SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Panzer IV (VS) Sherman (VS) T-34

frinik · 03-19-11, 09:34 PM

Freiwillige I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable

The Sherman Firefly!

Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns!

Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc.

I took all the flaws of the T34/76 into account which is why I put it in 5th position.

Yes the T34/76 was a revolutionary design as CCIP pointed out but revolutionary does not necessarily mean the best.The Messerschmitt ME 262 Schwalbe and ME163 Komet were also revolutionary designs but their teething problems and flaws were such that they were not terribly effective and older and more classical designs produced in large qunatities won the day...In the case of the Soviets they were ucky to have the chance to design a better second model the T34/85 which combined both solid improvements and large production numbers.I personally think the Panther was a much better tank overall than the T34/85 and had it not been produced in insufficient numbers and direly affected by the lack of fuel it would have carried the battlefield.

I took the Firefly into account in my rating but it was only one of the variants and not produced in large quantities.

The Tigers (both I and II) were legends and formidable machine much more agile than what people think but they had 2 basic flaws;

1) too complicated to produce( less than 1900 of both variants were made partly due to the disruption in production due to heavy Allies bombings it's true) which led to slow production rate and required frequent and time-consuming maintenance and repairs.

2) overweight and mechanically fragile;their excessive weight led to frequent transmission and suspension breakdowns and excessive fuel consumption a definite con for a fuel-poor country like Germany.The Tiger II at 68 tons weighs more than modern tanks such as the Leopard A6, the Abrams, Challenger 2 or the Leclerc not too mention the Russian equivalents!Krupp was planning a Klein Tiger weighing only 33 tons but the end of the war put an end to that project.

The Sherman for all its imperfections did what it was designed to do.It reflects very much the practical American mind; easy to produce , maintenance light and reliable.Swamp them with numbers!(that and air supremacy did the job).

All 3 contenders were designed initially for infantry support but had thei role changed as the nature of war evolved and changed.

Sledge the T34 could clock up to 63 kph on the road.The Sherman up to 48 if I remember correctly and the Panzer IV up to 45.But tanks are not race cars and faster means aldso more wear and tear on the engine and transmission and high fuel consumption.

one major flaw of the T34/85 which most Soviet tanks shared; a very low AP complement; it had only 14 AP rounds against 35 to 37 for the Panzer IV ( ausf. F onwards), 60 for the Tiger I and 43 approx for both Panthers and Tiger II.It meant the Sov tank commanders and gunners could not afford to make too many mistakes...

03-19-11, 09:34 PM	#7
frinik Grey Wolf Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 897 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	PzIV, Sherman, T34 Freiwillige I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable The Sherman Firefly! Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns! Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc. I took all the flaws of the T34/76 into account which is why I put it in 5th position. Yes the T34/76 was a revolutionary design as CCIP pointed out but revolutionary does not necessarily mean the best.The Messerschmitt ME 262 Schwalbe and ME163 Komet were also revolutionary designs but their teething problems and flaws were such that they were not terribly effective and older and more classical designs produced in large qunatities won the day...In the case of the Soviets they were ucky to have the chance to design a better second model the T34/85 which combined both solid improvements and large production numbers.I personally think the Panther was a much better tank overall than the T34/85 and had it not been produced in insufficient numbers and direly affected by the lack of fuel it would have carried the battlefield. I took the Firefly into account in my rating but it was only one of the variants and not produced in large quantities. The Tigers (both I and II) were legends and formidable machine much more agile than what people think but they had 2 basic flaws; 1) too complicated to produce( less than 1900 of both variants were made partly due to the disruption in production due to heavy Allies bombings it's true) which led to slow production rate and required frequent and time-consuming maintenance and repairs. 2) overweight and mechanically fragile;their excessive weight led to frequent transmission and suspension breakdowns and excessive fuel consumption a definite con for a fuel-poor country like Germany.The Tiger II at 68 tons weighs more than modern tanks such as the Leopard A6, the Abrams, Challenger 2 or the Leclerc not too mention the Russian equivalents!Krupp was planning a Klein Tiger weighing only 33 tons but the end of the war put an end to that project. The Sherman for all its imperfections did what it was designed to do.It reflects very much the practical American mind; easy to produce , maintenance light and reliable.Swamp them with numbers!(that and air supremacy did the job). All 3 contenders were designed initially for infantry support but had thei role changed as the nature of war evolved and changed. Sledge the T34 could clock up to 63 kph on the road.The Sherman up to 48 if I remember correctly and the Panzer IV up to 45.But tanks are not race cars and faster means aldso more wear and tear on the engine and transmission and high fuel consumption. one major flaw of the T34/85 which most Soviet tanks shared; a very low AP complement; it had only 14 AP rounds against 35 to 37 for the Panzer IV ( ausf. F onwards), 60 for the Tiger I and 43 approx for both Panthers and Tiger II.It meant the Sov tank commanders and gunners could not afford to make too many mistakes... Last edited by frinik; 03-19-11 at 09:45 PM.