Performance of allied tanks in WW2

Hi all, first post here!

This strikes me as the kind of topic that would probably have been covered a lot on a forum like this, and I can hear the cries of "search function n00b!!11" in the distance, but it's something I was thinking about recently when reading up on tank warfare in WW2 and I am curious as to what you guys think.

We often hear that the Western allies (particularly the British) had woefully inadequate tanks compared to the panzer divisions, that this inadequacy was mainly because we did not design tanks to take on other tanks like the Germans supposedly did, and that the Russian tanks put up a much better fight. Various examples are often cited in support of these assertions.

I'm not an expert and I'm genuinely open to ideas here, but there are some facts at the back of my mind that niggle at full acceptance of this general consensus. Or perhaps I've just misunderstood, in which case, feel free to enlighten me

Consider two common examples of the superiority of German tanks: the Battle for France and the desert campaign.

1) In the Battle for France, British (and even French) tanks were considerably heavier than their German counterparts. So much so that Rommel had to use 88s to take out the Matilda IIs that his panzers and anti-tank guns couldn't penetrate.

2) In the desert campaign, Rommel expressly avoided tank vs tank battles and instead relied on luring the British tanks into fire from the 88s.

So if the measure of a good tank is its ability to defeat enemy tanks, then these examples would seem to prove nothing about the supposed superiority of German tanks. If anything, they contradict that claim. The panzers deliberately sat back, let the 88s do most of the anti-tank work, and then swept in for the kill afterwards. Surely it's no different to allied tanks later in the war "winning" battles due to a ton of air support?

Then we have the argument that British and American tanks were crap because they could not defeat Panthers and Tigers on equal terms/at anything other than point blank range. But that was also true of the T34, which seems to be regarded as a great tank despite this. And I'm sure I read that Panthers and Tigers were still relatively rare even after D-Day, and most of the German tanks were older designs against which the Shermans and Cromwells were at least competitive, if not superior - in which case, it's not really a fair comparison, is it?

 

You are treading into areas of both perception (then and now) and doctrine (how you expect to fight).

To be honest no nation went into battle for the first time with what we would today call a Main Battle Tank (MBT) whose primary design was to kill other tanks in battle other than Russia's T-34. All tanks (other than "Light" ones intended for scouting) expected at some point to encounter another tank in battle, but this generally was seen as just one facet (not usually the most critical one) of its job. For Germany the Pzkw. III was intended as a exploitation tank operating in the rear of enemy lines after a breakthrough, while the Pzkw. IV was viewed as a "heavy" tank designed to help Panzed Divisions to breach heavy defenses.

British tanks were seen as either Infantry (slow, and well armored) or as Cruisers (fast, but lightly armored), neither of which are particularly well suited for tank on tank encounters. The situation was made worse by the UK's reliance on the 2 lb gun (37mm) as both the III and IV's were generally proof from them except for close range.

Then there is doctrine or training. German Panzers were expected to win battles, not tank duels, by working their way into a enemies rear areas and dislocating him in time and space. If that meant tackling other tanks, well they were designed well enough to do this, but really to offer a better balance of speed, armor and firepower than was seen in British tanks of the period.

Between the limitations of their equipment and the even greater limitations of their training and doctrine a certain inferiority complex was developed by Commonwealth tank troops in the first half of the war.

Then came the Russian invasion and the rude shock of the T-34/76 (and the KV-1) to the Panzerwaffe. They designed tank killers to take these monsters on in the the Tiger and Panther, while America produced and supplied the Sherman as a counter to the Pzkw III (greatly superior) and Pzkw IV (slightly superior) but not a ideal tank killer when it came to Germany's "big cats". It was however a ideal design to take Germany's panzer doctrine and perfect it (as much as was possible), a tank designed to win battles, not tank duels.

For a all too brief time British tankers thought they finally had a even to good chance (around El Alamein) but the first sighting of Tigers in Tunisia and then later Italy shattered this as they had little perception of armored warfare in the East and its affect upon German tank design.

It is the lot of common soldiers to believe they are somehow always being 'screwed' by politicians back home enamored with bean counting (often true) than the welfare of the guys on the pointy end. Truth is over all a Allied tanker had better chance of surviving the war with all his bits intact than a German one considering all the threats and hazards Panzertruppen endured.

 

The situation was made worse by the UK's reliance on the 2 lb gun (37mm) as both the III and IV's were generally proof from them except for close range.

The 2 pounder was nominally a 40mm and capable of penetrating 40mm out to 500 yds (and some sources say 1000yds) easily able to defeat the MKIII and IV's 30mm armour in France 1940. This was with a standard AP round. At the range of 500 yds the German 37mm in the MKIII could penetrate about 29mm. The 75mm L/24 was capable of penetrating about 40mm at 500 yds and 35mm at 1000 so comparable but slightly worse than the 2pdr. The German weapons were perfectly adequate to fight the British Cruisers and light tanks but unable to deal with the Matilda II and not great against the Matilda I (which was more numerous).

People may tell you the UK's tanks were woefully inadequate compared to the Panzers but in reality the Brits in 1940 were perfectly adequate to fight the Panzer Divisions. Now the way we used them that's a different story and how the German Army was able to defeat the Allies in 1940.

 

The UK never at any time lagged behind in the AT gun development stakes. The 2pdr, 6pdr & 17pdr were always up to the AT job they were designed for and were equal to all their German counterparts.
Too much is made of the claimed German tank 'superiority' and the truth is that unless the panzers were better by a factor of say x5 then the culmulative effect of any advantages they enjoyed had no real impact.

 

The panzer IV had initially about the sane role the British "support" tanks with the 3" howitzer, until the 1942 models, the Pz III was heavier then the Pz IV calling one a heavy and the other a medium makes no sense. The "big cats" were more than a match 1 vs 1 for most late war allied tanks but this is not surprising as they weighted a lot more (twice as much in ta case of the Tiger II).
The T 34/76 was not designed with tank fighting as a priority, the F 34 gun was not the best AT weapon the USSR had at the time but proved more than enough against 1941 panzers so the specialized 57mm AT variant was discontinued in favour of the 76mm that was a more balanced weapon roughly comparable to the US M3 in performance. When the Germans began upgrading tank armour beyond the capability of the F34 it was replaced by an 85mm of roughly similar performance to the German 88/56 of the Tiger I, that was still a much more balanced design the German 75/70 or 88/71 or the British 2lb, 6lb and 17lb where HE capability was a "second thought".

 

Tank - and anti-tank gun - design reflects the doctrine of the particular army which uses those tanks and guns. So, a continental army like the Germans' was much more aware of the need for rapid breakthrough and exploitation, than a colonial police force such as the Brits developed. The Cavalry still wanted horses (but Cruiser tanks were the next-best thing). The Artillery controlled all guns fitted into tanks - so even heavy Infantry tanks were comparatively lightly-armed.
This would have been addressed had the BEF not lost most of its heavy equipment in France in 1940. Development of the excellent 6pdr - and even better 17pdr - was delayed by the need to get any guns at all into service. So the 2pdr soldiered on. One argument runs, that Britain should have made more use of the superb 3.7" HAA gun as an anti-tank weapon. Well, the gun and carriage weighed ~8 tons, compared to ~3 tons for the comparable 88mm Flak 18. It was also built as a high-angle weapon, and the recuperator gear and mount were not stressed for LA shooting. Lastly, it had no direct-fire sighting system: it was slaved to a predictor system for early warning of air threats. Trying to get those guns out of the hands of the AA crews around London in 1940-42 was next to impossible.
That said - early German armoured forces were made up mostly of the small PzKpfW II with a 20mm cannon for main armament. In Poland and France, these were supplemented by Skoda-built PzKpfW 38(T) light tanks from captured Czech stocks. The standard German tank gun was then 37mm in calibre. So the Allies in France were not particularly outgunned - simply outmanoeuvred and outfought.

Cheers,
Cliff

 

If you read any of the reports that the British compiled on their tanks, you will see that their number one concern, almost to the exclusion of all others, was reliability. Indeed, their reports generally put the word RELIABILITY in capital letters, and woe betide any vehicle that didn't have sufficient RELIABILITY.

Thus, even tanks such as the M3 Stuart, whose fighting power wasn't particularly impressive, were very popular on account of their RELIABILITY. The Crusader was unpopular exclusively because of its lack of RELIABILITY. A reliable tank with weak armament was seen as a good tank with flaws. An unreliable tank with strong armament would have been seen as a bad tank with compensations.

The standards expected by the British Army for RELIABILITY were also extremely high, and so the reputation that British tanks have for poor RELIABILITY mid-war needs to be put in that context. There were plenty of other nation's tanks that would not have passed the severe 3000-mile cross-country test that saw the Centaur excluded from battle, for example.

The debate about guns is secondary and comparatively minor by comparison, but the nub is that British guns were generally excellent, but the ammunition during the early part of the war was under-developed and not always fit for purpose.