What is the best tank of ww2?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by war hawk, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    I have searched the forums for things about tanks and I can not find anything about tanks. I am not sure this is the place for this thread.? So... hwat is the best tank of WW2 ? I think the T-34 is a choice and the Panther, both these tanks had sloped armor, they both had decent guns. I will also start a thread about the top 5 worst tanks . So I would like to know opinions on this. :bad::common001::fishing::eek:hwell:
  2. Antipodean Andy

    Antipodean Andy New Member

    The reason why you can't find anything on here on tanks, WH, is probably because there isn't much at all particularly regarding the merits of certain designs etc. We haven't had a tank expert on here from memory.
  3. liverpool annie

    liverpool annie New Member

    Google is your friend !!!!!!!!! try Googling ..... I just did "ww2 tanks" and came up with loads ... try it and see what you find !!

    Annie :angel:
  4. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    I will do that thanks.:happy:
  5. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    The Russian T34 is considered by many people to have been the best tank of the war; certainly the best all-rounder. It is said that the German Panther was a copy of it (copying some features would be more accurate).

    If Patton had his way and we had gone to war with the Soviet Union after the WW2, the T34 would have caused us very serious problems indeed.

    This site is the first one I go to to find out about WW2 tanks and AFVs:

    World War II Vehicles - Advanced Squad Leader

  6. Keith

    Keith New Member

    Best Tanks

    Hi War Hawk,
    I am not an expert but I did read somewhere that the main advantage the Russians had in tank battles with their tanks, was the sheer smothering effect of their hundreds of tanks against the sparse numbers of German tanks in later decisive battles.
    Their main advantage was the simplicity of design and manufacture and endless resources of raw materials and labour.
    There are two ways of looking at the statement that their's were the better tanks.
    I am sure this will stir up a few replies.
    Being greedy I aways like meat on my bones
    So herewith 3 pics

    Attached Files:

  7. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    Hi Kieth, Good post but it is missing something, there was another reason why the T-34 was a good tank, the sloped armor was made so the shells from lets just say a Panther would bounce off the sloped armor. :kev: And the speed was good, the tank was not to heavy. Can I tell a story that I read? These two Germans jumped on a T-34 , without the crew even knowing, they pulled out there Stielhandgranaten"s and then they went for the hatch on the top of the tank and they realized it was PADLOCKED!!! Therefore they could not take out the crew.:music:
  8. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    From a purely technical point of view the German Tiger and especially the later King Tiger were probably the best. But they were very heavy and complex and not easy to produce. The inferior Sherman on the western front and T34 s on the East Front overwhelmed them by sheer numbers. But the T34 was better than the Sherman - probably less comfortable for its crew, but better protected (thicker armour that sloped at the front like a modern tank), less likely to catch fire, a very good gun, which is why when all is taken into account, it could well be said to the best overall.
  9. Antipodean Andy

    Antipodean Andy New Member

    Neither could the crew escape, I imagine, which says a lot.
  10. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    The Sherman was not a good tank as I sais in my thread top 5 worst tanks.:flame:
  11. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    Was it really among the five worst, though?
  12. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    Tufff question......... I know it would fit in top8 worst tanks.:cc_hang:
  13. spidge

    spidge Active Member

    I do not know a lot about tanks, only what I have seen on the screen (TV Doco's etc), read in books and seen discussed on forums.

    A short synopsis - No Models

    Be gentle on me please![​IMG] I have been over simplistic however that is how I see it.

    The German tanks early in the war were not as good as the French tanks however they were not used effectively.

    The German tanks were better than the British tanks however the British Matilda was better than the Italian tanks in North Africa.

    The German tanks were better engineered and designed early on the Russian front however with the advent of the T-34 in large amounts the Germans had to go back to the drawing board.

    The Germans took features of the T-34 and adapted them to future models however their tanks still required specialist engineering and were still very costly and took longer to produce and were not as "agile" as the T-34.

    Improvements to the T-34 and massive production numbers eventually overwhelmed the Germans which was evident at the biggest tank battle in history at Kursk in 1943 from which the Germans did not recover.

    The American Sherman was not as good as the German tanks nor the T-34 however they made up for it in volumes of units manufactured.

    The German Panther may have been 4, 5, or 6 times better than the Sherman however American industry produced 10 times more than Germany and they could not afford that number of losses.

    The British and the American Tanks were retrieved in greater numbers than the Germans after big battles as they were easier to repair hence the actual attrition rate was much less.

    My best?

  14. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    Well good post. Let me tell you something the Sherman cost many crew members there lives, it didn"t matter to America alll they about was manufacturing numbers. I am not being mean I am just posting facts as to why tghe Sherman or " Tommycooker" or the " Ronson" was not a good tank. I was watching Military channel they HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS A CREW MEMBER OF A SHERMAN THAT LIVED. And the Sherman cost alot of families there relitives. offtopic: In my family I have two ww2 vets in my family[ luckily they were in the navy] and they did not have to be in a Sherman.!!!:eek:hwell: The Sherman could not take anything hardly.:BewareSpam:
  15. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    you had your facts straight otherwise.:):):)
  16. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    Basically, if I was a British or American politician or General and my priority was winning the war, I would have had lots of Shermans, despite the fact that some of my men were going to die un-necessarily.

    But if I was a British soldier who actually had to do the fighting, I would have wanted to be in a Churchill (assuming we are talking of 1944-45), where I would be a lot safer than in a Sherman, but too slow to catch many of the enemy.
  17. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    You should throw a party if you destroy a Churchill. I would make a tank like the Sherman but make it sloped armor and add more armor and a 80-mm gun.:moony::gossip:
  18. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    The high profile of a Sherman was a feature that most nations had discarded in the 30's; it made it an easier target.

    The British produced a conversion called the Sherman Firefly: it had a 17-pounder gun - I'm not sure what calibre that was but it was certainly more powerful than the standard 76mm.
  19. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    You know yesterday I thought there was a half decent Sherman it is called the Sherman Firefly. So you beat me to it.:help::clock:

Share This Page