Top 10 tanks of the war

And don't forget the "Firefly". If only more of these had been converted!!

 

I believe a .50 cal round through the engine grill or air intake would be sufficient to "kill" a Tiger.

 

Yes indeed I agree.
Huge differences throughout the war in one type of tank(s).
The "Top" was everyones soft spot. A half inch thick (if not open)(mesh or thin plating atop half-tracks/armored cars/some (home-job) TDs, on "most" types ?
Ammo types are significant also, availability, distribution, effect, and type of target. Crew quality/training, Commanders, mission type.
So many little things that mean so much
Molotov Cocktails, WP, even smoke grenades (on intakes) work well too. Aircraft with a 50 cal (or bigger) can ruin your day.
A tough question to ask/answer, unless one defines a "specific" day, for tomorrow....the answer may be different.
As pilots say..."It only takes one (damn near anything)(Seagulls included) in the right spot, (The Golden BB) to take you out."
No matter what you have.

 

Easily the best tank of the early war, the only tank to serve in every theatre and the only tank to serve throughout the war practically unmodified. How it doesn't make everybody's list of best tanks evah is beyond me.

Just as slow, less armour, same maingun. The Valentine wasn't strictly a follow-on to the Matilda II, it was a stop-gap offered by Vickers at a time when it looked like we'd need every tank we could lay our hands on.

Good-looking death traps.

The Challenger wasn't a converted Crom, it was an entirely new tank using many of the same parts as a Crom.

 

The Challenger was a Cromwell hull with the turret of the TOG 2.
Though, the hull was widened and lengthened a bit.

Just asking for a Panzershrek/Panzerfoust. Remember the coaxel MG was removed to make room for the gun and the Hull MG was removed to make room for extra 17 pdr shells. And the 17pdr fired a poor HE shell. And not to mention the exceedingly cramped turret.

This has got me thinking. The Cromwell was comparable to the Sherman, and you said this about the Sherman;

Youre sort of contradicting yourself here mate, a better statement would have been this;

Meh. But what do I know.

Almost all Allied tanks worked well against Japan.

 

i remember guderian writing that the panzer III was the most important tank in his group. his ideal team would be german-made t-34s supported by p-IIIs.

 

Although it's quite similar, the Challenger's turret is far more sophisticated than the TOG 2's.

The Firefly only lost the hull MG, it retained it's co-ax. Challenger crews are on record as saying that they prefer the Challenger: it was faster and more maneouverable. Not sure where you're getting the bit about a poor HE shell for the 17pdr from, it's not something I've ever heard about it.

 

I think you got at least one of your (my) qoutes mixed up. That referring to Sherman's in the hands of the Russians.

I was trying to say they did not get the least desirable of the Sherman models.

And, if you read accounts by US and Brit tankers, Shermans properly crewed and properly led could (and did) destroy Tigers and Panthers.

 

Top Ten tanks:

1. T-34/85
2. Panther
3. Panzer IV
4. Tiger
5. KV-1
6. Comet
7. IS-2
8. M26
9. Sherman Firefly
10. T-34/76

The Sherman should not be even close to making anyone's top ten list. Although it was reliable and easy to produce it had many other flaws, such as:
1. Weak Armor
2. Wear Gun (compared to German tanks)
3. Extremely flammable

Furthermore, heavy German tanks such as the King Tiger, which had an excellent gun and good armor protection, were difficult and expensive to produce and were prone to breakdown.

 

I'd be interested to see your comparison of the T34/85 and M4A3E8(wet); or between the T34/76 and an M4A1 Sherman.

 

Here goes...probably could use some changes here and there...

1. T-34
2. Panther
3. M4 Sherman
4. Tiger
5. Panzer III
6. Panzer IV
7. Matilda II
8. Sherman Firefly
9. KV-1
10. King Tiger

I know the King Tiger had many issues, but I had to throw it in there just because it looks so impressive on paper .

 

The T-34/85 still outclasses the M4A3E8. First of all the T-34/85 had superior armor which was made even better by the fact that it was sloped so much. The T-34/85 also went faster than the M4A3E8 by about 8 MPH. Plus the T-34 had the larger gun.

As for the T-34/76 and the M4A1, it comes down to similar things such as the T-34/76 having armor which is more slopped and a more powerful 76mm gun. There is also the fact that the M4A1 was very flammable.

As a side note, I would advise you to go to historychannel.com which has the Sherman featured on one of its episodes of engineering disasters.

Also, Ceraphix the Panzer III may have been important to the Germans in their early advances but that was just because there were no better tanks to fight against. It had weak armor on 50mm at most (on the Panzer II AUSF N) and most of the time the ones they were using carried only a 50mm gun (Panzer III AUSF J)

 

Let's see:

Armor:

---------T34/76-----T34/85-----M4A1-----M4A3E8
h front......95.............102............76...........102
h side.......65...............51............45.............51
tur front....68...............85............84............76
tur side.....65...............51............51............51

Gun
500 yds....71...............111...........131..........91
1000 yds..61................102...........110.........76

The Sherman is also far more reliable and maintainable than a T34. It has a far higher crew efficency and layout. The engineering of the vehicle and the production quality is much higher too.
As for the "flammable" thing; this is true only of the earlier models where the ammunition proved insufficently protected. The "wet" versions of the Sherman were one of the least prone to suffer catastrophic explosions of any tank of the war.

The armor figures shown are for the armor including slope. Note, that the actual hull front armor on a Sherman is thicker than on a T34. The greater slope of the T34 makes up for this to an extent.
As for mobility, the T34 is superior tactically. Operationally, the M4 is much better. A T34 could not make a road march of hundreds of miles without suffering serious mechanical failures. One in particular is the short track life due to the use of a single end loose pin arrangement for the track links.

And, if you get your history from television; you are not getting history right.

 

I have no clue as to where you got that information about the armor of those tanks. I cannot find those numbers in any of my books or on any online sites. Here is what I have:

T-34/76 .............T-34/85................M4A1
20 front hull.........100 front.hull.......25.4 front hull
52 front turret.......90 front turret.....50.8 front turret

Also, I don't know what you are talking about with the Sherman being more reliable than the T-34.

Plus, I was not basing my whole argument around the fact that History Channel has the Sherman as one of its engineering disasters, I was simply saying that was there opinion. I also see no problem in using the History Channel as a source.

 

I have read one at least 2 occassions that the hull design for the Sherman was inspired by that of the French Souma. There seems to be an emphasis for tanks designed and produced/modified during the last years of the war. This is only natural, as the best came last after years of combat trial and errors. However, for it's day (early war), I would have definately placed the Souma in the top 3.

 

Rather than me rattle off a long list of books and publications start with this:

The Russian Battlefield - T-34: Development History

Towards the bottom of the design and production portion of the T34 notes is included an armoring schematic. It gives the basis in millimeters (as I did) and the sloping. Note, 60 degrees equals a doubling of the basis. On the T34/76 the hull front is 47mm thick. Double that is 94.

Here's an equivalent site for the Sherman:

Medium Tank M4 Sherman

Again, note the thickness of the plate and slope. Togeather they are 102mm.

 

Yea...Umm. JagdtigerI....I'm a rookie here too, but... can't you see the medals on T.A.'s chest ? He could poke your eyes out with any one of 'em. Don't you think he knows a tad ? ...If you think Russian tank engineering was anywhere near the US's , they would natta needed any of our help. I read a US report on the T-34 and one item said that the air filter(?) was so poorly designed that it may have been sabotage. What good is a tank if it only runs for a couple days?( help me out here T.A.)

 

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/

 

Studies have shown that Pz IIIs and IVs were just as likely to cook off as a Sherman when penetrated. Plus, the German habit of continuing to fire until the target burst into flames (since armour distorted by heat can't be repaired) may have given rise to the idea that Shermans were more vulnerable to fire than other tanks. When the Sherman was first produced the armour was perfectly reasonable, the problem was that it shouldn't have been anywhere near a battlefield by 1944. Blame Patton.

 

Every tank is not without its flaws even the t34 with its 'trap shot' which was a big disadvantage. The Sherman although flawed at the beginning of its combat life was quickly fixed and became feared by the Germans although not capable of really knocking out a tiger, the Firefly (a varient of the sherman with a 17pdr gun) was more then capable.

Your 'excellent' super heavy tanks such as the king tiger or even the lighter panther are far from excellent, both having the interlocking wheels which would klog up, weighed wasy to much for many bridges of any area, took way to much fuel to be of any real use to a nation that was already needing every drop and they were just too big and expensive as well as the diffuicult manufacture problems.

Ah now we come to the history channel.
I started out loving the history channel, my view into ww2. Well that quickly diminished when I realised that the HC is full of inaccuarcies and opinions that just are plain wrong. (yes an opinion can be wrong, for ex The C47 is the best in a fighter role -- ah sure it is) Now the 'historians' in this instead of relating facts continue going on about there opinions on how the war was fought and why they think it failed, well frankly I don't care what they think, I just want the facts.