I don't know which source you want so I'll give you all of them.
Claim number 1, penetration numbers
This one is simply proven by looking at penetration numbers from the USA and the Uk, Aberdeen and Bovington test respectively. And of course the German penetration numbers.
V
Claim number 2, Soviet tank losses
No spoiler for this, Soviet General Krivosheyev and Jentz both (independently from each other) inspected the true, irrecovered Soviet tank losses and both calculated pretty much the exact same number of vehicles.
Claim number 3, armour quality
Satisfactory?
Indeed although im assuming these impregnability claims came from different angles during the testing(this source says 90 degrees the one earlier was at 30 so ill have to do some more research. Not sure What Soviet tank losses have to do with this though?
Only Sherman has over the Mark IV is better anti infantry performance with HE shells and even then the latter is more than capable without having to manually switch shells.(still dont understand why this mechanic exist for only the Sherman but I digress)
I rarely see the t34 76 nowadays. Most people opt for the doctrinal tanks which is a different set of problem.
the USF usually get their tanks early because of their early dominance. Most people can get away without researching the bars, bazooka, or 57mm and cruise straight for the major.
However, to bring the question around, would the USF feel comfortable facing pziv with stuarts, 57mm, and bazooka?
Bazookas need a bit of a buff, but even in there current state can still threaten a mark IV. Stuart is crap all around a needs a big buff, 57mm handles them just like any other AT gun.
Nobody has been speaking about the Panther. This is a thread about the Is 2 and the Tiger Ace.
But let's inspect some claims made:
(wall of text)
tl;dr it's badly made up and cherrypicked, refuted many times by many people.
Oh and also the Tiger ace is simply a bad concept.
The Panther was clearly referenced in addition to the Tiger I in this thread. Also its nice to see some info back up a claim,but could you please provide the origin of this source?
1v1 sherman > tiger/panther. Best gun, armor, reliability, cost, and the fact that they weren't operated by super evile nazi's. That part alone is what makes them 10x better.
Nah its just people will fight to the death to the point that they'll end up saying shermans were superior when going head to head with tigers and panthers. They will fight tooth and nail than say that a german tank did better vs an allied tank. Its all myths and nazi propaganda supposedly.
Nice strawman!Numbers and actual data says otherwise
Reason Why we say its all myths is because pretty much all of your "sources" are just unverified claims and personel accounts made by the Germans namely SS PanzerBrigades; who were so notorious for inflating their kill claims even oberkommand didnt take them seriously.
These are all very badly informed posts. Modern age propaganda like tankarchives.blogspot poison peoples minds.
Back on topic, the IS 2 has no problem killing infantry. It really is overperforming for it's cost.
And the SS were all honorable men of integrity right? If Tank Archives and other sources are so wrong apparently then please by all means point me to true legit sources?
"At the end of two weeks of fighting, the Panther regiments in the Ardennes were shattered, losing about 180 tanks or 43 percent of the starting force of about 415 Panthers. Of the remaining 235 Panthers, only 45 percent were operational, and the remaining 55 percent were dead-line with mechanical problems or battle damage. In the case of the US First Army, which bore the brunt of the Ardennes fighting, by the end of December in had lost about 320 Sherman tanks of which about 90 were M4A1/A3 (76mm), equivalent to about one-quarter of its average daily strength that month. Due to continual reinforcements, First Army had about 1,085 Shermans on hand at the end of December 1944 with about 980 operational and only 9 percent deadline with mechanical problems or battle damage."