Was the Russian T-34 Really the Best Tank of WW2?

[Aragorn2002]

I found an interesting article.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/best-tank-part-1-t-34.html

I still think the T-34/85 was the best tank of the war, which isn't disputed by the author of this article. 

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Macisle]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I found an interesting article.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/best-tank-part-1-t-34.html

I still think the T-34/85 was the best tank of the war, which isn't disputed by the author of this article. 

 

I think the late variant Shermans still had the edge, but much less of one than vs. the T-34/76. Having a two-man turret eliminates the earlier T-34s from being considered in the running IMO.

Over the years I've gone from thinking the Germans had the best tanks, to the T-34, to the realization that the much-maligned Sherman was the best tank by a pretty wide margin. By "best" I mean operationally and strategically. Ease of production, reliability, parts standardization and supply, ease of transport (could and did go anywhere by whatever), adaptability and ability to upgrade, crew situational awareness and comm equipment, ergonomics and crew fatigue, ease of bail-out and ability to survive (astonishingly low fatality rates compared to the other tanks of the war across the board), etc. The T-34 K/D ratios were appallingly bad and, unlike the Sherman where on average four guys survived to apply lessons learned, you had just one for the T-34.

The Sherman was truly a war-winning tank in every sense of the term. Sure, it might be in trouble in certain tactical situations vs. certain opponents, but those don't outweigh its strengths and performance in macro.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Macisle said:

I think the late variant Shermans still had the edge, but much less of one than vs. the T-34/76. Having a two-man turret eliminates the earlier T-34s from being considered in the running IMO.

Over the years I've gone from thinking the Germans had the best tanks, to the T-34, to the realization that the much-maligned Sherman was the best tank by a pretty wide margin. By "best" I mean operationally and strategically. Ease of production, reliability, parts standardization and supply, ease of transport (could and did go anywhere by whatever), adaptability and ability to upgrade, crew situational awareness and comm equipment, ergonomics and crew fatigue, ease of bail-out and ability to survive (astonishingly low fatality rates compared to the other tanks of the war across the board), etc. The T-34 K/D ratios were appallingly bad and, unlike the Sherman where on average four guys survived to apply lessons learned, you had just one for the T-34.

The Sherman was truly a war-winning tank in every sense of the term. Sure, it might be in trouble in certain tactical situations vs. certain opponents, but those don't outweigh its strengths and performance in macro.

I agree that the best tank is not necessarily the best armoured or heaviest gunned tank, but the best all round one.

Interesting to hear the Sherman had low fatality rates. Can you name a source for that? Not doubting it, just interested.

Personally I think the Germans better could have concentrated on their own Sherman, the Pz IV. Although completly outgunned and outclassed by the end of the war, it would have enabled the Germans to keep their tank divisions up to an acceptable strength. The higher losses in combat compared to the Panther or Tiger would have been (more than) compensated by the lower losses due to maintenance problems. Better a tank battalion with 40 running Pz IV than with 20 partly immobile Panthers. On the other hands there also was the problem with fuel and trained crews. 

The Panther and Tiger were a nightmare for the German tank industry and repair units. On the other hand the Germans could only dream of the Allied tank numbers and had to gamble on quality vs. quantity. That they failed on both quality and quantity is also a fact.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Falaise]

 

Thank you, @Aragorn2002, this is a very interesting press article!

1 hour ago, Macisle said:

I think the late variant Shermans still had the edge, but much less of one than vs. the T-34/76. Having a two-man turret eliminates the earlier T-34s from being considered in the running IMO.

Over the years I've gone from thinking the Germans had the best tanks, to the T-34, to the realization that the much-maligned Sherman was the best tank by a pretty wide margin. By "best" I mean operationally and strategically. Ease of production, reliability, parts standardization and supply, ease of transport (could and did go anywhere by whatever), adaptability and ability to upgrade, crew situational awareness and comm equipment, ergonomics and crew fatigue, ease of bail-out and ability to survive (astonishingly low fatality rates compared to the other tanks of the war across the board), etc. The T-34 K/D ratios were appallingly bad and, unlike the Sherman where on average four guys survived to apply lessons learned, you had just one for the T-34.

The Sherman was truly a war-winning tank in every sense of the term. Sure, it might be in trouble in certain tactical situations vs. certain opponents, but those don't outweigh its strengths and performance in macro.

I had the same intellectual approach as you!
Even without taking into account the logistics aspect, reliability etc. I am always amazed by the good behavior of a 76 sherman facing the big German cats on CM
After the war France hesitated to resume the production of the Panther or its clone and it did not do so and besides no nation does it.
The Stug and other Pz iv continued their career but not the Panther.
The latest version of the Sherman of Tsahal with 105mm French  have continued to prove their reliability until 73
In short it is in my opinion him the Sherman the best tank of the second world war

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Falaise said:

 

In short it is in my opinion him the Sherman the best tank of the second world war

With the best trained crews, let's not forget that. Compare the training of German tank crews and British and American tank crews before Normandy or the Ardennes in driving and shooting hours. That's also part of the success of the Sherman tank. Especially the British marksmenship, both on tank guns and anti-tank guns was exceptionally good. With an endless supply of fuel, ammo and training time they were much better than the largely and relatively undertrained German tank crews. You can compare it with the inequality in training hours between Allied and German fighter pilots in 1944/45. 

Training is all.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Erwin]

What was great about the T-34 is that the Russians were able to produce so many, but with the trade-off that they were poorly made due to the (brilliant) strategic decision/realization that the T-34 wasn't expected to survive more than 2 or 3 months.  In the early war, it arguably saved the Soviets from defeat as (at the time) the Germans had little that could defeat it.  

I don't know how much credence to give Grigsby's War in the East game, but it seemed that in his game one got a lot more "bang for the buck" by building KV's rather than T-34's.  

Edited March 20, 2021 by Erwin

[z1812]

The largest advantage the Sherman had was mass production. 

Ronson (cigarette lighter) was the M4 Sherman tank's nickname. The British called it this because it "lights up the first time, every time" when hit. Other nicknames included "the burning grave" and "Tommycooker" (Germans referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"). The United States mass produced the cheaper Shermans rather than more expensive tanks.

Here is a link to an article about the Sherman. https://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

 

[Aragorn2002]

20 minutes ago, z1812 said:

The largest advantage the Sherman had was mass production. 

Ronson (cigarette lighter) was the M4 Sherman tank's nickname. The British called it this because it "lights up the first time, every time" when hit. Other nicknames included "the burning grave" and "Tommycooker" (Germans referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"). The United States mass produced the cheaper Shermans rather than more expensive tanks.

Here is a link to an article about the Sherman. https://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

 

The Pz V also burned remarkably easy when hit, except from the front and was more difficult to bail out. The Allies were on the offensive and had to leave cover and face the high quality German guns and optics. But every time the Germans went on the attack in Normandy or the Ardennes they also suffered heavy losses in tanks and crew. 

I'm not sure whether the Ronson reputation of the Sherman was entirely deserved. Besides if the casualty rate of the Sherman crews was indeed low, than I would much rather be in a burning Sherman, than a burning Panther. Well, you know what I mean.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[DerKommissar]

At the end of the day, I'd rather be in a Sherman, on the fields of Europe. They were made in better staffed, equipped, and stocked factories, which were safe from occupation and bombing. US and Canada had the luxury of time for quality control in both design and production.

US and Canada had ocean travel to consider. When shipping costs are paid in blood, tanks couldn't constantly be replaced. That's why the M3 and Ram were produced, before the M4. Knowing that a large batch of early production vehicles guaranteed trouble.

What if I'm in Stalingrad, though? I don't have aircraft engines, radios or the luxury of time. I don't have tankers -- only tractor drivers. I face better led, trained and equipped infantry and pioneers, in a tight urban setting. I don't need a Sherman, I need a T-34 -- a couple of mortars and a howitzer!

Edited March 20, 2021 by DerKommissar

[danfrodo]

what a fun discussion for tank nerds. 

The problem is the definition of 'best'.  For some it simply means the best combo of firepower and armor, so it's the tiger.  Others like to throw in mobility and say it's the panther.  For me every tank is a trade-off of reliability, cost, weight, mobility, fuel consumption, firepower, first-shot capability (optics, turret traverse), crew factors, maintenence difficulty, and the biggest of all perhaps -- availability when it matters. 

Panther is great if available and working, but fails because unreliability which made it unavailable when it was most needed, at Kursk.  I've read that it was unreliable mainly because it was designed for ~35 tonnes and hitler wanted more armor w/o understanding the engineering cost of the added 10 tons on the drive train.  Any idiot can say "more armor and bigger gun is better!" without understanding the tradeoffs -- and next thing you know Porsche is designing worthless land battleships.  Like transporting the tiger which required changing tracks so it could go on train, then changing again when offloaded. 

Of course in any given engagement I would rather have a panther or tiger than a T34-85, but I'd also rather have 5-10 T34-85s than one or two working panther/tigers, and that was reality.

I vote for the T34-85 also.  Great trade-off combo of all the big factors and had good enough firepower.  And the soviets got it onto the battefield in time to make an actual difference.

[James Crowley]

Steven Zaloga's book Armored Champion, does a very good analysis in regard to the 'best' tanks of WW2, on a front/year basis.

Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II: Amazon.co.uk: Steven Zalgoa: 9780811714372: Books

He uses two broad based benchmarks, the tankers choice and the commanders choice. 

The first one is the holy trinity of protection, firepower and mobility. The second is more around cost and maintenance.

His choices for summer 1944 are; tanker's, Tiger; commanders, T34/85

For wars end 1945, M26 Pershing and the M4A3E8+

[danfrodo]

yeah, If I am actually in a tank engagement I want to be in a pershing.  But since there were basically none available I would actually have been given an M4A3E8+, if I were lucky.  For me it's actually gotta be available.  Not to disrespect the esteemed Mr Zaloga, he was just using different criterion.

[James Crowley]

41 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

yeah, If I am actually in a tank engagement I want to be in a pershing.  But since there were basically none available I would actually have been given an M4A3E8+, if I were lucky.  For me it's actually gotta be available.  Not to disrespect the esteemed Mr Zaloga, he was just using different criterion.

Actually, I think that is exactly what he was saying. The tankers would pick a Pershing, the commanders would say "nope, don't have any of those; have a Sherman M4A3E8, got plenty of them."

Edited March 20, 2021 by James Crowley

[danfrodo]

roger that, Mr Crowley, I think I misunderstood his point

[MikeyD]

Juggling specs doesn't tell the whole story. After the war the French fielded Panther units and quickly grew to despise the tank. M26 Pershing was a bit of a maintenance nightmare. Design shortcuts had been taken to speed production that included belts and pulleys in the transmission instead of gears. You can imagine how that worked out. The post-war M46 Patton was basically a Pershing with a normal transmission. Russians using Sherman grew to appreciate how the tank didn't detonate like a bomb when penetrated. American rounds in a burning vehicle tended to burn and pop in the flames, as opposed to BOOM!!!!!

Edited March 21, 2021 by MikeyD

[benpark]

7 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Russians using Sherman grew to appreciate how the tank didn't detonate like a bomb when penetrated.

Lend-Lease Emchas had some adaptations along the way-

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/07/m4a276w-emcha-with-long-hand.html

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I'm not sure whether the Ronson reputation of the Sherman was entirely deserved.

Maybe the reputation was earned by the earliest versions - before they went to liquid storage for ammo and also that extra armor plate welded to the side.

[Aragorn2002]

20 minutes ago, benpark said:

Lend-Lease Emchas had some adaptations along the way-

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/07/m4a276w-emcha-with-long-hand.html

What are wet ammunition racks? And liquid storage for ammo?

 

[benpark]

Containers of water or anti-freeze (in winter), spaced in between live rounds.

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, benpark said:

Containers of water or anti-freeze (in winter), spaced in between live rounds.

Which prevented the rounds from exploding when the tank went up in flames?

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I've posted it before, but it's worth another watch.

 

[Dan Dare]

do you ever wonder which tank had made a crisis in AT defences?...cause tanks are made for a reason...every upgunned tank/new developed tank or atgun will give you a hint of which was "the best" at a given time, i mean, you don't go to calibers above 100mm stop a sherman or a t34 unless they are on a row....based on that my picks are namely: T34/KV, Tiger/Panther, and the very unapreciated IS2.

Pershing...too late and to little

Shermans...well...lots of them and very reliable... but for me it is as if the USAF would had sticked to the p40 for the same reason, surely we will be arguing today that the p40 was nice after all

 

 

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

the very unapreciated IS2.

Pershing...too late and to little

The IS2 28 shells rate of fire two round/ minute. Very good reason not to appreciate it. Pershing not reliable not even in Korea. M46 was actually the same tank better engine entered service 1949. Explains why the Pershing was introduced too early. 

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

I've posted it before, but it's worth another watch.

I agree the man knows what he is talking about. One thing wrong about the Sherman in CM it is not hard to win as the Americans. 

[chuckdyke]

17 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Which prevented the rounds from exploding when the tank went up in flames?

Yes, they did. Everybody appreciated the Sherman except Hollywood.