Strongest World War 2 Tanks?

[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.

[Fisherking]

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.

[English assassin]

If strongest means greatest tactical utility (firepower, protection AND mobility):

Panther G wins hands down.

You see even here I have to disagree.

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.

[MilesGregarius]

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.

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.

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.

[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

[The Spartan (Returns)]

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.

[Veho Nex]

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.

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