What is the best tank in WW2

Well it did have the rather novel feature for a British tank of being reasonably reliable. Although god knows what they made of the armament.

 

In my opinion , the best battle tank in WW2 was the Mk.5 Panther. It had great armour, an extremely ferocious gun , and pretty decent speed.The tanks weaknesses are the amount of gas it consumes per kilometer , it's complicated design which mad eit hard to produce and to repair.

The best overall tank in my opinion is the T-34. T-34's could destroy a german panther and tiger at an acceptable cost , it was easy to maintain repair and to use , and it was very easy to mass produce. The only weaknesses I can find are its brittle armour.

 

I understood that the T-34s are these days somewhat over-rated. Early war examples were equal to the KV-1, late war eclipsed by the JS-2 from the Red Army's point of view. On the western front I thought that in many respects the improved, later war Shermans were pretty much their equals too.

 

The T-34 is certainly over-rated by a lot of people who have little knowledge about tank designs. For example, having a 85 mm. gun, many people tend to rate the T-34-85 equal to the Tiger in tank-vs.-tank engagements, failing to understand the physics of ballistics.

The T-34 was definately a sound design, but many myths has arisen about it being extremely reliable and mobile, with exellent armour quality, even though the sentiment of those who fought in them and post-war US trials showed otherwise. It is important to bear in mind, that the T-34 - like the Pz.Kpfw.IV - was basically a 1930's design, and to a wide extent served the same role as a workhorse as the Pz.Kpfw.IV and M4 (and it would be fair to say, that the M4 (76 mm), Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H and T-34-85 are so equal that the ultimate outcome of an engagement between any of these would depend entirely of the crew.

 

The 6 pdr was a much better hole-puncher than the T34's 76mm, even without APDS; in fact, it was closer to the 85mm.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

If you were used to 76mm guns it probably still looked a bit wimpy. :-?

 

I was a bit cautious with this since one of the great weaknesses of the Panther, as of the Sherman, was thin side armour. In spite of both tanks' thick sloped glacis plates and mantlets, I don't think you can say they were superbly armoured because their sides were very vulnerable indeed.

 

ah , I was only thinking of the maximum armour , which was up front.

 

what does FNG mean

 

"F***ing New Guy", he told us. I'm afraid he can't say this anymore, seeing as he's one of the f***ing old guys now.

Just a nickname he uses, then.

 

Best tank ever

The Best tank ever is by far the Tiger I Early. The british tanks couldn't even touch it in the desert with it's 100mm armor on the front and 80mm on the sides, plus the massive 88mm canon. Now the russian T34's was pretty good, but it out number the tiger like 5 to 1 most of the time. If Germany had of stuck with the Tiger I, and the Panzers, they would have prolonged the war, at least 1 or 2 years.

 

but the problem with the tiger is that only 1500 were builted agaist the 40,000 plus shermans and 32,000 plust t-34

 

Thats not the Tiger's problem, that was Germany's Problem. The Tiger I still pwns. [/quote]

 

Re: Best tank ever

At first the Tiger made quite an impression. However as the war progressed so did anti-tank weaponry; by the end of the war the Allies had loads of weapons that could deal very effectively with the Tiger, most notably the 6pdr and 17pdr AT guns with discarding sabot rounds but also the highly common 76mm with HVAP rounds. The Russians had developed a taste for big guns that could knock out the Tiger by their sheer weight and velocity; also they had introcuded the potent 100mm AT gun by the end of the war. So even though the Tiger was indeed a very powerful weapon when it was first introduced, it was by no means untouchable and because of its small numbers it really didn't influence many a battle.

By the way, Germany "stuck with the Tiger I and the Panzer" (plural of Panzer is Panzer, not Panzers) until their industries couldn't replace losses anymore and they swapped production to turretless tanks. This wasn't exactly a choice.

The Tiger II had thicker armour all around, which was also sloped, and a more powerful gun than the Tiger I. Why aren't you defending that? Because there's more to tanks than just their own statistics; a tank has to fit into an economy and into a war.

 

I didn't say the Tiger II was bad, but as far as tanks go it was too big and heavy. When the Allies did take one out, which was not easy, it block the vital roads, especally in the Battle of the Bulge.

All tanks have there down falls, no matter which one you choose. And I'm pretty sure the question was what was the best tank in World War II not best AT gun, or any other weapon. If i had to pic any tank from world war II to use in a strait up 1 on 1 tank fight it would be the Tiger I.

 

I'm not going to claim being an expert or anything. I also am not going to look into economy or anthing because I am only 16 and it's too hard. I also would like to say that I don't understand physics or balistics, so correct my mistakes.

I like the Panther. It's gun was mean and long ranged, its armor was thick (even if the sides were weak). I am looking mainly at fighting ability, in which the Panther is what I consider the best in practicality for the Eastern Front. On the Western, you needed more armor for the closed quarters fights with Shermans and the like. At a ranged battle, the Shermans will lose to the Panther, but when they got in close and behind, or just in a 5 on 1, the Shermans won enough to win the war. I don't want to pick for the west because of the fighting style demands armor that's so heavy it's not practical, and the USAAF would just kill you with a P-47 if the USA couldn't use a Sherman.

 

You made some mistakes,but nevermind.You have still to learn .If Panther G version got on time it would be the best tank in WW2.Easily could take out IS2,steel weels,...Very modern for that time.Bombing and end of war stoped it's further production.Original Panzer V was to much prone to breakdowns.It was built like a counter-meassure to t34.Bigger,meaner,but not slow.First MBT.

 

Achtung, you're thinking of the Panther F which had steel wheels. This was in reaction to rubber shortages AFAIK, and not necessarily better than rubber-rimmed wheels of other models such as the Panther G.

Frankly I can find very little fault with Wspauldo's post, except perhaps that one didn't need 5 Shermans to take out a Panther. There are instances where units of 75mm-armed Shermans took out Panther units, and even one where a single 57mm gun drove off a Panther regiment. However, since the JS-2 had more than 100mm armour in some places this is exactly the one tank the Panther would have trouble with (along with such beasts as the Jumbo Sherman).

Founderer: most King Tigers used in the Ardennes were lost because they ran out of fuel, which goes for the 45 Tiger IIs of Kampfgruppe Peiper for example. This shows that while these tanks were tactically superb, they were of little use strategically because they simply used too many resources both when being built and when being used. However, it is exactly in a one-on-one fight that it would outshine any other tank of WW2 - luckily it never worked that way.

 

My mistake Panter F.Just to say,i recently read that one Panther knocked out T34 at 3900m!

 

I believe that was a Nashorn, a tank destroyer with a considerably more powerful gun than the Panther wielded (namely the 88mm KwK43 L/71, the most powerful AT gun of the war).