Top 10 tanks of the war

Can you explain your dislike for the Sherman? I know a veteran who was a mechanic on the front and other tank veterans who favour the Sherman quite a bit. Could you elaborate on your harsh decisions as well as your addition to "Tank Destroyers" rather just tanks?

I find it weird how you have the biggest tanks on the list, that all had quite alot of mechanical unreliabilities as well.

Waiting a respone

-Hawk

 

1/IS2m
2/BT-7
3/T34/85
4/T34/76
5/PERSHING
6/panzer mk6 model 1
7/panzer mk5
8/panzer mk4 model with long 75mm hv gun
9/m3 grant/lee
10/char b.
cheers.

 

Exactly what tanks of the period weren't a Death Contraption (TM)?

The Lees I accpet, they were the first really decent tanks for the Brits in the desert, but how the Char B gets into a Top 10 list is a mistery to me

 

when i take a tank into account for list i think about tactical ability, which the sherman has none. it may have been a reliable tank, but that doesnt mean anything if you have thin armor and a reletivaly poor gun. and how could you not include jagdpanzers? theyre great. and wilts, did you know the russians called the m3 grant/lee a grave for seven brothers?

 

We havn't really included the Jadgpanthers because they are classified as "tank destroyers" not tanks.

 

You do realize that the Sherman's armor is actually just as thick and in many areas thicker than that on a Pz IV or T 34? Just as an interesting note, the Sherman actually has side and rear armor that equals that of a Panther tank. Of course, you did know that?
The gun is virtually a dead heat even in penetration with the British 6 pdr and the Soviet 76mm, as I'm sure you are aware? The US M3 75mm is also capable of indirect fire in the Sherman (unlike other tank designs) and has a really effective HE round as you no doubt know?
With the T23 turret and 76mm gun it is superior to the T34/85 and Pz IVG/H in virtually every aspect. The Russians thought enough of their lend-lease M4A2 76mm (wet) tanks to supply them to the 1st Guards Armored Corps and have them spearhead both Bagration and then the later crossing of the Vistual River and assault on Berlin. But, I know you are fully aware of those operations and the use of the Sherman in them.
The Lee/Grant served in early 1942 in the Western Desert with distinction as an interm solution to better tanks for the British. In the CBI it was a force to be reconned with. There it was far superior to any Japanese tank and made a great contribution to taking back Burma. Of course, you probably knew that too.

 

The main advantage the T-34/76 had over the Sherman was the diesel powerplant.

tom

 

Will you marry me?

 

Don't you love a tank that looks like it came from outer space? Well armoured, and alrighty gunned I will agree with Wilt's putting it on his personal list. Its also a personal favorite of mine so im very bias It did hurt the Germans when encountered I assume, but as of all French armor during the invasion of France, fell to better tactics, lack of tactical grouping (tanks were spread around the army??) communications (and radios I assume aswell). Yes I do like my Char, but I wish it did have a proper fitting in the French army and was used more appropriately. I hope that makes sense? Don't want to rabble like a idiot infront of the smarties

 

From an earlier posting I made on this board about the Char B1 bis:

As I see it, the Char B1 could best be described as a self propelled field fortification; an artillery bunker with a motor. The 75mm in the hull was fixed in train (no travese). Using it against anything other than a stationary target or as an artillery piece was difficult or impossible. As an antitank weapon it was useless.
Note, like its cousins in the Maginot line it was a very heavy piece for its size. It also had a pneumatic blow out to remove fumes from the tank like guns in the Maginot line did.
The driver of the tank was the gunner for this weapon having a bionocular sight for this purpose (in addition to a single view port for driving the tank). Obviously, driving and operating the gun were largely mutually exclusive functions.
A dedicated loader for the 75 was provided. This crew member had one function, select, fuze, and load the 75 in action. He had no other weapon (like a machinegun) to operate. He was provided no vision devices or other means to assist the tank in locating targets etc when not engaged in loading.
Up in the turret there was a single gunner also. Describing this crewman as the commander is something of a misnomer. He was far more a observer for the 75mm and when necessary could defend the tank using the 47mm and machinegun in the turret. Since he was the loader, gunner and, observer he had far too much to do to be efficent at any one of those tasks.
Last, there was a dedicated radio operator who like the loader had a single task to perform.
In design, the Char B1 also had an additional weakness. Its hull was bolted, yes, bolted together. Not riveted, bolted. This is a poor choice. The bolts represent a real hazard if hit; far more so than rivets. The bolts could easily be sheared off and ricochet around the inside of the vehicle. Also, they could work loose imparing the sturcturial stability of the vehicle. The side mounted radiator was also a big weak point as was the side mounted entry door.
If anything, the only really cutting edge technology in the Char B1 was the steering system using a regenerative hydraulic system to allow very fine turning movements of the vehicle (necessary to aim the 75mm).
French doctrine saw the Char B1 being used in support of infantry in literally the way described earlier....as a mobile bunker firing away with its 75mm and machineguns on enemy strongpoints. If an enemy tank were to appear the 47 could handle the problem. Mobility need only be sufficent to keep up with the walking infantry and cross a shell torn battlefield.
On the whole, it was an archaic throwback to WW 1, not the forward looking tank say the Pz III was.

 

Thanks for adding that, now taking what you read, perhaps the Char wasn't a great tank afterall, but it still held its place during the French doctrine. It was a tank in the wrong time.

 

yeah i knew what was correct, but not much of that was. the 76mm gun was in no way superior to that of a t-34/85, and is roughly on par with the mark IV. the sherman actually has slightly thicker side armor than the panther, but its front armor is much more thin, and its gun is quite inferior to that of a panther. but you knew all that. you must also be aware of the allied saying : if you want to kill a tiger, send out 5 shermans. one will come back. the shermans armor isnt thicker than the t-34/85 anywhere, but its side and rear armor are better than the mk IV.

 

Yes. I would love to see that myth debunked one again LOL.

 

Isn't it getting rather repetitive...
Ah well, everyone needs a hobby:


HH,

• The 'Five to one' thing is a myth with no factual basis whatsoever, in any campaign.
• No contemporary source refers to it.
• No army, no matter what a dreadful situation they may be in, would allow such a notion to enter their official (or even localised) doctrine as is so often claimed.
• Even a raw statistical analysis of the Normandy fighting immediately disproves the myth (Mkenny is likely your man for a clearer explanation of this), from Pallud to Buckley and all serious points in between you will find no justification for it.
• One of the most useful forms of contemporary documentation on the subject, the after-action reports by many different military organisations will also offer no confirmation
• For some reason people have picked it up and run with it, like so many myths of the Second War the very fact it is blindly repeated with such certainty so often, does not make it true.
• The hunt for the origin of the myth continues.

Herman, nobody wants to beat up on anybody too much but your assessments of vehicles are very 'wargamey', and holding forth so strongly on such a complex matter based purely on a vehicle's 'vital statistics' is standing on rapidly shifting sand rather than the firmer rock of what actually happened.


Two more pre-emptive points, as they inevitably come up when someone takes this 'angle'. They're not directly relevant to the above but they do seem to usually come in the same 'opinion package'.

• The Air Forces did not directly destroy the German armour in Normandy in the way so often claimed, they choked it, sowed confusion & fear, and denied much effective movement, but the actual physical execution of the Panzerwaffe was carried out by ground forces.
• Belton Cooper's book is very far from the be-all and end-all, it is a narrow focus by one man supported by a rather 'thin' historian that has become so 'populist' it seems to distort the historical record out of all proportion to it's worth.

Cheers,
Adam.

(With apologies for the repetition to all and sundry that are sick of the banging on regarding '5:1', (I'm bored with it too ) - but it does require scotching as it's become one of the most persistent and consistent distortions of the history of armour in WW2.)

 

Thanks Adam . Funny how some come here thinking they are the end all in knowledge about certain things. Then come to find out they are not. We all learn something here quite a bit. Yet some will persist in believeing in only what they want to believe regardless of the facts presented to them. Some subjects have been discussed Ad Nauseum on here and other sites. The old :deadhorse: syndrome LOL

 

The US 76mm gun penetrates 142mm at point blank range, 131 at 500 yds and, 110 at 1000.
The Soviet 85mm penetrates 123 point blank, 111 at 500 and 102 at 1000 yards.
The US HE round, while less effective than the 75mm is more effective than the 85mm by virtue of using better explosives and a much higher grade of steel in its casing. This results in better blast and fragimentation effects than the 85mm has.
As for armor, the Sherman has equal or better armor to that of either T34 type. This goes for every aspect of the vehicle.
By the way, the reason a Tiger has 80mm thick side armor, a Pz IV is 80+ mm thick in front, and a Panther's glacis is 80mm thick (actual plate thickness) is that an 80mm plate will defeat the Soviet 76mm gun at point blank range. That is, the 76mm cannot penetrate 80mm of armor except by sheer luck or repetitive hits.
However, the US 75mm M3 gun penetrates 91 mm at 500 yds making penetrations of any of these plates theoretically possible.

As for the Panther v. Sherman, I'm sure there are threads here and elsewhere that cover this in detail. The Sherman does have several advantages over the Panther. Probably the biggest is its faster and smoother turret rotation. This virtually ensures a Sherman gets the first shot in, all other things being equal.
This is a big advantage as the first one on target usually wins the fight.

The 5 on 1 quote is just dead wrong. Using a thought experiment: If a Tiger has a 100% chance of destroying a Sherman and a Sherman has a 10% chance of destroying the Tiger and, we put 2 Tigers against 10 Shermans (5 to 1 odds) we get:
First round: Tigers kill two Shermans one Tiger is destroyed. Second round: One Sherman is destroyed and there is a 80% chance the second Tiger is knocked out. Thrid round (if necessary): One Sherman is destroyed and the Tiger is knocked out.
That's just a head on head analysis. When you throw in maneuvering and all of the other effects on the battlefield two Tigers have a serious problem dealing at all with 10 Shermans.
Having numbers / quantity on your side is a huge advantage.

 

thanks for letting me know about the grant gardner,i never knew that.oh its not the char b fault if it not used right.cheers.

 

If I may quote George Bernard Shaw, "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Or Matthew 7:6: "...do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

the one thing i want to say to that is do your research slightly more carefully, and you could come up with some different information