Quoted:
Lol. They were called Ronsons by both sides for a reason.
They light up on the first strike every time.

Quoted:


This right here....For the simplicity and design, the T34 wins WW2.

Quoted:
Panzer who?

Quoted:
We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command.

Quoted:

And why no love for the KV-1?

Quoted:

Germans had some sexy tanks. Americans had heavier tanks that are less well known then the German stuff. In the end the M4 took troops to combat and kept moving forward. A tank that can't keep up with the army is a really nice semi movable bunker.

Quoted:
Yeah, best tank during WWII.

Good times. Best tank. Op, keep telling yourself that.

https://photorator.com/photos/images/us-sherman-tank-destroyed-by-an-ied-peleliu-islandpalau-wwii--10626.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/w1lbjmL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Gughx91.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OQGJYRi.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/woPozJy.jpg

Quoted:
Yeah, best tank during WWII.

Good times. Best tank. Op, keep telling yourself that.

https://photorator.com/photos/images/us-sherman-tank-destroyed-by-an-ied-peleliu-islandpalau-wwii--10626.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/w1lbjmL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Gughx91.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OQGJYRi.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/woPozJy.jpg

Quoted:
Ok I'll bite.
First a bit on my background:

Have worked on Aberdeen Proving Grounds the prime tank testing center for nearly 4 years.
Had ample opportunity to inspect the tanks in person that were at the museum there (before it moved) which included all major US tanks and tank destroyers all major German tanks and tank destroyers and all soviet tanks and tank destroyers ( except no JS series tanks)
I am also an engineer by training and have spent some time in the Army with tracked vehicles.

It depends on how we define "best".
Certainly the Sherman was arguably the most reliable tank of WW2, at least maong the major tanks.
The reason for this it was designed from the beginning as an expeditionary tank that would be at the tip of a long supply line.
So automotive reliability as designed and produced by the largest automotive industry in the world.

It was also among the most ergonomic tanks ( even thought he German tanks such as the Panther were probabaly equally good in that respect.
So if we have a doctrine where automotive reliability is most critical it was indeed "the best".

Someone mentioned something about tactical mobility though, by this it was bested by the T34 and by an even wider margin by the big german tanks such as the Panther... even the Tigers had lower ground pressure + most suspension travel.. and could often travel smoothly were the Sherman could not...  ( note I said "tactical mobility  I will get to strategic in a minute) for example he Panther had 50cm suspension travel which was not exceeded until 40 years later by any tank on the planet.

What about the T34?
Wide tracks, check, decent armor, check, decent main gun for the year (76mm to 85mm check)
BUT and this is not widely known because no one ever challenged soviet narrative until decades later the T34 was among the most unreliable tanks of the war. right up with with the early versions of the Panthers.
And the most troublesome part of the panther were the final drives... but those are much easier to change than the transmission on a T34... some soviet crews even went into battle with a spare transmission strapped to the deck.
This you will never see in allied newsreels..
That was when their tank broke down they would not attract suspicion of trying to avoid battle ( and possibly get shot for it) if they busied themsleves trying to change the transmission.
As for the t34s gun even the late war 85 mm was not quite the equivalent of thew panzer 4s 75mm ( never mind the longer Panther 75mm) the armor was nice and sloped but the quality of the steel was significantly less than the Wests or the allies.
Where the t34 exceeded was that it was  a competitive design that was available in large numbers from relatively early on in the war.
It had good producibility and a decent engine and was the most modern tank of 1941.

What about some other tanks? I am not going to examine the JS series or the King Tiger or the T26E which were all premium tanks and a tour de force in resource consumption rather than clever designs.

So lets look at the remaining candidate, the Panther.

A tanks design parameters are Firepower, Armor (especially front), mobility, ergonomics and cost of production.

Lets examine the Panthers firepower.

The 75mm main gun of the panther was had penetrating power slightly better than the Tiger 1s 88mm (not the tiger IIs 88mm, thats a different gun). It was powerful enough it could frontally penetrate a JS series tank.
It was equipped with a MG34 (I dont have the time to explain why it was not the MG42, so please dont ask) in the front and also optionally had a mount for an MG34 on top of the turret.
Additionally late war models were equipped with a Nahvertieidigungswaffe a grenadelauncher for anti infantry use ( even though it was not always fitted it is still a design feature)
The Optics that supported this gun were the same ones as in the Tiger so not only was the gun capable of high mechanically accuracy but the Optics fully supported that (and were superior to any allied tank.
Another Joker is some late war Panther were equipped with night fighting and driving sights.. a first in warfare (but I am not including that in this comparo)

Armor: The sloped 80mm of front armor was nearly the equivalent of the Tiger 1, the side armor was not nearly as good but still same or slightly better than Sherman or T34

Mobility: The suspension of the Panther was the smoothest riding and had the greatest travel of any tank of the war (possible excepting the KingTiger but I am not counting this premium tank for this comparison). The suspension travel was unmatched by tanks even after the war for decades until the Leopard 2. The steering was light, the power to weight ratio was quite good the trench crossing and vertical obstacle crossing and wading was better than both Sherman and T34-85 as well.

Cost: In man hours and reichs mark it cost about the same to make as the much less lethal Panzer 4. Why was the panzer 4 kept in production? The productions lines were well established and humming along and converting them would reduce the numebrs of tanks delivered.. all in all 6000 Panthers were producing by German during the war, more than half of which in 1944, plus approx 500 specialized versions primarily Jagdpanther ( tank hunters with the KWK 43, the long 88mm of the King Tiger) and Bergepanther, recovery tnaks of the same chassis.

So lets talk about the elephant (elefant? ;) ) in the room.
Reliability. WHich is really part of mobility.

The Panther was inferior to the Sherman in reliability, yet tales grow taller by the telling.. just like the reputation of say the Kingtiger as "best" is not justified , the tales of extreme unreliability aslo grow taller with the telling.. it made it seems like these tanks couldnt move at all , yet move they did and a lot in both defense and offense.

The Achilles heel of the panther that unlike some other early teething problems was never fixed were the final drives.
Why?
The Tigers final drives were not a problem, why the lighter panthers?
Because the Tiger was  a premium tank and as such was allowed to use up more resources in production and as such got final drive designs made with better machining.
The Panther design team was only allowed to design final drives that were easy to make.
And these were not as durable, it was not an issue of the metallurgy (brits decades later tried to make a spare part for a panther using the same design and their part was no better despite using modern steels)
It is hard to say now by how much but if the Panther had been authorized "premium" final drives like the Tiger using high end machining assets that were in short supply in germany during the entire war.. its production numbers would almost certainly have been significantly reduced.
This was something the Waffenamt felt could not be tolerated.

The Sherman incidentally had premium designed (I am trying to reduce technical jargon) final drives of the type denied to the Panther and installed on the Tiger.
So what would you rather have?

100 Shermans or 100 Panthers.. or perhaps to reflect the fact that even the by German standards very affordable Panthers, were still more expensive than the Shermans...
Would you rather have 120-130 Shermans or 100 Panthers.
In some situations like the African or Italian campaign which were extremely demanding on the automotive components I would have preferred the Shermans..
But in the big set piece battles of the Eastern Front the panther was at times successful out of proportion:

And there I would have preferred the 100 Panther over even 200 Shermans even fireflys

Could the same number of Shermans have done this? or even double the number of Shermans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejUzc6CQ5U

Quoted:
Yeah, best tank during WWII.

Good times. Best tank. Op, keep telling yourself that.

https://photorator.com/photos/images/us-sherman-tank-destroyed-by-an-ied-peleliu-islandpalau-wwii--10626.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/w1lbjmL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Gughx91.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OQGJYRi.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/woPozJy.jpg

Quoted:


When asking whether or not Shermans could have done as well as Panthers in any given battle I think it's important to remember that German kill ratio reporting is fundamentally bullshit. This is doubly true when speaking of SS units on the Eastern Front. There's a blog series on that subject; here's one example.

Quoted:


When asking whether or not Shermans could have done as well as Sherman ands in any given battle I think it's important to remember that German kill ratio reporting is fundamentally bullshit. This is doubly true when speaking of SS units on the Eastern Front. There's a blog series on that subject; here's one example.

Quoted:
Some guy who saw a tank once in the 80s will be along shortly to argue endlessly with Manic_Moran and all his research and knowledge over this

Quoted:

I miss Manic_Moran's tank channel

Quoted:
Quantity has a quality all of its own. Good enough matters, but you have to BUILD ENOUGH too!

Quoted:
Clearly y'all don't know about the Type 95 Ha Go....

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/321106/5AC671A9-3964-449A-A968-6FD54D3BD5C4_jpe-1439359.JPG

Quoted:
Panzer who?

Quoted:


When asking whether or not Shermans could have done as well as Panthers in any given battle I think it's important to remember that German kill ratio reporting is fundamentally bullshit. This is doubly true when speaking of SS units on the Eastern Front. There's a blog series on that subject; here's one example.

Quoted:
At Kursk the Waffen SS had a kill ratio on the Soviets of anywhere from 10-1 to 20-1.

Quoted:

STUG LIFE

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/232454/stug_iii_girls_und_panzer_by_claython_d6-1439454.jpg

Quoted:

And yet... the Soviets ended up winning. Quantity having a quality all its own, as the saying goes.

Quoted:


These tend to be some of the more informative and entertaining threads in GD. Calm down

Quoted:

And yet... the Soviets ended up winning. Quantity having a quality all its own, as the saying goes.

Quoted:
Wrong!
This is the correct answer:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/466492/82DCB719-CA54-4E5C-9DE9-CC7EDE515DF5_jpe-1439276.JPG

Quoted:


Holy shit that’s laughable!

Soviet “primary sources”......

One of the former Soviet state historians who happened to have fought at the battle of Kursk, flat out came out and said that the almost ALL Soviet records were being forged by commanders in order to not show how badly they were suffering at the hands of the Germans.

Anything that the commanders didn’t forge on the spot, got forged later on to not make the Soviets look so bad!  Which he himself admitted to being a part of!

Read Blood, Steel and Myth.  It thoroughly dismantled the history we think we know, based on Soviet “primary sources”.

At Kursk the Waffen SS had a kill ratio on the Soviets of anywhere from 10-1 to 20-1.

Quoted:
Lol. They were called Ronsons by both sides for a reason.
They light up on the first strike every time.

Quoted:
This thread is like saying the AK47 is the best military rifle because is was mostly reliable and more produced...lol....nope. The Panther was the AR15 of WWII....maybe slightly less reliable (if properly maintained was not an issue), better made and more accurate. Built under the same conditions (post war) there is no comparison.

Sherman was 1/2 assed decent up till about 1942 (it was good against Jap 1930's tanks and panzer II's from the 1930's). The Sherman was built under ideal conditions and was nicknamed "the Ronson" after the cigarette lighter from then because it always lighted on the first strike.

Weak armor and weak gun (75mm was an infantry support gun), but yeah it ran good mostly being built in ideal conditions. Just like the T34 which gets undo credibility. There were reports of Tigers taking out 50 T34's on one outing many times, only running out of ammo stopped them from destroying more...but when faced 100-1 then all of a sudden the T34 "shines" like the sherman...lol.

Quoted:
Lol. They were called Ronsons by both sides for a reason.
They light up on the first strike every time.

Quoted:

Can we start with HIMARS? All I know is that they've scared the crap out of me, I know nothing else about them

Quoted:



I’m game!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-216-0417-09%2C_Russland%2C_schwerer_Wurfrahmen_an_Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d4/b3/2fd4b3ecfade08ff7941ad72a5837e99.png

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/panzerwerfer42-_rear-fx.jpg