Just for fun. Year by Year- which Tank was the best overall- Eastern Front- Western Front 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Caveat- must have seen actual combat in WW2 Yes I know it is hard to compare a medium tank to a heavy tank especially later in the war, but this is just for fun anyways- for all the Tankophiles who we all know have opinions...
I'm just going to do the Western Front which I'm also going to include North Africa since the West front was quiet for a while. 1940 - WF S35 1941 - NA Hard one........ Pz III or Matilda II 1942 - NA - M3 Lee and then the M4 Sherman towards the end of the year. Also saw the introduction of the Tiger in late '42 in NA but they only ever sent bare handfuls 1943 - NA - Um............ Screw it, Tiger, just because mentioning the Tiger is expected 1944 - WF - Panther G because they finally got around to fixing the shot trap in 1944 and various mechanical problems. 1945 - WF - Panther G
Eastern Front: 1939-PZIII 1941-KV-1,T-34 1942-T-34,Tiger 1943-Tiger,Panter 1944-IS-2,T-34-85 1945-IS-2,TigerII Just my opinion.
Mostly I agree with you except I would have the Panther in 1944- the T-34/85 was a fantastic tank but the Panther's armor was superior and its 75 was better able to penetrate the T-34 than the 85 mm was able to penetrate the Panther. The T-34 had the definite edge in mobility and reliability.
Well, if we are in "the best technologically" then yes. But we are in "the best overall". T-34 was waaaaay easier to produce. If i remember correctly T-34 required 5 times less human-hours, than Panter and about 10 times less human-hours than Tiger. It definitelly wasn't superior in anti-tank role in 1944, just like Sherman on Western front, but it was much more effective per it's cost. When it was upgunned to 85 mm and recieved the ability to counter Panter and Tiger and surpassed Panter in ability to fight not-armored targets, no single reason left to say that Panter is the best tank on the front. Besides, I consider Panter entering service a serious mistake. Upgunned and upgraded PZIV would do the job half the price, but no, Reih just had to go building wundervaffe.
I would have to go with the 2 that won the war, the Sherman and T-34. When you are talking about a war of the magnitude of WWII, having the "best" is not always important. What is often even more critical is being able to build them fast enough to deploy on the battlefield to make a difference, and being able to train enough crews quickly to operate them. Yes, pretty much all of the German tanks 1 on 1 were superior to the US and USSR tanks. But they were also essentially finely tuned watches, cantankerous and needing constant maintenance. And building them took so long that they were simply not able to produce the numbers needed. And because of the relatively small numbers and constant upgrades, crews were constantly retraining. The US and USSR had much less of a problem in this area, they essentially built tanks that worked, and cranked them out like Model T's in Detroit. To me, the best tanks are not the ones with superior guns and armor, but the ones that made the biggest difference in actually winning the war.
Hehe. That was a good one. Several dozens of these falling on your head and you are screwed. You cannot psyhologically against flying tank.
A 1939 Panzer III could be destroyed by throwing a rock at it. Tiger IIs were an awful tank. Too heavy for starters. Very, very prone to mechanical problems.
Have to remember that when the Germans first rank into T-34s the Panzer IV was an anti infantry tank. The Panzer III was designed for the antitank role. Looking at those the Germans decided they needed a new tank since the III was pretty much reaching the end of its ability to be upgunned.
The Soviets just didn't care how many bodies they threw on the fire just as long as the Germans ran out first. Pretty much, if not all, Soviet tanks had horrible optics. The Germans routinely said it wasn't the armour or the guns on Soviet tanks that were the reason the Germans racked up so a huge kill ratio, it was the fact that the Germans were able to put multiple shells on target before the Soviets could land their first one. Optics in the rest of the Allied countries weren't much better either.
And that is pretty much what they did. The T-34 was nothing super, but they were able to produce almost 65,000 of the things during the war. That is almost 3 T-34s for every single tank that the Germans produced combined. The German's did produce the Tiger and Tiger II to counter the new threat of the T-34. But with less then 2,000 built of both models combined, it did not matter how good they were. They were simply overwhelmed y the sheer quantity of what the Soviets made.
The Panther was produced to counter the T-34. The Germans had already been working on the Tiger when they encountered the T-34. The Germans achieved a 5 to 1 kill ratio against the Soviets in tanks.
I would not doubt that. However, combine the almost 65,000 USSR T-34s, and the almost 50,000 M-4 Shermans, and there was little doubt what the outcome would be.
Of course for sheer audaciousness, I don't anything can ever beat one planned by the Germans. Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte Two 280mm cannons, One 128mm cannon, Eight 20mm cannons, and Two 15mm machine guns.
I did not include that, because the P1500 was really self-propelled artillery, and not a tank. But good god, an 800mm main gun, 2 15cm secondary guns, and 15m machine guns all around. I am not sure if I should have laughed at that design, or bow in respect at just the thought of the thing.
I actually think the T-34 was pretty amazing for the time period it came out- its combination of mobility, armor and main gun were pretty incredible for the time. But the T-34 had its flaws- which I am sure the Germans were glad it had- the optics- the cramped turret- the lack of radio's- and the generally poor Soviet crew training and tactics at the time. But for 1941? That was still a pretty amazing tank for 1941.
West: 1939: Char B 1940: Matilda II 1941 PzIIIj 1942: PzIVg 1943: PzIVg 1944: Panther G 1945: Panther G East: 1939-40: NA 1941: T-34 1942: Tie-T-34/PzIVg 1943: Tiger 1944: Panther G 1945: Panther G
Tank is not about just armor. Pz III had superior mobility over British and French tanks, which was great for Blitzkreig or whatever you call this. EVERY German tank after Pz4 was too heavy and had too many mehanical problems. And that was one big stupid decision. Upgunned PzIV had no problems fighting any other tank, excepting heavies. Panter was better on paper yes, but introduction of a new tank costs a lot and you better to have some serious reasons for that. That is the reason both USSR and USA didn't put Pershing and T-43/T-44 into service earlier. Oh, cold-war era lies again. Doesn't take much time to open wikipedia for one and check combat losses,does it?. 1,3:1 ratio can't fit into "didn't care". Well, good luck scoring good tank vs tank ratio, while your enemy butchers your infantry with them.
You are allowed to be a little picky with the Soviet combat losses. I think anyone serious on the topic would divide the war between pre and post battle of Moscow. On the long drive back to Berlin, the Soviets actually had very respectable numbers. Most of the bloating of figures comes from the chaos of the first 6 months of the invasion. PS also nice to see some love for the Matilda's PSS Always loved me some KV1s Would have liked to have seen them in a position where idiots were not committing them to battle
