T-34

Wasnt the T-34 the easiest to manufacture?

No, that was definitely the M4.

Btw , werent the germans reffering to the sherman tanks as zyppos or some sort?

yup

Zippo*, my bad

Nevermind, found it. Apparently the germans called the 'shermans' as zippo's due to the fact that they lighthed up from the first strike from a tiger tank

>Confrontations between the T-34 and the M4 in later conflicts had shown better performances by the latter
Crew training. The majority of U.S. tank losses in the Iraq war were from friendly fire. This led many to say that the M1 was the best tank of all time, completely surpassing the T-72. Then you gave M1s to the Iraq army, and what happens because they can't into combined arms? Pic related.

The meme is that American troops called them Ronsons, because Ronson had an advertising campaign that "It always lights"

That was started in a single book written after the war by a guy who never saw combat, working in a Tank repair depot. You know what you see in a Tank repair depot? A lot of tanks that got fucked up, and not a lot of dead Germans.

It suffered from the systemic bias in the evaluation of all systems: You're not seeing the other guys problems. You don't have to drive a Panther. A Panther is only a problem when it's killing you. So you only assume a Panther kills American Tanks all day every day. Because you don't have to bury your German buddies who die in a fire.

Once they switched over to storing the ammunition in water, the Sherman was one of the most fireproof tanks of the war.

Also key in fire safety: You can get out of a Sherman immediately. You can't do that in a T-34.

There's a reason everyone except Americans on Veeky Forums call them "death traps" mate. Tommy cookers, we brits used to call them.

Iraqi M1s literally have worse armour though. It's standard practice to give your auxiliaries or clients worse military tech incase they revolt.

Aha, thanks for the info.
I still find the m4 sherman fairly weak.

This. The Sherman was a great tank. Maybe it got beat by the rare and powerfully armed German tanks but that's about it. Tanks like the Sherman aren't designed purely to kill tanks, they're designed to provide heavy support to infantry and push in. They are cavalry in the modern era, and at that the Sherman excelled.

>death traps
ebin :DD:D

What about this shit?
Pic related

Well it had a weaker gun than the Tiger, and less armor than the King Tiger, that's true.

It was also cheaper, easier to build, produced in much larger numbers, and better or comparable to the most numerous opponents it faced. In fact it even had a better record against the supposedly superior Panther tank.

So if a tank that's slightly better than most of the enemy tanks and that manages to beat the purportedly better tanks is "fairly weak", what does that make the enemy models?

see The whole thing about Shermans lighting up easily is a load of bullshit that's been repeated long enough that most people don't bother to verify the truth of it.

Well at least they are a lot faster than the german heavy tanks.

Adding to the memery: After the eastern front, German practice was to literally shoot at tanks until they caught on fire. Because they were on the defensive, and they didn't want the enemy pulling tanks back for repairs, because they're not planning on overrunning their repair depots any time soon.

So no shit, most Shermans dragged back had caught on fire.

All Jap tanks were shit.

What about my nation tank eh?
Pic related

Surely this impressive machinery will just take a shit on your puny tanks

self propelled guns and tank destroyers are not tanks
rrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeee

>in service for less than a year
>employed only by one army, the one that lost a tank battle as its first engagement

Hmm....

Well fk man, I cannot find any other romanian tank. But anywho that was sarcasm, at least we tried.

Fk me

Would definitely beat New Zealand in the "we only made one tank" grade tournament.

>make tank destroyer
>it gets destroyed by tanks

A Balkan job if I ever saw one.

Hey man, we just used them for squatting. And it worked

Is this the new zealand tank?

We actually still have a bout 50 vietnam era tanks sitting in a warehouse somewhere because america wouldnt let us sell them and now they are obsolete

Why wont you guys scrap em? Or you need them all as museum pieces?

Sweet jesus we actually made a tank?

Oh shit, sorry, thought u were referring to the romanian one.

I guessl we keep them maintained in case some random third world shithole ends up wanting them and the US actually lets us sell them. Its the same deal with our skyhawk fighter jets

Hey ours was actually technically a real tank and yours wasnt. We win. Also it was a tractor covered in corrugated iron "armour" and with 6!?! machineguns stuck in it

Just curios. And now I'm deviating from the subject. Romania is considered as a 2nd world country? I dont really know these ratings.

At least you didnt fucking sent it into a battle that had his main job to take down tanks and he lost.

Theres only first and third world. I dont know enough about romania to say which it fits better

Oh boy

Yeah thats kinda tragically hilarious

Anyways thanks for the info guys. Have a good one.

Traditionally, Romania is a second world country. There is the first world, of Britain, France and America, the Second World, of The Soviet Union, and then 'the third world' a reference to how different everything seems from the outside of the cold war conflict.

Nowadays 'third world country' is just a hackneyed phrase employed by journalists, and the ranking is whatever you please.

>length 4.20 meters

you know what that explains alot

Not to argue the veracity of that picture friend, but that is some of the most photoshoppy-looking fire I've ever seen.

Dude, Jap tanks were so bad, Stuarts were tough opponents for most of them, and Shermans were almost unstoppable in the Pacific theatre.

One hit and EVERYONE dies.

>medium tank armor
>heavy tank mobility

>It_was_all_Hitlers_fault.jpg
This is a meme made up by Wehrmacht Generals after the war. Easier to blame a burning corpse than to to admit mistakes.

You naughty memester. Get that price of junk outta here.

I'm too lazy to find it, but that's a still from a video.

was it the best tank of the war? no, the Tiger 1 and Panther were designed as counters to the T-34 and did their job, if they ever made it the battlefield in meaningful numbers, what killed it for the Germans was that they couldn't field enough armor to effectively defeat the sheer number of T-34 tanks.

that's not to say that the T-34 was a shit tank by any means, it was a piece of hardware that did its job reliably and could be made in mass numbers and still get the job done.

In the days during and after Kursk, the Soviets debated on developing the T-43 into full production as a Panther counter, or just double down and keep making T-34's, and ultimately decided on the latter because it was still getting the job they wanted done, and was so easy to produce and repair that to replace it with another tank would just complicate the mechanized divisions.

tl;dr: was it the best performing tank? no.

was it the war winner? yes

>that's not to say that the T-34 was a shit tank by any means
>1 man turret syndrome
>no turret basket
>impossible to bail out of it it's on fire
>engine needs a complete overhaul after 300km and the Red Army has no equipment to recover tanks

It's inferior to the m4 in almost every metric.

Contrary to what some of the commie dipshits on this board may think, the T-34 was a fucking death trap for it's crew.

No weapon system can be called a "war winner".

>Iraqi M1s literally have worse armour though
Where do you get this from? Also both US and Russian TOW weapons are capable of penetrating every tank on the market right now, and ISIS has plenty of these.

meme

The M1 is better individually though, it's designed in accordance with quality over quantity, American principle of today, like German principle over WW2. Russian thinking, both in WW2 and today, is the opposite - build a tank that you can afford to lose, and build a lot of them.

>Russian TOW

The transmission was shit and it constantly broke down

The armor on Japanese tanks was so poor that Shermans had to use HE, because AP would punch right through it.

>The M1 is better individually though, it's designed in accordance with quality over quantity, American principle of today, like German principle over WW2. Russian thinking, both in WW2 and today, is the opposite - build a tank that you can afford to lose, and build a lot of them.
Until NATO tanks started to arrive with 120mm smoothbores like the M1A1 and the Leopard 2, Soviet tanks were of better quality and in larger quantities. It wasn't until the mid-1980s when NATO had parity in armor.

This thread is still goin'?

>medium tank armor
Guess which German tank was numerous enough to motivate the development of more powerful tank cannons on both fronts. The Panther was always considered to be armored as a heavy tank by the Allies.

>heavy tank mobility
Strategically, yes. Tactically the post-war Swedish army thought otherwise. youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38

>This is a meme made up by Wehrmacht Generals after the war.
Pretty much, a lot of the Panther's favorable traits were at the demand of Hitler.

>Russian TOW
>Tube Launched Optically Traced Wire-Guided
>the Kornet, Fagot, and Konkurs are not TOW

Thanks for refuting my point though.

>This is a meme made up by Wehrmacht Generals after the war. Easier to blame a burning corpse than to to admit mistakes.
>"Mein fuhrer, ze transmission cannot handle the extra weight you want on it."
>"Nein!"
and thus the panther was born.