how do we fix the contrarian problem? To where stuff like pic related is unironically seen as the worst tank of the war.
how do we fix the contrarian problem? To where stuff like pic related is unironically seen as the worst tank of the war.
how do we fix the contrarian problem? To where stuff like pic related is unironically seen as the worst tank of the war.
Wrong, image, assume I posted a tiger 1.
bait thread hook line and stinker cant wait
But anon, the T-34 was the worst tank of the war
lazerpig told me
Was he wrong?
No
Only bad thing is if you are of the same opinion, it's automatically you not liking it because le lazerpig, not because it was a mediocre tank with shit QC
There's a reason Soviet tankers adored the Sherman
the frick does "best" and "worst" even mean? The Panther had fantastic on-paper stats but half of them literally broke down before even reaching the front.
The T-34 in all of its variants was about as comfortable as dropping your soap in a Detroit prison. It also had the ergonomics of a brick covered in razorblades.
The M4 Sherman was basically McDonalds as a tank - cheap, assembly line produced and easily replacable by better products.
Also nah, contrarianism on WW2 era tanks is a fricking godsend. I hate wehraboos with a burning passion and I hate that they poisoned public perception to such a degree, that even normies think the Tiger was basically comparable to an Abrams but more based.
Lol a tiger 2 would fricking destroy an m1a1 abrams
If a 60ton behemoth with only optical sights could somehow flank an M1 abrams without being seen to hit its lower side hull armor, sure
But if an M1 for some reason is standing still and isnt using its thermal sights, its probably already disabled
>Lol a tiger 2 would fricking destroy an m1a1 abrams
tell me this is a shitpost
>Not sure if serious.
King tiger had no advanced optics. Abrams would be able to see a king tiger 2km away with both thermal and IR.
120mm APFSDS would easily penetrate king tiger armor well outside the effective range of the 88mm memecannon. Stop being a wehraboo homosexual.
Why did you take obvious bait?
>frick yeah I hate white people
>see how much I hate white people?
Go back
>the frick does "best" and "worst" even mean? The Panther had fantastic on-paper stats but half of them literally broke down before even reaching the front.
Wrong.
>The T-34 in all of its variants was about as comfortable as dropping your soap in a Detroit prison. It also had the ergonomics of a brick covered in razorblades.
It was worse.
>The M4 Sherman was basically McDonalds as a tank - cheap, assembly line produced and easily replacable by better products.
Wrong.
>Also nah, contrarianism on WW2 era tanks is a fricking godsend. I hate wehraboos with a burning passion
Of course you're that kind of moron.
Bro, normies don't care. It's literally only fudds and jr. fudds that watched some bad infotainment or some holywood shit and believed it. Who cares about morons.
panzer IV (and III) were good but the sherman was better than all others.
well it is a bit of a glass cannon
>Problem
>Random hypothetical strangers on the internet not agreeing with what I think about WW2 tanks is a problem for me
You should cancel your internet connection for a month and see how you feel
Some of it will fade away when the butthurt no-guns tourist anglos and slavs leave, but the momentum had already gone in that direction before.
Seems cyclical, give it a few years and we're back to comfy wunderwaffle posting.
German tanks were effective and (mostly) reliable, German logistics was not. Shermans broke down all the time but they didn't have to send a new drivetrain to the front through a circus tier network of horses and carriages.
Logistics is the big thing. People always talk about how unreliable German tanks were, but all tanks were and to a degree still are unreliable as frick compared to other automobiles/automobile-adjacent machinery.
The main issues were that, for one, German tanks weren't designed to be easily maintained, and much worse the logistics of Germany sucked ass, and apart from fuel and material shortages, wagon trains have been outdated logistics since before WW1, it just didn't really matter that much until WW2, when such crude logistics systems bit the Germans in the ass hard.
>Shermans broke down all the time
The British thought otherwise, with them undergoing a 2000km trial pitting the sherman against british tanks and found they broke down the least even when all factors were equal
The M4A1 did the worst, but was fairly easy to repair when it did fail
The M4A4 didnt break down at all, but had the worst drop in performance from running too long
All did better than any of their cruiser tanks
They didnt test the M4A3, but the US chose it as their standard due to supposedly having the most reliable engine
Soviets using the M4A2 rated it with a 2500km between overhauls compared to 1500km for T-34s and captured panzers
While hardly the most rigorous tests, it still says the M4 was more reliable even if all else was equal
"A German tank was worth 3 American tanks....but the Americans always brought 4.". - -some panzer officer