Best Tank of WW2??????

Nice reply, you are out of sorts today. I want you to know that I expect better.

When the panther would break down, which was generally fixed by late 43, no self respecting T-34 commander is going to run up to them, because that big gun didn't break. Yes if they could go around and flank him and his other compadres, they would do that as a tank unit. More probably you would have a busted down Tiger than a Panther. Although they may also taken the run option, during Bagration or another large offensive when running was the game.

 

The Panther's major problems were fixed in 1944. And mechanical failure remained at levels unknownst to their Allied counterparts all the way up to the end of the war.

If a tank burns out its engine, breaks a track, shatters a sprocket, etc., the result is pretty much the same as a direct knock-out. A broken-down tank is generally abandoned by its crew, despite the "heavy" gun. You know why? Because an enemy tank doesn't even have to engage the target in order to knock it out. The enemy can simply bombard the broken-down tank with artillery, then move on. The enemy doesn't even have to risk his armor to engage the "broken down" tank. Tank vs. tank combat was a minority as to how tanks died. Most tanks were destroyed by artillery, mines, or AT guns. Also, for the broken-down tank to engage enemies, it has to break down in an awfully convenient place...

What happens when an enemy captures your broken-down tank? Ask the Soviets; they equipped some divisions with Panthers. And, if you check the forums for "pictures of captured Axis equipment", you can spot a few Tigers in Anglo-American hands.

 

The Soviets did not necessarily equip some "divisions" with the Panther. But the strength of the units were attached to mainly Companies, Battalions,Regiments and Brigades and in small numbers.
http://wio.ru/tank/capt/capt.htm

And you can read about and see pics of the German tanks and AFVs in use by the Western Allies and Soviets in the thread I created about them.
http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22220-allied-use-captured-axis-afvs-tanks.html

 

I liked the first thread JCF

 

I was replying to Slons statement about the Panther crews running because some T-34s were coming. Neither he or I think that the only way to knock out a tank is with a tank. Please also note that if a tank breaks down you will not see the crew instantly jump out of it. Oh and in the case of the Tiger the number cause for destruction we demolition by the crew.

 

[QUOTEYou are downplaying the importance of the T-34's easy production and reliability. The Russians need a tank like the T-34 to back their war effort and overwhelm the Germans with numbers. Yes the Panther did outclass the T-34 in a lot of ways, and in a one on one battle would probably have more wins than losses. However, you say yourself that only 304 Panthers were on the Eastern Front in may of 44 (I have no idea if this is true I am just going with what you said) against 1200 T-34's! That is why the T-34 was a better tank.][/quote] was quoted from

Is this thread titled best number or cheapest to produce tanks??? or best tank of WW2...earlier someone claimed to try andclaim the Sherman to be in this category...I remember seeing a clip on history channel, might even be on you tube where they did comparison of spitfire vs bf109 Emil, and as well as tiger vs Sherman...all asked to pick which tank they'd have would liked to be sent to battle in....all poled replied the Tiger??? has a pole been done for whom would prefer a T 34 preference, from actual combat veterans chosen preference over a panther???

Now if the best tank was which side could produce the most and send piecemeal into a battle of attriction, the T-34 wins...

 

In 1941? In 1942? In 1943? In 1944? In 1945? Which year do you mean? Are you sure the answer is the same in every year?

Battle of attrition? Please provide examples of that in the Eastern Front (or any other front).

 

HMMMMM..Really? Which would you choose to be sent into combat with? The HEAVY Tiger I with heavier armor and larger caliber gun in small numbers or the MEDUIM M4 with lighter armor and lighter caliber gun in great numbers? Freaking no brainer there. The Tiger was a good defesive vehicle while the M4 was designed as an "Assault" tank.

 

Best tank

I vote the Type 95 Te-Ke

What other tank can the football team turn over on it's side after a night of drinking ?

Panther vs T-34 thread

 

that is even a better question, if year of battle determined which tank was superior during that time or conflict, as chasis design or model which proved superior earlier, had since maybe lost it's advantage later on...

as for attrition, i will have to look at sources, but Stalingrad is a good example, where troops, and armour where fed piecemeal, and as stated in a book by Anthony Beevor, where T-34 where sent into battle before being painted or fitted with optical lenses and gunners peered down the barrel to take aim...another, although better planning and anti-tank defenses came to play is Kursk, where shear numbers overwhelmed the panzer corp. bogging down the thrust, and taking it's toll there after by anti-tank guns and sappers...

 

I agree, and yet some claim the Sherman as the better tank??and maybe this clip will be used as to why Americans never switched to the 17 pounder to combat the 88
YouTube - SHERMAN TANK VERSUS GERMAN TIGER

how many lives could have been saved had their shells not bounced or remedied ineffective because of reluctance by American Engineers to convert this handicap

bf109 Emil

 

fromT-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bf109 Emil

 

Can you tell the difference between the defensive battle of Stalingrad where reinforcements were sent purposely in dribs and drabs to 62nd Army (Chuikov), and the subsequent encirclement battle of Stalingrad (Operation Uranus) where forces were employed in a massive armoured fist? Apparently not.

 

what are you trying to say or is this a slam upon your part. YES I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE...you'd think with the producction numbers of the T-34's they'd have painted them and added optical range sights to make them effective had the sent them in dribs and drabs, and do you know the defensive battle oif Stalingrad as turned out in History, was not the first choice, nor was it intebnded until only after the chance of throwing out the sixth army by massive men and equipment sent to Chuikov's 62 army failed almost entirely. Not until after 10 of thousands had been sent into the meat grinder, did Zhukov& Vasilevsky come up with an alternative to the suggestion on Sept. 12 after summons to the Kremlin, and stating they sought or told to Stalin in his demands for another army, 3 armored brigades, 400 artillery piece and an air army to capture Stalingrad...Stalin said no,find another solution, for he was said or known to hoard his reserves...so yes the iron fist as everyone now knows was used to encircle Stalingrad...but does everyone know this was not Zhukov's first choice, but a brutal frontal assault, so to say, as had been going on for last 2 months proven so costly was his intention to continue with, but in such force or numbers to overwhelm the sixth army, rather then what ended in a circlement and surrender

 

Ah, yes. My bad, my information was incorrect. Falkenburg is correct.

 

This thread is entitled the best tank of WW2...therefore you must take into account the reliability and production rate. I have already stated that the Panther has a better chance of winning in a fight (which rarely happened anyway, i.e. one on one tank battles) against a T-34/85 as long as it doesn't break down or malfunction in any other way. Furthermore, who the heck wouldn't want to go into battle in a tiger (heavy) opposed to a Sherman (medium). However, if the question was which one would they rather have to fight a world war with, most of the answers would be changed over to the Sherman.

 

Moderator Edit. Threads merged.


I have limited the choices to just 5 different tanks that each weighed 40 tons or more but less than 55 tons.

Which tank do you feel was the best all around battlefield performer based on any number of different qualities.

1. Firepower: Tanks overall capabilities against hard and soft targets. Qualities like: Gun optics / Turret rotation speed / Ammo supply / Rate of fire all being taken into account.

2. Protection: Tanks overall protection ( armor ) provided against all weapon types. Tanks size and profile are also factors.

3. Performance: Cross country and hard surface abilities ( speed ect. )

4. Reliability & Service ability: Tanks ability to reach and stay on the battlefield.

5. Communication: Tanks ability to communicate with other tanks or troops via communication equipement.

My five choices and not in any particular order are.

1. German - Tiger I
2. German - Panther ausf G
3. Russian - IS-2 Model 1944
4. American - T26E3 Pershing
5. American - M4A3E2(76)Jumbo

 

All right I feel I should jump in here.

Which Spitfire model?, Mk I, II, III, XXIV? what good is comparing a Mk XI spitfire against a ME109E, they are from different times of the war, with different targets and oppurtunities. Same as the Tiger Vs the Sherman, but in this instance one is again a HEAVY TANK, and one is a MEDIUM TANK, should we start comparing which tank is better in this regard as well, which is better, a MK I tank from ww1 or a German leopard of today? Which one would win? Wow not a hard question, but different times, with different technolgies, with different deployments and training. We need to be more specific.

Ok again which models and in which roles? Would you use a tiger to exploit an open front? or use a group of tigers to encircle an enemy? would you use a sherman to face a tiger one a frontal one on one? no. Each tank in all weights have there pros and cons, light tanks subtract armour and gun calibre for speed, heavy tanks subtract speed and reliablity for armour and gun calibre size, and medium tanks are a mixture of both. AGAIN The sherman did well in its role at taking on the medium tanks it faced since it was a medium tank, but obviously except to the most stupid, would never be used on a one on one with a heavy tank, that was left to tank buster planes, Tank destroyer units, or antitank infantry.

 

What about it terms of time production, cost, fear factor, roles in the field, influcences on tank design, tactics, which tank was liked by its crew, which one was hated and so on and so on.

 

Tomcat, you have a history of stealing posts from me. This one can be added to the list.