Best Tank of WW2??????

Try here. http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/20793-best-tank-ww2.html

 

Aren't there already hundreds of threads like this?

 

But really can you every talk too much about tanks.

 

In addition to that thread there are quite a few similar threads just to name a few.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12263-tanks-most-influence-war.html

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12664-top-10-tanks-war.html

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/18834-tank-most-cost-effective-tank-war.html

 

A question for the moderators; could we merge all the "best" and "favourite" tank threads into one and make it a sticky?

 

I would never do that mate, and even if I did, it just means they were great posts.

 

If this thread title was changed, maybe it might get an answer to ones preference...say, what type of tank would you, having to command in WW2 would each person had chosen if such a myth or fact was able???Their are numerous arguments over costs, speed, maneuverability,armor...but simply...what tank design would you like to be posted with to use as your armor...regardless of either being Japanese, or Soviet, British, American, French,German...etc.

I would still prefer a Panzer V or VI (tiger I) unless perhaps my posting with this tank was in a swampy area, as in the Pacific, or if my posting required it to swim ashore at Normandy...

 

A Light tank, generally the lesser to be targeted in a tank engagment

 

heavy tank choice...Tiger I or panzer V

light tank T-34 or sherman with a 17 pounder..as shown in this video, at least the 17 pounder could counter the firepower of the Tiger or T-34
YouTube - SHERMAN TANK VERSUS GERMAN TIGER

bf109 Emil

 

I'd be inclined to agree on the Tiger as the best heavy tank but I depending on your definition of "best" a case can be made for the IS series.

As for medium tanks I'll go with the T34 and M4 being too close to call. The 17lber however is only an advantage vs the cats. A tank so armed isn't as well equipped to deal with the more common threats and tasks as the other M4 variants. One of the strengths of the M4 is all the different armament variations.

For light tanks how about the M24.

 

Ah-ha!
I would prefer to be commanding an IS-3 in Manchuria, thank you very much.

And Tomcat, weren't you the guy who a while ago was saying light tanks where useless?
(sorry, I just HAVE to keep bringing that up! )

 

Tank in World War 2
can experimental tanks be used...
click tank then USA, and then the top or T-28 experimental tank with a 105 mm gun, and over 300mm of armor...the 14 kmh max speed might have been a hampering, as would changing the inside tread if knocked off....

 

Given a choice, I'd ride in/command a StuG, of course. I would NOT want any parts of a Tiger.
They look 'cool' in movies, but in the real world it's a different story. Constantly broke down, humping jerry cans of fuel.
Wadeing through mud to hook up cables to be pulled out. Change tracks for train ride, re-change tracks once there. Constantly being shuttled to every hot-spot that is in danger.
Not my cup of tea.

 

For just plain vicious prototypes the US T 29 heavy tank is right up there

T29 Super Heavy Tank

The hull with slope is 8" thick in front while the turret front is 8 to 11" thick with 7" sides and a 5" thick rear.
The main gun is the 105mm T5E1 that could penetrate about 6" of armor with solid shot at 1000 yds, 5" at 2000 yds, and with HVAP could drill through almost double that at either range.
It could manage 22 mph and weighed about 70 tons.

 

The T-34 or the sherman are not light tanks but medium ones, and if the sherman has the 17pdr it is no longer the sherman but the firefly. Plus why would the Firfly want to counter the firepower of the T-34? And a counter for the tiger, it still had trouble.

Joe. Here we go again

I never meant that the light tank is useless just that it should be capable at taking on enemy tanks, not shooting and scooting, such as arming them with 50mm cannons instead of the 37mm such as the Puma AFV, a good speed crossed with firepower but only without compromising the speed and the original deployment of the light tank. Of course there will be times when you will need to shoot and scoot but why not take a few enemy with you.

 

Do we have to bring that argument back up again?


Why would it need to take on a front-line tank such as the Panther when It's main enemy would be other armoured cars and/or infantry?

 

Lets tank about types that may be considered MBT's of WWII. Tanks types weighing 40 tons and more. Which tank type would you have prefered to command and motor around in during the war and why. The time frame that any of these types were operational to be considered.

Russians: KV-1 series / IS-2 Series
Americans: T26E3 Pershings / M4A3E2(76)Jumbo's
British: Churchill Series
Germans: Tiger I / Tiger II / Panther

 

You started it

But since you did...

Becuase perhaps the enemy has decided to conduct an armed recon with a pz III, you will need good firepower to take it out any supporting infantry or support units such as the halftracks an armoured cars and then be able to continue your mission taking out a few of the them while not having to run away, why not take a few with you.

 

Light tanks tended to be used for recon and would withdraw in great haste if they encountered any resistance greater than a 4 year-old with a popgun. They weren't equipped to engage hard targets.

 

I know this my argument is that they shouldn't be shoot and scoot tactics but to actually have the capability to engage and actually win engagments with medium and in some cases heavy tanks.