http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.fi/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1
I don't know what is best tank, but link provides interesting reading.
I don't know what is best tank, but link provides interesting reading.
- 14
- 12
- 9
Interesring link about T-34 - NOT the best tank in the war?
- Thread starter TheRomanRuler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well, it's been a while since we argued about tanks. I suppose if people can behave, we might as well have another one.
- 21
- 3
- 1
I think everyone knows the T-34, at an individual basis, was most certainly not a good tank. But it filled the role the Soviets needed and thus helped them immensely with their victory.
- 30
- 8
- 1
Best meaning highest performance divided by resource and manpower cost, or best in terms of 1vs1 compared to other tanks of same class (medium)?
Edit: Also one of the best features of the T-34 is that it was in service from the start of the war whereas Shermans and Panthers only arrived later. How do we account for that advantage in our discussion of the "best tank"? (the same problem exists with the Zero plane, it was not the best by the end but it was available from the start and very effective in the early days.
Edit: Also one of the best features of the T-34 is that it was in service from the start of the war whereas Shermans and Panthers only arrived later. How do we account for that advantage in our discussion of the "best tank"? (the same problem exists with the Zero plane, it was not the best by the end but it was available from the start and very effective in the early days.
Last edited:
- 21
Some guy that I don't know found a link to a website that I don't know, where another guy that I don't know claims a tank isn't as good as we supposedly know. Good thread introduction.
Yep sure:
The Sherman was bad because it had too thin armor and a weak gun
The Panther was too advanced for its time and was hard to maintain
The Tiger 1 and 2 were too heavy and slow
and so on
So now T34 is bad because it doesn't have enough space and wasn't revolutionary enough. Fits right in doesn't it?
People always find some stupid reason to talk down some tank while in reality most of the tanks were designed to
fit a certain role, so of course there were tradeoffs! And there is NO best tank for the whole war. For example a tiger during the invasion of Poland would have been a complete overkill and probably slowed down the whole thing...
Yep sure:
The Sherman was bad because it had too thin armor and a weak gun
The Panther was too advanced for its time and was hard to maintain
The Tiger 1 and 2 were too heavy and slow
and so on
So now T34 is bad because it doesn't have enough space and wasn't revolutionary enough. Fits right in doesn't it?
People always find some stupid reason to talk down some tank while in reality most of the tanks were designed to
fit a certain role, so of course there were tradeoffs! And there is NO best tank for the whole war. For example a tiger during the invasion of Poland would have been a complete overkill and probably slowed down the whole thing...
- 28
- 5
"Best tank of WWII" is a very controversial topic, with many experts arguing for different tanks based on their strengths and weaknesses. But they don't all argue their point from the same data, there's quite a bit of difference floating around depending on where you're sourcing them from.
You'll generally see people arguing in favour of either the T34, the Sherman, or the Panther. A few like the P4 as well.
You'll generally see people arguing in favour of either the T34, the Sherman, or the Panther. A few like the P4 as well.
- 6
Thanks for the text and for starting what will hopefully be a fun and civil discussion.
The effectivness of german armored formations can not solely be explained by a mechanical perspective. The Pz.III might have been able to decently combat the T-34 ("decent" being the operative word), but that is in no small part due to the skill and experience of german tank crews (and russian lack thereof) and the availability of air support. The radio, which is described as a significant advantage in the text, was no doubt a more deadly weapon in german hands than it would have been russian, due to the situation in the air and the offensive nature of their strategy.
The effectivness of german armored formations can not solely be explained by a mechanical perspective. The Pz.III might have been able to decently combat the T-34 ("decent" being the operative word), but that is in no small part due to the skill and experience of german tank crews (and russian lack thereof) and the availability of air support. The radio, which is described as a significant advantage in the text, was no doubt a more deadly weapon in german hands than it would have been russian, due to the situation in the air and the offensive nature of their strategy.
- 1
Well, Germans have nothing comparable to T34 in 1941. It is inevitable that competition would bring better tank from other side.
But one thing is sure, best or worst, this is the tank that helped Soviets to win. Imagine Soviet tank armies equipped with T26 marching on Berlin.
But one thing is sure, best or worst, this is the tank that helped Soviets to win. Imagine Soviet tank armies equipped with T26 marching on Berlin.
- 2
KV-2 laughs at littleman tenks KV-2 fitted with armor forged by Stalin himself destroy little fascist tenk with the 152mm portable nuke launcher......
I'm sorry I found it too funny to resist.
I'm sorry I found it too funny to resist.
- 16
I don´t know why people love comparing tanks as if the war was fought in world of tanks 5v5 duels.
Almost all tanks did their job well. Its nonsense to fanwank about them
Almost all tanks did their job well. Its nonsense to fanwank about them
- 14
- 1
One KV-2 did once hold up an entire German tank division for a day, until it ran out of ammunition. STRONK
- 5
Didn't you see the latest dev diary they made entirely about Matilda tanks?
Very good point what the crew thought of their tank often depended on whether it had been kept in production long enough to become obsolete. Also it depended on what oposition they were facing.
I thought this article did a very clear job of pointing out the faults of the T34. But it didnt dwell on their advantages.
Emphasis (my own) on the bold part about the sherman is a complete and utter myth. The Sherman had better armour protection then the T-34 in both effective and raw.
The Sherman (m4a1 and forward)
Upper Glacis
64mm curved from 37 degrees through 57 degrees off the vertical, with the majority of the plate being around 55 degree off the vertical.
This gives a range of 80mm-117.5mm, with the majority being around 111.5mm of EA
Some earlier variants (before m4a1) used 51mm giving a range of 63.8mm-93.6mm with the majority being 89mm of EA
This gives a range of 80mm-117.5mm, with the majority being around 111.5mm of EA
Some earlier variants (before m4a1) used 51mm giving a range of 63.8mm-93.6mm with the majority being 89mm of EA
Lower Glacis
51mm-108mm of armour at 56 degrees to 0 degrees off the vertical
This gives a range of 91.2mm to 108mm of EA
This gives a range of 91.2mm to 108mm of EA
Front Turret Face + Mantlet
64mm curved from 40 degree to 45 degrees off the vertical + 89mm unsloped mantlet.
This gives a range of 83.5mm - 90.5mm + 89mm, for a total range of 83.5mm - 179.5mm EA
This gives a range of 83.5mm - 90.5mm + 89mm, for a total range of 83.5mm - 179.5mm EA
The T-34 (most common variant)
Upper Glacis
47mm sloped at a steady 60 degrees off the vertical
This gives 94mm of EA
This gives 94mm of EA
Lower Glacis
45mm sloped at a steady 60 degrees off the vertical
This gives 90mm of EA
This gives 90mm of EA
Turret Face
60mm + 40mm mantlet both unsloped
This gives a range of 60mm - 100mm.
This gives a range of 60mm - 100mm.
As shown in these numbers the Sherman does in fact have better frontal armour then the T-34 (both 76 and 85 variants had identical effective amour). Additionally the Sherman has more raw armour, which is a significant factor, for shells in real life 'normalize' ie they try to get to a perpendicular angle when they hit targets and you also have to factor in overmatch when calculating Real Effective Armour. Overmatch in this case would be calculated by using armour/shell diameter.
So in a hypothetical example using the Panzer 4 H long barrel 75mm gun (~112mm +/-20% of penetration on a 30 degree angle at 100m) we see:
*note* I'm using 5 degree for normalization, that is about the average with standard WW2 kinetic energy rounds to my knowledge.
Sherman Frontal Armour
Upper Glacis
( 64mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (55 -5) ) - 1 ) * 64/75) ) = 94mm of REA
( 64mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (55 -5) ) - 1 ) * 64/75) ) = 94mm of REA
T-34 Frontal Armour (both 76 and 85 variant)
Upper glacis
( 47mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (60 -5) ) - 1 ) * 45/75) ) = 65mm of REA
( 60mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (50 -5) ) - 1 ) * 60/75) ) ) = 80mm of REA
( 47mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (60 -5) ) - 1 ) * 45/75) ) = 65mm of REA
( 60mm * ( 1 + ( ( ( 1 / cos (50 -5) ) - 1 ) * 60/75) ) ) = 80mm of REA
*note 2* my overmatch equations are not perfect so depending on the source number will vary.
With overmatch and normalization taken into account it can be seen that while all 3 tanks will be penetrated by the Panzer 4H at 100m, the Sherman (M4a1) is the tank that does in fact have the most actual armour. The fact that the armour is essentially meaningless at 100m is another matter of course. (The bottom end of the penetration scale for the Pz4 being ~103mm of penetration)
The sides and rear armour is mostly irrelevant since the vast majority of combat is shooting at the front of enemy tanks. If request I can calculate for them however.
Edit: Fixed errors in formula
Last edited:
- 7
- 3
How why didn't the tank division just surround a singular tank????
- 2
- 1
I would agree to an extent I would say the T-34 was the best tank by far when it first came out which is why it did so well but if we are going into the technical capacities of a tank then there are better tanks so It was the best tank because of how much it outclassed the tanks it was facing but later in the war there were better tanks even better tanks of the same variant T34-85 is basically the same with a different turret and an even better gun.
- 4
it really depends on what particular model of a tank you are talking about. what playing the hell out of the T-34 variants in War Thunder has taught me is that that there's really no right answer since they can all be countered. T-34 1940? sucks. T-34-57 and T-34-85? mean as hell and the bane of their panzer contemporaries.
- Status