There are no perfect ta-

No, I'm saying the other way around. The Shermans were killing about 3.6 Panthers for every Sherman destroyed by a panther.

The overwhelming majority of Sherman losses were inflicted by anti-tank guns and mines. German tanks of all classes ranked somwhere around hand-held anti-armor weapons like Panzerfausts.

Learn to read.

>4.1 loss ratios
>3.6 Panthers for every Sherman

Ah yes, the worst tank of its generation. Its only saving grace was the L7 which other contemporary tanks were able to carry anyway.

>Centurion
>Worse than the M48 Patton

rly m8

The T-34-85's armor isn't appreciably better than the Sherman and on average faced much more powerful anti-tank weapons since the Germans threw their best shit onto the Eastern Front. If it can BTFO a Sherman it can BTFO a T-34.

>muh Ronson
wet storage nigga

>he's literally illiterate

Best tank

The 85 is a better gun than the 76. But otherwise the T-34 was head and shoulders below the M4.

>only 180 degrees of turret traverse

In terms of anti-tank performance, the 85mm D-5's performance was pretty comparable to the 76mm. The only place where it's definitely superior is in infantry support, since the 85mm could pack a bigger bursting charge.

And when it comes to heavy tanks and tank destroyers, suddenly the Americans will start saying "muh doctrine", "m4s werent for fighting tanks" etc

There were all of three engagements between M4s and Tigers on the Eastern Front, and the numbers for heavy tank destroyers are about the same.

>he fell for the "M4s weren't supposed to fight tanks" meme

shamefur

Yes, which is why the 85mm is a better gun? Why would you talk about the equivalent AT performance when you're just going to say tank losses were from AT guns and mines and not other tanks? American doublethink?

First post in the thread, bruh.

And American tank doctrine was literally never "use the tank destroyers to destroy tanks."

It was to use tanks to attack tanks, and tank destroyers to defend against tanks.

The M4 Sherman did a much better job attacking tanks than the T-34, because it had dramatically better crew layout, optics, and fire control.

>M4s and Tigers on the Western Front

derp

Yes, and the 85mm is still a better gun because it can fire a larger HE shell, which is useful for everything that isn't taking out other tanks? You Americans are retarded.

Well, the 105 is better than either one, and the US fielded a large number of Shermans with that as well.

Doesn't change the basic fact that the Sherman was simply a better thought out design than the T-34.

Also, the US had much, much better fire control systems, so they could smother things in artillery fire.

>Well, the 105 is better than either one, and the US fielded a large number of Shermans with that as well.
Except the 105 is a howitzer. The 85 does both jobs better than the 76 does. The 105 only does the HE shell part better. Retarded American.

>the rest of your post
What I literally posted
>Well, the 105 is better than either one, and the US fielded a large number of Shermans with that as well.
>The 85 is a better gun than the 76. But otherwise the T-34 was head and shoulders below the M4.
Retarded American.

I must admit, I do quite like the Merkava. The extreme slope of the armor and net in the back not only looks good but also makes it practically immune to RPG fire.

Meant to just post
>The 85 is a better gun than the 76. But otherwise the T-34 was head and shoulders below the M4.
But even after making that mistake, still not as retarded as the American.

The 105 actually had AP rounds with similar performance to the 76mm.

It couldn't carry many shells though.

No user, stop being retarded and trying to claim a low velocity howitzer is a good AT gun.

Is that from the Polish Army in the East?

Someone post the set.

...

amerishart detected
>shittiest tanks of the early and mid cold war
>shittiest planes of the early and mid cold war
>regularly outclassed by the brits in both those departments.

Best tank coming through

*breaks down in the middle of the parade*

>>shittiest planes of the early and mid cold war
But that's wrong

Nein nein nein nein nein

There were two [confirmed] engagements of American Shermans and Tigers during OVERLORD.
The British faced several Tigers at Caen and had quite a few Shermans with them.
And both the Americans and British faced Tigers at many other venues, such as North Africa, Italy, Operation Market Garden, the Battle of the Bulge, the invasion of Germany.

>gets blown the fuck out in combat by a fucking gnat.

105 Shermans also had HEAT.

>superior combat record vs the equivalent gommie shit

>muh gommies
burgertard logic
like how it isn't extended to the starfighter.

Look I'm trying to follow you guy's conversation here but both of you refuse to actually make a point in flavor of flinging timid general shitposts at each other.

Can one of you make an actual concrete point already or just fuck off?

the starfighter was perfect
not our fault dumb europoors didn't use them correctly

american equipment often lost to their british counterparts.
The pakis were trained by americans and they lost to Indians who were using british and soviet equipment.

>american equipment often lost to their british counterparts.
Equipment don't fight.

no, the soldiers using the equipment do.
Armies that had relatively similar officer pools and fought wars and the american equipment came out markedly inferior.
>sells them to pakistan
>they lose handily to the mig 21s

I mean, look, Arabs have never been and will never be a good standard to rate equipment with.
Indians may be shitty, but they're not Arabs like Pakis are. I'd sooner trust any Asians with WW2 equipment for victory over any Arab country with the most modern equipment in the world.

Also the Pakis were heavily outnumbered.
And Pakis. Like, Pakistan is one of the shittiest Arab countries out there, even compared to other Arabs they fucking suck.

explain Israel then
>mix of european and american equipment handily beats the newest soviet gear

Not just that
>mix of WW2 european and american equipment handily beats top of the line Slavshit
Arabs are just fucking shit, and anyone basing anything on them is stupid. The only times using Arabs for a reference point is valid is when there are "advisors" on the ground directly assisting them.
Hilariously, the few times this has happened the Arabs quickly get butthurt and refuse help from the advisors or just generally ignore them.
>7 days war
>Iraq

>pakistanis are arabs
>indians are shit at combat
>pakistanis are outnumbered
>pakistanis were badly led or equipped.
Seeing as the higher officers went to the same military academy at sandhurst, had similar doctrines and operations, and the pakistanis had a rough parity with india during the battles where they used their armor and lost handily, I fail to see how exactly this proves that american equipment wasn't as hyped as americans think it is.

Indians or pakistanis being shit doesn't change the fact that the M48 Patton got penetrated at combat ranges by upgunned shermans or that it was unable to do so to the british tanks.
It doesn't also change the fact that the folland gnat was a pretty good dogfighter due to it's excellent armament and good rate of climb.

Well, the thing is minor advantages in combat matter far less than the actual fighters, and the Pakis were a bunch of Arab Muslims.
They were lying to everyone, especially themselves, so much so that after their disastrous defeat the country split in two.

The higher officers were mediocre at best and hogtied due to Muslims being Muslims anyways. The biggest issue the Pakis had was they kept picking fights in unfavorable places with unfavorable amounts of support or intel.
Because they're Pakis and retarded.

The US used Shermans against Panthers and King Tigers and came out on top.
The Pakis used M48 Pattons versus Shermans and lost horribly.
It's not what you got, it's how you use it. It's why Israel stomped the fuck out of Arab militaries twice with inferior equipment while outnumbered 5 to 1.

It's why Iraq lost to ISIS after receiving in depth training for a decade from the US, and massive materiel support.

the shermans in the former case had local numerical superiority.
The shermans in the latter case were upgunned 105 mm shermans, like the ones israel used.

>unfavorable amounts of support or intel
The 1965 war had pakistan continue to push on one half of the country and leave east pakistan undefended. They were trained by american personnel in using their latest weaponry. The materiel superiority of india doesn't come into question as india had to deploy large number of troops to the border with china.

The pakistanis were doomed in 1971 but their western front attempts failed again despite putting their better units in offensive formations.

The Pakis enjoyed local numerical superiority and still got their asses handed to them.

>going to the same schools as British means they'll fight the same as British

pls die

We wuz

Autism coming through

>worst tank
>managed to somehow see service beyond Cold War
user please

The PL-01 is sexy as fuck but is basically just a sneaky Bradley.

Its basically a CV90 in a body kit.

it's basically a COD fanboy's wet dream
the tank itself is most likely going to be good though

Are the polacks really going to build it?
I thought it was just another one of those one-off projects so that the polish defence industry can say that they can make cool stuff like the big boys.

Nope, come 2018 it's going to be real thing.
It's really strange though, you'd of thought the transition to future-tech would of been more subtle.
It does look a lot like something from Appleseed.

I wonder if those arrows on the barrel light up.
The thing looks like it came out of BF2142.

Shit taste in Tankfus detected.

Maybe the hatch is a giant button you press for sounds.
Emergency plumbing equipment in the back.
And yes it does look a lot like something from BF2142, though that was mostly mechs.

NO U

very CUTE tank

Oh look something that is a literal glass cannon.
Enjoy getting shat on by basic explosives.

You do realize that tank was made in the 60s and made with armor specifically to be strong against HEAT.

And not even against itself.

>have lots of a shit item
>use it because you don't want to build new things
It's not like it's some foreign concept. Countries do it all the time.

'shit item'.
Hilarious, now take your WoT logic back to /v/.
>'b-but the only reason it's good iz the L7!11!!'
Yes, and?

MUSTANG MIG 15 KILLS
U
S
T
A
N
G

M
I
G
1
5

K
I
L
L
S

That is a different tank entirely.

A Panther is not the same as a Panzer. Panthers were obsolete by 1940 in front line combat.

That is funny since the Panther wasn't produced for combat until 1943.

I wasn't even the person you're replying to, I was just explaining the logic. It's the same reason the U.S. used the F-104 as long as it did and the same reason that M-60 Pattons were used in Desert Storm: They had them on hand so might as well use them. Again, I don't know why this is some kind of foreign concept to you. There are states that still use the fucking M1 Thompson and Sten.

Nigger, what the fuck.

Unless you meant Panzer IIs your comment is wrong as fuck on multiple levels. The Panzer III was still fine until 1942 and the Panzer IV was good throughout the war.

The Panzer V Panther tank was produced in 1943 and useful throughout the war.

>be taught by british officers
>indians also get taught by british officers
>somehow they are more competent even when the pakistanis got equipped by top of the line american equipment and were trained by american personnel.

face it, the patton a shit. Burgers made the first good MBT with the abrams and that was mounted with the rhinemetall smoothbore.

Pakistan lost battles that didn't include significant amounts of armor one way or the other, and lost in general, in every theater, repeatedly across multiple fronts.

At some point competence has to be the dealbreaker here.

the 1965 and 1971 war had some of the biggest post ww2 tank battles in the world. Chawind was a turkey shoot for the IA despite pakistanis having local superiority.

also, in 1971 they were involved in suppressing locals in bangladesh and fighting an insurgency.

anchovy pls go

Yes there were massive tank battles, but there were plenty of battles without many tanks or anything heavier than an APC, and Pakistan still routinely came out worse for wear.

And Chawind was a turkey shoot?
Chawind was a Pakistani victory. In the face of being outnumbered 4-1 in infantry and 2-1 in armor until they got reinforced.

Actually, until they got reinforced they were outnumbered 10-1 in infantry.
Who the fuck told you the Pakis had local superiority? They didn't have dick.