Best Tank of WW2??????

1. The t-34 has much wider tracks than the sherman, so It has better off-road performance

2. The U.S. built its tanks at modified car factories. And the U.S. had more tank-manufacturing plants than the russians, and the U.S. factories weren't getting bombed. Yet, the soviets managed to make 3,000 more t-34s than shermans. THe t-34 is cheaper than a sherman (the t-34 was crude and lacked many features the sherman had, and had very sloppy welding jobs), and it was simpler to manufacture by less-experiered or skilled workers.

3. I never said the crews of the T-34 had a higher chance of escaping. If one compares the t-34-85 to an un-upgrades sherman or an upgunned sherman to a t-34-76 then this might change). I said than in the sherman, the crews had a low chance of escaping. Same goes for the t-34. The only country the made tanks that were easy to eccape from is germany, since most of there tanks have 3 hatches in the turret and 2 or 3 in the hull.

 

The T-34 has lower ground pressure. That is true. That gives it better flotation on soft ground. But, there is alot more to the automotive performance of a vehicle than that. For example, the T-34 uses the very bouncy Christie vertical spring suspension. The US uses the much more energy efficent (in terms of asorption of that is) volute spring method. While not as good as a torsion bar, the volute spring gives a better ride with less bounce than a Christie suspension does. This translates into a smoother cross country ride and higher achievable speeds over rough ground.
The use of rubber bushed tracks lowers rolling resistance over the solid steel ones the Russians use. This coupled with a far more efficent transmission system gives a better power ratio at the final drive for the Sherman giving it better acceleration and more tractive power.
The steel track is better in very cold weather and does give a better grip on steep grades. Chevrons or cleats on the rubber bushed track make them about equal in that respect.
The T-34 does have the advantage of being able to pivot turn (zero radius) something the Sherman can't do.
Overall, the T-34's off road advantages are not vastly significant and its operational disadvantages are.

Not true. The Detroit Tank Arsenal and Grand Banc Tank Arsenal were specifically built to manufacure tanks. The other plants that built Shermans were:

Baldwin Locomotive Works
American Locomotive Company
Federal Machine and Welder Co.
Pullman Standard Car Co.
Pressed Steel Car Co.
Ford Motor Corp.
Lima Locomotive Works
Pacific Car and Foundry
Montreal Locomotive Works

As you can see, Shermans were built almost entirely by railroad manufacturers who had the facilities to build heavy vehicles just as Henschel in Germany did for example (Their Tiger factory was right next to the locomotive shed and factory). Ford built just 1690 tanks, a tiny fraction of the total.
Russian factories building T-34 tanks like the massive Tankograd plant in the Urals wasn't being bombed either. In fact, the only tank plant I know of that was bombed to any effect was the State Motor Vehicle Plant #1 Molotov at Gorki. The Luftwaffe erroniously thought this was the Soviet's main T-34 plant and raided it about a dozen times with between 100 and 200 bombers each time. While their attacks did severely reduce the plant's production it was of the T60 and T70 light tanks it produced not T-34s. They never bombed the Armaments Factory 112 Krasnoye Somorov nearby that did produce about 250 T-34 per month.
In fact, both German intelligence on Soviet targets and their damage assessment were usually grossly wrong. They often bombed targets of little value leaving ones of great value nearby untouched. Their assessments on damage were usually greatly inflated.

I doubt that you could find any verification of your opinion. With the advent of wet storage and applicae armor (and modified ammunition bins) the Sherman proved more survivable than German tanks simply because it had less propensity to burn or explode after those mods were made.

 

Wet storage drastically decreased the percentages of shermans that brewed up when hit. Before wet storage, shermans would brew up 90% of the time. with wet storage, it was only 15%. However, most sherman tanks did not have it. The reason the sherman would brew up so often is it has very poor ammunition placement. Rounds are stored in the side sponsons above the tracks, and were very vulnerable to being hit. Many rounds were also stored in the turret, which is why there are many pictures of shermans with there turrets blown off, German tanks (especially the late ones), had much better ammunition placement. Late model king tigers almost never brewed up because they did not store any rounds in the turret (early ones did, but after an unfortunate accident were a group of tigers were ambushed and destroyed by some t-34s due to there turret ammunition cooking off, they stopped storing rounds in the turret), and instead stored them in an armored compartment underneath the turret and inside the heavily armored drivers compartment. Also considering that king tigers have many escape hatches (including a very large one to the rear of the turret), the crew is relatively spaced out (due to its enormous interior size), king tigers were the best tank of the war in terms of crew survivability.

 

T34 obviously. to me numbers make it the best. thats why the cold war scared me so much. hundreds of thousands of t54-55 and up against a few "great" NATO tanks. they would swarm on a panther or tiger and beat it with numbers. so if they fought NATO wouldn't they do the same and be successful again?
i know "what ifs" are not allowd.

 

i kind of feel late to the party here cause im new, all original thread topics have been discussed and have derailed and im just trying to play catch up as the forum speeds ahead with out me. i feel overwhelmed

 

Best tank of the war?

Well, that would be the one that contained the most beer.....

Seriously, though, the best tank was the one that had the best crew survival chance once it had been hit. Bailing out of a tank in a 'brew up' could be rather uncomfortable, so my money goes to the one that did not burst into flames at the slightest provocation, and had the maximum possible egressing ability for it's crew.

You can always get into another tank later....getting out of the damned thing in one piece and without leaving 80% of your skin behind would have to rate highest of all with the poor buggers that had to use it.

 

As for the M-4 not exploding easily, American crews used to refer to it as the RONSON...

"Lights first time EVERY time"

oops...somebody already posted this...oh well

 

SSDasReich;.

Hello Das Reich,

this thread is about best Tank of WW2 - So leave it to the Sherman/T-34 and Comet boys to slug it out. The winner shall then face the best Panzer of WW2 such as a Panther or King Tiger - on a 1:1, based on the criterias that selected/determined the best Tank of WW2, that is going to be fun.

Regards
Kruska

 

You better go back an look at how later German tanks (and for that matter JagdPanzer) had their ammunition stowed. Some examples:

Your vaulted Tiger II: Twenty-two (22) rounds were stored in the rear of the turret in racks on either side of the rear loading hatch (that hatch is provided primarily to make reloading ammunition easier by the way not particularly as an escape or entry hatch). The remaining 44 rounds were all stored along the upper hull sides of the tank in groups of 6 to 8 stretching from the dirver / assistant driver position all the way to the engine compartment firewall. Unlike British or US tanks the shells were also just placed in wooden racks without any additional enclosure.

The Jadgtiger is worse. It has ammunition stored all the way up both sides of the fighting compartment. The rounds alternate between shot / shells and powder casings. As the later are essentially open faced they represent a massive fire and explosion threat to the vehicle.

JgPz IV? All the rounds are in racks on each side of the superstructure.

Panther? Shells are stored on both sponsons in the upper hull in groups of mostly 9. There are additional bins with shells stored upright completely surrounding the turret. Sponson storage is increased to 12 round groups in the G model.

Basically, the Germans stored their ammunition in their tanks in much the same places the British or Americans did. Ammunition fires were just as common on their vehicles as on Allied ones. With the advent of Wet storage, the Sherman actually became on of the safest tanks in terms of ammunition fires and catastrophic explosions.

The bottom line is that the Sherman explodes everytime tale is just that, a myth.

 

Actually from what I've read some of the above in particular logs and spaced plates may have made matters worse as far as HEAT rounds are concerned.

Wider tracks do not insure better off-road performance. They may help in some terreigns but that's a long way from guaranteeing it.

In some cases but they also built a lot of those factgories from scratch.

In January 1940 how many tank plants did the Soviets have? How many did the US have? How about January 1941? What percentage of the Soviet tank factories were getting bombed?

The US could have built more Shermans they chose not to. As for cheaper it's really hard to tell. Indeed it's not even clear it's a meaningful question. For instance it may have been built by less skilled workers but how many?

The problem with this is that US and German tanks show about the same number of fatalities per tank knocked out. This does not support German tanks being more difficult to escape from. I'll see if I can find the stats again so we know for sure.

 

Source please. Do you have a similar number for German tanks?

Again source please.

Source please.

 

How'd that work out in the Arab - Israeli wars? In fact, since WW 2 no Soviet trained and equipped tank unit has won a major (battalion sized and up) tank battle against a Western trained and equipped one anywhere on the planet. I'd put my money on NATO given those odds.

 

Hello T.A.G.

AFAIK not quite. There was a battle between Iranian (Western trained) Chieftains/M60's and Iraqi (Russian trained) T-62's - the tank battle at Susangerd in January 1981. About 50 Iraqi and about 140 Iranian tanks destroyed. the Iranians had attacked with about 400 tanks and had to withdraw.
About 80 of the destroyed Iranian tanks were the far superior Chieftains the others M60's.
They fell victim mainly due to the Iraqis using APFSDS ammo.

But anyway, during my Bundeswehr time in the 80's I never believed the bull.. about Russia's conventional superiority - I did however receive some disciplinary actions due to my forwardings and the war industry could continue to make big bucks.

Allright guys, sorry for the excursion in modern times - back to the thread.

Regards
Kruska

 

Lat time I checked the King Tiger was a tank. And I just mentioned it. Im not comparing it to the sherman or t-34.

I said late model king tigers. The early models stored 22 rounds in the turret, but after a gruop of KT's were destroyed when there turret ammunition explodes, they discontinued this. The rest 60 or so rounds where stored in armored compartments in the sponson.



This model does not show it but crews would also store extra rounds i the bottom of the hull and in the driver and radio operator compartment.

Do you have the number of fatalities per tank knocked out for both sides? do you have it for specific tanks? And the t-34 is slightly cheaper (by a few thousand rubles). That is because it lacks many of the interior features the sherman has, such as a turret basket, an an air filter, periscopes and so fourth. It also has a much cruder sight for its gun.

 

It seems sensible to look at the actual reasons these tales of excessive brewing up of allied machines may be found.

Firstly, as TA says, it's hardly a unique phenomenom on either side. Penetrated AFVs will often burn. Something that people seem to ignore when eager to prove the superiority of German designs, or lay yet more lightly considered criticism on the M4 to justify their wunderwaffen theories.

Another consideration in this tired old debate that's not so often brought up is the nature of ammunition.
Germany placed larger explosive charges in the majority of their AT shells.
Where the allies used explosive AT shot it generally had less of a charge inside it, or they used solid shot.
Is it not logical to draw the conclusion that a larger explosive charge going off after breaking through armour will naturally lead to a little more instantaneous brewing up?



But technical approaches are never going to answer any query like this alone. They may assist, but they'll always be somewhat partial, to the detriment of other real world factors and a real attempt to get a clearer understanding.

Eg. On stowage - Whether wet stowed, safely in bins, under the floor, in the sponsons or not, ammunition will inevitably be loose or exposed in the fighting compartment. No matter how often crews were told to be more careful it appears that after-action analysis reveals that this was often the case. Personal accounts also support this. So the danger of cordite flash and fire was always there. No matter what the vehicle's intrinsic design - it was operated by human beings.
(It could even be speculated that this was behind the thinking in removing bins altogether from Panthers. Why waste material when the bins would likely be hanging open in battle anyway.)

Something else that may well contribute to the imbalance of reports of brewing up could (once again) spring from the nature of the post D-Day fighting in Western Europe (and that's the period that I'd guess the broad mass of visitors here base many of their assumptions and much of their reading on). The army attacking against well placed HV guns will lose more tanks to penetration in a shorter period of time. Penetrated tanks often burn. Therefore more alarming accounts of burning tanks from that attacking side enter the 'accepted' history?

It's all a million shades of grey, which is why these 'best' threads can become so cyclic and unsatisfying. They don't really allow for wider considerations, and tend to end up as direct and not entirely convincing purely technical comparisons.

~A

 

Soviet armor losses was much heavier. More were needed to just replace the destroyed tanks.

And almost none of them ever brewed up?

Yep. Typically a Pz. III, Pz. IV and M4 tank carried 100+ rounds in all crooks and crannies. It was the standard policy of the Third Army to carry as much ammunition as it was possible to keep up tempo high, even if it represented a fire hazard.

 

I'm looking for it. It was for specific tanks in specfic areas. Included US, British, German, and Soviet I beleive. It's been posted on internet forums a number of times. I don't remember the actual source. Will post it when and if I find it.

Crude doesn't always imply cheap and converting rubles to dollars is very problematic. Especially since the ruble wasn't a convertable currency for a long time. Indeed even converting RM to dollars is somewhat problematic.


**** edit for ***
This thread has some info from the allied side and mentions a couple of sources:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=159963&p=1411781&hilit=tank+crew+killed#p1411781
This thread references what sounds like a very useful reference:
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=31661
Here's a reference at the national archives:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...ails.asp?CATID=4009864&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5
none of which has the info I've seen ....

Now this thread has some of the info.
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapon...846-sherman-tank-what-amazing-vehicle-30.html

 

I gotta say I agree fully with von poop.

Shermans didn't burn any easier than most other tanks, but Sherman's were more often hit by rounds with an effective explosive filler than were German tanks. The explosive filler significantly increased the behind armour effect of the projectile, most of the time either causing the tank to emmidiately explode or light up with fire. Soviet tanks tended to explode emmidiately after being hit, where'as western allied tanks tended to burn more.

More'over wether a tank explodes or bursts into fire depends a lot on where the tank is hit, and the rate at which the ammunition storage was ignited.

 

In addition, US 75mm APCBC-HE's filler wasn't very effective at least during the Desert War and the Brits often substitute it with dead weight to increase AP performance... M4 isn't easier to light up, but the Germans had a huge array of weapons that can kill it.