When reviewing all tanks manufactured during WWII, a top ten definitive list is difficult to compile.  Below, however, is a list of top ten tanks in WWII that should be considered.  These tanks played a critical role for both the Allies and Axis powers during World War II.  The list is presented in alphabetical order.


Step close and sense of the strength of the cold metal on AFHMs authentic, fully restored, fully operational battle tanks, which are prominently displayed throughout the museum.  Get a sense of the combat they endured throughout their service.  Take a moment, put yourself in the turret – feel the power, feel the fear, feel the pride. 


Iosif Stalin Tank – Also known as the IS tank, this WWII heavy tank was named after Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union.  Designed with thick armor in order to successfully counter the 88 mm guns on the German tanks, the main gun carried by the Iosif Stalin tank was successful in defeating both the WWII German Tiger and Panther Tank.  The IS Tank was the driving force of the Red Army in the final stages of the war.



Jagdpanther – German translation:  Hunting Panther – This tank was manufactured by Germany during WWII.  Though it did enter until later in the war, the Jagdpanther saw action on both the Eastern and Western front.  The heavy fire power of this tank, (8.8 cm Kwk 43 cannon), combined with the Panther chassis, is why some historians consider this tank to be one of the top tank destroyers of WWII.



M4 Sherman – This World War II medium tank was used primarily by the U.S. with thousands more being used by the Allies.  The main gun mounted on the M4 Sherman – a 75 mm M3 L/40 – allowed the crew to fire with a fair amount of accuracy even if the tank was moving.  The advantages of this tank lead to its high demand.  As a result, more than 50,000 M4 Sherman tanks were produced during WWII.



Panther – The Panther was a medium German tank that went into service the middle of 1943.  The tank remained in service until the end of WWII in 1945.  Initially, the Panther was intended to be used as a counter to the T-34.  The Germans planned to use the Panther in place of the Panzer III and Panzer IV.  Instead, the Panther worked alongside these tanks.  The Panther was known for its firepower and also for its mobility.  Because of the protection offered by this WWII tank, its design was used as a standard by other nations later in the war as well as post-war.  The Panther, many believe, was one of the top tank designs of WWII.


Panzerkampfwagen IV – This particular tank was often referred to as the Panzer IV.  It was a medium tank Nazi Germany developed during the late 1930s.  The Panzer IV was widely used throughout the war.  The Panzer IV tank was initially designed to be an infantry-support tank.  Eventually the Panzer IV assumed the role of the Panzer III and began engaging in battle.  The Panzer IV was the most widely produced German tank during WWII.



Sherman Firefly – This WWII British tank was a variant of the US Sherman tank.  The British armed the tank with their powerful anti-tank gun – the British 17 pounder.  The Firefly was originally to be used in the interim until newer designed British tanks were ready for service.

After a few of its original flaws were corrected, the tank went into production and its value was soon recognized as it was the only British tank with the capacity to defeat both the Panther and the Tiger tanks when engaged within standard combat ranges.  As a result, the German’s instructed their tanks and their anti-tank gun crews to attack the Sherman Fireflies first.


T-34 – This medium Soviet tank was in production from 1940 thru 1958.  Though later tanks produced during this time period proved to have better armor and armament, the T-34 is often recognized as the most effective, highly influential and efficient tank design of WWII.  After World War II, the T-34 was widely exported.  This tank ended out being the highest produced tank of WWII and ranks as second highest produced tank of all times.  As recent as 1996, variants of this WWII tank were still in operational service throughout as many as 27 countries.


T-44 – This WWII tank did not go into production late in the war.  This medium Soviet Union tank was the successor to the T-34, and while a smaller number (about 2,000) were built, their design was used as a basis for an upcoming series of main battle tanks (T-54/55) which turned out to be the most-produced tank series in history.



Tiger I – The Germans commonly used Tiger I to refer to any one of a number of their heavy tanks used during WWII.  First developed in 1942, the final designation by the German’s for this tank was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E – often referred to as just “Tiger”.  The Tiger I was mounted with an 88 mm gun, which was previously shown effective against both air targets and ground targets.  The Tiger I participated in conflicts on all German battlefronts.



Tiger IITiger II – A heavy German tank of WWII, the Tiger II tank made its mark on World War II history with its heavy armor and powerful gun.  The tank proved to be superior to every other Allied or Soviet tank when engaged in head-to-head battle.  However, the underpowered engine of the Tiger II, combined with its enormous use of fuel, greatly limited the Tiger II.



World War II saw massive industrialization on all military aircraft and vehicles.  Variations within each design were produced using upgrades and modification changes due to the performance (or lack) of the variant’s predecessor.  Both the Allies and the Axis were forced to continually improve upon their own designs in order to maintain dominance in their efforts to win the war.  As a result, a countless number of military aircraft and vehicles, the tank being no exception, were produced.


Within the tank category, any one of a number of combinations could be put together – based on class, armament, production, etc – and rightfully claim their spot as the top ten tanks of WWII.


80 Responses to Top Ten Tanks of WWII

  1. Michael Slater says:

    If you’re going to claim the Tiger II was one of the top 10 tank designs in WWII, then you should use a photo of one. Instead, you used a photo of a Tiger I. As for the Jagdpanther, the 88mm gun represented marginally improved firepower over the 75mm L70 gun the Panther used, cost much more to produce, and was built in too few numbers to justify being listed in the top 10 list. Actually, in combat, the Jagdpanzer IVs with their lower silhouette and L70 guns repaed a much great harvest of knocked out Allied tanks than the Jagdpanther ever did. As for the T-44, it depends on who you ask. The Germans called the T-34s up-gunned with the 85mm gun the T-44. Not sure if the Soviets ever had a T-44. They did field the T-43, an up-armored version of the basic T-34 and armed with the same 76.2mm gun, and its saw extensive combat on the central sector in the winter of 42-43. But it wasn’t enough of an improvement over the basic T-34 and Stalin halted production after a short production run.

    • alon2392 says:

      Thank you for your comment. The photo has been corrected. We strive for accuracy here at the Armed Forces History Museum, both in our museum and on our web-site. However, from time to time, one slips past us. We value everyone’s input regarding the information posted. It provides a value for both us and for those who read the articles and comments. Anytime a specific list is being compiled – unless it is based on specific statistics or characteristics – it is left open to interpretation. But it also leaves it open for comments and input which further shed some light on the subject. We thank you for taking the time to do just that. Thank you for visiting our web-site. We hope you have the opportunity some time to come and visit our museum and see some of the authentic, fully operational tanks we have on display, along with over 100,000 pcs. of military memorabilia.

    • Thomas Kerr says:

      Actually, that is a Tiger 2. Note the sloped glacis plate where the Tiger 1 is a perpendicular 100mm thick plate.

      So far as any source I know, nothing called a T44 saw combat in WW2!

    • Don Frost says:

      The Tiger 2 is pictured. Take a closer look.

      • Not Dan Bull says:

        Hmm, but if you read the response by the people who work at the museum they would say they fixed it. Though you will probably never see this comment since you will probably never be back here again :P

    • Martin says:

      It depends, Mr. Slater, on which 88 model you are referring to: If you mean the 88/56 then yes, its only advantage was a higher explosive a capability… but at the price of slightly less penetration and accuracy than the 75/70 gun… but the 88/71 was FAR SUPERIOR in almost any single way (but for rate of fire, and not even for much) than the 75/70. It was relatively difficult to produce, but not that much as you seems to think either.

  2. Dave Miller says:

    Your picture for the Tiger II is incorrect. The pictured vehicle is actually a Tiger I/

  3. Dulanis77 says:

    Nice article. I’m surprised the others didn’t pick up on this. The image you have next to the Firefly looks to be an M4A3E8 “Easy 8″. You can tell by the end of the barrel, the suspension system, and the wider tracks that this is an Easy 8 variant in the pic. The Firefly had the distinctive rounded bell at the end of their main gun. The narrow tracks of the standard M4A1, and the same suspension as the M4A1. A reference image is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sherman_Firefly_9-08-2008_15-05-43.JPG for the firefly.

  4. Thenoob1234 says:

    A good read, but I have one small comment. The picture of the British Firefly you have actually resembles an American M4A3E8 “Easy Eight” Sherman tank. The muzzle break at the end of the firefly’s 17pdr Anti-tank gun is rounded, in a ball-shape. The E8, utilizing the American designed M1A2 cannon, has a sharper, more angular design, as pictured.

  5. Bob says:

    YU SEL TANCKS???!!!

  6. karl says:

    you know all of it is correct dont listen to negative comments im an expert in ww2 tanks but hehe the tiger ll is not the ultimate battle tank in ww2 its the MAUS originated from germany try to serch it or whatch it on youtube

    • alon2392 says:

      Thank you for your input Karl. Everyone has their own perception. Frankly, a list such as this is always subjective. I was unaware of the Maus, though I’d have to say after doing a brief research, had it not been captured by the British forces before going to production, the balance of the war (though this was being developed later in the war) could have easily taken on a different format.

    • welshfurey says:

      Just because it was big with a big gun doesn’t make it the best the mause was to slow and consumed way too much fuel even if it had seen combat then it was too easy to out maneuver and completely useless on any kind of soft ground.

  7. Chris Rhetts says:

    Have to admit, any list is indeed subjective. Most of your picks are spot on, but I’d offer a few changes. First, I’d remove the T44 and the Firefly. Both were great tanks, but the T44 played virtually no part in WWII, whereas the pick of the Firefly is redundant. If I was going to add an improved or modified version of any tank on the list, I’d definately go with the T34/85. This took what was already arguably the best tank of WWII, and gave it the capabability of defeating every tank in the German inventory (by adding the excellent 85MM gun) – an accomplishment which the Firefly could not match.

    In place of the T-44 and Firefly, I’d include first, the StuGIII:
    a vehicle produced in large numbers (over 9000), which when equipped with the high velocity 75MM gun, quickly and cheaply gave the Germans a way to turn an obsolete chassis into a vehicle which could deal effectively with the T34. The battle record of this tank was remarkable.

    Second, I’d include the little 38(t) Hetzer tank destroyer. Pound for pound, this vehicle was certainly one of the most effective armored vehicles of the war – all the more amazing because it was a quick fix based on the lightweight chassis of an undergunned and obsolete Czech tank. The Hetzer was produced for years after the war, and many were still in service with the Swiss army as late as 1970!

    • alon2392 says:

      Thank you so much for your additional input. We appreciate your taking the time to post your own thoughts.

  8. Timothy Mccune says:

    The Panther saw service after WWII, Romania and France. Panzer IVs were used by Syria in the Six-Day War on the Golan Heights as fixed gun emplacements.

  9. Jerry says:

    Nice article. Thanks.
    We would like to have an article about the most attractive tanks of WWII.
    Particularly those which were usually found on the home fronts of all the armys involved.
    For example; the 38 DD with their twin barrels – most commonly known as Big Guns – were not often found in the day to day fighting but were well suited for improving the morale of the troops when they came across them.
    Usually they were disguised or camouflaged, the best of which were called tank tops which could easily be cast off for rapid deployment.

  10. Kevin Frei says:

    The M-4 Sherman had two virtues: most important is the sheer number the US could produce (we could afford to lose 10 Sherman tanks to every German tank killed) and second the easy of maintenance/repair. It was very poorly armed and suffered from extremely thin armor. Thankfully, the Germans could never produce enough of their high sophisticated tanks.

    • guss says:

      That means ten tanks crews killed to one german tank crew, thats not good, did the American,s not value lives?

      • Paul says:

        Just because a tank is destroyed does not mean the tank crew dies.

        • Dave says:

          That is true, but there is a reason the M4 Sherman had the nickname “Tommy Cooker”.

          • taylor says:

            actually what you are referring to with the M4 is actually the tanks going up in flame when the germans were retreating as the tank crew was already out of the tank but the germans needed to destroy those tanks so that they could not be repaired after the battle.

  11. miikeb says:

    The Churchill tank had 7k produced from 41-45 it probably deserves a place on the list as one of the most important.

  12. Cole Banks says:

    How about the Churchill? Adequate in action and used in greater numbers and areas than some which you included. Thanks.

    • alon2392 says:

      Appreciate the brief info on the Churchill. Would love to have you expand on it. Give us all a little education. Thank you!

  13. Cole Banks says:

    Any Italian, French or Japanese tanks worth mention?

  14. David says:

    Eeveryone knows that “Rudy” (T-34) tank #102 wss the best tank in history.
    Even had a Siberian shepherd dog a a crew member.

  15. David says:

    If it’s on tv, it’s gotta be true.

    Four Tankers and Dog

    chetirya tankisti i cobaka

  16. your tiger II tank picture is a panzer VI

  17. Brian says:

    As has been already said any list is subjective. By virtue of improvements made throughout the war the best tanks should be those in use towards the end of the war as these should be an improvement on what went before. For that reason the British Matilda would not get a mention here despite possibly being the best allied tank in 1940 and if correctly used (which it wasn’t) could have turned the tables in France in 1940. Likewise the M3 Lee (Grant) tank despite its many flaws made an impact on German armour in the dessert war in 1941 on its introduction as it could engage the German armour at ranges beyond those where their 50mm and Pak38 were effective. It might therefore be useful to see a timeline of tank development in WW2 and see how each side leapfrogged each other in the race for technical superiority in tank design and use.

  18. Luis says:

    Nice articule, I’ve always read about MBT WW2 and found good information. So I think you missed the M10 (tank destroyer) it was a powerfull weapon during WW2.


  19. Bill says:

    The M3 series of Grants and Shermans was the top design of the war since their chassis were used for a wide range of MBT’s. self-propelled artillery, recovery vehicles and prime movers. They were vastly more reliable mechanically compared to the German and Russian MBT’s. Tigers and Panthers had chronic transmission woes. Soviet MBT’s had lousy engines which often needed replacement or rebuilds after traveling a few 100k. The Germans used captured T-34′s and fixed the engine woes by reworking the heads with better valves and seats. The Russian tankers liked the Shermans due to the extra room inside the fighting compartment, their mechanical reliability and having an escape hatch in the floor.

  20. raymond griffiths says:

    The COMET seems to have been forgotten. Having travelled into action riding on the back of the Comet from the Rhine to the Baltic it was the speed of thistravel that helped to finalise the WW2 in Germany in the space of a little more than 2 months.

  21. Brandon says:

    Sorry, but the M4 Sherman was actually pretty bad at what it did. To be fair that was only because it was having to go up against Tigers. Bad gun, as far as actually being able to penetrate armor, bad armor. I just don’t feel it deserves a top in the top ten. An honorable mention, sure but not a place in the top ten.

    • Iivo says:

      Sherman could be upgraded with guns that could perforate Tiger at longer distances. Sherman could be uparmoured to levels of tiger. Sherman was more reliable than tiger. Sherman was manouvreable than tiger. Sherman<tiger.

  22. John Gleaton says:

    With all of the pros and cons listed on the tanks in question, the one that states that the BEST tank one on one was the Tiger. That tells me right there that the Tiger wins. One cannot start comparing fuel economy, support teams,etc. The Tiger was, in fact, the best tank of the war. I think the T34 was a close second. The Sherman was inferior but made the list by sheer numbers. That does not make it the “best”.

  23. jade says:

    why isn’t the comet, centurion 1,centurion7, and conquer up their.

    • alon2392 says:

      Feel free to post any information you’d like to provide.

    • Scotty in Devon says:

      The Centurion just missed out on WW2 so cant be considered, Mk1 or Mk7. The Conqueror was a Cold war heavy that was problematic at best.

      BTW 2 weekends aga I was at the home of the tank, Bovington Tank Museum in Dorset. It was pretty amazing – nearly every tank ever made is there.

      “Troop Leader” – Bill Bellamy – buy it read it and be in awe of WW2 tank men.

  24. seokterry says:

    Any comments on the Panzerjager Tiger P SdKfz 184 Elefant Tank? A monster tank killer, few were made, as the story goes one took a direct hit from a 500lb bomb and the crew servived….you would only need a few for support and could do a great deal of damage fast.

  25. And what about T-34 85? KV-1? KV-2? ISU-152? SU-100? T-50? There are no better tanks than Russian and German

  26. Jack says:

    The sheer numbers of the Shermans – and often, speed – made them formidable, despite the shortcomings. With allied air superiority, or supremacy, and backed up by tank killers, they did the job. Of course, too, they had to come from further away than any other tank in the European war. Transporting something the size of a German Tiger across the Atlantic – in the same numbers as the Sherman – would have posed many problems.

  27. Calvin says:

    NO…they only VALUE money…more tanks built…more money to their pockets (Govr’t and manufacturers) Human life is irreverent for them.

    P.S: Hitler was a Free Mason by the way.

    If Germany had ad the Total backing of the “illuminati’s” it would have won the War…ten more months into early 1946 and their next generation of stealth Bombers-Fighters Jet would have come up. Most Brilliant Warrior Race the world has ever witness.

  28. Dan says:

    If you want to split hairs… the picture of the t-34 isn’t actually a t-34, its a t-34-85. The t-34 had a much smaller turret and a 76mm gun

  29. Nick the Noodle says:

    The Churchill tank was the best tank in terms of what was actually required of tanks in WW2. Tanks have 2 main roles. The first is a tactical one, to help make a breach in an enemy line. The second is an operational one, to then exploit that breach. The first role requires decent HE, good tactical mobility and a tough hide. The second calls for long range, high ammo load, good speed and reliability. The ability to kill other tanks is important, but not the prime qualification in WW2 to determine.
    In the assault role an account of Churchills III’s and IV’s is held in the national archives: ” It may interest you to know of the fine performance of the Churchill tanks which supported the Canadian Corps when they attacked and broke through the Adolf Hitler Line last month. The Churchills stood up to a lot of punishment from heavy anti-tank guns. Several tanks were hard hit without the crews being injured. They got across some amazingly rough ground. Their 6-pdr. guns made good penetration and were quick to load and aim. So good was the work of this Brigade with their Churchills that the Canadians have as a privilege asked them to bear the Maple Leaf on their tanks. The tank crews have come through their successful attack on the Adolf Hitler Line with tremendous confidence in the Churchill tank. We shall make good use of every Churchill you send us.”
    At Kursk, Churchills in the 5th Guards Tank army travelled 300kms in two days. On the 3rd day at Prokhorovka itself, 2 Churchills took on 5 Panzer IVF2′s and 4 Tiger 1′s, setting one panzer IV on fire, and knocking out the only Tiger in that battle. No Soviet crewmen were killed in this unequal contest.
    At El Alamein, one Churchill took 38 5cm AT hits, and 6 7.5cm AT hits. Only 1 of each penetrated and neither injured any crewman.
    Despite a low top speed, and a low hp/ton ratio, its merrit-brown transmission meant it was of the very few tanks that could turn on the spot, and it proved unbeatable in climbing slopes, or crossing poor ground, as Steamroller Farm, Longstop Hill and the Reichswald illustrate.
    When other tanks are waiting for engineers to bridge rivers, Churchills bring their own. With the Crocadile and AVRE varients, the Churchill has no equal in the assault role. There was plentiful ‘apds’ for the 6pdr come 1944, which made the gun equal to the 17pdr in destroying enemy tanks, such as that on the Firefly. As the Cabinet papers on its performance: “The Committee’s remarks on the Churchill developments are substantially correct. But their assumption that no Churchills are required with 6-pdr. guns is incorrect. In fact, Churchills with 6-pdrs. have been effective in Italy and in Normandy, and General Montgomery has asked that one-quarter of his Churchill tanks should be equipped with 6-pdr. guns, this being in line with existing General Staff policy. He reports in particular that the 6-pdr.,with special H.V. armour-piercing ammunition, is a very good weapon and will penetrate the Panther tank- anywhere, except frontally on the sloping plate.” Also: “No single new or unexpected fact has emerged from the experience of armoured operations in Normandy. In every case tank armaments and armour have acted and reacted exactly as was foreseen, and have accomplished what was known and expected of them. One possible exception to this statement is the new secret 6-pdr. special shot, which, though it has given the penetration expected of it, appears to have had an even greater lethal effect after penetration than was foreseen.”
    So let’s hear it for the Churchill!

  30. joe says:

    the m-26 was the best tank in ww2.we received 2 of them just before the war ended.the 9th armored got one,and the 3rd armored got one.I talked to the gunner who knocked out a tiger and a panther while coming back on the ship.Read ‘DEATH TRAPS” (I was in four of those suckers in two months on the line.We lost our whole platoon in a tank trap the 1st.day up there.Wounded the next day.joe

    • Nick the Noodle says:

      Why do you say that a tank that had next to zero impact on WW2 is the best?

      BTW there were ten M26′s each, and not one, that were sent to the 3rd and 9th ADs as part of the 12th Army Group, as part of Zebra Mission….
      You may want to read Hunnicutt first to get your story right. .

  31. tyler says:

    If you’re going to claim the Tiger II was one of the top 10 tank designs in WWII, then you should use a photo of one. Instead, you used a photo of a Tiger I. As for the Jagdpanther, the 88mm gun represented marginally improved firepower over the 75mm L70 gun the Panther used, cost much more to produce, and was built in too few numbers to justify being listed in the top 10 list. Actually, in combat, the Jagdpanzer IVs with their lower silhouette and L70 guns repaed a much great harvest of knocked out Allied tanks than the Jagdpanther ever did. As for the T-44, it depends on who you ask. The Germans called the T-34s up-gunned with the 85mm gun the T-44. Not sure if the Soviets ever had a T-44. They did field the T-43, an up-armored version of the basic T-34 and armed with the same 76.2mm gun, and its saw extensive combat on the central sector in the winter of 42-43. But it wasn’t enough of an improvement over the basic T-34 and Stalin halted production after a short production run.


    The JadgPanther / or JadgPanzerIV were not EVEN a tank. They were tank destroyers, used to destroy tanks. Not to be used in a head to head battle.

  33. Tom says:

    What about the M26 pershing/

  34. steven Harker says:

    Difficult to see why the Sherman (tommy cooker/ ronson) makes the top 10 other than through numbers. Yes it had a lot of good features and was reliable but as a combat vehicle it had some very serious drawbacks. By June 1944,it was under-gunned, under armoured and had a high profile. It also gained a reputation for catching fire easily if hit, hence the German nickname “tommy cooker” and the British nickname “ronson” after a then popular make of cigarette lighter. It’s also worth pointing out that most allied tanks on the western front were knocked out by AT fire rather than tank vrs tank action. I would say that the Churchill should have been included, if only for Hobart’s funnies, which if the US had used them on D-Day would have probably saved a lot of lives.

    • welshfurey says:

      It was only because the dd shermans ended up side on to the waves due to strong currents causing them to sink that caused heavy losses on omaha beach the dds landed on utah beach and the us troops there suffered much smaller losses

  35. james says:

    I love the m4 Sherman and the Sherman firefly they have amazing speed!

  36. Tim says:

    I’m a big fan of World of Tanks. While it is just a game, it gets me interested in the history. Nice job. Thank you.

  37. Roger Wood says:

    When you are listing tanks, you also need to list the numbers produced and the reliability. The Tiger I was very labor intensive to build, requiring I believe 300,000 man hours each. This resulted in under 1,500 being built. I have heard the number as low as 1374. I have also read that the actual likelihood of an American Sherman facing a Tiger was not that great much of the time. In addition,the Panther, the Tiger I and Tiger II all had transmission issues that limited their readiness for battle. It is estimated at Kurst on the Eastern Front that upwards of 90% of the admittedly new Panthers were non-operational at one point and that at the Battle of the Bulge, only 35% of the Panthers were operational due to transmission issues. Both the Panther and the Tiger I’s transmissions were time consuming and labor intensive to fix replace, in many cases requiring them to be shipped back by rail to Germany to repair.

  38. John Pombrio says:

    Roger, thank you for making the exact comment about numbers produced as I was going to make! The other misconception was that the Sherman tank was meant to fight against all other tanks. Sherman tanks were medium tanks, weighing in at 35 tons. It had greater range and speed and could go on smaller bridges and softer ground than the heavier German tanks. The Tiger I (or Mark 6 in some publications) weighed in at 60 tons, was vastly more expensive to manufacture. Its range and speed was almost half of the lighter Sherman and it would refuse to go many places that a lighter tank could traverse. For instance, to put a Tiger 1 on a train, the tracks needed to be changed to a smaller travel track so the tank could fit in tunnels and bridges, a time and labor consuming process.
    The US fielded large numbers of very successful tank destroyer divisions in Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Europe. In the race through France, a tank destroyer battalion was responsible for 6 Tiger 1s, 12 Panthers, 30 other tanks and tracked vehicles, while losing only 12 tank destroyers.
    Finally, the larger German tanks towards the end of the war were vulnerable to the upgunned but lighter US, British, and Soviet tanks.
    The German heavy tanks were fearsome weapons but there were too few and had enough disadvantages to prevent them from being more than having a minor effect on the course of the war.

  39. Lawrence says:

    The Tiger II photo is accurate, compare the hull to the TigerI photo. Also the Firefly photo is actually a Sherman US M4A3.

  40. Martin le mechant says:

    The Sherman is not one of the best tanks of WW2. It had thin armour, its gun couldn’t penetrate some of the German tanks and it used aviation fuel, so it caught fire easy. The crews through it was a death trap.
    It was only effective because there were masses of them made, and they swamped the German tanks.
    You can buy 20 cheap Hyundai’s for the same price as a Ferrari…doesn’t make it a better car!

  41. Martin le mechant says:

    In terms of the best tanks, many of the German Tank Aces destroyed more than an hundred enemy tanks mainly using Tiger tanks. Wittman, Carius, Knispel all destroyed more than 130 tanks each.
    In contrast, the largest number of tanks destroyed by anyone driving a Sherman was Sydney V. Radley-Walters…..who destroyed 18.

  42. roger o. says:

    Never were enough of the Tiger 1 tanks. If the Germans could have had a lot more of these and the Panthers?

  43. Fred says:

    Tanks for the memories.

  44. Tobias says:

    Shermans did not use aviation fuel. They used bog-standard 80 octane fuel. The tendency to catch fire was due to poor ammunition storage compounded by a tendency to carry too much. Once wet storage was introduced and handling procedures modified Shermans had one of the lowest burn-out rates in the war.
    Also, the main fault, in my opinion, with the Sherman was that it so out-classed Panzer IIIs and early IVs that the Army, in its eternal wisdom, did not see a need to push for an active upgrade. Upgraded Shermans used by the Israelis in the 50s and 60s showed the soundness of the base design and its potential had the Army pushed for more aggressive upgrades.
    As for kill counts, both the numbers can be suspect and the German crews (on average) saw more and heavier fighting than the British and American crews. You should compare German and Russian ace kill counts.

  45. John says:

    The Pz IV H with the spaced armor plating has the best armor protection of any tank ever. Spaced armor has been used in modern designs but the pz IV H’s is very widely spaced and vented as well so it has better protection than any tank ever developed. You should remove every other tank on the list and have the pz IV H 1 through 10 in every category from WW II until now. The Pz IV was used in Middle East conflicts and none were defeated by the Israelis, they were either abandoned
    or destroyed by the friendly force. Nothing can penetrate the Pz IV armor system: HEAT, HESH, APDS, AP it is completely immune to all anti tank rounds.

  46. wayne says:

    wot about the Matilder tank I think it was made in Australia 1939-45 but the U.S.A would not supply a part for the gear box to the tank not Meany were made

  47. Andrew says:

    Thanks for putting together the website and your ongoing work to memorialize the effort and sacrifice of our military members.

    • alon2392 says:

      It is both an honor and a privilege Andrew. Thank you for taking the time to post this. We are truly appreciative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>