Most Powerful Tank of WW2

[Frostwulf]

I'm not trying to rehash old threads, but to further clarify what others would consider the most powerful tank of WW2 that saw action. To me this would be a combination of offense(firepower-accuracy, rate of fire and penetration), defensive capability (armor-deflective and absorption). I would not include reliability, adaptability, etc. This would simply be who would be able to destroy the other first, basically a tank duel (terrain need not apply).

To me it would seem to be the King Tiger with its 88 kwk 43 L/71 cannon and its excellent armor. I think the IS2 would be a close runner up with its very good design. I could be wrong on this as I don't have the stats to back this up, this is the way I remember it being. If someone does have the stats on this please put them down.
As far as tanks that were built that didn't see any action in the war, what would you consider? For me I would have to go with the Maus.

[antaeus]

you might want to re-assess the first half sentence of your thread. because its blatantly what the net result will be.

a rehash of many many threads.

to sum up, you will get people going "german *insert tank here* is best" arguing with people who go soviet/american/british tank was better

then you will get 10 pages of pseudo stats and fanboyery which will lead to the conclusion that its entirely subjective and there is no definitive answer.

ok, i wont be entirely unconstructive, here's a pretty good assessment of where the VV is at with ww2 tanks.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=165942

[Valiant Champion]

I notice you dont seem to put much emphasis on mobility. Mobility is the chief purpose of a tank, than armor, then a gun. Without speed you will not be able to exploit a break in the enemies line.

You might actually do pretty good with a motorcycle and a gun slung around your back.

Even better with an armored car with only machine guns as you can make it to a headquarters or supply depot which would be lightly guarded and shoot the place up.

Of course you will do much better with the three together and be able to take out other vehicles.

Having said all of this I believe without a doubt that the Jadgpanther was the best armored vehicle/ Tank of the war.

[Sidmen]

On a flat battlefield with no other factors, the competition is down to the IS2 and the King Tiger. The victor is whomever scored the first shot.

[Boyar Son]

M26 pershing from what I heard (in company of heroes).

[Hounf of Culan]

Sorry if this is the same as the KingTiger,I don't remember, but the German Tiger II was pretty pimping. It had, for the time, incredibly modern and sophisticated sloped armor, a terribly effective maingun. I remember seeing a thing on the History Channel that it would often take 7-10 Shermans to take out 1 Tiger II because it was so well armoured and it would normally kill 3 or 4 Shermans in the process. The show also said that in the hands of an experienced German tank commander, the Tiger II proved near invincible to Allied tanks.

[Sidmen]

The King Tiger is the Tiger 2

Interestingly enough, combat between shermans and the Tiger 2 played out almost the same as it did with the Panther. That is, The panther ( a smaller, lighter, cheaper vehicle) took out as many Shermans as a Tiger 2 did when defending, and much more than the Tiger when on the offensive.

[Hounf of Culan]

Oh ok, I thought they were the same. I think there was a also a significant psychological impact for the KingTiger. I certainly would have been scared if I was in a crappy old Sherman and saw a KingTiger coming around the corner.

[antaeus]

Oh ok, I thought they were the same. I think there was a also a significant psychological impact for the KingTiger. I certainly would have been scared if I was in a crappy old Sherman and saw a KingTiger coming around the corner.

i dont know why, it probably would have broken down, then the 30 other shermans beside you would have swarmed around it and shot it up from all sides, or, its crew would have simply ditched it and ran off, leaving the empty king tiger waiting to be shipped off to some museum in the states.

[cherryfunk]

T-34 was the most powerful, especially since when you blew one up, four more came along to take its place

[Farnan]

Its a competition between the Super Pershing, the King Tiger, and the IS2

[DAVIDE]

I vote super-pershing!

In Feb 1945 in Colony, a single S-P, destroyed 2 panther tiger tanks with a single shot

[Dr. Croccer]

Jagdpanzer, King Tiger or T-34.

[Farnan]

T-34 is one of the best tanks, but not one of the most powerful...

The Super Pershing may win this as it was able to destroy a King Tiger in battle, but only one of them ever saw combat.

[Dr. Croccer]

Jagdpanther, on second thought. It could take out a Pershing, because it was meant to.

[Lord Romanus III]

I think Pershing if you want most powerful. hat is for tank-on-tank though, with nothing else involved.

[volpesmagnus]

Russia developed really good tanks during the war, T-34, the IS series (good tanks in my opinion)

[Frostwulf]

I notice you dont seem to put much emphasis on mobility. Mobility is the chief purpose of a tank, than armor, then a gun. Without speed you will not be able to exploit a break in the enemies line.

For being part of the title "Best tank", mobility would be of value, but this thread is simply being about the most powerful tank. To my understanding in WW2 most shots were fired while stationary, then movement followed. Mobility would count for defense but it doesn't seem to be of a high degree because of the amount of tanks destroyed from long distances. If this is correct I don't see mobility playing a large role in being the most "powerful" tank.

Its a competition between the Super Pershing, the King Tiger, and the IS2

I'm not so sure I would agree with the Super Pershing, while it certainly had a great gun but I believe it lacked in armor protection compared to the IS2 and King Tiger.

T-34 is one of the best tanks, but not one of the most powerful...

The Super Pershing may win this as it was able to destroy a King Tiger in battle, but only one of them ever saw combat.

I agree with you on the T-34, but when the SP destroyed the KT2 it was an underbelly shot, at least according to wikipedia. "the "Super Pershing" destroyed one King Tiger by striking its underbelly and knocked out another tank, probably a Panther, with a shot to its flank [3]. However, that was its only known combat engagement. Thus, the full capabilities of the T15E1 90 mm main gun were never demonstrated."

Jagdpanther, on second thought. It could take out a Pershing, because it was meant to.

If it was most powerful afv of WW2 then I would have to agree that it would be the Jagdpanther, but this being on tanks the Jagdpanther would not qualify.

Farnan could very well be correct, I'm just not sure. I was hopping someone would have a link, book or something that would have done a comparative analysis of these tanks.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The IS-2 was often pretty bad, though. People often look at the gun and get admired without glancing at the bigger picture. The KV-2 had a 150mm Howitzer, however the main problem with Soviet tanks was the lower rate of fire of their guns, lower ammo reserves (given the cramped conditions inside a KV-1 or T-34, for example) and most importantly low accuracy. The Zeiss gunsights and others used in German guns were one of the best and most accurate in the world, while most Soviet tanks had at best very crude models. The 88mm KwK gun of the Tiger had also a flat trajectory and high quality ballistics, allowing both a high rate of fire and extremely high accuracy at long ranges. Some German Jagdpanzers could regularly take down Soviet tanks at over 3000m, while the Soviets always would seek short range engagements as a result of their inferiority in this regard.

This is partly derived from the Soviet armoured doctrine. Soviets always put emphasis on massed engagements, massed armour, massed infantry, etc... They also had a guideline in tank building that focused on mechanically reliable and simple tanks balanced with big gun and thick armour. While the Germans were exactly the opposite: often special focus was on a single Tank or AFV that could take down many other tanks. Most of their late war armour is mechanically unreliable, slow and incredibly bulky, a problem not so glaring in Soviet tanks.

Another glaring difference is the command structure: Panzer III's, while outgunned by the T-34, had more and better trained crew members and almost always were in radio contact with their unit. Whereas T-34's did not, and it was risky to coordinate through flags and other improvised means like the Soviets often did.

So beware, many Soviet tanks look impressive on paper but on the battlefield other matters came to place with equal weight on general performance and ratings.

[Panzerbear]

actually, IS-3!

many historians claim that a couple of battalions of IS-3 saw some action in the Far East against Japan at the end of WW2. IS-3 was by far the best tank on the planet earth when it was introduced . needless to say, it participated in the victory parade in Berlin and the everyone (including allies) were their pants.