Best tank

Which tank was the best of WWII?
German Panzer Mk 5 (Tiger)
German Panzer Mk 6 (Tiger 2)
Russian T-34/85
American M4 Sherman
German Jagdpanther (heavy tank destroyer)
Japanese Type 95 (light tank)
British M3 Grant
British Matilda 2
Russian T-70
Other

 

In my opinion in an apples to apples comparison, meaning the design of the tank, speed, armor, armament etc. I would pick the Panther ( which is not even on your list )

But throught out the war I am going to agree with the military channel which awarded the T-34 as the best tank of all time.

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/sildeshow/slideshow.html

 

You can argue a lot for different models. The M3 may not have been a major player in many ways, but look at all the countries that were using it way after the fact. The Sherman was still effective in the sixties against the Egyptians. The M24 Chaffee was considered a great light tank being used by many countries. and the M26 Pershing was the forefather of several great tanks, including the M48 and M60.

The T-34/85 was a great tank in its way, but the IS-3 was a huge advanement that was the basis for the future of the USSR battle tanks.

The brits never really had a top tank during the war, but the Matilda II was popular compared to the other offerings. Probably the best the Brits had, was the VC Firefly.

The German tanks had their pluses, but they also had lots of faults.

 

I'd have to say the best tank of WWII??.....hmmm in my choice would be the T-34/85. A revolutionary tank with angled armor and an "American" designed chassis that the U.S. Military was too stupid to accepted and dumb enough to sell it too the Russians.

However, I think if the Tiger II had come sooner it may have been a worthy adversary in any theatre they were involved in.

As for the M3 Lee VERY underrated but, the major drawback was the placement of the 75mm gun. The M4 not enough armor. As for the M26 Pershing...that was A BAD MOTHER!

As for the M26 Pershing vs. the Panther...I think for all of us who has seen the US 3rd Armored footage in Cologne knows how that one turned out.

Just my $0.02

Regards,
MARNE

 

Effective tank , easy to build thousands of them: That´s T34.

Favourite tank otherwise: Tiger II

Favourite tank destroyer: Ferdinand

 

If we want this conversation to make any sense, perhaps we should distinguish between the best Light, Medium and Heavy tank, and in which year.

In 1940 the Matilda would be arguably the very best medium tank, while two years later it would be completely outclassed.

It would be idiotic to compare say the same Matilda with the PzII, the Matilda would make a lousy reconnaissance platform.

 

I don't know, the Comet wasn't bad and the Centurion is the Grandfather of the Challenger 2 which is a pretty interesting pedigree.

 

yes i do agree the centurion was not on the weak side i would say and the comet seemed to be a good general use tank

 

The best "as is" tank of WWII I would have to go with the T-34. The German tanks were great designs but their reliability issues gravely reduced their functionality. Had the reliability not been an issue, then I would choose the Mk V Panther

 

I would cite the following list:

Year_______Light____Medium_____Heavy

39-40______Pz 38t___Pz IV______Matilda
41_______M3 Stuart T34/76______KV 1
42_______M3 Stuart Pz IIIj_____Tiger I
43_______M3 Stuart M4 Sherman__Tiger I
44_______M5 Stuart M4A3E8______Tiger I
45_______M24_______M4A3E8______Centurian

I selected the Sherman over the T34 on the basis of several criteria. Both vehicles have virtually identical protection. The US M3 75 and Russian 76/42 have virtually identical performance as do the US M1 76 and Russian 85/53.
Automotively, the T34/76 has an advantage over early Shermans but suffers badly in reliability by comparison.
In terms of crew efficency, the T34 is literally terrible by comparison to the Sherman. The two man turret is a big liability. There is no intercom and usually no radio. Visibility from the T34, which must fight buttoned up, is horrible. If a target is not directly in front of the vehicle it is unlikely to be spotted prior to it receiving a hit or three.
The four numerically significant light tanks after 1940 were the M3/M5 Stuart, Crusader, Valentine, and T60/70. Of these, the T60/70 is really just pathetic. The one man turret, lack of vision devices, radio, and a underpowered drive train are just terrible.
The Crusader suffers from mechanical unreliability and poor soft ground performance (narrow track). The Valentine combines a low speed with a cramped vehicle making it a poor reconnissance and security vehicle, typical light tank roles. The Soviets liked it as an infantry support tank but, this was a very limited application.
The Stuart was fairly roomy, very reliable, fast, and adequitely armed and armored for use in the light tank role. Its preference in British service to the Crusader and Valentine are notable. The Soviets used some, but due to their lack of doctrine for fighting for information like Western armies did it was not as useful as it lacked a proper fit in their fighting style.
The KV 1 gets a short lived nod on the basis that there was nothing that could fight it on anything approaching even terms in 1941.
The Pz III makes a brief come back (possibly the Pz IVG as an alternate) with the 50/60. I chose it over the Pz IV on the basis of numerical availability.
The Tiger I dominates the heavy role from 1942 on. The Panther, its competitor, is too much tank for too little gun and suffers badly from thin side and rear armor. The Tiger is a much more useful and better balanced vehicle than the Panther as a heavy tank. The IS II, fails on two basies: Crew layout and lack of ammunition. 28 rounds is simply not enough.
The Centurian is definitely the heavy tank at the end of the war. The M26 was a good start by the US but it had alot of flaws that finally get resolved in the M60 almost 2 decades later. The Centurian remained in service at the same time in basically the same configuration as it had in 1945.
The Easy 8, the ultimate WW 2 development of the Sherman fixed most of the problems with earlier vehicles. Extremely reliable; far more so than the T34/85. Equal gun and armor to the Soviet tank. Better crew layout. Less likely to burn (wet ammo stowage). Better communications and visibility. Faster engagement rate. This is why it dominates in Korea.
Just my thoughts on this.

 

Sherman over the T-34??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

 

Ah, wikipedia, the best source in the internet ever

 

Can I say what a pleasure it is to see the Sherman being offered a fair crack of the whip.
Hugely under-rated and often too easily dismissed, especially the Easy 8's and Firefly's. I've had to drag myself away from a childhood fixation with the more 'glamourous' German stuff to fully appreciate what an enormous achievement the M4 represents. A little hesitant to say 'best' but currently very high in the 'favourite' list.

As for Centurion she was surely the most succesful design to have been born in the war, ironic considering the tortuous design progress the British went through for them to have got it so right just as the conflict ended. I'm not sure if a ww2 list is really the right place but she must be one of the most succesful AFV designs ever.
Cheers,
Adam

 

Since there are many differing views on any subject, wikipedia has a lot of virtue, but only as a starting point of referrence. The Matilda had it virtues, but was slow and cumbersome. If the Sherman had been given more of the 76 guns, it would have done better.

 

Something told me that I was going to get a comment like this out of you

 

Yep.

I gave generalized reasons above:

1. The two are almost identical in the "big three:" Firepower, armor protection, mobility. The T34 has an advantage in only the last category and then only in a tactical setting. The M4 has an advantage in mobility operationally and strategically. And, as the M4 matured, the tactical advantage of the Soviet tank decreases as the Russians make no real change to the suspension over the T34's life.
Neither has any advantage in firepower and their effective armor is almost identical.

2. The M4 is far superior in crew efficency. The driver is hardly overworked and has a much easier time driving an M4 than the onerous dry clutch and clutch-brake steering in the T34. The Russian tank can be a true brute to drive.
The Sherman has far better optics and in every model more of them. The Sherman with its faster, smoother turret rotation and stabilizer (yes, it does work when the crew bothers to learn to use it) mean a much faster engagement rate and, in tank combat he who shoots accurately first usually wins.
The Sherman with its turret basket and better ammo layout means a more sustained ability to fight tactically.
A crew intercom and good radios ensure good communications; an absolute must in a fast moving armor battle.
The human factor cannot be ignored or under-rated. If anything, it is equal in importance to all three technical characteristics listed above, and more important than any one of them.

3. I also would say the Sherman was one of the most successful tanks in terms of its malliability. That is, there are few AFV that have ever proved as adaptable and continuingly useful in combat. Look at some of the variants: 105mm assault gun, M4A3E2 "Jumbo", M-51 Super Israeli Sherman, M36B2, Firefly conversion to name but a few. When the Soviets tried to shoehorn an 100mm onto a T34 they ended up with a monsterous, ponderous abomination (much as the British did putting a 17pdr on a Cromwell chassis).

If anything, the T34 is highly overrated. In the war in the East, the Germans adapted to its characteristics fairly quickly. Note how they chose 80mm frontal armor upgrading their Pz III and IV and did the same with the side and rear of the Tiger. Why? Because this makes these vehicles virtually [/i]immune, impenetrable[/i] to the 76mm F-34 gun.
The Germans also chose to up arm their own tanks with superior anti-armor weapons: The 50L60 and 75L48. Both out perform the Soviet F-34 76mm gun in this role. The 75 outperforms the Soviet 85mm too.
The much maligned Sherman proved to be adequite, if not outstanding, in its roles in WW 2. With quantity production it was just the tank needed but barely, to win the war for the Allies. (Remember, the 1st Guards Tank Army in 1944 used it too in Bagration where it was highly regarded by the crews, if not in the Soviet press...can't have to admit something not built by the Soviets could possibly be "better.")

 

The Centurion was a highly successful design, but it was based only loosely on the Comet. And while the Comet was a good design, it was never battle tested. It got to the war too late to really be tested. In fact, I know of no battles that they participated in.

Tanks are mostly incremental changes in design. New engines, new armor designs, and upgraded controls are usually the big difference. The M3/M5 Stuart light tank is still being used in some South America countries with much success. This is because the basic design was decent and it adapted well to upgrades.

The T34 also had a reputation for beating the heck out of its crews. In normal circumstances, I would pick the M4 as having the best chance under equal odds, due to training and ability to make first shots count more.

 

11th armoured had great success with the Comet after the Rhine Crossing.
I make no connection between Comet & Centurion, other than as Comet was the last of the Cromwells she fed into the amalgam of all the preceeding concepts and ideas, from mk VI to Black Prince, that helped make the Cent into one hugely succesful vehicle, a leap beyond the incremental that was fully ready for the cold war world. Still haven't decided on a 'best' really, never can, lots of favourites but very few absolute bests. M3/M5 is indeed a current major favourite.
An important aspect of the Shermans claim to success that has to be acknowledged is how it represents the sheer industrial power that became as much a weapon as anything else during ww2, considering the immediacy of the design and the longevity and adaptability cited above she really does deserve a little more respect than the cold paper stats appear to suggest.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Yes, but one can also argue the following for the T-34.

1. The armor of the T-34 was 70mm on a 76mm and 90mm on a 85mm gun. This is a much greater then the 50mm frontal of the Sherman.

2. The T-34 could penetrate the Sherman through the front with a 76mm gun I am not mentioning the 85mm
3. The Sherman was able to build a speed up to 38.5 k/m and only for a brief time not 50 k/m that was mentioned. T-34 would jump ahead with 55 k/m.

4. Sherman was also not quite as wide meaning that it was more proan to getting stuck in mudd or swamp. Something the T-34 did not have trouble with ( for the most part )

5. The Sherman was also slightly taller 2.74m rather then the 2.45m the T-34 had, making it a bigger target for the enemy.

6. T-34 had a larger distance on tank of gas then any other tank in the war 465k. This should definately count for something.

7. The muzzle velocity firing the F-34 round was ( 680 m/s )more almost double that of the Sherman ( 380 m/s ) making a more powerful shot.

8. Last but not least, unlike the T-34, the Sherman had a crew of 5 not 4, making the casualties higher once a tank was put out of commision.

I choose the T-34

 

ah....well thankfully russia was our ally, so we wouldnt see any of that....lol