I see a T-34 on the workbench!!!!! (1 Viewer)

I agree - I find it hard to accept that the T-34 was the best tank of the war. A careful look at the info on the T-34/76 makes it comparable to the Sherman that was maligned as being a poor tank. It had some positives like wide tracks and the Christie suspension, but the 76mm gun was nothing special and the T-34 suffered from "soft" steel turret armour and a 2 man turret. The T-34/85 was comparable to the Firefly.

Terry
So if the t34 was not the best tank of the war what was ? Maybe the Panther, Comet was good but came to late
 
So if the t34 was not the best tank of the war what was ? Maybe the Panther, Comet was good but came to late

I couldn't say which was best. There was so much technological change that happened so fast in just 6 years of war, how do you compare. Any tank with superior armour and a better gun should be a better tank - but not always. The Tiger may have been the best but it had weight and mobility problems, breakdown problems and was very expensive to build. And there weren't enough of them. Even the Firefly had it's detractors. Late in 1944 they could have had more than one Firefly in a squad of 4 Shermans, but the tankers didn't want them as they felt the 75mm standard gun was much better for infantry support than the 17pdr. We can eliminate some tanks as not being the best. The King Tiger didn't improve on the Tiger and had the same faults to an even greater degree.

It's certainly possible to pick the worst tanks - they stand out. But how can the best be chosen with such a wide range of tanks. The Matilda was known as the Queen of the Desert for a while. The T-34 never dominated the battlefield - even during the short period when it had better armour and a better gun than the Panzers that invaded France, there were too few of them to even slow the German advance. All it did was spur German tank development which affected the war in North Afrika and western Europe.

Terry
 
So if the t34 was not the best tank of the war what was ? Maybe the Panther, Comet was good but came to late

I think it would have to be the Panther. The T-34 evolved into the T-54, and the Panther balance between speed/firepower/armor/size found it's way into the western evolutions like the Centurion & Patton (& Leopard) tanks which always dominated the T-54. The principal reason the Panther doesn't get more credit is that it came after Germany lost the initiative and never had the chance to really show itself as an offensive weapon taking vast swathes of ground.
 
I would have to say the panther. Once the teething problems were overcome the germans had an awesome machine with armour protection speed and mobility and, an excellent suspension system provided a stable platform, even at speed for a very powerful 75mm gun.

The best tank destroyer which, derived from the panther was the Jagdpanther. upgunned with the superb 88mm gun it had all the attributes of the panther.

The T-34 and sherman are linked with the best most often because of their numbers not, IMO because of any mechanical or armament issues. Once the germans got over the initial shock of meeting the T-34 et al they upgunned their AFV's with the 75mm and could deal with them easily. The germans problem was to many variants than sticking with one or two and using an effective caliber gun on them.

Konigstigers and the like were superb technological innovations in Tank design but, were not what was needed at that time. I can never understand why tank production did not just stay with the Panther which, they quickly realised was a superb design or, stick with the stugs and panzer IV which, could easily deal with any allied AFV on the battlefield
Mitch
 
.... and was not built in numbers to make a difference. :)

It was built in large numbers - it was the 2nd most produced German tank with 6000 produced or 22% of German tank production. Only the Panzer IV at 8800 produced beat it. The Panzer III at 5800 produced was third.

The weakness of the Panther was mechanical unreliability and weak side armour coupled with poor ammo storage - the tank often caught fire when hit on the side. That was a problem the Sherman fixed with wet storage. Even so, I think the Panther was the best all round tank of WWII

Terry
 
Let's put it this way. Suppose it is T-1 year for WW2, and you are the warlord of the country who is going to start it with this new concept of Blitzkrieg you thought up. You want to buy 5000 tanks. You have been to Germany to look at their PzIVJ, Panther, Tiger 1&2; UK to look at the Firefly & Comet; US to look at the Easy 8, & Pershing; USSR to look at T-34/85 & JS2.

Who wouldn't pick the Panther?
 
Let's put it this way. Suppose it is T-1 year for WW2, and you are the warlord of the country who is going to start it with this new concept of Blitzkrieg you thought up. You want to buy 5000 tanks. You have been to Germany to look at their PzIVJ, Panther, Tiger 1&2; UK to look at the Firefly & Comet; US to look at the Easy 8, & Pershing; USSR to look at T-34/85 & JS2.

Who wouldn't pick the Panther?
I would pick the Comet more reliable = fact
:wink2:
 
Let's put it this way. Suppose it is T-1 year for WW2, and you are the warlord of the country who is going to start it with this new concept of Blitzkrieg you thought up. You want to buy 5000 tanks. You have been to Germany to look at their PzIVJ, Panther, Tiger 1&2; UK to look at the Firefly & Comet; US to look at the Easy 8, & Pershing; USSR to look at T-34/85 & JS2.

Who wouldn't pick the Panther?

You would rather have 5000 Panthers than 5000 Tigers?? And UKSubs would rather have 5000 Comets than 5000 Tigers??

Really ^&confuse That's a different question than "what was the best tank of WWII".

If I could have an equal number of any type of tank I would take the Tiger. If I wanted the best tank of WWII, I would say it was the Panther.

Terry
 
You would rather have 5000 Panthers than 5000 Tigers?? And UKSubs would rather have 5000 Comets than 5000 Tigers??

Really ^&confuse That's a different question than "what was the best tank of WWII".

If I could have an equal number of any type of tank I would take the Tiger. If I wanted the best tank of WWII, I would say it was the Panther.

Terry

From what I've read abotut the panther it was very unreliable and over designed, read they were building the tanks and then sending them to a other factory to fit all the updates, and that why they was a lack of tanks on the battlefield
 
This is getting very interesting discussion. I'd have to go for the Panther myself, as Mitch said once it was over its teething problems it was an awesome weapon. Speed,firepower and well armoured it was perhaps the pinnacle of German AFV design. The T34 also deserves mention I believe, sloping armour, a good gun, reliable and with wide tracks it was a good in mud and snow, an excellent all round Tank. It was produced in large numbers and at great speed, it wasn't a 'pretty ' Tank by any means, David Fletcher of Bovington Tank museum described the welding on it that 'Would make a German Tank designer weep' , but that wasn't the point, tough and powerful it played a large role in final victory.

Difficult to argue against the Jagdpanther as best Tank destroyer, apart from two problems of limited gun traverse and its wheels needing time consuming maintenance it was another classic German weapon, but the five hundred odd that were made were eventually swamped .

As for the Brits, anything that had that 17pdr was going to be a real threat. the Firefly must have come as a rude shock to German tank crews, suddenly the mighty Tiger was not unbeatable.

Rob
 
All I am going to ask here is this, what do the possibilities (within this discussion of numbers only) suggest to everyone if the Germans had been able to field 5000 Tigers? The Germans fielded that many Panthers. The Russians built 50,000 T-34's and lost 40,000+ to FAR fewer technically superior German AFV's. What happens if the Western Allies suddenly have to face 2000 or more Tigers instead of a couple hundred or the Russians have to face 2500-3000 Tigers instead of several hundred? Does anyone really believe that the T-34's or ANY western tank would have come off very well? The question can also be fairly applied to the Panther. Instead of such diversity, what if the Germans dump the Tiger and other heavy AFV programs and focus on the Panther? Another few thousand Panthers might have been equally tough to overcome. I realize this question can only be answered in the great spirit of 'what if' but it is interesting. It is scary to think what could have been had the German war industry been capable of such production numbers. There's that air superiority thing, again. -- Al
 
Just to add my .02 cents to this, I would say that i disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn here and would say that the T-34 and it's variants were the best, and certainly most influential, tank of WWII. Of course, i agree that there were others that came later in the war that outgunned and outarmored it and there's no denying that thousands upon thousands were destroyed. However, the T-34 should not be compared to heavy tanks such as the Tiger, but rather as medium tanks such as the Panzer IV and Sherman.

I would offer the following for consideration when discussing this....

First, the T-34 was well ahead of it's time and when it first appeared on the battlefield could out gun, out maneuver, and had better armor than anything else it went up against. It had the wide trackbase which gave it great mobility in the snow and mud of the Eastern Front, had sloping armor which increased the effectiveness of the tank on defense, and had a more powerful gun than anything else it went up against. For the first year (or two) in which the Germans fought against the T-34 they really didn't have anything that could destroy it from the front or at long range except the 88.

Second, I would caution those not to blame the tanks themselves for the ineffectiveness and inexperience of those who manned them and commmanded them. It was inexperienced russian tankers/leadership/doctrine and superior german tactics and operational doctrine/organization which made the difference and explains a large portion of the combat and non-combat losses. Further, German combined arms use of Tactical Air Support and the air supremacy for the first few years also made a difference. One need only look at Russian Infantry losses as well which were probably about double those of all other nationalities combined (in the European Theater). But i wouldn't go as far as to say the Russian soldiers were inferior simply because their losses were so substanial, they were just poorly led for a long time and it was more often the tactics that lead to these losses, not the quality of the soldiers themselves. Even in Stalingrad, when the Russian infantry i believe out performed their German adversaries on an individual level, their losses were far greater than those of the Germans.

Third, while Germany constantly created new tank variants and versions vastly different than their previous tanks (i.e. totally new designs), the T-34 and it's variants remained in constant production throughout the war from beginning to end. I think this speaks volumes as to the quality of the tank that it was never really made obsolete and continued to remain in service through the 1950's.

If the T-34 had one great weakness it was it's turret design which required the tank commander to fire the gun. This limited the commanders ability to command the crew and work effectively with other tanks in the unit. But this was rectified during the war by the 85 version with the 3 man turret. It also had some mechanical problems and non-combat losses were high because of this, but then again, so did every other tank that operated in the dust and weather conditions of the Eastern Front. German armored non-combat losses were far higher than combat losses as well i believe.

I think the question one should ask is if the Germans had the T-34 and the Russians had the German tanks from 1941-1943, would the outcome of the large tank battles, Barbarossa, and possibily the entire war have been different? The Germans through superior tactics, crew experience, and leadership won almost all armored engagements with tanks very much inferior to those they were going up against in the East. Had the Germans had the T-34 these lopsided victories would probably have been even more so and their advances may have even been greater and faster. Would it have changed the overall outcome? It's doubtful as the war in the east was arguable already lost in August 1941 and the armor was advancing as fast as was possible simply because they constantly had to wait for the foot slogging infantry divisions to catch up with their spearheads. But I certainly believe that Panzer III's with their 50mm gun which were the main battle tank of the Germans in 1941 and for much of 1942 were vastly inferior to the T-34 and it wasn't until later in the war when the Germans had created many new tank variants that the Russians were even forced to adopt a new version of the T-34 to compete. And what was this version? Basically just a new turret with a bigger gun for the existing tank. I think this is what makes the T-34 the finest tank of the war.

Anyway, interesting discussion for sure.

Matt
 
All I am going to ask here is this, what do the possibilities (within this discussion of numbers only) suggest to everyone if the Germans had been able to field 5000 Tigers? The Germans fielded that many Panthers. The Russians built 50,000 T-34's and lost 40,000+ to FAR fewer technically superior German AFV's. What happens if the Western Allies suddenly have to face 2000 or more Tigers instead of a couple hundred or the Russians have to face 2500-3000 Tigers instead of several hundred? Does anyone really believe that the T-34's or ANY western tank would have come off very well? The question can also be fairly applied to the Panther. Instead of such diversity, what if the Germans dump the Tiger and other heavy AFV programs and focus on the Panther? Another few thousand Panthers might have been equally tough to overcome. I realize this question can only be answered in the great spirit of 'what if' but it is interesting. It is scary to think what could have been had the German war industry been capable of such production numbers. There's that air superiority thing, again. -- Al

You make a very good point Al and for me that is one of the reason the German lost the war they never built just one make of tank like the T34 but had loads of different armour being used at the same time must of been a supply nightmare, going from what I read the German lost on the number game by not making a noth tanks compared to the allies and a max number of only five hundred tiger tanks on all fronts were available at any one time
 
The War was over before it started , Germany has never had the manpower or materials to fight the resources of the World either time in a sustained War . But German ingenuity and the creative genius of Engineers and designers not to mention the fighting abilities of the German soldier have certainly made it interesting both in the air and on the ground . ( I'm talking of combat not any atrocities ) Regards Gebhard
 
Depends on which war you are stating such a bold statement about. Hitlers war or, the generals war?? Had the germans followed the plans of their generals even with the limited productivity you state (which, I don't neccessarily agree with if one looks at yearly productivity reports) they would have beaten the russians

Had germany stuck with its original plan russia would most certainly have been brought to its knee's or, at least sued for a peace similar to the first world war. Even, after not following that, Had Manstein been allowed to expand on the successes at Kharkov and surrounding areas we would not have had kursk and, even when the latter battle began Manstein still believed he could gain a true vistory against the russians and, only Hitler stopped that.

The war was clearly not won as soon as it started. there was also diplomatic errors (on Hitlers part) which, allowed the US to enter the war easier than it would have been. it was not clear even after pearl that the US would enter european hostilities. Looking back on history its rather easy to say it was a forgone conclusion but, it was far from certain even with the two major industrial powers joined with britain that war was won

Al brings up a great point about the germans being able to field more AFV's I read where it was calculated that if each german unit was properly equiped with the AFV's they should have had allied losses would have been 30/40% higher than they were. Thats staggering!!

Al also mentions the air superiority and, that was important but, not as important as our main weapon Hitler. All interesting what If's
Mitch

The War was over before it started , Germany has never had the manpower or materials to fight the resources of the World either time in a sustained War . But German ingenuity and the creative genius of Engineers and designers not to mention the fighting abilities of the German soldier have certainly made it interesting both in the air and on the ground . ( I'm talking of combat not any atrocities ) Regards Gebhard
 
Depends on which war you are stating such a bold statement about. Hitlers war or, the generals war?? Had the germans followed the plans of their generals even with the limited productivity you state (which, I don't neccessarily agree with if one looks at yearly productivity reports) they would have beaten the russians

Had germany stuck with its original plan russia would most certainly have been brought to its knee's or, at least sued for a peace similar to the first world war. Even, after not following that, Had Manstein been allowed to expand on the successes at Kharkov and surrounding areas we would not have had kursk and, even when the latter battle began Manstein still believed he could gain a true vistory against the russians and, only Hitler stopped that.

The war was clearly not won as soon as it started. there was also diplomatic errors (on Hitlers part) which, allowed the US to enter the war easier than it would have been. it was not clear even after pearl that the US would enter european hostilities. Looking back on history its rather easy to say it was a forgone conclusion but, it was far from certain even with the two major industrial powers joined with britain that war was won

Al brings up a great point about the germans being able to field more AFV's I read where it was calculated that if each german unit was properly equiped with the AFV's they should have had allied losses would have been 30/40% higher than they were. Thats staggering!!

Al also mentions the air superiority and, that was important but, not as important as our main weapon Hitler. All interesting what If's
Mitch

Mitch ,
Again I don't think you read my statements please note "Germany has never had the manpower or materials to fight the resources of the World either time in a sustained War" I said the " WORLD" and "Sustained WAR" .
Russia was nocked out of the first one and renigged on the terms , I think Uncle Joe would have done the same should that have taken place again . Without getting into the what if's there was one War for Germany and IMO it was one they could not win from the start .
There was no way the USA was gonna stay out of the second one as soon as Hitler came to power the wheels were already in motion Hitler had to go it was just a matter of when and how . Regards Gebhard
 
This is getting very interesting discussion. I'd have to go for the Panther myself, as Mitch said once it was over its teething problems it was an awesome weapon. Speed,firepower and well armoured it was perhaps the pinnacle of German AFV design. The T34 also deserves mention I believe, sloping armour, a good gun, reliable and with wide tracks it was a good in mud and snow, an excellent all round Tank. It was produced in large numbers and at great speed, it wasn't a 'pretty ' Tank by any means, David Fletcher of Bovington Tank museum described the welding on it that 'Would make a German Tank designer weep' , but that wasn't the point, tough and powerful it played a large role in final victory.

Difficult to argue against the Jagdpanther as best Tank destroyer, apart from two problems of limited gun traverse and its wheels needing time consuming maintenance it was another classic German weapon, but the five hundred odd that were made were eventually swamped .

As for the Brits, anything that had that 17pdr was going to be a real threat. the Firefly must have come as a rude shock to German tank crews, suddenly the mighty Tiger was not unbeatable.

Rob

I agree this is interesting Rob

Here are a few of my thoughts regarding the T-34
  • Armor - Yes sloped armor was a good feature but it was taken to an impractical extreme on the T-34. Look at the early turrets of the T-34/76 compared to the late versions of the T-34/76 and T-34/85. The later turrets have far less slope because the resultant loss of internal space was simply impractical. The hull armor remained the same throughout the war. It can be said that the T-34s armor against 37mm - 50mm German Weapons was effective. Once the Germans transitioned to 75mm/88mm weapons the T-34s armor was largely ineffective (All that slope didn't help either). Also, sloped armor is often portrayed as a revolutionary design feature. Other countries including Germany were well aware of the benefits of sloping armor prior to meeting the T-34. One only has to look at the German armored cars and SPWs to see the concept was already appreciated. The quality of the rolled armor plate was also generally inferior to western armor.
  • Reliability - Early T-34s were notoriously unreliable. It was not uncommon for early versions to have a spare transmission tied to the engine deck. Reliability continued to improve throughout the war but didn't really become satisfactory until after the war.
  • Gun - The T-34 had 4 different guns, the L-11 (76mm), F-34 (76mm) , S-53 (85mm) and D5 (85mm). The L-11 was abandoned early. The F-34 was a medium velocity 76mm gun that was no match for the 75mm L43/48 German guns. The S-53/D5 were definitely an improvement but not in the class of the german 88mm or 75mm L70. The ammunition supply for the 85mm guns was a measily 56 rounds.
  • Mobility - The T-34 definitely had good mobility owing to it's relatively light weight and wide tracks. It had less middle gears than western tanks such as the Pz.IV or M4 and was harder to handle. This stiff handling was hard on parts which resulted in premature failure. Gear ratios weren't necessarily optimized for combat speeds either so Soviet tank attacks often consisted of high speed charges that ended in chaos for the Soviets.
  • Radio - Early on only command T-34s were fitted with radios. Combined with the fact that T-34 commanders also operated as gunners one can imagine how chaos must have reigned supreme during their tank attacks. The radio situation did improve as the war progressed.
  • Build Quality - Rob touches on how crude it was. I have a number of pictures showing armor plates that simply do not fit together that had signifcant gaps filled with weld bead. I suppose it shouldn't surpirse us when we see pictures of destroyed T-34s that have literally been blown apart at the seams.
 
I agree this is interesting Rob

Here are a few of my thoughts regarding the T-34
  • Armor - Yes sloped armor was a good feature but it was taken to an impractical extreme on the T-34. Look at the early turrets of the T-34/76 compared to the late versions of the T-34/76 and T-34/85. The later turrets have far less slope because the resultant loss of internal space was simply impractical. The hull armor remained the same throughout the war. It can be said that the T-34s armor against 37mm - 50mm German Weapons was effective. Once the Germans transitioned to 75mm/88mm weapons the T-34s armor was largely ineffective (All that slope didn't help either). Also, sloped armor is often portrayed as a revolutionary design feature. Other countries including Germany were well aware of the benefits of sloping armor prior to meeting the T-34. One only has to look at the German armored cars and SPWs to see the concept was already appreciated. The quality of the rolled armor plate was also generally inferior to western armor.
  • Reliability - Early T-34s were notoriously unreliable. It was not uncommon for early versions to have a spare transmission tied to the engine deck. Reliability continued to improve throughout the war but didn't really become satisfactory until after the war.
  • Gun - The T-34 had 4 different guns, the L-11 (76mm), F-34 (76mm) , S-53 (85mm) and D5 (85mm). The L-11 was abandoned early. The F-34 was a medium velocity 76mm gun that was no match for the 75mm L43/48 German guns. The S-53/D5 were definitely an improvement but not in the class of the german 88mm or 75mm L70. The ammunition supply for the 85mm guns was a measily 56 rounds.
  • Mobility - The T-34 definitely had good mobility owing to it's relatively light weight and wide tracks. It had less middle gears than western tanks such as the Pz.IV or M4 and was harder to handle. This stiff handling was hard on parts which resulted in premature failure. Gear ratios weren't necessarily optimized for combat speeds either so Soviet tank attacks often consisted of high speed charges that ended in chaos for the Soviets.
  • Radio - Early on only command T-34s were fitted with radios. Combined with the fact that T-34 commanders also operated as gunners one can imagine how chaos must have reigned supreme during their tank attacks. The radio situation did improve as the war progressed.
  • Build Quality - Rob touches on how crude it was. I have a number of pictures showing armor plates that simply do not fit together that had signifcant gaps filled with weld bead. I suppose it shouldn't surpirse us when we see pictures of destroyed T-34s that have literally been blown apart at the seams.


Thanks for posting Frank, very interesting to get your view on the T34, I talk about some of the points we've raised here when my tour stops at the T34. So overall would you say the T34 doesn't rank that highly with you? Apologies if you've mentioned this already in a post I've missed. I remember taking a tour of a group made up of around thirty Russian army officers some four years back. The group and their interpreter were all suffering from susbstantial hangovers following a heavy Vodka session the night before and were in a sullen and humourless mood. When I mentioned the T34 as one of the best all round Tanks of the War the highest ranking officer , clearly suffering and not a happy soldier, almost spat a question that came back to me through the interpreter ' What does he mean ONE of the best all round Tanks' ??? {eek3}^&grin

Can I ask your opinion on another matter? Is it not true that the Panther was in fact vulnerable to fire to its sides, even from the Sherman at close range, and was this made worse by the fact its ammo racks were close to this vulnerable spot?.

Thanks again Frank

Rob
 
Geb...

Without detracting from the original thread about the T-34 I will make it short. I did read and understand what you said just cannot agree historically with you about the points you put. I must say you are wrong that the US was a cert to join in with troops on the ground in WWII in Europe. I have read much about the discontent throughout the US about going into the european war and, even more so after the attack by the japanese. I really do think you should address your own country's opinion polls and work on this fact before saying I misunderstood you.

This under resourced country did remarkably well against the US USSR and, commonwealth for a very long time. I used some examples of the generals etc and what would inevitably happened on the russian battlefields had, the german high command got their operational way. Without the russians still in the war the pressure from the public in the US and, an asian theatre to address I do not believe it was a forgone conclusion that your president could have sold it to the US people to enter a land campaign on two fronts. What made it easier for the allies was Hitler's total misunderstanding of the politic in the US. His foolish declaration of war against the US was another in a string of political and military decisions which, were devastating for germany.

It was far from anything like a forgone conclusion that germany would lose even with these powers thrust against them thats why so much material had to be sent to the russians from the west via the artic convoys and, why many attacks the allies did were to show the russians that the west was doing something to take some of the pressure of the russians and ease their terrible losses in material and manpower

Rob/Frank...

Have to fully agree about the T-34 I have a fair few pics of some where you wonderif someone had made it with their eyes closed. As I said it was a shock to the germans initially but, I would rather have been in a panzer IV than a T-34.

I would think not only the Panther was vulnerable at the sides almost any tank in WWII was vulnerable to fire from side shots even low velocity allied guns
Mitch



Mitch ,
Again I don't think you read my statements please note "Germany has never had the manpower or materials to fight the resources of the World either time in a sustained War" I said the " WORLD" and "Sustained WAR" .
Russia was nocked out of the first one and renigged on the terms , I think Uncle Joe would have done the same should that have taken place again . Without getting into the what if's there was one War for Germany and IMO it was one they could not win from the start .
There was no way the USA was gonna stay out of the second one as soon as Hitler came to power the wheels were already in motion Hitler had to go it was just a matter of when and how . Regards Gebhard
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top