Best Tank of World War II

[Count Nosferatu]

Yup I'd rather be in any Sherman than a PzkwIVB

[USMA2010]

So would any intellegent person... Unless, of course, that Sherman was a bridge launcher... But then again, given the general suckiness of the Panzer IV Pre F1, the Sherman would probably drop the bridge on the Panzer and crush it!

Against a Panther or Tiger, if all went hisorically correct, I would rather be an American in the Easy Eight. T-34/85s might have been good, and they were, but the steel wave attack is just suicide. American armour commanders actually have tatics to run by in an attack.

But overall, between a M4A3E8 and an M26, I'd take the M26...

Say Anluschac, do you know if we ever made a 76mm model of the M4A4? The pictures of 76mm Shermans in Korea... Well, It just doesn't make logical sense to try to use an older A3 set up when the A4 was readily available.

[Count Nosferatu]

Originally Posted by [11PzG] USMA2010

So would any intellegent person... Unless, of course, that Sherman was a bridge launcher... But then again, given the general suckiness of the Panzer IV Pre F1, the Sherman would probably drop the bridge on the Panzer and crush it!

Ah but if I was in a bridge layer I'd have a support team firing for me as I lay the bridge down

But overall, between a M4A3E8 and an M26, I'd take the M26...

That's like saying "between a silk shirt and a plate mail I'd take a plate mail"

[USMA2010]

Originally Posted by pesci_fan

If it was so ineffective, how come Patton's 3rd Army smashed right through German lines, You can say the Sherman sucked, but if it really did, then America would of lost the war. Last time I checked I was still speaking english, so I think the sherman was good tank. And for those who say T-34 how cliche.

"A man who chooses the best through only statistics, is only to godd*mned chickensh*t to see for himself"

Ever hear of Close Air Support? A-36s, P-47s, A-20s, Tempests and Typhoons would blow up huge amounts of Panzers. Encounters with German armour may be rare for a Sherman crew, but they were deadly.

By late 44 the infamous repple depples were crewing GIs into armour. The most training one Chaffee crew got was how to move the tank, turn the turret, and fire the cannon.

[FreakNasty]

Originally Posted by [11PzG] USMA2010

Say Anluschac, do you know if we ever made a 76mm model of the M4A4? The pictures of 76mm Shermans in Korea... Well, It just doesn't make logical sense to try to use an older A3 set up when the A4 was readily available.

the M4A4 wasn't any better than the M4A3, actually the A3 was the later model. the A4 had a longer
hull because of the Chrysler engine

M4 - Continental R-875 engine / welded armour/ riveted front
M4A1 - was actually the first productionmodel with cast steel hull
M4A2 - General Motors 6-71 twin-dieselengine /welded armour/ used by U.S.M.C. only
M4A3 - Ford GAA engine /welded hull/ 47° sloped front armour
M4A4 - Chrysler WC Multibank engine / longer hull / riveted front armour
M4A5 - US identication for the canadian RAM I
M4A6 - Caterpilar RD 1820 Diesel / longer hull / rolled frontarmour

(75) - 75mm gun M3
(76) - 76mm gun M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2
W - wet ammo storage
HVSS - Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (also named Easy Eight suspension)

[DareDevil12]

Sherman
and
75mm gun thingy

[Hohenzollern]

One other thing to consider with my comparison I did way way up this thread. I gave the T-34/85 the edge on two of the three catagories that define the perfect balanced tank.

Firepower : edge T-34/85

Mobility : edge T-34/85

armor protection : edge M4A3E8


However, in going over my references in T-34s I found a plethora of pictures and examples of field expedient up-armored T-34s. In most cases armor plates 2 inches thick and sometimes more were welded to the front glacis and mantle of the T-34s. According to my references the loss in mobility and performace were not too great seeing a drop in off road speed by 1 to 1 1/2 mile per hour at the most.

So just as Sherm crews up gunned to the 76mmL52 whenever they could, so too did the Russians upgrade their thirty-fours when the oppurtunity presented itself. Once again I re-cast my vote for the T-34/85.

[Nesh_reanimator]

Um, near to collapse? Kursk was 1943 buddy. By that time we were preparing for the invasion of France, all but secured northern Africa and began our offensive in Italy. With all due (read: no) respect, it is you who is the idiot.

I meen the time of the whole war, not only 1943 year. Your tanks weren`t in any serious tank battle. And the Kursk was the biggest tank battle ever happened.

The IS2 was great, but hard to resupply. If we went to war with you Russkies right after the WWII ended, we would have had M26s and M36s all over the place hunting down your precious T-34s, IS-2s, and maybe even IS-3s.

Our tanks was the only reason, that stop you to invade Russia as Cherchile wanted. In 1947 you planed a nucklear bombardment of major russian city`s, but soon ou realize, that we, even throw all your aviation and nukellear weapon could rich La Mansh and invade Saudian Aravi and other oil country`s, breaking your suplies. Saing, that you would break russian tank if you have too are stupid also becouse your "great army of illiberetores" almost collapse under Ardens, and the size of German tank forces are difficult to compare with numerocity of tanks in the eastern front. German forces near arden in 16 december 1944 include 250 000 soldiers and officers, 900 tanks and 2600 artilery. In Kursk, if you are interested, were 900 000 soldiers, 10 000 artilery, 2700 (!!) tanks. It`s not propoganda, it is facts.

By the end of the war the Sherman we are talking about, the M4A3, was being totally replaced by the "Easy Eight". Not an easy kill there buddy. Not to mention the fact that our fighterbombers would hunt down IS tanks like a fat kid eating popcorn. Not to discredit the IL2 or LA-7, but the P-47 and Tempest are simply better jabos. The P47 takes alomost as much damage to shoot it down as the IL2, plus it is a full blown fighter. The Tempest is much better armed than an LA7 (twice the 20 mm fun!) and is plain faster.

We don`t talk about aviation. We talk about tanks. From your words, it seems, that your P47 is half-fightbomber half-fighter. It`s your favorit doctrin. If I am right, you always try to create something universsia, for example, plane for sea and land in one time. It`s stupid. But I repeat again, it`s not what we are talking about, but if you are interested, in some bookes IL-2 called as "AIR T-34". Again, becouse of balance POWER-ARMOR-SPEED, and again becouse difference between "FRAGS/DEATHES". It was the most "perfomance" plane in the WW2, but In my opinion, the best bobmer in WW2 were Shtuka,or schtuka, (i don`t know the right spelling) and it`s the reason of our defeat in the begining of the war.

If it was so ineffective, how come Patton's 3rd Army smashed right through German lines, You can say the Sherman sucked, but if it really did, then America would of lost the war. Last time I checked I was still speaking english, so I think the sherman was good tank. And for those who say T-34 how cliche.

Well, it`s my own opinion, but imagin , if stalingrad has fallen. What next? German forces cut the sapliment of centeral part of the country, and took the moskow into blocade. Afte Moskow falls, they easily fo to Ural mounties, as well as Japanis conquer Siberia and the whole eastern part of USSR. And now, answer me on question? COULD YOU DEFEAT HITLER with russian resources, factory`s and technologis ? Your "western front" seems to be funny, if under Ardens there was not 900 tanks, but 3 - 4 thousands, or , maybe, even more! And you have to fight with Japan also, wich aslo get great number of resources! Nucklear weapon? Too powerless , too expensive. Besides, Hitler was near too construct nucklear weapon. So, why do you still speaking English? Eh, becouse "stoopid russkies , wave after wave, bla, bla, bla, excetra, exceta, excetra".

You can say the Sherman sucked, but if it really did, then America would of lost the war.

It seems you want to say that Tiger, Elephant, Panter sucks, becouse German have lost the war

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Hohenzollern

One other thing to consider with my comparison I did way way up this thread. I gave the T-34/85 the edge on two of the three catagories that define the perfect balanced tank.

Firepower : edge T-34/85

Mobility : edge T-34/85

armor protection : edge M4A3E8


However, in going over my references in T-34s I found a plethora of pictures and examples of field expedient up-armored T-34s. In most cases armor plates 2 inches thick and sometimes more were welded to the front glacis and mantle of the T-34s. According to my references the loss in mobility and performace were not too great seeing a drop in off road speed by 1 to 1 1/2 mile per hour at the most.

So just as Sherm crews up gunned to the 76mmL52 whenever they could, so too did the Russians upgrade their thirty-fours when the oppurtunity presented itself. Once again I re-cast my vote for the T-34/85.

My data shows that most of the up armored T-34's were in Leningrad sector. The average was 15-20mm with some sporting as much as 30mm. These were done due to a lack of KV-1's to go around and a general dislike of the KV-1.

The uparmored T-34's were considered superior to the KV-1 both in armor protection and reliability and driveability and it carried almost the same gun. The KV-1 was too heavy for many bridges, was hard to drive, and was slow. The T-34/85 was not usually uparmored because the hull already had 60mm and the T-34/85 was considered hard to drive because the new heavier turret and 85mm gun made the tank nose heavy.

And for the record Shermans were uparmored too. After the Jumbo Shermans arrived many tank maintenance units cobbled together their own field expedient Jumbo's. In Belton Coopers book he talks of how when US troops captured a concrete production plant in Germany they made forms and poured concrete onto teh front hulls of the Shermans and that the concrete apparently made pretty good armor.

HVSS does not mean easy eight. The HVSS suspension was available on all models of Shermans except the Jumbo. There were even M4A1 cast hull 76mm Shermans with HVSS, and M4A3(105MM) HVSS versions.

[USMA2010]

Let me slowly pick apart this rubbish for everyone here...

The whole war? If it wasn't for your famous winters, we would have been going it alone in 1942.

The reason that we didn't attack you is due to a lack of popular support. Your tanks were so hard to resupply that a suprise attack would have knocked you completly off guard. The IL-2 was called the Flying Tank because it was slow and heavily armoured. It was very far from fast.

What you claim to be fact is Russian propaganda. Every other source, including the world renowned Jane's literature contradicts what you just said.

The P-47 was a fighter that turned out to be an excellent bomber. One P-47 with even an OK pilot could terrorize your tanks and supply lines and choke off your mighty Red Army.

Without you we would have won. You wanna know why? We had something to fight for. When your men went home they returned to a life of poverty where speaking out means being killed or imprisoned. There was no reason for your millions of men to fight. If you believe that "Mother Russia loves you" or whatever crap, you need a re-education. And not NKVD style. The Western Allies actually knew that when they returned back home, they made a difference between a dictator and freedom for the people of Europe. What did your precious USSR do? Kill its own people by the millions.

I would not be surprised if 1/2 the men killed of the Red Army were killed by their own people.

"In the Soviet Army it takes more courage to retreat than advance"
-Joseph Stalin.