Is this overall the best tank of WW2?

They only seem to have produced 400 of them, so it'd be hard to make a true evaluation.

Yes, but mostly due to simplicity of design, production and operation, not actual combat prowess

Yeah, but it doesn't make it good. Every other country could shat out dozen of tanks for the price of one of these overweight fuckers.

ahem

Didn't T-34s have radios in the late stage of the war?

Adorabu! :D

The subhumans put a nice wide track on this gizmo, which is a good feature. Crew has to be cramped and limited in that shoebox though.

They always had radios, early war tanks only had receivers with the exception of command vehicles.

>subhumans
But OP's tank is a russian vehicle, not a g*rman one.

I don't doubt it, but the Soviets would have have been unimaginably pig headed to never upgrade them so. But I wonder how Barbarossa would have gone if they'd been able to co-ordinate from the start.

The Sherman was the best tank of the war.
t. Wehraboo

What in the ever lovin' fuck is that suspension all about? I like it though. If that's an italbro machine, it's aesthetic as fuck and salud you magnificent bastards.

Why were WW2 Italian tanks so shitty? Why not just borrow German blueprints and produce Panzers III/IV instead?

Didn't have the industrial capacity to do that. Building a new vehicle requires training workforces, materials, components sourced from smaller manufacturers, machine tools and a production line designed to produce the object. It's why the Nazis would keep building Czech and French tanks and chassis in captured factories, to change them to German designs would have required massive ammounts of effort and resources.

Literally every good aspect of the sherman the t34 did better

All it had going for it was crew comfortability

Is this overall the best piece of equipment of WW2?

>All it had going for it was crew comfortability

WW2 taught us the need for ergonomics.

It was more reliable, had better optics, it was easier to fix, it had a lower rate of burning, it was easier to recover...

>Literally every good aspect of the sherman the t34 did better
Yeah, T-34 burned a lot better and killed a lot more crew better when hit.

>Literally every good aspect of the sherman the t34 did better
except that's the exact opposite of reality...
Sherman had better armor, better guns, better reliability, etc etc. They also came out on top against T-34s in Korea.

This is what peak tank performance looks like, anons. Best suspension of the war, best track, best gun, on the move baby.

>What is the IS-2

Tiger II had a superior armour-piercing gun, faster reload times and stronger armor than the IS-2.

Probably yes, it was a brilliant compromise between strength and manufacturing speed. It had a superior arnament to the Panzer IV and M1 Sherman, innovated with its sloped armor, and rolled off the assembly lines every minute.

>best suspension

I would say the Jumbo sherman with the 76

The Romanians managed to pull it off, albeit with gargantuan efforts.
They went from literally nothing in 1942, to a pre-series run of about 10 Maresal tank destroyers in mid-1944 (which were promptly confiscated by the Soviets).

which you would expect it to, being a later model that had the benefit of war time experience and information, and being designed by a far more advanced country. you can't really compare the 2 as they are apples and oranges.

>the operational range of the T-34 was limited not by fuel, but rather by engine oil: According to the average figures for that time from the Technical Department of NKTP, there was enough fuel to cover 200–220 kilometers, but only enough engine oil for 145 kilometers.
>the M4A3 Sherman, which was a peer of Aberdeen’s T-34, engine oil was changed according to schedule every 400 kilometers
>The Americans were completely justified in their criticism of the T-34’s air cleaner. It had an extremely primitive design. The basic filtering element was a thin, oiled wire—a gimp. This was a simple and cheap but ineffective
technical decision. The air cleaner performed its function unsatisfactorily

This one's my favourite, though:
>The T-34’s transmission was very inconvenient to use. Tanks with a four-speed gearbox could use fourth gear only when moving on a smooth road, while on terrain third gear was the maximum. Therefore the average speed there was only about 25 kilometers per hour. However, shifting gears while moving required extreme efforts, especially from second to third gear: The driver had to apply a force of 46–112 kilograms in the first batch of the vehicles. The radio operator, who in the tank sat to the right of the driver, had to physically help him to shift gears

The Soviets actually used the US report to perform improvements on the T-34. That crap filter was replaced by the Cyclone in later models, and units in the field were upgraded when serviced.

step aside fuckers

*breaks down once out of image frame*

so what? I will just dig it in and kill hordes of your stupid t-34s because they dont see shit because there are so many of them they block each other.
what you gonna do now huh?

That was an American suspension that the yanks rejected in favor of VSS. The Sovs picked up on it though, but it made them more susceptible to battle damage and more difficult to repair and restore to service.

>Best suspension
no
>best track
no
>best gun
lmao

you realise this meme is on the level of the tommy cooker, right?

Also because it led to a hull that was both rather tall (due to the need for long travel) and rather cramped (due to the springs and shafts taking up quite a lot of internal space).

They had a service life of 3 weeks by the mid-war. T-34s are terrible.

>what you gonna do now huh?
zerg rush dug-in tank with trained doggos who go jihadist with bomb vests. what you gonna do now huh?

Shell your position with every available gun.

*trained doggos can't tell the difference between german and russian tanks* What we gonna do now huh? *explodes*

>Doggo's smell Soviet diesel and were trained to attack those instead of German gasoline

dogs trained to go after t-34's will surely do the trick

A NEW CHALLENGER HAS APPEARED

Hachoo!

A constant reminder that, for the Imperial Army, their second greatest opponent after the US Army was the Imperial Navy.

*US Marines actually.

*Chinese peasants, actually.

Everyone smarter than me says so so I’m inclined to agree

*Shoots ur side armor

A heavy medium inferior to the Pershing

Probably some big ol tank destroyer like the jagdtiger

it was developed earlier

T34-85

The true unsung hero of the war

The Panther had a very nice glacis plate but the side armor was shit, and the standard armament on a T-34/85 could go through the gun shield at 1,000 meters. It honestly was best suited for 1943 as the T-34/76 or KV could do nothing from the front and that was the best you could expect to see. By March 1944 the upgunned T-34s were rolling out, 85mm tank destroyers were fairly common, and a new generation of heavy tanks had been around for months. The Panther had an identical problem to the T-34--by all rights it should have dominated its first engagements, but crew training and reliability were so abysmal they punched under their weight until the enemy was able to beat them.

I give this one to the T-34 because it didn't spontaneously combust at any point in development, which I consider important.

*Retard generals, actually.

>to the T-34 because it didn't spontaneously combust at any point in development, which I consider important

>Survives 3weeks anyways

>it was developed earlier
No, the Sherman went into production in 1942, and the Sovs had their heap in service already.

The T34 was one of the least reliable tanks in the war, even worse than the panther. The T34's guns were less accurate and the crew comfort made their effectiveness even worse. Many lacked radios, the armor was comparable, actually almost identical in effectiveness. It was not a great gun platform at all.

Its not a meme, it broke down a lot, especially when you consider how much were made. The t34 broke down WAY more but the Russians could actually afford for that to happen.

The t34 had a higher failure rate than the panther

the t34

By late war they had more tanks than crews, so when a T-34 broke down the crew just jumped in to a spare. Sorta like Mongols and their horses.
Of course, the elite Guards Mechanized Regiments were equipped exclusively with M4A2E8 (diesel version of the famous Easy 8).

scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=cmh
>This article will argue that Allied combat action, not mechanical reliability issues, was the main factor responsible for disabling a large percentage of Panthers. Mechanical defects in the first Panther model did significantly contribute to its disastrous combat debut in July 1943, but by spring 1944 the majority of mechanical faults had been resolved.

>Furthermore, the inefficient German Army tank repair and replacement system, with its shortages and logistical issues, created a false impression that the Panther was mechanically defective. Its slow turn-around times and lack of replacement vehicles obscured the fact that Panthers were not unreliable, just being destroyed or disabled at a rapid rate.

Like i said, a meme

I think we all know what the real best tank of WWII is gentlemen

And yet the French experienced a whole host of mechanical problems with their panthers in the post-war army, when they weren't being shot at and they had a much better overall logistical system than the Germans did. They still found it mechanically unreliable, and that its engine had an average life of 150 km, and recommended moving it by rail whenever possible.

bookdepository.com/Panther-Its-Variants-Walter-J-Spielberger/9780887403972

can you provide source that's actually readable?

worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
Contains a summarized version of it.

>On the other hand, the engine was not operable over 1500 km. The average engine life amounted to 1000 km. Engine replacement accomplished in 8 hours by an Unteroffizier (mechanic by occupation) and 8 men with the aid of a tripod beam crane or a Bergepanther [recovery tank based on the Panther]. Main gun can be replaced using the same equipment within a few hours. The German maintenance units performed their work remarkably well
1500km is a bit more than 150km senpai

>The truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km.
(You) missed this part.

you were talking about the engine, retard

No.

stop being autistic.

Might as well count the pershing and other late war tanks that didn't even see combat

Am I a brainlet or is that claiming that an AT grenade is penetrating armor from anywhere less than 15 meters? If so, how can this be? Are they just noticing a tiny bit of spalling from shrapnel hitting the armor and calling it penetration?

WW2 is several years. Tanks introduced at the beginning or middle will not be as good as ones that care into service in 44/45. If you don't want everyone to say Pershing/Centurion/IS3 (depending on what you want in a tank), you need to restrict your question to a single year.

The T34 was arguably the best tank of 1941 and most of 1942 as well, but the Tiger came into service near the end of that year and was the new best tank until '44 when it was the Panther (unless you consider the final drive an absolute deal breaker, but I'll put up with it for that thicc front glacis).

The grenades were extremely effective

I just take into account the competition when the tank was introduced

But then you still have multiple "best tanks".

The Tiger was the "best tank" when it was introduced, but it wasn't the "best" anymore in 1944.

yeah or you can just decide which tank overperformed its peers to the greatest extent as the best tank, but yeah stuff like this should really be year limited. There's also the distinction between best tank in terms of effectiveness and best design. The superheavy german TD'S were very effective but not cost of time efficient to produce, tanks that were easier to repair and supply were better designed but that doesn't matter in a hypothetical battle where both tanks are fully repaired and supplied.

T-34 reliability was catastrophic at the start, but after 1943, it was decently reliable.

What the T-34 did have was very short expected parts lifetime, which was a part of the cost-cutting programs. Automotive parts were designed for a lifetime of around 1500km, which was far less than the 3000-4000km design lifetime of the Sherman.

After the war, surviving T-34/85's were upgraded to T-34/85M, which included automotive components that were designed to last much longer, which allowed the tanks to be used for training purposes.

TD's aren't tanks so I don't think they count.

And the Jagdtiger was not combat effective; the heaviest Jagdpanzer that was effective was the Jagdpanther, which was incidentally the best Jagdpanzer they had.

He didn't talk about the engine, but rather that "it broke down a lot". Breakdowns can refer to any part of the power train.

yes they are, yes it was. It was held back by shit crews and training but it was immune to fire from the front with its 250mm of armor and could easily penetrate any allied tank design, the few times it was used properly it had great success

>extremely cheap to produce
>doesn't breaks every 100 miles and if it does it's also easy to repair in field or just abandon and hop into a new one
yes it is the best tank of WW2

Saying a mobile anti-tank gun is a tank is like saying a self-propelled howitzer is a tank.

It's not a tank. Tanks are armoured, turreted, tracked assault vehicles that utilize direct-fire cannons against any and all land targets. Tank destroyers are vehicles, armoured or otherwise, designed to destroy other tanks and are a relic of WW2. The existence of tanks with sufficiently large guns made tank destroyers irrelevant. TDs always lack one of the components of a tank - Soviet and German TDs lacked turrets though they were still armoured. American TDs were turreted but had no armour. All of them are for destroying tanks and are not general purpose vehicles.

That didn't matter. The weight was too much for the engine to handle, it broke down constantly, and was too slow to move properly. It was basically a mobile anti-tank pillbox, but was very difficult to conceal because of its size. The crews hated the damn things for good reason - the only way they were ever effective is if you parked it far away on a hill somewhere, presighted a killzone and an enemy wandered into it, making their 'mobility' basically redundant.

TD's don't have to be well armored

.....I....I didn't say that...

I guess the ISU-152 wasn't a tank destroyer because it fulfilled 3 roles.

In practice tank destroyers were used in the same way as other tanks, in the absense of enemy armor they supported infantry attack and fired upon enemy infantry

Which is precisely why they were shown to be redundant, when you could just build a tank instead.

Did the Germans have better tanks when they steamrolled the Russians?
Did the Russians have better tanks when they steamrolled the Germans?
Did the Western Allies have better tanks when they steamrolled the Germans?

It's not what you got. it's how you use it.

Step aside, plebeian

no yes yes

*engine breaks for a 10th time in middle of battle*
Nothing personal, Hans.