Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

I'm not arguing that the Sherman would be better in Russia just that it would operate there at least as efficently as the T 34 did while the T 34 has many shortcomings that would preclude it from replacing the Sherman in other theaters and uses it served in.

On the Char B1 bis:

From an earlier thread on this board I posted:

As I see it, the Char B1 could best be described as a self propelled field fortification; an artillery bunker with a motor. The 75mm in the hull was fixed in train (no traverse). Using it against anything other than a stationary target or as an artillery piece was difficult or impossible. As an antitank weapon it was useless.
Note, like its cousins in the Maginot line it was a very heavy piece for its size. It also had a pneumatic blow out to remove fumes from the tank like guns in the Maginot line did.
The driver of the tank was the gunner for this weapon having a bionocular sight for this purpose (in addition to a single view port for driving the tank). Obviously, driving and operating the gun were largely mutually exclusive functions.
A dedicated loader for the 75 was provided. This crew member had one function, select, fuze, and load the 75 in action. He had no other weapon (like a machinegun) to operate. He was provided no vision devices or other means to assist the tank in locating targets etc when not engaged in loading.
Up in the turret there was a single gunner also. Describing this crewman as the commander is something of a misnomer. He was far more a observer for the 75mm and when necessary could defend the tank using the 47mm and machinegun in the turret. Since he was the loader, gunner and, observer he had far too much to do to be efficent at any one of those tasks.
Last, there was a dedicated radio operator who like the loader had a single task to perform.
In design, the Char B1 also had an additional weakness. Its hull was bolted, yes, bolted together. Not riveted, bolted. This is a poor choice. The bolts represent a real hazard if hit; far more so than rivets. The bolts could easily be sheared off and ricochet around the inside of the vehicle. Also, they could work loose imparing the sturcturial stability of the vehicle. The side mounted radiator was also a big weak point as was the side mounted entry door.
If anything, the only really cutting edge technology in the Char B1 was the steering system using a regenerative hydraulic system to allow very fine turning movements of the vehicle (necessary to aim the 75mm).
French doctrine saw the Char B1 being used in support of infantry in literally the way described earlier....as a mobile bunker firing away with its 75mm and machineguns on enemy strongpoints. If an enemy tank were to appear the 47 could handle the problem. Mobility need only be sufficent to keep up with the walking infantry and cross a shell torn battlefield.
On the whole, it was an archaic throwback to WW 1, not the forward looking tank say the Pz III was.

 

Good to remember a couple of things.

-The Sherman did kill Panthers and Tigers.
-The majority of the tanks a Sherman might encounter were Pz IV's.
-The penetrating power of the Sherman's weakest gun could penetrate the side armor of the Panther under 1000yds. Typical combat range between tanks in the ETO was under 1000yds.
-Studies showed that tactics, not technology, won tank v. tank battles.
-Studies showed that in late 1944 the Sherman had the upper hand in Sherman v. Panther battles (it won more often than the Panther.)

 

I love how the Sherman got the rep for brewing up. Is there a tank that doesn't burn if hot shrapnel goes through its ammo or gas tank. Could be worse, it could burn like the Panther by turning on the engine and driving it about.

 

I think the T-34 gets a reputation it does not deserve, probably because it shocked the Germans so much when many of their AT guns didn't penetrate it. Of course the 88 dual purpose did. Bad intel on the part of Germany doesn't make for a great tank though. Of what I have read it was cramped, had bad optics, was horrible to drive, had such poor ventilation that the loader often passed out, had a very bad engine and transmission (improved later), bad visibility, no radio, and the very bad feature of only 4 crewmen. When the tank commander must also act as gunner it slows down that critical time to get a shot off, a very important factor in combat. Some of these things were improved as the war went on but some were not. Best to remember that its guns was not superior to the guns of the M4.

 

I didn't feel restricted by something I didn't understand or agree with so I played by my own rules. The criteria I use for evaluating tanks has to do with the role they play, their ability to fulfill that role, how easily it is produced, the cost of that production, how reliable it is, how durable it is, how easy it is for the crew to use, etc. A tank which is excessively expensive to produce, guzzles gas, is slow and breaks down often is of little value to the nation fielding it. Ignoring these things when discussing military hardware of any kind is not what I do.

 

While I do like your pick of the Pz 38(t) over the Pz II I must disagree with your T-34 bashing. I also would pick the early KV over the T-34 for 1941, in the hands of a good crew there was very little in the German arsenal capable of stopping it while the 50mm, even the one on the Pz IIIg (an L42 gun is not "short") could penterate the T-34 in many circumstances.

The M4 performance on iced terrain, mud and snow is poor, lots of that in the USSR, it's ground pressure is too high. In a lot of the Eastern front it would have fared badly, and it wouldn't have fit at all with the Soviet style logistcs of pulling tanks back to the factories for rebuild, the high quality machining required would have made most of them irrepairable once badly damaged. The T-34 saw service post WW2 all over the world just like the M4 did. In the PTO it would not have worked well, it was more optimized for tank combat than the M4 but T-34 did just fine in China and Korea.

The M3 as "causing the German to rethink tank tactics" is an absurdity, by the time they met the M3 they had been dealing with the T-34 and assorted KV, a much bigger threat, for a year !!! The German "quick fix" for the T-34 threat, the Pz IVg, completely outclassed the M3, IIRC a handful were available at the time of the Gazala battles but were not used.

So here's my list, by greatest I mean the tank that, when present, dominated tactically (yes his does downplay reliability a bit ) , by influential the tank that influenced the definition of what a tank is:

1939
Greatest- Pz IV (there were more IV than III in Poland) and probably the best tank of the period despite the 18mm amour.
Influential - BT-7 Showed the Japanes at Nomorhan that low velocity guns were not a great idea for fighting tanks (both BT and T-26 were there but T-26 is just too slow to be a great tank).

1940
G - Matilda II
I - Pz 38(t) a more balanced design than the Pz II for roughly the same weight and widely available

1941
G - KV 1
I - Pz III the first "universal tank" finally available in significant numbers

1942
G - T-34 a superion combination of mobility/firepower/armour
I - Pz IV The F2/G model begins to replace the Pz III as main tank

1943
G - Tiger I
I - M4

1944
G - JS-II
I - Panther they never fully debugged it but possibly the first MBT.

1945
G - T-34 the tank that captured Berlin
I - M 26 the first of a very long line of US 90mm gunned tanks.

 

I pretty much agree with every one but I am not sure about the tigers......

 

I don't see why you didn't chose them the other way around? The Panzer IV Ausf.G was vastly superior to the T-34/76 in terms of armament and armor, and operationally it wasn't bad either. However, its impact was not nearly as great as the T-34/76's, which was extensively used throughout 1942, unlike the late Panzer IV, nor was it as common in the German arsenal as the Panzer IIIs equipped with 50mm L/60 guns for that matter.

 

DW, I actually agree with your analysis; I am a huge fan of German armor during WWII, particularly the "cats". But I'm also the first to admit that, as the Russians say, quantity has a quality of it's own. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the Germans were never able to produce enough of their technological masterpieces to make a difference. German engineering, again, was second to none during WWII, but that couldn't win the War for them. Overall, as much as I hate to admit it, the T-34 was probably the best tank during the War; ahead of it's time when it was introduced, and upgradeable enough to make it a viable tank though the end of the War. The Sherman was okay, but the only thing that made it shine was the sheer numbers of M4's the US was able to crank out during the War; almost 20,000 M4's were issued to the USA during WWII, whereas the Germans had about half that number of ALL types of tanks built during the War. In the case of the Tiger, the German army received less then 1,400 of the Tiger I, and less than 500 Tiger II's. In the end, it was quantity that counted, not quality; the Allies were able to lose (on average) five of thier tanks to every one German tank (on the Eastern Front it was about double that), and still have plenty left over to grab the real estate, which is what counts.

 

TiredOldSoldier-
"The M4 performance on iced terrain, mud and snow is poor, lots of that in the USSR, it's ground pressure is too high. In a lot of the Eastern front it would have fared badly, and it wouldn't have fit at all with the Soviet style logistcs of pulling tanks back to the factories for rebuild, the high quality machining required would have made most of them irrepairable once badly damaged."

Good to remember that despite this the Russians put an entire army in the field with Lend Lease Shermans.

 

I didn't claim the T-34 was the best tank of the war, only that it was the most influential. You are right that it had many faults, but its best features were so good that they affected the design of almost all future tanks.

Despite its shortcomings, the overall balance of the T-34 assured its continuous use right up to the end of the war, and presaged the Main Battle Tank of the post-war world.

There were better tanks - the Panther for superb design, though it was let down by mechanical failures, or the Sherman for sheer reliability and production. But the Panther was a response to the T-34, while the Sherman had a high profile, no sloping of side armour, and narrow tracks that decreased its mobility in heavy snow or mud.

Other tanks may have been finer, but the T-34 showed the way forward in the long term.

 

I swithched them around a couple of times then ended up posting this way, but you are probably right. I was mostly influenced by weigh, picking the lighter beast as "leader" just didn't feel right (and the T-34 side armour was much better).

Well aware of that, they used everything they could lay hands on including rebuilt Pz III and IV. And I suspect the Shermans were used exactly like the latter, if beyond field repair abbandon them, there's more comming anyway. At least I never saw a picture of a Sherman in a Soviet factory. Also the bulk of the Shermans came when the Soviets had reached an area with a better road net, IMO Uranus or Saturn with Shermans instead of T-34 would not have done so well.

 

Well aware of that, they used everything they could lay hands on including rebuilt Pz III and IV. And I suspect the Shermans were used exactly like the latter, if beyond field repair abbandon them, there's more comming anyway. At least I never saw a picture of a Sherman in a Soviet factory. Also the bulk of the Shermans came when the Soviets had reached an area with a better road net, IMO Uranus or Saturn with Shermans instead of T-34 would not have done so well.[/QUOTE]

My point was that you don't field an army with a tank you have no confidence in, at least I would think Soviet high command would not. I wouls think if the Soviets felt it not a worthy tank they would simply field them piecemeal and let them be supported by a predominance of T-34's.

I don't think we see a huge number of pictures of what went on in the USSR for many reasons and considering their feelings about Lend-Lease I should think they would not let their photographers take a lot of shots of the Shermans they got from us. Propoganda works best when it reinforces the peoples efforts, yes?

 

The Sherman's problem wasn't weight per square inch on the ground on snow and ice, it was the rubber tread system which made it less than "stable" on snow and ice. It was however less destructive to roadways than its steel tracked contemporaries.

With the 'duckbill' track extensions I think its pounds per square inch was comparable with the T-34. About 13 or 14 lbs. per?

 

My point was that you don't field an army with a tank you have no confidence in, at least I would think Soviet high command would not. I wouls think if the Soviets felt it not a worthy tank they would simply field them piecemeal and let them be supported by a predominance of T-34's.

I don't think we see a huge number of pictures of what went on in the USSR for many reasons and considering their feelings about Lend-Lease I should think they would not let their photographers take a lot of shots of the Shermans they got from us. Propoganda works best when it reinforces the peoples efforts, yes?[/QUOTE]

As far as Sherman use in the USSR, it wasn't until early 1944 that sufficent numbers were arriving that they could be really put to use. The US delivered almost totally diesel powered A2 and A5 models both 75mm and 76mm, mostly the later judging from photos. These were given to the 1st Guards Tank Army among other units. This unit spearheaded the Soviet breakthrough in Operation Bagragation in the summer of 1944.
At the time, you have to remember that the official Soviet view was lend-lease equipment was nice but unnecessary. The USA stencling on vehicles was propagandized as Ubyat Sukiemsin Aldolfa! Or Kill that SOB Adolph! This was because the Soviet government was loathe to let people know where the equipment was really coming from. Studebaker became slang for "truck" too.

But, my original point stands: The Sherman could work in Russia while the T34 wouldn't have been workable in places like North Africa, Burma or, running up a beach in an amphibious assault. The T34 was designed to Russian needs for fighting in Russia and not to the needs of a global military.

 

This I find to be an excellent point, the M4 could and did function in every environment of the war in every theater. The T-34, for all its good points was designed for a Soviet style battlefield and Soviet style trooper. Crude, and effective. The M4 was a Rolls Royce or Cadillac compared to the T-34, which would or could most closely be compared to a bare-bones Ford Model "A" V-8.

 

If you want a Rolls Royce tank go for the Tiger not the M4, or a Comet that at least has the right engine . A better comparison would be a WV and a contemporary US car.

Post war world wide service of the T-34 seems to disprove the "usuitable for other theaters" theory, it worked pretty decently in most places it fought.
The combat usefulness of "finishing" very much depends on the sort of troops you have, in Israeli hands a Sherman is is better, for 1950 vintage North Koreans a T-34, designed for operation by troops with little mechanical skills, is best.
Apart from the finishing the main difference between the two is the the more compact shape of the T-34, the lower height and highly sloped side armour made for a less "roomy" vehicle. This is both an advantage and a disadvage, less easy to hit but worse fighting efficiency of the crew.

Apart from Korea and Middle East where else did they fight against each other?
No T-34 in South America, IIRC the NVA used some T-34 but the ARVN didn't have M4s and they were replaced by T-55 (or their chinese copy) by the time of the final offensive.
My big doubt is the second Chinese civil war, Ciang is likely to have received M4s and Mao T-34s but I can find no hard evidence. It would also be one instance where crew quality is not a factor.

Other "possibles" are African conflicts like Somalia, Nanimbia, Angola etc. but I 'm not sure, IIRC the South Africans didn't have M4s but Centurions, the Cubans T-55s.

 

And, post war the use of Soviet armor by Third world nations has proven marginal. The vehicles, when running, facing little or no opposition have be useful. As AFV versus Western armor by trained troops Soviet armor has repeatedly, and almost universally, proven incapable of dealing with that threat.
In Korea US armor handled the North Koreans roughly. That includes the M4 Sherman. In Vietnam even South Vietnamese troops using M48 tanks shot North Vietnamese T55's in the post-US invasion of S. Vietnam to pieces. Pakistan v. India, Soviet tanks on both sides proved less capable than M47, M48 and British manufactured tanks. In the Arab - Israeli wars the Arab armies trained and equipped by the Soviets were trashed in short order by Israel using Western armor.
Basically, Soviet armor used enmasse against an opponet without adequite antitank means can overwhelm and crush such an opponet. Faced with adequite defensive means Soviet armor is like a wave hitting a beach. It simply dissolves into nothing and accomplishes the same.

 

I recall seeing T-55s in Saigon not thr M-48s in Hanoi.
Matching tanks crewed by conscripts against a long standing professional army with much better training, like in Korea, is not a good way of comparing weapon systems.
Have you any info on India Pakistan, the only ones I've got talk about M-48s being "shot to pieces" by Centutions (and look a bit biased on the Indian side ) , nothing to do with Soviet armour.

The Arab Israeli wars are not a good comparison, the Israeli are very good at making the best use of high tech weaponry and the Arab armies, with the possible exception of the long standing Arab Legion, never really caught up. It's got a lot more to do with tactics and training, than weapons. Short duration high intensity fights favour high tech weaponry, especially if the high tech guy is on the offensive and so can somehow chose the combat parameters, attrition wars, like the Iran-Iraq war would be a better match up but we would be talking about second/third generation tanks not M4 and T-34s, so completely off thread.

Still looking about info on M4 and T34 usage during the second Chinese revolution, does anyone know something about it?
T34 equipped Soviets wiped out the Japanese Mongolian army with a speed the M4 equipped US troops could only envy.

 

All the stuff I have is in books not on line on this. In Vietnam in 1976 during the invasion of S. Vietnam after the US left the N. Vietnamese army sent a regiment of T-55 down Highway 1 as a spearhead for the invasion. S. Vietnamese M48's decimated them almost without loss. What put the hurt on S. Vietnam was when their tanks started running out of on hand ammuntion and spares and the US decided (a Democrat congress) not to fund resupplying them. The tanks simply ran out of ammo and broke down.
In the case of Pakistan - India both had several clashes where T-55 / T-59 (Chinese) were present versus M 47 / 48, Centurian or Vickers MBT the Soviet designs got their a$$es handed to them. In Western on Western tank fights the odds were generally more even.

I don't completely see it that way. The Soviet military, like the Arab ones was largely short term unmotivated conscripts. The Arabs were trained in the same manner and as far as one can tell to about the same proficiency with the equipment. Yes, Soviet tactical shortcomings passed on to the Arabs had alot to do with it but, that is part of the problem from WW 2 on wtih the Soviet military.

I think that any mechanized military would have steamrollered the Japanese in Manchuria in 1945 nearly regardless of the equipment. German panzer divisions of 1939 could have done the job just as well.