I think the Maus was the best tank hands down.

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Hawkerace, surely you jest!

To Hawkey90's Polish Tankette


I oppose the British Lt.Tk. Mk.I

__________________

the panther hands down, the tiger I with none slooping armour require enormous thickness. The panther was cheaper to build, easier on fuel, it's 75mm gun was more lethal then the vaunted and much published/talked "88"bf109 Emil

Naw. Its the L3/35 !!!

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I'm the "Confederate with a pipe"!! LOL

You are kiding right about that, right?

Opps got to go will continue this later.....

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Ha, you guys are still in the stone age! Revel in the T-27's futuristic styling!

__________________

Alright I am back.

Ok so again why is the panthers 75L70 better then the Tigers 88L56? Considering that pretty much the panther is just a smaller version of the Tiger. Both having the interlocking wheels, wide tracks and the mechanical problems that haunted both tanks.

Now the Tiger although having little sloped armour, does possess sloped armour, just look at the shape of the turrent, it is rounded, thus shells being deflected should they hit the turrent sides and rear. Now how many single panthers held up the Allied advances compared to the tiger? It is not jsut because the tiger was published but because it was a much feared tank over the tiger.

Don't get me wrong I think the final version of the panther was a good tank, even if it was a virtual copy of the Russian T-34, so with that, which tank is really better? the T-34 or the Panther?

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Ok, ok, you win

__________________

Panther and Tiger are evolutionary very different vehicles. Externally similar design facets do not make the same, or even similar, vehicle. While Tiger was laid out mechanically from pre-1936 principles, Panther was very much the next generation.

The gun on the Panther was about as effective as the 88 and more efficient in many ways. While I often enjoy finding the chinks in German armour design nothing will convince me the 75/L70 wasn't just about the finest gun fitted to any widespread vehicle in the entire war.

As to calling the Panther a 'copy' of T34, that's shaky ground. The Daimler Benz submitted design could maybe have that sobriquet applied to it, despite certain 'germanic' features, but the ultimately approved MAN design we know so well can only really be described as 'inspired by' rather than a 'copy of'.

Cheers,
Adam.


Take that Vickers light prototype & T27!

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

The Sherman had better manuverability but the Tiger had the bigger armor depends on your fighting style. I prefer the TIger because I camp out in the distance and just nail them from afar. Especially in open fields.

Till a Hawker Typhoon "camps" you out

Don't forget those great French tanks! (2 men crews etc)

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Apples and oranges. The Sherman was a Medium Tank while the Tiger was a Heavy tank.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I'm the "Confederate with a pipe"!! LOL

Very well I retract the 'Copyied' part and agree with the inspired part, because the panther was a counter of the T-34, with similar features to the tiger. I did not know that they were different on the inside though.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Let's see... both had two tracks, torsion bar suspension, front sprocket, one gasoline engine, armour, one gun, a coax and hull machine-gun, a 5-man crew, a radio, and... that's about it, there all commonality ends, two entirely different tanks.

__________________

That's a bit disingenuous though. There's no doubt the Panther was designed with the experiences learned on the Eastern Front in mind. The main experience being that the T-34 was an excellent tank, if a bit rough and ready. The only reason they didn't copy it wholesale was that it was politically awkward.

Taking into account all the circumstances, the T-34 is clearly the best tank of WWII. Not taking all the circumstances gives you the Centurion.

Panther vs Tiger in breakdowns. Post 1943 the Panther was much better. It was also lighter and easier to recover.

Panthers would hold up allied advances, you just don't hear about it as often. The heavy tank battalions were also sent to areas to stop allied advances starting late 43 and on.

Designing the Panther: Yes the T-34 was good. What happens with two equal tanks fighting. Chance/skill becomes King. Most people like to give their skilled men the best equipment. So the push was to make a better tank than the T-34 , hence the Panther. Because of the Panther and Tiger the T-34 was up gunned to the T-34/85. I diverge.

The T-34 was a good tank, its chassis was probably the best in the war. But the turret and gun were only average. IMO.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

Taking into account all circumstances there wasn't a best tank or there were several. For instance neither the T-34, Panther, or Tiger would have worked as well for the US as the Sherman did. Although if the US had gotten plans for the T-34 in say 38 the vehicle that emerged might have been superior to the Sherman.

Agree with much of what Von Poop noted. The Tiger I had been an idea on the table before the war- the idea of a heavy "breakthrough tank". Not especially revolutionary, just really big and mean for the time.
And to call the Tiger's turret "sloped armor" is quite a stretch... it was curved, but that was as much a simple design matter as it was an attempt to use the shot-deflecting aspect of sloped armor.

Panther was a completely different "animal".
Panther was inspired by, and created to counter the T34, but was a vastly superior tank in most every aspect other than ease of manufacture. The Ausf Ds and Ausf As had some serious and nagging mechanical issues (bad exhaust system leading to common engine fires being referred to as "teething problems" might be the best understatement of WW2 armor)- but by the time the Ausf G rolled around, the Panther was probably the best tank of the war.

Also agree with the Pooper on the Panther's gun. Can't find any good stats at the moment, but from what I understand, the 75mm/L70 gun was actually superior to that of the Tiger in an anti-tank role.

In an abstract, 1-on-1 scenario... Panther Ausf G would be hard to argue against as the best tank of the war. If manufacturing ease comes into the equation, then the T34 gets a boost- but ease of manufacture incorporates a LOT of factors besides simply tank quality.

Tiger I was a great tank, and equal to or superior to most of what the Allies fielded, but also benefited a LOT from reputation.

And general bad-ass-ness.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

I would stretch my neck and say that IF (me saying "if" !!! ) the Panther was produced in the US (meaning all the kinks ironed out but keeping the same gun) it would be the best medium tank overall. Second to that, a Panther produced in the URSS, but then with all the kinks SERIOUSLY ironed out

__________________

Is the M18 hellcat technically a tank, bloomin fast thing, and from a mechanical point of view probably the easiest to repair in ww2 with engne changes possible in just over an hour due to the slide out engine arrangement and a similar front gearbox arrangement... fantastic design ........ built by buick too.....

__________________
103 Sq