[PinkPanther]

Even now history and tank fans argue about the best battle machine of WWII. My (and not only my) scales weight on behalf of T-34-85. In addition to having an excellent combination of firepower, armor, mobility, and shape, its superb technical design, which emphasized simplicity and durability, made it possible to mass produce it in enormous numbers, and gave it very high field and combat reliability, two critical attributes which the advanced German tanks lacked. It was the main war winning weapon of the USSR of that time.

[CVRTcmdr]

Im sorry but i dont agree, only reason T34's beat the panzers was because of the russian tactics of flooding the field with hundreds of the things. Plus it wasnt all russian engineering, didnt they use Detroit V8's shiiped in via the northern ports?

Yes i know most ppl bang on about Tigers, but lets face it. Sticking a 88mm anti-aircraft gun into a tank was a stroke of genius

http://www.tanksinwo...fw-tiger-ii.php

Nice site with lots of info and piccies

[Stronk]

It depends entirely on what you mean by "best." Was the "best" tank the cheapest and easiest to produce, so the Soviets could flood the battlefield with them? Was the "best" tank the one with the biggest gun, so it could penetrate any armor? Was the best tank the one with the best drive train and track reliability, so it could drive across the front with the fewest repairs and be in the fight the longest? (I give the same kind of answer when people ask me what my favorite gun is - I tell them it depends on the mission!)

The "best" tank is a different consideration when you're trying to lay out a production pipeline vs. when you are driving the beast in combat. What about whether or not the tank had decent ammo available? Of course, we could ask which tank had the best balance of the three tank basics (armor, firepower, and mobility) or which one would do best in a one-on-one straight-up fight, but neither of those is really going to give you a tank everyone would agree on. In my opinion, the best tank is the one you have, if it's better than the one you're up against. Otherwise, the other guy has the best tank!

Now that I've said why no tank is really the "best," here are my favorites:

• Jagdpanther: Awesome balance of firepower, mobility, and armor. The lack of a turret is a factor when engaged on the move, but it's a big advantage when setting ambushes. I've loved this tank (really a self-propelled antitank gun) since the commander's hatch of one fell on my head in the Panzermuseum in Munster. Yeah, I forgot they didn't have hydraulics to lower them back then - it knocked me right to the floor of the tank!
  
• Koenigstiger: A seriously impressive vehicle but too expensive to produce and introduced too late and in too few numbers to have any real impact on the war. Still, the Porsche turret is a work of art.
  
• IS-3: Another great balance, but the lack of a decent available AT round for the 122mm main gun and the fact that it never saw service in World War II (except perhaps as a "show" in Berlin, although even that is debatable) reduces its value somewhat.
  
• T-34: This series of tanks is amazing; cheap to produce, good firepower, solid armor, and easy to maintain. Its greatest advantage over every other tank in World War II is the most important one - it was the best tank in the right place in the right numbers at the right time! This series are the tanks that beat the German panzers, no doubt about it. They were comparatively a hollow shell in the west by the time the Western Allies had to fight panzers in real numbers.

[Kurt_Knispel]

I have to grudgingly go with Pink here. The T-34 was easy to produce like the Sherman and (unlike the Sherman) a large leap forward, even when compared to it's Wehrmacht contemporaries. Think about it: Sloped armor. Low ground pressure. Adequate armament. When introduced the primary German armor were PzIII's with 50mm guns (and some still with the old 37's) and PzIV's with short barreled 75mm's, which were never intended for tank on tank combat. Neither of these are even close to a match for a T34. Slapping a L/43 high velocity 75mm on the PxIV f2's and g's was a stopgap thrown together quickly to face T34's and was barely sufficient.

Even the mighty Tiger was a more brute force approach and lacked the elegance of the T34 design. Yes it had great armament, decent wide tracks for low ground pressure, it's armour however, while thick, was not sloped. On top of that it was a nightmare to produce, transport and maintain. The only reason Germany made any progress after the T34 was due to superior tactics, training, and the always awesome 88mm. The Panther was in many ways a copy of the T34 integrating all of it's innovation except of course ease of production and reliability, things the Germans never really grasped as huge advantages. Though whether they could get the raw materials and factory space to really go toe to toe with Soviet and American factories seems unlikely to me, but that's for another debate.....

All that said, since WoT seems unlikely to have random breakdowns, will not force me to actually build my tank, will "spawn" my tank rather then me having to load it on rails and then land march it, and will not force me to fuel the things I'll be one of the nuvo-wehrmacht fanboys rolling in my Panther

[Doomlord52]

Yea, the real problem with German tanks was that the blueprints where amazingly good.... IF they had been made 10 years from when they were drawn. Most of the time small things, like the fact that there wasnt an engine for a 65ton tank available at the time, or good enough quality metal ended up stopping them.

Personally, im a MASSIVE fan of the Tiger I, as it was just a "WTFOMG" weapon when it came out, especially on the Western Front. It was probably the only tank in history which could literally run into a battle, say "OMG GOD MODE, ON!", hull down and just sit there for a day making flaming wreckage of the enemy. Really, there's a story from some place where 2 tigers just parked themselves on a hill for an afternoon used up ALL their ammo, took out like 40 or 50 shermans, where hit 200 something times, and FINALLY when they ran out of ammo, they DROVE away. No other tank EVER has done this.

[sadnebula]

I have to cast my vote for the panther, speed, mobility and firepower. Then the T-34, the tank that gave the Germans a nasty surprise when it rolled out.

[GXPTG]

I am a Panther fan for "best/favorite" WWII as well. I won't deny that it is in many ways little more than a T-34 Mark 2. That said, would WOULDN'T a "next generation" tank be better? I know the Panther had some engine/driveline issues, but was a pretty easy tank to make otherwise. No tank is perfect afterall. It does score pretty high in the armor triangle of Armor, Firepower and Mobility.

Had it arrived a bit sooner, I would've said the Russian T54 is the "best" tank of WWII. I mean, the design was so good that Russia still uses it to this day.

And please don't get me wrong. I LOVE the T34 and Tiger I. For me personally though, the Panther just does so much so well.

[Kurt_Knispel]

GXPTG, on 24 February 2010 - 04:41 PM, said:

I am a Panther fan for "best/favorite" WWII as well. I won't deny that it is in many ways little more than a T-34 Mark 2. That said, would WOULDN'T a "next generation" tank be better? I know the Panther had some engine/driveline issues, but was a pretty easy tank to make otherwise. No tank is perfect afterall. It does score pretty high in the armor triangle of Armor, Firepower and Mobility.

Had it arrived a bit sooner, I would've said the Russian T54 is the "best" tank of WWII. I mean, the design was so good that Russia still uses it to this day.

And please don't get me wrong. I LOVE the T34 and Tiger I. For me personally though, the Panther just does so much so well.

Honestly. Big Panther fan here. But I'm not sure you realize just how bad the final drive was on the thing. I mean abysmal. Speer should have shot the people who designed that thing bad. I can imagine nothing worse in combat than not being able to gun your tanks engine simply because you know, not think, not suspect, know that your driveline will asplode. And yes, it was gasoline powered too so asploding was a distinct possibility. Those two glaring flaws force me to keep it off the number one spot.

[GXPTG]

Yeah, Kurt, I know... but it's such a purdy tank too!

For sheer "fear factor" I would give a nod to the Tiger I though. Even if the boggy wheels usually ended up with so much muck in them that they single handedly slowed offensive actions in bad weather conditions. Seriously... ever build of model of a Tiger I? What a pain!

[Count]

Slightly offtopic.
Feel the difference

[Bill]

Stronk, on 24 February 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

It depends entirely on what you mean by "best." Was the "best" tank the cheapest and easiest to produce, so the Soviets could flood the battlefield with them? Was the "best" tank the one with the biggest gun, so it could penetrate any armor? Was the best tank the one with the best drive train and track reliability, so it could drive across the front with the fewest repairs and be in the fight the longest?

Thanks Stronk, for framing this question.

For the sake of diversity of opinion, I often maintain that the best tank of WWII was the Sherman. After everyone stops laughing, I explain:

- It was extremely reliable; better to have a Sherman in the battle than a T34 broken down behind the front. Anecdotaly, the Soviet units equipped with Lend-Lease Shermans raved about them, and drove them into the heart of Germany. As Guderian said, a tank's engine is as much a weapon as its gun.
- the frontal armor really wasn't all that bad - better than a PzIV.
- The 75mm gun was *ideal* for killing infantry, and that's 95% of what a tank did. Patton understood this, and shunned the 76mm. (The Soviets understood it too; the T34's 76mm gun was quite similar to the Sherman's 75 in performance, and they didn't start fitting 85mms to T34s until the last year of the war.) The 76mm was a good gun against tanks, as good as the Soviet 85mm gun all-around. (And it proved this in Korea against T34s.) Bear in mind, the Sherman could carry a 90mm -- it didn't, not because of design limitations, but because of US tactical doctrine, which focused anti-tank guns in the Tank Destroyer units.
- It was a deadly in-fighter, due to fast turret traverse, fast reloading, and its moderately-effective gyrostabilizer. Many German accounts describe mutual-surprise situations where a Sherman got off 2-3 shots before the German tank could even fire.
- It wasn't too heavy (and therefore, could go more place than, e.g. a Tiger). You could also ship two of them for the weight of a heavy tank. And it was easier to recover if disabled -- that's really an important factor when you consider how many damaged tanks were repaired and returned to battle in a matter of days. Less weight also means you don't have to transport as much fuel to keep the tanks rolling -- easier logistics.
- It was economical to manufacture. For the price of a Tiger II, I can build a Sherman *and* a P-47 Thunderbolt. Once my P-47 kills your Tiger, my Sherman will capture your flag.


If you ask me what tank I would have wanted to *serve* in during WWII, it's certainly not a Sherman. (I'd probably go with "Jagdtiger", because they saw virtually no combat. :-) But if you ask me what WWII tank I'd have wanted to equip my army with, the Sherman is my top pick.

If you ask my what my ideal tank would have been: A T34/85 with a US-built transmission and Diesel engine, and a 75mm KwK42 gun (ala' Panther) with German optics. Or maybe just a Pershing.

[Stronk]

Bill, on 26 February 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

Thanks Stronk, for framing this question.

You're welcome!

Quote

If you ask my what my ideal tank would have been: A T34/85 with a US-built transmission and Diesel engine, and a 75mm KwK42 gun (ala' Panther) with German optics. Or maybe just a Pershing.

If we're going to mix tanks, I'd agree about the American drivetrain and Detroit engine, but I'd use the hull of an IS-3 and replace the low-quality homogenous armor with German face-hardened Solingen steel and the 122mm gun with the Krupp 128mm PaK 44 / PaK 80. I'd throw in the US gyrostabiliser (even though it was frequently unused by crews because it was unreliable and not very helpful) and make sure I had German optics as well, plus Schurzen and Zimmerit just for the coolness factor. I'd mount a 60mm mortar in the roof for infantry fire support and smoke (like the Merkava) and use the Nahverteidigungswaffe for close defense, plus replace the coax MG with a flamethrower, and add an external phone like the Sherman. I'm not sure which side I'd be fighting on with this monster though...

Or, you could just let me have a Leopard 2A5 or a Merkava Block III and I'd be pretty happy with that against those old tanks!

[Maniox]

My kitties will dig your face into the ground.

[Axelius]

Stronk, on 26 February 2010 - 07:52 PM, said:

Or, you could just let me have a Leopard 2A5 or a Merkava Block III and I'd be pretty happy with that against those old tanks!

You know, once I was half-way through your post this was my exact thought . Although I would take the Swedish upgrades for the Leopard 2 that makes it the Strv 122.

On the case of best tank... I'm not gonna say anything. Several tanks had several really good aspects, but no tank can be said to have been the best. Cred will have to be gone to the Sherman, since practically every single Allied nation used it. While there was some problems in the beginning (earning it nicknames such as "Tommycooker" and "Matchbox"), it got those worked out by Operation Overlord and was easy both to drive and fix.

[Bill]

Stronk, on 26 February 2010 - 07:52 PM, said:

If we're going to mix tanks, I'd agree about the American drivetrain and Detroit engine, but I'd use the hull of an IS-3 and replace the low-quality homogenous armor with German face-hardened Solingen steel and the 122mm gun with the Krupp 128mm PaK 44 / PaK 80.

This brings up an interesting point.

In table-top miniatures gaming I honesty prefer the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 over the 12.8. The 12.8 has better penetration at extreme range, it's true, but at those ranges you rarely engage, and hits are hard to come by. At reasonable combat ranges, the 12.8 won't kill anything an 8.8 L/71 can't kill. And for the same interior space you can carry more 8.8cm ammo, and the fixed 8.8cm rounds load faster than the two-piece 12.8cm ammo. Granted, the bigger gun does fire a more effective HE shell and is better against bunkers, but in tank-to-tank fighting the 8.8 is a clear winner thanks to rate of fire.

But these games all measure effectiveness purely through armor penetration, which cheats the big rounds like the 12.8 and the Soviet 122 and 152mm. The sheer impact of these heavy projectiles caused shock damage; in some cases they might not penetrate the turret armor, but they would shear the turret off the tank entirely, or cave in an armor plate without technically piercing it. This hs me wondering if (and how) WOT might model that effect.


Gotta love that IS-3 hull, I agree; that design was still viable into the 1960s.

[Grigori]

You can only call the T-34 the 'best' if you're factoring final production numbers as an exclusive property of the tank itself rather than its parent country, which it's not.

It's hard to argue with the Pz.Kpfw V Panther on a unit for unit basis. The M4, Pz.Kpfw IV, and T-34 were all on par with each other as far as medium tanks go. The Pz.Kpfw V effectively sling shotted past all three and bridged the gap between medium and heavy tanks by combining the general purpose utility and weight of the former with the capabilities of the later.

[Blackout77]

I say jagdpanther, perfect combination of firepower armor and speed.

[GXPTG]

I LOVE the JapdPanther, but it's an ambush tank. Sure it tanks a beating like an SOB from the front, but if it needs to reposition for target acquisition quickly, it's doomed. The barrel had, what... 10 degree's of horizontal movement each way?

The "weakness" of a turret is still a greater strength than a partically fixed forward firing cannon. I said it before, but the standard Panther is still my pick for overall best tank of WWII.

[Jetu]

Jagdpanther, a wall of those would be deadly..

[Yab]

the best tank means the tank that had the biggest impact on a battlefield? If yes my vote goes for... Christie tank Why? Because this tank led to design BT series which led to design T34 which force Germans to design Panther which led to create MBT concept which works till today. On the other hand my best tank was pre-war design and wasn't never mass produced nor saw combat action so my vote goes for Panther