Good video, I like reasoning for each one and sometimes it is a case for I just like it. Personal preference for what someone likes is part of what makes these lists interesting and fun.
I agree, especially with Matilda 2 & Stug. Agree with honorable mentions too. It's not just about best armour & guns, it's also about the impact the vehicles had on the battlefield at the time.
It is hard to make an objective list of the "best" tanks of WW2. Let's say the following are my favourites - as everybody has it´s own list: 10. Skoda 38t: the tank that Rommel used to break through the Ardennes at the beginning of WW2, the chassis stayed in service during the whole war 9. KV 1: a nightmare for the Germans when they first encountered it 8. Tiger I: not innovative, just very powerful 7. IS-2: very powerful, modern build, breakthrough tank - not designed to fight german tanks 6. Pantzer IV: developed in the 1930, it was so adaptable, that it stayed in service during the whole war 5. Sherman: an average tank - but a winner because of the impressive logistics that surrounded this tank, from the US over the oceans to the repair shops to the front. 4. T 34: at it's introduction it was admired for it's good balance between armour, armament and mobility. 3. Pantzer III: very innovative when it was constructed a few years before WW2. A tank with a four man crew, main gun in the turret, radio on board... 2. Panther: Well balanced vehicle; not too heavy, agile and powerful. 1. Tiger II: A gun that could knock out any tank and frontal armour that was maybe never penetrated. Rushed into service, never enough spare parts etc - I wonder what this tank would have become if it would have been longer in service for a military industry that was able to support it.
Ah yes the tommy cooker becomes number one, it's an interesting choice considering how easy it would either explode or catch fire when hit by Germany rounds. I feel like the T-34 and Sherman should have been like on the same number or at least one number apart since they are fairly similar. Cool list never the less.
I disagree with quite a bit, but especially the Sherman. You reversed a lot of its attributes. It was reliable, but had bad armour, and until the 76mm upgrade (or the 17 pounder in the Firefly), a bad gun. It was an infantry support tank, not meant to fight other tanks. So unless you did that to get comments, check some of the details.
Okay, I never said that it was unreliable, I said that it wasn't the most reliable tank which is true, documentations from post normandy indicate that the Cromwell was more reliable than the Sherman, I wanted to point this out because a lot of people have said in the past that the Sherman was the most reliable tank of the war. In addition i also never said that the 75mm was a good gun, I said that the Sherman had a good gun, with which I mean the 76mm and the 17 pdr. *Looking back on it I should've specified more, and I apologize for that* Would also like to say that I believe the average thickness of the Sherman's frontal plate (excl the jumbo) had 90mm of effective Armour which comes close to the 100mm eff of the Panther. Which (in my opinion) isn't bad armour
And I would also like to say that in is fine if you disagree with my ranking, it also is my ranking which is in the end my opinion. What is your top 10?
I thought the Sherman had good armor and maybe even better than the panzer 4. Anyways 76mm is nice but the allied wasn't fighting as much enemy armor as they used to by the time 1944 came. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Sherman best tank of the war. Of course ! Complete with photographs of Sherman tanks in British service ! Hardly. This was a tank that elicited no confidence from many of its crews. It had the weakest armament of any of the late war medium tanks, poor armoured protection, poor suspension , and a power to weight ratio no better than that of the Tiger.
Well you talk about that they had the weakest armament of the medium tanks but when we take a look at the Sherman Firefly their recorded Penetration Levels tell me that they (potentially) could knock-out a Tiger 1 at a distance of 2.5 kilometers, and even though you are right that some versions weren't the most well armored late versions had about 90mm of effective protection compared to a Heavy Tanks (Tiger 1) 110mm that isn't to bad. Also the Tank knock out/ death was only 0.6 meanwhile the T-34 sits at 3. So for the crews it was safer aswell, also the American tactics said that Sherman's were not to engage Tiger 1 tanks because they thought that engaging tanks was the artillery's job. The reason for me I put it at no.1 was a combination between Ease to Maintain, Good Main Armament like the 76mm or 17 pdr, decent protection, good reliability (not the best) and how easy it was to mass produce.
@@LearningHistoryTogether Yes. Ok, so the Sherman Firefly was a British modification to the Sherman tank that placed the excellent QF 17 pounder gun in the low bustle turret. What you have to remember is that there where very few of these modified tanks available at the start of the Normandy campaign , most British tankers went to war with the ineffective 75mm gun. Also, it would have been far better had a tank been available that was designed to fit the gun. As it was , it was a compromise and there were serious limitations due to the lack of space in the turret. That's not to say that the 17 pounder wasn't a good anti tank gun , it was. Sherman tanks required constant upgrading and those upgrades were almost always behind the curve. So, yes , if we look at the M4A3E8 then you see a tank with better (but still limited) suspension , better armour , better standard main armament , better power to weight ratio. But these tanks were not the tanks with which the British soldiers went to war. In fact , M4A3E8 was only ever available to the American army in small numbers and very late in the war indeed . As regards tactics ,.. what you are talking about there is American doctrine. , specifically the tank destroyer doctrine . It didn't work that way in practice. In practice , tanks had to fight whatever the enemy had available. In fact the Americans faced no Tiger tanks in normandy at all. Both Tiger battalions and all but one of the Panzer divisions were fought by British Commonwealth forces. British , Canadian and Polish tank soldiers faced off against most of the German armoured formations , not the Americans. The Sherman tank proved to be far too vulnerable to German anti tank gun fire to be said to have had good armoured protection. Most had only 57 mm of frontal armoured plate , not enough to deflect incoming rounds. Vertical obstacle clearance was very poor , a particular weak point, and the power to weight ratio was unimpressive . Cromwell was a far better tank IMO.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 hmm interesting, why do you think the Cromwell is a better tank? I would like to add to that I read that I think the British actually fought 70% of all the tanks in normandy themselves for example in the city of Caen. Yes the Sherman with the 75mm wasn't the strongest tank but tbf that would at best put it on par with the Panzer IV interns of performance, would also like to say that really no allied tank or german tank/afv was able to frontally tank a 88mm L/71 hit, they had 232mm of penetration with normal AP rounds so unless the USA actually deployed The T28 and the UK the Tortoise they were never gonna have enough Armour to go up against a 88mm L/71 on close range. And incase of the Sherman I did do decide to include versions like the E8 and FF because in the end they are versions of the Sherman just like the M-51
@@andrewwoodhead3141 The Sherman belongs at number one simply because it was available at the right time and place in sufficient numbers, and was capable of performing the tasks that it was designed for. Aside from its other virtues, the Sherman was very safe. Less than 1600 American tank crew died over the duration of the war. That's around 8% of all tank crew in all theatres and includes accidents and being KIA whilst not in a tank. That makes being an American tank crewman one of the safest combat jobs (US infantry suffered IRO 20% KIA). The Sherman was the most numerous US tank but they also fielded tens of thousands of other tanks; M3 Lee, M3/M5, plus M10 and M36 tank destroyers all of which were less well protected, so the percentage of Sherman crews that died in their tanks was probably much lower than the quoted 8%
@@LearningHistoryTogether the final image, the sand coloured vehicle parked beside the water….doesn’t seem to have a panther undercarriage. Wrong track, drive sprocket at wrong end, wheels and spacing wrong.
I disagree about the Sherman it should Been number 9 at best , it’s kill ratio far less then the panther or stug , even the tiger had a 5 to 1 kill ratio ,
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
Time stamps:
0:19 10th
1:15 9th
2:11 8th
3:13 7th
3:50 6th
4:48 5th
5:34 4th
6:24 3rd
7:14 2nd
8:22 1st
Good video, I like reasoning for each one and sometimes it is a case for I just like it. Personal preference for what someone likes is part of what makes these lists interesting and fun.
Tried to be unbiased as much as possible, I think I got a pretty good list together though
I agree, especially with Matilda 2 & Stug. Agree with honorable mentions too. It's not just about best armour & guns, it's also about the impact the vehicles had on the battlefield at the time.
Fully agree with your statement, thank you for the comment!👊🏻
I would have put the M18 Hellcat in the list. That was the Allies most effective thing at destroying armor.
It is hard to make an objective list of the "best" tanks of WW2. Let's say the following are my favourites - as everybody has it´s own list:
10. Skoda 38t: the tank that Rommel used to break through the Ardennes at the beginning of WW2, the chassis stayed in service during the whole war
9. KV 1: a nightmare for the Germans when they first encountered it
8. Tiger I: not innovative, just very powerful
7. IS-2: very powerful, modern build, breakthrough tank - not designed to fight german tanks
6. Pantzer IV: developed in the 1930, it was so adaptable, that it stayed in service during the whole war
5. Sherman: an average tank - but a winner because of the impressive logistics that surrounded this tank, from the US over the oceans to the repair shops to the front.
4. T 34: at it's introduction it was admired for it's good balance between armour, armament and mobility.
3. Pantzer III: very innovative when it was constructed a few years before WW2. A tank with a four man crew, main gun in the turret, radio on board...
2. Panther: Well balanced vehicle; not too heavy, agile and powerful.
1. Tiger II: A gun that could knock out any tank and frontal armour that was maybe never penetrated. Rushed into service, never enough spare parts etc - I wonder what this tank would have become if it would have been longer in service for a military industry that was able to support it.
Very fun to read your list! Thank you for sharing
Ah yes the tommy cooker becomes number one, it's an interesting choice considering how easy it would either explode or catch fire when hit by Germany rounds. I feel like the T-34 and Sherman should have been like on the same number or at least one number apart since they are fairly similar. Cool list never the less.
Any list is subjective, your choice is as good as any!
Love to see you back to uploading, my favourite netherlander
Thank you my favorite Croatian❤
@@LearningHistoryTogether ♥️
Nice video man, as always
Good to see you uploading again Collin. 👍
Keep up the good work!
I'd swap the Matilda II with the T-34 and I'd also put the T-34-85 higher up the list due to its overall impact on the war but yeah good video
You probably think the T-34 was better tahn the M4, don't you?
7:16 STUGGGGGGGGG
STUUUUG
Bedankt
thank you i appreciate it!
Thanks!
Thank you my friend!
I disagree with quite a bit, but especially the Sherman. You reversed a lot of its attributes. It was reliable, but had bad armour, and until the 76mm upgrade (or the 17 pounder in the Firefly), a bad gun. It was an infantry support tank, not meant to fight other tanks. So unless you did that to get comments, check some of the details.
Okay, I never said that it was unreliable, I said that it wasn't the most reliable tank which is true, documentations from post normandy indicate that the Cromwell was more reliable than the Sherman, I wanted to point this out because a lot of people have said in the past that the Sherman was the most reliable tank of the war.
In addition i also never said that the 75mm was a good gun, I said that the Sherman had a good gun, with which I mean the 76mm and the 17 pdr. *Looking back on it I should've specified more, and I apologize for that*
Would also like to say that I believe the average thickness of the Sherman's frontal plate (excl the jumbo) had 90mm of effective Armour which comes close to the 100mm eff of the Panther. Which (in my opinion) isn't bad armour
And I would also like to say that in is fine if you disagree with my ranking, it also is my ranking which is in the end my opinion. What is your top 10?
I thought the Sherman had good armor and maybe even better than the panzer 4. Anyways 76mm is nice but the allied wasn't fighting as much enemy armor as they used to by the time 1944 came. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Sherman best tank of the war. Of course ! Complete with photographs of Sherman tanks in British service !
Hardly. This was a tank that elicited no confidence from many of its crews. It had the weakest armament of any of the late war medium tanks, poor armoured protection, poor suspension , and a power to weight ratio no better than that of the Tiger.
Well you talk about that they had the weakest armament of the medium tanks but when we take a look at the Sherman Firefly their recorded Penetration Levels tell me that they (potentially) could knock-out a Tiger 1 at a distance of 2.5 kilometers, and even though you are right that some versions weren't the most well armored late versions had about 90mm of effective protection compared to a Heavy Tanks (Tiger 1) 110mm that isn't to bad. Also the Tank knock out/ death was only 0.6 meanwhile the T-34 sits at 3. So for the crews it was safer aswell, also the American tactics said that Sherman's were not to engage Tiger 1 tanks because they thought that engaging tanks was the artillery's job.
The reason for me I put it at no.1 was a combination between Ease to Maintain, Good Main Armament like the 76mm or 17 pdr, decent protection, good reliability (not the best) and how easy it was to mass produce.
@@LearningHistoryTogether Yes. Ok, so the Sherman Firefly was a British modification to the Sherman tank that placed the excellent QF 17 pounder gun in the low bustle turret.
What you have to remember is that there where very few of these modified tanks available at the start of the Normandy campaign , most British tankers went to war with the ineffective 75mm gun.
Also, it would have been far better had a tank been available that was designed to fit the gun. As it was , it was a compromise and there were serious limitations due to the lack of space in the turret.
That's not to say that the 17 pounder wasn't a good anti tank gun , it was.
Sherman tanks required constant upgrading and those upgrades were almost always behind the curve. So, yes , if we look at the M4A3E8 then you see a tank with better (but still limited) suspension , better armour , better standard main armament , better power to weight ratio. But these tanks were not the tanks with which the British soldiers went to war.
In fact , M4A3E8 was only ever available to the American army in small numbers and very late in the war indeed .
As regards tactics ,.. what you are talking about there is American doctrine. , specifically the tank destroyer doctrine .
It didn't work that way in practice. In practice , tanks had to fight whatever the enemy had available.
In fact the Americans faced no Tiger tanks in normandy at all. Both Tiger battalions and all but one of the Panzer divisions were fought by British Commonwealth forces. British , Canadian and Polish tank soldiers faced off against most of the German armoured formations , not the Americans.
The Sherman tank proved to be far too vulnerable to German anti tank gun fire to be said to have had good armoured protection.
Most had only 57 mm of frontal armoured plate , not enough to deflect incoming rounds.
Vertical obstacle clearance was very poor , a particular weak point, and the power to weight ratio was unimpressive .
Cromwell was a far better tank IMO.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 hmm interesting, why do you think the Cromwell is a better tank?
I would like to add to that I read that I think the British actually fought 70% of all the tanks in normandy themselves for example in the city of Caen. Yes the Sherman with the 75mm wasn't the strongest tank but tbf that would at best put it on par with the Panzer IV interns of performance, would also like to say that really no allied tank or german tank/afv was able to frontally tank a 88mm L/71 hit, they had 232mm of penetration with normal AP rounds so unless the USA actually deployed The T28 and the UK the Tortoise they were never gonna have enough Armour to go up against a 88mm L/71 on close range.
And incase of the Sherman I did do decide to include versions like the E8 and FF because in the end they are versions of the Sherman just like the M-51
@@andrewwoodhead3141 forgot to mention that I also included effect they had in the war as a way of ranking
@@andrewwoodhead3141 The Sherman belongs at number one simply because it was available at the right time and place in sufficient numbers, and was capable of performing the tasks that it was designed for. Aside from its other virtues, the Sherman was very safe. Less than 1600 American tank crew died over the duration of the war. That's around 8% of all tank crew in all theatres and includes accidents and being KIA whilst not in a tank. That makes being an American tank crewman one of the safest combat jobs (US infantry suffered IRO 20% KIA). The Sherman was the most numerous US tank but they also fielded tens of thousands of other tanks; M3 Lee, M3/M5, plus M10 and M36 tank destroyers all of which were less well protected, so the percentage of Sherman crews that died in their tanks was probably much lower than the quoted 8%
Third…Panther/ T55 hybrid???
What do you mean?
@@LearningHistoryTogether the final image, the sand coloured vehicle parked beside the water….doesn’t seem to have a panther undercarriage.
Wrong track, drive sprocket at wrong end, wheels and spacing wrong.
Yeah you might be right, maybe it was a Panther repaired with t55 components
It is a Panther replica build on a T-55 chassis, often used by reenactment groups
I disagree about the Sherman it should Been number 9 at best , it’s kill ratio far less then the panther or stug , even the tiger had a 5 to 1 kill ratio ,
T34🤮