Best tank of WWII

[Rich]

Who is Belton Cooper?

Sorry, I was feeling particullarly mean today.

Belton Cooper was Ordnance Officer of CCB, 3rd AD and wrote "Deathtraps" which is the proto-source (AFAICT) for the "Patton killed the Pershing" urban myth. Sadly Belton is an excellent memoirist, but did little real background search for what he already "knew" to be true, so it contains a lot of basic technical errors and what evidently were originally rumors he heard that now appear as "truth". The basic problems is that the timelines don't jibe, that after aerly 1942 Patton had no command, role, say or even staff position involved in the promulgation of doctrine or in technical development. Worse, at the time he supposedly put the final nail into the Sherman coffin, he was in fact trying to keep as low a profile as possible, being worried about keeping his army command.

When I find the sources, I will post them. As far as the T-34 being better than the Sherman, that's my opinion.

Let's see, the Sherman was as well armed and armored, was vastly superior in terms of crew ergonomics, command, control, and communications, and was slightly inferior in terms of mobility. And of course all this varied betweeen differing models and time periods. So where is the clear cut "better"?

You are right on the point about "energy and might" I meant tank production and didn't get that across cleanly. I didn't think that would get nitpicked because most reasonable people know that the US produced more than Sherman tanks for the war effort.

As I said, sorry, I was being mean. But you see you were making blanket statements of opinion as if they were facts, and this was an egregious case - so I took the opportunity to pick on it.

But if you would like to discuss this more, please feel free, but I warn you, I come armed for bear on this subject.

[leopard 2]

interesting...

but it seems you are not speaking about the same thing: the question was about the best tank, not about the one which had the most impact on the battles, or anything like that, so it's important to make a difference.

Considering the best tank, you have to think as a "one-on-one" battle: in this case, it seems the Panther is the best tank of the war, at least, th one which combines at best the three basical aspects of the tank (mobility, firepower end protection). Its gun was even better than the Tiger's one.

Considering the impact on the battlefield, we may have to consider that the number of tanks do not affect the quality of them. The T-34 were engaged in so great numbers that people think it's the best tank, but it's not.

I'm wondering if it's possible to say that one's the best of all. We have to consider the qualities and the problems of each of them, and not forget the conditions in which they were engaged...

Vincent

[Reb]

By saying 'best' the Sherman tops the T-34 and the Panther tops the Sherman.

I still think in terms of 'most important tank' and then I have to say it was T-34 by a reasonable margin. Russia surviving in 1941 was more important by far than Britain winning at Alamein II or the Allies winning in Normandy.

cheers
Reb

[kordts]

Reb, you put into words what I didn't. As far as best individual tank, I saw a site that said 200 Pershings made it into the ETO and 20 saw combat. If I could find any Pershing after action reports or experiences, I would love it. The Pershing seems to have been a good one. Maybe better than the Panther?

[Reb]

kordts

I'm somewhat annoyed to admit I read a fairly good study on the Pershing on the web but can't find it to save my life. They seem to have a made a name for themselves in Korea as well.

(Korea is the place where Americans found that our little bazookas that wouldn't stop Panthers wouldn't stop T-34s either! Gen Gavin had some pointed words on that topic!)

cheers
reb

[kordts]

Reb, I have read a bit about the Pershings in Korea, and they did quite well there. They were mostly used as mobile artillery and fire support, after 1951. I seem to remember the few times they encountered T-34's they dominated. That could also be caused by the NKPA lack of training, but it was just a better tank. After WWII, we developed a much better bazooka, but hadn't put it in production, let alone get it to the troops.

[Reb]

Reb, I have read a bit about the Pershings in Korea, and they did quite well there. They were mostly used as mobile artillery and fire support, after 1951. I seem to remember the few times they encountered T-34's they dominated. That could also be caused by the NKPA lack of training, but it was just a better tank. After WWII, we developed a much better bazooka, but hadn't put it in production, let alone get it to the troops.

Right. The Pershing was a bit better than T34/85 and the NKs couldn't keep up with training after initial losses. It's very sad to read of our men shooting it out with the T-34s during the initial invasion and getting their clocks cleaned. Even 105mm Howitzers with AP shot weren't all that effective.

I remember the 3.5" bazooka should have been extent by then but didn't seem to get there. Could be wrong on the dates. I happened to pick one of those up once and I'm not sure I'd call it man portable!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall the 3.5 being all that great either. Maybe we should have just swiped a German PanzerShreck factory...

Reb

[leopard 2]

I would like to add something else on talking about the BEST tank...

The efficiency of a tank has to be replaced in the general tactic of an armed force. I mean that it depends also on the use of the tank:
for example, it's easy to see that the german blitzkrieg of the beginning of the war was essentially based on the mobility. That's the reason why the poor armed end protected OPz I and II, something like 70 to 80% of the german tanks in Poland and France, have permitted big victories.
The Tiger was a fear of the Allies in the west in 1944, because it's a excellent defensive weapon.
The T-34 is the best compromise between facilities of production, cost, mobility, firepower and protection. So, with the big losses of the red army from 1941 to 1943 (even after), they had to do so a compromise, that's the reason he seems to be so a great tank.

Iwould take a modern example to illustrate what I'm saying: actually, let's take the israelian Merkava. He cannot be considered as the best tank today, clearly, Leopard 2 and Abrams are considered so in terms of mobility, firepower and protection. Tell me if it's not right, but I've heard that the Merkava was conceived for some special war (I think, it was to some egyptian-israelo war)... and so, that the ennemy antitank gun, with the huge front protection of the tank, could not "kill" the merkava at the same range that the merkava could destroy the AT gun... That's the reason why it is build with the engine in the front hull... and it seems that this tank, even it's less mobile than a leopard 2, is really the best tank in the israelian strategy...

Vincent

[Reb]

Good points Leopard, although I'd disagree just a bit on the T-34. Rather than a compromise that worked, I'd say that of all the tanks engaged on the ground in 1941 by the USSR, the T-34 shined the most so with industrial capacity in disarray, they decided on T-34 not only because they could produce it rapidly but because it was the best thing they had!

A good example of the kind of production compromise you mentioned would be the Valentine tank or British 2 pdr Anti-tank gun. I'd say the American Grant/Lee falls in that category as well.

Good points on the Merkava. I believe it was originally thought to be designed that way (by Western analysts) to hold infantry in the rear as a sort of hybrid tank / apc but it turned out the Israelis had identified the reloaded process as one of particular danger to the crew so this allowed them a degree of safety while resupplying.

cordially
Reb

[leopard 2]

You're right,

I had bad epressed myself, I did not want to say that the T-34 was a compromise. It was, the best tank at his time, and this, because he was in advance of his time. I just wanted to say that he had some problems, that he was not well-perfectionned as can be a Tiger II or Jagdtiger. That's why he cannot be the best tank of the war.

[Rich]

Right. The Pershing was a bit better than T34/85 and the NKs couldn't keep up with training after initial losses. It's very sad to read of our men shooting it out with the T-34s during the initial invasion and getting their clocks cleaned. Even 105mm Howitzers with AP shot weren't all that effective.

Reb the Pershing was very much better than the T34-85 in terms of gunpower, armor and mobility. However it and its "improved" cousin the M-46 had major problems with reliability and mantainability. The problem was that both used essentially the same 500 horsepower engine originally designed for the M4A3, a tank that weighed about 15 tons less than the Pershing. In Korea the reliability and nimbleness of the Sherman, especially its ability to climb hills like a goat, meant that it was often preferred. And its armor was comparable to the T34, while the M1A1 76mm gun and its improved APC ammunition was markedly superior to the 85mm.

The earliest encounters were between M-24 and T34/85 at the end of July 1950 and although the Chaffees were badly outnumbered it appears they gave about as good as they got, most being lost to the terrain.

And the "AP shot" for the 105mm was a HEAT round, which was more than adequate to take out a T34, the problem was that the battery with TF Smith had exactly 5 rounds of it in their basic load, to share between 5 howitzers. By some accounts the one M2 that was allotted as AT defense with all 5 of the HEAT rounds disabled at least two T34.

I remember the 3.5" bazooka should have been extent by then but didn't seem to get there. Could be wrong on the dates. I happened to pick one of those up once and I'm not sure I'd call it man portable!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall the 3.5 being all that great either. Maybe we should have just swiped a German PanzerShreck factory...

Reb

The 2.6" Bazooka could easily handle the T34 from the side and rear, however there were few with TF Smith and again an inadequate supply of ammunition. Worse, the ammo had been in storage since at least 1945 and suffered from a high number of missfires, prematures, failed and partial detonations.

The much better 3.5" benefited from a lot of postwar design work and development of the understanding of the basic Monroe effect and were much superior to the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. They were easily capable of taking out the T34 from all aspects and did so at Taejon where most of the early combat losses of the NK armor ocurred. The problem was that the good old US guvmint and public didn't want to pay for an army that everyone was saying was redundent in the nuclear age. Basically the same attitude and similar results as that acheived by the current infestation of civilian management at the 5-sided Puzzle Palace.

[Reb]

Rich

You're a gold mine of information!

I've read what Lewis Puller had to say about our army in 1950. Makes for a depressing read.

I'd certainly agree about the 'five sided puzzle palace." Those guys can't even be bothered to make an original mistake!

Reb

[Freiritter]

From what I gather, fellas, is that Chesty Puller berated the Army for it's over-sized staffs and maybe a lack of aggression. From what I understand of the U.S. defense readiness before Korea, the major stocks of war materiel was all WWII surplus. Also, the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps had recently defeated an Air Force/Army attack on the Navy Department budget in 1947. The National Security Act of 1947 had clearly defined the missions of the different service branches, thus saving the Navy and the Marine Corps from encroachment. Plus, I had read that the Army had experimented with a placement system that allowed soldiers to choose which branch in the Army they'd be assigned to. So, the Army became overburdened with supply and service troops. It's sad the big money in the DoD budget had gone into nuclear weapons development. I would have thought that the Army would have phased out the Sherman in favor of the Pershing and the M-46.

Cordially,

Freiritter

[Reb]

Yeah, but Puller's main beef was the pathetic level of training - the army had really given in to the mama's boy syndrome -after all, there was no war on, right? Puller's point was that those Army recruits were the same boys the Marine Corps got in most cases - but he felt they were betrayed and in a sense, sentenced to death by poor training.

The army was indeed in what you might call a 'smushy' period but nobody ever helped a soldier by making his training easier!

cheers
Reb

[Freiritter]

Good point. The level of late 1940s-early 1950s Army training was abysmal. The first troops in Korea were undertrained and undermanned occupational forces from Japan. The pre-war defense budget didn't leave much to fund the proper training. Puller was a staunch proponent of tough training and the toughening of troops.

Cordially,

Freiritter