The 5 Deadliest Tanks In World War II
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- During World War I, the first tanks were manufactured. It was believed that they were unbeatable land ships that had the potential to break the impasse in trench warfare and ultimately to triumph. Tanks were unable to fulfil their promise during World War I due to technological issues. This was a significant loss for the military. By the time of World War II, however, they had become the most important weapon on land and the primary means by which countries might be taken over or freed. Here are the five tanks that were considered to be the most effective and lethal during World War II.
All Tank Model Credits goes to Tank Encyclopedia
tanks-encyclopedia.com/
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - Zábava
Hold on a minute the hell is that thumbnail?!
They did it in purpose so people can enter the video to see and comment for the miss information in the thumbnail
Girl ithis is ww2 you can put the correct flags in your video
I truly didn't wanna like this because of the kindergarten grammar. Facts are facts.😂
@@timmycook8291that's true 😂👍🏻
Did you not double-check the video icon?! You applied the wrong flags!
Was waiting for the Tiger to come up? Maybe it wasn’t very deadly
According to my calculations of destroyed targets the top 5 are:
Panther
Tiger
Panzer IV
StuG
T-34
The thumbnail💀
Stug isnt a Tank. So why IT IS in a video about Tanks????
Stugs were assault and anti tank
Thats exactly what she says at 5:55. But it is an armored vehicle that often was used in the role of a tank.
The M4 is already one of those things, but reliably it has already been, did not necessarily meet the German Tiger 1 and 2 too good battle tanks. Even if they were running. I would have relied more on the Jagt tanks, they usually ran quite well and did their job. Verri NIce Video.
5:51 It was definitely not compared to tanks like the Centurian that was put into service in 1946 which had a better gun mobility and I think better armor and other tanks after WW2 and late WW2
yes, and no match agaist t54
@@ales811507 What you do not understand about TANKS OF WWII!?
Haven’t you done this already?
Sloped armour was on the sherman tank and many other tanks in the world. Even the m3 had sloped armour.
For people asking about the thumbnail They did it in purpose so people can enter the video to see and comment for the miss information in the thumbnail
I never understood this. If the Stug isn't a tank then the Mark 1 isn't a tank either right?
Sherman tank was the easiest to get out of as well as the pzkw iv.
The Sherman also caught on fire easily. Tommycookers in North Africa.
@briankorbelik2873 It was due to the placement of the ammunition. It wasn’t much different from other tanks.
No tiger tank or JS 2 tank ?
Before making any video like this better read some real statistics / raports / history of the vehicles you choose as "Best". I won't even comment on that misleading thumbnail.
A) You praise T-34 (It's very important what version - Early and mid 76 versions with old turret were abyssmal tanks - The only thing that saved them was their quantity. For example I don't exactly remember the number, but T-34/76 should have been under mainetance after driving around 200-300km. Not to mention horrible crew conditions as in every soviet tank. There is much to say about how terrible it was. At best it was a mid tank...). It's sloped armor also wasn't as good due to how bad materials soviets use to build it - Even if german shell didn't penetrate the armor, it often caused shrapnel burst on it's crew from inside....
B1) Panzer 4 wasn't "next" tank from panzer 1 / 2 / 3. Even if we compare it to 3 it had completly other asignments to complete - It was meant as a support tank for infantry. It's high caliber short 75mm gun proves the point. It also depends what version we talk about - Later version had a good enough armament, but were introduced when enemy already had similiar cannons - Not to mention that even more armored late war H / J were not armored enough. So yeah, also the "Good armor" myth you've showed in the video is complete bullshit.
B2) You also say that it was german main tank which is straight up false - At best it was around 20% (mostly below) of panzertruppe used tanks. To put it into perspective - Shermans were I believe more than 60% of USA tank units composistion - There is a difference huh?
C) M4 was not good armed? Please read about african campaigns. Also read about it's goal - It wasn't meant to fight enemy tanks. It was a general purpose tank, so having it in mind - It WAS well armed. Even the short 75mm gun could easily penetrate german Panzer 1-4 in front from high distance.
D) Panther? Really? Ofc it was deadly... If it didn't broke before entering combat. Now please read about battle of kursk. If we even forget that - Panthers introduction into panzertruppe was a true horror. Germans never achieved even in 20% changing panzer 4 for panzer 5. German reports say how low quantity of those tanks was a crucial problem in terms of unit combat readiness.
D2) More powerful armament? I think you forgot about Tiger 1 88mm legendary cannon - I know it's named Panzer "6" but the number doesn't really reflect the order of panzerkampfwagen introduction.
D3) Sloped armor WAS NOT coppied from T-34. Germans knew damn well about it's existence, but didn't apply it from different mechanical issues which sloped armor would cause in their tanks.
D4) More powerful than any allied tank? Let me introduce you 90mm Pershing or M36 Jackson cannons...
E) I'm glad that you didn't forget about STUG III. It is not a tank as you said, so why is it on this list? It was definitely top 1 or 2 most effective german vehicles, but not a tank... It would be much better to put it into top 5 deadliest tank destroyers honestly
You are more informative than this video
The Panzerkampfwagon VEE 😏
wagen, not wagon....
I think there's some errors in the thumbnail and I'm never watching a video on your channel again
Wow...a big loss for human kind!
Says T-34, shows T-34/85
Shows the both!
Where is Tiger, game changer? STUG - not tank 😉
Wow never knew the Sherman was "Russian" or the T34 being "german" we've been lied to guys 😀
You watched the film, you 1d10t?
Well the Soviets did use Shermans, so it’s not entirely wrong.
As a tank nerd WHY IS THE STUG III G AMERICAN? AND WHY IS THE M4 SHERMAN RUSSIAN AND THE T-34 GERMAN?!!
Because you are not a nerd, you are just a simple 1d10t who did not watch the film!
Ye gods! Thumbnail flags all over the shop, voice-over sounded like a Radio Shack project build . . . credibility for future videos, not good.
Russia should bring back theT34 and replace the T72
Or not! Seems that T72 did well against the mighty Abrahms! First strike, 6 km??? Outch!
@@cosmincasuta486two Bradley fighting vehicles beat the crap out of a T-90. Just guns killed the tank.
I support M4 Sherman.
I thought the Sherman was American
It was.... still better watch the clip before comenting. That prevent you of looking like an 1d10t!
the sherman is american, they probably misinformed others with the thumbnail
It is is, but the Soviets did use them.
забыли зверобоя су 152 , ису 152
The Su152 was not even an actual tanks, it was an assault gun. And didn't make a significant difference on the battlefield
@@Wyomingchief but they put the STUG III in which is also an assault gun/ TD so he is right
Is this AI generated? There's everything tank fans WANT to hear. It's not necessarily accurate.
🥳🥳🥳🥳
..in der Küche brennt das Essen an ...
‘Deadliest,’ or ‘most produced’ tanks of ww2? List is not even close to being accurate…..#1 Stug III isn’t even a tank….
Sounds like an ai voice
WTF
I'm fairly certain that the Sherman was American, the stug was German, and the t34 was russian. Double check your shit before you post
T34 was a Soviet Union tank. There was Russia till the Bolsheviks came and it became the Soviet Union. When the govt of the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990’s it became Russia again.
I think the best WW2 tanks are ISU-152, IS-3, Pershing, Panther, T-34-85
is-3 had terrible reliability problems
Is3 want even in ww2 it was at the parade when ww2 was over but had 0 combat in ww2
Panther was one of the worse tanks of ww2 due to it's horrible reliability problems in terms of both driving and mainetance. IS-3 didn't see battle in ww2. ISU-152 is not a tank. Only pershing (Tho it was far fetched project, americans didn't really need it at all) and T-34-85 could be somewhat called "the best". Personally I think shermans both with short 75mm and long 76mm cannons were closest to perfection, even tho something like "best tank" doesn't exist. Best for what?
@@totala6658 In the video was Stug 3, which is AT, so ISU-152 can be counted
@@RK_BDR_TIMP It doesn't mean that it should be there, both STUG and ISU-152. Btw. ISU-152 is not a AT nor TD which you probably meant. It's a self-propelled gun designed as a support weapon...You really don't need a 152mm cannon just for the sake of destroying enemy tanks - It's for destroying fortifications
This video has to get in the craw of the Sherman fan bois! 😆😆🤣 ay Dave Zollo
Serman tank it was deadliest for the crew..thats for sure.......
Despite the legends that describe it as a lighter, in reality statistically it is the tank with the highest crew survival rate in the IIWW.
You forgot about tiger 1,2 tank
Well they actually would have been deadly if they had been produced in any significant quantities. But let's face it they were too much too late to make a difference
@@Wyomingchief Tiger I was indeed a deadly beast - But 2? Nah man, that's utter shit. Even if mass produced - From where germans would take oil to even drive it? What about it's ennormous weight thus extremly limited mobility? Also it was introduced when germany already lacked experienced crews so like okay - In direct battle it might have been a scary tank, but when you think of it in a strategic / operational way it was completly failed project in many aspects. Too many
Another "expert: who "runs his mouth" in matter he does not have any idea about. this info is crap. Deadliest tank should be for death kill ratio, not this crappy clickbait info.
This is a joke list....!!!
Really, a German flag on a Sovjet tank? Leave this to people who know what they are doing
Really...you watched the clip or just being stwp1d!?
She only half right
Popierwsze Stug III to nie był czołg tylko działo samobieżne po drugie T 34 to to miałbym czołg ale wyszło kupa złomu po trzecie Sherman bardziej przypominał zapalniczkę niż czołg kto buduje takie wysokie czołgi żeby było je łatwiej trafić hehehe
Americans, because crew comfort is actually quite important. also it offered a surprising amount of survivability.
One of the downfalls of T-34, slopped (sherman is also slopped, but that's why it is so high, so that crew has some actual space) but so cramped it was hard to get in and out and exhausting to move inside it.
also probably why the Panther is also so large.
Girl u are really good in promoting your own content. There's no better way to, but stimulate arguing of it among silly dump mom's experts 🤬🥱😉 Good girl. I'd have liked to meet u live...💋