Top 10 tanks of the war

Here is the thread about the Battle of Arracourt.

http://www.ww2f.com/battle-europe/25518-us-37th-armored-regiment-arracourt-battle-tanks.html

 

Oh please! You're not going to tell me that you are going to counter emotions with facts!

Can't you be like everyone else and play computer games and watch History Channel in the game breaks?

 

Just answer this: can a Sherman beat a Panther, Tiger, King Tiger or Jagdpanther?

And also, since you claim that the Germans always took in more armor losses: what is the result of Battle of Kursk in regards to armor casualties? Post some numbers

As for the kill ratio, perhaps more research?

 

Great post, I cought 1 & 3 but while the tiger I "looked strange" I did not realize it was a model

Here is my list for "most significant" tanks in the war, meaning the ones that actually dominated the battlefield from an operational standpoint.

1939-1940 - Pz II, Matilda II. The Matilda belongs as as "queen of the desert", Arras was a tactical episode, I believe there where no Matildas at the decisive battle of Beda Fomm so the slot may actually belong to the very criticized early cruisers, though I believe the credit goes mostly to the crews not to the inherent qualities of the beasts. I was temped to add the Pz38(t) but it was used by only 2 out 10 Panzer divisions in France even if one was Rommel's 7th.
1941 - early 1942 Pz III (with some temptation on the Pz IV but the "official TOE" called for 3 Pz III for each Pz IV company).
Late 1942 - 1945 Sherman and T34 (The Sherman really takes a numerically overwhelming role only by mid 43).
I'm tempted to add the JS-2 for late 44 and 45 but it was a "spearhed" tank not the mainstay of the soviet forces that was still the T34,.
Had the war continued a bit longer Centurion and M26 would probably have made the grade.
Looking Far East I woder if the BT series (Nomonhan) should make the grade. For "Island hopping" any side with tanks usually had an advantage no matter what the tank was, if I had to pick one the M4 would be it and it's already on the list, but the really operationally signicant AFV is the LVT which is an APC not a tank unless you consider the few turretted versions!

So "in strict order of appearance" I have only 5 machines
Pz II
Matilda II
Pz III
T 34
M4

Looking back at the list from a technical stadpoint I have one "unbalanced in favour of armour" (Matilda) and four well balanced designs though the Pz II is on the light side compared to a lot of the opposition it had face.

Let's have the lovers of the "big brutes" tear this to bits !

 

well, playing the Devils advocate here, I did read in Zettering book on Kursk the loss rate of Panthers and PzIV in comparison with the Sherman in the western theatre. The Sherman had a loss rate of 26% while the PzIV had 16% and the Panther 14%. Of course being on the defensive where the Panther weaker flanks were not exposed, was a major advantage.




Cheers...

 

Why are you comparing a 30ton tank with a:

Panther 45 ton,
Tiger I 57 ton,
Tiger II 69 ton,
JgPanther 47 ton
??

Aren't you mixing apples with oranges?

Look, honey, most people in this forum would like to admit the Panther was a good tank in a good day when the mechanics held out, but some Panzer Lovers (I'm avoiding using another uglier term...) are such an obssessive and blinkered race that they can't be confronted with people point out defects in their pretty panzers, so we keep badgering them in the faint hope they will understand some day. So be prepared because this will always be a long struggle.

As an alternative there are other forums where those Panzer Lovers' views are more prevalent, but I don't go into those anyway so I can't advise you any.

As an example of sheer ignorance look at that recent post from that guy who put up three big photos of captured/destroyed Panzers thinking he was doing a great thing. Pretty show of himself, eh?

 

thanks, "panzer hater". So the mighty Sherman was too light for the heavy tanks? Poor baby.

And yes, the panther had it's share of problems at the begining, just like the t34 did and they were later solved. Your point?

I am biased just like everyone else on this forum. So what? I never said the "pretty panzers" were perfect. In fact, for the cost of all the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2's they should have build another 5000 Panthers and they would have been better off.
The tigers were a waste of resources. But how about that 503rd batalion that destroyed 500 allied tanks with 45 Tiger II's?

 

Or perhaps more importantly, can an Army equipped mostly with Shermans defeat one using the above?

Errr... yes. Well I'm pretty sure they did anyway, as I can cut my hair however ridiculously I like and have Jewish friends.

I always find the immediate choosing of the German heavies rather surprising & simplistic. I love 'em too, the Tiger II is a mental thing, the Panther rather stylish, and to see Tiger 131 rumbling around at Bovington was something of a treat. However if one tries to see beyond the 'wow' factor then like so many other things it's immensely more complex than many seem to posit, their frail mechanicals alone should be enough to raise at least some spirit of enquiry into their 'legendary' status. Any chap like the one above who just posted the 3 'main' German heavies is kind of exposing a rather blinkered view of Armour and what it could and couldn't do in WW2 (it could also be observed that the inability to resize such massive pictures might imply a rather simplistic approach ) - maybe fine if the thread was 'favourite' as that's fully subjective but a bit of a strange and limited choice for 'best' perhaps.

The Uber-Panzer view is a rather stale one, and seems to have become almost religious to some, one good example was a chap elsewhere who refused to accept that the IWM Jagdpanther was killed by a Cromwell... No amount of explanation of the events would convince him of how it occurred as his 'Panzer-blinkers' were so firmly attached .
The heavies represent some interesting period engineering, but they also represent flaws in 'war-thinking' at so many levels by Nazi Germany that such devotion to them is rather strange.

Maybe the problem again is the use of the word 'best' - theoretically an objective concept but inevitably nearly always subjective, and often that subjectivity is informed by an apparent unwillingness to enquire more deeply.

I'm also intrigued as to how the c.1850 vehicles represented by the Tiger 1 & b could be converted to "5000 Panthers", as base steel weight & RM recovered by that logic cannot equal more heavy guns and their associated equipment, or for another example; 2000+ more sets of tracks churned out by a damaged industrial base using a finite & limited amount of special materials, tooling, and industrial capacity - Though that's a question for this thread really:
One large Tank does not automatically equal two smaller ones.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Poor baby? Poor response. You ARE mixing apples and oranges, a tank comparable to the Sherman weight class would
be the Pz IV, later Ausfs.

An American tank comparable to the Panther you quote would be the M-26, at 46 tons. On the Soviet side the JS II
at the same 46 tons.

Your comparison makes as much logic as comparing say the same Sherman with the Pz II. I trust this will sound logical to you.

 

FWIW, another opinion http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3120/tanks.html

Well here they are, the 10 best tanks of World War Two in my opinion and evaluation. They were evaluated on the following criteria:
Main gun, armor, off-road and mechanical performance, ease of production and battle experience. Honorable mentions below.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#10 M26 Pershing
Some may argue that the M26 PERSHING should not be ranked. I understand why. The reasoning is simple: limited combat,
late war entry. Aside from that, this American heavy tank mounted the best American anti-tank gun, a 90mm L/50 main gun.
The armor of a Pershing was thicker than any American tank of the war. It had excellent mechanics and off-road performance.
The Pershing was nicknamed the " Tiger Tamer " and for good reasons. For the Pershing to be easier to produce than Tigers
was astounding. This tank slips to the number 10 spot for being late into the war and seeing little combat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#9 M4a3e8 SHERMAN
The best American version of the Sherman was this tank. It mounted an excellent 76mm L/54 gun. The armor of this tank was,
however still not up to par with the Panthers or Tigers, but was sufficient for dealing with Pz-IV's. The mechanics of this tank were
excellent, just as all the previous Shermans. The Shermans had the best mechanical endurance and reliability of any tank during the war.
The M4a3e8 Sherman was easily produced as with all the other versions making it one of the 10 best tanks of World War 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#8 T-34/76
The T-34/76 may be credited with saving the Russians. It was a tank that had no German counterparts equal to it until the Panther.
The 76.2mm gun was very effective against all German tanks at first. The armor was reasonably thick and was the first tank to
introduce sloped armor. The off-road performance and mechanical workings of the T-34/76 tank series was also better than the
German panzers at the time. The ease of production for the T-34/76 resulted in some 40,000 of all types being produced. This rugged
little tank has earned its spot on the top 10 tanks list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#7 PZ-IVh
The Pz-IV series was the mainstay of the German Panzerwaffe throughout the war. The Pz-IV saw many variants, but this ausf. was
the best. It had better armor than its Sherman counterpart. The 75mm L/48 was better than the M4a3e8 Sherman's main gun also.
The Pz-IVh had good speed, faster than all the German heavy tanks. Its mechanical performance was excellent. The Pz-IVh was
produced in more numbers than any other Pz-IV. Besides the T-34/85 and Firefly, this was the best anti-tank medium tank of the war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#6 T-34/85
The Russian T-34/85 was an upgunned T-34/76 with a new turret to acommadate the larger 85mm L/53 gun. The T-34/85 had good
all around armor that was even better than previous versions. The off-road abilites of the T-34/85 equaled that of earlier versions.
The tank was so easy to produce that the Russians built some 12,000 of these formidable tanks. The T-34/85 rightfully earned its
place as the Russians main tank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#5 SHERMAN FIREFLY
This British adaptation of the Sherman was the most deadly, mounting the 17 pounder gun which was equal to the performance of the
Tiger's 88mm L/56 gun. The main problem with a Firefly was its thin armor when compared with its German counterparts. The
mechanics and off-road abilities are equal to a normal Shermans. The Firefly was the best all around anti-tank tank of the Second World War
for the Western Allies who most often found themselves under-gunned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4 TIGER
The Germans first true heavy tank. The Tiger has been somewhat of a mystical tank. It's ability to strike fear into the hearts of Allied
tankers is uncanny. It's adaptaion of the 88mm FlaK gun was the best gun of its time until introduction of others. The armor of a Tiger
was so thick that the early Western Allied tanks had an extremely hard time to knock it out. The Tiger had its share of mechanical
problems and was not as fast as a Panther. The Tiger was an excellent weapon, but may be overrated by some people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3 JS-II
The best Russian tank to see combat. After its initial debut in April 1944, the JS-II was in demand all along the Russian front. It had very
thick armor and a 122mm gun. The JS-II's 122mm gun is the second most deadly on this list. The JS-II became the Soviet's main
production model of the JS series, eventually having 2,250 produced. The JS-II was a match for a King Tiger and even more than a
match for a Tiger or a Panther. It's high production cost and worse mechanical performance compared to the Panther G keep it from
overtaking the 1 and 2 positions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2 KING TIGER
The heaviest tank at 69 tons, it was also probably the most formidable. Very expensive to produce with it's thick armor that was only
penetrable by the biggest guns. It mounted arguably the most deadly tank gun of the war: the high velocity 88mm L/71 gun. Too slow f
or swift offensives, it was the perfect defensive tank. Off-road performance was marginal at best. The great toughness of the King Tiger
earns it the 2nd best tank of World War 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 PANTHER G
This is the all around best tank. It's early version experienced some drive mechanism problems, but the G ausf. had all the kinks worked
out. The high velocity 75mm /L70 main gun was superior even to the 88mm gun of the Tiger. With excellent armor in the front and
improved armor on the sides from previous versions, the Panther G was hard to kill. It was fast and had good off-road abilities, coupled
with the fact that they were far cheaper to produce than the King Tiger gave the Panther G the edge to win best all around tank.
The Honorable Mentions


These tanks weren't quite good enough to be considered the top 10, but they are good in their own respect. Some of these tanks are on
here as a result of feedback from visitors to The War Minister.


Valentine Series
British tank that served Britain during WW2, however, slow and usually undergunned.

Matilda IIBritish tank known as the "Queen of the Desert" against the Italians. Design dates back to the tactics of WWI. Slow and heavily
armored for its time. Designed for infantry support.

 

Perhaps he didn't read the thread on Arracourt. What happened to all those 285 German tanks and armoured vehicles(mostly Panthers) ? Did they just spontaneously combust?

"It was one of the largest tank-to-tank engagements of the war, at Mayenvie, the 37th lost 14 Shermans while knocking out 55 Panthers and Tigers. Needless to say, the German counterattack was unsuccessful."


US 37th Armored Regiment at Arracourt. "The Battle of the Tanks"

 

Affirmative. It could be done and was.

I would just like to add that Koenig Tiger did not fight Sherman tanks very often. Most VIB sightings in the Roer Battle were made by American infantry battling local counterattacks, which were usually beaten back by artillery fire. Kampfgruppe Peiper's Tiger VIBs saw little combat because they couldn't keep up with the Panthers.

'Always' was not a word I used in any edited versions of my previous post. Perhaps you misunderstood me, but by "allies" I meant Commonwealth and American troops.

That's the point. Experts had poured over this topic and no such data is forthcoming. The ORO report I mentioned above found the defender inflicted four times the casualties on the attacker most of the time regardless of tank type.

No, they were not. Pz V's mechanical problems were incorrigible. The locomotive design of the tank and its turret layout was poor and there were nothing anyone could do.

They could if they are Panther As.

One can always harbor hope. =)

 

double post

 

Hello Za,

congrats, a darn good and conviencing post (Off course I disagree a little ) but overall a really very well thought about post.

Regards
Kruska

 

I'm only the messenger, praises are to the author at the URL provided

 

hehmm, but you still found and posted it

Regards
Kruska

 

Can you elaborate why the author of the article you provided consider L/48 a better gun than US 76mm? The US gun is a little more powerful on paper. And his comments on the automotive performance of IS-2 and Pershing is surprising to me, I thought IS-2 was about as reliable if not more so than the Panther. And the good cross country performance of Pershing tank is new to me, as the Army thought it was underpowered and relatively unreliable when compared to other US tanks.

 

Agreed,

If in no praticular order.

 

people would do well to remember the stirling work the grant/lee tank did in egypt ,and the all too often forgotten burma campaign.cheers.