"the best tank of WWII"

The Sherman held a positive KDR over all the German tanks it faced

Those were the British who burned alive because they sucked at tank warfare, had a retarded doctrine, and took waaayy more ammo than what was safe and majority of Shermans were knocked out by AT guns

No it was a tank

Pretty sure we agree on that.

Sorry user, the Sherman had the best crew survival rate of any tank of the war. Mainly because it was easier to get out of than most other tanks, but still.

I'm not sure to what extent they were aware, but the amount of broken down tanks that were abandoned must have been a pretty good indicator. Most of the actual western allied driving tests that float around on the net are postwar, not sure about the Soviets.

The Panzer IV being phased out was only a matter of time after the TD variant packing a variant of the 75mm gun used on the Panther had clearly shown that the chassis was at its upper limit, the main reason production continued for so long can be found in the Nibelungenwerke factory, the largest tank assembly line of the Reich, which was completely tooled for the Panther.

I would argue that the USSR was pretty even as far as testing is concerned, given that they could just load a pre-production batch on a train and give it to a unit for field testing, or quickly introduce field modifications to existing equipment as stopgaps. The US still had its gargantuan industrial potential which enabled them to try out prototypes without hampering mainline production, but there was still an ocean between them and France, which is why much of these prototypes stayed in the US ultimately.

Germany had plans for both finally unfucking the rushed Panther design and establishing it as the mainline medium tank, I'm not sure if the Allies knew anything about that. Of course, this is 1944 we are talking here and they remained confined to pipe dreams and what ifs that can be posted on fan pages about slavic tank vidya.

>The tank destroyers (M10, M18, M36, Archer) were the cat tanglers.

This is completely untrue. TD's were only used in defensive roles or as ad hoc assault guns. They were not used offensively against tanks except in very rare circumstances.

Because America didn't make the IS' or Centurions you troglodyte

>Also because there was no apparent need for the 90mm gun to be rushed to Europe because the 75mm was adequate for most things and the 76mm with HVAP worked damn well.
until the fighting in europe actually started, you mean

you do not have the data to support this assertion.

There is a reason why the abrams is the embodyment of the german panzer.

Churchill had a better overall rate then Sherman, what (US) Shermans had was fewest causalities per penetration.

>fewest
fewer than a few other tanks that have data for some short time periods, you mean

@40207473
Stop this pointless bait
You are not even worth a (You)

Attached: back off.jpg (430x430, 22K)

Perfection is the enemy of good enough. The Sherman got the job done and contrary to myth it wasn't a death trap or more likely to burn than any other tank. Yes, the 75mm gun had trouble dealing with Tiger and Panther tanks, but those were actually encountered so rarely as to be irrelevant. It could penetrate Panzer III's and IV's just fine though, and that's mostly what it had to deal with. Yes the German 88 could penetrate the front of a Sherman, but an 88 could wreck any other WWII tank just as easily, including a Tiger or Panther. The tank was also more reliable and easier to keep running than most other tanks so more of them could make it to the actual fight then say the Tiger or Panther (both nightmares to keep running).

>those were actually encountered so rarely as to be irrelevant.
panthers were pretty common in normandy

>If the Pershing was a good medium the Soviets would not have built the IS series.
I am struggling to understand the logic behind this.

daily reminder that before m4 was even invented this beast roamed finnish forests

Attached: kv1header.jpg (1040x700, 122K)

Look it up yourself. This isn't a courtroom.

And wholly unsuited to the terrain. However there were THOSE cases when the Panther faced favourable conditions (read: enemy tank guns frontally) and pretty much all a Sherman commander could do was ordering his crew to fire smoke shells and search for a more favourable position.

It didn't happen often, but the need for something to fix that was there.

A T-44 would wreck any supa sherman any day

>Tiger and Panther tanks, but those were actually encountered so rarely as to be irrelevant.

Tigers were rare, Panthers were not.

On top of this, after virtually all of the Tigers on the western front were destroyed in the Falaise Pocket, Panthers were getting shipped in at record numbers, so basically at about the point that Tigers stopped existing, Panthers became very common.

>Falaise pocket
That reminds me, I still need to visit my grand uncle's grave. The Allies got the best of him there.

Point taken, but how many of them made it to the fight in a timely manner?

ever heard of spring loaded hatches?

lol. you make a bullshit claim. i say there's no data to support it. i'm told to look it up myself. that would be fruitless, since, as i said, the data to support your bullshit claim does not exist

ever heard of supporting your assertion with data and evidence?

Even the 75mm sherman was more than a match for even the King Tiger, on avg it took 5 tigers to kill a single sherman.

Not him but
youtube.com/watch?v=q6xvg5iJ4Zk

i'm famliar with moran, thanks. but this does nothing to support the assertion that the sherman had the fewest casualties per knocked out tank. people who say that are extrapolating in error from some of moran's videos, where the sherman is compared with a couple cruisers and a polish t-34-85 unit. again, the data to say the sherman was the most survivable does not exist, or if it does, these dipshits on here do not have it.

Does video footage of a person trying to get out of a Sherman and other tanks work?
Check out Chieftain's Inside the Hatch series. He always does the "Oh no the tank is on fire" test. He notes that the Sherman is very easy to get the fuck out from even for his height. Some tanks on the other hand(Comet's driver seat for instance) is a goddamn nightmare to escape from if the tank is on fire.

see . i'm aware of the late model sherman's large drivers' hatches (though note that the loader did not have a hatch for much of the tank's production run). but if you say "the sherman had the fewest casualties per knocked out tank", citing moran's OMGTTIOF videos as evidence is laughable since, you know, he does not quantification in any of them.

Here's data to support casualty rates and how they were counted the military. You can go from there.
Cole, Hugh M. United States Army in World War II, European Theater of Operations, The Lorraine Campaign. Washington: United States Army Center of Military History, 1965.

United States. Department of the Army. FM 101-10-1 Field Manual Staff Officers Field Manual Organizational, Technical and Logistic Data (Unclassified Data). Washington: Department of the Army, 1976.

United States. United States Army. Adjutant General’s Department. Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II, Final Report, 7 December 1941 - 31 December 1946. Washington: Statistical and Accounting Branch, Office of the Adjutant General, United States Army, 1953.

none of those compare the sherman with other vehicles. thanks.

What is it that makes people either call a tank trash or the best thing since sliced bread with nothing in between? A few years ago we had everyone wanking over German superiority, then game-based interest in tanks came and now it's the polar opposite.

Hello fellow WoT/WT player

As I said, you're more than welcome to start from there and compare and contrast casualty rates with other militaries. That's how people learn.

For how obscure the T-44 is don't forget that 1800 were produced.

Attached: Russia-Moscow-VDNH-Rocket_R-7-1[1].jpg (1712x2288, 353K)

lol, and you're more than welcome to not spread bullshit lies that you can't support with data or evidence

Not posting the wrong image like a retard would be good. I should go to bed.

Attached: T-44_left_front[1].jpg (1024x768, 478K)

Where is YOUR evidence that the Panzer IV/Panther had lower casualty rates for crewlings than the Sherman?

serious question: what do you get from making the assertion that the sherman produced the fewest casualties per knocked out tank? you know you can't support it. why do you do it?

your counter would be relevant if, you know, i was making such a claim.

That's not how making a claim works senpai

>100mm D10 will shred any sherman
>90 mm 60 d angled armor
>faster than sherman

>100mm D10
>T-44

user, I....

Not only this
But I gave you the sources for US casualties, I've done half the work for you. All you need to do is compare and contrast that day from other sources that also talk about armored casualties (from other countries).
Now that myself have provided evidence from which your answer can be derived, why don't you post something (anything at all really) that refutes it and we can go from there?
If you consider a man showing how easy it was to get out of a Sherman AND the literally findings of the US Army as NOT evidence and/or made up lies, I don't know what to tell you, chief.

Turns out it is significantly safer to be a driver in a M4 than a commander.

Attached: US meds.png (980x533, 122K)

Do not be in a light tank.

They are bad for your health.

Attached: US lights.png (918x454, 100K)

>what do you get from making the assertion that the sherman produced the fewest casualties per knocked out tank?
That is was a very good tank that focused on reliability and crew survivability.
>you know you can't support it.
But you CAN look at the casulty rates of the US and compare and contrast to those of other armies.
>why do you do it?
It's Sunday, i have nothing else to do.

There are some iffy rates when it comes to canoneer, some tanks had them, other not.

This table is a mess.
Still interesting.

>Now that myself have provided evidence from which your answer can be derived, why don't you post something (anything at all really) that refutes it and we can go from there?
because, as i said, that data does not exist. so let me get this straight: Jow Forums has the numbers for us armor crewmen casualties in world war ii. Jow Forums has videos of moran getting out of tanks. from these two pieces of evidence, Jow Forums says often and proudly that the sherman was the tank in ww2 that produced the fewest number of casualties.

jesus.

>But you CAN look at the casulty rates of the US and compare and contrast to those of other armies.
nobody here has done this. nobody here has this data. but the claim is made anyway, and when someone says that one cannot make this claim with only data about the sherman and not, you know, all the other tanks to which it is being compared, that person is told to look up the data for the other countries that Jow Forums doesn't realize it needs to make the claim in the first place.

laughable

So 57 percent of commanders in this unit became casualties at one point (Killed, wounded, M?) That seems crazy high

...and forgot the table.

Attached: UK combined.png (791x707, 102K)

So what you're saying is that you have no proof?

total panther production was never more than a third of the overall german armored strenght
6000 is significant, but still makes it a relatively uncommon vehicle in comparison to the 9000 panzer IVs and 12000 stug IIIs

during concentrated armored attacks, panther strength would eventually reach over 50% of their armor at most
but this was when the germans were deliberately concentrating their armor, it wasnt an everyday affair

75mm was good enough for the panzer IV and stug III, which accounted for bulk of german AFV production

the 76mm HVAP could penetrate the tigers frontal armor at normal distances and the panthers frontal turret armor at moderate distances
it was good enough for any situation that wasn't a relatively rare "panther is entrenched and we cant flank"

Sticking your head out of a hatch provides you with great visibility and looks dapper as fuck on propaganda posters. It also increases your chances to catch a stray piece of shrapnel by quite a lot.

Attached: panzer-deine-waffe[1].jpg (285x400, 35K)

Turns out that you are more likely to get injured outside of the giant armored metal box than inside. Stay in your tank when getting shot at.

Its % of casualties taken, not of the total population. That is to say that if a tank took a casualty there was a 56.9% chance it was a commander and a 46.7% chance it was a driver.

Attached: US locations.png (619x525, 55K)

Mechanical loss rates.
Turns out that even for the well supplied Western Allies the major cause of attrition was breakdowns and not enemy action.

Attached: tank losses combat noncombat UK.png (635x518, 70K)

Looks Bong tanks create less casualties upon being hit than an Sherman if I'm reading this correctly. The tables are a mess to analyze though.

>Jow Forums has the numbers for us armor crewmen casualties in world war ii.
No, Jow Forums doesn't (it's not a collective) but people who have asked the same question you have, have looked at the numbers (like the ones I gave you for the US), and compare and contrasted with other militaries. There's literally nothing stopping you, you can freedom of information this info from the Gov itself.
1. Get information on casualty rates by nationality in a Theater of War.
2. Get information regarding armored losses and their corresponding information.
3. Compare and contrast that information with eyewitness reports, ARRs, photos, videos, journals, diaries ect until you get the answers you're looking for (casualty rates per vehicle)

i'm not talking about total production. i'm talking about normandy. HVAP was exceedingly rare for tank crews.on 10 june 1944 there were 658 pz4 and 655 panthers in the west. if you don't consider that "pretty common" then i don't know what to say. also, total production is meaningless since the bulk of pz4 production occurred before the panther was introduced. panther was introcued in january 1943, with 5995 manufactured (2953 ausf.g panthers were built after march 1944 even). the pz4 models introduced after the panther had entered production, ausf.h and j, totalled 5412 units. after the panther's introduction, it was one of the more common tanks built and on the battlefield.

What the tanks of the Western Allies shot at during the war. Some data points are fairly obvious such as North Africa having the most tank-on-tank action but others such as tanks overall being the 4th most common target is fairly interesting.

They really are. In the text you can almost here the frustration of the writer who is trying to make data from American, British, Canadian and French armies fit into some common structure,

the T-34-85, in comparison, produced roughly 28% casualties per penetration versus the 24% casualties of the M4A2 in soviet service
this was for completely burned out tanks, a worst case scenario
the M4A2 was about 60-70% likely to burn out vs 70-80% for the PZ IV and T-34

the M4A2 was slightly safer than the competion in the soviets in 1944
which is where the numbers are from

but the real game changer would be the M4A3 and 76mm variants
the former had wider and more numerous hatches and the latter gave wet storage
together, the M4A3E8(76) gave an unprecedented 0.7 casualties per penetration due to dropping the burn out rate all the way down to 15% instead of 70%

>but people who have asked the same question you have, have looked at the numbers (like the ones I gave you for the US), and compare and contrasted with other militaries.
Uh no, what actually happens is that when asked to provide proof, they sperg out and do exactly what you've been doing.

Well, commanders don't have a perfect view of the surroundings inside the cupola. Sticking your head out grants you said perfect view but you get MG'd or shrapnel to your face.
The germans did pretty damn well for cupola desugns though, the Panther's is pretty good apart from having to turn a handle for a minute or so to open the hatch, you get a pretty good view while being protected.

I need to get better at attaching images.

Attached: Stuff that got shot at.png (628x444, 41K)

>compare and contrasted with other militaries
nobody has done this to the extent to claim the sherman was the safest tank in ww2. pawning the burden of proof onto me when you're the one making bullshit claims in the first place is quite poor, lol

>unprecedented
user pls

>Uh no, what actually happens is that when asked to provide proof, they sperg out and do exactly what you've been doing.
Like providing people a path to get what they want?

Canadian tanks burned way more then they should have.

Interesting to note the massive difference between US burn rates in Italy and the ETO.

what i want is for people to stop making bullshit claims that they don't have the data to support

...

Attached: Burn rates by theater.png (651x905, 114K)

not a single year passed where panther production passed panzer IV production or stug iii production
because almost all panzer IVs and stug iiis, and german armor in general, were produced in 1943 and 1944

6000 panthers were produced between 1943 and 1944
roughly 6000 panzer IVs were made in the same time period
8000 stug iiis were made between 1942 and 1943, take out that additional year of production, which is likely very small considering nearly every other german vehicle had less than 1000 made in 1942, and it ends up equal to the others

Damn 753rd Tank Battalion has seen some shit.

>what i want is for people to stop making bullshit claims that they don't have the data to support
This one dude is posting it all
Take this data, and compare and contrast it with other militaries during the war.
If it sounds like a Herculean effort, it's because it is. But nothing is stopping you user.

Not just a loaded question, but a stupid one to boot.

Way more hull losses in Italy then the ETO. Likely due to burn rates.
UK takes more hull losses in Europe to gunfire then the US but less to mines and panzerfausts.

Just going to assume I forgot the pic at this point.

Attached: Is tank ded.png (703x887, 134K)

If 2/9 tanks of the medium category are Panthers, that's pretty common.

Discount Stugs since they weren't actual tanks and you're up to 2/5.

>Take this data, and compare and contrast it with other militaries during the war.
"Here, user. I made a claim with no evidence and that can't be supported. Go prove it for me." your historical acumen is as good as your skills at debate

and, as noted, on 10 june 1944 it was almost 50:50 pz4:panthers. i dunno what "common" means to user

When and how tanks died.

Attached: Losses by nation over time.png (1414x948, 1.74M)

both the panzer IV and T-34 didnt even reach a 1.0 casualty per penetration, they suffered about 1.5

I could understand calling Tigers or King Tigers uncommon, but labelling the tank with the second highest production numbers (again, excluding Stugs) of a nation that...eh.

When and how tanks died now in % form.

As you can tell the threats facing diffident armored forced varied significantly even in the same theater of operations.

That huge spike during the German winter offensive is interesting. I did not believe it to be this visible.

Attached: Losses over time percent.png (1542x940, 1.98M)

>"Here, user. I made a claim with no evidence and that can't be supported. Go prove it for me." your historical acumen is as good as your skills at debate
Do you have anything to claim it's incorrect. So far you have refuted nothing at all.

You can get german sources if you want.

dd-wast.de/en/tracing-request/private-matters-research.html

user has some data, and it looks believable. very good. but before we can say "unprecedented," there are many other tanks. churchill, tiger, kv, etc?

tank crews were far more likely to encounter stugs or panzer IVs than a panther

once you start counting breakdowns, the odds of encountering panthers go down further
the average tank crew simply would not encounter panthers as regularly people said they do
the primary enemy on Normandy, or any theatre, were the 20-30 ton AFVs that the 75mm could handle and not the panther

Meanwhile in Italy Canada had a month so bad it literally broke the scale.

Attached: Losses in Italy.png (1453x910, 1.8M)

You know Russell's teapot, do you?

I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, of which he had started in a New York orphanage.

Attached: Sherman Tank Concept Drawing.jpg (480x360, 46K)