Best Tank of WW2

[rgallant]

Kind of a flawed poll as the various powers built tanks for different purposes. For example the Sherman was used as an infantry support tank in keeping with US Doctrine at the time.

The T34 for all it capability had a 2 man turret, did not generally have a radio, and had poor ammo management.

The Panther was a better design but suffered from mechanical reliability as noted, the PZKW IV also by later in the war was having reliability problems due the the constant increase in weight.

The KV-1 was a decent design but had some transmission problems in the earlier versions, it was I believe (could be wrong here) considered a heavy tank.

Both the Comet and Pershing were good designs that saw limited service, in the last couple of months of the war.

At some point you have to put limits in there, for the entire war, for May 1945, was in service for at least 6 months.

So really is the question what was the best overall tank that saw significant service say at least 1 year. combining all the factors of a good design:

Armour
Gun
Mobility
Optics
Communications
Crew layout
Reliability - this one is a little subjective but is still valid.

I would tend to go with the Panther. In spite of it's mechanical problems it was a good all round tank. Good gun, good turn of speed, good protection, proper crewing (Driver, gunner, loader, commander, co-driver). Good communication and optics. With a decent driver the mechanical issues could be minimized, although by wars end they were likely hard to find.

The KV-1 could be a contender but it had issues with the turret layout as did the T-34, which dogged the early Russian tanks The gun was improved to the 85, good turn of speed, good protection, poor crewing (Driver, gunner, loader/ commander, co-driver, rear gunner (dropped in later models) and poor vision when buttoned up compared to other tanks.

The T-34 had much the same problem as the KV-1 in that it had a poor turret layout. However keeping with my specification of 1 year of service the T-34/85 is most certainly a contender. With a 3 man turret and improved gun it meets all the criteria of the Panther with better reliability.

However, and Russian tank experts please correct me if I am wrong, the optics were generally inferior to both the Germans and the West allies. Communication gear was also more limited, partly due to a lack of native manufacturing and the sheer volume of tanks made.

The Sherman deserves mention simply because it had a good turret layout, good comms, decent speed, a decent gun in the 76mm versions. Good reliability in general, but the armour lacked even in the 76 variants.

 

[stuka1940]

Best Tank T34/85, or sherman don't laugh the allieds had lots of them. And they did every thing that was needed of them.

the Panther, tigers, took way to much time and material to build. So there was never enough of them

 

[voldemort]

I vote for Panther because of the advantages given by its armour combined with powerful gun !

 

[Amsel]

I would vote for the Tiger I if it was available to vote on. It made a noticable impact most places it fought and was highly feared. Excellent armor, turret, optics, and main gun.

 

[parsifal]

and so expensive that it was always heavily outnumbered. Approximately 15 T-34s for every Tiger....which has the greater combat value, the 15 T-34s, or the 1 Tiger.....Tigers on average destroyed about 4-5 enemy tanks for every one they would lose, but this still could not compensate for the exorbitant unit costs per tank. And the Russians were spewing out tank crews at somewhere between 5 and 10 times the rate that the Germans were doing it, on an industrial base that was only 70% that of Germany.

Tigers were a marvel on the battlefield, that contributed materially to the defeat of Germany because of their inflated unit costs. Speer was absolutely right, copy or adapt something like the Sherman....standardised, easy to produce and cheap

 

[A4K]

Not an expert on all aspects / capabilities of the types concerned here, but for all-round versatility, practical design, and strength in a fairly small package, I say GO THE T-34! She could even run on coal fumes!

Personally though, my favourite tank of all is the M3 Stuart.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with parsifal. I believe that overall the Tiger was a much more advanced, more modern and better tank that anything else that was fielded in numbers during WW2. As he has said though, I would rather have 15 T-34s or 15 Shermans than 1 Tiger. The T-34/Sherman is going to win the war of attrition. Cost and numbers of Tigers actually hurt the Germans.

 

[tomo pauk]

Germans had no way to build 15 medium tanks instead of 1 Tiger.
The price and man-hour relations were about 1 : 1.3 : 2.5 for Pz-IV : Panther : Tiger.
2 Tigers required 10 man to crew, 2 radios, 2 sets of sights, while 5 Pz-IVs required 25 man crew, 5 radios and 5 sets of sights.

Further, Pz-IV could be defeated by 37-45mm AT guns, while Tiger rendered those obsolete. It was a trouble for the most produced gun (Zis-3 76,2mm, over 100 000 produced in 3 years), while those would lay waste on any lighter tank Germans could field. It was trouble for most prolific allied tanks - M4, T-34, Valentine, Churchill. The later took almost point blank shot from 7,5cm L43/48 to be defeated.

What Germans really needed was a 35 ton tank to make up the numbers and supersede the Pz-III/IV on the production lines. A low-shilouette Panther, or sorta Pz-III on steroids (with long 7,5cm or 8,8cm L56). Yet, they went for something both big and defeateable (=Panther).

 

[Juha]

I agree with Tomo
in other words, Germans would have needed something like Comet with sloped armour and with broader tracks, and Brits would have rather desperately needed Comet already in Normandy.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

I admit that the unit costs for T-34s is disputed....it might not be 15 for every one....but the point is you can produce a lot of T-34s or Shermans for every one tiger......they were just too expensive to be sustainable a a weapon of war for a country in the position germany was in in 1943-5.

I am a great fan of the lowly Stug III with its 75mm gun. I think these offered better AFV capability, dollar for dollar than the super tanks that were fielded.

 

[tomo pauk]

I agree about StuG-III, it was a successful way of combining excellent chassis with an excellent gun at a humble cost.

While I agree Tiger was expensive, the whole German army need to be assessed before we discard it as a viable weapon:
-Crew numbers training are the main bottlenecks: the 10 people for 2 heavy tanks would be easier/cheaper to train then 25 to man 5 mediums. And putting the battle-hardened men (= the greatest asset of any military) into Pz-IV tincans is hardly a good thing if one has an altenative.
-Numbers of tank parts that were to be counted, not weighted (radios, sights, MGs).
-Was it more cheap to produce 5 mid-power powerpacks (engine + transmission) then 2 hi-power ones?
-Same analogy could be called upon 7,5cm (L 43/48 - not very good vs. any heavy AFV) vs. 8,8cm, or vs. 7,5cm L70.
-Would 5 mediums consume less fuel then 2 heavies? I doubt that.


I repeat that Germans were lacking on the other part of their high-low mix, the medium tank. I.e. Pz-III/IV needed a replacement that would be both low-price and decent performing.

 

[Soren]

IMHO the Germans should've phased out the Pz.IV and Tiger Ausf.E in late 43 and concentrated solely on the Panther as their main battletank. Furthermore the MAUS project should've been abandoned in favour of the further development of the Tiger Ausf.B. I believe this would've made sure that there were enough tanks available for the crews available and vice versa, the mix which the Germans were looking for by 1944.

That having been said the Germans were somewhat on the right track with their standardization efforts late in the war, with vehicles such as the E-25, E-50, E-75 E-100. (Although the E-100 was a monster of a tank and probably not worth the trouble)

 

[parsifal]

I agree Soren, though the Panther was still a complicated machine to build. The Germans could have had twice as many Panthers as tigerIs

 

[tomo pauk]

Phasing out the Pz-IV in favor of Panther only contradicts Speer's view from oct 1944 (although he spoke about Italy in this particular occasion):

...The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable...
...All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun....

From: Jentz, "Panzertruppen 1943-45"

 

[Soren]

Speer said some odd stuff at times, he wasn't a military specialist.

The comment about the Sherman climbing mountains that their Panzers couldn't is but one example, as German panzers generally possessed better obstacle clearing abilities than the Sherman did. But I guess he was just trying his best to convince Hitler to opt for more lighter and inexpensive tanks than heavy expensive beasts such as the Tiger by this time in the war.

 

[parsifal]

Its hard to argue the technological superiority of the Sherman against equivalent German tanks, except in just one area.....cost. A Sherman was about half as expensive to build as a MkIV, yet I would argue that the Sherman was more than 50% effective as a Mk IV.

Speer was no expert, but the forces were clamouring for numbers, at a time when the production choices being made were leading the German procurement machine south in that regard.

The desire for bigger and heavier was partly a result of a reaction to the shock of the T-34 and Matilda and partly a simple pandering to Hitlers desire for the biggest and meanest tank on the block. Panther was a more considered and well thought out response to those challenges. Whilst it was still a large and complex design, it was a lot cheaper than the Tiger, and more capable than the Mk IV.

If the Germans wanted to concentrate solely on numbers they should have opted for the SG III. This tank was only slightly more expensive than a Sherman, would not disrupt current (1942) production lines, and was very capable, particulalry in defence. It was the way Rommel wanted to requip the shattered Panzer formations in a hurry. I think Rommel was spot on the money

 

[Juha]

IMHO while StuG had its strong points tank is more flexible. Germans noted in Normandy taht StuGs suffered more from the close country than panzers and Swedes noticed after tests that after all turreted tank was better solution than their S-tank, which was like a super StuG. So IMHO something in size of Comet/T-34-85 was what Germany would have needed after Pz III/IV.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Its hard to argue the technological superiority of the Sherman against equivalent German tanks, except in just one area.....cost. A Sherman was about half as expensive to build as a MkIV, yet I would argue that the Sherman was more than 50% effective as a Mk IV.

Speer was no expert, but the forces were clamouring for numbers, at a time when the production choices being made were leading the German procurement machine south in that regard.

The desire for bigger and heavier was partly a result of a reaction to the shock of the T-34 and Matilda and partly a simple pandering to Hitlers desire for the biggest and meanest tank on the block. Panther was a more considered and well thought out response to those challenges. Whilst it was still a large and complex design, it was a lot cheaper than the Tiger, and more capable than the Mk IV.

If the Germans wanted to concentrate solely on numbers they should have opted for the SG III. This tank was only slightly more expensive than a Sherman, would not disrupt current (1942) production lines, and was very capable, particulalry in defence. It was the way Rommel wanted to requip the shattered Panzer formations in a hurry. I think Rommel was spot on the money

i'm not so sure that sherman was so cheap, neither was os more effective of a panzer IV

 

[Soren]

Its hard to argue the technological superiority of the Sherman against equivalent German tanks, except in just one area.....cost. A Sherman was about half as expensive to build as a MkIV, yet I would argue that the Sherman was more than 50% effective as a Mk IV.

Speer was no expert, but the forces were clamouring for numbers, at a time when the production choices being made were leading the German procurement machine south in that regard.

The desire for bigger and heavier was partly a result of a reaction to the shock of the T-34 and Matilda and partly a simple pandering to Hitlers desire for the biggest and meanest tank on the block. Panther was a more considered and well thought out response to those challenges. Whilst it was still a large and complex design, it was a lot cheaper than the Tiger, and more capable than the Mk IV.

If the Germans wanted to concentrate solely on numbers they should have opted for the SG III. This tank was only slightly more expensive than a Sherman, would not disrupt current (1942) production lines, and was very capable, particulalry in defence. It was the way Rommel wanted to requip the shattered Panzer formations in a hurry. I think Rommel was spot on the money

I agree, but the Germans couldn't just opt for the numbers game, they had to strike a balance between quality quantity, either that or they were always gonna lose. The Panther was the solution, Hitler just had to understand that earlier than he did, plus forget all about monsters such as the MAUS.

The Panther was more expensive than a Sherman to build for sure, but it made up for that in droves when it came to combat performance (atleast once the initial teething problems were over). It could neither in any way be built as fast or in as many numbers as the Sherman, but that would've also been useless to the Germans as they wouldn't have had enough personnel to man the vehicles anyhow.

 

[tomo pauk]

I agree, but the Germans couldn't just opt for the numbers game, they had to strike a balance between quality quantity, either that or they were always gonna lose. The Panther was the solution, Hitler just had to understand that earlier than he did, plus forget all about monsters such as the MAUS.

The Panther was more expensive than a Sherman to build for sure, but it made up for that in droves when it came to combat performance (atleast once the initial teething problems were over). It could neither in any way be built as fast or in as many numbers as the Sherman, but that would've also been useless to the Germans as they wouldn't have had enough personnel to man the vehicles anyhow.

Agree.
We know what happened to Luftwaffe in 1944: many planes (and not better then allied of the time), but low-quality pilots made the situation above Germany a lost game for Germans.