Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Soren]

No Denniss, the PaK44 is slightly ahead all the way with the std. APCBC round, approx. by a 25mm better penetration capability at 3km. The greater mass of the 128mm projectile doesn't give it any advantage in energy retention compared to the 88mm projectile up until about 3.5km though.

The 128mm KwK44 L/60 was the planned armament for the E-100, exactly the same gun as the 128mm PaK44 L/55 & Flak40 L/61 except being in between in lenght.

And to avoid any confusion; Many sources list the 128mm Pzgr.40/43 for PaK44 as a APCR projectile, it isn't, its a APCBC projectile and it weighes 28 kg. No APCR projectiles were ever made for the 128mm PaK44 or FlaK40. The other projectile often listed is the Pzgr.39, but it is not a APCBC projectile like the heavier Pzgr.39-1, Pzgr.39/43 & Pzgr.40/43, its a solid shot APBC projectile originally developed for Flak pieces, like the 88mm Flak18 & 128mm Flak40.

[Ramirezzz]

I like the M4. Easy to produce, to maintain, decent armour and speed. A weapon to win the war.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Derfman

The Tiger II was WORTHLESS for the one thing that wins war: "Offensive action" Even the much flawed Sherman was better.During offensive action, heavily armored and heavily gunned Tiger IIs could waste fuel trying to get in range of the enemy, but thats all they could do.

I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.

BTW I think you also misunderstand the role of the Tiger II. It was a heavy tank, like the IS, KV, Churchill etc. series. Its role was a specialised one, to break through enemy lines, and the let the more lightly armored but numerous mediums pour in the gap. The Tiger`s job was to open the gap for them without heavy losses.

Panther was a great Tank. But not the Tiger II.

No, just different tanks for the different roles.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.

How deep? That wasn't even an operational breakthrough - it was enough to encircle some of soviet forces which were advanced simply to far, but that's rather a defensive kind of operation - defensive in counter-attacking.
For a real breakthrough the Tiger II wasn't good enough from the operational point of view - it was very unbalanced weapon - good in a "static" defence and particulary good in "active" defence but not that good in other roles.
I even doubt if it's correct to call a Tiger II a "breaktrough" tank -usually the tanks assigned to that role carry a lot of HE and only a small amount of AP shells.

[Derfman]

On the subject of the original post, I'll stand by choosing the Panzer IV, although the Sherman would be my choice as a close 2nd (with a better gun, I'd rate it first).

But as for later, I'll also continue to stand by my choice of either the later Panther, or the T34/85 as the "overall" best tank.

I'd vote Late Panther as clearly best for tank vs tank in the field.
I'd vote T34/85 as best if all aspects of the Tank are included, including production cost, maintainence, etc.

As before, I'll give honorable mention to the M26 Pershing and Centurian, but they were to late to count.

[Soren]

The M26 Pershing featured worse reliability than the Tiger Ausf.B so I can't see why you'd ever consider that.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Soren

Had the war lasted another half a year then this beast would've been facing the Allies:





Notice that 128mm KwK44 L/60 with muzzle brake, not even a IS-3 could've felt safe at 3km from that gun.

Nice E-100, Soren. Where's that one from? I notice it's missing the "side skirts".

I'm currently working the 1/35th DML E-100, but it doesn't come with a muzzle brake; I might steal the one from my Maus and put it on the E-100.

[Soren]

Its from Missing-lynx.com - homepage, they have a good collection of models there, enjoy

[ralphwiggum]

I'm no expert but I LOVE the Jagdpanther It looks SO cool

[joy17782]

in north africa i would go with the PZKPFW IV the tiger at that time had some problems were all aware of , the sherman 2nd then the matilda, ,dont get me wrong i love the tiger but at that time i just would,nt have wanted too be a crew member, but as the war goes give me the panther or the jagpanther, sexy tanks with the a$$$ too back up the looks !!!!!!!!!!

[CPWN]

The tank is my favorite,although it looks some weird.

[B-17engineer]

I know nothing about tanks, but i do know that the TIger had an 88mm gun and good armor so I will go with that

[MacArther]

Out of curiosity, how effective was the Pnzer III's L/60 gun (aka, the longer version of the 50mm Hitler had installed) against Allied armor in Africa? I keep hearing that it was a bit light, and really only useful against light armor, but the penetration tables I kinda remember would seem to bely that. Also, what sort of armor penetration could be enacted from the L/24 75mm gun used by the early Panzer IV's and the Panzer III Ns (I think they got the 75mm short gun from the N on, but I could be wrong).

I know nothing about tanks, but i do know that the TIger had an 88mm gun and good armor so I will go with that

Eh, good choice, but not enough were produced to change the war, but then thats about one of the few arguments against it.

[Soren]

If its about the best in North Africa then it's the Tiger ofcourse, as for the whole war in the west well then it's the Panther.

[parsifal]

To argue that one weapon system alone can win battles is a silly argument. If there is one thing that blitzkrieg theory teaches us, its that its an all arms affair. The correct answer to this whole question of which tank is better, is to look at the roles they fulfilled. and this argument that the tiger is, or is not an offensive tank is a nonsense as well

Tiger I and II were neither offensive or defensive tanks, they were support tanks. In an ideal battle they fulfilled this type of role....the enemy attacks your defensive position, you decimate him with your heavy tanks, then countersttack with your lighter vehicles, (Mks IV and V), with the Mk Vs leading the arrowhead formations. The Tigers are still in support, sitting, preferably from some hilltop vantage point, just blasting anything that tries to move.

What is true is that the Tiger was a terrible close in fighting tank. It was simply too slow, turret traverse rate was horrible, and no tank is completely invulnerable from all angles. What it excels at is the support role, sitting back at a distance and picking off targets at range.

Germans were never able to concentrate enough armour , AND provide the air support in anything like proper quantities, to pull this type of arrangement properly. Thank god for air superiority