Best Tank of WW2

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey guys any ww2 tank enthusiasts in here?

Now of course if put 1v1 the best tanks would be the later ones.. Konigs.. IS-2, but thats not wat this poll is about.

Think of these tanks in their prime. IE. T-34 vs Pzr IV... which tank was best vs its intended enemy.

In my opinion the Tiger is the best tank of WW2. It was deadly from '42, right into '45. Not a claim many of those tanks can make. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[DeadRunner]

If i remenber correctly was one of the panzer

[spmetla]

Although the PzIII and PzIV were more important for the Germans I'd have to opt for the Tiger I. Although the Panther and King Tiger were better for Tank on Tank combat their reliablility was far less than desired.

The Panther G would be my second choice.
The T-34/85 would be my third choice.

[Cazbol]

I voted for T34/85 but after reading the initial post I think I should have voted for T34/76. Strong, powerful, simple and easy to mass produce.

If the poll was about the heaviest tank or the most feared tank then the Tiger might deserve to win. However, it was plagued by mechanical problems which often lead to it being abandoned and lost. Another and greater reason for abandonment was running out of fuel because these behemoths used an awful lot of it while Germany had very little of it. They were difficult to build and required vast resources and a long time to complete, neither of which Germany had too much of. Facing fully functional and fully fuelled Tigers was a nightmare for the allies but producing and running the Tigers was an even greater nightmare for the Germans.

[Rosacrux]

The "best tank" as "tank vs tank", one on one and everything equal, is a toss between the later Panther and the KingTiger.

If we go for the best blend of reliability, strength, firepower, protection, availability, ease to manufacture and ease of use, the T-34/76 should be the winner, followed by the Panzer IV and the Sherman. The best German designs (Panther, Tiger, KingTiger) had huge problems regarding reliability and have never been around in sufficient numbers, due to excessive manufacturing cost and other factors. The same should be the deal about IS-2, the ultra heavy Soviet design.

The tank that had the greater influence in the outcome of war, was the T-34/85 and 76 - mainly due to superior numbers.

The western tanks where rather poor compared to the best German and Soviet designs (it was an US estimation that it took 4 Shermans to beat 1 Panther, anyway).

[Crimson Castle]

Yeah, I'd say the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was not because it enjoyed numerical superiority. It was a war winning tank. I mean I seriously can't see the Russians defeating the Germans with BT8s and T40s.

The T-34 had good dual purpose gun, good armor, and a good fast speed. It was also robust, easy to use, had a big nice track width for the tough road conditions in Russia, a reliable engine, and was relatively easy to maintain. And to top it all off - ta-da it was easy to mass produce.

IIRC the Russians produced 50 T-34s for every Tiger the Germans produced.
In 1941: the Russians produced 1,886 T34s;
1942 - 12,553,
1943: 15,712;
1944: 14,723 (3,723 T34/76's 11,000 T34/85s.)
1945: 8,330(T34/85's only no 76's produced)

Sorry. I don't have the specific figures handy for the German tanks though.

Its excellent armor was also helped by the rather revolutionary slope armor concept. Without such an excellent tank, the Russians may have lost many of their battles. Of course the earlier T-34/76 model suffered from the two man turret, poor ergonomics, and iirc, due to production problems - the 76 model came without radio comms. But thanks to its great design, it could be upgraded. Unfortunately, many of the losses suffered by the Russians were due to inept commanders, and poor training.

And what did the Germans think of the T-34? I'd leave the last word to some of them -

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

As a sidenote - I'm a big fan of German tanks and SPs - particularly the Panzer IVs, StugIII/IVs, Tigers, Nashorns, Panthers, Elephants, JadgTigers, and King Tigers. But the problem with the latter tanks were that they were often too slow, complicated to produce, and difficult to maintain and repair (in the field). Too many German tank losses were caused by minor damages or breakdowns. And also again due to their complicated design - too few were being produced to fend off the onslaught of Russian, US, and British tanks.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well the reason i didnt pick one of the later German "supertanks" was because of the mechanical problems. But the Tiger I wasnt generally breakdown prone, like the Konigs or early panther. Of course it did happen but not that frequently actually. Also, the Tiger was around in '42 remember, and could easily handle as many T-76s as could be thrown at it. The design was so good that the Tiger still dominated in '44 during the western campaign up until the end of the war.

Many people fault the Germans for not making a tank that was easily mass produced but this was a consious(sp) decision. Germany knew it couldnt out number Russia in anything, so it was decided to outgun them greatly in both machinery and training.

This can be seen in the Pzr. IV tank (which my grandfather commanded http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ). Although they were outclassed by the T-34, they still had very high kills against it.

I still say Tiger http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Hey what about the Jadgpanthers and JadgTigers - they looked way cool. But the JTs were too heavy though.

I guess the maxim that - the Best is always the enemy of Good - applies to the Tiger concept. It was a great tank. And if I had to be in one - I'd certainly choose a Tiger to be inside than a Sherman or T34. But what the German Panzer Corp really needed in 1943 -1945 were more simple to make tank destroyers like the Stug III and IVs.

The Tigers were great - but you gotta agree that more needed to be produced to combat the huge number of Allied tanks. Numerical superiority has its own kind of asset too you know.

But one other reason why I didn't put forward the Tiger - was its complicated interwined wheel system. If one wheel got damaged - you had to pull out another three wheels to fix the problem.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well the Jags and Jagds werent exactly tanks. They were classified as "tank destroyers", which when refering to German armor, are merely those tanks with fixed turrets.

Although the Jagdpanther was probably the best tank destroying machine of the entire war.

[Crimson Castle]

Does the tank have to have a turret? Most of the first WW1 tanks did not have turrets yet we do not hesistate to call them tanks. The modern Swedish S-tank does not have a turret but we still call it a tank.

If a vehicle is fully armored, has a good sizable gun, has tracks, and is capable of fighting against other tanks in a 1000m range. I'd consider them tanks. But the point is kinna moot anyhow panzerjager - heehee :)

[Teutonic Knight]

King Tiger 2, hands down absolutely gorgeous machine...

[Crash]

My usual method of choosing - the one that I would be want to be in if I had to be in one, it's definitely the late version of the Panther.

But if I were going to equip an army, it would have to be the T34/85. Just build hordes of them and run over everybody.

[The Wizard]

Panther because its ability for mass production, modification and upgrade is superior, as well as its statisctics in battle.

Panzer mark V Tiger, however, is better than the former. The fact that a single unit of 8 Tigers stopped a very large Russian offensive single-handedly says enough. The fact that the idiot of idiots Hitler (militarily, an idiot. For the sake of freedom, God bless his utter stupidity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif) stopped the research for new and better tanks in its tracks (figularly speaking), delayed the coming of one of the greatest tanks of history by two or so years. Well, I guess we can go and thank God for this luck, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 04 2004,14:02)]Panther because its ability for mass production, modification and upgrade is superior, as well as its statisctics in battle.

Panzer mark V Tiger, however, is better than the former. The fact that a single unit of 8 Tigers stopped a very large Russian offensive single-handedly says enough. The fact that the idiot of idiots Hitler (militarily, an idiot. For the sake of freedom, God bless his utter stupidity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif) stopped the research for new and better tanks in its tracks (figularly speaking), delayed the coming of one of the greatest tanks of history by two or so years. Well, I guess we can go and thank God for this luck, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



~Wiz
Sorry, but, in concept, the Panther was far superior to the Tiger I. It was designed to incorporate the teachings the Germans learned after facing the T-34. Sloped armour, high mobility, long high velocity 75mm gun, etc... But, contrary to the Tiger tank, it was a medium tank, not an heavy one.

The prowess that you talk about, of Tigers facing many enemies and defeating them, was mainly because many of the German Tank Aces were assigned to Tiger units...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 03 2004,04:54)]The "best tank" as "tank vs tank", one on one and everything equal, is a toss between the later Panther and the KingTiger.

If we go for the best blend of reliability, strength, firepower, protection, availability, ease to manufacture and ease of use, the T-34/76 should be the winner, followed by the Panzer IV and the Sherman.
Sorry, Rosacrux, but the Sherman is a poor choise. Remember what the American tank crews called the Sherman?

"The Matchbox"

Do you know why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

Because of the position of the fuel tanks, it was extremelly vulnerable to fire. Not a good choise, not even the Firefly or 76mm version.

[PanzerJaeger]

Quote[/b] ]Does the tank have to have a turret? Most of the first WW1 tanks did not have turrets yet we do not hesistate to call them tanks. The modern Swedish S-tank does not have a turret but we still call it a tank.

If a vehicle is fully armored, has a good sizable gun, has tracks, and is capable of fighting against other tanks in a 1000m range. I'd consider them tanks. But the point is kinna moot anyhow panzerjager - heehee :)


Your very right, i dont hesitate to call them tanks but the fact is that in the German military at that time, only AFVs with turrets were considered true tanks.. besides if i put all the German jagds, there wouldnt be any lines left for other countries. ;)


Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but, in concept, the Panther was far superior to the Tiger I. It was designed to incorporate the teachings the Germans learned after facing the T-34. Sloped armour, high mobility, long high velocity 75mm gun, etc... But, contrary to the Tiger tank, it was a medium tank, not an heavy one.

The prowess that you talk about, of Tigers facing many enemies and defeating them, was mainly because many of the German Tank Aces were assigned to Tiger units...


I dunno.. Panther was very good but it came much later than the Tiger. Tiger was heavy and its hard to compare the 2 but i would call them even. Tiger had bigger gun, but panthers was more improved. Panther had 110mm max armor, while Tiger had 100mm, not a big deal. Panther was better in speed, but Tiger was more reliable. Both had multiple-wheel suspension and such.

All and all Panther was probably better but not by much. This speaks highly of the Tiger as it was out much earlier, but as you say, the Panzer corps was extremely elite.. and didnt even hesitate to combat forces 10Xs their own number.

[Maychargewithoutorders]

I voted for the churchill, but that only being patriotic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Seriously i would go for the T-34 mainly due to its speed and the easy maintenance. I didn't quite realise the importance of being able to fix these things until i read the history of the 11th armoured division (my grandfathers). It turns out they simply had to abandon huge numbers of their tanks due to the speed that warfare had reached since the onset of blitzkrieg.

[Sulla]

Its all in evolution. The tiger was indeed a great tank cause there were not many guns that could penetrate its armour, the 88mm gun had a HUGE range (imagine the open russian steppes and you first have to cross about a 1000 metres b4 you could actually MAYBE hit something, the Tiger could pick off a lot of tanks before they were in danger). The panther was an overall better tank. It had a 75 mm gun, but it was a long barreled one which means the velocity of the projectile it fired was very high. I think muzzle velocity was about 950 meters a second. now if you figure the equation for the force in that grenade is

0.5 * mass of grenade * velocity^2.... ouch.

The tiger needed a lot of armour, as its armour wasnt sloped, as stated b4. The projectile would hit the armour and could put its full force into the armour.

You can imagine if a grenade hits sloped armour some or most (depending on deflection) of its potential will go to waste. Unfortunatly in early models of T-34 and panther there were a lot of shot traps. The grenade would bounce off and into another part of the tank. Generally speaking a weaker part. boom :(

Sulla

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Rosacrux, but the Sherman is a poor choise. Remember what the American tank crews called the Sherman?

"The Matchbox"


Nice try. It was called the Ronson for its propencity to burn. Stll though its speed, shere numbers and ease of maintainence made it one of the most impotant tanks of the war.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 05 2004,08:02)]Panther because its ability for mass production, modification and upgrade is superior, as well as its statisctics in battle.

Panzer mark V Tiger, however, is better than the former. The fact that a single unit of 8 Tigers stopped a very large Russian offensive single-handedly says enough. The fact that the idiot of idiots Hitler (militarily, an idiot. For the sake of freedom, God bless his utter stupidity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif) stopped the research for new and better tanks in its tracks (figularly speaking), delayed the coming of one of the greatest tanks of history by two or so years. Well, I guess we can go and thank God for this luck, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



~Wiz
two questions. Where did this legendary battle take place?

and where did you get the idea that Hitler stopped the research for tanks? He was the one advocating bigger tanks - thus the Germans produced the King Tiger, JadgTiger, and the Maus. Problem was that their engines were too small, too slow, and they were often too big to fit onto trains, go across bridges etc...

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 04 2004,20:47)]
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Rosacrux, but the Sherman is a poor choise. Remember what the American tank crews called the Sherman?

"The Matchbox"


Nice try. It was called the Ronson for its propencity to burn. Stll though its speed, shere numbers and ease of maintainence made it one of the most impotant tanks of the war.
That's the answer, Wiz. When judging the "effectiveness" of a tank throughout the war, you should take into consideration most of all the impact it had in the war in general. And the fact that the Sherman was the main allied (western) tank for most of the war, indicates its importancy.

As a design and build it was far, far inferior to the German and Soviet tanks, but it was build en masse, shared many of the positives of T-34 (ease of use and maintenance, high availability, mass production, great numbers) that turned the Ronson (the Brits in North Africa created this nickname, no?) into one of the most effective tanks of the war, even though as a design it was inferior even to the later versions of Pzkfw 4, and I am not even getting to the best German tanks.

[Crimson Castle]

The early Sherman tanks had the propensity to explode into flames because of the poor ammo protection. Once they put anti-fire systems into the ammo storage, the Shermans didn't brew up so easily.

from the soc.ww2 newsgroup

quote "Attributing the Sherman's willingness to brew up quickly on gasoline engines is totally false. This has perpetuated as a myth since WWII along with a few myths about German armor. Also, It was the basic ammunition storage that was at fault and there didn't need to be a lot of extra ammunition stuffed in. The extra ammo aggravated the situation but it wasn't the cause. When you see pictures of shermans with the two extra armor plates on one side and another on the other sponson you can see right where some of the ammunition storage racks were placed because these plates where added to help protect the racks. The problem wasn't really solved until wet or water jacketed storage racks were put in place. Jon Barry" END quote

One should also remember that the Panther and Tiger has their share of teething problems. When they first debuted, they broke down too easily, or their engines caught on fire. But after some modifications and repairs at the workshops - they worked much better.

It is also not fair to base our comparisons of the first encounters of Shermans with the German tanks. The Allied forces were generally inexperienced and couldn't hold their own against the veteran and elite German panzer crews. Often, Allied crews with minimum training were pitted against experienced German tank/gun crews. The result was obviously one-sided.

Maybe we should also compare the experiences of the Israeli IDF Sherman tank crews when they fought against T-55s manned by Arabs in the 1956 war. The IDF Shermans canned the T-34s, T-55s and even T-56s.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Sulla @ May 05 2004,12:40)]Its all in evolution. ... early models of T-34 and panther there were a lot of shot traps.
Yeah even the veritable King Tiger has a shot trap. The early ones - fitted with the Porsche slopping mantel turret - allowed frontal shots to bounce straight into the driver's compartment.

[PanzerJaeger]

Youd have to get close enough to shoot it though, which was a problem for both Sherman and T34 alike. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[econ21]

I voted for the Panther. Inspired by the T-34, it did everything that impressive tank did but better - fast, well armoured and far better armed.

The Tiger I was not that much better armoured - at least frontally - and if anything had an inferior gun. I would put it below the Panther for the speed (and cost) difference.

Tiger II was like a Panther on steroids, but just too slow for my taste.

The Sherman Firefly would not be a bad substitute for a Panther - equivalent firepower, but slower and less well armoured.

The Stalin tanks look impressive on paper, but were rather late arrivals so as the original poster says, I discount them for this reason (ditto the Tiger II).

All the above is for tank vs tank. For contribution to the war, it would have to be the T-34 and then the Sherman, with the long-gunned Panzer Mark IV (superior to both one-on-one) coming up third.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 05 2004,03:14)]
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 04 2004,20:47)]
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Rosacrux, but the Sherman is a poor choise. Remember what the American tank crews called the Sherman?

"The Matchbox"


Nice try. It was called the Ronson for its propencity to burn. Stll though its speed, shere numbers and ease of maintainence made it one of the most impotant tanks of the war.
That's the answer, Wiz. When judging the "effectiveness" of a tank throughout the war, you should take into consideration most of all the impact it had in the war in general. And the fact that the Sherman was the main allied (western) tank for most of the war, indicates its importancy.

As a design and build it was far, far inferior to the German and Soviet tanks, but it was build en masse, shared many of the positives of T-34 (ease of use and maintenance, high availability, mass production, great numbers) that turned the Ronson (the Brits in North Africa created this nickname, no?) into one of the most effective tanks of the war, even though as a design it was inferior even to the later versions of Pzkfw 4, and I am not even getting to the best German tanks.
I got the Sherman's nick wrong... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif

Hey guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif The question was:

Best tank of WW2

Not:

Most important tank of WW2

I rest my case... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[JAG]

Had to be the Tiger. But then again every tank to the Allies was a Tiger http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

No question: the Panzer VI Ausf B "Königstiger".

The 88 mm ( 88mm Pak 43/L71 or Kwk 43/L71) was so far ahead of anything else that this IMHO, outweighs the negatives. Not ever has the frontal armor been penetrated. It was slightly slower then the Sherman, and indeed much slower then the T-34; on the other hand, a T-34 would be long dead before it had a chance of knocking out the Tiger II.

[Hakonarson]

Sherman Firefly.

cheap, easy to use and maintain, good AT firepower, relatively lightweight and mobile especially with HVSS, comfortable for the crews, reliable, easy to maintain.

Certainly there were other tanks with better armour or bigger guns, but only the Panther, King Tiger and IS series had both, and they all had massive problems of their own and ultimately the firefly could kill them all anyway.

the T34/85 doesn't come close - it's armour is actually weaker than a Sherman of the same era, the 85mm gun has good HE but is no better than the American 76mm for AT work, it's optics are not so flash and the large turret severly unbalanced the suspension and created maintenance problems.

The T34's were all also crudely made, not nearly as reliable as people here seem to think, pigs to drive, cramped and uncomfortable.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 10 2004,19:58)]Sherman Firefly.

cheap, easy to use and maintain, good AT firepower, relatively lightweight and mobile especially with HVSS, comfortable for the crews, reliable, easy to maintain.

Certainly there were other tanks with better armour or bigger guns, but only the Panther, King Tiger and IS series had both, and they all had massive problems of their own and ultimately the firefly could kill them all anyway.
Not even by a long shot (or should I say, specially with a long shot... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif )

The only way for the Sherman to defeat a Königstiger, was by swarming them and hitting their flanks or backs. Even the late Sherman versions. Most American and English tank veterans concur.

Only with the Pershing and the IS series (IS1, IS2, IS3), did the Allies achieved technical parity.

[TheSilverKnight]

The PanzerIV was a really great German tank which proved itself in many a great battle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hakonarson]

Aymar you are aware that I'm talking about he Firefly aren't you - the Sherman armed with the british 17 pdr gun?

The IS series were not a whole lot of use in AT combat - they only carried 7 AP rounds out of a total load of 28, had an abysmal rate of fire (2-3 rounds per minute) and were intended to be assault tanks for breakthroughs. russian AT was centred around SU's and towed AT guns rather than other tanks.

the Pershing was definitely the best American tank, but still required a lot of development after the war to become properly useful. The 90mm was only a mediocre gun for its size, and had inferior penetration to the 17 pdr.

[VikingHorde]

My vote goes to the Konigstiger (King Tiger or Tiger II as it's called in english). IMO the germans made the best tanks, but they were a lot harder to build (became their downfall). The sherman suck in tank role, can't kill tanks but good as support for the trops and easy to repair. Most german tanks on the western front were killed by aircraft or went out of fuel.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 11 2004,23:44)]Aymar you are aware that I'm talking about he Firefly aren't you - the Sherman armed with the british 17 pdr gun?
Even the Firefly was no match for the Panther or Köenigstiger. It's ballistic profile was inadequate and the Sherman was a very tall (therefore visible) target. The penetrative range wasn't enough to face any of the two German tanks mentioned above, at least not before they could destroy it.



Quote[/b] ]The IS series were not a whole lot of use in AT combat - they only carried 7 AP rounds out of a total load of 28, had an abysmal rate of fire (2-3 rounds per minute) and were intended to be assault tanks for breakthroughs. russian AT was centred around SU's and towed AT guns rather than other tanks.
Eventhough the poor ammo depot, the IS series could seriously damage ANY German tank of the period.




Quote[/b] ]the Pershing was definitely the best American tank, but still required a lot of development after the war to become properly useful. The 90mm was only a mediocre gun for its size, and had inferior penetration to the 17 pdr.
Tell that to the Panthers destroyed by the few Pershing that reached operational service during the later stages of the war. Besides, the ballistic profile and armour protection was a world apart from the Sherman.

[PanzerJaeger]

A good tiger crew could make short work of a Pershing or IS2. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[ICantSpellDawg]

when i think panzer, i think tiger

[Hakonarson]

I'm not aware that the Pershing destroyed any Panthers during WW2.

And of course it was better armoured than the Sherman - that's not the point IMO - the question is the BEST tank - not the biggest, not the heaviest armed, not the biggest gun or thickest armour, not hte fastest or smallest - but the best.

So I chose a tank that was simple, well armed, reliable, comfortable for teh crew, easy to maintain and produce.

As for height - the Sherman (M4a4) was 2.74m high, the &34/76 2.6m. T34/85 2.7m, the Panther D 3.1m, the tiger 1 2.86m, the tiger 2 3.09m.

doesn't look liek the height of het Sherman was all that important - it was shorter than all the German tanks noted.

the ability of a gun to destroy enemy by hitting it is only half the solution - sure the russian 122mm could disembowel most German tanks - but not all of them all the time - but with a low rate of fire it had little chance to actually do so before it was destroyed itself - the Russians knew this and that's why they didn't treat their heavy tanks as tank destroyers (although by their nature they weer often engaged with german heavy tanks).

As always, crew training was an important factor - have a look at het Russian batlefield site for possibly the most complete infomation available on the JS-2 in English:

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 13 2004,23:02)]I'm not aware that the Pershing destroyed any Panthers during WW2.
Yes, only a couple of them though. Very late stages of the war. Somewhere in Germany. I saw it in a WW2 documentary by BBC's Cromwell Productions. It concerned Allied advancement from D-Day to V-Day. It contained interviews with English, Americans and German veterans and some film images of urban warfare in a German town.

In this film, we are following American Infantry advancement covered by some American tanks (three I believe), including a Pershing. An ambushed Panther destroys a Sherman and is chased, between the building wrecks, by the remaining two American tanks. The other Sherman takes a poorly aimed shot on the side, but keeps operational. The Pershing surrounds and takes a shoot at the flank of the Panther. Distance to target: about 200m(yards). The Panther crew tries to leave the immobilized tank, but the Pershing shoots again. The Panther explodes and starts to burn, incenerating the 2 tank members that had managed to crawl out of the tower.



Quote[/b] ]And of course it was better armoured than the Sherman - that's not the point IMO - the question is the BEST tank - not the biggest, not the heaviest armed, not the biggest gun or thickest armour, not hte fastest or smallest - but the best.
Preciselly. The BEST, not the most practical or sucessefull.



Quote[/b] ]So I chose a tank that was simple, well armed, reliable, comfortable for teh crew, easy to maintain and produce.
No. That is not the BEST, only the most practical and all-rounded for use as well as mass production.



Quote[/b] ]As for height - the Sherman (M4a4) was 2.74m high, the T34/76 2.6m. T34/85 2.7m, the Panther D 3.1m, the tiger 1 2.86m, the tiger 2 3.09m.

doesn't look liek the height of het Sherman was all that important - it was shorter than all the German tanks noted.
I explained myself poorly. The Sherman and the T34 were medium tanks, the Panther a medium-heavy tank and the Tiger and Köenigstiger heavy tanks. I was refering to relative height in regard to size and weight. That is: Target aspect in regard to size and shot-distance. In regard to their size, armour and firepower they were effectivelly shorter.



Quote[/b] ]the ability of a gun to destroy enemy by hitting it is only half the solution - sure the russian 122mm could disembowel most German tanks - but not all of them all the time - but with a low rate of fire it had little chance to actually do so before it was destroyed itself - the Russians knew this and that's why they didn't treat their heavy tanks as tank destroyers (although by their nature they weer often engaged with german heavy tanks).
Correct. But in that case, sheer numbers turned a difficult situation into an easy one.



Quote[/b] ]As always, crew training was an important factor - have a look at het Russian batlefield site for possibly the most complete infomation available on the JS-2 in English:

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html
Great site, thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Got any other sites about WW2? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Crimson Castle]

The problem with the King Tiger and the latter models of German tanks was that they were too big. It took them ages to get to the battle and iirc they had no means of transporting them by rail or by truck.

Too many King Tigers broke down on their way to the battle or simply ran out of gas. It also had a relatively weak engine and drank too much petrol.

I like the King Tiger but I can't say it was the best tank due to those serious problems.

[PanzerJaeger]

Problem was it had the Tiger I engine.. but was considerably heavier.

[ROCKHAMMER]

Even though they lost the war, the Panther was one mean piece of machinery and if it had been in production earlier in the war the outcome could quite possibly been much different than what it was. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

[SwordsMaster]

this is from the Entrance Hall,


Quote[/b] ]"Have any of you guys forgot about the Maus? Easily the best tank in the war but only 2 were produced at the end of the war by the Germans. It might not have been easy to produce but good luck to the allies beating that machine. Sherman blasts would probally deflect off of that baby. Do some research on it. ITS A F'IN MONSTER"


Ummm ya...And I would like to have a shogun avatar too






From,


By Xxl3o0mxX

[spmetla]

The Maus would have to be one of the worst tanks in WWII. It was too slow (10km/h)due to it's extreme weight, it was to wide and heavy for the bridges in Germany and France it's turret had too slow a traverse. If ever met by enemy tanks it would be able to blast the ones within it's sight but the others would be able to dart away and after seeing their rounds do diddly squat they'd just need to call in a P38 or P47 to drop a 500lber on it.

It also wasn't intended to be a proper tank, it's role was to bridge the gaps in the Atlantic wall a sort of mobile turret instead of being used as a true tank.

Like the JagdTiger and KonigTiger it was too big too expensive and too late in the war to be useful.

All the money put in the Maus would have served better building a few Tigers or Panthers and sending them to either front, the Germans could sure have used a few more.

[Crimson Castle]

Yeah the Maus. You could also say the same about the other larger tanks Germany fielded - like the King Tiger and JadgTiger. On paper, theorectically, one on one they could easily defeat any Allied tank with their massive gun and armor and superb optics. But the problem was that Germany lacked the resources to fuel these gas guzzlers and to transport these monsters to the battlefield. Too many of them broke down, ran out of fuel and could not be towed to field repair workshops. IIRC, five King Tigers were sent to Normandy but their crews destroyed them when they ran out of fuel. They didn't shoot at a single thing.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ June 10 2004,02:42)]The Maus would have to be one of the worst tanks in WWII. It was too slow (10km/h)due to it's extreme weight, it was to wide and heavy for the bridges in Germany and France it's turret had too slow a traverse. If ever met by enemy tanks it would be able to blast the ones within it's sight but the others would be able to dart away and after seeing their rounds do diddly squat they'd just need to call in a P38 or P47 to drop a 500lber on it.
Correct. The Maus was an anacronism. It served only for ambushed defense (like a mobile artillery bunker) and even at that wouldn't be effective.

I have to add that for defeating tank armour, a pair of hollow-charge armour-piercing rockets would be better than a 500lbs bomb, due to it's directional charge.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ June 10 2004,08:33)]Yeah the Maus. You could also say the same about the other larger tanks Germany fielded - like the King Tiger and JadgTiger. On paper, theorectically, one on one they could easily defeat any Allied tank with their massive gun and armor and superb optics. But the problem was that Germany lacked the resources to fuel these gas guzzlers and to transport these monsters to the battlefield. Too many of them broke down, ran out of fuel and could not be towed to field repair workshops. IIRC, five King Tigers were sent to Normandy but their crews destroyed them when they ran out of fuel. They didn't shoot at a single thing.
But when used without fuel or whell problems they were extremelly effective and extremelly hard to beat. Even the old Tiger was (one hold off an entire tank battalion and destroyed 21 Sherman before being destroyed). The American and English veterans that fought against them concur.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 10 2004,00:42)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ June 10 2004,08:33)]Yeah the Maus. You could also say the same about the other larger tanks Germany fielded - like the King Tiger and JadgTiger. On paper, theorectically, one on one they could easily defeat any Allied tank with their massive gun and armor and superb optics. But the problem was that Germany lacked the resources to fuel these gas guzzlers and to transport these monsters to the battlefield. Too many of them broke down, ran out of fuel and could not be towed to field repair workshops. IIRC, five King Tigers were sent to Normandy but their crews destroyed them when they ran out of fuel. They didn't shoot at a single thing.
But when used without fuel or whell problems they were extremelly effective and extremelly hard to beat. Even the old Tiger was (one hold off an entire tank battalion and destroyed 21 Sherman before being destroyed). The American and English veterans that fought against them concur.
Oh yeah, definately. Almost all late war German AFVs have accounts of single ones in a good hull down position wiping out dozens of enemy tanks. Even the later PzIVs were capable of it on the Western front but this poll is the "best" tank of WWII and the late war "supers" and "heavies" have too many faults that counteract their good points.

[econ21]

Looking at the poll, it struck me how one broad design has won the vast majority of the votes - vis, wasn't the Panther basically inspired by the T-34 and the King Tiger basically a beefy version of the Panther?

Then again, I find the dominant modern heavy tanks (Abrams, Challenger etc) to be rather similar to each other in design and appearance.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ June 11 2004,08:18)]Looking at the poll, it struck me how one broad design has won the vast majority of the votes - vis, wasn't the Panther basically inspired by the T-34 and the King Tiger basically a beefy version of the Panther?
Yes, indeed. The design of the T-34, specially the slopped armour, heavilly influenced all later WW2 German tank designs.



Quote[/b] ]Then again, I find the dominant modern heavy tanks (Abrams, Challenger etc) to be rather similar to each other in design and appearance.
Preciselly, because the T-34 was a precursor (the right path) in a lot of concepts (slopped armour, firepower, mobility, etc...).

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 11 2004,04:42)]But when used without fuel or whell problems they were extremelly effective and extremelly hard to beat. Even the old Tiger was (one hold off an entire tank battalion and destroyed 21 Sherman before being destroyed). The American and English veterans that fought against them concur.
An immobile Tiger destroying 21 Shermans? I doubt that.

If it did happen - it was probably because it was in an entrenched position protected by infantry and support guns.

I believe the record goes to the Nashorn - a SP gun which destroyed wave after wave of advancing T-34 tanks. But again, it was a good position protected by infantry.

Which battle did it take place and do you have a source for that?

Cheers,

CC

PS. I'm overseas at the moment and don't have good access to internet computers.

[king steven]

i didn't vote 'cos there all impressive in there own way

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ June 17 2004,04:55)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 11 2004,04:42)]But when used without fuel or whell problems they were extremelly effective and extremelly hard to beat. Even the old Tiger was (one hold off an entire tank battalion and destroyed 21 Sherman before being destroyed). The American and English veterans that fought against them concur.
An immobile Tiger destroying 21 Shermans? I doubt that.

If it did happen - it was probably because it was in an entrenched position protected by infantry and support guns.
I didn't said it was immobile, did I? As for the supporting artillery I'm not sure, but I believe the crew was successefull because it was alone and mobile. Cleaver concealment and positioning from time to time.

Belive me it's not an invention, but a real war story.



Quote[/b] ]I believe the record goes to the Nashorn - a SP gun which destroyed wave after wave of advancing T-34 tanks. But again, it was a good position protected by infantry.

Which battle did it take place and do you have a source for that?

Cheers,

CC

PS. I'm overseas at the moment and don't have good access to internet computers.
Sorry. No link for the info. Just a war story I've read in a military magazine. It wasn't mine though... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif