Top 10 tanks of the war

The Stuart was reliable, readily produced tank, which served its role as a light tank very well throughout the entire course of the war.

Now about the Sherman. First of all it was the absoute perfect tank for the Pacific. I think this is a factor overlooked a lot but I want to make sure it gets its due respects for that.

When the M4A1 and M4A3 (early models) first saw service in 1942 they were perfectly adaquate. The 75-mm gun was equal or better than that of the Pzr. III and Pzr. IV guns as the Pzr. IV was just begining to mount the 75-mm L/43 and a few L/48. In terms of armor protection on early models, it might be slightly lacking, but Pzr. IIIs with 50-mm surley had a tough time pentrating it. However, there was that ever so annoying tendency to burn.

When we get into later models such as the M4A3 (76), the M4A3E8 and the Firefly, all of those tanks were IMO at least equal if not better than the Pzr. IV H (possibly not the Firefly because of poor HE performance if you are talking strikly a 1-on-1 battle). The 76-mm gun mounted on the Sherman couuld pentrate about 118-mm of armor at 500m and the 17prdr could penetrate about 142-mm of armor at 500m (only about 6-mm less than the KwK 42 L/70). Both of these guns were able to take out a Pzr. IV at most normal combat ranges.

The Firefly had about equal armor compared to the Pzr. IV with about 51-mm on the fontal hull and superstucture and about 76-mm on the frontal turret. The sides were about 38-51mm. The M4A3 (76) had about 63-mm of frontal hull, about 87-mm of frontal turret and about 50-mm of side armor (roughly, for some reason tank armor seems to always vary from source to source). This armor is clearly better than that of the Pzr. IV (50-mm front turret, 80-mm front hull and about 45-mm of side armor)especially with declining German armor quality in the later years of the war.

Now that is dealing only with technical battle statistics. There is then the fact that the Sherman in all forms is far more reliable and cost efficient than the Pzr. IV and pretty much any other tank of its class. As well as the fact that it was easialy adaptable to be used in all sorts of special tank roles for the Allies, and its chasis was used for many tank destroyer roles. It was also easily adapted to fit many different sized guns, which provided for very efficient tank battalions which could be almost entirly based off of the Sherman or at least is chasis.

 

Hello T.A.G,

actually a two man crew is an advantage when it comes to fielding as many tanks as possible. That the T70 wasn't on par with a PzIII or a Valantine is undisputable.

However whilst only less then 7000 valantines could be build within 4 years the T70 was build in 8000 units within one1/2 years and that is what counted. Having the choice between a Wehrmacht infantry platoon and a T70 I would certainly opt. for the T70 and the same would go for 3 T70 instead of one Valantine - no matter how cramped and "vitually blind" the T70 might have been.

So, cheap and fast to build and still effective is what places a T70 ahead of a Valantine IMO. The reason for the Russians to stop production was the need of its carriage for the SU-76, and more than enough of the T70 already fielded in addition to T60, BT's, Valentines, etc. etc and not of the Russians having recognized it as a pathetically bad tank.

Radio? as FAIK only the Germans and Americans had radios in every tank.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello JTI,

a good and informative post,

So was the PzII, but nothing really special about both tanks.

It sure was.
The platform versatility of the Sherman wasn't more then that of the PzIV I would think. The Sherman was a good tank and it is rated as #3 on my list. I would say that on armory and weaponry both the Sherman and PzIV were quite even, however the kill ratio of the Sherman is way beyond the Pz.IV. so there must be a reason (I suspect silhouette and cannon) and that is why I placed him under the Pz.IV. All Pz.IV from March 42 onward had the KwK L/43 and more then half of all produced PzIV's had the L43 or L48 cannon.

Also when the Sherman started to get better it actually was facing Panthers and Tigers - unfortunatly for the Wehrmacht - the numbers produced coudn't match the Sherman numbers flooding Europe. So the Sherman wasn't really a best tank from 1943 onwards, but its ratio of production effort contra impact gave it a number 3 on my list.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hey Kruska,

You make some good points. I can respect your opinion nof the Sherman in the 3 spot, but I feel that you may be underestimating the imprtance of the Sherman's reliability and cost effectivness. The Sherman was really the tank that won the war for the Allies, and I should think that a tank's impact on the war should also be taken into effect.

 

Hello JT1,

I do get your point in regards to "The Sherman was really the tank that won the war for the Allies....". As I said it was a good tank - or let me say it was the best tank the anglo-saxons had till the Pershing arrived.

In my opinion (just mine okay) it was the Russians that provided the basis for the western allies to defeat the Wehrmacht in the West. Therefore the logic that you apply towards the Sherman, is applied by me towards the T34.

To my understanding the Anglo-Saxon weaponary was in general not superior to that of the Wehrmacht but a little bit minus. (off course items such as the 105mm, or C-47 excluded) - however what made the allies superior was the quantity and the industrial situation.

What I mean to say is: imagine the German industry would have been on par with the Americans. - The Germans would still have produced the far less economical TigerI and the US the economical Sherman - now the difference would be 10,000 Tigers instead of 1500? and 30,000 PzIV instead of 8000, against 50-60,000 Shermans.
Do you believe that the Sherman would still have prevailed in the West ? The same approach needs to be applied towards aircrafts, artillery, trucks, etc. etc

Due to the overall combined arms superiority of the anglo-saxons, a Sherman was let me say indeed good enough to stand up against the Wehrmacht - as such the US military could indeed afford to produce an economical Sherman a mass and field it. But in retrospect of the combined arms superiority of the anglo-saxons - basically any single weaponsystem they had in service was good enough to win against the Wehrmacht even a PIAT or an M3Grant.

And good enough IMO doesn't automatically imply the best.

In conclusion my 10 best list is taking the actuall historic economical/military situation into account and this explains why the TigerI is not on position 1 but 10.

If rated simply as one onto one certainly the TigerI was the best - till the Pershing would propably have changed things entirely.

Mind boggeling isn't it

Regards
Kruska

 

Hi Kruska,

How do you figure that? So does the Sherman receive no credit with respect to helping the Western Allies to win the war? Did they not help the war in the Pacific?

In what respect? The Germans produced some masterfully engineered pieces of machinery, but most proved to be too expensive, difficult to produce and maintain, and basically just mechanical nightmares.

So we are talking about 30,000 Pzr. IVs verses 50,000-60,000 Shermans? Yea those numbers seem to imply the Sherman would have still prevailed. I was never taking into account the U.S. industrial capacity but rather just the Sherman's ability to be produced in General. As you just stated yourself, the Shermans could be produced at almost twice the rate of the Pzr. IV.

 

Hello JT1,

You mentioned "The Sherman was really the tank that won the war for the Allies" therfore I did't see a seperation between the Russians and Western Allies. The Sherman certainly helped the Western Allies amongst many other factors to win their battles and, thus aiding the Russians to end the war against Germany. It was also one of many factors that help the US to win against the Japanese.

It is burried within the German character to build wonderfull, complicated and expensive things - can't change them . As I tried to point out, the German industry had a totally different layout compared to the US industry. Therefore they had no choice but to come up with hardware that -hopefully due to small numbers - could equalize the quantity concept of the oponents. Thus a TigerI - hoping to even out the numerical odds - which a PzIV could never have achieved even if build alternatively to the Tiger/Panther.

This mechanical unreliability and service issue is mostly due to the never ending arguments of those who simply can't accept that e.g. a Tiger was far better then a Sherman. That a tank such as a totally new concept as the TigerI had its initial problems in undeniable - when the TigerI was actually a reliable weapon, Hitler screwed it up by pressing the TigerII into service instead of concentrating further efforts on the TigerI. That the Panther had never ending issues is true but a Pz.IV simply could not have turned the tide against the new emerging oponents.

There is a very good book about Tigers in action on the Eastern Front - sorry but I can't recall the title. When reading this book (it accounts for every single Tiger deployed in Eastern Prussia) you will notice that maintainance and reliabilty were of no concern - but fuel and recovery was. Due to the industrial limitations the Tiger recovery vehicles simply could't be produced in the necessary numbers and fuel well - simply was not available either. The number of kills those Tigers achieved outnumberd those of the PzIV by far even taking a ratio of 3 PzIV to 1 Tiger. In average the Tigers counted 50 hits on their structures a PzIV couldn't have survived with more then 5-7 of those hits.

So no matter how someone would want to twist it, the Tiger was the far better choice to produce then a PzIV or a Panther not to mention Jagdtigers, Sturmtigers etc.

You are forgetting the 10,000 Tigers, if we would assume that they would not have been build in favour for the PzIV, it would be 50-60000 PzIV against 50-60,000 Shermans. And in this case I would place my bucks on the Pz. But let us forget this example of mine since it doesn't fit into the historical equation.

Let me please forward once again:

The allies were in no need to build the best - the extreme quantities/output allowed them simply to deploy good to avarage hardware. E.g - why should the western allies invest into a hiper tank if the airforce could field 10,000 fighter a/c against 1000 Luftwaffe? Or why should they develop a hiper aircraft (The P51, P47 or Tempest were excelent a/c) if they could field 20,000 tanks against 3.000 Pz's?

So why did the US come up with the Pershing? simply because they knew that they could also build a much better tank then the Sherman and because they wanted to reduce human losses on their tank crews and in general on their armed forces. Exactly the same reason why the Germans build the TigerI.

Regards
Kruska

 

Kruska,

Fair enough, just a misunderstanding of words, my fault.

I am sorry but these are quite absurd statements. The tank's transmission was prone to breakdown if preventative maintenance was not carried out regularly. It needed a high level of general technical maintenance, which was made difficult by its incredibly complex design. Any damage to the tracks or wheels would be a huge problem due to their interleaved design. Ice and mud tended to freeze on the interleaved road wheels, which could be a huge problem as during winter nights, mud would freeze and by morning the tanks had been immobilized, often at the same time as the Soviets would attack. It was also very difficult to recover any Tigers which broke down on the battlefield.

Could you provide the exact numbers for that?

That just seems nonsense. Are you including "hits" from infantry weapons as well on that one....

I didn't factor these in simply because we were talking about the Pzr. IV and the Sherman only.

Good point, I don't see how i works into the specific tank argument.

 

Nothing absurd about this - the TigerI, the crew and maintainance crew had overcome most of these problems towards the end of 1944 - which is quite normal for a totally new and complex weapon system to expect about two years to rid out the bugs.

Could you forward some battle or combat occurences - where this frozen mud issue actually became a handicap? or a hit into the tracks or wheels, excluding single accounts (which tend to be highlighted as an overall issue)

For this I would need to find and purchase the book first - as far as I recall the average Killratio of those Tigers in East Prussia was far more then 15:1.

No one (at least not the Wehrmacht) would count or bother about rifle impacts, these impacts counted were anti-tank and tank guns

When these Tigers moved into action they faced dozens of Russian anti-tank guns and tanks - there are several episodes that accounts for Tigers to encounter dozens of anti-tank guns and dozens of T-34 on a single encounter, and simmilar episodes are numerous. There are also episodes where Tigers can't be moved due to lack of fuel and other problems and had to be destroyed but these didn't account for more then 20% of the losses. A PzIV under the same circumtances would not have been able to be recovered since it would have been destroyed before in that kind of combat.

Hitler even insited to receive reports about every single Tiger being destroyed. So one can imagine how much effort the Germans put into avoiding selfdestruction.

If we wan't to talk about quantity issues we have to.

It supports my argument why the Sherman is considered by so many anglo-saxons as a best tank - despite actually being "Just" a good tank.

As I mentioned before, the anglo-saxon didn't have any other tank of impact - since the anglo-saxons won the war and neglecting the quantity issue it is automatically assumed that what ever they fielded is best - which IMO is simply not the case.

The Pershing was a best tank, however in view to the historical impact it would be impossible to place a Pershing in a best ten list.

Let me please forward another example and then let us end this dispute.

Formula I 2010

19 Ferrari and one Mercedes for 20 Grand Prix.
The season is 50% rain and 50% sunshine
The Ferrari team holds a pool of 19 world class drivers
The Mercedes team holds a pool of 1 world class drivers
= lets agree that the Mercedes driver doesn't get sick or injured
Each Ferrari Pitbox holds 10 crewmembers, Mercedes 4 crewmembers
The Ferrari can pitstop for petrol and tires as much as he wants
The Mercedes can pitstop for petrol and tires only 1 time.

That the Ferrari will win the constructers WC is understood.
That the Ferrari will win the drivers WC is most certainly

would it be therefore logical and correct to say that the Ferrari is better then the Mercedes because he helped to win the Formula1 2010, because the Mercedes was a very complex car and needed a lot of maintainance and was prone to technical issues, and the Ferrari cost much less to build despite the Mercedes having won one, two or more Grand prix's?

Regards
Kruska

 

Didnt the Pz4 have a longer barrel then the Sherman? Wouldnt that have gave the Pz4 a velocity advantage?

 

Hello Totenkopf,

the L43 was superior to the Sherman 75, the L48 and Sherman 76mm would be at even odds.

The problem for the Wehrmacht was not the cannon, but as usual the shortage of about everything so as no tungsten, tungsten ammunition had a 15-20% higer penetration characteristica.

In regards to bugs - it also took the Americans 2 years to change the name „Ronson“ back into Sherman.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hi Kruska,

I can't give you any specifics right now but I am confident that the individual accounts kept compiling to the point where there was the need for a chasis change in the King Tiger.

20% still seems like pretty large number of loses to be solely because of poor designing, considering the Sherman's average was around 5%.

The number just seemed extremely high. Do you have a source? And what kind of AT guns are we talking about and at what ranges?

So we can just overlook those first two years? Those were the years the Germans needed the Tiger to help them win the war, by 1944 there was no hope. Also I don't understand why we are overlooking the Tiger's fuel consumption rates which we high especially for a country that was lacking in fuel.

 

Hello JT1,

There is no need to overlook the first two years, as the PzIV was more than good enough to fight the Sherman. The Wehrmacht just simply didn't have the NUMBERS!!

The TigerI/fuel issue is a nogo arguement because:

Due to the extreme losses of Tank crews in mostly Russia, there would have been no crews to man the theoretical 3x number of PzIV's contra TigerI. So the fuel needed wasn't more than that what would have been needed to feed all these PzIV's. Actually the Tiger didn't even have a consumtion of 3 times the Pz.IV.

There was a reason why the Tiger and Panther were build - and their predesessors/prototypes from 1938/9 were stopped by Hitler until 1941 because according to him the war was to be over by latest 1942.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hi Kruska,

I think the difference in our ways of thinking is that you keep trying to bring in other tanks when I am trying to just discuss one.

Saying that the Tiger's problems during it's first two years of service are ok because the Pzr. IV was able to handle Shermans is a very weak argument and says nothing about the Tiger except that it wasn't mechanically sound for any part of the war that actually mattered.

Furthermore, saying that the Tiger's fuel inefficiency is ok because the Germans didn't have enough fuel or crews or something for the Pzr.IV is an argument made with hindsight and defintainly not considered by the engineers designing the tank.

The fact is that the Tiger did have design flaws which took a long time to iron out.

The fact is that the Tiger was not fuel efficient compared to almost every other tank in service at the time.

And the fact is that the Germans did not have the U.S. Industrial power and choosing to produce the Tiger only made worse their actual situation industrially.

 

and dont forget the strategic bombing

in my oponion the best tank related with the time of introduce so we cannot compare Matilda 2 with Panther (like t34 with t55
) so I select the best two tank for every year

1940
1- Pz3(blitzkrieg tank) 2- Souma 35 (french kiss)

1941
1- T 34 (victory tank) 2- Matilda 2 (queen of desert)

1942
1- PZ4 (winning horse) 2- M4 (yankee tank)

1943
1- PANTHER ( tank eater) 2- TIGER (tank ace)

1944
1- IS2 (scarry tank) 2- Firefly(tiger hunter)

1945
1- IS3(monster) 2- Centurion(main battle tank)


as I notice the british and russian are best in the beginning and the end of war and german in the middle of the war

 

I put Is2 instade of kingtiger because the first defate the second in many challenge

 

Well that wouldn't be my argument I'd place the IS2 instead of the KT because The IS2 was built in far greater numbers and had a wider range of uses.





Cheers...

 

In 1940 and early 1941 the Matilda did experience some success but you have to remember that overall it is expensive to build, had low mobility and reliability, and the weak 2pdr lacked an HE round.

It is interesting that you choose 1942 to put the Sherman. You are talking about early model M4A1s and M4A3s which were probably slightly less potent than a Pzr. IV.

The Panther and Tiger in 1943 were two of the most mechanically flawed tanks ever to be produced. When the Panther D tank was to be built, Guderian asked for a tank with superior mobility to the T-34. However, what he ended up with was a 45 ton tank with a petrol engine, front wheel drive, and poor suspension. They opted for a complex set of interleaved road wheels, which were quick to clog up with mud, and made it very difficult to change an inner wheel as you would have to take off other wheels. In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

The Tiger suffered similar ineffiencies. The tank's transmission was prone to breakdown if preventative maintenance was not carried out regularly. It needed a high level of general technical maintenance, which was made difficult by its incredibly complex design. Any damage to the tracks or wheels would be a huge problem due to their interleaved design. Ice and mud tended to freeze on the interleaved road wheels, which could be a huge problem as during winter nights, mud would freeze and by morning the tanks had been immobilized, often at the same time as the Soviets would attack. It was also very difficult to recover any Tigers which broke down on the battlefield.

The IS-2 had a very slow rate of fire with its main gun as the projectile and the separately and due to the large size of the 122-mm round only 28 could be carried.

The Firefly's major drawback was that a blinding flash, wihch often threw up a cloud of fumes and dust, emanated from the muzzle brake when the gun was fired; a similar flash combined with powerful back-blast, also filled the turret. These problems were particularly acute when the Firefly fired HE rounds. Given the velocity at which its rounds were fired, the brief flashes made it difficult for the momentarily blinded Firefly crews to observe the fall of teir rounds, which had hit the tarted before the flash had died don or their sight was restored. The flash also exposed their location to the enemy, forcing tank commanders to regularly move to new firing positions. Despite the technical measures intended to minimize this problem, it was never really solved. As three-quarters of all rounds fired were HE-generally against 'soft' targets like infantry, anti-tank guns and lorries- the Firefly's inadequate HE performance was a serious problem.

Very few of either of these tanks were actually produced during the war. Only 6 Centurion prototypes were built in May 1945 but never saw combat. They had NO effect on the war and can barely even be considered WWII tanks.

 

Good points JagdTiger, other good point would be that instead of the IS-3 in 45 I thing the T-44 would fit the bill better no?



Cheers...

 

Can I suggest the Comet instead of the Centurian for the British offereing? By the end of the war, 1,200 Comets had been produced, instead of the puny numbers of Centurians. But that said, only the 11th Armored Division was completely refitted with the new Comet by war’s end. It also didn’t participate in any major battles, but it saw some action against the Nazis and was involved in the River Rhine crossing.

With a top speed of 32 mph, and the 76.2mm cannon it should have been a potent performer. That wasn’t the same cannon as the 17 pounder, but the ammunition was more compact and easier to handle and store inside the turret. I think the Comet (with improvements) remained in British service until the mid to late fifties didn’t it?