The Best Tank of all times

L

Lighthorse

Guest
Number One Tank of all time was T-34 according to the Military Channel

[video=youtube;fVg6gFmuRlE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/video]

I enjoy using both the T-34/c and T-34/85 in CMBB games

[video=youtube;z7pZxklNuh4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7pZxklNuh4&feature=related[/video]
Here someone lucky enough to own a T-34/85

LH
:panda:
 
Not the shadow of a chance against a M1A2...lol

"Here someone lucky enough to own a T-34/85" : must have some great times when parking at the local supermarket...
 
The T34 was a good tank, but best of all time? Doubtful. They were produced in the tens of thousands and knocked out in the tens of thousands. How many Russian Tankers died in those tanks? A vehicle like that in the western armies would be considered a simplistic death trap. I know that in the USSR life was cheap, but their human wave tactics and equipment would never be acceptable in western countries.
Lord Bane
 
Corsaire31 said:
Agreed, but they still won the bloody war...lol
Click to expand...

Did the T34 won the war ? I doubt it as simple as that. For the time, certainly in the first year of the war, it was the best tank.

The best thing about it (in the later war years) is that it was a good tank allround and very good to build in large numbers. Germany made better tanks, but they were all somewhat overengineered. And never in the numbers of the T34.
 
First of all we should define what does "the best tank" means...
Is armor, firepower, ease of use, maintenance, fuel consumption, speed, kill/death ratio, etc...
 
Perhaps: as a tanker, in which tank would you preferably be ?

I guess tankers would rate the survivebility of their tank best/highest and the kiling power of their tanks second. But the planners/generals I think would look at the mobility too as a major factor.
 
Bert Blitzkrieg said:
Did the T34 won the war ? I doubt it as simple as that. For the time, certainly in the first year of the war, it was the best tank.

The best thing about it (in the later war years) is that it was a good tank allround and very good to build in large numbers. Germany made better tanks, but they were all somewhat overengineered. And never in the numbers of the T34.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the russians in general...lol
 
The T34 was a good tank, but best of all time? Doubtful. They were produced in the tens of thousands and knocked out in the tens of thousands. How many Russian Tankers died in those tanks? A vehicle like that in the western armies would be considered a simplistic death trap. I know that in the USSR life was cheap, but their human wave tactics and equipment would never be acceptable in western countries.
Click to expand...

Not trying to understate role of western allies in the victory, but they were risking by only lives of their soldiers, and Soviets were fighting for their families and for absolutely all what they live for. That wasn't usual war, like WW1 or Napoleonic, when people on occupied lands keep living, working and so on, just under another flag. This time it was for elimination of the nations: population, villages, culture. That's why, IMO, tanks must be much more effective than safe.

Perhaps: as a tanker, in which tank would you preferably be ?

I guess tankers would rate the survivebility of their tank best/highest and the kiling power of their tanks second. But the planners/generals I think would look at the mobility too as a major factor.
Click to expand...

I don't think the tankers are those guys who choose the tanks. Some important (in operational scales) non-combat qualities, such as off-road ability, repairability or some other can't be well appreciated by tankers, but may be critical for commanders.
 
And lots of respect for the 12 million people who lost their lives in the process...
 
Lord Bane (FGM) said:
The T34 was a good tank, but best of all time? Doubtful. They were produced in the tens of thousands and knocked out in the tens of thousands. How many Russian Tankers died in those tanks? A vehicle like that in the western armies would be considered a simplistic death trap. I know that in the USSR life was cheap, but their human wave tactics and equipment would never be acceptable in western countries.
Lord Bane
Click to expand...

You make an interesting point, but I do believe that most Russian troops had the same opinion of the British and US tanks provided to them under lend-Lease. I believe that the Soviet nickname for the M-3 Grant was "Grave for seven brothers" or something like that.
 
Here something for food for thought.
What if the T-34 and KV classic were never developed, and the Russian fought with only T-26's, T-28 and the monster T-35's. I think WWII would still ended in an Allied victory, but maybe a few years long yet it happen. So T-34 was a game winning for the Russians.
 
You make an interesting point, but I do believe that most Russian troops had the same opinion of the British and US tanks provided to them under lend-Lease.
Click to expand...
Actually, either Bootie or POS just had an article up that was an interview with a Russian Tank Commander who was on the Valentine and Sherman and he liked both tanks from what I can remember. Can someone help me out with a link. I agree with you about the Grant though, I don't think anyone had much success with that tank.
Lord Bane
 
I remember the Brits did remarkably well with the Grant in North Africa the first time they used it (think it was Alam al Halfa). First time they had decent HE capability against the AT guns and it didn't do bad against the Panzer III either.

In CM it is stunningly hard to kill. In the old demo scenario of CMAK (Frühlungswind) I had them holed like Swiss cheese by my Panzer III's, but they refused to die. And in the famous Tiger Valley scenario I had more then one ricochet of the front of the turret by Tiger 88 hits !
 
Lord Bane (FGM) said:
Actually, either Bootie or POS just had an article up that was an interview with a Russian Tank Commander who was on the Valentine and Sherman and he liked both tanks from what I can remember.
Click to expand...
Not only did many of those commanders like the Sherman, but they preferred it to the T-34. It had several advantages (more fuel efficient, quieter during approach, infinitely more comfortable inside, etc). Not necessarily a "better" tank than the T-34, Tiger, etc., but preferred by certain crews.

I think it's safe to say that the T-34 was the best bang for the buck tank of the war (and probably ever in history). The King Tiger was probably the best in terms of armor and armament (though poor in reliability, economy, cost to produce, etc). While the Sherman wasn't the best at anything, it had its benefits. Lucky for the Germans and Russians that they didn't need to fit their tanks into container ships and send them across the Atlantic, or their designs would have been radically different.
 
@ Cue Ball
"Lucky for the Germans and Russians that they didn't need to fit their tanks into container ships and send them across the Atlantic, or their designs would have been radically different. "

Very good point...:RpS_thumbsup:
 
"Here for the first time, the enemy employed his T-34 tank, a tank against which our guns at that time were largely ineffective"- Guderian (Panzer Leader page 162) on the Russian attack at Borissov on July 3rd 41
"It was the most excellent example of the offensive weapon of Second World War." - Ger. General Mellenthin.
"Their T-34 was the best in the world." - Field marshal von Kleist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom