1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Best Tank of WW2

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zardnaar, Nov 25, 2019.

  1. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    A spin off of my best tank thread. For purposes of this thread tank Destroyers also count as tanks.

    Anyway I have two.

    1. Sherman
    The old Sherman has a bad rep probably due to they got shot with high velocity anti tank guns and German tanks. However a Panzer IV or T-34 wouldn't do any better. Reliable and simple it actually had thicker sloped armor than other contemporary medium tanks.

    85-95% of the time it didn't see combat vs other tanks so while it was undergunned vs Panthers, Tigers it was great vs infantry and most German AFV.

    Can also be upgunned to the Sherman Firefly and post war the Israeli Super Sherman performed well against post war Soviet designs. Performed well in Korea vs T-34/85s with a 2-1 kill ratio.

    Panzer IV
    The workhorse of the German Wehrnacht. Mechanically reliable, served the entire war, ended up with a high velocity 75mm gun capable of knocking out everything that wasn't an IS series heavy tank.

    Could be mass produced, comfortable to operate in with accurate fast firing gun with decent optics relative to the time. Comparatively weak armor by wars end though.

    Dishonourable Mentions.

    Panther.
    Very very unreliable, underpowered, great gun though for killing other tanks. Just to many flaws virtually nothing in this tank influenced post war designs.

    T-34
    Outside 1941 it's armor wasn't good, bad ergonomics (low rate of fire in combat conditions), poor visibility, poor optics, poor ammo storage. Won the war based in numbers but massive loss ratios resulted in a lot of dead tankers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2019
  2. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    T-34 was hands down the best tank in WW2. The sloped armour was actually very effective.
    It was consistenly improved to a war-winning vehicle, and left plenty of dead tankers, namely German ones.

    And that is what counted.

    Sherman was a mediocre fire hazard. Panther was an over-engineered mess. (T-34 clone, also)

    Panzer IV was only dragged through the war because the Germans suffered
    from an inability to adequately replace obsolete designs...Hence, Stukas in 1944.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2019
    caketastydelish likes this.
  3. Broken_Erika

    Broken_Erika Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,866
    Location:
    Glasgnopolis, Grottland
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  4. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    The sloped armor also caused problems. Low fire rate in combat conditions +it was cramped).

    There's an interesting take if a KV getting hit 23 times with a German light tanks gun in 41. You can think KV armor sting but it also shows the KV can't hit the other tank back or fire fast enough.

    The Germans upgunned their tanks and the Panzer IV could penetrate the T-34s, fire almost there times faster and have better optics and vision range.
     
  5. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    Regardless. The Huns still lost the war.

    Upgunning their panzers couldn't stem the tide of more an 7000 Soviet tank losses being replaced in a fortnight after the 1944 Warsaw offensive.
     
  6. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    That doesn't make the tank good by itself. The Sherman could also be mass produced and was argueably the better tank.

    The Germans did struggle with producing some if their more complex designs. Some like the PzIV, Stuff etc could be mass produced. If the allies or Soviets had those designs they could have made them in similar numbers.

    The Germans didn't have the pre war car industry the USA had, nor the massive factories, population and resources the USSR had. That's not the design of the tank but the industrial capacity of the nation's.
     
  7. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    If the Germans lacked the mass industrial infrastructure of the other world powers, then they were foolish to start a war with them. Russia had over 30,000 vehicles in late 1940.

    My friend, you need to learn a bit more about these AFVs, beyond video games. The T-34 was a great tank. History has shown it. The design evolved from 1941 to 1945, unsurprisingly.
    I'm sorry, but you have to accept the reality by that 1945, your Aryan supermen could match the Russian tanks for numbers, firepower or capability. Silly and oversized monstrosities like
    the Tiger II couldn't get enough fuel or parts, and had crap engines that burned out after a mile's drive. Becoming impressive and abandoned pillboxes to be blasted by aerial tank-busters.
     
    caketastydelish likes this.
  8. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    I think the tiger II us junk for basically the same reasons.

    I have looked at kill/Lise ratios. Tiger wasn't great but did its job IMHO, the humble StuG was the one that killed the most tanks. I also think the Panther is mostly over rated junk.

    The Sherman also did well vs them in Korea, outperformed the Pershing for example.
     
  9. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    Agreed. The most sensible thing the Germans could have done in WW2 was to standardize a solid design, perhaps a variant Panther, without all the fancy unreliable systems.
    Back up this mass-producable armour with Hs-129 tank busters covering the skies and killing artillery or enemy AFVs, then they might have held back the Russians for a while.
    But by 1944, the best bet for Germany was a coup toppling the regime, and hope for Allied mercy and a quick handover of Berlin to Western occupying powers.
     
  10. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Also not disagreeing with any of that. They probably had a very narrow window in 43 at the latest to get a peace deal without surrender.

    Original design if Panther without all the extra armor may have been interesting effectively a sloped upgunned panzer IV that could be mass produced.
     
  11. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,212
    Yep. I pointed out a while back in the Random Thoughts thread (I think) that the Bob Semple Tank is the best tank because none were ever lost in combat. Just ignore the fact that it never saw combat in the first place though...
     
  12. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Yeah they were scared of Japanese invasion. War hysteria. Sherman's and the like became available fairly quickly so this thing was obsolete straight away.
     
  13. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,789
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    I don't know enough about the topic to provide any meaningful insight but I do want to wish you all a very happy Tanksgiving. :)
     
    hobbsyoyo and Phrossack like this.
  14. aimeeandbeatles

    aimeeandbeatles 401 Unauthorized

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    18,175
    Gender:
    Female
    Tank you.
     
  15. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Tanks.
     
    Perfection likes this.
  16. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    18,152
    Location:
    the golf course
    the panther just looks cool

    the movie Kelly's Heroes was good (Fury too), Shermans up against Tiger 1s

    always with the negative vibes, Moriarty...woof woof
     
  17. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Fury was the first time they put a Tiger in a war film.

    Strange but true apparently.
     
  18. Oerdin

    Oerdin Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    M46 tank.
     
  19. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,787

    According to this fascinating interview with Soviet Sherman tank commander Dmitriy Fedorovich Loza, the M4 was overall quite a good tank. He praised its radios, easy battery charging, smooth and quiet ride on the road, and comfortable faux-leather seats, but also its armor, which didn't spall when hit, and its safer ammunition compared to the T-34. He stated that its HE ammunition did not explode during fires, while the T-34's did, which saved his life on one occasion.

    Overall the Sherman has been the subject of a lot of myths. That it was nicknamed the "Ronson," after a lighter brand, for its flammability. That five Shermans were required to defeat one German tank. That its armor was weak, and its gun useless.

    First, as far as I can tell, there isn't much evidence it was called the "Ronson." The slogan that allegedly gave the nickname - "Lights the first time, every time" - wasn't even used during the war. The majority of tank fires were caused by ammunition rather than by fuel, and the Sherman, unlike the T-34, received "wet stowage" in later models that greatly reduced the chance of ammunition fires. Sherman crews had a better chance of survival when the armor was pierced than many other tank crews, and it's not like Panzer IVs were any better.

    Second, the five-to-one myth stems from the fact that Shermans were generally deployed in units of five in US service. If they needed to engage a German tank, the platoon was ordered after it, not just one tank.

    Third, the armor in front was actually well-sloped and generally comparable to that of the T-34. It was especially good when the Sherman first entered service, and while not enough to defeat the best German anti-tank guns, few tanks could, let alone medium tanks. The gun was quite good when the tank came out, and was more than enough for the majority of German tanks. Later models featured the British 76mm gun or the American 3" gun, both long-barreled, and improved AP, APCR, and APCBC ammunition further improved anti-armor performance. They were sometimes not enough to defeat Germany's best, but again, this was a medium tank. And the German Tiger commander "ace" Michael Wittmann was killed in his Tiger by Shermans. This article does a decent job introducing and dispelling these myths.

    I
    n general, the Sherman's positive traits, like decent armor and firepower, excellent turret traverse, good radios, and excellent adaptability, tend to get overlooked, while it is held to the standards of heavier tanks.

    That entered service around 1950.
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  20. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,674
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Yeah I have read the Soviet account of the Sherman. It's a bad tank (compared to what?).
    Russian tanks ammo storage has been an issue for a long time. Small cramped tanks plus ammo.
     

Share This Page