Best Tank of WW2

i really wasn't sure if i should include IS2 in the overall impact category, i knew that IS2 was superior to tiger and a bit inferior to tiger 2, so i used wiki and found out that 3800 IS2 (i'm not sure if all during the war but i may assume that most were build during the war cause the russians switched to IS3 production after the war) tanks were built and only around 1350 tigers which convinced me to make this choice.
plus if i may add some interesting reading (an example how russians can cancel advantages of great tanks :) ) :

As far as the IS2 being inferior to the King Tiger there is a little bit of data around that says that may not be accurate as there was a few battles around Budapest where the two tanks met almost exclusively and in each case the IS2 came off best.

Had the war gone on a little longer to give the IS2 a decent operational lifetime I would agree with those who rate it at the top of the list but given that it never really made an impact I still rate the Tiger I as the best heavy tank of WW2.

Well, by the time Panther 2 would be out there the allies would have had the M-26, the Centurion, and the T-44-100.

That is a fair comment although Panther II prototypes were already made so I suspect it would have been in production by the end of 1945 and to my mind the 122mm gun it carried was a step up over the other tanks listed.
 
Last edited:
surfed in here from a Google search. Lot of interesting info and opinions

Unfortunately, people missed the best tank of WW2:

The Comet. British 17pdr gun (OK, the 77mm version) and a much better chassis than the Sherman firefly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank

The Panther was an incredible design that scores well in mobility, protection and firepower but was too unreliable, especially its transmission.

The Tiger I was getting a bit dated by the end of the war and while still good, could not be considered "the best" any longer.

The King Tiger is one of the most over-hyped tanks of the war. Why does everyone think this is great ... because it is so big? Brilliant gun ... but it was simply too heavy, expensive and unreliable to be effective. I think they could have made 3 Panzer IVs for each King Tiger ... and they would have been much more useful in holding off hoardes of Shermans and T-34s.

Best tank destroyer? I'm tempted to say the Russian SU-100. The 100mm gun is a sleeper among WWII aficionados but was one of the best of the war (just behind the Tiger II's 88mm). It was actually in production until 1979. Penetration (according to Wiki) was 185mm at 1,000 meters. Wow! :shock:
 
There was outrageous some Stars & Stripes propaganda posted on page 5 of this thread … and I wanted to comment on it:

” George S. Patton's 3rd Army since late August has knocked out 1,988 tanks while losing 1,044 tanks.”

Our armored forces had a 2:1 kill ratio over the Germans? Ha! I don’t believe this for a second. In typical engagements, we lost 3-4 Shermans taking out a single Panther or Tiger. Perhaps when you factor in the number of tanks taken out by P-47s, Typhoons, etc … you can arrive at those numbers.

”3rd Army tank and TD men destroyed 515 enemy tanks and 302 pieces of wheeled artillery … 3rd Army losses during that period were at 168 tanks and TDs and 91 artillery pieces.”

That 2:1 kill ratio has improved to 3:1! LOL! See above.


” … the 3rd's kill for the entire period were 718 Mark VIs, the enemy's vaunted Tiger Tank.”

Interesting … since total production for the Tiger I was just over 1,200 tanks and most probably went to the Eastern Front. More nonsense inflated propaganda.

” M-36 TD had knocked out German Tigers at distances up to 4,000 yards.”

Hmmm … sounds like more propaganda from the Iraqi Information Minister! A 4,000 yard shot is 12,000 feet … OVER 2 MILES!!! I suppose it’s possible … but for WWII fire control and a 90mm gun? That’s an amazingly lucky shot … like a hole-in-one in golf. The longest tank-to-tank kill was performed by a British Challenger I on an Iraqi tank during Desert Storm … 5.1km distant or just over 3 miles.
 
Actually I am glad this has come up again...Comming back to my ast post here, the T-44/85 was already being produced in late 1944. This tank was armored to a maximum of 120mm, had the same 85mm as the T-34, a top speed of 53 Km/h....In short, it is a very improved T-34/85mm...I dont know if it was the best but surely had it been used in combat(which it was not) it would fare very well.
 
Did the T-44 actually see combat though?

I rate it alongside the Comet as as arriving too late to make any real difference.

As far as making 3 Pz-IVs out of a King Tiger while I wont dispute this I don't see the relevance as those Pz-IVs would have been horribly outclassed by the allied tanks that were coming on stream, I am convinced they would have been better off scraping the Pz-IV in 1943 and concentrating on Panthers and large numbers of Jagdpanzer-IVs which were a lot faster and cheaper to produce and could be upgunned and armoured as needed.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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)
 
"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. :?
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
Back
Top