T-34 no better than the M4 Sherman.

[sapper_k9]

I guess that Heinz Guderian said it all when he sent a T34 back to Germany, "Don't fiddle with the damn thing, just copy it!"

The balance between; firepower, protection and mobility, combined with its reliability - something the Panther never achieved. The Panzer Leader saw it, experienced it, and wanted it.

Tiger was a mobility/logistic/reliability nightmare. M4 was petrol powered, but that does not necessarily detract from it as the Centurion in the Six Day War was loved by its crews; as IF it was hit it never brewed up and it was a petrol machine at that time.

But the Sherman was stove!

I therefore accept the proposition of the Guru, General Heinz Guderian. No higher recommendation. Best was T34 in its many guises.

[Owen]

Just read in Will Fowler's KURSK The Vital 24 Hours this quote.page 26.

In after-action analysis at the end of the war, the US Army estimated that it took five M4 Shermans or nine T-34s to knock out a single Panther.

I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
I'd say that sounds like early Cold War propaganda.

[von Poop]

Back to the old 5:1 business...
Still seen absolutely no confirmation or convincing explanation for the source of these figures. Often cited but apparently never backed up.

Not one piece of allied after action analysis that I've read, yet, makes this estimation, though it is referred to and refuted in at least one contemporary report so presumably it began at the time.

[Desert Dog]

Most tanks on either side were knocked off by A/T guns anyway.

So the 5:1 (or 4:1) Panther/Tiger to Sherman ratio has to be an urban legend.

[sapper_k9]

T34 was diesel. What Guderian liked was that it worked! Hit the starter, it goes! Diesel motor is obviously more appropriate than petrol, more torque and a flatter torque curve.

Come rain, hail, snow or shine, it just worked, first with its 76mm then 85mm gun.

By the time the Germans had sorted the Panther and that was six months after it arrived with the Panzer Regts! they had transfered/adopted some of its key points into the Tiger - wrong Demo.

The interlaced road wheels (Panther and Tiger) used to clog with mud, and the next morning the crews had to use a blow torch on the thing to melt the ice so they could move the damn thing!

Typical example of the technocrat having more to say in the design than the user.

Guderian's opinion will do me.

[been there]

You're kidding right? Next to shooting yourself in the head with a .45, the fastest way to die in WWII was to be a driver, assistant driver, gunner, loader, or tank commander of an M4 Sherman Tank. Those guys (I was in armored infantry) deserved a medal for just going through the hatch. As for the Tiger tank, there was nothing out there, let alone a Sherman, that had any business on the field with that 72 ton behemoth. It came equipped with the most lethal, flattest shooting canon of WWII, the 88mm.

When the Germans parked the Tiger and sent the 54 ton Panther out to mind the store, its 75mm canon fired armor piercing rounds with such staggering muzzle velocity that the poor 33 ton Sherman armed with a WWI vintage 75mm pop-gun, was like your grandmother trying to go ten rounds with Mike Tyson. That sorry 75mm couldn't chip the paint off a Panther. When the 76mm canon was finally developed and introduced later in the war, the Sherman became a little more respectable. The 76mm had some bite, more muzzle velocity. At the very end of the war, the army finally unveiled the new M-26 Pershing Tank. Coming in at 42 tons and carrying the attention getting 90mm canon, it was the tank we should have had to start with. The one we got with a top crew, went head to head with a Panther in Cologne and won a dramatic shootout — the entire sequence was caught on tape.

It's a disservice to American tankers to defend the Sherman tank. The public should know their grandfathers faced 88mm canons, Panthers and Tigers in "Ronson Lighters." The only thing I can say for the M4 was that we had an endless supply of them. Every time a Sherman was knocked out (with agonizing regularity), there was a replacement right behind it with a brand new crew. When the Germans lost a tank, they had to scrounge parts at night from their own burned out tanks to keep going. Those burned out tanks got burned out P 38s and P 51s dropping 500 lb. bombs on them. Back then our factories, out of harms way, could have out produced the world, and did.

Our production prowess shouldn't get the generals in our War Department who approved the Sherman tank, General Patton was one of them, off the hook. As far as I'm concerned, those generals should have been court-martialed for sending American kids out to fight a war in kiddy-cars.

The bottom line is, the German Panther was the best tank of the war for my money. The Tiger was a behemoth, but it spent too much time in the garage being tuned up — lots of nagging mechanical problems.

I don't know the T-34, but people I respect believe it was a first class tank that could fight anything in its class — but I'd still take the Panther.

Muse over this: In Altenkirchen, Germany, I saw a Panther put a 75mm AP shell through the front our lead tank, exit from the engine compartment (right under a squad of infantry on the rear deck), and whack out the halftrack behind it. This was even before we had moved up close enough to begin our assault. Trust me on this, no one there that day ever forgot Altenkirchen.

If you ever meet an old WWII tanker, get on your knees and kiss his feet.

[kfz]

Originally Posted by sapper_k9

T34 was diesel. What Guderian liked was that it worked! Hit the starter, it goes! Diesel motor is obviously more appropriate than petrol, more torque and a flatter torque curve.

I think your right, you dont see any petrol tank now, but less powerful, with heavier engines, that are harder to start, easier to freeze, and not interchangeable with other vehicles making for logistical problems and of course only any use if you have supply of diesel. Not sure Diesel does have flatter torque curve, it just cant rev.

Its interesting, why the svoiets chose this route.

As said the British used quite a lot of diesel Shermans and I dont remember seeing evidence these where likely to brew up. I think the fuel system was only part of the problem.

Kev

[kfz]

Originally Posted by Desert Dog

Most tanks on either side were knocked off by A/T guns anyway.

So the 5:1 (or 4:1) Panther/Tiger to Sherman ratio has to be an urban legend.

I guess it has some basis in fact, but I think its probably a very generalistic figure.

Number made less / the number lost

something like this, its probably not based on any individual study.

[sapper_k9]

Just to pick up a couple of points.

Cromwell, Churchill etc; had riveted steel! One hit with any large calibre weapon and the rivets pulled, they then became missiles shooting around the inside of the vehicle, ergo: shredded crew.

Sherman vs 88mm; In the last year of the war the Poms equipped some of their M4s with their 17 pounder high velocity gun, and they could and did take on any comers, the L7 105mm weapon of the all the free world's MBT until ten years ago were based on this weapon.

T34; had a cast turret and other parts of the hull were cast and then welded. Better all together than the German welded plates.

Just for interest, the first tank with cast turret to be deployed against the Hun was the French Char B! The first all cast tank, hull and turret was the Australian Sentinel ( Sentinel tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) which never fired a shot in anger, but at the end of its development cycle was much akin to the A43 of the Poms which became the Centurion. And as I've mentioned before, in spite of the Cent being powered by petrol, in service with the Israelis, across all their wars, has never "brewed up."

So I guess the lesson is that the basis of tank design is the compromise between; firepower, protection and mobility. It is the designers dilemma to balance this three legged horse.

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Back to the old 5:1 business...
Still seen absolutely no confirmation or convincing explanation for the source of these figures. Often cited but apparently never backed up.

Not one piece of allied after action analysis that I've read, yet, makes this estimation, though it is referred to and refuted in at least one contemporary report so presumably it began at the time.

Well I would think the 5 to 1 business would depend highly on who crewed what tank. Another thought to ponder, how many variants of each design were there? Include chasis design as well and that would give you an idea of how valuable the brass of each respective Ally felt about their machines. In other words the versatility of T-34 versus M-4.