Best Infantry Support Tank of WW2

Jun 2012
5,700
Texas
#11
No one has noted the SU/ISU 152 yet? 100+ lb shells that can blow up a bunker or the turret off a tiger.

Alternatively the humble SU 76, the second most produced fighting vehicle on the Eastern Front.
 
Jan 2015
3,191
Rupert's Land ;)
#12
No one has noted the SU/ISU 152 yet? 100+ lb shells that can blow up a bunker or the turret off a tiger.

Alternatively the humble SU 76, the second most produced fighting vehicle on the Eastern Front.
SU 76 and Stug III are good assault guns, good candidates for infantry support.
SU 152 was a monster
 
Apr 2018
338
India
#14
Well this may sound stupid (I'm no expert) but I'll give it a go.

Four years back I visited the Cavalry Tank Museum at Ahmednagar, India. Among their exhibits are two Churchills, one Valentine and one Matilda. One thing that struck me was the height of Churchill's chassis. I mean if a Churchill presents its one side to the enemy, infantry can use the other side for cover with a good amount of comfort. With little improvisation, such as a chunck of concrete, an ammo box or an elevated sidewalk, soldiers can, with reasonable safety, fire their weapons over the chassis. Since the turret is small compared to the overall length of the chassis, 3-5 men can do this. This along with the tank's own 75 mm gun and coax MG could direct tremendous firepower towards the enemy. Also while moving straight, the trailing infantry can remain covered behind the leading tank. Both of these maneuvers, I think, are quite risky with a Matilda because of its low chassis. Can't say anything about the Valentine as I didn't take much interest in it.

These are just an amateur's observations.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,258
South of the barcodes
#17
Panzer IV but only those with short barreled (i think it was 50mm gun but im not sure).
Anything before the model F2 used a short barrelled KWK 24 75mm gun for infantry support.

The Panzer 3 N did the same job with the same gun later.
 
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#20
Sherman was not an ideal infantry tank.

Armour was definitely important, as supporting offensive infantry operations would often involve assaulting enemy fortifications and defense lines which would almost always have AT guns.
Which Sherman was not an ideal infantry tank? The flame thrower variant? The Assault/Jumbo version that had as much armor as a Tiger I?

There were no tanks in the entire war that weren't vulnerable to the organic AT weapons of defending infantry, be they hand held, shoulder fired, wheeled, towed, self propelled. Some were better than others, but the Sherman was actually a pretty good infantry tank in that 1. It was present (because they could make them and ship them overseas in such numbers) 2. It had a good gun and sufficient armor to support infantry to accomplish their mission

Like everything, tanks are a tool, and they are expendable. A tank does not need to be invincible or nearly so in order to be useful or successful. It just needs to accomplish its mission. M4 Medium Tank/Shermans, even the standard M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3 used in infantry support roles almost always accomplished their mission.
 

Similar History Discussions