X-ray games KV-1 is not included cause after 1943 he couldn’t face tiger tanks at all, that’s why the soviets built the T-34/85 cause it had more firepower.The M3 Lee was very useful as a tank destroyer cause he could deal a lot of damage and he had thick armor. The Americans used the M3 Lee at the battle of Casserine Pass, that’s why the German and the Italian army had many problems.
History talks, these tanks were regularly used against enemies in ww2 and it caused allot of damage to them.. thats why its top 10, whilst the other tanks such as IS-7, MAUS, T110Es all were prototypes and never used in war
Nathan Peterson Firstly, TOP lists are only things, that can, and should be objective, because you actually compare things, unless its "my top favourite" or etc. This list was, obviously, made by "ou, this looks cool. Also strong. ITS IN!" way, instead of actually comparing vehicles. Nobody comparing Tiger 2 and Panther, cant say Tiger 2 was better. Now i may seem too butthurt about this, but my grandgranddad(ya know. father of my grandfather) was a IS-1 commander in WW2, both my granddads were a T-55B and a T-54 commanders, during communism, and I am a T-34/85 commander, when it comes to remakig battle scenes(its about showing, that also young teenagers, were fighting, and killing eachother[BTW, that is one horrible machine. Seriously, T-34s are BAD tanks, even for ww2]), so we are family of tank commanders (:
I'm not a tank expert at all but everyone knows the Lees sucked. The British had to use them against the Afrika Korps and complained about them constantly. I was surprised to see it on the list. And it's ugly as shit.
If they would be able too mass produce the Tiger 2 before it was too late... they could easily defend two fronts. That shit would murder every other tank at that time.. using rounds against Shermans and T 34-85 would have felt like a waste of rounds
на практике танк получил крайне дурную славу, его даже прозвали БМ-6 - "братская могила 6", 6 - по числу экипажа. было бы как-то иначе, машина имела бы массу модификаций
The progress in tank design made over the course of WW2 is absolutely staggering. Freakin little Panzer I all the way to that monolith Tiger II in such a short time.
its not really a breakthrough in technology though, they simply realized more armor protects the crew better, and a bigger gun gets through that bigger armor, yes the engines were huge and sophisticated but its nothing compared to ERA, APFSDS, Composite armor, etc that happened right after WW2. All german tank designers knew was how to make things bigger, and for some reason they didn't realize that would make them unreliable as hell. To be honest I'd say fighter aircraft made more of a breakthrough.
The M3 Lee wrecked everything in its way at the time it was introduced. The german tanks of the time stood no chance against it until necesarry improvements were made to the german tanks.
The Panther was the best tank of World War 2. It combined an extremely accurate and powerful main gun with superb mobility and speed. The sloping frontal armor further added to its combat effectiveness and survivability. The Germans had learned valuable lessons in the tactical advantages of sloped armor from the Russians and wasted no time in exploiting it.
kill4money213 Agreed. The first models were quite disappointing yes due mostly to the simplified final drive that was installed to cut down on manufacturing time. Once this was almost completely rectified in the G model though...it was an impressive machine. By that time though, the Panther was hopelessly outnumbered and could not capitalize on its superior qualities enough to turn the tide.
thats incorrect... well maintained the Panther was as good or bad as any other ww2 tank...which were all unreliable by today standart... the only weak point of the Panther was the final drive... if the driver was carefully it was no problem... unskilled drivers could easy destroy it
Propheth of Lego The IS-2 was packed with problems early (1943till mid 1944) IS-2 had weak frontal hull armor (could be penetrated by almost every gun from 75mm/L43 upwards) that forced the USSR to a redesign of the complet hullfront (mid 1944) huge drawback was the 122mm gun of the IS-2... extrem low rate of fire and extrem inaccurate abouve 1000m most german tanks could outfire a IS-2 by 3-5 vs 1 shoot and given to its calibre poor penetration performance..that the IS-2 was more mobile than a Tiger2 is a mythos.. both had about the same power to weight ratio fully equipped (~11hp/to) with a slightly higher topspeed for the Tiger 2 ...the biggest problem of all, the IS-2 carryed only 28 rounds for the main gun(and now take into account the extrem inaccurate gun)... so he needed a constant supply line direct at the frontline..if the supply line was cut off, the IS-2 run pretty quick out of ammo... to compare Panther carryed up to 85 rounds, Tiger1 92rounds, Tiger2 86rounds the battlefield endurance of the German tanks was much better... tanks are more than paper numbers
IdkHowToNameMySelfYT If you compare the cost of each vehicle to how well it did, the M3 is better. The Tiger was feared, but mostly because of its armor. Sure, it has a great gun, but the armor was what was best about it. And at least the M3 crews didn’t have to take almost all of the roadwheels off the tank in freezing weather to kick mud off the tank so it could move.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 mud is often a winner in case of any tank, modern or historical. Though T34 deals with it better in most cases in comparison to any other ww2 tank. because other tanks are either a lot heavier or got some other disadvantages.
There is, Its a common mistake, Konig in german translates to "king" so Americans called it King Tigers multiple times. The named it correctely, the Royal Tiger.
The King Tiger was s beautiful machine and a worthy concept but it was a mechanical disaster. Most broke down after a hundred miles and off good roads it was little more than a moving pillbox. It was rushed into servive using the same drivetrain as the Panther....30 tons lighter. The Panther was the best one on one fighting tank of the war. But the T-34 was a true war winner in every way.
Just numbers, if germans had just as many panthers and tiger 1s as russians had t-34s or americans had shermans, europe would be speaking german and maybe the rest of the world 90% of russian t-34s were nothing but guns on tracks with little to no protection and a couple of panthers/tigers were able to dispatch ten enemy cyka blyats before they even got to their firing range.
Remember once and for all! T-34 is a medium battle tank and Panther is HEAVY! They cannot be compared at all. But if we take heavy Soviet tanks, then the IS-2 and IS-3 easily dealt with any Tigers and Panthers.
@@AndreyPetroff пантера средний танк,чайник.ис3 после войны был выпущен вообще.т34 по всем показателям проигрывал пантере,чисто массовостью своей задавил вот и все.пантера и тигр выпусти их в количестве 50 тысяч штук ))))ты сам знаешь кто бы выиграл войну
Its nice to see a king tiger with only handful in running codition its amazing how they keep them running all the years and also amazing how they were captured but not destroyed you would be lucky if the crew abandoned it otherwise that 88 canon would probably shot you
It was a stop-gap that was built in large numbers because of delays in producing anything better. How does that make it successful? It was under powered and not very manoeuvrable. The main gun was ordinary at best and positioned to one side of the hull, and that made it necessary to risk the entire vehicle to enemy fire. It had thin armour and it was RIVETED. A shell striking the front of the vehicle resulted in those rivets turning the crew into minced meat. Crews hated it for good reason.
The vehicle served well past its expiration date with the Soviets, Americans, Brits, Indians, and Aussies. Its chassis was used for a plethora of extremely successful vehicles. The armor was not thin for the time it saw its glory days, and British reports saying "it could easily deflect 50mm PaK rounds" at normal combat ranges. Its riveted armor was a let-down, but it was not the only tank to do that, and it did not by any means have a higher casualty rate than the other vehicles like the Crusader or any Italian or Japanese vehicle. Over 600 M3s had welded or cast armor (M3A1, M3A2 and M3A3).
I thought the same. The M3 was a failure of a design and any top 10 list that has it is questionable. The rest of the top are o-k, but the order is again questionable. Pick a design as your number 1 that had little impact and more were taken off the battlefield due to mechanical problems than enemy fire.... um.... But, if the top 10 was simply cool factor, King Tiger wins no doubt.. thing is awesome.
@@Alex-gt8rd It was fucking expensive and you could buy around 8 Sherman's for one Tiger 2 but I should mention that there are reports about the tank destroying 37 Sherman's.
@@Vot4er0 122мм орудие пробивало Пантер. Про лучшее и худшее не было сказано выше, было только о том что ИС-2 справлялся и уничтожал технику противника
It was a successful design that lived way longer than it should of, and spawned several great and famous vehicles. Like the Ram Mk.II, Sexton, Priest, and so on.
Nathan Peterson, this is a video about the best tanks of ww2 not a video on the history of tanks, thru your logic you could say the Pz. 38(t) was a great tank because it's the cousin of the Pz IV...lol
OttoVon AceMan It was a successful design. Neither purely on performance (well maybe the LT vz.38) would deserve Top 10. But Top 15 isn't out of the question.
Nathan Peterson it was a horrible design, its one thing for a tank to be successful, but is another for a tanks to just be produced so much that for every one M3 you kill 500 more come for you, not to mention that its main turret was fixed in place and its top machine gun turret couldn't pen a panzer 3
OttoVon AceMan It was design was purely meant as an interim until the very good and very successful M4 came along. The M3 Medium's turret was not fixed in place... where did you hear that it was?
@@erwinrommel8422 it's extreme relative to the production numbers of other tanks. for example the tiger 2, only around 400 were produced. And no wonder the stugs took out so many. It's a tank destroyer that was used in a defensive war.
Being British... its hard for the words to come out of my mouth..... But how insanely awesome are the Tiger tanks. There's just something about them, that I'm sure would of made your blood turn to ice when you'd see them emerging from the forest or coming around a corner.
Right it was bad enough you were likely to not only run into Panthers and tiger 1s but a bigger more powerful tiger that was just terriffying kingtigers were scary defensive weapons.
being british means ALWAYS sitting in the worst possible tanks :) even the PIII was better than any real british design(churchill/cromwell),if the crew was skilled and at close range.... we germans had the best designs,just not enough rare materials any more(specific metals) in order to produce the most strained parts like the front wheel supports,so that was always a breaking point even for the tigers...
@@christianfeider4939 well apart from the Comet and the firefly . Plus it was pretty rare to see a tiger or panther on the western front . Unfortunately you Germans love engineering too much , that is why the Russians churned out thousands of T38 s
@@Railrody Technically the Panther was a medium tank, but it weighed more than a Pershing or Churchill, and nearly as much as Russian KV. And it's still 90% the weight of a Tiger.
@@Railrody I'm guessing you meant 150mm armor? If yes since the Panther 100 mm armor (front sloped armor made this with effect of ~140). It had the title medium tank, but the term is pretty loose as it weighed nearly 2x a Panzer IV. A Panther with some more side armor could've done the Tiger's role just fine, but with better mobility
+Drunk Bastard It was indeed tall. The turret-mounted guns actually had surprising traverse vertically despite the height. It was not by any means slow. Nor burned more frequently than other tanks of the era.
The M3 performed rather well in Africa and the Pacific. A failure is a tank that actually failed (like the Porsche Tiger), and the M3 is not one of those tanks.
5:30 Churchill: Ehh, Cmon grandson! ill show you what REAL tanking is! Challenger: ...ugh, SHUT UP GRANPA, YOU OLD FUCK Churchill: speak up sonny, i cant hear ya.
It would be better to compare aviation before the war with biplanes still in service and straight after the war with jet fighters such as MiG-15 and F-86. I think the progress was far more significant.
I'm not understand on what principle the steepness of tanks was compared! Because, firstly, there are no universal tanks, each machine is designed for its specific tasks and needs of the time. Secondly, not only technical characteristics are important, but also cheapness and simplicity of production. German industry could not stand the production of their supertanks and choked. Those crumbs of the Royal tiger, which came to the front, nothing could change. For me, in terms of characteristics, the IS-2 and T-34 will always be the best.
@@masii22 i don't know about you, but i would bet that the side bringing ~50000 fiat 600s to a demolition derby would wipe the floor with the ~500 lamborghini gallardos
@@energeticbombom328😂 Didn't think anyone could miss the point there, but you managed it. One on one, the only way to compare the aspects of a tank, the Tiger 2 has no contemporary equal
yeah, it has a large target profile, but it didn't have several guns, it had only two, and the commander wasn't completely overwhelmed just by adding a second gun
The Polish 7TPjw were good tanks and on the same technological level as the best German tanks in 1939! With the wz.37 37-mm gun the Polish 7TPjw tanks were able to destroy all German tanks from a greater distance which participated in the raid on Poland. The German Panzer III 37-mm gun tanks and Panzer IV 75-mm short gun tanks were not superior to the Polish 7TPjw-37 mm gun tanks. By the way, the 7PT " jw" was the single-turret 7TP version in contrast to "dw" which was the twin-turreted version of the 7TP. But only 24 of this twin-turreted 7TP infantry support tanks were still in use in 1939. The 7TPjw was of course clearly superior to the most used German tanks Panzer I and II in 1939. The Panzers I only had a machine gun and no anti-tank gun. The Panzer II had a 20 mm auto-cannon, but it was primarily intended for firing explosive grenades against infantry and the gun was too weak for combat against tanks. Therefore the Panzer II with its 20 mm gun was not dangerous for 7TPjw! By the way, the polish 7TPjw tank, was 1st tank with diesel engine in Europe. So this tank was with lower fire risk if the tank was hit. In the upgraded version, the crew compartment was larger and the air-conditioning system was improved. The Poles learned from their experiences with regular 7TPjw, when used in training exercises, that crew comfort was important. Also the Polish radio type 2N/C of the Polish 7TPjw tank was superior to the German radio at range with of 25 km. The radios used in German tanks had a range of 4 km. Tanks with radios were also fitted with an intercom for the crew, who were equipped with new type helmets with integral headphones. But only shortly before the war it was decided to equip all tanks with radio, but then it was already too late. Furthermore all polish tanks were equipped with the revolutionary reversible periscope G wz. 34. The Periscope was a revolutionary because it was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret. This was a decisive advantage due to a much better overview of the battlefield. Because if I see the enemy tank before the enemy sees me, I can destroy the enemy tank first. The German soldiers in the German tanks, on the other hand, mainly used five viewing slits to observe the battlefield. Americans and British have taken over the Polish tank Periscope then for their own tanks too! Unfortunately, the Germans also took over the Periscope from the captured Polish tanks after 1939. The Sowejtes did the same! So, in summary, it can be said that the Polish tank belongs on this list.
@@JeanNezMarre25 Only ignorant fools laugh at historical facts! In fact, the Polish 7TPjw battle tank was on par with the German Panzer III. Both tanks could destroy each other. Both tanks had an gun with a caliber of 37 mm. But the 37mm gun of the 7TPjw tank was more powerful. Compared to the 1939 Panzer III gun. Both tanks had a similar operational range and maximum speed. True, the Polish tank was less armored than the German tanks but the Panzer III Ausf A-C had the same armor as the Polish tank. Only from the Ausf D onwards did the Panzer IIIs have more armor. But other advantages of the 7TPjw made it clear that the tank was on par. And what use was the Panzer III's stronger armor if the Polish 7TPjw tank could destroy it. In contrast, the advantages of the 7TPjw were clear. All polish tanks so also the 7TPjw were equipped with the revolutionary reversible periscope G wz. 34. The Periscope was a revolutionary because it was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret. This was a decisive advantage due to a much better overview of the battlefield. Because if I see the enemy tank before the enemy sees me, I can destroy the enemy tank first. The German soldiers in the German tanks, on the other hand, mainly used five viewing slits to observe the battlefield. If the German tank commander wanted to have the same overview as the Polish commander in the 7TPjw with the periscope G wz. 34 he has to open the upper hatch and leave the protection of the tank with his upper body. Which could be very deadly. Americans and British have taken over the Polish tank Periscope then for their own tanks too! Unfortunately, the Germans also took over the Periscope from the captured Polish tanks after 1939. The Sowejtes did the same! The Polish 7TPjw tank had another advantage to the German Panzer III due to the diesel engine. The Panzer III, on the other hand, had a gasoline engine with a higher risk of fire. Incidentally, the Polish 9TP tank was even heavily armored than the Panzer III Ausf.E. The Polish army ordered 100 of these newly developed tanks and 13 9TP had already been delivered and also in operation against the Germans. So since the tank had the same advantages as the 7TPjw against the Panzer III, the tank was superior to the German Panzer III.
The Sherman only ran into trouble when it ran into a Cat. Everything else was easy pickings. Also, it has a hatch for every crew member. Not many tanks at that time had that feature.
@@flare9757 yes you are right ! Only the drivers and the loaders hatch was too small to get out quickly and the panzer 4 wasn't an easy target for it as well (The latest panzer 4)
Porsche turrets were replace by the Herschel turrets cause they more reliable and with Porsche turrets a problem was found it cause a shot trap. shot trap is when in coming shell or projectile bounces of the upper plate of the tiger and hitting the rounded front bottom of the turret and driving it into the turret ring which allows the turret turn left or right but that was least bad thing that can happen bits of shrapnel could injure or kill the crew and damage the breach or quite possibly detonating ammunition which most likely will blow the turret off the hull and send it about 5 to 10 feet in the sky and finally know why there only 50 build but Badass tank overall.
Thats is one of the commen explanations. Also said is that ""Two turret designs were used in production vehicles. The initial design is often misleadingly called the "Porsche" turret due to the belief that it was designed by Porsche for their prototype; in fact it was the initial Krupp design for both prototypes. This turret had a rounded front and steeply sloped sides, with a difficult-to-manufacture curved bulge on the turret's left side to accommodate the commander's cupola. Fifty early turrets were mounted to Henschel's hull and used in action. The more common "production" turret, sometimes called the "Henschel" turret, was simplified with a significantly thicker flat face, no shot trap (created by the curved face of the earlier turret), and less-steeply sloped sides, which prevented the need for a bulge for the commander's cupola, and added additional room for ammunition storage
+Anthony Daly wow, thanks for the explanation. I always thought they stopped using the Porsche turret because it was harder to manufacture with all the curves and angles.
Well you learn something everyday and I am glad you something from me :) but king tiger is great piece of German engineering but the Panther series of medium tanks is to me very special tank base on five easy reasons why its the best tank of the war 1. speed 2. armour 3. reliable 4.easy to fix and finally 5. all round beastly look and the Panther tank saw battle of Kursk to the battle of Berlin its design would help revolutionise tank warfare and tactics for ever.
@@jeremyjones453 It wasn't the Chassi but the turret ring was too small the last models they did manage to fit the 7.5 cm L24 gun used on the early MK-IV's. The Russians had to enlarge the turret ring to put the 85mm gun in the T-34. The 1st MK-III's were armed with the 3.7cm gun had they started with the 5.cm gun they would have been the best starting tank. By the way all the 1st tanks sent to Africa with Rommel were 3.7cm models in the work shop waiting to be up gunned
Слепая дрянь без вентиляции с кривой, медленной пушкой, без связи. Только в ЧиЧиЧиПи, с ничего не стоящим для власти экипажем, это стало оружием. Отдать 6 тридцатьчетверок за одну Пантеру... да, как нефиг делать. 30 человек..., да ещё нарожают. Зато танк дешёвый.
The tiger II had never had a turret made by porsche, one turret was from henschel and another from Krupp. Krupp’s turret was there inital design for the vehicle (which had the rounded front and sloped sides, which explains why it was mistaken to be made by porsche), while henschel’s turret design was the factory turret and was quite common.(which is the turret fitted to the tiger II in this video) The tiger II was also quite agile for a tank of its calibre even though it suffered major mechanic flaus (mainly drivetrain issues since the drive train was made for a smaller vehicle)
@@theranger7924 I'm really sorry, but the model shown is the 'production' model commissioned by Hitler from the Henschel factory. The description says, "Porsche" version, which was in competition with Henschel, and a few Porsche versions were put into production. In the end, though, Henschel won the contract. My main dispute is the tank shown and the description given are incorrect.
@@derausbeiner8510 Neither Porsche or Henschel manufactured a turret, both turret designs were manufactured by Krupp. During production Henschel only manufactured the hull of the tank, Krupp made all the turrets. So there is no such thing as a "Porsche" turret, as there is no such thing as a "Henschel" turret. The first 50 Tiger II tanks had the initial turret design (the one everyone keeps calling a Porsche turret), after that it was redesigned to simplify production.
The first place is absolutely undeserved the king tiger did not play any role in the war. he did not participate in any important or large-scale battles, all of them were abandoned due to breakdowns or blown up by crews during the retreat, an inglorious machine, an inglorious country
I love listening to all these arguments over who had the best this or that during WW II - whether talking about tanks, planes, ships or whatever. Don't people realize that technology during the war was a constant game of leapfrog between sides? One side might have the best tank at the beginning of the war but a week later the other side would come out with something that made it second best, and then the first side would counter again, etc, etc. Finishing the war with the best weapon of a particular category didn't mean that one side's technology or culture was inherently superior - it often just meant that that side had taken the most recent leap when the war came to an end. In many cases it was also an indicator of which side was most desperate at the end. Each one of the tanks in the video, had their moment in the sun, sometimes very briefly, even the lowly Lee had some success in North Africa, but I wouldn't list it even in the top 20. Even the often maligned Sherman did pretty well against enemy medium and light tanks. Patton used their speed pretty effectively charging from southern France towards Germany but as the Allies got closer to Germany they started encountering German heavies for which they were no match. In the end, Germany probably had the best tanks but they were often mechanically finicky. Russian IS tanks were also among the best IMHO.
Согласен! Всё решали люди. К примеру на начало второй мировой лучшие танки были у великобритов. Однако люди в этих танках были слабы духом, поэтому пришлось драпать в англию ( дюнкерк, 1940 год)
Noo, the T34 was plauged eith mechanical issues. They lost over half their forces moving them to the front line, they had the worst crew curvival rate at only 17%, and their transmission could only get into 3rd gear without breaking.
@@TheFruitcake1983 watch Lazerpigs video on the T-34, it explai s a lot of the issues. Personally I believe the Sherman is the most practical tank of WW2, but it was executed poorly due to lack of 76.2mm guns. If all Shermans were 76mm they would of been fantastic.
cause the lee was very importent in world war 2, without the lee the war would have been lost very fast, the americans made them for the english! and the russians if iam not mistaken and a lot of lee tanks were made!
King Tiger/ Tiger II is probably the most aesthetic tank ever made. Only thing that beats it is the E-75 with the 128mm but that was only a paper project.
I love how everybody is supercareful with their precious tanks, driving it through a puddle at the most, minding that the paint won't get scratched. The Russians just go ham with the T-34 lol...IZ OK...IZ TANK!
- The Russians just go ham with the T-34 lol...IZ OK...IZ TANK! - just for you to know, the first of those 2 T-34 has a chech (or slovak) writing onboard, and a corresponding flag painted in circle - and that chekh driver probably likes to bath. the second one, with the actual rusian writing onbord, is more carefull.
I agree that the Lee doesn't belong on this list but it received surprisingly high marks from the Germans who faced in in North Africa. The Nazis were using mostly Mk. IIIs at the time and both the 75mm and 37mm guns on the Lee were capable of defeating the IIIs relatively light armor. The Germans said that the fact that the Lee had 2 primary guns made it difficult to get into a proper flanking position - an important aspect of wide-open desert warfare.
I believe the Tiger I, especially late war versions, were okay overall, but the Panther G late war was by far, the single best tank of the war. Of course, one can make the argument that other tanks were better verses those two tanks, but quite literally, these two tanks set the benchmark extremely high. Yes, they were both very over engineered and yes, both were heavy for bridges and in field repairs were mostly problematic. However, except for Sherman Fire Flys and overhead bombardment, these two particular tanks were very nearly invincible for the most part until the allies became less fearful and better equipped to deal with these two very dangerous German tanks. Obviously, a 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb could obliterate any German tank or allied tank. That was their overall weakness. But in battle and on open terrain, the German 88mm was extremely accurate and quite simply put, the most feared gun of WWII. Despite the diminutive size of the M4 Sherman and its more powerful sister, the Fire Fly, they were quite capable of out maneuvering most larger German tanks. And in doing so, could strike in the rear area, disabling these large monster tanks. Personally, I'd rather have taken my chances in a Tiger I because of the superior armor plating in front and the 88 mm main gun. Even allied tank crews respected the Tigers roominess and overall protections afforded its crews. It wasn't a perfect tank, but clearly, until the allies controlled the skies over most of Europe, the German tanks ruled the roost. But big doesn't always translate to superior. Again, bridges couldn't support such gargantuan weights. Also, both the Tiger and Panther were horrible in city / town environments. Too big. Too easy to spot. Easy to incapacitate or destroy. In open country however, no other two tanks commanded such respect by both axis and allies combined. Lastly, the King Tiger, though very cool looking and yes, sloped armor, better guns, it's achilles heal was weight combined with excessively poor fuel mileage. In open country, one simply didn't have a chance if the crew was good or exceptional with a King Tiger. Germany over engineered many of its later tanks. The initial Panzers, like the IV, were likely the overall best tanks in early war. KB
The cost of one King Tiger was three times higher than the IS 2 tank... while it had a gun less powerful than the IS 2. You don't have to talk about maneuverability at all. Simplicity, efficiency, reliability and cheapness win the war. This determines the mass production. For the war, complex expensive non-practical designs are fatal in the end.
@@MrSTALINGRAD34 the cannon of the IS 2 was not able to shoot down the German tanks of the same period (because it was an artillery gun, slow to load and not very precise and not very effective), in fact it was only used to destroy the fortifications. sources: Wikipedia, some experts on RUclips
in my humble opinion this list is crap, this list may be your top 10 favorite tanks, but certainly not a top 10 best tanks. where is the pershing? and where is the comet? and the firefly? and what the hell is a m3 lee doing here?!?!? sorry but i think you should really reconsider this list
+Sol ! yeah so what, it still isnt a good tank compared to the ones i mentioned. you could have made a video about tanks that had a really important role in ww2 but then you shouldnt name your video best tanks of ww2. btw i dont get any info from wot or wt as 2/3 of wot tanks were prototypes
The first shipment of 20 Pershing tanks arrived in Antwerp in January 1945. It has no effect on the war. The Firefly is basically a Sherman whit a 17-pounder gun, made by the British. An the Cromwell yes it was a god tank, but the Sherman remained the most common tank in British and other Commonwealth armoured units in Europe. Cromwells were used as the main tank in the armoured brigades of only the 7th Armoured Division, although the Cromwell was used in the armoured reconnaissance regiments of the other British armoured divisions (Guards Armoured Division and 11th Armoured Division) in North-west Europe, because of its speed and relatively low profile.
+Mrbaliandras if we are talking about the best tanks you should mention the pershing even though only 20-30 were used. the firefly was the only tank in the west that could kill a tiger from range. i mentioned the comet, not the cromwell, wich was essentialy a upgunned and uparmored cromwell with the 17pdr. gun wich again could kill a tiger from range
Yes it's true, but the firefly is a variant from the Sherman. This list is a Opinion from me. Other people has a other opinions and this is god for me because I can see a other aspect .
When they showed up in North Africa, they scared the daylights out of the Africa Corps. IT had the heaviest medium velockty gun in the field at that time.
prodkill. Agreed, M3 is one of the worse of all time. It might have had a moment in Africa but clearly nowhere worthy of top 10. They could not go "hull down" in a Lee due to an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun. Was replaced by the Sherman as soon as humanly possible.
Almost all the tanks in this video: * riding a straight road/flat surface * T-34: What is that? Large puddle? Deep marsh? Tons of mud? OMG, I DON'T CARE! GO AHEAD! That's why T-34 is the best
Андрей Зверев Dream Bro 😂. THE Panther is In much ways better than 80% Of T-34 and T-34-85 you need more informations Panther had good Gun 50/50 Good Armor Not the best but Good Mobility ! It give so much points mire for Panther 😂 Dream Anymore ..
The T-34 has a V-shaped 12 cylinder diesel engine with an aluminum cylinder block and aluminum cylinder heads, DOHS, 4 valves per cylinder, direct injection, 500 hp. with. Developed in 1931-1939 in the USSR.
@@homers5699 It started off as a Hispano-Suiza aero engine that an Italian engineer turned into a Diesel engine for a marine application who then sold the plans to the Soviets when nobody showed interest in it.
The B-2 was 50 years ahead of its time. In Western armies, such engines appeared much later. I don't mean laboratory specimens, but working serial models. The West has always liked to take credit for Russian inventions. The same thing happens with the B-2 myths.
@@craigclemens986 Then the USSR waged war with a united Europe - Hitler's Euroreich. But now, in peacetime, the United States is critically dependent on supplies from Russia.
Nathan Peterson the tiger II's turret rotated so fast and the max pen of an 88mm cannon the tiger II long barrel did 235mm of armor standar shell the Apcr shell did pen 272mm of armor and the tiger front hull had 150mm of armor sloped did have efective thickness over 223mm and the turret had 185mm sloped at 6 deg had 186mm of thickness armor detail 189mm turret 300-200mm cannon sheild 150mm hull 100mm down hull side of the tank 80mm turret side 80mm side hull 65mm protected by 5mm side extra armor the top of the tank 40mm turret 40mm armor on the top hull and 40mm floor hull so stop say things you don't may know the king tiger was feared by the allies becuse of it's gun and armor and how it looked
Those of you automatically dissing the M3 Lee probably don't understand the role it played early in the war. At the time it arrived on the battlefield, one of it's most common opponents was the Pz III with the 37mm main gun. Even with its design limitations, the M3 was a heavyweight against the rank and file German armor.
- Those of you automatically dissing the M3 Lee probably don't understand the role it played early in the war. - that probably is because it havent played any role to really mention in any "the best" list, especially "early in the war", as it was only first used near summer 42. it was only usefull during that summer against PZ-2 and 3 in the lame african campain (only near 80 thousands killed on both sides in 2.5 years) on the foreighn colonized land - otherwise it was only doomed to fight the even more funny japanese "tanks". by the way, let us build a "top-20" list instead to include those japanese bugs as well, why not, those best tanks, you know. also, M-3 would be a very good item for a steam/dizelpunk museum. but ok, that's a sort of a role too. definitelly, one of the best tanks of its time. only heard of by narrow specialists. if you want one of "the best" tanks "early in the war" - that's KV-1. but let's be honest, there's another very singificant role of M-3: it clearly shows that at the time (which was not "early in the war" at all) the you ass have not even imagined how to build a real WW-2 tank. you better face that plain truth.
@@альфредпетрович-д7р The US Army never bothered to build tanks between the wars. They made a few prototypes to test then only got serious after Hitler invaded Poland. The Army Arsenal in Lima, Ohio designed the M1 and M2 light tank by 1939 and Chrysler designed the M3 and the factory to produce it in 1940, had them coming off the production line in 1941 then had the M4 design finalized and in production by 1942. The Army also had the M6 heavy tank designed and 250 produced in 1942.
@@billwilson3609 - The US Army never bothered to build tanks between the wars. They made a few prototypes to test then only got serious after Hitler invaded Poland. - you know that better, and what you say here looks consistent and reasonable. i was only saying that M3 has obviously nothing to do with this or any other similar "top" (besides probably a top of strange or anachronical tanks) and that it is a sign of the fact the you ass had not known how to build "real tanks" at the time of its built. once again, your description of why was it so looks ok.
@@альфредпетрович-д7р The M3 was a temporary design to get something into action while Ordnance and Chrysler finalized the design of the M4. Once declared obsolete for combat, the M3's were converted to open gun motor carriages with a 105mm howitzer, turned into tank recovery wreckers or had the turret and main gun removed for as prime movers towing heavy artillery. The Soviet Army turned theirs into armored troop carriers since they could cram 12 soldiers inside of the large open fighting compartment. The US Army was a low budget operation after WW1 so bought a few foreign tanks to examine and paid J. Walter Christie to make a few in the early 1920's. The Army Arsenal made a tank in 1927-1928 that got some attention from foreign countries then dropped it after Christie introduced his 1928 Combat Car. The Army ordered several for testing then decided to have some produced using specs set by the Ordnance Department. They bypassed Christie since he was a PITA to deal with and gave the contract to a company that manufactured fire engines. They were given $200,000 to produce 10 combat cars and had the contract cancelled after they ran out of money with only 4 made. The Army Arsenal then took over the production and made a modified version that the Army adopted for use in 1938 then declared obsolete less than a year later after fighting started in Europe. The Army decided it wouldn't last long in a shooting war so went back to the drawing boards to design one that could.
at least they got one thing right. the churchill was actually a better tank than the m4 and it stood a better chance of defeating a tiger or panther than the m4 did.
They probably never met a Tiger. The British advance was not built around the idea of their tanks stopping to fight German tanks. That would have been stupid. Why would you do that?
TheThirdMan there was actually an incedint where churchills fought a tiger. The Bovington tank museum in England have the very last functioning tiger from ww2 tiger 131. A platoon of churchill tanks got a lucky shot and knocked out the tigers gun then the tiger was brought to the UK for studying.
The German T-3, T-4 were imperfect, but they were suitable for mass production and for carrying out rapid breakthroughs in depth, creating boilers for the enemy army, and capturing key military facilities. The successes of the Germans in Poland, France, in Russia in 41.42 are the merit of these tanks. The Russians created their masterpiece tank for such a war - the T-34. Mass character, swiftness, unpretentiousness. Ideal tool for breaking through and encircling huge enemy groupings. Or to create a danger of encirclement, which forced the Germans to retreat quickly, losing a huge amount of military equipment and equipment. As a result of such encirclements - Russians in Berlin. But, children and adults with children's brains do not understand this. For them, the best tank is the one with the thickest armor and the most powerful cannon. The fact that such a tank cannot be mass-produced (there are always few of them), it is unreliable and constantly breaks down, it cannot drive over many bridges and soils, that if the enemy quickly advances from the left or right, you just have to throw such tanks, since they cannot move away quickly, none of this matters. The most important thing is that the tank should have thick armor, a powerful cannon, a spectacular look and a false memoir of a captured German tanker (a coward who did not want to fight the enemy to death, preferring to save his cowardly skin instead of fighting for his homeland) with a description of how he bravely knocked out billions of enemy tanks. ))) Children, grow up! Tanks very rarely fight tanks. The main enemy of the tank is the anti-tank gun. The main type of military operation is a rapid breakthrough with the encirclement or capture of key targets. Tanks tiger -1, tiger -2 were not capable of this at all. Only to blunt frontal combat. Fight in the style of horn-butting rams. The Panther, which was supposed to be an analogue of the T-34, became a heavy (over 40 tons) tank that was not capable of maneuvering battles. The German tank building just dumped in their pants! Failed to create a tank for victory. Although, children and fools like German tanks ... especially the royal tiger. The tank is nonsense. Most of which simply broke down, rushed with their crew and did not even have time to fight ... Probably if the Germans had time to build and use a mouse, the author would have put it (the tank is superbrand, speaking only about the schizophrenia of German tank designers) in the first place? ... Practice is the criterion of truth! Russians in Berlin! T-34 tank for victory! The Royal Tiger is a tank to defeat!
Lmao bullsh*t lmao. Most german tanks broke down because of unexperienced drivers, manipulatet motors and transmissions and the mist tigers were abonned, so tte tiger 2 wasnt there to defeat, the t 34 was there to defeat, because it needs 50 t 34 to destroy one tiger. Russia lost over 122.000 tanks during the war. Germany only lost 25.000 tanks.
Ты преувеличиваешь умственные способности людей. Они покупают автомобили в зависимости от количества мониторов и USB розеток. Как они могут понять для чего нужен танк?
The thing that amazed me when I read it...the King used the same engine as the Panther but weighted 20 tons more! Of the 450 built less than half made it to battle, and it sufferred more losses due to break-downs than to enemy action.
So the biggest slowest tank that spent more time being repaired than it did fighting is the best tank of World War II? Ok! Thanks for clearing that up!
@@nickwekking8827 Приветствую русский содруженник, я из Германии, да я полностью согласен, что самые лучшие танки советского союза дешевизна, простота, проходимость. И не какие Американские танки не сравняться с ним до придумки 76мм M1A2, у Британских танков были слабые двигатели. А наши были не приспособлены для ведения боя в ваших суровых условиях, дороговизна, сложная конструкция, и низкая транспортировка из-за тяжёлого веса таков пятой и шестой серии.
You rate the Pz IV by its most upgraded version and the M-4 by its least upgraded version. Irrational. Early Churchills were undergunned and unreliable. All versions were horribly show and short-ranged. The T34/85 was the advanced version, again compared to early base versions of the M-4. The Tiger B was a dog and produced in numbers too small to be significant.
Der Tiger 1 wurde sehr erfolgreich gegen den IS-2 eingesetzt, so erfolgreich das Stalin sie wieder von der Front abgezogen hat, nach dem 2 Tiger, 9 IS-2 alleine vernichtet hatten.
@@Maganra1 Guderian gab seinen Einheiten ein Rundschreiben heraus, in dem er die Besatzungen des Tiger-1 anwies, den IS-2 nur anzugreifen, wenn es 5 oder mehr Tiger pro IS gab. Außerdem forderte er, das Feuer auf den IS-2 ausschließlich aus der Deckung und nicht aus offenen Stellungen zu eröffnen. Und was Sie schreiben, ist eine bravouröse Propagandafälschung. Jetzt ist es leicht, über den von Deutschland verlorenen Krieg zu sprechen. Wenn die Tiger so gut waren, warum wurden Deutschland und insbesondere die Panzereinheiten der Wehrmacht so schwer von der Roten Armee besiegt?!
@@gregorsamsa52 none of those historical's games are historical because how the hell can a tiger I face t34 from the American the centurion and many more tanks which is post war tanks like seriously give the tiger I against t34/76 and cromwell m3 stuart XD
Жуткие тигры... Им это правда никак не помогло... Наши деды знали свое дело...Вечная память и царствие небесное павшим героям! Да здравствует Русь матушка и Вера православная!
The M3 Lee has a big role in the Africa Campaign. In all three areas, the M3 was able to engage German tanks and towed anti-tank guns. Yet the high silhouette and low, hull-mounted 75-mm were tactical drawbacks, since they prevented fighting from a hull-down firing position. The use of riveted hull superstructure armor on the early versions led to spalling, where the impact of enemy shells caused the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank. Later models were built with all-welded armor to eliminate this problem. These lessons were applied to the design and production of the M4. The M3 was replaced by the M4 Sherman as soon as the M4 was available. Several specialist vehicles based on the M3 were employed in Europe, such as the M31 armored recovery vehicles and the Canal Defence Light.
It would be fun to hear what you base their conclusions on when setting up a best 10 list? . It is a well-known fact that, for example, the T-34 was one of the best tanks throughout the war. You can not relate to firepower and action radius as you do. You also need to know how the tanks behave in the terrain. If I would put up a list like you then I would put T-34 as number 1 and Tiger 1 as number 7 and Tiger 2 as number 8. Panzer 4 was also a success almost throughout the war so I would probably place it as number 2 or 3. Sherman would probably end up in a shared 3rd place. You have to know how the different tanks worked in combat. The tigers had weak engines so they often broke and they were too heavy so they were often stuck in the mudd. The T-34 was much easier to repair than for example Tiger tanks. But there were nice pictures in your video :)
+fouba74 > *_"It would be fun to hear what you base their conclusions on when setting up a best 10 list?"_* I think it's just opinion. > *_"It is a well-known fact that, for example, the T-34 was one of the best tanks throughout the war."_* Define parameters of best, and according to whom.
@@bomboclatlawg but tigers were rare german big cats were rare and mechanical problems plagued them also take in mind air support m10 tank destroyer,76 sherman and infantry that could get close and disable the engines with grenades if the tanks didnt have infantry support
@@tjferrer8622 It was one of the best tank in WW2, in case you have forgotten or even know, the allies Sherman and T-34 were pretty much useless against this tank. The reason why these germen beast were less effective in the late war was because the germen could not focus on improving these designs (because they were losing), making new and better tanks ( the germen were out of resources), and the generals workers for hitler had left him.
where is KV-1 and KV-2 it has in 1940 152mm gun! on KV1 fought first lieutenant Zinovy Kolobanov (1st Panzer Division), in the same battle August 20, 1941 (in the post-war journalism mistakenly mentioned date August 19) at Gatchina (Krasnogvardeysky) destroyed 22 German tanks and two anti-tank guns, and Lieutenant Semyon Konovalov (15th tank brigade) - 16 tanks and two armored vehicles of the enemy.
KV1 does not carry the 152 HE gun, neither does the KV2, the KV1 only carried the 76mm gun whilst the KV2 carried the 122mm. And about zinoviy kolobanov, he took on that panzer division with 4 other KV1 tanks, i should know, i like him, i named my world of tanks account after him, and the date of that battle happens to be the same date as my birthday, but not the year ofcourse.
The M4 Sherman and T-34 won the war . Hands down they are 1 & 2 there is no logical debate against this. They won the war. Using superior tactics, they defeated larger, heavier complex and expensive tanks that had greater firepower. The Sherman and T-34 had speed mobility, range, maintenance, cost, production ease and sufficient firepower for the battles they were in. All of these are factors in evaluating superiority of a tank. Not just main gun and armor. Konigstigers and Tiger 1's were the wrong tanks for the war the Germans were in. They were too big , too heavy, too slow , too complex, impossible to maintain in combat, underpowered and fuel inefficient to win the war they were in.
Idiot - schau mal wie klein Deutschland ist und wie groß Amerika und Russland. Und die feigen Amis kamen sowieso erst, nachdem sich die Wehrmacht in Russland abgekämpft hat.
🤣🤣, the Sherman was useless against German tanks, and they refused to stick the rheinmetall guns on the Sherman because it was a German gun, the British had the firefly with the 17 pounder gun, but it was too late.. the Sherman had numbers but it was a terrible tank, it got taken out with ease and couldn't damage other tanks with it's very small gun. It was cheap to make and meant it was a cheap tank.
You just have proven that you know nothing about WW2 tanks. From many documentaries, where veterans documented their time in war, all Sherman and T-34 crew members, who had the big luck to survive an encounter with a Tiger, Tiger II or Panther admitted that the germans had way better tanks as they did. Without aor support, the Sherman would have not even made an inch out of Normandy against the german tanks.
This top is so hard, even KV-1 not included here.
M3 Lee:
At 7 hold bear🤣
Yea wheres a stug III
X-ray games KV-1 is not included cause after 1943 he couldn’t face tiger tanks at all, that’s why the soviets built the T-34/85 cause it had more firepower.The M3 Lee was very useful as a tank destroyer cause he could deal a lot of damage and he had thick armor. The Americans used the M3 Lee at the battle of Casserine Pass, that’s why the German and the Italian army had many problems.
Even kv2
*Hmm yeah wonder why there no fully functional Kv 1 (others are rebuilded using scraps) *
top 10 WWII tanks and you put the M3 lee WTF
The Russians called it a coffin fro seven brothers
@@mpananas1uss170 for six*
History talks, these tanks were regularly used against enemies in ww2 and it caused allot of damage to them.. thats why its top 10, whilst the other tanks such as IS-7, MAUS, T110Es all were prototypes and never used in war
I legit was like they didn’t just put
the lee here
The Lee in the clip doesn't have it's hull gun it's gone
For me, tiger 1 is the most feared tanks on ww2, and still now that beast gives me goosebumps
Königstiger
Laughs in Russian tds
Totally agree!
Laughs in 30000 T-34’s
laughs in titanium
5/10 german Tanks. They know how to build tanks!
They lost.
10 million soviet deaths
Yes Germany is the best nation for build a tank
And Germany Enginers Know Lol
@@МаксимМедведев-ы8ф most tanks were still better then the soviet ones.
20 Million +
Anyone, who puts M3 Lee anywhere near the top 10 list, knows absolute shit about ww2 tanks....
Why? Firstly it was opinion, secondly, though I agree it doesn't deserve Top 10, Top 15 more-rather, it wasn't the terrible tank people think it as.
Nathan Peterson Firstly, TOP lists are only things, that can, and should be objective, because you actually compare things, unless its "my top favourite" or etc. This list was, obviously, made by "ou, this looks cool. Also strong. ITS IN!" way, instead of actually comparing vehicles. Nobody comparing Tiger 2 and Panther, cant say Tiger 2 was better. Now i may seem too butthurt about this, but my grandgranddad(ya know. father of my grandfather) was a IS-1 commander in WW2, both my granddads were a T-55B and a T-54 commanders, during communism, and I am a T-34/85 commander, when it comes to remakig battle scenes(its about showing, that also young teenagers, were fighting, and killing eachother[BTW, that is one horrible machine. Seriously, T-34s are BAD tanks, even for ww2]), so we are family of tank commanders (:
Adam Chaffee Fair enough.
I'm not a tank expert at all but everyone knows the Lees sucked. The British had to use them against the Afrika Korps and complained about them constantly. I was surprised to see it on the list. And it's ugly as shit.
If they would be able too mass produce the Tiger 2 before it was too late... they could easily defend two fronts. That shit would murder every other tank at that time.. using rounds against Shermans and T 34-85 would have felt like a waste of rounds
M3 lee hahahahahaha
what's so funny?
its not a tank, its garbage
BeyondOasys It was a successful interim Medium tank design. It served well beyond its expiration date.
Just because the M3 Lee is shit in World of Tanks (it isn't shit, it has more DPM than some tier 6-7 mediums), doesn't mean it's shit IRL
на практике танк получил крайне дурную славу, его даже прозвали БМ-6 - "братская могила 6", 6 - по числу экипажа. было бы как-то иначе, машина имела бы массу модификаций
The one thing about tanks that videos can never portray is that fact that you dont' just see and hear them, you FEEL them.
The progress in tank design made over the course of WW2 is absolutely staggering. Freakin little Panzer I all the way to that monolith Tiger II in such a short time.
its not really a breakthrough in technology though, they simply realized more armor protects the crew better, and a bigger gun gets through that bigger armor, yes the engines were huge and sophisticated but its nothing compared to ERA, APFSDS, Composite armor, etc that happened right after WW2. All german tank designers knew was how to make things bigger, and for some reason they didn't realize that would make them unreliable as hell.
To be honest I'd say fighter aircraft made more of a breakthrough.
Panzer I was designed way before the Tiger II, there are literally 10 years between them
i wasnt able to take this video serious as I saw the M3
Who could?
I'm guessing it's just because he had some good footage of it. I can't imagine why else he would have included it.
The M3 Lee wrecked everything in its way at the time it was introduced. The german tanks of the time stood no chance against it until necesarry improvements were made to the german tanks.
well of course, Everything is good until its outdated.
Not necesarrily. Some things are bad from the beginning on but simply the only things serving that special purpose
The Panther was the best tank of World War 2. It combined an extremely accurate and powerful main gun with superb mobility and speed. The sloping frontal armor further added to its combat effectiveness and survivability. The Germans had learned valuable lessons in the tactical advantages of sloped armor from the Russians and wasted no time in exploiting it.
Problem was, just like the Tiger series of tanks, they were extremely unreliable.
kill4money213
Agreed. The first models were quite disappointing yes due mostly to the simplified final drive that was installed to cut down on manufacturing time. Once this was almost completely rectified in the G model though...it was an impressive machine. By that time though, the Panther was hopelessly outnumbered and could not capitalize on its superior qualities enough to turn the tide.
thats incorrect... well maintained the Panther was as good or bad as any other ww2 tank...which were all unreliable by today standart... the only weak point of the Panther was the final drive... if the driver was carefully it was no problem... unskilled drivers could easy destroy it
+Propheth of Lego I wouldn't say so since the Russian had a lot of problems whit the is2 and they were not very well made
Propheth of Lego
The IS-2 was packed with problems early (1943till mid 1944) IS-2 had weak frontal hull armor (could be penetrated by almost every gun from 75mm/L43 upwards) that forced the USSR to a redesign of the complet hullfront (mid 1944) huge drawback was the 122mm gun of the IS-2... extrem low rate of fire and extrem inaccurate abouve 1000m most german tanks could outfire a IS-2 by 3-5 vs 1 shoot and given to its calibre poor penetration performance..that the IS-2 was more mobile than a Tiger2 is a mythos.. both had about the same power to weight ratio fully equipped (~11hp/to) with a slightly higher topspeed for the Tiger 2 ...the biggest problem of all, the IS-2 carryed only 28 rounds for the main gun(and now take into account the extrem inaccurate gun)... so he needed a constant supply line direct at the frontline..if the supply line was cut off, the IS-2 run pretty quick out of ammo... to compare Panther carryed up to 85 rounds, Tiger1 92rounds, Tiger2 86rounds the battlefield endurance of the German tanks was much better... tanks are more than paper numbers
M3 looks like a toy compared to the German tiger.
richies quest The M3 doesn’t break its transmission like the Tiger did.
@@flare9757 tiger doesn't explode into a flaming ball of metal after one hit and tiger doesn't jam it's turret like the m3 did
IdkHowToNameMySelfYT If you compare the cost of each vehicle to how well it did, the M3 is better. The Tiger was feared, but mostly because of its armor. Sure, it has a great gun, but the armor was what was best about it.
And at least the M3 crews didn’t have to take almost all of the roadwheels off the tank in freezing weather to kick mud off the tank so it could move.
@@ruzek115 Ferdinand burns down in (montée) idk
Wherse su/ius 152
Something about the T-34 blasting easily through the mud shows the Soviets got that one right for the time period.
Yeah it didn’t really. It too got stuck in mud.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 mud is often a winner in case of any tank, modern or historical. Though T34 deals with it better in most cases in comparison to any other ww2 tank. because other tanks are either a lot heavier or got some other disadvantages.
The Königs Tiger is so damn beautiful!!!
Yeah
My favorites. Number 1. Tiger1 ( although the tiger1 probably was the worst of the three tanks . I think their bad ass) , 2 Panther, 3 Tiger 2.
the king tiger was alot better than the tiger one
There is, Its a common mistake, Konig in german translates to "king" so Americans called it King Tigers multiple times. The named it correctely, the Royal Tiger.
Kyokai Ist Tiger 2. Nobody on german side called it "Königstiger"
King Tiger:*sees M3*
Also King Tiger:"hey do i have to babysit this guy now?"
The m3 lee never saw a tiger 2 or a panther.
@@jeremyjones453 he's obviously joking stupid
The King Tiger was s beautiful machine and a worthy concept but it was a mechanical disaster.
Most broke down after a hundred miles and off good roads it was little more than a moving pillbox.
It was rushed into servive using the same drivetrain as the Panther....30 tons lighter.
The Panther was the best one on one fighting tank of the war. But the T-34 was a true war winner in every way.
Just numbers, if germans had just as many panthers and tiger 1s as russians had t-34s or americans had shermans, europe would be speaking german and maybe the rest of the world
90% of russian t-34s were nothing but guns on tracks with little to no protection and a couple of panthers/tigers were able to dispatch ten enemy cyka blyats before they even got to their firing range.
Yep
Kv-1 too
Remember once and for all! T-34 is a medium battle tank and Panther is HEAVY! They cannot be compared at all. But if we take heavy Soviet tanks, then the IS-2 and IS-3 easily dealt with any Tigers and Panthers.
@@AndreyPetroff пантера средний танк,чайник.ис3 после войны был выпущен вообще.т34 по всем показателям проигрывал пантере,чисто массовостью своей задавил вот и все.пантера и тигр выпусти их в количестве 50 тысяч штук ))))ты сам знаешь кто бы выиграл войну
Its nice to see a king tiger with only handful in running codition its amazing how they keep them running all the years and also amazing how they were captured but not destroyed you would be lucky if the crew abandoned it otherwise that 88 canon would probably shot you
To my knowledge, there is only one tiger I (in england) and one king tiger (in France) still in running condition
@@majormiller493 yeah
No, there are copies of tanks in the armored museum in Kubinka
@@user-tb4yi5wd8i the museum near Moscow where they got the only Maus?
@@user-tb4yi5wd8i im not saying there no copies im saying few are real
What about the Russian KV 2 ?. Definitely more worthy than the Lee.
not in the list becaus KV2 HE SHOT IS ILLEGAL
the KV2 wasn't a good tank for the long reload
@@jacopomurolo4450 And also for slow speed and a really easy target
Yassss kv 2 the besttt
Kv1 was good but kv2 was bad, the turret was so heavy, the anti-tank ability was bad. But the kv1 was very good
The M3 Lee/Grant, which was a truly shit tank does not belong, but the rest are a pretty fair call.
It wasn't shit at all. Not a great -or necessarily good tank, but a very successful one.
It was a stop-gap that was built in large numbers because of delays in producing anything better. How does that make it successful? It was under powered and not very manoeuvrable. The main gun was ordinary at best and positioned to one side of the hull, and that made it necessary to risk the entire vehicle to enemy fire. It had thin armour and it was RIVETED. A shell striking the front of the vehicle resulted in those rivets turning the crew into minced meat. Crews hated it for good reason.
The vehicle served well past its expiration date with the Soviets, Americans, Brits, Indians, and Aussies. Its chassis was used for a plethora of extremely successful vehicles.
The armor was not thin for the time it saw its glory days, and British reports saying "it could easily deflect 50mm PaK rounds" at normal combat ranges.
Its riveted armor was a let-down, but it was not the only tank to do that, and it did not by any means have a higher casualty rate than the other vehicles like the Crusader or any Italian or Japanese vehicle. Over 600 M3s had welded or cast armor (M3A1, M3A2 and M3A3).
I thought the same. The M3 was a failure of a design and any top 10 list that has it is questionable. The rest of the top are o-k, but the order is again questionable. Pick a design as your number 1 that had little impact and more were taken off the battlefield due to mechanical problems than enemy fire.... um.... But, if the top 10 was simply cool factor, King Tiger wins no doubt.. thing is awesome.
Dan Mosier How was it a failure?
King Tiger looks beautiful, way beyond it's time, what an amazing machine
And too expensive
@@Alex-gt8rd It was fucking expensive and you could buy around 8 Sherman's for one Tiger 2 but I should mention that there are reports about the tank destroying 37 Sherman's.
@@lucav.k.4339 and 45 more would just apear down the road
Is2s better
@@bluepikmin4740 yes, because I am russian, lol
Ис 2 - зверюга, шатал всех этих тигров и пантер. 👍
Согласен, ИС мощь
А на то, что Пантера была всеми признана лучшим танком 2 мировой, что ты скажешь?
@@Vot4er0 122мм орудие пробивало Пантер. Про лучшее и худшее не было сказано выше, было только о том что ИС-2 справлялся и уничтожал технику противника
@@Vot4er0 Не знаю что за люди с этим спорили бы, в бою 1 на 1 сделала бы даже тигра, но слава богу их было мало и косяков даже у них хватало.
KB-2
Just wanted to say that the M3 Lee should not have been on here, they don't call it the metal coffin for nothing
It was a successful design that lived way longer than it should of, and spawned several great and famous vehicles.
Like the Ram Mk.II, Sexton, Priest, and so on.
Nathan Peterson, this is a video about the best tanks of ww2 not a video on the history of tanks, thru your logic you could say the Pz. 38(t) was a great tank because it's the cousin of the Pz IV...lol
OttoVon AceMan It was a successful design.
Neither purely on performance (well maybe the LT vz.38) would deserve Top 10. But Top 15 isn't out of the question.
Nathan Peterson it was a horrible design, its one thing for a tank to be successful, but is another for a tanks to just be produced so much that for every one M3 you kill 500 more come for you, not to mention that its main turret was fixed in place and its top machine gun turret couldn't pen a panzer 3
OttoVon AceMan It was design was purely meant as an interim until the very good and very successful M4 came along.
The M3 Medium's turret was not fixed in place... where did you hear that it was?
The magnificent Tiger has seen its day in the fields of WW2 and here. What a beast.
AKA the worst and most overrated tank of ww2
@@lunseren AKA the tank that couldn't drive for more than 5 minutes without a major technical issue
@@_MaitreuPanda___ 110/100% facts
@@_MaitreuPanda___ 110/100% facts
@@lunseren Tell that to the allies who faced Michael Wittman in his Tiger 1. Tiger 2 had some problems but the Tiger 1 was pretty awesome!
Actually the vehicle, that knocked out the most tanks in WW2 was the StuG III
Someone has a brain
timestamp
Well, yes. Because it was produced in such extreme numbers.
@@riten0tajs623I wouldn't say 10000 is extreme
@@erwinrommel8422 it's extreme relative to the production numbers of other tanks. for example the tiger 2, only around 400 were produced. And no wonder the stugs took out so many. It's a tank destroyer that was used in a defensive war.
Being British... its hard for the words to come out of my mouth..... But how insanely awesome are the Tiger tanks. There's just something about them, that I'm sure would of made your blood turn to ice when you'd see them emerging from the forest or coming around a corner.
Right it was bad enough you were likely to not only run into Panthers and tiger 1s but a bigger more powerful tiger that was just terriffying kingtigers were scary defensive weapons.
being british means ALWAYS sitting in the worst possible tanks :)
even the PIII was better than any real british design(churchill/cromwell),if the crew was skilled and at close range....
we germans had the best designs,just not enough rare materials any more(specific metals) in order to produce the most strained parts like the front wheel supports,so that was always a breaking point even for the tigers...
@@christianfeider4939 Every tank had its Achilles heel, and we British were better at finding yours than you were finding ours
@@christianfeider4939 well apart from the Comet and the firefly . Plus it was pretty rare to see a tiger or panther on the western front . Unfortunately you Germans love engineering too much , that is why the Russians churned out thousands of T38 s
German tanks were lousy, too big, too heavy and too many maintenance problems talk about run before you could walk.
Number 4: panther tank
Number 4: tiger
WTF?!
literally almost the same tank just panther is faster and tiger is stronger just like with the real animals.
@@walterholt9717 haha good one mate
@@Railrody Technically the Panther was a medium tank, but it weighed more than a Pershing or Churchill, and nearly as much as Russian KV. And it's still 90% the weight of a Tiger.
@@kkrummelrhs in Germany all that have >150mm gun is medium or light tank and
@@Railrody I'm guessing you meant 150mm armor? If yes since the Panther 100 mm armor (front sloped armor made this with effect of ~140).
It had the title medium tank, but the term is pretty loose as it weighed nearly 2x a Panzer IV.
A Panther with some more side armor could've done the Tiger's role just fine, but with better mobility
What is the Lee doing here? It was a complete failure
+Drunk Bastard
1) His preference.
2) How was it a failure?
It was a HUGE targer, the top turret was so high it couldnt hit things near the tank, it was slow, and it tended to catch on fire and it was expensive
+Drunk Bastard
It was indeed tall. The turret-mounted guns actually had surprising traverse vertically despite the height.
It was not by any means slow. Nor burned more frequently than other tanks of the era.
This is not world of tanks nerd
The M3 performed rather well in Africa and the Pacific. A failure is a tank that actually failed (like the Porsche Tiger), and the M3 is not one of those tanks.
T34 looks the more modern tank of the bunch.
Church and Lee are a joke..
I agree
Stergios K Churchill? Nah. Churchill was reliable, relatively fast, and had more armour than the Tiger I.
@@sebfarmar2748 actually the churchill was slow
@@neokranjc2845 20mph is alright, and IS relatively fast.
not the church hill mk Vll
What I think is remarkable are the actual operational machines, still running after all these years.
How to kill a King Tiger:
Cut off its fuel supply.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
how to kill a Sherman or t-34, let it get stuck in mud.
thank you for attending my TED Talk.
Or have them try and take a King Tiger head on.
Smart ass...
@@BlankRegie just send 35 Sherman or t34 on 1 tiger
@@jacobkeeney7231 not the T-34 you know
Tiger 2:
Im superior in Firepower,Armor,Quality,
M4: and Weight
Tiger 2: what?
M4: there your fuel is gone
Tiger 2: Fuck!
Damn, that Tiger looks like it would still be a force on a battlefield today!
5:30
Churchill: Ehh, Cmon grandson! ill show you what REAL tanking is!
Challenger: ...ugh, SHUT UP GRANPA, YOU OLD FUCK
Churchill: speak up sonny, i cant hear ya.
but for real, its amazing to see that over the course of 80 years, ONE human lifetime, weve gone from THAT (Churchill) to THAT (Challenger 2)
It would be better to compare aviation before the war with biplanes still in service and straight after the war with jet fighters such as MiG-15 and F-86. I think the progress was far more significant.
No. Even today's weakest anti tank weapons would go strait through the tiger
@@habe1717 I think they're supposed to destroy IFVS
I'm not understand on what principle the steepness of tanks was compared!
Because, firstly, there are no universal tanks, each machine is designed for its specific tasks and needs of the time. Secondly, not only technical characteristics are important, but also cheapness and simplicity of production. German industry could not stand the production of their supertanks and choked. Those crumbs of the Royal tiger, which came to the front, nothing could change.
For me, in terms of characteristics, the IS-2 and T-34 will always be the best.
With that thinking an Fiat 600 is best than a Lamborghini Gallardo
@@masii22 i don't know about you, but i would bet that the side bringing ~50000 fiat 600s to a demolition derby would wipe the floor with the ~500 lamborghini gallardos
@@masii22😂. Good point, irrefutable.
@@energeticbombom328😂 Didn't think anyone could miss the point there, but you managed it. One on one, the only way to compare the aspects of a tank, the Tiger 2 has no contemporary equal
M3 Lee has a ridiculously high target profile and the it's hard for a tank commander to efficiently coordinate several guns
yeah, it has a large target profile, but it didn't have several guns, it had only two, and the commander wasn't completely overwhelmed just by adding a second gun
The Polish 7TPjw were good tanks and on the same technological level as the best German tanks in 1939! With the wz.37 37-mm gun the Polish 7TPjw tanks were able to destroy all German tanks from a greater distance which participated in the raid on Poland. The German Panzer III 37-mm gun tanks and Panzer IV 75-mm short gun tanks were not superior to the Polish 7TPjw-37 mm gun tanks. By the way, the 7PT " jw" was the single-turret 7TP version in contrast to "dw" which was the twin-turreted version of the 7TP. But only 24 of this twin-turreted 7TP infantry support tanks were still in use in 1939. The 7TPjw was of course clearly superior to the most used German tanks Panzer I and II in 1939. The Panzers I only had a machine gun and no anti-tank gun. The Panzer II had a 20 mm auto-cannon, but it was primarily intended for firing explosive grenades against infantry and the gun was too weak for combat against tanks. Therefore the Panzer II with its 20 mm gun was not dangerous for 7TPjw! By the way, the polish 7TPjw tank, was 1st tank with diesel engine in Europe. So this tank was with lower fire risk if the tank was hit. In the upgraded version, the crew compartment was larger and the air-conditioning system was improved. The Poles learned from their experiences with regular 7TPjw, when used in training exercises, that crew comfort was important. Also the Polish radio type 2N/C of the Polish 7TPjw tank was superior to the German radio at range with of 25 km. The radios used in German tanks had a range of 4 km. Tanks with radios were also fitted with an intercom for the crew, who were equipped with new type helmets with integral headphones. But only shortly before the war it was decided to equip all tanks with radio, but then it was already too late. Furthermore all polish tanks were equipped with the revolutionary reversible periscope G wz. 34. The Periscope was a revolutionary because it was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret. This was a decisive advantage due to a much better overview of the battlefield. Because if I see the enemy tank before the enemy sees me, I can destroy the enemy tank first. The German soldiers in the German tanks, on the other hand, mainly used five viewing slits to observe the battlefield. Americans and British have taken over the Polish tank Periscope then for their own tanks too! Unfortunately, the Germans also took over the Periscope from the captured Polish tanks after 1939. The Sowejtes did the same!
So, in summary, it can be said that the Polish tank belongs on this list.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars lol, sure...
@@JeanNezMarre25 Only ignorant fools laugh at historical facts! In fact, the Polish 7TPjw battle tank was on par with the German Panzer III. Both tanks could destroy each other. Both tanks had an gun with a caliber of 37 mm. But the 37mm gun of the 7TPjw tank was more powerful. Compared to the 1939 Panzer III gun. Both tanks had a similar operational range and maximum speed. True, the Polish tank was less armored than the German tanks but the Panzer III Ausf A-C had the same armor as the Polish tank. Only from the Ausf D onwards did the Panzer IIIs have more armor. But other advantages of the 7TPjw made it clear that the tank was on par. And what use was the Panzer III's stronger armor if the Polish 7TPjw tank could destroy it. In contrast, the advantages of the 7TPjw were clear. All polish tanks so also the 7TPjw were equipped with the revolutionary reversible periscope G wz. 34. The Periscope was a revolutionary because it was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret. This was a decisive advantage due to a much better overview of the battlefield. Because if I see the enemy tank before the enemy sees me, I can destroy the enemy tank first. The German soldiers in the German tanks, on the other hand, mainly used five viewing slits to observe the battlefield. If the German tank commander wanted to have the same overview as the Polish commander in the 7TPjw with the periscope G wz. 34 he has to open the upper hatch and leave the protection of the tank with his upper body. Which could be very deadly. Americans and British have taken over the Polish tank Periscope then for their own tanks too! Unfortunately, the Germans also took over the Periscope from the captured Polish tanks after 1939. The Sowejtes did the same! The Polish 7TPjw tank had another advantage to the German Panzer III due to the diesel engine. The Panzer III, on the other hand, had a gasoline engine with a higher risk of fire.
Incidentally, the Polish 9TP tank was even heavily armored than the Panzer III Ausf.E. The Polish army ordered 100 of these newly developed tanks and 13 9TP had already been delivered and also in operation against the Germans. So since the tank had the same advantages as the 7TPjw against the Panzer III, the tank was superior to the German Panzer III.
T-34: Best producrtion effectivity
Panther: Best battle performance
Sherman: Best reliability, crew survivability
I don't think so about Sherman. Crew survivability in Sherman tank???!
Sherman ? Really ?
The Sherman only ran into trouble when it ran into a Cat. Everything else was easy pickings. Also, it has a hatch for every crew member. Not many tanks at that time had that feature.
@@flare9757 yes you are right ! Only the drivers and the loaders hatch was too small to get out quickly and the panzer 4 wasn't an easy target for it as well
(The latest panzer 4)
András Király The numbers that Shermans moved around in could easily overwhelm a Panzer 4.
The Tiger 2s Turret which is shown in the video is a Henschen turret, not porsche.
Yes this is a Henschel turret Porsche turrets are very rare. Only 50 are bild whit the Porsche turret
Porsche turrets were replace by the Herschel turrets cause they more reliable and with Porsche turrets a problem was found it cause a shot trap. shot trap is when in coming shell or projectile bounces of the upper plate of the tiger and hitting the rounded front bottom of the turret and driving it into the turret ring which allows the turret turn left or right but that was least bad thing that can happen bits of shrapnel could injure or kill the crew and damage the breach or quite possibly detonating ammunition which most likely will blow the turret off the hull and send it about 5 to 10 feet in the sky and finally know why there only 50 build but Badass tank overall.
Thats is one of the commen explanations. Also said is that ""Two turret designs were used in production vehicles. The initial design is often misleadingly called the "Porsche" turret due to the belief that it was designed by Porsche for their prototype; in fact it was the initial Krupp design for both prototypes. This turret had a rounded front and steeply sloped sides, with a difficult-to-manufacture curved bulge on the turret's left side to accommodate the commander's cupola. Fifty early turrets were mounted to Henschel's hull and used in action. The more common "production" turret, sometimes called the "Henschel" turret, was simplified with a significantly thicker flat face, no shot trap (created by the curved face of the earlier turret), and less-steeply sloped sides, which prevented the need for a bulge for the commander's cupola, and added additional room for ammunition storage
+Anthony Daly wow, thanks for the explanation. I always thought they stopped using the Porsche turret because it was harder to manufacture with all the curves and angles.
Well you learn something everyday and I am glad you something from me :) but king tiger is great piece of German engineering but the Panther series of medium tanks is to me very special tank base on five easy reasons why its the best tank of the war 1. speed 2. armour 3. reliable 4.easy to fix and finally 5. all round beastly look and the Panther tank saw battle of Kursk to the battle of Berlin its design would help revolutionise tank warfare and tactics for ever.
As for the PzKw III, I'd say it's one of the most important of the war from an historical point of view, but not one of the best for sure.
It was debatably THE BEST tank at the start of the war, but the chassis was too weak to mount a better gun in the later years of the war.
@@jeremyjones453 It wasn't the Chassi but the turret ring was too small the last models they did manage to fit the 7.5 cm L24 gun used on the early MK-IV's. The Russians had to enlarge the turret ring to put the 85mm gun in the T-34. The 1st MK-III's were armed with the 3.7cm gun had they started with the 5.cm gun they would have been the best starting tank. By the way all the 1st tanks sent to Africa with Rommel were 3.7cm models in the work shop waiting to be up gunned
@@markbrandon7359 the turret ring was too small to fit the early mk IV turret, but the chassis was too weak to fit the later mk IV high velocity gun.
Крутые реставрашки! И только Т-34 по нормальной грязи проехались, демонстрируя отличную проходимость 👍👋
34 85 вроде до сих пор где то воюют
@@Imran_Zakhaev в Африке
Там в одном из луж, вообще водителя залило через открытый люк спереди, весело наверное ему было.
Слепая дрянь без вентиляции с кривой, медленной пушкой, без связи. Только в ЧиЧиЧиПи, с ничего не стоящим для власти экипажем, это стало оружием. Отдать 6 тридцатьчетверок за одну Пантеру... да, как нефиг делать. 30 человек..., да ещё нарожают. Зато танк дешёвый.
Kv-2 king of derps, but I have to say what a good looking tank tiger 2
Tony Nagy KV-2 isn’t even a tank. It is a SPG.
@@flare9757 its just a giant fridge
Imperial shocktropper it's a heavy tank destroyer in my opinion
Heavy assault gun more like
Its more of a meme and i love it
Love the way the IS-2 hides itself with its own smoke screen. 🤣🤣🤣
Это мило для тебя или смешно?
The tiger II had never had a turret made by porsche, one turret was from henschel and another from Krupp. Krupp’s turret was there inital design for the vehicle (which had the rounded front and sloped sides, which explains why it was mistaken to be made by porsche), while henschel’s turret design was the factory turret and was quite common.(which is the turret fitted to the tiger II in this video) The tiger II was also quite agile for a tank of its calibre even though it suffered major mechanic flaus (mainly drivetrain issues since the drive train was made for a smaller vehicle)
No, both turrets were made by Krupp
Wherever there are tanks gathered in town, there are only two things that are inevitable: the Tiger and Yukarin blended with the crowd.
9:19 the crew of Tiger 1 seems to be happy for their chosen ride. ;-)
The King Tiger that was shown in the video was not the "Porsche" turret. It was the production turret which was called the "Henschel".
Porsche and Henschel where the manufacturers of the 2 versions from Tiger II
Nope. Porche had absolutely nothing to do with the tiger 2. The, if I remember correctly, stood for prototype
@@theranger7924 , The first 50 Turrets, were made by Porsche.
@@theranger7924 I'm really sorry, but the model shown is the 'production' model commissioned by Hitler from the Henschel factory. The description says, "Porsche" version, which was in competition with Henschel, and a few Porsche versions were put into production. In the end, though, Henschel won the contract. My main dispute is the tank shown and the description given are incorrect.
@@derausbeiner8510 Neither Porsche or Henschel manufactured a turret, both turret designs were manufactured by Krupp.
During production Henschel only manufactured the hull of the tank, Krupp made all the turrets.
So there is no such thing as a "Porsche" turret, as there is no such thing as a "Henschel" turret.
The first 50 Tiger II tanks had the initial turret design (the one everyone keeps calling a Porsche turret), after that it was redesigned to simplify production.
The sherman sounds like a lawnmower
His engine is a plane's engine
@@Refektoire -_-
@@Skikorski lol
@@Refektoire the one in the video not it s an m4a3 with a ford gaa v8 engine
@@joopstaman2649 ok
The King Tiger may have owned the most powerful gun and strongest armor but it was also one of the biggest mechanical headache.
Yeah pretty much
The first place is absolutely undeserved the king tiger did not play any role in the war. he did not participate in any important or large-scale battles, all of them were abandoned due to breakdowns or blown up by crews during the retreat, an inglorious machine, an inglorious country
@mauriciopittavino8772 Russian or not , you really need to look into the eyes . although the Anglo-Saxons and their sixes do not know how to do this
haha engine goes california
Only for the ones who could not handle it.
I love listening to all these arguments over who had the best this or that during WW II - whether talking about tanks, planes, ships or whatever. Don't people realize that technology during the war was a constant game of leapfrog between sides? One side might have the best tank at the beginning of the war but a week later the other side would come out with something that made it second best, and then the first side would counter again, etc, etc. Finishing the war with the best weapon of a particular category didn't mean that one side's technology or culture was inherently superior - it often just meant that that side had taken the most recent leap when the war came to an end. In many cases it was also an indicator of which side was most desperate at the end. Each one of the tanks in the video, had their moment in the sun, sometimes very briefly, even the lowly Lee had some success in North Africa, but I wouldn't list it even in the top 20. Even the often maligned Sherman did pretty well against enemy medium and light tanks. Patton used their speed pretty effectively charging from southern France towards Germany but as the Allies got closer to Germany they started encountering German heavies for which they were no match. In the end, Germany probably had the best tanks but they were often mechanically finicky. Russian IS tanks were also among the best IMHO.
Согласен! Всё решали люди. К примеру на начало второй мировой лучшие танки были у великобритов. Однако люди в этих танках были слабы духом, поэтому пришлось драпать в англию ( дюнкерк, 1940 год)
Топовые танки второй мировой это были Т-34-85 и ИС-2
Top tanks world war 2 it T-34-85 and IS-2.
NO KV-2 ?!!! This video is a shame xDD
Well it's his opinion.
Steven Smith tower of derp
1 shot from the side of the turret= boom
Steven Smith it wasn't good in irl
Steven Smith Typical WoT Gamer :-)
T-34 and Pz4 most effective tanks in WW2, the tank is not only thick armor and a big gun, but also convenient operation, ease of repair and production
Noo, the T34 was plauged eith mechanical issues. They lost over half their forces moving them to the front line, they had the worst crew curvival rate at only 17%, and their transmission could only get into 3rd gear without breaking.
@@thegreatunknown2983 Half? That's a load of rubbish.
@@TheFruitcake1983 watch Lazerpigs video on the T-34, it explai s a lot of the issues.
Personally I believe the Sherman is the most practical tank of WW2, but it was executed poorly due to lack of 76.2mm guns.
If all Shermans were 76mm they would of been fantastic.
@@thegreatunknown2983 I'm Russian, what country are you from? Are you a real person and not a digital bot?
@@TheFruitcake1983 American. So some bias, but I agree with Panzers being great. T-34 is exceptional witb armor tho
how can anyone put the churchill tank over Mark IV panzer? rubbish!!!
cause the lee was very importent in world war 2, without the lee the war would have been lost very fast, the americans made them for the english! and the russians if iam not mistaken and a lot of lee tanks were made!
TOG II should have been in the list. In fact, it should have made the top 3.
+Rickard Shen Tog II never even made active service
The Flames Corner Still one of the best, just because of that sexy look.
because the pz4 was a medium the Churchill was a heavy tank as you can see he went from mediums to heavys
King Tiger/ Tiger II is probably the most aesthetic tank ever made. Only thing that beats it is the E-75 with the 128mm but that was only a paper project.
E75 have fake paper, its from wargaming
And maus have same cannon and more heavy and armored
And what about is 3, he was feared by all of America and isu 152?and is 7?
@@dimadosh Is 3 didn't scare Americans
@@Milgraaauuu In the 50s, she was afraid. It had the best tank at the time.)
@@dimadosh what abou the fv 4005? designated by the British, had prototypes
I love how everybody is supercareful with their precious tanks, driving it through a puddle at the most, minding that the paint won't get scratched. The Russians just go ham with the T-34 lol...IZ OK...IZ TANK!
I know right, some accounts of T-34 crews would ram German panther tanks with hopes to disable them.
Now that's what I call Slavic soviet
Yeh it’s awesome
- The Russians just go ham with the T-34 lol...IZ OK...IZ TANK!
- just for you to know, the first of those 2 T-34 has a chech (or slovak) writing onboard, and a corresponding flag painted in circle - and that chekh driver probably likes to bath. the second one, with the actual rusian writing onbord, is more carefull.
@@альфредпетрович-д7р tnx man!
King Tiger looks beautiful, way beyond it's time, what an amazing machine. King Tiger looks beautiful, way beyond it's time, what an amazing machine.
M3 lee! That thing belongs to world war 1. You must be a patriotic American.
I agree that the Lee doesn't belong on this list but it received surprisingly high marks from the Germans who faced in in North Africa. The Nazis were using mostly Mk. IIIs at the time and both the 75mm and 37mm guns on the Lee were capable of defeating the IIIs relatively light armor. The Germans said that the fact that the Lee had 2 primary guns made it difficult to get into a proper flanking position - an important aspect of wide-open desert warfare.
And the mighty grant man.
I think That was a joke
Why do you call "Pz.Kmpfw. III" as"Mark III"?
zzfgf
The best tank of the war is the tank that made the greatest contribution to the victory. and this is without T-34 variants
XDDDDDDD PANZER IV TİGER 1 AND KING TIGER LAUGHED AT T34
@@emirteimouri7150 под их глупый хохот советские т34 и ис2 и взяли Берлин
думаю всем понятно почему только т34 85 по болоту пустили?
Друг из каково музея ети танки если знаеш
Потому что не жалко гавно гробить
@@levantodua7555 Бовингтон
@@starieperila5044 Придурок тебе что нужно?
@@SS-gl3hq угомонись, и иди спать.
The top tanks are always the victorious ones
Period
The Shermann sounds Like my mowing machine
I wish I had the same mower that you have
I believe the Tiger I, especially late war versions, were okay overall, but the Panther G late war was by far, the single best tank of the war. Of course, one can make the argument that other tanks were better verses those two tanks, but quite literally, these two tanks set the benchmark extremely high. Yes, they were both very over engineered and yes, both were heavy for bridges and in field repairs were mostly problematic. However, except for Sherman Fire Flys and overhead bombardment, these two particular tanks were very nearly invincible for the most part until the allies became less fearful and better equipped to deal with these two very dangerous German tanks.
Obviously, a 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb could obliterate any German tank or allied tank. That was their overall weakness. But in battle and on open terrain, the German 88mm was extremely accurate and quite simply put, the most feared gun of WWII.
Despite the diminutive size of the M4 Sherman and its more powerful sister, the Fire Fly, they were quite capable of out maneuvering most larger German tanks. And in doing so, could strike in the rear area, disabling these large monster tanks.
Personally, I'd rather have taken my chances in a Tiger I because of the superior armor plating in front and the 88 mm main gun. Even allied tank crews respected the Tigers roominess and overall protections afforded its crews. It wasn't a perfect tank, but clearly, until the allies controlled the skies over most of Europe, the German tanks ruled the roost. But big doesn't always translate to superior. Again, bridges couldn't support such gargantuan weights. Also, both the Tiger and Panther were horrible in city / town environments. Too big. Too easy to spot. Easy to incapacitate or destroy. In open country however, no other two tanks commanded such respect by both axis and allies combined.
Lastly, the King Tiger, though very cool looking and yes, sloped armor, better guns, it's achilles heal was weight combined with excessively poor fuel mileage. In open country, one simply didn't have a chance if the crew was good or exceptional with a King Tiger. Germany over engineered many of its later tanks. The initial Panzers, like the IV, were likely the overall best tanks in early war.
KB
Agree!! Greetings from germany ;)
The cost of one King Tiger was three times higher than the IS 2 tank... while it had a gun less powerful than the IS 2. You don't have to talk about maneuverability at all. Simplicity, efficiency, reliability and cheapness win the war. This determines the mass production. For the war, complex expensive non-practical designs are fatal in the end.
@@MrSTALINGRAD34 the cannon of the IS 2 was not able to shoot down the German tanks of the same period (because it was an artillery gun, slow to load and not very precise and not very effective), in fact it was only used to destroy the fortifications.
sources: Wikipedia, some experts on RUclips
in my humble opinion this list is crap, this list may be your top 10 favorite tanks, but certainly not a top 10 best tanks. where is the pershing? and where is the comet? and the firefly? and what the hell is a m3 lee doing here?!?!? sorry but i think you should really reconsider this list
+Sol ! yeah so what, it still isnt a good tank compared to the ones i mentioned. you could have made a video about tanks that had a really important role in ww2 but then you shouldnt name your video best tanks of ww2. btw i dont get any info from wot or wt as 2/3 of wot tanks were prototypes
The first shipment of 20 Pershing tanks arrived in Antwerp in January 1945. It has no effect on the war.
The Firefly is basically a Sherman whit a 17-pounder gun, made by the British.
An the Cromwell yes it was a god tank, but the Sherman remained the most common tank in British and other Commonwealth armoured units in Europe. Cromwells were used as the main tank in the armoured brigades of only the 7th Armoured Division, although the Cromwell was used in the armoured reconnaissance regiments of the other British armoured divisions (Guards Armoured Division and 11th Armoured Division) in North-west Europe, because of its speed and relatively low profile.
+Mrbaliandras if we are talking about the best tanks you should mention the pershing even though only 20-30 were used. the firefly was the only tank in the west that could kill a tiger from range. i mentioned the comet, not the cromwell, wich was essentialy a upgunned and uparmored cromwell with the 17pdr. gun wich again could kill a tiger from range
+Lennart Hoek and 2000+ sherman firefly were used
Yes it's true, but the firefly is a variant from the Sherman. This list is a Opinion from me. Other people has a other opinions and this is god for me because I can see a other aspect .
M3 Lee vs Renault ft 17 would be a good Battle 😂
Ft 17 wins
m3 lee is maybe one of the worst tanks in ww2 ...
Not really no.
When they showed up in North Africa, they scared the daylights out of the Africa Corps. IT had the heaviest medium velockty gun in the field at that time.
L3?
russian tankers (who due to the Lend-lease agreement had a chance to fight on m3lee) used to call it "a communal grave for the seven".
prodkill. Agreed, M3 is one of the worse of all time. It might have had a moment in Africa but clearly nowhere worthy of top 10. They could not go "hull down" in a Lee due to an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun. Was replaced by the Sherman as soon as humanly possible.
Т34/85 самый маневренный , работал на любом топливе , и самый не дорогой танк в отличии от немецких. Собирали их в основном женщины и подростки.
Чтото наши танки дымят и очень сильно враг эти облака за пол км наверное видел и готовился
@@ДаниилРаев-ц3д хорошо готовился, что до Берлина дошли.
M4 Sherman: My Grandpa said to me: "Oh Boy, it burns so good, we called him Tommy Barbeque."
Your grandpa doesnt understand statistics and ratios
Lol
@@mithicalmithrax8933 yea
They are old, but these old beasts are beautiful. Salute to your service and bravery...
Now, if WT was to take this sounds and implement then in game, it would be awesome!
5:27 grand son following his grand father...
Almost all the tanks in this video: * riding a straight road/flat surface *
T-34: What is that? Large puddle? Deep marsh? Tons of mud? OMG, I DON'T CARE! GO AHEAD!
That's why T-34 is the best
Андрей Зверев Dream Bro 😂. THE Panther is In much ways better than 80% Of T-34 and T-34-85 you need more informations Panther had good Gun 50/50 Good Armor Not the best but Good Mobility ! It give so much points mire for Panther 😂 Dream Anymore ..
The T-34 has a V-shaped 12 cylinder diesel engine with an aluminum cylinder block and aluminum cylinder heads, DOHS, 4 valves per cylinder, direct injection, 500 hp. with. Developed in 1931-1939 in the USSR.
Developed by German scientists working in sovjet because of the versailles treaty my friend
@@homers5699 It started off as a Hispano-Suiza aero engine that an Italian engineer turned into a Diesel engine for a marine application who then sold the plans to the Soviets when nobody showed interest in it.
Aluminum from the USA
The B-2 was 50 years ahead of its time. In Western armies, such engines appeared much later. I don't mean laboratory specimens, but working serial models. The West has always liked to take credit for Russian inventions. The same thing happens with the B-2 myths.
@@craigclemens986 Then the USSR waged war with a united Europe - Hitler's Euroreich. But now, in peacetime, the United States is critically dependent on supplies from Russia.
the Tiger 2 was way ahead of his time,,,,,,way ahead
No it was not.
panter was .. if u look at it design u will understand why and how
klaabu99 No it really wasn't any more than most other allied vehicles introduced.
It was a great tank ,used in not the best time to do it .
He never had the chance to prove its valor .
Panther was even better .
Nathan Peterson the tiger II's turret rotated so fast and the max pen of an 88mm cannon the tiger II long barrel did 235mm of armor standar shell the Apcr shell did pen 272mm of armor
and the tiger front hull had 150mm of armor sloped did have efective thickness over 223mm and the turret had 185mm sloped at 6 deg had 186mm of thickness
armor detail
189mm turret
300-200mm cannon sheild
150mm hull
100mm down hull
side of the tank
80mm turret side
80mm side hull
65mm protected by 5mm side extra armor
the top of the tank 40mm turret
40mm armor on the top hull
and 40mm floor hull
so stop say things you don't may know
the king tiger was feared by the allies becuse of it's gun and armor and how it looked
Those of you automatically dissing the M3 Lee probably don't understand the role it played early in the war. At the time it arrived on the battlefield, one of it's most common opponents was the Pz III with the 37mm main gun. Even with its design limitations, the M3 was a heavyweight against the rank and file German armor.
- Those of you automatically dissing the M3 Lee probably don't understand the role it played early in the war.
- that probably is because it havent played any role to really mention in any "the best" list, especially "early in the war", as it was only first used near summer 42. it was only usefull during that summer against PZ-2 and 3 in the lame african campain (only near 80 thousands killed on both sides in 2.5 years) on the foreighn colonized land - otherwise it was only doomed to fight the even more funny japanese "tanks". by the way, let us build a "top-20" list instead to include those japanese bugs as well, why not, those best tanks, you know. also, M-3 would be a very good item for a steam/dizelpunk museum. but ok, that's a sort of a role too. definitelly, one of the best tanks of its time. only heard of by narrow specialists.
if you want one of "the best" tanks "early in the war" - that's KV-1.
but let's be honest, there's another very singificant role of M-3: it clearly shows that at the time (which was not "early in the war" at all) the you ass have not even imagined how to build a real WW-2 tank. you better face that plain truth.
@@альфредпетрович-д7р The US Army never bothered to build tanks between the wars. They made a few prototypes to test then only got serious after Hitler invaded Poland. The Army Arsenal in Lima, Ohio designed the M1 and M2 light tank by 1939 and Chrysler designed the M3 and the factory to produce it in 1940, had them coming off the production line in 1941 then had the M4 design finalized and in production by 1942. The Army also had the M6 heavy tank designed and 250 produced in 1942.
@@billwilson3609
- The US Army never bothered to build tanks between the wars. They made a few prototypes to test then only got serious after Hitler invaded Poland.
- you know that better, and what you say here looks consistent and reasonable. i was only saying that M3 has obviously nothing to do with this or any other similar "top" (besides probably a top of strange or anachronical tanks) and that it is a sign of the fact the you ass had not known how to build "real tanks" at the time of its built. once again, your description of why was it so looks ok.
@@альфредпетрович-д7р The M3 was a temporary design to get something into action while Ordnance and Chrysler finalized the design of the M4. Once declared obsolete for combat, the M3's were converted to open gun motor carriages with a 105mm howitzer, turned into tank recovery wreckers or had the turret and main gun removed for as prime movers towing heavy artillery. The Soviet Army turned theirs into armored troop carriers since they could cram 12 soldiers inside of the large open fighting compartment.
The US Army was a low budget operation after WW1 so bought a few foreign tanks to examine and paid J. Walter Christie to make a few in the early 1920's. The Army Arsenal made a tank in 1927-1928 that got some attention from foreign countries then dropped it after Christie introduced his 1928 Combat Car. The Army ordered several for testing then decided to have some produced using specs set by the Ordnance Department. They bypassed Christie since he was a PITA to deal with and gave the contract to a company that manufactured fire engines. They were given $200,000 to produce 10 combat cars and had the contract cancelled after they ran out of money with only 4 made. The Army Arsenal then took over the production and made a modified version that the Army adopted for use in 1938 then declared obsolete less than a year later after fighting started in Europe. The Army decided it wouldn't last long in a shooting war so went back to the drawing boards to design one that could.
@@billwilson3609
thanx for the details
Churchill was a mistake
The Churchill was a happy mistake. It ended up being very useful in the end both as a mainstay British tank and it's many variants.
the remodel the black prince was not that bad
at least they got one thing right. the churchill was actually a better tank than the m4 and it stood a better chance of defeating a tiger or panther than the m4 did.
They probably never met a Tiger. The British advance was not built around the idea of their tanks stopping to fight German tanks. That would have been stupid. Why would you do that?
TheThirdMan there was actually an incedint where churchills fought a tiger. The Bovington tank museum in England have the very last functioning tiger from ww2 tiger 131. A platoon of churchill tanks got a lucky shot and knocked out the tigers gun then the tiger was brought to the UK for studying.
The German T-3, T-4 were imperfect, but they were suitable for mass production and for carrying out rapid breakthroughs in depth, creating boilers for the enemy army, and capturing key military facilities. The successes of the Germans in Poland, France, in Russia in 41.42 are the merit of these tanks. The Russians created their masterpiece tank for such a war - the T-34. Mass character, swiftness, unpretentiousness. Ideal tool for breaking through and encircling huge enemy groupings. Or to create a danger of encirclement, which forced the Germans to retreat quickly, losing a huge amount of military equipment and equipment. As a result of such encirclements - Russians in Berlin. But, children and adults with children's brains do not understand this. For them, the best tank is the one with the thickest armor and the most powerful cannon. The fact that such a tank cannot be mass-produced (there are always few of them), it is unreliable and constantly breaks down, it cannot drive over many bridges and soils, that if the enemy quickly advances from the left or right, you just have to throw such tanks, since they cannot move away quickly, none of this matters. The most important thing is that the tank should have thick armor, a powerful cannon, a spectacular look and a false memoir of a captured German tanker (a coward who did not want to fight the enemy to death, preferring to save his cowardly skin instead of fighting for his homeland) with a description of how he bravely knocked out billions of enemy tanks. ))) Children, grow up! Tanks very rarely fight tanks. The main enemy of the tank is the anti-tank gun. The main type of military operation is a rapid breakthrough with the encirclement or capture of key targets. Tanks tiger -1, tiger -2 were not capable of this at all. Only to blunt frontal combat. Fight in the style of horn-butting rams. The Panther, which was supposed to be an analogue of the T-34, became a heavy (over 40 tons) tank that was not capable of maneuvering battles. The German tank building just dumped in their pants! Failed to create a tank for victory. Although, children and fools like German tanks ... especially the royal tiger. The tank is nonsense. Most of which simply broke down, rushed with their crew and did not even have time to fight ... Probably if the Germans had time to build and use a mouse, the author would have put it (the tank is superbrand, speaking only about the schizophrenia of German tank designers) in the first place? ... Practice is the criterion of truth! Russians in Berlin! T-34 tank for victory! The Royal Tiger is a tank to defeat!
Lmao bullsh*t lmao. Most german tanks broke down because of unexperienced drivers, manipulatet motors and transmissions and the mist tigers were abonned, so tte tiger 2 wasnt there to defeat, the t 34 was there to defeat, because it needs 50 t 34 to destroy one tiger. Russia lost over 122.000 tanks during the war. Germany only lost 25.000 tanks.
russian fanboy
I completely agree with your comment. The same "IS 2 " cost three times cheaper than "Tiger 2 "King Tiger
Why can't we just enjoy tanks, there is always someone who has to ruin it, bro nobody cares, just enjoy it because one day they are all gonna be gone
Ты преувеличиваешь умственные способности людей. Они покупают автомобили в зависимости от количества мониторов и USB розеток. Как они могут понять для чего нужен танк?
T34 amazing performance in this video!
😂 Driver Get Splasht from Mud 😂
I bet the museum that showed off the tiger II put more fuel in it then it ever had
The thing that amazed me when I read it...the King used the same engine as the Panther but weighted 20 tons more! Of the 450 built less than half made it to battle, and it sufferred more losses due to break-downs than to enemy action.
Интересный взгляд на топ. Ну ладно. Но включение в топ-танков ЧЕРЧИЛЛЬ - это смешно. Это ж полигонное фуфло
вот это ты правильно сказал
Да и гроб на 6-х тоже танк не очень
А Ли-3 тебя не смутил?
No Firefly? No Jagdpanther?
Der Tiger ist immer noch am geilsten! ;-)
Sindbad der Seefahrer der Tiger 1 oder 2 ?
albanischer SS - Soldat КОСОВО ЈЕ АЛБАНИЈА beide
spakendi ditch shiza coph
Ist ja auch deutsche Technik.
Natürlich aber der Tiger 1 und Tiger 2
@ 13:02 Tiger 2 sounds like a train.. 🤣
and goes like one as well.......beautiful piece of machinery
It was a scary monster at that time
Sounds Gorgeous....
All aboard the train to Paris lol
Btw this is a joke if you get upset at this then I’m disappointed in you
@@cjw7924 Like a very slow freighttrain.. 😁
The tiger II is a true BEAST
It could have 8,8 cm gun or 10,5 cm gun (88mm)
And 105mm
CONFUSED_KITTY_MOIDOWO _ they are junk
The Tiger 2 never had the 105mm L68. It only had the 88mm L71.
@@doncevas2924 bullshit
So the biggest slowest tank that spent more time being repaired than it did fighting is the best tank of World War II? Ok! Thanks for clearing that up!
everyone: wow i cant believe a tiger still exist
königstiger: am i a joke to you
Yes Königstiger, you beautiful, majestic war losing waste of resources, you indeed are a joke
look at the happy grin on the crew's faces !! (tiger 1 ! )
П-ха-ха! Тридцать четвёрку в самую жижу загнали!))) остальные по автобану гоняли!)))
Вмести с немецкой
Blyat
@@nickwekking8827 Приветствую русский содруженник, я из Германии, да я полностью согласен, что самые лучшие танки советского союза дешевизна, простота, проходимость. И не какие Американские танки не сравняться с ним до придумки 76мм M1A2, у Британских танков были слабые двигатели. А наши были не приспособлены для ведения боя в ваших суровых условиях, дороговизна, сложная конструкция, и низкая транспортировка из-за тяжёлого веса таков пятой и шестой серии.
@@erichschwartz1953 лучшие танки это наши немецкие это факт сижу с переводчиком тут
@@liralqn7709 Да твои ссаные немецкие панзеры только и могли сосать у тешек. А тигры и пантеры стоили в 2 раза дороже любого танка других стран.
You rate the Pz IV by its most upgraded version and the M-4 by its least upgraded version. Irrational. Early Churchills were undergunned and unreliable. All versions were horribly show and short-ranged. The T34/85 was the advanced version, again compared to early base versions of the M-4. The Tiger B was a dog and produced in numbers too small to be significant.
Absolutely amazing to see those old tanks in running order. Would love to see them run in person and even ride on them.
Yeah
I can dig it ...
From being hit by an IS-2 projectile, the German Tiger was not subject to recovery. His turret was torn off the shoulder strap or the hull was ruined.
pfft.
@@peterkaminski3404 Warum nicht oink-oink?
Да уж экипажу было оооооочень больно
Der Tiger 1 wurde sehr erfolgreich gegen den IS-2 eingesetzt, so erfolgreich das Stalin sie wieder von der Front abgezogen hat, nach dem 2 Tiger, 9 IS-2 alleine vernichtet hatten.
@@Maganra1 Guderian gab seinen Einheiten ein Rundschreiben heraus, in dem er die Besatzungen des Tiger-1 anwies, den IS-2 nur anzugreifen, wenn es 5 oder mehr Tiger pro IS gab. Außerdem forderte er, das Feuer auf den IS-2 ausschließlich aus der Deckung und nicht aus offenen Stellungen zu eröffnen. Und was Sie schreiben, ist eine bravouröse Propagandafälschung. Jetzt ist es leicht, über den von Deutschland verlorenen Krieg zu sprechen. Wenn die Tiger so gut waren, warum wurden Deutschland und insbesondere die Panzereinheiten der Wehrmacht so schwer von der Roten Armee besiegt?!
And no taking into account actual track record with the Tiger 2 on top.
*transmission breaks 10 min in*. Glory of German engineering...
It isn't called the "king" tiger for nothing.
But the King Tiger is so badass though thats why its at the top
Tiger 1 is good
Tiger 2 what a monster 😲 I really
Love tanks of German❤️🇵🇭
I love to see how people playing wot or wt, try to look like they know anything about the tanks
Ernest V. LOL yep. Like "m3 lee was suck tanks and where is maus?" :D Wot is arcade, game.
Crazy Boi Cow жиза!
Im playing wot so I just dont talk. Of course I know some things cause its not that wot is not accurate at all.
@@gregorsamsa52 none of those historical's games are historical because how the hell can a tiger I face t34 from the American the centurion and many more tanks which is post war tanks like seriously give the tiger I against t34/76 and cromwell m3 stuart XD
You probably play one of them too boy.. And just cause people play those games doesn't mean they don't know anything chill you freaking troll.
Жуткие тигры... Им это правда никак не помогло... Наши деды знали свое дело...Вечная память и царствие небесное павшим героям! Да здравствует Русь матушка и Вера православная!
💪💪💪
I saw that king tiger in the netherlands last year
At militracks?
Tiger looks by far the best by design
Got a new title: Allies VS Axis Arms race.
Allies win all the way
@@imdough8838 because quantity wins over quality in war
@@kommentarekommentieren455 """"quality"""""
M3 Lee, this "Ronson lighter?" I do not think so...
M3 Lee and M4 Sherman, lights first time, every time!
the phrase came after the war and is a common misconception of the M4
M3 Lee and Grant during the Africa campaign were called Tummy Cookers by the German crews because they would caught fire every time once hit.
The M3 Lee has a big role in the Africa Campaign.
In all three areas, the M3 was able to engage German tanks and towed anti-tank guns. Yet the high silhouette and low, hull-mounted 75-mm were tactical drawbacks, since they prevented fighting from a hull-down firing position. The use of riveted hull superstructure armor on the early versions led to spalling, where the impact of enemy shells caused the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank. Later models were built with all-welded armor to eliminate this problem. These lessons were applied to the design and production of the M4. The M3 was replaced by the M4 Sherman as soon as the M4 was available. Several specialist vehicles based on the M3 were employed in Europe, such as the M31 armored recovery vehicles and the Canal Defence Light.
Except that the PzIV actually lit on fire more than the M4.
It would be fun to hear what you base their conclusions on when setting up a best 10 list? . It is a well-known fact that, for example, the T-34 was one of the best tanks throughout the war. You can not relate to firepower and action radius as you do. You also need to know how the tanks behave in the terrain. If I would put up a list like you then I would put T-34 as number 1 and Tiger 1 as number 7 and Tiger 2 as number 8. Panzer 4 was also a success almost throughout the war so I would probably place it as number 2 or 3. Sherman would probably end up in a shared 3rd place. You have to know how the different tanks worked in combat. The tigers had weak engines so they often broke and they were too heavy so they were often stuck in the mudd. The T-34 was much easier to repair than for example Tiger tanks. But there were nice pictures in your video :)
+fouba74
> *_"It would be fun to hear what you base their conclusions on when setting up a best 10 list?"_*
I think it's just opinion.
> *_"It is a well-known fact that, for example, the T-34 was one of the best tanks throughout the war."_*
Define parameters of best, and according to whom.
I disagree,the M4 Sherman had to be the best,why? Because you can literally convert that tank into anything
@@teafool753 and it was cheap
@@МаксВеркут Sorry but I don't understand Russian :(
@@uhoh4480 yeah you're right and it didn't have a breakdown every time it drove for some kms
I love tanks. That Tiger 2 is amazing. Thanks for sharing!
The tiger 1 just stunning. Moves with so much purpose.
Worst tank if ww2
They were getting outclassed by the super puershing and the regular pershings in the late part of the war..
Tjs gaming bruh pershings were still a rare sight in late ww2, tiger was one of the most feared tanks of ww2
@@bomboclatlawg but tigers were rare german big cats were rare and mechanical problems plagued them also take in mind air support m10 tank destroyer,76 sherman and infantry that could get close and disable the engines with grenades if the tanks didnt have infantry support
@@tjferrer8622 It was one of the best tank in WW2, in case you have forgotten or even know, the allies Sherman and T-34 were pretty much useless against this tank. The reason why these germen beast were less effective in the late war was because the germen could not focus on improving these designs (because they were losing), making new and better tanks ( the germen were out of resources), and the generals workers for hitler had left him.
where is KV-1 and KV-2 it has in 1940 152mm gun!
on KV1 fought first lieutenant Zinovy Kolobanov (1st Panzer Division), in the same battle August 20, 1941 (in the post-war journalism mistakenly mentioned date August 19) at Gatchina (Krasnogvardeysky) destroyed 22 German tanks and two anti-tank guns, and Lieutenant Semyon Konovalov (15th tank brigade) - 16 tanks and two armored vehicles of the enemy.
only when it fought in battle !
KV-2 is not a tank, its a bunker buster.
i agree kv 1 should have been in it but kv-2 was junk you must be a wot player saying kv2 and is3 lmao
KV1 does not carry the 152 HE gun, neither does the KV2, the KV1 only carried the 76mm gun whilst the KV2 carried the 122mm.
And about zinoviy kolobanov, he took on that panzer division with 4 other KV1 tanks, i should know, i like him, i named my world of tanks account after him, and the date of that battle happens to be the same date as my birthday, but not the year ofcourse.
yep, my english not well. only kv2 had 152mm gun.
those other 4 KV1 was in other remote locations...
The M4 Sherman and T-34 won the war . Hands down they are 1 & 2 there is no logical debate against this. They won the war. Using superior tactics, they defeated larger, heavier complex and expensive tanks that had greater firepower. The Sherman and T-34 had speed mobility, range, maintenance, cost, production ease and sufficient firepower for the battles they were in. All of these are factors in evaluating superiority of a tank. Not just main gun and armor. Konigstigers and Tiger 1's were the wrong tanks for the war the Germans were in. They were too big , too heavy, too slow , too complex, impossible to maintain in combat, underpowered and fuel inefficient to win the war they were in.
Idiot - schau mal wie klein Deutschland ist und wie groß Amerika und Russland.
Und die feigen Amis kamen sowieso erst, nachdem sich die Wehrmacht in Russland abgekämpft hat.
Tactics? You mean overwhelming numbers, right?
🤣🤣, the Sherman was useless against German tanks, and they refused to stick the rheinmetall guns on the Sherman because it was a German gun, the British had the firefly with the 17 pounder gun, but it was too late.. the Sherman had numbers but it was a terrible tank, it got taken out with ease and couldn't damage other tanks with it's very small gun. It was cheap to make and meant it was a cheap tank.
You just have proven that you know nothing about WW2 tanks. From many documentaries, where veterans documented their time in war, all Sherman and T-34 crew members, who had the big luck to survive an encounter with a Tiger, Tiger II or Panther admitted that the germans had way better tanks as they did. Without aor support, the Sherman would have not even made an inch out of Normandy against the german tanks.
@@craigclemens986 that's the logic he is missing. 30,000 t34s against not even 2000 tiger 1s
Panzerkampfwagen V. Ohne Zweifel!