@@sgtdex3634 I think an is2 is a more effective vehicle to tbh. The majority of a tanks job in WWII is infantry support, and a 122mm HE shell is great for infantry support.
Tiger II at first? KV-2 at 11, higher than KV-1? Elefant at 15? And where is the Panzer III? Even if it was obsolete in 1945, it is one of the best tank between 1939 and 1942.
I have to agree, and I also believe the comet should be swapped with the m4, it has better armour, better speed and a better gun. (And the comet didn't need to be afraid of tigers as they could penetrate them)
@@mackenziebarr1320 Even the M3 75mm could successfully penetrate the front of a tiger at close range... The thing only had 100mm flat on the front, and less on the sides.
Logic _ Exur but when would that ever happen? American tank crews basically never travelled alone, they would usually even have infantry accompanying them. That tiger would be easily overran by either infantry with AT weapons, or get slammed with a 76 mm shell
Despite the elefant having horrendous reliability. It was actually the most successful tank destroyer, if judged purely by killing enemy tanks. It held a K/D of 10 to 1. Obviously there's a lot more that determines whether a tank is successful. But it's an interesting piece of info
It did do well in one battle. But it’s like the jadtiger, except way worse. Underpowered, amazing armor, good gun, but just slow and it caught on fire by itself. It was pretty bad.
@@natalieorlando6583 The Porcsche Tiger would have been so good had it not been so slow. The Feridand would have been too, just not as good as the Porsche.
I will not tell you "tank X had to be placed up higher" or "Tank y had to be placed much lower" Instead i Question making ranking lists About wich tank is "better" than the other in General. "better " is rather spongy a term. The pure comparison of certain values like armor thickness or Penetration of the main armament etc. is giving a very uncomplete Picture. The French tanks for example had a very thick armor, and a rather good Penetration, but the turret had only one man in them who had to aim the gun, load the gun and command the tank. This multitude of Tasks was generaly to demanding for a single Person, wich made the French tanks much less effective than their numeric values would suggest. if a Tank is good depends on many Details, that can be weighed differently. -Role, does it fit the role it is intended for. -effectivity of armament -mobility -strategic mobility(do you get it to the Battlefield) -protection -cost effectivity -produceability -visibility/siluette -reliability -ergonomy(see example with French tanks above) -Situation of using power(how many Crews can you provide, how much fuel do you have etc.) Complicating the Task of sorting the Tanks in any order is the fact that the Situation in wich the tanks operate changes. the Panzer 38 for example was an excellent Tank with high mobility and reliability wich served the Germans well in Poland and France. its armament was sufficient and the protection was high enough. in comparison with later designs it became obsolete however. the next complication is that the tank models themselves Change. The STUG III for example(wich you could argue does not belong into this list as it was (intended as) mobile artillery) started with a short barrelled 75mm gun. Later that gun was replaced with much longer barrelled 75mm Guns. Also the role of the STUG III changed from Infantry supporting mobile artillery to tank Killer. the Panzer IV had similar changes of armament and role happen with it, originally it was supposed to shoot HE rounds in support of the Panzer IIIs, later it was supposed to fight other tanks. the Panzer IIIs started with a 37mm Gun that was not very good, and was later uparmed to a Long barrelled 50mm wich had rather good Penetration. In the End it was fitted with the same short barrelled 75mm gun the Panzer IVs and STUG IIIs started with, completely reversing the roles. so how do you Judge a tank if there were many versions of it? how to Judge a tank that was usefull in the beginning, and then became obsolete? how to Judge a tank that was supposed to fight along the infantry, and was thrown into battle against other tanks? Sorting Tanks in any order is Always depending on personal opinion and Preference. This is your list, and it has any Right to exist. Others lists would differ.
But what happens if you include variations in design? Instead of simply the baseline tank itself, can we see distinctive and orderly lines of gradually improving tanks? Or would we create a rabbit hole in the attempt?
Okay we got it, america is the best country in the world bla bla bla bla All american tanks should be number one bla bla bla bla it really is boring instead of just watching the vid and enjoying it.
Ferdinant have so many issues ...like gearbox.clutch ,engine was underpower and no machine so troops can destroy very ease just late model have machinegun
@@vanillaicecream9126 Not really, the infantry had to protect the tank, it was a tank destroyer, his only role was to destroy tank, and did it well, so much so that he is the tank with the higher rate of killings of the WW2
@@vanillaicecream9126 I didn't speak of the role of the tank, I was talking about the role of the infantry in the presence of that tank, the infantry had to protect that tank from the infantry, because that tank had the role of destroying the other tanks, this was the support he gave to infantry.
Ya tiger ii at number 1 is especially questionable. The only german tank the deserves to be in the top 10 is the stug iii and maybe just maybe the panther but that had a lot of issues
well, yes... but actually no... panzerwehr took the LT vz. 38 and 35 and modernise it slightly, e.g. electric installation which original was terrible ;)
@@yeboxxx_channel_2505 I don't speak about whole tank, but only about the electrical part of it, cables, etc. Original one have tendencies to burning. Also I does not question the Czechoslovak involvement in tank development, because especially the LT vz. 38 was really successful construction, used across the world, especially suspension was really great idea
People usually only look at weapon range, armor thickness and speed, but really more comes into play when you want to label the best tank, such as reliability, the ability to swap out engines and do field repairs, logistic support, life span of the cannon barrel, fuel range of the vehicle, ability to perform 1st echelon maintenance and PMs, cost of construction/cost of upkeep, supply line integrity, availability of ammunition .etc. Truthfully and non objectively I think the Sherman or the T-34 is the best because it seems to be balance all of this well but admittedly I don't know much about tanks.
Also, comfortability, ergonomics for the crew, visibility, and a major one for modern tank forces, weight… if your tank can’t cross a bridge, or can’t get in a plane, how can it be useful?
@@Poglavnik088Sherman is way worse. After all, the communists were able to add sloped armor to the T-34, because of which, at a long distance, they could protect themselves from pz.kpfz 4 and panther
Panther was definitely the best tank of WW2 when it worked properly without mechanical issues.This tank's reliability when it got first introduced was a nightmare,by mid 1944 though it's reliability and operational percentage was almost on par with that of Panzer IV.
German tanks weren't as a bad as most people advertise, the tank crews just treated the panzers like shit. For example, the tiger 1 at the Bovington tank museum has been running for 15 years on the original hl-230 engine (not from the actual tiger but from another one) and has not had many problems because they actually maintain the tank properly.
German tanks weren't as a bad as most people advertise, the tank crews just treated the panzers like shit. For example, the tiger 1 at the Bovington tank museum has been running for 15 years on the original hl-230 engine (not from the actual tiger but from another one) and has not had many problems because they actually maintain the tank properly.
Mac O’Leary I'd say its easy to compare by country, the problem is comparing a heavy tank (like the tiger) with, for example, a medium tank (like the t-34-85) because they fulfilled different roles.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander and fought at Bastogne. He told me the tiger was a great tank, head on a Sherman had no chance. The 88 would cut through the Sherman's armor and set them on fire at significant range, the Sherman's 76 could not defeat a tigers frontal or turret side armor. However the tiger had two significant disadvantages that could be taken advantage of. First, the tigers heavily armored turret rotated very slowly. At more than a couple hundred yards, a Sherman could outrun the turning capability of the turret, knowing that, the Sherman could get around to the flank or rear where it's 76 could take out the tiger. Second, the 88 extremely long barrel was a huge disadvantage in the woods. On narrow roads through wooded areas, especially the extremely narrow roads through the Ardennes, the tiger couldn't turn its turret because the barrel would get caught in the trees. So either way, when faced with a tiger, move laterally, that was the only chance you had to get away and get into a position to damage or destroy the tiger.
So, not to take away from your grandfather but, the 76 Sherman could pierce the side of the Tiger’s turret fairly easily up to 1000 meters The tiger had 3.2 inches of armor on the sides and rear of the turret, while the Sherman’s M1 gun could punch through 3.465 inches at 1000 meters And that was with the common M62 shot that every Sherman had at least 20 rounds of The tiger, while having a slow turret rotation speed, could still catch up to anything a few hundred yards out, it’s the close in stuff it would struggle with The tiger could have a rotation speed of between 6 and 36 degrees per second depending on the RPM of the engine, so in emergencies they could easily have caught up, especially at the Sherman’s fairly mediocre 17 miles per hour top speed Head to head, the tiger could kill the Sherman from the front from 2km But in a real fight, If the tiger doesn’t know about the Sherman, the Sherman has the advantage Just like with modern tanks, it was never about who had the better tank, but more about who saw who first Unless you were on the eastern front in 1941…. The Russians mostly had light tanks and old t-28’s, so yeah, the Germans had much better tanks, as the kv’s and t-34’s were still in development
The M24 Chaffee is a beast of a flanker in Warthunder. With that little guy you can take on the whole world by yourself. Even aircraft aren't safe because of the roof mounted 50.cal Browning.
@@NEWMAN2000-c6d What, no Bob Semple was a New Zealand tank of WWII, built from a tractor sasi and was the worst tank ever built. It was armed only with Bren machine guns. If you want more information, check the Simple History channel, it has 10 minutes video about it.
Учитывая то, что танки Т-34-76 и Т-34-85, не понеся потерь разгромили танки Tiger II, на Сандомире, где немцы впервые их применили, стоило бы поставить Т-34 на первое место.
the t34 was a bad tank the t34 85 was sometimes a good tank i think the varying quality is why its lower but in terms of usefulness yes it should be higher and the tiger 2 should not even be on the list
I feel like this list did the Churchill MK. VII dirty. Not only did the tank have a massive amount of versatility with regards to crossing terrain (being able to climb near verticals slopes) but it was also one of the most heavily armoured tanks in the war. During the first trial of the Churchill (the mark one) a marine raid was conducted in which only two tanks out of thirty were even penetrated by German anti tank fire. It wasn’t the most well armed, but considering we made around 5,500 of them, it’s a safe bet to say they were much more impactful than the Tiger II
Yes. They did the Churchill Mk VII Dirty. Was the best iteration of it, and its varying uses for the ARVE and its infamous Crocodile Configuration too. The Sherman should be higher too, due to the uses it had for it's chassis, and its configurations included.
@Nigra nigre you dumb there's was no rotating turret tanks in the first world war the only tanks that existed in ww1 was tank that only barrels can move so rotating turret were created by French first in ww1 don't expect the Germans to created a heavy tank in the first world war
“Tiger 2 best tank of the war” with the amount of scrap metal made from having to replace the transmission while it got to the front I could make an entire army group of t-34s
Ага, и КВ-1 у него на 16 месте... Танк, который в начале половине войны могли пробить исключительно 88мм зенитные орудия, и который в количестве 1штука мог разгромить целую колонну немецких танков. А британский комет лучше по мнению автора) А шерман ищо лучше!!)) Я уже молчу про то, что форма модельки КВ-1 не правильная - влд под наклоном как у Т-34
Actually, without the US, Britain wouldn’t have stood a chance. And they still were shit. Sherman’s were Lend leased to Great Britain. And don’t say “what about the firefly?!” The firefly was a copy of the Sherman with a better gun and armor. Without the Sherman, there would’ve been no firefly. Enough about tanks, On D day when US paratroopers dropped they still managed to complete their mission. But when the UK dropped their paratroopers In Operation Market garden that went to shit real fast. The United States controlled the seas with their fleet. They controlled the skies. Hell, D Day by its self is a larger accomplishment than Britain as a whole during the war. Britain only did something In North Africa fighting the Italians and the DAK.
Number 15 Elefant fire engine. The last thing you'd want in your elefant's engine is fire from nowhere. But as it turns out, that might be what you get
600 tigers were destroyed. And 55k T-34 were. destroyed. Why should T34 be in the 1st? Because soviet made 70k of that? And for second subject I agree with you. Tiger 1 was better than 2.
Russian bias didn’t exist in real life, the only reason they ever won is because they were mass produced and sometimes exploded before even getting to battle.
Here's a little known fact about the Panther that I think should put it in 2nd; It's suspension could absorb uneven ground up to 50cm. That figure was never reached again until the Cold War. The leopard 2 beats that figure later on.
Great tank parade! Excellent making. Apart from the fact that the King Tiger was in service only from 1944 to 1945 there is another important correction to be made: German Panzer IVs were in service up till 1967! Of course not in the defeated and destroyed German Wehrmacht but in armies of other countries such as France, Spain and (former) Czechoslovakia. The French had collected a vast number of abandoned Panzer IVs on the battlefield. In the 50ies and 60ies the Syrian army bought more than 100(!) of these Panzer IVs (including sufficient ammunition and spare parts) from all across Europe to beef up its tank forces. And they saw action in the Six-Day War of 1967. The Panzer IVs would have been powerful and effective tanks even 22 years after WWII had ended. However, only if (!) they had been operated by experienced German tank crews. But in Syrian hands they were no match against the Israeli Centurions, the type of tank initially designed to end the superiority of the King Tiger on the Western front in WWII.
Great to see _one_ italian tank that was pretty much already replaced when the war started, no other mention of the L6/40 or any of the great Semovente TDs like the 75/18 M40/41.
@@stirlinghadley8560 let me guess, the only Italian tanks you know are L3/33 and m13/40 and pretend to be a tank expert aware that you don't know sh1t. Go cry somewhere else…
@@corrat4866 Автор даже полякам угодил. Взял советский танк и представил его польским. Просто ужас. В польше еще не все памятники советским солдатам снесли?
In my opinion the top 10 tanks in order are: 10. StuG III G 9. Sherman Firefly 8. IS-2 7. King Tiger 6. M26 Pershing 5. Churchill Mk.VII 4. Panzer IV 3. T-34/85 2. Panther 1. M4A2E8 Sherman
Не мог ИС-2 наравне бороться с Тигром 2. По многим причинам Тигр 2 лучше чем ИС, но с Тигром случилась не качественная сталь и очень сырая конструкция + высокая масса и достаточно слабая ходовая. Зато в плане огневой мощи Тигр 2 был на голову выше, чем ИС-2.
@@MadFox212 на какую голову выше? Д-25 МОЩНЕЙШЕЕ танковое орудие второй мировой и соажались они на равных ну а на месяц бы дольше повоевали - ИС-3 просто раздавил бы всё. Его L7 с лелпарда 1 не пробивает в лоб. Про kwk 88 и речи не могло быть.
Yes but for Germany it was the best decision because at the end of the war they didn't have enough or well trained men for many tanks. It was better to have strong tanks. Imagine what's better: 300 Tanks (maybe Panzer IV or Panther) with 100 good trained tank crew's and the rest are only young men with 2 week's of training Or 100 King Tigers with good trained tank crew's. Better 1 King Tiger with trained soldier's as 3 other tanks with bad trained men
Crusty ! Yeah but the King tiger crews weren't trained that well, and the argument that quality is better than quantity in the situation the German found themselves in is just plain wrong , numbers will always overwhelm take the battleship Yamato for example, it was sent out to terrorise the American fleet but found itself pummelled by overwhelming numbers
Man it's nice to see the tiger 2gl getting some love, for me that will always be number 1. The first tank I ever saw was a german tiger tank in an old movie we watched, I fell in love at that point will always be a fan of the tiger series.
@@RetroAdzz Germans had to rush their tanks into battle for obvious reasons. It did get better, the longer it was in service. And all vehicles and airplanes go thru teething problems.
read a book about them... you fell to propaganda... no tank destroyer had a better kill-to-loss-ratio, including the blown up or abandoned tanks by the own crews... in combat you see a ferdinand and you are dead - as a russian. The job of a tank-killer is to kill tanks, nobody was better
Underpowered? What? It was one of the most powerful tanks of ww2. It's only real competitor in armor and weapon is the is-2 (not counting tank destroyers)
@@joaquinparraud7775 Lol german armor in the second part of war was a piece of shit, engine for that mass was very weak, IS-2 can pen Tiger 2 from more far distances than tiger.
@@exodus1621 on paper in theory, if you discuss your tanks with Father Stalin. In reality? Just no. The 122mm-gun was bad, really bad... they faked the penetration tests, yes - they lied to their own soldiers... how stupid. The IS2 had also only a few rounds, needed also HE-shells... and - most ignore the fact that even the best german tank guns had a 15:1 ratio before they hit an enemy tank... the russian guns, optics and crews were vastly worse... so with only 30 rounds, half HE-shells, how far away do you start to shoot at the enemy? Esp. if the enemy has twice the number of AP-shells as you have in total? Eh?
@ThElectrofier He probably meant the steel quality of late war german tanks was really bad and would crack when getting hit. Anyway the engine and transmission were too weak on the Kingtiger.
Another Too Professional Russian Bias Feller Upset that his T-34 Couldn't make #1. In my opinion. It was the most reliable tank in World War II. I wouldn't call it the best. All tanks have downsides even the T-34-85. (Don't get butthurt, we're all biased over something)
@@theloseremo3429 the T-34/T-34-85 had a lot of problemes : the crew was cramped, T-34 1940 had only a 3 man crew, very hard to escape in case of a fire for the driver, anooying striker pin for the traks to not fall off, etc
Everyone out here pondering the Elefant's place at #15, while I'm over here trying to figure out why any Italian tank was even able to make it on the list.
looks like your head is stuffed of propaganda of the allies and meme the italian M13/40 in this video make it in the video caude it was an really good machine the front armor of 44mm could stop light autocannons and HMG fire and is 47mm long barrel cannon was able to pierce most allied tanks like the crusaders the m3 lee and the first variants of the m4 sherman but if you are soo idiot to compare an tankette concepted only for fight infranty to tanks here the CV35 CC(contro carro) that with is 20mm anti tank rifle and is tiny size it was able to destroy the enemies with ambush
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry Not sure why you are so up in arms about this, lol. It was a joke. Return forth to your mother's basement, o valiant internet warrior. Edit: Ok, I understand that you are Italian, and I am also 25% Italian myself. However, I live in America, and I don't bat an eyelid when someone talks about how awful some of our culture and political leaders are, because not only is it a joke, but those people's opinions don't matter. Oh, well. I guess shouldn't expect much from someone whose English is almost as broken as the Italian economy.
Wot sucks, this rng is fucking funny. When I came back to wot it was only 1 day to uninstall it again (about 1h of gameplay) I wish I hadn't spent my money in wot... Better option would be spent that money for csgo cases...
@@goodprosecutor the soviets started with a hodge podge of outdated tanks. The T28, T29, T26, BT5, BT7, etc. The Soviets just threw whatever they could at the time to slow the Germans down so they can move their factories further back away from the front.
Allen Rosales that’s not true. Sure Soviets had many outdated tanks which were inferior to new Panzer III variants and early Panzer IV variants but other than that were pretty equal to weaker German tanks which btw were the most numerous in the German army. Moreover Russian tanks outnumbered the German ones. Last but not least before we talk about Operation Barbarossa Soviet casualties let’s talk about KV-1s and T-34-76s who were mostly ontouchable by German armor in early stages of the war. They couldn’t penetrate them with any tank. They had to rely mostly on planes and 88s. The Soviets had big losses either way but not because their tanks were shitty but becausw they lacked skilled commanders who lacked the initiative and relied on chaotic plans of the Soviet High Command. Google the battle for Dubno and Brody and see what mistakes the Russians made and what could have likely been the outcome if the Soviet leadership was capable in 41.
The Sherman was a bad tank myth is just as good as the myth about the M1 Garand Ping given away soldiers positions. It was a great medium tank at the time. Not the best by any means but definitely a good tank. And people like to bring up the points that it’s outclassed by a Tiger. Like no shit you’re comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank. And obviously more Sherman’s are going to get knocked out being on the offensive and going against an enemy that is well equipped with plenty of anti tank weaponry.
@@lejenddairy I think the best thing I heard about the Sherman is that it was a soldiers tank not a planners tank. Soldiers loved it was it was reliable and easy to manuever and repair, and its 75mm gun was great against the vast majority of things they were fighting, primiarly StuG's, Panzer IV's, and anti-tank emplacements. Soviet's who fought in both T-34's and lend-lease Shermans loved the Shermans more because it was much more reliable and easier to use.
@@AScottish-AustralianM-84 The T-34. The T-34 can easily be penetrated & destroyed through the turret or turret ring with a 75mm AP Sherman round. But you could actually do severe damage with even a HE round that hit the T-34 in the hull, which would cause internal shrapnel damage or a hull fracture because of the extremely poor quality of the metal and welds used.
As a historian I don't agree with the top, but alright I know is based (most likely) in personal opinions rather facts and data. The 3D models tho are amazing gj!
Yeah, the maker of this video clearly doesn't understand tanks, it's all based on the armor and gun. Not on the crew experience, reliability or survivability.
@@Lahna_1 T-34? No.... At first glance, the T-34 was impressive: the diesel engine, angled armour plates to increase the bullet-proofness of the structure, wide tracks for mobility and a 76 mm calibre gun. The Germans did not have similar tanks at that time and it seemed that the Red Army was light years ahead of the Wehrmacht in the field of armoured weapons. Meanwhile the T-34 had a lot of disadvantages. During the tests of prototypes, they became especially aware of the failures of the propulsion system. The engine's resilience, i.e. its guaranteed time of failure-free and safe operation, was set at just 100 hours. Clutches had low durability. Gearbox teeth were breaking off. Despite all these shortcomings, on 31 March 1940 it was decided to accept it for production practically without any corrections. Oh, the legendary Russian fantasy! Russians of dubious quality of their new tank were already convinced in the summer of 1940, when its comparative tests with PzKpfw III purchased in Germany were conducted. It was a real shock for them, when it turned out that with the exception of a larger caliber cannon and a bit better armor, the Soviet tank gave way to the German "three" almost in every aspect. In the terrain, the T-34 swayed strongly to the sides, and on uneven ground, it had a tendency to vibrate. The German tank was more comfortable in this respect and at the same time much quieter than its Soviet counterpart. As far as the propulsion system is concerned, the T-34 significantly deviated from PzKpfw III. The German tank had definitely more reliable and failure-free engine. The Achilles heel of the Soviet engine was air filters. They had to be cleaned every few dozen kilometers, otherwise the drive unit would be obliterated. Also the working environment of the four-man crew of the Soviet tank was not one of the most friendly. It was difficult to accommodate the loader and commander in a tight tower. The latter had to fulfil the role of a targeting officer as well, which made it overloaded with duties. The observation and aiming devices were of low quality. A single large hatch with unfortunate hinges in the front led to the inside of the tower. The problem of gunfire or mg's discharge was poorly solved. The tower did not have a fan, but only a ventilation hole. As a result, after several shots fired, the interior of the tower was filled with carbon monoxide with a concentration ten times higher than the acceptable standards. In practice, in order to ventilate the tank, it was necessary to open both the hatch of the tower and the front manhole of the driver-mechanic. The latter too, despite the tank's perfectly shaped front plate, was its weak point. In case of hitting it an enemy bullet fell into the car, "by the way" massacring the driver sitting behind it. The mere driving of the tank was a real cripple for the driver because of the hard and imprecise gearbox. It was a very physically exhausting activity. One had to have a lot of luck and patience to throw in the right gear. The equipment with communication means was tragic. Less than one in ten tanks had a radio station. Signalling flags were in common use. The internal telephone connected only the commander and the driver. The rest of the crew lived in the "unconscious" tactical situation. No wonder that after these embarrassing tests for T-34 there were voices among the Soviet decision-makers about the necessity to interrupt the production that had just started. It was suggested either to thoroughly rebuild the tank or to replace it with a new construction. It was even proposed to resume production of its predecessor, the BT-7M tank. Eventually it was decided to continue production, but already in October 1940 design works on its successor started. However, all these plans were interrupted by the outbreak of war. Paradoxically, the T-34 had the greatest advantage over German tanks, but only in some aspects, at the beginning of the war, when the Red Army suffered one defeat after another. During the war, of course, it was constantly modernized. Its latest version was the T-34-85, the first copies of which left the factory halls in December 1943. However, this happened at a time when the German Panthers and Tigers were already in service, which definitely outclassed him in terms of fire and armour. Even later versions of PzKpfw IV became his equal enemy. Also the anti-tank weapons of the German infantry had no problems with destroying it.
doesent include: m36, t34/76, kv 1s, kv 85, churchill 1. somehow includes: panzer 38 (t), smoua, elefant/ferdinand (most of this tanks casualties came from the tanks breakdowns without the enemy), panzer 2, and the m3 lee. with those bad tanks you might as well also have the bob semple siting in #1 place
It seems you ordered these by how well they performed in their role (hence why some of the ranking are where they are and causing people to rage down here in the comments). However if that’s the case the M3 Lee should definitely be higher, due to the fact it’s role was to be a temporary filler until the Sherman’s were ready.
wait, are u telling me that the legendaries T-34-85 and the migthy war machine KV-2 lost the first place aganinst the self transmission braaker AKA tiger II, like bro, REALLY?! i mean just a single KV-2 held THE WHOLE 6TH PANZER DIVISION FOR 1 WHOLE DAY and also do you really tink a german tank desearves the 1st place even tho the same germans admited the the T-34 was the best tank, ''*German Field Marshall von Kleist described the Russian T-34 as the best tank of World War Two'' anyway i think it was a good video and almost all the rankings were acurrate, keep up the good work comrade!
The Königstiger was not in service as soon as 1940. It entered service in 1944, with only 500 being made. It entered the war too late to make a difference. It was just an obstacle that American, British and Soviet tanks could destroy. In my opinion the top tank is the Panther, because of its good armour, high velocity gun, and decent speed. I would argue that this is the first Main Battle Tank. My rant is over also where is bob semple.
when the transmission on your tiger 2 breaks but you become the most armored bunker in the area
made my day ty
LOL made my night
Lol true
Until someone comes to your side
@@bogdandragan289 *laughs in infantry support with panzershrecks
We failed, Hans. Load the shell now
The sturmtiger Boi *drops*
Isu 152 with HE shells : there you are the bad kitten
@junkers ju stuka -87 B2 La 5F is above of you :))
IL-2M gonna kill Bad Kitten II :))
STURMTIGER
Im number 1 boii
A more accurate title would be "40 tanks from wwII in no particular order"
"With random information which May or May not be true"
I would rather use a tiger 2 than is 2
@@sgtdex3634 I think an is2 is a more effective vehicle to tbh. The majority of a tanks job in WWII is infantry support, and a 122mm HE shell is great for infantry support.
@@sgtdex3634 yea in war thunder
Salty?
The Pzkfw III. is also not on the list ?? Why the hell not?
2:49 ...this?
ThinnestEvaluation 11 THATS the panzer II not III
Because the panzer 3 was kinda bad
@@TheClone37 not really
This list has the e8 Sherman at fourth too🤷🏼♂️ and no t34/76🤣😂
Tiger II at first? KV-2 at 11, higher than KV-1? Elefant at 15? And where is the Panzer III? Even if it was obsolete in 1945, it is one of the best tank between 1939 and 1942.
Have to agree, kv1 far superior design in combat
I have to agree, and I also believe the comet should be swapped with the m4, it has better armour, better speed and a better gun. (And the comet didn't need to be afraid of tigers as they could penetrate them)
The most powerfull tank at WW2 was surelly the tiger 2. The most important i would say the Pz IV.
Stop making jokes. The best is the Bob Semple.
@@fatseadoggo1017 So true! How could they forget it??? :O
Tiger II in service 1940-1945?
What you smoking?
Germans might have won if they had that beast in 1941 when invading Russia. It would have tore up the T34 and KV1
@@mango614 that's still not as much smoking as the Ferdinands engine.
@@_NeoImperia_ fun fact, the ferdinand was 3-4 times more reliable than your average T-34
@@melvinbennett444 not really.
@ wait, really?
“Tiger II was the best tank o-” *transmission breaks*
1 tiger beats ten Sherman’s, but you always haff elefen!
Mackenzie Barr One Sherman can kill a tiger tho
@@mackenziebarr1320 Even the M3 75mm could successfully penetrate the front of a tiger at close range... The thing only had 100mm flat on the front, and less on the sides.
But still a one on one between the tiger and the Sherman the Tiger would win
Logic _ Exur but when would that ever happen? American tank crews basically never travelled alone, they would usually even have infantry accompanying them. That tiger would be easily overran by either infantry with AT weapons, or get slammed with a 76 mm shell
Don’t try to convince me that the elefant scored 15 when most of the 91 built broke down or were abandoned before ever seeing combat lmao
Gavin Dow They were known to literally blow their engines climbing simple hills. No way it should be 15
Despite the elefant having horrendous reliability. It was actually the most successful tank destroyer, if judged purely by killing enemy tanks. It held a K/D of 10 to 1. Obviously there's a lot more that determines whether a tank is successful. But it's an interesting piece of info
Same goes for the King tiger most of them were blown up by their Crews and didnt even make it to battle
Most of elephants ruined by the ussr in Kursk battle, and they destroy many of soviet tanks before gone self
@@_kommandant_3055 No, Jagdpanther was way better, faster, reliable. Jagdpanther is the best tank destroyer of WWII
"The elegant performed its roll well"
*explodes from climbing a small hill*
Hans our transmission broke
Elefant needs a new engine sir. No Hans, zhe engine is perfect. It might break sometimes, but it is perfect.
It did do well in one battle. But it’s like the jadtiger, except way worse. Underpowered, amazing armor, good gun, but just slow and it caught on fire by itself. It was pretty bad.
@@Datníggascrazy a white elephant. Amazing and power full, but just way too much
@@natalieorlando6583 The Porcsche Tiger would have been so good had it not been so slow. The Feridand would have been too, just not as good as the Porsche.
Wait Tiger II is 1940, but Tiger I 1942?
The first tiger 2 was made in 1943 mass production started in 1944
The first tiger 1 was made in 1942
@@thev.o.c-heretostealyaspic6281 wasn't the tiger 1 started in early barbarossa?
@@MollyMoller the program that became the tiger, the Durchbruchswagen projekt., Was started in the 30's
It was just a prequel
@@MollyMoller the first tiger was on African front
Tiger 2 no.1?!?!
Elefant no.15?!
KV 2 higher than KV 1?!
Dafuq
KV-2 is great boi
I think the regular Tiger tank was better than Panther tank because of thicker sides which could deflect more shells than Panther.
Who knew the tiger two entered service in 1940.
@@natalieorlando6583 that’s before the tiger I
@@memeu7013 r/wooooosh
“40 tanks from ww2 of varying quality”
I will not tell you "tank X had to be placed up higher" or "Tank y had to be placed much lower"
Instead i Question making ranking lists About wich tank is "better" than the other in General.
"better " is rather spongy a term.
The pure comparison of certain values like armor thickness or Penetration of the main armament etc. is giving a very uncomplete Picture.
The French tanks for example had a very thick armor, and a rather good Penetration, but the turret had only one man in them who had to aim the gun, load the gun and command the tank. This multitude of Tasks was generaly to demanding for a single Person, wich made the French tanks much less effective than their numeric values would suggest.
if a Tank is good depends on many Details, that can be weighed differently.
-Role, does it fit the role it is intended for.
-effectivity of armament
-mobility
-strategic mobility(do you get it to the Battlefield)
-protection
-cost effectivity
-produceability
-visibility/siluette
-reliability
-ergonomy(see example with French tanks above)
-Situation of using power(how many Crews can you provide, how much fuel do you have etc.)
Complicating the Task of sorting the Tanks in any order is the fact that the Situation in wich the tanks operate changes.
the Panzer 38 for example was an excellent Tank with high mobility and reliability wich served the Germans well in Poland and France.
its armament was sufficient and the protection was high enough. in comparison with later designs it became obsolete however.
the next complication is that the tank models themselves Change.
The STUG III for example(wich you could argue does not belong into this list as it was (intended as) mobile artillery) started with a short barrelled 75mm gun.
Later that gun was replaced with much longer barrelled 75mm Guns.
Also the role of the STUG III changed from Infantry supporting mobile artillery to tank Killer.
the Panzer IV had similar changes of armament and role happen with it, originally it was supposed to shoot HE rounds in support of the Panzer IIIs, later it was supposed to fight other tanks.
the Panzer IIIs started with a 37mm Gun that was not very good, and was later uparmed to a Long barrelled 50mm wich had rather good Penetration.
In the End it was fitted with the same short barrelled 75mm gun the Panzer IVs and STUG IIIs started with, completely reversing the roles.
so how do you Judge a tank if there were many versions of it?
how to Judge a tank that was usefull in the beginning, and then became obsolete?
how to Judge a tank that was supposed to fight along the infantry, and was thrown into battle against other tanks?
Sorting Tanks in any order is Always depending on personal opinion and Preference.
This is your list, and it has any Right to exist.
Others lists would differ.
But what happens if you include variations in design? Instead of simply the baseline tank itself, can we see distinctive and orderly lines of gradually improving tanks? Or would we create a rabbit hole in the attempt?
_Radium Blitz Russians also got them through lend lease so they fought in 3 theaters
WerstInternetUser WerstInternetUser T34 was superior to Sherman in literally every way.
Okay we got it, america is the best country in the world bla bla bla bla
All american tanks should be number one bla bla bla bla
it really is boring instead of just watching the vid and enjoying it.
The ranking would hold more value if you knew the criteria they are based on.
9:16 Tiger 2 only had 1 prototype built in 1943 before mass production was done in 1944-45.
It wasn't in service in 1940.
Just noticed that, that is a very big oof.
yep thats true...but if it would be in service in 1940 i think many things could be different today....
There was 487
probably just a typo or something
it is what it is. German lost and thats cool.
Putting the word “optimized” in the Ferdinand is great
Indeed
Ferdinant have so many issues ...like gearbox.clutch ,engine was underpower and no machine so troops can destroy very ease just late model have machinegun
@@vanillaicecream9126 Not really, the infantry had to protect the tank, it was a tank destroyer, his only role was to destroy tank, and did it well, so much so that he is the tank with the higher rate of killings of the WW2
Nôt really primaly stug role was support infatry and second was destroy tanks and he do it greath
@@vanillaicecream9126 I didn't speak of the role of the tank, I was talking about the role of the infantry in the presence of that tank, the infantry had to protect that tank from the infantry, because that tank had the role of destroying the other tanks, this was the support he gave to infantry.
THE MOST Questionable list you've ever made.
Ya tiger ii at number 1 is especially questionable. The only german tank the deserves to be in the top 10 is the stug iii and maybe just maybe the panther but that had a lot of issues
@@gandsproductions5105 are you lagged behind or Something? The Tiger 2 was the BEST Tank during WW2.
@@moritzjacob2377 ok
@@moritzjacob2377 Yeah, the fact that Tiger IIs development and production pretty much only sped up Germany's downfall really complements that :)
Panther, Panzer IV, and the StuG all belong in the top 10
2:58 Panzer 38 (t) (LT vz. 38) was originally a Czechoslovak tank, Wermacht just took it over
Pravda.
well, yes... but actually no... panzerwehr took the LT vz. 38 and 35 and modernise it slightly, e.g. electric installation which original was terrible ;)
Díky. A ještě jagdpanzer 38(t) byl původem Československý tank.
@@Wiszmir Original was not terrible bro! We had massive production of them into the World. Noone appreciates our help by providing the tanks..
@@yeboxxx_channel_2505 I don't speak about whole tank, but only about the electrical part of it, cables, etc. Original one have tendencies to burning. Also I does not question the Czechoslovak involvement in tank development, because especially the LT vz. 38 was really successful construction, used across the world, especially suspension was really great idea
People usually only look at weapon range, armor thickness and speed, but really more comes into play when you want to label the best tank, such as reliability, the ability to swap out engines and do field repairs, logistic support, life span of the cannon barrel, fuel range of the vehicle, ability to perform 1st echelon maintenance and PMs, cost of construction/cost of upkeep, supply line integrity, availability of ammunition .etc.
Truthfully and non objectively I think the Sherman or the T-34 is the best because it seems to be balance all of this well but admittedly I don't know much about tanks.
Also, comfortability, ergonomics for the crew, visibility, and a major one for modern tank forces, weight… if your tank can’t cross a bridge, or can’t get in a plane, how can it be useful?
T34 was a death sentence, cheap, bad cramped, engine and transmission failed a lot
They might be coffins on tracks, but by golly, we can make a lot of them.
They were best, but not on armor or penetration.But they were so many...
@@Poglavnik088Sherman is way worse. After all, the communists were able to add sloped armor to the T-34, because of which, at a long distance, they could protect themselves from pz.kpfz 4 and panther
The Elefant at 15 is a little high!!
And KV-2 at 11!!!??? Upper than the KV-1! :O
That was actually the Ferdinand the Elefant has a hull mounted ball machine gun
@@nicolas2419 yeah, both the Elefant and the KV-2 don't deserve be that high, specially the KV-2, he's even higher than the ISU
The elefant held the highest K/D of any tank destroyer of WWII. That being said, it was still unreliable garbage
@@xtremegamer3d480 Dude they are the same tank they just changed the name
Putin in KV-2... Now you've seen everything...
Should be stalin there. Or zukhow
Кв 2 мощь
@@НучёпацаныАниме-и9ь в игре да, но на деле не мог многого
@@derangl9333 как это не мог ? Его бб рвали всё,150 мм ,ним не раз рушыли укреплённые дома и окопы фошыстов,но это уже фугасы )
Panther was definitely the best tank of WW2 when it worked properly without mechanical issues.This tank's reliability when it got first introduced was a nightmare,by mid 1944 though it's reliability and operational percentage was almost on par with that of Panzer IV.
Agreed, but i would kinda swap it out with the t34 back in fourth
German tanks weren't as a bad as most people advertise, the tank crews just treated the panzers like shit. For example, the tiger 1 at the Bovington tank museum has been running for 15 years on the original hl-230 engine (not from the actual tiger but from another one) and has not had many problems because they actually maintain the tank properly.
When ferdinand got 15TH
Me:"no that impossible"
SU-30 quarantined in garage KV 2 got 11th ? XDDD
It's should of caught fire before it got to the 15th spot
*Well it's 88mm PK43 gun is powerful though*
@@tardarsauce1842 *the gun yes,taking action no*
@@SU-AKAsky_dragon ahh yes *transmission broke*
We all know that the T-34-85 was best
Actually the tiger was best, but it was so expensive compared to the T-34-85
Do an 1v1 t34-85 v tiger, we’ll see if this is that
T34-85 can’t penetrate tiger I and Panther I of the face, and tiger II to allé the side
@@wotbgaming3747 in battle its not a 1v1 tho lol
@@wotbgaming3747 T-34-85 could pen the front of the Tiger 1 without any problem. It had over 160mm pen.
@@Gabriel-he6ih The prpblems begin once the tiger angles it's boxy ass hull
Cenoura roxa compared to the tiger ? No no comrade , it's the show for the Is 2 or maybe an is 3 if the war last for few more month
Fun fact: On the way to this video, the Tiger II broke down twice and had to be refueled as well. Total distance covered: 1.6 km
😁
XD Thank you for pointing out why it's number one position is absolute nonsense!
German tanks weren't as a bad as most people advertise, the tank crews just treated the panzers like shit. For example, the tiger 1 at the Bovington tank museum has been running for 15 years on the original hl-230 engine (not from the actual tiger but from another one) and has not had many problems because they actually maintain the tank properly.
No huh?
@@germanomosconi9888 huh?
@@sherman_of_the_lake I wasn't talking to you
Ah yes the Königstiger, 3 day preparation just for 3 hours of operation
Does anyone else feel that different countries needed different tanks so it’s hard to accurately rate them
EXACTLY
Mac O’Leary I'd say its easy to compare by country, the problem is comparing a heavy tank (like the tiger) with, for example, a medium tank (like the t-34-85) because they fulfilled different roles.
Yeah
Most of them were used in europe so no
Noone notices Panzer 38(t,) the 27th place is Czech tank.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander and fought at Bastogne. He told me the tiger was a great tank, head on a Sherman had no chance. The 88 would cut through the Sherman's armor and set them on fire at significant range, the Sherman's 76 could not defeat a tigers frontal or turret side armor. However the tiger had two significant disadvantages that could be taken advantage of. First, the tigers heavily armored turret rotated very slowly. At more than a couple hundred yards, a Sherman could outrun the turning capability of the turret, knowing that, the Sherman could get around to the flank or rear where it's 76 could take out the tiger. Second, the 88 extremely long barrel was a huge disadvantage in the woods. On narrow roads through wooded areas, especially the extremely narrow roads through the Ardennes, the tiger couldn't turn its turret because the barrel would get caught in the trees. So either way, when faced with a tiger, move laterally, that was the only chance you had to get away and get into a position to damage or destroy the tiger.
So, not to take away from your grandfather but, the 76 Sherman could pierce the side of the Tiger’s turret fairly easily up to 1000 meters
The tiger had 3.2 inches of armor on the sides and rear of the turret, while the Sherman’s M1 gun could punch through 3.465 inches at 1000 meters
And that was with the common M62 shot that every Sherman had at least 20 rounds of
The tiger, while having a slow turret rotation speed, could still catch up to anything a few hundred yards out, it’s the close in stuff it would struggle with
The tiger could have a rotation speed of between 6 and 36 degrees per second depending on the RPM of the engine, so in emergencies they could easily have caught up, especially at the Sherman’s fairly mediocre 17 miles per hour top speed
Head to head, the tiger could kill the Sherman from the front from 2km
But in a real fight, If the tiger doesn’t know about the Sherman, the Sherman has the advantage
Just like with modern tanks, it was never about who had the better tank, but more about who saw who first
Unless you were on the eastern front in 1941….
The Russians mostly had light tanks and old t-28’s, so yeah, the Germans had much better tanks, as the kv’s and t-34’s were still in development
Your grandpa didn't do anything, you just watched fury and made up random bs
When the Germans dominate the tops ten.
they still do it with the Leopard 2A6 😉
Dr. Duck feet : always and forever.
The Germans had the best tanks in the world since the '30s anyway
Frank Sakurai-Cook it doesn’t matter tanks are totally useless in modern warfare except proxy/civil wars...
@Frank Sakurai-Cook In terms of quality, German were better, but they were Heavily outnumbered.
@Frank Sakurai-Cook well not really lol
Rudy 102? Now I’m impressed
Biedny Olgierd.
PLgurom
8:37 the legend is back
Shit tank
@@vojnanaoruzanja9901 it might not have been the best tank, but it was a good enough tank, and in some cases good enough is better than perfect.
My grandfather is pilot of t 34 85 i legend for me
Dead in 2 febbrary 1945 in Berlin
@@car_guy179 not to be offensive but was your grandfather is the commander of the tank?
@@rafifafkaralhafizh787 yes t 34 85
The number tank 725
I don’t know but the chaffee and the pershing just look so cool, i love that kinda style
Yeah the americans have somewhat of a sense of style for that
Same here!
The M24 Chaffee is a beast of a flanker in Warthunder. With that little guy you can take on the whole world by yourself. Even aircraft aren't safe because of the roof mounted 50.cal Browning.
I'm fairly sure he used an M26E1 (which mounted the significantly longer version of the 90mm cannon) rather than the T26E3 that the US used in WW2.
Ik but has the worst pen ever
Bob semple tank??
the BOB SEMPLE tank cannot be in top ww2 tank since it is a weapon of the future ..........
@@NEWMAN2000-c6d What, no Bob Semple was a New Zealand tank of WWII, built from a tractor sasi and was the worst tank ever built.
It was armed only with Bren machine guns. If you want more information, check the Simple History channel, it has 10 minutes video about it.
Dimitris Sm263 r/wooosh
@@panzerivausfg4062 It was irony ; )
@@panzerivausfg4062 Too bad you didn't calculate that the Bob Semple Tank has EXTREMELY HIGH meme potentiality!
Учитывая то, что танки Т-34-76 и Т-34-85, не понеся потерь разгромили танки Tiger II, на Сандомире, где немцы впервые их применили, стоило бы поставить Т-34 на первое место.
Я согласен, но можно на топ 1 ещё поставить ис 2
Я бы ваще Т34 поставил ниже
No.
the t34 was a bad tank the t34 85 was sometimes a good tank i think the varying quality is why its lower but in terms of usefulness yes it should be higher and the tiger 2 should not even be on the list
"Main armament 57mm"
*Shows the 47mm variant*
Where is the original T-34/76 ? Why is it not on the list ??
because its shit, t34-85 is much much better
Early t34 is very overrated
@@arturchop4749 yep
I feel like this list did the Churchill MK. VII dirty.
Not only did the tank have a massive amount of versatility with regards to crossing terrain (being able to climb near verticals slopes) but it was also one of the most heavily armoured tanks in the war.
During the first trial of the Churchill (the mark one) a marine raid was conducted in which only two tanks out of thirty were even penetrated by German anti tank fire.
It wasn’t the most well armed, but considering we made around 5,500 of them, it’s a safe bet to say they were much more impactful than the Tiger II
Yes. They did the Churchill Mk VII Dirty.
Was the best iteration of it, and its varying uses for the ARVE and its infamous Crocodile Configuration too.
The Sherman should be higher too, due to the uses it had for it's chassis, and its configurations included.
Because videogame tank reputations.....
Broooo, that T 34-85's barrel is looking T H I C C. More like 152 mm then 85
Ciasteczko101 dang, ur right
See? This is misinformation
T 34 100
@@leoacert2865 oh right
@@rickgrimes_69420 I was being sarcastic. The T 34 100 has a muzzle brake and a different shaped turret. Also no hull machine gun.
Wait what? Tiger 2 is not serviced until 1944!!!
First tiger 2 production was 1943 then mass production on 1944
@Nigra nigre tiger is a ww2 tank not ww1 were tank was first invented
@Nigra nigre it was invented by Da Vinci
@Nigra nigre you dumb there's was no rotating turret tanks in the first world war the only tanks that existed in ww1 was tank that only barrels can move so rotating turret were created by French first in ww1 don't expect the Germans to created a heavy tank in the first world war
The Tiger II Early only first saw service in June of 1944
“Tiger 2 best tank of the war” with the amount of scrap metal made from having to replace the transmission while it got to the front I could make an entire army group of t-34s
Damn, you murdered him.
Well the t34 didn’t have a much better transmission
It's hard to argue with that.
And then beat it using those t-34s
W H E E Z E
Thanks for putting Rudy war paint on the 34 85- appreciate it
so beautiful decal
Афтор ролика обкурился , вот он погнал на Тигре - 2 в 1940
Ага, и КВ-1 у него на 16 месте... Танк, который в начале половине войны могли пробить исключительно 88мм зенитные орудия, и который в количестве 1штука мог разгромить целую колонну немецких танков. А британский комет лучше по мнению автора) А шерман ищо лучше!!)) Я уже молчу про то, что форма модельки КВ-1 не правильная - влд под наклоном как у Т-34
Да и ис2 прошивал тигра с расстояния в 2км и более. Чего не мог даже королевский тигр.
Ага! А М26 на 12'м. Который производить начали в 1945. Ну тогда и ИС-3 сюда надо было включить. На параде же поучавствовал...
Афтор редиска, хрен клал на историю
тигр2 сосёт в рандоме.
Beautiful work as always. But what was your criteria for greatness? Personal preference?
Congrats on stretching this out to 10 mins this is about as time efficient as the U.S. joining a world war
If u r British or Soviet, give our steel back
I was wondering what that ponderous running back of every 10 was all about.
Actually, without the US, Britain wouldn’t have stood a chance. And they still were shit. Sherman’s were Lend leased to Great Britain. And don’t say “what about the firefly?!” The firefly was a copy of the Sherman with a better gun and armor. Without the Sherman, there would’ve been no firefly. Enough about tanks, On D day when US paratroopers dropped they still managed to complete their mission. But when the UK dropped their paratroopers In Operation Market garden that went to shit real fast. The United States controlled the seas with their fleet. They controlled the skies. Hell, D Day by its self is a larger accomplishment than Britain as a whole during the war. Britain only did something In North Africa fighting the Italians and the DAK.
Daniel Vasquez no
Al McWhiggin no it’s not the Americans had it easy compared to Britain most of all the defenses were concentrated there lol
Number 15
Elefant fire engine.
The last thing you'd want in your elefant's engine is fire from nowhere. But as it turns out, that might be what you get
I even read it on the voice from the start lmao
T 34 85 should be 1st...and i am saying this as a German ;)
Even the regular Tiger is more iconic and had higher imoact than the Tiger 2...
*Myself, Spookston, The Chieftain, and several hundred others are typing*
The M4A3E8 would like to have an APCBC word with you.
600 tigers were destroyed. And 55k T-34 were. destroyed. Why should T34 be in the 1st?
Because soviet made 70k of that?
And for second subject I agree with you. Tiger 1 was better than 2.
Russian bias didn’t exist in real life, the only reason they ever won is because they were mass produced and sometimes exploded before even getting to battle.
Great video !!!
Long live the TANKS
Thanks 👍
Here's a little known fact about the Panther that I think should put it in 2nd; It's suspension could absorb uneven ground up to 50cm. That figure was never reached again until the Cold War. The leopard 2 beats that figure later on.
Great tank parade! Excellent making. Apart from the fact that the King Tiger was in service only from 1944 to 1945 there is another important correction to be made: German Panzer IVs were in service up till 1967! Of course not in the defeated and destroyed German Wehrmacht but in armies of other countries such as France, Spain and (former) Czechoslovakia. The French had collected a vast number of abandoned Panzer IVs on the battlefield. In the 50ies and 60ies the Syrian army bought more than 100(!) of these Panzer IVs (including sufficient ammunition and spare parts) from all across Europe to beef up its tank forces. And they saw action in the Six-Day War of 1967. The Panzer IVs would have been powerful and effective tanks even 22 years after WWII had ended. However, only if (!) they had been operated by experienced German tank crews. But in Syrian hands they were no match against the Israeli Centurions, the type of tank initially designed to end the superiority of the King Tiger on the Western front in WWII.
I… what… no? A panzer 4 would be utterly useless against a centurion. Period. Full stop.
@6:23 I thought it would be joseph stalin
PREDATOR I uprove
it should be Iosif Stalin
Is Vladimir Putin
We've seen winston Churchill in the video but not stalin 😢
PREDATOR no that would be for IS 2
These videos in SketchUp setting are probably "first of its kind"....and I liked them so much...this idea is so innovative
Great to see _one_ italian tank that was pretty much already replaced when the war started, no other mention of the L6/40 or any of the great Semovente TDs like the 75/18 M40/41.
Neither polish 13TP who rekt german Panzer I, II and III.
Italian tanks sucked though so I see why they weren’t on the list
@@stirlinghadley8560 let me guess, the only Italian tanks you know are L3/33 and m13/40 and pretend to be a tank expert aware that you don't know sh1t. Go cry somewhere else…
@@stirlinghadley8560 let me guess, the only italian tanks you know are L3/33 and m13/40 and pretend to be a tank expert knowing that you know nothing.
Thank you for 'RUDY'
Any time!
AmazingViz that soviet tank really be Putin those Germans down huh?
@@corrat4866 Автор даже полякам угодил. Взял советский танк и представил его польским. Просто ужас. В польше еще не все памятники советским солдатам снесли?
@@outsider9325 автор либераха проплаченная
What about the T-44 there are multiple reports of them being used in the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo and it was pretty much a very uparmored T-34/85
Uhhh.....WW2
@@russianbs the invasion of Manchukuo was still in WW2...
@@gies1714 did they do anything to germans?
In my opinion the top 10 tanks in order are:
10. StuG III G
9. Sherman Firefly
8. IS-2
7. King Tiger
6. M26 Pershing
5. Churchill Mk.VII
4. Panzer IV
3. T-34/85
2. Panther
1. M4A2E8 Sherman
in my opinion trying to rank tanks in a vacuum is really just stupid, pointless and doesnt mean anything
Where Bob Semple
War thunder: this is incorrect according to BR....
Never rely on War thunder BR. The Jumbo is NOT as good as the Tiger. Unpopular opinion, the jumbo is worse.
XD
@Dominate Gene Eh, the 75 can do the job against the h1, but not the panther. You have to treat the panther like a heavy in the jumbo and flank.
@Dominate Gene Exactly
SHUSH
ИС 2 мог наравне и королевским тигром (тигром 2) сразится, ИС 2 должен был быть в топ 5
Тут вообще не понятно по каким критериям они танки сравнивают , по-моему просто от балды выставили .
ИС ещё ладно, тут хецер выше ису 152.
ИС-3
Не мог ИС-2 наравне бороться с Тигром 2. По многим причинам Тигр 2 лучше чем ИС, но с Тигром случилась не качественная сталь и очень сырая конструкция + высокая масса и достаточно слабая ходовая. Зато в плане огневой мощи Тигр 2 был на голову выше, чем ИС-2.
@@MadFox212 на какую голову выше? Д-25 МОЩНЕЙШЕЕ танковое орудие второй мировой и соажались они на равных ну а на месяц бы дольше повоевали - ИС-3 просто раздавил бы всё. Его L7 с лелпарда 1 не пробивает в лоб. Про kwk 88 и речи не могло быть.
I find it impressive the m3 Stuart is still being used
Yeah, but who'd want to invade Paraguay?
Tiger II was a waste of resources
Change my mind
Yes but for Germany it was the best decision because at the end of the war they didn't have enough or well trained men for many tanks. It was better to have strong tanks.
Imagine what's better:
300 Tanks (maybe Panzer IV or Panther) with 100 good trained tank crew's and the rest are only young men with 2 week's of training
Or
100 King Tigers with good trained tank crew's.
Better 1 King Tiger with trained soldier's as 3 other tanks with bad trained men
If the tiger 2 could really hit the battlefield it woulf be the best tank but at the end of the war it could't really do any thing
@@elvtarsjeno2276 is-2 44 could be his counter easily. It actually was.
@DjBalkoni ты что там про нашу водку сказал (I from Russia)
Crusty ! Yeah but the King tiger crews weren't trained that well, and the argument that quality is better than quantity in the situation the German found themselves in is just plain wrong , numbers will always overwhelm take the battleship Yamato for example, it was sent out to terrorise the American fleet but found itself pummelled by overwhelming numbers
5:19 The hellcat is one of excellent tank destroyers ever built. AmazingVids thanks for bringing this beast alive.!😎😍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Gerber Lopez what about isu 152?)
@@daveligard725 isu 122 was better than 152
@@cjgroovestreet good point.
@@daveligard725 122 is hot. Sorry man.
Isu 122 Long 122mm gun=nice speed of shell=good penetration
Man it's nice to see the tiger 2gl getting some love, for me that will always be number 1.
The first tank I ever saw was a german tiger tank in an old movie we watched, I fell in love at that point will always be a fan of the tiger series.
I love the Tiger 2, but its reliablity was terrible
@@RetroAdzz Germans had to rush their tanks into battle for obvious reasons. It did get better, the longer it was in service. And all vehicles and airplanes go thru teething problems.
i think the comments agree with me that the elefant was an abysmal tank destroyer. Youd have been lucky to even get one running
read a book about them... you fell to propaganda... no tank destroyer had a better kill-to-loss-ratio, including the blown up or abandoned tanks by the own crews... in combat you see a ferdinand and you are dead - as a russian. The job of a tank-killer is to kill tanks, nobody was better
The Elephant had some success in Italy, since the battles were more static and you didnt have move the beast.
Expected to see Big Bob in first place
Have you ever heard the tragedy of panther the combustible?
Tiger2 really? The infamously underpowered and unreliable rushed tank of the whole war? Yeah that seems right
Underpowered? What? It was one of the most powerful tanks of ww2. It's only real competitor in armor and weapon is the is-2 (not counting tank destroyers)
@@joaquinparraud7775 Lol german armor in the second part of war was a piece of shit, engine for that mass was very weak, IS-2 can pen Tiger 2 from more far distances than tiger.
@@exodus1621 on paper in theory, if you discuss your tanks with Father Stalin. In reality? Just no. The 122mm-gun was bad, really bad... they faked the penetration tests, yes - they lied to their own soldiers... how stupid. The IS2 had also only a few rounds, needed also HE-shells... and - most ignore the fact that even the best german tank guns had a 15:1 ratio before they hit an enemy tank... the russian guns, optics and crews were vastly worse... so with only 30 rounds, half HE-shells, how far away do you start to shoot at the enemy? Esp. if the enemy has twice the number of AP-shells as you have in total? Eh?
The Tiger II wasn’t very great because of his high price and low quality. At his first battle he lost against T-34-85 without destroying one of them
@ThElectrofier He probably meant the steel quality of late war german tanks was really bad and would crack when getting hit. Anyway the engine and transmission were too weak on the Kingtiger.
Another Too Professional Russian Bias Feller Upset that his T-34 Couldn't make #1.
In my opinion. It was the most reliable tank in World War II.
I wouldn't call it the best.
All tanks have downsides even the T-34-85.
(Don't get butthurt, we're all biased over something)
@@theloseremo3429 it wasnt the most reliable, plus it cost a fuck ton to produce one. German here but the t34 is just better
Hanz! Ze transmission broke down!
@@theloseremo3429 the T-34/T-34-85 had a lot of problemes : the crew was cramped, T-34 1940 had only a 3 man crew, very hard to escape in case of a fire for the driver, anooying striker pin for the traks to not fall off, etc
My favourite tank is the M4 Sherman😀
Everyone out here pondering the Elefant's place at #15, while I'm over here trying to figure out why any Italian tank was even able to make it on the list.
looks like your head is stuffed of propaganda of the allies and meme
the italian M13/40 in this video make it in the video caude it was an really good machine
the front armor of 44mm could stop light autocannons and HMG fire and is 47mm long barrel cannon was able to pierce most allied tanks like the crusaders the m3 lee and the first variants of the m4 sherman
but if you are soo idiot to compare an tankette concepted only for fight infranty to tanks here the CV35 CC(contro carro) that with is 20mm anti tank rifle and is tiny size it was able to destroy the enemies with ambush
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry Not sure why you are so up in arms about this, lol. It was a joke. Return forth to your mother's basement, o valiant internet warrior.
Edit: Ok, I understand that you are Italian, and I am also 25% Italian myself. However, I live in America, and I don't bat an eyelid when someone talks about how awful some of our culture and political leaders are, because not only is it a joke, but those people's opinions don't matter. Oh, well. I guess shouldn't expect much from someone whose English is almost as broken as the Italian economy.
and i have all the Low tier tanks in world of tank :P
@Frank Sakurai-Cook Wot is more arcade game, war thunder is boring for me, played it and nope.
@Frank Sakurai-Cook the positive thing about WOT is you Can play it in your handphone
@@radingkarocha750 I played both games - WoT and WT. For me, War Thunder is better. Everybody have own opinion about games
Wot sucks, this rng is fucking funny. When I came back to wot it was only 1 day to uninstall it again (about 1h of gameplay) I wish I hadn't spent my money in wot... Better option would be spent that money for csgo cases...
@@radingkarocha750 sure you can, but can you connect accounts? :P
You must create new one ;P
Why does the Matilda 2 only have one track at 3:15
You should have compared 50 t34s against 1 tiger2 cuz thats how many t34s Russians had compared to what the Germans had
Soviet tanks were good not only for their high efficiency, but also for the simplicity of production, unlike German tanks
Ha ha ha, smart and funny joke, as always - overthrowed enemy with meat. Because? Because it is undoubtedly works, of course
At the beginning of Second World War soviet tanks were better in all aspects than any other german tank. Read about T-34 and KV-1
@@goodprosecutor the soviets started with a hodge podge of outdated tanks. The T28, T29, T26, BT5, BT7, etc. The Soviets just threw whatever they could at the time to slow the Germans down so they can move their factories further back away from the front.
Allen Rosales that’s not true. Sure Soviets had many outdated tanks which were inferior to new Panzer III variants and early Panzer IV variants but other than that were pretty equal to weaker German tanks which btw were the most numerous in the German army. Moreover Russian tanks outnumbered the German ones. Last but not least before we talk about Operation Barbarossa Soviet casualties let’s talk about KV-1s and T-34-76s who were mostly ontouchable by German armor in early stages of the war. They couldn’t penetrate them with any tank. They had to rely mostly on planes and 88s. The Soviets had big losses either way but not because their tanks were shitty but becausw they lacked skilled commanders who lacked the initiative and relied on chaotic plans of the Soviet High Command. Google the battle for Dubno and Brody and see what mistakes the Russians made and what could have likely been the outcome if the Soviet leadership was capable in 41.
How much big size gun want your tank?
Führer: fix naval gun(Landkreuzer p1000 Ratte)
Sorry my English lol😂
Porche: What gun we fit?
Führer: Yes
@@LostCauseRT 👌😁
@@LostCauseRT Porsche, not Porche
Isnt it easier to say Maus?
@@rokog5308 the p1000 and the maus are different tanks
"Let's come up with a list of tanks"
"A list of what tanks?"
"Just a list of tanks"
The M4 Sherman is always good to me
The Sherman was a bad tank myth is just as good as the myth about the M1 Garand Ping given away soldiers positions.
It was a great medium tank at the time. Not the best by any means but definitely a good tank. And people like to bring up the points that it’s outclassed by a Tiger. Like no shit you’re comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank. And obviously more Sherman’s are going to get knocked out being on the offensive and going against an enemy that is well equipped with plenty of anti tank weaponry.
@@lejenddairy I think the best thing I heard about the Sherman is that it was a soldiers tank not a planners tank. Soldiers loved it was it was reliable and easy to manuever and repair, and its 75mm gun was great against the vast majority of things they were fighting, primiarly StuG's, Panzer IV's, and anti-tank emplacements. Soviet's who fought in both T-34's and lend-lease Shermans loved the Shermans more because it was much more reliable and easier to use.
@@MutsumiOtohime78 T-34 vs M4 Sherman which one would get knocked out first
@@AScottish-AustralianM-84 The T-34. The T-34 can easily be penetrated & destroyed through the turret or turret ring with a 75mm AP Sherman round. But you could actually do severe damage with even a HE round that hit the T-34 in the hull, which would cause internal shrapnel damage or a hull fracture because of the extremely poor quality of the metal and welds used.
@@NMJZ alright thanks
The Hetzer was still in use in the 70ish with the swiss army
Who made these rankings? How tf are the elefant and Pershing in the top 20?
3:59 Wasn’t it the British version of the m10 wolverine called the Achilles that had the QF 17 pdr
yes
Both 3" and 17-pounder armed _M10's_ were called _"Achilles."_
Brendan Mohney read the description underneath the tank
@@peterson7082 the american was called volverine and the british with 17 pounder was called achilles
@@JustMatt2137 Nope, the British called both 3" and 17 pounder armed Achilles. Wolverine is a post war nickname.
6:24 Путин на бревномёте(лол,что?)
О,Русский
Привыкай к этому
Ну конешно, это же Россия)
As a historian I don't agree with the top, but alright I know is based (most likely) in personal opinions rather facts and data. The 3D models tho are amazing gj!
Yeah, the maker of this video clearly doesn't understand tanks, it's all based on the armor and gun. Not on the crew experience, reliability or survivability.
@@jaco2508 is not even accurate if we just take in consideration gun preformance and armor. But anyways I guess is just a personal top
@@angelmatesmolan yes
Z 4 pancernych rudego wziął xDDD
9:34 well King tiger is the best tank In ww2. Good job amazingvids😀😁😍😎
Nah
T34 76
@@Lahna_1 T-34? No.... At first glance, the T-34 was impressive: the diesel engine, angled armour plates to increase the bullet-proofness of the structure, wide tracks for mobility and a 76 mm calibre gun. The Germans did not have similar tanks at that time and it seemed that the Red Army was light years ahead of the Wehrmacht in the field of armoured weapons.
Meanwhile the T-34 had a lot of disadvantages. During the tests of prototypes, they became especially aware of the failures of the propulsion system. The engine's resilience, i.e. its guaranteed time of failure-free and safe operation, was set at just 100 hours. Clutches had low durability. Gearbox teeth were breaking off. Despite all these shortcomings, on 31 March 1940 it was decided to accept it for production practically without any corrections. Oh, the legendary Russian fantasy!
Russians of dubious quality of their new tank were already convinced in the summer of 1940, when its comparative tests with PzKpfw III purchased in Germany were conducted. It was a real shock for them, when it turned out that with the exception of a larger caliber cannon and a bit better armor, the Soviet tank gave way to the German "three" almost in every aspect.
In the terrain, the T-34 swayed strongly to the sides, and on uneven ground, it had a tendency to vibrate. The German tank was more comfortable in this respect and at the same time much quieter than its Soviet counterpart.
As far as the propulsion system is concerned, the T-34 significantly deviated from PzKpfw III. The German tank had definitely more reliable and failure-free engine. The Achilles heel of the Soviet engine was air filters. They had to be cleaned every few dozen kilometers, otherwise the drive unit would be obliterated.
Also the working environment of the four-man crew of the Soviet tank was not one of the most friendly. It was difficult to accommodate the loader and commander in a tight tower. The latter had to fulfil the role of a targeting officer as well, which made it overloaded with duties. The observation and aiming devices were of low quality. A single large hatch with unfortunate hinges in the front led to the inside of the tower.
The problem of gunfire or mg's discharge was poorly solved. The tower did not have a fan, but only a ventilation hole. As a result, after several shots fired, the interior of the tower was filled with carbon monoxide with a concentration ten times higher than the acceptable standards.
In practice, in order to ventilate the tank, it was necessary to open both the hatch of the tower and the front manhole of the driver-mechanic. The latter too, despite the tank's perfectly shaped front plate, was its weak point. In case of hitting it an enemy bullet fell into the car, "by the way" massacring the driver sitting behind it.
The mere driving of the tank was a real cripple for the driver because of the hard and imprecise gearbox. It was a very physically exhausting activity. One had to have a lot of luck and patience to throw in the right gear.
The equipment with communication means was tragic. Less than one in ten tanks had a radio station. Signalling flags were in common use. The internal telephone connected only the commander and the driver. The rest of the crew lived in the "unconscious" tactical situation.
No wonder that after these embarrassing tests for T-34 there were voices among the Soviet decision-makers about the necessity to interrupt the production that had just started. It was suggested either to thoroughly rebuild the tank or to replace it with a new construction. It was even proposed to resume production of its predecessor, the BT-7M tank. Eventually it was decided to continue production, but already in October 1940 design works on its successor started. However, all these plans were interrupted by the outbreak of war.
Paradoxically, the T-34 had the greatest advantage over German tanks, but only in some aspects, at the beginning of the war, when the Red Army suffered one defeat after another. During the war, of course, it was constantly modernized. Its latest version was the T-34-85, the first copies of which left the factory halls in December 1943.
However, this happened at a time when the German Panthers and Tigers were already in service, which definitely outclassed him in terms of fire and armour. Even later versions of PzKpfw IV became his equal enemy. Also the anti-tank weapons of the German infantry had no problems with destroying it.
@@Lahna_1 XD
What happened to the T-44?
6:30 why is the KV-2 like 3× its actual size it has the same chassis as the KV-1
Is there anyone loves tank because of watching "Girls und Panzer" ???
no.
Weeb
@@morgan4544 You're only a weeb if you buy anime merch, not if you just watch it.
Im currently watching iz
@@morgan4544yes, yes i am. Im a proud bloody weeb
2:24 please tell me where this little thing is used today?
RUDY - чувак, это так мило, жаль собачку не нарисовал :)
Oooo Rudy 102
Im a World of tanks player, and this look so epic
Sherman, Cromwell/Comet, Panzer IV/StuG, Later half of T34. These would've been the warwinning workhorses. Hence to me the most value.
dosen´t mean they are the best tanks
@@gamerdrache6076 then clearly the Ratte is the best by design.
doesent include: m36, t34/76, kv 1s, kv 85, churchill 1.
somehow includes: panzer 38 (t), smoua, elefant/ferdinand (most of this tanks casualties came from the tanks breakdowns without the enemy), panzer 2, and the m3 lee.
with those bad tanks you might as well also have the bob semple siting in #1 place
This is an outrage The Bob Semple Tank should be No1 followed by The TOG. TOG is not happy
It seems you ordered these by how well they performed in their role (hence why some of the ranking are where they are and causing people to rage down here in the comments). However if that’s the case the M3 Lee should definitely be higher, due to the fact it’s role was to be a temporary filler until the Sherman’s were ready.
I keked so hard when I saw the Elefant on this list
wait, are u telling me that the legendaries T-34-85 and the migthy war machine KV-2 lost the first place aganinst the self transmission braaker AKA tiger II, like bro, REALLY?! i mean just a single KV-2 held THE WHOLE 6TH PANZER DIVISION FOR 1 WHOLE DAY and also do you really tink a german tank desearves the 1st place even tho the same germans admited the the T-34 was the best tank, ''*German Field Marshall von Kleist described the Russian T-34 as the best tank of World War Two'' anyway i think it was a good video and almost all the rankings were acurrate, keep up the good work comrade!
No swastika on German tanks?
The swastika was not part of the tanks coloration.
The balkenkreuz was.
Me seeing Japanese Italian, and French tanks a top tank video: *are you sure about that*
Thomas Lurey French tanks were good in the early war but got outnumbered by pzkfpw II’s
France wished it had Panzer II tanks in the Franco-Prussian War
France wouldn't have lost 350k men and would be more powerful for when WW1 happens
Ah yes history...
Great vid 👌👌
Эм кто создавал эти топыы!!!
Ребята , которые по ощущениям из вот топы делают и называют себя историками
KV2 n°11 ?
Tiger II n°1 ?
This ranking list is ridiculous.
Its true
@Jackson Challender what did the KV-2 do? It couldn't even turn it's turret if it wasn't on flat terrain
The kv2 was garbage. Was only good for shooting at bunkers and had terrible reliability issues.
Jackson Challender kv 2 vs king tiger who would win ? Also the king tiger is only in the war for 2 years
All kv2s died in 1 year.
The Königstiger was not in service as soon as 1940. It entered service in 1944, with only 500 being made. It entered the war too late to make a difference. It was just an obstacle that American, British and Soviet tanks could destroy. In my opinion the top tank is the Panther, because of its good armour, high velocity gun, and decent speed. I would argue that this is the first Main Battle Tank. My rant is over also where is bob semple.
and to note the panther was less expensive than the panzer 4
RUDY!