What was the best tank of World War 2?

he said he did. he explicitely mentioned "foreign production". haven't seen anything on rebuilds though.

Ok, perhaps that expains some of the disparity!

I voted for the Panther. A favorite of mine however is the Pz IV. I love that tank. A match for T-34s and available in much larger numbers than the Panther.

M-26 Pershing. In my opinion was the best tank in ww2. Yes, i know he saw little action compared with other tanks, but it was the best.

P.S. - I like CKD LT-38, and i was impressed about what Sweden has done starting from czechoslvakian tanks. Too bad we did not started early before ww2 to have our tank under license. ... LT-38 at Malaxa produced from 1938... later with a bigger turret and the 47 mm czechoslovakian gun, or 50 mm german one... What if, and nothing much.

This post has been edited by Iamandi on September 28, 2009 07:38 am

The panzer IV was great tank, and it is a real shame! that Romania could not have built them under license! During WW2.

Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger?

King Tiger

Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger?

King Tiger is too heavy (ex. a bridge...) and IS-2 have a slow rate of fire. I will search about IS-1.

Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger?

King Tiger is too heavy (ex. a bridge...) and IS-2 have a slow rate of fire. I will search about IS-1.

Yes, but both the JS-2 and King Tiger more powerful main guns, and better armor the M-26 Pershing has a max 110mm, the JS-2 has a max 160mm, and King Tiger had a max of 180mm of armor.

Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger?

King Tiger is too heavy (ex. a bridge...) and IS-2 have a slow rate of fire. I will search about IS-1.

Yes, but both the JS-2 and King Tiger more powerful main guns, and better armor the M-26 Pershing has a max 110mm, the JS-2 has a max 160mm, and King Tiger had a max of 180mm of armor.

I found a great book about Tigers! http://www.historynetshop.com/mzs1.html

Written by a Brit ex tanker who is curator of their tank museum, where it seems they have a refurbished Tiger, in running condition! (There are five known Tiger I's in the world and "seven or eight "Tiger II's)

He considers in the "assesment" section of his book exactly the point we are considering here. For him "best" means the "right" balance between protection and mobility, and while the Tigers were very well protected, they were a little underpowered for their heavy weight! (he says).

Another issue with Tigers is maintainence. Yeah a Porsche is a great car but don' ever buy one unless you have deep pockets and lots of time to keep it humming; same with Tigers, apparently.

I'm a litle surprised that the Shermans, Fireflys and IS-2's all got ZERO votes!
In some of their iterations all these were Tiger killers.

Do we take into consideration crews here? By all accounts the Tiger crews were mostly top notch and may well have accounted for some of the lopsided kill figures?

cheers, fb

this is probably the toughest questions one can ask about ww2! there are many many variables that must taken in account, armour, firepower,engine, mobility, ammo load, crew, production, serviceability, fearfactor... and that's not all! if u take firepower as most important, you can deffinetely say is2, if u consider armour, u can say king tiger, but than again, does the dfference matter so much when confronted with 122mm canon of is2?
probably, when all taken in account, t34/85 is the best combination... altough, if i was to be a tankmen in ww2 , i'd rather fight in king tiger or is2!

the thing that troubles me the most is why panther is voted so much... that thing was so complicated, i't didn't had the best armour nor the best gun! just because it looks so good, doesn't mean it was the best... i think the best german machine was king tiger, so why choose panter?! ...

later edit: now is see radub started his reply on topic "spit vs messerschmitt" in exactly the same manner

This post has been edited by LeCCa on December 17, 2009 09:46 am

Yes, true. In addition, regards the Tiger, I read that those machines were regarded as "life insurance" by their (all volunteer) crew, even to the point of overconfidence.

"For example, one Tiger battalion CO wrote:
The extensive propaganda in the newspapers touts the Tiger as being invulnerable and pure life insurance, so the higher command as well as the simple soldier believe they can accomplish anything with this fortress."

(source: op cit.)

One amazing statistic I came across speaks to how things changed over the course of the war in tank vs tank;
"In 1941, six or seven Soviet tanks were lost for every German one; by autumn of 1944 the ratio was down to one to one"

It seems unlikely to me that such a huge change would be the result of purely mechanical/design features.

(source: Russia's War; A history of the Soviet War Effort: 1941-1945. Richard Overy. Penguin Books, NY, NY 1998 p.191)

the "Tigerfibel" however is quite clear about the vulnerability zone of the Tiger vs. the respective enemy tanks. the crews were supposed to be well aquainted with that book.

The panzer IV was great tank, and it is a real shame! that Romania could not have built them under license! During WW2.

Considering that, for example, a Tiger (dunno bout Panzers) required some 300,000 man hours PER TANK to build (slave labor?), would there have been adequate resources in Romania at the time to build German tanks?

I'd think most able bodies were at the front or already employed in the war effort, including agriculture?

What's the Tigerfibel? (pardon mon ignorance)

The Tiger Manual.