Was the T-34 really the best WW2 tank? Posted on May 1, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Was the T-34 really the best WW2 tank?
Overall due to producibility and cost effectiveness, probably was the best
like 2/3rds of the factories were cutting corners and making it shittier during WWII, not exactly a stellar review. also >50% had spalling issues because of improper steel hardening.
meh. they were removing shit like seats and headlamps at some point. not really something you would do for a 'cheap' tank.
Cost effective is kind of a myth iirc, it was not a cheap design. Rather that corners were cut and it was built very cheaply.
It's easy to produce a shit load of tanks when the United States is giving you ancillary items like radios, trucks, trains, canned goods, ammunition, etc that you don't need to expend industrial bandwidth on.
It's also easy to produce a shitload of tanks when your factories and population centers are safe and separated from enemy armies by a massive ocean.
Anon... the communist were shitty at manufacturing basic commodities like steel and other trade goods before the war started...
Yes. And there's a lot of reasons for that, but it's not like they weren't improving. Russia was late to the industrialization party, and WWI plus the revolution and civil war set back a lot of progress that Russian empire had made. And that's my point, if you're criticizing Russian build quality versus the US it's far from a "fair" comparison. The US not having to fight a major land war on its own territory since the American Civil War is a major factor in that.
A vast majority of Russian locomotives and rolling stock were Russian built, not American imports.
>inb4 the 2k locos and 11k rail cars
Yes, and the USSR had around 20k locomotives and over 500k rail cars at the outbreak of war. The Germans only captured around 300 locomotives by November 1941, so it's not like there was a huge loss in rail equipment. And none of the US locomotives or cars were delivered prior to 1942, so you're just completely off-base.
Yes, the Russians were buying American factories in the inter-war period to rebuild their own industry. Why is that surprising? It's the same reason the Japanese were buying planes from the UK, France, and the US, buying ships from the UK, and so on. Same reason why China's corporate espionage tries to steal so much shit from US aerospace companies. When you're behind, what matters is catching up. So you learn as much as you can from the people that have done the work so you can reach parity, making tweaks and small innovations as necessary to make existing things work for your purposes.
T-34 was built with USA lend lease steel. Russians were so shit at manufacturing they made the steel less protective than if they had just cut and riveted the bulk steel.
Tanks factories were mostly destroyed and many had to relocate
>tank factories (that were built by Americans in America in the first place) had to relocate (on American supplied trains using American fuel and American rations)
let me play you the world's tiniest all American violin
What the fuck are you smoking?
look up where the Stalingrad Tractor Factory was built and assembled (Detroit) before being shipped by boat to Stalingrad and assembled under American supervision, like all Soviet infrastructure from the interwar years
Reminder that the Soviet Union's tank factories were built and managed by USA automotive engineers who were kidnapped and their passports stolen because that's how vatnicks show gratitude.
Daily reminder that Russia didn't win WW2 by themselves and wouldn't have survived the German offensive without all the aid the West provided. I shake my head whenever I have to think about how we allied with the Russians in WW2 and how much of a mistake that was. Sure, it saved a bunch of American, British, Canadian & French lives on the Western front by causing Germany to have to defend two fronts, but obviously was a huge detriment in the long run from all the trouble the USSR gave the world after the war. We should have let Germany overrun Russia, then armed the resistance in Russia, and we could have still defeated Germany in the end, though WW2 likely would have gone on for another 5 years as Germany would be able to take advantage of all the natural resources in Russia to keep their war machine going. At least until America developed the nukes, which in this alternate universe would have still happened by 1945 and we would have gotten a lot more than just 2 nukes dropped on Japan.
Unit cost was same as Sherman. T-34 is objectively worse in every measurable category.
They had the same cost as the Sherman and nearing the end, the Sherman was cheaper to make.
The Sherman was more reliable, easier to repair, more comfortable and could be deployed anywhere.
The T34 was just blown out of proportion because the Russians didn't allow researchers to go back to their database if they talked shit about it.
>track pins don't have retainer clips so they had to be hammered down by striker plate / hull
>horrible crew comfort
>no escape hatches
>no radios, let's just use flag signals lmao
If were to rate the "best" by combat effectiveness and presence, then it's the Sherman. No debate.
>track pins don't have retainer clips so they had to be hammered down by striker plate / hull
Simple and effective. They kept that design even through the T-62.
That's the point I was trying to make. It costed as much as the Sherman, but everything in it's quality is absolutely retarded.
If it costed half of what a Sherman would have cost, then I would have given it more slack. But the fact that the cost of producing it kept coming up near the end of the war despite being the same shitty just tells you how bad it is.
sorry, didn't mean to also highlight the horrible crew comfort line
Technically the correct use of the word (and it is a word). Leafs use it every day! It just fell out of favOUr.
Well it sounds awful
It sounds better when used more colloquially. Examples: "Last weekend I costed out the parts for a new AR." or "The website is fully costed except for special orders"
cost and costed are the correct past tense of the word.
It's just easier to identify as past tense for most people, even though it sounds kinda weird.
>The T34 was just blown out of proportion because the Russians didn't allow researchers to go back to their database if they talked shit about it.
Also, every american tanker was free to bitch about sherman as much as he want.
Try to bitch about "stalin's iron fist" in commieland. That's a gulag.
It was fine, not great not terrible.
Shermans were built in similar numbers without the same problems.
its really down to either the panther or the M4 sherman assuming all else equal
but its the M4 in practice because of the industrial power of the US allowing so many of them to be built and to a very high standard
5 Sherman’s to take out 1 tiger, get rekt
Which they did...
>my tank is better because 5 of them beats 1 of yours
small dick logic
When you can outproduce the germans 10 to 1 it really is more of a death by bee stings scenario
8 t-34 for on Panzer IV get wrecked
US Platoon size was 5 tanks in WW2, the reason it took 5 Sherman’s to a Tiger was that was the minimum a line Tiger would fight
technically, a platoon could be split into fire teams when required so it would be possible for only 2-3 shermans to engage an enemy vehicle if they had no choice
not that the 5:1 claim has any basis outside of the belton cooper book
the most famous tiger 1 action in normandy was by whittman at villers-bocage where ~25 british tanks were destroyed at the cost of 15 german tanks, an unknown number of which were tiger losses
assuming the lowest estimate of 8 destroyed tigers and assuming all british losses were due to tigers and not panzer IVs, this is a ratio of 3:1 not 5:1
however, germans only list write-offs while the british record both destroyed and damaged, so the real ratio is much narrower
assuming the same ratio of 66% repaired as for all of operation goodwood, then we are looking at a ratio closer to between 2:1 and 1:1
Thank you for acknowledging how bad Belton Cooper is. People will take snippets from his book without reading it.
Death Traps is more like schizo ramblings than a proper book. He constantly re-explains the same event but with different parameters. For example, he references the dangerous ride from the depots to the front line, but he constantly changes the name that they “used to call it”. Just seems like he’s making stuff up a lot of the time
>5 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger
>Less than 2,000 Tiger 1 and 2s ever made
>49,300 Shermans produced
The math seems to work out in favour of the Sherman.
lucky for all those panzer ivs, stugs, jagdpanzers, panthers, at guns, panzerfausts, etc then
Luck for the allies all those Stewarts, Lees, Churchills, Cromwells, T34s, Bazookas, and air superiority.
Apparently not, since the Germans lost and the Sherman had the best crew survival rate of the war despite serving in literally every theater.
>the Sherman had the best crew survival rate of the war
That is not sustainable with available evidence.
literally is tho. Crew surviability statistics where kept by all sides.
If you are more a visual learner, you can watch cone of ark, he always has this "the tank is on fire" drills to get out of the tank.
Getting out fast out of a T-34 is literally impossible thanks to its horrendous layout. Thats reflected in all statistics you can find on it. Same with the Sherman, go out easy and thats how you get the crew surivabilty stats.
With german vehicles it varies, but generally wasnt as horrendous as the T-34 or BT-7
The total number of German AFVs produced were below that of Shermans alone and Shermans had good k/ds against most German armour. Then take all other American and British tanks into account and 50k T-34s into account as well as other Soviet armour and you begin to see what the Germans were up against.
finally i have the image for this moment
i think its spelling would lead to more controversy
Shermans literally never fought tigers.
Comparing a tiger tank to a sherman is a sign of mental retardation and lack of any knowledge about ww2 past mid 2000's American Cinema/videogames. They were almost all committed to the eastern front to take down hoards of shittily made t34's, not against actual competetently led combined armed western forces. Reminder that in a post war analysis the Sherman was more combat effective than the Panther's they encountered.
Are you replying to the correct post?
Ok, then what does any of that screed have to do with my asking anon wtf he's talking about when he asserts Shermans and Tigers never faced each other?
>Comparing a tiger tank to a sherman is a sign of mental retardation and lack of any knowledge about ww2
what does that have to do with me being incredulous about someone saying, "Tigers never faced Shermans" hmmm...
Why do I need to explain this to you? I guess the mental retardation assertion was correct!
OK, I get it. I'm being trolled. Almost had me there.
Yeah, it’s a myth. Allied tankers were so terrified of Tigers that they constantly misidentified German tanks they fought as Tigers, especially if it managed a lucky bounce. In the end the only Sherman on Tiger encounters were, like, unmanned Tigers that had yet to be unloaded from a train. It’s a total meme.
I know people do nothing but watch YouTube anymore, but I think we need to so some reading. When Moran had his three examples of Tigers and Shermans fighting each other, he was talking about the US Army in NWE. Tigers and Shermans engaged in combat as early as North Africa. The British also used the Sherman, and were engaged by Tigers several times in NWE.
To add to this a bit:
1. Misidentification happened a lot. Especially at long distances.
2. Tigers (and Panthers) often broke down, got stuck, or ran out of fuel due to poor spare parts production, huge weight, reliability issues, massive fuel consumption, etc.. Fact: If we ignore the unknown causes, more Tigers were lost to non-combat issues (accidents, transit, mechanical failure, immobilization, fuel, etc.) than all combat losses combined
3. Because a Tiger cost about 9-10X what a Sherman did (and the Germans had a much smaller industrial base) there weren't that many Tigers to begin with. Like 1700 were ever produced.
4. People over estimate how many tanks get taken out by other tanks. Only 80 Tigers were ever specifically identified as being lost to other tanks. Meanwhile 208 were lost because they got stuck/immobilized.
Tiger tanks were a dumb idea, the technology wasn't ready in WW2 to accommodate them. Germany, with their limited industry, lack of alloys, limited fuel, lack of rubber, etc.. was an especially a bad situation to make it a workable idea.
There were barely any Tigers on the Western front in the first place, and even less encounters where allied tankers actually had a proper tank duel with them.
>proper tank duel
drive away from each other for 200 paces, then turn and fire?
>never fought shermans
While there was definitely misidentified tanks during combat, this does not mean that Sherman tankers never engaged combat against Tigers as
Actual Tiger combats are usually pretty well documented, and bogus stories like the M8 taking out a Tiger II have been proven wrong.
I knew before I even looked dit up it was bullshit, but I dont doubt it engaged some tank in this way. Question is, what could be misidentified as a tiger from behind at close range? I'm thinking late model 4 since they both had the boxy hulls and turret bussel. With the shürtzen, the turret would look a great deal larger as well
It wasn't misid'ed from behind at close range: the mechanized cav unit wasn't the one who made it up. An officer from another unit told a major about it and the story from the major ended up in an armor school monograph.
From other sources, it could be to the armored skirts hiding most of the figure of the tank. Then again, the crew could just be intentionally bullshitting for fame (especially with how the crew reported it).
It's not really uncommon, most pilots exaggerate their kill count or claim a kill from another pilot just because they shot at it a few times. Look at "aces" in Luftwaffe or USAAF, sometimes they collectively claim more kills than there were planes in the entire battle.
>Then again, the crew could just be intentionally bullshitting for fame (especially with how the crew reported it).
>a squad of firefly's roll up
Pop history bullshit. You are clearly a retard moron gay.
Quads of truth.
cool vintage fuddlore bro
Now post reliable gearbox
Better or equel to T-34s.
>send a reinforced tank platoon, 'cause fuck it, you can afford it
>germs send on tank, 'cause they can't afford more, and obviously lose it
>"IT TOOK FIVE OF YOU TO BEAT ME!!1!"
This post is just for the record, for all the idiots who might unironically believe this.
>just a good solid tank
good engine, meh gear box, ground pressure not great not terrible
Armour plating, efficient but over hyped, qc issues, good gun, ammo not so good
crew ergonomics, lol lmao. bit better by the time the widened the hull and altered the turret
vision ports, biddy bad, optics, garbage to passably decent depending on year, radios, either absent or rudimentary
very nice, the quick change gearbox is most impressive
its a bulky but roomy tank with plenty of upgrades and gadgets
>tfw the multibank is better than the radial
>the multibank is better than the radial
V8s were the best, a fuck huge aluminum block DOHC V8.
in a test between sherman types, the radial-engines performed the worst
the diesel M4A2 performed adequately
the M4A4 multibank and the M4A3 with the GAA were the best
the multibank ended up with the fewest breakdowns but had the worst drop in performance over time while the GAA covered the most distance but did need some maintenance
Maybe? The T-34-85 was somewhat ahead in terms of firepower however
An undergunned and overengineered heavy tank
The gun was good, Soviet ammo was crap giving it similar or worse performance to the US's 76mm, and the US even had defective shells. The Soviet's shell quality was just that bad.
u wot m8
If anything it was massively overgunned, there were very few things it could penetrate that the shorter 75mm on the Panzer IV and StuG's couldn't. It did have much better penetration than range than them, but again, very few things had the armor to shrug off the L48. The L70 was almost entirely wasted on the Western front due to how close engagement ranges were while causing the Panther to balloon in weight and size to mount the gun.
>The gun was good, Soviet ammo was crap giving it similar or worse performance to the US's 76mm
the 85mm firing AP penetrated about 1in more than the 76mm AP against a vertical steel plate
76mm did have a far better APCR round which both penetrated more armor and could be fired without damaging the gun barrel, but these werent common until after WW2 due to tungsten shortages
main benefit of the 76mm gun was that it could be fired much faster, both in mad-minute and aimed, due to much smoother gun-laying and more elbow room for the loader
higher muzzle velocity combined with the better telescopic sight (it had stadia metric rangefinder) would make first shot accuracy on the T-34 theoretically better
but the M4 had better periscopes, faster target acquisition, and could compensate for lack of range-finder with its high rate of fire to fork the target
when i use it in graviteam tactics the sherman sucks dick against the german panzer 3 and 4 in tunisia
like 90% of my shots bounce on them while they one shot me
i had a panzer 4 ambushed by 4 shermans due to fog, he got 50m from them and my sherms got the first shot, and srill i lost 2 of them before they could disable it, then came the rest of the unit that that panzer was reccing for and they got completely rekt
Is it just because graviteam has a very low opinion of American equipment or something? I don't really play anything other than the Germans so I don't know that feel
Panther didn't really mature into a good tank. It was getting there, but panther was a worse Pershing.
Second best after the Sherman considering soft factors, about 12th considering only hard factors.
If I had to fight WW2 in any tank of my choice I'm going with the Sherman 76.
No. M4 with a 6 > Comet > T-34-85
ugh, its p26/40
The T-34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T-34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million garden gnomes. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole.
Get back to working on War Thunder Gaijin dev. I just lost my T-80U last night to an M1IP Abrams and OBVIOUSLY the T-80 is superior so I demand you fix these obvious errors in armor and penetration values.
And yes, I know your post was obviously a joke.
The former T-34 propaganda office would be proud of you.
Best in the sense that it was the most suited to the Red Army's requirements in World War II? Yes.
Honestly, the designation of "best tank" should be divided into categories, who was making it and what mission requirements was it intended to fulfill.
Sure, the Type 95 Ha-Go would get mogged by a Tiger, but these tanks were also designed with two completely different types of conflicts in mind.
warcrimes! it belongs in a museum!
based material analysis in a sub full of retarded morons who want everything ranked like a watchmojo video
It wasn't the best at anything. The IS-3 was the best Soviet tank, the M-26 was the best overall tank, the M-4 was the best spam tank, the Tiger II was the most capable tank to see combat in any real amount.
Explain how any of what I said was wrong
Tigers broke down a lot. I’d argue that makes it considerably worse than a Sherman or practically any other tank that doesn’t break down.
I suppose I should've prefaced my post with "when working as intentioned".
>Best WW2 tank
Go back to World Of Tanks you retard.
It existed during ww2, there's a reason I listed the best tank that saw any actual service seperately
Right but it was a complete dogshit design and tank independent of it not seeing any action in WW2, why bring it up at all?
To illustrate how unremarkable the T-34 was.
most capable at eating up german resources they already lacked so it can not even get onto frontlines.
He's right though
They were pretty effective at the first years but then they fell off once Germans upgunned theirs.
Once the T-34-85s were ready, they performed okay.
>Pretty effective at the first years
WW2 tanks were produced under different circumstances and for different purpose. Ignoring that t-34 was fucking rushed into production after moving many factories behind Ural mountains, and was needed YESTERDAY, while Sherman could be assembled in peace and quiet... is kind of dumb. Yes, Sherman was most likely the best tank of WW2. Or maybe t-44 but it didn't fight so it doesn't count.
Sherman and it's not even a contest. The only stage of the war you can say the T-34 was better than the Sherman was the very early war when T-34 existed and Sherman didn't. The moment the first Sherman rolled off the line, the T-34 was permanently surpassed.
Even the American 'make due' tank, the Lee, was considered a formidable platform by the Germans when they encountered it, and that was a five-minute hack-job assembled out of a failed tank design.
Wonder if there's something like this out there for the Maus
There's an argument for upgrading a Sherman if you have it post-war, Israel and Chile are notable examples. But it only makes sense if you already have a Sherman to turn into a Super Sherman, whereas nobody but the Kubinka Tank Museum has a Maus. Also, the extreme weight and mobility limitations of the Maus make it a poor platform for upgrades. An M24 Chaffee with a 90mm Cockerill gun and some ATGMs is a totally viable light tank, a Maus with a 125mm gun and Kontakt 5 still isn't a real MBT.
The Maus in the Russian tank museum doesn't have ANY internals. No guns, no transmission, no engine, no optics, etc. It's just a giant shell. The Chieftain did a video on it like... 10 years ago. It's incredibly sad to see the state of tanks in Russian museums as they just don't seem to give a shit. So many rare prototype and captured tanks just left to rot and be infested with spiders.
Nah. That'd be the Sherman.
By the standards of the design? it was a kind of unremarkable as WW2 medium tanks went. By the standards of the actual production models that made it to the front? It was kind of shitty. They skipped so many corners and steps to make the kinds of production numbers they reached during the war.
The Germans and Soviets had a huge chunk of their industrial manpower fighting. The Germans lacked alloys. The Russians had to relocate. The Americans British had to fight all around the world and transship their tanks. Every country suffered from challenges. The M4 suffered from numerous design compromises: Weight to make shipping easier, width to make manufacturing easier, engine bay to accommodate multiple types, interchangeability, etc.. They could have made a different tank and chose to make less of them but the M4 fulfilled its role.
M4 was best because it was the most efficient use of labour for the battlefield results and they were best able to mitigate the design compromises (as evidenced by post war analysis and testing).
>M4 was best because it was the most efficient use of labour for the battlefield results
M4 had the best battlefield results.
T-34 was the better design.
It was much designed earlier than the Sherman, so it was in mass production while the Mutts were still fielding that retard box of a M3. When it was designed it kicked the ass of contemporaries like Pz3 or Pz4 short, Brit cruiser/infantry tank autism or whatever shitbox the Americans were using, probably not even M3 but some gay tankettes.
When the M4 came, it's contemporaries were the Pz4 long and the T-34.
The T-34 is a revolutionary design using sloped armour to get as much combat potential into a small package that can be mass produced effectively.
The M4 is a tall box with a gun. Every retard should be able to design that, only Mutts fucked it up so badly they had to go to war with the inbred Alabama cousin of a M3.
The M4 had much better ergonomy but things like radios weren't really the Soviet strength. Considering this, the Vatnigs correctly prioritized mass production and hard combat capability.
Broadly they are equal in combat capability with a slight edge to the Sherman. But considering America being the leader of the world in automotive industry and the Soviet Union a shithole, and that even with their shitty industry they cobble together something that arguably can beat the Sherman 1vs1 and is probably by amount of materiald and soldiers used like 5vs4 in favour of the T-34, the verdict is easy.
The T-34 is a great design that maximized the combat power the shitty soviet industry could provide and yet might actually arguably beat the Shermans even if the Americans mass produced T-34s.
The Sherman is just a solid, simple, basic bitch design that wasn't retarded. Everything that's great about it is the American capability of mass producing it. But with the American automotive industry, their radial engines and so on they should have easily designed the M4 much earlier and then actually designing something like a functional Panther easily kicking the ass of the T-34. They didn't, so the victor is the T-34.
Most retarded post in the thread award. The t34 was not revolutionary and performed horribly compared to the pz3's it faced in 1941. Turns out having a cramped shitbox with poor optics, a shit transmission, and slavshit retard steel that makes the armor not actually effective. Translates to you losing all of your t34's for about 100 panzer 3's LOL. The tank was always shit.
How's Russia having shit optics shit radio and shit materials and shit quality control the fault of the T-34 design?
The T-34 was designed to make the shit stuff Russia could produce into an effective combat machine. And it worked. This is the tank that broke the Wehrmacht (along with infantry and artillery of course.)
If America would produce T-34 quality tanks it's an embarrassment. But if America would produce T-34s it would have better optics, radio, steel etc. And if Russia would produce Shermans they would be equally shit in the soft values as as T-34s while being more expensive.
So you're saying the T-34 is shit because Russian industry is shit. Yet it was solid (with drawbacks) from a shit industry and that's a great design.
>into an effective combat machine. And it worked.
No it didn't, they never made an effective combat machine.
And the deep armoured thrusts that Russia pulled off against Germany are just fucking imagination or what?
That was due to German attrition and soviet resources pulling through after 3 years of fighting. Can only destroy 5000 russian tanks for the loss of 1000 of your own for so long before that equation stops working. If Russia actually had well designed tanks with competent crews then that war would not have been close as it was.
Mostly due to the Nazi incompetence and insanity, frankly. Had the Germans not decided to fight the entire world at the same time while at a material disadvantage with their incredibly inefficient, awful industrial system, they would have defeated Russia. DESPITE non stop heavy bombing that left most of Germany's cities in complete ruination, Germany's best year for industry was 1944, thanks to a complete reorganization of industry and agriculture. Had the Germans done that in 1941, or better yet, 1937 instead of going full retard like they did, they could have won against the USSR. That's not to say they should have just gone full 1944 total war at the start, but they would have had far less issues with food and shell shortages in 43 and 44 had they not had complete baboons in charge of central planning for the early years.
Also worth noting, part of the reason Bagration was so devastating and brutal, is that 8 panzer armies were busy dying in Cobra and Falaise. It was an all in hail mary to destroy the Western Allies on the beaches and it failed utterly, nearly wiping out 2/3rds of Germany's AFVs in the retreat and destroying some of the best German divisions. When Bagration started, the best, most well equipped, and heavily mechanized formations were busy retreating across France or regrouping in Belgium. As such, the remaining German formations in Army Group Center, which had the most formations and mobile reserves pillaged to go West, was all but annihilated as the Soviets completely overran the flanks. Without sufficient mobile reserves to blunt the attacks as they had in 43, 42, and 41, the Germans were dealt a deathblow.
To put it into exact numbers, the Germans deployed about 2000 tanks and assault guns to Normany. After Normandy, less than 100 of them made it back to German lines after the retreat from France. 25 divisions were wiped out, over 230,000 casualties (mostly captured) because the Allied push was so swift and brutal and had complete air superiority which nearly stopped all movement by day. Now many of these divisions were quickly rebuilt in the following months. Sure. But that was because the fragments of the formations that did survive were mostly from command and rear echelon forces, and while it did allow for quick reorganization with fresh conscripts, these divisions were never even half as good as they had been prior to Normandy. While they did retain highly skilled organizational staff, they suffered near annihilation of any frontline infantry. So the divisions were rebuilt with what amounted to untested conscripts with barely any cadre and not nearly enough training time besides.
And this is all to say, those deep armoured thrusts the Russians pulled off were in large part thanks to the destruction of Germany's mobile forces in Normandy, and the severe beating German industry and logistics Germany had been forced to deal with thanks to the air campaign. About 50% of all of Germany's guns were turned upwards at the sky, had the German's not had to dedicate so much of their industry to protecting their industry, those Soviet spearheads, which were already close run things where armored units suffered 90%+ tank losses in some divisions to force breakthroughs may well have ended in 100% losses and outright failure to breakthrough. Without even discussing what Army Group Center might have been like had it not lost most of its best armor and several of its best infantry formations to the Western allies. This was the plan, the goal, of Normandy, by the way. To give the Soviets a better chance of breakthrough during Bagration.
Instead of pretending the Germans collapsed in the east maybe realize that the Russians were already tossing out the Germans themselves before a single mutt army boot was in France.
D-Day was only possible due to Germany having only scrap Osttruppen and few real formations in France.
Russia can jump onto a cactus and those obnoxious cunts will never admit all the help they've gotten, but the Russians were the ones who broke the back of the Wehrmacht. With ten thousands of T-34s and just a handful of Shermans. If they were only half as shit as all you American morons claim they'd have found something better, the Soviet Union wasn't completely retarded like modern day Russia.
>D-Day was only possible due to Germany having only scrap Osttruppen and few real formations in France.
>panzer lehr division, one of only a handful of fully mechanized forces in the heer
I mean he isn't that wrong. The Panzer Lehr among the few divisiona where German could field halftracks
A majority of units faced in normandy were classified type I units, for maneuver, the highest rating
And it had the panzer lehr, one of the only elite divisions in the heer
They were a fairly concentrated army of regular units and veterans
They were not garrison units
Panzer Lehr is named after "lehren" to teach. France was used for teaching raw recruits. It was a hacked together force of tank instructors with whatever armor was available. They were "elite" by the standard of france, namely they actually had experience and equipment instead of the average, which was someone who had not worn the uniform for more than two weeks. Americans are really proud of killing a bunch of teenagers and elderly by zerg rushing a training camp. They also whine bitterly about the one time germany redeployed regular troops and mobbed them until they ran out of gas while the russians were dealing with 80% of the entire german army. The western front was so easy to win that the western allies have to make up threats to so they don't look like morones. An army that outnumbered and outgeared an already exhausted foe by a factor of 200 with complete air dominance was actually struggling. This is a shame so deeply rooted that they have to make up shit for now almost a century straight to save face.
It is also the root of their contradiction: The enemy was super threatening so our fight was glorious and right, but also super incompetent so you shouldn't copy them. Once your realize that germany was probably the biggest underdog in history anyone grandstanding about their victory over them just becomes a comedy of hubris.
>They were "elite" by the standard of france, namely they actually had experience and equipment instead of the average, which was someone who had not worn the uniform for more than two weeks
they were considered elite by the standards of the entire heer
its named the lehr because it was originally formed as a teaching division, but it quickly became one of their most elite units and one of only a few fully mechanized divisions in the entire wehrmacht
uh ohh, commieboo, ALARM, ALARM!
did something happen in russia recently?
seems like every thread is suddenly filled with them
Welcome to PrepHole, lad.
That’s true but you’re missing the point. Just consider that the Germans only had 700 tanks and assault guns in the east when Bagration began. Actually you’re making my point for me. It was a team effort, well coordinated by the Allies to defeat Germany. While most of the formations in the west were garbage again as I said some of the most critical mobile reserves were taken from the east in an attempt to shove the western Allies out of Europe. The vast majority of the infantry formations were weak, but all of the armored formations were the best Germany could muster and they sent most of their armor west to Normandy. Imagine if the Germans have 2000 extra tanks and stugs and 20 more top of the line infantry divisions when Bagration happens. I don’t think the Russians win that. This is not me stating the west won the war, the allies won the war. The west never could have managed a landing if Germany’s 300 divisions were all in France, but Russia could not have won either of all 300 divisions were in Russia either. Germany lost because they went full retard and fought the entire world at once.
Also Dnepr-Carpathian primarily destroyed infantry divisions. Normandy destroyed 25 divisions outright and rendered another 13 combat ineffective. Including all eight of the panzer formations. The Germans lost more tanks in one month in Normandy as they lost in a year in Russia.
>those deep armoured thrusts the Russians pulled off were in large part thanks to the destruction of Germany's mobile forces in Normandy
The Dnepr-Carpathian offensive destroyed 20 divisions, and left 60 more at half strength or worse. The Wehrmacht was also forced to abandon thousands of tanks, guns, and other equipment in the retreat. That all happened prior to D-Day, and the high command had to move 34 divisions to the East from all over the Reich to prevent a complete collapse of the front. With those kinds of German losses, Bagration's success was a forgone conclusion regardless of whether Overlord kicked off on schedule or not.
USA studied the T-34 and chose to copy nothing. Christie suspension took up too much space. The armor wasn't impressive, and the crew was blind and couldn't be useful in their cramped positions.
If you think the Christie suspension took too much space, have you looked at the size of the fucking Sherman?
I think the problem is most of you are Amerimorons and therefore mentally unable to admit your shit isn't the best.
So let me compare it with a comparison between American equipment so that your brain can help yourself to detach from the animal instinct to automatically pick the American equipment no matter the facts:
The Sherman is like a Thompson: a solid design using all the bells and whistles.
The T-34 is like a Grease Gun: Cheap shit optimized for mass production while doing at least 90% of the job of the "refined" variant.
If I'm a soldier, I want the Sherman or Thompson.
If I'm a general, I want to produce the best weapon that I can mass produce. Since the US could afford bells and whistles, they produced the Sherman. Russia couldn't and you stupid American imbeciles shouldn't pretend the Russmorons ran the Germans from Moscow and Stalingrad to the Vistula long before you fuckers landed in Normandy. And stop calling me a tankie you cretins, I've literally helped the Ukrainian war effort to kill as many Russmorons as possible. But me hating Russians doesn't mean that I'm like you idiots unable to admit that the T-34 ran the Germans back to Berlin.
>The T-34 is like a Grease Gun: Cheap shit optimized for mass production while doing at least 90% of the job of the "refined" variant.
If the T-34 was produced to the same level of finish as an M4 sherman it would actually cost more in terms of dollars
If a T-34 would be produced to the same quality of a Sherman, it's a superior platform due to size and sloping advantages. Both weighed around the same after all but the compact package beats the huge metal box.
Also price is a stupid comparison in wartime. Ability to mass produce is what counts. You can figure out the bills after the war. Russia couldn't mass produce Shermans if they wanted to, just a cruder Sherman-like design at best and why should they if they have a better crude design in the T-34?
>If a T-34 would be produced to the same quality of a Sherman, it's a superior platform due to size and sloping advantages.
even if built to a proper standard and without defect, the T-34 does not significantly outperform the sherman in any aspect other than weight and mobility
>Also price is a stupid comparison in wartime
it means the under US wartime economy, it would be more difficult to produce a T-34 of equal quality to a sherman
the soviets did not pump out 50,000 T-34s because it was intentionally cheaper, but because they were willing to skip out on any number of steps to speed up production
Did you type that yourself or is it stale pasta? Either way: (You)
>T-34 was the better design.
>It was much designed earlier than the Sherman, so it was in mass production while the Mutts were still fielding that retard box of a M3
This is basically all the American designed and built Christie Tank T-34 has going for it so I'll give you that, they were able to develop it quickly by leveraging their existing American designed suspension and American factories
>The T-34 is a revolutionary design using sloped armour
Sloped armor has been known literally longer than the concept of armored vehicles, and the French were fielding sloped armor tanks from WW1 onwards. The M2 Medium Tank was terrible by all regards and yet had sloped armor and predates the T-34. Somua as well. Only the Germans and Brits went to war with boxtanks.
>The M4 had much better ergonomy (sic, obvious slavic ESL) but things like radios weren't really the Soviet strength.
At least you're willing to admit on the most important aspects of a tank's design (survivability, communications, and fightability) the Sherman is superior
As I keep reading your post it dissolves into "yes the Sherman is better in every way BUT" cope so lol, lmao
The T-34 was god-awful. Criminally bad.
Also in regards to the 85mm upgunned variant. I read somewhere that the 85mm was ballistically equivalent to the US 76mm, so the 85mm was just bringing it to parity with other allied tanks.
nobody fucking cares a subjective loaded question nobody will ever agree on. You should ask questions like: "did the soldiers like it?" and "did it do the job demanded of it well?"
It won the war so there's that.
>the guy who can't use capital letters, full stops and lacks reading comprehension is shitting up the thread again
Get a trip so I can filter you.
No, not even close.
iirc didn't soviet weapon/tank production have moderate defects at a very high percentage. I read somewhere that almost every t-34 had "something" wrong with it, and that quality control varied
QA was literally a joke term for T-34 production, everything from seats to storage was removed to shit out 25 000 of these things from a single factory, not to mention that the design itself was defective.
>the best WW2 tank
Define 'best'. A Churchill III took out a Tiger. A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II. Guess that means both are shit or great depending on which side you're on? No? OK. Lots of tanks did different things and it wasn't until late what that the idea of different kinds of tanks got shifted when the Bongs made the Centurion which is the first modern MBT. After that you had Light Tanks and IFVs and other things but you didn't have Heavy Tanks (you did but they didn't survive), Medium Tanks, Cruiser Tanks, Infantry Support Tanks, Armored Cars, Tank Destroyers. They didn't survive.
So that leads to t he next question of
>What is a tank?
Does a Sturmtiger count as a tank or an artillery piece? Does a Churchill AVRE count as a tank or a SPG? So once you got that definition you then need to move onto what defines 'best'. Best what? Kill ratio? Survivability? Mechanical reliability? Firepower? Speed? Versatility? As a platform?
Then that leads into things where the fundamental difference is a weapon. Is the M4 75mm Sherman the best or the M4 76mm Sherman? Or the Sherman Firefly? What differentitates them bar a weapon or some fitting? Then you gotta look at the ammo used and the crew and blahblah.
It's a question that can't really be answered and all you can really do is look at confirmed tank on tank kills and work out the ratio. But again, if a tank isn't designed for taking out other tanks but for support of infantry, that gives a skewed opinion on its effectiveness.
>A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II.
Nah, probably goes to the Sherman or Panzer-IV, the T-34 would have competed or outdid either in certain regards except for the extraordinarily poor QA/QC done during tank production. Things like rubber seals, radios, optical glass, and other basic and necessary equipment being left out for the sake of production speed made them horrible for the crew to drive, which impacted their performance and contributed to their losses.
Other things like extremely hot quenching that produced poor quality armor prone to massive spalling combined with equally poor quality welds leading to armor splitting entirely apart at the welds contributed to vehicles which suffered a non-penetrating hit still experiencing horrific crew casualties or splitting apart and being rendered combat ineffective would also contribute to reducing the tank's real-world survivability in combat.
Utterly lobotomized thread, total waste of time.
That would be PZIVH
the best drift machine
Not even close, ubiquity does not imply quality.
not sure which one was the best, but the T-70 was definitely the cutest!
honestly the most overrated tank off WW2 since most wehrraboos have been whipped into shape
>WW2 since most wehrraboos have been whipped
Stug retards need to die. Pz3 and Pz4 were reasonable tanks for the early war. Not great, but good contenders. M3 Lee absolutely BTFO Rommel's short barrel panzers. Also Rommel is completely overrated and was only skilled against a geriatric British WW1 commander who was not only too passive but only ordered counteroffensives in a predictable manner into a known trap.
Rommel basically did the equivalent of exploiting shitty British AI.
Literally the worst thing the western allies fielded. it was a dogshit design which only really worked in theory. There is good reason the brits only took it as it was made clear to them there is no other option avaliable on short notice. There is good reason we dont see multi turret designs past it. Even british home grown tanks like the crusader where superior
Lee was a better StuG. Lee had a stellar combat record in North Africa where it literally could not be penned while the 75mm was dominant and the 37mm still relevant. In the Pacific the Lee was unmatched against japs who had no tanks or anti-tank capabilities. Cannister shot was absolutely perfect for jungle fighting.
As a second line infantry tank post D-day it was a better Churchill with a far superior 75mm HE and 37mm cannister. Even the Soviets liked it, BTW their nickname for every tank was "coffin for X brothers."
To top this all Lee was merely a stopgap designed in two weeks and produced for barely more than a year and replaced by Sherman quickly.
If StuG is a good tank, Lee is better.
im not a stug fan, but im sorry but the high siloutte should have given it away that its not optimal right away.
The americans should have just produced Crusaders with welded instead of rivetet armor, but where just to proud for it to make a forgein design.
A lesson they didnt learn, see M14/FAL controversy later on
That's mostly a problem in video games and not much of a drawback in real life. Obviously the Sherman with the single main gun in the turret is the better tank. The Lee would have to rely on the 37mm turret to do cavalry tank things which a casemate could not do at all.
Lee was the most powerful tank in 1941. And unlike the Tiger, the Lee was fielded in large numbers as a primary tank. You must compare the Lee to its competition in 1941-42. The same way you wouldn't compare a warhawk to a merlin mustang.
compared to its competion in 41 it only really beats the soviets had. To expensive, to top heavy and an inferior product to the crusader for example
the FT was a WW1 leftover. The M3 was a new development at the time, yet the thinking behind it was a WW1 leftover as well. And you know a tanks job is NOT to fight other tanks? When you are fighting a tank with your tank something went wrong
>And you know a tanks job is NOT to fight other tanks? When you are fighting a tank with your tank something went wrong
The M3 lees 37mm gun could frontally defeat the early Italian tanks and panzer IIIs
The 75mm gun was an excellent anti-infantry gun while also outranging shoddy italian 47mm guns
While it initially had poor AP performance on its uncapped rounds due to shattering even those early rounds were undisputedly the strongest tank gun in theatre before the longer 75s arrived
>To expensive, to top heavy and an inferior product to the crusader for example
The crusader has the 2pdr (40mm) which was inferior to the US 37mm. The crusader was also cramped with bad ergonomics that made it almost as bad as the T-34. The Lee was faster, better armored, better armed, had better optics, intercoms and radios and was much more reliable.
Crusader literally had solid shot and no other ammo. Crusader couldn't kill German field guns except by a lucky direct hit while Lee just lmao-HE and killed the whole battery.
M3 Lee fucked the Japs up too. Except that one mad man with the sword who crawled through the front hatch.
>Literally the worst thing the western allies fielded.
first of all, that isnt M1 combat car or the renault FT
second of all, the M3 lee was pretty much the best tank in north africa when it rolled out and was so until the long-gun panzer IV showed up
I would also like to point out that the hetzer is great in video games but unusable in real life.
>60k tanks in 4½ years
>people literally get to prison or worse due to reliability issues
>spare parts 404
>many parts aren't interchangeable
>50k tanks in 3½ years
>reliable enough to be used by foreign armies anywhere in the world
>repair depots have enough spare parts to build new tanks if they had hulls for it
>practically everything interchangeable, except the different engines of course
>T-34 easier to massproduce*~~)
agree. while T34 85 was in top 5 tanks of WW2, it is not better than better M4 variants like a M4A3E8 (76mm) or M4A3E2 (76mm)
>US industrial capacity vs Soviet industrial capacity
>occupied nations production vs unoccupied nations production
>bombed factories output vs unbombed factories output
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
>sergei quick the Germans are coming burn your children
You have a point in 1941 but what about after the factories are relocated and the unoccupied nation literally ships you factories so you can build more deathboxes on tracks? What about the next 4 years?
I'm just pointing out the "the US made tanks faster" argument is stupid, I agree the Sherman is better in every way but try to make better arguments.
no you didn't
that's just your cope
>makes tanks faster
>and at better quality
>this is a bad thing and is a stupid argument
>but its factual
>yeah but its bad because!
>but muh occupied country!
>but muh bombed factories!
moron the Germans couldn't bomb soviet factories after the end of 41. Cope harder.
the question isn't "who had to build tanks under the hardest conditions" but "whats the best tank"
so you aren't adresing the question at all