The most lethal tank in ww2

But Greg, the thread topic is about the most 'lethal' tank which the T34 wasn't after 1942. Numbers are irrelevant in this discussion. We are talking about one on one. In that case the T34 was actually very poor against Tigers and Panthers, not to mention other German armour!

 

As was vice versa. The IS-2 certainly wasn't immune to either the Tiger I or the King Tiger. Look at the pictures I posted in the other threads.

The IS-2 was on paper roughly on a par with the Tiger I but the Tiger I's better accuracy as well as easier to load ammunition (of which far more rounds were stored) gave it the edge in reality while the King Tiger totally outclassed the IS-2.

I think the fighting around Tirgu Fromus in ideal tank country showed that the Tiger I wasn't outclassed by the IS-2. The Tiger Is gave much better than they received. In a prolonged fight at long range it's likely that the IS-2s simply ran out of ammuntion after most shots didn't hit home. The IS-2 only had 28 rounds of which half were HE. Imagine taking on Tigers in a prolonged engagement with a small amount of ammunition?????????????Not many chances to hit your target especially when your optics are inferior to the opposition.

 

You are correct Lyndon.

In that case I would say the JS 3.

:smok:

 

That's something I have forgotten: the JS-2 ammunition capacity was too little, so in a prolonged fight they would have a very tough time. But, yet, the Tiger wasn't invulnerable too, and JS-2 was up to it, also in the battlefield.
I don't like to talk about the JS-3 because it didn't actually fight: it was first seen on a parade in Berlin, so it is a post-war tank, and we should talk about weapons that saw action. I don't change my mind: the JS-2 is still the best, because of numbers and moderate quality, but I respect the Tiger as a great and powerful tank. Good luck!

 

Greg,

Yes, as aluded to before it would seem the IS-3 never saw combat during WW2 so I'm not sure it would count.

There were rumours that it DID see action in Berlin but I think that's all they were. I've never found anything to substantiate it. The Pershing would be another good choice.


poncho,

Doubtless the Tiger I wasn't immune to the IS-2 either. In fact, the IS-2 was the only tank that Tiger crews genuinely accepted could be a great danger to them at normal combat conditions. Even the Sherman Firefly wasn't given the same respect as far as I know.

 

OK - So now we are going to be picky because of the length of service in WW2. Ok

IS-2 then.

:roll:

 

I would say the TigerII because of two reasons:

It had the best Gun of any tank in ww2 and a good time afterworths to... :kill:

It had the best armor of any tank in ww2........ 8)


Its as simple as that....

KBO

 

Naaaaaaaaaaaaw. Not the length of service at all!! If a tank actually saw service in WW2 then it WAS a WW2 tank. If it saw NO service at all during WW2 (which the IS-3 didn't) then it WASN'T a WW2 tank. :lol: :smok:

 

There's one thing we must take into account: was the tank, despite armour and firepower, useful or not? Because the Konigstiger had 180 mm of frontal armor (and there are no records of it being pierced) and the great L/71 (which wasn't far from the famous Flak), but it consumed too much gasoline and had problems because of its great weight, so it's impact wasn't great: the Allies won the war nonetheless. It's not as the T-34, that was the exact tank for the Russians at the proper time. We should consider that kind of efectiveness, if the tank met its original purpose. Good luck!

 

Well then Poncho, if that be the basis of the arguement then I have to say that the T-34 is the winner in my book.

No tank of the war had the impact on armor design and development that the T-34 did. Had Russia used their tanks in 1941 with similar organizational structure of the Germans, I believe that Barbarossa would have failed miserably in 1941.

As it was, they used tanks for infantry support in 1941 that allowed Germany with an inferior tank arsenal, both in quality and numbers, to walk all over them.

So I guess it depends on what our question really is here.

:smok:

 

The T34 was only successful because 60,000 were made. No other reason. Same as the Sherman. The T34 WAS the superior tank in 1941 and 1942 but Germany managed to counter it on the whole. It was inferior to the latest German tanks from 1943 until the end of the war.

If only 10,000 T34s were manufactured then it would have made little difference. I don't see how numbers of a certain tank mean it's a better or more lethal tank. In that case the Chinese are the best soldiers in the world simply because there are more of them.

Make no mistake, the Tigers and King Tigers were PERFECTLY suited for their role from mid 1943 onwards. The war from that point turned into defence. Tigers and King Tigers performed excellently in their anti tank role. A ten to one kill ratio. Ask Tiger crews if they were happy or would rather be in another tank.

If you have to try and halt the Soviet march on Berlin then what do you want to be in? A King Tiger or a captured T34? :lol:

The reason why the King Tiger's impact wasn't great was because few were made. Make 5,000 and you'd get an impact alright.

The Tiger I made a GREAT impact, way out of all proportion to the numbers produced. It blunted and stopped many Soviet attacks. Make 10,000 of them and you'll get an even bigger impact.

 

The T-34 was not routinely fitted with a radio until quite late on in the war, which really put quite a big spanner in the tank's effectiveness.
Yes, the leader's tanks were radio-equipped, but when the leader has to communicate to the rest of his troop by flags (which is less than efficient, and exposes the leader to all kinds of harm), and his tank is obviously a leader's as it has a radio aerial...

Put a bunch of tanks without radio into a battle with a bunch of slightly inferior tanks with radio, and the inferior tanks have an edge.

 

Which was amply proven during Fall Gelb, where the German tanks were both outnumbered and inferior to the Allied tanks.

 

Actually, Lyndon, I might want to be in a T34 rather than a King Tiger because then at least I can drive my opponents made riding around really fast and hiding my low profile under everything I see. Get off a quick shot, then withdraw, move in at another angle. My highly sloped frontal armour will deflect most o the things the Soviets would throw at me, and if I failed to penetrate them, ah well, there would be plenty more where it came from.

Poncho: The 88mm L/71 wasn't very near to the famous FLAK, it was way beyond the famous FLAK. It had a much more effective punch and a much higher muzzle velocity too.

 

We keep talking about how great the Tigers were and in the same breath we aknowledge their few numbers.

That is the whole point - there were not that many of them. If we are to compare apples to apples, let us compare the T-34 to the German main tank, the Pz IV.

No arguement, if Germany had 10,000 of those monsters, one has an impact, but they did not. It was too little too late. The Soviets on the other hand had a winner in the T-34 which was mass produced and was a most effective fighting machine that stood up well to the mass of the German armored machine.

T-34=most influential tank of the war.

:smok:

 

Yes Greg, but.... were talking about the most lethal tank during ww2.......

There's No doubt about that the T-34 wasnt very lethal in the time of 43-45.....

This is my Top 10 ranking of the most lethal tanks during ww2:

1: King Tiger

2: Panther

3: M26 Pershing

4: Jagpanther

5: TigerI

6: IS-2

7: Sherman "Firefly"

8: T-34/85

9: M36 TD

10: Panzer IV

These are based on Armor, firepower and Mobillity..........

Regards, KBO

 

Most influential, maybe.
Most lethal?

As said, in 1941/42, the Germans had big troulbe with the T-34 (but not as much as they had with the KV-1...)
However, new German tanks outclassed it (5,000 Panthers were made), and the lack of a radio did not help.

If you are going to discuss tanks theat were roughly on a par with the Pz.IV, why not the Sherman? Constantly upgraded, generally a step ahead of the Pz.IV...

 

I believe we have several threads going allready comparing both the PzKpfw IV, the Sherman and the T-34.

This thread looks suspiciously like another "best tank" thread btw. I believe we have a couple of them lying around as well.

I don´t pretend to know enough to determine which tank was the best or most "lethal", but before any discussion gets meaningful we have to define the conditions on which the discussion should take place.

Does "most lethal" mean the type of tank which killed most opponent tanks all together, the type of tank which killed most opponent tanks compared to its own losses ( best kill:loss ratio ) or the type of tank most likely to come out of an engagement as the winning part against any other type of enemy tank in a normal combat situation ?

 

The last part........

The tank wich was most likely to win an engagement with any enemy tank....

Regards, KBO

 

KBO If we rate on those items alone then using your tanks listed, I would rate them in this order:

1. IS-2

2. Pz VIb (big if - only provided you are fighting a defensive war, which Germany was).

3. Panther

4. M 26

5. T-34 85 (Another debatable ranking).

6. & 7. Toss up between Pz VI and Sherman Firefly

8. PZ IV.

The others I do not consider "tanks" but would rate the M 36 ahead of the Jagdpanther just because it had a moving turret and the Jagdpanther was at severe disadvantage in a mobile battle, as is any turretless AFV.

:smok: