Best Tank of WWII

[dalem]

Speaking of tank destroyers, why was the M-10 designed with an open-top turret and thin armor? German's Stug III and Stug IV were great tank destoryers and they were used to great effect. They were small, squat, cheap, with decent armor and decent mobility.

U.S. armored doctrine held that tanks were to be used to break into the enemy's rear areas and go hell-bent for leather, and that enemy tanks (and their expected large-mass attacks) were to be dealth with by towed AT guns. The SP TD, to the U.S., was really just a way to get an ATG extremely portable. Think en portee on steroids, if you will.

So the keys are mobility and visibility. Never expected to be operating in close proximity to enemy infantry, an open topped turret increased visibility and spotting for the crew, allowing for quicker target discrimination and acquisition. Also not that TDs had no bow or coax MG (except for the M36B1 that kept the full M4 hull). Armor was not considered to be that big a deal because the TDs were going to be operating with "shoot & scoot" in mind - shoot from cover a couple of times, then maneuver quickly to an alternate position and re-engage before the enemy tanks have a solid idea of where you are. And with the M10, the first purpose-designed full-track TD for the U.S., the armor values actually compare favorably with those of the early-war welded-hull Shermans.

The M18 Hellcat was the ultimate design in this direction - VERY thin armor and VERY high speed - as maneuverable as they could get in those days on tracks.

The correct comparison on the German side would be the Marders and other open-topped SP TDs - the StuGs were originally simple and cheap assault guns intended to give direct HE support to the infantry. But with a much better appreciation of the gun-armor race that WWII created, the Germans kept to bigger guns on thicker, turretless hulls for their preferred SP TD solution. The German Hetzers (and the never-produced and similar E-10) were examples of this, although Germany's increasingly defensive stance meant anything with track was getting an AT gun stuck on it, and turrets are expensive and complex compared to a simple casemate mount.

-dale

[Guest]

German Mk V "Panther" tank, as the best all-round balance of firepower, mobility, and protection. But in terms of importance in the war, the T-34, M4, and German Mk IV were more commonly found on the battlefield.

If I was sitting in the tank, then my vote would be for a King Tiger.

A big problem with the T-34 is that many of those built weren't up to specification. Built in a hurry, often with inferior materials, and rushed into action, the T-34 is a story of a developing country trying to fight an industrial war. Lack of radios, lack of rear area supporting services, lack of spare parts, even lack of paint--all these things are testimony to an uneven industrial base built in a series of crash programmes.

Good points. Russian tanks were also far behind in optical systems.
Stug G had excellent periscope. Tank commander had much better view, than his russian counterparts. Finns killing ratio with Stug G:s was better than 10:1, even they were used mostly in counterattacks.

This is my first writing, and im usually in hurry. So, errors might happen :(

[BD1]

t-34 / KV & IS series - because those were the first tanks that had the ´´modern´´ layout - engine & transmission in the rear , turret in the front , big caliber guns . All other WW2 tanks (except M-26 & centurion, but they appeared 1945) had a drivetrain that went through the machine to the front making them higher , bigger , heavier than necessary

[glyn]

t-34 / KV & IS series - because those were the first tanks that had the ´´modern´´ layout - engine & transmission in the rear , turret in the front , big caliber guns . All other WW2 tanks (except M-26 & centurion, but they appeared 1945) had a drivetrain that went through the machine to the front making them higher , bigger , heavier than necessary

Don't forget the Comet.

[dalem]

t-34 / KV & IS series - because those were the first tanks that had the ´´modern´´ layout - engine & transmission in the rear , turret in the front , big caliber guns . All other WW2 tanks (except M-26 & centurion, but they appeared 1945) had a drivetrain that went through the machine to the front making them higher , bigger , heavier than necessary

How do these characteristics balance out the poor metallurgy, poor gun tolerances, weak optics, poor reliability, and lack of communication gear?

-dale

[BD1]

Glyn - yes , you´re right , shame on me .
Dale - ´´How do these characteristics balance out the poor metallurgy, poor gun tolerances, weak optics, poor reliability, and lack of communication gear?´´ - all true , but still it´s the layout that all the later tanks followed (except strv-103 & merkava) . compared to the rest they were still ahead in their concept and suitable for infantry support as well as for tank vs. tank. plus i forgot the really wide tracks that gave them extra mobility. lack of reliabilty was never much concern for soviets in ww2, because their tanks never lasted long in such enviroment. the losses they were ready to take were astronomical and in such case gun tolerances didn´t really matter .numerical superiority won over quality

[zraver]

the losses they were ready to take were astronomical and in such case gun tolerances didn´t really matter .numerical superiority won over quality

It was a very close run thing. If German efficency had been 10% better, if Hitler had switched to a full war time prodcution in 39 instead of 43. If Hitler hadn't tied so much of his combat down with stupid stand and die orders.

The USSR did not beat Gemrany, Germany beat it self in the east.

[dalem]

Dale - ´´How do these characteristics balance out the poor metallurgy, poor gun tolerances, weak optics, poor reliability, and lack of communication gear?´´ - all true , but still it´s the layout that all the later tanks followed (except strv-103 & merkava) . compared to the rest they were still ahead in their concept and suitable for infantry support as well as for tank vs. tank. plus i forgot the really wide tracks that gave them extra mobility. lack of reliabilty was never much concern for soviets in ww2, because their tanks never lasted long in such enviroment. the losses they were ready to take were astronomical and in such case gun tolerances didn´t really matter .numerical superiority won over quality

But "best" must also include individual effectiveness, yes? The T-34 might take the cake for most influential, but "best"? No.

-dale

[BD1]

dale - i looked at the poll, saw that you voted panther. well panther didn´t fare well at the beginning too - at Kursk it was a huge disapointmen for germans for the lack of reliability etc. - just the same reasons you quoted against t-34 . no , seriously if i were a tanker in ww2 i would love to be inside Pz.V/VI , but in the end they were deadend. I have a familiy friend who was 1943 in eastern front and his inf. batallion destroyed in 3 days of combat ~100 T-34 & Valentine´s ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Wa...st_Estonian%29) - but at the end there were about to be decimated. they used grenades , 3 ex-soviet 76.2mm AT guns , magnetic mines and had for fire spt. sometimes 2 Panzers (Tigers i think) and yet they were pushed back in the end . the mastapes in ww2 were almost unbelievable for today , but it was an industrial war. it´s like to compare ford model T with rolls-royce silver ghost. which is more important? another thing is that germans used captured t-34s too whenever possible ( at least they had no problem with ammo supplies)
And i never liked the german heavy tanks overlapping road wheels - tigers frozen in mud must have been a rather usual sight.
so in the end the right way was the american & russian way - a good enough mass-production tank, not the magnificent white elephants the hitler was so found of (Maus!)

[dalem]

dale - i looked at the poll, saw that you voted panther. well panther didn´t fare well at the beginning too - at Kursk it was a huge disapointmen for germans for the lack of reliability etc. - just the same reasons you quoted against t-34 . no , seriously if i were a tanker in ww2 i would love to be inside Pz.V/VI , but in the end they were deadend.

Huh? The first T-34 models with the medium velocity guns weren't perfect either, let alone the lack of radios. But that doesn't lessen the actual impact of the T-34 series on the outcome of WWII. I just rate it #3, that's all. For me, the "best" tank design for that war is the Panther, #2 is the Sherman, #3 is the T-34. I can easily understand someone's opinion saying the T-34 should be #2 and the Sherman #3, but that either one should be #1 ahead of the Panther, no, I can't buy that.

-dale

[BD1]

interesting that your top 3 were all in use well after ww2 (panthers in France, Syria 1967(?)) ; shermans in israel, south america ; T-34 vietnam, guess some are still rumbling in south-east asia. well , I guess that shows that their overall designs were quite effective and maintainable. btw - your top 3 is same as mine , mine simply 1. t-34, 2. Panther, 3. sherman . but my guess is an uneducated one . actually , one of my personal favourites is czech LT-35 , after german invasion known as PzKpfw-38(t) - excellent light tank - 1400 built as light tank, then since ´42 built as recon.vehicle, SPG, AT Hetzer. as such it served in sweden and switzerland to 1970-s. it was also proposed chassis for german projected IFV/APC.
and one more correction -. seems that the rear drivetrain and engine were alredy in use on french char B1 , british valentine mk.III and crusader . seems i am little-bit over-fed by soviet propaganda as a child about the soviet tank technologys superiority.

[SuperTrooper]

Researchers are saying that the British Comet tank was the best tank in WW2 although the German Tiger and the Russian T-34 were also very dominate

[BD1]

What researchers are they?

[BMF12]

Researchers are saying that the British Comet tank was the best tank in WW2 although the German Tiger and the Russian T-34 were also very dominate

The Comet? I think the Comet pertetuated all the faults of the Cromwell. Plus, it came so late in the field.....the Centurion came almost just as late, and was a much more formidable tank. I voted T-34, although if it were my choice, I'd want to be in a Panther........funny, eh?

[Jeff_F_F]

Operational initiative and mobility

Two points when comparing the Sherman and T-34 to the late war German tanks. The missions these tanks were designed for were completely different, so comparing them is comparing apples to oranges. By 1943 the Germans had accepted that they had lost the intiative on the Eastern front. Kursk was not inteded to be a breakout, only to reduce the salient in order to shorten their lines. Their intention was to dig in and "bleed the Soviets dry" (probably not a realistic proposition, given Soviet production, but no less realistic than planning to blitz all the way to the Urals). As such the late war German tanks were defensive rather than offensive, so their lack of operational mobility and reliability was less of an issue than their armor and firepower.

The Shermans and T-34s were intended to support a sustained mobile offensives, so mobility and reliability were critical. The late war German tanks would have failed miserably in this role. Nor could the German blitzes of the early war have succeeded using these tanks.