What is the best tank in WW2

well, the best tank, depends on the time it was build, so i would say that the best tank of ww2 was the t34/85 because, it was an overall good tank, and IT WAS MASS PRODUCED, fast, and was more reliable than most of the more complicated german tanks like the king tiger.

 

Actually, german armour was more reliable then t34, and Shermans were mass produced to an even greater number.

Roel, I thought that it took 5 shermans to finish a Tiger (so not a Panther as Wspauldo12 said). Anyway, I think that american strategy involved calling for their M10, Hellcat and M36 for taking out german armour, while Shermans would be more of difficult targerts for german tanks. I could be wrong on this, though!

Hellcat could be a nice TD, provided the right conditions.

 

No it was a ratio of Allied tanks vs German tanks after D-Day. 4-1

 

So was the Sherman... Depending on what definition you wish to use so were most of the main WWII tanks.

 

Actually, no.

What kind of generalization is that? :roll: A Tiger can be taken out by a single Sherman.

 

I do not know where this statistic comes from, really. Is it a report of every encounter between Shermans and Tigers? Is it a statistic of the losses inflicted by Tigers compared to the losses they took themselves? It took 5 Shermans to finish one Tiger - where, when, how, under what circumstances, under whose command? I do know that M.Kenny posted a good article here once stating that Allied vs German losses in France in 1944 were in fact more like 1.3 - 1. Like Panzerman said, any Sherman is capable of taking out a Tiger from the right angle and distance, and in fact late-war Shermans armed with 76mm guns could take out a Tiger from any angle and up to great distances.

The American anti-tank doctrine you describe was used for a short period, but battlefield experience made them reconsider it, as far as I know. The 75mm-armed Sherman was never intended to fight tanks, but the 76mm-armed later version definitely was.

 

i beleive it is because someone started usign that number so everyone just blindely jumped alone the band-wagon. (History and Discovery channles, etc...)

 

To which point? And why not?

 

So, this will include german tanks destroied by AT guns, SPAT guns, tanks, AA guns, infantry, naval guns and aircrafts, and any other conceivble weapons or tactics? Or just tank vs tank?

 

That statistic reflects the strategic situation: in the whole of the conflict which was being fought, that many tanks were lost by both sides. So yes, that includes tanks destroyed by any and all means, for both sides. It is these statistics that really matter, because they present us with the undeniable truth of total losses inflicted instead of dwelling endlessly on single and unique events in which single tanks took out large columns of enemy vehicles. These events were clearly balanced out by the whole of the combat situation.

 

This is quite interestig. 1.3 to 1 kills in favor of Germany. This tells me that:
1. more then 20000 shermans plus a number of SPAT guns took on maybe 9000 german tanks (of all kinds)
2. allies used less armour in attack then they had, meaning that they would constantly rotate tanks on front with those newly arived.
3. We do not take in consideration british armour.

In view of this, I think that american combat experience was 0, nothing compared to british, or germans. It could be that some american crews never actually saw combat. I guess it could be this the reason for 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger. That would be a full company versus a platoon.

 

What the...

I said the ratio was for Allied vs German armies. Hence all casualties inflicted by the British, Americans, Canadians and all other nationalities are heaped up here. I'm not even really sure of this number, it just sounds a LOT more realistic than the indestructible yet completely unfounded "it took 5 M4s to kill one Tiger".

I don't know where you suddenly got those numbers of tanks from but they seem to have been pulled entirely from your sleeve. I don't think the Germans used nearly as many tanks in the West as you claim, even during the whole war (which would include the 3000 or so used in 1940). Naturally the Allies would circulate their units rather than keep them engaged constantly, because this reduces battle fatigue, desertion figures and attrition. Unfortunately the Americans did not rotate their infantry units, and the results of that are quite appaling in some instances.

 

After D-day the germans had less than 400 tanks avaiable at a time, also I beleive we have mixed two different thiongs togethor.

1. 5 Tommy cookers per 1 tiger
2. sure 1.3 to 1 sounds more realistic but we are talking about all ARMOUR
3. It is impossible to account for every AFV, best that can occur is estimate or go throught all the combat records throught the war.

 

This still doesn't make it clear what this statistic means. Five Shermans for one Tiger, but how? When? Where? Why? To those who keep bringing up this particular stat: what does it really say?

I highly doubt the Allies would take the time to summon five Shermans forward whenever they encountered a Tiger, particularly since many weapons were more effective and perfectly available to them. Therefore this stat cannot possibly reflect the common situation that developed when a Tiger was spotted. Then what does it mean? Five Shermans were lost for every Tiger? I'm sure the ratio is much higher because the Tigers were a small minority in the German armoured forces and most kills were made by other vehicles and weapons, many of which were also lost.

 

I agree with Roel. The entire 5 - 1 or 10 - 1 or whichever pseudo-statistic is presented, there is no information to back it up. It is, however, a good example of showing how easy it is to manipulate some people.

 

First, this are not actually took from some books. I took them like this. 40000 shermans were built in roughly 4 years, thus at a rate of 10000 a year. From the whole number I took out 10000 for 1945, so there were 30000 left. From this, about 2000 were sent to USSR as land-lease or war aid, and a further 5000-6000 to british and comonwealth countrys. And there are still over 20000 left. Ok, I admit of not thinking about those lost in northafrica and italy, but let's take a further 10000 vehicles away and we get to roughly 10000 Shermans. The 9000 german tanks represent the total number of PZ Mk4 made until the end of WW2. In France, there were many obsolite tanks still in use, like Pz Mk3 and Pz Mk2, so not only Mk4 late models, Panthers and Tigers. I did not took into consideration Valentines, Churchills, or Achiles, or M10, Hellcat or M36, or any other tanks. Even without them, and if 400 is a corect number, there were more then 5 to 1 tanks in allied hands then in german hands. So there is information to back up the 5 to 1 ratio. I can't believe that allied had less then 2000 tanks in Normandy. as for the 5 shermansfor 1 tiger, it could be that it took 5 shermans to knock out a cornered Tiger. And I don't think that infantry will call for tanks, rather then for artilery and air strikes.

 

That's not information, that is conjecture. And it's pretty random, too, because it considers a period of 6 months as a single moment on which so and so many tanks were present in the West, which of course is ludicrous. Unless you have some real numbers to back up your reasoning I am not going to be any more likely to put faith in your claim that it took 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger.

It took 5 Shermans to take out a cornered Tiger? How many times was a single, unsupported Tiger "cornered" by a group of Shermans on te Western front during the whole war? I sure hope the answer is "never" because unsupported tanks are a tactical error, not to mention the fact I already pointed out which is that a "cornered" Tiger can very easily be taken out by a single 57mm gun, M10 Wolverine or M4(76) (with the right ammo), M36 Jackson, Archer, Firefly, Challenger, 17pdr gun, bazooka team, or literally any artillery piece. All of the above will be able to kill a Tiger; a Sherman with a 75mm gun is highly unlikely to.

 

The question still remains for me. Who killed Wittman? The pictures show but his tank. Was that tank an cornered one, unsupported? Or it was part of a tactical formation? Still, it was not uncomon for WW2 to make tactical mistakes. (Tigers in city envroments anyone?)

Even if I would apreciate that whole alied armour on western front had 5000 vehicles, it still outnumbers germany's. And yes, it took 5 Shermans to take out a tiger, since they had to maneuver and get a shot from behind it. Frontaly it was impervious, even to 76mm guns. Sorry for tabels, guys, but it was not to be. Ask veterans how a Tiger should be attacked!

 

That is not a relevant answer. The subject of Wittman's death and the frequency of cornered Tigers are pretty much unrelated, as the former is an isolated case, while the latter tries to paint an isolated picture.

The 76 mm L/55 could penetrate up to 109 mm of armor at 457 meters*. That will only increase as ranges get closer.

The Tiger I has between 25 and 100 mm of armor**. I have seen veterans state that they have killed Tigers with .50 MG bullets, that Tigers had trailers behind them with fuel (unconfirmed, might be true), etc - this does not make them true, or give a good picture of the general situation.

Other factors must also be taken into account, such as Tigerphobia.

Sources:

* http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html
** http://panzerworld.net/tigeri.html

 

If by tigerphobia you mean confunding a Tiger with a Mk4 by unexperienced troops is true. Tigers have been killed with 50cal mg from above and behind (aircrafts). But you consider 76mm guns to be able to go through 109mm armour. But that is with a carefully made test shot, against a carefully placed plate of steel with certain properties, and in certain conditions. How about mass manufactured ap rounds that instead of bouncing of a tiger or being stopped by it's armour, would shater on impact. From what I read, this is a problem to 76mm guns.

Picture isolated? Certainly not. If a tank is used as extrafirepower in city, in suport of infantry, ok. But used on its own, is a tactical mistake. My grand father told me that a column of Panther tanks were destroied a few km away from my place, in WW2, by a batery of 75mm guns (official version). then he told me that it never happened, since the german tanks were impervious to this guns, and they just rolled away.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm