Best Tank of WWII

[bizmark]

I just saw a History Channel show on the Tiger and King Tiger the other day. They looked like pretty sweet tanks

According to the show I watched, those tanks were friggin' awesome on the Eastern Front where they had to cover miles and miles of empty Russian plain and could see their enemies easily from a distance and kill them at like 2x the range of the enemy guns. But they didn't have such good luck on the more crowded Western Front with all kinds of forests, hills, villages, and whatnot where they couldn't see their enemies from a distance so well. Also their armor was awesome, they had multiple Brits and Americans saying that they would always shoot at the Tigers and watch their shells bounce off the sides.

I love the history channel. One day soon all history classes will just be taught on TV's. TV/Movies can have such a way of drawing you in, even when the subject matter is terribly boring. (not that I'm saying WWII tanks are boring)

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
The amount of people here talking out of their asses is absurd.
[snip]
The Sherman was an excellent tank, where it's strengths were. Its primary strength was outstanding reliability. German tanks would break down like flies moving anywhere, whereas the Shermies would go on and on. Plus, if a Sherman engine was knocked out or did break, they could change the engine on the spot, whereas German tanks had to be taken back to shops in Germany just to put a new engine in.

[snip]

Oh, and reguarding Micheal Wittman, he was extremely lucky in taking out that British column with his buddies. They almost caught him, but not quite. The British were all out of their tanks on a break...

Well said, for a 15 year old I think the Sherman got a bad rep because of the first ones that came into action had a badly designed ammo & gas storage. A well placed shot used to light them up........ I think the germans used to call them 'gas cans' but that was fixed quite quickly. Overall, I think it's a good cruising/infantry support tank that was mass produced and quite reliable. Another knock against it was it's high profile and lower calibre guns 75mm then 76 mm......... can't do anything about the height but I think some had upgrades to 85mm (British Fireflies I think) & 17 pounder guns (also later on the Israel somehow fitted a 105 mm gun into it).

Also, from what source did you get the Wittman story? All the books I've ever read say he came across a british column on the move. Some say he was alone and some say he had his 4 tank squad (I get the later from the Panzer book by hart & hart). He was pretty good by any standards regardless of if that story is true or not. He was an eastern front panzer ace with over 250+ kill and most of them in a StuG III (think Panzer III with no turret and 75 mm gun).

Cheers,
Aquaman <<<<<<<<< WWII buff

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: bizmark
I just saw a History Channel show on the Tiger and King Tiger the other day. They looked like pretty sweet tanks

According to the show I watched, those tanks were friggin' awesome on the Eastern Front where they had to cover miles and miles of empty Russian plain and could see their enemies easily from a distance and kill them at like 2x the range of the enemy guns. But they didn't have such good luck on the more crowded Western Front with all kinds of forests, hills, villages, and whatnot where they couldn't see their enemies from a distance so well. Also their armor was awesome, they had multiple Brits and Americans saying that they would always shoot at the Tigers and watch their shells bounce off the sides.

I love the history channel. One day soon all history classes will just be taught on TV's. TV/Movies can have such a way of drawing you in, even when the subject matter is terribly boring. (not that I'm saying WWII tanks are boring)

bizmark.......... I totally agree.......... History Channel Rules

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Whitecloak]

kingtiger!


strange that no one has mentioned the movie "Battle of the Bulge" ?

 

[Scouzer]

They called them Tommy Cookers I think. There were a lot of names for it though.

The British Firefly tank was the 17lber gun which was an 85mm gun. Not 2 different versions. There was one per tank squad in the British & Canadian Armies by D-day. Unfortunately, the Germans quickly learned how to recognize it as being the most dangerous tank in the squad and they'd try to take it out first.

The Israeli Supersherman indeed had a 105mm L7 gun I believe...the Israelis needed everything they could get.

I'm not too sure with the Wittman story I must admit. My source, Steel Panthers World At War D game, but very accurate) indicates he had 3 Tiger I's and a Panzer IV with him if I recall (haven't played the scenario in months). All the same, it was extreme luck just as much as it was skill. The Brits were also very unlucky.

Yes, I know what a STUG is


OMFG, if your using the Battle of the Bulge as your reference, you shouldn't be in this thread! God damn, what a terrible movie! If you want to watch a good war movie try 'A Longest Day' or 'The Bridge too Far'. Both excellent.

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
They called them Tommy Cookers I think. There were a lot of names for it though.

The British Firefly tank was the 17lber gun which was an 85mm gun. Not 2 different versions. There was one per tank squad in the British & Canadian Armies by D-day. Unfortunately, the Germans quickly learned how to recognize it as being the most dangerous tank in the squad and they'd try to take it out first.

The Israeli Supersherman indeed had a 105mm L7 gun I believe...the Israelis needed everything they could get.

I'm not too sure with the Wittman story I must admit. My source, Steel Panthers World At War D game, but very accurate) indicates he had 3 Tiger I's and a Panzer IV with him if I recall (haven't played the scenario in months). All the same, it was extreme luck just as much as it was skill. The Brits were also very unlucky.

Yes, I know what a STUG is


OMFG, if your using the Battle of the Bulge as your reference, you shouldn't be in this thread! God damn, what a terrible movie! If you want to watch a good war movie try 'A Longest Day' or 'The Bridge too Far'. Both excellent.

umm, you used a game as a reference & I used a movie. So what's the difference?
Also, I didnt know I had to be an expert on WW2 to post in this thread. After all, I just gave my opinion.
Finally, I have both the movies you are referring to & have read the books too.
Any questions?

 

[Scouzer]

Sorry. Outburst of anger, I hate the movie a lot. Its not very accurate at all...

EDIT: Wow I'm great with grammer.

 

[Whitecloak]

no problem

 

[PowerEngineer]

If best means the tank that was the biggest asset to that army, then it has to be the T-34. As already mentioned, it really set the standard for medium weight tanks in WWII, and (if I'm not mistaken) the T-34 served as the starting point for the German's design of the Panther (which I gather was somewhat better than the T-34 one-on-one). The T-34 was also readily mass produced and very reliable (characteristics that weren't successfully copied by the Germans into the Panther).

The Sherman tank's only real advantage was in the sheer numbers that the US was able to produce (and lose) them. It reminds me a bit of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Overwhelming numbers of spears and arrows were able to overcome repeating rifles, but to argue that spears and arrows are therefore the superior weapons seems a bit silly to me (IMHO).

I also find it hard to compare a (very) heavy tank like the German Tiger to a medium tank like the T-34. It's not unlike comparing a battleship to a cruiser. And the Tigers arrived on the scene relatively late in the war, so picking it is like picking the Me 262 jet fighter over the P-51 Mustang.

 

[Aquaman]

I guess I was wrong about the 85mm sherman........ no such beast......... but the British Firefly was a 17 pounder = 76.2 mm. Also I found it interesting that they did have 105mm howitzer armed shermans in 1944 (I did not think it could fit).

Scouzer, ever play Combat Mission by Battlefront? That is a wicked 3d turn based WWII western front war game. One of the cool features is that after the game is done you can go back and check things out, for example......... if your tank was knocked out but you don't know how it was ....... you can go back to that point & do a 360 pan to see who shot you (very cool). Combat Mission 2 is due out soon........ that concentrates on Eastern Front.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[silverpig]

We had an '80-something Pontiac Grand Prix that could run through pretty much anything...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ragazzo
So what's the most powerful modern tank now? The one with advance targetting system and armor piercing shells heh

That would be the abrams, excellent targeting, fastest, with thickest armor. However the downside to this, is it required more logistics than other models.

Negative. M1A2 Abrams is the second best Main Battle Tank in the world. according to experts, the best MBT in the worl is Leopard 2 EX6.

As to the WW2. The most powerful tank was the JagdTiger, but that does not make it automatically the best. I would say T34

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
The amount of people here talking out of their asses is absurd.

The Sherman was an excellent tank, where it's strengths were.

Negative. It had a high profile, it was flammable to say the least, the early guns were substandard (Sherman Firefly had a better gun). It took on average five Shermans to knowck out German panzer, so I fail to see how Sharman could be considered an "excellent" tank.

As for the best tank of modern times, its the M1A2 Abrams with the only relative competition being the Leopard Mk... well whatever model their newest is on to now. They have a lot of different models. The newest Merkava's, Challenger's, and Leclerc's are also very good modern tanks.

Negative. Like I said, according to experts, Leopard 2 EX6 is the best tank in the world, with M1A2 being second best. I find it funny that people automatically assume that Abrams is the best tank. not surprisingly, people who make that claim are usually americans

 

[Scouzer]

No I haven't Aquaman. My dad used to have it but he lost it, so I don't feel justified to buy another copy.

The Sherman was a decent tank without a doubt. As far as battle capabilities, it definitely was substandard to the German ones, but its also very important how many you can field vs. how many are broken..

I'm not American for the record, and I know about the Leopard II being better, but thats more to my own personal opinion so I didn't think it was actually thought so by experts. So I usually just agree the Abrams is the best. Even if it isn't, its definitely 2nd best, and not far behind.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
I'm not American for the record, and I know about the Leopard II being better, but thats more to my own personal opinion so I didn't think it was actually thought so by experts. So I usually just agree the Abrams is the best. Even if it isn't, its definitely 2nd best, and not far behind.

Yep, M1A2 and Leo 2 are really close together. The thing that tilted the comparison in favor of Leo 2 was that it uses an more advanced ammo that wasn't available for M1A2.

Ironically, the best MBT in the world could be swedish :Q! They bought Leo 2 EX 6's, and they improved them (additional armor among other things)

 

[AndrewR]

Negative. Like I said, according to experts, Leopard 2 EX6 is the best tank in the world, with M1A2 being second best. I find it funny that people automatically assume that Abrams is the best tank. not surprisingly, people who make that claim are usually americans

And, not surprisingly, those who speak against the Abrams are usually European. The Abrams is battle tested, the Leopard is not. Until the Leopard proves itself in combat under adverse conditions, it will remain a "possibility". Further, the U.S. has the best and most realistic tank/vehicle testing ranges in the world and constantly evaluates the performance of the U.S. tank fleet under harsh conditions. No other country in the world has the same capability.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
And, not surprisingly, those who speak against the Abrams are usually European. The Abrams is battle tested, the Leopard is not. Until the Leopard proves itself in combat under adverse conditions, it will remain a "possibility". Further, the U.S. has the best and most realistic tank/vehicle testing ranges in the world and constantly evaluates the performance of the U.S. tank fleet under harsh conditions. No other country in the world has the same capability.

Ummmm, to my knowledge, the organiztion that did the MBT-ranking, was AMERICAN. And according to them, Leo 2 won M1A2 by a narrow margin. As for the battle-tested. that really is not the determining factor. I bet alot of people thought M1 is the best tank before Gulf War, regardless of the fact that it wasn't battle tested or not. And besides, in the Gulf, it mainly faced significantly lighter and older tanks.

Have you visited the German testing-ranges? No? Then how can you make that assumption? Or are you just automatically assuming that US facilites are the best? Other countries do the same. Leclerc for example is tested in Algeria and Oman, so they can make sure it works well in desert-conditions. and in just about every comparison where M1 and Leo2 have been present, Leo2 has won the M1 (for example in Sweden, where they picked Leo2 instead of M1A2, Leclerc, or Challenger 2).

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

As for the best tank of modern times, its the M1A2 Abrams with the only relative competition being the Leopard Mk... well whatever model their newest is on to now. They have a lot of different models. The newest Merkava's, Challenger's, and Leclerc's are also very good modern tanks.

Negative. Like I said, according to experts, Leopard 2 EX6 is the best tank in the world, with M1A2 being second best. I find it funny that people automatically assume that Abrams is the best tank. not surprisingly, people who make that claim are usually americans

As if comparing tanks wasn't subjective enough. WOW LOL IT DOES GREAT IN EXCERCISES. The british think the Challenger 2 is the best, Germany thinks the Leopard 2 is best, Israel thinks the Merkava is the best, and the US thinks the Abrams is best, etc.

And I just realized that AndrewR posted what i was about to =\. As for the Tigers ripping up a bunch of Brits, I don't think that's a good comparison. The British sucked at the tanks.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
As if comparing tanks wasn't subjective enough. WOW LOL IT DOES GREAT IN EXCERCISES. The british think the Challenger 2 is the best, Germany thinks the Leopard 2 is best, Israel thinks the Merkava is the best, and the US thinks the Abrams is best, etc.

Well, the organization that did the study was AMERICAN....

And I just realized that AndrewR posted what i was about to =\. As for the Tigers ripping up a bunch of Brits, I don't think that's a good comparison. The British sucked at the tanks.

Oh really? The Shermans US provided had a sucky 75mm gun. One of the first thing the brits did was to replace it with their clearly superior 76mm gun. And to my knowledge, the even better Sherman Firefly was also a brit design.

Brits sucked at tanks. To what do you base this "fact" on, or are you just sputing BS?

Is it REALLY that difficult to believe/accept that some other country has built a better MBT? Is it a matter of national pride to you or something?

EDIT:MBT ranking

 

[Scouzer]

As for the Tigers ripping up a bunch of Brits, I don't think that's a good comparison. The British sucked at the tanks.

I've never used this but its justified:

You got to be kidding? Most tanks that the British used were designed by AMERICANS anyway, then the ones they did design, for the most part, were superior to the Sherman or Grant that the Americans provided. The reason they couldn't make their own designs in mass quantities is because their industrial base was not near the U.S.'s and obviously the Americans would only make their own designs.

The 17lber gun that the British put on the Sherman was far superior to the American 76mm gun the Americans put on their tanks nearing the end of the war. The British have made the best guns in the western world up until the early 80's.

I won't touch the modern MBT argument...

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
As if comparing tanks wasn't subjective enough. WOW LOL IT DOES GREAT IN EXCERCISES. The british think the Challenger 2 is the best, Germany thinks the Leopard 2 is best, Israel thinks the Merkava is the best, and the US thinks the Abrams is best, etc.

Well, the organization that did the study was AMERICAN....

And I just realized that AndrewR posted what i was about to =\. As for the Tigers ripping up a bunch of Brits, I don't think that's a good comparison. The British sucked at the tanks.

Oh really? The Shermans US provided had a sucky 75mm gun. One of the first thing the brits did was to replace it with their clearly superior 76mm gun. And to my knowledge, the even better Sherman Firefly was also a brit design.

Brits sucked at tanks. To what do you base this "fact" on, or are you just sputing BS?

Is it REALLY that difficult to believe/accept that some other country has built a better MBT? Is it a matter of national pride to you or something?

1.) Americans are the only ones to rate tanks? Funny.

2.) The Sherman sucked ass, I could've told you that. The firefly was better, but their strategy sucked, which was what i meant by "The British sucked at the tanks." British tank warfare doctrine was some of the worst rolled out during world war II. The Americans at least introduced crushing tactics like artillery fire. We relied on our guns to win our battles as much as possible while the British, by and large, sent tank units out piece meal to be butchered by the Germans. They lacked a complete understanding of combined arms warfare and were overly reliant on the other allies, notably the Americans and Canadians, to pick up the slack when their schemes failed.

3.) Where did I say that the Abrams was the best? Don't put words in my mouth, asshat. This is exactly like the "What's the best fighter" thread, and people saying F-22 or the Su-37 or the Eurofighter is the best. It's all subjective. The F-22 has stealth, whereas the Su-37 has R-73's (i think) while the Eurofighter has a better price/performance ratio. You can say any country picked a tank, or someone else said xxxx tank is better, but in reality, there isn't an answer.

Edit: Scouzer: read #2. The gun was much better. Hell, Brits developed the armor for the Abrams, and the US improved it. But back them, strategy was a problem...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
1.) Americans are the only ones to rate tanks? Funny.

What are you talking about? The reason why I pointed out that the study was made by americans was because you seemed to hint that they might be biased

2.) The Sherman sucked ass, I could've told you that. The firefly was better, but their strategy sucked, which was what i meant by "The British sucked at the tanks." British tank warfare doctrine was some of the worst rolled out during world war II. The Americans at least introduced crushing tactics like artillery fire. We relied on our guns to win our battles as much as possible while the British, by and large, sent tank units out piece meal to be butchered by the Germans. They lacked a complete understanding of combined arms warfare and were overly reliant on the other allies, notably the Americans and Canadians, to pick up the slack when their schemes failed.

Really? For example, in Normandy, it was the brits who carrried out the bulk of the fighting against German tanks. They tied down as many enemy tanks as possible so americans could advance in their sector. While americans advanced, brits slugged it out with the German tanks.

In the early part of the war, british used the "old" tactics of using tanks as a infrantry support weapon (just like everyone else except germans did). But as the war progressed, so did their tactics.

Artillery fire against tanks?

3.) Where did I say that the Abrams was the best? Don't put words in my mouth, asshat.

Can't argue with facts alone, so you need to start calling others names?

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
1.) Americans are the only ones to rate tanks? Funny.

What are you talking about? The reason why I pointed out that the study was made by americans was because you seemed to hint that they might be biased

2.) The Sherman sucked ass, I could've told you that. The firefly was better, but their strategy sucked, which was what i meant by "The British sucked at the tanks." British tank warfare doctrine was some of the worst rolled out during world war II. The Americans at least introduced crushing tactics like artillery fire. We relied on our guns to win our battles as much as possible while the British, by and large, sent tank units out piece meal to be butchered by the Germans. They lacked a complete understanding of combined arms warfare and were overly reliant on the other allies, notably the Americans and Canadians, to pick up the slack when their schemes failed.

Really? For example, in Normandy, it was the brits who carrried out the bulk of the fighting against German tanks. They tied down as many enemy tanks as possible so americans could advance in their sector. While americans advanced, brits slugged it out with the German tanks.

In the early part of the war, british used the "old" tactics of using tanks as a infrantry support weapon (just like everyone else except germans did). But as the war progressed, so did their tactics.

Artillery fire against tanks?

3.) Where did I say that the Abrams was the best? Don't put words in my mouth, asshat.

Can't argue with facts alone, so you need to start calling others names?

1.) Got me there. But still, most tank ratings are pretty subjective. Like i said before. National Pride, I suppose.

2.) Yeah, but that still doesn't say much. Fighting and holding back Germans != Effective Tank Strategy. Just because they progressed during the war doesn't mean they didn't suck.

3.) I am trying to arguing with facts alone. You said, and I quote, "Is it REALLY that difficult to believe/accept that some other country has built a better MBT? Is it a matter of national pride to you or something?", which would infer that I think the Abrams is the best super duper tank in the whole wide world and that I think anything made in America is the best in the whole wide world, buddy. So then, I told you to stop putting words in my mouth, asshat, because I didn't say that. Isn't that simple enough?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
1.) Got me there. But still, most tank ratings are pretty subjective. Like i said before. National Pride, I suppose.

True. But I saw no bias in that study. Their reasoning seemed good and balanced.

2.) Yeah, but that still doesn't say much. Fighting and holding back Germans != Effective Tank Strategy. Just because they progressed during the war doesn't mean they didn't suck.

Could you provide me with links that show how brits sucked at tank-warfare?

3.) I am trying to arguing with facts alone. You said, and I quote, "Is it REALLY that difficult to believe/accept that some other country has built a better MBT? Is it a matter of national pride to you or something?", which would infer that I think the Abrams is the best super duper tank in the whole wide world and that I think anything made in America is the best in the whole wide world, buddy. So then, I told you to stop putting words in my mouth, asshat, because I didn't say that. Isn't that simple enough?

The reason I said that was because there seemed to be quite few people jumping on me because I said that M1A2 was "only" second best tank in the world. My comment wasn't made at you alone. But I apologize if it seemed like that.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy

2.) Yeah, but that still doesn't say much. Fighting and holding back Germans != Effective Tank Strategy. Just because they progressed during the war doesn't mean they didn't suck.

Could you provide me with links that show how brits sucked at tank-warfare?

Nope. Just from what I remember in reading. =\ We can agree to disagree, though.

But back to the original thread. The M-10 wolverine wasn't bad at all, nor where the Russian 100mm and 122mm guns. The Soviet IS-2 was a great heavy tank, also. I think the Germans should have made more Panzers and Panthers, but that's just me.