Was the M4 medium tank Sherman the best tank of ww2?

logic checks out

I fucking hate these retarded arguments.
What's more similar?
A AFV that is the *exact* same as a tank, simply without a turret, or a fucking gun that isn't armored or can't move.

Yes, if you're a nitpicky autist with a stick up your ass it's not a tank by definition, but it makes absolutely sense to compare it with contemporary tanks....

>on tracks
>has many gunz
>was deployed in tank battalions

>on tracks
>has gun
>was deployed in tank battalions

>on """""tracks"""""
>has """""gun"""""
>was deployed in tank battalions

>on tracks
>people inside have guns
>was deployed in tank battalions

Show me some examples of Stugs being used in the breakthrough role; you know, what the Germans doctrinally used tanks for. I'll wait.

>on a kind of short tracks
>has gun
>was deployed in tank battalions

Yup, tank
Yup
No large caliber gun
No mounted gun
No protective armor, not actual tracks, dumb retard

Call me a Wehraboo, but aesthetics wise the Wehrmacht tanks simply were top notch

Korsun Pocket

Best part of this post is that he actually thinks a flak gun and a half-track are tanks.

True, but so was almost every WW2 tank

Considering that the Germans were not on the offensive in the Korsun pocket, this makes your statement dubious at best. Still, rather than just naming a rather large battle, could you perhaps provide some examples. Maybe even a citation?

...

They are. Self-propelled guns are tanks.

No, I'm pretty sure self-propelled guns are self propelled artillery pieces, not tanks.

>a self propelled flak gun is a tank

>boring autistic looking flat box
nah

>Tracks
>Armor
>Gun
They're tanks. And tanks are self-propelled guns.

Yes?

Except:

Czechoslovak
Polish
Japanese
Italian
French

Because they all looked like crap.

Tank necessitates a turret.

>Czechoslovak

>Czechoslovak
fuck off, LT vz. 38 a cute

No, and it wouldn't even place on a top ten list at all.

Read how the battle went.

After the envelopment was made German Doctrine started.

A major counteroffensive was started and to break through and open the pocket with a largescale panzer group assault including of course, StuGs.

StuGs were kinda integral to any late war German offensive.

*blocks your path*

so the Mark V is not a tank? Are you absolutely braindead?

No, but they had the best in what mattered

If I went back in time, I'd replace the Stug III with the Hetzer despite the reduced firepower for reduced weight and efficiency in production. Stug III historically was a super great tank though.

Ugh, no sweetie

That definition is stupid, in large part because it's completely arbitrary. Wheels but no tracks? I guess it can't be a tank! And of course, we'll disqualify any armored tracked vehicle that fires rockets or missiles as its main armament, has to have a gun! It's also not how any single military I'm aware of in history defines a tank.
>The ability
Not really, but it does necessitate a doctrinal approach of some sort. A tank, admittedly somewhat tautologically, is "that vehicle we use to do a tank's job". Stugs do not fit that definition, becuase they were used for a different battelfield role than real tanks. And something like a flak gun even more so.

They're tanks.

*bombs you*

Except, of course, the coutnerattack really didn't work. Neither the 16th nor the 17th divisions got through Soviet lines.

>StuGs were kinda integral to any late war German offensive.
So were infantry and towed artillery. Sometimes even the ones assigned to tank divisions like the ones participating in that ill-fated counteroffensive. Does that make them tanks?

The Mark V had turrets tho

No they aren't. They're self-propelled artillery, or anti-air weapons, or a fucking transport vehicle.

Your entire "argument" is literally referring to your own made up definition. Watch this

>I, the great user, hereby decree that a tank is a vehicle designed and and used to attack enemy ground forces behind the main battle line.

You are now OBJECITVELY wrong about things like the flakpanzer being tanks. Also, the Panther isn't a tank, and neither is the old WW1 British mark 4, because who the fuck cares that my definition leads to absurd conclusions!?

>SPGs are tanks autist is back at it again
For some reason I doubt this is the Incatard.

>Googles
>"a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track."
>Wikipedia
>"A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat, with heavy firepower, strong armour, and tracks providing good battlefield maneuverability."
>It's armor means that all subtypes are capable of frontline combat despite intended target
>everyone knows this but one user
>one user who doesn't realize he's just listed a bunch of tank subtypes

So we've come to an agreement this is a tank.

Is this a tank by your definition?

there's no turret

>no armor
>definitions specifically include armor
>not a heavy fighting vehicle

Are you actually retarded user?

Not the guy you are responding to, you nitpicking autistic fuck, tank MOST COMMONLY (like 99% of cases) refers to a tracked vehicle with armor and a turret, which is employed in a specific manner.
Outside of meme examples like Strv. 103 (only one I can think of for that matter), this definition fits perfectly. No fucking country classified stuff like StuG as tanks.
SPGs, SPAAGs, armoured halftracks, armoured cars and so on are MOST COMMONLY called ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES, not TANKS. These vehicles have a different purpose.
And no, the fact they are sometimes used as tanks doesn't mean they are tanks.

Which is of course why no army in history ever used either definition. Which is why they called these specialized tracked armored vehicles different things. Hell, you take the U.S. army in WW2, and you'll get the distinction of a self-propelled anti-tank gun vs tank destroyer (both of which are distinct from tanks) in the same fucking vehicle depending on how it was being used at the moment.

But what do any of these organizations that use them know? We have Google! And Wikipedia!
I see your autism leaves you unable to detect sarcasm either.

just add some riot armour
it has a turret you mong, the human can slew the turret, depress and raise the gun

The seat is armored. And I don't know about you, but that looks pretty heavy. Can you pick it up?

>designed for front-line combat, with [...] strong armour
This already disqualifies most SPGs. Or are you going to tell me pic related is heavily armored and designed for frontline combat?

>Not the guy you are responding to

I'm responding to you anyways. U mad kid? You sound mad.

>ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES, not TANKS

The history books and English translations by military commanders themselves would like a word with you. Like, all of them.

He's literally some autistic fuck who thinks he found a glitch in the system and is now exploiting it like rabid. Jesus Christ I hate people like that.

>I see your autism leaves you unable to detect sarcasm either
Touche

ooga booga

If only you'd used the ketenkrad your argument would be perfect

>heavy
>I probably could actually lift this anyways
>heavy actually implies heavier than a standard motor carriage
>at least well over a ton
>user has a hard time with numbers

>seat is armored from...mine's? Probably not, but user insists it's armor anyways

Wow.

Czechoslovak and French were Veeky Forums, the other ones ok

Look at the picture, if that isn't aesthetic you're blind

>strong
>resists all small arms isn't strong enough for user

Way to move that goalpost, it always makes things easier.

Feel free to get back to OP's message anytime.

Move those goalposts harder. And while you're at it, make up a few more definitions, why don't you?

Here's another tank.

There's no gun

What would you call the AVRE then

It is meant for front line offensives

It has a machine gun, it has heavier armor then Panthers, but its very slow and has a mortar which has ammunition that can only be replenished from the front for a gun

>like, all of them
Except fucking field manuals of every military ever that clearly separate these vehicles.
Except every historical work written by someone who goes into details.
Germans didn't call StuGs "tanks". Soviets didn't call SU-122 "tank".
A tank has a specific purpose, and these vehicles have a different purpose. The fact StuGs were occassionaly used as tanks was due to wartime necessity, not by design or by doctine. StuG is not a tank and it doesn't matter how much you push this shit.

>make up definitions
>I tell you where to find those definitions
>I tell you that those definitions are commonly used by the actual experts who deployed them

The great thing is, you don't have to believe me. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and not try to get on your own program.

The first definition includes guns. If you mount a gun, you have a tank. You still haven't proven subtypes aren't tanks?

>Germans didn't call StuGs "tanks"
This. Germans desperately tried to inflate their tank production numbers for propaganda purposes, and had a special "tank quota" for steel allocation, but StuGs were assigned to the artillery and produced under the artillery branch.

>heavily armored
Get real, a Tiger is heavily armored. For tank standards the Hummel might as well have a picket fence as armor

Here we go again...

Not a tank. It has a specific purpose. It's not designed to be used as a tank. It doesn't matter that it has a turret.
British classified it as a military engineering vehicle, or as an assault vehicle.
They wouldn't group 200 Churchill AVREs and use them as tanks.

>Except fucking field manuals of every military ever that clearly separate these vehicles.

For accuracy. How many autists get into conversation and start replacing tank with armoured fighting vehicle? Yeah, it's really just the faggots here who forget what it's like to talk to an actual person.

>Germans didn't call StuGs "tanks". Soviets didn't call SU-122 "tank".

They generally use the names where possible, but having read Germans extensively, let it be known that you're bullshitting us right now. I just double checked the works of Guderian, Hoth, Rommel, and British general Fuller. They all use "Panzer" exclusively for German tanks, "Tank" less generally, and the translated "Armour/Armor" is the most common English word used to describe them. Armor most generally refers to all subtypes and includes anti-air platforms- so there's your proof.

Try picking up a book next time. That really should be your opening move.

Yes there is, that little side port.

user, wikipedia and google are not "the actual experts who deploy them". Something like this is actual usage by the actual experts

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM30-40.PDF I would especially direct your attention to pages 130 and 136, where the Panzer 3, and the "75 mm gun atop a panzer 3 chassis" are distinguished, and how the latter is not called a tank, but rather a "SP gun"

I mean, why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?
"Tank has a turret" is obviously not a complete definition, but it fits 99% of cases. Stuff like AVRE or Strv. 103 don't change that.
What matters is how they are meant to be employed. StuG was not designed to be used as a tank.
Furthermore, you're just causing terminological confusion in what's a pretty clear matter for pure autism.

In relation to other tanks. Not in relation to infantry equipment.

Tiger's armour was terribly outdated by 45 though

>They all use "Panzer" exclusively for German tanks, "Tank" less generally, and the translated "Armour/Armor" is the most common English word used to describe them. Armor most generally refers to all subtypes and includes anti-air platforms- so there's your proof.
What the fuck? Germans did not call StuGs or SPAAGs "Panzer" you fucking moron. Tanks were called Panzerkampfwagen, and what you think are "subtypes" of tanks were categorized as Sonderkraftfahrzeug.

>Try picking up a book next time. That really should be your opening move.
The irony in this post is palpable.

>user, wikipedia and google are not "the actual experts who deploy them". Something like this is actual usage by the actual experts

user, read above. I've got "Panzer Operations", "The Second World War", "Panzer Leader", and "The Rommel Papers" all right beside me. I just check them for reference.I even explained to you that the sub types are still differentiated for accuracy in some situations. Generally, they use the term "armor" for all sub types and interchange it with "tank" or sometimes "panzer". If you aren't capable of getting this by now there's no hope for you.

You're the one who's autistic here, you fucking idiot. You're the one who's complicating matter for literally no benefit besides your autistic stubborness.
>armour
You said TANK. "Armour" can refer to all these types of vehicles. Hence ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE. An ARMOURED VEHICLE used in COMBAT.
But no one ever in their clear mind considered Panzer III and Wirbelwind same type of fighting vehicle.

>Not in relation to infantry equipment
Well, I guess you just need to slap some armor plating on pic related and it becomes a tank

>What the fuck? Germans did not call StuGs or SPAAGs "Panzer" you fucking moron. Tanks were called Panzerkampfwagen, and what you think are "subtypes" of tanks were categorized as Sonderkraftfahrzeug.

Take it up with Hoth, Guderian, and Rommel or their English translators. Panzer is used in general contexts, for instance when speaking about operational numbers or strategic build ups. For tactical situations, they usually segregate the sub types when speaking about a particular situation where that sub type played a part. Whenever SPAAG's are used alongside regular MBT's or scouts tanks for instance, they use the general words Panzer, tank, or most often armor.

>The irony in this post is palpable.

You have no real idea. I'm sitting here, reading the hard evidence, and you're standing by this claim that historians and generals did not speak this way. I'm looking at the pages from first hand sources ffs

You'll continue to deny so you don't "lose" however. I already know you're ignorant, there's really no point to go on.

why? both had armour, both were self propelled guns, both had the ability engage enemy armour and enemy infantry

>Well, I guess you just need to slap some armor plating on pic related and it becomes a tank

And a motor, and a crew, then yes. Wow, this is getting autistic in here.

Okay. Let's solve this easily.
What OP meant, and what everyone who's not you means when they ask "what's the best MEDIUM TANK" of WW2, they refer to vehicles like Panzer IV, Sherman, T-34 and so on, not to vehicles like StuG, Hummel, Wirbelwind and so on.
So you misunderstood OPs question. Happy?

>two subtypes
>both tanks
>give him the materials to learn
>give him sources
>give him names
>he still doesn't get it

When you say "medium tank", that's different than saying "tank" in general, so yes, that was never in question.

>dude on a lightly armored motorcycle armed with a rifle is now a tank
Hmmm....

there were many self propelled guns that had medium tank weight though

>motorcycles with 10-15mm of plate armor on all four dimensions
>forgets the weight requirement

Why are you still trying? You have basic criteria to figure out how to make this work, and you've failed at least three times now. How bad must your reading comprehension be to fail this often over this period of time? Sad!

Because doctrine differentiated between these vehicles, as to how they are to be used.
>give him sources
You didn't give me any sources, you're just exploiting English translation of works in German.
I'm not even sure what are you trying to accomplish here, because your opening point is totally fucking wrong, a StuG can't be compared to a Sherman, they had totally different use by design.
Just like how you can't compare a heavy tank with a light tank, and claim one is better over the other.

I seriously doubt you have actually read any of those, especially since you just name drop. I have literally just posted a contemporary U.S. army pictoral recognition manual, published in 1942, with the exact fucking pages that the vehicles are distinguished in. I note that you have not even addressed this, instead preferring to refer to books intended for mass consumption (and not active military consumption), and not even citing those.

You are full of shit, and retarded to boot.

>Sad!
You overdid it now

>You didn't give me any sources, you're just exploiting English translation of works in German.

Check it yourself. If they meant panzerkampfwagen, it's usually translated directly. I think you're just mad and blaming the middle man and attempting to blame that non-existent failure on me. You know you've lost this argument already, so it's good we can move on from that at least.

By the way, a light tank and a heavy tank are two sub types, but both are tanks. OP said medium tank, a sub type of tank, so there's literally nothing to complain about-as long as you understand light,medium,heavy, SPG, Jagd, or SPAAG are all sub types of tanks. You just reiterated this point-so I assume the autism is almost over.

But why?
>Wirbelwind
22 tons.
>Panzer III
23 tons.
According to your fucking terminology, both are ''medium tanks''. Their intended use totally doesn't matter, both are ''tanks'', and adjective refers to weight (originally), so I guess they're same and can totally be compared.
Pic related is a super-heavy tank then.
>armoured
>tracked
>has a gun
>can engage infantry and other armoured vehicles

>give proof
>"oh you're just name dropping user"

I mean, I can sit here and post pictures with the collection and a time stamp if you want me to take the 5 minutes it'll take to do that. So you also admit that when colloquially spoken that tank refers to all the aforementioned sub types as sub types? Please keep up, you're proving my point for me now. And no, since I'm talking to my friends online(you could use some) and you autists, I haven't yet bothered with you're "evidence".

Can we not do this for at least one thread?

Is mayonaisse mounted on tracks?