Well this sort of question is about has hard to answer as Best Tank.
Japanese Tanks were crap by European standards, and would have been slaughtered in open Ground combat by most European American Tanks (in fact often were)Taken into context on the other and, the quality often forgotten in this sort of question
Take into account time and place were the tanks saw action, and numbers. Early in the fighting in the Pacific the Japanese tanks had the one quality that was most important, They were there fighting. The Sherman’s that would crush them with ease were not, Yet later the Sherman was there in the fight, Late war the easy to maintain Sherman that was small enough to fit on Tank Landing craft was a better tank one on one for the US than a Tiger tank for the German’s in Europe. Even taking into account they fought in poor Tank country.
Early war for example Matilda in early mid 1940 was a very tough nut to crack and just did mass murder on Italian armour it faced and did a great job in France and Africa. Yet in France was not there in the numbers needed and doctrine was crap.
Yet if used well was devastating. Main failing not being there in numbers when needed.
Matilda early on crushed all Italian opposition the Italians threw at it with ease. Yet in Africa was short ranged and unreliable, and very difficult to make.
What qualities are needed, Sherman was about as big as the US was going to start the Battle in Europe with, small narrow size was needed to it in things like Landing craft Tank, It was tall and high, One on one a 75mm Sherman was at a disadvantage vs a Panzer IV let alone the German Heavies, yet one quality you forget when making a question like this is. “Quantity”, that as the Russians say is a quality all important. It was there and there in massive numbers. German Major failed on this part.
Most of the lat war development was not on monsters like the Maus but E range of Tanks E10 a Hetzer replacement that was armed the same yet designed to be easier to make. E25 Panzer IV body replacement Tank destroyer with long 75mm. designed to be much easier to make. E50 an easier tank to make than a Panther and so on. What quality did all these late designs that failed to be built in numbers for combat? “Being easier to make”, all these comments about best/worst tank. Why was it the Germans? Wanted the one quality the US and USSR already had, Ease of production. The one quality the Germans failed the most in. Most weapons the Germans made were over engineered and it was only at the end when being swamped in such massive numbers they desperately wanted That most important quality of a tank having one there were needed when needed, As all these overly complicated German Broken down Tanks that were also running out of fuel failed. And failed big time.
This question needs to take into account when the tank saw service and in how big a numbers.
The Sherman was more often were it was needed in Numbers than the Tiger the T34 was more often were it was needed in numbers than a Panther, How is it they are worse designs?? A tank is not only there to fight other Tanks but be there as part of a balanced force. The German armour failed and the numbers they had and the effort put into Tank destroyers (easier to make than the tank equivalent) compared Tanks was they were failing to stop the allies Tanks,
What is a better tank the one at your side or the better one you might get ?
