Topic: Best Tank of WW2?

[Vespasian Swiper]

Sayt and Shouty...

1. Tiger Fear - it is a bit more of a modern invention. Tigers were actually vulnerable to the 6 pounder (aka 57mm to Americans) gun, indeed thats how the Tiger at Bovvy was captured. The 6 pounder was far superior to the 75mm gun in terms of AP, hence arguments that we should have kept Churchills with the 6 pounder over the 75mm gun.

Indeed, the 17 pounder would wreck a Tigers day, as could an M10 and they did so frequently. A lot of the popular myth is still kept swishing around by modern historians, when fact checking is far easier nowerdays and the documents are far more accessible (almost all are declassified now).

2. 5-6 tanks? Debatable, again its a popular myth - but when you look at the data from the front, far more Allied tanks were lost to Panzerfausts/Panzershrecks than enemy tank guns/at guns. Remember when people quote this, its often about Tigers which were grouped into Heavy Tank Battalions available at Corps level - highly valuable assets which needed to be carefully positioned.

On a  side note, I recently was digging through first hand German Divisional documents and was amazed to read that German infantrymen soon found that the Churchill Crocodile's flamethrower far outranged Panzerfausts and that the German infantry had no real answer to those beasts.

[Cpt. Pain]

Sayt and Shouty...

1. Tiger Fear - it is a bit more of a modern invention. Tigers were actually vulnerable to the 6 pounder (aka 57mm to Americans) gun, indeed thats how the Tiger at Bovvy was captured. The 6 pounder was far superior to the 75mm gun in terms of AP, hence arguments that we should have kept Churchills with the 6 pounder over the 75mm gun.

Indeed, the 17 pounder would wreck a Tigers day, as could an M10 and they did so frequently. A lot of the popular myth is still kept swishing around by modern historians, when fact checking is far easier nowerdays and the documents are far more accessible (almost all are declassified now).

2. 5-6 tanks? Debatable, again its a popular myth - but when you look at the data from the front, far more Allied tanks were lost to Panzerfausts/Panzershrecks than enemy tank guns/at guns. Remember when people quote this, its often about Tigers which were grouped into Heavy Tank Battalions available at Corps level - highly valuable assets which needed to be carefully positioned.

On a  side note, I recently was digging through first hand German Divisional documents and was amazed to read that German infantrymen soon found that the Churchill Crocodile's flamethrower far outranged Panzerfausts and that the German infantry had no real answer to those beasts.

1) tiger fear isn't about what could kill them. A phycholgical effect was present amongst allied tank crews when tigers were sighted. Irrelevant of any true power. It's also worth pointing out that not everyone had 6 pounders in enough numbers to effectively counter a Tiger unit in the mid war. Another factor is that the 88mm completely out ranged allied armour. The Tiger 1 could kill most mid war targets out to over a kilometre away. The allied tanks could not strike out to this range.

2) Combat records show that for every tiger lost in combat, 10 allied vehicles were lost to them. And Sherman units had to attack them in numbers to have any chance of closing the distance.

I don't see why stating that the stats refer to heavy tank battalions has any bearing, most other tanks were grouped into homogeneous units, since we are debating each tanks own performance and qualities.

[Vespasian Swiper]

Any link to those stats? As I've never come across that figure, as I said most of those would not be knocked out in tank on tank action.

PM incoming with an interesting link mate

[Cpt. Pain]

Unfortunately, as with most things, I cannot find a direct quote for the 10 figure, which I have heard quoted in numerous documentries and articles on the vehicles. However, I have been able to find a source that seems to make the figure 5.74 enemy tank kills per one tiger 1. I'll have a look at that link when I get a chance, should be interesting.

[Commissar ShoutY]

a miss interpretation i think. the US produced in one year more Sherman Hulls then the Nazis but those hulls were for, engineer tanks, tank hunters, etc etc.

the russians products more t34s in one year then the third reich TANK production but the german number's of armoured vehicals was greater

[hs5ias]

That depends if you count armoured halftracks and armoured cars into the German figures. The USSR produced very few armoured carriers during the war and not all that many armoured cars. The Soviets did produce a lot of light tanks and assault guns, but then so did the Germans.

Late war German vehicles were often very powerful, but severe flaws and limitations were introduced to many of them by Germany's strategic position. Armour plate was often of inferior quality steel towards the end. Severe fuel shortages could cripple entire panzer corps. During the Red Army Vistula-Oder offensive thousands of German armoured vehicles were immobilised and had to be abandoned for want of fuel. Germany probably lost more AFV's to fuel shortages than Soviet guns during this period.

The defensive battles Germany was fighting encouraged the production of cheap light assault guns and powerful but ponderous tanks. The Panther was technically the most sophisticated and perhaps best armed and armoured tank of the war, but it was simply too expensive for Germany. Germany could not afford to manufacture them in sufficient numbers to make it a decisive weapon. The German tank industry produced the highest performance tank of the war, but it was not the best tank of the war because it did not match German resource limitations.

Ironically the Sherman was too cheap. The US was wealthy enough to manufacture in quantity far more powerful tanks, but lacked the designs. Just having the Sherman was actually an impressive technical accomplishment given the state of the US tank arm before the war.

[Lomendil]

On a cost/killyness ratio, Sherman Firefly. It was unfortunate for the Allies that the 17-pounder wasn't available in larger numbers but they still had enough for the British and Canadians to up-gun one in four Shermans (1 per tank troop).

For tank-spamming power, the T-34 leads the pack. Our customers' top choice for flooding Eastern Fronts.

In individual quality, the Jagdtiger was a brute. If you want to factor in maneuverability and flexibility too then the Panther and IS-2 are superior.

[TagniK'ZuR]

I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as the rest of you guys in this discussion, but I do remember reading that the T-34's were considered to be 'the best' (which, as has been said here, is highly subjective) and the first sentence of the wikipedia article reads:
 

The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.[3]

the reference being: George Parada (n.d.), "Panzerkampfwagen T-34(r)" at Achtung Panzer! website, retrieved on November 17, 2008.

Also, the focus here seems to be "tanks 1v1" which would give the advantage to tank hunters above all other types, so maybe the title "Best Tank of WW2?" is not completely accurate, yes?

[Marauderk]

Have to agree with the above poster about best tank of WW2

 there are so many classes of tanks designed for different roles how can you have one best at everything