|
| |||||||
| WW2 General Every WW2 related discussion besides aviation. |
| View Poll Results: Best Tank of WW2 | |||
| King Tiger |     | 4 | 8.89% |
| Panther |    | 23 | 51.11% |
| Sherman |    | 1 | 2.22% |
| T-34 |    | 17 | 37.78% |
| Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-14-2009, 08:51 PM
| #16 |
| Member Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 42
| Hello Juha, I believe what you said, however I dont know about turret but I read in several articles that the front armor of a King Tiger has never been pierced by a Allied tank. I aslo believe that any tank woule be disabled by any turret shot ot the rear less armoed spots. I am nopt familiar with the Comet, I just looked it up, thanks for mentioning it. Also just want to point out that i just favor the Tiger for its technology and that it was the Germans most feared weapon, also my Grandfather told me how fierce it was he served in (I think) an m3 half-track, he was the .50 gunner. Last edited by carman1877; 08-14-2009 at 08:53 PM. |
|         |
|
08-15-2009, 05:53 AM
| #17 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,357
| Hello Carman Quote:"I read in several articles that the front armor of a King Tiger has never been pierced by a Allied tank..." It is also my impression that the hull front armour was more or less invulnerable to Allied tank and A/T guns. But also glacis plate of Panther was very difficul to penetrate, 17pdr ABCBC shot had sone 1/4 chance to penetrate a good quality one from 400y, 17pdr APDS, if hit, had a good chance to penetrate it. Not all Panther glacis plates were that good but one could not know beforehand had the Panther he was fighting against a good, an average or a poor quality glacis plate. Juha |
|
| |
|
08-15-2009, 09:58 PM
| #18 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 270
| I think we are missing some candidates: How about the regular garden variety Tiger I, or a KV-1, KV-85, or a JS1, 2, or 3? The Pershing and Comet have already been mentioned. - Ivan. |
|
| |
|
08-15-2009, 10:37 PM
| #19 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,990
| Dollar for Dollar, the T-34, unquestionably. It cost about 1/2 that of a Sherman to build, and about 1/4 to 1/5 that of a Panther. Crew costs aside, that means you could have 4 or 5 T-34s for every Panther, and about 9-12 for every Tiger. However as an overall battle package, costs aside, its hard to go past the Panther. It was a good blend of armour, power/mobility and protection. It had some very good incidentals like optics and communications. Its only drwaback, early on at least, was reliability. It appears to have had some issues with its transmission, but these were eventually solved
__________________ Do not judge on abilities, but on choices Last edited by parsifal; 08-15-2009 at 10:40 PM. |
| |
|
08-16-2009, 05:41 AM
| #20 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,357
| IMHO Panther's Achilles Heel was its final drive. According to Jentz from early 44 onwards most of its problems were solved but it could still not take the strain of turning in reserve on soft ground and that last try to solve the problems was made in Oct 44 but no word on how that succeeded. According to Spielberger the final drive problems originated from original design and were unsolvable without fundamental redesign of the system /change to other system than the original, which was never made. Juha Last edited by Juha; 08-16-2009 at 05:43 AM. |
|
| |
|
08-18-2009, 06:04 AM
| #21 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
| Tiger E, or just Tiger, was the best. Not a competitor in this poll though.
__________________  |
|
| |
|
08-18-2009, 08:29 AM
| #22 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lazio
Posts: 804
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
08-18-2009, 02:15 PM
| #23 |
| Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 27
| The T-34. Only the T-34 and Sherman were mechanically reliable, and the Sherman was woefully under-gunned. |
|
| |
|
08-19-2009, 01:22 PM
| #24 |
| Member  Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Capel-le-Ferne, Kent, England
Posts: 96
| Tiger ? ..big, slow, thirsty, underpowered, heavy, mechanically unreliable .....don't think so !
__________________ " My wingman reported a large hole in my fuselage - it turned out to be the fuel tank vent .." Gordon Graham, CO, 354th FS, 355th FG |
|
| |
|
08-19-2009, 02:04 PM
| #25 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe, currently Portugal
Posts: 205
| I have a weak spot for the Tiger Pz VI (should be in the list!), but although both the Tiger and Panther were very good tanks, they had reliability problems, and some design flaws (the wheels were very subject to clogging, for instance), which started with the Panther and were never solved in the Tiger. The Sherman was not the best tank in the war, far from it, but it was available in huge numbers, was upgraded several times - something that british tanks could not do, as they were designed around a gun, if a bigger one was needed... no dice! -, and it did the job reasonably well. The Tiger II was a monster, very ambitious, but I think it's complexity, size, and weight, also contributed to it's little effect in the war. It's true that Germany was in deep trouble when it appeared, but even if it hadn't been (say that it had appeared in 1940, e.g.), germans would soon been looking for a cheaper, simpler, more reliable and affordable replacement, keeping it only for elite units (and a few at that). If I had to choose, I'd pick the T-34: balanced, well-armoured, with a lot of punch, and as far as you tell me (had no notion of that until now), quite cheap. It's ugly, probably smelled awfully, I bet the noise it made was appalling... but it's aim was not to please. Did I mention it didn't get stuck in the mud easily? It's resilience to bad weather can not be forgotten. |
|
| |
|
08-19-2009, 04:05 PM
| #26 | |||
| Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Scunthorpe UK
Posts: 19
| Quote:
(Yes it had the 75, 17 pdr* and a 105**). Quote:
Comet was the first British tank to be actually designed around a gun - check David Fletcher's 3 volume history of British armour. Quote:
Churchill the same. It did help that the 75 was essentially a re-bored/ re-chambered 6 pdr though. * Although the "official" view was that it couldn't be done originally. ** low-velocity howitzer - no different than making a CS (Close Support) version like we Brits did from A10 (pre-WWII) onwards. | |||
|
| |
|
08-19-2009, 04:05 PM
| #27 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 885
| Nobody has voted for the Sherman? I don't blame them! 
__________________ "This is the day which the lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Psalms 118:24  |
|
| |
|
08-19-2009, 04:19 PM
| #28 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lazio
Posts: 804
| compare the Tiger with same time M-4, T-34, KV-1, Churchill, Cromwell (?), take out the hopeless others axis countries tanks ADD the gun was superior at all other the armour has not same advantage of gun, Churchill and KV-1 have also large frontal armour but i have not checked side of Tiger was best. the mobility (was manuvreability) it's pointless of Tiger but the other heavy armoured were not best Last edited by Vincenzo; 08-20-2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason: mobility |
|
| |
|
08-20-2009, 05:56 AM
| #29 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe, currently Portugal
Posts: 205
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
08-20-2009, 07:35 AM
| #30 |
| Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8
| I have to mention the IS-2 here. While maybe not having the impact of any of the tanks in the poll, it’s design comes the closest to being what a MBT is today – low profile and big gun (the gun was 122mm and 16 ft long). So, like the German Electric Boat, it had a large effect after the war. |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
