Which Country had the Most Effective TANKS of World War 2

In this episode of The Front, we take a look at the beasts of the battlefield and the havoc they wreaked in the Second World War.
Buy us a KoFi to help support the channel & team! 🎭
•ko-fi.com/thefront
Check out some of the music we use in our videos!🎶
•bit.ly/RelaxJackYT
Join other history buffs on our Discord!📚
• / discord
🎬Video Credits:
Narrator - Cam [[e-mail]]
Editors - Giorgi [[e-mail]]
Writer - Toin Villar
Fact Checker - Stefan [[e-mail]]
Intro Music Custom made by - / 16bitrecordsofficial
For business inquiries and to learn about our team check out our website🌐:
•frontiermediaco.com
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
2:31 French Tanks
3:59 British Tanks
6:20 American Tanks
8:07 German Tanks
10:09 Soviet Tanks
12:22 Conclusion

[@TheFront]

Our Discord server is FULL of tank nuts. Get it here and argue till your eyes and fingers bleed: discord.gg/qt68efP

[@worri3db3ar]

Intriguing video but I think you should have added tank thought philosophy of all the countries in the video as it did dictate how their tanks were designed for world war 2.

[@jakubdolezal665]

i think you were talking about the mkII cruiser but showed pictures od mkII infantry tank (matilda) which had much more than 30 mil of armour.

[@jozefkozon4520]

sad 7-Tp noises.

[@commiecrusader3064]

Hey love your videos, I think a video describing the numbers of tanks, ships, planes, and troops of each army in WW2 would be amazing!

[@AHappyCub]

@Anthony Amable Feliciano how high are you Sherman Firefly is armed with 17pdr, which is a 76.2mm gun Some Shermans have about 51mm of front hull armor but others have 76mm of front hull armor The only time a 90mm gun ever put into a Sherman hull was as the M36B1 due to the lack of M10A1 hull

[@samg.5165]

New Zealand.

[@TheFront]

Putting the Bob Semple tank in this video would have been unfair to the rest

[@leopard2a6yes85]

@@TheFront that's fair

[@clumsycommissar5260]

The Front that would be like having a child fight young Mike Tyson

[@anthonylopez1126]

The bob semple Isn’t even a tank you idiot!!!! It’s a weapon of mass destruction

[@austinm.9832]

@Chili Breather well the bob semple was actually finished, so yeah, it is better.

[@coolwhip455]

Soviet Factories: How many T-34 tanks do you need? Stalin: Yes

[@Handconnonierr]

@MSgt Baca Imagine you have got new porch car and now imagine it invented 1 week ago. Cool right !!! ??? AND NOW imagine: you don't know how to use this tank (it invented some days ago), you losing the war- enemy have control of 1/4 of your country ofc it have technical issues coz everything what invade need upgrades and adjustments to reality because you can't predict real combat without practice. T34 was build to fullfill its role: fast accessible,cheap kinda ok to go tank to prevent germans move forward and give them a battle(if im correct germans were really close to Moscow then and if russians lost Moscow it would be not the and of war of course, but it could give big morale + provision(oil?) other boost. And remember germans had tested they blitzkrieg in France and Poland. They were battle scared in France and soldiers had high morale because they invited half of Europe(like Napoleon army) They had good working mechanism and good generals. Russians? They lost(only overwhelmed Finland by numbers and ''we gonna invade you, because we have more then 10 time more population then you'') and they wasnt testing anything like germans blitzkrieg , they just invade territory just to control it, without battle tactics. Imagine yourself (for theory not like I agitate you) as german or russian. What I saing its unfair to comperesine long run (6months -1 year) tank vs 1-3months tank. + who is in crew of this tank + comanders + morale, other factors. I think T34 deserve top1(maybe 2) for what he did: give a fight/stopped germans. ps. and I'm not a russian :), Hello from Latvia.

[@user-vf3vv8xg9w]

@MSgt Baca garbage tank?? then why its the best tank of ww2? Or all others tanks of others countries are more garbage? lol

[@user-it3xy2cw1t]

@MSgt Baca they where designed that why what the point to put a high quality parts that last for years even though it will only served a few weeks and it was designed to be easily repaired, also it was built by unexperience workers later on the war upgraded to the 85 variant to fix some of its problem

[@dwarow2508]

@MSgt Baca Nope. Easily best tanks of the war. From documents released by after the fall of the USSR as well as german, soviet and american reports, we now know that the T34s performed very well indeed. In those 6 days, only 18 T34s were lost in combat. The others were due to lack of fuel and being abadnoned. The T34s that did see combat (some 50) accounted for over 300 destroyed german tanks, 90 destroyed guns and artillery units as well as 78 german trucks. Yet in 1943 and 44 loss ratios outside of combat approximated 0% The Armored Dictorate of the Red Army stated that in 1944 the average T34 lasted 270-300km. The M4 Sherman lasted just 250km at best according to the US strategic department of logistics and the Panther lasted barely 80km based on soviet trials at Kublinka. This means that the T34 was the by far most reliable tank of the war. Taking all these things into account, it seems that the notion of the T34 being bad or trash is little more than an enduring piece of german propaganda. Realibility was superb, it was extremely easy to operate and performed well in combat and ramming was so extremely rare that effectively your only source is CoH2

[@dwarow2508]

@@user-it3xy2cw1t Nothing of what he said is true in any way. Don't listen to him

[@hansandhispanzerfaust6236]

It was obviously New Zealand’s Bob Semple tank, 1,000 kills and no deaths.

[@ysosudden775]

It Was so strong they built it back into a normal traktor,because otherwise they would have wiped out half the population

[@xeonuex4879]

That only the confirmed kills

[@drapin]

@Hans and his panzerfaust i think you forgot three more zeros

[@joeydepalmer4457]

tactics more than the tank itself

[@ZETH_27]

Some "small" notes I'd like to add to help with the misinformation seen in this video. *French Tanks* While the French tanks were generally better in a 1v1 versus the Germans, that basically never happened. The German forces during the Invasion of France made sure to always move swiftly and in groups of panzers. Also, the Char B1 or B1 bis had 60mm of frontal armour, with an effective thickness of 80mm. *Matilda mk.II* The "m k 2" as you called it was actually called the Matilda (of which the one you referenced is a Matilda mk II). While it was slow and had a lacking 40mm 2-pdr gun, the armour was considerable, with 75-70mm of armour on the front, sides, and around the whole turret. *Comet I* The Comet saw limited service in WW2 as it was quite an experimental tank. The Frontal armour was (contrary to what you stated) 76.2mm or 3 inches, the same as on the Cromwell cruiser tank it was based on. The Comet also featured a 77mm OQF mk.II cannon, which was basically a modified 17-pdr cannon made to fit inside a tank more easily than a regular 17-pdr. It was also modified to - in addition to regular ammunition - use American shells. The ammo for the 77mm was not interchangeable with the 17-pdr. *Churchill I-VII* You mentioned the Churchill but for some reason chose to leave out its most important attribute; that being its armour. The Churchill was very slow because of the fact that it carried some of the thickest armour of the war. The Mk I-VI and VII had 88.9 and *152mm* of armour respectively. Even more so than the Tiger I. The different iterations also featured everything from a 40mm 2-pdr, 56mm 6-pdr to a 75mm dual-purpose gun. *British Tanks* While it is true that the British relied more on (American) Shermans by the middle and end of the war, they continued to use their own tanks like the Churchill, Cromwell, Comet, Valentine and Matilda. Some of which saw extensive combat experience in many theatres of war. *Firefly* The Sherman Firefly was far more of a modification than just slapping a 17-pdr into a Sherman. First, they had to elongate the hull to accommodate a Multibank/radial petrol engine, then they had to more-or-less redesign the whole turret. The turret was elongated and a radio was placed in a turret bustle in the back. To make the gun fit they also had to put it in sideways and shorten the recoil travel by adding more springs. *M4 Sherman* The Standard M4 Sherman featured 50mm of frontal armour (effective thickness of 75-90mm), had a 75mm dual-purpose gun (similar to the one on the Churchill) and a top speed of around 45km/h in good conditions. The Sherman was the most used tank of WW2 but not the most produced (that title goes to the T-34). Because it was so commonly used, it was used to create many prototypes and variants. Some, like the M4A3E2 Jumbo featured 100mm of frontal armour with an effective thickness closer to 200mm, however, these variants were rare and too heavy and slow to be effectively used like a normal Sherman. Other later variants featured potent 76mm M1 cannons. However, the Sherman were still very susceptible to German 75mm KwK 40 L43 cannons mounted in Pz.IVs. The data he got in the video comes from the mantlet of the Jumbo which has 177.8mm of effective armour. *M10 and M36* The M10 and M36 were never made specifically to counter the heavier late war German tanks. They were made simply to arm the Tank Destroyer branch of the US Army which had the idea to get a light and quick vehicle with a powerful armament (a 76.2 or 90mm in this case) that could focus on destroying Enemy tanks instead of infantry. They both used similar hulls with a few changes made to the M36. Both had a frontal armour of 40-50mm with an effective thickness of 60-80mm. Even though it was a tank destroyer, the M10 still featured a .50 for Anti-air purposes that also served as a counterweight to the heavy gun. *T-34* The T-34 had 45mm of well sloped frontal armour which gave it a staggering effective thickness of ~90mm relative to its weight. However, the conditions inside left something to be desired. While the T-34 was great statistics wise, it was fairly unreliable and cumbersome for the crew. The Gun was potent and able to destroy contemporary German tanks, but long-barreled 75mm Pz.IVs could do the same to them, But since those weren't common enough during Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union), the T-34's and KV-1's could push through due to sheer numerical superiority and superior armour. The T-34's were also constructed with planned obsolescence meaning that they were only made to last a few months of war before they would break down because it was thought that they'd only last that long in combat anyway. Because of this, the T-34 was incredibly cheap to produce relatively. *Panzerkampfwagen V Panter and Late-war German Panzers* The Panther was the last and most advanced/complicated medium tank produced by Nazi Germany. It featured a sloped frontal plate of 80mm giving it an effective thickness of closer to 150mm of armour. The trade-off for this was that the side and rear armour were incredibly thin. The Panther featured a long-barrel 75 KwK42 cannon, one of the best at its calibre. Because of this, the Panther was greatly suited for long-ranged engagements where its gun could shoot through enemy armour without them being able to flank it. As with all German Cats, the Panter had an overstressed transmission and weak engine which often lead to breakdowns (similarly to the Tiger I & II)and forced the crew to abandon their tanks. Combining that with how expensive and complicated the panter was to produce, and we get a picture of why the late-war German tanks were generally over-engineered. *Tiger I* While the Tiger I had the best gun of its time, the Armour was far from it. Both the Churchill and the Panther both outshined it at face value as the Tiger I only had 100mm of lightly sloped frontal armour. The thing that made the Tiger feared was the fact that it featured a modified 88mm flak gun that functioned great as a tank killer, being able to take out all allied tanks at the time from very far away. However just like the Panther and Tiger II it suffered from unreliability issues and complicated and expensive production. Please feel free to correct me if you find anything wrong with the comment. This took a lot of time to write which means there is a likelihood that mistakes slipped in.

[@KibaPwnU]

I appreciated your small essay!

[@ZETH_27]

@@KibaPwnU You could say it's a subject I'm passionate about. You're probably the only one that managed to read through it all (assuming you actually did).

[@SK-rc6qj]

Good one, mate. Nice summary. What is your own opinion of the most effective tank of the war? And plus to that, what about the best one?

[@ZETH_27]

@@SK-rc6qj I can't think of a tank that ticks every box (being the best). But some that stand out are definitely, The *T-34* for it's combat effectiveness, however weakened by shody construction and terrible crew conditions. And the *Valentine* for being Reliable, Compact and effective, however it was troubled by being developed too late for it to have an effect. I don't believe there is a "best tank" and that it'll always be up to what categories you value most. And for me, it's preference of what I'd choose to sit in had I been forced to take part in the war, and for that, I'd choose the Valentine.

[@manarivorandriambololona50]

Something I don't Like about people talking about WWII tanks is they rarely ever mention T34-85 and IS2 Worse, they thought that it was T34-76 mod 1939 VS TIGER I and then TIGER II and then Jagpanther and JagTiger all along No Soviets developped their own formidable tanks (even on 1vs1) aswell T34-85 was superior to any Sherman except firlies and Jumbo (they were kind of equivalent) Same it was superior to any German medium tanks except Panther And IS2 was superior ti Tiger I and despite being a bit inferior to Tiger II, it outnumbered it by 10 to 1 (500 Tiger II produced vs 4000 IS2) Not to mention SU100 was a bit inferior to Jagpanther but outnumbered it by 5 to 1 aswell So, at late stage of the war, Soviet tanks were the most terrifying tank force in the world... (Outnumbering German ones and outpowering Wester ones in term of armors and guns)

[@GrimReaper19111]

You got a lot of armor thickness wrong, the Sherman definitely did not have over 170mm of armor cause if it did it would have been the most well armored tank of the war

[@benny2906]

What about m4a3e2 jumbo 152mm that's sloped to

[@SanderDoesThings]

@@benny2906 he said the M4 Sherman, and didn't say any variants

[@psychologicaltirefire8190]

Pretty sure he's quoting effective thickness. It still bothers me because for someone that doesn't know much is going to learn info that they don't understand or know what it actually means.

[@steinkopf2085]

@@psychologicaltirefire8190 He got the info from wikipedia and it doesnt say it is sloped

[@taiyowest9495]

the shermans only had like 72mm of armour but because it was sloped it is thiker. also i think he refered to the thiknes of the turet mantlet, that is about 170mm thick

[@benim3166]

m4 Sherman with 177 mm armor? That's a jumbo, saying that a Sherman has 77 mm more armor than a panther is just wrong.

[@taiyowest9495]

i think hes refering to the turret. just becaus shermans didnt have 177mm of thicknes (apart from jumbos)

[@darkusfrutus2233]

Sadly this channel is just a wikipedia page with clickbait titles.. on his most effective soldiers video there was a ton of wrong info about guns but he doesn't seem to care

[@taiyowest9495]

@@darkusfrutus2233 i dont think he dosent care the team do care and work verry hardto put out good content. plus the armour thicknes things arent the most inportant thing obout the vid, + he was refering to the turret mantlet thicknes. and all these coments are information to them and its good becaus it instigates a active comunity, itsa also fun to discus the things u like so i dont think they dont care i think theres just a bit of misinformation, but what is history without the disagreeng historians.

[@brianlong2334]

@@taiyowest9495 Jumbo is the same it was basically 51mm front plate armoured Sherman with a 38 more added, so about 89mm but the turret was that thick. Probably why so many people have miscalculated that every Sherman had 90mm frontal armour, when in fact it was more like 61mm to 76mm, and later end war models had 87mm with the slop add in.

[@brianlong2334]

@** And so could a Panther and Panzer 4, even the stug 3 and all of them hit Sherman's more then they were hit them self.

[@diegogomez2052]

Fun fact when the Pershing was originally introduced many German tankers miss took them for German tanks so they hesitated because of that some of the cases on the German side actually were killed or extremely injured because they accidentally believed it was a friend

[@Micha-wb9oz]

Many? I thought the white star would give it away, but then again, Ionly know of such insance in the battle of Cologne

[@vladislavshevchenko9970]

I'm from Russia and I personally think that T34-72 is overestimated. Pz34R (T34 captured and modified by Germans) was significantly better, but Germans often lacked spare parts for T34. T 34-85 is truly the best medium tank of the war

[@n8zog584]

I can understand that. It had its faults, but when supplied right, the t34 was a beast.

[@mynamesmatthew1551]

Yea the Armor could be penetrated by any long barreled german 75mm or larger, or quite literally every single 75mm gun the us had, its "Beastly armor" is overrated.

[@combatant_cow4740]

On paper yes in practise the Sherman was better

[@MausTanker]

the matilda? 30mm of armor? UMMMMM WHAT

[@hiddentreasure2161]

In most places, the armour was actually up to 75mm, and that's not accounting for effective thickness.

[@ark-7464]

That was the statistics for the mk2 cruiser, he put the wrong picture

[@jimmyedelman3357]

Ikr? The Matilda Mk. 1 wasn't even designed for anti tank use but infantry support and had a single 303 inch Vickers WCMG in a turret only 189 were ever produced bcuz it was so slow and unpopular so th British developed the Mark II which had a 2lbr gun and until the Germans developed the PaK 40 only th 88mm Flak cannon was able to knock out the Matilda mark I and II

[@nvo7024]

Well, if a 40-ton Churchill is a "superheavy" (5:30), the Matilda can just as well be superlight. The only thing that matters is advertising revenue...

[@loafbread1920]

Paper

[@jestyry4864]

I am offended that the big bob semple tank was not featured as number one in this video

[@oj1587]

It's too obvious so he didn't include it

[@kayagorzan]

Schofield is better

[@5678sothourn]

This is such a stupid meme

[@farbodlashkari1345]

This guy is potential history dude

[@muhammadraynornayakaanackr538]

this meme is dead. stop

[@keinplano7029]

So i wanted to point out some mistakes and things you forgot about 1. The "MK.2" was called the Matilda 2. The Panther didnt have the gun with the most Amount of Penetration, it was the Soviet IS-2 wich mounted the 122mm D-25T gun wixh had around 200mm of Penetration point blank range 3. The IS-2 and the KV-1 & 2 were also feared at the beginning of op. Barbarossa 4. The pz4 was Upgraded with a long 75mm tun wich Made it a Match to the t-34 5. The t-34 , sherman and Churchill and other tanks recieved Upgrades to fight the New german Panthers and Tigers, ex. M4A3E8 Easy eight, T-34-85 and Churchill MK.4

[@heinkel1115]

Pak43 311 mm Pen

[@benjammin3381]

The Tiger 2 had even more penetration than the IS2.

[@funkmastaflash1]

I think you confused the British mk 2 light with the Matilda. The mk2 was hopeless, the Matilda, was somewhat of a beast. Boasting armor that, at the time, could only be penetrated by the German long 88mm, held her ground during the evacuation of Dunkirk. Matilda was the original queen of the desert, as well. Was reliable enough, and tough enough to deal with really most that was thrown at her, aside of course the aforementioned long 88

[@dennislemasters4339]

you are correct in greatest tank battles which covered the fall of france in one episode rommel wound up using the 88's against the matilda's because his panzer's and 37mm paks were unable to knock out the matildas

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

for the Char B1 : the 75mm Howitzer was almowt exclusively used against infantry or fortified positions, almost never against tanks. The 47mm gun in the turret was used for that, and though it was effective for that role, it ended being not really the best anti tank weapon due to the 1 crew turret (and the commander was in the turret, meaning that he had to aim/shoot, reload and direct the other crew on top of that. If the tank had radio, he was also in charge of radio communications : in short he was heavily overwhelmed). Also the front armor was up to 60mm the british tank you're talking about is not the "Mk 2" but the "Matilda Mk II" as there was a countless number of British tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Crusaders, Churchill, Cromwell etc and pretty much all of them had a Mk II variant at some point... Aslo, you are also mislead on the armor on the Matlida Mk II as its fron plate is well over 30mm (front plate is around 75mm) For the Comet, well firstly this tank has seen very limited combat, and though the thicker armor point is effectively 102mm, you almost always used front hull armor for armor valued up until this point, anf the hull on the COmet is 76mm thick About the Churchill, well you are talking about the Churchill Mk IV (that had the specs you list, however you didn't listed armor thickness for some reason). There was Churchills Mk I, Mk II, Mk III and it went up to MK VII in WW2. The picture you've shown is a Churchill Mk I by the way When the US entered the war though, they already had the very old M2 Medium tank that was quickly fitted as the M3 Lee. They also had very effective light tanks as the M3 Stuart line. I don't know where the 177.8mm armor thickness for the M4 Sherman comes from tho. It NEVER had this kind of hull armor thickness, the most heavily M4 were the M4A2 or A3 and had 63mm plate on the front of the hull and 88mm thick plate as the gun mantlet. The "Jumbo tank" M4A3E2 variant had more armor, but was not mobile enough and was considered a heavy tank. The M10 was never meant to be an answer to the Panther or the Tiger (the M26 Pershing was that answer). It was made to provide a mobile anti tank unit to armored divisions, nothing more really. Same deal as before for armor values, the armor you listed is only the gun mantlet, the upper front plate is only 38mm thick. Also, what is that armor value for the M36? It NEVER featured that much armor, the most haevily armored part on this vehicle (the hull is still 38mm as it uses the exact same chassis as the M10) is the gun mantlet with 76.2mm thickness. That 127mm value is complete bullshit. 8:22 : that the defending French and British forces would be more apropriate here. The battle of France was as much a British loss as it was a French loss 8:40 : the T-34 outclassed *early* models of the Pz III and IV. The Pz III was later outfitted with a longer 50mm gun that could punch through the T-34 armor quite easily at medium range, and the PZ IV variants above the Pz IV Ausf. F2 were outfitted with a long 75mm gun that could easily go through the T-34 armor. Also, the T-34-76 had a rather mediocre 76mm gun that could penetrate earlier Pz III and IVs, but this was countered with the Pz III Ausf L (that featured spaced armor) and Pz IV Ausf. G that features thicker front hull armor, as well as spaced armor later on Pz III M, and Pz IV H. for the Panther, well it is true its turret had a 100mm plate, but the hull is only 80mm at its thickest point. The Tiger is not "incredibly heavy" by the way : yes it was heavy but not underpowered and actually very mobile. It was incredibly expensive to make though, and the Panther had both better armor, better mobility and a better gun, while being much cheaper. Also, the thickness on the hull was 102mm, not 120. The T-34-76 was a so so tank : its gun was not particuraly powerful, the crew compartment was cramped, the turred was only a 2 crew model (making the commander overwhelmed like in the french tanks) and there was a lack of optics making this tank extremely difficult to use effectively. The only moment the T-34 became effective was when they changed the turret and the gun to go on the T-34-85 variant, with a 3 man crew turret, and a better gun overall as well a decent optics. The T-34 was reliable and really that is its only advantage over german tanks : the panther was just as mobile, but had thicker armor and a way better gun. The T-34 was built at a ridiculous amount of units, winning by overwhelming the opponent rather than achieving technological superiority (Like the M4 Sherman did) Overal, this video was filled with incorrect data, and even when the data was correct, it was not really use correctly : For example, why mention the caliber of the gun without mentionning the penetration that it can achieve? This was mentionned once, and with no number attached to it (I guess no real search for documentation about this). Most of the time the caliber of the gun is just thrown at you like "the bigger the caliber, the better the gun", but it is not true one bit. The russian used 76.2 mm guns on their early T-34-76 tanks, but it was much shorter and with a lot lower maxium pressure inside the breech, making it much less powerful than the British 17pdr gun that is also 76.2 mm in diameter. The 88mm gun on the Tiger was less powerful than the 75mm gun on the Panther, etc. Also no mentionning of the shells used (if it was AP, APC, APCBC, APHE, APC-HE, APCBC-HE, APCR... that makes a huge difference to firepower). I wouldn't consider this being a good video : the editing was kinda good (tho not too complicated) but too many incorrect data, assumptions etc...

[@schellshocked751]

finally someone i was really disappointed by this video as the info was really misleading

[@schellshocked751]

also for the armor thickness i think he meant most of the time the effective thickness for the shermans, panther or m10 but still its misleading. Not mentioning type of shells is the second biggest mistake. The crew being cramped or breakdowns of vital tank parts was a huge factor which was also not mentioned at all. And tbh imo the french tanks were shit absolutely outdated and they really were trash in comparison to the german tanks. For the t-34-85 not being penetratable thats one of the biggests bullshits i have heard in this video. Early variants were not reliable in terms of armor as the steel quality was shit so even a non pentrating hit could injure or kill a crewmate. The turret had to be redesigned to make the turret ring smaller as it was a weak spot. And why did he not mention Kv-1, IS-1 and 2, M18 Hellcat and the M24? Bullshit video

[@Lebaneselinguist]

Nice work and very reliable information👍👍

[@qwe5qwe566]

Just a slight detail that there were more variants of T34-76 (often refered to as T34 mod year). There was change to hexagonial 3 man turret prior T34-85 and also gun upgrade but without changing its caliber.

[@TheMonkey303]

My only gripe with what you’ve written is stating that the T-34 was a reliable tank. I think you might be able to make that claim in context of poor soviet industry but not so when compared to something like the Sherman.

[@DuKbuK2]

"Every tank is effective with a good crew" Master oogway~

[@Fred_the_1996]

Except the bob semple No matter the crew, it just slaughters everything in its way

[@DuKbuK2]

@@Fred_the_1996 Yea XD

[@Fred_the_1996]

@@DuKbuK2 just picture this: thousands of japanese tonks lost in combat 0 bob semples lost

[@DuKbuK2]

@@Fred_the_1996 i dont need to picture what is true

[@nogisonoko5409]

Not that it really matter how good your tank crews are if they are in a M4 Sherman and the enemy have M1A1 Abrams. This is an example btw.

[@Panzer1717]

“The panther had the most powerfull gun in the war, only the british 17 pounder matched it in penetrative power” has this guys ever heard of the KWK 44 and the KWK 43?

[@rjfaber1991]

Evidently not. But then again, judging by his statement early in the video that the Italians "only used light tanks and tankettes", there is quite a lot he's never heard of, so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise...

[@76456]

or even the 122

[@scratchy996]

This guy has just incorrectly read some random tank stuff from a forum, put some pictures together, uploaded it on youtube and fooled a bunch of people.

[@yeahboi7779]

*long 88 and 122 left the chat*

[@MIMthegreat]

128mm KWK 44 ftw

[@stevenleslie8557]

The Shermans were probably the most reliable and versitile tanks. They were never meant to go head to head with the heavy German tanks, but because of sheer numbers they could gang up on a Tiger and have the advantage.

[@mynamesmatthew1551]

yea people think the sherman was a terrible tank yet its "pew pew 75mm" gun could penetrate the "ph so beastly T-34s insane armor" from literally any range. Its armor at its angle was also as good as a KV-1 yet people say its a terrible tank.

[@binaway]

They can only gang up if they are available at that precises moment . Even then the best weapon was a large caliber anti tank gun. Which is how most German tanks were dealt with by the Western allies.

[@crumpet-enjoyer]

shermans were the most basic tank ever

[@Erpyrikk]

im sorry but so much of the information given is just wrong.

[@strazly4525]

I agree. Clearly doesnt play warthunder lol

[@ousarlxsfjsbvbg8588]

Such as? You’re not about to claim that it was a German tank that deserved the #1 spot, are you?

[@ChingusChongus]

@@ousarlxsfjsbvbg8588 Most if the info is kind of right but mis leading. He quotes base armour thickness, but not its effective thickness and he only takes the largest value armour plate. For example, he says the Sherman had 172mm of armour which will make you believe the frontal hull plate is that thick, but he really means the mantlet which only accounts for the front portion of the turret.

[@limcw6092]

wehraboo tears incoming

[@flare9757]

Lim CW It is true. I have never heard the Matilda 2 called the Mark 2. The Mark 2 was a WW1 tank, and that is only one flaw.

[@giulioaprati338]

Each country had different needs

[@Doc_Tar]

and doctrine.

[@giulioaprati338]

@@Doc_Tar and industrial capacities

[@bkjeong4302]

For example, Germany had no real choice but to go for individual capability at the expense of sheer numbers, because they couldn’t operate a large number of tanks like the US or USSR could.

[@alero1758]

Gabriel Borawski those german tanks are definitely not shit

[@cheekibreekiii8068]

Yes

[@natehill8069]

When talking about US tanks before WWII you should have shown the training films where the US Army trained using cargo trucks with a big sign on the side that said "Tank".

[@n8zog584]

The t34 were actually fairly regularly knocked out by panzer 3s. Lazarpig says so.

[@oliverheller7209]

Lazarpig says alot of crap

[@devildolphin2102]

@@oliverheller7209 Uh oh a Triggered Wheerabou.

[@dorijansokol5267]

This is full of inaccurate information and straight up misinformation. How do you put so much production effort into something that is this wrong?

[@loke6996]

This is pure clickbait i mean he isnt a good historian yet he calls out people for beeing "amateur historians" and his thumbnails look like something 5 minute crafts or the bright side would do.

[@MrKaiyooo]

Yea definitely. Like how he doesn't take into account relative expenses for countries. Germany used a bunch of expensive materials but Germany didn't have any shortage of them. Their biggest shortage was oil. How do you take into account effectiveness anyways. If you go off of quality but not widely implemented then England would too the cake with Germany as the effectiveness of those tanks way outpaced the others. The Russians would still be on top with the IS tanks. Those things were so scary that the entire allied block didn't feel comfortable anymore.

[@squeletondread5080]

fun fact when he said that france had as much tank than the soviets and plus that most of the french tanks didn't have radios (wich they all had... maybe not the H35-39 for sure) but it pissed me of quite a bit to be this wrong and germany mainly won on france thanks to JU87 and a more important Number of tanks. Like the 177mm armor sherman wtf XD

[@lucaszerafa178]

@@squeletondread5080 i’m pretty sure the french had radios but not in great numbers. also the sherman armour is stupid how do you get that wrong

[@newspaperbin6763]

@@lucaszerafa178 I think the info was just vague or mixed

[@thepartypikachu]

The majority of the armor values are extremely incorrect.

[@mynamesmatthew1551]

Its the Mantlet armor

[@patsmith8523]

A few things you didn't mention: The Tiger 1 and 2 suffered from power train issues. This is particularly true of the Tiger 2. Second, the early T-34s, likewise, suffered from transmission issues that hurt its performance. Finally, the Shermans did not out armour the German Panther till the later versions came out. If you will note in some of the clips you used, the Shermans had extra tracks mounted on the front of the chassis to give extra "armour protection".

[@songhan1586]

only the Sherman easy eight outarmored the panther I think a standard m4 didn't and was pretty much just a target for the panther lol

[@patsmith8523]

@@songhan1586 TRue. The Allies had to rely on tactics to beat the German armour.

[@songhan1586]

@@patsmith8523 not tactics, more relied on numbers, and air support. by the time the germans had to fight the allies after d day, they where low on resources, fuel, and trained personnel.

[@yeahboi7779]

@@songhan1586 easy eight has the same armor as the others. the jumbo is the one that outarmored the panther

[@wihamaki]

They studied the effectiveness of using tracks as extra "armour protection". They found when a round hit the sloped armor, it actually helped it to change angles to be perpendicular to the armor and penetrate easier. But they also realized it was such a physiological boast, they never made tank crews remove it.

[@twistedinnocence8617]

Over 100,000 Sherman and T34 tanks was a big reason why the allies won. Germans only had maybe a quarter of tanks available that allies had and many of them broke down or they ran out of gas.

[@Passance]

For future reference: "Chassis" is pronounced "CHASS EE" and "Mk" is short for "mark" so say mark, not M.K.

[@llynellyn]

Both are correct, English is not a universal language, there are many pronunciation differences between British/US/Canadian/Australian/etc English.

[@ksekhose8933]

He's just making videos... Clearly doesnt care enough

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@llynellyn - Not really about local variations. Mk is pronounced ‘mark’ = one syllable; ‘em kay’ = two syllables. The first is not only the correct way to say it, it’s also shorter.

[@howardchambers9679]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 in much the same way as world wide web is shorter than its abbreviation. Fewer syllables

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@howardchambers9679 - A few people have tried to figure shorter spoken abbreviations for www, but none have really stuck. I like Stephen Fry’s wa-wa-wa.

[@Stamar9116]

War Thunder and WOT players when they heard Sherman has 177 mm armor and Panther has the most penetration : What ??? Nooo How ?

[@JoshTheHoffman]

We are just gonna ignore the IS 2 and its 120mm gun. Also we are ignoring the Elefant and its 8.8 cm gun.

[@Wolfkiler2010]

@@JoshTheHoffman The Elefant was just garbage, yeah he has a 8.8cm gun but its useless when your engis have breakdowns all the time.

[@JoshTheHoffman]

@@Wolfkiler2010 I was just referring to cannon size. Yes in general it is trash.

[@patrykb_]

@@JoshTheHoffman IS-2 canon 122mm not 120mm

[@milesperhour9256]

@@JoshTheHoffman It's not trash, though

[@corvanna4438]

The T34 suffered the highest losses and highest crew mortality of any of the tanks listed. It actually had a horrific kill ratio when fighting German armor

[@user-ei7bk1tq1w]

"what a story mark" and what about M3 Lee that soviet soldiers (the same ones who died by millions in t-34) called a "coffin"? What about t-26? What about german pz.3? T-34 made it's purpose to help infantry advancing, destroying some early german pz 2, 3. Yes - it was incomparable to Tigers, Panthers. The problem is - t-34 wasnt even designed to beat them, there were also KV-1, T-34-85 and IS-1, SU-85, SU-100 etc These ones did well against nearly all german tanks.

[@corvanna4438]

@@user-ei7bk1tq1w The US provided around 7000 tanks to Russia in world war 2, fewer than 1400 were M3s. Russia lost 44000 T34s in combat in ww2 out of 84000 built (More than half). Russia lost 83,500 tanks in total. The US and UK combined lost 26,000 tanks total fighting Germany, Italy and Japan. The Majority of those were M4s, but that is also all types of tanks. 50,000 M4s were produced during World War 2. Even if we assumed all the tanks were only M4s, it is still a much better performance. This could be that Russia is just really bad at war or Russian tanks were terrible, but the numbers speak for themselves. Russia lost the most people, and that was fighting on just one front. The US and UK were fighting in the Pacific, North Africa, Italy and France. There is no way to look at the numbers and say the Soviets did well.

[@user-ei7bk1tq1w]

@@corvanna4438 Maybe it is somehow connected to the fact that americans and british were sitting on the other side of the Planet for 3 years while USSR engaged Stalingrad battle, where the number of soldiers and casualties on both sides was higher than on all the american fronts combined? Again, in a single city - more solders than on the all other fronts. And in this single cities there was a house that was fighting against germans longer than entire France... And yeah, about the russians who cant fight... you can always check it out) Or look for wikipedia and see how many times russians take Berlin. Or maybe germans and french fight badly? And only AMERICA GOD BLESS IT number one?

[@corvanna4438]

@@user-ei7bk1tq1w Sitting on the other side of the planet? Russia started the war allied with Hitler and helped him invade Poland. While Russia was helping Hitler, the UK was fighting in France and then in the UK. Hitler did not break his alliance with Stalin until the UK defeated him in the Battle of Britain. While Russia was wasting time fighting in Stalingrad, The US and UK liberated all of North Africa, secured control of the Mediterranean Sea, ran multiple convoys to Russia, with no help from the Russians, Freed Guadalcanal, Secured North Australia from Invasion, and began the liberation of New Guinea. Guadalcanal alone was far larger than all of Stalingrad.

[@user-ei7bk1tq1w]

@@corvanna4438 And still, about 75% of german military machine(and all other European nazi forces) was used in USSR) Of course liberation of New Guinea is a veeeeeryyy important turning point of WW2, after that germans were doomed not Rzhev and Stalingrad ahahahahah About partitioning Poland... What about Czechoslovakia? What about UK helping Hitler to take Czechs? And what about polish who themselves took part in partitioning czechs) poland just got what they deserved - they refused to give pass to soviet forces which Stalin sent to help Czechs and then Stalin just started playing by new european rules and copied poland's and british behavior. Here we have a saying - you will see a mote in someone else's eye, but you will not notice a log in your own.

[@theriddler620]

this video is proof of why wikipedia should never be used for an essay...

[@squirrele.1266]

Ez mr semple Good Armour Tons of guns Powerful 155 mm gun 25 76 mm guns 90 heavy machine guns

[@darthprovader]

You forgot to mention the broken transmission

[@thesovietduck2121]

@@darthprovader The Bob Semple never breaks down

[@darthprovader]

I thought he was talking about a German tank

[@retardcorpsman]

You forgot to mention the time travel device.

[@squirrele.1266]

THE SOVIET UNION you earned a like from me cause that’s very true

[@johnwambach4813]

One of the main requirements for US tanks was transportability. You had to be able to load them on a ship move them several thousand miles, unload and get them to the battlefield along with fuel and ammo.

[@sjoormen1]

ah... Chieftain sent you here:-D?

[@bobkonradi1027]

The Navy had cranes that could lift 400 tons. Most docks had cranes that could lift 50-60 tons with little difficulty, so tank weight was not a hinderance. Be that as it may. The Sherman had a crappy main gun that was lucky if it could knock down a brick wall. No excuse to not put in a high-velocity 76 mm tank killer. I believe it was Belton Cooper's book "Death Traps" that chronicled one Sherman who parked alongside a house in France that had a tall hedge alongside of it. As bad luck would have it, a German Tiger parked directly opposite the Sherman that night but neither tank was aware of the other's presence. Early morning the next day, the Sherman's crew woke up before the Tiger's crew, and they fired some HEAT rounds at the Tiger from point-blank range, but could not penetrate its armor. When the Sherman's crew realized they were wasting time and ammo, they got the heck out of there before the Tiger could respond.

[@ActuallyEarth]

@@bobkonradi1027 Sherman's were hardly death traps, having some of the highest survival rates. The 75mm was effective against the Panzer III and IV, and the later 76mm was more than capable of knocking out big kitty's at range. Firing HEAT seems unlikely, granted what model was it? Besides, WW2 Heat was generally ineffective, so it makes sense why it didn't punch through. Finally, the cranes were not the limitations. Rather the boats. Being able to ship many Sherman's at a time compared to a few heavier tanks. Plus, imagine trying to land heavy tanks on the shore. A Liberty class ship wouldn't handle carrying as many tigers as it could Shermans. Numbers+quality mean a lot

[@bobkonradi1027]

Crane capacity either in the U.S. or in Britain was not a factor. The U.S. had cranes that could lift 500 tons, more than enough to lift 16-inch main battery guns on navy ships. Same deal in Britain and their 15-inch main battleship guns. What's the real life diff between a 35-ton tank and a 45-50 ton tank. as far as a tank's weight goes.? They were shipped dry and unarmed. At the local railyard in my little home town, I watch portable hydraulic cranes with extendable booms on tires lift diesel road locomotives weighing way more than 50-tons, lift them off shipping trailers and set them on sets of tracks with no problems. Same for mid-sized steam locomotives with 2-8-2 wheel arrangements.

[@puenboy1]

Death Traps was a poorly written memoir that could almost be called a hoax. If you actually paid attention to reliable sources you would realize that Shermans aren’t flammable like Death Traps claimed, and the 76mm gun had a worse HE performance than the 75mm. Not to mention the fact that everyone and their mothers swear they saw a tiger in France when there were only a handful of them and there were only 3 confirmed engagements between Shermans and Tigers in Europe.

[@darthshaggy9697]

Pz. IV is underrated af.

[@jonathancathey2334]

I think a couple of factors should be, mechanical reliability, and how easy was the armored vehicle to maintain in the field. Unfortunately for Germany. Many of their tanks were abandoned due to mechanical problems. Whereas the American M4 Sherman, were very reliable. One British tank said, and I quote " one of the nice things about the Sherman tanks, were that the parts were manufactured to a high enough standard. So parts were interchangeable from one tank to another. Which was not so with British manufactured tanks. British manufactured tanks needed a machinist to minor changes to parts to make them fit correctly."

[@mrick1974]

Youve got a lot of armor thicknesses wrong ex: the sherman. Also '' the panther had the most penetration in ww2'' *cries in jagtiger/tiger 2* you might want to check your infos before making a video. Love your channel !

[@lieutenant2463]

yeah "panther had most penetration" immediately after "the tiger II and jagdtiger would like to have some words with you sir"

[@Chewie260]

Yeeeee. Am 4.40 in and so far out of the 2 tanks both had wrong armour values, Matilda which he is showing had 75mm of armor. B1 had 60mm.

[@katyusha1283]

@@Chewie260 I was just gonna write that.

[@katyusha1283]

@Juan Sanchez Panther had a 88mm gun.

[@collinfrye9555]

Katyusha No, it was the 7.5cm kwk 42/L70

[@lanecryderman2511]

The average armor thickness on the M4 Sherman was 50 to 63 mm thick until the age of the jumbo which added a armor plate to the front making the armor thickness 102 mm where the thickest part of the jumbo was the gun mantle that was 177 mm thick.

[@coty.ott0359]

Where he got the 170mm there are to plates on the m4 turret that are stacked one behind the other and are about 80mm each I guess that where

[@bobkonradi1027]

Reading Belton Cooper's book "Death Traps" he chronicles, as 3rd Armored's inventory control officer, seeing his first Sherman that was KO'd by a Tiger. From a significant range, the Tiger fired a round at the front of the Sherman's hull. It went through the hull, through the differential and transmission, through the crew compartment, through the engine, and out the back end of the tank. Cooper said that when he saw that, he knew just how outclassed the Sherman was. He says that 3rd Armored had a TOE strength authorization of 220 Shermans, and after 10 months of battle, he had to write off 550 tanks, which was more than 2.5 times the division's full authorized strength. That's not counting the repairable vehicles, but only the fully destroyed tanks.

[@billytheshoebill5364]

@@bobkonradi1027 yeah and Cooper was a last line mechanics meaning all he sees was destroyed Sherman making his view heavily biased also the book Deathtrap had been debunked by other experts many times before so yeah better go checked other books also also the long 88 use a full diameter shell not a modern sub-caliber shell meaning there is no way in hell that the shell could go through the trans then the crew compartment then the engine and then go through the back much less so that its an APHE so its breaking potential is higher than solid

[@michaelpielorz9283]

if his father was a battleship that could be true

[@Ezra411st]

The stug III had more kills then any other German tank of ww2 as far as I remember, and it was the most produced tank/spg of germany and with it's 75mm long barrel gun it had a good kill ratio

[@heinkel1115]

most kills in War.

[@chrismemory4684]

Whilst you're certainly correct about the stug III's effectiveness, it's technically not a tank. By definition, a tank has a turret (with the notable exception of the sponson-armed beasts from WWI which are still classified as tanks - it's only fair, they were the ORIGINAL tanks!). The stug III was actually classified as an assault gun, and was in fact assigned to and crewed by German artillery units, rather than tank units. In WWII Germany, wearing a black panzer crew uniform was considered fare more prestigious than wearing a grey artilleryman's uniform, and so the humble sturmgeschutz was always overlooked, despite its effectiveness.

[@submarine6410]

In general most German tanks had more kills, Even a panzer 4 could reasonably stand up to an IS 2

[@The_whales]

Too bad they maybe ran out of ammo before their opponents ran out of tanks

[@f-5e126]

almost like its primary role was a tank destroyer.

[@tomaspinall8279]

I think that as well as all the misinformation about things such as armour thickness (which many other people have mentioned), you have not taken many other factors into account, including: reliability, ease of repair, velocity of its gun and the ways in which they were used.

[@THX11458]

This video is riddled with errors: 1) The French Char B1 bis had a maximum armor of 60mm for the front hull not 40mm. 2) The A12 "Matilda" Mk-II Infantry tank had a maximum of 75mm frontal armor not 30mm. 3) The Matilda Mk-II was not vulnerable to most German anti-tank weapons. in fact, the German 3.7cm Pak35/36, 3.7cm KwK L/45 and 5cm kwk L/42 were nearly useless against the Matilda. The 5cm Pak38 L60 (and later 5cm KwK L/60 in the Pzkpfw-III J/L series) could penetrate the Matilda's armor but the vehicle had to be at close range. (However, the 8.8cm Flak 18/36 could easily destroy the Matilda at normal combat ranges). 4) The only variant of the Sherman that had 178mm frontal armor was the the M4a3e2 (so called "Jumbo") and they were basically an experimental weapon. A mere 254 were built out of the 50,000+ Shermans created. A "normal" Sherman (like an M4 or M4a1) had a maximum armor thickness of 76mm (Front Turret) and 51mm (glacis). Many later versions had a maximum armor thickness of 108mm (lower transmission housing), 89mm ( gun shield) and 63mm (glacis plate). If you're trying to state the "effective" armor due to the slope, then you're off as well. The Sherman's 51mm front glacis (on the M4 & M4a1) was sloped at 56 degrees from the vertical. Against a typical German 75mm AP round that gives a T/D (armor thickness/ shot diameter) ratio of 0.68 which factors out as a slope modifier of roughly 2.25 giving it an effective armor thickness of 114mm. The slope effect is the same for the later Shermans (like the M4a3(75)W) where the 63mm thick armor was sloped at 47 degrees. 5) The maximum armor on the M-36 was 108mm on its lower transmission housing. Maximum armor thickness elsewere on the front was 38mm on the glacis plate and 76mm for the gun mantle. Nowhere was the armor thickness 127mm. Again, if your stating the effective armor thickness you're off too. The glacis sloped at 55 degrees was only 38mm thick. If you use the 75mm round as a typical shot, it gives a T/D ratio of 0.50 which results in a slope modifier of about 2.35 which gives an effective armor thickness of 90mm. 6) The Panther's 75mm KwK L/70 main armament wasn't the most powerful anti-tank gun of the war by a long shot. Both the King Tiger's 88mm KwK L71 and the Soviet IS-2's 122mm D-25T L/46 were more powerful. Furthermore, if you include tank destroyers (which the video does) the following were equipped with much more deadly anti-tank weapons - Soviet SU-100 (w/ 100mm D-10S L/54) and ISU-122 (w/ 122mm A-19S L/46), Germany's Nashorn (w/ 8.8cm Pak43/1 L/71), Jagdpanther (w/ 8.8cm Pak43/3 L/71), Panzerselbstfahrlafette-IVa (w/ 105mm K18 L/55), Panzerjäger 12.8cm Kannone (Sf) VK3001(H) (w/ 128mm K40 L/61) and Jagdtiger (w/ 128mm Pak44 L/55). Also the T-33 and M-77 AP rounds of the US 90mm M3 ( fitted in both the M-36 tank destroyer and M-26 medium tank) had roughly equal armor penetration performance to the Panther's gun (and that's not mentioning its superior M304 HVAP (APCR) round). 7) There's no evidence that the British 17lbr was any less accurate than the Panther's 75mm KwK L/70. The argument only holds if your putting its fairly rare APDS sabot up against the Panther's standard APCBC round (which is an apples and oranges comparison).

[@awpidaras1440]

1. the char b1 has 40mm not 60mm ( just the b1 bis has 60mm,and the b1 bis was not used that much in the war) 2. the matilda II has the turret of 75 mm but the hull is from 20mm to 50mm 3. the matilda wasnt really attacked by anti tank guns because it fought mostly in africa and yes you are right the 3.7cm Pak35/36 couldnt pen the matilda frontal armour 4. he is talking about the most armoured tanks from each country and he says the effective thiccnes not the armour thiccnes. 5. the armour on the m 36 can reach up to 127mm ( U.S. Army Ordnance Departmen) 6. well he cant call the 75 mm the best gun. but the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 is one of the best guns from ww2 7. well yea u kindda right, there is not proof of that . I didnt wanted to be offensive i just wanted to "correct youre errors".

[@THX11458]

@@awpidaras1440 ​ @True RussianMan 1. You're correct I should have stated that it was the Char B1 bis but in my defense that is the image shown in the video. 2. Only the lower hull sides had an armor thickness range between 25mm (not 20mm) and 40mm (not 50mm) but the 25mm is over the 40mm (ie-spaced) giving it an added armor thickness of 65mm (roughly). The front hull ranges from 72-78mm while the upper hull sides were 70mm and rear 55mm [data from the official diagram of the Matilda-II armor layout (pg.8, Fletcher & Sarson, "Matilda: Infantry Tank: 1938-1945," Osprey, 1994) see link for same armor layout.] armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/Lendlease/Matilda/Matilda_14.JPG 3. Simply not true - "From his memoirs after the battle of Sollum in the summer of 1941, Field Marshal Rommel noted that the British employed large numbers of Matildas [II] which, on account of their thick armor, were impervious to most German anti-tank guns." (which here would be 5cm Pak38 L/60's - not 3.7cm Pak35/36 L/45). "The German 50mm Pak38 could penetrate the front of the Matidla using Composit Rigid shot." (pg.17 & 18 Fletcher & Sarson, "Matilda: Infantry Tank: 1938-1945," Osprey, 1994) Jentz, Thomas L. "Tank Combat In North Africa: The Opening Rounds - Operations Sonnenblume, Brevity, Skorpion and Battleaxe: February 1941 - June 1941" (1998), page 52 (German test ranges at which their tank and anti-tank guns will penetrate the Matilda II) - First Panel (top left) "Ranges at which the 5cm KwK L/42 could penetrate the Mk.II Infantry Tank," Pzgr [APC, APCBC] - (None), Pzgr40 (APCR) Front Driver's Plate =

[@loke6996]

Bro you should make theese videos not this idiot.

[@derinfomann4581]

The Thing about the 17 Pounder is about the Sherman Firefly but the Gunner had Problems Aiming with it. Also it was Cramped inside.

[@THX11458]

@@derinfomann4581 Yes, that is quite true about the cramped quarters for the turret crewmembers in the Firefly, due to the size of the gun, but the 17lbr was itself a fine gun.

[@jleeblackmon5340]

2 words "Bob Semple" tht is all. Tht name alone will cause any king tiger within a 200mile radius to immediately detonate.

[@madmanlolzmc5429]

You sure that isn’t just the transmission giving up?

[@retardcorpsman]

Madman Lolzmc Its the transmission machine spirit committing self die in fear that the Bob semple would reach it in time.

[@pepisasa5232]

True, it happened twice so they had to remove the ears of Tigers II so that they would not hear it. Absolutely terrifying

[@yeahboi7779]

they even had to convert it back to a normal tractor fearing that it could have destroyed the planet

[@glynnspencer4517]

Did you say the Matilda lacked armour? The reason the Germans started using the 88 was because everything else bounced off the Matilda!

[@Gurni1936]

Т-34-85

[@timeydoesstuff]

They say the t34 had a 76mm gun i was like what about the 85????

[@linkkicksu]

I love that some Russian tanks didn't even have the pins on their tracks secured, instead being hammered back into place by the mud scraper as they drove.

[@Supacoopaofawesomeness]

I don't think, at least not on all Russian tanks, I believe that the T34, at least the 85 variant, had a welded on dome that would hit the track pins in

[@guy2026]

Simplicity is better than overengineering

[@MIMthegreat]

@@guy2026 Too much simplicity and you end up with a crappy tank

[@markgreiser464]

@@MIMthegreat , numbers and propaganda made the T34 "great". Early T34's came out with the wrong engines. Welds on most were pretty bad, and the Tanks suffered, in Water Crossings. When they finally ran into Shermans, they were beaten pretty well. When they ran into the Pershings they were annihilated.

[@annohthestarminde1591]

@@markgreiser464 подскажите откуда вы взяли эту информацию. Мне известно минимум о двух случаях случайного столкновения американских и советских танков. И один я помню точно - "шерманы" открыли огонь по Т34 первыми, так как приняли его за немца в засаде и Т34 начал стрелять в ответ. В результате оба "шермана" были подбиты, один из них сгорел. Т34 получил по себе не менее 5 прямых попаданий, но пробития не было и экипаж остался на своём месте. Потом, после разбирательств, экипаж Т34 получил от своего командования по полной...

[@indianajones4321]

I personally thought the Sherman Firefly was very good and practical, but those Panzer IVs and Tigers were quite powerful

[@1986tessie]

Panzer 5 was the panther, if that's what you ment. Although I grant you the long barrel panzer 4 was a beast and should have been built more. But what's the good of a million tanks if you don't have fuel to use 1 of them....

[@YungEagle3k]

@@1986tessie the panzer 4 is a far better tank than any variant of the panther. If the nazis built more of em maybe the would of won. But sadly not.

[@1986tessie]

@@YungEagle3k ...... hold on, sadly not? Are you rooting for the nazis?

[@YungEagle3k]

@@1986tessie did I type that? Oh wait you're throwing an accusation. What a jew

[@YungEagle3k]

@@1986tessie also I'd rather root for nazis; vs soviets. At a pure logical and objective level

[@fabiospasiano9885]

Obviously Switzerland had the best tanks of WW2! They haven’t lost one armoured vehicle during the whole war!

[@annoyingbstard9407]

I don’t even know what an M K two is. Your picture looks like a Matilda but as you then went on to criticise its armour I knew it couldn’t be as the Tilly had the best armour in the early years of the war.

[@szlatyka]

The Matilda 2 had 78mm of frontal armor which was, even compared to late war models, a respectable amount of protection, no to mention that side and rear armor too was more than plentiful for the early war. German tankers shat their pants in France whenever they met a column of Matildas, and for good reason.

[@gungriffen]

The Tank Historian "The Chiefton" would say the greatest Tank of the war was the M4 Sherman. From the Deserts of Africa, to the muddy fields of France, to the Snows of Russia, the Jungles of South East Asia, to the Mountains of Italy the Sherman worked everywhere it was deployed. Reliability aside, it was retrofited into dozens of roles from Tank destroyer, to cutting Hedgerows, towing vehicles, and destroying mines. The M4 was the most versatile and reliable Tank of the entire war. Germany may have the superior tanks on paper but in practice the broke down often, had issues getting to the front under their own power, and were regularly out numbered 10 to 1. Their biggest flaw is two tanks rarely if ever had interchangeable parts. Every model was filled with proprietary parts making resupply and field repairs almost impossible. Everything would have to be towed to the closest mechanic shop where theyd have to order a said part from Germany and hoped it wouldnt have to be made first! When the Sherman came across the Mighty Tigers, they just through a bigger gun on top and called it a day. Parts were interchangable, field repairs in the field was simple for crew members with handtools and fire power was rarely lacking.

[@whypolska6345]

If the Sherman crew can just “throw a bigger gun on top and call it a day” as well as have “firepower that was rarely lacking” why then did the 3rd armored division allow an entire column of German tanks to simply pass them by when they had orders to destroy the enemy. The Sherman crews even had the advantage of surprise and superior placement but they didn’t engage and simply let the Germans roll off. Why? Because they were afraid of losing the engagement disastrously. The truth is that the Sherman’s gun was laughable and couldn’t penetrate a panther or tiger’s frontal armor unless it hit the upper glacias (which is extremely hard to hit). Only from the sides and rear was the gun effective. By contrast one Sherman veteran wrote a letter to his commanding officers explaining that he’d seen a tiger shoot through a house, penetrate a Sherman, and shoot though a whole different house in one shot. The Panzer V and VI just had better armor and cannons. However I totally agree that the Sherman was the most reliable and versatile tank of the war. Like you said the German beasts were mechanical failures, while the Sherman was a one size fits all. I still think it’s wrong though to just say that the Sherman can throw a bigger gun on and win because that’s entirely false.

[@whypolska6345]

Ozymandias Nullifidian before they used wet storage it had an 80% burn rate

[@krizhernandez4154]

@@whypolska6345 so did every other tank of the time

[@benny2906]

@Ozymandias Nullifidian t34 was a death trap

[@parodyclip36]

@@krizhernandez4154 Not at this rate. Sherman's ammo box was an easy target and poorly protected and americans crew did take more ammo than they could store thus leaving ammunations on the ground of the tank

[@ashleyzheng2244]

You forgot New Zealand’s Bob Semple Tank

[@whodaresyorkshire1998]

I'm just gonna clear this up for some people confused with the armour thickness of the british and american tanks because it seems this channel got it from wikipedia... One thing that everyone needs to know is that the armour on a tank is always different for cost-effective and performance reasons. So usually most tanks would have more armour on the front (obviously), with some on the side and less in the rear. Turrets may have more armour so when they were dug-in they were less likely to be penetrated giving a better chance to hold the ground. I will display the actual armour thickness from (Hull - Front, Side, Rear) and (Turret - Front, Side, Rear). Obviously there is more but the basics will help. Sherman M4 - (Hull - 50.8mm, 38.1mm, 38.1mm) and (Turret - 76.2mm, 50.8mm, 50.8mm) Sherman M4A1 - (Hull - 50.8mm, 38.1mm, 38.1mm) and (Turret - 76.2mm, 50.8mm, 50.8mm) Sherman M4A2 - (Hull - 63.5mm, 38.1mm, 38.1mm) and (Turret - 76.2mm, 50.8mm, 50.8mm) The Sherman M4A3 also had variants such as: Sherman M4A3E2 nicknamed Jumbo (Hull - 114.3mm, 76.2mm, 38.1mm) and (Turret - 177.8mm, 152.4mm, 152.4mm) Sherman M4A3E8 nicknamed EasyEight (Hull - 63.5mm, 38.1mm, 38.1mm) and (Turret - 76.2mm, 63.5mm, 63.5mm) Due to dissatisfation over the poor armour protection of the M4 series tanks, many US tank crewman added improvised armour such as sandbangs, wooden logs etc. Comet I - (Hull - 76.2mm, 29mm, 32mm) and (Turret - 102mm, 63.5mm, 57.1mm) What should also need to be taken into account is that some tanks that had sloped armour decreased the chances of being penetrated, so it increased the size of it's armour thickness (technically). Hope this clears it up for the viewers :)

[@lolmeme69_]

Definitely not Japan! Germany had the most badass tanks but they were also kinda impractical. I'd say the Russians tactically speaking. Good armor, good gun, and cheap to boot. However, American tanks were the safest and most comfortable. Logistically, American tanks were the best. Either way, they were an allied power and the Germans and Japanese were screwed.

[@jasoncross9354]

Potential history made several videos on each countries tanks and why they made them. The over all theme is that each country had the best tank for what they needed. kzbin.info/aero/PLORabbQ9zyFbk-xs_F4P0I8DXIWcwk-Al

[@MrMcChuckles95]

Numbers does not mean the tanks were "the best" just means they overwhelmed the enemy with inferior tanks

[@lolmeme69_]

@@MrMcChuckles95 True, but the Russians did have good tanks. Uncomfortable, cramped, and unreliable, but they had good guns and good armor. Also, I will disagree with that statement. A tank that can be made cheap for the same tactical quality as an expensive tank is better that the latter. Tanks like the Tiger are good tanks tactically, but if I had to fight a WW2 battle, I would rather fight with T-34s. A T-34 is expendable. You can waste it without concern. However, a Tiger tank is too valuable to be used offensively. This isn't a concern if you're Germany in 1945, as you need defense, but if you're attacking, you need a tank that is out there and duking it out. However, if you send that pile of taxpayer money onto the front lines...well, you're going to lose it pretty quick.

[@1986tessie]

@Carnivorus Stalin didn't feel a thing.

[@MrMcChuckles95]

@@lolmeme69_ russian tanks were simple and easy to manufacture, but in a one on one I'd have a tiger any day. T34 was a boss tank, but they ultimately just outnumbered German tanks like 10 to 1

[@apersondoingthings5689]

It is Matilda not MK 2 and it had 90 mm of armor. When a platoon countered Rommel in France they panicked and almost thwarted the German advance.

[@tippiesthalo8396]

Maybe you should have made this video 😕

[@Vincent98987]

No, the matilda had 75mm of armour!

[@apersondoingthings5689]

@@Vincent98987 In reality the front armor is 60-78mm of front armor, but I am talking about effective armor I should have made the more clear in my original comment.

[@Vincent98987]

@@apersondoingthings5689 ah ok

[@michaelpielorz9283]

that nicee myth was created to pamper the british.

[@Awfulfeature]

I love how for the chapters, the American Chapter’s thumbnail is the Golden Arches.

[@robertpayne2717]

The M-4 American SHERMAN due to reliability, ability to transport, ease and economy of production, ability to be adapted into other roles etc. Was With either 75 mm or 76mm gun capable or engaging all German production tanks when the Brits put 17 pounders on them producing the firefly version that was taking advantage of the previously mentioned quality of adaptibility

[@dennisandersson5552]

The Italians did develop medium tanks though, although the best model, the P 26/40 developed by Ansaldo, was not put into service before the armistice with the Allies. The tank was however kept in production by the Germans for their own use. The earlier models like the M13/40, which was more of a light tank rather than a medium one, and the better armourded M13/42, were not on par with allied tanks in North Africa though due to them having riveted armour. Their armament was by no means inadequate in the early part of the war though, with their 47 mm Austrian-designed Böhler gun providing quite a punch and which could also - contrary to the 2-pounder found in for instance the British Matilda II - a.k.a "the Queen of the Desert", fire an effective HE shell, something that was of vital importance combating enemy AT-guns. The Japanese did also develop some medium tanks of good quality although they were kept on the home islands in anticipation of allied landings..

[@raseli4066]

There is no real answer. People like potential history have already done great videos about this exact topic Edit: but I think the Sherman is very good

[@taiyowest9495]

the sherman was made to combat other tanks?. yes........ buuut....... the thing is germany produced a lot les tanks and in not very actve areas you were haard presed to find another tank, specially big ones like tigers. so the sherman mostlly encountered infantry.

[@reynardop7615]

@@taiyowest9495 pretty sure thats what tanks are supposed to do

[@taiyowest9495]

@@reynardop7615 yes jusr peaple think that tanks are like in war thunder or world of tanks and its not true thats all

[@leonardusrakapradayan2253]

The sherman was the best because it’s a jack of all trades, need anti tank? Get the 76 variant, need a breakthrough tank? Jumbo got that covered, Fire support? 105 is available.

[@raseli4066]

@@leonardusrakapradayan2253 yea! But could it work for the japanese or germans thought?

[@mathewm7136]

at 10:00 The problem with German tank design was that they looked great on paper. Factually, post war German tank designs (Panther, Tiger, etc) were completely abandoned by the victors. The only place one saw Tigers and their technology was either the museum or scrape pile.

[@jonwoodhouse1444]

A couple things you might want to clarify/correct... The Char B1 was not typical of most French tanks, and the scenarios of it killing a dozen or more panzers were very rare. Most of France's tank force was made up of 2-man light tanks like the Renault R35, which were spread out supporting French infantry divisions. They could easily match a Panzer 1 (1v1) in combat, but there was no way they could hold up against a concentrated force of Panzer 3's, 4's, and Stug's. So at the end of the day, I think it was more than radios that allowed the Nazis to steamroll France. Also, the US had the M2 series of medium tanks in 1939 when WW2 began, so it did have more than just a handful of light tanks. And by the time it entered the war, the US had already been producing the M3 Grant and Lee medium tanks, some of which had been lend-leased to Great Britain. The US also had the T1/M6 Heavy Tanks designed by the time it entered the war, and some had already been delivered to the army by December 1941.

[@twitchbeppingson9611]

you're incredibly vague and inaccurate in the statistics of the vehicles you mentioned, the Char B1 had frontally 60mm worth of armour (covering the majority of the hull), it boasted a 75mm howitzer mounted on the hull and a 47mm anti tank gun in the turret. next the MKII, you're showing pictures of the Infantry Tank mkII 'Matilda' (infantry is a subclass of heavy designed for infantry support) The 40mm (2 pounder) was effective against everything during France, Greece, and early parts of Africa. German tanks boasted 34mm on Panzer IIs and 50mm (70mm on up-armoured panzer IIIs and the 80mm plate mounted on panzer IVs weren't present in late Africa) for the panzer III and IVs used in the time period, the 40mm could defeat all of those at it's effective ranges. now i could ramble about incorrected facts all day but my point is that your facts are vague and incorrect, you're unspecific about what variants of vehicles and weaponry you talk about, and you miss out very important bits of information. you've also made the classic blunder of stating a statistic ie. 40mm of armour (for the Char B1) and completely ignored the armour layout of said vehicle: roof and belly armour are thin, front armour is the thickest, side armour & rear armour are thinner than front. now you should really re-think your knowledge of tanks and stop trying to regard them in a blatantly stupid 'top trump' fashion top trumps are fun for these comparison videos but not when poorly executed like in this one

[@Felix-dv9wn]

Ikr, i was kinda confused that a heavy tank like char b1 that is quite well known for its thick armor for that time having only 40mm of armor

[@tomasdawe4423]

Yeah I kinda got it at the Matilda 2's armour being weak to all German anti-tank guns, battle of Arras anyone?

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

@@tomasdawe4423 ikr there is a relatively big difference between 30mm and 78mm

[@papa_nurgle]

@@tomasdawe4423 wrong

[@tomasdawe4423]

@@papa_nurgle How so?

[@Crimson-kt7fd]

Dunno why but I've always had a liking for Tankette's. I think a portion of my brain finds them adorable

[@RockerFinland]

Definitely not the USSR. The Finns literally destroyed those tanks with just some molotov cocktails and logs (fun fact: the Molotov Cocktail got its name from the Finns)

[@Bodkin_Ye_Pointy]

Love to hear the technical critique of the first tanks on the battlefield. I mean this was a technical achievement for something never before produced so how dare they not have it perfect first time round. Even if many of the problems did not become apparent until they actually became operational. They achieved their primary design in that they carried heavy weapons to the enemy, crossed the trench systems they were designed to break and supported infantry well. Shame the executive did not have a clue how to use a brand new weapon that no one had experience with.

[@Kissamiess]

T-34/76 is overrated. It has severe ergonomics problems especially. The Russians knew it and were developing an improved version, the T-34M or A-43. It would have had many improvements, most notably the hexagonal 3-man turret with a commander's cupola and torsion bar suspension instead of Christie. Unfortunately, the Barbarossa cut this project short and the Russians just decided to churn out the old T-34's rather than retool the factories and retrain the workers. T-34/85 is an improvement, but not as much as the M model would have been. I myself tend to think the M4 Sherman is the best because of the reliability. It had to be reliable, considering it had to be shipped across the oceans to fight, far from the factories. Crew ergonomics and survivability are also things to consider. For firepower, protection and mobility it's good enough.

[@greystash1750]

Useless against tanks? Thanks for pointing out you know nothing about the subject you replied to

[@Feniks-the-fox]

around 45,000 t34s were reported to have been lost where as only 7,000 shermans were reported to have been lost because russian steal was very poor quality and the enemy didn't have to pen the enemy tank all they had to do was hit it and the armour would break leaving a hole in the tank that they one with a rifle can kill the crew through

[@Feniks-the-fox]

@SakaBaka shermans where very effective with the 76mm gun 1 sherman firefly single handedly destroyed 3 tigers one of which was a tiger ace

[@Feniks-the-fox]

@SakaBaka the reason russian steal was poor was because the Russians heated it too hot so it became brittle not because they where rushed that caused other issues

[@Feniks-the-fox]

@SakaBaka the British had over two thousand fireflys double the amount of tigers the Germans made in total not including the american 76mm shermans less effective than firefly but could still take down a tiger or panther also the sherman 75mm could easily take out a panzer 4 unless it was the H variant which was built in limited numbers because they where two expensive so they mainly used the G and J and my original point was about russian steal was not because of rushed production it was instead because russian engineers where inexperienced and didn't understand how steel works

[@Patadude100]

Char B1 bis: Has 60mm of armor Matilda: Has 75mm of armor Don't know enough about the Comet Sherman: Has 61mm sloped back, about 90-something effective I give up at this point

[@reddo__230]

Love these vids!

[@machtwolke]

Crazy to see how many Tank Commanders and Experts assembled here

[@EugeneRimmer]

Kind of upset by the lack of mentioning of the British Centurion, a tank which was used by the Israeli's to win the 6 day war, granted it was a late war tank.

[@jj70098]

Probably the same reason he didn’t mention the Pershing, to late to make a difference.

[@taiyowest9495]

@@jj70098 or the jagtiger

[@squeaky206]

@@taiyowest9495 ew last ditch tank

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

The Cent MK I was to late to fight in any battle in WW2, it wouldn't have been correct to put it in this one

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

@@jj70098 to be fair, the Pershing saw a bit of action while the Cent did not see any fight in WW2

[@raendymion3149]

Talk about T-34/76 : Shows picks of T-34/85

[@henryvonsilver972]

@alieninsurgent If you dont like the video then dont watch or comment something

[@damjan847]

Im gonna guess that youre Finnish.

[@raendymion3149]

@@damjan847 why...?

[@damjan847]

He mentioned T-34s, and he is right. They were the most important tank of the war. And they are also Soviet. Fins and Soviets dont really like eachother. So im guessing he told him to shut up if he didnt like it because he said smth about soviet tanks. Oh and also he has ä in his name.

[@raendymion3149]

@@damjan847 oh

[@TotallyNotAFox]

One thing never gets mentioned about the T-34: The steel they used for the armor was too hard to withstand tank shells without breaking. It worked wonders against smaller calibres but a good hit with a shell turned the armor into a frag grenade for the crew. They also broke down as much as Tigers, the thing that saved them was the high production output to compensate

[@apoorhorseabusedbycenk]

The thing which saved the t-34 was the US and Britain. The western front cost Germany 10,000's of tanks and anti-tank guns while Russia despite getting help from the US and Britain barely had over 10k tanks left.

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

T-34 armour steel quality varied greatly between factories

[@meisterdestoasts1574]

Source ?

[@TotallyNotAFox]

@@meisterdestoasts1574 Information material and the guided tour of the "Tank Museum Munster"

[@f-5e126]

@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 yes it varied but its estimated that only 30% of soviet factories where producing them to there standard and the rest rushed them out in poor quality to meet production quota's in fear of being shot or sent to a gulag by the NKVD

[@ivansmith7316]

Thank you for the video. I enjoyed it. 👍

[@peoplesyoutubechannels5379]

Germany could have the best tanks if they did not made their design overcomplicated and give underpowered engines to them

[@Elizabeth-0]

They did what they could with what they had. Were the tanks over over complicated? Absolutely! However they are fighting the US and USSR which can field an endless amount of tanks basically. So would you go making let’s say a T-34 clone that’s simple to produce that could manage to knock out one tank on average or go with a more heavily armored and armed tank that’s going to knock out a lot more tanks before getting knocked out itself? If anything the big failure on the German side was not enough spare parts for tanks. For every ten Tiger I built an extra engine was made. I recall reading somewhere were spare parts for German tanks at least were heavily guarded as tank crews would steal spare parts since they were so hard to get ahold of.

[@the_real_logan]

Lmaooo no

[@brianlong2334]

@@k3psu48 It was Estimated to be about half of the USA, lucky for us they didn't mobilise there resources and economy till 1944 far to late, Germany built about half of its ww2 equipment in 1944 why under the most intense bombing campaign on its industry. It's estimated that half of its production was destroyed by the bombing campaign. If we look at losses the USA Industry alone would struggle or couldn't replace the equipment the Germans destroyed. 140,000 tanks American production was 106,000 3,000 Merchant ship's 5,000 civil ship's 170 war ship's USA produced 6,000 ships 210,000 aircraft USA produced 300,000 aircraft.

[@mekolayn]

@@Elizabeth-0 no matter how many tanks Tiger could kill, it would just get broken while driving. Also oil production was very poor so even if they had lots of Tigers and Panthers the more you have the more oil you need to use them

[@montieluckett7036]

I'd also like to think that the slave labor and its inherent sabotage had a bit to do with it. But the major factor was your statement as to underpowered engine drivetrain systems employed. Maneuverability combined with their firepower alone would have negated the over engineering factor for the simple reason that they'd have increased the loss/kill ratio. But I believe the power packs of the day were as far forward as they were going to get without the technology innovation necessary to increase maneuverability and speed. But it's really a moot point this far into the future. Just an exercise for our minds in the what if arena and supposition at best. But here's the thing, Germany had everything necessary to win, and still lost. And praised be to that.

[@eridon910]

Actually Japan had fairly good tanks like the Ch to, Ch ri, and Ho ri. But these were all reserved for defence of the home islands and did not see combat.

[@Kalashnikov413]

Or, just as simple as Chi-Nu

[@astrangeperson9305]

The main issue was they were mainly designed as anti infantry meaning the american late tanks completely decimated them

[@thattommy5421]

So did the Italians, like the Semovente da 75 and the other variants and the Semovente da 90 (although those are tank killers, they were really good, especially the semovente against British Shermans and Matildas, maybe) even the M13/40 was a decent tank for the standards of 1940, it could easily kill a Crusader, of course it became obsolete later in the war ; we also built some P40s (but they were mostly taken by the germans after the 8th September). The only thing is that we had two major problems, we didn't have the industrial capabilities to make many tanks and we didn't have resources

[@yoseipilot]

Japanese middle tanks after the war: 0 casualties

[@masondixon797]

Actually there was a battle and Sherman's demolished them look it up they're tanks were terrible

[@upthehatters]

Allies: panzer calm. Panther spooky. Tiger panic. Tiger ll run.

[@Caliverio]

Italy also used in high number tank destroyers like semovente m75/34 and others that were cosidered some of the best tank destroyers of the war.

[@kayagorzan]

3:13 “The chubby one” Perfection

[@richnaper6666]

What was the most effective? T34 What could have been the best design? Panther

[@ethanhogan6446]

Well they built around 85,000 of them

[@dbszady]

The T34 if I recall correctly would have a field life of around 100-150 hours for the engine. Since so many were being built they'd just ditch them and get the crew into a new one.

[@9595Christopher]

@@dbszady that's if the t34 crew even survive the first battle with the poor to nonexistent crew training and abysmal built quality of t34s with gaps between the armour plates that you can fit your hand through

[@BSoDexe]

@Carnivorus it's about command and crew training, not the tank itself. Early war, T-34 was really the best tank out there. Decent maneuverability, armor to withstand most German anti-tank weaponry, decent gun and radio.

[@BSoDexe]

@@k3psu48 oh look, a wehraboo got butthurt Yes, I'm fully aware of T-34 disadvantages, but you need to actually sit inside to know them. And when this thing is out there shrugging your shots, you don't really want to know whether it has good optics or comfort

[@easternspy1739]

russian heavies are a thing too you know (is-2 with more than 200mm penatrating shell, kv-2 with a 152mm howitzer, kv-1 ect.) they all fetured 75+mm armour

[@jester6809]

You should count the M26 pershing, powerfull gun, decent armour and decent speed and maneuverability

[@theplinkerslodge6361]

Yes, agree. That's the one I came here to find out about...

[@pls-no-punterino7095]

It had almost no effect on the American war effort, so that's probably why. Also this video is a bunch of bullshit

[@sebastianfalcon948]

I think he was focusing on early to mid war tanks considering the pershing was introduced too late to have a noticeable effect

[@Stevieboy-ne9ll]

is 2 boom stick also enough fire power to pen the panther's for armor and come out at the back

[@MRB2580]

@@sebastianfalcon948 The Comet was introduced around the same time and he mentioned that.

[@kiritoisgod2215]

I would say Germany is 3rd but that is because logistically they were worse off, production wise they couldn't produce enough and alot of thier best tanks were in to few numbers and/or had terrible technical problems, the Tiger B hull based tanks used a medium tank transmission on a super heavy which meant it tended to snap it own transmission when moving. Yes the armor and guns on german tanks were good but that was it, overall german tanks were not as good as people think.

[@official_commanderhale965]

I’d counter the whole “couldn’t produce enough”. Germany had plenty of material and industrial power. The issue was up until 1943, Germans were producing war machines on a 8- hour work day. Their wartime industry was practically at peace time production. Pair that with their bipolar oil supply and that was the real reason they lacked a almost fully mechanized army and larger number of armored units. They were slow to implement a Total War industry and lacked sufficient fuel supply to keep a larger number of vehicles moving.

[@kiritoisgod2215]

@Carnivorus Tiger B is the Koningstiger also known as the Tiger II

[@Tankofdarkness]

Carnivorus a good kill record does not make a great tank other aspects include mechanical reliability, ease of repair and if necessary replacement and something like a King Tiger (PanzerkampfWagen VIB) is not the best aside from kill count and defensive ability. Mechanically unreliable (transmissions up and breaking was common) after the Panzer 4 German tanks could be best described as a mechanics worst nightmare and replacement became impossible as German factories were bombed and eventually over run by the western allies

[@benny2906]

@@Tankofdarkness hes bias dont try to talk sense to someone that hasn't learned about the reliability of German tanks.

[@leonardusrakapradayan2253]

Carnivorus the official designation was the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf.B/Tiger II

[@Rentedreaper25]

First tank *Talks about Mark I* Little Willie:Am I a joke to you?

[@kobeh6185]

I'm really in love with this channel man but I think its time you did a redux of this video

[@williamsperry9263]

The early T-34s had alot of mechanical problems with their engines and as many as 30 per cent or more broke down on their way to the military front. William Sperry

[@mikeikerman8249]

177mm of protection for every single one sherman ever built ? 177mm of protection can only be found on the M4A3E2s' turrets

[@yeahboi7779]

150mm*

[@randomuser5443]

Can you do one on battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Uboats, and Carriers in a video

[@georgeprchal3924]

Simple answers: America across the board.

[@Felix-dv9wn]

Its gonna be muricas, all of them except the subs cuz germans got good sub doctrine

[@terruskaa]

Heck no, that eould make even more bullshit infos

[@alganhar1]

@@georgeprchal3924 No. The best for the needs and requirements of the US Navy possibly, but other navies had different requirements. If you add differing requirements to the limitations imposed by the various Naval Treaties between the wars and you can start to see why certain design decisions were made. While the UK had one of the best Classes of Light Cruisers in the world during WWII, the Town Class (HMS Belfast being a survivor of that Class, currently a Museum ship), most of their Light Cruisers were rather small as Light Cruisers went. This is because not only were Cruisers limited to a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons, but there were also flat tonnage limits of however many hundreds of thousands of tons of Cruisers that each Navy was allowed to build. This led to a problem, the UK had a vast Empire with Trade routes around the world it needed to protect, and the best ships for that job are cruisers. This is why you see the UK building so many small light cruisers, they needed a LOT of Cruisers, but because of the total tonnage limit did not have enough tonnage to allow them to build 70 Town Class (which is what they would have ideally wanted). Then you have different Operational and Theatre requirements, the US Navy for example built its ships primarily to operate in the Pacific. The UK built its ships (and still does) to operate primarily ni the North Sea and North Atlantic. In WWII the US Navy rarely had to worry about Land based air power, the Royal Navy given where it operated its Carriers for most of the war very certainly DID have to worry about that. This is the reason British Carriers were armoured, because they KNEW they would come under sustained air attack from land based air, and they DID. In one day HMS Illustrious came under 4 seperate attacks. In that day she was hit by 7 bombs. Hits 1 2 and 3 were 2 1100 lb (1 and 2) and 1 500 lb bombs. Hits 4, 5 and 7 are unknown, but two were judged to be 500 - 1100 lb weapons, the 7th believed to be a 250 - 500 lb bomb (these hits were all in roughly the same area which is why judging the exact bombs was difficult). Hit number 6 IS however confirmed to have been a 2,200 lb bomb. She survived. A Carrier survived 1 confirmed 2,200 lb bomb, 2 (possibly 4) 1100 lb bombs, as well as numerous smaller bombs, and survived. Quite frankly no American or Japanese Carrier afloat during WWII would have survived that punishment. The price for this survivability however was a reduced air wing. But that was a price that the British paid knowingly, it was a conscious choice not a mistake in design because the displacement of Carriers was limited and one could not keep a large air wing and build the kind of survivability the British wanted on the Displacement allowed. Judging ships using a 'top trumps' method is idiocy of the higest order, because unless you keep in mind the criteria each nations Navy required those ships to operate under then you can never really understand the reasons behind the choices many navies made....

[@PoloABD]

Tank design interests me at the moment. I think it’s remarkable how suitable the Mk1 and Mk4 tanks were in the First World War, given how new the concept was. I’m not sure if many of these WW2 designs could have crossed no man’s land.

[@DoodooBean]

Most WW2 or even interwar tanks would have no difficulty. The Mk1 and Mk4 were sluggish deathtraps that filled with their own exhaust fumes.

[@Fafawif]

Man named chitler : Ok ok *HANS GIVE ME MY RATTE*

[@vsdiamonds8534]

6:26 mc donalds equals the symbol for the us😂😂

[@lucasgomez3283]

The T-34s armor really was only effective for the early war and almost no tanks received armor upgrades through the entirety of the war (aside from the turret for the 85mm which was still only offered moderate protection), mid war and on the 75mm guns the had could reliably penetrate its armor and infantry anti tank weapons like the panzerfaust and panzershrek definitely could

[@user-pf3kv4bv5s]

The T-34 did not receive armor modification because in 1941 there was an evacuation of factories beyond the Urals and all modernization projects were frozen until 1944. Before that, they planned to make the T-34M (A-43) with improved armor and better visibility to replace the conventional T-34 In 1944-1945 they planned to replace the T-34 with the T-44 but they were still unhappy that the T-44 still didn't hold up against 88mm rounds.

[@simonthieriot5596]

THANK GOD! YOU FINALLY POINT OUT IMPORTANCE OF COMBINED ARMS WAR FARE AND MASS COMM BTW FORCES. WELL DONE! GOOD VIDEO

[@dennislemasters4339]

regarding the churchill the mk1 and 2 had the same 40mm gun as the matilda 2, the mk3 and 4 were armed with the 6 pounder 57mm gun, the mk 6 and 7 had a 75mm gun and the mk 5 and 8 had a 95 mm gun

[@dariususer994]

And it all started because somebody didnt like hitler's art.

[@ondry7801]

This video is prob gonna anger a lot of people

[@yamato3870]

Ondry New Zealand had the best tanks though

[@ondry7801]

@@yamato3870 true, but i was talking about the lack of information/just straight up wrong stuff in the video altho it was fun to watch

[@randomuser5443]

TROUBLINGBIRD 2103 Jumbo maybe with the Tiger 1

[@thesovietduck2121]

@@randomuser5443 Yeah he probably confused the M4 with the M4A3E8

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

true. It angered me with all this bullshit information

[@pepijnwarmerdam8784]

One thing that contributed to France's ineffectivenes against German armour was the way they were deployed. They were scattered across the army as infantry support and there were no real tank battalions.

[@ronaldgray5707]

How effective is a country's tank if they lose the war? Reminds me of a WWII trivia question. Which aircraft in WWII had the best time spent flying over enemy territory to loss ratio? The American Piper Cub. If you saw one, you hid and prayed it did no see you. There were several recorded instances where a German soldier shot at one and his comrades shot him (This was told to me during an American artillery seminar put on by the navy war college).

[@user-di6ye9ro9n]

If only Bob semple have seen real combat

[@madkills10]

Wasnt expecting an Aussie accent, solid vid mate

[@ZETH_27]

It's full of inaccuracies.

[@HeinzGuderian_]

"Hey, Smedley!!! Let's put a large steam boiler at high pressure inside a small compartment with a bunch of dudes and high explosive ammo".

[@swuxel6580]

the moment he said T-34 outclassed panzer 4s I got a cringe attack

[@NoThroughRoad50]

Starts crying when realising that the sentinel won’t be mentioned btw it’s an Australian tank

[@BSoDexe]

Well, I think it would be most correct to compare M4, T-34 and PzIV, since these were the most produced medium tanks, and most similar in stats, too. And then it still would be subjective, since these 3 excel at different things. T-34 was cheaper, M4 had the best crew survivability, and PzIV had the most simple repair (all these hatches weren't for nothing)

[@bobkonradi1027]

In the Battle for Stalingrad, the life expectancy of a T-34 was less than a week. In fact, it was said that a T-34's fuel tank initial fillup load would outlast the tank itself. The T-34 tank factory could produce 1000 tanks per month, or 250 per week. Every week the Russians would get a new supply of 250 tanks. By the next week they were down to 5-10 T34s and then would get another 250 T-34s. That was up against primarily PKW4s with long barrel, high velocity guns.

[@billytheshoebill5364]

Imo the PZ.IV would just stand in the middle of T-34 and the M4 being better in ergonimics and reliability than the T-34 but older design than the M4 resulting in lesser upgrades could be implemented on the chassis being late war PZ.IV was overweight for the suspension plus harder maintenance and lower crew survival rate than the M4 with all those hatches which you've mistakenly took for the PZ.IV

[@someone_nonhere1111]

T-34: im stronk im powerfull Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus: and i took that personally

[@seanp.6872]

You’ve forgotten about the Pershing American tank. Although it made its official combat debut in the closing days of the war, it was designed to specifically knock out Tigers, King Tigers and any other heavy Nazi armor they could throw at it.

[@duanepigden1337]

Then you’d have to talk about the Centurion.

[@masondixon797]

@@duanepigden1337 I don't think it saw any action though could be wrong but definitely a strong tanks for sure