Topic: Which World War 2 Battle tank was the most effeciently used in battle?

[templar]

T-34 the best tank during WWII. The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1941 to 1958. It is widely regarded as having been the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered World War II, and although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the war's most effective, efficient and influential design.First produced at the KhPZ factory in Kharkov (Kharkiv, Ukraine), it was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout World War II, and widely exported afterwards. It was the most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.A 1996 publication showed that the T-34 was still in service with twenty-seven countries.

The M4 Sherman Tank was a light armored tank but its armaments is not sufficient during WWII. Its main purpose was Infantry Support ( During that time the US War Command did not know yet the Tiger Tank). Built more than 50,000 it was mass produced by the three big automakers in the US.

The Tiger Tank- Nazi Germany's Heavy Tank of WWII. Its armor is thick and its main ammunition used are     
    * PzGr.39 (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap)
    * PzGr.40 (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid)
    * Hl. Gr.39 (High Explosive Anti-Tank)
    * Sch Sprgr. Patr. L/4.5 (Incendiary Shrapnel)
althought its called the "Tank Killer" but its mobility is poor. Five Shermans can outlast 1 Tiger tank.

i completely agree, the t34 is the best tank of world war II, it combined mobility, armor protection and the ease of assembly,

the only thing lacking in the T34 was the creature comforts....   

did you know that the turret was so cramped for the tank commander and the gunner that they literary would bump heads when the tank is moving.....

[ironhot]

it seems the 2 russian made tanks claim to fame where indeed done so by numbers more than winning a one on one

battle...

d tiger  proved superior in armour (100mm at the front, 80mm at the rear), firepower, or both to any tank that it met, on both

the Eastern and North African Fronts. The Tiger I’s speed was around 25mph, which is actually not bad – only 5mph

behind the Sherman, for example, and slightly faster than its only real equivalent in 1942 – the KV1, at 23mph. t34 tank’s 

new 85mm gun was no better than the standard German anti-tank piece of the late-war period, the 75mm L/48, and

neither was it superior to the American 76mm M1. Its only advantage was a more powerful high explosive shell, at the

price of a decrease in ammo storage capacity.its hull armour was never upgraded throughout the war and remained 45mm

thick...Most German guns of the period could penetrate twice as much at ranges of up to 1000 yards. Another important

point is the fact that the tank’s armour material was too hard, making it brittle;The T-34, in all versions, was notoriously

noisy – more so than other tanks. No stealth operations or surprise attacks were to be organized with this tank’s loud and

distinctive engine and track sound.

[rayn1984]

it seems the 2 russian made tanks claim to fame where indeed done so by numbers more than winning a one on one

battle...

d tiger  proved superior in armour (100mm at the front, 80mm at the rear), firepower, or both to any tank that it met, on both

the Eastern and North African Fronts. The Tiger I’s speed was around 25mph, which is actually not bad – only 5mph

behind the Sherman, for example, and slightly faster than its only real equivalent in 1942 – the KV1, at 23mph. t34 tank’s 

new 85mm gun was no better than the standard German anti-tank piece of the late-war period, the 75mm L/48, and

neither was it superior to the American 76mm M1. Its only advantage was a more powerful high explosive shell, at the

price of a decrease in ammo storage capacity.its hull armour was never upgraded throughout the war and remained 45mm

thick...Most German guns of the period could penetrate twice as much at ranges of up to 1000 yards. Another important

point is the fact that the tank’s armour material was too hard, making it brittle;The T-34, in all versions, was notoriously

noisy – more so than other tanks. No stealth operations or surprise attacks were to be organized with this tank’s loud and

distinctive engine and track sound.

the t34s 85mm may not be equal to tiger's mounted turrets but it could still penetrate tigers side belly from a decentrange compare to its western allies tanks counterparts.

your compairing tiger to a medium tank and to a heavy tank who came way before the tiger. your comparing a tank with tanks of a lower level. Why dont you compare it from an is-2 which can destroy a tiger from a distance of more than 1000 m? or compare it to other later kvs such as kv2,kv1s,kv8 and so on. or compare it to su-152(beast killer)?even to isu-152. blahblahblah etc... there are variety of tanks in russian aresnal that could easily defeat tigers even tiger2 tanks even their supposed to be unstopable elefant with ease during worl war 2.
aide from that, an upgraded kvs can penetrate tiger's armor with ease.

[rayn1984]

The T-34, in all versions, was notoriously
noisy – more so than other tanks. No stealth operations or surprise attacks were to be organized with this tank’s loud and
distinctive engine and track sound.

during world war 2 stealth caabilities of tanks was never been an important role. and even though t34 lacks out of stealthy capabilities, it still holds the best tank of world war 2. effectivity, efficientiancy and possesing an influential design were the main assets of t34; comfort(as stated above from templar's post it's way awful to be inside a t34 than other tanks)and  tactical purpose were not it's main role.

tiger, tiger2, and elefant are way much supperior and dominant than t34 but as what i had mentioned on my recent, post ussr's tank arsenal has variety of tanks which could be consider way more superior than german's tanks especially the su-152 and is series.