Top Ten Best Tanks from WW2
These are the best tanks of WW2. Depending in how strong, versatile, and easy to produce the tank is.
The Panther was known for the terror it was capable of spreading, as no other tank of the time could compete with the Panther's gun, armor, and pilots. The Panther's only downfall was the fact that they were not cheap to run or fix.
Good tank, but only 6,000 were built. The number of T-34s and Shermans combined was at 90,000. So, although the Panther has quality, it lacks a whole lot of quantity. But still, Panthers were damn good.
The tank was one of the best all-around tanks in World War Two. It could be produced fairly well and could take out most Allied tanks.
Rather bad reliability, extremely cramped interior, poor build quality, multiple design simplifications, and appalling crew survivability (15% chance vs. 85% chance on the Sherman), and a mediocre gun made the tank rather ineffective, one of the reasons why almost 50,000 were lost on the Eastern Front.
This tank was developed before the Panther, and for its time, it was great. Sloped armor, mass production, and durability were awesome. The Panther was great too, but early variants had issues, and the T-34 had the /76 variant that was a match for it in the late war.
Tiger-1 was a great tank. It was a lot more expensive than the Allied tanks, but for a good reason. It had an 88 mm cannon that could penetrate almost any tank with less than 60-degree sloped armor. This tank was a ranged tank. A few Tigers would go out and snipe off a group of T-34s, and they were successful. The only reason the Tigers were outdated during the later part of the war was that the Allies had pushed the Germans back to more suburban areas, and that is where the Tigers are less effective (at close range). The Tiger tank is by far one of the best WW2 tanks. Its only downfall was its flat armor and the limited number.
This tank was very good during WW2. It had a good enough gun in 1942, and since there were only Pz. III's and IV's around, making it very versatile and most likely the winner of a battle against them. It started to become a little obsolete when the Tigers and Panthers started to come off factory lines, but was upgraded to a 76 mm which could penetrate a Panther's and Tiger I's front plate, making the bigger tanks start to seem less frightening. But then, many more started to get the 76 mm. The Sherman was also very mobile, reliable, cheap, and well armored in some variants.
Many underestimate the Sherman due to it catching on fire, but so did the Tiger and Panther. The Sherman also has nearly the highest survivability rate of the war, and most of those deaths were from the crewmen being outside the tank. The Sherman also always were in a group of 5 with some infantry with them, while Panthers, Tigers I's and II's were usually by themselves or in very small groups. The Sherman was also not cramped and easy to move around in, making crew capability much more efficient.
All in all, the tank itself may not have done the best by itself, but it was just as, if not more than, the Tigers and Panthers when looking at it from any other standpoint.
The Panzer Four was the best all-around tank of World War Two. It could take on most of the Allied tanks on at least equal terms and be mass-produced with ease.
The most effective medium tank until the T-34, and it still outclassed US/UK tanks until the Normandy landings. Easily upgraded and with fewer technical problems compared to its bigger brothers.
Fought with success on every front from the beginning to the end of the war. Well-balanced, it often outclassed its opponents and, with upgrades, was not obsolete even in 1945.
Do you guys know anything about WW2? The Maus was deemed too heavy to be used in any effective combat strategy. The Jagdtiger was good but not a tank. Nor are the Hetzer, Jagdpanther, and Su-122! Tank destroyers and SPGs are not tanks. The Panther was good but could be destroyed by Sherman 76s or IS-2s or Sherman Fireflies. It was versatile and strong, but it also depends on which Panther we are talking about. Panther D or A? Weaker than IS-2 or King Tiger. Panther F or II are strong, but in the end, the King Tiger's stronger gun and armor give it the edge over the Panther. The T-34-85 was good but had puny armor compared to the King Tiger. The King Tiger had a powerful 88 mm gun, impenetrable armor for its time, decent speed and mobility, and was capable of taking out the IS-2, which was created as a counter to the Tiger-1. Overall, with TANKS, the King Tiger is the undisputed ruler of WW2.
Impenetrable armor at the start of the war and a very good gun.
Best tank at the beginning of the war. No German or Polish AT weapons could destroy it.
Great TD, unparalleled in its field, but restricted to it.
Considered the best tank destroyer of World War II.
Named after Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin, it was a great tank and could easily wipe out German tanks. The only reason it isn't higher is because it was only used in the last year of WW2 and didn't see much battle.
One of the best infantry support tanks of the war, this tank was very versatile and adaptable. Had a weak gun, but its armor was hard to beat.
Wonderful tank, if a bit slow. Upgraded versions were very well-rounded, and the armor was amazing.
A smashing tank with good all-around abilities. What more has to be said? It's named after Winston Churchill.
The Newcomers
One of the best tanks of World War II, simply because it was capable of destroying many Panzers with just one Char B1.
The Crusader tends to get a bad rap. While it was famously unreliable, it was a decent tank overall and was very agile, allowing it to respond quickly to situations, making it great at elastic defense. It was also an early war tank, so comparing it to late-war tanks like the Tiger II or Pershing is unfair, as they were designed with superior technology available. The Crusader did a good job for what it had.
The British tanks that challenged Rommel in Africa.
Its angled armor was revolutionary for its time. This tank is probably the reason they were able to turn the tide in the East.
This should be higher up on the list. This tank is the reason why the Panther and Tiger tanks were made!
Both the Pershing and Super Pershing had superior firepower with the high-velocity 90mm gun. Could take out a Panzer at 2600 yards!
Was the best US tank of World War II. Crushed North Korean T-34s in Korea and Tigers in World War II. Amazing gun able to take out Tigers at a mile away and good armor. Multi-role.
The Pershing was an advanced heavy tank! Why was this not on this list before?!?
A Sherman but better. The Panther's equal. It is so awesome that Hollywood gave it its own movie (Fury).
Was an amazing all-around tank and helped set the ground for the MBT. Good armor, gun, speed, and could be made easily.
The de facto most powerful tank of WWII. Its long-barreled 122mm gun could penetrate any German tank from the front at any distance. It had 120mm front armor and was much lighter than the Tiger.
Set the ground for the MBT. Could smash King Tigers at thousands of yards and had good armor.
Nearly invincible in 1940 France and the early desert war. It remained in service against Japan until the war's end.
The perfect example of bigger is not always better. While the 128mm was extremely effective, it was only mounted on casemate tank destroyers (not counting the Maus, of course) like the Jagdtiger or Sturer Emil because it was over 10 tons and extremely unwieldy. Plus, a tank that heavy (188 tons) would not be able to cross bridges, would constantly break down due to the laughably underpowered engine, with a horsepower to weight ratio worse than the Tiger I, and it had to use a special railcar to get around on the rails. While it could cross some rivers due to the snorkel system implemented, it would have been a nightmare to move around, and would most likely just get stuck in mud (horrible ground pressure, unlike the Tiger) or destroyed by Allied aircraft. It would have decimated any tank it came across, but maintaining it and moving it around constantly due to Germany's constant retreats would have been impossible for the tank. Even Heinz Guderian thought it was too much and had no practical application on the battlefield. The Maus was no Wunderwaffe, just another of Hitler's absurd fantasies.
By far the best tank in its weight class until the US M24 five years later. It remained relevant with the long 50mm/70 cal to the end, not to mention its TD StG 3 conversion.
Probably the closest thing to becoming a main battle tank at the time. It was part of the C line of tanks e.g., Crusader II, III, IV. This line would later produce the first-ever main battle tank, the Centurion. It has all-around good stats but was introduced very late into the war, so it could not make a big impact. However, it served all through the Korean War.
Was the best of the cruiser tanks and had good all-around stats.
Inspired by its Romanian counterpart (the Maresal), this tank was very effective at close-quarters ambushes. However, the driver's periscope acted as a shot trap, a problem also seen on tanks like the Panther, but it was later fixed.
Very good too. The bad part is that it couldn't turn its turret around, so it could be shot from behind and easily blown up.
Fast and powerful. Built on the dependable Sherman chassis. 17-pounder gun. Could take out the Tiger and Panther. We Americans should have built them too.
Relatively effective casemate tank destroyer. Not enough were produced to have ever made an impact. Spare parts production was very limited, resulting in the tank being near useless once it broke down.