Which was better in WWII, The German tiger Tank, or the US Sherman?

Tiger is definitly better then the Sherman, though the firefly(brit mod for 17pdr gun) mod did help things along. The Tigers failure was in large part due to the fact that is wasn't backed up by sufficient numbers of medium tanks like the Panzer VI and Panther. The Sherman really was just a crappy tank, it's speed dosen't excuse that it was slower then the T-34 which had better protection and a better gun.

tiger all the way
bigger and better gun
better armor

Tiger over the sherman. there is no comparison..... but we have learned one thing, he who produces the most BIC lighters wins

ah but that depends
sure u can have quantity but if the enemy have tech and the reasources u will not win

Well, war of attrition is just insane. Anyone know a man by the name Ulysses Grant? There were actually battles in which he won, but lost more infantry than the opposing army. His tactic was to overwhelm the enemy, at any cost, and take down the central commanders/leaders.

Originally posted by devilwasp
ah but that depends
sure u can have quantity but if the enemy have tech and the reasources u will not win

Soldiers win wars not weapons.

i watched a show on pbs that said the tiger was much more advanced at the time.....their armor was twice as strong as the shermans. america produced the shermans in large quantities because they were not that expensive. they said a story about how a sherman got 100 yards and fired a direct shot and the shot just bounced off the front of the tiger....they said you need to be 50 yards or something to penetrate....wich is far closer then the tiger needs to anhialate the sherman. thats all if i remember correctly...

Historians argue if it was ever even used in WW2... but the Joseph Stalin 3 would have owned any tank the Germans had to offer.

using the shermann was a better strategical decision. And the results of the land war point to that also.

Originally posted by omega1
using the shermann was a better strategical decision. And the results of the land war point to that also.

I think it was more a result of allied air superiority.

The Tiger was a bad offensive weapon because of it's mechanical unreliability, it broke down constantly and was slow. It was however, a great defensive weapon, when not having to move it could keep shooting and keep taking hits.

Originally posted by devilwasp
ah but that depends
sure u can have quantity but if the enemy have tech and the reasources u will not win

Not always the case. The Germans for the most part, outclassed the rest of the world in almost every area for a few years....

Even if you have the best equipment and considerable resources, you can only shoot at one enemy at a time. That is why the allies had to dispatch 3 Shermans to fight every Tiger.

That sucks. I would rather prefer be in a Tiger rather than a Sherman, knowing that the enemies tank was much more stronger than yours. Although soldiers win a war, intimidated soldiers have a lower morale, which can lead to more devastation than the other army alone.

tiger all the way, vetran tankers say (from both sides) that they would rather use a panzer anyday.(source is iether ultimate tanks or battle stations on bbc) 10 shermans for every panzer won the war, numbers instead of quality.

sry ment tiger instead of panzer.

ehem... the T-34/85 was the best tank of WW2. Reasons... Well it is fast, A powerful gun (85mm), Its is able to take shots and is very reliable and saw war in the 1980's. T-34/80 was the ultimate offensive tank. German soldiers on the run hate being chased by T-34's because there are many stories of them crushing german soldiers and over running armies because they're too fast. The wide tracks enabled the vehicle to traverse all types of ground, including soft mud and snow, allowing them to operate where german tanks could not travel.

Here is a quote from the Collins Jane's Tanks of WWII book.
"The T-34/85 was regarded by the germans as the best tank in the world."

Oh and im all sure you have heard that American tankers call the shermans "Burning coffins"

Fact of the matter is that almost all of the german weapons in WW2 were vastly superior to the allies by the end of the war. But it wasnt the tech that decided the outcome it was the industrial base. While the germans were embracing the concept of total war (100% of all the coutries money and material) the united states was complaining that they might have to allocate as MUCH as 10% of thier economy to the war effort. For another example of this take a look at the liberty ships and you'll see why the germans lost as son as the U.S. entered. On the flip side if the U.S. had not entered the war france, england, poland, holland, and the rest of western europe would be terrtories of germania now

well ask any WWII tanker from both sides they would all tell you the same thing. tiger.

man of course the german tiger....it has a longer barrel for a more accurate shot and a more modern body frame which makes it look cooler too lol

Originally posted by PolskieWojsko
American WWII Sherman tanks are not even worthy to talk about...
A better comparison would be T-34 vs Tiger tank.

Fine piece of Soviet equipment:

Soviet T-34 Tank



Whilst the comparison is somewhat closer than a Sherman to a Tiger, the T-34 was still overmatched in armour and weaponry.
The Soviet IS series of heavy tanks were the king of the battlefield, anything mounting a 122mm cannon is a scary piece of hardware.




[Edited on 28-5-2004 by PolskieWojsko]

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by PolskieWojsko]