Best tank of WWII?

Which was the best?

  • M3 Grant/Lee

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • M4 Sherman(FireFly version)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • T34/85

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Cromwell VII

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Churchill VII

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Panzer(PzKw) IVj

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Panther G

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Type 97(Oh well...)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • M15/42

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
I think i'd go for the Panther, as the best all round tank.
The Germans took the T-34 design and improved it and came up with a superior tank.

It's ironic that the Brits, who invented the tank and had the leading exponents of tank warfare in General Fuller and Basil Liddall Hart, couldn't stay the pace with the Germans in either tank design or tactics.

And dont you think it was almost a crime by the Brits and Americans to send there tankers up against Panthers and Tigers in woefully inadequate tanks like the Churchill and the Sherman?
How many young tankers were killed and maimed in hopeless battles against vastly superior tanks?
 
i do speak German, and what i dont understand is why Hitler didnt use his extra panzer division to slow down the D-Day Invasion, oh wait maybe i do Hitler probably wanted the allies to come, and then repell them to prove Germany's might. . . i feel sorry for Rommel to take orders from such a moron, BTW the T-34 tank is said to be the best of WWII, but the Panther from what i have read surpassed the T-34 in firepower but the armour wasnt as great but the Panther got the job done :rambo:
 
Any particular reason that the King Tiger/Tiger II isn't listed? I know it didn't go into full production, but still I'd think it meritted mentioning.
 
Any particular reason that the King Tiger/Tiger II isn't listed? I know it didn't go into full production, but still I'd think it meritted mentioning.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, its not listed because at over 60 tonns and carrying a 88mm, it was not a medium.
 
Well neither is the Panther if you want to be technical about it, it's listed as a "Medium Heavy" tank according to www.achtungpanzer.com

Why is the M3 Grant/Lee even listed in this pole? Those things were death traps which proved horrible for us in North Africa.
 
Wow, I think the T-34 was the not the great tank some people are making it out to be in this poll. The Germans destroyed them by the thousands. The battlefield results of the T-34 were faulty for two reasons. First, the Soviets were very guarded about disclosing negative findings, and second, sheer numbers established many of the victories like with the Sherman’s via overwhelming the German tanks. For an excellent website on the tanks and their deployments in German Armor Divisions, please go to the following site.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers.htm

Nonetheless, I think the Panther will get my vote as the best tank produced in World War II. It had a remarkable balance of protection, firepower, and mobility and was rushed into production in 1943 as a response to the Soviet T-34, whose main features (a powerful engine, wide tracks, a hard-hitting gun, and sloping armor) influenced the German engineers. As soon as the first production problems about the hurry to get this machine into the battle were resolved, the Panther was developed into the most magnificent armored beast in World War II. Incidentally, I think this forum would actually be better located under Military History.
 
well different tanks were better for different reasons
like the sherman was cheaper and quicker to build but the tiger(in my opinion best tank of the war if you mean fire power and armour) was more expensive but better :rambo:
 
ill be damed if i know said:
well different tanks were better for different reasons
like the sherman was cheaper and quicker to build but the tiger(in my opinion best tank of the war if you mean fire power and armour) was more expensive but better :rambo:
Click to expand...

Yes thats true, but the best all around tank was the Panther G and F models. Sherman was't a matter of cheaper, but that America had more factories and man power.
 
My vote goes to the T34.
The fact that it was easy to manufacture and cheaper is also a testiment to it's supoerior design. Just because something has a bigger gun, is faster or better armoured, doesn't make it the best. The best would be a tank that combined ease of manufacture, cheapness, firepower, armour and speed....and that it what you get in the T34.

I love cost effective, reliable and simple military machines with crews in them that has had superior training.
 
bushpig1998 said:
My vote goes to the T34.
The fact that it was easy to manufacture and cheaper is also a testiment to it's supoerior design. Just because something has a bigger gun, is faster or better armoured, doesn't make it the best. The best would be a tank that combined ease of manufacture, cheapness, firepower, armour and speed....and that it what you get in the T34.

I love cost effective, reliable and simple military machines with crews in them that has had superior training.
Click to expand...


Well, the T-34/76 was cheap. It had terrible radios, crappy engine, armor wasn't the best, gun was small. 40,000 out of 50,000 that where made in between 1941 and 1944 where knocked But I will give you that the T-34 was cost effective as was the Sherman, two very good machines.
 
What about the French tanks? They had fine equipmen for their time, the Somua 35, the Char B1-bis... sadly they didn't knew how to employ them.
 
HI
In my opinion the T-34 was the best all-round tank in WW2 but
the heaveiest and strongest was the King Tiger
It took Fricken heavy artillery and airpower to kock one out
 
Peterminator said:
HI
In my opinion the T-34 was the best all-round tank in WW2 but
the heaveiest and strongest was the King Tiger
It took Fricken heavy artillery and airpower to kock one out
Click to expand...

Not really, the King is just like the M1A1HC, heavily armored front, less armored rear.
 
LeEnfield said:
Maciste.....Did the French Tanks actually fight in any major Battle during WW2
Click to expand...
Yes they did. Their tanks were a fair bit slower, better armored and better armed than their German counterparts (the Panzers I,II,III,IV) during the 40 day German pummelling of France. Germany had this novel idea: Mass the tanks and use them to cut the enemy line in half, aka Blitzkrieg. France went with a more traditional role for their tanks: disperse them evenly as a support weapon for the infantry, effectively negating their most useful function of being able to move quickly in battle. The BEF and France had more total tanks than Germany, but because they were not correctly used, they lost. You'll never hear much praise thrown at them. Germany invaded France and the Lower Countries outnumbered in every category but one: they had slightly more combat aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top