Even though it was experimental, if it was mass produced or even a couple 100 it would own the tank battles of ww2 cause no allied weapon could enetrate the 220mm thick armor.
Even the rear armor was thicker than the front armor of the tiger.
@DeathFromAbove11B Maus was a complete waste of a tank. Wehrmacht could build about 20 more Tigers and Panthers which were 10 times more effective, if it wasn't stupid Hitler on their way.
Maus had great armor and great armament, but it was completely worthless, due to the fact that it took 1h to move turret 360°, and it took 2h to cross 1km.
Maus was more a propaganda tank, or a.k.a. giant with no brain.
"T34/85 has a longer period of service and a higher volume of production" I just cannot accept this as a reason of better quality! Especially taking into consideraion that Panther was a product of a defeated counrty with destroyed industry. Of course they did not produce more! Man, that's ridiculous :D
Yes , T-34 - 85 is greathest,but ,i disagree whit Phanter - wery good anthi-tank ,but bad gun for another target + very heavy for a meadle tank .My faworite 3 - T-34(+t-34-85),Is-2 ,T-4
@MariusThePaladin Engine failures and fast fuel consumption. But, of course, too many people likes too exaggerate that, just so they can put the T-34 as a No.1 tank. That's very subjective and wrong.
Tanks aren't cars. They're comparing in firepower, protection and mobility. If you looks closely, you'll find that there's actually no best tank of WWII.
@boris19548 Yes, because the JNA was a venerable army, the also had PPSH-41 in the Yugoslav wars.
Funny though, they were described as the Europe's 3rd most powerful fighting force. In contrast, at the battle of Vukovar, they lost 300 tanks (about 50 T-34/85's among them), in fight with Croatian villagers.
Even as an American I must admit even the French had better tanks than the Sherman but they had no factories to produce them. The Russian tanks were the best the Allied Armies had but overall the German's did have the best. It was shear numbers and tactical blunders that led to the defeat of Germany.
I think most dengerous and efective tank was TIGER I.one shut one kill ageinst most used tanks SHERMAN and T-34.one tiger is best predator,but 10 goats can make best defence and kill TIGER.when ask you wwii tankist veterans,which tanks you will choose,anybody answer TIGER.
ei man... tiger 1 has a frontarmour from 100mm and was the best tank. And one tiger killed in averange 18 m4 sherman. Also the ratio was 1:18 for the tiger.
@Florek112 actutally, just one more.. Where are all your datas coming from?
Panthers were reliable machines in fact.. They were perhaps unreliable in their suspension and basic driving modules in their earliest models, but they soon got over them and were speedy, well-equipped, and reliable..
Also, never argue that T34 is superior cuz of service length.. Had germany won the war, Panther would have lasted longer in service than T34.. It's all about who the winner is..
@Florek112 Also, I must tell you that Germany lost air supremacy within no time at all after the battle of Britain, meaning that their factories were severely damaged and thus material production -tanks especially- severely hindered. Well, Germany had some superior aero technologies but a desparately relatively small population and lack of resources couldn't help them.
I believe m4mihulja made a perfect point, so I won't argue any further./
@Florek112 lol.. Here is just a few facts I want to let out that I hope you are aware of..
Forget about the number manufactured... I mean, just look at the population chart.. USSR population alone was 170mil while Germany had around 70mil at the start of WWII. Also, USSR had a huge landmass, filled with abundant resources.. This isn't counting the American population and resources, which was as abundant.. Then it becomes clear that the low production rate of Germany was inevitable..
It is an impossible determination, anyhow, because "the best tank available" changed quickly and often due to rapid advancements in tank technology. I think the only rating system possible is for "best tank available at any given time in a given region".
First of all i licked the beggening but at the end it should've went tiger, panther, king tiger , e series tanks. IS 2 was awful the reload times were awful because it was a two piece shell and the barrel had to be down all the way too load. Inaccurate caliber and another soviet looks good on paper but is crap in real life situation. T34 85 should be behind the firefly because to me the big diference is more penetration on firefly but it was huge leap forward from t34 76 but still inadequete.
Meh, only reason T34 was good was 1) first tank to introduce sloped armor, which forced germany to rethink their designs (hence why king tiger and panthers came with sloped armors), and 2) it was produced in massive numbers.
If you pit the tanks against eachother on a 1 v 1 basis the Tiger and KT would shred all of them.
T34 did it's job to counter the PzIV which was germany's backbone as far as tanks go. It did little to stop tigers though.
@TheP4U111 I just don't understand when somebody says: ''My opinion''. What does that mean? It's also a opinion, which means that this person who said that thinks that this tank is better due that and that...but again, it's an opinion based on facts that can be debated!
I think that people are too much mixing their opinion and subjectivity.
While the King Tiger was pretty awesome, it had it's problems. First, fuel consumption. Second, mechanical failures. Third, by the time they were put into production, it was pretty much too little, too late. They were rare on the battle field. These problems basically made the tank more useful as a static artillery piece rather than a tank. It's sad since it was a pretty awesome tank.
the GERMANS builded the BEST TANKS, NOW AND THEN, the americans cound destroy a tiger, not a pershing, not a priest, even a HOWITZER was having hard times when trying to brake down or kill the tiger AND its PERFECT and bestest crew!!
LEARN THEN CRY 'BOUT THE RUSSIANS OR AMERICAN SCHEIZE!!!
@J0hnFr33man That "piece of junk" came into service, when Germans were still riding on their Pz-I with machine guns, and Pz-II. During Barbarossa, Germans didn't have anything that could stand against them. They also copied many of T-34 solutions, when creating a PzKpfw V. Including that it was easy to produce and repair, reliable, it's clearly one of the best II WW medium tanks.
@Florek112 T-34 was the best tank, but very briefly. I think that many people are just trying to draw out the T-34 as a best tank with some lame excuses like ''speed, mobility, engine.''
Halo people!? Wake up! Are we talking here about fucking cars!? No!
Tanks are comparing on firepower, protection and mobility, not just speed and engine.
@m4mihulja (part 1:) 1. You can't compare tanks from 41' and 45'. Technological progress was too fast. 2. You compare T-34 with what? Tiger? First is medium tank, and second is heavy, they can't be compared. Compare Tiger to IS-2 - and it's not so good anymore. 3. T-34 was a medium tank, workhorse for Red Army. Like Pz IV in German Army. So they should be compared. And in this comparision - winner is one. 4. Suprisingly, main objective for tanks in WW2 - is not to fight enemy tanks.
You need to learn the first rule of war - it has no rules, dude. You aren't the one who chooses when, with who, and how will fight. You never know which enemy you'll encounter during fighting.
So, that means that every weapon of WWII can compare with each other. (Tank vs tank, ship vs ship, plane vs plane)
T-34 was a medium tank and it was a good tank. Both T-34 and Tiger were tanks. And they CAN compare.
@m4mihulja (part 2): the main task for tanks is to make breakthrough in enemy lines, usually fighting infantry. 4. German tank engines "finest"? They were unreliable, were breaking down oftenly, were complicated to produce and repair. Many undamaged Tigers were left because of broken engine or suspension. 5. Your criteria for T-34/85, even in 44': firepower - very good for medium tank, allowing to fight 90% of German vehicles, protection - good for medium tank, mobility - excellent.
@m4mihulja Part1:You didn't understand me clearly. 1. I've never said that T-34 is the best tank of WWII. Only that it's the best medium tank. 2. You can't compare Tiger to T-34, because they were created to completely different tasks! T-34 was not to be heavy armored, etc, because Russian engineers had completely different priorities, than Germans, when creating Tiger! That's why they made IS-2. You don't know what You'll encounter, but there is propability. And in any part of war...
@Florek112 No pal, you CAN compare T-34 and Tiger due to the fact that this video is called ''Top 10 tanks of WWII'', not ''Top 10 medium tanks WWII''. That would be crazy.
Both Tiger and T-34 are tanks and they can compare, due to the already said fact that you don't choose when, where and with which tank you'll fight.
@m4mihulja Part2: ...Germans always had less than 500 Tigers on Eastern Front, mostly in independent Heavy Tank Battalions, they were only used in big offensives, or other critical situations. During whole war they produced only 1354 Tigers, and 489 Tigers II. You greatly overestimate role of big gun, and heavy armor. Characteristics such as reliability, easy production, etc, are pretty much as important. Because war is not a series of 1 on 1 duels. More factors must be considered.
@m4mihulja Part3: And for me, it's You, who is too way subjective. You are fixed on Your "Great German engineers". German tanks "best combination of firepower, protection and mobility"? Come on! Which German tank? Pz IVh - no comment, Tiger - lack of mobility, badly profiled armor, poor engine. Panther - best German tank IMHO, but unreliable. Tiger II? Let Joachim Peiper answer - he called it "immovable crap". All of them - expensive (Very important factor).
@m4mihulja Part1: Sorry, I won't continue discussion, You're biased, and insulting. Saying that I support USSR, and use propaganda is the stupidest thing I've heard recently. My attitude to USSR is the same as to Third Reich. I am historian, and historical truth is the only thing i support. Also You don't distinguish facts and opinions. Pearl Harbor was attacked 7th December 41' - this is a fact. "German tanks were simply the BEST" - this is not a fact, this is an opinion.
@Florek112 No, I'm not naive. You deliberately won't discuss anymore, due to the fact that you don't know what to say, because I have told you facts that you can't answer because you're subjective.
You just couldn't answer because they are just facts and they don't agree with your subjective Soviet propaganda.
Also, opinions are based on facts, they can be either objective or subjective.
@m4mihulja Part2: Also propably only You know what tank crew has to do with tank quality as an EQUIPMENT. And I abstract from this video. Following Your logic - go and compare B-17 and Bf-109e. They are both combat planes. And You don't choose which plane You will encounter. And answer yourself one question: What means a little advantage in gun/armor, when enemy will produce 7 tanks at the similar price, with only slightly worse parameters. That's all from me. No over.
@Florek112 You see, you deliberately changed theme to planes, because you have lost a debate about tanks. You're like a ''General after the battle'', pal.
Yes, both B-17 and Bf-109 are planes. BUT, B-17 is a heavy bomber that doesn't fights with other planes, and Bf-109 is a fighter that don't bombards.
Medium and heavy tanks are, tanks and both serve for fighting against each other!
i LOVE how everybody is hating on the american tanks just because the germans were advanced in their technology. yes germans quality were alot better but to hate and say tanks were "total shit" like they know first hand is total nonsense and childish. ITS HISTORY guys not a topic to start a flame war over.
@broncosfan02 I said that because he said that Pershing could ''easily'' destroy Panther and Tiger. That can only be said by ignorant fool, my friend.
Also, so what if somebody says that something is shit? There were/are/will be many shits of inventions in the world.
@m4mihulja the pershing was one of few alllied tanks that can stand to axis' powerful tanks, maybe not "easily" but in a battle im sure the pershing would put up a good fight. in regards to your other comment, you will never know what is and isnt total crap untill you experience it first hand how its meant to be used, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about 70 year old tanks for all we know that could have been the best technology of the time b4 the germans, just saying its pretty dumb
@broncosfan02 Pershing could barely stand to Tiger I and Panther, but it couldn't stand to Tiger II in dreams.
Although Pershing's 90mm M-3 gun could penetrate 140mm a 100m, his poorly trained crew, his weak armor and superior German advancement, made it unsuccessful.
I like Shermans and the many variants produced, people bag them, but i respect the 'ol sherman. I have made many (models) and im especially fond of the turtle shaped turret with 76 mm high velocity gun. They look cool, however the gun was still a peashooter compared to Pak's. I built this version, took about 400 hours over 4 months, one of the best i've made... besides the pride of the fleet, which is my Tiger1 . Will post pic's soon. I am currently building early Jagdpanther + Panzer 4 Ausf H
hey i guess you wanted to say tiger 2 on te 1stplace cause it didn'had only the 88mm, it also had a 105mm with pen 230 at 100m and it's best engine it ever had was a 870 hp engine. hull was 150mm thick at 50° and turret 185mm at 75°. i know it had 2 turrets, but the good one had 185mm. and if it is to talk about indestructible tank, search"maus tank" on google. 128mm gun, 220 mm armor, 1750 hp...
KV-8? KV-8 is a KV-1 with a flamethrower. And the picture depicts a KV-1.
The KV design had nothing to do with the T-34. The T-34 was derived from the BT series, the KV-1 from T-35.
The T-34 was in 1940 the best tank in the world. The best German tank in -40 was Panzer IIIE, the best British the painfully slow Mathilda infantry tanks. The French had the Char B1, solid and well-armed for it's time, but slow and unwieldy.
Tanks from -40 can't compare with tanks from -43, obviously.
have a close look at the troops beside the sherman..... one of them is dead ringer for jerry seinfield.... ive got in a book somewhere and everyone i've showed agrees totaly
Jeez...6 top comments so far, and all that mine comments! Thanks people! Nice to know that people agree with me, and these comments maybe helped someone to know more! =D
@KardanTowil I hope you're kidding, because if you're not, then you're completely crazy.
First of all - the M4 105mm Sherman couldn't destroy T-34, because it's gun could fire only HE rounds, which could penetrate 50mm at 100m at 0'. T-34 front armor was 90mm at 0', and it's hull armor was 45mm, but at 50', which 105mm shell could only dream to penetrate.
Also, M-26 Pershing was shit, Panthers and Tigers were 5 times more advanced, and also they had 10 times stronger guns, and better crews.
@arnaldodacomando Yeah, that's true. They were best in the navy, but they were average in land forces. Germans were opposite.
But look at this fact - near the end of war, Japan started to build new medium and heavy tanks, such as some great ones like Type-3, Type-4 and Type-5.
If these were completed in large numbers, Japan would be in 3rd place.
@m4mihulja cool i didn't know that they made medium and heavy tanks not like they were going to change anything since the americans had the atomic bomb.
@arnaldodacomando Yes, they did. Type-5 Chi-Ri, for example would be a great tank. It should have a 105mm Type-5 gun, armor of 50-150mm, and max. speed of 40km/h.
Sadly, the Japan's desperate shortage of materials, prevented it from begin build in large numbers, and also converted it into medium, instead of heavy tank.
@m4mihulja Britain's tanks generally had more firepower and more armour than their American counterparts. Our desert one's were "light and shite" but at that point America wasn't equipped with any better. I'd take a Churchill or Crommie over the Sherman any day.
@alekzander2010 The UK Centurion had a 15mm armor from ALL sides, which a Pz-2 could penetrate and blow-up. Also it got usual 76mm Mk-3 gun that was too weak to destroy anything stronger than Pz-4.
@arnaldodacomando What's wrong with that, the Germans and Russians DID have better thanks than the Brits and Americans. You can't argue that. The numbers doesn't make a tank better, especially as Germany and Russia have smaller populations than American and their factories were under constant attack. America could have churned out millions of tigers if they'd been building them as they had the industry, the people and the security.
@m4mihulja I know he didn't argue, what I'm saying is that he cannot argue with the fact I laid down in that comment. The Germans and Russians DID have better armoured platforms. German's were refined and high tech for the time, the Russians were basic but rugged, reliable and they got over their rough tech by mounting larger guns on their platforms,
@m4mihulja If they ever make a sequel of "LOST IN SPACE" , then you should apply for "LEAD ROLE". I will recomend you for the part, i'll cry for a year solid if you dont get it!! you should be able to achieve that, since you are a waste of cyber space... third time i'll tell you... your a idiot son...amen
@oscarthegrouch68 Yeah, I'm an idiot with 7 top comments so far, comments which tells only logistics and facts. And now here comes some ignorant clown, who is so an angry at truth, that he just can't hear it.
Don't be naive dude, you'll end up in a DEFEATED HISTORY part of comments.
@saksari93 Yeah of 5000 built Panthers about 10% of them broke down, due because Panthers didn't have troubles with engine, and of 1500 made Tigers, about 40% of them broke down.
Also, before that, they blew-up some 5000 Allied tanks.
first of all...this top sucks,i mean i would consider ranking from most kills,longest battle service...tiger 1 10mm armor?...not even in your dreams!,and bad performance?...at that time nothing could penetrate the tiger!,not talking about tiger 2(king tiger)...the only weakness was the fuel consumption.russians and americans had no chance against tigers...if 1 or 2 tigers were in town,they would rather bomb the whole town than get after them!...so stop talking shit.learn first!
Tiger tank is the best if you considered kill ratios, each tiger killed a hell of a lot tanks before getting knocked out. Tiger tank will remain to be the most known tank of WW2 cause of the fear it brought to it's enemies.
You have to look at these tanks with a strategic view instead of a tatical view. German tanks were difficult to produce and repair in the field. The t34/85 was the best tank of WW2 because it was easy to produce and had the best combination of firepower, armour and mobility. The reason so many were knocked out was because of crappy Russian tactics. Imagine if Guderian or Rommel had 10+ divisions of t34s. In the end however, it didn't matter what the Germans had as long as Hitler was in charge.
"" The reason so many were knocked out was because of crappy Russian tactics.""
And (in the T-34/76) the tank suffered from internal design flaws such as a bad 2 man turret, few radios, poorer quality optics/gun accuracy and poor all round vision for the commander (who also had to spend his time doubling as a loader).
The T-34 had MANY design flaws internally. Nice sloping armour and a decent gun did not change the fact that internally the T-34 wasn't very good.
and a t-34 model 1941's gun could kill a sherman at 1,000m. See a fail? And btw, a hetzer could penetrate t-34s at >700m. It could penetrate a sherman as long as it could fire (reasonably about 2,000m). Tigers also couldn't penetrate t-34/85s out afar. They could kill shermans at 3k. Sherman was a bad tank. American media and popular misconception helped to change that. Search "Sherman ENgineering disaster'
@loocsiyeltsakcir Why did you write this to me, man? Did I maybe said that M4 Sherman is a great tank? As far as I know I didn't.
Also, T-34's max. pen. was 80mm at 100m, Hetzer's was 90mm at 100m, Tiger's was 180mm at 100m.
But, you're right about USA propaganda. I know that biggest disadvantage of Sherman was it's badly stored ammo. When Sherman blew-up because of that, Germans said ''Tommy Boiler'', or ''Tommy Kocher''!
ok just saying, his data isn't totally false as in 1941 when the REVOLUTIONS OF THE t-34 of kv-1 appeared, much more heavily armored and armed than any other tank of the time, the only thing that could take it out was the 88mm as all other guns at the time like the 3.6cm pak and so could do little. I do agree that it could get killed fairly easily by some late war german equipment but I perceived your message as a "t-34 sux... USA USA USA!!!!!" message...
and the t-34/76s penetration was 80mm at 100m. Search up t-34/85 penetration on google and you'll see a table of russian guns and their penetration at range. The t-34/85 had an 85mm air defense gun and could penetrate 125mm at 100m and safely knock out tigers at >500m. Don't call me an expert, but I have a decent amount of very refutable history and documentation books at my home so don't call me idiot.
@m4mihulja im sure you may have the right facts about armour piercing capabilities, but you have all the german cannons not marked by their correct title.. the ref for the panzer Ausf IV H is... main aramament..1 x 7.5 cm Kwk 40 L/48..... dont wanna argue with u dude.. my reference is the book titled GERMAN TANKS of world war two, by George Forty.... page81... by arms & armour Press..Sterling Publishing Co.Inc
@oscarthegrouch68 Yes, you're right. My apology. KwK-36 is due to the fact that Tiger I's gun was 88mm Flak-36 which was made in 1936. Panther's gun is KwK-42, and Pz-IVG's was KwK-40 due to the fact that their guns were made in 1940's.
@m4mihulja Thankyou. I've been a Panzer fan for 37 years, since i was 10. I think the kwk38 88mm was from ww1, it had a 3 piece barrel, and was used in artillery and anti-aircraft role. I have been constucting models since i was 10, and the Tamiya models provided a small rundown on the vehicles & stats. this is how I found out about the 88mm gun.Tamiya provided stats of how the gun was produced, the variants etc. About shermans, their crew's tried to set the tigers on fire with HE.+godshelp.
@m4mihulja Dragon models are now so much better, have loads more detail, and can be quite challenging sometimes.. gotta question 4 you? what was the name of the turtle shaped turret on the sherman with the 76mm high velocity gun... m21 perhaps... it has escaped my memory.... sturm tiger restoration is in the wind... got loads of parts 4 it, just waiting for 1 to arrive at local shop
@m4mihulja to anser my own question, I referenced cookie sewel's review of the M4A1 (76) W, and found out that the turret was named the T23 variant...cheers Oz
@DasFlugenwrecker sure but how many of thos T-34s with their "good armour" actualy survived a hit from a 75? let alone an 88. life expectancy was VERY short in a a T-34
@angryhippo2910 depends which 75mm your talking about the 75 in 1941 couldnt penetrate but the Upgraded 75 in 43 hade more penetrating power then the 88 itself but the 88 if it did penetrate it would cause a greater explosion
@alekzander2010 And, the 88mm KwK-38 of Tiger I could penetrate 180mm at 100m, but 88mm KwK-43 of Tiger II could penetrate 280mm at 100m, due to the 20 calibers longer barrel than Tiger I (Kwk-43 - L/70, KwK-38 - L/50)
@m4mihulja to the genius... stats..PZKPFW V1 AUSF E (SDKFZ 181) Armament Main 1 x 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56...ref..George Forty..German Tanks of ww2..page 120.. so where in the hell did you come up with the 38 figure fucknuckle eh? do some research, and stop blurting crap that you have not bothered to reference properly!!! buy some books, aka Thomas Jentz, George Forty, Chris Bishop, Adam Warner, Tom Cookle just to name a few,... so forgive me for spewing horseshit dicklicker
@oscarthegrouch68 Listen you little scumbag, the Tiger I had 88mm KwK-38 gun, Panther had a 75mm KwK-36 gun, Pz-IVG had 75mm KwK-34 gun, and Tiger II had 88mm KwK-43 (Pak-43) gun, wretch.
That depends on references - some says that Tiger I gun was KwK-38, and the other ones says KwK-36...but, whatever they are, they're both 88mm, moron.
Also, you double-stoned idiot, if Tiger had KwK-36, which one did Panther and Pz-IVG had?
@m4mihulja you asked me to reference it...so i did.. and i was right..again. So the corect ref for the panthers main armament..1x 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70... the corect ref for the king tiger..PZKPFW VI Ausf B (SDKFZ 182) main armament..1x 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71.. dont insult me with yr lack of knowledge... i CAN find you boy, and you wont like that one bit, that i can assure you... i figure you just dont like the truth
@DasFlugenwrecker the 75 on the Panther could actually penetrate the IS-2 easliy after the battle of Kursk Zhukov DEMANDED German Tanks to be Inspected they used the captured models to test how great their IS-1 and T.34 really were
@alekzander2010 Also, the 75mm KwK-34 used on Pz-4G, could destroy IS-1 and IS-2 on a distance of only 100m, and only in font turret mantlet, because it was at 0' degrees.
idiots King tager was the best tank in the WW 2 u fucking idiots Tiger 2 coud fuck in the air T 34-85 panther was nothing comparing to Tiger and IS 2 could barely penetrate Tiger 2 if he got a shot
there are 3 main things to a tank speed/mobility,gun,armor.usa put speed/mobility,armor,gun.Britain put,speed/mobility.armor,gun.Russia put armor and gun first,speed/mobility.Germany put armor.gun.speed/mobility. im not sure about how Germany
@PEIOYSTERS Well I think that Panther was some 50 times better than T-34, due to better firepower, protection and mobility (3 most important things), which made Panther's combat efficiency very successful.
Often in battles, Panther was capable of easily destroying 10 T-34's before (if) begin destroyed by another one.
@FRforcing Read the title of the video. TOP TEN WW2 TANKS, not armoured vehicles, not tank destroyers, not anti aircraft platforms but TANKS you moron!
@scoobytopdog get a life...you got to be kiddin' me, only what you know is moron...c'mon dude give me something better...don't be motherf***er and fight with me here...get a girl, chat with her...get something...just something, it can be ugly...don't be pathetic :(((
If the speed and production are most important about tanks, then who cares about T-34. Let just take Ferrari then, paint it into military colors and go to war! :D
@JoeytheDon1000 T-34 top? Tell me your reasons why. You want to say that T-34 is better than all German tanks in WW II era like Tiger and Panther? If your reason is ''T-34 had the best speed and production'', then tanks today would have a total different role. Then why just don't we build cars??? If the speed and production are most important, then why tanks today have so bigger and bigger guns and armor?
I disagree with this ranking but its his personal opinion and jea so much of shitty comments go learn more about ww2 and tanks in general then comment...
FYI TIGERS DIDNT PERFORM BADLY YOU MORON YOUR AN IDIOT TIGERS TERRORIZED THE ALLIES ALONG WITH KING TIGERS MY GRANPA IS A VETERAN OF WORLD WAR 2 HE BARLEY SURVIVED A TIGER TANK ENCOUNTER.
Sorry lad your wrong on the fireflys gun being able to penetrate more armour then the tigers, the tiger and king tiger are best tanks in the world (proven fact even today they still have a formidable armour and armament) look it up boss.
I like the tiger in wot
Gavman447 1 day ago
I'm pretty sure you mean JS-2, and where are your sources?
robotsamuraiTOM1500 1 day ago
SOMUA S35, B1/B1 bis ?
TheFrenchDark 3 days ago
one word
MAUS!!!
Even though it was experimental, if it was mass produced or even a couple 100 it would own the tank battles of ww2 cause no allied weapon could enetrate the 220mm thick armor.
Even the rear armor was thicker than the front armor of the tiger.
DeathFromAbove11B 5 days ago
@DeathFromAbove11B Maus was a complete waste of a tank. Wehrmacht could build about 20 more Tigers and Panthers which were 10 times more effective, if it wasn't stupid Hitler on their way.
Maus had great armor and great armament, but it was completely worthless, due to the fact that it took 1h to move turret 360°, and it took 2h to cross 1km.
Maus was more a propaganda tank, or a.k.a. giant with no brain.
m4mihulja 5 days ago 7
NO !! i disagree.
in my opinion : "SEPTIC TANK"... is the best for daily life!!
Oyiem 6 days ago
this guy has no idea of what he's talking about....
johnkennethhaarr 6 days ago
"T34/85 has a longer period of service and a higher volume of production" I just cannot accept this as a reason of better quality! Especially taking into consideraion that Panther was a product of a defeated counrty with destroyed industry. Of course they did not produce more! Man, that's ridiculous :D
MrJonArbuckle 6 days ago
The Panther gets the vote as the best looking tank.
smilo996 6 days ago
Yes , T-34 - 85 is greathest,but ,i disagree whit Phanter - wery good anthi-tank ,but bad gun for another target + very heavy for a meadle tank .My faworite 3 - T-34(+t-34-85),Is-2 ,T-4
nasoarr 1 week ago
Comment removed
RollingThunderModels 1 week ago
shermans are jokes
hypnotoad2011 1 week ago
What's the technical problems of King Tiger that he was talking about ?\
MariusThePaladin 1 week ago
@MariusThePaladin Engine failures and fast fuel consumption. But, of course, too many people likes too exaggerate that, just so they can put the T-34 as a No.1 tank. That's very subjective and wrong.
Tanks aren't cars. They're comparing in firepower, protection and mobility. If you looks closely, you'll find that there's actually no best tank of WWII.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
In the Balcan wars back in 1991-1995 you could see a big number of T34/85 stil in use.
boris19548 2 weeks ago
@boris19548 Yes, because the JNA was a venerable army, the also had PPSH-41 in the Yugoslav wars.
Funny though, they were described as the Europe's 3rd most powerful fighting force. In contrast, at the battle of Vukovar, they lost 300 tanks (about 50 T-34/85's among them), in fight with Croatian villagers.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
10 mm armor on the tiger tank?! get your facts right mate, 110mm in the front 26 mm in the rear
Tiger I was the most feared tank in the war
and the Tiger II was excellent in combat wtf?
its shell could penetrate any tank armor at that time period.
kallecan 2 weeks ago
Even as an American I must admit even the French had better tanks than the Sherman but they had no factories to produce them. The Russian tanks were the best the Allied Armies had but overall the German's did have the best. It was shear numbers and tactical blunders that led to the defeat of Germany.
BayouCityHtown 2 weeks ago
I think most dengerous and efective tank was TIGER I.one shut one kill ageinst most used tanks SHERMAN and T-34.one tiger is best predator,but 10 goats can make best defence and kill TIGER.when ask you wwii tankist veterans,which tanks you will choose,anybody answer TIGER.
tigran0705 3 weeks ago
@tigran0705 ,answer yourself : 1st-for what tank is designed , 2-nd sre corectly to compare meadle whith heavy tank. Meny veterans more liked Is-2
nasoarr 1 week ago
ei man... tiger 1 has a frontarmour from 100mm and was the best tank. And one tiger killed in averange 18 m4 sherman. Also the ratio was 1:18 for the tiger.
Masterluggi97 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 actutally, just one more.. Where are all your datas coming from?
Panthers were reliable machines in fact.. They were perhaps unreliable in their suspension and basic driving modules in their earliest models, but they soon got over them and were speedy, well-equipped, and reliable..
Also, never argue that T34 is superior cuz of service length.. Had germany won the war, Panther would have lasted longer in service than T34.. It's all about who the winner is..
Hope this was enough..
Th3R3taliator 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 Also, I must tell you that Germany lost air supremacy within no time at all after the battle of Britain, meaning that their factories were severely damaged and thus material production -tanks especially- severely hindered. Well, Germany had some superior aero technologies but a desparately relatively small population and lack of resources couldn't help them.
I believe m4mihulja made a perfect point, so I won't argue any further./
Th3R3taliator 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 lol.. Here is just a few facts I want to let out that I hope you are aware of..
Forget about the number manufactured... I mean, just look at the population chart.. USSR population alone was 170mil while Germany had around 70mil at the start of WWII. Also, USSR had a huge landmass, filled with abundant resources.. This isn't counting the American population and resources, which was as abundant.. Then it becomes clear that the low production rate of Germany was inevitable..
Th3R3taliator 3 weeks ago
If you weren't looking at quantity, but quality, than can't be T-34/85 at first place anyway...
CZvictorius 3 weeks ago
Well,well!I am ex russian Artillerist(76-122-152mm)1975-77 y
Bruno47602 3 weeks ago
Ha ha, "Best WW2 Tank" is an endless argument.
It is an impossible determination, anyhow, because "the best tank available" changed quickly and often due to rapid advancements in tank technology. I think the only rating system possible is for "best tank available at any given time in a given region".
UTubeIsTrackingYou 3 weeks ago
Correction (i liked the beggening)
TruthTeller137 3 weeks ago
First of all i licked the beggening but at the end it should've went tiger, panther, king tiger , e series tanks. IS 2 was awful the reload times were awful because it was a two piece shell and the barrel had to be down all the way too load. Inaccurate caliber and another soviet looks good on paper but is crap in real life situation. T34 85 should be behind the firefly because to me the big diference is more penetration on firefly but it was huge leap forward from t34 76 but still inadequete.
TruthTeller137 3 weeks ago
Meh, only reason T34 was good was 1) first tank to introduce sloped armor, which forced germany to rethink their designs (hence why king tiger and panthers came with sloped armors), and 2) it was produced in massive numbers.
If you pit the tanks against eachother on a 1 v 1 basis the Tiger and KT would shred all of them.
T34 did it's job to counter the PzIV which was germany's backbone as far as tanks go. It did little to stop tigers though.
xDarkDaggerx 3 weeks ago
this is all his opinion guys its not true there are many more better tanks that could beat most of these, this only PredatorELITE opinions
TheP4U111 4 weeks ago
@TheP4U111 I just don't understand when somebody says: ''My opinion''. What does that mean? It's also a opinion, which means that this person who said that thinks that this tank is better due that and that...but again, it's an opinion based on facts that can be debated!
I think that people are too much mixing their opinion and subjectivity.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
oh wow the t-34, the king tiger is better than that, come on honestly how dumb are you
TheP4U111 4 weeks ago
@TheP4U111
While the King Tiger was pretty awesome, it had it's problems. First, fuel consumption. Second, mechanical failures. Third, by the time they were put into production, it was pretty much too little, too late. They were rare on the battle field. These problems basically made the tank more useful as a static artillery piece rather than a tank. It's sad since it was a pretty awesome tank.
abaddon5 3 weeks ago
the GERMANS builded the BEST TANKS, NOW AND THEN, the americans cound destroy a tiger, not a pershing, not a priest, even a HOWITZER was having hard times when trying to brake down or kill the tiger AND its PERFECT and bestest crew!!
LEARN THEN CRY 'BOUT THE RUSSIANS OR AMERICAN SCHEIZE!!!
1313emiel 4 weeks ago 8
T-34 was a piece of junk. It was not meant to be the best, its sole purpose was to be quickly produced in large numbers.
J0hnFr33man 4 weeks ago
@J0hnFr33man That "piece of junk" came into service, when Germans were still riding on their Pz-I with machine guns, and Pz-II. During Barbarossa, Germans didn't have anything that could stand against them. They also copied many of T-34 solutions, when creating a PzKpfw V. Including that it was easy to produce and repair, reliable, it's clearly one of the best II WW medium tanks.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 T-34 was the best tank, but very briefly. I think that many people are just trying to draw out the T-34 as a best tank with some lame excuses like ''speed, mobility, engine.''
Halo people!? Wake up! Are we talking here about fucking cars!? No!
Tanks are comparing on firepower, protection and mobility, not just speed and engine.
T-34? Firepower - average, protection - average, mobility - excellent.
So, German tanks were only which had these three things the finest!
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja (part 1:) 1. You can't compare tanks from 41' and 45'. Technological progress was too fast. 2. You compare T-34 with what? Tiger? First is medium tank, and second is heavy, they can't be compared. Compare Tiger to IS-2 - and it's not so good anymore. 3. T-34 was a medium tank, workhorse for Red Army. Like Pz IV in German Army. So they should be compared. And in this comparision - winner is one. 4. Suprisingly, main objective for tanks in WW2 - is not to fight enemy tanks.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 Sadly dude, you're way too subjective.
You need to learn the first rule of war - it has no rules, dude. You aren't the one who chooses when, with who, and how will fight. You never know which enemy you'll encounter during fighting.
So, that means that every weapon of WWII can compare with each other. (Tank vs tank, ship vs ship, plane vs plane)
T-34 was a medium tank and it was a good tank. Both T-34 and Tiger were tanks. And they CAN compare.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja (part 2): the main task for tanks is to make breakthrough in enemy lines, usually fighting infantry. 4. German tank engines "finest"? They were unreliable, were breaking down oftenly, were complicated to produce and repair. Many undamaged Tigers were left because of broken engine or suspension. 5. Your criteria for T-34/85, even in 44': firepower - very good for medium tank, allowing to fight 90% of German vehicles, protection - good for medium tank, mobility - excellent.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 German engineers and designers were best, due to the fact that they made BEST tanks in WWII (Panthers and Tigers).
You're only looking at the performances based on speed and engine, just so that you can draw out T-34 as a best tank.
But, you've made a mistake. Tanks aren't cars. There's also gun and armor.
German tanks were the best due to the best combination of firepower, protection and mobility.
Panthers, Tigers and their TD versions were almost indestructible.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Part1:You didn't understand me clearly. 1. I've never said that T-34 is the best tank of WWII. Only that it's the best medium tank. 2. You can't compare Tiger to T-34, because they were created to completely different tasks! T-34 was not to be heavy armored, etc, because Russian engineers had completely different priorities, than Germans, when creating Tiger! That's why they made IS-2. You don't know what You'll encounter, but there is propability. And in any part of war...
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 No pal, you CAN compare T-34 and Tiger due to the fact that this video is called ''Top 10 tanks of WWII'', not ''Top 10 medium tanks WWII''. That would be crazy.
Both Tiger and T-34 are tanks and they can compare, due to the already said fact that you don't choose when, where and with which tank you'll fight.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Part2: ...Germans always had less than 500 Tigers on Eastern Front, mostly in independent Heavy Tank Battalions, they were only used in big offensives, or other critical situations. During whole war they produced only 1354 Tigers, and 489 Tigers II. You greatly overestimate role of big gun, and heavy armor. Characteristics such as reliability, easy production, etc, are pretty much as important. Because war is not a series of 1 on 1 duels. More factors must be considered.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 Again, no dude. Tanks aren't cars, as I have said.
Russian tanks were produced in much larger numbers, but that has it's own disadvantages - they lacked quality, as same as the Western ones.
Also, the German crews were the best tank crews of WWII? Why? Just due to the one fact - Better tanks.
From 1943-45., in ALL tank battles on the Eastern/Western front, Germans lost about 20 tanks while Soviets and Americans lost over 100 tanks.
So, the gun and armor are the most important.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Part3: And for me, it's You, who is too way subjective. You are fixed on Your "Great German engineers". German tanks "best combination of firepower, protection and mobility"? Come on! Which German tank? Pz IVh - no comment, Tiger - lack of mobility, badly profiled armor, poor engine. Panther - best German tank IMHO, but unreliable. Tiger II? Let Joachim Peiper answer - he called it "immovable crap". All of them - expensive (Very important factor).
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 German tanks were simply the BEST due to the better guns, shells, armor, advancement, and crews.
That are simple facts:
Tell me who were the best tank crews and why?
Also how many tanks they destroyed with a single of theirs?
Who often lost 20 tanks in a engagement, and who 300?
Stop talking communist propaganda, and lies, I know you support the Soviet Union, but what's a fact it's a fact, pal.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Part1: Sorry, I won't continue discussion, You're biased, and insulting. Saying that I support USSR, and use propaganda is the stupidest thing I've heard recently. My attitude to USSR is the same as to Third Reich. I am historian, and historical truth is the only thing i support. Also You don't distinguish facts and opinions. Pearl Harbor was attacked 7th December 41' - this is a fact. "German tanks were simply the BEST" - this is not a fact, this is an opinion.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 No, I'm not naive. You deliberately won't discuss anymore, due to the fact that you don't know what to say, because I have told you facts that you can't answer because you're subjective.
You just couldn't answer because they are just facts and they don't agree with your subjective Soviet propaganda.
Also, opinions are based on facts, they can be either objective or subjective.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Part2: Also propably only You know what tank crew has to do with tank quality as an EQUIPMENT. And I abstract from this video. Following Your logic - go and compare B-17 and Bf-109e. They are both combat planes. And You don't choose which plane You will encounter. And answer yourself one question: What means a little advantage in gun/armor, when enemy will produce 7 tanks at the similar price, with only slightly worse parameters. That's all from me. No over.
Florek112 3 weeks ago
@Florek112 You see, you deliberately changed theme to planes, because you have lost a debate about tanks. You're like a ''General after the battle'', pal.
Yes, both B-17 and Bf-109 are planes. BUT, B-17 is a heavy bomber that doesn't fights with other planes, and Bf-109 is a fighter that don't bombards.
Medium and heavy tanks are, tanks and both serve for fighting against each other!
OK, If you want to end, I admit your defeat.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
i LOVE how everybody is hating on the american tanks just because the germans were advanced in their technology. yes germans quality were alot better but to hate and say tanks were "total shit" like they know first hand is total nonsense and childish. ITS HISTORY guys not a topic to start a flame war over.
broncosfan02 1 month ago
@broncosfan02 I said that because he said that Pershing could ''easily'' destroy Panther and Tiger. That can only be said by ignorant fool, my friend.
Also, so what if somebody says that something is shit? There were/are/will be many shits of inventions in the world.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja the pershing was one of few alllied tanks that can stand to axis' powerful tanks, maybe not "easily" but in a battle im sure the pershing would put up a good fight. in regards to your other comment, you will never know what is and isnt total crap untill you experience it first hand how its meant to be used, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about 70 year old tanks for all we know that could have been the best technology of the time b4 the germans, just saying its pretty dumb
broncosfan02 4 weeks ago
@broncosfan02 Pershing could barely stand to Tiger I and Panther, but it couldn't stand to Tiger II in dreams.
Although Pershing's 90mm M-3 gun could penetrate 140mm a 100m, his poorly trained crew, his weak armor and superior German advancement, made it unsuccessful.
m4mihulja 4 weeks ago
I think the best tank is still the Panther.
TheSupersoldier1234 1 month ago
I like Shermans and the many variants produced, people bag them, but i respect the 'ol sherman. I have made many (models) and im especially fond of the turtle shaped turret with 76 mm high velocity gun. They look cool, however the gun was still a peashooter compared to Pak's. I built this version, took about 400 hours over 4 months, one of the best i've made... besides the pride of the fleet, which is my Tiger1 . Will post pic's soon. I am currently building early Jagdpanther + Panzer 4 Ausf H
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
t-34 is the best tank beacuse there were many of them?! xD vehicles what are destroyed in big numbers are not strong tanks
TheGitakTV 1 month ago
hey i guess you wanted to say tiger 2 on te 1stplace cause it didn'had only the 88mm, it also had a 105mm with pen 230 at 100m and it's best engine it ever had was a 870 hp engine. hull was 150mm thick at 50° and turret 185mm at 75°. i know it had 2 turrets, but the good one had 185mm. and if it is to talk about indestructible tank, search"maus tank" on google. 128mm gun, 220 mm armor, 1750 hp...
v2vengeance 1 month ago
If only if Krupp built the lowe..
jarrettbank 1 month ago
4:22 is in poznan poland :):):):):):):):):):)
G36Kchampoin 1 month ago
1:37 is not a firefly, I think you'll find it's an an M4A3 with the long 76mm gun
WickyWiggstaz 1 month ago
What are you talking about the Tiger family is 10 times stronger then T-35-85!
wiibigfanguy 1 month ago
почему в рейтинге участвуют машины разных классов? С каких пор шерман вообще танком считается?
ludvig702 1 month ago
I cant put a finger on this fucken killer band? can anyone me out please....cheers...oscarthegrouch
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
KV-8? KV-8 is a KV-1 with a flamethrower. And the picture depicts a KV-1.
The KV design had nothing to do with the T-34. The T-34 was derived from the BT series, the KV-1 from T-35.
The T-34 was in 1940 the best tank in the world. The best German tank in -40 was Panzer IIIE, the best British the painfully slow Mathilda infantry tanks. The French had the Char B1, solid and well-armed for it's time, but slow and unwieldy.
Tanks from -40 can't compare with tanks from -43, obviously.
LarS1963 1 month ago
@LarS1963 Panzer 3E was a command tank, with large comm. antennas. The best of PZ-3 tanks was PZ-3L with 75mm gun, and 40mm armor.
T-34 started to appear in large numbers since 1942. Battle of Stalingrad. It was inefficient in 1940/42.
This is a list of WWII tanks, and every one can compare with each other.
You mean to say that I should exit my Tiger, and go fight with T-34 in a PZ-4, just because ''I must compare a medium to medium''?
War does NOT have rules. Learn that, bro.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
my many months of "world of tanks" experience disproves almost your entire list.
monkeydon12 1 month ago
have a close look at the troops beside the sherman..... one of them is dead ringer for jerry seinfield.... ive got in a book somewhere and everyone i've showed agrees totaly
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
MAD MUSIC... cant agree with your choice though... but everyone has the right to a different opinion...
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
Jeez...6 top comments so far, and all that mine comments! Thanks people! Nice to know that people agree with me, and these comments maybe helped someone to know more! =D
m4mihulja 1 month ago
M4 Sherman on 10 ?????? Sherman has a 105 mm howitzer, with that destroys t-34 just fine.
And where is Pershing? it was better to Tiger and Panther, and then destroyed T-34-85 in Korea.
This comparison is stupid!
KardanTowil 1 month ago
@KardanTowil I hope you're kidding, because if you're not, then you're completely crazy.
First of all - the M4 105mm Sherman couldn't destroy T-34, because it's gun could fire only HE rounds, which could penetrate 50mm at 100m at 0'. T-34 front armor was 90mm at 0', and it's hull armor was 45mm, but at 50', which 105mm shell could only dream to penetrate.
Also, M-26 Pershing was shit, Panthers and Tigers were 5 times more advanced, and also they had 10 times stronger guns, and better crews.
m4mihulja 1 month ago 20
@m4mihulja so your saying that German tanks where the best, Russians second, and American last?
arnaldodacomando 1 month ago
@arnaldodacomando Well, in my opinion top 5: (firepower, protection, mobility)
1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. USA
4. UK
5. Japan
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja yeah i agree with japan being last. their land army wasn't so great.
arnaldodacomando 1 month ago
@arnaldodacomando Yeah, that's true. They were best in the navy, but they were average in land forces. Germans were opposite.
But look at this fact - near the end of war, Japan started to build new medium and heavy tanks, such as some great ones like Type-3, Type-4 and Type-5.
If these were completed in large numbers, Japan would be in 3rd place.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja cool i didn't know that they made medium and heavy tanks not like they were going to change anything since the americans had the atomic bomb.
arnaldodacomando 1 month ago
@arnaldodacomando Yes, they did. Type-5 Chi-Ri, for example would be a great tank. It should have a 105mm Type-5 gun, armor of 50-150mm, and max. speed of 40km/h.
Sadly, the Japan's desperate shortage of materials, prevented it from begin build in large numbers, and also converted it into medium, instead of heavy tank.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja Britain's tanks generally had more firepower and more armour than their American counterparts. Our desert one's were "light and shite" but at that point America wasn't equipped with any better. I'd take a Churchill or Crommie over the Sherman any day.
I would count the US and UK as level really.
WickyWiggstaz 1 month ago
@m4mihulja well in 1945 the British CENTURION did beat pretty much ANYTHING in the Field until the M60 Patton came along
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@alekzander2010 The UK Centurion had a 15mm armor from ALL sides, which a Pz-2 could penetrate and blow-up. Also it got usual 76mm Mk-3 gun that was too weak to destroy anything stronger than Pz-4.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@arnaldodacomando What's wrong with that, the Germans and Russians DID have better thanks than the Brits and Americans. You can't argue that. The numbers doesn't make a tank better, especially as Germany and Russia have smaller populations than American and their factories were under constant attack. America could have churned out millions of tigers if they'd been building them as they had the industry, the people and the security.
WickyWiggstaz 1 month ago
@WickyWiggstaz You're right about this that you said, but he didn't argue. We were just talking.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja I know he didn't argue, what I'm saying is that he cannot argue with the fact I laid down in that comment. The Germans and Russians DID have better armoured platforms. German's were refined and high tech for the time, the Russians were basic but rugged, reliable and they got over their rough tech by mounting larger guns on their platforms,
WickyWiggstaz 1 month ago
@WickyWiggstaz True.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
Comment removed
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@m4mihulja the German Elite Panzer Crews wereonly getting killed when the pershing arrived the Crews were usally new recruits
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@m4mihulja If they ever make a sequel of "LOST IN SPACE" , then you should apply for "LEAD ROLE". I will recomend you for the part, i'll cry for a year solid if you dont get it!! you should be able to achieve that, since you are a waste of cyber space... third time i'll tell you... your a idiot son...amen
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@oscarthegrouch68 Yeah, I'm an idiot with 7 top comments so far, comments which tells only logistics and facts. And now here comes some ignorant clown, who is so an angry at truth, that he just can't hear it.
Don't be naive dude, you'll end up in a DEFEATED HISTORY part of comments.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja panthers and tigers broke down before they coud be used properly
saksari93 1 month ago
@saksari93 Yeah of 5000 built Panthers about 10% of them broke down, due because Panthers didn't have troubles with engine, and of 1500 made Tigers, about 40% of them broke down.
Also, before that, they blew-up some 5000 Allied tanks.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@KardanTowil ur comparison of the tiger and panther to a pershing is just lol.
rapplejab 1 month ago
first of all...this top sucks,i mean i would consider ranking from most kills,longest battle service...tiger 1 10mm armor?...not even in your dreams!,and bad performance?...at that time nothing could penetrate the tiger!,not talking about tiger 2(king tiger)...the only weakness was the fuel consumption.russians and americans had no chance against tigers...if 1 or 2 tigers were in town,they would rather bomb the whole town than get after them!...so stop talking shit.learn first!
mucarie 1 month ago 6
russians had very bad tanks against germans not talking about americans they could only penetrate with sherman firefly longbarreld :))
Bachii25 1 month ago
@Bachii25 the sherman firefly also used a BRITISH Gun :)
alekzander2010 1 month ago
Tiger tank is the best if you considered kill ratios, each tiger killed a hell of a lot tanks before getting knocked out. Tiger tank will remain to be the most known tank of WW2 cause of the fear it brought to it's enemies.
tops1028 1 month ago
JAGPANTHER ANY1 ??
brvkloshar 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@brvkloshar
""JAGPANTHER ANY1 ??""
Great yes, but 'technically' not a 'tank'.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@brvkloshar It's not tank.
Dragun232 1 month ago
@Dragun232 it is just build with other purpose
brvkloshar 1 month ago
@brvkloshar My personal favourite, but not officially a tank.
442hoeky 1 month ago
Comment removed
sp3llm4g3r 1 month ago
You have to look at these tanks with a strategic view instead of a tatical view. German tanks were difficult to produce and repair in the field. The t34/85 was the best tank of WW2 because it was easy to produce and had the best combination of firepower, armour and mobility. The reason so many were knocked out was because of crappy Russian tactics. Imagine if Guderian or Rommel had 10+ divisions of t34s. In the end however, it didn't matter what the Germans had as long as Hitler was in charge.
sissonsk 1 month ago
@sissonsk
"" The reason so many were knocked out was because of crappy Russian tactics.""
And (in the T-34/76) the tank suffered from internal design flaws such as a bad 2 man turret, few radios, poorer quality optics/gun accuracy and poor all round vision for the commander (who also had to spend his time doubling as a loader).
The T-34 had MANY design flaws internally. Nice sloping armour and a decent gun did not change the fact that internally the T-34 wasn't very good.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
Comment removed
m4mihulja 1 month ago
Comment removed
m4mihulja 1 month ago
Comment removed
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Yes, that also worth for US and UK tanks (they were even worse, actually).
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@sissonsk T-34 didn't have the ''best firepower and protection'', it only had great mobility.
It's armor was weak to withstand 75mm kwk-34 of Pz-4G.
It's armament was weak to penetrate Tiger at 500m.
It's mobility was great to ran away from German tanks, which were shooting at it!
m4mihulja 1 month ago 3
and tiger only got stuck when they track was destroyd but T34 didnt got stuck it got blew up :)) like IS 2 and other tanks
Bachii25 1 month ago
You know, the only thing the Germans had to take out a T-34 was their very feared 88 MM AA gun. That means it DID have great armor.
DasFlugenwrecker 1 month ago
@DasFlugenwrecker
The 75mm kwk-34 of Pz-4G could destroy T-34, it's max. pen. was 120mm at 100m
The 75mm kwk-36 of Panther could destroy T-34, it's max. pen. was 170mm at 100m
The 128mm kwk-44 could BLOW UP T-34, it's max. pen. was 330mm at 100m
That means it DIDN'T have great armor.
m4mihulja 1 month ago 16
@m4mihulja What ab-t armor corners?
murra84 1 month ago
@m4mihulja
and a t-34 model 1941's gun could kill a sherman at 1,000m. See a fail? And btw, a hetzer could penetrate t-34s at >700m. It could penetrate a sherman as long as it could fire (reasonably about 2,000m). Tigers also couldn't penetrate t-34/85s out afar. They could kill shermans at 3k. Sherman was a bad tank. American media and popular misconception helped to change that. Search "Sherman ENgineering disaster'
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@loocsiyeltsakcir Why did you write this to me, man? Did I maybe said that M4 Sherman is a great tank? As far as I know I didn't.
Also, T-34's max. pen. was 80mm at 100m, Hetzer's was 90mm at 100m, Tiger's was 180mm at 100m.
But, you're right about USA propaganda. I know that biggest disadvantage of Sherman was it's badly stored ammo. When Sherman blew-up because of that, Germans said ''Tommy Boiler'', or ''Tommy Kocher''!
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja
lol meant to send to the top comment... my apologies!!!!
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@loocsiyeltsakcir
wait nvm both your things are top comments.
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@loocsiyeltsakcir No, I just don't have reasons to call you an idiot.
T-34 and KV-1 were definitely the best tanks in 1941-42., due to the strong gun, good armor and mobility.
About max. pen:
T-34/76 - 80mm at 100m at °0
T-34/85 130mm at 100m at °0
And, yes both Top comments are mine, and I'm proud of that! =D
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja
ok just saying, his data isn't totally false as in 1941 when the REVOLUTIONS OF THE t-34 of kv-1 appeared, much more heavily armored and armed than any other tank of the time, the only thing that could take it out was the 88mm as all other guns at the time like the 3.6cm pak and so could do little. I do agree that it could get killed fairly easily by some late war german equipment but I perceived your message as a "t-34 sux... USA USA USA!!!!!" message...
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@m4mihulja
and the t-34/76s penetration was 80mm at 100m. Search up t-34/85 penetration on google and you'll see a table of russian guns and their penetration at range. The t-34/85 had an 85mm air defense gun and could penetrate 125mm at 100m and safely knock out tigers at >500m. Don't call me an expert, but I have a decent amount of very refutable history and documentation books at my home so don't call me idiot.
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@loocsiyeltsakcir
(meant less than 500m)
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@loocsiyeltsakcir
meant less than 700m
loocsiyeltsakcir 1 month ago
@m4mihulja im sure you may have the right facts about armour piercing capabilities, but you have all the german cannons not marked by their correct title.. the ref for the panzer Ausf IV H is... main aramament..1 x 7.5 cm Kwk 40 L/48..... dont wanna argue with u dude.. my reference is the book titled GERMAN TANKS of world war two, by George Forty.... page81... by arms & armour Press..Sterling Publishing Co.Inc
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@oscarthegrouch68 Yes, you're right. My apology. KwK-36 is due to the fact that Tiger I's gun was 88mm Flak-36 which was made in 1936. Panther's gun is KwK-42, and Pz-IVG's was KwK-40 due to the fact that their guns were made in 1940's.
About max. pen.,I'm sure that I'm right.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja Thankyou. I've been a Panzer fan for 37 years, since i was 10. I think the kwk38 88mm was from ww1, it had a 3 piece barrel, and was used in artillery and anti-aircraft role. I have been constucting models since i was 10, and the Tamiya models provided a small rundown on the vehicles & stats. this is how I found out about the 88mm gun.Tamiya provided stats of how the gun was produced, the variants etc. About shermans, their crew's tried to set the tigers on fire with HE.+godshelp.
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@oscarthegrouch68 I'm also a big fan of military, I first learned things about it when I was 5 years old, and I'm still studying.
I like models too. I have 100 of them at home. I made some Tamiya models, like KV-2.
Models are always a great way to learn about design and performances of that vehicle.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja Dragon models are now so much better, have loads more detail, and can be quite challenging sometimes.. gotta question 4 you? what was the name of the turtle shaped turret on the sherman with the 76mm high velocity gun... m21 perhaps... it has escaped my memory.... sturm tiger restoration is in the wind... got loads of parts 4 it, just waiting for 1 to arrive at local shop
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@m4mihulja to anser my own question, I referenced cookie sewel's review of the M4A1 (76) W, and found out that the turret was named the T23 variant...cheers Oz
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@DasFlugenwrecker sure but how many of thos T-34s with their "good armour" actualy survived a hit from a 75? let alone an 88. life expectancy was VERY short in a a T-34
angryhippo2910 1 month ago
@angryhippo2910 depends which 75mm your talking about the 75 in 1941 couldnt penetrate but the Upgraded 75 in 43 hade more penetrating power then the 88 itself but the 88 if it did penetrate it would cause a greater explosion
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@alekzander2010 And, the 88mm KwK-38 of Tiger I could penetrate 180mm at 100m, but 88mm KwK-43 of Tiger II could penetrate 280mm at 100m, due to the 20 calibers longer barrel than Tiger I (Kwk-43 - L/70, KwK-38 - L/50)
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja to the genius... stats..PZKPFW V1 AUSF E (SDKFZ 181) Armament Main 1 x 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56...ref..George Forty..German Tanks of ww2..page 120.. so where in the hell did you come up with the 38 figure fucknuckle eh? do some research, and stop blurting crap that you have not bothered to reference properly!!! buy some books, aka Thomas Jentz, George Forty, Chris Bishop, Adam Warner, Tom Cookle just to name a few,... so forgive me for spewing horseshit dicklicker
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@oscarthegrouch68 Listen you little scumbag, the Tiger I had 88mm KwK-38 gun, Panther had a 75mm KwK-36 gun, Pz-IVG had 75mm KwK-34 gun, and Tiger II had 88mm KwK-43 (Pak-43) gun, wretch.
That depends on references - some says that Tiger I gun was KwK-38, and the other ones says KwK-36...but, whatever they are, they're both 88mm, moron.
Also, you double-stoned idiot, if Tiger had KwK-36, which one did Panther and Pz-IVG had?
LEARN, THEN WRITE, DUMBFUCK.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@m4mihulja you asked me to reference it...so i did.. and i was right..again. So the corect ref for the panthers main armament..1x 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70... the corect ref for the king tiger..PZKPFW VI Ausf B (SDKFZ 182) main armament..1x 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71.. dont insult me with yr lack of knowledge... i CAN find you boy, and you wont like that one bit, that i can assure you... i figure you just dont like the truth
oscarthegrouch68 1 month ago
@DasFlugenwrecker the 75 on the Panther could actually penetrate the IS-2 easliy after the battle of Kursk Zhukov DEMANDED German Tanks to be Inspected they used the captured models to test how great their IS-1 and T.34 really were
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@alekzander2010 Also, the 75mm KwK-34 used on Pz-4G, could destroy IS-1 and IS-2 on a distance of only 100m, and only in font turret mantlet, because it was at 0' degrees.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
idiots King tager was the best tank in the WW 2 u fucking idiots Tiger 2 coud fuck in the air T 34-85 panther was nothing comparing to Tiger and IS 2 could barely penetrate Tiger 2 if he got a shot
Bachii25 1 month ago
@Bachii25 Were you there?
egotisticconch 1 month ago
no tger 2 or e75 or lowe
2000rayc 1 month ago
Heck yeah. T-34/85 Russian main battle tank.
TheKabzonchik 1 month ago
Believe me a King Tiger one-shots the t34-85, My Top3 are 1. KT-King Tiger 2.Jagdpanther (TD) 3.KV-1s lol it is my opinion
DDCULTI 1 month ago
there are 3 main things to a tank speed/mobility,gun,armor.usa put speed/mobility,armor,gun.Britain put,speed/mobility.armor,gun.Russia put armor and gun first,speed/mobility.Germany put armor.gun.speed/mobility. im not sure about how Germany
put there tanks but i think that is it
PEIOYSTERS 1 month ago
the t-34 and tiger tanks where the best tanks in the war and arguably the t-34 was the best
PEIOYSTERS 1 month ago
@PEIOYSTERS Well I think that Panther was some 50 times better than T-34, due to better firepower, protection and mobility (3 most important things), which made Panther's combat efficiency very successful.
Often in battles, Panther was capable of easily destroying 10 T-34's before (if) begin destroyed by another one.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
epic fail.
Allied tanks were considered metal coffins at that time. Its between t-34 and tiger for number 1
Misha607552 1 month ago
Where they are: Hetzer, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, SU-100, Pershing, Ferdinand/Elefant, Wirbenwild???
FRforcing 1 month ago
@FRforcing Hetzer, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, SU-100, Ferdinand/Elefant, Wirbenwild??? None of them a fucking tanks you moron!!!!
scoobytopdog 1 month ago
@scoobytopdog than what???
armored vehicles?
you call me a moron...come to my house and say me in face...ouhhh...I forget...you wouldn't...because you'll start to yelling;"mama,mama help me!!!"
first learn than coment something...
FRforcing 1 month ago
@FRforcing Read the title of the video. TOP TEN WW2 TANKS, not armoured vehicles, not tank destroyers, not anti aircraft platforms but TANKS you moron!
scoobytopdog 1 month ago
@scoobytopdog get a life...you got to be kiddin' me, only what you know is moron...c'mon dude give me something better...don't be motherf***er and fight with me here...get a girl, chat with her...get something...just something, it can be ugly...don't be pathetic :(((
FRforcing 1 month ago
the good russian one had to aim the barrel straight and reload and then aim again (a big flaw)
cecilemackenzie 1 month ago
do u prefer one porshe or ten ladas?
jonastti 1 month ago
@jonastti Whatever! Many dumb people here want a tank with just mobility and production a.k.a. car, so it's the same! =D
m4mihulja 1 month ago
If the speed and production are most important about tanks, then who cares about T-34. Let just take Ferrari then, paint it into military colors and go to war! :D
m4mihulja 1 month ago
well done, the T-34 is top. not some crap american tank.
JoeytheDon1000 1 month ago
@JoeytheDon1000 T-34 top? Tell me your reasons why. You want to say that T-34 is better than all German tanks in WW II era like Tiger and Panther? If your reason is ''T-34 had the best speed and production'', then tanks today would have a total different role. Then why just don't we build cars??? If the speed and production are most important, then why tanks today have so bigger and bigger guns and armor?
Second, I agree that USA tanks are crap.
m4mihulja 1 month ago
Comment removed
JoeytheDon1000 1 month ago
I disagree with this ranking but its his personal opinion and jea so much of shitty comments go learn more about ww2 and tanks in general then comment...
danilov114 1 month ago
@danilov114 Who are YOU posting to, me!?
m4mihulja 1 month ago
@PredatorELITE king tiger tanks only three broke down 503 made in the entire war currently there are 500 remaining king tigers
NightWingTheBat 1 month ago
FYI TIGERS DIDNT PERFORM BADLY YOU MORON YOUR AN IDIOT TIGERS TERRORIZED THE ALLIES ALONG WITH KING TIGERS MY GRANPA IS A VETERAN OF WORLD WAR 2 HE BARLEY SURVIVED A TIGER TANK ENCOUNTER.
NightWingTheBat 1 month ago
Sorry lad your wrong on the fireflys gun being able to penetrate more armour then the tigers, the tiger and king tiger are best tanks in the world (proven fact even today they still have a formidable armour and armament) look it up boss.
NightWingTheBat 1 month ago
@PredatorELITE u put different pictures of tanks and not the sherman M4A3 so i disliked
22tasos22 1 month ago
Comment removed
22tasos22 1 month ago