Where does the meme come from that Germany had the best tanks in WW2?

T-34 was the best mass produced tank and pic related the best tank of the entire war. All made from the Soviet Union.

Germans cant build solid tanks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sNYTx8Ay5rk
alanhamby.com/losses.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Billotte#16_May_1940
realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/10/26/the_m-4_sherman_tank_was_hell_on_wheels_-_and_a_death_trap.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g
operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>mass produced = good

no.

Hans, nochmal in den Geschichtsunterricht. Säge.

better crew comfort = more efficiency

If not quality and crews t34 would be obsolete tank for ww2 with 1/100 kd

God damn Ivan did you lose one too many times to the Shermans in War Thunder?

The best meem come from 9gags or tumblr

Its because dumbasses get their history from comic books.

In educated circles its a well known fact that German tanks were not that great. Its how the Germans used their tanks which gave them the advantage.

Your Soviet fanboyism is showing.
Both make great tanks.
Now, as a German, it would be healthy for you to have a bit of an in-group preference. You shouldn't dismiss your own countries achievrments so hastily. Listen to some Wagner, watch some German-perspective WW2 films, enjoy some superior beer, develop some patriotism, and enjoy the rest of your day.

The meme comes from >muh wittman (who was a retard getting his entire squadron killed charging over flat terrain against known AT positions, the SS just pinned victories on him for propaganda reasons)
>muh Tiger I (which was shit with non-angled armour just way too heavily armoured for its time, in 1943 it was shit)
>muh Panther 1, which was arguably a good tank in all rights and probably the best tank of the war had Steel quality in Germany not been so flawed at the time to supply problems that even hitting it with non-penetrating hits would cause the steel to start cracking)

Even France had better tanks to you, you just had better doctrine. One might say you wrote the book on tank warfare.

Lol shermans sucks in wt tbqh
they can't even oneshot t34

Nothing can oneshot a T34. (within its tier)
>muh sloped armor

>T-34 was the best mass produced tank
But thats literally the biggest meme of WW2

kill to death ratio ?

>german tanks
>all those 90 degree angled plates to penetrate
>all those unnecessary hatches and variations among models

literally meme tier

The only good tank was The Panther and it still had it's problems.

literally not tank fault

Because of bad ore supply, the steel could only withstand 1 or 2 hits before the entire plate would crack.

Obviously,fuck Gaijin and their bias

The King Tiger (and the Tiger also) are certainly the most beautiful tanks from the second world war.

My cousin was a veteran in the 90s. He told me why the Old German tanks have the armor always vertical: A German tank always stands upright. A German tank never ducks.

Once he was in Canada, Canadians wanted to get on his LEO2 and go along. He said, "No Anglo is going on with my German competitor. That remains in my memory.

But did German tanks come with shower heads?

Panther hans.

>IS-2
Into the Trash it goes. Couldn't hold a lot of ammo, still got rekt by Tiger Is and Panthers, even though it was supposed to be a Tiger killer. It couldn't do shit against the King Tigers.
>T-34
Mass produced, but not invincible. In 1956, it only took a few Molotov cocktails to destroy them. The engine wasn't protected from liquid, burning gasoline leaked in and turned the tank into an oven.
Russian tanks were good, but not as good as German ones.
Germany>Russia>Britain>US>Japan

>A German tank always stands upright. A German tank never ducks.
That damage control, top fucking kek.

>German competitor.
Meant German Tank

They could barely even penetrate the armour of a Panzer VI

I'd also like to know. Was the Panzer and Super Panzer the ww2 equivalents of the f-35?

>Complicated to operate
>Non-standardized parts
>Low readiness
>Inferior armor

But in terms of shit tanks the Sherman was pretty awful.

The main issue with the panther was the final drives. They only were expected to last something like 200km before they had to he replaced.

>burning gasoline leaked in and turned the tank into an oven.
that's fucked

>T-34 was the best mass produced tank
>2 men blind turret
>outrageously bad reliability
>outrageously bad survivability
best mass produced was Sherman. Same shit armor and gun but no aforementioned problems.

IS-2 was cool.

War isnt some fucking video game where you can sperg around because your Tank has a " plus 12 for armour " on his Stats.

Tactics, Strategy, training, use of radio etc made the german Panzer Waffe effective until the end.
In the end it was an attrition war and the Sovietunion had more men and ressouces to throw against us while not caring at all about the Life of their soldiers while being massively supported by the USA.

T34 was a piece of shit. Poor welds and poor sights.


The real best tank of the war was the Sherman in its configurations.

Best all around guns

Best suspension

Best telephones

Best engines

Prove me wrong. You cant

Soviet tanks can't into gun depression. And not only in WoT. In fact, reality was even much worse, because the creators of WoT are Stalinist fucks who have to make Russians look good.

When you can't point your gun downward, it's a problem. When you don't have a radio in your tank (T-34 before '43), it's an even greater problem. When your tank is designed in a shit way and the commander can't see shit it's not good either. Neither is when you have to open the hatches and ventillate the tank for a minute after eachs shot so you don't suffocate from the fumes (IS-2). And when tanks are manufactured with an 5-10% fault tolerance (in the size of components), and your tank has a gaping hole in its armor thanks to it (pretty much all Soviet tanks), then you might indeed be a Soviet tankist.

pic related is the best tank of early WW2

>Same shit armor and gun
Not every Sherman was an A1. The later variants were probably some of the best medium tanks of the war.

It's no surprise that the Soviets conceived the best tanks of the war in both medium and heavy category. Both the T-34 and the IS-2 pissed on the heads of their german counterparts, especially the IS-2.
They were on par if not superior with the german tanks even in 1 on 1 by the end of 44.
And don't you dare saying that quantity is not quality. In war if you don't consider enemies number superiority you lose. So quantity IS quality.

Germany had great tactics but I don't think their tanks were nearly as good as people made them to be. The allies gave them this reputation as a way to build up their own cred.

Good tanks have the right balance of firepower, protection and mobility with regards to the way they're meant to be used and the foe they were going against.

German tanks were typically over-engineered, difficult to maintain, rushed in production and more importantly there was never enough of them. Stalin had a point when he said quantity has a quality of its own.

The Sherman has my vote, it had a decent gun, good mobility, was reliable and there was plenty of them.

>Is-2
>good

>had to have it's gun at a completely neutral position to load it
>had to have it's turret facing directly forwards to reload
>turning the turret backwards would literally cut the loaders legs off
>gunners and loads get broken legs and ankles as they try to move as the turret rotates
>Massive fuel tanks and ammo in the front
>Shitty welding quality
>gun that was pointlessly large and cumbersome
>less than 2 rounds per minute
>slav crewmen
>Shit engine
Yeah dude. Is-2 sure was great

>probably the best tank of the war
Too Heavy
Shit Optics
Shit Turret

The Sherman had a habit of bursting into flames when destroyed.

>Germany>Russia>Britain>US>Japan

Put US infront of Britain. British tanks were Ok but couldn't be produced on a massive scale. British tanks never became GOAT until 1945 and the cold war

This is now a War Thunder thread.

>T-34
great design, was plagued with outrageously poor tactics in the beginning of the war (tanks weren't even equipped with radios for example)

I expected more Wehraboos on Sup Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=sNYTx8Ay5rk

we had some very good tanks but poorly used: no proper doctrine ...
that's why germany got us so easily, not his "french didn't want to fight because muh ww1" meme

Every tank has a habit of bursting into flames when it's destroyed

>A German tank always stands upright. A German tank never ducks.

Lel Krauts are legitimately retarded. Couldnt you just build a more effective tank? Not that it would help after your retarded foreign and internal policies changed you from rulers of Western Europe in 1940 to people fighting the Soviets, Americans and Brits at the same time wth the largest partisan movements in history going on behind the most important front due to your ridiculous repressive policies in the "Lebensraum".

Wehraboos are out getting fucked by muslims

The Sherman had the unique weakness of running on gasoline instead of diesel, so it was a death trap.

>The Sherman had a habit of bursting into flames when destroyed.

no, that was for the early versions where the ammunition was stored in the sponsons, later versions moved the ammo around and introduced wet ammo racks and older ones where retrofitted, which made them not any more flammable than any other tank in WW2.

alanhamby.com/losses.shtml
Have you seen the ratio's of Russian armor versus german armor its hilarious how incompetent the Russians were. The Germans had much better optics and rangefinding equipment and other technologies that gave them massive advantages.
Those tiger platoons which were at most 1000 vehicles throughout the entire war were responsible for the destruction of 10,000 Russian units.

...

are you fucking retarded?
Everyone apart from the russians used gasoline.

This
>lol sherman was a matchbox
meme needs to stop

They had some good moments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Billotte#16_May_1940

I remember seeing the original video of this guy when I was a pre teen or something and I found it hilarious
Now I am really sad for him and his parents and I really hope he gets some help to improve his life
Am I getting old Sup Forums?

>The Sherman had the unique weakness of running on gasoline instead of diesel, so it was a death trap.

>leaf
>zero eduction

>all german tank ran on gas
>all british tank ran on gas

It was not the fuel.

And the fact that they trained up the Russians by performing all their field testing deep in the USSR didn't help them any either.

I've always pictured a couple Soviet tank engineers just watching German tank maneuvers going, "Well, they seem to be having some trouble in our mud. Maybe ours should have wider tracks."

TLDR; Nazis are retarded.

>In educated circles

So liberal hug boxes?

The T-34 wasn't a great tank but it was very easy to produce in mass numbers which as Stalin said "Quantity is quality"
Why have 1,347 Tigers that when you can have
35,119 T-34's

The Shermans had the best survival rate of any tank, with only a 18% death rate to its crews.
A T-34 had a 75% death rate just to put that into perceptive.

*naziboo hugboxes

Where they circlejerk about how Germans were superior but hitler was literally the only reason they lost

something something muh Aryan masterace something something muh kruppstahl

realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/10/26/the_m-4_sherman_tank_was_hell_on_wheels_-_and_a_death_trap.html

Just going with the citation, do either of you have one that contradicts it?

T-34
>Shitty radios
>shitty optics
>Shitty transmission and shitty optics
>Built without standardization as to make parts incompatible between factories.
>Lousy and unconfortable as fuck
>Bad tactics except: SWARM

Yes, it had good ground pressure, a good gun in 41-42 (By 43-44, 76mm was obsolete, and even the 85mm upgrade was deficient when engaging german armor), and slopped armor.

But quality was abysmal, and if not because they churned out in larger quantities than the krauts could churn out AP rounds

Panthers, once their initial transmission and engine problems were solved were the ultimate Tank of WW2

>1956
>two Soviet tanks accidentally collide on a street corner, one has its tracks torn off
>crew too afraid to leave the tank, so they wait till help arrives
>suddenly, molotov coctails
>by the fucking dozens
>people are pouring gasoline on the tank from fucking buckets from the windows of the surrounding buildings
>a WW2 vet tells everyone that it would be a good idea to stop this shit and get the fuck away
>and indeed, some time after the ammo of the tank goes off due to it standing in a fucking firestorm for too long

'56 was beautiful.

He was faking it.

I know this an extremely normie thing to say but had the Maus entered legitimate supplied production at a pre-1945 time it may have indeed been a "Best tank of World War 2" meme

>do you have proof to show that other tanks used gasoline and not just the Sherman

...
All allied tanks (apart from russia because it's cold) used gasoline

This may have more to do with crew training than the actual capabilities of the machine.

The USSR was all about bums on seats. Training was nice, but not a necessity for them. They could afford to lose men and equipment at a far greater rate than Germany.

> CTRL+F
> No TOG2

>75% death rate
Fucking bullshit

>Overmatching

WWII fanboys love to jerk of to tanks, but in reality, tankers were the least lucky during WWII.
>The tank is cramped, in the Russian winter, touching the cold steel gave you physical pain. In the African heat, the air became hot and suffocating.
>The smell of 4-5 men sweating from the heat and the stress
>Tanks were not moving fortresses. They were the most obvious targets. Everyone tried to hunt them down. Soldiers with anti-tank weapons, planes, and other tanks of course.
Maintaining the tanks was also a lot of work
>If the tank got hit at the right place, that was it. Best case scenario, the ammunition exploded, instantly killing the crew and activating the jack-in-the-box effect. Worst case scenario, the gasoline got lit and burned the crew alive
Pic related, destroyed IS-3s in Budapest, 1956. The revolutionaries didn't have tanks or anti-tank weapons, yet they were able to destroy the relatively modern IS-3s. Tanks are not invincible.

it was irrelevant by the time it was made.
Both the British and Russians had guns more than capable for destroying it from the front

>Da tommy cooker

T-34 crews were packed into those things like sardines, there wasn't much room to move around and a successful penetration usually killed or injured multiple crew members.

Maus was good only in video games. IRL it was basically just a bunker.

>100 Ton Tank
>Can't cross bridge
>Gets stuck in mud
>Oh is that a wing of Sturmoviks in the horizon?

Actual statistics of soviet use shows that Sherman on average had dead 1 crew member per destroyed tank, T-34 had 2.5, IS-2 1. T-34 was most deadly tank for its crews. Its fuel system was made by human hating sadist.

It literally sank on open ground and couldn't cross most bridges.

I hope so

Then why did you post an IS-1?

Honestly I like the later soviet tanks, they're super aesthetic

T-54
T-62
T-64
T-72
T-80
T-84(ukie style)
T-90

They all look amazing

>a successful penetration usually killed or injured multiple crew members.

That's what she said.

The quality of metal on German tanks was pretty shite. "muh tanks" is a wehraboo meme, and Sup Forums is 99% wehraboos.

fucking based hungarians
fucking based

fuck bolshevism
fuck the jews

Different user here.

According to '‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century':

>"57 thousand in total T-34's were produced in the war. nearly 45 thousand of which were destroyed in combat."

you do the math

That's an IS-2. not an Is-1

Americans had the comfiest tanks
youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g

>has to explore bottom of every river to cross it
It would be more faulty than a Tiger was. And most of them were destroyed when abandoned by it's crew.

You're right, the Is-1 has an 85mm gun and is-2 has the 122mm, but that's about the only difference

>"muh tanks" is a wehraboo meme
"Muh tanks" is a slavboo meme just as big

T-34 was mediocore, but the worst thing about Russian tank forces was terrible quality of the crews

t-34 was good early on but was easily outdone by panthers and tigers. typical engagements were at such a range that the shit optics and accuracy of russian tanks couldn't compete at all with german ones. also that IS-2 you posted had to lower the gun each time it needed to load a new shell, completely fucking up adjusting any shots.

>He told me why the Old German tanks have the armor always vertical: A German tank always stands upright. A German tank never ducks.

Did he like the bob semple tank then? Just joking but seriously if Tiger Is and Pz4s had sloped armor they would of been destroyed less.


>It couldn't do shit against the King Tigers.

From the front? No shit sherlock. Unless the AP or HE shell managed to damage the gun.

No

The Is-2 was much worse. To allow for the 122, the crew were more cramped. It also had to have a larger ammo rack near the turret floor. The Is-2 never had a turret basket so when the turret was rotated backwards or quite far left or right: bye-bye loaders legs. They would be crushed or cut off

No, IS-1s were later refitted with the 12mm. The Front armor looks differently on the two models, the IS-1 is what OP posted, the IS-2 has a pike nose like the IS-3.

Isnt that the tank with an 82% death rate?

What the fuck is that. That page doesn't have any reports that confirm your ideas.

T-34 was worse than the M4 Sherman.

Proven in the Korean war where Shermans obliterated T-34s.

Fuck NVM I mixed up some things here.

>breathe on turret ring
>tank bursts into flames

>throw molotov cocktail on rear compartment
>air intake sucks flames into engine and explodes

>need to recruit tankers
>can't accept anyone taller than 5'8

>need to mass produce tanks
>use untrained welders from Kazakhstan
>armor plates fall apart
glorious Soviet engineering

>Its fuel system was made by human hating sadist.

>fuel and oil all around the crew compartment so regardless from what side you are hit the chances for hitting a fuel tank are very high.
what could go wrong.

ioperationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-

>wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/
The technical superiority of the T-34 in 1941 (and during WWII in general) has become the stuff of legend. Its apparent superiority has become so entrenched in the psyche of post WWII authors that it is now assumed without question. Some go as far as to claim the T-34 as “the finest tank of the twentieth century” and the T-34 “rendered the entire fleet of German tanks as effectively obsolete”.(1) However, if battle performance was (and indeed still is) the ultimate determinant of the effectiveness of any weapon system, then unlike some legends in WWII, the tactical combat record of the T-34 does not match up to its legendary status. An objective look at the T-34’s record, without preconceptions, reveals questions which are hard to answer given the T-34’s apparent superiority.

>The combat results for 1941 show the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. (5) If all German fully tracked AFVs (assault guns, tank destroyers, SP artillery, etc) and losses from Germany’s allies are included in the German figures, then the ratio drops to 6.6 to 1 in the German favour.
Of the total of 20 500 Soviet tanks lost in 1941, approximately 2 300 were T-34s and over 900 were mostly KV heavy tanks.(7) Even if the T-34’s loss ratio was better than seven for every German tank, it was still most likely in the region of four or five to one. Frankly, if 2 300 of any new Wehrmacht tank type had been lost within six months of its first deployment, even with a loss ratio of one to one (let alone 0.2-0.3 to one), then most WWII historians would have described the tank’s combat record as an unmitigated diaster.

1/?