best tank of ww2

[Salesman]

what is the best tank of ww2

[e.]

Subjective.

[Golfcrocodile]

Panzer II of course

[slapworthjr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

[Piratenkapitan]

Originally posted by slapworthjr:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

yes

[blackmirror]

there's no "best tank" in ww2
the historians name the sherman, for example, because was the horsework of the army. useful in many situations, simple yet reliable, and with modifications for each role of the conflict
in raw numbers, maybe the tiger 2 for his armor and gun. for kill/death ratio the StuG 3, and so on.
but again, there's no answer for this

[Snorby]

king tiger dand/orsherman

[Snorby]

and*

[...]

The M4 Sherman is quite a balanced medium tank. It has a better reverse speed than every other allied medium tank and has enough armor to do the job effectively. It's 7.5mm gun is capable of doing infantry support well (but may struggle against defeating modern german armor). It is also among one of the easiest tanks to repair. Despite this, it's not a perfect tank to do. Among one it's drawbacks is the tall profile, making it easier to spot, while also making it easier to tip over. The tank might struggle to catch up with other allied tanks such as the T-34 and Cromwell (but I don't think it's too much of an issue). The armor is quite vulnerable to German anti-tank guns, but a clever commander can have their driver steer the tank and shoot the weaker sides of most German tanks. It even managed to be put into service far longer than any other tank has ever done, considering it has been exported to numerous countries (and some even got upgraded to combat cold-war main battle tanks). Overall, it's not quite the tank, but it's not a bad tank.

[nikel-21]

Subjective. From economical standpoints - pz4 and T-34 for GER and SOV respectively, m4 are good for american. i like IS-3, but its technically become active to late for ww2 era

[SantiJames]

Tog II or Bob Semple... Jokes aside, the M4 Sherman and its millions of variants are definitely up there with how modular it is. The best of the best would have to go to either the Panther G, M26 Pershing (that unfortunately didn't get sent over in time to see much action), Stug IV, or the Challenger. No im not talking about the modern Chally, the Brits had a medium tank based on the Cromwell chassis called the Challenger. It has around a 30 degree per second turret traverse (pretty much unheard of on anything but spaa), 17pdr, very fast forward speed, and adequate armor for a medium tank. Its turret was quite big, but it gave the turret crew plenty of space to reload the gun, allowing the gun to reload every 5-6 seconds.

Panther G barely makes it to the best due to its unreliable transmission and suspension, but when they worked, the tank was very powerful and was pretty much un-kill-able from the front from any allied tanks but the 85, 122, 17pdr, 76, and 90mm, and even then, you needed a pretty decent shot to make sure it was dead with the smaller guns. The 122 was really the only gun that can guarantee kill a Panther in one hit almost anywhere in the front. That is if the armor quality is good, but late in the war, it was quite ♥♥♥♥, to the point even the american 75mm could break it apart within a few shots.

Based on total number of kills though, the Stug IV and Panzer IV nearly run supreme, im not sure if any other tank I listed or didn't has more.

Based on modularity, like I said, the Sherman.

Based on Firepower, M26 or Panther.

Based on Armor, M26 or Panther

Based on mobility, M18, Chally

Jack of all trades, Sherman and Chally

[JulieInJuly]

anyone who says "there's no one best tank" or "well its a very versatile tank like the m4" or whatever like that is a WIMP and a WUSS

everyone who is a proper tank enthusiast KNOWS that THE BEST, THE #1 TANK OF WWII was the MIGHTY, the GLORIOUS, M3 STUART

in service since 1942 until 1978! THAT'S A GLORIOUS 36 YEARS NEED I SAY MORE?

[e.]

Nah, the best tank of the war was the Panzer 39 LTH :troll:

[caaron14]

Honestly german tanks were not very good. For the simple fact they were engineered to be the best. It doesn't matter if your armor is impenetrable, if there aren't enough ball bearings to let your turret turn, or that fuel pump is three weeks out because the tooling had to be replaced to make it.

[skinnywattie]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
its really hard to define what is the best tank, mostly for two reasons
1) Wars are not won by 'things' but by systems.
2) Tanks are not boxers, nor duelling nights, where they trade turns in trying to knock each other out.

On point 1: if we teleported an M1-Abrahams tank back to 1944, it would be pretty useless as it wouldnt have the dedicated support it needed - from huge Oshkosh fuel tankers, to having enough dust filters for its gas turbine engines. There would be no landing vehicles sufficient enough for it to even leave the English coastline to get to Normandy. It would be utterly useless.

The best tanks of WW2 were perfectly placed within the systems available to it. On these matters, the T-34 and Sherman tanks were outstanding. With the Pz38(t) and Panzer III almost being there too.

On Point 2: The best tanks will be where they dont need to fight. This is the entire basis of manoeuvre warfare and why Germany won so many operations with its almost puny Pz 1 and Pz II tanks. They were never designed to slog it out like duelling boxers. Anyone that understands tanks will know that, from the 1930's writings of the inventor of Blitzkrieg, Heinz Guderian, all the way to Van Creveld's modern master piece 'Manoeuvre Warfare'. I very much recommend their books.

In essence, if tanks are having to do a lot of one-on-one combat, then things dont seem to be going quite to plan. There are, obviously exceptions to that, and tanks will have to engage other tanks. However, if things are done right you will be able to use your tank force(s) in areas the enemy is most weak. This is where the tank excels.

Good example of this are the use of T-34s to encircle Stalingrad and push Westwards. in relative terms, there was very little actual tank-on-tank combat. In comparison, General Mansteins' counter attack on Russia's exhausted and overstretched lines was very similar. Mostly using Pz IV's that were beginning to show their impeding obsolescence but were still able to reach an operational level success.

Dont get me wrong though, a good tank is an incredible force multiplier. And I would never want to be on the receiving end of a Tiger nor a JS-2.

But combining both points, its hard to say which is the best tank. I can say which is the best tank for each nation's own war-fighting systems.
And that will always be:
T-34
Sherman
Comet

(close runner ups)
PZ III
Pz 38(t)
JS-2

What about the Panthers and Tigers?
Well, these vehicles represent a losing mindset, representing a war-fighting system that has broken down. They both placed crew protection in an unbalanced way above mobility and fire power, because so many tank crew had been lost over a few years that the tank troops were either becoming extinct, or had their training rushed to replace casualties and becoming poorer fighting systems. Pushing this level of protection and engineering just meant the Germans could never, ever hope to produce a tank in the numbers it needed.

As a weapon in a distressed German system Panthers and Tigers were more of a burden than a blessing. They could not emulate their enemy's systems. Basically, once you try to change away from your own systems, to poorly copying another country's systems, its game over.

The Panther could have been a great tank but ONLY if it was designed and built in the UK or US and had their level of support. The Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 could probably have been great tanks if the Russians had invented and used them. But why should they? They already had the KV family and the incredible JS-2 and JSU -152?


"Victory is in the design" - Heinz Guderian
"The Acme of skill is to win without fighting" - Sun Tzu


What does this mean for Sprocket though?
Well, believe it or not, for me tank one-on-one combat isnt a priority for me. And yet I can still win with some 22 enemy losses to none.
Because i focus on firepower and numbers. having 12 tanks with 12 good guns that are able to overwhelm enemy tanks at the point of contact. Most of my tanks never have to 'fight' and many of them don't even make a kill.
This will always beat having to fight with just one 'super' tank verses the enemy.

I think the same principle applies in answering the question on 'whats the best tank of WW2'

[billybendbob]

Obviously the best tank of WW2 was the m3 lee.