Most Effective Tank of the war.

World War II General WWII Discussion
#41

Not too mention once you get past 1943, the Germans are fighting defensively so will always accrue a higher kill ratio.

If being on offensive/defensive was such a big factor, then why did the Germans had such a high kill ratio when they were attacking with their inferior tanks in 1941, 1942? Shouldn’t the German kill ratio go up even more as Germans were forced to gave up offensives?

So are you arguing against the tank design or the crew capabilities in 1941-42?

I think the bad design was a bigger factor than the crew.

Okay, let’s assume that the soviet crews are the best in the world.

STILL, during the battle, commander has to carry out way too many functions because of his multiple roles due to the tank design, enabling the opponent to fire several shots at you before you are even ready for your first. How can that not be because of the poor design? How does having the best crew in the world help in this case?

Then the best-in-the-world soviet crew finally takes a shot at their enemy – assuming they haven’t been annihilated before that and assuming that they have actually spotted their enemy (difficult to do, because of the poor visibility) – unfortunately the poor gun optics mean their accuracy is low. Is that problem related to the crew or the tank design?

In 1941 Germans indeed had some troubles taking out T-34, as, at first, they were firing directly at the front armor, this, however, was evened out by:

  • T-34s broke down anyway
  • Lack radios meant they didn’t know what was happening around them
  • Poor visibility meant they didn’t notice their opponent
  • Poor optics meant they didn’t hit the opponent, if they were lucky enough to notice them
  • It didn’t take too long for Germans to figure out the weak spots (where to aim)
  • In 1941 there were’t tens of thousands of T-34s on the battlefield

Also, people overestimate the armor of the T-34, let’s see what can we learn from the numbers the Soviet tank authorities themselves calculated from the knocked out T-34s during the war: “Tank’s sides are the most vulnerable details and are penetrated by both 50-mm and 37-mm guns”
Source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1170573#p1170573

So even the freaking Russians admitted that the early-war small-caliber German guns knocked out T-34s without too much trouble – especially once the initial shock of the sloped front armor was dealt with, not to mention once they received better guns.

#42

Few would expect fastidious metallurgy analysis, or sticking tightly to casting procedures during the emergency conditions of that time. I’m sure that it was often a matter of pour it as it is, and hope for the best. It can be seen in pics of T-34’s on occasion, sections of armor fractured, and missing, not neat holes from gun fire, but ragged fractures. Poured too hot,too slow, porosity, inaccurate analysis, interrupted pour, lax if any heat treating. Poor quality in the mold making,all of these conspire to cause catastrophic failure in the finished armor. such has been found in the poorer quality German armor of the later war. Its very difficult to adhere to the fine points of technology when the enemy is a few miles away.

#43

There were only a small number of T-34s available initially, and the Heer would have encountered a relative few in the summer of 1941. It was in fact their very initial mechanical unreliability that sort of deceived the Wehrmacht into dismissing the T-34 at first. And I think it’s been stated that the T-34s, much like their German nemesis’ at Kursk, suffered from initial teething problems which resulted in the majority of operational losses initially. So kill ratios in regards to the T-34 are moot. Especially since the Heer panzers froze and suffered high losses in the winter counteroffensive of 1941. And if German kill ratios were all important, then why did they have to give up the offensive? Furthermore, I think there is a thread here where some of the German kill ratios on the Western Front were debunked as improbable exaggerations. And even if high kill ratios are correct, the T-34 became cheap and easy to manufacture, especially when compared to the Tiger and, less so, the Panther…

I think the bad design was a bigger factor than the crew.

You’d be almost alone in thinking that. The German Army didn’t as they used large numbers of beutepanzer T-34s despite the risk of friendly fire. Also, I’ve see the contention that it was the superiority of the machine to virtually anything the Germans fielded in 1941 that helped the Soviets to somewhat hold their own and compensate for poor training and tactical deficiencies…

Okay, let’s assume that the soviet crews are the best in the world.

STILL, during the battle, commander has to carry out way too many functions because of his multiple roles due to the tank design, enabling the opponent to fire several shots at you before you are even ready for your first. How can that not be because of the poor design? How does having the best crew in the world help in this case?

This flaw was corrected in the T-34/85 with the advent of the three man turret. They also received radios…

Then the best-in-the-world soviet crew finally takes a shot at their enemy – assuming they haven’t been annihilated before that and assuming that they have actually spotted their enemy (difficult to do, because of the poor visibility) – unfortunately the poor gun optics mean their accuracy is low. Is that problem related to the crew or the tank design?

Visibility was also corrected with the addition of a periscope, and while I’m certainly not an expert, I haven’t ever heard of this as a major criticism regarding the optics. They were likely inferior to the sighting systems on the panzers, but good enough in the hands of a capable crew.

In 1941 Germans indeed had some troubles taking out T-34, as, at first, they were firing directly at the front armor, this, however, was evened out by:

  • T-34s broke down anyway
  • Lack radios meant they didn’t know what was happening around them
  • Poor visibility meant they didn’t notice their opponent
  • Poor optics meant they didn’t hit the opponent, if they were lucky enough to notice them
  • It didn’t take too long for Germans to figure out the weak spots (where to aim)
  • In 1941 there were’t tens of thousands of T-34s on the battlefield

As stated, the T-34/85s received radios, and most everything else you posted above could apply to about any tank. The Germans would have only encountered a relatively small number of T-34s until the end of 1941. And many in the Heer did not share your views and considered the T-34 a game-changer. After all, if the German forces had almost no trouble with the T-34 and other Soviet tanks: then why did they upgrade the Mark IVs with bigger guns specifically to deal with them? essentially reverse engineer a T-34 for production only to decide instead to save their Teutonic faces by essentially designing a more sophisticated equivalent in the Panther Mark V? restart the virtually dormant “heavy breakthrough tank” project that became the Tiger?

Also, people overestimate the armor of the T-34, let’s see what can we learn from the numbers the Soviet tank authorities themselves calculated from the knocked out T-34s during the war: “Tank’s sides are the most vulnerable details and are penetrated by both 50-mm and 37-mm guns”
Source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1170573#p1170573

So even the freaking Russians admitted that the early-war small-caliber German guns knocked out T-34s without too much trouble – especially once the initial shock of the sloped front armor was dealt with, not to mention once they received better guns.

It would have been a very rare hit from a “doorknocker” 37mm. And the above comment seems rather nitpicky as nearly every tank is more vulnerable from the side. We could also mention that Soviet Red Army infantry also knocked out even the heaviest panzers with outmoded antitank rifles. Does that make a Panther crap?

#44

You didnt even read my post did you? :wink:

Why losses in 1941? I will point to the comments made in the post…

General-Major Morgunov, in an assessment in late-41 on the tank commented - “The lack of recovery vehicles and spare parts, combined with production defects and inept use by poorly trained crews and lack of anti-armour ammunition… all contributed to the great losses in armour”.

The Germans got an easy ride.

#45

Very interesting thread here. :slight_smile:

#46

Russian tank losses in 1941 do not show correctly the amount that were actually knocked out with a hit kill.

Like during any retreat, tanks that break down for minor reasons ‘lack of fuel, breakdown, bogged down, abandoned, etc’ get counted as battlefield casualties even though they are not destroyed as the retreating side has lost control of the battlefield and so has lost those vehicles.
The russians had limited recovery assets so they lost an inordinate amount of vehicles which were then recovered and could be used by the axis forces who took control of the battlefield.

#47

Effectiveness means to me the biggest effect on the war’s outcome.

In Europe, it has to be the T34.

I’ve met several ostfront Panzer crew here in Australia, and they were all quite aware how effective the T34 was once large numbers with the longest 76mm were available. The 85mm version was feared.

Second, and close the Sherman, for WWII as a whole.

The T34/85 gave 76Mm armed Shermans quite a fright in Korea. Held by two ‘heavy’ tanks M26 Patton (90mm) and Centurion (84mm/20pdr).

Against Japan, the most effective tank was the Sherman, through Burma and across the Pacific.

OTOH the thick armour of Matilda II’s made them usable against bunkers around New Guinea’s outlying islands, until the end.

The T34/76 may have been crude, but it was at least as effective a tank in 1942 as its main opposition the MkIII and IV were in 42, and still against the IVG and IVH by 1944. At real ranges, too.

Effectiveness is an outcome of gun-power and hit probability, protection, numbers (ease of production), reliability, and range.

There just were never enough German tanks on either front, mkIV’s let alone Panthers/TigersI/II, or STUGs with >40cal 75’s. Never enough.

The German obsession with technological excellence, and upgrades, severely affected production and availability/reliability in the field. So, they NEEDED recovery systems and units. And not just in AFV’s.

Low production, late into service … and so on.

E.g. German Radar’s were far better than necessary. The head of the RAF’s Y service comment was that it was easy to identify a German radar transmission by it’s very high stability. Post-war, many large and small Wurzburg’s were used for radio astronomy. SFA Allied WWII equipment was so used.

#48

I´d vote for Pz-III.
The tank´s maneuvrability & reliability enabled it to make pincer movement feasible, the armament was capable to defeat 99% of battlefield targets, while armor was good enough to force enemy AT guns to fire from uncomfortable distances. The crew of 5 made possible for a tank unit to fight like a coherent organization - being an organism almost.

#49

The Soviet T34

#50

As much as this pains me to say wouldn’t the most effective tank be the T-34? because of it reliability, range, its fast numbers and it had a pretty good gun too. Don’t get me wrong I love German amour. But if you really want to know the most effective tank i would have to say the T-34

#51

The most effective tank of WWII for me is the Panzerkapmfwagen IV. Available from the beginning of WWII, it was easy to produce, reliable, with good balance between mobility, armor and lethality while it uses less fuel than huge Pz V and Pz VI. Trough his various version it keeps his qualities, and against other medium tanks (T-34 and M4) proved to be anytime effective. It was transformed in other tank type, destroyer (JadPanzer IV, Nashorn, and Sturmgeschtuz IV), assault gun (Hummel and Brumbar), AA tank (Mobelwagen, Wirbelwind and Ostwind), ammunition carrier, assault bridge, recovery vehicle and some other types, where it always proves to has good crossing capabilities and reliability.

#52

Good thought, there’s a reason why the Panzer IV was called the work horse of the armored forces.

#53

I like the Panther best…but best?..I think in some respects yes and in some ways no. What I wonder is how much of it’s poor reliability figures can be attributed to the slave labor they used more and more as the war progressed. I have heard of slave laborers intensionally sabotaging the tanks they were forced to build. A Panther with a copied Sherman transmission with a T-34 diesel engine and upgraded side armor might have been the best tank lol

#54

Even a Panther with a reliable final drive would have been the best hands down, at least if we’re talking cost vs. combat effectiveness ratio…

The Panzer Mark IV was also a very good overall tank. Sturdy, reliable, proven, and most of all highly adaptable and upgradable. The fact that it was combat proven from 1940 and steady improved to the end of the war makes it a very underrated tank. As is the Sherman. Had the Sherman been improved and modified earlier as it should have been, especially if the Americans had produced the 17-Pounder like the British wanted them too, I think we’d think of it less as “The Tommy Cooker” or “Ronson” and more a venerable, worthy tank that like the Mark IV. An M4A3E8 mounting a 17-Pdr. with a tad more armor would have been far more problematic for the Germans. Then there was the M-27, essentially a smaller M26 Pershing that probably could have been the best medium tank of WWII if properly developed…

#55

I agree…I read the thread that had the M-27 in it. When tanks was my main hobby I almost always built models of German tanks so that was my focus of study.

#56

I thought that the Russian T34 was the most effective tank that helped turn the tide on the Eastern front. If Germany had the ability to keep producing “quality tanks” at the same level as the US and the Soviets, the war would have taken a good while longer to determine the victor. I still think the allies would have prevailed. The problem the Germans had was that they liked to make things “too good” of which cut down on the numbers they could have produced that would have kept them in the war longer. I am glad things turned out the way the did in that my dad was in Patton’s 7th army and knew Patton personally. Dad was a SFC and made Sgt Major towards the end of his long 37 year career. My dad told me that we had family in Germany that fought for the Reich. One great uncle that my dad told me about was a Colonel that played a part in the Valkyrie plot that failed. He was hung on a meat hanger hook like that of many of his fellow soldiers. My great grandfather came to the USA in 1889, and changed the family name from Von Braune to Brown in one fell swoop. I am a Vietnam vet & served in the Navy as a “Brown Water Sailor”. I was proud to serve my country and have a deep respect for the military.
Doc B.

#57

There some points of view. For the germans, the best tanks were the Tiger I and Panther, but their most produced tank was the Panzer IV, so it was this last one that had to hold the line in most of the fronts and had to face with some superior adversaries, such as the T-34/85, KVs, Josef Stalin’s & Sherman Fireflies. For the Allies, were the Sherman M4A1 & T-34. The first because of the quantity an relyability, it was easy for manufacture and repair. The second, because of its quality, it was an excelent tank, superior to all german tanks until the arrival of the tigers and panthers, and because of its great numbers too

#58

I agree with you Toten Der Kaiser, because for me, the Panzer IV and T34, both tanks are essential in this war. The first because it has been able to develop it throughout the conflict in his maintaining its excellent mobility despite a strengthening of its shielding and the contribution of a gun that had nothing to envy in terms of power to allied guns and the second by the fact of its ease of production and given its wide availability, and by the fact that the addition of the barrel 85 will give significant power to face German tanks, it should be noted also that the because of its simplicity of construction on a T34 tank will be much easier to maintain and repair than the German counterparts, who said that the Russians were not pragmatic and knew nothing about the standards.

Friendly Fred:):):slight_smile:

#59

I still believe that the best and most effective German tank was a T-IV with 75 mm gun. It was both effective in AT role and infantry support.The Kittyes ( Tigers and Panthers) has deflected the GErman war industry into the wrong way. The mass production suffer much. While USA and USSR was able to produce a huge number of medium tanks ( seems about 36 000 of shermans and up to 50 000 of T-34 total) the GErmany has built just about 5 thousand of Panthers and little more then 1200 all of Tigers. Even if as Hiler believed the “1 tiger is equal to 20 shermans/T-34”- the tank statistic was not in German favour.

#60

Chevan I had figures of around 52000 Shermans (1942 to 1945) as against 57000 T34 (1940 to 1945)