So l had a conversation with a few friends. Showed them this photo. And asked the question. ''So, if you had to be a german tank commander during the war, And you got to choose your own tank, what would it be?''. We had a bit of a disagreement. I said the Panther and he would rather have the Stug. What's your take? And why?
Whichever one that is on a front where it's relatively easy to surrender to non-soviet troops.
So which one? You would want to surrend in style?
Tiger 2 it is.
Tiger II
>Final defense of Germany
>Avoid fighting most of the war
>Tank breaks down in it's way into it's first battle
>Abandon tank
>Surrender to allied forces
>Spend like 6 months in a POW camp then get released.
Your chances of surviving Eisenhower's death camps as a German soldier would have been minimal.
Never happened but I wish it did.
Seeing as Stalin was a guy who executed tens of thousands of his own officers for not 100% being on the same page as him, i don't think he was joking
Churchill just couldn't handle the bants.
His own personal Suez.
Damn it. You have to actually in it guys. Stop jailbreak the question.
What to do mean jailbreak? We’re doing what you asked not our fault that majority of the tanks on that list frickibg suck balls mechanically
Yes. Underpowerd and over engineered. But if you HAVE to pick one, fight and command one. Jailbreak like trying to break the question. Taking a route of choice the question did not give.
It's not so much that the tanks are terrible, more that the vast majority were destroyed in combat and turned into human pinball machines/mobile crematoriums.
It's like asking which U-boat you would prefer to serve in, like 90% of U-boat crews died lol.
*Fight in it*
I'll take elefant :DD
>transmission explodes going up 1 deg incline
>jump out and surrender
I think it is quite weird that the rumor of German tank engines and transmissions being of abysmal quality is so entrenched into people's minds, even though British post war tests that directly compared these machines with their allied equivalents proved quite the contrary, in that the German tank components were largely comparable in quality to allied systems and by far better than Russian ones until quite late in the war.
The Panthers faults were almost completely corrected by 1944 according to Guderian.
Wether this was too little too late is not really relevant to this conversation, when talking about the quality of these tanks itself.
Anyway, the important factor here is the tank's ability to withstand penetration, since data shows most tank crews bailed immidiately after the first penetrating hit, regardless of damage caused.
Considering this, you would probably want to be in the Tiger II or the Jagdtiger, although the combat record of the latter is a bit embarassing considering it's cost.
The Hummel is not really comparable to the others since it was an artillery piece and rarely used as a tank destroyer or support gun, it was assigned to batteries of heavy artillery battalions of artillery regiments.
If you saw enemies in a Hummel, something was going rather wrong.
Off all these, Stugs would likely be your least favored option.
Germans couldn't repair tanks that broke down due to abysmal logistics, plus the 50 different tank models all with different replacement parts built by hand without assembly lines
that's where the meme comes from
>I think it is quite weird that the rumor of German tank engines and transmissions being of abysmal quality is so entrenched into people's minds, even though British post war tests that directly compared these machines with their allied equivalents proved quite the contrary
Britis and french post war tests only confirmed what they already knew, you needed a very gentle hand with panthers lest they break
It's entrenched for good reason, different historians all studying the same topic all came to the same conclusion, it was not reliable
Mid-war and post-war tests confirm this
American armor historian hunnicutt confirms this, panther fanboy zaloga confirms this, eastern front specialist forczyk confirms this
No one ever has said anything on the contrary
And a random post on PrepHole using axishistories as a credible source isnt changing anything
>The Panthers faults were almost completely corrected by 1944 according to Guderian.
Guederian was complaining about panther reliability even in 1944
>American armor historian hunnicutt confirms this
where?
His book M4 sherman in the conclusion says the panther was unreliable which is one of the advantages the M4 has over it
While critical of battle need as a concept, he admits it led to superior automotive performance compared to the superior on paper panther which suffered from unreliability
>His book M4 sherman in the conclusion says the panther was unreliable which is one of the advantages the M4 has over it
no it doesn't
Entwicklung E-50 :^)
>can't choose a maus prototype
Guess I'll take the Hummel.
Send me in a Panzer 2, I'm ready
Big Papa Pump
It's sad that the German MIC could never engineer a high-quality tank due the constant issue of resource and time constraints.
Hetzer!
>What's your pick?
lol, none of that loser shit!
Tiger I
>fight in the part of the war where you still have an advantage, shrecking Russians in Russia and Brits in Africa
except that doesn't work because you don't get to leave the army, you will stay until you die even if it takes another year or two
Hummel
>safely do IDF missions most of the time
>occasional dangerous DF missions, but you still survive
>until you get ambushed at close range by partisans with grenades and your ammunition blows up, scattering you into 100 pieces