Best Tank of WW2??????

Thats why I liked the AEC based on the Matador it wins the toughest armoured car competition but I suspect the daimler or Dingo would have been more stealthy for recon.

 

No they were not they were at best adequate they were reliable but inferior to later Crusaders in armour and fire power as well as the crusaders superior (american origin) Christie suspension. The engine problems of the crusdaer were caused by using an outdated power train and the fact that the crusaders was designed for europe not the desert and was vunerable to sand.

Most desert crusaders mounted a six pounder not a 37mm gun. Even the two pounder on the early crusaders were was a slight step up. Compared to the more common Valentine the lee was faster but inferior in every other way.

The grants were a step up as were the new shermans because they brought in the dual purpose 75 mm guns which while no better in tank to tank action than the six pounder did allow a HE shell for use against anti tank units. The Lees were obsolescant on on delivery.

 

It's not really a tank though it it?

 

Relates to your comments on the Puma mounting a 75mm short gun the AEC mounted either a full length 75mm or a six pounder allowing it to engage tanks.

 

Maybe we should talk about our most despised tank of World War II. I will start with mine. The King Tiger! The god-awful good-for-nothing was the prominent star of fanboydom, and a useless tank by most battle histories. I cannot recall the King Tiger making a decisive impact in a single major operation. The Schwever Panzer Abteilung was always understrength, most of the time they didn't even go far enough to get into the fight! Inspite of the fact that the bulk of the KTs were used in the West, they seemed to have made little if any impression on the allegedly "inferior" US Armor, because the Americans were usually moving too fast for the superheavy to intercept. Most of those were thrown in against American infantry divisions assaulting fixed fortifications with panzer grenadiers, and guess what? Nothing is well armored enough to survive a good ol' barrage with divisional/corps 105mm and 155mm artillery plus strafing from the Thunderbolts!

Rent mode off, going to sleep...

 

the cromwell with the decent gun.or the honey.

 

the 503rd SS Heavy Panzer Division destroyed 500 Allied tanks with their 45 King Tigers in a few months towards the end of the war. Pretty impressive if you ask me.
Also the KT was best used in a defensive position and was fairly agile for it's weight.
There is no doubt is my mind that the KT was the most powerful tank in the war. The IS-2 also lost battles against the KT despite having a much larger and rather highly inaccurate gun.
Best tank overall? Probably not. I vote for the Panther.

 

:headbash: Let this thread die!!!!! LOL .Its the same old opinions and arguements over and over. :headbonk::circlejerk:

 

US 4th AD knocked out more than half that number in one engagement. With a standard US Tank Battalion and one Tank Destroyer Company.

So it's an expansive one trick pony? There are few things a KT can do that a Pz V could not. When the other side is throwing kitchen sinks down on a Pz Rgt/Bn there isn't really much of a difference what type of tank you are in.

The IS-II, while type-classified as a heavy tank, is in the same weight ball park with the Panther at 45 tons give or take. As a breakthrough tank, the proper deployment of the IS-II should be at the weakened sections of the German line where tank strength is low. Even if there were Pz Vs at hand, they had to close to 600 meters, well within the kill envolope of the IS-II--that is assuming they successfully cut through the first echeolon of T-34-76/85s.

It's on my top three list.

I hope, on occassion, I would be able to say something original, or hear the opinions of others that I have not heard before.

 

Triple C:

US 4th AD knocked out more than half that number in one engagement. With a standard US Tank Battalion and one Tank Destroyer Company.

Hello Triple C,

please just try to keep in mind that a US Tank Battalion in 1945 propably fielded about 2 - 3 times the tanks of a German Pz. Div. Not to mention the surplus in ammo, coca cola, chewing gum, fuel and cigarettes besides artillery and airstrikes.

Regards
Kruska

 

Said engagement occurred at September 1944. US 4th AD was outnumbered 2:1, badly outgunned and fighter bombers temporarily unavailable.

Conceded. More than a dozen battles would have gone badly without artillery and CAS.

 

Besides if this one dies will probably see three similar ones before the month is out. Better to keep it contained in one spot.

 

Oh. Err, sorry!

 

The KT was badly spent money imho. However, when they could successfully reach the battle line and engage enemy armor, they did proved highly effective! Their gun was a killer and their frontal armor invulnerable Even at the closest ranges. However, their price was absurd and should they build more Panthers instead of the KT it might proved more usefull for the war effort tough it wouldn't change the outcome of the war.
The Panther is for me, the best tank in terms of performance. It was cheaper per ton than the Pz IV and only 20K RM more expensive in total. Also, it could be built at a far higher rate than any tiger or King Tiger.


Cheers...

 

No, of the Crusaders only the Crusader III had the 6pdr and there were only about 150 them.

I wouldn't say that, they were better (or at least as good as) than the tanks they were currently using.

 

On the Lee, a stop-gap measure maybe, but certainly not obsolescent on introduction. The troops were very pleased to receive a machine with a decent sized Gun despite it's limited mounting.
I have a copy from the national Archives of an intercepted German report on Sherman's first use, in it what are referred to as 'President' tanks appear to be Lees, and the German source (though notorious for over-egging equipment reports from the Desert in the struggle for better/more supplies) takes them very seriously indeed, even with speculation that the main gun was a 10.5.
One other great contribution the M3 medium Lee/Grant made was a very reliable and plentiful chassis that served on in a wide variety of specialist forms, so mechanically at least it was also far from obsolescent and provided good service right through the war (Up to the last year in Burma as a Gun tank).
Horses for courses again.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

The T34 is the better tank in many ways. Speed, slanted armor, and not that bad on gas,. Unlike the Tiger. The Tiger was, slow, drank gas. :bazookafire:

 

The T-34 maybe an bad ar/se ugly tank, but it was the only Allie tank that could match up to the Tiger Tank or out do the Tiger. My opinion is the T-34.
If it was a best looking contest, i would say the Tiger Tank for sure.

 

Really? The only one huh? I guess you are discounting the other tanks that could take out a Tiger like the Pershing,Sherman Firefly and some others.But then again this is another :deadhorse: opinion based thread. LOL

 

What about all the other Russian tanks, such as the KV series, JSU, SU, and the JS, certainly they had a chance of destroying the almighty tiger.