Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[JeffK]

Best and favourite, but only one table to vote on.

Favourite, the Tillie.

Best, the bloody Tiger!

[CCM von Hausser]

No dubt! Tiger!!

[Joe2]

The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger. And if we are talking about the western desert (egypt, Libia ect) then only the 88 could kill it, as Rommel was promised a load of tigers but they didnt arrive....probably torpedoed by the Royal Navy whilst still on ships

And the Eastern bit of desert (morrocco, Tunisia ect) there where only 20 Tigers anyway


But why are cromwells on the list? I thought they only appeard in '44

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Joe2

The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger.

Where did you come from. It is a proven fact the 3 best tanks of WW2 were the Tiger, Panther, T-34. No arguement can be made. The Tiger could kill anything the allies put up without much dificulty.

[Joe2]

the churchill had more armour than the Tiger mkII actually

[Gnomey]

Not than the MkII (King Tiger) - 180mm front - and only 2mm (had 102mm front) more than the Tiger I (100mm front)...

Churchill tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiger I:

Armor Thickness (mm) 26 - 1005
1009
Front: 1007
Side: 807
Hull Front, Upper 1002,3
102@20°, 100@10°4, 100@66°8
Hull Front, Lower 62@60°
100@24°4, 100@80°8
Hull Sides, Upper 82
60-802,3
80@0°4, 60-80@90°8
Hull Sides, Lower 62
60@0°4
Hull Rear 802,3
82@20°, 80@8°4, 82@82°8
Hull Top 252,3
25@90°4
Hull Bottom 252,3
25@90°4
Turret Front 100-1202,3
100@0°-11°, 100@8°4, 100-110@80°8
Mantlet: 100-110@0°4
Turret Sides 802,3, 82
80@0°4, 80@90°8
Turret Rear 802,3, 82
80@0°4, 80@90°8
Turret Top 252,3, 26
25@81°-90°4, 26@0-9°8

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf E, Tiger, SdKfz 181

Tiger II - King Tiger:

Armor Thickness (mm) 25 - 1504
Front: 1806
Side: 806
Hull Front, Upper 1505, 150@50°3, 150@40°7,8
100-1502
Hull Front, Lower 100@55°8, 100@50°3, 100@40°7
Hull Sides, Upper 80@25°3, 80@65-90°7, 802
Hull Sides, Lower 80@0°3
Hull Rear 80@30°3, 802, 80@60°7
Hull Top 40@90°3
402
Hull Bottom 25-40@90°3
25-402
Turret Front 1005, 180@9°3, 1802, 185@80°7
Porsche: 60-110@round3
Turret Sides 80@21°3, 802, 80@69°7 Porsche: 80@30°3
Turret Rear 80@21°3, 802, 80@70°7
Porsche: 80@30°3
Turret Top 40@78-90°3, 402, 44@0-10°7
Porsche: 40@77-90°3

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B, Königtiger, SdKfz 182

Churchill MKIV:

Look here (can't be bothered to sort and copy it)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap and the gun on the Tiger could cut through any Allied Armour with pretty good ease.

The only tank that one can argue with was better than the Tiger and Panther was the T-34 and that has to be argued and is not easily proven because the Germans countered the T-34 with better versions of the Tiger and Panther which made the T-34 more vulnerable.

[lesofprimus]

I could never, even with sodium pentathol, say that the T-34 was better than the Panther...

More numerous, hell yea.... The Russians proved that u can win over technology with sheer brute numbers... It was a great tank and all, but nowhere superior to the Panther or Tiger...

As for the Poll, he may have labeled the Title of the Thread wrong, as his poll says North Africa, so I have to agree with the consensus and say the Tiger Mk VI.....

[ndicki]

The Tiger and the Panther were too bl**dy unreliable, being mechanically far too complex. The RAC built a couple of new Panthers out of parts on the production line - part of the evaluation - at the end of the War, and took them back to Bovvie for trials against the Centurion MkI. They did not do as well as expected. There was the vague idea that the British army might even adopt the Panther, but that one did not last long!

T-34/85? Soldier-proof, relatively reliable, 85mm gun - albeit not a very good one, but still. Diesel engine, so less likely to brew up, decent armour protection, quite fast and manoueverable, nice wide tracks with good grip... a lot to be said for it. And, like the Centurion, it soldiered on well into the 1990s, if not actually until the present day. But it's not my favourite by any stretch, just the one I'd hope to have if for some reason they had to force me at gunpoint into one of those horrible things. Give me a nice hole anyday!

[ndicki]

Did he say North Africa? Didn't read it. The best was therefore not the Panther, at any rate, as they didn't serve there. All things considered, the Churchill MkIII did solid work there, as did the Sherman MkI and II. Not as hard hitting as the Tiger, but far more likely to reach their destination!

[plan_D]

The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.

The Pz.kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and beyond made relatively easy meat of the Churchill as they raced around it and destroyed it from the side and rear, with their superior cannon. And that's not mentioning the several design faults and pathetic line of sight given by the Churchill's over-extended tracks.

The best in the desert was the Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E 'Tiger' as no other tank had a chance against it. The Allies never produced a tank that could go toe-to-toe with the Tiger, the Centurion Mk.I would have been able to but it wasn't in the war on time.

The Churchill had slab-sided armour, to compare anything on the Churchill with the King Tiger is stupid. The King Tiger would slaughter anything in anyone's arsenal when in combat. It was the most powerful AFV in the war.

And, while not in North Africa, the 6th Coldstream Guards got hold of a Panther Ausf G in full working order in the Ardennes Offensive. It held the road better than the Churchills and was a far superior attacking weapon. The Guards had it for weeks but were more than upset when it broke down. It saved many British lives in that unit.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hmm interesting. I did not know that they captured and used a Panther. I would have been afraid that allied aircraft would have attacked it not realizing that it was being used by there own forces.

[plan_D]

Picture for you, Chris:

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.

Actually, until Tunisia there were grave doubts about the Churchill, and it was only its perfomance in this theater that ensured its continued production.

It should also be noted that in the only Tiger 1 and Churchill combat in North Africa, the Churchill ( armed with a 6 pdr gun ) Ko'd the Tiger

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.

Some 'lumbering wreck'!
Between 20th-30th October 1944 31 Churchill tanks of 34th Tank Brigade were hit and 'knocked out' In Holland. Of this total only 7 were a total loss. 24 were repaired and put back into service. A further 7 Churchills were damaged by mechanical means, i.e falling into craters, hitting the gun on obstructions ect.
The following German wrecks were listed and the location given where the vehicle could be found. They were 'total losses'.

1 x Jagdpanther.
3 x 105mm Stug.
9 x 75mm Stug.

All were destroyed by the Churchills.
Marks on the ground showed that a number of other German vehicles had been recovered and towed back behind their lines. Thus we do not know the total number of German vehicles 'knocked out'.
Thus 7 Churchills (and 3 Stuarts) for 13 SP guns. Not bad for a 'lumbering wreck'.