Once this new Panther is mass produced the Soviets will be finished in no time

What was the best WW2 tank?

The one with big gun and thick armor

So the King Tiger.

nigga u just said some dumbass shit

Wasn't Germany still producing civilian cars by '43?

They should just mass produced a simple and reliable tank like the Soviets and Americans did, they could have still had Tigers and stuff but man, they dropped the ball.

t34 is the only non meme answer
also nice digits

Well, if it managed near the front line without being put out of action by an aircraft atack, it would probably have a mechanical breakdown while trying to get to the combat area.

Nah, t34 was good but theres a good argument for the sherman as well. Much better ergonomics.

Yeah, one major problem with Germany during WW2 was a lack of commitment and inability to seriously rally. Civilian industries like cosmetics were still open until 1943. Even companies that were focused in military matters dropped the ball. For example after the invasion of France and finding out that German Panzers were lacking in regards to firepower, a order was placed to begin producing Panzer 3's with longer 50mm guns. This got blown off by the companies in charge until the invasion of Russia and when the Germans ran into stuff like T34's in the hundreds.

The entire question is retarded. Tanks do not operate in a vacuum, and which tanks a given tank unit is operating (barring something completely obsolete and helpless on the battlefield it finds itself in) is enormously less than a bunch of other factors, things like troop training, armored doctrine, how much support they have from other arms of service such as infantry and air forces, general maintenance culture and supply situation of the force they're in, and how good their intelligence is.

Saying what "tank" is better, and then looking at a bunch of stats, is good for dickwaving on fora like /int/ and not much else. They bear almost no relation to combat records. Compare, say, the M4 Sherman of 1944 in France, (overhwelmingly the 75mm short nose cannon variant) with the Panther tank. The Panther, with a longer range main weapon and thicker frontal armor, "should" be able to fire first against its opponent in direct confrontations far more often than not. In actual combat though, it rarely did so. (Pic is from this book) amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

>Much better ergonomics.

Like catching on fire randomly.

the Cromwell

Sherman was 2nd best.

nice meme.

In terms of getting shit done probably the T-34

The only answer is the T-34. It completely upended German armor design. If you had offered the Panther as a design in May 1941 they would have mocked it for having a gun that extended over the hull. The crew might hit something!

There isn't honestly, T-34 was better. The best american tanks were the tank destroyers.

The kwk 40 was fine as a late war general purpose gun. All the pz4 really needed was sloped frontal armor to become a good general medium tank.

dank af

>T-34
>best
lol try running this by /k/ and see how hard they laugh at you

I think the best tank shouldn't merely be combat-effective, but also influential.

So because the T-34 was sold to dozens of third world shitholes that somehow makes it superior to the M4? Nice bait but the M4 was better in practically every field except raw cost in which it lagged behind only slightly

what is ease of production, what is ease of manufacture, what is ease of repair.

fuck you retard obviously not counting the things that actually matter the jagdpanther would be the best tank.

Actually to add onto this, let's break things down with varying conditions for best-hood:
>highest armor kill ratio: probably the StuG series
>most sanic: BT-7
>most armor: Jagdtiger
>most available: T-34
>most survivable: Sherman
>most likely to violently murder driver: Valiant

>ramble ramble ramble
indeed lol

what is the T34-85, what is sloped armor. What is low profile. What is first combat barbarosaa 1941 vs september 1942.

T-34 loses hard to the M4 on ease of repair. Check the engine access on both the T-34 and the Sherman, the T-34 was built to survive maybe a few battles tops because that was how long the Soviets calculated a tank would typically last while a Sherman can easily replace nearly any part at a field workshop

t-34 could be repaired in the field by retarded peasant conscripts. Sherman was pretty good I'll concede. Ultimatley in a war like world war 2 what matter is logistics and how many tanks you can spam out that the average retard without much training can do well in.

t-34-85 is easily the most aesthetic ww2 tank.

> what is the T34-85

what is the 76mm M1

> What is sloped armor

The soviets didn't invent sloped armor retard, and to suggest they did is a meme. The M2 and M3 medium also had sloped armor and were developed at roughly the same time. French tanks like the S35 also had sloped armor, the only reason the Germans didn't have any is because they didn't deem it necessary.

> What is low profile

This is a benefit, but it also led to the tank being very cramped which reduced practical rate of fire and severely reduced crew survivability considering how difficult it was to escape from the tank

> What is first combat barbarosaa 1941 vs september 1942
Not really relevant, being out sooner doesn't magically make a tank any more effective

...

I'll agree to the fact that both tanks were much easier to repair than most others of the era. And I definitely agree that a war of that scale is won by industry, logistics, and adequately trained men

But what about the cutest tank of the war?

...

c a r r o v e l o c e

I'm split between T-34 and Sherman and mosty pick T-34 for sentimental reasons.

Dozle did NOTHING wrong.

Air superiority

Guns and butter. It was a way of keeping the civilian population content with war and its purported benefits.

Hitler we need to produce more, can we get the women working in factories.

NO MY IDEOLOGY

That'll be nothing once the death bells are finished.

Ok but make sure it's too heavy, unreliable, and costly to ever be on equal grounds with the T-34 or M4.

And while we're at it make sure it's side armor is thin enough to be penetrated by Soviet AT rifles and even old Polish AT rifles from before the war even started

>gets stuck in endless mud
>winter is coming

Shifting gears

That image isnt from the war its from a tv show

Cromwell was still pretty bad user
but Sherman is severely underrated, later versions like M4A3E2 and especially M4A3E8 are superior to Panthers and T-34-85s
let alone Super Shermans, which managed to wipe floor even with T-62s

The T-34 was indisputably the best medium tank, but arguments could be made for some of the heavy tanks.

>M4A3E8 are superior to Panthers

see a neurologist asap you just had a stroke

>riveted
dropped
Not even the Soviets wanted it.

Underrated post.

That's why he mentioned the sentimental reasons.

tank breaks down all the time and can't be repaired, loading the gun is almost impossible due to shitty ergonomics, side armor could have been penetrated by .50 cal before they added thin spaced armor

I recommend looking up Inside Chieftain's Hatch
it will bursts your "pather is teh best" bubble
it did for me

>Once this new Panther is mass produced

And there's the problem. It was never produced in sufficient numbers to make big enough impact.

This. Saying that the T-34/M4/whatever is the best tank is like claiming that the Jumbo Jet is the best plane, it's a judgement based on random specifics while ignoring a ton of other aspects.

Guys watch it. Please.

youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

youtube.com/watch?v=9xKYicir_i8

didn't they build almost as many panthers as pz4's ?

Guys seriously, by far the best armored vehicle was the stug 3.
Easy to build, easy to maintain, low silhouette, good gun, good armor, massive kill death ratio vs so called best tank of ww2 t34.

Please. It had 0 offensive capability whatsoever. It was an ATG that could be shuttled around quickly. That's nice and all, but you can't get large offensives and encirclements on its back that you could with a real tank.

Saying the STuG was the best AFV of WW2 is an analysis that only makes sense if you think real war works like Call of Duty and it's all about killing things of a similar class in a favorable ratio. A great tank's record isn't measured in how many armored vehicles it takes down, it's how many command posts and supply dumps and airfields it overruns.

The Panther isn't all it's cracked up to be, in the battle of Arracourt they lost hard to a force with mostly 75mm M3 armed shermans

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

Every answer that isn't M4 Sherman is wrong.

the Stug is great in comparison to most other german AFVs, but an M4 or T-34 are both much more cost effective considering they can do just about everything a Stug can and more

>Reminder that according to first hand accounts of a Russian tanker that served in the Sherman and the t34 the Sherman was less likely to explode from ammunition cook off.

If it was stationary, surely it was a hard nut to crack

While moving?

>what kind of fire control system do you want pham

WEHRABOOS BTFO!!!

Did Stalin speak English?

Well, he spent a couple of weeks in London in 1907, and I'm blanking on the name, but one of the other communists at the time mentioned he could communicate, with difficulty, with the natives. At a guess (and I'm working off of a forum post I half remember) he probably spoke a smidgen of English, but not with anything approaching fluency.

Stalin probably just said some random combination of words to FDR and he went along to laugh so it would look good for the press

His filename says otherwise

Or someone in his entourage (there had to be at least one english speaker there) told him a joke to repeat, parrot like, for the cameras.

Seems like that loss was due to a tactical error. Obviously the panther wasnt invincible.

>what is ease of repair

There's no way you'd be saying this if you'd done any research. The T-34 was a fucking nightmare to maintain and repair.

Not compared to tanks like the Tiger and Panther.

>m-m-muh kruppstahl

those fucking losses lmao, shitmany btfo

Thats such bullshit, we are talking about late 44 which means that 1. Most of those tanks were prob destroyed by airpower.
2. The ones that did not get destroyed by air prob were abandoned by lack of fuel.
3. Germany had lost so much manpower that 80% of its best troops were either dead or in russia.
So the americans with their bs we won the war we beat the powerful germany is total bullshit, try invading germany in 40 41 42 43 u would get rekt at the beaches.

Fact that the most succesful german division in france the hitlerjugend were 16 - 18 year olds (which the americans had serious problems with) shows the state of the german army at the western front. Try fighting the SS Panzer corps which took Kharkov in early 43 and then we will talk about how succesful american tanks were.

I meant if anything could stop uncle joe and his american lackey.

>Thats such bullshit, we are talking about late 44 which means that 1. Most of those tanks were prob destroyed by airpower.
ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/
>2. The ones that did not get destroyed by air prob were abandoned by lack of fuel.
I'm sure that your baseless speculation has supporting evidence.
> Germany had lost so much manpower that 80% of its best troops were either dead or in russia.
[citation needed] once again.
>Fact that the most succesful german division in france the hitlerjugend were 16 - 18 year olds
No it wasn't. Are you retarded? They weren't a patch on formations like Panzer Lehr. And let's not forget all the static formations, and axis satellite troops (Romanians and Hungarians, ooh how dangerous) that the Soviets were often bulling through.

Fact that you ask me to provide links for things which are common knowledge for anybody who knows anything about ww2 shows that you know jack shit. You are even unwilling to acknowledge that germany suffered massive manpower shortages because of heavy losses and attrition, i think the discussion is over.

>We need to go bigger
German autism sure is something

In every way but physically I'm a well engineered tank
*transmission falls out*

German engineers built and designed this with lack of time and under massive pressure with shortages of everything, in bombed out factories using many foreign workers with no will to make a good product, ahum panther model g (very reliable model early versions were no good i agree)

Unless they get attacked from the side lmao

>lol like I don't need proof for my claims, it's like common knowledge, just accept what I tell you at face value and don't question it because I am obviously not a wehraboo and instead a learned scholar on the subject
>btw your counter-sources don't count and this discussion is over because I have obviously lost and this gives the illusion of not conceding with my tail between my legs
Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

In terms of what?
Speed?
Amour?
Best tank destroyer?
Going through rough terrain?

>Hitler: Here is the tank *points to T-34*. I simply want you to make it better.
>Porsche: That is what we are trying to do, mein Fuhrer, but honestly, it is impossible.
>Hitler: MOROZOV WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS THIS IN A BOMBED OUT FACTORY! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
>Porsche: Es tut mir lied, mein Fuhrer. Ich bin nicht Morozov.

>The Panther, with a longer range main weapon and thicker frontal armor, "should" be able to fire first against its opponent in direct confrontations far more often than not. In actual combat though, it rarely did so.

Your own source contradicts you, dumbass.

85%+ of all third reich combat deaths including the virtual entirety of the SS occurring on the eastern front *is* a fact accepted by all historians, though. take ten seconds to start doing some basic research on WW2 and you will that see for yourself

for someone so obsessed with pedantic nitpicking and evidence, you haven't even posted anything but one dot com link. "counter-sources", lol

I'm not even the guy you're replying to. Nice sources to your original claims btw. Very interesting reads and the absolute pinnacle of believability.

Thats a silly question as is been pointed out. For example, German tanks, including the Panther, were less break down prone than the T-34, and yet the T34 was easier to produce and the Russians could actually afford to use it.

And wrong, by the way. You might want to look into Rutiger Overmans's work. Even the OKW statistics are about 80/20, but of course they leave out all of 1945, when the ratio of deployment was very much not 4:1 in favor of the eastern Front. And of course this further overlooks the fact that the Western Allies took enormously more battles prisoners than the Soviets did, netting more in France and west Germany before hostilities ended than the Soviets took in the entire war; which won't show up on killed lists, and even that ignores things like bypassed pockets, which are every bit out of the war even when they're not closed.

You dumb nigger.

That's beside the point. We're talking about the one instance in the Battle of Arracourt, not the whole war. How do you refute the the fact where supposed superior German Steel in greater numbers got utterly BTFO.