Best Tank of WWII

[The Dark]

IS-2 was a touch slow, though. For only being 500kg heavier than a Panzer V, it lost 9 klicks of speed.

The IS-3 was superior to the -2 mostly because it didn't use two-piece ammunition. Really, though, the whole IS series was just a development of the KV-1, and like it, had a poor power-to-weight ratio. A Sherman had over 80% the power of an IS-2 with only about 67% of the mass, so it was more capable of crossing broken ground. The early Panzers similarly had better ratios, but late Panzers (VI and King Tiger) were worse, so it seems to have been a problem for both the Soviets and the Germans, while the Americans focused on mobility with heavy armor in vital locations (Brits seem to have gone for a blend of the two, while the Japanese armor just plain sucked...a tank with a top speed of 45 km/h and maximum armor of 14mm is not survivable). In fact, the IS-2 was the only Soviet tank I know of with armor thicker than the M4A3's 100mm maximum (equal to the KV-1 and superior to the T-34/76A).

[Sea Skimmer]

IS-2 was a touch slow, though. For only being 500kg heavier than a Panzer V, it lost 9 klicks of speed.

That's because it devoted much more weight to protection and armament. A mere 9kph is not going to be relevant in combat, variations in the terrain will cost you more speed then that.

(Brits seem to have gone for a blend of the two, while the Japanese armor just plain sucked...a tank with a top speed of 45 km/h and maximum armor of 14mm is not survivable).

The British jumped all over depending on what they wanted the tank to do. As for Japanses tanks, they sucked yet there early models work just fine against the Chinese which was what they where designed for. Total weight was more important then anything else simply so they could move around on the countries bridges and on improvised rafts. Later in the war Japan produced a number of mech better tanks, but most got held in the home islands for a finnal defence or went to China where there was no swarm of American made anti tank weapons to knock them out.

[Companion Cube]

"Britian"? WTH?


Anyway, i'd go for the Russians.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Russia had the best combination of quality and mass-production.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The Soviet Union produced the most efficient tanks. The T-34, KV, and IS series tanks fulfilled the demands placed on them without undue expense. A T-34/85 and a Panther had nearly equal odds of defeating one another while the T-34/85 was much cheaper. (In a confrontation between the two it all came down to who got the first solid hit, and the Panther had better optics, a more accurate gun, and probably better crew... but there were always more T-34/85s than there were Panthers)

German designers focussed too much on building super-mega-ownzor tanks which would sweep the enemy from the field and WIN THE WAR, and too little on more mundane concerns like being able to get the tanks in the field in any reasonable numbers.

[Raptor 597]

The Soviets. the T34 was a good tank don't get me wrong and did there job superbly but the crews were all divided in the tank and couldn't respond well. It had a good gun and well armored but it lacked some things that people consider the ultimate tank like communications, superior electronics, etc. If it's about who did the job best it was the T34/85 but in best internal design it was most defintely not the T34/85. I personally like the IS-2 and M26 Pershing

As for German tanks later in the war, here is my solution: shoot Hitler in the head and place Guderian in charge of armore. Replacing all anti-tanks guns with assaualts guns in the infantry divisions were vital once 1944 came around. Also, Guderian disdained the way the surprise f the tiger was wasted on Leningrad. Never let a design be released prematurely for such an important operation! Also, he advocated either stealing the T34 and modifying or release a superior Panzer Mark IV.

[Darth Gojira]

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.

Have you noticed that France and Italy had leaders with the strategic sense of cheese logs? The Soviets weren't that much better, and a mano-mano rematch with Poland would have been, if before 1940, disastrous. And don't get me started about the pre-Churchill British..........(END RANT)

[Sea Skimmer]

Have you noticed that France and Italy had leaders with the strategic sense of cheese logs? The Soviets weren't that much better, and a mano-mano rematch with Poland would have been, if before 1940, disastrous. And don't get me started about the pre-Churchill British..........(END RANT)

Churchill's strategic sense was little better then his predecessors; the fiasco in Greek was a direct result of him, as was the attempted recapturing of several islands in 1943. Hell even once Churchill got his Italian landings he still tried to talk American commanders into further landings in south eastern Europe and pushed for a landing in Portugal rather then Normandy. Really it was only the suggestion of the US calling off any landing and reversing its Europe first policy that shut him up.

[MKSheppard]

A T-34/85 and a Panther had nearly equal odds of defeating one another while the T-34/85 was much cheaper.

errr....

Panther 7.5 cm Kw.K. penetrates T34/85 up to: 2000m (Front Turret)

T34/85 85mm S53 penetrates Panther up to: 500m (Front Turret)

A properly dug in Panther unit in the type of defensive position commonly found
in the East during 1944 absolutely owned the russians.

In one case, a single Panzer Battalion destroyed 107 Soviet tanks, for
the loss of just 1 Panzer IV and 5 Panthers.

The problem was that at no point in WWII did the Germans actually have
operational level superiority over the Russians, same way the Germans
in the West didn't have superiority over the American Sherman hordes.

Both us and the Russians won in the end, but a lot of our tankers and
tankists got killed needlessly

[Lt. Nebfer]

Im in agrement with MKSheppard the germans had great tanks(all thow they probly coud of made due with out the tiger 2s)

the panther was a reliable tank when the Ausf A came out and was even better when the G Model came out (all thow it still wasent up to U.S. specks)
the tiger was fairly reliable if maintained as well as the MK-4

the germans best bet(tank wise) was to make as many MK 4 H-Js and Panther Gs as posable follwoed by StuG 3Gs, Jaged Panther, Jaged 4/70s and the Hetzer


as for the Allied tanks the T-34 was the best but even it had Problems(expesley with the early vertions) and the IS-2 weas a good tank.. Light good gun and armor althow the early vertions had some problems(ie it coud be killed by a Pak 36/37(ie the 37mm one) from the front!!!(thats why thy made an inproved vertion).
we only won becuse..... of numbers 21000 tanks made vs 80000+ tanks you decide!!!!
(and thats just tanks)

[Pablo Sanchez]

errr....

Panther 7.5 cm Kw.K. penetrates T34/85 up to: 2000m (Front Turret)

T34/85 85mm S53 penetrates Panther up to: 500m (Front Turret)

Engagement ranges were closer to 500 than 2000 meters, anyway, and with the (much) lower cost of the T-34/85 you could put two or three in the field for each Panther.

A properly dug in Panther unit in the type of defensive position commonly found
in the East during 1944 absolutely owned the russians.

So you're saying that Panthers could do very well if the Russians were forced to come to them and they had time to dig in? Okay.

[MKSheppard]

Engagement ranges were closer to 500 than 2000 meters, anyway, and with the (much) lower cost of the T-34/85 you could put two or three in the field for each Panther.

Err...someone point out to Pablo what the term "russian steppe" means

So you're saying that Panthers could do very well if the Russians were forced to come to them and they had time to dig in? Okay.

Isn't that the entire story of the German Army after Kursk? Russians
attack, germans withdraw to new defensive lines, russians attack again,
germans withdraw again, etcetc

[Pablo Sanchez]

Err...someone point out to Pablo what the term "russian steppe" means

By the time the Panthers were in regular and efficient operation the theatre had moved into less favorable terrain.

Isn't that the entire story of the German Army after Kursk? Russians
attack, germans withdraw to new defensive lines, russians attack again,
germans withdraw again, etcetc

Perhaps. But for that kind of warfare, they'd have been better served by mass-production of Hetzers and Pz-IVGs. A Panther is an expensive investment for an elastic defense.

EDIT:
Anyway, that's getting off-track. We're comparing the capabilities of these tanks in general, not their suitability in specific types of operations.

[Sea Skimmer]

A properly dug in Panther unit in the type of defensive position commonly found
in the East during 1944 absolutely owned the russians.

Unless they swarmed around it like they always did since the battle is going to be ten tank corps vs. perhapes three Panther/Mark VI battalions

In one case, a single Panzer Battalion destroyed 107 Soviet tanks, for
the loss of just 1 Panzer IV and 5 Panthers.

And at Krusk twenty Il-2's once destroyed seventy Panzer in fifteen minutes for no losses. But neither case is typical.

Both us and the Russians won in the end, but a lot of our tankers and
tankists got killed needlessly

Read the Sherman thread on Slades board.

[Howedar]

Russia by far.

[MKSheppard]

Unless they swarmed around it like they always did since the battle is going to be ten tank corps vs. perhapes three Panther/Mark VI battalions

Yes, that's always what happened.

Read the Sherman thread on Slades board.

Yes yes, that says that the Sherman wasn't so bad since it
was usually a platoon of Shermans against a bunch of German
infantrymen with jack shit in the way of armor 95% of the time
rather than Shermans going up against unstoppable KTs 95% of the time.

Still though, it was a major morale shitter knowing that if you went up
against a German tank, even if you got the first shot out, you would still
die.

[Sea Skimmer]

Still though, it was a major morale shitter knowing that if you went up
against a German tank, even if you got the first shot out, you would still
die.

Unless you had one of the original silver bullet Tungsten rounds aboard, which would pierce Tiger and Panther armor at a considerable range. Anyway you had really bad luck to actually run into a Tiger, and most reports of them where just Mark IV's with died quite easily via 76 and 75mm fire.

[Perinquus]

All in all, I'd rate the later production Pathers as the best tanks of the war for all around performance, with good, well-sloped armor protection, good speed and maneuverability, and a powerful gun. All this made it a great tank for offensive as well as defensive fighting. Great as the Tigers and King Tigers were, they were so big and slow it limited their usefulness, and generals like Guderian never liked them. The problem is by the time the later, more reliable Pathers were available in quantity, Germany's goose was already well and truly cooked.

The T-34/85 was thus, in many ways, the most important tank of the war. If it was inferior in performance to the best German tanks, it provided the Russians with an adequate performer, even against the enemy's best, and thus was a great vehicle with which to assert numerical superiority, which they proceeded to do.

[Soulman]

The thing about the Panther is that although it was often classified as a medium tank it was about as heavy as an IS-2 and was more than 10 tons heavier than the T-34/85, with that weight disparity it had better be able to beat the T-34/85.

[Cpt_Frank]

The T-34/85 was thus, in many ways, the most important tank of the war.

You're aware that the T-34/85 didn't appear until 1944 or so when Germany had already lost, and that it was the T-34/76 which actually won the war for Russia.
So while I'd say the T-34/76 is historically more important, the T-34/85 is one of the best tanks of the war, along with the Panzer V.

[Sea Skimmer]

You're aware that the T-34/85 didn't appear until 1944 or so when Germany had already lost, and that it was the T-34/76 which actually won the war for Russia.
So while I'd say the T-34/76 is historically more important, the T-34/85 is one of the best tanks of the war, along with the Panzer V.

The T-34/85 showed up in 1943 at Kursk.

[Perinquus]

You're aware that the T-34/85 didn't appear until 1944 or so when Germany had already lost, and that it was the T-34/76 which actually won the war for Russia.
So while I'd say the T-34/76 is historically more important, the T-34/85 is one of the best tanks of the war, along with the Panzer V.

The T-34/85 showed up in 1943 at Kursk.

Precisely. The T-34/85 was available in quantity at the moment when the tables were turned, and the Soviets were able to go on the offensive.

[MKSheppard]

The problem with the Panther was not that it wasn't produced in numbers,
but it came out when Germany was on the edge of defeat with no POL
supplies at all, no gas no boom boom.

PzKpfw III: 5733
PzKpfw V Panther: 5976
PzKpfw IV: 8544

[Sea Skimmer]

Precisely. The T-34/85 was available in quantity at the moment when the tables were turned, and the Soviets were able to go on the offensive.

The tide turned in 1942 and from the start of the ill convinced operation Blue Germany no longer had much of any hope of keeping Russia from Berlin. Course the arrival of the US into the war made an actual win impossible, but stopping the Soviets in Poland while the US and UK seized all of Germany would have made for a better surrender.

[Perinquus]

Precisely. The T-34/85 was available in quantity at the moment when the tables were turned, and the Soviets were able to go on the offensive.

The tide turned in 1942 and from the start of the ill convinced operation Blue Germany no longer had much of any hope of keeping Russia from Berlin. Course the arrival of the US into the war made an actual win impossible, but stopping the Soviets in Poland while the US and UK seized all of Germany would have made for a better surrender.

You're correct in that this was when the Germans really lost the initiative, which they never then regained. But it took some time before the Soviets were really ready to launch a sustained offensive and keep the pressure on. Kursk is generally taken as the moment when the Germans shot their final, desperate bolt, and from that time on, were limited to a purely defensive campaign, which was doomed to failure.

And on the other matter you mentioned, even if the Germans had stopped the Soviets in Poland while surrendering to the US/UK alliance, I doubt it would have made the slightest bit of difference -- not when you consider Roosevelt's insistence on unconditional surrender, as well as Roosevelt's desire to cooperate with the Russians after the war. Stalin would have pressured Roosevelt and Churchill for a slice of the pie based on the fact that it was the Soviet Union that spent the most blood and treasure stopping Hitler, and Roosevelt almost certainly would have agreed to give it to him. So you would still have had Soviet troops occupying part of Germany.