Was the T-44 the best tank of WW2?

>>3046329
Nah, that would be the Centurion.

Easy 8 bruh.

>can be produced on converted automobile production lines, which US has a ton of
>exceptionally reliable everything
>good gun, armor, etc

>>3046331
is it as mobile as the T-44? Seems quite a bit heavier.

>>3046331
Didn't fight in WW2.

File: M4 Sherman.jpg (134KB, 1024x801px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x801px

All things considered probably either the T-44 (didn't see action though) or some upgunned Sherman variant like the E8 >>3046333
Sufficient Armor against infantry and light AT, good multi-purpose guns, good reliability (especially the Sherman) and most importantly easy and cheap production.

If you look solely at the single tank's performance I'd unironically say the Tiger I.
Very good gun (both AT and HE, very fast reload times), very good crossroad performance, sufficient speed, very good optics, very good armor against everything but late-war gun & round designs, very good ergonomics, 5 man crew & radio from the start (not taken for granted at the beginning of WW2) and still somewhat light enough to be sane and usable.

Other heavies such as the IS series had either shit guns (very inaccurate and slow rate of fire) or were ridicilously heavy (Tiger II)

File: Tiger I.jpg (654KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 2048x1536px

>>3046581

>>3046581

> very good armor against everything but late-war gun & round designs

It was vulnerable to 85mm D-5T, 76mm M1, and 3" M5. By 1944 these guns were everywhere.

>>3046611
that is right, but these guns had to get relatively near (I know in urban and close-range combat that was normal) to destroy the Tiger from the front (the armor was still strong while the tanks fielding these guns could be destroyed from kilometers of distance by the Tiger (the 88mm was very accurate, too)

>>3046581
Tiger was frankly outdated when it came out, well, not so long after at least.

>>3046666
because of what exactly except for the sloped armor meme?

>>3046671
thin roof armour, not very impressive frontal armour. Heavy. Maintenance. Fuel economy was bad.

File: Panzer III (2).jpg (426KB, 1600x883px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1600x883px

>>3046677
>thin roof armour
as every ww2 tank
>not very impressive frontal armour
up until 1944 it was the best out there (with the panther & is-2) and after that still sufficient
>Heavy.
agreed, but not as much of a problem as with Tiger II
>Maintenance. Fuel economy was bad.
not the fault of the tank but the logistics

Then there is the thing that the Centurion Mk1 has better frontal armour, arguably better cannon and mobility.