Of course, most anyone would go with the T-34. Good armor, speed, performance (the later models anyway) and firepower, not to mention over 40,000 produced, made them a war-winner for the Soviets.

But then we have the Panther. It was easily the best all-round German MBT of the war. If they had focused all MBT production on the Panther, the war would have dragged on longer, no doubt. One mean SOB of a tank it was.

But besides MBT, what do you think was the best tank destroyer? Self-propelled gun? Infantry support tank?

Anything else you wish to add to this thread, please do so.

My best Brit tank has to be the Comet, its was brought in late but it could destroy i tiger (i think - not 100%)

Mine would be the American Sherman tank.

I really don't like the sherman mainly because it was weak, then again if it was not for the sherman's easy production things might have been very different.

German Generals von Runstedt and von Kleist both called the Ukrainian-built T-34 the best tank of the war.

Many know that the Ukraine was known as the 'breadbasket of Eastern Europe' for it's wheat production. (Till Soviet 5-year plans and other idiocy botched it all up.)

Many don't know is that the Ukraine was also the centre for Soviet heavy industry in the 30's. The T-34 was designed and built there.

The Germans seriously considered making their own copy of it, but didn't have the means to because of some the techniques/alloys used in it's construction.

The T-34 was probably the best tank...the Christie suspension made it easy to cover terrain and clean the wheels from mud and ice...a total pain for panzer crews with Tigers and Panthers with its double wheel suspension. Decent gun, only drawlback, no radios to communicate among each other in the beginning...they had to communicate with flags out of the top hatch. The T-34 was the first tank to have sloped armour which made the shells of the Pz III and Stug III shells bounce off as well as the german pak36 cannon. In fact, some German tankers actually rammed their tanks into the T34 to stop them. The german panther was a good tank after they fixed the engine problems that caused them to catch fire. Two designs for the Panther were submitted before production, one looked almost like the T-34, so the high brass decided on the other design. The germans problem was, they were always designing tanks that took too long to build, never stuck with one design and mass produce it. If they would have stuck with just and Pz IV and the Panther and mass produced those tanks, they would have been better off. Also, the Tiger II and Jagdtiger were produced because the Germans didn't want to get caught with their pants down again like they did with the T-34.

CAN SOMEONE CLOSE THIS TOPIC

PPL CAN FIND THIS ONE AT ANY WAR FORUM

PLEASE CLOSE THIS

Oh sorry.

It's just that the person who asked started the thread asked it at this forum. And those who replied did so at this forum.

to answer the thread question,
it was out of any doupts the german King Tiger

lol soviet rubbish any good.. thats really a good one

King tiger sucked. It was great in the defensive role, but you get it moving, just hang back for a few minutes and it will have to stop/ break down. get it over rough terrain and the sherman will own it with out a problem. Unless they can get the gun around quick, the sherman will have no trouble.

the king tiger would be the best tank apart from serious problems to do wtih parts and replacements. by the time it was in production [1944] germany was on its knees in an industrial sense and had real problems keeping its forces in supply. the king tiger did need high maintenace and if it had been in use early war it would've proved it's use and class. as it was, allied control of the skies ensured these monsters staqyed where they were w/o repairs [not forgetting fuel supply problems].

it has often been called underpowered. not so... the engine was more than adequate. but, as i said, it required high maintenance etc.

the T34 has to be the best. easy to manufacture, wide tracks to cover most terrain types, relatively light weight, sloped armour [think about it.. a 60mm armur at 90 degrees is still 60mm... at 45degrees this 60mm becomes doubled if not more armour with the added ability of deflecting AP rounds!], excellent suspension. even in '41-42 they utterly outclassed the german PzIII and IVs which still used poor performace AP guns [T-34 had the 76.2mm gun, more effective than either the gerry 75mm L24 of the PzIV or the 37mm/50mm of the PzIII].

ok, they had a 4 man crew and lacked radio equipment [so, the commmand control of the germans gave them a tactical edge] but this could've easily been resolved.

has to be the t-34 the sloped armor did it all and thae mass number plus i watched thing about world top 10 tanks and t-34 was best ever most innovational and all that

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basher66:
King tiger sucked. It was great in the defensive role, but you get it moving, just hang back for a few minutes and it will have to stop/ break down. get it over rough terrain and the sherman will own it with out a problem. Unless they can get the gun around quick, the sherman will have no trouble.

---

lol what a nonsense, boy get a clue plz, before you post. during the Ardenne offensive 5 german King Tigers of the 12ss tank division destroyed 40 Shermans in a battle....
sherman was SLOWER and could NOT shot on the range of any Tiger. They just had to drive forward and backward and did shot one sherman after the other down. shermans was prolly the second crappyiest tank after the soviet junk.

The germans had the most beautiful tanks also (Panzerkampfwagen, panter... )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crushda:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basher66:
King tiger sucked. It was great in the defensive role, but you get it moving, just hang back for a few minutes and it will have to stop/ break down. get it over rough terrain and the sherman will own it with out a problem. Unless they can get the gun around quick, the sherman will have no trouble.

---

lol what a nonsense, boy get a clue plz, before you post. during the Ardenne offensive 5 german King Tigers of the 12ss tank division destroyed 40 Shermans in a battle....
sherman was SLOWER and could NOT shot on the range of any Tiger. They just had to drive forward and backward and did shot one sherman after the other down. shermans was prolly the second crappyiest tank after the soviet junk.

---

It seems not. Even the German veterans ive enterviewed, one a SS tank commander himself said he turned down the oppurtunity to command a KT for the fact of what he saw on the western front.
It suffered mechanically with many breakdowns and had poor maneuverability. Many roads and especially bridges were not suitable for a tank this size and the fuel requirements was enormous. Many were abandoned due to lack of fuel rather then being destroyed during the offensive in the Ardennes. Production also suffered with the bombing of the Henschel factory and there simply weren’t enough of these around. The King Tiger was a case of too late and too few in number to make a difference in the outcome of the war.
its not hard to destroy shermans in a battle, when you are fielding 88mm guns that can peirce armor at 2200 meters, the shell hitting in just 2.2 seconds, boy. If you look at the pictures of the ardennes, most KT are knocked out anyways

Best tank of the war is the Heer Tiger (King Tiger). Heaviest armor, best gun. There *is* no discussion about it.

Of course, it only rarely used as it should have been, as a open-field tank in an all-out tank battle. In the East, it performed well. In the West, it was totally outmatched. Not by the M4 Sherman and Churchill, mind you, but by the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Hawker Typhoon. Fighter-bombers, for all you barbarians. With the German air supremacy gone, no German tank could survive for very long. In the Ardenne offensive, bad weather kept the bombers at bay, a big reason that the atack held out for so long.

You people are gibbering on about the T-34 (T-34/85 I assume) and the sherman M4A1 and the Konigstiger, but none of you seem to have included the one true all-around best tank of the war! The infamous, and revered Pzpkfw V Ausf A "Panther". Designed as a long-term replacement for the aging Panzer IV, already outclassed and out performed by it's rivals on the eastern front, the Panther would be one of the best balanced and well-loved tanks of any faction. Weighing in at an astonishing 44 tonnes (in my opinion too heavy for a medium tank, and too light for a heavy tank) with 80mm armour over the front hull (augmented by the beautifull slope of the front plate), the Panther proved a tough nut to crack. With it's high velocity L70 75mm cannon, accompanied by coaxial and hull MG-34s, the Panther was capable of knocking out all but the heaviest (IS2/3, Pershing and perhaps KV2) allied tanks at extreme rangem and anihilating any enemy tank killer squads brave enough to charge (this was further augmented witht he addition of a roof frag grenade launcher, one of the first tanks to include this ingenious device). Desipte it's considerable weight, size, and armament the panther was exceedingly agile, capable of 55kph, far outpacing the Sherman and matching speed with the T-34/85. In addition to it's close to perfect stats the Panther was one of the most reliable tanks in service, of far better quality than the T-34/85, whose gearshift often had to be hit with a hammer to move, and the Sherman, which was nicnamed the "Ronson" or "Tommy Cooker" after it's tendacy to catch fire in the ammunition magazine.

When all is said and done, no tank matches up to the Panther. The Panther is undeniably the best all-around tank produced during, and for years after, the second world war. Many of my fellow historians share my views, just thought I'd try to make this clear-cut.

yeah, that's what i was going to say, Pzpkfw V was a truely great all around tank.

To bad the Sherman could defeat it, even the frontal armor, but that from what Ive researched, was fair game with in 300 yards. The bazooka could take it out at 50 yards easy. Turret, sides, and rear were all kill shots on the panther.

Basher

Everyone seems to have different ideas on what 'best' actually means. If we are talking one on one fights then the King-Tiger would chew up most tanks. However, if we are talking in a campaign sense..the T-34 wins. Cheap and simple to produce, and very reliable, and that's one of the reasons they won on the eastern front.