Best Tank of WWII

[Garry]

I don't know much about the BT-26 but the upgraded Panzer III wasn't a bad tank until about 1943, it's 50mm gun was decent for the day and it had passable levels of armor protection.

This is a british tank produced by Soviets under license
http://members.tripod.com/~ViktoRus/t-26.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III

It is my subjective oppinion but by the begining of 1941 both were too crappy and oudated.

[Recon_sgt]

So it was

Hey M21 i forgot bout the Centurion twas a great design.
Now then.
I am sorry to burst the T 34 worshiping bubble that appears in every WW2 history disscusion I ever get involved but it wasnt so hot some stats follow.

1: Incapable of penetrating Tiger armour (except rear or point blank range other)
2: had to close to within 600m to penetrate fwd mk IV panzer armour at 400m to 500m for side armour.
3: could not depress main gun beyond the typical horizontal line
4: couldnt penetrate panther armour except rear or point blank side.

Thats bad enough but
5: 88mm gun (on all tiger and common use gun in other areas) could penetrate any facing of the T 34 at up to and above 1000m
6: The long barrelled version of the mk IV panzer could do the same at up to 800m

This shows just how weak the T 34 really was an it is simply that there was so many of them (overwhelmingly so) that has it being confused as a great tank .
This is not to say that a good tank crew couldnt overcome these weakness's
(eg. Michael Wittmann in a Stug 3, look up panzerace.com) but the fact remains that the main german tanks and American Shermanns (all variants 1944 on) were simply better.

This is (aside from facts stated) IMO of course :)

[Guest]

Hey M21 i forgot bout the Centurion twas a great design.
Now then.
I am sorry to burst the T 34 worshiping bubble that appears in every WW2 history disscusion I ever get involved but it wasnt so hot some stats follow.

1: Incapable of penetrating Tiger armour (except rear or point blank range other)
2: had to close to within 600m to penetrate fwd mk IV panzer armour at 400m to 500m for side armour.
3: could not depress main gun beyond the typical horizontal line
4: couldnt penetrate panther armour except rear or point blank side.

Thats bad enough but
5: 88mm gun (on all tiger and common use gun in other areas) could penetrate any facing of the T 34 at up to and above 1000m
6: The long barrelled version of the mk IV panzer could do the same at up to 800m

This shows just how weak the T 34 really was an it is simply that there was so many of them (overwhelmingly so) that has it being confused as a great tank .
This is not to say that a good tank crew couldnt overcome these weakness's
(eg. Michael Wittmann in a Stug 3, look up panzerace.com) but the fact remains that the main german tanks and American Shermanns (all variants 1944 on) were simply better.

This is (aside from facts stated) IMO of course :)

The T-34 was absolutely revoutionary when it debuted, however the Germans quickly fielded several very effective counters in the long barrel 75 and the tank mounted 88, not to mention thicker armor. The Soviets just so many, plus so much artillery that the Germans were ground under.

[dalem]

in June of 1941 the PzIII was a very good and proven design, but the T-34 was unquestionably the baddest boy on the block. It's not the T-34's fault that the Sovs really didn't know how to use them very well. Until the PzIVs and StuGs started getting upgunned to the L/48 in 1942, the T-34 remained the superior platform.

Comparing the T-34 to the Tiger I is apples to oranges in my opinion because the T-34 was not a heavy tank (that was the intended role of the KV) and the Tiger I was.

-dale

[cemyaz]

Only problem with the Panther was its complexity and its hydraulics system, which could be set on fire if hit. Also the Ausf. D had a nasty shot trap, but this was corrected on Ausf. A and later models.

I would go for the panther over shermans any day... Although later improvements were made they were called " Ronson" because they lit up the first time !
Over all T 34 was a formidable tank but interms of technology it was german tanks..
Any way simplicity in production and maintainance and sheer number won the war...more than 49 000 shermans produced and even more than that T 34s

[cemyaz]

It would be the T34. Rugged, fast, reliable, well armored, good gun, and good cross-country mobility, and most of all sheer numbers made it the tank that won the war in the East, even though it was clearly inferior to the Panther or Tiger one on one. However, the Panther was also an excellent tank, possibly the best of the war because it, like the T34, was an great all-around tank.

I would pick out panther over sherman any day. Shermans wer called " ronsons" because they "lit" up the first time. Later US corrected this with modifications. T 34 is also a great tank but it was german tanks with new technology...Sheer numbers in production and simplicity of operation won the war

[leib10]

Didn't you say basically the same thing in your last post?

[Dreadnought]

LMAO

[cemyaz]

Didn't you say basically the same thing in your last post?

My bad...sorry:)

[Garry]

I remember reading that in late 1944 and 1945 absolute majority of T-34 losses were due to ..... GERMAN INFANTRY. The massive use of Panzerfaust lead to loss of many THOUSANDS of tanks in the last months of war....

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/817...ust4.htm#destr
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

[Garry]

I am sorry to burst the T 34 worshiping bubble that appears in every WW2 history disscusion I ever get involved but it wasnt so hot some stats follow.

1: Incapable of penetrating Tiger armour (except rear or point blank range other)
2: had to close to within 600m to penetrate fwd mk IV panzer armour at 400m to 500m for side armour.
3: could not depress main gun beyond the typical horizontal line
4: couldnt penetrate panther armour except rear or point blank side.

Which gun and version did you mean?

I actually went on looking to anwer my own question and found information about 6 basic modifications of T-34 guns (3 types of 76mm guns, two 85mm guns, one 57mm and one 100mm gun) with different penetration capabilities. And these 6 guns had different capabilities with different shells.

So the most massivelly used 76mm gun on T-34 was F-34 gun. It was intentionally shortened to improve manuevrability and make manufacturing easier. However there was ZIS-5 version of 76mm gun installed on special T-34 - a tank killer version. It was made longer and had higher initial velocity. There were few of those. The last was S-54..... it was MUCH MUCH better for antiarmor. But due to high cost only 62 units were produced for special "tank killers"

The high velocity ZIS-4 57mm gun was used in manufacturing in 1941, then halted due to high cost compared to cheap 76mm F-34 gun. But since 1943 ZIS-4 was again resumed due to its high efficiency against new upgraded Panzer IV and Tiger. High velocity shells of ZIS-4 penetrated side armor of both at 1,500 m!!! However this shells lead to VERY VERY LOW DURABILITY...... leading to accidents. Nonetheless few hundreds of these guns were produced and installed in 1941-1944. I read in the Russian article that T-34 armored with ZIS-4 gun DID PENETRATE frontal armor of Panther G from 500m. There were few hundreds of them produced throughout the war.....

There were few initial versions of most famous 85mm.... but this time Soviet command learned the lesson and only one type went to massive serial production. However around 360 guns of three other types which were produced and tested were also utilized and installed on special T-34-85 D5....

However antiarmor capability of up gunned T-34-85 turned to be less than that of 57mm gun, though it could easily penetrate side armor of both Panther and King Tiger it could penetrate front only from 100m..... which is not really practical. This was resolved by introducing new shell БР-365П which would kill Tigers and Panthers into front armor.

So, trying to answer you I did find much info on T-34 tank guns for myself. You were probably mentioning data for 76mm F-34 gun which was not produced since summer 1943.

[Recon_sgt]

How interesting

So, trying to answer you I did find much info on T-34 tank guns for myself. You were probably mentioning data for 76mm F-34 gun which was not produced since summer 1943.

Yes entirely possible gar, I would have to do much deeper research into WW II tank designs to see the detailed ins and outs but that seems to be the case tootles

[deadkenny]

I'll throw my vote to the T-34 as well. An overall good design, with a relatively early appearance in the war, being capable of handling upgrades to keep it effective through to the end of the war as well as impressive production figures. I also allow for the fact that a tanks sole (or even main) function was not necessarily to fight other AFV's. Of course, if I was going to fight a tank 'duel', I'd want to be in a King Tiger myself. ;)

[Canmoore]

I like to compare WW2 to a crash up derby.

You dont send your freshly waxed Cadillac into the ring do you? well thats what the Germans essentially did. They built a Cadillac of a Tank and sent it into the ring to get pounded, while the allies built peices of junk, didnt matter if they got banged up, because there was always more to be replaced with.

[Guest]

I like to compare WW2 to a crash up derby.

You dont send your freshly waxed Cadillac into the ring do you? well thats what the Germans essentially did. They built a Cadillac of a Tank and sent it into the ring to get pounded, while the allies built peices of junk, didnt matter if they got banged up, because there was always more to be replaced with.

It's been expounded upon at length in this thread about how the difference in Allied (particularly American and British) tanks and German ones was almost entirely due to doctrinal differences.