Ok I have a question for you all? I was watching a show on the History Ch and Im sure you have all seen it. I was wondering if you all could enlighten me about something.
TOP TEN TANKS was the show I was watching and to my surprise the T-34 was considered by all the experts to be the top tank of all time. Now my problem with this is the fact that weren’t the German tanks better tanks? Also to put the T-34 ahead of the Abrams because no tank today other that our allies can match it I also find funny. The Abrams has fought and won as has the Brits tank so I cant see how there coming up with this fact? Manufacturing, numbers and tactics put aside what tank would you want to be in?
T-34 vs Panther one on one who wins?
T-34 vs Tiger I one on one who wins?
Sherman vs T-34 Im sure I know this one but?
Im sorry if Im wasting your time I was just wondering what all you experts thought? Also if this was brought up before I apologize for bringing it up again. Just looking to learn something .
I’ve seen their top-ten lists and it is more than what tank would win in a head-to-head fight. They take into account all factors such as innovation, influence on history, production run, etc…If it were simply which tank could win in any given fight that would be a whole different story (and rather boring)…IMO…the T-34 was a much better tank than I think you give it credit for. It was so good, in fact, that the Germans ALMOST copied it and put it into production themselves. In fact, the panther owes much of its shape and gun to the T-34’s influence. The Germans weren’t much into sloped armor until they saw the 34. The '44 version w/ the 85mm gun could knock out a Tiger at fairly long distances…
you didnt dis. anyone. the m1 totals are 8000 made almost half are still in service.it takes 4 trucks to support it.it never faced the t80 in able hands. t 34 totals over 55000. US made junk ,death traps.to go against ger. armor they needed5 to 1 to win.it takes mos. to learn an m1 .you could be driving a t34 in less than a week. some one should have been charged with a crime for putting those kids in the sherman
The T34 was a masterpiece.
A sturdy and simple design allowed high production numbers.
The platform could easily be adopted to specific roles.
The low tech execution made sure that the learning curve for new crews was held at a minimum.
I saw that show as well, and kinda got a good laugh out of it. But I’d have to put the T-34 in the top five for sure. The Panther was by far the best tank in WWII, and it was not without flaws in the design. Of course I’m gonna say the Abrams is the best tank in the world. But even it had a few flaws in the design that had to be fixed from the start.
I really don’t remember what all pieces of equipment were brought up, but I’ll try to remember as many as I can:
M1a2 without question is the beast to worry about, so I gotta put it atop of the heap.
The ChallangerII; pretty much an M1a1, but needs a better transmission and engine than what the crews are stuck with (note I’m not saying it needs a gas turbine)
Leopard, another really great piece of equipment that has the same built in flaw the Challanger has
T-72 & T-80; just a good all around tank (and they left it out like the two above!)
Pershing; about as good as the USA could have done in WWII
JS-2 (3) I think it’s a better tank than the Pershing or the Chiefton or Centurion, but the latter evolved into a better tank than the others later in life
Tiger I; fear factor alone has to put it right up there, and above the T-34
M-60; this tank in combat proved it’s worth, and is very reliable.
PKW IIIL; another really good piece of equipment for what it was designed to be. Much better than the M-3 or M5’s
PANTHER G; This would be number two or three on my list, or maybe a tie with a JS-2. Everything about it was evil, and everywhere it was at it brought fear. My first look at one virtually made the hair standup on the back of my neck!
I left out several of the tracks that they raved about in the TV show on purpose, and two or three were close misses.
the WWI tank? I see their point to a certain extent. But not even slightly close to what they thought
M-4a1, a cheaply produced tank, but very relaible. Left it out for the sake of the crew alone as it was a true fire trap
T-54/55/59; just because you made a bunch dosn’t make it a great piece of equipment
T-62/64; even the Russians didn’t like them
MK IV Panzers; F2 & later were better than most anything used on the western front till late (very late) in the war (Pershing). So I once again give it a near miss.
Tiger II; well it was big and very scarey. Could launch a Sherman’s turret like the Apollo Moon Rocket. But broke down often. Another close miss to the top ten
If your talking 76mm gunned T-34’s verses a Panther or Tiger; the results were a lot of wooden boxes being made to ship the crews back to Moscow. The Panther could engage at over five hundred yards further than the T-34 alone. A T-34/85mm was a much better tank, but still think the Panther would eat it’s lunch. Same thing could be said about the Tiger. The T-34 was a much better tank than the Sherman (even with the 105mm gun used in Korea). But if you add the Pershing to the equation you got a different ball game.
The panther was a shameless overweighted copy of T-34, and panthers had good record against western designs… Also, Russian had the technology available to produce T-54/55 during WWII (D-10T, T-44, 45, etc) yet they chose not to and stayed with T-34…
pound for pound, nothing even got close to T-34 during the war.
Gary(Squeakie): the T-34/85 was totally outclassed by M4A3 76mm HVSS tanks in Korea. You got that incorrect. I’m not saying the T-34/85 was a weak tank but the Sherman with a solid cannon and well trained crew, whupped the N Koreans. Also the 105mm armed Shermans in Korea were howitzer tanks (close support, not tank vs. tank weapons). 105mm Hi velocity Shermans were by the French, Israelis, Pakistanis – maybe some others.
I won’t get into it about how “terrible” the Shermans were. The fact is Allied armies paraded in Berlin and Rome and Tokyo in them. Don’t recall seeing any Panthers in London or Moscow (I love the Panther, too).
I wouldn’t take any of those Top Ten shows too seriously. Their criteria, scores, and overall rating are exceedingly arbitrary and not necessarily all that relevant. The main point of those shows is to try an give an interesting excuse to profile ten different weapons systems in an hour long TV show.
I continually see the arguement the the Sherman was a fire/deathtrap, and to a large extent it has merit. But imagine what German tanks would have looked like if they’d had to make a boat trip to another continent before they could be used? And look at how many Shermans plugged on from Normandy to VE Day. The T34 could be learned quickly, granted. But its gun optics were crappy, and the Russians had a relatively poorly educated population as compared to the US, so they HAD to dumb-down the operation of the tank’s systems. As Belton Cooper states in his “aptly”-named book 'DeathTraps", it was a stortage of trained crew as much as equipment disparity that contributed to high losses of Shermans. All considerations…
My main degrading of the Sherman was with a lack of armor and being a well known fire trap. The T-34 was just a good all around tank. Fairly fast and very good in cross country travel. But most all it wasn’t prone to being a ball of fire.
I’d say that mostly the reason the Americans dealt w/ the T-34 so well in North Korea was superior training and tactics more than hardware…you make a great point about who actually won the war; however there was no victory parade in Tokyo by the Americans–although your “metaphor” is on the money…
Supply and logistics is what eventually won the war…the Axis ran free and wild for 3 years only because we had our heads stuck in the sand and hoped against hope that war wouldn’t come, and when it did, we (the collective Allies, although Russia was fairly well-prepared) took a pasting until we caught up in production and then outpaced the Axis…
Patton forbade his M-4 crews to engage with a Panther as he said it took 5.2 Shermans to knock out one Panther. But the one thing the Sherman had on it’s side was shear numbers! Yet that still dosn’t make it a good tank. The Germans were the ones who made tank warfare a real think with many inovations that are later to become standard equipment for everybody. The main advantage the Germans had over the Allies was very simple; communications between tanks and whoever was in charge. They also were the ones who pioneered the use of “high Velocity guns.” I stand with my prior post.
you are exactly right! The high volume levels of production is what won the war. Not better equipment. I read once how many T-34’s were knocked out in WWII, and it was mind bogeling!
Ok I see theres going to be to sides to this. I can see that the T-34 was a simple design that worked. Now 50000 + were built vs 2000 tigers add 6000 Panthers. Didnt really became more of a numbers game? I understand the Sherman wasnt the best but is was built and then floated over to the fight. 6 to 1 odds are pretty good to make the T-34 look like a world beater.
The thing is, that WW2 tank battle weren’t one-on-one ‘knights jousting’ affairs. The Allies had the resources to provide the 5:1 superiority needed for Shermans to knock out Panthers and Tigers, and partly this was because the Sherman and T-34 were cheaper and easier to produce, and, especially in the case of the T-34, easier to learn to operate, than any vaguely comparable German tank. The T-34 also had the vast growth potential that the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II lacked.
Also, Soviet tank warfare doctrine was vastly better than Geman, especially as soon as the Germans were on the defensive. The Soviets and Western allies had far more reliable, and better protected, supply lines and repair/ maintenance facilities. The factories were way beyond German bomber range, while the German tank factories were well within Lancaster/ B-24/ B-17 range of Eastern England.
And - and this is the killer point - from Spring 1944 onwards, the Allies had air superiority over the battlefield! The T-34 regiments didn’t operate alone. Regiments of Il-2s flew overhead, with more regiments of fighters to protect them from any German fighters that got as far as the battlefield. Even more so on the Western Front. It took 5 Shermans to kill one Panther even where they were supported by P-47Ds and rocket-firing Typhoons, with late Spitfires, P-51Ds and P-47Ds flying top cover. Had the Germans had anything like an even fight in the air over the Western Front, things might well have been very different.
And there’s a final point - the crew. The T-34 was a fine tank. Crewed by soldiers of the Red Army, heroically defending ther Motherland, and then taking the fight to the Fascist Agressor, even more so. Crewed and maintained by semi-literate arab conscripts, fully aware of what the IDF could do, not so much.
‘Best Tank’ - or ‘best anything’ is never a simple matter, really.
To begin with, Korea had horrible terrain for armor manuvers. Only 2 paths on the sides of the peninsula were operable. There were very limited armor on armor action, even less when HVSS M4 were pitched against T-34 on fair grounds.
Then, you have the poorly trained (in terms of armor warfare) N.Korean troops, and Chinese that barely had any experience with tanks. They had IS-2 and IS-3 too, none of these made significant impact. Does that mean all russian tanks of that era were out classed?
You’re also comparing a modernized design with one that had not seen change since early WWII. It’s like using Magach 7C as example in a M48 - T-54 comparison.
The five to one ratio is too simplistic. One must consider the MISSION of the Allied armies in Western Europe. They had to punch into the German heartland as quickly as possible. They had their fiascos (Ardennes collapse, Caen & Market Garden) but they were extremely fortuotous and effective at Falaise, Cobra, the rest of the collapse of German held France and eventually into German territory.
Can you imagine any German tank accomplishing what US tank units did with the Lorraine campaign? US tanks had their own blitzkrieg.
German units were continually on the defensive, securing previosly held territory, and could shift their armor to hot spots as they saw fit. Of course the Western Allies (in their many Shermans and others) would suffer more casualties…
One note about Soviet air effectiveness. One veteran German tanker I know who fought for three years in the East said that Soviet air actions were very very rare for him. I interviewed him and it’s being reprinted in Boresight Magazine.
I think that is a huge point. I mean we all know how vulernable armor is without air cover. The Germans couldn’t move by day with Allied fighters roaming at will. Less of a problem on the Eastern Front, though an argument could be made for the Sturmoviks taking their toll of Panzers.
When an army has a 10:1 superiority in numbers, they can well afford the 5:1 loss ratio. The Panzer IV was, I think, I pretty close equal to the Sherman, but built in only 1:6 the number. It had a superior gun, better armor and was considered pretty reliable, but was no match for fighter-bombers or overwhelming numbers of Allied armor.
As stated earlier, think of the Werhmacht armed with Panthers and Tigers on the scale of the Allies and given air support. The war would undoubtedly lasted much longer.