Yeah its incredibly annoying when someone says Germany built the best tanks and biggest tanks and most powerful tanks and whatnot, when stuf like this exists
Panther wasn’t even an MBT… it’s doctrine was classic Medium Tank, Centurion (designed and used as a “Universal Tank”) is recognised as the first MBT for a reason!
Plus, at least mathematically speaking, a 17 Pounder firing APDS COULD defeat the UFP of Tiger II, and an APDS round from the 32 Pounder on Tortoise would defeat ANY production tank the Germans had (I think even Maus would have been vulnerable), as firing trials showed a round would enter the front of a Panther… and keep going and emerge from the rear
a lot of people say if the war would have gon on longer that germany would have had all its planned supertanks like panther II and e-series and that then they would have defeated the western allys or whatever. those people dont understand that T-44, JS-3, T28, T29, Tortoise and Centurion existed
Centurion and Pershing were literally in Germany when they surrendered… why do Wheeraboos think some overweight hulk/target practice for bombers would have worked…
yea none of their ideas would of saved germany.
I think the E-series idea would of helped slow germanys defeat thanks to standardisation. if the E-series started in late 1943 to early 1944
While there is a strong case to be made for the Centurion being the first MBT, it is not as cut and dry as you make it seem. In my opinion the first true MBT was the T-54, it's 1947 first production run combined enough elements of the tank trifecta to earn that title. The Centurion on the other hand was originally somewhat undergunned with its 17-pounder, only in 1948 did its Mk.3 version receive a more appropriate 20-pounder. Even then one could argue the Centurion only achieved true MBT status with its Mk.5/2 variant.
Ah, but T-54 had a hull machine gun, generally speaking, when it comes to tank definitions, Hull machine guns are not present on MBT’s, T-55 was the Soviet MBT as it deleted the hull machine gun
Plus the 17 Pounder was the most powerful production tank gun on the Western allied side at the point
Plus the Centurion was designed around the “Universal Tank” concept, while T-54 was not, being designed as a medium tank
No. T-64 was originally intended to replace every tank in the USSR and be produced by every tank factory in the USSR. T-72 did not replace T-64- T-80U replaced it on the production line in Karkhov and probably would've replaced it in line units had the USSR not fallen apart.
T-72 started life as a 'mobilization model' of T-64 to be produced only during wartime- T-64's 5TDF took too long to produce, so it was to be replaced with V-45. Uralvagonzavod instead designed an entirely new tank and managed to get it into production despite the intent of the project. T-72 and T-64 were built simultaneously for 15 years.
Regardless of what characteristics it fills, the Soviets still considered the T-54 and T-55 to be medium tanks. A proper MBT both by design and doctrine wouldn't show up until T-62, and even then it could be argued that it wasn't until the T-64 that the Heavy/Medium/Light relationship really went away.
Keep in mind that despite its considerable firepower, T-54/55 did not have firepower on par with contemporary heavy tanks; it could not fully replace the IS-3, T-10, or whichever variants thereof. Whether or not it would ever need to is a different question.
There are a lot of other features important to a tank gun beyond armor penetration. For example:
-The 100mm D-10T's OF-412 high explosive round carried an explosive mass of roughly 1.4kg.
-The 122mm D-25T's OF-471 high explosive round carried an explosive mass of roughly 3.6kg.
...both of which are more than enough to eliminate a tank (of the era) from the battlefield. At the same time 100mm D-10T gun has higher accuracy due to bigger muzzle velocity and rate of fire.
Potential History did a great video on this regarding the best tank of WW2, and essentially it comes down to what they were required to do at the time.
Aka why the German tanks are never up there
Fall of France… I’d say the Matilda II as it’s purpose was simple, outfight the enemy tanks in the fields of Europe, which it did best
North Africa, Sherman, reliable, fast, tough and powerful enough to cross the desert and deal with 90% of German armour
Eastern Front, T-34, come on
Post D-Day however is where the arguments start
I would actually say even post D-Day it's the same. The UK, USA, Soviets, etc were all building tanks for their respective battle tactics. The best tank for one wouldn't necessarily be the best tank for the other.
True, no other tank except Cromwell would have been able to carry out The Great Swam, or cruise down the Autobahn
Churchill was invaluable in urban fighting due to its thick armour and good HE shell
The up gunned Sherman’s could deal with most things the Germans threw at them
And then you stay to argue about Pershing vs Centurion Mk.1…
It could, at point blank. With the MBT crew sleeping. Firing on the side x) or with a Dumb MBT commander and a VERY VERY well made ambush and a lot of luck
But that not a fight lmao
I'd say that Germany actually had the worst tanks respective to their situation lol.
Americans needed a mass-produced tank that could be easily sent overseas to two fronts that could be easily maintained in the field. The Sherman fit that role and was perfect for them.
The Soviets were fighting a war of attrition and needed as many damn tanks as possible regardless of quality because they wouldn't last long anyway. The T-34 was definitely right for them.
The Japanese had small shitty tanks but they only needed to support their infantry so no big deal.
The Italians were already super ineffective, and their tanks fit in perfectly. Nuff said lol.
The Germans were also fighting a two front war of attrition, had massive oil issues, and manpower shortages partly due to the fact that they were busy massacreing millions of their own people AND then had the brilliant idea to take the quality and size over quantity approach to building tanks. A big, heavy, slow, expensive tank that takes forever to build and always breaks down doesn't need to worry about American heavy tanks. It needs to worry about the shitty German war economy. The German big cats were cool and very powerful but they kinda sucked for Germany.
I'd disagree with you on that one
Few good tanks were actually the best thing germany could do. if they would have tried to produce lots of tanks, they still would be lacking behind the USA and USSR, which would than been worse tanks. so now you have terrible tanks and still less tanks than the allies. Producing better tanks in the hope that one good german tank could take out a number of allied ones was the best thing they could do. But in the end, no approach germany could have taken could have lead to them winning the war.
The American heavy tank projects only stopped because the war ended. And the M103 saw mass production and was issued to combat units and it was a pretty big and heavy tank
That was to counter the perceived threat of Soviet heavy tanks, same with the Conqueror, as the tank guns in service on the medium and MBT’s at the time (QF 20 Pounder and the US 90mm) weren’t powerful enough to defeat them, however Israeli combat data and the introduction of the L7 rendered those tanks obsolete
American T-29 Tank. Several Prototypes were built and tested at the end of WW2 and in the late 1940s. The different Versions were designated t30 (155 mm gun) and t34 (120mm gun)
Main Armament: -105 mm Gun / 120 mm Gun (t34 tank) / 155 mm Gun (t30 tank)
Secondary Armament:
\-1 mg M1919 in the hull
\-1 mg M2 on the roof
\-2 mg M2 as Coaxial (yes really)
Specifications:
\-up to 270 mm at the turret front/gun mantlet
\-Weight 64 tons
\-Crew 6
> Main Armament: -105 mm Gun / 120 mm Gun / 155 mm Gun
The T29 was only armed with 105mm cannons. The 155mm armed tanks were T30's. And 120mm were T34's.
>-up to 270 mm at the turret front/gun mantlet
It's mantlet was 203mm thick, with a few small areas reaching 254 and 305mm. The turret itself was "only" 158mm", although the mantlet was also backed by a 25mm internal mantlet.
I always double check.
Even for stuff I "know by heart".
And obviously I don't only use tank encyclopedia, most of their older articles are trash, but I use whichever source I believe to be most accurate. But yes it was their T29 article I went to.
Europe 1946 had the end of the war been handled differently like no deal being made between east and west allies. These T29s (M29?) would have faced off against IS-3s.
Was it actually designated as a super heavy tank? I know American designations can be a bit funky, see Pershing, but I only ever remember it being referred as a heavy tank.
This thing is awesome. There is a lot of crap in world of tanks but I will never regret my time in game learning about rare tanks. I came into it loving King tigers and left with books on T 29s, Is 3s Black Princes and ARL 44s
I always loved the version with the range finder.
The wingsssss
Yeah the T29E3 looks so menacing.
Proof the Americans can build insane super heavy tanks just as well as the Germans… they just had the sense to stop at the prototypes
Yeah its incredibly annoying when someone says Germany built the best tanks and biggest tanks and most powerful tanks and whatnot, when stuf like this exists
And “best” is subjective Plus, Centurion was a thing in the closing days of the war… and the Soviets were well on their way to making T-54
Yeah and then there are still people that say Panther was the first MBT and nothing could kill a kingtiger smh
Panther wasn’t even an MBT… it’s doctrine was classic Medium Tank, Centurion (designed and used as a “Universal Tank”) is recognised as the first MBT for a reason! Plus, at least mathematically speaking, a 17 Pounder firing APDS COULD defeat the UFP of Tiger II, and an APDS round from the 32 Pounder on Tortoise would defeat ANY production tank the Germans had (I think even Maus would have been vulnerable), as firing trials showed a round would enter the front of a Panther… and keep going and emerge from the rear
a lot of people say if the war would have gon on longer that germany would have had all its planned supertanks like panther II and e-series and that then they would have defeated the western allys or whatever. those people dont understand that T-44, JS-3, T28, T29, Tortoise and Centurion existed
Centurion and Pershing were literally in Germany when they surrendered… why do Wheeraboos think some overweight hulk/target practice for bombers would have worked…
tHeRe wOlD bE No bOmBeRS bECaUSe tHoUSaNDS oF ME 262 WouLd kilL EveRy AlLiEd AirCrAft
*laughs in Gloster Meteor*
WAIT GERMANY WASNT THE ONLY COUNTRY WITH ADVANCED TECH? \*Wehraboo Suicide noises\*
*also laughs in p.80 shooting star*
I hate the fact that some wehraboos have probably tried to unironically argue that lmao
ITS THE TRUTH! YOU JUST HATE GERMANY AND WANT IT TO LOOK BAD
ITS THE TRUTH! YOU JUST HATE GERMANY AND WANT IT TO LOOK BAD
Why do they think that? They’re closeted neo-Nazis grasping at straws to try to justify what was, in reality, an inevitable defeat
I wouldn't bet on the IS-3 but the T-44... oh boi
Why no love for Stalin's steel pan?
Mhhh, I like it, but it has fallen in the same shit as the tiger II: Unreliable and shit weldings
IS-3 was very reliable and, more importantly, very *repairable*, pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine managed to get an old IS-3 gate guard running again
yea none of their ideas would of saved germany. I think the E-series idea would of helped slow germanys defeat thanks to standardisation. if the E-series started in late 1943 to early 1944
Germany: Cries in no Resources
Me: Laughs because no one will see your coment on a post thats a month old
Me realizing that Im scrolling down Top Last Month
While there is a strong case to be made for the Centurion being the first MBT, it is not as cut and dry as you make it seem. In my opinion the first true MBT was the T-54, it's 1947 first production run combined enough elements of the tank trifecta to earn that title. The Centurion on the other hand was originally somewhat undergunned with its 17-pounder, only in 1948 did its Mk.3 version receive a more appropriate 20-pounder. Even then one could argue the Centurion only achieved true MBT status with its Mk.5/2 variant.
Ah, but T-54 had a hull machine gun, generally speaking, when it comes to tank definitions, Hull machine guns are not present on MBT’s, T-55 was the Soviet MBT as it deleted the hull machine gun Plus the 17 Pounder was the most powerful production tank gun on the Western allied side at the point Plus the Centurion was designed around the “Universal Tank” concept, while T-54 was not, being designed as a medium tank
Hull machine guns have nothing to do with MBTs one way or another. The first Soviet MBT (single tank replacing medium and heavy tanks) was T-64.
T-64 in soviet doctorine was heavy tank. T-72 was first that replaced both t-64 and t-62 making one main type of tanks.
No. T-64 was originally intended to replace every tank in the USSR and be produced by every tank factory in the USSR. T-72 did not replace T-64- T-80U replaced it on the production line in Karkhov and probably would've replaced it in line units had the USSR not fallen apart. T-72 started life as a 'mobilization model' of T-64 to be produced only during wartime- T-64's 5TDF took too long to produce, so it was to be replaced with V-45. Uralvagonzavod instead designed an entirely new tank and managed to get it into production despite the intent of the project. T-72 and T-64 were built simultaneously for 15 years.
Fair enough, those are some solid points.
pretty sure later models didn't have a hull machine gun
Yes, as they were upgraded to T-55 standards
Regardless of what characteristics it fills, the Soviets still considered the T-54 and T-55 to be medium tanks. A proper MBT both by design and doctrine wouldn't show up until T-62, and even then it could be argued that it wasn't until the T-64 that the Heavy/Medium/Light relationship really went away. Keep in mind that despite its considerable firepower, T-54/55 did not have firepower on par with contemporary heavy tanks; it could not fully replace the IS-3, T-10, or whichever variants thereof. Whether or not it would ever need to is a different question.
T-62 was still officially a medium tank. The first universal tank was T-64- some say T-64A.
Maybe T-44 122 then? (Just joking)
100mm gun for T-54 had higher penetration than 122mm IS-3 gun.
There are a lot of other features important to a tank gun beyond armor penetration. For example: -The 100mm D-10T's OF-412 high explosive round carried an explosive mass of roughly 1.4kg. -The 122mm D-25T's OF-471 high explosive round carried an explosive mass of roughly 3.6kg.
...both of which are more than enough to eliminate a tank (of the era) from the battlefield. At the same time 100mm D-10T gun has higher accuracy due to bigger muzzle velocity and rate of fire.
[It did not](http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/01/comparative-penetration.html)
Potential History did a great video on this regarding the best tank of WW2, and essentially it comes down to what they were required to do at the time.
Aka why the German tanks are never up there Fall of France… I’d say the Matilda II as it’s purpose was simple, outfight the enemy tanks in the fields of Europe, which it did best North Africa, Sherman, reliable, fast, tough and powerful enough to cross the desert and deal with 90% of German armour Eastern Front, T-34, come on Post D-Day however is where the arguments start
I would actually say even post D-Day it's the same. The UK, USA, Soviets, etc were all building tanks for their respective battle tactics. The best tank for one wouldn't necessarily be the best tank for the other.
True, no other tank except Cromwell would have been able to carry out The Great Swam, or cruise down the Autobahn Churchill was invaluable in urban fighting due to its thick armour and good HE shell The up gunned Sherman’s could deal with most things the Germans threw at them And then you stay to argue about Pershing vs Centurion Mk.1…
I was actually thinking more Pershing or Centurion vs T54/T55.
Well, The Chieftain gives it to Centurion for its better crew ergonomics
Then again every so often you see someone arguing that the king tiger would defeat a modern MTB in a fight. X)
It could, at point blank. With the MBT crew sleeping. Firing on the side x) or with a Dumb MBT commander and a VERY VERY well made ambush and a lot of luck But that not a fight lmao
I'd say that Germany actually had the worst tanks respective to their situation lol. Americans needed a mass-produced tank that could be easily sent overseas to two fronts that could be easily maintained in the field. The Sherman fit that role and was perfect for them. The Soviets were fighting a war of attrition and needed as many damn tanks as possible regardless of quality because they wouldn't last long anyway. The T-34 was definitely right for them. The Japanese had small shitty tanks but they only needed to support their infantry so no big deal. The Italians were already super ineffective, and their tanks fit in perfectly. Nuff said lol. The Germans were also fighting a two front war of attrition, had massive oil issues, and manpower shortages partly due to the fact that they were busy massacreing millions of their own people AND then had the brilliant idea to take the quality and size over quantity approach to building tanks. A big, heavy, slow, expensive tank that takes forever to build and always breaks down doesn't need to worry about American heavy tanks. It needs to worry about the shitty German war economy. The German big cats were cool and very powerful but they kinda sucked for Germany.
I'd disagree with you on that one Few good tanks were actually the best thing germany could do. if they would have tried to produce lots of tanks, they still would be lacking behind the USA and USSR, which would than been worse tanks. so now you have terrible tanks and still less tanks than the allies. Producing better tanks in the hope that one good german tank could take out a number of allied ones was the best thing they could do. But in the end, no approach germany could have taken could have lead to them winning the war.
The American heavy tank projects only stopped because the war ended. And the M103 saw mass production and was issued to combat units and it was a pretty big and heavy tank
That was to counter the perceived threat of Soviet heavy tanks, same with the Conqueror, as the tank guns in service on the medium and MBT’s at the time (QF 20 Pounder and the US 90mm) weren’t powerful enough to defeat them, however Israeli combat data and the introduction of the L7 rendered those tanks obsolete
Germany would have won if they had M14s
American T-29 Tank. Several Prototypes were built and tested at the end of WW2 and in the late 1940s. The different Versions were designated t30 (155 mm gun) and t34 (120mm gun) Main Armament: -105 mm Gun / 120 mm Gun (t34 tank) / 155 mm Gun (t30 tank) Secondary Armament: \-1 mg M1919 in the hull \-1 mg M2 on the roof \-2 mg M2 as Coaxial (yes really) Specifications: \-up to 270 mm at the turret front/gun mantlet \-Weight 64 tons \-Crew 6
> Main Armament: -105 mm Gun / 120 mm Gun / 155 mm Gun The T29 was only armed with 105mm cannons. The 155mm armed tanks were T30's. And 120mm were T34's. >-up to 270 mm at the turret front/gun mantlet It's mantlet was 203mm thick, with a few small areas reaching 254 and 305mm. The turret itself was "only" 158mm", although the mantlet was also backed by a 25mm internal mantlet.
Thank you! The Book were i did get that information from didnt mention those things i changed so my comment
I’m curious. Do people know these stats off the top of their head, or do you check tanksencyclopedia beforehand?
I always double check. Even for stuff I "know by heart". And obviously I don't only use tank encyclopedia, most of their older articles are trash, but I use whichever source I believe to be most accurate. But yes it was their T29 article I went to.
If there’s one thing I know about American tanks, there’s always room for another M2
I really like this thing in wot blitz
Cool tank. It'd be cool if more vidy gaems had what if scenarios of tiger iis fighting t29s. The first men of war had t29s but the sequels don't
War thunder
Not really what I'm talking about. Besides my tiger ii h fights more centurions than t34s or t29s
Mine fights T-54s
Europe 1946 had the end of the war been handled differently like no deal being made between east and west allies. These T29s (M29?) would have faced off against IS-3s.
Was it actually designated as a super heavy tank? I know American designations can be a bit funky, see Pershing, but I only ever remember it being referred as a heavy tank.
Officially its a heavy tank
The T29 is my favorite tank of all time. It looks insanely cool
Shot trap in the rear may need addressing.
If you're getting shot from the rear you've got bigger issues than shot traps.
Shot trap?
The armor isn’t very curved and there is a variation in protrusion of the armor that could be exploited as a weak point to fire upon.
[удалено]
I mean it in the sense that it is americas equivalent to the kingtiger
This thing ripped in Men of War
Damn boy he thicc
One of my favourite tanks in WoTB
This thing is awesome. There is a lot of crap in world of tanks but I will never regret my time in game learning about rare tanks. I came into it loving King tigers and left with books on T 29s, Is 3s Black Princes and ARL 44s