Best tanks of WWII????

[jrs]

Ok maybe not the correct forum to ask but you guys know a lot. Title says it all.

I think most would say thet the Germans made the best tank. Tiger, Tiger II and Panthers? Some would say T34?

I was recently watching the history channel and they had a BoB show on. In it they gave great details of the battle. Including Units and Unit sizes for both sides. Prior to watching this I was acepting of the comments that Shermans etc were inferior to their enemies. Only able to defeat them by sure numbers. That the western allies were behind when it came to tanks?

Yet during the BoB a company of tank destroyers, M10s and fifteen Shermans were deffeding in and around Bastogne. In the engadgements that took place they lacked air cover which normally gave them an advantage, They were out numberd heavily. For the days they fought their engadgements usually had them at a four or five to one disadvantage, against Stugs, Panthers, Tigers etc. Yet they not only made a good showing of it there were numerous times they slaughtered the advances of the Germans on less then even terms.

So now its got me rethinking the abilities of the Shermans and the Tank superiority myths? Any thoughts?

[Viper]

I seen that too, the Germans would attack form 3 different directions the error they did was they attack one direction at a time. They should have done all three at once.(thank God they didn't!) Yes the German tanks are better in almost ever aspect (on paper) then the Sherman tank. It must have been avenues of a attack that slowed the Germans down and made them easier to hit with the tanks, bazookas, mines and willingness of the Americans to fight so hard. When you sit back and look at the America weapons of war against the German weapons of war. WOW those German where really ahead of there time. I think that’s why I find them so interesting.

“NUTS”

[jrs]

I came to a similar conclusion. They underestimated the American Fighting man. He was the difference.

[immeww2]

Yep, I agree that the courage and valor of the US fighting forces were an advantage for the Allies in WW2. Strictly going by weapons versus weapons, US armor was inferior to German armor, but weapons alone can't fight a war by themselves.

[kevrut]

I also watched a show on the Military Channel that specifically compared the Sherman to the Tiger. The Tiger came out ahead in the end. At the end of the show they asked both Allied and German Tankers which one would they rather have had. And they all said the "Tiger". The Sherman had the advantage of numbers.

[aferguson]

well, the germans for the most part were well known for their fighting proficiency and courage under fire, as well as the high quality of their weapons. What the US had most of was numbers, overwhelming numbers of both men and material.

Given that the Germans were dealing with gigantic numbers of Russians as well, they did a pretty fair job with what they had to work with. The biggest fault the Germans made was in over-diversification. They had too many different types of vehicles. It made it more interesting for us modellers/collectors but they should have stuck with one or two designs that were good and produced them in larger numbers, rather than splitting their production efforts over many types.

[KAMIKAZE]

In most cases the Sherman was inferior to axis tanks in all but mobility. The T-34 had good armor protection,wide tracks,and a diesel engine which none of the other allied or German tanks had.But like the Sherman it had a lack-luster low velocity gun. It wasn't untill the Russians put 85mm guns on the T-34 and the Americans and British put the 76mm and 17 pounder guns respectively on the sherman did the allies have any real chance of going head to head with German heavy tanks. Tigers were slow, but put one on a hill and it would dominate the battle. As for Bastogne, The Americans had some 90mm anti-aircraft guns pressed into the AT roll and a fair number of howitzers. As
Aferg mentioned, concentration of firepower as the germans demonstrated in Russia and Poland making firebases out of whole towns was a very affective use of limited resorces. Keep in mind that the weather was as much a hinderance to the Germans as it was to the Allies restricting their movement to hard ground or the few roads in the area.
Oh and don't forget all those GI's who thought they were going to spend Chistmas in Paris. That would make anyone mad!

Mark

[mondaytanker]

I too have seen a History Channel show on the Sherman's, Called Suicide Missions. I think the show was based heavily on Belton Cooper's book Death Traps, (excellent book BTW)

This is just my impression of what I have read and seen.

The Sherman was... How the hell do I say this. It was a good mechanical piece of machinery. But lacked the R/D to make it an effective weapon. Once they replaced the radial engine with the Ford V-8 and up gunned it (M4A3E8), it was a formidable tank used for almost 50 years in dozens of countries after the war. But it was designed to be an equivalent to the smaller Panzers. I am tired of people comparing the M4 MEDIUM tank to the German Heavy tanks.

The Tiger I was a good tank but lacked the mechanical simplicity of the Sherman. Also the lack of high grade fuel and mechanics to service the tanks made the Tiger an unreliable weapon. The King Tiger was a good defensive weapon. But lacked mobility, it was way to heavy for it's drive train and consumed an enormous amount of fuel. When reading armor books, stop and count the number of photos of KT's with captions that read "abandoned by it's crew after running out of fuel". It was my impression the more KT's were abandoned or scuttled by their crew then actually destroyed by the allies. The Panther on the other hand has won many debates as the best tank of WWII.

I would like to think that the Pershing was the best, but came too late to make a difference. According to Belton Cooper, the Pershing would have been ready for deployment for D-Day had Patton not stepped in and demanded the smaller M4. Read the book Belton explains it very well.

As for the US having strength in numbers. That was only true in the beginning. We had tanks come out our asses, we were shipping them to China and Russia. What we didn't have is men, we were running out. By the end of the war our armor divisions were operating tanks with a 3 man crews. Most of the new tankers had little to no training in tank warfare. Which accounted for a high number of losses. By the end the 3rd armor division had lost 10,700~ish men.

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is just my opinion.

[Teamski]

As for the US having strength in numbers. That was only true in the beginning. We had tanks come out our asses, we were shipping them to China and Russia. What we didn't have is men, we were running out. By the end of the war our armor divisions were operating tanks with a 3 man crews. Most of the new tankers had little to no training in tank warfare. Which accounted for a high number of losses. By the end the 3rd armor division had lost 10,700~ish men.

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is just my opinion.

I would have to differ on this. The US Army was still activating divisions right up to the end of the war. Several Armored divisions (11th, 12th, 16th and 20th) just got into the theater when the war ended. Several others were in the process of getting activated, but never were due to the end of the war (15th, 17th,18th and 21st). We even had the 13th Airborne Division that was in Europe and was never commited! Manpower was not a problem for the US at any time in the war. Sure, it was tough to get trained replacements up to the front, but this was due to the long lines of communication that we had late in the war.

The US had a HUGE surplus of equipment and personnel in 1945. Hell, we were really just starting!

Arguably, the best tank of the war was the Panther G. Pound for Pound, it was extremely effective, yet not too heavy....

-Ski

[aferguson]

in fact all the allies had manpower coming out the wazoo..

My uncle was a navigator in Lancaster and when his tour was over he volunteered for a second tour but this was denied and he was sent home simply because they didn't need any more bomber crews! (He had been asked to join a Pathfinder squadron a few months earlier, so it wasn't because he was inept or anything). They simply had more men then they could handle or needed and were winding things down. This was in January of '45. This was for the RCAF but the RAF was doing the same.

As a side note: my uncle's Lancaster squadron took part in the bombing raid that destroyed the german fuel reserves during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton claims he destroyed them but it has been subsequently proven that it was an RAF/RCAF bombing raid which actually did and in so doing, crippled the german plans..

[mondaytanker]

I would like to share a few insights from a few books I have read recently.

The Sherman was intended to exploit a break through in the front line. Rush through the break and fan out behind the enemy line and disrupt the enemies supply lines. This is according to the American Armored Forces Doctrine. Which General Patton followed to the letter prior to the armored forces landing in France. Patton wanted a light weight medium tank with heavy fire power. In this case field artillery for infantry support. (Hence the low velocity 75mm cannon which could fire 7,500 rounds before needing the barrel replaced.) This kind of tank would be fast and use less fuel as compared to a heavy tank (in theory). This is very important when you are behind enemy lines and it can be days before the infantry can meet up with the armor division on the other side. Then once the area is secure the supply trucks would be able to re-supply the tanks.

The Sherman's were far more reliable then the German heavy tanks. According to the book Tigers on the Western Front, of the 400 Tigers deployed on the western front 70% were lost too: mechanical failure, getting stuck or running out of fuel, which all resulted in them being abandoned and scuttled. All of these condition were a result of the tank being HEAVY. When the biggest thing on the battle field gets stuck, what do you use to pull it out? It was against German policy to use a Tiger to tow another Tiger because of the risk to the Tiger doing the towing, causing it to break down as well. (this doesn't mean that it didn't happen) Of the remaining 30% the majority were destroyed by the Army Air Force (In accordance with the American Armored Forces Doctrine. Which states tanks shouldn't fight tanks) Few Tigers were lost too Sherman's or tank destroyers. (again this is just what the book said)

Both books, Death Traps (by Belton Cooper) and Another River and Another Town (by John P. Irwin) depict engagements where Sherman's disable Tiger tanks by shooting the drive sprockets or shooting white phosphors rounds, the phosphors rounds produce a deadly smoke, when this smoke is sucked into the tank by it's ventilators, it caused the crew to bail out rendering the tank disabled.

I am not stating that the Sherman was the best or the Tiger's were the worst. I am just trying to spread some insight on how the Sherman was intended to be used. Sherman's still had to duke it out with the Panzers of Hitler's third Reich during bad weather. Which was a gross miss match.

[GooglyDoogly]

Ah Allied armor get no respect. Many today seems to propagate the myth of Nazi ubermensch, without even realizing it. After reading numerous books, magazine articles, internet forum posts, several TV specials, here's what I gathered:

Back in 1941 at the start of Operation Barbarossa, German panzers met the T-34 and the KV tanks for the first time, totaly outclassing them in every level. Sometimes, 1 or 2 of these Russian tanks can hold out against entire German panzer divisions. It took the Germans special tactics, often using numerical superiority, and calling in a towed 88s or a Stuka attack to knock out these tanks.

Today most historians/writers/modellers/forum posters lauded how the Germans overcame these tanks, citing the bravery and the tactics of the Panzer crew men.

Well, back in 1944 the scenario was almost the same on the Western front. The allies have numerical superiority, but the Germans have a few, but deadly tanks. It took the allies numerical superiority, calling in airstrikes, and even heavy artillery to destroy German heavy armor.

But do most historians/writers/modellers/forum posters give Allied crews any respect and admiration? NO! All they blab about is how the Sherman is so weak, how good and brave and strong the Germans were, etc. etc.

As for the Sherman, I've read interviews of Soviet crews who were issued lend-lease Shermans and they positively LOVED it. Even a German general in Italy recommended designing a tank the closely resemble the Sherman, deriding Germany's insistence on producing small quantities of heavy, cumbersome tanks, that was almost totally immobile due to Italy's rough and wicked terrain.

So why no love for the Sherman? The T-34 get a little bit of respect, but the Shermie has almost none, despite being superior to most German tanks when it first came out. When the Brits received the Shermans during the North African campaign, they also LOVED it.

The Sherman or T-34 tank are the best tanks because ultimately, it did the job it was suppose to do.

In contrast, take the heavy German tanks. The Tiger, Tiger II, and Elefants, are suppose to be breakthrough tanks, yet they failed miserably.

At Kursk, those big tanks were stopped cold by determined defense. During the battle of the Bulge, even those tanks are unable to breakthrough, despite being only faced with inexperienced, refitting, American units initially. I liked reading the story about how Peiper's King Tigers were constantly delayed and harassed by a handful of American engineers.

The Germans sacriced quantity over quality, hoping that their small number of "superior" tanks are good enough to resist a numerically superior foe. They chose wrong.

Additional note: The Soviets stated that the Panther was far easier to kill despite its being more maneuverable than the Tiger.

[digger]

Monday and Googly - great insight. Sometimes it's like reading a book around here...or a compilation of books.

I know this debate will wage on long after we're gone, and I don't have anything to add logistically or historically. But, when comparing WWII tanks I often just ask myself "which would you rather have in your back yard?"
I know I'd want a Big Cat.
I said I have nothing real to add....

[tmanthegreat]

I have read that the German Panther was probably the best all around. Although it suffered from technical problems when it was introduced, they were corrected and despite being classified as a heavy tank, the Panther had the reliability, speed, armor strength, fuel economy and fire power to successfully take on any Allied or Soviet armor.

[aferguson]

When talking about the best you have to define your parameters...ie define what you mean by 'best'.

Certainly, on a techinical level, the last tanks to come out were the best and had the best chances of victory in a one on one battle. From that viewpoint either the King Tiger (despite being underpowered) or the JS II were the best tank of the war. Certainly if the war had dragged on a couple of years longer we wouldn't be talking about Panthers, T34's or Shermans as best tanks....we'd be talking JS III's, Pershings and E. 50's or E. 100's.

You also have to look at whether the vehicle is used defensively, offensively or both. Lack of mobility and speed is much less of a drawback when you're waging a defensive struggle. Armour strength and gun firepower are far more important. But when you're on the offensive mobility and speed are very important. In this light German armour shines because from mid 43 onward Germany was purely defensive and the slowness of their big tanks was less of a detriment (much in the way the slow Russian KV's shined in '41 when the USSR was on the defensive). As stated above, when the Germans went on the offense during the BoB, their armour was in many ways a drawback being made up of large numbers of slow, lumbering, gas guzzling vehicles.

Another way of looking at best is simple but effective design, which is quick and economical to produce. By this definition the Sherman and T34 stand out. Producing overwhelming numbers of, what are basically, expendable tanks. Much like a colony of ants can overwhelm a lion, these are sound tactics but pretty tough on the crews that man them. And i agree, US Sherman crews don't get nearly enough credit for their bravery. They all new that one hit would cook them....the German crews new they were pretty safe behind their thick sloped armour. In fact more German tanks were lost from mechanical breakdown/lack of fuel than in combat.

And the last way of looking at the best is a design that was good to begin with and was very adaptable throughout the war. Here the Pz IV, Panther, T34 stand out. The Panther was technically beautiful but was very fussy and expensive. The T34 was raw, effective and simple to make and maintain. Which is better? History shows that the T34 was the best way to go.

You can note that the development of weapons of war closely parallels evolution in nature. There are many strategies for survival in nature and not always is being the biggest and strongest the best one.

[mondaytanker]

The panther ought to compare well against the T-34 considering it was supposedly a reverse-engineered German copy of a captured T-34 and with its high velocity 75mm cannon it was a fearsome tank killer.

What I find really sad is that the T-34 was the final revolution of the Russian BT series tanks which were derived from examples of Walter Christies tanks designed in the late 1930's. Which points out that the Russians were building and developing battle worthy tanks long before we were. I don't have my book here to reference right now to give specific model numbers. But Walter Christy was an American!

Secondly the Russians used a V-12 diesel engine giving the T-34 a tremendous advantage over the gas powered tanks on the battle field.

Back here in the US the lack of a decent tank engine was our Achilles heel. The solution was found in an old WWI airplane engine. It was redesigned to give better low end torque and a few other improvements. This radial engine is what gives the Sherman it's almost unacceptable high profile. Later on Ford introduced their GAA V-8 engine, which I thought was a shortened version of a Merlin V-12 air plane engine (but don't quote me on that). This GAA engine was later flattened out to the GAF engine used in the Pershing allowing a much lower profile.

If only we had followed Walter Christies torsion bar suspension and had the GAF engine 3 years earlier, our Sherman would have taken a whole different shape. But that is a whole lot of what if's and wishful thinking...

Aferguson is right we need to define "best"

I just like talking about the Sherman.

[tmanthegreat]

Well, some military historians would argue that the Sherman was the best tank of WWII simply because it was the main tank used by the western allies (the Russians also used some too) and they won.

[DomiUK]

"best tank" is very subjective but we can all have favourites

a few points on comments above.

First is a very common myth and that is that the Tiger II was a slow clumsy unreliable underpowered gas guzzler. I am not going to try and argue this on this forum but none of these statements are actually true.

Basically it had similar or better fuel econemy, manourvrability and reliability of all contemporary models. Yes it was very big and this did cause logistic problems but my understanding is these where no way as bad as is often made out.

Both the T34 and Sherman need a special mention as both platforms and there shear numbers made them the eventual war winners.

Both came in many differant versions and similar numbers where produced of each at 50,000 or so of both tanks and while neither had the best gun or the best armour 5 shermans or T34s vs 1 tiger is a no contest regardless of any rubbish you might have heard to the contrary.

It is fair to say the Panther usually ends up looking the best bet of all WW2 tanks as a medium tank it wasnt too big it had good sloped armour and a very powerful gun ( the Panthers 75mm gun was actually a better anti tank gun than the Tiger1s feared 88mm).

we could throw the pershing in here but it barely qualifies as a ww2 tank at all

But for me the Tiger 1 ugly squat box though it may be will always be my favourite.

[aferguson]

That's an interesting comment about the Tiger II. There are a lot of WWII vehicles that got a bad reputation that wasn't deserved.

Two that come to mind are the Elephant (Ferdinand) and the KV-2. Now, neither would even be considered for best tank of the war but both were a lot better than most historical accounts portray.

The Elephant for example. Everyone knows that they debuted at the battle of Kursk, that they were hopeless monstrocities that Russian infantry swarmed over (due to their lack of a defensive bow machine gun), putting most of the ones deployed out of action. Right? Wrong. In fact only one or perhaps two were incapacitated by Russian infantry and both those had already been imobolized by mines. In fact most of the Elephants lost were lost because they ran over mines (which should have been cleared before the battle began but weren't.....a huge tactical error on the part of the Germans).

The Elephants were not used correctly. They were essentially a defensive weapons system (which is why a bow machine gun was not put in the original design, since it was figured it would not be needed well behind the lines) and support vehicle but they were used offensively, in the role of a tank, which they were not well suited for at all.

About 50 Elephants were lost at the battle of Kursk, which is a large percentage of the ones committed to the battle. BUT they are credited with destroying over 380 Russian tanks....not a bad kill ratio in anyone's books. Elephants had excellent armour and a fantastic gun.....they were just misused and like the Panther, rushed into service prematurely.

The Russian KV-2: well this lumbering behemoth couldn't even turn it's turret and the Germans simply laughed at them as they went around them. Right? Wrong. There are numerous accounts of KV-2's holding up the advance of entire German divisions in the early stages of Barbarossa. One single KV-2, in fact, held up the entire German 6th panzer division for a week. One tank! It destroyed dozens upon dozens of german vehicles until finally, on day seven, the Germans were able to set up an 88 flak and get a shot off (before being destroyed as the others had been). When the KV was finally knocked out and inspected after the battle it had been hit over 55 times by various german guns......all of which had no effect on it (except for knocking off the right track and imobolizing the beast). In fact the KV's turret rotated just fine, it had a 152mm howitzer for armament and it's armour was nearly impenatrable for the time. Like the Elephant it was not used correctly, being deployed piecemeal rather than in concentrated force and it was not used tactically for what it was designed. It was meant to be a bunker buster (much like the Sturmtiger of years later) but had to be pressed into service in a defensive tank role. But the small number of KV-2's deployed gave the Germans fits and the Germans thought enough of them to use captured vehicles in their own Panzer divisions.

[digger]

One single KV-2, in fact, held up the entire German 6th panzer division for a week. One tank! It destroyed dozens upon dozens of german vehicles until finally, on day seven, the Germans were able to set up an 88 flak and get a shot off (before being destroyed as the others had been). When the KV was finally knocked out and inspected after the battle it had been hit over 55 times by various german guns......

[aferguson]

as an addendum to my KV-2 story...at one point the 6th Panzer division called the luftwaffe for an airstrike on the KV-2. They wanted them to send Stukas to destroy it but the Luftwaffe refused to send an airstrike to take out a single tank and told the Army that they had to deal with it themselves. Their final plan was to launch an all out assault on the KV with over 50 tanks (mostly pz II's and III's), the idea being that while the crew of the KV was busy dealing with this assault an 88 flak gun could be set up behind them without being noticed (and without being picked off before being able to fire a shot, as other attempts had been). It worked, the crew of the KV didn't notice the 88 being deployed and after a couple of close range shots from the 88 the KV-2 was finally silenced.

[GooglyDoogly]

About the Tiger II...yes they are that BAD.

Yes, I've read those counter arguments that's pro-Tigers, but they give you incomplete facts.

First: Yes, Tigers or King Tigers are not that slow, BUT they always have to operate on full power to get that speed. That causes high stresses on the engine, shortening its lifespan.

Second, pro-tigers always claim that because the percentage of operational is quite high, Tigers or King Tigers were mechanically reliable too.

Hmm...perhaps the reason that Tigers have a high operational percentage is because whenever one breaks down, it gets TOP priority?

Let's see....2 broke Panzer IV and a broke Tiger I....which one should I fix first, with my limited supplies, time, and manpower?

Read the book, Sledgehammers. Great read about the Tiger tank without subscribing to the German supermen-superweapon mythos.

As for the KV-2 story, this is what I mean. Where's all the praises, website dedication, massive numbers of scale models dedicated to KV2 tanks and their crews?

That's a whole lot better than Villers Bocage.

[aferguson]

Despite its flaws the Tiger still was a very good tank, just not a perfect one. For much of the war it pretty much dominated wherever it appeared, until it either broke down or through great effort, was put out of action.

Many weapons, from many wars, tend to get romanticized/mythologized out of true proportion with their capabilities but the fact remains it was one of the most dominant land weapon systems of WWII.

As far as the KV-2 goes, well, it is highly praised....in Russia. Many of the Russian weapons of WWII/Great Patriotic War are held in very high esteem and mythologized. Just not very much in the Western world. The main reason for this is because KV-2's had very little to do with the Western allies in general and the Americans in particular.

History books and websites encountered over here are often from a US perspective and usually only passing information at best is given about the Russian contribution to the war. Pretty much the exact opposite happens in Russia....it's only natural i guess.


I'm not trying to downplay the invaluable contributions of the US during WWII, not only in men but in material but it's just a fact that alot of the infortmation that is readily available is written from a US viewpoint.

It's well known that the Sherman had a very tough time of things versus the Tiger and that alone would tend to create a 'mythologizing' of the Tiger tank. Plus, it makes it more dramatic and the victory that much more impressive if allied forces were able to be victorious over the super-human enemy. That's the stuff of great theatre...

[digger]

Just saw a show on Military Channel where they rated the "top ten" tanks of all times...and they used a myriad of categories from armor, speed, production speed/cost, firepower, etc....obviously all to be disputed but interesting nonetheless. Came in just at the end...#1 all time being the T-34 (in their conclusion).
When they flashed the images of the other nine I spotted the Tiger, the Abrams, perhaps the Panzer IV, not sure the rest. Cool show, good footage of the Eastern front.