Strongest World War 2 Tanks?

[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]

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. And equally, the Sherman would have been an inferior weapon for the type of war that the Soviets faced.

[econ21]

Agreed. And equally, the Sherman would have been an inferior weapon for the type of war that the Soviets faced.

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.

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.

[Veho Nex]

Whats IIRC mean?

[MilesGregarius]

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.

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.

[Spino]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.