Best Tank of WW2 (1 Viewer)

Best Tank of WW2

  • King Tiger

    Votes: 16 15.0%

  • Panther

    Votes: 48 44.9%

  • Sherman

    Votes: 11 10.3%

  • T-34

    Votes: 32 29.9%
  • Total voters
    107
The panther beats the T-34 on gun and armor easily but loses on mobility and ease of maintenance. In a gun fight with the panther's optics and 75mm cannon it was easily decided especially at long range. The Panther was an overall better tank but produced in quantities far too small to be war winning. I'll take it over the other three any day. Remember though that the crew and its training is the decisive factor.
 
parsifal said:
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
Click to expand...


i found the data already posted in other thread the Sheman cost around 50k $,PZ IV G around 115k RM
at war time change PZ IV G has a monetary cost only a fraction of Sherman, if you use the pre war change (2.5 RM for a $ and this is not the right way) Pz IV G cost a bit less of Sherman. The Panter was not so more expansive around 130k RM. But the monetary cost i not the just way for that comparison.

p.s. in late '41 the change RM vs $ was already up to ~20
 
dragonandhistail said:
The panther beats the T-34 on gun and armor easily but loses on mobility and ease of maintenance. In a gun fight with the panther's optics and 75mm cannon it was easily decided especially at long range. The Panther was an overall better tank but produced in quantities far too small to be war winning. I'll take it over the other three any day. Remember though that the crew and its training is the decisive factor.
Click to expand...
What are "the other three "?
 
I'd say that on top of eerything else the Panther is also easily as mobile as the T-34. The Panther is probably the most mobile 30+ ton tank of the entire war.
 
1.Panther tank, (frontal) 75mm sloped armor, 75mm, long barreled, high velocity gun, good speed.

2. T-34/76, (frontal) 50-60mm sloped armor, 76.2mm, short barreled, medium velocity gun, good speed, crudely made, poor crew compartment.

3.King Tiger, (frontal) 120-140mm sloped armor(although not properly developed), 88mm, long barreled, extreemly high velocity gun, poor speed, high mechanical unrealiablilty(due to lack of proper development).

4. Sherman, (fronal) 60-75mm somewhat sloped armor, 75mm, short barreled, medium velocity gun, good speed, runs on avgas, extreemly likely to catch on fire if hit in rear with AT riflles.

Your missing some key tanks here, you forgot to include Tiger I, which was superior to the King Tiger because the King Tiger was not developed properly, nor was it made with the best quality metals.
I'd also include the Panzer IV and the Sherman Firefly. Normal Shermans are garbage, I'd rather have a armored car.

Of course its difficult to judge because there were multiple variants of each tank.

Also I read some posts where people mentioned the Pershing, which IMHO is more of a TD than a tank. Tanks don't have open turrets, and the StuG is an SPG/TD.
 
You've got a lot of stuff screwed up Destroyer, the Tiger Ausf.E was for one never a better tank than the Tiger Ausf.B, it was very much the other way round.

Top speed of the Tiger Ausf.B was 38 km/h, which is decent for a tank from this time period. Its armament armour protection was unrivalled throughtout the war, as was its optics. Mobility was also great, the tank being capable of negotiating obstacles and steeper gradients than most Allied tanks, which includes the Sherman. Its main problems were its fuel consumption and weight, and a final drive not suited for a 70 ton tank.
 
The Sherman is garbage? I can honestly say I have never heard anybody state that before. I think trading them for an armored car with weaker armour and a smaller gun would be a great way to loose a war.
 
Vincenzo said:
i found the data already posted in other thread the Sheman cost around 50k $,PZ IV G around 115k RM
at war time change PZ IV G has a monetary cost only a fraction of Sherman, if you use the pre war change (2.5 RM for a $ and this is not the right way) Pz IV G cost a bit less of Sherman. The Panter was not so more expansive around 130k RM. But the monetary cost i not the just way for that comparison.

p.s. in late '41 the change RM vs $ was already up to ~20
Click to expand...

The cost of a Sherman was in fact closer to $37500 according to a site about the Chrysler corporation. That was the cost delivered, and ready to go. The cost quoted for the MkIV I think you will find is the cost off the line, and with certain important items of equipment missing. The real cost of the Mk IV, completed to an equivalent state as the Sherman was nearer to RM150K

With regard to exchange rates, one of the principal looting techniques adopted by the Germans during the war was to artificially and massively undervalue their currency. Wages and the like within Germany were tightly controlled thus keeping costs down, and imports were assured due to the occupation of nearly all of Europe. However, it also meant that economic activity in the occupied territories came to a virtual standstill, and in the context of this discussion, artificially lowered the unit costs of manufactured itmes.

This is why it is difficult to compare German costs to other countries operating on a freer market system. All countries exercised price an market controls, but none to the same extent as the Germans

A closer estimate of the true exchange rate of RM to USD is appoximately 2.5 to 3.0 to 1. That would make the Mk IV have a unit cost of at least $50K and probably closer to $75K, and that still does not include certain key items like delivery and radios (and possibly even main armament....I forget to be honest)
 
Parsifal,

Not saying that your 2.5 to 3.0 exchange rate figure is wrong, but I'm curious as to how exactly you wound up at this number.

That having been said it wouldn't surprise me if the PzIV was around 15,000 dollars more expensive to produce than a Sherman.
 
Soren said:
You've got a lot of stuff screwed up Destroyer, the Tiger Ausf.E was for one never a better tank than the Tiger Ausf.B, it was very much the other way round.

Top speed of the Tiger Ausf.B was 38 km/h, which is decent for a tank from this time period. Its armament armour protection was unrivalled throughtout the war, as was its optics. Mobility was also great, the tank being capable of negotiating obstacles and steeper gradients than most Allied tanks, which includes the Sherman. Its main problems were its fuel consumption and weight, and a final drive not suited for a 70 ton tank.
Click to expand...

I think your giving the Tiger II a little too much credit, yes the armor was exellent but it could have been better had more time been devoted to the development. Its main problem was of course mechanical breakdown, those speed figures are also misleading. Yes I know it could go 38km/h but after driving at that speed for a while a lot of things could go wrong. The engine of course could overheat, all because of its weight. It might be able to go 38km/h but for how long before you damage the transmission, the treads etc.

Soren said:
Parsifal,

Not saying that your 2.5 to 3.0 exchange rate figure is wrong, but I'm curious as to how exactly you wound up at this number.

That having been said it wouldn't surprise me if the PzIV was around 15,000 dollars more expensive to produce than a Sherman.
Click to expand...

Dont forget that there are Panzer IV Ausf A-H. Each one costing different amounts.Ausf H obviously being the most expensive compared to the original, Ausf A
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Destroyer,

I really aint giving anymore credit other than what is due. The Tiger Ausf.B's top speed was 38 km/h, and it could drive at this speed without overheating. As for the armour, it wasn't of as good a quality as that put on the Tiger Ausf.E, but it was by no means as shoddy as some dubious Soviet tests might suggest. The layout was excellent, the sheer amount of armour on the tank completely offset any small issues there might have been with the composition of the armour itself.

The Tiger Ausf.B was simply put the most advanced tank produced during the entire war, sporting the best armament armour package available whilst offering good mobility.

The Tiger Ausf.B's main problem was a final drive not meant for a 70 ton tank, which although worked fine as long as an experienced driver was behind the wheel, could quickly be broken by a rookie. That and the high weight making bridge crossing problematic and fuel consumption high.
 
Soren said:
Destroyer,

I really aint giving anymore credit other than what is due. The Tiger Ausf.B's top speed was 38 km/h, and it could drive at this speed without overheating. As for the armour, it wasn't of as good a quality as that put on the Tiger Ausf.E, but it was by no means as shoddy as some dubious Soviet tests might suggest. The layout was excellent, the sheer amount of armour on the tank completely offset any small issues there might have been with the composition of the armour itself.

The Tiger Ausf.B was simply put the most advanced tank produced during the entire war, sporting the best armament armour package available whilst offering good mobility.

The Tiger Ausf.B's main problem was a final drive not meant for a 70 ton tank, which although worked fine as long as an experienced driver was behind the wheel, could quickly be broken by a rookie. That and the high weight making bridge crossing problematic and fuel consumption high.
Click to expand...

You forgot the super slow turret traverse. Overall I just think the Panther is better all around. Panther is an excellent balance of firepower, armor, and mobility. Clearly you don't understand that by the time the Tiger II came into production the Germans were facing severe fuel shortages. Which is why the Panther is the best all around tank, Tiger IIs guzzeled too much fuel and do to allied airpower, the number of large bridges available was numbered. Panthers could get across makeshift bridges much easier than Tigers could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
Airforce motorcycle paint schemes of WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
Z
Tank suspensions; fight!
2 3
Replies
50
Views
15K
yosimitesam
yosimitesam
VALENGO
Question about tank
Replies
16
Views
4K
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
25 26 27
Replies
529
Views
86K
Elan Vital
E
Marcel
Were airborne operations in WW2 worth it?
Replies
14
Views
2K
frankv
F
Back