Best Tank of WW2??????

New guys are too trigger happy

 

Too Right, Mate

 

I know.

Just replying to my cheeky chess buddy Sloniksp.

 

I just thought you had not finished the first round of beer until now.

 

Hey better late then never!

 

I think the Maus was the best tank hands down.

 

Hawkerace, surely you jest!

To Hawkey90's Polish Tankette

I oppose the British Lt.Tk. Mk.I

 

the panther hands down, the tiger I with none slooping armour require enormous thickness. The panther was cheaper to build, easier on fuel, it's 75mm gun was more lethal then the vaunted and much published/talked "88"

bf109 Emil

 

Naw. Its the L3/35 !!!

 

You are kiding right about that, right?

Opps got to go will continue this later.....

 

Ha, you guys are still in the stone age! Revel in the T-27's futuristic styling!

 

Alright I am back.

Ok so again why is the panthers 75L70 better then the Tigers 88L56? Considering that pretty much the panther is just a smaller version of the Tiger. Both having the interlocking wheels, wide tracks and the mechanical problems that haunted both tanks.

Now the Tiger although having little sloped armour, does possess sloped armour, just look at the shape of the turrent, it is rounded, thus shells being deflected should they hit the turrent sides and rear. Now how many single panthers held up the Allied advances compared to the tiger? It is not jsut because the tiger was published but because it was a much feared tank over the tiger.

Don't get me wrong I think the final version of the panther was a good tank, even if it was a virtual copy of the Russian T-34, so with that, which tank is really better? the T-34 or the Panther?

 

Ok, ok, you win :lol:

 

Panther and Tiger are evolutionary very different vehicles. Externally similar design facets do not make the same, or even similar, vehicle. While Tiger was laid out mechanically from pre-1936 principles, Panther was very much the next generation.

The gun on the Panther was about as effective as the 88 and more efficient in many ways. While I often enjoy finding the chinks in German armour design nothing will convince me the 75/L70 wasn't just about the finest gun fitted to any widespread vehicle in the entire war.

As to calling the Panther a 'copy' of T34, that's shaky ground. The Daimler Benz submitted design could maybe have that sobriquet applied to it, despite certain 'germanic' features, but the ultimately approved MAN design we know so well can only really be described as 'inspired by' rather than a 'copy of'.

Cheers,
Adam.


Take that Vickers light prototype & T27!

 

The Sherman had better manuverability but the Tiger had the bigger armor depends on your fighting style. I prefer the TIger because I camp out in the distance and just nail them from afar. Especially in open fields.

 

Till a Hawker Typhoon "camps" you out

Don't forget those great French tanks! (2 men crews etc)

 

Apples and oranges. The Sherman was a Medium Tank while the Tiger was a Heavy tank.

 

Very well I retract the 'Copyied' part and agree with the inspired part, because the panther was a counter of the T-34, with similar features to the tiger. I did not know that they were different on the inside though.

 

Let's see... both had two tracks, torsion bar suspension, front sprocket, one gasoline engine, armour, one gun, a coax and hull machine-gun, a 5-man crew, a radio, and... that's about it, there all commonality ends, two entirely different tanks.

 

That's a bit disingenuous though. There's no doubt the Panther was designed with the experiences learned on the Eastern Front in mind. The main experience being that the T-34 was an excellent tank, if a bit rough and ready. The only reason they didn't copy it wholesale was that it was politically awkward.

Taking into account all the circumstances, the T-34 is clearly the best tank of WWII. Not taking all the circumstances gives you the Centurion.