Jump to content


Best WW2 Country? (Poll)

ww2 world war two tank poll best world of tanks country

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

Poll: Best WW2 Country (155 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battles in order to participate this poll.

Which is the best WW2 Country?

  1. France (That B1 Tho) (4 votes [2.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.58%

  2. Germany (Panzers, Tigers, Hetzers, etc.) (66 votes [42.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.58%

  3. America (All hail the Sherman (and the M3 Lee)) (36 votes [23.23%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.23%

  4. Britain (Matilda, Churchill, Grant, Sherman III) (4 votes [2.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.58%

  5. Russia (KV-1, JS-3, T-34) (42 votes [27.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.10%

  6. Japan (Chi-He, Chi-Ro, Chi-To, Chucky Chi) (1 vote [0.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.65%

  7. Italy (Carro Pesante and other paper armor tanks) (2 votes [1.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.29%

Vote Hide poll

Blackstone #41 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 20:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14675 battles
  • 1,398
  • [-IGC-] -IGC-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostOEFArmy, on Apr 16 2018 - 11:41, said:

 

LOL at this whole post(to the point that even providing counter-arguments is a waste of time with this particular specimen).  The American school system and MSM propaganda at its best.

 

Well, sorry to bust your bubble but:

 

Without US war production, the European Allies would not have survived. The US sent Lend-Lease equipment and food to the UK and the USSR. Yes, even the USSR. Hence why when the Soviets got the Shermans, there crews liked them because they were roomy and easy to maintain. Soviet Air Force received hundreds of P-39 Airacobras as ground attack fighters. the list goes on and on.

 

France and the UK have been fighting the Germans for almost 2 years roughly. When France fell, it was the UK to hold back the onslaught. Churchill was praying for the US to get involved. Why? Time was running out. It would be only a matter of time before England was invaded. He knew that when the US was in the war, the burden would not be his along. And as far as "Uncle Joe" is concerned, Churchill didn't trust him at all, and for good reason.

 

If you really want to dig even deeper, the USSR was an ally "in name only". Several documents later released after the Cold War shows that the Soviets were still actively spying on the US. Sure, the Manhattan Project comes to mind, but everyone knows that. They had spies in the Army, FBI, and other bureaus.The Soviets refusal to commit to a second front in Asia was a stickler in US-UK-USSR relations during the war, despite they had the manpower to support such a thing. Uncle Joe was keen on taking over eastern Europe. Ask anyone who survive the Soviets rolling into their villages there and they'll tell you how barbarous they were. Accounts as early as early '44 were coming back to Churchill and Roosevelt that Soviet troops were literally raping and pillaging as they went and with NO reprisals (unlike British and American troops where such action, if it occurred, was swiftly dealt with.) 

 

And then there are the accounts of USAF bomber pilots in the Pacific that were incarcerated by the Soviets and were never returned. They were initially told that Vladivostok would be a safe alternate landing site if any maintenance problems occurred. Not so. The Soviets denied they every landed there, even though the crews radioed for assistance. Those bomber crews were never seen again. The US did inquire about them, but the Soviets either denied their existence or said "We'll look into it" and never did.In fact, the Tu-4 is a reverse engineered copy of the B-29.

 

I plan on writing a book about crazy Uncle Joe and his relationship with the UK and US during the war. It's what us history majors do.



sleeper_agent #42 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 20:51

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 19569 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013
Germany had edge in engineering but couldn't execute with resources and timelines.

maddogatc #43 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 22:36

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29497 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

Germany

Super engineered vehicles with good armor and excellent guns and optics. Late war tanks were years ahead to what the allies were producing. Some early versions had reliability problems and they were difficult to repair. Crews were superbly trained in the art of Blitzkrieg and coordinated attack.  However once their tanks was destroyed they became foot soldiers as it would take some time before a replacement vehicle was available.

 

USA

They went for quantity and reliability over armor and firepower. Mass production at it's finest. When a tank was knocked out the crew went back to the supply depot and picked up a new tank.  Something Germany could never match. They didn't call the Sherman the Ronson Burner "lights first every time" for no reason.The US just plainly outproduced Germany and US crews were also well trained.

 

Russia

Under engineered and crudely built although very reliable, robust and easy to repair. Guns inaccurate and optics very poor. Russia also used the economy of scales and simply outproduced Germany. Designed so a Siberian with a grade 2 education could easily operate the vehicle.  Crews very poorly trained and only command tanks had radios thus communications for coordinated attacks lacking at best.  Russia lost about 5 tanks for every German tank

over the wartime average.  During the Kursk battle reports of up to 55:1 in Germany's favor.

 

UK/Commonwealth

Britain had a wide variety of tanks built mostly as infantry support vehicles early war.  They were mechanical nightmares with notoriously unreliable engines. Not till later in the war did Britain remedy this problem however their designs were inferior to what Germany was producing.  Britain relied heavily on lend lease and had a large inventory of US armored vehicles at their disposal as they could not match US production capabilities.  Later war tanks such as the Comet and Centurian were excellent designs with very accurate guns and optics.  Crews were very well trained.


Edited by maddogatc, Apr 16 2018 - 23:20.


_Red_Saaryn_ #44 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 04:52

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14839 battles
  • 687
  • [-IKR-] -IKR-
  • Member since:
    08-09-2015

View PostRed_Ensign, on Apr 16 2018 - 10:27, said:

 

he drove across an open field like a noob.  his last words were probably 'it's rigged'.

Probably but also just imagine what those British said before dying at his stug " German bias!".

 

Also there was context, someone talking about how great the b1 was in real life and because of it their nation was great, so also the gustav was great so another point to germany? 


Edited by _Red_Saaryn_, Apr 17 2018 - 04:56.


ThEHaChA #45 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 09:00

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1241 battles
  • 491
  • Member since:
    03-04-2017

View Post_Red_Saaryn_, on Apr 17 2018 - 07:22, said:

Probably but also just imagine what those British said before dying at his stug " German bias!".

 

Also there was context, someone talking about how great the b1 was in real life and because of it their nation was great, so also the gustav was great so another point to germany? 

 

i didn't talked about the nation, i just talked about the tank

BillT #46 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 16:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26625 battles
  • 3,780
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostDuqe, on Apr 16 2018 - 13:27, said:

 

First time anyone in history has said this, and nobody credible to this point.

 

You must be joking.  Even western historians have been saying for the past 50 years or more that the T-34 is at least in the top three tanks of WWII, and arguably, the best.  (I don't concur -- I'll put the Sherman above the T-34.  The Chieftain expresses the arguments for the M4 very well.)   The key is the definition of "best".  If you ask, "Given all that you know, pretend it's 1939 and you have the choice of any tank to be the mainstay of your army.  Which would you choose?", the answer is NOT going to be a Tiger or Panther.   Too expensive, hard to maintain, prone to breakdowns, difficult to ship, and difficult to operate due to weight. 

 

And bear in mind, if it's 1939, you don't get to build any Tigers for another two years, and three years if you want Panthers.  But you can build T-34s in 1940 and Shermans early in 1941 (if you don't get sidetracked building M3 Grants for the Brits).   What's really amazing about the T-34 is that they were in service when everyone outside of the USSR thought the Char B1 bis was the toughest tank in the world.  And with upgrades, they were still quite effective in 1945.  

 

In Korea, Shermans did well against T-34s, but it's hard to separate how much of that was because the American tanks had better crews and tactics compared to the North Korean T-34s.



_Gungrave_ #47 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 16:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 40806 battles
  • 14,660
  • [DPIX] DPIX
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostThEHaChA, on Apr 16 2018 - 20:03, said:

 

no, because that will be sh*tpost

 

its only a ███ post if the meme sucks or they do nothing but repost it everywhere like people do on reddit.

_Brew_ #48 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 19:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 20236 battles
  • 2,510
  • [HARMZ] HARMZ
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostSlatherer, on Apr 15 2018 - 19:44, said:

Poll about the "best."

Hahahaha!

Might as well asked what is your favorite color...

 

A better analogy would be to ask, "what is the best color?"

 

See what kind of answers you get.



diego999 #49 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 22:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 31306 battles
  • 4,818
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Early T-34-76s were often drove from the factory directly to battle in a moment of desperation during the initial days of the german invasion.

 

Late war T-35-85s were vastly improved and -arguably- the best tanks of WW2.



AudieBoy #50 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 00:14

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14601 battles
  • 154
  • [MAR4L] MAR4L
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Block Quote

Well, sorry to bust your bubble but:

 

Without US war production, the European Allies would not have survived. The US sent Lend-Lease equipment and food to the UK and the USSR. Yes, even the USSR. Hence why when the Soviets got the Shermans, there crews liked them because they were roomy and easy to maintain. Soviet Air Force received hundreds of P-39 Airacobras as ground attack fighters. the list goes on and on.

 

France and the UK have been fighting the Germans for almost 2 years roughly. When France fell, it was the UK to hold back the onslaught. Churchill was praying for the US to get involved. Why? Time was running out. It would be only a matter of time before England was invaded. He knew that when the US was in the war, the burden would not be his along. And as far as "Uncle Joe" is concerned, Churchill didn't trust him at all, and for good reason.

 

If you really want to dig even deeper, the USSR was an ally "in name only". Several documents later released after the Cold War shows that the Soviets were still actively spying on the US. Sure, the Manhattan Project comes to mind, but everyone knows that. They had spies in the Army, FBI, and other bureaus.The Soviets refusal to commit to a second front in Asia was a stickler in US-UK-USSR relations during the war, despite they had the manpower to support such a thing. Uncle Joe was keen on taking over eastern Europe. Ask anyone who survive the Soviets rolling into their villages there and they'll tell you how barbarous they were. Accounts as early as early '44 were coming back to Churchill and Roosevelt that Soviet troops were literally raping and pillaging as they went and with NO reprisals (unlike British and American troops where such action, if it occurred, was swiftly dealt with.) 

 

And then there are the accounts of USAF bomber pilots in the Pacific that were incarcerated by the Soviets and were never returned. They were initially told that Vladivostok would be a safe alternate landing site if any maintenance problems occurred. Not so. The Soviets denied they every landed there, even though the crews radioed for assistance. Those bomber crews were never seen again. The US did inquire about them, but the Soviets either denied their existence or said "We'll look into it" and never did.In fact, the Tu-4 is a reverse engineered copy of the B-29.

 

I plan on writing a book about crazy Uncle Joe and his relationship with the UK and US during the war. It's what us history majors do.

 

 

Thanks for your clarity! 



Slatherer #51 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 01:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 32575 battles
  • 3,330
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014

View Post_Brew_, on Apr 17 2018 - 10:20, said:

 

A better analogy would be to ask, "what is the best color?"

 

See what kind of answers you get.

 

Meh.  Favorite works best for me:

 



Hurk #52 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 01:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 50165 battles
  • 16,283
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostDuqe, on Apr 16 2018 - 08:45, said:

Way to take all the credit for a cooperative effort.

because its the Gods honest truth that if the US did not enter the war, all of europe would be speaking german right now. 

the manpower losses of WW1 and WW2 coupled with the failed understanding of royal "give quarter, dont kill officers" warfare vs modern non-human warfare left no nation safe from being conquered by germany until they themselves ran out of manpower to hold territory. 

 

while russia took the brunt of the damage in terms of lives and material lost, they would be a small Sibirien country right now. 



stubmw #53 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 03:37

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22236 battles
  • 237
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
Easily the USA. We fought a war on TWO fronts and won. Through lend lease we kept both Russian and British asses in the game until we could come over and resolve, yet again, a European mess. 

ThEHaChA #54 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 08:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1241 battles
  • 491
  • Member since:
    03-04-2017

View Post_Gungrave_, on Apr 17 2018 - 18:56, said:

 

its only a ███ post if the meme sucks or they do nothing but repost it everywhere like people do on reddit.

 

oC65gqK.jpg

^ this is a sh*t post, no context, just a picture, a really random picture



deadizdead #55 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 10:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35345 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013
M18 Hellcat. Sent 10,000 German tankers home in boxes and fruit jars.

BillT #56 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 16:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26625 battles
  • 3,780
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostHurk, on Apr 17 2018 - 19:59, said:

because its the Gods honest truth that if the US did not enter the war, all of europe would be speaking german right now.  

 

Personally, I think they'd all be speaking Russian right now.  Even without US Lend-Lease, and even without Britain in the war, and even if Japan attacked them in the east, I think the USSR would have prevailed. 

 

(By the same token, I think that if not for Nazi Germany, the USSR would have probably invaded western Europe in 1942 or 1943, and nobody could have stopped them.)



Hurk #57 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 19:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 50165 battles
  • 16,283
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

thankfully the russians went crazy with stalin and lennon and killed any chance of them being the conquerors. by destroying their society, their oligarchy, murdering the leadership, etc, they left russia crippled at the time it needed the old guard the most.  they especially could not afford the massive purges of military leadership.. the mass loss of skills and understanding were huge. 

 

if those purges did not happen, then yes, i think russia could have won ww2 without the US.  with them... no.  they simply lacked the leadership. if you have ever read some of the histories from the soldier's point of view, it was extremely random and unstructured. lack of everything was common, chaotic leadership was the norm. everything was extremely localized due to that, without the massive support infrastructures of the US or Germany put into place. 



Vulcan_Spectre #58 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 18:33

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 1089 battles
  • 5
  • [FLASH] FLASH
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017

View PostI_QQ_4_U, on Apr 16 2018 - 06:51, said:

 I assume you mean in reality?

 The best tank of the war was the M4. Mobile, effective armour and armament, low cost manufacture, dependable, easy to maintain and could take on 95% of the enemy tanks if needed. Remeber they had to move these tanks across an ocean in mass quantities, have fun doing that with something the size of a Tiger. Plus the allies were mostly on the offensive, they needed mobile tanks, not slow moving pilllboxes like, the Germans needed due to be on the defensive. The 'Ronson' nickname is over exaggerated, they actually didn't light on fire very often due to gas fires, it was the ammo racks going off that was the problem and that was reduced greatly by the introduction of wet stowage. M3's were actually appreciated, especially by the Brits in Africa for having the 75mm, M5's and M24's were excellent light tanks, the M10, M18 and M36 were effective enough but the concept of TD's was a dead end and of course the M26 would have likely had an excellent record if it had been in combat for very long.

 T34 was close but it was poorly manufactured so was unreliable as well as not as easy to work on in the field, pretty much the same for every Russian tank, they made up for it in quantity and suicide tactics. Crew space was very cramped as well, Russian crews really liked the Sherman for being relatively roomy.

 Most of the German tranks were crap, they just knew how to use them well, the standouts would be variants of the panzer 3 and 4, the Stugs and Panther even though it had reliability issues. The Tigers were a waste of resources, completely unreliable and difficult to support, they could have built 4 Pz.IV's for every Tiger.

 French tanks at the beginning of the war were by far the best in the field at the time but they had no idea how to use them. They were scattered about as support units.

 Some of the Italian tanks actually were not that bad, at least early in the war.

 Czech tanks were also pretty good though limited.

 

french tanks were utter TRASH they were used by the germans as police tanks. and the only reason we won isnt better tanks or training. it was factory capacity. recourses. transport. lots of things beside those

 

 

 



Vulcan_Spectre #59 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 18:36

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 1089 battles
  • 5
  • [FLASH] FLASH
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017

View Postdeadizdead, on Apr 18 2018 - 04:10, said:

M18 Hellcat. Sent 10,000 German tankers home in boxes and fruit jars.

 

the m36 was way better. the only reason the m18 was used more was SPEED. the m36 had a better kill to loss ratio

commander42 #60 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 18:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 23502 battles
  • 4,505
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013
in terms of tanks, germany and its not even remotely close.  They did have reliability issues as shown by the fact of how many were lost due to those issues rather than in combat, but that also tells you how effective they were if they did make it to combat.


overall, the US.  fought on two fronts and even helped keep the other allies afloat before they got there via lend lease to the british and Russians.





Also tagged with ww2, world, war, two, tank, poll, best, world of tanks, country

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users