>le panzers were great meme
Seriously what is it with people thinking German tanks were any good in WWII? They were rubbish all of them, infamous for having all sorts of problems.
The British tanks on the other hand were superb, an achievement of British engineering. A force to be reckoned with.
shermans were the best tanks of ww2
Because in WWII everything that the british used looked fucking ugly
>Seriously what is it with people thinking German tanks were any good in WWII?
Don't know, but the counter meme that they were totally useless isn't much better. I suppose your parodizing that sentiment, right?
Because the Germans achieved the most impressive strategic results with their tanks.
Up until 1942, of course.
>Seriously what is it with people thinking German tanks were any good in WWII? They were rubbish all of them, infamous for having all sorts of problems.
Because most people don't understand combined arms tactics or doctrine. German armor did score a number of major, major victories, so someone who isn't familiar with WW2 just assumes it's because the Germans had great tanks.
>The British tanks on the other hand were superb, an achievement of British engineering. A force to be reckoned with.
Wut? Even discounting the fact that (especially early war) British armor doctrine was pretty lousy, their tanks weren't that great either, most of the domestic ones being over-specialized to an absurd extent.
Got luck against French, use them efficiently then german autism destroy every avantage they got and made shit over-complex shit.
They were good. But Germany rated them too much even after their enemies started to catch up as the war went on.
Japan did the same with the zero fighter plaine
Sure, that must be why our tankers hated the shit out of them and were so grateful to be given American cast-offs.
Because German mainly made what I call Showroom tanks.
Excellent specs, armor, firepower, and speed, but glasslike fragile mechanics, overcomplicated engineering, and stupid expensive to make.
On paper the Panther and Tiger I were some of the best tanks in the war, but in practice, they were not built for battlefield conditions, with engines so complicated that repairing a tank was impossible without carting it back to its original factory, costing even more fuel than these gas guzzlers ate up on their own.
Run out of Lindybeige quotes to spam, or is this just a butthurt shitpost satire of the helmet thread?
The only overspecialised Brit tanks were the infantry tanks, which were kind of like heavy tanks. Cruiser tanks were basically medium tanks. Churchills were actually pretty handy if a big archaic looking. Cromwells were good Sherman analogs, Crusaders were good for their time, Comets were great medium tanks, Centurions were GOAT. Valentines weren't bad. Challengers were effective.
no. the problem with both armies was that as the war marched on their veterans were all dead and they were putting inexperienced people in charge of their superior hardware.
their superior mechanization allowed them to overexpand. both countries just had too small of a population.
>Centurions were GOAT
t. bong
Centurions were shit in every way compared to contemporary tanks except for being the first tanks to mount the L7.
>Japan did the same with the zero fighter plaine
The Zeke was actually the best plane in the world at one point, though.
Centurions were shit compared to contemporary tanks? What medium tanks were better in 1945?
fuck off britstain
Their mobility was pretty good.
the Pershing
>germans have terrible everything
>still fight half the world for years on end
really makes you think.
M26 for one, T-44 is another.
Compared to the Panther, yeah.
Similar mobility to the M26 when it was introduced and worse mobility compared to the T-44.
>Seriously what is it with people thinking German tanks were any good in WWII?
It's a product of the war itself. Newsreels about the early German victories played up the blitzkrieg and the unstoppable Panzer Divisions, earning them that reputation. It's why on the Western Front all manner of German armor (usually Panzer IV's) were being constantly misreported as Tigers.
>They were rubbish all of them, infamous for having all sorts of problems.
All tanks have problems. Be it in the design, form, or function, most hit all these check marks at least initially.
>Germans have terrible everything
>Can still fight the entire modern world singlehandedly with a retarded italian handicap and almost win
wtf I'm a nazi now
German officers were better trained which made it seem that their tanks were better. But near the end of the war, the training started to even out.
For only a few months. It had nowhere to go but to fall hard: it had a weak engine, and it thus sacrificed all survivability to coax as much maneuverability out of that engine as it could. Once people figured out how to fight it, it was obsolete. Once the Hellcat came into service, it was a deathtrap.
It really wasn't.
It was a light long range fighter with decent armament and very good turn rate, but its weaknesses were still excessive.
It could not dive, it could not maintain momentum in maneuver and it could not take a hit due to its complete and utter lack of armor, self sealing fuel tanks and redundant structure system that a lot of planes had to try and reduce the chance of one or two good hits causing a plane to go down entirely.
It had good advantages, but it also had shortcomings, which is why even with "inferior" planes the US was still able to go toe to toe against Japanese planes and pilots and win. The biggest bonus the Japanese had was not their planes but their pilots, most of whom died in 1 or 2 years against the US, and especially died in droves once new planes like the Hellcat came out that instead of being a toss up versus the Zero were almost entirely better. Especially once air command drilled in the heads of pilots that you don't fucking dogfight because dogfighting is a shitty tactic.
Boom and zoom, maintain momentum, don't head on, don't dogfight, use your superior diving and speed and turning at high speed to your advantage and deny the Japanese their ability to turn at low speeds.
This is glance over early war tanks such as the A9 and A11 which were all shit.
>almost win
that's a very funny way of saying "lose hard"
Was it true about the Panther tank being somewhat the same cost as a Panzer IV to produce?
It doesn't really matter anyway, their industry was pretty much bombed to shit, I hate all the >Le wunder weapons would have saved Germany meme, along with the STG44 being the best gun.
A Panther didn't cost much more, either way both models seemed to work better together together than alone so they were often grouped.
I hate to be that fag to say it but wouldn't it been better not to make any Tiger II tanks and focus on faster medium tanks? I understand that as the war raged on Germany fought more defensively, would a focus of faster tanks to help encircle the seemingly endless flow of Soviet armour help a bit at least? Also if I'm not mistaken Germany's logistics fucking sucked, would more trucks be smarter rather then more tanks? German Anti Armor equipment such as the panzerFaust was pretty effective in the war
I'm probably gonna get crucified for this, but I don't give a shit, so here goes.
Early war(before the great Soviet fuckup) the German tanks/tank destroyers where some of the best tanks IN MASS PRODUCTION, until the uprated 100mm t34 came and fucked everyone in the ass.
The Zeke was one of the best planes in the war until the us started building planes based around more powerful engines. The largest shortcoming the German and Japanese air forces faced was their countries inability to produce high horsepower radial engines. Take the double wasp for example. Powered the best bombers of the ear, and wasn't invented until halfway through. The axis never got there, and simply couldn't make high HP reliable engines for aircraft(jets don't count, never made enough of them, or made them good enough).
Side note
The great Marianas turkey shoot was the death knell of the Japanese air forces. All of the experienced pilots dead due to advancements in technology that Japan simply couldn't match, and no structure to train new pilots. No planes, no pilots, and their aircraft carriers more useless than the yamato
Another side note
The battle of Britain was the Luftwaffes equivalent to the great Marianas turkey shoot, although it was less crippling.
german heavy armor did a pretty good job holding up allied armor.
The Battle of Britian was due to the Luftwaffe's attempt in destroying the RAF before they got stronger, it really backfired and pretty much negated the Luftwaffe's power for a while. I don't understand why the Fockerwulf project wasn't rushed for the attack, Germany needed a long range fighter to escort the bombers and conduct ground attack operations on England's airfields.
That's until it broke down and the piss-poor logistical network couldn't reach the broken down tanks for extra parts and oil. Once the Luftwaffe was pretty much destroyed it was only a matter of time for Germany
>Early war(before the great Soviet fuckup) the German tanks/tank destroyers where some of the best tanks IN MASS PRODUCTION
but how? how is the pz2 one of the "best tanks in mass production"? how is the short gun pz4? how is the pzjg 1?
>the uprated 100mm t34
what does that even mean?
>comparing tanks
>Muh terrible german logistics.
every time
We all know the germans lost.
german tanks had pretty good crew comfort things, compartments and radios that allowed them to maneuver far more easily than their enemies.
And better trained crews.
germanboos are retarded
>thinking tanks run on water and are fixed with duct tape
Not that but the communications were honestly some of the most modern, if I'm not mistaken France had some good comms too? Unsure about that though.
Miho sub par girl, Nonna is my waifu.
>Early war(before the great Soviet fuckup) the German tanks/tank destroyers where some of the best tanks IN MASS PRODUCTION
No. German pre-war tanks were enormously expensive for what they've offered and their QA was nonexistent - British captured quite a lot of them and so did Soviets, the tests have proven that the quality varies enormously. Some armour plates were made of high-grade steel, some were garbage. Sometimes spare transmissions could run the things for month of testing, sometimes they broke down after days. It's almost as there were "test" models meant to be tested by wermacht and "other" models which were made as cheaply as possible since wermacht would buy it all. Seeing the military industrial complex present in Germany at the time it doesn't surprise anybody. It is also saying that all until 1942 when Speer turned the mess called German armament industry into working mechanism, every single tank Germany used was made by different company. So it's safe to assume that the pre-war and early-war production organisation was geared towards generating profits for several companies.
They upgraded the t34 later in the war to a 100mm gun to counter heavier German armor
German tanks where designed for the prevalent German strategy of ww2, so they sacrificed some reliability for speed, but they where vastly superior to the British Valentina when used as designed. I'm not talking about the tanks themselves, I'm talking about their usage. Very good at intended use, meh otherwise. Most things are. (Looking at you b36)
>they upgraded the T-34s gun to 100mm
...what?
Sorry. It's been a while since I looked at ww2 tanks. It was up gunned to an 85mm, one of the German tanks was up gunned to the 100mm. I always preferred arguing about strategy versus equipment
Germans only really up gunned their Panzer IV and StuG tanks. (Not really counting Panzer III model tanks as they were phased out fairly quickly in the war, even with the long 50mm gun).
What this guy said.
Anyways, I don't do hardware.
Objectively the best tank coming through.
>Tfw you will never scribble a patriotic inscription on your Tank with your buddies and steam out of the factory into the fascist onslaught to protect your country
Fuck.
If you think German reliability is bad you need only look at the T-34 to see what horrible reliability is.
The thing is, Soviet Tanks were not meant to last. They were meant to saturate the battle, constant waves of armour would destroy morale, and drain supply of ammunition for the defenders.
>make tank with terrible reliability
>"i-its a design feature"
>Make a super complex tank
>your logistics suck ass
>tank breaks down in the middle of the road
>stand with your crew as your comrades try to fix the tank for you
>get strafed by allied air forces
>get bombed
>get captured
>-500,000 Reichsmark
>E-Ein volk, E-Ein führer!
>wouldn't it been better not to make any Tiger II tanks and focus on faster medium tanks?
Probably. It might not have mattered in the end if they had no fuel to run either of them.
It was a mistake to have Adolf make decisions on production. The Maus is one example, I would have loved to see its combat record
>roll at a good 6 KM/H
>get bombed
>all that labor for nothing
Honestly I find the Maus really sexy.
Along with the KV-1 and IS-2
It's okay when the tank won't survive long enough to have reliability problems :^)
>you see ivan, when you have good supply tank, there is no need for new parts, you get new tank instead.
>da comrade.
*panzerfaust noises*
God I wish Maus entered mass production.
stop posting adolf.
Korea proves M4A3E8 to be superior construction.
By that logic the MiG-15 was trash?
It all comes down to the pilot/crew
But their reliability was low. You can say the low reliability was offset by low costs and replaceable crews, but the reliability was low. The flaw of a German tank would be low reliability despite high cost.
Once there were in all 6000 Panthers, 1.350 Tiger I tanks and 492 Tiger II tanks ... let´s say altogether 8.000 tanks ...
... the T-34 was produced 61.366 times and the Sherman (just the M4 version) was produced 49.234 times ... besides
... any more questions?
Only 40,000 T-34s were produced by wars end and only 35,000 Shermans.
What happened to PzIV?
yeah the engine argument is bullshit they had the Db 603 and BMW 801
what the fuck is a 100mmt-34 supposed to be ?
>PzIV
... About 8.569 Panzer IV in Ausf. A to J from 1937 to 1945
So more than the sum of the tanks you listed combined.
... but never enuff
... and the Maus was too heavy, too slow, too few ... and too small as you can see in the pic to become a serious enemy
However it was an improvement over the earlier panzers especially in firepower and protection.
...
...
>It's been a while since I looked at ww2 tanks
... yet you still felt the need to butt in into a discussion about them while showing off your ignorance, alright.
...
Give that user one interwebz for creating maximum lolz
>almost win
The turning point of WW2 against the Germans happened in Winter '41.
>best tank
The Soviets lost over 3/4 of their T-34 tanks during the war.
>very fast tank driving at incredible hihg speeds
>posts Cromwell
>a box tank with no armor introduced late in the war
Opinion discarded
Shitposting aside, From what i've read it has to do with the plethora of german war books and vets after the war playing up the superior germ tech/tanks and that the soviets won on pure numbers. It was bullshit but seeing as the cold war was on the west didn't get anything out of the USSR that wasn't blatant propaganda.
Mate ther was a time in which the killing ratio between Zero's and American planes were 12 to 1.
By 43 yeah...they had become completely obsolete.
>Mate ther was a time in which the killing ratio between Zero's and American planes were 12 to 1.
Go ahead and tell us when this was and how long it lasted, why don't you.
>their industry was pretty much bombed to shit
You're now aware German tank production peaked in 1944, when the bombing was the heaviest.
Daily reminder that the allied mostly firebombed civilians instead of industry
Spoken like a true pleb without any understanding of methodology or logic.
Just because German tank production peaked in 1944 doesn't mean German industry was not affected.
You are unable to draw the right conclusions but that doesn't mean others can't.
In air warfare of that time speed was everything.
American planes were incredibl hihg speed.
>pretty much bombed to shit
>no i meant "affected"
Allied bombing did surprisingly little on damaging factories, that's why they switched to fire bombing in the first place
Which American planes? Buffaloes?
>Allied bombing did surprisingly little on damaging factories
Good thing "surprisingly little" is a completely meaningless metric that the proponent can shift to fit his conclusion. No need to move goalposts when they are not fixed in place to begin with.
>In a series of raids beginning on August 17, 1943, about 12,000 tons of bombs were dropped on this target -- about one-half of one per cent of the total tonnage delivered in the air war. In an attack on August 17 by 200 B-17's on Schweinfurt, the plants were severely damaged. Records of the industry taken by the Survey (and supplemented and checked by interrogation) show that production of bearings at this center was reduced sharply -- September production was 35% of the pre-raid level.
>35% of the pre-raid level
Strategic bombing was devastatingly effective.
>In the 1943 attacks, 5,092 tons were dropped on 14 plants, primarily on airframe plants. The records show that acceptances of the Me-109, Germany's standard single-engine fighter, dropped from 725 in July to 536 in September and to a low of 357 in December. Acceptances of Focke-Wulf 190's dropped from 325 in July to 203 in December.
> As a result of the attacks the Germans began a more vigorous program of subdividing and dispersing aircraft plants and this caused part of the reduction in production.
Strategic bombing did not just remove factories' capacities, but permanently crippled them by forcing reactionary measures.
>Good thing "surprisingly little" is a completely meaningless metric
so is "affected" senpai
Real numbers have been posted, yet you willfully ignore them and argue semantics. Why? If you have nothing to say, don't say anything.
Forgetting the fact that the Germans only switched to war-time production in 1942
>Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.
>>a box tank with no armor introduced late in the war
A tank ahead of its' time where armor means nothing (because everything can penetrate) and speed is king.
Please see the 1950s.
>on this target
>this center
>35% of the pre-raid level on this specific raid
Yeah nice cherrypicking mate. Now tell me how much bombing a la Dresden influenced the German industry
Or does this look like an industrial area to you?
Think he means 85mm and not 100mm