Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "What \"killed\" the most tanks in World War 2?" video.

Probably goldammo cheaters and arty
73
The interesting thing is rather "what was the greatest threat to tanks in World war 2". Because if for example aircrafts would be the most lethal threat to a tank, then commanders would try to only move their tanks by night or rainfall to avoid contact with airplanes - and that in turn would make tank losses due to airpower very low, while enemy airpower could have a huge importance on the battlefield. Its a bit the same problem as when we talk crime statistics. Young men are the largest group of victims to violance, while oldies and women suffer much less from it (according to statistics). Which is odd one might think, since young men would be stronger and more capable of defending themselves and should therefore not be easy victims. So why are old and women underrepresented in statistics over victims of violent crime? Because they stay home if they are afraid to got out, and they do so to a larger extent than men. So of course, if a tank sits under a cammo net and camp in a bush, then of course losses to airpower will be reduced. But even if the planes doesn't kill a single tank they might have large importance on the battlefield, since the enemy is scared and doesn't dare to move his tanks by daytime and therefore got a huge strategic handicap, because we can move troops during the day but he can't.
69
80% chance of surviving in a british american german tank 20% in a russian
28
well, the survival rate doubled when the british tankers were starting to use helmets
7
PanzerIV was a tank that entered service in 1935 so of course the tank would become outdated as the war progressed. And with out outdated I mean that it would become clearly inferior to the best versions of the M4 tank and hoplessly inferior to the IS-2 tank on the eastern front. And the 76mm on the Sherman didn't have any problems dealing with most German tanks, including the PanzerIV that you claim to be so superior. "While the 76 mm had less High Explosive (HE) and smoke performance than the 75 mm, the higher-velocity 76 mm gave better anti-tank performance, with firepower similar to many of the armored fighting vehicles it encountered, particularly the Panzer IV tank and StuG assault gun vehicles. Using the M62 APC round, the 76 mm gun penetrated 109 mm (4.3 in) of armor at 0° obliquity and 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s (2,600 ft/s). The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm (7.0 in) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s (3,400 ft/s)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1 The PanzerIV variant had 80millimeters of armour at its best protected area of the tank, and the Sherman 76mm gun could go through 109mm of armour. So PanzerIV was no match for a m4. That doesn't say that armour is completly useless, since it can give protection against some guns, and from long distances and certain angles it can also protect against some of the bigger guns. But this armour protection that Panzer IV H had came at a price, since all extra armour doubled the weight of the tank and made life difficult for the engine, which in turn slowed the tank down and possibly increased the risk of an engine failure.
5
gun = revolver
4
I highly disagree. Saying panzerIV was superior to the sherman is like saying Sherman was superior to the Panther. Its a silly statement, because it is 12 tonnes of weight in difference between those machines. Furthermore is there also an age difference. PanzerIV was the oldest design of those 3, and it had boxshaped armoured while shermans armour was angled and thicker. PanzerIV was crampy inside while the other tanks were more comfy. PanzerIV just happened to be a tank with limited capabilities that was being upgraded and surprisingly well could do tasks it never was designed to do. But at the end of the war it was becoming a little bit outdated. But sherman however went through many upgrades even long after the war. PanzerIV was not a good tank when the war started. Both britain and france had superior tanks, and even panzerIV that was supposed to be the best what the germans had (along with panzer3) were objectivly inferior to their enemies which had more powerful gun, thicker and better sloped armour and a better horsepower per tonnes ratio. The German panzers were quite unimpressive until the panzer4f-version arrived.
4
The Germans usally wanted a high up position from which they could spot targets. And they opened up all the windows in a building so no one could easily guess from what window the fire came from. And they were usally positioned in the middle in the room. Perhaps the videos below can be to some help.. atleast I hope I post the right ones now, since I dont bother to watch them twice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEjwxXD0q_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDVaMXke61E
3
@Махамбет Мамыров Source for my stats is the book Ostfront https://www.amazon.com/Ostfront-Hitlers-1941-45-General-Military/dp/1855327112 And you shouldn't forget that the Sherman also got sloped armour and isn't build with shit-quality steel pieced togheter by unskilled Russian labour or even kids. The T-34 was designed for combat and massproduction and nothing else - and it was good at meeting those two requirements. It was a weapon that stopped the nazis from winning. But it was also a weapon that had shitty quality in other aspects. German tanks have so much craftmanship into them that they can keep running today, while Russian tanks breaks apart - because the Russians were smart and realized that it was pointless to build a tank that lasted for much more than 6 months... because 6 months was the average lifespan of a Russian tank. T-34 was also the loudest tank of all tanks that served in WWII, and they needed 15 minutes to get their engines started - which made them impractical for surprise attacks. But on the other hand could the sound from their engines be used as psychological warfare - because German veterans knew that familiar sound and would piss their pants if they heard that sound in the morning if they had no Stugs or panzers to help them. T-34 was noisy and crampy... and since the men sat so tight togheter they would all easily get hit when metal pieces were flying around inside the tank after a hit, and it would be difficult to run out from this crampy tank when it started to burn. So being a Russian tanker was probably one of the most dangerous jobs one could have during the war.
3
Merry christmas God Jul
2
In 1944 Germany probably relied mostly on StuGs, Panzer IV and a few Panthers. And both StuG and PzIV looks unremarkable compared to USA/UKish tanks, indeed they even look inferior. They of course had the Panther, which was mechnically unreliable due to its hasty development, and Germany was running out of material to make quality steel. Too few could be built, so Germans would always fight heavily outnumbered. And the Americans got their goldammo with high penetration that could deal with the German cats. So I would life the Panther to the skies either and claim it to be the best tank ever build. It had good frontal armour, a good gun, and good sights, and good mobility across mud and snow. But the rest about the tank was not good. The side armour was crap despite this tank was too valueable to lose. Its weight was too much for many bridges - which could be a major disadvantage as the battle of the Korsun pocket shows. The other german tank are not worth mentioning. Either because they were crap - like Pnazer3. Or because they were in such a rare number that they could not have any impact at all.
2
less than 2 hours of fighting for a Russian tank (if i remember correctly)
1
PanzerIV was an older lighter tank than the sherman and it was never intended to be this tank with a big gun to begin with. And the tigers and panters had good guns and front armour, but their side armour was as bad as allied tanks. So if the allies could give the German tanks flanking fire, they became easy victims. But if the allies were fighting the Germans frontally they could just fire some smoke shells and that would take away all the German advantages. So having an overpowered supertank with a sniper gun wasn't always so useful. Another reason for the bad performance of the good tanks was the lack of support in 1944-45. The war had decimated the supporting infantry in the panzer divisions. And Hitlers brigades suffered terribly at Arracourt due to the lack of AA guns, artillery support and recon. And shitty troops and bad coordination.
1
Panzerfaust were cheap to make - they didn't cost much money, resources or workhours to build. And they were basicly the only ant-tank weapon Germany had in left in 1945. The Luftwaffe was as good as destroyed, German tanks were rare and demanded on all fronts and they were way too few to be able to help the infantry against allied tanks. And even anti-tank guns had become rare after all losses and guns they had to leave behind during retreats. So at the end only mines and panzerfausts was what Germany had in massiva amounts. Plus lots of patriotism. Before 1945 the war had been fought outside the German border, but now the allies were trying to take over the holy German soil and the beloved fatherland, so now there was really no option left to retreat not. Germans would fight more fanatically now then earlier in the war, and even make suicidal raids just to stop the allied advance. And panzerfaust was an effective easy to use weapon that even a brainwashed nazi kid could use, and since many kids didn't understand what war was, many of them had no fear in battle. And only one rocket could be enough to take out a massive armoured beast that have taken resources and thousands of workhours to build.
1