Best Tank of WWII

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2003-08-20 10:29pm

The Russians over all had the better tanks.
The were well armed and good ammored. Plus they had good suspensions.

The germans built good tanks but they just got plan out class. the tanks they had at the begainning of the war which were great tanks but after a couple of years they were outclassed by everything else. And when they built new tanks such as the tiger they made mistakes. The tiger had one of the most powerful guns and best ammor but were slow. Thats one reason why american tanks could beat them was the could run rings around them.

The US had good depenable tanks but they werent as well ammored or had as powerful of gun as the others.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-08-20 10:32pm

Im going to go with german, mainly because of my ignorance about russian armor. As much as I like the Tiger and Panther, didnt they kinda go against the idea of Blitzkrieg? I thought they were a bit too slow for that kind of warfare...

Great. Now I have one more thing to take me away from work *adds research WW2 armor to list of things to do to avoid working*

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-20 10:50pm

m112880 wrote:the tanks they had at the begainning of the war which were great tanks but after a couple of years they were outclassed by everything else.

WTF? The first Panzers were utter shit.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-20 10:51pm

pellaeons_scion wrote:Im going to go with german, mainly because of my ignorance about russian armor. As much as I like the Tiger and Panther, didnt they kinda go against the idea of Blitzkrieg? I thought they were a bit too slow for that kind of warfare...

They where too slow for the classic Blitzkrieg, ignoring there awful reliability which made them poor for anything. Though by late 1942 when the first Tigers saw battle there where no more classic Blitzkrieg's on any side and the tactic had evolved to something different, the Germans even dropped the term which involved more balanced tank-infantry-artillery teams. The Panther was fast enough for such offensives but the Tiger I was only fast enough for defensive fighting which was what Germany was doing. Though as I've pointed out for that kind of work the Germans would have been better off with much cheaper tank destroying assault guns.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-20 10:53pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

WTF? The first Panzers were utter shit.

I think he means the few Panzer III and IV with short 37 and 75mm guns respectively which where quite good, rather then the Panzer II's and I's which made up the vast bulk of early German tank forces. Course German brilliance kept the Panzer II in production into 1942.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-20 11:02pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Why even bother including a France and Italy option?

Contracy to popluar believe, France did make some of the best light and medium armored vehicles (tanks, armor car, self-propelled guns and etc.) in the first half of the War. Several of which the Germans continue to use and manufacter after France have fallen until the end of the War.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-20 11:05pm

Chardok wrote:Both Sherman with 76mm gun

Early model Shermans had the 75mm gun which was proven ineffective. the 76.2mm was the primary gun on later model Shermans, Soviet tanks and Sherman and other Allied tank-destroyers.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-20 11:43pm

I'll go with America and the Endless M-4 Sherman horde....IIRC,
the US 76mm gun was able to out shoot the russian 85mm gun with
the right ammo.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-21 01:57am

T-34/85 was the best tank of the war, all things considered.

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.

I think it was a combination of the harsh terrain and climate, the massive industrialization that went hand in hand with a not-very-high quality of production (look up close at a T-34 one day, you would not believe how rough the welds and castings are) that combined to make a war-winning tank. The sloped armor thing though, which was a true innovation, I don't know, I guess Russia was just lucky enough to have the guy who thought of it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-21 02:05am

Vympel wrote:
I think it was a combination of the harsh terrain and climate, the massive industrialization that went hand in hand with a not-very-high quality of production (look up close at a T-34 one day, you would not believe how rough the welds and castings are) that combined to make a war-winning tank. The sloped armor thing though, which was a true innovation, I don't know, I guess Russia was just lucky enough to have the guy who thought of it.

It also helped that the suspension was imported which was a real key to making it a success. The guns and armor wouldn't have been that impressive if it had half the speed.

I'll go with America and the Endless M-4 Sherman horde....IIRC,
the US 76mm gun was able to out shoot the russian 85mm gun with
the right ammo.

that was true when firing tungsten rounds. However a best a Sherman might have one or two rounds and even the tank destroyer units who had priority had maybe 5-10 rounds. of it. The Russians didn't have such a round for there 85mm guns that I can recall but they did field them for a few other weapons so a similar leap ahead should have been possibul if the need was great enough.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-21 02:17am

I thought they abandoned the Christie suspension on the T-34?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-21 02:18am

Frank Hipper wrote:I thought they abandoned the Christie suspension on the T-34?

Just the part about it being able to run without treads

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-08-21 02:20am

Wouldn't a Pershing own any tank at the end of the war?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-21 02:20am

MKSheppard wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:I thought they abandoned the Christie suspension on the T-34?
Just the part about it being able to run without treads

I was thinking T-44, then.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-08-21 02:33am

Actually, in the category of "Other", bear in mind the surprisingly good performance of the Czechoslovakian 38(t) in the early stages of the war-- better than anything the Germans could field in that weight class...

Again there is a massive disparity between tanks' abilities from early war (up to and including the beginning of the invasion of USSR) and everything from there on. In the beginnng of the war the Matilda was a contender in its own way; by halfway through it was largely useless. And when the M3 Grant first appeared it was a wonder tank, albeit briefly.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-21 03:39am

StarshipTitanic wrote:Wouldn't a Pershing own any tank at the end of the war?

From what I've read about the Pershings, decent light tanks own can it simply by using their speed to manuver(sp) around to the Pershing's rear and plink it.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-21 03:43am

Coyote wrote: And when the M3 Grant first appeared it was a wonder tank, albeit briefly.

IIRC the Grant still prove very useful as a scout/recon, C&C vehicle and infantry support AFV. It just wasn't veryeffective against tanks larger than it.

I got the M3s mixed up

TANKS http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/ website have a detail listing of armored vehicles up to 1946.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-21 04:17am

StarshipTitanic wrote:Wouldn't a Pershing own any tank at the end of the war?

No. It's 90mm gun was good, but it was outclassed as a heavy tank by the JS-3.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-08-21 04:21am

[Voice=Colinoff]
Day of Judgement has arrived.

The Tigers and Pathers were resouce hogging attempts to catch up to the Russian tanks. The T-34 & JS-2 could be built in quanity, were damn tough, and were just as good if not BETTER then the late model german tanks. Sorry they ballanced all the factors in that one baby.
[/voice]

[/voice]

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2003-08-22 01:43pm

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

I think you'll find that the secondaries were 45mm and used the same turrets as the BT-7 and late T-26s.

I voted for the USSR, the T-34 was a great tank that served admirably throughout the war. The KV-1 was nigh on indestructable against early was German tanks. The JS series are my favourite tanks of the war though, they could take on Tigers despite being much lighter.

The Tiger I wasn't too good by the end of the war anyway, when more advanced ammunition became common (like tungsten rounds) the flat armour on the Tiger really became a liability.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-08-22 04:00pm

If I had to choose one tank for a battle, it'd be a King Tiger. I'm not an expert on Russian tanks, but I know the JS-2 is supposed to be pretty good as well.

I found this site which gives an interesting opinion:

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-22 04:21pm

Rubberanvil wrote:From what I've read about the Pershings, decent light tanks own can it simply by using their speed to manuver(sp) around to the Pershing's rear and plink it.

Actually that's true of every heavy tank of the war, inside around 300 meters depending the exact tank, Tigers where really shitty in this respect and the number is more like 500, a light tank might move faster then the turret can traverse. However that requires a large open area around the heavy tank, the heavy tank to be alone, the terrain to be fairly level, the light tank be able to get within 300 meters without being destroyed at 800, the light tank crew to be brave to the point of suicide. It is not a realistic weakness nor tactic.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-22 04:24pm

Zoink wrote:If I had to choose one tank for a battle, it'd be a King Tiger. I'm not an expert on Russian tanks, but I know the JS-2 is supposed to be pretty good as well.

The JS-2 was an all round superior tank compared to the King Tiger and weighed much less. It only weakness was its limited 28 round ammo supply.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-22 04:25pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: The JS-2 was an all round superior tank compared to the King Tiger and weighed much less. It only weakness was its limited 28 round ammo supply.

Didn't it have two-piece ammunition?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-22 04:32pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Didn't it have two-piece ammunition?

Yeah and it still managed a decent rate of fire.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Best Tank of WWII

Best of the Best