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

[Caesar15]

The T-34 was a revolutionary tank design. It was one of the first of its kind with sloped armor. The tank towards the end wasn't as good as it was at the beginning due to Tigers and Panthers which were far superior but it was a great tank that the Germans nicknamed "The Ghost" because they couldn't kill it.

It also had terrible reliability. Can't have everything, can we?

 

[Gethsemani]

If the T-34 was so awesome, why did all the Shermans go the the Guard Tank Divisions?

Opanashc mentioned reliability, so I'll add ergonomics. Guards divisions got a higher salary and better equipment, so it makes sense that the people you want to reward gets the tanks that were luxurious in terms of crew ergonomics, especially compared to the barren T-34.

 

[shri]

There was a reason why the Germans ditched their "Door Knockers" and PAK50mm and shifted enmasse to PAK75mm guns (over 20000+ Produced, most were sent to the Eastern Front) and PAK88 (25000+ produced but most of them used as Anti-Air, still over a thousand went to the Eastern Front) and this was the "Shock" of facing the KV Tanks and also the T-34.
many of the Soviet Tanks losses from 1943 onward were at the hands of these PAK75mm and PAK88mm gun crews supported by the "Panzershrek and Panzerfaust", again the STUGS III & IV accounted for substantial Soviet Tank losses from 1942 onward.

If the Allied Tank crews were bit by "Tiger Fear" in 1943-44 with total air-superiority, multiply this fear 5X and that was the fear facing the PzII and Czech Tanks crews and 37mm PzIII crews (these 3 totaled over 2000 of the 3300 Tanks in Barbarossa) against the KV-1/2 and T-34.

Whether the T-34 was good or bad ergonomically is a useless point, as has been shown in RL, the Japanese, Finns, Russians and even the Germans were accustomed to fighting conditions far worse than what was considered "normal" by Anglo-American standards.

As for Reliability, it is a major point but considering that the "enemy is advancing on Moscow and has already occupied vast areas" you need a 1000 average T-34s today rather than 500 excellent T-34s day after tomorrow and this was the psyche of the USSR production, the T-34/85 version did rectify the several deficiencies of the T-34--1940 in late war.

If we actually see the Best Tank from 1939 to 1942, the KV-1/2 (on the defensive) and T-34 stand head and shoulders above all other tanks. The main German tank in this period was the 37mm Gun PzIII which would struggle to find a place in top 5 tanks of early war period. The French and the British both had tanks which could Out-Gun and Out-Armour the 37mm armed PzIII versions and the various PzI, PzII and Czech tanks (35t and 38t) which formed the bulk of the Polish and French Invasion forces.

In Late War, the Panther (after undergoing several versions) would certainly be the best Tank but at slightly over 6000 produced, it couldn't make an impact against the 40000+ Sherman and 50000+ T-34s being produced.

Overall, T-34 is the best tank of the War followed closely by the Sherman and PzIV. (PzIV for the sheer longevity as it served throughout from Day 1 to end and managed to hold its own right up-to 1944).

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I'll just copy and paste what I said about this article last time it came up here:

The author pays lip service to operational losses and the lack of crew training as factors but then dismisses them as unimportant without evidence. I'm not unreceptive to arguments that the T-34 was inferior to its contemporaries from and ergonomic and target acquisition perspective (and the problems with production quality are fairly well-documented) but people who attempt to prove the point by citing loss ratios as though weapon systems operate in a void unaffected by the greater strategic situation in which combat takes place aren't proving shit.

Case in point: the author cites 50% operational losses as exceedingly generous when we know, for example, from the changes in Soviet tank strength at Kursk that even in that extremely intense, relatively compact action the Soviet tank losses were less than 50% total losses. And while this doubtless includes many tanks disabled but not destroyed by hostile fire, it was also arrived at in a situation wherein the Soviet tanks were in comparisons of armor to gun strength in a position of inferiority rather than the superiority they enjoyed in 41-42.

 

[Atlantians]

Whether the T-34 was good or bad ergonomically is a useless point, as has been shown in RL, the Japanese, Finns, Russians and even the Germans were accustomed to fighting conditions far worse than what was considered "normal" by Anglo-American standards.

Ergonomics is more than comfort; it includes functionality and efficient crew placement.

The T34 had 2 men in their early turrets. German, American, and British tanks all used 3-man turret crews.

This alone was a huge advantage because it meant that the commander wasn't doing 2-3 jobs at once.

Additionally, the tight and cramped spaces made it more difficult to maneuver inside the turret which hinders performing the necessary tasks to actually fight the enemy.

 

[scroggin]

Your understanding of what the word 'comparable' means is questionable.

This example demonstrates you are clearly biased and engaging in questionable argumentation.

The 76mm M1 had a muzzle velocity of 3400FT/sec when firing the M93 HVAP.
It has 2600FT/sec when firing the M62 APC and M79 AP rounds.

The HVAP ammo you mention wasnt avaliable till August 44 and it still struggled with a panther glacis plate here is what wikipedia says about it.

High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. The increased penetration of HVAP allowed the 76 mm gun M1 to match the Panther's 7.5 cm KwK 42 APCR shot.[69] However, its performance was heavily degraded by sloped armor such as the Panther's glacis, which was immune to HVAP rounds necessitating shots to be aimed at the mantlet and turret front.[69] Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were constantly in short supply. Priority was given to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.[70]

So even with the second generation of ammunition the 76mm sherman was still at a major disadvantage to the panther. The fact that most tanks were killed by anti-tank guns didnt help the shermans because they were vulnerable there as well.
Im not a fan boy for German tanks I can just see when a tank is becoming obsolete and only able to survive by relying on other parts of the combined arms rather than pulling its weight like it could in its hayday.

 

[shri]

Ergonomics is more than comfort; it includes functionality and efficient crew placement.

The T34 had 2 men in their early turrets. German, American, and British tanks all used 3-man turret crews.

This alone was a huge advantage because it meant that the commander wasn't doing 2-3 jobs at once.

Additionally, the tight and cramped spaces made it more difficult to maneuver inside the turret which hinders performing the necessary tasks to actually fight the enemy.

I did add-
"the T-34/85 version did rectify the several deficiencies of the T-34--1940 in late war."

Also, see that-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks
Neither the French, nor the British had 5 man turrets in Tanks in 1939. The Stuart tanks of the USA also were not having 5 man crews, the Sherman was first introduced in 1942, so that makes it a mid-war/late-war tank not an early war tank.
The Germans had PzIII designed in 1934 and PzIV designed in 1935-36.

 

[Atlantians]

I did add-
"the T-34/85 version did rectify the several deficiencies of the T-34--1940 in late war."

This was in 1944. It still didn't have a turret basket and was an ergonomic nightmare.

Also, see that-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks
Neither the French, nor the British had 5 man turrets in Tanks in 1939.

I didn't mention the French. The French were in far worse shape; the French actually had 1-man turrets even on their Heavy Tanks.

You are wrong about the British, though. The British introduced operating 3-man turrets from as early as 1924 with the Vickers Medium Tanks Mks. I-III.

With the exception of Light Tanks (too small for a larger crew), the British continued incorporating 3-man turrets in their designed throughout the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

At the dawn of the Second World War, Matilda II (A12) had a 3-man turret in 1937; so did the Cruiser Mk. I (A9) in 1939.

In contrast, the T34 didn't have a 3-man turret until 1944 with the T34/85.

The Stuart tanks of the USA also were not having 5 man crews,

True, but the Stuart tanks were light tanks, and the gun was very small.

The tank was not designed to fill a role where a 3-man turret would have been of benefit.

I was mainly talking about tanks intended for more sustained direct combat with other armoured vehicles.

the Sherman was first introduced in 1942, so that makes it a mid-war/late-war tank not an early war tank.

True. The earlier M3 Lee/Grant Medium tank was an anachronism in design and its turret(s) were too small.

That said, the Sherman was still operating from the start with a very ergonomic 3-man turret 2 years before the Russians upgraded their medium tanks.

The Germans had PzIII designed in 1934 and PzIV designed in 1935-36.

Eh, that is a bit misleading. The Germans got their ideas for 3-man turrets from the British designs in the late 20s and early 30s.

Also, you listed the dates when the tanks began development. They both didn't enter service until several years later, in 1939.

But they did have 3-man turrets, thus my point about the issues the Russians had with their radio-less 2-man turrets, which didn't get upgraded until 1944.

 

[Atlantians]

I want to point out to everyone that Scroggin's argument is essentially that because the frontal glacis plate of the Panther was resistant to the Sherman's gun outside of common combat ranges, that this made the entire tank superior to the Sherman, even though the Sherman could reliably penetrate the Panther at even those extreme ranges when it hits the Panther's sides, its turret, and its lower frontal glacis.

This is all while ignoring the incredible unreliability of the Panther, the inefficiencies of the Panther's design, the over-engineering of the Panther making it difficult to produce in reasonable numbers, as well as the severe limitations in upgrading the Panther which was already far too heavy for its engine, transmission, and suspension.

Please watch this video and also read the corrections he puts in text over the video:

and it still struggled with a panther glacis plate here is what wikipedia says about it.

Seriously? Wikipedia?

High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. The increased penetration of HVAP allowed the 76 mm gun M1 to match the Panther's 7.5 cm KwK 42 APCR shot.[69]

This is all actually true.

However, its performance was heavily degraded by sloped armor such as the Panther's glacis, which was immune to HVAP rounds necessitating shots to be aimed at the mantlet and turret front.[69]

This is flat out false. I checked the sources given here and they say nothing like this.
This is an editorialization by whoever wrote this on wikipedia.

This is the given source:
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/

Nicholas Moran, the author cited here, clearly and repeatedly states in every lecture he gives on the subject that 76mm Shermans more more than sufficient to deal with Panthers.

What the source actually says is that the British, when testing the 76mm HVAP were unable to penetrate the 80mm upper glacis on the Panther from distances above 1000 meters.
Since common combat distances were bellow 1000 meters, that is irrelevant.

The 76mm HVAP was able to penetrate the lower glacis plate, the turret, and the sides; all at very long distances (2500 yards).

What Nicholas Moran actually says is:

I submit that there is an argument that yes, in practice it was the correct decision as well. The bottom line question is “What could the 17pr Sherman Firefly do that the 76mm M4 could not do at least as well, if not better?” The answer is basically nothing. Both tanks were more than capable of reliably dealing with Panzers, StuGs and Tigers from all angles and at reasonable ranges.

Now, continuing with scroggin:

...and only able to survive by relying on other parts of the combined arms rather than pulling its weight like it could in its hayday.

This is utter nonsense. The Sherman was always designed for combined arms, as were all tanks.

You are still arguing as if combined arms were a crutch, when in fact they were central to armoured warfare doctrine.

Tanks were not designed to operate on their own.
This is not World of Tanks.

Get that through your head.

The HVAP ammo you mention wasnt avaliable till August 44

August 1944 is within two months of D-DAY.

I can just see when a tank is becoming obsolete...

The Sherman was being used for decades after the war. It was not obsolete.
The Sherman was highly up-gradable. There were even plans to equip the Sherman with the 90mm gun and turret from the Pershing before the war ended.

The Panther was actually designed before the Sherman and was already obsolete by the time the Sherman arrived at Normandy.

The frontal armour on the Panther, which you have repeatedly grossly exaggerated and attributed far to much value to, was so heavy it was a key factor in why the suspension and transmission of the Panther was so notoriously unreliable. The weight of the armour was simply too much for the rest of the vehicle.

The fact that most tanks were killed by anti-tank guns didnt help the shermans because they were vulnerable there as well.

As were Panthers. Panthers were actually taken out by Russian 14mm anti-tank rifles.

Stop being inconsistent and stop using double standards.

Im not a fan boy for German tanks...

You are. Your bad argumentation and double standards betray you.

 

[keynes2.0]

Whether the T-34 was good or bad ergonomically is a useless point, as has been shown in RL, the Japanese, Finns, Russians and even the Germans were accustomed to fighting conditions far worse than what was considered "normal" by Anglo-American standards.

It's not a point about crew comfort. It's a point about how well the crew can do your job. If your tank doesn't have shells accessible for fast reloading, that's ergonomics. If it requires a lot of strength to shift the tank into higher gear, that's ergonomics. Ergonomics has an impact on how well people do their job. In a battle situation "how well people do their job" is the difference between survival and death.

 

[Atlantians]

@Shatterfury , @Loke , "disagreeing" with my extensive post without actually attempting to yourself express and explain how anything was mistaken or inaccurate is simply an affirmation of the accuracy and robustness of my arguments.

 

[Imminentstorm]

As far as I understand. The Sherman was never originally intended to directly engage armor. It was a support tank intended for attacking soft targets, with some reasonable anti-tank capability in a pinch. The army brass resisted putting anti-tank guns on the Sherman because they didn't want Sherman crews thinking they could hunt German armor. The M10, M18, and M36 were intended for the anti-tank role. (this is similar to the early war German split roles of the panzer III and IV).

They did eventually authorize variants of the Sherman with the 76mm AT gun, most notably the M4A3E8. The "Easy 8" was sufficient for taking Panthers and Tigers at non-suicidal engagement ranges. After the Brits modded some Shermans with the 76mm 17pdr gun, German tank crews learned just how dangerous long-76mm gunned Shermans could be and were trained to prioritize these variants. This prompted Firefly and E8 crews to paint counter-shaded cammo on the gun barrel to disguise its length.

This is actually one of my complaints about the movie Fury (among others). The first shot any Tiger crew worth its salt would have taken should have been into the E8, because it was the only tank in the column capable of killing the Tiger from the front. And they certainly didn't need to get all the way behind the tiger to get the kill, a side shot would have been more than sufficient.

 

[Shatterfury]

@Shatterfury , @Loke , "disagreeing" with my extensive post without actually attempting to yourself express and explain how anything was mistaken or inaccurate is simply an affirmation of the accuracy and robustness of my arguments.

If you really must know my opinion, I think that given the info at the beginning of this thread about production costs we already knew the answer.

This is just my opinion but we know that a Panther was just marginally costlier than a Panzer IV and we can round up that a T-34 was almost 2 times cheaper than a Panther.

We also know the gargantuan amount of tanks built by USA and USSR and by correlating the losses of tanks of those two against Germany it becomes clear that for each Panther or Panzer IV the Allies needed to sacrifice 4 vehicles.

It`s clear that by 1943 Panzer IV was dated even if still potent but given the small price rise of manufacturing of a Panther, it became clear that the Panther was vastly superior.

Long story short the Allies spent at the very least 2 dollars for every 1 dollar spent by Germany in tanks to beat them.

Panther is superior in battle capabilities to everything the Allies and Soviets had, light, medium or heavy add to that the Germans needed to be outspent at the very least two times and it becomes clear that the Panther is supreme.

But this is just an opinion. With new data comes new assumptions but the battle capabilities of the Panther can`t be denied especially against T-34 or the Sherman.

 

[Gethsemani]

As far as I understand. The Sherman was never originally intended to directly engage armor. It was a support tank intended for attacking soft targets, with some reasonable anti-tank capability in a pinch. The army brass resisted putting anti-tank guns on the Sherman because they didn't want Sherman crews thinking they could hunt German armor. The M10, M18, and M36 were intended for the anti-tank role. (this is similar to the early war German split roles of the panzer III and IV).

It had nothing to do with Sherman crews and their doctrinal role. It was simply down to design and expected enemies. In 1942 the 75mm gun on the Sherman was more then adequate to engage the Panzer III and Panzer IV and it could also fire a good HE shell. In 1943 when the first Tigers and Panthers showed up in Tunisia and Italy it was initially thought that they would not be faced in sufficient numbers to warrant a quick up-gunning of the M4 (especially since the M10 and M18 could engage both well enough). Still some M4s were produced with the 76mm gun as a planned upgrade to be rolled out over time. It was first in 1944 and during the Normandy operations that it was realized that the Panther was not some rare heavy tank (despite its' weight) and was actually the new German main medium tank, this caused an acceleration of the adoption of the 76mm gun as the main gun on Shermans.

 

[Had a dad]

@Shatterfury , @Loke , "disagreeing" with my extensive post without actually attempting to yourself express and explain how anything was mistaken or inaccurate is simply an affirmation of the accuracy and robustness of my arguments.

And this is where you cross the line into trolling.

I'd advise all that if you cannot play nice, don't play at all

 

[Imminentstorm]

It had nothing to do with Sherman crews and their doctrinal role. It was simply down to design and expected enemies. In 1942 the 75mm gun on the Sherman was more then adequate to engage the Panzer III and Panzer IV and it could also fire a good HE shell. In 1943 when the first Tigers and Panthers showed up in Tunisia and Italy it was initially thought that they would not be faced in sufficient numbers to warrant a quick up-gunning of the M4 (especially since the M10 and M18 could engage both well enough). Still some M4s were produced with the 76mm gun as a planned upgrade to be rolled out over time. It was first in 1944 and during the Normandy operations that it was realized that the Panther was not some rare heavy tank (despite its' weight) and was actually the new German main medium tank, this caused an acceleration of the adoption of the 76mm gun as the main gun on Shermans.

Thanks for the clarification. Can't remember where I heard that about tank doctrine guiding design.

I also remember hearing that the British vastly overestimated the numbers of Tigers that the Germans were able to produce which drove the creation of the Sherman Firefly. But ultimately the complicated design of the Tiger lead to it not being produced in nearly the numbers they feared.

 

[Gethsemani]

We also know the gargantuan amount of tanks built by USA and USSR and by correlating the losses of tanks of those two against Germany it becomes clear that for each Panther or Panzer IV the Allies needed to sacrifice 4 vehicles.

Not really. Correlating losses in WW2 is tricky since all nations had their own quirky way of calculating losses. As a quick comparison here's the USSR and Germany:
USSR: The Red Army tallied Operation Losses, what this means is that every tank that broke down, threw a track, got hit in combat but could be salvaged and every tank that got damaged beyond repair were written off as "lost". The Red Army statistics made no difference between a tank that broke down on the way to the staging area but could return to its unit the next day after mechanics had changed its' suspension and a tank that got hit by a 500kg bomb and was obliterated. Furthermore, all tanks that were repaired or refurbished at a tank factory was counted as a "new" tank, which inflated USSR tank production numbers something fierce, especially since all tanks were scheduled to be refurbished every 6-12 months.

Germany: Germany only counted Irrecoverable Losses, which meant tanks that could not be salvaged in anyway. If a German tank broke down on the way to the staging area it was not written off. If a German tank got its' turret blown off but could be sent to the factory to get a new turret it was not written off (nor was it counted as a "new tank"). Only tanks that were beyond all repair and tanks that had to be left behind enemy lines were recorded as losses. The Germans also only counted newly produced tank in their produced numbers, even if a tank was rebuilt almost entirely it was not counted as new.

In effect this means that if you compare German and Soviet losses you are left with very misleading numbers in two directions (the Red Army "exaggerates", the Wehrmacht "downplays") and it makes it seem as if the USSR lost 6 tanks for every German tank lost. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Undeniably the Red Army lost more tanks then the Wehrmacht did, but it is not at a 4-6:1 ratio over the course of the war (if it was the USSR would undoubtedly have lost). The exact ratio will never be known, simply because the official records are all that we can go on and they provide no simple cohesive measure of losses.

Panther is superior in battle capabilities to everything the Allies and Soviets had, light, medium or heavy add to that the Germans needed to be outspent at the very least two times and it becomes clear that the Panther is supreme.

But this is just an opinion. With new data comes new assumptions but the battle capabilities of the Panther can`t be denied especially against T-34 or the Sherman.

Except that in the few battles were Shermans and Panthers squared off, the Panthers almost always lost. We've been over this before on this forum (posts 766 and 881 are what you are looking for). The Panther was an impressive tank on paper and it was clearly superior to the T-34 obr.1940 and obr. 1942. The T-34-85 was slightly inferior to the Panther but was also much cheaper to produce and the M4 Sherman, arguably, was the better tank both in terms of economy and actual battlefield performance. The Panther was also a top contender for most unreliable tank of the war, which further diminishes its' supposed superiority. It was a tank that could not road march without wearing out its' final drive (it had a service life of some 150km on average), this meant that Panthers had to be moved around by train when it was to move strategically. That's a massive flaw for a tank that's supposed to be the main stay of your forces and which seriously crippled the German ability to conduct mobile operations with the Panther.

 

[Loke]

Here the Swedish army compares the cross country capability of the Panther, Sherman and the Swedish Strv m/42.

Guess who won....

 

[DocMorningstar]

View attachment 162271

The 76 mm had a muzzle velocity of 2600ft/sec
The 75mm L70 was 3070 ft/sec......not comparable at all. With the panthers thicker armour and better slope the 76mm sherman could penetrate the glacis plate of a panther at 250m. The panther could penetrate a shermans glacis plate at 3000m and could hit it at ranges of around 1500m. Big problem!!! The thiner armour of the sherman gave similar problems with anti-tank guns too.

The sherman was a great tank in 1942 but it was difficult to win using it in 1944.

Yes its always harder to attack than to defend but its harder still to attack with a weaker tank.

Looks at records of Sherman v Panther combat. Hmm. Yep.

 

[3ishop]

I read that pretty much all Panthers were also sabotaged on the production lines.

There's also the issue when comparing kills/losses on what these count, e.g. not all Soviet tanks were T-34s, not all T-34s were knocked out by P4s or Panthers.

I'd then also look at the Germans being on the defencive most of the time the T-34 and Shermans are in their stride. You expect the attacker to take higher losses.