What was the best tank of World War 2?

To campare tiger, king tiger, IS 2 with panther, t-34/85 it is wrong - are diferent tipes of tanks. The writh questions is what was the best light tank, medium tank, heavy tank of the war.
The best heavy tank of war was probably tiger 1 and 2, they were more deadly on batlefield then the IS 2.
The best medium tank of war. Some my say it was the T-34/85-easy to mentain, not to dificult to manufacter, good design, god firepower, mobil etc- other that the panther was the best. The panther was more effective on the battlefield with some important anvantages over the T-34-state of the art radio equippement, state of the art optic sistems, it all so have better gun and armor protection, Yes the german made more complex machines, but they all so have better more trained mechanics, so fixing a panther or a tiger was not a big problem for them. So I thing that panther was nr.1 or T-34/85 with german redio, optic and crew .
Pershing was all so a good tank all so Panzer 4 how has a much for T-34/85.
Probably that panther was to complex but T-34/85 was all so to primitive.

it's 300.000 given a certain industrial base.
without that base, it'd be more.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on December 21, 2009 11:17 pm

I think the panther was the best tank of WW2. It got an excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection and most modern tanks were probably made after the panther. Also, compared to the tiger it got better frontal armor, better gun penetration, was lighter overall and thus faster, and could handle rough terrain better than the Tigers.

This post has been edited by Alexander on March 01, 2010 07:18 am

:looooool:
And the Panther was made after the T-34! Of course, an improved version, but still...
PS: I voted for Panther, as well

Why not the Sherman?
That tank was constantly improved and used from mid-wwii until the 70's (ok, the T-34/85 too, but it appeared in 1944).
When the Sherman appeared in 1942 the 75mm gun was able to knock out all German tanks at reasonable ranges (it was out-ranged by the long 75mm on the PzIVF2/G though). The 75mm gun was later upgraded to 76mm and to 90mm on the M36 (on a Sherman chassis) with better ammunition being introduced too (HVAP). The Sherman also benefited from a new suspension (HVSS) which gave it a better 'ride' and lower ground pressure. The chassis was also the basis for everything from flamethrower tanks to mine clearance and swimming tank. And also their high production level.
The Sherman tanks saw combat even in the 1967 Six-Day War fighting Soviet World War II-era armor like the T-34/85, and also in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, proving effective even against newer, heavier Soviet tanks like the T-54/55.

Hey! It was about WW2, not afterwards! What's more, T34/85 is not as different from T34/76 as the versions of Sherman are from each other!
To answer your question "Why not Sherman?": because in frontal 1-to-1 combat Shermans almost always lost; they made up by huge numerical superiority and/or overwhelming air superiority. How many tank aces had US Army on Shermans? (I really don't know that; theres's no sarcasm in this question...)

Panther FTW
It was better than T34 so it is the better tank The question was not about how easily produced it was or how many men hours it took to built one, but which one was the better tank and that means on the battlefield.
Imagine the germans were able to produce equal number of panthers and crews that the soviet had and that will answer your question

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on March 02, 2010 12:15 pm

Then this topic should have been in german, jawohl?

True, but in battlefield it is important, on equal degree or maybe more important, the men skills and comanders tactics, where Germans were the best.

First have to clarify -I did not vote for Sherman!- but I think a discussion need to be carried! Answer MMM - see yourself a US tank ace : http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafaye...l_ordnance1.htm and also at www.panzerlexikon.de. Even if I am convinced that "there is no spring with a single flower" so to say! Surely the germans were better and they also had the tools to be so! But it's also true that Sherman won the war even without excellent trained crews! They made their jobs, and do it good enough!

this thread is about, the best design. not the best crew, not the most numerous build.
and as such, the sherman was not the best design of ww2.

I HAVE TO agree with you! Sherman was as ugly as impractical...

Need to agree in regards the Sherman design, also that in no case the Sherman was the best tank of WWII! But it was sufficient to perform the tasks given to him and even be one of the best in the Pacific Theater of Operations facing Japan Forces (even if they never met the rival Type 3 Chi-Nu tank). And (later) led by trained crews (Israelian) they have managed to obtain important victories on the battlefields of the Middle East (1956, 1967 and 1973 wars) as the Germans obtained in 1939-1942 with their modest Panzer III and IV! But, as I said, I agree that the Sherman was not the best tank, at least on the battlefields of Europe! Maybe one of the best in Pacific?!

The Sherman was a good tank but it won battle's mostly because of the number not armor capacity or anything else. Also compared to the german Tiger it was alot faster. Imagine alot of sherman tanks coming fast towards one tiger In one to one combat one single sherman would have no chance against a Tiger I or a Panther.
Regarding the design , I think the sherman stood quite good at that chapter

Yes, the Sherman was able to perform most tasks given to him but again , mostly because of the number and speed and in the pacific it was a good tank compared to the japanese one.

the sherman didn't have much of a contender in the pacific. between blinds, the one-eyed is king.