Interesring link about T-34 - NOT the best tank in the war?

[Gethsemani]

"The war" is way too broad a category. Keep in mind that tanks in 1939 were considered well armed if they had a 50mm main gun and 50mm of unsloped front armor. Just some three years later that would be considered very inadequate with the gold standard having become a 75-76mm gun and at least 50mm sloped armor. In 1941 the T-34 was a revolutionary tank with some glaring drawbacks (two man turret, poor vision, inadequate radios) that could stand virtually uncontested by any contemporary German tank. In 1943 the T-34 was a fairly average tank with the same drawbacks pulling it down immensely compared to what other nations had begun fielding (upgunned Panzer IVs, M4 Sherman). In 1945 the T-34/76 was just short of antiquated and the T-34/85 was pretty mediocre when compared to what other nations had in service (Panthers, M4A3).

Best tank of the war? As others have said, if we are to decide on a best tank of the war it would have to be from a "strategical impact"-view, since the measure of what was a competitive tank changed rapidly all throughout the war. From the strategic impact view it only comes down to two tanks: The T-34 and the M4. They were the only tanks that were produced in sufficient numbers, performed the same role adequately throughout the war and showed a reliability that most other tanks lacked. Both the T-34 and the M4 (all variants for both tanks) allowed their respective users strategical freedom thanks to availability, overall performance and reliability. Whatever it is the T-34 or the M4 is a toss up in my opinion, both where good tanks and became great due to how well they fit into their respective nations doctrinal use of tanks.

 

[armchrgnrl]

Having worked 15 years in the automotive industry and been part of a team that extensively reviewed the Avtovaz factory in Tolyatti and the Kirov tractor, steelworks and industrial complex in St. Pete (which also still produces submarine engines), I can guarantee you, in the words of the Russian chief engineers of these plants, that the USSR never possessed anything like Germany's engineering capabilities at any point in history (in fact Kirov use Mercedes Benz tractor engines today because no company in Russia is capable of producing a competitive engine). They are immensely proud of the T-34's role in the defense of the USSR and the defeat of Germany, but privately admit that in and of itself it was not the super weapon of legend and that in the 30s and 40s the USSR was only just learning what reliability and standardization even meant.

To paraphrase their own words, the USSR's massive manpower, raw materials and industrial output (not quality) advantage over Germany was like playing chess with 5 times the pieces of your opponent, on a board that was 5x the size, even if their pawns could move 2 squares at a time and your knights limited to just a short hop.

For almost every defect of the T-34 and Soviet tank doctrine, you have an advantage.

Con: The T-34's armour was often insufficient in terms of quality and thickness.
Pro: The sloping of the armour compensated for these deficiencies.

Con: the T-34 was cramped inside which made it harder to operate
Pro: each tank cost less to produce in almost every major category and had a lower profile.

Con: The T-34 had poor off-road stability.
Pro: Wide tracks allowed it greater range and speed in mud and snow.

Con: The 76mm gun lacked the muzzle velocity of German counterparts.
Pro: It had a 76mm gun in 1941!

Con: no radios
Pro: cheaper to produce and quicker to train (mostly illiterate) crews

Con: it was not very reliable
Pro: a large but unsophisticated industry could build lots of them quickly

As many people have written, it was the right tank for its purpose.

The USSR excelled at pumping out masses of relatively unsophisticated but highly effective weapons (PPSh, SVD, Katyusha), used by relatively unsophisticated but brave soldiers who were dying for the Motherland, not for a Tsar. A good friend of mine's grandfather invented the rocket propellant used in the Katyusha (and subsequently went on to become an important contributor to the USSR space programme). It was a very simple weapon, but devastating, and epitomised the Soviet approach to winning the war. The T-34 fits perfectly into this picture, with all of its defects and advantages. Westerners are obsessed with the concept of "best this" and "best that." Every product has pros and cons and a debate that requires "ceteris paribus" isn't really a debate.

 

[qer]

I was going to post a lengthy wall of text comparing each tank , but I think it will be useless as the article himself. The t-34 wasn't a perfect tank, but there is such a thing as perfect tanks? The idea of having the best tank is ridiculous it self in a war that lasted for 6 years. Tanks that were good in 1941 would become worse in 1942. The Matilda is a good example: perfect against the Italians, but inadequate against more modern German tanks and guns. The t-34 and kv-1 are good examples as well: clearly Superior in 1941, but as the German introduce new modifications and guns they became less effective. The Sherman was a good tank in the desert ,but the 75mm was a joke in 1944 against the now more numerous panthers. I can continue with more examples, but the question of the best tank is fallacious without giving a certain time period and without and specification of what the best tank is.that the t-34 was the best tank of the war is true for some people, while others may argue that it wasn't and both would be right. No single design is perfect, and without a definition of which characteristics make a tank better or worse and without a clear time period, one can highlight weakness and make his thesis be true. Like that article does: it makes a lot of comparisons only to highly the t-34 weakness. Of course German guns have better characteristics: they were introduce to defeat the soviet tanks. Of course that many t-34 had a bad quality steel but the German tanks from 1945 were all made with a very low quality steel as well;of course that the t-34 break, but there was any machine that didn't suffer from frequent breakdowns etc etc

To conclude the discussion of the best tank is absurd without an specific time period and a set of conditions to be checked.

 

[GermanPower]

Every tank that came out in the first year was highly effective. It trailed off performance wise after that. The Tiger I is the only noticeable tank that constantly performed well throughout the war. By well I mean sustaining better then 1 to 1. It's natural for tanks to look great within the year of production. Its up to date versus older equipment. The case is the same with the T-34. Great the first year...after that it's armor was butter for any other tanks, guns, bombs, and so forth.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

I usually consider the M4 the most cost effective tank of the war. But any actual evidence is contrived as in any real engagement with the M4, it enjoyed air superiority. The T34 was quite poor, but it was one of the earliest of the main tanks of the war. It also has a bit of bad reputation about reliability from the trials the western allies ran after the war without understanding how to maintain it. The Pz4 is also a cost-efficient tool, but the tendency to favor more flashy Tiger tanks took production from Pz4. It also enjoyed the least air superiority.

Another contender imo would be StuGIII-G as it has the best kill ratio, as well as a low cost. Wonder what reputation the T34 would have if StuGIII-G were available during operation Barbarossa. Problem was it was not suited for the Blitzkrieg tactics without a turret, but it was expert at stopping counteroffensives.

 

[Liquid Sky]

The T34-85 did not perform very well against the M4A3 during the Korean war. Nothing like a combat to show a direct comparison.

 

[shri]

The USSR excelled at pumping out masses of relatively unsophisticated but highly effective weapons (PPSh, SVD, Katyusha), used by relatively unsophisticated but brave soldiers who were dying for the Motherland, not for a Tsar. A good friend of mine's grandfather invented the rocket propellant used in the Katyusha (and subsequently went on to become an important contributor to the USSR space programme). It was a very simple weapon, but devastating, and epitomised the Soviet approach to winning the war. The T-34 fits perfectly into this picture, with all of its defects and advantages. Westerners are obsessed with the concept of "best this" and "best that." Every product has pros and cons and a debate that requires "ceteris paribus" isn't really a debate.

Your post was really refreshing from the otherwise re-iterating debate. I think you have made a very good summary too.

To paraphrase their own words, the USSR's massive manpower, raw materials and industrial output (not quality) advantage over Germany was like playing chess with 5 times the pieces of your opponent, on a board that was 5x the size, even if their pawns could move 2 squares at a time and your knights limited to just a short hop.

And this nailed it.
Though i would interchange the words- pawns for Knight (Panzers), even if your Knights are in a short hop and theirs can do two turns in a row (strike and return), you do win.

 

[CyberianK]

I always wondered why peoples called T34 the "best" tank of WW2.

Maybe most "important" tank would be better as far as number produced and overall effect on the war. Yes very iconic one but what the allied did on land was almost irrelevant compared to eastern front. And for Axis they had a mix of important vehicles they had successes with so none that stuck out that heavyil as M4/T34.
Anyway thanks for the link interesting stuff.

 

[Gort11]

The T34-85 did not perform very well against the M4A3 during the Korean war. Nothing like a combat to show a direct comparison.

This would be true if warfare consisted entirely of tank duels, and if the only factor affecting said warfare was tank quality.

In reality, anti-tank capability is only one part of what makes tanks useful in warfare and focusing on it exclusively is foolish.

 

[qer]

The T34-85 did not perform very well against the M4A3 during the Korean war. Nothing like a combat to show a direct comparison.

so the pz III was also superior to the t-34? Because in barbarrosa they kicked their ass. Combat performance only give a partial analysis: crew training matters a lot and most often than not, tanks
participate in combined arms operations. Take for example desert Storm. The Iraqi army was a joke. They have woeful tactics learned from the iran-iraq war that were completely unsuitable for facing the US. That's why it can be explain that the M2 Bradley, an IFV which could be destroyed by a single hit from a t-55, killed more tanks than the Abrams. The Bradley wasn't better suited for tank to tank combat than an t-55 or a t-72. However, the crews were much better, leading to that result

 

[Aries666]

Come on guys and gals we all know that the Matilda was by far the best tank of the war.

 

[Cardus]

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.

It seems a post by a unknown and unqualified person. I would rather rely on the opinion of some much more senior and qualified people:

First encountered in 1941, German tank general von Kleist at the time called it "the finest tank in the world"[7] and Heinz Guderian confirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over existing German armour of the period.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

 

[Skjold89]

The T34-85 did not perform very well against the M4A3 during the Korean war. Nothing like a combat to show a direct comparison.

I've seen numerous interviews from american tankers in the korean war that said that quote "north korean tank crews had no clue what the hell the were doing" or things of that nature.

 

[DocMorningstar]

The T 34 was not the 'best' tank of the war, but I would give it credit for the most innovative the Russians introduced sloped armor, a relatively high caliber gun, and a very appropriate suspension system for mobility in crummy russian terrain. And they did it way early before there were significant wartime experiences to inform it. That's pretty amazing.

Not to mention that many of the T-34's 'flaws' (no radio, so-so quality) are useful in offsetting many of the Red Army's weaknesses - lack of training, highly disrupted supply system. It is almost exactly the tank the Soviets needed, when they needed it. Easy to operate, and you could just deliver them straight from the factory, if they broke, give the crew a new one.

Of course it had flaws - crew losses from penetrations were high, but penetration rates were lower. That's not a bad trade when your crews don't get a ton of training time (and are thus 'cheap').

Even the M4 had benefit from some pretty significant wartime experience feeding it's design (via observers and british feedback).

 

[keynes2.0]

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.

While the T-34 had a number of deficiencies, that site is a load of rubbish. The most glaring of many logical errors is stating the T-34 is supposed to be a bad tank because more Soviet then German tanks were lost. However pretty much any tank on the eastern front was going to end up getting lost at some point. So the higher number of Soviet tank losses is really just because they had more tanks to lose. In fact a smaller fraction of soviet tanks then german tanks on the eastern front ended up destroyed (not that I would recommend using that statistic as an indicator of quality either, just pointing out the problem with such statistics). But even beyond the basic bad logic is the problems with definition. For instance the Soviets used artillery tractors based on a French design and the Germans used those French artillery tractors, taken as captured equipment. The Soviets called them light tanks as a matter of labeling. The Germans called them tractors. So when you see that +20k figure for soviet tanks and that +6k figure for German ones keep in mind that the soviet figure includes those glorified artillery tractors while the German one doesn't. That is an extreme example of the amazingly bad comparisons that go into such shocking numbers.

Remember, if a number is unbelievable it might just be false.

 

[aruon]

...includes those glorified artillery tractors while the German one doesn't...

you wanna see a glorified artillery tractor? look up the ZiS-30 and have a laugh. so cute, but so deadly.

this thing was actually classed as a tank destroyer!

 

[DazKaz]

The best tank in the war changed frequently throughout the duration and held that title until the enemy developed an anti tank weapon to counter it.

The Matilda during operation Compass for example and the KV heavy tanks during Barbarossa, that frequently just ran over the ineffective German and Italian AT guns early in the operation causing panic amongst the supporting infantry who had nothing to counter it.

The most effective use of tanks is not destroying other tanks, this if possible, was left to AT batteries and tank destroyers.
Success also depended not so much on the tank itself but on a lot of other factors, especially the effective use of combined forces and good command and control.

To complicate things further a hulled down KV heavy tank may well be the best when used as a defensive bunker, where as a Pz.Kpfw. III of the same time period would be best at exploiting a breakthrough.

So the answer to what is the best tank of WW2 is ....it depends on what you are comparing it to, why and when.

 

[Imminentstorm]

How why didn't the tank division just surround a singular tank????

I believe the KV-2 was holding a bridge, forcing the Germans into a bottleneck.

 

[lodgers]

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.

Probably the Tiger I. Extremely effective, fairly reliable, excellent gun and optics, good stable gun platform, and good room for the FIVE man crew.

 

[lodgers]

A cross-section of some of favorite things:

• History
• Economics
• Infographics
• Tanks

I think the T-34 was the most effective tank in World War 2, not because it was the best performing but because it was so cost-effective relative to it's opponents. The T-34 was a solid performer, it wasn't a Tiger II but you could build ten T-34s with roughly the same amount of resources.

I don't understand how people would downvote @TheRomanRuler for posting a link and asking a question.

A lot of the "bad" things about the T-34 are shared by it's contemporaries.


Because the T-34 was not the first tank in the world with sloped armor doesn't mean that this wasn't a great characteristic at the time. The French tanks, the R35 and S35, they were developed years earlier than the T-34 and didn't have nearly the same capabilities as the T-34. For the majority of World War 2, German tanks had relatively unsloped armor.

You are forgetting the human cost of having a POS tanks to DIE IN! If you produce ten T34's and lose NINE of them before you can even got a shot off, your crews are still DEAD! The sloped armor is a 2 edge sword and the Russian tanks were massive cramped inside, had lousy optics and guns and were NOT reliable at all and the crews almost always died when hit.