Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared

[Neutrino 123]

Many people have little idea of how these tanks, the main tanks of their respective nations during the war, compared to each other. Alot of people know about how weak the Sherman is supposed to be, and how powerful the T-34 was though to be, but these things are not correct. All these tanks were about the same.

There were multiple models of these tanks. They can be broken up into 2-3 groups depending on the tank.

The early T-34s were equipped with 76.2mm guns and had four crew. They entered service in late 1940. Models with a redesigned turret housing an 85mm gun came into service starting in 1944 (these had five crew). Throughout the years, turret armor was improved in various sub-models. Much of the reason for the T-34s great reputation is that when it first started fighting, it was very difficult to kill due to it's good armor protection.

The early M4 Shermans came around in mid 1942 with a 75mm gun. Beginning in 1944 (when the U.S. realized it was out-gunned), Shermans with 76.2mm guns began to enter service. Also upgrades to off-road ability and armor were made to Shermans with either type of gun. The reason they have a bad reputation is that most of their fighting was in 1944, much of which was against Panthers and Tigers.

The German MkIV was produced as early as 1937. However, until the MkIVF2 entered service in 1942, these tanks were equipped with short-barreled 75mm guns, not to useful for AT work. The F2 had a medium-legnth barrel and was much better. Later models would get armor improvements and a slightly better gun.

How did these tanks compare to each other? One must select contemperary models.

In 1943 the Panzer IVG, M4A3 Sherman, and T-34 model 1942 squared off against each other.

Speed: The T-43 takes the prize here with 55km/h speed (~40 off road). The Sherman could only make a 42km/h road speed (I am not sure about off-road, I have seen estimates between 25-31 though), and the MkIV a 40km/h road speed (~16 off road). The reason for this was track size and suspension. The MkIVs had very thin tracks, so could not get very good off-road performance.

Firepower: The MkIV had the best gun (higher velocity) by far and better optics too. The Sherman was not far behind in optics, but did not have a very good gun. The T-34 had a horrible gun for its size and poor optics as well. Each gun could penetrate the other tanks at normal combat ranges, except that the T-34s 76.2mm gun could not penetrate the hull of the MkIV except at close range (nor could it penetrate the Sherman front except at close range...).

Protection (frontal): The T-34 and Sherman are about the same. The T-34 had equivalent thickness (taking slope into account - NOTE: besides for thickness increase, the slope provides addition protection against most ammo) of ~80mm (varied due to curve) for the turret and 90mm for the hull. The hull was also very sloped. The Sherman had ~88mm in the turret and 91mm in the hull (slightly less sloped then the T-34). The MkIV only had 51mm in the turret and 82mm in the hull, all with very tiny slopes.

Special: The early Shermans were prone to catch fire. The T-34 only had a two-man turret, so the commander had to be the gunner too, reducing efficientcy. Also, the T-34s were often hampered by lack of radios (this may have been largely corrected by 1943, I'm not sure). On the other hand, the Sherman and T-34 were more reliable (mechanically) then the MkIV.


The later varients of the Sherman and T-34 in late 1944 and 1945 were greatly improved. The MkIV was not, but then the Panther began to appear in signifigant numbers, so 1945 comparisons would be T-34/85 Model 1944, MkVG Panther, and M4A3(76)W Sherman.

I have used multiple sources (including Combat Mission, a well-researched WWII tactical Combat game) and the online site http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

Note that if you go to that site, the slopes are given the opposite of what they are usually given as, so 90 degrees is actually zero degree (no sloping) etc.

[micky1up]

it wasn't how good they where it was specific aspecs of the tanks that made them good for instance the t34's sloped armor gave it survivability also it's wide track gave it better crosscountry capability but the biggest factor with the like of the sherman and the t34 was mass production these where easy tanks to build in large numbers and these numbers tipped the balance against the technically superior german tanks

[Abraham]

Thanks Neutrino 123 for the interesting comparison of the individual tank characteristics.
Some new facts here, at least for me.
:up:
It seems to support my thesis that armour-wise and invasion in 1943 would have been quite possible, given the quantitative superiority of the Allied tanks...

[mog]

The fact is that while they were all designed with a similar purpose, they operated under different doctrines. For the tasks they were asked to perform in Western Europe, the Sherman was a terrible tank. Where the Germans or the Russians would have employed heavy tanks, the Allies were stuck with Shermans.

Thankfully someone that must have been relatively high-ranking in the British Army saw what was coming and started replacing the 75mm gun with 17 pounders before the invasion.

[Abraham]

And the US Army started the devellopment of the M-26 Pershing tank, which was superior to the Panther in mobility, speed and armour, although it's 90 mm gun had not the same high velocity as the Panther's 75 mm gun.
However, when this overall superior tank was ready for production, in Januari 1944, top brass in the US Army decided that ithe Shertman would be good enough and halted the production for almost a whole year. Actuallt the first 20 M-26's reached the European front the first week on February 1945!

[GunnersMate]

Now compare the Tiger, King Tiger, IS-2, and M-26 ! :hulk: :up:

[Dowly]

"The M4 Sherman tank was first called 'Chuck Norris', but Norris wanted it to be changed as it wasnt tough enough." :-j

[Abraham]

I only have intimate knowledge available about the M-26 (Pershing) and the M-26A1E2 (Super Pershing)

M-26:
Weight 47.5 tons.
Suspension: Modified Christies system.
Ground pressure: 3.5 pound per sq. inch (Sherman 7 pound p/s/i)
Engine: 550 Hp. Ford inline engine
Mobility: excellent
Speed: 56 km per hour
Armour: (front glacis) 4 inch hardened at 45 degrees (superior to the Panther.
Turret with power traverse and gyrostabilizer.
Gun: medium velocity 90 mm M1 (2,750 feet per second)

M-26A1E2: the experimental 90 mm T15E1 70 cal. gun was added with some modifications to the cuppalo (counterbalance etc).
It produced a muzzle velocity of 3,850 f.p.s., 600 f.p.s. more than the 88 mm KwK43 gun of the PzKw VIb King Tiger. It was the most powerful tank gun of the war and it's shell could penetrate any adversary.

[GunnersMate]

eh heh heh hey Beavis he said penetrate

[Type941]

Overall on balance T34 was the better tank. Faster to built, super light aluminum engine which was easy to maintain, it has the BEST gun when the war begun (others would catch up oh-so late) and it has the best suspension of all tanks throughout the whole war, not to mention superior cross country ability. Really, Sherman was only good because there were so many of them. Perhaps one on one, the late versions of Mk4 with more powerful guns were superior, but that doesn't really count when you can't get beyond 50km without refueling, or have no support from air.

Really, the german tanks were all throughout the war:
- overweight
- underpowered
- unreliable
- fuel hungry

There really was no such thing as a sweeping mega fast German blitzkrieg machine. ;)


Pershing was great, but it was too late. Sherman had some wicked optics and mechanisms that would allow it to fire on move (very clever and huge advantage at the time) but it didn't work. The whole thing actually work like 30-40 years later.

PS. German and Russian tanks were meant to fight other tanks. Sherman weren't. Hence so many changes had to be made to it to make it combat worthy against Germans.

Abraham, no way in 43 would the atack work. It's not about tank. It's about availablity of menpower. tank on its own was a metal box that went 100km and needed refuel, and dragged a train of supply trucks behind it. Germans anihilated those columns again and again.

[Abraham]

@ Type941:
I agree with most what you say about tanks, but not with this:... Abraham, no way in 43 would the atack work. It's not about tank. It's about availablity of menpower. tank on its own was a metal box that went 100km and needed refuel, and dragged a train of supply trucks behind it. Germans anihilated those columns again and again.
There were a million Allied soldiers in the Mediterranean theather doing very little in 1943 plus there were already 16 British divisions in Britain preparing for the invasion. More than enough manpower to sweep the few Germans in France back to Germany... (the real German army was fighting deep in the Ukraine at that time, which put a terrible strain on German logistics and communications...)

[TLAM Strike]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. :yep:

[STEED]

Production Totals of German & Soviet Tanks

German
Tank Version......Total Production Numbers
Panzer 4D..........229
Panzer 4E..........223
Panzer 4F..........462
Panzer 4F/2.......175
Panzer 4G......... 1687
Panzer 4h..........3774
Panzer 4J ..........1758
Panzer 5D..........850
Panzer 5A..........2000
Panzer 5G..........3126

Soviet
Tank Version........Total Production Numbers
T-34/76A..............about 950
T-34/76B..............about 9290
T-34/76C..............14041
T-34/85................10760

[Type941]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. :yep:

The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate.

Abraham, germans had what, 22 divisions in France? hardly 'very few' of them. Allies didn't sweep them away at any time Afaik. When the defence collapsed in France and they went back to germany, allies were very surprised it collapsed so fast. they thought they won, but they actually didn't. The armies in med were stuck there. getting them out would have taken a wee bit of time, don't you think? In fact, if you took them out, the time they would be available would be probably in 44, a wild guess, but probably quite accurate. ;)


I find it still a bit puzzling why americans insist sherman was such a great tank, guys stop being subjective. It was a good fast light tank but nothing else. Only necessary modifacations made it better. it was also very poor on cross country and against anti tank traps (like rails stuck into ground). Hard to argue with blind patriotism really. :up:

[TLAM Strike]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. :yep:

The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate. I did mention I was taking about the Upgraded ones. But it says a lot that the basic Sherman design that it could be upgraded and still be capable 30 years after they were built.

[Type941]

i doubt what they were up against were some elite T34s! I think by Korea russians had some much better battle tanks.

We haven't even adressed the fact that Sherman was such a juicy target, with such a high profile. That can't be cureb by upgrade, neither can the inferior suspension. ;)

[bradclark1]

I find it still a bit puzzling why americans insist sherman was such a great tank, guys stop being subjective. It was a good fast light tank but nothing else. Only necessary modifacations made it better. it was also very poor on cross country and against anti tank traps (like rails stuck into ground). Hard to argue with blind patriotism really. :up:

The Sherman was a piece of crap for a "Tank". It was superior in reliability and simplicity but as a tank killer it sucked. You read just about any American infantry experiences in WW2 and more often then not when they were up against german armor U.S. tanks high-tailed it. Lets face it I would too if I only stood a slim chance of not being destroyed.
Something like 40,000 Shermans were built. We won by numbers not by quality.

[CCIP]

It's more the fact that it was the main tank unit and the Americans won. In the public mind, the association means that they won "by" this tank rather than "with" it.

That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too :yep:

[bradclark1]

That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too :yep:
That being said it only goes so far.
I don't know of any American panzer aces. Who were they?

[Abraham]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. :yep:

The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate. I did mention I was taking about the Upgraded ones. But it says a lot that the basic Sherman design that it could be upgraded and still be capable 30 years after they were built.
Actually, "Super" Shermans with improved tracks, Continental diesel engines and a ridiculous long smooth bore French 105 mm gun were fighting in the Oct. 1973 Jom Kippur war against T-62's! More than thirty one years after their introduction on the battle field.
Today they can still be seen in the Israeli Armoured Corps Museum in Latrun (check The Avon Lady's website)

[CCIP]

That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too :yep:
That being said it only goes so far.
I don't know of any American panzer aces. Who were they?

I think that's a fair statement though, but there's surely more to it than only the tank. The german panzer crews had been fighting for almost 5 years before 1944, and not always with prime equipment either.

There were men like Lafayette Pool though, give your guys some credit :P
http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_home.htm

[Type941]

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34_100/t34_100_02.jpg


Wham. 100mm. :damn: :rock:

[STEED]

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34_100/t34_100_02.jpg


Wham. 100mm. :damn: :rock:

This prototype was a try to quickly get a tank with even more firepower than the T 34/85. The concept was the same as the invention of the T 34/85 but now this very model was the prototype for the new one. A heavy 100 mm gun was put on a hull from a T 34/85 that had a bigger turret, and that was it. Unfortunately the result wasn't quite the same success as model before, and the prototype was not developed further. The heavier guns had to stay on the heavy tanks, especially the new magnificent JS 3 that was developed at about the same time.


Opps a little to big never mind. Interesting prototype never the less makes you wonder. :hmm:

[Type941]

did IS 3 (JS3) ever fight in WW2? seems like a perfect predecessor of russian classic main battle tank.

If I remember right, they just showed them at victory parade in berlin in 45.

Monster!
http://tanxheaven.com/nic/IS-3snegiri05/IS-3_Snegiri_2005_01.JPG

http://www.armyrecognition.com/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-90/T-90_Main_Battle_Tank_RUSSia_13.jpg

[STEED]

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/514/js30ex.jpg


By the end of 1944 IS-2 was developed an improved into the model IS-3. Thicker armour but did not weigh more. Automatic smokethrowers. "Mother" of modern tank designs. If the IS-3 reached frontal units in 1945 is questionable. Modernised (M-version) until 1952 due to engine troubles and out of service at the end of the 1950s. Its well-designed turret made it harder to knock out. The frontal plate had no openings for visors, and the driver was seated directly below the turret. A handful were exported to Egypt, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Nickname: "Pike".

IS4 & IS5 were prototypes around 1944/45

[Torpedo Fodder]

After the 100mm-gunned T-34 prototype was deemed unviable for service, the Soviets decided that if they wanted a 100mm-gunned medium tank, they'd have to build a new design, and so the T-44 was was born. Based on cancelled pre-war plans for an advanced T-34M, the T-44 had a similar turret design to the T-34/85, but an all-new, more heavily armored hull. The T-44's hull design was later used for the T-54/T-55 series. The T-44 never saw action, and it had numerous mechanical problems, so much that production was actualy halted before T-34/85 production, and only 2,000 were built. In the end, both tanks were replaced in production by the T-54, although the T-44s were later upgraded to the mechanical and fire control standards of the T-55 and remained in service until the mid '70s.

[STEED]

Don't forget about this one -

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/8130/t443sr.jpg

Based upon the T-34/85 the T-44 appeared in 1944. The low design was revolutionary and its new transversial transmission. Early machines proved to be unreliable. Production: 1944 - 25, 1945 - 800. It saw limited front service in the war, and major production order was given in 1946. It was used only by the Soviet Army, and its combat record from the war is largely uncovered. They remained serving as training vehicles for recruits until 1963. The T-44 had the ID-mark: (like the followers T-54/55) a big gap between the first two wheels.

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/3520/t44d4xt.jpg

[bradclark1]

There were men like Lafayette Pool though, give your guys some credit :P
http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_home.htm

Yep. He qualifies as a panzer ace. Good to know.

[CCIP]

There were men like Lafayette Pool though, give your guys some credit :P
http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_home.htm

Yep. He qualifies as a panzer ace. Good to know.

:yep:
I learned about him from playing a mission in Combat Mission, actually.

At the rist of over-stating - the Americans, like all others in the war, had their share of aces. I think the frequent post-war focus on German "uber-legends" is a bit skewed :hmm:

[Neutrino 123]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire on the move better then other tanks. However, firing on the move was still an inferior method, so the gyrostabilizer was only useful sometimes.

Overall on balance T34 was the better tank. Faster to built, super light aluminum engine which was easy to maintain, it has the BEST gun when the war begun (others would catch up oh-so late) and it has the best suspension of all tanks throughout the whole war, not to mention superior cross country ability. Really, Sherman was only good because there were so many of them. Perhaps one on one, the late versions of Mk4 with more powerful guns were superior, but that doesn't really count when you can't get beyond 50km without refueling, or have no support from air.


The T-34 had the best milage, and the Sherman the worst, but the Sherman also carried more fuel, which made up for it on the tactical level, and the range was much more then 50km. The MkIV was between the Sherman and T-34 in both range and fuel consumption. The onwar site I linked to has details.

When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.

The MkIV had rather poor cross-country ability, but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).


Really, the german tanks were all throughout the war:
- overweight
- underpowered
- unreliable
- fuel hungry

There really was no such thing as a sweeping mega fast German blitzkrieg machine. ;)


You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this. The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units.

Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.


PS. German and Russian tanks were meant to fight other tanks. Sherman weren't. Hence so many changes had to be made to it to make it combat worthy against Germans.


This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).

[Torplexed]

One attribute of the Sherman that gets overlooked in all the gun/armour comparsions are it's reasonable dimensions, suitable for shipping overseas in bulk. For a nation isolated by vast oceans fighting an sometimes amphibious war in the Pacific as well as in Europe, plus supplying them to all it's major allies a very important consideration.

That being said I'm glad we didn't tangle with the Soviets shortly after the war as Patton advocated. I don't think the average WW2 Sherman with the 75mm gun was ready to take on the JS-1, JS-2 and the T-34/85. Unlike the Germans the Soviets had numbers.

[Neutrino 123]

I think the shipping comparisons were two M-26 tanks for every three Shermans. I'd much rather have the M-26s...

Against the Soviets, the Allied tanks would have some advantages. The 75mm Shermans could deal with the T-34s only at close range, but the 76.2mm T-34s could not deal with the Shermans front at all (most were the 85mm version, though, I think). However, half the American tanks were armored with the 76.2mm gun by the end of the war. The British also had the Firefly, with superb penetration capabilities. In the Russian force, the heavy tanks still were not in great numbers, and better W-Allied tanks were beginning to roll off the productions lines. Also, the W-Allies had better tactical skills in general compared to the Soviets. This is not to say that the Western Allies would have had an easy time. They probably would have gotten pushed back to the Rhine, and the USSR would be nuked before mroe ground fighting took place.

On the other hand, even with an assured decisive Western Allied victory, I would still prefer no WWIII at that time. The Cold War was very good for technological advancement. If communism was destroyed in the 1940s, we could not be having a conversation now since the itnernet would be science fiction. Nevertheless, this message is mostly an entirely different topic... :ping:

[Abraham]

Some good points made by Torplexed and Neutrino 123

The vertical side walls of the Sherman fitted with the tactical doctrine that tanks would be used to break a frontal barrier and then would go after the (relatively) soft target. Hence a strong frontal armour plate, a low velocity gun in a fast moving turret. Enemy tanks would be dealt with by fast moving lightly armoured and heavy armed tank destroyers from ambushes. This design fitted perfectly with shipping requirements: 12 Shermans would fit in one hold of a Liberty ship.

The reality of tank versus tank battles early on in WW II forced the Americans to design a completly new tank, heavy powered with very good off-road capabilities and a heavy 90 mm. gun, the M-26. Seven would fit in a hold that could hold 12 Shermans. The tank was ready for full scale production in January 1944, but then SHAEF decided to notify the Ordonance Board in Washington to deemphasize the production of M-26 and keep concentrating onthe M-4. This decision was forced upon SHAEF by Patton, who stuck to the letter of the Aurmoured Corps doctrine and maintained that tanks should not fight tanks...
So, instead of arriving in England in February '44 the first M-26's arrived in Europe in February '45. The story how the Sermans fared in the meantime is well known.

[Type941]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire …..was only useful sometimes.

More like almost never. It didn’t work. It had it but they couldn’t use it in combat. Technology was not good enough. It works in modern tanks, of course, but back than, it’s a myth that it was working (made by Americans as one of things they believed supremely was that they were technically much more advanced than the rest). The idea was there, but it didn’t work. Misleading us you are! :P

The onwar site I linked to has details

Where are the sources for that site? I’m quite curious, as I hesitate something written on the internet at face value. All too often these online sites turned out to be bogged with allied propaganda ‘facts’.


When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.



You are wrong on all points. T34 was best yes, but it entered the war as it started, not ‘well after’! It fought with less powerful gun early, but it was there all the time. That’s why the Germans got a shock first time they encountered it, and that wasn’t Kursk… To say Sheraman and T34 on actual abilities is similar sounds all too much as a powerful US made myth.


but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).



Shermans with it’s narrow tracks were poor off road, sorry, that’s another misleading statement. T34 had by far the best suspension design, one adopted later by all main battle tanks. And it wasn’t because they liked ‘all russian’ I think.


You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

Well, the early things germans had were not really tanks, but tankettes. Mk1s and Mk2s were a joke, and Mk3 was hardly any good either. All their guns were bad, they were unreliable and thirsty.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.]


Now you floored me with this. You are so wrong about this! Those were won by infantry, and Luftwaffe supporting the tanks. Sure they were fast, it achieved victories because (and going in your order)
1. Because Allies didn’t protect it. Poland held on for more than a month, or you think it did fall in 2 weeks? No 1 month. Poland. You know the joke about cavalry attacking tanks? Know where it came from? That cavalry wreaked damage to german supplies. And I wish I had the sources with me, but let me assure you, germans lost A LOT of tanks in that 1 month. You’d be surprised how much.
2. French in first major tank fought off german attack very well. They defeated them. It was later the brits that abandoned the French (and doomed a 600000 belgium army to surrender) that lead to victory (much like Allies abandoning Finland to fight USSR because it thought it was pointless (like in case with France and Poland!). Had the French actually fought germans all the way – the war might have just finished there. Unfortunately the French doctrine always believed they were not powerful enough to defeat germany on their own – hence they relied on Britain. When Britain decided to cut losses and retreat, French collapsed. But the Maginot line still stood and they had to send emissars to tell them France surrendedred. Germans could not take it.
3. Barbarossa… well, barbarossa failed, if that’s any news. They went to Moscow and that was it. Mechanized Russians were able to retreat very fast and fight another day. The casualties were huge, but this is hardly an example of german super power. You are wrong completely about blitzkrieg.

There was no blitzkrieg. What there was in fact was bunch of incompetence at the top of Allies that lost wars in Poland, France and needed a reason to justify it. Germans were all too happy to go along with it. However the wars were won on the ground, by infantry. Not by mechanized armies, thundering (and in sarcasm mode now) down highways, with kilometres of trucks and horses behind. Germans used aviation with it, and were good at that, but once they lost superiority in air, it was that. Poland was perfect example. They destroyed polish airforces piece by piece and dominated battle field. They bombed their own – and in succession learned to better coordinate, which enabled them to be so good in france. See my posts in D-day about how efficient the germans were in in flying 3-4 times more sorties than Allies and thus making them think they were against a much bigger airforce (while they lost 3/4s of their transport airforce in parachuting operation in Netherlands in 1940!!!). Not to mention their airforce was inferior in equipment to british and even French.





The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units

. Only with support of infantry and airforce. When allies tried it, they failed miserably. If Blitzkrieg worked, massive tank offensives would work. They didn’t. They didn’t at Kursk, didn’t at Caen, didn’t at Ardennes, and didn’t in many other places. You forget – tank grinded to a f*cking hault as soon as it came to a minefield. French found out the hard way in 1940. So much for the super mobility.



Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.


And what’s the point of an individual vehicle?


This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).

The tank destroyer of Allies was a wuss compared to jagdpanzers the germans made, who had them heavily armed and as you mention, actually had a roof. Germans could tie down all allied advancements with cleverly Anti Tank guns. When it came to using a tank, germans were much better than Americans or british. The ace stories are not so bogus!

I only try to be impartial here. I am Russian and have every reason to hate SS and Nazi germany till my eys turn red, but I am only looking at military composition. And it’s clear – allies created a myth of invincible german blitz machine to compensate for their failures in beginning of war, and germans later believed in that myth, and Hitler (luckily) believed in it best. They also followed Fuller’s ideas to the letter on tank warfare. But Stalin after finland somehow learned from mistakes, while allied and germans continued to belive in it faithfully. Time and time again, huge mechaniezed armies got bogged down due to poor terrarin, poor air support, and poor logistics. But theories didn’t teach to deal with it. They implied tank would always get through. You see, tanks didn’t. The war was often won the old fashioned way. There were others theories, sure, but its THIS one and one about Bomber that tied the doctrines of Allies and Germans and Russians together. It was a false theory. And that millions of men died trying to prove it is a testament to that.

[joea]

Type 941 you are contradicting yourself, you say wars are won on the ground not by mechanised armies then go on to say the Germans won becuase of good air support (3-4 times more sorties etc.) and by combining arms well that's the point isn't it? Isn't the point of Blitzkrieg that the Germans coordinated and used their tanks as units not "penny packet" like the French, whose tanks were better I agree. In fact, to support what you said about the German officer corps this was nothing more than the stormtrooper tactics of 1918 at a faster pace. The bulk of the German army was on foot but the spearheads were mechanised and that's what counted.

[Abraham]

I support Joea on this.
Read Liddle Hart: History of the Second World War on how a handfull of Panzer Divisions, some Light Divisions and a couple of Mobile Divisions, never more than 20 at all, made the difference in the German army during the Blitzkrieg in Poland (Sept. '39) and Holland, Belgium, France (May '40). Type941 is right about their close cooperation with the Luftwaffe, which they used as flying heavy artillery. However, later during the war the Allied close ait support was even far better, that of the RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force in '44-'45 being the ultimate example.

[bradclark1]

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.

The fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine was 70% propaganda.
You can only move as fast as your supply chain and the bulk of Germany's supply chain and artillery was horse drawn. Most infantry was straight legwork. Figure out the fuel capacity vs. miles per gallon and thats as fast as they can move without resupply. They did have the balls to push it to the limit though. What worked for them is that those countries above were unprepared for total war.

[Onkel Neal]

This is a great topic, would there be any objections to moving it to the Tanksim forum? There will still be a pointer here.

[JSLTIGER]

Go for it Neal!

[Neutrino 123]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire …..was only useful sometimes.

More like almost never. It didn’t work. It had it but they couldn’t use it in combat. Technology was not good enough. It works in modern tanks, of course, but back than, it’s a myth that it was working (made by Americans as one of things they believed supremely was that they were technically much more advanced than the rest). The idea was there, but it didn’t work. Misleading us you are!

It worked often. However, just the effects of the gyrostabilizer were only small. Shooting on the move is complicated, and the gyrostabilizer only helped a little. Modern tanks have much more then a gyrostabilizer to help them fire on the move (and even the best ar still somewhat better when firing at rest).

The onwar site I linked to has details

Where are the sources for that site? I’m quite curious, as I hesitate something written on the internet at face value. All too often these online sites turned out to be bogged with allied propaganda ‘facts’.

I haven't found any technical data on the site that is wrong (though if I combed it, I might find some minor points). If you searched a bit with google, you would find other sites with the same technical data. I have seen the same data in multiple books and the game, Combat Mission.

When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.

You are wrong on all points. T34 was best yes, but it entered the war as it started, not ‘well after’! It fought with less powerful gun early, but it was there all the time. That’s why the Germans got a shock first time they encountered it, and that wasn’t Kursk… To say Sheraman and T34 on actual abilities is similar sounds all too much as a powerful US made myth.

Is English your first language? I can almost always understand you, but I am not sure if you can always completely understand what I say. In this paragraph, I am not sure what you are saying...

The T-34 entered units in 1941 or maybe late 1940. This was well after the war started, though of course, at the time the USSR got involved, the T-34 was already part of thier force (first encountered in the Battle of Smolensk? I'm not exactly sure...).

If you asked most people with a passing knowledge of militaqry history, they would say that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34. However, as the specifications I showed on the first page indicate, that is not the case. The Sherman and T-34 were about the same. Each had some advantages and disadvantages over the other, but these roughly balanced out. If you have technical data that differs from my original posting, or a different interpretation of the tactical abilities of these tanks, by all means, show it. :)


but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).

Shermans with it’s narrow tracks were poor off road, sorry, that’s another misleading statement. T34 had by far the best suspension design, one adopted later by all main battle tanks. And it wasn’t because they liked ‘all russian’ I think.

This s completely wrong. Later models of the Sherman DID have improved suspension and tracks that gave them better cross-country mobility. It wasn't as good as the T-34, but it was still quite good. Almost any article on the Sherman will mention the improved suspension in the later models. Just do a simple Google search.

Before the improved suspension Shermans came along, the Sherman still had better off-road ability then the MkIV. It's not that the Sherman was horrible in this regard, it's just that the T-34 was very good.

You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

Well, the early things germans had were not really tanks, but tankettes. Mk1s and Mk2s were a joke, and Mk3 was hardly any good either. All their guns were bad, they were unreliable and thirsty.

Well, the MkI could be considered a tankette, but the MkII was technically a tank, though it certainly had very poor armerment. These things got decent fuel efficientcy for their weight, which was very low, of course.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.]

Now you floored me with this. You are so wrong about this! Those were won by infantry, and Luftwaffe supporting the tanks. Sure they were fast, it achieved victories because (and going in your order)

The German Army was obviously mostly infantry divisions, but its attack spearheads were the panzer divisions. These divisions were powerful and highly mobile, capable of creating and exploiting breakthroughs. The Luftwaffe helped, of course, but its effect was largely morale-based (with a few notable exceptions). Even the late-war Allied air forces with attack aircraft had little efficientcy in killing tanks.

1. Because Allies didn’t protect it. Poland held on for more than a month, or you think it did fall in 2 weeks? No 1 month. Poland. You know the joke about cavalry attacking tanks? Know where it came from? That cavalry wreaked damage to german supplies. And I wish I had the sources with me, but let me assure you, germans lost A LOT of tanks in that 1 month. You’d be surprised how much.

I did learn how much when I was less then 10, and I was VERY surprised. The Poles put up a great fight for such poorly equipped forces (~600-700 German tank losses?). If I recall correctly, they inflicted proportionally more casulties then the well-equipped French in 1940.

I believe the cavalry myth originated when the Poles launched a successful cavalry attack (small-unit scale) against a German infantry unit. German tanks arrived, and the Poles retreated. Since tanks and cavalry were in the area at the same times, the Germans started the cavalry-charging-tanks myth.

2. French in first major tank fought off german attack very well. They defeated them. It was later the brits that abandoned the French (and doomed a 600000 belgium army to surrender) that lead to victory (much like Allies abandoning Finland to fight USSR because it thought it was pointless (like in case with France and Poland!). Had the French actually fought germans all the way – the war might have just finished there. Unfortunately the French doctrine always believed they were not powerful enough to defeat germany on their own – hence they relied on Britain. When Britain decided to cut losses and retreat, French collapsed. But the Maginot line still stood and they had to send emissars to tell them France surrendedred. Germans could not take it.

The French won a tactical armored engagement due to their superior tanks, but they were taken care of by 88s (the British also attacked and did well with Matildas). Britain didn't really abandon France. The whole Belgian group (including the French and Belgians present) needed to retreat to the channel ports, or else they would be surrounded by the panzer spearheads.

3. Barbarossa… well, barbarossa failed, if that’s any news. They went to Moscow and that was it. Mechanized Russians were able to retreat very fast and fight another day. The casualties were huge, but this is hardly an example of german super power. You are wrong completely about blitzkrieg.

It doesn't matter that Barbarossa failed. For several months, the Germans conducted warfare at a very fast pace, and they made huge territorial gains. Their casulties were indeed large, but Soviet casulties were far greater. The Russians lost over 20,000 tanks in 1941! Their mechanized forces did NOT conduct a fast retreat. They were thrown into poorly conducted counterattacks and destroyed. The Russians had to reorganize their new tanks into brigades due to casulties, and only later regained the tank corps (division sized) (and later, of course, tank armies).

There was no blitzkrieg. What there was in fact was bunch of incompetence at the top of Allies that lost wars in Poland, France and needed a reason to justify it. Germans were all too happy to go along with it. However the wars were won on the ground, by infantry. Not by mechanized armies, thundering (and in sarcasm mode now) down highways, with kilometres of trucks and horses behind. Germans used aviation with it, and were good at that, but once they lost superiority in air, it was that. Poland was perfect example. They destroyed polish airforces piece by piece and dominated battle field. They bombed their own – and in succession learned to better coordinate, which enabled them to be so good in france. See my posts in D-day about how efficient the germans were in in flying 3-4 times more sorties than Allies and thus making them think they were against a much bigger airforce (while they lost 3/4s of their transport airforce in parachuting operation in Netherlands in 1940!!!). Not to mention their airforce was inferior in equipment to british and even French.

Just because the Allies were incompetant does not mean the Germans couldn't conduct fast warfare. In fact, the Germans conducted the French attack in just such a way as to maximize the effects of the Allies incompetance.

Your are right about the inefficientcy of the French Air Force. However, the fighter of the Luftwaffe (Bf109) was superior to the British Hurricane (there were no Spitfires in France) and also the French planes (though certainly not vastly superior, and the Hurricanes and French planes had better turning abilities, so they could do well with proper tactics).

The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units

. Only with support of infantry and airforce. When allies tried it, they failed miserably. If Blitzkrieg worked, massive tank offensives would work. They didn’t. They didn’t at Kursk, didn’t at Caen, didn’t at Ardennes, and didn’t in many other places. You forget – tank grinded to a f*cking hault as soon as it came to a minefield. French found out the hard way in 1940. So much for the super mobility.

The Panzer Divisions came with two mechanized/motorized infantry regiments, and coordianted well with the infantry (unlike the Allies). Also, there were motorized infantry divisions following the panzer divisions, and regular infantry after that. All were important, but it was the mechanized units that gave the ability to properly exploit breakthroughs.

Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.

And what’s the point of an individual vehicle?

?

This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).

The tank destroyer of Allies was a wuss compared to jagdpanzers the germans made, who had them heavily armed and as you mention, actually had a roof. Germans could tie down all allied advancements with cleverly Anti Tank guns. When it came to using a tank, germans were much better than Americans or british. The ace stories are not so bogus!

This is true. However, just because the tank destroeyers were bad compared to the equivalent German units does not mean they should be dismissed. They did well against German armor.

I only try to be impartial here. I am Russian and have every reason to hate SS and Nazi germany till my eys turn red, but I am only looking at military composition. And it’s clear – allies created a myth of invincible german blitz machine to compensate for their failures in beginning of war, and germans later believed in that myth, and Hitler (luckily) believed in it best. They also followed Fuller’s ideas to the letter on tank warfare. But Stalin after finland somehow learned from mistakes, while allied and germans continued to belive in it faithfully. Time and time again, huge mechaniezed armies got bogged down due to poor terrarin, poor air support, and poor logistics. But theories didn’t teach to deal with it. They implied tank would always get through. You see, tanks didn’t. The war was often won the old fashioned way. There were others theories, sure, but its THIS one and one about Bomber that tied the doctrines of Allies and Germans and Russians together. It was a false theory. And that millions of men died trying to prove it is a testament to that.

Whatever myths the Allies created, it is well-known among military historians that their incompetance in the early war was a huge factor for their lack of success.
The USSR learned some thigns from Finland, but they didn't learn enough to prevent decisive defeat during Barbarossa. Also, some Soviet generals like Zhukov (of course) already knew how to fight well. Have you read about Khalin Gol (spelling?) against Japan? :ping:
Many things could stop an offensive, but offensives with flexible armored spearheads were clearly more successful then those without.



This is a great topic, would there be any objections to moving it to the Tanksim forum? There will still be a pointer here.

I didn't even know this forum existed... :-j

[JonZac]

Remember that the US doctrine at the time was an infantry breakthru, followed by the Sherman punching through the rear...it was NEVER designed to fight tanks. The US formed Tank Destroyer Battalions for that armed with the M10 and the 3in gun. That doctrine was mostly invalidated after actual war experience, but it was also the reasoning Patton used in delaying the M26..

In reality the US didn't want to fight tanks. We would come up against them, withdraw and drop arty and planes on the target. Tank v. Tank will rack up a causality list, when you can hit them from the air, or just hit their transportation network and starve them of fuel.

[nikimcbee]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. :yep:

I bet a lot of that had to do with the crew training. I think the PRC and North Korean's "tanker experience" was rather limited.:huh: If it's anything like their airforce training...:doh: Were there a lot of tank vs tank action in the Korean War?

[kaptkirkU4467]

When it made its WWII debuted on June 22,1941 the T 34/76 was better then any tank in field at "that time"..Its long barrel F-34 76mm could penetrate all German Armour...head on.

The Sherman..well it was a "nice" tank.Crew friendly and known for its ease of being maintained in the field...Its 75mm T-8/M-3 gun was next to worthless when it first saw combat.Even Sherman's later equipped with a 76mm were considered obsolete after May 1943.

If you go by when it first hit the streets,the T 34/76 is clearly the better tank.

[nikimcbee]

When it made its WWII debuted on June 22,1941 the T 34/76 was better then any tank in field at "that time"..Its long barrel F-34 76mm could penetrate all German Armour...head on.

The Sherman..well it was a "nice" tank.Crew friendly and known for its ease of being maintained in the field...Its 75mm T-8/M-3 gun was next to worthless when it first saw combat.Even Sherman's later equipped with a 76mm were considered obsolete after May 1943.

If you go by when it first hit the streets,the T 34/76 is clearly the better tank.

Ditto:|\\

Plus, what was the Russian's nick name for the Sherman:dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: (clue)

[Neutrino 123]

Indeed, I mentioned in the first post that the T-34 was designed and produced well before the Sherman. When it first came out, the T-34 was revolutionary, while the Sherman was merely decent. However, the actual abilities of these tanks are quite similar.

The Sherman 76.2mm gun armed tanks did not come out until 1944 (maybe late 1943). The 76.2mm was perfectly good for taking on the MkIV and StuG III, but could only deal with Panthers and Tigers at close range or from the flank. Since Panthers and Tigers did not have signifigant numbers until 1944, the 76.2mm would have been adequate before then (and indeed, the 75mm gun was decent against the earlier German tanks). The Sherman did not experiance major problems before 1944 when it met Panthers and Tigers in notable numbers.

As for the burning Sherman reputation, I am not sure if it is wholly deserved. True, the early Shermans brewed up alot more then the late ones, but did they really brew up more then the T-34 or early German tanks? I'm not too sure about this...

The North Korean tankers had good training, but neither the North Koreans nor Chinese had very many tanks throughout the war. There were a few tank vs. tank incidents near the beginning where U.S. M24 Chaffes did poorly against T-34/85s, but the M4A3E8s and M26/M46s did much better.
Edit: I found some more information about this at http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/01/msg00280.html