Best Tank of WW2 - Page 12




 
--
 
May 9th, 2009  
Bror Jace
 
 

SHERMAN, according to Wiki, the T44/85 did not see operational use in WWII … even though it was in production as you said. So, it falls in the gray area along with tanks like the Conqueror, Centurion, JS-3, etc …

The Comet did see use in WWII … but obviously by the time it got into the fight, the die was cast. If they were Jumbo Shermans instead, the outcome (except for a few allied crews, perhaps) would have been exactly the same.

Monty B, good point. If the object of this thread is to ask, “Which is the best single vehicle, period” then your challenge is valid. If the definition of ‘best’ vehicle includes its ability to fulfill its intended role, then I think my point remains (at least partially) valid.

I assume the role of the King Tiger was to protect the German homeland against the armed forces of the Allies. And in this role, it was not particularly effective as it was unreliable, a big fat target for Allied aircraft and too few in number. The Panzer IV Ausf J was a good match for a Jumbo Sherman, late model Cromwell or a T-34/76 so having a few thousand more of those vehicles would have been a useful resource … although experienced tank crews were also in short supply … this is not a simple issue.

Not sure if it would have been wise for Germany to stow all their eggs in the Panther tank. On paper, I think it was the best design of the war but it had serious driveline problems and was expensive to build.

Since the Germans were on the defensive most of the time, building more (simpler) Jagdpanzer vehicles for ambushing Allied armor probably would have given them the best bang for the buck.
May 9th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
T-44, as i said, never reached combat in WWII, but as i recall they had quie a few of them by the wars end...
May 9th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bror Jace
Not sure if it would have been wise for Germany to stow all their eggs in the Panther tank. On paper, I think it was the best design of the war but it had serious driveline problems and was expensive to build.

Since the Germans were on the defensive most of the time, building more (simpler) Jagdpanzer vehicles for ambushing Allied armor probably would have given them the best bang for the buck.
Normally I would agree however faced with the problems Germany had at that stage of the war I think streamlining production to a few models with the capability of further development (which the Panther did and the Pz-IV didnt) would have made more sense.

This would also have made training and maintenance much easier as well.

Anyway I am still going to give the best tank of WW2 award to the T-34 and its variants and in terms of German tanks I think I will give the nod to the Tiger I, in my opinion no two tanks in the history of armoured warfare have spread as much fear within opposition ranks as those two.
--
May 10th, 2009  
BootStomp
 
 
In my personal opinion Germany had the best tanks of the war, and yes Russia had a good one as well.

The Tiger M-1 was a beast, and I would use it as it has been said before as a defensive tank or to boost my MAIN army.

The M-4 Panther or Panzer, was a better tank for the Blitzkrieg tactics used in the European battle front.

These however are my personal opinions.


(On another note, give me an M1 Abram anyday of the week)
May 10th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
LOL...Yes, a M1A2 would have been nice. Could have cleared up those Tigers in a heart bit.
May 10th, 2009  
Bror Jace
 
 
"however faced with the problems Germany had at that stage of the war I think streamlining production to a few models with the capability of further development (which the Panther did and the Pz-IV didnt) would have made more sense."

That was a serious problems with the Germans in general. At wars end, they had hundreds of 'wonder weapons' still in development. You would think that after D-Day, they would give up developing these high tech weapons (guided missiles, multiple jet fighter designs, etc ...) and merely concentrate on one or two designs that actually worked.

It's just as well that they didn't.
May 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
Sort of sounds like the stuff we're doing these days.
May 10th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Panther after they fixed the transmission problems (dont remember which model it was) fast, well armoured, good range and sloping armor, all the strengths of the Tiger I and none of its weaknesses.

Though i agree with a previous poster, Germany would be much better off building jagdpanzers IV to get the best of what they could make.
May 11th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
I assume you are referring to the Panther-G which was by all accounts the best of them, I think it was Guderian that wanted to focus on the Pz-IV but I do not quite understand the benefits of producing thousands of out dated vehicles when they already had one of the best (if not the best) tanks (the Panther) of the war in production.

I think the production numbers vs survivability and development potential would have come out in favour of the Panther by a long shot, on top of this they already had the Jagdpanzer-IV in production so it isnt like they would be wasting the existing Pz-IV chassis.
May 11th, 2009  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bror Jace
"however faced with the problems Germany had at that stage of the war I think streamlining production to a few models with the capability of further development (which the Panther did and the Pz-IV didnt) would have made more sense."

That was a serious problems with the Germans in general. At wars end, they had hundreds of 'wonder weapons' still in development. You would think that after D-Day, they would give up developing these high tech weapons (guided missiles, multiple jet fighter designs, etc ...) and merely concentrate on one or two designs that actually worked.

It's just as well that they didn't.
Well Germany couldn't win through outproducing the allies so they needed something special which implies risk. What if they had concentrated on the atomic bomb for example? No-one knew if it would work for certain.