Best WW2 Tank?

[Kyle Holgate]

Perhaps this is easier than the best fighter thread done a while back, we'll see - at least we only have mainly 2 dimensions to deal with, though I suppose hill climbing has some use for a tank!

In any case what would be the criteria we want for the genral work-horse tank?
Mobility (HP to weight ratio, speed, ability to move over trenches and the like, etc), range (fuel per km/mile), gun (AP ability and HE + accuracy), armor (obviously, the main reason for the beast), ease of maintenance, reliability & ease of building. Some less noticable and probably harder to determine would be crew visibility and survivability.
Ease of use (how many crew members are doing how many jobs) and whether it has a radio or not are important too.

The lead contenders I believe are the M1A4 Sherman (verious models), the M1A3 Grant/Lee, The Pz IV (various models) and the T-34 (various models). I'm thinking 1941 onward here, if you want to add tanks from 1939 on go right ahead! Pz IIIE?
I diferentiate some from heavy tanks that are more likely to be higher on armor and gunpower and not so concerned with mobility (Tiger, King Tiger, KV-1, Churchill, Matilda, etc). The Panther rather seems to fit right in the middle - a very heavy medium tank.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Perhaps this is easier than the best fighter thread done a while back, we'll see - at least we only have mainly 2 dimensions to deal with, though I suppose hill climbing has some use for a tank!

In any case what would be the criteria we want for the genral work-horse tank?
Mobility (HP to weight ratio, speed, ability to move over trenches and the like, etc), range (fuel per km/mile), gun (AP ability and HE + accuracy), armor (obviously, the main reason for the beast), ease of maintenance, reliability & ease of building. Some less noticable and probably harder to determine would be crew visibility and survivability.
Ease of use (how many crew members are doing how many jobs) and whether it has a radio or not are important too.

The lead contenders I believe are the M1A4 Sherman (verious models), the M1A3 Grant/Lee, The Pz IV (various models) and the T-34 (various models). I'm thinking 1941 onward here, if you want to add tanks from 1939 on go right ahead! Pz IIIE?
I diferentiate some from heavy tanks that are more likely to be higher on armor and gunpower and not so concerned with mobility (Tiger, King Tiger, KV-1, Churchill, Matilda, etc). The Panther rather seems to fit right in the middle - a very heavy medium tank.

Hi Kyle,

The panther is an excellent tank, jkust too few, too late, and too unreliable. T-34/85 is a good choice, but the 85mm gun hampered by low velocity and poor ammunition. My vote is for the Sherman Firely. Reliable, easy to maintain and the 17 pdr with APDS rules the battllefield. LOng range and cover neeeded to survive though.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Kyle,

The panther is an excellent tank, jkust too few, too late, and too unreliable. T-34/85 is a good choice, but the 85mm gun hampered by low velocity and poor ammunition. My vote is for the Sherman Firely. Reliable, easy to maintain and the 17 pdr with APDS rules the battllefield. LOng range and cover neeeded to survive though.

Yeah, the Firefly was good, but needed a bit more armor - it wasn't able to routinely handle even the main opposition, the 75L48 on the STG IIIG and Pz IVG-J.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Kyle,

The panther is an excellent tank, jkust too few, too late, and too unreliable. T-34/85 is a good choice, but the 85mm gun hampered by low velocity and poor ammunition. My vote is for the Sherman Firely. Reliable, easy to maintain and the 17 pdr with APDS rules the battllefield. LOng range and cover neeeded to survive though.

Kyle and Mike:

While not strickly WWII tanks, the M-26 Pershing meets most of the criteria and is better armored than the Sherman. It's 90mm with HVAP ammo almost equals the 17lb with APDS. And let's not forget that the Centurion tank was developed just as the war ended and went on to be a world beater. Had WWII lasted longer both of these tanks would have given good accounts of themselves.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle and Mike:

While not strickly WWII tanks, the M-26 Pershing meets most of the criteria and is better armored than the Sherman. It's 90mm with HVAP ammo almost equals the 17lb with APDS. And let's not forget that the Centurion tank was developed just as the war ended and went on to be a world beater. Had WWII lasted longer both of these tanks would have given good accounts of themselves.

I have never been too impressed by the Pershing. Armor wise it wasn't anything special and the gun while better in the HE realm than the 17 lber the armor penetration and accuracy wasn't anything special. In my mind at most it was about the equal of the Panther now, though I think I like the Panther better. The Centurion though was pretty darn good - mobility, armor, gun, firecontrol - good tank.

[old_pop2000]

In looking at the technical data for both guns, while the 17 pdr. has a higher muzzle velocity-884 m/s versus 792, better penetration at 30 deg. 1000 meters-109 versus 75 mm of armour, the difference is not that considerable. The Zis-53 did have a shell weight of 9.2 kg or 20 lbs versus the 7.68 kg or 16.9 lbs. The T-34-85 had electric turret traverse like the sherman, a third person to load added to the turret, better armour with sloping, good mechanical drive system including a diesel which was not as flammable, was real simple to build, maintain and operate.

Shouldn't we judge the tank on many different factors, not just the tank gun, although it is important. The T-34-85 by 1944, had a five man crew, a radio in every tank, new MK-4 Periscope, 60 rnds of ammunition, was 2 mph faster than the T-34 1940, and was less than 6 tons heavier and had 15mm more of armor on the glacis plate along with 45 mm on the mantlet. It weighed 2 tons less than the Sherman firefly, was 11 mph faster, had one more crew member than the Sherman Firefly, more armor, less flammable, and about twice the range. This, along with the fact that the difference between the gun performances was nothing to live on. As much as I hate to admit it, the T-34-85 was a better tank, from the beginning.

[Kyle Holgate]

In looking at the technical data for both guns, while the 17 pdr. has a higher muzzle velocity-884 m/s versus 792, better penetration at 30 deg. 1000 meters-109 versus 75 mm of armour, the difference is not that considerable. The Zis-53 did have a shell weight of 9.2 kg or 20 lbs versus the 7.68 kg or 16.9 lbs. The T-34-85 had electric turret traverse like the sherman, a third person to load added to the turret, better armour with sloping, good mechanical drive system including a diesel which was not as flammable, was real simple to build, maintain and operate.

Shouldn't we judge the tank on many different factors, not just the tank gun, although it is important. The T-34-85 by 1944, had a five man crew, a radio in every tank, new MK-4 Periscope, 60 rnds of ammunition, was 2 mph faster than the T-34 1940, and was less than 6 tons heavier and had 15mm more of armor on the glacis plate along with 45 mm on the mantlet. It weighed 2 tons less than the Sherman firefly, was 11 mph faster, had one more crew member than the Sherman Firefly, more armor, less flammable, and about twice the range. This, along with the fact that the difference between the gun performances was nothing to live on. As much as I hate to admit it, the T-34-85 was a better tank, from the beginning.

If you read my original post of tank qualities you'll find I have the gun in there, but not formost by any means. What good is a gun for example if you can't get it to the battle (King Tiger)? Patton believed the most important thing on a tank was the Machine gun IIRC - something I didn't mention at all but is important too.

[old_pop2000]

If you read my original post of tank qualities you'll find I have the gun in there, but not formost by any means. What good is a gun for example if you can't get it to the battle (King Tiger)? Patton believed the most important thing on a tank was the Machine gun IIRC - something I didn't mention at all but is important too.
I read that, I wasn't referring to any one person.

[Kyle Holgate]

I read that, I wasn't referring to any one person.

I tried to cover everything to save you the time of easily finding something I missed - but you had to go and mention one anyway. You can't win some days, sigh. :p

[old_pop2000]

I tried to cover everything to save you the time of easily finding something I missed - but you had to go and mention one anyway. You can't win some days, sigh. :p

As Bugs would say "Ain't I a stinka!":p:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have never been too impressed by the Pershing. Armor wise it wasn't anything special and the gun while better in the HE realm than the 17 lber the armor penetration and accuracy wasn't anything special. In my mind at most it was about the equal of the Panther now, though I think I like the Panther better. The Centurion though was pretty darn good - mobility, armor, gun, firecontrol - good tank.

Kyle:

Armor wise it was better armored frontally than the Panther and it had a sloped glacis plate. The Panther's side armor and turret sides were sloped so I'll give it the edge there. Automotive wise, all US tanks beat out the opposition except possibly for the T-34s which would be about equal. Mobility I give the Russian tanks the edge due to their wider treads. Also the 17lb with APDS had accuracy problems that took a while to correct. It was one reason why the US stuck with HVAP even into the Korean War.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Armor wise it was better armored frontally than the Panther and it had a sloped glacis plate. The Panther's side armor and turret sides were sloped so I'll give it the edge there. Automotive wise, all US tanks beat out the opposition except possibly for the T-34s which would be about equal. Mobility I give the Russian tanks the edge due to their wider treads. Also the 17lb with APDS had accuracy problems that took a while to correct. It was one reason why the US stuck with HVAP even into the Korean War.

Accounting for slope and thickness both the Pershin front armor is only slightly better than that of the Panther, the side armor is a bit better in general. My point is/was that the Pershing for all the development was about the same as the Panther or about the same as the Tiger 1 with improved ammo and probably a bit better mobility. Of course reliability and ease of maintenance would likely be better too. The US should have managed something way better than the Tiger which came out in 1941 you'd think (or I'd think anyway!).

[old_pop2000]

Accounting for slope and thickness both the Pershin front armor is only slightly better than that of the Panther, the side armor is a bit better in general. My point is/was that the Pershing for all the development was about the same as the Panther or about the same as the Tiger 1 with improved ammo and probably a bit better mobility. Of course reliability and ease of maintenance would likely be better too. The US should have managed something way better than the Tiger which came out in 1941 you'd think (or I'd think anyway!).
In the only encounter between an M26 with the T15E1 90mm gun on April 21,1945 in Dessau, a tiger fired the first shot and missed high. The M26 fired and hit with an HE round which bounced off. The Tiger continued to move forward up a bank. The M26 now fired an AP round which penetrated the underbelly of the Tiger, probably hitting the ammunition supply. The turret was blown loose by the explosion. This is the only known engagement between the Tiger and the M26 Super Pershing. The encounter lasted 20 seconds. On the next day, an M26 killed a Panther with two shots; one to the drive sprocket and the other penetrated the side armor and again touching off the ammunition. The last encounter was a German tank that surrendered to an M26 due to lack of ammunition. There were only two super Pershings ever built. The new gun could penetrate 8.5 inches of armor at 30 degrees at 1000 yards or 13 inches of armor at 100 yards. It had a muzzle velocity of 3850 fps, 600 fps higher than the German 88 on the King Tiger.

Just thought this was interesting.

[djcyclone]

Well you guys seem to have all of the WW II tanks covered pretty well. What about the Bull Dog?

It was the Heavy Tank used by the U.S. during Korea. Not WW II I know, but close enough to count I think. Anyway just thought I would throw that out there.

How do you think it would have faired if it had been built earlier???

[old_pop2000]

Well you guys seem to have all of the WW II tanks covered pretty well. What about the Bull Dog?

It was the Heavy Tank used by the U.S. during Korea. Not WW II I know, but close enough to count I think. Anyway just thought I would throw that out there.

How do you think it would have faired if it had been built earlier???
Well, the M41 Bulldog tank was a 76mm gunned, agile tank that was noisy, used a fuel hungry Continental gasoline AOS 895 engine and was too heavy for air transport. It had an operational range of 100 miles. All in all, against a Panther or Mark IV, it would have stood a reasonable chance, but against a tiger, it was toast. Even at 45 MPH, you can't out run an AP round. It did well with the Japanese against Godzilla for awhile.:p

[bridav58]

In looking at the technical data for both guns, while the 17 pdr. has a higher muzzle velocity-884 m/s versus 792, better penetration at 30 deg. 1000 meters-109 versus 75 mm of armour, the difference is not that considerable. The Zis-53 did have a shell weight of 9.2 kg or 20 lbs versus the 7.68 kg or 16.9 lbs. The T-34-85 had electric turret traverse like the sherman, a third person to load added to the turret, better armour with sloping, good mechanical drive system including a diesel which was not as flammable, was real simple to build, maintain and operate.

Shouldn't we judge the tank on many different factors, not just the tank gun, although it is important. The T-34-85 by 1944, had a five man crew, a radio in every tank, new MK-4 Periscope, 60 rnds of ammunition, was 2 mph faster than the T-34 1940, and was less than 6 tons heavier and had 15mm more of armor on the glacis plate along with 45 mm on the mantlet. It weighed 2 tons less than the Sherman firefly, was 11 mph faster, had one more crew member than the Sherman Firefly, more armor, less flammable, and about twice the range. This, along with the fact that the difference between the gun performances was nothing to live on. As much as I hate to admit it, the T-34-85 was a better tank, from the beginning.

Well more to it then all of that!!! LOL!!! Yes the diesel was less flammable but the T-34/76 & T-34/85 also were just as bad about brewing up as the M-4 was because the T-34's ammo cooked off so easily. In the M4A3E8 the US armor was thicker(up to 100mmm) then that on the T-34/85 while the 76mmM1A1 was every bit the equal of the T-34's 85mm while having a much higher rate of fire. The M-4's optics were also far superior. The M4 also had stabalised main armament and far better ergonomics. Also the T-34 wasn't as reliable as has been lead to believe & certainly inferior to the Sherman. ,my source on the latter is Russian Tanks 1900-1970" . The T-34's turret traverse was far more primitive then the one on the Sherman and fasr more to breakdown.The speeds I have for the T-34/85 is 31 MPHn road/25 MPH cross country and a range of 186 miles. The M4A3E8's/M4/76mm's speed was 30 MPH road/20 MPH cross country with a range of 135 miles however the T-34/85's range was as it was because of the fuel tanks being mounted on the outside which lead to vulnerabilities when combat action did commence.
The armor was as follows the T-34/85 had 75mm turret front, 47mm mantlet,45mm sides & rear, it's hull front was 47mm + 15mm ,sides 47mm. The M4A3E8 had turret front 63mm/mantlet 87mm , sides & rear 63mmm. The M4's hull armor was as follows 63mm glacis plate, 106mm lower hull front/nose, 38mm sides, and 38mm rear. It laso seems the US armor was better in quality.
In actiual combet the M-4's outfought the T-34/85's in the Korean War .

[Warship NWS]

Just to stir the pot.. do not forget about the Cromwell and the Comet as part of your discussions.

[Warship NWS]

Accounting for slope and thickness both the Pershin front armor is only slightly better than that of the Panther, the side armor is a bit better in general. My point is/was that the Pershing for all the development was about the same as the Panther or about the same as the Tiger 1 with improved ammo and probably a bit better mobility. Of course reliability and ease of maintenance would likely be better too. The US should have managed something way better than the Tiger which came out in 1941 you'd think (or I'd think anyway!).

IMHO, the M4 should have been comparable to the M4A3E8 out of the box, not after buckets of crews were killed .. it was not like we did not have any idea of what the Germans were fielding in terms of tank designs before D-Day, of course it did not help that the USA pretty much ignored armored warfare before WW2 began. The single purpose tank design concept was a weakness, that being specific TDs and infantry tanks, as the battlefield is not that neat and tidy. The Germans and British also found this out with some of their front line vehicles displaying their non-multi purpose weaknesses in combat. If your there to fight bring a weapon that can engage as many targets as possible with reasonably good results, not as few as possible with marginally better results - this also greatly reduces the strain on your logistics via standardization. We were damned fortunate that the M4 was a fairly upgradeable design and that tankers could field mod them with improvements. The basic design was sound.. thus making it good for mass production and upgradeability.. those attributes to me were the most critical assets of the M4 tank - that is what made it possible to raise it to the point of a war winning weapon.

[bridav58]

IMHO, the M4 should have been comparable to the M4A3E8 out of the box, not after buckets of crews were killed .. it was not like we did not have any idea of what the Germans were fielding in terms of tank designs before D-Day, of course it did not help that the USA pretty much ignored armored warfare before WW2 began. The single purpose tank design concept was a weakness, that being specific TDs and infantry tanks, as the battlefield is not that neat and tidy. The Germans and British also found this out with some of their front line vehicles displaying their non-multi purpose weaknesses in combat. If your there to fight bring a weapon that can engage as many targets as possible with reasonably good results, not as few as possible with marginally better results - this also greatly reduces the strain on your logistics via standardization. We were damned fortunate that the M4 was a fairly upgradeable design and that tankers could field mod them with improvements. The basic design was sound.. thus making it good for mass production and upgradeability.. those attributes to me were the most critical assets of the M4 tank - that is what made it possible to raise it to the point of a war winning weapon.


Why does the Sherman get such a bad rap for vulnerability? The T-34 had just of bad a record of vulnerability it brewed up just as bad. The vast,vast majority of Allied tanks were knocked out by SP's, anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts not other German tanks. At the Battle of Arracourt 75mm M3 armed Shermans completely outfought an equal number of Panthers further there was no US TD's present nor Allied aircraft involved. There was one plattoon of 75mm M3 armed Shermans that learned to manhandle even Tiger II's they simply fought unorthodoxly by simply always having white phosporous ready to fire. They would fire the WP rounds which either blinded the German tanks or if thier ventilators sucked the gas in the German crews abandoned thier tanks in one heck of a hurry!!! lol !! Now even if they shut off thier vents in time the resulting blindness allowed the US Sherman force to get deployed on the flanks and then knock out the German tank/tanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Accounting for slope and thickness both the Pershin front armor is only slightly better than that of the Panther, the side armor is a bit better in general. My point is/was that the Pershing for all the development was about the same as the Panther or about the same as the Tiger 1 with improved ammo and probably a bit better mobility. Of course reliability and ease of maintenance would likely be better too. The US should have managed something way better than the Tiger which came out in 1941 you'd think (or I'd think anyway!).

Kyle:

While the genesis for a heavy German tank goes back to 1941, the Tiger really wasn't fully operational until 1943. The ones that saw service in late 1942 were prototypes armed with 75mm guns. Remember the US had two strikes against it: It came late to the tank war, really not getting started until 1942. The M3 Grant was a compromise produced just to give the US and the Brits a tank with a large gun. Secondly the US didn't have the experience in tank warfare that the Brits and Germans did. And the Brits still managed to produce some uninspired designs even after being in the war a good 2 and a half years before the US. The real driving force for tank design was the battles on the Russian front. Here I would fault Allied intel for not doing a better job of analyzing the tactics and weapons. Finally let's not forget the disruptive influence of the US Tank Destroyer Command. This misguided command did more to hamstring the US Army's development of both tanks and anti-tank guns with its misreading of armored warfare and creation of a separate tank destroyer doctrine. By 1944, US tankers were complaining long and loud that what was needed was not a tank killer, but a killer tank. And one final note, wars are fought with logistics and the US Army resisted a heavy tank due to the problems with shipping them and the disruption of the production of existing designs. Bottom line, tanks as with all weapons are not just the product of battlefield experiences.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In the only encounter between an M26 with the T15E1 90mm gun on April 21,1945 in Dessau, a tiger fired the first shot and missed high. The M26 fired and hit with an HE round which bounced off. The Tiger continued to move forward up a bank. The M26 now fired an AP round which penetrated the underbelly of the Tiger, probably hitting the ammunition supply. The turret was blown loose by the explosion. This is the only known engagement between the Tiger and the M26 Super Pershing. The encounter lasted 20 seconds. On the next day, an M26 killed a Panther with two shots; one to the drive sprocket and the other penetrated the side armor and again touching off the ammunition. The last encounter was a German tank that surrendered to an M26 due to lack of ammunition. There were only two super Pershings ever built. The new gun could penetrate 8.5 inches of armor at 30 degrees at 1000 yards or 13 inches of armor at 100 yards. It had a muzzle velocity of 3850 fps, 600 fps higher than the German 88 on the King Tiger.

Just thought this was interesting.

Dennis:

The Super Pershing was equipped with a far different weapon than the standard Pershing. It had a much longer barrel and featured two piece ammunition. I believe that a standard Pershing also killed a JagdTiger tank destroyer with a flank shot at long range in late April.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well you guys seem to have all of the WW II tanks covered pretty well. What about the Bull Dog?

It was the Heavy Tank used by the U.S. during Korea. Not WW II I know, but close enough to count I think. Anyway just thought I would throw that out there.

How do you think it would have faired if it had been built earlier???

DJ:

As Dennis has already given the details on the M-41 Walker Bulldog light tank, let me add that it never saw service in Korea. In fact it never saw combat in US service, but was used by the South Vietnamese along with the M-24 Chaffee light tank as the bulk of their armored forces.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just to stir the pot.. do not forget about the Cromwell and the Comet as part of your discussions.

Chris:

The Comet was actually a compromise that worked thanks to it being based on an existing design and having a modified 17lb gun. The Cromwell could probably take on a Panzer MK IV, but that's about it. Remember, they made up the bulk of the kills that German tank Ace Michael Wittman scored in Normandy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Why does the Sherman get such a bad rap for vulnerability? The T-34 had just of bad a record of vulnerability it brewed up just as bad. The vast,vast majority of Allied tanks were knocked out by SP's, anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts not other German tanks. At the Battle of Arracourt 75mm M3 armed Shermans completely outfought an equal number of Panthers further there was no US TD's present nor Allied aircraft involved. There was one plattoon of 75mm M3 armed Shermans that learned to manhandle even Tiger II's they simply fought unorthodoxly by simply always having white phosporous ready to fire. They would fire the WP rounds which either blinded the German tanks or if thier ventilators sucked the gas in the German crews abandoned thier tanks in one heck of a hurry!!! lol !! Now even if they shut off thier vents in time the resulting blindness allowed the US Sherman force to get deployed on the flanks and then knock out the German tank/tanks.

Brian:

There were TDs at Arracourt, but I will agree that the bulk of the force was M4 Shermans with 75mm guns. It didn't hurt that:

A. The Panther Brigade was totally inexperienced and lacked infantry and artillery support.

B. The US was able to ambush from defilade positions in most cases aided by fog.

C.The US force was the crack 37th Tank Battalion under the command of Colonel Creighton Abrams later to become the top general in the US Armor and the man behind the Abrams tank. This was probably the single best US armor force in the war.

Regarding brewing up and your earlier post about diesel versus gas engines, I will add this. Most tanks burned because their ammo caught fire, not due to the fuel. German tanks used gasoline engines for the most part, but due to their better armor, they suffered fewer penetrations and fewer fires. All ammuntion contains its own oxidizer which means once a fire starts its very hard to extinguish it. Hence the more elaborate ammo storage measures on modern tanks and the use of Halon gas on the Abrams to suppress fires.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

The Comet was actually a compromise that worked thanks to it being based on an existing design and having a modified 17lb gun. The Cromwell could probably take on a Panzer MK IV, but that's about it. Remember, they made up the bulk of the kills that German tank Ace Michael Wittman scored in Normandy.

The reason I brought them up is because the Cromwell was the first of the "cruiser" tanks to be armed with a dual purpose gun and other various improvements which made it a much better tank then previous cruiser tank designs, the Comet was the natural progression to the Cromwell. When looking at the "best tank" we need to keep in mind the generations of tanks that were built during the war as each year tank designers tried to improve on existing designs or build designs that were better then the previous tanks they had built.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Regarding brewing up and your earlier post about diesel versus gas engines, I will add this. Most tanks burned because their ammo caught fire, not due to the fuel. German tanks used gasoline engines for the most part, but due to their better armor, they suffered fewer penetrations and fewer fires. All ammuntion contains its own oxidizer which means once a fire starts its very hard to extinguish it. Hence the more elaborate ammo storage measures on modern tanks and the use of Halon gas on the Abrams to suppress fires.


That is correct, most of the upgraded M4 Sheman designs still retained gasoline driven engines. What made them safer was the addition of "wet stowage" and other protection measures for the ammunition.



US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The common myth that the use of gasoline (petrol) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most World War II tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with armour piercing shells. At first a partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up".

[old_pop2000]

Well more to it then all of that!!! LOL!!! Yes the diesel was less flammable but the T-34/76 & T-34/85 also were just as bad about brewing up as the M-4 was because the T-34's ammo cooked off so easily. In the M4A3E8 the US armor was thicker(up to 100mmm) then that on the T-34/85 while the 76mmM1A1 was every bit the equal of the T-34's 85mm while having a much higher rate of fire. The M-4's optics were also far superior. The M4 also had stabalised main armament and far better ergonomics. Also the T-34 wasn't as reliable as has been lead to believe & certainly inferior to the Sherman. ,my source on the latter is Russian Tanks 1900-1970" . The T-34's turret traverse was far more primitive then the one on the Sherman and fasr more to breakdown.The speeds I have for the T-34/85 is 31 MPHn road/25 MPH cross country and a range of 186 miles. The M4A3E8's/M4/76mm's speed was 30 MPH road/20 MPH cross country with a range of 135 miles however the T-34/85's range was as it was because of the fuel tanks being mounted on the outside which lead to vulnerabilities when combat action did commence.
The armor was as follows the T-34/85 had 75mm turret front, 47mm mantlet,45mm sides & rear, it's hull front was 47mm + 15mm ,sides 47mm. The M4A3E8 had turret front 63mm/mantlet 87mm , sides & rear 63mmm. The M4's hull armor was as follows 63mm glacis plate, 106mm lower hull front/nose, 38mm sides, and 38mm rear. It laso seems the US armor was better in quality.
In actiual combet the M-4's outfought the T-34/85's in the Korean War .
I think we can leave out the doctrine and logistics aspects and concentrate on the tank's characteristics. You have bounced between the M4 and the M4A3E8 tank, but have not compared the T-34-85 against either completely. The "easy eight" had a production run of 254 tanks as compared to the thousands built for the M4 and the T-34-85. The Sherman, in any version, did have good mobility on off road or roads. It did have gun stabilization and most tanks reported that during movement, the gun wildly moved up and down. The only use of gun stabilization was to enable a gun to be fired on the move, which in WWII was rarely done because of the poor capability of the early systems. The gun stabilization systems were electromechanical with poor response times in the feedback circuit that provided the difference angles between where the gun was laid, and where the gun had moved to during movement. As for optics, that is debatable, however the M4 optics might have been better, but the degree is what is important. A tank is a system and should be considered as such. Maintenance issues must consider the level of education and competancy of the nation producing the tank. The T-34 was built for the average Russian kid from the farms, without a lot of education in mechanics. US kids grew up with Model T's and other cars, we were more wealthy than they were. This gave us an advantage. The Russian's designed a tank that was closely allied to the tractors that these kids would have seen and in some cases, used. They kept them simple and straightforward. As to the cooking off, all tanks cook off when struck by high velocity tank shells. How do we determine when a tank 'brewed up"? Do we use eyewitness accounts, do we examine after the battle, the dead tanks? What's the methodology? There isn't one. We look at the dead tanks after the battle, and see where the shell struck the tank and penetrated. But what if that tank had been struck then abandoned, but other tanks had hit it after it was abandoned? We have no way of knowing what really killed that tank. An explosion on a tank during battle doesn't mean the ammunition went up or that anyone saw it go up. Eyewitness accounts are not necessarily the best accounts. Counting dead tanks isn't the most accurate either. All we can say is that the tank was struck in such and such a position and was killed. Tank kill stats are not really well supported, just like aircraft kills.

If we are going to perform these types of comparison, we need to use quantifiable data on characteristics that can be measured, not hearsay evidence from field examinations or eyewitness accounts from men who were in the heat of battle. Our friend and expert, Mike can certainly provide us with a much more professional viewpoint. I will abide by his opinions as always on this subject.

I believe that as a system, the T-34-85 was the best combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ease of use and maintenance of any tank in WWII. Was it the most survivable? Who knows and what are the qualitative factors that are essential for survivability. Just my opinions though.

[old_pop2000]

That is correct, most of the upgraded M4 Sheman designs still retained gasoline driven engines. What made them safer was the addition of "wet stowage" and other protection measures for the ammunition.


Let's understand also, that many Shermans and M3 Stuarts used the Wright Cyclone radial engine which was designed to work with Avgas. Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline. My father-in-law was a federal firechief at China Lake and Miramar. He told me that regular gasoline is not flammable but the fumes at the top of the pool are. He also stated that Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline.

The T-34-85 stored its 55 rounds of ammunition in three types of systems; crates on the floor, clamps on the side of the turret and racks. Crew survivability was not well thought out in WWII, I am not certain any tank in WWII could be considered crew friendly.

[bridav58]

Dennis...
I'm really driving at the fact that the M4 with 75mm M3 is quite the equal of the 76mm armed T-34 while the 76mm M1A1 armed M4's are the equal of the T-34/85. There's not much to choose between the two.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

While the genesis for a heavy German tank goes back to 1941, the Tiger really wasn't fully operational until 1943. The ones that saw service in late 1942 were prototypes armed with 75mm guns. Remember the US had two strikes against it: It came late to the tank war, really not getting started until 1942. The M3 Grant was a compromise produced just to give the US and the Brits a tank with a large gun. Secondly the US didn't have the experience in tank warfare that the Brits and Germans did. And the Brits still managed to produce some uninspired designs even after being in the war a good 2 and a half years before the US. The real driving force for tank design was the battles on the Russian front. Here I would fault Allied intel for not doing a better job of analyzing the tactics and weapons. Finally let's not forget the disruptive influence of the US Tank Destroyer Command. This misguided command did more to hamstring the US Army's development of both tanks and anti-tank guns with its misreading of armored warfare and creation of a separate tank destroyer doctrine. By 1944, US tankers were complaining long and loud that what was needed was not a tank killer, but a killer tank. And one final note, wars are fought with logistics and the US Army resisted a heavy tank due to the problems with shipping them and the disruption of the production of existing designs. Bottom line, tanks as with all weapons are not just the product of battlefield experiences.

The point I was trying to make is that the US had the know how to make the A-bomb, put the P-51 into production really fast and it was a great fighter - you'd think that from the battlefield info they were getting from Europe and North Africa and what not that they could have put in the field a far superior weapon to the basic Tiger. The fact that it took until 1945 to put about what would be considered the US version of the Tiger 1 - strikes me as odd. Yes, I know about the Tiger's history, and the Pershing and most of the others so I know the development fubars, but the US "should" have been better than that given the know how and logistics network.

As for the Cromwell and Comet - I think these were stop-gaps and really didn't seem to take advantage of sloped armor and the latest in tank design know-how. They did have good guns and good mobility in their favor as well as other features that helped them out though.
If we're talking late-war or almost non-war tanks (like the JS-III) how come no one has mentioned the Maus yet? It would have been a war winner for sure! :rolleyes:

[Kyle Holgate]

Let's understand also, that many Shermans and M3 Stuarts used the Wright Cyclone radial engine which was designed to work with Avgas. Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline. My father-in-law was a federal firechief at China Lake and Miramar. He told me that regular gasoline is not flammable but the fumes at the top of the pool are. He also stated that Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline.

The T-34-85 stored its 55 rounds of ammunition in three types of systems; crates on the floor, clamps on the side of the turret and racks. Crew survivability was not well thought out in WWII, I am not certain any tank in WWII could be considered crew friendly.

Some tried to help with crew survivability at least. Late models of the Sherman had wet stowage for ammo which may have helped give a bit of time for the crew to get out. I suppose they did studies of that so I'm assuming it helped, though I don't know and don't feel like searching it right now! (Dennis, knock yourself out, I don't have time! :D)

[old_pop2000]

Dennis...
I'm really driving at the fact that the M4 with 75mm M3 is quite the equal of the 76mm armed T-34 while the 76mm M1A1 armed M4's are the equal of the T-34/85. There's not much to choose between the two.
Just a note, the Sherman could rotate its turret at a rate of 24 degrees per second, the T-34-85 could move 4.2 RPM. Now, I am no wizard at math, but it appears the T-34 was faster by .2 RPM. 24 times 60 yields 1440 degrees in one minute, dividing by 360 degrees which is one revolution, the answer is............4 RPM for the Sherman. Note also, the T-34-85 was 2 inches shorter in height.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That is correct, most of the upgraded M4 Sheman designs still retained gasoline driven engines. What made them safer was the addition of "wet stowage" and other protection measures for the ammunition.



Chris:

It also didn't help that Sherman crews often carried extra rounds of ammo stored anywhere they could find room. They found that you could run out of ammo rather quickly in a fight and re-supply might not be forthcoming.

[old_pop2000]

Some tried to help with crew survivability at least. Late models of the Sherman had wet stowage for ammo which may have helped give a bit of time for the crew to get out. I suppose they did studies of that so I'm assuming it helped, though I don't know and don't feel like searching it right now! (Dennis, knock yourself out, I don't have time! :D)
The ammunition was stored in double walled crates with water in between the walls. It was designed to delay the onset of fire, until the crews could get out. Tanks with the system had a W added to their designation. Example is the M4A3W, M4A3E8W. These indicate the presence of the "wet storage"system.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Let's understand also, that many Shermans and M3 Stuarts used the Wright Cyclone radial engine which was designed to work with Avgas. Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline. My father-in-law was a federal firechief at China Lake and Miramar. He told me that regular gasoline is not flammable but the fumes at the top of the pool are. He also stated that Avgas is far more flammable than regular gasoline.

The T-34-85 stored its 55 rounds of ammunition in three types of systems; crates on the floor, clamps on the side of the turret and racks. Crew survivability was not well thought out in WWII, I am not certain any tank in WWII could be considered crew friendly.

Dennis:

As the IJN and the USN found out, Avgas fumes are deadly. There is a show on Discovery channel called "Mythbusters" and they played around with all those movie myths were the leaking gas is set on fire and follows the car and sets it off. Turns out the fire doesn't travel any faster then 10 mph and that it was very hard to keep the gas ignited. The crew found out that the fumes at the top of the stream were easiest to ignite as your father-in-law mentioned.

My youngest brother used to race both Motocross and flat track motorcycles. He used Avgas for fuel and I vividly remember him fueling up one day and spilling some on the driveway on a hot June afternoon. The gas vaporized in seconds.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Dennis...
I'm really driving at the fact that the M4 with 75mm M3 is quite the equal of the 76mm armed T-34 while the 76mm M1A1 armed M4's are the equal of the T-34/85. There's not much to choose between the two.


Brian:

Penetration with the 76mm gun was not all that good. Unless using HVAP, it only had about a four inch penetration at battlefield ranges. The main culprit for all US tank and anti-tank guns (excepting the 57mm which was a British design) was that the US preferred lower chamber pressures for the guns to extend barrel life. This meant far less propellant in the shell casing compared to comparable foreign guns. The 17lb and the German 75mm had twice the powder for their shells compared to the US 76mm.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The point I was trying to make is that the US had the know how to make the A-bomb, put the P-51 into production really fast and it was a great fighter - you'd think that from the battlefield info they were getting from Europe and North Africa and what not that they could have put in the field a far superior weapon to the basic Tiger. The fact that it took until 1945 to put about what would be considered the US version of the Tiger 1 - strikes me as odd. Yes, I know about the Tiger's history, and the Pershing and most of the others so I know the development fubars, but the US "should" have been better than that given the know how and logistics network.

As for the Cromwell and Comet - I think these were stop-gaps and really didn't seem to take advantage of sloped armor and the latest in tank design know-how. They did have good guns and good mobility in their favor as well as other features that helped them out though.
If we're talking late-war or almost non-war tanks (like the JS-III) how come no one has mentioned the Maus yet? It would have been a war winner for sure! :rolleyes:

Kyle:

I agree, the US certainly should have done better with its tank designs. But I think the early experiences lead the high command to believe they could win with the Sherman. It was really the rude awakening of the Panther tank in France that convinced them that something better was needed. I am a little disappointed in the ability of the US Army to develop weapons faster. You don't see these problems with ships or aircraft, but most of the Army's weapons were pre-war designs. Little good development was done during the war.

[keschofield]

... Note also, the T-34-85 was 2 inches shorter in height.

Dennis,

You have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. Given the technology and tactics of the time, WWII tank combat favored the smaller target. The smaller its profile, the easier it is for a tank to get into a concealed, or hull down, position.

The Germans and Soviets knew this. We didn't figure it out until 1945 (well, our tank crews did, but the generals and Pentagon procurement "experts" didn't). I'm not sure what the Brits were thinking. The only British tanks with adequate preparation time spent on them were the Matilda II (already too slow by 1940) and the Centurion (arrived too late). All of the other British designs seem to have been quickly thrown together stopgaps (although most of them did feature a low silhouette.)

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,

You have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. Given the technology and tactics of the time, WWII tank combat favored the smaller target. The smaller its profile, the easier it is for a tank to get into a concealed, or hull down, position.

The Germans and Soviets knew this. We didn't figure it out until 1945 (well, our tank crews did, but the generals and Pentagon procurement "experts" didn't). I'm not sure what the Brits were thinking. The only British tanks with adequate preparation time spent on them were the Matilda II (already too slow by 1940) and the Centurion (arrived too late). All of the other British designs seem to have been quickly thrown together stopgaps (although most of them did feature a low silhouette.)
Interestingly, the Panther had a height of 117 inches, while the T-34-85 was somewhere around 96 -108, depending on the turret and cupola installed. Almost 9 inches less. An examination of the hull of both tanks show armor placed at an angle of 60 degrees for the front glacis, 45 for both side and the rear was angled at 48 degrees. Examine the Sherman, its flat.

In my mind, this gives both of these weapons platforms excellent advantage in protection.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Interestingly, the Panther had a height of 117 inches, while the T-34-85 was somewhere around 96 -108, depending on the turret and cupola installed. Almost 9 inches less. An examination of the hull of both tanks show armor placed at an angle of 60 degrees for the front glacis, 45 for both side and the rear was angled at 48 degrees. Examine the Sherman, its flat.

In my mind, this gives both of these weapons platforms excellent advantage in protection.


Dennis:

The Sherman's glacis plate was sloped in later models at 60 degrees and was 80mm thick, the same as the Panther. The side armor was flat, but all tanks are vulnerable to flank shots even with sloped armor. The Sherman's height certainly was a liability.

[Kyle Holgate]

Don't forget the Sherman "Jumbo" versions!

[Mike Malanaphy]

The point I was trying to make is that the US had the know how to make the A-bomb, put the P-51 into production really fast and it was a great fighter - you'd think that from the battlefield info they were getting from Europe and North Africa and what not that they could have put in the field a far superior weapon to the basic Tiger. The fact that it took until 1945 to put about what would be considered the US version of the Tiger 1 - strikes me as odd. Yes, I know about the Tiger's history, and the Pershing and most of the others so I know the development fubars, but the US "should" have been better than that given the know how and logistics network.

As for the Cromwell and Comet - I think these were stop-gaps and really didn't seem to take advantage of sloped armor and the latest in tank design know-how. They did have good guns and good mobility in their favor as well as other features that helped them out though.
If we're talking late-war or almost non-war tanks (like the JS-III) how come no one has mentioned the Maus yet? It would have been a war winner for sure! :rolleyes:

Hi Guys,

Two things here......the Sherman began series prduction in June, 1942 and really didn't see combat in American hands until late 1942, the war ended in May, 1945 and we faced no real tank to tank combat until Normandy. General Leslie McNair, Head of Army Ground Forces, consistenttly held to doctrine that tanks should not fight tanks and believed the M4 Sherman was up to it's assigned tasks of infantry support and exploitation.

Combat experience is often the best teacher and is the reality check for peacetime ideas. There was little practical experience form the field to break the doctrine roadblock until Normandy and the T26 tank became a priority (Not to mention McNair becoming KIA in a friendly fire incident in July, 1944). Once motivated, the Army got the M26 to the battlefield in less than 8 months. IIRC, the Mustang was developed in 98 days to a British requirement, but didn't fulfill it's full potential until the specified Allison engine was replaced with the Merlin.

Even then, the Tiger I despite it's fearful reputation was a relavtively poor vehicle mechanically. It featured a flat armor profile, manual turret rotation, and was underpowered. The M26 was a much superior vehicle to the M4, but it suffered form an underpowered engione and a unreliable transmission. Even in improved form, the M26A1 and M46 in Korea were were supplanted in some areas by M4s considered to be better performers in steep terrain.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Guys,

Two things here......the Sherman began series prduction in June, 1942 and really didn't see combat in American hands until late 1942, the war ended in May, 1945 and we faced no real tank to tank combat until Normandy. General Leslie McNair, Head of Army Ground Forces, consistenttly held to doctrine that tanks should not fight tanks and believed the M4 Sherman was up to it's assigned tasks of infantry support and exploitation.

Combat experience is often the best teacher and is the reality check for peacetime ideas. There was little practical experience form the field to break the doctrine roadblock until Normandy and the T26 tank became a priority (Not to mention McNair becoming KIA in a friendly fire incident in July, 1944). Once motivated, the Army got the M26 to the battlefield in less than 8 months. IIRC, the Mustang was developed in 98 days to a British requirement, but didn't fulfill it's full potential until the specified Allison engine was replaced with the Merlin.

Even then, the Tiger I despite it's fearful reputation was a relavtively poor vehicle mechanically. It featured a flat armor profile, manual turret rotation, and was underpowered. The M26 was a much superior vehicle to the M4, but it suffered form an underpowered engione and a unreliable transmission. Even in improved form, the M26A1 and M46 in Korea were were supplanted in some areas by M4s considered to be better performers in steep terrain.

The American army was pretty aware of what was going on in North Africa and was keeping track of how well the Grant/Lee did for example. The US has proven as Ed mentions that they could quickly design and field excellent and top notch weapon systems - they just didn't for various reasons, some you mention. I don't mean to say the Tiger was a superb tank by any means, it had its faults - but at least my point is that the Tiger and the Pershing weren't that hugely different. One built in 1942 the other in 45. I would expect more from the US were I using their subs, planes and ships as an indication. The Pershing was certainly better in most ways than the Tiger - just not by much and the US had the ability to do better (though apparently not the leadership or motivation). Compare the Pershing side by side with the Panther (later model) - not extremely different in mobility, AP firepower, and such - though the Panther was more complicated and harder to build and maintain. The Pershing was a pretty good medium tank - just not a great one, and not in my view a heavy tank by any means.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I think we can leave out the doctrine and logistics aspects and concentrate on the tank's characteristics. You have bounced between the M4 and the M4A3E8 tank, but have not compared the T-34-85 against either completely. The "easy eight" had a production run of 254 tanks as compared to the thousands built for the M4 and the T-34-85. The Sherman, in any version, did have good mobility on off road or roads. It did have gun stabilization and most tanks reported that during movement, the gun wildly moved up and down. The only use of gun stabilization was to enable a gun to be fired on the move, which in WWII was rarely done because of the poor capability of the early systems. The gun stabilization systems were electromechanical with poor response times in the feedback circuit that provided the difference angles between where the gun was laid, and where the gun had moved to during movement. As for optics, that is debatable, however the M4 optics might have been better, but the degree is what is important. A tank is a system and should be considered as such. Maintenance issues must consider the level of education and competancy of the nation producing the tank. The T-34 was built for the average Russian kid from the farms, without a lot of education in mechanics. US kids grew up with Model T's and other cars, we were more wealthy than they were. This gave us an advantage. The Russian's designed a tank that was closely allied to the tractors that these kids would have seen and in some cases, used. They kept them simple and straightforward. As to the cooking off, all tanks cook off when struck by high velocity tank shells. How do we determine when a tank 'brewed up"? Do we use eyewitness accounts, do we examine after the battle, the dead tanks? What's the methodology? There isn't one. We look at the dead tanks after the battle, and see where the shell struck the tank and penetrated. But what if that tank had been struck then abandoned, but other tanks had hit it after it was abandoned? We have no way of knowing what really killed that tank. An explosion on a tank during battle doesn't mean the ammunition went up or that anyone saw it go up. Eyewitness accounts are not necessarily the best accounts. Counting dead tanks isn't the most accurate either. All we can say is that the tank was struck in such and such a position and was killed. Tank kill stats are not really well supported, just like aircraft kills.

If we are going to perform these types of comparison, we need to use quantifiable data on characteristics that can be measured, not hearsay evidence from field examinations or eyewitness accounts from men who were in the heat of battle. Our friend and expert, Mike can certainly provide us with a much more professional viewpoint. I will abide by his opinions as always on this subject.

I believe that as a system, the T-34-85 was the best combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ease of use and maintenance of any tank in WWII. Was it the most survivable? Who knows and what are the qualitative factors that are essential for survivability. Just my opinions though.

Hi Dennis,

Good point about analyzing causes, but there is not as much documentation done on tank to tank combat as there is on plane to plane combat. I suspect the Israelis have the best data on such combats based upon three wars worth of experience. While US M48s and M60A1s came to dominate the Israeli tank force, mant Israeli crews often preferred the Centurion. The Israelis discovered during the 73 War that the OHC "cherry juice" used in the turret hydraulic system easily caught fire when the lines were ruptured in combat, causing a high velcity spray of fluid. The simple fix was OHT, a green colored medium which was much less flammable. I think the M48s and M60's featured better armor protection over the Centurion due to better ballistic shaping and wouild have held their own in the "Valley of Tears".

Sometimes the best solutions are simple ones. As we have discuseed in another threat, tank commanders are terribly exposed in combat. Fighting with the hatch open gives the tank commander a much better sense of the battle and the ability to spot the enemy first. However, this exposes him to all types of weapons, especially artillery. The Israelis believed fighting with hatches open gave them a batttlefield advantage over their opponents despite the terrible casualties sustained.

The German Leopard I featured a commander's hatch that popped 6" or so before swinging upwards. This allowed the thank commander 360 vision with little exposure and overhead cover. The Israeli's adopted it in their remanufactured M48s and M60s after the 67 War and it has been adopted alomost universally. Doooh!

The T34/85 is an excellent vehicle and has good balance between mobility, firepower, and mobility and it certainly saw more combat than the Firefly and was produced in much greater numbers. Fireflys were in such short supply that the British could only put one in each 3 tank platoon, but the 17pdr was a thoroughbred and would still be my choice. : ) Just as in many other weapons systems, crew training and quality are probably the key factor in success.

[Mike Malanaphy]

The American army was pretty aware of what was going on in North Africa and was keeping track of how well the Grant/Lee did for example. The US has proven as Ed mentions that they could quickly design and field excellent and top notch weapon systems - they just didn't for various reasons, some you mention. I don't mean to say the Tiger was a superb tank by any means, it had its faults - but at least my point is that the Tiger and the Pershing weren't that hugely different. One built in 1942 the other in 45. I would expect more from the US were I using their subs, planes and ships as an indication. The Pershing was certainly better in most ways than the Tiger - just not by much and the US had the ability to do better (though apparently not the leadership or motivation). Compare the Pershing side by side with the Panther (later model) - not extremely different in mobility, AP firepower, and such - though the Panther was more complicated and harder to build and maintain. The Pershing was a pretty good medium tank - just not a great one, and not in my view a heavy tank by any means.

Hi Kyle,

It's hard to put my finger on it in this case. Bureaucratic inertia is a big one. We fielded a heavy tank in 1943 in protoype stage, the M6. Unfortunately, it featured some very retrograde mobility features and had a 76mm gun in a turret with a small turret ring diameter which prevented upgunning.

Form what we could see, the tank lost some of it's luster after France and both the US and Britain scaled back the number of armored divisions they were to field. UInfortunately, the flexibility in both offense and defense for tank formations on the Eastern Front were not to known to us.

[old_pop2000]

The American army was pretty aware of what was going on in North Africa and was keeping track of how well the Grant/Lee did for example. The US has proven as Ed mentions that they could quickly design and field excellent and top notch weapon systems - they just didn't for various reasons, some you mention. I don't mean to say the Tiger was a superb tank by any means, it had its faults - but at least my point is that the Tiger and the Pershing weren't that hugely different. One built in 1942 the other in 45. I would expect more from the US were I using their subs, planes and ships as an indication. The Pershing was certainly better in most ways than the Tiger - just not by much and the US had the ability to do better (though apparently not the leadership or motivation). Compare the Pershing side by side with the Panther (later model) - not extremely different in mobility, AP firepower, and such - though the Panther was more complicated and harder to build and maintain. The Pershing was a pretty good medium tank - just not a great one, and not in my view a heavy tank by any means.
Mike:
I understand about why we produced the Sherman, but considering that we had witnessed the British fighting in NA first hand, read reports from our officials in Russia about the fighting on the Eastern front and had been privy to information from British and French sources about the fighting in France, are we saying that by 1943, we did not realize that at some point, the Sherman was going to have to face an enemy tank? The evidence was right in our reports. Tanks fight tanks.

Here is something to consider: Width of a Sherman tank was 8 ft 9 inches. Width of a RR flatcar was about 10ft 2 inches. One inch to spare. Where were Sherman's built? In Detroit. How were they shipped? By Rail.

Fascinating, isn't it.

[Kyle Holgate]

From going over the discussion it seems to me that the T-34/85 and before that the T-34/76 were probably the best or about the best tanks. They had their limitations as with any weapon system of couse, but given main important uses of tanks that I outlined initially - they both fit the bill(s) well. They seem to be good though perhaps not excellent across the board where the other tanks we mention may have a few excellent qualities but also may have some fair or even poor ones. I'm not sure thing average with a tank - better IMO to be good at everything than excellent at mobility for example, but have weak armor or gun.
The Panther is often touted as the best tank - suppose it may be when it's working but you have to consider logistics too - how easy is it to maintain and build? Won't do much good if it's broke down or built in too low numbers to have enough impact on the war.

As good as the Panther was, I'm unconvinced that the Pz IV couldn't have managed as well if built in greater numbers (panther assebling making more Pz IV's instead, etc). It was quite able to handle the Sherman and T-34's in most cases if commanded well and supported correctly.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Don't forget the Sherman "Jumbo" versions!

Kyle:

Those were really for infantry support, not tank versus tank fighting. A more interesting rarity was the mounting of the M36 turret on a Sherman hull. While the top of the turret was still open and its armor was light, the rest of the tank was decently armored and now you've got a 90mm gun. I think only 200 conversions were made, mainly to get more 90mm armed vehicles into combat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The American army was pretty aware of what was going on in North Africa and was keeping track of how well the Grant/Lee did for example. The US has proven as Ed mentions that they could quickly design and field excellent and top notch weapon systems - they just didn't for various reasons, some you mention. I don't mean to say the Tiger was a superb tank by any means, it had its faults - but at least my point is that the Tiger and the Pershing weren't that hugely different. One built in 1942 the other in 45. I would expect more from the US were I using their subs, planes and ships as an indication. The Pershing was certainly better in most ways than the Tiger - just not by much and the US had the ability to do better (though apparently not the leadership or motivation). Compare the Pershing side by side with the Panther (later model) - not extremely different in mobility, AP firepower, and such - though the Panther was more complicated and harder to build and maintain. The Pershing was a pretty good medium tank - just not a great one, and not in my view a heavy tank by any means.

Kyle:

Again I blame McNair and the entire tank destroyer doctrine that was entrenched and had its own agenda. As Mike stated, the US had different doctrine for tanks as infantry support and exploitation vehicles. Yet strangely it was the TDs that provided most of the infantry support, especially in Italy.

I can never understand why the US didn't insist on a sample T-34 for evaluation purposes at least by 1943. We had certainly supplied our Russian "allies" with considerable war material.

[bridav58]

Brian:

Penetration with the 76mm gun was not all that good. Unless using HVAP, it only had about a four inch penetration at battlefield ranges. The main culprit for all US tank and anti-tank guns (excepting the 57mm which was a British design) was that the US preferred lower chamber pressures for the guns to extend barrel life. This meant far less propellant in the shell casing compared to comparable foreign guns. The 17lb and the German 75mm had twice the powder for their shells compared to the US 76mm.

Even with just APCBC it was still superior to the German 75mm/43 & 75mm/48 fitted on the MK. IV & the 85 mm on the T-34/85.

[old_pop2000]

....
I can never understand why the US didn't insist on a sample T-34 for evaluation purposes at least by 1943. We had certainly supplied our Russian "allies" with considerable war material.

The Russian's supplied the US a T-34-41 and a KV-1 in 1942. They were tested at the Proving Grounds by employees working there. Here is some of the report, but I cannot validate the accuracy of the information. I have not found the original primary source. Take it on face value.


Evaluation of T-34 & KV-1 by Aberdeen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks. The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo.

[bridav58]

Kyle:

Those were really for infantry support, not tank versus tank fighting. A more interesting rarity was the mounting of the M36 turret on a Sherman hull. While the top of the turret was still open and its armor was light, the rest of the tank was decently armored and now you've got a 90mm gun. I think only 200 conversions were made, mainly to get more 90mm armed vehicles into combat.


There was a serious study of mounting the Pershing turret on the M4.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mike:
I understand about why we produced the Sherman, but considering that we had witnessed the British fighting in NA first hand, read reports from our officials in Russia about the fighting on the Eastern front and had been privy to information from British and French sources about the fighting in France, are we saying that by 1943, we did not realize that at some point, the Sherman was going to have to face an enemy tank? The evidence was right in our reports. Tanks fight tanks.

Here is something to consider: Width of a Sherman tank was 8 ft 9 inches. Width of a RR flatcar was about 10ft 2 inches. One inch to spare. Where were Sherman's built? In Detroit. How were they shipped? By Rail.

Fascinating, isn't it.

Dennis:

In keeping with the discussions about tank sizes, I did some research and found some interesting facts. We've been trashing the Sherman for its high profile and armor deficiencies. Yet the basic facts are that only the T-34 was lower in profile. All the German tanks had a higher profile and were wider and longer than the Sherman. Yet the Sherman gets trashed. Why? Simple. Its armor was easy enough to penetrate with the three main guns in the German arsenal. But than again so was the T-34's. I can assure you that Russia lost more T-34s than the Allies lost Sherman tanks, but many armchair military experts immediately fault the Sherman. I think in many cases its because post-war, the Allies practically gushed over the German officers they interrogated and allowed themselves to fall into the trap of lionizing their opponents. You see this with Rommel and the Bismarck's aura. All products of poor analysis. That and as one author put it German tanks earned the appreciation of hobbyists.

Final point. If the US and Brits had fielded enough tanks with guns as powerful as their opponents and with better armor, would history have held German tanks in such high regard? You could have taken the M-10 Wolverine tank destroyer and put the 17lb gun on it(the Brits did and called it the Achilles) and armored it up to a Panther's standards and then you would have had a formidable medium tank (or heavy tank by US standards). It would have been narrower and probably not much higher (the M-10's height was 8.43 feet).

[bridav58]

There something like 13,000 Shermans fitted with 76mm M1A1's with Sherman production terminating in May,1945 . I'm thinking there were like 12,000 T-34/85's built but they were in production till the early 60's????? . So there just as many upgunned Shermans as there were T-34's running around.
When we think of up-gunning the Sherman we usually think of just the 17pdr and completely forget all the ones armed with the 76mm M1A1.

[bridav58]

Dennis:

In keeping with the discussions about tank sizes, I did some research and found some interesting facts. We've been trashing the Sherman for its high profile and armor deficiencies. Yet the basic facts are that only the T-34 was lower in profile. All the German tanks had a higher profile and were wider and longer than the Sherman. Yet the Sherman gets trashed. Why? Simple. Its armor was easy enough to penetrate with the three main guns in the German arsenal. But than again so was the T-34's. I can assure you that Russia lost more T-34s than the Allies lost Sherman tanks, but many armchair military experts immediately fault the Sherman. I think in many cases its because post-war, the Allies practically gushed over the German officers they interrogated and allowed themselves to fall into the trap of lionizing their opponents. You see this with Rommel and the Bismarck's aura. All products of poor analysis. That and as one author put it German tanks earned the appreciation of hobbyists.

Final point. If the US and Brits had fielded enough tanks with guns as powerful as their opponents and with better armor, would history have held German tanks in such high regard? You could have taken the M-10 Wolverine tank destroyer and put the 17lb gun on it(the Brits did and called it the Achilles) and armored it up to a Panther's standards and then you would have had a formidable medium tank (or heavy tank by US standards). It would have been narrower and probably not much higher (the M-10's height was 8.43 feet).


Another isue of why the Sherman gets trashed so much is we had democratically elected governments along with a free press. Now imagine somebody criticising the T-34's shortcomings in the SU after the war.

[Warship NWS]

As to the Sherman, IMHO, it was a good tank.. but not on par with the medium tanks of WW2 when it first deployed. As to tank height.. personally, I do not consider that a serious drawback considering the time frame - a few inches difference when firing at hundreds of yards has a minimal effect at best. The Sherman suffered initially due to the ammo stowage, tank crews sometimes not being as well trained as their opponents, a gun meant for infantry support use more then tank killing, and armor roughly comparable to the MkIV panzer. The Germans had good guns and anti-tank rounds.. those were their greatest anti-tank attributes for the German Army. On average, with armor/gun vs armor/gun factored in, they could typically out shoot our tanks at greater ranges. The 76mm weapon helped counter some of this deficiency, and IMHO, that was the gun that should have been mounted on all M4s right at the start and then skip out on building the compensator TD.. the M10 Wolverine. The M4 could have been built with heavier armor at the start also.. as was proven with the Jumbo.

That is my opinion anyways.. the M4 was not a bad tank.. just a about a year or so behind the curve on the Western Front at the start but upgraded to help make up for some of its deficiencies, which along with being easy to produce in numbers, was one of its greatest attributes.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

I can assure you that Russia lost more T-34s than the Allies lost Sherman tanks, but many armchair military experts immediately fault the Sherman.


Considering what the Russians were facing, the combat environments, training, etc.. that is not suprising. Personaly, I would agree with Mike Snyder that the M4, to some degree, was a better tank then the T-34 - when looking at it as a complete weapon system - and especially in terms of crew efficiency.

[bridav58]

http://websearch.cs.com/gw/boomframe.jsp?query=us+army+testing+of+the+T-34&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Df d66cbca583a455f%26clickedItemRank%3D4%26userQuery% 3Dus%2Barmy%2Btesting%2Bof%2Bthe%2BT-34%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.geoci ties.com%252FPentagon%252FQuarters%252F4635%252Fli brary%252Frussian_tanks%252Fevaluation_of_russians _tanks_at_aberdeen.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DGWYTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FPentag on%2FQuarters%2F4635%2Flibrary%2Frussian_tanks%2Fe valuation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

In keeping with the discussions about tank sizes, I did some research and found some interesting facts. We've been trashing the Sherman for its high profile and armor deficiencies. Yet the basic facts are that only the T-34 was lower in profile. All the German tanks had a higher profile and were wider and longer than the Sherman. Yet the Sherman gets trashed. Why? Simple. Its armor was easy enough to penetrate with the three main guns in the German arsenal. But than again so was the T-34's. I can assure you that Russia lost more T-34s than the Allies lost Sherman tanks, but many armchair military experts immediately fault the Sherman. I think in many cases its because post-war, the Allies practically gushed over the German officers they interrogated and allowed themselves to fall into the trap of lionizing their opponents. You see this with Rommel and the Bismarck's aura. All products of poor analysis. That and as one author put it German tanks earned the appreciation of hobbyists.

Final point. If the US and Brits had fielded enough tanks with guns as powerful as their opponents and with better armor, would history have held German tanks in such high regard? You could have taken the M-10 Wolverine tank destroyer and put the 17lb gun on it(the Brits did and called it the Achilles) and armored it up to a Panther's standards and then you would have had a formidable medium tank (or heavy tank by US standards). It would have been narrower and probably not much higher (the M-10's height was 8.43 feet).
The number of tanks destroyed is not a good calculus for determining whether a tank is better than another. They fought with the T-34 for four years on the Eastern front, faced more German tanks and aircraft, faced more heavy and light AT weapons than we ever faced. There are too many variables that have nothing to do with the quality of tank, for the numbers destroyed to be valid.

In the Normandy fighting, we were losing 500 tanks per month. This does not include Canadian and British losses, which should be equal or more. We had a 5:1 superiority in numbers over the Germans in the area. We weren't even facing greatest number of Panthers and Tigers. There was only one tiger detachment, IIRC, it was the 101 Heavy Panzer Detachment, in Normandy. Most of the Panthers and Tigers were in Russia. It only fielded 45 tigers. By July 5th, 1944, one month after DDay, only 30 were still operational. The Russian's faced far more of these tanks on the Central Russian Steppes along with the SP guns etc.

[old_pop2000]

Considering what the Russians were facing, the combat environments, training, etc.. that is not suprising. Personaly, I would agree with Mike Snyder that the M4, to some degree, was a better tank then the T-34 - when looking at it as a complete weapon system - and especially in terms of crew efficiency.
That is possibly true, but there were other negatives that detracted from it performance. The firefly actually lost a crew member whereas the T-34-85 gained one, with a bigger turret. In that sense, the M4 probably was equal to the 1941 version of the T-34.

[bridav58]

Dennis ,
Your right about raw numbers not meaning all that much. We had a 5-1 advantage in Normandy but as I've stated before the greatest Sherman or T-34 killers probably weren't Panthers or Tigers but SP's, Anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts . They may have had only 45 Tigers in Normandy but just how big a front did they have to cover compared to what they had to cover on the Eastern Front? However tank verses tank combat on the Western Front I'm thinking occured most often at only like 500 yards while on the Eastern Front Steepes ranges were much longer. However the shorter ranges on the Western Front helped out the anti-tank guns(or at least the fact they usually had more cover/concealment to work with) along with Panzerfaust carrying infantry more.

[bridav58]

That is possibly true, but there were other negatives that detracted from it performance. The firefly actually lost a crew member whereas the T-34-85 gained one, with a bigger turret. In that sense, the M4 probably was equal to the 1941 version of the T-34.
Well the 76mm armed Shermans didn't loose a crew member though.

[asnrobert]

As for the Cromwell and Comet - I think these were stop-gaps and really didn't seem to take advantage of sloped armor and the latest in tank design know-how. They did have good guns and good mobility in their favor as well as other features that helped them out though.
If we're talking late-war or almost non-war tanks (like the JS-III) how come no one has mentioned the Maus yet? It would have been a war winner for sure! :rolleyes:

I was watching a program on the military channel about these guys in England restoring a Comet tank, and there was a clip where Patton, some English generals and some Russian in Germany at the end of the war reviewing their respective tanks. First came the American Pershings, followed by the Comets. Then the massive JSIIIs came rumbling past. The British looked very pale, and Patton told the Brits, "Don't worry, we're still on your side."

[old_pop2000]

Dennis ,
Your right about raw numbers not meaning all that much. We had a 5-1 advantage in Normandy but as I've stated before the greatest Sherman or T-34 killers probably weren't Panthers or Tigers but SP's, Anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts . They may have had only 45 Tigers in Normandy but just how big a front did they have to cover compared to what they had to cover on the Eastern Front? However tank verses tank combat on the Western Front I'm thinking occured most often at only like 500 yards while on the Eastern Front Steepes ranges were much longer. However the shorter ranges on the Western Front helped out the anti-tank guns(or at least the fact they usually had more cover/concealment to work with) along with Panzerfaust carrying infantry more.
In Normandy, our losses were so high that the normal shipments were 200 tanks behind what was needed to maintain T.O. & E. In all studies of Normandy, 43.2 percent of all German tanks were killed by gunfire. This included 75,76,90 mm and artillery. 7.5% by air, 4.4 percent by hollow charge, 43.8 to non-enemy action. Read that last one. 43.8 percent of the total number of German tanks in the sample, were not destroyed by any Allied weapon. By far, the greatest killers of Allied tanks were Stugs, panzerfaust and AT guns. Allied reports show that in 40 engagements while we were on the attack, the Allies lost 100 of 435 deployed tanks while the enemy lost 45 of 135 deployed. The reverse is also true, the side on the offensive always lost more tanks. Lot's of numbers, but what do they mean. To the Allied high command, it meant the British reduced their construction of new tanks and concentrated on building the kits for Firefly's upgrades. It also meant the acceleration of the upgrades to the M4 like the easy 8. Keep in mind, that the M26 was always considered a heavy tank, not a medium. Both the British and American high command commented that the loss rate in Sherman's was higher than the numbers produced, that the armoured divisions would be short on tanks for now and the foreseeable future.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

In keeping with the discussions about tank sizes, I did some research and found some interesting facts. We've been trashing the Sherman for its high profile and armor deficiencies. Yet the basic facts are that only the T-34 was lower in profile. All the German tanks had a higher profile and were wider and longer than the Sherman. Yet the Sherman gets trashed. Why? Simple. Its armor was easy enough to penetrate with the three main guns in the German arsenal. But than again so was the T-34's. I can assure you that Russia lost more T-34s than the Allies lost Sherman tanks, but many armchair military experts immediately fault the Sherman. I think in many cases its because post-war, the Allies practically gushed over the German officers they interrogated and allowed themselves to fall into the trap of lionizing their opponents. You see this with Rommel and the Bismarck's aura. All products of poor analysis. That and as one author put it German tanks earned the appreciation of hobbyists.

Final point. If the US and Brits had fielded enough tanks with guns as powerful as their opponents and with better armor, would history have held German tanks in such high regard? You could have taken the M-10 Wolverine tank destroyer and put the 17lb gun on it(the Brits did and called it the Achilles) and armored it up to a Panther's standards and then you would have had a formidable medium tank (or heavy tank by US standards). It would have been narrower and probably not much higher (the M-10's height was 8.43 feet).

Hi Ed,

The Soviets used a fair number of Shermans on the Eastern Front until the end of the war where they were reportedly well liked by their crews. There is definitely a mystique to German armor and your right about it overshadowing other vehicles.

On the Eastern Front, ranges were longer and powerful German 75mm amd 88mm guns could use the full extent of their range potential. Also, in a Soviet oragnization, the Shermans would be part of a mix that would feature heavier vehicles such as JS tanks and SUs armed with guns up to 152mm. The primary advantage held by the Germans was their commnications which allowed the flexible, fluid tactics to work against their less agile Soviet opponents. Radios were only carried by company commander and higher tanks, flag and hand sigmals were used to comunitcate with the various platoons.

I twould be intersting to see history's verdict had the Allies produced larger, more glamourus tanks. As an armor modeller, I know what Ed speaks of when you look for non German tank kits. Based upon it's combat experience and reputation you would think that the iconic Centurion would be readily available, but only in the last year have several variations of it appeared including Israeli 67 and 73 versions.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Even with just APCBC it was still superior to the German 75mm/43 & 75mm/48 fitted on the MK. IV & the 85 mm on the T-34/85.


Brian:

I see no evidence that the US ever used APCBC. It was AP, APC, HE or HVAP. Figures for penetration for the 76mm gun:

Using M62 APC: 116mm at 0 degrees at 500 meters, 106mm at 1,000 meters.
Using HAVP: 163mm at 0 degrees at 500 meters, 150mm at 1,000 meters.

Contrast with the 17lb which did use APCBC at first:

163mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 150mm at 1,000 meters.
Using APDS: 256mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 233mm at 1,000 meters.

The German 75mmL/70 gun as fitted to the Panther tank and certain tank destroyers had the following performance:

Using Pzgr. 39/43 APCBC: 168mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 149mm at 1,000 meters.
Using Pzgr. 40/43 HVAP: 234mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 199mm at 1,000 meters.

And for final comparisons, the performance of the various 90mm guns:

90mm M3 using AP T33 round: 119mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees
Same gun using APC M82 round: 120mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees
Same gun using HVAP T30E16 round: 221mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees

Sources: Various Opsrey New Vanguard books on US and German tanks written by Steve Zaloga.

APCBC was only used by the Brits and Germans, each trying to extract just a little more performance from their tank guns. The Russians used their version of HVAP known as APCR with similar performance to US guns.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Russian's supplied the US a T-34-41 and a KV-1 in 1942. They were tested at the Proving Grounds by employees working there. Here is some of the report, but I cannot validate the accuracy of the information. I have not found the original primary source. Take it on face value.


Dennis:

Thanks for the update. I agree it is somewhat suspect in that it appears to be a Russian evaluation of an American evaluation.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The number of tanks destroyed is not a good calculus for determining whether a tank is better than another. They fought with the T-34 for four years on the Eastern front, faced more German tanks and aircraft, faced more heavy and light AT weapons than we ever faced. There are too many variables that have nothing to do with the quality of tank, for the numbers destroyed to be valid.

In the Normandy fighting, we were losing 500 tanks per month. This does not include Canadian and British losses, which should be equal or more. We had a 5:1 superiority in numbers over the Germans in the area. We weren't even facing greatest number of Panthers and Tigers. There was only one tiger detachment, IIRC, it was the 101 Heavy Panzer Detachment, in Normandy. Most of the Panthers and Tigers were in Russia. It only fielded 45 tigers. By July 5th, 1944, one month after DDay, only 30 were still operational. The Russian's faced far more of these tanks on the Central Russian Steppes along with the SP guns etc.

Dennis:

While I agree that the bulk of German armor was still on the Eastern front, the tank battles in Normandy until the breakout of Cobra certainly didn't favor the attacker. You can't fight in hedgerows with tanks very well. Compare that to warfare on the Steppes and you can see that T-34s and even early JSIIs were not the end all be all of tank design. In many respects it reminds me of the debates that have occurred on the relative strengths of various battleship designs. The guy who has the better targeting and long ranged weapon has the edge at long range, which defined most of the combat in North Africa and Russia. Get in closer terrain, then speed of engagement and maneuverability allows a less poweful tank to fight on better terms. T-34s at Kursk had almost and equal kill to loss ratio to the early Panthers due to being able to engage them on the flanks. And the Russians often had as much as a 10-1 local advantage when on the offensive due to their ability to mass tanks, artillery and infantry at the critical point.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was watching a program on the military channel about these guys in England restoring a Comet tank, and there was a clip where Patton, some English generals and some Russian in Germany at the end of the war reviewing their respective tanks. First came the American Pershings, followed by the Comets. Then the massive JSIIIs came rumbling past. The British looked very pale, and Patton told the Brits, "Don't worry, we're still on your side."

Robert:

Yeah, I've read that quote too. Of course the Brits and the US had the artillery and airpower to negate massed tank formations at least in 1945-46.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

The Soviets used a fair number of Shermans on the Eastern Front until the end of the war where they were reportedly well liked by their crews. There is definitely a mystique to German armor and your right about it overshadowing other vehicles.

On the Eastern Front, ranges were longer and powerful German 75mm amd 88mm guns could use the full extent of their range potential. Also, in a Soviet oragnization, the Shermans would be part of a mix that would feature heavier vehicles such as JS tanks and SUs armed with guns up to 152mm. The primary advantage held by the Germans was their commnications which allowed the flexible, fluid tactics to work against their less agile Soviet opponents. Radios were only carried by company commander and higher tanks, flag and hand sigmals were used to comunitcate with the various platoons.

I twould be intersting to see history's verdict had the Allies produced larger, more glamourus tanks. As an armor modeller, I know what Ed speaks of when you look for non German tank kits. Based upon it's combat experience and reputation you would think that the iconic Centurion would be readily available, but only in the last year have several variations of it appeared including Israeli 67 and 73 versions.

Mike:

I agree. Unless the Allies had been pressed back to a defensive posture (and with their air and arillery superiority that would have been difficult), the losses in tanks would not be and historically were not insurmountable. Many "destroyed Allied tanks" were mission kills that were recovered. Many broken down German tanks as Dennis has pointed out were losses because they could not be recovered and repaired. Because ground warfare involves so many variables, it is difficult to pinpoint one weapon as making the difference in victory or defeat. Also, the US Army that landed at Algiers in November of 1942 was nowhere near the same as the one that fought through France and defeated Germany in the Ardennes. Along with the Russian army it was the most rapidly evolving land force of the war.

[bridav58]

Dennis:

Thanks for the update. I agree it is somewhat suspect in that it appears to be a Russian evaluation of an American evaluation.


showed the results of the tests conducted by the US at Abeerdeen Proving Ground,

[bridav58]

Brian:

I see no evidence that the US ever used APCBC. It was AP, APC, HE or HVAP. Figures for penetration for the 76mm gun:

Using M62 APC: 116mm at 0 degrees at 500 meters, 106mm at 1,000 meters.
Using HAVP: 163mm at 0 degrees at 500 meters, 150mm at 1,000 meters.

Contrast with the 17lb which did use APCBC at first:

163mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 150mm at 1,000 meters.
Using APDS: 256mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 233mm at 1,000 meters.

The German 75mmL/70 gun as fitted to the Panther tank and certain tank destroyers had the following performance:

Using Pzgr. 39/43 APCBC: 168mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 149mm at 1,000 meters.
Using Pzgr. 40/43 HVAP: 234mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees, 199mm at 1,000 meters.

And for final comparisons, the performance of the various 90mm guns:

90mm M3 using AP T33 round: 119mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees
Same gun using APC M82 round: 120mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees
Same gun using HVAP T30E16 round: 221mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees

Sources: Various Opsrey New Vanguard books on US and German tanks written by Steve Zaloga.

APCBC was only used by the Brits and Germans, each trying to extract just a little more performance from their tank guns. The Russians used their version of HVAP known as APCR with similar performance to US guns.


Your figures roughly compare to what my R. P. Hunnicutt's book on the M4 says about US guns. I had said APCBC but it was listed as APC sorry for the mistake.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your figures roughly compare to what my R. P. Hunnicutt's book on the M4 says about US guns. I had said APCBC but it was listed as APC sorry for the mistake.


Brian:

No problem. It's interesting to see that US tank guns could have had better performances if they had been designed to fire at greater velocities. It seems that we have always been relying on an ally to supply us with our tank guns, be it the 105mm L5 gun developed by the British or the 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore on the Abrams (admittedly re-designed and improved by the US at the Watervliet Arsenal near my hometown;)).

[Kyle Holgate]

Considering what the Russians were facing, the combat environments, training, etc.. that is not suprising. Personaly, I would agree with Mike Snyder that the M4, to some degree, was a better tank then the T-34 - when looking at it as a complete weapon system - and especially in terms of crew efficiency.

I'd say it's pretty much a toss up between the two. We all have views as to how to weight the various tank qualities - armor, speed, cross country ability, gun power, etc - so when we're comparing tanks that don't have any real signifigant flaw or advantage we can debate forever (which is OK, everyone can learn from good debate). The Sherman has some advantages over the T-34, and vice versa. The Pz IVJ model isn't bad either and could be argued that it's as good as it has a better gun. I suppose to really compare we'd have to come up with some weighted values that are assigned numbers - using some good source material. Then add up the values and average them for a single number rating the tank. Too complicated and we'd never agree on the values! Amor more important than gun, etc?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'd say it's pretty much a toss up between the two. We all have views as to how to weight the various tank qualities - armor, speed, cross country ability, gun power, etc - so when we're comparing tanks that don't have any real signifigant flaw or advantage we can debate forever (which is OK, everyone can learn from good debate). The Sherman has some advantages over the T-34, and vice versa. The Pz IVJ model isn't bad either and could be argued that it's as good as it has a better gun. I suppose to really compare we'd have to come up with some weighted values that are assigned numbers - using some good source material. Then add up the values and average them for a single number rating the tank. Too complicated and we'd never agree on the values! Amor more important than gun, etc?

Kyle:

I agree about trying to assign values, it gets sticky real quick. One other thing to keep in mind about the best tank, is could it be upgraded? In the case of the Sherman, the T-34 and the Pz IVJ, the answer is yes. Many otherwise decent designs suffered from not being able to be upgraded (this was especially true of the British cruiser tanks whose turret ring prevented them from receiving any gun larger than a 6lb 57mm).

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I agree about trying to assign values, it gets sticky real quick. One other thing to keep in mind about the best tank, is could it be upgraded? In the case of the Sherman, the T-34 and the Pz IVJ, the answer is yes. Many otherwise decent designs suffered from not being able to be upgraded (this was especially true of the British cruiser tanks whose turret ring prevented them from receiving any gun larger than a 6lb 57mm).

When it comes to upgrades the Pz III stands out well - going from 37mm to the 50mmL60 and with protection improvements as well. Granted it doesn't stand out in 1944-45 but from 1939-1942(ish) it was a contender. The J with the long gun was generally a match for the first shermans and grants and such.

[Ed Rotondaro]

When it comes to upgrades the Pz III stands out well - going from 37mm to the 50mmL60 and with protection improvements as well. Granted it doesn't stand out in 1944-45 but from 1939-1942(ish) it was a contender. The J with the long gun was generally a match for the first shermans and grants and such.

Kyle:

I'll agree. The J was still a large part of the Panzer force even at Kursk.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I'll agree. The J was still a large part of the Panzer force even at Kursk.

I know some of the later models went back to the "short" 75mm gun and were part of units with Tigers. The Tigers could then keep their 88 for anti armor work while the Pz IIIN took care of the infantry and such. The J with the long gun could take on the T-34 with reasonable odds of success though I'd think the Pz IVF2 or later would be better! Ya gotta use what ya gots though.
You have to wonder about Kursk - if the Germans had been allowed to do what they wanted instead of having to listen to the furer in chief, things may have gone a bit better!

[Ed Rotondaro]

I know some of the later models went back to the "short" 75mm gun and were part of units with Tigers. The Tigers could then keep their 88 for anti armor work while the Pz IIIN took care of the infantry and such. The J with the long gun could take on the T-34 with reasonable odds of success though I'd think the Pz IVF2 or later would be better! Ya gotta use what ya gots though.
You have to wonder about Kursk - if the Germans had been allowed to do what they wanted instead of having to listen to the furer in chief, things may have gone a bit better!

Kyle:

Actually from what I have read, Hitler was opposed to Kursk and agreed with Guderian that there was no need to go on the offensive. His generals talked him into the operation and when it did not succeed, he started interfering more often in planning feeling he knew more than his generals. One wonders what the German army might have accomplished if they just held their forces in place and responded to any Soviet moves with all that built up armor.

[old_pop2000]

Kyle:

Actually from what I have read, Hitler was opposed to Kursk and agreed with Guderian that there was no need to go on the offensive. His generals talked him into the operation and when it did not succeed, he started interfering more often in planning feeling he knew more than his generals. One wonders what the German army might have accomplished if they just held their forces in place and responded to any Soviet moves with all that built up armor.
I have serious doubts anything more would have been accomplished. The offensive had a limited goal. The Russians already had the complete plans for the attack. The northern attack was only stopped because it was attacked in the flank. By this time of the war, Blitzkrieg offensives were not succeeding as well as they were, in the beginning of the war. The opponents had learned to strengthen the shoulders and attack them. Kursk and Ardennes are testament to how much the Allies had learned to defend against the blitzkrieg offensives.

This was another time when post war German accounts favored the surviving generals who blamed everything on Hitler and his staff.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have serious doubts anything more would have been accomplished. The offensive had a limited goal. The Russians already had the complete plans for the attack. The northern attack was only stopped because it was attacked in the flank. By this time of the war, Blitzkrieg offensives were not succeeding as well as they were, in the beginning of the war. The opponents had learned to strengthen the shoulders and attack them. Kursk and Ardennes are testament to how much the Allies had learned to defend against the blitzkrieg offensives.

This was another time when post war German accounts favored the surviving generals who blamed everything on Hitler and his staff.

Dennis:

I was thinking more along the lines of Germany being able to respond to any Russian offensives with large mobile forces rather than the heavily depleted mechanized forces that they had after the failure of the Kursk offensive. Kursk essentially bled the German tank forces white, which was Zhukov's intent. He had to convince Stalin to let him fight this battle. Stalin was afraid that since up to that time German offensives had usually been successful, that they would succeed at Kursk.

[Kyle Holgate]

I have serious doubts anything more would have been accomplished. The offensive had a limited goal. The Russians already had the complete plans for the attack. The northern attack was only stopped because it was attacked in the flank. By this time of the war, Blitzkrieg offensives were not succeeding as well as they were, in the beginning of the war. The opponents had learned to strengthen the shoulders and attack them. Kursk and Ardennes are testament to how much the Allies had learned to defend against the blitzkrieg offensives.

This was another time when post war German accounts favored the surviving generals who blamed everything on Hitler and his staff.

Hitler did meddle once the attack was in the planning phase. Now of course that may not have made any difference, but they at least have some merit to their accusation in this case.
As we've seen here, there are a lot of problems theorizing what may have happened in alternate histories. As such in many cases where Hitler was involved and over-rode the Generals plans they have the perfect scapegoat. No one can prove they're wrong in that their operation would have been successful had Hitler not meddled. In many cases I think they're right though (certainly not all however!).

[old_pop2000]

Guderian believed that the armoured unit he had gathered could be used in counterattacking, however, he was always self promoting. He was just like the rest, they had all the answers, and Hitler and his staff made all the errors. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. By 1943, it was never a matter of whether the Russians would win, it was just a matter of when. The only possible idea that could have worked was if the Germans could have stalemated the issue and gotten a peace accord with the Russians. Neither side knew about Overlord, so once Stalin knew of that action, his willingness to engage the Germans, would be far less. If the Allies even thought he was negotiating, they might have divulged the plans to him, to get him to hold on.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Guderian believed that the armoured unit he had gathered could be used in counterattacking, however, he was always self promoting. He was just like the rest, they had all the answers, and Hitler and his staff made all the errors. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. By 1943, it was never a matter of whether the Russians would win, it was just a matter of when. The only possible idea that could have worked was if the Germans could have stalemated the issue and gotten a peace accord with the Russians. Neither side knew about Overlord, so once Stalin knew of that action, his willingness to engage the Germans, would be far less. If the Allies even thought he was negotiating, they might have divulged the plans to him, to get him to hold on.

Dennis:

I wasn't aware that Stalin didn't know about Overlord. He had been screaming for a second front since 1942. While I understand he wouldn't know the time or place, he must have been aware that the Allies planned a cross channel invasion of France.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I have serious doubts anything more would have been accomplished. The offensive had a limited goal. The Russians already had the complete plans for the attack. The northern attack was only stopped because it was attacked in the flank. By this time of the war, Blitzkrieg offensives were not succeeding as well as they were, in the beginning of the war. The opponents had learned to strengthen the shoulders and attack them. Kursk and Ardennes are testament to how much the Allies had learned to defend against the blitzkrieg offensives.

This was another time when post war German accounts favored the surviving generals who blamed everything on Hitler and his staff.

Hi Dennis,

Kursk failed for a number of reasons, but primarily for two. First, the Soviets knew it was coming and strengthened the salient accordingly. Soviet intelligence sniffed out the plan and reacted appropriately. NOt to mention the Germans seeing the build up and still attacking into it. The second reason is the most important, blitzkrieg works against weakness, not strength. By frontally attacking the salient, German forces gave away their most important advantage, the mobility inherent in their formations to mass and attack a point of weakness that would unhinge the Soviet position ala France in 1940. By attacking north or south of the salient, it forces the Soviets to respond and leave their fortified positions. Once on the move, the Soviet flanks are vulnerable to the German formations.

Mobility had saved the Germans from disaster in Caucausus the previous year when a single panzer division, held the corridor open for the 4th Panzer Army by attacking Soviet spearheads from unexpected directions. It never numbered more than 30 tanks in this little known feat of arms.

[Kyle Holgate]

Attacking into the Soviet defenses wasn't the greatest idea, too bad they couldn't have slipped their attack location north or south around those defenses then encircled them complete with the defenders. I realize this wasn't really likely if even possible given the forces deployed against them but it would have been better than what they did!
The other thing is stick to proven designs, a major battle like that isn't the time to be test driving your new tanks! The Panther was a fine tank - the caveat is - when it worked! The Ferdinands were not a bad idea, rolling pill-boxes. Just keep the infantry with them!
Imagine what panthers and ferdinands might have done on the defense? Even the flakey panthers were less likely to have breakdowns if they were sticking mainly in one area and shooting instead of driving forward. The 88 long in the Ferdinand and 75 long on the Panthers would have made short work of the T-34/76 which was the work horse of the Soviet tank forces.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

Kursk failed for a number of reasons, but primarily for two. First, the Soviets knew it was coming and strengthened the salient accordingly. Soviet intelligence sniffed out the plan and reacted appropriately. NOt to mention the Germans seeing the build up and still attacking into it. The second reason is the most important, blitzkrieg works against weakness, not strength. By frontally attacking the salient, German forces gave away their most important advantage, the mobility inherent in their formations to mass and attack a point of weakness that would unhinge the Soviet position ala France in 1940. By attacking north or south of the salient, it forces the Soviets to respond and leave their fortified positions. Once on the move, the Soviet flanks are vulnerable to the German formations.

Mobility had saved the Germans from disaster in Caucausus the previous year when a single panzer division, held the corridor open for the 4th Panzer Army by attacking Soviet spearheads from unexpected directions. It never numbered more than 30 tanks in this little known feat of arms.

Mike:

Very good points. It really didn't take a genius to figure out where the Germans were going to attack which is why I think they would have been better served using those mobile formations the way Von Manstein had done earlier in the spring to outflank and encircle Russian divisions.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Attacking into the Soviet defenses wasn't the greatest idea, too bad they couldn't have slipped their attack location north or south around those defenses then encircled them complete with the defenders. I realize this wasn't really likely if even possible given the forces deployed against them but it would have been better than what they did!
The other thing is stick to proven designs, a major battle like that isn't the time to be test driving your new tanks! The Panther was a fine tank - the caveat is - when it worked! The Ferdinands were not a bad idea, rolling pill-boxes. Just keep the infantry with them!
Imagine what panthers and ferdinands might have done on the defense? Even the flakey panthers were less likely to have breakdowns if they were sticking mainly in one area and shooting instead of driving forward. The 88 long in the Ferdinand and 75 long on the Panthers would have made short work of the T-34/76 which was the work horse of the Soviet tank forces.

Kyle:

Guderian didn't even want to certify the Panther as battle ready due to the numerous teething problems, but an overzealous German engineer went behind his back and got the high command to include the tanks in the operation. More were lost to breakdown than combat.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Kursk failed for a number of reasons, but primarily for two. First, the Soviets knew it was coming and strengthened the salient accordingly. Soviet intelligence sniffed out the plan and reacted appropriately. NOt to mention the Germans seeing the build up and still attacking into it. The second reason is the most important, blitzkrieg works against weakness, not strength. By frontally attacking the salient, German forces gave away their most important advantage, the mobility inherent in their formations to mass and attack a point of weakness that would unhinge the Soviet position ala France in 1940. By attacking north or south of the salient, it forces the Soviets to respond and leave their fortified positions. Once on the move, the Soviet flanks are vulnerable to the German formations.

Mobility had saved the Germans from disaster in Caucausus the previous year when a single panzer division, held the corridor open for the 4th Panzer Army by attacking Soviet spearheads from unexpected directions. It never numbered more than 30 tanks in this little known feat of arms.
Those were two important reasons for the German failure. However, one of the most important was airpower. The German's were able to muster 2000 aircraft while the Soviets could muster 3000 including improved air-ground communication. They had a separate channel for close air support. After Citadel, the Luftwaffe disappeared from the battlefield.

I must point out, that the German army was never properly equipped for blitzkrieg. A large proportion of its infantry was conventional and the majority of its artillery was horse drawn. The tanks continuously outstripped the infantry, but this was not a real problem in France where the distances were short, however, in Russia the vast distances amplified the problem. At Kursk, the problem occurred again, the tanks making good headway, but leaving the infantry behind.

If we examine the success by the northern half of the pincer versus the southern half, we see that Manstein was much more successful with his operational planning than Von Kluge and Model. They lead with panzer divisions while Manstein used the infantry to open the holes through the Soviet defensive perimeters, then, in typical blitzkrieg style, used the tanks to exploit.

Alas, the beforehand knowledge by the Russians, of the coming attack was probably the key to their success. I believe that in this instance, blitzkrieg was doomed to fail, no matter how well it was executed unless unlimited resources including aircraft were available.

[old_pop2000]

Kyle:

Guderian didn't even want to certify the Panther as battle ready due to the numerous teething problems, but an overzealous German engineer went behind his back and got the high command to include the tanks in the operation. More were lost to breakdown than combat.
In fact, there were only 119 Panther's in the Waffen SS under Hauser. After the first day of the action, only 92 were still running. I have seen figures showing on 40 running out of 200, on the first day. I doubt the Panther would have had much of an effect on the outcome. I think that using them was a good way to find problems with the systems, and improve reliability. The Mark IV was the primary tank in the battle and the T-34 and SU's outclassed it. Guderian had emphasised that the Tigers should operate together in concentration, but they were apportioned out, one company at a time, to each of three Panzer divisions. Also, the tank took heavy losses due to mine damage. Many of the mines were their own, but no maps were provided as to their presence.

Interestingly, the Russian's lost over half of their armour strength in the battle, along with 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. The German totals were around 100,000 killed or wounded. There are later reports in Russian archives that state the Germans were much closer to succeeding than has been reported after the war.

[Mike Malanaphy]

In fact, there were only 119 Panther's in the Waffen SS under Hauser. After the first day of the action, only 92 were still running. I have seen figures showing on 40 running out of 200, on the first day. I doubt the Panther would have had much of an effect on the outcome. I think that using them was a good way to find problems with the systems, and improve reliability. The Mark IV was the primary tank in the battle and the T-34 and SU's outclassed it. Guderian had emphasised that the Tigers should operate together in concentration, but they were apportioned out, one company at a time, to each of three Panzer divisions. Also, the tank took heavy losses due to mine damage. Many of the mines were their own, but no maps were provided as to their presence.

Interestingly, the Russian's lost over half of their armour strength in the battle, along with 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. The German totals were around 100,000 killed or wounded. There are later reports in Russian archives that state the Germans were much closer to succeeding than has been reported after the war.

Hi Dennis,

Your right about the Germans nearly succeeding, but it would have a pyrrhic victory for them. The German Army in 1943 had just over 4 million men doen from the 6 million they started the war with. They could ill afford an attritional exchange with the Soviets. As the battle ended, the Soviet fronts north and south, attacked the retreating Germans with severe results. A mobile campaign in 1943 and 1944 would have served them better, but the Soviets were producing huge quatites of tanks and new units, too much to control.

You have to commit new equipment to combat eventually though sending them into to this cauldron may speak volumes about the german need to maximize combat power even at the risk of losing knocked out tanks. Tiger Is were apportioned out to each panzer unit as a heavy support unit. Their limited mobility would have made it difficult to operate in larger mass. This way, each division had the benefit of their firepower. Due to their weight, they were almost always railroaded to the front and recovery on the battle field was quite a chore.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Your right about the Germans nearly succeeding, but it would have a pyrrhic victory for them. The German Army in 1943 had just over 4 million men doen from the 6 million they started the war with. They could ill afford an attritional exchange with the Soviets. As the battle ended, the Soviet fronts north and south, attacked the retreating Germans with severe results. A mobile campaign in 1943 and 1944 would have served them better, but the Soviets were producing huge quatites of tanks and new units, too much to control.

You have to commit new equipment to combat eventually though sending them into to this cauldron may speak volumes about the german need to maximize combat power even at the risk of losing knocked out tanks. Tiger Is were apportioned out to each panzer unit as a heavy support unit. Their limited mobility would have made it difficult to operate in larger mass. This way, each division had the benefit of their firepower. Due to their weight, they were almost always railroaded to the front and recovery on the battle field was quite a chore.

Agree, my friend. It might have destroyed some Russian divisions but I have doubts that the German's could have sealed the pocket and held it until the Russian divisions capitulated. I believe that with the reserves behind the front and the remaining power of the encircled divisions, they could have broken out and rejoined. The days of sweeping encirclements of the Red army were over, the German's army did not have the resources to execute those kinds of the large encirclements and the Russians had learned how to fight in a mobile war.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Agree, my friend. It might have destroyed some Russian divisions but I have doubts that the German's could have sealed the pocket and held it until the Russian divisions capitulated. I believe that with the reserves behind the front and the remaining power of the encircled divisions, they could have broken out and rejoined. The days of sweeping encirclements of the Red army were over, the German's army did not have the resources to execute those kinds of the large encirclements and the Russians had learned how to fight in a mobile war.

Hi Dennis,

I had just been rereading Overby's "Why the Allies Won". He gives great credit to the Soviet Army in defeating the Germans. After basically losing their whole military establishment in 1941, they had displaced factories to the Urals and began all over. Less than a year later, they were able to stun the Germans at Stalingrad and the balance had been partially restored. By 1944, the Soviets were showing the Germans thay had learmed well and began conducting their own large scale encirclements. At the same time the Germans were getting thrashed in France, the Soviets virtually destroyed Army Group center in their summer offensive. The Germans lost almost a million men in those three months, staggering loses.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I had just been rereading Overby's "Why the Allies Won". He gives great credit to the Soviet Army in defeating the Germans. After basically losing their whole military establishment in 1941, they had displaced factories to the Urals and began all over. Less than a year later, they were able to stun the Germans at Stalingrad and the balance had been partially restored. By 1944, the Soviets were showing the Germans thay had learmed well and began conducting their own large scale encirclements. At the same time the Germans were getting thrashed in France, the Soviets virtually destroyed Army Group center in their summer offensive. The Germans lost almost a million men in those three months, staggering loses.\

I have that book, it is a good read. If you are interesting in a reinterpretation of that campaign, read "Hitler's Panzers East" by R.H.S. Stolfi. I am going to get David Glantz's book on the Battle of Kursk. Highly rated with good information in it.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

I had just been rereading Overby's "Why the Allies Won". He gives great credit to the Soviet Army in defeating the Germans. After basically losing their whole military establishment in 1941, they had displaced factories to the Urals and began all over. Less than a year later, they were able to stun the Germans at Stalingrad and the balance had been partially restored. By 1944, the Soviets were showing the Germans thay had learmed well and began conducting their own large scale encirclements. At the same time the Germans were getting thrashed in France, the Soviets virtually destroyed Army Group center in their summer offensive. The Germans lost almost a million men in those three months, staggering loses.

Mike and Dennis:

Notice a pattern? The Axis acheive stunning victories against opponents up close who can't trade terrain and resources for time. Once they get stuck in, it all falls apart. Even nominally better weapons are not enough to achieve the big win.