Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80

Thread: Best tank of WW2? | Forums

  1. #51
    wolverine tank detroyer, my favorite, it packs a punch
    "No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair"
    - George S. Patton
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #52
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    15
    I beliebe the best tank of ww2 could've been the Panzer VIII Maus. This tank was huge and had a 128mm gun, a 75mm gun, and an MG34 machinegun. If this tank had been produced in a large enough quantity, and before the Allies had started bombimg the life out of German Industries the war would have been prolonged.

    This tank weighed around 188 tons, had about 200mm of front armor at a 35 degree angle. The greatest problem with this tank was its weight, they designed it to have a maximum speed of 20km/h but the largest engine they could find for it could only push it to 13km/h under ideal conditions. If this tank had been given the chance to be completed it could've been a great pain in the rear for the Allies.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #53
    umm, GAS, that one tank would have to have a WHOLE convoy of fuel trucks
    "No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair"
    - George S. Patton
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #54
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3
    i would say the best tank of world war two was tiger zwei manuverable good armor decent gun mg 42's and a a gun that could shoot a 38 pounds shell a distance of 1200 yards it did have disadvantages though such as pushed 13 miles an hour (the tank could go a max of 14) when you stoped the engine would colapse but keep it at about 10 miles an hour you were good to go the only problem was there were never enough to do some real damage with them
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    27
    The Sherman was a terrible tank. Paper thin armour, a nasty habit of bursting into flame at the slightest provocation and a gun that had no chance of knocking out German tanks except at point blank range, preferably from up the arse. Even the upgunned versions couldn't fight German tanks on equal terms. It was also slow, and I must say, the ugliest tank ever designed.

    German tanks were far superior to British or American offerings, but throughout the war were in too short supply. The Sherman had only one think going for it - sheer numbers. In that respect the best tank of the war has to be the T-34 as it was a damn good tanks that the Soviets managed to produce in vast numbers.


    I suppose you could say that the best tank of WW2 was really the Centurion, since it was designed during WW2 and only missed the end of the war by a fairly short margin. It was built in large numbers and became the MBT for a number of armies and set the standard for tanks for a long time.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #56
    The Sherman could kick the Churchill's a** anytime. Sorry for the cursing moderators.
    "No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair"
    - George S. Patton
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #57
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    27
    The Sherman was perhaps twice as fast as the Chuchill, but only because the Churchill's armour was twice as thick in later versions - 152mm max frontal armour thickness, which was better than even a King tiger! So, in the arse-kicking contest, the Sherman would have had as many problems there as trying to knock out German tanks. The Sherman only became any good when it was upgunned with a British gun. The Sherman was certainly faster on a flat road but over rough terrain or uphill the Churchill was as fast if not faster.

    But since they were on the same side, the argument is rather pointless.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #58
    Originally posted by Basher66:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crushda:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    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 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Yeah, knocked out anyways at the expense of having to plan huge flank maneuvers attacking from different directions involving having to throw in a dozen Sherman tanks and maybe even a Pershing tank, (if recon even spots the King Tiger in the first place). Obviously, since the King Tiger has an 88 mounted onto it, then it's going to have more powerful weaponry, meaning it wins in that department. Not to mention that since it wasn't a very common tank to see, it would probably be pretty easy to get supplies to it to keep it running. So basically, the King Tiger is one of the most bad-*** tanks in history, and that's saying a lot when it's coming from the most bad-*** person in history. Me. But the thing is, when it comes down to it, there is no "best tank". All the different types of tanks and different versions had their own strengths and weaknesses, and roles to play.


    Edit: There's also the M36 tank destroyer "Slugger", which is basically an upgrade of the M10 Wolverine tank destroyer, which had a more powerful AT gun than most versions of the Sherman, but less armor made it more vulnerable. The Slugger made up for that with a HUGE armor boost and an even more powerful cannon (I think) to top it off. The rotating turret made it more like an actual tank than a mobile anti-tank gun.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #59
    uh soviet junk? most belive the soviets were the brightest tank makers ever, one of their tanks was used all the way threw desert storm.
    "No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair"
    - George S. Patton
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #60
    T-34 shocked the hell out of the Germans. Front sloped armor was the thing.
    __________________________________________________ _
    Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it's cowardice.
    - George Jackson
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •