Best Tank of WW2??????

Panther and T-34.

 

Many consider the Panther's 75mm cannon to be more powerful then that of the 88mm on the early tigers, which is a bonus for the panther making here either more or equally as deadly as the Tiger, with more mobility, lighter, and just an all around better tank.

 

there are many different meanings to refer a tank to be the very best of WW2. For example a) there is the tank with the most outstanding kill to loss performance in combat and which was the most effective tank in battles with the best kill-to-loss ratio. or b) just simply the best all around tank that combined speed, mobility and firepower and which was produced in high numbers (even though numbers don't depend only on the tank itself)...

At first, variant a): the best (or most effective) tank in combat during WW2 (only in terms of kills per losses), was either the Tiger II Aus. B "King Tiger" or the Tiger I. Aus. A. Both of them had the best kill-to-loss ratio and achieved very high kill statistics for only very low own losses.

They were used in Heavy tank battalions. for example, 503rd Heavy tank battalion (Schwere Panzerabteilung) which was the most effective tank battalion during WW2 is credited with the destruction of 1,700 enemy tanks for only 252 own losses. Tiger I and IIs performed both mostly effective on the eastern front, less on the the western theatre. the highest scoring tank ace of WW2, Kurt Knispel, who is recognized as the best tank commander of all time (with 168 confirmed tank kills) did command one of the King Tigers in the late stages of the war. Also Karl Körner, a famous german tank ace commanded a King Tiger and he is credited with the destruction of 11 heavy soviet IS-2 tanks (which he took out in Berlin) and killed further +100 soviet tanks in the battle for Berlin. Karl Bromman, another King Tiger ace, took place in the battle of Dancing and he is credited with 'only' 66 destroyed tanks plus 44 artillery pieces and 15 other vehicles. Maybe in terms of kills per loss, the King Tiger might have been the most successully tank of the war.

Sure, the King Tiger had its flaws, like it was very slow on, mostly on all terrain (only 15-18 mp/h) but on the road it still recieved maximum speed of at least 42 mp/h which is very fast for such a heavy tank. compare this to the french Char B-1 tank that weighed only 28 tons, it only had 21 mp/h maximum speed.

Now to the Tiger mark. I... In total there were 10 Tiger aces/commanders who killed more than 100 enemy tanks! (Yes ****ers that's correct, Michael Wittmann was not the only Tiger ace during WW2 with over 100 tank kills)... The Tiger Is most effective combat reports were made during the battle of Kursk during this time period the Tiger was simply the most safest tank on the battlefield with the highest survival rate. Also, during this time, almost no enemy tank guns were able to penetrate any of the Tiger's armor. the T34/76 (armed with the 76,2mm gun) could only pierce the side or rear armor as close as 200-100m distance and even then only when using ap rounds! Only the ZIS-3 field gun was able to penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at that time, even at longer range (500-800 meters distance). That's why the Tiger could survive a very long time on the battlefield and score high tank kills.

And don't tell me the panther was better in combat, that's not true. Panthers had very thin side and rear armor (only 30mm -compared to 80mm of the Tiger) so they were really weak protected. almost EVERY russian tank gun could penetrate this at long range. Even the weak T34 or KV-1 could kill the Panther at 1,000 meters range while they had to come close to the Tiger within 100 meters! plus there is not even one single Panther ace with over 100 tank kills, the best panther ace (Ernst Barkmann) killed 'only' 82 tanks with much luck. also this proves the Panther was less effective as the tiger in combat.

now back to variant b) there are another aspects to classify a tank as the best. like the best 'all around tank' that combined great mobility, good speed and somehwat good...um...firepower and armor protection...(which however could not be that good because it had to be sacrificed for the good speed)...has to be either the Panther, T34, Sherman or Cromwell.

for the ones who still think the best tank depends only on the highest production numbers (which actually changed the outcome of the war)....
but manufacturing numbers don't depend only on the vehicle itself (if it was easy to produce or not is unimportant). It depended more on the fact from what nation it was produced. Russia had the largest industrial capabilities in WW2, they only could produced plenty of tanks because they had large numbers of factories and supplies by their allies. In only one factory the russians had 35,000!!! workers! no joke! so many men worked in only one of their factories. Also don't forget the USA supplied the Soviet Union with tons and tons of materials and ressources! That's why the Russians could produce so many tanks. Stalin didin't even had enough boots for his own soldiers... SO don't tell me the T34 won over quality or anything, The Soviets could only win because they were supported by two other super powers and 50 other nations while the Germans weren't supplied by other super powers which come even close to the capability of the USA. if only the germans fought on the east front with all their strenght, the red army would have been smashed including all their numerical quantity tanks.

also, you have to consider that Russia was prepared for a war (Their armies were larger and their tanks were better - only in the early years though).

Take your own pick, for me it is either the Panther or Tiger. Both of them were good manufactured, had superior sights, superior firepower, superior armor protection and were simply the most deadly machines on the battlefield.

 

Tiger Ausf.A? :eh:

 

In terms of Kill/Loss ratio than the Tiger II outperformed any other tank during ww2, with a kill/loss ratio of 11 to 1 (this includes tiger II's lost to mechanical breakdown. In tank-to-tank combat, the tiger II had about a 20-30:1 kill/loss ratio). In terms of mobility, firepower and armor, than the panther reigns supreme. It had an extremely effective 75mm KwK L/70 gun, thicker frontal armor than the tiger, and respectable side and rear armor. It also has excellent mobility and was more reliable than the heavier german tanks. In terms of firepower, protection, armor, ease of use, impact on war, ease of production, and all other factors the T-34 is the best. It has good armor, firepower, the best mobility of any WW2 tank, was very reliable, easy to use, and could be easily mass produced.

 

Riddle me this:

How would the Tiger II do as a support tank in an amphibious assault?

How would it perform in a very hot, humid enviroment?

How would it do in very rugged and primative terrain?

How would it perform if it had to drive on its tracks say 1000 miles?

Same questions applied to the Panther....

I would also note that in terms of reliability and maintainability the Sherman is light years ahead of the T 34. It also has equal armor, an equal gun, better crew interaction, better visibility, better communications, better rate of fire, better egronomics and, basically beats the T 34 on every engineering aspect except sillouette.

 

Not to doubt what you say, or to throw a monkey wrench in the works, but why did the Soviets relegate their lend-lease Shermans to the quieter sectors? It seemed that they really didn't like them, or appreciate them very much.

 

The first large scale use of Shermans was in Bagration in 1944. 1st Guards Tank Army was using them and they spearheaded one of the main assaults into the 78th Sturm Division's positions along the critical Smolensk - Minsk highway.

 

1.In terms of firepower, armor, and mobility, the T-34 completely outclasses the sherman. It has thicker armor (while it was thinner it was sloped), a much better gun (its gun was roughly equal to the 76mm used on upgunned shermans), and a top speed 11mph higher. The Sherman was a good tank early in the war, but it was just cannon fodder for the heavy german tanks. In my opinion, it was by far the worst mass produced tank of world war 2. It had thin armor, a gun that completely ineffective against the heavier german tanks, It was loathed by its crews (it was called the zippo by its crews for its tendency to brew up after being hit), it was very tall, and had mediocre off-road performance. The only good things about it were its reliability, and its ease of production, and its good crew visibility. And plus when you put the T-34-85 into play, It has much, much superior firepower (even to that of the upgunned sherman), and equal crew visibility.

2.The tiger II was undoubtedly an extremely effective tank when used correctly. It excelled as a heavy breakthrough tank, and was almost unstoppable in the defensive role. Its frontal armor could not be penetrated by any american or british gun in existence (except a 17 pounder using APDS rounds, but those had serious accuracy issues). It also had the gun of the war (the 88mm L/71, for its sheer penetration, range, and accuracy, as well as long barrel life and powerful HE round). It also had very good off-road performance due the extremely wide tracks it used. Proof all all that I have said previously is its 11:1 kill/loss ratio, the highest of any tank during WW2.

 

Please tell me you are joking!
Could you provide us with any sources to back up your claims?

 

Probably not.....on both accounts

 

sourced for information on the Tiger II:

Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B Konigstiger / King(Royal)Tiger / Tiger II Sd. Kfz. 182

Pz Kpfw Tiger Ausf. B "Tiger II"

Pz.Kpfw.Tiger

German King Tiger tank - development history and photos

sources on information for the M4 sherman:

M4 Sherman Tank

Medium Tank, M4 / M4 (Sherman)*Medium Tank - History, Specifications and Picture - Military Tanks, Vehicles, and Artillery

U.S. 75mm M61 Tank Round (WWII) - Inert-Ord.Net


also Here is a link to a documentary on the sherman tank (broken into 5 parts)

YouTube - Shermans tanks at world War II 1/5


All im trying to say is that the T-34 was the best tank of the war, and was far superior to the m4 sherman (the panther beats in in terms of just armor, protection, and mobility, but in terms of ease of use, ease of production, armor, firepower, mobility, reliability, range e.t.c. the T-34 is easily the best tank of the war).

 

Thanks, I stand corrected. I didn't know of their use in such an important offensive! I believe that I read elsewhere and mistook their disdain for the M-2 and M-3 tanks for the M-4.

 

I don't think so. No the T-34 didn't have thicker armor .The T-34C had a hull nose,glacis,sides and tail of 47mm.Turret front sides and rear of 45mm A mantlet of 20-45 mm. The early M4's had a hull nose & glacis od 51mm,sides and tail of 38mm. The turret front was 76mm,sides & rear 51 mm . The M4 also had superior top & belly armor.
The T-34/85 had a turret front of 75mm. Hull sides of 47mm ,hull front of 47mm + 15mm . the M4A3(76) had an upper hull front of 2.5", lower hull front of 4.25" to 2", sides of 1.5",rear of 1.5", gun shield of 3.5",turrett front of 2.5" ,sides of 2.5' and rear of 2.5".

On the issue of guns the 75mmM3 & 76mmM1A1 are at least equal if not superior to the Soviet 7.6cm/41 & 8.5cm respectively . The Sherman also has stabalised main armament.

On speed you said the T-34's were 11 MPH faster yet the highest speed I've ever seen for the T-34 was around 32 MPH and I know the Sherman was faster then 21 MPH.

Also every Sherman had a radio,a crew of 5(some T-34's only had 4 man crews, and far better optics. The Sherman also had far better ergonomics. Shermans get a bum rap for brewing up but T-34's also were bad at having their ammo cook off whereas alot of Shermans did have wet stowage for their ammo.

 

1. The t-34 has thinner armor, but due to the fact that it is sloped, It its thicker than the shermans armor.

2. The soviet 76mm gun was superior to the american 75mm M3, and roughly equal to the american 76mm. The 85mm gun was superior to the american 76mm, and comes close to the panthers KwK 42 high velocity 75mm gun in terms of anti-tank effectiveness.

3. while people keep saying the sherman has better crew visibility, and its more comfortable, and had better ergonomics, the 3 things that define a tank are its firepower, armor, and mobility. In all 3 categories the T-34 outmatches the sherman, making it a superior tank.

 

The US 76mmM1A1 using M62 ammo could penetrate 109mm @ 500 yards and 92mm @ 1000 yards. Using HVAP it goes up to 152 mm @ 500 yards & 135mm @ 1,000 yards. The Soviet 85mm penetrated 103 mm @ 500 yards & 90mm @ 1000 yards. Now as far as the 76mm on the T-34 versus the 75mmM3... well the M3 pierced 66mm @ 500 yards with M61 & 74mm with M72 ammo. The Soviet 76.2 mm M40 on the T-34 had a barrel length of 41 calibers whereas the Soviet 76.2mm field gun had a barrel length of 54 calibers & manged only to penetrate 98mm at 500 yards & 88 mm at 1000 yards actually inferior to the 76mm M1A1 so I just don't see the 76mm M40 on the T-34 being outright superior to the 75mm M3 much less equal to the 76mm M1a1

Now as to firepower and armor well things like having radio's,better ergonomics,a larger more roomy turret(with an extra crewman to boot), far better turret traverse in the M4, far better optics, far better/safer ammo stowage,and main armament stabilisation all figure into firepower .

 

Depending on how you measure and weight the above. Different schemes yield different answers.

Or not. Again other tanks are in the running here.

Mobility is a complex enough area that I suspect there is no universal "best" for WWII. If there is I would suspect the M-5 or the M-24 would be in the running.

 

I've read pretty much the opposite. Can you document this?

Really let's take a look.

It's thicker but it's thinner? Actual protection was very close. IE neither out classed the other in this regard.

The 76mm gun used on the first T-34 was roughly the equivalant of the US 75 as the 85 was roughly the equivalant of the 76. IE no real advantage here either.

Care to document this one? In any case top speed under combat conditions is usually limited by terreign and suspension. I'd be surprised if there is a huge advantage here.

It did quite well not only late in the war but years afterward. Even vs the cats it was hardly completely one sided.

I think that says more about your opinion than it does about the Sherman

It's armor was hardly thin and some of the latter varians (JUMBO) was very respectable. It's gun could be and was effective vs the heavier German tanks in quite a few engagements.

documentation PLS.

That's why the German's in Italy were raveing about it's off-road performance I guess. As for being tall there are both advantages and disadvanteges to that (care to look up the acutal height difference between Shermans and a few other tanks and reprot back?). From statistical analysis that I've seen it also wasn't any more prone to brewing up than other tanks of the time and once wet storage was available may have been less likely to.

The ergonomics were a lot better than the T-34. It's transportability was much better than the German heavies. Maintainability was good. Upgrade ability was also.

Well there was also the US 90mm gun and while not Tiger II's Sicily proved that Tigers really didn't like eating rounds from a 5"38 much less the bigger ones.

Not really. Given that it was fighting on the defensive, crewed by elite tankers, and put in situations to maximize it's effectiveness a high kill ratio is hardly defintive in terms of its general technical merits.

 

And then there's HE performance to add into the fire power equation.

 

As much as I like the King Tiger, just ask my wife, I hate to say it but... it was a dog. Just read the Tigers in Combat set. The amount of effort and resources needed to get a KT Bn into action and then sustain it was tremendous. Also, the top scorers achieved their kills on the Eastern Front where you could literally step from tank to tank and be feet dry in Moscow! I lost count how many times a KT Plt stumbled across large Russian tank formations that were refueling/rearming.

That 11.1:1 ratio seems "cooked" to me. Does it include tanks destroyed by their own crews due to the frequent mechanical failures? IIRC the numbers for lost in battle Vs crew sabotage ran about even.