What is your favorite WWII tanks?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by vashstampede, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. steam

    steam New Member

    Yes i highly agree with you on that, T-34 in history was used by the Soviets also in the game call of duty. I like the tank because of its mobility and strength of shots it has. The ammo the tank holds its limited but that is depending on the person operating the gunner.
  2. aghart

    aghart Former Tank Commander Moderator

    Impractical? at 188 tons the Maus was totally useless, it would never have gone into production. Every bridge in Germany would have had to be rebuilt to take the weight, on anything but the firmest ground it would sink and be impossible to recover. FRONT RUNNER FOR WORST TANK DESIGN IN HISTORY.

    A rocket from a Typhoon or P47 Thunderbolt would put it out of action, despite it's thick armour. Like I said, it would never have gone into production. The picture below shows a Chieftain tank at just under 60 tons bogged down to it's waist. Now think of a tank at 188 tons, do you get my drift?

    Attached Files:

  3. ShamarV8

    ShamarV8 New Member

    The T-34 is widely considered as the best tank of World War II. When it first appeared against German forces i summer of 1941, it was a shock as they used to face an inferior Soviet enemy. The T-34 could engage all 1941 German tanks effectively.

    During the winter of 1941–42, the T-34 dominated German tanks due to its ability to move over deep mud or snow without bogging down. German tanks were unable to move over the same terrain.

    In response to the T-34, the Germans were beginning to field larger numbers of high-velocity PaK 40 75 mm guns, both towed and self-propelled. The Tiger heavy tank enter battlefields in late 1942 and the Panther medium tank by mid-1943. By mid-war the T-34 no longer held technical superiority over German tanks. Loss ratios remained unfavourable to the Soviets; as their technical superiority over newer improved German tanks were reduced. However, the few Soviet tank crewmen who survived early encounters became cleverer and battle-hardened veterans.

    Although the T-34 could not match the German Tiger or Panther tank in one-to-one combat, its abilities to be manufactured in huge numbers and to be easily maintained in difficult conditions have led many to considered it as the best tank of World War II.
  4. Will Belford

    Will Belford New Member

    Big problem with the Maus is that it was too heavy to go over any bridges, which limits your operational capacity somewhat - even the Tiger II had this issue.
  5. Will Belford

    Will Belford New Member

    Great shot. I was amazed out how small these tanks were, like the Matilda 2, and even the Jagdpanther - they have one at the Military Museum in London with a chunk of armour cut out of the side so you can see inside - I'm 6ft and it was barely as tall as me, a very low profile.
  6. Will Belford

    Will Belford New Member

  7. Diptangshu

    Diptangshu Active Member

    Oh ... !! Tank with Head Lights ....... ! @ !...:eek: .. :( Amazing T E C H I E S were there.Were they re-fitted after the Battle of Berlin or some thing else ?

    Any vision problem ... intend to say ... over There ... Was it a Surprise for the Nazis ??? Where are its Loud-speakers ...

    Battery after battery Search lights.... // Head Lights...... kindly let me understand the Doctrine.Next I'll go for the combat.

    I Mean ?? If I had to go to combat with a choice from T 34/variants with Tiger/variants ,, I should have been there with the Later one .... unconditionally.Less interested for a joy ride.

    '' ....... Love been High 'n Hate been Low ........ ''
  8. Wehrmachtmad

    Wehrmachtmad New Member

    ok, it may not be a tank, but still with sloped 80-100mm front armor and an 88mm gun it was devastating to allied vehicles, also it was one of the few German heavy vehicles which didn't break down, due to it's use of the new panther chassis [​IMG]
  9. Diptangshu

    Diptangshu Active Member

    Well....it was served in Normandy ,Eastern Front as well as in the West for Ardennes offensive.

    It would have been better,if they able to produce G2 a couple of years earlier,as a Turretless TD.

    Its frontal armor was good enough to bounce some shots but had to maintain good distance.Radio was good.Firing rate also pretty good and it was more accurate to its prey but it had weak side armor.

  10. cavtrooper

    cavtrooper Member

    I'd have to agree with you that the T-34 was a very good tank,but I've got a soft spot in heart for the Sherman as well.It was'nt a great tank,being outgunned by German tanks,and under armored,but it got the job done,and there were plenty of them.It pretty much won the war in the west,for the allies,depite it's deficiencies.
  11. cavtrooper

    cavtrooper Member

    The Pershing was probably the best tank that the allies had in the war-it would've been even better had it been produced earlier and in larger numbers.It soldiered on into the Korean war-the Regimental chow hall at Fort Knox is named after a guy by the name of Master Sergeant Kouma,who led a platoon of Pershings,who covered the withdrawal of an infantry regiment in the face of a fierce Chinese assault,earning the MOH in the process.
  12. StephenM1066

    StephenM1066 New Member

  13. StephenM1066

    StephenM1066 New Member

    According to Wikipedia only two of these behemoths were ever made. And they were prototypes, one with a turret, one without. They supposedly weighed 200 tons! Their maximum speed would have been roughly 8kmh. I see no way a boondoggle like this could even be considered in the conversation. And, at 8kmh they could have been hit by almost any Allied ground attack airplane.
  14. Tom Roberts

    Tom Roberts New Member

    I think there were three. An original prototype, then two chassis with wooden turrets.

    The Maus is nothing compared to the so-called ultra-heavy tanks on the drawing boards. However, the Maus proved to be just another waste of time. Far too heavy, far too draining on petrol. It would also have been far too slow for offensive maneuvering.

    I completely agree that they would've been easily taken out by ground attack planes. One good shot to the side or tracks and it's an expensive immobile hunk of junk.
  15. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    I liked a cartoon by Bill Mauldin in "Stars and Stripes". Two dogfaces (foot soldiers) are hunkered down beneath a bush. Near by behind is a tank. Willie says: "I know, but moving fox-holes tend to attract the eye."

    Remember: Panzers' primary mission is not as anti-panzer but rather a maneuver and ground taking. While they may have been used as static defense, that totally wastes their mobility factor. This is why none of the combatant nations in Europe built only heavy and super-heavy AFVs.

    Sure, the MAUS was a super heavy, super bad-ass hunk of metal whose crew might not be killed by an enemy incoming round, but they were so slow, so thirsty. Eventually they had to be supported or they become a very expensive pill-box. Then the crew could be starved... or simply burnt by a Molotov cocktail.

    AFVs are, after all, a WEAPON SYSTEM. They were meant to operate as a part of a larger system. While we read of the memoirs of tank commanders and crew as if they were in single combat, isolated and alone, the reality was the normal procedure was to operate as a team.
  16. Tom Roberts

    Tom Roberts New Member

    It's quite fun to group the medium tanks by the war's end: Panther, Cromwell, Sherman Firefly, T-34/85. All pretty comparable in role, all with their technical quirks, all with their various gun sizes.

    Hmm, realised I've just made a list of four pretty excellent WW2 tanks there.
  17. StephenM1066

    StephenM1066 New Member

    American planners apparently thought the Sherman was a good compromise. I think it was a shame that so many brave Allied tankers couldn't have been supplied with better tanks. Sure the production lines of the US put out massive amounts of Shermans, but they had weak guns, thin armor and a tendency to burst into flame. "Tommycookers," "Ronsons, etc.
    The Nazis had the best tanks in technical terms but kept changing models. Had they settled on something like the Panther and refined it it it might have been the best.
    The best in my opinion: T-34.
  18. Tom Roberts

    Tom Roberts New Member

    The T-34 was a phenomenal all-rounder AFV, and was continually refined throughout the war. However, their sheer numbers became the deciding factor in the later war years.

    StephenM1066, I completely agree with you regarding the quality of allied tanks, but again, they relied on numbers and mass production. The Germans could have benefited from standardisation, rather than continued innovation.
    cavtrooper likes this.
  19. broers04

    broers04 New Member

  20. broers04

    broers04 New Member

    remember one thing, the t-34 was realy a british designe, sold to the russians before the war, just like the ak-47, that is solen from germany as well as their first mig, the russians did not vreate anything.

Share This Page