Strongest World War 2 Tanks?

[Derfasciti]

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.

[MilesGregarius]

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.

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.

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.

[English assassin]

It doesn't matter how fearsome your weapon is if you can't get it to the battlefield.

Absolutely spot on. "strongest" tank of the war for me was therefore unquestionably the Sherman in all its guises.

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...

[Veho Nex]

Absolutely spot on. "strongest" tank of the war for me was therefore unquestionably the Sherman in all its guises.

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)
The M4 crocodile towards infantry and panther towards enemy tanks both good towards fortified enemies

[MilesGregarius]

Absolutely spot on. "strongest" tank of the war for me was therefore unquestionably the Sherman in all its guises.

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...

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.

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

[English assassin]

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.

[MilesGregarius]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.