
Because they can't afford anything better
I'll penetrate your turd ring, boy
Or they had been abandoned for lack of fuel, then got shot up by arty or planes who didn't give a shit if they were manned or not. Fuel was a very serious issue at that point.
Ask Iraq how well that worked out
Becuse Germany lost the war.
>A Merkava Mk II tank was penetrated by a .50 caliber HMG round in the turret ring and taken out of action.
Imagine your several million dollar machine being taken out of combat by fucking machinegun fire
What are you talking about? I'm saying that many of the technologies that went into the tiger were already familiar to the industry at that point and its one year development time is pretty normal for a wartime design.
>heh...i will prove them wrong on their point by not addressing it and adding in a completely invalid variable by bringing up what if scenarios that happened in a minority of cases
ebin :DDD
Waste of precious metal, potential targets for Soviet IS2 and US Tank Destroyers.
Not to mention not a lot of ammunition and placement stowage feels more awkward.
Enjoyed the 1st day of the new year and I see this thread.
Fucking krauts never learn. Least I'm glad that Russkies are comforting their woman.
based
What? I taught it's IS2 that's pinnacle of Soviet war machine?
Googlle it. Michael Wittman Tiger Ace.
>Breaks down more often than Panthers
>2 charge ammo
>Gasses it's own crew if hatches not open
>Have to hammer the gears (common problem for all Soviet tanks though)
>Long ass reload
>Less penetration than an 88
"No". The only good thing about the 120mm was the HE shell which was however somewhat underpowered due to not enough HE filler. The T-34 85 is better.