Fav AFV of WW2 [Reasons]

[2LTAndeh]

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.

[Red_Stinger]

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.

[Seeme]

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.)

[Akalonor]

wait.... what.....

[Paciat]

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.

[Seeme]

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

[Strayker]

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...

[Tico_1990]

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

[Aouch]

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.

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

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.

[Werwolf]

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. 

[Seeme]

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

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

Cant see any disagreement by werwolf 

And study something dont mean that u are always right 

[Seeme]

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

[Red_Stinger]

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!  ), and was more mobile. However it was also unreliable.

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