Best tank of WWII

Da, Za Rodinu, Da, but the thread already brought up that it is a little off-topic. Since we seem to have exhausted the view of our esteemed panel on tanks the tank destroyers seem like a way to keep the thread going, no?

 

Za- those are Tank Destroyers? I never knew that!

I jest, I jest! I mentioned that above (see italics)- that it was a bit off-topic, but close enough to be contained in the same thread, at least in my ever-so-humble opinion.

I think Tanks and Tank Destroyers are similar enough to be placed in the same thread for a discussion like this, and like Ice said- it could provide some more discussion. It's been done many times, even on this forum, but comparing armored vehicles is just an interesting excercise. So many factors to look at, so many different avenues for comparison... and we even get some of our experten who come in and drop soem of the most interesting bits of info! Like TA(G)'s post on the first page about the ground pressure exerted by different Shermans- great stuff!

So... maybe instead of just noting some possible candidates, I'll go for it- I'm gonna go with- for best all-around tank destroyer of WW2- the Hetzer. Not the biggest gun, or the most armor. But VERY quick and easy to manufacture, very easy on fuel, a good enough gun to take out most enemies it would encounter. The major drawback I'd see would be the interior- "cramped" would be an understatement, with some horrible crew positioning.

Any thoughts?

 

Okay, lets get this pinned down a little better. Since I started this particular thread I will take on changing the direction. This is now what do you consider the best armored fighting vehicle of WWII? The following criteria are to be used to frame your choice. Please expound in any way you feel nessasary to explain your clear advantage.

</font>

• You will be an occupant of the vehicle that you choose.</font>
• The vehicle that you choose will be engaging in combat with the choices that the other participants choose.</font>
• There are four different engagement arenas.
  </font>
  • </font>
  • Flat tundra, summer, dry ground.</font>
  • North African Desert, rolling desert only no mountains.</font>
  • Forest similar to those found in the Alpine regions around Germany.</font>
  • Urban environment, small city similar to Normandy towns.</font>
• You will be in an arena of combat from which there is no exit except by victory or defeat.</font>
• You may make the choice of a single AFV or a different AFV for the different types of arenas.</font>
• Evasion is not an option, you may only win by engagement.</font>
• There will be no cooperation between players. This is strictly a free-for-all brawl.</font>
• All contestents will begin out of range of each other/out of line of sight.</font>
• You will not run out of fuel, or ammunition during the engagement.</font>

Given these criteria please reconsider your choice and share it with us.

 

I'd take the Tiger....all 4 arenas.
"No evasive action" means slug it out and you'd need good frontal armor.
"Small city action"....same deal. Good armor being how I'm on offence.
And an '88 can bring down the building hiding the enemy tank.

 

I will take the Tiger also in all four settings.

I didn't say no evasive action, I said no evasion. Maneuver is important. It is also a reason that I would not pick a tank without a turret. They are too easy to flank. I just didn't want someone's choice to be something they could just run and hide in. Hope that doesn't change your choice.

 

Ah... Hmmm... well, given those criteria I'd take a Tiger II, most likely. The gun and the armor alone are nearly unstoppable- and if it's a one-on-one fight where there is a garaunteed engagement, the Tiger II could simply take it's time, wait for the enemy target to present itself and then slug it out. The forest and the urban arenas would be a closer fight, but the only weakness I'd see in the Tiger II would be if an enemy managed to get behind it.

Alhtough, I must note that the criteria disagree with me somewhat- the discount fuel and repair concerns is discounting a HUGE factor in the value and effectiveness of WW2 tanks!

But given the above criteria, I'd again go with a Tiger II, with a Panther following a close second.

 

Panther ausf G as it could perform all functions knocking out any Allied/Soviet panzer at range.

best tank destroyer, Stug III Ausf G. Track record proved it over and over again

I'm drugged out today due to cancer problems so this is probably not want I wanted to write ...... oh well

 

Given the narrowly defined conditions above I'd take the US T34 heavy tank. A 105L60 main gun, about 11 to 12" frontal armor and reasonable speed and maneuverability. Yes, only a few prototypes existed but, this was not a specified condition.

 

Open tundra/desert...Anything with a long 88. Elephant, Nashorn, Jadg Panther, King Tiger.
More like a sea battle anyway, so whats needed is range/optics.
SU-100 had an excellent gun so it get honorable mention.
Forest/urban...Pershing.
You need a full rotating turret so you don't have to aim the whole tank, or worry about getting stuck,(in an alley, behind trees, askew on rubble).
A gun big enough to put "paid" to whatever you shoot at.
A low profile to hide.
A fast turning turret with a gyro-stabilized gun to be able to shoot on the move, with confidence.
Snow/Mud... a T-34.
Ground pressure plays big here. Many other tanks were unable to traverse this kind of terrain at all, much less at speed. The ability to encircle, then to creep up to point blank range has merit.

 

I go for the Tiger for tanks and for tank hunters the JagdPanther.

[ 22. February 2006, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Richard42 ]

 

the T-34 is what i would stick with...maybe the tiger as a backup...

 

For battling OVER DISTANCES like most of the Russian front I´d take Ferdinand. The massive armor:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm

Hull 30-200mm (nose and front 100mm+100mm, sides and rear 80mm, top 30mm, bottom 20mm+30mm); super-structure 30-200mm (front 200mm, sides and rear 80mm, top 30mm)

and the powerful weapon:

88mm L71

YES!

 

The T-29 to 34 series US heavies are hard to beat given the billard table conditions of engagement. First hits could be expected at 1000 + yards and at that range the 105L65 on the T-29 will drill holes in the front of a Tiger II while the 88L71 shot will just bounce off (11" frontal armor make the T-29 impenetrable for the 88).

T29, 30 and 34 Heavy tanks

 

Well- based on thie line from the linked page- "the vehicles were only completed in 1947- wouldn't they not be available to this comparison? If they are available, well- then no competition, one of those beasts could knock out just about anything from WW2 under just about any conditions.

Maybe Ice should have added a condition that the vehicle had to have seen battle service during WW2. That would still leave the Pershing as a viable (and tempting) contender...

Good grief those things ARE beasts though!

 

Holy cow, here we go again! A Königstiger would be awful in the reconaissance role, whereas a Lüchs would be a laugh as a medium tank! Ah well, going by the Bigiceman Criterium I think I would take up a M-26.

Nevertheless, this beast and my second candidate, the JS-II, both wheighed in at 45 tons. The JS-II had a much bigger gun, although at the cost of a reduced ammunition load. The Panther had the same weight but it had a smaller calibre gun, a damned good gun but smaller calibre anyway. Life if full of compromise, you pays your money and you takes your choice...

The way the Bigiceman Criterium is drafted seems to allow only for the biggest punchers, and we see only the bigger 'uns listed although we know they were certainly not the most frequent on the battlefield.

Where do we leave the Shermans, T-34s and Pz IVs? And the Lights?

Oh, and if aesthetics plays a part I have to say that I have a soft spot for the PzIV (and the KV-I too, I had to say this coz Fediya was raising an eyebrow already).

Fediya! More vodka!

 

The T-29 was authorized for procurement in November 1944 and prototypes started. With the end of the war the program was cut back to a handful of test vehicles that took alot longer to complete.

 

ok i got 2. Tiger tank and "elefant gun". i liked the tiger becuse of its defence capability. and a admrable firepower. And the elefant gun. It was a tank destroyer and only 90 where made. it was very vonerable to flank attack becuse the gun wasint on a turrent, and it didnt have a machine gun. but the reason i like it is becuse when it wasint sucking the retarded out of the battlefield, it was kickin against any tank at that time. it was also vaunable to "tourching". the russian soigers would catch the top of the tank on fire, and the tank literally turned into a fernace. so the german engernieers desighned something to counter the russivans from climbing on the tank. a curved barrel for the MP44. it either curved 13 degrees or 90. the germans would here the russians climb on the tank. they would open the hatch and spray with the curved barrel. a flaw with that though is that when the mp44 shot, the bullet heat up, makeing it fragile and brittle. thus the bullet shatterd in the curve. but this was alright in this situation, becuse it was such close range. in all i gess i dont know why i like the elephant gun. but it was powerful and heavily armoured.

 

Let's clear up a few misconceptions and wrong information here.
The "no machinegun" thing about the Elefant was started by Martin Caiden in his absolutely awful book on Kursk The Tigers are Burning. The Elephant, like all other contemporary German Panzerjäger carried a machinegun but did not have a permanent mount on the vehicle. The StG III, Brummbär, Marder series etc, all lacked a permanently installed machinegun, as did their Soviet counterparts.
Instead, the crews of these vehicles had small arms (Mp 40 and a machinegun) included in their equipment. The vehicles were defended through pistol ports (On the Elefant those are located on the sides and back of the superstructure. Closed they look like small bumps on the sides of the structure) and from open hatches. This was common to all AFV when faced with close assault.
As for installed self-defense weapons against close assault the German standard in the second half of the war was the NW 50. This was a rotating bomb thrower installed in the roof of the vehicle. It fired a standard S-mine. This was more effective close up than using small arms. The MP 43 /44 with a curved barrel was a rarity that remained largely experimental as it was really an expensive and silly idea.
The Elephant was also quite effective for its small numbers in the East. S. PzJr Abt 653 continued to use it through November 1944 when the last dozen or so vehicles were handed over to S. PzJr Kp 614. The last couple of Elephants fought in the final battles of World War 2 around Berlin. In combat the score of this vehicle was nearly 1000 enemy AFV or, about 10 to 1 kills.

 

It does turn up that way doesn't it? Nobody seems to have come up with a tank that was a light or medium that had strengths they could use to exploit the slower and heavier tanks. I was kind of suprised by that. With the larger caliber guns and rotating turrets it is hard to use the "speed" of lighter tanks to exploit the rear or side armor of the heavier tanks. I did read about a German Panzer ace who took out a KV-1 in city fighting by coming up on it from the side and shooting a hole in the barrel of the heavier tank at point blank range. That was inventive.

 

I suggest reading up on the Lorraine campaign in September 1944. 5th Panzer Army's attacks on 3rd US Army around Nancy and Avarranches etc., disprove this theory very clearly as but one example of many. There 4th Armored Division's Shermans using superior communications and better turret rotation among other advantages repeatedly were able to out flank and shoot up Panthers from the sides and rear. M 18 tank destroyers likewise used their superior speed in several cases to out race slower German tanks to critical tactical positions then using their hull down firing positions to inflict substancial casualties on the Germans.
There are plenty of cases that show the limited tactical utility of very heavy and slow tanks during WW 2. These vehicles were particularly vulnerable in the attack. They proved more valuable as defensive weapons but, defending doesn't win wars.