Be aware that when it comes to losses the role of tanks puts them in a lot more danger than tank destroyers. While tanks are used to force a breakthrough, tank destroyers are generally used in defense from a hidden position.
A German veteran Tiger Tank commander summed up his experience "We sliced through enemy armor like a hot knife through butter! Unfortunately, we were so outnumbered we lost by drowning in melted butter!"
If German tanks are so outstanding, then why did they lose the war? The answer to this question is very simple. This approach to comparing tank efficiency is only valid in a very abstract case where the whole war is about all tanks coming together on a field and shooting each other. The truth is that the main adversaries of tanks in most cases were not other tanks, but fortifications, pillboxes, guns, and so forth. Therefore, it's completely meaningless to compare how effective tanks are at killing each other. Moreover, this approach does not take into account the difficulties with tanks breaking down due to maintenance issues and so on. If a tank has a very low engine life, it simply won't reach its destination and will break down. This doesn't affect the statistics in this rating, but it makes it utterly useless in combat. This is also applicable to top German heavy tanks and self-propelled guns like the Ferdinand, which in fact lost a significant number of units due to breakdowns and were often not transportable in many cases, and so on. What effectiveness can we then talk about? You could just as well create a rating, for example, comparing the length of tanks, which would make as much sense.
Another important point in terms of efficiency is, undoubtedly, the ratio of the cost of production and maintenance of a tank to its success on the battlefield. Here, frankly, the outstanding German tank school often produced too expensive designs that simply did not pay off, unlike the simple, sufficiently effective, and mass-produced Soviet tanks.
There is a story (and even a photos) of how one Tiger I tank № 231 from the 503rd heavy panzer battalion received 252 hits from guns of different calibers in battle, finished the battle and returned on its own feet in fully working order. That must say something
Because it was primarily facing anti-tank rifles and 45mm anti-tank guns. Theoretically, if a Churchill MK IV or even an M4A2 Sherman were in the same position taking the same calibre and volume of fire, they would’ve been able to take the same amount of punishment.
@@2ndcomingofFritz More than 227 hits from anti-tank rifles, 15 hits from 45 mm and 11 hits from 76 mm. Even if you don’t take anti-tank rifles, 15 hits from a 45 mm gun and 11 hits from a 76 mm gun are very lethal threat for any WW2 tank. And even heavy tanks have weakened zones vulnerable to anti-tank rifles
German Sturer Emil VK3001 tank destroyer. Only two ever built. One was destroyed by the Russians, the other captured and is now on display in a Russian museum. The captured one had 22 kill markers on the gun barrel, which means at least an eleven to one kill ratio, even if we assume the other one had no kills.
Most Allied soldiers never saw one in action, so they didn't worry about them at all. Most of the reported 'Tiger sightings' that did take place were misidentified Pz IVs.
@timgoers7591 1,400 were built but most never reached the fighting as they broke down before they got there and had to be abandoned as the Germans retreated. Often the crew would drop a grenade in and flee. It is highly likely that fewer than 700 of the 1,400 built did any fighting at all. Now 700 of such a formidable vehicle is not a trivial number, but compared to the Stug III with over 10,000 produced, most of which _did_ reach the battle, the Tiger was insignificant. Most allied soldiers who saw a Tiger saw one already wrecked by its own crew to prevent it being captured.
My friend the TIGER I is the "Image" of WW2., is the "Template" of that war. In every book,magazine ,or even on the internet when the subject is WW2 the Image that shows up in a second is the TIGER I . Do you like or not,or funny to you,i guarantee to you that for some veterans that are still Alive,and had the bad luck of encounter a TIGER on their way,just remembering the size and shape of that "Beast" its enough to put a mind in ovetdrive. No other WW2 Weapon Embodies the Scale , Death and Destruction that was WW2 like the TIGER does. If its funny to, unfortunably to thousands of young man it was the last thing they Saw in their short lifes was that huge barrel on their sights.
Yes it was. Designed by Pooh Von Bearstein, it's engine was fueled entirely by honey. When the allies learned of this, they bombed the honey factory located in the 100 acre wood and that was the end of the Tigger I.
@@scottb4579where did you get this information from? I keep getting information that the tiger’s engine was fueled by petrol when I search for a source that proves your statement
My history teacher was a soviet army colonel at some point of his life. He described his experience with different tanks. He drove t-34, tiger (helped to transfer them into repair depo and then to museum) and modern USSR tanks T72 (at that time). He said that Tiger tank was no doubt the best tank for the crew - it goes smooth over any terrain, the pedals are soft, the steering in easy, gearbox is good. Not to mention scopes, chairs and etc. And w´if you dribe T-34 - conditions are shit. To change gear you have to put your both legs against the wall and pull, CO2 gases run inside the machine quite often and so on. But...if the ww2 style war ever broke down again - he wants 10 000 of t34 rather than 500 Tigers. Beacause they are cheap, easy to fix on battle field and enought simple to put there crew from dumbasses from the hills that was trained for one day and send them forward. thats the mathematics of war. Cynic but efficent
wartime T34s suffered from bad / inconsistent workmanship due to the factories being disassembled and sent behind the Urals, and then manned with green manpower
Re: "But...if the ww2 style war ever broke down again - he wants 10 000 of t34 rather than 500 Tigers." Not for nothing are the Russians known for their military aphorism: Quantity has a quality all its own. It has also been standard Russian strategy for ages to trade space, men and if necessary weapons and equipment for time to gather forces for a counter-attack and push out the invader, whoever he happens to be. Throw in the harsh Russian winters and sea of mud when it all thaws and you have their recipe for success in many campaigns.
How u have time to rank up to colonel and then change job? Or was colonels very common rank in soviet army? 😅 Usually whole army have just few colonels
You are so correct. War Math wins World Wars not Wonder Weapons and their Myth of Superiority. Those Wonder Weapons could stop the Soviets conquering Berlin in 1945.
For all those complaining about the narrator's pronunciation of the Tiger tank, this is actually the correct German pronunciation. It was a German tank so calling it TEEger would be more accurate as this is how it is called in German.
The term of a "knocked out" tank can be deceiving. The armies of the world had their own definitions of what that meant. For example, In the British army a tank that was stuck in the mud, broke down, lightly damaged and repairable, or blown up were all considered knocked out. When turning in their daily reports about what their numbers were for that day.They had to say how many tanks they had operational and how many were "knocked out." So they may say that they had 100 tanks that were knocked out , but in reality 80 of those tanks maybe repairable.
Very important point. The raw data on enemy kills were not that accurate to begin with, and everyone counted different things for their own vehicles, making the notion of computing a kill ratio for particular vehicles really impossible.
The Germans, in particular, were keen on recovering even burned out hulks, which could be transported back to repair shops in Germany, and refurbished for a fraction of the cost of a brand new vehicle.
I remember also reading that the British system for recording lost tanks could also result in some being counted twice. Where they would be first marked as a lose when it was rendered no longer combat effective and sent back to the maintenance teams who might then decide that it can’t be fixed and have it scrapped, resulting in it being makes as 2 losses. Meanwhile the Germans could sometimes get ver my hesitation to mark a tank as a loss especially something as important as a Tiger, so it could mean that tanks that genuinely were damaged beyond repair were still listed as being operational.
Hard not to believe that the Jagdpanther tank destroyer didn't make the list ahead of something like the Elephant. It was considered a nightmare to Allied armor crews - potent main gun, well-sloped thick armor, relatively low silhouette for a vehicle of its size, and good mobility considering its size class.
It was at a time when the war was ending, the Germans ran out of trained crews and raw materials (both for making good armor and good rounds for the main gun, as well as enough fuel) and lost the information war as well, so most of their messages were decoded, plans known in advance, air superiority lost, and in addition to those, the Jagdpanther was heavy so it could not be recovered and most were blown up by their crews once overrun and encircled. Not that there was so many of them to even begin with.
Take all these K/D figure with a grain of salt. Among the chaos in WW2 battlefield, especially more intense ones where tanks were involved, many losses and kills were vague estimate with different criteria from both sides, and when one make calculation with multiple estimates figure, the result would be even more vague and error-prone. Still the reason why Jagdpanther werent included in the list would likely be the video creator didn't have the numbers of their kills/losses, so you can't get a K/D figure to be on this list. Still given its specifications, especially its Pak43 gun, it likely wouldn't be too poor in its K/D though.
There are 3 problems with the Jagdpanthers reputation: 1. It had very thin and vulnerable side and rear armor (just like the basic Panther tank itself) so it was very vulnerable on the battlefield, almost every gun above 50mm could easily penetrant it from the sides. And 2: it came very late in 1944 at a time when the Allies and Soviets already had powerful guns to deal with it anyway. And 3: the few Jagdpanthers were mostly used on the narrow western front against the US and British forces in France and Ardennes, which is not a very suitable environment for large tank battles, because there are many uneven hills, bushes and buildings (cities) blocking the view The Ferdinand had a much better combat performance during their first campaign, because the Ferdinand was already used 1 year before the Jagdpanther (in 1943 at a time when the Allies still didn't have powerful tank guns yet, so they couldn't effectively counter the big Ferdinand yet) Also the Ferdinand had much thicker and stronger side armor too, even the rear armor was 90mm effective (which is twice as thick compared to the Jagdpanther's weak 40mm rear armor) so the Soviets couldn't effectively destroy the Ferdinands so easily And 3: because the first Ferdinands were used on the Eastern front in Russia fighting on large plain farmland, rural area, no big cities, only small villages with small wooden houses and large open fields, which is perfect for long-range tank kills, giving the Ferdinands a perfect environment to fight effective and destroying several hundreds of Soviet tanks, cannons and other vehicles.
A total of approximately 7,100 Shermans were destroyed in WW2. This means with a 2:1 kill ratio, that the Shermans would have destroyed more than 14,000 Axis tanks. That figure corresponds to a total of all Italian tanks, all Panzer 2 and 3 tanks and half of the Panzer 4 tanks what was produced during WW2. It's bit hard to believe such a death toll for Shemans😉
Most of Germanys losses were on the eastern front and many were destroyed by bombings, artillery, and anti tanks, mobile weapons. More likely 2 to 3000 panzers destroyed by western combatants
Still the Sherman was not a great tank. It was the workhorse of the allies. Mass production. I don’t believe these numbers. And in Europe so many were destroyed. …. and in Italy (Italy is not Europe?)
That is largely a lie. They failed yes, but no abysmal numbers were lost sicne they were made in the DOZENS on the case of the ferdinand and on the few hundreds for the king tiger.
i understand the Germans used their locomotive companies to make many/most of their tanks, especially the heavy ones and those companies were not use to fast mass production like the American automobile industry.
@@tylerpace6517 if germany had a border with america instead of russia they'd all be germans by the time they reached Moscington, the amount of fresh out of the factory broken and unusable trash they mass produced really puts into perspective how lucky they were for not having a meat grinder on their border.
The King Tiger didnt suffer from nechamical problems, they often failed because of getting stuck in muddy or snowy fields. Or 2 km from my house away a king tiger collapsed with a small bridge.
The tank with the all-time best kill to loss ratio was the "Sturer Emil" of which only 2 were built One served & was captured at Stalingrad with 22 kill mark bands on its barrel
LMAO - got a great laugh at the "Tigger One" and "Tigger Two" .... thanks, now I'll never be able to see either of them again without hearing Tigger from Winnie the Poo singing "I'm the only one!"
Agreed. In which case I am guessing that the Panzer 4 would rank higher than Elefant or both Tigers. The (comparatively) low production cost of most American machinery would give it a bit of an advantage.
i hate when ppl say ooooo but sherman was build on 100000000000000 units that way is better that king tiger ...........MATE one to one on ideal battle sherman was a piace of s.... Salins said quantity is a quality in himself .......they are many reasons why sherman is how it is, AND I UNDERSTAND, but was the jack of all triads master of none .....i love how the lady said shaerman was very successful against pnz 3 ....REALLY ???? sooo guys is not about of economy or cost ratio ,was about ONE TO ONE both on the field on the bast day and perfect mechanics ........... was tiger better that sherman ? this is the question
@@mellasio3911Million piece of total crap can be worse than not at all. It eat resources and take its share of resources. But mildly said, Stalin was crazy bastard.
@@mellasio3911One of the most prized captures a German tank unit could have was an M4, to be used to tow their tanks after they broke down. A more realistic one on one would be the PZ IV, or the Panther. This happened during the Battle of the Bulge (before Patton came in later), and the kill goes to the tank that hits the other tank first.
US kill claims were brutally exaggerated. Almost all crews boasted how they shot a Tiger tank and according to records US tankers destroyed more tanks than germans manufactured.
That's absolutely bullshit. Being the most capable german tank in 1944 it spearheaded all armored driven counter offensives and pushes the Germans did late in the war. While Panzer IV and Stugs saved the flanks or gave fire support in the second line or be used as ambush vehicles, the Panther had to do the dirty work acting as a bullit sponge. It was in the nature how the tanks were used. The Panthers since spring 1944 achieved the same milage between overhauls than Panzer IVs. According to statics made by Jentz and Doyle the is not difference in operational availability between Panzer IVs and Panther throughout 1944 and 1945.
@@HaVoC117X I didn't even think the comment above was a serious one lol. It's widely recognised as one of the best tanks of WW2. The question really is how it didn't make the cut.
@@mariankoniuszko666 Panther was rolled out in 1943 and already by then German panzers were suffering from severe supply issues. In fact most of the "losses" that Germans suffered in their top tier tanks was due to tanks being scuttled by their crews, once they run out of fuel or ammo, not to enemy fire. However there have been examples of Tigers and Panthers being dug in at important points and scoring dozens of kills before being destroyed or abandoned. Problem with German tanks was not their imaginary poor design, but lack of proper logistics to support them. Same tincans Shermans were breaking all the time, but there was always plenty of parts and they were constantly cannibalizing other Shermans for parts. But if you only have handful of Tigers, then there is rarely more parts available. Considering that one Tiger cost same as 3 Shermans, former was far far far superior tank. Germany simply did not have manufacturing capacity to produce panzers in sufficient numbers to counter Allied armor. So their tanks could be 5 times better, but when for every Tiger Russians make 100 T-34s and Americans another 100 Shermans, Tiger will simply run out of ammo before destroying them all.
10,000 Stug III's were made throughout WW2. So by a 16:1 K/D ratio that would mean they alone destroyed 160,000 Allied vehicles. I am moderately suspicious of that.
To my knowledge, the Stug III was indeed the most produced of all German tanks and tank destroyers. If it actually did have the best kill to loss ration producing them would indeed be a good idea. However, it should be noted that Germany needed to fight defensively for a large portion of the war (the latter part, that is), which of course makes an ambush AT vehicle far more useful.
I am truely surprised that the StuG III is leading this list. Early in the war it was merely an infantry support vehicle against soft targets and never dropped that role entirely. Therefore it was assigned to infantry divisions, not tank divisions. Serving as a tank destroyer was a multirole capability after the longer L48 gun was mounted and rather an improvision.
Earlier this year I did a breakdown on the kills of the Stug III based on German records. Around 10,000 Stug III were produced, with about 9,000 armed with the long 75mm. The kill ratio calculates out to a little under 3.5 to 1, about the same at the German PZ IV tank. Over-all the Stug's did destroy more tanks than the PZ IV because there were more produced. A kill ratio of 16 to 1, using the 9,000 number, comes out as 144,000 tanks destroyed, which is about the total Allied tank production before and during WWII. Individual Stugs did destroy enough tanks for a 16 to 1 ratio, but over-all a 3.4 or 3.5 to 1 ratio, around 31,000 kills, is probably closer to reality. I suspect that the lowly Pak 40, or which 23,300 were produced probably had a similar kill ratio, but got none of the credit.
A loss is running out of gas during battle and having to abandon the vehicle. Getting stuck in a ditch, mud, etc and being unable to recover. On the other hand, you could have a complete loss of crew (everyone dead) meanwhile the tank gets recovered, washed of blood and brains, patched up and sent back to the front.
Other things that also should be considered is the relative cost. The heavy Tiger tanks were extremelly expensive compared to the tanks it destroyed. Also thre is the ability to hold ground under fire. The M24 would have to immediately leavve once it took a shot because it was extremely vulnerable, where as the German Tank destroyers were much more difficult to destroy and thus could stand ground tanking multiple shots before having to retreat.
I get what you mean, but that's not the point of this video. This list is only about tank kills and loss ratio, literally. Nothing else. So the other factors are not revelant in this list. You're taking about a completely different topic altogether (the overall performance, not just the K/L ratio)
@@general796 You do know that is appears the idiotic American tank destroyer concept seems to have been considered a failure by the Americans. Stupid idea when a tank is about as good and is more able to hold ground. All the stupid American tank destroyers could do was delay a little bit while a real tank would be much more effective. The stupid things cost almost as much as a tank.
A little known fact people often forget is that different countries had different ways of counting "lost" tanks... To the brits a "lost" tank was any tank that couldnt be fixed in 24hrs... even though it was up and going again in 25. To the germans however a "surviving" tank included that smouldering Jagdpanther wreck about 4km that way.
I understand the “tigger” kill ratio was attributed to their elusive nature. They were difficult to target because they were “bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun…”
Stug was used as an assault self propelled AT gun and also support infantry specially the one with short guns, was in the middle of it a lot of times, it had extensive offensive roles. Cheap to produce, could carry double the ammunition for the main gun, crew was easy to train, easy to maneuver even in close combat against tanks(Finland, Witman's first kills in Stug short 75 mm), good armor and very important - low silhouette hard to be spotted at certain distances. Jagdpanther would have been a real killer if the war would have been prolonged, way better mobility than the Ferdinand or Elephant but, same powerful gun. Frontal armor efficiency would have been around 160 mm thickness because of the angle.
As a person who has studied the history of Germany during the Second World War for years, when I expanded my studies to other countries, the first thing I noticed was that there was an incredible exaggeration about the Wehrmacht. The second world war was not fought among tanks. When a tank was hit, statistically it was anti-tank guns, artillery, mines and aircraft that hit it rather than another tank. Therefore, we can say that a tank model had a statistical score of 0,35. Claiming that a model produced in approximately ten thousand units has an efficiency of 1 to 16 shows that you, I apologize, have no idea about this war. I would really like to know who came up with such a number and how. Why isn't Semovente on the list? Because most likely the person who made the list only knew American and German tanks.
I agree. The ratios mentioned have nothing to do with tank versus tank kills but more with tank versus anything you shoot at. Tanks are used to not only counter tanks (sometimes) but also against enemy positions like bunkers, fortified houses, machine gun positions, field artillery, anti-tank guns, trucks, troop concentrations or any other target to would merit the use of a tank shell. For example, you mentioned that the Allies lost around 7.000 M4 tanks on the Western front, yet it achieved a kill ratio of 2 to 1. Which would mean, if tank versus tank is implied, the German army would have lost 14.000 tanks in the same period. The Wehrmacht would have loved having 14.000 tanks available on the Western front. Even with a much smaller number available, they gave the Allies a hard time enough, so we are lucky that they didn't have that many in reality.
I always found the death trap myth about the Sherman super dumb. Especially when you realize the Sherman’s effective frontal armor is almost equivalent to a Tiger. But in the end nothing could stand up to an 88. But there were so little of em in the end it didn’t matter
People also forget that "it took 5 shermans to beat a tiger" was just the fact they SENT 5 shermans because that was the standard response force size... Wheraboos when basic math is not their strongsuit.
Crews call those Tank's Ronson Lighters, for a reason; fortunately for the world by D-Day, the US had unchallenged air superiority. The Germans could only dare anything like an offensive in bad weather, and a Flight of Typhoons could shred any annoying Tiger or Panther once it's position could be marked. Ultimately the Sherman was a 1943 tank we kept in service till 45.
@@trlavalley9909 And the T34 was a 1937 tank kept in service until- oh it still is. So thats a kinda dumb point? Crew survival rates of shermans were some of the highest of ANY tank are you going to refute that?
@@brentonherbert7775 It's not a "dumb point" it was already obsolete for most of it's service. Only the Firefly version had any hope of harming a Panzer from the front. I don't doubt the raw numbers indicate the crew survival rates where high. After all we had tremendous numerical superiority. The actual crews knew those tracks were a death trap, whether you agree with them or not is your own choice.
@@trlavalley9909 The Ronson myth has been disproven like 50 times by now lol. GI’s wernt even issued Ronson’s, they were issued Zippo’s. Secondly wet storage was introduced and virtually eliminated the problem.
Everyone thinks it was their armor and main gun, but the greatness of the Tiggers was actually mobility. You see, their legs were made out rubber and their tails were made out of springs...
@@BojanPeric-kq9et Right, during a fight, a tank needs less time to reposition and fire again. But a 8.8 towed by a half-track is much faster when repositioning from the right side to the left side of a battlefield, and it also requires less fuel and maintenance.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et infact i read that most of the anti tank kills were from PaK´s and not from actual tanks :D Its quite efficent and easy to place 7 PaKs in a certain place and tanks will have a hell of a bad time spotting them was really hard
It isn't a kill-to-loss statistic. It's a claim-to-loss statistic. There's a difference. Claims of enemies destroyed on land, sea and air was always inflated.
@@executivedirector7467 Hmm I don't know. Were those sources claiming german claims are overestimated same ones saying Russians didn't use human waves tactics?
@martind5653 I'm an aerial warfare enthusiast, so my literature is heavily skewed to the air war. In the Battle of Britain, for example, the Luftwaffe over-claimed by a factor of 3. Pilots were always claiming more than they actually downed. It is the same in any other field of combat. FYI, I've also studied Soviet deep battle theory and operations. The Soviets were vastly more efficient than Wehrmacht at the operational level. They did not use human wave attacks much after 1941. Their tactics at Stalingrad, for example, were adopted by the Germans. Soviet urban fighting techniques were flexible and effective. Operational deception allowed them to use armour on a large scale, in one place, but they didn't just chuck men and machines at the enemy blindly or without coordination with air and artillery. David Glantz' work on this is a must. It will dispell all those myths about the Soviet 'steamroller'.
@@DannyBoy777777 this is not my information. In Britain, I read, it was custom that pilots who claimed a shot, were given credit, even when they only participated a shot, each one was given the shot, whereas the Germans shots had to be witnessed by comrads or ground forces, and they were counted only once. As always the Germans were very correct in those statistic things. Boasting was not an accepted trait.
@rnies6849 They weren't. The Luftwaffe heavily over claimed enemy casualties. The British lost just over 1,000 fighters in the battle of Britain. German pilots were given credit for over 3,000. These so-called rules were not followed, particularly if a successful pilot was making the claim. In 1944 and 1945, the Luftwaffe over claimed American bomber loses by a factor of two. Some of the claims were absurd. On 15 September 1940, for example, German aviators claimed 79 RAF fighters. Actual British losses were 29 to all causes. No matter what is said about alleged German procedures, their claims were grossly inflated.
Yeah this is a hard one to really do because the germans essentially just didnt report their losses later on in the war and the allies would count their motor pool at the end of each day and anything that wasnt ready to go right that second was counted as out of action, whether it was an 88 through the front plate or it had just thrown a track pin.
Very true. It's not only a lack of reporting that causes issues with the estimates, but also overreporting or exaggerating numbers. I have no doubt the list would likely be either very similar if not identical even with confirmed numbers; but the ratios should be taken with a grain of salt since these figures are all based on claims.
That's totally nonsense. The Germans actually had a very accurate list of their own losses, otherwise they wouldn't be able too evaluate the aftermath of a battle result (which is very important in order to plan the next move) it would literally limit their own effectiveness if they didn't care for their own losses. Afterall you can only learn from results if you have a clear vision of what happened on the battlefield, so it's obvious you need all informations, including your own losses. Why would they delude themselves? Also you can literally read in every historical book that the Germans clearly reported and documented their own losses of every tank and division, including the information about readiness and damage, mechanical breakdown, losses from mines, aircraft, Anti-tank gun, enemy infantry and even from what exact caliber penetration hole etc. You can read this in every historical book about the tiger, panther and Ferdinand. But this only shows that you never read any historical book or documents whatsoever. It is a well known fact that the German tanks had a mic higher K-L ratio on the Eastern front against the Soviets, and even on the western front against Americans and British as well (although not as high as on the Eastern front) The German heavy tanks (tiger, panther, Ferdinand) were much stronger than anything the allies had, so it's no big surprise they were more effective on the battlefield
the best kill to death ratio would be the Sturer Emil as there were only 2 built as prototypes but got pressed into service, and in that service they got about 50+/- kills on the eastern front so their kill to death ratio would be at around 25:1 ish. so ithink they win tbf
The main role of the Hellcat was not to support the infantry forces, that is what the Sherman was designed for. The Hellcat was a Tank Destroyer…designed to destroy enemy vehicles.
Only 🇫🇮29 was deliverd in time (59) to be used in combat. June 14th Kuuteserselkä counterattack first battle. Armistice sept.1944. Some used to push Germans from Lappland oct1944-april 1945 8 /29 guns lost against Soviet’s. 87 🚩kill’s with 29 Stug. 💪🏽🔥🇫🇮
@@lordbeaverhistorynone of the 1944 batch Finnish StuG IIIs (Ps.531-31 through Ps.531-59) ever saw combat. Ps.531-1 through Ps-531-30 (except for Ps.531-13, which was used for spare parts) did, achieving 87 kills for the loss of 8 StuGs, a K/D ratio of nearly 11:1. As far as I can find, all of the remaining 1943 and 1944 batch StuGs were loaded onto rail cars and were on their way to fight Germany in the Lapland War but the Germans blew the rail bridges so the StuGs just got sent back to the storage depot.
Finns didn't have one single Pzkw III and IVs arrived too late to participate combat against Russia. IVs were sent to Lapland against Germans but did not see any action there either.@@lordbeaverhistory
reliability was a real problem with later German armor as it was produced by slave labor and suffered from unnecessary complexity. Sheer numbers of Russian and US tanks won the day over design excellence in German armor. No one did was production the way the US did. Also a large amount of damaged US armor was refurbished immediately and put back into service which no one else could do. the Russian tanks had excellent basic design but quality sucked and most broke down very quickly.
It somewhat makes sense that the vehicles at the top of this list would be more “stand off” and defensive vehicles. Even the Tigers fought that way more often than not. Leading the charge like the T-34s gives you a much higher overall count but not a higher ratio count. Still, I don’t believe the part about the Sherman. I think a lot of fighter-bomber kills in areas where Sherman’s were fighting were added to their stats. There’s no way that vehicle didn’t have a negative ratio.
More M4's were lost to at guns, mines and Panzerfaust than to German tanks, simply because there were so few German tanks in the West. A kill ratio as stated here might be at El Alamein, but that would include Italian armored coffins. Actually, the US Air Corps claimed just about every enemy tank lost as their kills, when in reality it was far less than you might think. The Germans were skilled at hiding, and possibly lost more tanks to a couple carpet bombing attacks than to fighter bombers. The loss of fuel and munitions trucks to fighter bombers was far more devastating, and important, than attacking tanks.
Obviously, this is propaganda, a blatant lie for people incapable of thinking and thinking. The Sherman tank has negative loss statistics, that is, more Shermans were destroyed by enemy tanks than the Sherman itself was able to destroy.
The Sherman actually did very well in tank vs tank combat, even if that was a relative rarity. Its tall height didn’t really negatively affect it as much as some people claim. On the contrary, it’s height + high quality sights gave it superior visibility to almost any other tank of the war. In addition to this, it had a high speed which allowed it to generally outmaneuver its opponents. The gun was small by late war standards but its maneuverability nearly negated this as they could just flank the enemy and shoot them from the side or rear (tanks like the Panther had such thin side armor that it could be reliably pierced by a 14mm anti tank rifle). A study conducted by the US after the war found that the Sherman had a K/D ratio of 3.6 to 1 against the Panther. Its ratio in other theaters was likely even higher especially in the Pacific and North Africa where most enemy tanks were objectively inferior in nearly every way. In these areas they only really had to worry about the usual dangers such as anti tank guns and mines.
it's very believable remember that the main Germans tanks were Panzer Ivs and Strugs. the Sherman's 75 is more than capable of punching a hole right through them . also remember they traveled in groups of 5, so overwhelming firepower also helped even with superior opponents like the tiger. you may have better armor but if you constantly getting shot and your components break.
Where did the Panther and Panzer 4 fall in the kill ratio? Should be pretty high for the Panzer 4 since it was in continuous combat throughout the war. Where did the T-34 fall as well? No British tanks?
british tanks were not made to fight other tanks they were made more to amuse the enemy. the T34 is the most destroyed tank in history with roughly 50000 ! destroyed! so what?
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 It's just a shame that the British and American optics were so inferior to the German ones. The Firefly was also just a Sherman on stereoide, and therefore still an easy target for any Panzer 4 to take out.
If I remember correctly it was because the Panther was distributed to many units and many of those crews were noobs, I can't remember the video where I saw the difference beetwen tanks being operated by Waffen - SS versus regular units, the SS had way more efficiency.
How the hell can the Sherman have 2 kills per loss if +6000 were lost? That'd mean Germany lost +12000 panzers only to Shermans. Germany never had anywhere near those numbers.
@@stevevernon1978 japanese tanks in particular, they were easy to destroy and many shermans wiped them out no matter how many there were, the panzer 3's, stugs, marders, the anti tank sdkfz 251 variants were the kind of not so invincible german tanks the shermans would encounter, however the panthers, all variants of the tiger and the hetzers were a nightmare for the shermans
What one needs to remember is that, by far, the majority of tanks destroyed were not destroyed by other tanks. Most were destroyed by towed anti-tank guns, mines or hand held anti-tank weapons. Kill to loss ratios should always favour the Germans, not necessarily because of superior equipment, but because of the theatre of war and different tank doctrines. On the vast, open Russian steppes, the 88 of the Tigers and Ferdinand had a distinct advantage as they could engage enemy tanks from a far greater distance, thus Russian doctrine was to throw waves of T34s at the Germans in the hope that vastly superior numbers would ensure that enough tanks got in clise enough to engage the German armour. This greatly boosted the German's kill to loss ratio. As with their fighter planes, these ratios were far lower on the Western front. For example, the Shermans under Patton's 3rd army had a 3 to 1 kill to loss ratio.
the ratio favoured us because we had way more enemies its just that simple. ofc 1 stug can take out 5 tanks but 5 tanks can only take out 1 stug. its just math
In the Pacific, the Sherman's outclassed the Japanese tanks in the same manner it was outclassed in Europe by the Panzer 4, Panther, and Tiger. So we can say the Sherman was the Tiger tank of the Pacific
@@redaug4212 The Panzer 4 was for the most part equal to the M-4, its upgunned 75 was superior to the Sherman's standard 75MM giving it a range advantage but the EZ-8 flips that advantage the other way around
@@bernieeod57 With the Panzer IV's middling armor, the difference in gun was more or less negligible. The Panzer IV, in fact, was statistically more likely to be penetrated on hit than the M4. No doubt because of the M4's sloped glacis.
The Tigers were good but they needed so much regular maintenance. They took too long to build and were so finely machined that they could easily get ‘bogged down’.
Actually the Sherman was the tank that could get bogged down, and it was a lot lighter than the Tiger. It's off road performance was abysmal, compared to the Tiger and the Panther.
As we currently recall the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Sicily, it is interesting to recall the role of Royal Navy vessels in the destruction of axis tanks also.
Very impressive results with the STUG III, makes you wonder how the allies won! Are we including the destruction of anti tank guns and armoured car kill stats, or just tank/TD against tank/TD?
These ratios are most likely very inflated. Considering, that ~ 10.000 Stug III were built, they must have destroyed more than 100,000 enemy tanks, which appears to be a bit much. For example ~ 80,000 T-34s were produced in total. Maybe they were taking every vehicle and target, that was destroyed in account. Otherwise I could explain how they could possibly achieve a 16:1 ratio.
Did Winnie the Pooh write the AI program that narrates this? "The wonderful thing about tiggers, tiggers are wonderful things. The tops are made out of armor, their bottoms are made out of springs (ok, so they were torsion bar suspension, but that doesn't rhyme). They're bouncy pouncy trouncy flouncy, fun fun fun fun fun fun! The most wonderful wonderful thing about tiggers, is the Tigger I! I also like the way that she constantly has to introduce each vehicle as having served in World War 2, so perhaps there was a different World War II than the one mentioned in the title?
Disclaimer: not an expert in field. With that said . . . here's an excerpt from an email to an ex tankee friend regarding this video: I did know that the StuG III was the premier tank killer of the war. The 20,000 number killed has long been a part of off the shelf armor literature. As we (he and I) know, modes of and reasons for employment were major factors in its "success". Despite being termed "assault guns", StuG IIIs were primarily defensive weapons through necessities forced upon Germany by its operationally and numerically superior enemies. Had Germany been on the advance in '44 a lot more StuG IIIs would've been lost per enemy kill. On the other side of the question, a single Stug zug/batterie of six vehicles pretty much stopped the allied advance on Monte Cassino for two months. Those poor Poles. Churchill hated them and their deployment as shock troops shows it. Polish units were emasculated in Italy-most of them at Monte Cassino; a position Kesselring offered to demilitarise as a World Cultural Treasure, but was refused by allied commanders (cough Mark Clark cough). Bombing the unoccupied world heritage site turned it into the perfect fortress and much unhappiness ensured for allied soldiers' wives. Falschirm and Panzergrenadiers moved in and the rest is bloody history. M4 would not have done as well defensively, due to size (tall as a Tiger I) and that big, broad, 40mm vertical side. However, we both agree, I hope, that turreted AFVs are generally better suited for wars of maneuver. The Sherman had the most replacement parts per vehicle (and the most maintenance units per vehicle) of any AFV of the war. That figured heavily in its apparent success. Weirdly, its bogie mounted suspension was far easier to repair/replace than torsion bar vehicle suspensions. Also, compare with T34's Christie suspension whose shock absorbers were inside the hull armor. Medium tanks trump heavies in wars of maneuver. The oddball in the room is the light tank . . . not much good for anything other than reconnaissance by attrition . . . unless your unit runs headfirst into an enemy "Flying Column" of halftrack mounted heavy weapons. When I asked a maintenance guy why German halftracks greased their track pins I was told that German AFVs tended to be much quieter. Oh. OH! The Hellcat seems at first glance to be the perfect Panzerjaeger- very low, turreted, very fast, and mounting a gun equal to the PaK/StuK/KwK40/L48. So, better than StuG or Marder? Lately, however, the skinny on it has changed. They broke down a lot and were limited to road speeds of 30mph max, just like the fast Cromwells were. The armor could be penetrated by close range rifle fire. Ouch! This suggests that Hellcat might've rocked as a defensive weapon, per US Army textbook tactics of employment for TDs (as operational GAP fillers) . . . which never really had the chance to strut their stuff. Jagdpanzer Elefant . . . was simply too big for Italian roads and too heavy by far for Italian bridges, something that constrained its effectiveness in later episodes (after Kursk, when 50% were lost to mechanical failure and/or mines during the first two days). As single vehicle strongpoints on Italian mountain roads when supported by suitable infantry, however, they turned Churchill's "soft white underbelly" into a series of impenetrable obstructions. In every case, as the war went sour (from mid '43), Germany benefited from being on the defensive, while allied forces were taxed with blind advances into largely unknown territory.
The loss ratio should be higher for the both Tiger I and II tank, as many of them were lost to Mechanical break down. Some Tiger I tank were foolishly captured in a train in Russia.
5,5:1 ratio comes from all Tigers that were lost (counting ones that get lost fighting or from other things like mechanical breakdowns, cause this is how it was counted), but when we only count Tigers that were lost in combat, the ratio was around 10/11:1
You're missing the point. The K-L ratio is only for comparing the losses to enemy tank guns, because the aim of this ranking is to compare the effectiveness of tanks fighting against each other on the battlefield. Mechanical Breakdowns or any other ways of losses (aircraft, mines, artillery, infantry, AT cannon) are not relevant for this ranking, because they are not tanks, so they would manipulate the K-L ratio in a bad way. It's simple as that
I would recommend the channel Military History Visualised to any viewers of this video, he goes into great detail directly from very good sources on most of these vehicles, providing necessary commentary on the methods of collecting the data and collating it.
Stug IIIs were built more than 10.000 times. Since nearly all of them were destroyed by the end of the war, It must have had 100.000 kills to achieve a 10:1 kill-ration. So I think the numbers are incorrect. Also: 4:1 for sherman tanks??? In order for that to work there would have been a german tank with a 1:4-ratio.
trucks and personal carriers count as kills lol, and the stugs were from the beginning operated by artillerymen not tankers, thats how they were capable of destroy dozens of T34's with the early Stug 75mm short gun that shoots only explisive shells... what tank you thought michael wittman do that T34 massacres? Anyway there were a lot of vehicles count as kills like trucks or transport vehicles... thats for shermans and stugs.
You have to remember how many German tanks and vehicles had to be abandoned during retreats and withdrawals, considering lack of fuel, and breakdowns yet couldn't be retrieved..
@@SargentoDuke No, trucks and infntry do NOT count in this ranking, at least if you want to compare tanks with each other. It makes no sense to include other vehicles if we want to compare just tanks with each other, otherwise it would manipulate the K-L ranking in an absurd way. Of course the StuGs destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks, but thereof the StuGs also had very high losses of their own, which lowers the K-L ratio since they had high losses too. There is no way it had such a high K-L ratio of 10:1 as claimed in this video, that would be more realistic for the Tiger or Ferdinand if anything. Michael wittman had most of his kills in the tiger tank. And not only him alone, but also many other German Tiger aces had most of their kills in Tiger tanks.
The main factor in kills to losses is whether one is on the offensive vs the defensive. Much stronger effect than any technical characteristics of the weapon system itself.
Advancing vs retreating also has an effect. An armoured vehicle breaking down while advancing can be repaired and reengage. When breaking down while retreating it's a loss.
High maneuverability can negate the offense vs defense effects. For example, the M18 was almost always on the offensive but it maintained a positive K/D ratio because its vastly superior visibility and speed allowed it to spot the enemy first, get into an ambush position, destroy the enemy, and then repeat the process.
@@collinwood6573 Moving around makes it vastly less likely that you will be the first to see and hit the enemy. Being in a defensive position, camouflaged, waiting for someone to approach.....you are vastly more likely to see and hit first. Driving fast doesn't change that, except that it makes it more likely you are spotted first. Also, no WW2-era AFV could fire on the move. Once you want to fire, you are going to stop.
@@executivedirector7467 it seems you completely misunderstood when I said that speed allows you to get into ambush positions faster, this is backed up by US army reports. If all you do is sit in an ambush position then you will never attack or gain any ground. Even the Germans on the western front who were on the defensive almost the whole time moved around quite frequently. And yes, I already knew no tanks could fire on the move in WW2, which is part of the reason why getting into an ambush position was so beneficial. But guess what? The Sherman had a gun stabilizer, which means it could use its speed, keep the gun on target, and then fire immediately after stopping whereas other tanks, especially those with poor visibility or sights, would have to take time to reacquire the target.
@@collinwood6573 Yes, the M4 had a stabilizer, which, if used (many units disabled them) would enable the crew to engage faster. Which has nothing to do with the point you made about fast M18s engaging first. I misunderstood nothing. Speed is not armor.
I suppose if it's a tank destroyer being used in defensive roles, and the enemy is notorious for mass tank assaults taking high losses, it's going to have a pretty good kill-to-loss ratio.
A problem with kill to loss ratios using total vehicle losses is that tank roles extend beyond engaging other arrmored vehicles. The short barrel 75mm on the Sherman was retained on most tanks not due to a shortage of 76mm or 17 pdr guns, but because the tanks were primarily employed in support of infantry to engage enemy guns and machinegun positions where high explosive shells were needed. They were valued by the British in North Africa because the range at which they could effectively fire at an 88mm flak gun was greater than for British tanks at the time (using 2 pounders or 6 pounders which lacked effective high explosive shells). How many enemy guns destroyed would count as a kill?
Or the stugs could really easily withstand soviet cannons from a bigger distance whereas their cannons didn't have that much problem with penetrating armour
@@4T3hM4kr0n the czech factories that produced the 38t and the hetzer kept running under german occupation until the end of the war, i don't think they were lacking in spare parts
@@general796 my granpa was a stug driver and they took out 4 shermans before they abandoned their stug due to fuel shortage. He said the Shermans where the easiest target in the war because of their high profile
except, this video is total bs. I mean StugIII's destroyed 100k tanks? Where, in Hoi4? just another silly YT video. Instead of sources they posted - advertisement links.
Considering how badly out numbered German tanks were by the mid-point of the war onwards, I think it is fair to say this has a decidedly negative effect on the kill to loss ratio. If you put 1000 T34s against 1000 Tigers, I think the ratio will tilt significantly in the German tank's favor. Moreso if you compare it against Shermans. Now line up 100 tigers against 500 Allied tanks, and suddenly the comparison isn't as good.
German tanks were typically on the defense, from mid-war on. Generally speaking, the tank that fired first won most engagements. The defender has an advantage in this, being able to pick the terrain, hide itself, present the front to the enemy, and so on. German tanks, during the Battle of the Bulge, during the time when air power was not a factor, fared about as well allied tanks when they were on the attack. And this is also why the Stugs have a great kill ratio. Low profile, used on the defense... Which isn't to say the Germans weren't tactically sound, for the most part, because, yeah, they were. And no, not more so against the Shermans. Shermans had a bunch of advantages over T-34s, like better turret traverse speed, stabilized gun, and better vision, radios in every tank, and so on, making them more likely to get that crucial first shots off. The 75 was under-powered against Tigers and Panthers, but the 76 (or the British solution of making 1 in 4 a Firefly) addressed that issue. Both tanks had their good and bad points, with one of the good points being the winning combo of being good enough and plentiful enough. Don't underestimate the Sherman. It was a tank designed to do exactly what it did: fight and win a war thousands of miles away from where it was made. And sure, it got a bit dated, but it was WW2. Technology was advancing so fast, so much wound up a bit outdated when compared to the latest and greatest. And both tanks served in Korea. Oh, also worth noting that German tanks were outnumbered early in the war as well. France, for example, had over 3.2k tanks, to Germany's 2.4k or so. And keep in mind that many of those German tanks were Panzer I and IIs. And then you can add in the further 700 from the British Expeditionary Force to the French numbers.
@@Axterix13 : Tus datos echan por tierra el cuento que la Alemania de Hitler al momento de iniciarse y durante TODA la WWII estaba mejor armada que sus estados gendarmes ...
Nobody talks about how high was KV tanks K/D in 1941 during the start of the german invasion when at this time their tanks cant penetrate this beast and its 76.2mm Cannon or the gigantic 152mm Howitzer Smashes entire Panzer III, Marders and early Panzer IVs Entire divisions like the Risenai and other places
Yes but like you said only during the early years 1942, but after 1943 the KV became quickly an easy target for Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand, StuG and PzIV, which lowered the KV's great K-L ratio it had from 1942 quickly...
"while loosing only 13" - of 13 ^^ that were all of them. and none of them got shot. their engines caught fire in Kursk. AS we know from interviews of STUG drivers who saw that happen right in front of their eyes. thats why waiting months for these 13 tanks wasnt even worth it at all, cuz except 1 ferdinand TD they didnt make it to the battlefield... 13 burnt down from engine fire and theyve even bee warned bof this right on the battlefield, that their engines arent cooled well enough to climb more than 13° angle... but nazi leader commanded, so they did....
@@renebatsch2555 Also the engineers right at the spot said, that they wont make it up that hill and it will grill their engines... but that Man gave orders which were deadly if u didnt follow them....
This makes no effort to take into account the extreme varieties of the M4. Some performed poorly with poor K/Loss ratios, others with different guns had "fire power". The basic M4 was most assuredly not a terror to face. However some of the later variants could handle late war Panthers head on.
Actually not correct, the poor performance of the Sherman is more of a meme then anything. The A1, the worse designed of the Shermans, was far superior to the Panzer 3 that it was mainly fighting in North Africa. The A2 model was about equal, if not superior to the Panzer 4 that is spent most of the time fighting. the A3 was just straight superior to the Panzer 4. Now they were out classed compared to German heavies but German heavies were extremely rare. Most Shermans were taken out by stationary guns and not by German vehicles.
Tigger tanks lol oh the wonderful thing about Tiggers, is Tigger tanks are a thing, their tops are made of the metal, their bottom are made of the springs, they're Whermacht bouncy bouncy bouncy 88m gun, and the wonderful thing about Tigger tanks is, they're pretty much all gone
The problem with the Elephant being so high on the list, is because the Germans quickly switched their production to Tigers, due to the former’s engine problems. They excelled on flat terrain, however they would easily get bogged down on hills and in mud. Because of these problems only a limited amount was built and after they were first introduced, we’re largely kept in reserve, until they were sent to Italy, but by that time the war was practically over
Don't you love that the OP is that lazy that they use a computer generated voice for the narration, how many got immediately confused when they heard Tiger and thought they were referring to the Disney character.
Outnumbered on every battlefront and always under intense pressure from the air, how good were the Germans really? Unmatched, but, quantity has a quality all of it's own.
Be aware that when it comes to losses the role of tanks puts them in a lot more danger than tank destroyers. While tanks are used to force a breakthrough, tank destroyers are generally used in defense from a hidden position.
@@Aqua-Fyre So they put the branches with leaves on top so the leaves could help stop the enemy fire?
When they did that it was generally to hide themselves from fighter bombers like the Typhoon tank buster. @@GerbenWulff
@@Aqua-Fyrecorrect, and they lost.
The Germans hid their tanks far more effectively than the Shermans too, they concealed them behind big signs that said "REPAIR DEPOT."
@@Aqua-Fyreit happened fairly often. The only case of a Pershing being destroyed was by a concealed tank destroyer.
A German veteran Tiger Tank commander summed up his experience "We sliced through enemy armor like a hot knife through butter! Unfortunately, we were so outnumbered we lost by drowning in melted butter!"
the same commander knows this - german - saying: "Many hunters are dead to the hare".
Even Mike Tyson would get his shit kicked in if 10 nerds swarmed him all at once
@@armoredlumberjack1999you mean 10 amateur boxers, because if you mean the stereotypical nerd then no that’s still an easy fight for a man like Tyson
Great, explanation.
@@angelic_disappointment788910 nerds with WWE chairs
My uncle was Winnie and fought aside Tigger until the end.
RIP to both.
tigger
Did he fight in Nor Mandy?
woosg @leahall
If German tanks are so outstanding, then why did they lose the war? The answer to this question is very simple. This approach to comparing tank efficiency is only valid in a very abstract case where the whole war is about all tanks coming together on a field and shooting each other. The truth is that the main adversaries of tanks in most cases were not other tanks, but fortifications, pillboxes, guns, and so forth. Therefore, it's completely meaningless to compare how effective tanks are at killing each other. Moreover, this approach does not take into account the difficulties with tanks breaking down due to maintenance issues and so on. If a tank has a very low engine life, it simply won't reach its destination and will break down. This doesn't affect the statistics in this rating, but it makes it utterly useless in combat. This is also applicable to top German heavy tanks and self-propelled guns like the Ferdinand, which in fact lost a significant number of units due to breakdowns and were often not transportable in many cases, and so on. What effectiveness can we then talk about? You could just as well create a rating, for example, comparing the length of tanks, which would make as much sense.
Another important point in terms of efficiency is, undoubtedly, the ratio of the cost of production and maintenance of a tank to its success on the battlefield. Here, frankly, the outstanding German tank school often produced too expensive designs that simply did not pay off, unlike the simple, sufficiently effective, and mass-produced Soviet tanks.
The Tigger I and Tigger II both met their match when confronted by a combined platoon of heffalumps and woozles
And I didn’t even know that Winnie the Pooh had tanks!
I confess, before today I did not know AI was doing these narrations. Now I have proof.
and they often rushed into action without thinking things through
TIL that Italy isn’t part of Europe /s
I love me a tigger!
There is a story (and even a photos) of how one Tiger I tank № 231 from the 503rd heavy panzer battalion received 252 hits from guns of different calibers in battle, finished the battle and returned on its own feet in fully working order. That must say something
Good ol' German engineering XD As long as it works, it is pretty much unstoppable 😂
Because it was primarily facing anti-tank rifles and 45mm anti-tank guns. Theoretically, if a Churchill MK IV or even an M4A2 Sherman were in the same position taking the same calibre and volume of fire, they would’ve been able to take the same amount of punishment.
@@2ndcomingofFritz More than 227 hits from anti-tank rifles, 15 hits from 45 mm and 11 hits from 76 mm. Even if you don’t take anti-tank rifles, 15 hits from a 45 mm gun and 11 hits from a 76 mm gun are very lethal threat for any WW2 tank.
And even heavy tanks have weakened zones vulnerable to anti-tank rifles
@@2ndcomingofFritz 1943. The battle of Harkov, I think. A year later not a chance.
What it says to me is that that crew has some 'splainin' tp do, since Tigers are not typically equipped with feet.
German Sturer Emil VK3001 tank destroyer. Only two ever built. One was destroyed by the Russians, the other captured and is now on display in a Russian museum. The captured one had 22 kill markers on the gun barrel, which means at least an eleven to one kill ratio, even if we assume the other one had no kills.
No, that would mean a 22:1 Killratio, because ony one Sturer Emil was destroyed. The other one wasn't killed.
@@potator9327 and if i lose my wallet the money isnt spent ....
Sorry but that is a silly answer.@@frustriert
it takes one to know one. the analogy was flawless :D @@potator9327
She sounds cute Tigger lol I'm buzzed
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the Allies didn't think Tigers were 'bouncy, trouncy, ouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun'!
Most Allied soldiers never saw one in action, so they didn't worry about them at all. Most of the reported 'Tiger sightings' that did take place were misidentified Pz IVs.
@timgoers7591 1,400 were built but most never reached the fighting as they broke down before they got there and had to be abandoned as the Germans retreated. Often the crew would drop a grenade in and flee. It is highly likely that fewer than 700 of the 1,400 built did any fighting at all. Now 700 of such a formidable vehicle is not a trivial number, but compared to the Stug III with over 10,000 produced, most of which _did_ reach the battle, the Tiger was insignificant. Most allied soldiers who saw a Tiger saw one already wrecked by its own crew to prevent it being captured.
Because it's 'Tiger' not 'Tigger' ;-)
That's what I thought faf 😂😂😂
My friend the TIGER I is the "Image" of WW2., is the "Template" of that war.
In every book,magazine ,or even on the internet when the subject is WW2 the Image that shows up in a second is the TIGER I .
Do you like or not,or funny to you,i guarantee to you that for some veterans that are still Alive,and had the bad luck of encounter a TIGER on their way,just remembering the size and shape of that "Beast" its enough to put a mind in ovetdrive.
No other WW2 Weapon Embodies the Scale , Death and Destruction that was WW2 like the TIGER does.
If its funny to, unfortunably to thousands of young man it was the last thing they Saw in their short lifes was that huge barrel on their sights.
The Tigger I, also known as the bounciest tank of WW2
Yes it was. Designed by Pooh Von Bearstein, it's engine was fueled entirely by honey. When the allies learned of this, they bombed the honey factory located in the 100 acre wood and that was the end of the Tigger I.
@@scottb4579where did you get this information from? I keep getting information that the tiger’s engine was fueled by petrol when I search for a source that proves your statement
@@angelic_disappointment7889I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not
@@angelic_disappointment7889
He's talking about the Tigger 1, not the tiger 1
Glad somebody else heard the was she was saying that lol
Ah, the fearsome Tigger tank. Winnie was always scared of it.
Jagular, now if the German's had developed a Jagular, it might have changed everything.
To this day, Tiggeer I and Tiggeer II continue to roam the Hundred Acre Woods. Christopher Robin is so proud.
That may be true, but they apparently don't like olive trees, as reflected in the video at 3:29.
I didn't hear how it did against the eeyore tank.
My history teacher was a soviet army colonel at some point of his life. He described his experience with different tanks. He drove t-34, tiger (helped to transfer them into repair depo and then to museum) and modern USSR tanks T72 (at that time). He said that Tiger tank was no doubt the best tank for the crew - it goes smooth over any terrain, the pedals are soft, the steering in easy, gearbox is good. Not to mention scopes, chairs and etc. And w´if you dribe T-34 - conditions are shit. To change gear you have to put your both legs against the wall and pull, CO2 gases run inside the machine quite often and so on. But...if the ww2 style war ever broke down again - he wants 10 000 of t34 rather than 500 Tigers. Beacause they are cheap, easy to fix on battle field and enought simple to put there crew from dumbasses from the hills that was trained for one day and send them forward. thats the mathematics of war. Cynic but efficent
wartime T34s suffered from bad / inconsistent workmanship due to the factories being disassembled and sent behind the Urals, and then manned with green manpower
Re: "But...if the ww2 style war ever broke down again - he wants 10 000 of t34 rather than 500 Tigers."
Not for nothing are the Russians known for their military aphorism: Quantity has a quality all its own.
It has also been standard Russian strategy for ages to trade space, men and if necessary weapons and equipment for time to gather forces for a counter-attack and push out the invader, whoever he happens to be. Throw in the harsh Russian winters and sea of mud when it all thaws and you have their recipe for success in many campaigns.
How u have time to rank up to colonel and then change job? Or was colonels very common rank in soviet army? 😅 Usually whole army have just few colonels
You are so correct. War Math wins World Wars not Wonder Weapons and their Myth of Superiority. Those Wonder Weapons could stop the Soviets conquering Berlin in 1945.
@@Juhani96 the rank in question is probably "Polkovnik"-regiment commander. Regiments are quite numerous.
For all those complaining about the narrator's pronunciation of the Tiger tank, this is actually the correct German pronunciation. It was a German tank so calling it TEEger would be more accurate as this is how it is called in German.
Finally someone that gets it ! Thank you
Your frivolous comment is ridiculous to say the least. I am German and it is pronounced incorrectly by her. Get a better education.
So what? This narration is in English. Nice try..and robo voices Suck...
It's a Tigger with a trigger and a whole lot of grrrrrrrr regardless of pronounciation :)
@@joethegeographer its not tigger.... its Teeger. atleast how you pronounce it. Tigger hurts my ears.
The term of a "knocked out" tank can be deceiving. The armies of the world had their own definitions of what that meant. For example, In the British army a tank that was stuck in the mud, broke down, lightly damaged and repairable, or blown up were all considered knocked out. When turning in their daily reports about what their numbers were for that day.They had to say how many tanks they had operational and how many were "knocked out." So they may say that they had 100 tanks that were knocked out , but in reality 80 of those tanks maybe repairable.
Very important point. The raw data on enemy kills were not that accurate to begin with, and everyone counted different things for their own vehicles, making the notion of computing a kill ratio for particular vehicles really impossible.
The Germans, in particular, were keen on recovering even burned out hulks, which could be transported back to repair shops in Germany, and refurbished for a fraction of the cost of a brand new vehicle.
@@darko714 it's estamated that 50% of German tanks from 1943 onwards were damaged or abandoned not destroyed just like soviet loses in 1941.
I remember also reading that the British system for recording lost tanks could also result in some being counted twice. Where they would be first marked as a lose when it was rendered no longer combat effective and sent back to the maintenance teams who might then decide that it can’t be fixed and have it scrapped, resulting in it being makes as 2 losses. Meanwhile the Germans could sometimes get ver my hesitation to mark a tank as a loss especially something as important as a Tiger, so it could mean that tanks that genuinely were damaged beyond repair were still listed as being operational.
Hard not to believe that the Jagdpanther tank destroyer didn't make the list ahead of something like the Elephant. It was considered a nightmare to Allied armor crews - potent main gun, well-sloped thick armor, relatively low silhouette for a vehicle of its size, and good mobility considering its size class.
That’s probably bc they only had like 2.5 elephants
it came out late in the war
It was at a time when the war was ending, the Germans ran out of trained crews and raw materials (both for making good armor and good rounds for the main gun, as well as enough fuel) and lost the information war as well, so most of their messages were decoded, plans known in advance, air superiority lost, and in addition to those, the Jagdpanther was heavy so it could not be recovered and most were blown up by their crews once overrun and encircled. Not that there was so many of them to even begin with.
Take all these K/D figure with a grain of salt. Among the chaos in WW2 battlefield, especially more intense ones where tanks were involved, many losses and kills were vague estimate with different criteria from both sides, and when one make calculation with multiple estimates figure, the result would be even more vague and error-prone.
Still the reason why Jagdpanther werent included in the list would likely be the video creator didn't have the numbers of their kills/losses, so you can't get a K/D figure to be on this list. Still given its specifications, especially its Pak43 gun, it likely wouldn't be too poor in its K/D though.
There are 3 problems with the Jagdpanthers reputation:
1. It had very thin and vulnerable side and rear armor (just like the basic Panther tank itself) so it was very vulnerable on the battlefield, almost every gun above 50mm could easily penetrant it from the sides.
And 2: it came very late in 1944 at a time when the Allies and Soviets already had powerful guns to deal with it anyway.
And 3: the few Jagdpanthers were mostly used on the narrow western front against the US and British forces in France and Ardennes, which is not a very suitable environment for large tank battles, because there are many uneven hills, bushes and buildings (cities) blocking the view
The Ferdinand had a much better combat performance during their first campaign, because the Ferdinand was already used 1 year before the Jagdpanther (in 1943 at a time when the Allies still didn't have powerful tank guns yet, so they couldn't effectively counter the big Ferdinand yet)
Also the Ferdinand had much thicker and stronger side armor too, even the rear armor was 90mm effective (which is twice as thick compared to the Jagdpanther's weak 40mm rear armor) so the Soviets couldn't effectively destroy the Ferdinands so easily
And 3: because the first Ferdinands were used on the Eastern front in Russia fighting on large plain farmland, rural area, no big cities, only small villages with small wooden houses and large open fields, which is perfect for long-range tank kills, giving the Ferdinands a perfect environment to fight effective and destroying several hundreds of Soviet tanks, cannons and other vehicles.
A total of approximately 7,100 Shermans were destroyed in WW2.
This means with a 2:1 kill ratio, that the Shermans would have destroyed more than 14,000 Axis tanks.
That figure corresponds to a total of all Italian tanks, all Panzer 2 and 3 tanks and half of the Panzer 4 tanks what was produced during WW2.
It's bit hard to believe such a death toll for Shemans😉
Most of Germanys losses were on the eastern front and many were destroyed by bombings, artillery, and anti tanks, mobile weapons. More likely 2 to 3000 panzers destroyed by western combatants
..I was thinking the same thing….
you forgot Japanese tanks
Still the Sherman was not a great tank. It was the workhorse of the allies. Mass production. I don’t believe these numbers. And in Europe so many were destroyed. …. and in Italy (Italy is not Europe?)
Your forgetting the US used Sherman's in the Pacific and the British used them in Burma
The King Tiger and Ferdinand may have had a high kill to loss ratio, but an abysmal number of them had to be abandonned due to mechanical failure.
Well they can’t be killed if they are already mechanically dead after the first shot😂
That is largely a lie. They failed yes, but no abysmal numbers were lost sicne they were made in the DOZENS on the case of the ferdinand and on the few hundreds for the king tiger.
i understand the Germans used their locomotive companies to make many/most of their tanks, especially the heavy ones and those companies were not use to fast mass production like the American automobile industry.
@@tylerpace6517 if germany had a border with america instead of russia they'd all be germans by the time they reached Moscington, the amount of fresh out of the factory broken and unusable trash they mass produced really puts into perspective how lucky they were for not having a meat grinder on their border.
The King Tiger didnt suffer from nechamical problems, they often failed because of getting stuck in muddy or snowy fields.
Or 2 km from my house away a king tiger collapsed with a small bridge.
The tank with the all-time best kill to loss ratio was the "Sturer Emil" of which only 2 were built
One served & was captured at Stalingrad with 22 kill mark bands on its barrel
The Tigger tanks are a favorite. Tigger 1 and Tigger 2 are great, they're the bounciest of tanks.
lololol
Love this comment...had the same in mind
Sure it’s funny, “tee-ger,” is actually the correct pronunciation for the tank while speaking English with a German accent.
Tigger 11 please
Can you be more cringe?
Hellcat: 498 kills in europe, 17 kills in italy? If i'm not mistaken italy always has been a european country.
LMAO - got a great laugh at the "Tigger One" and "Tigger Two" .... thanks, now I'll never be able to see either of them again without hearing Tigger from Winnie the Poo singing "I'm the only one!"
Forgot to include the Eeyore I and Eeyore II
more like the Eyesore
It seems like the 'Cost of kill ratio' would be a more meaningful reflection of the economies of war.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this, good video either way though.
Agreed. In which case I am guessing that the Panzer 4 would rank higher than Elefant or both Tigers. The (comparatively) low production cost of most American machinery would give it a bit of an advantage.
i hate when ppl say ooooo but sherman was build on 100000000000000 units that way is better that king tiger ...........MATE one to one on ideal battle sherman was a piace of s.... Salins said quantity is a quality in himself .......they are many reasons why sherman is how it is, AND I UNDERSTAND, but was the jack of all triads master of none .....i love how the lady said shaerman was very successful against pnz 3 ....REALLY ???? sooo guys is not about of economy or cost ratio ,was about ONE TO ONE both on the field on the bast day and perfect mechanics ........... was tiger better that sherman ? this is the question
@@mellasio3911Million piece of total crap can be worse than not at all. It eat resources and take its share of resources. But mildly said, Stalin was crazy bastard.
@@mellasio3911One of the most prized captures a German tank unit could have was an M4, to be used to tow their tanks after they broke down. A more realistic one on one would be the PZ IV, or the Panther. This happened during the Battle of the Bulge (before Patton came in later), and the kill goes to the tank that hits the other tank first.
US kill claims were brutally exaggerated. Almost all crews boasted how they shot a Tiger tank and according to records US tankers destroyed more tanks than germans manufactured.
I'm astonished that the Panther missed out, with the plaudits it regularly gets.
panther was simply a bad tank, especially in 1943 and 1944
That's absolutely bullshit. Being the most capable german tank in 1944 it spearheaded all armored driven counter offensives and pushes the Germans did late in the war. While Panzer IV and Stugs saved the flanks or gave fire support in the second line or be used as ambush vehicles, the Panther had to do the dirty work acting as a bullit sponge. It was in the nature how the tanks were used.
The Panthers since spring 1944 achieved the same milage between overhauls than Panzer IVs. According to statics made by Jentz and Doyle the is not difference in operational availability between Panzer IVs and Panther throughout 1944 and 1945.
@@HaVoC117X I didn't even think the comment above was a serious one lol. It's widely recognised as one of the best tanks of WW2.
The question really is how it didn't make the cut.
@@mariankoniuszko666 Panther was rolled out in 1943 and already by then German panzers were suffering from severe supply issues. In fact most of the "losses" that Germans suffered in their top tier tanks was due to tanks being scuttled by their crews, once they run out of fuel or ammo, not to enemy fire.
However there have been examples of Tigers and Panthers being dug in at important points and scoring dozens of kills before being destroyed or abandoned.
Problem with German tanks was not their imaginary poor design, but lack of proper logistics to support them. Same tincans Shermans were breaking all the time, but there was always plenty of parts and they were constantly cannibalizing other Shermans for parts. But if you only have handful of Tigers, then there is rarely more parts available.
Considering that one Tiger cost same as 3 Shermans, former was far far far superior tank. Germany simply did not have manufacturing capacity to produce panzers in sufficient numbers to counter Allied armor. So their tanks could be 5 times better, but when for every Tiger Russians make 100 T-34s and Americans another 100 Shermans, Tiger will simply run out of ammo before destroying them all.
the panther, although a great tank in paper, had a k/d ratio of 2:1
I'd say the greatest detriment of the 'Tigger's 1 and 2' were their unfortunate association's with 'Winnie The Pooh'... 😅🤣😂
10,000 Stug III's were made throughout WW2. So by a 16:1 K/D ratio that would mean they alone destroyed 160,000 Allied vehicles. I am moderately suspicious of that.
in both fronts and africa... it may be.
Why do you assume the Allies destroyed all 10,000 Stugs.
Losses to Air, AT guns and so on is not inkluder here i think. Only fighting against other tanks
Yes indeed. It's almost all the AFVs the allies together produced.
@@gnomeimporta6912 They did not.
Stug's that survived the war were even used in the Middle East during the 60's
I love the Tigger tank. He's always been a menace to Pooh.
The Germans were all about quality, unfortunately quantity is a quality of its own.
To my knowledge, the Stug III was indeed the most produced of all German tanks and tank destroyers. If it actually did have the best kill to loss ration producing them would indeed be a good idea. However, it should be noted that Germany needed to fight defensively for a large portion of the war (the latter part, that is), which of course makes an ambush AT vehicle far more useful.
What is a Tigger? Its called "TEEHGER!" ,"Tiger", means german for Tiger, but you speak it with a strong "i" like "EE".
I didn't know that Winnie The Pooh was involved in WW2 tank battles. Well done Tigger!
The Sherman having a 2:1 kill to loss ratio while mainly being on the offensive is impressive.
Yea, the Germans never invaded a country.
Maybe it’s because other things were also on the offensive, and Shermans had support… but I guess war is simply won by tanks.
I am truely surprised that the StuG III is leading this list. Early in the war it was merely an infantry support vehicle against soft targets and never dropped that role entirely. Therefore it was assigned to infantry divisions, not tank divisions. Serving as a tank destroyer was a multirole capability after the longer L48 gun was mounted and rather an improvision.
Play the stug 3 in warthunder or world of war tanks. You'll understand lol 😂
It was everywhere but nowhere....
Many people dont know the stug3 had production priority over the panther and tiger tanks
Earlier this year I did a breakdown on the kills of the Stug III based on German records. Around 10,000 Stug III were produced, with about 9,000 armed with the long 75mm. The kill ratio calculates out to a little under 3.5 to 1, about the same at the German PZ IV tank. Over-all the Stug's did destroy more tanks than the PZ IV because there were more produced.
A kill ratio of 16 to 1, using the 9,000 number, comes out as 144,000 tanks destroyed, which is about the total Allied tank production before and during WWII. Individual Stugs did destroy enough tanks for a 16 to 1 ratio, but over-all a 3.4 or 3.5 to 1 ratio, around 31,000 kills, is probably closer to reality. I suspect that the lowly Pak 40, or which 23,300 were produced probably had a similar kill ratio, but got none of the credit.
take it with a grain of salt. who wrote these reports back then?
A loss is running out of gas during battle and having to abandon the vehicle. Getting stuck in a ditch, mud, etc and being unable to recover. On the other hand, you could have a complete loss of crew (everyone dead) meanwhile the tank gets recovered, washed of blood and brains, patched up and sent back to the front.
Other things that also should be considered is the relative cost. The heavy Tiger tanks were extremelly expensive compared to the tanks it destroyed. Also thre is the ability to hold ground under fire. The M24 would have to immediately leavve once it took a shot because it was extremely vulnerable, where as the German Tank destroyers were much more difficult to destroy and thus could stand ground tanking multiple shots before having to retreat.
Tiger so hard to destroy the Soviets just pointed their 122mm guns on it and history tells you the rest.
@@SMGJohn Really. Where is your referrecne? None right. Like Donald Trump. What 122 mm AT gon are you talking about. That is right there were none.LOL
@@cliffordnelson8454
Tank Archive - "IS-2 vs. the German Big Cats"
Google it kid
I get what you mean, but that's not the point of this video. This list is only about tank kills and loss ratio, literally. Nothing else.
So the other factors are not revelant in this list.
You're taking about a completely different topic altogether (the overall performance, not just the K/L ratio)
@@general796 You do know that is appears the idiotic American tank destroyer concept seems to have been considered a failure by the Americans. Stupid idea when a tank is about as good and is more able to hold ground. All the stupid American tank destroyers could do was delay a little bit while a real tank would be much more effective. The stupid things cost almost as much as a tank.
Tigger is my favorite character in the world of Winne the Pooh 😁
German pronounciation teeger since it’s a German tank
What?!
@@kimkimmomin1797 But the video is in English, not german and they still said it wrong for both languages.
bruh, she said tigger. it's tiger. TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGER
Never mind Tigger, what about Eeyore, Piglet and Pooh?
Tigger the Pooh!
A little known fact people often forget is that different countries had different ways of counting "lost" tanks...
To the brits a "lost" tank was any tank that couldnt be fixed in 24hrs... even though it was up and going again in 25.
To the germans however a "surviving" tank included that smouldering Jagdpanther wreck about 4km that way.
I understand the “tigger” kill ratio was attributed to their elusive nature. They were difficult to target because they were “bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun…”
Stug was used as an assault self propelled AT gun and also support infantry specially the one with short guns, was in the middle of it a lot of times, it had extensive offensive roles.
Cheap to produce, could carry double the ammunition for the main gun, crew was easy to train, easy to maneuver even in close combat against tanks(Finland, Witman's first kills in
Stug short 75 mm), good armor and very important - low silhouette hard to be spotted at certain distances.
Jagdpanther would have been a real killer if the war would have been prolonged, way better mobility than the Ferdinand or Elephant but, same powerful gun. Frontal armor efficiency would have been around 160 mm thickness because of the angle.
As a person who has studied the history of Germany during the Second World War for years, when I expanded my studies to other countries, the first thing I noticed was that there was an incredible exaggeration about the Wehrmacht.
The second world war was not fought among tanks. When a tank was hit, statistically it was anti-tank guns, artillery, mines and aircraft that hit it rather than another tank. Therefore, we can say that a tank model had a statistical score of 0,35. Claiming that a model produced in approximately ten thousand units has an efficiency of 1 to 16 shows that you, I apologize, have no idea about this war. I would really like to know who came up with such a number and how.
Why isn't Semovente on the list? Because most likely the person who made the list only knew American and German tanks.
Point
I agree. The ratios mentioned have nothing to do with tank versus tank kills but more with tank versus anything you shoot at. Tanks are used to not only counter tanks (sometimes) but also against enemy positions like bunkers, fortified houses, machine gun positions, field artillery, anti-tank guns, trucks, troop concentrations or any other target to would merit the use of a tank shell.
For example, you mentioned that the Allies lost around 7.000 M4 tanks on the Western front, yet it achieved a kill ratio of 2 to 1. Which would mean, if tank versus tank is implied, the German army would have lost 14.000 tanks in the same period.
The Wehrmacht would have loved having 14.000 tanks available on the Western front. Even with a much smaller number available, they gave the Allies a hard time enough, so we are lucky that they didn't have that many in reality.
@@mvm1162 Well said.
你怎麼在被擊毀的這方看？誰知道你被什麼東西打中，你都已經死了
當然是從開砲的那方的紀錄去計算啊，當然自然知道這台機器擊毀多少台
Who'd have thought Winnie the Pooh's Tigger tank would be up their at the top.
I always found the death trap myth about the Sherman super dumb. Especially when you realize the Sherman’s effective frontal armor is almost equivalent to a Tiger. But in the end nothing could stand up to an 88. But there were so little of em in the end it didn’t matter
People also forget that "it took 5 shermans to beat a tiger" was just the fact they SENT 5 shermans because that was the standard response force size... Wheraboos when basic math is not their strongsuit.
Crews call those Tank's Ronson Lighters, for a reason; fortunately for the world by D-Day, the US had unchallenged air superiority. The Germans could only dare anything like an offensive in bad weather, and a Flight of Typhoons could shred any annoying Tiger or Panther once it's position could be marked. Ultimately the Sherman was a 1943 tank we kept in service till 45.
@@trlavalley9909 And the T34 was a 1937 tank kept in service until- oh it still is. So thats a kinda dumb point?
Crew survival rates of shermans were some of the highest of ANY tank are you going to refute that?
@@brentonherbert7775 It's not a "dumb point" it was already obsolete for most of it's service. Only the Firefly version had any hope of harming a Panzer from the front. I don't doubt the raw numbers indicate the crew survival rates where high. After all we had tremendous numerical superiority. The actual crews knew those tracks were a death trap, whether you agree with them or not is your own choice.
@@trlavalley9909 The Ronson myth has been disproven like 50 times by now lol. GI’s wernt even issued Ronson’s, they were issued Zippo’s. Secondly wet storage was introduced and virtually eliminated the problem.
"Tigger I" and "Tigger 2". How about the "Winnie and the Eeyore ?
The Pooh tank, was superior to the Tigger tank!
The only problem with the Pooh tank was it kept running out of honey
No, the EE-iore was a Kick-Ass machine! And, had sreel shoes on it!
German pronounciation teeger as it’s a German tank
Pooh tank got mired down in a honey pit
Everyone thinks it was their armor and main gun, but the greatness of the Tiggers was actually mobility.
You see, their legs were made out rubber and their tails were made out of springs...
I think the highest Kill-to-Loss Ratio had the half-tracks that pulled the 8.8 Flacks. And compared to a tank, it is incredibly cheap.
And incredibly immobile.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et Right, during a fight, a tank needs less time to reposition and fire again. But a 8.8 towed by a half-track is much faster when repositioning from the right side to the left side of a battlefield, and it also requires less fuel and maintenance.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et infact i read that most of the anti tank kills were from PaK´s and not from actual tanks :D
Its quite efficent and easy to place 7 PaKs in a certain place and tanks will have a hell of a bad time spotting them was really hard
Every time she says tiger, I see see Winnie the Poo!
Everyone is talking about the Tigers, but the most dangerous cat in the kingdom is the stug.
It isn't a kill-to-loss statistic. It's a claim-to-loss statistic. There's a difference. Claims of enemies destroyed on land, sea and air was always inflated.
Correct. And in this case we know that they were vastly overclaimed. The whole discussion is nonsense.
@@executivedirector7467 Hmm I don't know. Were those sources claiming german claims are overestimated same ones saying Russians didn't use human waves tactics?
@martind5653 I'm an aerial warfare enthusiast, so my literature is heavily skewed to the air war. In the Battle of Britain, for example, the Luftwaffe over-claimed by a factor of 3. Pilots were always claiming more than they actually downed. It is the same in any other field of combat.
FYI, I've also studied Soviet deep battle theory and operations. The Soviets were vastly more efficient than Wehrmacht at the operational level. They did not use human wave attacks much after 1941. Their tactics at Stalingrad, for example, were adopted by the Germans. Soviet urban fighting techniques were flexible and effective. Operational deception allowed them to use armour on a large scale, in one place, but they didn't just chuck men and machines at the enemy blindly or without coordination with air and artillery.
David Glantz' work on this is a must. It will dispell all those myths about the Soviet 'steamroller'.
@@DannyBoy777777 this is not my information. In Britain, I read, it was custom that pilots who claimed a shot, were given credit, even when they only participated a shot, each one was given the shot, whereas the Germans shots had to be witnessed by comrads or ground forces, and they were counted only once. As always the Germans were very correct in those statistic things. Boasting was not an accepted trait.
@rnies6849 They weren't. The Luftwaffe heavily over claimed enemy casualties. The British lost just over 1,000 fighters in the battle of Britain. German pilots were given credit for over 3,000. These so-called rules were not followed, particularly if a successful pilot was making the claim. In 1944 and 1945, the Luftwaffe over claimed American bomber loses by a factor of two.
Some of the claims were absurd. On 15 September 1940, for example, German aviators claimed 79 RAF fighters. Actual British losses were 29 to all causes.
No matter what is said about alleged German procedures, their claims were grossly inflated.
Yeah this is a hard one to really do because the germans essentially just didnt report their losses later on in the war and the allies would count their motor pool at the end of each day and anything that wasnt ready to go right that second was counted as out of action, whether it was an 88 through the front plate or it had just thrown a track pin.
Very true. It's not only a lack of reporting that causes issues with the estimates, but also overreporting or exaggerating numbers. I have no doubt the list would likely be either very similar if not identical even with confirmed numbers; but the ratios should be taken with a grain of salt since these figures are all based on claims.
@@Ungood-jl5ep exactly and claims are well known to be insanely incorrect.
Idk why but the 88 through the front plate cracked me up 💀
@@fim1344 Glad I could be of service.
That's totally nonsense. The Germans actually had a very accurate list of their own losses, otherwise they wouldn't be able too evaluate the aftermath of a battle result (which is very important in order to plan the next move) it would literally limit their own effectiveness if they didn't care for their own losses.
Afterall you can only learn from results if you have a clear vision of what happened on the battlefield, so it's obvious you need all informations, including your own losses.
Why would they delude themselves?
Also you can literally read in every historical book that the Germans clearly reported and documented their own losses of every tank and division, including the information about readiness and damage, mechanical breakdown, losses from mines, aircraft, Anti-tank gun, enemy infantry and even from what exact caliber penetration hole etc. You can read this in every historical book about the tiger, panther and Ferdinand.
But this only shows that you never read any historical book or documents whatsoever.
It is a well known fact that the German tanks had a mic higher K-L ratio on the Eastern front against the Soviets, and even on the western front against Americans and British as well (although not as high as on the Eastern front)
The German heavy tanks (tiger, panther, Ferdinand) were much stronger than anything the allies had, so it's no big surprise they were more effective on the battlefield
the best kill to death ratio would be the Sturer Emil as there were only 2 built as prototypes but got pressed into service, and in that service they got about 50+/- kills on the eastern front so their kill to death ratio would be at around 25:1 ish. so ithink they win tbf
The main role of the Hellcat was not to support the infantry forces, that is what the Sherman was designed for. The Hellcat was a Tank Destroyer…designed to destroy enemy vehicles.
Fun fact: Winnie the Pooh was the leading tank ace driving a Tigger tank.
Only 🇫🇮29 was deliverd in time (59) to be used in combat. June 14th Kuuteserselkä counterattack first battle. Armistice sept.1944. Some used to push Germans from Lappland oct1944-april 1945
8 /29 guns lost against Soviet’s.
87 🚩kill’s with 29 Stug. 💪🏽🔥🇫🇮
The finish had quite a lot StuGs, 60 were used in combat, along with Panzer IVs and Panzer IIIs
@@lordbeaverhistorynone of the 1944 batch Finnish StuG IIIs (Ps.531-31 through Ps.531-59) ever saw combat. Ps.531-1 through Ps-531-30 (except for Ps.531-13, which was used for spare parts) did, achieving 87 kills for the loss of 8 StuGs, a K/D ratio of nearly 11:1.
As far as I can find, all of the remaining 1943 and 1944 batch StuGs were loaded onto rail cars and were on their way to fight Germany in the Lapland War but the Germans blew the rail bridges so the StuGs just got sent back to the storage depot.
Still Finns lose. But due to Stalin they was left alone. Stupid moustache idiot as always made mistake.
Finns didn't have one single Pzkw III and IVs arrived too late to participate combat against Russia. IVs were sent to Lapland against Germans but did not see any action there either.@@lordbeaverhistory
One needs to also consider the manufacturability of each design. How long it takes to produce each tank (ie: rate of production).
Sure, but this isn't what this video is about.
Tbf, an expensive tank with a good k/d ratio is usually still preferable as it generates more veterans & aces while drastically reducing human losses.
Now we need this top but without tank destroyers, cause tanks are usually in open combat, while tank destroyers usually used for ambushes/defence
You could say that about nearly all German tanks on the western front and from late 1944 on ..
reliability was a real problem with later German armor as it was produced by slave labor and suffered from unnecessary complexity. Sheer numbers of Russian and US tanks won the day over design excellence in German armor. No one did was production the way the US did. Also a large amount of damaged US armor was refurbished immediately and put back into service which no one else could do. the Russian tanks had excellent basic design but quality sucked and most broke down very quickly.
It somewhat makes sense that the vehicles at the top of this list would be more “stand off” and defensive vehicles. Even the Tigers fought that way more often than not. Leading the charge like the T-34s gives you a much higher overall count but not a higher ratio count. Still, I don’t believe the part about the Sherman. I think a lot of fighter-bomber kills in areas where Sherman’s were fighting were added to their stats. There’s no way that vehicle didn’t have a negative ratio.
More M4's were lost to at guns, mines and Panzerfaust than to German tanks, simply because there were so few German tanks in the West. A kill ratio as stated here might be at El Alamein, but that would include Italian armored coffins.
Actually, the US Air Corps claimed just about every enemy tank lost as their kills, when in reality it was far less than you might think. The Germans were skilled at hiding, and possibly lost more tanks to a couple carpet bombing attacks than to fighter bombers. The loss of fuel and munitions trucks to fighter bombers was far more devastating, and important, than attacking tanks.
Obviously, this is propaganda, a blatant lie for people incapable of thinking and thinking. The Sherman tank has negative loss statistics, that is, more Shermans were destroyed by enemy tanks than the Sherman itself was able to destroy.
Good reply. 🙂👍🏼
The Sherman actually did very well in tank vs tank combat, even if that was a relative rarity. Its tall height didn’t really negatively affect it as much as some people claim. On the contrary, it’s height + high quality sights gave it superior visibility to almost any other tank of the war. In addition to this, it had a high speed which allowed it to generally outmaneuver its opponents. The gun was small by late war standards but its maneuverability nearly negated this as they could just flank the enemy and shoot them from the side or rear (tanks like the Panther had such thin side armor that it could be reliably pierced by a 14mm anti tank rifle). A study conducted by the US after the war found that the Sherman had a K/D ratio of 3.6 to 1 against the Panther.
Its ratio in other theaters was likely even higher especially in the Pacific and North Africa where most enemy tanks were objectively inferior in nearly every way. In these areas they only really had to worry about the usual dangers such as anti tank guns and mines.
it's very believable remember that the main Germans tanks were Panzer Ivs and Strugs. the Sherman's 75 is more than capable of punching a hole right through them . also remember they traveled in groups of 5, so overwhelming firepower also helped even with superior opponents like the tiger. you may have better armor but if you constantly getting shot and your components break.
Where did the Panther and Panzer 4 fall in the kill ratio? Should be pretty high for the Panzer 4 since it was in continuous combat throughout the war. Where did the T-34 fall as well? No British tanks?
Those two tanks routinely met and had a pretty even kill to loss ratio against each other.
british tanks were not made to fight other tanks they were made more to amuse the enemy. the T34 is the most destroyed tank in history with roughly 50000 ! destroyed! so what?
The best British tank in my opinion was the firefly. It could take on the Tiger with its excellent 17 pounder gun
@@michaelpielorz9283 So really British tanks remained the same and Russian improved a little.
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 It's just a shame that the British and American optics were so inferior to the German ones.
The Firefly was also just a Sherman on stereoide, and therefore still an easy target for any Panzer 4 to take out.
Was surprised that the little Hetzer was among the top 7 and the Panther wasnt .
If I remember correctly it was because the Panther was distributed to many units and many of those crews were noobs, I can't remember the video where I saw the difference beetwen tanks being operated by Waffen - SS versus regular units, the SS had way more efficiency.
just another silly YT video... I mean StugIII's destroyed 100k tanks? Where, in Hoi4?
Instead of sources they posted - advertisement links.
I wonder what those numbers would be when you consider losses due to mechanical failure. I know the German list would be drastically different.
"The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one" - Tigger ... until the Tigger II
How the hell can the Sherman have 2 kills per loss if +6000 were lost?
That'd mean Germany lost +12000 panzers only to Shermans. Germany never had anywhere near those numbers.
the Sherman's killed vehicles that were not tanks. ( also they killed vehicles that were not German! )
Sherman was a death trap. Maybe they counted the dead crew in the kills?
@@stevevernon1978 japanese tanks in particular, they were easy to destroy and many shermans wiped them out no matter how many there were, the panzer 3's, stugs, marders, the anti tank sdkfz 251 variants were the kind of not so invincible german tanks the shermans would encounter, however the panthers, all variants of the tiger and the hetzers were a nightmare for the shermans
@@IAT1964the sherman had one of the highest crew survival rates what do you mean death trap???
@@IAT1964 still believing in myths huh? Probably think the easter bunny and santa are real too?
What one needs to remember is that, by far, the majority of tanks destroyed were not destroyed by other tanks. Most were destroyed by towed anti-tank guns, mines or hand held anti-tank weapons. Kill to loss ratios should always favour the Germans, not necessarily because of superior equipment, but because of the theatre of war and different tank doctrines. On the vast, open Russian steppes, the 88 of the Tigers and Ferdinand had a distinct advantage as they could engage enemy tanks from a far greater distance, thus Russian doctrine was to throw waves of T34s at the Germans in the hope that vastly superior numbers would ensure that enough tanks got in clise enough to engage the German armour. This greatly boosted the German's kill to loss ratio. As with their fighter planes, these ratios were far lower on the Western front. For example, the Shermans under Patton's 3rd army had a 3 to 1 kill to loss ratio.
the ratio favoured us because we had way more enemies its just that simple. ofc 1 stug can take out 5 tanks but 5 tanks can only take out 1 stug. its just math
"Russian doctine is to sand waves of cheapass poor bad communistic tankz and meat zombie rush horde". Am I right, is it historically accurate?
In the Pacific, the Sherman's outclassed the Japanese tanks in the same manner it was outclassed in Europe by the Panzer 4, Panther, and Tiger. So we can say the Sherman was the Tiger tank of the Pacific
Japanese tanks were basically from 1930s
The M4 was certainly not outclassed by the Panzer IV.
@@redaug4212 The Panzer 4 was for the most part equal to the M-4, its upgunned 75 was superior to the Sherman's standard 75MM giving it a range advantage but the EZ-8 flips that advantage the other way around
@@bernieeod57 With the Panzer IV's middling armor, the difference in gun was more or less negligible. The Panzer IV, in fact, was statistically more likely to be penetrated on hit than the M4. No doubt because of the M4's sloped glacis.
WE DIDNT CHOOSE THE STUG LIFE, THE STUG LIFE CHOSE US
Interesting and cool !!! Thanks
The Tigers were good but they needed so much regular maintenance. They took too long to build and were so finely machined that they could easily get ‘bogged down’.
Don’t forget the firefly!
So your comment literally that: "They was in theory nice, but in the fact they was pure shit"
Actually the Sherman was the tank that could get bogged down, and it was a lot lighter than the Tiger. It's off road performance was abysmal, compared to the Tiger and the Panther.
As we currently recall the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Sicily, it is interesting to recall the role of Royal Navy vessels in the destruction of axis tanks also.
That is interesting. One does not usually think of "Navy versus Tank"
Very impressive results with the STUG III, makes you wonder how the allies won! Are we including the destruction of anti tank guns and armoured car kill stats, or just tank/TD against tank/TD?
Numbers. The germans were defeated by massive numeric advantage by the allies.
In every front at essentially every moment of the war the germans were outnumbered. They would run out of ammo before the enemy ran out of troops.
Air power
it would require every single battle to have a impossible kdr for germany to win by that
These ratios are most likely very inflated. Considering, that ~ 10.000 Stug III were built, they must have destroyed more than 100,000 enemy tanks, which appears to be a bit much. For example ~ 80,000 T-34s were produced in total.
Maybe they were taking every vehicle and target, that was destroyed in account. Otherwise I could explain how they could possibly achieve a 16:1 ratio.
Did Winnie the Pooh write the AI program that narrates this? "The wonderful thing about tiggers, tiggers are wonderful things. The tops are made out of armor, their bottoms are made out of springs (ok, so they were torsion bar suspension, but that doesn't rhyme). They're bouncy pouncy trouncy flouncy, fun fun fun fun fun fun! The most wonderful wonderful thing about tiggers, is the Tigger I! I also like the way that she constantly has to introduce each vehicle as having served in World War 2, so perhaps there was a different World War II than the one mentioned in the title?
Disclaimer: not an expert in field.
With that said . . . here's an excerpt from an email to an ex tankee friend regarding this video:
I did know that the StuG III was the premier tank killer of the war. The 20,000 number killed has long been a part of off the shelf armor literature.
As we (he and I) know, modes of and reasons for employment were major factors in its "success". Despite being termed "assault guns", StuG IIIs were primarily defensive weapons through necessities forced upon Germany by its operationally and numerically superior enemies. Had Germany been on the advance in '44 a lot more StuG IIIs would've been lost per enemy kill. On the other side of the question, a single Stug zug/batterie of six vehicles pretty much stopped the allied advance on Monte Cassino for two months. Those poor Poles. Churchill hated them and their deployment as shock troops shows it. Polish units were emasculated in Italy-most of them at Monte Cassino; a position Kesselring offered to demilitarise as a World Cultural Treasure, but was refused by allied commanders (cough Mark Clark cough). Bombing the unoccupied world heritage site turned it into the perfect fortress and much unhappiness ensured for allied soldiers' wives. Falschirm and Panzergrenadiers moved in and the rest is bloody history.
M4 would not have done as well defensively, due to size (tall as a Tiger I) and that big, broad, 40mm vertical side. However, we both agree, I hope, that turreted AFVs are generally better suited for wars of maneuver. The Sherman had the most replacement parts per vehicle (and the most maintenance units per vehicle) of any AFV of the war. That figured heavily in its apparent success. Weirdly, its bogie mounted suspension was far easier to repair/replace than torsion bar vehicle suspensions. Also, compare with T34's Christie suspension whose shock absorbers were inside the hull armor.
Medium tanks trump heavies in wars of maneuver. The oddball in the room is the light tank . . . not much good for anything other than reconnaissance by attrition . . . unless your unit runs headfirst into an enemy "Flying Column" of halftrack mounted heavy weapons. When I asked a maintenance guy why German halftracks greased their track pins I was told that German AFVs tended to be much quieter. Oh. OH!
The Hellcat seems at first glance to be the perfect Panzerjaeger- very low, turreted, very fast, and mounting a gun equal to the PaK/StuK/KwK40/L48. So, better than StuG or Marder? Lately, however, the skinny on it has changed. They broke down a lot and were limited to road speeds of 30mph max, just like the fast Cromwells were. The armor could be penetrated by close range rifle fire. Ouch! This suggests that Hellcat might've rocked as a defensive weapon, per US Army textbook tactics of employment for TDs (as operational GAP fillers) . . . which never really had the chance to strut their stuff.
Jagdpanzer Elefant . . . was simply too big for Italian roads and too heavy by far for Italian bridges, something that constrained its effectiveness in later episodes (after Kursk, when 50% were lost to mechanical failure and/or mines during the first two days). As single vehicle strongpoints on Italian mountain roads when supported by suitable infantry, however, they turned Churchill's "soft white underbelly" into a series of impenetrable obstructions.
In every case, as the war went sour (from mid '43), Germany benefited from being on the defensive, while allied forces were taxed with blind advances into largely unknown territory.
The loss ratio should be higher for the both Tiger I and II tank, as many of them were lost to Mechanical break down. Some Tiger I tank were foolishly captured in a train in Russia.
They lost most of a company of Tiger I's in Italy due to the terrain and breakdowns, without firing a shot.
5,5:1 ratio comes from all Tigers that were lost (counting ones that get lost fighting or from other things like mechanical breakdowns, cause this is how it was counted), but when we only count Tigers that were lost in combat, the ratio was around 10/11:1
You're missing the point. The K-L ratio is only for comparing the losses to enemy tank guns, because the aim of this ranking is to compare the effectiveness of tanks fighting against each other on the battlefield.
Mechanical Breakdowns or any other ways of losses (aircraft, mines, artillery, infantry, AT cannon) are not relevant for this ranking, because they are not tanks, so they would manipulate the K-L ratio in a bad way. It's simple as that
@@tankmaker9807 Tiger I losses by front:
North Africa
Combat: 6
Non-combat: 25
Total: 31
Eastern Front
Combat: 402
Non-combat: 273
Other/unknown: 184
Total: 859
Western Front
Combat: 86
Non-combat: 64
Other/unknown: 37
Total: 187
Italy
Combat: 39
Non-combat: 85
Other/unknown: 37
Total: 161
Tigger be like:
I would recommend the channel Military History Visualised to any viewers of this video, he goes into great detail directly from very good sources on most of these vehicles, providing necessary commentary on the methods of collecting the data and collating it.
Tigger tanks? Whinnie The Pooh must be terrified.
I wonder if Winnie the Pooh knew his buddy Tigger was a tank in WWII?
Stug IIIs were built more than 10.000 times. Since nearly all of them were destroyed by the end of the war, It must have had 100.000 kills to achieve a 10:1 kill-ration. So I think the numbers are incorrect. Also: 4:1 for sherman tanks??? In order for that to work there would have been a german tank with a 1:4-ratio.
trucks and personal carriers count as kills lol, and the stugs were from the beginning operated by artillerymen not tankers, thats how they were capable of destroy dozens of T34's with the early Stug 75mm short gun that shoots only explisive shells... what tank you thought michael wittman do that T34 massacres? Anyway there were a lot of vehicles count as kills like trucks or transport vehicles... thats for shermans and stugs.
You have to remember how many German tanks and vehicles had to be abandoned during retreats and withdrawals, considering lack of fuel, and breakdowns yet couldn't be retrieved..
The video said the Sherman kill ratio was 2:1, not 4:1.
@@SargentoDuke No, trucks and infntry do NOT count in this ranking, at least if you want to compare tanks with each other.
It makes no sense to include other vehicles if we want to compare just tanks with each other, otherwise it would manipulate the K-L ranking in an absurd way.
Of course the StuGs destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks, but thereof the StuGs also had very high losses of their own, which lowers the K-L ratio since they had high losses too. There is no way it had such a high K-L ratio of 10:1 as claimed in this video, that would be more realistic for the Tiger or Ferdinand if anything.
Michael wittman had most of his kills in the tiger tank. And not only him alone, but also many other German Tiger aces had most of their kills in Tiger tanks.
I know this video is utter garbage
The main factor in kills to losses is whether one is on the offensive vs the defensive. Much stronger effect than any technical characteristics of the weapon system itself.
Advancing vs retreating also has an effect. An armoured vehicle breaking down while advancing can be repaired and reengage. When breaking down while retreating it's a loss.
High maneuverability can negate the offense vs defense effects. For example, the M18 was almost always on the offensive but it maintained a positive K/D ratio because its vastly superior visibility and speed allowed it to spot the enemy first, get into an ambush position, destroy the enemy, and then repeat the process.
@@collinwood6573 Moving around makes it vastly less likely that you will be the first to see and hit the enemy. Being in a defensive position, camouflaged, waiting for someone to approach.....you are vastly more likely to see and hit first.
Driving fast doesn't change that, except that it makes it more likely you are spotted first. Also, no WW2-era AFV could fire on the move. Once you want to fire, you are going to stop.
@@executivedirector7467 it seems you completely misunderstood when I said that speed allows you to get into ambush positions faster, this is backed up by US army reports. If all you do is sit in an ambush position then you will never attack or gain any ground. Even the Germans on the western front who were on the defensive almost the whole time moved around quite frequently. And yes, I already knew no tanks could fire on the move in WW2, which is part of the reason why getting into an ambush position was so beneficial. But guess what? The Sherman had a gun stabilizer, which means it could use its speed, keep the gun on target, and then fire immediately after stopping whereas other tanks, especially those with poor visibility or sights, would have to take time to reacquire the target.
@@collinwood6573 Yes, the M4 had a stabilizer, which, if used (many units disabled them) would enable the crew to engage faster. Which has nothing to do with the point you made about fast M18s engaging first.
I misunderstood nothing.
Speed is not armor.
Stug 3 is my favorite German armored vehicle.
I like the Tigger because it's bouncy.
Michael Wittmann's feat in it made it legendary. And his command was the snub nosed early model.
I suppose if it's a tank destroyer being used in defensive roles, and the enemy is notorious for mass tank assaults taking high losses, it's going to have a pretty good kill-to-loss ratio.
Great channel
A problem with kill to loss ratios using total vehicle losses is that tank roles extend beyond engaging other arrmored vehicles. The short barrel 75mm on the Sherman was retained on most tanks not due to a shortage of 76mm or 17 pdr guns, but because the tanks were primarily employed in support of infantry to engage enemy guns and machinegun positions where high explosive shells were needed. They were valued by the British in North Africa because the range at which they could effectively fire at an 88mm flak gun was greater than for British tanks at the time (using 2 pounders or 6 pounders which lacked effective high explosive shells). How many enemy guns destroyed would count as a kill?
The Stug was successfull for the same reason as the Hetzer: They were perfect ambush vehicles with a low profile.
Or the stugs could really easily withstand soviet cannons from a bigger distance whereas their cannons didn't have that much problem with penetrating armour
And they were cheap and simple, producible in numbers and maintainable in the field. The fancy stuff broke down, the stugs and hetzers kept running.
@@charlesfaure1189 assuming they had any spare panzer 38 (t)'s to get spare components and parts from
@@4T3hM4kr0n the czech factories that produced the 38t and the hetzer kept running under german occupation until the end of the war, i don't think they were lacking in spare parts
less target area to shoot at. Good gun.
The Sherman kill ratio is rather dubious given the number of vehicle the axis built. Are wheelbarrows included in the kill count?
I'm also dubious of the sherman being up there, shouldn't it be 1:2 kill ratio?
@@zionmarcelo Welp, I would even say 1:1 at best, but might as well be negative score too...
@@general796 my granpa was a stug driver and they took out 4 shermans before they abandoned their stug due to fuel shortage. He said the Shermans where the easiest target in the war because of their high profile
remember that BIG ARROW OFFENSIVE will give you 3:1 casualty ratio. that's why German has so many kills when they're in fortified position.
finally there is a video abt how strong germany panzer was in ww2. Losing a war against the allies with dominant support from all around the world
except, this video is total bs. I mean StugIII's destroyed 100k tanks? Where, in Hoi4?
just another silly YT video. Instead of sources they posted - advertisement links.
Considering how badly out numbered German tanks were by the mid-point of the war onwards, I think it is fair to say this has a decidedly negative effect on the kill to loss ratio. If you put 1000 T34s against 1000 Tigers, I think the ratio will tilt significantly in the German tank's favor. Moreso if you compare it against Shermans. Now line up 100 tigers against 500 Allied tanks, and suddenly the comparison isn't as good.
Only one problem, wars aren't fought that way.
Yes and t-34 and Sherman’s where simple to produce, Germany had a tendency to over engineer everything and the perfect example is the Tiger 2.
@@markrhodes1717: Por eso el análisis es en razones y proporciones
German tanks were typically on the defense, from mid-war on. Generally speaking, the tank that fired first won most engagements. The defender has an advantage in this, being able to pick the terrain, hide itself, present the front to the enemy, and so on. German tanks, during the Battle of the Bulge, during the time when air power was not a factor, fared about as well allied tanks when they were on the attack. And this is also why the Stugs have a great kill ratio. Low profile, used on the defense... Which isn't to say the Germans weren't tactically sound, for the most part, because, yeah, they were.
And no, not more so against the Shermans. Shermans had a bunch of advantages over T-34s, like better turret traverse speed, stabilized gun, and better vision, radios in every tank, and so on, making them more likely to get that crucial first shots off. The 75 was under-powered against Tigers and Panthers, but the 76 (or the British solution of making 1 in 4 a Firefly) addressed that issue. Both tanks had their good and bad points, with one of the good points being the winning combo of being good enough and plentiful enough. Don't underestimate the Sherman. It was a tank designed to do exactly what it did: fight and win a war thousands of miles away from where it was made. And sure, it got a bit dated, but it was WW2. Technology was advancing so fast, so much wound up a bit outdated when compared to the latest and greatest. And both tanks served in Korea.
Oh, also worth noting that German tanks were outnumbered early in the war as well. France, for example, had over 3.2k tanks, to Germany's 2.4k or so. And keep in mind that many of those German tanks were Panzer I and IIs. And then you can add in the further 700 from the British Expeditionary Force to the French numbers.
@@Axterix13 : Tus datos echan por tierra el cuento que la Alemania de Hitler al momento de iniciarse y durante TODA la WWII estaba mejor armada que sus estados gendarmes ...
Nobody talks about how high was KV tanks K/D in 1941 during the start of the german invasion when at this time their tanks cant penetrate this beast and its 76.2mm Cannon or the gigantic 152mm Howitzer Smashes entire Panzer III, Marders and early Panzer IVs Entire divisions like the Risenai and other places
Yes but like you said only during the early years 1942, but after 1943 the KV became quickly an easy target for Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand, StuG and PzIV, which lowered the KV's great K-L ratio it had from 1942 quickly...
At least..the truth about the "Ferdinand". Despite some flaws this thing was deadly and devastating.....
"while loosing only 13" - of 13 ^^ that were all of them. and none of them got shot. their engines caught fire in Kursk. AS we know from interviews of STUG drivers who saw that happen right in front of their eyes. thats why waiting months for these 13 tanks wasnt even worth it at all, cuz except 1 ferdinand TD they didnt make it to the battlefield... 13 burnt down from engine fire and theyve even bee warned bof this right on the battlefield, that their engines arent cooled well enough to climb more than 13° angle... but nazi leader commanded, so they did....
ruclips.net/video/BiwFevaJRKs/видео.html this is the interview of the stug driver.
Gudarian did warn the man about the new vehicles, and that delay was working in the Russian's favour.
@@renebatsch2555 Also the engineers right at the spot said, that they wont make it up that hill and it will grill their engines... but that Man gave orders which were deadly if u didnt follow them....
This makes no effort to take into account the extreme varieties of the M4. Some performed poorly with poor K/Loss ratios, others with different guns had "fire power". The basic M4 was most assuredly not a terror to face. However some of the later variants could handle late war Panthers head on.
Actually not correct, the poor performance of the Sherman is more of a meme then anything.
The A1, the worse designed of the Shermans, was far superior to the Panzer 3 that it was mainly fighting in North Africa. The A2 model was about equal, if not superior to the Panzer 4 that is spent most of the time fighting. the A3 was just straight superior to the Panzer 4.
Now they were out classed compared to German heavies but German heavies were extremely rare. Most Shermans were taken out by stationary guns and not by German vehicles.
Tigger tanks lol oh the wonderful thing about Tiggers, is Tigger tanks are a thing, their tops are made of the metal, their bottom are made of the springs, they're Whermacht bouncy bouncy bouncy 88m gun, and the wonderful thing about Tigger tanks is, they're pretty much all gone
The problem with the Elephant being so high on the list, is because the Germans quickly switched their production to Tigers, due to the former’s engine problems. They excelled on flat terrain, however they would easily get bogged down on hills and in mud. Because of these problems only a limited amount was built and after they were first introduced, we’re largely kept in reserve, until they were sent to Italy, but by that time the war was practically over
Imagine actual tigger tanks, bouncing across the battlefield giggeling while dropping shots on unsuspecting allied forces.
Don't you love that the OP is that lazy that they use a computer generated voice for the narration, how many got immediately confused when they heard Tiger and thought they were referring to the Disney character.
A ti-ger is a tank. A tig-er is a character from Winnie the Pooh.
Outnumbered on every battlefront and always under intense pressure from the air, how good were the Germans really? Unmatched, but, quantity has a quality all of it's own.
Wow what a groundbreaking conclusion, amazing insight.
No one else would ever came to that conclusion 😲😯😮😮
You must be a real general.@@general796
Shame, You forget about the Hungarian 43M Zrinyi. Despite the low numbers on the battlefield, they scored an impressive 7.9 k/d ratio.
A 7.9 deaths/kill ratio would be quite unfavorable. That would mean nearly 8 Zrinyi tanks were destroyed before one could achieve a single kill
@@dorfikloss4544 you got me :)