Best Tank of WWII

[deadkenny]

... 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

Perhaps if you're consider the 'design' in particular. However the poll says best tank, not best tank design. Of course, as is usually the case in any of these 'best of' polls, it's pretty open ended in terms of what factors to consider and what weights to apply to them. In terms of the 'design', I would say the Panther was perhaps 'over-engineered' to some extent, but was certainly an excellent tank. However, where it loses 'points' in my book is that it was a later war design, it had significant problems (transmission in particular) when initially introduced and the numbers produced were not in the same league as the Sherman or T-34. In fact, Guderian made a decision, as Inspector General of Armour, to continue production of the Mark IV late into the war, at the expense of Panther production. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if I had to choose a tank to fight a 'duel' in, then the King Tiger is clearly a better choice.

[dalem]

dk-

Good points, and I agree that any such poll is pretty darned subjective. For me, when I think of "best tank", I think in terms of gun effectiveness, armor, and maneuverability - all pretty tactical things. In those terms I think the Panther is clearly ahead. As my other posts mention though, once we start including operational, strategic, and logistical considerations, that's where the design elements come in more. To me.

-dale

[omon]

how can a tank with a gasoline engine be the best?
a hit in the engine compartment..
sherman- fireball
tiger- fireball
panter- fireball
t34-not a fireball, swap an engine, and it's as good as new.

The T-34 was still in service with twenty-seven countries as late as 1996.
T-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[leib10]

Lol.

[deadkenny]

how can a tank with a gasoline engine be the best?
a hit in the engine compartment..
sherman- fireball
tiger- fireball
panter- fireball
t34-not a fireball, swap an engine, and it's as good as new.

The T-34 was still in service with twenty-seven countries as late as 1996.
T-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I also selected the T-34, the reasons you have stated do not 'trump' all other considerations. Although a gas engine did make a tank more vunerable, it also provided more HP for the weight and size, and so was a trade off as more HP means greater speed and maneuverabilty, which are also critical considerations. Based on your logic, the M1 Abrams is a crappy tank. Likewise, the fact that the T-34 continued in service for so long has to do with factors other than it being the 'best tank' (as the wipespread use of the AK-47 does not imply it is the best rifle). The fact is they were supplied in large numbers to communist regimes that could not afford to replace it with anything better.

[omon]

Although I also selected the T-34, the reasons you have stated do not 'trump' all other considerations. Although a gas engine did make a tank more vunerable, it also provided more HP for the weight and size, and so was a trade off as more HP means greater speed and maneuverabilty, which are also critical considerations. Based on your logic, the M1 Abrams is a crappy tank. Likewise, the fact that the T-34 continued in service for so long has to do with factors other than it being the 'best tank' (as the wipespread use of the AK-47 does not imply it is the best rifle). The fact is they were supplied in large numbers to communist regimes that could not afford to replace it with anything better.

how do you define a best tank? any single reason is not enough to call it the best. imo combination of them, and service record make one the best.
diesels give more tourge than gas, and tourge is more important for tank than hp. especially at low rpm.
t 34 were in production untill 1958, so after that, ussr wasnt making and giving away any, which other tank has such a long service record? and if it was a crappy tank, would it be used for so long? none other ww2 tank can say that.
good overall prformance, ease of manufacturing, repear, maintanance, good firepower, armor, all these combined makes it the best.

[T_igger_cs_30]

how do you define a best tank? any single reason is not enough to call it the best. imo combination of them, and service record make one the best.
diesels give more tourge than gas, and tourge is more important for tank than hp. especially at low rpm.
t 34 were in production untill 1958, so after that, ussr wasnt making and giving away any, which other tank has such a long service record? and if it was a crappy tank, would it be used for so long? none other ww2 tank can say that.
good overall prformance, ease of manufacturing, repear, maintanance, good firepower, armor, all these combined makes it the best.

Based on your criteria oman the Churchill tank which came into service the same year as the T-34 , 1941 had even greater longevity, the last variants not going out of service untill 1965

[cape_royds]

T-34's were in service at least into the early 1990's. I saw a newspaper photo of a T-34/85 in action in Somalia in 1993. Odd that they would be used at all even there, given that some Toyota Land Cruisers were probably better armed.

Of course, one has to distinguish between frontline service with a major power, from the absolute terminus of service. But it's fair to say that the T-34 stood the test of time, as did certain variants of the Sherman.

On an aside, I also remember a photo of a SU-100 in action in Nicaragua in the mid-1980's.

Jeff F_F: I think that the German Mk V "Panther" tank was suitable enough for strategic mobile operations. Such tanks put on a lot of miles doing "fire brigade" service late in the war (e.g. in the Ukraine during 1943-44). This represented about as much mileage as would be put on the tanks during a deep offensive.

[deadkenny]

how do you define a best tank? any single reason is not enough to call it the best. imo combination of them, and service record make one the best.
diesels give more tourge than gas, and tourge is more important for tank than hp. especially at low rpm.
t 34 were in production untill 1958, so after that, ussr wasnt making and giving away any, which other tank has such a long service record? and if it was a crappy tank, would it be used for so long? none other ww2 tank can say that.
good overall prformance, ease of manufacturing, repear, maintanance, good firepower, armor, all these combined makes it the best.

I agree that 'the best' should be determined on the basis of a number of factors. It just appeared from your first post on the topic that you were saying that only a tank with a diesel engine could possibly be considered 'the best' (which is just one factor). I don't agree that diesel engines necessarily have more torque, although it is true that the peak torque for diesels does tend to be at lower engine speeds, which is an advantage with vehicles such as heavy tanks. Again I clearly agree that the T-34 is not a 'crappy' tank, I selected it as 'best' myself. However, the 'service record' has alot to do with the USSR supporting communist 'client' regimes after the war, and those regimes hanging onto them or supplying them to other fellow communists. It demontrates that the T-34 was 'durable', but doesn't necessarily prove anything in comparison to other models. Given the outcome of WWII, there was obviously less potential for German models in particular to be supplied to other countries.

[smilingassassin]

Without a doubt the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. Produced in great numbers, decent firepower, armor, speed and reliable. Shermans weren't really that great of a tank but were produced in numbers the Germans simply couldn't handle nor match, even if they consintrated on producing the PZ.IV.

[dalem]

Without a doubt the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. Produced in great numbers, decent firepower, armor, speed and reliable. Shermans weren't really that great of a tank but were produced in numbers the Germans simply couldn't handle nor match, even if they consintrated on producing the PZ.IV.

"Produced in great numbers, decent firepower, armor, speed and reliable"

Describes the Sherman perfectly as well.

-dale

[omon]

shermans armor is weaker than t34 76mm vs 90mm.
sermans gasoline engine was 400hp t34 diesel 500hp
shermans speed was 40km\h t34 55 km\h
the only shermans advantage is 105mm gun, but there wasn't to many of those on eastern front, there were a lot with 75mm gun.
from what i've heard from many ppl who actualy fought in them, sheman was more camfortable than t-34, but not roomy, slow, slower in turns, and was visible from further distance than t34, was more coplicated, and took longer to fix,(that might be becouse it was forein tank). the only thing russian soldgiers liked adout shermans, is what was packed inside, all those goodies, food, alcogol(somethimes it was hiden in the barrel), and leather tankers overalls, the tank itself wasn't liked at all.

us had a lot of things better than russians during ww2, but sherman wasn't one of them.

[dalem]

shermans armor is weaker than t34 76mm vs 90mm.
sermans gasoline engine was 400hp t34 diesel 500hp
shermans speed was 40km\h t34 55 km\h
the only shermans advantage is 105mm gun, but there wasn't to many of those on eastern front, there were a lot with 75mm gun.
from what i've heard from many ppl who actualy fought in them, sheman was more camfortable than t-34, but not roomy, slow, slower in turns, and was visible from further distance than t34, was more coplicated, and took longer to fix,(that might be becouse it was forein tank). the only thing russian soldgiers liked adout shermans, is what was packed inside, all those goodies, food, alcogol(somethimes it was hiden in the barrel), and leather tankers overalls, the tank itself wasn't liked at all.

us had a lot of things better than russians during ww2, but sherman wasn't one of them.

But the criteria given were "Produced in great numbers, decent firepower, armor, speed and reliable".

Produced in great numbers: Check.

Decent firepower: Check. Lower mechanical tolerances and lower-quality ammunition ensured that the range and penetration of the Sherman's 75mm were comparable to that of the T-34's 76mm. Likewise the 76mm of the Shermans armed with such were comparable to the 85mm guns of the T-34/85s

(Decent) armor: Check. Again, metallurgical problems ensured that the T-34's effective armor was not much greater than that of the Sherman series.

Speed: T-34 definitely edges out the Sherman here, but the M4 series was not slow.

Reliable: No contest - whether the Russian's knew how to repair them or not, the Sherman had a reputation for astounding reliability in the hands of all other allies. T-34s were easy to produce but not very reliable.

-dale

[omon]

t 34 suffered problems with armor quality when armor was rolled and welded, after it became cast problem disapeared.
serman suferred a problem of detonating shells even if armor wasn't penatrated, for which(plus gas engine) it earned nickname ronson lighter, germans called it tommy cooker.
serman had better sights and optics.
sheman had radios.
t34 had better cross country ability.
Soviet V-2 diesels were more powerful and reliable than US GAA engines, especially during the winter times.

certan models of sherman (m4) was a close mach to t34, but as ww2 tank, for war in europe, in russian hands, t34 was a better choice.

we can argue about that looking at papers, numbers,forever, but ppl, who had to fight in them saw the whole pic, thay say they'd rather be in t34 than sherman. almost every book writen by tankers of ww2 states that.
i had a book by guderian, he wrote a lot about t34 how good they were, but very few words adout sherman.

other things americans had were better, some much better, than russians,
i especially like sherman dd, that was awesome modification, half of them drowned, but it wasn't design flaw, wrong tactics. no other tanks did that, neither before nor after(might be wrong,but never heard about anything like that be done again).

[ArmchairGeneral]

shermans armor is weaker than t34 76mm vs 90mm.
sermans gasoline engine was 400hp t34 diesel 500hp
shermans speed was 40km\h t34 55 km\h
the only shermans advantage is 105mm gun, but there wasn't to many of those on eastern front, there were a lot with 75mm gun.
from what i've heard from many ppl who actualy fought in them, sheman was more camfortable than t-34, but not roomy, slow, slower in turns, and was visible from further distance than t34, was more coplicated, and took longer to fix,(that might be becouse it was forein tank). the only thing russian soldgiers liked adout shermans, is what was packed inside, all those goodies, food, alcogol(somethimes it was hiden in the barrel), and leather tankers overalls, the tank itself wasn't liked at all.

us had a lot of things better than russians during ww2, but sherman wasn't one of them.

Umm...105mm gun? The only 105mm gun equipped Shermans were postwar. There was a 105mm howitzer variant during WWII, but that's all.

As for the other points, what variants are you talking about? The Sherman and the T34 were both developed greatly during the war, so you need to specify.