What would you consider the best all round tanks for each of the major combatants of the Second World War? ie Soviet Russia, Britain, USA, Germany…
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
my choices for best"all around" are panther,t-34,tiger and sherman–this is a never ending dispute just my opinion-- these are also my favorite 4-- as far as brit tanks go,i like the sherman varients-- treadwell[:D]
Well Manfred, this is my opinion only:
Germany- Panther G, King Tiger, Tiger I and Panzer IV H/J
USSR- IS-2, T-34/85, KV-1
Britain- Cromwell, Crusader, Valentine, (Comet too late for impact)
USA- Pershing, Hellcat, Jackson, Sherman
The T-35 85mm hands down was the best combination of power/armor/gun
Better engine than the Panther
Could defeat all German armor
Only Tiger had advantage in gun range.
German tanks were too fragil. Suspension was too complex - engines were not powerful enough and used gasoline - Optic were too complex - designe for elite crews. Russians got results with tanks designed for “farmboys.”
Only the Centurion and M26 came close from the Western Allies.
Remeber that the major Allied anti-tank weapon was the P-47. It really wasn’t until after WWII that US doctrain decided to used tanks primarily against other tanks and not for infantry support.
saransk
The best “all around for each power” I would guess:
-
Russia-the T-34 and the later JS heavy tank series.
-
Britain-The Matilda , the Churchill and eventually the Sherman Firefly-This is even according to their own authors, where the Eighth Army tank drivers preferred the Americn Shermans to anything made in the UK.
-
USA- Early to mid-war: The Stuart and the Sherman. Later, the improved Shermans, the Chaffee and the Pershing, which did see action (such as at the battle at Remagen), but not as much as it might have had Patton not wanting a truly heavy tank in his army. His idea was much the same as the Russians-numbers over sheer firepower (hence the saying,“Our blood, his guts”). Designed as a Tiger-killer, they were proved the world’s most deadly tank later in Korea when a single shot form it’s 90mm gun could punch a hole clear through a T-34, including taking out half the engine block!
-
Germany-The Panzerkampfwagen III, IV (medium tanks which the Sherman was developed to deal with for the British Eighth Army), and the V (Panther) series (which a Sherman could take out a close range), plus the Strumgeschutz III/IV (Assault gun/tank destroyer). Although the Tigers were formidable, they were generally overrated since the Pzkw VI series lacked sloping frontal armor and could be killed by a British 7-Pounder AT gun. The later heavier Tiger series were generally most effective as a defensive weapon against the Allied armies. For more, see this link: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/
At least that is my opinion [C):-)]
If I was a WW2 tank commander, the invincible King Tiger will be my choice to engage to an enemy’s tank. If I was a battalion commander, I hope I can have some Leopard regiments to fight. However, if I was a marshal to win the war, to attack and occupy enemy’s land, T-34 will be my best choice.
I know, in non-covered plain, a King Tiger can definitely defeat 7~8 of the T-34/85. With some fortification this number could reach 10. I also know that a Leopard may cope with 6~7 of the T-34/85 in a defensive battle, far surpasses the corresponding man-hour of production ratio. But the war could not be won by defense, but attack! A Leopard may stop 6~7 the T-34 in defense but is it still so good when attacking a well prepared enemy’s line? Look at what happened the sharpest German SS army in front of the Russian fortification. If a Leopard can block 6~7 the T-34, does it mean 1,000 Leopards can certainly block 4000 the T-34? No! But on the other hand, your opposite with 4000 T-34 on hand can concentrate and breakthrough your defense line with 1000 Leopards, given the same grade on commanding technique.
People usually neglect a figure in the T-34 when comparing with German’s: T-34 has a doubled traveling range than the German tanks! Although this superiority has nearly no effect in a face-to-face combat, it is extremely significant in a big campaign. Once a T-34 broke through enemy’s defense, in the process which exploited the victory to the enemy depth, it requests much less service from its rear than the Leopards. Let see how the majority the Tigers and Leopards were lose: once the T-34 broke through and threatened they supply line, the tank aces have no choice but to blast their own tanks then walk back. Otherwise they will lose gas and spare parts supply from the back. They run out of gas while the T/34s were still ahead of them. What a pity!
What leopard tank are you talking about? The Leopard 1 or 2…lol if germany had these in ww2 then 1000 of them could take out 4000 or more.
My picks.
- T-34/85
- Sherman
- Pz Mk IV
I just love those Tiger tanks. However, I can’t leave out M4 sherman series and T-34 series of tanks.
Late war productions are for obvious reasons “better” the early or mid.
Simply because the requirement drives technology.
If you ask me what I like to build and enjoy collecting info about:
The Tiger I because it looks so mean
The Sherman because it concurred the western front
The T34 because it won the war
My preference would be King Tiger and Panther
My opinion,
The best tank of WWII would be the M26 Pershing. Unfortuanately it arrived a little too late to make much of an impact on the war.
The best German tank would probably be one of the Panther varients, which was a better mix of firepower and mobility than either Tigers.
Russia-T34/85
I don’t really have an opinion about English AFV’s.
Im a sucker for the German Panther and Russian T-34 and SU-85
I watched a special on Discovery a while back and they did the top 10 greatest tanks, Sherman, and the Panther were in there but I dont think any Russian tanks were there…
russia: id have to agree with most of the people on here: the T-34/85
Britain: id say Churchill, Cromwell
USA: M4A3 105 Howitzer Sherman
Germany: Panther or Tiger
-DJ
That was a great special but you forgot the #1 tank…The Russian T34, it made such an impact upon the battlefield the Germans had to rethink their armor design. After suffering great loses of their own armor to the T34 the Panzer V was developed; one prototype was an exact copy however they chose the other design which was submitted and later became known as the Panther.
Later…Heater
t 34, no questions asked. The t-34’s were knocking out tigers when they first showed up. They were fast, reliable and had good armament and armor. Easily mass prodeuced.
the tiger had a crappy engine, with good armor and a good gun. It was too hard to mass produce.Lots of road wheels.
The Panther would be a good runner up, it had great manueverability, but alot of road wheels just like the tiger, lighter armor and alot smaller gun.
The sherman, It’s armor was far to slim, while it may have been fast, thats not much when you cant ko the enemy tank.
The pershing came to late imo.
Well, I remember a conversation I had many years ago with an old man who said he was a US Army Artillery Lt. whose unit was mostly KIA, he and a few survivors hitched a ride with a Shereman tank column. He said they ran into some Tigers that ‘just lit us up like Ronsons’ (Ronson lighters). He said the best you could do with those damned Germans Tigers was to shoot at the tracks and run like hell. Yes, the German Tiger family of tanks suffered from engine problems, excessive weight, and a very complex maintanance schedule, but they were one hell of a cat to tangle with at the time. Just like any German weapon, it was complex, and expensive to produce, and not really geared for mass production like the Shermans or T34’s.
While it’s been touched on, it was doctrain that drove designs.
The Sherman, while having a larger gun, was never intended to be a Tank-vs-Tank as its primary function. It was designed to work with infantry. The M10/M36/M18 were designed to specifically go after tanks. The Sherman was designed in response to early German doctrain. (The MkIII for tanks, the MkIV for Support). Ufortunately the Germans had moved to armor/gun over mobility by 1944.
The Russian IS2 was a stop-gap that succeeded. The 122mm gun used such large ammo that few rounds could be carried. Had the 100mm ant-tank gun been used the IS would have out-Panthered the Panther. As it was, it was most successful when breaking through defensive lines where even the 88 had trouble with it.
None of the Alles ever produced a tank designed specifically to be “a Tiger.”
The M26, the Centurion, the T44 became the new generation of mobile, better armored, and “big gunned” medium tanks. The M103/Conqueror/IS3-T10 were the last vestiges of the “heavies.”
The firepower that arried in the 90mm-105mm-110mm guns could defeat standard armor. The next generation of powerpacks finally gave good reliable power.
The last German designs, the Tiger II, the Jagtiger, etc. were little more than semi-mobile forts. They could have only survived if the Allies did not have air superiority.
Ironic that the MkIV was probably the best all around German tank. It had a good gun, decent armor, was solid and simple and served its crews well.
saransk
Heater is correct…I saw that one as well.
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/tanks.html
(don’t tell the guys in the a/c forum I am lurking in here… you armor guy have some nice toys[:D])
QUOTE:The T-35 85mm hands down was the best combination of power/armor/gun
Better engine than the Panther
Could defeat all German armor
Only Tiger had advantage in gun range.
German tanks were too fragil. Suspension was too complex - engines were not powerful enough and used gasoline - Optic were too complex - designe for elite crews. Russians got results with tanks designed for “farmboys.”
Only the Centurion and M26 came close from the Western Allies.
Remeber that the major Allied anti-tank weapon was the P-47. It really wasn’t until after WWII that US doctrain decided to used tanks primarily against other tanks and not for infantry support.
saranskQUOTE
For the German tanks, It sounds like you are reffering to the Tiger, this is the tank with the engine that was underpowered, all the other tanks were perfect, except the Panther of course, it would break down as well. Optics? The optics in German tanks were not that complicated from what I know, and the German tank crews were trained to use them. The panzer IV was probably the most well designed German tank of WWII, everything was balanced, good engine, good armor, the only problem was the short range of the gun. Also, I dont think an 85 mm shell could pierce 3.94’ of steel armor plate, but I could be wrong(And I probably am…) The suspension has nothing to do with how well the crew handles the tank. The crew need not worry about a complex suspension, it would not slow the down at all. The only reason the Germans lost was because they were outnumbers like 100 to 1, or something like that, and of course, Hitler was a complete idiot when it came to strategy.
My votes for best tanks of the war:
Germany: Panzer IV all versions
America: Sherman, M10, M36,
British:I wouldnt know I despise British tanks[:P]
Russia: T-34/85, JSII Stalin, KV-1, KV-2