Top 10 tanks of the war

Actually, most of the Soviet Shermans were the M4A2 or A4 models with diesel engines and all were new production. A good portion were also equipped with the T23 turret and 76mm M1A1 gun. One of the first large scale uses of lend lease Shermans was in Bagration in the summer of 1944 when the entire 1st Guards Tank Army was equipped with Shermans and spearheaded the assault on Army Group Center.

One must realize that at the time the Soviets were absolutlely loathe to admit that the US and West were supplying alot of the equipment their armed forces were using. For example, the USA preceeding the serial number on most US supplied vehicles was explained away as meaning (and I'm sure I'm spelling this wrong) Ubayat Sukemsim Adolfa; or kill that SOB Adolf!

 

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

Cheers,
Adam. It did, it did!

That acronym has to be graven in stone in the Forum User Guide! Moderators please take note

 

If I can't list a turret-less one like a StuG, I'm not playing.

 

T.A.

I believe you are referring to the term....

Ubyet sookeen sin Adolfa

 

That acronym has to be graven in stone in the Forum User Guide! Moderators please take note Great acronym indeed, I just added it to the WWII Forums Lingo page.

Peppy >>> types it in ALL CAPS

What does this say Slonik?

Peppy >>> it's all teh Greek to me.

 

He was using the St. Petersburg back streets accent

 

OOOOHHHHH understood!!!!!!

 

That said, they did call it the 'grave for 5 brothers' did they not (I may be getting confused here). That said, I've heard a fair few accounts of troops who didn't even know the vehicle was American made.

The short service life of the T34 is an interesting issue, but compare it to the life expectancy of a new tank crew...

 

Their country was invaded, pretty good tank,the T-34 considering. Mass production, just like the Sherman.
Although the US had time on it's side to come up with a decent tank.

 

Though the T34 was designed before the war was it not?

 

Well, the A-20 experimental tank was ready in 1939 but the design goes back to the BT series.

See here in www.battlefield.ru and go to Tank Development > Medium Tanks > T-34 Prototypes

 

Just. Many of the concepts were built up pre-war and the work on the a-20, 32 etc began in 1937 the first 2 actual prototypes were ready in january 1940 and the first production models rolled out in September. Given the designation '34' to commemorate the decree of that year calling for military expansion.
(Stalins Armoured might, 2002)
Cheers,
Adam.

(cross-posted with Za... got distracted by an SMK )

 

Yeah,so? It was better than anything the Germans fielded.

Well,except the StuG.

 

Sorry Framer, what I meant was that you said the US had the time to develop the Sherman which I took to suggest the USSR didn't because of the invasion, just pointing out the design predates the invasion.

 

1. T-34
2. Sherman
numbers & impact

3. Pz VI
fear factor

4. Pz IV
universal platform

5. Pz V
all around good

6. Churchill
same as Pz IV + armor

7. Pz III
mother of Marder & StuG

8. M3/5 Stewie
necessary in all armies

9. IS II
Big boy, and lots of em


10. Matilda
desert "Battleship"
worked well against Japan to

 

The war changed so fast that it is hard to pinpoint a top tank. The Sherman may have been a later model tank than the T34, but it was built to 1940 specifications before we had any real knowledge of what woulld be its role. Despite its shortcomings, the Sherman was easy to manufacture, versitile and easy to maintain, comparitively. What most fail to think about, is that it was a medium tank, in a battle against heavy tanks. By U.S. standards, even the Panther medium tank was a heavy.

Should U.S. resources have been spent on designing a new, better tanks? That was a possibility, but many felt that the resources were better spent on getting enough M4s to overwhelm the enemy forces. The Germans made the mistake of too many designs, and it was a source of grief for them.

A lot depends on how the tanks were used, and how effective their leadership and crews were. In many ways, some of the tank destroyers were close to tank designs and operation.

 

Definitely a tough list to compile. I think T.A., I agree with your list overall.

 

In no way do I want to flame Gardner's Thread, but I don't consider having the ability to mass produce a tank as being a "top 10" candidate.

 

I think FramerT, that while production numbers shouldn't be the only factor in determining a tanks worth it is certainly a necessary factor. The Sherman was cheaper to build, maintain and repair that almost any other vehicles. This allowed the troops using the vehicle to get more active service out of their vehicles while in the field. German AFV's, while generally technically superior to the Sherman, required much more cost, machining and upkeep. What this means is that given the exact same amount of starting resources, the US had more servicable tanks for longer periods in the field. When you evaluate a tank you must evaluate the entire length of it's life. Mass production alone doesn't cut it, but when you can do more with less from the outset, I think it matters.

That said, in direct tank vs. tank combat, I'd rather be a tiger crewman than a M4 crewman, any day of the week.
:tiger:

 

It´s also "funny" to think how something never meant to be used like that can help change history. Just think how far the Blitzkrieg would have gone in the west 1940 or the east 1941 without the excellent 88 AA gun....