I would say the T54/55 series were the best tank design in history. Of course better more modern designs came later but taken in one single time, this tank was IMO the best design.
To get all that armor, firepower and capability in a tank scarecly heavier than a T34 was a design miracle.
For it's time period of the late 1940s it was the best tank and the fasct thsat so many are still around speaks very well of it. To give you some perspective how long living the T54/55 series was, its basic chassis design used on the T44 which saw limited combat late in WW2 so dont mind the drubbings it recieved from 35 year newer designs like M1 Abrams in the gulf.
Its 100mm gun was more powerful than Panther's 75mm more powerful than Tiger I 88mm more than the US 90mm or the british 17lbr, its Armor was nearly that of Kingtiger all at T34 weight and with even simpler construction and a much better suspension. T54/55 is simply amazing.
Compare it to the US tanks of the late 40s period like M26 Pershing and its one hell of a weapon. Compare its numbers in production and its total fighting capability circa 1955/60 and you will quickly see why the usa europe defense strategy was to use nukes.
After T54/55 I think the most underrated tank is the British centurion. Also like t44/54/55, a late ww2 design the centurion had enormous growth potential in armor and firepower. Initially armed with the 17lbr, later upgraded to the 20lbr (a gun with much better penetration than Kingtigers 88/L71) and finally to the famed L7 105mm that went on to arm 2 generations of Nato/US tanks including the initial M1 Abrams. Not bad for a 1945 tank that gets so little press. Its armor was also upgraded through its very long service life.
The T34 is somewhat of a mixed bag, a truth belayed by the fact that soviet tank designers tried on several occasions to design a T34 replacement, even in the dark days of 41/42 when every tank was needed. Its suspension was primitive, it was nutoriously hard/finnicky to drive and shift gears, it had a terrible turret layout, terrible ammo layout, poor visibilty, poor command setup etc etc etc. Whjat made it's reputation was simply the glaring weakness of 1941 era german tank mounted guns. If the 1941 panzers mounted longer 75mm or even the high velocity 50mm/L60 as hitler had wanted then we would have heard little of the T34. But with Panzer 3 doing only with a 37mm or short 50mm and panzer 4 only with a 75mm close support howitzer the T34 made its name in history and saved the ussr.
Sherman gets a very bad rap. In summer 1942 it was one of the worlds best tanks. Its armor and firepower were clearly superior to Panzer IVF1 and its overall combat capability was better than contemporary T34. Where Sherman failed was in the us armys tank fighting doctorine where the best guns and ammo went to dedicated tank destyroyer units. So while the Pz IV was upgunned to high velocity 75m guns in 1942 the sherman larely went on with its old low velocity 75mm gun - dervied from a ww1 french field artierly piece of all things. Even when shermans got 76mm guns in 1944 the best AP ammo went to the Tank destroyer units and even worse the 76mm shermans were rather rare. IMO it was a crime that US Shermans never got upgraded to the 17lbr british gun, this would have given the US soldier Panther level firepower and would have saved many many US lives in 1944. Shermans other wekness was its very tall shiloutte because the early models were powered by an aircraft radial engine. Finally one Sherman weakness that gets overblown (sic) is its tendancy to catch fire because it was gasoline powered. Well this was true and it was a big problem, however what irks me is the fact that all significant german tanks were also gasoline powered and burned very quickly too. For example Panther side armor is scarely beter than shermans when being shot at by 1944 guns so panthers burned very easily too, but you almost never hear that as a weakness.
