 | 
06-24-2008, 07:58 AM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| Best/favorite WW2 heavy tank
Yihaa - my favorite - the heavy tank (must be a guy thing  )
My choice is the King Tiger.
Unreliable?: yes!
Indestructable?: Nearly...
Killer?: YES!
During the late phase of "Wacht am Rein" a King Tiger suffered more than 100 direct hits to the frontal armour - and survived... The Pershing is surely a better machine - but it was too late to be my choice. IS2 was a beaut as well. Finally - there is something cool/nostalgic about the Matilda  | 
|  | |
06-24-2008, 07:59 AM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa
Posts: 2,381
Country:  | I think the Tigers were the only ones that were truely considered heavy tanks. Not sure about the IS2 but I think the Pershing was considered a medium. | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 10:13 AM
|
#3 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country:  | IS-2 forewer!!!  | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 01:59 PM
|
#4 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,456
Country:  | I have to go with the Tiger.
Yeah she had problems, but one on one she was the best.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 02:05 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Zlin, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,215
Country:  | my vote goes for tiger 2
__________________ 
Roman Susil
Zlin, Czech Republic
...a friend of Joe Owsianik, a former left waist gunner from B-17G ''Tail End Charlie" from 2ndBG,20th Sqdn, that was forced to bail out on Aug. 29th, 1944 over my country. | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 02:28 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,583
| Tiger 2, no doubt, the most advanced & powerful tank with a turret to be produced in WW2.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 03:33 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest
Posts: 823
Country:  | I have to go with the KingTiger...too bad it was so unreliable...
__________________
These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda" | |
| | |
06-24-2008, 04:08 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 2,143
Country: | I had to go with King Tiger despite reliability issues - could say the same thing about early Fw 190A or P-51B | |
| | |
06-25-2008, 12:49 AM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 180
| Tigern is the king
I remember a documentary film whit ww2 veteran allies and axis tankcrew. the german who drove the Tigertank and some who dident really preferd the Tigertank as first choiche when sellecting tank they prefer. When the same question whent to the Allied veterans who had some combat experience against the tigern. They whit all the choice they had from all allied tanks. they preferd the Tigern as first choise.  | |
| | |
06-25-2008, 04:49 AM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 307
Country: | IS-2. Relatively cheap, good cannon and well placed slope armor. Slow rate of fire, yes, but it's purpose was the front line breaktrough ,not the armour vs. armour battles - and for that purposes it was just enough.
King Tiger - formidable toy, but it is not the weapon to win the war. | |
| | |
06-25-2008, 05:33 AM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 146
Country: | Tiger I
IS-2 was slightly too limited in its scope for my taste, to be called best heavy tank. King tiger was just too mechanically unreliable and too underpowered. If they had managed to put a 1000hp engine in it this might have changed. | |
| | |
06-25-2008, 06:59 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 482
Country:  | I voted for Tiger I
an excellent tank up to 44, expensive but that was not so important in heavy tank category.
Juha | |
| | |
06-25-2008, 09:26 AM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 180
| Lets make a opposite poll
Hi again. The poll of the best tank is gonna be often the tigern so it's the winner in this discussion. but lets make a poll over the worst tank designed in first hand to fight against tank instead, that may gonna be a lot of discussing of. My belive of the worst tank is the Cruisertank A9 Mark 1 A9 Cruiser
The main dravback over this tank was thin armour Max 14mm-6mm
the other whas to many horisontal armour, to many angel and courner where a AP-round could easly get a grip instead of slide off, to many crewmember because of the six crewmember 2 were used in 2 machinegunturrets whitch had a limmit shootangle, and there whas weary limmited space in the tank for the crew and it has thin track. | |
| | |
06-26-2008, 12:07 AM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,779
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by timshatz  I think the Tigers were the only ones that were truely considered heavy tanks. Not sure about the IS2 but I think the Pershing was considered a medium. |
The KV 1/2 were the first real "Heavy tanks" in common usage in WWII, gave the Germans fits early in the war, they were not expecting that. IS/JS 2 & 3 were "heavies" as well
The Churchill was an infantry tank, so could be considered heavy tank too.
__________________  | |
| | |
06-26-2008, 04:09 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird The KV 1/2 were the first real "Heavy tanks" in common usage in WWII, gave the Germans fits early in the war, they were not expecting that. IS/JS 2 & 3 were "heavies" as well
The Churchill was an infantry tank, so could be considered heavy tank too. | I'll have to disagree - The CharB1 was in common usage during the french campaign - and the Matilda II in North Africa.
All the tanks that in the poll where listed as heavy tanks or infantry support tanks by those who used and encountered them (none of them designed to be the mainstay of their countries armoured formations (the pershing however was reclassified as 'medium' in 1946). Furthermore - IMO - their power-to-weight ratio alone disqulifies any of them as medium tanks.
P.S. I did not list the IS3 as it did not see combat in WW2 (neither did the type 95 - oops). | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM. | | |
