Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> What was the best tank of World War 2?
 
What was the best tank of World War 2?
1. Sherman Firefly [ 2 ]  [4.44%]
2. Churchhill [ 0 ]  [0.00%]
3. King Tiger [ 6 ]  [13.33%]
4. Tiger I [ 5 ]  [11.11%]
5. Panther [ 16 ]  [35.56%]
6. Panzer IV [ 4 ]  [8.89%]
7. T-34 [ 7 ]  [15.56%]
8. JS-2 [ 1 ]  [2.22%]
9. M-4 Sherman [ 1 ]  [2.22%]
10. Other [ 3 ]  [6.67%]
Total Votes: 45
Guests cannot vote 
Stephen Dabapuscu
Posted on September 24, 2009 08:08 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Member No.: 440
Joined: January 05, 2005



QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 24, 2009 07:40 pm)
QUOTE

I also wonder if Steve Zaloga counted Polish, Czech, Yugoslavian and Chinese production!

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

Ok, perhaps that expains some of the disparity! :)
PMEmail Poster
Top
PanzerKing
Posted on September 25, 2009 02:29 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 216
Member No.: 29
Joined: July 07, 2003



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.
PMUsers WebsiteMSN
Top
Iamandi
Posted on September 28, 2009 07:29 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



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
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Stephen Dabapuscu
Posted on September 29, 2009 10:20 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Member No.: 440
Joined: January 05, 2005



QUOTE (PanzerKing @ September 25, 2009 02:29 am)
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.

The panzer IV was great tank, and it is a real shame! that Romania could not have built them under license! During WW2.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Stephen Dabapuscu
Posted on September 29, 2009 10:22 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Member No.: 440
Joined: January 05, 2005



QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 28, 2009 07:29 am)
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.

Good chioce, but what makes the M-26 Pershing better then a JS-2 or a King Tiger?
PMEmail Poster
Top
ocoleanui
Posted on September 30, 2009 06:34 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 117
Member No.: 2121
Joined: May 19, 2008



King Tiger
PMEmail Poster
Top
Iamandi
Posted on September 30, 2009 08:04 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ September 29, 2009 10:22 pm)
QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 28, 2009 07:29 am)
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.

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.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Stephen Dabapuscu
Posted on October 03, 2009 07:45 am
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Member No.: 440
Joined: January 05, 2005



QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 30, 2009 08:04 am)
QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ September 29, 2009 10:22 pm)
QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 28, 2009 07:29 am)
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.

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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted on December 14, 2009 07:05 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ October 03, 2009 12:45 pm)
QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 30, 2009 08:04 am)
QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ September 29, 2009 10:22 pm)
QUOTE (Iamandi @ September 28, 2009 07:29 am)
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.

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
PMYahoo
Top
LeCCa
Posted on December 17, 2009 09:41 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 202
Joined: January 21, 2004



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 :lol:

This post has been edited by LeCCa on December 17, 2009 09:46 am
PM
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted on December 17, 2009 04:41 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (LeCCa @ December 17, 2009 02:41 pm)
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  :lol:

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)
PMYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted on December 17, 2009 07:36 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



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.
PMYahoo
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted on December 18, 2009 05:13 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ September 30, 2009 03:20 am)
QUOTE (PanzerKing @ September 25, 2009 02:29 am)
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.

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?
PMYahoo
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted on December 18, 2009 05:16 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (dead-cat @ December 18, 2009 12:36 am)
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.

What's the Tigerfibel? (pardon mon ignorance)
PMYahoo
Top
Alexei2102
Posted on December 18, 2009 05:50 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Member No.: 888
Joined: April 24, 2006



PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0448 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]