Are you sure about this? I recall the first tank- ever- to have an onboard stabalizing system (allowing the tank to fire with some degree of accuracy while on the move) was the M26 Pershing.
Quite positive. The Sherman's stabilisation wasn't perfect (only worked on one plane, modern armour stabilised on two planes) but it was certainly there.
On the other hand, many crews found the stabiliser annoying (since they didn't get to train with it) or too fiddly.
That sounds very iffy.
I admit it is not a concrete argument, but the fact is the Sherman did have good reliabilty. In allied hands it was even better thanks to better rear area logistics, but that is another story.
The effects of the T-34s poor transmission and crudely machined parts however are well documented. Also early T-34s had poor filters which failed to keep dust out, resulting is higher wear and tear on the engine parts.
Indeed, in Korea, the US prefered the ruggedness and realiaibilty of the Sherman "Easy Eight" with its 76 (or was it 90?) mm high velocity gun and wide thick treads, to the M26 Pershing.
On the other hand, the Korean war was fairly light in terms of anti tank weaponry. So it isn't really a good point of discussion on tank survivabilty. The tendency for US tanks to catch fire was noted by the Israelis to continue into the M47 and M48.
It was desinged in 1934, hence the name.
Design commenced int 1934 but the first production model had to wait till 1940. And the T34 obr 1940 had a number of issues which needed correction.
Now on to other people's points:
United States. Without its aid and supplies the USSR would have been unable to win against Germany.
Good point... except that the bulk of western Lend-Lease aid didn't start arriving until the battle in the East had started to turn.
You also can't ignore the fact that material alone does not win battles. Again, the Soviets had managed to halt and even push back the Axis before their industrial base had been returned to efficiency after the dislocation of invasion.
Not to mention the Japanese would have had a free hand in the east of Russia were it not for the US.
The Japanese had actually considered, and discarded, the idea of invading the Soviet Union. Basically
- They thought it would be harder to 'go north', since Khalkin Ghol demonstrated the strength of the Red Army over the IJA.
- The resources they actually wanted were more plentiful and easier to extract in the 'south'.
- They already had a big land war to fight in China.
- The political pull of the IJN also has to be considered.
The T-34 was much, much better for combat then the Sherman, that can't be argued.
It can be if you actually know the specifics of the two.
How many of you realised that the T-34 suffered a similar problem with crew safety to the Sherman (eg. catching fire under the slightest trauma...while limiting crew escape hatches)?.
had to be in very close range to Tigers to do anything more then scratch the pain job.
So did the T-34...
German medium tanks struggled with the Soviet KV and IS series of tanks too... Not to mention the Matilda.
and very much of the battles depended on tactics not tank armour supiriority
Soviet tacitcs were inferior to those of the allies or Germans. Operational warfare is another thing, but again the Soviets fall short.
A comparison of tank losses will show what I mean.
He even once told to someone that the tzar Alexander reached Paris when he battled the Napoleon and he[Stalin] only rached berlin.
Who is someone?
Hitler defeated himself.
Doomhammer wins a cookie... but not a chocolate based one.
[/quote]The european fronts were use to heavy tank battles, such as Kursk or some more.[/quote]
...Kursk was still dominated by medium tanks. Actually, infantry was far more important to both sides in the Kursk operations... but that isn't as exciting.
To put an infantry support tank here next to heavy tanks and say it is better is moronic.
None of the tanks Bill mentioned were infantry support vehicles... the Jackson (and its predeccesor, the M10) and Firefly were both tank destroyers used to support tank formations. The Pershing was a heavy tank used in... tank formations.
Which raises the question of doctrine. Where did the Tiger fit into German tank doctrine?
If you want to go into such details then the Maus was probably the best.
Never deployed. Too slow. Vulnrable to air and artillery attack...
have you ever been to Ukrain? Eastern Eruope? Where the hell do you take such battlefields all the time where you get 2000+m fireing range?
Have you ever read anything academic about WWII?
Moreover the mud in Ukrain made it impossible for the tanks to move. They were stuck everywhere. Specially the big heavy german tanks.
Clearly not.
You do however inadvertantly raise a good point. German heavy tanks were noted for poor reliability, especially over long distances. More probably broke down due to wear and tear than were ever shot down by T34s.
De facto T-34 was an excelent tank. It was able to stop the Germans Panters, Tigers and all other Panzers.
You don't think other arms, like the anti-tank, artillery and air support might account for those?
Oh, and the 'Sherman', using your broad overview, also defeated these things.
Sherman had to ram german tanks before it was close enough to penetrate the german tanks.
Actually this phenomena is generally ascribed to the T34...and it probably never happened.
And the Soviet tanks (T-34 in particular) did not have radio and transmitters?
I was under the impression that this was key in tank warfare.. It would suprise me if the Soviets didn't have that.
The Germans were actually pioneers in putting radios into tanks. In the early part of the war the French, British and Soviets were behind on this. Everyone knows Guderian right? Did you know his pre-tank work was in radios?
Prevalence of radios in tanks improved in the Red Army over time, but it was something that had to be added in reaction to some harsh lessons. Apparently Soviet tank formations were more likely to have radios only for the command vehicles, which in turn reflected the Soviet broad view of combat operations.
There is some question of the issuing of tanks with receivers only (so at least they could take orders), but that requires more research.
It didn't matter. German-american war had already begun. Roosevelt would have certainly declare war against Germany anyway.
Raf is also awarded one cookie. Flavour to be determined.