Doubt, that does not fit the military armament, is frankly pretty pieces of engineering and with more the high tech, but they have a serious problem: That under machines to kill people and that it seems to me the greater incoherence of the human being.
@PittCessna: Actually, a Sherman could knock out a Tiger I, if it managed to get a flank or rear shot at close-enough range. The Anglo-American forces usually had to spend several M4s to get others into position to flank the Tiger, but eventually, they did - or perhaps a TD like an M10, M18, or M36 (American) or perhaps an Archer or Achilles (British).
@PittCessna: A 75mm Sherman could fire point-blank into the frontal armor of a King Tiger, and do nothing more than scuff the armor. The Tiger I and Panther were almost as tough - they, too, were impervious to the low-velocity 75mm. Allied tankers knew they had to get in a flank or rear shot to get a kill, or maybe a lukcy round to jam the turret by scoring a hit on the turret ring. They could also knock off a track or take out the gunner's sights.
@Flynwar" The British, who had fought the Germans in Africa, knew that a race between armor protection and anti-tank weapons was unfolding between the Germans and the Allies. Even then, the 17 pounder was installed into the Sherman only because of some very determined and unorthodox mavericks in the British arms industry and Royal Artillery Corps. It almost didn't happen.
I guess some people never understood the difference between moving pictures and a slideshow. Ferdinand a monster tank? Good grief, i could be taken out by a molotov carrying retard - the elephant on the other hand...
@krejslayer Ferdinand was not really a tank, more of a Tank Destroyer/SPG hybrid, not supposed to be front line tank. The elephant? are you talking about the British Flying Elephant? that was just a concept and never got build if I remember correctly. Or you might be talking about the german "elefant".
@ZelatorUK Ferdinand was a tank, yes a tank destroyer/SPG, but it still classed as a tank. Yea the Elephant, and of course im talking about the German Elephant tank destroyer , because its basically the same tank, except for the Elephant having a forward machine gun for infantry, hence my reference to the molotov throwing retard, because the Ferdinand didnt have it and therefore was unable to deal with em'.
@swordfish12roblox: "ISU-152 is damn scary with the bl-10 152mm" The Soviets called the ISU-152 "Tiger Killer," because a direct hit from a relatively low velocity but very large and heavy 152mm shell would wreck almost any German tank. The concusssion alone from such a large detonation would probably harm the crew, perhaps kill them outright. Enough high explosive will damage or "kill" even the best tank.
@0341MarineInfantry: You would think so.... I wouldn't want to be inside any tank taking a hit from 152mm shell, not even one of the most modern, well-protected designs.
@GeorgiaBoy1961 The BL-10 was not put on the ISU-152, it was put on the ISU-152-2, put into trials in Dec 44, and never into service before war's end. ISU-152BM used the BL-8 152mm, but its overall length and performance of its shells made it unsatisfactory.
Russians > German > American. Yes russian tanks were not as good as German ones but they outnumbered them 10:1, German tanks were very expensive to build and it was a big blow to lose one. Americans don't even enter the picture they were miles behind they designed their tanks as a reaction (Germany makes big gun, Americans try to make a bigger one) But by the time the tank was designed and produced Germans already moved on. T29 springs to mind, prototype made and 1200 ordered but cancelled.
@ZelatorUK Russians > German > American??? LOL right. Panther was too tall and too slow.. and mechanically it was a mess. The Russian T34/85 is considered the best medium tank in the war.. but only if you discount the USA's Pershing... which OWNED Panthers.
And what made the Sherman so good, was the engineering behind it... Ya the gun lacked penetration at first, but by the time the Brits created the Firefly version, it was a beast.
@skraf883 funny you should mention the russian t34, I just came back from the Imperial war museum in London where they have the t34 sitting right next to a German JGPanther. The t34 was a succesful tank but not because it was the best, it was good because the russians could manufacture them fast and cheap and could outnumber the germans in every situation, 1:1 the t34 is highly inferior, the biggest weaknesss is the fact that the fuel tanks are mounted externaly on the side armor.
@ZelatorUK The fuel tanks on the outside were external drop tanks. They were meant to be discarded before entering battle. And most people think about the T34/76, I said the T34/85, which mounted the 85mm.
And what makes a tank design successful is a mixture of 3 things.. protection, mobility, and gun. For the most part, German tanks only had protection and gun. But German tanks lack armor on the sides and rear.
@ZelatorUK: Actually, I hadn't heard that about the T34's tanks. The drawback I've read of is that the optics on tank's aiming system were inferior to those of German tanks, meaning that usually a German crew would see the T34 at longer range - and thus get in that all-important first shot. The T34-85 was an upgrade to the original design, and was improved incrementally throughout the war. By 1945, it was a very good tank.
@skraf883 Only Sherman in WW2 that saw enough combat action was the E2 "Jumbo" which were slaughterfood to KingTigers which were around at the time. I once heard a story from a old Jumbo driver, he said his crew bailed out of the Jumbo the second they saw the Tigers turret pointing at them, a second later he looked back and saw a burning wreck he said the trade off was worth it because they got their positions and radiod in for airstrikes
@ZelatorUK Wow dude.. so misinformed. E2 Jumbo was one of the smaller variants. E8's were produced in much greater numbers.. and the plain old M4 and M4A1 were produced in the most numbers.
And those King Tigers.. were "slaughterfood" to Pershings and M18 Hellcats
@skraf883 yeah my bad, just saw something about vanilla m4's, i think 18,000 or so tanks were produced in ww2. but those were inadequate against, panzers, tiger 1's and 2's. Yes the Pershing was and Hellcat were good, but those only entered in the closing stages of ww2, of course they would be better since they were designed for that purpose, Yeah your right but I was kind of looking at the ww2 picture, not Korean war etc.
@ZelatorUK LOL Poor old Sherman.. M4 Sherman was totally great against the tanks it was designed to go up against.. Pz III and Pz IV. They were totally taken off guard by the Panther and Tigers. But one thing you can say about the old Shermy.. they took a licking.. the average Sherman in WW2 was knocked out 10 times and put back into action! This is because they were designed to be easily repaired. Something German tanks could never do because they were so complicated.
@skraf883: Anglo-American tankers paid a terrible price for the Sherman's shortcomings, but ironically, the very thinness of the armor may have helped in repair, because German AT rounds possessed such penetrating power that they could go in one side and out the other. If no vital mechanical components were hit, the dead could be removed and the tank reconditioned. The Germans eventually learned to fire on an M4 until it burned or blew up, making recovery & reuse tougher.
@sosic2121 No, the Pershing was an amazing tank.. mixing the 90mm, which could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor at 2600 yards, with it's smaller profile. Pershing was a beast. M18 Hellcat was the fastest piece of armor in the whole war at 60mph, and later versions of it mounted the 90mm as well. M18 was very well liked by its crews.
@Ondkorven I disagree, Pershing was not only the match of late German TDs and heavies, but also their superior. It had a superior gun, smaller profile, better elevation and declination, more acute sloped armor.. AND late German steel was of lower quality than that being produced in the US.
Sept 19th,.1944, a platoon of M18's faced a brigade of Panthers, knocking out 5 Panthers to only 1 M18.. in 5 minutes. Later that day, they knocked out 10 more only losing 2.. most were Panthers
@Ondkorven: "Even the super pershings high velocity gun had less penetration then the King Tigers/Elefant/jagdpanthers 88." Not according to the sources I've seen; the T15E1 90mm gun on the Super Pershing was 73 cal. long with muzzle velocity of 3750 ft./second (1140 m/s). With T30E16 APRC ammo, it could penetrate a Panther frontally at up to 2,400 meters. The KwK 88mm L71 (King Tiger) developed 1000 m/s muzzle velocity, marginally less than the U.S. gun.
@Ondkorven: "The Pershing was definatly not a bad tank. But it was more in the same league of a Tiger" Yes, since it mounted a 90mm gun, but even the Panther, since the M26 weight was similar. Re: the M18 Hellcat, it would be destroyed quickly in a stand-up slugfest, because American TDs has such thin armor. However, using its high speed and maneuverability, the M18 (or the M10 and M36) was useful in ambush, popping out from defilade to fire, and then backing behind cover again.
@Ondkorven Take out 15 Panthers in the course of a day.. only losing 3 M18 Hellcats.. and that was abnormal? M18 was prized because it's gun could penetrate and their incredible speed. This allowed then to get into position where they could take side shots at the Panther where they were VERY weak. Panther was only fearsome if you were looking at it's front. It's sides were thin, and straight up and down.. slaughterfood.
@skraf883: Belton Copper, who served in Europe with the 2nd AD, and saw much action as an armor ordnance officer, believes that the M26, had it been developed and sent to the ETO in time for D-Day, could have shortened the war in the ETO considerably. Apart from being somewhat underpowered, it was a very good blend of fire power, mobility and protection. Using souped-up ammo, it was the equal of any German tank it was likely to encounter. The gun on the Super Pershing was superb.
@skraf883: Agreed about U.S. TDs like the M10, M18 and M36. They were often the only vehicles in the U.S. Army arsennel capable of dealing with the Panthers and Tigers on a consistent basis - with the caveat - once the TD command developed decent doctrine, strategy and tactics for using these thin-skinned but hard-hitting vehicles. They were also prized as infantry support weapons.
@Ondkorven And Russians thought so much of the Tiger 2, that they immediately charged the first 2 that they faced.. with their T34's.. and destroyed them easily. Tiger 2 was beast.. as long as the target they were facing was in the same direction as their turret. The turret turning speed was ridiculously slow. IS2 and IS3 was more than a match for the Tiger 2.
@skraf883: The Tiger II was a formidable and frightening heavy tank in the ambush, but in offensive operations, it was as often a liability as not. It was so heavy that many bridges couldn't withstand it, nor narrow streets in many cities of that time. It had to be transported by rail for anything longer than fairly short ranges. It was also mechanically complex, difficult to service and expensive to manufacture. Also a fuel hog. These things all matter in assessing its worth.
@Ondkorven And if you notice.. the video was mostly about purely FICTIONAL tanks. Ya a few of them actually did exist, most didn't see action, and some never existed outside of paper. The largest tanks ever created.. 2 Maus prototypes, never even had real functional turrets on them.. The 2 that were captured at their factory had wooden mockup turrets.. And if you check the serial numbers on the 2 mauses.. you will see that 1 chassis has the turret for the other tank on it.
@skraf883: "No, the Pershing was an amazing tank.." It has become armor history orthodoxy that the M-26 was a stop-gap design, and therefore a failure. This isn't accurate, for the M-26 gave rise to the M-46/48/60 family of tanks, which were only retired from U.S. military front-line service in the 1990s. The M-60 used many components and design features from the Pershing, even decades after the war.
@sosic2121: "Slaughtered" is the wrong word concerning knocking out a Tiger II, no matter who's doing the talking. Those things were beasts, and tough to disable or destroy. Our M4s looked like toys next to the massive King Tiger. However, we managed - with difficulty - to knock them out, proving that no armored vehicle is invulnerable. Ironically, one of the best weapons for taking out a Panther or a Tiger was a captured German Panzerfaust, which was superb in this role.
@skraf883: With the 17-pounder, the Sherman at least had hitting power capable of dealing with the newest German designs but the Sherman's armor remained inferior. The Sherman's mobility and floatation weren't all that great, either, especially on soft ground, hence the track "grousers" or endpins installed as an expedient in the field. The M4's tracks were too narrow, hence ground pressure too high. Also, it could not be turned in place as the German tanks could be.
@skraf883: Concerning my comments on the Sherman, they are taken from Belton Cooper's tremendous book "Death Traps," which recounts his wartime service with the 2nd AD in the ETO.
The Ratte, Maus, and T-28 never saw battle but the T-28 and Maus were both made. The Ratte was shut down a year after Hitler approved it before they even began construction on it. The title you posted suggest tanks that were in WWII, but still they were amazing tanks and tank designs.
The P1000 Ratte wasn't builded beceause it would be too big, And it would be too weak for air attacks, Plus they were unfitted to fight against other tank.
the tank from 1:05 is called ''die ratte'' but it never entered the production line because it would take 2 years to build 1 and it could hardly move on land ( because of his size was it a easy target) and if it was producted it was used at the beaches (this was 1 of hitler's ideas during the ww2)
@choastech7 The main reason that the P1000 Landkreuzer never got off of the drawing board was because it was prohibitively heavy and large. At more than 1,000 tons, it would have collapsed most bridges under it's weight, and would have sunk into the ground in most places. Also, due to it's weight, it would have been lucky to move at anything faster than about 0.5mph by modern estimates.
In short, it would have been useless as anything more than a technological showpiece.
KV-2 was a world war two soviet heavy tank that was not mass produced because of the price for the tank. The T-95 was more of a tank destroyer because of the lack of a turret.
Its funny, because Ferdinand actually sucked in WWII.. it didnt had a machinegun so it could counter infantry.. any dumb fuck who could get nearby was able to throw a grenade or even a molotov.. this tank was a total failure, but he was big indeed.
@sosic2121 i'm afraid you dont know much about war stories.. Ferdinand were a failure on the battlefield because of the enemy infantry. i'm not saying its a bad tank, he was just bad for his role.
@CalaxSG: The Ferdinand hit hard at long range with its KwK L71 88mm, but had no MG for infantry defense, so Soviet tank killer teams made short work of them up close and personal. A few grenades, a magnetic mine, or a Molitov Cocktail in the right place was all it took.
Dragance igras li ti World of Tanks. Da igras primetio bi da je T30 ; IS-7 ; OBJ 704... da sad ne nabrajam tenkovi koji jebu kevu a ti ono sto si pokazao nema veze sa vezom. :)
T34s were replaced in USSR as well, yet other countries CHOSE to buy t-34s ISs, KVs and NOT Shermans... up to the 80s... I wonder why??? official US historians admit that when it came to panzers US was FAR FAR FAR behind both Germany and USSR, so what is there to argue about?
@Checker77820 That tank was going to be made. It's just that Germany didn't have enough resources at the time to make it. Also it is said that it was made but was never seen in action.
Had the Nazis built that monstrosity, it likely would've ended up like so many of their King Tigers, a mile marker on the road to Berlin as they ran out of fuel and abandoned by crews.
I know right, because the tanks the high-tech Afghanistan military uses are by far better. Seriously how could a modern Abrams M1A1 with advanced communications to a combat information center with possible UAV and/or satellite support ever stand stand up to a poorly maintained 50 year old Soviet tank.
@tavosatriani Then do please explain why the US forces have almost always suffered much smaller casualties than the opposition they faced in virtually every war they fought in since the Cold War. Name one country whose military can equally match all the capabilities of the US.
@carlogwapo1234 definitely the reason why both of their tanks were full of mechanical maladies that prevented the tanks being used for long periods of time. Tigers and panthers would break down or combust, same with the two Maus that they fielded. Also, the russians created terrible engines that combusted after going at max speed fior a fairly short period of time. The sherman was the most reliable tank during world war two. And even today, americans make the best tanks.
@skloser1 My dear friend, have you ever seen a diesel engine combust???
T-34-85 served up until 80's all over the world, so did IS 2-3. Sherman were long forgotten. But be so kind as to provide me with the source of your knowledge... Where did you read that Tigers would "combust" ???
@musicmysh Shermans were long forgotten as they were replaced en masse. Do please note that many of the countries that operated the T34/85 several decades after WW2 are for the most part countries that weren't well-off and had little to afford for newer tanks or simply kept them in reserve or storage.
@musicmysh Germans used gasoline while russians used diesel. The russians tanks however were very easy to destroy for the germans tanks and by the americans shermans. We used them during the korean war. Also, the shermans were used into the seventies by middle eastern countries like Syria, Israel, Egypt and other vehicles. Tigers would combust after being used for long periods of time because of the rising heat in the engines that proved to much. This happened with the panther as well
@musicmysh The IS series of tanks were actually terrible designs that were quickly replaced by the Soviets T54/55 and later T-64. The reason so many countries used them for so long were because they were cheap to use, they too had terrible engine problems when they came up against pershings and shermans with the 90mm during the six day war between Egypt and Israel. They served for so long because the russians had a surplus of them, they sold them for money in their failing economy.
@skloser1 You do understand that you are talking about 20 year old tanks in combat against modern Shermans (in case of 6 day war and Korean war)??? Please provide links that would support your statement of Russian tanks being "Easily destroyed" or Tigers "combusting". Keep in mind no LATER THEN MAY 1945!!!
1:03 p1000 nice concept picture but totally improbable. i know the germans were ahead of their time in most all technology they had but even the fuerer wasnt stupid enough to waste time and resources on a machine that 1. was to big to manuever in europe, 2. paints the biggest mobile aerial assault target in history, and 3. would take a massive co-op to protect to even get into any position taht might be useful. no the germans were much smarter, they put their big guns on rail cars
@MrMusicfo...T28 and T95 are the exact same vehicle, it was simply a new name as the US Army changed it's role. Read about it on Wikipedia please:
"The T28 super heavy tank (also called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armored self-propelled gun designed for the US Army during World War II.... Sometimes referred to as a super-heavy tank, the T28 was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945 and then renamed a super heavy tank in 1946."
no1:17no no what would the tank e used for???? RUNNING OVER SHERMANS and T34s?? or shootin 111 BATTLESHIPS OF Normandy??? NO nO no I KNOW to make aa good coastal defence platform !!! NO NONO maybe to assault Sevsastopol and moscow to scare the pure hell outta of those red ants without suffering casulties. imagine a landship fleet of 500 or so of those tanks being used at the BATTLE OF THE BULGE they would recapture ANTwurp and maybe bombard london with those big guns
u can tell this is a t 28 super heavy by the hatch guard thing on the top left side from our view and because of the gun position being higher than the tracks as the t95 has its gun level with the tracks (top of gun = to top of tracks)
@PITSpatchkill T28 and T95 are the exact same vehicle, it was simply a new name as the US Army changed it's role. Read about it on Wikipedia please:
"The T28 super heavy tank (also called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armored self-propelled gun designed for the US Army during World War II.... Sometimes referred to as a super-heavy tank, the T28 was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945 and then renamed a super heavy tank in 1946."
IS-7 is better than IS-3 and Object.704 is better than ISU-152. So why there is even Ratte? Vid name is Top10 Monster tanks in World War 2. P1000 had not been made to the Second World War!
Taking fire from 2x 280 mm naval guns + from 1x 128 mm gun.It's sure that I whouldn't like to be taking fire from this monster.
4everpanagos 5 hours ago
i can't believe that the last tank is real its too big :D
NeonSkyler 7 hours ago
I think ill stick with the abrams
killerbob03 15 hours ago
@killerbob03 Amen
MrDJ217 10 hours ago
LOL :) "my tank is fight war is hilarious" I'm going to have to remember that quote
GregoryBurgondy 1 day ago
music is not good
bigbleca 1 day ago
AWFUL music dude -_-
ID62738 1 day ago
landkreuzer didn't exist
TheMALEK789 1 day ago
T-28 is also another tank destroyer if u didn't know
TheMALEK789 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doubt, that does not fit the military armament, is frankly pretty pieces of engineering and with more the high tech, but they have a serious problem: That under machines to kill people and that it seems to me the greater incoherence of the human being.
miperrodrago1 1 day ago
The IS-3 didn't see action in WWII, nor did the T-28, which came some years later. The Maus was never put into production.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
KV its a SPG?
alagado666 2 days ago
Lies about heavy tanks of WWII, you can find real ones that served surely?
TheMrRoc 2 days ago
vid ends at 1:29
hypnotoad2011 2 days ago 6
who knows some of these tanks from the game World of Tanks
hypnotoad2011 2 days ago
Maus and rat weren't fighting in wwII... And kv3 costed less than kv2 and were better
wojtekimbier 2 days ago
and where is the hetzer idiot its the most powerfully Germany tank destroyer
eitanmi89 2 days ago
@eitanmi89: that would be the JagdPanther, hands-down the most feared German tank destroyer of the war.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
The Königtiger was one of the strongest tanks ever. Were is the Tiger1 tank? AND: No Sherman can destroy a Tiger1 Tank.
PittCessna 3 days ago
@PittCessna: Actually, a Sherman could knock out a Tiger I, if it managed to get a flank or rear shot at close-enough range. The Anglo-American forces usually had to spend several M4s to get others into position to flank the Tiger, but eventually, they did - or perhaps a TD like an M10, M18, or M36 (American) or perhaps an Archer or Achilles (British).
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 I have seen a report about the Tiger tank. A sherman had shot 20 times from 2meters at the Tigers front and it wasnt broke!
PittCessna 2 days ago
@PittCessna: A 75mm Sherman could fire point-blank into the frontal armor of a King Tiger, and do nothing more than scuff the armor. The Tiger I and Panther were almost as tough - they, too, were impervious to the low-velocity 75mm. Allied tankers knew they had to get in a flank or rear shot to get a kill, or maybe a lukcy round to jam the turret by scoring a hit on the turret ring. They could also knock off a track or take out the gunner's sights.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 day ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 thats why the british put a 17 pounder on a sherman turret
Flynwar 1 day ago
@Flynwar" The British, who had fought the Germans in Africa, knew that a race between armor protection and anti-tank weapons was unfolding between the Germans and the Allies. Even then, the 17 pounder was installed into the Sherman only because of some very determined and unorthodox mavericks in the British arms industry and Royal Artillery Corps. It almost didn't happen.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 day ago
IS not JS ;p
svenskmaktfinneslakt 3 days ago
JagdPanther over an IS2 anyday
generalderpanzer 3 days ago
p1000 ratte was never built
DornAlien123 4 days ago
your video editing skills suck and the vid isnt showing much either.
SIG442 4 days ago
came for the tank stayed for the music xD
Arnisho 4 days ago
I'm gonna go ahead and classify this as the weird part of youtube.
dantheman9758 5 days ago
thumbs up if you like monster tanks !!!!!!
6669Anthrax 5 days ago
ah fail i mean 01:17
lembnau1991 5 days ago
00:17 Photoshop
lembnau1991 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Less than half of this video is content. That is a problem!
UncleRice00 6 days ago
да и + с броней назвиздели 150-360мм уже на р1500,а не на р1000
al3k73y 1 week ago
шлюхи тупые!на 1:05 танк такой ДОЛЖЕН был существовать.Гугл вам всем в помощь
al3k73y 1 week ago
i getting out of here because this music is scary...
polik55 1 week ago
nice video wrong music ..:)
Luci07Lex 1 week ago
who plays wot a finger in the top
456w6 1 week ago 98
is 1:07 real?
andrew1jl 1 week ago
Not sure what this is based on. The T28 is never that good in world of tanks. Also the Ratte never existed, even as a prototype.
Fenweruha 1 week ago
I guess some people never understood the difference between moving pictures and a slideshow. Ferdinand a monster tank? Good grief, i could be taken out by a molotov carrying retard - the elephant on the other hand...
krejslayer 1 week ago
@krejslayer Ferdinand was not really a tank, more of a Tank Destroyer/SPG hybrid, not supposed to be front line tank. The elephant? are you talking about the British Flying Elephant? that was just a concept and never got build if I remember correctly. Or you might be talking about the german "elefant".
ZelatorUK 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK Ferdinand was a tank, yes a tank destroyer/SPG, but it still classed as a tank. Yea the Elephant, and of course im talking about the German Elephant tank destroyer , because its basically the same tank, except for the Elephant having a forward machine gun for infantry, hence my reference to the molotov throwing retard, because the Ferdinand didnt have it and therefore was unable to deal with em'.
krejslayer 1 week ago
E-100 is missing KV-2 isnt a monster. neither is KV-1
The monster is the IS series
SU-152 isnt scary.
ISU-152 is damn scary with the bl-10 152mm
T95 is more a monster then T28
T28 is a TD
JagdTiger is just a TD
KT aint a monster
swordfish12roblox 1 week ago
@swordfish12roblox this video aint about world of tanks dude..
Superisizeme 1 week ago
@swordfish12roblox T28, and T95 are exactly the same vehicle, it's just that it was named T28 AND T95.
skraf883 1 week ago
@swordfish12roblox
this is not a WOT...
sosic2121 6 days ago
@swordfish12roblox: "ISU-152 is damn scary with the bl-10 152mm" The Soviets called the ISU-152 "Tiger Killer," because a direct hit from a relatively low velocity but very large and heavy 152mm shell would wreck almost any German tank. The concusssion alone from such a large detonation would probably harm the crew, perhaps kill them outright. Enough high explosive will damage or "kill" even the best tank.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 day ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 A hit by the 152mm He on the turret or upper hull would create large amounts of spalling inside the tank, generally killing the crew.
0341MarineInfantry 16 hours ago
@0341MarineInfantry: You would think so.... I wouldn't want to be inside any tank taking a hit from 152mm shell, not even one of the most modern, well-protected designs.
GeorgiaBoy1961 7 hours ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 The BL-10 was not put on the ISU-152, it was put on the ISU-152-2, put into trials in Dec 44, and never into service before war's end. ISU-152BM used the BL-8 152mm, but its overall length and performance of its shells made it unsatisfactory.
skraf883 2 hours ago
Ratte max speed 40km??? LOL
KINGSTON1591 1 week ago
what about the p1500? it was much larger than the p1000 ;-)
PredatorianStyl 1 week ago
what the music?
FireArchimonde 1 week ago
Russians > German > American. Yes russian tanks were not as good as German ones but they outnumbered them 10:1, German tanks were very expensive to build and it was a big blow to lose one. Americans don't even enter the picture they were miles behind they designed their tanks as a reaction (Germany makes big gun, Americans try to make a bigger one) But by the time the tank was designed and produced Germans already moved on. T29 springs to mind, prototype made and 1200 ordered but cancelled.
ZelatorUK 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK Russians > German > American??? LOL right. Panther was too tall and too slow.. and mechanically it was a mess. The Russian T34/85 is considered the best medium tank in the war.. but only if you discount the USA's Pershing... which OWNED Panthers.
And what made the Sherman so good, was the engineering behind it... Ya the gun lacked penetration at first, but by the time the Brits created the Firefly version, it was a beast.
skraf883 1 week ago
@skraf883 funny you should mention the russian t34, I just came back from the Imperial war museum in London where they have the t34 sitting right next to a German JGPanther. The t34 was a succesful tank but not because it was the best, it was good because the russians could manufacture them fast and cheap and could outnumber the germans in every situation, 1:1 the t34 is highly inferior, the biggest weaknesss is the fact that the fuel tanks are mounted externaly on the side armor.
ZelatorUK 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK The fuel tanks on the outside were external drop tanks. They were meant to be discarded before entering battle. And most people think about the T34/76, I said the T34/85, which mounted the 85mm.
And what makes a tank design successful is a mixture of 3 things.. protection, mobility, and gun. For the most part, German tanks only had protection and gun. But German tanks lack armor on the sides and rear.
skraf883 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK: Actually, I hadn't heard that about the T34's tanks. The drawback I've read of is that the optics on tank's aiming system were inferior to those of German tanks, meaning that usually a German crew would see the T34 at longer range - and thus get in that all-important first shot. The T34-85 was an upgrade to the original design, and was improved incrementally throughout the war. By 1945, it was a very good tank.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@skraf883 Only Sherman in WW2 that saw enough combat action was the E2 "Jumbo" which were slaughterfood to KingTigers which were around at the time. I once heard a story from a old Jumbo driver, he said his crew bailed out of the Jumbo the second they saw the Tigers turret pointing at them, a second later he looked back and saw a burning wreck he said the trade off was worth it because they got their positions and radiod in for airstrikes
ZelatorUK 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK Wow dude.. so misinformed. E2 Jumbo was one of the smaller variants. E8's were produced in much greater numbers.. and the plain old M4 and M4A1 were produced in the most numbers.
And those King Tigers.. were "slaughterfood" to Pershings and M18 Hellcats
skraf883 1 week ago
@skraf883 yeah my bad, just saw something about vanilla m4's, i think 18,000 or so tanks were produced in ww2. but those were inadequate against, panzers, tiger 1's and 2's. Yes the Pershing was and Hellcat were good, but those only entered in the closing stages of ww2, of course they would be better since they were designed for that purpose, Yeah your right but I was kind of looking at the ww2 picture, not Korean war etc.
ZelatorUK 1 week ago
@ZelatorUK LOL Poor old Sherman.. M4 Sherman was totally great against the tanks it was designed to go up against.. Pz III and Pz IV. They were totally taken off guard by the Panther and Tigers. But one thing you can say about the old Shermy.. they took a licking.. the average Sherman in WW2 was knocked out 10 times and put back into action! This is because they were designed to be easily repaired. Something German tanks could never do because they were so complicated.
skraf883 1 week ago
@skraf883: Anglo-American tankers paid a terrible price for the Sherman's shortcomings, but ironically, the very thinness of the armor may have helped in repair, because German AT rounds possessed such penetrating power that they could go in one side and out the other. If no vital mechanical components were hit, the dead could be removed and the tank reconditioned. The Germans eventually learned to fire on an M4 until it burned or blew up, making recovery & reuse tougher.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@skraf883 "And those King Tigers.. were "slaughterfood" to Pershings and M18 Hellcats"
is this a joke? LOL
sosic2121 6 days ago
@sosic2121 No, the Pershing was an amazing tank.. mixing the 90mm, which could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor at 2600 yards, with it's smaller profile. Pershing was a beast. M18 Hellcat was the fastest piece of armor in the whole war at 60mph, and later versions of it mounted the 90mm as well. M18 was very well liked by its crews.
skraf883 6 days ago
@skraf883 The Pershing was a good tank, no doubt.
But it was only slightly better then a Tiger, which isn't that special since it came 1945.
The Pershing was definatly no match for any of the late war german heavy tanks/tank destroyers.
The Super Pershing however was beast.
No idea why people mention hellcats, this vid is about "moster tanks" the hellcat was a light tank destroyer.
Also the 90mm gun version of the Hellcat never saw any action, the M36 Slugger did however.
Ondkorven 6 days ago
@Ondkorven I disagree, Pershing was not only the match of late German TDs and heavies, but also their superior. It had a superior gun, smaller profile, better elevation and declination, more acute sloped armor.. AND late German steel was of lower quality than that being produced in the US.
Sept 19th,.1944, a platoon of M18's faced a brigade of Panthers, knocking out 5 Panthers to only 1 M18.. in 5 minutes. Later that day, they knocked out 10 more only losing 2.. most were Panthers
skraf883 5 days ago
@skraf883 The Pershing was definatly not a bad tank. But it was more in the same league of a Tiger and not a King tiger in terms of firepower and gun.
Even the super pershings high velocity gun had less penetration then the King Tigers/Elefant/jagdpanthers 88.
I also don't understand your story about the Hellcats, alot of crazy things happend in the war.
Like a M8 Greyhound defeating a Tiger. The Hellcat where nice but under normal circumstances it would lose vs a Panther.
Ondkorven 5 days ago
@Ondkorven: "Even the super pershings high velocity gun had less penetration then the King Tigers/Elefant/jagdpanthers 88." Not according to the sources I've seen; the T15E1 90mm gun on the Super Pershing was 73 cal. long with muzzle velocity of 3750 ft./second (1140 m/s). With T30E16 APRC ammo, it could penetrate a Panther frontally at up to 2,400 meters. The KwK 88mm L71 (King Tiger) developed 1000 m/s muzzle velocity, marginally less than the U.S. gun.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@Ondkorven: "The Pershing was definatly not a bad tank. But it was more in the same league of a Tiger" Yes, since it mounted a 90mm gun, but even the Panther, since the M26 weight was similar. Re: the M18 Hellcat, it would be destroyed quickly in a stand-up slugfest, because American TDs has such thin armor. However, using its high speed and maneuverability, the M18 (or the M10 and M36) was useful in ambush, popping out from defilade to fire, and then backing behind cover again.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@Ondkorven Take out 15 Panthers in the course of a day.. only losing 3 M18 Hellcats.. and that was abnormal? M18 was prized because it's gun could penetrate and their incredible speed. This allowed then to get into position where they could take side shots at the Panther where they were VERY weak. Panther was only fearsome if you were looking at it's front. It's sides were thin, and straight up and down.. slaughterfood.
skraf883 2 hours ago
@skraf883: Belton Copper, who served in Europe with the 2nd AD, and saw much action as an armor ordnance officer, believes that the M26, had it been developed and sent to the ETO in time for D-Day, could have shortened the war in the ETO considerably. Apart from being somewhat underpowered, it was a very good blend of fire power, mobility and protection. Using souped-up ammo, it was the equal of any German tank it was likely to encounter. The gun on the Super Pershing was superb.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@skraf883: Agreed about U.S. TDs like the M10, M18 and M36. They were often the only vehicles in the U.S. Army arsennel capable of dealing with the Panthers and Tigers on a consistent basis - with the caveat - once the TD command developed decent doctrine, strategy and tactics for using these thin-skinned but hard-hitting vehicles. They were also prized as infantry support weapons.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@Ondkorven And Russians thought so much of the Tiger 2, that they immediately charged the first 2 that they faced.. with their T34's.. and destroyed them easily. Tiger 2 was beast.. as long as the target they were facing was in the same direction as their turret. The turret turning speed was ridiculously slow. IS2 and IS3 was more than a match for the Tiger 2.
skraf883 5 days ago
@skraf883: The Tiger II was a formidable and frightening heavy tank in the ambush, but in offensive operations, it was as often a liability as not. It was so heavy that many bridges couldn't withstand it, nor narrow streets in many cities of that time. It had to be transported by rail for anything longer than fairly short ranges. It was also mechanically complex, difficult to service and expensive to manufacture. Also a fuel hog. These things all matter in assessing its worth.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@Ondkorven And if you notice.. the video was mostly about purely FICTIONAL tanks. Ya a few of them actually did exist, most didn't see action, and some never existed outside of paper. The largest tanks ever created.. 2 Maus prototypes, never even had real functional turrets on them.. The 2 that were captured at their factory had wooden mockup turrets.. And if you check the serial numbers on the 2 mauses.. you will see that 1 chassis has the turret for the other tank on it.
skraf883 5 days ago
@skraf883: "No, the Pershing was an amazing tank.." It has become armor history orthodoxy that the M-26 was a stop-gap design, and therefore a failure. This isn't accurate, for the M-26 gave rise to the M-46/48/60 family of tanks, which were only retired from U.S. military front-line service in the 1990s. The M-60 used many components and design features from the Pershing, even decades after the war.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 day ago
@sosic2121: "Slaughtered" is the wrong word concerning knocking out a Tiger II, no matter who's doing the talking. Those things were beasts, and tough to disable or destroy. Our M4s looked like toys next to the massive King Tiger. However, we managed - with difficulty - to knock them out, proving that no armored vehicle is invulnerable. Ironically, one of the best weapons for taking out a Panther or a Tiger was a captured German Panzerfaust, which was superb in this role.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@skraf883: With the 17-pounder, the Sherman at least had hitting power capable of dealing with the newest German designs but the Sherman's armor remained inferior. The Sherman's mobility and floatation weren't all that great, either, especially on soft ground, hence the track "grousers" or endpins installed as an expedient in the field. The M4's tracks were too narrow, hence ground pressure too high. Also, it could not be turned in place as the German tanks could be.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@skraf883: Concerning my comments on the Sherman, they are taken from Belton Cooper's tremendous book "Death Traps," which recounts his wartime service with the 2nd AD in the ETO.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
they were actually planning on building the ratte
but after some work and number crunching
they had found out that even on paved roads
it would still be too heavy, and most likely would sink
not to mention even with the AA guns it would be a huge
target for aircraft and even artillery
fruckles 1 week ago
The Ratte, Maus, and T-28 never saw battle but the T-28 and Maus were both made. The Ratte was shut down a year after Hitler approved it before they even began construction on it. The title you posted suggest tanks that were in WWII, but still they were amazing tanks and tank designs.
youtubu124 1 week ago
@youtubu124 Had they won, it would of been a hell of a propaganda stunt though.
gotsda 1 week ago
ратте он в реале был???
Tankist771 1 week ago
где т28 - это т95!
agranom85 1 week ago
German Brainfreeze
scheissindiedisko 1 week ago
KV not a monster, it was very very clumsy
angelinejt 1 week ago
if that last one was real and it came at me then HOLY MOTHER OF SHI*!
TheDeadman1818 1 week ago
The P1000 Ratte wasn't builded beceause it would be too big, And it would be too weak for air attacks, Plus they were unfitted to fight against other tank.
SC18Metrounit 2 weeks ago
German Steel !
Bianconero8904 2 weeks ago
1:07 this looks pretty inconvenient if the enemy has airsupport. or eyes.
ReneM1989 2 weeks ago
wtf a 1 an a half min then the rest is just music
hippierdude 2 weeks ago
the tank from 1:05 is called ''die ratte'' but it never entered the production line because it would take 2 years to build 1 and it could hardly move on land ( because of his size was it a easy target) and if it was producted it was used at the beaches (this was 1 of hitler's ideas during the ww2)
choastech7 2 weeks ago 14
@choastech7 The main reason that the P1000 Landkreuzer never got off of the drawing board was because it was prohibitively heavy and large. At more than 1,000 tons, it would have collapsed most bridges under it's weight, and would have sunk into the ground in most places. Also, due to it's weight, it would have been lucky to move at anything faster than about 0.5mph by modern estimates.
In short, it would have been useless as anything more than a technological showpiece.
Kiltmaster 1 week ago
@choastech7 ultra mega super heavy tank
yoco93cro 4 days ago
@choastech7 Wow, Hitler is a real retard D:
MariusThePaladin 3 days ago
@MariusThePaladin im happy they never finished it cuz if they did he could destroy ALOT of thing!
willitec1 3 days ago
не страшно
dmitriy1828 2 weeks ago
X-Files... lol
ZombieVidsGuy 2 weeks ago
1. here is to see the is-3 but the the is-3 was build after the ww2
2.Ferdinand musnt have a maschingun it was not a tank it was a tankdestroyer so he dont fight against infantery
berserker0005 2 weeks ago
Number 1 wasent even builf
itzwazme 2 weeks ago
KV-2 was a world war two soviet heavy tank that was not mass produced because of the price for the tank. The T-95 was more of a tank destroyer because of the lack of a turret.
plasmastrike999 2 weeks ago
Its funny, because Ferdinand actually sucked in WWII.. it didnt had a machinegun so it could counter infantry.. any dumb fuck who could get nearby was able to throw a grenade or even a molotov.. this tank was a total failure, but he was big indeed.
CalaxSG 2 weeks ago
@CalaxSG
no, actually it didn't suck
actually it had kill/death 10
and later was fitted with machinegun
sosic2121 6 days ago
@sosic2121 i'm afraid you dont know much about war stories.. Ferdinand were a failure on the battlefield because of the enemy infantry. i'm not saying its a bad tank, he was just bad for his role.
CalaxSG 6 days ago
@CalaxSG: The Ferdinand hit hard at long range with its KwK L71 88mm, but had no MG for infantry defense, so Soviet tank killer teams made short work of them up close and personal. A few grenades, a magnetic mine, or a Molitov Cocktail in the right place was all it took.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 days ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 that's what i said in first place, he was a good tank. but the ally infantry ate it with molotovs.. lmao
CalaxSG 1 day ago
!AND!
The P1000 "Ratte" is not the biggest tank in WWII
The P1500 is bigger! ;)
FischisFritz13 2 weeks ago
@najsbajsmedmajs
Me too ;)
I think the "Ratte" will be a Tier XV ;D
FischisFritz13 2 weeks ago
I want to see that last tank in world of tanks ^^
najsbajsmedmajs 3 weeks ago
Dragance igras li ti World of Tanks. Da igras primetio bi da je T30 ; IS-7 ; OBJ 704... da sad ne nabrajam tenkovi koji jebu kevu a ti ono sto si pokazao nema veze sa vezom. :)
4nenad 3 weeks ago
The ferdinand IS NOT Aan SPG ITSA TANK DESTROYER!!!(TD)ok?
sadrobokiller4 3 weeks ago
that last one was a land battle ship
hansbolter 1 month ago
hay ben böyle video yapaninda amk götüne koyum serefzisler bok gibi video yapmizins.Ulan oncada koyimdiyede küfür eddim bare kiz olsa
1453CaptainBlack 1 month ago
There was a planned bigger 1500 ton tank.
mypokemonisawesome 2 months ago
1:05 i bet it is the biggest tank in the whole world i wonder how much people can go in there
waffle9256 2 months ago
1:38 best part
bazingastuff 2 months ago
@jango1968 an SPG is a Tank they don't have a turret.
dgfkroblox 2 months ago
Lool too scary song
JUMPENKILLER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search the word WIN !
FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAILE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE
TheNeedbackup 2 months ago
X-Files
armandodi72 2 months ago
the tank Ratte wasent produced only planed
ted4441 2 months ago
wtf is 1:05 real o:
420Dubby 2 months ago
Sherman the best xDD
FarmerxD1 2 months ago
@FarmerxD1 to repair but nothing else ^^
hardrockemo17 2 months ago
if the turret doesn't rotate it isnt a tank
jango1968 2 months ago
@jango1968 fool
hardrockemo17 2 months ago
@hardrockemo17 you dont know much do ya lol
jango1968 2 months ago
@jango1968 let´s see mhhhh
I know that the most tankkiller tanks like Jagdttiger and Hetzer have no turret,
so I know that you´re wrong ;)
well, sorry for brinning that out, but I think I know more about that stuff than you. ;P have a nice day ;)
hardrockemo17 2 months ago
It isn't t28 but T95 and it isn't super heavy tank but tank destroyer ...
ArabXify 2 months ago
@ArabXify T28 (also know as 105mm Motor carriage T95) was a heavily armored self-propelled gun, sometimes referred as super-heavy tank.
finskakiller 2 weeks ago
T34s were replaced in USSR as well, yet other countries CHOSE to buy t-34s ISs, KVs and NOT Shermans... up to the 80s... I wonder why??? official US historians admit that when it came to panzers US was FAR FAR FAR behind both Germany and USSR, so what is there to argue about?
musicmysh 2 months ago
i'm going to leave because this music is scary.
BreezyWindx 2 months ago 97
yes i like it
nestolex1974 2 months ago
1:05 That tank wasn't even built only designed but was canceled.
as for these debates
When most people hear T-34 or Sherman they don't know what that means. but when most people hear Panzer they already say WW2.
tops1028 2 months ago
Т-34 must be first
Dask24rus 2 months ago
1:05 LOOOL
Checker77820 2 months ago 43
@Checker77820 this was Hitler prototype
0RVER 1 month ago
@Checker77820 That tank was going to be made. It's just that Germany didn't have enough resources at the time to make it. Also it is said that it was made but was never seen in action.
PCer115 3 weeks ago
@Checker77820 this is what Hitler want to build I sow this in documental film
Dukales23 1 week ago
Hold a sec on that KV-2 is not a damm SPG <.< is a heavy tank
Atemerus 2 months ago
1:04 cannot be real i swear
wiiLuvCalifornia 2 months ago
@wiiLuvCalifornia it was a concept tank, and short of a nuclear weapon, nothing could have damaaged it
IrishRedneck17 2 months ago
@IrishRedneck17
Had the Nazis built that monstrosity, it likely would've ended up like so many of their King Tigers, a mile marker on the road to Berlin as they ran out of fuel and abandoned by crews.
fyrewolffe 2 months ago
Usa tanks suck motherfucking dick!!!! USa army sux! in everything
tavosatriani 2 months ago
@tavosatriani tell that to iraq lol
Noowbie1 2 months ago
@tavosatriani
Is this why the US Army is by far the most powerful on earth?
The US and UK are the only armies that consistently achieve 100+ to 1 kill ratios. No other army can make such claims.
fyrewolffe 2 months ago
@tavosatriani
I know right, because the tanks the high-tech Afghanistan military uses are by far better. Seriously how could a modern Abrams M1A1 with advanced communications to a combat information center with possible UAV and/or satellite support ever stand stand up to a poorly maintained 50 year old Soviet tank.
dannonyogurt98 2 months ago
@tavosatriani Then do please explain why the US forces have almost always suffered much smaller casualties than the opposition they faced in virtually every war they fought in since the Cold War. Name one country whose military can equally match all the capabilities of the US.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
The Landkreuzer was never built
XxrushxX1 2 months ago
0:40 IS-2 in Overloon, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands, I've been there, I sat on that tank :D
1997Lucske1997 2 months ago
German and Russian always makes good and reliable tank...and simply the best in the world
carlogwapo1234 2 months ago
@carlogwapo1234 definitely the reason why both of their tanks were full of mechanical maladies that prevented the tanks being used for long periods of time. Tigers and panthers would break down or combust, same with the two Maus that they fielded. Also, the russians created terrible engines that combusted after going at max speed fior a fairly short period of time. The sherman was the most reliable tank during world war two. And even today, americans make the best tanks.
skloser1 2 months ago
@skloser1 My dear friend, have you ever seen a diesel engine combust???
T-34-85 served up until 80's all over the world, so did IS 2-3. Sherman were long forgotten. But be so kind as to provide me with the source of your knowledge... Where did you read that Tigers would "combust" ???
musicmysh 2 months ago
@musicmysh Shermans were long forgotten as they were replaced en masse. Do please note that many of the countries that operated the T34/85 several decades after WW2 are for the most part countries that weren't well-off and had little to afford for newer tanks or simply kept them in reserve or storage.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
@musicmysh Germans used gasoline while russians used diesel. The russians tanks however were very easy to destroy for the germans tanks and by the americans shermans. We used them during the korean war. Also, the shermans were used into the seventies by middle eastern countries like Syria, Israel, Egypt and other vehicles. Tigers would combust after being used for long periods of time because of the rising heat in the engines that proved to much. This happened with the panther as well
skloser1 2 months ago
@musicmysh The IS series of tanks were actually terrible designs that were quickly replaced by the Soviets T54/55 and later T-64. The reason so many countries used them for so long were because they were cheap to use, they too had terrible engine problems when they came up against pershings and shermans with the 90mm during the six day war between Egypt and Israel. They served for so long because the russians had a surplus of them, they sold them for money in their failing economy.
skloser1 2 months ago
@skloser1 You do understand that you are talking about 20 year old tanks in combat against modern Shermans (in case of 6 day war and Korean war)??? Please provide links that would support your statement of Russian tanks being "Easily destroyed" or Tigers "combusting". Keep in mind no LATER THEN MAY 1945!!!
musicmysh 2 months ago
@carlogwapo1234 not always. there were many "funny" models, but the end result was a very high quality product.
musicmysh 2 months ago
1:03 p1000 nice concept picture but totally improbable. i know the germans were ahead of their time in most all technology they had but even the fuerer wasnt stupid enough to waste time and resources on a machine that 1. was to big to manuever in europe, 2. paints the biggest mobile aerial assault target in history, and 3. would take a massive co-op to protect to even get into any position taht might be useful. no the germans were much smarter, they put their big guns on rail cars
coolaid84 2 months ago
@MrMusicfo...T28 and T95 are the exact same vehicle, it was simply a new name as the US Army changed it's role. Read about it on Wikipedia please:
"The T28 super heavy tank (also called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armored self-propelled gun designed for the US Army during World War II.... Sometimes referred to as a super-heavy tank, the T28 was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945 and then renamed a super heavy tank in 1946."
skraf883 2 months ago
no1:17no no what would the tank e used for???? RUNNING OVER SHERMANS and T34s?? or shootin 111 BATTLESHIPS OF Normandy??? NO nO no I KNOW to make aa good coastal defence platform !!! NO NONO maybe to assault Sevsastopol and moscow to scare the pure hell outta of those red ants without suffering casulties. imagine a landship fleet of 500 or so of those tanks being used at the BATTLE OF THE BULGE they would recapture ANTwurp and maybe bombard london with those big guns
HybodusStudios 2 months ago
0:36 Damn!!!!!!!!1 REAL RUSSIAN TANK!!
HybodusStudios 2 months ago
@MrMusicforGermany
u can tell this is a t 28 super heavy by the hatch guard thing on the top left side from our view and because of the gun position being higher than the tracks as the t95 has its gun level with the tracks (top of gun = to top of tracks)
PITSpatchkill 2 months ago
@PITSpatchkill T28 and T95 are the exact same vehicle, it was simply a new name as the US Army changed it's role. Read about it on Wikipedia please:
"The T28 super heavy tank (also called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armored self-propelled gun designed for the US Army during World War II.... Sometimes referred to as a super-heavy tank, the T28 was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945 and then renamed a super heavy tank in 1946."
skraf883 2 months ago
IS-7 is better than IS-3 and Object.704 is better than ISU-152. So why there is even Ratte? Vid name is Top10 Monster tanks in World War 2. P1000 had not been made to the Second World War!
mrjoke112 2 months ago
0:55 First its T-95 Second its Tank Destroyer!
mrjoke112