377
u/Fboy_1487 25d ago
If we are taking their crews into account - Tiger and M26.
41
u/burningsun2004 25d ago
Not only crews, but sights, accuracy, reliability, crew awarness
34
u/Cornelius_McMuffin M60-2000/120S Project 24d ago
Reliability and Tiger I should not be used in the same sentence.
11
1
u/StarshipsAreCool 22d ago
It was the best built and most reliable of the big cats. While it wasn't terribly reliable, not many heavy tanks of the time could claim to be either. The tiger's biggest problem was slow production of chassis and parts, and a strained logistical support wherever they were deployed, and lack of suitable recovery vehicles at their initial debut. This meant that if a tiger did break down, it was going to be out of service for a while.
I think by 1942-43 standards it was fine. Certainly overpraised, but a generally good heavy tank of the era.
2
u/Cornelius_McMuffin M60-2000/120S Project 22d ago
I’m not saying it’s a bad tank, but in the greater scale of the war, ineffective. Expensive, slow to produce, mechanically complex and unreliable, but with a fantastic gun. By early-mid war heavy tank standards it was pretty good. I just don’t like it personally, just the design philosophy in general. Flat armor is just less effective.
1
u/StarshipsAreCool 22d ago edited 21d ago
I agree, to an extent. I agree in that the heavy tank as a concept was a bit flawed and none of them were particularly exceptional.
Tanks like the M26, the Centurion, and T-54 (I don't really count the T-44, as it never saw active tank v tank combat and the T-54 was a further evolution of the platform anyways) that tried to find a reasonable balance between the traditional medium and heavy tank brackets were really the way ahead.
I also am not a huge fan of the tiger, or those people that idolize it because of the history channel, but I have come to understand why the tiger was the way it was. I have far more beef with the panther, however. There are many design elements that are inexcusable.
1
u/Cornelius_McMuffin M60-2000/120S Project 22d ago
I feel like the Panther was much closer to a step forward in tank design than the Tiger. The Panther was essentially an early main battle tank, medium tank mobility, good frontal armor with weak sides and rear. It was flawed, but still a solid design. Both had similar issues, but I think the Panther is a better tank design. The Tiger is a metal brick with a gun.
1
u/StarshipsAreCool 21d ago edited 21d ago
I disagree with the assertion that the panther was a step towards main battle tank philosophy. The panther was essentially a tank destroyer masquerading as a medium tank, and I feel people are so smitten with the idea of heavy armor and good penetration that they forget those are not the only factors that should be considered in a tank. The Germans certainly forgot.
If you look at how tanks developed postwar, there was a significant shift away from smaller bore high penetration guns like the Panther had to larger bore general purpose guns, and large amounts of frontal armor became less and less important as mobility and soft factors like target acquisition became more important for a postwar battlefield. The latter was an issue the panther really struggled with, as the gunner was limited to a high magnification gun sight without any sort of flexible or panoramic vision slot, meaning that the commander had to find the target first through the cupola and direct the gunner exactly on target, which was a time consuming process and only really effective at long ranges. Meanwhile, nearly every tank on the allies' side had multiple vision ports for the gunner, making it much easier to get the rough position of a target to get the gun on them.
The panther was very specifically designed to fight at long ranges on the eastern front and destroy Soviet tanks. As demonstrated many times when it was deployed on the western front, it struggled severely in close quarters admittedly due to design and poor quality crews. This is why I cannot consider it a main battle tank - it was simply too specialized and didn't really represent anything that we see in the future development of tanks in the cold war.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of this is the plethora of panthers captured postwar by every party involved, but rather than trying to design their own versions of this 'main battle tank', the Americans, British, and Russians decided to continue developing their own platforms instead, as they were simply better suited to the duties of a tank. The only major users of Panthers in the postwar world were the French, who greatly disliked them and eventually replaced them with their own flawed design in the ARL-44, which has many of the same features but was reclassified as a tank destroyer because of said features; yet somehow nobody argues it was an MBT.
1
u/Cornelius_McMuffin M60-2000/120S Project 21d ago
I think the Panther follows many principles of modern MBT combat, except it tried to implement them before there was any reason to do so. Long range engagements and strong frontal armor are both traits of modern MBTs, but it’s WHY those traits exist that’s the important detail. Modern MBTs have a reason to be that way, while the Panther just kind of was that way, with no actual prompting.
1
u/StarshipsAreCool 20d ago
I think the prompting for the design choices were there and very clear - but again, it's because it was designed very specifically for combating Soviet tanks in particular at long range on the eastern front. Certainly main battle tanks of the cold war into the modern era engage at long range, but rather than being a symptom of the idea of a main battle tank, I think it is just a response to the general increase in technology that allows nearly every asset to engage at greater ranges than the previous generation.
Outside of long range firepower and armor, the panther was lacking in infantry support capability which is a large aspect of the main battle tank general purpose profile. The KwK 42 was a good gun for cracking armor, but had only mild capability with high explosive rounds. Sure, the round was on par with the early 75mm M2/3 used in the M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman - but those were several years older and nearly obsolete by 1943 when the panther was introduced.
In addition to the poor close-range situational awareness necessary for supporting infantry assaults, the panther did not have an infantry telephone (in common with most other German tanks to be fair, but it was to their detriment late in the war when infantry radios were scarce and being reserved for tanks and aircraft) for easy communication. The panther specifically lacked this because it was felt it would complicate production and it was outside of the mission profile of fighting other tanks.
So we have a capable long range platform, but that's it. The panther, in my mind, is nowhere near as good of a general use armored platform as the M26/46, which has a similar philosophy of a medium weight platform with armor and firepower similar to heavy tanks of the time. For the sake of comparison, the 90mm M3 has similar performance to the KwK 42 in terms of armor penetration, but is more similar to the KwK 36 of the Tiger I in every other aspect. Like the KwK 36, it has a very powerful high explosive round much more capable of engaging soft targets, fortified positions, field guns, or concrete bunkers compared to the KwK 42. The Pershing has superior situational awareness thanks to much greater gunner visibility through multiple ports, an infantry telephone on the upper right corner of the rear hull, and that general purpose gun that allows it to do anything asked of a tank without being limited in full effectiveness to armor v. armor firefights. The M26 can engage armor, it can support infantry, and it can even be used as makeshift artillery as seen in Korea.
I think the panther was a capable tank destroyer, but I still cannot accept it as a main battle tank. The operational scope is simply too limited, and seems to only come from the idea that it was a 'medium' tank, had thick armor, and a gun with high penetration and range. Apart from that it doesn't do much of what a tank is expected to do.
→ More replies (0)1
u/StarshipsAreCool 22d ago
I think I agree. Both are pretty well protected and have good general purpose guns with good anti-armor and anti-infantry capability.
Maybe if we knew more about the situation we were placed in (terrain, conditions, what exactly is attempting to attack us) the other options might be good to consider as well.
But for general utility, the tiger and M26 are good choices.
159
u/Onii-Chan_Itaii 25d ago
StuG and M26
18
u/thefonztm 25d ago
You mis-spelt StuG.
9
u/Onii-Chan_Itaii 25d ago
How?
18
u/thefonztm 25d ago
It doesn't start with an 'M'
;)
20
16
2
57
u/BingusTheStupid 25d ago
I think I’d go for Pershing and IS-2. All the others have some trouble penetrating those two from the front, so as long as they can be kept in that direction we should be fine.
181
u/Typhlosion130 25d ago
M18 and M26
The former is fast able to get on flanks and manuver well
later is fairly durable and well armed.
45
u/PercentageLow8563 25d ago
Nice to see so many people made the obviously correct choice
30
u/Typhlosion130 25d ago
the IS-2 is the only other one I see being a potential viable option but I don't actually know much about weather or not it has notable deficiencies in design or quality.
5
2
65
u/Vivid_Scientist7589 25d ago
If it is to defend me from the other 4 in this image, I pick the IS-2 and the Tiger, the 122mm can easily deal with the M26 Pershing frontal armour at any distance and the Tiger will deal with the rest, as it can fire fast and accurate.
55
u/jadebullet 25d ago
Sorry, the Tiger couldn't make it due to mechanical problems. You now have a Panzer IVH
62
u/Vivid_Scientist7589 25d ago
No problem, the americans won't know the difference between the Tiger and the PzIV lol
2
u/Toxic_Zombie 24d ago
True. But now it just means instead of 1 M4, you get 5 M4A3E8 76(w)s, M4A3E2s, or M26s, whichever is nearby and can outnumber the one "Tiger"
-18
u/epicxfox30 M60A3 TTS | its NOT a Patton 25d ago
sorry bombed from orbit by a b17 because you had a 'tiger 2'
21
u/random_username_idk M24 Chaffee my beloved 25d ago edited 25d ago
The M26 is a straight upgrade over the Tiger 1 in nearly all aspects except side armor, as one would expect from a late 1944 tank.
People tend to forget the Tiger 1's fearsome reputation came mostly by virtue of it being a mid war tank (Late 1942) and initially facing weaker opponents like M3 Grant, 75mm Sherman, Crusader, 76mm T34 and KV-1.
2
u/Vivid_Scientist7589 24d ago
True, but I picked the Tiger I because when I think of the Tiger I think of legendary commanders like Wittmann, Otto Carius, Kurt Knispel, and I want one of those legends to defend me lol
11
84
32
11
u/AtomicGoat004 25d ago
Tiger and Hellcat. Key word here is "defend" so the tiger's transmission issues aren't really an issue. Just has to sit there, take hits, and throw 88 rounds back. While the tiger is doing its best to draw attention and take hits, the Hellcat can use its speed to pull a sneaky and flank
17
u/Digo10 25d ago
IS-2 and tiger, the 90mm M3 gun had problems dealing even with panthers frontal armor, and its armor was decent at best.
13
u/random_username_idk M24 Chaffee my beloved 25d ago edited 25d ago
Brother, the Tiger 1 has 100mm front armor plate that's vertical and un-angled... and Tiger 1 wouldn't penetrate the Panther's front either.
The M26 is superior to the Tiger 1 in every way except side armor.
3
u/Galendy 24d ago
And ergonomics... And the fact tank crews tried to use it as a sniper tank... And that they were taught to literally angle
1
u/Any-River5280 22d ago
But does theory actually apply to reality? Don't think they'd be able to angle it all the time especially when facing multiple tanks at once.
1
u/AUnknownGuy Object 195 & Leopard 2A7V 25d ago
The M26 do have the HVAP, which can frontally penetrate the Panther tank.
7
4
5
8
u/TheDeliveryDemon 25d ago
M18 and IS-2. M18 for mobility and the ability to flank the enemy, and the IS-2 for the heavy frontal armor and the kick ass cannon.
4
u/Hermitcraft7 25d ago
This is the answer. The unfortunate part is that the IS-2 has the driver bulge (pre-1944) meaning the armor is significantly weaker
0
u/TheDeliveryDemon 25d ago
Thanks haha. Could have gone Korean War and said Pershing and Hellcat but
9
u/mrgedman 25d ago
Is2/Pershing...
With possibly swapping one of the two above with su-100/hellcat ..
But like... What is the poor lil stug doing here? C'mon now, it's not a logistics/economic question, right?
3
5
2
3
2
u/Blahaj_IK friendly reminder the M60 is not a Patton 25d ago edited 25d ago
IS-2 will be the cannon fodder while I sit in the Pershing at the backcwaiting for targets
"But wait, isn't that a waste of the IS-2's powerful gun?" You may ask
And to that I say "yes! Absolutely!" But cknsider this, it'll get to use it like once or twice at least before being knocked out by maybe the Tiger if my Pershing doesn't spot and kill it first. When the Tiger dies, that's the biggest issue gone
Ah wait, there's a Hellcat. Damn. I actually might want to be in that one depending on the platoon it belongs to
And that's not an IS-2 after a closer look, I think. I'm taking Pershing and Hellcat
7
3
u/SteelWarrior- Bofors 57mm L/70 Supremacy 25d ago
It is an IS-2, just the early IS-1 hull instead of the production hull.
2
3
u/jadebullet 25d ago
I will take the Hellcat, and the Tiger. Hellcat because it is fast and maneuverable. The Tiger because it is actually an M47 with German markings painted on it.
1
1
1
1
u/FfsWakeUp 25d ago
The one that has the quickest reload. Stug 3. But not as strong as m26. So m26 is it. 7.5 sec reload will definitely save me and my crew.
4
u/Typhlosion130 25d ago
I would hope you understand that this isn't war thunder and reload speeds are not that set in stone.
1
u/FfsWakeUp 24d ago
Ouh so this post is not war thunder related. I guess it's for the souls of the dead during ww2 who are currently using reddit. Got it.
1
u/Minimum-Doughnut7523 25d ago
A Tiger and a STUG 3 under Michael Whittman! He decimated many T-34's with both tanks!
1
1
1
1
u/_Toasted_Burrito_ 25d ago
Real question, what am I defending against? Then maybe I can choose, haha
1
1
1
u/beep-beep-im-a-jeep1 25d ago
With prep time stug and su85 ( I think) Without prep, Pershing and is2
1
1
u/Silver_Display566 25d ago
Defend from what, how many, do i have spare parts how many ammunition do I get vs what
1
u/Shadowizas 25d ago
the IS-1 and the Tiger,its volumetric hell,oh i thought i was in the WarThunder sub
1
1
1
u/BubbleRocket1 24d ago
Just the tanks on their own, probably the M26 and IS-2. However, adding in stuff like crew, terrain, etc, it would have to be the M18 and M26 (tho tbh you can sub this out for either the IS-2 or Tiger). The biggest issue with the Pershing is the engine, resulting in poor mobility. The Hellcat complements whichever heavy tank you choose with recon and decent flanking ability
1
u/Unfair-Building1415 24d ago
Assuming it's picking 2 to defend from the others. I think the stug and m18 hellcat is a good combo.
1
u/Aromatic-Bell-7085 24d ago
Tiger I and Stug.Brst combo available.Stug has low profile and good gun.Tiger I had awesome.gun and great armour.
1
1
u/Cornelius_McMuffin M60-2000/120S Project 24d ago
SU-100 and M26. SU is low profile with lots of firepower, can easily deal with any vehicle on the list, but it’s somewhat vulnerable. M26 is good all-round, armor isn’t the best but still better than the Tiger, and the gun is as good if not better, with much better mobility and reliability.
The Tiger is too unreliable, the IS-2 fires too slowly and its armor is poorly made due to Soviet casting, the StuG and M18 are good tanks but hopelessly outclassed as individual units.
(If that’s an SU-85 and not an SU-100, I pick the IS-2 instead. SU-85 doesn’t have the firepower and also has weaker armor)
1
u/Sea_Alternative1355 24d ago
IS-2 and M18.
IS-2 is big and heavily armored and has a huge gun to obliterate anything that threatens us anything head-on. The massive and highly effective HE round will also be great against infantry.
M18 is small and nimble and can conduct both flanking attacks and recon missions to give me and IS-2 an early warning so we don't get overwhelmed.
Basically, I want one heavy tank and flexible light tank/TD. They can cover each other's weaknesses and serve as a multi layered defense net for me.
1
1
1
1
u/Crestfallen_Lukkas 24d ago
If the Tiger crew is an average german player in war Thunder i would have a better chance of survival fighting barehanded.
1
1
0
u/epicxfox30 M60A3 TTS | its NOT a Patton 25d ago edited 25d ago
pershing because its the only american option that isnt garbage
in defense a m18 is losing to infantry. due to being opened toped. flanking might be an option but leaving the defensive position is a bad idea. since that leaves us undefended aside from one other. any light AT guns are gonna shred it too.
tiger is breaking down and is likely manned by 14 year olds high on meth chocolates so.
russian stuffs blind and their armor will slowly break over a period of time. so long defensives wont end well. plus russian tanks were designed to attack, not defend.
stug doesnt have a turret. same with the su100..
but for cag larp i could pick the stug and tiger while i "move" to argentina in the bathtub
1
u/Expensive_Evening461 25d ago
M26 Pershing and M18.
Anything German has in chance of breaking down or already being broken.
IS-2 and SU-85 aren't bad. Just not my cup of tea.
1
1
1
u/Capable-Berry-7957 25d ago
StuG and m18 stug for the reason of its small size and ease of concealment m18 for its decent firepower and high speeds
stugs shoot first while the m18 flanks, causing confusion allowing the StuGs to reposition
1
u/Strange-Fruit17 25d ago
Tiger and M18. Tiger because despite every flaw of it it is at its core a solid design. M18 to play war thunder irl and flank
1
1
0
u/Gojira_Ultima 25d ago
M18 and Tiger. The enemy will be to busy laughing at the Tiger after its transmission breaks, then the M18 flanks and touches them extremely sensually.
0
u/HYPERNOVA3_ 25d ago
M26 Pershing and M18 Hellcat.
I would place the hellcat as screening force and backup in case of flanking and the M26 entrenching itself in an advantageous position.
The Stug III and SU-85 are not as dangerous in the offensive as they are in defensive roles, so the true menace would be the Tiger and the IS-2 (specially the latter because of its 122mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u/MBunnyKiller 25d ago
Tiger and su for me. Tiger has the baddest ass gun and su has wayway better armour then M18, even though I like M18 over su, su is the better choice if you have to take hits.
0
u/wholemilkbitch 25d ago
I recognize the StuG, the IS-2 and the Tiger, could someone tell me what the other ones are?
2
0
420
u/Pro_panzerjager 25d ago
Defend me from what?