The Five Best Tanks of World War II

Comments · 3.2K

• HE

  @heckinmemes6430 · 5 years ago

  "I didn't choose the STuG life, the STuG life chose me."

  544

• CA

  @casbot71 · 5 years ago

  The main disappointment of the <b>Firefly</b> was that it was cancelled after only one season.

  1.3K

• JA

  @jamesadamiak6214 · 4 years ago

  Another tank not recognized was the Panzer 4. It was continuously upgraded during the war and was even used by some countries after ww2.

  100

• PA

  @PassportToPimlico · 5 years ago

  The problem is that you are looking at the best tanks at the end of the war. Early on the British Matilda II and the German Panzer IV were excellent tanks.

  220

• IN

  @Insanity_pepper · 5 years ago (edited)

  The Sherman Firefly was what happened when the British army looked at the Sherman and said &quot;This would be a pretty good tank if you put a real gun in it&quot;.

  857

• SE

  @selfdo · 5 years ago

  I have to point out that the Tiger wasn&apos;t designed &quot;specifically&quot; to counter the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks, it had been under development since 1937. &nbsp;The Panzerwaffe had already experienced their tank park of mostly light tanks, including the Czech 38(t) which made up 25% of &quot;Germany&apos;s&quot; tank forces, at times had difficulty dealing with the French Char B1 and the British Matilda II tanks, but believed that it was more important to improve upon existing designs than to go back to the drawing board. &nbsp;Hence why the Mark III finally got the L60 5 cm gun that could take on most opponents at normal combat ranges, and the Mark IV was upgunning from its puny 7.5 cm L24 gun to a bona fide tank-killing KwK 40. &nbsp;These machines actually did the brunt of the fighting in 1942 and 1943, and made up about 80% of the available tanks in &quot;Citadel&quot; in July 1943. &nbsp;The Tiger, originally envisioned to be about 35 tons and sporting the 7.5 c KwK 40 and later the KwK 42, was instead re-fitted with the KwK 36 88mm gun, which, using armor-piercing shot, not only could penetrate even the thickest armor of the Soviet heavies at long, &quot;stand-off&quot; ranges, it was far more accurate that most contemporary tank guns, as British firing tests on the weapon from a Tiger captured in 1943 (I think it was the famous &quot;Tiger 131&quot; which is seen in &quot;Fury&quot;) proved. &nbsp;The main issue with the Tiger is that the tactics that best took advantage of its armor and firepower weren&apos;t readily apparent, but soon, being forced mostly on the defensive, it came into its own as a &quot;Panzerjager&quot;.<br><br>With the Panther, entirely different story. &nbsp;Guderian had been against development of anything larger than the Mark IV, due to problems with rail transport and crossing Russia&apos;s many rivers with either available bridges, IF captured intact, or available bridging gear. &nbsp;He also favored the Heer adopting the practice of forming &quot;anti-tank&quot; and &quot;artillery&quot; divisions as there were in the Soviet Army. &nbsp;As far as &quot;Schnell Heinz&quot; was concerned, the Mark IV was all the tank the Panzerwaffe needed. &nbsp;Although the Germans had been surprised by the T-34 and KV-1 tanks almost from the beginning of Barbarossa, they were not the majority of the Soviet armored forces in 1941, and those they had were often misused. &nbsp;Just as in France in 1940 and Libya in 1941, when the expedient of bringing Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gun crews, with their Flak 18s, as with air supremacy achieved, they were fairly much out of a job, to work as improvised anti-tank gunners proved hugely effective against the French Char B1s and British Matildas, so much that a captured British officer complained it wasn&apos;t &quot;cricket&quot; to employ an anti-aircraft piece against a ground target, so, once the Soviet V-VS was rendered moot in &apos;41, the Luftwaffe 88mm gun crews went to work against as improvised anti-tank battalions. &nbsp;Once intact (enough) T-34s were brought back to Germany for study, the WaffenAmt Pru6 was both amazed as some of the technical innovations, like the aluminum V12 diesel engine, but also the crudeness of the Soviet workmanship. &nbsp;Both Damilier-Benz and MAN went to work on a &quot;copy&quot;, with the DB submittal more faithful to the T-34 in concept, even though it used the torsion-bar suspension instead of the Christie-type. &nbsp;It weighed &quot;only&quot; 35 tons, and with the original HL 210 engine, was still faster than the MAN proposal. &nbsp;However, it&apos;s profile looked too much like the T-34, giving huge concerns about battlefield recognition issues and &quot;friendly fire&quot;, and its turret was considered to be too cramped for three crewmen. &nbsp;The MAN proposal was eight tons heavier, but its turret was considered to be better to work in, and it left open the possibility of upgunning to the KwK 36 or KwK 43. &nbsp;Hitler actually liked the DB design better, but the WaffenAmt and Panzerwaffe chose the MAN, which won out. &nbsp;Later, having been rushed to be used in &quot;Citadel&quot;, with very disappointing results, Hitler referred to the Panther as &quot;that clanking He177&quot;, referring to a likewise troubled bomber. &nbsp;Though most of the initial &quot;teething troubles&quot; were worked out, the Panther still had its &quot;Achilles Heel&quot; in a weak and break-down prone final drive which had originally been designed for the Mark IV and simply couldn&apos;t handle an AFV nearly twice in weight. &nbsp;The CONCEPT was good...it can well be said that the Panther was the grandfather of modern Western MBT designs, before the concept was realized, but it&apos;s mixed execution can be seen as an indication of the limits of what German industry, already strained by several years of war and manpower and material shortages, could either produce and/or MAINTAIN. &nbsp;One thing the Germans utterly failed to figure out was having a sufficient fleet of CEVs and ARVs; they had so few tanks for their needs overall that everything that clanked was to be fitted with armament. &nbsp;The majority of their losses of the &quot;Big Cats&quot; were operational, that is, breakdowns or simply running out of fuel, and even quite a few of them that were knocked out, but were quite repairable, had to be abandoned due to not having the means to tow them away.

  471

• MA

  @mavvh1054 · 5 years ago (edited)

  &quot;T34 wasnt the first tank with sloped armor. Also, the Germans knew of sloped armor, but decided volumetrically it was undesirable.&quot;- to paraphrase The Chieftain.

  528

• SH

  @shorttimer874 · 5 years ago

  Another requirement for the Sherman that wasn&apos;t as important to other tanks of WW II, it had to be light enough to be loaded/unload on ships to get to the fighting with current dockside equipment, since it needed to be brought over an ocean.

  108

• BO

  @Bob1942ful · 5 years ago

  One thing often overlooked with the M4 Sherman is it’s modular design. &nbsp;The engine and transmission could be replaced in a matter of hours. &nbsp;While the Tiger and Panther required days. &nbsp;Mainly because the German tanks had to have the turret removed to do the same thing. &nbsp;So tun around time in the Repair areas was greatly reduced and was putting existing tanks back into battle quicker.

  124

• BA

  @bannedcommander2932 · 5 years ago

  Sloped armor and mass production weren&apos;t the only traits of the T-34. Never forget about the wide tracks, reducing ground pressure and vastly improving mobility in difficult terrain. A rather important trait to have in Russia.

  616

• XS

  @XSpImmaLion · 5 years ago

  Who else was expecting a World of Tanks sponsorship?

  251

• WA

  @waynesworldofsci-tech · 3 years ago

  Our only surviving veteran in London Ontario is the one and only Holy Roller, a Sherman that went ashore on D-Day and fought all the way across Europe.

  39