Best Tank of WW2

[tomo pauk]

Tiger E, or just Tiger, was the best.

Not a competitor in this poll though.

 

[Vincenzo]

Tiger E, or just Tiger, was the best.

Not a competitor in this poll though.

i'm agree. take in consideration the time the Tiger was the best heavy, and the best tank

 

[Deanimator]

The T-34. Only the T-34 and Sherman were mechanically reliable, and the Sherman was woefully under-gunned.

 

[FalkeEins]

Tiger ?

..big, slow, thirsty, underpowered, heavy, mechanically unreliable .....don't think so !

 

[Condora]

I have a weak spot for the Tiger Pz VI (should be in the list!), but although both the Tiger and Panther were very good tanks, they had reliability problems, and some design flaws (the wheels were very subject to clogging, for instance), which started with the Panther and were never solved in the Tiger.

The Sherman was not the best tank in the war, far from it, but it was available in huge numbers, was upgraded several times - something that british tanks could not do, as they were designed around a gun, if a bigger one was needed... no dice! -, and it did the job reasonably well.

The Tiger II was a monster, very ambitious, but I think it's complexity, size, and weight, also contributed to it's little effect in the war. It's true that Germany was in deep trouble when it appeared, but even if it hadn't been (say that it had appeared in 1940, e.g.), germans would soon been looking for a cheaper, simpler, more reliable and affordable replacement, keeping it only for elite units (and a few at that).

If I had to choose, I'd pick the T-34: balanced, well-armoured, with a lot of punch, and as far as you tell me (had no notion of that until now), quite cheap.
It's ugly, probably smelled awfully, I bet the noise it made was appalling... but it's aim was not to please.
Did I mention it didn't get stuck in the mud easily? It's resilience to bad weather can not be forgotten.

 

[MrCreak]

The Sherman was not the best tank in the war, far from it, but it was available in huge numbers, was upgraded several times

Not gun-wise particularly.
(Yes it had the 75, 17 pdr* and a 105**).

something that british tanks could not do, as they were designed around a gun

Ah not quite.
Comet was the first British tank to be actually designed around a gun - check David Fletcher's 3 volume history of British armour.

if a bigger one was needed... no dice! -, and it did the job reasonably well.

Valentine - started with a 2 pdr, upgraded to 6 pdr then 75 mm.
Churchill the same.
It did help that the 75 was essentially a re-bored/ re-chambered 6 pdr though.

* Although the "official" view was that it couldn't be done originally.
** low-velocity howitzer - no different than making a CS (Close Support) version like we Brits did from A10 (pre-WWII) onwards.

 

[Doughboy]

Nobody has voted for the Sherman? I don't blame them!

 

[Vincenzo]

compare the Tiger with same time M-4, T-34, KV-1, Churchill, Cromwell (?), take out the hopeless others axis countries tanks

ADD
the gun was superior at all other
the armour has not same advantage of gun, Churchill and KV-1 have also large frontal armour but i have not checked side of Tiger was best.
the mobility (was manuvreability) it's pointless of Tiger but the other heavy armoured were not best

 

[Condora]

Ah not quite.
Comet was the first British tank to be actually designed around a gun - check David Fletcher's 3 volume history of British armour.

Valentine - started with a 2 pdr, upgraded to 6 pdr then 75 mm.
Churchill the same.
It did help that the 75 was essentially a re-bored/ re-chambered 6 pdr though.

* Although the "official" view was that it couldn't be done originally.
** low-velocity howitzer - no different than making a CS (Close Support) version like we Brits did from A10 (pre-WWII) onwards.

My fault: I was a bit radical on how I said things, but I think we can agree on the basic - it was harder to upgrade the british average tank, than making a brand new one.

 

[barney]

I have to mention the IS-2 here. While maybe not having the impact of any of the tanks in the poll, it's design comes the closest to being what a MBT is today – low profile and big gun (the gun was 122mm and 16 ft long). So, like the German Electric Boat, it had a large effect after the war.

 

[Vincenzo]

Armour data

Tiger
Hull front: 100
Hull sides: 60/80
Hull back: 82
Turret mantlet: 110
Turret front: 100
Turret sides: 80
Roof: 25
Bottom: 25

Churchill VI
Hull front: 89+13
Hull sides: (64+12/51+12)+20 (fw)
Hull back: 25/51
Turret mantlet: np?
Turret front: 89
Turret sides: 76+20
Roof: 19
Bottom: 16/19

KV-1 model 1942 (the heaviest, unlucky i found info only in english source on this variant maybe some missinterpretation?)
Hull front: 110/ 75+31
Hull sides: 90/130
Hull back: 60/75
Turret mantlet: 120
Turret front: 100
Turret sides: 120
Roof: 30/40
Bottom: 30

from Tzaw1 post
Hull front: 40/ 75+25
Hull sides: 75/75+25
Hull back: 75
Turret mantlet: 90
Turret front: 75
Turret sides: 75 or 82
Roof: 30/40
Bottom: 30

 

[Condora]

Sorry, Vincenzo.

You have... two tanks descriptions there, or more?
I'm not quite sure on how and where to separate them...

 

[Vincenzo]

ok try to put in different format

 

[proton45]

I went with the T34 for most of the reasons listed here, but I also agree that the absence of the Tiger I is a bit of a mistake...it was far more important then the Panther....

 

[Vincenzo]

too me within listed go to T-34, was so superior tank until Pz IV with 75/43

 

[Condora]

Thanks Vincenzo, much clearer now...
Age takes away one's faculties, these days I can't even see the last two figures of the last line of the "torture old men" thread.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo,
what is your source for the armour of Churchill VI. Otherwise it is as what I have seen but according to my sources turret sides were 76,2mm ie 3".

Churchill Mks VII and VIII were even better protected, hull and turret fronts were 6"/152mm and turret sides 95mm. Hull sides upper 95mm, lower 83mm.


Hello Deanimator
now 76mm gun, which was common gun in Shermans in 1945, maybe the most common at that time in ETO, was more or less equal to the 85mm gun of T-34-85 in armour piercing but it had weaker HE round than either 85mm or US 75mm.


Generally speaking, I also like Tiger I. But it is also question on the job. For a dash from Rheine to Elbe I'd choose Comet.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo,
what is your source for the armour of Churchill VI. Otherwise it is as what I have seen but according to my sources turret sides were 76,2mm ie 3".

Churchill Mks VII and VIII were even better protected, hull and turret fronts were 6"/152mm and turret sides 95mm. Hull sides upper 95mm, lower 83mm.


Hello Deanimator
now 76mm gun, which was common gun in Shermans in 1945, maybe the most common at that time in ETO, was more or less equal to the 85mm gun of T-34-85 in armour piercing but it had weaker HE round than either 85mm or US 75mm.


Generally speaking, I also like Tiger I. But it is also question on the job. For a dash from Rheine to Elbe I'd choose Comet.

Juha

true i read wrong line,
www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?opt...ry-tank-a22&catid=38:infantry-tanks&Itemid=56

yes but coming on batte late (d-day) when Tiger was near to be put out of production

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
Yes, "heavy" Churchills (Mk VII and VIII) were late comers, combat debut in Normandy. They had very heavy armour but still had the 75mm gun. It had a good HE round but was inadequate for A/T work.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Somebody can check that KV-1 model 1942 was a true tank, and not a missinterpretation of KV-1e?