This is the best tank of WW2. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like

easy

weeboo here

this is the best tank of ww2

prove me wrong

*breaks down*
I love the German tanks but i will admit that they were terrible from a mechanical standpoint

Panther had weak side armor, was unreliable, a bad high explosive round and was relatively uncomfortable for the crew.
All of these affected their performance against the seemingly worse Sherman tank.

The Panther performed well if it was used mainly against other tanks, but as a all-around medium tank, the M4 was far superior: scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=cmh
Only true for the post 1941 heavy designs.

>Only true for the post 1941 heavy designs.

Sooooo most of the war?

>The Panther performed well if it was used mainly against other tanks
Meant to say that if it was used against generally bad tanks like the T-34 or IS-2 (they were bad tanks, especially in terms of crew comfort) it could perform well due to its excellent armor-piercing gun.
But not most of the tanks.

>implying

Literally as this was being made and proven irrelevent simultaneously the Brits were designing one of the best tanks of the 40s, and youre gonna sit there and insist that slow ass, undergunned shit is peak?

Best tank of 1942 was the Tiger.

fair enough

Bitch get the fuck outta my way before I HVAP your ass.

>Panzer III was the best tank until 1942
Elaborate because based on Soviet and German accounts it performed terribly against the t-34 and kv-1

>expensive
>too heavy to travel the world
>broken easy
>only works with autistic cute girls

>very good maneuverability
>good armor
>good gun
>very reliable
>biggest pro: 3 man turret, greatly improved crew performance
basically the early war Sherman

No. built 1 (incomplete prototype)[1][2]

Because it did. It suffered from being undergunned and underarmored in just about every theater it was ever deployed in, the Panzer III is pure, unadultered mediocrity. There's a good reason the Germans phased it out in favor of more StuGs and Panzer IVs.

Maybe if it wasnt American these would be problems, but the US Army logisitics system could remedy these problems easily.

>good gun
But see this is the problem, I thought it was well known that the 50mm was inadequate on the Eastern Front. It couldnt penetrate the armor of even the T-34, the standard Soviet medium tank of the time

That price comparison is off because both the Ruble and Reichsmark were funny money during WW2 and not convertible to anything that might allow comparison with the dollar and pound.

Kind of like how the Venezuelan Bolivar is nominally 10:1 with the dollar, when in reality it's millions:1.

The far more accurate and useful comparison is man hours needed to fabricate, and in that regard, the Sherman blows away everything else.

>best tank of ww2
>not loli t-70

>It couldnt penetrate the armor of even the T-34, the standard Soviet medium tank
only became that in 1942, and the 50mm could penetrate under in favorable conditions (which could be achieved thanks to the superior crew layout, cupola and standard radio availability of the Panzer III).
>"According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 50 mm KwK 39 gun.[51][52]"
What you're saying is basically the same as
>the Sherman was a bad tank because it couldn't penetrate the front of the Tiger or Panther

The 75 mm gun was much better and more useful than the 76 mm for the Sherman.

Um, no sweetie, the allies needed nine shermans to take down one tiger and had to hit it from the side, the tiger's armor was impenetrable from the front.

Debatable. The extra high-explosive performance of the 75mm was of course better for infantry support tasks, but for fighting tanks, something that became a standard task of tanks in WW2, the 76mm was definitely better. The 75mm couldn't penetrate the Tiger and Panther at all frontally and even struggled with the later Panzer IV variants from the front. I'd say having a gun that can reliably destroy the bulk of the enemies' armor at least on normal combat ranges should be mounted in your tank.

Can't tell if b8 or complete fucking ignorance of ballistics

Improve your bait detection skills m8

(however the Tiger's frontal armor was virtually impenetrable for the 75mm M3, but it could still be taken out from the side or with the 76mm)

Respectfully, I disagree.

I posted the wrong pic but what the hell.

autistic tank faggot detected

Great tank if you can get in it

youtube.com/watch?v=XNM3stQwg9U

or get out of it when the tank is on fire.

Halt!

All these tanks are shit.

Only pic related is best tank.

*breaks down*

Carro Veloce a best!

*hits your t-34 18 times and fails to immobilise*

Since when did 18% become "standard task"?

StuG III and Panzer IV in their later versions had relatively strong frontal armor. The Shermans with 75mm guns had to close in to 500m to reliably kill these vehicles from the front, not even talking about the Panther.

Carro Veloce a CUTE !

>filename
hearts of kek 4

What is the point of the slopes on the bottom corners of the front face of the turret? Wouldn't any rounds that hit there ricochet into the main hull?

From what I've heard it's a not really thought-out design flaw that was implemented to allow turret rotation while carrying stuff in these bins on the side (pic related)

*transmission explodes*

Yeah, I think the term used is 'shot trap'. It was a major flaw with Porsche's turret for the Tiger II as well

he protec
he attac
he amphibic

The germans were obsessed with oversized monstrosities. They should have just stuck to makinh lighter tanks and never made anything the size of a panther or a tiger. Absolutely horrible designs.

>churchill was alright as the tank it was designed and used as
>but it was shit as the tank that it wasn't designed to be or used as
yes???

find a flaw

>ywn penetrate PzKpfw IV's weak rear armor
Why live?

you literally can't argue this

The panther was far from an oversized monstrosity

>TFW when someone says "it's the thought that counts"

I'm more of an interwar tank guy.
Lots of light tanks, lots of whacky ideas being tried.
Sometimes I like to wonder what would've happened it all the countries in WW2 had to use late 20's/ early thirties tech.
Things would have been very intradesting

It was big

was it?

*It looks big

...

...

kekeroni

What about from the front?

HALTEN SIE AN
>*breaks during during battle*
MEINEN SIE
>*is only efficient during defense when standing around*
HALT MEINEN SIE
>*gets outmaneuvered by tank destroyers*
SIE MEINEN ETWAS DAS
>*gets wrecked by tiny tanks like the M36 Jackson*
WIR DIE HERRENRASSE WAREN UND SCHEISS??

>be Tiger
>break down

Not long enough, apply yourself some more

Panther would have been the best all round design if it wasnt rushed into service and if factories werent producing other retarded shit. The front armour would adequately protect against 76mm which the Allies were too retarded to fully transition (nor had enough HVAP anyways) and the 90mm as well. The Germans should have stuck with Panthers and PzIVs, dropping the heavy tank meme immediately.

those tanks should've been turned into some kind of APC..

though I guess they'd be too slow.

It came to be about 10 tons heavier than its original specification weight, as I recall.

UUUU