Best tanks, Allies or Axis?

KAMIKAZI

Active member
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...
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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.
 
Panzer III was definitely not up to to the level of the T34 as of June, 1941. Panzer IV was barely up to task. Both managed because the Germans were untouchable in execution and tactics and they had superb anti-tank capabilities. As I said, the Wehrmact was in a panic. "We have nothing this advance, what do we do?"
 
The German tanks were unreliable though in combat, they were very advanced for their time as I said but they were way way way too expensive to be made on bulk with the resources the third reich could get. I think their best designs were not the Tiger I because that had verticle armour but the King Tiger and the Panther because both of which had sloping armour which is still highly regarded in tank designing today. The Maus tanks was a complete joke though, they were only built in prototype form but they would have been useless, they weighed far too much and costed a vast amount of money, again though it was a futuristic thought. I think on the whole Germany spent too much time coming up with advanced weapons, if they had stuck with more basic weaponry that was cheaper and easier to build they could have won the war. They spent vast amounts of money on aviation which was hardly ever used such as the ME262 etc and they spent money on countless other projects, they even had a flying saucer idea.
 
German equipment was fine, there just wasn't enough of it. I'm at odds with the recommendation by Guderian to forget newer models of tanks and just focus on mass production of Panzer IV's, but that prolly fits into what you're saying about mass producing cheaper models. OF COURSE the Tiger II was better, it just was too late coming to have any great relevance to the war. The flat panels of the Tiger I offends my common sense, but the fact was that it was an extremely good tank. Sloped armor wasn't everything after all. The Tiger I was a heavy and could kill a Panther with ease. Even after they upgraded the Panther, its still a heavy vs a medium. It was the Tiger and its tendency to see direct hits just bounce off of it that terrified so many allied tankers.

The highest scoring tank ace of all-time (to the best of my knownledge) was Michael Wittman. His insane kill total started out in a Panzer IV, but his best performances were in his Tiger I. Here's a good link about him: http://www.panzerace.net/main/pz6tiger.asp
 
I do know for a fact though that German tanks were constantly having engine failures in the most annoying situations more than any other countries tanks (except Japan and Italy who were worse lol) it crops up in lots of first hand accounts "german tanks engine failures."
 
godofthunder9010 said:
German equipment was fine, there just wasn't enough of it. I'm at odds with the recommendation by Guderian to forget newer models of tanks and just focus on mass production of Panzer IV's, but that prolly fits into what you're saying about mass producing cheaper models. OF COURSE the Tiger II was better, it just was too late coming to have any great relevance to the war. The flat panels of the Tiger I offends my common sense, but the fact was that it was an extremely good tank. Sloped armor wasn't everything after all. The Tiger I was a heavy and could kill a Panther with ease. Even after they upgraded the Panther, its still a heavy vs a medium. It was the Tiger and its tendency to see direct hits just bounce off of it that terrified so many allied tankers.

The highest scoring tank ace of all-time (to the best of my knownledge) was Michael Wittman. His insane kill total started out in a Panzer IV, but his best performances were in his Tiger I. Here's a good link about him: http://www.panzerace.net/main/pz6tiger.asp

Well I think in light of Germany's predicament it was a sensible idea. The Panther and Tiger's were more complicated to build and definately a product of German overengineering. The long barrelled Panzer IV Ausf H was a good tank and able to meet the T34 on a fairly even basis and many more of them could be produced compared to Panthers or Tigers.

The Tiger 2 in theory was a better tank than the Tiger 1 but in reality it was woefully underpowered and underengineered - it still had reliability problems and never should have been released to front line units when it was. If it had been given an uprated engine and more development time it would have been a devastating tank in combat.

As far as I'm aware the Germans had engine failures for 2 reasons. (1) because they had not been designed to cope with the -40 degree Celcius temperatures of the Russian winter and (2) because they were in tank designs like the Panther, Ferdinand, Tiger 2 that had been rushed to the front when they clearly were not ready.
 
do know for a fact though that German tanks were constantly having engine failures in the most annoying situations more than any other countries tanks (except Japan and Italy who were worse lol) it crops up in lots of first hand accounts "german tanks engine failures."
So were everyone else's of course. I'd be curious to learn which European nation had the largest number of mechanical failures. The biggest problem Germany had to face is that because they had a lot fewer tanks, every mechanical problem was much more felt.
 
If germany hadnt produced so many models they probably wouldnt of had so many mechanical problems, but i would say that the germans and russians had the best tanks and were the best users of tanks.
 
As you said about the freezing temperatures, German tank engineers were very fond of inter connecting wheels and complicated suspension so when mud got in and froze they were completely immobile.
 
This is just a little comment:

The Panther was built as a direct counterforce to the T-34, so much so that when the Wehrmacht generals came to inspect two prototypes they found one which was almost identical to the T-34. They decided on the other design which is Panther as we know it today only on the basis of fear of friendly fire that's how much they looked the same.

And yes Germans did have better armor core.
Be it tactics or equipment.

@shadowalker

the reason for so many models is because the Germans knew they were outnumbered and thus had to rely completely on their technical superiority. ie "this model will be the best" and so on...
 
Back
Top