Fav AFV of WW2 [Reasons]

[Seeme]

This is not about how hard it was to produce or how many died, its about how good it is.

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

-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.)

-> Well. U could destroy all armors with the right shell.
The question is who fires first and who can destroy the other tank first and here Tiger was much better. Knocking out a Sherman on 2500m is quiet heavy and some statics showed that german tank crew need one or two shots to hit a target. T-34 cant do this with its sights.

-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!)

Not right i think.
Alliied had 5 crews. okay. But red army. T-34 with command copula and 5th crew man were produced from mid 1944 till end. They were a minority.
And when i'm informed right JS-II and JS-III had a 4 men crew and tanks with 4 men are at a disadvantage.
They react much slower then 5 men crews.

-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...

Nearly 3/4 of Tiger I and II were lost till the end of war.
BUT they were lost during german retreat so much of the tanks were destroyed by the crew.
Red army lost a high number of the tanks in 1943 and 1944 during their offensives and that is quiet too much for an army. With this statistics i belief that red army hadnt "survived" 1 or 2 years more.

[Red_Stinger]

-> Well. U could destroy all armors with the right shell.
The question is who fires first and who can destroy the other tank first and here Tiger was much better. Knocking out a Sherman on 2500m is quiet heavy and some statics showed that german tank crew need one or two shots to hit a target. T-34 cant do this with its sights.

Thats my points, every tank can be destroyed by the right shell, and Tiger were awesome at long range engagement.
Also by the end of war almost every allied battle-tank was able to destroy a tiger at long range (sherman with 76mm gun, T-34/85 with 85mm gun, both had very good sights)

About T-34/85: the production began on early 1944. In 1944 more than 10000 t-34/85 were produced, and 10000 others until the end of war. Thats enormous! By mid 1944 soviets armored division were all issued with T-34/85.
Also IS-2/3 and others heavy tanks werent that penalized by the lack of ta 5th crew: there were used for long range engagement, and most of them dont received an hull-mg, so a 5th crew wasnt that necessary. Though as you said there were in difficulties, in close combat situation.
And the first real heavy soviet tank, the KV-1, needed 5 crew to operate. And if the production was stopped before the end of war, they stay pretty good tanks (fast for heavy tanks, good firepower with 85mm gun and "ekranami" version were very tough).

Red Army lost also a high percentage of its tanks during 1941, when they were destroyed or captured by nazis.
In 1943, germans had often the air controls, allowing them to destroy every T-34 or others tanks they see, and panthers, tigers and dedicated ATG were able to destroy all soviet tanks during counter-offensive.
In 1944, during operation Bagration, soviet used T-34 and others tanks. So all destroyed soviets tanks werent T-34, and some of them were repaired, when germans cant repaired them because they were retreating (this situation was inverted in 1941-1942).

In finally, tigers were awesome tanks, but numerous others tanks were much more good (panthers for example  ).

[Graybucket]

M4 Sherman, it's very good at quantity.

[Killar]

Panther tank, definitely. Technically more advanced than any allied armor and a loss/kill ratio of 1/6 shermans and 1/9 t34. i wonder why the germans didn´t chancel the tiger project in favor of panther mass production. Panthers did cost only sligtly more than a panzerIV(110000 Reichsmark for panzerIV and 120000 Reichsmark for Panther). For 1 Tiger you could produce 3 panzer IV´s.

[Raider217]

i wonder why the germans didn´t chancel the tiger project in favor of panther mass production. Panthers did cost only sligtly more than a panzerIV(110000 Reichsmark for panzerIV and 120000 Reichsmark for Panther). For 1 Tiger you could produce 3 panzer IV´s.

Possibly because later in the war they had their own image and fear factor as mostly there was nothing to handle them earlier into the conflicts.

[Red_Stinger]

The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.
Fortunately for germans, soviet T-44 came too late in the war to have an impact on the struggle.

[maxi1991]

The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.

Panzer IV is underrated. From F2 on it was superior to its counterpart the t-34. In 1944 the t-34 came a bit closer with his 85mm cannon which was only a small bit worse than 75mm L/48, but still soviet tanks mostly lacked a 5 man crew and the soviet steel was one of the worst worldwide. They had revolutionary things with their tanks like sloped armor but their cannons, optics weren't good. And no tank commander sucks.

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.
Fortunately for germans, soviet T-44 came too late in the war to have an impact on the struggle.

Panther and long range?
We are talking about the german PzKpfw. V "Panther"?
Panther-Abteilungen had the order to use rail way transports when they had to march more than 20km! Panthers biggest problem was the "Seitenvorgelege" (dont know english term) - the power transmission from control gear to drive gear.
Check Walter J. Spielberger's book "Panther & Its Variants" (Spielberger German Armor & Military Vehicles, Vol 1)
The author was Panther-commandat during ww2.

[Paciat]

How about the M-18? For every M-18 lost 3 German tanks were destroyed! Better visibility and speed than any other wwII tracked vechicle. It was great for ambush but had a turret so when in hull down position, it couldnt be flanked.

Hate what Relic done with the M-18 and Cromwell. Both are slower than the M-10.

[maxi1991]

How about the M-18? For every M-18 lost 3 German tanks were destroyed! Better visibility and speed than any other wwII tracked vechicle. It was great for ambush but had a turret so when in hull down position, it couldnt be flanked.

Hate what Relic done with the M-18 and Cromwell. Both are slower than the M-10.

sauce on that

[Pauly3]

i think both m10 and m18 were very good, cheap tanks
brilliant counters to the slow and hard to maintain german ones

[Red_Stinger]

The panther was an excellent tank at long range, but it was also much more vulnerable at close range, unlike Tiger I or Panzer IV which was far cheaper btw! But both could have been seriously overthrown by newcoming american and especially soviet tanks.

Panzer IV is underrated. From F2 on it was superior to its counterpart the t-34. In 1944 the t-34 came a bit closer with his 85mm cannon which was only a small bit worse than 75mm L/48, but still soviet tanks mostly lacked a 5 man crew and the soviet steel was one of the worst worldwide. They had revolutionary things with their tanks like sloped armor but their cannons, optics weren't good. And no tank commander sucks.

Thats funny that every time you seem to compare soviet and germans tank to show how panzers were superior to those 'savage' 

The panzer IV F2  was superior only to T-34/76. T-34/85 was far better: 85mm soviet gun was able to pierce 120mm of armor at 100m and 85mm at 2000m. Panzer IV F2 could pierce only 96mm at 100m and 48mm at 2000m (numbers arent coming from a soviet propaganda book lol). Soviet 85mm gun's optics were slightly worse than those of 75mm L/48, since it was a AA gun (and thus required advanced optics, like 8,8cm german gun). The armor of T-34 was better, because it was sloped, and provided good protection at long range (shells often deflected on it). That was not the case for Pz IV. And as you know, T-34/85 was, like IS-2 or KV-1, equiped with a three-man turret -something that T-34/76 was terribly lacking.

About the soviet steel, well, everyone seem to think that soviet didnt know how to produce something more complicated than vodka (well? its pretty logical; how can a bunch of drunkish commie can produce something advanced? Its perfectly in the spirit of the USSR: quantity over quality etc etc lol) . Actually, the soviet tank, especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient. In addition, soviet crew added some armor on their tanks throughout the war. We are speaking about tanks, which are very expensive and destined to war: government was constantly watching the quality of them! About optics, thats a complicated topic, and I dont wanna speak about that in this topic, which is about 'fav AFV of WW2'. 

[Paciat]

...especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient.

But Leningrad didnt produce tanks in 1942-1944. It was surrounded.
The quality of Soviet steel dropped in the wartime and thats also the reason why Soviet trucks were worst than those from US.
But German late war steel wasnt as good as in the early years.

About optics, thats a complicated topic, and I dont wanna speak about that in this topic, which is about 'fav AFV of WW2'. 

In short, German optics were usually better.

[Red_Stinger]

...especially those produced at Leningrad or Stalingrad, were produced with excellent quality steel, making them very resilient.

But Leningrad didnt produce tanks in 1942-1944. It was surrounded.
The quality of Soviet steel dropped in the wartime and thats also the reason why Soviet trucks were worst than those from US.
But German late war steel wasnt as good as in the early years.

Leningrad did produce a few tanks during the siege, which were destined to the defenders 

At the beginning, soviet steel dropped, 'cause of the 'migration' of the industry to the east. In the Oural, plants were rebuild without electricity or heating system, and workers were producing tanks and equipment in horrible condition.

Only early war and late war soviet steel was good enough (1941-early 1942 and late 1944-1945).

On the other hand, german steel, while excellent in early war, dramatically dropped throughout the war, 'cause of the constant bombing of german industry and lack of good iron.

In short, German optics were usually better.

Yes, that's it lol