looking at wiki i saw a lot of WWII tanks.
now is it the Tiger Ace II? (the strongest)
M26 Pershing< Panthers
Tiger AceII<M26 Pershing
excuse if im incorrect.
Printable View
looking at wiki i saw a lot of WWII tanks.
now is it the Tiger Ace II? (the strongest)
M26 Pershing< Panthers
Tiger AceII<M26 Pershing
excuse if im incorrect.
Well, the Pershing shouldn't be considered since it didn't really participate in WW2.
I'd say something like a Soviet model, or a Tiger.
IS-2
how bout that.
I would say bingo.
Especially the part about knocking a tanks turret off.
Like most of these questions, there is a lot of relativity involved.
In the late war, the top Heavy tanks would have been:
IS-2/3 Soviet Heavy. Extremely well armored and possessed of a heavy gun. Expensive to produce, though less so than the German heavies.
Tiger II German Heavy. Corrected the weaknesses in the armoring of the Tiger I, though only marginally better gunned. Expenseive to produce.
Though not strictly considered "tanks" Germany also produced a couple of very effective turretless tank destroyers -- The PZj 4 & 5 -- that would have been very difficult if fielded in numbers. The heaviest Pzj -- the Huge mark 6 -- was barely beyond prototype stages when the war ended.
Among Main Battle Tanks:
Russian T-34/85 Soviet MBT. Reliable, quick, nicely armored and with a solid gun (outclassing the German standard 75). Relatively inexpensive and easy to use. Just a good all-around AFV (many would argue the best of the entire conflict, and with a good deal of justification), that stayed in production well into the 1950's.
German Pzkw-Vg Panther. excellent frontal armor and possibly the best gun in mounted by any tank during that war on a kill per cost ratio (including night-firing equipment). Much more expensive than the T34-85 and the earlier models were really plagued with drive train bugs. Never produced in the numbers the mark 2-4's were.
M-26 Pershing. Good armor and mounting a reliable 90mm gun, easily the best tank America produced during that war and the only one that could have taken the field against the T-34/85 on more or less equal terms. Saw VERY limited service in Europe just before the close of hostilities.
i would say the strongest ww2 tank was the Soviet T34 tank,masslyproduced and the best tank in the war
I had always heard that the T-34 tank of the U.S.S.R. was the best out of production during the war. As I remember from a documentary though, it did not perform nearly as good as it should have since maintenance of the tank and training of the crew were low.
During the Korea war, the Pershings were the only tanks the Americans had that could penetrate the armour of the enemy's T-34's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Early model T-34s were mechanically unreliable and had some other design flaws, but later models had worked out their teething problems and were more reliable than Germany's (usually over-engineered) tanks. To put it in perspective, I read once that your average German tank could perform operationally for about one hour for every one hour of maintenance it received; a T-34 could perform for 8 hours per hour of maintenance; the Sherman could go for a whopping 40 hours per hour with the mechanics. It doesn't matter how fearsome your weapon is if you can't get it to the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
The quality of the crew bears no relation to the quality of the tank design. During the initial phases of Barbarossa, the T-34 and the KV-1 terrified the Germans. Better tactics - employed by more experienced, better trained crews - initially allowed the Germans to overcome the T-34's strengths, but by the end of the war, the Soviets had learned an awful lot of hard lessons.
As to the OP, it depends on how you define "strongest". The various heavies - Tiger I, King Tiger, IS-2, and M-26 Pershing - mounted the biggest guns and were the most heavily armored, so on a strictly tank versus tank base they could be considered the strongest. Bring in overall performance, and the Panther G might take the prize. Add in mechanical reliability (late war at least) and ease of production, and the T-34 is the hands down winner.
Absolutely spot on. "strongest" tank of the war for me was therefore unquestionably the Sherman in all its guises.Quote:
It doesn't matter how fearsome your weapon is if you can't get it to the battlefield.
Not that I would have fancied being IN one in its tommycooker days, but then the early T34 had a lot of problems too. (Blindspots out to 200 yds? One man turret? No radio? No thanks)
Here's a random thought: how about the Matilda? Entirely impervious to 37 and 50mm AT fire, and withdrawn from service before 75mm guns came in. Survivability is looking good...
I agree sherman and matilda's very powerful but then you have to look at dammage taking abilities, how much kick ass it could do(to infantry and armor)Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The M4 crocodile towards infantry and panther towards enemy tanks both good towards fortified enemies
The Sherman, for all its obvious shortcomings, is vastly underrated. My vote still goes to the T-34, though, as it provides a better balance of combat effectiveness and reliability. In addition, the T-34 has a longer combat record, and, via the T-44, it lead to the T-54/55 series and most of the Soviet Union's future tank designs. (The Sherman essentially deadends; subsequent US tank designs follow from the M-26 Pershing). On a side note, the early T-34s had two-man turrets, not great, but infinitely better than a one-man turret; the T-34 M43 and T-34/85 had three man turrets and radios.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The Matilda II has always been one of my favorites (it just looks cool), but it's 2-pounder was not much use after 1942 and couldn't be upgunned, it was painfully slow, mechanically unreliable, and very expensive to make.
I'd probably rank the top WWII tanks as follows:
1. T-34 - revolutionary when introduced, best balance of protection/mobility/firepower, rugged and reliable, cheap and easy to produce.
2. M-4 Sherman - extremely versatile (75mm, 76mm, 105mm and 17-pounder versions as well as an assortment of specialty vehicles), cheap and easy to produce, extremely rugged and reliable.
3. Panther - excellent balance of protection/mobility/firepower, magnificent main armament
4. Tiger I - decent mobility/protection, fearsome main gun, fear factor
5. Panzer IV - in service throughout the war, decent mobility/protection, excellent main gun on late war models
6. Panzer III - the tank that made the blitzkreig happen, base chassis for the StuG III
7. IS-2 - massive main gun and frontal armor, decent mobility
8. Cromwell - good speed, decent protection, reliable
9. KV-1 - excellent protection, decent firepower, fear factor
10. M3 Stuart - good speed, decent protection for a light tank, excellent small bore cannon, reliable
After that, there's a whole bunch of mediocrity - British infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill), M3 Lee/Grant, Panzer II, T-70 - and even more general crap - M-13/40, early cruiser tanks, French tanks with their one-man turrets, pre-T-34 Soviet tanks
Not wanting to sidetrack but i don't think the Sherman really deadends any more than the T34. Upgraded Shermans were effective in Korea and the Israelis made good use of upgunned shermans in the 60s IIRC. OK in a sense the T34 "led to" the T54 but it's a pertty distant relation.
Given what a rush job the Sherman was its amazing it did so well. I was going to say it makes you wonder what the Americans could have done if they had had time to design a tank properly, but then i thought of the M 60 and decided....maybe they work best under pressure?
Interesting tiger factoid: The Germans produced one additional drive train for every ten tiger tanks.
For a tank notorious for destroying its gearbox this is unintelligent. Just another reason why the Tiger wouldn't be on my list.
The Sherman served admirably after WWII, but as a design base, it went nowhere. There's a direct link from the M-26 Pershing through the M-46/M-47/M-48 Pattons to the M-60 before the M1 Abrams reinvented the American tank. The T-34, on the other hand, is a direct antecedent to later Soviet designs.
As for the Tiger I (the Tiger II was a waste of resources), it's mechanical faults are manifest, but the quality of its gun, the fear it instilled in its adversaries, and its devasting effect when employed well (see Villers Bocage) still merit respect. Had Germany had America's material resources, and a bit more time, there's no telling how much its performance might have been improved. The same could be said of the Panther, also notorious for drivetrain difficulties.
Well, the Sherman was versatile and reliable, but the same thing that made it so -- the twin truck engines guzzling avgas quality gasoline -- made it too blinkin' tall and far too willing to burn. Against German armor it had to rely on swarm & outflank tactics too much. Where terrain did not favor this -- the bocages or the raised roads of Holland for example -- way too many of them came up short.
Among USA AFV designs in that conflict, we had a great light tank -- the Honey/Stuart -- though light tanks were to prove less and less useful as time went on. We eventually fielded the M-26, which was a legitimate main battle tank by European standards. We even had a decent tank destroyer in the M-36 (though the era of the tank destroyer was a short one).
On the whole, however, America's most useful vehicles were generally non-combatants. Our trucks and jeeps gave the entire force a previously unheard of level of mobility -- remember it was an American INFANTRY division that won the race across Germany in 1945. And the whole pile of stuff was shipped there on Liberty ships. It was these vehicles, and the ridiculous logistical support they represented, that allowed us to win.
the M4 Sherman could defeat many Axis tanks fielded in WW2 such as Panzers but toe to toe with a Panther/Tiger it would lose.
Shermans had to work with tank destoyers to defeat Panthers. (i dunno about Tigers)
perhaps the Shermans are a good choice.
The King Tiger is the strongest. Point. We're talking about firepower, armor... not about how cheap and how reliable.
As for reliable, T-34 and Shermans. Cheap and easy to produce.
:stop:
We are talking about Strongest. The author has not really defined 'strongest' in the best sense. This is degenerating into a traditional T-34 vs Panther sort of argument that isn't going to get ANYWHERE.
Could the Original Poster please define Strongest, in terms of armor, firepower, mechanical reliability, how many sunflowers it took to dent the armor.
:hijacked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by God's Grace
When first fielded by the British at Alemein, it outclassed most of the opposition it faced. The Armor was tough enough, by 1942 standards, and the 75 was a decent gun.
So it did outclass the Pzkw 3G's and J's it faced, along with pretty much everything in the Italian motor pool. The German Pzkw 4gs were as good or better than the Sherman in protection and mobility and armed with a better gun (Rommel had very few).
The Sherman was never substantially improved -- it's turret wasn't capable of mounting the 90mm -- so it had essentially peaked by the beginning of '43. Pretty much everything produced by the Germans from that point forward -- except for things like the Luchs -- could wax a Sherman.
They were reliable and plentiful and -- in numbers -- could defeat their German opponents. In one-on-ones, they tended to fry.
I am personally biased towards the Tiger, but it is much easier to make the case for the Panther.
"Strongest" is really subjective.
I did mention in my first post that if "strongest" means strictly protection and firepower, you get a whole different list of vehicles. Not sure which should take the crown between the King Tiger and the IS-2. The King Tiger had better armor, and its gun had better armor-piercing performance; the IS-2 had better mobility/reliability and a larger gun/better HE performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Also from the OP:
So either tack - "FP and protection" or "overall tactical/strategic utility" - could be argued.Quote:
Originally Posted by God's Grace
In 1944, the US started mounting a higher velocity 76mm gun on the Sherman which, though still inferior to the Panther's or the Tiger's guns, did give the Sherman a respectable anti-tank punch. The Brits also mounted their excellent 17-pounder, which could defeat just about anything except the King Tiger frontally and equalled or bettered the AP characteristics of the 90mm or Tiger I's (though not the King Tiger's) 88mm. Also, the M4A3E2 version was a significantly up-armored assault version. Post-war (admittedly irrelevant to the question), the Israelis mounted a long-barrelled 105mm gun on the Isherman that could defeat T-54/55s, so the Sherman had not peaked by any means by 1943.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Actually, it seems more a "non-traditional" T-34 versus Sherman debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
OK, to try to clear things up a little.
If strongest means strictly firepower and armor protection:
The King Tiger edges the IS-2 based on the 8.8 cm KwK 43's better anti-tank performance.
If strongest means greatest tactical utility (firepower, protection AND mobility):
Panther G wins hands down.
If strongest means greatest strategic utility (firepower/protection/mobility plus reliability and ease of production):
The T-34 is tops with the Sherman a respectable, though decided, second.
When you say T-34 I am guessing you all mean the T-34/85
Strongest would usually be considered Armor/Gun/Crew survivability.
IS-3 (T-10) didn't see any more combat than the M-26
Crew survivability usually knocks out most of the Russian models and the M-4s were not known for this trait.
You see even here I have to disagree.Quote:
If strongest means greatest tactical utility (firepower, protection AND mobility):
Panther G wins hands down.
To quote an old footballing cliche, you can only beat what they put in front of you. Looking at the nature of the opposition I still say there is a strong case for the Sherman being the winner. Against a largely infantry, only partly mechanised enemy with a lot of AT guns, the rapid rate of fire, good HE potential, and fair side armour of the Sherman have more value that a great big high velocity AP shell would have. ot to mention reliability.
For the Germans it is true that the Panther had better tactical utility as they faced massed armour on both fronts.
I realise that there is a fair degree of luck in this, the M4 being rather a stopgap design and the US experimenting with a tank destroyer doctrine at the time that history shows is tactically flawed, without which they may have upgunned the Sherman (although as noted both the US 76 mm and the Uk 17 pounder were perfectly adequate right to the wars end) . Also it would be fair to see the panther as a forerunner of an MBT whereas the Sherman was perhaps the last in the line of a mistaken division of armour into many different roles.
But for the war that the western allies actually fought I do not think there was a better tank than the Sherman. Not even the T34.
Actually we are in agreement here. What you describe above is part of what I would include under "strategic" (play to your strengths while avoiding your enemy's, seek mismatches, fight on the most advantageous ground) as opposed to "tactical" (line 'em up and let rip) utility. Assuming "strongest" means slugging it out on some mythical battlefield free of logistical concerns, difficult terrain, or interference from other combat arms, the Panther wins. In the real world, both the T-34's and the Sherman's non-battlefield strengths more than compensate for whatever their deficiencies vis-a-vis the Panther - provided you have the manpower pool to keep training replacements.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Agreed. And equally, the Sherman would have been an inferior weapon for the type of war that the Soviets faced.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Within their appropriate time frames, all the T-34 models were excellent tanks. Remember that when the T-34 M40 and M41 were in frontline service, they were essentially impervious to all German anti-tank weapons short of the FlaK 88, and nothing says survivability like complete immunity. Even with all of its shortcomings, the first T-34 represented a revolution in tank design, not only for its sloped armor, but for breaking the taboo on a main gun extending beyond the nose of the tank. In 1944, T-34/85 was a solid tank, but it was by no means revolutionary anymore. And it was the 76mm armed T-34's immense superiority over contemporary German armor that directly spurred the development of the Tiger and Panther as well as the upgrading of the Panzer IV to a long-barrelled 75.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Soviet and US designs (particularly early war Soviet tanks including the T-34) definitely didn't emphasize crew survivability to the extent that German designs did, but it was a luxury that the Allies could afford. A lost tank crew was of far more significance to the Germans than to either the Soviets or the Americans who could fairly easily replace combat losses in both men and material, and that is reflected in their tank design priorities.
The Pershing did see limited service. As far as I know, the IS-3 didn't see any action, but the IS-2 was in service as early as the spring of 1944.
I think a well placed mortar round could wax a tiger easy of a good stickbomb grenade down the hatch kinda trick but very unlikely in the heat of battle so if i even had 100 men v a tiger(or tiger II) and ten infantry i'd call the retreat it would be a waste of lives and also the smallest amount of sherman v tiger(or tiger II) to win was 6 shermans and 3 where decimated before they got to the tiger to flank itQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
i doubt a mortar could pierce tank armor.
now i mean strongest tank by armor/and armamment. (gun)
reliability and mobility is also in debate as well.
strongest also means strongest tanks who saw action.
You know what I think...
Despite being immobile and having other negatives "strongest" would most likely go to the King Tiger. or Tiger V.
Quote:
Originally Posted by God's Grace
A well placed mortar can take out about anything, there is a written account in a book called "Day of City" or something like that(roughly translated and the like) is about a german tank officer who was sitting near his tiger when a mortar round came out of no where and struck the tank entrance hatch lighting the Magazine and there for destroying most of the tanks internal ordinance or something of the like
This book is a translated account of a tank commander and his company's defence of a small town after they had won a victory in italy or something of the like check it out
I always love to compare the standard Sherman and the Panzers IV and V. It reminds me of a modern battle, between PS3 and Xbox 360, with the tanks being the Disc Drives.
Sherman - Easy to manufacture, easy to repair, does the job against Infantry, Upgradable, Reliable
Xbox 360, Dvds - Easy to manufacture, Cheap, Upgradable in a sense, Reliable.
Panzers - Difficult to repair and manufacture, not very cheap, extremely effective, blah blah blah
Blue Ray Discs - Difficult to manufacture, Extremely expensive, extremely modern and effective Blah Blah Blah.
Anyway the point is both the Americans and Microsoft went for what works, reliable and adaptable and it payed off for the Americans and it's going good for Microsoft.
I know that had zero to do with the topic but...
xbox - controls sucked sh!tty frame rate but high disk speedQuote:
Originally Posted by Marius Dynamite
ps3 - controls rocked stable frame rate medium disk speed
sherman - very fast on the field over heated after a while
panzer(s) - powerful stable kinda slow but reliable with the right hardware
seems about right but sony still made more games and types while microsoft went in for what made the most money(not including their pc products)
IIRC, there was a Soviet outfit that was equipped with Shermans in the Eastern Front. They were apparently very happy with them, prefering them to the T-34. From the tactical wargames I've played (e.g. Talonsoft's East Front/West Front; Steel Panthers), the gun on the standard Sherman is much more effective at range than the 76mm guns of the T-34.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
The T-34s are absolute monsters if you are Germans in 1941 scenarios though. Their guns can pick off Panzers at distance, while their armour is impervious to German tank guns at range.
Whats IIRC mean?
If I Recall CorrectlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
The Soviets recieved more than 4,000 Shermans and were the only users of the 76mm-armed M4A2 (they also recieved 75mm versions). From what I've read, the Soviet crews liked the Shermans' mechanical reliability, but they disliked its high silhouette; to this day, a low silhouette remains a major survivability feature of Soviet tank designs. The US 76mm gun did have a higher muzzle velocity than the Soviet gun, and so better armor-piercing characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Kinda OT, but thanks to the Wikipedia link, I discovered the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and
Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster.
Typical Nazi megalomania. Even Warhammer 40K super heavy tanks aren't nearly as huge. I seriously doubt those would have been of any use on a battlefield, other than fearing to death the opponent.
I am pretty suspicious that that is wikirubbish, I am afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Even allowing for the sort of mindset that thought the Maus might be a good idea, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that a tank the weight of a warship was going to work.
Possibly doodling, or propaganda like the pzkpfw X, but no more.
ummm didnt the english get 4,000 and russians get 14,000 or do i have my numbers backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
Looks like Wiki might be half right. From the diagram at this link - http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1500.html - it looks like it wasn't meant to be a tank at all, but an attempt to free their big Schwerer Gustav and Dora style super heavy guns from their railroad tracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The numbers on here - http://wio.ru/tank/ll.htm - pretty much jibe with what I've seen elsewhere, about 4000 M4A2s (Sherman IIIs) evenly split between 75mm and 76mm versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
The Brits I believe received around 17,000 Shermans of all marks.
And oddly enough Russia's aces preferred the US Lend-Lease P-39s to their own nation's planes. Based purely on performance figures and playing sims like Oleg Maddox's IL-2 & Pacific Fighter series you'd think the reverse would be true and Russian aces would have been nuts to fly anything other than Yak-3s, La-5fns & La-7s. US and British vehicles definitely held the advantage over their Russian counterparts in terms of quality control and overall design.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Russian guns and optics were pretty mediocre during the war. The later war 100mm and 122mm guns were quite effective against German armor (especially the former) but Russian optics and crew training were still insufficient to make the most out of the technology.
I have to say that if I were choosing a fighting vehicle from the era it would be the Pz V G with IR.
My first priority would be crew survivability, fallowed by killing power. The Tigers had better armor and stronger guns but we too slow to maneuver and had slower turret traverse.
The Shermans did the job because there were so many of them but they go a lot of men killed manning them. The reason the M-1 bears the name of Abrams is because as a Bn. Commander of a tank unit in WWII he made a promise to himself that if he had a say in it he would not send crews into battle in such death traps…I guess he kept his promises.