Top 10 tanks of the war

Patton wanted tank production focused completely on the Sherman, as he felt that the Army simply needed as many tanks as it could lay its hands on. As he was such a rising star, he got a lot of support for this view, and it became policy. This delayed the development and production of the Pershing and any other tank which could have supplemented the Sherman. To be fair, I think he had been assured that the Sherman could take on any German AFV, which as we know was quite false.

 

I don't see why the Sherman shouldn't have been used in '44, it was more than capable of taking out it's main opponent, the PzKpfw IV.
The fact the the Germans had the Panther and Tiger makes many people think that the Sherman was rubbish, which does carry some truth if you have a 1 on 1 between a Tiger and Sherman. But that very rarely happened.

If the allies developed a tank like the Tiger, then the Russians would have probably got all the way to the north sea, OK that could be an exaggeration, but the war ended the way it did due to the speed, quantity, and the mechanical quality of the Sherman and Cromwell.
Just like the Blitzkreigs where won by the fast IIs.
Tanks like the Tiger suited the defender, while the Sherman the attacker.

 

Patton had next to zero real influence on the Selection of armoured vehicles, particularly by that point, his 'political' power became almost nonexistent as the war moved on.
The decision to stick with M4 was essentially down to the army board and other specialised departments, and it was the only sensible one they could make.

Once again the question arises when the M4 is so easily dismissed:
If not the Sherman for D-Day, then what else?
The main devices ever possibly in the frame were the M6 & the T/M26 (Pershing). The former was found to be "too heavy, under-gunned, poorly shaped and requiring improvements to the transmission" by the Armour approval people, among many other faults it would have required an entirely new set of landing craft/infrastructure to get the same amount onto the beaches as the M4. It's an irrelevance perhaps most analogous to the British TOG1/2.

The next candidate, the Pershing, is a pipe-dream for mass deployment in Normandy. By June '44 only 10 test vehicles were ready, and even though she gained combat approval very quickly if she had been found seriously wanting it would have been a disaster of epic proportions for production to have been diverted to her.
Strategic production seems to be the primary reason for any delay in replacing the M4. You don't switch all that effort on a whim, particularly with as huge an assault as the recapture of Western Europe due. You struggle and hope for a viable improved design and only change to it when absolutely necessary. The factors that hindered an improved medium/heavy tank are hugely complex, but Patton wasn't really part of the process, and the end result of continued Sherman usage was nowhere near such a disaster as many profess. The men who made these decisions are so often glibly presented as 'murderers', its a disservice to serious men who struggled as hard as humans can to give their troops the best that was available, the directions they took, and were forced to take, prove mostly solid when more closely examined.

Ramble ramble blah blah.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I don't know where to start with this. First of all, just because T.A. has been here making posts for longer than I have doesn't exactly mean he knows more than me about everything. Second of all, the part where you say that U.S. tank engineering was far superior to the Russian's is completely absurd. Even if you think that the Sherman was a good tank (which I disagree with) the Russian tanks were superior to the American's (i.e. T-34s, KV-1, IS-2 BT-7, etc.). Furthermore, the Russians clearly had the most prominent role in the defeat of Germany, and to say that if there tanks were so good then why would they have needed us is absurd.

But back to the Sherman and T-34. Both the T-34 and the Sherman were reliable tanks. Even if you argue that the Sherman was more reliable, it doesn't even matter because the T-34 was reliable enough. The Sherman was no match for any of the the latter German tanks it encountered such as the Panther and the Tiger. The T-34 on the other hand was so good that it forced the Germans to make the Panther (which would have been the best tank if it had not been so complex). The T-34 actually stood a chance against these tanks and a lot of the time got the better of them. I mean the Germans called the Sherman the "Tommy Cooker". Anyone who thinks that the Sherman with its weak, low velocity 75mm, and light unsloped armor would defeat a T-34/85 is insane.

Also T.A. if you are taking into account the sloping for those numbers, there is no way the T34/85 would have those numbers. Also, I don't understand what you did with the guns, could you mabye explain?

 

Oh God, no, not another one!

All of this Sherman-defending is driving me insane!
Please can this be the last time I say this!
The Sherman was a good MEDIUM tank, on par with the PzKpfw IV, T-34/76 and Cromwell. The Panther and Tiger where much better than it (not counting reliability and maintenance issues), but they are a completely different class altogether. The Panther is a heavy medium, along with the Pershing, Comet and T-34/85 (almost). The Tiger is a heavy tank, on Par with the IS-II.

Goodnight!

 

I am not defending the Sherman in anyway, if that is what you are saying (mabye your the one defending it?). I completely agree with you that the Tiger and the Panther outclass it. My argument is that the Sherman was not the best tank of the war or within the top tanks as some people here are saying.

 

:headbonk: :deadhorse:
In the actual Sherman vs T34 battles (Korea and Syria) the Shermans won most of the time. Easy Eights killed 49 T34/85s against 20 M4A3E8s knocked out in Korea.

Source- Osprey's M26/M46 Pershing Tank, 1943-53
New Vanguard Series #35

 

Thanks for your time JCF on posting the US review of the T-34... JagdtigerI makes a good argument I will admit( just jokin' about pokin' yer eye out)...But there are many variables. Ammunition being one. Crew training another.... 5 US crewed Shermans vs 5 Soviet crewed T34's . Who would people put their money on? It could go either way. Because a tank is just a tool. It's how you use it. Comes down to training. The Israelis were using shermans(upgunned) successfully against T52'S(I think)...Anyhoo. Am enjoying this forum.

 

Sure the crew obviously plays a factor, but I am looking at it as if two computer bots were controlling the tanks.

 

They had 'computer bots' that contorled the tanks in ww2, wow never knew that, you learn something new everyday

 

Absolutely, this is merry go around, and I feel like I want to give it a ride, so I'll swap with you joe

Ok, the Panther was an almost exact copy of the T-34 yes because it was a new inovative tank that was very good at what it did. However the Panther was not only complex in terms of labour time to build, but also in money needed to build, and the sheer complexity of what was required of the manufacters. Now even if this was not bad enough (as I have already posted this, but I will do it in again, because I amin a good mood) The panther having interlocking wheels just like the tiger, konigstiger, and the jadgpanther, all had the trouble with the wheels clogging up in the winter snow and western mud and making the tank immobile until it could be cleaned off, they all also were slow, extremely high on fuel consumption and were just too darn big, just look at the tiger being unable to cross many of the bridges in the combat areas (this somewhat made an attack by tigers prredictable). The panther although to German standards was considered a medium tank, in all regards it was a heavy tank while the T-34 being a medium its self as with the M4 sherman.

Now which is actually the better tank? the one which initiated the designs for all after it, or a copy of the original?

Ok now with the "tomme cooker" part. Yes we all know that the Shermans were prone to catching fire at the beginning, but that changed and they became more reliable and the main stream tank of the american and in some ares the British armoured forces, now you wouldn't use it if was not a good tank, now all the Allied Generals obviously liked it enough to use it, even the Russians, even with their hugh amounts of T-34's.

Who said that a tank can only be put out of action by penertration of its armour? What about the tracks, making it immobile? what about an arse shot taking out the engine? or the turrent with generally less armour and less slope then the hull? after all there is more then one way to skin a cat.

Ok now how well did the T-34 compared with the sherman go against a Tiger tank? Both had trouble knocking them out at any range, and both would be blown to pieces by the 88 KwK. Both had varients to attempt to fix this such as the British 17pdr Firfly (Sherman) and the T-34\85 (t-34\76), plus you cant compare a first varient American M4 Sherman against the last varient of the Russian T-34's. Its like putting the Mk I spitfire against a Me 109 Gustav.

oh and yes we know that there are many people out there that think the the Sherman was the worst tank ever and the Germans had the best tanks, but that simply is not the case mate.

and before you say it JCF I know I am beating what is clearly a mutilated dead horse

Have fun

 

I'm surprised you should say that of someone who progressed spectacularly in command of several Armoured Divisions and even Army Corps up until 1943. Even in disgrace he was regarded as an asset.

 

Unfortunately half the German tanks in Normandy were Panthers. And even the Pz IVs had guns that could take out a Sherman from miles away by then.

 

JagdTigerI, what I meant was I am tired of defending the Sherman time and time again.
Drucius, what's the point of a gun that can destroy you miles away when most combats took place at lesser ranges than that?
And the Panther also had one fatal flaw-the mantlet (The bit with the strongest armour, around the gun) was shaped in such a way that if a shot hit the lower half, it would usually bounce onto the poorly-protected driver's compartment roof. Thats how a Sherman could kill a Panther from the front. Sure, it would be difficult though.
And where not mentioning the tactic of firing WP rounds at the tank, the WP would get into the tank via the vision slits and air filters, blinding the crew giving the Sherman valuable time to get round the side.

I think the horse is turning into a puddle of bloody pulp now.

And another thing JagdTigerI, looking at it with computers controlling the tanks is one of the worst ways to look at it. It solves nothing. It explains nothing.
Though by your name I can guess you have an appreciation for German panzers (nothing wrong with that, I love a good peice of PzKpfw IV F2 now and again). Even the mad super-heavies like the JagdTiger.
And why is your name JagdTigerI when it so clearly uses the chassis of the Tiger II?

 

Avge was 800m (IIRC), at which point the PzIVs gun can penetrate the Sherman, but the Sherman would struggle to penetrate the PzIV. Frontally, that is.

So difficult, I've only read one authentic account of it happening, (although I know there are more) and that was by sheer fluke. The shot trap was eliminated in the next Panther mark.

Sounds more theoretical than realistic.

There's no doubt that the Sherman was a fine tank when it was introduced, but by 1944 it was well outclassed by its opponents. Even with the applique.

Imagine if the Germans were still using PzIIIs with the 50mm gun and 60mm armour? We'd think they were mad.

 

I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy! Welcome aboard!

 

LOL .

 

Was there a Jagdtiger II ?

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/23353-do-you-consider-history-channel.html#post282332

 

Maybe there was another poster who thought of the same member name before? LOL