The Sherman (preferably the Jumbo), if I am going to potentially die, I might as well do it in comfort.
You comments always come off so dickish. lol. Maybe I'm just as bad. But you seem to be failing at some basic comprehensions also. Roughly 25 to 35% of the American tanks produced where given to her allies and the soviet union. So to use the number 88,000 as the range is false. Take off a d 32,000 or so. Leaves you with 56,000 or so. So then you can divide and magically you'll find Its not 11%. Its 17%. Sure yours is more accurate but it's still false. It's also misleading in the first place because the reality by 44 almost entirely the Sherman was used. Very few other tanks saw any action. A total of 18,000 M4 Sherman were issued to the US army&Marine core.(Knock off 1,000 for marines) The majority of US tank losses where infact those very issued Sherman. You can look for specifics but its the ball park of around 5,300. Leaving the Sherman with a loss rate of 31%. Which the M4 was the best tank the Allied had to offer, So I doubt other tanks faired any better. There's a lot more in there to look at..you could raise as high as 100% if you look at the amount deployed 4,000 by the US in Normandy..and a loss rate of 4,000. Meaning its a 100% loss rate and all the tanks had to be replaced. Its also important to note the vast and rapid number of losses taken in by only single years combat. Sherman had been produced since 42. That matters also.
The reality is. Just make sure you are in a German tank formation. Your biggest threat is running outta fuel, lol. Well I mean. As long as Geermany isn't horribly loosing the war.If that's the question, then I conclude that the Swedish Strv m/41 was the best tank of the war. Stronk Czech (rivetted) tank design, and located many kilometers away from the fighting! Sure, 160 mm or whatever the KT has for front armour sounds strong, but take just one kilometer, and you're already at 1 000 000 mm! Really, at that point, KT or BT-7, it hardly matters in comparison. Not being at war also heavily increases survivability.
Maybe only tanks of nations at war counts? Then I would say the Norwegian L-120 tank. I know people say that the USSR focused on Quantity over Quality, and T-34 stronk blahblah but the L-120 can be considered nothing short of a complete revolution in operational and strategic thinking. Focusing on minimum possible quantity (1 unit) and minimum possible quality (a Swedish experimental tank with its armor replaced with iron plates for economic reasons, armed with one machine gun), but maximum possible crew survivability (the tank was considered so useless that it was left at the equipment depot when the regiment mobilized, thus it was never crewed in wartime, thus 100% wartime crew survivability).
But seriously though... armored recovery vehicles, that's something I would like. You still serve in the army, but behind the safety of your own lines. You are also going to spend your days fixing the awesome armoured legends of your nations, but not, you know, operating them and killing people while dying. I think I would really like that. I'm a peaceful sort of person.
I might not have taken your question seriously, but this is my honest conclusion.
I guess I disagree. To me its representative of the air war. Germany always punched above its weight. It outperformed practically every nation for what it had excluding in strategic warfare..which ironically is what got it to loose the war, lol. In a tactic sense the Germans excelled and they had the best armored leaders. I trust Heinz Gudierian over Patton, Zhukov, and Montgomery. The German issue in losses were primarily a Hitler issue. You can count millions of German troops lost because of Hitlers localized force orders, refusal to retreat at Stalingrad, Refusal to retreat a lot of times. The most Veteran and experienced of the German lost because Hitler wouldn't listen to his generals. Normandy is another example of him simply not listening. My point being is you had a mass of issues that centered around the leader..which matters. But the general tactic control of Germany was fantastic and strategically not that bad if they didn't have such a demagogue.
Don`t use quotes because that is not what I said, by a long shot.
It was common practice among both side to censor actual losses. No one told it like it was. In fact people in the US went to jail for daring to speak out against the war. The T-34 in 41 was quite useless because of its reliability problems. But the Soviets fixed the problem with good modification and updating of the tank.
10 billion in aid. And still complaining, lmfao. Oh soviet. You so silly. That's what 100 billion? 300 billion in today money? AND those numbers are production cost. Not buying cost if I recall.
