Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Looking at the numbers - it appears that the soviets produced significantly more 76.2 t34s but you are right. The 76.2 struggled a bit more than I thought it did against tiger frontal armor. At Kurst though. These would have primarily been 76.2mm t34s.

T 34 (76) struggled. Thats why they went they went into emergency production of SU 85s (then 100s), and used their monster artillery and KV 152s. 152s could blow the turret right off.
What really was the problem was that Soviet tactics continued to be hampered by - well combined arms tactics - and poor communications until late 1943.

Interesting note: the T34 / 85 had less penetration than the M4's 76mm.

Also, why are big Cat designs so uber loved? The IS 2 had more armor and a better gun with equal weight to a Panther. The Centurion went on to serve for decades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
“Was the Sherman actually bad” is the question very new armchair historians ask when they get bored asking how Germany could have won the war. It’s a great topic because there is tons of information, and a great gateway to thinking about tactics, logistics, and mass production.

That said, most serious historians think that the Sherman did what it was supposed to do in the war that it actually fought. Even if the US had fast tracked the Pershing in, say, 1943, the impact would have been marginal.

Interesting that, if you take the top turret monstrosity off the Grant, it becomes a much more low silhouette US version of a STG.

Israel used the Sherman to great effect in two major conflicts long after WWII, and kept it in their forces until 1986. I know they modded them, but still that's a testament to the design.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As for the Sherman - it actually did really well during the war. It was basically never seeing tigers anyways. It's biggest failing was always being quite combustible on being knocked out. It killed a lot of crews than might have lived in a safer tank. Really though - this also seems a little embellished. How often does a tank crew survive when they have an AP round bouncing about the cabin? I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

From June 1944 until April 1945, American armored forces suffered .98 crew casualties per vehicle loss (both medium and light tanks combined).

The Sherman was one of, if not the, most survible tanks of the war.

I honestly believe Belton Y Cooper bears a lot of the responsibility for the Sherman's poor reputation. On a forum I used to be a member of we had a standing challenge to anyone who would cite the Sherman-Ronson comparison (Supposedly it was nicknamed that because like the advertising slogan for the contemporary lighter it would light up first time, every time). Produce a reference to a contemporary source that actually mentioned this, this could be unit war diaries, personal diaries, personal correspondence. It didn't even have to be a quote, just a reference.

Not one taker in over a decade.

The emergence of the 75 and 88 guns that became standard on German vehicles as we popularly remember them happened specifically because of the T34 and the KVs.

IIRC the famed 88 had to be first deployed to counter British Matilda IIs which the Germans struggled to knock out with either the high velocity 37mm or low velocity 75mm guns. True, the Matildas were equally handicapped by the weak 2lber, but they were tough opponents. Though I agree that the long barreled 75 and 88 weren't vehicle mounted until after Barbarossa.

It isn't overhyped and considering that it probably best achieved the need of the side it fielded is a big plus.

I disagree. Proponents of the T-34 generally laud the fact that it featured sloped armour like this was a unique feature (The Renault FT-17 of WWI vintage for example already had this, also look at the front of the Sherman...), or that it had a low silhouette (Seriously, look at a T-34 and a Sherman side by side, there's not much to chose between the two). It also had apparently very poor crew comforts, which might seem trivial but really isn't when you consider that a crew that's exhausted after driving their tank a few hours will be less effective than a crew that's relaitively comfortable. The armour quality was also often poor, the internal facing would IIRC frequently splinter even if not penetrated. A 76mm armed Sherman had better penetration than a 76.2mm armed T-34 and the optics on the T-34 were generally poorer. Soviet Sherman crews generally had few complaints about their rides.

But the T-34 is often regarded as the zenith of WW2 tank design whilst the Sherman is almost as often disregarded as little more than a death trap.

So, yes I would consider the T-34 overhyped. The two were a fairly even match-up, and if I had to travel any sort of distance I'd probably rather be in a Sherman at the end of it rather than a T-34.

I disagree. Proponents of the T-34 generally laud the fact that it featured sloped armour like this was a unique feature (The Renault FT-17 of WWI vintage for example already had this, also look at the front of the Sherman...), or that it had a low silhouette (Seriously, look at a T-34 and a Sherman side by side, there's not much to chose between the two). It also had apparently very poor crew comforts, which might seem trivial but really isn't when you consider that a crew that's exhausted after driving their tank a few hours will be less effective than a crew that's relaitively comfortable. The armour quality was also often poor, the internal facing would IIRC frequently splinter even if not penetrated. A 76mm armed Sherman had better penetration than a 76.2mm armed T-34 and the optics on the T-34 were generally poorer. Soviet Sherman crews generally had few complaints about their rides.

TBF that is the issue of the perosn, knowing jack about tanks rather then it beeing overhyped.
The T34 is the best possible solution for an army that generally relies on mass and needs material in the field.
it has strategic value.

It's the same with the sherman, everyone complaining about it's capability to supposedly burn down as soon as someone looks at it funny. Even with that the tank is strategically superior due to reliability and quality.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That armor wasn't enough to stop the t34's gun most the time (and the t34's gun was only a 76.2mm) and the t34 was far more reliable and mobile.

Don't know where you got this information but that is wildly inaccurate. The 76.2mm gun on the T34 was absolutely no match for a Tiger except at point blank range, and even then it wasn't exactly a sure thing.

Tigers were pretty mobile for a big tank but it put it's priorities in the wrong -places and was WAY over engineered. For the cost they could have built 3000 more panthers and it would have been a better decision.

I see this argument often. I don't think most armchair military historians take into account the Wehrmacht's manpower problems when they think of this issue in those terms. Fewer, more sophisticated machines was pretty much their only option. Even if they did churn out more Panzer IVs, I highly doubt they could have manned them all.

Aye - you are right about the 76.2 - that was my error in the timing of the armaments on the battlefield. I was thinking about the upgraded gun. Though I am not sure you are correct on the tiger. I think they could have manned more smaller tanks and it probably would have been more efficient too. Were talking about an army that was moving most of it's supplies by horseback and it is constructing the heaviest and most resource intensive tank in the war. It was a huge mistake IMO. If anything what the German army needed was trucks. The whole idea of the tiger was just Hitler being a mad man trying to develop super weapons. I love the tiger too. It just looks like a tank should look IMO. The tiger 2 is even sillier. Developing a super tank and you don't even have a chance at maintaining air superiority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 simonr1978 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As for the Sherman - it actually did really well during the war. It was basically never seeing tigers anyways. It's biggest failing was always being quite combustible on being knocked out. It killed a lot of crews than might have lived in a safer tank. Really though - this also seems a little embellished. How often does a tank crew survive when they have an AP round bouncing about the cabin? I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

From June 1944 until April 1945, American armored forces suffered .98 crew casualties per vehicle loss (both medium and light tanks combined).

The Sherman was one of, if not the, most survible tanks of the war.

I honestly believe Belton Y Cooper bears a lot of the responsibility for the Sherman's poor reputation. On a forum I used to be a member of we had a standing challenge to anyone who would cite the Sherman-Ronson comparison (Supposedly it was nicknamed that because like the advertising slogan for the contemporary lighter it would light up first time, every time). Produce a reference to a contemporary source that actually mentioned this, this could be unit war diaries, personal diaries, personal correspondence. It didn't even have to be a quote, just a reference.

Not one taker in over a decade.

The emergence of the 75 and 88 guns that became standard on German vehicles as we popularly remember them happened specifically because of the T34 and the KVs.

IIRC the famed 88 had to be first deployed to counter British Matilda IIs which the Germans struggled to knock out with either the high velocity 37mm or low velocity 75mm guns. True, the Matildas were equally handicapped by the weak 2lber, but they were tough opponents. Though I agree that the long barreled 75 and 88 weren't vehicle mounted until after Barbarossa.

It isn't overhyped and considering that it probably best achieved the need of the side it fielded is a big plus.

I disagree. Proponents of the T-34 generally laud the fact that it featured sloped armour like this was a unique feature (The Renault FT-17 of WWI vintage for example already had this, also look at the front of the Sherman...), or that it had a low silhouette (Seriously, look at a T-34 and a Sherman side by side, there's not much to chose between the two). It also had apparently very poor crew comforts, which might seem trivial but really isn't when you consider that a crew that's exhausted after driving their tank a few hours will be less effective than a crew that's relaitively comfortable. The armour quality was also often poor, the internal facing would IIRC frequently splinter even if not penetrated. A 76mm armed Sherman had better penetration than a 76.2mm armed T-34 and the optics on the T-34 were generally poorer. Soviet Sherman crews generally had few complaints about their rides.

But the T-34 is often regarded as the zenith of WW2 tank design whilst the Sherman is almost as often disregarded as little more than a death trap.

So, yes I would consider the T-34 overhyped. The two were a fairly even match-up, and if I had to travel any sort of distance I'd probably rather be in a Sherman at the end of it rather than a T-34.

Sherman is kinda ugly. I think that is where the majority of it's hate comes from. I really dont understand the straight lies about it though. For decades I've been told the sherman went up into flames easier than other tanks...turns out it's not actually true? Jezz..I guess it's really just about anecdotes. The T34 even has comparable speed to the Sherman even though it looks faster. Yet from seeing real war footage - I would have though the t34 was much faster than the Sherman - just from the number of times I've seen a t34 flaming across an open field charging German tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As for the Sherman - it actually did really well during the war. It was basically never seeing tigers anyways. It's biggest failing was always being quite combustible on being knocked out. It killed a lot of crews than might have lived in a safer tank. Really though - this also seems a little embellished. How often does a tank crew survive when they have an AP round bouncing about the cabin? I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

From June 1944 until April 1945, American armored forces suffered .98 crew casualties per vehicle loss (both medium and light tanks combined).

The Sherman was one of, if not the, most survible tanks of the war.

From the stats I have seen quoted. The majority of Sherman were destroyed by mines. Do we have the statistics from being hit by 88's? or really just anti tank shells?

TBF that is the issue of the perosn, knowing jack about tanks rather then it beeing overhyped.

But that's exactly what causes the hype and exactly why it's over-hyped. I agree that the T-34 was a good tank and probably just what the Red Army needed at the time, but it wasn't the revolution in armour design that most people seem to think it was.

 simonr1978 wrote:
On a forum I used to be a member of we had a standing challenge to anyone who would cite the Sherman-Ronson comparison

http://www.theshermantank.com/category/ammo-storage/

Suggests that the earliest models of sherman had issues with poor ammo storage leading to fire hazards (see the ammo storage heading). A lots of rounds stored in the turret (IIRC 12 at the back of the turret basket) and unarmoured bins to either side. https://imgur.com/wQ2Rlg8

Later shermans would stack the rounds up in the hull, along with heavier armour on the tank itself and in some cases 'wet' storage of the rounds to reduce fire risks - a long way from the 'whoops. why is there gunpowder on the floor' issue mentioned in the early model. https://imgur.com/wlKUREF


In terms of tanks prone to catching fire, I seem to recall that the Panther was prone to it at times due to poorly secured hydraulics.

 simonr1978 wrote:

TBF that is the issue of the perosn, knowing jack about tanks rather then it beeing overhyped.

But that's exactly what causes the hype and exactly why it's over-hyped. I agree that the T-34 was a good tank and probably just what the Red Army needed at the time, but it wasn't the revolution in armour design that most people seem to think it was.

It was mostly the revolution of minimalist maximum production design and one of the first real massproduced armored vehicles in the world, imo it's more a Economic wonderchild due to beeing literally dirt cheap to manufacture to the point of insanity, especially when one compares production numbers of tanks. ( But that has more to do with war economics and logistics.)

Actually Shermans are pretty much flawed designs compared to any other European ones.
1. Tall sillouette, too easy to be spotted. European tank desgins has always constrained track - turret height not to exceeding 3 meters high, (or tried to be as close as possible) because. they've learned that Landship psycho factors didn't do much, it might scare soldiers without any viable antitank countermeasures, but these landships often deployed against considerably defended areas where if no AT countermeasures, there's still artillery to call a barrage against enemy AFV he sees. Shorter silloutette means less exposure to eyesights at distances.
2. Narrow hull. This shortcomings might be due to the fact the vehicles were made in Automotive assembly plants originally made to produce cars and trucks. also anticipations of European bridges and tunnels to be narrow (or American railroad tunnels weren't wide since railroads were and still owned by private sectors reflected in the inconsistence roadway quality among different railroad corporates.
1+2 resulted in the the limited main gun choices.

Actually Shermans were more or less modelled after Vickers 6-ton Mark E.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually Shermans are pretty much flawed designs compared to any other European ones.
1. Tall sillouette, too easy to be spotted. European tank desgins has always constrained track - turret height not to exceeding 3 meters high, (or tried to be as close as possible) because. they've learned that Landship psycho factors didn't do much, it might scare soldiers without any viable antitank countermeasures, but these landships often deployed against considerably defended areas where if no AT countermeasures, there's still artillery to call a barrage against enemy AFV he sees. Shorter silloutette means less exposure to eyesights at distances.

There really isn't that much in it when you compare the Sherman and the T-34 side by side.

 Lone Cat wrote:
2. Narrow hull. This shortcomings might be due to the fact the vehicles were made in Automotive assembly plants originally made to produce cars and trucks. also anticipations of European bridges and tunnels to be narrow (or American railroad tunnels weren't wide since railroads were and still owned by private sectors reflected in the inconsistence roadway quality among different railroad corporates.
1+2 resulted in the the limited main gun choices.

Actually Shermans were more or less modelled after Vickers 6-ton Mark E.

It's the turret ring rather than the hull which dictates the maximum gun size, true the hull dictates the maximum turret ring size, but again comparing the two images the hull at turret level of the T-34 is about the same as the Sherman, if anything the Sherman actually looks to me like it has the edge there.

Yeh but T34 is wider. while both shares the same turret ring size. what makes T34 looks wider?

Yes, the Sherman is taller. But only by a little over a foot. And its really all about trade-offs. The Sherman is narrower which is a real advantage in confined areas.

The T-34 does have an advantage in its armor slope. Both tanks are cheap and easy to mass produce. The Sherman definitely had an edge in overall tech and crew comfort.

And if you're really going to be nitpicky, the Panther is actually taller than the Sherman.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Yeh but T34 is wider. while both shares the same turret ring size. what makes T34 looks wider?

At the risk of repetition, there really isn't that much in it. According to wikipedia, the Sherman was between 2.69m and 2.99m depending on the model, the T-34 was 3m, so the difference isn't great.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually Shermans are pretty much flawed designs compared to any other European ones..

Which European tank was superior to the M4 in 1942 again? This should be full of laughs.

German:
PZ III, worse gun, worse armor.
PZIV worse gun, worse armor, not capable of the same level of manufacturing speed.
STUG not bad for what it was but worse armor and not a comparable vehicle.

British...you've got to be kidding.

Soviets:
BT series. crap armor, gun, no radio, poor layout.
SU 76, not bad for what it was, but not a comparable tank.,
T34, suicidal layout and two man turret. Better traction and diesel engine. NO RADIO. Optics worse. T34 / 85 is a different animal.
KV1: good armor and gun but too expensive to mass produce in comparison. Heavy tank vs. a medium tank.

Japanese: see British.
Italians: whats a tank?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, the Sherman is taller. But only by a little over a foot. And its really all about trade-offs. The Sherman is narrower which is a real advantage in confined areas.

The T-34 does have an advantage in its armor slope. Both tanks are cheap and easy to mass produce. The Sherman definitely had an edge in overall tech and crew comfort.

And if you're really going to be nitpicky, the Panther is actually taller than the Sherman.

The slope is a disadvantage as much as an advantage. Interior space was nonexistent. Plus lets talk about how a two man turret makes it a deathtrap. Plus no radio, and poor vision. Seriously, who designed that...France?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Israel used the Sherman to great effect in two major conflicts long after WWII, and kept it in their forces until 1986. I know they modded them, but still that's a testament to the design.

India used up-gunned Shermans against the M47 and M48 Pattens as well so yea the logevity of the desgin was amazing!

What impresses me about the T34 was that the Soviets could continue to produce so many despite the massive disruption of their industry caused by the German invasion. Like all designs it had its limitations, but they could really throw those things together!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually Shermans are pretty much flawed designs compared to any other European ones..

Which European tank was superior to the M4 in 1942 again? This should be full of laughs.

German:
PZ III, worse gun, worse armor.
PZIV worse gun, worse armor, not capable of the same level of manufacturing speed.
STUG not bad for what it was but worse armor and not a comparable vehicle.

British...you've got to be kidding.

Soviets:
BT series. crap armor, gun, no radio, poor layout.
SU 76, not bad for what it was, but not a comparable tank.,
T34, suicidal layout and two man turret. Better traction and diesel engine. NO RADIO. Optics worse. T34 / 85 is a different animal.

The traction part is also somewhat misleading. The T-34 spanked the Sherman when it came to mud and snow, although this was somewhat mitigated later on with wider Sherman tracks. The Sherman though, actually had the edge over the T-34 when it came to traction on rocks, rubble, and logs/brush.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually Shermans are pretty much flawed designs compared to any other European ones..

Which European tank was superior to the M4 in 1942 again? This should be full of laughs.

German:
PZ III, worse gun, worse armor.
PZIV worse gun, worse armor, not capable of the same level of manufacturing speed.
STUG not bad for what it was but worse armor and not a comparable vehicle.

British...you've got to be kidding.

Soviets:
BT series. crap armor, gun, no radio, poor layout.
SU 76, not bad for what it was, but not a comparable tank.,
T34, suicidal layout and two man turret. Better traction and diesel engine. NO RADIO. Optics worse. T34 / 85 is a different animal.
KV1: good armor and gun but too expensive to mass produce in comparison. Heavy tank vs. a medium tank.

Japanese: see British.
Italians: whats a tank?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, the Sherman is taller. But only by a little over a foot. And its really all about trade-offs. The Sherman is narrower which is a real advantage in confined areas.

The T-34 does have an advantage in its armor slope. Both tanks are cheap and easy to mass produce. The Sherman definitely had an edge in overall tech and crew comfort.

And if you're really going to be nitpicky, the Panther is actually taller than the Sherman.

The slope is a disadvantage as much as an advantage. Interior space was nonexistent. Plus lets talk about how a two man turret makes it a deathtrap. Plus no radio, and poor vision. Seriously, who designed that...France?

I'd refers to Germans (Pz4), British (Past Crusaders and Churchill), and Soviets (since T34 onwards), they've been evolved by the time USA joined the war in full swing.

Japanese and Italian designs were no problems to Americans at all

Also Pz4 is shorter, and somewhat more flexible.
Don't forget the 1943-44 scenario where Germans already relegated Pz3 to different roles as these were outclassed.

I'd refers to Germans (Pz4),

PZIV at time M4 came out had a weaker gun and weaker armor. While it was a good tank it did not match the ease of maintenance and manufacturing as the M4.
How is a PZ IV more flexible? The M4 served in every theater of the war. It was the basis for tank destroyers, tanks, assault tanks (15s), tanks with rocket launchers, mobile artillery and "funnies." There were M4s they floated. There were even M4s that served as IFVs with the turrets taken off.

British (Past Crusaders and Churchill),

Crusader: Less armor, crappier gun. IT HAD BOLTED ARMOR.
Crusader III (coming out at time of M4) had a three man crew. This is a deathtrap not a tank.

and Soviets (since T34 onwards)

T34 had a two man turret, restricted vision, and few radios. No radios mean the Germans dance around you.
T34/85 is a different beast entirely. However it did not come out until 1944 and still never had enough radios. M4 advances were equal or better.
(M4 Easy 8s with poorly trained crews stomped T34/85s with poorly trained crews in Korea).

In the interest of full disclosure the SU 100 is one of my favorite armored vehicles.

The T-34 is easily the most influential tank of the war, in that it was the first tank to combine mass production with a good balance of the top three criteria for tnaks: firepower, protection, and mobility. It was genuinely innovative, and directly inspired/influenced the Panther, which is in many ways the first main battle tank.

Either way, both hand enormous flaws. The Panther was difficult to maintain and expensive to build, while the T-34 lacked many secondary systems that add to success: ergonomics, optics, radios. Due to this, training and doctrinal difficulties, and effective Axis anti-tank weapons, the USSR built about 65,000 of them during the war, but lost 45,000 in combat.

The Sherman obviously had many of it's own flaws, but the M4 was actually a very well designed tank for what it was intended to do. As a breakthrough tank, used mostly on the offensive, it enabled the Allies and the US in particular to engage in fast moving, combined arms combat. Yes, by 1943, the Panther really outclassed the Sherman, but the limited tank on tank combat, combined with the readily availability of tank destroyers, artillery, and air power reduced the need for a heavier tank.

From an organizational standpoint, you can kind of see why the US kept the status quo. They had invested in the Tank Destroyer Corps, and while it worked when it got the chance, the lack of massed tank battles in the west and Mediterranean really limited how effective that combat branch was. I think in hindsight, cutting bait on Tank Destroyers in 1943 and shifting harder to the 76mm gun and other upgunned shermans would have made sense.

Fundamentally though, equipment quality matters a lot less than people think. The German successes in the early war weren't due to having better firepower or protection, but rather having more mobile and concentrated tanks. It wasn't until the Late War that the Germans had superior tanks, and that's when they started losing. The T-34 was widely considered the best tank in the world, but they did little to slow the Germans done. (It was the difficulty of logistics, combined with a masterful counteroffensive outside of Moscow, and not the winter, that doomed Barbarrosa).

Let's say the US had replaced the Sherman. What would that replacement look like, and how would it change the war? The Sherman's time of worst obsolescence maps directly to the time when the allies advanced most quickly!

 Polonius wrote:


Fundamentally though, equipment quality matters a lot less than people think.

Indeed. You have to have a massive advantage in equipment before it translates to your troops steamrolling the opposition. As long as you meet a minimal performance than the real difference maker will be tactics and logistics.

For example. The M1 Garand was definitely the best standard issue rifle of WW2. Semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine firing 30.06. But the result of the war would have been the same even if US troops had still been equipped with their old M1903 Springfields. Sure, it made a difference in small unit engagements to have semi-auto weapons vs your opponent's bolt actions, but on the larger strategic picture how much the Garand hastened the end of the war is probably negligible.

The fact that many conflicts today are STILL seeing the use of bolt action rifles shows that the difference in equipment is not a huge factor.

From what I remember Russians who got their hands on Shermans loved them, much more comfortable and many liked them better. Odd thing is they note that a t-34 when hit would burst into flames...while the sherman (ronson) wouldn't....so they had the opposite experience that a lot of people claim.

They say at the Tank Museam that the battles at Khalkhin Gol made the Russians against petrol engines for tanks.
Supposedly, becuase it was a deisel, you could light a fire underneath the T34 to keep it unfrozen without it bursting into flames!

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd refers to Germans (Pz4),

PZIV at time M4 came out had a weaker gun and weaker armor. While it was a good tank it did not match the ease of maintenance and manufacturing as the M4.

People unfamiliar with German wartime development tend to overlook this. When Germany entered WWII they thought the PzIII would be their man tank for the entire war (enter the Somau S35, CharB1, KV-1, and the T-34 who all laughed at the PzIII's weaker armor and guns). The PzIV was originally produced in small numbers, intended as a command and control platform and carried a weak stub gun that wasn't even designed for engaging other tanks. The laater war variants of the PzIV wouldn't be common until early 1944. Up to that point, German armor was generally inferior to its opponents (in comparison PzIIIs and early variant PzIVs), mostly made up of underperforming early war variants or superior models ripped from conquered countries.

Crusader III (coming out at time of M4) had a three man crew. This is a deathtrap not a tank.

British armor design in WWII was so bad it could be considered treason. I really really wish I could find the damn book I pulled that quote from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. You have to have a massive advantage in equipment before it translates to your troops steamrolling the opposition. As long as you meet a minimal performance than the real difference maker will be tactics and logistics.

Case and point, in the Battle of France French armor was markedly superior to those in use by their German foes, but having better tanks didn't mean jack when your command was woefully inferior, your tactics overall outdated, and your opponent rapidly achieves air superiority.

Ok some replies I wont bother quoting most.

First the TLDR

Should the US have replaced the Sherman, without hindsight? No.
Should the US have replaced the Sherman with hindsight? Still no, but like almost any weapon it would have helped to fix it a little at design stage.

British Tanks

Yes most of therm were rather crap, but often had indirect advantages. The Churchill was very slow but could climb slopes impossible to other vehicles, it was an infantry tank and the idea behind that was sound, only the British did not stick with the doctrine but flip flopped. They could have profited by placing Infantry tanks under infantry commanders, like Germans often did with their STGs. However they kept trying to do blitzkrieg with them. Matilda was a very good tank, so long as it was put to the right purpose.
Later the British learned and used Shermans for armoured formations and assigned Churchils to infantry support, and this was largely successful. the Churchil has a bad reputation post war because people look at its paper statistics and try to compare it to other medium or heavy tanks. Really all the Churchil needed to do was be able to traverse very difficult terrain without bogging, be fast enough to keep up with an infantry advance and have firepower enough to deal with problems to the infantry they support. Both the Matilda and the Churchill did what they were expected to do very well.

T-34 vs Sherman and logistic mobility

Yes the T-34 was lower and wider and the Sherman was taller and narrower, and yes that made a difference. However the T-34 was designed for the Eastern front, it could work well in Russia. The Sherman was designed from the outset to work in urban confines and on narrow but heavily bordered western European roads. Combat performance played second fiddle to logistic performance and I do not think the doctrine was unsound. Shermans and Stuarts could be relocated in large numbers along fairly narrow roads. Patton did this a lot and it gave the Germans problems with the strategic mobility and logistical mobility of the US armour assets which nearly all had similar logistical handling requirements and space and load limits. Germans tanks on the other hand needed to manoeuver very carefully. Thankfully for them they didn't require large manoeuvers to get from one counterattack position to another due to the type of campaign they were facing, also the German staff were up to the planning involved.

Indeed, Churchills were heavily armored, especially as time went on. One of their big weaknesses was poor hatch design which made escape difficult. Additionally their narrow waist made putting a larger turret (and gun) impossible.

Matilda IIs were armored like Tigers in comparison to the Germans. They were just too slow for tank fighting and the German doctrine was better.

We should remember, German combined arms doctrine was better, but they also had more experience honing that doctrine. The German military was on a revenge streak before Hitler came to power (and actively supported him due to that). Before they faced the French and British they had been refining doctrine in the USSR , and learned very valuable lessons in Spain and Poland.

Whats amazing is that the USSR art was so bad until 1943. They had also been in Spain, Finland, and Poland and helped the Germans pre-war.

 Frazzled wrote:


Matilda IIs were armored like Tigers in comparison to the Germans. They were just too slow for tank fighting and the German doctrine was better.

They were also seriously restricted by their turret ring size which IIRC made upgunning them beyond a 2 pounder impractical or impossible and the 2 pounder was already inadequate even in 1940.

 simonr1978 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Matilda IIs were armored like Tigers in comparison to the Germans. They were just too slow for tank fighting and the German doctrine was better.

They were also seriously restricted by their turret ring size which IIRC made upgunning them beyond a 2 pounder impractical or impossible and the 2 pounder was already inadequate even in 1940.

Yes indeedy. Fair disclosure but I find them cool and maybe the best prewar tank alongside the PZIII, which I also think is cool.

I'd say that it is worth sticking with an inferior, but good enough, machine, if you aren't sure that the replacement is 100% up to snuff. Just look at everything surrounding the Porsche Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefant [url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant#Development_history[/url] or Covananter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter_tank

 Frazzled wrote:


Whats amazing is that the USSR art was so bad until 1943. They had also been in Spain, Finland, and Poland and helped the Germans pre-war.

Much of that experience got Purged though.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed, Churchills were heavily armored, especially as time went on. One of their big weaknesses was poor hatch design which made escape difficult. Additionally their narrow waist made putting a larger turret (and gun) impossible.

6pdr was good enough for infantry support, then you got the AVRE and the very nasty Churchill crocodile which was a very good flamethrower unit as it had plenty of fuel and carried it externally.

If they wanted a Churchil to fight tanks they could have placed a 17pdr tank destroyer mount on it. However they liked the Firefly and up to a point the Challenger..

 Frazzled wrote:

Matilda IIs were armored like Tigers in comparison to the Germans. They were just too slow for tank fighting and the German doctrine was better.

2pdr was good enough for tank killing in early war, but conversely poor for infantry support.

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats amazing is that the USSR art was so bad until 1943. They had also been in Spain, Finland, and Poland and helped the Germans pre-war.

Stalin was fed false inteligence about Red Army coup plots and ordered a brutal purge that removed just about every competent officer by late 1940. Just as planned.