Re: The "Best tank" of WW2 ? From: jgairns@emr1.emr.ca Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000 >You need to define your parameters. In a mythical one on one battle, the >King Tiger would take out anything thrown against it, although the JS III >would have a fighting chance. In the real world, though, both of these >had their problems. True. Range, mechanical problems, speed (or lack of it). The King Tiger couldn't operate effectively without a group of infantry and lighter armour to protect it. Why do you think they had so much anti-magnetic paste spread all over the hull? *hahaha* >As the best all around fighting vehicle, the Panther is tough to beat. Agreed. >The T-34, IMHO, is overrated--there were an awful lot of them,a nd they >were mostly up against PzIII's and IV's. They looked nice, and had nice >slope to the armor, but the turret was too cramped to really be fought >well. (Current Russian tanks still have the same problem.) Nothing worse than mechanical problems. Just look at the Churchill. Yikes! Talk about massive design flaws. >Now, for money, the best tank of WWII was... *drum roll* >The Sherman. Yes, the Sherman. For reliability, ease of battlefield >maintenance and repair, survivability of both machine and crew, and >flexibility in combat, it had no match. Sure, it couldn't stand up one >on one against a panther, but it was a hell of a lot less likely to break >down while running away than the Panther was chasing it. There were some American tanks near the end of the war that were also pretty good. The Firefly (Sherman variant) packed a 17 pounder which could really nail most armour. I agree with your analysis. You have to consider a number of things such as gun, armour, reliability in the field, speed, etc ... Cheers, Jamie -- Eat me before I eat you. Up