|
| |||||||
| Polls Polls and discussion on their results. |
| View Poll Results: Which is the Best/your favorite WW2 heavy tank? | |||
| Renault CharB1 |     | 3 | 3.70% |
| Pzkw VIE Tiger |    | 26 | 32.10% |
| Pzkw VIB King Tiger |    | 31 | 38.27% |
| Carro Pessante P26/40 |    | 0 | 0% |
| Type 95 |    | 0 | 0% |
| T-35 |    | 3 | 3.70% |
| KV 1&2 | | 1 | 1.23% |
| IS 2 | | 8 | 9.88% |
| A22 Mk IV Churchill | | 4 | 4.94% |
| A12 Mk II Matilda | | 3 | 3.70% |
| M26 Pershing | | 7 | 8.64% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-24-2008, 09:58 AM
| #1 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 211
| 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, 09:59 AM
| #2 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa
Posts: 3,446
| 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, 12:13 PM
| #3 |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 76
| IS-2 forewer!!!  |
|
| |
|
06-24-2008, 03:59 PM
| #4 |
| Der Crewchief   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,152
| I have to go with the Tiger. Yeah she had problems, but one on one she was the best.
__________________  fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I] |
|
| |
|
06-24-2008, 04:05 PM
| #5 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Zlin, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,489
| my vote goes for tiger 2
__________________  Roman Susil Zlin, Czech Republic ...a friend of Joe Owsianik,So. Plainfield, NJ, a former left waist gunner from B-17G ''Tail End Charlie" from 2ndBG,20th Sqdn who was forced to bail out on Aug. 29th, 1944 over my country. |
|
| |
|
06-24-2008, 04:28 PM
| #6 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,107
| Tiger 2, no doubt, the most advanced & powerful tank with a turret to be produced in WW2.
__________________  It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not |
|
| |
|
06-24-2008, 05:33 PM
| #7 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest
Posts: 907
| 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, 06:08 PM
| #8 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,933
| 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, 02:49 AM
| #9 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 214
| 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, 06:49 AM
| #10 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 360
| 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, 07:33 AM
| #11 |
| Banned Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 339
| 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, 08:59 AM
| #12 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,357
| 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, 11:26 AM
| #13 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 214
| 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, 02:07 AM
| #14 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,281
| Quote:
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, 06:09 AM
| #15 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 211
| Quote:
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 | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
