Your favourite tanks

[PanzerJaeger]

Early Soviet tanks were always... interesting...



I'm surprised nobody's mentioned any WW2 British tanks. They may not have always been the best.. or even decent.. but they were always cool in their own quarky way.

[Sheogorath]

The KV2 was a good idea in principal. Basically an assault gun with a turret. Considering it was based on the KV1, which was probably one of the best pre-war tanks in the world...well...

I understand most of its problems were (obviously) with the turret...which was too heavy, so it tended to break down quite a bit.

Still, that 152mm howitzer was not something you messed with.

[edyzmedieval]

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's.

[Decker]

The:
Stuart
M-10 Tank Destroyer
Stug
Merkava
Panzer Mk IV
Panzer Mk III

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Leopard II
Abrams
Panther

Technically not tanks:
M36
Hetzer
Stug's of all colors
Jagdpanther


In no particular order. The Merkava is pretty cool too, but I don't know a ton about it. Oh and I would like to second that the A-10 Warthog is clearly the best tank ever built!

[PanzerJaeger]

King Tiger I. Simple.
Although I would prefer the Maus, if it would have passed the design phase. Having such a monster in front of you would even scare 5 IS2's.

Do you mean the King Tiger or the Tiger I?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

Most Cost Effective AFV = STG-III series

[Sheogorath]

The Panther wasn't an MBT...the closest WWII equivalent would be the IS-2.

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

EDIT:
Of course, we're talking favorites here, so I don't guess stuff like that matters :P

[Kralizec]

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

German tanks of WW2 are often said to be mechanically overcomplicated and expensive to produce compared to Soviet tanks. I'm not sure if it was a conscious decision but if so, it may partly because the Germans were shorter on manpower and had higher training standards. Expensive tanks can be worthwile if it means saving up on precious manpower.

My favourite tank would be the Sherman. The basic model was adequate against the majority of tanks fielded by the Germans (and superior to anything built by the Japanese or Italians)
Many variants were used, though not always in large numbers. The British Firefly version was able to destroy Panthers and Tigers easily enough, as long as it wasn't shot to pieces first.

[PanzerJaeger]

Best WW2 MBT = Pzkw-5g (T34/85 next best)

What are your parameters? The King Tiger was actually the better tank in terms of combat performance, but that doesn't take cost into consideration, of course.

I don't see how you can put anything second to the T-34 (in WWII) in terms of cost effectiveness. It's the second most produced tank of all time and was, by all accounts, pretty much your ideal vehicle when it came to squeezing bangs from bucks.

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

\

When employed correctly, I believe the Tiger was the most cost effective tank of the war. IIRC, it cost about three times as much as a Pz.IV, but the loss/kill ratios of the battalions not employed in Italy are considerable, sometimes staggering (1:16). Even more impressive is the fact that a large portion of Tiger losses in the ratios were not due to enemy engagements, and would have been recoverable if Germany's situation had not deteriorated. For example, in one case a maintenance area had to be abandoned to the Russians with 6 Tigers that were missing a critical transmission element but were otherwise fully operable.

Hoo yeah; what about Whittmann? What odds did he get, like 1:50??? Of course, that was vs. APCs. But still, the man practically held up a division for a couple days!

[KarlXII]

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

[Veho Nex]

Sturmtiger

The best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best SIR!

Rare footage of it

Also in terms of british tanks that I like

Cromwell takes the cake

[Mangudai]

My favorite is the Panzer II with a 2 cm cannon capable of firing 280 shots per minute.

[PanzerJaeger]

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

Well, the Jagd- series of tank hunters, developed from experiences with the StuGs, had a completely different set of tactics, and were not particularly effective when used in the traditional tank role.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Also,

What defines a tank?

I see here certain tanks, such as Jagdpanzers and Stug's, are not defined as tanks. However, it's my belief these tanks are simply specialists, built to do a specific job, yet still built on the chassis, and incorporating the same elements, of a tank.

Plus a tank generally (okay not the earliest versions from WWI) has a chassis, tracks, and at least one turret. So the Jagd series, Stugs, and Sturmtiger weren't tanks, but assault guns or tank destroyers because of their lack of a turret. One could however argue that the American tank destroyers (M36 and so on) were tanks because they had a turret, but the fact that this turret was often open and that these vehicles often had extremely light armor they are probably best classified as tank destroyers.

[Veho Nex]

I think the definition of tank is any heavily armored vehicle on tracks, operated by a 3 or more man crew. While wiki puts it at this

A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Firepower is normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotating turret and secondary machine guns, while heavy armour and all-terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield.

[Hooahguy]

Merkava and the Abrams takes the cake for me!
nothing beats them!

[KarlXII]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned any WW2 British tanks. They may not have always been the best.. or even decent.. but they were always cool in their own quarky way.

The Churchill was a very nice tank, not anything particularly special, but it did it's job and had many variations.

Hobart's Funnies were a personal favorite as a kid,