Interesting Poll

[CaptainLost]

This always gets lots of arguing: what was the best tank in WW2? (Out of the ones listed, of course)

Post your opinion below but stay polite please!

 

[Glassfan]

Obviously the Panzer VII - the mystery tank!

 

[Angst]

OMG DOMINATION3000 IS BACK WHAT HOW IS THIS WHAT IS THIS

Oh lol that's an interesting username.

Choosing a Panzer because I don't know any history.

 

[emzie]

Unquestionably the T-34, though the thought of facing any version of a Tiger in any other tank gives me a bit of a chill even today.

 

[Serutan]

I voted T-34 because IIRC it was the only tank a) which served through the whole war
b) whose basic design didn't change, and c) which was viable throughout the war (once the 85mm
gun upgrade was implemented).

 

[History_Buff]

Ram Tank obviously. A 0% loss rate is tough to beat.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Ram Tank obviously. A 0% loss rate is tough to beat.

Does sitting on the bench for the whole war really count though?

 

[Tee Kay]

This tank, obviously.

 

[sophie]

I'd rather hear about an interesting Pole (Domen gogo!)

 

[red_elk]

T-34, definitely. Was effective throughout whole war and after it. Removed from service in Russia in 1993 (!) and still used in several countries.

 

[TheLastOne36]

T-34 all the way. C'mon Rudy!

 

[Quackers]

I don't know which exact model of the T-34 it is but according to Anthony Beevor it was the best all-round utility tank in the whole conflict.

 

[Domen]

Why Kugelpanzer is not on the list?!

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

Spoiler :

 

[CaptainLost]

hmm interesting...usually on polls like this on other sites it ends up as a huge fight over M4 Sherman and T-34/85...

 

[IkM]

T-34. then, Tiger II.

 

[History_Buff]

Does sitting on the bench for the whole war really count though?

I don't see why not.

 

[Ajidica]

Either the T-34 (don't know the difference between the two variants) or the one flying Soviet tank.

 

[say1988]

T-34, definitely. Was effective throughout whole war and after it. Removed from service in Russia in 1993 (!) and still used in several countries.

When it was introduced the T-34 was a step forward and the best tank int eh field. By the end of the war it wasn't anything special.

The T-34 was roughly comparable to the M4 Sherman in its capabilities, but introduced earlier and by the time the Sherman was on the scene German tanks and tank destroyers were much better.

The best all-around tank would likely have been the Panther or Pershing. But the Pershing's service was so limited in WWII.

Either the T-34 (don't know the difference between the two variants

There were a lot of small differences, but the two biggest were, the upgrade from a 76mm to 85mm gun (hence the name, T-34-85) and the addition of a third turret crew member so the Commander could focus on commanding.

 

[red_elk]

The best all-around tank would likely have been the Panther or Pershing.

Tiger and Panther are indeed very good tanks. I guess "the best" term here needs to be defined more precisely. By important individual capabilities, such as firepower and protection, the answer would be one, and by overall effect on the war and cost-effectiveness, another.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Tiger and Panther are indeed very good tanks. I guess "the best" term here needs to be defined more precisely. By important individual capabilities, such as firepower and protection, the answer would be one, and by overall effect on the war and cost-effectiveness, another.

The title "Best all-round" would require the vehicle be a highly effective combat machine, easy to produce in large numbers, and easy to maintain in the field under combat conditions. There are three legitimate contenders under this criteria: the PzKpfw V Panther, the T-34 (both the 76mm and the 85 mm variants), and the Sherman (in 75mm, 76mm, and 105mm flavors, as well as the 17-pdr armed Firefly plus the 90mm-armed M36B1 Tank Destroyer.)

The PzKpfw VIe Tiger I and the PzKpfw VIb Tiger II, despite their infamy, were produced in far too small a quantity (less than 2,000 of all variants) and were possessed of too many operational limitations (whatever their tactical advantages) – the Tiger II, in particular – to be considered best all-round. The PzKpfw VII was a Hitlerian pipe-dream.

Of our contenders, the Panther rates highest in combat effectiveness. Its 75mm/L70 main gun was perhaps the best tank gun of the war. Its well-sloped heavy armor gave it protection better than the T-34 or the Sherman. It possessed better maneuverability than the Sherman, though not quite as good as the T-34.

It was not without its shortcomings, however. It took up great resources developing and retooling factories to manufacture that may have been better utilized producing many more of the less potent, but not unworthy, PzKpfw IV. It was also maintenance intensive, requiring proportionally greater amount of time in the shop for an equivalent amount of time in combat than either of the Allied tanks. Finally, the Panther suffered fatal reliability problems in its early makes which were addressed, but never fully rectified.

The T-34 was not as effective in combat as the Panther, but it was no slouch. It was extremely mobile for a tank of its size, armor, and armament. Its sloped armor and main gun extending beyond the front edge of the vehicle were truly revolutionary. It was easy to manufacture and maintain.

The Sherman’s faults are fairly well known, but I think it gets shorted in the conventional wisdom. Its reputation as a “Tommy cooker” was an unfortunate reality as was the ineffectiveness of its 75mm main gun, but later models went some way to rectifying this. Wet storage of ammo and a redesigned turret with a loader’s hatch improved crew survivability in later models. The basic soundness of the Sherman’s design allowed the 75mm to be replaced by a high-velocity 76mm gun, a 105mm howitzer, the 17-pdr of the Firefly, or the 90mm gun of the M36B1 TD.

Where the Sherman comes into its own is in the operational sphere. Its ease of manufacture, reliability, and ability to keep going with little maintenance meant commanders could be confident that their armored units would be able to actually put tanks in the field and that said units could be reliably shifted to where they might be needed.

Some numbers will round out the Sherman's (and the T-34's) operational/strategic advantages over the tactically superior Panther.

Numbers built 1/43 through 1945:

• PzKpfw V - 6,132
• T-34 (76mm & 85mm) - 41,871
• Sherman (75mm, 76mm, & 105mm + M36B1) - 41,136

Even accepting the supposed need of a 5-to-1 advantage for the allies to take out a Panther, both the US and the Soviets comfortably surpassed that ratio with numbers to spare.

On the maintenance front, I remember reading back in my Advanced Squad Leader days that it took nearly an hour's maintenance to keep a Panther in the field for an hour. That same hour's maintenance gets you 8 hours of operation in a T-34 and 40(!) from a Sherman. (Sorry, no idea where to find the reference.) In line with this, Steven Zaloga in Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944 points out that at the December 1944, 55% of 235 surviving Panthers in the Ardennes were down due to mechanical failure/battle damage while only 9% of 1,085 US 1st Army Shermans were lost to mechanical failure/damage.

As the best tank is the tank you have on hand, the above puts a serious dent in the Panther's claim to being the best. Tactically, the Panther is generally considered to be the best tank of WWII, but it had distinct disadvantages at the operational level. Operationally/strategically, the Sherman wins by a considerable margin, but it had distinct tactical disadvantages, especially in its early models. The T-34, while not as optimized at either the tactical or operational level as the Panther or the Sherman, lacks any glaring flaws, so it gets my vote as best all-round tank of the war. I would even place the Sherman ahead of the Panther as a war-winning machine, though I would far rather serve in a Panther myself.