StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who do you think had the best tanks of WWII?

And a reason why would be nice too

Tigers. Tiger tiger tiger. Best tank in the world at the time...I'll post later with comparitive specs.

Tiger I was armed with powerful 88mm gun (originally developed from 88mm Flak 36 L/56 gun) that made it a very dangerous opponent for any Allied tank, and its thick (but not shot deflecting) armor made it virtually indestructible. Both Sherman with 76mm gun and T-34/85 stood a chance against Tiger only at close range. It is reported that in July of 1944, commander of 3rd company of schwere Panzer Abteilung 506, Captain Wakker, destroyed Soviet T-34 at the range of 3900 meters. The rule applied by the British concerning the engagement of Tigers was that five Shermans were needed to destroy a single Tiger, but only one Sherman was to return from the engagement. Tiger's only weak spot was its rear armor plate and its engine, which required continuous maintenance. During their combat service, Tigers destroyed large numbers of enemy tanks and other equipment, creating the myth of their invincibility and fearsome power - "Tiger-phobia". Tiger also had tremendous effect on morale of both German and Allied soldiers, German felt secure, while Allies thought that every German tank, especially late model PzKpfw IV was a Tiger ! "...and the T-34s and KVs eliminated hundreds of Tigers...", Russian Newspaper Article about Battle of Kursk, Novosti Press Agency, 1943.



this is a quote from this site:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm


Other Great info about tanks are here as well!

voted russian.
I heard they had great tanks dont have anything to prove it though

duh. tiger


reliablity issues aside, it's a damn good thing that germany couldn't build at the rate of the united states.

I voted for German tanks,and i see it will be a first German victory

Col. Crackpot wrote:duh. tiger


reliablity issues aside, it's a damn good thing that germany couldn't build at the rate of the united states.

What you're ignoring is that even if the Germans had the same industrial capacity as the United States the Tiger would still require many more resources. And in action it had this little habit of being knocked out by 76 and even 57mm gunfire. It was only good at long range or very close quarters. But in such situations a simple assault gun could do just as well.

They heavy tanks of the Germans could kick some ass, but they where an awful investment.

As far as my research goes, the only tanks to stand up reliably to the tigers were the soviet JS-2. In one engagement, a JS-2 ambushed seven german king tigers, annihilating one, and burning another, while the other five fled, the JS2 destroyed ANOTHER one! the other four fled in panic. Of course, that's just ONE engagement.

Chardok wrote:As far as my research goes, the only tanks to stand up reliably to the tigers were the soviet JS-2. In one engagement, a JS-2 ambushed seven german king tigers, annihilating one, and burning another, while the other five fled, the JS2 destroyed ANOTHER one! the other four fled in panic. Of course, that's just ONE engagement.

The JS-2 consistently kicked the ass of both regular and King Tigers despite having a fraction of the weight, the Germans considered a medium, which goes a long way towards showing how inefficient the Tigers where.

As I have said the Tigers where pretty good in small battles but that was irrelevant since they did not offer a sufficient return on their massive resource requirements. There yet another example of winning the battle and losing the war. Though in reaility the Tigers won few battles because they could never be fielded in sufficent numbers.

Russia, and the great T-34 and IS-2.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Chardok wrote:As far as my research goes, the only tanks to stand up reliably to the tigers were the soviet JS-2. In one engagement, a JS-2 ambushed seven german king tigers, annihilating one, and burning another, while the other five fled, the JS2 destroyed ANOTHER one! the other four fled in panic. Of course, that's just ONE engagement.

The JS-2 consistently kicked the ass of both regular and King Tigers despite having a fraction of the weight, the Germans considered a medium, which goes a long way towards showing how inefficient the Tigers where.

As I have said the Tigers where pretty good in small battles but that was irrelevant since they did not offer a sufficient return on their massive resource requirements. There yet another example of winning the battle and losing the war. Though in reaility the Tigers won few battles because they could never be fielded in sufficent numbers.

Conceded, But, given better industrial capacity? maybe would have fared better?
Also, I pose this question: was the sheer NUMBER of german tanks: Panther, Panzer IV, Etc. a deciding factor in tank engagements?
Alas, my knowledge of tank warfare in WWII is bogus and sad...

there is, however, something to be said of the Russian T-35!!! THAT was a badassed Tank! 5 turrets, 2 56MM turrets, 1 76MM turret and two machineguns.

Fact: The germans NEVER took out a T-35 themselves, the only way they could be beaten was by running out of gas or breaking down

Russia. Highly combat-effective tanks, in quantity.

The T-34. It was the right tank at the right time. A combined usefulness of good armor, good gun, and durability. Russia was able to mass produce this tank and use it against the Germans very effectively. Without this tank design, Russia would have fared far worse.

Tigers were impressive to a point, but they had their issues. Shermans were mass produced, but were weak as hell. Nothing really compares to the likes of the T-34.

I'm not going to vote right now, because I don't see a clear winner.

France, Japan, and Britain did not have good tanks. The French and British designs tended to be slow and clumsy, and the Japanese tanks were just pathetic.

German tanks tended to be over-engineered, with good performance but poor reliability.

All the hoopla over the T-34 ignores that the turret/glacis intersection was a well-known shot trap, with a tendency to cause ammunition cook-off upon a strike there. It was a very good tank, but it (like all tanks) had its share of problems.

The Sherman was a good tank for its size and simplicity, but it was simple. The late-war M4A3 carried heavier armor than the T-34, though it was slightly slower. Indeed, there were entire Russian units equipped with the Sherman even after the T-34 became common. I don't know much about the Pershing other than that the Japanese couldn't damage it from in front. The best air-portable tank came from the US, the Locust. The M24 Chaffee was a very late-war tank, still used today by some nations. Russia and the US would probably be a close race, especially considering they were built with different needs in mind (American tanks needed to be able to be shipped easily, while the Russians had no such need).

Chardok wrote: Conceded, But, given better industrial capacity? maybe would have fared better?

If you have superior industrial capacity you don't need a Tiger type design, you can simply mass-produce mediums like the US and USST did. The Tiger series was an attempt to build an individually superior tank that could beat large numbers, but it was too expensive, unwieldy and unreliable to work.

Quality beats numbers but only to a point, assault guns provided a large number of long ranges mobile anti tank guns, which was what Germany, needed. In terms of tanks they should have build as many Mark IV's as possibul and perhaps phased in some Panthers once they got it to work reliably. In 1943 Germany was building a mere 100 Mark IV's a month because so many resources went into countless new uber designs. Meanwhile the Soviets where building 1000 T-34's a month and America similar number of Sherman's.

Also, I pose this question: was the sheer NUMBER of german tanks: Panther, Panzer IV, Etc. a deciding factor in tank engagements?
Alas, my knowledge of tank warfare in WWII is bogus and sad...

Numbers where very important. A Tiger might beat Sherman's five to one, but Sherman's had a twenty to one numerical advantage. The Tigers and other super tanks simply got swamped, their long 88mm guns simply couldn't destroy the enemy quickly enough.

What they needed was to build as many of as few as possibul designs, and instead did the opposite and built a dozen different vehicles at once in tiny numbers. Germany couldn't have won the war but they sure as hell could have given a better fight.

Some of this is hindsight information, but a lot of its just common sense which just happened to be in short supply.

there is, however, something to be said of the Russian T-35!!! THAT was a badassed Tank! 5 turrets, 2 56MM turrets, 1 76MM turret and two machineguns.

The secondary guns where 47mm and you forget the frontal armor, which wasn't proof against .50caliber machine gun fire.

Indeed....but being force to wait for the behemoth to run out of gas or break down? You gotta admit that is one killer of a tank....DAMN! Shoulda voted russian, but as you succinctly put it...hindsight is 20/20!

Chardok wrote:Indeed....but being force to wait for the behemoth to run out of gas or break down? You gotta admit that is one killer of a tank....DAMN! Shoulda voted russian, but as you succinctly put it...hindsight is 20/20!

Sure your not thinking about the KV-1? The T-35 never fired a shot in combat.

Considering that the USSR was essentially an agrarian society for the longest time, what is it about that country that makes them such excellent tank designers? I have always been curious about that.

Why even bother including a France and Italy option? Those slots would have been better served by Ethopia and Fiji.

Yes, I think I am, however, I also think I misquoted, I meant to say no german tank ever took down a T-35 in a tank-to-tank battle, but yes, the T-35 actually saw action in June of 1941 in defense of Kiev, most broke down, and the other few were lost to enemy fire.


As an aside, the KV-1 was a hard as nails badassed russian whore of a tank...a russian whore with the looks of cindy crawford carrying anti-german Herpes, Hepatits-C , clap, drip, and aids, whose pussy is lined with inverted razorblades coated with Tetanus.

Chardok wrote:As an aside, the KV-1 was a hard as nails badassed russian whore of a tank...a russian whore with the looks of cindy crawford carrying anti-german Herpes, Hepatits-C , clap, drip, and aids, whose pussy is lined with inverted razorblades coated with Tetanus.

Damn, what kind of fucked up sex life do you have?

Russia had the best tank.

Germany had the best tankS.

Wicked Pilot wrote:Why even bother including a France and Italy option? Those slots would have been better served by Ethopia and Fiji.

The Ethiopian's knocked out quite a few Italian tanklets in 1935 by physically pulling the tracks off and then killing the crews. Silly Italians would have lost that war without mustard gas.

It is a hard question, because you are kind of asking, "what is the best car?" I'd have to ask, "the best car for what? Off road ruggedness, a Hummer. Fuel-efficiency, a Pria. Finding a parking spot? A Mini. Hauling you and your crew to a desert work site? A Suburban. Kids soccer game? A Minivan...."

The best tank, I believe, for being mechanically forgiving and reliable was either the KV-I or the Sherman. The Sherman is also the cheapest and easy to mass-produce. The most powerful guns I believe were on the JS2 and the Pershing-- Pershing was also supposed to be the most comfortable for the crew. Heaviest armor was the Tiger series. I think the Russian tanks had the highest crew survivability features as well.

The best tanks for speed I think were the Stuart and the PzK-II; the most mechanically sophisticated were the German tanks. Most rugged suspension was easily Soviet. In the early war years the best tank for crew survivability was the British 'Matilda', which had heavy armor but was abysmally slow and under-gunned. It is hard to rate the Pershing in any case since its battle conditions were hardly tested when war ended, but I suspect it would have been an even match for any of the others.

Tanks, like cars, guns, ships, and other things have to be evaluated for particular merits...

I'll go with Russia.

I'd have to go with Russia. They were made faster then German tanks but had better fire-power then the United States.