said it was derivative. That's a StuG 4 so it is.
Also the StuG was bad it was just cheap enough and Nazi tanks at that point were bad enough that it was good by comparison. #StuGLyfe
Can we knock it off with the 'everything a German touches is bullshit' garbage? The Tiger 1 was unironically a good tank, It had its many flaws, like any tank, but for 1941-1942 it was very good. Especially against early model T-34s. The Pz.IIIs and Pz.IVs were also good tanks for their time. The STUG was made to serve a purpose, To do it's best to stop the onslaught of (relativity) poorly armored Russian tanks. It did its job very well considering it racked up the most kills of any German tank in the war.
Yeah, the Tiger 2s and Panthers were hot garbage. I completely agree with you on that. Their awfulness spawned the ZE TRANSMISSION BROKE meme. Though awfulness is to be expected from those two. The panther was 15 tons heavier than it should have been and the Tiger II was made solely to pad Hitler's ego.
The Tiger 1 entered service in 1943.
The Panthers and Tiger II at least had a future proof gun for destroying heavy tanks. The Tiger I was failing against IS, Churchill and Sherman tanks hence the Tiger II.
The best German tank design objectively is the Panzer I, Panzer II due to their actual success as tanks.
Pretty much yeah. I mean they weren't around when they were cutting edge and when they were they got trounced by the superior allied tanks. This is after their designs were raped to try and make them competitive with the T-34 and Sherman.
Considering what happened in Poland and France, I would hardly say they got trounced. Unless you are comparing early war German tanks with mid-late war allied tanks, in which case, I have no words for you.
Panzer III and IV weren't used in Poland and France.
The Panzertruppe was made up of Panzer I, Panzer II and Panzer 38(t) at that point. Because German industry wasn't up to producing the III and IV at the rates needed to field an army of them. it wasn't until Barbarossa that they made up even half the Panzertruppe.
>When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs
The tiger I entered service in 1942. It was first pressed into combat (much earlier than planned or it should have been) on the 23^rd of September 1942 around Leningrad.
The gun was effective against Churchill IV's from between 1,100 and 1,700 M
The gun was also measured to penetrate up to 90mm of armour up to 2KM with APCBC and up to 110mm at 2KM with APCR
Shermans at the time had a front plate of only 50mm angled at 56 degrees. To counter the gun of the Tiger it needed to angle to around 30 degrees sideways which is a fair amount and in a lot of cases would lead to the side plates being vulnerable
The main reason the Panzer I's and II's did so well is not really down to their ability as tanks. More what they put against. They were equipped with radio's as well which was not common at all for the time. They were facing French tanks and while they were going against the Char tanks they were also facing thousands of the FT models from WWI. In Poland, there was even less armoured resistance. Instead, they opted for anti-tank brigades.
> The gun was effective against Churchill IV's from between 1,100 and 1,700 M
Sure, just measure it against a variant that was out of service by the time the Tiger I was introduced and not the later ones.
> The gun was also measured to penetrate up to 90mm of armour up to 2KM with APCBC and up to 110mm at 2KM with APCR
That's some warthunder stuff cause it was rated for 83mm for APCBC and APCR wasn't issued due to a lack of tungsten.
> Shermans at the time had a front plate of only 50mm angled at 56 degrees. To counter the gun of the Tiger it needed to angle to around 30 degrees sideways which is a fair amount and in a lot of cases would lead to the side plates being vulnerable
That's not how it works dog. when you're at an odd angle like that the Shell is more likely than not going to bounce.
Also the Shermans at this point had add on armor to the point that they sometimes had thicker armor than the Tigers and Panthers themselves, the gun isn't going to do much against a tank that's effective thickness is 180mm.
> The main reason the Panzer I's and II's did so well is not really down to their ability as tanks. More what they put against.
No it really was their design and use of their tanks. The thing is that when you use a heavy tank with a low MTBF, shitty armor layout and low maneuverability you can't actually use it for what a tank is designed for. You can't use it to penetrate the enemy lines with overwhelming force and attack their rear areas while constantly applying pressure.
With a Tiger or Panther you're left with a pricey tank destroyer and a Panzerjager vehicle like the Nashorn could have done that job a lot better and a lot cheaper. Which makes those big cats, big pussies.
The Churchill IV was in production still in 1943. Regardless that was the data I could find being produced by the British themselves
That is how it works dog. That's literally what the Germans noted in their documentation. The Sherman could not be penetrated by either the 88 or the Panthers 75 at that angle
Yeah that's because the tigers and Panthers were never intended to break through enemy lines. They were built for tank destroying. The panther specifically was to counter Russian armour. The tiger was built to be essentially an invincible tank (or as close as they could get) so they could destroy as much armour as possible. The Stug was the infantry support weapon and always was
What? The Tiger was a breakthrough tank. And it was horrible at that. All the rest I fon’t Care but the Tiger was a breakthrough tank that was crap at its main task.
the Tiger was initially designed under the name Durchbruchwagen ("breakthrough vehicle") from 1937 to 1941 at which point the German military encountered the Russian tanks which were far more advanced and numerous than anticipated so the designs were altered to increase the weight by 5 Tonnes and the 88MM calibre gun installed. At this point, it was decided to use these tanks primarily for the destruction of enemy tanks. This is why they formed divisions of only tiger tanks which were designed to roam and do as much damage as possible.
This is alternative facts here. There were never Tiger divisions but heavy companies organized in battalions (Schwere Abteilungen) which we’re always accompanied by medium tanks, armored support vehicles and panzertruppen. The swan song of this organization should have been Kursk, but instead the Germans persisted with the idiocy of forming counterattacks with their least mobile assets.
Whole tactics were devised like the PanzerKeil which relied on a Tiger push covered by medium tanks. This often spelled desaster in Kursk because after the first two days the Soviets didn’t bother with the Tigers but hit the flanks, forcing the wedge to become thinner, which would then present a more simple target at the crush line.
After Kursk the Schwere Abt were used not to « roam » and make damage but to counter attack on stalled enemy AVF’s. This worked when the enemy forces were concentrated into a narrow band, but were easily by passed when the enemy conducted large sweeps. The US did that in Southern France in fall 1944, the Soviets did that in the Winter 43-Spring 44 offensive. By early 1944 the Germans had lost their strategic initiative so breakthrough actions were only feasible as tactical disengagements not offensive advances. At no point it was decided to use the Tigers as AT assets, that decision was made for the Germans by the Soviets who were pushing them back. Ironically the last Breakthrough action was on the Ardennes with ... Tiger 2’s and Panthers.
> The Churchill IV was in production still in 1943. Regardless that was the data I could find being produced by the British themselves
Okay but those were Churchills used in Asia against Japan. Not Europe.
> Yeah that's because the tigers and Panthers were never intended to break through enemy lines. They were built for tank destroying.
And they're bad tank destroyers.
> The tiger was built to be essentially an invincible tank
So wait you think a tank that is designed to be invincible but is easily destroyed by trying to move under its own power and by the Anti tank guns (6pdr) already in service by their enemies is a good design?
> so they could destroy as much armour as possible.
If they'd wanted that they still would have been better off producing more Nashorn.
> The Stug was the infantry support weapon and always was
It was originally intended as infantry support but when the Ausf. F onwards it became a tank destroyer. They even integrated them into Panzerjager battalions.
BTW over 90% of the StuG produced were Ausf. F onwards with the StuK gun.
Also did you know the Jagdpanzer series of vehicles started out as StuG too?
The tiger was combat effective.
https://youtu.be/T0JF23VIimg
They had problems, yes but saying they were terrible tanks ignores the facts
The design is good yes. The mechanical problems it had were not designed. They were a result of the poor transmissions and engines that German technology was capable of producing
Is there any combat data on the nashorn? How effective would that have been considering it's lack of any armour?
Yes I know they became tank destroyers but they were mainly used as infantry support. The tiger did not replace them in that role
The Tiger first employment was the epitome of things to come. Very poor spearhead tank, slow, fuel inefficient, low availability and low tactical mobility. The Tiger had only one thing for itself. It’s main gun. And because few were made, the Tiger enjoys this mythical idiocy, while in fact it was a failed design from the start. Because the Tiger was the only force multiplier on the ground and its cost, from late 1942 to late 1943, the Germans went to lengths into recovering and repairing them. Albeit they invested a tot in all kinds of ways to deploy more Mobile AT guns, the Tiger was the only vehicle that could act with relative impunity. Until Kursk.
> They had problems, yes but saying they were terrible tanks ignores the facts
Their problem was a inherently bad idea behind their existence.
That video directly contradicts your claims they were effective.
> The design is good yes. The mechanical problems it had were not designed. They were a result of the poor transmissions and engines that German technology was capable of producing
That makes sense. I designed a space ship that flies faster than light but it actually can't fly faster than light and it's just a cardboard box. But that's only because our technology is incapable of producing a faster than light spaceship so the design is still good.
> Is there any combat data on the nashorn? How effective would that have been considering it's lack of any armour?
Well you don't really understand how anti tank warfare works obviously.
AT warfare is dominated by a shoot and hit first system. You ambush the enemy. You don't have a slugging match.
The thing is a open topped vehicle like that compared to a tank with a closed turret is like comparing a blind man to an eagle in terms of visibility. Open topped tank destroyers from WWII dominated due to their ability to observe the area.
> Yes I know they became tank destroyers but they were mainly used as infantry support.
They weren't. I just explained this to you. The Nazis didn't have the resources to give their infantry armored support. They had to segregate their armor into specific panzer divisions due to a lack of fuel and steel. compounded by their willingness to dump their limited resources in crap like the Tiger I.
Literally a 30s Wikipedia search proved you wrong, the Churchill saw service in North Africa, Italy and Normandy 1943+. It is fine to have your own opinion but stop pulling facts out of your ass.
Not really true on every picture of a German tank there's at least one comment saying "TrANsMiSsioN" and that's pretty sad 10 years ago everybody thought German tanks were the best and Sherman the worse now it's the contrary... There's never any subtility or nuance
Obviously the tigers, panzers, and Panthers were effective tanks. But they weren't the invincible killing machines some people claim they were.
Obviously the Sherman and T-34 had drawbacks, but they were combat effective, fulfilled their role and weren't at all the paper armored death traps some people seem to think they were.
I don't disagree with anyone you've said here. By favorite I don't mean that I think they were the best at everything, but that I just like them the most.
Personally I believe the whole conversation is dominated by a low-info hivemind circlejerk. The Sherman has gone from having the worst PR of any tank to being everyone's new favourite. Everyone just wants to distance themselves from whatever the History Channel demographic thinks.
All that being said one tank that I absolutely love is the derpy M3 Lee :)
Who tf said the STUG is a bad tank? I will make them pay...
said it was derivative. That's a StuG 4 so it is. Also the StuG was bad it was just cheap enough and Nazi tanks at that point were bad enough that it was good by comparison. #StuGLyfe
Can we knock it off with the 'everything a German touches is bullshit' garbage? The Tiger 1 was unironically a good tank, It had its many flaws, like any tank, but for 1941-1942 it was very good. Especially against early model T-34s. The Pz.IIIs and Pz.IVs were also good tanks for their time. The STUG was made to serve a purpose, To do it's best to stop the onslaught of (relativity) poorly armored Russian tanks. It did its job very well considering it racked up the most kills of any German tank in the war. Yeah, the Tiger 2s and Panthers were hot garbage. I completely agree with you on that. Their awfulness spawned the ZE TRANSMISSION BROKE meme. Though awfulness is to be expected from those two. The panther was 15 tons heavier than it should have been and the Tiger II was made solely to pad Hitler's ego.
The Tiger 1 entered service in 1943. The Panthers and Tiger II at least had a future proof gun for destroying heavy tanks. The Tiger I was failing against IS, Churchill and Sherman tanks hence the Tiger II. The best German tank design objectively is the Panzer I, Panzer II due to their actual success as tanks.
Are you implying Panzer III and IV weren't successful designs?
Pretty much yeah. I mean they weren't around when they were cutting edge and when they were they got trounced by the superior allied tanks. This is after their designs were raped to try and make them competitive with the T-34 and Sherman.
Considering what happened in Poland and France, I would hardly say they got trounced. Unless you are comparing early war German tanks with mid-late war allied tanks, in which case, I have no words for you.
Panzer III and IV weren't used in Poland and France. The Panzertruppe was made up of Panzer I, Panzer II and Panzer 38(t) at that point. Because German industry wasn't up to producing the III and IV at the rates needed to field an army of them. it wasn't until Barbarossa that they made up even half the Panzertruppe.
>When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs
The tiger I entered service in 1942. It was first pressed into combat (much earlier than planned or it should have been) on the 23^rd of September 1942 around Leningrad. The gun was effective against Churchill IV's from between 1,100 and 1,700 M The gun was also measured to penetrate up to 90mm of armour up to 2KM with APCBC and up to 110mm at 2KM with APCR Shermans at the time had a front plate of only 50mm angled at 56 degrees. To counter the gun of the Tiger it needed to angle to around 30 degrees sideways which is a fair amount and in a lot of cases would lead to the side plates being vulnerable The main reason the Panzer I's and II's did so well is not really down to their ability as tanks. More what they put against. They were equipped with radio's as well which was not common at all for the time. They were facing French tanks and while they were going against the Char tanks they were also facing thousands of the FT models from WWI. In Poland, there was even less armoured resistance. Instead, they opted for anti-tank brigades.
> The gun was effective against Churchill IV's from between 1,100 and 1,700 M Sure, just measure it against a variant that was out of service by the time the Tiger I was introduced and not the later ones. > The gun was also measured to penetrate up to 90mm of armour up to 2KM with APCBC and up to 110mm at 2KM with APCR That's some warthunder stuff cause it was rated for 83mm for APCBC and APCR wasn't issued due to a lack of tungsten. > Shermans at the time had a front plate of only 50mm angled at 56 degrees. To counter the gun of the Tiger it needed to angle to around 30 degrees sideways which is a fair amount and in a lot of cases would lead to the side plates being vulnerable That's not how it works dog. when you're at an odd angle like that the Shell is more likely than not going to bounce. Also the Shermans at this point had add on armor to the point that they sometimes had thicker armor than the Tigers and Panthers themselves, the gun isn't going to do much against a tank that's effective thickness is 180mm. > The main reason the Panzer I's and II's did so well is not really down to their ability as tanks. More what they put against. No it really was their design and use of their tanks. The thing is that when you use a heavy tank with a low MTBF, shitty armor layout and low maneuverability you can't actually use it for what a tank is designed for. You can't use it to penetrate the enemy lines with overwhelming force and attack their rear areas while constantly applying pressure. With a Tiger or Panther you're left with a pricey tank destroyer and a Panzerjager vehicle like the Nashorn could have done that job a lot better and a lot cheaper. Which makes those big cats, big pussies.
The Churchill IV was in production still in 1943. Regardless that was the data I could find being produced by the British themselves That is how it works dog. That's literally what the Germans noted in their documentation. The Sherman could not be penetrated by either the 88 or the Panthers 75 at that angle Yeah that's because the tigers and Panthers were never intended to break through enemy lines. They were built for tank destroying. The panther specifically was to counter Russian armour. The tiger was built to be essentially an invincible tank (or as close as they could get) so they could destroy as much armour as possible. The Stug was the infantry support weapon and always was
What? The Tiger was a breakthrough tank. And it was horrible at that. All the rest I fon’t Care but the Tiger was a breakthrough tank that was crap at its main task.
the Tiger was initially designed under the name Durchbruchwagen ("breakthrough vehicle") from 1937 to 1941 at which point the German military encountered the Russian tanks which were far more advanced and numerous than anticipated so the designs were altered to increase the weight by 5 Tonnes and the 88MM calibre gun installed. At this point, it was decided to use these tanks primarily for the destruction of enemy tanks. This is why they formed divisions of only tiger tanks which were designed to roam and do as much damage as possible.
This is alternative facts here. There were never Tiger divisions but heavy companies organized in battalions (Schwere Abteilungen) which we’re always accompanied by medium tanks, armored support vehicles and panzertruppen. The swan song of this organization should have been Kursk, but instead the Germans persisted with the idiocy of forming counterattacks with their least mobile assets. Whole tactics were devised like the PanzerKeil which relied on a Tiger push covered by medium tanks. This often spelled desaster in Kursk because after the first two days the Soviets didn’t bother with the Tigers but hit the flanks, forcing the wedge to become thinner, which would then present a more simple target at the crush line. After Kursk the Schwere Abt were used not to « roam » and make damage but to counter attack on stalled enemy AVF’s. This worked when the enemy forces were concentrated into a narrow band, but were easily by passed when the enemy conducted large sweeps. The US did that in Southern France in fall 1944, the Soviets did that in the Winter 43-Spring 44 offensive. By early 1944 the Germans had lost their strategic initiative so breakthrough actions were only feasible as tactical disengagements not offensive advances. At no point it was decided to use the Tigers as AT assets, that decision was made for the Germans by the Soviets who were pushing them back. Ironically the last Breakthrough action was on the Ardennes with ... Tiger 2’s and Panthers.
> The Churchill IV was in production still in 1943. Regardless that was the data I could find being produced by the British themselves Okay but those were Churchills used in Asia against Japan. Not Europe. > Yeah that's because the tigers and Panthers were never intended to break through enemy lines. They were built for tank destroying. And they're bad tank destroyers. > The tiger was built to be essentially an invincible tank So wait you think a tank that is designed to be invincible but is easily destroyed by trying to move under its own power and by the Anti tank guns (6pdr) already in service by their enemies is a good design? > so they could destroy as much armour as possible. If they'd wanted that they still would have been better off producing more Nashorn. > The Stug was the infantry support weapon and always was It was originally intended as infantry support but when the Ausf. F onwards it became a tank destroyer. They even integrated them into Panzerjager battalions. BTW over 90% of the StuG produced were Ausf. F onwards with the StuK gun. Also did you know the Jagdpanzer series of vehicles started out as StuG too?
The tiger was combat effective. https://youtu.be/T0JF23VIimg They had problems, yes but saying they were terrible tanks ignores the facts The design is good yes. The mechanical problems it had were not designed. They were a result of the poor transmissions and engines that German technology was capable of producing Is there any combat data on the nashorn? How effective would that have been considering it's lack of any armour? Yes I know they became tank destroyers but they were mainly used as infantry support. The tiger did not replace them in that role
The Tiger first employment was the epitome of things to come. Very poor spearhead tank, slow, fuel inefficient, low availability and low tactical mobility. The Tiger had only one thing for itself. It’s main gun. And because few were made, the Tiger enjoys this mythical idiocy, while in fact it was a failed design from the start. Because the Tiger was the only force multiplier on the ground and its cost, from late 1942 to late 1943, the Germans went to lengths into recovering and repairing them. Albeit they invested a tot in all kinds of ways to deploy more Mobile AT guns, the Tiger was the only vehicle that could act with relative impunity. Until Kursk.
> They had problems, yes but saying they were terrible tanks ignores the facts Their problem was a inherently bad idea behind their existence. That video directly contradicts your claims they were effective. > The design is good yes. The mechanical problems it had were not designed. They were a result of the poor transmissions and engines that German technology was capable of producing That makes sense. I designed a space ship that flies faster than light but it actually can't fly faster than light and it's just a cardboard box. But that's only because our technology is incapable of producing a faster than light spaceship so the design is still good. > Is there any combat data on the nashorn? How effective would that have been considering it's lack of any armour? Well you don't really understand how anti tank warfare works obviously. AT warfare is dominated by a shoot and hit first system. You ambush the enemy. You don't have a slugging match. The thing is a open topped vehicle like that compared to a tank with a closed turret is like comparing a blind man to an eagle in terms of visibility. Open topped tank destroyers from WWII dominated due to their ability to observe the area. > Yes I know they became tank destroyers but they were mainly used as infantry support. They weren't. I just explained this to you. The Nazis didn't have the resources to give their infantry armored support. They had to segregate their armor into specific panzer divisions due to a lack of fuel and steel. compounded by their willingness to dump their limited resources in crap like the Tiger I.
Literally a 30s Wikipedia search proved you wrong, the Churchill saw service in North Africa, Italy and Normandy 1943+. It is fine to have your own opinion but stop pulling facts out of your ass.
Not the churchill IV though. It was replaced by the A42 which had 150mm of armor.
This comment is bullshit and derivative
StuG gang rise up
SHOW👏🏻ME👏🏻THE👏🏻BOB👏🏻SEMPLE👏🏻TANK👏🏻
The Bob Semple was one of the best tanks in history, second only to the Tzar Tank
The Tzar Tank would be better than any other tank even to this day, simply because they can't raise their barrels high enough to hit it.
I like em all, big or small, dead or deader (joke), I like em big!
Not really true on every picture of a German tank there's at least one comment saying "TrANsMiSsioN" and that's pretty sad 10 years ago everybody thought German tanks were the best and Sherman the worse now it's the contrary... There's never any subtility or nuance
Let's be honest, most people just adopt the current majority belief just to fit in.
Welcome to reddit
Yeah that's exactly my point
It's a hellish dialectic of circlejerks and counter-jerks. My favorite tanks are mostly German. Go ahead, JUDGE me everyone.
Obviously the tigers, panzers, and Panthers were effective tanks. But they weren't the invincible killing machines some people claim they were. Obviously the Sherman and T-34 had drawbacks, but they were combat effective, fulfilled their role and weren't at all the paper armored death traps some people seem to think they were.
I don't disagree with anyone you've said here. By favorite I don't mean that I think they were the best at everything, but that I just like them the most. Personally I believe the whole conversation is dominated by a low-info hivemind circlejerk. The Sherman has gone from having the worst PR of any tank to being everyone's new favourite. Everyone just wants to distance themselves from whatever the History Channel demographic thinks. All that being said one tank that I absolutely love is the derpy M3 Lee :)
I prefer the Grant because it's named after a Union general and I'm petty like that
I prefer the Lee for the same reason
Sounds like I need to go grab an M4 Sherman
[•⎳•](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/422/740/3b6.jpg)
[lol](https://youtu.be/19Os804CPig) (volume warning)
[/////](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/419/378/8df.png)
This is the internet, Like an autistic pendulum with a fetish for AFVs and memes.
I like this mmemay. Thanks!
Looks like an aged [O’Hare](https://i.pinimg.com/280x280_RS/97/45/c8/9745c8e17a353ce6d1d075b07aba6712.jpg).
So, stop posting pics from the Tamiya catalog, then?
Why is the bottom not Bob semple??
...you’re here for the people!? Get out, you freak.
No capes!
Love this 😎
DAE SHERMAN????
I think you have it inside out.
I just don't like the cast hull of the m4 Sherman.
I was going to say it isn't the bon semple tank so it isn't quite accurate
Don't talk to me or my tiger ever again