The best ever tank

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,618
A popular British comedian once appeared on a programme about cars describing the T34 as the best tank of WW2. Which got me thinking, that sounds actually true.
No other tank built in large numbers made such a difference and prompted the enemy to imitate it. In fact no tank since then has had such an impact.
Anyone have other candidates?
 
uk 75 said:
A popular British comedian once appeared on a programme about cars describing the T34 as the best tank of WW2. Which got me thinking, that sounds actually true.
No other tank built in large numbers made such a difference and prompted the enemy to imitate it. In fact no tank since then has had such an impact.
Anyone have other candidates?
Click to expand...
Well this is a very sensitive and debatable subject. The t-34 did what it was supposed to do. Cheap to produce. It definitely wasn't the best in all aspects. The tank had a survivability less than it's fuel tank. Regardless of terrible welding and other factors. The Sherman in my opinion is the best. Quality, reliability and performance in one. The tanks were well built and easy to repair. They were out-gunner by German tanks at the time but it did what it was supposed to do as an infantry support vehicle.
 
SteelSentinel said:
Well this is a very sensitive and debatable subject. The t-34 did what it was supposed to do. Cheap to produce. It definitely wasn't the best in all aspects. The tank had a survivability less than it's fuel tank. Regardless of terrible welding and other factors. The Sherman in my opinion is the best. Quality, reliability and performance in one. The tanks were well built and easy to repair. They were out-gunner by German tanks at the time but it did what it was supposed to do as an infantry support vehicle.
Click to expand...
idk, depends which point in the war you pick the Shermans from, late-war the 76 Shermans had no problem taking out tigers and panthers
 
the T-34 not only dit it job, it was perfect for it !
Cheap production using tractor engine & gearbox, needed only Diesel fuel,
The Soviet mass produce it and send to battle field, got one destroy, replace it fast by more T-34

in contrast the German ww2 tank were unnecessarily complex high tech vehicle
that were difficult to produce & maintain and booze petrol needed by Luftwaffe
while certain Austrian painter scream for bigger and bigger tanks...
 
Michel Van said:
the T-34 not only dit it job, it was perfect for it !
Cheap production using tractor engine & gearbox, needed only Diesel fuel,
The Soviet mass produce it and send to battle field, got one destroy, replace it fast by more T-34

in contrast the German ww2 tank were unnecessarily complex high tech vehicle
that were difficult to produce & maintain and booze petrol needed by Luftwaffe
while certain Austrian painter scream for bigger and bigger tanks...
Click to expand...
the cheapness is also a massive flaw, with a tank so poorly made, the crew loss rates skyrocket, and you can't replace people anywhere near as fast as one can make a tank. Plus half of all T-34s built were made to such a poor standard that many were lost because of excessive wear on parts because they were so shoddily made, many photos spring to mind of T-34s that have driven into ditches because the driver can't see where he's going because the sights are made so poorly, or others that take entire spare transmissions into battle with them, just because it broke so often
 
I'm reminded of the U-Boot skipper who is said to have grumbled that US yards could build 'Liberty Ships' faster than the Reich's slave-labour could make torpedoes to sink them...

It's a cruel, cold calculation, but sending 'unfit' T-34 tanks to draw fire cost the Germans in logistics, logistics, logistics...
 
They made around 84 thousand T-34 but they made around 50 thousand Sherman’s and it seems to have been an all around better tanks. That’s a pretty good quality quantity trade for me.
 
Even the soviets really liked the Shermans they got (mostly diesel M4A2s).

I'd say that the only real flaw with the Sherman was the lack of a good gun late war. The 75mm was good up through D-day, the 76mm had better armor penetration but had terrible HE shells. Really needed to step up to a ~90mm gun (which did eventually happen on the Pershing) to have both good AP and HE shells. See also the Russian 76mm and 85mm gun tanks.
 
There seems to be a very big push to clear up bad info and clean up the image of the sherman. I think it is going too far now in the opposite extreme and some are saying it is the greatest tank of ww2. This happened with the t34. I grew up with the notion it was a pile of junk. Then there was a push to try and correct the record and then the t34 was the greatest tank of ww2. I am generalizing obviously but it is amusing to see the shifts in the perceptions of things.

Some things never change. In 20 years the sherman will be hated again and wehraboos will come out of the woodwork once more.
 
Gentleman’s Astronautics said:
the cheapness is also a massive flaw, with a tank so poorly made, the crew loss rates skyrocket, and you can't replace people anywhere near as fast as one can make a tank.
Click to expand...
That was on the German side...
The Germans build only 49777 Tanks of Various numbers, mostly declining number to end of War

The soviets build 102500 tanks during WW2 (of that were 50 000 T-34)
The USA build 86000 Tanks mostly Shermans
The United Kingdom produced only 27528 own tanks. (rest were US Shermans imports)

Despite the problems the T-34 had, Stalin not care, so long they produce the T-34 on mass and
Deploy it on Frontline in larger numbers as then the germans forces !

The only major upgrade the T-34 got was bigger gun to deal upcoming bigger germans Tanks
Who were produce declining number...
 
TBF, I doubt there is a best tank of. All are flawed/skewed one way or another, the M3 did well in some aspects of the desertt war and again in the far east for example but hardly best at anything.

Early T-34 had no radio's and commanders had to stand in the turret waving flags around. Troop commanders doing that while listening to higher command AND being the gunner. Hopeless.
 
Ultimately tank, per any battlefield experience since 1916, is a consumable.

T-34 wasn't exactly a good vehicle, but, in terms of getting the job done, it was right where it was supposed to be.
Especially since it allowed the Soviet Union - an industrial behemoth, sure, but by no means the United States - to just sink any arguments thrown at it from much of Europe minus only the UK.

Sherman was certainly a better vehicle, but it somewhat lagged in adopting necessary armament changes - so as for being a better "tank"(solution) - ultimately, probably no. On pure vehicle-to-vehicle(apples to apples) they IMHO were better, but at a given point of time, during WW2, T-34s tended to be more of a raw problem for the enemy, forcing him off balance.
 
Late war the T34-85 was quite solid as was the Sherman and the Cromwell. But again, the only way to have this discussion is to decide first "What makes a tank the best?". By kill-to-loss ratio against other tanks, the best tank was the M18 Hellcat which did it against the German beasts.
 
Michel Van said:
Despite the problems the T-34 had, Stalin not care, so long they produce the T-34 on mass and
Deploy it on Frontline in larger numbers as then the germans forces !
Click to expand...
Stalin actually care. But introduction of any new tank would took time and cause considerable production delays, while industry would be switching on new design. While USA could afford such switch, because they were safe behind the ocean and have vastly more resources, USSR was much more limited in capabilities.
 
Speaking about T-34, there are some things that should be understood.

* The basic T-34 flaws were well understood even before the war. In 1941, the refined versio - T34M - was planned, with torsion suspencion replacing the outdated Christie one, three-man turret, ect. But the production of prototypes only started just before invasion, then the factory was evacuated and the whole project essentially dropped with no tank acually produced.
* USSR used tanks on much larger scale than other great powers of WW2 era. Soviet tanks played important role in both mechanized assaults and infantry support. Due to... problematic quality of Red Army indirect fire support, direct fire support was viewed as essential. So USSR was essentially forced to crunch out tanks constantly, putting quantity above all. The fact that T-34 was extremely good in both combat and industrial terms greatly helped the situation.
* While there were attempts to develope a new medium tank to replace T-34 - like experimental T-43, which turret serves as basic for T-34-85 upgrade, or lightened heavy tank KV-13 - they did not demonstrate sufficient superiority over T-34 to validate putting them into production. Sure, they were better, but not that better; and causing a delay in armor production to merely put a slightly better tank in service was a no-go for USSR.
* A new tanks woud most likely have teething troubles, which may cause a significant delays before they would be combat-ready. It took almost a year (1945-1946) to remedy all flaws found in IS-3, and IS-4 heavy tank was essentially so flawed that Soviet Army gave up on it after producing a small series.
* The T-44 tank was developed as T-34 replacement, and basically was everything Red Army wanted. But since the war was already closing, there were no point in rushing it into production.
 
The T-44 apparently had engine trouble in cold weather. Hardly great in a tank that is run by a nation with monumental cold weather issues.

As per the Churchill tank the T-34 is variable in quality, fitting of radio's and situational awareness. Had they faced larger numbers of German tanks across the board they may have had a different reputation.

Guderian was impressed with the phylosophy of the T-34 but not necassarily it's execution and this led to him wanting a German facsimilie which eventually morphed into the Panther. overpriced and unreliable too in it's first iterations.

In the end, all tanks are a compromise which is why I doubt the voracity of calling any one tank "Best". The so called Triad of the tank is also a failing of understanding since communication and situational awareness do not appear.
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
Speaking about T-34, there are some things that should be understood.

* The basic T-34 flaws were well understood even before the war. In 1941, the refined versio - T34M - was planned, with torsion suspencion replacing the outdated Christie one, three-man turret, ect. But the production of prototypes only started just before invasion, then the factory was evacuated and the whole project essentially dropped with no tank acually produced.
* USSR used tanks on much larger scale than other great powers of WW2 era. Soviet tanks played important role in both mechanized assaults and infantry support. Due to... problematic quality of Red Army indirect fire support, direct fire support was viewed as essential. So USSR was essentially forced to crunch out tanks constantly, putting quantity above all. The fact that T-34 was extremely good in both combat and industrial terms greatly helped the situation.
* While there were attempts to develope a new medium tank to replace T-34 - like experimental T-43, which turret serves as basic for T-34-85 upgrade, or lightened heavy tank KV-13 - they did not demonstrate sufficient superiority over T-34 to validate putting them into production. Sure, they were better, but not that better; and causing a delay in armor production to merely put a slightly better tank in service was a no-go for USSR.
* A new tanks woud most likely have teething troubles, which may cause a significant delays before they would be combat-ready. It took almost a year (1945-1946) to remedy all flaws found in IS-3, and IS-4 heavy tank was essentially so flawed that Soviet Army gave up on it after producing a small series.
* The T-44 tank was developed as T-34 replacement, and basically was everything Red Army wanted. But since the war was already closing, there were no point in rushing it into production.
Click to expand...
The only reasonably valid time the Soviets could have shifted production of tanks was as they were relocating factories to the Urals in ~1942. Since you're setting up a new factory anyways, there's no significant additional delay in starting production for a whole new type instead, as long as the new tooling is already made.

Still runs into the problem of working out the teething issues, though.

Same reason the US basically kept with the Sherman all through the war, they didn't want to spend 6+ months retooling a factory. And why the T26 Pershing was so late in the war. Took forever to get enough bugs worked out to get the tanks relatively combat-ready.

That said, the US had really high standards for "combat-worthiness."
 
Are we advocating for the T-34 with the original 76mm gun or the later 85mm?
 
Gentleman’s Astronautics said:
TBH, I think the Churchill is one of the better tanks of the war
Click to expand...
Churchills had thick armor protection and great hill-climbing ability, albeit a bit slow on the road.
With which gun?
Churchills were variously armed with 2-pounder, 6-pounder, 75mm QF and 95-pounder guns. The 75mm QF fired the same ammo as American Shermans armed with medium-length 75mm guns.
I got the impression that 95mm howitzers were used for bunker-busting.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The only reasonably valid time the Soviets could have shifted production of tanks was as they were relocating factories to the Urals in ~1942. Since you're setting up a new factory anyways, there's no significant additional delay in starting production for a whole new type instead, as long as the new tooling is already made.
Click to expand...
Not quite right. The whole evacuation was organized to minimize any delay. Existing factories were diassembled, shipped on trains to the East and reassembled on new spot. Most of them were added to existing industrial facilities. Some... were literally put on concrete slabs and made work under temporary tents, while buildings were hastly erected around them. So no, there were not much time delay to launch anything completely new on evacuated factories.

1710447019943.png

Autumn 1941, the evacuated factory equipment unloaded in front of rapidly erected building.
 
The best British tank must be the Centurion. In its 105mm version and in Israeli service especially.
It protected its crews, was decently mobile and killed lots of enemy.
 
A neighbour of mine was a gunnery instructor on Cents during and after the Korean police action (Hack split) and apparently the 20 pounder was rated as a better gun in actual use.

That being said, I was very aware of thge failings of the L11 but we got on with it well enough.

Jack died a while ago and I resent those in our inglorious notional wealth service for that still. Lots of stories for example. Driving cents onto little man made hillocks to gain elevation for fire support role, and having to keep driving back up after the recoil.
 
Dilandu said:
Not quite right. The whole evacuation was organized to minimize any delay. Existing factories were diassembled, shipped on trains to the East and reassembled on new spot. Most of them were added to existing industrial facilities. Some... were literally put on concrete slabs and made work under temporary tents, while buildings were hastly erected around them. So no, there were not much time delay to launch anything completely new on evacuated factories.

View attachment 722321

Autumn 1941, the evacuated factory equipment unloaded in front of rapidly erected building.
Click to expand...
Right.

Had the tooling for the new tank type been made (at whatever factory wasn't within rifle range of the Germans), you could have sent that to the Urals instead of disassembling the tooling at the factories at the front.
 
Scott Kenny said:
(at whatever factory wasn't within rifle range of the Germans)
Click to expand...
And Luftwaffe bomber range !
The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe learn the hard way with Soviets and British
The Soviet just dismantle a T-34 factory, put parts and worker on Trains and move to other location, before Invaders arrived.

The British had far superior Air defence during the Blitz, who in return with USA, bomb The Third Reich industry into the Stone age...
Next Churchills had British Army also very good Tank: The Sherman Firefly
a modified M4 Sherman with more powerful British 76.2 mm (3.00 in) calibre 17-pounder anti-tank gun.
very effective against the Panther and Tiger tanks in 1944/45
 
riggerrob said:
Are we advocating for the T-34 with the original 76mm gun or the later 85mm?
Click to expand...
85mm, because the turret arrangement was vastly better (gunner, loader, and commander in the 85mm, just commander/gunner and loader/gunner in the 76mm). That the gun was also better is just icing on the cake.

Edited to correct turret crew arrangement.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom