Best Tank of WW2??????

1. Soviet casualties were much heavier not because there tanks were bad, but because they crews were not well trained and not co-ordinated with other tanks and support elements. In a late war engagement a jagdtiger engaged a convoy of shermans a 2,000 meters. Wile the jagdtiger managed to destroy a few of the shermans, a group of p-51 tankbusters arrived minuted later and destroyed the jagdtiger. In the soviet army, there inferior radios and lack of communication between tansk and support elements would make this impossible

2. Late model king tigers brewed up less than other tanks because there massive armor meant that even the sponsons were almost impossible to penetrate, and most of them were penetrated in the engine block, turret ring, or lower hull were penetrated, its only real weak spots. While still many of them brewed up, it was a much lower percentage compared to other tanks (less than 40% i recall). Here is a picture to demonstrate:



as you can see the shells are stored in the sponsons, but the sponsons are protected by 80mm of armor, so that most allied tanks would have to close to point blank range to penetrate.

I agree and disagree. While the german rounds were clearly a factor in the brewing up of shermans, the poor ammunition storage and thin armor were definitely contributing factors. Also, the armor of shermans was so thin that when the powerful german guns fired a shell with an HE fill, the shell would pass right through without detonating.

 

No kidding! The point is that increased production is attendant to higher losses.

I am not so sure about that. Soviet report says that Tiger B's side armor is easily penetrated by American 76mm and Russian 85mm guns at exceedingly long ranges. The paper caculations suggest the same, and in real life, late war German steel might not be up to par with the kind used in old Tiger E. Here is the referece.

Those sponsons are quite vulnerable.

 

Well first of all it would be worth looking at whether or not it was actually happening. Given that our press had greater access to both the British and US armies both during and after the war might it have more to do with that than with actual events?

 

Panther it was decently fast with a excellent high-violacity 7.5cm kwk 42 l/70 gun that could take on any allied tank and matter in fact it had better penetraction abillitys than the famous 8.8cm.The allies never came up with a solution for it's 0.59-4.7 inches of sloped armor the 85mm gun of the t35/85 didn't work nore the 76mm gun. Although firing the right ammo Mybe it could but it was not in wide spread use and very rare I think it was the HVAP or HEAT Or HESH rounds. The 90mm gun came to late in the war on the m36 and Pershing the damage was already don't by the time they came the majority of all panthers were with drawn from the western front. The 122mm gun on the is-2 was usless against tanks tho the russains were fond of using heavy assult guns on German heavy armor like the isu-152. The top speed was decent 29mph speed wasent even needed because the Germans were fighting a defensive war.It was very reliable compared to other German late war tanks witch hitler called "next generation battle tanks". It's operational range was inferior to the Russain t-35 tanks(160mi) compared to 250 of t-34 but bigger than shermans (120mi). But that did not matter because the Germans were on the defensive. Over 5,000 were built that's not alot but by my standards and how the German industry wasent the big like the Americans and russains that's pretty impressive. Please exdcuse any wrong data or grammer and if I wasent detailed enough I typed this all my self.

 

Documentation PLS. P-51 "tankbusters"!!!

Documentation please. Engine hits would seem to be very problematic in regards to "brewing up" as would hits pentrating the turret ring.

Again, documentation PLS. While it may have happened on occasion that at dud HE shell penetrated through and through I doubt it happened often and wouldnt' be surprised to find out that it never did.

 

But a tank has to be able to do more than take on opposing tanks. And self immolation doesn't count as a plus in my book unless it's for opposing vehicles.

The Germans were pretty much falling back / being defeated for most if not all the time the Panther was in produciton. Rather sounds to me like the allies had a solution. Both the 76mm gun and the 85 could penetrate the Panther.

How does that square with the shots of a Pershing taking out a Panther? Or was it a Tiger. Certainly by the time the Pershing showed up Germany was pretty well defeated so I guess you could say the damage was done. M36's started showing up in Europe in September of 44 by the way.

Not from what I've read.

??? That's a rather wierd statement to make. Why wouldn't speed be important in a defensive war?

Just which tanks are you talking about?

Isn't that 250km for operational range? But then there the question of given a road march of 100 miles how many Panthers vs Shermans or T-34s one will have running when they reach their objective.

Given that mobile forces were often used as "fire brigades" care to go into the details fo why operational range wasn't important?

 

I think that the T-34 was better. It was easier to produce, cheaper, and it had massive firepower and good armour. It destroyed the Tigers, and it was very reliable.

 

It didn't destroy tigers (it could only penetrate its side armor at close range, and could not penetrate its frontal armor at any range), but it was the best tank of the war in terms of producibility, and it had decent firepower and armor.

 

I say t-34 because it could take water mud grime and it was very mobile unlike the tiger or king tiger. and when your out of ammo, just turn the gun backwards and ram the German gas guzzler. but i think both tanks look like their creators. the Russians wanted a tank low cost and rugged. Hitler on the other hand wanted a monster and a tank that instills fear. and it did before it ran out of gas or the rats, cold, water, mud of Stalingrad got to them. This is how I see it correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

That is quite correct. A King Tiger is absolutely terrifying, but when it breaks down or runs out of fuel, not so much.

 

The best tank in ww2 for me has to be the t-34 because they started to use tilted front armor with made it thicker & stronger to Nazi tank shells

 

They didn't start it it were the French who were the first one to use sloped armor (the Somua S-35)

 

Quite a few vehicles in the 1930s used sloped armor, mainly the lighter ones, apparently sloping was considered an alternative to sheer thickness. Examples include Christie's designs and their Russian derivatives, the BT series, and armored cars in several nations including Sweden. The T-34 appears to be the first widely used tank in its weight class to thoroughly exploit sloping.

I'm not sure why the S-35 gets so much credit. Its sides were sloped at maybe ten degrees, not very meaningful, especially since at ranges beyond point blank a projectile strikes at a slight down angle. The lower front was nicely sloped, as it was on many tanks, but the upper part was about like the sides. The height of the tank made it difficult to provide useful sloping.

 

sorry, but the S 35 was joke and to compare this tank with a T 34 is way over the top!
But my preference is clearly the Tiger (and don't forget the Panther!), despite the fact, that they had a limited range. Together with the well-trained German crews they were hard to beat, that they finally got defeated (thanks god!) was simply because they got outnumber.

 

Either the Panzer IV Ausfs G-H, or the Panther

 

I forgot which one of our rogues said this: "The King Tiger was certaintly an impressive road block"

Personlly I too will go with the Soviet IS II and III series over the Tiger's.

 

I like to jump in to this discussion every once and a while and throw some of my ideas about. In evaluating any "best" one should have some criteria in mind to base that choice on. In choosing your best football (American) player will you pick someone that played quarterback, a position not often known to have players of all around ability. Will you pick a high scoring receiver, thinking that scoring is the name of the game. Perhaps you might choose a back, a player that can run, catch, probably throw the ball and possibly play some defense. An all around football player.

In choosing a best tank I emphasize the need to look at the all around performance of the tank, especially looking at it in relationship to the time frame - WWII. This last point first; we all know that WWII represented the birth of the main battle tank but I do not believe it was the time when the MBT was the winner. Being a 5 year war, one fought all over the globe and involving shipping long distances, and given that armored warfare was still evolving I don't think it can be proven that the MBT was truly born until after WWII. The tank that should be looked at as best, I think, should be evaluated as such because of its reliability, durability, versatility and performance as a tank (i.e., not a tank killer.) For me the Sherman always takes it.

 

I don't recall that incident with either S. PzJr Abt 653 or 512.

The most dangerous ammunition stowage on a King Tiger was the rounds in the turret bustle. While Henschel provided spall liners (thin armor plates on the inside of the turret) these rounds were very exposed to damage and detonation on a penetration. Even on a non-penetrating hit they were seriously in danger of being damaged and ignited by spall (hence the liners provided). In many cases crews elected not to carry rounds in the turret at all because of the danger they presented.

The ammuntion stowage in a Sherman is compatable with that of a Tiger. Most is stored in bins in similar positions to those shown above. What isn't is stored vertically under the gun on the floor of the turret. However, most Sherman crews (like many crews of most nations) frequently loaded far more than the standard number of rounds aboard their tank because they knew from experiance they would go through their ammo load fairly quickly in combat. This practice represents a far greater danger than the standard load out would