Best Tank of WW2

I am polish and I have few troubles with english language...Sorry ;) ...
I agree with you...I was talking about sloped armour...But I used bad word...Obviously, sloped armour is good thing...But german Panther had sloped armour too and they designed their tank this way because they saw T-34 and its armour which was difficult to destroy...Caterpillars was also seen in T-34...
 
Cadet Seaman said:
And the Germans really never used sloped armor.
Click to expand...

The Panther, the Stug III Ausf G, the Jagdpanther, the Jagdpanzer IV, the King Tiger and Hummel all used sloped armour during WW2.
 
Doppleganger said:
Cadet Seaman said:
And the Germans really never used sloped armor.
Click to expand...

The Panther, the Stug III Ausf G, the Jagdpanther, the Jagdpanzer IV, the King Tiger and Hummel all used sloped armour during WW2.
Click to expand...

I meant to a certain degree. Unlike todays armor, the M1A1 for example and the Challenger. Turrets where more circular and sphereical than square in that era.
 
kingtiger-henschel.jpg


I was just reading up on the King Tiger and found that there where two types of turrets. Henschel turret and Porsche turret.
 
The King Tiger is very similar to todays modern tank in many ways, but lacks the computerised fire systems, thank goodness our chaps did not run into to many of them. But the best tank of WW2 I think would have to go to the Russian T 34. It's extra wide tracks made very good in all terrains, it's sloping armour gave it that extra protection. It was crude and simple and easy to maintain and did it's job extremely well. The tiger was a fine tank and when it worked it first class but they had so many problems with it on the mechanical side and it was over engineered which put many repair task beyond the crews ability to do them.
 
LeEnfield said:
The King Tiger is very similar to todays modern tank in many ways, but lacks the computerised fire systems, thank goodness our chaps did not run into to many of them. But the best tank of WW2 I think would have to go to the Russian T 34. It's extra wide tracks made very good in all terrains, it's sloping armour gave it that extra protection. It was crude and simple and easy to maintain and did it's job extremely well. The tiger was a fine tank and when it worked it first class but they had so many problems with it on the mechanical side and it was over engineered which put many repair task beyond the crews ability to do them.
Click to expand...

The Sherman had small track so it could fit onto Eruopian rail bridges. I dislike the T-34. It had horrid engine and mechanical problems, radios failed, but on the plus side she was upgunned to 85mm.
 
LeEnfield said:
The King Tiger is very similar to todays modern tank in many ways, but lacks the computerised fire systems, thank goodness our chaps did not run into to many of them. But the best tank of WW2 I think would have to go to the Russian T 34. It's extra wide tracks made very good in all terrains, it's sloping armour gave it that extra protection. It was crude and simple and easy to maintain and did it's job extremely well. The tiger was a fine tank and when it worked it first class but they had so many problems with it on the mechanical side and it was over engineered which put many repair task beyond the crews ability to do them.
Click to expand...

All German tanks were over-engineered. The biggest problem with the King Tiger, aside from its poor mobility, was the fact that all were rushed to the front as soon as they were built. This tank had no pre-production trials whatsoever and I guess it wasn't surprising that half of them simply broke down due to mechanical failures.
 
Not to mention the huge fuel consumption of the King Tiger and also JagdTiger, petrol engines were commonly used in just about every german warmachine, not very fuel economic.
 
I think the Panther Auf. G was the best tank of the war. The T-34/76B was a good design but like most Russian weaponry in fell in the "crude but effective" catagory. It just lacked the refinement of the Panther which was an engineering marvel. In fact the Pather was very popular with Russian tank Crews so much that they translated the service manuals.
Still the Panther was based directly from the T-34 so alot of credit has to be given to the Russians...
 
Interesting that the western allies couldnt make an effective main battle tank in WW2 dont you think?

Sherman - good tank but it wasnt known as a tommy cooker/ronson for nothing.

Matlida tank - good but slow early war tank but with too small a gun.

Does anyone know if a Centurion saw any action in WW2? I thought it was only in prototype in '45.

I have to agree that Germans and Russians made the best tanks - T34, Stalin tank, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger.
 
Reiben said:
Interesting that the western allies couldnt make an effective main battle tank in WW2 dont you think?

Does anyone know if a Centurion saw any action in WW2? I thought it was only in prototype in '45.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain about the Centurion but the US M26 Pershing did see action in 1945. It was a much better tank than the M4 and could meet the Panthers and Tigers of the Wehrmacht on much more even terms. Like the German Tigers it was grossly underpowered and so lacked mobility on the battlefield. It made a great defensive tank but of course it was used in mainly offensive engagements.
 
Doppleganer

I dont think you can compare the M4 and the M26. The Sherman was classified as a medium tank while the M26 is classed as a Heavy tank. Frankly I think this best western-allied Tank was the Sherman Firefly. She had almost the same firepower as the M26 (although not the armor) but had all the advantages of the M4 as well. making er much more useful as an offensive weapon.
 
mmarsh said:
Doppleganer

I dont think you can compare the M4 and the M26. The Sherman was classified as a medium tank while the M26 is classed as a Heavy tank. Frankly I think this best western-allied Tank was the Sherman Firefly. She had almost the same firepower as the M26 (although not the armor) but had all the advantages of the M4 as well. making er much more useful as an offensive weapon.
Click to expand...

Reiben did use the phrase 'main battle tank' and I think it can be argued that it's a more useful defination than 'medium' or 'heavy', the meaning of which is purely subjective and changes from nation to nation. I wasn't making a direct comparision between the M4 and M26 other than the fact that the M26 was a much better design.

I disagree that the Sherman Firefly was the best Western Allied tank. It may have had a gun that could finally knock out German tanks at reasonable ranges but it was still an M4, with all its weaknesses. The only advantage the M4 had over the M26 was mobility and ease of repair - in all other respects the M26 was far superior.
 
Pershing falls into the same category as several others: Extremely late in coming in WW2 and didn't have a chance to make any real impact upon the war's outcome. The Pershing saw very few WW2 battlefields. Same problem as the Firefly.

EDIT: If its a contest between the Firefly and the Pershing, I'll take the Pershing, BTW.
 
Last edited:
Overall it's the IS 3 even though that too came late it was a very good tank. I am however at a lost to choose between the king tiger or the IS 3 based upon which was better in battle.
 
Conquerer.jpg





The Conquerer came out in 1945 but was to late to take part in the fighting...The Centurion came in about 1946 as more of medium tank rather than a heavy weight like the Conquerer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top