Pzman Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 Production numbers are hard to tell. The T-34 most likely saw numbers over 60,000 from what I have read. Although the figures I have also say that only 40,000 Shermans were build. Not that it matters in the end. It must be noted that in WWII Russians were able to use both and chose the T-34s over Shermans. The Sherman is a good Infantry Tank (That is the type of tank it was) It wasn't really designed to be a MBT like the T-34 was IIRC. Both have upsides and downsides. I just wanted to remove some of the miss-conceptions about the T-34. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 ...It must be noted that in WWII Russians were able to use both and chose the T-34s over Shermans... Did they? What little I've heard of lend-lease Shermans in the east gave them quite complimentary reports. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v42below Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 You have to remember that a lot of the factories producing T-34 were bombed and destroyed within the first few months of the war. Those that were not, had to be evacuated to the Urals and this took time. In any case, I was talking about how long it takes to build a tank, and what resources this requires. I think the T-34 was by far superrior. FYI - total production figures T-34-76 (1940-44) = 34780 T-34-85, including "commander" and OT-34-85 models (1944-45) = 23214 Total = 57997 source urls: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_85.html http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 It must be noted that in WWII Russians were able to use both and chose the T-34s over Shermans. I have never heard of Shermans being shipped to russia, under the lendlease. But these are patriotic soviets, who would choose their country's tank over a forien armored vehicle. [ July 07, 2003, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: TANK ACE ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by TANK ACE: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It must be noted that in WWII Russians were able to use both and chose the T-34s over Shermans. I have never heard of Shermans being shipped to russia, under the lendlease. But these are patriotic soviets, who would choose their country's tank over a forien armored vehicle. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Shermans and T34s aren't even close when it comes to least favorite tanks. One of those can win a battle for you in the right conditions. They're functional mediums, whereas there are some really BAD tanks out there. Some least favorite deathtraps, putting it in CM terms: CMBO: Hotchkiss CMBB: Axis: PzII Allies: T26 There are plenty of other bad ones, esp. early in the war. I'm not a fan of light tanks in general (except maybe the Chafee) but these are truly bad... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by TANK ACE: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It must be noted that in WWII Russians were able to use both and chose the T-34s over Shermans. I have never heard of Shermans being shipped to russia, under the lendlease. But these are patriotic soviets, who would choose their country's tank over a forien armored vehicle. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 actually panzer man, my 2nd favorite tank is the german King Tiger, there is my point. That Israelis version basically realized this potential of the Sherman, and some of their variants were taking out JS-IIs. yes the M51 super sherman is so awesome, it kicked some major arab butt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted July 9, 2003 Author Share Posted July 9, 2003 Regarding the t-26 being the least favorite tank in CMBB, it dawned upon me that perhaps we should treat it as a half-track with a 45mm cannon rather than a tank. If we treat it with the same brittleness as a Half-track, then the t-26 cannot be used against armor but against infantry. so that means no frontal "hunt" command, just darting around in Fast Move or move covered by lots of infantry. I remember reading an account in the allied forces in N.Afrika, they used tank destroyer platoons consisting of half-tracks mounted with cannons. Survivability must have been pretty low. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Laxx, HTs must have been the luxury variant. Having antitank guns "en portee", i.e. strapped to the back of ordinary thinskin trucks and firing them that way, would be the Western Desert norm No limit to the possibilities one has with such amounts of resourcefulness and bravery uninhibited by reason. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemur Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 I haven't had a chance to fight with all of the tanks in CMBO/CMBB, but certainly the M4 and T34 are not my least favorites. Both have served me very well. Two tanks I didn't particularly care for were the Ferdinand and PzII. I haven't played with the Ferdinand, but I did face them. They have a lot of armor and a lot of firepower, but they're too expensive for what they're worth. And because they didn't have MGs at first, they were quite vulnerable to infantry. Later, when they did receive MGs, the Allies had enough firepower to knock them out at a distance. Not very useful, in my opinion. The PzII weren't much better. They simply didn't have enough armor or firepower to be treated as a serious tank. They were fine as infantry support, but its my opinion that a tank has to be a bit more versatile. The M4 and T-34 are examples of this. Very good at infantry support, also quite good in an AT role. BTW, the M4 vs T-34 debate was very interesting. Since I wanted to continue that discussion without hijacking this thread, I started a new post. Phemur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 75mm guns mounted on HTs were the original armament of US Tank Destroyer units (before the introduction of the M10. They were known as 'purple heart boxes'. I think I can see a new least favourite tank emerging in time for CM:AK. The heavy German TDs are annoying too, as they absolutely useless unless your opponent has stocked up on high value armour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Uber General Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 French FT-17 Thanks goodness they arent modelled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: 75mm guns mounted on HTs were the original armament of US Tank Destroyer units (before the introduction of the M10. They were known as 'purple heart boxes'. I think I can see a new least favourite tank emerging in time for CM:AK. The heavy German TDs are annoying too, as they absolutely useless unless your opponent has stocked up on high value armour. Actually, although the US HTs mounted with 75s have received a lot of negative press, the Ami's just used them briefly and got rid of them as soon as real tanks and TDs became available. But the Germans, judging by CMBO and CMBB, continued to use HT-mounted cannon till the end of the war. I wonder why these kludgey vehicles haven't come in for a similar amount of criticism? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 The whole point about a TD, is that it fights tanks, and as such can expect some return fire of respectable calibre. The US AT HT mounts a not tremendously good gun (US 75mm, so it needs to get close, on a carriage vulnerable to MG fire. By comparison, the 251 series are proof against rifle calibre fire, and are really only meant to take on infantry that are already engaged with friendly infantry. If the US HTs mounted 76mm guns, it wouldn't be so bad, as at least then you could stand off a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shosties Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: 75mm guns mounted on HTs were the original armament of US Tank Destroyer units (before the introduction of the M10. They were known as 'purple heart boxes'. I think I can see a new least favourite tank emerging in time for CM:AK. The heavy German TDs are annoying too, as they absolutely useless unless your opponent has stocked up on high value armour. Actually, although the US HTs mounted with 75s have received a lot of negative press, the Ami's just used them briefly and got rid of them as soon as real tanks and TDs became available. But the Germans, judging by CMBO and CMBB, continued to use HT-mounted cannon till the end of the war. I wonder why these kludgey vehicles haven't come in for a similar amount of criticism? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard R Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Any French (designed and manufactured) tank. i think we are losing sight of the role of the tank to some degree. i like the M4 series for anti-infantry and anti light armor duty. I have always thought of this way- Tanks fight infantry. Infantry fights anti-tank weapons. Anti-tank weapons fight tanks. Which assumes a perfect world. Wait, what do you mean "it isn't?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybeq Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 My least favorite tank is the Lynx. How this anemic little wind-up toy can even call itself a tank I'll never know. I like the way it looks though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted July 12, 2003 Author Share Posted July 12, 2003 Howard, Cyberg, Hang on...I actually like the lynx, i think the 20mm cannon is great against troops, and it is only a little more expensive than the 251/1 half-track. regarding the comment on french tank, that's unfair. I think the Somua S35 is a great tank. I'll take it over the M4. in CMBB, this tank is a great all rounder in the early part of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl60 Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 The Lynx was a recon vehicle maquerading as a tank...*LOL* The Somua gave the Germans fits in 1940. A good tank,just not used right by the French Generals. My least favorite would have to be the pzkwII. They tend to die...quickly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Italian L33, which is modelled in CMBB, a tank so useless that it lost duels with MG armed Rolls Royce Armoured Cars. I think it was the basis for the old music hall joke about the Italian tank with five gears - four reverse and one forward in case the enemy attacked from behind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidFields Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Not the worst tank, but the "most disappointing" to me is often the Mk IV tank. I will explain: everytime I get one, I think I have a "real" tank (not a Mk III) and start using it aggressively--which usually means it dies quickly. Yesterday, I patiently waited with my Mk IV until a Stuart came into view. Wham...my MkIV is knocked out by a turret shot. I took out the Stuart at the same time...but it hardly seemed like a fair trade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybeq Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 My least favorite WWII tank is the Lynx or Luchs or whatever it's called. Is this thing even a tank? What kind of gun does it have? It's 20mm and it fires like an AA gun. It makes multiple booms for one shot like an AA gun. That's why it confuses me. I know the Ostwind and Wirblewind are not tanks but I'm not so sure about the Lynx. If it is a tank (which it does look like) then it really sucks. Shouldn't a tank be able to kill another tank? What can this thing kill? Does it do anything that somthing else couldn't do better? What is your incentive to buy one? To me, the only incentive is looks. It is one smooth looking piece of crap. Just look at that shiny turd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl60 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The Lynx was a tank designed for recon work. It was never meant to fight more than infantry.(Or HTs,trucks and smaller caliber guns.). It used it's speed and armor to get an idea of what the main force might be up against,then got the hell out of the way so the Bigger Cats could go to work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Longstreet Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I would vote for any Italian tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.