'>>16592313
Tanks weren't supposed to fight other tanks. No wonder that they lost the war if they went for personal farming instead of focusing on the objectives.';

'>>16592345
brw, half of the Panthers refused to work at Kursk - they shat themselves at the mere sight of glorious Soviet Machines.';

'>>16592313
Tanks were shit though. Yeah it performed better for the 5 minutes it actually could perform, but it didnt help when shit broke down and it was stuck in repair shop for months sometimes until abandonement because germany prioritised wunderwaffle idea and concept instead of focusing time to make sure it was reliable and not an insane headache to manufacture.

German enemies won by having tanks that served longer and their ease of mass production. For wehraboos with actual autistic tendencies idea of a more technically superior thing is so infatuating, but it does not compare to reality';

'>>16592347
The soviets lost like 50k t34s against mainly pz is and iis. That just doesn't even make sense.

>>16592390
This post doesn't reflect reality. German enemies won by because Germany is the size of Texas having to take on four world spanning empires with unlimited manpower and limitless resources. I know you're going to forget that the UK and France declared war on Germany in your response.';

'>>16592402
>the UK and France declare war on Germany
>Germany proceeds to make things harder for itself by declaring war on the USSR and the US
What can I say?';

'>>16592313
German "contribution" to tank warfare was inventing medium tanks (measured by armor, speed and armament) weighing as much as Soviet heavy tanks - Panthers should really be compared to KV tanks with their 45 tons weight. By those standards the Nazis were defeated by _light_, expendableT34s with their 30 tons weight. Suffice to say that German tanks were some truly *primitive* level of technology.';

'>>16592402
>The soviets lost like 50k t34s against mainly pz is and iis
It is literally impossible for a Panzer I to take down any tank';

'>>16592313
>Still destroyed four of yours lol

And 3 of those 4 were recovered, something your wikipedia statistics wont tell you.
Allied tank recovery-rate was excellent while the German was abyssmal mainly due to overengineering and design.

also, a panther would require 10x more resources to produce.';

'>>16592402
>I know you're going to forget that the UK and France declared war on Germany in your response.
I know you're going to forget that Germany wrote off Finland to communism just to enable their bullshit.
Germany dindu nuffin.

Also, you acknowledge that Germany stood no chance. Maybe Hitlers peace offers should have included immediately withdraw back to 1938 borders instead of scheeching for UK to give up while keeping their own conquest?';

'>>16592313
>modern Russian flag
>non-modern German flag
what did he mean by this';

'>>16592513
T34s were shit though. It's excusable that they had to build a lot of tanks quickly and cheaply, so they were badly manufactured, but it's not that they went with a poor design. T34s were very poorly manufactured, slow, and they were absolute death traps.

American and British tanks were great though in many ways, they are seriously underrated.

Also, comparing German and Allied tanks is just wrong because tanks rarely fought other tanks. Tank casulties were mainly caused by artillery and anti-tank weapons, people should compare tanks with those.

Knowing that artillery destroys more tanks, it's easy to see why recoverability is so important. Artillery barages damage troops but don't take territory, so immobilized tanks can often be recovered and fielded again soon, but only if damage to their hulls doesn't cause shell explosions and kill the entire crew.';

'>>16592874
Major reason why panthers and tigers were so overdesigned was a symptom of Germany losing the war. They were desperately looking for a 'wunderwaffen' not just in jets engines or atomics but also on the smaller scale. They wanted everything to be the jack-of-all-trades and thats why panthers and tigers were so overdesigned and to carry multiple roles instead of simply being infantry support.
It was also the reason why German manufacturing and assembly was horrible, Hitler kept personally interfering with design and kept adding different versions to every category of the tank, this created a manufacturing bottleneck because it was hard to mass-produce a type when it had 30 different versions.';

'>>16592874
Shh - they seethe more when we say that they lost to _Soviet_ tanks. And they did..';

'>>16592874
>T34s were very poorly manufactured, slow, and they were absolute death traps
Still they were relatively better than their German counterparts. And as the war progressed many T-34's flaws were fixed.';

'>>16592313
>Tired of the regular "Anti-wehraboo" arguments
Do you realize that there's more to history than WW2 fed anon OP?';

'>>16592313
based post, anon';

'>>16592958
>based post, anon
Stop samefagging OP.';

'>>16592799
>also, a panther would require 10x more resources to produce

Compared to what? Also the germans didn’t count their damaged tanks as losses which makes it hard to figure out their actual losses in battles. They would list no losses, there available numbers would drop by 40, and then 3 later would be declared lost.';

'>>16592812
>Germany wrote off Finland to communism
as opposed to what? going to war with the USSR early?

>Hitler's peace offers should have included territorial losses that werent gained during the war
why?
Hitler made 200 peace offers, why did the UK write off Germany and all of Europe communism or Americanism?';

'>>16592898
Panthers were the best tank of the war as they would set the bar for all future tanks.
No one bases a tank off the IS3 or Pershing.
ALL modern tanks are based off the Panther's role as an MBT all purpose tank.';

'>>16592979
>>16592978
>>16592985
Very cool ADL fed anon.
Yep Jews are obsessed with Hitler.
Very coolz';

'>>16592313
War ended in Berlin.';

'>>16592979
>Hitler made 200 peace offers
He didn't say the magic word tho';

'>>16592985
First MBT was the Centurion, not the Panther.';

'>>16592965
Med, you samefagging';

'>>16592835
>>>/pol/467244811';

'>>16592978
Are you an idiot? OP raised the point of tank casualties being in favor or Axis. Those numbers are inflated because altough they are correct, they are also misleading because they dont account for tanks that were recovered.
The western powers had a very high recovery rate on their tanks. The Germans did not.';

'>>16592979
>as opposed to what? going to war with the USSR early?
As opposed to starting a bullshit war with Poland because Hitlers government couldnt take a no for once in their lives after a series of countless yes to their demands.
Selling out several countries to communism which directly led to 50.000 Finnish casualties isnt honorable.
Pretend like war or submission is the only choice in life isnt defendable either. There is a third option: Not starting a war at all and pretend that life is some sort of epic ideological jihad.

>Hitler made 200 peace offers, why did the UK write off Germany and all of Europe communism or Americanism?
Why did Hitler write off Germany and Europe to communsim and Americanism?
Cause that's exactly what he did, he literally gave several countries to communism with the stroke of a pen, and further enabled communism by starting and impossible war with the Soviets. The entire situation was created by Hitler from the beginning by removing the real historic bulwark against the Soviets: Poland.
Had Stalin decided to start ww2 anyway becuase reasons, he would have faced a unified Europe with no lend lease.

Fuck off Hitler fanboy. We all hate globohomo and immigration in 2024 but its no excuse to betray logic and sucking Hitler dick just to give Germany 'the win' in this historic topic. Hitler made everything worse, not better, and he did so for the wrong reasons.';

'>>16592347
It was real in your mind';

'Well, if any other tank was as good, why is T34 the only tank from WW2 still in service';

'>>16593287
>German losses are deflated due to high recovery rate of vehicles
>German tanks were over engineered garbage that had a low recovery rate

I’m not trying to be an ass but what are you trying to say? I was only pointing out that a good portion of their tanks were recoverable, as long as they could reach them.';

'>>16592313
'jak on the left is correct, whats the point of having good tanks if they spent more time in maintenence than in combat?';

'>>16593361
This is by Guderian after few days of Kursk battle:
> A hundred Panthers were in need of repair (56 were damaged by hits and mines and 44 by mechanical breakdown)
It rounds to half. And it was being understood that they shat themselves so there was no need to spell that.';

'>>16592313
Those faggots have really been into aesthetics: Hugo Boss uniforms, balletic parades, great looking gear - same shit underneath. But the Chief Faggot must have been delighted.';

'>>16593462
>this very real quote from a very honest person';

'>>16593319
>pilpul';

'>>16593757
All German reports (let alone post-war fairy tales kek) were basically propaganda and we know that Hitler himself was being lied to and had only vague idea of what's going on in his empire but this is all we've got. Btw, if the ratio in the OP bait was true than the Krauts would have won the Eastern front as the Soviets did not out-produce them _that much_.';

'>>16592898
>They were desperately looking for a 'wunderwaffen' not just in jets engines or atomics but also on the smaller scale.
I wonder if they tried magic. With those pagan freaks you never know..';

'>>16593813
>Hitler himself was being lied to
cont; why? - because he didn't accept truth and was dismissing honest people from his entourage.';

'>>16593282
>twitter screencap
>/pol/
not reading it';

'>>16592402
>pz1 taking out any tank
Me when I lie on the internet';

'>>16592874
I agree, but I doubt the underrated part, perhaps for French and a few british tanks like the Churchill, but the Sherman is still regarded as THE best tank of the War.';

'>>16593057
This, and even then the Sherman is a better example due to just how versatile and modifiable it was.';

'>>16593813
The soviets made nearly triple the number of tanks and they fought on one front';

'>>16592799
>also, a panther would require 10x more resources to produce.
this and the "overengineered" are utter myths parroted by brainlets who read it somewhere without actually looking into if there is any thruth to it. why should they, it confirms that germany bad and stupid and the allies smart and amazing
in reality is was slightly more expensive than a pz.iv while being vastly superior by almost every metric and the reason for that is that the panther was designed with a streamlined production in mind.
which resulted in cutting too many corners and unreliable earlier versions but if someone calls it expensive and overengineered, then point at that person and laugh or shake your head, it's up to you
why do i even bother with retards. you'll ignore this and spout your baseless retardation at the next opportunity you get';

'>>16592874
british tanks were utter shit, they just are overlooked because everyone is too occupied nitpicking about tanks that actually mattered';

'>>16593977
the modern MBT has a focus on strong frontal armour, mobity, and firepower
the sherman lacked 2 out of 3 so no this is completely wrong';

'>>16592513
>how was the panther a medium tank when it was actually very heavy';

'>>16592345
>brw, half of the Panthers refused to work at Kursk
Did OKW consider telling the Panther tanks they need to unsubscribe from Netflix, stop ordering Door Dash, cut up their credit cards, move out of mom's basement and pull themselves up by their boostraps?';

'Why does nobody ever talk about the Stug?';

'>>16592313
The designs had various flaws and German wartime manufacturing had too much inertia to correct them due to disruption from shortages and blockades and bombing. The panther went from vague concept to production in an astonishingly short amount of time, leaving it with the kind of issues that would have been corrected if there had been the time and resources to test it thoroughly and change the way the tanks were being built.

Ultimately a tank is just a small part of the combined arms system anyway. You could give some random African warlord a fleet of modern Abrams MBTs and they would all be useless within months or weeks because he couldn't logistically support them.';

'>>16594181
What is there to talk about?';

'>>16594229
Wehraboos love to point out how combat effective German tanks were, and the Stug was very combat effective.
"Anti-Wehraboos" love to point out how expensive and unreliable German tanks were, but the Stug was very cheap and very reliable.
It was really the best, and the most produced, design that the Germans came up with yet nobody ever talks about it.';

'>>16594256
StuG isn't a tank, it's an assault gun.';

'>>16594284
Yeah, but it fulfilled many of the same tasks, and it's not like anyone ever makes any threads going over who had the best assault guns (or tank destroyers for that matter).';

'>>16594295
I'd argue that assault guns are cheaper and more reliable in general because they have a superstructure instead of a turret, that's why it's incorrect to compare them to tanks.';

'>>16594284
If it has full treads and more then 14mm of armor it's a tank. AA gun? Tank. Wide bore gun? Tank. Fixed emplacement? Tank. Nothing but machine guns? Tank. All tank variants are tanks.';

'>>16594312
>full treads and more then 14mm of armor
Then M2 Bradley is a tank.';

'>>16594284
It quite literally is a pz3 wearing a disguise';

'>>16594317
Obviously.';

'>>16594309
Turrets are arguably a disadvantage as the easiest way to disable a tank is by hitting the turret and a really mobile turretless tank can change its line of sight almost as fast as any turret.';

'>>16594384
It's all relative.
>the easiest way to disable a tank is by hitting the turret
And the easiest way to disable an assault gun is hitting a track
>inb4 it's dug in the ground
Then it can be flanked easily.';

'>>16594384
Wildly inaccurate on all counts';

'>>16592313
>blows up tanks at a 4:1 ratio
>loses hundreds of square kilometers, several strategically vital resource deposits, and all of their satellite states
>refuses to elaborate, captured in Minsk, marched through Moscow, leaves';

'>>16592313
Yeah, they killed 4 enemy tanks when they engaged them in tank-to-tank combat in an open field without getting ambushed, taken out by bombers, or breaking down thanks to over engineering and weight.';

'>>16594256
Everyone who isn't a delusional Wehraboo knows that the StuGs and PzVIs were Germany's best vehicles. It's just that they don't get brought up because they were the "go-to" options for the Wehrmacht while the Tigers, Panthers, Elefants, and so on were experimental and thus more interesting.';

'>>16594565
>PzVIs
that's the tiger dude';

'>>16592390
Huh, reminds me of one ongoing conflict in eastern europe';

'>>16593057
>>16593977
Nope. First MBT was the Panther, all subsequent tanks to this day are modeled in function and basic design specs to standards set by the Panther.

Germans just do it better. Im sorry. Anglos are much better at Maritime affairs.
Slavs are very clever at putting together small arms.

Neither of these groups are capable of tanks or aviation in the way the Germans were.
All the resources of the entire world and little Germany with its shortages and drains was still able to outdo them in designs.
>b-b-but the allies had more quantity
something Germany could never match and the Also the allied design philosophy was NEVER "lets just make it good enough".
Both the West and East tried to make tanks as well as they could, they simply could not great tanks.
American, British, and Soviet tanks were constantly being redone and upgraded, yet none of them ever matched the handful of German tanks in quality and ingenuity.
It took the Soviets until 1943 to actually produce a good tank capable of destroying German heavy tanks at the range German heavy tanks preferred to engage at.';

'>>16592345
The Germans were the only ones who knew to fight enemy tanks with infantry. The Soviers and British wanted rank on tank warfare.';

'>>16593319
>couldnt take no
What do you mean? Hitler had put up with half a decade of 'no' to completely reasonable requests.
>countless yes
by whom?
>selling out several countries
who? Whom did Germany have an obligation to protect?
name a country that Germany had a formal alliance with to guarantee their independence and the Germans chose to "sell them out".
>which directly led to 50,000 Finnish casualties
and many times more Soviet casualties.
>not starting a war
Germany didnt.
>ideological jihad
Thats the USSR or the jews
>Why did Hitler write off Europe to Communism and Americanism
he didnt?
He explicitly fought off both the USSR and the United States.
>he gave several countries to communism
again, what countries did Hitler rule, guarantee the independence of, or was charged with protecting that he abandoned?
Hitler wasnt in a position to guarantee the Independence of Finland, the Baltic, Poland, or anyone else, he also stopped the Soviets from taking Romania and Denmark, but you ignore this lol.
>Poland
>historic Bulwark against the Soviets
ah yes, the immense tradition of Poland and its 100 no wait 50, no wait 25, wait wait, twenty year "resistance" to the Soviets which was facilitated by Imperial Germany in the first place LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Also the idea that Poland would have done anything at all against the USSR is laughable, they folded like a noodle.
Also Hitler explicitly stated he would sent German divisions to defend Poland if only he could have the Danzig corridor.
>b-b-but muh water access
yes, Poland, famous maritime nation who's water access is worth staking their independence upon.
>Hitler fanboy
brainrot
>betray logic
>sucking dick
>Hitler bad
go back';

'>>16593462
>>16593813
>Panther D breaks down
>the Problem is fixed with ALL later variants
>this means the Panther is le bad
???????????????????';

'>>16594181
>>16594256
not a tank, not used like a tank, also theres no "wehraboos" thats just what you call people who arent vatniks or mutt chauvanist';

'>>16594556
>over engineering
can you define this and explain what part specifically was overengineered?';

'>>16594581
Shit, meant PzIVs.';

'>>16594652
The transmissions, engines, basically everything, as Germany did not have the industrial capacity to mass-produce Panthers and Tigers but still manufactured them despite their flaws instead of focusing on PzIVs and StuGs.';

'You lost and millions of Germans were raped and killed lol';

'>>16592874
>British tanks were great

They were trash, on par with Italian designs. There's a reason over half the British tank strength in WWII were American tanks.';

'>>16594876
Germany doesnt have a demographic crisis like Russia.';

'>>16594834
>transmissions
They were actually among the best of that weight class according to British studies post war.
>engines
Their engines were good.
>everything
everything?
>Germany did not have the industrial capacity to mass produce Panthers and Tigers
Germany produced more Panthers than Pz IV and Stug variant when both were being produced.
Why would they focus on inferior designs which can be produced for a similar cost?';

'For me, it's the IS-2. The most powerful tank of WW2.';

'>>16594834
>engines
nigga it literally had the same engine as the Tiger I and II
>Germany did not have the industrial capacity to mass-produce Panthers and Tigers
>puts panthers and tigers in the same cetegory
>things the tiger was meant to be mass produced
oh no, you're retarded';

'>>16594626
tbf if you're going to claim why the Panther was a MBT you should also explain why that is. i've pointed out the strong frontal armour, mobility, and firepower, but desu honest the same can be said for the T-34.';

'>>16594634
Germany didn't even start developing man-portable recoilless rifles until 1942.';

'>>16592313
Shitler lost lol';

'>>16595705
The Panther was heavily inspired by the T-34 all in all.';

'>>16595733
He lost, because the holocaust didn't happen. Now due to the fact it didn't every yt boi will be genocided and sissified taking dat BBC.';

'>>16595705
>>16595810
T34 was infantry support and wasnt meant to fight tanks.

>claim
its not a claim, this is the common view among historians.
It was the first MBT because it was the first all purpose tank meant to do everything with high mobility, frontal armor, and firepower.';

'>>16594415
They all have tracks, but they don't all have turrets';

'>>16592313
Lol at all the seething anti-wehraboos ITT.

The popularity of wehraboos is only getting stronger every year the more educated people become about WW2 too.';

'>Dude in charge of procurement had a patent on interleaved road wheels so everything had to have them in order to get approved while he was around
>His name? Ernst Kniepkamp';

'The Battle of Prokhorovka was a German victory.
TOTAL GERMAN VICTORY';

'>>16595213
>Why would they focus on inferior designs which can be produced for a similar cost?

Except the costs weren't similar, the Panther and Tiger cost FAR more then Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs.

For cost of the 1300 Tigers the Germans made, they could have instead had 4500 Stugs which would have had a far greater effect on the war.';

'>>16592874
>British tanks were great
This poster is a gay pedophile.';

'>>16593391
Doesn't israel still use a sherman frankenstein?';

'>>16593973
The Sherman is bad, but a very interesting design.';

'>>16592347
>>16592513
>>16592778
>>16592944
>>16593391
>>16593462
>>16593813
If the T-34 tank was so good then why did it constantly get BTFO?
Take the Battle of Prokhorovka for an example and see just how much of an embarrassment the whole battle was for the Soviets.
Battle of Prokhorovka AFV losses for both Germans and Soviets -
German: 32 damaged and destroyed.
Soviet: 259 damaged and destroyed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140912164146/http:/www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm';

'>>16595810
>The Panther was heavily inspired by the T-34 all in all.
...panther development started before barbarossa. biggest influence was probably making more use of sloped armour but to claim it's heavily inspired seems like a big overstatement. other factors that make a MBT like a focus on firepower and mobility were already in the works, as can be seen on the Tiger I.
the germans also had the idea to put big guns on everything in later vehicles; if the crew knows their gun can defeat almost everything it faces it's a boost to morale, even if most of the time it's just overkill or counter productive
but yeah i've heard someone claim the panther is almost a copy of a t-34 more than once and it's pure retardation. they don't even look similar at all';

'>>16595883
>its not a claim, this is the common view among historians.
nigga i'm just pointing out if X is true you better say why that is and preferably back it up with sources
don't get me wrong i think it's a good contender but i've explained why i think that';

'>>16596306
Panther quite literally started life as T-34 clone. See VK 30.02(D).';

'>>16594644';

'>>16596091
Nice cherry-picked clash but here's what C. A. Lawrence writes about the days prior to the battle:
>The issue of Panther losses was raised in the morning message, with the corps stating that the heavy losses of Panthers were not a result of Soviet artillery fire, as up to this time only two Panthers had been penetrated by artillery fire, but was due to mechanical breakdowns. The daily report for the army also noted that 76 of the Panthers were now under control of the quartermaster for the XLVIII Panzer Corps and were being repaired back at work stations.
Ultimately the Germans were _stopped_ at Prokhorovka despite having about the best K:D ratio they could manage during the war. You see, you are making a strategic decision of producing more and cheaper tanks - with, obviously, more total firepower (while accepting that you WILL sustain bigger losses; mind you that the casualties of tank crews are just about meaningless in grand scheme of things...) or you are making more "advanced" tanks which _must_ outlast the naturally larger opponent's army or they're a failure.
German armor has proved to be a failure, simple as that. T-34 was a better light tank, IS-2 was a better heavy tank.
>The IS-2 tank first saw action in Ukraine in early 1944 and claimed to have destroyed more than forty Tigers and Elefants for the loss of only eight tanks.';

'>>16596337
>the turret of a design proposal that was never built is at the front
>this means the panther started as a t-34 clone even when the project dates back to 1938
retard';

'>>16596425
now look up the total T-34 losses';

'>>16596444
Funny that the Germans had copied the T-34 approach (again!) after the war when they created their Leopard 1s. Tanks which famously had no armor to speak of but were just mobile guns.';

'>>16596425
>they were planning on taking ridiculous losses
No they weren’t you fucking moron. That’s why they constantly re-designed the t34 because it was perpetually not good enough.';

'>>16596463
The t34 is a copy of the PzIII because the PZIII had sloped armor first and a primary dual purpose gun first.
>no it didn’t have sloped armor
It did, just not extremely sloped.';

'>>16596463
>Germans had copied the T-34 approach (again!) after the war when they created their Leopard 1s

That concept was explored with the vk.1602 Leopard.';

'>>16596330
Both the Chieftain, MHV, and that Vatnik who posts tanks all make arguments for and do accept the Panther was the first MBT.';

'>>16596699
>it was perpetually not good enough.
It was good enough and then some. Nice seething.';

'>>16596715
What are even babbling about; no one in his thread has accepted your unsupported claim.
I guess that you imagining this like you are imagining all those "normies" who are "just now" becoming wehraboos. kek';

'>>16596425
>nice cherry-picked
None of these stats are cherry-picked, all modern historians in west (except for that Soviet obsessed Giantz who barely mentioned the battle) all agree that the Battle of Prokhorovka was an absolute disaster for the Soviets.
>Ultimately the Germans were _stopped_ at Prokhorovka
No they weren’t, the Germans were stopped elsewhere at Kursk, the Soviets got absolutely obliterated during this battle.
>The IS-2 tank first saw action in Ukraine in early 1944 and claimed to have destroyed more than forty Tigers and Elefants for the loss of only eight tanks.
Doubt, where are you getting this info from?
I’m willing to bet the pro Soviet ‘‘‘‘‘historians’’’’’ are probably just lying again.';

'>>16596792
>list three credited historians specializing in the history of armored warfare
>completely over your head
LOL
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank
Panther is the first tank to have a super heavy’s worth of firepower, medium/light tier mobility, and heavy tier frontal armor.
Panther was the first MBT. Three credited historians believe this. Furthermore going by the definition of an MBT, (SH firepower, H frontal armor, L/M speed) the Panther is an MBT and the first MBT.';

'>>16596438
>the project dates back to 1938
This is the project in question. Very Panther-esque, eh?';

'>>16592313
Siri, show me the Post-War Occupation of Germany.';

'>>16597472
you're right. they abandoned the stupid idea of a three man turret, adopted the christie suspension, got rid of radios and commander copulas and all that other nonsense as well and there you have it, the german t-34
retard';

'>>16597493
They abandoned the idea of a stupid 50 mm gun and adopted sloped armor. I never said they copied T-34, I said they were inspired by it, which is completely true.';

'>>16596091
>If the T-34 tank was so good then why did it constantly get BTFO?
Because tanks don't engage in 1vs1 duels.';

'>>16597476
Both countries shouldn’t be fighting, you’re both filled with all flavours of shitskins and both are completely kiked to the core.';

'>>16597517
>Because tanks SHOULDN’T engage in 1vs1 duels.
FTFY
Yet at the Battle of Prokhorovka they did and the Sovietoids got BTFO for doing so.
The end.';

'>>16597545
>Yet at the Battle of Prokhorovka they did
No they didn't.';

'>>16597505
how much was actual inspiration and how much was them just doing the PzIII better? The T34 did the PzIIII but better.
Did the Americans copy the T34? No, but the Sherman is a lot more like the T34 than any other tank.
Tanks have standards to be objectively good, the T34 was objectively good, other tanks to be objectively good were more like the T34, this does not mean they were T34 ripoffs.
Just like the T34 is not a ripoff of the PzIII even though everything about it is just the PzIII but better.';

'>/his/ still has the monthly ww2 tank bait thread
are any of the posts on this board actually original or new discussion? feels like people are just copy pasting old posts to generate arguement.';

'>>16597372
Another funny cope, here's what Zaloga says about Abrams design:
>The first major attempt of the programme was a joint German-American programme for a common main battle tank (MTB) which was called the MTB-70 by the US Army. The programme proved too sophisticated and too expensive, and was cancelled following Germany's withdrawal.
Looks like they've learned their lesson after all. Also:
>Unlike the MTB-70, the M1 was not designed to be the best tank in the world: it was designed to be the best tank possible within a limited budget.
Ironically, it turns out that even communist Soviets were more into economics of warfare than national-socialist Germany.';

'>>16598296
>it turns out that even communist Soviets were more into economics of warfare than national-socialist Germany.
not really as the USSR was churning out equipment rapidly by necessity, they didnt have time to create high quality equipment until very late into the war.';

'>>16595204
a third of all births have been non european for a while now. that figure is only increasing';

'>>16592402
Panzer Is had no heavy weapons, just two machine guns, and Panzer IIs couldn't penetrate even the rear armor of a T-34

>Britain and France declared war
After Germany declared war on an ally, yeah.';

'>>16592874
>T34s were shit though
The first time a T-34 showed up it smashed through every German tank it went up against until an 88 knocked it out.

The crews were trained for like a week before they were sent out. They had a good gun and great armor and speed for their class. Plus they were cheap as fuck.

>British tanks were great
No they weren't

>Tanks rarely fought other tanks
That's just fucking wrong. Emplacement weapons killed more of them but that's because they had more emplacement weapons than tanks.';

'>>16592985
>No one bases a tank off the IS3
The Russians do';

'>>16594634
You really think someone would do that? Just come on the internet and start lying for no particular reason?';

'>>16597557
Yes they did.
Do you really think the Soviets who suffered 259 mostly destroyed tanks over the course of a single day weren’t conducting retarded frontal assaults?
If you say yes they weren’t then you’re disagreeing with nearly all historians who’ve delved into the subject since the archives opened.';

'>>16598595
>The first time a T-34 showed up it smashed through every German tank it went up against until an 88 knocked it out.
I think that was a KV and this was before Germans knew what the T34 was. as soon as Germans upgunned their own tanks the T34s flaws began to show.
It was an awful tank and their own crews hated them.
>cheap
Life isnt a paradox game where manpower is a number, those are real people being burned to death in there.';

'>>16598599
No they dont.
Russia today fields no breakthrough tanks.';

'I am German, therefore I am superior.';

'>>16598595
in reality it was a disaster on tracks and there are pictures of t-34's with a spare gearbox strapped onto it because the one in use almost immediatly shat itself
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
when the americans evaluated the tank they concluded that certain parts could only have been designed by a saboteur';

'>>16599341
i already forgot about the fuel tanks inside the crew compartment lmao';

'>>16592345
>Tanks weren't supposed to fight other tanks
unless the other one has another opinion and blows you up with an 88mm anyway';

'>>16599341
Why the guy is babbling about T-34s in the Korean War (or keeps comparing it to Shermans of all relevant Axis tanks) is beyond me. Also a true Myth-busting: T-34 was far inferior to Tigers and Panthers! kek.';

'>>16599472
cont btw; while armchair generals recommended the Soviets to wait for Shermans and German High Command kept trying new wunderwaffe prototypes they just parked thousands of T-34s in Berlin.';

'>>16592313
Did you ever played darkest hour 44-45? Man, in this game the german Tanks do suck big time!';

'>>16592313
It was the STUG III that killed the most I think, not Panthers.';

'>>16592313
Germany would still be outmatched since the precursor to modern MBTs are already in pre production in the late 40s';

'>>16592313
Wao hans, you can take 5 shermans on at once in some very rare cases! That's so cool! how many of these can you take on?';

'>>16595204
lmao it doesn't?';

'>>16600008
The world needs more wars';

'>>16599888
Panther was the precursor to modern MBTs if not the first MBT.';

'>>16599993
>WHAT THE FUCK WHY ARE MY PEOPLE GOING EXTINCT WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE GOT SOFT????
your state is the civic manifestation of erectile dysfunction';

'>>16600267
Nah, MBTs are actually quite successful.';

'>>16600008
What you posted is stable, Russia is declining very rapidly and the most educated and intelligent young Russians fled the country to draft dodge. It has no future.';

'>>16599472
just ignore all the wartime reports he mentioned
do you always completely ignore evidence that is contrary to your (in this case) wrong beliefs? or can you explain why fuel tanks in the crew compartmant no radios or a two man turret was a good idea
or if it was such an amazing vehicle then why did they lose 45,000 of them out of 57,000

>>16599518
yeah those that didn't turn into a fireball along with the crew';

'>>16600370
do you have an actual argument why it shouldn't be considered an early MBT?';

'>>16600399
It was actually a logical argument.';

'>>16598709
>conducting retarded frontal assaults
Doesn't sound like 1vs1 duels to me.';

'>>16592390
>wunderwaffle
Each monument of German engineering is a testament to the power and intellect of the master race.';

'>>16600439
i'll take that as a no';

'>>16600476
And that's a logical mistake on your part. You see, sound logical proofs are the strongest proofs known to men - they're basically true by definition. They aren't being used all that often because some people don't find them "convincing" for some reason but... I will stop here to not sound rude.';

'>>16600504
your only "argument" was "the panther wasn't a MBT because a MBT is good and the panther is bad", trying to pass subjective garbage that isn't backed up by anything as "logic" is hilarious
you need to be at least 18 to use this website, come back when you're out of highschool';

'>>16600394
>can you explain why fuel tanks in the crew compartmant
No
>no radios
Radios are expensive and the T-34 was designed to be a "ride her till she dies" type of tank that you just replace after the transmission hits its 20k limit.
>or a two man turret was a good idea
It wasn't and thats why later models didn't use this.';

'>>16598730
>Life isnt a paradox game where manpower is a number, those are real people being burned to death in there.
The Soviet battle plan doesn't take casualties into account and it served them well considering they killed 9 out of the 10 Germans who died in the war. If they had dumped shitloads of resources into making a sexy tank they would have been defeated, they made something rugged and reliable and made the best medium tank of the early war.';

'>>16592313
Haha big tank go brrrrrrr';

'>>16598731
Doesn't matter what the doctrine changed to, they still based the design off the IS3 and shifted its battlefield function.';

'>>16600604
You have now proved that you are a moron at best. Some people go as far as saying that _all_ humans instinctively understand basic logic arguments and if they don't they can hardly be called humans. Which happens to fit this conversation quite well because nazis (and neo-nazis) are arguably just subhuman psychopaths.';

'>>16599341
>dude tanks carried stowage and spare parts
Yeah every nation did. Your contrarian bias doesn't change anything but reveal your desperation to be right.';

'>>16598730
>It was an awful tank and their own crews hated them.
Not really, they served the crew well and they liked them more than Allied Lend Lease tanks despite them having more quality of life improvements.';

'>>16598730
>as soon as Germans upgunned their own tanks the T34s flaws began to show
Yeah, well the Soviets then upgunned T-34 and fixed some of its flaws. The whole war was a an arms race where the opponents constantly changed places, but the general consensus is that at the beginning of war in 1941 T-34 was overall superior to its German counterpart.';

'>>16600664
Even at Kursk the up-gunned T-34 was slightly better than its foe, and was so goddamm hardy you could bury it up to its turret and have it suffer multiple strikes to the turret and still keep firing.';

'>>16600685
>T-34 was slightly better than its foe
To the Panther you mean?';

'>>16600632
your only argument so far has been your shitty opinion you tried to pass as logic, when asked for actual arguments you simply didn't give any, and at this point you're just name calling
sad';

'>>16600635
i'm not aware of any pictures out there of shermans or pz iv's with a spare gearbox strapped to the tank's back because the one in use could give out at any moment
>stowage
there's a difference between ammo for the gunner and showering the entire crew and ammo in burning fuel when something goes bad
the survival rate of a t-34 after a penetrating hit was absolutely atrocious but i suppose that was actually a design feature and i'm biased and contrarian for thinking otherwise';

'>>16600685
not trying to be a k/d tard and i know kursk was a decisive soviet victory but they still lost armoured vehicles at a 7:1 ratio';

'>>16600664
>1941 T-34 was overall superior to its German counterpart.
According to Kubinka the t34 was a pz III equivalent.';

'>>16592313
I don't know anything about tanks I'm not that kind of autist. That or they really are obsolete and I can sense it. Great meme though.';

'>>16600905
here is something cool';

'>>16600784
i've read (dude trust me i know, i don't where i got this from) that they rated the pz III/IV slightly better. but proposals like the T-34M show that the soviets knew there was quite a lot of room for improvement
also, the germans made significantly more use of sloped armour after barbarossa even tough they were aware of what it actually does, MHV made several videos about it, but to a retard even ITT that means the panther was a t-34 copy
but everyone copying the german's 3 man turret, suspension, and commander copula etc, for some reason never gets mentioned. i'm starting to think there's a double standard here or at least very strong cherrypicking';

'>>16600908
wish i had more of those tracks. i lost one of those traction wheels and a chain is the only way i know of how to make a lego clock bell work
i've tried other ways but that one is very easy to make it work and not really bulky
i foudn another way with a snail-type mechanism which could have worked but it was just a mess and i smashed everything in an autistic rage';

'>>16600685
No it wasn’t, David Glantz is not a reliable source on the Kursk Campaign.
The Soviets got their shit pushed in, lucky for them the Western Allies opened up a second front in Sicily which lead to a large bulk of Panzer forces that had been curb stomping the Sovietshats hard to head south.
See: >>16596091';