Theres alot of controversy in the historical world over who had the better tanks and tank destroyers during WWII. was it the Allies or Axis? I personally think from my background knowledge that its the Allies, yes maybe British and American tanks were relatively light armoured compared to German ones but the armour they had provided very good protection. German tanks ran on Diesel which was a good idea for the future since it is not too flammable but in those days the engines required to run Diesel costed more than regular Petrol engines. Russians also used Diesel in alot of tanks but the Russians on the whole did a very good job with tanks in WWII, they were cost effective, reliable, fast, manouverable and easy to use their only disadvantages were caused by the fact that the Russians were being pushed further and further back by the Germans making it hard to settle and produce tanks, also Russian railways were rather limited in their capacity and range to transport them to the front line.

German technology was very advanced for its time, a little too advanced because it cost way way too much and was hard to produce quickly, their guns were very good on the tanks, their engines were advanced and their armour very thick (except on the early tanks) but as I said it cost too much and they couldnt be built in vast numbers like their oppositions tanks. Also German tanks were unreliable and were prone to engine failures and oil leaks which greatly annoyed their crews according to historical accounts, this especially applied to the Tiger tank and the ones after it ie the TigerII and the panther.

Shermans are sneered at by alot of people but I personally think they were very good tanks, I heard an account of some russian troops recieving some sherman tanks and saying that they thought them to be alot more reliable and easy to drive than their own Russian T-34 tanks.


So what do you think Allies or Axis tanks?

This is sorta in the wrong section ... prolly should be in Military History. Anyways, its a loaded question because Germany had the very best tanks and Japan had the very worst. I would rank the armor by nation as follows:
1.) German
2.) Soviet
3.) UK and USA would be too close to call
4.) Japan

Consider the kill ratios. German tanks beat the crap out of everyone.

I baiscally agree with you godofthunder, only i think that it should be like this:

1-Germany
2-USSR
3-USA
4-UK
5-Italy
6-Japan

Th brits did not come up with a woth while desighn till the Centurion, which was a great tank, but too late for the poor crews of the Churchills and Cromwells....

Oh, if we're not counting the Centurion, then I can what your saying Sherman. In tank vs tank combat the Sherman is a tad over-rated. Stuka pilots hated Shermans though because they had a very effective machine gun.

If you are counting the centurion, than arguably, the UK had one of the best tanks in the war. But than you need to bring in the USSRs T44, and the USAs M26 Purshing, and this makes it a whole new game...

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

This is sorta in the wrong section ... prolly should be in Military History. Anyways, its a loaded question because Germany had the very best tanks and Japan had the very worst. I would rank the armor by nation as follows:
1.) German
2.) Soviet
3.) UK and USA would be too close to call
4.) Japan

Consider the kill ratios. German tanks beat the crap out of everyone.

Only when the long barrelled Panzer IV came out, and of course the Panther and Tiger designs, did Germany have superior tanks in technical terms. German panzer units were so efficient as much because of the quality of training and tactics than anything else. This was especially true in the first 2 years of WW2.

It's a misconception that Blitzkreig was so successful because of the superior quality of tanks (and numbers) belonging to the Wehrmacht. The Battle of France was won with with Panzer III's and short barrelled Panzer IV's.

Well, I was counting the Tiger I, but you know full well I'm aware of what you're talking about. Soviet tanks were superb throughout the war. At the outset of Opperation Barbarossa, the inferiority of the German Panzer IV led to a panic at the Wehrmacht. Also, during the 40 days on the French front, the French had tanks that were better armored. The Germans just knew better how to use tanks thanks to the "Father of the Tank", Heinz Guderian. In the overall "who had the highest quality tanks of WW2" its a tough call, but I feel the Germans were superior more often, inferior less often.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Well, I was counting the Tiger I, but you know full well I'm aware of what you're talking about. Soviet tanks were superb throughout the war. At the outset of Opperation Barbarossa, the inferiority of the German Panzer IV led to a panic at the Wehrmacht. Also, during the 40 days on the French front, the French had tanks that were better armored. The Germans just knew better how to use tanks thanks to the "Father of the Tank", Heinz Guderian. In the overall "who had the highest quality tanks of WW2" its a tough call, but I feel the Germans were superior more often, inferior less often.

I agree that the Germans caught up fast after the shock that was the T34. The Panther and Tiger 1 were probably the two best tank designs of WW2 that saw a good deal of action. The long barrelled Panzer IV was able to engage the T34 on a one-to-one basis and the Tiger would have been an easy bet in Germany's favour. Everyone harps on about what a good tank design the T34 was. It WAS a good design but had it not been available in the huge numbers it was historically then it's legacy and reputation would have been much diminished.

On most areas, the Germans simply had better technology. They just got stuck in the wrong fight against the Soviets.

The Gerry's had the best tanks of the war, hands down. If they had been able to deploy a larger tank force they might have won the war in both the East and the Western Fronts, Or Hitler might not have needed to defend the west.