What is the best tank in WW2

HVAP ammo did give the 76mm an amazing potential, but unfortunately it was very rare.

It's quite interesting to note that the M4A3E8 has as much or more armour than the Tiger in some places. Strange that it never gets considered as the best tank of WW2, which is probably due to the fact that it appeared really late and didn't see action in anything near overwhelming numbers like the more primitive types of Sherman.

 

as i recall many places on the Tiger had thin armour... therefore many tanks had thicker armour in many places than it.

 

That would depend on what you mean. If you mean when the Tiger first appeared, then no. If you mean in 1945, after production had ended, then yes.

 

I was talking about the hull front and the sides of the superstructure, actually.

 

Gunter, it is useful to place statements such as this in context - what tanks are you comparing them to, and in what timeframe?

 

It was in reply to some1s post that other tanks had heavier armour in some parts because they did not specify.

 

Panther, again.

I am sure all of us would agree that the Panther G was the best overall tank in WWII. Love the Sherman and T-34's reliability, versatility and mass-production capabilities, the Tigers and Joseph Stalin's renown firepower and armor, but the high-tech Panther G's thick sloped armor and lethal high velocity gun made it an ultimate WWII tank.

 

Liang, there is no universal, objective answer to the question of what "the best tank" as the factors we use to determine the answer are subjective.

Is it more important to have thick armor, or more important to have a high-velocity gun? Perhaps some place more value in production simplicity. Also, tanks have qualities in a "one on one" sense, a tactical sense, and a strategic sense, etc.

The factors we value the most will thus determine the choice of vehicle. If we decide the context of what we shall measure the vehicles worth in, I think we can come to a universal answer. To quote Roel:

"I'd say that the factors are objective but the balance we make with them is not, and thus may have varying outcomes."


That, at least, is my opinion.
:lol:

Having said that, I think the M4A3E8 is the best tank of the war. It has thicker armor than the Panther, and weighs considerably less (10 tons). It was mobile, reliable, easy to produce, had a good gun, wet storage, and the excellent HVSS suspension. The Panther is better in some ways, but does not get the same average.

 

You are quite right, half the time I still think the T-34 is the best all around tank in WWII. Not the fasted, not the thickest armor, not the most powerful gun, yet it was mass-produced, simple, effective, and won the war.

 

That's not really true. Even the sides (though vertical) had 80 mm upper hull side armour. That's as thick as the later model Panzer IV front armour. The rear plate was also 80mm thick and sloped at 8 degrees. The Tiger I's rear plate was as strong as the Panzer IVs front hull plate. Turret side was also a pretty decent 80 mm thickness (rounded). Lower hull sides was an impressive 60 mm thick, protected by 2 to 3 spaced layers of road wheels.

I don't see where you get the notion of the Tiger I being thinner in armour in many places than many other tanks. It wasn't. We must also bare in mind that at the time the Tiger I was produced, the quality of German armour was superior to Soviet armour for example.

 

The Tiger did have thinner armour than certain late-war Shermans (the Jumbo Sherman and the Easy Eight) in a few places. That is the point I was making.

 

the panther is my favourite tank..whether it was the best is open 2 debate...definetly the sexiest tank of the war!

 

It's sexiness is also debatable (as in subjective).

 

RE: Best WWII Tank

I say it's the King Tiger because it's durable (180mm armor max.),and it's powerful (88mm gun, 71 calibres long).

 

And ludicrously heavy, suffering from transmission unreliability and stellar fuel consumption.

 

The best heavy tank of the war IMO but certainly not the best tank of the war...

Blaster, what do you think are the major weaknesses of the Koenigstiger?

 

I'll say that the StuG IV is the best.

 

The StugIV was a small and effective tank destroyer and assault gun, but why would you choose it as the best? I'm interested.

Mostly I'm surprised to find you picking this vehicle over the StuGIII, which was essentially the same vehicle but smaller, something that suited the vehicle's role in combat.

 

Yes, the King Tiger was slow, unreliable, and not fuel-effecient. But what else is there to choose? The Easy Eight? Panther? Pershing? Or how about the Tiger I? It was 14 tons lighter than the King Tiger, also had a powerful gun, and also had good armor.

 

As you can see when you read this topic, all the tanks above have had convincing arguments held in their favour, as well as the T-34/85 and the JS-2.