Best overall tank of WWII?

[Pillar]

I think from a reliability and mobility standpoint you can make the case for the Sherman, but it lacked armor and gunpower (at least the base model), had a high silhouette and had that nasty habit of catching fire when hit.

Small Silhouette, besides being mostly an imaginary tank virtue, was not an issue. It's a myth.

The Sherman Firefly was shorter than the T34-85 by about 2cm.

[Vinnie]

Depends what you want to do with the tank too. Defend a fairly static position then Tiger. Defend requiring movement then panther. Produce quickly for a poorly trained army T34. Exploit long distances with little maintenance then Sherman.
Fit on a railway truck that can pass through any tunnel then a British tank, just don't try to fight in it!

[smurf309]

tough one to answer.i always liked the german tanks.t34 was a bad boy though.

[AdrianE]

Depends what you want to do with the tank too.

Win a war: T34 or Sherman.
Lose a war: Tiger

[BitterPill]

Sherman. What exactly does the T-34 have on it? You need to compare the T34/85 with the Sherman Firefly.

Panther and other German tanks were pretty cool but cost of production and maintenance weren't commensurate with their value on the battlefield.

The T34 runs on diesel, and the Sherman (AKA Ronson) uses gasoline: Big drawback when it comes to survival.

[Pillar]

The T34 runs on diesel, and the Sherman (AKA Ronson) uses gasoline: Big drawback when it comes to survival.

I'd heard that too.

Some say otherwise though:
http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/forum/v....php?f=10&t=41

[Vinnie]

I'd heard this was more due to ammunition storage and the german use of ballistic cap(?) ammunition...their shells penetrated then exploded rather than being solid shot but don't really know much aboiut this...where's Paul?

[Pdqport]

I think it was more of a problem for early model Shermans before they added wet stowage for the ammunition and relocated where it was stored.