Best tank

Which tank was the best from 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

 

Mause

 

This has been discussed before on the forum (ad nauseum, one might argue), so you may wish to consult one of the old threads.

Just for the record: The Panther was the Pz.Kpfw.V, the Tiger and Tiger II were the Pz.Kpfw.VI.

 

Also for the record, the M3 Grant was merely a British adaptation of the American M3 Medium (which they called the Lee), and they made a bunch of tanks more worthy of the title of "best tank of World War II", such as the Churchill Mk.VIII and the Comet.

As usual in these discussions it seems that the Germans are overrepresented and the Allies not treated fairly. Where's the JS-2? Where's the Pershing? Where's the M4A3E8? These can hardly all be considered "other".

 

At risk of making an ass of myself I think I would at least choose the Jagdpanther over the Type 95.

 

Varyag:
That would simply make you a "smart-ass... as opposed to a "dumb-ass."
(Big smile!)

Tim

 

Other

 

In definition the best,i considere price,quality,reability,maitance,gun,armor,speed,etc...
German tanks liated here got great armor,great gun,poor mobility poor reability (especialy tiger II) high cost,and hard maitance.It is one of reasons why T-34 is proclamed for best WWII tank,coz hes cheap,high mobility,easy for repairing,god decent gun(especialy 85mm verision),whell sloped but not the best armor,it has no much space for the crew,but in AFV u allways make compromises.Sherman is pretty much similar to T-34 qualitys,except it is slower,higher sillhouette,not so good sloped armor,but faster turet.I dont know prices diference,it would be nice somebody to post it.

 

I know what will happen if I reply to sinissa, so instead of doing it, I will refer him to previous best tank posts for corrections.

 

General conclusion, the Panther ausf. G is probably the best tank on the battlefield, with the best combination of armour/gun/mobility.

However, later model Shermans (and maybe the T-34/85) are serious contenders.

If the war had taken another month, it would be the Centurian


Best in terms of cheapness-to-effectiveness ratio is probably the T-34 or Sherman.

 

Sry my english is nto so good,i did not got u.What is the point?

 

I think he means that it will turn into a very long and passionate debate, which we have already had several times


And don't apologise, your English seems good to me

 

Excellent post right here gentlemen, I think that just about sums it up.

 

There have been tanks (early tigers) without machine guns and the earliest of WW 1 tanks only had machine guns and no turret.

So yes this includes tank destroyers, etc. The Canadians used turretless Shermans to transport infantry (Rams?). So ponder is a tank without it's turret still a tank?

Now.... the tank argument. During the Non-agression Pact, Soviet tank designers went to Germany to look at German tanks and complained bitterly that they were not being shown the newest Panzer designs. They saw the PZ III and early IV's, they were manufacturing the T-34 at the time.

Thus the "best" tank, must be considered in its "time". The T-34 at it's time was the best all round medium tank in the world...no doubt, and then later when it was fitted with the 85mm gun...I say at "that" time the best all round tank again.

The Soviets used, usable from way below freezing to over 100 degrees fahrenheit. No other tanks had that flexibility.

The JS-2 (over 3000 Built) with its 122 mm gun could stop a Tiger 2 in its tracks at 1200 metres, but it's pointed projectile had more trouble with the sloped armour of a Panther and would bounce off over ranges greater than 700 metres (during testing). However during the summer of 1944 when the JS-2 went into battle, they were successful against the Panther tanks at over 2 kilometres. Why?... well at that "time" the Germans running low on Manganese had changed the make up of their armour composition, still just as strong against AP shells but, making it more susceptible to the brute force of the 122 mm cannon. Add to this improved sloped frontal armour of 145-160 mm an 88mm had trouble penetrating the JS-2 at point blank range.

Also just to stir things up a bit more...the Bren Carrier. Mass produced, adaptable, low silhouette and fast.....from the above definition...it's a tank too and probably as successful in it's role as the Sherman was.

 

If you want to debate the definition of "tank" we have a topic on the matter lying around... We have not been able to come to a good conclusion.
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3342

Of course the time frame is very important, which is why a question of which was the best tank of WW2 inevitably boils down to what was the best tank in May 1945. This was certainly not the T-34/85. Check out the Mythbuster thread on it. The T-34/85 was inferior to the late-war Sherman in almost every respect; ditto for a comparison with the Panther.

This makes no sense, the Tiger II's armour was just as sloped as that of the Panther (or slightly less, but it was thicker on all sides, sometimes more than twice as thick). It was definitely much harder for the JS-2 to penetrate than the Panther since the Panther only had 80mm thcik armour plating on the front, easily overmatched and penetrated from great ranges by 122mm projectiles.

The tank could still be penetrated from every side and from respectable distances by the 88mm L/71, which did not fire hugely heavy and slow two-part ammunition like the 122mm.

Again, if you want to argue the definition of a tank... The Universal Carrier was certainly not used purposefully as a light tank, main battle tank or heavy breakthrough tank, so can we really call it a tank?

 

I dont know what you are reffering to but its not Rams. Rams were build in Canada from the M3 chasis it is purely coinsidental that the Ram turned out to be very similair to the M4 Sherman or that since they were working from a similair chasis if not the same with the same goal of a medium tank just happened to come out similair.

 

He's talking about the Kangaroo APC, based on the Ram. It rather looks like a turretless M4A1, even though it's based on the chassis of the M3 as you say.

 

The Tiger 2 probably wins in firepower and protection, but not reliability. A Sherman with a longer-barrel 76mm gun would have more firepower than the original M4, but that gun can only penetrate Tiger front armour at 500 metres range. Maybe the Sherman Firefly?

 

I think that is wrong to count only AP power on tank,HE power must allso be counted.best tank:
-price
-maintanece
-armor protection
-economic
-firepower (AP,HE,machineguns)
-mobility (speed and range)
-reliability.
When u count all,there is 2 tanks in the top: T-34/85 and IS-2,but i prefer that first one.

 

How are the T-34-85 and JS-2 ergonomic, and what documentation do you have to show that they were more reliable than other WWII tanks?