Was the T-34 really the best WW2 tank?

Was the T-34 really the best WW2 tank?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Overall due to producibility and cost effectiveness, probably was the best

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >producibility
      like 2/3rds of the factories were cutting corners and making it shittier during WWII, not exactly a stellar review. also >50% had spalling issues because of improper steel hardening.
      >cost effectiveness
      meh. they were removing shit like seats and headlamps at some point. not really something you would do for a 'cheap' tank.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cost effective is kind of a myth iirc, it was not a cheap design. Rather that corners were cut and it was built very cheaply.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's easy to produce a shit load of tanks when the United States is giving you ancillary items like radios, trucks, trains, canned goods, ammunition, etc that you don't need to expend industrial bandwidth on.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's also easy to produce a shitload of tanks when your factories and population centers are safe and separated from enemy armies by a massive ocean.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon... the communist were shitty at manufacturing basic commodities like steel and other trade goods before the war started...

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. And there's a lot of reasons for that, but it's not like they weren't improving. Russia was late to the industrialization party, and WWI plus the revolution and civil war set back a lot of progress that Russian empire had made. And that's my point, if you're criticizing Russian build quality versus the US it's far from a "fair" comparison. The US not having to fight a major land war on its own territory since the American Civil War is a major factor in that.

            >tank factories (that were built by Americans in America in the first place) had to relocate (on American supplied trains using American fuel and American rations)
            let me play you the world's tiniest all American violin

            A vast majority of Russian locomotives and rolling stock were Russian built, not American imports.
            >inb4 the 2k locos and 11k rail cars
            Yes, and the USSR had around 20k locomotives and over 500k rail cars at the outbreak of war. The Germans only captured around 300 locomotives by November 1941, so it's not like there was a huge loss in rail equipment. And none of the US locomotives or cars were delivered prior to 1942, so you're just completely off-base.

            https://i.imgur.com/jiD9foX.png

            look up where the Stalingrad Tractor Factory was built and assembled (Detroit) before being shipped by boat to Stalingrad and assembled under American supervision, like all Soviet infrastructure from the interwar years

            Yes, the Russians were buying American factories in the inter-war period to rebuild their own industry. Why is that surprising? It's the same reason the Japanese were buying planes from the UK, France, and the US, buying ships from the UK, and so on. Same reason why China's corporate espionage tries to steal so much shit from US aerospace companies. When you're behind, what matters is catching up. So you learn as much as you can from the people that have done the work so you can reach parity, making tweaks and small innovations as necessary to make existing things work for your purposes.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's also easy to produce a shitload of tanks when your factories and population centers are safe and separated from enemy armies by a massive ocean.

            T-34 was built with USA lend lease steel. Russians were so shit at manufacturing they made the steel less protective than if they had just cut and riveted the bulk steel.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tanks factories were mostly destroyed and many had to relocate

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >tank factories (that were built by Americans in America in the first place) had to relocate (on American supplied trains using American fuel and American rations)
          let me play you the world's tiniest all American violin

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you smoking?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              look up where the Stalingrad Tractor Factory was built and assembled (Detroit) before being shipped by boat to Stalingrad and assembled under American supervision, like all Soviet infrastructure from the interwar years

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Reminder that the Soviet Union's tank factories were built and managed by USA automotive engineers who were kidnapped and their passports stolen because that's how vatnicks show gratitude.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Reminder that the Soviet Union's tank factories were built and managed by USA automotive engineers who were kidnapped and their passports stolen because that's how vatnicks show gratitude.

            Tanks factories were mostly destroyed and many had to relocate

            It's easy to produce a shit load of tanks when the United States is giving you ancillary items like radios, trucks, trains, canned goods, ammunition, etc that you don't need to expend industrial bandwidth on.

            Daily reminder that Russia didn't win WW2 by themselves and wouldn't have survived the German offensive without all the aid the West provided. I shake my head whenever I have to think about how we allied with the Russians in WW2 and how much of a mistake that was. Sure, it saved a bunch of American, British, Canadian & French lives on the Western front by causing Germany to have to defend two fronts, but obviously was a huge detriment in the long run from all the trouble the USSR gave the world after the war. We should have let Germany overrun Russia, then armed the resistance in Russia, and we could have still defeated Germany in the end, though WW2 likely would have gone on for another 5 years as Germany would be able to take advantage of all the natural resources in Russia to keep their war machine going. At least until America developed the nukes, which in this alternate universe would have still happened by 1945 and we would have gotten a lot more than just 2 nukes dropped on Japan.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No.

      Unit cost was same as Sherman. T-34 is objectively worse in every measurable category.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t.tankie
      They had the same cost as the Sherman and nearing the end, the Sherman was cheaper to make.

      The Sherman was more reliable, easier to repair, more comfortable and could be deployed anywhere.

      The T34 was just blown out of proportion because the Russians didn't allow researchers to go back to their database if they talked shit about it.

      >track pins don't have retainer clips so they had to be hammered down by striker plate / hull
      >horrible crew comfort
      >no escape hatches
      >garbage welding
      >garbage transmission
      >no radios, let's just use flag signals lmao

      If were to rate the "best" by combat effectiveness and presence, then it's the Sherman. No debate.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >track pins don't have retainer clips so they had to be hammered down by striker plate / hull
        crew comfort
        Simple and effective. They kept that design even through the T-62.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's the point I was trying to make. It costed as much as the Sherman, but everything in it's quality is absolutely moronic.

          If it costed half of what a Sherman would have cost, then I would have given it more slack. But the fact that the cost of producing it kept coming up near the end of the war despite being the same shitty just tells you how bad it is.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            sorry, didn't mean to also highlight the horrible crew comfort line

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >costed
            Please dont

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Technically the correct use of the word (and it is a word). Leafs use it every day! It just fell out of favOUr.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well it sounds awful

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It sounds better when used more colloquially. Examples: "Last weekend I costed out the parts for a new AR." or "The website is fully costed except for special orders"

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/dRWDfYv.jpg

              Well it sounds awful

              cost and costed are the correct past tense of the word.
              It's just easier to identify as past tense for most people, even though it sounds kinda weird.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The T34 was just blown out of proportion because the Russians didn't allow researchers to go back to their database if they talked shit about it.
        Also, every american tanker was free to b***h about sherman as much as he want.
        Try to b***h about "stalin's iron fist" in commieland. That's a gulag.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was fine, not great not terrible.

      Shermans were built in similar numbers without the same problems.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    its really down to either the panther or the M4 sherman assuming all else equal
    but its the M4 in practice because of the industrial power of the US allowing so many of them to be built and to a very high standard

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      5 Sherman’s to take out 1 tiger, get rekt

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which they did...

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >my tank is better because 5 of them beats 1 of yours
          small dick logic

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            When you can outproduce the germans 10 to 1 it really is more of a death by bee stings scenario

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        8 t-34 for on Panzer IV get wrecked

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        US Platoon size was 5 tanks in WW2, the reason it took 5 Sherman’s to a Tiger was that was the minimum a line Tiger would fight

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          technically, a platoon could be split into fire teams when required so it would be possible for only 2-3 shermans to engage an enemy vehicle if they had no choice

          not that the 5:1 claim has any basis outside of the belton cooper book
          the most famous tiger 1 action in normandy was by whittman at villers-bocage where ~25 british tanks were destroyed at the cost of 15 german tanks, an unknown number of which were tiger losses
          assuming the lowest estimate of 8 destroyed tigers and assuming all british losses were due to tigers and not panzer IVs, this is a ratio of 3:1 not 5:1

          however, germans only list write-offs while the british record both destroyed and damaged, so the real ratio is much narrower
          assuming the same ratio of 66% repaired as for all of operation goodwood, then we are looking at a ratio closer to between 2:1 and 1:1

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for acknowledging how bad Belton Cooper is. People will take snippets from his book without reading it.

            Death Traps is more like schizo ramblings than a proper book. He constantly re-explains the same event but with different parameters. For example, he references the dangerous ride from the depots to the front line, but he constantly changes the name that they “used to call it”. Just seems like he’s making stuff up a lot of the time

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >5 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger
        >Less than 2,000 Tiger 1 and 2s ever made
        >49,300 Shermans produced
        The math seems to work out in favour of the Sherman.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          lucky for all those panzer ivs, stugs, jagdpanzers, panthers, at guns, panzerfausts, etc then

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Luck for the allies all those Stewarts, Lees, Churchills, Cromwells, T34s, Bazookas, and air superiority.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Apparently not, since the Germans lost and the Sherman had the best crew survival rate of the war despite serving in literally every theater.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the Sherman had the best crew survival rate of the war
              That is not sustainable with available evidence.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                literally is tho. Crew surviability statistics where kept by all sides.

                If you are more a visual learner, you can watch cone of ark, he always has this "the tank is on fire" drills to get out of the tank.

                Getting out fast out of a T-34 is literally impossible thanks to its horrendous layout. Thats reflected in all statistics you can find on it. Same with the Sherman, go out easy and thats how you get the crew surivabilty stats.
                With german vehicles it varies, but generally wasnt as horrendous as the T-34 or BT-7

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The total number of German AFVs produced were below that of Shermans alone and Shermans had good k/ds against most German armour. Then take all other American and British tanks into account and 50k T-34s into account as well as other Soviet armour and you begin to see what the Germans were up against.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        finally i have the image for this moment

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          quads confirm

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          i think its spelling would lead to more controversy

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Shermans literally never fought tigers.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          wat

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Comparing a tiger tank to a sherman is a sign of mental moronation and lack of any knowledge about ww2 past mid 2000's American Cinema/videogames. They were almost all committed to the eastern front to take down hoards of shittily made t34's, not against actual competetently led combined armed western forces. Reminder that in a post war analysis the Sherman was more combat effective than the Panther's they encountered.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you replying to the correct post?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yep

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, then what does any of that screed have to do with my asking anon wtf he's talking about when he asserts Shermans and Tigers never faced each other?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Comparing a tiger tank to a sherman is a sign of mental moronation and lack of any knowledge about ww2
                what does that have to do with me being incredulous about someone saying, "Tigers never faced Shermans" hmmm...
                Why do I need to explain this to you? I guess the mental moronation assertion was correct!

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                OK, I get it. I'm being trolled. Almost had me there.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >mental moronation

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, it’s a myth. Allied tankers were so terrified of Tigers that they constantly misidentified German tanks they fought as Tigers, especially if it managed a lucky bounce. In the end the only Sherman on Tiger encounters were, like, unmanned Tigers that had yet to be unloaded from a train. It’s a total meme.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              I know people do nothing but watch YouTube anymore, but I think we need to so some reading. When Moran had his three examples of Tigers and Shermans fighting each other, he was talking about the US Army in NWE. Tigers and Shermans engaged in combat as early as North Africa. The British also used the Sherman, and were engaged by Tigers several times in NWE.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              To add to this a bit:
              1. Misidentification happened a lot. Especially at long distances.
              2. Tigers (and Panthers) often broke down, got stuck, or ran out of fuel due to poor spare parts production, huge weight, reliability issues, massive fuel consumption, etc.. Fact: If we ignore the unknown causes, more Tigers were lost to non-combat issues (accidents, transit, mechanical failure, immobilization, fuel, etc.) than all combat losses combined
              3. Because a Tiger cost about 9-10X what a Sherman did (and the Germans had a much smaller industrial base) there weren't that many Tigers to begin with. Like 1700 were ever produced.
              4. People over estimate how many tanks get taken out by other tanks. Only 80 Tigers were ever specifically identified as being lost to other tanks. Meanwhile 208 were lost because they got stuck/immobilized.

              Tiger tanks were a dumb idea, the technology wasn't ready in WW2 to accommodate them. Germany, with their limited industry, lack of alloys, limited fuel, lack of rubber, etc.. was an especially a bad situation to make it a workable idea.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            There were barely any Tigers on the Western front in the first place, and even less encounters where allied tankers actually had a proper tank duel with them.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >proper tank duel
              drive away from each other for 200 paces, then turn and fire?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it’s a myth. Allied tankers were so terrified of Tigers that they constantly misidentified German tanks they fought as Tigers, especially if it managed a lucky bounce. In the end the only Sherman on Tiger encounters were, like, unmanned Tigers that had yet to be unloaded from a train. It’s a total meme.

          >never fought shermans
          wrong

          While there was definitely misidentified tanks during combat, this does not mean that Sherman tankers never engaged combat against Tigers as

          I know people do nothing but watch YouTube anymore, but I think we need to so some reading. When Moran had his three examples of Tigers and Shermans fighting each other, he was talking about the US Army in NWE. Tigers and Shermans engaged in combat as early as North Africa. The British also used the Sherman, and were engaged by Tigers several times in NWE.

          said.

          Actual Tiger combats are usually pretty well documented, and bogus stories like the M8 taking out a Tiger II have been proven wrong.
          https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-greyhound-vs-tiger-st-vith/

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I knew before I even looked dit up it was bullshit, but I dont doubt it engaged some tank in this way. Question is, what could be misidentified as a tiger from behind at close range? I'm thinking late model 4 since they both had the boxy hulls and turret bussel. With the shürtzen, the turret would look a great deal larger as well

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              It wasn't misid'ed from behind at close range: the mechanized cav unit wasn't the one who made it up. An officer from another unit told a major about it and the story from the major ended up in an armor school monograph.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              From other sources, it could be to the armored skirts hiding most of the figure of the tank. Then again, the crew could just be intentionally bullshitting for fame (especially with how the crew reported it).
              It's not really uncommon, most pilots exaggerate their kill count or claim a kill from another pilot just because they shot at it a few times. Look at "aces" in Luftwaffe or USAAF, sometimes they collectively claim more kills than there were planes in the entire battle.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then again, the crew could just be intentionally bullshitting for fame (especially with how the crew reported it).
                see

                It wasn't misid'ed from behind at close range: the mechanized cav unit wasn't the one who made it up. An officer from another unit told a major about it and the story from the major ended up in an armor school monograph.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >a squad of firefly's roll up
        >-ACK!

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        wehraboo cope

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pop history bullshit. You are clearly a moron Black person homosexual.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        A+ bait.

        https://i.imgur.com/0x0ysaH.jpg

        finally i have the image for this moment

        Quads of truth.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        cool vintage fuddlore bro

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Now post reliable gearbox

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Better or equel to T-34s.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >send a reinforced tank platoon, 'cause frick it, you can afford it
        >germs send on tank, 'cause they can't afford more, and obviously lose it
        >"IT TOOK FIVE OF YOU TO BEAT ME!!1!"
        This post is just for the record, for all the idiots who might unironically believe this.

        https://i.imgur.com/0x0ysaH.jpg

        finally i have the image for this moment

        Based bait-wrecker.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >just a good solid tank
      good engine, meh gear box, ground pressure not great not terrible
      Armour plating, efficient but over hyped, qc issues, good gun, ammo not so good
      crew ergonomics, lol lmao. bit better by the time the widened the hull and altered the turret
      vision ports, biddy bad, optics, garbage to passably decent depending on year, radios, either absent or rudimentary

      very nice, the quick change gearbox is most impressive
      its a bulky but roomy tank with plenty of upgrades and gadgets
      >tfw the multibank is better than the radial

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the multibank is better than the radial
        V8s were the best, a frick huge aluminum block DOHC V8.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >just a good solid tank
          good engine, meh gear box, ground pressure not great not terrible
          Armour plating, efficient but over hyped, qc issues, good gun, ammo not so good
          crew ergonomics, lol lmao. bit better by the time the widened the hull and altered the turret
          vision ports, biddy bad, optics, garbage to passably decent depending on year, radios, either absent or rudimentary

          very nice, the quick change gearbox is most impressive
          its a bulky but roomy tank with plenty of upgrades and gadgets
          >tfw the multibank is better than the radial

          in a test between sherman types, the radial-engines performed the worst
          the diesel M4A2 performed adequately
          the M4A4 multibank and the M4A3 with the GAA were the best

          the multibank ended up with the fewest breakdowns but had the worst drop in performance over time while the GAA covered the most distance but did need some maintenance

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Sherman
      Maybe? The T-34-85 was somewhat ahead in terms of firepower however
      >Panther
      An undergunned and overengineered heavy tank

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >somewhat ahead
        The gun was good, Soviet ammo was crap giving it similar or worse performance to the US's 76mm, and the US even had defective shells. The Soviet's shell quality was just that bad.

        >Panther
        >undergunned
        u wot m8

        If anything it was massively overgunned, there were very few things it could penetrate that the shorter 75mm on the Panzer IV and StuG's couldn't. It did have much better penetration than range than them, but again, very few things had the armor to shrug off the L48. The L70 was almost entirely wasted on the Western front due to how close engagement ranges were while causing the Panther to balloon in weight and size to mount the gun.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The gun was good, Soviet ammo was crap giving it similar or worse performance to the US's 76mm
          the 85mm firing AP penetrated about 1in more than the 76mm AP against a vertical steel plate
          76mm did have a far better APCR round which both penetrated more armor and could be fired without damaging the gun barrel, but these werent common until after WW2 due to tungsten shortages

          main benefit of the 76mm gun was that it could be fired much faster, both in mad-minute and aimed, due to much smoother gun-laying and more elbow room for the loader
          higher muzzle velocity combined with the better telescopic sight (it had stadia metric rangefinder) would make first shot accuracy on the T-34 theoretically better
          but the M4 had better periscopes, faster target acquisition, and could compensate for lack of range-finder with its high rate of fire to fork the target

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      when i use it in graviteam tactics the sherman sucks dick against the german panzer 3 and 4 in tunisia

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        like 90% of my shots bounce on them while they one shot me
        i had a panzer 4 ambushed by 4 shermans due to fog, he got 50m from them and my sherms got the first shot, and srill i lost 2 of them before they could disable it, then came the rest of the unit that that panzer was reccing for and they got completely rekt

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is it just because graviteam has a very low opinion of American equipment or something? I don't really play anything other than the Germans so I don't know that feel

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Panther didn't really mature into a good tank. It was getting there, but panther was a worse Pershing.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Second best after the Sherman considering soft factors, about 12th considering only hard factors.
    If I had to fight WW2 in any tank of my choice I'm going with the Sherman 76.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. M4 with a 6 > Comet > T-34-85

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    ugh, its p26/40

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Get back to working on War Thunder Gaijin dev. I just lost my T-80U last night to an M1IP Abrams and OBVIOUSLY the T-80 is superior so I demand you fix these obvious errors in armor and penetration values.

      And yes, I know your post was obviously a joke.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        skill issue

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The former T-34 propaganda office would be proud of you.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Best in the sense that it was the most suited to the Red Army's requirements in World War II? Yes.

    Honestly, the designation of "best tank" should be divided into categories, who was making it and what mission requirements was it intended to fulfill.

    Sure, the Type 95 Ha-Go would get mogged by a Tiger, but these tanks were also designed with two completely different types of conflicts in mind.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      warcrimes! it belongs in a museum!

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      based material analysis in a sub full of moronic Black folk who want everything ranked like a watchmojo video

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't the best at anything. The IS-3 was the best Soviet tank, the M-26 was the best overall tank, the M-4 was the best spam tank, the Tiger II was the most capable tank to see combat in any real amount.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      jesus anon

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Explain how any of what I said was wrong

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tigers broke down a lot. I’d argue that makes it considerably worse than a Sherman or practically any other tank that doesn’t break down.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose I should've prefaced my post with "when working as intentioned".

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Best WW2 tank
          >IS3
          Go back to World Of Tanks you moron.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            It existed during ww2, there's a reason I listed the best tank that saw any actual service seperately

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Right but it was a complete dogshit design and tank independent of it not seeing any action in WW2, why bring it up at all?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                To illustrate how unremarkable the T-34 was.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >tiger 2
          >most capable
          most capable at eating up german resources they already lacked so it can not even get onto frontlines.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's right though

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were pretty effective at the first years but then they fell off once Germans upgunned theirs.
    Once the T-34-85s were ready, they performed okay.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Pretty effective at the first years

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    WW2 tanks were produced under different circumstances and for different purpose. Ignoring that t-34 was fricking rushed into production after moving many factories behind Ural mountains, and was needed YESTERDAY, while Sherman could be assembled in peace and quiet... is kind of dumb. Yes, Sherman was most likely the best tank of WW2. Or maybe t-44 but it didn't fight so it doesn't count.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sherman and it's not even a contest. The only stage of the war you can say the T-34 was better than the Sherman was the very early war when T-34 existed and Sherman didn't. The moment the first Sherman rolled off the line, the T-34 was permanently surpassed.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even the American 'make due' tank, the Lee, was considered a formidable platform by the Germans when they encountered it, and that was a five-minute hack-job assembled out of a failed tank design.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Ultra Sherman
      Wonder if there's something like this out there for the Maus

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's an argument for upgrading a Sherman if you have it post-war, Israel and Chile are notable examples. But it only makes sense if you already have a Sherman to turn into a Super Sherman, whereas nobody but the Kubinka Tank Museum has a Maus. Also, the extreme weight and mobility limitations of the Maus make it a poor platform for upgrades. An M24 Chaffee with a 90mm wienererill gun and some ATGMs is a totally viable light tank, a Maus with a 125mm gun and Kontakt 5 still isn't a real MBT.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Maus in the Russian tank museum doesn't have ANY internals. No guns, no transmission, no engine, no optics, etc. It's just a giant shell. The Chieftain did a video on it like... 10 years ago. It's incredibly sad to see the state of tanks in Russian museums as they just don't seem to give a shit. So many rare prototype and captured tanks just left to rot and be infested with spiders.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nah. That'd be the Sherman.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    By the standards of the design? it was a kind of unremarkable as WW2 medium tanks went. By the standards of the actual production models that made it to the front? It was kind of shitty. They skipped so many corners and steps to make the kinds of production numbers they reached during the war.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Germans and Soviets had a huge chunk of their industrial manpower fighting. The Germans lacked alloys. The Russians had to relocate. The Americans British had to fight all around the world and transship their tanks. Every country suffered from challenges. The M4 suffered from numerous design compromises: Weight to make shipping easier, width to make manufacturing easier, engine bay to accommodate multiple types, interchangeability, etc.. They could have made a different tank and chose to make less of them but the M4 fulfilled its role.

    M4 was best because it was the most efficient use of labour for the battlefield results and they were best able to mitigate the design compromises (as evidenced by post war analysis and testing).

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >M4 was best because it was the most efficient use of labour for the battlefield results
      M4 had the best battlefield results.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    T-34 was the better design.

    It was much designed earlier than the Sherman, so it was in mass production while the Mutts were still fielding that moron box of a M3. When it was designed it kicked the ass of contemporaries like Pz3 or Pz4 short, Brit cruiser/infantry tank autism or whatever shitbox the Americans were using, probably not even M3 but some gay tankettes.

    When the M4 came, it's contemporaries were the Pz4 long and the T-34.

    The T-34 is a revolutionary design using sloped armour to get as much combat potential into a small package that can be mass produced effectively.

    The M4 is a tall box with a gun. Every moron should be able to design that, only Mutts fricked it up so badly they had to go to war with the inbred Alabama cousin of a M3.

    The M4 had much better ergonomy but things like radios weren't really the Soviet strength. Considering this, the Vatnigs correctly prioritized mass production and hard combat capability.

    Broadly they are equal in combat capability with a slight edge to the Sherman. But considering America being the leader of the world in automotive industry and the Soviet Union a shithole, and that even with their shitty industry they cobble together something that arguably can beat the Sherman 1vs1 and is probably by amount of materiald and soldiers used like 5vs4 in favour of the T-34, the verdict is easy.

    The T-34 is a great design that maximized the combat power the shitty soviet industry could provide and yet might actually arguably beat the Shermans even if the Americans mass produced T-34s.

    The Sherman is just a solid, simple, basic b***h design that wasn't moronic. Everything that's great about it is the American capability of mass producing it. But with the American automotive industry, their radial engines and so on they should have easily designed the M4 much earlier and then actually designing something like a functional Panther easily kicking the ass of the T-34. They didn't, so the victor is the T-34.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most moronic post in the thread award. The t34 was not revolutionary and performed horribly compared to the pz3's it faced in 1941. Turns out having a cramped shitbox with poor optics, a shit transmission, and slavshit moron steel that makes the armor not actually effective. Translates to you losing all of your t34's for about 100 panzer 3's LOL. The tank was always shit.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        How's Russia having shit optics shit radio and shit materials and shit quality control the fault of the T-34 design?

        The T-34 was designed to make the shit stuff Russia could produce into an effective combat machine. And it worked. This is the tank that broke the Wehrmacht (along with infantry and artillery of course.)

        If America would produce T-34 quality tanks it's an embarrassment. But if America would produce T-34s it would have better optics, radio, steel etc. And if Russia would produce Shermans they would be equally shit in the soft values as as T-34s while being more expensive.

        So you're saying the T-34 is shit because Russian industry is shit. Yet it was solid (with drawbacks) from a shit industry and that's a great design.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >into an effective combat machine. And it worked.
          No it didn't, they never made an effective combat machine.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            And the deep armoured thrusts that Russia pulled off against Germany are just fricking imagination or what?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              That was due to German attrition and soviet resources pulling through after 3 years of fighting. Can only destroy 5000 russian tanks for the loss of 1000 of your own for so long before that equation stops working. If Russia actually had well designed tanks with competent crews then that war would not have been close as it was.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Mostly due to the Nazi incompetence and insanity, frankly. Had the Germans not decided to fight the entire world at the same time while at a material disadvantage with their incredibly inefficient, awful industrial system, they would have defeated Russia. DESPITE non stop heavy bombing that left most of Germany's cities in complete ruination, Germany's best year for industry was 1944, thanks to a complete reorganization of industry and agriculture. Had the Germans done that in 1941, or better yet, 1937 instead of going full moron like they did, they could have won against the USSR. That's not to say they should have just gone full 1944 total war at the start, but they would have had far less issues with food and shell shortages in 43 and 44 had they not had complete baboons in charge of central planning for the early years.

              Also worth noting, part of the reason Bagration was so devastating and brutal, is that 8 panzer armies were busy dying in Cobra and Falaise. It was an all in hail mary to destroy the Western Allies on the beaches and it failed utterly, nearly wiping out 2/3rds of Germany's AFVs in the retreat and destroying some of the best German divisions. When Bagration started, the best, most well equipped, and heavily mechanized formations were busy retreating across France or regrouping in Belgium. As such, the remaining German formations in Army Group Center, which had the most formations and mobile reserves pillaged to go West, was all but annihilated as the Soviets completely overran the flanks. Without sufficient mobile reserves to blunt the attacks as they had in 43, 42, and 41, the Germans were dealt a deathblow.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                And the deep armoured thrusts that Russia pulled off against Germany are just fricking imagination or what?

                To put it into exact numbers, the Germans deployed about 2000 tanks and assault guns to Normany. After Normandy, less than 100 of them made it back to German lines after the retreat from France. 25 divisions were wiped out, over 230,000 casualties (mostly captured) because the Allied push was so swift and brutal and had complete air superiority which nearly stopped all movement by day. Now many of these divisions were quickly rebuilt in the following months. Sure. But that was because the fragments of the formations that did survive were mostly from command and rear echelon forces, and while it did allow for quick reorganization with fresh conscripts, these divisions were never even half as good as they had been prior to Normandy. While they did retain highly skilled organizational staff, they suffered near annihilation of any frontline infantry. So the divisions were rebuilt with what amounted to untested conscripts with barely any cadre and not nearly enough training time besides.

                And this is all to say, those deep armoured thrusts the Russians pulled off were in large part thanks to the destruction of Germany's mobile forces in Normandy, and the severe beating German industry and logistics Germany had been forced to deal with thanks to the air campaign. About 50% of all of Germany's guns were turned upwards at the sky, had the German's not had to dedicate so much of their industry to protecting their industry, those Soviet spearheads, which were already close run things where armored units suffered 90%+ tank losses in some divisions to force breakthroughs may well have ended in 100% losses and outright failure to breakthrough. Without even discussing what Army Group Center might have been like had it not lost most of its best armor and several of its best infantry formations to the Western allies. This was the plan, the goal, of Normandy, by the way. To give the Soviets a better chance of breakthrough during Bagration.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Instead of pretending the Germans collapsed in the east maybe realize that the Russians were already tossing out the Germans themselves before a single mutt army boot was in France.
                D-Day was only possible due to Germany having only scrap Osttruppen and few real formations in France.

                Russia can jump onto a cactus and those obnoxious c**ts will never admit all the help they've gotten, but the Russians were the ones who broke the back of the Wehrmacht. With ten thousands of T-34s and just a handful of Shermans. If they were only half as shit as all you American Black folk claim they'd have found something better, the Soviet Union wasn't completely moronic like modern day Russia.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >D-Day was only possible due to Germany having only scrap Osttruppen and few real formations in France.
                >panzer lehr division, one of only a handful of fully mechanized forces in the heer
                >ostruppen

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean he isn't that wrong. The Panzer Lehr among the few divisiona where German could field halftracks

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                A majority of units faced in normandy were classified type I units, for maneuver, the highest rating
                And it had the panzer lehr, one of the only elite divisions in the heer

                They were a fairly concentrated army of regular units and veterans
                They were not garrison units

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Panzer Lehr is named after "lehren" to teach. France was used for teaching raw recruits. It was a hacked together force of tank instructors with whatever armor was available. They were "elite" by the standard of france, namely they actually had experience and equipment instead of the average, which was someone who had not worn the uniform for more than two weeks. Americans are really proud of killing a bunch of teenagers and elderly by zerg rushing a training camp. They also whine bitterly about the one time germany redeployed regular troops and mobbed them until they ran out of gas while the russians were dealing with 80% of the entire german army. The western front was so easy to win that the western allies have to make up threats to so they don't look like little b***hes. An army that outnumbered and outgeared an already exhausted foe by a factor of 200 with complete air dominance was actually struggling. This is a shame so deeply rooted that they have to make up shit for now almost a century straight to save face.

                It is also the root of their contradiction: The enemy was super threatening so our fight was glorious and right, but also super incompetent so you shouldn't copy them. Once your realize that germany was probably the biggest underdog in history anyone grandstanding about their victory over them just becomes a comedy of hubris.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They were "elite" by the standard of france, namely they actually had experience and equipment instead of the average, which was someone who had not worn the uniform for more than two weeks
                they were considered elite by the standards of the entire heer

                its named the lehr because it was originally formed as a teaching division, but it quickly became one of their most elite units and one of only a few fully mechanized divisions in the entire wehrmacht

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                uh ohh, commieboo, ALARM, ALARM!

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                did something happen in russia recently?
                seems like every thread is suddenly filled with them

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Welcome to PrepHole, lad.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >those deep armoured thrusts the Russians pulled off were in large part thanks to the destruction of Germany's mobile forces in Normandy
                bruh
                The Dnepr-Carpathian offensive destroyed 20 divisions, and left 60 more at half strength or worse. The Wehrmacht was also forced to abandon thousands of tanks, guns, and other equipment in the retreat. That all happened prior to D-Day, and the high command had to move 34 divisions to the East from all over the Reich to prevent a complete collapse of the front. With those kinds of German losses, Bagration's success was a forgone conclusion regardless of whether Overlord kicked off on schedule or not.

                That’s true but you’re missing the point. Just consider that the Germans only had 700 tanks and assault guns in the east when Bagration began. Actually you’re making my point for me. It was a team effort, well coordinated by the Allies to defeat Germany. While most of the formations in the west were garbage again as I said some of the most critical mobile reserves were taken from the east in an attempt to shove the western Allies out of Europe. The vast majority of the infantry formations were weak, but all of the armored formations were the best Germany could muster and they sent most of their armor west to Normandy. Imagine if the Germans have 2000 extra tanks and stugs and 20 more top of the line infantry divisions when Bagration happens. I don’t think the Russians win that. This is not me stating the west won the war, the allies won the war. The west never could have managed a landing if Germany’s 300 divisions were all in France, but Russia could not have won either of all 300 divisions were in Russia either. Germany lost because they went full moron and fought the entire world at once.

                Also Dnepr-Carpathian primarily destroyed infantry divisions. Normandy destroyed 25 divisions outright and rendered another 13 combat ineffective. Including all eight of the panzer formations. The Germans lost more tanks in one month in Normandy as they lost in a year in Russia.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >those deep armoured thrusts the Russians pulled off were in large part thanks to the destruction of Germany's mobile forces in Normandy
                bruh
                The Dnepr-Carpathian offensive destroyed 20 divisions, and left 60 more at half strength or worse. The Wehrmacht was also forced to abandon thousands of tanks, guns, and other equipment in the retreat. That all happened prior to D-Day, and the high command had to move 34 divisions to the East from all over the Reich to prevent a complete collapse of the front. With those kinds of German losses, Bagration's success was a forgone conclusion regardless of whether Overlord kicked off on schedule or not.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          USA studied the T-34 and chose to copy nothing. Christie suspension took up too much space. The armor wasn't impressive, and the crew was blind and couldn't be useful in their cramped positions.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you think the Christie suspension took too much space, have you looked at the size of the fricking Sherman?

            I think the problem is most of you are AmeriBlack folk and therefore mentally unable to admit your shit isn't the best.

            So let me compare it with a comparison between American equipment so that your brain can help yourself to detach from the animal instinct to automatically pick the American equipment no matter the facts:

            The Sherman is like a Thompson: a solid design using all the bells and whistles.

            The T-34 is like a Grease Gun: Cheap shit optimized for mass production while doing at least 90% of the job of the "refined" variant.

            If I'm a soldier, I want the Sherman or Thompson.

            If I'm a general, I want to produce the best weapon that I can mass produce. Since the US could afford bells and whistles, they produced the Sherman. Russia couldn't and you stupid American imbeciles shouldn't pretend the RussBlack folk ran the Germans from Moscow and Stalingrad to the Vistula long before you frickers landed in Normandy. And stop calling me a tankie you cretins, I've literally helped the Ukrainian war effort to kill as many RussBlack folk as possible. But me hating Russians doesn't mean that I'm like you idiots unable to admit that the T-34 ran the Germans back to Berlin.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The T-34 is like a Grease Gun: Cheap shit optimized for mass production while doing at least 90% of the job of the "refined" variant.
              If the T-34 was produced to the same level of finish as an M4 sherman it would actually cost more in terms of dollars

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                If a T-34 would be produced to the same quality of a Sherman, it's a superior platform due to size and sloping advantages. Both weighed around the same after all but the compact package beats the huge metal box.

                Also price is a stupid comparison in wartime. Ability to mass produce is what counts. You can figure out the bills after the war. Russia couldn't mass produce Shermans if they wanted to, just a cruder Sherman-like design at best and why should they if they have a better crude design in the T-34?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If a T-34 would be produced to the same quality of a Sherman, it's a superior platform due to size and sloping advantages.
                even if built to a proper standard and without defect, the T-34 does not significantly outperform the sherman in any aspect other than weight and mobility

                >Also price is a stupid comparison in wartime
                it means the under US wartime economy, it would be more difficult to produce a T-34 of equal quality to a sherman
                the soviets did not pump out 50,000 T-34s because it was intentionally cheaper, but because they were willing to skip out on any number of steps to speed up production

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did you type that yourself or is it stale pasta? Either way: (You)

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >T-34 was the better design.
      incorrect
      >It was much designed earlier than the Sherman, so it was in mass production while the Mutts were still fielding that moron box of a M3
      This is basically all the American designed and built Christie Tank T-34 has going for it so I'll give you that, they were able to develop it quickly by leveraging their existing American designed suspension and American factories
      >The T-34 is a revolutionary design using sloped armour
      Sloped armor has been known literally longer than the concept of armored vehicles, and the French were fielding sloped armor tanks from WW1 onwards. The M2 Medium Tank was terrible by all regards and yet had sloped armor and predates the T-34. Somua as well. Only the Germans and Brits went to war with boxtanks.
      >The M4 had much better ergonomy (sic, obvious slavic ESL) but things like radios weren't really the Soviet strength.
      At least you're willing to admit on the most important aspects of a tank's design (survivability, communications, and fightability) the Sherman is superior

      As I keep reading your post it dissolves into "yes the Sherman is better in every way BUT" cope so lol, lmao

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The T-34 was god-awful. Criminally bad.

    Also in regards to the 85mm upgunned variant. I read somewhere that the 85mm was ballistically equivalent to the US 76mm, so the 85mm was just bringing it to parity with other allied tanks.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    nobody fricking cares a subjective loaded question nobody will ever agree on. You should ask questions like: "did the soldiers like it?" and "did it do the job demanded of it well?"

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It won the war so there's that.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tank thread
    >the guy who can't use capital letters, full stops and lacks reading comprehension is shitting up the thread again

    Get a trip so I can filter you.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which guy?

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, not even close.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    iirc didn't soviet weapon/tank production have moderate defects at a very high percentage. I read somewhere that almost every t-34 had "something" wrong with it, and that quality control varied

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      QA was literally a joke term for T-34 production, everything from seats to storage was removed to shit out 25 000 of these things from a single factory, not to mention that the design itself was defective.

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the best WW2 tank

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Define 'best'. A Churchill III took out a Tiger. A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II. Guess that means both are shit or great depending on which side you're on? No? OK. Lots of tanks did different things and it wasn't until late what that the idea of different kinds of tanks got shifted when the Bongs made the Centurion which is the first modern MBT. After that you had Light Tanks and IFVs and other things but you didn't have Heavy Tanks (you did but they didn't survive), Medium Tanks, Cruiser Tanks, Infantry Support Tanks, Armored Cars, Tank Destroyers. They didn't survive.

    So that leads to t he next question of
    >What is a tank?
    Does a Sturmtiger count as a tank or an artillery piece? Does a Churchill AVRE count as a tank or a SPG? So once you got that definition you then need to move onto what defines 'best'. Best what? Kill ratio? Survivability? Mechanical reliability? Firepower? Speed? Versatility? As a platform?

    Then that leads into things where the fundamental difference is a weapon. Is the M4 75mm Sherman the best or the M4 76mm Sherman? Or the Sherman Firefly? What differentitates them bar a weapon or some fitting? Then you gotta look at the ammo used and the crew and blahblah.

    It's a question that can't really be answered and all you can really do is look at confirmed tank on tank kills and work out the ratio. But again, if a tank isn't designed for taking out other tanks but for support of infantry, that gives a skewed opinion on its effectiveness.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II.
      see

      [...]
      >never fought shermans
      wrong

      While there was definitely misidentified tanks during combat, this does not mean that Sherman tankers never engaged combat against Tigers as [...] said.

      Actual Tiger combats are usually pretty well documented, and bogus stories like the M8 taking out a Tiger II have been proven wrong.
      https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-greyhound-vs-tiger-st-vith/

      and

      It wasn't misid'ed from behind at close range: the mechanized cav unit wasn't the one who made it up. An officer from another unit told a major about it and the story from the major ended up in an armor school monograph.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nah, probably goes to the Sherman or Panzer-IV, the T-34 would have competed or outdid either in certain regards except for the extraordinarily poor QA/QC done during tank production. Things like rubber seals, radios, optical glass, and other basic and necessary equipment being left out for the sake of production speed made them horrible for the crew to drive, which impacted their performance and contributed to their losses.
    Other things like extremely hot quenching that produced poor quality armor prone to massive spalling combined with equally poor quality welds leading to armor splitting entirely apart at the welds contributed to vehicles which suffered a non-penetrating hit still experiencing horrific crew casualties or splitting apart and being rendered combat ineffective would also contribute to reducing the tank's real-world survivability in combat.

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Utterly lobotomized thread, total waste of time.

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    That would be PZIVH

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      the best drift machine

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not even close, ubiquity does not imply quality.

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    not sure which one was the best, but the T-70 was definitely the cutest!

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    honestly the most overrated tank off WW2 since most wehrraboos have been whipped into shape

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >WW2 since most wehrraboos have been whipped
      Stug morons need to die. Pz3 and Pz4 were reasonable tanks for the early war. Not great, but good contenders. M3 Lee absolutely BTFO Rommel's short barrel panzers. Also Rommel is completely overrated and was only skilled against a geriatric British WW1 commander who was not only too passive but only ordered counteroffensives in a predictable manner into a known trap.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Rommel basically did the equivalent of exploiting shitty British AI.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>>M3 Lee

        Literally the worst thing the western allies fielded. it was a dogshit design which only really worked in theory. There is good reason the brits only took it as it was made clear to them there is no other option avaliable on short notice. There is good reason we dont see multi turret designs past it. Even british home grown tanks like the crusader where superior

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lee was a better StuG. Lee had a stellar combat record in North Africa where it literally could not be penned while the 75mm was dominant and the 37mm still relevant. In the Pacific the Lee was unmatched against japs who had no tanks or anti-tank capabilities. Cannister shot was absolutely perfect for jungle fighting.

          As a second line infantry tank post D-day it was a better Churchill with a far superior 75mm HE and 37mm cannister. Even the Soviets liked it, BTW their nickname for every tank was "coffin for X brothers."

          To top this all Lee was merely a stopgap designed in two weeks and produced for barely more than a year and replaced by Sherman quickly.

          If StuG is a good tank, Lee is better.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            im not a stug fan, but im sorry but the high siloutte should have given it away that its not optimal right away.
            The americans should have just produced Crusaders with welded instead of rivetet armor, but where just to proud for it to make a forgein design.
            A lesson they didnt learn, see M14/FAL controversy later on

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >high silhouette
              That's mostly a problem in video games and not much of a drawback in real life. Obviously the Sherman with the single main gun in the turret is the better tank. The Lee would have to rely on the 37mm turret to do cavalry tank things which a casemate could not do at all.

              Lee was the most powerful tank in 1941. And unlike the Tiger, the Lee was fielded in large numbers as a primary tank. You must compare the Lee to its competition in 1941-42. The same way you wouldn't compare a warhawk to a merlin mustang.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                compared to its competion in 41 it only really beats the soviets had. To expensive, to top heavy and an inferior product to the crusader for example

                >Literally the worst thing the western allies fielded.
                first of all, that isnt M1 combat car or the renault FT
                second of all, the M3 lee was pretty much the best tank in north africa when it rolled out and was so until the long-gun panzer IV showed up

                the FT was a WW1 leftover. The M3 was a new development at the time, yet the thinking behind it was a WW1 leftover as well. And you know a tanks job is NOT to fight other tanks? When you are fighting a tank with your tank something went wrong

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And you know a tanks job is NOT to fight other tanks? When you are fighting a tank with your tank something went wrong
                The M3 lees 37mm gun could frontally defeat the early Italian tanks and panzer IIIs

                The 75mm gun was an excellent anti-infantry gun while also outranging shoddy italian 47mm guns
                While it initially had poor AP performance on its uncapped rounds due to shattering even those early rounds were undisputedly the strongest tank gun in theatre before the longer 75s arrived

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >To expensive, to top heavy and an inferior product to the crusader for example
                The crusader has the 2pdr (40mm) which was inferior to the US 37mm. The crusader was also cramped with bad ergonomics that made it almost as bad as the T-34. The Lee was faster, better armored, better armed, had better optics, intercoms and radios and was much more reliable.

                Crusader literally had solid shot and no other ammo. Crusader couldn't kill German field guns except by a lucky direct hit while Lee just lmao-HE and killed the whole battery.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            M3 Lee fricked the Japs up too. Except that one mad man with the sword who crawled through the front hatch.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Literally the worst thing the western allies fielded.
          first of all, that isnt M1 combat car or the renault FT
          second of all, the M3 lee was pretty much the best tank in north africa when it rolled out and was so until the long-gun panzer IV showed up

  31. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I would also like to point out that the hetzer is great in video games but unusable in real life.

  32. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    T-34
    >60k tanks in 4½ years
    >people literally get to prison or worse due to reliability issues
    >spare parts 404
    >many parts aren't interchangeable

    M4 Sherman
    >50k tanks in 3½ years
    >reliable enough to be used by foreign armies anywhere in the world
    >repair depots have enough spare parts to build new tanks if they had hulls for it
    >practically everything interchangeable, except the different engines of course

    >T-34 easier to massproduce*~~)

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      agree. while T34 85 was in top 5 tanks of WW2, it is not better than better M4 variants like a M4A3E8 (76mm) or M4A3E2 (76mm)

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >US industrial capacity vs Soviet industrial capacity
      >occupied nations production vs unoccupied nations production
      >bombed factories output vs unbombed factories output
      Are you really this stupid or just pretending?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >sergei quick the Germans are coming burn your children

        You have a point in 1941 but what about after the factories are relocated and the unoccupied nation literally ships you factories so you can build more deathboxes on tracks? What about the next 4 years?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          the question isn't "who had to build tanks under the hardest conditions" but "whats the best tank"
          so you aren't adresing the question at all

          I'm just pointing out the "the US made tanks faster" argument is stupid, I agree the Sherman is better in every way but try to make better arguments.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            no you didn't
            that's just your cope

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >makes tanks faster
            >and at better quality
            >this is a bad thing and is a stupid argument
            >but its factual
            >yeah but its bad because!
            >but muh occupied country!
            >but muh bombed factories!

            Black person the Germans couldn't bomb soviet factories after the end of 41. Cope harder.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        the question isn't "who had to build tanks under the hardest conditions" but "whats the best tank"
        so you aren't adresing the question at all

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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