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

[Jongmaster]

Arguments "which tank was the best" is along the lines "what is better - pick-up trucks or ferraris".

Well that one is a little more obvious don't you think? It is clearly the pickup truck

 

[scroggin]

The US and UK forces had a massive experience advantage, I don't doubt that to them the north koreans appeared clueless

Speaking of the korean war, the curchill tanks were crucial in holding certain hilltops since no other tanks could climb them

The churchills were very useful in italy for their hill climbing ability too.

 

[3ishop]

-.- All tanks had strengths and weaknesses, why we don't still have WW2 tanks in production. You have to compare a lot of different varriables to choose which is best. 1 v 1 with 0 war or strategic then it would go to Germany, they do have a number of very nice designs. However for the wide scale that is a WORLD war you need to look at more than just 1 v 1. T-34 and Sherman were the kings here, I edge the T-34 there due to the advances it had when first deployed and the length of time it was used. This isn't saying the Sherman or Panther weren't good and had their own advantages and good designs.

 

[Opanashc]

If Germany had Tigers and Panthers in 1941 instead of Pz IIIs and Pz IVs, they would not have reached Moscow. Interesting, isn't it?

 

[thedarkendstar]

If Germany had Tigers and Panthers in 1941 instead of Pz IIIs and Pz IVs, they would not have reached Moscow. Interesting, isn't it?

I thought after the problems were figured out the panther was decently reliable?

 

[frolix42]

I thought after the problems were figured out the panther was decently reliable?

Virtually all WW2 tanks, when they were first introduced, had a period of miserable reliablilty. The Panzer IV's performance in Poland and France was very unreliable, similar to the Panther performance at Kursk. This is certainly due to the fact that being rushed into combat doesn't lead to proper field testing.

The Panther Ausf. G had most of the problems ironed out of it. By 1944 the resources of Germany were stretched so thin, there were quality problems with every vehicle due to lack of a variety of materials.

 

[Opanashc]

I thought after the problems were figured out the panther was decently reliable?

It's not about reliability. Its a question of mobility. Tigers and Panthers were simply too heavy and too short-breathed to operate at large distances. What good is a tank in a raid, if it cannot cross a bridge because it is too heavy?

 

[Atlantians]

This question has three different types of answers, depending on the framing of the question.

Depending on the question, the answer becomes contextual, subjective, or objective.

I will answer two objective questions that resemble the question of the OP:

1) What tank, overall, performed best (overall) that saw combat during WWII.

2) What tank, overall, performed best (overall) that was developed during, but did not see combat during WWII.


The answer to 1) would have to be the Sherman series, especially after the M4A1 model.
Variants of the Sherman chassis were being used into the 90s in some 3rd world nations, though typically not as tanks.

The answer to 2) would have to be the Centurion series of tanks, the first model of which was completed by the British just late enough to miss combat in WWII.
Variants of the Centurion are still in active service as tanks in numerous nations (the Olifant MK1/MK2 of South Africa is an indigenously modified Centurion), and the Centurion served as the basis for the first Merkava tanks in Israel. Centurion chassis are also used around the world as various types of armoured vehicles.

 

[Atlantians]

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.

Crew losses are relatively low in tank combat.

Most hits that kill the tank don't kill the crew.

 

[Atlantians]

Point in case being how US tankers have dubbed the M4 Sherman a death trap, gave it nicknames like Ronson ("Lights up the first time, every time") and generally considered it a piece of shit...

This is entirely a myth.

Most of the negative views of the Sherman were the result of a very ignorant 2nd Lieutenant in a WWII maintenance company writing a book called 'Death Traps'.
This book has been widely refuted by actual Tank Historians, of which Lt. Burton Cooper (auth. "Death Traps") was not one.

Burton Cooper is a useful source when talking about the organization of tank maintenance in WWII, the maintenance of the M4, the maintenance of the Pershing, and the development of the Super Pershing, of which Burton Cooper is one of very few primary sources (he worked on the Super Pershing (T26E4) variant in Europe).

But when he is talking about quite literally anything else, which is most of his book, he is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.

US tankers and British tankers actually liked the Sherman; it was very ergonomic and it was easy to maintain compared to British models. Also, US Military personnel didn't use Ronsons, and the jingle 'Lights up the first time, every time' was two decades old (and was very rare, with only one extant reference to it) by the time the Sherman's were being used. The jingle got reintroduced in the 1950s.

While Shermans had an issue with catching fire early in the war, this was due to the internal ammunition placement and storage by the crews, not the tank's design.
This issue was solved relatively quickly.

 

[scroggin]

This question has two different types of answers, depending on the framing of the question.

Depending on the question, the answer becomes contextual, subjective, or objective.

I will answer two objective questions that resemble the question of the OP:

1) What tank, overall, performed best (overall) that saw combat during WWII.

2) What tank, overall, performed best (overall) that was developed during, but did not see combat during WWII.


The answer to 1) would have to be the Sherman series, especially after the M4A1 model.
Variants of the Sherman chassis were being used into the 90s in some 3rd world nations, though typically not as tanks.

The answer to 2) would have to be the Centurion series of tanks, the first model of which was completed by the British just late enough to miss combat in WWII.
Variants of the Centurion are still in active service as tanks in numerous nations (the Olifant MK1/MK2 of South Africa is an indigenously modified Centurion), and the Centurion served as the basis for the first Merkava tanks in Israel. Centurion chassis are also used around the world as various types of armoured vehicles.

I would agree with you if we are talking about the sherman in 1942, they were the best tank in the world then. But 1944/45 was a different story, by then they were too lightly armed and armoured to face up to the more modern german tanks, antitank guns and panzerfaust's. Just look at the casualties taken by Canada and Britain at Caen trying to take on the panzers head to head.

For the latter part pf the war the allies had to use combined arms tactics to compensate for an inferior tank. They could only advance quickly in the absence of serious opposition. Without air superiority, the bombing of germany's fuel supplies infrastructure etc and Germany's need to have most of their armour in the east. The sherman could never have survived.

Dont get me wrong, the sherman was the best tank in its day, but that day was 1942 not 1944.

 

[Atlantians]

I would agree with you if we are talking about the sherman in 1942, they were the best tank in the world then.

I am talking about the Tank overall.

Shermans were in use in nations around the world decades after WWII, and they served effectively.

The Israelis, for instance, used up-gunned variants and variants produced by the French with an oscillating AMX-13 Turret.

But 1944/45 was a different story, by then they were too lightly armed and armoured to face up to the more modern german tanks, antitank guns and panzerfaust's. Just look at the casualties taken by Canada and Britain at Caen trying to take on the panzers head to head.

You are making a logical fallacy here.
You are attributing the losses receive to the tanks being used in the assault, rather than to the circumstances around the assault.

During any armoured attack in WWII, the defender typically has a significant advantage.
The defender typically has the first shot, and is already in place in the best locations from which to defend.

Also, by 1944-45, anti-tank guns were capable of penetrating most armour on most any tank in the war, so that point is really irrelevant and works both ways.

The increasing ineffectiveness of armour changed the design philosophies of most nations post-war.
This is why the German Leopard 1, and other contemporary vehicles, had very little armour.

Also, you refer to German tanks as 'more Modern'; which tanks are you referring to? Panther? Tiger? In what way were these 'more modern'?

76mm Shermans did not have any serious issues dealing with Tigers or Panthers.

For the latter part pf the war the allies had to use combined arms tactics to compensate for an inferior tank.

This is completely false. Tanks on all sides of the war were designed for combined arms operations.

You don't seem to be familiar with military doctrine.

If you were not using combined arms in WWII, you were doing something wrong.

They could only advance quickly in the absence of serious opposition. Without air superiority, the bombing of germany's fuel supplies infrastructure etc and Germany's need to have most of their armour in the east. The sherman could never have survived.

Again, total nonsense. Sherman had no difficulty dealing with Panthers or Tigers in Italy, and that was with the 75mm gun.

The larger numbers of Panthers in Normandy was an unexpected surprise, but even then, while the 75mm Shermans had some tactical problems with Panthers, they still had adequate performance against them, while the 76mm Shermans made short work of them.

While the east did make the western front relatively easy to advance through, your statement 'The sherman could never have survived' is gross hyperbole.

 

[scroggin]

The thinner armour and weaker gun made attacking tigers and panthers with shermans very difficult because they could penetrate your armour long before you were close enough to penetrate theirs. This forced sherman crews to stop and call in bombers or artillery to deal with the problem or face heavy losses. They had to rely on the other parts of the combined arms more because of their weakness. And they couldnt advance without caution. Just look at how slow the advance through italy was, or how long it took to break out of normandy. As for the shermans used after the war by Israel they were up gunned I think they were up armoured and they took higher casualties than the other tanks Israel had.

 

[Atlantians]

The thinner armour and weaker gun made attacking tigers and panthers with shermans very difficult because they could penetrate your armour long before you were close enough to penetrate theirs.

You are again talking about an advancing force against a defensive force.

While this was true of the 75mm guns, this really didn't pose that serious of a strategic problem.

With the 76mm gun, the Sherman had no issues penetrating Tigers or Panthers within common combat ranges.

This forced sherman crews to stop and call in bombers or artillery to deal with the problem or face heavy losses. They had to rely on the other parts of the combined arms more because of their weakness. And they couldnt advance without caution.

You are again talking about an advancing force against a defensive force.

This would be true of any attacking force against a comparable adversary.

Just look at how slow the advance through italy was, or how long it took to break out of normandy.

Are you saying that this somehow speaks to the quality of the Sherman tank?

Precisely how are either of these points relevant?

As for the shermans used after the war by Israel they were up gunned I think they were up armoured and they took higher casualties than the other tanks Israel had.

How is this remotely relevant?

 

[scroggin]

You are again talking about an advancing force against a defensive force.

While this was true of the 75mm guns, this really didn't pose that serious of a strategic problem.

With the 76mm gun, the Sherman had no issues penetrating Tigers or Panthers within common combat ranges.




You are again talking about an advancing force against a defensive force.

This would be true of any attacking force against a comparable adversary.




Are you saying that this somehow speaks to the quality of the Sherman tank?

When a weaker tank like the sherman attacks a stronger tank like a panther they get shot at several times before being able to shoot back. Attack is far more difficult if they can penetrate your armour before you can penetrate theirs. Defence is not as hard with a weaker tank because you can remain hidden till within range. And can use anti-tank guns as well.

A tank with a lower velocity gun like the sherman75mm will be within range of high velocity anti-tank guns like the 88mm long before they can reliably hit them back. A higher velocity gun shoots flatter and is less likely to miss if the range is miss-estimated. I certainly wouldnt like to see a german 88 destroy a tank beside me and know we still had 500 metres to go before we could shoot back.

Yes these are factors are part of the reason for the slow advances made by the allies

 

[Atlantians]

When a weaker tank like the sherman attaks a stronger tank like a panther they get shot at several times before being able to shoot back. Attack is far more difficult if they can penetrate your armour before you can penetrate theirs. Defence is not as hard with a weaker tank because you can remain hidden till within range. And can use anti-tank guns as well.

Everything you said is true of the reverse as well, and you are not addressing anything I said.

You have not succeeded in making a relevant point.

A tank with a lower velocity gun like the sherman75mm will be within range of high velocity anti-tank guns like the 88mm long before they can reliably hit them back. A higher velocity gun shoots flatter and is less likely to miss if the range is miss-estimated. I certainly wouldnt like to see a german 88 destroy a tank beside me and know we still had 500 metres to go before we could shoot back.

1) You entirely ignored my point about the later 76mm Sherman guns.

2) You are describing very idealistic situations for the Tiger, when actual combat engagements were usually much closer and well within the effective range of both 75mm and 76mm allied guns.

3) The Panther had a 75mm gun, not an 88mm. Panthers were always far more common than Tigers.

4) Panthers and Tigers were very rare in Italy, making your entire argument in regards to Italy fallacious.

5) Tigers were almost non-existent in Normandy, and Tigers/Panthers combined consisted of less than 50% of Tanks in the German divisions in Normandy.

6) The number of Panthers were far larger in Normandy than expected, but this was not as serious of a problem as initially expected, as Shermans with 75mm and 76mm within common combat ranges had no issue dealing with Panthers.

7) Panthers did not have much better armour than the Sherman and were far more mechanically unreliable, and had a 75mm gun that was comparable, not superior, to the later 76mm gun on the Shermans.

Yes these are factors are part of the reason for the slow advances made by the allies

Not really. See above.

 

[Lightning Jack]

The Bob Semple tank from New Zealand is by far the best tank of the war.

 

[Lightning Jack]

It's mere presence deterred the Russians from invading New Zealand. Evidenced by the fact that New Zealand is free today.

 

[scroggin]

It's mere presence deterred the Russians from invading New Zealand. Evidenced by the fact that New Zealand is free today.

No we enjoy freedom today because America stood up to the Japs then the Russians. But we did manage to declare war on the Japs after pearl harbour before America did. And yes that tank is definately the biggest joke of the war. We used shermans by the way.

 

[sunsterson]

anyone who thinks the sherman was the best tank is flat out wrong. the only argument for it is the easiness of mass production, but that had a lot to do with american industry. sherman in combat with mediocre at best.

t-34 is probably the most well balanced tank. easy to produce, and itself as a tank is pretty solid.

tiger in combat was the best, but production was a nightmare.

Panther was probably the best overall tank, Germany just had too many production problems that late into the war.

best tank in ww2? if i had to only produce that tank it would easily be the t-34.