Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

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

 

 

OK lets try 8000 fighters vs 5,000,000 P40's ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 3:55 PM, 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/

 

Interesting article, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Artkin said:

OK lets try 8000 fighters vs 5,000,000 P40's ;)

Air war is very different from tank war. In both experience and training are vitally important though. Numbers and position are also important. Chosing between a Bf109K, a Tempest, a Fw 190D, a Ta 152, a Spitfire XIV or a Yak-3, is almost impossible, since in an air fight  so much depends on other factors than for example speed and firepower.

I keep saying that few authors really take the time to do proper research. 

Or as Sherlock Holmes puts it:

“Data! Data! Data!” he cried impatiently. “I can't make bricks without clay.” 

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

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

 

Watched it twice now. Great guy, love his tank movies too. This is the way to analyze history. Not just repeating the same old song over and over again, but go for the facts. Very interesting, especially the inaccuracy of the 17 pounder over 500 yards (I thought it was very accurate) and the fact that the US army in Europe only met the Tiger I twice in combat (would like to know how many times the Tiger II was met in combat, especially in the Ardennes).

Fact is that the British and Canadian fought in Normandy against the best German divisions with the best tanks and equipment, the Americans less so.

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

he 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. 

and there we go again... ROF...seriously...2 to 3 shots a minute...1 shot every 20 - 30 seconds is too much time for you?,  enough for you to run away surely...are we talking about guns?...if yes then keep shooting at it with your 76 at 3 times the rate assuming you could coup with the aiming, but remember Einsenhower words "Ordnance told me this 76 would take care of anything the Germans had. Now I find you can’t knock out a damn thing with it".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find I am agreeing w just about everything on this thread.  So much of this comes down to getting to battle "first-est with the most-est".  Videos by The Chieftain have (obviously) greatly influenced my thinking on this over the last few years.

When Shermans first arrived, in N African desert, they were much better than anything the Brits had at the time.  Even the 'awful' Lee/Grants were considered an upgrade over what else was available.  Sure, shermans were, like the T34/76, outclassed within a short time, but they still existed on the battlefield -- which is more than one can say of panthers in 1943.  And anywhere they weren't going against panthers and (very rare) tigers they were big trouble for the germans.

P40s were kinda cool looking at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I find I am agreeing w just about everything on this thread.  So much of this comes down to getting to battle "first-est with the most-est".  Videos by The Chieftain have (obviously) greatly influenced my thinking on this over the last few years.

When Shermans first arrived, in N African desert, they were much better than anything the Brits had at the time.  Even the 'awful' Lee/Grants were considered an upgrade over what else was available.  Sure, shermans were, like the T34/76, outclassed within a short time, but they still existed on the battlefield -- which is more than one can say of panthers in 1943.  And anywhere they weren't going against panthers and (very rare) tigers they were big trouble for the germans

I recall that the monthly production of Panther tanks never exceeded 3 or 400. In the summer of 1944 most Panzer divisions didn't even have them or their Panther battalion was in training and not available. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pz IV (in combination with the StuG III) knocked out most Allied tanks in 1944, or even 1945. During the battle of Normandy few new Panthers were available to replace the heavy losses, so never more than a couple of hundred (running) Panthers can have been available at any time.

Btw I've read an interesting fact in Stout Hearts (a fun fact as Sheldon would say). The PIAT, bizarre anti- tank weapon as it was, accounted for 6 % of the German tanks destroyed in Normandy (the RAF in comparison accounted for 7%). Not bad for such a primitive design.

Data, data, data...🙂

 

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

do you want data?, seriusly... read this...but promise not to laught loudy..

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM30-40.PDF

Great stuff!  😀I love these old American training manuals. They no doubt contributed greatly to the fact that the inexperienced US army of 1941-1942 learned the trade of war so damn fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 3:50 PM, Erwin said:

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 remember reading the book 48 km nach Stalingrad, about the relief attempt of the 6th Army by the 6th Panzer division. The Germans had 160 tanks or so, but only 30 Pz IVF2's that could destroy the T-34/76 from long distance. The rest of their tanks, mainly Pz III, had to get close, before they could knock out the Russian tanks. Still they managed to get the upper hand in most of the tank battles, due to their better training, tactics and optics. I guess it was the German 'Sherman-experience'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

War stories of course are told by the survivors. You don't get many memoirs that end with '...and then we all died'.

Of course. And with everytime telling the story the number of enemy casualties gets higher. If only the dead could tell their tales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

 

and there we go again... ROF...seriously...2 to 3 shots a minute...1 shot every 20 - 30 seconds is too much time for you?,  enough for you to run away surely...are we talking about guns?...if yes then keep shooting at it with your 76 at 3 times the rate assuming you could coup with the aiming, but remember Einsenhower words "Ordnance told me this 76 would take care of anything the Germans had. Now I find you can’t knock out a damn thing with it".

 

 

This is a CM hobby site. Ever played a December morning in FB? You find to tackle the King Tiger you can use the 76 mm Sherman to knock it out. This is my experience with the 76 mm gun on the Sherman. Back to the Josef Stalin. I remember the specification of rounds to be carried on an allied tank always around seventy. 28 rounds on the IS2 a serious matter it translates in 9 effective shots. 5 minutes in a battle and it is out of ammo. The issue is similar in pistol shooting in which I have experience. 7 rounds .45 ACP or 13 rounds 9 mm in the HP Browning? Not surprised even the US army went for the 9 mm some time ago. If you drop a 75 mm shell through the slit of a pillbox the people inside won't tell you that the round is ineffective. Even more effective than cracking the reinforced concrete with a 122mm. In Korea British tankers excelled in that technique. They called it letter dropping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The rest of their tanks, mainly Pz III, had to get close,

The 50 mm was the German 6 pounder and against tanks effective what let it down was it's HE. The specifications on the eastern front I once read. Able to knock out the enemy at a mile stop their rounds at a kilometer. The 88 knocked out the KV at a mile the 76mm was ineffective at a km. Same with the Panther the Germans just couldn't produce enough. Russian tank production stopped the German tank production. Once you defend mines play an important role even now a well-placed IED can take out a western MBT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

This is a CM hobby site. Ever played a December morning in FB? You find to tackle the King Tiger you can use the 76 mm Sherman to knock it out. This is my experience with the 76 mm gun on the Sherman. Back to the Josef Stalin. I remember the specification of rounds to be carried on an allied tank always around seventy. 28 rounds on the IS2 a serious matter it translates in 9 effective shots. 5 minutes in a battle and it is out of ammo. The issue is similar in pistol shooting in which I have experience. 7 rounds .45 ACP or 13 rounds 9 mm in the HP Browning? Not surprised even the US army went for the 9 mm some time ago. If you drop a 75 mm shell through the slit of a pillbox the people inside won't tell you that the round is ineffective. Even more effective than cracking the reinforced concrete with a 122mm. In Korea British tankers excelled in that technique. They called it letter dropping. 

 

yep "This is a CM hobby site" and CM is the most realistic game I had ever found, so the 76 in december 44 with the HVAP (something similar to shoot with gold munition) sure could do the job...or even at 500 m the AP on the side or back could, not always but could...anyhow, better use the 90mm when possible

lets see now time on combat...well with the 76  and the water container they had 71 rounds...I guess It will be more or less the same time in continuos shooting...lets see, 28 times three...84...ough...it looks as if it will be depleted of ammo faster than the 122....

Cal....tank guns versus mg, rifles and pistols it is not comparable unless you have armored soldiers...thinking it of a .22 will provide you of much capacity then... I read somewhere that Israeli SF use .22...and US marines I think they have .45s, I wonder why...In fact, ROF is starting to play something on even cal and armor, mg42 that's a killer and it is the only one gun that have survived till our days with small modifications...in fact I strongly belive that all this German ubersoldier nonsense of old years was just they had the mg42...look at this, romanians, hungarians and italians infantry units had allegaly performed poorly on ww2, and then the spanish, armed by the germans did it well...wonder why

another example..in ww2 too much spectation was put of crusiers (mostly IJN) armed with 152s and rapid fire compared to higher calibers...they where expected to overwelhm the big guns...they resulted on a kind of fiasco....

really not ofense and not that I think I will convince you but I love the chatting and educated ranting about the theme...

 

it worth a reading this https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll8/id/3523 , 19 January 1945, third parragraf

 

Edited by Dan Dare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we shouldn't confuse the quality of German tanks with the German inability to produce, repair, and fuel them.

Nobody would say the  modern Abrams is a bad tank because it only runs 1 mile on 1.84 gallons of fuel. That's only slightly better than a WW2 Tiger II (1 mile on 2 gallons of fuel).

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think we shouldn't confuse the quality of German tanks with the German inability to produce, repair, and fuel them.

Nobody would say the  modern Abrams is a bad tank because it only runs 1 mile on 1.84 gallons of fuel. That's only slightly better than a WW2 Tiger II (1 mile on 2 gallons of fuel).

Exactly. Everything is relative. Quantity versus quality and one on one are 2 different issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sherman and its chassis my favorite system in CM just look at it! It had 75mm, 76.2mm, 17 pounder, 90 mm 105 mm and 155 mm. A dream for the maintenance teams. Radio and optics stabilizer years ahead of its time. Played it, Priests of map with the 105 mm made sure nasty Germans in foxholes were suppressed all arranged through the HQ Sherman tank. Like the Chieftain pointed out four lifting eyes. Enabled it to be shipped to Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa and the Far East. World War 2 was over and the Russians looked at the JS2 and JS 3 and the T34. Let's drop the sloped armor on the sides of the T34 and it is a little wider. Now we can fit a 100 mm naval gun in it. That is the system of the cold war the JS 3 in the Sinai was found wanting against Israeli Shermans. Crew comfort was the deciding factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remenber in Saudi Arabia some time ago an american guy was complaining that the Saudies did not use the humvees they had purchased and instead they prefered the toyotas...I did ask him if the humvees they bought got aircon...no doubt they prefer toyotas...Crew confort it is really a deciding factor in fact

 

JS3 was a dissapointing russian experimet, it lasted nothing in the soviet cadre...anyhow... the whole middle east confict should be taken cautiosly to say it kindly...and ofcourse...supershermans were super...90mm...that´s the gun that could handle an opposing beast...

 

Comming back to 76 shermans, well , they were reported to beat the t38/85 in Korea...with extensive use of HVAP...I would not like to be on either side anyhow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the Stalin line? "Quantity has a quality all its own". It was the Germans' own darned fault that they designed and fielded tanks that couldn't be mass produced and were a nightmare to maintain. Its better to have 10 'good' tanks on the front line than two 'great' tanks on the front and another three broken down during the approach march.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...