Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As mini nuts most here have heard of the King Tiger as nearly unstoppable. But how does it really compare against the Soviet JS III, and the Super Pershing/Centurions that were just coming into service at the end of Euro operations?

King Tiger. Big. Bad. A Mechanics's nightmare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_tiger

US Super Pershing (upgunned and uparmored Pershing), the original of what would eventually be the Patton tank which saw a good bit of action in the Middle East in the 50s-70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing
evidently an engagement between the two
http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm

Brittish Centurion, made to take on the Hun, and also a favorite in the Middle East
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

The JS III, terror of the Allies 1945-1955. It would become the foundation for the Rooskie tanks poised to take Europe, if not for the vigiliant Weiner Legions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2

I vote for the Matilda.

It was the only tank of the war which made a real impact on the battlefield in two different theaters, Western Europe and the desert.

Importantly, unlike most of the other tanks it wasn't so insecure that it needed a big tough name like Cylonbastardcart or Nucularscythedchariot.

Matilda, the Queen of the Battlefield!

Kilkrazy wrote:I vote for the Matilda.

It was the only tank of the war which made a real impact on the battlefield in two different theaters, Western Europe and the desert.

Importantly, unlike most of the other tanks it wasn't so insecure that it needed a big tough name like Cylonbastardcart or Nucularscythedchariot.

Matilda, the Queen of the Battlefield!

Wait, wasn't the Sherman in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific Theater?

JSIIs proved effective in redecorating Berlin.

Centurion is clearly the best IMO, in a similar topic I wrote this...

The Centurion is quite probably the best tank ever built. It was the first of the vehicles that we would describe as a modern battle tank, unlike the more specised and irregularly shaped vehicles of WW2 and had less of the drawbacks. It was well armoured and relatively fast. It moved with the ages, upgrading form a 17 pounder to a 20 pounder to a 105mm main gun and has been adapted to many specialist uses. It's fought in more wars than any other western tank including the Korean War, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Vietnam war and Gulf war. It has been in armed forces all around the world and has been in service longer than almost anything else. Introduced in 1945 it was still being used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and that's just the UK. The IDF used them in Lebanon in 2006.

olympia wrote:JSIIs proved effective in redecorating Berlin.

Mightily so. I guess we could include those on the list. I'd proffer they were simpler but their two part ammo (IIRC) hampered their effectiveness due to load times. I could be thinking of the 152 though.

Shooting:
*90MM gun (US) proved comparable to long 88.
*JSII cannon also a monster.
*Centurion proved adept at blowing up T-55s and such so I'm assuming they are good there.

Armor and ruggedness:
*Centurion known for extreme ruggedness and armor. Slow as result.
*K Tiger known for armor strength-but not enugh for the 90mm
*JSII-III has a scary level of angled plate.
*Super Pershing actually stood up to K Tiger shot and then shot back.

Optics:
*K Tiger, followed by US or maybe Brit. JSII/III distant 3rd.

Complexity:
*K Tiger known to be extremely complex and finicky.
*Centurion was viewed as being rugged and mechanic friendly.
*I'd proffer JS II-III probably simplest and most durable based purely on the strength of Soviet design doctrine.
*Put Pershing at the Centurion level.

There's soe debate as to whether the Soviet contender is the ISII or the ISIII

I'll go with the Centurion as heavy tanks (The other three) are an evolutionary dead end. The British entry should really be the Churchill 'Black Prince' if we're comparing heavies.

George Spiggott wrote:There's soe debate as to whether the Soviet contender is the ISII or the ISIII

I'll go with the Centurion as heavy tanks (The other three) are an evolutionary dead end. The British entry should really be the Churchill 'Black Prince' if we're comparing heavies.

Churchill Black Prince-more info?

Interesting qutestion.

The IS-2 was a very good tank but it was designed as much for infantry support as tank on tank combat. The 122 shell had a big bursting charge but was no better than the 100mm guns for tank killing. On top of that it had two part ammo, not good. All around it was solid, good armor, Soviet simplicity, and decent mobility.

The Super Pershing was not ready for prime time. It did have a honking big gun though. Still, gasoline engine, armor on the lighter side, and ugly as sin. The gun was its big saving grace but it needed refinement before becoming a mainstay.

The Centurion was a great all around tank and with the 105mm gun it might have been the best of this crowd when you take everything into consideration. Still, the early marks were a bit thin skinned and it really didn't come into its own until Mk II and III.

The King Tiger was very good all around, excellent even, but required a lot of maintenance to keep it in the field. When it worked it was a beast but that wasn't as often as its commanders might have wanted.

So comparatively... it's hard to say.

The King Tiger vs. the IS-2. It's pretty typical German/Soviet match up. The King Tiger is a masterpiece but the IS-2 is "good enough" and it works. It might not have the perfect anti-tank gun but given the match up between the Germans and the Soviets late in the war that doesn't really matter all that much as it would spend more time supporting infantry than anything. The ammo load did suck but the IS-2 got the job done. So the King Tiger was the better tank there but in the end it wouldn't matter as thousands of "good enough" tanks would bury a few hundred master pieces.

King Tiger vs. Super Pershing. Again I have to give the nod to the Tiger in terms of pure tankitude. The Super Pershings were almost as serious a hanger queen as the KT and it was more of a rolling proto-type than a genuine production tank. The Super Pershing probably had the better gun but I'd rather be in the KT in a KT vs. SP showdown, unless the SP got the jump on the KT.

The KT vs. the Centurion. Again, I go with the KT. However once the Mk II came into being I think it was probably a dead heat. The Mk. III was superior to the King Tiger but it was also a design about four or five years older than the KT by the time it made it into production.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh sheesh, IS-3 not 2. In that case I think its a dead heat between the two of them honestly.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I vote for the Matilda.

It was the only tank of the war which made a real impact on the battlefield in two different theaters, Western Europe and the desert.

Importantly, unlike most of the other tanks it wasn't so insecure that it needed a big tough name like Cylonbastardcart or Nucularscythedchariot.

Matilda, the Queen of the Battlefield!

Wait, wasn't the Sherman in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific Theater?

No. By the time it arrived in North Africa the Matilda had already cleaned up the Afrika Korps.

The Pacific? Well, it was there, but considering the opposition -- the Stuart was more powerful than most Japanese tanks -- it's not something you would really want to emphasise on your CV.

A bit like a top athlete boasting how he beat the Trumpton Over-60s Ladies in the egg and spoon race.

I don't think the Empire bothered sending any tanks to fight the Japanese, because we already had Sikh and Gurkha troops.

The clincher, of course, is in the name.

Sherman -- hard hitting Civil War general, who said that War Is Hell.
Matilda -- maiden aunt who serves a nice Madeira cake for tea, and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off.

Which tank is trying harder to show how *macho* it is?

Evidently there was a case of KT vs. SP. The KT hit and glanced. The SP replied and killed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

No. By the time it arrived in North Africa the Matilda had already cleaned up the Afrika Korps.
***Patton and 2nd Corps would disagree with you.


The Pacific? Well, it was there, but considering the opposition -- the Stuart was more powerful than most Japanese tanks -- it's not something you would really want to emphasise on your CV.
****Mobile artillery. Point is it was all over the place.


I don't think the Empire bothered sending any tanks to fight the Japanese, because we already had Sikh and Gurkha troops.
****You were also fighting in some of the worst jungle on the planet.

The clincher, of course, is in the name.
Sherman -- hard hitting Civil War general, who said that War Is Hell.
Matilda -- maiden aunt who serves a nice Madeira cake for tea, and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off.
***Matidla scares me more. Sounds like the mother in law from hell.

Kilkrazy wrote:I vote for the Matilda.

It was the only tank of the war which made a real impact on the battlefield in two different theaters, Western Europe and the desert.

Importantly, unlike most of the other tanks it wasn't so insecure that it needed a big tough name like Cylonbastardcart or Nucularscythedchariot.

Matilda, the Queen of the Battlefield!

There were a lot of other tanks that fought in multiple theaters, and certainly made real impacts. Panzer IIs, IIIs, and IVs all fought in three theaters: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the desert, and they certainly made a real impact in all those places (particularly the IIIs and IVs.)

And I would say the Sherman counts. Even though it didn't arrive in the desert until '42, they were at El Alamein the second time around and they could easily hang with the Panzer IIIs and IVs that were being used at that time, so I'd certainly think they made an impact.

Interesting note JS IIIs vs. Pattons armed with 90MM. Pattons coudl not penetrate at nominal battle range. In the battle, only the Pattons armed with a later model 105 could.

Israeli infantry and paratrooper units had considerable difficulty with the IS-3M when it was encountered due to its thick armour, which shrugged off hits from normal infantry anti-tank weapons such as the bazooka.[10] Even the 90 mm AP shell fired by the main gun of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) M48 Patton tanks could not penetrate the frontal armour of the IS-3s at normal battle ranges.[10] There were a number of engagements between the M48A2 Pattons of the IDF 7th Armoured Brigade and IS-3s supporting Egyptian positions at Rafah in which several M48A2s were knocked out in the fighting.

There is only one true Ultimate Warrior!

Frazzled wrote:Evidently there was a case of KT vs. SP. The KT hit and glanced. The SP replied and killed it.

The article you linked to said that shot came from an unknown source.

Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon.

You did, you know... ah never mind.

Frazzled & KilKrazy wrote:No. By the time it arrived in North Africa the Matilda had already cleaned up the Afrika Korps.
***Patton and 2nd Corps would disagree with you.

Shermans were at El Alamain. Shermans kicked ass (as you American say). The less said about Patton the better.

Frazzled & KilKrazy wrote:The Pacific? Well, it was there, but considering the opposition -- the Stuart was more powerful than most Japanese tanks -- it's not something you would really want to emphasise on your CV.
****Mobile artillery. Point is it was all over the place.

I don't think the Empire bothered sending any tanks to fight the Japanese, because we already had Sikh and Gurkha troops.
****You were also fighting in some of the worst jungle on the planet.

The M3 (Grant/Lee) is widely considered the superior tank in the far east.

My tank in the most theatres is the Vickers light. Being in the most theatres defines a tank as being good right?

The article you linked to said that shot came from an unknown source.
***Other articles said it was the Tiger, but you have an excellent point.

****Grant better in FarEast-by who? When were Grants used? Not sure why anyone would like a Grant better. Same chassis but better main gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:There is only one true Ultimate Warrior!

Meh, I think the Hulk could take him

Frazzled wrote:The article you linked to said that shot came from an unknown source.
***Other articles said it was the Tiger, but you have an excellent point.

****Grant better in FarEast-by who? When were Grants used? Not sure why anyone would like a Grant better. Same chassis but better main gun.

Colonial and British forces and it's possible the US still had some around.

The Lee (with extra machine gun turret) beats the Sherman in the following areas: Anti infantry (more fire-power that is safer to fire) Anti tank (faster fire) Vision (higher up). In all other areas vs. Japanese armour (only!) it is equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince_(tank) Black Prince information. Essentially it's a widened MK VIII Churchill with a 17pdr gun mounted in the turret.

The super pershing hit the underside of the KT, so that could have something to do with the shot being so deadly. Although I guess we couldn't exactly have a SP and a KT sit there and shoot each other in the front, armor value 14, until one of them exploded.

Out of all of them though, I will say that KT beats JS2 hands down on a one vs one, not a 100 vs one although it would be close.

The SP and Centurion would be good contenders against each other as both saw minimal action.

I guess that question won't get answered anytime soon either.

halonachos wrote:The super pershing hit the underside of the KT, so that could have something to do with the shot being so deadly. Although I guess we couldn't exactly have a SP and a KT sit there and shoot each other in the front, armor value 14, until one of them exploded.

Out of all of them though, I will say that KT beats JS2 hands down on a one vs one, not a 100 vs one although it would be close.

The SP and Centurion would be good contenders against each other as both saw minimal action.

I guess that question won't get answered anytime soon either.

No, history kind of moved on, although all three allied tanks laid the foundations for their respective armies tank design for the next 30 or so years. It was just an interesting question. KT was the first "superheavy" but was about to come up against the JSIII. Add to that the Brits and Americans finally got into the game as it were on the heavy tank side and its a much more even engagement tank vs. tank if the war had continued into late 1945 on the West side.

I would proffer though that all 3 ally tanks seem to have caught up/surpassed the panther at the end of the war.

Ahtman wrote:There is only one true Ultimate Warrior!

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE WARRIOR, HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!

There's this idea that tanks meet in one on one duels at dawn, with only the best surviving. It just doesn't work that way.

Tank on tank combat is nice, but rarely as decisive as having a good enough gun, good armour, great mobility and reliability to move around the enemy position and start trashing his supply lines. All the superheavy tanks listed here are nice, but they're specialist units that can't be produced in the numbers needed to be strategically decisive, nor are they capable of performing the deep operations that are the bread and butter of tanks.

In terms of the best tank, I don't think there's much value looking outside the biggest tank war of them all, WWII.

When the Germans had their most successful operations their best tank was the Mk IV, and most of their tanks were Mk IIIs. These are crappy tanks, so we can write them off straight away.

We can then look at the Sherman, an often maligned tank but it was fast enough, and capable of being produced in vast numbers.

Then you can look at the T34, which had an incredible range and exceptional reliability. However, especially early in the war, the T34 was often deployed without radios, severely limiting it's ability to perform the deep operations that tanks are designed for.

I think in terms of best tank there's case to be made for either the Sherman or the T34.

I would have to go with the KT.Even with the build/reliability/numbers on the field problems,it was one hell of a scary proposition for the allies at the time.In terms of others,i have a mate at my flgc that advocates the T-34-85 in particular.

Desert Eagle.

One thing I see not being talked about is the operational range and speed of the tanks being discussed. Both of these contribute to the tanks ability to maneuver, which I think is a key factor in a great tank.

The M3 Lee had one major drawback - limited fire arc.

Ironhide wrote:One thing I see not being talked about is the operational range and speed of the tanks being discussed. Both of these contribute to the tanks ability to maneuver, which I think is a key factor in a great tank.

"Tank on tank combat is nice, but rarely as decisive as having a good enough gun, good armour, great mobility and reliability to move around the enemy position and start trashing his supply lines."

Whichever one shoots first.

sebster wrote:There's this idea that tanks meet in one on one duels at dawn, with only the best surviving. It just doesn't work that way.

Tank on tank combat is nice, but rarely as decisive as having a good enough gun, good armour, great mobility and reliability to move around the enemy position and start trashing his supply lines. All the superheavy tanks listed here are nice, but they're specialist units that can't be produced in the numbers needed to be strategically decisive, nor are they capable of performing the deep operations that are the bread and butter of tanks.

In terms of the best tank, I don't think there's much value looking outside the biggest tank war of them all, WWII.

When the Germans had their most successful operations their best tank was the Mk IV, and most of their tanks were Mk IIIs. These are crappy tanks, so we can write them off straight away.

We can then look at the Sherman, an often maligned tank but it was fast enough, and capable of being produced in vast numbers.

Then you can look at the T34, which had an incredible range and exceptional reliability. However, especially early in the war, the T34 was often deployed without radios, severely limiting it's ability to perform the deep operations that tanks are designed for.

I think in terms of best tank there's case to be made for either the Sherman or the T34.

Way to be a buzzkill there Sebster. None of that had to do with our ultimate warrior showdown.

sebster wrote:I think in terms of best tank there's case to be made for either the Sherman or the T34.

Which is nice. You be hard pressed to find anyone with a clue that when asked, "What was the best all around tank of the second world war?" would answer anything but T-34(85) or Sherman but that wasn't the question posed. The question was essential which of the super heavies would win in that mythical duel.

Tyyr wrote:

sebster wrote:I think in terms of best tank there's case to be made for either the Sherman or the T34.

Which is nice. You be hard pressed to find anyone with a clue that when asked, "What was the best all around tank of the second world war?" would answer anything but T-34(85) or Sherman but that wasn't the question posed. The question was essential which of the super heavies would win in that mythical duel.

Indeed. Frankly give me a Vought Corsair and I'd turn all of them into gravy, and be back home in time for beer.

But who willl be the...Ultimate (tank) Warrior!

Being serious for a moment, I would pick the Centurion on the grounds that it was still in service killing enemies in the 1970s.

Neither the Pershing nor the JS2 can make that claim, though their descendants (M60, T62 etc) certainly can.

This is a tribute to the very sound core design of the Centurion.