Strongest World War 2 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.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You know what I think...

Despite being immobile and having other negatives "strongest" would most likely go to the King Tiger. or Tiger V.

[MilesGregarius]

The King Tiger is the strongest. Point. We're talking about firepower, armor... not about how cheap and how reliable.

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.

Also from the OP:

perhaps the Shermans are a good choice.

So either tack - "FP and protection" or "overall tactical/strategic utility" - could be argued.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, it seems more a "non-traditional" T-34 versus Sherman debate.

[MilesGregarius]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

I am personally biased towards the Tiger, but it is much easier to make the case for the Panther.

"Strongest" is really subjective.

[Veho Nex]

I am personally biased towards the Tiger, but it is much easier to make the case for the Panther.

"Strongest" is really subjective.

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 it