Fav AFV of WW2 [Reasons]

Just a quick poll to see what tank we think was fav in ww2.
NO GODDARN FLAME WAR PLS

Last edited July 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM by Newbie.

Couldent find the "Brummbåar" ..... so i took the tiger, allmost just as cool :D

Ahah, Sorry, just added that

On Topic: I have to say the SOMUA S-35. Powerful tank with powerful armour, first-class radios and a gun still in use in D-Day, only drawbacks was cheap-trained crews and Reliablity. It paved the way for future French tanks like the AMX-30 and Lelerc.

So my top 5:

SOMUA S-35
T34/76 [C'mon has to be on SOMEONES list)
Panther
M4 Sherman
Tiger II

Last edited July 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM by Newbie.

I suggest that you split this list into sections. You've listed a number of vehicles out of different purposes (medium tanks, tank destroyers, SPArts etc.). It is like asking which fruit you like best in a list which features a number of different apples, pears, bananas and kiwi's.

To have a go at this:
fav spart: hummel because of it's massive firepower while still being mobile

fav medium tank: sherman, because of the ease of production and Panther because of overall characteristics.

As for the other categories, no idea (yet).

Cheers

Ok, i'll state then

Fav Light tank: Renualt FT17

Fav Med: Tank: SOMUA S-35

Fav Heavy: Char B1

Fav SPG: StuGIII

Fav Arty: Grille

Fav APC: ADGZ

Fav TD: Sturer Emil

Fav AA Tank: Mobelwagon

T-34 in all of its versions. Something so crude and ugly, yet somehow so beautiful that I like it.

Closely followed by Panther, Stug 40 and Jagdpanther.

Matilda II.
No Italian gun could stop it in 1940.
British force 36,000 strong captured 115,000 prisoners hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces and more than 1,100 aircraft with very few casualties of their own.
Matildas, Cruiser tanks and BREN Carriers formed the British spearheads.

Tiger II

The pinnacle of German tank design, even if it was a broken mess quite often. Pretty much one angry SoB.

That or the T-34. The tank that drove the German might back. So basic yet effective, and still influencing tank design today.

I hope nobody votes for the M4 Sherman, death trap that it was.

EDIT: and I didn't know the panzer I was still around in those days.

Sherman to the max!

Typical Seeme.

You should have split it into

1. mbt

2. tankdestroyer

3. spg

4. spa

5.armored car

6. tankette

7. recon


My favourite is pazer iv as could be produced in large numbers and was superior to the sheman!!!!!

Panzer 4 was outnumbered by sherman production by like 6 fold. They, like any german tank, were not easy to produce at all. Unless you're talking ingame when they're about 10 fuel cheaper.

well, the Panzer IV was techically supieor to the M4A2 Sherman, but wasn't produced, and in a 1v1 Between a Panzer IV Ausf. H and a M4A3 Sherman, the Sherman would probaly win.

If we consider in war the its the m4a3 sherman thts got to be the best since it was produced in tones and kilos,however we have to at the technology and the combat history too

i quote from wikipedia

"Robust and reliable, it saw service in all combat theaters involving Germany, and has the distinction of being the only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war, with over 8,800 produced between 1936 and 1945"

if one doesnt consider the numbers produced it was superior to the most widely produced and used 75 mm sherman

For me it is :
L: PzIII- well balanced
M:Panther- started a generation of MBT's
H:M26 Pershing -predecessor to most US tanks
AC:234/1-a very good IFV
R:sd. kfz. 222-fast and armored.

Last edited July 8, 2010 at 1:16 AM by Akalonor

As much as I love the sheer power of the Tiger I and the all kinds of awesome that is the Panzer IV, I pick the Sherman. It saw combat in every major theatre during WWII. From the islands of the South Pacific, the deserts of North Africa, the plains of Russia, the hedgerows of France and the hills of Italy, the Sherman proved itself as one of the most effective fighting machines ever produced. It was reliable, easy to produce and easy to maintain. Exactly what you need when you're shipping a tank to every corner of the globe.

Wasnt the sherman outclassed by T-34/85? T-34 was also reliable, easy to produce and repair, and very powerful with 85mm gun, and "ekranami" version were very tough!

But for me, Pz4 is the best: efficient, reliable, with enough firepower to knock out most tanks. Also, it was, like Pz3, a well-though tank: it needed 5 crew to distribute all task of the tank (commander was able to focus on the battlefield), and radios equipment were efficient enough to assure the coordination of the equipage.

In my opinion, super heavy germans tanks were bullshit: Tiger II, Jagdtiger and others werent that indispensable for panzer divisionen or SS unit, and were also a logistic nightmare! Maintaining these tanks in service was a daily miracle.

You know it useally takes about 4-6 solid hits on the bridge to make it blow up? One time I had it king tiger on a birdge and then 2 shells hit it, and the brigde broke. Lol.

(P.S, it was a new bridge.)

wait.... what..... ???

Red_Stinger wrote:
Wasnt the sherman outclassed by T-34/85? T-34 was also reliable, easy to produce and repair, and very powerful with 85mm gun, and "ekranami" version were very tough!

But for me, Pz4 is the best: efficient, reliable, with enough firepower to knock out most tanks. Also, it was, like Pz3, a well-though tank: it needed 5 crew to distribute all task of the tank (commander was able to focus on the battlefield), and radios equipment were efficient enough to assure the coordination of the equipage.

+1
I also like the PzIII and the PzIV becouse they were build earlier than M4 and T-34. Both allied tanks were also upgunned, uparmored, rebuild as SP guns and tank destroyers but German tanks experienced more than allies.

Akaloner must be spending to much time in his fantasy world.

Ive voted for Panther...i saw it live in my home country on war parade of 65th anniversary of our liberation by Soviet troops. Though there were also two T-34/85s, the Panther was a formidable sight...i certainly didnt want to be a soviet tank commander when id see that tank comming in front of me. Well anyway another thing why ive voted for it is because its great armor/firepower/speed performance which is essential to todays MBTs. So practically it began the modern-day requirements for tanks at least generation ahead. Truly a masterpiece of engineering...

Seeme wrote:
You know it useally takes about 4-6 solid hits on the bridge to make it blow up? One time I had it king tiger on a birdge and then 2 shells hit it, and the brigde broke. Lol.

(P.S, it was a new bridge.)

Shells from what? I know that one or two well placed hummel rounds can destroy a new bridge.

As for the points made about the Panzer IV, yes it was a good and reliable tank, but it has one major problem, it's oil froze in the Russian winter, something which didn't happen to the T34. I don't know though how this is for the Panzer V.

Cheers

For me, it's the Sturmgeschütz III.
It was relatively cheap to manufacture (unlike PzKpfW. III) and proved its worth countless times.
Being very versatile, it could be used as an infantry-support-tank, effective tank-destroyer, assault-gun and also was used in normal Panzerdivisions later in the war as supplies of new tanks like Pz IV or Panther became rare.

For me it is Tiger I because of following reasons:
+ very effective gun - 8,8cm
+ good armor out of a very special "softsteel"
+ 5 man crew -> u needed 5 man during the 2ww. The tnak commander was so elementary. He monitored the battlefield and directed the crew.
+ self repair skills by the high trained crew - german tanksoldiers were trained in self repairing the own tank.
E.g. the driver was the bord engineer and the radio operator the electrician.
+ the crew - Tiger crews were mostly recruited out of the old Panzer-Divisions and so most of the Tiger crews had already combat experience. A big plus in battle.
+ good engine
[ before someone cries; Maybach said from the start that the P230 engine will just survive 500km! So german mechanics and engineers know that this engine isnt a long-live one. BUT a lot of tiger crews managed to drive more then 1500km before they need a new engine - all in all that is absolutely acceptable statistic. That a high number of Tiger get engine breaks near the end of war is a result of the out burned "Instandsetzungsdienste" [ garage compnaies? dont know the english term ] and the bad quality of the endwar products ]
+ the onboard technics - e.g. the radio, the good sights and so one.
+ a good earth pressure - some Sherman crews reported after the battle of Normandy that they had no chance against a Tiger in countryside. Tiger was able to drive with its full speed over a muddy field - Shermans could do this; they "bogged".
+ the symbol! - Tiger was the symbol of german tanks.

[ + the kill-death-ration:
army "lost" 1,700 Tiger I and II and destroyed 9850 tanks! Thats a ration of 5,8 of a normal Tiger crew! ]

- high costs
- high building time
- the number of units
- special munition for the 8,8 -> could exchange munition with a normal 8,8cm anti air gun.
- no sloping armor

All in all Tiger is for me the best tank of the 2ww.

And a small note about the T-34:
During the 2ww red army lost 3/4 of all produced T-34!!! This is too much for a good tank and for an army in offensive.

Last edited July 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM by Lord Rommel

Lord wrote:
For me it is Tiger I because of following reasons:
+ very effective gun - 8,8cm
+ good armor out of a very special "softsteel"
+ 5 man crew -> u needed 5 man during the 2ww. The tnak commander was so elementary. He monitored the battlefield and directed the crew.
+ self repair skills by the high trained crew - german tanksoldiers were trained in self repairing the own tank.
E.g. the driver was the bord engineer and the radio operator the electrician.
+ the crew - Tiger crews were mostly recruited out of the old Panzer-Divisions and so most of the Tiger crews had already combat experience. A big plus in battle.
+ good engine
[ before someone cries; Maybach said from the start that the P230 engine will just survive 500km! So german mechanics and engineers know that this engine isnt a long-live one. BUT a lot of tiger crews managed to drive more then 1500km before they need a new engine - all in all that is absolutely acceptable statistic. That a high number of Tiger get engine breaks near the end of war is a result of the out burned "Instandsetzungsdienste" [ garage compnaies? dont know the english term ] and the bad quality of the endwar products ]
+ the onboard technics - e.g. the radio, the good sights and so one.
+ a good earth pressure - some Sherman crews reported after the battle of Normandy that they had no chance against a Tiger in countryside. Tiger was able to drive with its full speed over a muddy field - Shermans could do this; they "bogged".
+ the symbol! - Tiger was the symbol of german tanks.

[ + the kill-death-ration:
army "lost" 1,700 Tiger I and II and destroyed 9850 tanks! Thats a ration of 5,8 of a normal Tiger crew! ]

- high costs
- high building time
- the number of units
- special munition for the 8,8 -> could exchange munition with a normal 8,8cm anti air gun.
- no sloping armor

All in all Tiger is for me the best tank of the 2ww.

And a small note about the T-34:
During the 2ww red army lost 3/4 of all produced T-34!!! This is too much for a good tank and for an army in offensive.

+1

...It's no coincidence that a lot of the highest-ranked tank aces of all time (e.g. Kurt Knispel, Otto Carius, Michael Wittman, etc.) were Tiger I commanders.  ;)

The Panther comes at a very close second, since it was a markedly vast improvement of an already formidable design---the T-34. The Panther set the standard for every MBT produced after WWII (post-war French and German tanks were heavily based on the Panther...the US had to learn this lesson the hard way, however)and was (still!) even used by some nations after the war.

In the static/defensive AFV role, the King Tiger just OWNS everything. It had the best 8,8cm gun of the war, which was very accurate and had a very long range, and it's extremely thick and heavy armor made it a virtual fortress (it withstood artillery barrages and even direct hits by tank guns and AT weapons on its frontal armor). Additionally, it was an effective propaganda tool...the appearance of a single KT was a major morale boost to units within its zone of operation, and enemy troops quailed at the sight of it.  8)

Last edited July 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM by Werwolf

You should all listen to lord rommel, he studied this stuff :)

Cant see any disagreement by werwolf  ???

And study something dont mean that u are always right  ;)

Yea but you kinda are a historen, but anyway not to be off topic.

In my opinion, clearly the Tiger I isnt the best tank of WW2:

-it was very unreliable, even by the end of the war

-the armor was enough for long range engagement, but for the tiger had difficulties with close combat with others tanks like sherman or T-34. These tanks can rotates their turret more quickly, were more mobile, and had ammunition to effectively knocked out a tiger even in frontal armor (T-34/43 were often issued with special shells which allowed them to pierce 100mm of armor at 800-700 meters, and very effectively at 500 meters! The non-sloped armor was a big flaw.)

-By the end of the war (1944-1945) all tanks had 5 crew to operate them. Also, all crews were trained to repair their tanks, so self-repair skills were common (but Tiger's crew were certainly more efficient, it was the elite!)

-it was horribly difficult to produce!!!!

-Also, how many Tiger I and II were destroyed? 3/4 of T-34 were lost, but how about Tigers? For me it dont make a tank good or not. All tanks are vulnerable to ambush, street warfare, air attack and others...

The panthers was more efficient: its gun was more powerful, its armour was sloped (but side armor was a joke, even T-70 knocked out panthers by the sides!  :P), and was more mobile. However it was also unreliable.

But I agree with you, the tigers were formidable tanks!  8)

This is not about how hard it was to produce or how many died, its about how good it is.

Red_Stinger wrote:
-the armor was enough for long range engagement, but for the tiger had difficulties with close combat with others tanks like sherman or T-34. These tanks can rotates their turret more quickly, were more mobile, and had ammunition to effectively knocked out a tiger even in frontal armor (T-34/43 were often issued with special shells which allowed them to pierce 100mm of armor at 800-700 meters, and very effectively at 500 meters! The non-sloped armor was a big flaw.)

-> Well. U could destroy all armors with the right shell.
The question is who fires first and who can destroy the other tank first and here Tiger was much better. Knocking out a Sherman on 2500m is quiet heavy and some statics showed that german tank crew need one or two shots to hit a target. T-34 cant do this with its sights.

Red_Stinger wrote:
-By the end of the war (1944-1945) all tanks had 5 crew to operate them. Also, all crews were trained to repair their tanks, so self-repair skills were common (but Tiger's crew were certainly more efficient, it was the elite!)

Not right i think.
Alliied had 5 crews. okay. But red army. T-34 with command copula and 5th crew man were produced from mid 1944 till end. They were a minority.
And when i'm informed right JS-II and JS-III had a 4 men crew and tanks with 4 men are at a disadvantage.
They react much slower then 5 men crews.

Red_Stinger wrote:
-Also, how many Tiger I and II were destroyed? 3/4 of T-34 were lost, but how about Tigers? For me it dont make a tank good or not. All tanks are vulnerable to ambush, street warfare, air attack and others...

Nearly 3/4 of Tiger I and II were lost till the end of war.
BUT they were lost during german retreat so much of the tanks were destroyed by the crew.
Red army lost a high number of the tanks in 1943 and 1944 during their offensives and that is quiet too much for an army. With this statistics i belief that red army hadnt "survived" 1 or 2 years more.

Lord wrote:

-> Well. U could destroy all armors with the right shell.
The question is who fires first and who can destroy the other tank first and here Tiger was much better. Knocking out a Sherman on 2500m is quiet heavy and some statics showed that german tank crew need one or two shots to hit a target. T-34 cant do this with its sights.

Thats my points, every tank can be destroyed by the right shell, and Tiger were awesome at long range engagement.
Also by the end of war almost every allied battle-tank was able to destroy a tiger at long range (sherman with 76mm gun, T-34/85 with 85mm gun, both had very good sights)

About T-34/85: the production began on early 1944. In 1944 more than 10000 t-34/85 were produced, and 10000 others until the end of war. Thats enormous! By mid 1944 soviets armored division were all issued with T-34/85.
Also IS-2/3 and others heavy tanks werent that penalized by the lack of ta 5th crew: there were used for long range engagement, and most of them dont received an hull-mg, so a 5th crew wasnt that necessary. Though as you said there were in difficulties, in close combat situation.
And the first real heavy soviet tank, the KV-1, needed 5 crew to operate. And if the production was stopped before the end of war, they stay pretty good tanks (fast for heavy tanks, good firepower with 85mm gun and "ekranami" version were very tough).

Red Army lost also a high percentage of its tanks during 1941, when they were destroyed or captured by nazis.
In 1943, germans had often the air controls, allowing them to destroy every T-34 or others tanks they see, and panthers, tigers and dedicated ATG were able to destroy all soviet tanks during counter-offensive.
In 1944, during operation Bagration, soviet used T-34 and others tanks. So all destroyed soviets tanks werent T-34, and some of them were repaired, when germans cant repaired them because they were retreating (this situation was inverted in 1941-1942).

In finally, tigers were awesome tanks, but numerous others tanks were much more good (panthers for example  ;D).

M4 Sherman, it's very good at quantity.

Panther tank, definitely. Technically more advanced than any allied armor and a loss/kill ratio of 1/6 shermans and 1/9 t34. i wonder why the germans didn´t chancel the tiger project in favor of panther mass production. Panthers did cost only sligtly more than a panzerIV(110000 Reichsmark for panzerIV and 120000 Reichsmark for Panther). For 1 Tiger you could produce 3 panzer IV´s.

Last edited December 12, 2010 at 3:53 AM by Killar

Killar wrote:
i wonder why the germans didn´t chancel the tiger project in favor of panther mass production. Panthers did cost only sligtly more than a panzerIV(110000 Reichsmark for panzerIV and 120000 Reichsmark for Panther). For 1 Tiger you could produce 3 panzer IV´s.

Possibly because later in the war they had their own image and fear factor as mostly there was nothing to handle them earlier into the conflicts.

The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.
Fortunately for germans, soviet T-44 came too late in the war to have an impact on the struggle.

Red_Stinger wrote:
The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.

Panzer IV is underrated. From F2 on it was superior to its counterpart the t-34. In 1944 the t-34 came a bit closer with his 85mm cannon which was only a small bit worse than 75mm L/48, but still soviet tanks mostly lacked a 5 man crew and the soviet steel was one of the worst worldwide. They had revolutionary things with their tanks like sloped armor but their cannons, optics weren't good. And no tank commander sucks.

Red_Stinger wrote:
The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.
Fortunately for germans, soviet T-44 came too late in the war to have an impact on the struggle.

Panther and long range?
We are talking about the german PzKpfw. V "Panther"?
Panther-Abteilungen had the order to use rail way transports when they had to march more than 20km! Panthers biggest problem was the "Seitenvorgelege" (dont know english term) - the power transmission from control gear to drive gear.
Check Walter J. Spielberger's book "Panther & Its Variants" (Spielberger German Armor & Military Vehicles, Vol 1) ;)
The author was Panther-commandat during ww2.

How about the M-18? For every M-18 lost 3 German tanks were destroyed! Better visibility and speed than any other wwII tracked vechicle. It was great for ambush but had a turret so when in hull down position, it couldnt be flanked.

Hate what Relic done with the M-18 and Cromwell. Both are slower than the M-10. :(

Paciat wrote:
How about the M-18? For every M-18 lost 3 German tanks were destroyed! Better visibility and speed than any other wwII tracked vechicle. It was great for ambush but had a turret so when in hull down position, it couldnt be flanked.

Hate what Relic done with the M-18 and Cromwell. Both are slower than the M-10. :(

sauce on that

i think both m10 and m18 were very good, cheap tanks
brilliant counters to the slow and hard to maintain german ones

maxi1991 wrote:

Red_Stinger wrote:
The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.

Panzer IV is underrated. From F2 on it was superior to its counterpart the t-34. In 1944 the t-34 came a bit closer with his 85mm cannon which was only a small bit worse than 75mm L/48, but still soviet tanks mostly lacked a 5 man crew and the soviet steel was one of the worst worldwide. They had revolutionary things with their tanks like sloped armor but their cannons, optics weren't good. And no tank commander sucks.

Thats funny that every time you seem to compare soviet and germans tank to show how panzers were superior to those 'savage'  ;D

The panzer IV F2  was superior only to T-34/76. T-34/85 was far better: 85mm soviet gun was able to pierce 120mm of armor at 100m and 85mm at 2000m. Panzer IV F2 could pierce only 96mm at 100m and 48mm at 2000m (numbers arent coming from a soviet propaganda book lol). Soviet 85mm gun's optics were slightly worse than those of 75mm L/48, since it was a AA gun (and thus required advanced optics, like 8,8cm german gun). The armor of T-34 was better, because it was sloped, and provided good protection at long range (shells often deflected on it). That was not the case for Pz IV. And as you know, T-34/85 was, like IS-2 or KV-1, equiped with a three-man turret -something that T-34/76 was terribly lacking.

About the soviet steel, well, everyone seem to think that soviet didnt know how to produce something more complicated than vodka (well? its pretty logical; how can a bunch of drunkish commie can produce something advanced? Its perfectly in the spirit of the USSR: quantity over quality etc etc lol) . Actually, the soviet tank, especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient. In addition, soviet crew added some armor on their tanks throughout the war. We are speaking about tanks, which are very expensive and destined to war: government was constantly watching the quality of them! About optics, thats a complicated topic, and I dont wanna speak about that in this topic, which is about 'fav AFV of WW2'.  ;)

Red_Stinger wrote:
...especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient.

But Leningrad didnt produce tanks in 1942-1944. It was surrounded. ::)
The quality of Soviet steel dropped in the wartime and thats also the reason why Soviet trucks were worst than those from US.
But German late war steel wasnt as good as in the early years.

Quote
About optics, thats a complicated topic, and I dont wanna speak about that in this topic, which is about 'fav AFV of WW2'.  ;)

In short, German optics were usually better. :D

Paciat wrote:

Red_Stinger wrote:
...especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient.

But Leningrad didnt produce tanks in 1942-1944. It was surrounded. ::)
The quality of Soviet steel dropped in the wartime and thats also the reason why Soviet trucks were worst than those from US.
But German late war steel wasnt as good as in the early years.

Leningrad did produce a few tanks during the siege, which were destined to the defenders  ;)

At the beginning, soviet steel dropped, 'cause of the 'migration' of the industry to the east. In the Oural, plants were rebuild without electricity or heating system, and workers were producing tanks and equipment in horrible condition.

Only early war and late war soviet steel was good enough (1941-early 1942 and late 1944-1945).

On the other hand, german steel, while excellent in early war, dramatically dropped throughout the war, 'cause of the constant bombing of german industry and lack of good iron.

Paciat wrote:

In short, German optics were usually better. :D

Yes, that's it lol  ;D

On what was given for options, I said the Tiger two for a couple of reasons. One, it had a positive Kill death ratio. It had good firepower that out ranged most tanks on the battlefield. Two, It was well armored. Three, it didn't need that much mobility in the Western front as everyone seemed to think. It could have easily defeated any British and American tank that landed in France cause of how the land was laid out. And finally, if you can cause so much terror by simply arriving on the battlefield, then you truly have a great and powerful tank.