Best tank of WWII

In your opinions what was the best tank of WWII? Why do you think so. There were so many different armored fighting vehicles, and so many different ways to evaluate them. Which one comes out on top for you, and why?

For me it is the German Tiger tank. Despite the mechanical problems that were never completely overcome this battlefield heavyweight was just so impressive. It could stand ground and slug it out with anything that was thrown at it and win most of the time. The 88mm canon had a range and stopping power that was the envy of most tankers. The armor was impressive, and would absorb both HE and AP rounds in the main areas with ease. The silloette was crude by today's standards but was much more considered than the other heavy tanks in the field at the time.

 

Yes!

Tiger tank was one the most respected tanks in the whole of WW2.

I think we once thought while discussing this that there were different periods and all tanks were not available then so we named the best tank for each period.

My favourite tanks

1941-1942 the T34
1943 Ferdinand
1943-45 the Panther tank

 

Yes, I do agree that there were times when others were best in class for the time. A friend and I at work talked about tanks the other day and he said if he had a choice he would spearhead with Tiger tanks and exploit with T-34s.

 

Pzkw V

(Digs deep foxhole, this is bound to create a new war)

 

The T-34/85, followed by the Pz IV and then the M4 Sherman.
The Panther is too much tank for a medium, not enough for a heavy. The Tiger series was just too expensive in manufacturing resources to make it a main battle tank. As a specialist heavy tank used in limited numbers it was quite good.
I mentioned specifically the T 34/85 because it was really a new vehicle compared to the 76 models. The earlier T34/76 was not that good. Both the Pz IV and M 4 were better tanks. Had the US gone with putting a 90mm on the Sherman in early 44 or late 43 it would have easily made the "best" tank category.....

 

T.A. what do you think about the M4 armor and body style? Even if it had been upgraded to a 90mm it had such a high profile and IMO less-than-adaquate armor thickness. The M4 and the T34 were both great tanks but their strength lay more in their production speed than individual capability, right? They couldn't take on a Tiger, or Panther for that matter, without being able to maneuver in clearly superior numbers. One American general, whose name I cannot recall, said if he were going to take on Tigers he would need a 8:1 ratio to succeed. Because of the expense difference and production capability of the United States he could get those ratios and win, otherwise . . .

 

If you would throw us a reason from the fox hole we promise not to use that to zero the artillery.

 

The Panther, as long as every thing worked well, had the speed, armour & Gun to rule the Battlefield.

Only the Heavy Tanks could approach it withoy fear.

If only it was capable of being produced in sufficient numbers.

I would have the T34/85 as my second.

T.A.G, does the Sherman Firefly rate as the best Sherman, without an impossible armour upgrade, it put the best available gun onto the basic chassis.

 

I do also respect the Panther. As a response to the Russians T-34 it was more than adequate. The German production and mechanical difficulties were a liability.

I still think that if I had to go out on the battlefield inside one of the tanks of WWII around me I would feel the most confident inside a Tiger.

 

The M4, even with the proposed 90mm turret is no higher than either the Panther or Tiger. The sillouette just appears tall because the tank is relatively short. In WW 2, sloped armor made less difference than it does today because designers were not being particularly rigiourous in their engineering. As examples, the T 34 has a large hatch in the glacis that is a major weakness. The Panther has the curved mantlet that is a shot trap. The Sherman has the transmission cover bolted to the upper glacis forming a major weak point. There are alot of these.
It is far more important how the crew can interact and the speed with which they can engage targets. The M 4 of those I listed is the best designed to do this. Its turret rotation and gun laying systems make it capable of getting on target faster than either a T 34 or a Panther, or a Tiger for that matter.
On the other hand, the T 34 has the mobility to allow it to engage from positions that many other tanks could not reach. But, it is handicapped to a degree by having a comparatively lousy gun (both the 76 and 85 were not stellar performers as AT weapons having originally been designed as field pieces).
The German designs have good guns and armor but are mechanically unreliable. Also, by 1944 their armor quality is really starting to slip. Also the Germans made wide use of very hard face hardened armor (the reason they stuck with flat plates in many cases). This was fine when AT guns were small. With the large calibers in 1944 that were seeing service this is a disadvantage as these plates tend to shatter under impact even if they theoretically should not be penetrated. You can see this characteristic in many pictures of destroyed German tanks.

 

Aesthetics wise, I'm partial to the Sherman - otherwise, not the greatest tank in the war - and a shame too, seems like the US was a bit short sighted when it came to tank dev - cost a lot of lives. Turns out not to be the most mobile tank either - TA what were the ground pressure figures for the Sherman. As far as I recall - it would sink pretty quick on the narrow tracks.

Always a big King Tiger fan -

 

Definitely T-34´s first version was not as good as T34/85 but just reading of the first battles by Germans against the first T-34´s you realize what a great tank it was for the Red Army in stopping the Barbarossa....

 

I was most astonished reading about the accounts of the German Armies introduction to the K-2. It was a lumbering behemoth but it sure was hard to kill. Especially with what the German's were packing on their initial drive into Russia.

One K-2 completely stopped a drive down a road by just sitting there ignoring what they hit it with and blowing everything they had up. They had to lure it to a position where they had one of the 88mm dual purpose guns to finally get through. That doesn't make it the best tank, but it is a good story, and highlights the fact that although the PnzrIV was a great tank it was not the match for an heavy tank.

 

Depends on the model. The 19" track versions (VVSS) ran right around 14 psi. A 76mm T23 turreted Sherman with this track ran about 14.5 - 15psi.
The M4A3E8 with 23" track and HVSS ran right at 11 psi.
Adding grousers (extended end connectors) to the track dropped the ground pressure by about .5 to 1 psi depending on lenght etc.
The T34/76 ran right at about 10 psi and the 85 was about 11.

 

Have always liked StuGs. But they are'nt really tanks. I'll ride in a Firefly given a choice.

Remember, there were more 88's on the battlefield than Tigers.If a Tiger out-paces it's accompanying infantry,smaller tanks [aka Kursk],it's on it's own.
Hit a mine...well.
It's slow and guzzles gasoline, hmmm, hope RedBaron does'nt read this.

BTW, TA, don't know if this has been discussed before....what distance could an 88 penetrate a Tiger, frontal shot?

[ 22. August 2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: FramerT ]

 

FramerT I have to agree about keeping the infantry close. That is true of every tank though, despite the grenade launchers and machine guns.

Saw a poster once that was supposed to bolster the Germans, I think. It showed the penetrating distance of an 88MM versus the t-34/85. Basically keep them at a distance and you win. Of course you can't always keep them at a distance.

 

Seems that the Sherman, 32 tons, was about 14 psi, whereas the Tiger at 55+ tons, had around the same ground pressure. It kills me that the Pershing wasn't delivered earlier - I mean, besides politics, was it difficult to see that the Sherman was going to be outclassed in Europe?

 

If I recall correctly it was also meant that tanks would not be used against each other in the US tactics ( Patton ).

I do think though that the main problem was that it would have cost a whole lot of money to change the production away from Shermans.

 

An "88" penetrate a Tiger? OK...
The 88/56 could just penetrate a Tiger I in the hull front at about 1000 yards and the turret face at about 1500 yards using "book" values.
Realistically, these are more like 800 and 1200 yards respectively given the need for a slight amount more penetration than armor thickness.

 

Tou didn't mention RED YANKEE Sherman fighting in soviet army. That was model M4A2 with two Diesel(!) General Motors engines. This Sherman was faster than petrol model. It didn't ignite so easily etc.Later version M4A2(76)W with long barrel was one of the best tanks of that time. Soviets praised diesel Shermans for ergonomy adn reliability.
I wouldn't underestimate soviet opinion.