Well I guess it really comes down to what people think and what side your on. Im getting what I was hoping for lots of you bringing your thoughts to the table and it makes for good reading(I think). I see both sides to this however it seems to me it wasn’t so much the tank itself it was the fact that they made so many of them and the Germans had no answer. Russian Commanders were willing to sacrifice as may tanks and men as they had to too push out the Germans out…sad really. I have no doubt the T-34 was a good tank but best tank ever? Hard to say. What I know about armor compared to a lot you is very limited but I have to say that the (Im taking a risk here) Abrams is the best Tank ever built.
THE SHOW GOT IT WRONG!!! I’m kidding doesn’t matter what I think there all number one in there own way.
I think the “Easy 8” was a good tank. Reliable, wide tracked, reasonable gun, well made. There were trials to put a 90mm on an M4 but the M36B1 was the only project compleated. Further developement was halted in favor of the M26. The Easy 8 with a 90 would, I think, be a better tank than the T35/85. If you considered it against the panther it was more reliable if slightly under armored. Reliability is critical if you consider mechanical losses were often greater than combat losses.
I should clarify. I really don’t mean to say that the Sherman was the best tank in the world in its day. It was anything but. Considering that the T34 was actually designed and operating before the Sherman and both had similar, long service careers, I would consider it (the T34) superior to the Sherman in most every way. My point was that the Sherman wasn’t the total junk that is it so often called. Not perfect, but maybe not junk. Thin armor, poorly protected ammunition storage, poor flotation, a mediocre gun…all not good. But ease of manufacture, reliability, ease of repair, all good. There’s a reason there were so many Shermans around…
And it is good to see others’ opinions. This particular topic always brings out a few.
I feel I gotta chime in on this one.— the t-34/85 is probably my personal ‘favorite’ tank, for no special reason at all,and many I won’t go into now. I just feel that way. However, let me share something written by Robert Michulec and Miroslaw Zientarzewski, the authors of ’ T-34 Mythical Weapon’ — they are to the T-34 what Hunnicut is to the Sherman and Jentz and Doyle are to Panzers–
“The T-34 was a badly designed tank, manufactured from inferior materials under terrible conditions. It’s fighting and traction abilities were not as great as generally written. It was highly vulnerable to mechanical malfunctions,and the way it was employed tactically was one big misunderstanding. It was possible only after the war to create the high quality T-34 that we now know.”
my personal opinion is ‘better or best’ can fall into to many catagories and different types of number crunching–just thought I’d give some food for thought–I also have seen the History channel ‘top ten tanks’ and on alot of points, based on thier reasoning, I tend to agree, but we all know on the battlefield, no T-34/85 is gonna beat an M1a2 abrams-- you just have to stay within the context of the reasoning--------thanks, tread[8D]
Hi, I see a lot of different opinions expressed here so I thought I’d chime in with my own .02 cents worth.
T34 either 76mm or 85mm–overall not bad. My understanding of production quality was that vehicles built before Barbarossa were the equal of most countries tanks but the need to gear up for mass production caused some lowering of quality. Tactics were very bad but greatly improved as the war went on.
PZKPFW IV up to F version–Probably average but with outstanding tactics and crew training
M4 Sherman equal to the Panzer IV until the F version–good crew training, good reliability, extremely flawed armored doctrine (the evidence here is that the Tank Destroyer command was abolished as soon as the shooting stopped).
As for modern armor–we should have fielded the Pershing and phased out the Sherman. Politics and high ranking foolishness played a part. Hell, even the Sherman could have been had with diesel power plants which would have greatly reduced the firetrap syndrome. The Marines used diesel shermans as did the Russians. The argument here was that it would be impossible to supply diesel fuel and gasoline to our tanks and trucks. Something the Russians had no problems with given the state of the Russian supply system and roads.
M1A1/A2 Abrams-definately top dog with the Leopard and Chally II right up there. The Russian armor like T-72/T-80 etc. might be right up there but what do we know of current Russian training standards? If training is still unchanged (and theres no reason to believe its improved) most NATO tank crews like US/Brit/German/French/Dutch etc can probably prevail. The standards of training and gunnery are still pretty damn good. Frankly if ya look at most western armor like the LeClerc, or the Japanese Type 90 etc. they all pretty mucch look alike and are probably all equipped in a similar manner. I agree that those TV shows are simply a means to profile 10 or more different weapons systems. If you really pay close attention to the narration on these things you may hear some really bizzare factual errors too. Just thought I’d throw in my small contribution. Rick “the ancient mariner” Martin
that’s not true. T-34 isn’t just a quantity tank, it was well designed and very innovative for the time. Before the war, germany send their II, III and IV prototype to russia for evaluations, and russian thought the germans were hiding their good stuff from them.
T-34 was years ahead of german tanks
Panzer IV was total sh*t of a tank, apart from the accidental “module” idea.
IIIs were supposed to deal with tanks, and IV against infantry. Neither worked so the system was a total failure. Most crew casaulty of Pz.IV came from soviet PTRD! In fact, PTRD rounds would go through the pz.IV hull and exit out of the other side. Its all around defense was simply inadequate for its purpose, so german had to install schewizen very early on, which still wasn’t enough.
On other hand, a lot of the T-34 that went into battle weren’t even fully equiped. Russian were rolling them into battlefield without even gun sights. It’s pointless to compare them against german equipments that were constantly modified and upgraded.
you thoughts are interesting. But as the war wound down to a slow pace the panther as well as the Tigers were really in a defensive mode. The vast majority of German armor lost on the Western front were from the air. The best mass produced tank the Allies used on the Western Front was probably the “firefly”, and it was more or less an equal at best. Big movements in the West were into areas that the Germans had pulled out of to setup a new defense. If the “Western Blitzkrieg” had of happened the Allies would have been in Berlin six months ahead of the Russians!
It’s been posted more than once here that what made the Sherman better than the T-34 in Korea was the better trained crews; probably so. But the question evolved around which piece of equipment was better, and I left the crews out of the picture on purpose. With that added the Germans were easilly the best. Still after a six month stint of OJT training on a front any of the surviving tank crews had to be good. When I look at a piece of equipment I tend to take it apart in my head (after all it’s all bearings, shafts & gears). This is why I felt the Pershing and the British counterpart (I get the Centureon & Chieftan mixed up all the time) were by far the best Allied piece of equipment on the Western Front. Yet had little if any real impact in the war. On the otherhand the JS-2 & JS-3 did. But lets say the Germans had not fielded the Panther, but instead did a huge upgrade on the MK IV. What do you think the end results would have been? Berlin well before Christmass for sure!
I never thought there would be so many people adding there thoughts to what I was asking. Now… I never meant to imply that the T-34 wasn’t a world beater in it day. And I can see that there are two camps here one for and one against. But I guess I just didn’t like the fact the one thing that kept the Abrams from the top spot because was it has nobody to fight? Lame reason if you ask me. And after reading everything that’s been said there is just to many “WHAT IF’S” out there. So I guess you all answered my question about the T-34.
Best tank of WW II?..May have been.
Best pure tank ever built?..No real way to answer, but I say no the Abrams is the best pure tank ever built, but not by much.
Once again the reading has been fantastic and I thank you.
Ok now lets tackle the top ten Fighters? P-51…I’m just kidding !!! just kidding!!!
Hi Gary: good discussion here. I’m not sure about the statement that the majority of tank losses on the W Front were from aircraft. I know the bloated claims by the pilots but I seem to recall (and this is only from memory) that while useful, the majority of air-tank kills was overstated.
The Firefly was an effective tank-vs-tank weapon to be sure. However this goes back to how one defines “best”. Ask a tanker and he might say survivability (Tiger I probably wins this race), ask a Lt General and he’s say mobility (Shermans & T-34s). Ask a historian or modeller and you’ll get all sorts of answers (definitely DON’T ask a TV Show producer! They know squat!)
Also, I wasn’t being faceteous about the Western Blitzkreig. The US Cobra op and Lorraine campaigns were monumental in the scope and territory won. The US victory Lorraine made 1940 German panzer columns look like mule trains. France collapsed like a house of cards and 100000s of prisoners and material were captured and destroyed. Of course it ground to a halt at the Siegfried line but know that the Lorraine campaign was a contested battle. At least until the Sherman columns showed up 30 miles behind the German MLR, shooting up supply depots, railheads and replacement troop concentrations. Get Zaloga’s or Albin Irzyk’s book about these. Quite interesting and rarely discussed in modelling circles, it seems. Irzyk’s 4AD plunges into German lines weren’t matched in terms of distance covered until the spearheads into Bhagdad to topple Hussein’s regime.
I had to laugh at this comment–it’s the same with “Top Guitarist” pollls, when you see, like, Kirk Hammet of Metallica as the “best guitarist” or some guy from the band who just had the latest, most popular FM radio ballad hit. People vote all over the place in thses kinda polls, and usually vote personality, song, and loyalty to band–very few people have any appreciation of technical ability and what really constitutes a good “readig” of the song and the best “feel” available to a player from a teoretical point of view.
Bottom line–people vote their emotions more often than not. .
Agreed, this is one of those things where opinion will factor in heavily. One thing about the T-34 though, everybody is comparing it to Tigers and Panthers. When the T-34 first made its appearance on the battlefield, it was FAR superior to the tanks it was facing (Pz II 20mm, PzIII 37 and 50mm, and PzIV w/low velocity 75mm, Pz38(t)37mm). It had better speed, a better gun, and better armor than all of these. The only thing that saved the Germans was that for the first year of the war was the Russian armor doctrine, the T-34s (and KVs) were dispersed throughout the front, similar to the French the year before. The Germans had better tactics (including radios in all their AFVs at this time), which enabled them to effectively coordinate to swarm and kill the T-34s from the sides and rear. The Tigers and Panthers were dominant when they finally appeared, but that dominance quickly disappeared once the IS-2s and T-34/85s showed up, and they never were available in sufficient numbers to make a big impact, with a few exceptions such as Kharkov.
As for the Western front, I’ve read that something like 80-85% of all German tank losses were due to aircraft and artillery. Like all stats, I’m not sure how true this is, but seems to follow with the US doctrine of not trying to overwhelm a strong point with ground troops, but rather once discovering a strong point, heavily saturating it with air and artillery attacks, and then mopping up the remnants with the ground pounders. Saves a lot more lives (for the attackers).
Doog, everybody knows the best guitarist in the world is Skwisgaar Skwigelf. [:P]
I agree with all of the above except the assertion that Tigers and Panthers made an impact at Kharkov…there were very few (a couple of companies) Tiger I’s at Kharkov and they saw limited action. Panthers were not fielded until July of '43 (Khharkov was Feb/Mar '43)…The major innovation in German tanks at Kharkov was the Mk IVG…Mk III’s were still the German armor mainstay until Kursk…superior German field operations won the 3rd battle of Kharkov…
You are right MR, no Panthers at Kharkov. I just meant that battle was the first time those types of tank saw combat in any significant numbers, and that was after almost two years of fighting against the T-34s.
I was of the understanding that the Tigers of the 503rd sPzAbt played a significant role in the destruction of Mobile Group Popov?
In this thread we seem to be mixing two criteria, tactical effectiveness vs. strategic employment/production. I think the tv show had a combination of factors for all the tanks. Regardless, it was entertaining to watch.
Of course the T34 was the best tank, Stalin said so and if they wanted to live that was the official line. Do you know what the Soviet tankers called the great and powerful T-34?
Matchbox and Lighter, why because they caught fire like crazy. Sound familiar to Tommy Lighter or Ronson (lights the first time everytime)? Tanks are full of ammo and fuel which burn well. The T34 was built in huge numbers but it was also destroyed in huge numbers, just like the M4, only difference was bitching about it got you a quick reassignment to the penal battalions.
When equipped with the good AP ammo the 76mm on the M4 was a better gun than the Soviet 85mm gun, its more accurate and has better penetration. Unfortunately the M4 was at a low priority for this ammo until 1945 because it went to the tank destroyers first. The M4 is more reliable and has greatly superior targeting and crew communications equipment.
The M4 was actually quite well liked until D-Day when it had to fight in some of the worst tank country in the world, and on the offensive. In North Africa and Italy the M4 did quite well even against Tiger’s and Panthers.
In Korea the M4 actually had a better kill rate against the T34 than even the “superior” M26, and while you can point to the North Korean and Chinese crews, the US crews were not exactly crack troops either. If you read up on the Korean war you will find with the exception of the USMC it was not a high point in American Military prowess.
The T34 is a good tank, but these lists that put the M4 near the bottom and the T34 at the top are way off. The two tanks are actually quite similar in ability something that their amazingly long service life has shown, how many other tanks have been in wide use for 40+ years. The M4 had the misfortune of poor tactical use (TD corps) and terrible ground to fight on, the T34 had the benefit of a propaganda machine that crushed any disent and good tank country.
The statement I made about the Allied aircraft being the real tank buster was gleaned from many statements in many history books. Many times the Allied tank columns would just pull back and let the bombers carpet bomb the German armored columns. Also the Typhoon that couldn’t turned out tobe be one of the best tank busters of WWII. probably a much better weapon than the JU87 or HE129. Why do you think the Germans did the add on armor to the turret tops? The tops of virtually all WWII armor was the weak spot, and really dosn’t seem to mater which brand it was.
This wide open tooth & nail thread (don’t you just love it?) has really peaked my interest in just what really was going on out there. I think we’ve all listened to the interviews of various tank crew men, and what they liked about the equipment the otherguys had, as well as what they didn’t like about it. I’ve already made up my mind about a few things (some’s not gonna like it), but I also try to take out the “history is written by the victors” thing in my thoughts. Lately I’ve been able to watch a good bit of film footage from the Eastern front taken from both sides. One thing I picked up on right away was the basic tactics the Russians used, and is still very similar to what we use to this day. But on the Western front things are completely different, and hard to tell just what’s going on. Everything seems to be closed into a small area, but still very intense. Shots were as a rule much close in range with exchanges being much shorter. Still the results in the end come out the same; the Allies won. Actually the only reason the Allies won was because of mass production in every field of equipment. Not always because we had the biggest and the baddest piece of equipment.
