1945, which tank was better: Panzer 4, or T-34

[nuarbnellaffej]

An important thing to remember about tank design/any machinery design, is pretty much every feature has trade offs.

Take the sloped armor of the t-34 for example, something that is rightfully lauded as a real benefit, giving the tank higher effecrive armor thickness for less weight. The trade off for this sloped armor,is that the interior is extremely cramped, something that means the tank will take a lot of damage "if" it's' armor is peirced. And worse for the crew, the t-34 was extremely difficult to get out of in a hurry, which meant a lot of men died because they were stuck in the cramped tank.

Was this trade off worth it for the Soviets? I would say yes without a doubt. With that being said, my heart goes out to the tankers who met their maker in the flames and superheated smoke of a knocked out t-34.

 

[DoomBunny]

Less accurate, slower target acquisition, slower rate of fire, one fewer crew member (meaning one fewer pair of eyeballs to spot trouble), an extra few tons of weight meaning your suspension is in worse condition and your ground pressure is higher. Plus more ammo to catch on fire if something goes wrong. Also, did the 17 pounder have gyroscopic stabilization like the 75 and the 76?

If you had your choice between the easy 8 with a 76 and the firefly you would certainly be better off in the easy 8. It's just that the firefly was rushed to the front lines by the british while the americans were slow to put the 76mm on the frontlines. This let the quick fix that was the firefly get the fame even though it was inferior.

We've been through this before. You were wrong then, you're wrong now.

 

[LYNCHY]

Still inferior to a PZIV with a rail gun.

and that inferior to the mighty steel of the Leman Russ

 

[DoomBunny]

and that inferior to the mighty steel of the Leman Russ

The Leman Russ is superior in melee combat to any armoured vehicle of the Second World War...

 

[LYNCHY]

The Leman Russ is superior in melee combat to any armoured vehicle of the Second World War...

Also the only vehicle of the war to mount lascannons in the sponsons.

 

[keynes2.0]

We've been through this before. You were wrong then, you're wrong now.

And why, pray tell, should I trust your opinion over post-war testing of the guns and the analysis of Nicholas Moran?

 

[DoomBunny]

And why, pray tell, should I trust your opinion over post-war testing of the guns and the analysis of Nicholas Moran?

Because I'm Jesus.

BITCHES SEE ME ROLLIN' WID MY 17 £ER CREW,
THEY THINK THE 76MM BETTER
BUT THEY ALL JUST FOOS

 

[LYNCHY]

Does anyone think the 76mm is better? I thought the 17 pounder was widely regarded as the best anti tank weapon of the war? Was the Soviet 100mm not the only gun that could beat it, but it was so ridiculous that it isnt worth mentioning

 

[pithorr]

The Leman Russ is superior in melee combat to any armoured vehicle of the Second World War...

Not against Landkreuzer Ratte Tank

 

[DoomBunny]

Does anyone think the 76mm is better? I thought the 17 pounder was widely regarded as the best anti tank weapon of the war? Was the Soviet 100mm not the only gun that could beat it, but it was so ridiculous that it isnt worth mentioning

The 17-Pdr had some defects compared to the 76mm.

The HE round was less effective (hence one of the main reasons it was employed one per troop, a troop being 5 tanks), it also required the adaptation of the Sherman turret design, was less ergonomical (so slightly less rate of fire), and also slightly less accurate.

On the other hand, the 17-Pdr also provided far better tank killing ability, particularly at short range when equipped with the sabot ammunition that began to arrive in August 1944.

Really I'd say that both the British and Americans chose a viable approach to tank design and use, with not much between them. The 76mm and 17-Pdr both had their advantages and disadvantages, many of which were offset or skewed by the differing way they were issued. At the same time, neither was necessary in regards to most German tanks which a standard Sherman 75mm could happily kill. Essentially it comes down to having some added punch around to kill that odd German tank that isn't a Pz IV, STUG, etc...

 

[Fishman786]

Not against Landkreuzer Ratte Tank

That is one of the most hideous misuses of the Bryce graphics package I've seen in a long time.

 

[kaoss]

The Leman Russ is superior in melee combat to any armoured vehicle of the Second World War...

Bagger 288, not WWII, though.

 

[LYNCHY]

The 17-Pdr had some defects compared to the 76mm.

The HE round was less effective (hence one of the main reasons it was employed one per troop, a troop being 5 tanks), it also required the adaptation of the Sherman turret design, was less ergonomical (so slightly less rate of fire), and also slightly less accurate.

On the other hand, the 17-Pdr also provided far better tank killing ability, particularly at short range when equipped with the sabot ammunition that began to arrive in August 1944.

Really I'd say that both the British and Americans chose a viable approach to tank design and use, with not much between them. The 76mm and 17-Pdr both had their advantages and disadvantages, many of which were offset or skewed by the differing way they were issued. At the same time, neither was necessary in regards to most German tanks which a standard Sherman 75mm could happily kill. Essentially it comes down to having some added punch around to kill that odd German tank that isn't a Pz IV, STUG, etc...

And how do they stack up against the T34's 85mm gun?

 

[keynes2.0]

(so slightly less rate of fire)

If by "slightly less" you mean "twice as long to load"

After trying a few loaders out, with times varying from 1.1 seconds (standing, round in hand) to 3.2 seconds (standing, round on floor) to get an average and to find the best loader, they tried for a ‘mad minute’. The crew were able to fire 8 rounds in 44 seconds. The report notes, however, that “The 17-pounder gun rate of ten rounds per minute, computed from the actual firing of 8 rounds in 44 seconds, should be qualified by the understanding that this was done by a man of exceptional skill and that for the average man the rate will be nearer to 8 rounds per minute”. It also points out that as the Sherman VC ready rack only holds five rounds, such a rate is also unlikely. Further, it was also considered to be faster than the TC and gunner could sense and correct rounds at ranges under 2,000 yards. The 90mm was rated at 8rpm, (with ten ready rounds), and the M4(76) at 20rpm, although with only 6 ready rounds.

Admit it dude, the firefly was the inferior tank.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

If by "slightly less" you mean "twice as long to load"



Admit it dude, the firefly was the inferior tank.

Can you guys chill?, my spider sense is tingling. Which tank was "the best/inferior" is very situational imo. One thing we should also keep in mind about Sherman vs firefly, that no one has mentioned yet, is the psychological benefit for allied troops, knowing they had a tank with a big 'ol badass AT gun! Even if that big cannon came with some drawbacks.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Can you guys chill?, my spider sense is tingling. Which tank was "the best/inferior" is very situational imo. One thing we should also keep in mind about Sherman vs firefly, that no one has mentioned yet, is the psychological benefit for allied troops, knowing they had a tank with a big 'ol badass AT gun! Even if that big cannon came with some drawbacks.

Same reason why Guderian wanted there to be at least some tanks that could take down anything Soviets had.

 

[keynes2.0]

Which tank was "the best/inferior" is very situational imo.

I'm sorry but who was saying anything else? Sure there are definitely situations where you want that little bit of extra punch that a 17 pounder has over a 76mm and aren't too worried about your ability to hit in the first place. But hitting in the first place was important more often and the firefly was the worst sherman in that regard.

To be honest, I find your attitude counterproductive and condescending. If you dont have something worthwhile to say dont judge people who feel like getting into the weeds.

One thing we should also keep in mind about Sherman vs firefly, that no one has mentioned yet, is the psychological benefit for allied troops, knowing they had a tank with a big 'ol badass AT gun! Even if that big cannon came with some drawbacks.

Even assuming without evidence that a big gun makes them happy, how about the M36 tank destroyer which had a bigger gun then the firefly and was slightly more common then the firefly? Or how about the 105mm and 155mm artillery that would be in every infantry division?

 

[LYNCHY]

Or just take a bunch of IS-2s. Coolest tank of the war, cracking gun and armour, plus it is also the coolest.

T34s are also a wise choice. Very low cost points wise, and when it comes to late war books they generally have hardened veteran crews, outmatching any german army. A few infantry support platoons and maybe a squad of katyushas and your game. Plus T34s are very easy to paint and if you go with cheaper plastic options like PSC you have a very economic army too.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

To be honest I find your attitude counterproductive and condescending. If you dont have something worthwhile to say dont judge people who feel like getting into the weeds

In retrospect, I think you are right about me not really contributing to the discussion(though still more so than the spam posts above ). But i shouldnt have singled you out, or anything so my bad.

Would you say the allied commanders over reacted post Normandy, when they wanted more fire flies? "common wisdom" says the firefly was better, but common wisdom is often wrong. One should never underestimate the effect of bad ergonomics.

 

[LYNCHY]

In retrospect, I think you are right about me not really contributing to the discussion(though still more so than the spam posts above ). But i shouldnt have singled you out, or anything so my bad.

Would you say the allied commanders over reacted post Normandy, when they wanted more fire flies? "common wisdom" says the firefly was better, but common wisdom is often wrong. One should never underestimate the effect of bad ergonomics.

Well with all the crap above me i thought i may as well post something that was actually right.