Best tank

Yes, but the V-2 diesel engine was noisy and not really reliable. It had to undergo rebuild every 100 hours. The noise was so deafening that the crew could not communicate and the enemy could hear them coming for miles. The 76.2 gun could not fire hollow core AP because it would blow up the barrel. And the 4-spd originally fitted was really delicate.

The Sherman went through numerous upgrades. While the 75 gun was effective in North Africa, it was obsolete at the end of the war. The 76mm gun was almost the equivalent of the 88 and 85, but was not available in enough numbers to convert all the Shermans to it. Since the 75 was not designed as a tank killer, it did very well, but it had its limitations. The 105 howitzer that was later adapted to the Sherman would have been really nice, but so would a lot of things. And the armor on the Sherman was upgraded several times.

 

Just looking at the frontal armor the following is correct
...............hull..............turret
Tank________actual w/slope actual w/slope
T34/76 M43....47....95........70....84
T34/85........47....95......75-90..85-110
M4A1 (60*)....51...102........76....84
M4A3 (47*)....65...102........76....84

So, the Sherman is slightly better than the T34. Also, US quality control was far better than that of the Soviets. Another weakness is the large driver's hatch on the T34 that is a major weak spot in the glacis.

The following table gives the penetration for APHE rounds (the most common used type) for the various guns on these tanks:

Gun____________MV 500 m 1000 m

75/40 (US).....701..91....76
76/42 (soviet) 655..71....61
76/50 (US).....792 131...110
85/52 (Soviet) 792 111...102

Both US guns are better performers than the Soviet ones. Also, because the US uses a much higher grade of steel in their HE rounds the effectiveness of these is far superior to the Soviet round of the period (better steel results in a higher burst velocity and increased fragment effectiveness).
Also note that at 500 meters all of these guns penetrate any of the listed tanks armor.

This is true so long as both vehicles are proceednig in a straight line. In a drag race, the T34 wins. Mitigating this is that the T34 has a bad habit of shedding a track in a high speed turn either through breakage or it coming off the drive and/or tensioning sprocket. This is due to the weak single end pin design and the use of a guide tooth on just every other link. Excerbating this is the loose track tension that can cause whipping of the track return at high speed due to the lack of return rollers.
The T34 track also has a road life of between 250 and 500 miles. The single pin steel track also has a rolling resistance that increases arithmatically with speed.
The Sherman using a double pin rubber bushed track has its lowest rolling resistance at around 40 kph where the rubber bushings cause a rebound effect that generates additional thrust on the return portion of the track. The track life is well over 1000 miles and failures are far less common than on the Soviet tank. Additionally, the track with either a double end or single centerline guide pin is far less prone to shedding, particularly on soft ground.
The vertical spring Christie suspension of the T 34 is also much "bouncyer" at high speed making any such run over uneven ground very tiring on the crew and hard on the tank. The US vertical or horizontal volute suspensions are quite adequite to about 60 kph and give a much less bouncy ride making targetting easier.
Overall, the T34 is at a disadvantage except on soft ground where its wide track and low ground pressure give it a distinct advantage.

See the above. This is definitely one area the T34 does have an advantage.

This is really marginal at best. Since the normal procedure was to aim at the top of the turret (put the cross hairs on the turret top) and then adjust for lead if the target was moving neither tank has any sillouette advantage at 1000 meters or less. In most cases the half second range of the gun (the point where a hit is virtually guarrenteed) is such that it is well under 1000 meters, typical engagement range for tanks.

Ok, the T34 has more fuel. But, the Soviet supply system is euphemistically crap. A Soviet tank cannot rely on being refueled whereas a US one can. Also, without knowing the gas mileage and such one cannot make a useful comparison.
One Sherman advantage is a donkey motor. This little generator engine is run to keep the batteries charged and run the radio without running the engine, a common occurance. A T34 has to run its big drive engine to do the same.

These figures are wrong. See above.

Sour grapes when your T34 becomes a blazing wreck due to the horribly low efficency of that 4 man crew.

Of course, I also put the Pz IV ahead of the T34 too just to note that.

 

It should also be noticed that many tank destroyers were not that much difference than a tank. The 90 mm on the M10 was very effective in combat. The British did not have a top notch tank in WWII, but they had probably the best tank gun in the 17 pounder. No country can get everything right. Good tank design has to be simple to build, but have quality construction. It has to take anything the opposition can give and keep the crew safe. It has to have the most powerful gun and the mechanism to put it exactly on target. And it has to be built in adequate numbers at a reasonable price.

 

I'd say the Churchill proved herself 'top notch' in a variety of situations, particularly in Italy where her astonishing climbing ability and faster traverse meant that she often surprised German positions from attack angles that were thought impossible. One Northern Irish horse Veteran who inhabits the internet claims the Churchill came out on top in every encounter they had with the Tiger in Italy as ranges were often short and traverse and rate of fire proved crucial. He cites the Pz.IV as far more respected than the Tiger. Another good claim the Churchill can make is a surprisingly high crew survival rate even when the vehicle was destroyed, not a bad feature in any Tank.
Horses for courses again, Firepower, mobility and Protection are not the only factors when considering ww2 'A' vehicles, in such a mass/attrition conflict all sorts of other factors such as industrial efficiency come into play, perhaps the most important factor in the end was the quality of the crew operating the machinery.

In a similar vein the Matilda II refutes the 'no top notch British Tanks' remark. Absolutely dominant for a while.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Winston Churchill was quoted as saying that the Churchill tank had more faults than he did. Not exactly a rousing endorsement.

The Churchill was underpowered and susceptible to breakdowns. The poor engine access made it difficult to work on. It was always a step behind as far as its main gun was concerned. The best gun on it was the 75mm which was no match for the German 75mm high velocity. Its one saving grace was that it could take a hit from an 88mm and survive.

I think I should mention that one fault that is harped on about the Sherman was not a design fault. The narrow tracks that made it less capable than others in soft soil was caused by a requirement that the tank be no wider than the standard for railroads at the time.

 

Churchill's comment was made in the early stages of design and proving, a troublesome time somewhat hampered by interference from far too many directions, including Churchill himself. The assessment above does little more than paraphrase the tanks Wiki article neglecting the vehicles good to excellent performance from action with Kingforce onwards, something of a dubious source for such a complex subject as the A22.

The real point I'm trying to make though is firstly that 'best' is often a ridiculous criteria. Za takes one step forward by suggesting 'best for year' but for a truly realistic critique this would have to be broken down into terrain, enemy type, logistical situation etc. etc. ad. nauseum until a huge spreadsheet has been created for reference,
"I need something light for Jungle roads!, Chart says M3 sir."

The second point that really serves as an adjunct to the first is that paper statistics only serve as an exceptionally rough guide, to trust them completely and not somehow transfer them onto the real world is often meaningless and disregards important factors such as TA's reference to quality of steel and the like.
I still have no best, many favourites though.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I've read and seen in some other WWII forum that the is-3 had bad transmission troubles. So as a concept it was great, but was a failure in practice. The tiger 1 had a very slow traversing turrent that hurt it performance. Although this problem was overcome by Michael Wittman, He was a former STUG commander so he learned to move the tank effectively. I agree with the classification breakdown on best tank. The panthers 75 gun actually had more penetrating power than the early tiger 1s 88. now the tiger IIs is another story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_US_tank_gun#M3_.2FL40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-34_tank_gun

These arm my sources for both please let me know if im mistaken.

Yes I know that this is wiki.... that everyone likes so much

 

please be so kind as to provide a source

 

I agree that any design is a compromise and can be hit or miss. The Matilda and the Churchill were both tanks with higher than normal survival rates, which made them more popular with their crews. As far as Wikipedia goes, it is only one of many sources I use. Many sources I do not take much reliance on, because they are focused on statistics or factors that have no meaning in combat.

I am not a fan of the T-34, even though it was a significant tank. The noise and ride abused the crew without mercy in a very cramped space. The quality of construction was poor. Its saving grace was the shear numbers and its light footprint. It did not get a really decent gun until the 85mm.

The German tanks were engineering marvels, but relied too much on shear thickness of armor and did not address the weight issues adequately. they had some of the best guns and optics. If they had a location to produce tanks without interruption like the U.S. and Russia did, and stayed away from some of the foolish ideas like Ferdinand Porsche had, they may have done much better.

 

Sloniksp?
Mate, step away from the penetration tables!
All they do is function as a starting point or an easy basis for designing wargames. They are something of a white elephant when assessing relative performance of vehicles in the real world and surely not to be fixated on? On Wiki, yep, an excellent starting point but never ever to be relied upon unchecked, even the pictures are often misidentified and a variety of agendas always seem to be at play. There's so many other good sites out there, and 'books' too I'd recommend Tanks! as one of the best starting websites.
My trouble is I've got a soft spot for nearly all tanks, especially the crap ones.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Quite right Adam,

The History Channel which in my opinion in many cases is kind of like the television version of those "books for dummies" if you get my meaning.

But they did a series called "Battle Stations" on the M4 Sherman and, if anyone get the Military Channel they did a great episode on the Sherman vs. Tiger. One US veteran talks on the episode on how the 88mm gun of a Tiger I in the town he was in fired through four homes and still pierced the side of their Sherman!!!

If you fellas would like to see some great pics of M4 Shermans and other various tanks Pre-war to N. Africa to Germany check out this website...

http://www.756tank.com/index.html

This is the Association of the 756th Tank Battalion awesome website and tons of great pics of the all the variants of the Sherman in action!

Enjoy,

Regards,
MARNE

 

Man im getting crushed here with wiki...

I myself not usually use the source but for some as you have pointed out, is a good starting point

 

Everyone is right.
Picking a "Best", is as difficult as picking a "Best" Golf Club. You need them all, at some time or another.
Even that Japanese Type 97 TE-KE (at 4.7 tons) had worth on a tight mountain trail of small-arms ambushes.
The Allies made use of any they took that were still intact.
Good in some areas often times made for lacking in others. What I'm trying to suggest is that no "One" tank did it all.
The Tiger had survivability/gun, but virtually died in mobility/speed.
The T-34 had speed/mobility, but died in survivability/gun (until the 85).
Whitman excelled because of his gunner, (Even he acknowledged this), who could hit targets on the move, and at times while moving himself. A "special" gift not had by all, at that time, with that degree of modernization.
Za has the basic idea of all these best/worst debates. They might be better asked as...What is your "temporary"..."favorite"...and where is it being used?

 

please be so kind as to provide a source </font>[/QUOTE]Variously:

Sherman R. P. Hunnicutt
US Military Vehicles of World War II E. J. Hoffschmidt & W. H. Tantum eds.
American Tanks of World War II Thomas Berndt
Jane's Main Battle Tanks 2nd ed. Christopher Foss
T-34 in Action Steven Zaloga & James Grandsen
Inside the Great Tanks Hans Halberstadt
Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army David C. Isby
Handbook on USSR Military Forces TM 30-430 US War Department
Soviet Armor 1910 - 1970 Milsom
Army Technical Bulletin, Foreign Material Catalog TB 381-5-03 Ammunition (unclassified) Department of the Army

Well, that should suffice.

Oh, the values I gave are for zero degrees obliquity at the ranges given. This ensures everyone is talking apples.

 

Thanks T.A.

 

One thing often left out of these debates is consideration of the crews who were expected to man and maintain these vehicles. Most tanks of the period were pretty simple inside by their very nature, however from what I have seen of say, the Panther compared to the T34 there is no doubt over which would be easier to drive and crew. For one thing, despite not being able to drive a car I am perfectly capable of driving a T34 (and it's fun) simply because of the simplicity of the controls. I'm not sure this was so much the case with German vehicles of the time.

I guess what I'm saying is that to some extent it's horses for corses, Russian soldiers detested the Sherman for various reasons despite the apparently (from what TA has said) better performance of the main gun and found the Panther and Tiger to be unnecessairaly complex. Interestingly enough according to one Russian document I was shown troops were were willing to use captured examples of German tanks (particularly the Pz 4 for some reason) however the rule was that 'trophy vehicles' were to be used until they needed maintainance and were then to be abandoned. Odd considering the utilitarian nature of Soviet policy for materiel.

 

As I posted earlier I agree strongly, the quality of the crews is one of the primary considerations. How many experienced crews that had learnt at the leading edge of Blitzkrieg how to use the technically impressive German arsenal properly were left by 1944?... If you're on the losing side then even though your new chaps are getting plenty of experience on all fronts they'll never quite get the chance to balance out the dead hand of attrition. The experience levels of the officers directing armoured movements is also crucial, the criteria for 'best tank' becomes ever more complex. (dare I say, Impossible. 'Favourite' for today is the 38t )

On Soviet use of captured German gear, There's some great pics of Russians using Panthers, I believe in some units the German maintenance crews were kept handy.


From:http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5312

(By the way T.A., if the Hunnicutt Sherman book sits on your shelves then I'm deeply jealous, Have you seen the price for it at the moment? That's one that definitely deserves a reprinting.)
Cheers,
Adam

 

I agree with Sloniksp : in a 1 vs 1 comparison I'd say the Pz V (Panther), and on the scale of war, the T-34.

Anyway, by soviet standards, the Pz V was an heavy tank and the T34 a medium tank.

 

Von Poop,

Those are great pics! I actually went on the site but did not have any luck finding any.

Please guide me.