Was the m4 sherman the best tank of WW2?

>Wet storage
>.50 cal
>Fast turret rotation rate
>Reliable

The german had overkill cannons on their tanks. Big fricking advantage you can shoot through 4 shermans aligned with a single shot, if at the same time your heavy tank breaks all the time and is slow as frick.

The m4 sherman with much less could also destroy their tanks.

There are a ton of photos of King Tigers that had holes on the frontal armor.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, next question

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When you combine its quality with its quantity it is the best tank of the war.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I still think it's Panther tank

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the better question would be if any tank could even be argued as the best of the war.
    Only semi-related but where did the shermans were death traps narrative even come from? Knowing what I do about the tanks it seems like a bit of an absurd claim.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Only semi-related but where did the shermans were death traps narrative even come from
      a book named death traps
      in the same manner as a tabloid, this shocking thing that goes against conventional wisdom was treated as a gospel narrative because it was written by someone who served in the war

      its quite possible the pentagon wars of the M4 sherman
      an autobiography that goes out of its way to paint one of the most successful weapons made as a failure caused by office politics
      and whose lines, while factually untrue, are witty enough that they can be requoted the "less armor than a snowblower" and "it took 5 shermans to match 1 tiger" are both repeated verbatim by people as if it had come from a credible source

      death traps was written by a logistical officer who probably had never seen a tank duel up close
      even justifications like "he just worked in maintenance" dont hold up very well because he frequently makes easy mistakes on which sherman variant he was working on
      you would think someone in charge of fixing a sherman would know the differences between each A-model
      and some things just dont hold up to scrutiny

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Essentially a series of negative impressions from the generation of the war, ranging from traumatized survivors of tanks that had been destroyed to other servicemen b***hing about that time they took a bunch of casualties because their armor got driven off by some anti-tank guns, got caught up in the post war hysteria. For reasons ranging from veterans pumping their own ego to people just trying to sell a story since people love an underdog story, people from the 50s-90s went absolutely manic over the Nazis and the war. It wasn't enough to say 'we fought a formidable enemy,' people had to say 'we fought the BIGGEST, BADDEST, WORST enemy', which lead to people either subconsciously or in earnest wanting to know why and looking at tanks was quick and easy fodder. You could just look at a quick table, 75mm v 88mm, 90mm of armor v 120mm, and go 'oh look at much of a disadvantage we had', a frame of mind which inevitably lead people to the infamous 'Death Traps' by Belton Cooper. As a historical work it is almost worthless due to the context it leaves out not to mention it's historical inaccuracies, but to someone subconsciously looking to justify how terrifying the Nazi's were a glorified mechanics sensationalized personal account of his awful experience was perfect

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also recall that communist writers and influencers were active before, during and after the war in US and Europe.

        It's one thing to big up the Nazi tanks that actually had nice stats on paper. The bias gets blatant when comparing T-34s, which were hyped up constantly as some shock tech breakthru, vs the way Shermans were written off as shit cans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >crewman from a destroyed Soviet tank: *dead, couldn't get out escape hatch*
      >crewman from a destroyed German tank: *dead, burned alive*
      >crewman from a destroyed British tank: *dead, ammo detonation*

      >crewman from a destroyed American tank: "Wow, I barely escaped. These things are death traps!"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >best

      Depends on strategic situation and deployment.

      >photos of frontal penetrations of King Tigers

      They were used for live fire testing postwar. There's no documentation for combat losses from frontal glacis penetration.

      >any tank could even be argued as the best of the war.

      Soviets loved the Shermans they got. And there's this

      >crewman from a destroyed Soviet tank: *dead, couldn't get out escape hatch*
      >crewman from a destroyed German tank: *dead, burned alive*
      >crewman from a destroyed British tank: *dead, ammo detonation*

      >crewman from a destroyed American tank: "Wow, I barely escaped. These things are death traps!"

      https://i.imgur.com/KdZKnCe.jpeg

      >Remember, the primary purpose of medium tanks at the time was NOT armour on armor combat, but infantry support.
      Does the enemy get a vote on that too?

      For the US, 60% of shells expended were HE in direct fire support, or shooting at suspected AT positions. Comparable proportions for other combatants.

      >Does the enemy get a vote on that too?
      not really
      german panzer divisions were rarer than infantry divisions
      and when they were encountered, they would have been met with allies armored divisions, because its only logical to meet enemy elite units with your own elite units

      so concentrated armored units meeting dispersed tank units supporting infantry units would be outliers caused by bad intel or surprise
      but generally, seperate tank battalions would only really meet stugs or marders, since german infantry units would not have panthers or panzer IVs but only organic assault gun units

      >since german infantry units would not have panthers or panzer IVs but only organic assault gun units

      Stugs were under the Artillery branch and entirely separate, yep.

      >They acted completely logically under the umbrella of Hitler's lack of military logic.

      So with complete moronation

      They captured or destroyed thirty thousand tanks in the opening phase of Barbarossa (Mannherheim Meeting Recordings). The intention of the Kremlin was always invading Western Europe, and a strategic spoiling attack was always going to be necessary. Stalin wanting to go hot with WW3 was signaled by restarting purges, and ultimately the reason why Kruschev pulls his body guards so he could have his 'heart attack'. British pursuing the dividing of Continental power ultimately gave us nuclear proliferation (in the deliberately unvetted person of Karl Fuchs sent to America on their recommendation, picrel) and the Cold War. Operation Unthinkable was too little too late; it and Patton spilling the beans on Eisenhower's Operation Keelhaul mass murder cupability running against him for President plans got him axed too-- the irony being he himself was getting ready to put bioweapons on B-29s to take Red China out of the Korean War equation "because there's too many of them", and thus to save the nukes for use against Russia in a widened war.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >For the US, 60% of shells expended were HE in direct fire support
        That is incredibly low compared to what people are saying about their general use. That percentage would suggest to me that they actually did see tons of armored combat.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That percentage would suggest to me that they actually did see tons of armored combat.
          on average, a tank battalion engaged 15% armored enemy units
          50% were soft targets like infantry and AT guns, the remainder everything else like buildings, trenches, light recon vehicles, and soft-skinned vehicles like trucks

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's genuinely tons of armored combat. Tanks will fire HE at any potential target, any building, tree, trenchline that might need suppressing or might contain enemies inside of it, so the amount of shots fired is rapidly inflated. Urban combat especially would have generally involved blasting everything you could with HE.
            But armor penetrating shells will be fired primarily on specific, identified point targets that require it. If 15% of engagements are against armor, that would mean the tanks were generally constantly in combat involving enemy armor.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >That's genuinely tons of armored combat
              if you sortie out 10 times and you met an armored attacker once, that is not a lot of armored combat

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You might expend dozens of rounds of HE into a single village to blast out the attacker, meanwhile taking only two to destroy an enemy tank there. That still means you've engaged in armored combat despite a massive discrepancy between expended HE and AP shells. The fact that 15% of the shells used are meant against armor means that roughly every 7th shot taken was against a hard target. If we consider just how much HE can and will be used up against softer targets, that's genuinely plentiful.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the 15% is not number of HE shells expended
                its the number of times they ever engaged an enemy tank
                as proportion of each mission type

                so it seems like they fought enemy armor 15% of the time and used a ratio of 9 AP shells for every 1 HE shell
                i dont know where the 60% ratio comes from, but TD were listing something closer to 90%

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >its the number of times they ever engaged an enemy tank
                >as proportion of each mission type
                15% of engagements involving enemy armor to me is a lot. I would have expected the vast majority, like +95% of engagements being against soft targets, basically blasting buildings and suppressing enemy positions, that sort of thing. If you think of a day's worth of fighting, how many armored engagements could you fit into that?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >15% of engagements involving enemy armor to me is a lot.
                the army considered it low, and a major reason why TDs were disbanded after the end of the war
                some units saw a lot more tank combat than others, like the 2nd and 3rd AD
                but for the average tanker in the 99th separate tank battalion, an enemy tank showing up at all would be a major surprise

                > If you think of a day's worth of fighting, how many armored engagements could you fit into that?
                you would be hard pressed to sortie out 10 times in one day and you arent seeing combat every day
                so in practice, it meant they might meet an enemy stug every other week or so

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >meanwhile taking only two to destroy an enemy tank there
                That's theoretically true, but bullshit. If you're commanding a Sherman you'll pepper a German tank until you know for sure that it's out of the fight. You have nothing to gain by saving ammo, but everything to loose.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are those bundles just after the turret cheeks more smoke launchers?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                MILES gear

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the absolute /k/ope on display with this post.
        it's like watching the history channel in 1998

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The intention of the Kremlin was always invading Western Europe, and a strategic spoiling attack was always going to be necessary
        This is a lie and post war revisionism. If Germany was worried about a Soviet invasion, which they weren't, they would have made a common front with Poland, which was just as anti-soviet (and up to 1939 was sending money to Franco). They would also wouldn't have been collaborating with Stalin for years, and the Allies would have helped them to stop the commies.

        Stalin was a paranoid monster that paid lip service to commie bullshit to stay in power and kept purging the Red Army even after Barbarossa began. It's an historical fact that he didn't want to believe it and suspected the news about the invasion was a trick of the British.

        In reality, WW2 in europe was just about german imperialism tryng to achieve the main goal of WW1 again: An empire to the east and the fertile lands of Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          dude Stalin and Hitler both planned to betray the other. As much as Hitler wanted Lebensraum, Stalin wanted to at the very least restore reclaim the old russian empire. They both wanted to be the sole rules off as much off Europe as they could get away with. The question was whom would stab whom in the back first.
          Stalin assumed that as long as he kept feeding the german war machine that Hitler wouldn't. He was wrong and the soviet unions citizens paid the bloody price.
          Let's not forget that that Stalin had no issues bullying his neighbors for land and invading them if he didn't get what he wanted.

          Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a German ground-attack pilot during World War II and a post-war neo-Nazi activist.
          The most decorated German pilot of the war and the only recipient of the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds, Rudel was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70 landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements.

          Quality has a quantity all its own.

          his tank kills where definitively inflated and most of them wouldn't have been t-34.
          First off pilots always over claim, the claim things they think they hit and they claim thing they hit but didn't destroy or even damage.
          Pilots on the eastern front would also claim a lot of other vehicles as tank kills.
          A good chunk of his actual tank kills would have been against other soviet armor. Most off them a god bit less impressive than a t-34 and some of them more impressive like KV's and IS's.
          Personally his confirmed fricking over off a battle ship and a cruiser (while a good bit off luck was involved) are his real impressive feats.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            An ancient battleship without AA that was docked and not moving.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yes, you try fricking over a battle ship with a dive bomber.
              that is didn't have it's own AA doesn't mean jack shit when it's in a naval base with a plenty of AA.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was a Russian naval base, there was no AA.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              All three of his credited ship kills were sunk in port.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >crewman from a destroyed Soviet tank: *dead, couldn't get out escape hatch*
      >crewman from a destroyed German tank: *dead, burned alive*
      >crewman from a destroyed British tank: *dead, ammo detonation*

      >crewman from a destroyed American tank: "Wow, I barely escaped. These things are death traps!"

      https://i.imgur.com/kglCCut.jpeg

      >best

      Depends on strategic situation and deployment.

      >photos of frontal penetrations of King Tigers

      They were used for live fire testing postwar. There's no documentation for combat losses from frontal glacis penetration.

      >any tank could even be argued as the best of the war.

      Soviets loved the Shermans they got. And there's this [...]

      [...]
      For the US, 60% of shells expended were HE in direct fire support, or shooting at suspected AT positions. Comparable proportions for other combatants.

      [...]
      >since german infantry units would not have panthers or panzer IVs but only organic assault gun units

      Stugs were under the Artillery branch and entirely separate, yep.

      [...]
      They captured or destroyed thirty thousand tanks in the opening phase of Barbarossa (Mannherheim Meeting Recordings). The intention of the Kremlin was always invading Western Europe, and a strategic spoiling attack was always going to be necessary. Stalin wanting to go hot with WW3 was signaled by restarting purges, and ultimately the reason why Kruschev pulls his body guards so he could have his 'heart attack'. British pursuing the dividing of Continental power ultimately gave us nuclear proliferation (in the deliberately unvetted person of Karl Fuchs sent to America on their recommendation, picrel) and the Cold War. Operation Unthinkable was too little too late; it and Patton spilling the beans on Eisenhower's Operation Keelhaul mass murder cupability running against him for President plans got him axed too-- the irony being he himself was getting ready to put bioweapons on B-29s to take Red China out of the Korean War equation "because there's too many of them", and thus to save the nukes for use against Russia in a widened war.

      >any tank could even be argued as the best of the war.
      Shit I meant to say if any OTHER tank could even be argued as the best of the war

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. Macarthy was right
      2. The crypto-gommunists in the media took the same wonderwaffen brainrot that the Soviets had and exported it to bored baby boomers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I think the better question would be if any tank could even be argued as the best of the war.
      Best post ITT.
      Any discussion about the best tank is inherently worthless without first defining the criteria for a best tank. Something which will be inherently flawed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >where did the shermans were death traps narrative even come from?
      The idea that the other guy had better tanks, along with the willingness to believe that that theatre of war was only won by sheer will and tenacity instead of by building and moving so many vehicles and so much ammunition that the enemy couldn't hold them off gave people writing about that time period a sense of superiority regarding their actions and sacrifice compared to those peace loving hippies in the 60's.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hollywood was and is full of communists. That's why after the war Shermans were lauded as death traps, meanwhile in USSR, the T-34 was wanked to high heavens as a miracle tank that saved the nation.
      If cold war grew hot, Sherman and T-34 stores would both be reactivated.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If cold war grew hot, Sherman and T-34 stores would both be reactivated.
        This happened in Korea and the T-34s got BTFO by the based Easy 8 Shermans.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What is the methodology behind this camo
          >enemy is scanning the horizon for tanks, sees it in his scope
          >Oh, just a tiger! Nevermind.
          >Boom

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it was purely a scare tactic
            1950 was year of the tiger, so many of the M4s had it painted on

            it almost certainly was actually a hindrance in combat since bright yellow is not exactly common in nature
            but you cant exactly just go to the frontline and yell at them patton style

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Americans are obsessed with an underdog narrative and pretending we were scrappy little whippersnappers up against the Teutonic Goliath Megadeath Machine
      Framing WWII as well-fed, tall, superbly equipped, healthy Americans massacring a bunch of undersupplied Krauts and Japs isn't as appealing.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only because it was the US tank. Imagine the Germans working with the Sherman and it just wouldn't have worked out very well.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Brazilian Autist

      Because Germany doesn't have the industry to mass produce high quality stuff, also they had oil shortages that forced them to make small batches of fortresses instead of mass production.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Best in what way? Don't get me wrong, the M4 Sherman fills me with patriotic fevor matched only by flintlock muskets and the Iowa-class Fast Battleship but it wasn't the biggest, fastest, toughest, or best armed tank of the war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it wasn't the biggest, fastest, toughest, or best armed tank of the war.

      But it was the only one that could be shipped anywhere in the world, and be expected to face the "biggest, fastest, toughest, or best armed tank" and be able to actually stand a chance and more often than not, get the job done.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Undeniably. their per unit performance is often understated by tiger jerkers, but the 75mm m4 was the most effective tank of the war. Remember, the primary purpose of medium tanks at the time was NOT armour on armor combat, but infantry support. between the phenomenal reliability of the powertrain, and the 75mm he rounds having an explosive charge nearly double the dedicated anti tank guns, the m4 was untouchable in that role

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Remember, the primary purpose of medium tanks at the time was NOT armour on armor combat, but infantry support
      primary purpose in separate tank battalions, which were earmarked for infantry support in the first place
      but armored divisions were actually intended for armor on armor engagements

      even the japanese, who didnt meet the M4 until 1944, were already understanding that tank on tank combat was going to be vital and tried to rush the chi-nu out to address the shortcoming
      seperate tank battalions outnumbered armored division battalions, which skews numbers towards infantry support, but armored divisions saw a disproportionate amount of combat relative to their numbers because they were a highly concentrated unit that would be sent into the hardest fighting and they were the ones who were begging for the bigger gun

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Armored divisions were for fast exploitation of the enemy rear after breakthroughs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Remember, the primary purpose of medium tanks at the time was NOT armour on armor combat, but infantry support.
      Does the enemy get a vote on that too?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, they got their tracks blown off by arty

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Does the enemy get a vote on that too?
        not really
        german panzer divisions were rarer than infantry divisions
        and when they were encountered, they would have been met with allies armored divisions, because its only logical to meet enemy elite units with your own elite units

        so concentrated armored units meeting dispersed tank units supporting infantry units would be outliers caused by bad intel or surprise
        but generally, seperate tank battalions would only really meet stugs or marders, since german infantry units would not have panthers or panzer IVs but only organic assault gun units

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and when they were encountered, they would have been met with allies armored divisions, because its only logical to meet enemy elite units with your own elite units
          The enemy tells you beforehand where they're going to be?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct, Germany’s failure in Belgium completel precious remaining moral and logistical supplies that could have been used to consolidate territorial gains against the onslaught of m4s

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *depleted, not completel

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/9LJ2A1I.jpeg

              >and when they were encountered, they would have been met with allies armored divisions, because its only logical to meet enemy elite units with your own elite units
              The enemy tells you beforehand where they're going to be?

              and the only reason that the german panzers divisions achieved surprise to begin with is because the allies rightfully believed that an attack through the area would have been pointless due to the dense forest and bad weather

              the germans, acting against conventional logic, attacked anyways
              hitler had been counseled against the attack, with generals claiming that their logistical capabilities under such conditions would have made their intended goals impossible to achieve

              this was largely an exception caused by exceptional scenarios, because units the size of armored divisions cannot move in secret and its always easy to point them on a map
              so
              >The enemy tells you beforehand where they're going to be?
              is unironically true in most situations, as all the tanks, trucks, and half-tracks moving around generates a lot of easily visible traffic, radio noise, and just plain dust
              the only reason that they achieved initial surprise at the ardennes was because of the bad weather and allies considering the area an unimportant zone for recuperating units

              throughout most of the battle of normandy, allied armored divisions were the ones fighting german panzer divisions
              with the panzer lehr unit being engaged with the 2nd AD

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >posts one of those rare instances where allied units were blindsided by bad intel
            >and that there were eventually 8 armored divisions who took part in the fighting, with the elite 2nd armored division being the ones to lead both the defense and offense

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >rare instances
              Surprise and unexpected enemy actions are not at all rare in any historical combat. Having the luxury of placing specific types of units ahead of specific types of enemy units on the battlefield is a luxury not often found in the past.
              >and that there were eventually 8 armored divisions who took part in the fighting, with the elite 2nd armored division being the ones to lead both the defense and offense
              "Eventually" is key.

              Correct, Germany’s failure in Belgium completel precious remaining moral and logistical supplies that could have been used to consolidate territorial gains against the onslaught of m4s

              Yes. Germany's failure, not Allied success.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In a 1 on 1 competition, your failure is analogous to your opponents success. Claiming otherwise is just impotent cope

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the only thing you care about is an overly simplified binary endstate, sure. Simplifying war and conflict, as well as its outcomes to victory/loss is a travesty. Calling your own actions a success when the only reason you ended up on top was due to the enemy fricking up is a tremendously bad attitude that leads to complacency, much the sort that enabled the German offensive in the first place.

                [...]
                and the only reason that the german panzers divisions achieved surprise to begin with is because the allies rightfully believed that an attack through the area would have been pointless due to the dense forest and bad weather

                the germans, acting against conventional logic, attacked anyways
                hitler had been counseled against the attack, with generals claiming that their logistical capabilities under such conditions would have made their intended goals impossible to achieve

                this was largely an exception caused by exceptional scenarios, because units the size of armored divisions cannot move in secret and its always easy to point them on a map
                so
                >The enemy tells you beforehand where they're going to be?
                is unironically true in most situations, as all the tanks, trucks, and half-tracks moving around generates a lot of easily visible traffic, radio noise, and just plain dust
                the only reason that they achieved initial surprise at the ardennes was because of the bad weather and allies considering the area an unimportant zone for recuperating units

                throughout most of the battle of normandy, allied armored divisions were the ones fighting german panzer divisions
                with the panzer lehr unit being engaged with the 2nd AD

                >hitler had been counseled against the attack, with generals claiming that their logistical capabilities under such conditions would have made their intended goals impossible to achieve
                Didn't stop Barbarossa either, you know. This was the condition Nazi Germany was operating under throughout WW2.
                >this was largely an exception caused by exceptional scenarios, because units the size of armored divisions cannot move in secret and its always easy to point them on a map
                But curiously armored divisions continuously surprise enemies throughout history and proceed to take advantage of operational tempo to do so well beyond expectations. From the Ardennes Forest to the Iraq Invasion, somehow these logistical giants manage to sucker punch enemies who according to you should have known they were coming.
                >the only reason that they achieved initial surprise at the ardennes was because of the bad weather and allies considering the area an unimportant zone for recuperating units
                So you're saying they outsmarted the Allies and attacked at a severe weak point, taking advantage both of the prevailing conditions and the enemy posture presented. Basically, they were better?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the only thing you care about is an overly simplified binary endstate, sure…

                Yes, that’s all anyone cares about in total war. That’s sort of the point of total war

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But curiously armored divisions continuously surprise enemies throughout history and proceed to take advantage of operational tempo to do so well beyond expectation
                the ardennes was an actual outlier, and even then the armored divisions did most of the lifting anyways

                as mentioned, panzer divisions had mostly fought armored divisions throughout most of normandy all the way up to the ardennes
                while the heaviest fighting in the east mostly occurred between tank corps and panzer divisions as well, since the soviets lined up their tank units specifically to counter panzer divisions, and seperate tank units mostly just encountered infantry same as the west

                the largest tank battle prior to ardennes was in fact, between panzer brigades and an armored division
                >So you're saying they outsmarted the Allies and attacked at a severe weak point
                no, they defied conventional logic and failed
                the reason that it was a weak zone was because there was nothing of value to hit for hundreds of kilometers in
                so in exchange for fighting easy enemies they would need to penetrate hundreds of kilometers through bad weather and bad terrain before meeting anything strategically viable

                there was a good reason it was only lightly guarded, any attack through there was doomed to failure

                this only proves why armored units primarily fight other armored units
                because everything worth taking will have the best units protecting them
                by deliberately attacking what looked like a weakened zone, they found put something they had already known, there was nothing to take in those areas

                the numbers back it up
                seperate tank battalions fought very little armor throughout the war
                armored divisions correspondingly fought more armor, because both the germans and the allies knew that they had to check the advance of those units with their own

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >as mentioned, panzer divisions had mostly fought armored divisions throughout most of normandy all the way up to the ardennes
                An act of desperation on the Germans' part. Not a norm you should expect, unless you're curbstomping the opposition.
                >this only proves why armored units primarily fight other armored units
                >because everything worth taking will have the best units protecting them
                No, it's because they're maneuverable. Enemy exploitation and maneuvers need at least roughly equal mobility to match on your own side. The place where that's concentrated is in armored formations.
                >by deliberately attacking what looked like a weakened zone, they found put something they had already known, there was nothing to take in those areas
                What do you think there was to take elsewhere that would have justified the offensive there? The point was to block Allied logistics. A frontal assault would have done far worse.
                >seperate tank battalions fought very little armor throughout the war
                As said earlier, fighting the enemy with the least possible strength is preferable. If the enemy can't maneuver and exploit beyond infantry marching speed, keeping superior units in reserve is better.

                >Hardly
                thats literally what happened

                seperate tank battalions fought so few enemy tanks that they dropped the global average down to 15% armor on armor engagements

                >Only by going outside of the expected can you expect decisive victory over the enemy.
                germans at the ardennes acted illogically, attackng a weakpoint despite knowing full well that it was weak because there was nothing strategically viable for hunfreds of kilometers in

                >but you can't deny the reality that they outplayed the Allies completely.
                it was a "no one could be that stupid" moment, because the allies treated it as a quiet zone because the terrain was bad and the weather was bad and any attack would be doomed
                and naturally, despite sending in virtually their entire stock of reserves, the ardennes offensive sputtered out because they literally could not make it to a single of their objective because the terrain was bad and the weather was bad

                >thats literally what happened
                No. Your logic is faulty. You might as well claim that an apple falls because the devil pulls it down to earth, trying to eat it. Then claim it's true because the apple falls. It's circular logic.
                >germans at the ardennes acted illogically
                They acted completely logically under the umbrella of Hitler's lack of military logic. The Germans did phenomenally with what little they had available.
                >nothing strategically viable for hunfreds of kilometers in
                It's well below 200km to Antwerp, the ultimate goal of the offensive.
                >because the terrain was bad and the weather was bad
                You do realize Germany took France like this at the start of WW2, right?
                They failed because they lacked resources. Bad weather is good, it stops Allied air forces.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They acted completely logically under the umbrella of Hitler's lack of military logic.

                So with complete moronation

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So with complete moronation
                Outsmarted the Allies :^)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >result: Allied Victory

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Was certain from the moment the US joined the war. A continent's worth of industrial capacity and resources is not something a country driven by synthetic oil and desperate offensives to claim oil fields in the East can match.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Outsmarted the Allies
                >no one would be dumb enough to attack this area
                >enemy attacks through this area
                >enemy attack fails and accomplishes nothing despite the initially light resistance because it was simply not a good place to attack
                its almost like an attack there was a bad idea to begin with
                the generals had literally begged hitler to call off the attack and the "compromise" he came up with was to simply aim for a shorter, but still unattainable goal

                in any case

                https://i.imgur.com/KdZKnCe.jpeg

                >Remember, the primary purpose of medium tanks at the time was NOT armour on armor combat, but infantry support.
                Does the enemy get a vote on that too?

                is definitely still wrong
                because the tanks tasked with infantry support never saw much combat against armor
                even the example of the ardennes does not support that statement because it was both an outlier in WW2 and armored divisions were still the ones largely carrying the tank on tank action, not the separate tank battalions

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because it was simply not a good place to attack
                Wrong. It was because the Germans lacked the resources to fulfill the plan.
                >the generals had literally begged hitler to call off the attack and the "compromise" he came up with was to simply aim for a shorter, but still unattainable goal
                Model and Rundstedt recommended a shorter attack where they'd flank up North, specifically because they lacked the resources to actually accomplish Wacht am Rhein's goals, most notably because they didn't have the fuel. The weather and terrain were fine, the enemy disposition was ideal (Allied failure.)
                >because the tanks tasked with infantry support never saw much combat against armor
                Because the enemy recognizes infantry units as weak enough threats for local units to handle it, rather than requiring armored reserves being sent into the fray.
                >even the example of the ardennes does not support that statement because it was both an outlier in WW2 and armored divisions were still the ones largely carrying the tank on tank action, not the separate tank battalions
                But that's because the enemy tanks do get a vote. They get a choice in whether they go in on the action or not. It's a deliberate choice not to respond to infantry offensives with armored reserves.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But that's because the enemy tanks do get a vote
                no, they dont
                there far fewer of them than infantry divisions and they are desperately needed in the hardest fighting

                >It's a deliberate choice not to respond to infantry offensives with armored reserves.
                because its the optimal choice and no one is taking a sub optimal choice

                seperate tank battalions rarely fought enemy armor and that was entirely because the enemy would be doing something sub-optimal if they were to engage them with concentrated armor

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because its the optimal choice and no one is taking a sub optimal choice
                That is the vote. Why are you arguing for me?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That is the vote. Why are you arguing for me?
                no it isnt
                no one will ever deliberately take a sub-optimal choice

                the reason separate tank battalions rarely fought armor is because that is simply the result of everyone making somewhat rational decisions
                its the natural, inevitable, outcome of how few armored units there actually were in comparison to how many infantry units there were and how desperately armored units were needed to check enemy armored units

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no one will ever deliberately take a sub-optimal choice
                That is still a vote. Why are you trying to claim it's not?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong. It was because the Germans lacked the resources to fulfill the plan.

                If you lack the resources to have any chance of reaching an offensive objectives, that means the offensive was a moronic idea. Like you trying to pick a fight with your wive’s boyfriend

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Optimism might not win you the war, but you sure as hell aren't going to win without trying at least. Germany already lost the war on a political level, when Hitler decided he wanted to do his own special brand of socialism with autarky. After that the military guys just had to do the best they could.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Surprise and unexpected enemy actions are not at all rare in any historical combat
                in the context of WW2, the battle of the bulge was a very rare instance of german panzer units not being opposed by armored divisions from the get go

                >Having the luxury of placing specific types of units ahead of specific types of enemy units on the battlefield is a luxury not often found in the past.
                thats literally what happened
                separate tank battalions had very few armor-on-armor actions because the enemies they were facing also only really used assault guns

                this is simply due to the most logical action against the enemys strongest unit being your own strongest unit to prevent them from defeating you in detail
                and its usually apparent from the map where they will deploy them, so even if you werent deliberately trying to check your enemys forces, its still inevitable that armored divisions will mostly meet enemy armored divisions and infantry units will meet infantry units, the number of strategically important areas to defend are known to both sides and only defying conventional logic would create a mismatch, and this is a highly risky move

                the reason that the panzer divisions at the bulge werent immediately posed against allied armored divisions is because the germans were acting on a longshot hail mary logic to attack the enemys weakest point, despite the conditions being against their favor to begin with
                and unsurprisingly the long shot failed because there was a very good reason that only green units were placed there initially, its just a bad place to attack

                >"Eventually" is key.
                there were 2 of them on day one, both of whom were pivotal on the defensive stages
                the other 6 were all present throughout the entire counter-offensive phase and were the ones seeing all the combat

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >this is simply due to the most logical action against the enemys strongest unit being your own strongest unit to prevent them from defeating you in detail
                Hardly. The most logical action is to defeat your enemy's strength with as little of your own as possible, enabling you to retain your strength in reserve for later counter-attacks and exploitation. If you can combat your enemy's armor strength with your own infantry and support assets such as artillery and anti-tank weapons, it's a far superior option to retain your own armored units in reserve. This way you can achieve decisive results in battle, rather than simply ending in a battle of attrition where neither side comes out decisively on top.
                Strongest vs strongest is simply more often a case of there being no other option at hand than to throw everything you have at them. It's an ineffective act of desperation.
                >and this is a highly risky move
                All military leadership is a weighing of risk against reward. Limiting yourself by convention is how you stay out of the enemy's OODA loop and out of historical records as well, for that matter. Only by going outside of the expected can you expect decisive victory over the enemy.
                >the germans were acting on a longshot hail mary logic to attack the enemys weakest point, despite the conditions being against their favor to begin with
                You can try to shit-talk the Germans all you want, but you can't deny the reality that they outplayed the Allies completely. If it works, it's not stupid.
                >and unsurprisingly the long shot failed because there was a very good reason that only green units were placed there initially, its just a bad place to attack
                It was fuel. Just like all the German failures. They never had enough fuel to do anything they planned.

                If the only thing you care about is an overly simplified binary endstate, sure…

                Yes, that’s all anyone cares about in total war. That’s sort of the point of total war

                It's not. War is an extension of politics, and trying to simplify political reality into winner / loser leads you into being unable to understand it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > trying to simplify political reality into winner / loser leads you into being unable to understand it.

                The allies suffered losses, but ultimately facefricked a german push into an area deemed moronic to push into to the point that German armored units were unable to create any kind of offensive momentum until their wives/daughters were raped into submission by GIs and mobiks. What else is there to understand

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Hardly
                thats literally what happened

                seperate tank battalions fought so few enemy tanks that they dropped the global average down to 15% armor on armor engagements

                >Only by going outside of the expected can you expect decisive victory over the enemy.
                germans at the ardennes acted illogically, attackng a weakpoint despite knowing full well that it was weak because there was nothing strategically viable for hunfreds of kilometers in

                >but you can't deny the reality that they outplayed the Allies completely.
                it was a "no one could be that stupid" moment, because the allies treated it as a quiet zone because the terrain was bad and the weather was bad and any attack would be doomed
                and naturally, despite sending in virtually their entire stock of reserves, the ardennes offensive sputtered out because they literally could not make it to a single of their objective because the terrain was bad and the weather was bad

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The most logical action is to defeat your enemy's strength with as little of your own as possible,
                Wrong. The most logical action is to send bombers to rain death from the skies on kraut pantsu divisions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Post-battle surveys revealed that aircraft knocked out very, very few tanks. It wasn't until the development of area weapons like the cluster bomb and guided weapons like Paveqay and Maverick that aircraft became effective at removing tonk. Now, air attacks *did* have a significant psychological effect on tank formations, so there was that, and aircraft were highly effective at interdicting the supply trains that tanks required in order to remain operational.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The articles that downplay aircraft effectiveness vs tanks always point to post-battle surveys showing 10% of tanks dying to aircraft but really homie? If you lose 10% of your tanks without being able to fight back, that's fricking huge.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But how many of those were stuff like trains transporting tanks and depots being bombed? Or random light tanks being put out of commission?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How many of the other 90% were stuff like trains transporting tanks and depots being bombed, or random light tanks being put out of commission?
                The fact is even 10% of tanks lost is literally decimating your enemy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                One Stuka pilot personally killed 500 T-34s. One.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a German ground-attack pilot during World War II and a post-war neo-Nazi activist.
                The most decorated German pilot of the war and the only recipient of the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds, Rudel was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70 landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements.

                Quality has a quantity all its own.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >credited with

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Germany tended to use deceptive methods to artificially inflate the kill counts of its tank and fighter aces, especially those who were particularly loyal to the Nazi Party. The most common method was awarding them the kills their entire unit/squadron scored.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So, basically, all germany needed was 100 x Rudel and they would have won the war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >kraut pantsu
                >bong ara-aramored
                >burger _____

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The other team didn't win, we just didn't stop them scoring more points than us

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      part of infantry support is destroying other tanks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        very, very occasionally
        since tanks in the infantry support role spent all their time firing at buildings, infantry, and towed guns

        tank on tank combat was so rare in the infantry support role that 75mm sherman was replaced by the 105mm sherman which has only token anti-armor performance but a massive HE shell

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No it doesn't even have boobs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What tank does?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The T-72A "Dolly Parton" and T-72B "Super-Dolly Parton" do

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is so good it is still in service.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not anymore, the last Shermans were retired by Paraguay in 2018.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M4 best tank
    Yes
    >Overkill
    Because they were having a dick measuring contest in the Eastern front. And had to cope with inability mass produce by over engineering trash
    >This thread
    Asked over 9000 times since the dawn of time, it can be reliably answered by GPTs and Google and even fricking reddit.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    > anyway pretty much none of the ww2 tanks had "overkill" guns. even the is-2 had "just" a 122mm gun. pretty much every modern tank uses either a 120mm (if it's NATO) or a 125mm (if it's Soviet or Chinese)
    That’s not how that works even a little bit lmao. The 88 was overkill for the threats they were facing at the time. No shit it’s not comparable to a fricking MBT built to fight other MBTs

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It very obviously was.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>.50 cal
    Hello warthunder

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's one on the too for air defense.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The best part about the Sherman was simply the massive amount of variation it had. There was a sherman for every fricking role in the war, from logistics to construction, mine clearing, infantry support or armor on armor engagements.
    If you can think of it, there's a sherman for that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is there a sherman that can suck my dick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The best part about the Sherman was simply the massive amount of variation it had. There was a sherman for every fricking role in the war, from logistics to construction, mine clearing, infantry support or armor on armor engagements.
      >If you can think of it, there's a sherman for that.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you could build 3 shermans for cost of one tiger - and both tanks (76mm sherman) could pen others frontal armor (tiger could pen pen shermans both frontal and rear armor with the same projectile but that does not change much in real life scenario)
    so if one who shots first wins - why pay extra? if enemy heavy armor was the main danger there would more 76mm equipped variants...

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unfff the easy 8 was so luxurious for its time, I feel bad for the other tankers stuck in a panther or t-34 shitbox.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    >light
    >mobile
    >produced in massive numbers
    Every other quality is irrelevant.
    Other tanks may have bigger guns or thicker armor, but the tank you have where and when you need it is worth a thousand of the tank that couldn't make it to the fight because it's too heavy to cross any non-destroyed bridge between here and there, or would sink in soft mud. It doesn't matter how much better your tank is on paper if you can only afford to build a handful of them and your enemy outnumbers them a dozen to one.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If shermans were so good, then how come cold war era tanks looked like more the Panther than the sherman???

    Panther wins.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the mighty Panther which never lasted past 1945 despite the French looking into producing their own copies of them, while the very last Shermans to leave active service were retired in the fricking '90s.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >cold war era tanks looked like more the Panther than the sherman
      In what way?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This looks like the panther.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/VEwUCyf.jpeg

          This also looks like more the Panther, and has nothing in common with the sherman.

          moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This also looks like more the Panther, and has nothing in common with the sherman.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          US post-war design was descended from the M26 not the panther, which had only tangential contributions to US tank design

          the M60 suspension are composed of many small wheels with return rollers, the panther has large interleaved roadwheels with no return rollers
          this makes it most similar in layout to the M26

          hemispherical turret on the M48 looks nothing like the panthers box-like turret nor does it look like the M26s turret
          the 90mm gun on earlier pattons were all just improved versions of the M26 90mm gun, and that 90mm gun was based on an AA gun from 1938, and was first mounted on experimental vehicles in 1943 before they even knew rhat the specifications of the panther were, they just wanted a bigger gun in case the arms race sped up

          the T20 was the true grandfather of post-war US tanks and it was developed largely without any input from the panther
          the T25 prototype was essentially just a T20 that was scaled up to hold the 90mm and had its VVSS replaced with torsion bars to handle the extra weight
          the only contribution of the panther was to increase the armor protection on the T25 leading to the M26, to say this makes it based on the panther would be like saying the tiger is based on the SOMUA

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if panthers were so good why do panthers look like shermans

      >sloped armor
      >rounded mantlet
      >middle-mounted turret
      >prominent cupola
      >blocky sides

      sherman wins

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cold War tanks look like the Centurion thoughever, the Bongs won

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sure, just like the girl from neighboring farm is better than Ingrid Bergman. Because you will never get Ingrid Bergman.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was probably the best at meeting its operational requirements, which is more important than pure performance.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Wet storage
    Good luck fighting with wet powder

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bad bait

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read a book about an SS tank crewman About 15 years ago. I can’t remember the name bc I keep thinking of Erwin Bartman’s book fur volk and fuhrer which is incredible as well but def not the same book. Anyways tank bro started off as a gunner and eventually was a commander in his own tank. Fought from the invasion of ussr all the way to the Moscow outskirts. Got injured at Stalingrad and went back to the front in late 1943. I mean, This guy Saw the absolute worst of the eastern front. His division got transferred to France for some r and r and eventually the Allies invade. His tiger absolutely ripped through like 7 allied tanks immediately in his first engagement with the yanks. His whole crew was ecstatic and laughing their asses off. Later that evening they realized how many Shermans the Allies actually had and he realized right then and there the war was lost. He was in awe that the Allies not only built that many tanks in America, but somehow floated them across the whole Atlantic Ocean, and they had to get towed back for repairs every 200 miles because the maybach engine and transmission in his brand new tank kept fricking up.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So /k/ loves the Sherman now?

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the m4 sherman the best tank of WW2?
    No. The T-34-85 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 T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 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 T-34-85 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 Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 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 israelites. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *