t34 vs panther vs sherman

[Viverax]

I saw lots of ww2 fans saying that sherman is the best ww2 tank. Now dont get me wrong itwas still a really good tank but can we talk about this without much bias?Well here is my opinion about t34,panther and sherman (note: i might favour panther a bit cause its my most liked tank but i tryed to not make it nr1)

So lets see what was happening during ww2 lets start with russia:

Russia and germany were burning their economy and manpower. Until 1944 russia was desprerate to produce enough tanks and weapons to not get pushed back (Fun fact even if germany got annihilated in Stalingrad they were still able to beat russians twice at Karhow and almost encircle them at kursk) thats why they were scared to replace t34 with something else cause they didnt wanted to slow down production. They knew that 2 man turret of t34/76 needs to be replaced but the fear of modyfying tank at that time was so big that it was delayed until 1944. From what i know t34/76 could still match pz4 G wich at that time was german MBT and tiger were rare. When front got stable, victory at kurst was sure for soviets and news about landing in sicily gave them courage to start producing t34/85. The ised was to give t34 a firepower similar to german tiger by arming it with AA gun just like germans did it tiger. It still had bad armor but with this gun it could match any tank even tiger 2.

Now about a panther. First model D was a complete FAIL they were rushed to battlefield (unfinished and untested) so they could offer some kind of support in kursk. Later model A was a bit better and more reliable but still not good enough model G was was a great desing with minimal problems but because they were given to a crew that had no idea how to use it (elite crew got tigers and pz4) it was usually abandoned. Also the lack of fuel and air support made ALL german tanks pretty much useless. If panther got produced in 1942 instead of tiger and other ,,super tanks,, all problems would be solved, they would have everything to operate it for weeks or months making panther a main german battle tank for the rest of the war with me upgrades from time to time.

And sherman? It was an infantry support tank and it did its job really well but brits and americans at that time had a total advantage in EVERYWAY. Air, numbers,information,recon, endless supply of factorys,weapons, oil you name it. I also operated in well infrastructured land (france and benelux) so it didnt get stuck in the mud like germans in russia. Also the main idea of sherman was to fight medium tank like pz4 and pz3 while tigers being really dangerous for it allied high command decided that they wont face many of those so their is no point in changing desing of it. Sherman E8 was produced mainly because to give sherman better firepower to fight panther and mobility to deal with worse roads and to fight with t34/85 in case of another war.

Welp this is my opinion and i would like to hear your's too :)
BTW sorry for my english and all mistaked i made i tryed my best :)

[Cggamer]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Horcerer:

Początkowo opublikowane przez MrMaximgun:

That role was further defined as one where the sherman was not meant to fight enemy tanks. US doctrine when the sherman was first made was for tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks. Shermans were only meant to exploit holes and fight infantry formations.

This is incorrect. The sherman was designed with the ability to fight tanks and doctrine said it utilized that as well. Tank destroyers were not intended to just "fight enemy tanks", but rather serve as purely defensive units used to stop blitzkriegs or tank assaults.

No, this is (partially) incorrect. When the M4 was designed, it was designed as an infantry support tank. At that time, the US had seriously neglected its armored force, but a small core of takers, led by General Chaffee, kept them alive. They patterned themselves after the French Army and armor doctrine, which they viewed as cutting edge (not entirely incorrectly).

Now, by the time the M4 was actually deployed, the US had been rudely awakened by the effectiveness of German armored warfare, and were aware of the need to train tank v. tank doctrine. But, we were using a sub-par tank not designed for that, and trying to quickly learn lessons the Germans were already proficent at, with predictable results.

You are correct on the TDs, but the famous American TD Battallions were not a thing until well after Operation Torch, and with one exception, the envisioned "Grand Blitzkrieg" the TD's were designed to stop never happened.

[Cggamer]

t34 is just poor all around. the 1941 model is an uncomfortable death trap, poorly constructed and all around sloped armor is a joke that only makes it more difficult to sit in. driver is in a terrible position thanks to the armor design. poor optics, poor accuracy of the main gun, overstretched commander, and adding the 85mm throws the same issues that adding a 17 pounder to a sherman does into a design far more cramped than the sherman- and that's before shoving a third crew member into the turret.

This is just wrong on its face. Uncomfortable? Ok, I can accept that. Poorly constructed death trap with joke armor? Come on, do some research. Read primary sources, or at least read some acedemic opinion papers. Even considering every flaw inherent in the T-34, it was a ground breaking tank that the Germans had no answer for. PZ IIIs and IVs were bouncing shots off of the Russians, and getting butchered as they did. The only effective answer for the T-34 was the StuGs with the upgraded 7.5 PAK 40, or the good ole 88. Now admittedly, the 7.5 could reliably punched through the sloped armor at 1500 yards, and the 88 could turn the T-34 into a fireball. But up until Mars/Uranus timeframe, those weapons were not in large enough numbers to be effective.

Once the Panther/Tiger/Panzerjager IV, et al, came out, the T-34 was no longer dominant. But even then, by upgrading the turret and gun, the upgraded T-34 could fight it out as well as a Sherman against German armor.

If you have some primary sources or legit research that backs up your assertation that the T-34 was a sub-par deathtrap, please direct me to it. But I am far from an armored warfare expert, so when Hans Gudarian says the T-34 was a damned dangerous adversary, even with poorly trained crews, I am going to believe him.

[Mocha]

Kinda hard to compare them, the T-34 was a moving Saw trap on treads, and the M4 was a tank designed for infantry, but became the go-to tank for the US, even if it was seriously outmatched by German tank designs.

The Panther was... well, it was meant to be the new Panzer 4 but was never able to achieve its goal. (Not like it could have anyway, Germany already had designs for the new standardized tank series to replace everything else)

[|H|H| Fr3ddi3]

I can't really decide between the T34 and M4, but what I do feel comfortable saying is that the over enginered technical disaster known as the Panther IMO does not deserve to be anywhere near a best tank discussion regardless of what ever varient is bought forward.

It looks/ed stunning (made plenty of model kits of them in my time and always loved the thing from a visual stand point), it had a formidable tried and tested armament, had some great ideas behind it some of which were way ahead of their time, but ultimately a tank that does not work when the time comes is no good to anyone, and one that takes too long to perform the most basic repair jobs on is even worse, it's a liability.

The Panthers reliability and repair-ability was in the toilet for it's entire lifespan, it was simply too heavy and too complicated something alot of Germanys equipment was guilty of, MAYBE in an alternate dimension where Germany is not being bombed 6 ways to sunday it might have eventually been a good tank, but the fact that none of it's design principles made it out the otherside of the war says it all really, there is a debate that it gave birth to the idea of the modern MBT but thats not something I subscribe to, the Comet and Centurion respectively did that IMO though I could ceede that the Panthers existance caused such tanks to be birthed in the first place but even then, neither tank was designed specifically to combat Panthers.

If anything, I'd argue the Panther was an example of how not to build a tank, AND yet I say all that knowing full well that it would have been terrifying to come up against one in combat.

[spoogbill sandypants]

My great grandfather fought in italy in ww2, he said the russian tanks were the best. (he was american)

[wulf]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Cg_gamer:

t34 is just poor all around. the 1941 model is an uncomfortable death trap, poorly constructed and all around sloped armor is a joke that only makes it more difficult to sit in. driver is in a terrible position thanks to the armor design. poor optics, poor accuracy of the main gun, overstretched commander, and adding the 85mm throws the same issues that adding a 17 pounder to a sherman does into a design far more cramped than the sherman- and that's before shoving a third crew member into the turret.

This is just wrong on its face. Uncomfortable? Ok, I can accept that. Poorly constructed death trap with joke armor? Come on, do some research. Read primary sources, or at least read some acedemic opinion papers. Even considering every flaw inherent in the T-34, it was a ground breaking tank that the Germans had no answer for. PZ IIIs and IVs were bouncing shots off of the Russians, and getting butchered as they did. The only effective answer for the T-34 was the StuGs with the upgraded 7.5 PAK 40, or the good ole 88. Now admittedly, the 7.5 could reliably punched through the sloped armor at 1500 yards, and the 88 could turn the T-34 into a fireball. But up until Mars/Uranus timeframe, those weapons were not in large enough numbers to be effective.

Once the Panther/Tiger/Panzerjager IV, et al, came out, the T-34 was no longer dominant. But even then, by upgrading the turret and gun, the upgraded T-34 could fight it out as well as a Sherman against German armor.

If you have some primary sources or legit research that backs up your assertation that the T-34 was a sub-par deathtrap, please direct me to it. But I am far from an armored warfare expert, so when Hans Gudarian says the T-34 was a damned dangerous adversary, even with poorly trained crews, I am going to believe him.

I like Kavalerchik and Glantz which are pretty common when discussing the t34. they provide good detail as to the pattern of losses and limitations of the t34 and help dispel the mythology of it that people like guderian and the post war narrative perpetuated. please note that most of these accounts, while primary, are polluted with bias and sensationalism. guderian especially has a bad track record of inflating the importance of events in his memoirs and directing blame away from himself. guderian himself is partly responsible for the focus of the drive in late 1941 towards moscow, a terrible decision and the point in which he begins celebrating the effectiveness and exaggerating the t34 quite aggressively (from his memoirs).

people tend to fixate on the sensationalist records of invincible KVs and tigers (or, in the case of barbarossa, t34s). bergström i believe puts the number of t34s at barbarossa at only 500 operational at barbarossa, with thousands of others being t-26s and other obsolete tanks against which the short 75s and 37mm pak are perfectly suited. at this stage even the t34 had a poor record with the faults of the poor construction quality and design causing many to be abandoned before combat. the often cited christie suspension is a nightmare to actually repair and maintain, but the only accounts you hear of it celebrate its ability to allow high speed over terrain (which it does).

finally, the reason the armor is a joke is because the soviet unions industry was still in its infancy and barely able to produce consistent steel that could take trauma- you can fault that to the circumstances of soviet industrialization and not the tank, but I CAN fault the tank for its terrible hatches, poor optics, and regressive design that had to be thrown out in future designs. sloped armor was around before the t-34, it was ALL AROUND sloped armor was not repeated on other AFVs and the t34 is why. christie suspension was thrown out on future AFVs and the t34 is why. i would hardly call that groundbreaking. the t34 for some reason became famous despite all the limitations it brings- probably for the same reasons people get the wrong impression that german tanks were amazing and the sherman was a deathtrap. it takes a lot of time to scale back this simplicity of thought in the common consciousness!

the limitations of the armor even with the sloped angle became apparent when facing 50mm paks and 75mm guns which were available even in 1941, as a large percentage of knocked out t34s were hit by these. even the 28mm heavy anti tank rifle and 37mm pak could manage against t34s front armor in close ranges. you cannot say the germans had no answer for it if you even take a... GLANTZ... at a source documenting combat losses of the t34. perhaps guderian is trying to praise the t34 so people wont scrutinize his decision to stretch his logistics so thin that the russians themselves, not the t34, had the upper hand :^)

(i like guderian which is why im so critical of him)

[Torrens]

The overwhelmingly best tank killers in WW2 were anti-tank guns. Panthers were designed to counter T-34. Sherman and T34 were designed to support infantry. In those roles Panther is inferior. In anti-tank role Panther triumphs. But anti-tank gun beats Panther in the same role. Tanks do not kill tanks in WW2. Anti-tank artillery does the dirty work. Eastern front was an infantry war, armored warfare was a tiny fraction of the action, although it is glorified.

Which one is better T-34 or M4? We can argue all day. Sherman had the highest crew rate of survival after being hit in WW2 despite the "tommy cooker" tendencies. The crew in the M4 can escape the burning tank in 3 seconds. T-34 had the worst crew survival rate in the war after being hit. Assistant driver didn't have his own hatch to escape.

Conclusion: Due to the superior crew survival rate after being hit in WW2, and Allied strategic superiority over everyone else, I'd rather operate inside an M4 Sherman over any other tank.

[wulf]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Torrens:

The overwhelmingly best tank killers in WW2 were anti-tank guns. Panthers were designed to counter T-34. Sherman and T34 were designed to support infantry. In those roles Panther is inferior. In anti-tank role Panther triumphs. But anti-tank gun beats Panther in the same role. Tanks do not kill tanks in WW2. Anti-tank artillery does the dirty work. Eastern front was an infantry war, armored warfare was a tiny fraction of the action, although it is glorified.

Which one is better T-34 or M4? We can argue all day. Sherman had the highest crew rate of survival after being hit in WW2 despite the "tommy cooker" tendencies. The crew in the M4 can escape the burinng tank in 3 seconds. T-34 had the worst crew survival rate in the war after being hit. Assistant driver didn't have his own hatch to escape.

Conclusion: Due to the superior crew survival rate after being hit in WW2, and Allied strategic superiority over everyone else, I'd rather operate inside an M4 Sherman over any other tank.

COULD BE WORSE YOU COULD BE IN A CROMWELL

[MrMaximgun]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Horcerer:

Początkowo opublikowane przez MrMaximgun:

That role was further defined as one where the sherman was not meant to fight enemy tanks. US doctrine when the sherman was first made was for tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks. Shermans were only meant to exploit holes and fight infantry formations.

This is incorrect. The sherman was designed with the ability to fight tanks and doctrine said it utilized that as well. Tank destroyers were not intended to just "fight enemy tanks", but rather serve as purely defensive units used to stop blitzkriegs or tank assaults.

I apologize for posting incorrect information, That's what I've heard from youtube videos, but that's not really a great source of information. thanks for the correction