Which tank would you rather be in??

We can argue until the Red Sox win the World series to decide which is the "best" tank in WWII.
If you are a WWII tank crew and your life depends on it, which tank (sorry no tank destroyers) would you rather be in? Would it be the T-34, Shermans,Churchills, Panthers, Tigers..... ? Try not to let your national pride impair your judgements, afterall, your live is at stakes.

 

I think I would choose a Jumbo Sherman with wet storage (I think they existed, didn't they Danyel?) and a 76mm gun. That way it's reliable, can take hits, has good punch, and protects crew survivablity as much as is possible. Oh yes, put in the diesel engine, not petrol.

 

I wouldn't take a German tank, because no matter the quality there will be a LOT of enemies coming at you and you can't do anything about them because they will keep coming. So I'd take something Allied, with reasonable armament but above all, good crew protection. Jumbo Sherman, perhaps, or a Churchill. I don't know which. Maybe I'll just take an IS1.

 

I'd say IS-2 before IS-1. Either way, I don't think the Russians ever concerned themselves with crew survivability (if penetrated) as much as the Western Allies' tanks did.

 

But a good shell in the ammunition department will make a dead crew any way...
I'd go for any tank with good protection and some fire power, no matter it's german or not. I'd say a Panther or t-34 or IS 2 would give me quite a safe feeling. But they remain steel coffins anyway to me.

 

The IS1 had a fine enough gun but carried over twice the rounds of the IS2. I'd like to have something to shoot with.

 

Most if not all Jumbos had wet storage. Wasn't very common to see one with a 76mm gun, though.

 

You could argue that the Pershing would have been the safest WW2 tank to be in, mainly because it faced hardly any opposition by the time it came into service. The IS-2 was hardly proof against Tiger and Panthers. Plenty of them were dispatched.

I've got to say that for numbers built and the fact that it was almost always involved in very heavy fighting on both fronts then the Tiger would have been the one to be in, with the King Tiger being the absolute safest. By the time the King Tiger was in service Germany was in a defensive role everywhere. Long range and fast offensive capabilities were irrelevant. What was more important was a big gun and thick armour because enemy tanks were coming at them all the time. No enemy tank ever penetrated the King Tiger's glacis plate in combat during WW2. I think that goes a long way to prove how relatively safe this tank was and it was in action for almost a whole year in very bitter battles.

King Tiger for me.

 

I'd opt for a command tank!
Safely out of the very front line (or FEBA as it is called now).

Hmm... Tiger 2 probably, though I'd be in far more combat than if I were in something like a Sherman

 

Command tanks are in the front of their formations..

 

Sorry, misunderstanding, not the squad commander's tank.
Command tank as in the converted Stuarts & Lees Monty used in the desert...

 

Sitting in an impermiable King Tiger sounds good, but you wouldn't want to be in there when your fuel runs out or when the engine gives up, as frequently happened on these huge beasts. And you certainly don't want to be in such a thing when the bridge underneath your steel bottom collapses under the 68-ton strain.

 

True...
But then you can bale out and wave your white handkerchief at the nearest American/Brit/Canadian.

If you're on the Eastern Front...
please bring spare trousers.

 

Don't mind what tank I'm in as long as its long way from any begger who's likely to shoot at me! :lol:

 

I personally prefer to be in a Tiger or King Tiger as well. There are so many examples of the Tiger's prowess that it was almost unbelievable. Their killing ratios were probably unparalled during the war, its front armors was so thick that it was impervious to most Russian and definitely Sherman guns until later on the war. Even if these monsters were taken out by lucky shots from the rear or the side, its crew often survived to fight again. The same, however, can't be said about the T-34 or Sherman crews, many of whom were killed outright or worse, mutilated.
The Tigers would probably be my mama's choice if I am a tank crew. Worse case scenario, If I ran out of gas, I will just abandon the darn thing but at least I live to fight another day.

 

Hey, that's a nice way of picking a tank you'd want to be in! Your mama is likely to choose the safest one if she knew anything about it. So picture your mother, with what you know of tanks, choosing one for you...

Churchill anyone?

 

I did seriously consider the Churchill. Did it have wet storage later in the war? I can't go with the King Tiger because of its unreliability and massive weight. A dismounted King Tiger crewman is just a poorly armed infantryman until he gets back behind his lines.

 

I think my mum would rather I was a typist in a bunker in Whitehall.
8)

 

I'd probably go for Comet over Churchill.
It was faster and had a better gun. Both were pretty tough, though.

 

Commet lacked the bajillion frontal armor that the Churchill had, though.