Best Tank of WW2

[hobbsyoyo]

They had been used in static defense emplacements.

I read on wikipedia that they were using Tiger and Panther turrets built into hills. Pretty cool.

 

[Zardnaar]

I read on wikipedia that they were using Tiger and Panther turrets built into hills. Pretty cool.

That to but they actually buried whole tanks and TDs.

Jagdpanzer IV thumbnail.

People will restore anything but the only supply left if WW2 tanks for the most part is rivers, forests, and digging. Especially German stuff, scrapyards etc were scoured long ago.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As soon as you figure out which one is best, I'll have three tanks of WW2, five barrels of Korean conflict, and a case of bottled Viet Nam, to go. Thanks.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That to but they actually buried whole tanks and TDs.

Germany helped Bulgaria build up a Bulgarian Panzer Division,with numbers of Pz4s, Stuggs, JapdgPanzer4s but before they were deployed Bulgaria changed sides, that why they have so many intact German tanks
After the war Bulgaria kept its German tank inventory and finally later used them in static fortifications, which is what Soviet did with all its old T-34s
Only now that these old Panzers are worth money and tank poachers have stolen a few to sell, did Bulgaria go and dig them all up to secure them.

Probably want to restore them and then sell them to collectors for some euromonies.

 

[Cutlass]

Not only did Stalin end up killing the designer of the T-34, Stalin also held back numerous upgrades and corrections
The storage of ammo in unprotected racks in the rear turret of the T34 resulted in exploding and fatal crew losses. The Soviets pretty much identify the problem like the Sherman had but refused to invest resources to correct it. Wet ammo and shielded racks. It was to keep production numbers high but the terriable cost in deaths of crews. Stalin of course considered the crews expendable.

Poor vision, exhaust bleaching smoke giving away its position form miles away, poor gun optics and cramped leading to poor crew performance.

Its not a bad tank, I imagine that if the designer wasnt killed the T34 might have been improved much earlier.

Do you have pics or diagrams of how the wet storage and shielded racks worked?

 

[FriendlyFire]

The early Shermans had ammo behind the turret like the T34 to increase the reloading speed. But when the tank is hit, even small fragments penetrating could set off the tanks stored ammo
The US solved this by putting the ammo inside jackets, and additional wet ammo racks are just water filled jackets.

the M4A1 (76)W, M4A2 (76)W, the M4A3(75)W, The M4A3 (76)W tanks all had the improved wet ammo racks. This change included moving all main gun ammo into the floor of the hull under the turret. These ammo racks were also surrounded by water filled jackets. Early production wet tanks retained the turret basket, and had hatches that could be opened to access the hull ammo racks, later they only installed a half basket, and eventually removed the basket floor entirely.

http://www.theshermantank.com/category/wet-storage/

 

[r16]

gotta be a thing ı missed . The designer guy of T-34 died because of a cold , because he was involved in driving tests , like in January , which is cold even here .

 

[amadeus]

How are we defining best? Best kill to loss ratio? Fewest breakdowns? Easiest to produce?

My definition is aesthetic, and by my standards the Panzer II is the clear winner.

 

[FriendlyFire]

gotta be a thing ı missed . The designer guy of T-34 died because of a cold , because he was involved in driving tests , like in January , which is cold even here .

Soviets rejected the T-34 tank design. Mostly as a result of Stalin favourtism in selecting the KV1
Out of desperation he personally drove the T-34 prototype nearly IIRC 1000km, an amazing feat of reliablity in order to demonstrate the tank to Stalin and get approval for it to go into production
This brave act cost him hes life, but hes tank design would go on to play a vital role in the war.

 

[r16]

them Soviets most definitely did not reject the T-34 . You are ignoring the Soviet type of paranoia , with them assuming they were already totally behind in the field of shellproofs . And like perhaps an unjustified thing against the KV , which was even more impressive in 1941 so much that the Germans would land captured KVs on Malta in 1942 instead of III or IV Specials .

 

[cardgame]

KV-1 was just as impressive, if not more so, than the Tiger, at least in relative terms. Shame it's such an unknown tank to most.

 

[Zardnaar]

KV-1 was just as impressive, if not more so, than the Tiger, at least in relative terms. Shame it's such an unknown tank to most.

KV was not that good outside of 1941. Soviets stopped making it for a reason

 

[FriendlyFire]

As other have pointed out KV1 had a short window of supremacy
But had a lot of issues, its transmission was so bad that drivers had to use a hammer to change gears, poor vision, weight and speed leading to mechanical breakdowns, poor reliability

 

[cardgame]

KV was not that good outside of 1941. Soviets stopped making it for a reason

Mostly because T-34 spam was better

 

[Zardnaar]

Mostly because T-34 spam was better

That and it was very unreliable, kinda blind, and once Germans upgunned it's armor didn't matter.

 

[r16]

would have to agree to all , except it wasn't abandoned and it became the standart heavy , being the root for stuff up to T-10 which was a problem until 1980s . If the Soviets had managed to avoid so many losses they would have the capacity for speedy development and say IS-3 could have been active in '44 . Or maybe not as the war could have been already over .

 

[tetley]

The best tanks, far and away, came out in 1945, but that was too late to really figure into much.