Top 10 tanks of the war

While there has been any number of debates on which tank was the best of the war, this widens the topic to include a longer list. Without comment at this point these are my picks:

1. M4 Sherman
2. T34
3. Pz V Panther
4. Pz VI Tiger
5. Pz IV
6. Pz III
7. Churchill
8. M3/M5 Stuart
9. IS II
10 M3 Lee - Grant

 

Ooh that's hard.
In No particular order (should they be in order? choosing 10 was hard enough) and again with no comment.. yet:

1. M4 Sherman
2. Matilda 2
3. Churchill
4. Panzer IV
5. Panzer V
6. Pz.38t
7. T34
8. Comet
9. M5 Stuart
10. Somua S35

And I'm still not happy with 2 or 3 of those.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Some commentary:

The Sherman and T 34 represent the two tanks that won the war for the Allies. It is hard to refute their position at the top of the list. The Sherman is basically the equal of the T 34 in armor, firepower, and mobility. The T 34 has a mobility advantage tactically while the Sherman is better operationally and strategically.
The Sherman is clearly the more efficent and reliable of the two. Both had equal impact on events in the war at a minimum. On impact, one thing to remember is that the Sherman served on many fronts during the war in many diverse roles while the T 34 served primarily on a single one making the Sherman truly ubiquitious.

The German panzers come in right behind these two Allied vehicles. The Panther edges out the Tiger on its greater use and near equal capability. The Tiger is put ahead of the Pz III and IV only because of its tremendous impact tactically and psychologically on its opponets. The Pz IV was Germany's workhorse while the Pz III is only marginally less important being the panzer the Germans rode all their victories to.

The culmunation of the British I tank development is the Churchill. It epitomizes the breed and proved its workth in this capacity through the Korean War. The Churchill in its limited role served the British very well in service.

The Stuart represents the sole light tank on the list. It was a solid, reliable vehicle that held its own as a battle tank in North Africa and throughout the Pacific. A very successful if unremarkable design that soldiered on from the beginning to the end of the war.

The M3 Lee - Grant represents an odd design that proved reasonably capable in the West (North Africa) and very useful in Asia where it was used effectively through the end of the war. As an infantry support vehicle it was a solid if ungainly design.

Some didn't make its:

The Matilda II: The Matilda proved very successful for a very short period from during 1940 and into early 1941. Its shortcommings included the 2pdr lacking an HE round, poor reliablity, and low mobility. It was also an expensive vehicle to build. The Valentine, its follow-on suffers many of the same problems but is just enough better that it could serve as a replacement when nothing better was available.

The KV series: Here is a series of tanks that have one redeeming feature over the T 34; more armor. Other than that, they are slow, awkward, lack heavy gun armament compared to Soviet mediums, and are still unreliable and difficult to operate efficently.

The Pz 38t: Not a bad light tank but nothing spectacular either. A bit too cramped for upgrading. The drivetrain and hull did prove exceptional as a basis for many other vehicles. Edged out by the M3/M5 primarily on developability as a tank and longevity / usefullness.

The Crusader and other British cruiser tanks: The Crusader is a much less reliable and useful light tank than the Stuart. Both have almost equal qualities in terms of firepower, armor, and mobility with all three having a sight edge in favor of the Stuart. While later models got a 6 pdr it was really a cramped installation. At the same time the Crusader and other cruisers suffered from narrow tracks and resultant high ground pressure along with notorious unreliability. The follow-on Cromwell and Comet while better, were still less reliable and offered nothing over the Sherman. Cramming a 17pdr on the Cromwell resulted in the ungainly Challenger a much worse conversion than the more versitile Sherman allowed.

None of the French designs in use in 1940 made the list. They were all very deficient particularly suffering from the one man turret design. The Souma 35 was mentioned. It had serious flaws in the hull armor being a three piece bolted design (bolting was a problem common to the Char B1 too). The crew disposition was poor. Short range and unreliability also plagued the French designs.

 

Ah yes, the Ronson. Me wonders if T.A. likes it because it's American? It was easy to work on, I'll give it that.

The Allies deploy the American-built Sherman which turns out to be a disaster and great disappointment. Despite its great size and sloping armour its 75mm gun is short and inaccurate and armour poorly distributed. It is no match for the PzIV one on one and often not even for the PzIIIs high-velocity 50mm at guns with newer shells. It took superior numbers of tanks and air superiority to do the job.

vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."


http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No, it is not a preference based on country of orgin.
As to it being highly flammable, the early models did tend to burn mainly because the ammunition was stored high in the hull where it was generally exposed to penetrating hits causing the vehicle to burn easily (had little to do with the fuel by-the-by). The US first added applique armor over the most vulnerable spots to reduce penetrations in those areas. The addition of wet stowage made the Sherman burn less often than any German tank.
Its armor, "poorly distributed" or otherwise, was equal to that of a T 34 in effective thickness and generally thicker (due to less slope in many areas) in basis and, it was also generally better than the Pz III or IV in this respect.
The Pz III with an L60 gun had great difficulty frontally penetrating a Sherman of any model. The availability of the AP40 APCR round was virtually non-existant due to Krupp monopolizing the Tungsten carbide supply in Germany. So, the round that could penetrate was rarely available.
As for other tanks; the Panther was plagued for virtually its entire service life with engine overheating and fire problems. It, along with other heavier German tanks also suffered from a weak transmission that often failed in service.
If you are looking for a true "ronson" try the JgPz VI JadgTiger. While not easily penetrated, if it was it almost certainly would burn. All of the ammunition was stored high in the hull and the use of seperate ammunition virtually ensured that it would ignite on a penetration.
The Sherman's short 75 was in 1942 better than the T 34/76's 76.2, the German 50/60 and equal to the 6 pdr in armor penetration, the standards of the time. The Germans were only just bringing the 75/43 - 48 gun into service on the Pz IV but, it was still a rarety at that point.
If, "It took superior numbers of tanks and air superiority to do the job" then why in the Allied advance across France in 1944 did the Germans lose almost equal numbers of AFV to the Allies? Even in specific cases where the Sherman took on German panzers the battle tended to end in favor of the Allies with casualties being equal or in favor of the Allies too? Air superiority was rarely a tactical cause for German armored failure. More often, it was a combination of seriously flawed tactics both tactically and operationally coupled with a failure to integrate all arms into operations by the Germans that caused their demise both offensively and defensively.
By the way, there is more to a tank than simply measuring its armor thickness, ability to penetrate another tank with its gun, and how fast it goes. Much of what made the Sherman good were these other factors like rapidity of engagement (a decent Sherman crew usually got in the first round on target), crew efficency, communications ability, reliability. On these the Sherman vastly out scores the T 34 and also outscores the Panzers.

Oh, read the article. Lots of flawed data and conclusions there. As but one example citing the Sherman as having 2" (50 mm) side armor being a flaw of the vehicle. I'd point out that this is thicker than the side and rear armor on both the Panther and Pz IV and about the same as on a T 34. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Given the Panther weighs about 10 tons more one would think it might have had a bit more side and rear protection. In my book this is a major flaw in that vehicle's design.

 

Way off-topic, but T.A......how or could the US make the Sherman effective say,in the Russian winter??
Could it operate in the sub-zero climates?

 

Some of the Shermans had aircraft engines in them and on airplanes they would add gasoline to the oil while the engine was still hot to make the oil really thin so the engine would turn over in the cold. After it started the gas would burn or evaporate off and the oil would be it's normal weight.

I do not know if they did the same for the diesel powered shermans. Don't know much about diesel but I bet T.A. has a Dodge turbo diesel in his driveway or at least wants one. It fits his personility.

 

They sat high also, not like the classic low hull design of the 34 & such.

 

An oft repeated and lightly researched fallacy, for entirely Nerdish reasons here's a rough list of Tank heights I've got handy:

M4 sherman - 274cm
Pz. IV - 268cm
Tiger - 300cm
Pz.III - 233cm
Panther - 299cm
Pershing - 277cm
Cromwell - 249cm
Comet - 267cm
Churchill - 250cm
T34/85 - 260cm

So the Sherman is... roughly the same height as every other WW2 tank.
Why not give us your own top 10 Chromeboomerang? rather than grabbing a list off the internet?
Cheers,
Adam.

 

I cringe when I see these threads! The Matilda was great in 1940, in 1942 it was out of the race. The Panther was Great in 1944-45, in 1940 nobody even dreamt of them. The Sherman 75 was a terror when it showed up at Alamein II, in 1944 well...!

Can't we divide this in years and at least in classes (Lt, Me, Hy) so that discussion makes any sense?

 

I think that's why TA asked for 10 nominations from participants, gives a bit of space for accomodating the old temporal, Apples v oranges etc. side of things.
I thought the recent best tank thread was shaping up better than most, also having something of a cringe response to these questions.
The trouble is though I try I just.. can't.. leave.. them alone..

 

For those interested, what I did when I proposed this list was make a "score sheet" up for a number of potential candidate tanks. I (yes, yes, it is somewhat subjective but, it is better than the SWAGPOOYA method) rated each vehicle on a scale of 1 to 9 for firepower (f), mobility(m), armor(a), reliability(r), fighting efficency(e), and its impact on the war(i). I did this twice. The first time I simply assigned a number I felt was correct for the vehicle in that category. I then went back and "smoothed" these to average a value of 5 for the entire category. This gave each category more of a standard curve shape.

The scores I ended up with were:

M3 Stuart 36
M4 Sherman 42
T34 40
Pz III 38
Pz IV 38
Pz V 38
Pz VI 38
Matilda II 30
Crusader 26
Churchill 37
M3 Lee / Grant 36
IS II 36
Valentine 29
KV series 25
Pz 38t 30
Souma 35 21

So, I did try to include some weighting for vehicles like the Matilda whose service in the limelight was rather short lived. And, each category was assigned on the basis of what would have been the vehicle's capability when it was operated versus opponets of the period rather than for the war as a whole. It was just many of the earlier British tanks were too unreliable, lacked firepower (the 2pdr having no HE round hurt and the gun itself was obsolesent by 1941), and had cramped crew positions and other associated problems (like having to relay the gun after each shot due to it having a shoulder aimed in fine traverse system using a friction brake for example).
This way I tried to make sense of the whole idea boiling it down into a list of just 10 tanks.

 

T.A.

From what I remember reading and hearing about the T-34 was one of the easiest tanks to look after and maintain. The reliability was also unmatched ( other then the tracks which I believe you stated only had a life expectancy of 250 miles )

Also the Firepower of the T-34 was greater and more accurate then of the first Sherman. Not to mention that it was faster and had thicker armor.

 

Sorry for the second post but I also remember watching interviews of American veterans who absolutely dreaded getting into the Shermans because they would blow up upon getting hit.


There is a reason why the Germans named them " cigars boxes " or something of that nature.

unlike the Americans not one Soviet soldier disliked or said anything bad about the T-34

 

On the T 34. Much of its "reliablity" is hype. The reality is that it was a very crude vehicle with a very short service life requiring frequent rebuilding. I suspect the Soviets in part intended this in its design.
For example, the T 34 was a huge oil capacity. It needs this becasue it typically burns about a quart an hour in operation. Post war users (like the Czechs) found the workmanship so crude they disassembled the tanks they were given and totally reworked them machining most of the parts a second time. They found it was not uncommon for as much as several ounces of metal shavings to accumulate in the oil system after just a few hours run time.
The aluminum-magnesium engine used had a tendency to burn and destroy the tank. The tracks as pointed out had a very short life. The suspension system also lent itself to shedding tracks at high speeds and in sharp turns. Wartime optics frequently developed a yellow tinge from the glue used making vision more difficult. They also frequently suffered from bubbles in the glass.
The rough castings frequently used encouraged spalling in the vehicle when hit.
On the whole, it was not intended for alot of field maintenance or a long service life. The T 34 was more like a unit of ammunition you shot it off then returned it to the factory for reloading.

On the Sherman buring: The ancedotial evidence is belied by the Ordinance Department's numbers of vehicles hit, burned, etc for the France campaign. The wet stowage did alleviate the problem of ammunition fires. But, the tale of Shermans cooking off easily remained embedded from the early models which did have this problem.
But, many tanks suffered deficencies when first introduced to battle. Some were able to retrieve their reputation (the Panther for instance) others suffered with it their entire service lives.

I also suggest looking at the armor and gun of both the T34/76 T34/58 and the M4A1 75mm and M4A3E8. Both are almost identical in thickness and penetration. But, the 75mm Sherman has one big advantage: Its gun fires a great HE round and the vehicle is equipped to be used as an self-propelled artillery piece. There are numerous times where a battalion or two of Shermans are lined up in France and Italy and used to shell German positions. 50 to 100 75mm guns firing on you is not something to take lightly.

On Soviet soldier's opinions of the T 34; The ones who complained probably were shot.. More realistically, they had little or nothing to compare their mount to so their opinion based on just having crewed a T 34 alone is not credible.

 

TAG, your evaluation method seems rational enough, it should work avoiding the direct comparison between say the Tiger to the Tetrarch but instead allocating points to each. After all the Tiger would be a lousy light tank (the Tetrarch too, but that's incidental ).

Should I ask what the "SWAGPOOYA method" is?

 

I was scared to, thought it might have something to do with boasting about the size of ones testicles...
Cheers,
Adam.

 

SWAGPOOYA means Stupid Wild A$$ed Guess Pulled Out Of Your A$$. It is widely used in the corporate, government, and international business world to estimate just about anything or to appease a manager.

 

T.A.

Actually the Soviet soldiers compared the T-34 reliability to other tanks such as the Panther and if im not mistaken the Sherman. ( I might be mistaken about the sherman, I know it was another American and British tank )

All these comparisons came after the war and the most recent only several years ago........ So getting shot was probably a little extreme

 

Any M4 that the Soviets would have dealt with would have been early models that the allies would have been most willing to give away. The Sherman also would not be suited for the Russian forces. It required more training to use effectively and to maintain. The tracks were also like those of the earlier German tanks. Too narrow and unsuited for the terrain.

If you were to give a few Pintos to the Soviets in 1980 and let people drive them that were use to the Yugo, I would suspect that you would get much the same response as comparing these two tanks.