Well compared to some of the allied tanks, they were a bit worse. But I suppose if you take into account what the Panther had over most allied vehicles it seems like a fair trade-off. Most tanks then had to tension the tracks very often, but as the German vehicles had a tendency to be very heavy and complicated, Panthers, Tigers, etc needed extra care. Also in the Russian winters, you'd have to clean mud out of the interlocking wheels VERY often in order to prevent it from freezing and jamming the wheels up @K2K
@shipster Panther wasn't that unreliable. near the end of the war it was much better than when the panther was released. also, I read that you had to tension the tracks properly or things would not be very nice...
@shipster yeah if that thing didn't break down it would have been awesome. Unfortunately, they tried a bunch of new things with it that didn't really work. The modern version of this is the littoral combat ships, oh those things drivetrains suck. They tried to use a combined gas and diesel gear and it just breaks the whole thing down.
Ohhhh I see what you were saying ok. The KT’s gun was good, yeah, but I really don’t see a need, as the Panther was perfectly adequate both armor and gun. I guess if you just parked the Tiger 2 in a good defensive position you don’t need to worry about reliability xD but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link @ChrisPy
I was saying the King tiger was underpowered I know it isn’t always about the caliber, most of the time it has to do with velocity and bullet weight helps sometimes. They improved on the tiger 1 with the king tigers high velocity gun. @shipster
Panther wasn’t underpowered, just very unreliable. Before they were equipped with rev limiters, then could hit around 50kph, and for a 45 ton tank in the 40s, that was actually very good. And the KwK42 had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88 and with more penetration. I’d take a panther over tiger 100% of the time. The front plate of the panther was also effectively thicker. 80mm at around 50* angle @ChrisPy
@K2K T-34-85
Jk the Panzer was better in almost every way except the transmission. The Soviets just had more T-34s than the Panzers could carry in shells.
Well I mean I was talking abt mostly stats such as armor, firepower, and K/D ratio but I see what you mean. It is not a reliable tank at all but it sure is a venerable foe. I think he’s talking 1 on 1 cuz the m4 and t34 were technologically not great tanks. They just had numbers. The KT II was basically an upgrade the spawn of the tiger I and the panther so I think of it as taking the best of both worlds from those two.
Ideally it wouldn’t have had such an underpowered engine and it would have been able to actually be able to be produced en masse. Another tank I feel that people forget a lot is the Russian IS-2. Pretty effective at countering German armor.@shipster
The Tiger II was only really effective at defending, whereas the Panther was much faster, had totally sufficient armor, and more reliable. But if the question was asking realistically rather than 1 on 1, the T34 or M4 would win 100% @ChrisPy
In what way? Realistically or in a 1 on 1? Realistically, either the T-34 or M4 due to mass production. But 1 on 1, Panther 100%
Thicker effective armor than Tiger and better gun. Many people think the Tiger’s 88mm could penetrate more but that is false. On one occasion, a Panther SHOT THROUGH a dead M4 and killed one behind it. If Germany had somehow managed to produce the Panther on even half the scale of the T34, they would’ve most definitely held on longer
NEIN THE TIGER AND KING TIGER WHERE THE BEST IDIOTS
Sherman because of its variety of variants and T-34 because of mass production. But panzers good though.
@shipster Yeah I know the russian mud problem
Well compared to some of the allied tanks, they were a bit worse. But I suppose if you take into account what the Panther had over most allied vehicles it seems like a fair trade-off. Most tanks then had to tension the tracks very often, but as the German vehicles had a tendency to be very heavy and complicated, Panthers, Tigers, etc needed extra care. Also in the Russian winters, you'd have to clean mud out of the interlocking wheels VERY often in order to prevent it from freezing and jamming the wheels up @K2K
@shipster Panther wasn't that unreliable. near the end of the war it was much better than when the panther was released. also, I read that you had to tension the tracks properly or things would not be very nice...
@shipster lol XD
Yeah, but to be honest, we should be glad they failed xD @ChrisPy
@shipster yeah if that thing didn't break down it would have been awesome. Unfortunately, they tried a bunch of new things with it that didn't really work. The modern version of this is the littoral combat ships, oh those things drivetrains suck. They tried to use a combined gas and diesel gear and it just breaks the whole thing down.
Tiger 1
Ohhhh I see what you were saying ok. The KT’s gun was good, yeah, but I really don’t see a need, as the Panther was perfectly adequate both armor and gun. I guess if you just parked the Tiger 2 in a good defensive position you don’t need to worry about reliability xD but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link @ChrisPy
I was saying the King tiger was underpowered I know it isn’t always about the caliber, most of the time it has to do with velocity and bullet weight helps sometimes. They improved on the tiger 1 with the king tigers high velocity gun. @shipster
Panther wasn’t underpowered, just very unreliable. Before they were equipped with rev limiters, then could hit around 50kph, and for a 45 ton tank in the 40s, that was actually very good. And the KwK42 had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88 and with more penetration. I’d take a panther over tiger 100% of the time. The front plate of the panther was also effectively thicker. 80mm at around 50* angle @ChrisPy
Sherman
@K2K T-34-85
Jk the Panzer was better in almost every way except the transmission. The Soviets just had more T-34s than the Panzers could carry in shells.
@DefaultSettings The M1A1 Abrams was made in 1980. World War Two was 1939-1945.
Well I mean I was talking abt mostly stats such as armor, firepower, and K/D ratio but I see what you mean. It is not a reliable tank at all but it sure is a venerable foe. I think he’s talking 1 on 1 cuz the m4 and t34 were technologically not great tanks. They just had numbers. The KT II was basically an upgrade the spawn of the tiger I and the panther so I think of it as taking the best of both worlds from those two.
Ideally it wouldn’t have had such an underpowered engine and it would have been able to actually be able to be produced en masse. Another tank I feel that people forget a lot is the Russian IS-2. Pretty effective at countering German armor.@shipster
Easily the Panzer. If Germany could have produced them at a faster rate the Shermans would have been screwed.
L3
Bob Semple obviously
In my opinion, the best tank of WW2 was the T-34.
Huh, those are funny ways of spelling
KV-2
SMK
T-50
Zis-12
T-35
Panzer II
The Tiger II was only really effective at defending, whereas the Panther was much faster, had totally sufficient armor, and more reliable. But if the question was asking realistically rather than 1 on 1, the T34 or M4 would win 100% @ChrisPy
In what way? Realistically or in a 1 on 1? Realistically, either the T-34 or M4 due to mass production. But 1 on 1, Panther 100%
Thicker effective armor than Tiger and better gun. Many people think the Tiger’s 88mm could penetrate more but that is false. On one occasion, a Panther SHOT THROUGH a dead M4 and killed one behind it. If Germany had somehow managed to produce the Panther on even half the scale of the T34, they would’ve most definitely held on longer
@DefaultSettings 1985... 40 years after ww2
@TheMegaMauster oh