T-34 Really that good??

[T-rex]

I metion that show once in another forum, but you must understand that there numbering the best in everything, not one specific task like anti tank or speed etc.

The sherman was a great tank indeed, very reliable, but it was easy picking for the panther strong gun, and better armor, but it was slow and had lots of mechanical problem that the T-34 didn’t had, it was almost the perfect tank for may reason.

First it was easy to build, no other tank has ever been more massively produce than the t-34, I think, and with the hightly industial soviets, they made them faster than the german could made there tanks.

Second, the T-34 was the first tank with inclined armor, untlike vertical armor, like the tiger, is took the whole blow of the shell straight on, but not the T-34, it deflected the shell causeing less damage than intended.

And thirth was a combinating of armada, speed and All terrain, this tank was perfect in almost everyway.

Well that was what I know of the T-34 for that documatery, but that was 60 years ago, the T-34 wouldn’t last a second againt a Abam.

[DURR]

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).

the sherms had a few good points but were still Somewhat of a junk tank, it was numbers only that made things really happen . just like in the insect world the sherms were the ants, on a one to one meet the and would be hopeless against a praying mantis but have 5-6 ants attack the mantis and yes 1/2 of them would die but by shear numbers the ants win

[squeakie]

I metion that show once in another forum, but you must understand that there numbering the best in everything, not one specific task like anti tank or speed etc.

The sherman was a great tank indeed, very reliable, but it was easy picking for the panther strong gun, and better armor, but it was slow and had lots of mechanical problem that the T-34 didn’t had, it was almost the perfect tank for may reason.

First it was easy to build, no other tank has ever been more massively produce than the t-34, I think, and with the hightly industial soviets, they made them faster than the german could made there tanks.

Second, the T-34 was the first tank with inclined armor, untlike vertical armor, like the tiger, is took the whole blow of the shell straight on, but not the T-34, it deflected the shell causeing less damage than intended.

And thirth was a combinating of armada, speed and All terrain, this tank was perfect in almost everyway.

Well that was what I know of the T-34 for that documatery, but that was 60 years ago, the T-34 wouldn’t last a second againt a Abam.

Actually they built about 5,000 more T54/T55 tanks than they built T-34s according to the TV. They also built a similar amount of M4s too (50K).

gary

[rios]

Second, the T-34 was the first tank with inclined armor, untlike vertical armor, like the tiger, is took the whole blow of the shell straight on, but not the T-34, it deflected the shell causeing less damage than intended.

The oblique angle increased LOS thickness for the penetrator to travel/defeat. Deflection became a problem only after high angle armor placements had been employed, like on M1 And even then, it’s not always about deflection. A more important issue is the yaw this angle created can cause a long rod penetrator to snap (which is how most ERA worked against AP)…

When AP rounds hit armor, the process is modeled with hydrodynamic principles, because the shot with such enormous energy behaved more like a fluid upon impact.

[Anonymous]

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).

the sherms had a few good points but were still Somewhat of a junk tank, it was numbers only that made things really happen . just like in the insect world the sherms were the ants, on a one to one meet the and would be hopeless against a praying mantis but have 5-6 ants attack the mantis and yes 1/2 of them would die but by shear numbers the ants win

Actually it takes a minumum of 35 ants to take down an average mantis…UNLESS, the ants have air-superiority…

[ps1scw]

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).

the sherms had a few good points but were still Somewhat of a junk tank, it was numbers only that made things really happen . just like in the insect world the sherms were the ants, on a one to one meet the and would be hopeless against a praying mantis but have 5-6 ants attack the mantis and yes 1/2 of them would die but by shear numbers the ants win

Actually it takes a minumum of 35 ants to take down an average mantis…UNLESS, the ants have air-superiority…

Flying ants are SOB’s!

[telsono]

Air superiority had an indirect effect upon armor more than a direct effect. More recent studies have shown this. They did destroy the soft skin vehicles that supported the armor, stripped the armor of infantry support and restricted where and when the armor could move, as well as casuing mobility damage. Mobility damage in fluid actions had the same effect as actually destroying the vehicle as the abandoning armor crews might destroy the disabled vehicle so that it didn’t fall into allied hands because there wasn’t the time or the support to repair the vehicle. Direct hits destroying tanks were not as common as the airmen would want you to think.

There are reports about air units claiming the destruction of the same group of German armor near Mortain four times! When in reality, an ambush by 3inch towed ATG’s did the job before the dawn. The fear of the Jabo’s was probably greater than their real threat. When the proximity fuse became available late in the winter of 1944, artillery had a better tool for indirect fire upon enemy armor and its supporting infantry.

What I am referring to more is tactical air, carpet bombing was more akin to a rolling saturation bombardment by heavy caliber guns, but less controllable.

Getting back to the question at hand. I see that both the M4 and tha T34 as weapons needed for their time. They were not the best, but they did the yeoman tasks assigned to them. The 75mm gun on the M4 was chosen not for its anti-tank values, but for the HE ability against infantry, in a way similar to the early Mk IV’s (pre F). The tank destroyers were supposed to deal with the enemy armor (bad doctrine). These two tanks filled the gap needed until better vehicles could come along. They were maybe not the best vehicles, but they were there and the crews had to learn how to use them.

Its interesting to note the the Russian T-50 light tank had better sloped armor than the T-34, but was hampered with an unproven diesel engine that never came through and a very complicated design. There is a story that two of them destroyed a Tiger. With the needs to move the factories, the easier to build T-60 and T-70’s won out.

Just my [2c]

Mike T.

[williamsfw28]

Although I feel the Mantis is a superior fighting unit and was far better trained the Ants Commanders were willing to sacrifice as many they needed to take down the Mantis. Plus I feel the history books have a somewhat byes opinion when it come to actual effectiveness of the ants air support. In effective numbers the Mantis would have dominated the battlefield.

Plus the Honey bees willingness to commit to day time attacks on the mantises industrial war machine played a big roll.

Just what I think

[telsono]

The Mantis gives up a strong position by requiring the sacriface of the male adult units to further production of new units. This reduces the number of readily available adult units.

Honeybees have a basic flaw as their main weapon is in effect a suicide weapon, once used, the unit is sacrifaced.

The Ant air units have a very limited duration in the air afterward they revert to ground units. Mass attacks by specialized soldier units is more effective than that by the smaller worker units.

The most effective air units are the wasps. A re-useable main weapon, plus the ability to subvert enemy units into production units for your own cause.

Mike T.

[Anonymous]

The Mantis gives up a strong position by requiring the sacriface of the male adult units to further production of new units. This reduces the number of readily available adult units.

Honeybees have a basic flaw as their main weapon is in effect a suicide weapon, once used, the unit is sacrifaced.

The Ant air units have a very limited duration in the air afterward they revert to ground units. Mass attacks by specialized soldier units is more effective than that by the smaller worker units.

The most effective air units are the wasps. A re-useable main weapon, plus the ability to subvert enemy units into production units for your own cause.

Mike T.

“The Ant air units have a very limited duration in the air afterward they revert to ground units. Mass attacks by specialized soldier units is more effective than that by the smaller worker units.” = Airborne units !

"Honeybees have a basic flaw as their main weapon is in effect a suicide weapon, once used, the unit is sacrifaced." = Kamikazies !!!

Of course the ratio of Ants to Mantis would be less if we were talking ARMY ANTS !!!

[williamsfw28]

I thought I read that because of the wasp’s late entry in to the conflict and in relatively small numbers they had very little affect on the overall outcome. There desire the say neutral and there unwillingness to commit large numbers of troops really hurt there roll in the history of this conflict.

Really too bad they were great fighter and probably would have ended the conflict earlier

[telsono]

The wasps were drawn into the conflict over a dispute with the ants over a startegic resource, aphids. Being primarily an air force, the wasps enlisted the aid of ant lions (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) which bolstered their defesive abilities considerably.

There were rumors that the situation might now escalate with the addition of Bombardier Beetles. Otherwise the other groups didn’t want (mosquitoes, flies, etc.) to become involved as this was an invertebrate afair and didn’t compromise their warmblooded and vegetative resources.

Mike T.

[Byrden]

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?

Wow. A continent like, say for example, Africa? [:D]

[Dre]

So, I guess that the Russians were red ants and the Germans were black ants? No wonder they fought so viciously…

[T-rex]

Oops sorry about the wrong, info, its been a while since I saw that episode.

And why all the sudden were talk about insect wars, they should have called the battle of Kursup to the battle of the leaf.[(-D]

But all i’m saying is the gremans had the best tank, but they were too difficle to massivly produce, the t-34 and the sherman were made at a faster rate.

[Aaronw]

Oops sorry about the wrong, info, its been a while since I saw that episode.

And why all the sudden were talk about insect wars, they should have called the battle of Kursup to the battle of the leaf.[(-D]

But all i’m saying is the gremans had the best tank, but they were too difficle to massivly produce, the t-34 and the sherman were made at a faster rate.

It depends on what you mean by best, yes the Tiger and Panther had great armor and very good guns. They also were a mechanics nightmare, were gas hogs and available in small numbers. You have to get to the battle to make your armor and gun worthwhile.

I don’t remember the exact quote but there is one attributed to a german soldier along the lines of they say our tanks are better but I wouldn’t know, all I ever see are American tanks.

[rios]

But all i’m saying is the gremans had the best tank, but they were too difficle to massivly produce, the t-34 and the sherman were made at a faster rate.

So which german tank during the war was better than russian counterpart of the same class?

[dragos]

But all i’m saying is the gremans had the best tank, but they were too difficle to massivly produce, the t-34 and the sherman were made at a faster rate.

So which german tank during the war was better than russian counterpart of the same class?

I think none of them.

Light tanks T-26 and BT series were far more capable than Panzer I and II

Medium tanks, this topic says it all

Heavy tanks, not sure, but I think IS series are still more efficient to produce than KingTigers

[Aaronw]

But all i’m saying is the gremans had the best tank, but they were too difficle to massivly produce, the t-34 and the sherman were made at a faster rate.

So which german tank during the war was better than russian counterpart of the same class?

All of them silly, if you make your tanks twice as heavy but call them something else so everyone compares apples and oranges your tanks look better. [:D]

Light tanks

Vickers Light tank (.50 cal)

Panzer 2 (20mm gun)

M3 “Stuart” (37mm gun)

T70 (45mm gun) all have light armor.

The Soviet and US tanks easily out match the German design, Stuarts were challenging Panzer 3 & 4’s in North Africa, the underdog but still dangerous to German mediums in '42.

Early war mediums

Crusader (40mm gun)

Panzer 3 (50mm gun)

Panzer 4 (Short 75mm gun)

M4 “Sherman” (75mm gun)

T-34 (76mm gun)

Again the US and Soviet tanks, outclassed the German tanks

Late War mediums

Cromwell (75mm or 6 Pounder) Shall we even mention the Firefly and Comet?

Panzer 4 (75mm gun)

M4 “Sherman” (75mm or 76mm long barrel gun)

T34 / 85 (85mm gun)

Here things are fairly even, the German 75mm was a better anti-armor gun than the US / UK 75mm, but the 6 Pounder, 76mm and 85mm were clearly better and all had equal or superior armor than the Panzer 4 by this point, all were also better mechanically.

Early period heavy tanks

Matilda 2 (2 pounder)

KV1 (76mm)

Tiger (88mm)

Ok, here the Tiger is pretty clearly the winner, although the KV1 could give it a run and the Tiger just barely qualifies as early period.

Late period Heavy Tanks

Churchill (75mm gun), not going to count the Centurian as it saw little to no use.

Panther (75mm long barrel gun)

M26 Pershing (90mm gun)

IS2 (122mm gun), similarly not including the IS3 as it is debatable if it actually saw combat

Tiger 2 (88mm gun)

Of these 5, the Churchill is clearly the loser, good armor but very weak gun for a heavy. Among the rest it is not so clear, the IS2 had good armor and a decent gun, but also a very small ammo supply (about 1/4 that of its German opponents), the Panther and Pershing are fairly evenly matched, gun and armor probably going to the Panther but mobility and reliability going to the M26. The Tiger 2 definately the most powerful of the 3, but its mobility and reliability definately falling short or both the M26 and Panther. In the case of the M26, IS2, Panther and Tiger 2 the first hit could easily determine the outcome, none could expect to use its armor as a primary defense against any of these guns. Personally from a combat only perspective I’d edge towards the Panther, followed by the Tiger 2 or IS2. From a “big picture” (logistics, getting to the battle etc) I’d go with the M26. Both the Panther and M26 are more along the lines of the Main Battle tank, the heavy tank concept dies fairly soon after WW2 because they are not practical.

So outside of the heavy class, the only tank designs the Germans consistanly out performed were the British. Since the British never really produced a light or heavy tank resembling the German concept, this is not surprising. In the medium category the British produced roughly equal tanks, arguably inferior but effective early war, and possibly superior but closely matched late war. US and Soviet tanks were more than capable of killing their opponents of like classification throughout most of the war, the German mediums probably led the Allies for a brief period in 1943 prior to the adoption of the 76mm in the M4 and the 85mm in the T34.

Of course this is all my opinion, and its silly to expect tanks to be classified against their similar counterparts in number and weight class (+/- 10 tons). I mean we all know that most of the German tanks were Panthers and Tigers (Panzer 2, 1800 built, Panzer 38t 1400, Panzer 3 5500, Panzer 4 8500, Panther 6000, Tiger 1300, Tiger 2 500, number per wikipedia, tanks only no SP guns included). Total german tracked armor all types 50,439.

Some other fun numbers Total T34 production 57,000, total IS2 production 7600, total M4 production 50,000 +/- (can’t find a firm number ranges from high 40,000 to high 50,000) total M26 production 1400.

[madmike]

“telsono”

The Mantis gives up a strong position by requiring the sacriface of the male adult units to further production of new units. This reduces the number of readily available adult units.

Honeybees have a basic flaw as their main weapon is in effect a suicide weapon, once used, the unit is sacrifaced.

The Ant air units have a very limited duration in the air afterward they revert to ground units. Mass attacks by specialized soldier units is more effective than that by the smaller worker units.

The most effective air units are the wasps. A re-useable main weapon, plus the ability to subvert enemy units into production units for your own cause.

Mike T.

“Manstein’s revenge”

“The Ant air units have a very limited duration in the air afterward they revert to ground units. Mass attacks by specialized soldier units is more effective than that by the smaller worker units.” = Airborne units !

"Honeybees have a basic flaw as their main weapon is in effect a suicide weapon, once used, the unit is sacrifaced." = Kamikazies !!!

Of course the ratio of Ants to Mantis would be less if we were talking ARMY ANTS !!!"

Main Battle Ant with light scout ant

Battle of Kursk (gardens)

Harassing action.

Business End of the new Australian ADF Main Battle Ant (Bull Ant)