Best Tanks of World War II

[crusader377]

Since we had a good conversation on the Tiger and Panther in a previous thread, I wanted to ask a question for my fellow history buffs. What in your opinion was the best tank of WWII. Here are my picks and reasons why.

1) M4 Sherman: Excellent mobility both tactically and operationally, excellent reliability, good firepower against everything except the handful of German heavies, worldwide deployable, good crew ergonomics and survivability, upgradeable, good longevity


2) T-34: Was the right tank at the right time on the eastern front, good firepower and mobility, built in huge numbers, gave long service after WWII


3) Panzer III: The tank of bliztkreig, good mobility tactically and operationally, good reliability, set the standard for crew set up and ergonomics (3 man turret, standard radio) which was used on all subsequent successful tanks, although obsolete by 1943, chassis was used for the excellent Stug III which killed more allied tanks than any other german armored vehicle.


Notice I don't have Panther or Tiger, although definately Tiger and Tiger II were the most powerful tanks of the war and Panther had tremendous potential , these vehicles were hampered by poor numbers with the Tigers and although the Panther was a great concept, its execution left alot to be desired.

[chadbag]

"Best" is really subjective. What criteria are you using?

For example, most of the short comings of the Panther were "fixed" before the war's end. The Panther II with Tigfer style final drive would have been the final thing had that come out, but even the Panther itself by late 44 had a greatly improved final drive, even if still the weak link. But it suffered from build quality at the end of the war, with sub-par steel, and other issues of a crumbling industry. Does the general sad state of the "war industry" in Germany towards the end count against it?

Sherman had a lot of pros, but a lot of cons. Tall, not very good over bad ground (high ground pressure), OK armor and wumpy gun (some variants fixed those issues). Earlier models suspensions were not that great but they fixed that later, etc. Made by the billions and readily available.

Hard to say what is the "best"

[crusader377]

"Best" is really subjective. What criteria are you using?

For example, most of the short comings of the Panther were "fixed" before the war's end. The Panther II with Tigfer style final drive would have been the final thing had that come out, but even the Panther itself by late 44 had a greatly improved final drive, even if still the weak link. But it suffered from build quality at the end of the war, with sub-par steel, and other issues of a crumbling industry. Does the general sad state of the "war industry" in Germany towards the end count against it?

Sherman had a lot of pros, but a lot of cons. Tall, not very good over bad ground (high ground pressure), OK armor and wumpy gun (some variants fixed those issues). Earlier models suspensions were not that great but they fixed that later, etc. Made by the billions and readily available.

Hard to say what is the "best"

I gave my reasons in the comments. I wanted to have a discussion and see others opinions. My criteria as you can see is weighted more towards influence and more operational factors.

[Red*Lion]

Mine:

1. Panther - a very good balance of armor, mobility and firepower. A very good Medium Battle Tank over the second half of WWII.
2. T34 - similar to the panther in regards to a balance of armor/sloped armor, good mobility and decent firepower.
3. M26 Pershing - came into service in 1944, and did not see a lot of action, but a revolutionary design. Great firepower that could kill Tigers, good mobility and excellent armor for the time. A very good Heavy Battle Tank. Would have been far and away the best tank of WWII if it would have entered service at least a year earlier. Went on to serve in Korea.

[crusader377]

Mine:

1. Panther - a very good balance of armor, mobility and firepower. A very good Medium Battle Tank over the second half of WWII.
2. T34 - similar to the panther in regards to a balance of armor/sloped armor, good mobility and decent firepower.
3. M26 Pershing - came into service in 1944, and did not see a lot of action, but a revolutionary design. Great firepower that could kill Tigers, good mobility and excellent armor for the time. A very good Heavy Battle Tank. Would have been far and away the best tank of WWII if it would have entered service at least a year earlier. Went on to serve in Korea.

M26 Pershing is a unique choice. IIRC only about 20 of them were deployed operationally in WW2. However, the M26 Pershing evolved into the M47 Patton, M48 Patton and the M60 Patton series tanks which the M60 is still in widespread operational service in 2021. Not bad for a vehicle which evolved from the late WW2 Pershing.

[Business_Casual]

Panther was very poor from an ergonomic point of view. Great gun, great frontal armor but shit to fight inside. That said, they did a lot of damage and there were quite a few of them. However, a Soviet 14.5 anti-tank rifle from WWI could penetrate the side (40mm) superstructure below the track return. If there is anything the Soviets had more of than PPSh, it was anti-tank rifles.

Point of order - the Royal Tiger (Tiger II) was more like a Panther with a better turret and a betterish gun. Was it better? Ask a loader...

The M4 was ship transportable and came with plenty of spare parts, so quite a superior unit from a deployment perspective. In terms of raw armor capability it was only viable against its opponents due to air superiority and raw numbers. When a commander had 100 M4 tanks, better than 98 left the start line in an attack. Loading the vehicle with improvised armour (sandbags) did more to overload the drivetrain than prevent a PzGr. 39 round from penetration.

The T34/76 was OK, but execution, from a quality perspective let the design down. Also, the Christie suspension that allowed such amazing cross-country performance consumed whatever interior space the sloped armor didn’t. The controls, optics, poor (if existing) radios are other factors when considering the vehicle. Ask yourself how undersized German units destroyed wave after wave of T34s for years? The T34/85 was a more powerful gun, but what other issues did it resolve?

The best, if you can say such, is probably the PzKfw IV with the PaK40. As with any design, there are issues with crew hatches and transmission repairs, but on balance it was quite capable. Crews were in short supply by 1944, so an 8,8cm that engaged at 2km supplanted the 900 meter 7,5cm gun - remember there were 8 or 9k PzKfw IV and 700 operational Royal Tigers.

If the Tiger I had a more powerful and reliable drive train, that would have been, in much larger numbers, a potential game changer.

On balance, the Soviets and Americans produced more of each type (T34 and M4) than the Germans produced in total armored fighting vehicles, including Stug III, IV and StuH.

The Soviet heavy tanks (IS series) have their own drawbacks, not least of which is trying to load an 12,2cm inside a tiny turret while moving.

[Coal Dragger]

Most potential had reliability and build quality issues not plagued it: Panther, because it is the progenitor MBT. Had it been done right upon introduction it would have made cost the Allies a lot more tank crews to finish off the German Army and would have forced the US and UK to significantly ramp up introduction of the M26 and Centurion to the European theater. As it was the Battle of the Bulge scared the US Army into finally green lighting the M26 after Panthers and Tigers operating close to home and in reasonably good running order mauled the shit out of the Sherman.

Best overall heavy tank to see enough combat in WWII vs peer tanks to call the best: M26 Pershing, still relatively reliable with good armor protection against most threats, and the proven 90mm gun used by US Tank Destroyers, a bit lacking in mobility but that was later solved in further variants descendants.

Best overall medium tank to see combat: Comet. Fast, fast, fast with a good hard hitting gun.

[pag23]

T34...longest serving with minimal updates, very good mobility, sloped armor and decent gun, took on both Panther and Tigers... Mass produced which helped to turn the tide in the east against the Germans, due to sheer amount of tanks produced.

I love German armor, but complex and troublesome maintenance wise, pushed it down the list for me.

[Budget]

I said it in another thread a while back but had Germany built Panzer IVs like we did Sherman's it would have been brutal. So that's my vote. Versatile with a gun that hit hard enough to knock out any tank at reasonable ranges. I think Germany's fate was sealed from day one but a change in tactics and unifying on one design, across all branches for various machines and weapons, would have led to a longer war, possibly resulting in more A bombs, chiefly in Europe.

A see a lot of love for the T34 but they were plagued with reliability issues, particularly the transmission. Something like 50% of T34s never made it to the battlefield.

Like many Soviet things of the era, it was mass produced but fitting required kind of engineering (think PPSH drum interchangeability). I recall a joke about Soviet tanks: how do you stop Soviet armor from advancing? Shoot the two soldiers pushing it.

T34/85 was certainly a different animal but that was late war.

Sherman, and all it's variants, were fantastic fighting vehicles. Tank on tank, not so much but when your artillery is accurate and deadly, you can make up for short comings. There are also a ton of myths about the Sherman and a lot of folklore about how it would take 5 Shermans to take on a cat (Tiger/Panther) but these are the same rumors spread rear echelon units that made the 1911 seem like it single handedly won both wars.

Just my opinion, good idea for a thread. Lots of different perspectives.

[Business_Casual]

A see a lot of love for the T34 but they were plagued with reliability issues, particularly the transmission. Something like 50% of T34s never made it to the battlefield.

Like many Soviet things of the era, it was mass produced but fitting required kind of engineering (think PPSH drum interchangeability). I recall a joke about Soviet tanks: how do you stop Soviet armor from advancing? Shoot the two soldiers pushing it.

Also, the Soviet metallurgy was quite poor. Spalling was a big problem for crews when the armor was hit but not penetrated.