Was the T-34 significantly superior?

[open_sketchbook]

Of course this is the case, but the T-34 is particularly infamous for it. It was like the perfect storm of problems; highly limited traverses on all machine-guns (and no hatch gun either) overworked hull gunner, exceptionally poor visibilty, especially to the side, crews that rarely had sidearms to dislodge boarders, a commander kept too busy by his other responsibilites to keep a good lookout, big tanks of fuel right out in the open (Sniper on the Eastern Front details how German soldiers armed with nothing by MP40s could take out a T-34 by firing into the fuel tanks, making them to spill into the vents atop the tank and causing fires in the engine compartment), and the fact that the Russian strategy meant that it was not uncommon for T-34s to be without infantry support.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Of course this is the case, but the T-34 is particularly infamous for it. It was like the perfect storm of problems; highly limited traverses on all machine-guns (and no hatch gun either) overworked hull gunner, exceptionally poor visibilty, especially to the side, crews that rarely had sidearms to dislodge boarders, a commander kept too busy by his other responsibilites to keep a good lookout, big tanks of fuel right out in the open (Sniper on the Eastern Front details how German soldiers armed with nothing by MP40s could take out a T-34 by firing into the fuel tanks, making them to spill into the vents atop the tank and causing fires in the engine compartment), and the fact that the Russian strategy meant that it was not uncommon for T-34s to be without infantry support.

Much of it boils down to the facts that the T-34 had no commanders cupola and it had a two man turret. Two man turret placed extra work on on the commander, since he had to load to gun as well as command the tank and try to keep a sufficient situational awareness. All German medium tanks had a three man turret, which was pretty much the optimal arrangement and is still used in tanks which do not have an autoloader for the gun. Then again, the superiority of the three man turret was not common knowledge at the time the T-34 was designed. The French had many tanks with one man turrets and compared to them the two man turret of the T-34 was much better.

During the evolution of the T-34 commanders cupola was introduced in the later versions of the T-34-76 (model 1942) and the T-34-85 finally gained a three man turret. The Soviets of course were aware of the need for it much earlier than that, but they did not want to disrupt production until a complete redesing of the turret was necessary in order to accomodate a larger gun. Co-operation with infantry improved gradually and by summer 1943 infantry support was already the norm.

[LaCroix]

While the Germans had probably the deadliest designs on the field, there is a simple proof it wasn't the best.

They lost the war.

Yes, their tanks had a basically built-in guarantee that whatever they hit was dead. Yes, their tanks, especially the Tiger and Panther variants, were the biggest, heaviest armored bad-asses on the field.

But then, their transmissions died every other day, making a good tank a nice bunker. Also, you could probably make 3 or 4 T-34 from the material needed to make a Tiger, and could run those on the same supplies (More fuel on the T34, but more replacement engines and transmissions on the Tiger part).

My vote for the best tank would go to the later models of M4, beginning with A3, especially after they implemented wet stowage.

[PainRack]

Regarding breakdown, is it true that in 1944/45, 1/4 of the Soviet tank army had to be replaced every 4 months due to breakdown, as the Soviet economy became strained from the war?

[Simon_Jester]

Process was already underway. "Fordism" was a goal for the nazzys throughout their administration. Some of the "reforms" for mass production didn't work too well...take a look at U-boats being built in modules at inland factories and floated down to coastal shipyards to be assembled there. The Goddamn hull pieces didn't fit!

Wasn't modular ship construction something the US experimented with too?

While the Germans had probably the deadliest designs on the field, there is a simple proof it wasn't the best.

They lost the war.

I think that takes the argument too far. Couldn't you lose despite having the best tank of the war? Think about it. If Germany had developed something better suited to mass production, like the Sherman or T-34, and turned out a tank swarm in the numbers that would let them achieve, they'd still have lost. It might have taken a bit more time, or less time, but it would still have happened.*

So we can't conclude that the winner must have had the best tank of the war, even after we factor in issues of cost, maintenance, over-engineering, and all that other subtle paperwork stuff that most tank fans prefer to ignore.

*Though the reverse might well not be true; if the Russians had been trying to produce German-style designs they might well have lost, for all I know.

Regarding breakdown, is it true that in 1944/45, 1/4 of the Soviet tank army had to be replaced every 4 months due to breakdown, as the Soviet economy became strained from the war?

How does that compare to the breakdown rates in other armies? Tanks break down a lot, just by virtue of being so heavy and driven over rough terrain so much.

[Lonestar]

Wasn't modular ship construction something the US experimented with too?

Yeah, for liberty ships. Turns out deviations in part sizes are easier to surmount when the end goal is a low-performance tramp freighter than a U-boat.

[Marcus Aurelius]

*Though the reverse might well not be true; if the Russians had been trying to produce German-style designs they might well have lost, for all I know.

In fact they did, or at least sort of. The original KV-1 was a tactically superior tank with poor mechanical reliability. It impressed the Germans in 1941 much more than the T-34, but the Soviets considered it an overall failure because of the poor reliability. It is perhaps telling that many of the incidents where a single KV-1 managed to delay the advance of the Germans a significant time happened because the transmission had broken down and the tank simply could not retreat, but the crew opted to fight until death.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Wasn't modular ship construction something the US experimented with too?

Yeah, for liberty ships. Turns out deviations in part sizes are easier to surmount when the end goal is a low-performance tramp freighter than a U-boat.

Not to mention, U-boats demand a level of quality control and precision than ordinary ships. A U-boat that isn't made well sinks and there's no where to jump.

[Simon_Jester]

That said, the Russians definitely went for mass-producibility in a big way with the T-34 series, if not with the KV's.

My point is that the Germans would have surely lost even if they'd gone for easily mass-producible tank designs. We can't say that they didn't have the best tank design simply because they lost, because having the best tank design does not guarantee victory.

The footnote was merely to the effect that the Russians might not have surely won if they'd gone for tanks that were hard to mass-produce but individually deadly.

[LaCroix]

I think that takes the argument too far. Couldn't you lose despite having the best tank of the war? Think about it. If Germany had developed something better suited to mass production, like the Sherman or T-34, and turned out a tank swarm in the numbers that would let them achieve, they'd still have lost. It might have taken a bit more time, or less time, but it would still have happened.*

So we can't conclude that the winner must have had the best tank of the war, even after we factor in issues of cost, maintenance, over-engineering, and all that other subtle paperwork stuff that most tank fans prefer to ignore.

*Though the reverse might well not be true; if the Russians had been trying to produce German-style designs they might well have lost, for all I know.

Basically, the war was lost when the US joined. Against Russia alone, the Germans might have been able to compete, but two big honking war industries were simply too much, even when one was bottle-necked a bit by the Atlantic.

German tanks 1-3 were not that good. While Panzer IV was a good workhorse, and was more than a match for a M4 or T34, it was much more expensive (time and resources) to build. When the Russians countered the better gun with the T34/85 and the US with the Firefly, they were on equal footing.

Tanks like Tiger, King tiger and Panther were certainly powerful, but they were so technically buggy that they can't be deemed a 'good' tank. Good tanks don't need a new transmission every couple handful km. They were poor tanks with a good gun, although Panther might have turned out well if it had more time to fix the initial bugs...

Overall, Pzkf IV was the 'best' tank fielded by the Germans, and one of the best tanks overall in the war, but considering the price tag and reliability per unit, the Sherman was better than his adversaries, in my opinion.

[Simon_Jester]

This is very well reasoned, I think. Much better than "...there is a simple proof it wasn't the best. They lost the war."

I don't have a problem with the conclusion; I just objected to trying to support it that way.

[A-Wing_Slash]

Its clear that the Sherman and the T-34 were better than the German designs because they were more efficient to mass produce and service, etc, but is there anyway to tell which of these two allied tanks were better? America and Russia obviously had different circumstances and thus needed different capabilities from their tanks, but I do have the general impression that the T-34 was better in a straight up fight than a Sherman, and matched up better with the Pershing during the Korean War.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Its clear that the Sherman and the T-34 were better than the German designs because they were more efficient to mass produce and service, etc, but is there anyway to tell which of these two allied tanks were better? America and Russia obviously had different circumstances and thus needed different capabilities from their tanks, but I do have the general impression that the T-34 was better in a straight up fight than a Sherman, and matched up better with the Pershing during the Korean War.

I don't know where you read that. In fact the M4A3(76)W HVSS (a.k.a. M4A3E8) did well in Korea and in general was at least a match for the T-34-85. Often the US tanks came on top thanks to better trained crews and officers more experienced with armor tactics. I would say that the actual combat performance of those tanks was so close to each other that it is practically impossible to say which one was better. Both had their own set of strengths and weaknesses, but none of them was significant enough to provide a decisive advantage to the other one except under some special circumstances, which were not very common in real life.

[Stuart]

Its clear that the Sherman and the T-34 were better than the German designs because they were more efficient to mass produce and service, etc, but is there anyway to tell which of these two allied tanks were better? America and Russia obviously had different circumstances and thus needed different capabilities from their tanks, but I do have the general impression that the T-34 was better in a straight up fight than a Sherman, and matched up better with the Pershing during the Korean War.

It's notable that the Russians themselves preferred the M-4 Sherman (Emcha to the Russians) to the T-34 and the elite Guards Tank units had first call on supplies of the Shermans. There's a book by Lorza (With The Red Army's Sherman Tanks) that explains why and he should know. He commanded a regiment of them. Basically the 75mm Sherman more or less matches the T-34/76 while the 76mm matched the T-34/85. According to Lorza, the Russian tankers preferred the M4 for the following reasons

• more reliable
  More internal volume
  better radios
  main gun more accurate
  better spares availability
  factory put a bottle of whisky in the gun barrel of every USSR-bound M4

[montypython]

Its clear that the Sherman and the T-34 were better than the German designs because they were more efficient to mass produce and service, etc, but is there anyway to tell which of these two allied tanks were better? America and Russia obviously had different circumstances and thus needed different capabilities from their tanks, but I do have the general impression that the T-34 was better in a straight up fight than a Sherman, and matched up better with the Pershing during the Korean War.

It's notable that the Russians themselves preferred the M-4 Sherman (Emcha to the Russians) to the T-34 and the elite Guards Tank units had first call on supplies of the Shermans. There's a book by Lorza (With The Red Army's Sherman Tanks) that explains why and he should know. He commanded a regiment of them. Basically the 75mm Sherman more or less matches the T-34/76 while the 76mm matched the T-34/85. According to Lorza, the Russian tankers preferred the M4 for the following reasons

• more reliable
  More internal volume
  better radios
  main gun more accurate
  better spares availability
  factory put a bottle of whisky in the gun barrel of every USSR-bound M4

Another strength that was mentioned was the twin-diesel design of the M4A2 Shermans also allowed quieter sneak attacks (by running off one engine only).

[A-Wing_Slash]

Marcus, I'm not sure where I read it, its just something I've kinda just assumed was true for a while now. Thanks a lot for the info guys, that makes everything make a bit more sense.

[MKSheppard]

Don't forget better overall ergonomics -- the Sherman had at least some level of detail design put forth to make the crew's life easier. I'm not sure if the urban legend of the T-34 driver being supplied with a hammer to shift the gears is true or not; but it does show a level of crudity that makes the tankers' life harder.

[Steve]

factory put a bottle of whisky in the gun barrel of every USSR-bound M4[/list]

Oh, that's awesome.

[K. A. Pital]

There's been another volume of tankist memoirs in the same series as Loza's "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" came out. I'll dig through to give folks some insights, if I find it on my HD.

[Elfdart]

factory put a bottle of whisky in the gun barrel of every USSR-bound M4[/list]

Oh, that's awesome.

It's like a fruit basket, only with booze and shells.

[CaptHawkeye]

From what I heard the Russians also got a lot of lend-lease tanks from the Brits, and they had varying popularity.

The Matilda had a really bad reputation, and was seen as a death trap. It also annoyed Russian tankers that sections of the tank were actually sealed off by the factory and not accessible to their own maintenance personnel.

[montypython]

From what I heard the Russians also got a lot of lend-lease tanks from the Brits, and they had varying popularity.

The Matilda had a really bad reputation, and was seen as a death trap. It also annoyed Russian tankers that sections of the tank were actually sealed off by the factory and not accessible to their own maintenance personnel.

In general the Shermans were the best liked of the Lend-lease tanks and were the ones the Red Army used for frontline duty to the end of the war, while everything else ended up either second-line duties or simply junked.

[spaceviking]

From what I recall the Soviet leadership were unimpressed by the Sherman, preferring American Trucks to American tanks.

[Simon_Jester]

What do people think of the Matilda in general? I mean, as a midwar tank it was badly outclassed, let alone as a late war tank; that much is obvious (hell, as far as I can tell its vaunted armor wasn't all that much better than that of the Sherman, which won a reputation for being thin-skinned in the late war period). But in the period when it really was one of the Brits' top of the line tanks... how was it?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What do people think of the Matilda in general? I mean, as a midwar tank it was badly outclassed, let alone as a late war tank; that much is obvious (hell, as far as I can tell its vaunted armor wasn't all that much better than that of the Sherman, which won a reputation for being thin-skinned in the late war period). But in the period when it really was one of the Brits' top of the line tanks... how was it?

Most British tanks were simply too undergunned (and often mechanically unreliable) for fighting the Germans. The latter British tanks that could potentially stand up against the German tanks were too few in number compared to the Shermans the British were receiving. British production was simply paltry versus USSR and US war production anyhow.