@@waqarzaman3293 This list is about tanks of World War 2 (1939-1945). This list is NOT about present day tanks. I might be mistaken but I think all tanks used by the Chinese througout the second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 were imported foreign models.
The Jagdpanther was technically not a tank, although it performed very good. Not sure why the M26 Pershing tank was included - but technically, it did see action during the last couple of months in Europe, so...
technically, the t 44 tank also participated in the battles , this list is a bunch of shit , and such tanks as kV 1 , kV 2 are generally forgotten , this list was made by a sofa expert who does not really understand tanks
@@jagunggeming9382 except in the sea Italy = queen of the mountains Germany = king of tank designs (except engine and transmission) Japan = mistress of the ocean
The comet had a 77mm HV gun, not a 17 pounder. The 77mm was in fact designated purely to distinguish between the 17 pounder and 77mm HV, as the shell itself was only 76.2mm and not actually 77mm. Also the T34 section presents itself as a T34 85 as the title says T 34 85 and the image is of a T 34 85, however the narrator and description box claim that it has a 76mm gun, which, to clarify, is incorrect. They are different models. And, despite all other information being correct and even mentioning the limitations and drawbacks of the German tanks (commendable) I personally would put them lower just because of those very reasons. They where unreliable, and too resource hungry- needing lots of oil and metal- for a country that just did not have enough of these resources as well as poor crew training and the steel quality itself being poor making it weaker, and on the tiger 2s weak welding points further weakening the armour, not to mention the low numbers actually produced and also supreme allied air power. Like I have already said, it is respectable that you have included all these drawbacks in the video, but I would put them lower because of that. Anyway, other than that, the information was pleasantly accurate and realistic. Good video, better than most.
In 1944 the Tiger and Panther had a pretty high overall operational average %. It was around 80%. That's pretty good. It dipped low in 1945 because of lack of resources, spare parts, ability to recover and repair etc. But so too did the Stug and Panzer IV. T-34s and Shermans would also have dipped low in 1945 if they were in the German Army. The flaws of German armour are quite over exaggerated.
Well the T34 also had reliability issues and was prone to breakdowns and it’s armor cracked a lot as well. American and British tanks were more reliable but would struggle going up against tanks like the Tiger 2 even with its brittle armor.
M4 Sherman is not actually made for competing other tanks it was made for supporting infantry They were mas produced because of it reliability and could be transportation quite easily and it didn't break down quite often. M4 Sherman was very effective in the Pacific as most Japanese tanks were outdated and were very lightly armoured.
@@potato23116 the 75mm Sherman could kill a panzer 4 and a stug so saying it couldn't fight tanks is complete bs,it had a lot of success in Italy and North Africa and in July 1944 a lot of Shermans were equipped with more powerful guns which could knock out a tiger 1 from more than 1000 yards: the Sherman Firefly for the British and the M4A1,A2 and A3 (76mm) (the M4A3 (76) later became the Easy 8(M4A3E8)) Not only that the U.S only had 3 documented encounters with Tiger 1s ,2 of those were with Shermans (the 3rd one being a draw between an M26 Pershing and a tiger 1) But yes I agree with what you say: it wasn't meant to fight tanks but it could, and it was very reliable and easy to mass produce,so in my opinion it was the best all round medium tank
As for jagdpanther, it is tank destroyer based on panther, and it should not been here. I suggest Pz38t or KV instead. Both took a great role in early period of ww2.
@@abyasahrizky2348 Of course, I had in my mind the KV with a 75mm gun. The KV with a 152 mm howitzer was intended to support the infantry offensive. The concrete bunker usually cannot leave the position quickly, so reload speed is not that important.
Based on effectiveness during the war, completely disagree! Top 5 in whatever order: Tiger I, T-34 (and variants), Sherman (and variants), Panther, Pnz IV (and variants)... and since we are including Tank Destroyers... either the Stug III or the Hellcat. Where there better tanks developed (later) in the war? Of course, but they didn't effect the outcome like those I mentioned. Different question... if a one on one battle in an open field, I'll take the King Tiger or JagdTiger.
They have a tank destroyer in the rankings. Can't take this ranking seriously. If everything is considered, including, cost of production, reliability, man hours needed in production, armor shape. T-34 would be no 1. It was a war winner.
This video is just riddled with errors and misleading info. For example, #8 clearly shows a T-34/85 and she says tank carries a 76.2mm. #7 is wildly misleading because very few shermans had 177.8mm of armor. #9 correctly shows a 90mm but she says the Pershing has a 102mm gun. I don't care about the rankings so much, it's all subjective. But variants of certain tanks also make this list suspect. It'd also be nice if the narrator listed what actually made these tanks so good instead of reading off statistics that are mostly already in front of our faces.
Why does this video use the modern national graphics when they should be using their WW2 versions. Also the sizes shown are not proportional correct in relation to the sizie of each tank.
this is about how good tanks are on a level playing field - its not about how easy to produce when you are winning or losing. The Germans could easily produce the heavy tanks mid war when they were still wining, so their tanks were about timing not about how good they were
If the Jagdpanther can be listed up, I think there should be more Germans. I mean Jagdtiger, StuG III, Elephant(Ferdinand).. Though, if you do it, there would be 8 German tanks in the list... 😂
The Pershing was the best tank, IMO, coming out at the end of the war, with heavier gun, armor and still utilizing great speed, turret traverse speed and stabilization which were the best in all the world. Only simplistic fanbois talk only about big guns and thick armor.
Panther tank was the fastest Tiger 1 was the strongest T-34 was the best all around Panzer 4 & Sherman M4 was the most used & basically equals to each other but weak yet they were way cheaper to make hence why we had so many of them during WW2
Хахахахаах Эта женщина какую-то дичь несет.... топ вообще не правильный.. видимо такая тематика канала точно не для нее так как она смотрит наверное лишь на размеры и ширину как все бабы
@@kan8155 yes the is-2 was one of the most feared tank by germans and they where told to not engage a is-2 in open grounds because those things completely destroyed german tank division or what that is called it wad basicly the best tank of ww2
One was capable of fighting the sherman, it was the semovente with the 75mm or even 105mm cannon. Most of the other tanks used 47 or 20mm guns so you’re right
Comet haved up to 152mm armour pn turret neck. Pz 4 shown was G version. T-34-85 image doesn't fit the description. Sherman shown haved arm must up to 50mm or 100mm depending on version
@@DerEiserneBuerger do you know how complicated the panther was? On paper it is the best tank but if we look at how much time it takes to produce 1 and in that time how much t-34s do the soviets make we can see it does not worth it. Also it crippled the economy and required skilled workers to produce which Germany didn't had that time since all of them were on the fronts. Meanwhile the dumbest peasent could be taught to make a t-34 since it was so simple.
@@bork661 There were countless problems with the panther, for example the crews were forbidden to use neutral steering because there were cases of the tanks hull literally breaking in half due to material stress, the main gun recoil system was insufficient for the powerfull cannon and it would often literally explode if the gunner shot too many times in a short time due to temperature rise in the recoil pistons. There were cases of the engine catching fire if an inexperienced driver would Rev the engine for too long (for example while driving uphill), the tank turret despite its size was incredibly cramped and only a very small person could become a gunner because a bigger person could not reach the gun sight. The tanks suspension with overlapping wheels was very hard to repair and during winter repairing it could be actually impossible meaning that a lot of Panthers were abandoned and destroyed by their own crew so the tank wouldn't be captured and reused by the enemy. The panther was very hard to escape which resulted in very poor crew Survivalibility (you can watch the last tank battle of ww2 on yt. It was a duel in between a German panther and American pershing. Notice how long it takes for the Panthers crew to bail the tank after being hit in the side). Last but not least the very infamous transmission that was designed to support a tank of the maximum weight of 30 tonnes while the panther ended up weighting above 50, which resulted in the maximal range of a panther being below 50 killometers. Yes, a panther would loose it's transmission faster than it would run out of fuel, it was that bad. After the war in the early '50s the Panthers were actually briefly used by the French army and the French made many reports about the tank. Long story short they hated them and wished they would be issued with shermans instead. That said the Panther was a very dangerous tank when it worked. It surely isn't the best tank of ww2. It's nowhere near top 10 even
With one exception the Buzz's ranking is okay. But the order kind of sucks. Unless your understanding of armor begins and ends with World of Tanks, the obvious choice for best tank of WWII is the T-34 76/85. My next choice, and I would not have made it 5 years ago, is the Sherman armed with either a 17 pounder (77mm not 76.2mm as stated in the video) or the U.S. 76.2mm. Both were good, cheap, easily maintained tanks that had guns with decent penetration power and, for the 76.2mm, a good high explosive round. The trouble with late WWII German tanks was that they always broke down. And a broken down tank is a useless piece of garbage. Steven Zaloga estimates that the Germans could have had 7 operational StuG IIIs for every operational Tiger I. If you were a German division commander defending a 25 kilometer front somewhere in the Ukraine in late 1943, which option would you prefer? The one exception I would make to Buzz's list is dropping the Tiger II for the StuG III. I'm a big fan of the StuG III, and the Tiger II is widely overrated as a combat vehicle. Just reading an account of its disastrous first combat in Prussia will give you a very good idea of the vehicles limitations.
Ranking the Sherman and the Jagdpanther ahead of the T34 is idiotic! Looking at the rankings here, there is no way that the Germans would have lost the war based on this, except that the German tanks were built in such small numbers (other than the Panzer IV), Over 40,000 T-34s were bulit, which is a major reason that the Red Army was the most successful in WW2.
Random Fact: The probability of you drinking a glass of water that contains a molecule of water that also passed through a DINOSAUR is almost 100%. -RealFacts
Yeah, I knew that. You could also say that every molecule in your body was forged in the core of a star. But I don't understand why is this relevant to the video but there it is
Если на вес в килограммах мерить, то да))) а так....высосано из пальца. Причём ягдпантер вообще не танк а САУ, и его надо сравнивать к примеру с СУ-152....
Best tank? As The Buzz says, this wasn't a "Best Tank" video. There are several other sites claiming they "KNOW" and most are wrong. Here's why. For a moment, stop comparing tanks in a vacuum. Look at them as weapons that a national army is directing against an enemy. Which one would YOU really want to use? Well, for my money, if I were a WW 2 general, I'd want one that is built well to begin with, was reliable under ALL battle conditions, could be easily repaired in the field if necessary, was standardized as to parts and weaponry, was economical and able to be produced in large, overwhelming numbers and could be easily escaped from if hit. So what tank is there that qualifies under all those critical points and, by the way, can be ferried across two oceans, can land on beaches, go underwater for short stretches and can adapt to whatever battle conditions it has to face, from firing rockets to clearing caves with flame throwing mechanisms, to clearing roads and exploding mines, to ramming hedgerows with farmer invented hedge cutters? WHICH TANK CAN DO ALL THAT? Only one. In all it's evolutionary guises and manifestations, in all the deserts, forests, hedge rows, rivers, islands, beaches, plains, mountains, in defending, attacking and in returning to the field time after time, that served armies all over the planet and saved at least one persecuted little nation from the evil that to this day surrounds it, the greatest tank of World War 2 is the Sherman in her many forms. No other tank could do what it could. It's only real negative was that it could not beat, front to front, a giant Tiger that was all bloat and breakdown and merely won on it's size. Of course, it's size, and it's badly produced innards, left it too often broken down and/or available ONLY in small numbers. This was because it takes a lot of effort to build an oversized glutton of a tank. Effective only in the limited conditions of the European war, and only under selective conditions, it often could not cross a bridge. However, it remains true that, one on one, the Tiger would beat the Sherman. That's another reason why the Sherman rarely faced the Tiger (or Panther) one on one. Unlike the two lumbering German TARGETS, the Sherman would surround the German tank (they NEVER lined up in a row like you see in Fury, unless someone was very very stupid and in charge, which DID happen!) and eventually, if the fighter bombers didn't get it, one of the Shermans would put one up the rear of Ms. Tiger and poof! There is a very APT comparison here to anyone who knows anything about war. The Tiger was like the Alexandrian Phalanx. Storm ahead and crush all before it. The Sherman was like a Roman legion. Confront, but ENVELOP and defeat, particularly by GETTING AROUND THE FLANKS AND REAR OF SAID PHALANX! History teaches us that when legion met phalanx, phalanx collapsed. Fact. The Sherman tank was the greatest tank to come out of the Second World War and only a very foolish general would have chosen to fight "the German tank way", with 1200 Tigers worldwide, over fighting with a tank produced to the tune of 50,000 and even, finally, had a gun that could cut through the armored icing of the big guy. Sherman wins when you actually have to get your hands dirty, be IN war, and use what you have to win. Shermans won. Tigers lost. The end.
Overrated, there were B1 tanks that killed a lot of panzers, like that one that killed a panzer company, but we ignore that that b1 was alone because all of the other tanks were knoked out and that b1 only killed so many because of dumb luck
@@monicariba4309 So can you explain to me why the German 88 guns had trouble immobilizing the b1s while they were jerking off to that Sherman shit? Yes ke b1 had flaws we can mention its engine and its single-seat turret but I want to remind you that the only French tank that was picked up the most was the H35 Even the Somua S35 could destroy several Panzers with one unit
@@adrii692 Yes but eventhough it was a decent tank it's not one of the best because in theory it's good but in ww2 it wasn't really a game changer. Still I respect your opinion
Where the fuck you found a 25 mm armor on Tiger 1 and 2!? Turret's and hull's roofs? Then why does IS-2 has mininimal 90 mm of armor, having only 30 mm of armor in the roof? Stop drinking that thing you consider alcohol - it's a brake fluid!
The Panther was actually a logistical and strategical nightmare of a tank. On average it could only travel 130km before needing a new gearbox, so they always had to be transported by rail, even for short distance. It was an effective tank destroyer once it got to the battle field, but could not exploit any breakthroughs due to its seriously unreliable drivetrain. So I would not call this the best tank. I would say the IS-2 was the best tank. It could travel 1000km before needing repair, and it was a heavy breakthrough tank, which could deal with any strongpoints and any German tank.
The Panther, and King Tiger Tanks were awesome Tanks when used as they should have been. They are clearly not meant to be used like T-34's or Sherman's. They were meant to drive around a little and win set piece battles firing from static positions, while the smaller armor vehicles, including the Panzer III Medium Tanks actually exploit the breakthrough and finish off the enemy. These big guys were like the Heavy Cavalry Horses meant to smash the enemy in a single big charge, but not meant to gallop around the battlefield like Dragoon Horses. The Germans designed them and then didn't/couldn't adjust to use them for what they could do given their shortcomings. They couldn't match the Sherman Tank in the role it played, which was infantry support. The Sherman was meant to travel thousands of Kilometers before needing maintenance, so it could travel along with the army, actually it was the only one that could. The Russian T-34 also had issues, they actually often wouldn't bother repairing them, just send an newly built one, it's why they ended up building over 80K of the things. I don't think there was an actual best Tank of the war, they were all different and had their strengths and weaknesses, and were used differently. The Germans awesome tanks had issues because they tried to use them the way the Americans used the M4 Sherman and the way the Russians used the T-34. Neither was going to work. The Sherman was used in exactly the same way as modern countries use the Main Battle Tank, which requires being able to be part of major troop movements, moving with the army, the Russians used the T-34 as more of a Tank vs Tank situation, to counter/neutralize enemy armor while the waves of a gigantic number of soldiers overwhelm the enemy. That's exactly what an army of 34 Million men and tens of thousands of T-34 Tanks can do in WW2.
@@jonathancummings6400 You might want to explain why German planners considered the Panther a replacement for the lighter Panzers and shut down most production facilities then.
@@daseinzigwahrem Gladly. THEY WERE IN A FANTASY REALM WHERE THAT COULD TURN THE TIDE OF THE WAR FOR THEM. However, they were in the same merciless world we live in now, and they were overwhelmed. They built a few fuel inefficient AWESOME Heavy Tanks, vs how many Tanks did the USSR and USA make during the war to specifically use against them? at least 30,000 M4 Sherman and M3 Lee Tanks from the West, and 50,000 T-34 Tanks on the Eastern front, plus about 10,000 M4 Sherman Tanks lend leased to the Russians, plus thousands more anti Tank vehicles as well. The German high command especially Hitler himself were in a delusional mental state, and the planners had to do their bidding. So you have these Panthers and Tigers who cannot travel very far without many units breaking down and with the fuel issue of Germany by 1943 onward they are going to run out of fuel as well. Honestly, given those two very problematic issues, the Soldiers fought well, put up strong resistance, lived up to their reputation as top quality military personnel, still, they couldn't win with only what, about 6,000 Panther tanks, less than 2,000 total Tiger1 and 2 Tanks. So 8K Tanks vs maybe 80,000 or 90,000 total Tanks. Even if the kill ratio was 5 to 1, they could take out 5 allied tanks for each of them they would lose as the ratio was 10 to 1. Also, because they weren't used within their limitations, many broke down, or ran out of fuel, so there weren't actually 8K at any time late in the war anyway for the Germans probably well under 5K at any point in time with under 2K in the Battle of the Bulge. One wonders what would have happened if they had 5K Panzer IV Tanks with bigger guns, and used them instead, like the allies used the similarly medium sized Sherman, and Russians the medium T-34, in that battle, then the allies still win, but take far greater casualties and are driven further West. People forget, WW2 was a war where medium tanks ruled the Sherman, T-34, and Panzer III and IV were the terrors in that war, the most effective tanks for those countries. Blitzkrieg as lethal with the fast Panzer Tanks, before the enemy knew they were under attack, there were the Panzer Tanks right in front of them, and there was no choice but to surrender. Not just weak Poland either, the French and British forces were thrown back to Dunkirk so fast they didn't even have time to organize a proper evacuation of the huge force. It's strange that the Germans, who were about fast moving, quick striking forces early in the war became about slow moving, slow developing offensives and defensives, with the Panther and Tiger 1 and 2 Tanks, of course, their only really effective defensive tactic of the late war was the Blitzkrieg style Battle of the Bulge counterattack, however, they were lacking in the Tanks that could be really effective by then.
Incorrect information, T-34-85 has 78mm armor and the turret has 60mm armor. And the speed of T-34-85 is 70kph because he get record as FASTEST TANK in second world war
Apart from the Mk 4 the German designs are over engineered and unreliable. A very important feature overlooked is the ease of maintaining the tank on the field...German tanks here would score poorly. The best German tank in WW2 was the Kripp Mk4 with the long barrelled 75 and skirts. Allied designs were far better in general
The best tank of the 2nd world war wouldn’t actually prove itself till 1973 …in the yom kippur war….yeah it was modernised by then but still the “centurion “ was a outstanding tank and 8 were deployed in Belgium in April 1945 ( before the 2nd world war ended ) so it counts ….the big Russian JS tanks count too ..
What about the KV2? It was a bunker buster block of slug tank, not made for tank to tank fighting. Barely produced them because they knew they were slow high profile death traps. I agree with you on the panther 5 though. But please take a good look at your KV2. Its terrible. I love the KV1 but the 2 was utter rubbish.
There is no historian or military specialist Who respects himself that wouldnt say that the 3 Best tanks of Ww2 were panzer 4, Tiger 2 and t34/85. Of course Buzz has a Differenz opinion. An opinion that only amuricans whith its propaganda. Disgusting
I am sure very many of them would not include Tiger 2 even in their top 10, Panzer 4 - depends on when, early in service it was actually quite disliked. I give you t34 (would not limit it to 85 variant).
I mean, as much as we all love the Tiger 2. it was over engineers and was a waste of money, always breaking down. T-34s terrible quallity due to the purge of alot the scientists and engineers etc. Common people with no knowledge on building tanks.... bad welds, engines not being efficient and breaking down. however due to how many they produced it made it actually made it useful. If you build 10000 tanks, 2 out 5 break down on the way to the front still 6000 tanks. Panzer IV i agree with, it had a great gun, ok armour and it light a mobile, compared to the comet it isnt as good due to the fact the comet has a better gun, armour and speed as well as its engine and transmission reliability.
To bad you didn't try to show all the tanks to scale. The Sherman you show is huge compared to the other tanks. Not really very realistic. Sure the Sherman was a good tank but doesn't need to be show larger then life. Come on sloppy sloppy editing. I withhold my love...
This is abaut the Best Tanks, right...!!! So Tank Destroyers doesnt count. And after 80 years of Many debates by Historians, Military Analists and Schoolars the final conclusion is that Overall The Panther was the Best Tank of WW2.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: why German tanks are overrated! Low numbers produced, weak welding points, unreliable engine, poor steel quality, requires too many resources for a country who had a crippling lack of oil and metal, poor crew training, allied air power, unreliable transmission, unreliable suspension, low man power (comparatively), abysmal speed and, on the jagdtiger, cumbersome 2 piece ammunition. Still love German tanks?
German tanks were unreliable, with constant mechanical defects, and in the last year of the war they were built with inferior steel. The best tanks in my opinion were the Soviet ones.
Keep in mind, this is not a ranking video. We are just selecting the best 10 world war 2 tanks
Nice video and very informative and very entertaining and very satisfaction more videos.
Where is Chines VT 4
The rating is well, but the tanks from Russia it was from Soviet Union. But the video is a good job.
@@waqarzaman3293
This list is about tanks of World War 2 (1939-1945). This list is NOT about present day tanks. I might be mistaken but I think all tanks used by the Chinese througout the second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 were imported foreign models.
@@waqarzaman3293 hahahaha, lol. Go check the title of this video and then think about what you just said
The Jagdpanther was technically not a tank, although it performed very good. Not sure why the M26 Pershing tank was included - but technically, it did see action during the last couple of months in Europe, so...
Jagdpanther is a self propelled. So why there's not ISU-152? Or T-28?
technically, the t 44 tank also participated in the battles , this list is a bunch of shit , and such tanks as kV 1 , kV 2 are generally forgotten , this list was made by a sofa expert who does not really understand tanks
Jagdpanther was a tank destroyer. Key word ( TANK destroyer )
A completely different tank because self-propelled
@@marcspector4997 jagdpanther wasn't a self propelled gun
Most are german designs because you know what they say.... *German engineering*
sekai ichi
For me WW2 tanks were best represented by Germans; ships by Japanese; and planes by Americans.
@@jckcc America also had great tanks or ships
@@tugalord yea, but Germany is more ready in the war
@@jagunggeming9382 except in the sea
Italy = queen of the mountains
Germany = king of tank designs (except engine and transmission)
Japan = mistress of the ocean
2 suggestions for improvements for this video: 1) use correct flags 2) make tanks to scale with one another
The comet had a 77mm HV gun, not a 17 pounder. The 77mm was in fact designated purely to distinguish between the 17 pounder and 77mm HV, as the shell itself was only 76.2mm and not actually 77mm. Also the T34 section presents itself as a T34 85 as the title says T 34 85 and the image is of a T 34 85, however the narrator and description box claim that it has a 76mm gun, which, to clarify, is incorrect. They are different models. And, despite all other information being correct and even mentioning the limitations and drawbacks of the German tanks (commendable) I personally would put them lower just because of those very reasons. They where unreliable, and too resource hungry- needing lots of oil and metal- for a country that just did not have enough of these resources as well as poor crew training and the steel quality itself being poor making it weaker, and on the tiger 2s weak welding points further weakening the armour, not to mention the low numbers actually produced and also supreme allied air power. Like I have already said, it is respectable that you have included all these drawbacks in the video, but I would put them lower because of that. Anyway, other than that, the information was pleasantly accurate and realistic. Good video, better than most.
In 1944 the Tiger and Panther had a pretty high overall operational average %. It was around 80%. That's pretty good. It dipped low in 1945 because of lack of resources, spare parts, ability to recover and repair etc. But so too did the Stug and Panzer IV.
T-34s and Shermans would also have dipped low in 1945 if they were in the German Army.
The flaws of German armour are quite over exaggerated.
Well the T34 also had reliability issues and was prone to breakdowns and it’s armor cracked a lot as well. American and British tanks were more reliable but would struggle going up against tanks like the Tiger 2 even with its brittle armor.
т 34/85 its ussr, armor max 90mm. m4 sherman not 177mm - only 76 mm max. and 12,7 ist machingun, not armor
@teslagod2003 pak 43 2km away " Hold my beer "
The Sherman frontal effective armour was 80mm (same of a t34 or kv1)
And the M4A3E2 Jumbo had 177mm of frontal effective armour and turret armour (they dont specify the Sherman variant)
@teslagod2003 yes the effective protection of a jumbo could reach 177mm (especially the turret)
M4a3e2 had really heavy armor
Wtf, M4 Sherman better then T-34/85?
What a joke...
Sherman shouldn’t be on the list, neither should Comet.
Only western Tank should be Churchill.
🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Sherman was actually pretty good especially in terms of survivability
Please check pinned comments before commenting
@@akindgoose1130 No the m4 was a deathtrP ehen hi with antitabk fir3
Exactly the only is Churchill
Dude m2 sherman seriously
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
There so bad, they were just lots of the like a bad t34
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
M4 Sherman is not actually made for competing other tanks it was made for supporting infantry
They were mas produced because of it reliability and could be transportation quite easily and it didn't break down quite often.
M4 Sherman was very effective in the Pacific as most Japanese tanks were outdated and were very lightly armoured.
@@potato23116 the 75mm Sherman could kill a panzer 4 and a stug so saying it couldn't fight tanks is complete bs,it had a lot of success in Italy and North Africa and in July 1944 a lot of Shermans were equipped with more powerful guns which could knock out a tiger 1 from more than 1000 yards: the Sherman Firefly for the British and the M4A1,A2 and A3 (76mm) (the M4A3 (76) later became the Easy 8(M4A3E8))
Not only that the U.S only had 3 documented encounters with Tiger 1s ,2 of those were with Shermans (the 3rd one being a draw between an M26 Pershing and a tiger 1)
But yes I agree with what you say: it wasn't meant to fight tanks but it could, and it was very reliable and easy to mass produce,so in my opinion it was the best all round medium tank
Deutsche Qualität 😍💪👌
True
Quality ?
There late war tanks are overenginerd expensive shit the Sherman is a high quality tank and cheep and effective in the same time 😂
@@xahmadx6442 it takes 10 Sherman to delete a tiger
@@xahmadx6442 Overall was the Panther the best Tank in WW2.
T34/85 best tank
In my opinion
As for jagdpanther, it is tank destroyer based on panther, and it should not been here.
I suggest Pz38t or KV instead. Both took a great role in early period of ww2.
Yeah..also great reload time 53 second imagine what you can do with that long reload, doing homeworks...
@@abyasahrizky2348 Of course, I had in my mind the KV with a 75mm gun. The KV with a 152 mm howitzer was intended to support the infantry offensive.
The concrete bunker usually cannot leave the position quickly, so reload speed is not that important.
You said it yourself. Tanks destroyer, key word (TANK destroyer)
@@siouneo152 no if you describe something’s purpose and it has the word TANK in it it doesn’t make it a tank
what about IS-3? If you show Jagdpanther, what about ISU-152 or SU-100?
This video is trash.
As for Is3, it did not participate in ww2 battles. As for self propelled artillery, It is topic for another top.
Ис 3 не воевал. Ису, су, это не танки
@@ktdybrjkftdbx а Ягдпантера - это танк?)
@@ktdybrjkftdbx ты ведио хорошо смортел ? это пропаганда для дебилов , и где тогда кв 1 , кв 2, квс 1
Based on effectiveness during the war, completely disagree! Top 5 in whatever order: Tiger I, T-34 (and variants), Sherman (and variants), Panther, Pnz IV (and variants)... and since we are including Tank Destroyers... either the Stug III or the Hellcat. Where there better tanks developed (later) in the war? Of course, but they didn't effect the outcome like those I mentioned. Different question... if a one on one battle in an open field, I'll take the King Tiger or JagdTiger.
Why is there a Russian flag instead of the Soviet flag?
And the crooked cross flag?
Разницы нету
Why is there Modern German flag instead of Nazi Flag and why 50 star US flag instead of 48 star flag
They had a german flag instead of the red flag with a cross
They did not need to use the nazi sign but i mean
Because the cccp symbol is declared illegal like the nazi symbol in many countrys.
They have a tank destroyer in the rankings. Can't take this ranking seriously. If everything is considered, including, cost of production, reliability, man hours needed in production, armor shape. T-34 would be no 1. It was a war winner.
This video is just riddled with errors and misleading info. For example, #8 clearly shows a T-34/85 and she says tank carries a 76.2mm. #7 is wildly misleading because very few shermans had 177.8mm of armor. #9 correctly shows a 90mm but she says the Pershing has a 102mm gun. I don't care about the rankings so much, it's all subjective. But variants of certain tanks also make this list suspect. It'd also be nice if the narrator listed what actually made these tanks so good instead of reading off statistics that are mostly already in front of our faces.
The t34 85 was not used in barbarossa
Sherman Firefly is a good tank with its long range cannon and what bout the Hellcat M8 tank?
Bob Sample is best in world
If the JS2 is on the list, shouldn't you also include the Centurion, also the Commit should be higher.
Centurion is Cold war tank , not ww2
Why does this video use the modern national graphics when they should be using their WW2 versions. Also the sizes shown are not proportional correct in relation to the sizie of each tank.
The title should have been...
"10 Best WWII Tanks [On Paper]"
this is about how good tanks are on a level playing field - its not about how easy to produce when you are winning or losing. The Germans could easily produce the heavy tanks mid war when they were still wining, so their tanks were about timing not about how good they were
GERMAN DOMINATION 😂
That's what it looks like to me.
Now all they need to do is figure out a way to actually win a war.
I respect the fact that you put sherman above the Panzer and T-34
But seriously why is the M26 above the sherman and Panzer IV?
1. If you would read the pinned comment you would see that this is not a ranking and 2. Why am i defending this channel
T-34-85 is actually the best tankof ww2
Nah, you are wrong bro. Think about what you just wrote
No, it's about best allies tank of WW2 the t-34 whereas the best tank of WW2 is tiger or pazer
It's what most Germans fears about the t-34 in mass production
@@st12p5-famosoanthonykhim8 this video isn't about best allied tanks. Plus the best allied tank of ww2 was the IS-3
@@siouneo152 it never served in WW2 iirc
If the Jagdpanther can be listed up, I think there should be more Germans. I mean Jagdtiger, StuG III, Elephant(Ferdinand)..
Though, if you do it, there would be 8 German tanks in the list... 😂
Because they weren't good enough?
I'm sorry, FERDINAND?
Yep ferdinand wasnt great
@@stevenbreach2561 StuG 3 destroyed most tanks in ww2.
@@kordik5034 yeah, it’s the only German TD that should be on the list, TBH.
The Pershing was the best tank, IMO, coming out at the end of the war, with heavier gun, armor and still utilizing great speed, turret traverse speed and stabilization which were the best in all the world.
Only simplistic fanbois talk only about big guns and thick armor.
Panther tank was the fastest
Tiger 1 was the strongest
T-34 was the best all around
Panzer 4 & Sherman M4 was the most used & basically equals to each other but weak yet they were way cheaper to make hence why we had so many of them during WW2
The JagdPanther literally means tank hunter, it’s a tank destroyer not a tank.
Jagd means hunter not tank hunter
Deutsche Qualität 😉
Хахахахаах Эта женщина какую-то дичь несет.... топ вообще не правильный.. видимо такая тематика канала точно не для нее так как она смотрит наверное лишь на размеры и ширину как все бабы
what about the b1 bis?
Panzer V better than IS-2, or Jagdpanther which is self propelled. WTF
The jagdpanther was also a t a n k
also is2s were made to hunt tigers
And they were good at doing so
also i think the tiger had difficulties trying to penetrate is 2s
@@kan8155 yes the is-2 was one of the most feared tank by germans and they where told to not engage a is-2 in open grounds because those things completely destroyed german tank division or what that is called it wad basicly the best tank of ww2
@@levicuscovikuc3526 panzer and tiger was feared by Soviets
If I was going to participate in a live fire demolition derby I would take this list seriously, if I was going to fight a war, not so much.
There is no one to beat the German tiger 🐯 love from Pakistan
Yes, the M26 Pershing, T 34 85, M4 Sherman 76mm, A34 comet, M36, M18, SU 100, SU 85, IS 2, KV 85, IS 1, ISU 152, KV 2 etc
If you want to find an Italian tank then you'll have to go to the worst tanks of all time
One was capable of fighting the sherman, it was the semovente with the 75mm or even 105mm cannon. Most of the other tanks used 47 or 20mm guns so you’re right
Or a Japanese tank
Comet haved up to 152mm armour pn turret neck.
Pz 4 shown was G version.
T-34-85 image doesn't fit the description.
Sherman shown haved arm must up to 50mm or 100mm depending on version
T-44 !!!
Didn't see service in ww2
I like how uneducated this video is. T-34 which was a piece of garbadge is in front of the Comet and the Panzerkampfwagen IV.
T-34-85 was the best imo, easy productions but still effective.
@@DerEiserneBuerger do you know how complicated the panther was? On paper it is the best tank but if we look at how much time it takes to produce 1 and in that time how much t-34s do the soviets make we can see it does not worth it. Also it crippled the economy and required skilled workers to produce which Germany didn't had that time since all of them were on the fronts. Meanwhile the dumbest peasent could be taught to make a t-34 since it was so simple.
@@bork661 except the panther was a piece of junk
@@kamilpiotrowicz248 well I don't think it was but it Just helped Germany to lose
@@bork661 There were countless problems with the panther, for example the crews were forbidden to use neutral steering because there were cases of the tanks hull literally breaking in half due to material stress, the main gun recoil system was insufficient for the powerfull cannon and it would often literally explode if the gunner shot too many times in a short time due to temperature rise in the recoil pistons. There were cases of the engine catching fire if an inexperienced driver would Rev the engine for too long (for example while driving uphill), the tank turret despite its size was incredibly cramped and only a very small person could become a gunner because a bigger person could not reach the gun sight. The tanks suspension with overlapping wheels was very hard to repair and during winter repairing it could be actually impossible meaning that a lot of Panthers were abandoned and destroyed by their own crew so the tank wouldn't be captured and reused by the enemy. The panther was very hard to escape which resulted in very poor crew Survivalibility (you can watch the last tank battle of ww2 on yt. It was a duel in between a German panther and American pershing. Notice how long it takes for the Panthers crew to bail the tank after being hit in the side). Last but not least the very infamous transmission that was designed to support a tank of the maximum weight of 30 tonnes while the panther ended up weighting above 50, which resulted in the maximal range of a panther being below 50 killometers. Yes, a panther would loose it's transmission faster than it would run out of fuel, it was that bad. After the war in the early '50s the Panthers were actually briefly used by the French army and the French made many reports about the tank. Long story short they hated them and wished they would be issued with shermans instead. That said the Panther was a very dangerous tank when it worked. It surely isn't the best tank of ww2. It's nowhere near top 10 even
@@DerEiserneBuerger the panzer III and IV could both easily penetrate the T-34 in later models
wow never knew that a tier vii and viii would be tha powerful {talking about the panther}
This isn’t WOT this is history…
Wrong for t-34/85mm have 90mm Armore max in turret.
Mistake, there was no Russia in 2WW, there was a Soviet Union
With one exception the Buzz's ranking is okay. But the order kind of sucks. Unless your understanding of armor begins and ends with World of Tanks, the obvious choice for best tank of WWII is the T-34 76/85. My next choice, and I would not have made it 5 years ago, is the Sherman armed with either a 17 pounder (77mm not 76.2mm as stated in the video) or the U.S. 76.2mm. Both were good, cheap, easily maintained tanks that had guns with decent penetration power and, for the 76.2mm, a good high explosive round.
The trouble with late WWII German tanks was that they always broke down. And a broken down tank is a useless piece of garbage. Steven Zaloga estimates that the Germans could have had 7 operational StuG IIIs for every operational Tiger I. If you were a German division commander defending a 25 kilometer front somewhere in the Ukraine in late 1943, which option would you prefer?
The one exception I would make to Buzz's list is dropping the Tiger II for the StuG III. I'm a big fan of the StuG III, and the Tiger II is widely overrated as a combat vehicle. Just reading an account of its disastrous first combat in Prussia will give you a very good idea of the vehicles limitations.
Oh dear. Mostly myths you've relegated.
@@lyndoncmp5751
Such as?
Jagdpanzer is tank destroyer
Ranking the Sherman and the Jagdpanther ahead of the T34 is idiotic! Looking at the rankings here, there is no way that the Germans would have lost the war based on this, except that the German tanks were built in such small numbers (other than the Panzer IV), Over 40,000 T-34s were bulit, which is a major reason that the Red Army was the most successful in WW2.
Panther was third best the best was the modernization tiger 2
jagdpanther is not tank
IS2 - had a best gun 122mm
If we are going off caliber, then germanys failed maus had a 128mm
@@DoitsuRyoku Soviey failed assault tanks had a 130 mm B-13 gun
Why is the Jagdpanther in this list? It is a tank destroyer not a tank. The Char B would have been a good choice.
You have some very screwed up criteria to have come up with this list!
Thats no just an original Panzer IV its A Panzer IV G the original one has a really short cannon and dont have that brown color
Random Fact:
The probability of you drinking a glass of water that contains a molecule of water that also passed through a DINOSAUR is almost 100%.
-RealFacts
Yeah, I knew that. You could also say that every molecule in your body was forged in the core of a star.
But I don't understand why is this relevant to the video but there it is
@@randomdeadpool see his name
yeah i love drinking dino piss
Если на вес в килограммах мерить, то да))) а так....высосано из пальца. Причём ягдпантер вообще не танк а САУ, и его надо сравнивать к примеру с СУ-152....
С ису 122
The... "Weapon-double-S"?
Interesting, but the choice of the tanks and even the ranking seems to be a bit arbitrary ...
"Keep in mind, this is not a ranking video. We are just selecting the best 10 world war 2 tanks" - pinned comment
Great video!
KV2 and IS 7: am I a joke to you
The kv2 wasn't actually a good tank and the is7 saw no service in ww2
Kv 2 wasnt actually come to tank i think but more to bunker destroyer
Best tank? As The Buzz says, this wasn't a "Best Tank" video. There are several other sites claiming they "KNOW" and most are wrong. Here's why. For a moment, stop comparing tanks in a vacuum. Look at them as weapons that a national army is directing against an enemy. Which one would YOU really want to use? Well, for my money, if I were a WW 2 general, I'd want one that is built well to begin with, was reliable under ALL battle conditions, could be easily repaired in the field if necessary, was standardized as to parts and weaponry, was economical and able to be produced in large, overwhelming numbers and could be easily escaped from if hit. So what tank is there that qualifies under all those critical points and, by the way, can be ferried across two oceans, can land on beaches, go underwater for short stretches and can adapt to whatever battle conditions it has to face, from firing rockets to clearing caves with flame throwing mechanisms, to clearing roads and exploding mines, to ramming hedgerows with farmer invented hedge cutters? WHICH TANK CAN DO ALL THAT? Only one. In all it's evolutionary guises and manifestations, in all the deserts, forests, hedge rows, rivers, islands, beaches, plains, mountains, in defending, attacking and in returning to the field time after time, that served armies all over the planet and saved at least one persecuted little nation from the evil that to this day surrounds it, the greatest tank of World War 2 is the Sherman in her many forms. No other tank could do what it could. It's only real negative was that it could not beat, front to front, a giant Tiger that was all bloat and breakdown and merely won on it's size. Of course, it's size, and it's badly produced innards, left it too often broken down and/or available ONLY in small numbers. This was because it takes a lot of effort to build an oversized glutton of a tank. Effective only in the limited conditions of the European war, and only under selective conditions, it often could not cross a bridge. However, it remains true that, one on one, the Tiger would beat the Sherman. That's another reason why the Sherman rarely faced the Tiger (or Panther) one on one. Unlike the two lumbering German TARGETS, the Sherman would surround the German tank (they NEVER lined up in a row like you see in Fury, unless someone was very very stupid and in charge, which DID happen!) and eventually, if the fighter bombers didn't get it, one of the Shermans would put one up the rear of Ms. Tiger and poof! There is a very APT comparison here to anyone who knows anything about war. The Tiger was like the Alexandrian Phalanx. Storm ahead and crush all before it. The Sherman was like a Roman legion. Confront, but ENVELOP and defeat, particularly by GETTING AROUND THE FLANKS AND REAR OF SAID PHALANX! History teaches us that when legion met phalanx, phalanx collapsed. Fact. The Sherman tank was the greatest tank to come out of the Second World War and only a very foolish general would have chosen to fight "the German tank way", with 1200 Tigers worldwide, over fighting with a tank produced to the tune of 50,000 and even, finally, had a gun that could cut through the armored icing of the big guy. Sherman wins when you actually have to get your hands dirty, be IN war, and use what you have to win. Shermans won. Tigers lost. The end.
...Is this....a non-braindead comment? On a buzz video? I am amazed
The Super Pershing: am i a joke to everyone?
plz make a vedio about indias future weapons.
Where is the KV-1?
My favorite tank is m4 Sherman and m 26 Pershing tank
The Pz4 is better than the Comet???
And the french B1????
Overrated, there were B1 tanks that killed a lot of panzers, like that one that killed a panzer company, but we ignore that that b1 was alone because all of the other tanks were knoked out and that b1 only killed so many because of dumb luck
@@monicariba4309 So can you explain to me why the German 88 guns had trouble immobilizing the b1s while they were jerking off to that Sherman shit?
Yes ke b1 had flaws
we can mention its engine and its single-seat turret
but I want to remind you that the only French tank that was picked up the most was the H35
Even the Somua S35 could destroy several Panzers with one unit
@@adrii692 Yes but eventhough it was a decent tank it's not one of the best because in theory it's good but in ww2 it wasn't really a game changer. Still I respect your opinion
@@monicariba4309 thanks
Its a good tank for 1940
But yes, the Tiger is better (even if it is inspired by the B1 bis)
@@adrii692 no problem, it's nice for one seeing someone on the internet not being an entitled egotistical jerk
Is-3?
Он не воевал
@@ktdybrjkftdbx А в Берлине кто катались ?
Как будто Першинги много воевали...
@@RainlineX В Берлине на параде после войны ,а так он сражение не принимал во Второй мировой войне
was never used in ww2
Where the fuck you found a 25 mm armor on Tiger 1 and 2!? Turret's and hull's roofs? Then why does IS-2 has mininimal 90 mm of armor, having only 30 mm of armor in the roof? Stop drinking that thing you consider alcohol - it's a brake fluid!
Should be a guy who sounds like Geo.C Scott announcing this
Jagpather is a tank destroyer not a tank.
Please make future weapons of Italy... beautyful vid👍👍👍
И ягдпантера, если не ошибаюсь, не танк
Это ПТ-САУ
Please makeTop 10 assault rifle in the world
The Panther was actually a logistical and strategical nightmare of a tank. On average it could only travel 130km before needing a new gearbox, so they always had to be transported by rail, even for short distance. It was an effective tank destroyer once it got to the battle field, but could not exploit any breakthroughs due to its seriously unreliable drivetrain. So I would not call this the best tank. I would say the IS-2 was the best tank. It could travel 1000km before needing repair, and it was a heavy breakthrough tank, which could deal with any strongpoints and any German tank.
The Panther, and King Tiger Tanks were awesome Tanks when used as they should have been. They are clearly not meant to be used like T-34's or Sherman's. They were meant to drive around a little and win set piece battles firing from static positions, while the smaller armor vehicles, including the Panzer III Medium Tanks actually exploit the breakthrough and finish off the enemy. These big guys were like the Heavy Cavalry Horses meant to smash the enemy in a single big charge, but not meant to gallop around the battlefield like Dragoon Horses. The Germans designed them and then didn't/couldn't adjust to use them for what they could do given their shortcomings. They couldn't match the Sherman Tank in the role it played, which was infantry support. The Sherman was meant to travel thousands of Kilometers before needing maintenance, so it could travel along with the army, actually it was the only one that could. The Russian T-34 also had issues, they actually often wouldn't bother repairing them, just send an newly built one, it's why they ended up building over 80K of the things. I don't think there was an actual best Tank of the war, they were all different and had their strengths and weaknesses, and were used differently. The Germans awesome tanks had issues because they tried to use them the way the Americans used the M4 Sherman and the way the Russians used the T-34. Neither was going to work. The Sherman was used in exactly the same way as modern countries use the Main Battle Tank, which requires being able to be part of major troop movements, moving with the army, the Russians used the T-34 as more of a Tank vs Tank situation, to counter/neutralize enemy armor while the waves of a gigantic number of soldiers overwhelm the enemy. That's exactly what an army of 34 Million men and tens of thousands of T-34 Tanks can do in WW2.
@@jonathancummings6400 You might want to explain why German planners considered the Panther a replacement for the lighter Panzers and shut down most production facilities then.
@@daseinzigwahrem Gladly. THEY WERE IN A FANTASY REALM WHERE THAT COULD TURN THE TIDE OF THE WAR FOR THEM. However, they were in the same merciless world we live in now, and they were overwhelmed. They built a few fuel inefficient AWESOME Heavy Tanks, vs how many Tanks did the USSR and USA make during the war to specifically use against them? at least 30,000 M4 Sherman and M3 Lee Tanks from the West, and 50,000 T-34 Tanks on the Eastern front, plus about 10,000 M4 Sherman Tanks lend leased to the Russians, plus thousands more anti Tank vehicles as well. The German high command especially Hitler himself were in a delusional mental state, and the planners had to do their bidding. So you have these Panthers and Tigers who cannot travel very far without many units breaking down and with the fuel issue of Germany by 1943 onward they are going to run out of fuel as well. Honestly, given those two very problematic issues, the Soldiers fought well, put up strong resistance, lived up to their reputation as top quality military personnel, still, they couldn't win with only what, about 6,000 Panther tanks, less than 2,000 total Tiger1 and 2 Tanks. So 8K Tanks vs maybe 80,000 or 90,000 total Tanks. Even if the kill ratio was 5 to 1, they could take out 5 allied tanks for each of them they would lose as the ratio was 10 to 1. Also, because they weren't used within their limitations, many broke down, or ran out of fuel, so there weren't actually 8K at any time late in the war anyway for the Germans probably well under 5K at any point in time with under 2K in the Battle of the Bulge. One wonders what would have happened if they had 5K Panzer IV Tanks with bigger guns, and used them instead, like the allies used the similarly medium sized Sherman, and Russians the medium T-34, in that battle, then the allies still win, but take far greater casualties and are driven further West. People forget, WW2 was a war where medium tanks ruled the Sherman, T-34, and Panzer III and IV were the terrors in that war, the most effective tanks for those countries. Blitzkrieg as lethal with the fast Panzer Tanks, before the enemy knew they were under attack, there were the Panzer Tanks right in front of them, and there was no choice but to surrender. Not just weak Poland either, the French and British forces were thrown back to Dunkirk so fast they didn't even have time to organize a proper evacuation of the huge force. It's strange that the Germans, who were about fast moving, quick striking forces early in the war became about slow moving, slow developing offensives and defensives, with the Panther and Tiger 1 and 2 Tanks, of course, their only really effective defensive tactic of the late war was the Blitzkrieg style Battle of the Bulge counterattack, however, they were lacking in the Tanks that could be really effective by then.
The flags are wrong.
Don’t distort history.
Why the fuck are there British tanks
british tanks were prety good
What are the criteria for making this list?? So many specs are wrong...oh so wrong. Nice try, but no cigar.
Incorrect information, T-34-85 has 78mm armor and the turret has 60mm armor. And the speed of T-34-85 is 70kph because he get record as FASTEST TANK in second world war
The hellcat was the fastest tank...
And you completely fucked up the armor
Apart from the Mk 4 the German designs are over engineered and unreliable. A very important feature overlooked is the ease of maintaining the tank on the field...German tanks here would score poorly. The best German tank in WW2 was the Kripp Mk4 with the long barrelled 75 and skirts. Allied designs were far better in general
WW2 time Russia is SOVIET UNION
The best tank of the 2nd world war wouldn’t actually prove itself till 1973 …in the yom kippur war….yeah it was modernised by then but still the “centurion “ was a outstanding tank and 8 were deployed in Belgium in April 1945 ( before the 2nd world war ended ) so it counts ….the big Russian JS tanks count too ..
centurion never seen combat in ww2 hence it didnt hit the list
Nice try,and my Regt was the one issued with Cent Mk 1,but no cigar.Played no part in WW2
It proved itself in Korea in the early 50's.
The jagdpanther is considered a tank destroyer and not s tank
You could get better info from Wikipedia. It is more accurate than the info in this video easily.
Wow.. how evolved...
Hmm kv2? Or panther 5?
Hmmm there maybe a bit little unfair here
What about the KV2? It was a bunker buster block of slug tank, not made for tank to tank fighting. Barely produced them because they knew they were slow high profile death traps. I agree with you on the panther 5 though. But please take a good look at your KV2. Its terrible. I love the KV1 but the 2 was utter rubbish.
There is no historian or military specialist Who respects himself that wouldnt say that the 3 Best tanks of Ww2 were panzer 4, Tiger 2 and t34/85. Of course Buzz has a Differenz opinion. An opinion that only amuricans whith its propaganda. Disgusting
I am sure very many of them would not include Tiger 2 even in their top 10, Panzer 4 - depends on when, early in service it was actually quite disliked. I give you t34 (would not limit it to 85 variant).
I mean, as much as we all love the Tiger 2. it was over engineers and was a waste of money, always breaking down.
T-34s terrible quallity due to the purge of alot the scientists and engineers etc. Common people with no knowledge on building tanks.... bad welds, engines not being efficient and breaking down. however due to how many they produced it made it actually made it useful. If you build 10000 tanks, 2 out 5 break down on the way to the front still 6000 tanks.
Panzer IV i agree with, it had a great gun, ok armour and it light a mobile, compared to the comet it isnt as good due to the fact the comet has a better gun, armour and speed as well as its engine and transmission reliability.
„British invented the tank and the Germans perfected it“
-Alfred Penningworth
By making it overweight to the point it bursts into flames when climbing a hill.
@@harmdallmeyer6449 you tell that stinking wehraboo.
Tiger 2 on top
Tiger 2
So İts true a german tank means everything
Where is the maus...
The Maus didn't even drive, it would've also been useless and a waste of resources just like the tiger 2 but this channel never makes sense eitherway
To bad you didn't try to show all the tanks to scale. The Sherman you show is huge compared to the other tanks. Not really very realistic. Sure the Sherman was a good tank but doesn't need to be show larger then life. Come on sloppy sloppy editing. I withhold my love...
This is abaut the Best Tanks, right...!!!
So Tank Destroyers doesnt count.
And after 80 years of Many debates by Historians, Military Analists and Schoolars the final conclusion is that Overall The Panther was the Best Tank of WW2.
Jagdpather is tank destroyer
most of the german tanks were bulldozers that can blow your freaking head in a matter of seconds
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: why German tanks are overrated!
Low numbers produced, weak welding points, unreliable engine, poor steel quality, requires too many resources for a country who had a crippling lack of oil and metal, poor crew training, allied air power, unreliable transmission, unreliable suspension, low man power (comparatively), abysmal speed and, on the jagdtiger, cumbersome 2 piece ammunition. Still love German tanks?
@@2ndcomingofFritz source : Biden's history
Top 10 best light tanks in 2020
No such thing as "light" tanks in today, study more before suggesting stuff please
Buzz
Always enjoy your videos. Thanks for the info and the super narration.
У нацистской Германии был другой флаг. И российский флаг в 40х годах, при Союзе, тоже не очень уместен
The t34 85 better than the sherman and the sherman can’t have that thick armor
They faught each other in Korea, the Sherman won
@@harmdallmeyer6449 but that us the e8 not the a3
@@k5loptc743 yes, and the North koreans had the 85. Whats your Point?
Is3 ?
was never used in ww2
German tanks were unreliable, with constant mechanical defects, and in the last year of the war they were built with inferior steel. The best tanks in my opinion were the Soviet ones.
#1 Tank name is wrong, not Panzer, instead PANTHER!!!
You know there was a tank in ww2 called the panther right?