Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Which was the best main battle tank of WWII?

chui
Posts: 561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2017 1:25:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By main battle tank I mean tanks that were used in large numbers so this excludes for example the Pershing tank that, while effective, was not used in numbers until the Korean war.

The main contenders would be in my opinion the Russian T34/85 and the German Panther tank. The US main battle tank was the Sherman but this did not have the armour or hitting power of the others. Also it had a high silhouette and was prone to burning due to the fuel used. The British had the firefly, which was a variation of the US made Sherman, the significant upgrade in gun made it almost equal to the T34/85 and Panther but still had weak armour.
This is just a tiny number of the variety of tanks actually used so what do other people think?
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
keithprosser
Posts: 6,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 11:25:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The word 'best' is almost useless. A tank design with excellent 'raw specs' is useless in war unless it is mechanically reliable, field-serviceable and can be produced in large numbers in bomb-damaged industries.
The raw specs of some of the ww2 German tanks are impressive - but they are in many ways mechanically over-complicated. The T34 may not be quite as impressive on paper, but it was simpler to operate, simpler to maintain in the field and much better suited to mass production. In practice the ability to get large nunbers of tanks into the field and keep them effective in war conditions outweighed the marginal advantage in the 'paper specs' of the German designs over the Russian designs.
Vladimir-Putin
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 11:56:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd say the most efficient tank of WWII was the T-34 and various upgrades of it. Most tanks couldn't even pierce it and many of the one's that could had other problems including overcomplicated engines and large production costs.
George_Simmons02
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2017 3:08:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Without question, the Sherman M4A3E8. It was relatively well armed and was easy to build. They were cheap and could be distributed easily. However, some may argue that the Tiger 131 was better due to its large gun, thick armor, and strength. However, it was somewhat weaker in some environments. It was also slow, heavy, bulky, and expensive to build. It also guzzled gas and was harder to transport.
chui
Posts: 561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2017 9:17:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 11/30/2017 3:08:30 PM, George_Simmons02 wrote:
Without question, the Sherman M4A3E8. It was relatively well armed and was easy to build. They were cheap and could be distributed easily. However, some may argue that the Tiger 131 was better due to its large gun, thick armor, and strength. However, it was somewhat weaker in some environments. It was also slow, heavy, bulky, and expensive to build. It also guzzled gas and was harder to transport.

The so called Sherman M4A3E8 was a very late edition of the Sherman and saw little service. It suffered with the usual problems of the Sherman ie high profile making it easy to spot, petrol engine so highly flammable, poor armour and poor main armament compared to most German tanks of the time. However it was popular with crews in that it was comfortable and reliable.

In a one on one battle a Tiger mk1 would usually destroy the Sherman at a range of a mile or more where as the Sherman had to close to much closer range to have a chance. The British firefly Sherman variant was the only one that had a chance against a Tiger since it had the very high velocity 17pdr gun with armour piercing discarding sabot munition. However I agree that the tiger had problems with fuel, reliability and complexity.
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
xus00HAY
Posts: 2,259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 4:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
the Tiger 2. The gun could penetrate the armor of a Sherman but the Sherman's gun could only get through a tiger's amour in the rear. What was wrong with the tiger was it was often outnumbered.
UnitedRussia
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2017 3:45:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
The T-34 and its later variants were without doubt the most efficient tank of WWII in terms of speed, production cost, firepower and maneuverability. A balance of these characteristics made it without doubt the most efficient tank. With its speed, sloped armor, maneuverability and ability to function in any terrain or weather condition, it was without doubt ahead of its time. So much so that when the Germans first invaded in 1941, they were shocked at having no tank capable of penetrating the T-34.
SEX: BOY OR GIRL AND ALSO MEAN GENDER WHO TELL ME THlS HUH??
xus00HAY
Posts: 2,259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2018 6:07:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I am sorry, but the Tiger is the best tank, and if it were made by one of the allies and not the Krauts everyone would agree. It's defects are the guys inside it and what it was used for.