Well, it is true that the aspect (defensive or offensive) the tank will play plays a role in how effective it is, but for all around reliabilty and multi-role capability, I’d say the T-34/85 still wins. Front on even the german’s top guns had trouble penetrating the thick sloped armor.
I think you’re missing the context of the question Larry (I feel like arguing)…
“What was the best tank of WW2?” leaves it completely open to debate, but I don’t think that mass-production of a vehicle (or its weight of numbers on the battlefield) can factor into the discussion. The M1 carbine wasn’t the best rifled weapon of the war, but the U.S. built 6 million of them…same can be said for the .45ACP. Lots of stopping power, but they were terribly inaccurate.
I can adjust the criteria within the question to basically put any WW2 era tank into the category of “one of the best”. Which tank disassembed itself the best, which tank got the best gas mileage, was the fastest, had the best turret rotation speed?
But if you want to categorize each of those candidates, they have to be scrutinized with the same criteria, period.
I still say the Panther G and the Pershing top the list of the best tanks of WW2 overall., Obviously there are others which top the list in specific categories.
Jeff
I stand by the T-44. 3 of them saw combat! Therefore they participated! The new 100mm gun was better than anything the germans had, and it had improved armor over the t-34/85 too.
Tankmaster,
No dought the T 44 had an impact on post war tank design… But IMHO it has no place on the Best Tank of WWII list… I’m not even willing to put the Pershing or Comet on that list let alone the T 44…
Later,
Hibrass
I think you’re begging the question. If it’s possible to construct more of a certain kind of tank because of its intrinsic design, and having more tanks helps you win the war, then ease-of-production should definitely be factored in.
Look at it this way. You have two tank designs. Both resulting tanks are identical in all battlefield abilities, but one is easier to manufacture, meaning you will have more of them. Which design is better?
By the way, my father would disagree with you on what the best rifle of WWII was. [:)] He was a gun nut even before he went overseas, and fired virtually everything while he was over there, American, British and German, and he put the M1 ahead of everything else in overall capability, including the German assault rifles.
According to my New Vanguard Panther book, the T-34/85 could only penetrate a Panther frontally at 500 yards or less, whereas the Panther could take out the T-34 at 1000 yards and up. The Panther was always capable of knocking out opposing tanks, with the exception of the JS and Pershing, at ranges at which the latter were incapable of penetrating the Panther. That being said, the Russian 85 mm lacked the hitting power of the KwK 42 L/70.
so what is THE most important feature?— manufactorability-- killing ability-- or surviveability[?]— we are all really just trying to figure what was the best AVERAGE tank —thats what might be the bigger picture–if i wasnt so lazy i woulld compile the figures on the top 3 to 5 tanks we have all mentioned and do the math— that would give us the ‘bean counters’ answer—lol[:D]the real answer is the tank that drives away after battle is usually the best one to be in[soapbox][yeah][:D]-- treadwell
Amen to that[^]
The same discussion could be spread across any of the major conflicts since WW2. As good a tank a Challenger 2 or M1A2 or Merkava 4 may be, or how ‘safe’ they made you feel, ain’t no way I want to be the poor sap stuck inside when a couple of HESH rounds thud into me.
Larry, not to argue with your old man, but I said M1 carbine, not M1 Garand.
The Garand was (and still is) one of the finest semi-automatic rifles ever manufactured.
The carbine on the other hand, lacked accuracy at range, and the stopping power of the 30.06 round. The only improvements that I could see being made to the Garand would be the addition of a detachable magazine, and reducing the weight…oh, never mind, that’s an M-14… [:)]
Getting back to production…manufacturing high levels of an inferior weapon doesn’t make it right…it’s like throwing money at a problem without actually solving it. Does it fix the problem? Sure. Is it the best way to solve the problem, not really.
Had the US developed or mass-produced the Pershing in 1943, and had it been the main tank of the Allies by 1944, then I could agree with the premise. But technologically, the Panther was superior to anything the Allies could field until the Pershing arrived in the field. All of the other solutions, the Firefly, M10, M36, M4A3E8, were all stop-gap measures.
Here’s how I look at it…
If I’m commanding Sherman, let’s say a Firefly or an E8, who am I confident I can kill?
Panzer III, Panzer IV, Marder, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer, Nashorn.
Who am I worried about not being able to knock out, because I might not penetrate his armor on the first shot? Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther A, Panther D, Panther G, Jagdpanther, JagdTiger.
Of those listed above, who has the ability to kill me with one round?
Panzer IV (F2), Marder, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer, Nashorn, Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther A, Panther D, Panther G, Jagdpanther, JagdTiger.
Sorry, but with odds like that, I’m not considering the Sherman to be one of the best tanks of WW2…at least not technologically.
Jeff
Let’s try a little math. Let’s say your enemy’s tank is strength 3. You have two options – a tank that is strength 2 and costs 1 dollar, or a tank that is strength 3 and costs two dollars. Which tank is better? The strength 2 tank is, because it allows you to field strength 4 at two dollars.
The Tiger was a greatly inferior tank to the Sherman. Why? Even if we ignore the tank’s chronic mechanical problems and enormous bulk, it was vastly more expensive. This is one of the reasons that the Germans lost the war. They spent too much on each tank, they developed too many different kinds of tanks, and they paid the price for it.
German panzer higher-ups with actual tactical experience, like Guderian, wanted simple, dependable, cost-effective vehicles like the StuG to be the mainstream component of the panzer forces. Guderian essentially wanted to abandon all AFV production except for the Stug. Why? Because he saw the writing on the wall.
But fortunately for humanity, it was the guys with the power fantasies who prevailed, and you get all of these techological terrors laying dead or abandoned on the field, overwhelmed by more cost-effective weapons or broken down because they pushed the envelope further than it could be pushed using 1944 technology.
And all of the above assumes that a tank’s role in WWII was to fight other tanks. See more on this below.
As generals in charge of US Army in the ETO, who we are worried about is the German infantryman, far and away the most common opponent to Allied tanks in WWII. Would you rather attack an infantry line with one Tiger with its ponderous turret rotation and slow-firing 88, or five Shermans with quick turret rotation, high manueverability and rapid firing, very effective 75mm firing the excellent HE rounds?
Yes, the guys in their Shermans who came up against the odd Tiger II on the field were often in for a bad day, but that is a blip on the radar screen when it comes to overall tank performance in WWII.
When the job requires vast numbers of tools to get done, the best tool for the job is not the one that comes with a platinum-coated pencil sharpener. Tanks are used for war, and the job in war is winning. The Sherman won the war for us, while the Germans rode their Tigers and Panthers down the road to ruin.
I would have to say the best tank of ww2 would probably have to go to the T-34- great manouverability fairly powerful gun, high top speed, decent armour, the t-34 in my opinion was good all round, Second for me would be the Cromwell, they were so fast!!!
and last would be the German tigerI
At the macro level Larry, yes, absolutely, I agree with you…but on the 1:1 level, tank versus tank, it doesn’t hold water.
As for infantry, yes, again I agree, but US WW2 doctrine never saw tanks operating without infantry. In fact, tanks were used more in the infantry support role than in a hunting role like German armor was…
So…we can at least agree to disagree…
Jeff
Since this thread won’t diem I’ll toss in my two cents.
I do agree that the ability to produce more tanks for a given manufacturing effort is a relevant consideration for evaluating a weapons system. The Sherman’s overall reliability and repairability are strong points as well. The ability to flood the battlefield with a lot of Shermans helped counter the other deficiencies in its design, at the expense of the lives of the tank crews.
The fact that we won the war and that the Sherman was our main tank is totally irrelevant. Had we never built the Sherman and instead stuck with the M3 medium, we still would have won the war, even though the M3 is often listed as one of the worst tanks of the war.
The fact is that the Sherman, like the M3 was a necessary interim design. The M3 was necessary, because we were going to war and the M2 with its array of machine guns and 37mm main gun was virtually useless. The M4 was necessary because the M3, while being a handy stopgap, was badly deficient with its high profile and hull mounted main gun. In some respects, it’s hard to truly fault the Sherman’s design in the sense that it was probably about the best fix that could be adapted off the M3 in a reasonable time frame. Perhaps the Germans would have been better served by cobbling together an improved Panzer IV rather than waiting around for the Pather to be developed.
When introduced, the Sherman was a decent tank. By 1944, it was badly deficient. It’s a darn shame for all the tank crews who got killed beacuse because the Sherman was misjudged as war winner rather than a stop gap that it actually was.
It depends on the definition of “best tank,” I guess. If the category is, which tank is better at fighting other tanks, assuming 1) both are functioning properly ([:p]); 2) both actually arrived at the battlefield without getting mired or throwing a sprocket because of overweight issues, 3) neither ran out of fuel because it was an obscene gas guzzler, and 4) and they were right in front of each other and going head to head, one on one, then of course the German heavy tanks were better than the American.
IMO, that’s not the way to access tanks at all, because it ignores the tactical functioning of the weapons system and replaces it with a “who’s tougher batman or superman” comparison. (Not to diminish the deadly seriousness of tank-on-tank combat in WWII, but a tank was supposed to be a lot more than a line-up-with-enemy-and-shoot weapons system, like WWI battleships were.)
Actually, this is a bit like saying, which one is better, the M2 Heavy Machine Gun or the Grease Gun? Which then raises the question, “better at what?” The Tiger II was so different from the Sherman that it’s not really even worth comparing them – the Sherman is a tank, the kind the Germans would have killed for in 1939 and 40 as they raced across Europe. The Tiger II was a pillbox on treads.
Right, but that was the role of the tank in US combat doctrine – or at least it was supposed to be.
And while we’re talking doctrine, German schwerpunkt tactics didn’t actually require that German tanks get locked in battle with other tanks (in fact, it was preferable if they avoided it altogether), but just as with American doctrine, realities of the battlefield spoke louder and more often.
I think the StuG III was the best tank of WWII.
Absolute best bang for your buck. Designed as an assault gun, but quickly pressed into service as a fine tank destroyer. Massively, massively produced. In the right conditions, these things could easily knock out T-34s. Plus, theyre so small - barely taller than you are! They are the most remarkable little machines.
The Finnish Sturmi variant could go up against anything the reds could throw at them. They knocked out 87 commie tanks, while losing only 8 of their own. In one Finnish engagement, a Sturmi knocked out four T-34s in close combat, in 2 minutes.
OK, so lets modify this slightly. Which tank would you want to go to war with in WW2. You are the TC. You have to accept all conditions and restrictions that befell the actual tank. That includes reliability, parts availability, fuel consumption and availiability, maintiance, ammo availability, numbers produced and available at the time of use. Missions, tactics and current leadership must remain as it was. Make mine an M26 for late war or a Firefly for an earlier tank. The upgunned(76mm) Jumbo is ok, less gun than a firefly but better armor. Greg
I must say that Germans did have very impressive and inovative tanks compared to allied forces. If I were a Tanker and had to choose one, I would have taken Panther G or Tiger. going back to that comment about .45 ACP pistol, M1911A1 was the most finest pistol ever built and yet still serving our country (military and law enforcement). It was mass produced, but by all means, it is not an inaccurate pistol. Most of M1911A1s that were issued to our troops also were left over from WWI and Post WWI era, which meant those pistols were used quite a lot. Sorry to take the conversation away from the Tank topic.
I also like German Tank Destroyers and STUGs, Jagdpanthers and Elephants as well.
I agree cckang. I ALWAYS shot expert on the .45 range.
But he didn’t specify weapon…
So blaming the .45 ACP doesn’t make sense.
It’s an oft asked and generally emotive issue.
As a fan of German Armour I have previously argued that the panther was the best tank of the war. I now conceed that whilst it was in many respects superior to the T34, in terms of firepower, manouverability, speed and reliability the T34 was the complete package. There is also one other crucial factor in its favour - ease of production. It is widely acknowledged by most experts as being not only the most influential tank design of world war II, but quite possibly the single most influential weapon in deciding the fate of Germany.
Lucky for us as modelers the Germans squandered so much of their resources into developing so many different types of tanks. They would have been better off sticking with the PzIV (which was more than capable against both the T34 and Sherman) instead of wasting their efforts on the Tiger and Panther.
Personally I wouldn’t read too much into the Sherman’s longevity around the world. This probably has more to do with America offloading its surplus onto willing consumers - of course it also conventiently overlooks that Russian T34 and T10s were sold off to its minions as well
I had an opportunity to spend some time at Fort Knox back in early 90’s and tankers were still issued with M1911A1 and M3A2 Grease Guns.
Very pleasant firearms to shoot.
Back to the Tank topic, I just love them all!