Not to mention the huge fuel consumption of the King Tiger and also JagdTiger, petrol engines were commonly used in just about every german warmachine, not very fuel economic.

I think the Panther Auf. G was the best tank of the war. The T-34/76B was a good design but like most Russian weaponry in fell in the "crude but effective" catagory. It just lacked the refinement of the Panther which was an engineering marvel. In fact the Pather was very popular with Russian tank Crews so much that they translated the service manuals.
Still the Panther was based directly from the T-34 so alot of credit has to be given to the Russians...

Interesting that the western allies couldnt make an effective main battle tank in WW2 dont you think?

Sherman - good tank but it wasnt known as a tommy cooker/ronson for nothing.

Matlida tank - good but slow early war tank but with too small a gun.

Does anyone know if a Centurion saw any action in WW2? I thought it was only in prototype in '45.

I have to agree that Germans and Russians made the best tanks - T34, Stalin tank, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger.

Originally Posted by Reiben

Interesting that the western allies couldnt make an effective main battle tank in WW2 dont you think?

Does anyone know if a Centurion saw any action in WW2? I thought it was only in prototype in '45.

I'm not certain about the Centurion but the US M26 Pershing did see action in 1945. It was a much better tank than the M4 and could meet the Panthers and Tigers of the Wehrmacht on much more even terms. Like the German Tigers it was grossly underpowered and so lacked mobility on the battlefield. It made a great defensive tank but of course it was used in mainly offensive engagements.

Doppleganer

I dont think you can compare the M4 and the M26. The Sherman was classified as a medium tank while the M26 is classed as a Heavy tank. Frankly I think this best western-allied Tank was the Sherman Firefly. She had almost the same firepower as the M26 (although not the armor) but had all the advantages of the M4 as well. making er much more useful as an offensive weapon.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Doppleganer

I dont think you can compare the M4 and the M26. The Sherman was classified as a medium tank while the M26 is classed as a Heavy tank. Frankly I think this best western-allied Tank was the Sherman Firefly. She had almost the same firepower as the M26 (although not the armor) but had all the advantages of the M4 as well. making er much more useful as an offensive weapon.

Reiben did use the phrase 'main battle tank' and I think it can be argued that it's a more useful defination than 'medium' or 'heavy', the meaning of which is purely subjective and changes from nation to nation. I wasn't making a direct comparision between the M4 and M26 other than the fact that the M26 was a much better design.

I disagree that the Sherman Firefly was the best Western Allied tank. It may have had a gun that could finally knock out German tanks at reasonable ranges but it was still an M4, with all its weaknesses. The only advantage the M4 had over the M26 was mobility and ease of repair - in all other respects the M26 was far superior.

Pershing falls into the same category as several others: Extremely late in coming in WW2 and didn't have a chance to make any real impact upon the war's outcome. The Pershing saw very few WW2 battlefields. Same problem as the Firefly.

EDIT: If its a contest between the Firefly and the Pershing, I'll take the Pershing, BTW.

Overall it's the IS 3 even though that too came late it was a very good tank. I am however at a lost to choose between the king tiger or the IS 3 based upon which was better in battle.

The Conquerer came out in 1945 but was to late to take part in the fighting...The Centurion came in about 1946 as more of medium tank rather than a heavy weight like the Conquerer

Did Americans made the Conquerer?