Best tanks

I ahve always thinked that the Tiger was the best tank in World War 2 but s month ago a friend told me that the T 34/85 was the best and when i checked it up is aw that maybe it was so but they both ahve my first place

 

You know, the politically correct types would say nasty things to us for not having any Italian or Japanese tanks on our "Best Tanks" list. :lol:

 

Yes, but there is a reason for their exclusion...

 

I wouldn't want to start over again with this 500-post discussion, but I can't resist making my opinion clear once again.

Panther G all the way!!!

I started discussing here when my top 5 was a lot different but this is what it's come to look like:
1. PzKpfW V ausf.G "Panther"
2. T34/85
3. M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight"
4. M4A1(76) Sherman
5. PzKpfW VI ausf.H/E "Tiger I"

 

Roel, I don´t know if you have noticed, but you´ve got SHERMANS on your list.

But seriously, I wont argue with you about the Panther, but why do you have the T-34/85 on second place ?

Skua, seeing another 50 or so messages being added to this thread in the next 24 hours.

 

Could you be more right?
I chose the T34/85 as second because of its influence on the war and on tank design in general, not because of its individual qualities which were perhaps average, but nothing more. It would still qualify as a very good tank because of other factors, such as answering direct needs and requirements.

Ad those Shermans up there are entirely Danyel's fault.

 

I will not stop untill everyones tank on everyones list is some kind of Sherman.

 

Skua, you're gonna make it to those 50 posts! :cry:

 

Sorry Danyel, but Shermans probably won't make my list.

Although they were without doubt the beast Allied tank when they appeared (reliable and with a big gun that could also fire HE), America really, really, should have gone with some of their heavy designs rather than just flood the world with Shermans.

 

Ricky, the Sherman was:

-The single most reliable tank of WW2.
-Began better than the Panzer IV, and ended better than the Panzer IV.
-Ended as a superior weapon to the Tiger ausf E.
-Was able to out range German panzers when released, and was able to at the wars end (Sherman 76 could KO a any version of the mark IV at over 1,500 meters, and could take the Tiger at 1000 with the AP M79 shell, which was made the standard shortly after its début.)
-Although it gets made fun of constantly with the whole 'Ronson' line, it is the only tank I know of to take any steps to fix this defect. Unfortunately, most people don't even know what the (w) at the end of the tanks name means.
-Could cross a bridge (amazing.)
-Even after the war, the Sherman tank didn't meet its full potential for modification. Turret ring was still large enough to house a larger turret, and a larger gun.

What other alternative was there? The Pershing? With the Pershing, you have a tank that has trouble crossing bridges. How many bridges did the Allies have to cross? America was fine with the Sherman. If the American crews were trained better, the Sherman would have easily been one of everyone’s favorites today.

 

Never provoke someone with a passion...
(at a disadvantage as I have no books here...)

-The single most reliable tank of WW2.

Agreed!

-Began better than the Panzer IV, and ended better than the Panzer IV.

Well, arguable. The Pz.IV's (throughout) were roughly equal (although doubtless you could quote an arm-load of stats to prove me very wrong here! )

-Ended as a superior weapon to the Tiger ausf E.

Ended, maybe (I'm not convinced, but could be). But a heavy tank could have been that in 1943!

-Was able to out range German panzers when released, and was able to at the wars end (Sherman 76 could KO a any version of the mark IV at over 1,500 meters, and could take the Tiger at 1000 with the AP M79 shell, which was made the standard shortly after its début.)

Pardon? an early Sherman could outrange Tiger I's?
Late Shermans could outrange Tiger II's?

-Although it gets made fun of constantly with the whole 'Ronson' line, it is the only tank I know of to take any steps to fix this defect. Unfortunately, most people don't even know what the (w) at the end of the tanks name means.

Agreed. Although why the heck they kept building them with such a high damn sillouette...

-Could cross a bridge (amazing.)

Useful, I admit. But there's always a Bailey.

-Even after the war, the Sherman tank didn't meet its full potential for modification. Turret ring was still large enough to house a larger turret, and a larger gun.

Yes, and they have seemed to do fairly well with the Israelis. Still a bit high, though...

-What other alternative was there? The Pershing? With the Pershing, you have a tank that has trouble crossing bridges. How many bridges did the Allies have to cross? America was fine with the Sherman. If the American crews were trained better, the Sherman would have easily been one of everyone’s favorites today.

Well, the Pershing was the main bet, though America did have a plethora of heavy prototypes around (mostly ordered by Britain). It is just a shame that the US decided that it was easier all round to built piles & piles of Shermans, rather than slightly less heavy tanks. Imagine Western Allied crews in 1943 having a tank the equal of the Tiger.

All those infamous incidents in Normandy and elsewhere (like the Tiger that shouldered its way through a column of British armour) would never have happened.

I'm interested to know what some of our veterans think about the idea of having a decent heavy available to complement the Sherman!

 

When the Sherman was first used at El Alemein, it had the edge of sloped armor and a more powerful weapon than the Panzer IV. Then the Panzer was upgraded to compete with the T-34, then the Sherman was upgraded to compete with the Panzer IV. The end result was a Sherman with 110mm of armor and a gun that could KO any Panzer IV at a kilometer and a half.

The Shermans featuring the 76mm cannon (About half by the end of 1944) could knock out a tiger at no more/less than equal range. The Sherman also carried with it the advantages of its (by comparison) light weight and sloped armor.

Sorry. I ment the Panzer IV/III, not the Panzers in general. My mistake.

Its because the Sherman used a Turbine engine that was ment for use in Aircraft.

But there isn't always time.

 

I am prepared to admit that Shermans were often equal or even superior to the Pz.IV (and definately the Pz.III!), although surely the Pz.IV could KO any Sherman from similar ranges?

I know why they initially built hem so high - why didn't they use a different engine...
(yes, obviously, it would have disrupted production)

I never said get rid of Shermans altogether, but have heavy tanks too!

(btw, to be honest, I probably would include the Sherman in my list, even just for the simple reason that it was the first tank we had that was comparable to the Pz.IV and didn't keep breaking down!
I just like to provoke debate)

 

Sherman will be on my list somewhere. :bang: :bang: :evil:

 

I'm not sure about best, but my top 5 would be:

(in no particular order)

1) Panther (just superb!)
2) King Tiger (underpowered, but arguably the pointer for modern tank design)
3) Comet (Best British tank to serve in the war)
4) T-34 (massively influential, and gave the Germans a nasty shock)
5) Sentinel (my favouite 'what if' - a good tank with lots of design potential)

 

Sherman 76s, Easy Eights, Jumbos, and M4A3s had enough armor to keep them pretty safe from the Panzer IV.

 

Crap, I should have had the Comet on my list there! Thanks Ricky, this tank was definitely better than the Tiger in mobility, reliability and speed.

The problem with the Sherman is that its late versions were quite good but its early versions were quite disastrous. This gave the tank a bad name to begin with (and with reason) from which it never recovered. But hwne arguing in favour of the M4 you should aways keep in mind that the average Sherman to appear on the battlefield in WW2 was the undergunned, not wet storaged, narrowly tracked early type which was no match for the late PanzerIVs and Tigers; it certainly wasn't anywhere near the general area of quality seen on the Panther G.

 

And the average Panther, the one you saw most on the Battlefield, was the one with the horrendous shot traps and completely unreliable engine. There, we're even.

 

Danyel - a question.

You quote the Sherman as having good sloped armour 110mm (in final versions) thick.

My sources quote (I may have the exact figures wrong, but ballpark) 62mm max, for the later versions.

Are you up to your old trick of calculating thickness by including the angle?

I would like to remind you that while the front of a Sherman was sloped (the slope varied between type), the sides of a Sherman are as perpendicular as can be.

 

What trick? That is how you do it. That is the amount of armor that a shell faces when it attempts to penetrate. Just like how the Panther has 132mm of armor in the upper front hull. Though, if I were to say that, it would never come into question.

Yeah, and the most common german tanks were pretty flat on all sides.