NationStates Jolt Archive

Whats the best world war 2 tank in your opinion?

Ill paraphrase an expert i saw at a tank museum once.

A panther was worth about the same as 4 shermans, but you were more likely to encounter 4 shermans than one panther.

The german tanks were excellent, they just couldnt make any because all their factorys were under almost 24/7 bombings.

The T-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35). Five turrets of goodness.

Of those in the options, T-34 because it was the better mix: high mobility, low cost, fire-on-the-move capacity, efficient armour, weaponry power (expecially in the T-34/85 model).

If you're looking for the most influential on the course of war, T-34 again.
Most powerful gun? IS-2.
Best armour? Late models of the Tiger.
Best fire-on-the-move? König Panther.

Well, I personally think that the Germans should have concentrated their production on the the Panzer IV, that way at least teh germans could have made 30,000 of them instead of 8,500.

Ill paraphrase an expert i saw at a tank museum once.

A panther was worth about the same as 4 shermans, but you were more likely to encounter 4 shermans than one panther.

The german tanks were excellent, they just couldnt make any because all their factorys were under almost 24/7 bombings.

I'm given to understand that the Germans had some pretty sever problems with the quality of their parts starting around mid-war. Their tanks werent getting enough break-in time and they were having trouble getting decent maintenance done. That resulted in frequent breakdowns and technical issues in the middle of combat.
The Soviets/Americans had the same problems, of course, but given that they had a 10:1 numbers advantage, it didnt really bother them.

T - 35? Five turrets. Yeah, and absolutly useless in combat. IS-2. Gun useless against tanks!(and only 28 rounds)T-34?A piece of crap, M4? - a graveyard for 4. Panther? maybe, but only Ausf. A. Ladies and Gentleman and the winner is.. Centurion? Sorry, buddy. You come too late, and M-26 also. So, at last.. A-34 Comet!!! Yes, congratulations for the winner!

T - 35? Five turrets. Yeah, and absolutly useless in combat. T-34? IS-2. Gun useless against tanks!(and only 28 rounds)A piece of crap, M4? - a graveyard for 4. Panther? maybe, but only Ausf. A. Ladies and Gentleman and the winner is.. Centurion? Sorry, buddy. You come too late, and M-26 also. So, at last.. A-34 Comet!!! Yes, congratulations for the winner!

I should have added that one........

Yeah, and absolutly useless in combat. T-34? A piece of crap, M4? - a graveyard for 4. Panther? maybe, but only Ausf. A. Ladies and Gentleman and the winner is.. Centurion? Sorry, buddy. You come too late, and M-26 also. So, at last.. A-34 Comet!!! Yes, congratulations for the winner!

You're silly.
If you're going for late-war tanks, the IS-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2) is pretty much superior to everything else.
But you seem to be into the British stuff, so I doubt you'll admit that any Russian hardware could be superior to good ol' British tanks.

I'm really sorry, but what are you guys? Veterans? I don't think anyone here has the knowledge to judge about those tanks...

You're silly.
If you're going for late-war tanks, the IS-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2) is pretty much superior to everything else.
But you seem to be into the British stuff, so I doubt you'll admit that any Russian hardware could be superior to good ol' British tanks.

Sorry but this 122 mm gun was a howitzer not gun for tank. Better choice was ZSU - 100 mm gun, but Stalin insisted. T- 34? You should read book "T-34, a mythical weapon" but i dont think that is translated from polish (sad). And Wikipedia, for God sake!

i know you were being specific, so i'm not being critical of that, but my favorite tank is still the septic tank.

=^^=
.../\...

panzer was the best tank. the panzer 1v1 against any other tank would like come out on top.

however that in the way was the flaw of Nazi Germany they fought with a mentality of WWI. where you needed the best tanks to break through lines for your infantry to advance behind. but WWII was about production, and the ability to take out production with long range bombers.
That was pretty much what the war was about production.

panzer was the best tank. the panzer 1v1 against any other tank would like come out on top.

Too bad "panzer" means "armour", and was used as shorthand for "Panzerkampfwagen", that is, armoured fighting vehicle, a.k.a. tank.


however that in the way was the flaw of Nazi Germany they fought with a mentality of WWI. where you needed the best tanks to break through lines for your infantry to advance behind. but WWII was about production, and the ability to take out production with long range bombers.

I wouldn't call Blitzkrieg (that is coordination between armour, infantry and aerial support with attack concentration) a WWI tactic.

See also V1 and V2, about targeting at long range.

Btw, the Russians didn't take out production with long range bombers - they confronted directly the most part of the Nazi war machine. The allied bombings became truly effective in cutting off german production during 1944, when war had already taken its definitive course - that is, after El-Alamein, the fall of Italy, Stalingrad and Kursk.

panzer was the best tank. the panzer 1v1 against any other tank would like come out on top. That's like saying "Dog is the best dog." It makes no sense. Which tank/armor/panzer?

panzer was the best tank. the panzer 1v1 against any other tank would like come out on top.

however that in the way was the flaw of Nazi Germany they fought with a mentality of WWI. where you needed the best tanks to break through lines for your infantry to advance behind. but WWII was about production, and the ability to take out production with long range bombers.
That was pretty much what the war was about production.

Panzer is the german word for tank...
sooooo, which panzer ?

Panzer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(panther), 6(tiger) ?

Too bad "panzer" means "armour", and was used as shorthand for "Panzerkampfwagen", that is, armoured fighting vehicle, a.k.a. tank.


I wouldn't call Blitzkrieg (that is coordination between armour, infantry and aerial support with attack concentration) a WWI tactic.

See also V1 and V2, about targeting at long range.

Btw, the Russians didn't take out production with long range bombers - they confronted directly the most part of the Nazi war machine. The allied bombings became truly effective in cutting off german production during 1944, when war had already taken its definitive course - that is, after El-Alamein, the fall of Italy, Stalingrad and Kursk.


no no I am not against their tactics. they were first rate. the Germans never lost a battle unless they were out numbered. I am against their development of production heavy weapons for only marginally better performance. If they had taken the option to make weapons that performed slightly worse but could be made in greater numbers I doubt the German military would have lost.

also the Germans needed Aircraft carriers, and long range bombers.

T-34 was superior because the design was simply and easy to mass manufacture, and yet at the same time it was easily upgradeable in terms of armor and turret caliber, so the Soviets were able to easily keep up with German armor upgrades. While Hitler was obsessed with the Panther and poured funds into ironing out all the kinks in design and other technical problems it had (to the degree of postponing the Kursk offensive so they would be ready. And even at the Kursk the Panther losses were greater from technical issues and breakdowns than by hostile enemy actions. They were plagued with mechanical problems: the track and suspension often broke, and the engine was dangerously prone to overheating and bursting into flames.

Once the Soviet Union was fully armed it was deadly, for example in the Manchuria offensive the Red Army killed or captured over a million Japanese soldiers and occupied the all of Manchuria in 11 days while only loosing 30,000 killed or wounded.

Best fire-on-the-move? König Panther.
There is no such thing as the König Panther, old chap. However, there was a 68 ton monstrosity called the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, also known as the Königstiger.

It seems like Greed And Death has no discernible knowledge of the weapons and tactics of the second world war. But since when did an apalling lack of knowledge about the subject discussed in a thread prevent people from posting? Ah, the glory of the internet...

And Arkach is indeed being silly with the possibility of also being a common troll.

no no I am not against their tactics. they were first rate. the Germans never lost a battle unless they were out numbered. I am against their development of production heavy weapons for only marginally better performance. If they had taken the option to make weapons that performed slightly worse but could be made in greater numbers I doubt the German military would have lost.

I see your point.
They were doomed against CCCP anyway... in 1941, when the Nazis invaded CCCP, most of their logistics was horse-powered, while the Russian had everything on railroads and lorries.

The real difference in production wasn't in the weapons production. It was in the industrial backbone. Look at the problems the germans had with fuel; the lack of oil effectively changed their strategical decisions, like when they tried to make a dash for Caucasus to get the oilfields, and got blasted in the siege of Stalingrad; that instead of crushing the Soviets in the north and in the centre of the East front, so to attack the Urals and the soviet industries.

also the Germans needed Aircraft carriers, and long range bombers.

Dunno... after all, their aircrafts were perfectly able to bomb England starting from Germany or occupied France. More than longer range, they needed higher payload, I think. As for aircraft carriers, they weren't that useful in the Northern Atlantic - U-Boote performed quite well, and anyway aircrafts wouldn't have been able to pierce the allied convoys better than subs.

The real idiocy of the Nazis was on a strategical layer. You don't attack the largest country of the world, with the most powerful army, while you're still fighting against the largest world-spanning empire, with the most powerful navy and allied with the most unassailable industrial power.

There is no such thing as the König Panther, old chap. However, there was a 68 ton monstrosity called the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, also known as the Königstiger.


Ugh... you're right. I meant that one, the Tiger II aka Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B. Sorry.

T - 35? Five turrets. Yeah, and absolutly useless in combat. IS-2. Gun useless against tanks!(and only 28 rounds)T-34?A piece of crap, M4? - a graveyard for 4. Panther? maybe, but only Ausf. A. Ladies and Gentleman and the winner is.. Centurion? Sorry, buddy. You come too late, and M-26 also. So, at last.. A-34 Comet!!! Yes, congratulations for the winner!

uh...what do you base your statements on?

t-34: a piece of crap? sorry, but i think it takes more than just some personal prejudice to make that decision.
plus, the military channel and a board of military historians named t-34 as the best tank EVER with its influence on the battles of the eastern front.

There is no such thing as the König Panther, old chap. However, there was a 68 ton monstrosity called the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, also known as the Königstiger.

He might be referring to the Panther II
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Panther_II.Fort_Knox.jpg

Whats the best world war 2 tank in your opinion?

It would depend upon what your criteria for it being the 'best' was...
Although I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make the M-4 or Type 97 the best.

All around capabilities it would be the Panther; however the Panther did have two major failings...
1. They were not produced in great enough numbers
2. The transmission was designed for a much smaller tank (The original design specs for the Panther called for a tank weighing 32 tons, the final 'product' weighed in at 43 tons.)

Numbers and reliability it would be the T-34. The T-34 was cheap and easy to make and very easy to maintain in the field.

M4, Influential only through numbers. Decent tank though, reliable enough but not much firepower, except the British variant the Firefly which had a 17pdr gun instead of the American 75mm or 76mm variants.

T34 is the acknowledged best allrounder, but for the being good at what they were designed to do I nominate one of these
Hobart's Funnies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart's_Funnies) The Americans were offered some of these at D day but refused them. Too bad they would have come in useful on Omaha

Sorry but this 122 mm gun was a howitzer not gun for tank. Better choice was ZSU - 100 mm gun, but Stalin insisted. T- 34? You should read book "T-34, a mythical weapon" but i dont think that is translated from polish (sad). And Wikipedia, for God sake!

Who cares? It killed tanks. And the IS-2 was THE most advanced tank in the world at the time of its production. Wheter its gun was a howitzer or a squirt gun. What works, works. And the IS-2 worked.
And since you say to check Wikipedia...
Two candidate weapons were the A-19 122 mm gun and the BS-3 100mm gun. The 100mm gun (later adopted on the SU-100 tank destroyer and the T-55 tank) had superior armour penetration (185 mm compared to 160 mm), but a less useful high explosive round than the 122mm gun. Also, the 100mm gun was a relatively new weapon in short supply.
I think events proved that, in WWII, quantity beat quality. If I were Stalin (thank God I wasnt), I'd want as many tanks as I could possibly get the factories to squeeze out.

AS to the T-34, as above, it may have had flaws, but guess what? It won. The M-4 was an increadible piece of crap, but it got the job done and killed tanks. And the T-34 was certainly superior to it.
And, as far as Wikipedia, goes, their only gripe with the T-34 seems to have been its turret layout. A subject on which I agree with them. Having the commander act as loader and gunner is rather silly.
But that was fixed with the T-34/85.

Regardles, the judgement of the 'best' tank of WWII cannot be made soley on the basis of quality. The tanks that won the war were far superior to the tanks that had a better kill::death ratio. Because the Germans only built, what, 400 tigers? And your own Comet tank, produced in 1944, was rather late to affect the course of the war.

If you base this discussion solely on production numbers then it would be between the M-4 and the T-34/76. Out of the two the T-34/76 is hands down the winner. The US and the CCCP could out produce just about anyone.
If on the other hand this is a straight tank to tank comparison then I have to give it to the Panther.
The Panther's L-75 Gun with the optics the sight was fitted with could out range both the M-4's low powered 75mm gun and the better T-34's 76mm cannon. In open country the Panther could get the killing shot on both named opponents a lot father out then either could get on the Panther.
The Panther also had better armor protection then their Russian and American counter parts. The M-4 with the 75mm gun had to get within 200 yards to be able to pentrate the Panther's armor. The 200 yard figure may be off but most reporst I have seen place M-4s Damn close when ever they managed to kill an Panther.
The T-34 faired much better being able penatrate the Panthers armor at about twice the range of the M-4s gun.

A straight comparison between t34 and Panther's depends on what model. The Panther was developed in response to the T34 and was superior, another T34 was developed in response to the Panther and so on. They were both excellent battle tanks, I'd give it to the T34 but there's not a great deal in it, but a lot of tanks were built with specific tasks in mind, eg, tanks like the Churchill and KV1 (I forget the American and German equivalents) were heavy, infantry support, tanks and they were better at that particular role than the more antitank/general role that was the purpose of tanks like the Panther/T34

The real idiocy of the Nazis was on a strategical layer. You don't attack the largest country of the world, with the most powerful army, while you're still fighting against the largest world-spanning empire, with the most powerful navy and allied with the most unassailable industrial power.

I was actually thinking aircraft carriers needed for the Mediterranean there the allies carriers and the central powers lack there of allowed the allies to disrupt Germany's supply of the Africa Corps.
And I do find Carriers are often more able to sink merchant shipping just because they can cover far greater areas at a time with multiple scout planes.

I was actually thinking aircraft carriers needed for the Mediterranean there the allies carriers and the central powers lack there of allowed the allies to disrupt Germany's supply of the Africa Corps.
And I do find Carriers are often more able to sink merchant shipping just because they can cover far greater areas at a time with multiple scout planes.

Mussolini used to say "the italian peninsula is ALREADY a carrier". Wasn't wrong: he just fucked up the coordination between air scouting and navy, like at Cape Matapan, when an italian aircraft spotted the British force; the pilot, though, could not report directly to the Italian fleet because he was of the Regia Aeronautica (italian Royal AF). So the message had to go up the hierarchical ladder up to the Supreme Command of the Regia Aeronautica which failed to call Supermarina (the supreme command of the italian navy)...

T-34, myth or not, there are films where they roll out from a factory and straight into battle RTS style.

kind of a mot point arguing about Panther vs T-34

the Panther was built for the one main purpose of kicking ass on the T-34

since then, the sweet Leopard came out, then the leopard 2 which while second best compared to the current T90, the T90 and the Leopard 2 are the worlds top tanks

Leopard 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao

But the T90 can fire missiles out of the main gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiuwiDyj2DY

T-34, myth or not, there are films where they roll out from a factory and straight into battle RTS style.

Stalingrad I believe. Certainly not a myth...

This might be...I seem to recall tank crews were sometimes 'manned' by the women who built them...

Stalingrad I believe. Certainly not a myth...

This might be...I seem to recall tank crews were sometimes 'manned' by the women who built them...

Iirc, Chuikov (the commander of the 62nd army in Stalingrad) states in his memories that the "Red October" factory continued working while the germans occupied some part of the complex, and the work continued amidst the fight.

Easy question to answer. The T-34 is the "best" tank of World War 2. Why?

The T-34 was a beastly tank. When it hit the front lines on the Russian front, it performed favorably against the PzIII and PzIV tanks that had spearheaded Germany's stunning blitzkrieg. The Germans scrambled to respond. They would eventually deploy the Panther and Tiger tanks, but although these vehicles had impressive combat power they were not as reliable as the T-34. They were certainly never produced in quantities even approaching the T-34. Prokhorovka proved that the T-34 was powerful enough to trade punches even with Tigers and Panthers, particularly at close range where the superior firepower of the German tanks was nullified.

Iirc, Chuikov (the commander of the 62nd army in Stalingrad) states in his memories that the "Red October" factory continued working while the germans occupied some part of the complex, and the work continued amidst the fight.

Yeah...that rings a bell...

Also there were about a million female vets...

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1998-03/soviet.html

no mention of tank crews but I would not be surprised if there were a couple of all female tank regiments...

Whoa!! WWI as well!

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Women_Warriors/Hirschfeld_01.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/AntonovA40.jpg

Anyone who votes for the Sherman should be shot. The only reason they (collective they) were so effective is we could use them to zerg rush German tanks.

Anyone who votes for the Sherman should be shot. The only reason they (collective they) were so effective is we could use them to zerg rush German tanks.

Correction. The Sherman Firefly had a punch sufficiently deadly to make a Panzer sit up and take notice.

Correction. The Sherman Firefly had a punch sufficiently deadly to make a Panzer sit up and take notice.

But Sherman armor was so thin large caliber small arms could penetrate into the crew compartment.

You're silly.
If you're going for late-war tanks, the IS-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2) is pretty much superior to everything else.
But you seem to be into the British stuff, so I doubt you'll admit that any Russian hardware could be superior to good ol' British tanks.

British tanks, were extremely well armoured and/or reasonable fast. what they lacked in was fire-power. This was until the British stuck a 17pdr gun onto a M4 Sherman and called it a Firefly, This was the ONLY tank capable of matching a tiger until the Pershing and the IS-2 (or KV-2 if it got lucky) Russian tanks were good all round. optimising the best in armour, weaponry, speed, and maintenance. German tanks were the best of the war, had the thickest armour, the most powerful guns (the 88mm), reasonably fast. However were few in number, and hard to maintain.

Without the British 17pdr gun, I'll have to say, the M4 Sherman was a hunk of junk, but there was lots of this junk at the right time. its 75/6mm had no chance against German armour unless at danger close range.

The Centurion and Pershing didn't really prove themselves until the Korean war, where the Updated T-34 ( with an 85mm gun) was shredded by the western designs.

Best Allied tank of the war, the T-34 or Sherman Firefly, (the British versions, with the 17pdr (making up about 25% of Sherman's in total))

Best Axis tank, the Panther, the Tiger at a push, What the Germans REALLY excelled in, were tank destroyers and assault guns such as the Stug or Jagdpanther series.

Japanese tanks, pah, what tanks, more like tin openers on wheels lol.

Most powerful gun? IS-2.
Depends what you want a gun to do. It had a decent explosive charge, but its AP was a bit weak considering the size of the round.

The best AT gun on a tank in the war, the 7.5 cm PaK 42 was, by contrast, a bit of a small shell to use to kill infantrymen.
Best fire-on-the-move? König Panther.
You mean the Königstiger? No such tank as the König Panther. Either way, German tanks were told to stop, then shoot, because they lacked decent stabilisation for the guns.

I the Sherman and (surprisingly) T-26 both had gyrostabilisation, so I guess they win the best fire on the move prize.



Myself, I reckon the T-34 (especially the -85 pattern) was probably the best tank of the second world war overall. The Panther was, in many ways, a better tank on the face of it, but the Russians could produce many more T-34-85s than the Germans could Panthers, and they were famously reliable, too.

since then, the sweet Leopard came out, then the leopard 2 which while second best compared to the current T90, the T90 and the Leopard 2 are the worlds top tanks

Leopard 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao

But the T90 can fire missiles out of the main gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiuwiDyj2DY
The new Merkeva can fire the new Spike-LR missiles from its gun, has excellent mobility, can carry soldiers in the back and has both passive and active anti-missile systems. All patriotism aside (note that the Challenger 2 is probably about as good a tank, and we have never lost one beyond repair from enemy fire), I reckon the Merkeva is probably the best tank in the world at the moment.

I was actually thinking aircraft carriers needed for the Mediterranean there the allies carriers and the central powers lack there of allowed the allies to disrupt Germany's supply of the Africa Corps.
And I do find Carriers are often more able to sink merchant shipping just because they can cover far greater areas at a time with multiple scout planes.
...

Eh, no.

We disrupted their supplies using long-range torpedo bombers flown off Crete or Gibraltar, using Enigma cracking to discern where their convoys were heading, and when. We didn't need aircraft carriers there, which the Germans or Italians could have sunk with their submarines, with the loss of a massive investment in time and resources.

I the Sherman and (surprisingly) T-26 both had gyrostabilisation, so I guess they win the best fire on the move prize.


You sure? I thought it was the T-34 (later models) that got gyrostablizers. I wouldnt think they'd bother with the T-26.

It would depend upon what your criteria for it being the 'best' was...

Indeed so. "Best", without definition, is a purely subjective term.

Although I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make the M-4 or Type 97 the best.

The only thing I can think of here was that the OPer either went for an international spread or is just plug ignorant, and probably both.

All around capabilities it would be the Panther; however the Panther did have two major failings...
1. They were not produced in great enough numbers
2. The transmission was designed for a much smaller tank (The original design specs for the Panther called for a tank weighing 32 tons, the final 'product' weighed in at 43 tons.)

Numbers and reliability it would be the T-34. The T-34 was cheap and easy to make and very easy to maintain in the field.

The T-34 also had superior mobility due to it's wider track base. The winter of '41/2 saw German tanks bogged down in mud and deep snow.

I'll take the words of these German soldiers:
"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm

On a side note, I find it highly amusing that ANYBODY voted for the CHI-HA.

You sure? I thought it was the T-34 (later models) that got gyrostablizers. I wouldnt think they'd bother with the T-26.
Actually, checking again, the T26 didn't have gun stabilisation, but did have stabilised gunsights and was the first tank to do so.

The Russians didn't bother with gun stabilisation until the early 1950s it seems.

Jagdtiger for the win.

Jagdtiger for the win.
Not really, no. Too heavy by far, the transmission was poor and the gun was completely overpowered, as well as being generally Very Large.

Nice for pictures. A bit impractical.

I'm really sorry, but what are you guys? Veterans? I don't think anyone here has the knowledge to judge about those tanks...
I believe I do. But then again I've dedicated the last 20 years of my life to tanks.

On a side note, I find it highly amusing that ANYBODY voted for the CHI-HA.
I did, but that might be because I know enough about these tanks to be able to be more relative in my thinking. What the Type 97, especially the Shinhoto ones, could do was beyond the capability of any other tank fielded by the US, Germany, or USSR that had a gun able to kill another tank at any range (Even if it has to be point blank). The Type 97 quite simply was designed for jungle and island use, where it excelled far beyond even the American light tanks, or captured Soviet light tanks.

the problem was, the Japanese kept wanting to use it in open ground, despite not designing it for that. A bit of a "Yea we can do it too!" attitude that got them screwed when they tried it.

the Germans never lost a battle unless they were out numbered..
Krasnogvardeysk?

The Maus!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus_Tank

*snicker*

Egomania is awesome.

The Panzer is the best tank 2 me cuz it took a lot of crap 2 take it out
:mp5:

The Panzer is the best tank 2 me cuz it took a lot of crap 2 take it out
:mp5:

The Panzer is the best tank 2 me cuz it took a lot of crap 2 take it out
:mp5:
...

What the hell is this "The Panzer" infatuation people seem to have? "Panzer" is just a generic word for "Tank" in German and nothing more.

So I'd agree with you for some models, such asthe Tiger 2 and the Panther when it had just been introduced, but not for others, for example the Flammpanzer II which was about as well armoured as a go-kart and had a well-deserved reputation for exploding into flames and early Pz IV, whose armour was Kate-Moss like in its thinness.

T-34

They were cheap, easy to manufacture, & tough.
Pankerkampfwagen MKIII & MKIV alsokicked as, but they were expensive & overengineered.
I like the Allied tanks better mainly because I have a "Quantity over Quality" mentality when it comes to Military. You can arm a million poorly trained conscripts with crappy rifles & send them against 1000 of the most heavily armed, badass soldiers on earth & the nillion conscripts will win. (unless in a Thermopylae-style situation, where the smaller numbers have more advantages)

Toe to toe, the Panther wins, but there were simply to many Shermans and T-34s the Panthers, Tigers and Panzers were simply overrun.

The Japanese shouldn't even be a thought when considering good WW2 tanks. Also, it's kind of strange to leave out the British in this poll.

That being said, I voted Panther.

Also, it's kind of strange to leave out the British in this poll.
Our tanks were a bit of a poor effort by and large. The Comet was good, if very late.

Our tanks were a bit of a poor effort by and large. The Comet was good, if very late.

True, but a question like this, frankly, is determined by technological process as much as the success of the individual design. The late British tanks were of pretty good design, IIRC. Certainly atleast enough to warrant more them a spot over the bloody Chi-ha.

The late British tanks were of pretty good design, IIRC
Aye. Just a shame the Centurion was a couple of days late.
Certainly atleast enough to warrant more them a spot over the bloody Chi-ha.
That I'd agree with.

Aye. Just a shame the Centurion was a couple of days late.

That I'd agree with.

Centurion. <3 I'd still say the A-34 deserves a spot up here, and even the Cromwell was a pretty good tank. It was certainly good enough to replace the Sherman in some instances.

He might be referring to the Panther II
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Panther_II.Fort_Knox.jpg
The Panther II never advanced beyond the prototype stage.

I went with the Type 97 Chi-Ha (Japanese tank) just because I like all things Japanese.:p

I went with the Type 97 Chi-Ha (Japanese tank) just because I like all things Japanese.:p
If you had to sit in one, your opinion might change :p

...

Eh, no.

We disrupted their supplies using long-range torpedo bombers flown off Crete or Gibraltar, using Enigma cracking to discern where their convoys were heading, and when. We didn't need aircraft carriers there, which the Germans or Italians could have sunk with their submarines, with the loss of a massive investment in time and resources.

with one single carrier Vichy French would not have been forced into the war in the Syria Lebanon campaign which would have helped let the axis use them as a attacking force later.
not to mention subs taking on capitol ships were pretty rare, in either the Atlantic or Pacific campaigns. Not to mention carriers were vital in over coming the blockade of Malta. As fighters could be flown in to provide reinforcements, and dive bombers could be laden with supplies.

Where as if the Germans had 1 carrier in the area, this would have been impossible due to the closeness of German air support.

If you had to sit in one, your opinion might change :p

Perhaps. But I didn´t based my post on any previous knowledge of the tank. I just went for it by my linking of all things Japanese. I bet it´s crappy.

I went with the Type 97 Chi-Ha (Japanese tank) just because I like all things Japanese.:p

Heh, that tank, before the Shinhoto variation, couldn't even beat an M3 light tank.

Yea, it was pretty crappy. IIRC, even Italian tanks were better. But I may be mistaken in that.

Perhaps. But I didn´t based my post on any previous knowledge of the tank. I just went for it by my linking of all things Japanese. I bet it´s crappy.
It's very crappy indeed :p

Whilst being stuck in a phone box on tracks with sweaty Japanese men might sound good to you, it wasn't a very good combat machine :p
with one single carrier Vichy French would not have been forced into the war in the Syria Lebanon campaign which would have helped let the axis use them as a attacking force later.
Their one carrier would get sunk very quickly, because this was exactly the kind of thing the Royal Navy did not like kicking around.
not to mention subs taking on capitol ships were pretty rare, in either the Atlantic or Pacific campaigns.
The RN would probably fancy its chances against a poorly defended interwar carrier ;)
Not to mention carriers were vital in over coming the blockade of Malta. As fighters could be flown in to provide reinforcements, and dive bombers could be laden with supplies.
You seem to forget that the RAF and RN owned both sky and sea in the Med, and had broken Enigma ;)
Where as if the Germans had 1 carrier in the area, this would have been impossible due to the closeness of German air support.
Aye, but it wouldn't get to the Med. Transporting an aircraft carrier across or around the Alps would be quite an effort.

T-34/85 Ftmfw

Where am King Tiger?

IIRC, even Italian tanks were better.
Not sure about that. If you stuck a musket onto my bike's handlebars it'd be more mobile and be a deadlier machine than most Italian kit :p

Not sure about that. If you stuck a musket onto my bike's handlebars it'd be more mobile and be a deadlier machine than most Italian kit :p

Well, the Italians atleast had good engines/transmission. That is, unless, the nice British tank expert guy from Tanks! was lying.:eek:

Well, the Italians atleast had good engines/transmission. That is, unless, the nice British tank expert guy from Tanks! was lying.:eek:
Aye, they had good engines, and since their armour was made of second-hand shoes or something, they didn't have to work too hard.

Aye, they had good engines, and since their armour was made of second-hand shoes or something, they didn't have to work too hard.

Oh, certainly. But I really am curious if even the latest Italian model was better than the Chi-ha. *runs off to Wikipedia*

Well, even the crappiest version of the M13/40 had better armour than the Chi-ha. The M15 definitely had a better gun than the original Chi-ha, not sure about after. But holy shit, 14 tonnes? That classified as a medium tank to the Italians? Second hand shoes indeed. o_O

Not sure about that. If you stuck a musket onto my bike's handlebars it'd be more mobile and be a deadlier machine than most Italian kit :p

ya really only thing the Italians accomplished was conquoring Ethiopia, & the Ethiopians were using weapons outdates by at least a hundred years-I think some Ceremonial Palace Guards still used Spears

Depends on your criteria, what role the individual tanks were used for and such. The American Sherman could not stand up to a King Tiger to save its life, nor could it match the T-34 in a head-to-head battle, but, on the other hand, that's not what the job of the Sherman was. That was the job of the American Tank Destroyers, and air support. The Sherman was designed to exploit breakthroughs, as a fast cavalry unit, as well as flexibility and modularity, which were to be followed by slower Tank Destroyer units, which would engage enemy armor near the area of the breakthrough.

Regardless, it is a shame to discuss World War II tanks without mentioning the M26 Pershing, and while it saw little combat, it was used during the war, and thus classifies. The M26 saw significant action against the T-34 in Korea, and had a high success rate.

ya really only thing the Italians accomplished was conquoring Ethiopia, & the Ethiopians were using weapons outdates by at least a hundred years-I think some Ceremonial Palace Guards still used Spears

And we all know Italians only wanted to get their dirty, lusty hands on the Nubian women.:D

I always liked Soviet tanks. The T-34.

Depends on your criteria, what role the individual tanks were used for and such. The American Sherman could not stand up to a King Tiger to save its life, nor could it match the T-34 in a head-to-head battle, but, on the other hand, that's not what the job of the Sherman was. That was the job of the American Tank Destroyers, and air support. The Sherman was designed to exploit breakthroughs, as a fast cavalry unit, as well as flexibility and modularity, which were to be followed by slower Tank Destroyer units, which would engage enemy armor near the area of the breakthrough.

Regardless, it is a shame to discuss World War II tanks without mentioning the M26 Pershing, and while it saw little combat, it was used during the war, and thus classifies. The M26 saw significant action against the T-34 in Korea, and had a high success rate.

Actually, given the odds of breakdown, a T-34 or M-4 might stand a chance against a Tiger II :P
Especially if its turret traverse broke down. Was it the Tiger II that had the electric traverse with NO method of manually rotating the turret?

T - 35? Five turrets. Yeah, and absolutly useless in combat. IS-2. Gun useless against tanks!(and only 28 rounds)T-34?A piece of crap, M4? - a graveyard for 4. Panther? maybe, but only Ausf. A. Ladies and Gentleman and the winner is.. Centurion? Sorry, buddy. You come too late, and M-26 also. So, at last.. A-34 Comet!!! Yes, congratulations for the winner!Wait a minute... the M-26 hit the battlefield only 5 months after A-34 and it was a much tougher tank. One once withstood 13 direct AT hits to the turrent. The only thing the A-34 had on the M-26 is 4 times as many of them actually made it into service by wars end. And even then both tanks are really only a footnote in that conflict, both arriving too late to make much of an impact...

Correction. The Sherman Firefly had a punch sufficiently deadly to make a Panzer sit up and take notice.

M26 Pershing. That was, probabily, the best tank the US fielded in WW2. It was totally uninfluential, though.

*On April 4, 1945 near Dessau, the "Super Pershing" destroyed one King Tiger by striking its underbelly and knocked out another tank, probably a Panther, with a shot to its flank [3]. However, that was its only known combat engagement.

The Pershing managed quite well against the T-34 in Korea.

Aye, they had good engines, and since their armour was made of second-hand shoes or something, they didn't have to work too hard.

The work done by Fiat on the italian tanks in WW2 was later recycled for a similar project. The Ferrari cars.

The armour was so crappy that rifles could bore through it. The only practical was to use those tanks was to turn them into entrenched AT positions. It's no wonder that the italian units who performed better in WW2 were infantry units, not armour.

Oh and about the idea of the italians for the purpose of war:
1.laying hands on women (see Ethiopia)
2.going back to mamma (see retreat from Russia)
Italians fight for ideals, not for material things like oilfields. ;)

The Panzer is the best tank 2 me cuz it took a lot of crap 2 take it out
:mp5:...

What the hell is this "The Panzer" infatuation people seem to have? "Panzer" is just a generic word for "Tank" in German and nothing more.

So I'd agree with you for some models, such asthe Tiger 2 and the Panther when it had just been introduced, but not for others, for example the Flammpanzer II which was about as well armoured as a go-kart and had a well-deserved reputation for exploding into flames and early Pz IV, whose armour was Kate-Moss like in its thinness.Maybe he means the very first one. But that would be silly, considering that the A7V was a piece of crap on treads.

I've always been a great fan of the Panther and especially its variation, the Jagdpanther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanther

I like the Tiger I because it looks like a brute monster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

Its successor the Tiger II "Königstiger" already had the look of a (more) modern battle tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

The Jagdtiger just looks crazily powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger

Nevertheless, one of the most unique (and typically nazi-overcrazy designs) was the never-produced Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte ("Landcruiser 'Rat'")

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/P1000.jpg
Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte
with VW Typ 166 Schwimmwagen in the foreground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

Not properly a tank, but the StuG III deserves a special mention

And we all know Italians only wanted to get their dirty, lusty hands on the Nubian women.:D
Can't say I blame them.
Not properly a tank, but the StuG III deserves a special mention
Agreed. Was quite a good little gun on tracks.

Not properly a tank, but the StuG III deserves a special mention

Agreed. Assault guns and Tank destroyers such as the Stug series, were a speciality of the German military machine. Formidable in many roles. Seeing as US tank armour was so thin, these assault guns had more than a good chance, espc if they ambushed. More heavily armoured British tanks had a better chance but still...

The Tiger, but since that is not an available option, I pick T-34, hands down.

I like the british Universal Carrier also, even though it obviously wasnt a tank... lmfao it was like a Midget compared to other vehicles

The Panther II never advanced beyond the prototype stage.

I know that, but there exists the possibility that he didn't, it's the only panther that I could think of that I could see applying König to.

If you had to sit in one, your opinion might change :p

The same could be said of the T-34.

Of the one's on that list, I'd have to give it to the Panther, but only by a whisker. It is a very close match up between it and the T34.

The Sherman and the Chi-Ha shouldn't even be on this list.

Well, the Panther was designed as a response to the T-34. Still Panthers had to look out for T-34/85s, JS-IIs and Soviet tank destroyers such as the SU-85 and the SU-100.